Previous Post
Next Post

Gun locker (courtesy

Gun control advocates’ crusade for “gun safety” is a sham. Although they won’t admit it – lest they lose popular support – the antis believe that guns are only safe when they’re in the hands of the police and/or the military. Which is a really scary thought, what with the Holocaust, ISIS and the unfathomable suffering of Mexico’s unarmed rural population as our guide. But it’s not a thought that occurs to John Sutija, writing for . . .

. . . the Second Amendment is outdated. Militias are redundant in the modern developed world, but the right to bear arms goes beyond that. The guns used at Lexington and Concord were hunting rifles, and regardless of your participation in the sport, there is no denying that its practice is beneficial. When deer populations skyrocket, the creatures destroy crops worse than rats, and coyotes are more violent pests. I realize that these are less of an issue in Miami than in my native Iowa, but the U.S. is made of much more than South Florida.

I don’t believe anyone needs to own a gun. Some careers may benefit from their use, but that’s on a professional level, not a personal one. If you need a gun at work, you should pick up your sidearm when you punch in and drop it off when you punch out. But what about the every man, those hunters I spent my last paragraph defending? They wouldn’t own their guns or their relatives. I say all ranged weapons – shotguns, rifles, pistols and bows – need to be collected by the government, catalogued and put in a library. You want to shoot Bambi? Fine, but I’ll need to see your gun-library-card.

So there you have it: a factual error (the firearms used in Lexington and Concord were military rifles) and a gun control advocate’s plan for the thorny issue of hunting – the only “gun right” they support.

Until they don’t. When invasive species invade areas where gun control is the order of the day, the government calls in “professional hunters.” Can I imagine a world where American hunters are as controlled as Mr. Sutija would like them to be, and then supplanted? Of course. Try this on for size:

To get such a license would require in-depth background checks and mental evaluations. You would likely have to make an appointment, and you yourself would never be allowed into the actual gun vault. You would tell the person at the register what you intend to do and they would go in back and bring you their recommendation, chosen from the limited stock they have. Things like Uzis, AKs, P90s or anything that has “armor-piercing” in its name would be ridiculous, and unless your game weighs over 500 pounds, most high-power rifles are, too. You’d be handed the weapon and a box a munitions and pointed toward gun range. When you’re happy with your choice, then comes the paper work.

Just in case you’re wondering, yes, Mr. Sutija is yet another over-educated elitist who believes that gun owners are selfish, emotionally and mentally retarded rednecks.

Does this make the people safer? Yes, it pulls the weapons out of the home. Does it let you fulfill your primal instincts? Yes, have fun Billy-Joe. Is it the perfect end-all? No, I’m not saying it’s the best solution, but it’s better than our current means of gun oversight – and that’s what the nation needs right now.

Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms must be defended from those who argue that The Second Amendment needs amending. Whether they admit it or not.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Paragraph 2 Sentence 3rd:

    “They wouldn’t own their guns or their relatives.” ’nuff said. What say you Mr. Freud?

    • Yes, this caught me too. I am not going to read the article, but this was very weird. I suspect this man has some psychological issues.

      • “I suspect this man has some psychological issues.”
        The individual mental disorder is called liberalism, but where it affects the entire population is through their statist beliefs, which are not liberal host specific.

        • Keep your gun for the end of America so that you have a vote in what’s created after.

          Most would say that won’t happen (that America won’t end) [I]they[/I] will need you armed to ensure their vote in that eventuality. “[I]Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not[/I].” Thomas Jefferson “If when Political objects are unimportant, motives weak, the excitement of forces small, a cautious commander tries in all kinds of ways, without great crises and bloody solutions, to twist himself skillfully into peace through the characteristic weakness of his enemy in the field and in the cabinet, we have no right to find fault with him, if the premise on which he acts are well founded and justified by success; still we must require him to remember that he only travels on forbidden tracks, where the God of War may surprise him; that he ought always to keep his eye on the enemy, in order that he may not have to defend himself with a dress rapier if the enemy takes u p a sharp sword”. (Clausewitz, “On War” pg. 137) if any party’s claim is such that: “I cannot defend you until you have surrendered the means by which you can defend yourself;” only the first half of the statement is true. [TERMS, J.M. Thomas R., pg. 46]

          “Common sense will tell us that the power which hath endeavored to subdue us, is of all others the most improper to defend us. Conquest may be effected under the pretence of friendship; and ourselves, after a long and brave resistance, be at last cheated into slavery…. Wherefore, if we must here-after protect ourselves, why not do it for ourselves? Why do it for another?” ( Paine Common Sense pg. 47)[/SIZE][/COLOR]

          Do not let anyone disarm you for the next civil war, or war with China.

          Anyone saying one will not occur in the former or isn’t occurring in the latter is either stupid or lying, and is exactly what they would say (what one would say) if it were directly the case anyway.

          Look around, children of GOD, there is not a one of you better than the other, there is also not a one of you that should be able to tell the other what form of personal defense, however offensive, is the maximum.

          MOLON LABE.

