Previous Post
Next Post

Reader AC writes . . .

Gun control laws in America would not even be an issue today if only we had someone with the brains and the balls to argue the real and the only valid issue that matters in a court case. Tat issue the question of lawful authority.

When it comes to anti-gun legislation, even acts of the Congress are unlawful and violate the rule of law because under our system, when a contract document is amended the amendment permanently alters and changes the original document. Our Constitution is in fact a covenant and as such, the same rules of contract law apply. An amendment overrides and supersedes everything that came before it.

For the government to rely on any part of the original document such as the so-called supremacy clause and the commerce clause for their grant of authority to enact anti-gun legislation, this clearly goes against the basic and accepted principle in law that the provisions and the directives of the amendment override and supersede the original document. Furthermore, in cases of conflict between what is contained in the original and in the amendment, it is always the terms, conditions, provisions and the directives of the amendment that must and shall prevail.

Understand that courts all across the country rule every day on contract matters in just this way. With that in mind, there is a very clear command directive in the Second Amendment that overrides and supersedes everything and anything that the government may attempt to rely upon for their claim of authority to regulate the firearms industry.

Because only a new amendment can change the provisions of an existing amendment, until such time as a new amendment is passed that specifically addresses gun rights, the Second Amendment stands unaltered and as originally written with its original meaning and with the force of its command directive.

It very clearly states, “…the Right of the people to keep and bear arms Shall NOT be infringed.” In fact, the use of the word “SHALL” or in the negative, “SHALL NOT” implies mandatory and compulsory and thereby removes and eliminates all discretion and makes clear that it is not subject to any reinterpretation of its very clear meaning.

Our history also supports this notion. In one clear example it took passing the 18th Amendment to ban the sale of alcohol in order to bring about the era of Prohibition. Once that mistake was realized, it then took passing another amendment (the 21st Amendment) in order to put an end to Prohibition.

An act passed by the Congress or a presidential executive order would be wholly insufficient to have accomplished this task as the 18th Amendment had made Prohibition the supreme law of the land. The Constitution is very clear that only via the constitutional amendment process can the Constitution itself be changed. Our government officials often speak of the rule of law, but they rarely actually adhere to it.

There is so much more that can be stated in support of making this argument that would also include several U.S. Supreme Court cases and the writings and quotes left behind by our Founding Fathers, including the Preamble to the Bill of Rights which states the very reason for incorporating these first ten amendments to our Constitution. But we instead argue over immaterial and less significant points.

Some years ago someone very wise gave me some advice: never argue the amount. What does that mean? Well if you were, for example, to receive a bill demanding that you pay the sum of say $10,000 for something you didn’t buy, would you argue over the amount of the bill or refuse to pay it entirely?

If you do fall into the trap of arguing over the amount of the bill, that would be an admission that you do in fact owe some amount and the other side would then simply only have to begin to negotiate with you in order to see how much they could extract from you. (This, by the way, this is how the IRS operates).

The correct thing to do in such a case would be to disavow any and all liability and to refuse to pay one cent. If the other party persists, make them produce evidence in support of their claim.

In the case of our rights that have been acknowledged and recognized as being God-given, rights we are all born with and that are also protected under the Constitution, we always seem to be arguing and fighting over the scope of what these rights are what some believe are more appropriate modern interpretations. In other words, we are constantly “arguing over the amount.”

As a result what we now have are watered down versions of these rights that have been settled upon by negotiation and then further re-negotiated over time.

Consider all of the idiotic and ridiculous anti-gun laws that prohibit or restrict certain gun features such as barrel length, pistol grips, collapsible stocks, magazine capacity and a laundry list of others that in no way make a gun any more dangerous. A gun is only a tool and the only thing that makes any tool dangerous is the person that is using it.

As Alan Ladd famously said in the 1953 classic film SHANE – “A gun is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it.

Everyone seems to always ignore the obvious truth of why we have a Second Amendment. The Founders included it for the people (the people, not the government) to be able to defend the nation and the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic. In other words, when needed, against a tyrannical government.

There is absolutely NO requirement in the Second Amendment for guns to have a so-called “sporting purpose.” To even raise that as an issue is beyond ridiculous. The only sporting purpose the Founding Fathers might have considered incorporating in the Second Amendment would have been the shooting of tyrants.

In short, we have been fighting the wrong fight. We shouldn’t accept any infringement and instead challenge the very authority gun controllers and politicians claim to have to enact such limits on the free exercise of the right to keep and bear arms. Just as some court cases can be very quickly won when challenging the jurisdiction so that the court is left with no other choice but to throw the case out, we need to challenge the very authority the government claims to have to legislate away more of Americans’ gun rights…and dispel that myth of authority once and for all.

Previous Post
Next Post


      • “Please explain and provide supporting links.”

        PornHub dot com is one.

        There are *many* others… 😉

    • Yada, yada, yada…Let’s argue the meaning of the 2A for the millionth time. That comma means something – no it doesn’t – yes it does. Regulated means this, no it does not it means that. The dog chasing its tail syndrome.

      Gun Control did not begin in America with the 2A. Gun Control began when it dropped out of the behinds of racists who were content with slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, lynching, the KKK, Eugenics and other race based atrocities attributed to the democRat Party.

      Failure to take a stand against the atrocities left in the wake of Gun Control is gutless and leaves its dirt under the carpet.

      Most Americans own firearms because they could make the choice whether to be a victim or not. Those who were subjected to Gun Control Tyranny had no choice whatsoever. To forget what they endured under Gun Control is another atrocity. And that is an atrocity that does not belong to the democRat Party. It belongs to those who fight for the 2A with their omni directional feather duster rhetoric that in the end provides standing for Gun Control.

      Gun Control and a noose are from the same family. Until Gun Control is seen for what it is the dog chases its tail.

      BTW fhead…If you have to ask you don’t belong here.

  1. I’m just going to leave this here:

    Cop that donated $25 to rittenhouse defense fund got fired.

