“Every time I write that maybe, just maybe, we should talk about guns, gun lovers send me the results of an NRA-cooked survey that found that 70 percent of Americans consider the Second Amendment ‘a bulwark against tyranny.’ I say ‘cooked’ because terms like ‘bulwark’ and ‘tyranny’ are designed to push respondents to a specific response. My guess is that if I asked the same question with similarly loaded and equally unfair language — ‘Do you think the Second Amendment gives you the right to shoot an American police officer or an American soldier if you happen to disagree with the policies of a legitimately elected government?’ — much of that support would vanish.” – John Krull, Gun lovers just don’t get it [via courier-journal.com]
The Second Amendment PROTECTS my right to shoot ANYONE who possesses the opportunity, ability, and intent to cause death or serious bodily injury to me and mine.
Whether soldier, police, or legitimately elected policies are irrelevant to my right to self defense.
Henry, the 2nd amendment deals with personal ownership of firearms, not the legality of “shooting anyone”:
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
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Do you seriously deny the existence of people’s right to self defense? Even the Supreme Court upheld the right to defend yourself against unlawful arrest even to the point of killing said piece of crap officer in John Bad Elk vs. US.
I don’t deny the right to self defense, but the 2nd amendment doesn’t read:
“You have the right to self defense”.
I know I’m splitting hairs here, but what you’re talking about (the theory of self defense) is defined by case law (stand your ground, Bad Elk).
The decision in Bad Elk V. United States was also subsequently gutted by the Model Penal Code of 1962 (The right to resist an unlawful arrest).
“Henry” and “b” are falling headlong into the logical trap set by Krull.
The second amendment does not affect what you do with a gun. Self defense and gun law are separate. protecting yourself with a gun, or knife or baseball bat already falls under self defense law, not gun law.
The problem with Krull is he associated harm with gun ownership.
His own logic, carried onto the first amendment would be that if a person libels someone lese, that ALL OTHER persons’ access to free speech should be preemptively limited.
Krull is making an easily debunked leap.
1) he suggests pre harm, pre-emptive limits. In fact the first amendment does not have pre harm limits. In fact libel, slander sanctions are post harm sanctions , where proof of harm to another is required to even bring a case
2) he suggests general limits to liberty for the actions a single person.
I think a good question would be, what exactly did the founders mean when they said “being necessary to the security of a free state”?
It seems like that phrase alone could justify the use of force against a tyrannical government, or a home invader. Criminals undermine the security of a free state, whether they live in the streets or in a plush capital office.
CA – I agree.
I think the power of the 2nd amendment is what it DOESN’T define.
Agreed the whole point of having the right to bear firearms is the ability to choose when to use it….. Sure I can surrender but it’s my choice….. not a choice made by someone else. The focus of a second amendment is that you agree to follow the government and the law of the land but when corruption and tyranny become too common you have the option of standing up.
“State” doesn’t necessarily mean some governmental or territorial entity. It means “condition of being:”
“state stāt/ noun noun: state; plural noun: states
1. the particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time.
“the state of the company’s finances”
synonyms: condition, shape, situation, circumstances, position”
So, actually, “Free State” means “Condition of Liberty.” THAT is what the “well-regulated militia” is necessary to maintain the security of.
That’s my position, and I’m sticking to it!
Andrew is correct that the 2A does not say anything about how people may use the arms they are guaranteed the right to bear, however, while it does not have any FORMAL standing as federal law, I believe the quote below from the Declaration of Independence pretty much gives the Founder’s conception of the right to keep and bear arms:
“…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
No one has EVER described it better, and yes, under these circumstances you would absolutely be justified in shooting a police officer who was a minion of said tyrannical government.
I think the question here becomes:
What is the threshold at which resistance become necessary (armed or otherwise, I’ll leave it up to your thoughts):
” Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes” – i.e. if your starbucks coffee is too hot (thats right, I went there ZING!) its not necessarily grounds for overthrowing the government.
“a long train of abuses and usurpations” – actually by that logic we should have risen up long ago.
So the AI hasn’t read the constitution or federalist papers, or the letters of the framers talking about the second amendment?
There is a projection and assumption that we would agree to anything. Not so.
Says NRA survey is cooked, then make a survey that is cooked in the opposite direction. Classy.
I believe his point was to show that language is easily skewed to push survey participants in one direction.
His example was skewing the language of the 2nd amendment to get people to say “No, I wouldn’t agree to that at all.”
All surveys are pushed to get a specific result otherwise nobody would hire the pollsters.
Pascal, I am SHOCKED, SHOCKED that surveys are cooked 😉
“90% of Americans support background checks.” Actual question, “Do you support giving guns to criminals?”
Given to only college students in hardline blue states.
