Previous Post
Next Post

Actor Adam Baldwin retweeted this message from the Twitter machine of @GunSenseUSA (hijacking Moms Demand Action’s @gunsense) with the above picture, which uses the First Amendment to debunk many of the assumptions and rationalizations the disarmament folks try to make about the Second Amendment. Your Lockdown of the Day™ comes from . . .

Baltimore, and it’s just painful. KIPP charter schools were locked down for more than an hour and a half yesterday after a child saw a man with a photographer’s tripod and thought it was a gun. Yes, it’s stupid, but you need to read the full article to get the depth of it, not just about this incident, but about the whole panic-inducing response of lockdowns in general. “Some students and parents criticize school officials for overreacting,” but the article disdains those criticisms. “The lockdowns now practiced by most schools in the country help prepare students psychologically because students know they are doing what will make them feel safe during a tense situation.” They quote a mental health specialist who says that the perception of what could happen can cause anxiety, but it’s all OK, because “Most students will bounce back to normal in a few days or weeks…”

The Second Amendment Foundation has won a permanent injunction in a case it brought against the State of New Mexico’s “citizens only” provision in its laws concerning concealed carry. U.S. District Court Chief Judge M. Christina Armijo issued an order on April 1 that says the New Mexico statute “violates the Equal Protection Clause” of the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment. She found that the law unfairly discriminated against permanent legal resident aliens in disallowing them the right to concealed carry. The ruling does not affect the concealed carry law as a whole, but only severs the “citizenship provision” from the rest of the statute.

From The Tactical Wire – Overland Park, Kan. – Uncle Mike’s, a leading provider of hunting and shooting accessories for more than 60 years, has introduced a new versatile tactical shooting bag for long range enthusiasts. The Uncle Mike’s Long Range Tactical Bag is designed to not only safely transport rifles to the range, but also converts into a comfortable shooting mat. With an overall length of 50″, the Long Range Tactical Bag is capable of carrying almost any long gun equipped with a scope and bi-pod. The soft-sided Long Range Tactical Bag is built with durable 1000 Denier fabric for long-term reliability and protection. After safely transporting a rifle to the range or competition, the Long Range Tactical Bag can be quickly converted to a 78″ shooting mat. The 30″ flip-out shooting mat includes a front load strap that allows shooters to load the bipod while shooting prone and establish a rock-solid rest. The versatility of this shooting bag is an ideal design for long range shooters and competitors. The Long Range Shooting bag has four self-adjusting magazine pockets, which will hold magazine calibers that range from .223/5.56mm to .308/7.62mm. Designed to fit inside the popular Pelican 1750 case, the Uncle Mike’s Long Range Tactical Bag is available for an MSRP of $194.95.

I didn’t see this until today, but Iraqveteran8888 posted this video on April 1st. Taking off the old standby of cleaning your guns when your daughter’s boyfriend shows up at the house, here’s “Five Guns To Scare Your Daughter’s Boyfriend.” They call it their “April Fools” video, but you know the best jokes always have an element of truth to them.

I especially like the suppressor idea.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Obviously the Second Amendment as ratified had exactly one comma in the sentence. This one has three. The construction of the sentence is certainly not identical grammatically.

    • Yes and no…

      As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives:
      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.

      As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:
      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.

  2. From the lockdown article:

    “”Until better ways come up … we are going to see reactions like this. What choice do they have?” said DeCarlo.”

    Uh, wow. Yeah. I can think of a better way.

    Allow staff that choose to carry to carry. But that makes too much sense and may actually solve the problem…and we can’t have that. Instead, we’ve got to keep:

    * Teaching and conditioning children to over react to suspicions
    * Teaching and conditioning children to be ‘locked down’ in an institutional environment
    * Confining defenseless children in enclosed spaces so that they make easy targets when a threat is suspected.

    It all serves to justify the ‘need’ of the aristocratic Masters that know better than us, and to keep their bloated salaries being paid.

