Quote of the Day: So Much for Mikeb302000’s Contention That He Doesn’t Want to Ban Guns Edition


“The 2A should be treated as the meaningless anachronistic nonsense it is.” – MikeB302000, comment under TTAG post HuffPo’s Seamus McKiernan: 1st Amendment or 2nd Amendment. Choose.


  1. avatar jwm says:

    was there ever a doubt. destruction of the constitution has to start with 2a. mikeybnumbers hates america so much he won,t live here. but he will try to destroy us. go figure.

    1. avatar jfoster91784 says:

      I’ve done a little googling on MikeB302000, the Brady’s and gun control in general. Everyone is spouting stats about gun violence in the US, but the world is filled with examples of governments, tyrants, warlords, criminals, gangs, etc. mass murdering and oppressing rights of citizens.

      I have to ask myself and people who don’t understand the reason for the 2A, “Why don’t you focus your time on the real issue of ending violence against people by their so called leaders?”

      In the US, UK, and I guess Italy, we live in relative peace. There are occasions when crazies kill people using guns, knives, bats, fists. But relative to the population the odds are pretty long against that happening to average Joe or Jane. But the moment that it happens, the “frightened” start shouting about disarming civilians so that they’ll be safe.


      Were you struck by lightening yesterday? Shot at by roving gangs? Robbed at gun point? No? Do you live in a country were being a particular religion can get you executed and dumped into a mass grave? Kidnapped and held for ransom by drug cartels? No? Then you’re probably living a better life than most of the rest of the world.

      Why don’t you focus on making changes that will really benefit people. There will always be a criminal element whether in the population or in govt. and we have the right to self defense. Utopian fantasies are just that, fantasies. You want the govt and police to be the only ones who can own firearms. Why would they need them if no one else has them? Oh, yeah…fantasy!

      Focus Anti-gun people. There’s so much more that you could be doing in the rest of the world to end violence.

      Robert, Thanks for a great site. Thanks for mediating in a way that allows heated debate that doesn’t degrade to flaming for flaming sake.

      1. avatar Ben says:

        Well said sir.

  2. avatar 2Wheels says:

    Mike does not understand what the Bill of Rights are. Go back to school Mikey.

    We cannot have an intelligent conversation until you understand what a natural right is.

  3. avatar Joseph says:

    Sounds like Mikeb just may be Michael Bloomberg….

  4. avatar Pascal says:

    I would like to point out that Mikeb does not even live the US so he could care less about its constitution.

  5. avatar Farmerbill says:

    Why is it so hard for some to understand without the Second, the rest would surely fail. Especially the First.

  6. avatar BLAMMO says:

    Yes, it’s an 18th century anachronism. Guns are no longer needed in a modern, enlightened and civilized world. (/sarc)

    Oh, but there’s that pesky little thing going on in Syria right now. Not to mention, the 20th century was the best yet for brutal dictatorial tyrants who feel like slaughtering their own people.

  7. avatar Chris says:

    Lets just be as clear as we can.

    My fundamental human rights are not subject to the whims or opinions of others.

    End of discussion.

    1. avatar freeport56 says:


    2. avatar Just Another Matt says:

      nor are basic human rights”meaningless anachronistic nonsense “

      1. avatar LongPurple says:

        I don’t think you can get more basic than self-preservation, the most basic of instincts, common to every living, breathing creature.

  8. avatar Jason says:

    On this site Mike tries to come across as someone just wanting some reasonable regulations. Goes to show you, reasonable ends up being nobody is allowed guns.

  9. avatar WPZ says:

    By “anachronistic” one must think he means “archaic”, or perhaps “obsolete”.
    Then one wonders whether being an “archaic” thing also means it’s “meaningless”.

  10. avatar mikeb302000 says:

    Not a one of you guys would dare to point out that Robert has a little problem in his premise. The fact that I disparage the 2A does not mean I want to ban all guns. How does that follow?

    1. avatar Roll says:


    2. avatar Jason says:

      It follows because the 2A is the thing that defines our right to own guns. My question to you: What follows after the elimination of the 2A?

    3. avatar Gabriel says:

      In the most practical sense (one based on the world as it is, not the world as you would like it to be), the Second Amendment is the only thing guarding the gate against barbarians like you.

    4. avatar Aaron Van says:


    5. avatar Dracon1201 says:

      So you are directly disagreeing that by the words of the constitution, we should not be allowed to defend our country with a regulated militia of the people. In response to your “I didn’t say ban guns” The 2a is the only amendment that states that we are allowed to own guns, thereby, no 2a, we have no legal premises to own firearms of any kind.

      1. avatar mikeb302000 says:

        “The 2a is the only amendment that states that we are allowed to own guns, thereby, no 2a, we have no legal premises to own firearms of any kind.”

        NO legal premise, NONE?????

        1. avatar freeport56 says:

          Who needs a legal premise when it is a birth right?

        2. avatar mikeb302000 says:

          Ha! A birthright, is it?

        3. avatar Dracon1201 says:

          “No legal premise, NONE?????”
          Alright, name another one that holds the same power that the 2a guarantees?

        4. avatar mikeb302000 says:

          Oh, is that the qualifier now? It has to “hold the same power that the 2a guarantees?”

          It it weren’t for the 2A, you’d still have guns just like you do now according to your various state laws. You just wouldn’t be able to keep falling back on the Constitution in every discussion of restrictions.

      2. avatar styrgwillidar says:

        No. The 2A was stating that we already had that right, that the new government would not impose any infringements on that right. That one (just one) of the reasons they would not infringe on it was it’s beneficial relationship to raising a militia. Or as the DC Court of Appeals put it in the ruling upheld by SCOTUS:
        “To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment
        protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right
        existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Anti-federalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment’s civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.”

        I envy Mike his child-like innocence in believing that human nature has so fundamentally changed that no leader or politician would ever again attempt to subjugate people to bend to his will. Use the force of government to have them act as he sees fit. I can only assume it is due to ignorance of world history over the past 120 yrs. He probably is unaware of governments slaughtering their own people in the millions in the USSR, China, Cambodia, Germany. Sorry, I believe it can happen here, there, or anywhere. I do not think people or politicians in the US are fundamentally different human beings or superior to those elsewhere.

        1. avatar Dracon1201 says:

          So, you can’t think of one then Mike? So far you have not proved any point that taking away 2a would not impact our gun ownership.

        2. avatar mikeb302000 says:

          How about this? You guys keep telling me the 2A doesn’t GRANT anything it only GUARANTEES it or PROTECTS it. The right, according to you fanatics, is already existing, from God, or from the Universe, whatever. Basic human, you call it.

          So, if we take away the 2A, you’ll still have your right, right?

        3. avatar Greg in Allston says:

          Yes Mike, we’ll still have out right to keep and bear.

          When guns are outlawed, only the government and outlaws will have guns. I, and millions of others, fully intend be outlaws if the utopian fever dreams come to pass. So be it. It won’t be of my choosing but be assured that I personally won’t go willingly into that great, dark, helpless good night.

        4. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

          That’s called grandiose victimism, Greg. It’s quite popular among the fringe.

