Home Quote of the Day Young: The Second Amendment is the New Third Rail of American Politics

Young: The Second Amendment is the New Third Rail of American Politics

bullet US flag gun nation
Previous Post
Next Post

None of the countries that have endured mass shootings and taken immediate, meaningful action to collect guns from the populace and/or restrict the purchase of firearms has anything like the hurdle the Second Amendment forces us to jump. The Second Amendment has only 27 words: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Gun rights advocates can quote the last 14 words from memory but seem unable to choke down the first 13. It seems counterintuitive that AR-style rifles should be available for the asking when the Constitution seems to give Congress the authority to restrict the sale and possession of those military arms.

It’s a sad situation when the “originalists” in our government, at all levels, have succumbed to the interpretation of the Second Amendment by an organization whose only purpose is to keep the United States armed and afraid. The vast majority of gun owners are peaceful, law-abiding and responsible in the use of firearms.

It’s a tragedy that the intent of the Second Amendment has been hijacked by those who insist that the amendment has only 14 words. You want to play with military-style/grade weapons? Join the National Guard. The Second Amendment is the very deadly third rail of politics.

— Clark Young in The United States of the NRA: Armed and Afraid

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Oh boy — this should be fun!

    We should have some kind of special signal to kick off the lively discussion on topics such as this. Perhaps firing a starting pistol? 🙂

    • Propaganda such as this article by the azzhat pos clark young is what happens when so called pro 2A individuals fail to Define Gun Control by its History of Rot. Not only do they fail at it they bark at it and concoct gutless barriers to block it.

      All that is required to Define Gun Control is to speak The Truth About Gun Control. Unless you enjoy having the likes of clark young sticking their pompous Gun Control behinds in your face then Man Up like Chip Roy and Define Gun Control…

      • Say, Debbie — what legislation has Rep. Roy introduced in the House to protect the rights of gun owners?

        Is he “all hat and no cattle?”

        • Say little man…In case you were too busy concocting a spin and too stupid to have noticed…That speech followed Uvalde and turned the tide on Gun Control’s wet dreams…Is that legislation enough for your all hat and no cattle spew or would you have prefered Chip Roy to say nothing like certain gutless wonders on this forum?

        • So …………he did the bare minimum for anyone elected with a lukewarm expectation to uphold basic civil liberties?

        • void…Are you trying to say congressional speeches Defining Gun Control are a dime a dozen? Post a link to one, azzhat.

        • Void is correct. Speeches are a dime a dozen.

          Roy is a legislator. He’s supposed to represent the concerns of his district. To my knowledge he hasn’t introduced a single bill to advance the interests of gun owners.

          That’s what we call “all hat, no cattle.”

        • Why bother toots it is but words that we expect them to speak. Sorry your sacred ox got gored but it is not a predominate force in advancing gun rights. Post link when it has any traction in making laws to protect our rights or sperg out with your typical tired ass name calling like your Dacian clone.

        • If you read between the lines to the replies I receive there is some major clark young butt kissing going on.

          The silly goose clark young uses colossal blatent lies to Define The Second Amendment and I come along with the History Confirmed Definition of Gun Control backed up a beyond fact checked speech on the floor of congress and here comes buttheads participating in a circle jerk with clark young.

          You can join the circle jerk too…all you have to do is allow Gun Control zealots to Define The Second Amendment and for you Not to Define Gun Control. That way you can enjoy watching crowds of Gun Control history illiterates marching to state houses begging for what they preceive to be sugar and spice and everything nice Gun Control.

        • ………….you having a stroke there? Literally who literally what and literally why does any of that rant have anything to do with your empty words trying to run uphill when actually participating in the education of children and going after woke teachers will accomplish more in a year than your way will in several generations?

        • little man…You need a new moniker, an anthony weiner photo would be fitting.
          void…save your incoherent gibberish and post the link per my request or go pound sand.

        • void…since you are void of any history and somehow think you have a podium to discuss anything about the centuries old Second Amendment don’t try to pass your ignorance and disdain for history along to children…you pathetic pos.

        • LOL Deb your approach is more historically vacant than my name. Your preaching falls on deaf ears outside of a few that humor you. You are accomplishing nothing while your betters actually engage in lawfare, campaigns, and education of the next generation. You can insult those who disagree with you but you have yet to provide any process to achieve your goals. You are empty and until you figure that out you are also without value.