    • They aren’t “aristocratic,” which means “rule by the best.” If all I have to do to be elected is promise you their money, there is no best involved.

    • * Teaching and conditioning children to be ‘locked down’ in an institutional environment

      Perhaps we are seeing the first step of Mankind becoming “Eloi”. Who will be the “Morlocks”?

  3. I see what the author is trying to do here but they oversimplify too much for the analogy to be perfect. First, the statement is not identical because it doesn’t say “keep and bear books.” where ‘bear’ has, it is argued by supreme court justices, very specific meanings and connotations. Also, the author stresses that there are no restrictions on classes (“does not say, imply, or even suggest that only registered voters…” as an example), but laws restricting felons’ access to firearms would not likely be successfully challenged in the supreme court. Remember, of course, that the 2nd amendment also does not say, imply, or even suggest that it didn’t apply to slaves. But it didn’t. And it wasn’t intended to. Interpretation of the constitution was delegated to practiced and scholarly judges because perspective and insight is necessary to actually interpret law according to the constitution and centuries of precedent and common law, even when, to a laymen, the statement ‘seems’ to lend itself to a common sense interpretation. It’s simply not that simple, no matter how much you might want it to be.

    • Kool Aid? What flavor?

      The second amendment was specific in its intent to prevent the government from infringing on our right and ability to abolish said government if it became tyrannical or antithetical to our goals and intentions. How then does giving any branch of that government, even the Judicial branch, the authority to interpret and restrict the Second Amendment make sense?

      “…shall not be infringed.” Not rocket science.

      • I drink the historically accurate kool-aid. When interpreting any law, the courst will look at intent when the law was written. The second amendment did not and was not intended to apply to everyone in the country at the time it was written. In that light, I don’t see how it’s obvious that today it means it should apply to everyone in all circumstances. What am I missing?

        • If you are going for historical accuracy slaves and indentured servants were not legally considered people at the time the Constitution was written. It was written with the idea that every able bodied man be able to bear arms, and teenage boys were generally considered men by the time they were 13. The legal definition of a person has expanded thanks in no small part to later constitutional amendments, but the Second Amendment is still the same and it applies to all persons.

        • Re: Dev, below. It is NOT true that slaves and servants were not legally considered people. They were explicitly named as such in the constitution. See 3/5ths compromise. Now which people was the 2nd amendment intended to apply to? Free people! But it doesn’t say that. Nor does it say that indentured servants and slaves weren’t people. Explicitly the contrary. And Re: B, it didn’t say they were 3/5ths of a person, it said numbers would be calculated by including all free persons and 3/5ths of other persons. The distinction is important because the document never says they’re less than a person (which is the word in question), only that, in counting population for taxes and representation, the ‘Numbers’ only counted 3/5ths of other people.

        • If we read contemporary writings (e.g, Federalist Papers), we don’t have to guess what the framers intended. One important point of the 2A did indeed seem to be militia service. But, even if we put aside the fact that the militia was considered to be basically everyone not part of a standing army, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and others also mentioned personal defense specifically in their writings. That individuals should be able to own and use arms to defend themselves and families from personal attack would not have been particularly controversial at that time.

          Let’s quote Hamilton, who was more in favor of a strong Federal government than many of his peers:

          ” … but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights …”

          — Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29

          Now, let’s pull a quote that would seem more in favor of the emphasis on the state-controlled militia beloved of the civilian disarmament movement:

          “To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.”

          –John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

          Even this piece, which suggests a view that arms should be used by militias that act strictly according to law, still EXPLICITLY recognizes the validity of “private self-defense.” I don’t know what “historically accurate kool-aid” you are sipping, but you are welcome to it. I’m sure you could find individuals who did not think arms in private hands was a good idea, but they would have been considered odd-balls by the majority of the framers.

    • Lawyers and scholars can be useful, but some things are not that complicated. Sometimes the nuance and complexity are invented by those who oppose the plain meaning of a law because they cannot come up with a way to attack it directly.

