Accomack gun rights protest flag
Courtesy Jeff Hulbert
Previous Post
Next Post

Too many Americans view the Second Amendment as granting Americans the right to own firearms to go hunting and for self-protection. But the framers of our Constitution had no such intent in mind.

James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 46 wrote that the Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

Thomas Jefferson wrote: “What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”

Similar quotations about our founders’ desire for Americans to be armed against the possible abuses of government can be found at

– Walter Williams in Virginia’s Second Amendment Attack

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. The 2nd amendment does not grant any rights. It acknowledges them and states the government shall not infringed on them. WHat is it the government has been doing since 1934?

  2. The Second Amendment doesn’t “grant” anything…. Nor does anything else in the Bill of Rights… It simply acknowledges and puts government on notice that as humans we have inalienable rights that cannot be removed. Period!

    • Of course, it is also nothing but a piece of parchment with meaningless words on it if we allow the government to piss all over it as we idly step aside and allow them to do so….

    • This is an important point that is frequently overlooked. The Bill of Rights does not ‘grant’ or ‘give’ us anything. It simply codifies and spells out natural law which is self-evident and, therefore, redundant. That said, please understand that the correct nomenclature when referring to our God-given rights is Unalienable – as written in the Declaration of Independence – not Inalienable.

      There is a difference:

    • The 13th amendment abolished slavery. Obviously our “living and breathing” constitution allows for “reasonable limitations” on the abolition of slavery and its perfectly okay to repeal it, right? Maybe if we had lobbying groups and supreme court justices who said that the 13th amendment was an artifact of an obsolete past, it could be repealed one day. We would just have to shrug our shoulders and say “Oh well, I guess we have slavery again.”…. I can think of millions of armed people who would disagree. It applies to the entire constitution.

      • Well said! If American Citizens no longer RESPECT OUR BILL OF RIGHTS, CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. Maybe Those people Should be REMINDED OF THEIR FREEDOMS! While millions of human beings fought for this Country in the Beginning through till this time!! Where’s your respect for human life that gave their lives for this country for the inhabitants, civilians, citizens! For Life, Liberty and your pursuit of HAPPINESS!
        When you so called people get your vain asses handed to you by the communist DEMOCRAT leaders, when you give up on this Country’s heritage and Ideology.
        YOU GIVE UP YOUR RIGHT TO FREEDOM!!! So if you people call yourself an American, You better Start Acting like ONE! Or you can’t call yourself a American!

      • That would take another Constitutional amendment, which requires 2/3 majority of Congress’s approval AND 3/4 of the States to ratify the amendment. Nothing to do with the SCOTUS unless there were a challenge in court. Your example of the 13th amendment being negated doesn’t work… And I’m not being criticizing, I’m just letting you know how it happens.

        The 18th amendment prohibited alcohol sales and consumption. The 21st amendment reversed the 18th amendment. This is an example of how the Constitutional amendment process works.

      • Come on, no right is absolute, can’t you compromise a bit and allow to be enslaved a little for safety? Do it for the children!

  3. Nowhere in the 2nd is hunting even mentioned. Yet almost all the gun illiterate Ive had to deal with over my lifetime. Seem to think its about hunting. Not at all about our ability to fight back. Whether it be government or a criminal intent on doing harm.
    Yes most Americans are 2nd Amendment idiots.
    We live in a world of FUDDS people who only care about their hunting guns.

    • “We aren’t against hunting and we don’t want to take your hunting rifles. We are against the other.” Translation: We’lll come get yours later.

    • You can thank the education system going back over 100 years for this.

      But, really, it’s not surprising. Do you really think government schools are going to educate students by saying “Well, the 2A is really about your ability to kill us if we get all tyrannical and shit. Here, read what the Founders wrote on the subject!”?

      No, of course they’re not. Generally speaking people don’t willfully do things against their own interests.

      • Wait didn’t the communists target our education system for infiltration before the Soviet Union was even a thing?

        • …and who currently has a very strong interest in controlling the public schools?

          We can wrest control of what is taught in public schools, but I fear conservatives just aren’t interested in the sweat equity required to do so. Mainly, motivate young conservatives to be teachers. But the pay sucks, so by default, we let the Leftist faithful to populate the educational system.

          We really have no one but ourselves to blame for the pickle we are in, I fear…

        • “Wait didn’t the communists target our education system for infiltration before the Soviet Union was even a thing?”

          I wouldn’t quite put it that way, but effectively yes, before 1900 even. They generally identified as various “socialist” or “progressive” groups. They came to a certain type of prominence in the United States at least as early as 1890 having been “big” in Europe decades earlier.

