Obama Still Thinks the Second Amendment Is About Hunting

Addressing the National Urban League Convention in New Orleans yesterday, President Obama once again displayed his fundamental misunderstanding of the Second Amendment:

I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. And we recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation—that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage. 

That is similar to what Obama said as a presidential candidate in 2008, when he promised to "protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting." But as Ice-T could have told him, the main purpose of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms is not to facilitate hunting and target shooting; it is to facilitate self-defense, against both official oppression and private aggression. The rapper turned actor put it this way in a BBC interview noted yesterday by Damon Root:

The right to bear arms is because that's the last form of defense against tyranny. Not to hunt. It's to protect yourself from the police.

When a politician suggests the Second Amendment is all about hunting, he trivializes it, just as he would be trivializing the First Amendment by saying it's all about pornography. Here is another clue that voters should not put much faith in Obama's commitment to gun rights:

A lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals—that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities. 

An AK-47 is a selective-fire assault rifle, illegal for civilians. Presumably Obama is referring to semiautomatic rifles that resemble the AK-47, many of which were banned under federal law until 2004. Hence he is blurring the distinction between machine guns and semiautomatic "assault weapons" while perpetuating the false idea that such guns are uniquely suited for crime and have no legitimate uses. As Steve Chapman notes in his column today, with reference to the Smith & Wesson M&P15 rifle used in last week's Aurora theater shootings, that is plainly not the case, given the size of the market for these guns and the tiny percentage of owners who commit crimes with them. This demonization of military-style rifles, which deliberately plays on "the weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons" (as Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center admitted back in 1988),  is an old trick of the anti-gun movement that the public may finally be seeing through. New York Times columnist Charles Blow notes (with dismay, of course) that a "2011 Gallup poll, in a reversal from previous polls, found that most people are now against an assault weapons ban." The fact that Obama is nevertheless sticking with this tactic, despite the long odds against reinstating the ban, is a gratuituous insult to people who care about gun rights.

So is Obama "the most anti-gun president in history," as the NRA warned he would be four years ago? Objectively, no. Political reality has deterred him from doing much of anything in this area, to the consternation of gun control activists. As Obama's lip service to gun rights and the tepidness of his policy proposals in the wake of the Aurora massacre show, he is keen to avoid anything that might alienate voters by seeming to confirm the NRA's portrayal. Given congressional resistance and the prospect of judicial review now that the Supreme Court has said the Second Amendment imposes limits on legislation, even a safely re-elected Obama is unlikely to take up the cause of gun control. But his current rhetoric and his past support for highly restrictive laws, including the D.C. and Chicago gun bans that were overturned by the Supreme Court, suggest the NRA has a pretty good handle on what Obama would do if Americans were not so adamant about clinging to their guns.  

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    I wish he'd shut the fuck up about guns already so I could buy a fucking case or two of bulk .223. The shit sells out the minute anybody gets it in stock.

  • Velcro Bootstraps||

    As soon as I saw the article I went and drooled over the PSA lower I want... I just can't justify the money yet, I mean, I don't need an AR-15, I do need to pay rent....
    If I thought there was any weight to all the NRA's bitching, I'd buy it now. Although, if Obama wins reelection, I'll probably buy it right then. Call me paranoid...

  • o3||

    nah, I'll call you a [USEFUL IDIOT] instead.

  • wareagle||

    coming from one who knows what it's like.

  • Brutus||

    Orrin's useful?

  • ||

    Does the formation of coherent thoughts cause you unfathomable agony?

  • Loki||

    It would if he ever had a coherent thought.

  • Bobarian||

    We can make that assumption, but evidence points to the fact that we'll never be able to test the hypothesis.

  • Velcro Bootstraps||

    You know, I'm glad people like you and Tony are around, really. Life is no fun when everyone agrees.

  • Rick O'Shay||

    Dude if you want it, get it now. You can still get it after the election, but probably going to be $500+ higher.

  • Sudden||

  • wingnutx||

    AIM Surplus just sent me a case of m193 for $320/1000.

  • sarcasmic||

    "the weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons"

    Guns are scary, and scary looking guns are really scary!

  • CJR||

    "Guns are scary cool, and scary looking guns are really scary really cool!"

    FTFY.

  • Matrix||

    it is about hunting... hunting tyrants.

  • BarryD||

    Or at the least, making them consider the costs of going over the line. We probably can't beat the US Army, if it comes to a Federal war on the American people. But we can surely make it more interesting for them.

  • WTF||

    I wonder how many soldiers, airmen and Marines would actually go to war against the American people. They're not really the same as cops, after all.

  • BarryD||

    Many of them would go to war against the American people.

    Many of them wouldn't.

    Between April 12, 1861, and January 1, 1863, uniformed Americans lined up and killed Americans, with no justification other than that they supported the Federal Government. From 1863 on, fighting in the Civil War could be justified as fighting on the side that freed slaves. Until then, it was simply to "preserve the Union."

    Some did resist. But many did not.

    Are we different? Maybe.

    WRT the cops, I think it depends on the local culture. In some places (like where I live) I think the cops would probably take the side of the people. In other places, I am certain they would take up arms against the people, without a second thought.

  • sarcasmic||

    without a second thought

    Oh there's be a second thought.

    "I've been waiting for this all my life!"

  • Anonymous Coward||

    And others lined up in the name of defending their liberty. Therty to deny other men their liberty based solely on the color of their skin.

  • DaveSs||

    "with no justification other than that they supported the Federal Government."

    I don't think I would agree with that.

    After the secession, the Confederates did take up Arms against Federal Troops at Fort Sumter.

  • robc||

    After the secession, the Confederates did take up Arms against Federal Troops at Fort Sumter.

    A confederate fort that they refused to abandon.

    [I know, I know, we have had this argument before...when South Carolina seceeded, all federal land in the state of South Carolina remained federal land, just the pointer moved to a new Fed]

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Robc, yes we have had this argument, at tedious length, that Fort Sumter was ceded, by state law, to the federal government, in perpetuity, in 1836. Of course, the great defenders of property rights (in human flesh) display their commitment to the cause by forcibly seizing someone's property.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Robc, yes we have had this argument, at tedious length, that Fort Sumter was ceded, by state law, to the federal government, in perpetuity, in 1836. Of course, the great defenders of property rights (in human flesh) display their commitment to the cause by forcibly seizing someone's property.

  • DJK||

    I don't know that this is a fair characterization of the conflict. While Lincoln may have been claiming it was all about saving the Republic, that doesn't mean that's what soldiers were thinking about? Don't forget that the slavery issue had been a major political issue in American culture for at least a decade.

  • RyanXXX||

    It would be a toss-up. It would likely be like the situation in Syria, where the Armed Forces remain nominally loyal but are plagued by desertions and defections, with entire squadrons/regiments going over to the enemy.

    The people who would stay loyal are the pervert/God complex freaks in the national security apparatus. Drone flyers, NSA eavesdroppers, SWAT teams, etc.

  • Drake||

    Nope - Combat units contain the most conservative / Constitutional types. The Army and Marines Corps would be useless against the American people.

    That's why military weapons are being poured into police agencies.

  • BarryD||

    Right.

    The problem is, infantry units aren't the ones who control the heavy bombers, drones, and other instruments of long-distance large-scale killing.

  • Drake||

    I certainly have my doubts about the Air Force.

  • Restoras||

    Well, if you are right hopefully our friends in the Army and Marines can secure some portable SA missiles.

    I wonder where LTCJohn has been

  • Drake||

    Or just show up at the Air Force base and convince them that posse comitatus means "no".

  • ||

    Combat units also contain people who are trained to follow orders without hesitation or questioning.

    So, it could be dicey, depending on how many commanding officers chose to disobey an unlawful order from the President.

  • Bobarian||

    'Combat units also contain people who are trained to follow orders without hesitation or questioning.'

    Uhh, not so much. There is a lot of boring training given every year to all soldiers on what constitutes lawful orders and the laws of land warfare.

  • Drake||

    This isn't 1917.

    Combat troops are trained to be constantly thinking and to have situational awareness. Flexibility and innovation are expected.

    Only bureaucratic REMFs play the obey orders / rules bullshit.

  • Loki||

    I think at least 2/3 of soldiers and LEOs would "just follow orders", while maybe 1/3 would actively join the resistance. Of the first 2/3, I suspect I suspect half, or 1/3, would be really gung-ho about it while the other half would be just "going along" out of sheer moral cowardice.

    I base that off of nothing in particular, just sort of a gut feeling.

  • Drake||

    Based off 6 years in the Marines, most in the Infantry, and 4 years in an Army National Guard Armored unit, I would guess the other way around. Maybe 1/3 would obey orders to attack American civilians / seize guns / that kind of stuff.

    The people most likely to object would be the NCO's along with some officers. They are the backbone of combat units and would be followed by a lot of troops.

  • Drake||

    Here is a story about a Utah National Guard Unit that refused to seize guns in Louisiana.

    http://www.infowars.com/oath-k.....g-katrina/

  • R C Dean||

    I wonder how many soldiers, airmen and Marines would actually go to war against the American people.

    I pray we never find out, but if the uprising is to throw off a tyrannical regime, I'm somewhat optimistic that there would be defections, at least.

  • sarcasmic||

    Navy and Air Force would probably follow orders, Marines would defect, and the Army would be split.
    Most law enforcement would defend their authority.

  • Invisible Finger||

    I'd guess a mercenary force will fight on whichever side pays. Kinda like pro and college athletes.

  • Drake||

    Or any alphabet agency.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    That would depend on how many of them believe huge numbers of Americans are infected with a zombie germ or something.

  • RyanXXX||

    You have to bait them though. I usually set up a raw milk or unlicensed lemonade stand. That'll attract the petty tyrants. If I'm hunting big game, though, I have to set up a whole grow op

  • R C Dean||

    Its funny that these statists, even when they pucker up and pretend to support the 2A because they have to, cannot bring themselves to explicitly acknowledge the fundamental human right to self-defense.

    And if I hear one more half-wit yammering on about "AK-47s" when they are obviously talking about civilian clones, I may put a bullet from my M-1A (not, please note, an M-14) through the fucking screen.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    They can't acknowledge the right to self-defense, because to do so would strike at the heart of their worldview. To acknowledge a right to self-defense implicitly acknowledges the fact of self-ownership.

    They cannot abide that. The central tenet of their worldview is that we are all the property of the Great Collective, and as such have no individual rights. Human beings are just fungible resources of the State.

  • T o n y||

    Nobody denies the right to self-defense.

  • WTF||

    You and your fellow leftist sacks of shit deny the right to effective self defense every fucking day. Now go fuck yourself, you authority-worshipping, government-bunghole-licking, sack of dried out fuckstain.

  • sarcasmic||

    To Tony's ilk "self defense" means calling the cops.

    It is better to die with a phone in your hand than to life with a gun in your hand.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Gun control:
    The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her
    pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

  • sarcasmic||

    It is better to be carried by six than to be judged by twelve.

  • T o n y||

    You people's exaggerated hysteria is as strong an argument for gun control as I can think of.

  • BarryD||

    Wanting to be left alone is a strong argument for gun control?

    Just what an authoritarian like Tony would be expected to believe.

  • T o n y||

    "Mooooom leave me aloooone"

    Libertarianism in a nutshell.

  • sarcasmic||

    "Daddy! I want my free stuff!"

    Liberalism in a nutshell.

  • WTF||

    Liberalism is more like a 10-year-old stamping his foot and wailing:

    It's not FAIRRR!!!

  • sarcasmic||

    A 10-year-old has the capacity for reason.

    Make it a 5-year-old.

  • WTF||

    A 10-year-old has the capacity for reason.

    Make it a 5-year-old.

    I stand corrected.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    What do you mean, "you people"?

  • ||

    Really, Tony? If that's the best argument you can think of, maybe you should consider why you're trying to think of an argument at all.

  • ||

    You people's exaggerated hysteria is as strong an argument for gun control as I can think of.

    I believe similar words were said by Royalists around 1775.

  • Eric||

    They can have mah gun...If they can pry it from mah cold, dead, 300 lb, bloated, red-necked, sad sackoshit, type 2 diabetes havin, wannabe John Wayne, Rush Limbaugh dittohead, hand.

    There. Stupid fucking stereotypes are fun pointed both directions.

  • sarcasmic||

    Don't you have a disability check to cash you lazy pot-smoking fuck?

  • Eric||

    Already cashed and spent on hempen rope and beads for Burning Man!

  • Restoras||

    I really could not have said that any better. Except maybe "go die in a fire, shit for brains".

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    The Left's insistence that the government have a monopoly on the use of force IS a denial of the right to self-defense.

  • T o n y||

    That's not the "left's" insistence, it's the definition of government. Places where governments don't have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force are called "failed states." Know any of those you want to live in?

  • sarcasmic||

    If government has the monopoly on the "legitimate use of force", then there can be no such thing as self defense, because self defense is a "legitimate use of force".

  • BarryD||

    Right. Tony opposes self-defense of any kind, except by a government agent. His own statement.