        • “”a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes
          which impel them to the separation.” (Paragraph 1, U.S. Declaration of Independence,) “That
          whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
          People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on
          such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
          effect their Safety and Happiness.” (Paragraph 2, U.S. Declaration of Independence,). “But
          when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a
          design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off
          such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” (Paragraph 2, U.S.
          Declaration of Independence,) “We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which
          denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War,
          in Peace Friends.” (Paragraph 30, U.S. Declaration of Independence,) “We, therefore, the
          Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing
          to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by
          Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these
          united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are
          Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between
          them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and
          Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances,
          establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of
          right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of
          Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our
          sacred Honor.” .” (Paragraph 31, U.S. Declaration of Independence).” [TERMS, J.M. Thomas R., pg. 82]

        • +1

          To Joe R
          In second Para first post you almost got the code right, replace ( [ ) with ( < ) using small cap letter ( i ) and italics will be perfect (not picking just trying to help:-)

          BTW agree to ur post too

    • What? This is a great idea…well part of it is.
      A gun library…well…gun-ary, since libr- means “book”. Who wants to deal with owning a M2HB? Nobody. But who wants to shoot one once or twice a year? I sure as Hell do!
      Go down to the gun-ary, check out the M2HB, and take it out shooting.

      The rest of the article is complete crap, but the gun-ary idea is pure gold.

      • What? What do you mean, who wants to own a Ma Deuce? I do, and yes, I do have one, demilitarized, but still an M2HB on a tripod. It is not for loan at the library—LOL!

      • What happens when CHINA closes the Library?


    • Chip, I could only find one proposal to repeal the Second Amendment, way back in 1993. Of course we remember what happened to the democrats that November. There were a couple of proposals to amend and clarify the meaning, but that went nowhere as well.

      They know repeal doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance, so they’d rather chip away slowly, until there’s nothing left but words on an old piece of parchment in a museum.{%22search%22%3A[%22second+amendment+repeal+proposals%22]}

    • “The freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional right; subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility”

      Amend the 2nd, and the right still exists. Just because a minority of the population are given the reigns to direct our policy does not give them the power to declare the right to self defense by the best means possible illegal. Amend the second today, and there will be a revolution tomorrow.

      • “…shotguns, rifles, pistols and bows…”

        This is the first time I have seen BOWs included. Most bow hunters/archers I know, at least the ones that aren’t PotG as well, think they are safe from all the grabbers.

        PLEASE talk with the archers you know, and make sure they know that they’re at risk too.

      • “Amend the 2nd, and the right still exists.” That doesn’t mean much if the “right” is not respected. I will show, below, that our civil rights are protected by mere “parchment”; our natural rights by even less. That which we refer to as “rights” are nothing more – in practice – than whatever a super-majority of us (preferably armed) are willing to demand and fight for. Which should lead us to a valuable conclusion.

        Does a “right” to bear arms exist with respect to a condemned man as he mounts the gallows?
        How about the prisoner who is at considerable risk of attack by other prisoners?

        What is this “right” which many of us regard as “absolute”? And, what does it really mean in the political context in which we live – i.e., within civilization?

        A really good place to start this study is the prohibition against a person possessing arms when that person BOTH:
        – once had US citizenship; AND
        – renounced his US citizenship.

        This is interesting because none of us have a dog in this fight one way or the other. There is nothing personal going on here. None of us is at any realistic threat of being accosted by such a person who might be visiting the US on a tourist or business visa should he be allowed to bear arms. So, what of these people? Why has Congress seen fit to make them prohibited-persons? What is the justification? What have they done to deserve being stripped of their rights? If a green-card holder returned his residency permission he would not be stripped of his 2A rights. Nor would any alien who had never become a citizen or resident of the US. What is the justification here?

        I submit that US citizens who have renounced their US citizenship have been stripped of their natural right simply because Congress can do so within the terms of the 2A. And, we PotG allow our congress-critters to do so without objection.

        (Incidentally, there are diverse reasons to renounce US citizenship such as, for example, to take up employment in a foreign government post or to avoid the tedium of filing expatriate tax returns with the IRS. For example, many Indian immigrants become US citizens but later return to their homeland to live among their friends and family. US tax law makes them file a tax return for the rest of their lives as long as they remain citizens.)

        Next, consider illegal aliens. We must concede at the outset that this class of persons live as outlaws in the US. As such, they may justifiably be denied the privileges and immunities of citizenship such as driver’s licenses, welfare and so forth. However, they can not be denied other rights such as freedom from cruel and unusual punishment or the right to remain silent. What of their “natural” rights? Among these, “life” and an effective means of its defense.

        Admittedly, they are outlaws. But, then, so am I. I get a speeding ticket or a ticket for running a red light from time to time. My last ticket was for DWCellPhone. Is my natural right to be stripped of me because of these traffic offenses? My civil right under the 2A? No? Then what makes illegal presence in the US different?

        Many illegal immigrants have lived peaceably in the US for many years. They have worked hard and supported their families; perhaps they have even paid a few taxes. Of these, some have US born children who are entitled to the rights and immunities of US citizenship, including life and an effective means of self-defense. While minors, an effective means probably have to be wielded by adults whom US law has defined as prohibited-persons.

        The 2A speaks of “the People” not “Citizens”. SCOTUS has ruled that this term “the People” includes those who have established a connection with the community, not necessarily becoming naturalized citizens. Arguably, at some point, an illegal immigrant becomes a member of “the People” when he has not returned to his homeland for a long time, has set-up permanent housekeeping, established employment and maintains US born children in the community.

        Why does Congress treat illegal immigrants – indiscrimanently as to their peaceful lifestyle – as prohibited-persons? Because they can? Or, because the courts will not rule that some such illegal immigrants are members of the class “the People”? And, we PotG allow our congress-critters to refuse them their natural rights without objection.

        What of the rights of released felons convicted of non-violent crimes? Of the peaceful mentally-ill? What of the tens of thousands of veterans whose 2A rights have been stripped from them because they suffer from a diagnosis of PTSD or need a fiduciary to help them manage their paperwork? Have we PotG succeeded in demanding our Congress-critters to remedy even this one travesty?

