Random Thoughts About The Second Amendment

George Washington quote (courtesy thegatewaypundit.com)

In a previous post, I revealed a supposedly pro-gun CBS news report on women shooters as an attempt to drive a wedge through the firearms fraternity. To present long gun target shooting as acceptable while linking [all] handguns with “gun violence.” To suggest that using firearms for self-defense and/or defense against tyranny is beyond the pale. It’s a disconnect promoted by advocates of civilian disarmament. We don’t mind some guns, but not guns that can be used against people. It’s a position that brings the antis face-to-face with their mortal enemy . . .

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Founding Fathers created and ratified the Second Amendment as a defense against tyranny. Which could involve, you know, shooting people. Specifically, foreign troops trying to impose their will on Americans or domestic forces trying to impose tyranny on people living in a “free state.”

Guns for hunting? Self-defense? Yeah the 2A protected – and continues to protect – those firearms-related activities. But I think we can all agree that the Second Amendment wasn’t enacted so that upper-class southern white women could bust some clays. Which is why the antis continue to focus in on the Second Amendment’s prefatory “militia clause.”

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.

The antis would have Americans believe that the “well regulated militia” means that gun rights are restricted to people who are part of an organized militia. This despite the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise, and that all the other rights in the Bill of Rights are individual rights. And the fact that various state constitutions echo the Second Amendment without the militia clause (e.g., Rhode Island).

With that rhetorical rug pulled from under their feet, the antis retreat to the argument (such as it is) that Americans’ gun rights are not absolute rights. “You have the right to free speech but you don’t have the right to yell fire in a crowded movie house.” In this they are absolutely correct. But it’s a point which supports gun right rather than refutes them.

The Second Amendment prohibit the government from infringing on our right to “keep and bear arms.” It does not prohibit the government from passing laws restricting gun use – independent of keeping (owning) and bearing (carrying) arms (aimed weapons).

Using this common sense interpretation, local, state or federal governments can decree when and where you are legally allowed to shoot clays, animals or human beings. The government can also define and prohibit brandishing. But the 2A does not allow laws that prohibit you from keeping (i.e. owning) a “high capacity” ammunition magazine, an “assault rifle” or indeed a fully automatic rifle. Nor can it stop you from bearing (i.e. carrying) a gun into a government building, school or any other public space.

I have no idea why the Supreme Court would allow governments to infringe on Americans natural, civil and Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The idea that it’s OK to do so because the laws are “reasonable regulations” in the interests of public safety is ludicrous. Our specifically enumerated gun rights trump considerations of social order, the pursuit of which invites abuse like Playboy centerfolds invite onanism.

When they’re not busy trying to come up with a new angle to restrict Americans’ gun rights, the antis pursue a divide and conquer strategy. We invite all “reasonable” gun owners to support our push for “common sense” gun laws, so that we can defeat the “gun rights extremists” who put their sick, selfish desire for firepower above the safety of the people. Anyone who buys that line fails to understand the document that protects all their rights. And endangers those of us who do.

comments

  1. avatar El Mac says:

    @RF, well if anyone knows anything about driving wedges between groups, it would be you Mr. Farago.

    1. avatar Pascal says:

      Your comment adds nothing to this post.

      Instead of trolling, why not compose your own post and submit it and see how many of the AI agree with your opinions in open discourse. Or, start your own blog. By attacking at every chance you are doing as you are accusing RF of doing.

      1. avatar El Mac says:

        @Pascal, Hey…BINGO! Tit for tat baby…

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          So take your tit elsewhere.

      2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

        Don’t. Feed. Trolls.

    2. avatar CarlosT says:

      Robert really gets under your skin, doesn’t he?

      1. avatar El Mac says:

        @CarlosT, I’ve never met the guy, so no way to tell. I could probably drink beers with him and have a great time yukking it up. He is a game player online however. And I do find that annoying.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          So you come here to be annoyed? Interesting. You must be single.

        2. avatar Cliff H says:

          “So you come here to be annoyed? Interesting. You must be single.”

          Now that’s funny, right there…

    3. avatar James says:

      An interesting accusation with rather nefarious implications.

