The Supreme Court Has Given Arms to Every Fanatic to be Used Against Government

fear horror cartoon

Bigstock

Once again, the true implications of what Supreme Court actually did with its groundbreaking decisions in Heller and McDonald is dawning on the anti-gun left. Since then, the Court sat back for years while some lower courts thumbed their noses at the basis for those decisions.

But now, with the slight rightward shift thanks to Trump’s two appointments, the Court seems (again seems) ready to use the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association case to build on that base. And observers like Amherst law professor Lawrence Douglas are tearing their hair out at the prospect.

That bears repeating: A ban on semiautomatic weapons would be unconstitutional. Using “text, history, and tradition” as his guides, Kavanaugh concluded that semiautomatic rifles “have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens for self-defense in the home, hunting, and other lawful uses”.

Why does the fact that we’ve permitted such weapons in the past mean that we are constitutionally tethered to them now? The logic again follows straight from the disastrous Heller ruling.

Perhaps worst of all, Heller dramatically and dangerously altered the rhetorical stakes in the battle over gun control. For decades, gun zealots ranted about an individual right to gun ownership. In Heller, the supreme court mainstreamed a radical outlier position into constitutional doctrine. Two centuries ago, the great English philosopher Jeremy Bentham warned of the danger of permitting a rhetoric of rights to hijack what really are and should be policy arguments. Is this not “putting into the hands of every fanatic arms that he can use against all governments?” Bentham asked.

Yet this is precisely what the court has done in Heller and McDonald. And all too literally.

– Lawrence Douglas in The supreme court’s pro-gun radicalism puts us all in the crosshairs

comments

  1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    I thought my ancestors fought the Revolution so I would not need to listen to the whinging of prancing, mincing little poofs such as this.

    1. avatar KGM says:

      Yup, can’t argue with your statement.
      However, I have little trust in Roberts. We are still in danger, of loosing everything.

      1. avatar PK says:

        “We are still in danger, of loosing everything.”

        Interesting that your typo still makes sense. If we lose everything, then the correct, Constitutional response is and ought to be to “loose all”…

        1. avatar Frank says:

          nice catch +1

    2. avatar GunnyGene says:

      Rights must be constantly defended. Sometimes with lethal force. Don’t think for a second that just because our ancestors defended them, that it lets us off the hook.

      1. avatar 41mag says:

        The Bill of Rights isn’t required to define the right to self protection, both individually and as a group (ie, Militia).
        The Militia was desired…not a standing Army we have today.

        1. avatar Erik Weisz says:

          The “militia” referred to in the 2A IS a standing army, either permanent or on-call and controlled by the government (fed or state). BECAUSE such is necessary for the preservation of a free state, the rights of the people (those NOT currently enlisted in said “militia”) to keep AND bear arms shall not be infringed. In other words, since we must have a military to provide for the defense of the state, in order to prevent that military from being used against our own citizens (the people) by a potentially tyrannical future government, the people must be armed. This is also where the parity in arms (between the mil/police and the people) argument comes from – anything they are issued should be made readily available to the people as well.

      2. avatar Scott C. says:

        Exactly. As the saying goes: “The only rights you have are the ones you’re willing to fight for.”

        1. avatar California Richard says:

          Exactly. The 2nd ammendment does not confer any right and the abolition of the 2nd ammendment does not automatically mean that right is lost. Its the same as if the 13th ammendment was abolished. The 13th ammendment doesn’t make blacks free any more than the 2nd gives us guns… it just means there will be a war if someone gets rid of the 13th ammendment and tries to enslave blacks… same as if someone tries to get rid of the 2nd and tries to take guns.

    3. avatar enuf says:

      No, that is not why the Revolutionary War was fought. No where in the Declaration of Independence does it mention protection from the “whinging of prancing, mincing little poofs”. Anyone may say what they wish, we do not have to listen to them or approve, but they can yammer and gum flap to their heart’s content.

      More to the point, very serious issues are listed as causes for the war.
      https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

      1. avatar MiserableBastard says:

        Good read, that
        thanks

    4. avatar drunkEODguy says:

      Sir William Blackstone wrote in the 18th century that the right to have arms was auxiliary to the “natural right of resistance and self-preservation” so even the English knew individuals bearing arms was a natural right.

      1. avatar Rusty - always carry - Chains says:

        “even the English knew…”
        Past tense is certainly correct, England has turned into a socialist hellscape with piles of crap that where major cities were. Like most of Europe it is full of no go zones where white Christians would be in mortal danger just walking around.

