Salt Lake Tribune columnist Jeff Clawson has just had a stroke of brilliance regarding America’s gun problem. His solution: repeal the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment is dead — a victim of its own making. It has been killed over and over again. It’s been dying since the mass murders at the University of Texas Clock Tower, 101 California in San Francisco, McDonalds in San Diego, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Trolley Square, Fort Hood Army Base, and now Aurora, Colo. It only remains to be declared DOA and repealed — plain and simple . . .

Jeff is operating under the delusion that the Bill of Rights grants people certain rights; it does nothing of the kind. The Bill of Rights protects rights with which people are endowed by their Creator. Even the most cursory reading of the document makes that obvious.

The First Amendment doesn’t say that the Constitution or Congress grants people freedom of religion, speech or assembly. It does say, though, that Congress may not pass any law prohibiting the (pre-existing) freedom to worship or abridging the (pre-existing) rights of free speech and assembly.

Likewise the Second Amendment doesn’t say: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the people are permitted to keep and bear arms. No, it says that the (pre-existing) right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

But Jeff’s just getting started:

If we add up all the sorrow, injury, disability, terror, and death caused by guns in this country, compared with the good that personally owned guns have proven to be since 1776, there cannot be any other conclusion. On this one, the Founding Fathers might have had an initial idea, based on their active revolt from the British, and the need for everyone to have a single-shot, barrel-loaded gun at the ready, just in case.

At least Jeff pays lip service to the idea that you can’t perform a cost-benefit analysis and only look at the costs, but it looks like he is ignorant of (or possibly just ignoring) the fact that DGUs[1] save more than twice as many lives as are taken in CGUs[2] (if you want the math, check out my piece Ladd Everitt: Liar for Hire about ¾ of the way through).

But even if the analysis went in the other direction, it wouldn’t change the fact that the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility[3].

And if Jeff really wants to add up some sorrow, injury, disability, terror and death, all he has to do is succeed in repealing the Second Amendment and passing the confiscatory gun laws that would logically follow. Because there are some gun nuts out here who don’t think the phrase you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands is merely amusing hyperbole. They view it as a commitment to defend certain principles to the death.

The flip side of this coin is that they are willing to kill for those same principles. It’s my experience that folks like Jeff have no principles which they hold that dear, which makes it difficult for them to imagine that some of us can and do.

That’s one reason I write these essays; I hope that at least some of the statists and their useful idiots are paying attention and won’t stumble into a Civil War (which we would all lose) through misjudging our determination.


[1] Defensive Gun Uses

[2] Criminal Gun Uses

[3] L. Neil Smith: Letter to a Liberal Colleague

Recommended For You

118 Responses to Jeff Clawson: The Second Amendment is Dead

    • A right bestowed by our Creator can’t be taken by man or government so amending the Constituiton is pointless. Even if they could repeal the Second Amendment, the underlying right would still exist.

      What is interesting about Clawson’s comment is that he says “since 1776.” In other words, the fact that firearms were used to win the freedom for the entire nation is of no consequence to him. Not to mention the tens of millions of people that are still alive since the revolution because the had firearms.

      • The distinction that the Amendments don’t GRANT rights but only protect them has nothing to do with anything.

        You guys keep falling back on the 2A when your arguments fail, so its repeal would open the way for sensible discussions and reasonable changes in the law.

        • The idea that the government protects rather than grants rights speaks to the very heart of the fight over gun rights. If the government doesn’t grant the right to keep and bear arms, if it is a natural right (like freedom of speech), then the government cannot take it away. It’s as simple as that. (We can talk about the concept of “infringe” later.

        • That would require mikeb to actually understand the english language Robert as he cant tell a dependent clause from an independent clause, the meaning of shall not be infringed and so many other words and meanings, it really is doubtful!

  1. Yeah repealing the second amendment would go over so well. Because trying to forcibly take away guns from so called “deranged lunatics” would be so easy. Because the same people are “mentally unstable” and “trigger happy” would just magically turn “logical”, hand over their guns and carry on their merry way.

  2. Since Jeff Clawson was so good to bring up the topic of dead amendments,let me point him to one which actually *is* dead:the 1st Amendment.Seeing as how our mainstream media structure is, practically speaking ,a state owned entity collaborating with the Federal government ,let’s quit pretending we have an independent media and repeal Amendment 1.From now on,Americans will have to think before they speak.And press reporters might actually have to do proper dilligence on their stories,lest they be shot or imprisoned for sedition. Out society will be a self censored shell,but that’s the staus quo now is it not?

  3. clawson, i’ll tell you the same thing i’ve told other grabbers here. make your move. if you think you have the support try and get the 2a removed. see how well that works for you.

  4. Can we repeal Jeff Clawson’s right to the 1st amendment? Free speech of his kind is just reinforcing the “Act first, Think later” sentiment that is so very popular now days.