  • T o n y||

    Self-defense is a dispensation on the principle granted by law. A monopoly on the legitimate use of force doesn't mean only the government can use force, but it does maintain the sole authority to grant the right to use force, such as in self-defense or for private security.

  • sarcasmic||

    A monopoly on the legitimate use of force doesn't mean only the government can use force

    Yes it does. That is what "monopoly" means.

    but it does maintain the sole authority to grant the right to use force, such as in self-defense or for private security.

    Rights are not granted by government. They are protected by government.

    If government didn't exist, would I then have no right to defend myself since there was no government to grant it to me?

  • Drake||

    Tony - I cannot imagine a more wrong-headed statement. We the People own ALL the Rights. We have granted a few of them to the government, which has abused them.

  • ||

    We have granted a few of them to the government, which has abused them.

    Technically, a few aristocratic landholders in the late 1700s granted a few powers (not rights) to the new government they were forming.

    No one living has granted any such powers to the government. And you can't, by definition, give any rights to any government.

  • Restoras||

    it does maintain the sole authority to grant the right to use force

    If this is the case, then every totalitarian state that has ever existed was a legitimate government that exercised its power legally.

    Utter horseshit.

    The right to self-defense is an inherent right of being in existence. Lower forms of life exercise this right every fucking day. Just becasue humans are smart (dumb?) enough to create an entity that can legally strip us of that right, does not mean we don't have that right.

    You are the most disgusting apologist for state power I have ever run across in my life. Seriously, do our posterity a favor and off yourself.

  • sarcasmic||

    If this is the case, then every totalitarian state that has ever existed was a legitimate government that exercised its power legally.

    You nailed it. All the murder on Hitler, Stalin, and Mao's hands was legitimate because it was done by government.

  • Jeff||

    Nice attempt at gotcha, but Tony's a leftist. Of course he thinks it was legitimate.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Nice dodge. Want to address the point?

  • Anonymous Coward||

    That's not the "left's" insistence, it's the definition of government.

    I'm impressed that it took you approximately 12 minutes to contradict yourself. If government has sole power to use legitimate force, self-defense is, prima facie, illegitimate.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    That's not the "left's" insistence, it's the definition of government.

    I'm impressed that it took you approximately 12 minutes to contradict yourself. If government has sole power to use legitimate force, self-defense is, prima facie, illegitimate.

  • T o n y||

    No... Just as private security guards can legitimately use force. They get that authority from the government though.

    Self-defense is a government-granted exception to the typical law against killing people that exists in civilized societies.

  • sarcasmic||

    OK Tony. I assume then that you believed slavery was honky dory when it was legal, right?

    Because government granted people the right to own other people, then there was absolutely nothing wrong with it, because government said so.

    It only became wrong when people in government changed their mind.

    Same with Jim Crow, marriage as it is currently defined, and bounties on Native American scalps.

    Correct?

  • T o n y||

    No sarc, legal does not necessarily equal good. There is much about the legal status quo I'd like to change. I just don't pretend every policy I'm against is illegitimate just because I say so.

  • sarcasmic||

    But you're saying that all rights come from government.

    So the right to own people as property came from the government, and was taken away from the government.

    Presumably your right to live also comes from the government, and the government can arbitrarily take it away.

    Government is your god, correct?

  • sarcasmic||

    I just don't pretend every policy I'm against is illegitimate just because I say so.

    Libertarians do not say policies are good or bad just because we say so.

    We base our "good or bad" upon principles, starting with the principle of self ownership.

    Do you own yourself, Tony?

    Or are you property of the state?

    If you do indeed own yourself, then are the products of your labor not your own?

    True someone can take the products of your labor by force, but that doesn't make them any less yours.

    Just as someone can kill you doesn't mean you have no right to live.

  • ant1sthenes||

    No, a non-failed state by definition only needs to have a monopoly on initiating force, not on reciprocating or reacting to imminent danger.

    As an analogy, by law (that is to say, not in practice so long as we are governed by criminals and tyrants) the power to initiate aggressive violence rests with the legislature, to ensure that it has been deliberated and has some vaguely democratic approval. However, if the U.S. is actually attacked, the President doesn't need authorization to repel the invasion.

  • Drake||

    Cinemark does.

  • ||

    "Nobody denies the right to self-defense."

    Really? Perhaps you should take a look at Captain zero's voting record when he was a state senator.

    God, you really are a dishonest piece of shit.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Really? Perhaps you should take a look at Captain zero's voting record when he was a state senator.


    What part of his voting record stands out?

  • Voros McCracken||

    Just the right to be good at it?

  • The Derider||

    It's funny that the constitution does not explicitly acknowledge a fundamental right to self defense, either.

  • BarryD||

    It was taken for granted as a part of Anglo-Saxon Common Law. That's the point. The Constitution doesn't "grant rights" to us. It was written to protect specific rights that were seen to be under threat from central governments.

  • sarcasmic||

    The constitution does not explicitly give the federal government the power to do 90% of what it does.

    Oh, wait. You mean powers are unlimited and rights are enumerated?

  • robc||

    Sure it does. Amendment 9.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Self-defense historically is a matter of common law dating back to the Roman concept of dominium.

  • ant1sthenes||

    The ninth amendment protects common law rights. They probably should have been more explicit.

  • BarryD||

    It's not about tradition. It's about taking out a few of them before they get us.

    My family tradition doesn't go back to WASPy colonial America. It goes back to Jewy Holocaust central Europe.

    Fuck you, Obama, you racist, authoritarian piece of shit. And that's an insult to shit.

  • T o n y||

    Without (a fairly novel interpretation of) the 2nd Amendment to hide behind, you'd have to say the prospect of armed citizens revolting against the best-armed government in the history of the world, or the somewhat less unlikely necessity of self-defense, justifies the truly horrific gun violence numbers this country has, a calculation a reasonable person might consider a bit skewed.

    Let's give you self-defense. That doesn't therefore mean you should have a right to whatever power of weapon you want, just what's sufficient for self-defense. The right to armed revolt against the government--an absurd thing for any constitution to guarantee--would obviously be purely symbolic, and thus cannot justify itself given the negative outcomes.

    I say ban all the guns, and let the gun nuts start their revolution. Once everything is played out I can see getting at least three birds with one stone.

  • BarryD||

    It's not a remotely novel interpretation, Tony. Learn some basic American history.

  • o3||

    so demand a barrett 50 cal sniper rifle sos u can get em afore *THEY* get you!

  • BarryD||

    Americans like you are not only stupid and incapable of complex thought, but also are lulled into a false sense of security.

    I grew up hearing firsthand stories from people who experienced Nazi takeover, firsthand. Most Americans don't believe this can happen, in a technologically-advanced, modern country. My relatives, some still living, experienced it firsthand.

    Now go fuck yourself, you worthless piece of shit.

  • o3||

    "Most Americans don't believe this can happen..."
    _
    obviously not the NRA membership

  • ||

    Eat shit and die in a fire, you fucking slavemaker.

  • BarryD||

    If you don't believe it can happen, you are a real idiot, ignoring mounds of evidence that it can.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Wasn't Nazi Germany a technologically advanced, modern country for its time?

  • Restoras||

    In fact, it was the most technically advanced, modern society in its time.

  • ||

    We really should stop feeding this troll (o3). He gets off on people who get pissed at him. It makes him think that he's doing something useful.

    Let's all agree that his contributions to these comment threads are worthless and treat him like the background noise that he is.

  • Pip||

    You're asking me to stop urinating on Orin? Is it Lent again already?

  • ||

    Well, if you're doing it for fun then by all means have your fill. But if you're doing it in the hopes of somehow enlightening him to the truth, then you're essentially trying to dog paddle your way out of the black hole that is his ignorance.

  • ||

    You forgot to add basic reading skills.

  • ||

    That would require intelligence. Don't be so demanding!

  • T o n y||

    At best there is scholarly disagreement about whether the constitution endorses a right to armed insurrection.

    In the real world of the 21st century, the right is purely symbolic. It couldn't possibly succeed given modern standing armed forces, and how would it work anyway? Who gets to decide when democratic institutions ought to be substituted for an armed anarchic revolution?

  • RyanXXX||

    You're assuming, since you actually know nothing of "flyover" America, that it would be a clean conflict of the entire Armed Forces against some motley rebels. The most optimistic scenario for YOUR side is that some Marine and Army contingents stay loyal, along with the national-security/police-state apparatus.

    The State National Guards, the Reserves, and the majority of the infantry forces would tell their masters where to put their gun control and side with the opposition.

  • T o n y||

    I grant that full prohibition is as unlikely as, say, a successful armed revolt in this country. But even NRA members in large majorities support some reasonable restrictions, and the SCOTUS allows for it, and that's all anyone is actually talking about--except gun rights nuts who think anything reasonable is necessarily on a slippery slope to tyranny.

  • WTF||

    Define 'reasonable', dipshit. How about we have some 'reasonable' restrictions on your right speak freely, or your right to free association, or anything else we decide we don't want you to do/have?

  • T o n y||

    We already have those. Freedoms to neither speech nor assembly are absolute.

  • WTF||

    You have failed to define 'reasonable'.

  • #||

    " How about we have some 'reasonable' restrictions on your right speak freely, or your right to free association, "

    Umm... lefties actually want those too.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    A lot of people support reasonable restrictions on abortion too.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y|7.26.12 @ 1:02PM|#
    'At best there is *wholly specious* disagreement about whether the constitution endorses a right to armed insurrection.'

    FIFY, shithead.

  • BarryD||

    Revolutions tend not to come out very well. See all the places that have had left-wing revolutions.

    As I wrote, the point is to make it costly for would-be authoritarians. "Winning" is not really the goal. It's a long shot. Not having to win, is the goal.

  • Dylan||

    It's not about launching an offensive against the government. It's for when a citizen has had enough tyranny and refuses to pay taxes "over their dead body." Get it?

  • T o n y||

    I hope they will have procured a private company to clean up the mess.

  • wareagle||

    the Constitution endorses a right to keep and bear arms, and not for the purposes of catching dinner. It's not particularly difficult for anyone and should be even less so for a Constitutional law professor.

    Disarming the populace is part and parcel of dictatorships. There might be a reason for that.

  • T o n y||

    The only textual justification for that claim is the militia language. The modifier "well-regulated" would seem to undercut the individual vigilante component to the right.

  • Bobarian||

    As member of the current 'well regulated militia', my reading has always been this-

    1. A government needs an Army to defend its people, but that also makes it a potential threat to said people.

    2. Therefore people have a right to be armed in order to defend themselves from the over-reaches of their government.

    Reading in some of the federalist papers support this view.

  • Peter L||

    The first battle of the American Revolution was fought because the British were trying to take the arms from the Americans.

  • ant1sthenes||

    "In the real world of the 21st century, the right is purely symbolic. It couldn't possibly succeed given modern standing armed forces, and how would it work anyway"

    Tell that to the Libyan rebels.

    'Who gets to decide when democratic institutions ought to be substituted for an armed anarchic revolution?"

    I don't think the people will be rebelling against their Congressman or Senator, and that's the only public official they get to vote for. What's this democracy bullshit you're talking about?

  • Jeff||

    It couldn't possibly succeed given modern standing armed forces

    Explain Afghanistan and Iraq, shithead.

  • ||

    It couldn't possibly succeed given modern standing armed forces, and how would it work anyway?

    "A revolt couldn't possibly succeed, so let's confiscate all the guns that would be used in an unsuccessful revolt."

    Niiiiice.

  • RyanXXX||

    You really are in a bubble, Tony. You think YOUR side would win if the feds tried to ban all private guns? The soldiers themselves would turn on their masters, and the entire South and Midwest would be against you. You and the slavers would be fucked

  • T o n y||

    Well the "slavers" were fucked the last time something like that was tried.

    I guess it's an open question whether soldiers would defend the country or defect to the insurrectionists. But surely you acknowledge that the government has every right to defend itself from such. And if you think there is a right to armed insurrection, should people not have a 2nd amendment access to every single weapon the government has in its arsenal?

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    should people not have a 2nd amendment access to every single weapon the government has in its arsenal?

    Yes. Shit, we payed for all that stuff. You didn't build that.

  • RyanXXX||

    It is not an open question. Some would remain loyal, I'm sure, since the military has a fair amount of sociopaths. But even if the majority did (which they wouldn't), they wouldn't be able to put down the entire Bible Belt and Midwest.

    Tony, you're operating from a false premise. The State itself should not have weapons of mass destruction. No one should. Funny how you fear hypoothetical insurrectionists with tanks and drones while our government is using such weapons RIGHT NOW to kill innocent people

  • T o n y||

    The government is doing it with the sanction of democratic legitimacy. The Yokel Rebellion would have no such thing. It's an important point.

  • RyanXXX||

    What exactly is democratic legitimacy? If the People rise up, when does the State cease to be legitimate? Is Assad legitimate? Was Gaddaffi? Ahmadinjead was elected in Iran - does that mean armed opposition to the government there is illegitimate?

