n_mj_cooke_130412

Heller recognized what was obvious to the amendment’s drafters, to the people who debated it, and to the jurists of their era and beyond: That ‘right of the people’ means ‘right of the people,’ as it does everywhere else in both the Bill of Rights and in the common law that preceded it. A Second Amendment without the supposedly pernicious Heller “interpretation” wouldn’t be any impediment to regulation at all. It would be a dead letter. It would be an effective repeal. It would be the end of the right itself. In other words, it would be exactly what you want! Man up. Put together a plan, and take those words out of the Constitution.” – Charles C.W. Cooke in An Open Rant Aimed at Those Who Would Repeal the Second Amendment [at nationalreview.com]

Recommended For You

50 Responses to Quote of the Day: Go Ahead, Make My Day Edition

        • As one who’s been a fan of Cooke’s for a while now, I can also recommend his book, “The Conservatarian Manifesto: Libertarians, Conservatives, and the Fight for the Right’s Future”. Definitely worth the read.

      • I thought so too and was surprised by his statements… had him pegged as being part of the pajama boy cadre.

        Turns out he’s just British. Oops.

      • @Larry
        “Girlyman”

        Says a guy who carries a gun to only protect himself and not all innocents around him.

      • Thank you for sharing with us your attraction to him in that way. Also own a scarf and sport coat in the New England chilly season, plus I sport a beard, so I too must be a “girly-man”.

        To get further insight to his refreshing and invaluable position of support for 2A rights and the potential benefits of Cooke’s continued outcry in his own public venue, go to:
        http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/magazine/charles-c-w-cooke-can-fend-for-himself.html?_r=0

        What would the internet be without superficial labels and trolls’ unqualified judgement of others to distract us from the issues we’re trying to take seriously. Is anyone else interested in virtually/voluntarily banishing strictly worthless comments from the forum? I mean, trying to amuse us all with witty insights has its place in our hearts, and maybe I’m being too serious, or have lost my sense of humor. But I haven’t; I believe in getting serious and maintaining a centered perspective on the mission. I believe many need to be reminded of this serious responsibility. I don’t frequent TTAG for the equipment reviews, or the comedic aspirations of those who distract us from our important responsibility to discuss our 2A rights and how can defend and restore them to America.

        Yes, I’ve reached a threshold. No, I’m not changing my name to Captain BringDown.

    • Wow, tsbhoA.P.jr, You obviously don’t get “tongue in cheek” style of writing/speaking.
      How about you have a cup of coffee, wash your face to get the sleep out, read the article again and get back to us.

    • Stereotype much?
      …this guy is one of the good guys.

      I’ll bet if we saw a picture of the folks who frequent this place it would be assumed…”Hope he doesn’t choke on that ham while walking back from the buffet table”

      • i’m better at comprehension than (reading) retention.
        you don’t get “tongue in cheek” comments.
        stereotypes are a real time saver.
        ok, i should have said ascot…

  1. I took the Thomas Jefferson quote he is referring to the other way.
    I should be allowed to own any firearm I wish, without government intervention or permission.

    Boy’s coat indeed!

  2. I say something like that usually to people over a huffingtonpost, though a lot shorter and not as fancy. I simply tell them to put up or shut up already when they start going on with illogical nonsense.

  3. This seems to counter-act 99% of the comments in yesterday’s article about Europe needing 2A rights…just sayin’.

  4. Antis understand the overwhelming majority of people are not in favor of their goal of complete disarmament, so they are taking the frog in the pot approach. The ONLY way to combat their worn out call for common sense is exactly this. Make them man up and own their stance for complete disarmament. At every discussion they must be forced into admitting their agenda. It is the only way to defeat their ridiculous ad infinitum call for common sense. After all, who can argue the libspeak for so-called common sense……

  5. Not for nothing but if Dr. Who says it…well…then its the truth and wisdom. Just don’t get him invoking the Shadow Proclamation or there will be hell to pay !!!

  6. I’ve often thought this, too, but there’s another step they need to take: they need to admit that the most important, critical step of their “plan” is, after nixxing the 2A, to confiscate every gun not in government hands. Whether it’s remotely possible or not is not the question; that’s their undeniable goal; and whether they grow a pair or not, we can never forget it. They call us fetishists for our love of guns? Well, their fetish is to pile up all the guns they’ve taken from everyone, and melt them down, as they join hands and sing John Lennon’s “Imagine” together.

    And of course, at the large gun destruction event, there’d be some stabbings.

    • You forgot the part where all the gun owners are sent to reeducation camps.

      I wish I was saying that sarcastically.

    • The left’s incrementalism has worked with curtailing religious freedoms, transforming marriage, education, immigration, and entitlements. You are 100% correct in that, the only way to defeat their so-called commonsense approach is to force them to admit their true end game of doing away with 2A. It is impossible to defeat an un-named enemy, which is why they must be forced to OWN disarmament. Even though unachievable by any stretch of the imagination, they must be made to admit their belief that the only way to stop so-called gun violence is by removing ALL the guns. Then sit quietly while the crickets chirp….

