“Indeed, while it still technically remains legal to own a firearm in America, possessing one can now get you pulled oversearchedarrested, subjected to all manner of surveillancetreated as a suspect without ever having committed a crime, shot at and killed. (This same rule does not apply to law enforcement officials, however, who are armed to the hilt and rarely given more than a slap on the wrists for using their weapons against unarmed individuals.)” – John W. Whitehead in The Second Amendment: A Symbol of Freedom or an Invitation to Violence [at huffingtonpost.com]

Recommended For You

45 Responses to Quote of the Day: Taking Your Life in Your Hands Edition

  1. I am stunned, and encouraged, that that article appeared in HuffPo. Two years ago, you rarely saw articles in the mainstream media discuss the 2A as a tool for restraining the government. I have seen it more and more lately. Getting people to acknowledge this truth may be one of the most effective things that we can do to protect our rights.

    • I’m shocked, though pleased. That site is a nest of government toadies. I commented there for years before they banned me recently, for no apparent reason. They are all about covering up abuses of power by the IRS and other federal agencies. Maybe they’re finally seeing the light.

    • Shocked, too. Though various rags will do that, publish a token article from the right for every hundred or so from the other side. Then they can point to that token article when someone accuses them of bias. Like the LA Times published an article critical of Obama a few months before the 2012 election cycle before they turned back to dumping on the GOP as usual.

  2. “Technically remains legal” ?????

    Darn those “technicalities” . Never thought of an inalienable right as a technicality. Perhaps change the wording from firearm, and insert free speech into the quote. Wonder what the reaction would be?
    Obtw, this guy is a metrosexual, pseudo intellectual clown that needs to walk through Chicago’s splendid neighborhoods alone at night.

    • Ah, you really should have clicked the link and read the article. Your comment clearly demonstrates you did not do that.

      You could not be further from the truth on this one. Whitehead’s book, A Government of Wolves, and Balko’s Rise of the Police State, should be required reading by anyone who still believes in liberty in this country.

      • Both authors on Huffpo. Mind blown…

        The editors over there must be on spring break. Or drunk. Or dead…

        • They’ll end up blaming an intern (who, not coincidentally was taught to shoot by her father starting at around 8 years old, and who conveniently – for us – failed to mention a predisposition for personal responsibility and liberty during her HuffPo interview).

    • He was pointing out it was “technically legal” because of all the persecutions that come with legal gun ownership.

    • Tom – you should read the article. Or better yet, track it back to the full version from the Huff Post link.

      Another quote from the Article:

      “In a nutshell, then, the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms reflects not only a concern for one’s personal defense, but serves as a check on the political power of the ruling authorities. It represents an implicit warning against governmental encroachments on one’s freedoms, the warning shot over the bow to discourage any unlawful violations of our persons or property. As such, it reinforces that necessary balance in the citizen-state relationship.

      As George Orwell noted, “That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer’s cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.””

      • I frequently wish that previous generations had not been so slap-dash with their use of the word “democracy”. Democracy is, in its own way, as intolerable as socialism, because there is nothing to keep the majority from imposing its will on the minority. Hence, the reason the founders chose a constitutional republic, rather than a democracy as the structure for their new government. Orwell would have been far better served to use the word “liberty” in that sentence.

    • Tom,

      You small minded idiot. Read more of his writings and take a look at the lawsuits he has won. The man is a patriot of the highest order, and all you see is a “metrosexual”? You are clearly a complete retard of the highest order.

      • Robert Farago, maybe you need to expand your “No ad-hominem attacks” policy to include attacks from one commenter to another. Craig’s comment above was way out of line.

    • From the article:

      ‘As such, the Second Amendment reads as a clear rebuke against any attempt to restrict the citizenry’s gun ownership. It is as necessary an ingredient for maintaining that tenuous balance between the citizenry and their republic as any of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, especially the right to freedom of speech, assembly, press, petition, security, and due process.’

      From your comment:

      ‘Obtw, this guy is a metrosexual, pseudo intellectual clown that needs to walk through Chicago’s splendid neighborhoods alone at night.’

      Stay Classy, Tom.

  3. The American people have decided not to blame us for mass muderers and gang bangers after all. The more they keep pushing that meme, the further they alienate independent voters who increasingly see no logic in those kind of hysterics.

  4. “…possessing one can now get you pulled over, searched, arrested, subjected to all manner of surveillance, treated as a suspect without ever having committed a crime, shot at and killed.”

    things which cannot happen to me if i dont possess a firearm?

  5. I never thought I’d read something that I agreed with on the Huffington Post. Arianna is still a digusting hypocritical greedpig so I hate to see traffic go her way, better sites should be promoting his book.

    • Maybe it’s a fishing expedition, in which case click away. If traffic to that article stands out it could send HuffPo a message that more pro-2A content is a good idea.

  6. Hmmm, A pro-second amendment, anti-big government article on Huff-Po?

    I think hell just froze over. ( I have to admit, I don’t read H-P regularly, is this something they do once in a while or is it a one time event?)

    • Someone will be quietly asked to resign Monday morning. Most likely. Can’t have this sort of sense published on the PuffHo. Lefties can’t tolerate independence of thought.

    • I’ve never seen it before, though Balko did a commentary or two, I believe. Never mentioned guns, if I recall.

