DeSantis Gunhide Question of the Day: Are you a Gun Rights “Fundamentalist”?


“A sensible, mature society recognizes that extreme, destructive positions in the name of constitutional absolutism is just another form of fundamentalism,” opines, “it seeks to prevent even the consideration of reasonable, responsive policies to address national problems by declaring them preemptively out of line. Would a better ban on semiautomatic assault weapons reduce the nation’s overall amount of violent crime? Research suggests not, but it would clearly reduce the violence of some crimes, particularly mass shootings like those in Newtown and Orlando.” Seeing aside what The Globe reckons is a “better” assault weapons ban (not specified) and the fact that they’re recommending a policy that they admit wouldn’t necessarily reduce mass shootings, are you a gun rights fundamentalist? I mean, do you believe that the Second Amendment’s admonition that “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” means that “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”?

desantis blue logo no back 4 small


  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    Except in very limited instances by due process, yes. When said due process has been corrupted, I fall back on “shall not be infringed”.

  2. avatar Bob Toner says:

    So the Boston Globe admits their aproach is neither principled nor pragmatic? But, they want to do it anyway!

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      And if you don’t want to just do it for the heck of it, then you’re a Fundamentalist Fringe Element and we don’t need to listen to the likes of you. (hey, it’s the Boston Globalist, so did you really expect better?)

  3. avatar Greg says:

    No more a ‘fundamentalist’ than James Madison and the other men who saw a need for the Second Amendment. That goes for the rest of the Bill of Rights as well.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      This, precisely. I support all ten of the bill of rights. Not just one, certainly not just the two or three that the left used to support until the SJWs made them lose what remained of their minds.

    2. avatar Art out West says:

      A Fundamentalist is someone who believes the basic concepts of something.

      With regard to the Constitution, the fundamentalist believes that it says what it means, and it means what it says.

      Christian fundamentalists believe that the Bible is from God, and that it is therefore true. Although they will often disagree about how to interpret it, they are operating from the basic presupposition that the Bible is God’s word. They want to understand it rightly, and apply it.

      Muslim fundamentalists believe that Mohammed is the prophet of Allah, and that the Koran, Hadiths, etc. are true and right. Like the Christian fundamentalists, they want to understand the Divine instructions, and apply them.

      Fundamentalists are generally honest people (though sometimes naïve).

      On the other hand, liberals don’t believe in the basic concepts. They actually believe in liberalism/utopian ideals instead. They only cloak their words to deceive people. The political liberal doesn’t believe in the Constitution. They only pretend to, in order to gain power. Likewise in religion. The liberal Christian doesn’t believe the Bible. The liberal Muslim doesn’t believe the Koran.

  4. avatar SteveInCO says:


    Exceptions being incarceration or otherwise serving a sentence upon conviction by jury. (Probation, parole are both types/parts of sentences.)

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      You are correct sir, except that incarceration after (in some case while pending) trial and conviction does not and CANNOT remove your natural rights. The only thing that can be removed, and that only temporarily, is your Constitutional protection of that right.

      Your natural rights to keep and bear arms and to form militias (prison gangs) may be suppressed to one degree or another, with varying degrees of success, but they cannot be removed or revoked. One needs only Google “prison weapons” or some similar topic to learn the truth of this.

  5. avatar Chrispy says:

    I consider myself a second amendment absolutist.

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      Don’t say that! Ralph and Int19h will give you a lecture about how people in prison shouldn’t have a gun despite their rights.

      1. avatar peirsonb says:

        Doesn’t bother me. We deprive inmates of a whole pile of rights during incarceration. That’s part of the penance.

        1. avatar CarlosT says:

          More to the point, we do that by following the Constitution: with a speedy trial, with due process, with the right to confront your accusers, and so on and so forth. If found guilty, then the accused can be deprived of rights, as long as the punishment isn’t cruel and unusual.

        2. avatar Chrispy says:

          Succinctly put CarlosT, thank you.

  6. avatar peirsonb says:

    Absolutist? Absolutely.

    And, in before it starts, depriving someone of their right to keep and bear arms during a legal incarceration does not violate the second amendment.

    Depriving said person of their rights after release is, however.