  7. I never understood the contorted logic that results in believing that right near the top of something called the ‘Bill of Rights’ would be the right of the federal government to arm it’s troops. Just doesn’t jibe with any of the other 9, 8 of which are individual rights that can not be trespassed by the government and the other a right of the states from federal intrusion. What’s next, trying to claim that the 4th Amendment means that the American people have no right to find out what’s (left) on Hillary’s server?

      • No the fourth. Search and seizure. We the people don’t have the right to search the government’s server. Makes as much sense as thinking the ‘people’ in the Second Amendment refers to the National Guard.

        • It took your retort for me to get your point (I’m a little slow), but now that I get it, that’s a outstanding comparison and really shows the ridiculousness of the argument.
          However, I bet you that I could get 8 out of 10 people to agree that the 4th amendment could mean exactly that, and its protections apply to the government as well as, if not exclusive to, the people.

        • If HRC had played by the rules and used the government server for state dept. business and had her own server for her own private email then we wouldn’t have any right to see the emails unless there was evidence that she conducted government business on the personal server. But once you mix personal with government, it’s not up to you to decide what the public can or can’t see. It’s up to the people (original meaning of ‘people’) to decide what was personal and what was govt. business. She should be arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced to share a cell with Lois Lerner.

  8. Only Dianne Feinstein would ever try this. it would be political suicide for just about any other politician at the national level.

    • I agree, they should go for it, it would end the careers of many career political hacks and maybe, just maybe we could start over with at least a few fresh faces. The song say’s “suicide is painless”, I’m hoping not for the progressive socialists who are trying (and succeeding) to destroy this country.

  9. WISH WE COULD SAY THIS IS JUST A GUN ISSUE.

    (D)HEADS out there are broken too many ways. They can refurbish or build themselves a new church, but their catechism WILL STILL BE W R O N G.

    The push-back doesn’t need to be 100%, it needs to be 120%, 200%, if they want to chuck this little piece of the Constitution, they need to get deported. On foot, save the bus for the Mexicans.

  10. So, in favor of repealing the 2a? kapo bloomberg, shannon, feinstein, god, willy lunchmeat and mikeybnumbers.

    In favor of keeping the 2a? Everybody else.

    • “Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it’s not an individual right or that it’s too much of a public safety hazard, don’t see the danger in the big picture. They’re courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don’t like.” – Alan M. Dershowitz

  11. And let’s do away with those pesky 1st, 4th, 5th, etc while we’re at it. In fact, why do we need a Bill of Rights in the first place?

  12. Repealing the Second would not be enough. Disarming the people would require repealing the Second Amendment, passing a new amendment prohibiting guns (like 18th Amendment prohibited booze), and then passing all the enabling legislation in Congress.

    If the Second was simply repealed, it would not effect state laws and state Constitutions that support RKBA. So, there would be two countries. A country of red states that respects it’s people, and the country controlled by the Democrat mob that does not.

    • Correctamundo Ralph.
      People also forget that the 2nd Amendment didn’t grant us the RKBA, it simply recognized that pre-existing right and established protection of that right.
      Repeal the 2nd and the right doesn’t go away automatically. It only can be taken away and only then if the people aren’t willing to fight for it.

  13. Cooke, nails it here. This is should be an instant copy and paste to anyone arguing for regulation/registration/confiscation.

    I’m tired of hearing the far left dance around the issue too… so like Charles said, MAN UP and try.

  14. Standing ovation, well written!

    Deep down, the left doesn’t want to win this fight. Way better to use it as a cudgel against conservatives than to really effect what they are saying they want.

  15. Brilliantly written!

    Unfortunately, I think that we are about 2 generations away from his scenario actually have a real chance of success. The fights the Anti’s make now aren’t the real battlefield. The real battle is in the education of children.

    Ever notice how they will push the “gun are evil” story even when they know they will lose? Guess what, when they do back down, they haven’t lost. It doesn’t matter if they back down. They have gotten away with planting yet another seed in a child’s mind. Whether it turned out ok or not, someone got in trouble and it involved a gun. That’s all they need to win in the long game. It’s the same game they played with the gay agenda. The same war they are waging against Christianity. And the family. And the 1st Amendment. And due process. And…

    If we want to focus on the long game and actually win – and it’s very winnable – we cannot simply allow Anti’s to back off with a mere, “My bad.” We have to force an acknowledgement of wrong on their part or at the very least ensure there are *real* consequences and that they are public. The shame and embarrassment has to be *real*. Only then will we really win this battle.

    The other thing is that we need to ally more conscientiously with other constitutionalists that are focused on other areas. First Amendment advocates, for example. We either fight together or we die alone.

  16. Glad to see NR in this fight for so long. Many demonize them as squishes or establishment, but they are the original rebels and they are fundamentalist on 2A.

Leave a Reply

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