        1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          quote””””””””””””’“even the English knew…”
          Past tense is certainly correct, England has turned into a socialist hellscape with piles of crap that where major cities were. Like most of Europe it is full of no go zones where white Christians would be in mortal danger just walking around.””””””””’quote

          Like most of the religious Far Right you know as much about Europe as you know about how to cure Ebola which is zero. There actually is so little Christianity in Britain and Europe left that hundreds of major Cathedrals have closed their doors and have been purchased and turned into museums or apartments and in some cases gambling halls.

          And your insinuation that all rough parts of towns are threatened by non Christians or non whites is wrong as well. It is poverty that breeds violence and crime not a persons religion or ethnic make up but since you are obviously not a person of higher education this is beyond your ability to fathom even on the most elementary level.

          I might add with some humor that Christianity is the most rapidly failing religion on the planet and Islam the fastest rising and is projected to surpassed the number of Christians in just a few short years. But again that is a subject way over your head.

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Vlad Tepid,

          You are correct that Christianity is dying out in Europe and that churches are closing their doors.

          I suspect you are also correct claiming that Muslims will outnumber Christians in the next several decades.

          As for your comment

          It is poverty that breeds violence and crime not a persons religion or ethnic make up …

          The primary cause of violence and crime is destruction of core family structure and raising children with awful values (or children raising themselves which is kind of the same thing). Poverty itself is not the primary cause. Poverty probably results in more petty theft (e.g. people stealing food to survive). And poverty may also force both parents of a family to work so many hours that they end up not doing a good job instilling positive values in their children (due to being away too much). What poverty in-and-of-itself most certainly does not do, however, is cause people to inflict brutal violent crime on others.

        3. avatar jwm says:

          Yes, vlad. Christianity is dying in europe. And Islam is rising to replace it. Wonder how long your socialist utopia in europe will last when that happens.

          Your mother in a burka. Your sisters being bartered like cattle. Gays being executed. And that future apparently appeals to you.

          I would expect no less from an animal that supports an ongoing genocide of black folks.

        4. avatar DN says:

          Vlad,
          You clearly have never lived in Europe. I was born there and lived half my life there.
          Citizens of European countries, especially more socialist ones, have dramatically lower rights in all fields of rights — not just self defense and firearms related issues.
          Stop and frisk of the type ruled unconstitutional in NY is broadly legal, and broadly practiced in almost all of Europe. In almost all of Europe there is no double jeopardy protection. You do not get a right to a jury in most of Europe. In all of Europe it is much easier for the government to compulsorily hold and drug people for mental illness at lower levels than in the US. Speech rights are lower. I could go on and on.

          It is a core part of socialism and socialist policies to greatly restrict rights of citizens.

      2. avatar Sambo says:

        What do you expect given that the article was written by Zimmer-Jew. These globalist faggots want to disarm us so we can’t resist when they implement their socialist dystopia.

    5. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

      When characterizing the government BF said “A republic, if you can keep it.” because he and most others knew it was a fragile state of affairs that wasn’t done being fought for/over. They did their job but they couldn’t do ours for us.

    6. avatar Knute(ken) says:

      Nope. It never ever worked that way. Evil is always in there trying to steal from, rape, and kill everyone else. No matter what happened earlier, each individual has to fight tyranny on his own.
      Well, not alone, as that made it sound. There is strength in numbers, but each generation has to fight their own battles. Freedom requires constant struggle against the evil forces that are always working to destroy all liberties but their own. Just like now. That’s what Jefferson meant when he said that “God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.” Now, a couple hundred years later, we have far less freedom than we did under the thumb of King George. Washington DC is a far worse tyrant than George ever dreamed of being.
      OFC, you know this already. But thanks for giving me a chance to quote my all-time favorite author a bit.
      “Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” -Thomas Jefferson

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Americans like to think of themselves as a nation of problem-solvers. But, they don’t like solving the same problem over and again – such as fending off tyranny (evil). Americans like “one and done” solutions, not constant system maintenance (it has been awhile, but during my time in the IT business, developers [problem solvers] were always prized over those releasing bug fixes).

    7. avatar Dave in PTC says:

      Wow. Evoke Jeremy Bentham? We can thank Bentham for much of the social mess in the U.S. and Europe. His philosophy is summed up in his own words… “ it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong.” Utilitarianism was his invention, and it paid in dividends to today’s world through the philosophy of Pragmatism and every other doctrine of self-destruction. His personal life… a self-worshipping, ivory tower, narcissistic egghead. He mocked the idea of personal rights and if alive today would fight against everything that we hold dear in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    8. avatar Hans says:

      Plus One, Gunsmith !!

      I do not know why this piece was even published.

      Does the author writer for Mother _______ Jones?