    In the scenario we are speaking of, it would be at least 50% of the country in open rebellion. VOTING their own way

  • T o n y||

    If a government becomes tyrannical, i.e., it abolishes free and fair elections, then I'd have to say there is a justification for armed rebellion. But it's not gonna be pretty and it's not guaranteed a legitimately democratic government will come out of the other end.

    But the first criterion has to be satisfied. There is no right to revolt against this government so long as it is democratically instituted.

  • T||

    when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

    I don't see anything about elections in there, so I guess this whole experiment is illegitimate.

  • T o n y||

    Despotism means something, and paying taxes to fund universal healthcare ain't it.

  • Kwanzaa Cake||

    "If a government becomes tyrannical, i.e., it abolishes free and fair elections, then I'd have to say there is a justification for armed rebellion."

    ___________________________

    Yet you are for disarming the public to begin with so what is the fucking point of the armed rebellion you would support?

  • ant1sthenes||

    f a government becomes tyrannical, i.e., it abolishes free and fair elections, then I'd have to say there is a justification for armed rebellion.

    So, when Eric Holder fails to prosecute those who intimidate voters and attempts to nullify laws aimed at preventing fraud, is that tantamount to abolishing free and fair elections?

  • Marshall Gill||

    Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    Sounds to me like a justification for armed rebellion. Since you are completely historically ignorant, what do you think that the Boston Tea party was about, mass murder? Nope, TAXES, that thing you claim can never be illegitimate.

  • ||

    I'm sure the people we're killing take a lot of comfort in that distinction.

  • Peter L||

    When South Carolina seceded from the Union, less than half the population were allowed to vote. Did they really have a "democratic legitimacy" if the majority of people were suffering in involuntary servitude with no rights?

  • BarryD||

    Yes, the people should have exactly that access, and that was the intent of the 2nd Amendment. "Disagreements" about this among scholars are nothing short of academic fraud.

    Now how does that shift when there are H-bombs? It probably has to. But that's what Constitutional Amendments are for.

  • BarryD||

    Yes, the people should have exactly that access, and that was the intent of the 2nd Amendment. "Disagreements" about this among scholars are nothing short of academic fraud.

    Now how does that shift when there are H-bombs? It probably has to. But that's what Constitutional Amendments are for.

  • WTF||

    Exactly - at the time of the founding and decades after, citizens did in fact have crew-serviced weapons such as canon, and also had their own warships. Hence the provision to issue 'letters of Marque and reprisal'.

  • BarryD||

    Merchant ships were only marginally different from naval vessels, and more lightly armed only because they needed to have some cargo capacity. It was taken for granted that they needed to be.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Tony, the government doesn't have natural rights, as it is not a human being. Government has powers, derived solely from the consent of the governed, and consent can be withdrawn.

  • T o n y||

    How do you suppose consent is determined?

    Voting the only way as far as I know. The only people currently trying to undermine free and fair elections are Republicans, so I'll leave it to you to keep your eye on the ball.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Glad you shut your mouth and conceded that the government does not have rights. You can shove the TEAM Red, TEAM Blue posturing in you earhole.

  • T||

    So the minority of the population that votes decides if the .gov is legitimate or not?

  • T o n y||

    Yep. Those who don't vote have the right to have a say. If they don't exercise it then that's their problem.

  • WTF||

    So if 50.1% of the voters say homosexuality is a crime, then it is legitimate to treat homosexuals as criminals.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Yep. Those who don't vote have the right to have a say. If they don't exercise it then that's their problem.

    Hear that Cubans and Iranians? You get to vote (for the government-approved candidate) so you're as free as the birds.

  • aelhues||

    Republicans are trying to undermine free and fair elections? Why, because they want people to prove their identity when they vote? Oh, the horror!

  • ||

    But surely you acknowledge that the government has every right to defend itself from such.

    If the government were truly "for the people" and "by the people" there would be no need for an insurrection. So no, a tyrannical government should not have any right to defend itself since such a government should not be allowed to exist.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Well, I would count on Chicago joining in the insurrection. True, there'd be a lot of popular support for it, but Rahm would probably build up a wall to keep in those eager to join the battle.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    *wouldn't

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Your assumption that it would be a cakewalk for the federal government indicates that you don't understand what sort of conflict it would be.

    You think the "gun nuts" would just line up in tightly packed rows to be mown down?

    You think the immense firepower of the Air Force will be turned upon American cities? And you welcome that, you sick fuck?

    You'd best study up on Fourth Generation warfare. This won't be a Hollywood movie.

  • T o n y||

    I don't welcome the US government shooting first, no.

  • BarryD||

    You did, above.

  • MJGreen||

    Of course it would be a cakewalk! Like Iraq and Afghanistan!

  • Loki||

    ^This^

    Stupid fuckstick probably has no idea what the words "asymmetric warfare" mean. It would be a classic insurection. You don't have to win, just make it really expensive and time consuming.

  • Mike M.||

    You're more than welcome to come and try and retrieve my weapon yourself personally.

    Though you should know that I've nicknamed it "The DeKrugmanator".

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    The right to self-defense includes the right to choose one's government. It's all a part of self-ownership.

  • ||

    "....you should have a right..."

    Should, could, would, and fuck you. I do have the right. It doesnt come from anyone's permission or a piece of paper. That is the fundamental think that scum like you cannot grasp. I have a right to my own property, and the right to defend myself against all comers. Nothing you say or do will change that.

  • T o n y||

    What property? You mean that which you are able to defend with your personal arsenal? Or is it that which government has granted you permission to claim and which defends that claim?

    I can grasp the concept of natural rights, I just think the concept is bunk.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y|7.26.12 @ 1:11PM|#
    "What property? You mean that which you are able to defend with your personal arsenal?"
    Not bad, shithead

    "Or is it that which government has granted you permission to claim and which defends that claim?"
    Fuck you shithead. The government grants no rights.

    "I can grasp the concept of natural rights, I just think the concept is bunk."
    That's because you're an idiot, shithead.

  • T o n y||

    I'm an idiot for not believing in magic?

  • wareagle||

    no, you are an idiot for not understanding the role of the govt that this nation created - to protect our rights, not hand them out.

  • T o n y||

    What's the practical difference?

  • wareagle||

    the practical difference is that the same govt you think can bestow rights is the same one that can take them away. That's why this group of dead guys thought certain rights were self-evident; apparently, there were few statists to contend with back then who failed to grasp that.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y|7.26.12 @ 1:22PM|#
    "What's the practical difference?"

    I see it's incumbent on you to continually prove you're an idiot, shithead.
    The practical difference is that I have rights and the government has none, *except* as I choose to grant them; not the other way around.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y|7.26.12 @ 1:20PM|#
    'I'm an idiot for not believing in *rights*?'

    Yes, shithead.

  • fish||

    You believe Obamacare is going to fix health care....there's your fucking magic.

  • BarryD||

    Morality is not magic.

    Do you believe that it would be wrong for someone to murder you, even if you are unable to stop them from doing it?

    That's what a "natural right" is. Clearly, you don't grasp it -- or you don't have any objection to having your throat slit.

  • Loki||

    You're an idiot for not understanding a damn thing about human nature. One doesn't have to believe in a "creator" to recognize that certain inalienable rights are an instrinsic part of what makes us human.

    I almost feel sorry for people like you who can't seem to grasp that, but then I remember you willingly choose not to get it.

  • T o n y||

    The problem is you can claim those rights to be whatever you want them to be. How in the fuck is a right to own a modern firearm intrinsic to being human?

    The right not to be murdered is only called "natural" because it's a particularly easy one. Yet you still need law and order to actualize that right.

  • ||

    The right not to be murdered is only called "natural" because it's a particularly easy one. Yet you still need law and order to actualize that right.

    But the law and order does not have to come from government, and that is what you continually fail to grasp. Anarchy means no government, but they still have laws in the strictest sense. Natural laws and natural rights extend to each person in so far as they do not infringe upon the rights of another. My freedom to act stops at the point it limits yours. My property rights extend to the point where they damage yours. My right to free speech extends to the point where yours would be quashed. My freedom to swing my arms wildly stops short of your face.

  • T o n y||

    Says who? Who enforces these things?

  • T o n y||

    Fine. There's a natural right for me to take all your stuff. Prove me wrong. Introduce me to the authority who decides these things.

  • wareagle||

    no Tony, there is no natural right to theft, at least not for individuals; govt believes itself immune to that. I suspect Sevo will explain that to you while looking down the barrel of his gun.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y|7.26.12 @ 1:20PM|#
    "Introduce me to the authority who decides these things."

    Logic and the fact that humans are social animals, shithead.
    If you can't get from there to property, you are a pathetic excuse for a moral agent.

  • CE||

    Or just read Rothbard. "Rights" aren't some mystical power badges handed down by the Creator, or limited licenses handed out by governments, they're a symbolic way of describing a system of peaceful coexistence and prosperity.

  • sarcasmic||

    they're a symbolic way of describing a system of peaceful coexistence and prosperity.

    Tony doesn't want peaceful coexistence and prosperity.

    He wants to use the government to loot the rich at the point of a gun until they aren't rich anymore, so poor people can take back what was stolen from them.

    He wants conflict and poverty, not peace and prosperity.

  • T o n y||

    No I don't.

  • Restoras||

    The idiocy of this asshat is inconceivable to me. Rights are granted by the government. Sheer, utter lunacy. This guy must worship Mao, Stalin, and Castro.

  • wareagle||

    I can grasp the concept of natural rights, I just think the concept is bunk.

    and that, friends and neighbors, is the essential Tony. Rights come to us through the benevolence of govt, not from the fact that you merely exist. No single statement more purely encapsulates the statist who is tony.

  • T o n y||

    Where do natural rights come from? And if they're natural, why does it seem the vast majority of humans who have ever lived never had access to them?

  • wareagle||

    natural rights come from you existing. No one can deprive you of your life or liberty "just because." That is where the right to self-defense factors in; when someone attempts to take away either your life or liberty, you have the right to try and prevent that. Otherwise, we're just feral animals, a group of apex predators attacking each other.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y|7.26.12 @ 1:21PM|#
    "why does it seem the vast majority of humans who have ever lived never had access to them?"

    Because assholes like you use coercion to deny those rights, shithead.

  • sarcasmic||

    They exist.
    Yes, throughout most of history people like you have ignored them and instead celebrated slavery to the state, but they still existed.
    Throughout most of history people believed the world was flat.
    Did that make it flat?

  • NeonCat||

    Perhaps the vast number of humans have been oppressed by their "betters". Perhaps the United States was the first nation to recognize those natural rights, and it is in fact a pity that statist concern/control freaks like you who claim to care so much about People care so little about individual persons.

  • BarryD||

    The point is not that you can enjoy those rights. The point is that it's morally wrong for someone to deny them to you, and it's morally justifiable for you to do whatever you can to secure them.

    Natural rights are a moral question.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Because slavers like you insist on violating those rights and claiming that it is the will of gods, that its because you have the best armed killers on your side, because you know what is best for everyone, etc.

  • ||

    Yep. +1 to you wareagle.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    justifies the truly horrific gun violence numbers this country has, a calculation a reasonable person might consider a bit skewed.

    31,224 people die from gun violence every year in the United States. That's less then the amount of people who commit suicide every year.

    Heart disease: 599,413
    Cancer: 567,628
    Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353
    Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842
    Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021
    Alzheimer's disease: 79,003
    Diabetes: 68,705
    Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692
    Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935
    Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909

    Know what the fuck you are talking about before you open your fool mouth, and gain some perspective, you jackass.

  • BarryD||

    It also does not account for the use of firearms in self-defense, nor does it account for the number saved by such use, whether or not the guns were even fired.

    For example, earlier this year, an unknown number of people -- several, at least -- are ALIVE because a gun was used by a regular citizen who happened to be in the right place to protect others from a would-be mass murderer. The gun was not ever fired.

    http://www.abc4.com/content/ab.....H.facebook

  • ant1sthenes||

    How many of those were violent criminals themselves?

  • RPR2||

    You'd need a constitutional amendment, which you'd never get, so I suppose you mean just do it in defiance of the constitution, and you call that gun nuts starting a revolution.

    what are the three birds you think you'd get?

  • Loki||

    Just guessing, 'cause who knows what goes in that little shitheads pathetic excuse for a brain, but:

    1) Guns are banned, therefore no one will have guns once number 3 below is achieved (because it's not like anyone would ever break one law - own a gun - in order to break a 2nd more severe law - murder someone).

    2) With no more "gun freaks", libertarians, or other freedom minded people (again, see number 3 below) Tony and his ilk finally be able to build the mega-government utopia they dream of, where no one ever gets rich, everyone lives in identical houses and works only toward "the common good" as defined by the wise men who run the government. Think of "The Smurfs", only with people.

    3) Last but not least, all the millions of people who would oppose such a measure and stand in the way of his little utopia (IOW libertarians, and anyone with even slightly libertarian leanings) would either be eradicated or subdued into utter submission to the all powerfull and wise state.

    The emphasis was added because people like this fuckhead wouldn't think twice about eradicating millions of people in order to get their "perfect" society. They may not admit it, and many may have deluded themselves into thinking that "we'd never do that, we just want everyone to be equal and live in piece and harmony in gum drop houses on lollipop lane" or some shit, but in the end this is what progessives and hard left shitstains really want.

