Previous Post
Next Post

 Paul M. Bangiola, Esq. (courtesy

Paul M. Bangiola, Esq. wrote an editorial for called Shooting Holes in the Second Amendment. [Click here to read it.] TTAG’s Bruce Krafft wrote a response to that post entitled Shooting Holes in Shooting Holes in the Second Amendment. [Click here to read it.] Mr. Bangiola has now responded to Bruce’s response in the comments section underneath his post. I know, it’s all a bit confusing. Read the above links and make the jump or make the jump and then read the links. That didn’t help, did it? Anyway, props to Mr. B. for responding to all of his critics both here and on his own site . . .

Paul M. Bangiola, Esq.’s comment on TTAG:

Bruce sent me a private email with a link to this site and his cut-and-pasted response to my Commentary (my email address and web page “Lord Champ”is not hard to find), but did not respond to my invitation to post his full response to my full Commentary on the web site. I suspect he ‘s just another guy with gun muscles who wants an audience limited to those who agree with him. I can tell you that veiled threats and crazy allusion to armed revolution by paranoid authors like Bruce will do more than I ever could to advance the cause of gun control and background checks.

One more thing: Language is important and I have been critical of the loose talk of Treason and Tyranny being spouted by those who claim to support the Constitution until they get out-voted. So, to be fair, I want to disavow the unnecessarily inflammatory headline placed on my Commentary, which was not my title for the piece, It was added by the blog editor, and is not a title I would have chosen. I understand and support the Second Amendment, as finally defined and interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States, and do not wish to “Shoot Holes” in it. The Commentary itself, however, is all mine and I stand behind it.


Paul M. Bangiola

Paul M. Bangiola, Esq.’s comment at

In case you, dear reader, like Greg Camp above, think that it is unfair to call “Extremists” those who responded to my modest Commentary on gun control with scary, vicious invective and paranoid babble about “Tyranny”, consider what Bruce W. Kraft (above) posted on his own blog, (he did not have the courage to post it here himself) addressed to me, :

“Paul…What you and your collectivist buddies should be afraid of (although you probably don’t even realize it) is when the Leviathan goes that one step too far… all of a sudden you have a few hundred thousand seriously pissed off gun owners… Gun owners with the skills and equipment to drop a man deer at 600 yards…
That’s who you worry about Paul.”

Well Bruce, you have convinced me that you are probably somebody to worry about. But, I still don’t think you represent most gun owners. many of whom I know and who are disgusted by people who own stupid guns like Bushmasters, the cynical politicization of gun violence for profit by the NRA, and those wannabe leaders-without-followers like you, who talk about armed rebellion when they are upset that their candidate didn’t get the most votes in a recent election, or maybe just because they are unhealthy social misfits, with unmet needs of one kind or another.

But, Bruce , you have not convinced me that we live under Tyranny that justifies using language that is dangerous, threatening and irresponsible. You have also failed to convince me that background checks to prevent those with psychological problems from getting their hands on guns is either unconstitutional or a bad idea. You haven’t convinced me either that anybody has a use for a Bushmaster that justifies the appeal they seem to have for the misfits and deranged among us.

So, sorry Greg- there are obviously real live extremists out there, like Bruce, who are not made of straw, and they need to lose the argument over gun control, and background checks. While we are at it we might try to figure out from whence springs their irrational paranoia, sense of inadequacy, and rage. We will all be a lot safer.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. The point of the Constitution is to protect us from being “outvoted.”

    We are not a democracy, nor did we ever agree to become one.

      • 4strokes: Isn’t that, in a sense, the very problem we face now? The Constitution is no up for popular vote, for a few guys a long time ago put it down because they knew better than their contemporaries how to set up a country. And that is what we have today, people that are or may be in a minority, claiming to know what is best for what is or may be the majority.

        In any case, each side:
        – claims to have a monopoly on common sense (and if you have read my rant on those two words, you know I think they are worthless; cue Inigo Montoya);
        – claims to have a moral high-ground;
        – claims the other is delusional, lives in la-la land
        – claims to have the stats to back the argument

        Meanwhile, on side is heavily armed, and a subset keeps spouting of “revolution” and “molon labe”. As I tell my kids, “this is going to end in tears”.

  2. Perhaps if someone were to push for “Speech Control” and ask for the restriction of “Assault Speech” such as Talking about “Raise taxes on the rich” (Which is actually “Raise taxes on the middle class”) then these people would see how we feel when they attack the 2nd amendment.

