Virginia gun owner militia open carry
Courtesy Jeff Hulbert
Previous Post
Next Post

You’d think one of the WaPo’s Harvard and Yale-educated editorial writers would have a basic working knowledge of the Bill of Rights and the Founders’ intent behind the Second Amendment. You’d be wrong.

Thus do right-wing extremists exploit America’s lax gun laws for political gain. Of course, the open carrying of rifles or handguns is a recipe for intimidation and potentially deadly confusion, even when not politically motivated. If shots ring out on a street full of armed pedestrians, how are the police supposed to identify the culprit?

Yet 44 states allow open carry, subject to a hodgepodge of restrictions. Michigan allows open carry in the capitol, but not casinos. Exhibiting a weapon is okay, but not “brandishing” it — except in “self-defense.”

Open carry may be benign, even necessary, in limited situations: hunters carrying their weapons home from a day’s shooting, for example.

On the whole, though, no state worthy of the name can permit exceptions to its monopoly on legitimate deployment of armed force like those in Michigan or North Carolina. Surely no sensible interpretation of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms would say a state must tolerate them.

– Charles Lane in How our open carry laws can endanger democracy

Previous Post
Next Post


    • Exactly Possum,

      Many people — likely on the order of half or more people in the entire world — decide what to do based on emotion and passion and have no regard for truth, facts, History, reality, justice, logic, and wrong-versus-right. Such people will say and do pretty much anything to gain whatever their emotions and passions drive them to acquire.

      If you think that someone’s age, intelligence, education, work/business experience, or job title guarantees anything, you will be sorely disappointed in life.

  1. “…no state worthy of the name can permit exceptions to its monopoly on legitimate deployment of armed force…”

    The Founders just rolled over in their graves.

  2. Lane: Blah blah blah…

    Like the state wouldn’t use intimidation as a tactic? Like the state has correct judgement at all times? Like the state wouldn’t abuse it’s power? Right mr lane. Right…

    • It’s just another left wing argument for an all powerful police state. Aren’t these the same people that said police hunt down and kill minorities?

    • Like banning guns from the capital, putting chain link fence all around it, and a few dozen police snipers on all the rooftops? Virginians might have some experience with that!
      Guns can only be used for keeping the peasants from gathering at local restaurants and to keep them off of beaches and park land. Mein fuhrer said socially distance!

    • that’s for sure look at the states of Wi and Wa. right now and hoe there governors are doing there people right now

  3. On the whole, though, no newspaper worthy of the name can permit exceptions to its standards on legitimate journalism like those in the New York Times and Washington Post. Surely no sensible interpretation of the First Amendment right to free speech would say a paper must tolerate them, or condone the employment of misguided, self-righteous would-be tyrants who belie the meaning of journalism and scholarship.

  4. It’s not like it worked out poorly for the Nazis, Soviets, Chinese or a myriad of other nations.

  5. “Only Governments Should Have a Monopoly on the Deployment of Armed Force”

    Well, this certainly explains why people get ‘swatted’ by hackers.


  6. “Only Governments Should Have a Monopoly on the Deployment of Armed Force”

    Funny how vehemently the left believes that, yet also believes Trump is “literally Hitler”.

    Guess liberals are the real Nazis after all.

    • So much for Harvard and Yale. The sentence quoted is ridiculous: He’s implying that perhaps a question exists whether some group other than the government should have a monopoly on deployment of armed force. That’s an absurd framing of the issue. By definition only one group can hold a “monopoly.” The very use of the phrase “armed force” itself sets a false frame. If he means to imply that only the government of a bit of geography can reasonably have “an armed force,” he’s like right. That’s not what he means, though. He clearly meant to say this: “Only government employees can hold the right to possess and use firearms, even in self-defense.” In that he would abrogate the Constitution. Pathetic.

    • “Guess liberals are the real Nazis after all.”

      Saw an article yesterday titled “The Left have become what they once despised”…

  7. If you want to know what you’re fighting, follow the link to the article.
    Ignore the article, look at the comments.
    These are people who vote.

    • I’m not a subscriber, so got bounced to the home page and a request to subscribe.