  • DaveSs||

    Back in the 1770s, Great Britain had the best armed, and best trained troops the world had ever seen, not to mention the finest navy the world had ever seen.

    What was the final outcome of that little insurrection again?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    That doesn't therefore mean you should have a right to whatever power of weapon you want, just what's sufficient for self-defense.


    The L.A. riots are proof that high-powered automatic weapons are necessary for self-defense.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    What if it's not about "revolting against" the government, but rather defending ourselves in the event said government imposes martial law?

    Are we just supposed to lie down and take it, or fight back?

  • Doctor Whom||

    But we're the ones who ignore the language in the Second Amendment about a well regulated militia.

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    But we're the ones who ignore the language in the Second Amendment about a well regulated militia.

    We are? I was an active member of the VDF until an injury slowed me down too much. http://www.vdf.virginia.gov/

  • The Derider||

    Right, the 2nd amendment is about collective defense from invasion, not personal protection from police or criminals. The 2nd amendment exists for "the security of a free state" not from a tyrannical state.

    "A well-regulated militia" means trained troops, not irregulars, not individuals.

  • o3||

    and it also means military weapons which they should demand.

    "i needs a crew-serviced, heavy weapon...for self-defense"

  • Hugh Akston||

    So wait, we don't have an individual right to protect ourselves from police or criminals?

  • The Derider||

    Not one defined in the 2nd amendment, no.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Well I'm gonna go ahead and do it anyways.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Especially since my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

  • Sevo||

    The Derider|7.26.12 @ 1:13PM|#
    "Not one defined in the 2nd amendment, no."

    What an idiot.
    I have no right to eat a hotdog at the ballpark, since it isn't "granted" in the Constitution.
    Listen, bozo, the Constitution exists to limit the government, not to grant rights.

  • The Derider||

    Hey moron, we're talking about INTERPRETATIONS OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT, not what natural rights we think people may or may not have.

  • ||

    Hey, joe! How's it going, short stuff? You having fun being an anonypussy?

  • ||

    That can't be joe. joe left and said he'd never come back, and the joe we know and love was a standup, honest guy. He'd no more stoop to anonypussying than he'd threaten people with violence, dude.

  • ||

    Yeah, I mean, joe would never move the goalposts just like this guy did just above. He'd never do that.

  • JW||

    Hey, show some respect, toe cheese. He was on the debate team in college.

  • ||

    And joe would never attempt to tell his opponents what they're allowed to talk about. joe is the most live-and-let live guy I've ever had the pleasure of being around, without an authoritarian bone in his body.

  • ||

    Honestly, why did joe ever leave? I mean, he was beloved by all for his completely non-partisan, high-integrity arguments.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Ew. You mean I actually engaged joe from lol in conversation?

    Time for me to go cry in the shower for a couple hours.

  • The Derider||

    Where did I move the goalposts? Be explicit.

  • Sevo||

    The Derider|7.26.12 @ 1:23PM|#
    "Hey moron, we're talking about INTERPRETATIONS OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT, not what natural rights we think people may or may not have."

    Hey idiot, you're posting about what an amendment *allows*.
    It *allows* nothing; it limits what the government can do.
    Do you get it now? Not sure I can convert the argument into single syllables.

  • The Derider||

    I never said anything about WHAT the amendment allows, only about WHY it's in the constitution. That's explicit in the text.

  • ||

    Oh joe, you're so funny. You live to argue...dishonestly. But this new pussy aspect just doesn't seem like you, joe.

    Oh wait, it absolutely does.

  • robc||

    I never said anything about WHAT the amendment allows, only about WHY it's in the constitution. That's explicit in the text.

    And you are still wrong. One of the reasons its in the constitution is to allow what Patrick Henry did pre-revolution (and also to prevent that situation from occurring again). He called up the local militia to attack the King's appointed governor of Virginia. It wasnt just protecting a free state, but fighting an internal tyrant.

    Although, technically, he was merely asking said governor for access to the local gunpowder. Why the governor fled is beyond me.

    Remember, Henry was one of the people pushing hardest for a Bill of Rights. The why of the A2 is to prevent that situation from occurring again.

  • The Derider||

    The 2nd amendment was written and ratified AFTER Shay's rebellion, where armed individuals attempted to overthrow the government of Massachutsets because of high tax rates. The rebellion was crushed--and the founding fathers thought this a good thing. That's why the clause "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" precedes "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed".

  • ||

    Did that have anything to do with Lowell, joe, you massive pussy?

  • The Derider||

    I know you intend that as insulting.
    I'm just finding it confusing.

  • ||

    Your incredibly obvious weak denials are my favorite part of this, joe. Keep them coming. I forgot how amusing your bullshit was.

  • ||

    Not one defined in the 2nd amendment, no.

    The constitution was not intended define all of the rights of the American people. It was meant to limit government. Read it sometime. In particular the 10th amendment:

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

  • The Derider||

    The (restriction on Government interfering with your) right to defend yourself must be found in the 10th amendment then, because it does not exist in the 2nd.

  • ||

    So where did you get banned from that caused you to slink back here as an anonypussy, joe? Or could you just not stay away?

  • o3||

    "let there be no limits to self-defense" alfred e neuman

  • Sevo||

    o3|7.26.12 @ 1:15PM|#
    "let there be no limits to self-defense" alfred e neuman"

    "Stupid analogy" o3

  • o3||

    stand ur ground = drug gang murderers go free

  • Sevo||

    o3|7.26.12 @ 1:22PM|#
    'Another really stupid attempt at a point'

    You're hitting your weight, o3

  • ||

    You are a Galaxy Class idiot. Drug gang murderers EXIST because of the government, and your solution is to just pile on another heaping helping of government. What a fucking tool.

  • BarryD||

    That is an invention of mid-20th-century legal scholarship. There is not a single "collective right" in the Bill of Rights, defined as "the right of the people", and there is absolutely no historic basis for claiming that there is.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Hell, the very term "collective right" is an oxymoron. It's just bullshit that gun-control advocates came up with in a vain attempt to spike the Second Amendment.

  • The Derider||

    I never suggest that it's a collective right, only that it exists for collective security.

  • Sevo||

    The Derider|7.26.12 @ 1:28PM|#
    "I never suggest that it's a collective right, only that it exists for collective security."

    Wrong.
    The Constitution *grants* no rights tot he citizens. Period.
    So any claim that A2 'didn't grant that right' is bullshit on the face of it.

  • The Derider||

    What you're not understanding is that I am making no argument about the constitution granting rights AT ALL.

    This is an argument about "purpose", not about outcomes.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    And if every individual can secure their own person, then everyone is more secure.

  • The Derider||

    That may well be, but the collective security the second amendment describes is the security of the state, presumably against invasion, not the security of individuals.

  • ||

    joe, are you going to really keep up this pretense that it isn't you? I mean, do you really want to be an anonypussy?

  • Anonymous Coward||

    To be pedantic, the Second Amendment says a "free state." Security is a lesser concern than freedom.

  • ant1sthenes||

    I'd argue that the franchise is a collective right, insofar as violating it on an individual level doesn't really have any impact at all, whereas subverting the overall result does.

  • The Derider||

    I agree that the 2nd amendment protects your individual right to own a gun.

    I disagree that the "purpose" of that right is to protect against a tyrannical government, or to protect your individual person or property, or for hunting, because the 2nd amendment clearly states the purpose is to encourage a "well regulated militia" which is "necessary to the security of a free state".

  • ||

    joe, would you say that you're a pussy, or just a liar? I mean, you said you'd never come back, right? And here you are. but not as "joe".

    So I guess that makes you both a pussy and liar.

  • The Derider||

    I have no idea who Joe is, and I guess that makes you paranoid.

  • ||

    He's definitely not joe. I mean, look! He didn't know to not capitalize it or anything!

  • ||

    I'm convinced!

  • NeonCat||

    What happens if/when the formerly free state becomes a tyrannical government?

  • Pip||

    Look around.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    because the 2nd amendment clearly states the purpose is to encourage a "well regulated militia" which is "necessary to the security of a free state".

    A free state being a state where one is free to protect ones individual person or property, or to go hunting.

  • T||

    James Madison disagrees with you. I'll take his opionion over yours, since he helped write it and you're just some illterate douchebag on the internet.

  • The Derider||

    LOLin at "illterate"

  • T||

    RCz law strikes again.

  • ||

    Actually, T, that's joe's law...which is pretty fucking ironic since you're speaking to him.

  • The Derider||

    Take your meds.

  • ||

    That's super convincing, joe. Keep pussying along.

  • R C Dean||

    RCz law strikes again.

    Technically, T, that's a joe'z law. Which is even more delicious. Or should I say "derisive"?

  • Anonymous Coward||

    The state and the government are not the same thing. The United States of America existed before the federal government was incorporated by ratification of the Construction. Therefore the militia could be drawn up to defend the state against the federal government.

  • The Derider||

    The 2nd amendment was ratified after the constitution was ratified, so your argument seems moot.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    The second amendment is part of the Constitution, no more or less important than the other 26. There is no 'greater' or 'lesser' canon (except that whole 18 and 21 business).

  • Anonymous Coward||

    The second amendment is part of the Constitution, no more or less important than the other 26. There is no 'greater' or 'lesser' canon (except that whole 18 and 21 business).

  • Drake||

    So why did the Founding Fathers issue Letter of Marque to Privateers during the War of 1812? They seemed pretty comfortable with citizens mounting rows of cannons on privately owned ships.

  • The Derider||

    They were comfortable with using militias armed with private weapons, as well. That's the explicit purpose of the 2nd amendment.

    The 2nd amendment also incidentally protects firearms used for hunting, personal protection, and target shooting, but suggesting that those are the "purpose" is clearly wrong.

  • ||

    joe, did you put on your gorilla suit yet? I really miss that image of you.

  • Sevo||

    The Derider|7.26.12 @ 1:31PM|#
    "They were comfortable with using militias armed with private weapons, as well. That's the explicit purpose of the 2nd amendment."

    Wrong.
    The Constitution (including A2) exists to limit government power. It *grants* nothing to the citizens; it *grants* limited power to the government.
    I know this is hard for idiots to understand, but give it a try.

  • The Derider||

    Listen, the argument I'm making is subtle here, so maybe read it twice.

    I agree that the 2nd amendment limits government power. I agree that it gives individuals the right to own firearms.

    This article is talking about the "purpose" of the 2nd amendment. This is explicit in the text-- the purpose is to encourage a well regulated militia, thus securing the state against invasion.

    Don't misconstrue that as a suggestion that the government can ban gun ownership.

  • Kwanzaa Cake||

    You realize that the Constitution came about not long after an armed insurrection that had nothing to do with an invasion, right? Moreover, the primary line of defense against an invasion is an army, which the Constitution expressly permits the government to create. The notion that 2A came about only as an additional guard against a hostile invasion is pretty fanciful.

  • The Derider||

    The founding fathers must have been some fancy dudes, because the 2nd amendment explicitly defines its purpose as "the security of a free state", not "the security of individuals from a tyrannical state"

  • Drake||

    Hell, the whole damn Revolution started when British troops tried to make a gun grab in Lexington and Concord.

  • The Derider||

    Yeah, but those were government guns.

  • ||

    joe, you sure like arguing at Hit Und Run. I guess that's why you came back as an anonypussy.

  • Invisible Finger||

    the argument I'm making is subtle here

    You are actually a bigger asshole than Tony. There is nothing subtle in the consititution, that was the whole goddamn point of writing it!

    THE 2 purposes were to limit government and allow gun ownership. Period. There is no further discussion necessary unless you want to grant government more power or limit individual power. Which is obviously your viewpoint, no matter how subtle you try to be.

  • The Derider||

    See, you should have read this twice, because you missed the subtle part.

    The effects of the 2nd amendment are clearly to limit government power and to protect individual gun ownership.

    The reason the 2nd amendment exists is to promote "the security of a free state". There are other good reasons why the 2nd amendment should exist-- but "the security of a free state" is the one explicitly described in the constitution.

  • ||

    There's nothing subtle about your eristic bullshit, you fucking pathetic midget.

  • Pip||

    "Listen, the argument I'm making is subtle here, so maybe read it twice."

    Oh, it's joe alright.

  • ||

    The visceral totality of your ignorance is fucking unbelievable. How many stars are there in the canton on the US flag, asshole?

  • The Derider||

    Depends on the flag, is that your point? Because otherwise WTF are you talking about?

  • ||

    Hey joe, where you goin' with that gun in your hand?

  • WTF||

    I heard he shot his woman down, shot her down!

  • Drake||

    They didn't go out and collect those cannon and muskets after the war - they were private property and stayed that way.

  • The Derider||

    I'm not suggesting that they did, that the should have, or that such an action would be constitutional.

    This article is discussing the intent of the 2nd amendment, its purpose, not its outcomes.

  • ||

    Goalpost-moving? Impossible! joe, you never do that.

  • The Derider||

    Quote where I suggest anything different or stop shitting up the thread with your paranoid nonsense.