I think free people have the right to defend themselves–including people who have been released from jail. Call me crazy, but perhaps being told you’re not human enough any longer to defend yourself just might contribute a bit to decisions made by felons after release.
TBH have you ever seen a survey that wasn’t biased? It’s kinda hard to argue about these kind of surveys because they are biased towards the people who want to hear those biases.
BREAKING: Sun Rises! Film at noon!!!
Wow. That man really needs to visit Dachau.
+1
Probably the most powerful answer in these comments. +2
He’s wrong, but nice try. Here’s my take.
If you outright refused to comply with new laws disarming the populous of their property and god given rights to self defense, would the officers in question copitulate? They would not.
Would the officers in question use force, possibly deadly force, to make you conform? They would.
That begs the question:
Do you have a right to defend yourself with force if someone, or a group of someones is trying to destroy your natural, god given rights?
That is the question he should be asking, as the one he proposes is only a fraction of the equation.
would the officers in question capitulate?
Fixed it for you. You’re welcome.
I dunno, maybe he’s coined a new word, here: ‘COPITULATE’ (kawp-IT’-yew-layt)–verb, New English: When a law enforcement officer abandons his duty to uphold the Constitution in his zeal to enforce an illegal law or ordinance. “That New York State Trooper just copitulated all OVER that guy!”
Lets ask this question instead:
“Do you think the Second Amendment gives you the right to shoot an British police officer or an British soldier if you happen to disagree with the policies of a legitimate king?”
Probably under certain circumstances.
Like If he was trying to take your money or search your house with out reason or take your property (guns) or live in your house with out permission, telling you to shut up, become a protestant, shut down your news paper, stop milling about with your freinds down at the local town square, you know, stuff like that.
well said
Another educated idiot professes his ignorance of history.
So if our country goes the way of Syria, we should just take it? No fighting for civil liberties allowed?
If our country ever went the way of Syria, guerilla warfare would take on new meaning – because of our culture and heritage.
More B.S. speculation from someone wanting attention. What might happen if an asteriod hit the earth type stuff.
Cooked language like a supporter of the constitution is a “gun lover”?
Hypocracy rears its head (again).
Right; Krull is giving a clear example of the pot calling the kettle black; in spades. This reporter’s hypocrisy betrays him.
The amount on covertly or overtly biased information put out by the pro gun pro Second Amendment crowd is dwarfed by the disinformation and outright lies produced by the anti gunners with their subtle and not so subtly slanted polls/surveys, and their cherry picked stats from studies that taken in context do not support what the antis claim. Then the anti’s duplicitous, overwhelmingly liberal democrat big media allies fall all over themselves broadcasting this misinformation almost verbatim for low information sheeple to consume without rational thought.
By comparison, it is always incumbent on the pro gun people to be factual, reasoned and accurate with all the pro gun responses to avoid being beat up by the liberal media for ANY misstep or misinformation. My take is that the little misinformation by pro gunners and pro gun groups is pretty tame when compared to the deluge of unrestrained false rhetoric produced by the grabbers.
Our pro gun people spend a lot of its time and effort trying to debunk the misinformation and lies conjured up by the antis. I have zero sympathy when the antis are occasionally fed some of their own tactics in return; they’ve well earned it.
It’s amusing to watch how the grabbers scream and squirm when the tricks they use are played back on them from time to time.
I would say it this way.
The Second Amendment protects my right to have effective tools to:
(a) defend my family and myself from attackers, and
(b) defend my neighborhood, state, and nation from tyranny
Yes Sir.
Well, if you read it closely, it says you can own one or more guns. Period.
How you use them has been and is the “interpretation” part.
To answer his question: Yes
Agreed.
‘Legitimately elected’ governments do illegimate things every day — provide subsidies in states that don’t set up exchanges then tax the employers for not complying with a law that doesn’t apply to them, delay employer mandates, subsidize congressional healthcare premiums, been found in contempt of court for strangling offshore oil permitting.
The 2nd amendment doesn’t give you the right to self defense. It JUSTIFIES the exercising of that right against oppression — legitimate or otherwise.
I’m not surprised that the Courier-Journal would re-post his views. After Sandy Hook, I noticed that they had either a written editorial, a guest editorial, or a letter EVERY SINGLE DAY for months that bashed gun rights. I learned this while in between houses and living with my parents for a few months. I won’t ever pay for a subscription to their trash. I’m proud of my hometown/state but ashamed that our main paper doesn’t have any more sense than the NYT or the WaPo.
Wow…all I can say is that I’m sure glad I got out of ‘journalism’ back when I was in college. I’d have told him in open class to stop the indoctrination BS and teach actual journalism or I’d toss his ass out the window, then and there, which incidentally was why I got out of journalism to begin with. (The window was on the ground floor.)
