Question of the Day: What Do You Say to People Who Claim to Support the Second Amendment But Don’t?

Josh Shapiro, PA AG (courtesy youtube.com)

In the video below, anti-national concealed carry reciprocity Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro declares “I take my responsibility to protect people’s Second Amendment rights very very seriously.” And immediately adds “I also take very seriously public safety. This federal bill undermines both.” Wait. What? I mean . . .

I understand the [entirely meritless] argument that national concealed reciprocity degrades public safety — out-of-staters with hidden, loaded guns roaming Times Square! But how does allowing people to keep and bear arms in all 50 United States degrade the Second Amendment?

Answer: it doesn’t. It does the exact opposite. It partially restores the “shall not be infringed” law of the land.

What do you say to people like Shapiro who claim to support the Second Amendment but don’t? Do you shake your head and leave them be or argue the point? And are these false supporters worse than those who admit they want civilian disarmament?

[Note to fellow Jews who support gun control: “never again” means tool-up.]

comments

  1. avatar Kroglikepie says:

    I call them out on their bs upfront. Especially if it is a public meeting or similar setting. Nothing warms the cockles of my heart like stripping a hypocrit down in front of people.

    1. avatar Shotgun Sam says:

      I always figure that if someone has to tell you they support something that their actions put into question, discussion is futile. Attempts to correct the record just fuel those who are just itching to toss any and all words into their personal meat grinder spilling their flavored blend of sausage all over making the floor slippery for everyone.

  2. avatar Cliff H says:

    Hey RF, need to edit the post. Guy’s name is JOSH Shapiro, not Ben Shapiro.

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      Done. Thanks!

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        Can’t read Shapiro and not think of Ben? Does somebody have a man crush on Ben Shapiro? /jk.

        1. avatar Landon says:

          Don’t forget about “The Hammer”!

          https://youtu.be/Q5hn8bhEpMY

        2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          When you said that, this was honestly the first thing I thought of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15M9b6PAdro

          Funny that they both have the first name Jim.

  3. avatar RandallOfLegend says:

    Depends. Some people here would argue anyone who supports ANY firearms control legislation is against the 2A. But not everyone. So there’s levels.

    1. avatar little horn says:

      ^this

    2. avatar BLoving says:

      Sure.
      There are varying levels of bigotry: some folks would simply try to avoid eye contact with black customers in their store in the hopes they’ll just go away – at the other extreme was the person who threw a rope over a nearby tree branch while their thug buddies held the victim still.
      My favorite question for the person who is “just a little” bigoted against gun owners is to ask for specific examples of other civil rights they feel need to be more restricted. 🤠

    3. avatar Franco says:

      When I find a control that actually keep crooks from getting guns then I’ll consider it. So far I’ve not seen that.

  4. avatar DJM says:

    Everything before the but is bull exhaust.

  5. avatar DoomGuy says:

    “And are these false supporters worse than those who admit they want civilian disarmament?”

    Yes, because they give the gun grabbers political ammunition to push forward their agenda.

  6. avatar little horn says:

    its hard to know unless you are just talking about people we see on the internet.

  7. avatar A Brit in TX says:

    There’s no point in saying anything. They do not support the 2nd Amendment at all, and anything that you say will at best fall on deaf ears, or at worst will be used against you.

    These politicians only interests are financial, they want to get re-elected and to grow government and their individual fiefdoms.

  8. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Question of the Day: What Do You Say to People Who Claim to Support the Second Amendment But Don’t?”

    GFY…

  9. avatar behindthelinesinCT says:

    Ben Shapiro is a Jewish pro-gun conservative radio host. The Shapiro in this video is Josh Shapiro who is anti-gun Jew…

  10. avatar MarkPA says:

    Try this:
    – ‘What, if anything, does “the right” “of the People” “to keep” and “bear” “arms” mean?
    – What, if anything, might constitute an “infringement” upon that right?’

    The answers should set the ground-floor for carrying on the discussion.

    Perhaps such people will be baffled by these questions; that’s fine.

    Naturally, they are apt to come up with some answers that simply don’t square with the history of the 2A. E.g., that it is the collective right of a State-sanctioned militia. Heller found that interpretation to be unfounded. Moreover, such States that have not sanctioned their respective militias would – then – have to be seen as violating their sacred duty to maintain a “well regulated militia” determined to be “necessary for the security of a free State”. How can we square a right that has been rendered a nullity by State neglect? What would we make of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania? It never adopted a militia law; and, yet, in it’s constitution, it secured the right of its people to arms for the security of the state and self-defense.

