The Second Amendment Stands Strong or Not at All

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (AP Photo/Hans Pennink)

By Roger Katz

I know that the issue of gun control is hard. . . . I know it’s political. I know it’s controversial. I say to you, forget the extremists! It’s simple — no one hunts with an assault rifle. No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer, and too many innocent people have died already! End this madness — now!

That’s from New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s State of the State speech,  January 10, 2013, five days before he signed the New York SAFE Act into law, asserting his fervent hope that it would produce the “toughest assault weapons ban in the nation.”

Reinstating the federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004 would prohibit manufacture and sales, but it would not affect weapons already possessed. This would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.

Instead, we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons. The ban would not apply to law enforcement agencies or shooting clubs.”

That’s from an op-ed by Representative Eric Swalwell, Democrat, California, published in USA Today, on May 3, 2018; urging for a mandatory and universal ban on “assault weapons.”

Never in the history of this nation have we seen such blatant, such willful, such outrageous and confounding assaults on the Second Amendment as we have seen during the first two decades of the 21st Century. This essential unalienable right—the right of the people to keep and bear arms, a statement at once succinct, categorical, and clear—serves as the linchpin and cornerstone of our free republic.

The Second Amendment is an ever-present reminder that government serves at the behest of the people, not at its own pleasure for its own benefit and aims.

The Second Amendment: The Cornerstone Of American Liberty

The Second Amendment serves a threefold purpose:

One, it signals that ultimate power and authority resides with the American people, not in government; never in Government.

Two, the Second Amendment operates as an omnipresent reminder to those who serve in government—and who, either through deliberate design and chicanery or through mere reckless conduct, oppress the American citizenry and who seek to impose tyranny on the people—that Americans have, by dint of force of arms, both the means and the moral obligation to reclaim power from usurpers. And…

Three, the Second Amendment encapsulates the immutable idea of the sanctity, autonomy, dignity, and inviolability of each American citizen.

What does this third salient point mean? Just this: each of us is ultimately responsible for his or her life, safety and well-being, and each of us is responsible for his or her own happiness.

The ownership and possession of firearms is a potent symbol of the value the Founders of a free republic placed on the worth of each American. This fact isn’t lost on the radical Left in this country that seeks to divide Americans into specious groups of “victims” and those who would enslave them.

The Left does this to play one group against the other. It is a game called “identity politics.” But, why is the radical Left employing this, and who is really behind the Left’s efforts?

Michael Bloomberg (AP Photo/John Locher)

Consider: There exist individuals in the world today who have amassed vast wealth. That wealth is concentrated in but a few hands. These individuals also wield immense power and they exert that influence in business, in our institutions of government, in education and in the massive media sector.

They perceive the U.S. Constitution to be inimical to their goal—the goal of a one world government, grounded in one uniform political, financial, social, cultural, educational, and legal system of governance.

They see the United States, a nation of great military might, as one with great potential for them—one that can serve them well. But there’s a catch. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t permit subordination of the United States to any other nation, group of nations, or interest groups.

That presents a problem for them. They see the mass of humanity as an inchoate, mindless, dangerous elemental force of nature; less governed by reason and more by instinct. They see this unruly elemental force of nature as one requiring constant control, guidance, supervision and structure: top to bottom rule. That portends absolute subjugation of a free people, and an open invitation to tyranny.

These so-called elites seek to control the lives, actions, and thoughts of Americans. They will not abide an American citizenry that has, as a matter of right, access to firearms. So, they denigrate the Second Amendment.

They have determined that Americans must be reeducated; they must learn to view gun ownership and possession as a vestige of an earlier time, an earlier age, no longer necessary or acceptable in a modern “civilized” age of globalization and neoliberalism, over which they, alone, seek to rule, and rule with an iron fist.

The arguments against firearms ownership and possession are delivered endlessly to the public through both a compliant press and through accommodating politicians. That’s how propaganda works, and it has, unfortunately, worked well on many Americans.

But it is a long, tedious, drawn-out process. These elites have patience, but their patience is growing thin, and they are adopting new, ever more egregious methods such as boycotts and direct legal actions against gun manufacturers.

And, they are contriving new ways to attack NRA, and they are attempting to drive a wedge between NRA and its members—millions of Americans.

Through a miscarriage of justice, the Connecticut Supreme Court, in the recent case, Soto v. Bushmaster, overturned the comprehensive well-reasoned decision of the lower Connecticut Superior Court. The State Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs —  the estates of those killed at Sandy Hook and survivors — can proceed with their action against the gun manufacturer, even in the absence of privity between the gun manufacturer and plaintiffs.