  2. Completely agree. The early fight back in the 1930’s should have been all of the added restrictions and laws were unconstitutional because they infringed on the right to bear arms. Note that the 2A reads as a restriction on the government (all-federal, state, local), not as something given by the government. The mention of the alcohol restrictions by the 18th amendment is notable because there didn’t seem to be any doubt that the clause was absolute. I guess the government and politicians were gambling that no one would put up the “good fight” to put a check on the government. Question is: How do we (as citizens and supporting organizations such as FPC) band together for one big fight to chuck all the illegal laws and restrictions with one blow? Right now, my fear is that the politicians are killing us (figuratively) by death of a thousand cuts. Rather than piecemealing legal fights against this new law and this new restriction every single time, can’t we just fight one big legal battle and get the precedent set?

    • “. . . can’t we just fight one big legal battle and get the precedent set?”

      Almost certainly ‘No!’. Such a hope is, almost certainly, wishful thinking. It’s somewhat rare, the exception rather than the rule, that a single case causes a 180 degree turn in the law. Same-sex marriage, abortion, Miranda warnings come to mind. In other cases, it has been a long hard slog to establish rights. Numerous cases accumulating to alter the direction of the jurisprudence on a major issue.

      In most cases, the Progressives have waged a long slog battle to achieve their victories. If we hope to prevail we should strive to learn from their incrementalist strategy.

      I make no claim to knowing THE tactic that will prevail. I merely postulate that the strategy of incrementalism can succeed with the 2A whereas praying for a decisive “nuclear” event (legislative or judicial) is one of waiting patiently on a hill for the second coming. The Lord helps those who help themselves.

      Have we made progress on Constitutional-Carry? How? One state at a time.
      Have we made progress on Shall-Issue permits? How? One state at a time.
      Have we made progress in legitimizing guns for self-defense? How? One first time buyer at a time.

      With “Defund the Police” and soaring civil disorder in major metro areas, now MIGHT be the season for public perception to turn. Are we prepared with a strategy proven to be effective? Or, are we clinging to our guns, Bibles and out-dated war doctrines?

      How have generals – throughout history – LOST wars? By clinging to out-dated tactics and strategies. Why should we make the same mistake when there is so much at stake?

      When the gun-controllers accuse us of being intransigent, I suggest the following response: ‘OK, so what gun-controls which have proven themselves ineffective are you willing to roll-back?’ We are patient; we can wait for their answer.

      We have three fights: for the hearts and minds of the voters; for the votes of legislators; and, for SCOTUS.

      We can’t win long-term victory with either legislators or SCOTUS without the hearts and minds of voters. That is fundamental. Whatever we do, we have to assure voters sympathetic to gun-control that we PotG are responsible. And, that their legislators’ pandering for gun-control are FAILING to address the roots of suicide or homicide. We must pierce their blind-faith in superficial thinking masquerading as “common sense”.

      We can’t win the legislative fight without threatening the right legislators with loss of crucial voters. THESE care EXCLUSIVELY about being re-elected. Tip either primary or general elections against them and they will become persuadable.

      As to SCOTUS, we need the “right” case. What that is, precisely, I don’t know. What I do know is this. It takes 5 justices to agree that a case for the 2A will advance the right to arms. We need to figure out just what ARE these characteristics of a case they will buy-into. What was it about: Heller; McDonald; Caetano; and NYR&PA v NYC that achieved the coveted cert? The answer, of course, is a moving target. Kennedy has retired; Barrett has lately ascended to the bench.

      I don’t have the answer. Yet, I have a hunch that they are looking for some issue by which they can move the ball in the smallest and clearest increment. Caetano likely fits this definition. It really wasn’t about a firearm; it was about a less-than-lethal weapon. It was about an absolute ban. The appellant was a sympathetic convict of a meritless malum in se (victimless) crime. Yet, by this case, SCOTUS moved the jurisprudence of 2A arms: ‘Held: The 2A is not just for muskets anymore.’

    • “. . . can’t we just fight one big legal battle and get the precedent set?”

      I agree entirely. The 2nd Amendment was written in the way it was to be unequivocal. It means exactly what it says. The reason for this is found in the original—clearly stated intent—that an armed citizenry should have the right to be armed as a defense against governmental tyranny.

      As a practical matter this is a clear-cut power-sharing protection against government domination. Looking at the hard-left takeover of our government, it’s pretty clear that gun-control efforts are essentially attempting to remove, modify, or diminish that power-sharing intent so clearly stated in the 2nd.

      Those of us who support the 2nd Amendment understand that this was a revolutionary document written by men who had put everything on the line to create and support a republic based on freedom and liberty. They knew exactly what they were saying. Their message resonates now more than ever.

  3. “Public Safety”, “Compelling Government Interest”, “Levels of Scrutiny” are three of the accepted/heralded authorities for ignoring the Constitution, entirely.

    I apologize again for not finding a source, but a memory nags that at some point, Barack Hussein O declared, “We can’t let the Constitution/Law stand in the way of doing what is right.” It is this latter idea that encapsulates all the justification for dismissing the words of the compact/contract of sovereign States.

    To return to my favorite hobby horse, between 1850 and 1860, numerous pieces of legislation were proposed, or passed, to rid the nation of slavery. All that activity was an attempt to end run around the fact that amending the Constitution such was an impossibility at the time.

    Civil War 2.0 didn’t end slavery (nor did the Emancipation Proclamation). The end of slavery took a military victory by union armed forces, AND an amendment to the Constitution. The revolt of the secessionists was triggered by all the legislative attempts to strip slave holders of their sovereign, un-surrendered, right to own slaves, without the nuisance of the Constitution.

    Look around. See any thing familiar?

  4. It does not matter what laws are there; The constitutional law of the land or anything else. Washington democrats don’t care and will do what they want.

  5. That’s what I keep tellin people, they use the baby step technique so unless you’re really payin attention, you dont realize how fu**ed you are till it’s too late!!

  6. This is the position I have been arguing from since the 80s. Its is The only position to argue from.

    The Supremecy clause is important, however. None of the bill of rights explicitly overrides the provision that laws made by Congress that pursue the Constitution are the Supreme law of the land.

    In that vein, the NFA and GCA among many other laws are null and void.

    Legitimate laws that pursue SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED might be to help communities source ammo to promote local safety and proficiency training. Although some might argue that is a state or local responsibility.

    While we are defending rights protected by the 2nd, the 9th and 10th are also awesome tools we should be using to push the federal government back to their secondary role to the states.