        The progress made in gun rights over the past 30 years or so has been achieved incrementally – State by State – where we PotG have stood up to our legislators and demanded that they legislate consistent with our interpretation of our rights. We have failed to achieve the same success in Congress; at best, we have held the line.

        History should teach us that the war over gun-control will never be won decisively; the war will always be fought. This right is unlike others where a permanent consensus might be reached (such as, for example, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, or speech or religion.) When we are not gaining ground we are in jeopardy of loosing ground. Our most important goal is to sustain the growth in recognition among the general population that guns protect the vulnerable. The more mothers carry to protect their children the more secure our rights. The more grandmothers who support their daughters’ decision to carry the more secure our rights. This is the message to promote.

        We must take great care to avoid shooting ourselves in the foot. Ill-tempered discourse and irresponsible behavior among PotG will be our undoing. (In this I do NOT speak against OC; in fact, I’ve come to support OC. Nevertheless, OC and every other measure we take must be taken both aggressively and with great care to avoid bad optics that will be used by Antis to convey a disorderly or dangerous image of us.)

    • There are many–including a lot of liberals–pushing for a Constitutional Convention to do exactly that.

      Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

      • To the contrary: put-up or shut-up. It’s a response that even ordinary Americans (with the current rate of functional intellectual capacity) can understand.

        The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If the Antis don’t like the 2A they are welcome to promote a proposal to remind that amendment. Unless and until they manage that feat they are stuck with it. This line of reasoning squarely draws into focus the question of Constitutionality. If forces the listener to really think about whether she stands for or against the principle of constitutionality. If she values any right whatsoever under that Constitution then she has to respect the Article V process for altering that right.

        There is no way today or in the foreseeable future that 38 States would vote to remind the 2A. If at any time such were a realistic prospect the practical right would have been long lost by the legislative and judicial process.

        • You don’t even have to go that far. One could not believe in any of the rights in the Constitution, but as long as he has any sense of rule of law he would recognize them as the law and if he wanted them gone, would work to change the law, here the Constitution.

          Instead we get selective respect for the law. Constitutional law is twisted to support things not in it, but impugned when against their agenda, but they expect you to obey the rule of lesser laws which contradict the higher law. What they really want is power. Power to ignore the law they don’t like, and coerce people by color of law in ways they do.

  2. Amending? They want it deleted, followed by confiscation. But they also delude themselves into thinking only a few folks would force the government to kill them to take away their rights. Are they prepared to murder that many people?

    • I think they are absolutely ‘prepared to murder that many people’.

      Prepared = willingness to have other people do it, not the ability to do it

      • No, I think that writers such as this one actually believe that only a handful of southern yokels would fight back against confiscation efforts. He seems to genuinely believe that most people will simply turn them in, especially in exchange for a tax break or payout, and that there will only be a few holdouts who will require door to door work. In fact he says so in his comments under the article.

        “I never said door to door confiscation. I never specified any specific means of collection, but likely it would be in part door to door, and in part trade for monetary compensation — either direct or through tax exemption. Everyone can be bought.”

        So nearly 100 million American gun owners can be bought? And 300+ million guns? So, how much money would that be?

        And here’s the question I never see his type answer: let’s say that you do the door to door confiscations, and it turns out that violent resistance becomes widespread and begins to stiffen. Many citizens and police are being killed. At what point does the body count get high enough that you stop and reconsider that perhaps this was a bad idea? Or, do you press onwards to the point that perhaps a second civil war is kicked off?

        They scoff at this notion, while indulging in their own set of hypotheticals. The one I just mentioned is a very real possibility, but few of these types are willing to even entertain the notion of it.

        • Another interesting aspect of a “door-to-door” campaign the Antis neglect to consider is who will knock at our doors? Will the politicians be the ones knocking asking for our guns with one plea and our votes with another plea?

          Clearly, the door-to-door campaign will be carried out by our men in blue. Surely there will be plenty enough men in blue willing to kick-down the first door. Now, who is up for the second and third door? The gung-ho leaders of the collection team will be the first to suffer the reaction of their neighbors; whatsoever that might be.

          PoliceOne’s annual survey evidences considerable support from the rank and file police officers for civilian gun ownership. Just exactly how deeply convinced is this rank and file to a confiscation program? Convinced enough to take-one-for-the Legislature? Maybe so in NYC; in up-state NY as well? Maybe so in NJ; in Pennsylvania as well. In MD? How about VA?

          If the police haven’t collected the guns in the inner-city, how successful will they be in suburban and rural America?

        • Surely there will be plenty enough men in blue willing to kick-down the first door.

          I agree, and history shows this to be true, even in our own country.

          In the surveys of law enforcement on gun ownership, even the supposed LEO supporters begin to drop off when it comes to carrying them and wearing guns out of the house. And not just in NY and NJ, but even in places like Michigan. Sad.

          If a cop in NY and NJ and DC are willing to arrest you and make you a felon for carrying a gun or certain ammo, why wouldn’t a cop in the Midwest like Ohio and Michigan and Illinois? Older LEOs I have talked to say that there is no doubt in their minds that younger cops would do it. But what about the threat against older cops losing their pensions? Yes, I think history tells us that orders would be obeyed. And every time some new gun control measure is touted by politicians, the dais is filled with LEOs standing four-square behind them.

        • It’s easy enough to “just follow orders” when putting handcuffs on Shaneen Alan. It’s easy enough to kick-in the first door to execute a search and seize warrant. What is unpredictable is how far this progressive action can go without response.