That plaintiffs may proceed with their action against the gun manufacturer turns products liability law and the law of torts on its head. The decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court is also inconsistent with federal law. The case is an egregious example of Courts legislating from the bench. Those jurists who detest the very existence of the Second Amendment, do not hesitate to use their judicial powers to subvert the Second Amendment.

If plaintiffs prevail in their lawsuit, gun manufacturers may very well go out of business. The Soto case poses a serious challenge to the Second Amendment.

The case is likely to go up to the U.S. Supreme Court, whichever side prevails. If the high Court takes the case, the decision that is handed down will have the most serious impact on the Second Amendment since the seminal 2008 Heller case and the subsequent seminal 2010 McDonald case. The Arbalest Quarrel will, in a subsequent article, provide a comprehensive analysis of the Connecticut Supreme Court decision, given its singular importance and significance.

Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America hold a banner during a demonstration (AP Photo/Benjamin Nadler)

Apart from using the courts to subvert the Second Amendment, anti-gun groups are waging war on the Second Amendment on the legislative front, both in Congress and in the States. The attack being waged against the right of the people to keep and bear arms in Congress and in the state legislatures, on the one hand, and in the state and federal courts, on the other hand, constitutes two simultaneous avenues of direct assault on our sacred Second Amendment.

If a Democrat wins the White House in 2020, expect to see the Second Amendment attacked by the new chief executive, issuing a flurry of executive orders to curtail exercise of the fundamental right embodied in the Second Amendment. President Obama attempted to do that. Hillary Clinton would have continued to do so had she prevailed in the 2016 election. And, a Democrat taking the Oval Office in 2020 will most certainly continue that effort.

U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., a candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

Candidates running for the Democratic Party nomination have made their strong antipathy toward the Second Amendment plain. At a recent CNN sponsored town hall event, Democratic Party candidate Kamala Harris stated, in no uncertain terms:

Upon being elected, I will give the United States Congress 100 days to get their act together and have the courage to pass reasonable gun safety laws. And if they fail to do it, then I will take executive action.

Misuse of the office of the President by an anti-gun Democrat would constitute yet a third front against the Second Amendment. Worse yet for the American people if Democrats secure majorities in both the House and Senate in 2020.

This scourge of those who oppose the Second Amendment, who rail vehemently, endlessly, sanctimoniously against our nation and its unique history, against our rich cultural heritage, against our Judeo-Christian ethic, and against our sacrosanct and inviolate Constitution–must be thwarted. We stand to lose everything we hold most dear if we fail.

 

Roger J. Katz has practiced law for the federal government in Washington D.C., for the state government in Arizona, and has been in private practice in Ohio, New York, and Arizona. Roger is a co-founder of Arbalest Group LLC, creator of the Arbalest Quarrel weblog, dedicated to strengthening the Second Amendment, preserving our Bill of Rights, and maintaining a free republic. 

This article was originally published at arbalestquarrel.com and is reprinted here with permission. 

comments

  1. avatar Nanashi says:

    If the Second Amendment isn’t absolute, neither is the Thirteenth. The Democrats proved this in ’42 when after implementing federal gun control they put American citizens in concentration camps while letting actual PoWs run free on the honor system if they’d do manual labor (Italian Service Unit). The same Democrat appointed and confirmed justices that declared the US v. Miller showtrial (held against a defendant that wasn’t allowed to choose his lawyer or plea, before a judge that wrote the law and decided when he was dead and “his” lawyer has abandoned him) legal were the same ones that would declare the enslavement of thousands of Americans legal. The Democrats in the House and Senate repeatedly voted to fund this monstrosity.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Nothing in the constitution is absolute. “Compelling government” supersedes. As do amendments. So, yes, it is possible to repeal the 13th.

      1. avatar Huntmaster says:

        Where does the Constitution say that?

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Huntmaster,

          Sam I Am is not referring to the U.S. Constitution. Rather, he is referring to the fact that the courts almost always side with government when government infringes fundamental, unalienable rights, justifying government’s infringement because “compelling government interests” (and “public safety” which Sam I Am did not mention) somehow are superior to fundamental, unalienable rights.

        2. avatar Huntmster says:

          My point.

        3. avatar Phil Wilson says:

          God, I’m sick in my very soul from re-hashing all the same arguments with the authoritarians who want to disarm us. And with their useful idiot stooges.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Where does the Constitution say that?”

          Seriously? Take a look at Article 5, and find the limitation on amending/repealing an existing provision in the constitution, or any amendment. (Article 5 was how Amendment 18 was repealed by Amendment 21)

          It would be entertaining if an amendment included the proviso that the amendment could never be repealed, or amended, by subsequent amendment.

        5. avatar Robert Stone says:

          In their little, ignorant minds. they only believe in the Constitution when they agree with what it says.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “In their little, ignorant minds. they only believe in the Constitution when they agree with what it says.”

