Your Right to Keep And Bear Arms Does Not Depend on the Democratic Process or Arguments About Social Utility

March for Our Lives sing song

As I watch the March for Our Lives Children’s Crusade I’m struck by how struck the media is with the size of the crowds demanding that the government degrade and destroy their right to keep and bear arms. As expected it’s both frustrating and depressing. I assume some of you feel the same way. So keep this in mind . . .

Your right to keep and bear arms is an individual, natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right.

As a Constitutionally protected right, the right to keep and bear arms is not subject to the democratic process. Which invalidates any and all arguments that your individual right to keep and bear arms can be regulated for the common good.

No matter how many Americans want to infringe (i.e. regulate) your gun rights, no mater how compelling their rationale for “the common good,” that right can not be voted away. Not without repealing the Second Amendment.

Yeah I know: tell that to gun owners in New Jersey. New York. Maryland. Hawaii. Connecticut. And especially California. Not to mention other state and all of us throughout this great nation (via federal regulation).

But just because your rights have been voted away by politicians and curtailed by mendacious bureaucrats doesn’t mean it’s legal to do so. Gun control is unconstitutional. Period. 

Call me an absolutist but I take comfort in the fact — fact — that my right to possess whatever firearms I want rests on firm legal bedrock. Even if “The People,” their elected representatives and the Supreme Court believe otherwise.

Will we live to see full gun rights restoration?

There’s only way I can see that happening: if Americans suddenly see — firsthand, as the Founding Fathers did — the necessity of a uninfringed right to keep and bear arms. If they suddenly need that right.

That kind of sea change would require a disaster of epic proportions. Economic collapse? Nuclear war? Something like that. BUT —

Just as the antis play the long game, incrementally chipping away at our gun rights, gun rights advocates can chip away at gun control. The number of Americans bearing arms has soared in the last decade, thanks to the gradual liberalization of carry laws.

So there is hope for change, even as the anti-gun gestalt grows, or seems to be growing. Remembering there are tens of millions of unseen American gun owners who continue to use the ballot box to make their voices heard.

What happens next? Watch this space. But take heart. Might doesn’t right, but heavily armed right-thinking Americans are out there, somewhere.

comments

  1. avatar anonymoose says:

    Well, hell, gun control is not only “unconstitutional,” it’s infringing on the natural right of self defense shared by all humans, regardless of nationality. America is the last bastion of liberty. Every other country really is an authoritarian shithole.

    1. avatar President Comacho says:

      Actually it does. Remember that old alcohol prohibition? It was an a-m-e-n-d-m-e-n-t. That the founders made the constitution amendable mean you never lived in a constitutional republic and have always lived in a democracy, which is, if enough people want you strung up by your unmentionables for their entertainment, then it becomes law. Idiocracy folks. Pass the Mountain Dew. I wish we had Hillary. Peoples guard would still be up, stronger house majorities to shout down anything she did. Instead we got the guy who thinks good business is filing for bankruptcy and utilizing eminent domain.

      1. avatar A says:

        Philosophy won’t protect you from a hungry bear that has no reason to buy into your personal moral system.

        Our ability to maintain gun rights rests on our ability to continue to win national elections. The left has been importing new voters to turn red counties blue and we do not have a lot of years left. We need to close the borders and deport as many democrat voters as possible.

      2. avatar Sandy Clifton says:

        Where the hell did you come from. Have you read the Constitution, the bill of rights. The answer is no you have not. You just spout what the libturd elite tell you.

  2. avatar binder says:

    “Your Right to Keep And Bear Arms Does Not Depend on the Democratic Process”

    Sorry, but BULLSHIT

    “Not without repealing the Second Amendment.” <- He got this part right. Have enough carnage and you can say good buy. Any bets on the needed body count?

    Constitution of United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992)
    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 RogueVal says:

      Shh! Don’t let facts ruin this, he’s on a role.

    2. avatar 300BlackoutFan says:

      @binder –

      I’m really sick of your BS.

      Let’s ask a simple question. Do you feel that the right to self defense is a NATURAL right? I’m not asking if you feel that the 2nd Amendment ‘protects’ it. I’m not asking if you think other countries do or do not acknowledge that right. I’m asking if you feel that the right to self defense is a NATURAL RIGHT.

      Here’s my take: In NATURE, mother bears will defend their cubs. Who bestowed their ability to do such a thing? In NATURE, bees/hornets/wasps will defend their hive/queen if they feel threatened.

      The RIGHT to SELF DEFENSE appears then to be a NATURAL RIGHT. Given this, I fail to see how any just government can restrict, infringe, place limits on your NATURAL RIGHT to self defense. JUDGING you, and holding you RESPONSIBLE for your ACTIONS are COMPLETELY different. It’s the ‘RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS [for any lawful purpose]’. Redefining, via ANY PROCESS, which ARMS you may BEAR, or how you BEAR them is, by definition, an INFRINGEMENT on that NATURAL RIGHT.

      Feel free to show me the error in my logic.

      1. avatar binder says:

        Oh I agree with you 100%. I also think that it was the bearing of arms by the English Peasant Archers that started the idea of individual sovereignty and modern democracy. Nothing protects citizens like some pissed off local can blast a “Noble Knight” of his horse.

        But I don’t for a minute underestimate the outrage of a mob and the ability to strips the rights of individuals in the name of “safety” and the greater good.

        Look at all the crap that happened as a result of some idiots that managed to smash a couple of airliners into a city. And that was HARD HARD HARD to do. Took a lot of people and moving parts.

        The Oklahoma City bombing. That took a lot of planning, a genius (and he was one) and 3.5 ton bomb.

        But now anyone can build and effective SAW and shoot almost 500 people (and it could have been a hell of a lot worse).

        Like I said, at what point do you think the body count is going to be high enough? Did not take that much in 1934. What about 1994? At some point people are going to say to hell with it.

        And lets be a true second amendment abolitionist, how do you feel about your neighbors keeping VX nerve gas.

        1. avatar 300BlackoutFan says:

          Except you encourage the stripping of rights according to majority rule. The point of this article is even if they repealed the 2nd Amendment, you would still have your natural right to self defense.

          If my neighbor wants to hold VX nerve gas, well, I think he should be able to. Until he kills someone unjustly, it’s called dangerous freedom. I’m not sure how that’s exactly a self defense weapon, but hey, nice strawman.

          You prefer peaceful slavery, you’re welcome to it. I think I should be able to possess a machine gun or bumpfire or nuclear weapon – for ANY LAWFUL PURPOSE. The government does.. by what authority.. Oh yeah WE THE PEOPLE. So what makes any single person, or group of people, in Government any more ‘honest/trustworthy/???’ than any other civilian. Millions more have been killed by their Governments during the course of history.

          So, you think self defense is a natural right, and you’re all gung-ho to welcome bump-fire bans, or AR-15 bans, or pointy things that can be propelled greater than 10m/s. You’re a hypocrite, and you are full of BS.

        2. avatar binder says:

          Hell no I for stripping rights, but you are under an amazingly stupid idea that a peace of paper written over 200 years ago is going to protect you rights. Your “right” are protected only when enough other people are willing to protect them. And that’s the way the world works, so get over it.

          You really want to protect your rights, take people out to the range. Help people learn to shoot. But you need to be moderate. Of course you always try and emulate Larry Flynt, the world needs firebrands too. Just don’t expect the world to invite you over for dinner.

        3. avatar Hank says:

          Nerve gas after a train ride is what we’re all gonna get if these leftist fascists regain power…. or Zyklon B…

    3. avatar CarlosT says:

      Look at the composition of state legislatures. Look at how many are red and how many are blue. We all know that’s not a 100% reliable predictor of gun rights support but it indicates lean. No way does a Second Amendment repeal get three quarters of those state legislatures. You’d more likely get an amendment through reenshrining the right to keep and bear arms, removing all doubts and ambiguities.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        Carlos, it’s simple – The next time they control SCOTUS, Heller gets reversed.

        And that will happen so fast heads will spin.

        They will equate ‘Heller’ being reversed to be morally the same as when ‘Dred Scott’ was reversed.

        Everything else heads downhill soon after.

        Tell me I’m wrong on that…

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          They already point out that Heller only applies to a firearm in the home (or some such, I just read something like that during the DC march today). I don’t think that the court would necessarily have to reverse Heller. I think there were enough holes for the court to gut it. Then again, I don’t discount your thinking that they might reverse Heller outright.