    • “. . . help communities source ammo to promote local safety and proficiency training. . . . ”
      It occurs to me that we the PotG ought to argue for a reform to the distribution of Pittman-Robertson tax allocations. These taxes were originally intended to be used for wildlife conservation. “. . . 1970s, amendments to the act created a 10% tax on handguns and their ammunition and accessories as well as an 11% tax on archery equipment. It was also mandated that half of the money from each of the new taxes be used to educate and train hunters by the creation and maintenance of hunter safety classes and shooting/target ranges.” (

      Revenues from handguns and their (distinctive) ammunition have risen at accelerating rates since the 1970s; yet, expenditures for public ranges have dwindled. State wildlife conservation agencies have sucked-up all the funds for their wildlife interests leaving target sportsmen and self-defense users deprived of any benefits.

      Urbanization has taken it’s toll along with the anti-gun policies of urban governments. There are a dwindling few private ranges in NYC and Chicago has effectively banned all ranges within its jurisdiction. How are urban dwellers to exercise their rights to arms and self-defense if they have to travel far and wide to find an economical range or pay high fees to private ranges within their reasonable travel options?

      The Secretary of the Interior should be mandated to account for handgun/ammo/archery funds being spent to develop and maintain urban ranges and safety programs. Gun safety is not just for hunters anymore.

      I anticipate a counter-argument. Voters who hunt will covet these Pittman-Robertson tax allocations for conservation. We shouldn’t wish to create a fissure within the PotG community. Nevertheless, half of these handgun/ammo/archery were never supposed to have gone to support wildlife. If the 2A is to retain a constituency to defend it, we have to cater to the rearing-up of gun owners among urban dwellers. Starving them of ranges to support wildlife – so the gun-controllers will eat the double-barrels last – is counterproductive.

  7. The OP makes a good point. Subsequent amendments supersede previous provisions.

    We neglect to emphasize the 14A, the last time We the People addressed rights:

    “. . . No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; . . .”

    One of the major explicit intentions of the 14A, as articulated by Congressmen as they advocated for its proposal, was to extend the Right of the People to keep and bear arms to freedmen. Bear in mind that these were, at the time, illiterate and the very bottom rung of the citizenry. Nevertheless, they were not to be deprived of the right to arms due to their rank in society nor for want of enlistment in the militia.

    Gun-controllers have asserted that the 2A was intended to authorize slave patrols, mentioning no supporting evidence. Even if it were so that the 2A’s right of the People ran exclusively to (old fat) white guys, that (alleged) “fact” was superseded by the 14A.

    There is a counter-argument that needs to be addressed. SCOTUS virtually nullified the “privileges and immunities” clause of the 14A in the Slaughterhouse Cases.

    Nevertheless, SCOTUS subsequently “incorporated” most of the BoR upon the states through the “due process” clause. The last such ruling was McDonald, incorporating the 2A upon the states. Scholars debate whether the Slaughterhouse decision was correct; among them Justice Thomas. Be that as it may, We the People ratified the 14A believing it to be a declaration of our will that freedmen enjoy the privileges and immunities of the 2A. If the Supreme Court errored in Slaughterhouse, it corrected that error in a long series of subsequent cases, and in particular, McDonald.

    The gun-controllers prefer to argue that the 2A is outdated and its provenance is racist. We the PotG shouldn’t let them get by with such shoddy thinking. The OP’s thesis (subsequent amendments supersede whatever came before) needs to be deployed with respect to the 14A and McDonald.

    Will the gun-controllers hold that the rights of speech, search and seizure, and fair trial are outdated and of doubtful provenance? That they were not extended to the least of We the People by the 14A and confirmed by subsequent SCOTUS incorporation decisions?

    It is long time to put to rest that the 2A does not guarantee the right “to those who shouldn’t have them”. It is precisely that phrase which is tainted with raciest overtones.

  8. “The Supremecy clause is important, however. None of the bill of rights explicitly overrides the provision that laws made by Congress that pursue the Constitution are the Supreme law of the land.”

    The “Supremacy Clause” is not supreme. That phrase is simply wordsmithing; an attempt to justify running roughshod over the Constitution via simple legislative majorities. In “pursuing” the Constitution, all the BOR are included. Thus, if the Constitution is modified/amended to read, “Congress shall make no law….” the so-called “supremacy clause” stops dead in its tracks. “…shall make no…” is the same intent, meaning and power of “…shall not be infringed…”; not through the “supremacy clause”, the “commerce clause”, or any other provision of the original constitution.

    The US Constitution is a curious animal among compacts/contracts. In general usage, modifications and amendments to contracts are written directly into the existing contract. Such action is called “conforming” the contract to include a change/modification/amendment.

    One method if updating a contract to include changes is to simply insert the change, without modifying other wording in all the places places the change affects. Another method is to either change other affected provisions of the contract, or add a reference to the change…which is the power of supersession. If a supersession reference is included at a place in the contract the modification was intended to change, the original wording is constrained by the referenced modification/change/amendment. Thus, the conformed contract controls, not the original wording.

    The US Constitution does not directly change the wording of the original. That means legislators are required to compare legislation to the Constitution “as modified”, not as original. If the proposed legislation conflicts with the Constitution “as modified”, the “supremacy clause” cannot be used to override the amended/changed/modified Constitution. In the question of what controls legislation, it is not the “supremacy clause” it is the supremacy of the Constitution.

  9. Let’s not pretend that, at the time of ratification, anybody believed the commerce clause included a general power to regulate the production, sale, and possession of all consumer goods. That interpretation was invented many generations later, because it was expedient to do so.

  10. “A covenant not to defend myself from force by force, is always void. For the right men have by Nature to protect themselves, when none else can protect them, can by no covenant be relinquished.” -Thomas Hobbes, ‘Leviathan’ 1651.

  11. Notwithstanding many of the erudite Constitutional arguments made above I think Prndll had it about right when he wrote: “…Washington democrats don’t care and will do what they want.” Although, I might add the same can be said about a large percentage of Washington republicans also.

    During the Obamacare debates, when someone asked if what was being proposed was unconstitutional, Rep Clyburn replied: “…the Constitution means what WE say it means.” His remark typifies the arrogance and despotic tendencies of our “ruling class.”

    Our Representatives and Senators pass laws and SCOTUS affirms laws completely untethered from the spirit and original meaning of the Constitution.

