(courtesy usatoday.com)

“For a sense of how extreme some gun-rights advocates have become — and why Congress won’t pass even modest firearms safety laws — consider what happened to history professor and longtime gun enthusiast Dick Metcalf,” USA Today’s Editorial Board opines, referring to an ancient event in Internet terms. “When he recently wrote in his Guns & Ammo column that the Second Amendment right to ‘keep and bear arms’ is not unlimited, Metcalf suddenly became the enemy.” Yes, well, yes. But not according to the McPaper. The real enemy is . . .

Gun-rights absolutists assert that language contained in the Second Amendment — “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” — means no restrictions, period.

But last we looked, it was up to the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, and that’s not what the court said in its landmark 2008 decision upholding an individual’s right to own guns. “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” conservative Justice Antonin Scalia wrote. He added that limits on who can buy weapons, what kind they can own and where they can carry them are constitutional.

The decision, which resolved decades of argument, was cheered by bedrock Second Amendment stalwarts such as the National Rifle Association. But reasonableness has been purged. Gun groups and their members seem to vie now to see who can be more extreme and who can promote the most expansive guns-everywhere legislation in statehouses. Their destructive one-upmanship substitutes tunnel vision for reason.

You gotta love the left. When the Supreme Court issues a ruling that they reject, they do so without hesitation. No less a lefty than the current President of the United States criticized the Supremes during his 2010 State of the Union Address – to their faces. But if the Highest Court in the Land™ OKs laws that infringe upon your natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, so-called Progressives highly recommend you STFU.

To that end, the USA Today editorial board plays “pin the extremist on the gun nuts.” As I’ve mentioned before, we’re one small trigger pull away from the antis changing their rhetoric from “gun rights extremists” to “domestic terrorists.” The paper’s decision to use a photo of a gun control rally [above] and the use of the word “hijacker” in the headline (Gun absolutists hijack debate on firearms) exposes the incendiary hypocrisy of their hatred.

One suspects, however, that USA Today’s Editorial Board feels they’re being magnanimous rather than inflammatory.

Despite the hysteria that too often distorts the gun debate, a few things should be clear by now. The nation has debated gun ownership and resolved it in gun owners’ favor, politically and in the nation’s highest court.

What’s left to decide are what measures can keep guns away from criminals and the dangerously mentally ill, saving some of the more than 30,000 lives lost to gun violence every year. That will require the Second Amendment absolutists to show more respect for the rights of others.

The gun control laws put in place by proponents of civilian disarmament in Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, California, etc. – and the gun control laws being currently under consideration in Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, California (70 at least count), etc. – are unmistakably unconstitutional. Gun rights “absolutists” will not rest until the gun rights that are clearly, unmistakably protected by the Constitution are restored.

Equally, it behooves the unnamed author at USA Today to note that there are no countervailing Constitutional rights that trump or limit the scope of the Second Amendment. Those who would deny Americans their gun rights have no right to do so. No matter what politicians, police, editorial boards or the Supreme Court has to say about it.

[Click here for a most excellent rebuttal editorial by Jeff and Chris Know published by USA Today]

Recommended For You

94 Responses to USA Today: “Gun Absolutists” Are The Enemy

  1. Those who would unlawfully and illegally deprive me of my rights are my enemy, so the feelings are mutual.

    • Hey, at least they openly admit that they consider anybody who is pro-liberties to be their “enemy”. At least they admit it, finally. Look at it that way.
      They are the one declaring “war” and “enemies”. Which means we have the moral high ground.

  2. Oh that great 30,000 a year number…. 2/3 of which are suicide thus a clear issue of mental health, not firearms (since countries like Japan prove that lack of access to firearms does not decrease suicides by any discernible number). Of that 10,000 left almost all are committed with handguns (and oddly people who seek to impose gun control go after rifles and are shocked if you say MGs should be legal like any other rifle). Also of that 10,000 most of those deaths are committed by a very small minority of gun owners and concentrated in certain areas of the country. Usually fueled by the drug trade and gang violence. Most (if not all) gun control laws passed or proposed will do or have done absolutely nothing to reduce gun violence. Just like the 1994 federal assault weapons ban.