      That’s fine. I can imagine.

      • “I’m not a subscriber, so got bounced to the home page and a request to subscribe.”

        A ‘cookie cleaner’ add-on can trick their site into thinking you’re there for the first time. I use CookieAutoDelete to allow my to read the NYT and and WaPo without giving them one fucking dime of my money… 🙂

    • They don’t care about hunting and would end that too. They leave it in in an attempt to sound reasonable to the uneducated and unaware Fudds.

  8. So says the Marxist Left and if pushed they will discover why the founders and the people disagree.

  9. most of these writers are exponents of Fascism, Pinko-ism of what ever brand, or like most people pure greed or a head game need like a psycho, Then you have the immigrant 2nd Generation that have absolutely no knowledge of USA history or Constitution, (Oh my bad the educational system doesn’t teach it any more) or the Government enforces Anti-biblical teaching especially Sodomy and child murder! But the best answer I have about these so called writers is that in their mind they are right and you are wrong and they aren’t afraid to tell you so!

  10. Two events nullify this numbskull’s argument: Ruby Ridge and Waco. But, those on the left cheer such brazen displays of tyranny; to them, the Constitution is a “living and breathing” document that “must be adapted to the times.”

  11. Where was the fearless writer when ANTIFA was arming up?

    It is pure partisan hackery and pearl-clutching. He supports the other side and hopes that he can pass off his views as reason.

  12. Harvard; Deep readers of history and the Federalist papers:

    This from Wikipedia: (Which I no longer trust because they removed Tim Sullivan,
    Sullivan Act in New York State, required firearm registration, the guy was a gangster!).
    U.S. Army:
    7,000 (at war’s start)
    35,800 (at war’s end)
    Militia: 458,463*
    U.S. Navy and Revenue Cutter Service (at war’s start):
    Frigates: 12
    Other vessels: 14
    Privateers: 515 ships[1]

    British Army:
    5,200 (at war’s start)
    48,160 (at war’s end)
    Militia: 4,000
    Royal Marines
    Royal Navy
    Ships of the line: 11
    Frigates: 34
    Other vessels: 52
    Provincial Marine (at war’s start): ‡
    Ships: 9
    Indian allies: 10,000–15,000[3][1]

    Look at the size of the militia’s. There were over 7 million people in the US in 1812, Britain had the Empire and 18 million including Scotland, Wales and Ireland.

    The Founders of the US never trusted government and kept the standing Army small, usually about 3,000 before the start of the War of 1812, they relied on the militia’s! PART TIME AMERICAN CITIZEN/SOLDIERS!

  13. The most basic understanding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (about 3rd grade level) is that it is about limiting the power of the government and protecting the existing rights of the individuals. This is a core value for Americans we need to always consider when the government wants more power.

  14. Actually, I believe constitutional studies is banned at Harvard! Wouldn’t want the little darlings to get the “wrong” ideas!!!

  15. The state does have a monopoly on the deployment of force. When was the last time a citizens militia constructed war and transport ships, aircraft and such implements of war and then deployed themselves overseas to attack another nation?

    Citizens have the right to assemble, armed or otherwise. And just because they exercise that right does not mean they’re deploying force.

    • There are plenty of private security contracting companies that hire, train, arm, and deploy armed forces. In many cases, the contract is with the U.S. Government, but by no means always. These are private citizens working for private companies.

  16. Here I thought intimidation was the American way😏In ILL Jabba the Prickster is “upset” that some protesters called him a Nazi. I fear the only recourse of patriot’s is a little “intimidation”. It worked at the Bundy ranch…

  17. Everything you need to know is here: Charles Lane is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations = Deep State Globalist

  18. It’s refreshing to see these liberals openly praise and call for totalitarianism by name now rather than using cute code words.

  19. “No state worthy of the name can permit exceptions to its monopoly on legitimate deployment of armed force”.

    I believe that is exactly the enshrined reason that Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Communist China, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela have used to disarm their citizens. How did that work out for them?

  20. He fears that citizen armament hinders the tyranny of the majority, which he calls “democracy”, and he is right, it does.