    • If they do, don’t worry, free speech used for entertainment purposes will be left untouched, it’s the scary assault words which will be banned.

  3. I bet Paul thinks the police can have Bushmasters. Why do the police need these “stupid” guns Paul? And Paul….I don’t think you “need” that nice house and car.

  4. Is this true that Bruce would not allow the entirety of the post to be published on his page? If so, why? The rest of the post was much less “out there” or “threatening” than the snippet he published was. Perhaps Bruce should have allowed them to publish the article in its entirety.

  5. “…many of whom I know and who are disgusted by people who own stupid guns like Bushmasters…”

    this reminds me of people who say “my best friend is black” when trying to convince someone they aren’t racist

    • Bangiola is thinking in a vacuum. The “many” gunowners he knows are likely one or two fellow Jersey residents with hunting rifles. As it’s practically impossible to own a service rifle there, he is completely insulated from a true sampling of gun owners. Additionally, if he WERE in a place with true gun owners, he likely wouldn’t be capable objectively engaging them to get a differing opinion (without being antagonistic).

      Like most Statists, he is completely unaware of his own hypocrisy. He criticizes Mr. Craft for wanting “an audience limited to those who agree with him.” Yet, his feeble defense is that he knows some NJ gunowners, who hail from one of the most pro-citizen disarmament states, and therefore he’s not anti-gun. Ha.

  6. Fools like this will never understand that rights are not up to a vote. Rights do not depend on the whims of the drooling masses. We’re a constitutional republic. Look it up before you presume to know what you’re talking about.

    What a disgusting control freak and statist. He’s the reason the 2a exists

  7. I live one mile outside Morristown. I wasn’t brought up in NJ, it’s amazing how people brought up there think. I’ve managed to convert a few people to pro gun. On a related not I am actively seeking new employment in PA.

    • For perspective Morristown is not a huge place, but still densely populated. It is mostly filled with rich yuppies and votes primarily republican, more because of their tax bracket than anything else. They have a very active police force and have not had a murder in about a decade.

    • I live in PA. Less gun restrictions but more guns than NJ, and much less gun crime here than NJ. My family has been living (in my line of fathers) in Burlington County, NJ, since 1653. Things changed dramatically around the turn of the 20th century. Burlington County went from 200K residents to 1,200K residents in 25 years. Massive immigration. The same was true in the North of the state. Terror (sometimes justified) of the uneducated Eastern and Southern European masses was burned into the old guard’s psyche. Gun restrictions and “may issue” concepts became very popular. Migration from the South and Puerto Rico revived the fear. Oh, and the Mob moved into NJ. I’m surprised, though, the NJ hasn’t gotten over those days by now. They definitely haven’t. Hunter? With a rifle? In NJ? Not in most of the state.

  8. “Many of whom I know and who are disgusted by people who own stupid guns like Bushmasters.”

    Sounds like Paul’s friends are AR snobs…what do they only prefer Noveskes?

    • It’s a badge of honor to have fools like this and his “gun owner friends” – no doubt hunters who think the 2a is about them – loathe us.

    • He’s SO hung up on the word “Bushmaster”. Bushmaster this, Bushmaster that… is this some kind of sexual thing? “I’m SCARED of my POISONOUS SNAKE!”

  9. Mr. Bangiola is no esquire, since that is a term that implies aristocratic demeanor and gentleman status. He is also a stereotypical citizen disarmament advocate. He claims to support the 2nd Amendment but then don’t they all? That is just a ruse to make them seem moderate and reasonable. There is nothing moderate or reasonable about wanting to ban millions of firearms used responsibly and owned widely by law abiding citizens. Advocating the banning of Americas most popular rifle, the AR-15, is absolutely an extremist position. Characterizing such a marvelously useful rifle as stupid indicates that the real stupidity is being displayed by Mr. Bangiola, as well as insufferable arrogance, condescension and a good bit of ignorance about firearms, civil rights and this country’s gun culture outside of what ever posh country club Mr. Bangiola might frequent.

    • Attorneys-at-law, behind-the-law, above-the-law, etc. believe their law degree confers upon them the right to use the term, “Esquire”. Maybe the magazine of the same name had something to do with it.

      • Yes, I understand that, but my point is that being a member of the bar is in no way an indication that one possesses the noble and aristocratic qualities of a true gentleman. Lawyers as a group have lots of ridiculous pretenses and it’s time we started shooting holes in them. The pretenses that is, not necessarily the lawyers, yet.

