(courtesy (newsweek.com)

To paraphrase George Taylor, “They finally really did it!” Yup. Newsweek magazine finally put their civilian disarmament cards on the table, telling [both of] its readers that the magazine’s owners and editors reject Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Oh wait. Notice the word “any” in red? Kurt Eichenwald’s article argues that you don’t have the right to bear any arms. Specifically, any arms equipped with . . . go on, guess! Or read on . . .


Eichenwald’s article warms-up to the task with the usual anti-gun agitprop prevarication. Like this . . .

Let’s start with an undeniable truth: In the United States, the people have the right to keep and bear arms. And let’s then acknowledge that the childish interpretation of that constitutional amendment—that Americans have the right to whatever accessory they can put on, in or over a gun for the sole purpose of making it more deadly—is a dangerous falsehood.

Childish. Right out of the box Newsweek adopts the elitist statist tone typical of the anti-gun breed. But what’s this? Eichenwald’s railing against rails? Americans have a right to keep and bear arms, but not to put a red dot on their AR? Hogue grips on their Smith & Wesson .44 mag? That’s crazy talk!

Therein lies the chasm between those seeking constitutionally impossible forms of gun control and their political opponents, who view every proposal regulating weaponry as the first step toward dictatorship. Caught in the middle are the majority of Americans who think people should be allowed to keep guns but seesaw over tougher laws regarding those weapons.

Ah, the old “middle way, there is” pseudo-Yoda shtick. A compromise between “absolutists” and gun control advocates: “a gun control policy based on balancing rights and responsibilities.” In fact, most Americans support the Second Amendment, whose words “shall not be infringed” leave little ground for this mythological middle way. At least Eichenwald admits there is such a thing as “constitutionally impossible” gun control.

Speaking of the Constitution, Eichenwald then bolts down the usual anti-gun path: the Second Amendment’s prefatory militia clause means that the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual right. (Hence the cover.) Forgetting to mention that all the rights protected against government intrusion in the Bill of Rights are individual rights. Or the historical records indicating that the Founding Fathers considered it such. And the rest.

And then Eichenwald heads down the other usual anti-gun path: no Constitutionally protected right is absolute!

As every first-year law school student knows, constitutional rights are not absolute. Newspapers stay in business thanks to the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech, but they cannot lawfully print child pornography. And citizens have no right to incite imminent violence. Similar restrictions apply to other constitutional rights—most have parameters designed to protect society.

Scalia clearly stated in Heller that the right to bear arms had boundaries. “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited,” he wrote. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” For example, he cited laws that prohibit the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or that forbid them in places such as schools and government buildings, or impose conditions on their sale. He also wrote that his decision did not overrule the holding in the 1939 Miller ruling that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time, and that the “historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons” was still permissible.

In other words, even one of the modern era’s most conservative justices says gun enthusiasts are wrong when they claim that any limitation on firearms is unconstitutional. Government can place restrictions on firearms with the intent of protecting society.

Good for Justice Scalia! Note: that’s his opinion. Also note: the 1939 Miller ruling was a travesty; Miller and his attorney weren’t even present at the Court to make a counter-argument. And don’t forget: the Supreme Court also upheld racial segregation. Basically, bollocks.

The [individual] “right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” means that the “right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” What you do with those arms is subject to government regulation. You can’t use arms to intimidate fellow citizens or extort money or services. You can’t use arms to murder fellow citizens. You can’t use them to incite panic – just as you can’t use your free speech to shout “fire” in a crowded movie house (unless there’s a fire) without legal repercussions.

Keep and bear people, keep and bear. Next up: the money shot! After declaring his antipathy to open carry (“How can anyone tell whether these nincompoops parading around with their guns on display are merely acting like a 4-year-old proudly showing everyone his penis or constitute a deadly menace?”), Eichenwald reveals that he would ban American gun owners from owning “high-capacity magazines,” silencers and you know, deadly stuff.

Firearms enthusiasts claim these devices are needed because a panicky homeowner, facing armed criminals, would be more likely to miss his target and thus need the extra bullets. Which, of course, is the exact argument againsthaving lots of armed people sitting in a movie theater or at a school ready to fire at a mass shooter: In an emergency, those would-be Rambos are more likely to miss the target and put innocent lives in danger. Rather than wasting money on larger magazines, perhaps gun owners need more target practice . . .

The same logic applies to other gun accessories that infringe too greatly on the government’s ability to keep citizens safe. Silencers, for example. While they are subject to minimal federal regulation and already banned in 10 states, they are easily obtained and big sellers. There is no reason anyone outside of law enforcement or the military needs one except to kill people without attracting attention. Guns and accessories designed for no rational purpose other than to break the law—such as the weapons that can be made by a 3-D printer with material that won’t set off metal detectors—should be forbidden.

Not surprisingly, Eichenwald has declared himself the ultimate arbiter of what firearm “accessories” are cool and which ones are eminently infringeable, all in the name of POPS (Protecting Overall Public Safety). Yes, well, after a bit of  anti-NRA bile – “the NRA has been working for years to make sure lunatics and felons can obtain guns as easily as possible” – Eichenwald’s finally ready to present his master stroke: a Grand Compromise on Guns!

In this great compromise, that is all the gun controllers get: a ban on high-capacity magazines and other slaughter accessories, universal background checks and a ban on the public display of weapons. That brings us to what gun enthusiasts should receive in the bargain.

In exchange for banning high-cap mags, slaughter accessories (?) and open carry, Eichenwald’s offering “gun extremists” nationwide shall-issue licensing and protection from bans on “cop killer bullets” (hollow point ammunition), “assault rifles” and “flash suppressors” and such. Sold?

There it is: a series of reasonable proposals with something to hate for everyone. But extremists on both sides will never get what they want—all guns everywhere or no guns anywhere. It is up to the rational middle—the vast majority of Americans—to tell the fanatics that the grown-ups are taking over.

Eichenwald finishes on the same note as he started: condescending derision. As a negotiator he makes a fine Trojan horse, if you know what I mean. If you don’t, look at that cover again and tell me this is the man you want to entrust with your gun rights. [h/t DrVino]

Recommended For You

153 Responses to Incendiary Image of the Day: Newsweek Rejects the Second Amendment…And How Edition

  1. After arguing with his strawman, he offers a compromise that wouldn’t satisfy anyone between LA and NYC. Of course those people don’t count anyway.

    Im guessing the author has never been west of the Hudson.

    • My proposed compromise to Newsweek is this: go f*ck yourself. Compromise on gun rights has only ever gone one way- continual encroachment and restriction. I’ll give up my flash hider when you open the machine gun registry. Because that’s how compromise works. Deal?

      • I WON’T BUY NEWSEYWEAK , EVER . I won’t put on my waiting room tables and if I’m evr in another waiting room and find one I will take it with me and destroy it . I won’t even wipe my dukey on it’s pages and when I’m in a grocery or other establishment where it is sold , I will accidently turn all that I see over so only the back shows . Just doing my little part to destroy the 1st since they are doing their part to destroy the 2nd . Tit for Tat .