  12. This is a very interesting discussion, but the principal argument that the the Constitution should be subjected to the rules that govern interpretation of contracts runs astray. Instead, the Constitution, although it is in many ways a contract or social compact if your prefer) between the states and the People and the Federal Government on the other, it has historically been interpreted under the rules applicable to statutes, rules that are similar but not precisely the same. For example if a clause in a contract is ambiguous, the standard rule is that the ambiguity is construed against the drafter. If both sides drafted a bilateral contract, then the courts look to the intent of the parties. Statutes, by contrast, are never construed against the drafter. Instead, Courts start by attempting to construe the statute to avoid the ambiguity, and only if this fails do the Courts turn to the legislative history.
    In the case of the 2A, the prefatory militia clause was long considered an ambiguous provision of the amendment, an ambiguity not resolved until Heller. But to a certain extent, that dispute lives on, as reflected by the analysis of the dissent in that case; the only thing all nine agreed upon is that the amendment protects an individual right as opposed to a collective right (an argument that was first raised by the sloppy language of Miller v. US).
    Because there are alleged ambiguities in the scope of the right guaranteed, Courts have felt free to interpret away the right due to the presence of competing concerns. Sam I am is right: “Public Safety”, “Compelling Government Interest”, “Levels of Scrutiny” are three of the accepted/heralded authorities for ignoring the Constitution, entirely. In the case of the 2A, these rules are not applied because of the Supremacy Clause, but view of the police power and a “compelling governmental interest” in maintaining the peace/providing for public safety as reflected in subsequently enacted legislation. Although Courts are not precisely “legislating from the bench,” given the legislative enactment, they demonstrate a clear bias in favor of community rights over individual rights. Most judges are unwilling to decide a case in favor of the individual right when that decision could lead to community “chaos,” the old “blood in the streets” and “more guns means more gun crimes” fears. They are loathe to make a ruling that could lead to more people getting killed. That bias clearly controls their decisions, as most recently, and most dramatically reflected, decision in the Ninth Circuit in Young v. Hawaii that held that there is NO right to bear arms outside one’s home or property. (That case should be filing a petition for cert in the near future, but a decision on cert probably will not occur until next session.) There, the en ban panel went out of its way to selective apply (and selectively quote) historical laws to find that the the individual right is subservient to the right of the Sovereign to provide for public safety, and as a result, the Overseeing has the right to ban the carriage of arms in public (as do the states of Hawaii and California). THIS is what 2A advocates are up against: it is not simply a matter of interpretation, but the existence of a fundamental social policy bias, as Justice Thomas has recognized on a time or two, against the recognition of the right established. You can be right on the proper interpretation of the language, but if the judge has a substantial and foundational policy bias against your position, he or she will find a reason to rule against you.

  13. A sword by itself does not slay; it is merely the weapon used by the slayer.
    — Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Roman Stoic philosopher, 4 B.C. – A.D. 65

    As far as infringing on the 2nd Amendment:
    Marbury vs Madison (1803) : “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”

    Miranda vs Arizona (1966) : “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”

    “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
    Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442

    “The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”
    16 Am Jur 2nd, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256

    Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105: “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”

    Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262: “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”

    Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616: “The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.”

    “If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being a gift of ALMIGHTY GOD, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.” —Samuel Adams, 1772

    Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821): “When a judge acts where he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.”

    S. Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905): “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.”


    The Second Amendment. Guess I didn’t get the updated PC Woke version of the Second Amendment. Possibly my copy is an old original V1.0 version. Mine doesn’t contain any stipulations or restrictions regarding:
    –Suitable for sporting purposes;
    –In common use;
    –No full automatic operation;
    –No scary black color;
    –Maximum purchases per month;
    –Cannot fabricate at home;
    –Cannot modify;
    –Cannot posses certain parts;
    –Maximum number of cartridges;
    –Minimum barrel length;
    –Minimum overall length;
    –No bump stock;
    –Must be serialized;
    –No stock permitted;
    –No pistol grips;
    –No barrel shrouds;
    –No smooth bore barrel:
    –No rifled barrel;
    –No forward vertical grip;
    –No threaded barrel;
    –No bayonet lug;
    –No suppressor;
    –No collapsible stock;
    –No thumb hole in stock;
    –Maximum caliber;
    –No touchy arm brace to shoulder;
    –Minimum number of USA made parts;
    –Applicable to collective use only;
    –Only applicable within one’s home;
    –Cannot cross state line;
    –Cannot enter city limit;
    –Must buy $200 tax stamp;
    –Must not protect one’s hearing;
    –Must not be suitable for defending American soil;
    –Must not be suitable for dispatching tyrants;
    –Must not be designed to efficiently kill;
    –Must wait to take home;
    –Must complete Form 4473;
    –Faceless, nameless bureaucrat must bless purchase;
    –Valid only in Liberal-free zones;
    –Minimum age to keep and bear;
    –Stops where Liberal touchy feelys begin;
    –If a Liberal does not like it, you can’t have it;
    –If a politician fears it because of his actions, you cannot have it;
    –Cannot make snowflake uncomfortable;
    –Cannot chew cookie into gun shape;
    –Toys may not resemble;
    –Must not be visible;
    –Must not be concealed;
    –Must not be readily deployable;
    –Must be encumbered by a lock;
    –Must keep in bureaucrat blessed container;
    –Cannot be loaded;
    –Cannot be in same container as applicable ammunition;
    –Not valid without bureaucrat issued permission slip;
    –Must be listed on government blessed list;
    –Must imprint data on projectile and/or cartridge case;
    –Susceptible to government modification;
    –Old men/women in black dresses may interpret any old way;
    –Cannot have on tax payer funded property;
    –Cannot possess where bureaucrats, elitists are protected by same;
    –Cannot have same as tax payer funded camo wearing government employee;
    My copy only says “…..shall not be infringed.”
    Hmmmmm……my copy seems to meet a free man’s purposes. Thanks, appreciate your thoughts and concern, but I’ll stick with my original version.

  15. “Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?”
    “You know, I think I would.”
    “Would you sleep with me for 50 dollars?”
    “Really, what kind of a woman do think I am?”
    “We’ve already established that. Now we’re just haggling about the price.”