    1. avatar Art out West says:

      The Founding fathers weren’t really fans of incarceration either. We have far too much incarceration these day. There is a lot to be said for (1) restitution (2) flogging (3) banishment/exile (4) execution. Steps 1,2,3 would not take away someone’s right to bear arms.

    2. avatar Mecha75 says:

      you can lose a fundamental right as part of your punishment of the crime. I am fine with that. you have the right to life, but if you commit a heinous act then you lose that right and consequently your life.

    3. avatar John in Ohio says:


      Anything less and we get the shredding of the Constitution that we see today.

  7. avatar Shire-man says:

    Liberty absolutist. If you aren’t harming anyone or anyone’s property you should be left alone to do whatever you want. Omnisexual polygamous cultists should be able to guard their personal use poppy fields with rocket launchers and howitzers AFAIC.

    Anything less would be un-American.

    1. avatar peirsonb says:

      This, if I can add that I have the right to bitch about it and think they’re assholes.

      1. avatar Omnisexual polygamous cultist says:

        And we’ll be sure to return the favor.

  8. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

    Yes, yes I do believe shall not be infringed means just that. I’m not happy with the compromised rights we currently have, it was great watching constitutional carry make progress through the other states. I was wishing for the Safe Hearing Act. One bad apple(or even 1000) doesn’t give my elected representatives free range to trample the Bill of Rights.

  9. avatar Mr. 308 says:

    What’s the alternative? The state knows better than we do, the second amendment should apply *usually*, unless the state thinks allowing a sale isn’t really a good idea. And their reasons for such are their own damn business, let them conduct their secret investigations and make their secret decisions and keep it all secret. Us dirt people have no business telling the state what to do, it only gets in the way of their doing their job efficiently and correctly.

    C’mon, no one thinks that the state would do anything other than to do what’s best for us all and protect us, right?

  10. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Absolutist. Yes.
    It, the second amendment has been trampled upon too much.
    If one has to ask permission, or pay a fee to exercise a right, it is no longer a right. It has been moved to the privilege column.

  11. avatar Defens says:

    As British subjects, the Founding Fathers were most certainly revolutionaries and fundamentalists. That’s in fact the context in which this nation was created. I’m proud to stand with those guys as fundamentalists – as if that was a bad word anyway.

  12. avatar Nanashi says:

    Contacting canidates and asking for NFA+GCA repeal bills if elected has quickly become my main hobby. Paul Nehlen, who is running against Paul Ryan, recently updated his website calling for an end to them (though I have no idea if my asking about this was part of it though, he does have a molon labe tattoo).

    It’s a great litmus test I encourage everyone to ask their supposedly “pro second amendment” candidates. Already exposed one of my local candidates (Galloway) as a non-supporter of the second amendment despite his claims (turned into a gibbering wreck when I told him he never answered the question).

  13. avatar Wiregrass says:

    I can’t say that I’m a Constitutional Absolutist necessarily, I just haven’t seen anybody come up with something better that lays out a plan for governing in a way that protects liberty while recognizing human nature for what it is. It does provide within itself a means of change short of throwing the whole thing out, which is what happens in most countries, but it also insures that its provisions aren’t drastically altered on a whim. Even when that change turns out to be misguided, like the 18th amendment, the process for fixing those mistakes still stands.

  14. avatar waffensammler98 says:

    If being a gun-rights “fundamentalist” makes SJW’s, progs, and other associated idiots cry themselves to sleep, then sign me the hell up.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      @ waffensammler98 –

      How’s your aunt Mary?

      1. avatar waffensammler98 says:

        If that was an external reference, it went way over my head. 99% sure I don’t have an aunt Mary

  15. avatar Bernard says:

    Absolutist here. But I’m willing to compromise and take baby steps towards 2A absolution. Small steps or big steps, as long as it’s winning. I may be young, but I understand that these fights take a long time to win. You can’t sprint all the time and expect to win a marathon.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      And an important addition to that…the fight will never be over.

      If the magical state of “not infringed” is ever reached, within an hour (or less), some Statist d1ckhead will be looking for a reason to infringe.

  16. avatar Joe Liberty says:

    Guns for drunks, suspected terrorists, ex-cons and toddlers?
    Fuck it. I guess I am.