  5. What angers me is that these guys ALWAYS say that the second amendment allowed us to have single shot muzzle loading rifles and somehow that relates to today. The GLARING FLAW in that logic is that the people were not “limited” to single shot weapons. Nowhere does it say that. In fact the weapons used by the militias were essentially equal if not better than what the “state of the art” military issue was at the time. So by that standard, today we SHOULD be able to keep and bear full auto M-16s, M4s, 30 caliber SAWs, etc. Somehow the anti’s always want to stop the clock at 1776 for the weapons of the people, but the able bodied people of this country were then and ARE NOW the militia.

    OR……..

    Since the freedom of the press and freedom of speech are in the same document (the Constitution) then those rights must also be frozen at what was available in 1776. No electric printing presses, no internet, no telephone, no telegraph, no radio or TV. You can’t freeze time on a right just because you don’t like it, and allow innovation on the means of using other rights that meet your arbitrary standards as being acceptable. That would be the grossest level of infringement in my opinion.

    • Just a light nit pick. The SAW is not .30. It fires the 5.56 (.223) round, the same as the M16. The M60 & M240 fire the 7.62 round (basically a .30)

    • Justice Scalia addressed this “time freeze” in HELLER. He was overly kind in saying it was “bordering on the frivolous”.
      He then went on to demonstrate how the Court applies the principles of the BOR to new technologies.
      The antis seem to be clinging to the ruin and rubble of their arguments that only “muzzleloaders” are protected, or “it is a ‘collective right’ to bear arms”, or “it is a state’s right to have a militia”. They deserve all the mockery we can muster in response.

  6. He looks like a pedophile. Lets arrest him then repeal his right to a fair and speedy trial. If it saves just one child….

    • I call that type of grin…”the grin of stupid cunning”….those who wear that grin are so stupid they have no inkling of how stupid they are and think that they are fooling everyone else into believing they actually have something worthwhile to say and/or are out-smarting everyone else. Pedophile grin on this guy works well, too, but when I saw the photo I thought “Uh oh! the grin of stupid cunning!’

    • Honestly, I was laughing out loud for several minutes. OHgunner’s last comment “If it saves just one child … .” got me started and then AnonymityisAwesome’s “pedogrin” just kept it going.

      Thanks for the good, long, hardy laugh to start my day ladies and/or gentlemen!

  7. Guess I need to speak a little on this BS……. if you take everyone’s guns, the only one’s who are going to have the guns are the criminals, who want you to be unarmed so they can take from you what ever they want to include your family if they want them and even your life. So, you need to ask yourself a question, do I want to give up my guns? My answer: you can have my gun when you take it from my dead cold hands!!!!!!!!! and I am willing to die for what I believe in……. I took an oath when I went into the Army in 1970 and also when I became a Police Officer in 1981…. That I would protect and defend the United States of America and the Constitution of the United States of America from her enemies both foreign and domestice SO HELP ME GOD………. and that is what I will do…. when the British government began taking our forfathers guns away was the last draw and the war was on……. we do not need to be fighting our own….. that is one of the things the rest of the world would be happy (excluding our allies) to see my fellow citizens.

  8. This fellow mentions all the sorrow caused by private gun ownership, but he fails to mention the sorrow caused by a lack of private gun ownership in such places as Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Cambodia, Rwanda, Armenia, and others. How many untold hundreds of millions died unspeakable deaths because they couldn’t defend themselves against their governments?

    People like Jeff Clawson are intentional, deliberate, and premeditated enablers of the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc… They are not misguided. They are evil, and should be treated accordingly.

    What more needs to be said about this topic?

  9. Add this moke to “people unclear on the concept”. Go ahead and repeal the Second. Guess what? The 2nd Amendment doesn’t GRANT the right to self-protection, it enumerates a pre-existing natural right.

  10. Have you ever read YouTube Viewer Comments? Some of the most stupid, inane, vile, ignorant, racist, misanthropic drivel you could live your entire life without seeing. Thus, I feel we should repeal the First Amendment. For the children you see.

  11. For arguments sake let us consider the aftermath of a completely successful gun confiscation that removed all firearms from lawful and lawless alike. Exactly how long will it take for clandestine machine shops far more numerous than meth labs are today to churn out firearms in huge numbers? What are morons like Jeff expecting if they win?

    • Not going to happen.

      What would happen is the already porous US borders would see arms and ammunition smuggled in from the same countries that supply the drug habit of far too many citizens unable to cope with life.