          For example: Margaret Sanger was involved with these groups in the 1910’s. She was involved with and wrote for them starting six years before the October Revolution.

        • Quote: “SAFEupstateFML Wait didn’t the communists target our education system for infiltration before the Soviet Union was even a thing?”

          Communists have been working here for at least a hundred years and have succeeded in taking control of our education system from top to bottom. They are turning out millions of dedicated “socialists” (communists in training) and they can vote when they turn 18.

          Communists (so called democrats) control most large cities and will probably take complete control of the US government by 2028 if not before. Demographics are in their favor…. And that will lead to chaos, a la Venezuela, N Korea, Cuba, etc.

          Be Prepared !

        • “Mainly, motivate young conservatives to be teachers.”

          I would tend to disagree with this. Teachers shouldn’t have a political opinion in the classroom (obviously they can have an opinion but teaching that opinion as fact isn’t acceptable). Right or Left doesn’t really matter so long as they have an affinity for the truth in terms of what they’re passing on to pupils.

          The problem isn’t that Liberals have become teachers. It’s that activists run the curriculum.

          Problems within the educational system are the root of nearly everything that ails us today. Those issues can be fixed but the sad fact is that they won’t be because neither side has a real interest in fixing the problem. Both sides have a vested interest in telling the narrative that they prefer and to a large extent both sides are full of shit.

          It’s similar to, but more complicated than, the issues of gangs. The solutions are actually fairly simple but they’re politically impossible. Too many sacred cows on both sides have to go to slaughter for reality to win out and that’s not something people are historically good at doing.

          Both issues are basically a five paragraph essay that, honestly, I’m probably never going to bother with. They’re both tangentially related to the 2A but my faith (and yes it would be “faith” because there’s no evidence to support the idea that POTG would listen) in the 2A community to recognize that connection is lacking.

          • “Right or Left doesn’t really matter so long as they have an affinity for the truth in terms of what they’re passing on to pupils. ”

            Actually, politics are at the heart of “truth”. For instance, as a teacher I could explain to my students that Columbus discovered what were called new lands in his day, opening up untold opportunities for new discovery and development of what became a new nation.”

            Or, as a teacher, I could say, “Columbus, an adventurer sponsored by a king, arrived in the new lands, starting the eventual collapse of all existing native empires and tribes he, and his followers, encountered while exploring for riches.”

            About the only indisputable “truth” regarding Columbus is: he arrived, tarried for a time, and returned to Spain.

        • ‘Actually, politics are at the heart of “truth”.’


          Both statements on Columbus contain opinion. That’s not education. That’s instruction. Conflating the two is the problem.

          You could say either thing but in both cases you’d fail to be an educator.

          • “Both statements on Columbus contain opinion.”

            My point, precisely. And why I finished with the only real truth: the fact Columbus arrived, and departed. Anything beyond stating dates and times of provable events, is opinion (politics). But, education is more than dates and times, more than raw data points. A person who can repeat dates and times is not educated, but informed. Any attempt to extrapolate/extract meaning from data is in the realm of opinion and politics.

            E=mc². Fact. Data point. What can we extract from that? The data surrounding the establishment of the formula? Information, not education.

            Going back to Plato, we find, “Nothing must be admitted in education which does not conduce to the promotion of virtue.” Here we find not objective truth, but opinion as regards the content and purpose of education.

            If education should be based on “truth”, and “truth” is soaked in opinion and politics, we are left with drilling youngsters in rote memorization of factoids, without context or purpose. If “truth” is only found in objective data, then schools are unnecessary, and a simple introduction into database management is all a child needs to find “facts”, which is informative, but not education. We can then leave it to children to use those facts/data points as their mind dictates, event-by-event. If objective, provable fact is education, a child only need be instructed how to use a smart phone to sift data points.

      • The school I taught in has a rifle club, a skeet club and offered hunter safety. Stick your generalizations where the sun doesn’t shine. When was the last time you visited one of our rural schools ? There is no doubt liberal values are taught at liberal colleges and by a very few in public high and elementary schools but your generalizations are a reflection of a closed mind.

        • If you want to make a point about how great you are at educating people and how fantastically awesome your school was you don’t do it by throwing out insults and mistaking anecdote for a nationwide statistical trend that’s decades old.

          Personally I doubt the veracity of everything you’ve said here because of the way you’ve said it.