    4. avatar Kyle in Upstate NY says:

      Even if the Second Amendment was repealed that still does not give the government any authority to restrict the right to keep and bear arm. It is important to remember that the Bill of Rights was only created as a compromise to satisfy the Anti-Federalists to win their support for ratification. The Federalists themselves saw the creation of a Bill of Rights as redundant because it said that the government cannot do things that it was never granted the authority to do in the first place. For example, as Hamilton writes in Federalist 84: “For why say that things shall not be done for which there is no power to do?” So even if the Second Amendment was repealed, the government still does not have the authority to restrict the right to keep and bear arms.

      1. avatar Rick says:

        That’s not how the constitution works. If you have the support to repeal an amendment, by definition, you already have support to pass a law that completely bans all guns. To repeal an amendment, you have to pass another amendment, see 18th-21st. To pass a law, you just need a majority, or worse case for Cloture in the senate, 60 votes.

        Amendment proposals may be adopted and sent to the states for ratification by either:

        -A two-thirds (supermajority) vote of members present—if a quorum exists—in both the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States Congress; or
        -A two-thirds (supermajority) vote of a national convention called by Congress at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds (at present 34) of the states. (This method has never been used.)

        All thirty-three amendment proposals that have been sent to the states for ratification since the establishment of the Constitution have come into being via the Congress. State legislatures have however, at various times, used their power to apply for a national convention in order to pressure Congress into proposing a desired amendment. For example, the movement to amend the Constitution to provide for the direct election of senators began to see such proposals regularly pass the House of Representatives only to die in the Senate from the early 1890s onward. As time went by, more and more state legislatures adopted resolutions demanding that a convention be called, thus pressuring the Senate to finally relent and approve what later became the Seventeenth Amendment for fear that such a convention—if permitted to assemble—might stray to include issues above and beyond just the direct election of senators.

        To become an operative part of the Constitution, an amendment, whether proposed by Congress or a national constitutional convention, must be ratified by either:

        -The legislatures of three-fourths (at present 38) of the states; or
        -State ratifying conventions in three-fourths (at present 38) of the states.

        Congress has specified the state legislature ratification method for all but one amendment. The ratifying convention method was used for the Twenty-first Amendment, which became part of the Constitution in 1933.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          If you look closely at the “convention of states” provisions, the convention can only send proposals to the congress. There is no provision requiring the proposals be forwarded to the states within any specified timeline. Article 5 also provides for the congress to decide whether ratification shall be by votes of state legislatures, or by state conventions. There is plenty of room for mischief.

        2. avatar Rick says:

          But its when one direct 100% of the time so far. Yes, states pressured the federal government for direct election of senators, but that’s not how its worked so far.

          I just can’t see a way for a new Constitutional Congress, I’d probably bet on secession and revolution before that, heck we didn’t get one the last time that happened.

    5. avatar Justsomeguy says:

      @binder, You don’t only have to take out the 2nd, but the 9th and 10th too.

      This comment section is horrible. Why do we accept horrible on an otherwise good site?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “You don’t only have to take out the 2nd, but the 9th and 10th too.”

        Ninth and tenth were repealed with the thirteenth and fourteenth.

    6. avatar Enkidu says:

      The right to keep and bear arms for resistance and self-preservation is not a right that is subject to Article V. As the Supreme Court has held: “The right there specified [in the Second Amendment] is that of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed”. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542, at 553 (1876) (reaffirmed in Heller (2008) and Mcdonald (2010)).

      Additionally, the Supreme Court in Heller noticed that the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and hunting has absolutely nothing to do with the Second Amendment at all:

      “[T]he Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783, at 2801 (2008).

      Accordingly, the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and hunting (self-preservation) is an **unenumerated** fundamental right. Ineed, the Supreme Court explicitly observed that this right pre-existed the Constitution. Thus it exists entirely independent of the Constitution. Not even martial law can take the right away. It is one that the “people reserved to themselves”. (quoting Heller).

      The only right that can be secured by the Second Amendment, is that of maintaining and participating in an armed, private, citizens militia. But the Supreme Court also observed that resistance, (to tyranny and oppression), like self-preservation, is a natural right that predated the Constitution. Accordingly, in reality, the Second Amendment is functionally equivalent to the Ninth Amendment, in that it simply informs government that we have those rights.

      So, what Constitutional provision protects the unenumerated right to keep and bear arms for resistance and self-preservation? The virtually impenetrable safe-zone of the Substantive Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, right along with our most valued and protected unenumerated fundamental rights, such as the right to procreate, freely travel, breathe oxygen, consume sustenance for survival, pursue happiness, etc. etc.

      If those rights are not subject to Article V conventions, (and they are absolutely not), neither is the unenumerated, fundamental, natural right to keep and bear arms for resistance and self-preservation. (three distinct and separate unenumerated, fundamental natural rights that are inextricably tied together.)

      It should be noted that, under the Substantive Due Process Clauses, the right to keep and bear arms for those lawful purposes is virtually absolute. That is to say, every free individual of age who is not currently insane can keep and bear everything that constitutes bearable arms, with the notable exception of dangerous and unusual weapons such as nerve agents and nuclear bombs and the like. In sum, citizens have a right to keep and bear everything that the police and military currently does.
      The government cannot infringe these rights, at all, no matter what process is provided, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest (virtually impossible for government to show).

      But the protection of the right does not even nearly end there because the Supreme Court has also observed that government has NO interest relating to private civil matters self-defense (citizen on citizen) at all unless the citizen is, or should be, in government custody. (legally known as a “special relationship”) Indeed, the protections do not even stop there either.

      When I said the right was virtually absolute, such was, not by far, any form of aggaderation. Indeed, Heller also articulates this point:

      “This [the right to keep and bear arms] may be considered as the true palladium of liberty …. The right to self-defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine the right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms ***is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited,*** liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” Id. at 2805. (emphasis mine)

      Accordingly, you and the article writer are absolutely wrong as a matter of established law. The right to keep and bear arms for resistance and self-preservation is NOT subject to Article V convention; and the Second Amendment is no more subject to constitutional amendment than the Ninth Amendment or the rights specified by both Amendments. They are not the source of the rights, nor do they secure them, rather, those two amendments are only discussing those right in a conversation that the founders were having with the federal government.

      So when the article writer says that the rights in question are not subject to the democratic process, he is absolutely correct and you are wrong.

      I would like to cite case law and further elaborate but this post is transforming into a book and has to end somewhere.

      Questions and criticisms by anyone are welcome and strongly encouraged.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        I like your post.

        However….

        The SC permits lower courts to run roughshod over the second amendment, and refuses to take any case to clarify, reinforce or harden the Heller/McDonald rulings. Lower courts ignore the SC with absolute impunity.

        Judicial reasoning about which amendments cannot be repealed, or which rights are immune from the amendment process falls flat. The constitution provides an amendment process.The founders did not see fit to declare certain rights to be immune from the amendment process. And absolutely zero unalienable rights are immune from “compelling government interest”.

        I should think that if the judicial reasoning you cite held any weight at the bar, lower courts would be required to declare the SC rulings in Heller/McDonald to be null and void in an attempt to permit the compromises of “gun rights” that we have seen every year since Heller/McDonald. Instead, the lower courts are finding that Heller/McDonald can be overruled by reasoning so flimsy as that if a community is made to feel safer due to gun restrictions, that is justification enough for interfering with the second amendment. “Reasonable restrictions”, donchano?

        1. avatar B-Rad says:

          Amendments aren’t repealed by the supreme court, that’s not how it works.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Not my point.

          Judicial reasoning about which parts of the constitution cannot be repealed would logically point that such rights cannot be impaired through mere legislation, either. Since the judicial reasoning in 1875 does not carry weight, the courts can impair the enumerated (and other) rights through judicial rulings.

          If the 1875 reasoning held, all a person would need to do to have gun control legislation declared unconstitutional would be to point solely to Cruikshank. Any federal court would have to find gun control legislation inferior to the amendment process. Thus, legislation cannot be used to do that which the amendment process cannot do.

          Which we know is not the case.