          What will be the response from the PotG after the second and third door is kicked-in? Will others continue to remain silent? Will they continue to “support your local sheriff”? Or, will – eventually – the police kick-in just one too many doors?

          One day there will be a poster-child event. Who would have imagined the grizzled face of Cliven Bundy achieve poster-child level support? What the next poster child will look like I refrain from predicting; s/he will arrive when s/he is needed.

          Will police officers want to return home safely to their wives and children? Will older offers want to reach retirement age to collect their pensions? Just how far will they want to push their friends and neighbors past the level of rhetorical response? We can’t know this for sure; nor can the politicians predict their officers’ answers with any accuracy. Yet, we can be sure, as the pertinence of the question approaches imminence the police will be focusing on their personal answer.

          We all know where this road leads; none of us wants to go there. Yet the decision is not entirely in our own hands. Our elected officials hold the trigger. We should all prey they keep their itchy fingers out of the trigger guard.

        • Surely there will be plenty enough men in blue willing to kick-down the first door. Now, who is up for the second and third door? The gung-ho leaders of the collection team will be the first to suffer the reaction of their neighbors; whatsoever that might be.

          I would donate heavily to an enterprise that collected, compiled, maintained, and made publicly accessible a list of all law enforcement officers from the lowest deputy in Smallville,USA all the way up to the head of government agencies. Special effort to identify mid-level operational types. All of this data should be available for easy download and safe keeping if things go dark. If things go bad, it would be handy to have this list so citizens would know who to go to and ask them to do the right thing.

    • ” But they also delude themselves into thinking only a few folks would force the government to kill them to take away their rights.”

      I don’t think they are deluded at all, and instead are starting to get very afraid that they maybe held accountable for their actions against their Liberty loving neighbors, as the Second Amendment was made for.

    • I’m inclined to think the people advocating disarmament are well aware there would be resistance. They are unlikely troubled by this because the actual disarming would be done by their proxies, not by them. Likely, they would also sleep like babies, after hearing of the subsequent slaughter, secure in the knowledge, that they, our betters, have a much greater understanding of what’s necessary to secure peace and freedom, than do we, the common folk. And they would continue to sleep secure in that knowledge, until the day came, when they, themselves were purged.

    • “Would they be willing to murder that many people?”


      The FBI infiltrated the Weather Underground whose members felt that there would be 26 million people who could not be reeducated and would have to be “eliminated” once their socialist revolution was successful.

      This was discussed calmly and dispassionately, as though they were talking about what to have for dinner and not the wholesale slaughter of 26 million American citizens.

    • Yeah, really.

      I can remember; It’s so nice to be young, carefree, inexperienced and ignorant, and only worried about…self…while going on about how things *should* be in a perfect world.

      • I interpreted the comment as like “this is just another anti with an axe to grind, let’s continue our side of the fight and keep on winning.”

        While I’m here, the guns used at Lexington and Concord wern’t military rifles since the British Army didn’t issue rifles until either during or after our Revolution. I believe the first British rifle was the Baker. So colonists, who either bought their own or were given muskets, probably wouldn’t have had the best and most recent military technology of the day.

        • The colonists had “military grade” weapons or better. A few of them had pennsylvania pattern rifles (note rifle because rifling). These weapons were more accurate than the brown bess musket (smoothbore) and were used to great effect at saratoga and new orleans taking out officers. By all of their logic, I should be able to have the exact same rifle or the same capability that the military has or better.

        • Many of the colonist’s weapons were ‘state-of-the-art’ battlefield weapons.

          In terms of equivalent sophistication, much like the AR-15-pattern rifles in common use today.

  3. Of course this idiot fails to realize that Clyde Barrow, Pretty Boy Floyd, and Dillinger all stole guns from police departments and National Guard armories. His moronic idea will do sweet FA to provide any real safety, but will destroy uncounted lives and ensure that we are as helpless as the rape-whistle toting Brits.

  4. The POTG should embrace this guy and spread his word far and wide. He’s so clearly deranged in his utopian zeal that he would be a real asset to push folks in the center firmly into the pro-arms camp.

  5. This whole thing reads like the type of shallowly-developed notion of “how to solve a problem” that I might have written in 7th or 8th grade.

    You can also solve world hunger by confiscating all the resources of every producing nation, and redistributing them to poorer countries.

  6. The Second Amendment does need amending; it should be scrapped and replaced with something more akin to Article 16 of the Vermont Constitution.

    • Amendment 2, revised
      “A free state cannot remain free without a well-armed and effective militia acting in a violent setting as the last protector of the people’s liberty from tyrants and invaders. Such is a proven defense against statist regimes. Therefore, the right of any person TO

      possess, keep, manufacture, transport, transfer, import, export, modify, sell, gift, or purchase from any source ANY

      firearms, ammunitions, ordinance, munitions, explosives, deadly weapons, or device of a non-nuclear or poison gas nature that could be of some use to the militias, law enforcement, or any military past, present, or future, SHALL NOT BE

      controlled, monitored, recorded, tracked, registered, regulated, criminalized, taxed, reduced, legislated, litigated, prosecuted or otherwise hampered, discouraged, or infringed, BY ANY

      bureau, department, court, congress, military, employee, or government of the United States of America or any state thereof.

      Any action resulting in the detriment of this liberty, however small, or the participation in drafting, writing, funding, voting in favor of or otherwise encouraging any legislation that is deemed by a court (using strict scrutiny) of the United States in violation of the previous section shall be a felony of the second degree.”

      Would that fix it?

      • That would cause its own problems. What of those duly convicted of a crime, or are we arming prisoners now?

        One may deprive criminals of liberty and even life, depending on the gravity of the offense and the public exigencies of the matter.

