<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Brady Crap &#8211; It&#8217;s Not Just For Guns Anymore</title>
	<atom:link href="http://xrlq.com/2007/05/18/brady-crap-its-not-just-for-guns-anymore/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://xrlq.com/2007/05/18/brady-crap-its-not-just-for-guns-anymore/</link>
	<description>Politische Kommentare mit Snarkenremarken</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 May 2012 18:16:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Pugrud</title>
		<link>http://xrlq.com/2007/05/18/brady-crap-its-not-just-for-guns-anymore/comment-page-1/#comment-140549</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Pugrud</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 May 2007 05:45:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://xrlq.com/2007/05/18/brady-crap-its-not-just-for-guns-anymore/#comment-140549</guid>
		<description>Their argument has just enough truth to carry on the paranoid fantasy.  US v. Miller does discuss &quot;participation&quot; in a &quot;well regulated militia&quot;. The problem is that Miller is talking about the weapon&#039;s participation.  Miller says, fairly directly, that if the weapon is used by the military (militia), the weapon is protected via the 2nd for individual ownership.

I&#039;m not suggesting that you are unfamiliar with Miller.  Every time this crap pops up on Volokh, someone has to be reminded that the finding in Miller is that since the court could not find judicial notice that a short barreled shotgun was in regular use by the military, that a short barreled shotgun was therefore not protected by the 2nd.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Their argument has just enough truth to carry on the paranoid fantasy.  US v. Miller does discuss &#8220;participation&#8221; in a &#8220;well regulated militia&#8221;. The problem is that Miller is talking about the weapon&#8217;s participation.  Miller says, fairly directly, that if the weapon is used by the military (militia), the weapon is protected via the 2nd for individual ownership.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not suggesting that you are unfamiliar with Miller.  Every time this crap pops up on Volokh, someone has to be reminded that the finding in Miller is that since the court could not find judicial notice that a short barreled shotgun was in regular use by the military, that a short barreled shotgun was therefore not protected by the 2nd.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SayUncle &#187; Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership has critique of Parker decision</title>
		<link>http://xrlq.com/2007/05/18/brady-crap-its-not-just-for-guns-anymore/comment-page-1/#comment-140417</link>
		<dc:creator>SayUncle &#187; Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership has critique of Parker decision</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2007 14:15:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://xrlq.com/2007/05/18/brady-crap-its-not-just-for-guns-anymore/#comment-140417</guid>
		<description>[...] Update: Xrlqy Wrlqy brings the Snarkenremarken. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Update: Xrlqy Wrlqy brings the Snarkenremarken. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

