PSH by the Truckload

Lee Gaillard tells us Public safety trumps outdated, irrelevant Second Amendment .

Let's see if we can spot anything new, shall we? All emphasis mine.

The nine justices should hone their grammar skills. The introductory
absolute phrase ("A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,") preceding the main clause sets the condition for why the people collectively had a right to keep and bear arms: to be able quickly to muster their local "well regulated Militia," individually lifting smoothbores down from over their fireplaces so they could assemble and march off to defend "the security of [their] free State" against aggressors.

Sly little addition you put in there - aggressors. You forget it's against government tyranny, too. Read anything written by the Founders on the subject. You obviously need clarification as to "intent". More on smoothbores further down.

In 2007, however, the U.S. has a large, active-duty military establishment. Replacing 1791's militias, today's local "well regulated" National Guard units maintain armories stocked with government-supplied weapons, each pistol and M-16 assault rifle carefully inventoried upon its return after weekend and summer training periods. Citizen-furnished smoothbores? Long gone.

See again, government tyranny. The Second Amendment wasn't just about protecting us from France or England, it was also to protect us from our own .gov, should it become as oppressive as the one we gained independence from. The National Guard is in no way "the new militia".

As to the mention of "smoothbores", they would have been government-furnished as well as citizen-furnished. Remember, those were state-of-the-art at the time.

Despite — or because of — that obsolete amendment, we now live in the most heavily armed society in history: The NRA lists as many as 65 million gun owners in the U.S. and 230 million guns in civilian possession.

That's 65 million legal owners. Legal. You know, the ones who obey the law, not the ones who break it.

On the other hand, there's a huge difference between sporting rifles and high-cyclic-rate-of-fire weapons designed to suppress enemy defenses during military assaults — in the process disabling or killing as many human beings as possible. Despite Congress' failure to renew the assault-weapons ban, there is no justification for civilians to possess machine pistols or semiautomatic rifles.

Best clean your pants after that one and get your terminology straight. "Suppress enemy defenses during military assaults"? Puh-leeze. Those weapons are not available to the general public. Never have been. Machine pistols, either. Not available.

Semiautomatic rifles? My cousin Harry's 30.06 is a semi-automatic rifle. Bagged an 8-pointer a few years back. You want to ban that one, too? Don't answer that. You know you wanna.

Lives are already being lost as the deadly deluge of firearms inundates Detroit, Philadelphia and other besieged cities

Besieged cities with strict gun control, to boot. Most of those doing the "besieging" aren't amount the 65 million gun owners you speak of, by the way. They are criminals. Criminals who won't obey any restriction you put on gun ownership.

It's kind of refreshing to see the same arguments rehashed over and over. Just goes to show - you got nothing.

UPDATE: Greg has the quote of the day on this:

Fine. Repeal it. But you can't just change its meaning however you want.

You betcha.