Talking out both sides of their mouths..

..whilst choking on their forked tongue.

Paul, in his never-ending wisdom (or more accurately his IT sycophants) has posted a new screed on HuffPo to try and cover the trashing they took in the previous post (as usual). In it, he makes the mistake of bringing up the "Purpose Clause" in the Miller decision. Just FYI, it reads:

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces [i.e., the "well regulated Militia,"] the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The decision was based on the fact that there was no evidence presented and the lack of knowledge of military firearms by the justices as shotguns were regularly issued:

IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TENDING TO SHOW THAT POSSESSION OR USE
OF A "SHOTGUN HAVING A BARREL OF LESS THAN EIGHTEEN INCHES IN LENGTH"
AT THIS TIME HAS SOME REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP TO THE PRESERVATION OR
EFFICIENCY OF A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE SECOND
AMENDMENT GUARANTEES THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR SUCH AN INSTRUMENT.
CERTAINLY IT IS NOT WITHIN JUDICIAL NOTICE THAT THIS WEAPON IS ANY PART
OF THE ORDINARY MILITARY EQUIPMENT OR THAT ITS USE COULD CONTRIBUTE TO
THE COMMON DEFENSE. AYMETTE V. STATE, 2 HUMPHREYS (TENN.) 154, 158.

Either way, that means Paul accepts the fact that military firearms are protected under the 2A and that the Miller court clearly stated :

These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Yet, as is usual for the PuSH'ers, they are lying to themselves and the public. They specifically want to ban "Assault Weapons" which, according to them:

The guns covered by the Assault Weapons Act were semiautomatic versions of fully automatic guns designed for military use.

and

The military features of semiautomatic assault weapons are designed to enhance their capacity to shoot multiple targets very rapidly.

So they're saying that "Assault Weapons" fit the Purpose Clause yet they are still trying to ban them.

What do they say about .50 cal rifles?

Capable of destroying armored personnel carriers, aircraft and bulk fuel and ammunition sites, the .50 caliber sniper rifle is now proliferating in the civilian market...

First used by the military during the Gulf War, the .50 caliber BMG anti-armor sniper rifle is no ordinary rifle. Its design enables the destruction of military aircraft and heavy machinery from long ranges. The concept of discrete shooting distances shaped its use and image as an ideal sniper weapon...

Once again, these seem to fit the Purpose Clause like a glove.

So, the Brady Campaign is saying that the Militia, when properly armed, are a threat to public safety. That means that they are opposed to the basic founding principles of this nation. Not that that really comes as a surprise to anyone.