Seems the brits don't have any better arguments for gun control than Americans do.

He cleverly began with an anecdote, moved on to a naked assertion, and finished with the bold claim that once another fellow traveler is added to the court, SCOTUS recent decisions will be overturned. He was awesome!


But how could so few be convinced? After all, what could be a more natural reading of the second amendment than one in which the only peole who have a right to keep and bear arms are those who are required to keep and bear arms?

Last edited Sat Jun 8, 2013, 11:46 AM - Edit history (1)

The "went off while cleaning it" line really means "I was doing something stupid but I'm not going to own up to it." overturned, a case has to make it there. Even then, it would be upsetting precedent.

If a class of people are "required", presumably by the government, to bear arms there is absolutely no need to codify a right to bear arms for that group. It is redundant.
Consider if it was about the navy:

A well regulated navy being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and sail vessels shall not be infringed.

If the Amendment was nautical, would only the navy be allowed vessels? If non-navy people were allowed vessels would it only be sailing vessels? To head off the argument that civilian ships are not armed, there is nothing that prevents civilians from having arms aboard their vessel in international waters. Also Congress retains the ability to grant letters of marque and reprisal which can allow heavy armaments on civilian ships.

The gun grabbers claim that the Heller majority read second amendment as though half of the text has no meaning. Not only is that yet another false claim, but it is exceedingly silly, since the gun grabbers read the entire amendment as having no meaning.

They read it as though it is redundant at best, perhaps pointless, or worse (in the case of Historian G. Wills) as though the amendment were some sort of elaborate ruse to quiet the fears of the antifederalists w/o actually accomplishing anything.

UK, and almost all of Europe, had very liberal gun laws. Many of the European gun laws were passed after WW1 during the red scare and seeing the political violence in Germany. Much more liberal than US southern states (Georgia already had a handgun ban overturned, South Carolina had one, from what I read, from about 1902-1965).
Even with those lax laws, UK less gun crime and violence than today. Knife violence on the other hand, was and is another issue. That is one of the many reasons comparing US to UK is fallacious.
That being the case, it is entirely possible that they bought the ammo at the local gun shop.