        5. avatar Greg Camp says:

          The right exists prior to the Constitution. What that document does is provide a reminder to our government that the right is ours. It also reminds American citizens of the guarantees that make up our society. The document could be forgotten or erased, but the rights would still be ours. Even in a dictatorship, people have rights. Those rights are often violated, but that does not negate their existence.

    6. avatar Silver says:

      When you start taking away Amendments, it doesn’t matter what you want, it matters what the government wants. And, historically and around the world, governments do NOT want their citizens to own guns. You need only look at government actions throughout history to see why.

      I personally couldn’t care less what you or anyone individually wants, since that’s your choice. The mark of a real American, someone who “gets” it, and a decent person in general, is one who recognizes that this nation is founded upon the principle of protection from government. Governments are no less corrupt today than they were in the late 18th century, perhaps even moreso today, and the potential for catastrophic abuse is still there. Let’s take the 1A…if you take away the 1A but still say you don’t want to ban people from saying what they want, guess what…you just gave away your lawful right to have an opinion about anything. Without that Constitutional protection from the government, they can do whatever they want and silence you. Same with the 2A. No matter what you want to “allow” people to own or not, once the 2A is gone, your opinion, or mine, or anyone’s isn’t worth squat, because our overlords in DC have free reign.

      So thanks a bundle for not wanting to ban all guns, but I’d rather keep the Constitutional guarantee to that right.

    7. avatar GS650G says:

      If you disparage it, Mike, then what is your point? The 2A doesn’t talk ab out much else.

      1. avatar mikeb302000 says:

        Gun ownership needs to be much more strictly regulated. The 2A interferes with that, at least the current understanding of it does.

        That should change.

        1. avatar GS650G says:

          So who draws the lines and regulations? Or do we accept a constantly evolving standard?

        2. avatar Greg Camp says:

          You use words like “need” and “should” as though lots of people agree. We don’t.

    8. avatar Jason says:

      C’mon Mike, how many guns do they have in Britain, or France or Spain or Italy or Norway. They don’t have a right to own guns and for the most part they don’t own guns.

      1. avatar mikeb302000 says:

        Wrong, for the most part, wrong.

        1. avatar Hal says:

          Okay their right to keep and bear arms is SEVERELY restricted in those nations. Accordingly the percentage of people who own firearms is significantly smaller in those nations. How is he wrong for the post part? You’re intolerable.

        2. avatar BLX says:

          Actually, I agree with Mike there, and a few posts up.
          Since the right to defend our lives is God-or-whatever-given due to our very existence, we have the right to self-defense where ever we go. PA, NJ, Cuba, China, the moon, whatever.
          It just so happens that all too many jurisdictions dispense punishment to whose who have the audacity to do so. Like for example, Britain, or France or Spain or Italy or Norway, or NYC or Mexico.
          The Second Amendment says that “the newly formed government is not allowed to infringe on this already existing right,” not, “oh, by the way, you are allowed to have an assault musket and a hi capacity bag of ball at home.”
          The Constitution and BoR is there to protect us from human nature which hasn’t changed much in millennia and won’t change in the forseeable future.

    9. avatar IdahoPete says:

      Hey, as long as we are illegally dumping [without a Constitutional Amendment] the parts of the Bill of Rights that mikey dislikes, can we dump mikey’s First Amendment rights? And his Fifth Amendment rights?

      1. avatar Totenglocke says:

        Seeing as Mikey isn’t a US citizen, he has no Constitutionally protected rights. Toss him in Gitmo and let me enjoy his dream of having every aspect of his life controlled by the government.

      2. avatar LongPurple says:

        Maybe just dump the 3 A., since he thinks it’s so “archaic”. Then we can quarter some troops at his place, to keep an eye on him.

        1. avatar mikeb302000 says:

          Yeah, you really have a good point about the quartering of troops in private homes. That’s an argument I’m surprised more of your side isn’t using to prove the relevance of ALL of the Bill of Rights.

        2. avatar Robert Farago says:

          I guess you missed the story about the UK military positioning anti-aircraft missiles on the roofs of private citizens’ apartments in London.

        3. avatar JayF says:

          Is mikeb one of those “right to life” anti-abortion folks? They too believe in ignoring SCOTUS rulings that they disagree with.

          mikeb, even if you are not anti-abortion, I suspect that right-to-lifers would still enjoy hearing you speak about ignoring SCOTUS rulings that you disagree with.

        4. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

          Actually I kinda liked the ruling in which Scalia said reasonable restrictions are acceptable. That was spit in the eye of all you 2A fanatics who say “shall not be infringed” should be taken literally. The thing is already being infringed. We’re just arguing about the extent of it.

        5. avatar Jayf says:

          Yet most gun control activists are unwilling to accept the Court’s prohibition on banning guns “in common use.”

        6. avatar JayF says:

          So a majority of 5-4 conservative decisions means a “lop-sided conservative group of Justices”?

          I wonder how mikeb would describe a slew of 6-3 and 7-2 conservative decisions?

          I also wonder if mikeb would describe a majority of 5-4 liberal decisions as the work of a “lop-sided liberal group of Justices”?

        7. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

          Sorry. SLIGHTLY lop-sided.

        8. avatar LongPurple says:

          One thing is very clear — The 3 A. has worked perfectly. Why would you want to “get rid of it”?

        9. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

          I don’t want to get rid of any amendments. I just want you to stop pretending they’re all relevant in today’s world. They’re not.

    10. avatar bontai Joe says:

      “FLAME SELF DELETED”, because you just don’t get it.

    11. avatar Matthew says:

      Do not feed the mikeynumbers troll

    12. avatar Totenglocke says:

      Quite true, you don’t want to ban guns, you just want to ban the peasants from being able to buy, purchase, or own one. If you banned guns, then your government thugs wouldn’t have firearms to use to force people to do their will.

      1. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

        No, I would simply what people to be better qualified to own guns.

        1. avatar Totenglocke says:

          Exactly what I said – the peasants can’t own them, but you and your fellow self-proclaimed “noblemen” can.

        2. avatar LongPurple says:

          “Comes the revolution, WE will have guns.”
          (unknown American Communist circa 1948, at cell meeting where members were encouraged to support all gun control laws)

        3. avatar LongPurple says:

          Maybe the best way to do that is to re-institute the concept of Universal Military Training, only this time make it really universal. No “get married and beat the draft” BS, everybody but the lame, the halt, the jailbird, and the village idiot goes in, gets trained, and gets evaluated. Too “Fascist” an idea to be accepted?

  11. avatar Silver says:

    Old news.

    Besides, had he ever asserted that he wasn’t, we should have already known he was lying. That’s what gun-grabbers do, they lie, cheat, deceive, and smear to achieve their demented agenda because logic, facts, and decency fail them.

    I personally still don’t see why we give this clown any attention. Aside from the fact that he comments here, what makes him any more worthy of attention or consideration than any other morally bankrupt gun-grabber nutjob out there? Has he ever once put forth an argument worthy of consideration rather than a laugh? I mean, I get that he’s entertaining in a sad kind of way, like viewing a carnival freak show, but it lessens the high stature of the site to make a tantrum-throwing nobody the center of attention.