      I’m going out to buy some snowshoes…

    • I cannot believe HP posted that article… I can only surmise that the editor was severely hung over from a Hillary for President fundraiser the night before. Maybe it was just a bone thrown to the dogs, something to get the Progs riled up and to ensure lots of lively arguing in the comments section.

  7. Technically? There no technically about it. We have as much right to own a firearm as those who shout to take them away do to say it. Amendment’s 1 and 2. While I deplore their methods, I would fight to the death, if need be, to protect them.

  8. The article in the huffington post is worth reading, because it clearly communicates why the 2A was written in the first place.

    The 2A was not written to give individuals the power to protect themselves against other individuals. It was written to give the people the power to overthrow their own government IF needed.

    Personal protection is a side benifit to be sure, but i think it is a mistake to make it the center point of defending the 2A. Here is another quote from the same article.

    “It’s no laughing matter, and yet the joke is on us. “We the people” have been so focused on debating whether the Second Amendment “allows” us to own guns that we’ve overlooked the most important and most consistent theme throughout the Constitution: the fact that it is not merely an enumeration of our rights but was intended to be a clear shackle on the government’s powers.”

  9. Here’s an interesting trend to note. The leftists , at least, pay lip service to recognising rights- the right for GLBT people to be married, for folks to smoke pot legally, etcetera. Eventually they’re gonna have to face the inherent contradiction in saying that the RKBA is somehow different then the other issues.

    Even if a person doesn’t personally like firearms,there’s no ignoring the inherent hypocrisy in asking for expanded civil rights , and simultaneously asking for more gun control. The folks who hold that belief will lose credibility as our government gets bigger, our taxes get larger, and more scientific evidence proves those Old Men in 1776 correct- more guns equals a better society, not a worse one.

    • Yeah maybe… but guns are icky.

      The cognitive dissonance /mental pretzel twisting the left under goes to justify scrapping the 2A is pretty interesting to watch.

      Sort of like watching a money trying to copulate with a football. Both actions are pretty similar actually.

  10. Anyone reading this post take the time to read the Huff article. I too rarely read Huff drivel. I’m shocked & stunned to see this. Frankly speaking nothing short of a miracle. Or a one time aberration.

  11. Summary of this pleasant surprise:

    1. Governments attract corruption, the view that they are a benevolent parent to you is naive.

    2. Governments adopting “do as I say, not as I do” policies, are deepening their corruption and control.

    3. Government is waging war on gun owners in the US.

    4. The purpose of the US Constitution isn’t to “allow” people privileges, it’s to shackle the government with regard to denying rights.

    5. The whole debate over guns in the US is really about who gets call the shots and control whom (people or government).

    “That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer’s cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”

    • The article treats the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as a civil right and as a barrier to government tyranny. I was just about shocked to see it on Huffington Post, but there it is.

  12. Look at the language: ” still”, “technically”, “remains” – this is not language of incredulous alarm or proud defiance. It is the language of defeat, resignation, marginalization and dismissal.

    • With all due respect, I don’t think you could be more wrong.
      From the article:

      ” It’s no laughing matter, and yet the joke is on us. “We the people” have been so focused on debating whether the Second Amendment “allows” us to own guns that we’ve overlooked the most important and most consistent theme throughout the Constitution: the fact that it is not merely an enumeration of our rights but was intended to be a clear shackle on the government’s powers.

      As such, the Second Amendment reads as a clear rebuke against any attempt to restrict the citizenry’s gun ownership. It is as necessary an ingredient for maintaining that tenuous balance between the citizenry and their republic as any of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, especially the right to freedom of speech, assembly, press, petition, security, and due process.”

      The article affirms that Second Amendment advocates are in the right.

      • Yes.
        But “still”, “technically”, “remains” are not really strong words asserting what comes in the rest of the article.
        They are to be voided just as “assault weapon” and “high capacity” are to be avoided by our side.

  13. I’m in the third camp. Judges understand, diminish 2A and the remaining are in jeopardy. What surprises me is not that it’s published in HP, but is a logical, well written article.

    Why our elected representatives can not communicate as well is shows just how stupid they’ve become.

  14. And only the police/military – hard to tell the difference, nowadays – are empowered to kill with impugnity.

    Again, idiot spell check tells me “impugnity” is spelled wrong.

  15. One thing I am confused about though: he says we have a right to security in listing some of the rights protected by the Constitution. But there is no right to security to be protected by the government, as the government could then justify all manner of regulations and restrictions on all rights in the name of “security.” Also, I know of nowhere in the Constitution where it mentions a right to security.

    • Security, although desirable, is impossible to obtain. However, Security is one of the basic reasons that people choose to live in societies with rules of conduct. (Read John Locke’s treatises on government for more on this subject.) There are a few human rights which the Constitution and Bill Of Rights did not mention, because they were just too obvious to bother mentioning. There are also a few things that a society expects from its government; Not rights, but things a “just” government should provide to the people, or not hinder a person’s attempts to obtain. (These expectations are quickly referenced in the Declaration Of Independence, also)

      The Founders also knew that there are times when men should give up their Security in the pursuit of Liberty.

      • I agree that societies provide security in various ways, but security is not unto itself a natural right to be protected by the almighty State.

Leave a Reply

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