    It seems a reasonable question to ask: ‘What is the right?’ If the person says that the “right” is a nullity then we can ask if this is unique to the 2A; or, whether there are other enumerated rights that are also nullities? When, and by what process, did these rights become nullities?

    The person should acknowledge that it is not particularly illuminating to suggest what is outside the protection of “the right”. E.g., suppose that we might agree that a suitcase-nuke were outside “the right”; how would that inform whether a 2-shot derringer were inside the right?

    It seems quite shocking that the PA AG would neglect to explain why Shaneen Allen’s right to travel outside her home-State (to NJ) stripped her of her 2A right to bear arms. Why was she treated as a dangerous criminal rather than a welcome guest of NJ? Which of her other rights did she also lose? Security against cruel and unusual punishment? The right to dine at Woolworth’s lunch counter?

    That the chief law enforcement officer of Pennsylvania won’t stand up for Ms. Allen’s – and my – rights in the other 49 States is deeply disturbing.

    1. avatar John says:

      Whenever someone starts a sentence with “I support the Second Amendment, but…”, they are lying. They started their sentence with a lie. Why would anyone expect the rest of their discourse to be any different?

      Even using the Socratic method as you suggest, they will only deflect and restate how deeply they respect the 2nd Amendment while continuing to lie to your face that their proposed infringements are not actually infringements.

      The question I’d ask is, “So, the Bill of Rights is more what you’d call ‘guidelines’ than actual rules, then?

    2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      Well said. Great persuasive tactic (if not done in a preachy or condescending tone).

  11. avatar Alexander says:

    Because out of state paperwork is so difficult to verify and work with, no doubt Pennsylvania will not be recognizing other states’ driver licenses.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      In the context of H.R. 38, that would be illegal and actionable.

  12. avatar little horn says:

    there are 2 types of people in the world:

    people who can think for themselves.

    people who point to words on paper and say “it says that, i don’t have to think”

    1. avatar Huntmaster says:

      Yes there are two kinds of people in the world. People who understand what”shall not be infringed” means, and those that can’t quite get their head around it.

  13. avatar Helms Deep says:

    C – SPAN , Live now — Democrats telling LIES about CCW , Vote to combine HR 38 and the Flawed ‘ FIX – NICS ‘ bill , coming up.

    1. avatar WI Patriot says:

      democrats ALWAYS tell lies, especially when it furthers their agenda, and pushes their narrative…their biggest thing is to lie by omission…

  14. avatar Geoff PR says:

    “Question of the Day: What Do You Say to People Who Claim to Support the Second Amendment But Don’t?”

    Get cancer. Preferably pancreatic.

    Die a slow, agonizing death…

    *snicker*

    1. avatar jwm says:

      You are one sick puppy. It’s what I like about you.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        *Blushing* 😉

  15. avatar RyanC says:

    Why is Pennsylvania worried about this bill? That guy is a moron.

    1) The PA Concealed Permit process takes 10 minutes & $15.

    2.) There is no background check. No fingerprinting. It’s a rubber stamp.

    3) There is no training or live fire requirement.

    Meanwhile, PA’s immediate neighbors are New Jersey, New York, Maryland & Ohio. In THREE OF THOSE STATES, getting you carry permit is either impossible or takes a MOUNTAIN of paperwork.

    Again, WTF is this nerd complaining about? If anyone is coming INTO Pennsylvania with a reciprocity permit, I’m confident they had to do MORE to get it THERE than anyone in PA.

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      PA performs a background check. Cost in Bucks county is $21. My issuance took 14 minutes; the clerk was late to work that morning.

      Personally, I don’t have a strong objection to Shall-Issue. The way I view it, it’s sort of a “certification” that the card-holder is not “disabled” of his 2A rights.

      The higher the barriers a State might impose the more concerned I am about “infringement”.

      Prescinding from the Constitutional issue – for a moment – I think a valid argument can be made for training, testing and qualification to bear arms outside one’s home or business place. The difficulty lies in how to implement such testing, training and qualification to exercise a Constitutional right. How might that be accomplished – within the scope of the Constitution?