      • Debbie,


        Let me say it, again – WE ALL KNOW THE HISTORY OF GUN CONTROL. You are preaching to the choir . . . and we already know the words to the hymn.

        If you want to talk about guns, or even gun control CURRENT ISSUES, have at it. Not only have you beaten this horse to death (when there was no need – we ALREADY AGREE WITH YOU), and continued beating it, but there is now not even enough left to make glue.

        Give it a frickin’ rest, already. And, just in case you missed this nuance, that “cut-and-paste” rant isn’t particularly relevant to the specific article under discussion.

        My response gets your panties in a wad? Sorry, not sorry.

      • Why? If your description had an ounce of truth to it, then certainly we should be seeing more pro-gun articles posted in lefty media?

        • He’s right, it is, for all practical purposes, ‘chum’.

          The purpose is to generate clicks, and it worked, on you, and me. We clicked and commented. That generates cash that TTAG uses to keep the lights on, like paying Dan Z.

          There was absolutely nothing new in the article, except it serves the purpose of telling a lie often enough that it becomes the truth, an old Communist tactic.

          It reminds us that they will “Never give up, never surrender!”

        • Geoff,

          I can’t read the minds of the TTAG editors/contributors (I can speculate, but that’s not my job). Whatever their motivation (I don’t frankly, care), I like to know “what the other side is thinking”, so I read these articles for that reason (and because MajorLiar and dacian the demented are bound to come along and bray like the jackasses they are, in support – and I get to mock them).. I don’t much care if TTAG “gets the clicks”, or not.

    • No, it’s turned into a GoFundMe legal defense fund for Wayne and his cronies misuse of members’ money..

    • Get with the TTAG narrative, MAGA1. We’ve always been at war with Eastasia — err, the NRA.

      • no name,

        Just to be clear, I am not at war with the NRA, and never have been. I am at war with Wayne LaPierre, his thievery, and using my money to pay for his suits and his side piece. They get rid of that goniff, and the sycophants on the board who support him, I’ll be a dues-paying member the next day. I don’t think they are particularly good at lobbying, or as strongly supportive of the 2A as they should be, but I can live with that. His obscene grift with my money? That I will not live with.

        Someone else can pay for his bespoke suits and condo for his hoochie momma.

    • It always was… since its first created in the late 1880’s it was an organization that has pushed gun control… it basically wrote and undermined every single unconstitutional gun act in the US since 1911 starting with the NY Sullivan’s Act which has only recently seen via Bruen vs NYSRPA 2nd Amendment restoration from SCOTUS and all the unconstitutional Federal Acts (National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), Federal Firearms Act of 1938 (FFA), Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), Hughes Amendment of 1986, the Trump Bump-stock ban, etc…)

  2. Just keep repeating the Big Lie, it worked for Joseph Goebbels…until it didn’t…I wouldn’t shed a tear if history repeats itself (or at least rhymes a bit) for the majority of these 2nd Amendment deniers.

  3. This same old tired and deeply flawed perspective was corrected, quite handily, in Heller. Scalia gave us a history lesson, for anyone willing to read it.

    It’s no surprise that the gun-haters who keep using this long-discredited argument have no interest in learning the factual history here, it eradicates their only hope.

    Truth destroys lies, like sunlight destroys shadows.

  4. I had a “discussion” on the 2A with a Fascistbook acquaintance. When we got to the part about the definition of an “assault rifle,” he accused me of a straw man argument. He couldn’t define it, even when I pressed him on “how is an AR-15-platform rifle different from any other semi-automatic rifle?” There was no way to get him past his talking point of “the AR-15 is a weapon of war only good for killing as many people in a short period of time.”

    I did get him to admit that he considered “confiscation” to be the best solution but he “did not favor that.” He couldn’t explain why.

    I really thought that I was making headway when I explained that an AR-15 platform can be built for larger calibers and passed along a link about popular AR-15 hunting rifles. He still insists that they be banned “to protect the children.” I didn’t even get to the part of the argument about handguns being used to kill more people than rifles.

    • I have responded to the “…children…” statement with “We are all someone’s child…I plan on protecting myself and my children with the best tools available.” Usually they splutter and accuse me of radicalism…wherein I remind them of Alinsky and his Rules for Radicals…and that the Rules work both ways. About this time they point a finger at me and start yelling all the ‘ist words in their lexicon as they walk away.