    • Exactly. Even if the 2nd isn’t about hunting, we still want the hunters on our side, because if we(pro 2a) lose, they(Fudds) lose. They start with the scary looking stuff and then come for those high powered “sniper rifles”.

    • You stop it. The constitution does not mention hunting anywhere. Whenever the subject of hunting is raised during gun rights discussion it is nothing more or les than an attempt at redirection.

        • It does, actually, through direct implication. “Security” implies the self-defense question, in part, and “free State” implies the intent of being free from tyranny.

          Also, read the Bill of Rights ratification proceedings; they explicitly talk about why it was important for the people to remain armed.

          But if we can’t see the forest for the trees:

          In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court ruled that, “The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments [sic] means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.”

        • The authors of the Constitution did not concern themselves with such minutia as hunting. That wasn’t the purpose of the Constitution . The Constitution was written to provide the foundation for the Federal Government. If you are in need of some evidence that the 2nd Amendment is about tyranny and self defense, I would suggest the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, various state constitutions and the personal papers of the founding fathers, some of whom wrote extensively on the subject.

      • Matt Williams is reminding us that we have the right to be armed for a variety of reasons, from (the primary and most important of) protection against tyranny to hunting. We do not need to state any reason for our individual decisions to own guns, or carry (bear) them if we wish.

        The 2A was written with government tyranny in the fresh memories of the Founders’ minds, but one may (constitutionally) carry any small arm he/she wishes, and for whatever reason.

    • “The Second Amendment protects the use of arms, including for hunting.”

      True. Hunting is a subset of legitimate uses for arms. There’s nothing wrong with acknowledging this. In fact, it’s wise to do so as to not be an obvious liar.

      Whenever I do a Form 4 I fill it out Section 13 thusly, and it’s always approved:

      I, *name* , have a reasonable necessity to possess the machinegun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or destructive device described on this application for the following reason(s) all legal purposes and my possession of the device or weapon would be consistent with public safety (18 U.S.C. § 922(b) (4) and 27 CFR § 478.98).

      All legal purposes. Hunting is one of them folks.

  4. 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…

    • “…stand without opposition”? You might want to learn the history of the NRA.

      They were not only not in opposition, they were in favor and supportive.

      • Exactly what I was thinking. While a good read containing nuggets of truth, it’s not as relevant as time goes on. With the Dems performing their full court press everywhere, all gun owners are increasingly feeling the pressure, and even FUDDs are beginning to wake up and see the approaching storm that others have already braced for. The gun community is slowly coming together.

        I think Virginia is a good example of this.

  5. One favored method for mass disarmament of a citizenry is to make high-profile arrests of those who are vocal about their firearms “rights”.

    Another way is to enlist the “help” of the communist “mainstream media” to demonize anyone who has an interest in firearms, allowing the media to be present at “raids” and in general use “loaded” terms such as “arsenals”, “weapons of mass-destruction”, “weapons of war”, “machine guns” and other sensational terms, to inflame the non-knowledgeable public, introducing them to their “unstable” neighbors who are being (illegally and unconstitutionally) raided.

    It’s all about perception, which the left uses to good effect, utilizing tactics from jew communist Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals. The “mainstream media has always been dishonest and against firearms rights.

    High-profile raids will push the firearms owning public underground. Those who choose to “fight back” will be regarded as “terrorists” and “enemies of the state and good order” by the mainstream media, who will fan the flames of hysteria, attempting to get the general public on their side—supporting mass disarmament. If and when they are murdered by “law enforcement” very little, if anything, will be mentioned about the illegality of these “raids”.

    All one has to do is look at how firearms owners are treated presently by the mainstream media-looked upon as “pariahs” and other unstable types.

    The “key” to resistance may be to “cache” your firearms, leaving a few firearms accessible both for protection and as “bait” to “feed” the gun-grabbers if and when the raids come.

    The left is expert at using “incrementalism”, chipping away at rights a little-bit at a time. From arbitrary classification of firearms, declaring certain “features” illegal, to specifying barrel lengths, magazine capacity, to outright banning the production and ownership of newly-manufactured machine guns, the left has been busy.

    There are no easy answers to the situation we are presently in, but surrendering one’s rights is never the answer.

    A good read, “Unintended Consequences” by John Ross, about our present situation and possible “solutions” was written in 1995 and is still available in print and as a free pdf. This book is a good reference, history lesson, and comes up with possible solutions to the assault on our freedom.
    This book was considered so volatile when it first came out that sellers were routinely harassed by FBI, ATF, and DEA types for displaying and selling it.