  7. In all reality, the guns used at Lexington and Concord by militia members were more than likely 95% muskets or fowlers with smoothbores. Hunting rifles were far more expensive to make, and they were mainly produced in VA, PA, and NC during that time period. I’m sure only a wealthy farmer or merchant would have had a rifle if they were to reside in the MA area. Not sure if they made high capacity magazines for them though lol.

    • “(the firearms used in Lexington and Concord were military rifles) ”

      According to Cramer, the guns in America on the eve of the Revolution included: rifles; muskets; and fowling pieces. Now, then, the parenthetical asserts that they were “military rifles”. This seems to make sense to us today; but it wouldn’t have made sense in the 18 Century.

      Guns for military purposes were smooth-bore muskets fitted with bayonet lugs. A bayonet lug was useful in making the final Bonsai charge after the rows of troops closed to the point where reloading and another volley was no longer practical. The bayonet lug served no purpose for hunting or target shooting. Therefore, there was something of a shortage of muskets properly fitted with bayonet lugs which would be standard-issue for military purposes.

      Rifles were – admittedly – more expensive than muskets but were far more accurate than muskets. If the objective were to kill a deer (or other fauna) with the first shot then the additional expense was justified. If you couldn’t afford a rifle you went hunting with the musket you could afford. The use of rifles for military action was novel and hardly established in that era.

      In any case, we respond to the call-to-war with the weapon we have not the weapon we would like to have. The militia came with whatever they had and that was a mix of these three types, with only some muskets having bayonet lugs. (There being no purpose to having a bayonet lug on a rifle, this combination was unheard of.)

      The whole discussion of characterizations about guns strikes me as perfectly silly:

      – Is the AR-15 a civilian version of the military M-16? Or,
      – is the M-16 a militarized version of the AR-15 civilian target shooter?

      And, a Constitutional right turns on the truthiness of one vs. the other characterization? Imagine the founding fathers response to listening to such a debate!

      If we are the technical subject-matter experts in the debate, how about we try to stick to the physical facts and the historical contexts that underly the relevant Constitutional provisions (Bill-of-Rights and the 14A).

      • For the entire duration of the War of Independence, the American army was desperate to get military rifles. Most of the war was fought with arms that did not or could not mount bayonets. Some did, but it was a struggle to find them for the entire war. American troops were terrified of the British bayonets and this is a major reason why they would break, especially the militias, when charged by the British and their bayonets.

        The second amendment was meant to correct this by allowing private citizens to own military style weapons. They knew that the military rifles were more powerful because of the bayonets and they wanted everyone to have them.

      • I’m not sure it all that was you or Kramer quote. In any case, one or both of you SEVERLY misunderstand the impact of multiple bayonets in the hands of trained determined men marching towards you. 1776 or ever.

        • I was conveying a synopsis of Cramer.
          I expressed no thought one way or the other on the utility of bayonets in combat. I can’t imagine why you interpreted by remarks to that effect.

          I was simply attempting to fit the guns of the era into the classification of “military” vs. non-military. Rifles were not considered suitable for military purposes until revolutionary marksmen demonstrated the devastating impact of directed fire killing British officers. That was a shock only when the empirical evidence became apparent. Up until the stroll to Concord, the rifle wasn’t considered “military”.

          A musket – as a firearm – is a musket. Is a musket – by definition – military or non-military? How could you tell? What feature of one musket distinguished it’s suitability for military purposes from another musket not suited for warfare? Conversely, what feature of one musket distinguished it as suitable for hunting? I simply asserted that the presence of a bayonet lug made the one musket suitable for military purposes while the other was seriously deficient. Many – perhaps most – of the muskets in America on the eve of the Revolution lacked bayonet lugs.

      • Point of order. Bonsai is the Japanese art of miniature trees. A banzai charge is a suicide attack. I’m no military historian, but I believe in the 18th century, the bayonet charge was standard European military doctrine and not equivalent to the last ditch banzai charges of the 20th century.

        But I know what you meant.

        • You are correct on both counts. Forgive my inability to spell Japanese words. Kindly also forgive my excess in literary flourish; it was inappropriate as respects a standard doctrine.

      • On the subject of bayonets and hunting, I hunt with a Mosin Nagant with bayonet in place. Yes, I’m strange that way – but that’s how Tula sighted it and what was good enough for NAZIs is good enough for Bambi.

        Once upon a time down in Oklahoma I flushed a boar had to rely on that pig sticker to stick that pig.

        So… yeah, I approve of bayonets on a hunting rifle.

    • I agree; and, we should all send a tender thank-you note to Michael Bloomberg for funding the ongoing debate. It is he – and HE ALONE – who provides his immense personal fortune to keeping the gun-control debate ever before the public mind through the state-owned MSM.

      As we slowly-but-surely win the hearts and minds of mothers across America, the histrionics of the gun-controllers become ever more irrational. All we have to do is to maintain self-control over expressions of glee. We will appear to be the adults in the room so long as we can keep the level of discourse above ad homonym attacks against the Antis.

  8. Remember one thing as you read this idiots musings. The 2nd Amendment and the Constitution are NOT chiseled into stone. It is amendable. Two processes that I know of. So be afraid, be very afraid…your children may not have the 2A bulwark to fall back on. The objective of these NAZIs, like this guy and the current POTUS, is to gain complete control over every aspect of your life. By any means necessary. Nothing less is acceptable.

    • Whatever two processes might you recall?