      • “For breakfast, I’m having eggs, bacon, and toast.”


        “For breakfast I’m having eggs bacon and toast.”

        The meaning of te sentence still stands with or without commas. Commas not these crazy sentence shattering things.

        It’s not complicated, people that wish to destroy the 2nd A are making it complicated.

    • Interpretation of the constitution was delegated to practiced and scholarly judges because perspective and insight is necessary to actually interpret law according to the constitution and centuries of precedent and common law

      Would have to disagree. Some things in the Constitution really are not that complicated. And precedent isn’t always constitutional.

    • I first came across this analogy attributed to Robert Levy, and assume he is the author

      Levy uses this analogy to illustrate the flaw in the “interpretation” that “the right of the Militia”, and not “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” is stated and guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment. The militia, originally defined as free, White, able-bodied male citizens, 18-45 years of age is a sub-set of the “people” (far less than 50% since women were excluded from the militia). That spurious “interpretation” of the 2nd Amendment ignores the plainly expressed right of the citizenry in general (“the right of the people”), merely because of the mention of a benefit which accrues co-incidentally to the country (an effective militia composed of trained, armed citizens will be available for the defense of the new Federal Republic) because of that broad-based “right of [all] the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms”. 

      The analogy is apt. No analogy is “perfect”. Consider the parallel to the structure of the 2nd A. Levy offers:

      “A well-educated electorate”, a sub-set of “the people”, citizens who are qualified to vote, (again less than 50% since women were excluded from the electorate) results in a co-incidental benefit to the country (an educated electorate will presumably vote wisely, as opposed to an ignorant electorate, to the preservation of the self-governance of the country) because of that broad-based “right of [all] the PEOPLE to keep and read books”.

      In neither the 2nd Amendment, nor Levy’s parallel, does the mention of a co-incidental benefit to the nation involving a sub-set of “the PEOPLE” (Militia, or electorate) justify the restriction of that “right of [all] the PEOPLE” to ONLY that sub-set of the people (Militia, or electorate) mentioned in that stated benefit.

      Levy does not offer the analogy so much as an argument — but rather as an illustration of the torturous, false basis of the so-called “collective right” interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

      • Yea, I read that at some point. I think the interpretation that all people have the right to keep arms actually is straightforward. A dissenting argument from the supreme court was that ‘bear arms’ only refers to the well-regulated militia because of the common use of ‘bear’ at the time in the context of organized service in a militia. Mind you, this was the minority, but this isn’t an example of liberal judges mincing words. This kind of research is cited in opinions on a wide variety of cases.

        • The “Militia clause” states a very good reason WHY the Constitutional Federal Government would not want to infringe on the people’s individual “right to keep and bear arms” recognized and guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The Militia was the primary defense force of the new nation, and the defenders of the government of that Republic, as well. The Militia might very well be the only thing that stood between the officials of that Constitutional Federal Government and a prison cell — or the gallows.

          The idea of the “militia” having its right to be armed recognized in the Bill of Rights is as ludicrous as a Constitutional amendment stating and guaranteeing that “the ARMY has the right to bear arms”. That arms-bearing by any military force, be it militia or “regular troops”, is implicit —- it needs no explicit statement. It is in the very nature of ANY kind of army —- militia, regulars, volunteer, conscripted, or mercenary — to be armed.

          They are “ARMED forces”.
          They carry guns.
          That is what they do.

          Most certainly, no army of any kind, including a militia, needs a Constitutional recognition and guarantee of its “right to keep and bear arms”. That so-called ‘interpretation’ of the Second Amendment is, at best, groundless — both grammatically and logically.

  4. For years now I have confronted anti-Second Amendment adherents. Most are also against any form of identification or qualification for voting, which they see as an impediment and disenfranchisement to those who are poorer to vote.