    To quote Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn:

    And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say goodbye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling in terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand. The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst; the cursed machine would have ground to a halt . . .

  6. I’m a big fan of Dr Williams since I was a kid. For those that don’t know him here is a video.

    Walter Williams: Suffer No Fools – Full Video 55 minutes long. Check out his lever guns at 38.19 minutes.

  7. 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.

    • You make good points. But far to many in the “gun community” and on TTAG and elsewhere supported the Bump Stock ban. They said why does anyone need that??? Except the rich can have a real Machine Gun if they wish. Just ask Marion Hammer and her rich MG owning friends. Technology has made guns cheaper and even more reliable. The Bump Stock was just one example of that technology and the human imagination that produced it.

      A properly equipped rifle with a Bump Stock is just as accurate as a real MG. It would be great if every household had a Machine gun. Along with other guns. ($175.00 for a bump stock) We would have a much safer society. Same for rocket launchers. Same for grenade launchers. Same for armed civilian aircraft and boats.
      That is what the 2A is about.

      • “A properly equipped rifle with a Bump Stock is just as accurate as a real MG”

        No, it’s not. I’m not going to call username Binder out on that and not call you out on that so I have to listen to him later say “everyone knows.”

        A bump stock is NOT as “good” and certainly not as accurate as a true m16. Even with a bipod or recoil rail. I’m happy to prove that all day long if you can find an accommodating class 3.

        In order for the entire gun to recoil, there has to be some tolerance built in. We are talking plastic loosely sliding on a buffer tube and on a small plastic railed assembly on the grip. Far from tight, far from accurate.

        If the bugaloo was tomorrow I wouldn’t bring a slide fire. If you think FA would be useful enough to risk fines and jail time, I’d point you to a 3D printed Swift link since bump stock is now the same felony. I’ll stick with semi auto.

        • “A bump stock is NOT as “good” and certainly not as accurate as a true m16. Even with a bipod or recoil rail. I’m happy to prove that all day long if you can find an accommodating class 3.”

          I’m sorry but I dont have the $$$$ for a class 3 range rental right now. But I have rented Machine guns before. So I will settle for the “poor man’s” rapid fire weapon. I have full confidence that it will perform very well. As any weapon would as long as you regularly practice with it.

      • I don’t recall anyone here supporting the bump stock ban. I believe we all agreed we’d not choose to install one on our own guns, but we recognize that a ban on one part is a precursor to banning any parts on the whim of any ATF Director.

        • The most unsettling, in my view, is the decades long trend of the legislative writing vague laws. They do this in order to pass the buck on to the executive and avoid any responsibility for the consequence. Why not? There’ll be another Prez to blame soon enough. Congress has no term limits.

        • to Phil
          That 9mm bump stock would be VERY ECONOMICAL for the regular guy or girl to practice with. Compared to a real .223 or 45acp MG. In fact you could put a rapid fire gun into every American home.

  8. If democrats were genuinely concerned with gun “safety” they would place the same restrictions on government firearms as on the people of Virginia. The governor and General Assembly want you to surrender all of YOUR guns. But not theirs (LEO’s, National Guard). Because subjects are more compliant than citizens.

    Don’t Tread On Me.

  9. For the Left that lacks basic thinking/reasoning skills,”It’s All About Hunting,I’m As Serious AS Scurvy People”

  10. Saying the 2nd is for hunting is like saying the 1st only applies to the news cankers on the major media outlets.

    Guns are tools. I’ve always viewed tools as: use the right tool for the job.

    The fact the a lock can be shot off with a shotgun does not mean that guns make good tools for home repair. Ratchets have their place. Screw drivers have theirs. They can both be used for self defense but a firearm is the better tool for it.

    The soapbox, ballot box, and bullet box are the only effective tools We The People have against tyrants.

  11. VOTE OR FIGHT, if we lose Virginia , it will be in your state next, now say you don’t believe it !!! Some of you wanted the NRA to fail, now it has, you happy? This is happening in their front yard. Governor Cuomo is about to win, go on YouTube and find the NRA videos on Hurricane Katrina and see what will happen to you

    • I never ‘wanted’ the NRA to fail.

      I wanted to see them fight. I don’t see anything but everyone else’s money being wasted. I’ve seen those Youtube videos. I also saw Ted Cruze provide a better response to that for Texas than anything I saw from the NRA.

      The NRA and their scoring system will redirect my donation to the Dems in Washington. You can tell me about the idea that there are liberals that like guns but they will stand and be counted with those that want to ban them. Just like how we get Jewish liberals. I will not contribute to all that foolishness. My money is better spent on me.