    • “…committed by a very small minority of gun owners…”

      Sorry Albania, but I’ve gotta‘ clarify this one statement in your otherwise accurate assessment of the facts about gun related deaths.

      The criminal element that commits the vast majority of the gun related homicides and other casualties across the US are hardly ‘owners’ of the firearms they wield. They may be possessors of the guns they have, but they hardly hold true ownership rights as their acquisition of said weapons is almost without exception, illegal.

      We POTG and all other ordinary honorable law abiding citizens (and LAPR’s – lawful permanent resident aliens) who legally acquired our firearms through a valid, lawful transfer or sale are “owners” of the firearms we possess.

    • Excellent points; I also find it amusing/disturbing that they use that figure as if all 30,000 people were simply sitting there minding their own business, then…BAM!!! A gun comes along and kills them! Oh the horror! Let us please ignore reality while we all mourn the innocents lost.

      • I think USA Today is the result of a bestial mating of an old print media (“newspaper”) and a TV show like “Entertainment Tonight”….

  3. All TAG readers should visit the source article and vote “Strongly Disagree” in the sidebar poll.

    Then, read the excellent rebuttal, and be sure to vote “Strong Agree,” if you do so.

    • As of 11:32 am Eastern,

      Gun absolutists hijack debate on firearms: Our view had 393 votes, 61% strongly disagree
      Who’s being unreasonable? Opposing view had 271 votes, 77% being strongly agree

      I’d hate to think that USA Today would monkey with the votes, but…..

    • Done; 77% strongly agree, 5% agree with the pro-gun perspective; 15% strongly disagree and 2% disagree with the pro-gun perspective.

      Except for Huff post and the NYT’s; on most every news paper and online blog, the pro-gun support is usually 10 to one. The anti’s are either not very numerous and/or they don’t read much. It’s probably both; the only one’s really promoting the statists viewpoint are the “intellectual elite” and the Grossly ignorant, and those without wisdom.

      That actually describes most of the “intellectual elite”.

    • Done and the VAST majority of votes are against the USA Today editorial. Mr. Knox has an 80% strongly agree as of my vote. Thanks for the tip to allow us to show our displeasure at their editorial and to support Mr. Knox.

  4. “That will require the Second Amendment absolutists to show more respect for the rights of others. ”

    Oh cruel irony.

    Also, that kid looks absolutely miserable.

    • I’m waiting for them to make a rational explanation of how my owning a gun affects the rights of anyone else. Only if I use it as a tool to use force against someone else’s rights does it become a problem. The last I checked laws already exist against that sort of thing.

  5. “Their destructive one-upmanship substitutes tunnel vision for reason.”

    This is a hilarious case of projection. When someone asks why don’t we look at the gang cultures feeding most of the violence, as well as the breaking down of social norms, we’re told to shut up because it only happens because of the gun. Taking a page from Harry Reid, all other violent crime stories that do not involve firearms are lies.

  6. It will be about three generations after civilian disarmament before the people of what’s left of the U.S. realize what they threw away.

  7. Ah, the antis are always putting a double standard on everything. “It’s bad! Unless it’s bad for my agenda, then its a good thing!”

  8. Look, we can disagree with the USA Today position but they gave gun rights advocates equal time. That is much better than the alphabet networks, CNN and the NYT.

    • For that, I respect them. Other mainstream “journalism” is increasingly partisan, yet purports neutrality. USA Today does it right: throw the misleading pretext of neutrality out the window, but present both sides by providing space for an “opposing view” column written by a legitimate member of the opposition. At least USA Today has the intellectual honesty and maturity to debate! The New York Times fears debate, and refuses to print an opposing viewpoint. That’s wrongful. The media should present both ideas, allowing the best idea to win. Unlike USA Today, the New York Times hides the ideas of their opponents. Such oppressive authoritarian philosophy should be reviled.

    • In a rational discourse you do not need to give credence to insane ramblings. Hearing the Left weigh in on anything gun related is like having a debate with a chimp, what exactly are you going to glean from such an event? The reality of the matter is liberals who happen to be 2A supporters are as “absolute” as the rest of us. Fudds, RINOs, etc. are hardly 2A supporters.