    Likewise, all these registration requirements, fees for background checks, waiting periods, and other many restrictions put on Second Amendment rights to “keep and bear arms” would not be accepted if put on the First Amendment or if these restrictions were put on voting. There would be an outcry from the Hollywood folks, the NAACP, ACLU, and many other groups and leaders.

  5. I think the double barrel 10 would be the most intimidating.

    Lockdowns of America teaching children the art of Baaah on a daily basis.

  6. Hahaha
    I used the cleaning the gun thing when my daughter started dating.
    I even handed out a couple of these…

    My daughter thought it was pretty funny.
    Even though she’s a former Marine now and can probably kick my butt, I can still out shoot her.

  7. So, I’m confused. It seems like that picture with the comparison between the 2nd and 1st Amendments is in favor of the RKBA, but then the tweeter (I guess that’s what you call them?) has something about gun sense in his tweet. Or it could be that his post doesn’t make sense to me because I can’t decipher half the seemingly random characters (like the @, which I assume has something to do with a hashtag, but I also don’t know what that is).

    It’s probably sad, but whenever I see anything about gun sense, reducing gun violence, gun safety, etc in the name of a given organization (or some kind of social media presence, like a hashtag, if that’s what that @ is even supposed to be) it just screams “ANTI” to me. The really shocking thing about my lack of understanding of Twitter is that I’m part of the most recent generation, in college. It seems my peers are leaving me behind, with my lack of understanding/interest in social media. Good, let them.

    • Just to help you out, a little Twitter education.

      The @ symbol denotes names, or Twitter handles, as they’re called. Thus Adam Baldwin’s Twitter handle is @adambaldwin, and TTAG’s Twitter handle is @guntruth.

      A hashtag is this: #. Think of it as an indexing point. Things that are hashtagged alike can be searched for using that tag, regardless of the name of the person who tweeted it or the rest of the text in the Tweet itself. As an example, if you click on the “#2A” in the Tweet above, you’ll be taken to a page that has a selection of Tweets that have been self-identified (that part’s important) by the writer as having some relation to the Second Amendment. It does not necessarily mean that it will be pro-2A, just that the writer identified it as being related. It’s entirely possible for a hashtag to be hijacked by people who have the complete opposite ideas from the individual who originated the hashtag. As an example, several months (or more) ago, Moms Demand Action was tagging all of their anti-gun tweets with #gunsense. The implication is, of course, that only the things they were saying were examples of being sensible about guns and gun laws. After a while, quite a few pro-gun organizations and individuals began tagging their tweets with #gunsense, thereby hijacking the hashtag and demonstrating that the civilian disarmament movement had not cornered the market on gun sensibility.

      @GunSenseUSA is a pro-gun advocacy group or person, who is attempting to hijack the Twitter name of Moms Demand Action, which is @gunsense. An indication of how pervasively the civilian disarmament movement has appropriated the terms gun & sense for their side is demonstrated by your confusion upon seeing it attached to a pro-gun message. That’s what GunSenseUSA is trying to combat. They’re trying to “take it back,” more or less.

      That turned out longer than I planned, but I hope it helped.

  8. What’s the difference in lock downs and the Duck and Cover crap we went thru in school? I managed to survive my childhood with only a few minor quirks and I’ll bet most of these kids will too.

    • Maybe, but one would hope eventually we would stop trying to get kids to ‘feel’ safe (did ducking and covering make you feel safe?) and actually, you know, bother making them safer.

    • Both about equally useless, in my estimation. Makes the administration feel good while scaring the crap out of the kids.

    • The difference is “duck and cover” were regularly scheduled drills, and the kids knew they were just practice. These lockdowns are random panicked over-reactions to everyday events, that don’t serve any actual safety purpose (how would Sandy Hook have turned out any differently if the school had been in “lockdown” when that psycho shithead showed up?), but only serve to terrify children and teach them a mindset of passive victimhood.