        • I haven’t bought a magazine in MANY years. WAY too many ads. Same with newspapers.
          I’m not paying for rags full of ads. Screw Newsweek.

      • Criticizes our side for wanting to be Rambo, but probably does think all it takes is a bullet to the shoulder and the bad guy flies backwards and dies instantly.

    • We’ll have true nationwide shall issue before we have federal universal background checks. Through that we should be able to get us nationwide reciprocity. We’ll have Constitutional Carry in more states than states with any kind of firearm registration before another AWB passes. And just for giggles, I think we’ll have a Supreme Court justice removed before we get a balanced budget amendment.

      That’s about where I see America sitting right now. He has nothing to offer us.

      • As much as I’d like to see national reciprocity, do we REALLY want the federal government to dab its hands in conceal carry laws?

        Think back to 1986 when the FOPA passed. It was a great thing for gun owners everywhere, but there was a poison pill put in there before it got passed; the law banning the civilian purchase of newly made machine guns.

        What kind of stuff would Obama’s ilk throw/sneak in the bill for national carry to get the bill passed? Their pet projects of “universal” background checks, and, most likely, magazine limits; AWB would probably get thrown out, but the other 2 would be their “go for” amendments.

        • It’s a calculated risk; like all of politics and most of life.

          The National Reciprocity bills look pretty good. Personally, I’d much prefer that the bills refer to the authority under the Full-Faith-and-Credit clause of the Constitution. However, I’ll take the commerce clause. That NJ prohibits me from traveling 2 miles from my home to engage in commerce within its jurisdiction is a justifiable reason for National Reciprocity under the Commerce Clause.

          To-permit-or-NOT-to-Permit is still within the hands of each State. National Reciprocity doesn’t intervene in this matter.

          In my mind the big picture is to garner overwhelming public acceptance of the RKBA. The Won’t-Issue States are a significant barrier to that objective. These States are populous; i.e., they elect a lot of Representatives to Congress. They elect 2 Senators each. As long as the populations in these States are walled-off from a normal exposure to guns in public places they will remain hoplophobic.

          What we really need is for places like Baltimore to become gun-normalized. Residents in the inner-city need to figure out that the police won’t be there for them. They must defend themselves. As long as guns remain out-of-reach for these citizens they won’t connect the dots. Once they too can KBA then they will gradually begin to do so. They will follow in the path set for them by Detroit and Milwaukee County as well as other free States.

          Also, people in the suburbs of Baltimore will begin to get the picture. Although any given individual may not avail himself of his 2A rights he will know a couple of neighbors who do. Thereupon, he won’t be so prejudiced against guns.

          We need to get guns – and especially public carry of guns – into these jurisdictions at just about any cost or effort. National Reciprocity is a small risk – relatively speaking – to penetrate these last 5 – 10 hold-out jurisdictions. Once visitors can carry in these States the citizens will demand that they too be allowed to carry. If their legislatures resist people will establish nominal residency in adjacent States (e.g., MD citizens will get an address and driver’s license in VA; NJ citizens in PA; CA citizens in NV, etc.)

          As the 20th century should have clearly demonstrated, we PotG can not sit back and expect the 2A to speak for itself. We have to promote gun ownership as widely as possible across the population. The politicians will only respect those rights that a majority of citizens exercise and hold dear. In fact, it may be that only a super-majority of voters can successfully defend a right.

          Clearly the inferior courts will do little or nothing for us. SCOTUS can’t be relied upon. Congress can’t be relied upon. The President is apt to be our most strident opponent no matter who he is. We can’t fight a long-term war protecting the 2A from the least populated States constantly infiltrated by Progressives fleeing their Blue hell-holes. We have to take the battle to the Blue States and build a constituency there. They won’t be able to free themselves; they are overwhelmed by Progressive hoplophobes.

  2. I couldn’t get past the first few paragraphs. Let me sum it up: typical Leftist bulshit. There. Again. Still. They imagine “rights” where there are none, and they deny rights that are clearly spelled out. Leftardation, it’s a disease.

    • Is this the same Newsweek that went 100% digital, because the subscriptions were in the toilet? And now they’re *still* in the toilet?

      • Isn’t their chief editor the guy who literally (that’s literally literally, not Joe Biden literally) said that “Obama is like God” ? Mindless liberalism at work…

      • If they did go 100 % digital then there goes my plan I mentioned above . Blasted them rascals , quelled me plans again . No recourse . It really is just sad that libtards will take tragedy and push their agenda every time .

  3. Criminals don’t open carry. Criminals don’t use suppressors. Magazine capacity has no impact on crime or lethality of crime. Background checks don’t keep criminals from obtaining firearms or lead to conviction of criminal attempts to obtain firearms.

    In short, none of those things would solve a single problem, while posing significant infringement upon the lawful activities of the law-abiding.

    • What they seem to not ever understand Chip is ‘ WE are the government ‘ and WE decide what WE want in our personal defense cupboard and what WE want to keep on OUR military bases for when WE need it . WE own every tank , plane and missile in OUR arsenal . WE are the USA . This is OUR country to have and to hold .

        • I’m sure you were using a form of satire here , but just in case you weren’t . Easy does it comrade , soulant green is people , we’re eating people . Perspective !

  4. This just goes to show you how far they are leaning to the left, which most news programs do. I am sure most news organizations have armed security around. Take old Mayor Bloomberg of New York, he’s all for gun control, but he wants his body guards armed. There are several areas of this Country, I would like to see him walk through by him self, unarmed, even in broad daylight. I imagine that he would have trouble in the Muslim no Infidel zones. How about it Ex. Mayor Bloomberg? How about taking me up on my challenge! You might then change your mind about Gun Control.

    • If they are serious about reducing magazine capacity they should start with themselves and quit printing so much BS.

      • Zing!

        Meanwhile, can anyone tell me what that Frankengun thing in the lower left corner is supposed to be? Is that an upside-down magazine dangling from the dust cover? (Maybe it’s that mythical shoulder thing that goes up.)

        • That’s the built in grappling hook so you can scale towers and whatnot so you can snipe innocent school kids at recess.

        • CZ75 super submachine gun. It is super, because it feeds simultaneosly from two magazines. There is one in the grip, and an upside down one further up.

          Newsweek, and their article are pretty pathetic.

    • That’s what I was thinking. Now I’m thinking if they still print Newsweek then maybe I can find a brand new 8 track tape player so I’ll be back in the tunes!

    • Newsweak stopped printing in 2012. Nobody was buying it. The whole thing sold for a dollar-plus assumption of liabilities-in 2010. It only exists as a website.

      • Well , I guess this is sort of a non story then . It does emphasize however , once again , the stupidity of the left media and keep us awake as to where they are coming from , as if we really needed any confirmation .

  5. Sure, let’s trade. No more high capacity magazines (anything over 1000 rounds) and slaughter accessories (meat cleavers) in exchange for nationwide shall issue and no more hollow point bans. Make that nationwide constitutional carry plus a guarantee not to reopen this for discussion until the tricentennial and we have a deal.

