Joe the Plumber: No More Mr. Nice Guy

Joe The Plumber courtesy

By Joe “The Plumber” Wurzelbacher

The following originally appeared at and is reprinted here with permission.

I wrote my “open letter” on the eve of Memorial day – a day we honor the fallen heroes that defend and protect our rights. These men and women that served and paid the ultimate price for our way of life were someone’s dad, mom, brother, sister, or daughter. They made that sacrifice, which guarantees our freedoms because they believe in America. So I’m asking the question: Why are the lives of these brave Americans less important than the victims of Elliot Rodger? . . .

Because if the solution to this horrific incident is surrendering to the devious schemes of oppression; it nullifies the sacrifice of all Veterans. To infringe on our rights to bear arms would make a mockery of our fallen heroes who died defending our way of life.

Left-leaning politicians and their lapdogs in the mainstream media want to use this “crisis” to further chip away our rights. They want to use these deaths to gain more power and more control. They only care about the victims so long as they serve a purpose.

The killings are useful, the grieving an opportunity, the survivors are props in a staged circus of phony outrage, but with real people now damaged by the very policies the Marxists hope to arrange more of.

Don’t believe me? Look how the country has taken care of our veterans.

The horror story is right in front of our faces. This President swore five years ago to do something about it and billions of dollars later, all we have to show are dead Veterans in Arizona and no one accountable.

Because once these heroes return from the battlefield, they are no longer useful to the left. They’re thrown aside and ignored in a VA bureaucracy which should have been an obvious warning to all against the horrors of socialized medicine.

Even when 90-year-old men in wheelchairs wish to visit the WWII Memorial in Washington D.C. – a monument they built by trudging across Europe in their bare feet to kill Nazis, cramming into submarines in the South Pacific to hold off the invading Japanese, and staring down Rommel’s tanks in Africa – they’re confronted with steel barricades, compliments of the Administration.

Back to guns:

-Whistles don’t protect women from rape – a GLOCK does!

-When armed men come into your house to steal, a baseball bat doesn’t cut it. Unless you have an automatic-baseball bat. I want one of those – email me.

-When a nut-job decides to go on a killing spree and the cops are 5 to 15 minutes away, you are screwed unless you are carrying a Colt.

-And – this is the most important one:

Guns are mostly for hunting down politicians who would actively seek to take your freedoms and liberty away from you. Google “Hitler, Mao, Kim Jung Il, Castro, Stalin” just for starters.

As far as me being nice, cordial, respectful – don’t hurt people’s feelings… bla bla? We tried that and look where it got us?


  1. avatar ChrisB says:

    I am not a big Joe fan, but I 100% agree with him on this.

    If a father, backed by a political group with a stated intent of shredding the fourth or fifth amendments, came out after the killing of his child by a tried and found not guilty arrestee, and said: “we need to do away with with jury trials and the cravens who support jury trial”, or “We need to stop the cowards who defend due process” would the people saying he is wrong be the bad guys?

    I am not so much mad at the father, although he cravenly forgot about the three people stabbed to death, but his statement was covered on the front page of NYT, WPost, CNN et all.

    If a father of one of the stabbed boys had said: “we need a public list of all people who have been to see a doctor for mental health issues, and anyone defending the right to privacy is responsible for people being killed.” Do you think that would have been promoted by the press?

    1. avatar Bruce L. says:

      I wish someone would ask the father, since it was the NRA’s fault, exactly what he did to protect his son, or what his son did to protect himself. Yes, I do feel sorry for him, but did he even talk to his son about protecting himself.

      1. Very well said !!!

        Each individual is responsible for protecting themselves and their family!

    2. avatar TED McTAGUE says:

      Good one Chris.

  2. Thank you, this will make a new hash tag very soon.

    Shannon, dear, make it a good one. I’m paying you millions for a reason.

    1. avatar New Continental Army says:


    2. These #GunBullies and #RedneckTaliban want to threaten our politicians and #MurderDeathKill all our babies with their #OogaBoogaGuns because of this #TerroristPlumber. #NoMoreGunDeaths #DemandAction #GunSense

      1. avatar New Continental Army says:

        Oh my God its really gone this far. Bravo.

        1. avatar Dev says:


        2. I really hope this got some laughs while at the same time showing the seriousness of making such comments publicly.

          He’s going to get eviscerated by the antis, if it isn’t already happening. The worst part is that I agree with him.

      2. avatar Braenen says:

        Chief George Earle: We can just wait for another code to go red. And when Phoenix performs another Murder Death Kill, we’ll know exactly where to pounce.

        John Spartan: [sarcastic] Great plan.

        1. Kudos on getting my Demolition Man reference.

    3. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      I like everything that is happening, right now.

  3. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    I like this.
    I really, really like this.

  4. avatar TheOtherDavid says:

    And when you say “Guns are mostly for hunting down politicians who would actively seek to take your freedoms and liberty away from you” you mean… ?

    1. avatar ChrisB says:

      My dad did exactly that in World War Two. What do you think it means? All the worst guys in modern history have been stopped with guns.

      1. avatar TheOtherDavid says:

        I think it means that whatever the context, that one sentence is already showing up on blogs and Facebook. With predictable results.

        1. avatar DTAL says:

          Shows how far this country has fallen when people mock, dismiss, or get angry at the righteous concept of free people standing up against tyrannical politicians. Nowhere did Joe say he was going to hunt politicians, or tell anyone to, he merely stated a historical fact about the 2A. And people apparently can’t even deal with that.

        2. James Yeager stated the same position on protecting his rights and he was tared and feathered by “the people of the gun” (Paul T. McCain et. al.).
          I say again that the profound irony in the fight to retain RKBA, is that the tyrants will use the very same devices that they are taking from us to achieve disarmament. And those agents of Government swore an oath to protect our rights yet the armed citizen, who took no oath, is the one fighting to preserve Liberty.
          What I like about Joe’s statement and what drew me to Yeager’s camp is, these guys may be walking on egg shells, but they are crushing them with no remorse. PC stands for Punks Cry!

