cartoon fear horror worry
Shutterstock
Previous Post
Next Post

Reader Migraine Man writes . . .

As the Supreme Court term winds down and each passing week brings us closer to a ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the pearls are being clutched with such ferocity that they risk transitioning into diamonds. The hearty souls at Slate are the latest Paul Reveres of the anti-gun left to sound the alarm.

Slate’s latest panicked warning ticks off all the firearm panic-pr0n buttons: horror, extra-lethal lethality, overturning centuries of legislative tradition, a looming public health crisis, NRA propaganda, radical libertarian ideology, It’s truly is a masterwork of justifications for maintaining constitutional infringements on an enumerated civil right.

Slate New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn v. Bruen
Low-information readers can skim the important parts. They’re underlined in blood-in-the-streets red.

No doubt even the liberal left’s own Magic 8 Ball has been consistently producing undesired responses when the look at the case, and this article is but one more attempt to get out in-front of the issue.

With the leaked draft of the Dobbs v. Jackson opinion suggesting that SCOTUS is willing to overturn Roe v. Wade, it’s not a huge leap for socialists to infer that other social-control mechanisms are at-risk as well.

The Slate screed could easily have been clickbait titled as “You Should Be Terrified of the Upcoming SCOTUS Decision and Here’s Why.” Apparently upholding the Constitution as written is a threat to our very democracy. After all, as the big brains at Slate have concluded, “the court’s turn to originalism is a sham,” and strict adherence to constitutional principles “conceal[s] a version of living constitutionalism on steroids.” Huxley and Orwell would be proud.

frankieleon from Maffle Ath, Belgium, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

The icing on the admiration-for-Bill-of-Rights-infringement cake is the fact that Slate’s Saul Cornell has concluded that the arguments presented by those looking to strike down New York’s corrupt may-issue laws are a “libertarian gun rights fantasy…that confuses James Madison, the author of the Second Amendment, with Dirty Harry.”

Just to refresh Cornell’s memory, Harry Callahan wasn’t a bad guy in those movies, shooting people at random as the author seems to suggest. Callahan was a product of and a response to a broken and corrupt system. By comparison, James Madison drafted the Bill of Rights, the very document that enshrines the individual right to keep and bear arms with additional provisions for the purpose of restricting the government and codifying that all of the power and authority of the government is derived from the people.

James Madison’s contributions were a product of and a response to the broken and corrupt British government that the colonists had just thrown off. In fact, Madison and Callahan are quite similar, and to try to hold them up as polar opposites is, quite frankly, obtuse.

John Vanderlyn, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons (slightly modified)

I can imagine Madison standing before the House of Representatives with his prototype for the Bill of Rights, offering, “Uh uh. I know what you’re thinking. ‘Is he proposing ten amendments, or only nine?’ Well to tell you the truth in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that this is the Constitution of the United States, the most powerful document on the planet, do you feel lucky enough to include only nine amendments? Well, do ya?”

 

Previous Post
Next Post

42 COMMENTS

  1. They’re terrified that in a few states people will be able to wait 3 months or more to pay for a license that let’s them carry a registered revolver or derringer minus one hundred prohibited places.

      • That kind of wait time is obsurd.
        The forums I frequent have members posting 90 day wait times for suppressors.
        That’s from purchase date to stamp & can in hand.

        CHLs/LTCs taking longer then NFA items is just wrong.

        • For the initial restricted permit it took my wife and I 7 months from required classes/fingerprints and various paperwork to getting the card. With being able to buy the pistols and “develope proficiency” it took another 4-5 months to get our permits upgraded to unrestricted. So you aren’t beating “effectively shall issue” NY quite yet (some delays due to covid). With that said I am sure your officials were less willing to process stuff as ours were apologetic to the delays

    • I would be lying if I said we didn’t have plans to celebrate if it goes beyond mere shall issue

  2. Anyone getting in the way of their assaulting people, dealing drugs, looting businesses, torching homes and diddling kids IS the bad guy. They refuse to take a stand against any of those things and push policies protecting the perpetrators of those things.