  6. We have already compromised in ’34 and ’86, as well as the expired AWB. There should be no more compromising, as there shouldn’t have been any to begin with. I don’t see how “shall not be infringed” can be read any other way.

    “Liberty or Death.”
    “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”
    I would quote Reagan but 1986 still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

    • You forgot the quotes that truly fit OUR current society, which the Constitution was made to defend free peoples from.

      “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
      ― Samuel Adams
      A fine example of this was the article about the post office or the islamic terrorist attack on American military personnel by being killed in gun free zones.

      “It does not take a majority to prevail … but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”
      This quote is the truth about guns and what the Second Amendment is made to protect in the hands of citizens, because subjects prefer one way compromise.

      • Thanks for the refresher , well said . I wish I had the resources to bill board it all over the country . Hey Trump , there’s a good use of your money , and it might even get you a few votes . No one will stand or the truth anymore , well done Penny .

  7. Miller was a fraud for other reasons, including the lie about “guns in common use”. Short barrel shotguns have always been used by governments, including the US military. Following the Miller argument, the M16 or M4 should be the protected weapon of choice for today’s gun owner. As for the first amendment pornography argument, he ignores the core issue which is behavior, not possession. The same applies to yelling fire in a crowded theater. Telling a lie or inciting panic are not protected forms of speech anymore than shooting someone without just cause is lawful. it is the action that should be judged, not the object.

  8. Where is that clip of the “I award you No Points” from Billy Madison. It seems a perfect response to this authors so-called article.

  9. This Eichenwald guy is ignorant of a lot undeniable truths, one of which being that his ivory tower is rapidly sinking into it’s foundation of manure.

  10. Article’s summary:
    * Ban accessories that serve no purpose other than to transform guns into weapons of mass slaughter, such as attachable drums that carry 100 rounds.
    * Adopt rules that make it harder for criminals and the mentally ill to obtain firearms.
    * Outlaw the public display of weapons.
    * Allow the concealed carry of guns using the “shall issue” standard.
    * Stop trying to ban scary-looking add-ons that primarily protect the shooter, but don’t make the gun more dangerous to others.
    * Forget attacks on the “armor-piercing bullets.”
    * Abandon efforts to outlaw “assault weapons”—a politically loaded phrase with a mishmash of meanings that pretty much amount to nothing.

    Interesting that he argues for universal shall issue carry. Basically, the gun control he describes is Czech Republic gun laws with additional restrictions on high capacity magazines.

    • Your summary doesn’t sound as bad as most stuff that comes from the grabber crowd. Questions of “it’s the principle of the thing” entirely aside, the devil is in the details. Take a barrel shroud, for instance (you know, that shoulder thing that goes up?). Is it something that “protects the shooter” or “helps turn the gun into a weapon of mass destruction”, since its purpose is to protect the shooter from a barrel grown hot from sustained rapid shooting? And how is a suppressor something that does not “protect the shooter”–as I understand it, hearing loss is a thing to be avoided.

  11. When your magazine is failing, you publish a cover that is the print version of click bait to stimulate newsstand sales.

    Their desperate attempts to remain relevant have reached pathetic levels.

  12. This is imminently frustrating. I’m one of the (fairly) unusual liberal gun enthusiasts. I can see both sides of the issue (but not necessarily both sides of the argument). On one hand, I get disgusted whenever I hear anyone rail against the dangers of ‘high capacity’ magazines and especially suppressors. The idea that the primary use case for suppressors is clandestine murder is easily one of the most laughable common mischaracterizations in the gun control debate, demonizing a safety device all because of Hollywood incorrectly portraying what they do. On the other hand, I disagree wholeheartedly with Farago. While Scalia’s views in Heller were certainly his opinion, they were not just AN opinion, given that they are legally binding and the supreme court is in fact endowed with the authority to limit constitutional rights. You may hate that, but it does seem to be what was originally intended. Regardless, the idea that “Keep and bear” should apply to anything whatsoever considered “arms” isn’t tenable. I’ve commented on this before here on a debate on whether Americans should be able to own Russian mobile anti-aircraft guns. Sure, there are laws on the book prohibiting wholesale slaughter of civilians by shooting down planes, but they certainly wont prevent that from ever happening. I see this issue as a mirror to the whole “gun free zone” concept, which is an abysmal failure. It only stops otherwise law abiding citizens from carrying guns, not criminals. Guns aren’t terribly difficult to acquire illegally. The complete prohibition of sale and ownership of weapons like AA guns helps prevent black market availability. The public cost of legal availability of stuff like that is simply too high. I’d like to point out that I don’t feel the same way about scary ‘assault weapons’ for the following reasons: they’re widely available, they’re not capable of being used in violence on nearly the same scale as something like an AA gun, they’re not currently used in a significant fraction of the gun violence in this country. To limit a constitutional right, there must be a legitimate public interest (this is, in a nutshell, how SCOTUS looks at infringement). I don’t know exactly where the line should be (or where the courts think it should be), but the data suggests it’s something more than semi-automatic rifles and less than mobile AA. “Shall not” in an absolute interpretation is not tenable, and the court that many here disagree with just happens to be the entity the founders imbued with the authority to make those kinds of decisions. I’d like to see more principled opposition to stupid individual ideas (“BAN SILENCERS, THEY’RE SECRET MURDER FACTORIES!”) because I see that as a great deal more likely to be effective than an appeal to an absolutist interpretation already discredited in the eyes of the court and the general populace.

    • ” The complete prohibition of sale and ownership of weapons like AA guns helps prevent black market availability. The public cost of legal availability of stuff like that is simply too high. ”

      Pure hypothetical argument that does not stand up to the test of the real world.

      AA guns were readily available to civilians, through mail order purchase, no less, before 1968. They were generally WWII surplus. No crimes were committed with them.

      In Switzerland, before 1998, citizens could buy anti-aircraft guns and ammo, and keep them at home. The legal requirement was that they pay a small license fee and keep the breechblock stored separate from the weapon. No criminal use has been recorded.

      Even in the U.S. at present, you can own anti-air guns and ammo, but the license fee is $200 for the gun, and $200 for each round.

      No criminal use.

      • Point well taken. I honestly admit that I’m not well acquainted with with the facts about legality or availability of old AA guns. I would imagine that the weapons system I’m referring to (Tunguska sp?) would be considered a machine gun and is not currently legal. If what you’re refer to is a) actually publicly available and b) capable of being moved and quickly decimating the airspace around a public airport then I concede my point with one caveat. It took a while for countries to institute meaningful security on commercial flights. It eventually became apparent that it was pretty easy to hijack a plane or otherwise deal significant damage, so authorities instituted security (theater?). We can argue about its efficacy, but would it be reasonable to assume you don’t believe that anyone should be allowed to take whatever they want onto a plane? I think we’re at least marginally safer. At the very least, there are way fewer hijackings than there used to be. Obviously that’s not the same thing, but I think there is at least a weak analogy with respect to “It hasn’t happened before therefore it isn’t a problem.”