  12. Remember Roe v Wade? Many a CONSERVATIVE commentator got their knickers in a knot, because the SCOTUS referenced the right to privacy, which is not in the Bill of Rights. Surprise–written constitutions do NOT grant rights: they exist, plain and simple. A codefied body of rights merely affirms this, just like writing ‘gravity exists.’ When Canada got its Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we didn’t get any more rights in Canada, thanks to Pierre Trudeau:

    http://www.steynonline.com/4243/vichy-vimy-veritas

    The former Soviet Union had legal rights galore spelled out in its constitution, but none in practice. A document will not defend your rights–you have to fight for them.

    • the SCOTUS referenced the right to privacy, which is not in the Bill of Rights

      What is ‘protection from unreasonable searches’ if not a requirement that the government have a more serious reason to violate your privacy than a functionary being bored and curious?

  13. The good thing about calls by antis to repeal the Second Amendment is that it represents a concession that they cannot do what they want to do without repeal.

    • After the Heller ruling, they don’t really have a choice. When the USSC explicitly states that the 2nd A protects an individual right, their options are pretty much 1) repeal, or 2) be patient, and replace the judges.

  14. Don’t worry about this idiot. His own city will take care of him just fine.

    Take a look at the comments below his column at the Salt Lake Tribune web site. By about a 10 to 1 margin, the commenters are strongly opposed to the column. He may improve readership (I doubt it), but he definitely is not helping the anti-gun cause in Utah.

    “Never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake.” — Napolean Bonaparte
    Sometime the people who help our side the most are the complete idiots on the enemy’s side.

  15. There is one good thing about what he says. Unlike so many other control freaks, he isn’t lying. He isn’t stammering about how he respects the Second Amendment. He comes right out and declares his position. Good for him. It would be good for the country if his side would try a repeal. The effort would go down in flames and give a clear statement about how important gun rights are to Americans–even the ones who don’t do much about them at the moment. By contrast, the prevaricating lot of gun grabbers want to kill us by a thousand cuts. Lately, though, they’ve been bringing safety scissors to the fight.

    • And think about the long lines at your local gun store! Yikes the gun manufacturers better start speeding up production!! It would be great for a portion of the economy though!

  16. Oy vey not another one!
    Geez this is like wack a mole isn’t it.
    Ok we can debate the idea over whether scary black rifles would be included in the second amendment until we are blue in the face, even though for most of the AI it really isn’t a debate. The antis will never get it. Forget the fact that long guns make up less than 3% of all gun crime. I would be willing to say assault rifles make up less than 1%. Forget the fact that we have a gang and economic problem that contributes to higher crime. Let’s also forget the fact that many of these spree killers that our loving anti friends like to reference went through all the checks and balances to get their firearms legally. And lastly lets totally ignore the fact that all of these attacks minus a couple happened in gun free zones! The 101 San Francisco shooting is a great example except let’s remember this is California. A very gun anti state.

    We know base on various sources our founding fathers felt the Militia, is in place to stop tyranny, and also attack from another country like Brittan. Not like that would happen today, Brittan is an ally. Tyranny on the other hand is something completely different. It is an internal threat. It doesn’t involve a mass invasion, or international peace treaties. It is our own government taking away the rights of the people, and taking this country both physically, think private property rights, and ideologically, think our second amendment, free speech etc, away from it’s people. The government serves us not the other way around.
    Let’s just say we have a right under 2A to be armed like or in similar fashion to our military and national guard. I will call it a statement of fact, if we take all writings by the founding fathers and hold it as true and self evident.

    Now a follow up to that is that we don’t need a militia since we have the national guard. I say well you are right, we have a national guard, except…..
    The reserve militia[3] or unorganized militia, also created by the Militia Act of 1903 which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia.(that is, anyone who would be eligible for a draft). Former members of the armed forces up to age 65 are also considered part of the “unorganized militia” per Sec 313 Title 32 of the US Code.[2]

    So even if you try and trump the idea that the people who own this country, us, should not have a militia, there it is in black and white. Am I under the age of 45? well yes I am. Am I member of the National Guard or Coast Guard, or intend to be? Well no. Was a former member of the military? Yes I was, not in the US, but yes.
    I guess that makes me a member of the Unorganized Militia then doesn’t it.

    So in actuality based on our second amendment and the Militia act of 1903, not 110 years ago, I should, by law have firearms, which are equivalent of any military in this world to defend ourselves against anyone who may attack us from external or internal forces. I couldn’t see holding off North Korea and Iran from our shores using a single shot musket. Both those countries were labeled as the axis of evil no? I certainly couldn’t see “we the people” defending ourselves against a government who has passed down fascist epithets circumventing our vary checks and balances in our government, in order to progress their own ideology. Oh dear, did I just say that??? Well as a matter of fact I did.

    So Jeff Clawson, you are part of the unorganized militia then it is your duty mandated under law to be ready to go if the need arise. Oh wait what, you don’t own a gun? You don’t want one and think everything is peachy keen? Well then you are part of the tyranny, so good luck in defending that.