      One might be the assertion of tyrannical power by the state. But, surely, that could never happen in an enlightened and advanced civilization such as ours. If it couldn’t happen in the liberal Weimar Republic it certainly couldn’t happen here. If it couldn’t happen in China – an civilization that enjoyed high culture for thousands of years – then it couldn’t happen here. While I can’t be sure of what two methods you recall, surely this candidate must be ruled-out.

      The other might be a popular assertion of a consensus of the elite. The proletariate led by academics calling out orders from the heights of their posts in ivory towers. That might arise by way of an Amendment repealing the 2A. I trust you weren’t thinking of this path because it would require 38 State legislatures to ratify an amendment while there are now 40 States that enforce a Right-to-Carry.

      The only other possibility is extra-constitutional. The difficulty here is that the truly-enlightened proletariate eschews any popular assertion of strength through force-of-arms. Where are the academics’ arms? Where are their followers’ arms? Were this possibility on your mind, these academics and populists would have to enlist the armed support of a legitimate authority to over-throw the Republican-Conservative establishment – you know, some legitimate state actor with the full backing of the UN. Whom could they enlist? ISIS? Why yes, of course; the “Islamic State . . . “! All they would have to do is find a beachhead such as Mexico with a vast unprotected land boarder with the US; a staging area possessed of a well-armed defense force to defend this base (Army and Cartels).

      What force of reactionaries could possibly prevail against a legitimate military force? Veterans, hunters and target shooters all hiding behind blades of grass? Defending their homes, families and property? What means could such a “militia” have at their disposal to confront a regular military force?

      And what would be the political outcome if such a militia were to prevail? Such a thing is hard to predict. What little we have to go on might be the treatment of Loyalists after the Revolution or that of the Rebels after the Civil War.

      • I think you missed his point. The Constitution provides for two methods to amend the Constitution.

        Amendments to the U.S. Constitution can be proposed either:

        –if 2/3 of both the Senate and House of Representatives agree
        –if 2/3 of all state legislatures call a convention for proposing new amendments

        Amendments are ratified either when 3/4 of all the state legislatures agree to the amendment or when 3/4 of special ratifying conventions in each state agree. Congress shall decide which form of ratification to use.

  9. And criminals won’t raid these amazing “gun libraries”? In Australia the cops have been suspected of grabbing thousands of arms slated for destruction and selling them to criminals or tucking them under the floorboards of their homesteads.

    A man who won’t take the action of defending himself doesn’t deserve defending.

  10. The world is full of humans trying escape Countries whose leaders embrace the same logic. With out arms, to fight back they either stay and die, or attempt to flee..

  11. His “utopia” will never happen without a fight, not while most of us are alive. I know that he knows that many of us have no place in his utopia, and if history truly repeats itself, the “enlightened” will most likely try to eliminate those of us who are unfit. I gladly stand with the unfit — the unenlightened — the free men and women of America.

    • True…for now.

      One problem that exists is that as this guy says stuff, and his cohorts say similar things…the younger generation hears more of this nonsense.

      Get it said in State Schools (at all levels), and it becomes “truth by authority.” Memes are created this way, and they can be VERY difficult to correct when false or even merely stupid.

    • @Bob-
      I would rather fight than to have my children fight. It is an organized effort or nothing at all, and that organization is the moral highground as talked about by Sun Tzu. The continuation of the corruption is what is our downfall, but at least the inaction is consistent among a nation of comfortable cowards. When the the Desert Storm veterans are gone the chance for America is gone with them.

  12. I don’t think this guy “needs” to spread his opinions. He doesn’t “need” to have children. I can go further than that…

    I dont think he should be able to own a computer or typewriter or pen and paper to spread his statist nazi crap…

  13. What a maroon. So my Mosin and Mauser and Springfield aren’t weapons? What about Gatling guns?
    I guess that modern renditions are out of the question?

  14. The first amendment is outdated…. The framers of the constitution and pamphletteers used printing presses…They never envisioned a world where news could quite literally travel around the world in an instant, we should really round up all of the computers and blogs and make sure that anyone who wants to publish ideas check them out of a library….

    I don’t believe anyone needs to own a computer. Some careers may benefit from their use, but that’s on a professional level, not a personal one. If you need a computer at work, you should pick up your computer when you punch in and drop it off when you punch out. But what about the every man, those opinions I spent my last paragraph defending? They wouldn’t own their computers or their relatives. I say all computers – laptops, desktops, PDA’s and smartphones – need to be collected by the government, catalogued and put in a library. You want to spread your opinion Bambi? Fine, but I’ll need to see your idea-library-card.

  15. To paraphrase Mr. John Sutija:

    Firearms owners are different from me and I do not like nor trust people who are different from me … therefore firearms owners are awful/corrupt/dangerous and government should take away their firearms.

    • “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

  16. And apparently the guy has never read the Federalist Paper #46 where James Madison actually explains the reason for the 2A. I would say anyone who claims that the 2A is not about individual rights has never read it. Or, if they have, they are blatantly ignoring it.

    • Simply stated, guys like this don’t believe in the kind of government or society our founders envisioned. Gun controllers, like environmentalists, animal rights activists, militant vegans, and a plethora of “rights” movements, are statists who are quite happy with the idea of using increasingly authoritarian governments to enact their special agendas. Progressives in the FDR administration, for instance, thought Italian Fascism was the wave of the future. Nothing much has changed in the American Left since that time. Since communism has been shown to be a complete failure, they are all now happy fascists.

  17. “firearms or their relatives”

    Meaning, if you think you’ll still have a crossbow when he’s done, think again. No rifle, no shotgun, no bow, crossbow, spear, slingshot, or “tactical hatchet.” You want to hunt without a “library card”? Better work on your dirt clod aim.