  12. avatar Dracon1201 says:

    Oh, I’m so sorry the United States has not had to face the threat of dictatorial regime that has tried to slaughter much of the populace and work the rest to death for its own nefarious purposes. Maybe if we had, our 2a would be valued so much more highly by the anti-gun crowd. I’m sure in a true time of need, the true patriots would defend the country with a butter knife, but then it’ll be too late.

  13. avatar freeport56 says:

    Someone correct me if I am wrong, Mike Lives in England, right!

    Their violent crime rate is 5 times ours and their murder rate via firearms is 600 per 100,000. England is 1/6th our size! That is an interesting statistic for a country that is firearm free. Even the Iraqi and Afghanistani people are allowed a fully automatic weapon in their homes!

    Firearms have secured our freedom for 400+ years. If we were to surrender our firearms, our Government would do with us what it pleases. Of that there is no doubt!

    1. avatar Silver says:

      Italy, I think. The one with that nice man that kept the trains running on time in the 30’s and 40’s and was pals with that mustachioed fellow from Germany.

      1. avatar freeport56 says:

        I do no make these statistic up. They are real and happening now in Englandistan!

        1. avatar hmmmmm says:

          If you really don’t think you’re making up stats like 372,000 people being killed with firearms in England every year then you should check yourself into a padded cell. The number of allied losses since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom is around 4500 – you really think 80 times that many people die in England every year from guns?

      2. avatar freeport56 says:

        FLAME DLETED While you point out our Homicide rate you have no clue what so ever those numbers mean. Of the 17, 342 homicides that took place in the US the bulk of them are Police Officers killing bad guys, bad guys killing bad guys, and the remainder are the crazies killing people.

        The other statistic you are unaware of is that between 800,000 and 2.5 million times per year in the U.S., guns are saving lives! Our worst murders occur in places where Liberals will not allow guns. We call the ‘Free Fire Zones.’ This a safe place where crazies can kill and they know they will not be challenged because Law Abiding citizens follow the law!

        133,000,000 American gun Owners killed no one yesterday

        1. avatar mikeb302000 says:

          Sorry Freep, you’re whistling in the dark now.

          Intentional homicide, which is not limited to gun murders, is the mother of all crime. It’s the US that wins that gold medal and we can thank you and your friends for all the support, since most of those incidents do involve guns.

        2. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

          “It’s the US that wins that gold medal…”
          You are now a liar.


        3. avatar mikeb302000 says:

          Sorry Moon, you lose again. This particular competition was between the UK and the US, and if you want to you could throw in some other industrialized, 1st world nations.

          You should be proud of your gold medal.

        4. avatar Greg Camp says:

          Isn’t South Africa supposed to be a paradise now? Look at their homicide rate. Look at the rate in the Czech Republic, and look at the Czech gun culture. It’s not guns that are the problem.

        5. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

          There you go, moving the goalposts yet again.

      3. avatar jmama says:

        He said violent crime rate Mikey dip wad.

    2. avatar hmmmmm says:

      You think that England’s murder rate with firearms is 600 per 100,000? You think every year 372,000 people are murdered with guns in England? I don’t want to get my comment flame deleted so I won’t say what I think about your cognitive powers but seriously – WTF are you smoking?

      The gun murder rate in England is a FRACTION of what it is in the US. A FRACTION. Is this the problem with discussing gun crime on this board? Do you all get your stats from whatever ridiculous source freeport56 does? No wonder meaningful debate is impossible when you have to argue with somebody who thinks more people die in England each year from guns than were killed in the Vietnam war!

      1. avatar freeport56 says:

        correction:should have been 600 people, not per 100,000

        1. avatar hmmmmm says:


          It’s not even 600 – where on earth do you get this dribble from? In that chart it is 41, with a per 100,000 value 0f 0.07.

          The USA on the other hand has 9146 gun homicides for a per 100,000 rate of 2.97.

          Since you are mathematically challenged I will work it out for you – the US homicide rate by gun is FORTY TWO TIMES HIGHER than England’s.

          But yeah, I’m sure gun control isn’t working for them. I’m sure glad I have a 42 times higher chance of being murdered with a gun every day than they are.

        2. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

          “I’m sure glad I have a 42 times higher chance of being murdered with a gun every day than they are.”
          You would prefer to be murdered with a knife? Perhaps an axe? What exactly makes being murdered with a gun so much worse?

      2. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

        “The gun murder rate in England is a FRACTION of what it is in the US.”
        Indeed. Let’s talk about the total murder rate, since I’m sure we can agree that any murder (regardless of method) is a tragedy.

        1. avatar freeport56 says:


          You know where you can go….., your your statistics and your source are sketchy at best. According to your information there are 3,400,000 guns in England. While shotguns were basically left alone, handgun crime is on the rise. Your 41 homicides do not detail how many times firearms are used in crimes in the UK.

          No matter what, we will keep our firearms. Unlike the British that handed away their rights and are now reaping those benefits!

        2. avatar mikeb302000 says:

          God damn Moon, you haven’t been paying attention at all.


          That’s not gun murders, that’s all murders. I’ll spell it out for you. When a country has proper gun control, the ENTIRE MURDER rate goes down because most murders are done with guns. Get it?

        3. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

          “When a country has proper gun control, the ENTIRE MURDER rate goes down because most murders are done with guns. Get it?”
          Oh. You mean like Mexico (22.7 homicides/100000 people)? Greenland (19.2)? Russia (10.2)?

        4. avatar JayF says:

          US has more homicides with guns than many other countries? I agree.

          There are more homicides with guns than with knives? I agree.

          But do those same other countries have less homicides with knives than the US? I don’t know — anyone have figures?

          If their homicides with knives are similar to the US, I see why it could be argued that gun control may be responsible for less homicides with guns. But if those same other countries have less homicides with knives than the US, it’s not likely that gun control is responsible. Some other factor must be at work — and could that same factor affect homicides with guns?

      3. avatar freeport56 says:

        at least I had the courage to correct my error,but my facts are correct!

        1. avatar hmmmmm says:

          No, they aren’t. They aren’t even close – see my post above which uses actual statistics from UNDOC, rather than fantasy numbers from FLAME DELTED.

          Post your “source” FLAME DELETED


      4. avatar tdiinva says:

        It’s Hmmm/Kinsho again. The UK murder rate is about of a quarter of the US rate. It was a quarter of the US rate when guns weren’t restricted. It’s all about demographics. If you are white or asian your chances of being murdered are the same or less than in the UK. Even the rate for Hispanics is almost comparable.

        However, your actual chances of being murdered in either the UK or US are on the order of 10^-5. However your chances of being a victim or rape (women), assualted, robbed with weapon or have your home invaded are around 2% per year in the UK. That is about five times the rate in the United States (403 per 100,000 for the US versus 2100 per 100,000 in the UK) Anti gun advocates focus on the murder rate, which is distorted by demographics, because the total violent crime statistics show that the US armed population reduces the total violent crime rate.

        UK Ref: The Daily Mail
        US Ref: FBI press release.