      • Yes, there are a lot of attorneys who believe that the honorific Esquire means “attorney” (it doesn’t) and they affect it as the same type of title as “Dr.” There are a lot of secretaries who will use it too in correspondence. I’ve met lawyers who insist that they be addressed in correspondence as Esquire, a silly affectation. But then there are chiropractors that insist on being called “doctor” notwithstanding their lack of a medical degree, and Phds who refuse to be called “doctor” even though the word appears in their degree. In fact, and perhaps once upon a time, lawyers could use the doctor title, because they have a juris doctorus, but it seems reserved now solely for lawyers who have Phds.

  10. There are historical incidents where disgruntled people have been displeased with the activities or representation of some attorney (esquire) and over-reacted violently. How long do you think this guy would wear that stupid grin while hiding under his desk dialing 911 and waiting for a LEO to come to save his sorry ass? What are the odds he doesn’t have a 1911 in one of those expensive desk drawers?

  11. Rage. For many of us, it is derived from smug fools who are attempting to dictate what rights others can and cannot have. I would never dream of telling you what you can and cannot write, or say, or do so long as those words and actions do not infringe upon the rights of others. Nor would I suggest that it is the government’s place to say who can and cannot marry. That’s the rub when it comes to caring about liberty, Sir; you either do or you don’t. You don’t have to like others’ choices. You might even hate them. But when you begin to advocate for the State to have the power to take liberties from others, then you have forfeited whatever civility or politeness that you may THINK you are entitled to. You cherry-pick only those rights you feel comfortable allowing others to have. That is NOT the attitude of a man who actually gives a damn about liberty.

    As such, you can imagine how irritating it is when I am told that I must justify what arms I can possess. No right requires prior justification before it is exercised. I am free to exercise it as I see fit.

    How many people have been killed by privately held arms throughout history, Sir? How many have been killed by Nations? If you can accurately and honestly answer those questions, then you will understand why an armed citizenry is a good idea. And please spare me the usual “it could never happen here” nonsense. Furthermore, feel free to label me as “crazy” and “paranoid” all you like. I would counter that you are naive, vapid and shortsighted.

    Also, I wrote this reply hastily on a mobile device. If it is riddled with spelling or grammatical errors I apologize.

    • Beautiful. Even if it had spelling and grammatical errors (which it doesn’t), it would still be a perfect response to this nincompoop and all others like him.

      You win the Internet today. 🙂

      • Yeah I went ahead and posted this on the paper’s site but I guess it huwrt his wittle feewings! Waaaaaaa!

    • “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” – George Washington

      “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government…” – Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist (#28)

      The words of the Founders say what the document means. Not some bunch of self centered, self absorbed “elites”. The Federalist Papers have been used over 1500 times to refer to the meaning of the Constitution. It is not taught today in law schools because the Commies have infiltrated the lines and are passing false information out as authority.. Be advised we have Zips in the wire… They have been upon us since Wilsons day. His two greatest advisors were Justices on the Supreme Court, louis Brandeis and Felix Franfurter, they were both Communists. So look at the laws and the Amendments passed in Wilson’s administartion. The 16 Amendment-fulfilling the Plank in the Communist Manifesto of a heavy graduated income tax and dividing the republic by making the polular vote for the election of Senators. The 16th was never properly ratified-See The Law that Never Was site and “No state may be deprived of its sufferage without its consent” means that every state had to agree with the 17th Amendment or it was not valid and deprived the state of its sufferage-vote-senators were elected by the state legislatures in the original Constitution. I have a stange feeling that if the 16th was not properly ratified the 17th is probably not either. regardless this shows a stealthy encroachment into the rights of the Republic and the states who are its constituent and sovereign parts.

      FDR once said that there is nothing wrong with communism some of my best friends are communists. that tells you a lot especially when the two legged varment who currently occupies the white house has FDR as a role model.

      By the way the Supreme Court hears his Birth certificate issue on the 15th of February. Don’t forget say a prayer and read Pslams Ch. 109.

  12. He sounds like one of the “butter knife guys”, no one needs more than a butter knife for self defense. He is partly correct though “he” doesn’t need an AR, “he” doesn’t need a semi auto anything & “he” doesn’t need to defend himself. I think thats a well thought out decision on his part, Randy

  13. We may not NOW need Bushmasters to fight tyranny, but if they take them all away, what will we do when that time comes? I may not NOW need a a fire extinguisher or a home owner’s policy, but when that time comes, if it should come, I will be prepared. Shall we revisit the story of the cricket and the ant?