      2. avatar Bob12 says:

        Stamp Act of 1765. Boston Tea Party 1773. Intolerable Acts of 1774. American Revolutionary War 1775 – 1783. Declaration of Independence 1776. If I compare the general mood of the citizenry to this time period, I think we are about 1772. As an optimist, I believe we will elect the right people, and turn this around; as a student of history, I have a pessimistic view on what is about to happen. So regardless if the progressives attack what Joe said, his statement is really an observation of a probable (and perhaps likely) outcome to their actions whether they like it or not. It is simple cause and effect equation. Government does this; people do that. Do not get me wrong on my statement, for most everyone on this blog hopes that this will get resolved peacefully using fair elections and the true interpretation of the Constitution.

    2. avatar New Continental Army says:

      Exactly what it says it means. That’s why the Second Amendment is there.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Yep. That’s an inconvenient truth for some but a truth none the less.

    3. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      “And when you say “Guns are mostly for hunting down politicians who would actively seek to take your freedoms and liberty away from you” you mean… ?”

      Tickle fight, obviously.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        For the win today on the Intertubz!

    4. avatar DTAL says:

      People on our side need to stop pussyfooting around why the 2A was created. It’s not hunting, it’s not sporting, it’s about protecting individual freedom, whether that means defending your home from intruders or your rights from corrupt politicians.

      If that makes people uncomfortable, then that’s on their pathetic heads. And if it makes politicians uncomfortable, then good, that was its intent.

      1. But bearing arms isn’t enough. A well regulated Militia is the only hope we have. We have one more shot at political victory in November. 2016 means nothing. We have to get a Conservative majority in the Senate this year. Failing that and it is only a matter of time before the bottom falls out. The 2nd amendment, as a threat, is not powerful enough. Without a well regulated Militia, many people will die at the hands of American progressive tyrants. With a Militia standing in the way, the threat of the 2nd A is realized and less blood will be shed. Peace through strength is the path to Liberty.

      2. avatar Debra says:

        Amen to that! That’s why I carry my 1911!

    5. avatar Reader says:

      Did you do as Joe requested? “Google “Hitler, Mao, Kim Jung Il, Castro, Stalin” just for starters.”

    6. avatar William Burke says:

      With bullets.

      1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        Bullets would be the active ingredient.

    7. avatar meadowsr says:

      Read _Term_Limits_ by Vince Flynn.

      Scott Coleman is my new hero.

  5. avatar Hannibal says:

    “As far as me being nice, cordial, respectful – don’t hurt people’s feelings… bla bla? We tried that and look where it got us?”

    That is poor logic, but about what I would expect.

    The problem isn’t that we haven’t used the phrase “your dead kids” enough. Joe is mistaking kindness for weakness.

  6. avatar lizzrd says:

    This jerk is a walking cliche. His 15 minutes were up years ago.

    1. avatar ChrisB says:

      If someone said your fourth amendment rights should be tossed out because someone else murder his kid, would someone objecting and defending fourth or fifth be a cliche?

      Or do you mean he is a cliche for working with his hands and employing people?

    2. avatar Dev says:

      So he’s not entitled to voice his opinion but you are free to call him a jerk? Nice.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        Just because someone is entitled to express an opinion doesn’t mean people have to agree with it, respect it, or even listen to it…

        1. Articles like this never fail to separate the men from the boys.

  7. avatar New Continental Army says:

    I agree with this guy, but he really aught to keep his gun ready- by putting himself out there this much, I can guarantee he’s become the target of some other leftist loony psychopath bent on changing this mans mind and trying to kill him or his children.

  8. avatar the ruester says:

    “…who, old Crazy Joe? Aww, he just sits back their whittlin’ all day, don’t pay him no mind…”

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      + one hunnerd.

  9. avatar Pantera Vazquez says:

    Don’t know this plumber from any other, nor why I should. That being stated-his message is on point.

    1. Welcome out from under your rock.

  10. avatar mk10108 says:

    Go Joe Go. So how does if feel when the most powerful man in the world lies to your face, takes your labor and for a vote, hands it to another?

    If one more citizen thanks me for 13 years of service, I’ll reply…keep you thanks, call your congressman and get pissy with them. Thank your elected representative for supporting underfunding the VA. Thank them for funding a bridge or train to nowhere. Thank them for building a castle that neither supports of serves veterans. Thank them for maximizing their efforts to get re-elected promising funding for another carrier group we don’t need. Thank them for wiping their ass with our Constitution. Thank them for denying citizens the right of lawful self protection. Thank them for the “new bill” their working on that does nothing to solve the problem it suppose to fix. Thank them for being ineffective & useless to the people they represent. Thank them for their lack of leadership, lack of logic, and overall laziness.

    Oh yeah I forgot, Joe the Plumber…spot on. The Eagle shits on Friday and shit doesn’t flow uphill.

    1. avatar William Burke says:


    2. avatar Louis says:

      As the old adage goes, you can never have enough guns. Same goes for the Navy. You can never have enough battle groups. There’s more water than land on this planet. USN retired. No thanks required. Build more battle groups and port them in Mayport, Fl.

      1. avatar I1uluz says:

        Mayport does not have electrical shore power to support a CVN’s requirements. I am sure Norfolk would love to send you a couple with all the traffic that goes with them. As for the CG’s they want to get rid of, they are flight 2, unable to carry the ABM version of the Standard SAM system. The VLS compartments are too short for the extended booster. So now the Navy has to stock missiles just for these few CG’s and the rest of the Burke and Tico class ships. So it is a waste of money to keep them around.

  11. avatar Paul says:

    Frankly, I’m a little disappointed that Robert allowed this post. Joe the plumber is a joke who is using this event to try and regain his 15 minutes. We don’t need him and shouldn’t be affiliated with him.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      And yet he allowed your post. Irony abounds.

  12. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Yikes…I agree & disagree at the same time.

    1. “It is time for the American people to buck up!”
      Barack Obama

  13. I like Joe the Plumber and agree in principal with everything he says here. But the way he has jumped on this tragedy to make some headlines for himself is just as sickening as the anti-gunners who capitalize on it for their own political agenda, as well.

    What’s more, this isn’t really any kind of intellectual argument, more of him yelling obvious catch phrases (complete with exclamation points!). This isn’t even preaching to the choir, more like shouting at them.

    1. avatar Paul says:

      Exactly right. Moreover, Joe is distasteful to say the very least. He actually makes Shannon look good and that’s hard to do.

  14. avatar Ralph says:

    Because once these heroes return from the battlefield, they are no longer useful to the left.