        3. avatar Enkidu says:

          As to your first paragraph, I fully agree. In fact, such is precisely what caused me to go back to the drawing board to see if I could find any clues in the Heller decision. The last paragraph of the majority opinion was where I found the first clue that changed my entire understanding of Heller. In fact, it permitted me to develop what I like to call the “E=mc2 of the right to keep and bear arms”:

          “Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, ***where well-trained police forces provide personal security***, and where gun violence is a serious problem. ***That is perhaps debatable***, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.” Id. at 2822 (emphasis mine)
          https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6484080926445491577&q=dc+v+heller&hl=en&as_sdt=6,45

          Those emphasized portions are key because they tells us (1) that we have an available argument; and (2) the Supreme Court considers it open for debate. Everything that was articulated in my previous post is predicated on that argument.

          First, let me say that you misconstrued my statement regarding strict scrutiny. You are correct in that all rights are subject to some form of governmental restrictions. In fact, there is no need to go beyond that because my original post does not assert otherwise.

          Second, I agree that courts are disregarding the strict scrutiny standard with impunity. But, they are only doing so because people are not presenting the appropriate arguments. The argument that I presented in my previous post can be used under the Second Amendment.
          However, I’m not going to make that demonstration because it is irrelevant. The very fact that we are attempting to vindicate our private to right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and hunting through the Second Amendment is precisely why we are running into a brick wall with the courts.

          Insted, we need to find a constitutional provision that takes the matter almost entirely out of the hands of the government and judges who just love to legislate from the judicial branch. That is exactly what the argument in my original post does. And all I did was follow the trail of breadcrumbs left by the Supreme Court, one Honorable Justice in particular.

          Third, your contention that all rights are subject to Article V is simply wrong. If what you say were true, it would permit a majority of the population to place blacks back into slavery, or for blacks to do the same to whites. It could even result in the repealing of people’s right to life in general. Indeed, it would be no different than a full democracy rather than a Constitutional democratic Republic. I will let you sort that out on your own. But you are horribly wrong on that account. Natural rights are NOT subject to repealing or amendment. Civil/Constitutional rights (such as the right to vote, trial by jury, unreasonable searches and seizures, etc,) ARE subject to amendment and/or repeal.

          Finally, contrary to your suggestion, the argument that I presented will have virtually no impact on Heller or McDonald. Like I said, the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and hunting exists entirely separate from the Second Amendment. I showed you that the Supreme Court in Heller directly observed that such was a fact; It explicitly stated that the right to keep and bear arms was not codified in the Second Amendment. Additionally, it took direct notice that the founders thought keeping and bearing arms for self-defense and hunting was MORE important than the right of which the Second Amendment sought to protect. (to maintain and participate in an armed private citizens militia).

          In other words, in the eyes of a unanimous Supreme Court, the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and hunting is ***undisputedly***, an unenumerated, individual, fundamental natural right that has absolutely nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

          Indeed, Heller’s underlying holding simply observed that citizens can use their militia arms for self-defense and hunting too. In fact, it had to do it that way in order to even hear the case. Technically, the opinion is not wrong because private citizens were expected to bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they kept at home when called for militia service anyway. But keeping and bearing arms for self-defense and hunting was not the explicit reason that the Second Amendment was codified. Such is paramount and changes everything. (for later debate)

          In fact, if anything, my original argument permits the majority and dissenting opinions’ in Heller and McDonald to be consolidated into a per curiam (unanimous) opinion with no major changes at all, or it can move on and establish its own precedent all together and exist parallel with Heller in virtual harmony. For obvious safety-net reasons, I have **personally** chosen to take the latter rout; I will not risk disturbing Heller or McDonald at all. In fact, it is not necessary to do so.

          There is an added benefit to the later rout; you get to tell government to keep all of its current regulations because none of them have anything to do with keeping and bearing arms for self-defense and hunting anyway given the fact that such regulations were specifically enacted for purposes as to place limitations on rights that are alleged by government to be secured by the Second Amendment.

          That is to say, there are virtually no laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and hunting, which are rights that are clearly secured by the Substantive Due Process Clauses right along with all other unenumerated fundamental rights. ;)-

          If you, or anyone else, desire to get to the meat and potatoes of the E=mc2 formula, I’m willing and able to go as far as people want to go. It is somewhat of a complicated discussion, but I see that we are all operating on virtually the same page and level of comprehension here. (to my pleasant surprise)

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          We are not discovering the 1875 SC decision only today. If that decision had anything to offer, it would have been referenced in Heller/McDonald; it wasn’t. If the 1875 opinion had any influence, it would have been decisive each time any restriction on gun ownership had been raised.

          “That is to say, there are virtually no laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and hunting, which are rights that are clearly secured by the Substantive Due Process Clauses right along with all other unenumerated fundamental rights. ;)- ”

          And yet, those laws do exist, don’t they?

          “If what you say were true, it would permit a majority of the population to place blacks back into slavery, or for blacks to do the same to whites.”

          If a constitutional amendment can outlaw slavery, an amendment can re-instate it. It is a poor argument to posit that the central government, through the amendment process, can remove an unenumerated right (9th amendment), but cannot restore it.

          “It could even result in the repealing of people’s right to life in general.”

          The constitution is the law of the land (along with legislation passed and signed). Where do you find a “right to life”? In the 9th? The founders knew that any legal document can be modified by proper authority. The knew the risks of an amendment process. They were supremely equipped to have foresight as to how the amendment process could result in amendments that upended the constitution itself. Indeed, they argued fiercely about the Commerce Clause, and its ability to be used to destroy the constitution itself. The founders decided it was unnecessary to declare that certain provisions or amendments were immune from modification. Thus, the entire constitution is subject to amendment. A judicial opinion to the contrary does not alter the mechanics of the constitution.

          In short, we have court sanctioned limits on weapons ownership and possession. Court sanctioned limits on the second amendment. And as a result, we have had no third revolution to overthrow the courts.

        5. avatar Enkidu says:

          Sam I AM: “We are not discovering the 1875 SC decision only today. If that decision had anything to offer, it would have been referenced in Heller/McDonald; it wasn’t.”

          I never cited a SC case from 1875. However, I did cite United States v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542 (1876), thus I assume that Cruikshank is the case you are asserting was not referenced in Heller/McDonald.

          It is clear that you have not read Heller or McDonald, otherwise you would have seen the citation in both. Indeed, as substantial portion of the argument in McDonald was dedicated to attempting to convince the SC to overrule Cruikshank in part in an attempt to incorporate Heller’s holding via the privileges and immunity clause of the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the Substantive Due Process Clause. The SC in McDonald rejected the argument and REAFFIRMED Cruikshank, and incorporated Heller’s holding through the Substantive Due Process clause via Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997).

          Here’s the direct citation from Heller:

          “The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed. 588 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .” Heller, Id. at 2798 (verbatim quote)

          Accordingly, you are patently wrong.

          Sam I Am: “Where do you find a “right to life”?
          The entire government was established for the explicit purpose as to protect what the signers of the Declaration of Independence believed were the People’s “inalienable rights” of “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness”.

          Now I’m going to stop right here because it is clear that you are now merely paintranising me. You have no intention of carrying on even a rational debate. Your contentions border on absurd. (with all due respect of course).

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          1876. Thanx. I goofed that.

          The referenced words in that decision should have brought any federal gun control legislation to a full stop. Period. The fact that Scalia found room for “reasonable restrictions” means Cruikshank is not persuasive.

          The SC found that government has, indeed, authority to regulate the second amendment (“reasonable restrictions”). Once the central government obliterated the 10th amendment, the federal constitution, and court rulings related, obligated the states to subjugate their individual laws to federal law and legal precedence. That should have meant that the states also could not regulate the second amendment.

          Cruikshank should have ended any debate about regulating the second amendment. Yet, since that ruling the governments have giddily imposed onerous laws upon law abiding gun owners, time and again.

          Cruikshank should have been kryptonite to any attempt to impose gun laws on the nation. It was/is not.

  3. avatar Art out West says:

    A disaster of epic proportions (economic collapse, etc.) is not only possible, but seems almost inevitable at this point. It could happen soon, or it might be postponed for some time. Either way, the unsustainable debt, environmental degradation, cultural decline, political corruption, etc. are leading to disasters of epic proportions.

    1. avatar binder says:

      It’s been “inevitable” forever. What else is new

      1. avatar Art out West says:

        Such is the nature of epic catastrophes my friend. They arrive suddenly, and catch the imprudent unprepared. The wise see warning signs from a distance, and are not caught off guard.

        History is full of epic catastrophes. Only the naive think that it can’t happen here.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and pay the penalty.”