      “None so deaf as those that will not hear. None so blind as those that will not see.”
      – Matthew Henry

      “You can’t fix stupid”
      – Ron White

    • I think the argument about handguns being used ( mis-used ) to commit crimes at a higher rate than long guns, may come back to haunt us in the future.

      • Check the history of the anti-gun movement in the US. I believe you’ll see that it started as “handgun control” and has since shifted to “AR-15 control.”

        The Brady Campaign began as “Handgun Control, Inc.” If they should be able to pass bans on rifles, they will quickly turn to ban handguns.

        • They tried to get it lumped in with short barreled rifles/shotguns but couldn’t get enough votes at the time so they went for less popular items at the time. Ultimately need to go after as much of the NFA as we can get rid of but those and suppressors would be great places to start.

        • “Ultimately need to go after as much of the NFA as we can get rid of but those and suppressors would be great places to start.”

          It’s happening right *now*. People are talking, strategies are being developed, lawsuits are being filed.

          Consider personally funding your local gun rights orgs, that work isn’t cheap…

        • Way ahead of you Geoff we just don’t have a specific silencer challenge yet so more funding the CCIA and SAFE act related challenges so far. Also keeping an eye on the red flag law cases but for some reason the state never wants to appeal it past the county level……………

        • Because “assault weapons” are the low hanging fruit. Once they’ve cleared that hurdle they will try to ban other more popular guns. The next item will be “sniper rifles”, then “assault lever actions”, shotguns, and handguns.

    • What I want to know is if this is true:

      “the AR-15 is a weapon of war only good for killing as many people in a short period of time”

      why does every assault weapons ban include a carve out for police? Is this a “just in case” provision? Or do they already have lists?

      • True. After failing to gather any support for banning handguns, they turned to the “evil black rifle” as a spewer of death and destruction, an easy target given its large capacity and distinctively military styling, so unlike the hunting rifles of our forebears. Just look at all of the “features” based bans–the bans are based on the features that make the rifle “look like” a purely military weapon, and because of those features, the average gunless voter feared them.

        • Some outfit make and sell a
          replacement stock” thatfits the Ruger 10/.22 standard rifle firong the feeble but fun .22 WRF (long rifle) round.
          Take your pretty wood stocked 10/.22, remove one slotted screw, lift off the pretty wood, put the barrelled action down into the “black and ugly” new stock that stronly resembles an AR 15, replace the one screw you removed before, and now you have a scary looking “black and ugly” rifle that does exactly what your wood-stocked 10/.22 rifle did. Just for fun, get a second 10/.22, replace the pretty wood stock on one of them with the “black and ugly” one, then take them both out for a stroll and see which one lights up the 911 call centre near you. You KNOW which one that will be.

      • It would appear that the police want to have the ability to kill lots of people, quickly. *Why* is another question.

      • “why does every assault weapons ban include a carve out for police?”

        Kind of strange, isn’t it Carlos, when they have been telling us cops are murderous thugs that need to be de-funded, that they are so adamant that only they (and the US military) can be trusted with possessing them?

        It makes no sense…

        • The paradox of doublethink.

          Don’t try to analyze it. The logical contradictions are enough to make you go crazy. For Pr0gressives, constant exposure already has.

        • Southern,

          Like Lewis Carroll’s “Red Queen”, they can believe seven impossible things before breakfast. If they couldn’t believe mutually contradictory things, their entire platform would disintegrate.

    • This same person who wants to confiscate weapons in the name of “protecting the children” are the same ones who have no problems with killing them in the womb before they are born, and mutilating them if they manage to crawl out of said womb.

      • “…and mutilating them if they manage to crawl out of said womb.”

        Joe, the current ‘abortion’ tactic is to ram a sharpened hollow tube into the skull and vacuum out the contents while the fetus is still inside the mother.

        Yes, it’s that repulsive… 🙁

  5. “… the Constitution seems to give Congress the authority to restrict the sale and possession of those military arms.”

    It’s just so tiresome. They never weary of propping up these ludicrous, facially dishonest interpretations of the second amendment. Decade after decade they say the same dumb stuff and decade after decade we have to fight it.

    • Which I’m pretty sure is why they ended the amendment with the words, “…the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

      So if the preamble gives Congress the authority to regulate the militia (which it does not) why in the hell would they then say the right shall not be infringed?