        1. avatar Sanchanim says:

          You beat me to the numbers on this.
          You can look at gun crime specifically, and of course it will be smaller, since there are no guns, but look at violent crime in general. Not just murder, but rape etc. Did it change? Did homicides in general drop?
          Please also don’t compare the US to the UK. Why might you ask? When you go outside the country, ie, the UK, Israel, or Japan there are also cultural differences as well. The countries are also smaller.

          However one thing you can do is look at the historical data from the country itself which tdiinva did. As we can see it made little difference.

        2. avatar mikeb302000 says:

          We did look at violent crime, man, the mother of all violent crime, intentional homicide.

          You just don’t like what we see.

        3. avatar RuffRidr says:

          You can look at gun crime specifically, and of course it will be smaller, since there are no guns, but look at violent crime in general. Not just murder, but rape etc. Did it change?

          Well said. Since UK’s gun laws have taken effect, they haven’t lowered the murder rate, and violent crime has gone up. Who really cares if less of the murders involved gun? You are just as dead from a bat as you are a gun. So if the net result is that your violent crime rate has gone up, what value is gun laws to your society?

        4. avatar mikeb302000 says:

          It’s not ALL about demographics, it’s not all about any one thing.

          Gun availability is one of the major factors, though.

        5. avatar tdiinva says:

          Mr. Bonomo:

          You focus on murder because it is the only crime statistic that you can cite where the gun rich United States falls short. For all practical purposes the chances of you being murdered in the US or the gun free UK are essentially the same to the fourth decimal point — effectively zero. Isn’t the almost zero probability of being a murder victim one your arguments why we don’t need guns? Your entire argument rests on preventing unlikely events while ignoring the chances of being a victim of rape, assault or armed robbery. I will take my chances of being a crime victim unarmed in New York City over any place in the UK.

  14. avatar Accur81 says:

    Dear Mike B,

    I totally agree. I can’t wait to be victimized by someone who has made a lengthy series of exceptionally poor decisions. That darn 2A just has to go. /[sarc]

  15. avatar Michael Bluth says:

    Who is this guy and why does he deserve our attention?

    1. avatar Hawkman says:

      Plus one…

      1. avatar LongPurple says:


    2. avatar GS650G says:

      Purely entertainment value. And to remind us what kind of people we are up against. Imagine him as a Representative or Senator.

      1. avatar Josh in GA says:

        “Imagine him as a Representative or Senator”…of the People’s Republic of California. Or maybe New York. Illinois is another good option.

      2. avatar LongPurple says:

        Yep, it can be entertaining, but highly repetitious. Same old, same old. The tired ‘arguments’ that have been refuted into oblivion, brought up over and over as if just discovered. No matter how outrageous the statements, it’s deja vu all over again.

    3. avatar Totenglocke says:

      He’s a cash cow for TTAG. He comes here from under the bridge (not when there’s sunlight of course, Gandalf taught us his kind turn to stone in sunlight) and posts some crap, which causes people to argue with him and gets more page hits for TTAG (which means more ad revenue). As such, from time to time they’ll post an article about him or when they REALLY feel like punking us, let him write an “editorial” so that they can rake in the ad revenue like winning a slot machine.

      1. avatar LongPurple says:

        Trit-trot . . . trit-trot . . . trit-trot.

  16. avatar jwm says:

    robert farago, i understand your desire to be fair and impartial and respect the 1a as well as all the amendments. but at what point does it cross the line into collabaration with people like mikeybnumbers and matt?

  17. avatar tdiinva says:

    When I first encountered Mr. Bonomo I thought he was a man of good will and unlike the old curmudgeon Mr. Magoo, he displayed a sense of humor. As time went on I could see that it was all an act. Whenever he had an opportunity to disparage someone he took it, especially when Robert wasn’t around. One thing I hate is a phony. I would give him more respect if he acted like the outright Bloombergian gun banner that he is. He would be an authentic individual instead of FLAME DELETED

    1. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

      Speaking of which, what ever happened to Magoo?

      1. avatar Robert Farago says:

        He was banned.

      2. avatar RuffRidr says:

        He still hangs out at MikeB’s place. Goes by the name JadeGold.

    2. avatar mikeb302000 says:



      1. avatar Chas says:

        Oh please, oh please…..

        1. avatar Totenglocke says:

          Mike will never be banned, no matter what he does.

        2. avatar GS650G says:

          We can only hope/////

    3. avatar tdiinva says:

      Come on Robert, that was more of an ember than a flame. The “Flame Deleted” actually makes it look worse than it was.

  18. avatar Aharon says:

    MikeB would have us trust elites (the new American Royalty) such as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, DiFi, Obama, and others to re-write an Amendment that concerns itself with protecting the freedom, liberty, rights, security, property, and prosperity of the common man.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      A few selected intellectuals from San Fran, Jersey and New York deciding what 300 million people should be permitted to do.
      I don’t like that idea much.

  19. avatar JOE MATAFOME says:

    What’s an anti-flaming?

    1. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

      Being flamboyantly heterosexual?

      1. avatar Viper26 says:


      2. avatar LongPurple says:

        #1 ROFLMAO

  20. avatar JayF says:

    Gun control advocates:

    The only thing that Heller prohibits is banning most guns. Everything else we want is still OK.

    Heller is wrong and it is vital and inevitable that it be overturned.

    Gunowner advocates think we want to ban most guns? Where do they get such crazy ideas?

    1. avatar Mike S says:

      If you have no interest in a ban, why would you need Heller overturned?

    2. avatar freeport56 says:

      Oh, we get from the insane Liberals in California, New York, and Washington DC. We have thousands of gun laws on the books already. Everything that is illegal to do with a firearm has been done. They keep passing laws as a passive-aggressive attack on the Law Abiding gun owner. Liberals know damn well that criminals will not obey the law by definition!

    3. avatar Mike S says:

      Upon a second reading, not sure if serious……LOL

  21. avatar Mike's Mom says:

    Hey Mike, remember when you admitted to the whole world on the internet to owning illegal guns and using illegal drugs?? Why don’t you go hassle the medical marijuana people and leave us alone? Why anyone lets themselves get worked up over such a hypocrite is beyond me.

    1. avatar mikeb302000 says:

      Hypocrisy is not the right word. I’ve owned guns legally in my life too. My position now is what it is.

      1. avatar Totenglocke says:

        His position is that of all anti-gun politicians – it’s OK for HIM and his pals to have guns, just not those OTHER people. We can’t have undesirable people like Jews, blacks, Christians, capitalists, etc owning guns – they might use them to resist the commands of our benevolent dictator.

      2. avatar GS650G says:

        Can we count on Mikeb for protection with the gun he doesn’t own any longer?>

      3. avatar LongPurple says:

        It’s O.K. The illegal guns owned combined with the legal guns owned, and they all came out as legal.
        Sort of like a ham and Swiss on a bagel becomes Kosher.

  22. avatar FLAME DELETED says:

    Aharon here just checking to see what it would look like to use the literal online nicname of “FLAME DELETED”.

    1. avatar Aharon says:

      Hey, it worked.

    2. avatar Mike S says:

      Oh man I wish I thought of that!