    9. avatar Paul says:

      You have not forgotten the price of freedom, have you? The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Just because your great-great-granpappy (and mine) fought to preserve our rights, doesn’t mean that we will automatically inherit those rights. You and I must be prepared – eternally – to defend those rights.

      From time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots. If you’re not willing to water the tree, then you don’t deserve your liberties.

      It isn’t my intent to be insulting, but all of us need to be reminded now and then. NO ONE will defend your liberties, if you won’t.

    10. avatar Mike Torres says:

      We have the right to defend our selves from anyone who whether foreign, domestic n including our gov’t which threatens our democracy. I love the U.S.A. it’s the politicians who take bribes I dislike. If I don’t like your political views I’ll vote you out.

  2. avatar Nord says:

    Excellent, exactly as intended. Unless you hate individual liberty

    1. avatar tmm says:

      Clearly, we can’t be trusted with individual liberty (apparently). And clearly, they can’t be trusted to take it away.

  3. avatar GS650G says:

    Heller also gave the anti gunners a tool to restrict rights with a small paragraph allowing reasonable restrictions and they are ramming that through with Crisco.
    The next decision should be long on reach and short on words like the 27 words in the 2nd.
    I’d feel better if RBG was not sitting there with her No vote already typed up.

    1. avatar Baldwin says:

      “…allowing reasonable restrictions and they are ramming that through with Crisco.” I don’t think they intend to use any lube.

    2. avatar Irwin Mann says:

      Scalia was no dummy. He included footnote 26 in the Heller decision to help qualify that position:
      “26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.”
      The use of the word “presumptively” is critical here. The scope of the Heller review didn’t cover those other laws and he had to do this to get Kennedy to buy in to the majority decision.

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        Footnotes noted but the substance taken at face value. He trusted the courts to be reasonable in the way a chicken trusts a fox.

    3. avatar WARFAB says:

      Is RBG actually sitting somewhere and typing these days?

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        Two keys very close to each other.

      2. avatar Rusty - always carry - Chains says:

        I think she is well down the road to senility. Her increasingly bizarre behavior in support of the agenda of the far left indicates she should recuse herself from any gun rights cases. She won’t, of course, in fact if she died after the first Monday in October, the Democrats would prop her up in her chair and have Elizabeth Warren use a radio to have her speak. They would do anything to avoid Trump appointing another justice.

    4. avatar DN says:

      Bullcrap. Before Heller there were jurisdictions that banned even revolvers kept at home in safes, even by persons that could pass any background check. Those bans were UPHELD prior to Heller. So before Heller a 50.1% vote of a state or towns legislative body and assent by the mayor or governor could be total bans, and were in several places.

  4. avatar Mad Max says:

    “The Supreme Court Has Given Arms to Every Fanatic to be Used Against Government”

    Fanatics like George Washington?

    Isn’t that the whole point of the 2nd Amendment?

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      This,however Prof.smarty pants fails to understand or wants ignore reality.

  5. avatar Biatec says:

    The Heller decision was just wrong. Just because something was traditionally banned does not make it okay.

    The supreme court hopefully will fix something but I’m tired of precedents like that. For some reason they think 90% infringement of the 2nd amendment is the line of reasonable.

  6. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

    He quotes Jeremy Bentham. In case anyone is unfamiliar, Bentham we most well known for his idea of the pan opticon. A prison like building in which people in control could see and thereby control all of the other people under their authority. Initially he peddled this idea for prisons and orphanages, then expanded it to schools. His ultimate plan was to have all of society set up as a series of pan opticons. Everyone would be watched and strictly controlled at all times.

    Of course this guy didn’t want ordinary people to be armed.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      Eastern State was the first Pen to use the panopticon. It’s not just an example of early architecture but a window in to the control Quakers had over their people

  7. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    So there’s a “danger of permitting a rhetoric of rights to hijack what really are and should be policy arguments”, huh? Would the good professor agree that is the case with regard ro abortion? What about racial profiling as an investigative technique, sonce blacks commit a far disproportionate percentage of violent and property crimes?

    I bet he wouldn’t be so quick to disparage rights and resort to public policy arguments then. Just shows he’s full of crap and only interested in prostituting his intellect in the service of his own personal politics.

  8. avatar Manse Jolly says:

    “….Is this not “putting into the hands of every fanatic arms that he can use against all governments?” Bentham asked….”

    Yes, of course.

    Not really understanding his point../sarc..not convinced he understands his point either.

  9. avatar MarkPA says:

    “. . . a rhetoric of rights to hijack what really are and should be policy arguments.”

    This is precisely the point of a bill-of-rights. This policy decision was pointedly debated during the ratification process. And, it was then decided – agreed to – by both Anti-Federalists and the Federalist proponents of the new Constitution. There WOULD BE a bill-of-rights that WOULD enumerate the policies of the People who ordained and established that constituting document.