  • ||

    Oh no, joe. I'll do whatever the fuck I want. Sorry, pussy.

  • BarryD||

    "militia" means individuals, and irregulars.

    Many of the Founders were not too comfortable with a standing Army. Anything else is made up of "irregulars" by definition.

  • The Derider||

    Yes I'm misusing the term "irregulars" above. A militia can be "well-regulated", meaning have uniforms, ranks and military organization, while still being considered an "irregular" force.

  • ||

    Wow, you're posting a lot. That's not like joe at all.

  • The Derider||

    And my posts contain arguments with warrants! Try to keep up.

  • ||

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Every second you continue to be a pussy is beyond hilarious. It's so obviously you, I don't even need to watch you see monkey and go berserk. You know, the thread where you ran off, tuff gai?

  • The Derider||

    Please link the thread so I can have some minimal grasp on this paranoid theory you have.

  • ||

    You have use of the internets, tuff gai. You find it...as if you didn't know exactly what it was.

    But you almost totally fooled me! Really, you're so convincing, joe!

    God damn you're a pussy, just like I remember.

  • The Derider||

    This is like the composition fallacy's big, retarded cousin. Not "all people that disagree with me are the same", but "all people that disagree with me are THE SAME PERSON"

  • ||

    Oh god, it's so good. The more you spin, the more it's so completely obvious it's you, joe. Good thing you're too stupid to not be utterly predictable.

  • The Derider||

    If it's so completely obvious, why do you need to assert it over and over and over...?

  • ||

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    God, you're pathetic. It's so delicious.

  • ||

    A militia can be "well-regulated", meaning have uniforms, ranks and military organization, while still being considered an "irregular" force.

    "Well-regulated" in the context of the 2nd amendment means "available".

    Not "regulated" like banks are regulated.

    type regulate into google..

    "Control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly"

    regulated in this context means that there are a regular number of men with arms that can be called upon to defend a free state...nothing more then this and certainly not what the fuck you are trying to make it mean.

  • R C Dean||

    "A well-regulated militia" means trained troops, not irregulars, not individuals.

    Historically, erm, not the way you're thinking.

    Well-regulated means, in modern parlance, well-organized and well-armed. The militia is specifically defined, by statute, as every male of a certain age, and makes no mention of training.

    What the amendment is saying is that a precondition to having a militia worth the name is a well-armed populace.

    Read some history: the military used to be much more of an organic, bottom-up organization, with communities putting together a formation and sending it off to join the army. There's a reason why all those Civil War units are named after states, you know.

    Anybody who wanted any weapon could have one, up to and including a warship (which was the premier strategic military asset of the day).

    The Founders knew, from intimate, personal, bloody experience how militia and professional troops could and should work together, and how militia should and should not be used in battle. Obviously, in light of this experience, they thought them essential to national security.

    And, seeing the persistence of "militia" units in (semi-)friendly populations fighting against the finest fighting force in the history of the planet, I don't see how anyone can say they were wrong.

  • The Derider||

    First, I agree with nearly everything you wrote. I think we're quibbling about small points, but the act of mustering the militia has to include some sort of training-- who to take orders from and who to shoot at, at a minimum.

  • ||

    You are reading beyond the words of the actual text.

    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.

    The 2nd amendment speaks about keeping and bearing arms not training.

    You can pontificate about what a militia needs, it needs food, it needs footwear, it needs training, but the right extended is arms only.

  • CE||

    We don't ignore the "militia" part -- we are the militia. The Second Amendment was written expressly to prohibit the government from interfering with the rights of the people to own arms of military usefulness.

  • The Derider||

    I agree with you 100%. The founders wanted an armed populace in case the government needed to muster a militia in defense of the state.

    That this also protects gun ownership for personal protection or hunting is incidental.

  • R C Dean||

    The idea that the Founders thought the overriding purpose of a man owning a gun was so he could go fight for the state is risible.

  • The Derider||

    And yet, that's exactly what they wrote in the constitution.

  • R C Dean||

    I had forgotten, Epi. I thought the shifting goal posts felt familiar. Still, one more for old time's sake:

    And yet, that's exactly what they wrote in the constitution.

    The Constitution gives one reason for the RKBA. There is absolutely no basis for believing any of the Founders thought the overriding purpose of a man owning a gun was so he could go fight for the state; just that it was one of the purposes.

    They simply could not imagine that their fellow citizens would fall so low as to deny fundamental rights that should go without saying.

  • The Derider||

    See, I'm going to believe the explicit argument in the text rather than your historical telepathy.

    That clause exists because Shay's rebellion had just been crushed, and the founders didn't want to give legitimacy to every backwoods tax protester. Thus "well-regulated militia" and "security of a free state".

  • ||

    That's great, joe. Really, why don't you stop being a pussy and admit who you are?

  • tarran||

    The Derider is not too far off;

    After the Constitution was rammed down the throat of a population that had a large percentage of people who suspected (rightly IMHO) that it was a power grab.

    Quite simply, the purpose of the Constitution was to provide the central government with the means to collect the taxes required to pay off the debt incurred during the rebellion against King George by creating a central army that could put down Shay's rebellion.

    Remember, the MA militia refuses to fire on Shay's regulators, and the wealthy creditors in Boston had to hire a mercenary army to defeat them.

    Like the UN resolution that papered over the chasm between members of the UN security council in the run up to the war, the bill of rights was an attempt to paper over the differences between the people who wanted a strong central government that could kick-ass and take names and ones that feared it.

    The language is confusing because it is supposed to allow people with incompatible views to see in it something compatible with their desired legal order.

  • Invisible Finger||

    I had forgotten, Epi. I thought the shifting goal posts felt familiar.

    Yep, the same passive-aggressive argument style. As soon as the hole is found in his argument, he wants to have a different argument.

  • The Derider||

    Show me a single argument I've made in this thread that I no longer defend.

    It's easier to argue with some ghost from years ago than someone smarter than you, right?

  • ||

    I guess it's not obvious it's you, huh, joe? You fucking unbelievable coward.

  • tarran||

    It's easier to argue with some ghost from years ago than someone smarter than you, right?

    OMG. It is Joe.

    How ya doing, Joe? How's the telecom industry treating you?

  • WTF||

    Yup, that fucking clinched it.

  • Pip||

    If you know not of joe, then how would you know that he ran away "years ago"?

  • ||

    He just guessed, Pip. Really! I mean, an anonypussy is assuring us he's not joe, even though he's exactly like joe. We must believe him, right?

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA

  • The Derider||

    Because I've been posting here for about a year and I have no idea who you're talking about.

    That's quite some amateur detective work.

  • R C Dean||

    Show me a single argument I've made in this thread that I no longer defend.

    Ok. First, you said this:

    Right, the 2nd amendment is about collective defense from invasion, not personal protection from police or criminals.

    Now, you say this:

    I agree that the constitution protects the individual right to bear arms.

    Now, you can wiggle all you want about "purpose" v whatever, but its pretty clear that you started out supporting the collectivist interpretation of the 2A, and wound up having to backtrack. You can't square that circle, joe derider. If its about collective defense and nothing else (as you initially argued), there's no right to do anything outside of the defense of the collective, and thus no personal right.

  • The Derider||

    That's not an interpretation I have ever defended.

    I agree that I could have been more clear in using the word "about", I should have said "the 2nd Amendment's intended outcome is collective defense from invasion".

    Which is what I've been defending the whole thread.

  • ||

    You do realize you're arguing with joe, right, RC?

  • Tulpa the White||

    Actually, many of the state constitutional guarantees mention RKBA as being a right to bear arms "in defense of themselves and the State" or some variation on that theme.

  • ant1sthenes||

    In defense of a free state, you mean. That could also include attempts to destroy an unfree state to replace it with a free one.

  • ||

    Or, you can go with the interpretation as such:

    Since a standing army/professional military is a necessary evil, it is the right of the people to keep arms to counterbalance that.

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's quite disingenuous to debate what the Founders believed about gun rights, as their collective writings are abundantly clear that they viewed an armed populous as necessary as a check against tyranny and even called that out as one of the things that made the United States different from many other nations during that period.

    Also, as far as interpretations of the Second Amendment go, well, did Heller and McDonald v. Chicago not happen? Because those cases also made it clear that the purpose of the Second Amendment as interpreted today is to protect the individual right to bear arms.

  • The Derider||

    Listen, maybe the word "purpose" is confusing. I agree that the constitution protects the individual right to bear arms. But why?

    The reason stated in the constitution is "the security of a free state". I don't think the intent matters from a legal point of view, but this article is talking about the intent, not its actual effects.

  • ||

    There's nothing confusing about how much of a douche you are, joe. But you still insist on being a pussy.

  • Pro Libertate||

    The Court says otherwise. The Founders said otherwise. There have been legal scholars saying all along that the wording doesn't mean "for a militia and for nothing else." I believe even Larry Tribe endorsed this view.

    In any event, the ambiguity--which, of course, did exist, thanks to the poor wording--is now meaningless.

  • The Derider||

    I don't think that the 2nd amendment protects weapons for a militia and nothing else. It protects gun ownership, period.

    That doesn't change the fact that the constitution also tells us why the 2nd amendment exists -- to protect the security of a free state. All the other benefits of an armed citizenry are gravy.

  • ||

    joe, you are the biggest pussy on the internet, and that's saying something.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Not all of them said they favored armed rebellion being an option, and regardless the Founders -- even the subset that were involved in the Constitution (eg NOT Thomas Jefferson) did not write the 2nd amendment which is something that seems lost on both sides. It was a totally different process with different goals.

    And in any case, what matters is not what the person writing it thought, but what the people ratifying the text interpreted it to mean.

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's all moot now. It's recognized as an individual right. I'd also suggest that the government today totally repudiates the idea of armed rebellion, even for a good reason, so this really does track back to the natural rights argument. Regardless of what the law states or the government wants, an armed population is a check on tyranny. That includes, incidentally, the individuals in the military.

  • SIV||

  • ||

    Why can't tony appear on a milk carton?

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    When a politician suggests the Second Amendment is all about hunting, he trivializes it, just as he would be trivializing the First Amendment by saying it's all about pornography.

    I thought the First Amendment protected my right to keep and bear pictures of naked chicks on the calenders my suppliers bring me.
    ...
    You mean to tell me that to understand the Constitution, I might have to read the damned thing? I dunno. That sounds like a lot of work.

  • WTF||

    Yeah, and it's like 100 years old and shit...

  • Auric Demonocles||

    The purpose for my gun is irrelevant. I'm not hurting anyone just by having it, so fuck off.

  • rts||

    Exactly. Lefties can grok victimless crimes in the context of drug possession/use, but (of course) collapse into a jelly of contradiction when you point out that possessing/carrying a firearm is also a victimless crime.

  • o3||

    the constitution is not a suicide pact. while you paranoid gun-nutz are waiting for the black helos, thousands of americans suffer the worst gun violence in any (supposedly) advanced society.

    since the 2d specifically refers to a milita, why dont you gun-nutz demand RPG's, M60 MG's, and anti-personnel mines while you're ranting.

  • RyanXXX||

    While you paranoid gun-nuts are waiting for the slim chance of being shot in a movie theatre, Americans are suffering under the most bloated and intrusive government in their history.

  • o3||

    a 100 round drum mag isnt a "slim chance"

    how do you know nobody was armed in that theater?

    cause there's a sign?

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    Because law abiding citizens obeyed the law?
    Because the criminal didn't?

    a 100 round drum mag isnt a "slim chance"

    How many theaters you see get shot up? Not many.(Big Secret: It's very rare, that's why it's news.)

  • WTF||

    What? You mean signs and laws prohibiting things MAY NOT ACTUALLY WORK?!

    Do you even realize you just countered your own gun control argument?

  • o3||

    on the contrary, you gun-nuts are implying or alledging that a sign means no one but the shooter was armed.

    prove it

  • ||

    Awww fuck. You just won the debate hands down by demanding that we prove a negative.
    You are a genius o3.

  • o3||

    ok logic master, prove the collary

    prove the only guns in that theater were the shooters.

    prove the positive

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Thursday.

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    the constitution is not a suicide pact.

    No, but I can make some calls if you're looking for one.

  • Tim||

    In Syria right now, there are government authorities going door to door shooting people in the head just to terrorize the ones that are resisting.

    Of course this would never happen here.

  • sarcasmic||

    According to Tony, government has the monopoly on legitimate force, therefore all force by government is legitimate.

    So by Tony's "logic" authorities have every right to shoot innocent people in the head.

  • o3||

    so go to syria and fight em afore they get over here! im sure they welcome video warriors

  • Tim||

    One of us has been in a foreign country in uniform, and it isn't you. Ass.

  • o3||

    wrong; panama and kuwait here

  • R C Dean||

    What's the saying? "On the internet, no one knows you're a dog"?

  • Killazontherun||

    So long as the right people are in charge, it wont. So make sure that once you have given progressives these powers over your life and property you never waiver in supporting them, or else you'll get a bullet in the head when the true fascist come around.

  • Tulpa the White||

    If the US govt gets that bad, what do you think they would do to people who shot the thugs going door to door?

  • Loki||

    Drone strike.

