Is Second Amendment Absolutism the Answer? Question of the Day

((courtesy gunculture2point0.wordpress.com)

In the ancient clip (not magazine) below, Ben Shapiro takes on ex-expat Piers Morgan on gun control. While Ben scores some good points, it’s clear he’s no gun rights absolutist. He’s for “better screening” for gun purchasers and laws that force people to store their guns safely, and against civilian ownership of machine guns. None of that squares with the Second Amendment’s prohibition against government infringement of Americans’ right to keep and bear arms. The question here . . .

Why not be an absolutist?

It seems clear to me that The People of the Gun aren’t making any headway with politically correct sops to “Fix NICs” and “improve mental health care.” At best, it’s a weak rearguard action. At worst, it’s incremental surrender. After incremental surrender. With nothing to show for it — at least on the federal level or within gun rights defiling slave states.

And just as Mr. Shapiro wants Mr. Morgan to clear the air and admit he wants to ban all guns for civilians (true story!), shouldn’t Mr. Shapiro admit he wants to nix NICs and let his fellow countrymen go full auto?

Or do both sides of the “gun debate” have to hide behind weasel words to win the hearts and minds (and votes) of firearms freedom fence straddlers? I, for one, am tired of gun rights advocates like Mr. Shapiro, Mr. LaPierre and Ms. Loesch playing coy. You?

comments

  1. avatar Kroglikepie says:

    I’m tired of politics surronding my natural right to life the defense of it. My ability to utilize the best tools I can muster should be be up for any debate.

    1. avatar Gutshot says:

      I had a reply to RF’s question, but you said it better than I would’ve.

    2. avatar ATFAgentBob says:

      +100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 I am so done with the damn politicians and politics of it all. Damn vermin never actually make the push for fear that they’ll lose voters next election. I’d love to let the weasels in on a little bit of news… Those votes you’re trying to “steal” from the left by “compromising” on all this gun control and other lefty bullshit are NEVER coming. All you are doing is LOSING votes and money from pro gun voters.

      -sigh- Leave it to Republicans to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and then wonder wtf happened when they lose the midterms.

    3. avatar Jason says:

      The premise is really something of a “Straw Man Argument”.

      The real question is:

      Should we enforce laws as they are written or as we wish they had been written but don’t have the support to change?

      Clearly the courts and many politicians prefer the second option with regard to the 2nd A.

    4. avatar strych9 says:

      “I’m tired of politics surronding my natural right to life the defense of it.”

      Unfortunately your lack of interest in politics is not reflective of politics lack of interest in you or said tools.

      1. avatar Kroglikepie says:

        Don’t mistake my annoyance for apathy. I am quite active at the local level and always trying to get others involved.

        On a side, I am embarrassed by the amount of typos in my initial response *facepalm*

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          Typos happen. I constantly tell myself that *this* post is the last one from my phone… and that never actually happens.

    5. avatar Ed Schrade says:

      SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

  2. avatar nativeson says:

    It’s the only answer if you believe in the underlying purpose for the Second Amendment and want to preserve it. Any other course of action, including compromise, will lead to it’s destruction.

  3. avatar Occam's Laser says:

    YES!! I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.

    “Societies exist under three forms sufficiently distinguishable. 1. Without government, as among our Indians. 2. Under governments wherein the will of every one has a just influence, as is the case in England in a slight degree, and in our states in a great one. 3. Under governments of force: as is the case in all other monarchies and in most of the other republics. To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the 1st. condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has it’s evils too: the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.” – Jefferson to James Madison, January 30, 1787[1]

  4. avatar barnbwt says:

    Yes, since strategy doesn’t work, since too many gunowners are ignorant. “No” is easy to understand.

  5. avatar C.S. says:

    The issue is the “dangerous and unusual” precedent set by SCOTUS. Logically speaking: no one is advocating the right to nukes, but from there it’s a slope or threshold subject to opinion – Scalia obviously knew this.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Apparently, constitutionality DOT us is considered spam by TTAG now. Interesting. Please click on my handle for my reply.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        I did get a reply back from my second email (sent after the above post). Apparently, it is WordPress learning. No mention of fixing it. I guess when a sacred cow link gets spam banned, it will be fixed.

  6. avatar J.D.Fowlerton says:

    I wouldn’t say I’m pure on second amendment absolution but still very inclusive. While I feel that anyone should be able to have virtually any weapon they want unless they have done something to prove they can’t be trusted with one, I could see some kind of training and licensing for particular weapon types.

    For a broad example of my thinking, a person could buy and carry pretty much any handgun or rifle but a training class and license would be required if you wanted to carry hand grenades or something like that.

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      I sent a summer instructing ROTC cadets on use of handgrenades. Took 3hr per cycle which included “don’t drop it after pulling the pin”, an “assault couse” and throwing a live round. That meet your standard.

      3hr should be enough to qual a teacher to carry. If that is not sufficient in protecting the kids in their charge then they shouldn’t even HAVE a classroom full of kids.

  7. avatar Adam says:

    Absolutely- otherwise it’s a slippery slope. Even full-auto infringements have no constitutional basis and should be overturned unless the constitution is amended. Congress needed to amend the constitution to gain the power to ban alcohol, and that’s not even a protected freedom.

    Weather easy access to full-auto is a good idea or not is irrespective to the fact that the 2nd amendment was intended to protect the people’s right to bear arms suitable for infantry combat, so there should be no restrictions on anything a typical soldier might carry unless the constitution is amended.

    1. avatar Eric Bunker says:

      You nailed it. Weapons common to infantry works for me, though I’d like to include those used by elite forces as well. Suppressors aren’t normal infantry issue, but I want them!

    2. avatar binder says:

      Is Second Amendment Absolutism the Answer? No it is not. What everyone here needs to remember is that there is something called the Constitutional Amendment Process. Convince enough people that the Second Amendment is a bad idea, and guess what is going to happen. I have a funny felling that crew served weapons used on a crowd may result in it being repelled .

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        Read the U.S. Declaration of Independence, specifically the 2nd Paragraph. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

        You can ‘amend’ the Constitution all you want, or you can THROW OFF THE GOVERNMENT THAT IS NOT UPHOLDING WHAT WE DEMAND OF/FOR/AND FROM EACH OTHER IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

        1. avatar binder says:

          The Declaration of Independence has NO legal authority. Article V of the Constitution DOES

        2. avatar Joe R. says:

          NO ARTICLE OF THE CONSTITUTION SUPERSEDES THE ASSERTIONS IN THE 2ND PARAGRAPH OF THE DECLARATION OF INDPENDENCE.

          WE COULD CHUCK THE WHOLE FING KIT-N-KABOODLE AND START OVER ON A NEW CONSTITUTION FROM SCRATCH AND, IF IT DIDN’T SUPPORT AND DEFEND WHAT WE DEMAND OF/FOR/AND FROM EACH OTHER IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE THEN WE CAN GO AT-IT TO THE LAST MAN.

          I REGRET THAT I HAVE BUT TWO MIDDLE FINGERS TO GIVE TO ALL THE FUCKING IGNORANT ASSHOLES OUT THERE THAT PIN OUR FUTURE ON OUR CONSTITUTION. IF YOU COUNT THE “BILL OF RIGHTS” (WHICH WAS ESSENTIALLY PART OF OUR CURRENT CONSTITUTION BUT FRACTIONALLY LATER AS AN ADENDUM AND [OBVIOUSLY] NOT INCLUDING ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS WE CURRENTLY HAVE) WE ARE ON OUR 3RD FING VERSION OF OUR CONSTITUTION. WHAT WILL STAND, WHEN ALL ELSE IS TORN ASSUNDER, WILL BE OUR DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

          UNDER
          GOD.