      Perhaps you’d care to explain it?

      1. avatar El Mac says:

        @James, brother, all one has to do is read and track the pattern. It ain’t hard.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          So it ain’t hard? That explains why you’re so annoyed.

        2. avatar Red Sox says:

          El Mac I too once thought the Earth was flat, c’mon over to the other side it’s liberating.

        3. avatar MarcusAurelius says:

          If it were that simple you’d save more time and energy by just explaining what you mean instead of beating around the bush hinting at things.

    4. avatar Matt in TX says:

      Troll.

      1. avatar El Mac says:

        @Matt in Texas, golly jeepers. Meanie.

    5. avatar ThomasR says:

      Interesting comment. I find this web site and Robert to do the exact opposite. It brings together people of like mind that the second amendment means what it says ; “Shall not be infringed” and says the “Truth” about those statist control freaks that want to say otherwise.

      So el Mac. Which people is Robert driving the wedge between?

  2. avatar notguiltfree says:

    I guess, I’m just flat unreasonable and always will be…..

    1. avatar yacope says:

      So am I when it comes to the protection of my children, husband (he returns the favor by being ready to protect me) and possessions that we worked hard to aquire. If I’m unreasonable because I will defend them with the weapon of MY choice and because I believe my permit is the 2nd Amendment then so be it.

  3. avatar Pascal says:

    With that rhetorical rug pulled from under their feet, the antis retreat to the argument (such as it is) that Americans’ gun rights are not absolute rights. “You have the right to free speech but you don’t have the right to yell fire in a crowded movie house.” In this they are absolutely correct. But it’s a point which supports gun right rather than refutes them.

    This is not correct. The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). The test in Brandenburg is the current High Court jurisprudence on the ability of government to proscribe speech after that fact. Despite Schenck being limited, the phrase “shouting fire in a crowded theater” has since come to be known as synonymous with an action that the speaker believes goes beyond the rights guaranteed by free speech, reckless or malicious speech, or an action whose outcomes are blatantly obvious.

    It is protected, because what “if” there is a fire in a crowed movie theater. If Brandenburg was applied to the 2nd, it basically would say, if it causes no harm, then move on. Today, if we scare someone for any reason, like the word “gun” in a fictional story, that persons emotions must be honored. Brandenburg would say nonsense.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

    1. avatar Chris. says:

      Exactly what I intended to point ou. You can shout “fire” all day. What you can ‘t do is incite panic or a riot.

      To compare to the 2nd… Carry all you want, draw without good caused & you’re screwed.

      It’s the “causing harm” that’s not protected. Not “shouting fire”… You can shout fire all you want If -1) there’s a fire.

      2). Nobody panics.

      Likewise, carry all you want – just don ‘t cause a panic with it.

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        This discussion is a useful train of thought. If there IS a conflagration it is one’s duty to shout “Fire!”. Suppose one Michael Bloomberg spots someone lighting a cigarette in a crowded theater and shouts “Fire!” Observe that he isn’t so much objecting to the fire as he is the tobacco smoke. Factually, he is quite correct; substantively, he causes immediate, irreparable and unjustified harm due to a political agenda to advance a limited public harm. Such a situation seems a lot like “SWATing”; to shout “Gun!” in a crowded Chipotle; to call the cops when you see a black man carrying a realistic looking BB gun.
        – – – If a theater goer carries a concealed weapon into a crowded auditorium, has he committed any crime? Has he introduced a panic if no one sees his gun? No one “feels” differently because he is carrying a concealed weapon. No one panics and rushes for the exit.
        – – – Unless-and-until the theater management is capable of screening patrons to the extent as is done in court houses, there is nothing stopping a patron from carrying a concealed weapon into a crowded theater except, of course, one’s individual willingness to abide by the law. The Arora theater’s sign didn’t stop James Holmes. It only stopped his victims from defending themselves. Maybe someday the Anti’s will explain how they are going to make gun-free zones work better than they have.