  21. “On the whole, though, no state worthy of the name can permit exceptions to its monopoly on legitimate deployment of armed force like those in Michigan or North Carolina. Surely no sensible interpretation of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms would say a state must tolerate them.”

    The American colonists won their freedom from the British Crown by the deployment of armed force by those not part of the state. It seems that the Founders who produced the Declaration and Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, were aware that the people certainly had the right to deploy armed force under compelling circumstances. The Constitution they produced and accepted is the basis for our law to this day. It prominently includes the Second Amendment.

  22. If these people left everyone alone, and stopped trying to impose their will on everyone, there wouldn’t be people showing up armed. The problem is they just can’t help themselves and think everyone should live life the way they want them to. They are of course exempt from those rules. Don’t tread on people, and they won’t be pissed off.

    The constitution was supposed to limit government power, along with limiting peoples ability to affect others through the government. If a government has less power, then it means the Karens can’t attempt to bring it to bear on people doing things they don’t like.

  23. Yet another who prefers slavery to freedom.

    “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
    ― Samuel Adams

  24. You have a gun and ammo; you have rights. the muzel of that gun says so. You have no ability to fight back, you are a slave, with privileges that are at the discretion of the person with the guns.

    • As Clint Eastwood said in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, “You see in this world there’s two kinds of people my friend. Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig.” I ain’t digging!

  25. Open carry may well be a threat to the “democracy” the leftists want to build, but it is the bulwark of our republic.

  26. That dipsh!t Lane trusts the G a whole lot more than I do. I wonder if he holds his nose when he’s kissing government’s @ss.

  27. Mr. Lane may have second thoughts about the authorities exclusively being armed someday. Like when he’s ordered into the vehicles on the way out to the camps.

  28. What else do is expected coming from media scumbags whose entire Anti Gun Agenda is Rooted in Racism and Genocide? Those gutless wonders won’t ever admit their Gun Control is a racist and nazi based agenda. They sugarcoat their gun control manure and gullible useful idiots gobble it up, all while sneaky, sleazy hypocrite Gun Control Zealots enjoy 24/7 armed security. What Filth.

  29. I love the fact that idiots like this clown have spent the last four years screaming that Trump is some kind of closet authoritarian, only to turn around and decry that the same government they label as fascist should have the monopoly on force.

    Do these retards just assume that once the authoritarian system is in place, it will just happen to line up lock-step with their opinions and politics?

    • I’ve gotten into recent discussions where I’ve done reductio ad absurdum on some liberals.

      They claim Trump is a dictator.

      I say “Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that is true. The evidence then is that Trump is a piss-poor dictator. You liberals should thank Gaia that Trump is a piss-poor dictator.”

      They invariably take the bait and ask “and just how Trump is a piss-poor dictator?”

      I point out that if I were in Trump’s position, and I had ratchet-jawed purveyors of monkey doodle liberals mocking me for not being dictatorial enough, that I would seize rule by autocratic force, I’d have the Army and Marines round up useless liberals and the press (but I repeat myself) by the thousands, I’d force these slack-jawed morons to dig a huge trench for a mass grave, and then I’d use a M-134 on them.

      “That’s how a competent dictator handles fools like you. Unlike Trump, I’d be a competent dictator. Miniguns for the mass of idiots, and free chopper rides for the high-profile liberals. A competent dictator makes sure his enemies die tired and sweaty. A competent dictator slaughters his opposition in public, with messy results, and then he asks everyone else if they’d like to run their mouths… But you don’t see Trump doing that, do you? That’s because he’s the worst dictator ever. He’s utterly incompetent as a dictator! He’s the worst Hitler ever!”

      Then I point out if these limp-wristed liberals really believed Trump is a dictator, that they’d be buying guns and ammo by the truckload. But they’re not. So they’re obviously telling lies, or they’re just a bunch of wimps who will live under a dictatorship like a bunch of bootlickers.

      It is an entertaining time to be alive, to be sure.