          YOU CANNOT REPEAL IT, AND IF YOU WANT TO DECLARE ANEW, PREPARE YOURSELF FOR THE LIKELIHOOD OF LOSING YOUR LIFE AND ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU CARE ABOUT.

        3. avatar Toni says:

          Joe R, spot on. yes i may not be american but i am a 2A absolutist. that means i support the availability to all law abiding citizens whatever tools are needed by combat troops. that means rocket launchers, grenades, even nukes! why? because if you read not only the 2A but also the founding documents including all the correspondence between the different parties involved it becomes quite clear that not only did they want the people to be well armed but they wanted them better armed than the govt as indeed they were by and large given they had kentucky long rifles where the bloody poms had the brown bess that was a smoothbore musket. as for a standing govt controlled army as the US now has….. the founding fathers looked upon that much as they did banks…… as a grave risk to liberty

        4. avatar Joe R. says:

          Yes Toni, the aholes that whine about WMD when it comes to parity of arms do so as though the citizenry is the one escalating the need for arms.

          If we demand parity, and the government has WMD, that’s not only the government’s problem, it is one that it created. No sane MF out there would let the other side dictate the maxim field of arms (other than by ultimatum on WMD’s, i.e., pledge of mutual destruction if conflict goes beyond conventional, or superlatively asymmetrical against a non-aggressor) in a conflict. Citizens of the United States will use whatever the living F is on hand, and some new weapons and tactics will likely be invented, so it is ignorant and/or disingenuous to suggest that any prohibitions or self-restrictions would effect that conflict for any length of time.

    3. avatar Stereodude says:

      Why do you limit it to “anything a typical soldier might carry”? If the 2nd Amendment is actually absolute why can’t you have tanks, artillery, warplanes, chemical weapons, nukes, etc.?

      1. avatar binder says:

        Because chemical weapons and nukes will get the Second Amendment repealed

        1. avatar Stereodude says:

          But they claim to be absolutists. I’m confused…

          Apparently it’s just no limits inside the limits they’ve already defined.

        2. avatar binder says:

          Let me do the math for you
          Article V > Second Amendment

          Chemical weapons release + large population + Article V = No more Second Amendment

        3. avatar Stereodude says:

          Binder: But that means they’re not actually absolutists. You mean they’re all lying?

        4. avatar binder says:

          Oh, it is “absolute” in the way it is written. But luckily most people in general understand that it is not the best idea in the world. So we as a nation tell ourselves the little lie that firearm laws do not infringe on 2nd and as a result we keep the 2nd on the books.

        5. avatar Joe R. says:

          FU 3 ring,

          the 2nd Paragraph of the Declaration of Independence demands PARITY of arms with our government. That the Federal government has nuclear/ chemical / biological arms is on-them. We didn’t start that. How likely is it that individuals would bother to obtain such items??? LIKE YOU, AND EVERYONE ELSE, I HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA. Don’t claim you are preventing anyone from having them BY BANNING THEM, and FU AGAIN, for attempting to put forth any assertion whatsoever that any such assertion could protect anyone on an individual level.

          Plus, you don’t sound like you’re from here.

        6. avatar Stereodude says:

          Binder: But you’ve conceded your own “absolutist” argument. Unless you’re willing to stand up and argue that there should be no limits, even nukes, chemical weapons, etc. you’re not an absolutist and you also believe there should be some limits to the second amendment. You see, “most people in general understand that it is not the best idea in the world…” for people to be able to mail order full auto firearms with no background check. They’ve just drawn the line in a different place from you.

          The grabbers can’t get their way if they go straight for confiscation. Nor can the “absolutists” get their way by demanding everything short of WMD either. In the real world, moving the line in our direction will take time and effort and not be an instant finger snap. Holding out for “perfection” isn’t going to accomplish anything.

          Joe: Not enough capitalization for you? Too much actual strategy to accomplish something and not enough chest pounding and windmill tilting?

          The bottom line is that “absolutism” isn’t going to roll back gun control, and it’s intellectually dishonest because most of the “absolutists” aren’t actually absolutists. As soon as a grabber asks a professed absolutist about WMD and they concede that point, they’re done.

        7. avatar Joe R. says:

          I don’t concede WMD.

          And the government cannot protect you from them, nor can they guarantee that such things are not already in the hands of your neighbors who may be about to use them on you.

        8. avatar Arc says:

          Even if nukes were available to the common man, the costs, storage facilities, etc, would make them absolutely cost prohibitive for anyone except a billionaire to own. They also can’t be left on the shelf for a thousand years without harming other people. Likewise for even a lot of industrial chemicals, biologic weapons, etc. Although I absolutely believe that organized state militias should own what they can afford, even nuclear weapons. You also need to find someone that can both produce, and is willing to sell to you.

          Ammo, guns, explosives, tanks, surface to air missiles, you could leave them in a bunker for a thousand years and they won’t poison everyone around them.

          On a side note, some industrial chemicals are so caustic and violent that they will eat through three different layers of protection while you try to transfer them to another inert container. I forget the name specifically, but plenty of stuff like tri-iodine exists.

        9. avatar Joe R. says:

          And AGAIN, we only demand the necessary parity. It’s not our fault what the parity might need to include (in the case of WMD), that’s wholly on them (the government) and there’s no claim of hysterical reaction that’ll stick to that.

      2. avatar Adam says:

        Because you can’t really “bear” a nuke, and weapons of mass destruction clearly do not have the defensive use the 2nd amendment was intended for. You don’t protect a free state by rendering it uninhabitable.

        1. avatar Stereodude says:

          You can’t bear a cannon or a warship either, but those were cool for private ownership before. Since when is the second amendment about defense? Besides, the ability to make someplace completely inhabitable and deny your opponent possession of it is a pretty good defensive weapon.

          It seems most “absolutists” can’t be honest and admit they’re not actually absolutists. If any weapon is too dangerous for private ownership you’re not an absolutist.

        2. avatar binder says:

          Cannons and warships were EXPENSIVE for their capabilities when you could still own one for private use. Now, you can have weapons with the same capabilities for a LOT less. Any upper middle class citizen (if there were no laws in place) could buy a warship that would blow any warship prier to 1860 out of the water.

        3. avatar Joe R. says:

          The 2nd Paragraph of the Declaration of Independence https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript demands parity of arms with our government IF “PARITY” SEEMS STRANGE WITH REGARD TO CHEMICAL / BIOLOGICAL/ RADIOLOGICAL WEAPONS

          THAT’S

          ON

          THEM

          NOT

          US (they started it).

          That doesn’t mean the government need to provide them, or make them prolific or affordable. That they would do otherwise is just another reason to chuck all the stupid MFn neighbors who needed a job (your government) and install new guards for your security.

          Any foreigners here, weighing in, can go F themselves. When we want your opinion about our country or our rights we’ll come choke it out of you.

        4. avatar Arc says:

          This is just my smelly opinion but I tend to go by the “If the owner dies and the world forgot about his weapon for a thousand years, will it harm anyone?” Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons are the only thing that fit that bill.

          You can leave explosives, powders, ammo, guns, planes, tanks, etc, indefinitely and they will never leak radiation and harm anyone, they will never spread a plague, they will never indiscriminately gas everyone in the area one day. State militias should absolutely have CBRN/NBC capabilities, they can meet the storage requirements to safely store them and not infringe on the right to life of millions of others. Leaking radioactive material isn’t fun for anyone, although NPPs and the feds do it all the time.

          WMDs are something that need to be addressed. Ever more powerful explosives were envisioned, mechanical advancements, bigger ships of war, but one device that could wipe an entire country off the face of the earth, I don’t think that could have been foreseen by anyone.

