As Dan Aykroyd and Steve Martin used to say, now are the foxes! OK, that’s a bit of a stretch. But for fans of the United States Constitution as she is written, Fox News’ Judge Andrew Napolitano is as good as it gets. The slicked-back sage never fails to stand up for Americans’ constitutional rights, including but not limited to our right to keep and bear arms. Better yet, when the Judge offers his defense, he does it in language even two Czechoslovakian swingers could understand . . .

When challenged on “workplace incidents” and “lone wolf” terrorist attacks, the Judge told it like it is:

“What is the best deterrent to that? An armed citizenry. People able to protect themselves. We have a Second Amendment in this country, they do not have the equivalent of that in Canada.”

This common sense argument will gain strength after further terrorist attacks on American soil, regardless of the outcome. More people will carry. Void where prohibited by law, of course.

47 Responses to Incredibly Obvious Pro-Gun Argument of the Day: Judge Andrew Napolitano Edition

    • Y’know, if Contards like Coulter, Limbaugh and their groupies would shut up, quite a few multiple-issue voters would likely vote for pro-gun people.

      Why would someone vote for a candidate who opposes them on everything but guns? Math: look it up.

      It’s not a simple world, and the simplistic speech of simpletons doesn’t help the gun cause.

      • The problem is most pro-gun TV personalities are what Lew Rockwell refers to as “red-state fascists”: big government warmongers parading as conservatives. Judge Napolitano is a libertarian. He even supported Ron Paul for president in 2008 and 2012.

        • Loving the reference to Lew. I honestly feel most people lean libertarian if asked about the issues but can’t get over the idea that there are some things only the state can do. Therefore we’re stuck with a bunch of control freaks who have a monopoly on force and can’t think of a good reason not to use it.

      • This guy is a mouth piece to keep himself in a job.

        I agree with him maybe 75% of the time, but then he goes off the deep end of Libertarian philosophy…of which there has NEVER been a country governed by. No, not the US…..

        BTW, Limbaugh agrees with me about 90% of the time……but hey!…whose perfect?

        • Libertarian philosophy aligns very well with a strict interpretation of our constitution.

          Our country is SUPPOSED to be governed by that document.

          The Libertarian party is the only party that seems to respect that document for what it says.

        • The “deep end of libertarian philosophy”??? You mean like our founding fathers type libertarian? Yeah, those guys were WAAAY out there, man!

      • if Contards like Coulter, Limbaugh and their groupies would shut up, quite a few multiple-issue voters would likely vote for pro-gun people.

        You, sir, are on drugs. Tell me, how many of those Democrat voters listen to Rush Limbaugh and read Ann Coulter?

        • Ann Coulter would do more good for the cause if she would keep her mouth shut. She is seriously irritating when she talks about pretty much anything. And her arguments are rarely convincing. At least to me and that is on subjects where I agree with her positions.

        • So you’re saying that middle-of-the-road voters, by definition people who aren’t politically attuned, are reading Ann Coulter over at the Daily Caller or other sites where she is carried?

          Are you serious?

          I’m not convinced the average voter can pick his or her state out on a map.

    • I am not Canadian, nor an expert in Canadian laws, so I am not sure, but they have the “Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms” which is equivalent to our amendments as far as the law is concerned….at least that is my understanding. And in that, they have Freedom of Expression and assembly under Section 2 of Fundamental freedoms.

      But no, they have no right to bear arms. Given Canada’s history which is different than ours, and that Canadian’s have a lot more implicit trust in their Government (for reasons I have no clue about), the right to bear arms is not even a consideration.

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

      • Mark Stein has been prosecuted in Canada for his columns regarding Islam. Apparently not providing space for a rebuttal violates the rights of a columns subject.

        I don’t know all the details, but If you can be prosecuted for expressing an opinion in a country, that country does not have a right to free speech.

        • My understanding is that a country either has an entrenched/constitutional bill of rights (us) or a legislative bill of rights (most other countries), which isn’t worth the paper it is written on as the legislature can override any protections set forth in the bill. Canada seems to have a mix of both an entrenched bill of rights through the charter and a legislative bill of rights. Do we have any Canadian lawyers hanging around here who can clarify?

      • they have the “Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms” which is equivalent to our amendments as far as the law is concerned

        You can’t be serious. You want me to begin listing people who have been prosecuted for speech? Even for something as simple as carrying a book review?!

        You’re not the same guy who thought there were only 11 permit-not-required pistol OC states, are you?

        • In Canada there is no constitutional reference regarding the right to bear arms in either the Bill of Rights, British North America Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
          Firearms ownership is controlled via legislation and regulation.
          In a word, we got screwed.

      • Interestingly enough, it was during one of those Mark Steyn “prosecutions” that a Canadian governmental official actually stated flat-out in an interview, “We don’t have a right to free speech like the Americans do”, or words to that effect.

      • The right to bear arms is not guaranteed in Canada for sure. We have no supportive constitutional legislation that even mentions such a thing.
        The criminal code [which is federal legislation] does however, provide that a person may use as much force as reasonably necessary to repel an attack and that the use of “deadly” force may be supported if a person believes that failing to do so could result in death or grievous bodily harm. This translates to mean “you’re screwed if you use a gun to defend yourself”. However, recent court cases have upheld the RIGHT to self defense and it would appear that the pendulum is nearer to center.

