Previous Post
Next Post

CSGV nonsense

According to Chad R. MacDonald [quoted above], the NRA’s desire to protect Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutional right to keep and bear arms in order to defend against government tyranny – exactly as the Founding Fathers envisioned – undermines “the security of a free state.” I’m guessing that Chad doesn’t get the “free” part. But Chad’s confusion on the whole government vs. liberty thing is nothing compared to the Campaign to Stop Gun Violence’s Orwellian interpretation of Chad’s confusion. Translation of their caption: we must destroy the Second Amendment to defend it! (Sound familiar?) OK, they probably mean . . .

the Second Amendment was written to protect the right of citizen militias to keep and bear arms. Although that interpretation is ahistorical and ignores the fact that all the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are individual rights (not to mention the Heller decision clarifying that point), well then, where’s the CSGV militia? What better way to restore the “original interpretation” (note: not intent) of the Second Amendment than the creation of heavily-armed group of anti-gunners in a well-regulated militia? It wouldn’t be as idiotic as the quote above, but it’d be close.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. By “free” state, they want the state to be “free” to do whatever it wants. They don’t want the people to be “free” in the state. Big differentiator.

  2. It’s amazing to me how many people out in the world are afraid of freedom.
    A “heavily armed group of anti-gunners” sounds to me like the SS, the KGB or a swat team out of Chicago. These people are the antithesis of the America most of us grew up in. What a sad journey our country has taken since 1960.

    • “These people are the antithesis of the America most of us grew up in. What a sad journey our country has taken since 1960.”

      The Constitution was written as protection from exactly what WE have allowed OUR society to become. That is the honest and plain truth.
      An old dead guy said it better:

      “If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
      Samuel Adams

      WE freedom loving Americans are the Jews of Europe, and WE have the same mentality the Jews had towards those who wish us harm, and it didn’t go so swell for them.

      • One difference. The Jews of Europe had little to no access to means to defend themselves, and their beliefs while admirable did not condone hard resistance. They were also seen as outsiders despite living in the land for a thousand years. There are many in this country who on their sacred honor will not bow to tyranny.
        Those who look to honor just need to watch out for destructive boating accidents.

      • I love that quote.

        Here’s one Samuel might have known:

        “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage”

        Galatians 5:1

        Could this be why the founding fathers told the State of England to politely FOAD? They took their guidance in keeping with scripture?

        • I agree. Because, ultimately, the Christ was here to show us how, in voluntarily following the laws of G-d, we become free.

          I believe we have come the closest, in this country, though imperfectly, in living that truth.

          But as we drift further and further as a nation from G-d’s law, the growth of Man’s tyranny over man grows apace.

    • Stockholm syndrome.
      They grow dependent upon big brother to tell them what to do everyday that, when able to chose for themselves, they freak out and can’t handle the stress of making an actual decision.

  3. Well, according to federal law, we are the militia, so obviously we all need to be given weapons parity with active duty military. Works for me, my dream gun is an M2HB.

  4. More oppressive evil blue state (D)-head people appointing themselves over you.

    Keep your guns for the end of America so that you’ll have a better chance in having a vote in what comes next (unless your selling more of this crap, in which case we’ll get that settled first).

  5. As long as they are within their Constitutional Rights good for them. An opinion is always welcome, so long as minds remain open. That said, an overt confrontational attitude has the potential to erode gains. The last thing the pro-2A group wants is for the anti-2A group to point and say; see, we said those gun nuts are nuts!

  6. Chad is a Communist,and therefore he believes only party members should be armed. Chad and his ilk used to be the enemy,now they are in charge.

  7. This is the insanity of the Democrat Socialist Islamist movement: that to prevent gun violence, they’re willing to start a war. Of course, they stopped peaceful economic sanctions that were working to stop a future nuclear war that involved Iran.

    The future of the country and the world is being hurtled off a cliff thanks to mad agitators and there’s only one way to expel them from society and it looks like they want to draw first blood. They already have, how many cops have been killed in the country the past seven days? Three or four?

  8. CSGV’s Orwellian claim’s are contradicted by academic research into the origin of the 2A:

    Long paper, skip to last two last paragraphs if you’re not a history buff.

    Would be nice if history didn’t keep repeating itself and only kindness and compassion prevailed. In the mean time, the 2A seems like an effective deterrent.

  9. By and large, the Constitution is a beautifully written and thoughtfully designed document.

    Why, oh WHY did they get that one li’l passage so hopelessly vague – and thus incomprehensible to so many…?!?

    It is a conundrum, and infringes my purfuit of happineff.