  23. avatar MotoJB says:

    Can’t you just ban Mike? 😉

    1. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

      Why? Unpopular opinions are nothing to ban people over. I’d even go so far as to say that flames are not worth banning people, but then again I’m not in charge.

      1. avatar Milsurp Collector says:

        Personally, I like having him around. I get a kick out of seeing us power wash the floor with his “logic” all the time

      2. avatar Greg Camp says:

        I support the rights recognized in the First Amendment as well, and I prefer to see free expression accepted in comment sections. For the moment, Mikeb is allowing (mostly) free comments on his blog. I’ve extended that courtesy to him in perpetuity on mine, though he’s never taken the opportunity to use it.

        1. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

          I’ll get over there, Greg. I’ve just been busy.

  24. avatar Aaronvan says:

    lol FLAME DELETED war

  25. avatar Sanchanim says:

    Well in counter to MikeB30200. Many of us feel that the second amendment when applied to the defense against Tyranny is very relevant in this day and age. I guess it depends on how you feel about government. Having worked within the government I can tell you we waist way to much money, and tax way to much. I am for smaller government who is fiscally responsible. Right now we don’t have that, and it needs to change. This is a major reason why we have seen a rise in the tea party within the last decade.
    With the second amendment, it is considered inalienable right guaranteed to us. Many folks call this G-d given or a birth right, but we can agree that it is certainly a constitutional right.

    1. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

      No, no. See, you’re not allowed to feel that way because mike said so. 😉

    2. avatar hmmmmmmmm says:

      Yup, and just like any other constitutional right it can be taken away or changed to better suit the times – just like the prohibition amendment was.

      The 2nd amendment IS anachronistic, I don’t see how any rational person can claim otherwise when it speaks about organized militias. Which militia are any of you with? Organized or otherwise? I think the meaning of the amendment is quite clear though, that the citizenry should have guns, but on all other matters it is vague and ambiguous. The power of personal weaponry that is available now was certainly unforeseen by the writers – what would they say about militias having access to a suitcase nuke, for example? Most people here (hypocritically, as usual) don’t even want a country like Iran to have a nuke, but under the US constitution there is apparently no problem with a citizen owning one – which is patently ridiculous.

      Whether or not you believe in gun rights it would be better for all parties to have something better written than the current 2nd amendment.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        the idiots argument. “if he can own a pistol next he’ll want a nuke” you can tell a grabber is losing the argument when they drag out that old chestnut.

        1. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

          To say nothing of the fact that single-stage (fission-only) nuclear weapons are ridiculously easy to manufacture. The most difficult task isn’t even building the thing, it’s trying to find a source for the fissile material. Once that is accomplished, the engineering is pretty straightforward.

        2. avatar hmmmmmmmm says:

          Are you calling me an idiot? That would seem to violate the politeness code here and I hope to see you banned in short order.

          You don’t even have a point anyway, you run your jaw without any evidence at all to back your assertion – just because YOU say something stupid does not make it a fact, it just means YOU have said something stupid.

          Your statement is not just stupid though, it is also very obviously wrong, which makes it even more stupid – the constitution clearly protects nuclear weapon ownership for the citizenry, because it does not give any definition to the word “arms”, and nuclear weapons are “arms”.

          Either you believe in the constitution or you don’t – which is it?

        3. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

          If we look at historical military texts, I believe nukes would be classified as “ordnance” rather than “arms”. Not sure if this helps or hurts your “people can’t be trusted with modern personal weaponry because nukes” argument.

        4. avatar hmmmmmmmm says:

          In the period after WW2 the US and the USSR were involved in an “arms race”, which was the race to develop bigger and better weapons, nuclear and otherwise.

          Rifles and handguns are examples of “small arms” which by definition means that there are larger “arms”.

          I don’t think there is any rational person who can claim nuclear weapons are not “arms” and according to the constitution you love so much, and consider to be so infallible, by right to have those “arms” may not be infringed.

          QED – it is my constitutional right to have nuclear weapons. Which is utterly stupid, and why the 2nd need to be re-written.

          Sorry to spank the ignorance out of you yet again.

        5. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

          I lived through the Cold War. “Arms race” was a term manufactured by the media. Really, go do some reading.

          “Sorry to spank the ignorance out of you yet again.”
          Sweetheart, I think we both know the only thing you’ve been “spanking”, lately.

        6. avatar hmmmmmmmm says:

          “I lived through the Cold War. “Arms race” was a term manufactured by the media.”

          Well then that’s the final word on it, isn’t it? LOL, do you even know how ridiculous you sound claiming that words which have been in the English language for CENTURIES were actually created by the evil liberal media 30 years ago!

          Arms are weapons. Period. You lose again, FFS bring something better to the table next time than this trash – you’re a joke.

      2. avatar Mike S says:

        Ahh the old “they were talking about muskets not guns with shoulder things that go up!” line of BS.
        There’s no mention of a smartphone in the 1st, either. Or a laptop in the 4th.
        Should the cops be able to confiscate them because the FF didn’t have a crystal ball?

        1. avatar hmmmmmmmm says:

          OK, since this is such an “old chestnut” and “line of BS” then why not actually tell us all WHY it is so?

          Because I do not see anything in the 2nd amendment preventing me from owning a nuclear weapon – could you please point out where that limitation is? How about a chemical weapon – where is that prohibited in the 2nd?

          It looks to me like you completely ignore the good points I make and then hoist your own strawman because you are so ideologically attached that you can’t even rationally think any more. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised, the level of cognitive dissonance displayed by most of you here is beyond comprehension. Yet another reason why pro gun people are going to lose the wider debate – you aren’t even capable of having a rational debate, let alone put a valid point across in one.

        2. avatar hmmmmmmmm says:

          Which “well regulated militia” are you in BTW Mike?

        3. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

          “It looks to me like you completely ignore the good points I make…”
          BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA! Right on! Yeah! You go, man! Trying to dissemble the 2nd by arguing nukes and chemical weapons? Brilliant! Why hasn’t anyone done this before? A master stroke! It’s sure to succeed!

          Seriously. Are you fvcking kidding me?

        4. avatar hmmmmmmmm says:

          So what you’re saying then moonshine is that you have exactly NOTHING to say against my point?

          Running your mouth and making insults doesn’t prove a thing, other than the caliber of person you are (as if that was in any doubt). All you have to do is say where nuclear weapons are prohibited in the constitution, which you love so much. Why is that so hard?

          I can’t believe how ignorant and utterly blind you have to be to on the one hand claim that assault rifles are fine by the 2nd, but nothing beyond that is, when NEITHER are mentioned, and there is NO limitation whatsoever placed in the text. Literally I am wondering why I am even wasting my time explaining this when quite clearly you cannot understand something so basic, because if you were capable of understanding then you wouldn’t write something so obviously wrong and brainless in the first place.

        5. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

          “I can’t believe how ignorant and utterly blind you have to be to on the one hand claim that assault rifles are fine by the 2nd, but nothing beyond that is”
          Point me to the post where I said that. Ready? Go.

          You haven’t made a single point. You attempt to link gun ownership to militia service. This has been thoroughly settled for some time; you must be new to the debate if you’re still using that saw. I’ll give you the Cliff’s Notes version: the militia clause of the 2nd is known as a “justification clause”, that is, it justifies the prohibition against infringment on the right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms (weapons).