  17. Why is it that liberals tend to be so disconnected from the rest of society? The anti-gun position is held by a distinct minority in the US. I can only imagine the support for repealing the second amendment in Utah.

    Do these people live in echo chambers? Do they get out at all? It’s just amazing.

  18. Try it. See what happens. Despite your own moral bankruptcy, know that plenty of people exist who would relish the thought of putting sub-human tyrants like you in the ground should you act upon oppression.

  19. This guy’s living in a fantasy world. Amendments must be ratified by (currently) 38 state legislatures. As 39 states are now “shall-issue”, the odds of repeal are smaller than those of Ralph ever releasing his stuffing recipe.

  20. “The Bill of Rights protects rights with which people are endowed by their Creator.”

    Which Creator is that then? Yahweh? Zeus? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? How can something that does not exist confer rights? And if this magical being was able to confer rights then why didn’t they give them all at the same time? There have been nearly 30 amendments to the constitution, several of which being mutually exclusive – why didn’t this all seeing Creator just give us the definitive version straight away?

    The fact is that when you bring bronze age mythology into a debate you have already lost. The constitution is created by men, for men, and upheld with the threat and use of force by men. If it ceases to be suitable for society then it can be amended by men, as it was originally designed to be from the start.

    You have exactly ZERO natural rights – even a cursory observation of nature makes that plainly obvious. You have many LEGAL rights, including the right to bear arms, but laws, like all man made constructs, are subject to change at the whim of society. Sometimes good laws become obsolete and need to be repealed – for example I think we can all agree that it is no longer necessary for a man to run before a motor car with a red flag to warn people of its arrival. In the same way the second amendment is no longer valid in its current form. Something tighter and better defined is needed, even if for no other reason than to end this eternal debate about what it actually means.

    • Something tighter and better defined is needed, even if for no other reason than to end this eternal debate about what it actually means.

      Good point. I propose the following:

      A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed; but no individual who has registered as a Democrat, or by the preponderance of the evidence can be proven to have contributed money, goods, or service toward the election of any Democrat, shall be considered a person for the purposes of this or any other article of this Constitution.

      • If I may characterise what you bring to this intelligent debate in terms you will be familiar with: you brought a water balloon to a gunfight.

    • I do see what you’re getting at with your rant about “Creator”, and I kind of agree that we should stop using religious terms to define principles that exist out of religion. but more or less, it is just a metaphor that means it is a right that is humane and should be protected. The right to defend yourself is a very humane right and should be protected.

      also, I do think that the 2a needs a much stronger definition. I dunno, maybe they should have just said “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed”. Because who the hell reads the Federalist Papers? not the people who want to say that they only meant for the military to be armed.

      • Exactly – at least that would be unambiguous. Personally I would go with something like “The right to bear arms on your property, and to transport them unloaded on public lands, shall not be infringed.”

        But honestly, at this point, I would rather have your version than what we have now. Such a colossal misdirection of time and energy in this debate is put into what the framers actually meant, rather than what is best for society right now.

        • what is best for society right now is the right of the individual to chose whether or not to go armed. as a nation with individual rights this is the only interpretation of gun rights that make any sense. after all, you were angry at the gop for dictating what you could put into or take out of your own body.

        • The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I have no problem understanding what that means. I also have no objection when the courts find rights in the text that aren’t explicitly stated. The more rights that the people are understood to have and the more limitations on the government’s power, the better.

          The classic case of an attempt to reduce rights was Prohibition. That was an unmitigated disaster. Any attempt to “tighten up” the Second Amendment would go the same way, except in the latter effort, you’d have angry gun owners to deal with, instead of drunks.

        • So Greg, you would be quite comfortable with the loonies down the road in their compound having man launched tactical nuclear weapons then? Because the right to bear arms cannot be infringed, right?

        • hmmmm. the nuclear warhead argument is the last ditch argument of one who doesn’t have any facts left in the back.

          now back to the question i asked earlier. you were angry because you say the gop violates your rights to control what you put into or take out of your own body. but you see no problem at all with restricting my rights as a gun owner.

          so if you’ll respect my rights i’ll respect yours,hows that.

        • jwm you are playing the tired old saw to the letter. Your individual rights end at my rights – you do not have every right that you wish if it impacts on my rights. What somebody does in their own home – ie drugs, or shooting guns, is their business. When you want to bring that behaviour into public then you have to find a compromise. It is called “society”. If you want to live in a bastion of individual rights and a real free market then go and live in Somalia. If you want to be part of something better then you need to compromise. I know that doesn’t sit well with many of you because you actually believe some magical sky fairy gave you these inalienable rights, but actually SOCIETY gave you these rights, and society has the ability (and duty) to take them away again if they are misused or otherwise obsolete.