        1. avatar Pascal says:

          Explain that to the judge in the Aurora case that is allowing all the victims or their families sue the theater because in his opinion the theater “should have known this would happen”

  4. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    I will welcome regulations that attempt to prevent unlawful firearm injuries when society requires everyone to wear muzzles on their mouths before entering theaters to prevent people from yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater.

  5. avatar Alaskan Patriot says:

    The notion that “you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” is patently false.

    There are laws in most jurisdictions that prohibit “inciting or initiating a riot or panic” (or some variation thereof) which “shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” could arguably accomplish. However, there are two very big exceptions.

    1. If there actually IS a fire. Nobody would try and press charges in this situation.

    2. If nobody reacts when you yell “fire.” You cannot be punished for yelling “fire,” but you CAN be punished if your actions, verbal or otherwise, incite a panic. If you yell “free pizza in the lobby” and everybody jumps up and rushes to the door and people get trampled in the process, you can be held liable for inciting a panic, even though “yelling ‘free pizza in the lobby’ in a crowded theater” isn’t against the law.

    If you stand up in a crowded theater and say “okay everybody, in five seconds I’m going to yell fire, but there is not an actual fire. I’m just conducting a legal experiment” and then proceed to yell “fire,” and nobody panics, that’s just it. There are no legal ramifications in that situation, because yelling “fire” is not prohibited.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      If somebody yells “Fire!” in a theater that I’m in, I’m likely to do it. 🙂

    2. avatar The Brotherhood of Steel says:

      If I’m ever in a theater and someone screams “Fire!”, with no apparent proof of said fire, I will immediately go into full on panic mode, and throw all my belongings up into the air, start screaming at the top of my lungs and then run around in circles pissing my pants. Because that’s what the liberals want us to do. Afterwards I’ll talk to CNN to reveal my heroic story.

    3. avatar SouthernPatriot says:

      Well stated. Accurate examples of the restraint (or potential liability) of freedom of speech.

      Likewise, if we carry a loaded weapon openly and it discharges, you can be charged, if the discharge strikes and destroys a store window or an auto window or injures a person, you can be, and probably will be charged and/or sued.

      There is obvious personal responsibility with all rights, including the First and Second Amendments.

      Thanks again.

  6. avatar John in Ohio says:

    Hear, hear! That’s the heart of the matter. Well stated, RF.

  7. avatar Michael B. says:

    “It’s a disconnect promoted by advocates of civilian disarmament. We don’t mind some guns, but not guns that can be used against people.”

    It’s also a bald-faced lie.

  8. avatar ValleyForge77 says:

    I agree, they are trying to use most people’s ignorance on the topic to depict true 2A supporters as ‘extremists’, and carve away the Fudds from the pack.

  9. avatar Ralph says:

    The CBS “report” did not approve of long guns for sport. It approved of women, because women buy most of the soap that CBS is selling.

    1. avatar SouthernPatriot says:

      My wife and I screamed at your post! Great post!

  10. avatar the ruester says:

    “The only reason to carry a gun is to intimidate,” said every anti ever. To them “bearing” and “using” is the same thing. In fact the only legitimate bearing of a gun in their world would be to intimidate conservative “gun nuts.”

  11. avatar DrVino says:

    Division is a major tactic in the antis book.
    Witness CA’s SB53 which

    – Creates a registration database of all ammunition vendors, purchasers, and purchases.
    – Effectively bans online ammo sales as we know it.
    – Mandates another costly license for gun owners and ammo sellers to acquire.
    – Bans private sales and transfers of ammo.
    – Eliminates thousands of ammunition “points of purchase” in the state and significantly increase the cost for law-abiding people to exercise their fundamental Second Amendment rights.
    – Eradicate thousands of California businesses currently engaging in the lawful sales of ammunition for self-defense and sporting purposes at the cost of potentially thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in lost state and local tax revenues.
    – Exempt a massive new regulatory implementation by the Department of Justice from the Administrative Procedure Act and public scrutiny.

    Brown vetoed similar legislation in the past, but it looks like the sponsor (De Leon, who else) cut a deal with him in which people with a hunting license (an 8 hour, all day, class costing about 30 to 50 bucks and an annual fee of $46.44) are exempted (to what degree?). So they want to divide the FUDs from the bench, practical and tactical shooters.