          Likewise, your nuclear and chemical weapons argument is equally amateurish. Both are easily acquired/manufactured by parties interested in doing so. The foolishness of your statement that “The power of personal weaponry that is available now was certainly unforeseen by the writers” was pointed out to you by Mike S. You completely ignored it, and pressed on with “I do not see anything in the 2nd amendment preventing me from owning a nuclear weapon”. Of course you don’t. I don’t either. There are other laws on the books regulating such devices.

          Now go do some research and critical thinking. The adults are talking.

        6. avatar hmmmmmmmm says:

          “”I do not see anything in the 2nd amendment preventing me from owning a nuclear weapon.” Of course you don’t. I don’t either. There are other laws on the books regulating such devices.”

          LOL what? WTF?

          So what you’re saying now is that the constitution ISN’T inviolable, in fact we can pick and choose which parts we pay attention to, and which we can’t? Because that goes against everything pro 2nd amendment people have ever said, and also goes against the very law of this land.

          Either the 2nd amendment is the highest law on the matter, and my right to bear arms shall not be infringed, or it isn’t. And if it ISN’T, like you are now saying (but will surely back track on in about 5 seconds) then there is no problem getting rid of all your guns without changing the constitution atall, now is there? In fact why do you even care about the 2nd amendment if it conveys no rights whatsoever?

          LOL – you have hung yourself with your own twisted logic, hypocrisy, and idiocy yet again – congratulations!

        7. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

          🙂 Figured you out. Welcome to TTAG, Laci.

        8. avatar hmmmmmmmm says:

          Don’t change the subject – at least be man enough to admit that you are wrong moonshine.

          Also I am not this lacie person, nor am I kinsho, or anybody else. It is yet another example of the lengths many here go to to maintain the walls of their cognitive dissonance when they try and pretend that there is only one person in the world who could possibly disagree with them, they just use different names all the time. Perhaps you should ask yourself if you need such a lame defense mechanism to try and deflect logic and truth away from you then maybe you aren’t actually right about this matter.

        9. avatar Mike S says:

          Oh man! totally had me going for a while there!

          Whatever your name is, it’s kinda fun to watch you getting all wound up. Thanks for the show.

        10. avatar hmmmmmmmm says:

          Who’s getting wound up? I am obliterating every one of you fools who even dare to step up – I’m having fun.

          The people getting wound up are the ones who are so confused in their tortuous, hypocritical, ridiculous dogma that they are now claiming the 2nd amendment has no real power to bolster their failed argument – I am finding all this quite hilarious!

          I also find it hilarious how you have literally nothing to say to refute my argument, you have gone straight to personal attacks too – yet another sign that you are totally wrong.

        11. avatar RuffRidr says:

          Laci, why are you hiding behind the anonymous “hmmmmmmmm”? We know it is you. You are using some of the same peculiar phrases that you use on MikeB’s blog.

        12. avatar hmmmmmmmm says:

          Ruffridr is obviously Nancy Peolosi – she is using a lot of the same phrases. I can’t believe I didn’t spot it sooner, but it’s so obvious once it clicks.

        13. avatar RuffRidr says:

          I guess both of our covers are blown. But really, why not use your other blog handle on here?

        14. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

          Laci, two honest questions:

          1. Suppose (purely for argument’s sake) that the 2nd amendment protects the right of individual law-abiding citizens to own nukes. Where were you going to take that argument next?

          2. mikeb302000 doesn’t try to hide his profile. Why do you and Dog Gone hide?


        15. avatar hmmmmm says:

          1. My point was very simple – the 2nd amendment is an anachronism and totally unsuitable for the modern age. My point, which I made very clearly before being attacked by the usual suspects, is that BOTH sides in this debate should support rewriting the amendment, because right now it is utterly broken and seemingly supportive of any citizen having any weapon that they desire. Even the most rabid gun nut here doesn’t think that his neighbor should have a tactical nuke in his garage, and we don’t even know what’s coming down the pike in 25 or 50 years either. Would you want the public to have access to personal laser weaponry capable of automatically acquiring and destroying hundreds of people a second? I doubt it.

          I actually believe in the constitution of the US, and it saddens me to see the mockery that is made of it by the supreme court. Right now there should be no assault weapon ban, no hi cap mag ban, no bans at all – because the 2nd amendment is VERY clear that the right to bear arms should not be infringed. The supreme court is a disgrace and has been for a very long time, they way they twist their BS to get what they want, even though it is quite obviously not constitutional disgusts me.

          However, I think that in a well written and defined new amendment we would reduce the ability to own firearms. Not outlaw, just reduce. I just want to do it legally, rather than the BS way it has been done up to now. And once we put that constitutional house in order we can start on the other BS that has been totally abused like the commerce clause etc.

          2. I don’t even know who those other people are. I only post here as myself, and nobody else. I have never posted on any other gun forum. Claiming that all dissenting voices belong to just one person using a variety of names is a pretty weak way to discredit your opponents when you know you can’t beat them in proper debate.

        16. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

          Rather than trying to get both sides to agree on a rewrite, something that will never happen, I suggest we work on a better understanding of the 2A. By raising awareness, the public understanding could eventually move that old dinosaur to the scrapheap of irrelevance, without ever repealing or rewriting.

      3. avatar tdiinva says:


        The term well regulated does not mean organized. In 1787 it meant proficiency in the Prussian manual arms brought to this country by Baron von Steuben during the Revolutionary War. It was quite a complicated drill but when properly executed the volume of fire was devastating.

      4. avatar freeport56 says:

        Again, you show little knowledge of our Constitution. The Bill of Right were not put there by the politicians, they were put there to show the Natural Rights of man through birth. The Rights he is born with. I would not trust anyone that was a Progressive to understand that.

        When you start dismantling rights, what have you got left?

        The Government!

      5. avatar GS650G says:

        The power of mass communication was unforeseen by the DOI writers too, as were a few other things like limits on presidential terms, and a few other rules that are inconvenient to some people.
        Suck it up and deal with it. The 2A isn’t about militias, it’s about people protecting themselves with the best tool for the job. From anything.

      6. avatar Greg Camp says:

        “Arms” in the Second Amendment refers to the kinds of personal weapons that a gentleman was expected to own and use. It does not mean field guns. It does not mean a ship of the line. (That was covered by a letter of marque.) It means what we today call “small arms.” I’ll agree that a rocket-propelled grenade is problematic, but a nuclear device in no way fits.

        But consider it this way. If you can tell me a legitimate use that I could have for a nuke, I’ll consider private ownership. The fact is, there is no way that one person can use a nuclear weapon without harming large numbers of innocent people. Even exploded underground, the radiation can enter the ground water. Guns are different. There are many legitimate uses that harm no innocent person.

        1. avatar LongPurple says:

          True, RPGs are “bearable” by one man, but that is not the sole criteria for the type of weapon covered by “arms” in 2 A.
          I think HELLER covered such ordinance as RPGs, in that it pointed out that militia members were to perform duty with their privately owned firearms, which by reference to MILLER, “limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.”
          I don’t know anyone who owns an RPG for any purpose, and if did know someone, I would have strong suspicions about the lawfulness of his “purpose”.