    It is precisely the point of a written constitution to fix policy decisions. The object is to prevent a tempest of rhetoric about temporal “emergencies” that purportedly would be cured by adopting some alternate policy. A bicameral legislature; a singular executive; a judiciary subject to the design of the legislature; an electoral college. Each of these points has been fixed, subject only to the pleasure of the People by a super-majority.

    It is especially important to fix the rights of the People so that the legislature can’t – upon the slightest pretext – over-rule the policy decisions of the People.

    No matter how important to public safety it might be one day to abridge the freedoms of speech, press or religion, no such intrusion is permitted. Not unless and until the People themselves decide otherwise by the prescribed super-majority.

    In the case of the 2A, it is a policy decision that the People have reserved to themselves the right to keep and bear their arms so as to ever remain a formidable opposition to any standing army.

    We, the People, retain the right to debate the wisdom of that policy decision. The legislative body is not empowered to do so by delegated authority.

  10. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    The ‘collective right’ to keep and bear arms isn’t located in the Bill of Rights but in Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution where the enumerated powers of the legislature are defined, including maintaining a navy, raising an army and calling up the militias. The individual right to keep and bear arms is placed among the other enumerated individual rights in the Bill of Rights. It doesn’t take a brain scientist to figure out the distinction.

    1. avatar MEDIC says:

      I have literally never seen it put that way. That’s fantastic.

      I’d wager you saw it somewhere else as well, but thank you for that nugget!

      1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        I second that sentiment.

        Nugget of the day,oh heck,the week.

    2. avatar Bcb says:

      Most go back and read. That is the potentially the most educational comment I’ve seen in a while. Thanks

      1. avatar Bcb says:

        Upon self research:

        The constitution piece highlights the right of the government to call up the militia, no more.

        The second amendment does guarantee the individual right (and gives militias as the reason for this need). For there is no militia without individual ownership. (There are two types by US code, organized being the national guard, and unorganized being non government affiliated and the intent of the original type).

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          If the 2nd Amendment didn’t recognize the individual right to keep and bear arms it wouldn’t be in the Bill of Rights. ‘Collective rights’ are nothing but government powers and government powers are enumerated in the Constitution not in the Bill of Rights. No other federal power is defined in the Bill of Rights and only the 10th Amendment grants all other powers not enumerated in the Constitution to the states. The other 9 amendments are all recognition of individual rights and limitations on government powers (all ten limit federal powers). It’s simply not logical to assert that government powers are hidden in the Bill of Rights.

        2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “It’s simply not logical to assert that government powers are hidden in the Bill of Rights.”

          Since when has ‘logic’ and Leftists ever been familiar with each other?

          These are the same folks who claim to be the only ones who protect and champion the rights of the most vulnerable citizens, (the physically handicapped, the intellectually disabled) except the most vulnerable, those waiting to be born…

          BTW, nice gem. Will be using it. 🙂

        3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          ‘Since when has ‘logic’ and Leftists ever been familiar with each other?’

          A) Never.

          However you may encounter a fence sitter who may not own guns but may have the capacity for logic. Simply put, a ‘collective right’ in the Bill of Rights is not only in the wrong place but also in this case duplicitous.

        4. avatar UpInArms says:

          Even though 2A mentions the militia, it does not assign the right to keep and bear arms to the militia. To wit: it’s “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”, not “the right of the militia to keep and bear arms”.

          If there is any doubt about who the people are, it’s spelled out in Article I, Sec 2: “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Member chosen every second Year by the People…”. So, the people are anyone who is eligible to vote in a federal election, which, these days, is pretty much everyone. Even dead people.

    3. avatar Jim Bullock says:

      Nice. That’s a gem.

  11. avatar Cloudbuster says:

    Why does the fact that we’ve permitted such weapons in the past mean that we are constitutionally tethered to them now?

    Why? Because we passed an amendment recognizing that we have a fundamental right to arms, moron. The whole point of the second amendment is so tyrants like you can’t come along and “untether” us from our rights.

  12. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    It would appear the good professor failed at reading comprehension as the second amendment states
    ; 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.

    Which in plain english means all arms control laws are un Constitutional regardless of how the SC has ruled. It appears the good professor is but just another Leftard moron with a reading comprehension issue.

  13. avatar enuf says:

    I’m hopeful of the Supreme Court’s decision on the NYSRPA case. It should go our way, it should be a watershed moment for Second Amendment Rights … lots can go wrong with “should be”.

    Waiting …. waiting ….waiting ….