      The NRA is their own worst enemy.

    • The NRA IS a failure.

      Too many POTG seem to believe the NRA is the last bulwark of defense against the gun grabbers. The gun grabbers seem to believe the NRA is the source of all evil. Both are as wrong as wrong can be.

      The NRA was never your friend. The NRA membership funded NRA elite. The NRA elite took the money, savored the perceived power, and posed as the face of POTG. All a fake facade.

      You/we control our future. Stand with Virginia’s POTG. Stand for your own freedoms and rights. Evil governors and lawmakers, evil local elected officials and administrators have no power over the people if we refuse to be bullied by unconstitutional laws. If we turn out and become the face of non-compliance we will win!

  12. Virginia is a reminder. It also makes a good counter: “… you mean like Virginia?”

    All the arguments above carry weight. But the anti-people’s messaging has been crafted, by Mad Men. You don’t want to make the whole argument at once. Get a toe hold n make them think. Make the anti-people defend their indefensibles, give the undecideds something to think about, n reassure the pro-people that they’re neither crazy, nor alone.

    “Nobody is coming for your guns.” “…you mean like Virginia?”
    “The will of the people.” “…you mean like Virginia?”
    “It’s legal.” “… you mean like Virginia?”

  13. My favorite ripostes like this are about muskets.

    “The 2A was about muskets.”
    “When they wrote it, the army had muskets; the people had Kentucky (and PA) long rifles -better.”

    “No person needs weapons of war.” (Pick one.)
    “Well, parity with war issue was a downgrade at the time.”
    “A tank in every garage seems a bit much; maybe something less is OK?”
    “Well, it was a congresscritter who threatened to nuke people to get his way. Maybe the army shouldn’t have weapons of war.”
    “You mean like Virginia, where they’re sending in the army?”

  14. James Madison wrote that the Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms” does not decrease but increases the need to maintain that advantage of being armed as fear increases with governments to trust the people with arms.

    We see governments in some areas of the country that have become, as James Madison wrote, “afraid to trust the people with arms,” which essentially does not decrease the requirement to preserve “the advantage of being armed,” in those parts of the country but increases the requirement to preserve “the advantage of being armed” since governments that are afraid of people being armed will proceed to make laws to confiscate firearms.

    The greater the governments’ fear of people being armed, the greater the need for the people to preserve this advantage over the governments for the purpose of not allowing governments to control and manipulate its citizens, which is precisely what would occur in America with unarmed citizens.

  15. The Second Amendment may not have anything to do with hunting, but it certainly does not have anything to do with overthrowing a tyrannical government. In order to have need to overthrow a tyrannical government, you must first have a tyrannical government. Take your own poll; ask people if they thing our government could ever become tyrannical, ever need to be overthrown by force of arms in the hands of citizens. Go ahead. ask about 100 people, gun owners and not.

    Do you really think liberal gun owners (who claim to support the Second Amendment) believe there can ever be a legitimate reason to take up arms against government? A government where they are in the majority? Does “will not comply” actually mean anything to liberal gun owners? Ask Fudds these same questions.

    • “In order to have need to overthrow a tyrannical government, you must first have a tyrannical government.”

      You mean like Virginia?

      • “You mean like Virginia?”

        No, I mean one that would launch a murderous armed assault on citizens proven to have violated no law. Like Waco. Virginia has duly enacted legislation for gun controls. If the governor simply stated, without an underlying law, “I am ordering the immediate arrest of XYZ because their public speeches are offensive to me, and the elected representatives.”, that would be tyrannical.

        The reason for my statement that first there must be a tyrannical government was to introduce the questions that followed. Point? “Tyranny” is a slippery concept, entirely in the eye of the beholder. The most likely analysis of tyranny, for the majority of the voters, is….”Government isn’t doing anything bad to me, so there is no tyranny. And I don’t believe government would be a tyranny.”

          • “Stop feeding this troll. Pretty sure it’s one of Vlads many accounts.”

            You, kind person/place/thing, know nothing about which you comment.

    • “In order to have need to overthrow a tyrannical government, you must first have a tyrannical government.”


      Looks we have that well-covered, the act of a government forcibly dis-arming the peaceful citizens is the very definition of a tyrannical act. The proof? Awhile back, a general Gauge marching his troops to Lexington-Concord to disarm the citizens. It was a very unpleasant march back to Boston for general Gauge. The same can happen in modern times, if necessary.

      The way to avoid that potential unpleasantness is quite simple, there won’t be any trouble if there is no trouble to be dealt with.