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Well, maybe some ex-cons, since not everybody in jail is necessarily history’s greatest monster. There are a lot of laws out there and it’s virtually impossible to get through the day without violating some of them.

      I’m sure there’s some guy in prison only because he tore off a mattress tag and next thing he knew, a squad of jackslippered thugs were kicking down his bedroom door and hauling him off to the hoosegow.

      I’d be OK with restoring that guy’s 2A rights upon his reentry into society.

  17. avatar James in AZ says:

    I might have some doubts when it comes to CBRN

    But anything below that, stay away from my weapons!

    1. avatar Sixpack70 says:

      WMDs for the most part self regulate. Most are too expensive and dangerous to make for most people to want to even attempt. I know if I had a few billion dollars, I wouldn’t want to waste it on a nuke. But, I sure as heck would buy machine guns and ammo for trips to Knob Creek.

      1. avatar peirsonb says:

        I’d buy Knob Creek. The range AND the distillery.

  18. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

    Yes. I support the entire Bill of Rights, absolutely.

  19. avatar C.P. says:

    “Sensible,” “mature,” and “reasonable” are subjective.

  20. avatar Cooter E Lee says:

    I’m not a fundamentalist. Take all my horrible weapons of war away please and don’t forget my 40 round magazine clips. Protect me, feed me, control every aspect of my life. I don’t need any rights. In Obama and the oligarchy I trust.

    If you’re coming to collect, make sure you call ahead. I’ve got 54 acres in rural Kentucky, a case 580k backhoe, numerous firearms, and the only one here that can’t shoot you is the dog and she doesn’t need to.

  21. avatar Ing says:

    The fact that the Boston Globe talks of “a better ban” marks them as fundamentalists themselves. (Something about motes and beams comes to mind…)

    Am I a fundamentalist? If you’re talking about individual rights, yes. Individual rights are the wellspring of cooperative society, the basis of our constitutionally guaranteed civil rights, and the foundation of human dignity.

    Gun ownership is a statement of individual worth. It says that I own myself; that I can protect my own life and the people who matter to me as an individual. No one else gets to decide whether my life should be defended or dictate my choices in a life-or-death moment. How to save my own life is MY choice to make, and mine alone. Similarly, I choose to be part of society, with the benefits and limits it entails; if millions of other individuals hadn’t made a similar choice, the collective I’m part of wouldn’t exist.

    Therefore, anyone who attacks individual rights is attacking our nation, its constitution, and Western culture itself.

    As far as I’m concerned, the Boston Globe and its collectivist fellow travelers are the other side of the same coin as Daesh.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      “Gun ownership is a statement of individual worth. It says that I own myself; that I can protect my own life and the people who matter to me as an individual. “

      Wow. That is simply beautiful.

      Should be QOTD and repeated often and everywhere.

      Well done.

      1. avatar Sixpack70 says:

        I’ve told some anti assault weapons family members something similar. They didn’t like it. I will remember this quote because it is much better than how I stated the same idea.

  22. avatar Ross says:

    Yes I am

  23. avatar Leo in RI says:

    Count me in!

    To several posters above,
    Let’s not forget the 2nd amendment reads, “to keep and bear arms” so the howitzers are out. Pretty tough to carry one of those around with you. Anything the infantrymen carry, the citizen should have access to if they desire.

    1. avatar tfunk says:

      Umm, if I have a howitzer in my yard…or I’m driving around in a tank…am I not bearing arms?

      1. avatar Ing says:

        If you’re driving a tank, the arms are bearing you.

        (Yo dawg, I know how much you like guns, so I got you this tank. Now your gun can carry you while you carry your guns.)

    2. avatar jwm says:

      RPG’s, mortars, law rockets, machine guns, grenade launchers, claymores, and so on. Carried all of those at least once during my days in harness.

      But in the day I don’t remember it being called an rpg. Maybe old age is catching up to me but I have foggy memories of calling them b40’s. Am I wrong about this one?

      1. avatar Herb says:

        Your memory is fine, commie rocket launchers in VN were usually referred to as B40’s. The term RPG was also used but often to distinguish between models like RPG-2 or RPG-7 (better optics).