          As for the nuclear weapons argument – I have not heard one compelling reason from you or anybody else saying that nuclear weapons are not protected under the constitution. My right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Do you see a little * next to that with “* but no nuclear weapons” in your version of the constitution?

          Would it really kill you to admit that the amendment is shittily written with regard to the level of firepower available in the modern age? You can still be as rabidly pro gun as wish to be, just admit that the current law is badly worded.

        • “Your individual rights end at my rights…”
          ——
          Precisely. So glad we agree, Laci. My right to carry a gun in public does NOT affect your rights ONE IOTA. Zip. Zilch. None.

          Now, as for the “sky fairy”, well, I don’t believe that, ahem, stuff any more than I believe that society gives rights. My right to exist comes from the simple fact that I do exist, and have every right to continue in that state unless and until I interfere with someone else’s right to do so. The act of owning and carrying a tool to defend myself in the event that someone tries to interfere with my right to exist does not, in and of itself, interfere with someone else’s rights.

        • I emphatically disagree that “SOCIETY gave you these rights, and society has the ability (and duty) to take them away again if they are misused or otherwise obsolete.”

          I contend that a properly functioning society recognizes and respects rights. And the interesting thing about rights: something that is right AND a right never becomes obsolete. The only question is how long it takes people to figure out what is right and/or if they allow ambition to bastardize it.

        • The problem with trying to talk to most of you about this is that you are so hypocritical and so deep in your own web of cognitive dissonance that you cannot even accept the duality and illogical nature of your own position.

          NONE of you would want a group of bangers sitting outside your house armed with assault rifles, grenades and RPG’s every day – yet you claim that you are fine with that because the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Until you can at least see the utter hypocrisy in such a situation there is no helping you.

        • Who said anything about “assault rifles, grenades and RPG’s”? I was responding to your post regarding rights. Do try to stay on topic, Laci.

        • I know you think you are incredibly clever calling me Laci, but in reality it just makes you look more foolish as I am not that person. If you truly believe that there is only one person in the world who does not believe in the right to carry guns in public, called Laci, then you have a very damaged mind. You might want to read a bit of psychology if you have the time – believing that everybody who disagrees with you is the same person is a mental illness.

          And as for “Who said anything about “assault rifles, grenades and RPG’s” – could you be any more intellectually dishonest? Do you really think you win any arguments with such weasel words? Assault rifles, grenades and RPGs are all “arms” – either you support the right of bangers to sit outside your house with them, as the constitution provides, or you do not. There is no middle ground on this, you don’t get to have it both ways with weasel words. So be a man for once in your life and actually state what you believe and which side of the fence you stand on.

        • If you are not Laci, then you learned from the same school of argument as he. “Weasel words”, “stupid”, “ignorant”, “level of intelligence”, “be a man”, the list of commonalities in both your posting styles goes on and on. But have it your way; you’re not Laci the Dog.

          Now, to your “argument”. You said,

          “could you be any more intellectually dishonest?”

          No, no, no. Get back here. Stop trying to wiggle. Do you believe, as you said, that “(y)our individual rights end at my rights”? That will be a simple “yes” or “no”.

        • Get back here? Get back from where? Do you truly not even understand the point that I am making?

          Your right to do as you please ends at my rights. I have the right to not feel threatened when in public by the scum of society carrying whatever assault weapons they wish to. And that is my point, which like a weasel you keep dodging – would you be comfortable with a group of bangers sitting outside your house with assault weapons? Because if you truly believe in the constitution you have to say yes.

          Obviously you keep dodging this question because you know that you are damned if you do, and damned if you don’t if you answer – if you say no, then that means you do not believe in the 2nd amendment, but if you say yes then you are clearly a liar. That is why I asked that question, of course – because it displays the lack of logic in your beliefs and illustrates the cognitive dissonance in what you are saying.

        • “I have the right to not feel threatened…”
          ——
          Bzzzzt. Nope. Feelings are not a sound basis for rights. You have the right to not BE threatened, something quite different from your feelings.

          “would you be comfortable with a group of bangers sitting outside your house with assault weapons?”
          ——
          I’m going to assume that by “bangers” you mean gang-bangers, ergo criminals. I’m afraid I can’t support allowing known and acknowledged criminals to run about at large with anything more dangerous than a bratwurst. That’s how it works on this side of the pond; we take away your civil rights AFTER you’ve proven your inability to exercise them responsibly. Where’s the cognitive dissonance in that?

        • So moonshine you DON’T support the 2A then? but I thought it was the perfect expression of man’s rights from the mouth of God himself?

          But at least we are getting somewhere now – you admit that there are situations where you think the right to bear arms SHOULD be infringed. So the 2A needs to be rewritten – QED.

          jwm as I said above, I think there is a solid basis for allowing weapons to be held on private property – the tree of liberty and all that – but I see no need in a civil society to have everybody walking around with loaded guns. I am sure that most, if not all, of the people who post here are very responsible with their guns in public. The problem is that the bad apples ruin the barrel, and in balance it is better to allow nobody to have a carry weapon than allow everybody to have one.