  26. avatar Matt in FL says:

    Quote of the Day: So Much for Mikeb302000′s Contention That He Doesn’t Want to Ban Guns Edition

    Look here. You see this? This is my surprised face.

  27. avatar Ralph says:

    “mikey’s blahg should be treated as the meaningless anachronistic nonsense it is.”


  28. avatar 230therapy says:

    The Constitution has already been shredded. The NDAA 2011 obliterates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The Commerce Clause is being used to sidestep most limits. The Patriot Act nullifies the Fourth Amendment. It goes on and on.

    1. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

      Good points. These guys love to overlook how their gun rights are already “infringed.” It’s just a question of degree now.

  29. avatar freeport56 says:

    You have not destroyed our beliefs or shot down the 2nd Amendment. There is no way even our Government could disarm us. As we speak gun sales are sky-rocketing, why? Because, there is no one there to protect you except yourself. Police forces all over the country are taking the stand that they do provide protection any more. They are there just to clean up after the crime and try and solve it. The City of Oakland, CA Police Department will not respond to 44 different types of crime anymore, they simply do not have the man power. Union pensions, Government waste on every level, unemployment, and National debt have broken the backs of Law Enforcement agencies throughout our country. As Cities, Counties, and States start a new level of tyranny through implementation of the UN Agenda 21′ Sustainable Development, they are taking further control of our lives. Tyranny has not died nor was it vanquished in the 20th Century, but has been reborn through Environmental groups, Public Employee Unions(SEIU, Teachers), and the Marxist-Socialist Statists.
    Not since the time of the Pilgrims has our Birth Right of firearm ownership been so important. Laugh if you will, be smug in your remarks, but remember everyone one in the world admires the USA. They admire for many things, but first and foremost are our freedoms. Because they do not have them !

  30. avatar Ross says:


    Banning guns will never work here in the US (not saying your side won’t try) but in order for your side to get their way they will have to commit Treason, what do you think will happen then?

    Banning also requires the US gun owner to comply/capitulate and that is never going to happen, sure some will meekly give up their guns, others will hide them, then there is the last group and they will fight.

    1. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

      I’m not talking about banning guns, why are you?

  31. avatar Chad says:

    The 2nd Amendment means what it says. It’s settled law, Get over it! You don’t want a gun, don’t have one. Try to take Mine. It won’t work out well for you.

    1. avatar hmmmmm says:

      Yeah, the 18th amendment was settled law too, until it wasn’t again.

      Face it, when they come to take your guns away 99.9999% of you won’t do a damn thing to stop them, it’s all just big talk to impress the very easily impressed. The 0.0001% of you who do make a stand will either be arrested or killed, which is as it should be in a nation of laws.

      1. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

        I would agree with you if you said 90%. Unfortunately, that number makes the outcome very different.

      2. avatar jwm says:

        yes, laci hmmmm, in a nation of laws people standing up for their rights should be arrested or killed? sounds to me like your definition of nation of laws matches with people like stalin, mao and hitler. good to see your true colors.

        1. avatar hmmmmm says:

          A simple question jwm: do you respect the constitution of the United States, or don’t you? Only a yes or no is required.

          You can’t pick and choose – either you support it, and would give up your gun if there was another amendment which required it. Or you don’t support the constitution atall. You can’t pick and choose depending on whether you like it right now or not – either you support the rule of law in this country or you don’t. Simple yes or no question.

        2. avatar Greg Camp says:

          Hmmmm, do you believe that all rights come from the government? If so, I can see why you’d say that changes to the Constitution that violate human rights would have to be accepted. We disagree on that point. To me, rights are rights, whether a government or document recognizes them or not.

      3. avatar Aharon says:

        What makes you think they will come to take our guns away?

    2. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

      You know, Chad, when you resort to that “try and take mine” nonsense you sound like an adolescent bully-boy who’s feeling threatened.

  32. avatar jwm says:

    yes i support the constitution and more than once took an oath to defend it. now, for a simple yes or no answer, hmmmm, do you think anybody but police or soldiers should have guns. i guess i’ll go for a twofer here, also yes or no. since the constitution can be amended if 1a is done away with will you abide by that and only speak the government approved topics. since i’m on a role here,also yes or no. if the constitution is amended and a woman’s right to choose is done away with will you honor the decesion. i could go on and on, shall i?

    1. avatar hmmmmm says:

      Yes, I see no problem with police and soldiers having guns. I would rather see the police scale their militarization back a fair bit, all the way down to a UK style bobby who does not carry a gun as a matter of course, but while the realities on the ground require it then I support them carrying arms.

      Yes, if 1a is done away with I would respect the will of the people (assuming that it hadn’t been repealed through government corruption). However I would not support that change, and would leave the country if that were to ever happen as soon as possible.

      Yes, if the woman’s right to choose was done away with I would respect it. I would also do my best to re-introduce it at the earliest possible time through the legal channels.

      Part of living in a civilized society is respecting the will of the people, even if you don’t always personally agree with them. Also the 2a isn’t even remotely comparable in importance to the 1a, I think we can both agree on that.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        no, i think 2a is the most important of the amendments. according to a cnn poll released just today more than 50 per cent of those polled say there’s no need for more gun control in this country. and that’s a cnn poll, so the numbers that are pro gun are no doubt higher. we can agree to disagree on this, as i’ve said before i vote my guns as my hot button issue and nothing you or mikebnumbers says will change that.

      2. avatar JOE MATAFOME says:

        Hmmmmmm I hope you leave our great country and go live with the no good COMMIES. They can then tell you how to think and they’ll protect you from the boogie man/woman. I’d also like to know what country you think is going to give you anything close to the 1A.

        1. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

          Jesus, how old are you, Joe. “no good COMMIES” went out in the 60s.

      3. avatar Aharon says:

        “Part of living in a civilized society is respecting the will of the people, even if you don’t always personally agree with them.”

        Do you understand the differences between a democracy and a republic, at least in theory?

      4. avatar Matt in FL says:

        hmmmmm: To quote some old dude on some faded piece of parchment: “…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it… But when a long train of abuses and usurpations…evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government…”

        “Also the 2a isn’t even remotely comparable in importance to the 1a, I think we can both agree on that.”

        I think you’ll be hard pressed to find many people around here who agree with you on that. The ultimate purpose of the 2A is to provide a solution of last recourse in protecting all the other rights from incursion by the government. That, to me, makes it the most important.

        Phrased differently: In the most extreme case, if the government tried to take away the 1A against the will of the people, the 2A could be utilized to stop its removal or regain it. However, if the government decided to get rid of the 2A against the will of the people, the 1A would be of little to no use.

      5. avatar Greg Camp says:

        A civilized society respects the rights of the individual first, before considering the will of the people. Look at revolutions that have led to tyrants. Those always started claiming the will of the people. Frankly, I have little faith in the will of the people, especially when there are no protections for individual liberties.

        1. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

          “A civilized society respects the rights of the individual first, before considering the will of the people.”

          Where in the world did you get that? You made it up, didn’t you?