        2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

          For instance: read “One Second After” for a chilling account of just such an example.

        3. avatar Art out West says:

          John goes book of Proverbs on us. 😃 good

        4. avatar Gun Free School Zones are a crime against humanity says:

          Be debt free, including your house. Have savings stashed. Have food and other supplies stashed. Weapons and ammunition.

          There’s nothing the individual can do to stop catastrophic national events from happening. But that doesn’t mean the individual just has to bend over and take it when they do happen.

    2. avatar Bloving says:

      How quickly we all forget…
      One word to the skeptics out there: Hurricanes.

      We get them annually or even semiannual. And for a brief time they prove without a doubt to any and all in their path that the cold hard reality is: YOU – and you alone, are responsible for your own safety.
      ….and a few months later the lesson is forgotten and the sheep go back to grazing and expecting the shepherd to provide their every need…
      🤠

  4. avatar Mort Pokerman says:

    I went to my LGS today, it was packed. I was looking at some lever rifles or bolt actions then some revolvers thinking these will be the last to be regulated. I bought an AK instead. My first! Screw them.

    1. avatar Art out West says:

      Welcome to the AK family.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Here’s a lot of good AK information. Watch it while you still can.

      http://www.youtube.com/user/AkOperatorsUnion

    3. avatar Art out West says:

      By the way, what kind of AK did you get? Mine is a Saiga FWIW.

      1. avatar Mort Pokerman says:

        Unfortunately they didn’t have a big selection. I picked up a Century C-39 V2 with the Magpul furniture. It felt good. I also picked up a used Walther PPQ M1 in 40. 40’s are so cheap now and people are practically giving them away. I like 40’s.

        1. avatar Gun Free School Zones are a crime against humanity says:

          During the great ammo shortage .40 was always on the shelf. I don’t buy a .40 cause I don’t want to add another caliber to the supply chain.

        2. avatar Art out West says:

          Great! I hope you enjoy it. Also, congrats on the Walther. 9,40,45,38,357, etc all good in my book

      2. avatar Mort Pokerman says:

        Thanks. My first Walther and AK. I’m sure I’ll enjoy both. I was going to get the Ruger 7.62 x 39 bolt but it’s not what I really wanted. The anti’s gave me the push I needed to pull the trigger so to speak and buy the AK. Thank’s moms and bloombeg!

        1. avatar Art out West says:

          That Ruger bolt action in 7.62X39 does look cool (since I stock the ammo for my AK and SKS). I view the Ruger as a nice addition to an AK, but not a substitute for it.

          The antis talked me into buying my AR15 (and Glock19) a couple years ago. At this rate, they will probably talk me into buying another AR15 sometime soon. Maybe they can even talk me into getting an automating .308 of some sort.

    4. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      America has been quietly arming itself since the Sandy Hook killings. I’d visit my local gun-shop and find the place filled with Americans, both average and affluent, who were buying guns and ammo. I’d never seen anything like that before. It’s still going on. The gun-controllers don’t quite understand their effect: every time they demonstrate more and more Americans buy guns. That and the fact that elected politicians know full well that those are the same people who might (or might not) vote for them is a sobering reality

  5. avatar AndyinMA says:

    This media frenzy is just the beginning. I think the dems will do well in the midterm elections. How ironic that Hillary lost yet here we are in more trouble than ever. I’m surprised guns and ammo are still cheap – I intend to take advantage of that now because it’s going to change soon I think.

    1. avatar Mark says:

      Well the dems will certainly fair well in the communist state you live in that’s for sure. How’s that AG treating you?

      1. avatar anonymoose says:

        As long as the libby media keeps putting out fake polls and relying on the laziest generation ever, they’re going to lose big in November.

      2. avatar AndyinMA says:

        Our AG is treating us gun owners terribly, and she will probably be our next governor. And something very much like her is coming to the White House in 2020 unless the Republicans can somehow wake up.

    2. avatar former water walker says:

      Ironic?!? We elected a NYC liberal masquerading as a conservative republican. Fool me once but never again…

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Please explain to me exactly what Trump has done… From what I see, the House GOP sold us down the river, not Trump.

        1. avatar Ed says:

          Lets flip that script…What HAS Trump done FOR gun owners? Siding with Chucky and Nancy and calling for the disregard for due-process and a ban on bump stocks is not quite pro 2A behavior. Also saying that he would not sign any bump sock banning legislation that had reciprocity attached. Hes a snake oil salesman that has thrown us to the wolves…he knew what we wanted, reciprocity and a wall (not a fence). We won’t get either….quite the reverse actually.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Hey Ed, please let me know when the PotUS gets the authority to write his own budgets. All the House GOP had to do was tell the commies to pound sand, they didn’t. Instead they barely passed a CR in time to keep the government from shutting down. What was Trump supposed to do?

        3. avatar Rick says:

          They barely passed the bill that stripped our rights, Trump didn’t veto it, he signed it into law.

          Then he directed the DoJ to ban “rate increasing devices”. Just like Chuck and Nancy wanted.

          Yeah, he’s totally 100% not involved in this. He’s the bestest champion of …. zzzz….

    3. avatar pwrserge says:

      Um… the DNC has managed to win exactly 1 of 4 House special elections held so far… That “blue tsunami” isn’t coming.

      1. avatar Rick says:

        Of course there was Alabama, a +20% republican Senate seat, and PA a +20%, and in all those they didn’t win, they performed +15%.

        Nothing to see here.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Wow… looks like Bloomberg finally sent his trolls here… lots of “new” commenters pretending to be concerned conservatives who have no idea how the legislative process works.

        2. avatar Rick says:

          Sure that’s it, those aren’t things that happened. You continue to show a terrible understanding of reality. Here are all of the specials in 2017-2018.

          –Mulvaney’s seat–he won in 2016, 78-22, in the 2017 special, his republican successor won 51-49, that’s -27%
          –Session’s seat, won in 2014 97-3, LOST to Dem in special in 2017, That’s -46%
          –Murphy’s seat- ran unopposed in 2016, and 2014, won 64-36, every election before that, from 2002. LOST to Dem in special in 2017. That’s -infinity
          –Chaffets’ seat- he’d won 66-72-76-72-74 for the previous decade, John Curtis won the special with 58%, that’s -16%
          –Ryan Zinke’s seat- won 55-45 in 14, 56-44 in 16. Gianforte won 49.7, with a libertarian pulling 5.7. That would be -7%
          –Price’s seat- won the previous 5 elections 54-72-69-66-61. Karen Handel won 52-48 to a child that din’t even live in the district. That would be -9%
          –Pompeo’s seat- he’d won 58-62-67-61. Ron Estes won 52-48, that’s -9%.

          You see a pattern. No probably not, you just deny reality and replace it with you own.

        3. avatar B-Rad says:

          Hah.

  6. avatar Jim Bremer says:

    Robert….
    The Bill of Rights does not GRANT us these rights. They are God given and you have them simply by existing. The Bill of Rights simply points out some of these God given rights and says the govt can’t infringe on them.

    Thus..getting rid of the 2nd Amendment by voting it away DOES NOT get rid of the right on any way shape or form. NO PERSON OR GOVT can take away that right.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Yeah, he keeps making that mistake in his writings. I assumed that he knew better but perhaps not.

    2. avatar John in IN says:

      We the poeple could grant our govenment the power to restrict the right to bear arms. The government may or may not use that power ( I can dream, can’t I) The people may or may not willingly accept those restrictions.

      1. avatar Jim Bremer says:

        Wrong…no govt or group of voters can “vote” away a person’s natural rights….including the right to self defense and the right to bear arms. Our whole system of govt is based on the principle of natural unalienable rights. Any govt attempting to do so instantly becomes illegitimate….any people attempting to do so becomes a hostile threat to your rights and can be dealt with under the natural right of self defense.

      2. avatar pwrserge says:

        Yeah… pretty sure we settled that one back in 1865. You can’t give the government the authority to take away other people’s inalienable rights.

        1. avatar Pg2 says:

          Says the guy that wants to give the government FULL control over your health care decisions. Pwrserrge, you never disappoint.

        2. avatar RogueVal says:

          Technically they took away some peoples right to own other people.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Well, the libertardians are here, this thread is done with reason and logic.

        4. avatar Pg2 says:

          Pserge…. the profile calling for FULL governmental control over individual health care accuses others of being libtards…..priceless.