    • While I share your sentiment that a printed newspaper is behind the curve now, why do you and so many other people think that the bread and butter for these “Newspapers” is still in old fashioned print? Is the link above to a scanned copy of of the article? Nope. It is the the USA Today website…much like the website that virtually every news agency has now, including local outlets. Online and mobile media is king and USA Today, NYT, LA Times, etc. have all adapted to it. If we are judging the worth of a media organization by its medium of information dissemination, how is the content posted on any Newspaper’s website any less accessible or relevant than the content posted here at TTAG (note, I am referring to the medium only, not the actual substance of the content). Sure, everyone likes to look at the falling subscriptions to these Newspapers as evidence that they are declining. However, I submit that the reason subscriptions are falling is because everyone can get the news for free online. “Ah, you proved my point!” No, most “free” online content to the customer still generates revenue for the publishing organization. Websites make a lot of money off of advertisers via page views, clicks, etc. What makes you think groups like USA Today aren’t sharing in that same revenue stream? Also, I would bet that USA Today’s website and mobile traffic dwarfs TTAG’s.

      • Print newspaper has died for the same reason the RINO wing of GOP is dying They reject the values of the readers (voters) that work for a living and would support them with CASH. Free “news” on the internet is not a “model” that works.

        An actual REAL newspaper (even the WSJ no longer qualifies) with even a middle of the road focus could at least breakeven. A CONSERVATIVE focus would be a wild success financially. As days gone by Any city of more than moderate size had more than multiple papers representing both ends of the political spectrum.

        Note that the local newspapers are doing quite well and the sector is expanding. Someone get to Limbaugh, Levin, Beck and get them to buy the old dead “lady” in NY. Fire 99.9% of the staff. Move the newsroom and printing to Ploughkeepsie or somesuch.

        • Since your definition of a RINO is anybody disagrees with you on a single issue I suspect that the RINO wing as you call it is doing just fine.

    • Their numbers as of March 2011 are reported by USA Today as:

      USA TODAY remains number one in total daily print circulation in the United States. According to the Audit Bureau of Circulations’ FAS-FAX report, USA TODAY’s daily print circulation was 1,829,099 for the period ending March 31, 2011.
      USA TODAY is the newspaper leader in single-copy newsstand volume, selling more than 425,000 copies per day.
      USA TODAY’s subscription copies held steady versus March 2009 at 299,140.
      USA TODAY has one of the largest average-issue print audience of any national newspaper, with 3.2 million readers daily.

      Sources: March 2011 ABC FAS-FAX; Gfk MRI Fall 2010.

      Many 4 and 5 Star Hotels (and some 3 Star) deliver copies of USA Today to hotel guests daily, so that’s probably where they get “3.2 million readers daily”.

    • Huh, id figured you would defend them paul, seeing as how us “dangrous open carry 2a absolutionist zealots” have the audacity to think that govt Has no right to say what I can own.

      To put it simply, you are a fudd

    • I think hotels are singlehandedly keeping USA Today alive… Everytime I’m out of town for work, there’s a stack of newspapers in the hotel breakfast area, usually untouched, but there and paid for nonetheless.

      • That’s the only time I see them, except in public restroom trashcans. Or on the floor of a stall. . .

  9. The only constitutional way to accomplish what the antis want is to amend the constitution. The second amendment is clear – no infringements are permitted.

    The founders wrote the constitution this way intentionally – it is not a defect, it is a feature.

    The courts need to do their job and uphold the document as written. If the antis don’t like it then they need to garner the support necessary to amend the constitution.

    • Well, if we actually were held to the Constitutional requirements for citizenship every male over 13 would have at least an AR and service pistol and would know how to operate, clean, and maintain them.

      • The Militia act of 1792.

        The official age where the government can legally require you as the militia to be ready to be called up with weapons and gear suitable for war ready to fight on the battle field is 18 to under 45 ( unless excepted)

        Of course; they haven’t enforced that for over a hundred years.

        • Is the militia act Constitutional? A requirement for you to buy something? Sounds like the health care laws. You cannot have it both ways. The militia act is certainly not part of the Constitution. However, Congress was empowered to create, and arm, and train, a militia, in the Constitution.

  10. I like how they mention how pro gun states try to one up each other, but to neglect how the anti-gunners also do it. Every time they propose a new anti-gun law it always bans more guns, more features, increases misdemeanors to felonies and reduces magazine limits. They are always trying to out do each other to have the “toughest” law in the nation.