    Actually, once these heroes return from the battlefield, they are no longer useful to the government. Left, right, it makes no difference.

    Those heroes thought they were fighting for their country, but they were actually fighting for their government. And the government doesn’t care about anything it can’t use or exploit.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      Also, “I love my country, but I fear my government.”

  15. avatar Will McG says:

    Maybe a little off topic, but … They say a conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged … My question is this … What would the Michael Bloombergs, Shannon Watts, and every other civil disarmament proponent do if extremist, right-wing, militia took control of the country …

    1. avatar Ardent says:

      A truly extremist right wing militia has taken control? I’d assume they would either serve long sentences or else be executed for treason and sedition. Odd question though.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      That is an odd question. Please define “extremist, right-wing.”

      1. I believe it means a Libertarian who has voted in every single election since Ross Perot and has yet to see his candidate gain more than 8% of the vote. I believe it is a Republican that ever since Regan’s first term has been shocked every time the Democrats win the white house and is disapointed in his own party for failed policies when they win. I believe a Right Wing Extremist is anybody that not only knows that the Government is a money waisting bureaucracy but they are upset by it.
        I guess that makes me one.

    3. avatar Jus Bill says:

      I truly couldn’t say. But we do have kind of an example, since an extremist left wing militia seems to have taken over the country early in 2012.

      1. avatar Ardent says:

        Just so, and well said.

  16. avatar neiowa says:

    Hey whiners! Who do you want living next door (guy you could count on), Joe the Plumber or Shootgun Joe the Dimwit Biden?

    1. avatar Bruce L. says:

      Actually, I would take Biden.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Biden, because i would either turn him into a gun activist or bug the living shit out of him night and day. 😀

      1. avatar Ardent says:

        I have this set of Crate amps you could borrow. . .

    3. avatar JimmyDelta says:

      Pretty sure having Biden next door would put me in a nicer neighborhood and a nicer house, but…

  17. avatar DTAL says:

    Love how haughty supposed 2A supporters around here get when someone on the gun rights side says the brutal, honest truth.

    But keep playing nice with those who would steal your rights and leave you to die. Keep writing your congressmen. Keep crafting intellectual and reasoned discussions that will be immediately dismissed or buried by the antis. When the next AWB comes down the pipe, just snap your fingers and abide by it like you did the last one.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Look who’s being haughty. And it takes pressure of all kinds to move or stop legislation.

      1. avatar DTAL says:

        Not haughty. Jaded.

    2. avatar William Burke says:

      The operative word is “supposed”.

      They are NOT supporters of the Second Amendment, but watchdogs of their own rights, and no one else’s.

      All mouth and ego, no rights.

  18. avatar Kevin J says:

    Why would this site post something by this clown? Are we supposed to actually value his opinion. I was sick of this simpleton when he first popped up 6 years ago and thought he’d quickly disappear. And he has…besides on this site. The potg need a better spokesperson than “joe the douche.”

  19. avatar Jonathan -- Houston says:

    Hunting down politicians is the last possible stop before which a reasonable person can safely disembark “Joe the Plumber’s” crazy train before it goes off the rails.

    What and whom he means by “politician” is clear, and tossing a puff of smoke around the language won’t obscure it. Oh, I understand, he thinks he’s being clever by mentioning Hitler, Mao, Kim Jong Il, Castro, and Stalin; like those are valid comparisons. Every single politician in America has won an election, is subject to an upcoming election, or is otherwise under stricture to depart office by a specified date. Every one. The dictators he mentioned never won legitimate election to the highest position of national leadership in their respective countries and never governed with the consent of the governed.

    Now, I don’t claim that every U.S. election is perfect. The fact of voting irregularities has been well documented, including by some criminal convictions here and there. However, those imperfections do not rise to the level of throwing into doubt the validity of the elections’ outcomes. “Joe the Plumber” is being worse than too cute by half, he’s being hasty and incendiary with language strongly suggestive of illegal violence.

    His only saving grace is that nobody gives a rat’s rear end who “Joe the Plumber” is to heed his reckless wishes. Although, this latest stunt may well attract the attention of other parties and invitation to explain his views further, as well it should.

    1. avatar the ruester says:


    2. avatar DTAL says:

      Though Hitler didn’t win an election, he did rise to power legally. Just saying.

      So you’re saying that the democratic process (aka, mob rule, in which the majority dictates what’s right) is foolproof in keeping tyrants from being elected? Or that a tyrant gets a free pass at causing catastrophic, perhaps murderous damage because all we have to do is survive 4 or 8 years to vote him out and hope he’s not succeeded by another just like him?

      I’m not advocating violence, I’m simply pointing out the illogic in your argument. A tyrant being “legally elected” does not allow him to be a tyrant.

      Nice to know you support the intrusive government detaining and interrogating someone for stating a historical fact, though. Tells me all I need to know about you and why you love government supremacy. Proves that being a gun owner is not the same as being pro-rights.

      1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        Hitler did not rise to power legally. He ran for president, garnered all of about a third of the vote, and lost. An aging, sickly, fearful Hindenburg, *himself* taken of late with ruling by edict at that point, unilaterally appointed Hitler as Chancellor. Illegal. Then Hitler proceeded to murder his political opponents. Also illegal. Old man Hindenburg died, then Hitler unilaterally abolished the office of President and assumed dictatorial power. Epic illegal. Who woud stop him? Nobody, lest they sign their own death warrant.

        Don’t get smart and equate mob rule with democratic process. It’s a third rate high school debating tactic to self-define your opponent’s position, then argue against what you created. It’s clown shoes. You’re better than that. Democratic process is understood in this country and throughout the West to include not simply one man, one vote, absolute majority rule, absolutely. You know full well it implies civil rights protection, free press, transparent judiciary, rule of law, and many other features too unwieldly to type out every time. Hence the resort to the shorthand term democratic process.

        No one is saying that this administration is acting lawfully. In fact, that’s the first and perhaps only thing we all agree on. Where we differ is in how to rectify it. When I assessed the election results, I saw plain as day that tbe reason this guy is in office is because the people forfeited their civic duty first, to vote at all, and then the rest to vote responsibly. Nevertheless, that’s the democratic process and the people chose it. You’ll never get me to impose by bullets what millions others refuse to fix by ballots.