  16. “Let’s not pretend that, at the time of ratification, anybody believed the commerce clause included a general power to regulate the production, sale, and possession of all consumer goods.”

    The founders were quite concerned about the commerce clause. Not only was there a history of the colonies/States conducting economic warfare against each other, the general principle that government would seek to expand where not specifically prohibited. The FF understood that the commerce clause could undermine the Constitution itself.

    Most do not know, but one of the things not standard among the States was the measuring of time. It took the advent of widespread building and use of railroads to highlight the problems that local control over time created. Rationalizing time was a good example of what the commerce clause was intended for. The commerce clause did not automagically standardize time measurements, but the founders would have recognized such standardization as an intent/goal of the commerce clause.

  17. “Most judges are unwilling to decide a case in favor of the individual right when that decision could lead to community “chaos,” the old “blood in the streets” and “more guns means more gun crimes” fears.”

    While true, there is no constitutional justification/authority for such thinking. The founders well understood how messy a republic could be, and that injury and death could be outcomes of adhering to the Constitution. Judges have no valid authority to concern themselves with outcomes from applying law.

    Concern with the “police power” of the state (we are no longer “States) is repugnant to the Constitution. The Constitution was not written to reinforce, expand or coercive power of the federal government, but to protect the public from said “police powers”. “Police powers” of government is built upon the notion that sometimes, provisions of the constitution can be suspended to support and maintain unconstitutional coercion of the public so that “the state” can rule by decree at its pleasure.

  18. A good review. Unfortunately, these no longer fit in “tradition and history” analyses of jurisprudence considered by courts.

    “If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being a gift of ALMIGHTY GOD, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.” —Samuel Adams, 1772

    The above is the very distinction between “inalienable rights” and “unalienable rights”…no person can voluntarily give up those rights.

  19. “When It Comes to Gun Rights, We’ve Been ‘Arguing the Amount’ for Too Long”

    Correct and well stated!

  20. The more corrupt the republic, the more numerous laws.
    – Tacitius

    “We can state with conviction, therefore, that a man’s support for absolute government is in direct proportion to the contempt he feels for his country.”
    ― Alexis de Tocqueville



    We are in Step 7 of the cycle of empire.

  22. History in the U.S. has shown that the Constitution does mean what it says it means rather it means what the corrupt court says it means, and they have been ruling against 2A since it was written. This year the courts have even ruled (California) that the law against carrying a gun for self protection is not unconstitutional. So much for the joke we call 2A.

    The U.S. will not much longer tolerate its weekly mass murders and if laws are not passed to weed out the criminals and nut cases who today can buy all the firepower they want through second hand unvetted gun sales or the sale of ghost guns the inevitable result will be Draconian gun bans and restrictions against guns and gun owners. Its as simple as that. All other civilized nations have thorough vetting processes and their laws have proven to work far better than our lack of such laws. Their mass murders are far less than ours are and in many countries they have gone for decades without the large body counts we have had in our mass murders now on a weekly and even daily occurrence. One is soon coming to an area near you.

    Studies in California show 40 per cent of violent gun crime is done with ghost guns and in Chicago studies have shown it was second hand guns, not stolen guns that were responsible for the majority of gun crime. Police tracing of weapons used in crime often show the guns came from states with lax gun laws and were sold in states with tough gun laws especially in big cities rendering their tough laws totally ineffective. Only a uniform Federal law will work in gun control. It has worked in other countries and will work in ours as well. No law is perfect, but we do not overturn laws against murder, rape and robbery either just because they are not 100 percent effective.

    Criminals and nut case know very well that they can buy any gun they wish through second hand sales, at flea markets, newspaper adds, gun shows and on the internet chat sites. Its pure insanity and no other civilized nation tolerates such mayhem and chaos and mass murder. And the insantiy of it is that yes you can legally buy second hand guns on chat sites if your state allows it, many states only require the buyer to show the seller (both residing in the same state) a quick glance at your drivers license at a prearrainged face to face meeting on a street corner in the middle of the fog and night. Only in the U.S. do we live in the only indusrialized society gone completely mad. It has become so insane and frightening that most Europeans have stopped comming here on vacation (pre-covid).

    • dacian,

      Do coherent facts and thoughts actually mean anything to you?

      All other civilized nations have thorough vetting processes and their laws have proven to work far better than our lack of such laws. Their mass murders are far less than ours are and in many countries they have gone for decades without the large body counts we have had …

      Laws do not reduce mass-murder events. Good people raising good families prevent and therefore reduce mass-murder events. How many mass-murder events have occurred in the last 100 years in the state of Vermont which has more-or-less no laws whatsoever with respect to firearms? (There is no government vetting nor licensing required to trade, inherit, build, or purchase any firearm you want. Similarly, there is no government vetting nor licensing required to carry firearms in public whether or not those firearms are openly visible or concealed. Anyone age 16 or older can carry firearms in public without said licensing. And Vermont has almost no “gun-free zones” where possessing firearms is illegal.) And yet I cannot find a single instance of a mass-murder event in Vermont.

      Studies in California show 40 per cent of violent gun crime is done with ghost guns …

      Oh, come on. Unless you have a reliable source for this, I am calling bull$hit.

      … and in Chicago studies have shown it was second hand guns, not stolen guns that were responsible for the majority of gun crime. Police tracing of weapons used in crime often show the guns came from states with lax gun laws and were sold in states with tough gun laws especially in big cities rendering their tough laws totally ineffective.

      In other words people are resourceful and criminals will acquire whatever they want in spite of laws.

      Only a uniform Federal law will work in gun control.

      Ah, the classic old defective argument, “Laws/Communism/Socialism/whatever will work THIS time if we try harder and do more of it.”

      Your own statements above prove that criminals break laws and will acquire whatever they want in spite of laws. And yet you want to limit my liberty and my ability to protect myself and my family because criminals break laws. No thank you.

      • Your way is “no way” and does nothing to alleviate the problem. Your way history has proven has failed miserably while history has proven that tough gun laws that vet out nut cases and criminals from getting guns as well as affordable mental health care have proven far more effective in other Nations than in our Country of Capitalvania that has failed miserably to find a solution to this problem that is absolutely shameful in the civilized world.