  11. I’m sorry, what rights of others are we not recognizing? Their right to be bossy, immature children? Their right to walk behind a unicorn and hold its tail high in the air to better enjoy the sweet odiferousness of its flatulence? Please inform me who isn’t recognizing the rights of whom.

    • There’s a good bit in there about the Kalifornia gun shop owner who stocked “smart” guns and subsequently pulled them. The author says that the backlash “depriv[ed] people who want such weapons of the ability to own one.” Apparently we’re not recognizing the rights of people who… wait, are there really people who want “smart” guns?

    • We are not recognizing the right of women to be raped, elderly people to be beaten, killed and robbed in their homes, school children to be safe in their Schools, people to Worship in their Church without fear of being shot-up by some looney, criminals to rob, rape and terrorize at will, people to be car-jacked and shot in the process and drug dealers to literally “kill” their competition. The list could go on and on, but, I think you get the idea. I think we are all having a hard time felling even a “smidgen” of shame over depriving our fellow countrymen of all those “rights”.

  12. We already have “modest firearms safety laws,” or maybe not so modest. All Class III firearms and devices require federal registration and tax stamps. All dealer sales require background checks. All interstate sales must go through licensed dealers. States impose restrictions on magazine size, ban some semiautomatic rifles, require universal background checks, impose licensing and registration requirements, etc. Gun control is the rule, not the exception in this country. However, the real agenda of the gun control nuts is to ban everything like the UK and Australia. They won’t stop until we have that kind of “modest firearms safety laws.”

  13. What’s left to decide are what measures can keep guns away from criminals and the dangerously mentally ill, saving some of the more than 30,000 lives lost to gun violence every year.

    What this is asking for is impossible. How do you keep a human being free to travel and interact from touching an object of which there exists hundreds of millions? You can’t. At least not without adopting some sort of Machine Stops paired with Dutch slave ship chaining type of society. Even then I’m sure some resourceful fellow will create a firearm type object out of something.

  14. “That will require the Second Amendment absolutists to show more respect for the rights of others.”

    RF got it in the final paragraph, but I wish I could know from the author which rights they are talking about. Because I’m honestly at a loss.

    • They’re speaking of the fictional “rights” they like to bring up that are not enumerated in any legal document. For example, the “right” to not be scared, or the “right” to not wait in a long line for their latte, or the “right” to not hear lawnmowers on their day off. The most common “right” they make up is the “right” to be safe. None of these “rights” they bring up are actual rights, just things they want. These made up rights are used against the argument actual rights enumerated in our civil framework must be preserved.

      But we all knew that. The playbook hasn’t changed, they just rotate players as people lose interest and drop off.

      • I think you hit the nail on the head with the fictional rights part…

        Notice how the fictional right always involve someone else giving up something, or someone else providing the right… I have a right to feel safe, so you must give up your rights or property in order to make me feel safe.

        But, actual rights involve someone else NOT being able to take rights away, especially based solely on personal feelings (e.g., religion, speech, due process, etc.)

        It’s a highly perverted twist on the idea of rights.

  15. This is what I posted in the comments section:

    First, the term ‘gun violence’ has replaced the 1990s term ‘gun crime.’ Why? Because ‘gun violence’ leads to a larger number, as it includes suicides and *legal* use of firearms, including law enforcement uses in the line of duty. Some of us remember the rhetoric, such as the invention of the term ‘assault weapon’ by Sugarmann, which, by his own admission, was intended to mislead people who are ignorant of the technical functioning of firearms.

    Second, the contours of the Second Amendment are still being defined by the various state and federal courts. Despite the 2008/2010 Heller & McDonald rulings by the Supreme Court, several lower courts have applied a lower standard of review than was implied by SCOTUS. The two circuits that *have* applied strict scrutiny have struck down overly-strict gun control laws, while those that have opted to apply a significantly lower intermediate review have upheld such laws. This split among the circuits will eventually need to be resolved by SCOTUS. It is telling that even Judge Posner, who vehemently disagreed with the outcome of Heller, nevertheless applied strict scrutiny to the gun control cases he has reviewed in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Third, treating ‘gun violence’ separately from all other forms of violent crime is a non sequitur. This, too, is an attempt by the gun control advocates to mislead and slant the discussion. Saying the US has more ‘gun violence’ than, say, the UK, is accurate, given the UK’s near-absolute ban on firearms. However, when one looks at the broader violent crime statistics, it is readily apparent that the UK suffers from far more violent crime than the US. If we were to take a look at ‘knife violence’ or ‘fist violence’ or ‘cricket bat violence’ the UK would lead the US rates in the same areas.