        The democratic process has its failings, to be sure. Hell, let’s call it the worst system in the world. Except…..for all the rest. The illogic here is in comparing our president, who is a criminal in my opinion and should have been voted out in 2012 or impeached and removed today, with tyrants of yore.

        People like you toss around words like “tyrant” with the insoucience of a country whose living population has never had to endure the real thing. Yeah, yeah, yeah, NSA this and IRS that. I get it and I resent all of it. Show me your stumps. Show me the stumps, where your arms used to be, before another political party or tribe lopped them off with a machete. Show me the mass grave. Show me the mass grave where your family (you think) is buried with hundreds of others, snatched in the night by the secret police, never to be seen alive again. Can’t, can you? That’s what tyranny looks like. America, on the other hand, looks like a whole lot of OFWG’s who would rather bitch, moan and pontificate about democracy, than participate in it.

        “History shows that it does not matter who is in power or what revolutionary forces take over the government, those who have not learned to do for themselves and have to depend solely on others never obtain any more rights or privileges in the end than they had in the beginning.” Carter G. Woodson

        So go ahead, with your faux indignation and pseuodo-patriotism, and bicker all night and judge the liberty bona fides if others, like in some dorm room bull session. In the end, your views will attract no adherents and your efforts will have effected no change.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          So, that’s how you, Jonathon – Houston, define tyranny. Interesting but irrelevant. How did those founders of this nation define tyranny? Wouldn’t that be more relevant than your stumps and graves criteria? I’d rather stop tyranny before the stumps and graves become a big problem, thank you very much! 😀

        2. avatar William Burke says:

          “Don’t get smart and equate mob rule with democratic process. It’s a third rate high school debating tactic to self-define your opponent’s position, then argue against what you created. It’s clown shoes.”

          [Applause]. With “friends” like them, no enemies need to be added to the equation. They would sacrifice our rights just to be allowed a .22 bolt-action rifle.

          If you want to piss away our rights, you are the enemy, so get used to it.

        3. avatar DTAL says:

          –Don’t get smart and equate mob rule with democratic process. It’s a third rate high school debating tactic to self-define your opponent’s position, then argue against what you created. It’s clown shoes. You’re better than that. Democratic process is understood in this country and throughout the West to include not simply one man, one vote, absolute majority rule, absolutely. You know full well it implies civil rights protection, free press, transparent judiciary, rule of law, and many other features too unwieldly to type out every time. Hence the resort to the shorthand term democratic process.–

          This is a total non-argument. You implied that the democratic process was some sacred process by which a tyrant is perfectly fine because he was legally elected (even then, are you totally sure he was legally elected?). The democratic process, yes, is mob rule, without that whole “Constitutional Republic” part that keeps getting in the way of loathsome politicians forcing their agendas with impunity. There’s no “implication” of all that jazz you said. You’re gonna tell me European countries with democratically elected bodies have the same level of rights, freedom of press, and so on that we have here with out Constitutional limits? And you’re seeing now what happens when a legally elected governing body decides to ignore the Constitution. Good thing at least one of us decided to “get smart.”

          –The democratic process has its failings, to be sure. Hell, let’s call it the worst system in the world. Except…..for all the rest. The illogic here is in comparing our president, who is a criminal in my opinion and should have been voted out in 2012 or impeached and removed today, with tyrants of yore.
          People like you toss around words like “tyrant” with the insoucience of a country whose living population has never had to endure the real thing. Yeah, yeah, yeah, NSA this and IRS that. I get it and I resent all of it. Show me your stumps. Show me the stumps, where your arms used to be, before another political party or tribe lopped them off with a machete. Show me the mass grave. Show me the mass grave where your family (you think) is buried with hundreds of others, snatched in the night by the secret police, never to be seen alive again. Can’t, can you? That’s what tyranny looks like. America, on the other hand, looks like a whole lot of OFWG’s who would rather bitch, moan and pontificate about democracy, than participate in it.–

          From Tyrant: any person in a position of authority who exercises power oppressively or despotically. So, tell me how my definition of Obama or any gun-grabbing politician is wrong. You don’t need to be a jackbooted German to be a tyrant. Don’t be naive and think that evil is going to announce itself like a GI Joe villain.

          The only thing I gather from this is that you’re in favor of waiting until despotic control is absolute, and people are being murdered, and “your” definition of tyranny has come to full fruition before anyone should dream of calling it what it is. Thanks, but I actually like learning from history. Out of curiosity, which colonists had their limbs hacked off, or were buried in mass graves, or sent to concentration camps? Oh, so you’re saying the founding fathers were still able to recognize tyranny even without the endgame result of absolute power? I look forward to your dissertation on why the colonist revolutionaries were wrong.

          –So go ahead, with your faux indignation and pseuodo-patriotism, and bicker all night and judge the liberty bona fides if others, like in some dorm room bull session. In the end, your views will attract no adherents and your efforts will have effected no change.–

          Comfort yourself by exercising your mental projection of all the things you are. I’m completely secure in who I am and what I’ve discovered over years of study and contemplation. I’ve come to grips with harsh realities, which appears to be the area you’re lacking. Perhaps the disconnect comes from our different levels of tolerance for oppression. So long as you’re being legitimately and lawfully oppressed, you appear to be fine with it. If a politician is telling you how to live your life, but not hacking off your limbs with a machete, you appear to find that acceptable. I don’t.

          And for what it’s worth, I’ve brought at least ten people into the fold in the past year with harsh reality and a trip to the range. Perhaps the Plumber’s delivery won’t bring any converts, but scathing truth delivered effectively and honestly can and does work.

          Unfortunate that we fall into this divisive bickering while the enemies of the 2A are united in their vile cause. We likely agree on more than we disagree.

        4. avatar Jonathan -- Houston says:

          That and the other guy’s parting shot, were utterly painful to read. Keyboard commandos in Crocs and Dockers, most of whom have never been any place more foreign than CanCun, briefly, during a cruise ship excursion, prattling on about tyrants. Good grief. No wonder we’re losing in major states. Hell, even I’m embarrassed to be associated with half of you people.

        5. avatar neiowa says:


        6. avatar Ardent says:

          I’ll show you my stumps!

          Look there at the end of my paycheck, see what I got and what the government got? They left me a stump.
          Look at the end of my rifle, see a silencer there? You don’t, you see the stump where it would be if not for the over reach of government.
          Look at my concealed carry permit, you’ll see the stump where my rights used to be.
          Look at Obamacare, you’ll see the stump where the free market ended.