          To sum it up, absolutism is the answer. CBRN is its own cookie but even it should be included as available to the states, not necessarily the private people. I think that is the best way to address the problem while keeping checks and balances on power. Then again, you got states like California and New york who may just say fuck you all and nuke us.

        5. avatar mandrake the magician says:

          must agree with “ARC”;
          yes!
          an argument could be made that possession of N/B/C weapons is not covered by the SA b’cs they infringe on “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in the case of an accidental leak;
          how-ever: pretty much every other type of ordinance up to and including fully armed helicopter gun-ships and main battle tanks could and should be permitted under the 2A/SA

        6. avatar Toni says:

          Joe R, as i have said before i may not be american (though i wish i was born there) and i may weigh in time to time but i support the 2A completely with no reserve on anything. i also recognize that the 13th was altered not long after it was put into the constitution. 1 word was added to it which mad the change seem inconsequential. however it was far reaching. the word added to it was “involuntary”. this meant that instead of an outright ban on slavery it meant that contract law could be used to enslave…. eg banks and lawyers. as for the 2A from my reading of the US constitution and of some of the letters that went between the founding fathers during that time it is firmly my belief that they wanted the people better armed than the govt and that the founding fathers viewed banks, lawyers, and govt controlled standing armies as being harbingers of tyranny

  8. avatar Joe R. says:

    “Is Second Amendment Absolutism the Answer? Question of the Day”

    Am I going to let you fart out another question?

    1. avatar Big Bill says:

      How would you stop it?
      Oh? You’re not a first amendment absolutist? Why not?

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        It was a question that YOU have to answer. Can you guarantee my allowing you to fart out another question? Not without taking some steps (which, in part, you have likely already done). But that you have entertained that question is important, because you are more apprised of your situation and my joining into it in Societal Agreement.

        About your question. I am NOT a First Amendment absolutist. I will not interfere with your freedom of self-expression, but I will prevent you from some of it around my kids (whether we’re in public or not I’ll demand decency [as another part of Societal Agreement]). I will also not stand for mere self-expression (as falsehood) to infect Freedom of the Press. Nor will I allow it to be used to shout-down or shut-down my right to free speech.

        But yes, if you want me to allow you to fart out another question about the 2nd Amendment, I suggest you arm yourself, in order to be better prepared and better conditioned to the argument.

        Praemonitius/Praemunitous

        1. avatar Big Bill says:

          My question stands: How will you stop it?
          You’re the one who said you won’t let someone “fart.” How will you stop it? How do you stop someone from printing their opinion?
          Then, how to you keep from being stopped yourself from printing your opinion?
          It’s a valid question,with no answer from you.

  9. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Here is what we should openly and robustly tell people who play coy with the Second Amendment:

    Unfortunately, there will always be malevolent and violent thugs, criminal syndicates, and governments. Furthermore, it is an indisputable FACT that governments almost always FAIL to stop such bad actors from harming innocent people. We must therefore be able to keep and bear EFFECTIVE firearms that we can use to defend ourselves. If we cannot keep and bear effective firearms to defend ourselves from the FULL range of attackers that ARE in our world, then we have no right to life.

    Any law which interferes with our ability to keep and bear EFFECTIVE firearms for defense is a non-starter. Interference includes adding significant cost (perhaps more than $20) and time (perhaps more than 1/2 hour) in total to keep and bear all EFFECTIVE firearms. Interference also includes processes which prohibit someone from keeping and bearing arms without an opportunity for the affected person to have a full-blown case in court before a jury of their peers.

  10. avatar Joe R. says:

    The 2nd Paragraph of the Declaration of Independence recites that it is the “right” and “duty” for bona fide citizens of the United States to “throw off” our government and install “new guards” (NOT “NEW [FUCKING] RULERS) FOR [OUR] SECURITY, should we, or individually, so choose.

    A G A I N
    AND
    STILL

    READ THE MF’r. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

    That, BY THE MOST BASIC LOGIC, requires PARITY OF ARMS with our government AND WITHOUT ANY REQUIREMENT TO ASK THAT SELF-SAME GOVERNMENT FOR THE PERMISSION TO OBTAIN THEM.

    Anything else in encroaching tyranny, and our stupid neighbors who needed a job (our government) get to pack their sh_t and go home quietly before they ever find themselves straying toward those fucking stupid feelings.

    WE’VE ALREADY PAID IN BLOOD AND SOULS FOR THIS. ALL FUTURE COSTS WILL BE BORN BY THE DISSENT.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      IT SAYS IT NO LESS THAN 2X IN THAT 2ND PARAGRAPH.

      READ THE MF’r.

      https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

    2. avatar binder says:

      Declaration of Independence is NOT a law. It is just that a declaration. The Illinois legislator “declared” the the Supreme Court was wrong on Heller. I don’t see a handgun ban in Illinois, just the opposite.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        Can you repeal the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE? No.

        Can you repeal the Constitution? Yes.

        Will the Constitution survive any one of us chucks our government I/a/w the 2nd Paragraph of the Declaration of Independence???? Maybe, maybe not, but not likely.

        Will the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE REMAIN USCATHED if any one of us chucking our government I/a/w the 2nd Paragraph of the Declaration of Independence? YOU BET YOUR ASS.

        THE SCOTUS, (D)HEADS, AND RINOS CAN PRETEND TO BE OUR FOUNDING FATHERS ALLLLLL THEY’D LIKE AND FUCK WITH THE CONSTITUTION TILL IT’S UNRECOGNIZABLE, AND WE CAN TELL THEM TO PACK THEIR SHIT AND GO TO THE HOUSE AND WHEN THEY DON’T WE CAN TAKE UP WHATEVER ARMS WE HAVE OR CAN MUSTER (INCLUDING ANY AND ALL OF THEIRS) AND MAKE THEM TAKE AN ETERNAL FING DIRT NAP (and trust me, after I was done, you’d think each of them developed their own sinkhole), AS PER THE 2ND PARAGRAPH OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

        1. avatar Binder says:

          By 1794, the Whiskey Rebellion threatened the stability of the nascent United States and forced President Washington to personally lead the United States militia westward to stop the rebels. Looks like our “FOUNDING FATHERS” did not have the same view of rebellion you do.

        2. avatar Joe R. says:

          That’s got sh_t and fuck-all to do with those citizen’s rights to bury Washington and his horde face down and shallow with his colors upside down in his ass.

      2. avatar binder says:

        Declaration of Independence is NOT a law. What part of that sentence do you not understand? The Declaration of Independence is the EXACT opposite of a law.

        It is the legal equivalent ransom note. Do what we want or we will shoot you.
        Now one may have a ‘moral’ justification for their actions, but still.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          The Constitution is “law” until we say it isn’t, and it might be only rightly inferred (that it no longer is) by the civilian overthrow of the government. The Constitution’s ONLY FING JOB is to support, defend, codify HOW WE LIVE AS WE ARE DECLARED TO EACH OTHER, AND GOD, UNDER THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

          If it doesn’t do it’s job IT TOO GETS CHUCKED AND (maybe) WE WILL ESTABLISH A NEW CONSTITUTION, but if we do IT WILL ONLY BETTER SUPPORT AND DEFEND WHAT WE HOLD DEAR AND DEMAND OF / FOR/AND FROM EACH OTHER IN THE DECLARATION. OR WE WILL HAVE AT UNTIL THE MATTER IS DECIDED DEFINITIVELY WITHOUT ARGUMENT.

        2. avatar Joe R. says:

          Nothing in the Constitution can repeal or replace the Declaration of Independence. Paragraph 2 of the Declaration of Independence can not only repeal the Constitution, it can repeal and eradicate all of the MFrs fing with the Constitution, and America.