    • Didn’t US vs Miller end up protecting the ownership of militarily useful arms as a result of short barreled shotguns not being a military arm at the time?

      • Close enough. They didn’t actually decide that a short-barreled shotgun wasn’t a suitable militia arm, just refused to recognize that it was absent evidence (since Miller did gun owners a disservice and had gotten himself killed by the time SCOTUS took up the case, so wasn’t able to argue for SBSs). The case certainly did not discuss whether or not Miller was a member of the National Guard, as some gun-haters try to interpret “militia”.

        • I really do need to review that one as it seems a treasure trove of oddball decisions that do not get advertised. I seem to remember the defense largely phoned it in back then on account of Miller being dead.

        • Those were never an issue at trial, and to make matters worse, not only was the defendant dead (which should have lead to a dismissal because you cannot convict a dead man) but the District Court judge refused to allow any funds for )appointed) defense counsel to brief the issue much less travel to D.C. for argument. In fact, the trial judge ruled that the NFA was unconstitutional not because he believed that to be true, but because he was a very strong supporter of the new law and was part of a conspiracy with the prosecutor to get the issue before the Supreme Court as quickly as possible. Miller was railroaded.

    • “Seems to” is the tell that they know they’ve got it wrong.

      Militia members reporting for duty are expected to bring their own equipment, including weapons. Arguing that Congress has the power to ban private possession of rifles based on the design the military issues to infantry is self-contradictory.

    • they make that assumption…”the constitution seems to give congress that authority”…largely because previous laws and restrictions were largely unchallenged…the supremes often just avoiding the issue…not so now

  6. Well…
    This is the USA, not China. To suggest that China and the US operate by the exact same laws is ridiculous as these are independent sovereign nations.

    Then there is the AR15. These are NOT military arms. They are civilian weapons. AR15 style rifles are intended for non-military use which include battle, hunting, and personal defense.

    This should not be so hard to understand. But it is difficult for many to accept.

  7. ” … when the Constitution seems to give Congress the authority to restrict the sale and possession of those military arms.”


  8. When they start spouting stupidity about firearms, I just accuse them of “Hate Speech”. They usually just shut up. Works very good.

  9. For the record, and apparently some people did not get the memo, the Second Amendment was specifically INTENDED to be the “Third Rail of American politics.”

  10. “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.” – George Mason
    “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword because the whole body of the people are armed…” – Noah Webster
    “Here every private person is authorized to arm himself…” – John Adams

    I don’t need to join the National Guard to have guns.

    • Or own field artillery or privateering warships if we are going by text and tradition. I could see some need of regulations for safe storage of munitions at that level but that is more about respecting your neighbors property rights in case of catastrophic reactions.

      • Owning a warship – as long as none of the tech onboard is outside both legal restrictions and treaty limitations – is okey-dokey but using it to fight pirates would need Congress to draft a letter of marque and reprisal for the owner to become a privateer. Funny how when Ron Paul made the suggestion we start using letters of marque to fight terrorism he was called some rather rude names by the American Left but when the idea was floated to let Creepy Uncle Joe use letters of marque whup the Ruskies in Ukrainistan it came from some of those same derisive folks…

        Frankly I’d be good with letters of marque being brought up to date and used – at least then our Congresscritters could be held accountable when one of these nation building fiascos go pear shaped rather than dodging their duties.

    • the National Guard is just an extension of the federal army…my uncle joined-up, and found himself in the Battle of the Bulge!

  11. “Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.” (Reagan)

    Eventually, that problem will have to be addressed. Which is where the 2A comes into play.

  12. The title should have been, “The Second Amendment According to Gun Control’s clark young.”

    Sneaky clark young is another azzhat trying to convince people the Second Amendment does not say what it clearly says. He’s asking all nasty nice neighborly now but if you refuse to go along eventually Big Brother Gun Control will repeat its History of Rot and turn into Big Brother Gun Control nazi and roundup Gun owning resistors like cattle.

    Sneaky clark young is selling his wares to Gun Control history illiterates and as long as his audience remains Gun Control History Illiterate they will fall for it.

    • How do you propose to “edumacate” the Illiterates? We can talk all we want about the History of “Gun Control and rot and racism and not-see-ism,” but They. Won’t. Listen.

    • Don’t play into this ruse. Every category of gun has been issued by a military at some point. Most categories of guns available today are used today by some military force around the world. The only ones I haven’t been able to find at least one example are single shot rifles, pump-action rifles, and lever action rifles.