    Every last lefty is a degenerate sociopath even if only by proxy and being able to defend yourself against them is considered abhorrent.

  3. No, I don’t feel lucky.
    I’ll take all 10.
    Thank you, very much.

    And, if you think of any more,
    well, just pass them along.
    We will see whether our state legislatures
    ratify them.

    • Fun fact: Madison proposed 12 amendments for the Bill of Rights.
      The first one defined the size of the house of representatives based on the represented population. Only 11 states have ratified it so far.
      The second one prevented congressional pay raises from taking effect until after the subsequent election. Congress passed it quickly in 1789, but it took over 200 years for enough states to ratify it and make it part of the Constitution.
      The other ten are the ones we’re familiar with.

      • Very good, Jason. You’re absolutely correct. The original “Second” in the proposed list of twelve wasn’t ratified until 1992, and therefore became the 27th Amendment.

  4. A real below radar problem with all this current litigation is that not only does the phraseology and long verified unmitigated Meaning of the 2nd/A leave no rational room for equivocation,
    But the bullshit so-called ‘challenges’ (which really should be construed as criminal conspiracies under 18-241-242 and prosecuted forthwith if we had any uncorrupted efficacy remaining in our corrupted Justice system) have already been challenged and SETTLED in cases like Caetano v. Mass. “…the 2nd/A extends, prima facia to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those not in existence at the time of the Founding, and that the 2nd/A is fully applicable to the states…”.

    It certainly was no problemo for ‘judges’ to decline to even hear most of the challenges to the obvious to anyone but an abject moron cases of Election Fraud and tampering by ciminal election officials and their Mules? But with our uninfringeable 2nd/A rights, ‘oh fuck no, we’ll keep you ‘challenged’ until every last gun is ‘rust in the wind’.

    Well FUCK YOU Commie Marxist Traitors! 5 Months and days until YOU ‘Dust in the political wind’!

  5. Once the democRat Party realized their racism was no longer en vogue they have been doing everything under the sun to whitewash themselves by rewriting history and laying their race based atrocities on the doorsteps of The Party of Lincoln. And placid fearful of the media RINOs have allowed the media and the Rat Party to get away with it. It’s at the point dumbbell useful idiots who support the democRat Party assume the democRat Party won the Civil War and heroically freed the slaves, etc.

    Of course when it comes to Gun Control the democRat Party is in too deep to back step out of it. And as long as pathetic useful idiots assume Gun Control is sugar and spice and everything nice it’s full steam ahead for Gun Control. In other words if the Truth About Gun Control is not out there for the public to digest expect the knee jerk responses and threats from democRats like the insane Gov. of NY and her ilk to continue while they get away with selling a rotten agenda that history confirms is rooted in racism and genocide.

  6. With glib snark I’ll be happy to suggest to them that should consider it an outstanding opportunity for them to work on their (obviously lacking) coping skills.

    We haven’t heard the last from them.

    Remember the ‘Heller v. D.C.’ decision when they decided to play games and declare the decision only applied to the District of Columbia, forcing Otis McDonald to sue Chicago for violating his rights?

    I predict some highly creative tap-dancing from the Leftist Scum ™ when the result is announced.

    I hope if St. Thomas is the author he spent some time crafting it to cut them off at the knees… 🙁

    • As a resident of ILLannoy I can tell there was weeping, wailing & nashing of teeth. AND…nothing happened. It’s often positively reported when a “legal” citizen stops a bad guy. And it’s a severe pain in the azz( & bank account)to get that CCL. Some folks wait years or get denied for no reason. Whenever we move east the 1st thing I’ll do us carry constitutionally…

    • “Don’t shame my kink.”

      Chef don’t judge.

      “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but whips and leather turn me on”…

      (Unknown 🙂 )

  7. Every time we hear blood in the streets, doomsday predictions and general fear from those who oppose self defense and these things don’t happen.