      See? Easy-peasy… 🙂

      • “Looks we have that well-covered, the act of a government forcibly dis-arming the peaceful citizens is the very definition of a tyrannical act. ”

        Gage was acting outside the legislative body of the colony. There was no legislation passed and enacted by the majority vote of the colonists. Can a government act be tyrannical if authorized IAW the operation of voters and democratically enacted representatives of the voters? If that were the case, could we not declare that every election we lose justifies overthrowing the government?

        What about majority votes that supersede our constitutionally protected rights? Well…that is what courts are for. Sue for repeal of laws that violate the constitution. If laws that neuter our constitutionally protected rights are tyranny, then could we not declare that once an unconstitutional law (as perceived by us) is enacted, tyranny is established, and we are justified to forcefully overthrow a government?

        The Virginia governor is not acting as a dictator/despot/tyrant. He is declaring his intent to enforce duly enacted laws. Things would be completely different if the governor stood up and declared….”Guns in the hands of private citizens threaten government at all levels. Therefore, I declare all privately held guns to be illegal. I hereby call out the National Guard and state police to immediately begin door-to-door searches for guns. This is a state of emergency, and my powers allow me to ensure public safety in times of emergency.” Now, that would be tyranny.

        • So those that would oppose enforcement of these laws with violence are terrorists and should be dealt with accordingly? I do not advocate violence but public opinion does not, I repeat not, usurp rights. Even if it’s 300M to 1, my right still exists that is why referendums are a farce and a redirect. Laws passed out of irrational fear generated because we refuse to protect our children are absurd on their face and the courts take too long. In that time the damage is done and will never be undone. Unless we can force the constitutionality of laws to be decided before enactment we cannot win. Even then activist judges are rampant throughout the system (case in point Massachusetts) and the SCOTUS denies cert on virtually all 2A cases allowing the opinions to stand. The courts are not the answer. Illegal immigrants, felons, etc, wanting social services are allowed to vote in local elections coupled with gerrymandering mean we can no longer win local elections. There is no electoral college for the states so the high population areas run the state. Elections are not the answer. No one wants violence, the courts and elections are not the answer, so give us a viable alternative short of capitulation so violence can be avoided? Remember, viable, is the key word here.

          • “So those that would oppose enforcement of these laws with violence are terrorists and should be dealt with accordingly?”

            Misrepresentation, and false premise. But, the founders and their armed groups were, indeed, considered criminals, terrorists if you like.

            The thrust of my comment was to point out that tyranny is not passage of laws, but outright disregard for law and authority to act. A legislature enacting a law thought to be unconstitutional (by someone) is not, in and of itself, an act of tyranny. We have courts to deal with opposition to legislation. An executive who acts without any law but decree is tyrannical. The appointed governors of the colonies could act with almost absolute authority, backed by a parliament and a king (each of which had power over the colonies). Our government structure places certain obstacles in the way of officials bent on operating by decree.

            In the colonies, parliament could pass legislation that forbid certain law suits brought on behalf of the colonists. The appointed governor would enforce parliament’s law, and the courts of the colonies (agents of the king) could refuse those law suits. Now, that is full-on tyranny. We see nothing like that today. A governor declaring intent to enforce duly passed legislation is not a tyrant. The remedy for the people is twofold: courts and elections.

            As I mentioned, if the governor woke up one morning and said, “Guns bad, no guns allowed. State and local police shall immediately confiscate all guns wherever found.”, well, that would be tyrannical, but the remedies remain the courts and elections. If the governor also declared no court could hear cases regarding gun possession, and, likewise, the legislature cannot pass any law contrary to the governor’s edict, then full tyrant status could be presumed. However, the governor does not control the courts, so the edict could be voided. And with recourse to the federal courts, it is quite difficult to rule absolutely in any jurisdiction in the country.

            In short, it is quite difficult for government to become tyrannical in this country, but doesn’t mean government won’t stop trying. In this case, the governor is following the law, and using his authority to enforce the law. If he oversteps, he can be sued (he can also be impeached and removed). A tyrannical government/governor would never permit that.

            • I most certainly did not miss your point or misrepresent your message. I boiled it down to it’s simplest form. Now I’ll simplify my response so you can understand it: The courts are a farce that takes too long and there are too many uninformed, leaches, criminals, illegals, & felons voting for them making it impossible to remove them by election or impeachment (recall).

              I addressed these points in my response and requested a viable alternative. Keyword: VIABLE. You again preach courts and votes. If you have a viable alternative for the folks in VA should laws that are clearly unconstitutional be enacted, I’m sure they would love to hear it, as would I. Keyword again: VIABLE!