  11. avatar stateisevil says:

    I know what is NOT an answer: Perpetually voting for the “lesser of two evils” every single time. I’m not sure how long this country can last with this mentality and the false choices we’re given. GOP voters show only faint signs of waking up.

    1. avatar Gman says:

      Weevil, lesser of two Weevils…

      1. avatar Big Bill says:

        +1

  12. avatar former water walker says:

    Yes…thanks for the info on Shapiro. Weasels R us…

    1. avatar binder says:

      Look at his district, did you expect any different?

    2. avatar binder says:

      Sorry, wrong thread, confused with Danny Davis

  13. avatar strych9 says:

    It’s all politics to one degree or another. A shortened version of something I said the other day: There’s what’s right and then there’s what is possible.

    I’d love a situation where absolutism was politically feasible but that’s not the reality we live in. In the real world open 2A absolutism is a recipe for disaster where we’ll be labeled as lunatics, brushed off to the side, 100% ignored and the 2A will die. That’s reality.

    If you want to win you have to understand that, as I’ve said here for a long time, politics is a knife fight in a telephone booth. It’s nasty. If you’re not willing to sully your good name then it’s not a game you should get into. If you want to win you will, by necessity, bend the “truth” that you intend for public consumption because the truth is that the public is fickle, ignorant, arrogant and generally more stupid than we’d really like to think about. If you pull the purist shtick you’ll end up like Cicero: With your hands and head on display in the Forum.

    If you want to stick it to the Left you have to wrap up 2A absolutism in some sort of package that’s amenable to the public (“common sense gun safety” type thing) and take bites at the apple the same kind of way (but in the opposite direction) that the anti’s wrap up gun control as “freedom from gun violence”.

    Yeah, it’s underhanded. It’s dirty. It’s actually flat out dishonest. Welcome to politics. It’s been this way for a few thousand years and it’s not going to change. Cry about it all you want but this is the way it is. Crying is what losers do after they’ve lost. Reach down, grab your balls and realize that this is pretty much the ultimate bloodsport. Then be grateful that today we don’t generally kill each other over it.

  14. avatar 2ABollard says:

    I’ll give them an incremental surrender. Same restrictions as alcohol… 21 years old to buy, and you can’t shoot while driving. No background checks, FFLs, carry restrictions, or any other such market restrictions though.

  15. avatar Gman says:

    Is Second Amendment Absolutism the Answer
    No. However what seems to be lacking in all of these discussions is Constitutional absolutism. The Constitution, and the adjoined Bill of Rights, is not a limit upon the pre-existing rights of the People in any way. It is a structure under which we give certain enumerated powers to the Government. The Bill of Rights does not grant nor does it limit the rights of the People. It serves as a limit upon Government only. There are no limits to the free exercise of our (thank you RF) natural, civil, and Constitutionally protected rights whatsoever until such exercise infringes upon the rights of another. End Stop. All of this talk about the 2nd Amendment is outside of the Governments’ Constitutional authority. We the People have ceded our rights away through malfeasance. Even Antonin Scalia was wrong. There are no reasonable restrictions upon the free exercise of our rights. He incorrectly misconstrues laws which punish the use of those rights to harm another with free exercise. Yes Virginia, one can yell fire in a crowded theatre. No law is stopping you. The tools of the 1st are words and thoughts; which no law has banned. The tools of the 2nd are firearms, tanks, warships, aircraft, etc. The keeping and bearing of these arms harms no one in any way and no law is Constitutional which restrict the keeping and bearing of them. Until we the People take back our power and rights from both our elected officials and appointed judges, we have only ourselves to blame. Liberty and Freedom are not cheap and require all of us to be responsible as citizens.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      “However what seems to be lacking in all of these discussions is Constitutional absolutism.”

      Possible with an educated society. Impossible with our current one. *wails to the sky and rends clothing*

      Unfortunately what we need to do, regardless of the specific topic, is sell rights and the Constitution the way they sell Subaru (or any other) cars. Warm and fuzzies! Hand us your cash! Proper PR can sell anything. Cars, the stripping of rights or the reinstating of those rights.

      If you gotta lie a bit for the right reasons well then so be it. I vividly remember a private conversation I had with the HMFIC when I worked at a school for “troubled” kids right after I got out of HS.

      [Names changed to protect the guilty. Salty language not redacted.]

      I said “Tom, that’s dishonest. It’s lying. It’s fucking brainwashing. Even if we’re teaching them the right things and doing it for the right reasons how can we justify that kind of underhanded shit?” (Note my inexperienced, purist and flat-out naive view of things and how they “should” be nice, flowery, honest and upfront at all costs. Cute, eh?)

      He leaned back in his chair with his hands in that arch in front of his face like a damn movie and said “strych9, what the fuck do you think education actually is?”

      Stopped me fucking cold. This is a guy who really understood what he was on about. He pulled no punches, made no apologies and when it came to doing what was best for the kids under his care he had absolute ice water (and probably a dash of anti-freeze) in his veins. Intelligent, disciplined, experienced and abso-fucking-lutely ruthless he’d go toe to toe with anyone for them, including the Costa Rican government (which I personally observed him do). That’s what we desperately need and it’s something we don’t have.

  16. avatar Shire-man says:

    I’m still waiting for the thing I’m supposedly owed from all of these compromises. They got all their stuff. Where’s mine? Oh, and what is it? They never made clear what the compromising was getting me.

    1. avatar TheUnspoken says:

      I think they would say what we “got” is they didn’t totally ban all guns, yet. Or throw you on jail, yet. But never fear, they are working on improving your, er, safety with a laser-like focus!

      Currently the left is being pretty vocal on “ban the NRA, repeal the second amendment, ban all assault weapons, ban guns” so it seems there is no filter or mask.

    2. avatar Big Bill says:

      What they say we get is safety. Freedom from the fear that someone will gun us down for no reason. That’s what they say we get.
      Unfortunately, we and they know better. There is no freedom from fear, event though many say we have a right to that freedom. But there is no such thing. Not even freedom from being shot.
      They trot out all kinds of emotional claptrap about the “safety” their laws will bring us, but they know full well that evil will still exist. When I mention that entire civilizations were wiped out long before guns were even a twinkling in a politicians eye, they are left with a blank stare.
      Their “safety” argument is invalid, and they know it, but their goal isn’t safety, it’s control.
      Otherwise, they would be demanding armed, trained guards in schools. Immediately.
      For the children.

  17. avatar jwtaylor says:

    Second Amendment absolutism is ridiculous and unconstitutional. As long as adequate due process is insured, any right may be curtailed.

    1. avatar Gman says:

      Second Amendment absolutism is ridiculous and unconstitutional. As long as adequate due process is insured, any right may be curtailed.
      WRONG
      There is no Constitutional authority to restrict the free exercise of any natural, civil, and Constitutionally protected right. None. Do no conflate exercising a right and being punished for infringing upon the rights of another. They are separate and non sequitur.

      1. avatar jwtaylor says:

        The constitution makes it clear that your rights may be curtailed, even your right to life. Your argument that it only punishes the exercise of those rights is semantics at its worst, as it allows you to be punished by the removal of those rights, to include life, liberty, and privacy and property.
        Or would you argue that the government has no legal way to remove or deny automatic firearms from convicted felons currently service time in a penitentiary? Maybe we have no legal way to remove bombs from those rightly judged to be criminally insane?
        The constitution limits the government’s ability by laying out what the government must do in order to curtail the freedom of citizens, but don’t pretend that it doesn’t allow for the most basic of rights to be infringed.

        1. avatar Gman says:

          What you are talking about is the indivual curtailing of rights through due process. There is no Constitutional authority for the Government to inhibit the free exercise of any right to the People wholesale. These rights are not theirs to take they belong to us. Just like the wrong minded thinking that one cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre. One can. The law punishes the act afterwards but does not stop one from exercising the free speach. As words are the tools of the 1st, arms are the tools of the 2nd. No law is Constitutional which inhibits the free exercise of our right to keep and bear arms. If such exercise then harms another then the law may punish such an act.