    They are always wrong.

  8. I was going to look up New York State Constitution and find out what it said, however it was pdf download so I didnt.
    My states constitution says I can have a gunm for defense of myself, others, my property and protection of the state, and for hunting purposes.
    I’m not fond of nine robes having the final say so, especially with most of them getting older and court packing by the wrong packers.
    Sht could go down hill mighty fast.
    .
    Criminals like unarmed victims.
    .
    At $15 for gallon for gas and $8 for a loaf of bread, I think theres going to be a lot of gunm fire.
    This is just a rumor but I heard they’re chopping off all the new recruit soldiers right feet. Go Left, Left, Left Left Left.
    Circle around then circle some more.
    Hop around till your balls get sore.

  9. Is no one else concerned that we seem to be counting our chickens before they hatch? I’m hoping for a good ruling too, but the court is notorious for being unpredictable.

    • “Is no one else concerned that we seem to be counting our chickens before they hatch?”

      An ordinary, run-of-the-mill SCotUS case, yes. This one’s different, in several ways.

      Passions are high, and Clarence Thomas has bitched-and-moaned for *years* as to how the 2A wasn’t getting the same respect as other civil rights.

      We have new Trump-appointed associate justices who are very angry (Kavanaugh as a prime example) as to how they were treated during confirmation (including Thomas himself, his “this is a high-tech lynching” quote) who just might be interested in a little (or, not-so-little, I hope!) Leftist Scum ™ payback for the treatment they got during confirmation.

      We technically have the votes we need plus an additional ‘insurance’ vote for good measure. That makes our hand even stronger. We don’t need Robert’s vote to win (5 votes).

      Rather than “counting our chickens before they hatch”, our odds are very good we’re looking potentially at a “Chickens coming home to roost” flame-thrower decision that kicks their tiny balls so high (and so hard) in their throats the impact could turn them into diamonds (admittedly poor-quality stones only good for industrial applications).

      But, yeah, we’re pretty darn confident on this one… 🙂

  10. I see that dacian he Dunderhead and his compadre, Minor Miner49er have not posted here yet. Chicken hearted?

    • They probably get tired of defending the indefensible. The argument is that people have a duty to seek help from law enforcement in populated areas before resorting to self-defense. That doesn’t even make practical sense, and I’m pretty sure it isn’t in the Constitution anywhere. Even if that was precedent, then how does that explain some people getting carry permits in New York City? It’s almost like the Left wants second class citizens.

  11. They can cry about blood in the streets and the sky is falling…..again but what’s really satisfying, if it actually comes about! Those very few who are really rich, connected or both, thus privileged, just lost that coveted privilege. It may possibly boil down that all a persons money or being a cop or knowing someone isn’t going to mean dick. That has to sting…a lot. It’s glorious.

  12. 2nd, shut down abortion, return to the Constitution. One can hope the progs have a “pandemic” of strokes and meltdown hissy fits in the next few weeks.

  13. rom the book by Carol Anderson

    Here we go again Right-Wing bullshit trying to glorify the Founders of Capitalvania who were no different than todays, greedy, power mad and thoroughly corrupt politicians.

    The Second Amendment was the greatest hoax and most slickly worded document the Founders ever wrote. They knew they could not come right out and restrict severely gun ownership so they constructed a very vaguely worded document that gave them the power through legislation and the courts to restrict gun ownership while giving the proletariat (hillbillies) the illusion they had firearms rights.

    In reality 2A was written for the States to cajole them into joining the Federal Government by agreeing to let them have their own private militias to murder slaves if they revolted. The founders were worried and well aware of the then current slave unrest and later full-blown slave revolt in Haiti as the super white rich of Haiti had already begun to flee for America bringing their slaves with them.

    In reality there were anti-gun laws on the books in many cities large and small before the Revolution and none were rescinded after the Revolution, in fact they became more numerous right up to the present days. All this proved what a joke 2A has always been from the very beginning.