          Quick query here, to whom, and regarding what, is your statement pointed?

      2. avatar Jeff Davis says:

        And repeal it we shall!!!!

  2. avatar barnbwt says:

    Boy does Andy look like old Krauthammer from that angle…it made me imagine Cuomo being paralyzed from the neck down for a moment. The perfect pick-me-up for this time of morning 🙂

  3. avatar anarchyst says:

    Quite often, firearms owners are their own worst enemies. The duck hunters don’t like the AR-15 “black rifles” so they see no problem if attempts are made to ban them. The traditional rifle owners don’t like machine guns, so they have no problem with them being legislated out of existence. Some pistol owners see nothing wrong with certain long guns being outlawed just as some rifle owners would have no problem seeing pistols banned. You see, anti-gunners want them all. They will chip away a little at a time until their goal of civilian disarmament is complete. They have an excuse for banning every firearm. Scoped bolt-action rifles are defined by anti-gunners as “sniper rifles” because they are “too accurate”. Magazine-fed weapons are suspect because of high (actually normal) magazine capacity. Handguns are suspect because they are “easily concealable”. The gun grabbers want them all and have made (flimsy and suspect) excuses for banning every type of firearm. They don’t care how long it takes. and will use incrementalism to their advantage.
    Friends, ALL firearms advocates must “hang together” and realize that an assault on ANY means of firearms ownership and self-defense is an assault on ALL forms of firearms ownership and self-defense.
    There is absolutely NO ROOM for complacency among ANY Second Amendment supporters. An attack on one is an attack on ALL…
    ALL firearms laws are unconstitutional on their face. Imagine the hue and cry if “reasonable” restrictions were placed on First Amendment activities, especially with the “mainstream media”. The Second Amendment is clear–what part of “shall not be infringed” do politicians and the media not understand…of course, they understand full well…it’s part of their communist agenda…
    Even the NRA bears some responsibility for capitulation on matters concerning firearms. The NRA failed when it allowed the National Firearms Act of 1934 to stand without offering opposition, the 1968 Gun Control Act, the NICS “instant check” system, the “no new machine gun for civilians” ban in 1986, the so-called “assault weapons” ban in 1994, and other infringements of the Second Amendment. Let’s face it. What better way to increase membership than to “allow” infringements to be enacted and then push for a new membership drive. Yes, the NRA has done good, but its spirit of “compromise” will only lead to one thing…confiscation.
    If the NRA is truly the premier “gun rights” organization, it must reject ALL compromise…

    1. avatar Knute says:

      I have news for you; It’s not only the gun owners who are their own worst enemy, it’s human beings in general. We are self destructive enough to be virtually always attempting to destroy ourselves, mostly through ignorance of the very purest form obtainable.
      It’s the origin of the old saying: “be careful what you wish for, because you might get it”. Because most of the time, what people want will destroy them. We’re just mostly too shortsighted to notice until its too late.

      1. avatar possum, destroyer of arachnids says:

        . Humans have destroyed the air, the water and the land. Eventually they destroyed themselves,

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Air, water, and land are tip-top OK here in Texas, except there are too many people using them. We need population controls, but that is not really possible that I can see. What we CAN do is stop incentivizing slugs to have children. Cut off all benefits for “the children”, they are their parents’ responsibility.

    2. avatar Brodirt says:

      First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

      Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

      Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

      Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

        Sam Colt will.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Soon to recycle, as we restart by coming for the socialists.

        1. avatar Jerry Hughes says:

          70 years we have watch the socialists and communist trying to take weapons. Start burying them when they start talking, they will quit

    3. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “Even the NRA bears some responsibility for capitulation on matters concerning firearms. The NRA failed when it allowed the National Firearms Act of 1934 to stand without offering opposition,”

      Negotiating Rights Away shares not just SOME responsibility but a lion’s share. They supported NFA 1934 and have pushed/supported privileges in the place of exercising the unalienable individual right ever since.

    4. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “If the NRA is truly the premier “gun rights” organization, it must reject ALL compromise…”

      It never has been.

      1. avatar Craig in IA says:

        Funny how you brilliant anti-NRA gomers never seem to figure out why Cuomo, Bloomberg, leftist legislators/candidates, (primarily) and other leftists, MSM and elitists never mention going after any other firearms organization besides NRA…

        The obvious reason: There are some others that’ll charge you dues and make big, chest-thumping promises, cast espersions and make outright claims/lies, but the final truth is: If NRA were to go down, we’d never hear from the rest of the wannabe bozos ever again- at least not in public or anywhere that they could be tracked.