        One of the biggest enemies of gun ownership is the Republican Party that has refused to fund affordable health care which all other civilized nations have and their refusal to support sane and effective gun laws. Other Nations have affordable health care and they are far smaller and far less rich than Capitalvania where life is considered cheap and expendable and other nations have effective gun control laws that have proven far more effective than our almost complete lack of workable gun laws.

        • dacian,

          If lack of “tough gun laws” and “easy access to firearms” is the problem, then Vermont should be ankle deep in blood. And yet Vermont has a violent crime rate on par with any nation in Western Europe and there have been ZERO mass murder events (with or without a firearm) in Vermont since forever. Of course you could care less because facts do not matter to you–only your emotionally-driven agenda matters to you.

          And nice diversion away from “tough gun laws” to mental health care which has absolutely nothing to do with human trash birthing children and failing to raise them, teach them, and instill values in stable and loving families. We are coming up on 55 years now of Democrat’s/Johnson’s “Great Society” approach to urban Hellscapes and those urban Hellscapes are far more Hellish today than they were 55 years ago. Once again, we see that Big Government “solutions” fail as they always do.

          Final note regarding those wonderful Western European nations that have so much money available for nationalized health care: that is easy to do when THEY do not pay for their national defense. Approximately 1/3rd of our national budget is national defense. If someone else provided that for the United States, we would have a lot of money for nationalized health care as well.

      • Uncommon sense….agreed
        Politicians with laws never stop bad guys with guns.
        They only control the good guys, which is their true agenda.

        Gun control is all about controlling good guys to protect Socialist/Libturd/Elitist asses, for what they are doing to America, from Patriots with AR-15s and “high capacity” magazines saying “ENOUGH”!!!!

        Our Founding Fathers would already have been finished shooting a second time. They are spinning in their graves for what we have relinquished of what they pledged their all to hand down to us. Shame, shame, Patriots.

  23. I think you are overdoing it. The fix you seek is at hand: present us an accurate picture, along with your physical address. Then we can send that to all the 2A defending blogs, with instructions to memorize your data, and swear to never intervene to save your life should you come under deadly attack. If you choose to rely on some magic government program, or agency, to protect your life, you should be welcoming the chance to keep armed civilian defenders from posing additional risk. We would happily stay away, and pass you by, so as to not interfere with the likelihood you will die before your government protection arrives.

    Other than that, have a nice day.

  24. I drafted this for the Virginia Militia Alliance and hope it serves to help educate on this issue.


    Relating to Violations of the Militia, Supremacy and Guaranty Clauses
    of the Constitution for the United States of America and
    the Constitution for the Commonwealth of Virginia

    WE THE FREE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, by and through the unalienable, individual Rights, and collective civic duty guaranteed and called for by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for the United States of America as well as the Constitution for the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereby Petition the President of the United States and members of the House of Representatives and Senate of the United States Congress, The General Assembly consisting of the Senate and House of Delegates for the Commonwealth of Virginia for Redress of our Grievances, to honor their Oaths or Affirmations of office and their constitutional obligations by responding to this Petition within forty (40) days, providing a formal acknowledgement of its receipt with a rebuttal of its legal arguments and statement of facts, or demonstration a good faith effort to comply with its remedial instructions.


    WHEREAS, in the beginning of 2020 the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia proposed a series of gun control bills that require a myriad of regulations with regards to the purchase, sale, transfer of firearms including but not limited to wait periods before purchasing a firearm, limitations on magazines size, background checks etc., and;

    WHEREAS, by the terms and conditions of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for the United States of America, We the People have expressly, established a republican form of government, empowering it to act only in certain ways, while purposely and patently restricting and prohibiting it from acting in certain other ways without Amendment, and;

    WHEREAS, the Preamble to the United State Constitution provides several principles to guide its stated purpose of forming a “more perfect Union.” one of those principles is to “provide for the common defense,” and;

    WHEREAS, the United States Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12 allows the Congress “to raise and support armies but no appropriation of money for that use shall be for a period longer than two years,” and;

    WHEREAS, Article 1, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution recognizes the well-regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in times of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power, and;

    WHEREAS, over a hundred twenty-five years of pre-constitutional Militia statutes reveal sixteen specific principles that constitute a constitutionally recognized Militia and they are as follows:

    1. “The Militia of the several States” are based upon each person’s individual and especially the community’s collective rights, powers, privileges, immunities, and duties of self-defense under “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.
    2. Each of “the Militia of the fseveral States” must always be identified as “the Militia” of a particular State, and by no other name.
    3. “The Militia of the several States” must always be strictly differentiated from the regular “Army and Navy of the United States” and from the “Troops, or Ships of War” (under whatever name) that the States may “keep in times of Peace” “with the Consent of Congress.”
    4. “The Militia of the several States” are governmental establishments, not private institutions.
    5. “The Militia of the several States” perform the critically important political function of enforcing popular sovereignty both in ordinary and especially in extraordinary times.
    6. “The Militia of the several States” consist of entirely separate and independent establishments which must always exist in each and every State throughout the United States.
    7. Congress, the States, and in default thereof We The People themselves must ensure that each and every one of the “the Militia of the several States” is fully organized, armed, accoutered, disciplined, and trained at all times.
    8. Near-universal membership, compulsory participation, and reasonable equality in individuals’ burdens of service are necessary characteristics of “the Militia of the several States”.
    9. Service in each of the “Militia of the several States” is subject only to limited exemptions, all of which in principle must be consistent with the fundamental standards of “a well-regulated Militia” and in application must advance “the common defense” and “the general welfare.”
    10. Because the ultimate goal of “homeland security” must be We The People’s own political freedom and economic well-being, and because that goal can be attained only by The People’s own participation where The People actually reside in Local communities, “the Militia of the several States” must be organized and controlled “from the bottom up”, not “from the top down.”
    11. Unless specifically exempted, all members of “the Militia of the several States” must acquire and thereafter at all times must maintain and be supported by public officials in their maintenance of personal possession (and usually their own private ownership) of firearms, ammunition, and accoutrements suitable for their Militia service.
    12. Every individual possibly eligible to be a member of “the Militia of the several States” may acquire, possess, and own as of right any firearms, ammunition, and accoutrements suitable for any type of Militia service.
    13. Every individual possibly eligible for service in “the Militia of the several States” must enjoy untrammeled access to a free market in which to obtain whatever firearms, ammunition, and accoutrements may prove useful for any type of Militia service.
    14. Every member of the “the Militia of the several States” must be trained to participate in the provisions of some aspect of “homeland security” for his particular State and Locality as well as for the United States as a whole.
    15. “The Militia of the several States” are vested with constitutional authority and responsibility to, and thereof must, provide every type of protection – whether political, economic, social, or even cultural in character—that may be “necessary to the security of a free State” in every State, for the United States as a whole, and ultimately for We The People under whatever form of government they may establish.
    16. The primary method for enforcing discipline as well as raising revenue within revitalized “Militia of the several States” should be the imposition of fines for their members’ failures, neglects, or refusals, to perform their duties, and;