    Fourth, despite numerous attempts by gun control advocates to dodge, avoid, duck, or otherwise refuse to acknowledge data, the simple truth is that even the latest study ordered by THIS administration indicates that there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of defensive gun uses by law-abiding citizens every year. That was in the 2013 CDC report, which, again, was ordered by Obama. This number eclipses the 300k criminal gun uses estimated annually.

    Fifth, that same study found ‘consistently lower injury rates’ among gun-using crime victims as compared to those victims who were not using a firearm for self-defense.

    Sixth, it is laughable that anyone is trying to accuse gun owners of attempting to deprive anyone of their rights. Gun owners are a vocal group, yes they take this debate seriously. They do not, as a general rule, do more than use the power of their voices, votes, and wallets to impact the outcome of the debate. Prior to the 1932 National Firearms Act there was no question about the scope of the Second Amendment. Since that first federal law, however, the Second Amendment has been eroded and reduced significantly, to the point that in some jurisdictions a law-abiding citizen with no history of crime, violent behavior, or mental health issues, is deprived of the right to own and carry a firearm for his or her own defense because the local government sees fit to say self-defense is an insufficient reason for owning a firearm. In direct contravention of the holdings in Heller & McDonald.

    Are there limits on the Second Amendment? Yes, I don’t believe anyone can cogently argue that weapons of mass destruction are covered. Similarly, I don’t believe anyone is seriously arguing for the right to own a nuke. However, conventional firearms, up to and including artillery, are already legal, even under the NFA, assuming you have the money to buy them. Any limits to the Second Amendment, though, are far beyond restricting someone’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense in the home or in public. Perhaps we can have a more rational debate when this simple fact is acknowledged and those jurisdictions currently clinging to a contrary position are finally brought in line with the vast majority of jurisdictions that adhere to the Constitution and don’t attempt to unreasonably restrict that right.

  16. I don’t reason with people trying to limit my (and others) civil right. So USA Today can kick rocks with this article.

  17. Here’s something that caught my eye:

    But after the first smart gun went on sale in California, gun advocates so intimidated the store owner that he pulled the gun from his shelves

    Intimidated? I followed the link to their article on this “intimidation”, which claims “Attacks” (in online forums and social media), “threaten” (the smart gun industry).

    So exactly what conduct constitutes this intimidation, these attacks, this threat? Was the owner threatened with violence? Was he physically attacked? Well, no:

    “These people are anti-gunners,”­ someone said of Oak Tree on the store’s Facebook page, adding, “I will never step foot in this dump.” On Yelp, a user wrote, “If you care about the ability to exercise your [Second Amendment] rights, I would suggest that you do not continue to frequent this place.”

    Also,

    A Facebook poster wrote that Oak Tree, which is outside of Los Angeles, owes New Jersey an apology.

    Now that’s funny, because those don’t sound violent or threatening at all. Rather, they sound like criticism, you know the kind of open dialog the gun control lobby claims it seeks to foster. Nobody was threatened, nobody was attacked, nobody was intimidated. Somebody was criticized, and USA Today is suggesting that’s a bad thing that proves gun owners are being unreasonable.

  18. I didn’t used to be an absolutist, but I learned a bit about gun laws in NY, NYC, DC, MA, NJ, HI, and CA, and watched Cuomo try to limit magazines to 7 rounds, while California was saved – and only temporarily – from a ban on all rifles with detachable magazines by the governor’s veto. And then I realized who the real abosolutists were in this game.

    Until very firm legal protections are in place for gun ownership, and firm means several unambiguous SCOTUS decisions, I am done with any and all “reasonable regulations”. And maybe even then.