          You want stumps, we got ’em. I could show you thousands of stumps. Should we really wait until it’s our bodies that are shredded and not just our rights and liberties?

        7. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Nice ad hominem attacks without a grain of substance Jonathan “Stumps and Graves” Houston. 😀

        8. avatar cmeat says:

          the ‘bear jew’ stopped hitler. sheesh.

    3. avatar Ardent says:

      I don’t believe you could be more mistaken.

      “Guns are mostly for hunting down politicians who would actively seek to take your freedoms and liberty away from you. Google “Hitler, Mao, Kim Jung Il, Castro, Stalin” just for starters.”

      This is the quote?

      Let’s consider this: Americans, freedom loving armed Americans fought Hitler’s troops in Europe and Africa, and Mao’s in Korea. These were ‘politicians’ who wanted to take away peoples rights (to live in many cases) whom armed Americans were hunting. Mao fought a bloody revolution to come to power and many Chinese also ‘hunted’ him by facing his troops. The examples are too numerous to name but no people who ever sought to thwart or overthrow a tyrannical government ever felt that had too many arms.

      If you think ‘Joe’ was inciting violence domestically you must believe that our current government is at least as illegitimate as Kim’s or else as intolerable to humanity as Hitler’s. Otherwise your accusation makes little sense.

      1. avatar Jonathan -- Houston says:

        You’re another one, like Joe, who wants to play games with words. Hence your cutesy placement of “politicians” in quotes. It shows that even you know that’s b.s.

        By no reasonable reading of the term can the word “politician” be applied to describe those dictators; only one of which even so much as temporarily feigned appreciation for any lawful political process. Fraudulently labeling them politicians, as opposed to bloody dictators, is a dash of wordplay on Joe’s part simultaneously to justify his suggestion of domestic violence, and to evade answering for it. It’s his paltry attempt at moral equivalence to cover his implicit threats.

        “If you think ‘Joe’ was inciting violence domestically you must believe that our current government is at least as illegitimate as Kim’s or else as intolerable to humanity as Hitler’s. Otherwise your accusation makes little sense.”

        This quote of yours makes no sense. I do think Joe is trying to tip toe up to the line of outright calling for violence, because JOE, not me, believes our current government is illegitimate. That’s why Joe compares this administration to the dictators he did. All I did is call him out on his veiled threat and the popping strands of his overstretched comparison.

        1. avatar Ardent says:

          Joe didn’t make the comparison you describe. He didn’t come anywhere near it. If you think that was a call to action in the US you’re the threat, not Joe. Maybe work on reading comprehension and history a little, then talk about other peoples posts.

        2. avatar Jonathan -- Houston says:

          The guy griped about politicians taking rights, then went on to say guns are useful for hunting politicians who………wait for it……take people’s rights! Sooo……where exactly what I mistaken? lol You and the other two are just mad because I won’t join in, or at least applaud, your ludicrous “Red Dawn” fantasies. Grow up, sir.

          Never mind. You’re stuck in tunnel vision at this point, and anyone who’s read this far this long will have similarly concluded for themselves that this horse is dead. Here ends the beating.

        3. avatar neiowa says:

          You’re trolling bub.

    4. avatar uncommon_sense says:


      An individual obtaining or staying in political office illegally is only one way to be a tyrant.

      Any politician who actively exceeds the state or federal constitutional bounds of their office is a tyrant. And any politician who creates laws that violate their state or federal constitutions is a tyrant.

      Finally, you fail to consider appointees and bureaucrats. Once at their station, they can exceed the constitutional or legal authority of their position or act in contravention to law or state and federal constitutions. Those people would be tyrants as well.

      To summarize people who receive a government salary are NOT automatically right in everything they do.

      Don’t get me wrong. I am not hoping for violence. Unfortunately, our political system is failing. Sure, we might vote a tyrant out of office. And yet another member of that tyrant’s team takes his/her place and the same illegal, extra-constitutional policies and laws continue. Or how about a Justice Department that is in contempt of Congress and faces no sanctions or prosecution for their illegal activities? I could continue but I hope you get the idea. What other options do we have to restore law, order, and ALL of our rights and liberties? Government certainly isn’t going to do it.

      1. avatar Jonathan -- Houston says:

        You came too late to the party, US, or I did. Your points are ok to refute (as in not utterly asinine on their face nor worth no more than an eye roll), and can be refuted, but I need to call it a night. Big client meeting early tomorrow. I’ll refer you to my responses to the other two above and you can determine for yourself what within those applies to yours. Another time, my friend? Take care.

        1. avatar Ardent says:

          Let me give that another flavor: you’re escaping from what you know is a losing argument. You’re either a plant, or a troll, or a fool. I’ve yet to see you make anything like a reasoned argument and at this point I don’t even believe you’re capable.

        2. avatar DTAL says:

          Precisely, Ardent. He’s been soundly thrashed on his flawed “elections unequivocally create legitimate governing bodies, even those that are appointed for life roles without elections, like the SCOTUS” argument and can’t admit it. If the points were so easily refuted, he could have done so in the time it took to type up that little exit strategy.

  20. avatar Kevin J says:

    “Because once these heroes return from the battlefield, they are no longer useful to the left.” Ha…it’s not like the right has any use for disabled veterans after they are done fighting the republican’s war. Republicans aren’t exactly known for helping those in need.

    1. avatar Jonathan -- Houston says:

      Well, there were numerous and assorted programs for veterans, primarily at the state level, but also at the federal level throughout the first century+ of the nation’s existence.

      However, the consolidation of the major federal veteran-serving agencies did come in 1930 under Republican President Hoover with the establishment of the Veterans Administration. Among its responsibilities, the VA assumed responsibility for the National Cemetery System (excluding Arlington) in 1973 under Republican President Nixon. The Department of Veterans Affairs was established as a cabinet-level position in 1989 under Republican President George H.W. Bush. All of these came in points in history of either peace or substantial winding down of hot military operations.

      So there’s clearly been some attention paid to veterans by republicans over the years. Perhaps it has something to do with those republicans having actually served in the military or in combat zones?

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Could it be that serving during times of actual threat to the United States was, at one time, considered the duty of a man? Whereas, it perhaps morphed into something else along the way when making wars of aggression?

