“It’s about a lot of different things. It’s about an amendment in the Constitution that people misread. The Constitution doesn’t say you can carry hundreds of guns. It says you can protect your home. It says you can protect yourself. It doesn’t say you can get 55 guns.”
Speaking of misreading the second amendment: what the second amendment actually says is that We The People have withheld from the government any and all authority to infringe upon the inherent right of We The People to keep and bear arms. That means that We The People have withheld from the government the authority to tell We The People how many guns we may have or carry, what types of guns we may have or carry, or the lawful purposes for which we may use those guns.
And, PS, Whoopie: the reason, if any, that the AR15 is not suitable for hunting is exactly the opposite reason from what you stated. It isn’t too powerful such that it wouldn’t leave anything behind to harvest; rather, if anything, it is too underpowered to harvest animals humanely.
And if you can’t handle people challenging you on your dangerous, asinine rantings about firearms, then stop making dangerous, asinine rants. We have no intention of “backing up”, when you are openly calling for government infringement of our rights.
“… [gun-grabbers] are openly calling for government infringement of our rights.”
Let us be precise here. At best, gun-grabbers are demanding that we be outgunned or unarmed when evil forces attack us. At worst, gun-grabbers are demanding that government kill us for refusing to face evil outgunned or unarmed.
Contrast that position with people-of-the-gun who wish no harm to anyone based on their armed or unarmed status.
Why do we call gun-grabbers our countrymen in light of this reality?
Since when did Whoopi Goldberg or any of the other obnoxious magpies on the View become Constitutional scholars? I guess tomorrow she can tell us how to perform brain surgery, and then, Friday explain quantum mechanics. Dear God….
She’d be better off explaining quantum mechanics instead of The Constitution.
Imagine her rant though if anyone were to tell her the number of abortions she could or couldn’t have.
I knew my marriage was nearing its sell-by date when my now ex-wife would recount discussions from the View, citing the harridans by their first names. “And then Joy said. . .and then Whoopi said. . .”
Good job Chip , concise and completely correct .
I will say that a 2.23 is ideally suited for animals the size of a fox , in which Whoopi is definitely NOT in any way , shape or form , liken to .
I have trouble believing she is actually this stupid , but hey , who am I to judge .
God bless brother .
Whoopi is not in any way , shape or form liken to …………………….. a fox .
One of the scariest things on earth would be looking down and seeing that .
Chip, I’d love to have a beer with you some time, but what would be the point? We’d just constantly agree with each other… IOW, excellent job, again!
Make it a threesome. I’ll play Devil’s advocate and keep the conversation spicy. I’m your huckleberry.
I guess I didn’t see the fine print or the footnotes to which she refers….
No, it doesn’t say you can get 55 guns, let alone hundreds.
That’s because it doesn’t specify limits on types, quantity, nature, appearance, power or whatever.
In fact, all it does say is that an individual’s right to own and carry weapons shall not be infringed by the state.
And on another note, why do you care if I own 1, 10, 55, or 1000 guns? It’s like owning 20 cars – ownership does not equate to being able to use all of them at the same time. Unless you put them all in some weird MetalStorm-type arrangement, in which case I likely still wouldn’t be able to lift the darned thing. So .. why does it matter?
The first thing that comes to mind when someone says “arsenal” or refers to how many guns that someone owns is that humans only have two hands.
Has Jerry Miculik perfected shooting with his feet yet?
To use the analogy of low hanging fruit in responding would give Whoop-ti-doo undeserved dignity.
It does say the government cannot infringe on a citizen that wants to own 55 guns Oda Mae.
On a snarkier note, what military has an individual soldier carry hundreds of guns. I bet that guy is always last on marches. And how difficult must it be to conceal a hundred guns. I want the belt that must be able to support the weight of at least 20 guns.
According to Whoopie, you cannot hunt with an AR.
Because there’s nothing left of the animal after you hit it with full-auto gunfire.
You can’t make that stuff up.
Watch the clip…
How about 54 guns? Is there a clearly written reference I can read so I know what’s ok? Oh, wait…there is:
“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.”
That seems pretty clear. Nothing about how many I can have or when and where I can’t carry them
Does Whoopi want one person having a million guns or one million people having one? So confused…
She wants millions of people having zero guns.
Nothing really to be confused about.
Oh, I’m sure she’s okay with millions of people having guns, as long as they’re some sort of government affiliated personnel.
Here’s the thing: Whoopi Goldberg is black and Jewish. If there were ever someone who should be wary of government abusing its power, it’s somebody whose ancestors faced both Jim Crow and the Holocaust.
I don’t think I can carry hundreds of guns either…but not because the constitution forbids it. It doesn’t, there’s no qualifier on the verb “bear.” The reason I can’t carry hundreds of guns is because of gravity. Maybe I could if they were all .22 derringers and they were thrown together in a large sack.
As for owning 55 guns, there’s no restriction or qualifier on “keep,” either.
At least she does understand one thing right, I do have the right to protect myself and my home. I wish I didn’t have the suspicion that she meant to say I could protect myself only while at my home.
She was right that you have the right to a gun to protect your home. She was ABSOLUTELY wrong that this is what the Second Amendment “says”, or even implies.
How is it that so many people who attempt to pass themselves off as intellectuals and smarter than all the rest of us cannot understand the 27 simple words that make up the Second Amendment?
Soooo, I can’t have 55 guns. Crap, this means I need to go shopping.
Well, I have been wanting one of those AR-14’s. And I hear those glocks carry a lot of clips.
Incredibly sad irony that they have no clue concerning the document that protects their right to say stupid things.
It should be obvious , that a ‘ well armed ‘ citizen militia , is exactly what is needed to stop these shootings . If the free citizens inside any of these halls of hell , had been well armed and trained ( regulated ) , the shootings would have ended at Columbine . Yes , I include schools in my comment , the principle of Columbine could have stopped the whole coarse of history had he been well armed and trained .
Neither does the Constitution say that the freedom of speech allows you to say more than one work, so shut up. Jeez. I am so sick of people trying to redefine the 2nd amendment. I have a library of books around the subject including the Federalist Papers. I know what the founders meant. You Liberal Fascist bastards will not get my guns, period.
I love how the floodgates of stupidity just blow wide open in the aftermath of an event like this.
Nobody can stay relevant to the scenario at hand and they fly way off the rails rambling on about nonsense that has nothing to do with anything.
Citizen passes several checks, FBI investigations, removed from no-fly list, legally purchased his guns, only used two (not 55), place was gun-free.
So we get morons talking about blocking immigration, proposing AWB’s, censoring the Internet and complaining about the number of arms people own. None of which has anything to do with the situation at hand.
There, fixed that for you.
There, fixed that one for you as well.
The primary operative words in her rant were: “You can’t explain it to me.” and “I don’t care.” In other words: “I’ve made up my mind” and “facts don’t matter”
Yep, closed minded bigots have to keep their minds closed.
Whoopie’s final statement tells us everything that we need to know about gun grabbers:
Whoopie does not care about honor, timeless standards of right-versus-wrong, facts, nor “conversation”. All she cares about is government taking action to make her feel good … and implementing that action at all costs. She is content to see government ruin lives — up to and including killing good people, who have no intention of attacking anyone, for simply refusing to give up their military style rifles.
People like Whoopie Goldberg are acting on emotion. It feels far better to demonize good people who own “contraband” than to blame themselves for failing to actually provide for their own security. We cannot reason with gun-grabbers like Whoopie. We cannot appeal to any standards of honor or right-versus-wrong. The only thing that they respond to is emotion.
We would be wise to account for this as we formulate our strategies moving forward.
“We would be wise to account for this as we formulate our strategies moving forward.”
I propose the Milo Yiannopoulos strategy moving forward.
Crush ’em. Embarrass them. Out-think them. Ridicule them. Show them for the lying scumbags they are…let them show themselves for the lying scumbags they are on.
Lying and rejecting facts are perfectly acceptable when emotion is involved. This is why thousands/millions of people engage in activities that pretty much guarantee they will contract AIDS … and why millions of people smoke tobacco products.
Out-thinking gun-grabbers and showing them to be liars is not an effective counter to their emotional positions.
It doesn’t not say that either.
They are swing for the fences, they know they are losing the culture, youth, and the infowar.
Time to take education away from the left as to not infect the minds of future voters.
Oh Whoopi, you are no Guinan. Again, making shit up about the 2A that doesn’t exist.
I love all of the “news articles” this morning claiming the NRA has perverted the meaning of the second amendment. And I’m just here reading the Federalist papers.
Thank Odin I am not the only person that immediately thinks of Next Gen ANYTIME I see whoopie. The View could really use a Guinan.
“…You people on twitter…you can’t explain this…back off…I don’t care.”
Oh good, bury your head. Shove your fingers in your ears and go ‘lalalalalala.’ All great options for showing how much of a reasonable person. There is obviously no reason to have a real conversation with something other than the strawman you construct in front of your viewers.
And of course they mention the security guard. “He walked right past him and killed 50 people.” Again, strawman, one man does not an armed populous make. What if 5 people huddled in the bathroom had “puny .380,” –as another article opined about a ccw carrier in a theoretical crowded room scenario– pointed at the door and started blasting away as soon as the guy with the rifle opened the door?
Its not a lie if you believe it. The left and the many followers of that religion believe if you tell enough lies in enough different ways than believe will eventually believe those lies.
The 1st amendment doesn’t allow her to spew her hot air for more than 10 minutes at a time with 45 periods of silence between each BS session. That’s what my version says
It also doesn’t say you can’t carry hundreds of guns or own 55 guns. It does say, however, that the government cannot place limits on how many you own or carry.
Irony is someone complaining that others misunderstand something and then showing how clearly they do not understand that thing.
Progressives have been perfecting that technique for at least 50 years. We are witnessing the culmination of that evolution.
What i want to know is why do the girls on the view think my elderly mother cant freaking stand their show or anyone on it. PS, God bless my mother, she rocks.
Hand over ears,eyes closed and repeating loudly….LALALALALALALA LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA…..keep repeating till the logic and facts and reason go away!
A proto-fascist. And a particularly stupid one at that. I actually worked with Ms. Goldberg once. I’d like to say she was a nice person, but she wasn’t. She was mean, condescending, arrogant and all around a pain in the neck. (And we were just trying to get a 10 second soundbite out of her for a charity video she had agreed to participate in.)
When lawyers tell me about how the law actually works in reference to something I’m working on I’m frequently surprised that my preconceived notions were not just a little wrong but mind bendingly ear bleedingly nincompoop wrong. I don’t then get mad and tell them they’re wrong and impose my factually ignorant interpretation of how I think it should work upon them. I tell them that’s a messed up way for things to work and they sometimes agree but in the end we both accept that that’s how things are and it’s worked well for a long time and I grudgingly accept it. I think the 17th amendment was a catastrophic blunder and I think it’s still a horrid practice but it’s now part of the Constitution and that’s very hard to change by whining about it or citing spurious studies. If I want it changed I need to launch a political campaign which Doomberg has done on the 2nd. Thankfully the original 10 are going to be much harder to fiddle with than the remaining 16 or 17 (depending on how you count).
Whoopi, another constitutional scholar… Not.
I’m sorry, but I don’t care what 5 out of touch, liberal windbags think. I only pay attention a little bit so I know who the enemy is.and anyone who forms their political views from watching idiots like these people are the enemy.
Wow I didn’t know Whoopi Goldberg Was a u.s. history scholar??? What a dumbass Exclamation point People like her Are ruining our country And I don’t mean African-American I mean stupid Exclamation point
Does the Constitution say you cannot declare Civil War? Do not even our elected officials take an oath to protect the Constitution from all enemies both foreign and domestic? If you someday felt the need to begin a Civil War, might it not be too late then to arm up to prosecute it?
Our Declaration of Independence starts with a caveat that says America (if ever taken over by a-holes) might need to be destroyed. The ONLY requirement given therefor, is that, as a matter of decency, the offended party should tell his fellow man why he’s chosen to employ arms against him.
Attempting to pre-empt my right to declare and prosecute a Civil War offends me greatly.
Whoopi Goldberg’s face should be a weapon of war. If Hillary was against the banning of assault rifles, the sheep would go along with her. Whoopi and Hillary couldn’t care less about shooting causalities . They just have an opportunity to sound off.
Tell me Whoopi, where does the first amendment say you can speak 55 words? Maybe you’re reached what I call a “reasonable limit” of words.
Ms. Caryn Elaine Johnson, aka “Whoopi”, actually has many notable accomplishments to her credit. She’s one of the few people ever to win an Oscar, a Tony, an Emmy and a Grammy. At one point, she was the highest paid female actress. She’s had some role in over 100 movies. None of that, however, speaks to any qualification to assess the meaning of the Second Amendment, let alone to declare that others are the ones misreading it.
Sure, she did drop out of high school and did work as a phone sex operator for a period; but I’m looking for just a little more substantial education and experience in my constitutional scholars.
There is that earned, not honorary, Ph.D. in Literature from NYC that a number of her online biographies claim she holds, though there is not a scrap of proof this is true. So where does her insight come from? Judging from her stultifyingly stupid remarks here and her “I don’t care” dismissal of the opposition, I’m convinced she has not even read the 27 word amendment. Now, go make “Sister Act 3” and hush up while the grown-ups are talking.
Should be “you’ve”. Dang it spell check!
So it doesn’t say I can own 55 guns. It doesn’t say I *can’t*, either.
I mean. “Arms” is plural. So, yeah. It kinda does say that.
So as far as Whoopi’s concerned the Second Amendment doesn’t mean sh*t and if I don’t like it, I’m to STFU about it because the First Amendment doesn’t mean sh*t either.
ADM got it “ARMS” she and her herd of nobodies can just STFU.
Who besides me cringes at the thought of these morons drawing a paycheck for blathering jabberwocky? Or is it jabbering blatherwocky?
The View: a bunch of stupid broads sitting around sniffing each other’s estrogen.
Now that was good for a belly laugh, thank you sir.
And remember, according to Expert on Everything Whoopi, it’s not rape when you give a 13 year old girl drugs and have intercourse with her after she passes out.
Retarded speech is not banned Whoopster. And yet hear we are. Remember when some of you gave “her” a slow clap when she said “I got guns?”. I’ve heard some scuttlebutt about the View is being cancelled-about damn time…
I remember her thoughts on the sexual assault of a 13 year old gir,l in a hot tub, by Roman Polanski: Something along the lines of there is ‘rape’ and then actual ‘rape, rape’. Apparently good old Roman was not guilty of Rape, rape. Or, maybe he was not guilty of Rape. Hard to get narcisists figured out at times.
I don’t know if she was one of our Hollywood Elite that gave that child rapist at the academy awards, but that was the defining moment for me to stop giving hollywood my money.
That’s one pocket dump I have to see.
Words of wisdom from that constitutional scholar woopie Goldberg
The Second Amendment says nothing about how many guns we can own.
I bought a Glock today. It was my 55th Glock. Go figure. (of course if I factor in all my other guns I exceed the Whoopi allotment by quite a bit). Dumb bitch.
Poor Whoopsie forgot about the one that comes BEFORE that pesky 2nd Amendment. You know, the one where it says I have the right not to “backoff” and be forced to “keep it to myself.” What a complete and utter jackass.
I would assume that Ms. Whoopie is of African descent, and most likely would have some ancestor who was an enslaved person. I wonder if that ancestor, and their fellow slaves, would have been freed earlier than April 1865 if theywould have had access to perhaps as many as those 55 guns? Seems to me that is what John Brown tried to do at Harper’s Ferry.
All color aside, it was the local governments that supported enslavement and it would take violence to end it (as the British knew as late as 1912 in Sudan). It may yet again. That is why Madison and Mason penned the 2nd.
Too bad a proud black woman will not see it that way. Liberalism is blinding to the plain truth.
A Free State is one in which the power to govern is justly derived from the consent of the governed.
For consent to be legitimately, and thus justly derived, it must be extended bereft of duress, and it must be capable of being withdrawn.
Revocation of consent can be as peaceful as an election, or as violent as a revolution; this nation is stranger to neither. Thus, any attempt to restrict the ability of the governed to revoke consent, by any means, is inherently unjust and dangerous to a free state.
Which is why 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*.
*Except when Whoopi says otherwise.