              I hate using caps but you just didn’t get it…

              • This is where you started: “So those that would oppose enforcement of these laws with violence are terrorists and should be dealt with accordingly?”

                That question puts forth misdirection and is a false premise….because I wrote nothing of the kind, intimated nothing of the kind, considered nothing of the kind.

                Tyranny does not stem from unconstitutional laws, there are processes in place to deal with that. Tyranny is overt acts usurp legislature and the courts, ruling by decree backed only by the will and determination of the tyrant.

                “Unconstitutional” is not the same as having to deal with laws we don’t like. If the standard is that when some group disagrees with duly enacted laws (and enforcement) on policy, or individual taste, that tyranny is extant, then we should have seen nothing but revolution for the entire existence of the nation.

                As noted, only when an official (executive) disregards law and rules from the belly do you have tyranny. So far, Virginia has not seen that development. You ask for a viable alternative available to the citizens of Virginia to do something. Then you rule out all the political methods. Underneath is unstated that you want a method whereby outcomes you approve can be manifest. Yet, such a position ignores the very basis of our political system….voting by “the people”.

                The governor of Virginia did not create or mandate any law. The responsibility for the current situation rests squarely and entirely on the majority of those voting. That majority placed a reflective/representative body of legislators in the legislature. That majority vote elected the persons appointing State judges, or voted directly for those state judges. That is the process established by the original States, and forced onto/into the US Constitution. If you don’t like what the majority of the voters have done, arrange for a majority more to your liking.

                However, you closed off voting and courts as “viable” alternatives. That means you abandon the basic principles incorporated into state and federal constitutions. Rejecting the voters and the courts, one then becomes “outlaw”. The only viable alternative at that point becomes armed insurrection. And yes, armed rebels would be considered criminals and terrorists by those in power at the time…and likely by a significant majority of the populace (state or federal). In insurrection, one becomes law unto themselves, and places full faith in the ability to win the contest between establishment and rebel. Such is surely an alternative to using established tools for self-governance, but it is difficult to predict that such an alternative is, or will be, “viable”.

  16. It is also becoming a demonstration of the utility of the Amendment AND the Bill of Rights in general.

  17. “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country
    in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole
    body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”

    – Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

    Fortunately it is now more difficult than ever for the “supreme power” in America to disarm the American people because one can simply build their own arms with ease and anonymity in their own home.

  18. “””””””””””””””””””””””””Too many Americans view the Second Amendment as granting Americans the right to own firearms to go hunting and for self-protection. But the framers of our Constitution had no such intent in mind.”””””””””””””””””””””””

    Lets look at reality not Utopian Fantasy. The real facts are the Supreme Court views 2A this way as a means to outlaw firearms at will , especially those that pose a threat to themselves and their absolute power over the people. They have even stated such from time to time.

    • Vlad Tepes – “Too many Americans view the Second Amendment as granting Americans the right to own firearms to go hunting and for self-protection. But the framers of our Constitution had no such intent in mind.”

      And of course you are lying. As it was already our right for about 100 years prior to being secured in the Constitution:

      “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law”–English Bill of Rights 1689.”

      Only those stipulations; “suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law” were removed, as is shown here by this American legal authority:

      “This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty . . . The right of self defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits…and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights* seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.”–St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries, U.S. District Court Judge, July 10, 1752 – Nov. 10, 1827.

      And Mr. Tucker should know, because he was AT the debates concerning our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

      So it is quite clear that you are either outright lying, or are deliberately incredibly ignorant.

      • No it is you who will not face the reality of what the Supreme Court has said and done. You can quote your Utopian dream world of long dead charlatans and master politicians or live in the world of reality proven by the History of the Courts something you ignore altogether.

        • Vlad Tepes – “No it is you who will not face the reality of what the Supreme Court has said and done. You can quote your Utopian dream world of long dead charlatans and master politicians or live in the world of reality proven by the History of the Courts something you ignore altogether.”

          Wrong again, traitor-troll. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, not the Supreme Court.

        • “””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””Wrong again, traitor-troll. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, not the Supreme Court.++++++++++++++

          As I have said I live in the world of reality backed up by Historical facts while you live in the la la land of Utopian constitutional fantasy.