    • They call us absolutists and extremists to distract from the fact they are absolutists and extremists. They don’t like to present both sides as equal. There is no compromise here, they want to make firearms less available until no citizens have them, we want to make firearms more available to match the Second Amendment.

      • I think you hit the nail on the head with the fictional rights part…

        Notice how the fictional right always involve someone else giving up something, or someone else providing the right… I have a right to feel safe, so you must give up your rights or property in order to make me feel safe.

        But, actual rights involve someone else NOT being able to take rights away, especially based solely on personal feelings (e.g., religion, speech, due process, etc.)

        It’s a highly perverted twist on the idea of rights.

        • I have no idea why my phone put this post here and why it keeps asking me to click OK on “monster legend mobile- game #1 of the month”

          My iphone doesn’t like the desk top version… Man, this mobile issue is a full on goatf*ck.

  19. “He added that limits on who can buy weapons, what kind they can own and where they can carry them are constitutional.” Notice the lack of a direct quote. Because there isn’t one. Only certain limits on certain kinds of people who can buy weapons (no “felons and the mentally ill”), certain kinds that can be owned (“dangerous and unusual”) and certain places can be restricted from carry (“sensitive places such as schools and government buildings”).

    These people like to quote when it suits them and then make up stuff out of whole cloth.

    • In, context, it doesn’t even appear that “certain restrictions…”etc. are ruled as constitutional, only that they are ruled as traditional. As in, this particular ruling at this particular time should not cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions…but I believe many other supreme court cases have skirted and upheld without ruling certain laws that were clearly unconstitutional, like the Jim Crow jury cases, only to later rule unambiguously that the laws are unconstitutional, without regard to the Court’s previous tacit acceptance.

      • There recent decision in the Ninth Circuit goes into depth about what SCOUTS meant by “longstanding prohibitions”, of course other circuits have interpreted it differently, but from my reading basically what the Ninth stated was that the court needs to look at whether the ‘exception’ was considered to be outside the scope of the natural and fundamental right at the time the bill of rights was drafted (1791). If it was considered an exception in 1791 then it was not considered part of the right. The Ninth did an extensive historical analysis of the right to carry outside the home and concluded that the right extends to self-defense outside the home, and always has. Basically because the courts have never allowed to stand the total prohibition of the right to carry for self-defense. In doing so the Ninth discarded cases where it was held that there was no individual right outside of a militia because those decisions were wrong, and always have been wrong.

        Honestly, there are just so many things about that Ninth Circuit decision I love. I just wish it was a SCOTUS decision.

  20. Okay, well, then while we’re on the subject of rights acknowledged in the Constitution, let’s talk about the rights of free speech and how they apply to a free press.

  21. Even if (and it is a big ‘IF’) the pro-2A groups were interested in having a ‘compromise’, history would show that there is no such thing when your ‘partners’ are anti-2A people. Federal gun laws have done nothing to prevent crime and every so-called compromise consists of accepting further erosion of the right to keep and bear arms. Furthermore, how does one ‘compromise’ a basic natural right?

  22. You cannot satisfy the leftists/liberals, they want to have their cake and eat it too, the problem being, they cannot make up their minds as to which cake they want, or how to eat it…the leftists/liberals have NO strategy but to off on tangents at every turn, they have a severe case of ADHD…SQUIRREL…

  23. And I thought I was being progressive by just peacefully and safely minding my own business and ensuring it stays that way. But if they want to target my kind as an enemy, I’ll be your huckleberry. They forget to consider that my kind has a much higher tolerance for unpleasantness than they do. Also that they outsource their dealing in unpleasantness to my kind. So good luck with that USA Today.

  24. Unscrupulous liberal lying pieces of shit. 30000 a year lost to “gun violence”. Suicide is not gun violence and that’s 20000 of those deaths. Another 9000 are gang related shootings. Disgusting filthy lying sensationalist liberal scum. How about a BAN on journalistic dishonesty. Make that a crime. If you don’t fact check or worse, intentionally distort, spin, and lie about events you get fined, and have to carry a label on all your newspapers and all broadcasts about how big a liar you are.

