“Imagine this scene:  Some of the Founding Fathers are sitting around the barbecue drinking wine and beer and eating chicken wings while some civilian is giving them a demonstration of the firepower of the AR-15,” Lawrence Goldman writes at ydr.com. “Next up is the M107 .50 caliber sniper’s rifle, and it is destroying targets at over a mile away.  Then they get the Uzi 9 mm submachine gun, which can fire 600 rounds per minute. Are they impressed?  You betcha!” But not in the way that you or I might imagine — at least according to Mr. Goldman . . .

They would all probably keel over and drop dead of a heart attack upon hearing that any American citizen who has not committed a serious crime can own one of these weapons legally and those with criminal records could acquire them through the black/gray market.

Who knew that an Uzi sub machine gun was so readily available to an American citizen on the “black/gray market”? Mr. Goldman, apparently. Of course, the only proper response to that demonstrably false assertion is “pity it isn’t true.” But the truth about guns — and gun rights as guaranteed by the Constitution — isn’t on the menu here . . .

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Now, to anyone with half a brain, this line should be interpreted as that the only people who should own weapons are those who participate in formal state-regulated militias like the Pennsylvania State Guard.  Do you think that this is what the Founding Fathers had in mind? Well, duh.

Formally trained people are the only ones who should own firearms (like those who participate in the Pennsylvania Guard). Anyone who believes that their weapon is going to protect their home from criminals is living a TV fantasy. The vast majority of civilians will freeze the moment they are faced with a dangerous situation. Those people who are walking around with concealed carry permits are just plain ignorant.  They will be slow on the draw and dead before their weapon even leaves its hiding place.

Unless they’re not. According to the lowest known scientific estimate of annual defensive gun uses, tens of thousands weren’t. But we shouldn’t expect Mr. Goldman to know this, or the fact that the United States Supreme Court’s McDonald decision recognized/enshrined Americans’ individual right to keep and bear arms.

In Mr. Goldman’s opinion, American gun rights aren’t about individual citizens protecting themselves from government tyranny . . .

It’s all about the money.  If weapons didn’t “trickle down” to the criminal class in this country, all the firearms manufacturers would have to close their factories because I mean, really, how many do you need to make?  The legal market is only so big.  Their closings would lead to unemployment and you won’t last long as president or member of Congress if there is high unemployment.

It’s the economy stupid! Which is just plain stupid. So stupid that if our Founding Fathers could have read this kind of statist tripe they would have shaken their collective heads with profound disappointment. And disgust.

Recommended For You

88 Responses to Lawrence Goldman [Not Shown]: You Don’t Have a Right to Keep And Bear Arms

    • Well he lacks the ability to even basically comprehend a tiny portion of it. I think the full meaning would be equally lost on him.

    • More like, read The Federalist Papers. The Founders explain their reasoning about the amendments pretty well. No need to guess. The Constitution was just the CliffsNotes.

      IMHO, the Founders would have loved to have had the firepower at the time so they did not need to worry about another invasion.

      • That is where I point people when they question the wording of the 2A. Which usually gets the response of ‘huh?’. If they are still interested I’ll send them the relevant passages (like #46 for example). It is amazing when the few that actually make the effort either ‘get it’ or get upset when the can see what the FFs were ‘actually thinking’ when it came to gun rights, the Constitution, and the 2A.

        • It is also important to point out that the writers of the Bill of Rights decided, when it was finally appoved, that the wording of the Second Amendment should be “A well regulated militia…” NOT “A State regulated militia…” or even “A government regulated militia…” Rather speaks for itself. Oh yes, “…shall not be infringed.”

      • Only problem with your argument regarding the Federalist Papers is that they were arguing AGAINST the need for what became the Bill of Rights and explained what they were thinking when they wrote the US Constitution. I know it is ironic that one of the authors of the Federalist Papers, and the man who drafted the Constitution, later fulfilled his campaign promise to create and push for the amendments of what will became the Bill of Rights (and another one that finally passed over 200 years later regarding congressional pay raises). That would be James Madison. In his defense of the US Constitution allowing the federal government the right to raise a standing army (which has existed since the inception of our republic), he stated that it was okay that we have a standing army because the PEOPLE are armed and would be much more numerous than any army that could be raised.

  1. From what I know of the founders most of them would have wanted one or more of those guns. Several of them would have worried about keeping them fed.

    And Franklin and Jefferson would have been taking them apart and trying to learn how they worked in detail.

    • I must admit, Lars Goldman is one hell of a medium if he absolutely knows how men dead for about 200 years would react to today’s technology.

      And if I may, most of those founding father would likely want to keep them away from the Feds, given their history with the big government of the era.

      • Good point . They would be aghast at the police militarization we see today. Their writing gs give clues to the notion they wanted less not more power in the hands of gov.