      Everything else, I’ve found at one example of a modern military unit issuing a model. Revolvers, semi-automatic pistols, pump action shotguns, semi-automatic shotguns, bolt action rifles, semi-automatic rifles, all issued by military units.

      So don’t be suckered into the “weapons of war” rhetoric. All guns are useful in war. That’s why the Second Amendment was written, to make sure the citizenry had access to such arms, and therefore could resist the threat of a tyrannical government.

        • Man with no name,

          I exclude them only because I can’t find them issued by a military unit in the present day. Every category of gun has, at some point, been military issue, no exceptions. The point is, in the current day, almost every category of gun still is.

      • Check C&rsenal on YouTube. Desperate countries such as France and Russia would buy whatever was available. A civilian gun behind the lines made another martial firearm available for the front.

        Britain provided more Lee-Enfields to the Army by issuing Arisaka rifles to the Royal Navy. Russia bought so many Arisaka rifles the caliber was a secondary standard.

      • seem to recall some country…[perhaps Turkey?]…buying up some lever guns for their armed forces……

      • Carlos, HORSE PUCKY! Tell me when a derringer was issued by the military and of what country? Tell me what country EVER issued an AR-15 (civilianized version) to its military?

        • Walter: “or functional equivalents”

          At this point, I’m not sure if you’re actually missing the point this hard or if you’re trolling.

          The M17 and M18 are literally the Sig P320. The M1014 is the Benelli M4. The M24 and M40 are the Remington 700. The AR-15 and the SR-25 were invented by the same guy, have 60% parts commonality, and have pretty much the same manual of arms. If we’re going to accept the “weapons of war” narrative, what do we say when the anti-gun side comes for them? The kinds of technicalities like “the AR-15 has never been issued!” or “you can’t buy a Russian issued Dragunov!” do us no good. They miss the point, which is the Second Amendment is all about making sure the citizenry has weapons of war, so they are equipped to resist both foreign and domestic threats.

          Please tell me you can see it now. Even before the Second Amendment was ratified, the Constitution was written with the idea that private citizens would own fully armed warships. The fact we would own standard small arms would be a given.

        • Carlos T, Yeah, and? Those for your edification (although I am not sure it will sink in), the pistols you cite are by the military of every nation on earth to be DEFENSIVE weapons? You see the rifle is the primary offensive weapon.
          The Remington 700 is a CIVILIAN rifle that the military adopted. Not the other way around. (You see, Remington is right in my neighborhood in Ilion, NY where the 700 is made.)
          So what if Stoner invested the AR-15 (actually he invented the AR-10 of which the AR-15 is a further development). It is STILL a civilian rifle. So what is the SR25 and the AR-15 have parts that are interchangeable! Clearly you do not know what a “manual of arms” is. You see a manual of arm is a marching “dance” is you will with movements of both the rifle and the solder marching.
          Now if you are talking about the manual for the maintenance of the firearm, we do not call that a “manual of arms”. Clearly you were never in the military.
          It is hardly a “technicality” that the AR-15 has never been nor would it ever be issued by a military of any country. It is what is called a FACT. The fact that you can’t buy a Dragunov is also a FACT and yet you still persist claiming what? Again, like many you have no clue what you are talking about.
          I don’t know where you got the idea that the Constitution was written with the idea that people could own a warshipt. That has to be one you picked out of thin air.
          Please do yourself a favor and quit while you still have your head.

        • Walter: In regards to the warships, I got that from the Constitution. Specially Article I, Section VIII, regarding the powers of Congress, Paragraph 11:

          “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”

          What are Letters of Marque and Reprisal? They empower a private citizen to take ships on the high seas and turn them in for bounties. It’s called “privateering”. It’s only possible if private citizens have their own warships, armed with cannons and fighting men, capable of capturing ships.

          There’s a provision specifically for privateering in the Constitution through Letters of Marque and Reprisal, therefore the Founders wrote the Constitution with idea that private citizens would own warships.

          Moving on, I’ll accept the correction on “manual of arms” since it’s not a big deal. The point is an SR-25 and an AR-15 run almost identically and the fact that the AR-15 has never been issued won’t save us. The fact is, semi-automatic rifles are in military service, and that’s all they’ll need to make them all “weapons of war”. The fact that the SR-25 is pretty damn similar to the AR-15 is an added bonus for them.