        Thank you for your service and welcome home!

    3. avatar JohnF says:

      What if you are bearing a Stinger missile that can down an airliner? What if you are bearing a suitcase nuke that could wipe out hundreds of thousands? What if you are bearing a weaponized biotoxin that can start a pandemic? Still OK?

      1. I say yes. I have no fear of a free man. A corrupt government is another thing.

  24. avatar Bob says:

    Yes. I am.

    I also recognize that many of the current infringements are in place because of the .gov incompetence elsewhere.

    I.e., we have background checks becuse the justice system is broken as well as felon reform. No one describes it that way, but it’s the case. If both those systems worked the only people put would be non dangerous. We also have them because the mental health system is broken.

    Same thing with no fly, no buy. Because the fbi investigation is broken, they beleive they have to restrict the rights of everyone.

    I’d almost accept such things if they would come out and be honest why we “should” (their words) allow such infringements and have a plan to fix them and remove the infringements.

  25. Another TTAG circle jerk?
    Okay. I’m in.

    1. avatar pg2 says:

      Literally lol thanks!

  26. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    … [Fundamentalism] seeks to prevent even the consideration of reasonable, responsive policies to address national problems by declaring them preemptively out of line.

    — Who established that gun-grabber policies are “reasonable” and “responsive”? Argument from ignorance fallacy.

    Would a better ban on semiautomatic assault weapons reduce the nation’s overall amount of violent crime? Research suggests not …

    — Facts be damned! Ban military style semi-auto rifles, even though it won’t reduce the nation’s overall violent crime, because it FEELS good!

    … [an undefined ban on military style semi-auto rifles] would clearly reduce the violence of some crimes, particularly mass shootings like those in Newtown and Orlando.

    — The attacker at Newtown and Orlando could have easily achieved the same results with a Glock 20 handgun (and several spare magazines) since the attackers operated UNOPPOSED for well over 6 minutes in Newtown (attacking tiny children no less) and over three HOURS in Orlando. This assertion is demonstrably false.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      Not to mention 32 dead at Virginia Tech – shooter used two pistols – no “assault weapons” involved.

  27. avatar Simon says:

    Didn’t we reach “compromise” 2 or 3 compromises ago? Are we really looking to find middle ground, or are we just trying slide the line in the sand further to the left?

  28. avatar Facing Reality says:

    The Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of what the Constitution and its Amendments mean, subject to change at any time due to changes of justice’s opinions or changes in the makeup of the court.. Individual citizen’s opinions or interpretations of the Constitution and Amendments have no legal basis and do not establish what is or is not allowed. Being an Absolutist, Fundamentalist, Liberal, et al doesn’t really matter any more than what religion you might or might not be.

    Under the Hillary Administration, two to four (most likely four) new justices will be appointed and the court will become anti-gun by six to three. A SCOTUS of Six Kagan/Sotomayors can be guaranteed to determine that the “Militia” is the National Guard and the word “People” is collectively all Americans, not any individual.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      “The Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of what the Constitution and its Amendments mean, subject to change at any time due to changes of justice’s opinions or changes in the makeup of the court.”

      This is a commonly held belief, but it is incorrect.

      The Constitution and the Amendments mean what they say they mean. SCOTUS gives input on how they are applied, but they can’t change the meanings of words.

      THIS is part of the problem we face. No matter how much evidence there is that .gov screws up everything it touches/manages, no matter how strongly the Founders tried to warn us of these dangers…we CONTINUE to put all the eggs into the Statism basket.

      Why in the HELL does it make sense to anybody that the very government the Constitution and its Amendments was trying to limit is the entity that determines what it means?

      The Founders never intended that. Their intent was clear. And, I argue, it remains clear, and everyone in on the discussion knows it.

      The anti’s HATE the Constitution and the BoR precisely because they DO know the intent with which they were written.

      And as such, it stands in their way of shaping THEIR notion of Utopia that contradicts a world with individual liberty.

      1. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

        Yep. The intent is that a given law would stand or fall based on the parameters outlined in the Constitution itself.

        If a law failed, Congress could write a new law that fell within the guidelines or if that was not possible and the people felt strongly enough, they could amend the Constitution itself to assert a new parameter or clarify the existing one.