    • And, in NJ, even David would be disarmed of his slingshot.

      You might admire the enlightened legislators of the Garden State for their thoroughness is eliminating even the humble slingshot. Alas, the truth is far more amusing.

      The legislative committee intended to outlaw the horrific slung-shot (a black-jack on a stick). Some nameless legislative clerk thought the ‘u’ in slung-shot was a misspelling. He “corrected” the typographical error and the bill was adopted as law.

      On your next trip to NJ, take care to remove any guns, ammo and any hollow-point bullets. Check thoroughly for Jr’s. slingshot. If you feel any need for some means of self-defense, bring a slung-shot; at least that’s one weapon that is still legal.

  18. What I love is that he wants bows all locked up in a vault. We’re talking about a weapon routinely manufactured by stone-age cultures out of natural materials. Of course, I’m not sure he’s capable of grasping the idea of obtaining a thing by waking out into the woods and making it, as opposed to begging the government for it, the latter having the power to materialize such things out of thin air.

  19. He actually does POTG a service.
    He balances out on the other side, the people that carry AR’s at the low ready into Chipotle’s

    • You mean the ones that had the permission of the manager to be there and bothered no other customers (including several cops that were there), right?

      They don’t need ‘balancing.’

      You might have a point if you picked a better example, but beware of believing the lie told in the media as being truth of how a ‘gun related event’ actually happened.

      Stop equating our side with people like this guy. There is no equivalence.

  20. Perhaps this freedom-hating tyrant should choose to live in another country that espouses his values of government control.

    I’m sure the people of South Sudan, Somalia, Syria or Afghanistan would love to have him.

    • “Perhaps this freedom-hating tyrant should choose to live in another country that espouses his values of government control.”

      Why does he have to move when OUR entire federal system is rigged for such purposes, some are just too dumb to see through the emotional intermissions held every couple of years. Same team different jerseys, and one group profits off of the poor at the expense of all while one group profits off of all for the few. Lie to get elected and then no accountability once elected is tyranny. Comfortable in financial chains at the cost of independence.

  21. Florida International University is know mostly for its degrees in hotel/restaurant management, although it has all sorts of degree programs, and a med school and law school. Lots of foreign student visas there, as the out of state tuition is 3x’s what in-staters pay.

    They have a 20% graduation rate, so Mr Sujita has an 80% chance of being your waiter at some point in the future.

    Maybe he’s looking for a job with Bloomberg & Co. I hear they’re always looking for fresh new ideas.

    • Isn’t it great how foreigners use our Constitutional 1st Amendment rights to complain about the Constitution?

  22. There is a part of me that wishes for this to come true. Please indulge me not trolling here. Let’s set up a gun library like this guy suggests and all get gun library cards – the library is free to consumers (or at least deeply discounted) remember. We still keep our guns but gripe about how they all got confiscated. We get one of our own to work the counter and thus free [ok not free but gov. paid for ] ammo!

    All the gun regs are made null as no one has guns anymore. The progressives are pleased to pat themselves on the back about their gun control paid off. Prices on guns, gear, and ammo drop due to the gray market. Meanwhile, we are building plasma guns, gauss rifles, light sabers, etc. I hereby nominate myself for position of gun librarian!

    Customs/Culture/Tradition are more powerful than laws.

  23. “the guns used at Lexington and Concord were hunting rifles”

    Um.. no. They were the exact same black powder rifled the British Army used to raid the stores of arms in those 2 towns.

    Shit, what is this buffoon going to claim next, that the cannon located at the stores was also a “hunting cannon”?

  24. This guy is the reason the Second Amendment was written. To protect us from totalitarian views, like his.

  25. You know what I took away from this whole article?

    I want to build that gun locker in my home, then fill it up.

  26. It’s funny…the Founding Fathers never envisioned the internet, or AR15s, or airplanes or nuclear bombs or a million other things that are the norm today.

    But they sure as hell envisioned evil scumbags like Sutija. They knew that no matter how times changed, evil and tyranny would always exist. Thus, the Second Amendment was needed. I doubt Sutija will ever be able to grasp the irony that by writing his insane, ignorant ramblings, he only reaffirms the necessity and timelessness of the right to keep and bear arms.

  27. This is the sort of infantile twaddle and codswallop I’ve come to expect of students in American academia.

  28. He’s proposing free supply of guns AND ammo? nice. I guess he’s also proposing that people not be allowed to own their own books (since there is a library)? Maybe I had the wrong take-away from this all… 😉

  29. So I’m going got pitch a b*tch here. This guy “John Rhys Sutija” is a 20 year old college student who’s neurons haven’t developed enough for him to have a cogent opinion of the Second Amendment, much less the whole Bill of Rights and Constitution (Google him). His “solution” and opinion aren’t that radically different than any other’s I’ve read in left-wing op-ed’s, or in the comments section of Huff-Po and Mother Jones. It’s a left-wing masturbatory fantasy. My point and b*tch is: Why did you give this immature, deluded, left-wing, college student and his silly opinion, bandwidth? His piece has gotten more exposure by being published here than it would have on that online college journal it originated in.

    Sometimes an argument is worth having. Sometimes the collectivists stupidity is worth criticizing. But not with some man-child who has no clue about the world or the system of government he lives under.

    • Posting it here serves as a platform to highlight the ideas of those that would have us in chains (figuratively and literally). It points out to those that are undecided, that these types of thinkers are a danger to humanity, and to question their ideas and motives constantly. Many of us already think things through to their logical conclusion, but many more need it to be laid out in the comments to be enlightened.