      • There are so many rights that the people of NYC have freely given up. The last time I visited family there, I could feel the oppression on final approach into JFK airport. A lot of NYCers live in an interesting bubble. For instance, my sister-in-law didn’t see anything wrong with complaining about SB1070 in AZ, but was completely okay with Stop-and-Frisk in NY. My cousin (a NYPD officer) was dumbfounded when he visited AZ and I walked out the door with a gun on my hip; even though he had previously lamented how all the criminals were armed in NYC. I guess that’s what you get when you have surrendered your rights for couple of generations.

  1. I’m just amazed at how many people care so fervently about their second amendment but don’t give a crap about protecting the fourth amendment. It protects against the unreasonable search and seizure. But right now the NSA is both searching and seizing as much data about you as they can, in an unreasonable and unwarranted fashion.

    This is a blatant disregard for our consitutional rights and not enough people are causing a stink about it.

    • There isn’t a single right that hasn’t been damaged in the last 40years, not one.
      the main problem is how to fix it? We should be shooting by now but, can’t figure out the target. We can’t even carry our guns to Washington DC because we know the police would pick a fight. I would lead, but no one wants to fight.
      That is why politicians don’t worry about who gets angry. We can’t even organize a 1000 people to carry signs most times. The ones that will don’t want freedom and liberty they want stuff.

  2. “This common sense argument will gain strength after further terrorist attacks on American soil, regardless of the outcome. More people will carry. Void where prohibited by law, of course.”

    And the Progressives prefer you simply void your bowels and bladder to fend off assault…

  3. I’ve traveled far north to Canada more times than sometimes I would like to remember. Crossing from Detroit into Ontario and heading up to the Arctic Circle. The farther north you get, the farther away from U.S. the less rights it appears you have as a citizen or non-citizen. It becomes a matter of what a local yokel interprets your rights to be or what little he/she understands of the law. In any sense, there is no “right to bare arms” nor anything close. Most of these who have “arms” are those having to defend themselves against aggressive bears or similar wild beasts. Defense against armed invaders is not something understood or a reason to have a gun readily available to you, ‘eh!

    • I would think that the closer you get to the arctic circle the less you would want to have bare arms, none the less I think that is a personal choice and I fully support Canadians right to dress as they see fit.

  4. Mac from “Military Arms Channel” posted on his site some time ago that he was going to stop incorrectly using the phrase “constitutional right to keep and bear arms”, and from now on properly phrase it as “constitutionally PROTECTED right to keep and bear arms”.

    The right existed before the 2nd Amendment was ever written, and will not ontologically cease to exist if the Constitution is amended and the 2nd Amendment ever removed.

    Could you please start doing that here?

  5. “More people will carry. Void where prohibited by law, of course.”

    Those of us who live in states where it is “prohibited by law” can vote with our feet to a free state. I just did that. We all have a God-given, natural right to self defense, whether we want it or not. I will not live where my rights are not respected.

  6. Omer Baker says:

    Loving the reference to Lew. I honestly feel most people lean libertarian if asked about the issues but can’t get over the idea that there are some things only the state can do. Therefore we’re stuck with a bunch of control freaks who have a monopoly on force and can’t think of a good reason not to use it.
    = = = =

    Most people claiming to be libertarians these days are actually propertarians who consider private property more sacred than individual rights or lives, and further for some reason I can’t fathom think that only the government can be a danger to our liberty. They need to learn from Thomas Jefferson that churches and corporations, indeed any institution with the power to coerce, must also be regarded with suspicion.

    The trick is to use private institutions to balance the power of the state, while realizing that the state must be used to balance the power of private institutions.

    I think the esteemed judge recognizes this.

    • “The trick is to use private institutions to balance the power of the state, while realizing that the state must be used to balance the power of private institutions.”

      This is already a failed concept. When the corporations are in bed with the government, neither will see it in their best interest to keep each other in check. The key to fixing this is an informed populace with the will to drive corporations out of business, and politicians out of town.

      Private property is a subjective issue for me. Property such as a home, vehicle, and other items is absolute and sacred. “Private property” such as a business accessible to the public at large (stores and such) give up the absolute right to strip individuals of their rights such as carrying for self defense, and freedom from unwarranted searches.

      There is also the issue of emergencies. If someone is stranded in bad weather, and has wandered through the woods for days looking for help, no access to food or shelter, and comes across a barn in the dead of night; if they enter it for shelter and happen upon a fridge and partake, do you charge them with B&E and petty larceny? I would say no. Ask for compensation, but in this scenario there is an exception to the rule.

      • You’re both right. But I don’t think we’ll ever have an “informed populace”. Most people aren’t interested in being informed. They’re only interested in being informed about the NFL or their favorite TV shows, etc. I don’t know if you can morally or effectively force people to become educated and informed. Roymond is absolutely right that any overly powerful institution that can coerce the people must always be regarded with suspicion. We should always critically examine powerful and influential institutions. They may be a force for good or bad, but because of the potential for misuse of power we should always be aware. Tyranny can come in the form of a government, a corporation, a church, or any other institution with the power to coerce people. Roymond hit the heart of the matter of what is wrong about most Libertarian philosophy with his insight that many Libertarians believe only a government can endanger personal liberty. The truth is that a corporation, church, or other institution could become indistinguishable from a tyrannical government.