    3. avatar binder says:

      Any government that is willing to bay the butchers bill can take away any rights. If they know what they are doing, they can usually get most of the “citizens” to go along with them. The whole idea is to make it as hard as possible for a government to get that support.
      Now if you promote conditions where enough of the citizens want that right taken away, you have a real problem. But then life is not fair, so get over it.

  7. avatar John in Ohio says:

    “Just as the antis play the long game, incrementally chipping away at our gun rights, gun rights advocates can chip away at gun control. The number of Americans bearing arms has soared in the last decade, thanks to the gradual liberalization of carry laws.”

    That is just treading water, bobbing up and down for a while. Normalization combined with increased government power all but guarantees that will not be successful in the long run. The best that could be hoped for is government privileges for a while.

    “Will we live to see full gun rights restoration?

    There’s only way I can see that happening: if Americans suddenly see — firsthand, as the Founding Fathers did — the necessity of a uninfringed right to keep and bear arms. If they suddenly need that right.”

    Yep. IMHO, let the system crank up the heat so that the frogs know that they are boiling. The sooner that happens, the less blood shed, if any, likely to be necessary.

    “But just because your rights have been voted away by politicians and curtailed by mendacious bureaucrats doesn’t mean it’s legal to do so. Gun control is unconstitutional. Period. ”

    Right on.

    “What happens next?”

    Massive daily civil disobedience if we want the exercise of the unalienable individual right to keep and bear arms to survive.

  8. avatar Jorge Biff Steinkatz says:

    Wayne Lapierre is sipping latte in the back of a Gulfstream ordering a gull wing Mercedes on our behalf!

    1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      Or coming up with the single, one-liner about a “good guy with a gun” that completely upended one of the biggest, well-funded gun-control efforts in modern history. Anybody who can do that deserves what he gets paid.

      1. avatar B-Rad says:

        I did that one thing once, you know, let the ad agency come up with the thing. I know its been 20 years, but you should still pay me $3mill a year. Please ignore the AWB that happened on my watch, oh, the Brady Bill. Yeah, he’s great.

  9. avatar SheepDog says:

    People with the attitude “I got mine and I aint giving it up” are foolish, Semi auto firearms are being threatened with redefining what constitutes an Assault weapon.
    IF they do semi auto’s will go the way of NFA; that is, “Illegal to build, sell, manufacture, or transfer or import. You may have yours, what about your kids, grand kids, or the people that can’t get one in time. The antis are playing the long game here(decades).
    DON”T BE APATHETIC!

    1. avatar Arc says:

      A well tooled machine shop and good drawings will put quality weaponry in the hands of just about anyone. Preferably, this shop would be a literal man cave, dug into the side of a hill. No compliance!

      Theres always the ‘ raise your kids right and pass the guns along off the books ‘ option.

  10. avatar Special Ed says:

    All this childish nonsense does is make gun owner dig in more. A March against our civil rights might be the dumbest thing in the history of mankind.

  11. avatar cisco kid says:

    The Author is living in never, never land. The Supreme Court down through history has always sided with public opinion and the pressure it exerts on the Courts. Gun ban laws are no different. The Courts do not vote according to what the Constitution says or what rights it states are yours. Here are just a few of the rulings down through history that trashed the very meaning of the Constitution and all sanctioned by the corrupt Supreme Court.

    The Dred Scott Decision. The Corrupt Court ruled Dred Scott was not a human being and could not sue for his freedom. Again this was the dominate Public Opinion of the time.

    The incarceration of 100,000 Japanese American Citizens in WWII who committed no crimes but lost their homes and businesses and all due to public mass hysteria which the corrupt Court sided with.

    Laws prohibiting interracial marriage based on public opinion that minority races were inferior and would contaminate the white gene pool and the Court agreed because of public opinion which resulted in the Court trashing Constitutional rights.

    Laws sanctioning discrimination against LGBT people both in regards to merchants refusing to sell to them and discrimination in the military which Herr Drumpf just today reinforced with a new outrageous discriminating law against U.S. Military personnel that are LGBT.

    Laws preventing minorities from voting

    Laws preventing minorities from eating in white only restaurants.

    Laws preventing minorities from drinking out of whites only drinking fountains.

    Laws preventing minorities from joining whites only clubs and organizations which also included minority religions.

    Laws discriminating against minorities in regards to the use of public transportation.

    As you can see your Constitutional rights have always rested on Public Opinion not on the Constitution. With the current mass hysteria over weapons the hand writing is on the wall as the courts this summer completely trashed the Second Amendment by refusing to rule on the Maryland Assault Rifle ban, the illegal re-interpretation of the 20 year old Massachusetts assault rifle ban through decree by the corrupt Attorney General and the new California confiscation of semi-auto rifles and the new and illegal ammunition bans that actually prohibit interstate commerce which includes the purchase of legal products i.e. ammunition by the proletariat when crossing out of California into near by States. Its Right out of Nazi Germany of the 1930’s and 100 per cent sanctioned through public opinion by the corrupt Courts.

    Here is just one of the emotional videos being put out today by the Media and in all honesty when the Children are acting more like Adults than our corrupt Congressional Congressmen guess where this is all headed and guess how little your gun rights have now become. Because of no action on mass shootings the fate of the Second Amendment has now been put in the gravest jeopardy since its was first put into the Constitution.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/news/student-%E2%80%98ive-learned-to-duck-from-bullets-before-i-learned-how-to-read%E2%80%99/vi-BBKEcAW?ocid=U143DHP

    1. avatar cisco kid says:

      And I forgot to add not since the Obscene , Unjust and Immoral Vietnam War have young people and children took to the streets in mass protests. The young won out against a mad dog War Mongering Imperialistic Murderous U.S. Government then and to think they do not have the same power now is to have for forgotten U.S. History altogether. The people will only take so much from a Government that refuses to change or do anything about a terrible public crisis either in regards to the taking of lives or putting them at extreme risk due to graft, corruption, blind greed, incompetence and immorality. When the Government will not do anything the people will. No civilized society can put up with weekly mass shootings especially when they involve the very future of America and that is the lives of its own children. This does not necessarily mean banning even one gun but it does mean doing something about stopping the slaughter and if the Republicans will not spend the money (which they will not) to hire armed guards, and make other changes keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and psychopaths then in the end the Second Amendment will be complete history because unfortunately its cheaper for the corrupt Republicans to ban guns than spend any money to fix the problem. They only spend money when it involves them exempting themselves from paying taxes and then making you the proletariat pay for their blind greed and corruption. Some party eh?

      1. avatar Chris T from KY says:

        It was Democrat President John F Kennedy that sent over 15,000 combat troops to Vietnam not a Republican. There’s a Democrat president Lyndon Baines Johnson who expanded the war by sending over half-a-million soldiers to Vietnam.
        Your history is faulty.

        You may enjoy your marijuana intoxication however, I would recommend you stop using it because it’s affecting your memory, and the interpretation of facts.

        1. avatar Rick says:

          No, that’s not how Vietnam happened, by the time Kennedy was elected, we’d been in Vietnam for a decade. In fact, Dwight D. Eisenhower, debated the use of tactical nuclear weapons in Vietnam to support the French, the US actually paid $1billion for the French war effort. Vietnam was an example of what happens when US foreign policy doesn’t align with reality.

          US “Advisors” were killed at Dien Bien Phu in 54, during that battle, the Army was trying to figure out how to get an Armored division to Vietnam to relieve them, but the commanding officers recognized that the French were useless. All of this while we were engaged in Korea.

          Kennedy, expanded it, Johnson expanded it, Nixon expanded it.

  12. avatar CTstooge says:

    How’d those kids afford the giant signs and Jumbotrons? The Mother Of All Bake Sales…

  13. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    Well said, Robert. Our rights will be protected best by an originalist Supreme Court. If he accomplishes little else, his commitment to only placing originalist judges on the court will be our ultimate salvation and the fundamental reason for supporting Donald Trump.

    1. avatar cisco kid says:

      Ha what a joke. Are you serious. Your star Supreme Court Justice just appointed by Herr Drumpf stabbed you in the back this summer by voting to let stand the Maryland ban on Assault weapons. He caved into Public Opinion just as the Supreme Court has always done in the past. Public Opinion gives you your rights through the corrupt Supreme Court not the Constitution and it never has.