        2. avatar jwtaylor says:

          “What you are talking about is the indivual curtailing of rights through due process.”
          Yes, that’s why I wrote, “As long as adequate due process is insured…”
          This is the only way in which a citizen’s 2nd Amendment right can be infringed. So it is not absolute. There is a well defined basis for the infringement of all rights. That is it. Anything else is unacceptable, but the right is not absolute.
          This is an important acknowledgement. The anti’s insist that only the “right people” are allowed to have firearms. The constitution spells out who that is, who the wrong ones are, and what the process is for telling the difference.

        3. avatar Joe R. says:

          “Second Amendment absolutism is ridiculous and unconstitutional. As long as adequate due process is insured, any right may be curtailed. . . ”

          E X A C T L Y

          That’s why the 2nd Amendment is ABSOLUTE.

          Because you can’t “insure” due process without it.

          “the 2nd Amendment is not your permission for the Author to keep and bear arms, it is, rather, the unalienable right that prevents you from having to ask the Author permission to start (for your own desired reasons, AND THROUGH THE POSESSION OF YOUR OWN MEANS) the next Civil War, because the Author hereby forswears that no request for permission will come the other way if the Author is so inclined.” [J.M. Thomas R., TERMS, 2012, Pg. 107]

      2. avatar Joe R. says:

        “The constitution limits the government’s ability by laying out what the government must do in order to curtail the freedom of citizens, but don’t pretend that it doesn’t allow for the most basic of rights to be infringed.”

        AND WHEN OUR STUPID AHOLE NEIGHBORS THAT NEEDED A JOB (OUR ‘GOVERNMENT’) DON’T DO WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO [under the Constitution] WE CAN BREAK LIFE OFF IN ALL OF THEIR FING ASSES UNDER THE 2ND PARAGRAPH OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

        They can roll the Constitution’s animal hide up tight and cram it in their ass far enough to knock their fing teeth out, CAUSE NO ONE WILL BE QUOTING ANYTHING FROM IT AT THAT POINT.

    2. avatar Scoutino says:

      If that’s the case, we are already screwed. With so many laws and restrictions on books, it’s almost impossible not no break some. Then it’s just question of selective prosecution of gun owners to make sure we lose our 2A protected rights.

    3. avatar Big Bill says:

      Due process is a great thing.
      If only we had it.
      Prior restraint (or, as I’ve been calling it, bans) is right in some cases, but it lends itself to gross abuse.
      We use prior restraint to keep some people from flying; that’s a pretty visible example of the abuse I mean.
      The grabbers want to use prior restraint to, as they say, prevent “gun violence.” They even go so far as to propose laws (I’m talking about legislators here) that would forego due process in order to impose that prior restraint (another clear example of abuse).
      I’m talking about people who have absolutely no intention of upholding their oath of office. People who will commit a clearly impeachable act to impose their control illegally.
      I really wish we had due process here in the US. Unfortunately, we don’t.

  18. avatar tdiinva says:

    The problem isn’t lack of commitment to Second Amendment Absolutismm. It is that many Second Amendment absolutists do not understand optics.

    We have arrived at moment created by the the adoption of the AR-15 as rhe symbol of firearms freedom. We have done an Alinsky in reverse. We created a leverage point that antigunners to use against us because our efforts to promote it has made the AR the preferred weapon of the deranged.

    What the community should be doing, but it is probably too late to do, is educating people on the depth and breath shooting sports and personal protection. There are basically 6 categories of firearms that can satisfy every kind of shooter from Fudds to the tacticool crowd:

    Full size pistol
    Carry pistol

    Big game rifle
    Varmint rifle
    Small game/pinker

    Trap/bird

    Here are four sample gun portfolios.

    Fudd:

    Model 29/6″ Ruger LCR/357
    Remington 700/30-06 and 22-250
    Savage Mk II
    Remington 870 wingmaster

    3-gun shooter:
    Glock 17, Glock 26
    M-1A, AR-15, 1022
    Benelli M-2

    Tacticool guy:
    P320, P365
    AR-10, AR-15, 1022
    Benelli M-4

    Personal protection/generalist
    M1911, XD/m compact
    Browning X-bolt/30-06, Mini-14, Savage Mk-II
    Remington 1100

    If we focused on requirements instead of objects we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

    And the larger question is what constitutes and an infringement of your right to bear arms? Suppose Congress passed a law limiting you to six firearms with no restrictons. How does that infringe on your right to bear arms? You could still own anyone of this four portfolios and any others you could imagine.

    The current strategy has left us vulnerable in the court of public. We are losing the battle on optics. Time for a new Second Amendment defense strategy.

    1. avatar Mad Max says:

      And the freedoms of speech, religion, association, and the right to due process are also losing in the court of public opinion.

      What would the founders do?

      1. avatar Gman says:

        Exercise their natural, civil, and Constitutionally protected right to use those kept arms.

        But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

        1. avatar Mad Max says:

          But when would they start fighting with arms?

          Would they be fighting already or would they still be doing what we are doing by trying to exhaust all political, legislative, and judicial courses of action prior to a call to arms?

        2. avatar Gman says:

          Precisely the question I asked in the following blog.
          What will it take? When is enough, enough? There are all too many people in this country who delude themselves into thinking that as a society we no longer are subject to Natural Law. When will these sheep have gone too far and taken the rest of us to the brink? A war is coming. As sure as the founding of our Nation, which failed to resolve the inevitable question of slavery, forged the path directly to the Civil War we are now on a path being laid by socialists. I wonder if they know or care or are simply too stupid to see what is so evident to the rest of us? Their abject failure to understand what led to the election of our current President is clear evidence that they will continue with these policies. That the division building in our country will only continue to build. We are not like other nations led down this path. We are not, and never will be a disarmed populace. I fear for our future and our children’s future.

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @Gman: Spot on. The time is near when you won’t even be able to post such a thing without tyranny busting in your door.

        4. avatar Mad Max says:

          I fear you are both correct.

        5. avatar strych9 says:

          It depends on how you define “war”. Most people think of that as guns, bombs, aircraft, killing etc but that is not necessarily true.

          Carl von Clausewitz shrewdly noted that “War is the continuation of politics by other means.” Therefore it stands to reason that politics is, in itself, a form of war without those “means”. I would argue that this is true and that it means, necessarily, that we are already at war with Socialism and have been for some time. I would further argue that Socialism can be defeated without the force of arms if the population is educated and smart enough to see what Socialism is and where it leads.

          While he may not be the “savior of the Republic” that some hoped/thought/fantasized he would be I would argue that Trump is evidence that a large percentage of the country has seen what Socialism is and where it leads which is why Clinton didn’t make it into the Oval Office. Many have gazed into that abyss and recoiled in horror. Trump might not be the best POTUS ever but according to the U.S. electorate he’s better than Socialism which is effectively what HRC promised.

    2. avatar Gman says:

      We have arrived at moment created by the (the) adoption of the AR-15 as rhe symbol of firearms freedom.
      What a pile of bile.
      Let me help you find the truth. We have arrived at a moment created by those who have absolutely no understanding of our Constitution by the adoption of the idea that the free exercise of any right may be restricted in any way. This has nothing to do with the AR-15. There are no limits upon the free exercise of rights until such exercise infringes upon the rights of another. None. And that is exactly what our Constitution and Bill of Rights says and means.

    3. avatar tdiinva says:

      I am going to reply to both of you.

      First comment is a non sequitor. We are talking about defending our Constitutional right to bear arms, not the defense of other rights. Saying ” because the Second Amendment” while true, doesn’t help with thebody politic. That’s the real world. Grown ups live in it.