    WHEREAS, the Militia can be defined: in the extreme sense as the mechanism by which The People wield the power of the sword for the purpose of exercising their right of resistance to bad government, restoration of good government and renewal for the Nation so that The People may once again “assume among the powers of the earth their separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Natures God entitle them”. In the common everyday sense, it is the mechanism by which to “secur[e]” the “free State” by “executing the laws”, “suppress insurrections,…”repel invasions” and acts as the accountability arm of all government through nullification of bad law and removal of tyrants and despots with legal authority, and;

    WHEREAS, the Militia for the Commonwealth of Virginia is just one of 50 state Militias throughout the union and existed for more than 150 years prior to the Constitution and was incorporated into the Constitution for the United States of America. These Militia’s are recognized as the only institution declared “necessary” for the “security of the free state”, and;

    WHEREAS, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15 grants Congress the authority to “call forth the Militia to Execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions”, and;

    WHEREAS, when the Militia is “called into actual service of the United States”, the President serves as “Commander in Chief of the Militia” per Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1, and;

    WHEREAS, it becomes clear by a reading of the Constitution that the reference to “provide for common defense” mentioned in the Preamble is referring to the Militia of the various states at all times and the standing army but only when there is an appropriation by Congress for its existence, and;

    WHEREAS, in 1903 Congress passed the Militia Act of 1903 commonly referred to as (and appropriately titled) Dick Act of 1903 and is codified at Title 10 Section 311 of the United States Code. This Act created the Militia of the United States separated by two classes known as the organized Militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia, and the unorganized Militia, which consists of members of the Militia who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia, and;

    WHEREAS, the Constitution makes no mention nor allows for a Militia of the United States as all Militia’s must be State institutions enacted by State statute. This is in contradistinction to the Armies that Congress may raise and support per Article 1 Section 8 Clause 12. Congress enjoys no power whatsoever to create such a National Militia, and;

    WHEREAS the Constitution allows for no dichotomy between “organized militia” and “unorganized militia,” but instead mandates that Congress “provide for organizing” the Militia in their entirety, and;

    WHEREAS, the National Guard and the Naval Militia and their state components as well are not and constitutionally cannot be any parts of “the Militia of the several States”, if only because they are not co-extensive with, We The People as a whole. The State components derives their authority under Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 which requires that “no state shall maintain ships and troops of war in times of peace without the consent of Congress.” The Dick Act is Congress’s and the States’ agreement to maintain “troops and ships of war in times of peace”, making the state National Guard an adjunct of the standing army, and;

    WHEREAS, because of this attempted obfuscation and transmogrification of the Militia concept, a true constitutionally recognized Militia has been in law and fact existing but has in application laid dormant for over one hundred and twelve years. This dormant status does not in any way deny The People nor the State the rights, powers, privileges and immunities associated with the Militia, nor deny the disabilities, liabilities and no-rights of Congress in abrogating those legal relations, and;

    WHEREAS, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 requires Congress to provide for organizing, arming and training the Militia reserving to the states the appointment of the officers and training the Militia based on the discipline prescribed by Congress”, and;

    WHEREAS, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 is required in order to fulfill the Congressional mandates enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15.

    WHEREAS, in the beginning of 2020 the Virginia General Assembly proposed a series of gun control bills that require a myriad of regulations with regards to the purchase, sale, transfer, of firearms including but not limited to, wait periods before purchasing a firearms, limitations on magazines size, background checks etc.

    WHEREAS, since Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15 and 16 provide the Congress with delegated powers with respect to organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia, the proposed legislative actions in the Commonwealth of Virginia impede, hinder, suppress, and block the ability for Congress to exercise those powers and as a result violate Article 4 Section 2 of the Constitution commonly known as the supremacy clause, and Article 4, Section 4, commonly known as the guaranty clause, and;

    WHEREAS, when the Militia is called into “actual service of the United States”, the President serves as Commander in Chief of the Militia per Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1, and;

    WHEREAS, since Article 2 Section 2 Clause 1 provide the President with delegated powers with respect to being Commander in Chief of the Militia when called into actual service, the proposed legislative actions in the Commonwealth of Virginia impede, hinder, suppress, and block the ability for the President to exercise this enumerated power and as a result violate Article 4 Section 2 and Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution, and;

    WHEREAS, The Governor of Virginia and the General Assembly fail to understand Article 1 Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution as well as the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution which reads: “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” acknowledges a right already pre-existing and is not referring to the individual right but rather the collective civic duty to keep and bear arms as a requirement to their well-regulated Militia, and within this civic duty to keep and bear arms, the individual right resides, and;

    WHERAS, the People of Virginia have the fundamental Right to revitalize the Militia for the Commonwealth of Virginia, providing for its own organizational structure based on the last Militia law passed by the Commonwealth of Virginia before the Dick Act 1903, with the recognition and authority associated with a constitutional Militia, until such time as the Governments of the United States and the Commonwealth of Virginia begin to exercise their constitutional duties of organizing, arming, training and appointing its officers per Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 of the United States Constitution.

    NOW THEREFORE, WE THE PEOPLE OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, do hereby humbly request, pursuant to the historical scope and purpose of the Petition Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America and Article I, Section 12 of the Constitution for the Commonwealth of Virginia, that the Leaders of the Congress and President of the United States of America and the Leaders of the General Assembly and Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia respond to this Petition as follows:

    1. Within ten (10) days following the service of this Petition for Redress, provide the undersigned with a formal acknowledgment of its receipt, and

    2. Within forty (40) days following the service of this Petition for Redress, provide the undersigned with a written document that either a) proves Petitioners’ fact(s) wrong by argument and factual evidence, or b) formally acknowledges the unconstitutionality of any federal or state law, rule or regulation that violates or conflicts with any of the facts.