Tom
29 comments and not one im favor of the ludicrous article based on emotion. And THAT ladies and gentleman is why I love Indiana. All of the loonies are restricted to very small areas called “Universities”. And all of us fact based “gun lovers” just shake our head, shut them down, and move on.
“legitimately elected government”
I laughed.
And the same can be said of the famous “90% of Americans support background checks” nonsense they’ve been spewing for almost a year now. Now if you asked Americans if they would support a background check law that would make you a felon for lending a firearm to your father on your own private property, I doubt you’d get even 10% support. Yet, that is what the law they were proposing would have done. This whole politics sold to the dumbest low information voter is getting really insulting. The worst part of it is that it works, on a lot of people.
Oh the false assumptions lil Johnnie makes here let me count the ways:
1. All gun owners just want to shoot someone.
2. Police officers are perfect and never make a mistake. (One can the assume Mr. Krull would not take issue with the composition of the prison population and that blacks are not targeted by police)
3. No government ever, anywhere used its police or military on its citizenry. This would presumably include Egypt and Syria.
4. No person is guilty of a crime because it is obviously all the material object’s fault. Human beings are infallible.
5. We don’t have any mental illness anywhere. See 4 above.
If his contention is that you can get the answer you want by skewing the question, the answer is clearly yes. Otherwise the Civilian Disarmament Movement wouldn’t ask questions like, “Are you in favor of restrictions on high capacity magazine clips that can only be used to kill grandmothers holding apple pies and schoolchildren making paper dolls?”
As for his stupid 2nd Amendment question, it’s clearly a dramatic oversimplification, but yes, that’s exactly what it means. Even a legitimately elected government can go rogue. It’s unlikely, but if we’re talking about “possibles” then yeah, it is.
Sigh……………… Mr. Krull the Second Amendment is not about shooting Soldiers or Police Officers and it is a “bulwark against tyranny” Soldiers and Police Officers don’t write/sign/make laws that result in Tyranny, Politicians do, so the Second Amendment when you boil it all down is about shooting Politicians.
I laughed…
Glad I could help.
Go on…..
I have no problem talking about guns. I doubt most gun owners do. That’s why there are gun blogs, and gun magazines, and gun clubs, and gun forums. Gun enthusiasts love to talk about guns. Who are these mythical “gun lovers” who don’t want to talk about guns?
Or are you just being dishonest, that you really want to talk about abrogating the rights of gun owners, and when you do that you don’t want to talk about how those rights are, you know, actual honest-to-goodness rights?
‘Do you think the Second Amendment gives you the right to shoot an American police officer or an American soldier if you happen to disagree with the policies of a legitimately elected government?’ Like FDR and his internment camps? Yeah, I think it does.
‘Do you think the Second Amendment gives you the right to shoot an American police officer or an American soldier if you happen to disagree with the policies of a legitimately elected government?’
Krull appear to miss the point that legitimate elections were by no means the only focus of the designers and ratifiers of the constitution. People can and have produced legislatures that pass hideously oppressive laws. That’s why we have a Republic built on representative democracy and a code of fundamental rights and the defense of each STATE, not nation, in the 2nd Amendment, rather than designing a pure Democracy. Montesquieu, Locke, and all that.
Actually, if you read it right, “Free State” doesn’t (necessarily) mean some geographic or political entity – it’s a condition of being, as in “the state of the union,” or “a state of confusion.”
Literally, “Free State” means a “Condition of Liberty.”
Screw the geopolitical “State” and the “statists” who worship it. Liberty is individual Liberty.
There’s a lot at stake in this debate. Both sides are cooking their own numbers whenever they can.
Krull is a perfect name for a troll. Why is it that every one of those articles starts out with “I agree with pro-gun people” and then the rest of the article is vehemently disagreeing with pro-gun policies and laws that only affect law-abiding citizens? Do they really think that lame attempt to look balanced works? Do they really think laws stop criminals, let alone career criminals?
Apparently he has never heard of the tyranny of the majority. If the majority agree with it the action must be right. He must be in favor of Muslim internment camps and applaud the Japanese internment camps. “Do you think we should detain individuals that have a higher risk of violent actions against Americans”? Boom, internment camps.
“Do you think the Second Amendment gives you the right to shoot an American police officer or an American soldier if you happen to disagree with the policies of a legitimately elected government?”
It does if that police officer is part of a warrantless no-knock raid on my home at 4 AM, or if that soldier is knowingly following an unlawful (unconstitutional) order to detain me/kill me if the political winds pushed that far.
A government that rejects the Constitution it was supposed to uphold is not “legitimate,” even if it was popularly elected. We are a republic ruled by law, not a democracy.
But it’s OK when THEY ask “Do you support tougher background checks that will keep guns out of the hands of criminals?” Then they say “90% of America supports universal background checks” based on that question, which was built on a false premise to begin with.