          Wouldn’t it be exactly the opposite of that? When people evolved to the point of NOT acting selfishly and considered the others first, it’s then that they became civilized.

  33. avatar MotoJB says:

    CNN Poll: Gun control opinions following shootings

    Well, this is a very telling survey…maybe Mikey would like to review the results here. Glad to hear most people are keeping a level head.

    1. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

      Yeah, those surveys are tricky. Unchanged after the mass shootings, well that’s hard to believe.

      Here’s an interesting Media Matters article.


      1. avatar RuffRidr says:

        Why not link directly to the Media Matters article? It’s actions like this that have gotten you the reputation of just trolling for hits on your blog.

        1. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

          Ruff, your unsolicited opinions should be treated as the meaningless and anachronistic nonsense they are.

          We’re talking about the 2A. You’re talking about me. What’s wrong with you, man?

        2. avatar RuffRidr says:

          Anachronistic? Do you get paid every time you use that word? It makes absolutely no sense in this context. Unless you can explain how my opinion that you should source your articles correctly is somehow chronologically incorrect.

        3. avatar Matt in FL says:

          RuffRidr: I think Mikey got caught up in his own rhetoric, and his fingers moved faster than his brain.

  34. avatar Aharon says:

    hmmmmmmmm wrote:
    “BOTH sides in this debate should support rewriting the amendment, because right now it is utterly broken and seemingly supportive of any citizen having any weapon that they desire”

    Do you actually believe that you can find politicians (and judges maybe) capable of making just, fair, non-opportunistic, moral, intellectual, scholarly, informed decisions based on an understanding of the multi-purpose tool that firearms are and how they relate to the American citizen living in a let’s call it a “democratic-republic”? Do you believe you can find leaders that will put the people as a group and as individuals first and not consider their own selfish agendas and egos?

  35. avatar Aharon says:


    IMO, the core of the 2A recognizes the natural right of a living creature (people) to defend themselves from an external threat, danger, intrusion, etc. Historically, all governments go bad or from bad to worse. All societies, civilizations, etc and even species eventually go extinct. What type of American society do you imagine existing if all guns were outlawed and confiscated, or what type do you imagine we’d have if all semi-autos were outlawed or all handguns banned? What do you think will happen to the current murder rate, assaults on the streets, stores and people robbed, and homes broken into by criminals? How would society look if you had your way with gun ownership in America?

    1. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

      Wrong, the 2A recognizes the need to form a militia.

      In today’s world this idea is laughably anachronistic.

      1. avatar JuanCudz says:

        Hurricane Katrina?

      2. avatar Aharon says:

        “Wrong, the 2A recognizes the need to form a militia”
        — ALL the amendments in the Bill of Rights are individual rights, and not federal or state rights. It recognizes the right of the people to own arms which is a natural right AND it recognizes the right of the people to legally form local militias for community defense against any group from wild Indians to Imperial British troops to an American government that goes bad.

        “In today’s world this idea is laughably anachronistic”
        — You find it laughable that individual people have a born right to defend themselves from harm? Perhaps you, being an obedient type to authority, prefer to defer to the government-led large standing army America has (and is helping bankrupting America and influencing the theft of our liberties)? The local militias, once strong, were later politically and socially replaced with first state-run and now federal-controlled national guard units under the control of the federal military.

        Common Mikeb, think about it. Just because you have a desire or temperament to submit to a dominant federal authority why should others want to submit away their liberty, freedom, self-reliance, and ability to defend themselves? Every civilization eventually has collapsed (from within or without) so who you gonna call when the ‘barbarians’ are riding down your street? How, in your opinion, is an unarmed person supposed to respond at 2AM when a few thugs break-in to rape, rob, and kill?

        1. avatar mikeb302000 says:

          We’re not talking about the response to rape, robbery and killing. We’re talking about the true meaning of the 2A.

          It was about forming a militia, about being equipped properly to do so.

          Meaningless today.

        2. avatar jwm says:

          2a, like all the amendments , protects individual rights. that’s why women can vote and people of color don’t have to be slaves anymore. i know how upsetting this is for the hive mentality, but there it is.

        3. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

          jwm, I’ve got some bad news for you. When the demi-gods wrote the 2A, blacks were slaves and women could not vote.

        4. avatar LongPurple says:

          “The 3rd A is obsolete mainly because there are no attempted infringements.”

          A good point. But the 3rd A. is not “obsolete”, only “unchallenged”, because the legislative branch of Government never attempted to violate it, and hence never sought to rationalize a violation of it.
          The 2 A. was similarly unchallenged , until the outrages of the mobsters and other criminals during the Prohibition and Depression days led to the enactment of the 1934 NFA. This Federal challenge to the “right of the people” in 2 A. led to the first significant SCOTUS opinion on the 2 A., MILLER, in 1939.

        5. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

          Wrong, the 3A is obsolete for the same reason the 2A is. We are no longer living in the 1790s.

        6. avatar LongPurple says:

          Simple. The “true meaning” of the 2 A. is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”.

      3. avatar Josh in GA says:

        Mikebnumbers, perhaps you dont quite have a grasp on the English language.

        The text of the 2A: “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.”

        Perhaps you missed the part:
        “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”? Thats pretty cut and dried to me.

        1. avatar otalps says:

          English, history, critical thinking. What’s the difference. Surely there is a better anti-gun troll to give forum space to?

        2. avatar mikeb302000 says:

          Well, obviously my command of the English language isn’t as good as yours, but I think you missed the first four words. I think you did that on purpose because they contain the purpose of bearing arms, not to kill junkies and rapists climbing in your window at night or to act as self-appointed vigilante in your neighborhood, but to man the militia.

        3. avatar Robert Farago says:

          I find it astounding (in some ways) that you continue to cling to that interpretation when it has been thoroughly debunked by historians and repudiated repeatedly by the Supreme Court of the United States, most recently in the McDonald decision, which incorporated the Second Amendment (it trumps local and state law). You do know, of course, that ALL the rights protected by the Bill of Rights are individual rights. Every single one.

          To maintain that the right to keep and beat arms was created solely for the purpose of arming militias is the dictionary definition of willful ignorance.

        4. avatar mikeb302000 says:

          Boloney Robert. It’s only recently been looked at by the Supreme Court, you know that lop-sided conservative group of Justices who are bought and paid by Big Pharm, the Military Industrial Complex, and in a smaller but similar way, the NRA and gun lobby.

          So, as convenient as those RECENT decisions are for you side, excuse me for not being swayed much by them.

        5. avatar Robert Farago says:

          Define recent.

          And while you’re at it, explain how those “lobby groups” elevated the pro-gun Justices to the Supreme Court, and how they’re influenced (given their lifetime tenure). And please name the Justices of which you speak.

        6. avatar Jayf says:

          The 3rd A is obsolete mainly because there are no attempted infringements.

          On the other hand, the 2nd A has been subject to many attempted infringements, just like the 1st, 4th, & 5th.

        7. avatar Matt in FL says:

          And if the “security of the free state” goes away at some point in the future, and we’ve done away with the people’s right to bear arms to suit the whims of you and your ilk, what then? How would that security be defended or regained?

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