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      ” It should go our way, it should be a watershed moment for Second Amendment Right”

      Not to crap on your cornflakes, but I remember very well how positive we were after the 2012 oral arguments of the outcome the 2012 ObamCare SCOTUS decision was going to be, and what we got.

      Obama had lectured to the SCOTUS as to how they had better not rule against his health law, and Roberts came up with some bat-shit logic to vote to save it.

      Now we have 4 Democrats threatening to pack the court with Leftists if they don’t do as they tell him to do.

      If Roberts caved in on a strong suggestion like he did in 2012, can you seriously believe Roberts won’t do it again, since they threatened to tarnish the reputation of his court?

      The only thing we can hope for is that Roberts rules properly and correctly, and not to ‘save’ his legacy.

      And I greatly fear he is going to try and save his reputation do just that…

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “The only thing we can hope for is that Roberts rules properly and correctly, and not to ‘save’ his legacy.”

        Sometimes you take a tactical loss in favor of a strategic win, as was done in the original court-packing episode. In order to stave off catastrophe, the SC began to rule in favor of some of FDR’s power grab; SC remained at nine justices. In the current instance, Roberts may rule in a manner to “save” the court (as opposed to saving his legacy).

  14. avatar Jr says:

    I agree with the quoted author that Kavanaugh’s reasoning is bad. It shouldn’t matter what has been traditionally allowed.
    These weapons are constitutionally protected because that’s what the words and intent of the 2nd amendment say, regardless of how it has been wrongly infringed in the past.

    1. avatar DaveL says:

      Kavanaugh’s reasoning was spot-on. It’s Scalia’s “common use” test that is the problem. The Left hates it because it doesn’t lock the 2nd Amendment down on 1791 technology. But by the same token it could be used in the future to lock down the 2nd Amendment on 2008 technology.

      1. avatar Jr says:

        Or if incremental lawmaking makes it such a pain to own AR’s that few people do. Then they are no longer “common use”

        On a related note,
        If anyone want to argue the intent of the 2nd amendment I just direct them to Federalist Paper #46 by James Madison. That’s the one where it straight up says its probably okay to have a central military since an armed populace could always rise up and overthrow it if needed.

      2. avatar Salty Bear says:

        I don’t remember Scalia qualifying by whom a weapon would have to be commonly used. Full auto short barreled suppressed rifles, 50 cal machine guns, rocket launchers, and claymore mines are “in common use” in the Unites States – by the United States military. In fact, the latest and greatest arms will always be commonly used [by the military], therefore it’s all protected under Heller.

        Obviously that’s not what he meant, but in law it’s what is said – not what is meant – that counts.

  15. avatar jwtaylor says:

    Wow.
    They cite a wealthy British philosopher, living in England during the American War of Independence as an expert on why the colonists fighting against his King were, and remain, dangerous to his King.
    I mean, it’s the Guardian, but still, that’s an impressive level of stupid.
    Bentham was also the philosopher who lauded the concept of zero privacy, that every single action of a human should be noted and marked down in order to compute their effect on the collective happiness. The Londoners took that to heart as well.

  16. avatar David says:

    If you don’t understand why people with gun coming to take your guns is wrong, then you failed to understand why the 2nd Amendment was written in the first place..

  17. avatar DaveL says:

    It is a signature feature of bad arguments that they require loaded language to make them seem reasonable. Douglas here labels armed citizens as “zealots” and “fanatics” whose opinions are “rants”, whereas the state is the far more neutral “government” and his opinions are “policy”. Lets see what happens if, preserving the entire structure of the argument, we instead loaded the language in the opposite direction:

    For decades, gun rights advocates demanded recognition of an individual right to gun ownership. In Heller, the supreme court enshrined a historical position into constitutional doctrine.

    Is this not “putting into the hands of every citizen arms that he can use against all tyrants?

  18. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    The U S Constitution keeps the govt out of the permitting guns business because they might
    call people they don’t like fanatics n take their guns … then everything else.

    For better policy. Like the policy of keeping black people down. Like in the Jim Crow South. Or, maybe just because it’s good for business like the Sullivan Act. (But don’t say “Fredo.”)

  19. avatar Mister Fleas says:

    Also in the Guardian today:

    “We Can’t Trust the Police to Protect us from Racist Violence. They Contribute to It.” -Rashad Robinson

  20. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Professor Fredo, there, didn’t actually name one of those wonder policies, or what they’d do. Disarm the proles seems like its own goal.

    It’s like he’s frustrated that some (deplorable) people might object to his schemes, n armed with guns might better hold on to their preferences. That pesky self-govrnment is so inconvenient when it applies to others n has teeth.