  25. Yup, that’s me – a gun absolutist. What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t they understand?

  26. Those who want to limit, or control ANY of the Bill of Rights, are the enemy of all peoples ,and all kids… without Liberty we are slaves, without all types guns we are slaves, without truth we are DEAD . We must demand the return of full auto firearms, and stop all this B.S. about carry ,and the right to safely hunt all PUBLIC LANDS , with out permits or tax……..

  27. I’m actually starting to take this “gun nut” idea as a point of pride, rather than as a derogatory thing, as the name is intended to be.

    Can’t make fun of me if I’m already making fun of myself….

    Example:
    “You’re an a$$hole…”

    “Yes I am, 100%, all day, every day. What’s your point?”

    It’s backs down the name calling if nothing else.

  28. Interesting DerryM bringing up numbers from 2009 & 2011. I personally haven’t bought a “dead tree paper” since probably 2011. A few gun magazines but even that has been 2 years. Everything free. TV , internet & radio. Amazing how IRRELEVANT 2A enemies are.

  29. USA Today is just pandering rhetoric to the Leftists to appear politically correct and maybe gain a new subscription or two. In the process they are proving how many do not agree with them and agree with the “opposing view”. Unintended consequences are a tough reality.

    The only problem I see with the Second Amendment is that people do not understand it correctly, and that “may be” a fault of The Founders. They recognized “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” as an absolute, unquestionable right and sought to confirm the maintenance of “A well regulated Militia” as “being necessary to the security of a free State” as a specific reason “the right”…”shall not be infringed.” At that time, they envisioned a very small Regular Army, if any at all, and thought free people would always willingly rise up to defend their free State, both as persons and the polity of The Republic those free people had established to maintain their personal “state” of freedom. They did not view the other aspects of “the right to keep and bear Arms” as requiring enumeration because those aspects were absolute and self-evident in their minds.
    Unfortunately, this left The Second Amendment “open” to interpretation by those who do not understand it correctly, or have agendas that do not recognize that The People are free individuals whose rights The State has no authority to deny, abrogate, regulate, control or otherwise “infringe”. Presently, the latter type have control of the Federal Executive and many State Governments, and the former are of sufficient numbers to enable the latter, which, apparently, includes the COTUS and SCOTUS.
    The Second Amendment doesn’t need alteration, it just needs to be understood properly.

  30. “But last we looked, it was up to the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution …” — USA Today’s Editorial Board

    What if a state law empowers male police officers to arbitrarily unclothe women and conduct full body cavity searches in full view of the public … and the U.S. Supreme Court upholds that law? Do we all quietly accept such a ruling? What if a state law forbids any company whose name has the letters “USA” from functioning as a newspaper … and the U.S. Supreme Court upholds that law? Do we quietly accept such a ruling?

    Every elected and appointed government “servant” can be coerced or corrupted. Some laws and rulings so blatantly violate the U.S. Constitution — the Supreme Law of the Land — that they must NOT be respected. Morality, ethics, justice, decency, and the sanctity of human life demand it.

  31. The editorial board must be made up of idiots. It is not the job of SCOTUS to ‘interpret the Constitution. It is the job of SCOTUS to ensure that the laws passed comply WITH the Constitution. The Second means exactly what it says and it is absolute.

  32. “He [Justice Antonin Scalia] added that limits on who can buy weapons, what kind they can own and where they can carry them are constitutional.” — USA Today Editorial Board

    Thus, Justice Scalia stated that government can legally infringe our right to keep and bear arms which cannot be legally infringed. The insanity of this position should be glaringly obvious.

    If government believes that a criminal or mentally insane person should not have a firearm, then government can ACT LEGALLY THROUGH DUE PROCESS. Passing a blanket law that prohibits an entire class of people from possessing firearms is NOT due process. Passing a blanket law that prohibits everyone from possessing firearms in a certain classification of location is NOT due process.

    People who understand and demand their rights are not extremists. People who elevate the State to god status and demand that everyone worship at the alter of the State are the extremists.

  33. The SCOTUS is wrong. The 2nd Amendment IS absolute in regards to the owning of arms. If I want to own a canon, mortar, grenade, RPG, automatic weapons, any of it…it’s all protected by the 2nd Amendment. Now having ICBMs…that isn’t covered…but personal weapons are. The ONLY restriction is the same restriction ANY right has. You can’t use it to endanger and/or deprive others of their rights. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater not because there are limits on the 1st Amendment, but because you are using your 1st Amendment right to endanger others. I have the right to own firearms…but I don’t have the right to use them in a way where bullets may leave my property endangering others. There is no harm in someone owning ANY of the listed weapons above up to the point they absue that right.