        Obviously, the Supreme Court today is lost on that concept and the people generally are so miseducated, that they apparently believe that the founders advocated for a group of unelected judges to lord over them.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “Judicial Review

      The Supreme Court of the United States spends much, if not most, of its time on a task which is not delegated to the Supreme Court by the Constitution. That task is: Hearing cases wherein the constitutionality of a law or regulation is challenged. The Supreme Court’s nine Justices attempt to sort out what is, and what is not constitutional. This process is known as Judicial Review. But the states, in drafting the Constitution, did not delegate such a power to the Supreme Court, or to any branch of the government.”

  29. avatar Libertarian says:

    Thats radical views for anybody over 21 and only regulate abc substances and juveniles ?

    Any Weapon unregstered white the exeption of abc ammuntion

    Any Art of carry in any public places white out permit (no open ore conclead ban only choose)

    Anybody over 21 that is not mental ill (dangerous felons ? Dead Penality ore prison for life)

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      If you learned to write your opinions in actual, understandable English they might make some sense. But I doubt it.

      Thats radical views for anybody over 21 and only regulate abc substances and juveniles ?

      Any Weapon unregstered white the exeption of abc ammuntion

      The 2A has no provision fro the government to register any weapons or ammunition.

      Any Art of carry in any public places white out permit (no open ore conclead ban only choose)

      The 2A has no provision for the government to issue permission slips for you to exercise your rights.

      Anybody over 21 that is not mental ill (dangerous felons ? Dead Penality ore prison for life)

      The 2A has no provision for the government to determine who is too mentally ill to exercise their rights.

  30. avatar notalima says:

    “Would a better ban on free speech reduce the nation’s overall amount of violent crime? Research suggests not, but it would clearly reduce the violence of some crimes…”

    “Would a better ban on assembly reduce the nation’s overall amount of violent crime? Research suggests not, but it would clearly reduce the violence of some crimes…”

    “Would a better ban on religion reduce the nation’s overall amount of violent crime? Research suggests not, but it would clearly reduce the violence of some crimes…”

    Etc, etc., etc.

  31. avatar Excedrine says:

    Yes, I am, as I answered under TTAG’s “Are You A Gun Extremist? Answer These Three Questions To Find Out”

    Next question.

  32. avatar Felix says:

    Self-ownership absolutist. Self-ownership leads to an obvious definition of property, in that forcing me to build you a chair exacts the same denial of self-ownership as does theft of said chair after it’s made.

    Self-ownership leads inexorably to self-defense, and using my property to defend my self-ownership absolutely includes the right to keep and bear arms.

    Obviously two people living on the same planet have conflicts of self-ownership in some minimal way, which is where redress comes in, with self-ownership in mind — whose self-ownership was more violated? My carrying a gun is nobody else’s business unless I threaten them, but true threats must be imminently unavoidable — my carrying a gun implies no imminent threat, unlike drawing and pointing it at someone.

    If you feel threatened by my carrying a gun, you also feel threatened by everyone carrying a gun, or a knife, or a hammer, or a rock, or anyone near such things, including driving a car, and you have long since passed the point where your individual self-ownership is outweighed by everyone else’s self-ownership.

  33. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    I am as about as fundamentalist as it is possible to get. The right to keep and bear arms predates the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that recognized it, and exists with or without it, since that right is a fundamental human right.

  34. avatar Mercutio says:


  35. avatar Priest of the center mass says:

    Let’s start with assault religion bans then we can talk about guns

  36. avatar FormerWaterWalker says:

    Fundamentalist yeah. Absolute no. No guns for left-wing dumbocrats…

  37. avatar John says:

    No. I don’t think I’m an extremist.

    I am a reasonable, thoughtful, law abiding literalist. I think US v Miller was incorrectly decided – mostly on a technicality. I think laws should have to demonstrate their effectiveness in addition to comporting with the constitution.

    Maybe it’s the reasonable and thoughtful part that makes me an extremist.

  38. avatar DetroitMan says:

    No. I’m a Constitutional fundamentalist, period. That includes, but is not limited to, gun rights. So when some under-educated person calls for limiting my rights in pursuit of an unproven end (arguably disproven if you look at honest studies on gun bans), then I oppose them.