  14. What Paul and his lib pals don’t understand is that “a few hundred thousand million seriously pissed off gun owners” is not a threat ; it is soon to be a reality of their own making. Malon labe is not just some catch phrase, it will be the battle cry before millions of stupid Bushmasters (and AKs, and Rock Rivers…) start the job of eliminating this tyranny Paul can’t see.
    Maybe he can hide in the Jersey Pine Barrens with his “gun owner” buddies…

    • Don’t forget M1s, M1As, 1903s, Barretts and oh my God an old black powder cannon with cannister….Yeeehaaaaa!!!!

      Ever seen what a 12 pound cannon ball will do to a car, even smashes through the engine….. don’t forget chained ball He He He He.

  15. “I understand and support the Second Amendment, as finally defined and interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States,”

    That says it all, another living Breathing Constitution guy who wants everything but 3 or 4 amendments tossed out or rewritten.

    Tell you what, let’s take the last two SCOTUS decisions and call it good.

  16. Ok, I read this article. Then I went back and read the preceeding article & Krafft’s response. My take on the whole exchange, Bruce skillfully picked apart Bangiola’s every argument, skewered them and toasted them over an open fire. Then Bangiola basically takes one of Bruce’s statements that can be most easily be spun as nutty when taken out of the context of the whole response, spins it a bit ham-handedly, and declares victory? I don’t think so, Bango. What’s that? You really can’t argue successfully against Bruce’s well reasoned points without seeming somehow, unpatriotic & authoritarian? Tough. Maybe it’s time to re-examine your beliefs.

    • Thats what attorneys do. If they didn’t have that one skill and their bar associan friend was not sitting on the bench, they wouldn’t have a job.

      Why don’t sharks eat attorneys????

      Professional courtesy….

  17. The part that makes me kind of cranky is that I tried to respond on the newspaper’s website. The third time it crashed when I tried to post my entire piece I gave up and posted a teaser with a link to the whole piece.

  18. I had read Bango’s earlier but went back to view it again and noticed the problem.
    Seems Bango is one of them pettifoggin’ lawyers what caint figger out what the meaning of is is. That’s all we need to know about him.

  19. Mr. Bangiola asserts that we aren’t facing a tyranny that threatens our rights, then proceeds to prove that we are by demanding that the person he’s criticizing forfeit his 1st amendment right to opine that we are.
    Just a typical leftist statist. “If you don’t agree with me, you are clearly an extremist and we are justified to be afraid of you and restrain you.”
    This characteristic of leftist statists is exactly why many oppose broadening of mental health prohibitions on rights … It’s a proven tool of the statist tyrant. Anyone who doesn’t march in lockstep with the tyrant is deemed “mentally ill”.
    The great tyrannys of the 20th century used “psychiatry” as a tool to “justify” the imprisonment, “disappearing,” and outright murder of millions of “dissidents” who objected to being subjected to tyranny.
    History repeats itself … Déjà vu, all over again.

    A relevant quote:
    “Anyone who tells you that ‘It Can’t Happen Here’ is whistling past the graveyard of history. There is no ‘house rule’ that bars tyranny coming to America. History is replete with republics whose people grew complacent and descended into imperial butchery and chaos.” — Mike Vanderboegh

  20. Forty years ago Uncle Sam taught me what we do with commies, I haven’t forgotten. Funny, this new batch of commies just doesn’t seem to persuade me with their arguments. Unless they come and take my personal property I believe I’ll just keep all of it and do with it as I see fit.

  21. Dear Rump Swab Bangiola,

    Your knowledge of the Second Amendment and the historical aspect behind its drafting is laughable. Indeed, it is about as much as your messiah’s knowledge of the Constitution when he was an adjunct guest lecturer.

    First of all, I served 21.5 years in the Marine Corps defending this nation and I’ll any goddamn weapon I so desire.

    Second, YOU need to read and reflect on the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence, which preceeded the Constitution. It declares that God grants us freedom AND the will to fight tyranny and the 2d AM ensures that we have the means to do so.

    Third, it was Cong Dornin who had the right of it when he said that the 2d AM is a hunting license all right, a license to hunt down tyrants and corrupt politicians.

    Lastly, any time you wish to debate the Second Amendment and its historical aspect and place in history, you let me know.

    PS: We’re a Representative Republic NOT a Democracy, which is mob rule and which the Founders warned us about. That is something maybe you can clue the tinhorn tyrant about.