  • NeonCat||

    OK, I so demand. Can I get some anti-tank mines, too, or am I limited to anti-personnel? And does a 155mm howitzer hook up to a standard trailer hitch, or is there an adapter you have to get?

  • Tim||

    You'll need a big truck for a 155. I'd suggest as a beginner you go with something like an 60mm Mortar.

  • T||

    A towed howitzer does, in fact, hook up to a standard hitch. You need one of the big pintle hooks, though, not a typical ball. But they're heavy SOBs. I think over 9k or 10k? You need a big truck.

  • Peter L||

    We can just attach a standard hitch to the back of the Abrams tank we are going to keep just in case.

  • o3||

    that's it...let all that wingnut out

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Matrix, you bastard. You killed Kenny my witticism (which I will toss in the pot anyway...).

    "Be veeewy veeewy quiet. I'm hunting TYWENTZ!"

  • Matrix||

    If you were "The Early P Brooks" you might have beaten me to it. Since you're "The Late P Brooks"... well, too bad.

  • Tim||

    Hard to believe that Obama's policy people told him that now is a good time to poke the NRA hornet's nest. Maybe he sees this as mobilizing his base?

  • ant1sthenes||

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    Wait, wait, wait...
    Kanye West isn't retarded?!

  • Tim||

    Yeah ant1sthenes you should have put "SPOILER" in that.

  • KDN||

    That should be funny, but it's not. I hate DOB.

  • NoVAHockey||

    it's like he's trying to lose the rust belt.

  • ant1sthenes||

    A lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals—that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.

    Now if we could just get your Department of Justice on board with that notion, Mr. President.

    Did this dumbass even think before opening himself up to such an obvious comeback?

  • Tim||

    What he is saying here is that americans who own ak-47s are criminals and hunters should not associate with them.

  • Pip||

    That was my takeaway too.

  • BarryD||

    No non-criminal believes that AK-47s should be in the hands of criminals. Nor do they believe that criminals should have getaway cars, running shoes, face masks, or anything else other than an orange jumpsuit and a cell to live in.

    Obama's whole statement is stupid, from top to bottom.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    I thought the NDAA made all of America part of the battlefield? I think we should all be prepared.

  • ||

    I assume the reference her eis to Fast Furious. The Obama is opening himself up to someone questioning him on that little nasty piece of policy vs. his opinion that Joe Schmoe shouldn't own high-powered weapons. I guess it's OK for Mexican Schmoes to own these kinds of guns, just not 'Merkians.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Well, Mexico is a battlefield in the War on Drugs, so he thinks they belong there.

  • Peter L||

    "A lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals—that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities"

    But if war ever came to the streets of our cities, it would certainly be nice to have an AK-47 on hand. Why doesn't he want us to be prepared?

    Having an AK, SKS, AR, or just about any rifle with the appropriate ammunition is a matter of emergency preparedness.

  • perlhaqr||

    An AK-47 is a selective-fire assault rifle, illegal for civilians.

    False. AK-47s which were manufactured and placed on the NFA registry before 1986 can be purchased with a tax stamp from the ATF. NFA is "National Firearms Act of 1934".

    Registered full-auto AK-47s are very expensive however, due to their limited supply.

  • IceTrey||

    Aw, you beat me to it. I would add that it also isn't illegal under federal law to own other makes of machine guns (it may be under state law), just pay the $200 tax and away you go.

  • BarryD||

    No new full autos have been legal for an ordinary citizen to register since 1986. There are only a few collectibles available, and their owners don't sell them cheap.

    You apply, send in fingerprints, pay the $200 and in a few months the ATF will send you a stamp that allows you to pay $15,000 for a decades-old gun from a collector -- a gun that costs the Army a few hundred bucks.

    Owning a machine gun legally would make no sense for a criminal, anyway. Their records would preclude them from owning it, and they can get an untraceable one from south of the border for less money.

  • fish||

    Owning a machine gun legally would make no sense for a criminal, anyway. Their records would preclude them from owning it, and they can get an untraceable one from south of the border for less money.

    Yeah I hear that there's this guy named Holder who can set you up! No questions asked!

  • BarryD||

    And I do not believe any NFA full-autos have been used in crimes, either. It's actually cheaper to get a machine gun from a smuggler.

  • T||

    To the best of my knowledge, exactly one has. And that was (surprise!) a police weapon used by an officer.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Searcy v. Dayton concerns one of the only times I've heard of an NFA full-auto weapon being used in a crime. I think there's one other from Las Vegas, but I'm not sure. It's exceedingly rare, in any event.

    Were there ever charges filed in the Uzi + 8 year-old-shooter accident during a machine gun shoot?

  • John||

    Is Searcy the bank robbers in LA? That is the only time I can think of, although I want to say a few cops have used them on troublesome ex wives.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Off-duty cop v. drug dealers in Ohio. Cop was carrying his own MAC-11. I don't believe the bank robbers' AK-clones were legally owned.

  • John||

    I think the bank robbers had fully automatic. What a bunch of nuts those guys were.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Completely agree---the video clip where one dumps a mag into an approaching cop car is pretty conclusive that at least one of their rifles was full-auto---but I doubt that Mastsareanu (sp?) et al, had tax stamps for their weapons.

    I'm pretty sure that a lot of the e.g., Tec-9 trash was converted to full-auto with some helpful filing.

    But legally owned full-auto in the U.S being used in crime? Very, very rare.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    "i needs a crew-serviced, heavy weapon...for self-defense"

    Does the term "mutual aid society" ring a bell?

  • Killazontherun||

    Most everyone believes this to be about matters of national concern, a public debate for mass consideration, if you will, but you are wrong. There is only one reason that Obama is doing this, and it isn't about the issues because he doesn't care one way or another. This is about one thing, and one thing only, to test my, that's right Killaz, my resolve not to pull the lever for Romney. He knows I've vowed to vote strictly Libertarian from 2002 on if I even bother to vote at all, and he is trying to goad me into the GOP fold. Why, I'm not sure. Maybe he has made a bet with a meta-existent entity on the depth of my resolve. It could be that I'm wrong, but that would mean he is either a one man false flag operation working for the GOP, or just the dumbest motherfucker that ever lived. You kind of have to be if you tempt me to vote for Romney.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    You want this, don't you? The hate is swelling in you now.

  • Killazontherun||

    Hatred, pettiness, and the cheap thrills in life (Seinfeld episode titty glancing comes to mind) sustain my very existence, Scruffy.

  • Killazontherun||

    And, I'm still a Gary Johnson man, a self professed lover of the cocaine will always get my vote, even with the dead hookers in his past. Obama trying his damnedest to tempt towards Romney though. He couldn't possibly make more stupid moves than he has to turn my stomach. What's next, man hugging Fidel?

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Good. Use your aggressive feelings. Let the hate flow through you.

  • ant1sthenes||

    I feel like this every day. I just have to keep telling myself that just because Romney isn't so open about his awfulness doesn't mean he isn't another Bush rehash.

  • Sevo||

    Obozo:
    "I'm all for the 2nd amendment/free speech/free markets/letting people smoke what they want/x/x/x, BUT..."

    The last word is the only one that matters.

  • Paul.||

    that hunting and shooting tyrants are part of a cherished national heritage.

    Fixed.

  • Hugh Akston||

    You can't eat 'em though. Too fatty.

  • ||

    They're also full of shit, which isn't healthy to eat.

  • Matrix||

    well, they try to feed it to us all the time.

  • ||

    High in vitamin STATISM!!11

  • ||

    It couldn't possibly succeed given modern standing armed forces, and how would it work anyway?

    --------------

    The pernicious slavemaker has no understanding whatsoever of guerrilla warfare? How can this be?!

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Admittedly, the Afghans are a tougher lot than your average American, but the reality of guerrilla warfare remains. An armed conquest of the US isn't possible.*

    *I am exempting the Krugabe alien invasion from this statement.

  • ||

    It's possible in an Oliver Stone movie, but that's about it.

  • R C Dean||

    An armed conquest of the US isn't possible

    Not without liberal application of NBC weapons, anyway.

  • Paul.||

    What about Red Dawn?

  • ||

    Also, what the fuck is up with all the progressives implying civilian ownership of automatic weapons would be a bad thing?

  • AZ||

    Think how bad ammo costs would get with that kind of demand surge...

  • Killazontherun||

    They know who knows their guns, and it ain't them; hence the terror that their self chosen enemy, the one they explicitly threw the gauntlet into the ring to face down, would under such conditions be even better empowered. Their advocacy is a little self preservation on their part, but mostly paranoia.

  • Loki||

    An AK-47 is a selective-fire assault rifle, illegal for civilians. Presumably Obama is referring to semiautomatic rifles that resemble the AK-47

    I doubt it. I think it's far more likely that he's disengenuously blurring the line on purpose. "Semi-automatic civilian knockoff of a military rifle" doesn't have the same "OMG, MASHEENNE GUNZ!!!1!!!!" effect as the deliberate appeal to emotion that invoking the dreaded "AK-47" has. IOW he's deliberatly being mis-leading, aka lyeing through his fucking teeth (his mouth was open and words were coming out, so it's to be expected).

  • R C Dean||

    I'm confident that Obama's ignorance of guns is so complete that he is unaware of the distinction between a select-fire genuine AK-47 and a semi-auto civilian look-alike.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    So is Obama "the most anti-gun president in history," as the NRA warned he would be four years ago? Objectively, no.

    A couple of my Obamapologist acquaintances like to point pridefully at his signing of a Bill which included the change in the law regarding gun possession in the national parks.

    "SEE?" they ask. "All those nutjob teabaggers who said he was a gungrabber were wrong!"

    I merely remind them that was one small part of a very large piece of legislation that he was completely incapable of vetoing or otherwise stopping.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    It couldn't possibly succeed given modern standing armed forces

    We should totally print this on leaflets and drop them all over Afghanistan.

  • NeonCat||

    The Afghans know the truth: bleed them long enough, wait them out, sooner or later they'll leave. It's been true of every armed force that has ever wandered through that godawful part of the world, from Alexander the Great to today.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The Afghani were lucky that the Soviet Union weren't crazy enough to turn Afghanistan into a radioactive wasteland.

  • Gray Ghost||

    They were; it's just that we'd have had a problem with that. Plus, they would have had to do it to a good chunk of Pakistan too, in order to make it stick.

    Still, the Soviets killed, what? 1/10th of the Afghani population?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    That's true. People forget that the Afghani Taliban are sane compared to their Pakistani counterparts.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Precisely. Our "problem" is that we're reluctant to use our full power.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Perhaps even totalitarians realize just how pointless that would be.

  • IceTrey||

    You'd think the President would know that the rifle he is calling an AK-47 is really an AKM. It's only been so for 53 years.

  • T||

    He spent all his time mislearning the Constitution. You can't expect him to know guns as well, Ice.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    No. He learned the Constitution very well. But he is counting on each and every one of us not to have paid so much attention in Civics class.

  • Pip||

    OT - REVEALED: CORZINE’S MF GLOBAL WAS A CLIENT OF ERIC HOLDER’S LAW FIRM

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-G.....nt-of-Eric Holder-s-Law-Firm

  • Pip||

    Look for it here:

    http://www.breitbart.com/

  • John||

    I guess we know now why Corzine isn't in prison.

  • R C Dean||

    He was, and still is, one of Obama's biggest bundlers. That's why.

    And the fact that our watchdog media is completely uninterested in the fact that hundreds of millions are still missing, that Corzine was directly involved in the shenanigans, and that he is still walking around free and raising money for Obama, tells you all you need to know about the media.

  • John||

    From the NYT Monday

    onsider the following excerpts from Peters’ production:

    * “[T]he (Obama campaign’s) press office has veto power over what statements can be quoted and attributed by name.”
    * “Quote approval is standard practice for the Obama campaign, used by many top strategists and almost all midlevel aides in Chicago and at the White House.”
    * “From Capitol Hill to the Treasury Department, interviews granted only with quote approval have become the default position.”
    * “It was difficult to find a news outlet that had not agreed to quote approval, albeit reluctantly.” Ratner believes that the Associated Press and McClatchy are exceptions; I’m less than convinced.
    * “Many journalists spoke about the editing only if granted anonymity, an irony that did not escape them.”

    They are flat out a state run media that coordinates everything they write and say with the Obama campaign.

  • ant1sthenes||

    What is this, shriek bait?

  • ||

    I like all the speculation about who would fight who. You know god damn well those DEA cocksuckers would run over each other for the chance to suck some POTUS cock and kill a few "civilians." Same goes with the FBI.

    As addressed upthread, army and marine grunts are pretty constitutionally bound. I'd be willing to bet that Ron Paul was/is very popular in the military. Sure some of them will fight for POTUS (for many reasons...maybe they are yankees who just hate texans), some of them won't.

    The bottom line is it won't be an easily drawn mason-dixie line sort of fight. It'll be more like the cities vs the county. Idaho will glady tell Obama to suck their collective dick. And these boys here in Arkansas, they love their camo, thier guns, and their god. Gangs would take over califonia because all them pussy fucking liberals will wet their pants instead of defending themselves.