    • People do own russian anti aircraft guns. And artillery. Tanks, grenades, grenade launchers, flamethrowers, napalm, machine guns, mobile artillery carriers mortars… I can go on. These are all legal in the united states, and subject to the NFA. How often are they used in crimes? I can think of one rampage with a tank, and that was stolen from an Army base. While, in your opinion, nobody needs these, it’s not called the Bill of Needs.

      While you are close, you have to remember that rights ARE absolute. While the Supreme Court may make interpretations as bears to law, the rights themselves cannot be taken away. The problem with liberalism, in my opinion, is that it thinks it can decide what everyone else is doing, regardless of what THEY want. Greater good and all. I cannot say with any certainty that I am better than any other man (everyone is better than you at something), so I cannot with a clear conscience make a decision for someone else. I can make suggestions, and educate, but in the end it is their choice and their decision. Even with AA guns.

      • Like I said to Dean, I’m simply mistaken if functional AA is actually registered and transferable under NFA. Prohibition of an arbitrary weapon isn’t taking away your right to keep and bear arms. Perhaps we’re talking past each other with the word “absolute”? Could you give me an example of an absolute right guaranteed to never be forfeited or curtailed under any circumstance? I don’t want to take away your right to something because I don’t think you need it. It’s your business what you do or own, who you sleep with, or what magical sky being you worship so long as it doesn’t negatively impact anyone else. Society has come up with a set of rules, some of which I personally don’t agree with, which most of us follow because we value our lives, quality of life, freedom, or any number of other things the state is empowered to deprive us of under certain circumstances. If my example above is factually incorrect, then I’ll take it to an absurd extreme with private ownership of nuclear weapons. Is prohibition of that also a violation of the second amendment? Allowing that would present a ludicrous risk. A private individual could fail to secure them properly without criminal intent or could willfully use one in a criminal manner. Do we not even agree that curtailing this right is in almost everybody’s best interest and should be acceptable under our law?

    • “the supreme court is in fact endowed with the authority to limit constitutional rights”

      Not so much. They kinda just took that authority when no one was paying attention.

    • Once again , may I refresh . You and your fellow citizens , from the state you and they have primary residence , and the citizens of these United States , OWN every tank , plane rocket launcher , and missile in inventory of the USA . We are unique and bless to have this ownership . The government is US . We decide what we can and cannot take duck hunting and what we can keep beside our beds to use however we see fit . WE are …………

  13. “Rather than wasting money on larger magazines, perhaps gun owners need more target practice…”

    is anyone here paying much more for their pmags than theyre paying to fill em up?

  14. Meh. Newsweek ran a cover 10-15 years or so ago advocating outlawing all handguns, and the issue included an article declaring it to be their editorial policy. Longtime gun-banners. In fact, front cover and snarky insults lacking any basis in fact notwithstanding, the actual text of the new article, Trojan horse though it is, is actually softer in the policy advocated than the old article. Nothing to see here. Obscenely liberal and statist publication still be lib’rul.

    • Before that (early 80s, maybe), “News”week had a cover “Machine Gun USA” with a photo of semi-autos in a gun shop. I wrote a letter corrected the errors. The letter wasn’t published, but I got a letter from them. It outlined, in effect, that some issues are far too important to be unbiased about.

      I wish I still had the magazine & the letter. We had a house fire in 2010 and all my gun-related clippings were lost. 8~(

  15. Damn it every time these turds open their mouth about gun control I have the urge to go buy another slaughter accessory.

    • To my wife’s chagrin , I have the same impulse , perhaps we all should . It may send a message they would take notice of , if every gun owner would spend $100.00 at the ammo store every time these nuts opened their mouth .What if we would set up a non for profit we could drop a Benjamin on that would erect a billboard with the quote In4apennyin4apound had above . We need to be PROACTIVE , not just REACTIVE . God bless patriots .

  16. Is that pistol in the lower left of that cover really just a pistol with an upside down magazine attached to the front?

    • Indeed it is… I saw that and thought “hmmm. that’s easily do able.” Filed away for future reference/use when/if everything goes to hades in a hand-carried wicker container.

    • I think it is supposed to be a CZ-75B. The magazine acts as a foregrip. Some machine pistols have that feature.

    • I didn’t know about that CZ. I guess you learn something new everyday.

      Aww geez, did I just admit that Newsweek (indirectly) taught me something about guns.

    • It’s a popular weapon (or at least was) in the current version of counter strike. Probably why it was included on the cover.

  17. Newsweek is an irrelevant has-been piece of crap on perpetual life support. They resort to this editorial bombast to keep the morphine drip going one more day.

  18. While I understand your animus towards the Miller case, I might suggest that interpreting it in view of Heller and McDonald may utimately see it flipped into a pro-2nd Amdt decision. Arguably, it can be read these days to say the the types of arms most protected by the 2nd Amdt are those closest to those used by our military, which turn out to be AR-15 type rifles and magazine fed semiautomatic handguns.

  19. The comments in that trash of a website are horrendous. Bunch of morons who are too eager to jump on any grammatical or spelling error followed by the usual ‘compromise’, ‘NRA’, ‘common sense’, ‘middle ground’, and other catch words. I guess this is what the bottom of our gene pool looks like.

  20. “First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech, but they cannot lawfully print child pornography.” This is not a rational argument. Child porn hurts a child. I don’t hurt anyone by owning an AR 15.

    Silencers have minimal Federal Regulation? I am terrified to think what this statist sees as adequate federal regulation. Hell even Europeans can own silencers.

    Also a soda can launcher on the front is priceless.

    • All hurt aside the argument still fails. Jock Sturges, David Hamilton and others.
      Then we begin to wander into the definitions of pornography and obscenity.
      Somewhere someone is jacking himself raw to a cartoon bare-ass Gerber baby image. Is it pornography? Obscene?

      At least the author opted to use “incite violence” rather than the wrong “fire in a crowded theater” nonsense.

    • +1 for the can cannon! Need to buy a few cases of Sam’s Choice to use up a snail mags worth of blanks, though.

  21. Seems like Newsweek has been (literally) a commie rag my whole life.

    Like Paul Simon said in 1971 about what belongs on their cover:
    And when the radical priest
    Come to get me released
    We was all on the cover of Newsweek

  22. Relax people, little Kurt is just channeling Richard Milhouse aka Tricky Dick. The silent majority supports his moronic fantasies, even if they won’t buy his magazine.

    • This is what happens when Nixon (or any other President) tries to be ‘hip’…

      Damn, I miss ‘Laugh In’… *sob*

  23. If you say arm the military yet say property rights let’s them bar the public carrying arms…..you are the problem.

    This attack while being against unarmed military still would have been disarmed because the strip mall bans guns.

    Right to life and self defense trumps perceived property rights.

  24. “Slaughter accessories” – that’s classic. D Feinstein got a little love-shiver over that one, I bet.

    “Childish” “Gun Extremists” “Fanatics” – Nice. Very mature way to describe people who don’t follow your own personal extremist hoplophobic ideology.