  2. Yes, anyone with “half a brain” might read it that way — because they only have half a brain. People with a whole brain will see right off that the opening clause is a reason for the main clause, not a restriction.

    • “People with a whole brain will see right off that the opening clause is a reason for the main clause, not a restriction.”

      Interesting point, has the rest of the Constitution been dissected for other examples that style? (Or lack thereof, specifically.)

      • Yes, it’s been determined that it’s the writing style of the day, sort of a preamble to set the tone. Only the non-students of history or those that can’t read and comprehend small words. I’m sorry I don’t have a direct reference though for you.

  3. “all the firearms manufacturers would have to close their factories because I mean, really, how many do you need to make? The legal market is only so big.”

    Clearly Mr. Goldman isn’t aware of the firearm ownership algebratic equation X + 1 = N, where X is the number of guns you own, and N is the number of guns you need.

    • and in the first century of this country, the militia was usually called up by the county sheriff to help with law enforcement duties. Sometimes these militia were called Posse’s after the english common law term posse comitatus. that was until we started to allow highly restricted (although becoming less so) standing armies we call Police Departments.

      • Standing army’s that kill little dogs and scare the kids as they kick in the door acting all Rambo at the wrong address. Same ones?

  4. ” If weapons didn’t “trickle down” to the criminal class in this country, all the firearms manufacturers would have to close their factories because I mean, really, how many do you need to make?”

    So you’re saying that the criminal class is a population far greater than the legal gun owner? There are so many criminals ending up with all the surplus guns? You want to know where all the extra guns are going? Look no further than the government crusher.

  5. “…all the car manufacturers would have to close their factories because I mean, really, how many do you need to make? The legal market is only so big…”

    Fixed it.

  6. These same founders gave cannons and armed warships to civilian militias.

    I think they’d be fine with a nice infantry rifle.

      • And the majority of our naval successes during the war of 1812 was by our civilian fleet and not the US Navy.

  7. What. An. Idiot. How can people so utterly fail at reading comprehension? It’s 27 words. And they aren’t that complicated.

    • It’s not reading comprehension, it’s cognitive dissidence. They read what they want it to say, not what it says.

      • That bunch will simply make up from whole cloth anything that isn’t there that they think should be there, how else do we have boys pretending to be girls competing in girls sports and using the girls bathrooms. Thank the idiot at 1600 who is apparently using his last few months in office to do as much damage to this country as possible. He started with a few executive orders on guns, no idea where he might go next, but it won’t be good!

  8. What training course or training academy did the Founding Fathers (and their generation) receive their firearm instruction from? Also, how many State sanctioned entities were there for militias back then? [/Sarc]

    Just because theoretically an Uzi can fire 600 rounds per minute, does not mean it can. Almost anyone with military experience can tell you how unrealistic the maximum sustained rate of fire is, well, a hopeful wish.

    It’s like saying your car can go as fast as the highest number on the speedometer says it can.

  9. I am ashamed he is a fellow Pennsylvanian. Nor is he literate enough to understand the operative clause of the 2nd Amendment. Nor does he use logic in his argument or have a passing understanding of our Founding Fathers, the writings of the Federalist Papers, etc. More and more I have come to the conclusion that some peoples fear clouds their judgement leading to their overwhelming stupidity.

    • Aaron Zelman would probably be ashamed (but not surprised) that yet another bagel brained idiot has a Jewish surname.

  10. “The vast majority of civilians will freeze the moment they are faced with a dangerous situation. Those people who are walking around with concealed carry permits are just plain ignorant. They will be slow on the draw and dead before their weapon even leaves its hiding place.”

    Because as we all know, Anti’s like Mr. Goldman are experts in situational awareness, drawing, getting a sight picture, holstering, etc.

    This is probably the favorite projection anti’s use. That because in the face of danger they themselves will immediately cower and surrender, everyone else will. Give me a break. I always hope that these folks never run into the trouble they passive aggressively suggest we POTG dream about, because they sure as hell won’t survive it.

  11. So apparently he is better at interpreting the constitution better than the supreme court. Look up the unorganized militia it is comprised of every able bodied male citizen between the ages of 17 and 45. And now that women can serve in combat that includes them too. I’m pretty sure the founders would have a hoot and a half taking out a British outpost with AR15s and M107A1s. Plus the garb of way back then would have been great for concealed carrying some serious heat seconded only to robes.

  12. If DaVinci could imagine heavier than air flight, I’m pretty sure at least a few of the founders could have imagined repeating arms.

  13. I’m traveling through Utah, Arizona, and Nevada and all is good. Before I get to the California border I have to stop and put my 9mm Shield in the trunk. Unloaded. In a hard sided portable safe. Funny how a great number of states have no issue with me concealed carrying but CA can’t recognize this right.