        • “but I thought it was the perfect expression of man’s rights from the mouth of God himself?”
          ——
          Point me to the post where I said that. Not just someone on this board. Me. Or retract your statement as blatantly false.

          “I see no need in a civil society to have everybody walking around with loaded guns.”
          ——
          Aha. Unfortunately, we don’t require Constitutional rights to stand up to a “needs-based” test, and we certainly wouldn’t consult you even if we did require one. Although, the word “necessary” does make an appearance in the 2A.

          “and in balance it is better to allow nobody to have a carry weapon than allow everybody to have one.”
          ——
          Objection: false dichotomy. It is not an “all or none” proposition, and your attempt to turn it into one is the height of dishonesty.

        • “I’m afraid I can’t support allowing known and acknowledged criminals to run about at large with anything more dangerous than a bratwurst.”

          Seems plain enough to me moonshine – I am looking at the 2A right now and I don’t see anywhere a get out clause for preventing criminals from owning firearms, or any other group that you find distasteful for that matter – how would you feel about a group of muslim fundamentalists sitting outside your house with assault rifles and some plastique?

          I actually thought we were making some progress but it seems your ability to doublethink is greater than I thought and you still think it’s fine to prevent certain classes of people from owning guns even though the 2A is VERY clear that the right to bear arms shall NOT be infringed. I am not sure how much more simply I can put it that your position on this is not logically tenable.

          jwm I think you should be able to own pretty much anything you like to be honest. Personally I would love to have a .50 cal Barrett, enough space to shoot it, and an unlimited supply of watermelons. I would draw the line at personal ownership of weapons of mass destruction. Everything should be registered though, of course, perhaps even going as far as to have ballistic samples stored in a central location from every weapon before it can be sold.

        • I’m sorry, hmmmmmmm. If you can’t address my points, I won’t address yours. I’ll leave you with this thought:

          It is already illegal in this country for violent felons to possess firearms. It is already illegal to sell a firearm to someone you know (or should reasonably suspect) to be a criminal. SCOTUS has ruled that criminals are not required to register their guns. Given these facts, is there any reason to believe that more legislation is the answer to violence in this country?

          Good day.

        • Sure moonshine – run off and take your spanked ass with you. I don’t think I have seen somebody so comprehensively humiliated but so utterly unaware of the fact in a long time. Ignorance is bliss, I suppose.

        • My victory was assured from the start – it is impossible to reconcile “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed” with your desire to ban criminals and other groups from owning guns. Either the right to bear arms cannot be infringed, or it can be – there is no middle ground where both statements can be true, like you seem to think.

        • You can continue on and on until you get the last word moonshine – you are still wrong and you still lost. Leave with a little bit of dignity.

        • My, my. The wall I simply walked around seems quite intent on having the last word, and unduly concerned with my dignity.

        • LOL, you mean like the as of 2012 defunded CoBIS fired shell case marking system that at $4 mil per year cost to taxpayers in MD, NJ, NY that proved, yes indeed those 2 firearms were indeed stolen, solving no violent crimes, costing taxpayers $44 mil to prove, yes indeed, 2 firearms were stolen, oh my how INEFFECTIVE REGISTRATION is.

          Canada, $2 billion registry cost since 1997, long gun portion defunded also in 2012, 50% compliance at best, 47 weapons traced as stolen, no violent crimes solved or prevented, and no reduction in murders and in fact their violent crime rate has increased by 30% (STATCAN). Yet another real world example of registrations absolute failure to reduce or prevent violence cause if it did, it would have.

          Lets see, anyone here Bill Gates, uh nope, so scratch off the ability to buy, own and maintain a thermonuclear device, much less a reactor.

          As to your answer about someone living next door inciting armed violence and criminal acts, lol, call the police, they will protect you, LOL!

          Oh wait, they have no legal authority or liability to do so by dozens of court rulings, and then only solve on average 8.06% of all violent crimes committed each year.

          Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

          Of course you have written a Writ of Ceritoria to submit to the US Supreme Court to repeal the Heller (which the previous paragraph is from), McDonald, Miller & Cruishank rulings right, lol!

          You didnt answer moons point, have you rescinded Haynes vs US 390, 85, 1968 and Freed 401 1971 where the US Supreme court upheld that no felon was required to obey a law that required them to violate their 5th amendment right of no self incrimination, making 85% of existing gun control laws not applicable to felons, yes or no?

          Then have you rescinded the 5th amednment, yes or no?

      • Creator is not a religous term. We didn’t just appear on the planet. Even if we evlovled, there was a point of creation. The founders chose Creator instead of God because it is not a religous term.