    I think that hunters are largely outnumbered by other types of gun owners in CA, but this move speaks volumes about what the legislature considers legitimate (by what they will and will not acknowledge).

  12. avatar Peter says:

    “You have the right to free speech but you don’t have the right to yell fire in a crowded movie house.”
    I don’t know which argument is misused more, this or the backwards “Penis compensation” argument.

    1. avatar twency says:

      It’s a three-way tie with “so you think everyone should be allowed to own nuclear weapons?!”

      1. avatar Jake Tallman says:

        When they say that, I always laugh and counter with, “could you afford a nuke”? Even if they were on Wal-Mart shelves tomorrow, no would own any who doesn’t already, due to the prohibitive cost. So sure, legalize nukes. It’ll be a gesture as meaningless as their argument.

        1. avatar the ruester says:

          I always say “welllll… they WOULD really help remove those stumps…”

  13. avatar Geoff PR says:

    R. Farago wrote:

    “With that rhetorical rug pulled from under their feet, the antis retreat to the argument (such as it is) that Americans’ gun rights are not absolute rights. “You have the right to free speech but you don’t have the right to yell fire in a crowded movie house.” In this they are absolutely correct.”

    Not quite. If you falsely yell “Fire!” then the full force of the law will (And damn well should !” pound you flat.

    The 2A angle is that when you walk into a movie theater there isn’t someone duct-taping everyone’s mouth shut. You are TRUSTED to not yell “Fire!”, your mouth is locked and loaded to yell if the need arises. Duct-taped shut mouths will likely result in injury or death.

    Personal responsibility, F-Yea!

    1. avatar Alaskan Patriot says:

      Wrong. The law can’t do a damn thing if you yell “fire” in a crowded theater.

      They can, however, come after you for inciting a panic or a riot. But that can be accomplished by any number of methods, not only yelling “fire.” If you yell “fire” and nobody panics, then… nothing happens. It’s not against the law.

    2. avatar Pascal says:

      I live in a town that is adjacent to large urban center. My town has a 16 pled movie theater. Many inner city “yoots” come to this theater thanks to a city bus that was specifically added for the “yoots”

      At every movie I have reluctantly gone to at this theater, as soon as the movie is about to start they play this game where they start yelling “fire!” and laughing until someone yells “shut the f up” I have yet to see any be arrested or taken out of theater. There is no riot or stampede and you can complain all you want, management will not do a damn thing.

      Hate to be there should there be a real fire.

  14. avatar SleeStac says:

    The quote attributed to George Washington appears to be inaccurate, at least according to Mount Vernon:

    http://www.mountvernon.org/research-collections/digital-encyclopedia/article/spurious-quotations/

  15. avatar John V. Tennant says:

    I disagree with the whole shouting in a theatre card that gets held up and repeated and I find it even more disappointing that the Supreme Court came up with it. Our inalienable rights are/were meant to be absolute. There are laws concerning public endangerment that keeps being ignored in this argument every time it happens. Yes, you can shout fire in a theatre but you are liable for the damage done. You can own and carry a weapon but you are liable if you go shooting about indiscriminately. We have laws against public endangerment that are totally independent of our civil rights that should be given credence and enforced instead of excuses being made to further oppress what should be a truly free people.

  16. avatar gunnut says:

    I’m speechless, beautiful shot:

    http://i.imgur.com/1FQHIMz.jpg

    Source: http://www.reddit.com/r/MURICA/comments/2cncyz/sometimes_my_friends_and_i_celebrate_our_freedom/

    When I see pictures like this I’m getting very pissed that I live in Europe.

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      If you displayed that on the sidewalk in NY you’d have to have an acre of fainting couches handy.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      People can do that in almost every state in the United States without any worries and without breaking any laws. The only states that frown on such an activity/photo are Hawaii, California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and probably Rhode Island. (I am not sure about Delaware.) And we continue to remove infringements in the other 42 states.

      The next big achievement will be unfettered open carry of both handguns and long guns in Texas (probably happen within 12 to 18 months). I don’t know if Florida and South Carolina are ready for open carry yet. We can hope!