    • If we only engaged in debates with antis who formed cogent arguments, presented facts, and offered realistic solutions, we’d never have anyone to debate.

  30. Just another absolute moron who believes that it isn’t in human nature to be kill. It’s only because there are weapons that people commit violence. It’s impossible for me to understand how someone with any sort of education can be so utterly stupid.

  31. Was just reading thru some of the comments in the original article, and came across this from John Sutija, replying to someone who basically asked, “in your little fantasy world, what would you have me do if a bad guy was pointing a gun at me?”

    Mr. Sutija’s reply:
    “And if you’re at gun point, the safest thing isn’t to draw a gun anyway. The gun is leverage against you, when you draw your weapon you’ve created a conflict.”

    Ahhhh…I see, it’s only when you’re prepared to fight back/defend yourself that conflict arises, NOT when you are held at gunpoint…gotcha…

    As Bugs Bunny says, “What a maroon!”

  32. Just as with book libraries, a public gun library would be nice in order to offer a large selection to members, but I still think everyone should have a personal, home library for their favorites.

    “The Hobbit” and a Mosin-Nagant. Sounds like a nice, relaxing Saturday.

  33. I’m getting REALLY tired of other people, namely over-educated but under-experienced liberals, preaching to me about the ‘best’ way to do everything under the sun. I’m doing just fine, thank you, I don’t need to be babysat by anyone. And neither do my guns. They’ve got a very loving home.

    • Just don’t physically discipline your guns in public, or any libs watching will start screaming, “GUN ABUSE!”

      • My guns are spoiled almost as much as my wife and kids. I follow the same philosophy for kids and guns: do everything you’re supposed to do and you get whatever you want. Don’t, and there will be issues. Of course I can’t sell my children though, Lord knows I’ve tried…

  34. Please give a warning when something I am about to read will make my eyes bleed and my brain loose cells.

  35. “I say all ranged weapons – shotguns, rifles, pistols and bows – need to be collected by the government, catalogued and put in a library. You want to shoot Bambi? Fine, but I’ll need to see your gun-library-card.”

    Yes, because criminals would be way too stupid to simply borrow a gun and not return it.

    …because an estranged spouse who wants to kill their ex would never think of getting a gun from the library.

    …because mental health professionals are so effective at identifying mentally ill people who are dangerous.

    …because criminals are way too stupid and poor to buy guns on the black market from outside the country.

    …because guns are such complex devices that nobody could manufacture one in their garage.

    Typical progressive: so much education, so little common sense. Convinced of his own superiority over the unwashed masses just the same.

  36. I was taken aback at the tone and attitude of the writer until I saw it was a college student from FIU. That place is a glorified community college with one of the shabbiest student populations I’ve run across.

  37. There was a time when young people went to college to learn to think. Now young people go to college to be told what to think.

    We are raising another generation of idiots.

  38. Upon reading his drivel I have deduced that this person has no practical experience whatsoever, and is merely going off of his D&D RPG skills to determine what should and should not be acceptable. My guess is this person also owns several replica swords, and might have at a minimum a chain-mail cowl. Using the term “ranged weapons” is common for tabletop RPG’s, but elsewhere they are referred to as firearms or even projectile based weapons. And of course the thought of him preventing people from using any ranged weapon at all is ludicrous, when you can simply make a bow using sturdy(but flexible) wood and string. An arrow is nearly as simple to make(though the wood is pretty easy to find out in the southwest). And that is only one of the easiest “ranged” weapons I can make. I figure a spring loaded dart gun is the next easiest “ranged weapon” I can make. Then move on to the easiest firearms. And of course this assumes that I can’t get illegally imported firearms.

    So take your 3D6 INT back to your drawing board because you put the points in the wrong stat. Of course it wouldn’t matter, because you rolled a 1 on a WIS check.

  39. The comment I left….

    So far this only deals with getting guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. How does this remove guns from the hands of the crack heads and the various novice to professional criminal organizations across the country? Those least likely to commit crimes would be unarmed sheep, while those most likely to commit crimes, from the run of the mill crack head to the professional criminals in political office would still retain their weapons. The relative status quo of checks and balances between the law abiding citizens and the various criminal classes would end over night in an eruption of wanton violence and violations of civil liberties. Criminals of all stripes may not respect their fellow man, which is the root of violence in the world, however, what every thug does respect, is power, especially the power of 230 grains of lead traveling at 1,040 feet per second. In an amoral, obscene world, civility and rule of law rests on this principle of sheer physics.

  40. Only government should have guns because they are so trustworthy. When people put on a uniform, they are magically transformed into angels. At Gettysburg and other places they were transformed into Killer Angels.

  41. Off iirc the so called “hunting rifles” were guns that outrange the brits by a good margin, basically the sniper rifle of the day……

  42. John Sutija…Yet another faceless dolt making audacious claims. Subject matter experts that pop up without having even a basic investment of knowledge in the topic. Pure hoplophobia and solipsism. I seriously cannot help but wonder how many of these people are on medication and seek therapy.

  43. Re: Amending the Second Amendment

    “The right there specified 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.” – U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) 92 U.S. 542

    Translation: The existence of the people’s right to arms has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is merely a written guarantee that the government will respect that the right is fundamental and unalienable.

    What people like Mr. Sutija either fail to understand or do understand but reject entirely is the concept that fundamental rights issue from a higher authority than any human or body of humans, and that humans do not have the legitimate power to deny or interfere with their peaceable exercise. This is THE central building block of true liberty, and it’s obvious that liberty is low on Mr. Sutija’s list of priorities.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here