      1. avatar Gun Free School Zones are a crime against humanity says:

        herr drumph? Yet you would give him and his .gov the right to control our guns. You talk like a communist but you favor handing authority over to whom you apparently believe is a fascist.

        I have a feeling that if those Republicans you so hate were to fully fund mental health measures in this country you would be one of the first clients taken into the system.

        1. avatar cisco kid says:

          There is a difference Jethro between banning guns and controlling them but this is obvious way over your head. Read my above post on what we should do now. If you did not have Attention Deficit Disorder you would have already read it and understood my post. Better yet have your wife read it to you and explain it to you I would not want to tax your mind.

        2. avatar Gun Free School Zones are a crime against humanity says:

          I call bullshit, retardo. What you want is close to what the grabbers state is their goal. And like the grabbers, whom I believe you work for, you will come back and demand more.

          You’re not a gun owner and you wish none of us were, either. You’re some strange hybrid commifascist.

  14. avatar Joe R. says:

    “Your Right to Keep And Bear Arms Does Not Depend on the Democratic Process or Arguments About Social Utility”

    Your Right to Keep And Bear Arms ONLY
    Depends on your
    GOD GIVEN
    Right to defend it
    AS PROMISED THAT WE WOULD
    Under the 2nd Paragraph of the
    DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

    Fuck with the Constitution and other legal proceses all you want, your shit ends when WE THE PEOPLE says it does. And it might, for simply raising the question.

    1. avatar binder says:

      “Fuck with the Constitution and other legal processes” Sound way more like a gun grabber than anyone else.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        You’d know.

        When you become a citizen here, your opinion might count for something.

  15. avatar Sam I Am says:

    “Will we live to see full gun rights restoration?”

    I dunno…let’s do the math.

    The best polling (and you can trust no poll, regardless) shows a near split between full gun rights, and heavily compromised gun rights.

    The active anti-gun crowd is a fraction of the number of legal gun owners in the nation.

    The fraction of the nation that is anti-gun rights has been very effective in compromising our gun rights.

    The huge majority of the legal gun owners remain silent (where are the “walks”, the demonstrations, the flooding of social media)?

    Action beats reaction.

  16. avatar Felix says:

    I have a rather different view. As depressing as this news is, as scary as it could be, the gun grabbers are making a fundamental mistake: they think that because the press is on their side, they are winning. They are delusional as to how popular their cause really is. They are in an echo chamber of the press’s making.

    Someone took a poll, and something like 95% of journalist political donations were to the Democrats. You need not look for explanations, it does not matter. These idiots pat each other on the back and tell each other how popular they are — within their own crowd. I don’t think I have ever heard of gunnies doing the same.

    Gunnies may not be a majority, but we are not the 5% either, as the non-Democrat donors are among the press. The next election is going to be a loss for Republicans, following the typical mid-term results going against the President, but it won’t be the rout the Democrats are deluding themselves into expecting. It will be enough to eliminate the Republican lock on Congress, but that’s good. The Democrats are simply delusional as to how popular they are.

  17. avatar Mk10108 says:

    “Call me an absolutist but I take comfort in the fact — fact — that my right to possess whatever firearms I want rests on firm legal bedrock.”

    Robert your right to possess a firearm does not rest on legal bedrock. It rests on your willingness to defend or employ that right through the use of firearms against the people or institutions that want to take it away.

    You can write all the articles you want, sell adverts, review armaments, or claim your position in whatever format you wish. Will the measure of your words survive the battering ram that removes your door? Or will the last thing you see is a clear front sight post just as you squeeze a trigger on that LEO enforcing confiscation?

  18. avatar cisco kid says:

    Kings little granddaughter gives rousing speech and captivates the crowd every bit as much as her Grandfather did so long ago. The making of another great American.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/news/mlk-jrs-granddaughter-surprises-march-for-our-lives/vi-BBKE3xS?ocid=U143DHP

    1. avatar Excedrine says:

      The irony here is that MLK Jr. was, in fact, protected by several groups of armed citizens that under today’s proposed laws would have been disarmed. Armed citizens that without which the Civil Rights Movement would never, ever have been possible.

      https://www.dukeupress.edu/this-nonviolent-stuffll-get-you-killed

      Once again, you’ve shown yourself to be every bit as racist, sexist, and classist as the gun-grabbers back in his day — as ALL gun grabbers like you are, have always been, and forever shall be, WITHOUT EXCEPTION.

    1. avatar Excedrine says:

      **The mostly-silent six minute speech that actually WILL be forgotten by next week, maybe next month at the latest.

      FIFY. GFY.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Anyone who has raised daughters easily recognized that for the drama-queen, attention seeking behavior that it was. It was difficult not to burst into belly laughter, as I did the very few times any of my daughters pulled that nonsense while growing up.

        It was… cringe-worthy to watch.

        1. avatar cisco kid says:

          To your response over your insane arguments over mass shootings. There were 273 mass shootings in the U,S. in 2017. To try and argue for example in a hypothetical way that since say 999 people died not 1,0000 people we should not worry about it only shows how insane the argument over mass shootings has become when dealing with far right propaganda.

          http://www.politifact.com/california/article/2017/oct/04/mass-shooting-what-does-it-mean/

        2. avatar Excedrine says:

          @crisco kid — To your response over your insane (non)arguments over mass shootings, among the only insane comments to be seen anywhere on the whole of this website for that matter, there actually weren’t anywhere near “273” mass shootings in 2017. There haven’t been that many mass shootings in the entire history of the country, as a matter of fact. To try and argue, for example, that since the overwhelming and vast majority of the incidents the lamestream media oh-so-desperately wants to be mass shootings don’t even meet their own criteria for it — and this (non0argument was settled in 2015. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/no-there-were-not-355-mass-shootings-this-year/ Granted even “just” 4 is way too many, even though the far left — and ONLY the far left — will still capitalize on every one of them to push a repeatedly-disproved policy agenda. That’s how insane the (non)argument has become over mass shootings has become when dealing with the far left propaganda — the ONLY propaganda to be seen anywhere, by the way.

      2. avatar cisco kid says:

        Quote——————-**The mostly-silent six minute speech that actually WILL be forgotten by next week, maybe next month at the latest.——————–quote———–

        Lets face facts the numb skulls on the “Fart” Right had their chance to do something about mass shootings and they would not spend the money to do anything so now the problem has finally exploded in their faces and come home to roost. Republican stingy greed mongers have no one to blame but themselves for the Second Amendment destruction soon to visited upon us all.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          ** FBI data

          – number of people killed in mass murders***:
          1960-2018: 639
          (for those in Rio Linda, that is an average of 11.4/yr).

          – number of people murdered (all weapons, including hands, feet and tools)
          1960- 2016 [fbi figures not available for 2017/18]: 105,915
          (for those in Rio Linda, that is an average of 1826/yr)

          If we factor out mass shooting deaths (639), we are left with 105,276 other homicides.
          (for those in Rio Linda, that is an average of 1815/yr)

          According to CDC, and average 1000 children (02-12) are killed in auto accidents each year.

          And you want to wet your pants over an average 11.4 deaths (regardless of age) for “mass murders” of every kind?

          ***Murdering four or more persons during an event with no “cooling-off period” between the murders

        2. avatar Excedrine says:

          @crisco kid — Let’s face some actual facts, shall we? It’s actually the dipshits on the “Far” Left that had their chance to do something about mass shootings, and they would not spend money on it of any it. So, now the real problem is that they’re still not going to get what they want. DemoKKKratikkk stingy hate mongers have no one to blame but themselves for the self-inflicted political destruction that is destined for them — and eventually you.

  19. avatar MDH says:

    Things are unlikely to get better until these brainwashed little monsters learn to stop bullying their classmates.

  20. avatar cisco kid says:

    Paul McCartney marches with the kids from the shot up schools and remembers his friend John Lennon another victim of senseless gun violence perpetrated by a maniac who never should have had a gun but had one because we had no vetting laws back then and still do not today with used guns.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/news/paul-mccartney-one-of-my-best-friends-was-killed-in-gun-violence/vi-BBKE38x?ocid=U143DHP

    1. avatar Excedrine says:

      He was actually shot because a maniac was allowed to roam the streets by people like you, not because of an apparent lack of ineffective and unenforceable gun control laws that absolutely would have stopped his or any other murder before or since. Oh, and there are no “weekly” sk00l shootings, either, and you have absolutely zero evidence — empirical or otherwise — to support such a claim either. And you damn well know you don’t, too, so don’t even argue.