  22. A fine example of bootlicking. If you don’t like the hot talk from gun owners, the remedy is clear: stop screwing with them.

  23. Folks this is just another elite speaking from a inferior position. He calls him esquire which is Shield bearer and is a title of nobility. “No titles of nobility…” the Constitution states, so this guy just failed the test. Since he is a licensed attorney he is and office of the court. Like all the others before him, and I can quote a well known carpenter from Gallilee from about 2000 years ago, they fawn over their own “interpretation” of the law but fail to include themselves when pronounceing judgement. Lincoln said, “We the people are the masters of our destiny, the courts and the ligislature. Not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow those who pervert it.” Gusee this idiot will bow to the Court’s interpretation and not one of common sense and historical original intent. So go all tyrants.

    See the two sites to find out the factual historical limit of the 2nd Amrndment.

    When Scalia made his “interpretation” he was using old statutes “regulating” what the citizens were to show up with for muster when called to duty.. Note it was the absolute minimum that was required. Other wise a fine for not having the specified equipment would make no damned sense at all. So here you have people looking for the faintest reason to limit the right to keep an bear when the sites I copied you on are proof that private citizens owned cannon before during and after the revolution. They don’t care because they don’t want to do the work to find out. Attorneys are inherently lazy. They only work for the buck and if they don’t think it is worth the time or the dime they will not turn the next page. I know I have worked for a few and clerked for a federal judge, whom, I must say, was tue to his calling, not a shyster. Jesus called them out too. By the way he told his followers to sell their cloak and buy swords if the did not have a sword. We need to study the Book and its meaning like we do the Constitution least we get swallowed up by these spinless worms.

  24. Some years ago, in some parts of this country, the law said that if a white person wanted to sit down on a crowded bus, a black person who was already seated had to give up their seat. Then one day a tired Rosa Parks decided she wasn’t going to allow someone else to decide whether she needed to sit or not. I’m sure her fatigue was part of it. But I’m also quite sure she was not going to let some other person decide what she could or could not have based on their perception of her needs.

    I need my AR-15 just as much as Rosa Parks needed that bus seat. Mostly because I need to be able to make those decisions for myself, as a law abiding American gun owner, who was “endowed by (his) creator with certain inalienable rights.” If you should feel the need to deprive me of my chosen rifle, please at least have the integrity to come and try to take from me it in person.

    • They won’t … They will send some expendable quislings to murder you if you resist. Be prepared.
      And, when it starts, you’ll need to coordinate with your like minded friends, neighbors, and family, but you’ll have to be careful about how because big brother will be watching your communications (and may shut them down on a large scale). Think through how and with who you will communicate to coordinate your mutual aid.

  25. ANY! gun-owner who is “disgusted by people who own stupid guns like Bushmasters” is quite frankly not intelligent enough to own a gun.

  26. I’ve stoppped paying attention to people who call for “gun control” to prevent “gun violence”. Neither terms actually do what their names imply. “Gun control” is only about controlling people, not guns, and “gun violence” is a nonsensical made up term for violent crime where a gun happened to be present.

    If the almighty background check is so vitally important, how come none of the thousands of people who fail the check each year ever get prosecuted? I mean, it says on the form it’s a CRIME to lie on the form.

  27. I do agree there are extremists out there… on both sides sadly. On the anti-gun side, the most vocal, like DiFi and the Governor of NYS, ARE extremists, wanting to destroy natural rights guarded by our Constitution. Then there are those practicing for imminent all out war. We still have the functioning means to battle those who would gut our country from the inside by denying us our rights without shedding a drop of blood if we can get enough people to wake up and see the real truth. While being prepared for war is always good, it is and should always be our last option.

    Bangiola calls guns like Bushmasters “stupid.” I agree… They ARE stupid. SOMEONE has to hold them, control them, tell them what to do. They are so stupid they can’t do anything on their own, not even shoot innocents.

    Well played as well, Bangiola, deferring to a SCOTUS that has more political agenda than a desire to interpret the Constitution by the very document, and its supporting documents (i.e. The Federalist Papers) and try to twist it into a definition that will support their own position on the matter. A good example is the “Obamacare” ruling where We the people were told it was not a tax, and the only way it turns out, according to the SCOTUS, is it has to be a tax or it is unconstitutional. (Now all of a sudden, it’s a tax. The very thing we was told it wasn’t.)

Comments are closed.