      Ok, I am Garand Guy so I have a Mini-14. Bet you 9 out of 10 AR guys sneer at that. In fact Nutnfancy got invited to FLETC and he brought his and they laughed at him until he out shot them with it. The AR is just a varmint rifle, no different in use than a Mini-14, or a bolt gun in 223. The point is that we made the AR the symbo of the Second Amendment when we didn’t have to and that was a big mistake.

      And I see that neither of you, or probably anybody else tackled the question of how being limitted to one firearm in each category restricts your right to bear arms.

      1. avatar Mad Max says:

        I have two Garands, two ARs, and a lot of other rifles, pistols, and revolvers.

        Not very fond of the ARs. Would reach for he Garand first.

        1. avatar Gman says:

          No ARs. Two Garands, six SKS. I’m a big fan of the 7.62 x 39. Cheap, accurate enough, good enough for hunting out to 150 yards.

        2. avatar binder says:

          I have carried a M14 and I love them. But a AR is so much easier to clean, the magazines are way cheaper, lighter and optics are NOT an issue. The ONLY issue with it is I am not relay a pistol grip guy, but I would much rather carry a modern AR-10 or AR-15 than anything with a Garand style action.

        3. avatar Mad Max says:

          plus a M59/66 Yogo SKS

      2. avatar Gman says:

        The point is that we made the AR the symbol of the Second Amendment when we didn’t have to and that was a big mistake.
        I would submit that “we” did not. The left chose to demonize it because it actually does scare them. Probably because they hate all things black. It’s just another form of their historical racism.

        1. avatar Scoutino says:

          I agree that we didn’t choose AR15 as symbol of anything. The gun grabbing lobby chosen it as a bad, bad gun du jour, because they think they can get it banned first easiest. If it isn’t machine gun, short barreled shotgun, Saturday night special cheap handgun, it is super powerfull .50 rifle that shoots through schools and derails trains, or scoped sniper (read hunting) bolt action. They keep trying from different angles, lowest hanging fruit first, just to move to next evil death dealing implement if they succeed. “It shoots too fast. Too big round. Too quietly. Too small. Too many rounds before reloading….” It never ends.

          The 2A absolutism might not be The Answer, but it seems the only answer left to us, if we don’t want to end like Britons with only air guns left legal. Registered, of course.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “The 2A absolutism might not be The Answer, but it seems the only answer left to us, if we don’t want to end like Britons with only air guns left legal. Registered, of course.”

          That’s why I’ve been saying: in the end, there will only be RKBA absolutists remaining.

          We are certainly at that point. Incrementalism will not work.

        3. avatar Joe R. says:

          “That’s why I’ve been saying: in the end, there will only be RKBA absolutists remaining. ”
          +

          And some of them will likely be new ones.

          WHO THE FUCK SEEMS LIKE THEY’VE ALREADY FORGOTTON HOW THIS GREAT NATION GOT STARTED. You think ANYONE ALIVE IN 1780 THOUGHT AMERICANS WOULD BE ABLE TO EEK OUT SURVIVAL UNTIL 1782, MUCH LESS CREATE THE COUNTRY WE HAVE/ DID?

          F all comers.

      3. avatar Tim says:

        Wait… so… AR15 = mini14 = bolt gun in 223?!? Mkay tdi! You really can’t be taken seriously with that bud. Where to start… so we rally needs to clarify semi auto versus a manual action? Geez…. And you do realize the AR15 platform can be had in numerous calibers from 300 blackout to 458 SOCOM to 9mm and so on? Right? Guessing you don’t “waste your time” with all that because you love your mini14. No one should take your input seriously.

      4. avatar Tim says:

        Tdi: how are you any better than the gun grabbing ignoramuses? You don’t even have an AR! You said so yourself. So how can you speak on what you do not know?!!? This is why our rights keep getting chipped away at. Thanks

    4. avatar Tim says:

      Tdi, Your argument is fundamentally flawed in so many ways. ARs are simply modern semi autos. You seem to think the lack of a pistol grip has any bearing on a weapons effectiveness and you repeat disproven nonsense about varmint rounds. Would you take a 5.56 round to center mass voluntarily? Didn’t think so. Any limits on quantity of weapons owned is insanely stupid. What’s next? Every kitchen only gets 10 knives. Come on man. You can’t be serious.

      1. avatar Gman says:

        I dont think modern means what you think it means. A 1960’s design hardly seems modern.

  19. avatar Mad Max says:

    Absolutely on the absolutism.

    Besides the technical complexity of writing firearms laws/regulations without creating unintended consequences, if you give the gun grabbers a thousands of an inch, they try to take a mile.

    1. avatar Gman says:

      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

      This is the one and only firearm law which is Constitutional. Any law, no matter how cleverly crafted, which restricts the right to keep and bear arms, of any kind, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

      1. avatar binder says:

        See your Amendment and raise you and Article. Piss off enough people and it will win. Look at prohibition if you don’t believe me.

        Article V

        The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

        1. avatar Gman says:

          I don’t see your point. But if such an event would occur as to eliminate the second amendment i would point you to the Declaration of Independence for additional guidance.

        2. avatar binder says:

          The Declaration of Independence has NO legal authority. Article V of the Constitution DOES

        3. avatar Joe R. says:

          The ENTIRETY of the Constitution is ethereal vapor if it is chucked under Paragraph 2 of the Declaration of Independence.

          The Constitution can’t even get out of bed in the morning if people choose to get rid of it under the 2nd Paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.

        4. avatar Scoutino says:

          The Declaration of Independence may not be a law, but as Joe points out it provides a possible solution to unbearable situation. Let’s try and work towards situation in which it is not necessary to use that solution.
          (By which I don’t mean restricting ourselves to 6 or any other randomly chosen number of guns. Grabbers are already pissed off and politics of “compromise” got us where we are now.)

        5. avatar Joe R. says:

          Ya, any Fing governmental aholes, or their supporters, better not even hint at a Constitutional question or mention of any of its articles, should the 2nd Paragraph of the Declaration of Independence be invoked.

          It’ll be fun, and with great relish, that Constitutional adherents are staked to a highway and steamrolled, then.

          Article V of the Constitution is just government trying to protect itself AND THAT IS NOT ITS FUCKING JOB.

  20. avatar Gman says:

    We have arrived at moment created by the (the) adoption of the AR-15 as rhe symbol of firearms freedom.
    What a pile of bile.
    Let me help you find the truth. We have arrived at a moment created by those who have absolutely no understanding of our Constitution by the adoption of the idea that the free exercise of any right may be restricted in any way. This has nothing to do with the AR-15. There are no limits upon the free exercise of rights until such exercise infringes upon the rights of another. None. And that is exactly what our Constitution and Bill of Rights says and means.

  21. avatar ironicatbest says:

    We need to abolish the 1st amendment, , along with the 2nd. and the right to travel, countless deaths have occurred thanx to these rights. Something must be done. If not for the country,at least for the children.

  22. avatar Stereodude says:

    The debate over the 2nd amendment is an all out brawling street fight. You can sit on the sidelines and turn up your noses at the brawl going on in the street and clutch your 2A absolutism pearls but you’re going to lose.

    If you put it to a vote with a national referendum where the two options are repeal the 2nd amendment or 2A absolutism, the 2A absolutism side isn’t going to win. It’s unfortunate, but that’s the reality of the culture we live in.

    Pushing for absolutism has bad optics. It doesn’t win hearts and minds. POTG need to incrementally take back gun rights a little bit at a time and slowly change the culture over time. That doesn’t mean caving on the issues and giving things up to appease the gun grabbers. It means making convincing arguments to deny them victories and reclaiming a little bit at time. It’s pretty easy to prove their past efforts & laws have failed / don’t work.