    …oh and my favorite:
    “gun accessories that infringe too greatly on the government’s ability to keep citizens safe”

    – Well that about says it all, doesn’t it. Do I even need to comment on that??? Go wander back into your sheep pen, Eichenwald. The guvmint has some more feed ready for you.

  25. “Well regulated militia.”

    Conservative non-thought. It’s a disease. And ammosexuality is a symptom.

    • Well regulated didn’t mean gov regulation, it meant in working order. For example my watch is well regulated. This is easy to derive by researching the meaning as taken from Oxford dictionaries from 1709, 1714, and 1812.

      • TravisP is right on that, ‘god’…

        On a grandfather (or ‘tall’) clock, the pendulum is at the bottom of a long threaded rod.

        Clock speed is adjusted by slightly by moving the pendulum up or down by turning the nut at the bottom clockwise to slow or counter-clockwise to speed up the pendulum.

        If you look at any book about clocks at the time the Constitution was written you will see the name of that nut at the bottom of the pendulum’s threaded rod is the ‘Regulator’.

        “A well-regulated milita” means a well-trained group of individual soldiers. Meaning the know how to shoot their guns accurately.

        Suck on that, wanna-be deity.

    • In addition to educating himself on the 18th century definition of “well regulated,” the almighty one would do well to review a few grammatical concepts, like “subordinate clause” and the premise that such a clause doesn’t change the meaning of the sentence it’s attached to.

    • FLAME DELETED

      Do you not know the meaning of an independent clause? The second part is not dependent on the first. It’s a framing statement.

      Also the militia is the whole of the people, and ‘well regulated’ means properly equipped, thus the right, because a disarmed militia is just a peasant mob.

    • You should deal with your own deficiencies in reading comprehension, grammar, and sentence structure – particularly with respect to dependent and independent clauses.

      • Please Chip , lets not disenfranchise the illiterate , If they can vote and drive , they can comment on TTAG . Their comments are welcome and sometimes appreciated . I stand down .

  26. Isn’t this the same guy that still thinks Glocks can be slipped past metal detectors in airports because they’re made entirely of plastic (including the ammunition)?

  27. This is basically a very loud tantrum. The anti gun crowd just cannot come to terms with their demands not being met, and to add insult to injury, conceal carry is legal across the nation, gun ownership is at all time highs and the gun crowd is increasingly diverse. “Childish” is making the cover of a national magazine scream an opinion in 200 pt sans bold type in black and red. It’s hilarious seeing people have melt downs…and this is classic melt down.

    • I remember when the homosexuals used to have meltdowns like this and now they are dancing almost naked in the street . Blink twice and the game changes . Sorry to bring this up but it just seems so appropriate and comparative to me .

      • Correction: looks like the full auto CZ 75 does indeed use an upside down mag as a fore grip. Didn’t know that.

  28. just why I don’t read that rag of a newspaper, progressive liberal smut magazine! the only thing it’s good for is starting fires. Lol what a completely unAmerican thing to say on a paper that’s printed in the freedom of the First Amendment. completely F in ridiculous.

  29. But of course police get an exception to any of these bans on ‘slaughter accessories’, because why?

  30. When ever I read of a white person saying you don’t have a right to guns, I do not care if they are wearing a KKK outfit or not. I don’t care if they are flying a rainbow flag or not. I don’t care if the sport a hammer and sickle on the hat they wear or not. They are all the same.

    All of them would deny gun civil rights to black people. And this is the point. White Progressives say if we could just take all the guns away black people would be safe.

    Of course in order to achieve this goal you have to take guns away all the guns from white people as well.

    Progressives homosexuals disarmed San Francisco and they are working to disarm California. All progressives voted to exchange homosexual marriage and Marijuana intoxication for the civil right of the second amendment in Washington state. The progressives in Baltimore also voted for people who disarmed the city.

    Baltimore already has killers. As a sanctuary city San Francisco and other cities like it will be importing their killer’s.

    • Chris T. , I will assume you are a black American by your comment . You are so incredibly correct in your observations and probably studies . Extremely refreshing and I hope , duplicating among your peers and those who look up to you .
      Indeed , it is time for black Americans to be unduped and stand up for their rights as citizens of a great nation . America has certainly had it’s share of shame , a fact you will understand all to well , but we are also the most compassionate , giving , generous and correctable of any nation and your comment was so welcome and reconciling and I commend you .
      I am a West Virginian so we are practically neighbors and brothers under the red white and blue of the USA . God bless my brother .

    • “All of them would deny gun civil rights to black people.”

      *APPLAUSE*

      Preach it far and wide, Chris T from KY…

  31. How can anyone tell whether these nincompoops parading around with their guns on display are merely acting like a 4-year-old proudly showing everyone his penis

    Why are anti-gun autosexuals like Eichenwald and our own Goddam so fascinated by our penises?

    Wait, don’t answer. I know the reason. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

    • Any time I see that kind of crap, I can only imagine that the speaker or author must really be inadequate to pathologically persist in making totally unfounded assertions about other folks’ equipment in order to make him or her feel better about himself or herself.

  32. I really can’t read all that BS.
    After a few lines my mind starts to drift and I find myself dreaming of owning a .50 sniper rifle!
    With mega-scope.
    With bipod.
    With lots of little funny and exciting extras.
    ;-DDDDDD

  33. Eichenwald is a German name, yes? One wonders if any other ancestral Eichenwalds ever screamed “Heil Hitler”. Seems like the apple didn’t fall to far from the tree.

  34. Is there anything as sadly hilarious as propaganda/art generated by people ignorant of the subject they object to. My favorite in this piece is the can launcher with the drum mag.

    On a side note – do any of these liberty-averse hoplophobes realize that it will take arms to seize arms?

  35. The guy who makes ad hominem attacks, calls open carriers “4 year olds showing off their penises” (and i don’t even like open carry, but that’s too far), and makes a whole host of assertions unsupported by data claims to be the grownup in the room?

    ah Newsweek. That explains it.

  36. I love the use of insults, slander, libel, exaggeration, misrepresentation, hate speech, and hyperbole he uses to defend his position. ‘Cause that’s what good arguments are made of. I really wish the research papers and patent documents I have to regularly read would skip the logic and science and use his method. It would be terribly entertaining in a Housewives of NJ sort of way. Well maybe for 10 minutes or so.

    Clearly this is little more than an anti gun pep rally; Journalism it is not.

  37. I couldn’t get past the implication that police should be able to kill people without being heard.

  38. I haven’t seen anyone write articles about those dangerous overpowered, huge vehicles. Do we need cars that have 400 horsepower, able to reach over 150 miles per hour on highways with speed limits of 65 miles per hour and designed for 75 miles per hour??
    33,000 people are killed each year buy these behemoths and not a peep. Not to mention all that volatile gasoline kept in huge tanks. Why does anyone need more than 5 gallons at a time? If they need more, let them stop to refill. How many vehicles have exploded or burned because of that gasoline?

    • As an undergrad I was in a debating/speaking course. One cycle myself and another student decided to do “assault cars v. commonsense cars.”
      We used all the same nonsense the gun control crowd uses. Graphic images of accidents, long defunct statistics, lots of images of children in danger, “common sense” laws and regs that could make people “feel” safer.