  17. avatar BLAMMO says:

    In the apoplectic derangement of Andrew Cuomo, “NOBODY NEEDS 10 BULLETS TO KILL A DEAH!!”

    Well, beside the fact there were already NY State DEC laws limiting the capacity of guns while hunting, the antis so often allude to the sacrosanct freedom to hunt and it’s protection. Ah, but those same people generally find hunting a cruel and revolting abuse of animals.

    So, once the Fudds have served their purpose, the cry from the rooftops will be “NOBODY NEEDS TO HUNT!! WE HAVE SUPERMARKETS!!”

    1. avatar The Brotherhood of Steel says:

      I always love to argue with antis in person, they always at some point say

      “what do you NEED that for?”

      and I love to counter with,

      “What do you NEED a knife for”

      To witch they say, “Well, uh, I need to cut food..”

      Then I say, “No. No you don’t. Food comes pre-cut these days. Go to the supermarket and pay for the foods that are precut so I don’t have worry about you stabbing me you crazy knife wielding physco!”

      1. avatar BLAMMO says:

        Whenever someone brings up “need”, I reply:

        I don’t need a gun.
        I have never needed a gun.
        I hope I never need a gun.
        And, in all likelihood, I will never need a gun.
        However, should I ever need a gun, I had better have a gun.
        Therefore, I have a gun.

        Aside from that, guns are cool. Guns are fun. Have fun and be safe.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          I have needed a firearm but hope I never need one again. I won’t ever be without one.

  18. avatar mk10108 says:

    American History is a partial hobby of mine and I giggle when folk chat about the meaning of 2A. Infringed,…militia….keep and bear arms. My take for what it’s worth, is 2A insured a cost-effective way to protect against invading nations. It leveraged men (individuals) with arms to form militia and use as a speed bump against the French, Spanish & English incursion, until the Army could muster itself. That’s historical context. I’m more interested in what 2A means 240 years later. Our Constitution is about granting or recognizing rights, not restricting them. And using 2A words in today’s meaning, it is the right of the individual to keep & bear arms. To restrict the tool necessary for lawful self protection (individual or nation) is an abomination against its citizens and shows government contempt…the requirement of our consent. I see no other reason for restricting guns rights than our legislators inability to think. Easier to throw ink on paper than come up with viable alternatives for whatever social problems our democracy creates.

  19. avatar Al says:

    Michigan Constitution:

    Sec. 6.
    Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

    The 2nd amendment prefatory clause has been addressed countless times and only an intellectual lightweight or fraud would conclude that only militia may bear arms, since the operative clause recognizes that INDIVIDUALS have this pre-existing right.

    1. avatar T-DOG says:

      Washington State Constitution:
      SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

  20. avatar DerryM says:

    It is important to understand the phrase, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..” specifically means that “the right” exists prior to, without need of, and even despite, anything else the Constitution says. It is an absolute reference to an absolute natural right of the people. The Constitution protects and guarantees it. It does not grant or confer it. There’s no parsing it, denying it, regulating it, or infringing it.

  21. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    I have no idea why the Supreme Court would allow governments to infringe on Americans natural, civil and Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Probably for the reason that Patrick Henry thought that the different branches of government would form a collusion of statists interests. Look at the little jerks that nominate and approve the Judges for the exalted court.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      There is a more fundamental problem with the way the United States Supreme Court tries to function: the Court is a branch of government that claims to protect We the People from government.

      Why anyone would think that we can trust a branch of government to prevent government from acting in government’s best interest is beyond me. If government is so trustworthy, why do we have a jury of our peers determine whether a person goes to prison?