      1. avatar cisco kid says:

        Your as ignorant as Jethro Bodine of the sit come the Beverly Hillbillies only Jethro was smarter than you. Assuming you can read here it is genius. 17 school shootings in the first 12 weeks of this year equals more than 1 a week Jethro. Which part of this do you not understand. I love your posts, compared to you Neanderthal Man was a genius.

        https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/02/us/school-shootings-2018-list-trnd/index.html

      2. avatar cisco kid says:

        And in regards to my mention of no vetting back then later in time the Brady Bill went on to stop thousands from buying new guns who should not have them and would stop thousands more if it covered all gun sales. Of course decades of Brady Stats you will say are just fake news. You know kind of like when Trump has to cover himself when he gets caught in his lies. Any more words of wisdom Jethro or are you going to claim also that the Brady Bill is fake news as well. Sheeze give us sane people all a break for a change and go rant in front of the wall of your out house.

        1. avatar Gun Free School Zones are a crime against humanity says:

          So, you want the glorious Trump to be in charge of who gets approved for gun ownership. Good to know you trust his admin.

        2. avatar Excedrine says:

          @crisco kid — And in regards to your fallacious (and manifestly untrue) mention of “no vetting” back then, the Brady Bill actually didn’t stop “thousands” from buying new guns, either, and there is zero evidence — empirical or otherwise — to suggest that it even might have. Especially when you consider, assuming you’re intellectually capable of critical thought (SURPRISE: you’re not which is why I’M the one educating YOU), that decades of actual Brady Bill statistics prove that over 93% of all denials are, as a matter of fact, actually attributable to glitches and errors in the NICS. Further, the other statistical fact that very few crime guns were actually acquired through legitimate channels in the first place. You know, kind of like how it’s actually Shillary that has to cover herself when she gets caught in her lies, and a complicit media doubles down on them — and then later admits that they were all completely wrong to defend her, anyway. So, any actual words of wisdom, Junior, or are you going to claim that the Bureau of Justice Statistics AND the Federal Bureau of Investigation, subdivisions of the U.S. Department of Justice, are both fake news as well? But, we all know well by now that you will, regardless. So, no, you actually need to give us sane people a break and go rant to people who don’t already know than you for a change. Like, say, under an NBC article or similar.

          Thank you for your inevitable cooperation.

  21. avatar cisco kid says:

    Herr Drumpf and his Nazi band of Thugs not worried about weekly shot up schools but instead concentrate on issuing decree banning Transgender Troops. Right out of Hitlers 1930’s Germany.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/news/white-house-announces-ban-on-most-transgender-troops/vi-BBKCVdR?ocid=U143DHP

    1. avatar Gun Free School Zones are a crime against humanity says:

      And yet you want to give his .gov the right to say yea or nay to people wanting to buy guns.

      So, you support what you believe is fascism.

    2. avatar Excedrine says:

      Herr Shillary and her Nazi band of thugs (READ: AntiFa/BLM/BAMN/etc.) are not worried about hourly gang violence and instead concentrate on physically beating down their political opponents who are not responsible for any of it — people like YOU are. Oh, and there actually aren’t “weekly” sk00l shootings, and you have less than absolutely zero evidence — empirical or otherwise — to support such a claim, either. And you damn well know you don’t, too.

      1. avatar B-Rad says:

        Yeah, Hillary just signed that Omnibus bill with FixNICS etc in it. Jeez, we should never have elected Hillary, she’s been a terrible president.

        It’s way easier to defend a strawman, than have an actual argument. The Republican’s control, all branches of Government, with the ability to not pass anything they choose.

        1. avatar Excedrine says:

          Even though the only alleged “straw man” fallacy to be found here in the first place is in, in fact, the one that just tried to somehow by some miracle insert into what I said, and you had no other choice but to try (and fail) to do so because there simply wasn’t one already there.

        2. avatar RogueVal says:

          I can’t help it, this is the best response

      2. avatar cisco kid says:

        To Excedrin Headache are resident Neanderthal.

        Your as ignorant as Jethro Bodine of the sit come the Beverly Hillbillies only Jethro was smarter than you. Assuming you can read here it is genius. 17 school shootings in the first 12 weeks of this year equals more than 1 a week Jethro. Which part of this do you not understand. I love your posts, compared to you Neanderthal Man was a genius.

        https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/02/us/school-shootings-2018-list-trnd/index.html

        Now of course the “Fart” Right will say that since we only lost 999 people instead of 1,000 people the error in reporting means we have nothing to worry about and that mass shootings will just go away if we pretend they will never happen again because we were in the past to damn cheap and stingy to spend any money to stop the slaughter. That would be Socialism and far better to let thousands of our people get slaughtered every week than adopt any kind of a plan to stop it. I am sure “Fart” Right nut cases would agree with you as their poster boy.

        1. avatar Excedrine says:

          To crisco kid our resident fascist.

          You’re every bit as ignorant (and racist) as Che Guevara, only you’re even dumber than he is. Assuming you can read, here is some actual evidence for you, dumbass. Even your own Far Left propaganda machines had to call bullshit on that, and rightly so. http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2018/feb/15/jeff-greenfield/mostly-false-18-us-school-shootings-so-far-2018-an/ So, which part of that do younot understand? I grow bored with your posts. Compared to you, a tardigrade is an Einstein.

          Now, of course the “Fart” Left will still capitalize on even “just” 3 school shootings (and that number is still highly dubious at best) and use it further push a repeatedly-disproved police agenda, one that literally all available evidence says doesn’t work anywhere it’s been tried. But, you dipshit socialists who refused to spend a single red cent on actually effective solutions supposedly, and systematically killed over a quarter of a billion people across the globe over the last 100 years, know better than us wildly successful capitalists. I am sure the “fart ” Left nutcases — the ONLY nutcases to be seen at the moment — would agree with you as their poster boy. 😉

      3. avatar cisco kid says:

        To Excedrin Headache. Hey Jethro lets see you lie your ass out of this one. The Republicans have controlled both house of Congress yet have done absolutely zero on preventing mass shootings and spent of course no money on any programs to do such. But they sure took the opportunity though to exempt themselves from taxation with the outrageous tax rape bill which ran up the deficit into the trillions which they are always harping about when it comes to spending money on the American people and not their own corrupt asses. Yes they really fked us working people with the big hairy penis up our kazoo zoos and then boldly declared that to pay for the outright thievery and robbery of our tax money that they were now going to pay for this robbery by cutting what little social programs we do have such as social security, and medicare.

        Now you can you tell me how its the Democrats fault when the Republicans control both houses of Congress and when no legislation was ever passed or even introduced by them to prevent school shootings. It will be interesting to see you try and lie your self out of this one. Remember Genius Shakespeare once said “Oh what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive” Shakespeare wrote these lines specifically for pathological liars and nut cases like yourself.

        And do not expect Republicans to save your Second Amendment rights because they are so cheap and greedy you could actually sell them the rope you were going to hang them with. No money will be appropriated for adequate armed guards, none for advanced security systems, none for mental health care, none to fund an expansion of the Brady Bill, none to implement a plan for safe storage of firearms which you Moron would have prevented many of the deranged children from committing mass murder who simply picked up their parents guns and then went to school and committed mass murders.

        Yes Jethero its cheaper for the Republicans to just sit back spend nothing and then when the blue wave takes over Congress blame the Democrats for doing what they should have done from the beginning which if they had done it would have at least saved the Second Amendment rather than destroy it which the Democrats will most certainly do in addition to doing what the Republicans should have done all along.

  22. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    Imagine if ALL rights were subject to the whims of others…

  23. avatar Excedrine says:

    U.S. v. Cruikshank (1875) already established that neither the Second Amendment nor any of the Bill of Rights depends on the Constitution. In that case, SCoTUS had already ruled almost a century-and-a-half ago that these and all other rights, enumerated or not, preexisted the government and are merely affirmed by the Constitution and (allegedly) protected from infringement.

    1. avatar Rick says:

      That not what Cruikshank says, it says that the federal government cannot abridge the rights to keep and bear arms, but STATES could.

      “The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.”

      Cruikshank allowed states to restrict African Americans access to many rights, kind of a problem. And specifically, Heller is current and contradicts Cruikshank. As well as lots of other opinions since specifically on voting rights, etc.