“Do you think the Fifteenth Amendment gives you the right to suppress an American police officer or an American soldier from voting if you happen to disagree with the policies of a legitimately elected government?
Or how about this one:
Do you think the Fifth Amendment gives you the right to deny trial by jury to an American police officer or an American soldier if you happen to disagree with the policies of a legitimately elected government?
Nope, his comment doesn’t make any sense at all applied to any Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. That officially makes the man a tool and someone who should be shunned, or publicly humiliated, or both.
I think the 2nd amendment would lose ALL of it’s relevance if it didn’t imply that the weapons we use to arm ourselves to secure a free state had to be used via peaceful means only.
As for the elected officials. Things change. Politicians often lie to get into office, or change stances in office. Just because we may have given initial consent doesn’t mean we can’t later revoke it. Take for example sex. Just because someone says it’s okay to initiate contact doesn’t mean they are okay with every single aspect of the act. Nor does it mean they cant revoke consent and if need be physically remove the disagreeable person(s) off their body. So just because I vote for Jaun Q. Public, if he passes a bad law, and someone is stupid enough to enforce that bad law, it’s not my fault, nor am I morally in the wrong for using force (lethal if needed) to secure my CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS(this deserves capslock).
This is the constitution we’re talking about, not a gentlemen’s agreement, or nitpicking over some small detail on a non vital law. The constitution is supposed to be the top rung of our laws. This is our (the people’s) hot body, we do what we want & the hell if most of want to be disarmed so that Uncle Sam can have his way with us. So to answer Krull, yes, yes it does.
Depending on the details of the policy I disagree with I’d say yes. If government policy, for example, was to round up “undesirables” and ship them off to death camps in cattle cars, violence would ensue.
Q: Do you think the Second Amendment gives you the right to shoot an American police officer or an American soldier if you happen to disagree with the policies of a legitimately elected government?
A: No.
Q: Do you think the Second Amendment gives you the right to shoot an American police officer or an American soldier if he tries to murder you?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you think the Second Amendment gives you the right to shoot an American police officer or an American soldier if you happen to disagree with the policies of a legitimately elected government?
A: If American gun owners did feel that way, we would have started shooting cops and soldiers a long time ago.
It is called “Push Polling”. It is done routinely by pollsters on both sides of the question.
It is done for the kids.
I posted a comment on the original website. I hope Mr. Krull reads it and gets an education.
You guys go put some Likes on my comment(if you liked it) on Mr Krull’s article. He won’t read TTAG. But he might read the comments on the Courier-Journal.
The Second Amendment does not protect any right to go and shoot soldiers and law enforcement because you disagree with the policies of a legitimately-elected government, it gives you the right to resist said government if it converts into a tyranny. From the Declaration of Independence:
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Thomas Jefferson is saying that you don’t just try overthrowing the government for light reasons, it has to be something major, like say if the U.S. government converts into a North American version of the Assad regime for example.
This Ass needs to read the Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment.The founding fathers shot soldiers who were fellow British but imposed Tyranny on the Colonists and police sympathizers were shot and or deported.,but since this BOZO ,like most libertards,completely misses the point,why waist your breath.Just exercise your RIGHTS as a gun owner and continue to PISS OFF these ignorant fools by conceal and open carry.Keep recruiting members to join the NRA and GOA .Don’t waist any time because their agenda is they are better than thou and you ,the gun owner are misguided’ .Pretty much exactly what Hitler used to disarm his citizens ,and boy did it work for him! Just keep fighting these lame brains and let them become victims of crime and of terrorism.Stupid suburb ites ,are clueless defenseless ignoramuses.They deserve what they get.Ask them what their plan is for self defense,and watch the ‘deer eye in the headlight stare’.Then say; that’s what I thought!
Krull is advocating shredding the first amendment under his same logic.
He is saying we need to limit ACESS to typewriters, pens and paper, computers connected to the inherent for the entire general population based on the potential they might commit libel of slander.
Libel and slander are also not protected speech but you need to PROVE harm, and then you can apply sanction to that individual (and that individual only).
It is the height of either idiocy or sophistry (or both) for him to cite examples of harmful ACTIONS and post harm sanctions in arguing for preemptive limits on the second or first amendment.
What the is arguing is that if person “A” libels someone, then ALL persons can be muzzled.
The 2nd amendment gives me the right to keep and bear arms. Resisting the tyranny of any government, elected or not, is a choice.
‘Do you think the Second Amendment gives you the right to shoot an American police officer or an American soldier if you happen to disagree with the policies of a legitimately elected government?’
If said Government is infringing upon the constitution and my inalienable rights?
Yes. Emphatically.
“gun lovers send me the results of an NRA-cooked survey”
See how they do that – when the surveys are run and the results don’t support the antis bias, they automatically become “NRA Cooked” and invalid.