        • “Even if we evolved” are you kidding? That was settled 200 years ago.

          Also you are very, very wrong about the founders choosing “Creator instead of God because it is not a religious term” – if you actually READ the constitution you will see that the word “Creator” is not used even once in the entire document. Nor is God for that matter.

        • On a side note, why do you bring up the Constitution. I didn’t. However, since you did, the Constitution is a Document founded because the Declaration of Independence proceeded it. The Declaration is one of the founding documents and the words of it matter just as much as the words of other founding documents. I think religious people do a disservice to the founders when they equate the word Creator with God. The founders new God well and they used his name. The speciffacly chose Creator as the bestower of rights. They new that not all people believed in thier or any God but they new that all people were born with unalieanble rights. The thing we have forgot is that if someone persists in infiringing our rights, even after us telling them to stop, it is our duty to kill them!

        • Note to self. Trust is a bad thing. There are trolls. Feeding the trolls leads to frustration. Those that don’t use real names are often trolls.

    • I have to disagree with your assertion that humans have no natural rights. I do accept your premise that they do not necessarily derive from some magical, mythical source…a God or Gods.
      If we accept that humankind was just the logical outcome of Darwinian Evolution on this planet and that no force or entity outside of the natural world had anything to do with the eventual emergence of humankind, we are still left with humankind’s advanced self-awareness as a power that emerged along with us from Nature.

      We are fairly certain that the higher animals have some level of self-awareness, but they do not create or maintain an oral or written history of their species, seek to understand their environment beyond their immediate circumstances and make a permanent record of their learnings, imagine and manufacture tools beyond the most primitive, contemplate their existence, write documents to define their societies, hold their fellows responsible for their behavior…and the list could go on quite a bit further. Even the lower animals, your dog, for instance, demonstrate some sense of self-awareness reacting happily to praise and recoiling sadly from anger or punishment….the level trails off as we go down the evolutionary ladder to programmed instinctual behavior.

      That advanced self-awareness, which sets us so far above our fellow creatures on this Planet, IS the power or force that endows Humankind with certain natural, inalienable rights, and they pretty much parallel those rights enumerated by the American Founders despite their attributing them to some divine external source.

      In the Old Testament, God, when asked who he is, asserted, “I am that I am.”….in other words, “I am my existence.”. This, I would assert, is the voice of Humankind defining itself. It may be the echo of a divine consciousness, but no one can say for sure. However, if we look at what makes us unique in the Natural World of this Planet Earth, I think we have to recognize that as we evolved from the Natural World something far beyond the rest of the beings here evolved along with us and from it derives the Natural Rights of Humankind.

    • That is just a moronic an arguement as trying to prove God exists. Their is no proof either way, and trying to claim anything less is just ignorant arrogance. The faithful have a response to that….faith. You however have no leg to stand on.

      And for the record, I am as non-religious as they come………but unlike you, I am not ANTI-religious. Get over whatever parental hatred you have or whatever got your panties wound up over this. Stop showing off your own ignorance and learn a little history before you spout guard shack lawyer versions of legal history.

      • Ignorant would be saying that because there is no proof that something does exist it means it has equal weight to the proof that it doesn’t – coincidentally that was what you just said, so we can deduce your level of intelligence quite quickly from such a stupid statement.

        There is no proof either way that santa claus and the easter bunny exist either – do you think they are real aswell?

    • FLAME DELETED Simply because you choose not to believe in a Creator, does not mean that He does not exist. You remind me of my very ignorant but intelligent younger brother who claims God does not exist, because “science” cannot prove His existence. “Science” cannot prove that electrons move, either, so go stick your finger in a light socket.

      • TsgtB I think you need to go and pray for forgiveness from the magic sky fairy – you are clearly full of hate and not at all following the teachings of politeness and forgiveness his zombie son preached.

  21. I strongly suspect that repealing the 2nd Amendment would be as unlikely to meet with success as repealing the 13th. Good Luck Mr. Clawson.

  22. Want to past this on. August 27, 2012 will be a another try in N.Y. city , the U.N. will try again to past the Small arms treaty, Obama, Mrs. Clinton , support it and want it. So here we go again Saw a sticker on the back of a car today , I am a union machinist for Obama, now you see why we are in trouble , a lot of American’s are going to vote their rights away …. FOR WHAT ??? a union paycheck …. may they burn in —-, and enjoy their CHAINS TOO…

  23. The eight hundred pound gorilla in the room is that without the 2nd amendment the great possibility remains that he could not have his stupid opinion. The upside is I would not have to listen to his stupidity. Because we all know how safe other countries have become once gun control is the law. Also ask a Jewish person how it works out for minority groups.

  24. I’m continually amazed that the folks who want to do away with the 2A have no understanding of history and criminal nature. It’s still happening today people around the world are slaughtered by the criminal element, warlords, drug cartels, dictatorial governments. Take away the law abiding citizens guns and I say again…”Welcome to Mexico!”