    State Militias of the time often kept guns locked up in arsenals and there were some cases of them even taking guns from people who did not tow the party lines. So much for the Founders being pro-gun. Politicians of that era were as big a liars and con artists as they are today, saying one thing but doing quite another.

    The corrupt power made leaders of the time in colonial America were no different than the corrupt power mad politicians of today and the corrupt courts often voted to appease popular sentiment in complete violation of the Constitution. Witness the Dred Scott Decision which legalized slavery or the Plessy v Ferguson case which legalized segregation (something the Far-Right racist Republicans still support). And the Supreme Court sat on its ass, a least for a while, when Roosevelt imprisoned 120,000 Japanese American Citizens during WWII mostly for political points he needed for the next election. The Far Right loved him for the atrocity.

    • Your abject ignorance of American History is noted – but is of a piece with your abject ignorance of . . . pretty much everything. Too bad you wasted your pathetic life without even attempting to become educated. You probably would have failed, as you do at everything else, but maybe SOME hint of knowledge and rational thought might have penetrated that two inches of impermeable basalt you call a skull.

      Just go back to your circle jerk, dacian the stupid. Your unhinged, anti-American, Leftist/fascist, fact-free rants simply bore us.

    • It’s always interesting to observe the effects of propaganda in real time. Roosevelt was a Democrat and remains a left wing hero to this day. The only dissenting opinions in the Dred Scott case were by Republicans. A higher percentage of Republicans voted for civil rights in the 50’s and 60’s. The atrocities you mentioned all came from Democrats. LBJ stripped the 1957 civil rights bill of its enforcement provisions in the Senate. The party switch theory is another bit of propaganda. Check to see how Al Gore, Sr. voted. Did the Gores flip and become Republicans?

    • Historian Falsely Claims The Second Amendment Was Created To Protect Slavery

      “Not only are Anderson’s historical claims entirely inaccurate, but the publication of her book represents the larger, continued effort by American leftists to degrade and distort the American founding. The entire premise of the Second Amendment was not to protect the institution of slavery as Anderson suggests, but rather to provide the American citizenry with a necessary tool to prevent encroachments by their federal government.”

      More:

      “New York Times Debunks Author’s Claim the Second Amendment Was Designed to Protect Slavery”

      [Carol] Anderson’s [book, The Second: Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America], however, is wanting in important respects. She argues unconvincingly, in the face of formidable scholarship to the contrary, that the aim to protect slavery was the predominant motive behind the Second Amendment. She writes that the Second Amendment was “the result of [James] Madison’s determination to salve Patrick Henry’s obsession about Virginia’s vulnerability to slave revolts, seduce enough anti-Federalists to get the Constitution ratified and stifle the demonstrated willingness of the South to scuttle the United States if slavery were not protected.”

      “Debunking The “Racist Roots” Of The Second Amendment”

      First, the idea that only southern states were pushing for the protection of the right to bear arms isn’t borne out by history. Even in northern states, analogues to the Second Amendment can be found in state constitutions dating back to 1776. Take Pennsylvania’s language, approved by the state the same year the United States declared independence from Great Britain … The language of the Second Amendment is racially neutral. It’s not inherently racist, even if many of those who ratified it were. The People have the right to keep and bear arms. The real trouble has been in getting those in power to recognize Black Americans as part of The People, and that’s where the racist history of gun control laws comes into play.

      • We have surviving letters by both Jefferson and Madison showing that they were indeed worried about the slave revolt in Haiti spreading to the U.S. and this was in the same exact time period when Jefferson was formulating his thoughts about passing a Second Amendment.

        Anderson’s book details this and is far more accurate than some scholars are willing to admit to.

        • Observable and documented historical evidence doesn’t support Anderson’s opinionated and provably inaccurate narrative.

          You should know better than to rely on a single questionable source when you’re making an unsubstantiated argument.

          But you obviously don’t know better.