          As for the Dragunov, here’s a Romanian version on GunBroker: https://www.gunbroker.com/item/986971504

          Will any gun banner care that it’s not a Russian rifle? No. No, they will not. They’re going to see “weapon of war”, and push to ban it.

          That’s going to apply to everything. Why would they care about the defensive/offensive distinction? Why would they care about whether it was created first for civilian use, then adopted?

          Most importantly, the Second Amendment doesn’t care; we shouldn’t either.

        • CarlosT, ROFLMAOBT! Letters of Marque? OK, for your edification, the ships (usually very small sloops) were what privateers used at that era. it seems that none of these “warships” as you seem to call them could have taken on a Frigate or a Ship of the Line.
          Please. I am rolling here on the floor laughing my posterior off. As to the SR-25 and the AR15, almost doesn’t count except in horseshoes and hand grenades. The SR is a 7.62mm while the AR is 5.56mm. Both are semiauto. The SR is used by the military in some countries as a rifle for a “designated marksman”. In other words, for a soldier who substitutes for a sniper. It is still a semiauto. And our Leftist brethren when they refer to “weapons of war” are referring to M-16’s and M-4s. Seems you like to play right into their hands.
          That Romanian Dragunov according to the ATF is a banned rifle. Sorry.

        • “And our Leftist brethren when they refer to “weapons of war” are referring to M-16’s and M-4s. Seems you like to play right into their hands.”

          No, they don’t care that M16s and M4s are the true “weapons of war”. This is why making the distinction is stupid and playing into the narrative is stupid.

          “The SR is a 7.62mm while the AR is 5.56mm. Both are semiauto. The SR is used by the military in some countries as a rifle for a “designated marksman”. In other words, for a soldier who substitutes for a sniper. It is still a semiauto.”

          This is exactly the point. The leftists are going to point to the AR-15 and the SR-25 and say what’s the difference? And besides caliber, not that much. And if the SR-25 is designed and issued for a battlefield role, then what makes the AR-15 so “civilian”? Caliber? The same caliber used by the M16 and M4? You see how this is a losing game?

          Don’t play.

          When push comes to shove, any gun is a “weapon of war”. If we’re in Red Dawn, that Browning Buckmark is a “weapon of war”. But in terms of gun control, that term means “whatever we think we can get banned next.” Right now, it semi-automatic rifles. After that, it may be lever actions, or pump action shotguns, or handguns. But in every case, they be able to point to “weapons of war” as an excuse.

          For example, did you know that in Brazil, civilians aren’t allowed to own 9mm and many calibers we take for granted here? Why? Because they’re “military calibers” not suited for civilian use. Another form of the “weapons of war” narrative.

          So, do we want to continue to argue “what military has ever issued an AR-15?” What happens if one does? Do we shrug and say, okay, ban it? What about the guns that have been issued? Do we say the Benelli M4 is fair game? The Remington 700? The Remington 870? They can have the 1911, the Baretta 92FS, and the Sig P320 as well?

        • Carlos T, Sorry Ole Boy, but you are playing right into their hands. You are along with them, claiming that the weapons you cite are “weapons of war.” They are NOT. Any gun can be a “weapon of war”. If you review the weapons used by the Afghan Taliban you will find an assortment that were never intended for war. Unfortunately, it is you who is playing right into their hand. So what if the SR is a semi-auto. So is the AR-10 which is the basis of the SR-25. Put a scope on it and it’s the same as a SR.
          If you and the Lefties can’t see the difference between an AR and an SR, you have the same problem they have. Tunnel vision.
          The fact is that no military has ever issued an AR -15 to it’s armed forces. Now you are worried that some nation might? Not to worry, with all the M-16’s and M-4’s as well as AK-47’s and 74’s with automatic and three shot burst selectors there is little to worry about.
          The Remington 700 is a HUNTING (do you know what that means)? For your edification the M-24 Sniper Rifle system is based on the Remington 700. Now you are going to equate them?
          The Remington 870 is a SHOT GUN. (sigh)

      • Carlos,

        “. . . single shot rifles, pump-action rifles, and lever action rifles.”

        Nope. Every damn one of those has been issued to military. Ever heard of a “Brown Bess” musket or a Kentucky long rifle? What were those, if not a single-shot rifle? Custer’s 6th cavalry carried lever action rifles (well, arguably carbines, but still). Our CURRENT military uses the military version of both the Benelli M4 and the Mossberg 590.