    • I guess I’m just looking for trouble, but when I go through Kalifornia I just put my Shield in the center console and take my chances. I just try to stay near the speed limit.

  14. Written by the same people who will be sucking up the Chinese when they invade and just go with the flow. His ancestors must be proud

  15. “The Pennsylvania Guard is our protector against the federal government, and that is exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they incorporated the Second Amendment into the Constitution and not the proliferation of weapons that exists in our society today.”

    ahahahahahahahahahahaha where do you think the Pa guard gets all of their fancy toys and ammo from???

    Its York PA, its a dump hole anyways. Never, ever go there without carrying.

  16. Mr. Goldman is arguing that the citizens who successfully fought a revolution against their government then codified the notion that only people under government control can have weapons. Which is, of course, contrary to any kind of logic, as well as a multitude of documents from those very founding individuals stating the opposite.

    Or is Mr. Goldman arguing that the state militia is sovereign in the ability to regulate arms? That would be interesting indeed. Members of the Texas State Guard, which is a state run entity entirely separate from the Texas National Guard, could have not only select fire rifles, but mortars, anti tank weapons, tanks, bomber aircraft, JDAMS, and ICBMs. Maybe that’s what he meant? Because that would be a lot more in line with what the founders thought.

  17. I find it amazing how people who know less than nothing about firearms know what competent gun owners will do in a crisis situation.

  18. Alrighty then. Nothing to add-he’s an idiot. Bad guys would have guns forever from theft or sale of already existing guns. Bring back the opening paragraph so I don’t read about doofuses like THIS…

  19. “If weapons didn’t “trickle down” to the criminal class in this country, all the firearms manufacturers would have to close their factories because I mean, really, how many do you need to make?”

    Yeah, because defense of one’s self, loved ones and property is the ONLY reason people buy guns. There’s no reason anyone would ever need multiple calibers or different types of gun.

    In the spirit of his argument I’m gonna take my M1A to the trap range, cause you know, that’s totally safe and shit.

      • I get the feeling that if there are people 20 miles away where those rounds come down, they will have a problem with it.

        • Damn, twenty miles? The 5″/54 on the destroyer I served on only had a 13 mile range. I want an M1A really bad now.

  20. Liberal to Constitutional Conservative translation, “Blah-blah, blah, blah blah blah, ba-blah ba-blah blah.” Now we can understand the blathering idiot.

  21. When the first amendment was made you needed a huge printing press operated by multiple buff men to print a hundredish fliers. Now you can print out hundreds at the push of a button.

    Ban assault printers!

  22. Never been in a gun fight- don’t know how I’d react to a violent criminal initiating one with me. Perhaps I would freeze up…maybe not, but who knows? If I did freeze up though, I truly would rather have frozen and be shot with a gun available to me, versus having no gun at all.The fact that somebody may or may not react a certain way doesn’t mean you get to blanket ban something. Also the FF’s didn’t balk at private citizens owning large sailing vessels equipped with devastating cannons capable of blockading ports…I don’t think they’d care too much about a lil ol’ .223 x 30 capable rifle.

  23. This might be the dumbest thing I’ve read in a while.

    And if the founders were alive today, they wouldn’t have an opportunity to “keel over” at the sight of a small-caliber semi-automatic rifle. They would have long since died from their horror at the deplorable state of the nation they created. Just showing them a chart of the growth of the Federal government ought to be enough to cause those heart attacks. The firepower (or lack thereof) of an AR-15 would be pretty low on their list of things to be shocked about.

    Or, more likely, they would ask for a couple truckloads of those AR-15s and some patriots to join them to bring things back in line. Jefferson in particular, you may recall, was of the mind that revolutions should be somewhat regular occurrences.

    • The founders already had semi-autos!

      Girandoni weren’t obscure guns either. The Austrian army used a lot of them.

      • Technically, the Girandoni would be called repeating rifles, not semi-auto. Between shots, the rifleman had to cock the gun and load a ball by sliding a lever. But your point is valid – to someone familiar with the top technology of the late 18th century, the concept of a semi-automatic rifle wouldn’t be mind-boggling and incomprehensible.

        Even more relevant would be the Belton flintlock, invented by Joseph Belton. It would have been essentially a “full auto” musket, using a stack of charges fused together in a single barrel. It was supposedly capable of something like 20 rounds in five seconds (which is, amusingly, probably faster than most people can shoot a semi-auto AR-15). Rather than collapsing of fright from such a prospect, as Mr. Goldman would have us believe, the founders in the Continental Congress commissioned a hundred such muskets from Belton in 1777. His bid came in too high, however, and the contract was canceled.

  24. “If weapons didn’t “trickle down” to the criminal class in this country…”

    I see how it is. Peaceful gun owners create crime…just like women who wear yoga pants create rape. If only all those pretty young sorority girls dressed in burkas, rape culture wouldn’t exist.