          Your Constitution does not mean any more than a pile of dog shit. Its always been that way. It is the corrupt Courts and the Legislature that dole out what little rights you have. The Filthy Rich control you and your life and its been that way since day 1 of the founding of this Country when the Greed Monger Rich who did not want to pay taxes to support the hand that was feeding them (Trade with the British) fought a revolution that they would have certainly lost without a lot of financial and military help from the French Army and Navy. The incompetency of General Washington even with all that French help darn near lost them the war.

  19. “Virginia is a Reminder That the Second Amendment Has Nothing to Do With Hunting”

    Let’s examine what Virginia had claimed back in 1788, shall we?

    “There are other things so clearly out of the power of Congress, that the bare recital of them is sufficient. I mean “rights of conscience, or religious liberty ― the rights of bearing arms for defence, or for killing game ― the liberty of fowling, hunting and fishing.”–Winchester Gazette, (Virginia), Feb. 22, 1788; quoted from: Stephen P. Halbrook, The Right of The People or the Power of the State: Bearing Arms, Arming militias, and the Second Amendment, 26 Val. U.L. Rev 131, 150-51 (1991).

    Notice how that first came; “the rights of bearing arms for defence”? Now let’s examine how the following Virginians viewed our right:

    Mr. [James] Madison, [4th President of the U.S.] Mr. John Marshall, [4th Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court] Mr. Monroe [5th President of the U.S.] had proposed our right to be secured by amendment to the Federal Constitution on June 27th, 1788:

    “DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States . . . 17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state. . . .”

    See how they placed the right of the people before the militia?

    • Look Stable Genius if you had any real knowledge of the Constitution you would know that practically all serious Constitutional Scholars have stated decades ago the Corrupt Power Mad Founders deliberately wrote 2A in the vaguest of terms so they could take the guns from the people if they threatened their absolute power over them. These Charlatans even denied the average White man the right to vote, that is how out of control they were and how much they lusted for absolute power over the proletariat.

      And Stable Genius if you knew anything about the Courts you would already have known the Courts hate 2A with a passion and have been shitting on it almost as soon as the ink was dry on 2A and have been steadily eroding it away every chance they have got to rule on it and destroy it. In the last 2 years not one draconian gun and magazine ban has been overturned. Why even a retarded Moron can see the hypocrisy of the courts. Yet you refuse to admit to the history of the courts and their absolute power over you.

      Dream on about 2A because that is all you have just a child’s dream no more real than Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

      • Vlad Tepes – “Look Stable Genius if you had any real knowledge of the Constitution you would know that practically all serious Constitutional Scholars have stated decades ago the Corrupt Power Mad Founders deliberately wrote 2A in the vaguest of terms so they could take the guns from the people if they threatened their absolute power over them. These Charlatans even denied the average White man the right to vote, that is how out of control they were and how much they lusted for absolute power over the proletariat.”

        No, only your communist ‘scholars’ make that claim. Perhaps if your brothers had not used your head for batting practice you’d be able to make sense. But since that’s obviously not going to happen, get the hell out of here, traitor.

      • Vlad:
        Put dpwn the crack pipe and actually read the Second Amendment. You know NOTHING of which you speak.
        Your arguments are just jibberish.

  20. I guess all should recall the person that takes full credit for the Virginia Blue Wave. He’s running for president now with unlimited amounts of cash

    • The Presidency is paid for not won. Get used to your new President. That is reality in Capitalvania.

  21. Rest easy, the NRA will undoubtedly craft a strong response, like, announcing they are moving their headquarters out of VA, and the resulting campaign drive to fund it.

  22. They want Gun Control On 20th of January 2020.What False Flag event do the left have in mind.So They Want no Firearms Present.I say Hell no I will be armed it is a Constitutional right in carry in the people’s house of governeship.

  23. I hope what they have predicted does not happen in Virginia, however, the ones that want to control our rights seem to have won.

  24. The Democratic Party has lost its collective mind with its now exposed and naked agenda to disarm the American public. (Thank God Beto O’Rourke couldn’t keep his mouth shut.) And with that they lost me — a *lifelong* Democrat — who is now switching parties thanks to the Democrats (led by Bloomberg) assault on the Second Amendment.

    And oh yeah … I also bought myself a couple of high quality AR’s and built a reloading room this year because, you know, like Virginia and sh*t…

    • LMAO…yeah the Democratic Party really cares you left as they illegally import newer Democratic voters by the millions. The Democratic Party is dumping old school Democrats, maybe you missed the significance of AOC defeating old school democrat Joseph Crowley in NY…..

  25. If someone claims that the 2nd amendment protects hunting and self defense a good lawyer could argue that defending yourself against a rogue government is self defense.

Comments are closed.