        1. avatar Jonathan -- Houston says:

          I’ll agree that defending the country is the duty of all men, and women, for that matter. I’ll even throw in that WWII was about as close to a morally unambiguous war as there ever could be. However, very few of the rest of our conflicts, after the War of 1812, involved genuine threats to the country, so the premise is faulty from the beginning.

          That’s all not beside, but far beyond, the point. The point was only whether Republican have done anything noteworthy for veterans, which they have. I think the post-WWII G.I. Bill was passed by a GOP-held Congress, too, but I left that out earlier because I wasn’t certain and didn’t have a chance to verify. Still don’t have much time, so I’m leaving that as an “I think….”, to give myself some wiggle room and not to overstate it.

        2. avatar Ardent says:

          John, I don’t believe we’ve ever disagreed, but. . .

          With globalization and the rise of the NBC age, the reach and scope of the damage even insignificant nations and non-state groups are capable of have forever changed the equation for what is a defensive war or a war of aggression. I’m not claiming that what we’re up to now makes sense in those terms, or that there aren’t more pressing problems (Iran comes to mind), but I’d be very careful in my calculus regarding what is and isn’t a just war.

          That said, if the nation declares and enemy and one goes to fight it he can be said to be doing his duty. If we would have men stand up to fight the next enemy, real or imagined, that is, if we would long exist as a nation, we must treat our veterans better than this, no matter what war they fought.

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          We probably do disagree somewhat on that issue, Ardent. My position is somewhat unpopular and I won’t try to flesh it out here. Although I, like many, have some interest in how veterans are treated by government today; a small, constitutional federal government could not sustain a large standing military. That means that there wouldn’t be many positions available for individuals to remain in the military for 20 years or more. There wouldn’t be be a large veteran apparatus under a constitutional federal system. I’ll leave it at that since it’s not the hill that I wish to take today. 🙂

          I do, however, believe that promises were made to veterans who have already served and are currently so it is incumbent upon the federal government to honor those obligations. Government is not doing that and there needs to be serious accounting.

  21. avatar Unknown Prosecutor says:

    Good to see the POTG are kicking the ball into their own net again… Joe the Plumber as a an advocate to win hearts and minds of undecideds is as inviting as the Newsmax popup “news bar” that appears when I come to this site. If the 2nd Amendment does not emerge from the “red corner” and become more of a bipartisan issue, we might as well turn em all in… Just like the Bundy issue, stop making the easily mocked spokesmen for the cause. JtP is the ultimate preacher to the right wing choir and a failed politician.

  22. avatar PeterC says:

    Maybe you wouldn’t nominate Joe the Plumber for membership in your polo club or poetry group, but I’d welcome him as my next door neighbor.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      He can be in mine anytime. The poetry group, I mean. I know nothing from polo.

      Never been a fan of “Joe the Plumber”. Seeing who’s attacking him, I am now.

  23. avatar Ardent says:

    I think that if one examines the veterans ‘crashing the gates’ at the WWII memorial, the VA wait lists, the open carry rallies, the Bundy-BLM standoff and other events with the volume turned down one sees things that look like the things that happen in other countries, but not here, not in the US.

    Then there is the TSA; strip searching old women, groping children and harassing returning vets, there is ‘stop and frisk’, NY SAFE act, the registration showdown in CT.

    The polls indicate what anyone can pick up on the street or at the water cooler on in the bar; we don’t have much faith left in our government, we fear it, mistrust it and have a level of cynicism and venom about it as hasn’t been seen since at least the 1960’s, and then not so wide spread or so diverse.

    The economy is in the tank, there are masses who can’t find work and what are we offered? A burgeoning national debt, fed every moment by insatiable entitlements to which too many would simply add. A tax and regulatory environment caustic to business which is the very engine of the economy and all the good that flows from it private and public. A financial sector so eviscerated that capital can scarcely be raised due to the artificially low interest rates, maintain by a government sponsored cabal (the FED). We pay exorbitant premiums for energy of all types to our very enemies while our government refuses to allow enterprise to mine and tap the mass of energy right below our feet.

    Government schemes to tax and tax to the point of destruction the domestic energy production we have with one hand while regulating it into oblivion with the other. New, restrictive and truly absurd laws are passed daily while something so basic and simple as a pipeline permit lies fallow in the bureaucratic quagmire for years. We provide aid to foreign states governments are occupied by our sworn enemies while our own military is denied needed funding and our infrastructure crumbles.

    We aid our enemies while our own military goes without and our wounded veterans die on wait lists to receive care.

    I recently read the Declaration of Independence again, something every American citizen ought to do time to time. It seems to me that our current list of grievances outweigh even those that brought on a revolution once.

    While the ones of the founders were surely offensive to liberty, our grievances are offensive to our ethos, our economy, our enfranchisement as a people, to our liberty and to our very continued existence as a sovereign nation.

    We are not France, we are not Britain. We surely aren’t Pakistan or Egypt. We have no need to be friendly with Iran, and should not appease Russia.

    We are the United States of America. We were made exceptional by our people and our form of government. Our economy made us great, our people drove that economy and government stayed out of the way. Our liberty made us great, and our government stayed out of the way. We were not defeated by the greatest powers the world has ever know. Not the British in the 1770’s, not the Spanish in the 1890’s, not by the British again in 1812, not by Germany in 1918, nor by the combination of Germany, Japan and Italy in the 1940’s. The North Koreans were no threat at all in the 1950s and even the Chinese were happy to have peace with us then. We were not bested by the North Vietnamese with their Russian support in the 60’s but gave sway to the failure of the South Vietnamese regime for reasons of it’s own. We aided the Afghans to victory against the Russians in the 70’s and 80’s, faced and destroyed the worlds 4th largest army in Iraq in the 90’s and along the way put down the Soviet menace simply because they could not keep up with our innovation and our economy and our expertise, without ever firing a shot.

    We became the most powerful, free and greatest nation the world has ever known. Our liberty is a large part of our greatness, as is our economy, unfettered by foolish government constraint or well meaning but disastrous government planning. Our military might is a function of both our economy and our liberty and our yearning that everyone should taste the freedom we have, because it is right, and because once they have, we cannot imagine they would every put on the yoke of tyranny again.

    I’m not sure what we are now, but it isn’t so great as it was, and it’s not so mighty as it was. It’s surely not as prosperous as it was and worst of all; we are not as free as we were.