  7. Being a Czech I am a little lost about the “two Czechoslovakian swingers would understand”. Could someone please explain reference to me? Thanks in advance.

    • The two Czech swingers were depicted on Saturday Night Live in 1978 by Dan Ackroyd and Steve Martin. They spoke broken English & dressed in what they thought was cool disco style. They called themselves “two wild and crazy guys” as they went out the door in search of beautiful women.

      The Cold War was still on and the Swinging Single Seventies were at their most feverish. SNL used as a comedy vehicle two Iron Curtain refugees who thought they knew all about America & especially American women.

      Their English malapropisms have become legend & were used here for emphasis. No prejudice was intended.

      And if you’re here, then welcome to America!

      • Thank you for the explanation. That is very interesting and good to know.

        No, I am not in the states. Apart from Slovenia – with its compact package of great mountains and nice seaside, fine but not overly friendly people and zero crime somewhat making up for no CCW – I can’t really see myself living anywhere else than the Czech Republic.

        • My memory of the 1968 Prague Spring: I was in southern Italy that summer when the Soviets invaded. Suddenly in the streets of Naples there were Skoda automobiles everywhere with many people inside.

          Czech firearms are well renowned, any gun with CZ- in the model name is high quality.

          My grandfather was Slovenian. He left the Austro-Hungarian empire to avoid conscription but then joined the U.S. Army in 1917 & went to France.

        • Interesting story with the grandfather. It was similar for many Czechs in WW1, just that they often changed sides directly in Austrian uniform joining the Czechoslovak legions. There were instances when whole groups marched during battle with fanfares to the other side and started firing back at Austrians. It became so notorious that 20 years later after Nazi occupation, Czechs were completely forbidden to take part in the war, be it either in Wehrmacht or through own puppet army (unlike most other axis/occupied states). The Germans learned the lesson in WW1!

          I really like Slovenia. Only if they had the Czech culture of freedom (they are more “Austrian/German” when it comes to this) would make Slovenia an ideal country to live in for me.

  8. The “Judge” is also a batshit crazy 9/11 Truther. Any person who seriously believes any 9/11 Truther conspiracy can never be taken seriously. They are and he is, mentally flawed.

    • So someone is crazy for having a differing opinion? Sorry, discrediting someone on those grounds just makes one look very closed minded. I have seen the evidence and read the arguments, there is a possibility to his claim. Does it make them true? No. It is enough to cast doubt, but not irrefutable. Libertarians deal in evidence and logic. They do not blindly follow and parrot. They consider all possible conclusions. This is part of the reason that they are not yet a viable 3rd party. They will not toe a party line on an issue until it has been hashed and rehashed to the point of truth.

      • Praise Jesus, another village idiot self declares and saves us the time and trouble of routing him out. I too am libertarian minded, but there is nothing about his 9/11 truther BS, or any other 9/11 truther bs, that is possible or probable. They are no different than Holocaust deniers, yet they see themselves as truth seekers. They are mentally ill, mostly, but not all harmless. Live long and prosper my looney friend.

        • Keep accepting what you are fed, and you become what you eat. I never said he is right, just merely said it is possible. You on the other hand have come to the conclusion that I am a truther, and are sorely mistaken. I never said I believe it, but that it is plausible. Jumping to conclusions, name calling…you are no more Libertarian minded than the climate change harpies.

          “The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.” -Socrates

        • David,

          Appreciate your opinion, but when its mostly insults and gross generalities, that are off-topic, then its not nearly as effective as simple facts and links if need be in proof of the argument.

          The Judge did a pretty good job of explaining a poorly understood major cultural difference between the US and Canada, in spite of most peoples ignorance of same, and boiled it down to the relevant issue- civilian right to armed self defense. Without name calling or insults.

          A lesson there, in more ways than one.

  9. Rambeast and RLC2:

    The Judge has every right to his opinion and his point, and in this case I agree with it. But I was merely pointing out, what few people now about him, that he is in fact a 9/11 truther. Speaking of incredibly hurtful insults, any and all 9/11 truther conspiracies are dispicable and very hurtfully insulting to all the victims of 9/11 and all of our heroes in the military and intelligence agencies who fought those who perpetrated the attacks. 9/11 truthers are in fact the equivalent of holocaust deniers. Rambeast, 9/11 truther theories are not in the least bit plausible, and you suggesting they are, lead me to believe that you might just have leanings to those crackpot conspriacies. I’m in law enforcement as an investigator, and that my friend is what we call a clue or a lead. Just because the judge, who I used to take very seriously, says something you and I agree with, doesn’t mean that he is 100% credible. I suggest that he is far less than 100% credible for previously stated reasons. A lot of mentally ill people say things that I can agree with, it doesn’t mean that they aren’t mentally ill.

Leave a Reply

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