One positive sentence in the whole mess, I suppose.
The rest, nuts. Not the verdict, the rationale around machine guns.
The rationale that machine guns are not protected (and therefore illegal) because they're "unusual" even though they're only unusual because they're illegal, is astounding to me.
If it had been a handgun ban instead of a machine gun ban they could make the exact same argument for handguns.
How could it be that such insane logic could come forth from what are supposed to be some of the best legal minds in America, and we're not just dealing with the 9th on that concept.
Last edited by Brian Pfleuger; August 11, 2012 at 01:25 PM.