  21. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

    I do not look for the Supreme Court to cancel out any gun ban laws. There sordid history and lust for absolute power bear this out. So far none of the assault rifle or ammo restrictions have been overturned and none will be nor will any new ones either. The Court lusts after absolute power over the people and at the same time realizes it must vote with public opinion and that is what they have done during its entire history . We could go back to the outrageous Dred Scott decision and of course even further back than that to prove the Court in order to stay permanently in power must vote with Public opinion and totally shit on the Constitution and everything it stands for and with 67 per cent or more of the population that do not own guns and hate them with a passion it would be suicide for the Supreme Court to start ruling in favor of weapons of mass destruction which the public is now so paranoid over they would cause a major revolt against a court, that according to their beliefs, would put all their lives at risk.

    The Supreme Court will do what it always has done and that is just duck the embarrassing Second Amendment and let the lower courts take the heat for upholding anti-gun laws.

    The Scalia decision will actually help the Supreme Court vote anti-gun as the Scalia decision boldly stated “We have the right to regulate firearms”, which is double speak for “we can and will ban guns whenever we feel it is in our own self interest’s to do so” which amounts to every time.

    In Conclusion the Constitution has always been a sad joke for it is the Legislature and the Courts that dole out your rights.

    1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

      You are speaking sincerely rather than satirically, what’s up with that?

    2. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      I might add despite the rantings of the Far Right the Founding Father Power Mad Greed Monger Swamp Rats deliberately wrote the Second Amendment in the vaguest of terms so that it could be interpreted either way. They were hell bent on staying on top of the food chain and hogging all the wealth for themselves and their corrupt form of government has enslaved the American people down to this very day. Their corrupt government represented the rich and was created for the filthy rich and that is what has enslaved the population and deprived them of true democracy to this very day.

      Truly the biggest calamity to ever befall the American People was the ill conceived Revolution that denied them democracy and enslaved them by the filthy rich. The majority of the American people never wanted a revolution and never wanted to break so soon with Britain and the economic hardships that followed set America back decades because of the break and cut off of trade with Britain that was letting both countries prosper economically. It took decades for America to get back on its economic feet and it lost thousands of its best and brightest citizens who simply packed their bags and went to Canada who today enjoys a higher standard of living, better job opportunities , more affordable education and more affordable health care and of course much more democracy than the slave state of the U.S. that has proved to be the most corrupt industrialized country on the planet and the most violent.

      1. avatar Kendahl says:

        I grew up in Canada and immigrated to the US with nothing but an education. I’ve done far better for myself here in the US than I could have in Canada. Salaries are similar after you correct for the exchange rate but the cost of living is much higher in Canada.

      2. avatar DN says:

        Canada in its demographic areas comparable to US demographic areas of the US have LOWER standard of living, worse job markets than the US. so does Europe.

        deliberately wrote the Second Amendment in the vaguest of terms so that it could be interpreted either way.
        The founders never had any doubt. It is in a SECTION of individual enumerate rights moron.

    3. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      “…….Weapons of mass destruction which the public is now so paranoid over they would cause a major revolt against a court,…..”

      Kinda hard to have a revolt when the revolt-ers have no means (weapons)

      see Chairman Mao about political power.

      `just sayin

    4. avatar Dave G. says:

      @ Vlad Tepes:
      “We could go back to the outrageous Dred Scott decision and of course even further back than that to prove the Court in order to stay permanently in power must vote with Public opinion…”
      As I tried to point out to you the other day in another post where you cited it, the Dred Scott Decision was based on black letter law in the Constitution, as the Constitution stood in 1857, specifically Article 4, Section 2 . In other words, Dred Scott was the constitutionally correct (even if outrageous and immoral) decision at the time. Had the court gone the other way in 1857, they would have had to listen to that all-too-familiar refrain about “…legislation from the bench” and (just maybe) suffer through impeachment proceedings. Had Article 4, Section 2 not existed at the time, there is no telling what the Taney Court might have done. Thankfully, the 13th Amendment finally changed all of that in 1865.

    5. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Jeebus, Vlad… I can’t really overall disagree with that particular post of yours.

      (I thought for a minute I was having a stroke! LOL)

      1. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

        Except for the fact gun ownership is closer to 50% and rising. I’ve never heard the 43% myth until now.

        1. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

          Ok the 43% have came from 2018 Gallup polling. I hate polling. In the 2016 presidential election an exit poller asked my then 12 year old (that looked 12) who she voted for after myself and wife told him to piss off. Anytime I’ve been asked in a survey or phone polling, I don’t own guns.

  22. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Bentham was a heavyweight in his day, a bit of a nuisance as he was highly critical of rules and regulations that served no measurable outcome. Some history books call his philosophy “utilitarianism” (“what’s it good for?”). However….