      1. avatar Excedrine says:

        Except that it is, in fact, exactly what Cruikshank says, and I never even implied that the STATES couldn’t infringe on it under that decision, either.

        “6. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.”

        Also, no, Heller doesn’t contradict Cruikshank, either. As a matter of fact, Heller (and later McDonald) reaffirmed it in its many citations.

        1. avatar RogueVal says:

          Doesn’t mean what you think it means.

        2. avatar Excedrine says:

          Even though it absolutely does.

  24. avatar DA-HP says:

    It is time for another Lexington. The country has gone well past the boundaries of ALL of our Constitutional rights.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Aye. The Hour of the Time.

      RIP William Cooper.

    2. avatar cisco kid says:

      You obviously flunked history 101 or never had it at all. I ask you when in the hell did the U.S. ever uphold any Constitutional rights that did not jive with public opinion and a corrupt Supreme Court that was there to placate them every time.

      1. avatar Excedrine says:

        @crisco kid — You obviously like to project your wrote and willful pig ignorance of history, as well as literally everything else you’ve ever posted about here. We get to ask you the questions around here, Junior, not the other way around.

        1. avatar Leroy Jenkins says:

          Hey, Pwr has a new name he’s using, awesome

        2. avatar Excedrine says:

          Whatever delusions help you sleep at night, “Leroy.” None of my business.

  25. avatar chris says:

    This wording: “Your Right to Keep And Bear Arms Does Not Depend on the Democratic Process or Arguments About Social Utility”

    Always reminds me of this. If you have not yet read Neil Smith’s Letter to a Liberal Colleague yet, it’s time: http://www.lneilsmith.org/liberalc.html

    This should be posted on every forum out there, especially Fakebook.

  26. avatar pwrserge says:

    Lots of fake accounts trolling today. Interesting… it’s almost like the DNC knows they are about to get hosed because they handed Trump a blank check with none of the usual restrictions that come with actually passing a budget.

    1. avatar RogueVal says:

      So says the most notorious troll on TTAG.

      1. avatar tjlarson2k says:

        “So you HAVE heard of me….”

  27. avatar W says:

    All of this talk of the constitution. Gonzales was wearing a Cuban flag on her shoulder during her speech.

    1. avatar tjlarson2k says:

      Maybe someone should ask her why she is in the States when she can go back to being disarmed in her home country?

      1. avatar cisco kid says:

        Why you racist pig she was born here. The Far right has also sunk to a new low when they put up a fake picture of her tearing up an American Flag which was in reality a target from a shooting range. Yes we all know white Racist supremacist scum bags like you will admit that for you “she was not white enough” to be a ” real American”. In reality the bulk of the American people after the White Nazi March in Charlotte last summer now veiw people like you as “not real Americans” as you stand for everything the Nazi’s did for during WWII.

      2. avatar cisco kid says:

        Yea and if she had had a tee shirt on that said “I am Irish and had Irish ancestry than in your book that is ok and she is a ” real American” but because she is Latino that in your racist book of crap makes her “not white enough” for you to consider her a ” real american”. Yes you can proudly puff up and stick out your chest and yell “I am a proud Racist White supremacist 21st Century Nazi scum bag. Congratulations I agree.

  28. avatar mandrake the magician says:

    these “March” morons must actually think that the US is a demoKracy rather than a constitutional republic

    1. avatar Excedrine says:

      They clearly don’t even know the difference, and they don’t WANT to know because they simply don’t care. They still wouldn’t care even if they knew, anyway.

    2. avatar cisco kid says:

      Now that the Kids are thoroughly pissed off at our corrupt Representative Government they will begin to realize that the original “Swamp Rats” the greed monger corrupt Founding Fathers feared democracy that is why they screwed us out of a “real democracy” and a civilized Parliamentary Government that all the other civilized “real democracies” have had for decades but we do not have, the Swamp Rat Founding Fathers instituted a corrupt Representative Government composed “by” the filthy corrupt rich and “for” the filthy corrupt rich.

      Its rather maddening when you have to sit back and watch Civilized European Countries like France who have “real democracy” vote for a President that is elected by the majority will of the people not stolen from the people by a sickening corrupt Electoral College with a large dose of course of plenty of Gerrymandering which lets political corrupt hacks pick who votes for them than the other way around.

      I might add that France also has “citizenship for all people” not just some. In the corrupt U.S. of Hey only natural born citizens can become president which means we have two classes of people in the U.S. 1st class citizens and 2nd Class citizens. We are an absolute joke on the world stage of democracy because we claim to have it but never have had it. We fk ourselves of course as there are many very qualified immigrants that have become citizens that can never become President. Of course this is unfathomable to the Fart Right Racist Hill Jacks.

      And as much as I hate Republicans there are a few good ones like Arnold Schwarzenegger who probably if allowed could and would have become President. Oh well its good for us Democrats that he is fked out of becoming President because of the fact that he is a “Second Class Citizen” because it gives the Democrats more of a chance to beat the Republicans in the next Presidential Elections so next time some ignorant racist Hill Jack screams that only natural born citizens can become President he just may have fked himself out of a Republican President but can never be educated enough to realize such proving the racist Hill Jack is always his own worst enemy.

      Its interesting to note and totally outrageous that even the Country of Iran has more democracy and fairer elections than South Carolina has as was proven in the latest think tank studies on the lack of democracy in the U.S.

      So next time some ignorant Hill Jack claims the U.S. is the greatest country in the world and the greatest democracy the real facts are it is neither. And the sad fact is it was never designed to be such from the very corrupt beginning. Yep if Jefferson and Washington and the other criminal thugs were still alive they would laugh as they all wished us “suckers” a Merry Christmas. To bad the British did not get a chance to hang them both as they would have done all of us a great favor because we then would have had a Parliamentary Government along with a real democracy by the people not economic slavery by the corrupt filthy rich which have always been our en-slavers.

      1. avatar mandrake the magician says:

        pfft!
        “democracy” is two wolves and a sheep arguing over what’s for dinner!

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      The link you provided states the likelihood of being killed due to “gun violence” is a “leading cause” of death in the US. However, the CDC puts death by firearm is at number 101 on the causes of death.

      CDC – top 15 causes of death (accounting for 74% of deaths) 2015-2016
      https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr66/nvsr66_06.pdf
      Heat disease
      Cancer
      Respiratory
      Accidents
      Cerebrovascular
      Alzheimer’s disease
      Diabetes
      Flu and pneumonia
      Suicide
      Cepticemia
      Liver disease
      Hypertension
      Parkinsons
      Pnuemonitis

      The above are the result of GOVERNMENT research, not NRA.

  29. avatar #2aAFALLDAY says:

  30. avatar tjlarson2k says:

    Simple solution. They have the power to live in the disarmed America they want and they can lead by example. Let them put their money where their mouth is.

    Those that want to live in a disarmed America can elect for the following for themselves:

    1) A lifetime ban from purchasing and owning firearms.
    2) Banned from using any services where people utilize firearms. No military, police, or private security.
    3) Exclusive membership to a public registry of “disarmed” utopians and their communities.

    Ironically, these utopians can still enjoy their gated communities (oddly similar to Trump’s wall idea).

    Enjoy your utopia and let us know how it goes.

  31. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    I seem to recall somebody saying that all political power arises from the barrel of a gun.

    I really don’t think these shrieking anti’s have thought this through

  32. avatar Gregg says:

    Some very good legal education here. But when sanctuary states and cities make up their own rules and dare anyone to stop them, we are not far from Mad Max world. Incendiary rhetoric that soon translates into physical conflict just waiting for a flashpoint to ignite it all. North Korea maybe, California big one earthquake, Chinese, Russian, Iranian aggression. Stock market free fall. Another mass shooting or terror attack. The leftists are puffing their chest out. We ignore at our peril.

  33. avatar Kap says:

    Personally, the Government can have all the weapons they find, its the buried ones out in the Bushes that should worry them!
    Utopia here we come one right at a time, politicians think they can change Natural order laws ( they can until uprisings)
    this is similar too the Vietnam war protests (orchestrated by communist factions) using brainless young people as the catalyst. (making them feel they are doing Good) while their Puppet strings are being pulled by a puppet master! {Bloomberg, Space Cadet Kelly and wife)
    Having been shamed for being in the South East Asia War Games, this next time around it will be a fight to the death, I am too old to give a shit about these young morons and have faced death before!
    MOLON LABE, NON SIBI SED PATRIAE

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