      This school is notoriously lefty and the class was loaded. They went ape-shit whining and screaming out all the reasons they needed their assault cars. Larger capacity for families, hobbies, shopping. More power to stay with the flow on highways and up long hills. GPS’s and other trinkets to keep them on course and in contact for their safety.

      Not one person made the connection between their rabid demand of high powered assault vehicles to the pro-gun side.
      Because it was their toys. How dare anyone suggest their toys be taken, regulated or restricted. “They’re already regulated!” they cried. “There are enough laws on the books!” the audience observed.

      The group protects what is there’s and hates what is not. A room full of anti’s (whatever they are anti) will always ignore the obvious hypocrisy of vehemently defending their right to do/have what they want while shouting about what a monster somebody who wants to do/have what they don’t is.

      It’s a disgusting trait of humans to mob up for just about any reason. They mob to attack and they mob to defend. All reason is cast out.

  39. “gun accessories that infringe too greatly on the government’s ability to keep citizens safe”

    – That’s a dead giveaway that Mr Eichenwald is indeed a Socialist of the highest order (or a modern liberal/progressive, whatever they call themselves now). They expect the government should protect them, the government should feed them, the government should make everything nice and safe and warm for them. All’s they have to do is stay in their little sheep pen and eat what they are told, and read what they are told and believe what they are told and do what they are told. Because after all, they are entitled. Even if that sounds wonderful and nice to you, the reality is – it doesn’t work. It either bankrupt’s the country or leads to a Nazi Germany style repressive autocracy – and we know where that went. Does Mr Eichenwald really think he is soo much smarter than our Founding Fathers? What a smarmy little elitist. That amounted to nothing more than the tirade of a small child, complete with the typical penis references and condescending insults. Yeah, great way to ‘reach out across the aisle’ there, Kurt. My 9 year old nephew could have written something more mature than that piece.

  40. This is the same toilet paper that proudly proclaimed several years ago “We Are All Socialists”.

  41. Either nobody is trying to take our guns, or a “compromise” that reads like model legislation for the gun control lobby is a “middle ground”. It can’t be both. It can be neither, but it can’t be both.

  42. The real bit of news here is that Newsweek is still around. Holy cow, the last time I read Newsweek Seinfeld was still premiering new episodes. What’s next? Finding out Cody from Step by Step has been starring in Mexican soap operas the past couple decades?

  43. George Mason (co author of the second amendment):

    “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
    — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

    It’s obvious it was intended as well as written to be an individual right. They attempt to skew its meaning to the uneducated masses in order to bring them to their side – but they are just lies – Newsweek lies.

    As every first-year law school student knows, constitutional rights are not absolute. Newspapers stay in business thanks to the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech, but they cannot lawfully print child pornography. And citizens have no right to incite imminent violence. Similar restrictions apply to other constitutional rights—most have parameters designed to protect society.

    False comparison. Publishing children porn harms children. My ownership of a firearm without a background check and without registration hurts no one at all. It is already against the law to hurt people (with guns or otherwise). Likewise it is against the law to publish lies about people – hurting their reputation and their business if they have one (with exception to the NRA).

    The bill of rights protect people from prosecution by the government. No one has the right to hurt people – that is not in the bill of rights.

    Newsweek likely knows this already, but their intention appears not to tell the truth, but to draw low information voters to their side.

  44. I saw this yesterday on yahoo-couldn’t get past a pay-wall to comment. One wonders if they even pay idiots to write anything(I bet TTAG has way more readers)-good riddence…

  45. If SCOTUS wants to start revisiting cases so they can make laws instead of constitutional interpretation. Start with Dred Scott, see how that goes over then let’s revisit the whole issue of taxation, Brown v Board of Education, Obamacare, school busing, Bell System monopoly. See how slippery that slope gets???

  46. He says suppressors are “minimally regulated”? In what universe? We have to wait 3-4 months and pay $200 extra to own them…

  47. What’s with the 92F and the multiple magazines sticking out of it? What kind of elephant barrel is that on the AR? Whose 5th grader drew the examples on the magazine cover? Talk about sensationalist journalism. And this quote, “There is no reason anyone outside of law enforcement or the military needs one except to kill people without attracting attention.” Sooooo, by his logic it’s ok for the government to have silencers to kill people quietly? WTF, I don’t think he thought that through, or maybe he did. Either way it’s a scary slip of the lip kind of mistake you see when rabid gun grabbers advocate for the killing of gun owners, or printing the home addresses of CCW permit holders. It’s what they want, absolute control and the state sanctioned elimination of those who do not conform to their world view.

    • well, for one, that’s not a 92F. It’s not even a Beretta. It’s a CZ 75 auto, a select fire variant, one of the features being a lock in front of the trigger guard allowing you to hook an extra magazine in for both storage and use as a fore grip.

      So uh, they know their guns better than you on this one.

  48. the irony of this article is that (once you get past the terribly obvious bait headline), the author makes some perfectly reasonable arguments and statements of truth.

    “First, anyone who wants to obtain a license to carry a concealed weapon should be given one. All states allow for concealed carry, but many states—like California, New Jersey and Maryland—have what are called “may issue” statutes, meaning people who qualify for a license might not be allowed to receive one. In some states, it’s up to county officials to decide who gets to carry a gun inside his or her coat. Here’s reality: A criminal or disturbed person will carry a concealed weapon, licensed or not. Under the universal background check system, anyone walking into a state office seeking a concealed carry permit has already been screened; there’s no reason to deny that person a license if he or she meets the additional requirements.

    Then there are the gun accessories that have spooky names, but are mostly designed to protect the shooter. For example, flash suppressors have been outlawed on the belief they will be used to minimize the chance of spotting a shooter. That is a consequence of the device, not its purpose. In truth, the main reason flash suppressors exist is to disburse burning gases that exit the muzzle of a long-arm gun; this minimizes the chance that the shooter will be blinded in low-light environments. Danger to the public from this accessory: none.

    Other accessories also pose minimal danger, and they protect or help gun owners. For example, the barrel shroud and the folding stock were banned in 1994, then legalized in 2003. Gun control advocates have been pushing for them to be declared illegal once again. The reasons are silly. The shroud cools the barrel of the gun, making sure it does not overheat during rapid firing. It is scary looking but doesn’t pose any realistic threat. A folding or collapsing stock is used on a long gun and makes it easier to store or transport the weapon. These were outlawed out of a fear that killers would be able to hide their rifles; again, not a reasonable consideration in a world filled with semi-automatic pistols.

    It’s also time to end this nonsense about “cop killer bullets.” Although this topic has been debated since the late 1980s, there is still no accepted definition for this ammo. Earlier this year, though, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives proposed banning armor-piercing 5.56-millimeter M855 “green tip” rifle rounds as cop killers. Some gun owners use this bullet in big, heavy AR-15 pistols, so ATF decided that the M855 green tip posed a threat to police officers who wear body armor. Problem is, not only is this exceptionally popular rifle ammunition, but ATF can point to no instance in which an officer was shot through body armor by an M855. Faced with outrage by gun owners, ATF dropped the proposal. It should stay dropped.