    1. avatar Gman says:

      First, see my comments about Constitutional Absolutism. Second, the only logical conclusion to the end of the 2nd Amendment is the end of our country as we know it. And one thing is for sure, there will be much blood spilled.

      1. avatar Stereodude says:

        It all sounds great in theory, but the rest of us live in the real world. You can’t sell 2A absolutism or even “absolutism” to the general public and get enough buy in to make it happen. Until you can, you might as well keep it to yourself, sound more reasonable, make some converts, and slowly win the “game”.

        The 2A “absolutists” are akin to a football team that thinks they can win the game throwing only hail Mary passes to the end zone every time they get the ball after a touchback instead of going for first downs.

        1. avatar Gman says:

          The entire reason we are in this dilemma in the first place is that the liberals have been executing long term indoctrination particularly in our schools. Nobody said the fight was going to be easy or that there are any short term solutions. We must take back the narrative and reassert our founding principles. But even folks on this site like JWT seem to have already succumbed to long term exposure to the liberal Kool-Aid

        2. avatar Stereodude says:

          Gman: I didn’t say it would be quick or easy either. But “absolutism” or absolutism isn’t going to roll back gun control. There’s nothing wrong with believing in your heart that absolutism/”absolutism” is right, but you’re willing to accept nothing less than absolutism/”absolutism” and mock, ridicule, and attack people who would otherwise get in the proverbial trenches and fight along side you because they’re not absolutists/”absolutists”, then you’re going to lose the war.

          I believe the expression is, “perfect is the enemy of good”.

  23. avatar Texican says:

    The biggest problem we face is the stupendous ignorance of those on the left who vote and cry out for gun bans. They want a solution to the problem as they see it and how it has been presented to them. The leaders probably know why the 2nd Amendment exists but they prey on their followers ignorance on guns and the Founder’s reasoning for having the 2A in the first place. Unfortunately, you can’t help those who are willfully ignorant. And it is very difficult to educate those who might be reasoned with using the liberal media since the lib media is aligned with the Libs. Whole lotta libness out there! Especially since libs have been running the education system for decades. What 2A advocates should be doing is educating the masses on the 2A in every arena and how it came to be and taking newbies to the range as often as possible. And bringing all the POTG together no matter why they use guns. All POTG are in the same boat no matter what they use their guns for. 2A absolutism with the requisite attempt to educate the ignorant. Those who are honest will consider our side of the argument. Those who don’t will reap the unintended consequences. If someone is anti-2A ask them if they’re for racism and genocide. Or if they favor taking guns away from the police and military. If they’re willing to listen, great! If not, change the subject and move on.

    1. avatar Gman says:

      The biggest problem we face is the stupendous ignorance of those on the left

      Best to just leave it there. The rest is superfluous. But the real problem we face is the left is winning the hearts and minds of our youth. They have been force feeding them the liberal KoolAid for decades.

  24. avatar John in Ohio says:

    “Or do both sides of the “gun debate” have to hide behind weasel words to win the hearts and minds (and votes) of firearms freedom fence straddlers? I, for one, am tired of gun rights advocates like Mr. Shapiro, Mr. LaPierre and Ms. Loesch playing coy. You?”

    I’m damned tired of it.

    I know I repeat this stuff, perhaps too much, but I hope it sinks in for at least one other person. The real exercise of unalienable individual rights can rarely be restored incrementally. Normalization and government tendency towards tyranny make it so. Governments often last over generations whereas the individual has but one life. Incrementalism obviously heavily favors tyranny. Besides, deprive an individual of liberty for his lifetime and you have deprived him forever.

    When it comes to RKBA, the solution is simple. Unless someone is in the lawful, legitimate custody of another, their right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Laws counter to reasonable self-defense need to be repealed. That strikes the balance for which so many statists argue. IMHO, the reformation of self-defense law is paramount to the restoration of the exercise of individual RKBA.

    Additionally, if the 1st or 2nd amendments were removed or legislated away to nothing, it wouldn’t change my understanding of the unalienable individual rights upon which the amendments were crafted to protect from government. Government or no government, constitution or not constitution, unalienable individual rights are self-evident and I will defend mine as such.

  25. avatar MDH says:

    I see no other way to defend our God given and Constitutional Rights. The left ultimately wants total disarmament. No measure which restricts 2nd Amendment rights is too small, or too vast for them.

    We can afford to be no less resolute in the defense of our Constitutional Rights.

  26. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    The right to keep and bear arms…..

    ARMS.

    Not firearms.

    Arms.

    Arms. noun
    1. weapons and ammunition; armaments.
    “they were subjugated by force of arms”
    synonyms: weapons, weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, artillery, armaments, munitions, matériel

    Weapons and ammunition. That would include knives, sharp sticks, rocks and a whole host of other things.

    Or put another way… yes I suggest the absolutist ideal presented in the 27 simple words of the Second Amendment .

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      +

      “whole host of other things”

      yep

      MF’s in Iraq tried to blow my guys and me up with sh_t they [OR OTHER AS YET UNNAMED POS CO-CONSPIRATORS IN SYRIA, JORDAN, TURKEY, IRAN, SAUDI ARABIA, PAKISTAN, AFGHANISTAN . . .] made in their f’ing kitchen.

      I definitely learned a lot from that.

      Ban what you want MFs, if/when need-be, I’ll Home Depot your F’ing asses into the stone age, and you’ll hand me a gun to fing finish you and yours off mercifully.

  27. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    The more we abandon the absolutism strategy of individual rights as enumerated in the Constitution the more the Statists will erode and trample them.
    2A is under attack, and we all know that.
    But look at 1A, now free speech is hate speech.
    Look at gun confiscation without legal procedures by government agencies.
    This just goes on and on.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      They’re just trying to attack America and its Constitution in general. They’ve been trying to play ‘founding fathers’ for the last ~ 100 + years (F em, they’ll never rate). They (Hillary Clinton especially) had POS
      (D)1<K Bruce "Baby we were born run [off to Canada]" Springsteen try to press to rewrite the National Anthem, there's been abandonment of Flag Ceremonies and Anthem singing at various events normally preceded by them. There's been aholes shitting out 'anthems' for rap contests. Antifag Protests with flag burning and calls for anarchy.

      Again, all part of their effort to bring down America. F em. We'll outlive all of those MFs and AMERICA will outlive all of them, and us, one way or another.

  28. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    The era of appeasement with the Liberals is like the era of appeasement before WW2.

  29. avatar Arandom Dude says:

    Let’s be real here: arguing that people should be able to get a belt fed machine gun on demand without any kind of background check is a good way to lose. Winning requires calm articulation of why people should have the right to be armed and exposure of the serious flaws in the anti gun-rights arguments. Shapiro was so effective against Morgan because he successfully exposed Morgan’s insincerity instead of throwing a tantrum and yelling about getting in to the ring. The antis have weak arguments, and they’re often dishonest. Let’s just poke holes in that without looking like nuts.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      Yeah, let’s be real. We can’t be Switzerland. Belt-fed weapons cannot be REQUIRED. Must be THEIR f’ing aholes who needed a job (THEIR GOVERNMENT) doesn’t hate and not-trust them.

      F all that.

  30. avatar J says:

    Please help save our 2nd Amendment rights. Look at these petitions and decide which to sign.

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/oppose-gun-control-and-weapons-ban-legislation

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov

  31. avatar Craig in IA says:

    If those who don’t understand “politics” ever take charge of the 2nd Amendment issues, we’ll lose it all. Had those like Neal Knox and Larry Pratt, et al been on point in the issue back in 1992 and tried to go into the Senator’s offices and bang on their desks and tell them to go to hell when everyone knew the semi-auto “ban” was going to pass in some capacity when all characters were taken into consideration, we’d not have any semi-autos available today. There are many other similar instances that can be cited for other firearms issues.