  • sarcasmic||

    It'll be more like the cities vs the county.

    Isn't that the way it is now?

  • John||

    Ron Paul was and is very popular in the military. And the military would not fire on American civilians. They would have to rely on the FBI and DEA for that.

  • Paul.||

    Topical threadjack: I'm thinking of buying this weapon which has no valid sporting purpose.

    http://www.ruger.com/products/lcp/index.html?r=y

  • ||

    My mom has one. It's a nice little thing.

  • John||

    Ruger just makes quality weapons.

  • ||

    I love my little SR9c, and the woman loves her LCR. Ruger is good shit.

  • John||

    A Ruger Mini 14 is about the most fun rifle in the world to shoot.

  • ||

    I've never shot one, but I would love to have one of the 7.62x39 ones. The only thing that gives me pause is the fact that the A-team had such terrible accuracy problems with theirs.

  • John||

    A mini 14 is basically an M14 only it shoots .22. It is just great. Like shooting a fancy pop gun with cheap ammo.

  • ||

    You're thinking of a 10/22. Mini-14s are chambered in .223 and 7.62x39.

    And, yes, 10/22s are fantastic too.

  • John||

    Yes I am Warty. Good catch. And yes they are really fun.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    I taught my son to shoot with a Ruger 10/22. I agree. It's a lot of fun.

  • Paul.||

    I've always wanted that Tacticalized version of the Mini-14.

  • ||

    Dude, I tried the LCP and liked it less than my Kel-Tec P3AT. The Kel-Tec is a nice little gun, but you might have to send it back for a "fluff and buff", so if that idea bothers you, go with the LCP, I suppose, seeing as it's a direct ripoff of the P3AT anyway.

  • ||

    My dad just got a Kimber target 1911 which I'm incredibly jealous of. A man would feel honored to get killed with such an elegant weapon.

  • ||

    Kimbers are overpriced and overrated. They are coating on a name they deservedly built 20 years ago.

    They're nice guns, but I prefer my CZ 97B.

  • ||

    My favorite gun is my 1943 Finnish m39, Mr. Fancypants. We can't all share your refined sensibilities, you perfumed dandy.

  • Paul.||

    My favorite gun is my 1943 Finnish m39, Mr. Fancypants. We can't all share your refined sensibilities, you perfumed dandy.

    You saying Epi is a pearl-handle man?

  • ||

    He likes his guns like he likes his men: shiny and in his ass.

  • ||

    And black. Don't forget that.

  • Paul.||

    After having a bad experience with my 1990s era Colt 1911, I'm a little "off" on 1911s. Opinion is always divided. You talk to one guy, 1911 is the only way to go, talk to another, 1911 is by its very nature only reliable with hardball.

    I just picked up the Springfield XD which are apparently flying off the shelves. I've only put one box of hardball and half a box of hollows through it, but it hasn't failed me once. Lot of buzz on the web about them.

  • ||

    My dad has an XD too. I love that gun as well, it just lacks the elegance of the 1911. It's basically a Glock ripoff with a safety.

  • Paul.||

    My dad has an XD too. I love that gun as well, it just lacks the elegance of the 1911. It's basically a Glock ripoff with a safety

    It's cooler than the Glock. The Glock is the Volvo of guns, "They're boxy, but they're good."

    The XD adds some surface features, and even Hickock45 (youtube gun sensation) who is a glock man to the bottom of his nutsack prefers the stock grip of the XD.

    For me, I'm just so freakin ecstatic that I can put a magazine through it without a misfire, I get a chubby just thinking about it.

    Oh shit, there I go clinging to my guns. I guess I'll have to get a bible now.

  • Paul.||

    I suppose, seeing as it's a direct ripoff of the P3AT anyway.

    Lot's of conspiracy theories on the web about that. I have no strong opinion on it. I read this review of the Kel Tec vs LCP and it said both guns are worthy. Reviewer notes that he couldn't shoot his Kel Tec for a month because of a defective barrel-- which Kel Tec replaced no questions asked.

    I've just had a soft place in my little black heart for Ruger, and their QC is generally superior. I figured I could save some change on the Kel Tec (and to the fluff and buff on the ramps etc) but I figured I'd drop the extra change on the Ruger and be done.

    But I do like both the Kel Tec and LCP.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Chambered for 380 Auto it has no valid self defense purpose either.

    Don't get me started on the .22 SRs and LCRs. Talk about bringing a knife to a gun fight.

  • ||

    Hey Tulpa, how about I shoot you with a .22LR. I mean, it's a knife to a gun fight, right? It'll barely sting, right?

    Way to pull out the most retarded knee-jerk response in the world of gun talk, genius.

  • Tulpa the White||

    22LR is perfectly capable of opening a hole in an attacker's circulatory system that will lead to his bleeding to death 20-30 minutes after he kills you and rapes your wife and family.

    So yeah, I don't want to get shot with 22lr. I don't want to get stabbed with a paring knife, either. Doesn't make it an effective SD armament.

  • ||

    Whatever is what you'll carry regularly is the effective self defense armament.

    I love it when you talk out your ass, Tulpy-poo. It reminds me of address parsing.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Obviously something you won't carry and/or can't shoot accurately under pressure isn't going to be effective. I agree, which is why I carry 9mm (actually the same gun as Warty) rather than something more "powerful". You have other options between 22lr and 44 Mag.

  • ||

    And sometimes you don't. Come on, Tulpy-poo. Dig your ignorance hole deeper. It's what you do.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    What happened to head shots? That's how my Dad always taught me to pop gophers. I would think 22 ammo would serve just fine for that unless someone were wearing a helmet. Then, one needs good aim and creativity.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Those gophers probably weren't coming at you with a knife and complete surprise.

  • ||

    What happened to head shots?

    I wonder how much forehead a .22 can penetrate. And if I'm assaulted by an Irishman with a sloped brow, will that just deflect my bullet?

  • John||

    But the Irishman will be drunk. You just have to throw a beer or a bottle of whiskey out and when he bends over to pick it up, get him in the top of the head where he has less amour.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    I certainly wouldn't want my forehead to be the only thing between a 22 bullet and my brain. Perhaps Mythbusters can shoot some skulls for us to answer the question, once and for all.

  • Pip||

    In my city, a .22 headshot is a common form of execution. Bullet goes in, stays in and bounces about.

  • Paul.||

    As a good friend-of-a-friend of mine (who was a gun nut and FFL holder) once said about a .25 caliber, "I wouldn't want to be standing in front of it when it went off."

    Tulpa, I love you like the back-room sprog that you don't let the neighbors see, but my carrying piece has to be small, unobtrusive, and I don't want target penetration to the woman with the stroller 50 yards in the background.

    I have my big caliber guns, but they're not carrying pieces. 1. Because they're too bulky. 2. Because I'm not comfortable slinging .45 caliber slugs down a street-- even if I hit my target.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Hollow point drastically reduces overpenetration concerns if you hit your target. If you miss... well, like your friend in law said, you don't want to be in its path of travel even if it's 22lr.

    It's effective at killing, not effective at stopping.

  • Paul.||

    I have stopping power for home defense.

    For the street I need, "Son of a bitch! I just got shot! AAAAHHHH!" RUUUUN!" defense.

  • John||

    It's effective at killing, not effective at stopping.

    Because people turn into zombies after being fatally shot all of the time. And of course there is always those stories of intruders being shot but continuing the assault ripping the victim's head off like a grizzly bear.

  • John||

    And a high velocity .22 round does a ton of damage. I have never and will never buy the bullshit about "stopping power". That is just bullshit gun shop owners tell people to get them to buy bigger weapons they don't need.

    Generally shooting someone, even with a .22, tends to end the confrontation.

  • Paul.||

    If the cops use a .380 as their backup weapon, it's good enough for me.

  • John||

    I have a .45. But that is just because I like them and always wanted to own one. It is more than I need for home defense.

  • Tulpa the White||

    If it weren't inferior it wouldn't be the backup.

  • John||

    Cops couldn't carry a smaller .40 or .45?

  • Paul.||

    If it weren't inferior it wouldn't be the backup.

    Cops are allowed to open carry and shoot dogs and unarmed "civilians" with larger caliber weapons. I'm not because I'm held to a higher standard.

    The .380 has to fit in my pocket, preferably not make a huge BANG and not blast through the torso leaving large exit wounds and killing the primary school kid in line for the museum on his field trip.

    What I'm saying, specifically, Tulpa, is that I am willing to take increased tactical risk in defending myself with a smaller caliber weapon so to avoid collateral damage.

    Tulpa, do we agree that the Paris is the Capital of France? If we do, then we're back in agreement.

  • Tulpa the White||

    It's misused a lot because people are, well, glib about it. People want a simple answer, for instance the endless 45acp vs 9mm debate.

    Stopping power is a very tough thing to measure because so much depends on the circumstances of where and how a firearm will be used and who's using it. But that doesn't mean it's not a concern.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Per Larry Correia, "Handguns suck." All of them. Some suck less than others, but none suck as bad as not having one. So, if your concealment requirements and lifestyle preclude you from having anything larger than .380 or .22 LR, then that's what you go with.

    There are defensive loadings in .380 that meet the FBI 12 inch criteria. There aren't many, and I'd consider them marginal, but as above, run what ya' brung.

    I thought that is was helpful if a BUG could run the same ammo/mags as your main weapon? Hence the popularity of cut-down Glocks. (G30 vs G21, etc...)

  • John||

    Interesting article. For the longest time my home defense was an 8mm Mauser long gun. People thought I was crazy. But my plan was to always drop behind my bed and wait for said intruder to walk through the door and shoot him.

    Maybe my first plan was better than I thought.

  • Paul.||

    Hence the popularity of cut-down Glocks. (G30 vs G21, etc...)

    I'm also not a fan of having something hot in my pocket (Woof! Woof!) that has a trigger pull of .001mm and no manual safety.

    The LCP has no manual safety, but it's double action so its trigger pull is equivalent to the old revolvers the cops used to go with before they got glocks and started accidentally shooting themselves.

    My personal rule for a carrying piece is that if it has no manual safety, that the trigger has to have a good, long pull (double action).

  • Gray Ghost||

    So get a pocket holster and/or a 'NY trigger', Paul. Kinda irrelevant though for the Glock, as even the G36 is a little bigger than I can see doing pocket carry with. People who don't holster a Glock though, are practicing Darwinian selection, IMHO.

    Ruger's LCR is really slick for a revolver and is what I'm considering for the GF's CCW. One of the smoothest trigger pulls not named SW 686 competition.

    Not that I'm volunteering to get shot by one, but pistols just can't deliver the K.E. of a centerfire rifle bullet---along with whatever effects come from the temporary wound cavity from a 2400 FPS+ projectile, or the multiple projectiles of buckshot. Accordingly, no pistol (just stop it with the .454 Casul/Linebaugh/etc... stuff) is that reliable for stopping a determined assailant right then and there. Unless you work for Delta Force and practice shooting 1000s of rounds of .45 a year into targets' heads. Though even they use 5.56 carbines now, I guess.

    For the rest of us, we're just trying to do the best we can. I commend anyone willing to carry and become proficient with their handgun, whatever their caliber. Doesn't mean there aren't preferred choices, of course.

  • Paul.||

    So get a pocket holster and/or a 'NY trigger', Paul

    Absolutely on the holster. But things happen, and even with a holster-- even the ones with the tab-thingy designed to 'catch up' on your clothing so the gun draws from your pocket, things happen. And as people here are fond of pointing out *cough*Tulpa*cough*, we don't always know how we're going to react in a dangerous situation. Will I be panicky? Will the "safety between my ears" not be working at 100% if I start struggling to get the gun out of my pocket and holster? I've practiced a lot and can disengage the manual safety on most pistols as I draw them. But if I forego the manual safety, I just feel more personally comfortable with a long trigger pull.

    On that same note, friend gave me an HK .40 semi-auto with the hammer.

    It is, in my opinion, one of the best carrying pieces out there.

    Edges are all beveled which keep from snagging. It's got a de-cock option so it can be left chambered, safety off... First trigger pull is double action with a long trigger pull, subsequent trigger pulls are standard semi-auto, short pulls.

    It's just a hair too big to be carried in light summer clothing without the Seattle hyperventilators (cops) seeing it.

  • SugarFree||

    As someone with experience in this area, a .380 does plenty of damage.

  • ||

    No, NutraSweet, it doesn't. You may have been actually shot by one, but Tulpa says they're ineffective, so you're just going to have to yield to his superior knowledge.

  • Tulpa the White||

    People don't react well to overdue fines, do they.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Don't mean to get personal and shit, but you're also more vulnerable to wounds being infected, right?

  • SugarFree||

    I was shot before I developed Type I diabetes. The doctor that diagnosed me said that being shot (or, actually, the subsequent treatment) probably damaged my pancreas enough to trigger it. Both my parents were diabetic, so it was always in the cards for me at some point.

    But yes, wounds heal slower and you are less able to fight off infections. They stuff me with antibiotics at the slight sign.

  • Paul.||

    I was shot before I developed Type I diabetes.