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        I think you have found the crux of the problem(s) facing us today. We are in the fix we are in because We the People elect the Presidents we have who appoint the judges we have who are confirmed the Senators we elect. Then, we complain about the results we get from SCOTUS and Circuit Court decisions. Repeat; i.e., re-elect the same Senators (and Representatives) and the same kinds of Presidential candidates.
        – – – We could keep these elected governmental officials in line; but we don’t. We re-elect them.
        – – – It’s not so easy to maintain direct control over judges; but, we could do it.
        – – – We PotG have exerted control over our State legislatures and established the right-to-carry in 40 States; 2 more than are necessary to ratify a Constitutional amendment and 6 more than required to call for an Article V Constitutional convention.
        – – – We could push our legislators to call for a Constitutional convention to buttress our 2A rights. E.g., we could mandate Shall-Issue (or Constitutional Carry) nation-wide with a Right-to-Carry Amendment. I’d advocate a text “. . . shall not be denied for want of need”, for illustration. One Article V convention would serve to re-align the relationship between the governed and the governors.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          A convention poses more risk than potential benefit. First, government rides rough shod over the Constitution right now so any changes won’t make much of a difference. We already have a pretty good Constitution but it simply gets ignored. Second, there are no controls once a convention is in play. There are too many statists for any convention to have a positive outcome. Third, as long as the lie of Judicial Review remains uncorrected, the Supreme Court will simply rationalize away any protections.

          A convention is a terrible idea. Massive civil disobedience and persistent insistence of the People that their rights be protected is the better course. If the People aren’t willing to stand up for their own rights, no constitutional changes will ever make a difference. A constitution is merely a piece of paper if the People aren’t willing to stand up for themselves.

  22. avatar Harley Weewax says:

    That quote is not from George Washington. The actual quote from Washington is:

    “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.”

    Misquoting our Founders in this way, either intentionally or incompetently, only makes our job harder. C’mon Robert, you should know better than this.

    It doesn’t even sound like a Washington quote.

    Source: http://www.mountvernon.org
    (Edited to add source)

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      Still sounds like a great idea.

    2. avatar El Mac says:

      @Harry Weewax, be careful Harry. You’ll be branded a troll for engaging your brain around here and not drinking the cult of personality’s koolaid.

      1. avatar ThomasR says:

        Oh now El Mac; being condescending and superior because the mind numbed automatons around here don’t recognize your genius is not the way to show us the error of our ways.

        1. avatar El Mac says:

          @ThomasR, oh it’s not genius Sir Thomas, it’s just being situationaly aware. Even lower order forms of life can do that.

      2. avatar Stinkeye says:

        There’s a pretty big difference between pointing out a factual error in an article and just pissing in the punch bowl to get attention.

        1. avatar El Mac says:

          @Stinky, I agree. Which is why I don’t engage in pissing in bowls as a rule. Thanks for pointing that out.

  23. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Gee, if the 2A is a collective right, then the other enumerated rights must be collective as well. I think the Constitution should be re-written to say the government can just do whatever the hell it wants. I am still trying to figure out the Executive Order BS. I always thought that Congress was the Legislative Branch. I guess the Executive Branch can now legislate so who needs Congress?

  24. avatar borg says:

    The right to keep and bear arms is not limited firearms but also would and should include knives since knives are also in common use.

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      I agree with knives. I do NOT agree with the idea of “in common use”. Are pepper-spray, stun-guns or Tasers protected arms? How would a novel – yet useful – form of “arm” pass into “common use” if legislation prohibited/restricted it before it was marketed successfully to the consumer?
      – – – Nor am I ready to accept any other a-priori constraint such as the one – suggested elsewhere – that the arm must be capable of being “aimed”. Presumably, the idea is to exclude destructive devices such as hand-grenades. While acknowledging the good-faith desire to avoid collateral damage to innocents, I don’t see how the objective of constraining tyranny can necessarily be met after foregoing access to non-aim-able weapons.
      – – – Furthermore, it is not far-fetched to imagine some sort of chemical arm such as a tear-gas grenade that a victim could deploy to inhibit a gang attack. Yes, the arm might inflict injury upon the victim herself and innocent bystanders. If the injury is minor and temporary it’s a small price to pay to stop the attack. Yet, an a-priori bar on non-aimed arms would leave such an innovation outside the protection of the 2A.

      1. avatar ThomasR says:

        The militias for most of it’s history had access to cannon, mortars and other explosive devices as part of it’s arsenal. To say that we as the first line of defense against an invading military force or against a tyrannical government would not have access to these types of weapons is an absurdity.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email