  39. avatar BDub says:

    Since we are now recycling Questions of the Day, I’ll recycle my answer as well.


  40. avatar pg2 says:

    The agitprop gets entertaining when respecting the law of the land is considered fundamentalist.

  41. avatar tjlarson2k says:

    More labels?

    All that matters is due process, evidence, and preservation of inalienable rights.

    The rest is all self-important opinions and posturing.

    All politics and BS aside, this is a simple reality check that murderers exist and they always will. It is up to the victims if they want to free themselves from reliance on other people for their own protection.

  42. avatar Bobiojimbo says:

    I prefer absolutist.

  43. avatar Joe R. says:

    All rights recited in the Bill of Rights are freedoms FROM government.

    Thereby, ALL RIGHTS are preserved and defended by an armed Society.

    It CANNOT BE that the members of such a Society would have to demand, from ANY government (but especially that made up of merely the Society’s fellow citizens that asked for the job) that is oppressing it for the means (or the right to the means) to overthrow the government at the time that such oppression is finally and fatally detected.

    NOR, CAN IT BE, THAT a U.S. citizen be required to spring from the womb fully formed, FULLY INFORMED, AND ARMED TO THE TEETH, to beat back what ignorant, worthless, and non-Constitutionally supportive individuals have abdicated in their preventions of encroachments that are now (under the unconstitutional rule of law derived from extra-authority judicial activism) considered “precedence”.

    F all of you not with me, and may your last peace be already long known.

  44. avatar Another Tom in Oregon says:

    ” I mean, do you believe that the Second Amendment’s admonition that “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” means that “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”?”

    Yes. Next question.

  45. avatar Jojo says:

    I think that the 2nd amendment specifically applies to all personal arms. As a result, I’d like to go back to ordering machine guns from a catalog and having them shipped to my house.

  46. avatar E Sherrill says:

    When the government takes away citizens right to bear arms it becomes the citizens duty to take away the governments right to govern. [ George Washington ]

  47. avatar Ryan says:

    If being against mass punishment which negates clearly defined civil rights is “fundamentalism” then sign me up. The U.S. Constitution is as fundamental as it gets in my book.

  48. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    I’d say no, but only because I disagree with the entire premise of the question, not because I’m in favor of government arbitrarily infringing on firearms freedom. We’re talking about liberty here, after all. Liberty has to mean liberty for all, or else it’s indistinguishable from subjugation.

    The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right. The spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understands the minds of other men and women. At least, so says the Honorable Learned Hand. That’s far from being “fundamentalist”, i.e., the unyielding, unthinking straw man that the Boston Globe props up and promptly knocks down.

  49. avatar SpeleoFool says:

    A sensible, mature society ought to set the bar for using the label “reasonable, responsive policies” a little higher than to apply it to feel-good drivel that can only come across as staggeringly ignorant, disingenuous or malicious to anyone who knows thing one about firearms. Policies lacking in reason are not reasonable.

  50. avatar Ralph says:

    I don’t even know what “gun rights fundamentalist” means, so I guess I’m not one.

    But I like freedom and want to life my own way, which used to be admired qualities and are now despised by the collective. And that makes me very, very angry.

    I think it makes a lot of people angry. And anger can be helpful and transformative. I hope it works that way now.

  51. avatar Joe R. says:

    The 2nd Amendment is not your permission for the me to keep and bear arms, it is, rather, the unalienable right that prevents you from having to ask the me permission to start (for your own desired reasons, AND THROUGH THE POSESSION OF YOUR OWN MEANS) the next Civil War, because I hereby forswear that no request for permission will come the other way if I am so inclined.

  52. avatar glenux says:

    “Are you a Gun Rights “Fundamentalist”?”
    Of course not.
    I just believe in the Absolute Right to Defend my body with a firearm, if need be, at any time and any place.
    But a Fundamentalist?

  53. avatar Joe R. says:

    “Larry Pratt, GOA, suggests armed revolt if Democrat elected” – (albeit with a weak and contra article)

    Finally somebody of National stature has stated what the consequence of chucking the Constitution is.