        Damn thing is- you bums all know it but you just won’t admit it.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Damn thing is- you bums all know it but you just won’t admit it.”

          Are you saying we should blindly support a corrupt fiefdom because other pro gun organizations are as big, yet?

          Performance is all that matters when you sell a product. No matter the history, no matter the good intentions, no matter the hope, what is the value proposition for continuing to buy a product that does not work as promised?

        2. avatar Craig in IA says:

          “Are you saying we should blindly support a corrupt fiefdom because other pro gun organizations are as big, yet?”

          We’ve been around this same block on TTAG about a dozen times now, Sam. You well-know I advocate those who don’t like NRA- as it is- to change it, but to do so they’ll have to be members for at least 5 years or join at Life so they’ll have some skin in the game. It would be stupid- no other word available, for a mega-million dollar organization to allow a few newbie amateurs to come in and take over that which they had no part in building.

          Fact is, there is no other organization that could take over should NRA fail. The bums leading the charge at Indy couldn’t even manage Robert’s Rules, simple protocol. Outside of NRA there are very few people who could even get a meeting with a US Senator, let alone the President and VP.

          I don’t have any problem with you and others not “buying what NRA is selling”, nor even not trying to change the course from within. Like it or not, no one else has ever had more affect on stopping the progressive trend against personal protection and privately owned firearms- if there has been, please post them. Even if NRA has only 1/20 of all American firearms owners as paid up members, it’s infinitely ahead of anyone else’s efforts and will have to do, even for the distractors.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Even if NRA has only 1/20 of all American firearms owners as paid up members,…”

          And therein lies the truth of it all. There are allegedly ~100 million gun owners, and NRA, since 1968 has managed to plateau at ~5 million members. If you (NRA) cannot saturate your natural market, then what is the problem? What many of us see is a group of powerful people protecting and projecting their power for purposes of being in power.

          If the mission of NRA truly is to protect and advance the Second Amendment, there is no reason NRA should not be lead agent in every case regarding “common sense gun control”. The other, smaller, alphabet gun rights organizaitons should be more than amicus curea. As it is, the little groups are hard charging, and NRA is constantly, “Whoa. Let’s think this over. Be cautions. Don’t frighten the horses. You can’t just upend things, you gotta work the system over the long term.”

          As to members not schooled in the niceties of Roberts’ Rules, revolutionarys have no time for high drag delaying tactics. The want change, they want it now, niceties be damned. Sorta the way POTG claim they approach the strangulation of our protected rights.

        4. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “You well-know I advocate those who don’t like NRA- as it is- to change it, but to do so they’ll have to be members for at least 5 years or join at Life so they’ll have some skin in the game.”

          I was a member for more than five years and used to promote the NRA. Not all of us were born yesterday, son.

        5. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “Even if NRA has only 1/20 of all American firearms owners as paid up members, it’s infinitely ahead of anyone else’s efforts and will have to do, even for the distractors.”

          You miss the point of much of what I post about the NRA. Those “efforts” would amount to privileges in the place of the exercise of the unalienable right to keep and bear arms. That’s not a win. That’s what government wants.

      2. avatar John in Ohio says:

        “you brilliant anti-NRA gomers”
        “you bums”

        That’s a lot of hot air there Craig. Feel better now?

    5. avatar Michael says:

      Wayne La Pierre was given a second chance I hope this time around.I email them all .Q? will you back up the GOA and FPC lawsuits against the DOJ POTUS Trump and the ATF on Infringement rights over Gun Accessories protected by the FFOP Act.besides the FFPA all signed under Reagan And yet no answer since La Pire was re elected,in closed Door Voteinhg.

      Only Congress makes Gun laws across America under the 2ns Amendment State rights,but Violate The basic rights in NY and CA and all the blues States especially
      Gun free zones.Only God fearing men and women need to carry guns not atheist nor muslims or Evil People who seem to get away with it everyday in America. We are 1st a Christian Nation not a nation of occultism, but we see it today.Why? We let Larry Flynt Describe our 1st amendment right over God’s Truth about sin.And what do we see today evil Porn and Pedophloia now in the open under a wrong decision as did the scum in the SCOTUS did Striking down the Doma act signed by Bill Clinton.And now the scum queers and pedos and sex offender politicians, DNC think they are God,Kamala Harris,Booker the Romanas queer, disgust us all.But D. S Eric Swallows well; takes the cake.

