The Second Amendment? Sugarmann points out it doesn’t cover handguns because it refers to the militia, which never used handguns. Neither does the Army, which replaced the militia. So, if we ban handguns, we can take the NRA to the Supreme Court. That would be great sport.
My reply to the editor:
From: email@example.comTo: firstname.lastname@example.orgSent: Sun, Jul 19, 2015 6:49 amSubject: Provoking a bloody civil war seems an odd way to reduce "gun violence.'
Dear Editor,If enacted, John Morgan's benighted proposal to prohibit handguns to law-abiding folks (for criminals will never be bound by such a pie-in-the-sky proposal, criminals being, well, criminals) will presumably be backed by all the force of state violence. Of course, turning millions of his heretofore peaceable fellow citizens into felons seems to miss his notice entirely. And what will he do when we refuse to be disarmed without a fight? Provoking a bloody civil war seems an odd way to reduce "gun violence.' But for sheer collectivist hallucination and complete ignorance of the Law of Unintended Consequences, he must be congratulated. If not drug induced, it is an Olympian feat of blindfolded tap dancing in a minefield.Mike VanderboeghPO Box 926Pinson AL 35126