    If you’re in a battle, and aren’t seeking 72 virgins or some sort of Kamikaze ending to yourself, you battle as hard as you can but you also work to survive and fight another day. I know people around this site trash NRA all the time but really ,kids, if it wasn’t for their leadership and strategy from around 1971 on, when Harlon Carter and his pals changed its direction, we’d be UK by now. And the damn thing is, NRA did it, often with only avout 3% of gun owners even spending $20-$25 per year for a membership…

  32. avatar Anonymous says:

    Why do I have to go through a background check because “low quality individual A” from “State B” killed someone with something similar to something I own?

    The antithesis of freedom. The antithesis of justice.

  33. avatar Red Forman says:

    Absolutely.

  34. avatar mandrake the magician says:

    my responses would be two:
    (a)we cannot make major policy changes on the basis of incidents that have not been properly investigated;
    we would need, @ the very least, a fully independent committee, open to the public, to carefully analyse and assess all the evidence surrounding any particular “mass shooting” incident and, then, after some period of time (@ least a year), present its findings to Congress and the Senate who would, then, further deliberate on those findings for a period of time (@ least six months) before any major legislation was proposed;
    also: afore-said legislation would have to be confirmed by a referendum;
    (b)the US Constitution is written in simple English and merely acknowledges pre-existing rights which the government cannot interfere with;
    the clear meaning of the document is that no limits should be placed on the personal possession of arms;
    that is, also, confirmed many times in the writings of the Founding Fathers;

  35. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    The problem with a gun community is that many of them support gun control such as a regulation and or Banning of bump stocks, but don’t want to admit it. No one is willing to make the case publicly for rapid-fire weapons in the hands of the civilian population. However the Obama Administration started shipping select fire M16s to police departments all across the United States. M-79 grenade launchers and M-16s were sent to school districts. The gun Community leadership, NRA, GOA, etc, failed to address this contradiction.

    I’m a absolutist on the second amendment. Flame throwers, Machine Guns, artillery, small arms, etc.

    Also the gun community is afraid to criticize certain gun grabbers. For example Tom Ammiano in the state of California is a responsible for writing the 10-day waiting period into law. But years before that he was responsible for ending the rifle teams in San Francisco city high schools. And because he’s a white homosexual people are afraid to criticize him for anything. Even to the point when he takes civil rights away from American citizens. I wonder how many women have been raped in California waiting to get a gun, because of this white homosexual????

    https://calwatchdog.com/2013/01/29/anti-gun-lawmakers-lead-hearing-today/

    “Ammiano was instrumental in getting rid of San Francisco’s High School competitive .22 cal rifle teams, and worked to put an end to the junior ROTC program in San Francisco’s High Schools. Ammiano supported the ban on allowing gun owners to carry an unloaded gun in public. “Whether a gun is loaded or not, it’s still an act of intimidation and bullying,” Ammiano said.”

    When the Rifle teams were taken out of schools across the United States the education about the Second Amendment and gun owners responsibilities were no longer taught in American schools. Unfortunately it has become about collecting the latest firearm and not teaching the children about their Second Amendment heritage.

    People of the gun need to get a back bone.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Yes, they do need to get a backbone. Great comment.

  36. avatar mandrake the magician says:

    People of the gun need to get a back bone

    that will take too long;
    you need some-thing that will ‘work’ in the short-to-medium term;
    the fact-of-the-matter is that ‘people’ like Ammiano are in power all over the US;
    they have to be neutralised ….. fast ;
    that may involve orgs like the NRA, GOA, SAF etc. calling BULL-shite on these mass shooting incidents or, @ the very least, demanding independent public inquiries;
    people are less likely than they ever were to believe the main-stream media and there have been enough cops and feds accused of corruption and incompetence to merit such a response;
    the only other answer is secession of certain states and the balkanisation of the US …. depending, of course, on how far the gun-grab laws go @ the federal level and how many states succumb to these scoundrels …..

  37. avatar TR says:

    Holding the position of “SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED.” does a great job at marginalizing gun rights folks more than Shannon Watts, Michael Bloomberg, and Diane Feinstein ever could. It is precisely how the 2nd amendment gets eroded and neutered into oblivion. Reality does not support absolutism and even setting that aside, it’s intellectually lazy. It’s literally the “just bomb them all and turn the Middle East into a parking lot” of arguments that does nothing to convince anyone who has even a slightly different world view from your own.

    If absolutist views are the answer, tell me, how many of you have been convinced by radical feminists that all sex is subjugation and akin to rape? Or that gender is a man-made construct? Or that Scandinavian welfare states are models to emulate? Or that animals should be liberated from ownership and enjoy civil rights? Those folks are just as principled and earnest in their beliefs as you are regarding gun rights but those views all remain firmly at the margins of discourse.

    Absolutism lives and dies entirely on the fringes. Rather than focusing on ideological purity, the focus should be in winning over the antis. Take your coworker hunting. Have your neighbor tag along with you at the range. Educate others on trigger discipline and gun safety. Talk about the historical significance of your prized Dreyse needle fire rifle in relation to the development of metallic cartridges. Overwhelm the antis with reason, not fanatical quotations of historical documents with no actual legal bearing, hypothetical fantasies of overthrowing a tyrannical U.S. government, and asserting your rights as “sovereign citizens”. It is not enough to be right, you have to get others to buy into the idea. And dealing in absolutes isn’t the way to do it. Otherwise we’d all be kneeling during the National Anthem to support gender non-conforming, undocumented immigrant abortion clinicians’ right for a universal basic income.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Without absolutism, we wouldn’t have gotten the Second Amendment written as is in the first place. The nation is at a crossroads. Will it be “Shall not be infringed” or will it be begging government for privileges? Even though the 2A is supposed to keep government from what it has been doing since 1934, we’ve been allowing government to incrementally destroy the exercise of the right. Government is doing what governments do. Our free people haven’t been doing what is necessary to remain free. It has been 84 years of tyranny. Now is the time. Stand fast at shall not be infringed or play mother may I for the last gasping years of a free nation? Some may choose to beg, the rest of us refuse. Live free or die. Those really are the choices.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “Overwhelm the antis with reason,”

      They… don’t… care.

      Know your enemy. Reason means nothing. There is a socialist/communist take over at hand from the left with the complicity of the statist right. Both groups want to offload some of their individual responsibility to government. They don’t want to listen to reason. They won’t listen to reason. They want government to do something. And, government will do something; grow in power. That’s what governments do.

    3. avatar mandrake the magician says:

      there are such things as absolute truths;
      for instance: if you jump off a tall building without a parachute, you will hit the ground below and, in all likelihood, be killed;
      that is an absolute truth;
      another one is that if you touch High Voltage power lines, you will, also, be killed;
      that, also, is an absolute truth;
      consider the Second Amendment to be in the same category as the above;
      consider it to be in the nature of a warning well backed up and confirmed by historical evidence;
      the hundreds of millions of helpless, disarmed people who were murdered by their own governments in the twentieth century alone being one such lot of evidence;
      the absolute catastrophe of gun control in countries like Australia and the UK being another such;
      those are facts which can be, very easily, verified;
      and they go a very long way indeed to validate the Second Amendment as an absolute truth;

      They don’t want to listen to reason. They won’t listen to reason

      exactly!
      the inter-webs have been around now for well over two decades;
      a whole generation;
      the truth and the facts abt gun control are easily accessible to almost any-one;
      the leftist “antis-” have adopted a hard-and-fast ideological position;
      there is no more ‘reasoning’ to be done with them;
      only force

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