  4. avatar anarchyst says:

    The problem is, we have allowed the anti Second Amendment crowd to define the terms.
    A firearm is a tool which possesses no evil intent on its own. Assigning intent to an inanimate object is the epitome of insanity. Demonizing a weapon on looks alone also marks the accuser as an unstable individual who is also insane. Call them out on their illogic and insanity.
    Another dirty tactic the anti-Second Amendment crowd uses exposes children to potential and actual harm by putting them in gun-free zones. These people care not one wit about children, but uses them for their own nefarious purposes.
    We need to TAKE BACK the argument
    When the antis blame the firearm for the actions of a criminal, state that: a firearm is an inanimate object, subject only to the intent of the user. Firearms ARE used to preserve life and make a 90 lb. woman equal to a 200 lb. criminal”.
    When the antis attempt to justify their gun free zones counter their misguided argument with you mean, criminal safety zones or victim disarmament zones.
    State that we protect our money, banks, politicians and celebrities, buildings and facilities with PEOPLE WITH GUNS, but protect our children with gun-free zone signs.
    When the antis criticize AR-15s in general, counter with: you mean the most popular rifle of the day, use able by even the smallest, weakest person as a means of self-defense. Besides, AR-15s are FUN to shoot. Offer to take them to the range and supply them with an AR-15, ammunition and range time. I have made
    many converts this way.
    When the antis state that: You dont need an AR-15 to hunt with, counter with AR-15s ARE used for hunting, but in many states, are prohibited from being used to take large game because they are underpowered.
    When the antis state that: AR-15s are high powered rifles, correct them by stating that AR-15s with the .223 or 5.56mm cartridge are considered medium-powered weapons-NOT high-powered by any means.
    When the antis state that: you don’t need and AR-15, counter with, Who are YOU to consider what I need?
    When the antis state that: the Constitution was written during the time of muskets, and that the Second Amendment should only apply to weapons of that time period, state that: by your logic, the First Amendment should not apply to modern-day telecommunications, internet, television, radio, public-address systems, books and newspapers produced on high-speed offset printing presses. Only town-criers and Benjamin Franklin type printing presses would be covered under the First Amendment.
    When the antis state that only law enforcement and government should possess firearms, remind them of the latest school shooting, as well as Columbine, where law enforcement SAT ON THEIR HANDS and cowered in fear while children were being murdered, citing officer safety, afraid to challenge the shooter, despite being armed to the hilt. The government-run murderous sieges at Ruby Ridge and Waco are also good examples of government (mis)use of firearms.
    This tome can be used to counter any argument against any infringement of our Second Amendment.

    1. avatar Brodirt says:

      Ive had conversations in my home with a number of anti-gun types and those undecided. I find that seizing the moment with physical illustration to be the best form of teaching.
      At the right moment I excuse myself from the conversation, head downstairs and grab a couple of “props.”
      The props being a .22lr cartridge, a .218 Bee, .223, .270, .308, .30-06 and a 12 gauge shell.
      The show starts with a simple question, which one does the AR15 fire?
      Since everyone knows what a shotgun shell is and almost everyone knows what a .22lr is (and I use them for that reason) they almost always pick the .30-06.
      I tell them no, sorry; that one’s history’s most popular deer cartridge; please pick again.
      Next goes the .270; sorry, wrong again; that one is great for deer but great for smaller game too, please pick again.
      At this point they know they’re wrong when they pick the .308 but they usually do.
      Nope, sorry that one is a very popular “modern” deer and long range target round, its easy for all to shoot well because of its relative light recoil.
      When they finally pick the .223 I say see the other one, the .218 Bee, that’s a formerly very popular round for shooting small farm varmints like gophers/woodchuck.

      Its a fun teaching experience that doesnt require convincing someone to actually pick up a gun.

      1. avatar Dan in Detroit says:

        We do this exact same thing at events/outdoor shows with our local state gun group!
        At my first event, I heard a lot of people repeating stuff about high powered military ammo and assault this/that… so before my second event, I asked one of the more senior gents with more access to different cartridges to bring a few.
        It is astounding how many “gun people” think the AR is a “high powered” rifle and can’t fathom that they’ve been lied to by the media.
        For extra fun – we have the bullets separated from the brass on display boards… a bullet half as big as their pinkie nail is “high powered” while a bullet half as big as their entire pinkie is granddad’s old deer ammo…

    2. avatar Pineapple says:

      “.. the estates of those killed at Sandy Hook and survivors — can proceed with their action against the gun manufacturer,..”

      Then why can’t the estates of those killed in car wrecks proceed with action against the car manufacturers?

  5. avatar PacoTheMojado says:

    “No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer”

    DOUBLE BANNED IN CALIFORNIA

    1. avatar Knute says:

      That might be so, but I know many ‘hunters’ who need to bring a hundred CARTRIDGES to kill one deer. If they’re lucky. 🙂

    2. avatar GunnyGene says:

      Other things are hunted besides deer that do require more than 10 rounds. Feral hogs for example, where the objective is to kill as many as possible as often as possible, day or night, and in a hog trap which might have captured 20 or more at one time.