      The obvious solution is for Congress to “prescribe the discipline for the militia” and then for the several States to “train the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”. Just as we can have Constitutional “universal conscription” we can also have Constitutional “universal training”.

      In a country with more guns than population, it is incontrovertible that everyone ought to be “trained to arms” to – at least – the level of gun-safety. Then, we would have a normalization of guns in civilian hands.

      I would even be satisfied if each of the States (voluntarily) adopted a Shall-Issue Non-Resident permit law. As a PA resident I’m surrounded by NY, NJ, DE, and MD where it is impossible for me to obtain a Non-Resident CWP. Under these circumstances, how can it be said that these 4 States have anything but contempt for my 2A right to bear arms in their jurisdiction?

      I would apply in all 4 of these States. I would pay their fees. I would submit to the training, testing and qualifications they prescribe. But, of course, NONE of these 4 States would do so.

      Accordingly, what recourse do I have (and others like me) to redress of grievance? I can appeal only to my Senators and Congressman (not that they have anything more than contempt for the 2A). Would any National-Reciprocity law substantially resolve the issues surrounding enforcing the 2A Right to Bear Arms across State lines? No; not likely.

      Whom deserves the blame for failing to find a substantial solution to the Right to Bear Arms across State lines? Shall we blame Congress when it might be trying to do its best? Shall we blame well-trained gun-carriers who simply want to exercise their rights?

      How about we blame such States as NY, NJ, DE, MD who COULD have Shall-Issued Non-Resident permits on terms that THEY THEMSELVES dictated. They WOULD NOT respect one scintilla of the Right to Bear Arms. And so, they will have to resign themselves to accept a National-Reciprocity law on such terms as Congress sees fit to pass.

      I’ll have no more of this “States Rights” BS.

  16. avatar John says:

    I do the same thing I do to people who say they support the military. I ask them what, specifically, they have done that demonstrates that. I usually get indignation or a blank look from the pretenders. It’s about more than flag pins, t-shirts and empty speeches.

  17. avatar Chip Bennett says:

  18. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    “I support gun-rights and the 2nd amendment, but people don’t need 30 round clips or military assault rifles”. My usual response to this kind of comment is to simply ask them how they could possibly know that people don’t “need” a 30 round magazine . . . If pressed, I tell that if they’re home was invaded by 4 armed criminals, they’d rather quickly be outgunned unless they had a dreaded “high-capacity war rifle”. And usually, this stops the argument before it gets started because, if they’re reasonably honest, they’ll have to admit that the really don’t know much about guns and have never really given much thought to self-defense. These are people who actually believe that calling 911 means that the police will somehow magically appear and save them from harm. Because their denial is so great, they’re usually not at all interested in continuing the discussion.

  19. avatar HarryC says:

    First time I applied for a Pa gun permit there was a background check. Last time I renewed my Pa gun permit there was a background check.

  20. avatar Alec Johnson says:

    I wonder if they will understand and support my 1st amendment right, to avoid purchasing any items that come from their state..

    This will put them in good company with other states on my ban list like CA and NY…

    Actions have consequences…

  21. avatar Ironhead says:

    Very simple. Call them out on it. When adding the word but halfway through a sentence, it completely nullifies everything said before it.

    1. avatar John says:

      You’re too gentle. Everything before the ‘but’ is a lie. It’s everything after that is nullified.

  22. avatar J1K says:

    That’s pretty rich for the PA AG to say, considering our CCW permit has no safety or practical training requirement. Makes it pretty easy to get, as it should be, but it sucks for reciprocity.

  23. avatar ORCON says:

    Try this:

    I really value your opinion but you’re a fucking moron.

    Turnabout is fair play.

    1. avatar John in IN says:

      ^^^^^ So much This^^^^^

  24. avatar Ed Rogers says:

    I would have to challenge him on HOW he supports the Second Amendment. Without proof, he’s just paying lip service.

  25. avatar FedUp says:

    Dear Nurse Shaneen Allen:

    Hurry up and die already, you evil licensed gun carrier, you.

    Signed:
    Your state Attorney General and your city Police Commissioner.

    PS: Vote for us!

  26. avatar Ogre says:

    I agree: Everything said before “but” is a lie, and after that he’s using gun control code to indicate that he’d like more controls. Additionally, this PA AG issuing this statement in the company of Philadelphia officials is highly suspect – Philly has never been gun-rights friendly.