    And so should efforts to ban assault weapons. One fact few gun opponents seem to know: Assault weapons don’t exist. There are assault rifles, but the broader category of weapons that were banned in 1994 and legalized in 2003 are a political construct. Again, many of them look scary because of the cosmetic features added by gun manufacturers.”

    He dispels a lot of myths here. unfortunately, this real information is sandwiched between poorly justified arguments against magazine capacity by citing ONE incident, while ignoring how little it had to do with the deadlier incident he cites immediately afterward (the VT shooting where the shooter’s pistol only used 15 and 10 rd magazines).

    The headline is retarded and obvious agenda. but i’ll give the author one thing. of all the people asking for a “compromise”, he actually offers an actual compromise (a compromise that no one here, including myself wants, but nonetheless, not a “compromise” where we lose everything and that’s it) where some people actually GAIN rights, he respects the right to CCW, and understands guns and gun terminology enough to know how stupid the rest of the media usually is.

    So instead of branding him evil, i think he’s more misguided, and potentially one of us if he keeps doing his research. im honestly surprised, i didnt expect this much from newsweek. blame the headline on the editors.

    • That’s a hell of an interesting comment. The guy must be something of a schizophrenic, making that much sense in between rants about penis-deprived open-carriers and idiot Hollywood-driven comments about suppressors.

  49. “…constitutional rights are not absolute….”, sayeth those that don’t want you to realize that they are slowly, step by step, stripping you of your rights.

  50. According to Google, this loser writes for Vanity Fair? So is he qualified to write about Constitution issues or the the Kardashians? My bet, based on this load of manure, is the later.

    So essentially he wants to argue that even though the Constitution says “shall not be infringed” it can be infringed according to SCOTUS. And SCOTUS is part of what? oh, that’s right, SCOTUS is part of the Government that the restriction to not infringe applies. So essentially, the Constitution says the Government Shall not infringe on our 2A rights but the Government says it can infringe on our rights. OK. Got it.

  51. “Firearms enthusiasts claim these devices are needed because a panicky homeowner, facing armed criminals, would be more likely to miss his target and thus need the extra bullets.”

    That’s my favorite line from this steaming pile of piffle passing as journalism, so much so that I’m awarding it the title Lie of the Day.

    Nobody’s ever said that. Ever. Now, I’ve heard people argue that a given defender may be attacked by multiple armed intruders and would need heavier fire power and higher capacity magazines to defend himself. Makes sense to me, considering that as recently as yesterday in Houston a man was forced at 4:00 a.m. to defend himself with his AK47 against four home invaders.

    The homeowner won.

  52. The guy is an idiot. As soon as I saw his comments about, “silencers” the matter was confirmed, not that it took this long.
    These are gun-haters who sit and ruminate and formulate articles which are nothing but a circus of anti-2A rhetoric.
    The magazine needs to be renamed a ragazine.

  53. The subscription is terminated …..I just gave my interpretation of the Freedom of Speech amendment.

  54. It’s funny when statists pretend they know what they’re talking about. So cute, like an infant screaming its head off.

    Also it’s foolish to make compromises with inherently soulless, moral-less, honorless fools. I’ll never compromise with a leftist because they can’t be trusted, ever, to do anything except betray anyone who trusts them.

    And lastly, I have no reason to compromise. It’s a natural right protected by the Constitution. FLAME DELETED.

  55. Under the 1A there ARE limitations on liable, slander, blasphemy, indecency, incitement and yelling fire in a crowded theater. These are analogous to murder, assault, discharging firearms within the boundaries of a municipality. The bar is on the activity that CAUSES the HARM and it is directed at the harm itself.

    That conceded, the RKBA is deserving of the same liberty from prior restraint as is accorded to the rights guaranteed by the 1A. If we can hold the judiciary, legislatures and public to that standard then that is all that is required.

    I think it can be conceded that there may be special places – court rooms, for example – where it may be reasonable for government to exercise prior restraint on carrying. However, in such cases, I think we must make it incumbent on the proprietor (government in the case of court rooms) to undertake a correspondingly high duty to screen for weapons and to provide armed security. The effect of such a trade-off is to ensure a high degree of security (provided at the proprietor’s expense) and to minimize the extent to which the People are disarmed by gun-free zones.

    This is the TACTICAL approach. It will do us no good to harken-back to the good-ol-days when John Wilkes Booth was admitted to the White House lawn OCing to listen to the President’s speech on the ending of the Civil War. Today’s voter just will not accept that there is NO PLACE within the US where government may restrict carry. We are better off conceding that there probably are A FEW such places; but they must be VERY SPECIAL and that it is incumbent upon government to supply enhanced security.

    Thereupon, it should be come more practical – for schools, for example – to arm their employees if they want to prohibit outside guns. The price of refusing to arm their employees is to accept the guns born by non-employee visitors. Generally speaking, very few private businesses will provide enhanced security; so most will permit carry. Governments could afford enhance security in jails, police stations, court houses and some administrative buildings; but, not much beyond.

    I think Scalia bought Kenney’s vote in Heller at the price of mere dicta on “guns in common use”. This notion is utter nonsense. In any case, “in common use” is unlikely to introduce a serious impingement on our rights. The obvious example is full-automatic. The militia can hone its skills without resorting to full-auto weapons. In the event where the militia must arm-up to meet an enemy, foreign or domestic, the limited supply of full-auto arms can quickly be supplemented by resort to CNC machine tools and draughts on public armories. Nothing really to worry about here. Moreover, Scalia wrote this as mere “dicta” which means nothing more nor less than any reader wishes to make of it.

    It is precisely because dicta means nothing more than the reader wishes to credit it that lower courts have ignored the handwriting-on-the-wall of the Heller dicta. Because the lower courts are free to ignore everything Scalia wrote before the few sentences of the Decision itself, we are free to reopen the question of “in common use” whenever the opportunity warrants. That day may come; but today is not the day.

    Our most important objective – today – must be to free the last 5 – 10 slave-States that are not even Shall-Issue uniformly throughout all their precincts or discriminate against non-residents. We most need to inoculate the populations of these States against hoplophobia.

    The next most important issue is to accustom everyone who is neither a gun-owner nor a foaming-at-the-mouth hoplophobe that guns mix very nicely in polite society. To this end, CC doesn’t buy us much. We have to come-out-of-the-closet somehow. Either we:

    – get sporting goods stores to display mannequins in boxers with IWB holsters; or,
    – gently yet flamboyantly introduce OC to the public square.

    I don’t see a 3’rd alternative. Concealed means In-the-Closet.

  56. This guy acts like a natural, Constitutional right should actually be up for compromise…

    Oh wait, he’s a progressive fascist. He doesn’t believe in freedom or human rights. All of our lives belong to the benevolent government.

  57. The standard “compromise” talk translates to this: if you let me beat you up and take your lunch money on Monday, Wednesday, and alternate Fridays, I promise, cross my heart and hope to die promise I won’t do it the rest of the days.