    • Actually, it’s more that Duck and Cover actually works if you’re in that area on the outer edges of the blast zone, where the main danger comes from shrapnel and falling objects. Think about it. If you’re in the middle of the blast radius, it’s not like you’ll be deader; if you’re outside, you don’t have anything to worry about, but if missiles are on the way it’s not like you have time to decide where you are, so it’s best to just have everyone practice Duck and Cover.

      Whereas lockdowns fall squarely on the level of “security theater”.

  9. So, one group gets a shrink to say the picture of a gun on the “gun free zone” sign could cause damage to a child and shouldn’t be allowed but lock them down for a few hours thinking a gunman may be hunting them and they will simply bounce back in a few days, no worries.

  10. The book example is a fine wording IMO for how the prefatory clause makes a statement but is not the meat of the amendment like the operative clause is.

    An example I have often thought of is:

    “A well-regulated press being necessary to the functioning of a free state, the right of the people to engage in speech shall not be infringed.”

      • You completely misinterpreted that amendment. By your logic, the Second Amendment only would apply to a formal militia. The whole point is that the prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment makes a general statement, but is not the central meat of the amendment. The 2nd states the importance of a well-regulated militia, i.e. a general population that possesses a decent-working knowledge and familiarity with arms, to the security of a free state. But the core protection of the right in the amendment is, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

        Similarly, my amendment states the importance of a well-regulated press to a free state, but the right of speech itself is protected by the statement, “the right of the people…” i.e. individuals regardless of their profession.

        • Allow me to supplement my comment with ; )
          I was being sarcastic, as you would know if you read my other comments on Levy’s analogy of the Second Amendment.

        • Oh, okay, no worries then. I am terrible at detecting sarcasm in real life, let alone on the Internet.

  11. The statement could also equally be written, IMO, as:

    “A well-regulated Electorate being necessary to self-governance in a free state, the right of the people to keep and read Books shall not be infringed.”

    • It just struck me that the ‘well-regulated” and “shall not be infringed” parts kinda conflict with eachother. I mean, I want everyone well-regulated with modern equipment (modern in the last 120years cuz there are plenty of K98s and such that work just fine) but do not want people to defend the free state with some janky black powder rifle so I guess that is an infringement. POV may vary.

      • Keep in mind that “well regulated” describes “Militia”, and no other word or words. English depends on syntactical structure to convey meaning, not case endings. It’s meaning at the time of the adoption of the 2 A. was to describe something as simply “properly functioning”. It did not have the modern connotation of “lots of rules, regulations, and restrictions”, with perhaps a government bureaucracy, e.g. BATFE created to “regulate” the RKBA.
        Likewise, that which is “not to be infringed” is that “right of the people to keep and bear Arms”. Which is independent of the “Militia clause”.

        • “The Militia” was not quite the “general population”.
          Congress exercised its power “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia . . .” in the Militia Act of 1792, which drafted every “free able-bodied white male citizen” between the ages of 18 and 45 into the Militia, and ordered them to equip themselves with a musket or rifle, bayonet, powder, shot, etc.
          No women were included in the Militia, and even today there are no women at all in the “unorganized militia” and relatively few in the “organized militia” defined in the U S Code.
          The Militia of 1792 would probably be about 20-25% of the total population.

        • The way I understand it is that the Militia Act of 1792 was one way Congress exercised its power regarding the militia, but the militia itself is a pre-existing body. It is the general population, i.e. the people. That is why the Constitution doesn’t define the militia.

        • Yes, “the Militia” existed before the Constitution or BOR. Congress had the power to “raise and support Armies”, indicating the creation of “Armies”, but only to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the [pre-existing] Militia” to a nation-wide standard.
          Congress defined who was in the Militia in 1792. It was not “the general population”, but a sub-set of “the people”. Among other qualifications, there were no women included, no Blacks (slave or emancipated), no non-citizens, and of course, “the lame, the halt, and the blind” were excluded. All of those excluded may be considered part of “the people” — even of the electorate — they were just not members of the Militia.
          This was still a broader, more inclusive Militia than that contending idea of a “select Militia”, which would free the majority of the male citizens from the burden of military training, and permit them to concentrate on civilian pursuits. One reason for the emphasis on a “well regulated Militia” was the concern that a “standing Army” was a danger to liberty. A “select Militia” might have the same effect, since military power would be concentrated in fewer hands. Fortunately, that power was spread over a great number of “the people”, but not all.