    • The history of the Second Amendment shows a convergence of two issues:

      1. The right of the people to keep and bear arms – after all, the Revolution’s first shots were brought on by the Redcoats coming to seize arms and ammunition,

      2. The deep desire by the Founding Fathers for the nation to not have a professional, standing army, and instead rely upon a citizen militia. Further, the issue of the militia was complicated by a desire to see the militia trained, hence the term “well regulated.”

      The complication in the Second Amendment comes about because too many issues are being packed into too few words. What is unequivocal is that there is a right of “the people” (meaning, you, me and every other citizen of the United States) to keep and bear arms. That’s the “right” portion of the Second Amendment.

      The rest of the wording of the Second Amendment was an attempt to pack in the desires of the Founders to a) not have a standing army, b) establish the militia (which we can also see in the contemporaneous Militia Act of 1792), and c) stipulate that the militia should be trained.

      The Founding Fathers were, in general, highly suspicious of standing armies, and this can be seen further from the Third Amendment. The Third Amendment, which is the most ignored of the Bill of Rights, came about because standing armies were often lodged in private homes whilst on maneuvers or deployments. This meant that they would be eating your food, using your facilities and often trying their luck at your wife and/or daughters. This tends to piss a man off as few other things can do, which led to the position of the Founders on the issue of standing armies.

      • DGuns is correct. Reading through Washington A Life by Ron Chernow.

        “At the time many Americans were influenced by Whig ideology, equating centralized power with tyranny, Washington argued only a central power could safeguard liberty….instead of recommending professional army…Washington making a concession opted for a halfway measure: uniform standards for state militas.”

    • No Russ. The founders didn’t get it wrong. Anyone with a clear and honest intent, and a simple understanding of English, knows what the 2nd amendment says.

      But just as simply having a gun does not make a person free, simply having words, no matter how clear or simply worded on a piece of parchment, will protect our freedoms.

      As always, It will be by those who would rather die free on their feet rather than live on their knees, that determines a free person or a slave.

    • Russ, as a lawyer, it’s my opinion that the Constitution is as clear as mud on many issues, but that 2A is one of the clearest expressions in the entire document. “Shall not be infringed” — it doesn’t get more straightforward than that.

    • Nah, it’s far from the only passage that’s “hopelessly vague.” Consider the commerce clause, or the general welfare clause, or the part about treaties overriding “the (Constitution or laws) of any state” (or was that “(the Constitution) or (laws of any state)”?)

  10. CSGV has really gone off the deep end, haven’t they? Do they get more money that way, or are they getting desperate for cash and are clutching at straws?

  11. Side Conversation:

    The quote used in the above image is by “Quite Mike”, a random website that has the look of the typical socialist (if not communist) leaning and not a website of note or meaningful information or discussion.

    But the issue: when did it become acceptable to pull quotes from random people (via twitter, for example), from random website, or really anyone/any organization that is not a recognized authority on a subject?

    I couldn’t get away writing research papers that cited the local grocery store’s public bulletin board as an authoritative or meaningful source; I would be laughed out of the classroom. When did it become acceptable for major news programs (and the CSGV) to pull quotes from non-authoritative sources, from nobodies, and say it is “news” (or really meaningful to the conversation)?

    I don’t discuss important issues with others and say, “Well, (local homeless man and alcoholic) Richard Drinkenbooz said that the Iranian nuclear deal is the best thing for both countries… so that settles the issue.”

    • Methinks you may not quite understand how millennials and social media have accelerated the coming of ‘Idiocracy’. Some tween with 100K vapid little idiots subscribers becomes an “authority” by virtue of the number of sycophants.

      We live in a world where professional sign companies routinely install signs with possessive apostrophes to indicate plurals. My hope dies a little more every day.

  12. When I was in school (many, many years ago) my teacher explain the “…free state…” in the Second Amendment referred to the state of being free, as in no burdened by government interference. So when did these guys get the idea that the ‘free state’ meant the “State” should be free, as in the government should be free to impose its will on the citizens?

  13. ‘undermines “the security of a free state.” I’m guessing that Chad doesn’t get the “free” part.’

    Sure he does. He wants to be sure that the STATE be free to do what it wants.

    You, since you aren’t “the state,” don’t matter.

  14. Some of the disarmed people murdered by the governments of the world, Christians Rome, Jews Nazi Germany, Aztecs Spanish, Maori of NZ and Aboriginals Australia, Scottish William Wallace, the Irish, Welsh by English and the Native America by the US government. THIS is why we need guns to protect ourselves from those who would subject us to their whim and if this is not enough just google dictators.There are over 400 gun laws on the books and they have done nothing to stop the violence because of the winey few. We are chastised for wanting to protect ourselves. We NEED guns to protect ourselves from criminals in and out of the government. I deserve the right to protect myself and if you don’t like like it tough shit.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here