  27. avatar former water walker says:

    I HAVE engaged with fudds. I make sport of them. Unbelievable the whining when Illinois 1st had CCL. “Where’s the daily bloodbath in Indiana?” Or hunting fudds…”you do understand the 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting?!?”….and ad infinitum nauseum.

  28. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

    It really just depends on whether they are ignorant or malicious, whether or not we’re friends, and whether or not we have an audience.

    MarkPA’s tactic is probably the best for an audience. For someone who isn’t ignorant, and I just want to annoy, I usually just go with, “if you’re okay requiring that for voting, I’m okay with requiring it for guns.” In my experience, it has always worked to annoy those who will not be convinced.

  29. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    How I respond depends on whatever they say after the word “but”.

    If the person goes down the “you don’t NEED …” path, I say:
    (1) Who are YOU (or your government proxy) to declare what people need?
    (2) More importantly, rights are never subject to “need”.
    (3) And how would you FEEL if someone told you that you do not need a 2,000 square foot home, or three cars, or central air-conditioning (or anything else that they have in excess) — and how would you FEEL if you had to give that up or go to prison?

    If the person goes down the “guns are dangerous” path, I say:
    (1) How dangerous does something have to be before we outlaw it?
    (2) How many fires and resulting deaths do arsonists have to start with tampons to outlaw tampons?
    (3) If guns are so dangerous, how come accidental/negligent deaths from firearms are the least common cause of accidental/negligent deaths recorded at the Centers for Disease Control?

    If the person goes down the “extensive training” path, I say:
    (1) Handguns are exceedingly easy to operate. Load them, point them, and squeeze the trigger. In fact they are so easy to operate that even unsupervised toddlers with no training whatsoever have managed to shoot them.
    (2) If you can accurately point your finger at a person who is 10 feet away, you can accurately point a handgun at a person who is 10 feet away.

    If the person trots out the “only police” path, I say:
    (1) Police response times are usually well in excess of 10 minutes, whereas a violent criminal only needs 10 seconds to inflict grievous bodily injuries or death.
    (2) The overwhelming majority of women are unable to fight off an attacker in hand-to-hand combat. Violent male attackers are therefore virtually guaranteed to succeed in raping forcibly unarmed women. Why are you pro-rape?
    (3) And what happens when police cannot or refuse to respond, such as the Los Angeles riots of 1992?

    As I refute each claim, the other person inevitably tries another. I eventually tell them that nothing I can say or do will make them FEEL good about firearms. And then I tell them that I have no more obligation to give up my rights for their feelings than they have to give up underwear or bras for my feelings. In the end, you simply have to call a spade a spade.

  30. avatar pg2 says:

    Say the same thing I say to people who pretend to support the 2nd Amendment and individual liberties while at the same time they go full hypocrite Fudd on steroids when they preach mandatory vaccines….You’re full of shit.

  31. avatar BierceAmbrose says:

    “What Do You Say to People Who Claim to Support the Second Amendment But Don’t?”

    Please stop “supporting” the 2A that way; you’re not helping.

  32. avatar BierceAmbrose says:

    “What Do You Say to People Who Claim to Support the Second Amendment But Don’t?”

    All that stuff after “but” isn’t “supporting.”

    “Supporting” — you’re doing it wrong.

    It doesn’t work like that.

  33. avatar Mark Kelly's Diapered Drooling Ventriloquist's Dummy says:

    “What Do You Say to People Who Claim to Support the Second Amendment But Don’t?”

    I tell them “Go Fuck Yourself” and call them “( u ( ks” and “spineless bastards/bitches” it’s THAT simple.

  34. avatar Ralph says:

    I tell them to FOAD.

  35. avatar GS650G says:

    Shapiro predecessor went to Jail but not before she screwed non resident permit holders. It matters who you vote for, really does.

  36. avatar Mark N. says:

    Overstated objection that fails to note that Pa currently recognizes the permits from the following states: Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming. If it can handle concealed carriers from 23 states, it should have no problem handling the carriers from the other 27. I also note that some of the sates not recognized, such as California (and I am sure others) have very high training standards (16 hours in CA.); the lack of reciprocity with such states is more reflective that those states will not recognize a Pa license.

  37. avatar John in IN says:

    Supporting? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

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