        • ….. So if a couple of founding fathers were worried about a slave revolt, that’s proof that everything they did was to protect slavery? Or was it just the Bill of Rights? Maybe you can just take the parts you don’t like and draw a non existent line between that and slavery.

          Most people have lots of things they worry about. Those setting up the governance of a whole country even more than the average person.

          The Bill of Rights is designed to limit the power of the Federal government. Even if you believe some things can be restricted, they cannot entirely take away your ability to speak, practice religion, gather, own guns, jail you indefinitely without charges, force you to testify against yourself, etc. That’s the opposite of giving the Feds extra power to control people.

          Your claims are silly and baseless.

    • This is pure fantasy. You are making up alternate history and then citing Carol Anderson as though that settles the argument.

      But Carol Anderson is not a serious academic. She is a Nikole Hannah-Jones type: Marxist, racist, chauvinist; painfully, lugubriously woke; pampered, showered with awards and adulation by the NYT set for mouthing unsupported nonsense labeled “research” and transmuting it to quasi-respectability with a patina of academic tropes and the imprimatur of a university. Oh, she has all the accoutrements and trappings of a studious academic, but hers is a made up discipline (African American Studies) created to boost the number of black professors by relieving them of the requirement of acumen in an actual academic subject while protecting them from rigorous research requirements (cf. Cornel West’s rap album—anyone, anyone?). Though I daresay that even if she were in the History Department, which is where her topic of study (whites and no one else are racist, racist, racist and always have been) nominally belongs stripped of its ideological goals, which are diametrically opposed to the erstwhile mission of the university to search for truth and knowledge, considering how badly History and the rest of the liberal arts have been infected by the woke neoreligion, she would still feel right at home—such wasn’t the case 40 years ago though when the grievance studies industry was created. But I digress…

      According to Carol Anderson, the entire history of the United States has been, and always will be, about keeping black people down. Every major policy has its root in “white rage”. I’m not going to bother arguing against that contention here, because beyond its naive attribution of a teleological framework for human history and especially the United States—as though the white population is some rational actor with a consistent will throughout the ages—it is obviously false to anyone with an objective mind who is even passing familiar with the actual history.

      This is so typical of Leftist argument. Find some detail and blow through all laws of logic, inference, deduction, and ignore all contrary evidence, to proclaim that the detail “proves” the argument. In a fast-paced TV talking head debate, or when the interlocutor is not too bright, it’s easy to get away with. But it doesn’t withstand the slightest bit of scrutiny.

      Dacian, if you are really a fair-minded person you should be embarrassed making these claims on essentially zero evidence. It’s quite a leap from some reference to Haiti in some letter to a causal relationship, no? Do you purport to have an objective mind? If so, can’t you admit what you’re slinging is thin gruel? Remember, the Constitution didn’t come out of Madison’s forehead like Pallas Athena. Every minute phrase was debated and argued over. And then, all the representatives voted on it, so regardless of what is in a letter, we have the actual record from the convention, and the contemporaneous writings of more than a few of them, about what laws they thought they were crafting and why.

      And, contra Hoe Biden and your tendentious claims about what some may have done at some time somewhere, we know for certain that:

      – there has always been (back to pre-history) a common law right to possess weapons for self-defense, and the founders built on that right; you claim so-and-so locked up the guns. We can adduce plentiful counterexamples where the guns were most certainly not locked up which collectively far outweigh yours. Americans owned guns!

      – People were allowed to possess “weapons of war”, such as cannons, stores of rifles, bullets, gunpowder, and the means to build them: mines, forges, smithies. The Founders did not draw exceptions for guns that strike fear in jejune, inexperienced, leftwing dandies with manicured fingernails, and, from

      This is also where I wonder if we are supposed to be depending on originalism or not. This is the only right where the Left isn’t down with the Living Constitution. The simple analogy, to my mind never satisfactorily answered by the gun grabbers, is the internet and the 1st Amendment. You don’t hear anyone arguing that since the internet wasn’t even conceived of in the 18th century therefore free speech doesn’t apply to the internet. Yet the differences in kind and in power of the internet to the pamphlet are much, much greater than between a musket and an AR-15.