    Something must be done, what it is I cannot say. What ever ‘it’ is though, it had better come sooner than later, and it had better be dramatic. Like an alcoholic so far gone he cannot have one drink or a reputation so sullied it can bear not one more scandal, we had better get it together soon and right our direction, or else there will be nothing left to gather together at all.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Amen! Church, my friend, that is…

    2. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      That was excellent.

      1. avatar Ardent says:

        Thank you, and John, I don’t think he’ll mind being included since I can only reply to one and since by internet terms we go back aways. I used to play ‘war’ in the abandoned industrial sites near here as a youth. We’d seen Red Dawn and we thought of it as training. There was a period in my life where I thought we were foolish. I’m beginning to think that it might require a dedicated core of patriots to put this nation back on course. I’m beginning to think that our vets and our patriots might have work to do. That it might take something very interesting to return this country to greatness. I can’t tell you when, or what would be the catalyst, the only thing I can say, and I hope it’s not too trite, is that if you’re reading this, you are the resistance.

    3. avatar William Burke says:

      Agreed, but Russia is not my enemy. Noticing who Putin has set himself into opposition to, I can only see him as a friend.

      Not one I’d place blind faith in, but certainly not an enemy.

      1. avatar JuanCudz says:

        Sorry Bill, could you run that one by me again. I’m a bit confused.

  24. avatar Burnout says:

    I haven’t seen so many people on this site so worked up with undulating outrage since someone wrote they didn’t like the Colion Noir show. Look, I get that the truth which Joe wrote about isn’t for everyone. It takes guts, a little bit of spine, confidence in your beliefs, and a willingness to see the world how it really is in order to see the truth. It even takes (gasp) strong words when standing against fascism. As usual, real men like Joe and the real supporters of the 2A will carry on the fight so you don’t have to. We now return you to your feigned outrage and group-think maneuvers.

    1. avatar DTAL says:


    2. avatar William Burke says:

      +100,000, plus a bonus for recognizing “Fascism” when you see it, and not moaning about “Muslims” or “Communists”.

      What we are facing seems to me no less than the Fifth Reich.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Inb4 Godwin shit posting in response. 😀

  25. avatar TheOtherDavid says:

    My only concern is this:

    We live in a nation where laws, the Constitution, all that we hold dear (and yes, I do indeed hold the Second Amendment dear) are not in some sterile bubble. We live in a political nation. Everything that is enacted, everything that is interpreted – it happens in a political environment.

    I’m not saying this is good. I’m saying it’s reality.

    Regardless of the context, regardless of the overall message, regardless of the messenger, when someone puts the words “Guns are mostly for hunting down politicians who would actively seek to take your freedoms and liberty away from you” you have to understand that that is going to be used against us.

    I know all I need to know about despots like Stalin and Hitler. I didn’t Google them. I Googled this one sentence. It’s already cited 15 times. And that will grow. Just wait until the morning.

    It sucks that the Second Amendment is subject to politics. But it is. THAT is the reality. And in politics, image and message are everything. And if we do truly hold our Second Amendment rights dear, if we do truly want to control the political landscape and protect our right to bear arms, then “Guns are mostly for hunting down politicians” is not the message the POTG need going viral right now.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      The 2A might be subject to politics right now only because we have allowed it and continue to allow it. Heck, we where given a very strong deterrent in the 2A. But, the People have allowed it to atrophy. IMHO, milquetoast behavior in regards to any rights these days will insure that this nation will face a very bloody conflict in the future. Government cannot be allowed to trample on any more rights. It’s time for loud saber rattling before the backs of more liberty loving Americans are against the wall. Government won’t stop without strong warning and serious deterrent. If the People wimp out now, at the shouting stage, then the future of our nation looks grim.

      1. avatar TheOtherDavid says:

        I totally agree that we can’t wimp out at this stage. What I’m trying to express, perhaps not well, is that the stage is a political one. We can’t wimp out in the political arena. We have to be strong, and part of that is having a strong message that does not feed more ammo to the other side.

        You’re absolutely right Don’t wimp out. Control the social media message. Don’t give mainstream media another sound bite to spin ad infinitum with no context. Tell politicians that we will absolutely hold them accountable for the decisions they make. Our weapons are money and votes. The only guiding principle for a politician? Get re-elected. I’ve studied politics for decades. There are many that want to “do the right thing” but the absolute bottom line? Self-preservation. If we make it clear that we’re mad as hell and not gonna take it any more – that’s a message they get if they think there is a legitimate threat to their re-election.

        We saw this in the recall efforts in Colorado. Bloomberg et al outspent the “gun nuts” by a big margin – and yet the POTG prevailed. We control the message, we control the money, we control the TRUE grass-roots activism – we control elections.
        And that scares the living hell out of politicians.

        The more we control the political landscape the more we preserve the rights that, yes, frankly, we shouldn’t have to be defending in the first place.

        Makes me think of a line from Gladiator: “Win the crowd, and you’ll win your freedom.” That’s what we need to do. Win the crowd.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          We need both. Some of us are done winning crowds. However, that doesn’t mean it isn’t still needed. I no longer have the patience or care for political maneuvers, I didn’t come to win hearts and minds. Carry on.

        2. avatar DTAL says:

          I’m with John. Intellectually, I know the patient, chessboard mentality will likely be effective and stand a better chance of winning the culture war. But I just can’t do it anymore. I’ve done it for years and I’m sick of it, sick of trying to reason with and defend myself from the utter scum of the earth. Those of you who want to, go for it, more power to you, but the only thing I have left for the gun grabbers is exactly what they deserve: loathing, derision, ridicule, and hate. They’re living garbage.

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          A while back, I began re-watching the All in the Family television show. In Archie and the Editorial (s03e38) I heard some of the same arguments for gun control that we hear today. These have long since been debunked. Why do they still have traction?!?! I remember when gun control wasn’t the hip position to take. These cockroaches are everywhere now. In the present day, I don’t think that this assault on the Constitution will end by hearts and minds alone. I hope it does and I wouldn’t want my words to discourage anyone who has it within themselves to continue that discourse. However, like you brother Ardent, I too no longer have what it takes for that strategy. I do make a good warm body for protests and can politely reason with a few antis but that’s the extent of my ability to be diplomatic on the subject.