        A firearm – ANY firearm – is, by definition, a potential “weapon of war” (and has probably been used in some war, somewhere). They are trying to fight the battle (like lying s***libs always do) one bite at a time, just like eating an elephant. What they are really doing is trying to take away THE MOST EFFECTIVE weapons available to us. If they got rid of every AR-15 and AK47, do you think they’d be satisfied??? Not a chance. IF they are successful at getting an “Assault Weapons Ban” passed (and I pray they are not), how long do you think it will take them to start on semi-auto pistols?

        The “category” of arms is just a smoke screen for taking another bite of that elephant.

        • Walter and LampOfDiogenes:

          What I wrote was:

          “Most categories of guns available today are used today by some military force around the world. The only ones I haven’t been able to find at least one example are single shot rifles, pump-action rifles, and lever action rifles.”

          Walter, good point about derringers, I’ll have to add those to my list. Semi-automatic rifles, which civilians could purchase off the shelf in any non-assault weapons ban state, are currently issued in military units. Some examples are the M110, its predecessor the SR-25, and their Soviet/Russian counterpart, the Dragunov. All, or functional equivalents, available to civilians except in assault weapons ban states.

          LampOfDiogenes, we don’t disagree. I say:

          “Every category of gun has been issued by a military at some point.”

          My main point is the types of guns I identified were the only I haven’t been able to find in current use today, right now, by modern military forces. In other words, the only conceivable non-” weapons of war” would be that small list, and Walter’s addition of derringers. Maybe, if we’re going with the definition of “not currently military issue”. If it’s “never been military issue”, then it’s maybe just derringers.

          Like I said, and you are on the same wavelength, “weapon of war” is a rhetorical trap. All guns are, have been, or can be, “weapons of war”. Don’t accept the rationale that it’s okay to ban some guns on that basis, because it blows everything wide open.

        • Gatling gun in current use?

          Oh, yeah — several combat aircraft, including the
          A-10 ThunderbRRRRRRTTT!!

        • Carlos T, Excuse me? Where can you buy a military issued Dragunov? So what if it is a semiautomatic SNIPER’s rifle of the old Soviet Union. It seems that the Dragunov has been banned from import since 1989. Seems you have a problem here. You have either lied intentionally or are just ignorant of what the facts are.

        • CarlosT I guess you missed my response? You might want to try again. (shaking my head)

  13. Dumbass forgot that the 2A is the last line of defense for the US Constitution and its citizens from a tyrannical government. The people have the right to control the government thru peaceful or by force(I hope this never happens in this country) actions. Please move to another country that restricts your rights and life on a daily basis.

  14. In reality the criminals who founded the U.S. deliberately wrote 2A in the vaguest of terms so that they (the corrupt courts) could regulate and ban firearms at will and that is just what they have been doing since 2A was signed.

    Its interesting to note that major U.S. cities in “pre-revolutionary” times had some very strict gun laws that sometimes banned concealed carry or open carry and banned keeping loaded firearms inside ones house because so many children were being accidentally killed with them. Does this sound familiar??????? None of these laws were rescinded after 2A was signed and they actually began to increase up to this very day,

    So much for the myth that 2A gives you any gun rights because its up to the whims of the courts and if the court is conservative or liberal. They give you what little rights you have, not some disingenuous vaguely written 2A document.

    • “Criminals who founded the U.S.”? That’s a new one. Where is that from, the CCP guide book to overthrowing the U.S.?

      • One dumbfucs criminal is another man’s Founding Father. dacian is pissed the red coats got run outta town so to speak.

      • lil’d and miner are planning the great purge where they hope to exceed their inspiration the Khmer Rouge in percentage and Stalin and Mao in raw numbers.

      • no name,

        Correction, sir – when the commenter is dacian (or MajorLiar), everything that follows is a lie. One lies blatantly, the other lies sometimes blatantly, but usually lies by omission. Anything that either of them post is, almost be definition, a lie.

    • dacian, the DUNDERHEAD, In reality you are a blithering idiot. The 2nd A is very specific. Even a third grader could spell it out for you. There is NOTHING ‘vague’ about it. It very specifically states that the right to “bear arms” is inviolate. “What do you think “shall not be infringed” means?
      Can you tell us what cities banned guns as a “result” of children being killed? Take you time. I know that you have a lot on your plate, but how about getting back to us in an hour?