    • “When transporting your bible from your residence to your duly licensed place of worship, your bible must be in the trunk of your vehicle with the old testament and new testament locked in separate boxes.”

      • Are we also permitted transport of the Bible, under those restricted circumstances, to a licensed bookbinder shop for any necessary repairs or modifications?

  12. Kyle is dead right.

    The example provided, while well intentioned, substantially shifts the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment to make it appear that the only reason everyone has the “right” to keep and read books is for the sake of having a well informed electorate, etc.

    I’m convinced as are many others that the Second Amendment intended to acknowledge that while a militia is necessary, in spite of that, the right of THE PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.

    This makes far more sense when one consider the historic context of the Second Amendment. The USA had fought a war against another nation’s army, their militia, and one thing that army tried to was TAKE AWAY the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

    So, while acknowledging that a well-regulated militia is important this in no way can ever infringe upon the people’s right to keep and bear arms.

    Make sense?

    • The word militia in the amendment refers to the general population, not to any formal government body. So the amendment is stating that having a general population with a decent working knowledge of arms is necessary to the security of a free state in the first statement. Then, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

      Note that in the rest of the Constitution, the militia is constantly referred to as a pre-existing body. The Constitution speaks of Congress having the ability to raise an army, but in reference to the militia, it speaks of its ability to call forth “the militia,” not “a militia.”

  13. Common sense dictates that reasonable restrictions on books are necessary and constitutional. nobody needs access to technical manuals with high information diagrams and charts. Those are for the professionals and no self respecting fiction reader that subscribes to entertainment publications, such as the New York Times, even wants them in their homes.

  14. Well done – the 1st Amendment analogy is spot on. What’s ironic is the blowback in “advanced pedagoguery” and nit-picking you’re getting from an increasingly insular crew of pajama-clad, chair-borne commandos squabbling with each other to no larger purpose whatsoever. “Good for the Gander” indeed.

    • I’ve come across several people (at least one of whom was pro-gun) who either don’t comprehend what an analogy is, or pretend not to understand how the concept works — illustrating an idea by using something similar to what is being explained, and familiar to most people.

  15. The Uncle Mike bag looks interesting. In my experience, Uncle Mike products are just so-so when it comes to quality. Generally they seem to hold up pretty well, but my Uncle Mike range bag has failed at certain stress points and attachment points.

    I’d say if that bag was under $150, I’d definitely take a look.

    Too bad the site provides so little by way of pics and if black is the only color option, no thanks. Way too hot unless you are shooting in the shade. I’d go with a nice coyote brown though.

  16. Children are now living in a constant state of fear of anything that “looks” like a gun (tripod, baseball bat, pop tart, etc). Mission accomplished libtards! Congratulations on a new generation of victims.

  17. There have been some mis-comprehensions of Levy’ analogy of the Second Amendment.

    — Levy illustrates the foolishness of the “interpretation” of the 2 A. that “Only the Militia has the right to keep and bear Arms”.

    — He offers an identical sentence structure of the 2 A., expressing a benefit to “a free state”, which is a reason, from the viewpoint of the Constitutional Federal Gov’t, WHY that Gov’t would not infringe on the “right of the people to keep and read books”.

    — The right stated in both the original 2 A. and Levy’s parallel of it, is a “right of the PEOPLE”. No one would comprehend Levy’s parallel as a right restricted to a sub-set of the people (the “electorate” in Levy’s parallel) mentioned in a prefatory statement. Why then, would anyone attempt to say that the people’s right to keep and bear Arms is restricted to that sub-set of the people (the “Militia”) mentioned in a prefatory remark in the 2nd Amendment?


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here