      2. avatar Ardent says:

        John, I’m not even sure that being rational and polite is the best way to go anymore. We could take a page from the gay rights struggle and become more visible, louder and thus more publicized in order to become more mainstream.

        Perhaps we should give up yelling “Shall not be infringed!” and instead yell “We’re armed, we’re here, deal with it!”.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          We used to joke about that years ago. Now, it sounds like a good idea. 😀

    2. avatar William Burke says:

      God only knows what you’d accuse Jefferson of upon reading, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

      Are you people REAL?

  26. avatar CV76 says:

    100% with Joe.

  27. avatar Fox Mulder says:

    Well said and to the point Joe. I’d add one more thing: Santa Barbara shooting was a staged false flag event just like Sandy Hook Hoax tot ake away our guns

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      The former, without a doubt. The latter, we shall see. Pretty soon.

  28. avatar Ken kaniff says:

    @foxmulder: statements like that are why people don’t take us seriously. That was the dumbest thing I have read for a while. I’m sure a bureaucratic clusterf*** wouldnt be able to keep sandy hook a secret. Go watch some more youtube videos.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      Go read an Archie Comic. It’s about your limit.

  29. avatar Larsar says:

    What I see and read here are a bunch of ANTI-GUN whimpy
    willies too concern about their own well-being and are too cowardly
    to voice or stand up to the atrocities being committed in America
    supposedly the land of the FREE; Just what has kept this NATION
    of Nations FREE all this time; Now if you want your country to be
    run by sniveling LIBERAL COMMUNNIST freaks that are so weak
    they cannot accept the gender they were born as; you are an abomination
    just as the book of Leviticus 18 : 22-25states you are. And yes the
    Gods say you are; you do not believe there was more than one that
    created us then you need to read Genesis 1:26-28 Hmmmmmmm
    you are an atheist? Like in the “Alice in Wonderland” story with a
    creature running around saying off with their heads. SEMPER FI !!!

  30. avatar Great Scot says:

    Fuck. Yes.
    But does it have to be a Colt? I’ve a bit of a soft spot for Walthers.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Variety’s the very spice of life, that gives it all its flavour. 🙂

  31. avatar Jim in AZ says:

    What a bunch of right-wing nuts. Good thing that you are in the minority – over 80% of the American people believe we need greater gun controls. You seem to equate greater gun controls with repeal of the 2nd amendment – again, extremism.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Gun control is not necessarily a repeal of the Second Amendment but it is a violation of it.

      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.

      If you don’t like the Second Amendment then work for a constitutional amendment to repeal it. However, in the meantime please stop pissing down my back and telling me it’s raining. 😉

  32. avatar Bill says:

    The Second Amendment, I really don’t understand why this is such a problem? When there are 49 reasons which explains it.

    If, as some may argue, that the Second Amendment’s “militia” meaning, is that every person has a right to keep and bear arms. The only way to describe one’s right as a private individual, is not as a “militia” but as a “person” (“The individual personality of a human being: self.”). “Person” or “persons“” is mentioned in the Constitution 49 times, to explicitly describe, clarify and mandate a Constitutional legal standing as to a “person”, his or her Constitutional rights.

    Whereas in the Second Amendment, reference to “person” is not to be found. Was there are reason?. The obvious question arises, why did the Framers use the noun “person/s” as liberally as they did throughout the Constitution 49 times and not apply this understanding to explicitly convey same legal standard in defining an individual’s right to bear arms as a “person”?

    Merriam Webster “militia”, “a body of citizens organized for military service : a whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.

    Article 2, Section 2 “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into actual Service of the United States;…”

    In the whole of the U.S. Constitution, “militia” is mentioned 5 times. In these references there is no mention of person or persons. One reference to “people“ in the Second Amendment. People, meaning not a person but persons, in describing a “militia”. “People” is mentioned a total 9 times.

    It’s not enough to just say that “person(s)” is mentioned in the United States Constitution 49 times. But to see it for yourself, and the realization was for the concern envisioned by the Framers that every “person” be secure in these rights explicitly spelled out, referenced and understood how these rights were to be applied to that “person”.
    “..No Person shall be a Representative..”
    “..whole Number of free Persons,..”
    “..three fifths of all other Persons…”
    “..No person shall be a Senator…”
    “..And no Person shall be convicted…”
    “ Person holding any Office…”
    “..Names of the Persons voting for…”
    “…of such Persons as any of the States…”
    “…not exceeding ten dollars for each Person…”
    “…And no Person holding any…”
    “…or Person holding an Office of Trust o…“
    “…and vote by Ballot for two persons,…”
    “…List of all the Persons voted for,…”
    “…The Person having the greatest Number of Votes…”
    “…and if no Person have a Majority,…”
    “…the Person having the greatest Number…”
    “…No person except a natural born Citizen,…”
    “…Any Person be eligible to that ….”
    “…No Person shall be convicted of …”
    “…except during the Life of the Person attainted….”.
    “…A Person charged in any State…”
    “…No Person held to Service…”
    “…The right of the people to be secure in their persons,…”
    “…and the persons or things to be seized….”
    “..No person shall be held to answer…”
    “..nor shall any person be subject for the same offense….”
    “…they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President,…”
    “…the person voted for as Vice-President,…”
    “…all persons voted for as President,….”
    “…all persons voted for as Vice-President…”
    “…The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, …”
    “…and if no person have such majority,…”
    “..the persons having the highest numbers …”
    “… The person having the greatest number of votes…”
    “..and if no person have a majority,…”
    “…But no person constitutionally ineligible…”
    “…All persons born or naturalized …”
    “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,…”
    “…nor deny to any person within …”
    “…number of persons in each State,….”
    “…No person shall be a Senator or …”
    “..and such person shall act accordingly….”
    “…of the death of any of the persons from…”
    “…death of any of the persons from…”
    “…No person shall be elected to the office…”
    “…and no person who has held the office of President,…”
    “ which some other person was elected…”
    “…shall not apply to any person holding the office…”
    “..prevent any person who may be holding…”

    1. avatar meadowsr says:

      “Whereas in the Second Amendment, reference to “person” is not to be found.”

      You mean, where it says “…the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bears arms shall not be infringed”, where “people” is the plural form of the the word “person”?

      I agree with you when you say “I really don’t understand why this is such a problem?”

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email