  6. avatar Sam I Am says:

    “There exist individuals in the world today who have amassed vast wealth. That wealth is concentrated in but a few hands….They perceive the U.S. Constitution to be inimical to their goal—the goal of a one world government, grounded in one uniform political, financial, social, cultural, educational, and legal system of governance.”

    True, dat. Read a book once, and there is no stopping a one-world government; it will happen. Evil is real, and it never ends. Until, one day it does.

    1. avatar Grumpy F'er says:

      > there is no stopping a one-world government; it will happen

      That may indeed happen, but I will not go quietly.

      Wife and family all dead. No kids.

      I’m generally happy with my past and current life, but it they come for me and my rights, I will have absolutely NOTHING to lose.

      I choose my path. When I joined the service, I swore to “…uphold and defend…” I never rescinded that oath. I will defend. Call me a Mall Ninja, but I choose “life” over “survival.” Maybe I will see things differently when the actual decision has to be made but, based on my time in service experience, I doubt I will shirk my duties.

      1. avatar B.D. says:

        I get it, and I will definitely fight with you. But the oath I swore got me involved in opium and oil wars. They can take that manipulation and shove it where the sun don’t shine. I will fight for ACTUAL freedom this time.

  7. avatar MIO says:

    Why tell all of us tell the President and the NRA

  8. avatar possum, destroyer of arachnids says:

    If an American doesn’t support the U.S. Constitution then they are not an American. Someone who has attained a position that enables them to infringe on the rights that the Constitution gives it’s people IMO are traitors to this country. A little pissed I am no doubt

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Pretty much like the NRA, no?

      1. avatar possum, destroyer of arachnids says:

        I’ve not got a dog in that fight. Money+ power= greed. No matter what organization it is

        1. avatar B.D. says:

          possum, destroyer of politics.

          I like it.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “I’ve not got a dog in that fight.”

          They proclaim to be fighting for your right to keep and bear arms while pushing privileges instead. You have a dog in that fight regardless of what you think.

        3. avatar Knute says:

          John in Ohio; I don’t think he meant that he has no interest in the fight, but that he, like me, has long ago abandoned the NRA in favor of the GOA and the 2ndAF.

        4. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Knute, thanks for the clarification. If that’s the case then we are in the same place. Carry on.

        5. avatar possum, destroyer of arachnids says:

          The NRA/ ILA lied to me in 94. Once lied to its hard to trust again

        6. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Get out of the city! Did NRA-ILA even exist in 1994? I’ll go NRA-ILA, SAF, and throw in Judicial Watch for balance. I see GOA as posers, they can show me something before demanding my money.

  9. avatar John in Ohio says:

    “And, they are contriving new ways to attack NRA, and they are attempting to drive a wedge between NRA and its members—millions of Americans.”

    There’s a fuckin’ hoot! Negotiating Rights Away has worked against the Second Amendment and FOR government privileges. If this government shill organization gets its way, there will be only the exercise of tightly controlled government privileges. The NRA is not part of the solution, it has been a huge part of the problem since at least 1934.

  10. avatar John in Ohio says:

    “If a Democrat wins the White House in 2020, expect to see the Second Amendment attacked by the new chief executive, issuing a flurry of executive orders to curtail exercise of the fundamental right embodied in the Second Amendment. President Obama attempted to do that. Hillary Clinton would have continued to do so had she prevailed in the 2016 election. And, a Democrat taking the Oval Office in 2020 will most certainly continue that effort.”

    You mean like the current republican President Trump seems to be supporting. If anything, he opened the door wide for future abuses against not only the 2A but others as well. Obama had the ATF look at bump stocks and they were rightly found not to be machine guns. How about this clown in office now? Bump stocks are a felony and take the guns first, due process later.

    1. avatar possum, destroyer of arachnids says:

      They’re all in it together. There is no separation between Republican or Democrat. I know some who cling to the hope there is, but it’s all just a game. Repub for 8 years, Dem for 8 years, Repub for 8 years, Dem for 8 years and what’s really changed? More homeless, more poverty, more drugs, and more Wars is all I’ve seen.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Except that first “Repub” was 12 years, not 8.

  11. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    I re-read the Constitution and Bill of Rights again last night and have been unable to find out where it says that the government has the right to determine what my specific ” needs” are and their right to spell them out for me. Wonder what our founding fathers would have done with these demo-commies that are in this country ?

    1. avatar Darkman says:

      Ask the British. Oh that’s right there all dead or turned tail and ran home. Our Founding Fathers and thousands of Patriots would be done shooting by now. These were brave men and women who risked everything they had to repel the bonds of a Tyrannical Government. They were willing to sacrifice their lives for something they weren’t sure they would ever see and many didn’t. They did know the cause was just and Freedom comes at great cost. Now once again Freedom is facing Repression from Tyrannical people both inside and outside of Government. Who now is willing to take the risk? Make the sacrifice? Is not the cause as Just now as it was then. Keep Your Powder Dry.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        “Keep Your Powder Dry.”

        With present state of affairs, it shouldn’t be around long enough to get damp.

  12. avatar GunnyGene says:

    The truth is that in a “Clash of Civilizations” (which is what is going on), “peacefully” guiding the course of events (thru “voting” for example) to the desired outcome of one side or another is impossible. Violence will always ultimately, and inevitably, determine what the outcome will be.

    1. avatar B.D. says:

      Perfect. That’s what I am here for.

    2. avatar Clark Kent says:

      ‘Soap box, ballot box, cartridge box’ – Abraham Lincoln.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        ” ‘Soap box, ballot box, cartridge box’ – Abraham Lincoln.”

        Frederick Douglass

        1. avatar Oldsarge says:

          Stephen Decatur Miller was first I can find, stating it in 1830.
          Douglas repeated it in 1867.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Stephen Decatur Miller was first I can find, stating it in 1830.
          Douglas repeated it in 1867.”

          The Douglass note was relative to Lincoln’s time, but did no know about the Miller quote; thanx for that.

  13. avatar Shire-man says:

    As if they care about any rights for anyone. Didn’t you see all the “civil rights” groups praising Facebooks mass ban wave yesterday? This is the clown world now where civil rights groups praise the active stripping of rights.

  14. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Let’s see how honest the left is by offering to exchange something for a reciprocal NATIONAL right to carry and a legislated promise to shut up about the Second and guarantee that registration and confiscation will be off the table forever. And then show the SOBs video of Venezuela!!! Standing “with” them doesn’t accomplish much if they are unarmed. And when they tell you tyranny can’t happen here ask them what the definition of disarming a law-abiding population should be called.

    1. avatar possum, destroyer of arachnids says:

      We The People are already disarmed. Gov had muskets, the people had muskets, govs got photon torpedoes, we got muskets

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Damn fine, spiderman!

    2. avatar Someone says:

      We already have legislated guarantee that registration and confiscation will be off the table forever. It’s called 2nd ammendment. The Government simply must not touch our RTKBA. All arms.
      It’s the supreme law of the country. It’s just missing the part about what to do with those who try anyway.

  15. avatar million says:

    The Weimar Republic intended to protect the public welfare when they enacted their gun registration law. At the time, communists and fascists were in open war against each other on the streets so the “elites” in charge thought it wise to limit firearms only to those of good character. That slope proved a little more slippery than expected.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Time always favors tyranny. Absent full push-back by liberty loving people, tyranny will win. We can’t vote our way to freedom. It must be demanded and seized upon.

  16. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    “I know it’s political. I know it’s controversial. I say to you, forget the extremists! It’s simple — no one hunts with an assault rifle. No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer, and too many innocent people have died already! End this madness — now!”

    The self esteemed Leftard might want to remember that the 2 nd. isn’t about deer hunting but rather tyrant control.I’m as serious as scurvy !

    2 nd, amendment for Leftards

  17. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “The Second Amendment Stands Strong or Not at All”

    Not at all is just how the left wants it, then we can become the next venezuala…

  18. avatar RA-15 says:

    Nothing is free in this life. We must fight for our rights. If that payment must be in blood , I will gladly donate mine.

  19. avatar User1 says:

    If Roger was an honest man he wouldn’t leave out the attacks from the other side of the coin.

  20. avatar Ralph says:

    If the Second Amendment is buried — IF — it will be because of people like the concern tr0lls surfacing on this web site who do nothing but undermine.

    At least the Dims are honest in expressing their aims, if not their motives.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “If the Second Amendment is buried — IF — it will be because of people like the concern tr0lls surfacing on this web site who do nothing but undermine.”

      If criticizing a business, or a political organization is “undermining”, the alternative is to tolerate everything.

      The anti-2A twits do not wait for us to help them attack the Second Amendment.

  21. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    … the Second Amendment encapsulates the immutable idea of the sanctity, autonomy, dignity, and inviolability of each American citizen.

    This is perhaps the biggest reason why Progressives hate the Second Amendment because it flies in the face of their position that people who are not Progressives are “deplorables”.

  22. avatar Docduracoat says:

    What is with the anti-gunners and hunting?
    Is that the only reason they could think of to have a gun?
    What about having the people help resist an invasion?
    What about the people resisting government tyranny?
    For Both of these reasons the people need to have weapons of war

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Docduracoat,

      Progressive government is Progressives’ God Almighty. Progressives quite literally worship government and ascribe all manner of God’s qualities to government, including near infinite power, resources, benevolence, and infallibility.

      That being the case, the answer to your questions is fairly straight-forward:

      What about having the people help resist an invasion?
      What about the people resisting government tyranny?

      A Progressive government will not need any help to resist invasion because a Progressive government will welcome everyone with open arms and there will be no invasion. And even if an invasion somehow happened in spite of our welcoming attitude, Progressive government would only need a handful of troops because truly evil people are so rare as to be virtually non-existent. Finally, a Progressive government would never be tyrannical (corrupt) because a Progressive governments can only be good, benevolent, and infallible.

  23. avatar HuntingtonGuy says:

    The most real dangers to 2A are not Fudds and soccer moms, it is a very small number of political elitists and wealthy, power drunk egotists.
    Most have ever only “worked” as elected or high appointed officials, the others largely inherited their wealth and their monarchical world views.
    Cuomo is a world class POS. He is a bully and a thief and it confounds me how he is not in prison.
    Bloomberg, a narrow minded Napolianic control freak.
    And they are not the worst of it. America’s MSM has bought into the European philosophy on gun ownership…only the rich and powerful shall have them.
    The last and current generation of Sociocrats and Islamists coming to power in the USA are determined to strip our rights from our very hands and transform America into a Marxist model utopia (for them, not so much us).
    Too many “pro 2A” types are complacent or worse. We own the vote and can fire the Cuomo’s and the OAC’s except that only a mere fraction of us can be bothered to put shoes on and drive to a polling place on Election Day.
    Shit had gotten real folks.

  24. avatar David Keith says:

    The second amendment was written for the express purpose of a citizen to have legal firearms to protect himself/ourselves from tyranny. Cuomo and Swallowswell, two total ass clowns, look and sound like tyrants to me. This is a no brainier. Would any of us, aside from the most timid and cowardly, let these ass clown tyrants have our guns? Hell no. Go ahead and shoot me, and see if I care. My singular purpose at that point is taking out as many of the pompous jerks on the other side as I can.

    1. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

      As i have often said: the second amendment exists so that the people might put down an insurrection by government.

  25. avatar MLee says:

    It’s disgusting when we realize that these gun grabbers all have gazllion dollar security programs with personnel in possession of select fire weapons with standard capacity magazines. Hey wait, they don’t need those for hunting!

    I say this with all sincerity because being thoughtful with carefully chosen words, comments and statistics doesn’t mean anything to those gun-grabbing morons. They can just KISS MY ASS!

  26. avatar GS650G says:

    Mr. Cuomo asserts guns are only legitimately for hunting. He doesn’t have to worry about several attackers at his home, that’s for his body guards with 30 round mags to deal with.

    1. I don’t see where any thing in our constitution that needs to be changed. If our Constitution was so wrong then why has it worked all these YEARS. All of a sudden the Democrats want to change every thing to suit them and not us. WHAT A DAMN CRYING SHAME. IF THE DEMOCRATS GET THERE WAY WE ARE SUNKED.

  27. avatar UpInArms says:

    What the 2A is really all about:

    “People shouldn’t be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people.”

    ― Alan Moore, V for Vendetta

  28. avatar Old Hawg says:

    Our Founding Fathers were unquestionably some of the wisest people who ever lived in that they understood that one of the fundamental aspects of the Nature of Man is the quest for accretion of power over their fellow citizens. Consequently, they wrote into our Constitution precepts they considered inviolable, in full knowledge that the day would come when someone would indeed attempt to violate them. That time has come when it concerns the Second Amendment. No matter what noble name they call themselves or how they rationalize their disarming us in the name of “safety”, it is a usurpation of the concept of liberty of the individual, the linchpin of the government the Founding Fathers envisioned. It must be resisted by all legal means.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      It must be resisted by all means.

      FIFY

  29. avatar Tom Curry says:

    All of these Democrats are going to get killed in the 2020 elections for these Democrats have shown us all that they out to take away all are rights, they have tried to stop free speech, they have attacked are traditions are religion, are right to bear arms, are constitution and are laws and we would have to be crazy to let these politicians get away with there treasonous acts!!! The sickness of the Democratic party plain to see and it is us citizens that need to put an end to this party forever!!! I watch the Bill Maher show last night and they tried to tell us that the killing of babies the Democrats never said and the truth is that it was said and that and shown on live TV and there are many Democrats that are running that are for it!!!! Just the doing nothing to secure are borders and to fix are immigration laws and policies and not fully funding are wall is enough to vote these traitors out of office and the giving of free everything to illegals is completely insane!!!!

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