    He was a subject of the Crown, steeped in the condition that average people should not be allowed to run about without proper supervision. And government (along with the King) was that “proper supervision”.

    The Bentham quote is quite illustrative. He recoiled at the idea that the people were the source of power, and if armed, would be able to launch a revolution against the government. He could never be persuaded that the bumpkin philosophers of America were any more than well dressed rabble, with seditious and dangerous ideas of personal freedom. Bentham was not unlike Benjamin Franklin’s son* in that regard, “We are subjects of the King and he can do with us as he wishes”.

    *William Franklin, Governor General of New Jersey, a loyalist. William was exiled to Connecticut in 1776, where he was imprisoned until 1778. William later moved to England. Benjamin Franklin disinherited William shortly before Benjamin died.

  23. avatar former water walker says:

    In summation…lock & load bumpkins!!!

  24. avatar Ralph says:

    I guess that only professors have the right to determine who may be armed and who may not.

    And you guys actually think that the Soviet Union fell. It didn’t. It just moved.

  25. avatar BusyBeef says:

    “putting into the hands of every fanatic arms that he can use against all governments”

    Yes, this is EXACTLY why the 2nd Amendment was written.

  26. avatar NH Guy says:

    F’ing idiot. The entire point of the 2nd Amendment was to limit the government’s ability to become an arbitrary tyranny by disarming the average citizen.

  27. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    It seems he comprehends Heller. Check the Property Requisition Act of 1941 with Congress says the act in not to be construed to interfere with the legal possession and use of firearms and in a clause marked (2) it is not to impair or infringe in any manner the right of any individual to keep and bear arms. The whole thing is only 2 pages with a couple of other bills and the hundreds and thousands that bills now run. The Act was self-limiting so it was not repealed.

  28. avatar Jackie says:

    The Constitution, sir. What part of that do you not understand?

  29. avatar Shawn says:

    Right now according to SCOTUS and EVERY SINGLE judge in the entire judicial system thinks the banning of ALL semi-auto rifles is constitutional. Banning ALL handguns is constitutional. Manditory buybacks are constitutional. Warrantless door to door searches with confiscation is constitutional. Executing gun owners without trial who oppose or resist is constitutional. Using the full force of the military to go to war with the people of the United States and go to every home to confiscate all guns and execute EVERY single gun owner and everyone on that family and all the neighbors who oppose is constitutional. Machine gunning down peaceful protestors that oppose this is constitutional. you have to understand nearly ALL judges in the country view gun owners like progressives do: they hate guns, they hate gun owners, and they want the government to exterminate all gun owners. The means, method, and body count doesn’t matter. As it shows I have no faith in the courts.

  30. avatar Shire-man says:

    But I thought our puny arms were no match for the government and that the BoR was old and outdated.
    Now I hear our puny arms threaten the government and we should all listen to a 200 year old philosopher?
    A little consistency, please.

  31. avatar Wiregrass says:

    Where do these guys get off with this collective right bullshit? They try to pretend that is the traditional interpretation of the Second Amendment just because some 19th century judges wanted it that way, but really the 2A Only makes sense as an individual right. There is nothing collective about it. There is nothing in that interpretation of the Second Amendment that isn’t provided for regarding militias in Article 1, Section 8 in the main text. There would be absolutely no need for the Second Amendment to exist if that is what the Founders meant. And there is plenty of evidence for an individual RKBA in there other writings.

    1. avatar UpInArms says:

      As far as the left is concerned, all rights are collective rights, all responsibilities are collective responsibilities, all property is collective property, all politics is collective politics… see the pattern?

  32. avatar MouseGun says:

    The fact that a government body would be afraid of an armed citizenry overthrowing them is just proof that they know they’re doing a shitty job.

    1. And proof that the framers of the Constitution did an excellent job.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        That is why I am very comfortable saying that the government today will if not order an
        attack on you. Will allow surrogates that they support to attack you. City governments are ordering the stand-down of their police departments and allowing black Republicans and Trump supporters to be physically attacked by Antifa.

        They really do like gun control at the city government level.

        The federal government hasn’t given Stand Down orders to federal cops. Yet.

  33. avatar MDH says:

    Love the graphic!

  34. avatar barnbwt says:

    WTF would the opinions of an **English** philosopher from the immediate revolutionary aftermath period have any bearing on how American political policy was supposed to be approached? Then, *or* two centuries later? What, the thoughts of the idiots our nation fought & bled to reject are now to be treated as some sort of ‘precedent’ or valid argument? Baldercrap.

    Yeah, guys like Jefferson and Henry never thought we’d allow “the rhetoric of rights to hijack mere policy arguments” –as if the two aren’t inseparable in *any* constitutional form of government.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      What, the thoughts of the idiots our nation fought & bled to reject are now to be treated as some sort of ‘precedent’ or valid argument?