    Where do these jack holes live? Let’s send him to one of the real sh!tholes of the world, with that grin on his face and in about 14 minutes his going to be somebody’s new play toy. He won’t have to whiten his teeth because they’ll all be knocked out.

    Again, Good luck Clawson!

  25. Outstanding work as always Mr. Krafft.
    In the words of the day “Proud to Stand With Ye.”

    Seems the Utopian types are prone to dreamin’ big. So big in fact they either don’t know or lose track of the fact that reality’s a state of mind, and actuality is, well, what it is.
    Recall reading that back in the day, Gen. Gage believed there were just a few rebels around and once they were arrested and made examples of, the Brits could just go on protecting the divine right of King George III to rule over the colonists and that was his reality. Actuality proved to be more than a little different.
    All the while Mr. Clawson’s dreamin’ big in his reality about repealing the IIA, there’s more ‘en a few actualities worth noting as they say. One being those pesky State Constitutions with the rkba written into them as law.
    For instance, the Utah Constitution Article I, Section 6
    “The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.”
    Not that it matters, but any rep from Utah, or any other State with an rkba in their State Constitution voting for repeal of the IIA would be in violation of laws written in two Constitutions. You know, as if they really actually cared about laws and such.

  26. While I’m at it, some years back I recollect a few things said by some good folks cussin’ and discussin’ over the idea of the Federal government finally pushing Americans who’d really rather just be left to go about livin’ their peaceable lives to the point when they can’t, and can’t ignore what’s bein’ done to them any longer.
    One of the gents said point blank and up front that he’s absolutely against violence of any type, and the last thing he’d ever want is a face off with government agents.
    But if it did ever go that far, and people were smart, before they got into a real life shootin’ match with government agents over some ban on guns, ammunition or who knows what, they’d get ’em a list of the local criminals loose on their own streets and start shootin’ them first. Why?
    Said if for no other reasons than the facts that while the worst can’t be avoided ’cause some people just don’t know when enough is enough and it ends up that the citizens are goin’ at it with government agents, the same criminals who are the real cause of the problems to begin with are naturally going to take every chance they can for lootin’, plundering and pillaging while the agents and the good guys are havin’ at it with each other.
    His thought was maybe after the agents found out about what was happing to the local thugs, they’d know that people were dead serious about taking care of the real problems first, and the agents would get the good sense to stop before the good guys couldn’t tell them from the other criminals. If after that, the agents still didn’t get a grip on themselves, then they’ve proven to be too dumb to deserve having a gun and a badge in the first place, and whatever wrath they got, they brought it all on themselves.

  27. I think Jeff should put a sign in the front of his house that says the following:
    “This house is free of guns. This is a gun-free zone. No Guns Allowed!”

    How long do you think it would take before he was robbed?

    • good point , what’s his address, we need to post that for the world to see, the bad guys will be standing in line to rob him… HA HA

  28. Ok, time to put out the notice: ANOTHER VILLAGE IS MISSING THEIR IDIOT! Clawson is either lazy or stupid……….I suggest he re-read the Bill of Rights.

  29. The second amendment protects the first, and these two define and protect all the others. If they come for your guns, there will be no country by definition. So you might as well go the ol’ Chuck Heston route and fire until empty and have them pry your fingers off your piece, postumously.

    • FLAME DELETED – WARNING – PERSISTENT FLAMERS WILL BE DELETED

      If the 2A disappeared, we would still have the 1st. To say otherwise is ridiculous.

      It’s the height of self-aggrandizement to say gun owners are keeping us from tyranny. You’re not that powerful.

      • Huh? They took the guns in Germany and other dictatorial countries to defang the people. They could not take the guns from us during the Revolution. Its the second amendment that keeps a potential dictatorial gov in the future from laughing at you. It is the gun that keeps the pen mighty in the event of future corrupt government power grabs.
        The two go together very nicely.

  30. I could care less what some whining little sissy has to say.I remember the 2nd Ammendment count last year…Correct me if I am wrong…whining sissys …zero US Supreme Court…One. The only issue that should be addressed is these whiners when they can’t control their children. These are the parents that let their kids… the jr. losers that hate them assemble arsenals and just ignore it. I think victims families have a right to the family assets of these mentally and morally bankrupt households. If they can’t grow enough spine to call the sheriff or the family doctor for a commitment order..then they must pay with their assets and or face jail time themselves. You can’t count to 4 and make them give up their AK 47s. You must be held responsible. All medical doctors should be given more latitude to bar anyone from firearms ownership without fear of suit or harassment.

  31. Come visit your fellow Americans in California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland etc. and tell me if the 2nd Amendment isn’t dead already. It has already been legally nullified here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *