assault weapons ban semi-automatic firearms
Previous Post
Next Post

By Roger Katz

“It’s like déjà vu all over again.” – Yogi Berra

If you asked your fellow Americans to point to one defining moment in our nation’s recent history, many would likely mention the attack on our soil in 2001, for obvious reasons. Some Americans might point to Barack Obama’s election as U.S. President. Some people might mention the recession of 2008, and the bailout of major banks. Still, others might point to the result of the general U.S. Presidential election in 2016. Depending on one’s political bent, that result is either shocking and dreadful, or surprising and hopeful.

But, for those who cherish our natural, fundamental, unalienable rights, the watershed moment came in 2008 with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller. The high court held, in principal part, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms asserts an individual right, unconnected with one’s service in a militia.

One would think a lengthy Supreme Court interpretation of the Second Amendment would be unnecessary. The text of the Second Amendment is clear, concise, precise, and categorical.

But the high court’s affirmation does serve a purpose. It lays to rest any pretension the Second Amendment means anything other,or less than it says. Sadly, the pretension lingers among many, despite this seminal case.

Many defy and denigrate the high Court’s imprimatur. They detest the Second Amendment and wish to rid the nation of it.

It should not come as a surprise to Americans that the Democratic Party’s leadership, holding most seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, plan to introduce a flurry of anti-gun bills in the coming months. The most ambitious concerns a ban on those semiautomatic firearms referred to as “assault weapons.”

But this push to ban an entire category of semiautomatic firearms in common use is nothing new. The late U.S Senator, Howard Metzenbaum, a Democrat from Ohio, who died in 2008, introduced a bill to control the sale and use of assault weapons in 1989. That Senate bill failed. The House introduced similar bills that year. They, too, failed.

However, in 1994, Congress did enact a semiautomatic firearms’ ban, as part of The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. But the Clinton “assault weapons” ban provision wasn’t reauthorized. The House then tried, in 2007, to resurrect a ban on semiautomatic firearms, introducing the “Assault Weapons Ban And Law Enforcement Protection Act Of 2007, 110 H.R. 1022.” That bill failed, too.

After a lull, Democrats ramped up efforts. The 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy served as the pretext to try to ban an entire category of firearms, once again.

Congress, though, often acts slowly. That’s a good thing when proposed legislation impinges on or infringes Constitutional rights and liberties. But, Andrew Cuomo, Democrat Governor of New York, unlike the US Congress, doesn’t act slowly. He doesn’t have to and he doesn’t want to, especially when an opportunity arises to constrain further the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Governor Cuomo intended to act quickly to restrict New York’s already draconian gun laws further. He pushed for an immediate vote on the New York SAFE Act of 2013. His statement to support the emergency passage of the NY Safe Act, reads:

Some weapons are so dangerous, and some ammunition devices are so lethal, that New York State must act without delay to prohibit their continued sale and possession in the state in order to protect its children, first responders and citizens as soon as possible. This bill, if enacted, would do so by immediately banning the ownership, purchase and sale of assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices. For this reason, in addition to enacting a comprehensive package of measures that further protects the public, immediate action by the Legislature is imperative.

With the clout he wields in Albany, the measure passed, and the Governor signed the SAFE Act into law on January 15, 2013. To herald enactment, he created a web page, devoted to glorifying his achievement.

Hardly a week after Governor Cuomo signed the SAFE Act into law, Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced a federal assault weapons ban, modeled on the SAFE Act. Feinstein expected Senator Harry Reid to include the assault weapons ban in the broad Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act Of 2013. That didn’t happen. Even so, the act failed on a floor vote, 40-60, even without Feinstein’s assault weapons provision.

In later years, Democrats in the House and Senate, ever undeterred, introduced semiautomatic firearms bans, one after the other, despite repeated failures—in efforts to to rein in the Second Amendment. These bills included:

The Assault Weapons Ban of 2015, 114 H.R. 4269
Imported Assault Weapons Ban of 2016, 114 H.R. 4748
The Assault Weapons Ban of 2017, 115 S. 2095
The Assault Weapons Ban of 2018, 115 H.R. 5077

They all failed. But, the anti-gun politicians remain undeterred. The recent roll-out is drearily the same: same title, later date. Many of the usual cast of characters have signed on to the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 as co-sponsors. Some are considering a run as Democratic nominee for president in 2020.

According to Feinstein’s press release, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 is an “updated bill to ban the sale, transfer, manufacture, and importation of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.”

A Nation-Wide Ban On Some Semiautomatic Firearms Imperils All Semiautomatic Weapons.

Anti-gun zealots desire nothing less than an end to civilian firearms ownership and possession in America. This is not an exaggerated concern for those who cherish Second Amendment freedoms.

New York Times contributing columnist commentator, Brett Stephens has called for outright repeal of the Second Amendment. We may dismiss an excessive, incendiary remark from a pundit, but, when a retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice echoes that sentiment, Americans must take notice. Consider the remarks of retired Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Paul Stevens, as reported in The New York Times:

Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “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.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.

Retired Associate Justice Stevens always tied the right of the people to keep and bear arms to the militia. Read his dissenting opinion in Heller. But, the majority in Heller rejected Stevens’ premise.

Americans should take antithetical remarks attacking the sanctity of the Second Amendment, seriously, especially when coming from powerful and influential people. The attorney, Christopher Keleher, in an academic article, titled, “The Impending Storm: The Supreme Court’s Foray into the Second Amendment Debate,” published just months before the High Court’s decision in Heller, recited a litany of disturbing comments from members of Congress, such as:

“United States Senator Dianne Feinstein, commenting on an assault weapons ban, stated ‘if I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it.’ Former United States Senator Howard Metzenbaum complained that the same ban was insufficient, exclaiming, ‘until you ban them all, you might as well ban none. . . . [But, it] will be a major step in achieving the objective that we have in mind.’ United States Congressman William L. Clay proclaimed the 1993 Brady Bill was a ‘minimum step’ that Congress should take in its efforts to restrict firearms.

These politicians consider the Second Amendment inconsistent with international legal rules and standards, and incompatible with societal norms of conduct. One or the other must go. For them, it’s the Second Amendment. They believe that Americans should adopt and adhere to the new international that they ascribe to.

The mainstream media conveys the anti-gun message incessantly. The false message delivered to Americans is plain enough: for the welfare of society you must comply with and adapt to the conventions of the global, liberal, democratic order; and this requires you to forsake the archaic and degenerate desire to own and possess firearms.


Roger J. Katz has practiced law for the federal government in Washington D.C., for the state government in Arizona, and has been in private practice in Ohio, New York, and Arizona. Roger is a co-founder of Arbalest Group LLC, creator of the Arbalest Quarrel weblog, dedicated to strengthening the Second Amendment, preserving our Bill of Rights, and maintaining a free republic

This article was originally published at and is reprinted here with permission. 

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Because of Clinton’s Gun Ban and Magazine Restrictions, I have a bunch of 10 round Glock mags for my G32.

    They are good to train with because they force me to change mags more often. Never count my shots so it is a surprise every time.

    I prefer to use the Glock 22 round 40 S&W mag as a spare. After replacing the follower with one from one of my 10-round Ban magazines it fits 23 rounds and feeds like a dream.

    • Put them on Gunbroker. People in MA, CT, etc will buy them. Then with the money you get, replace them with Glock mags if you want to throw in a few bucks.

      Or replace them with the very good MagPul mags for about $15 ea.

  2. The US became so divided under Obama that it will never be united again. Never. Time to think about splitting it up peacefully. Vote on it county by county and create independent city-nations and independent rural nations. People who don’t like the way their county votes can move. Think of all the money that could be saved by eliminating most of our military and minding our own business instead of being the “World’s Cop” and Freeloader Supporter.

    • I agree 100%. The reason why it won’t happen is that for nearly all Americans on all sides of all issues, this isn’t about living in the society they want to live in. Rather, it’s about forcing everyone else to live in the society they want to live in.

      Just ask anyone if they’d prefer to secede and live in their ideal society, and watch them spout off about MUH UNION.

  3. I used to like reading Brett Stephens when he wrote in the WSJ. I never knew he was so anti-2nd A. If Justice Stevens thought only a militia should have arms, shouldn’t the local militia have military grade weapons, like the founding fathers had? The farmers had the same (or better) weapons than the military. No?

      • If nothing else, Trump’s presidency has allowed us to see every politician for who they really are. Sadly, it has made little difference to the average American. It is tough to argue with the Left when they make statements about how easy it is to dupe us…

        • I sqw a line yesterday, I forget where that called Trump: “The Great Clarifier.”

          Because he’s willing to have a difference of opinion – enjoys it, really – the different opinions come out.

    • Our law defines the militia in the United States Code in section 246 in title 10 as :

      (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
      (b) The classes of the militia are—
      (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
      (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

      The only change needed is to raise the upper age to 100, due to medical advances and maybe include women in both classes.. And, yes, I cut and pasted it.

  4. Déjà vu all over again for Leftard civilian disarmament proponents,is when M-16 and M-4’s are determined to be Constitutional arms of the militia,as they are according to the Constitution.
    Oh the butt hurt !

  5. Id like the Federal Government to give every citizen over the age of 18. A million dollars tax free. As a one time gift. If your not 18 today it doesn’t matter. You lose out.
    To end possible suffering of chose your reason and place here____________________

    Stupid Libitard ideas supported by less then what 3% of the voting age population or there abouts??
    Much bigger problems out there in this country then a few guns folks.
    So much too for a ban on guns semi or otherwise.
    I wouldn’t give any of my guns under any conditions.
    Because like the majority of gun control laws on the books already.
    All they do is help the already criminal. And make life more difficult for the law abiding citizen.
    The Dimwits in congress have already shown in the 1st month. They don’t care one bit for this country. Or its people.
    They just have shown the country.
    If Trump wants it. They are against it.
    Nothing new here……..move on please.

    • *than

      Learn your own language. This post makes you look like an insert-term-here-tard. Poor usage rambling like this is why the liberals call you names. Don’t give them excuses.

  6. Roger, thank you, a nice, balanced and informative article…however I struggle with the “right to bear arms” in certain modern contexts.
    The advent of a (semi) automatic machine is a fairly natural progression of any technology, we’ve seen it with cotton gins, automotive transmissions and any number of household items.
    I somehow doubt the righteous persons who penned and passed the Second Ammendment could possibly conceive that “arms” for the common man could include a rate of fire of 400+ per minute.
    Similarly, I doubt that Keys poem’s Star Spangled Banner enthusiasm for rockets and bombs bursting ever imagined where we’d be in modern day advances with even conventional armaments, let alone nuclear…

    While I appreciate the patriotic fervor of Americans for the respect of the forefathers and law makers perhaps it’s time to be more objective that these albeit wise men did not possess the knowledge that modern arms might be a little bit different to the muzzle loaders of the time.


    • They couldn’t foresee modern communications either. Yet, we still have free speech. Arguably, the most dangerous of the rights from the government’s point of view. The founders could not have foreseen the plane, train or automobile. Yet, we have free travel within our borders. Ray, technology does not supersede our God given rights. Not one of them. Not ever.

      • They couldn’t have foreseen the internet either. But “freedom of the press” still applies to it. They didn’t foresee the automobile, but the freedom to travel still applies to cars, and not just to horses.
        People have no problem accepting these things, but many seem to have this mental block when it comes to guns. Placed there by the Lamestream media, OFC.

        • Ray is Australian, they in fact have less freedom of speech on the internet as well. They have NOTHING at all like our First, Second, Fourth, Fifth Amendments.

          Go take a look at the website of any Australians newspaper or news outlet. They virtually have no comments section and never had. This is because speech is nowhere near as protected in Australia.

          He won’t tell you hey have “evolved” on warrants either. In Australia a police sergeant can swear out many types of search warrants that require a judge in the US due to our US Constitution. In Australia if when searching for drugs listed on a warrant, they find stolen goods those can be sued in court, in the US the stolen goods can not.Australia allows stop and frisk methods unconstitutional in the US. Australia “reasonable suspicion” and “probable cause” are both lower thresholds. When on the street you must show ID to police. Double jeopardy is allowed in Australia.

          And they like to be pushy about gun control because their own gun control failed.

          so of course he is saying “bear arms” does not mean to carry arms, even though the founders said it meant to carry them. And of course he thinks semi auto firearms and even revolvers need to be forbidden

          When Australia felt threatened by invasion from Japan, they BEGGED the US to send troops and a HUGE number of US troops were put there because they could NOT defend themselves.

    • Google “Girandoni air rifle.” It was a military grade 30-round repeater with a high rate of fire. Lewis & Clark used one to take game and impress the natives.

      The Founders were smart. They would have been excited by today’s weaponry.

      • The Giradoni was the gun that really won the west. If you read their journals, Lewis and Clark only took one animal with it, a deer on their second day out of St. Louis. After they proved to themselves that it would kill, they kept it under lock and key in the bowels of their keelboat. From then on they only brought it out, in full uniforms and regalia, to impress each new tribe they encountered with how tough they were, and had best not be attacked. They kept the fact that it was the only one on board to themselves.
        I’m convinced that that one, single, non-firearm is the only reason they made the trip successfully. Thus, it is the non-gun that won the west.

    • @Ray Cowburn…It’s not about technological developments. It’ about basic, unalienable, everlasting human rights…Period.

      • +1 👍

        Notice how he ends his statement with “Cheers…”. Sounds like a Brit.

        Exactly why our wise forefathers created 2A, so that we, the people, would be protected against oppressive and tyrannical governments like the British. Let’s not forget history.

        The word “Arms” was purposely worded to cover ALL tools taken up by the people, to fight against oppression and tyranny, not just what was in common use at the time.

        How can you equalize against an oppressive force when the tyrants always have superior weapons over you? Why do tyrants always disarm the populace, duh?

        “Keep” means possess.

        “Bear” means carry on/with you.

        “Arms” means any and all tools to fight. –
        It doesn’t matter whether it’s makeshift or mass produced, or what generation of technology. Any and all, et al, period.

        As government and the rest of the world advances, then so shall the people in its cability to protect themselves from them. Or else you don’t stand a fighting chance.

        “Shall not be infringed” means to not break, EVER!

        It’s a simple as that.

        But for those Cheerios who wish to debate US 2A issues, let’s not forget what your government did to this land a couple hundred years ago, and to the world way before that.

        Now look at you guys… pitchforks, tea and crumpets. Good luck.

        Don’t treat on me. We bleed Red, White and Blue here.🇺🇸

        • Ray is Australian he is using several Australian types of diction.

          Australia begged the US to send huge numbers of troops at the start of WWII because they were shitting their knickers at the threat of invasion from Japan and even then had a virtually fully disarmed population.

    • The Second Amendment is solely about American citizens maintaining parity with foreign or domestic armed forces for the purposes of our defense. Period. End of story.

      • People always bring up the Puckle gun, yet no one ever mentions the fact that while they were quite expensive, there were flick locks and even wheel locks with removable and reloadable breeches, allowing quick (for the time) reloads with what was essentially the forerunner of self contained cartridges.

        • Or an even better example: the Ferguson breechloading flintlock was used in small numbers by the British during the Revolutionary War.

    • The most devastating war fought on American soil used almost exclusively single shot rifles or rifled muskets and a lot of small bore field artillery. Many of the units were private or state militias, armed by private donations, until later in the war. By the end of the war, we we into trench warfare, Gatling guns, and barbed wire, all precursors to WWI. The injuries were horrific. There were no restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, except some laws banning concealed carry–all that came after the war.

      So what is your point? Is it that we need to eliminate semiauto weapons to protect ourselves from ourselves? The fact is, violent crime is near an all time low; there is no blood in the streets, and these firearms are rarely used in the commission of violent crime. If the need were so great, the crime statistics would reflect it.

      This fight is NOT about “assault weapons,” it is about eliminating or at least severely restricting the private ownership of firearms. “Assault weapons” are “scary,” and are the convenient camel’s nose under the tent.

    • The Founders also certainly saw a progression in the technology to send and receive information and therefore speech. Perhaps they even could foresee the telephone and telegraph.

      They certainly couldn’t see the internet or email. Why? Because I say so and it sounds good.

      Therefore, quite obviously, the 1A doesn’t apply to those things. Nor does the 4A if you’re suspected of a crime where searching your electronic communications might yield evidence.

      Oh, but those don’t kill people. You sure about that? Terrorists communicate don’t they? Criminals too. Sometimes they even use a cell phone as a detonator! Ban it all. Obviously.

      No, seriously, is speculating on the opinion dead men would hold of modern technology a road we really want to go down?

      • Dear Strych9,
        Thanks for your comment; despite all the other comments and criticism levelled at me I chose yours for my encouragement award.
        We all like to be “right” and sometimes even are guilty of either ignoring the facts or creating convenient ways to think that support our position; i appreciate you’ve admitted to that in your own reply, you’d like to think the forefathers couldn’t conceive internet or email.
        That doesn’t make it right, but that’s your notion and you’re sticking to it.

        Few of us really KNOW much about anything; you may consider yourself knowledgeable in the history of the legislation and Ammendments but my guess is your understanding is just from belief of what some teacher/friends/newspaper told you…which is fine but not KNOWING.
        I have every respect for the founding fathers, they meant well way back then.. but you’d be upset of you went to the doctor and were treated with leeches or your kids were still taught Rutherford’s atomic model.
        My point is I’d like to see something better than just an appeal to a vague law to direct where gun control goes for America.


        • As the entire world advances in technology, governments advance using such technology and therefore have modern tools to force oppression on those without them.

          Kind of like gunpowder dominated bows and arrows. Of course the founding fathers expected advancements in technology.

          “Bearing Arms” to defend against tyranny allows the people to take up any and all tools to defend and defeat an oppressive entity. Whatever it takes, whether primitive or advanced tools.

          C’mon. Common sense tells you that The People won’t be very successful in overcoming oppression with inferior tools.

          You don’t even have to look back at history to figure that out. Look at current events; throughout the Middle-East and Africa. Look at Venezuela. Those opprssed folks don’t stand a chance.

          When all hell breaks loose in your country, what are you going to do?

          War and oppression have been around since man’s plan to conquer.

          Our Forefathers learned this and etched it into our Constitution so that We, the People can defend against domestic oppression. Yet, Government entities continue to violate what is supposed to be protected. Once they control your ability to resist oppression, they’ve conquered you.

          Now YOU can choose to lay down, but I’m willing to bet most won’t. Homey don’t play that.


        • @ Ray Cowburn “Few of us really KNOW much about anything” Are you including yourself in that quote, or just people you disagree with?

          And Ray one other question, why do countries that are ready to oppress their citizenry always start that oppression with a gun ban? Venezuela, the latest example, banned guns in 2012 and now in 2019 has killed hundreds of protesters. Additionally because of registration the Venezuela government knew exactly where to look for those now government unapproved items. While voluntary surrenders of firearms was practically nil, in 2013 for example, only 37 firearms were surrendered, while 12,603 were confiscated.

          However, you did manage one truth; the founding fathers were very wise, as they knew people and their tendencies for oppression. Which, they knew all to well, would be the same two hundred years after they gave us this constitutional republic or two thousand years.

          That Ray is what never changes.

        • Go ask the Pharmacy Techs in any hospital in the US.

          50/50 they have live leaches in stock. Used to eat dead tissue in specific circumstances .

          just sayin..

        • The Second Amendment hardly vague. And people who are not criminals are safer from violence in the US than in your country.

          I worked in Australia for a number of years. You had a 43% decline in murder in the 20 years after your mass gun confiscation, the US had a 60% decline in murder. Austlais also had no decline in suicide, just a shift to different methods.

          Sorry but we don’t want to be like ultimate idiot nanny state like Australia is. You have less press freedom, less protection in terms of searchers, warrants, what evidence can be used in a court of law. You allow double jeopardy.

          Essentially your system of liberty is set up by an empire that dumped its criminals and gave them the worst civil liberties in the developed democracy world.

    • The founding fathers could indeed see that weaponry would advance. They knew history and technology well. They knew that gunpowder based weapons upset the feudal system and knew one day new weapons would come along and do the same.

      • Not the point. What matters is that the Founders knew that the technology for repeating arms existed even back then, which destroys the leftist argument that the Founders couldn’t envision anything but muzzle loaders.

    • Then again you may be mistaken of what the existing technology available to the founders at the time.

      Girardoni Air Gun (original 1780 example) used in the Lewis and Clark expedition

      The Puckle Gun: Repeating Firepower in 1718

      Not to mention the scientific/inventor minds of Jefferson/Franklin,I’m sure they never had the thought Hey wouldn’t something that would do this or that,naw they couldn’t have ever had that type of thought.

    • I somehow doubt the righteous persons who penned and passed the Second Ammendment could possibly conceive that “arms” for the common man could include a rate of fire of 400+ per minute.

      You seem confused. The purpose of the Second Amendment was and is, according to all the writers at the time it was passed, to insure that the citizenry had the right to own, possess and bear, at a minimum, what an infantryman would have. This in order to deter threats of tyranny and tyranny actions by our own government or eternal parties.

      Threats to tryanny have never fallen. The 20th century saw more organized tyranny than the 19th or 18th.

      If anything the reason for the Second Amendment more compelling in the modern era than when it was passed in the 18th century.

    • “… somehow doubt the righteous persons who penned and passed the Second Ammendment could possibly conceive that “arms” for the common man could include a rate of fire of 400+ per minute.”


      If they were worried about things like 400+ per minute fire rates then they wouldn’t have used the broad, all-encompassing term ‘Arms’ in the wording.

      The Second Amendment is about Arms, as in arming oneself for defense of self and country. It is a broad concept, not one specifically tailored to specific equipment or specific circumstances.


  7. It’s time for a “Winner take all, once and for all” DEFENSE of our Constitutional Republic against the Liberal Terrorists and their War of Leftist Aggression. Plan accordingly. Start by hardening your hearts.

  8. Its not about the Bump Stock. It never was. I like my Bump Stock. I like full auto fire, going back to my time in the Army. But I can’t afford a real full auto weapon. The Bump Stock is my choice for a poor mans rapid fire gun.

    If someone invents a device that turns a semi auto hand gun into a rapid fire “machine pistol”, you will see gun grabbers working to allow ONLY break action, single shot, hand guns to be sold to the general public.

    Obama made sure civilian police all over the country got full auto M16’s. And that includes high school and college police as well. The police will be keeping their machine guns

    Your local police have modern select fire weapons now. So now they can sell at auction all those “Tommy Guns” they have been keep in the station basements.

    I like this one because it shows civilians did in fact own machine guns. Not just the police.

  9. The purpose of these bills is not to win now, but to win eventually by priming their own party to move to the left and accept these positions. They don’t want to win as much as they want to destroy the Republican Party. Remember the debagt about putting all of the people on the “no fly” list(s) on a prohibited persons list for firearm purchase? A bill could have been passed as long as due process provisions were included, but the Democrats voted to a person to defeat the Republican proposal, arguing instead for their own unconstitutional version that did not accord due process to persons who had never been accused of much less tried and convicted of a crime. These “assault weapons” ban are no different; the purpose of the debate is to prime the public into voting to restrict guns, all guns any guns. ?This is a function of the almost religious creed of the socialist utopia, which by its very nature is centrist and authoritarian. The EU is a prime example: intended as a trade groups with a unified currency, it has evolved (devolved) into a central government that is dictating to “client” states what laws they should or should not have, how their economies are run, immigration laws, and of course hate crime and gun laws.

    I can tell you what happens when the Democrats take over an entire state. Beware what will happen if they get control over the entire country. At that point, all you can hope for is that Trump gets to appoint a long lasting conservative majority on the Supreme Court, or our rights will soon be gone.

    • Hoping SCOTUS will save us from the politicians is like hoping that a cop will save us from a mugger. We can’t depend on either.

  10. Growing evidence that the Houston cops raided the wrong address and murdered an innocent couple.

    Check out News Now Houston on Youtube.

    Cops raided 7815 Harding. Police chief described house at 7815 Hardy.

    Well past time to disarm cops.

  11. The legitimacy of our system government relies on the “consent of the governed.” How many of you consent to this? The Founders were dead set against our government operating as a democracy, they thought democracies were nothing but mob rule – 50.1% gets to tell 49.9% how to live. DiFi and her ilk have forgotten their place; they imagine themselves our rulers and not our representatives. Laws like this are the result.

    • “Consent of the governed” is an oxymoron. If you consent, you don’t need to be governed.

      “There are two basic ways in which people can interact: by mutual agreement, or by one person using threats or violence to force his will upon another. The first can be labeled ‘consent’– both sides willingly and voluntarily agreeing to what is to be done. The second can be labeled ‘governing’ – one person controlling another. Since these two – consent and governing – are opposites, the concept of ‘consent of the governed’ is a contradiction. If there is mutual consent, it is not ‘government’; if there is governing, there is no consent. Some will claim that a majority; or the people as a whole, have given their consent to be ruled, even if many individuals have not. But such an argument turns the concept of consent on its head. No one, individually or as a group, can give consent for something to be done to someone else. That is simply not what ‘consent’ means. It defies logic to say, ‘I give my consent for you to be robbed.’ Yet that is the basis of the cult of ‘democracy’: the notion that a majority can give consent on behalf of a minority. That is not ‘consent of the governed’; it is forcible control of the governed, with the ‘consent’ of a third party.” -Larken Rose

      • The only problem with Rose’s theory is that it doesn’t work. His “solution” to the problems he sees, were he to get what he wants, would only ensure that his chunky ass would get beaten and robbed or worse. He could yell “I DON’T CONSENT!” all he wanted but it would stop him from being victimized.

        Like it or not there is no perfect solution and attempts to find one only fuck things up even more.

        • No, you’re describing the way things are now, where so-called “authority” beats your chunky ass without your consent, and neither you nor anyone else can do anything about it because “authority” has a standing army of cops willing to destroy every single one of us.

          If we as a society accepted Rose’s philosophy instead of dismissing it like you just did, oppressive superstitious beliefs in authority would evaporate, and a free market system of security and justice based on real liberty could flourish.

          But Americans aren’t interested in liberty. They WANT authority to oppress people (as long as it’s not themselves), and then they’re shocked when it gets used against them, but still won’t consider that tbwier love of oppressive authority is the problem.

        • yeah, strych9 gets it. The Hobbesian state of nature is NOT a marked improvement over our imperfect civil society. Get your head out of your assess people.

    • I’m 52. I don’t even fear what comes after. In fact I welcome the chance to DEFEND our Constitutional Republic if that means eliminating all the democrat domestic enemies. And when I say ALL, I literally mean all.

      • 52 ain’t old, you’ve got a lot of good years before you. All that’s required is ,, “Submit to the Power, Feel the Pain Mortal” and it’s all good

  12. Please find some better stock graphics than that crossed M4 & AK from Bigstock. The M4 has a 36-inch barrel and an AK magazine, while the AK has a left-side ejection port.

  13. I don’t really like being attacked and I’m sure my inanimate self thinking harbinger of death firearm doesn’t either.

  14. Hmmm… ok sweethearts, let’s try this bit of logic, but first a brief opportunity for you to take an introspective. Kindly go back and read my comment to the author of the article; before you accuse me of being:
    1. a “Lefty” ( which I am not)
    2. English ( which I am not)
    3. Anti-firearm of any type ( which I am not)
    Now read on…and lose your attitude and your appeals to coerce your audience.

    You may not agree with my comment to the author, which is your prerogative but (some of) you went off the rails making some assumptions about me and the text that plainly are unjustifiable. No biggie, but that “fly off the handle, knee jerk” reflex response attack of the person is demeaning to the argument and craps all over any freedom of speech ideal.

    It’s kind of sad that some would seek to win an argument by deliberately trying to alienate their perceived opponent by pointing out “he’s not one of us”; Lefty, Pinko, un-American. I’m happy to hear you out but don’t have much respect for an opinion that is reinforced with the notion that I am wrong because I might have red hair. Being “different” doesn’t discredit my views, whether I am or not.

    Remember the quote “the pen is mightier than the sword”? attributed to Bulwer-Lytton (circa 1839). That pen is only powerful when the writer has the skill AND the reader can comprehend the text. An ill-conceived missle to an illiterate reader won’t hit the target and has no power at all.

    Unfortunately, I find myself very much in agreement with Patriot Grammar that unthinking or ignorant aggressive comments are the greatest disservice to the gun debate. Think like a bench rest bolt action; steady your hand and compose yourself before you fire away…precision and care. Hit your mark… you can blaze away with the AR15 sometime later..

    Cheers… and good will.

      • Missive… thanks Dave.
        I insert typographical errors to check who is reading…and grammatical ones to check whom. 🙂

    • Ray Cowburn: All good points, but you don’t follow your own advice. For example you regularly and purposely misconstrue what is said to you, and refuse to even acknowledge any of your obvious errors of fact. You believe the Second Amendment is some “vague law”? That is patently ridiculous.
      That might be your belief, but not your knowledge since it is false. It is as specific as it is possible to be. You just don’t know that, so fall back on accusing others of that which you yourself are guilty of.
      Another example would be your statement that people making personal attacks are somehow restricting your freedom of speech. This only shows that you have no idea of what freedom or liberty even are. You have had your say, and then others have the chance to have theirs. Others should not resort to personal attacks(IMO), but if they choose to do so anyway, THAT is freedom of speech!
      Allow me to enlighten you with some actual facts: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” -US Constitution, Amendment 1.
      Please note that the restriction here is on THE US CONGRESS to “make no law”, not on some blog poster that you disagree with! This is why some are becoming angry towards you. Because of your holier than thou attitudes stemming from pure ignorance.
      IMO, OFC.

      • Ahhh Kenneth, hubris will lead you to your nemisis.
        That unquestioning certainty that there is no risk is the greatest risk.
        You’re hanging your hat on a 200 year old interpretation of words to your convenience.
        “the right to bear arms”
        Please consider the word “bear”. Be objective… don’t try to win your argument on a narrow definition.

        Waaay back then the word “bear” was not just used for the limited definitions that seem convenient to get a righteous outcome under the Ammendment. Women would be said to “bear” children ( give birth ) which I am pretty sure is a somewhat different state of affairs than any connotations implied by “bear arms”.

        200 years ago a drone was simply a male bee. Today its another interpretation.

        The risk that I see is those who purely recite the Ammendment as the sole empirical right to ownership based on their unwavering trust that it will carry them through the gun law debate is fraught with danger that if that argument fails there’s little else as a safeguard.


        • I note that yet again, as is your habit, you completely ignore every point put to you and all questions asked of you, and instead choose insults, strawman arguments, and putting word into other people’s mouthes that they did not say.
          If you could only become self aware enough to hear what you yourself say, you would likely be quite embarrassed over the infantile nature of it. It’s quite sad really, a grown man acting so childish. Pitiful.
          Good luck, or “Cheers”, since that seems to be your chosen word to end offensive attacks on others.

        • Nice👍.

          But wait, we come BEARING gifts at our friend’s baby shower. She’s going to BEAR twin .45s! 😉


        • B: 🙂 thx for the best laugh of my day.
          I was going to mention that bear also can be a bruin, or Ursus. Which also has nothing to do with the subject under discussion, and that even though Ursus is a word from ancient Rome(old and stupid you know…) it still means the same thing today. But I thought bringing up Rome and Latin might be a bit much for Rays head. I wouldn’t want to create any short circuits and cause brain damage. 🙂

        • You’re hanging your hat on a 200 year old interpretation of words to your convenience.

          Wrong. Firstly dozes of cases affirmed that the purpose was an armed citizenry. EG in the 1930’s Miller, no matter how much you like or dislike details of the case clearly showed all the justices understood the Second to be about the citizenry having what infantry men had. Infantrymen did not have sawed off shotguns.

          It was only in the 1970’s 200 years after that some nuts started to claim that the Second Amendment did not recognize the right of the citizenry to be armed. That resulted in this issue finally getting up to the supreme courts.

          As far as the bear arms. Bear means to carry.

          You have an ULTRA left view of the second amendment. Over 88% of Americans say it means the individual right.

        • James: That is just one more error of fact that Ray manages to make and then completely ignore. I never said any of that. I posted the first amendment to him, not the second. The only thing I said about the 2A is that it is not vague, but very specific, which it demonstrably is. That says nothing about whether I believe in it or choose to use it as a talking point.
          I much prefer data points, statistics, and history, like the falling crime rate in the US since CCW has become prevalent, the rising crime in the UK as they took more and more rights away from their subjects (note: NOT free men… but subjects. IOWs, property owned by the State), the way firearm registration and confiscation always precedes and facilitates tyrannical dictatorships, etc.

        • Ray is Australian he is using several Australian types of diction.

          Australia begged the US to send huge numbers of troops at the start of WWII because they were shitting their knickers at the threat of invasion from Japan and even then had a virtually fully disarmed population.

          Australia has less of all area of rights. Less warrant protection, lower speech rights, lower rights of citizens before the court than any western democracy. It is the ultimate nanny state.

          Heck , adults get a $250 fine for not wearing a bike helmet!

        • Ahh the basic fundamentals and the application of language use is lost on another hapless anti. Lets see if we can break this down into simpleton terms for you since the original language of the constitution is obviously to complicated for you to grasp.

          Twenty instances of ‘Shall not be’ are contained in the constitution, including the second. If we question one we must question ALL.

          Second amendment – THE ONLY PLACE IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT STATES ‘ SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED’. No other right has those SPECIFIC instructions. Also the only placed ‘INFRINGED’ is used in the ENTIRE constitution. To me that has obvious meaning that the founding fathers were being specific that this right should not be touched or regulated, EVER.

          All are not needed here but I left the real good ones. REMEMBER, IF YOU QUESTION ONE YOU MUST QUESTION ALL.

          Article 1 – section 6 – #1
          Article 1 – section 7 – #2 (two instances)
          Article 1 – section 9 #1
          Article 1 – section 9 – #2
          The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

          Article 2 – section 1
          Article 3 – section 1
          ‘Articles the first…..’

          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.

          The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

          Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

          The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


          The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.


          The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

          So how is that you interpret the second to not mean what it says, when compared to all other instances of ‘shall not be’, never mind the fact that ‘shall not be INFRINGED’ is only placed on the second amendment, which again for the simpleton means it was very important to the writers, and obviously more important than every other instance of ‘shall not be’.

          …and boom goes the dynamite.

        • +1. Awesome breakdown.🇺🇸

          But he believes infringed means to permanently decorate the borders of his clothing with tassels to match his extreme comb-over bangs hairdo.

        • B: 🙂 another good one 🙂 you crack me up!
          Such subtle ways to call to mind that Ray thinks drone bees are arms, and that to bear arms means to give birth to them. 🙂 Don’t I wish! It would sure be great if I could sh*t a Barrett M82 out my ass any time I wanted. I’ve been wanting one of those bad boys since they were only 2K USD each. It might be like giving birth to a pair of 9 lb. twins, but it’d be worth it. 🙂
          But be careful. We wouldn’t want to cause Ray any more brain damage than he already suffers along with. I’m smelling burning insulation already.

        • LMAO 😂. Exactly. I guess it’s always the “Land down under” when you suffer from cranial rectal inversion. Poor guy will never see the light.✌

    • Your problem was your comment ignored intent of the framers, you posited your own personal opinion as theirs when we know theirs

      The purpose of the Second Amendment was and is, according to all the writers at the time it was passed, to insure that the citizenry had the right to own, possess and bear, at a minimum, what an infantryman would have. This in order to deter threats of tyranny and tyranny actions by our own government or external parties.

      Threats to tryanny have never fallen. The 20th century saw more organized tyranny than the 19th or 18th.

      If anything the reason for the Second Amendment more compelling in the modern era than when it was passed in the 18th century.

      • James.. you’re correct, my questioning the knowledge, forseeability or intent of those who crafted the 2A is complete conjecture. Guilty. Of course.

        So while we’re evaluating the quality of evidence, your position that other writers of the time commented on what their intent was is good old heresay…which isn’t “evidence” either.

        My position on the debate isn’t to undermine 2A but to hopefully encourage enthusiasts to find other avenues of support for ownership. What we’re seeing in Illinois with ammunition restriction is indicative of where anti gun lobbyists have found a potential loophole in 2A…and they’ll keep trying.

        ..thanks for your feedback.

  15. Dear B, Kenneth and ND: Steeeerike 2.
    Some how you’ve now incorrectly decided that I am an Australian…then run with that assumption (you could have asked) …but then have written a whole lotta spiteful stuff. I fail to see what relevance Australian law has with 2A but don’t let that stop you.

    Somehow whether i understand/read Latin is relevant to the argument. ..and again, the personal attack just runs rampant without any knowledge of if I can. Totally irrelevant. ..but for your edification, yes, I have 4 years Pitmans Latin study: facilis, difficilis, gracilis, similis, dissimilis, humilis..but there aren’t any Romans around here.
    After you decided my language skills for your convenience then you decide my brain’s ability to cope with your sophisticated thinking. (wires burning, meltdowns)

    As far as I can determine this website is international and while there’s a bias for US content I’m not aware that a person who is not in the USA is subject to any specific scrutiny for their views, nationality or affiliations.

    Guys, you’re verging on being bullies and trolls. Avoiding personal put downs, but… if you can only dismiss another person’s views because the person isn’t like you it’s pathetic. If you can only resort to ganging up, name-calling and racial profiling and not even know what is factual it’s school yard stuff. Grow up.

    Your implicit faith in the protections of 2A may (not will, but may) fail you.
    Believe me, I do not want it to happen. ..
    You can gang together and (of course) agree with yourselves that it’s all good but you don’t need to attack others that don’t have that same faith.

    Annoyingly, Cheers.

    • Hi Ray!

      Well, perhaps we agree to disagree. And that’s ok.

      Over here it’s called exercising the 1st amendment, which is preserved by the 2nd amendment, and those folks willing to defend themselves against tyranny and slavery or die trying. Just like our Forefathers that were extremely educated and bore arms.

      The same folks that continue to make THIS country the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. But, it’s ok that you disagree.

      For me, being a US Citizen, having sworn a constitutional oath (several times), and have taken up arms while issued a uniform to defend my country and its Constitution, has allowed me to personally experience the clarity of this subject matter. But to each, their own. And that’s ok.

      I agree that this conversation should be civil but sometimes sarcasm gets the better of me. However, I’m very proud of the fact that regardless of my ethnic heritage, that I’m American. And I enjoy its freedoms and continue to do my part so others do too.

      I also appreciate the fact that our National language is American English. Although multilingual and multi-ethnic myself, I understand and utterly appreciate why we’re not forced to speak the King’s English, German, Japanese, Latin (or Latium), or anything else for that matter.

      But that’s ok if you disagree. That’s the whole idea of public forum. Not stopping me from having my brew later, God willing.

      In fact, I’d pour you one too. As long as you’re not offended by my Ursidae appendages. 😉


      • B, I appreciate your pride and patriotism, kudos to you for your service and for your fervor.

        Yes, I would have that beer with you but you’d have to bear with me and my persistent opinions. 😉

        • 👍(snicker)…well in that case, do you mind Honey Beer? L😂L.

          Actually, at this hour, maybe a snort of brandy might be in order. Helps keep me warm along with my hairy upper bruin appendages. And no, I’m not from L.A. 😉✌

          Good night, Sir.🍷

    • Hi Ray!
      Try this on for logic, sweetheart!
      (Can you see how annoying that condescending attitude is now? So I apologize for that. Even tho you started it, I will end it here and now)
      I would much prefer to have a good discussion based upon logic and reason, instead of insults. So, in order to understand your position, which right now I do not, I will ask a question.
      Q: since you stated “some vague law”, I assumed you were meaning the 2A to the US Constitution. If that is true, what part of it do you find to be “vague”, and why? And if not, which law WERE you referring to?

      • Kenneth,
        yes, it’s 2A which I believe is vague (ill-defined) such that the right to bear arms clause alone has been heard in various courts around 80 times; so I’m not on my own with that train of thought…greater legal minds than you and I have mused this and come up with various conclusions and some subsequent limitations.

        District of Columbia v. Heller and Henderson’s dissent is an example of that simple phrase being found to have limitations. Sure, you can carry your handgun…at home only.
        In any appraisal you need to define who, what, where, when, why and how to have all the facts, 2A has some limitations in that respect.

        Who: does that mean every citizen..or exclude minors, mental patients, felons, drug addicts etc…and with full respect for the forefathers but gimme a break on the notion that they just couldn’t conceive the drug problems of today.

        What: there are a few “whats” to consider but my original point was arms (sophisticated “automatic” style) that I believe would not have been considered in 1812 to be available to civilians. Today we see some limitations on these arms. Arms could also encompass other than firearms…gas? nerve agent?

        Where: well, if the State law doesn’t apply or is limited in a District (Heller) they didn’t see that coming and of course now we have exclusion zones in schools, certain institutions, parks, etc.

        When: 2A implies 24/7 but won’t protect you hunting out of season

        Why: I don’t fully know why but have a limited understanding the intent was for all male militia to be able to protect the homeland. Feminists might have issue with that one today… Similar to what I wrote to James in this post, we cannot know the why unless it is in 2A; yes, granted, writers commented at the time on the Ammendment but their writing is not evidence, unless they interviewed the writers of the Bill and took statements their comments are conjecture, anecdotal or here say (and were probably just as politically driven as the press of today).

        How: I dunno… in fact, that is probably most frustrating.
        Can you carry a gun? yes.
        Can the gun be loaded? yes.
        Can you carry a loaded gun into an airport? I wouldn’t like to try…

        Kenneth, without being condescending, I have my view that 2A is sufficiently vague that it will continue to be tested and that State and local laws and bylaws will eventually impinge on what is considered to be otherwise inalienable. You’re entitled to your view but I’d encourage you to think outside the protective 2A and more like a Venn diagram of what is universal and what is really included in the selection.

        • With so many points being brought up all at once, The only way to address them is one at a time. You must understand this will involve some verbosity.
          OFC, this amendment, and all the others as well, have been to Court many, many times. This means exactly zero.
          Q1: Would you say the First Amendment is ill defined simply because of the hundreds of times it has been attacked in Court?
          I would say the much more important item is what has been found by those Courts, NOT the raw number of attacks. Rights are always under attack by those who do not want you and I to have them. It is not the attacks that are important, but how well those attacks are dealt with.
          Who: Yes indeed, it means every citizen that has NOT been judged incompent or criminal via DUE PROCESS. This is what is missing from most discussions. Due Process means that the one who is to be judged to have his rights removed must have his day in court, the right to speak, to introduce evidence, confront the accuser, and all the other things that go with due process. THIS is just what is so conspicuously absent in all the so called “red flag” ‘laws’ being pushed so hard today.
          Note all the times that “the people” are defined by so many different States, as well as the Bill of Rights itself. And always the same: everybody that has not been stripped of their rights by due process.
          As to what, again history is clear. Up until 1934, a citizen of the US was free to purchase any arms they could afford. This included cannon, gunboats, and any type or style of firearms, any many owned exactly these. Prior to the NFA anyone could walk into any hardware store and buy a Thomson SMG, or any other firearm, for cash without even saying a name.
          I am going to ignore all the speculation about bearing being only in the home etc. That would take an entire article to refute, and is the same as the attacks in courts as dealt with above. It matters not how many manipulated courts have found ridiculous BS, what matters is correcting the mistakes that were made.
          This is the same as the tired old argument that the First amendment doesn’t give one the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre. OFC it does! Not only do you have the right, you have the DUTY to do so… provided that the theatre is actually on fire! IF, however, you choose to do that as a joke or a hoax without regard for the consequences of that action, you will have to pay the price for such folly.
          If the US had a properly functioning system of justice, that would include due process, wherein you would tell your side of the story(perhaps you were only mistaken, you thought you saw smoke and panicked, etc.), and if the Jury believed your story, perhaps you might escape punishment. Most likely, though, would be the loss of your rights in the future and the ultimate removal of all rights, long term incarceration.
          That is plenty for now. As I stated earlier, I prefer points such as these to legal arguments anyway:

          Q2: Can you see the bias inherent in the anti gun arguments in the second link above?

  16. Kenneth,
    I concede that just because cases are tried that it isn’t necessarily indicative that a law is weak or inadequate, lawyers will take the money irrespective of the chance of winning. There’s BIG money at stake on both sides of the argument and have no doubt the legal fraternity have a vested interest in hearings, trials and appeals.

    I had a look at the gun facts page…and yes, it might present some “facts” and statistics with graphics but I think it’s around high school level class project quality in presentation and draws the (unquestioning) reader to the website’s agenda and some dubious conclusions.
    Codrea verges on unreadable (for me, anyway)…his writing style crams too many subjects and references into sentences which probably each need a paragraph for the reader to digest. I’m sure he knows what he’s getting at but I’d be reluctant to suggest the article is clear on bias…but it’s less than objective.
    Unfortunately, many know a writer’s subjective bent (left, right, pro or anti) and routinely accept their work just because it (hopefully) matches their own sentiments, similarly, readers reject work because the author’s affiliations conflict with their own.

    In closing, I find that 2A is becoming a “Swiss cheese” model when it was constructed to be a good solid impenetrable block. The Left and their lobby and lawyers are chewing bigger holes in each slice (who, what, where, etc) and eventually the holes will line up.



  17. I don’t normally judge or critique articles but at your request have had a look.
    Goddam Kenneth, where do you find this crap?

    Aside from a bias, I can see the article breaks just about every rule of objectivity.
    It verges on nonsensical, it’s a mix of statistics and apparently unrelated themes.
    It tries to be emotional and pleading to reader’s (assumed) anger and throws in the confrontational “…can’t look after our children”.
    She cites the “study” and tries to validate it with reference to a “team” from Michigan University but avoids stating their qualifications…and that it was published in NEJM but doesn’t provide a link to the original article. It’s difficult to know where the published data begins or ends and where Melissa’s own manipulations and interpretation takes over.

    Unfortunately, the writer Melissa Healy probably has a following of both anti-gun and some less than discerning readers who may accept her article “verbatim, as wrote”. Sadly, our colleges churn out journalists every year and they make a dollar by appealing to their audience’s emotions, anxiety and outrage.

    Firearms are controversial, children’s innocence incites emotions, mix the two in a media article and there’s a pay check at the end of the week.

    It’s not right…but it’s just the way.

    • I see a lot of words, but the only one that addresses the issue I brought up, “press bias”, seems to be saying that you do agree that the Main Stream Media IS biased.
      Is that correct?
      (no offense meant, but if we are to actually communicate you will need to learn to stick to the issues, and stop going off the rails. You know full well where “that crap” was found. It was the Los Angles Times. Even if you DIDN’T clink the link the URL clearly stated the source. If you continually go off into insults, as has been your habit, you must realize no communication is possible, yes?)
      So am I correct that we both agree the MSM has antigun bias, and thus cannot be trusted?

  18. Kenneth,
    You asked me to read the various articles “to see if I can find bias”.
    To determine bias I needed to read and digest the writer’s methods, data presented and somewhere in the assessment determine if it was a deliberate bias or just that that facts presented actually demonstrate a valid, cohesive anti-gun case.
    The gun facts site steers the reader on an anti-gun bias but is weak with poor presentation.
    Codrea is unintelligible to me – no comment on bias… I just don’t know.
    Healy’s article is poorly written and clearly has an anti-gun bias.

    I am reluctant to ever agree with generalizations when you ask if I agee that MSM is biased I have to say “No, not always and no, not all media.” There is a significant bias in the press and tv news, particularly after any firearms-related incident and maybe sometimes it’s deserved?

    My flippant “where do you find this crap” is purely a reflection of your choice of reading entertainment material. If you go looking in the wrong places you’ll find offensive articles that won’t agree with your “bias”… which is fine, but I am somewhat more selective in choosing scholarly articles published, edited and reviewed by qualified indentured authorities.

    Kenneth, I think globally but communicate rationally and logically. ..don’t take rational and logical thinking as being superior, it’s just my way… if you don’t like what you read or object to the premise just vote with your mouse, click the little “x” in the top corner and it all goes away.


    • Sorry Ray, but I do not see any sign of your ability to “communicate rationally and logically”. This implies persuasion by what the Greeks called “Logos”, or appeal to reason. I’ve yet to see you DO that, although you do use the word a lot.
      In actual practice, though, what you do is almost exclusively “Ethos”, or appeal to authority. You reject any source you disagree with as either too lowbrow, or too advanced, to understand. It makes one wonder just exactly what you might find either not too hot or too cold, but “just right” enough to be either discussed, or even allowed into your conscientiousness. At that, it is still much better than talking with the antigun crowd, who almost exclusively use “Pathos”, or the appeal to emotions.
      A great example is right in your above post that you are; “selective in choosing scholarly articles published, edited and reviewed by qualified indentured authorities.”
      This makes me wonder just what “authorities” you believe are “scholarly” or “qualified” enough to speak, according to you. Is it simply anything approved by facebook and newsguard, or is it only a select few of your past professors?
      I’m sorry, but until you can open your mind enough to let new information in, there is no possible way anyone can help your condition, and conversations with you are just a waste of time. The same as discussions with any other religious fundamentalist. Whether you are Catholic and worship the Pope, or a Statist and worship your duly appointed, “qualified indentured authorities”, the result is the same. A closed mind that can see nothing beyond whatever it has been indoctrinated to believe, and reacts with anger to any questioning of the dogma.
      Well, at least this explains your inability to focus on the conversation at hand. The “true believer” always much prefers proselytizing to defending their viewpoints with reason. So, I will consider this conversation over, and prepare for the outburst that will likely follow.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here