      You are supposed to understand (and agree) that a member of English parliament understood the danger and folly of arming the public; understood better than the rabble who founded a new nation upon the quaint notion that power stems from the government, and that government must be controllable, even in the extreme.

      If Bentham understood common sense gun control 230+ years ago, those today who do not understand the same are mentally deficient, and dangerous to the tranquility of the realm.

  35. avatar America says:

    Snowflakes want to send someone’s Mom,Dad,Wife,Husband,Son,Daughter to enforce illegal tyrannical laws…and when that fails they will call on Military!

    Guess what the military is not about to violate their oath and Constitution to shoot their family members!

    With 120 Million Gun Owners and 21 Million Armed & Trained Vets with more guns/ammo than the whole world they should count their blessings that 99.9% are good people cuz they would know it if gun owners were all criminals!

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Guess what the military is not about to violate their oath and Constitution to shoot their family members!”

      Glad you brought that up. Did some research online, but couldn’t find exactly what I was looking for. Somewhere in the cobwebs of the mind, I have this notion about something happening around 150 years ago, where the US military did go about shooting some of their family members. Now, if I could just find the last of the Johnny Red around here, somewhere, maybe I can figure out what it was I sorta remember.

  36. avatar Nigel says:

    Its necer been a matter if whether or not its l legal, constitutional or otherwise… Its always been about making common sense decisions. If our founders didnt want us to use our own common sense, they would not have given us the ability to amend the constitution. Dugh.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “If our founders didnt want us to use our own common sense, they would not have given us the ability to amend the constitution. Dugh.”

      I take it you started school after the ’60s. Amending the constitution is one thing, making up “common sense” laws in contravention is entirely different. There is no provision in the constitution to amend it via simple legislation, or agency regulation. (or even court decisions)

    2. avatar UpInArms says:

      The thing about common sense is, it’s usually not common, and it’s rarely sensible.

  37. avatar Ken Smith says:

    Given the ways that local, county, State and Federal Governments are currently behaving, we need that anti-government capability more than ever before !

  38. avatar Sensei says:

    Every time I read about some morons trying to take away my vun rights I buy at least one more AR 15.
    I’m going BROKE!
    BUT this time i ordered two more 100 round magazines cuz my safe is full!

  39. avatar Ing says:

    All right, Government, here’s the deal: You don’t send anybody after me in violation of the Bill of Rights — especially if it concerns my speech and my guns — and I won’t use my guns against you.

    I’ve been living by that deal for my whole life already, with no plans to break it. But can I trust YOU, Mr. Government, to do the same? That’s a tricky question indeed.

  40. avatar Kyle in Upstate NY says:

    He is wrong in claiming that Scalia mainstreamed a radical outlier position. To the contrary, all Scalia did was to summarize a view on gun rights that is supported by an enormous body of scholarship and that has been around for decades. This debate was fought out in the law journals during the 1990s and the state’s right interpretation of the 2nd amendment lost flat-out. The problem is that virtually no one in the media or academia or government has actually read any of this scholarship.

  41. avatar Strict Scrutiny says:

    Really enjoying watching the antis squirm now that they have finally realized what this court case means.

    A dollar short and day late. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Let me add a little spice to that also if any of them are reading this…..

    It is very rare for the supreme court to come into possession of a case but they are doing just that currently to see how this case, 18-280 works out. If for some reason this case is unable to be used as a vehicle to apply strict scrutiny to the 2nd then that case will take its place. If for some reason that second case doesn’t work either there are many other cases already working their way up to the supreme court to accomplish this task (thanks to all Trumps judicial appointments).

    It is not a matter of if but when this is going to occur.

    1. avatar Strict Scrutiny says:

      “It is very rare for the supreme court to come into possession of a case but they are doing just that currently to see how this case…”

      Should say

      It is very rare for the supreme court to come into possession of a case and hold it rather than decide weather to grant writ of certiorari or not, but they are doing just that currently to see how this case….

  42. avatar Hans says:

    Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov said

    “And your insinuation that all rough parts of towns are threatened by non Christians or non whites is wrong as well. It is poverty that breeds violence and crime not a persons religion or ethnic make up but since you are obviously not a person of higher education this is beyond your ability to fathom even on the most elementary level.”

    Any cites, Lenin? Of course not, since it is only an opinion and
    not support with facts. Most of your criminals are Atheists, which
    I am sure you are one. Unless, one is a Muslame, which also allows for
    head chopping, canning, hand and foot chopping and an assortment
    of mass kilting.

    Another ignorant statement by a publicly funded baccalaureate.

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