  30. Yes, because governments that have the guns and a disarmed populace have such a great track record. smh

  31. no state worthy of the name can permit exceptions to its monopoly on legitimate deployment of armed force

    That is the core argument against the state. Unless, of course, you’re a statist, i.e. one who holds that the government is an entity that possesses rights and privileges that supersede the rights and privileges of the individuals it claims as subjects. That conception tosses the idea of “governments deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” down the oubliette.

  32. What this country needs is a penalty whereby someone can lose their citizenship for ignorance.

    When someone makes a statement so fundamentally ignorant of the epistemology of the founding of the United States, they should lose their citizenship and be forced out of the country into permanent exile. The reason given should be “You’re too stupid to be an American. You failed to comprehend what this country is all about, and your stupidity exceeded the rights of expressing normal, everyday stupidity recognized by the First Amendment.”

    • “What this country needs is a penalty whereby someone can lose their citizenship for ignorance. ”

      If that ever happened, there might not be enough voters left to fill a conference room.

  33. Ah the WA PO….lol what a joke…quick check does anyone Remember the Pulitzer prize winning Jimmy’s World?

    The WAPO is a comprised of arrogant failures who would die as a troll on any web site.

    Reading anything from the WAPO is like reading the drunken ramblings of a bum on the street.

  34. Just because open carry is Constitutionally legal in many states, doesn’t mean its a good idea to do it in volatile situation where a spark could ignite the fuse on a keg of powder. I’ve been a fighter for the 2A my entire adult life, since before the 68GCA. Its been my experience over all those years that showing up openly carrying a rifle, handgun, etc., whether its legal or not only inflames the anti-gun crowd. They start foaming at the mouth, and get all wild eyed, predicting massacres and all kinds of mayhem. That is NOT helpful and only makes it harder to get favorable gun laws passed, and bad ones repealed. Can’t convince the open carry idiots however that all it does is make things harder for us to win our fight. I’d much rather have a few hundred concealed carry people show up. That way, if the feces hits the fan, we’ve got the advantage of surprise. All the mall commando types should just stay away, and not aggravate the situation. You just make yourselves and other innocent bystanders targets for the Nazis that want to shut us down and take our guns. My point will have been made when all the open carry fanatics attack this post.

    • You’re not entirely wrong… As much as I wish they’d shut up and stay home, those idiots will always be with us. There are always plenty of their type sprinkled in, no matter what the cause.

      Still, I love it whenever I see someone openly carrying. It’s the most open expression of the civil right guaranteed by the Second Amendment, which is a beautiful thing.

    • How dare you assert your First Amendment rights and express opinions that differ from others! You are upsetting them.

    • Perhaps the most over the top open carry types are really false flag folks of the left trying to cause anger towards the true POG.

  35. “If shots ring out on a street full of armed pedestrians, how are the police supposed to identify the culprit?”

    It would be easier to identify the culprit if it were always the government, so our WaPo progtardian could be on to something here. I just can’t escape the nagging feeling that there’s a downside he’s leaving unsaid.

    • He, she, it would be the one lying in a pool of blood being pointed at by all the legitimate protestors..

  36. The guy is right about the state maintaining a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. He just doesn’t understand what that means.

  37. Quote: “If shots ring out on a street full of armed pedestrians, how are the police supposed to identify the culprit?” Not to worry. By the time the police get there the sidewalks will be empty other than a few people standing around the corpse. None of them will have seen any thing, heard any thing. But they will all lament that he (the dead guy) was loved by everyone.

  38. The White Liberals never thought it was intimadation when they supported the KKK marching through black neighborhoods while carrying guns.

    To this day I don’t care who it is. I don’t care about the circumstances. I totally support open carrying. Of long guns especially. Now the white liberals don’t like the possibility of people they don’t like, openly carrying guns around them.

    The players are the same. But the tables have certainly turned in 2020.

  39. Think we’ve all seen the depictions of Mr. Lane’s envisioned utopia where only the government and police have guns……Schindler’s List, The Killing Fields, Anne Frank’s Diary, Hotel Rowanda, et el.

    • simple answer GFY!!!! I dont want or need anyone to protect me. I would far rather take my own chances defending my own sorry ass than depending on someone who probably wont be there when needed to protect me…. so i guess the long and short of it is GFY!!!!


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here