  25. As a local, it doesn’t surprise me that YDR printed that. The editorial board there regularly uses half a brain for every decisions it makes.

  26. The second protects the first thats must say first.

    Second >> Constitunal Carry is the law all other regulations are unconstitunal as permits requierments ore nfa acts “!

  27. That’s odd…the Pennsylvania constitution states that “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of THEMSELVES and the State shall not be questioned”.

    How come so many politicians in Pennsylvania are questioning it.

  28. The founding fathers wiuld likely keel over and die of heart attacks when they saw countless, faceless people spewing hate, lies and debauchery all completely anonymously from across the world, driving to racism, war and suicide via the unchecked power of the internet. Surely the 1st amendment would have been revised…

  29. First our Founding Fathers had dealings in the black market. Taxation and heavy tariff were one of the largest complaints , from the colonies. Second by the mere fact of the declaration of indepence and waging asymmetrical warfare on the crown . The Foundin Fathers became traitors and terrorists. Both would bar you from the right to arms.

    The battle at lexington and concord was started when the Brits. Went to confiscated privately owned cannons. I’m quite sure the Founding Fathers would have been okay with modern arms in private hands.

  30. Goldman certainly has the Right to be a effing idiot, as he has shown here. No matter how accurate, powerful or rapid fire a weapon may be it still requires a living person to shoot it. Guns do not kill people other people do. They do not posses sthat right, but unfortunately they still do. BAN MURDEROUS PEOPLE !

  31. So, the founding fathers would have turned down having AR-15s, uzis, RPGs or anything of the like during the revolution. By that standard I should have anything that existed at the time which included chemical and biological weapons as well as hand grenades.

  32. I like the way he so eloquently coupled his ignorance of The Constitution with his deeply flawed knowledge of economic principles. Delightful.

  33. If the founding fathers would have imagined that we can have technologies such the Internet, that allows millions of people to be connected to each other at the speed of light, sometimes with invisible signals that can go up in space, and that all people could have access to technologies so powerful that could give us access to this enormous communication network from a tiny little device that fits in a pocket, and with this same device we could access to virtually all knowledge and intelligence, including from, to and with foreigners, as well as having instant video communications to the point to make printed documents and official newspapers completely irrelevant, they would for sure not allow the first amendment…

    The first amendment was only meant for printed press. The founding fathers couldn’t imagined that technologies would allow any idiots on earth to express his 2 cents opinion about everything and anything, including the other amendments 😉

  34. I just love the argument that “untrained” citizens aren’t capable of defending themselves against criminals. Do these people think criminals are all ex-DEVGRU and SAS operatives? They’re not. Aside from reduced morality and (generally) lower intelligence, they are simply ordinary, untrained people with guns. So it stand to reason that other ordinary, “untrained” people with guns have a reasonable chance of stopping them.

  35. Goldman is a stereotypical progressive liberal who pivots with ease to manufacture deceitful talking points and blatant lies when reality and facts don’t align with a radical leftist ideology committed to disarming the populace and delusionally convinced that once disarmed, pro 2nd amendment moderates, conservatives, or anyone else who dares to challenge them can easily be eliminated.

    If they’ve accomplished nothing else, the Obama administration has proven that when in power, progressive liberals and socialists are more than willing to do or say anything to advance their radical agenda, U.S. Constitution be damned.

  36. In my opinion, a person can disagree with any part of the Constitution and campaign for an amendment to change it; however, to alter the original meaning and terms agreed upon by We The People without going through the amendment process is treason. Through the Federalist Papers, we know what the founders meant by the 2nd amendment, so in my opinion, I have reason to believe this guy has committed treason.

  37. Once more, let me offer a quick analogy. The National Guard’s closest 18th century equivalent would be loyalist troops commanded by the colonial governors. Somehow,in that context, I can’t imagine the Founding Fathers being hypocritical enough to declare that only government forces should have arms.

  38. His version of the second amendment is missing a comma. When read that way, sure, it means what he wants it to.

    However, the amendment says that while a trained militia is necessary to secure a free state, government has no right to restrict the people of United States from having and carry arms.

    This is not the only amendment in the bill of rights that gives the rights to the government, no matter how much these people twist it in their heads. I mean, how stupid would that be?

  39. Anyone who tries to tell us what some people who’ve been dead over 100 years would say is already doing something illogical right from the beginning.

  40. Considering at that time there was privately owned warships…I think they would simply be impressed with the technology.

  41. Where do you get the nerve to steal my article, post it on your site, and critique it? I really don’t care. It’s sort of flattering that someone would use my writing to further their own agenda. But if you have to resort to me, you must be short of material. Believe me, there are more and more people thinking the way I do every day. Fuck the NRA.

Leave a Reply

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