  58. Just checkin’
    Anybody ask NEWSWEEK to interpret anything? No? Seriously, fess up. No? Ok good.

    The right to keep and bear arms as each individual interprets it will outlive even the idea of America, and be the lone restorative force in re-establishing freedom of the press of the first amendment. Turds like Newsweek, newsday, new york times, abc, cbs, msnbc, cnn, huffington post…etc. need not apply, you’ve abdicated the purpose for your authority, and abused your right. I demand you put your pencils in you asses and leavevtown quietly.

  59. “Also note: the 1939 Miller ruling was a travesty; Miller and his attorney weren’t even present at the Court to make a counter-argument.”

    If you’re going to cite Miller, you first have to understand Miller. Most people don’t. You owe it to yourself to become one of the exceptions.

    This case wasn’t about Miller’s guilt or innocence. The Court NEVER ruled that a sawed-off shotgun was not suitable for militia use.

    Miller was brought before a judge twice for a violation of NFA ’34. The judge threw the case out of court both times, because in his opinion, NFA ’34 was a prima facie violation to the Second Amendment. Miller was never convicted of anything, and took the opportunity to flee to Cuba while he was still a free man.

    The government appealed the judge’s action to SCOTUS. SCOTUS ruled that the judge erred in throwing the case out without hearing it, arguing that he should have heard and considered evidence and arguments on the subject of whether or not a sawed-off shotgun was suitable for militia use. (When the court wrote that it “can not take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia; and therefore can not say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon,” what they were saying is that they were not allowed to assume this point during the appeal because it had never been established by the lower court being appealed from. )

    The sum total of the Miller ruling is that SCOTUS ordered the lower court to hold an actual trial so that such evidence could be heard. Except that Miller died before the ruling was issued, so the order became moot, and the trial was never held.

    Note the results carefully:

    1) NO decision was ever reached about whether or not a sawed-off shotgun was protected under the Second Amendment.

    2) It is immaterial that Miller was not represented, because the case before the court was not about Miller’s guilt or innocence.

    3) Had the trial been held, almost certainly the defense would have entered into evidence the use of the sawed-off shotgun as a “trench broom” in WWI, similar to the way it was later used to clear VC tunnels in Vietnam. The lower court (especially if presided over by the same guy who threw the case out twice) might very well have established that the weapon WAS protected.

    We owe it to ourselves as gun owners not to let the ignorati use the Miller case against us. It’s by and large meaningless, and did NOT give the court’s sanction to NFA ’34.

    • Very interesting commentary.

      However, I have never heard mention of Miller going to Cuba. “Miller . . . , and took the opportunity to flee to Cuba while he was still a free man.” Do you have a citation to support this?

  60. Ok Progressives, I’m sure you can get behind this one. YES. I DO think of my gun as my penis. Since you guys are all in favor public display of sexual deviency, er, I mean diversity, you must champion my right to display my “penis” 24/7. Do I win an ESPY now….for courage? Stop repressing our sexual rights! Show your “penis” everywhere. $ometimes I like to attach things to it. Does that make me a freak?! Well, just consider me one of the freak show that you created in a place that used to America. Sing it with me… “Power to the Penis”

  61. Oh yes, spend more money on practice instead of Standard Capacity magazines. Perhaps we also need to get that superior training that the police and military receive? You know the kind of training that results in Zero misses, in all conditions, under stress or not. And we all know that there are never groups of assailants, so all we really need is one perfectly placed shot, because it never takes more than one shot to remove a threat.

    • After a minimal amount of research, I found a wikipedia page that describes an unfortunate accident the author had in his college years which resulted in a horrible head injury. That explains his article.

  62. I have not purchased the magazine — I mean NEWSWEEK — nor have I read all 150 comments. However — it is VERY important to make the right arguments about ammo magazines — and guns generally. Firstly — the RIGHT involved is self defense — a firearm is the only possible implementation (this point is not even counting any sort of Constitution being present).

    Secondly: any argument that revolves around the word *NEED* is a loser. We cannot prove that we “need” any particular magazine size. We CAN however, show that Americans have had magazine fed semi-automatic handguns and long-guns since WWI. We could probably show that 90% of magazines are for between 10-20 rounds. (With 10 being the typical contraband number) We could certainly show that 90% ++ of all magazines are UNLABELED in any way at all — have no serial numbers and anyone could easily possess a contraband mag with no foreknowledge.

    SO — the issue is MASS CRIMINALIZATION. Turning 10’s of millions of Americans into felons — just because they never took a good inventory of every harmless scrap of metal and plastic in their home.

    I think the above arguments could be found compelling even by the not-so-gun friendly. The “when were YOU last in a gunfight” argument will convince no one.

    BTW: A cop with a strong thumb could EASILY get an extra round into most of my mags.

  63. You know what? This article is the dumbest thing I’ve read all week, without a doubt. What is the obsession with banning inanimate accessories and better yet banning accessories that help accuracy and stability? If anti-gunners wanted this so called “compromise” we’d all be walking around AR15’s looking like the ones I have to see here in NY. I don’t want “high capacity mags”, I want STANDARD F-ING CAPACITY MAGS, as in 30rds for an AR15 and most 556 rifles and 20rds for most 762 rifles, but you know what, since these people are so obsessed with banning high capacity mags I want the biggest most high capacitiest clipazine possible just to piss off these miserable anti-constitutional trolls. OH and the term assault weapon makes me want to claw my damn eyes out, I almost would prefer if they would go back to calling modern sporting rifles assault rifles or better yet just call them modern sporting rifles or rifles….How is it that people cite Miller and completely miss the pretty well known idea of weapons in common usage, not to mention Miller or his lawyer weren’t even there, I’m pretty sure Miller was dead in a ditch at the time of the ruling.

    I can’t even believe the suppressor argument, I haven’t heard that one in a bit, even anti-gun folks lighten up when I ask them “Do YOU want to blast your ears out from gunshots all days or quiet those things down?!” In fact a few have said “If more weapons had silencers I would probably be interested in shooting” and we do know that suppressors help newbies out a lot. Also how does this guy know what a “gun or accessory that is designed for no other rational purpose than to break the law” is when he knows as much about guns as my dog knows about quantum physics? More gun laws is just nuts, I think when it comes to selective enforcement gun laws has a huge issue, whens the last time the US Attorney for your district prosecuted someone for lying on a 4473? Actually they might not even know what a 4473 is outside a vague conversation with an ATF agent. Also how did we go so long without the 2nd amendment not being ruled as an individual right when it was plain as day that it was along with the entire bill of rights? Seriously WTF! When you look at who brought the Heller case it was not so called “gun freaks” it was people who wanted to be able to defend themselves, the attorney that funded the case took no donations, he wanted it to be his case so no one could say “the evil NRA” did this or that.

    I want to print this article out onto toilet paper and wipe my rear end with it for the rest of the month and then send it all to the author of this giant freak straw man article. I need to go have a drink now, my head hurts…I don’t even know why I bothered giving a response.

Leave a Reply

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