    The Constitution is quite clear on this and SCOTUS, like the rest of the government, are in violation of the Constitution. The government wants to be the only ones with it. They forget they work for US…not the other way around. By slowly peeling back our rights a little at a time, we accept it in the name of “reason” and go about our business. Some would argue we’re already in a dystopian society…but because we’ve been the frog slowly boiling to death, we are too stupid to know better.

    The government is the enemy to the Constitution. We need to vote them ALL out.

  34. Do any of these hacks ever come up with something new? Any fresh opinions out there anywhere? No? Thought so. They just keep rehashing the same soundbites and sampling the same old fallacies. 30,000 killed in gun related violence, sort of! Common sense! For the children! Jaysus. The anti-gun folks just parrot each other. You wonder how many of them do any thinking at all on their own. Or what it will take to make them do so.

  35. Strangely enough, nowhere can I find anything in our Constitution which alludes that the rights enumerated are anything but absolute, nor can I find anything which gives the Supreme Court power to determine constitutionality of such matters. Amazing, huh?

  36. After Heller and McDonald, an argument was made by a few gun control proponents that since gun owners could now feel secure that their guns could never be taken away, they no longer had any reason to resist reasonable regulations.

    Of course, we all know that in practice those decisions haven’t proven to be nearly enough for gun owners to feel anywhere near secure. We need several additional SCOTUS rulings that would make the boundaries that can’t be crossed by the legislatures much more explicit before gun owners can start feeling at least somewhat secure.

  37. Hmmm… I will point out that I see this sort of two-faced use of Court rulings by some pro-gunners to, at least on some of the forums I go to. The extreme libertarians will denounce you for disagreeing with rulings on gay marriage or abortion.

    There is a nasty tendency to exaggerate the authority of one who supports our position, and to downplay or deny the authority of one who disagrees with us. Even if it is the same entity.

    FWIW SCOTUS did not say where the line was drawn. Scalia in an interview basically said the 2nd amendment applies to weapons that can be carried (keep and bear). He said it doesn’t apply to cannons, (and here I quote) “but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes.” He said that would have to be decided. Which means he is not even willing to say the 2nd amendment doesn’t apply to say stinger missiles.

  38. They repeatedly use this word sensible, or rational, like it means there should be no discussion or dissent from the message. Then of course they love to use the NRA as a beating post, look at us like we are OFWG’s.

  39. Perfect…..Run and Hide liberals…

    Back 2 decades ago, when I started working on gun rights, I was handed a book by CA Sen H.L. Richardson called “Confrontational politics”. Mr Richardson is a founder of Gun Owners of America.

    The idea of confrontational politics was borne out of liberal lies. The want to compromise. If you do it they will burn you. Give them an inch, they want two inches, give em a rope they want to be a cowboy.

    They only way to win…..Is to pass as many pro gun laws as we can while stopping without exception all anti gun laws. Give the liberals nothing.
    They are right. We don’t talk to them. There is no dialogue. They don’t matter. What they say doesn’t matter. What they do doesn’t matter.
    The American people have started to realize that the whole “Gun Control” myth is based on lie after lie.

    The left wing media is throwing a tantrum because we won’t listen anymore. Too damn bad.

  40. “What’s left to decide are what measures can keep guns away from criminals and the dangerously mentally ill, saving some of the more than 30,000 lives lost to gun violence every year. That will require the Second Amendment absolutists to show more respect for the rights of others.”

    No, that will require criminals to show more respect for the rights of others.”

  41. Hey guys wake up.

    Gun-grabbers are killing people with their laws.

    The Victim Disarmament Zones alone should be enough of an argument, but they ignore logic, they preach common sense but show absolutely none!

    How many innocent American lives are going to be lost for their foolishness?

  42. Isn’t this the same Supreme Court that declared Dred Scot chattel property? Or separate but equal valid, in the case of one Homer Plessy?

    But sure, SCOTUS is infallible.
    /sarcasm

Leave a Reply

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