      • I wonder if dacian the dunderhead, minor liar and our resident limey prick find it hard to breathe with their heads that far up their respective asses.

    • dacian, the DUNDERHEAD, Pray tell, just who were the criminals that founded this country? The only criminal I know of was Benedict Arnold.

  15. The Second Amendment is not about hunting fox.
    Militia. A group.
    Group. 3 or more people.
    Me, my old lady, and my son are pretty well regulated.

  16. POTG should be versed in all 27 words of 2A.

    POTG should also be versed in Article 1, Section 8, which includes:

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    As well as 10 USC Section 246:
    (a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b)The classes of the militia are—
    (1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    When you combine these, it is clear that the first part of 2A is prefatory, and if 2A were only applied to militia (and not an individual right), then Congress would have to provide the arms and training to every civilian. And those arms would be, by necessity, military arms. I seriously doubt the anti-gunners want to go there….

  17. They’re playing word games with the prefatory clause again?

    “A well-educated electorate being necessary for the self-government of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear books shall not be infringed.”

    So which part of that restricts the possession of books only to registered voters (the electorate) and not to every citizen (the people)?
    Which part of that authorizes any government with any power to restrict the possession of printed media of over seven pages in length (heretofore known as “high-capacity magazines”)?

    • They cant make up new text and tradition so they have to redefine the relevant bits as best they can. I expect to see a lot more of this pushed in the next few months big lie style.

  18. This is a letter to the editor written by an idiot.

    If you want to post about a columnist or a news story, fine, as long as there is something interesting or newsworthy about their stupidity. But a run of the mill letter to the editor? You can find morons like this every single day somewhere.

    I would suggest being more judicious, but that’s just me.

  19. I am not the least bit afraid when I am armed. The Feds (and all the other government crooks) are afraid when I am armed, by the words of Young’s post. That pesky Second Amendment has always been a massive stumbling block (boulder, more rather) for would-be-Stalinists and Maoists here in the States, and has been for some time. The Founding Fathers knew exactly what they were doing when they put that Amendment in there. Just as our government knows good-and-well what they are doing when they try to disarm us now so many years later.

    • Shadow,

      “I am not the least bit afraid when I am armed.”

      I assume you know the old joke about the little old lady being pulled over by a cop, while carrying? Yeah, most POTG know that one.

      When I’m carrying, what am I afraid of? Not a f***ing thing.

      • Aaah yes, I remember that one. I also remember this other comment from another site which was good: “The last time I was stopped by the Gestapo, several years ago, he asked me if I had any weapons in the vehicle. I told him ‘Sure, I’ve got a tire tool and a jack, a hammer in the toolbox, and enough gas in the tank to blow up the Sheriff’s office.’ A moment of silence ensued. Warning given, no ticket, and on my merry way”.

        • I LOVE that story!!! Wish I could have been there to see it, and wish I’d thought of it!

  20. “…but seem unable to choke down the first 13. ”

    another idiot that can’t understand the concept.

    we don’t have problems with the first 13 and in fact embrace thst first 13. The left has problems with the rest after the 13, and want it to mean only the first 13 when its clear that those after the first 13 matter too and is an individual right not contingent upon the first 13.

  21. How to say you failed 3rd Grade English an vocabulary tests….

    The first portion about the “militia” is a prefatory clause and cites exactly one reason, NOT the ONLY reason for the 2nd Amendment, it is not the operative clause the actual clearly defined purpose of the 2nd Amendment “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” .

    The prefatory clause portion also contains the word phrase (depending on the original source) “well-regulated” or “well regulated” and the definition hasn’t changed since the original writing back in the 1790’s; to be properly functioning and ready to use. Its secondary and more recent (1930’s) definitions common usage has only recently been used to mean to be controlled by unelected, unaccountable government bureaucrats

  22. Willful ignorance is willful.

    The Truth is out there, but why bothering understanding the basic grammar and meaning of the 2a? Fish them and feed them fulk. Thirsty tree is thirsty.

  23. it stands in direct opposition to the implementation of the new world order promoted by the globalists….and as such, expect it to be under unceasing attack…..

  24. ” The Second Amendment is the very deadly third rail of politics.”

    They’re the ones who want to keep touching this third rail…


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here