  54. avatar Craig says:


  55. avatar Sophist2k1 says:


  56. avatar JohnF says:

    All of you who say you are fundamentalists must be pretty damn frustrated. The NRA reckons there are 30,000+ infringements across this country. If I were a fundamentalist, I would call that “failure mode.” It’s just like people who are fundamentalist about capitalism. The train has sailed, folks! I admire your optimism, but not your touch with reality.

    And I hope you don’t call yourself a fundamentalist if you have a CHL or equivalent in your pocket, or have ever submitted to a NICS check, because that’s asking the state for a “pretty please” to have gun rights and a fundamentalist would never do that. Oh, I’ve heard the excuses, “I have to balance that with being a law abiding citizen (more like a subject)!” and “I don’t want to go to jail (at least that one is honest)!” That didn’t stop the framers of the Constitution!!! Laws and jail did not deter them. But OK, call yourself a fundamentalist if it makes you feel better.

    I belong, and contribute to, the NRA, the SAF and the VCDL, and I attend their events, including VA State Lobby Day and the upcoming counter-protest over Orlando at NRA HQ next week. I write my representatives about gun issues. But I am not a fundamentalist. I am a pragmatist. If I can do more with guns next year than this year, it’s a good year. If I can do less, it’s a bad one. To the extent 2A can help with that in the courts, great. But its record is 30,000 to not much.

  57. avatar LHW says:


  58. avatar Russ Bixby says:

    Almost, but there are some exceptions.

    For instance, even a violent offender should have free exercise of their rights restored once they’re out of the system, although a violent offender might merit a longer parole.

    However, certain types of offenders are not merely violent – such as shooting someone during a stick-up – but rather are seriously damaged individuals.

    These individuals are those who get off on hurting other people, and they probably should never have their weapons rights rights restored.

    Of course, it probably shouldn’t have their freedom restored either – but we can’t feed them forever.

    Exceptions make the rule…

    Those who argue that technological changes merit revisiting the second Article of the U.S. Bill of Rights would do well to remember that we now converse via and instrumentality far more capable and advanced than the printing presses and handbills of the 18th century.

    As Internet, telephone and so forth permit bad people to collaborate in real-time across and between continents, is it time to revisit the First Amendment?

    No to one means no to the other.

  59. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    “A sensible, mature society recognizes that extreme, destructive positions in the name of constitutional absolutism is just another form of fundamentalism,” opines …

    A sensible, mature society could manage to adjust the fundamental procedural and policy document defining its means of self-government.

    I look forward to the Boston Globe’s proposed amendment to the US Constitution, one that addresses and accounts for *all* its effects. Then the Boston Globe can orchestrate our society’s sensible, mature discussion on this topic.

    Am I an “absolutist?” Pretty much. Doubly so after I read “The Federalist Papers” coincident with the mid-stage of the 2008 presidential election. The US Constitution is, most fundamentally, a collection of definitions of authorities and administrative procedures for self-government, allowing a government sufficient to allow the country to protect itself, without the government governing in its own vs. the citizen’s interest, or otherwise going sideways.

    – Until it is revised, this is the governing partnership charter. This is how we do things.

    – I am skeptical that a revision is possible, given the forces being reconciled by the second amendment, or the constitution as a whole.

    This last is a trick from software-land. In the current terminology, a thing you are going to implement is a use case, plus a collection of forces bearing on the use case. For example: “Citizens doing gun things, with forces safety, personal defense, individual rights, etc.” “Forces” are the things you trade off.

    Gun “rights” rantings usually assert one force or another, then ignore the rest. It’s a bad design approach, resulting, to no surprise, in bad design.

    I won’t lose any sleep waiting for the Boston Globe, their sponsors or constituencies to come up with any concrete proposal that addresses the whole issue.

  60. avatar Scoutino says:

    Absolutist here.

  61. avatar PeterK says:

    “A sensible, mature society recognizes” that no laws should be necessary in a “utopia”. Everyone is perfect and you all just leave each other alone. Compulsion is the bellwether of a society going down the tubes. Liberty is the most effective safeguard of liberty.

    Why is that so hard for some people?

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
DeSantis Gunhide Question of the Day: Are you a Gun Rights “Fundamentalist”?" title="Email to a friend/colleague">
button to share via email