      Supposedly the “right” to murder an unborn baby is there in the text, implied by this emanation and that penumbra, but the clarion proclamation “shall not be infringed” is much too confusing and complicated for mere mortals to adjudge, and we must leave it to uninformed fops from CPWest who don’t know a charging handle from a bipod, who think a comb is for brushing hair, and length of pull is what they do to themselves in the shower, to decide what is and is not safe for responsible citizens, because a certain subset of the population has a major problem with impulse control.

      – the plain text of the 2nd Amendment is unambiguous. The preceding independent clause offers an explanation but does not in any way restrict the class who may keep and bear arms: it is quite clearly, “the people” and this term is used in numerous other Bill of Rights Amendments where it means exactly the same thing. If it were otherwise, why would they not have clearly specified, “the right of militia members to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”? It’s obvious from simple logic that if they wanted to restrict it to active militia members they would have said exactly that, and there would be some kind of evidence in contemporaneous writings or any time in later history that described the circumscription of the right thusly, and not instead do what they did, which was to use the “the people” phrase just like in the other amendments, where it is equally unambiguous in referring to militia and non-militia alike, which no slippery Leftwing law professor has the cojones to argue only means some of the people, actually.

      What this muddying of the issue around militias tells me is nothing to do with the actual debate. Because really, the contention it only refers to militias when it says right there, “the people” is so ludicrous that no one but someone trained in America’s finest Leftwing law schools (the right has “the people” though) could think it, that what you start to realize is that the Left has so much cultural power through the media and Hollywood and the ABA and AMA and public sector unions and academia and the “helping” professions and the NGO-activist-do nothing sectors, that we debate seriously and strenuously a ludicrous contention like this (i.e. that “the people” actually only means active militia members) where the plain text and meaning are obvious and comport exactly with the contemporaneous descriptions of delegates, newspaper accounts, etc., and the desire of the colonists to protect themselves from further tyranny, and are rooted in our civilization’s history and common laws, and in the inherent right to life and to defend oneself that exists above all manmade laws. Because really it should be laughed out of the court, as it were. Instead we have chin-striking law professors purporting to inform us that “the people” means just, what? males aged 17-40 in the national Guard infantry units which are on call in case of invasion? And “shall not be infringed” means the state can make laws like NY such that it is close to impossible for the vast majority of citizens to exercise the right? And the government can restrict “arms” to small revolvers? And “keep and bear arms” means states can make it technically illegal for you to take your gun home from the gun store, and and all manner of restrictions on where you can bring it, and regulations on how you have to keep it, and registries of which guns you have, and on snd on? We’re supposed to believe that the simple, plain meaning can be extrapolated into all that garbage, because the Left has way too much power to set the norms in this society, even to the point where it can basically fight to a standstill on this question through its massive propaganda and influence, and convince so, so many otherwise intelligent people that this is really a close question, that’s there’s really a genuine, good faith debate, that the meaning is so, so ambiguous we need all these left wing law professors to explain it to us, when essentially you have 99.9% of the weight of the argument on the side that it it’s not restricted to militia members, against this independent clause that mentions militias

      Think about it: back then, there was no standing army, and no standing militias. They were temporary creatures, born and grown to address specific political and military challenges and then dissolved. There were no permanent “members” of militias, because there were no militias except in war time (or, again, to address specific aims, like putting down a rebellion). So the Left would have us believe that the Framers specified this right—the 2nd one—that in normal times applied to no one. But such is their logic: if you admit that, well, ok, maybe they just meant potential militia members, then the whole house of cards collapses: because that could then be anyone—i.e. “the people”. Oh, what’s that you say? It would only mean military age males because they are the only ones who would be called up into a militia? Well beyond immediately foundering on the Equal Protection clause, and making no sense, it still doesn’t work, because who is supposed to hang onto the arms while we are in peacetime? If there is no standing army and no active militia in your state, and the right only applies to militia members, then no one is allowed to possess the arms? They must have had state laws on the books specifying who would be allowed to hang onto the guns … or some laws about how the government would store all the guns. But in fact nothing of the sort exists.

      And really, we’re talking more broadly about “arms” right? So knives, bayonets, cannons, caltrops, 2x4s, etc. it sure would have put a big crimp in colonial life, and American life all along right up to and including today, if it really were militia members that could have “arms” and no one else, huh?

      So again, this whole question has been snatched by the Left via their minions in “the law” and reigned into some subject that only “the experts” can talk about. They want you not to trust that the words mean their plain meanings. They want to confuse snd obstruct the issue. But that’s garbage. The law wasn’t meant only for lawyers. The plain meaning is obvious to any non-lawyer. And this FUD about militias is a prime example of “experts” (I use it in wuotes because I have nothing against a Turk experts, working non-ideologically for the truth) corrupting the language, the law, and our civilization.

      So, Dacian, Do you really want to continue being the kind of person who hates his own country, hates his own race, and most of all hates himself? Step out of the hyper-parochial, solipsistic bubble the juvenile American Left operates from and you will notice that no country, and no race, and no movement can claim the exclusive moral high ground. None is pure as the driven snow. All our institutions, made by fallible men we, are imperfect. But the United States has been an undeniable force for the advancement of the human race out of the darkness of our origins. since the birth of America right up to modern day Pax Americana, the world, led by the USA and by the USA’s example (bequeathed from the Enlightenment values discovered in Europe and most especially Great Britain), has been born again into the modern age. Look at any important measure and you will see unbelievable progress. And now “progressives” demand that we change everything about the way our country works, as though it has been an unmitigated failure rather than an astonishing success. But the facts are not with them and it seems that finally, at long last, most people are figuring that out.

      Remember, the common law right to weapon ownership is well-established, and it is only ruling elites (latterly day nobility) sucking down unearned manna who cower at the thought of an armed peasantry.

  14. Funny how every time some rights for the ownership. or legal carry of firearms is restored, whether through legislation, or the courts, we are told by the media, and the disarmament industry, that it will be daily replays of the OK corral or a bad day in Deadwood or Dodge City.
    Which always come up wrong The whole line of how dangerous the US is because of firearms is nothing but fear mongering and propaganda. With the possible exceptions of certain inner city neighborhoods in Democrat controlled cities.

    • I would love to have the wild west level of crime even going per capita it would be a massive drop compared to current assault, robbery, rape and murder rates. And the most notably violent areas still had the highest levels of gun control of the time.

  15. You guys remember when Trump mentioned Red Flag Laws that one time? I didn’t think so. You nazi fascists are too busy trying to claim that Republicans do anything for gun rights and that Democrats want to restrict gun rights.

    The truth is that it’s Republicans who are trying to take your guns away, but ya’ll are too stupid to figure it out. You think that just because Trump appointed SC Justices are trying to overturn Democrat restrictions has any value? Have you all forgotten that Orange Man Bad?!?

    • I haven’t forgotten how easy life was before St. Fauci and the Puppet came into power. Remember when the biggest worry was the lie that our President was a Russian stooge or he was overfeeding and killing fish in Japan or how about eating too much ice cream? Good times. Now we have real problems to deal with.

    • “The truth is that it’s Republicans who are trying to take your guns away, but ya’ll are too stupid to figure it out.”

      Interesting…meanwhile Biden and O’Rourke both very publicly and rather eliquently state their intention to take the guns.

  16. Saul Cornell, the author of the article, is a noted anti-Second Amendment scholar. His work is worth reading IMO, so as to familiarize oneself with the arguments a serious gun control scholar will make regarding why the Second Amendment doesn’t protect an individual right to arms.

    As for his argument about the right of states and localities to regulate guns, sure they do, BUT NOT TO THE INSANE DEGREE NYC DOES.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here