  25. Very nicely done. But, where do you go when the Virginia government refuses to acknowledge you petition, at all?

    • MS passed this law in 2016. Short and to the point. We can’t stop the Feds from enforcing Federal laws, etc. , but we won’t assist them.

      MS Statute:

      Ҥ 11-65-1. Enforcement of certain federal laws, orders, or rules prohibited.

      No federal executive order, agency order, law not enrolled by the United States Congress and signed by the President of the United States, rule, regulation or administrative interpretation of a law or statute issued, enacted or promulgated after July 1, 2016, that violates the United States Constitution or the Mississippi Constitution of 1890 shall be enforced or ordered to be enforced by any official, agent or employee of this state or a political subdivision thereof.”

  26. They didn’t exactly refuse to acknowledge it. It actually opened the door for quite an interesting educational opportunity. It wasn’t just me but there were many people involved. Eventually there was a colleague of mine who traveled there to do lectures on this very issue and went back several times. I’m currently in talks with a Senator on this issue at the moment as well.

    Now to address your question in a more precise manner, I’m of the opinion that it doesn’t matter if they accept it or not. The law itself rejects the idea of private militias so anyone who does not follow the principles spelled out in that petition (assuming the legal soundness of it) will have very hard time effectuating any sort of political will and will continue to be demonized by the press.

  27. Sam i Am said: “Very nicely done. But, where do you go when the Virginia government refuses to acknowledge you petition, at all?”

    The Founding Fathers attempted a redress of grievances with King George.
    Remember how that one ended?

    PS. Thanks for the link on the 7 cycles of empire, and yes, we do seem to be on #7.

  28. “The Founding Fathers attempted a redress of grievances with King George.
    Remember how that one ended?”

    Yes, but we are no longer that type of people.

  29. Wrong. The 2nd amendment doesn’t GIVE us the right to own guns. The Bill of Rights doesn’t GIVE us any rights. Those rights are given from God merely by us being born. The Bill of Rights just spells out those rights amongst many others. So it is not possible to simply pass another amendment to take away those rights. Including the right to own a gun. Our 2nd amendment isn’t a law that can simply be overturned by passing a law saying it is no longer valid.

    • “Wrong. The 2nd amendment doesn’t GIVE us the right to own guns. The Bill of Rights doesn’t GIVE us any rights.”

      While correct, this line of thinking is, today, irrelevant. The natural principle/law you describe should be the starting point for pondering potential legislation. After the fact, we must deal with reality, not philosophy. We are where we are. We deal with real, tangible, present law makers, law enforcement, and courts.

      If proclaiming,in a court of law, that natural law cannot be abrogated by human law, one reaps the real consequences, not the philosophic.

  30. There is only one right, as there can only be one. Everything else would contradict itself.
    That right is the self-ownership of your body.
    Everything else is just a consequence of that. Of course you get to have the property made by yourself or traded against things you made, otherwise you would be a slave/robbery victim. Of course you can buy a gun as property or manufacture it, and of course you can use it for lawfull self defense against those that tried to violate your one and only right. Be it a single criminal, or be it an organized crime syndicate (like the government).

  31. The preamble to the BoR sounds pretty explicit to me:

    THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, ***in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added***: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

    In fact, one of Chief Justice Tanney’s excuses for not deciding in favor of Dred Scott being a citizen makes it clear:

    “It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to … keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

  32. Dacian, Uncommon mentioned something important that you brushed right past in your effort to pollute the conversation with band aids for symptoms of a societal problem, not a gun problem:

    “…birthing children and failing to raise them, teach them, and instill values in stable and loving families.”

    This is the beginning of the fix. Not some statist crap that’s failed already. In what is only an opinion, I see that these are things progressives have been eroding my entire life.

    As mentioned before, it’s not on gun owners to make the case to keep the right or the guns. The onus is on people like you to make the case to curtail our rights. You can’t, and you will never, do that successfully.

  33. “societal problem, not a gun problem: “…birthing children and failing to raise them, teach them, and instill values in stable and loving families.””

    I’ve said for years, it is not a “Gun Violence” problem, it is a “Defective Citizen” problem. (How ya gonna solve a problem which ya can’t even name correctly??? But, solving this problem is not their objective.) You breed ’em, you feed ’em, you raise/imprint ’em to be Productive Citizens, or you be responsible for their Defective Citizen transgressions against society. Parents should be responsible for the action of their offspring….at least until maybe 21, But, then, what leverage do we have over a Government Plantation Dweller that has nothing they have worked for… skin in the game……supported for their every need by Effective, Productive Citizens. In St. Louis, aka Ferguson, the Plantation paid $1,400,000 (plus multi millions in dealing with the burn/loot/mayhem peaceful demonstrations) to the “burn this city down” parents of Defective Citizen Michael Brown for raising said Defective Citizen, and losing the fruits of his future imputed transgressions against society. Brown in a short time frame strong armed local convenience store owner in stealing his Cigarillos to make his weed blunts, walked down center of a street (drawing initial LEO attention…..unaware of preceding strong arm accomplishments), refused to comply/disrespected said LEO, fought the LEO for his gun resulting in a negligent discharge inside the patrol car, slammed the door on the LEO to prevent LEO’s exit from car, ran from LEO, and finally charged officer…….becoming the winner of stupid prizes for playing stupid games. His juvenile record was sealed probably due to his young transgressions-in-training against society.

    If one is a failure in life, aka a Defective Citizen, to identify the prime causal factors/place responsibility/blame, first look in your own mirror, secondly, look to your parents.

    • … and that, good sir, poses problems for politicians who have no vision, no long game, no actual intellect or creativity. It’s too hard for them, so they pull a page from re-hashed crap gun legislation and talking points – so here we are again. When a mass shooting happens, or anything bad for that matter, people want leaders to solve the problem. The issue here is that politicians are not leaders. In the U.S. the people are supposed to be the leaders. Too many people have abrogated that responsibility and ceded it to career power mongers.

Comments are closed.