    But did you quit coming at the guy with your knife?

  • SugarFree||

    Dude, I was just reading a magazine. I didn't even have it rolled up or anything.

    Mine was a special case (the round broke my upper tibia into a profusion of jagged little pieces), so I really can't say how debilitating "just" a bullet wound is, but I wasn't up for much beyond screaming and writhing and cursing after just one bullet.

  • Paul.||

    Personal question... you only got shot just the once? You don't have to answer if you're not comfortable. Seriously.

    But anticipating your answer, if you were writhing and cursing, that's good enough for me for a knife-wielder. If I can get him into the 'writhing/cursing' mode, my .380 did the job.

    I'm not as hard-core as I was in my youth. I truly never expect to need a gun in self defense, and if I do, I'm not even all that keen in blowing him into the next life. I just want him neutralized so I can get my daughter away, back off and call 911.

  • tarran||

    Dude, details! How did you come to have a round in the leg? Accident or on purpose.

  • SugarFree||

    There was an incidence of slamfire with a .38 Colt Commander that a friend of mine had just finished stripping and cleaning. (Not that he should have been pointing it at me in the first place.) From about 3' feet, the solid-jacketed round entered my thigh, shattered my upper tibia, cracked the ball of my hip and then came out my left ass-cheek. The round was still so hot, I only lost about an ounce of blood.

  • Paul.||

    From about 3' feet, the solid-jacketed round entered my thigh, shattered my upper tibia, cracked the ball of my hip and then came out my left ass-cheek.

    Son of a bitch! Man that sucks.

    You damned bitter clingers. If those were illegal...

  • SugarFree||

    And there's Glaser Safety Slugs...

  • Paul.||

    I have some of those sitting in a box in my house. Got those so I wouldn't kill my daughter three rooms over in the house.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Insanely expensive, the last time I looked at them; unlikely to sufficiently penetrate within the target; and they don't always fragment when they're supposed to. I guess we could drag out 50 or so goats and see how they do...

    Per the Box O Truth cited by mad lib guy yesterday, anything that will sufficiently penetrate a bad guy to reliably stop him, will also blithely go through several walls of your house and do the same to anyone on the other side.

    It sucks. We need a phaser already. Or a Jinxian stunner.

  • Paul.||

    Just thinking outloud, the ones I have aren't Glaser brand, they're some off-brand. They're a lightweight copper slug with a plastic insert. Just spitballing here, but if the slug were to only to into the perp say, an inch under the flesh, the pain would be excruciating and would probably turn his ass around so fast he could win olympic gold if a judge were nearby.

    Imagine, sneaking through a house, and WHAM! a muzzle flash from a .45 goes off and you get slammed in the chest with something the size of your thumb, knocking you on your ass.

    I'll bet you 97% of the time any perp or perps are going to scatter like cockroaches.

  • fish||

    .380? Yuck!

  • Paul.||

    Stand riiiight there. Stand very still and look into this .380 barrel... this might sting a bit...

  • Tulpa the White||

    And 380 is flerking expensive too. I was thinking of buying a Bersa Thunder a few months back but chose not to due to the ammo issues.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    If you were "The Early P Brooks" ....

    Excellent.

    And-

    What with all this jibberjabber about teh GUNZ, my trigger finger has developed a powerful itch. I might just have to head over to the range this afternoon.

  • Paul.||

    No shit. I can't stop thinkin' about it. There I am, not even giving thought to my cherished 2nd amendment rights and then Wham! Obama and the media start sniffing around the issue again and all I can think about is increasing my arsenal.

  • Dick Hertz||

  • Paul.||

    Interesting. According to liberals, the 1st amendment was invented in 2010 by Citizens United.

  • John||

    Because it absolutely has to be completely smug and stupid, it has got to be Gawker.

  • albo||

    If policial knowledge was a body of water, Gawker's pool would be as shallow as a Kardashian. It's reflexive liberalism crossed with urban hipster contempt for anything requiring more than Tweet-length snark.

  • Killazontherun||

    Yeah, by some guy who started a brewing company in Boston, by the name of Adams, Sam I think, around 1978, or something. He said, "constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" at some big NRA function in Washington DC where they were drafting their organizational charter, I gather.

  • Jeff||

    He promised six dumb arguments, and he certainly delivered.

  • Tulpa the White||

    So is Obama "the most anti-gun president in history," as the NRA warned he would be four years ago? Objectively, no. Political reality has deterred him from doing much of anything in this area, to the consternation of gun control activists.

    And Achminejad and the Iranian government isn't anti-Israel since military reality has deterred them from doing much of anything in that area.

  • John||

    My God Democrats are lying sacks of shit. Before the election the talking point is "only fucking wingnuts think Obama wants to take anyone's gun." If he wins, after the election the talking point will be "of course Obama is going to take people's guns. He said he was all of the time and we had an election. So shut up wingnut."

  • sarcasmic||

    My God Democrats are lying sacks of shit.

    You're only now figuring this out?

    Evil always wins because it is not constrained by honesty or morality.

  • John||

    Republicans are stupid. Democrats are flat out evil.

  • R C Dean||

    I'd be very interested to see someone ask the President, on camera, if he has ever shot a gun, and if so, what kind of gun, when and where.

    I suspect he never has.

  • John||

    Obama on a gun range would likely result in a Dukakis in a tank moment. So I doubt we will see him near one any time soon.

  • Michael||

    I always considered his Dukakis moment to be the bicycle with the flat tire.

  • Paul.||

    I considered his Dukakis moment as his first 100 days on the job.

  • ||

    Oh God, I hope someone in his campaign war room is dumb enough to suggest that. Imagine his skinny ass at an Ohio or Virginia gun range trying to fire a Beretta (I'm assuming he'll just borrow a Secret Service piece).

  • ||

    Ha, he'll probably look like this chick with the Desert Eagle:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqXLHzaEXh8

  • Michael||

    Say, here's an idea. Substitute "ever fired a gun" with "ever [insert any productive activity you could possibly think of here]". I guarantee that the answer will always be the same.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Not seeing how that's relevant to anyone.

    I've never sucked on a penis but that doesn't mean I think people should be forcibly prevented from doing it. Then again, you don't see me running dildos over the border into Mexico to try to drum up support for sodomy regulations.

  • R C Dean||

    Not seeing how that's relevant to anyone.

    Its just another cultural marker. Make of it what you will.

  • Nodnarb the Nasty||

    Obama is an authoritarian. This is not new.

    A sociologist educated at Stanford, has a good cross-national comparison on the numbers regarding gun control: Guns and Truth.

    Spoiler alert: gun control is ineffective. It is really just another way for elites to tell us what to do.

  • Dr. Frankenstein||

    My favorite treatise on the right to bear and keep arms.

    http://www.virginiainstitute.o....._const.php

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Question:

    Anybody have experience with the Advantage Arms .22 conversion for the 1911? I'm pretty sure I need one. If it fits, I'll probably just leave it on my .38 super Llama. (.38 super is expensive and hard to find; other than that...)

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    "An AK-47 is a selective-fire assault rifle, illegal for civilians."

    But if Ice-T is right, and the point of the 2nd Amendment is to defend yourself against the police, or at least, "official oppression and private aggression," then why should a firearm like this be "illegal for civilians"? I'd sure like to have one, and if the government tells me I can't have one, then who is boss, really, the people in general, or the people who have been elected and appointed to government posts?

  • tarran||

    In the 1830's the Supreme Court looked at the Penumbra and Eminations of the BOR and concluded that it only protected the right of people to own military grade weapons.

    I find that very amusing.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    You are referring to US v. Miller (1939), I think. The justices basically found that a sawed-off shotgun wasn't a proper military weapon, and that the 2nd Amendment only protected the citizen's rights to bear military arms. Note also that this case came to court because the US passed an effective "ban" in the form of a "tax." We say that full-auto weapons are "illegal for civilians," but in fact, they are perfectly "legal" if you register them (for tax purposes, of course) and pay the tax. Tax code shenanigans did not start with the Obamacare mandate, not by a long shot (or a sawed-off shotgun, for that matter).

  • R C Dean||

    That's how pot was initially outlawed, as I recall, back when the Commerce Clause wasn't a plenary grant of power.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Most of the state versions of the 2nd amendment explicitly say that the right to bear arms is partially for the defense of the state, not just the individual. One could argue that the federal 2nd amendment's prefatory clause indicates the same (even with an individual rights interpretation). I really don't think it's intended to enable rebellion or resisting the lawful authorities.

  • ||

    Even if we accept the notion that the 2nd Amendment is, in part, for the defense of the state, wouldn't that justify rebelling against a corrupt state in defense of a just one?

  • Fluffy||

    I think what you're missing is that the "defense of a free state" included the defense of the state against the new central government being formed.

    It may not have been intended to enable rebellion by the people against an individual state, but it definitely was intended (in part) to enable the secession of an individual state from the new central government. Which is rebellion of a sort, is it not?

  • albo||

    Christ, now the wine and cheese nibblers at The Atlantic are getting into it:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/nat.....rs/260322/

    Hey, we've neutered or limited the rest of the Bill of Rights, so stop trying to keep the 2nd Amendment prestine, you bitter clingers!

  • Paul.||

    Some Constitutional Amendments Are More Equal Than Others

    I didn't read past this.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Obama on a gun range would likely result in a Dukakis in a tank moment.

    Nonsense; surely someone in his Secret Service detail would happily reprise John Wayne's role in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.

  • ||

    Obama doesn't think the 2nd amendment is about hunting. He knows full well that it's about shooting politicians. But he wants very much for the rest of the country to think it's about hunting, because that means he's not trampling on people's rights, just their hobbies.

  • Pip||

    "Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism....That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."

    Michelle Obama, February 2008

  • Pro Libertate||

    Yo, fuck Obama(s).

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    So, by the logic set forth by Morgan Freeman and Sam Jackson and others, Ice-T is only disagreeing with Obama's stance on guns because he's a racist who hates blacks, right?

  • ||

    The term is "race traitor" or Uncle Tom. He'll be joining the shit list with Clarence Thomas, Condi, and formerly Colin Powell (although he will end up back on the list if he endorses Romney).

  • mad libertarian guy||

    You forgot lefty favorites to describe blacks who deign to engage in thoughtcrime: lawn jockey and house nigger.

  • sarcasmic||

    All three will still vote for him.

    Why?

    Because he's black.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    It is really just another way for elites to tell us what to do.

    Exhibit A:

    Mayors Against Legal Guns

  • dinfeee||

    Thats what I am talking about. Wow. man.

    www.Anon-Rules.tk

  • dinfeee||

    Thats what I am talking about. Wow. man.

    www.Anon-Rules.tk

  • Proprietist||

    Good lord, why does anyone even waste time arguing with Tony anymore? He's the most disingenuous troll and he gets off on our reaction to his fallcies. If you completely dismantle his argument, he runs away and later denies it ever happened. Stop wasting your time. He always wins because he says he does, not because he has a modicum of logic.

    This coming from a left-libertarian with some pretty divergent views from many here.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Obama didn't really come here to hunt, did he?

  • Ralph Wylie||

    Dianne Feinstein and Michael "Big Gulp" Bloomberg both equally jumped on the anti-Gun bandwagon as soon as the Aurora theater shooting story broke. While hiding behind their armed body guards, their demands and proclamations were thinly veiled political theater which only reflected that their knowledge/ignorance of firearms was acquired from watching Hollywood movies where every gun is an full auto assault weapon and described as an "AK" with magazines that never run out of ammunition. The tragic irony is that Obama's and Holders' Fast and Furious gun running scheme was responsible for more murders than the Aurora shooter's. FF DID sell AK's to the Mexicans because they didn't want American made AR-15's identified with the deal if caught. Besides, AK's are a preferred weapon as they have been test-driven by terrorists worldwide and are proven to be quick, dirty and cheap. They are also more readily available and more reliable than the AR's, but that's another story.
    God bless the NRA and Darryl Issa.

  • danis||

    Sales rolex replica, High-quality replica rolex watches,Top brand watches,all luxury watches for sale cheap and cheapest only $59 ,Buy cheap watches online at http://www.replicawatches007.com

  • Sharpshooter||

    Quite: "So is Obama "the most anti-gun president in history," as the NRA warned he would be four years ago? Objectively, no. Political reality has deterred him from doing much of anything in this area, "

    No? Don't confuse what he can GET AWAY WITH as Prez with what is his philosophy, and what he would do as KING.

  • Tejicano||

    "Don't confuse what he can GET AWAY WITH as Prez.."

    ...with what a lame duck Obama will do with executive orders.

  • NL_||

    Probably best to interpret these comments as a nod to the anti-gun folks without any concrete proposals and little chance of serious follow-through. Probably a mistake, though, given that there are plenty of gun-loving Democrats but not a ton of gun-hating Republicans.

  • bigphillydaddy||

    He's supposed to be a Constitutional Lawyer/Expert. He knows exactly what the 2nd Amendment was intended for and that's biggest obstacle that stands in the way of his, and his handlers plans.

  • Suki||

    "supposed to be" is key there.

  • Rzraick||

    Let's get real. Obama does not think this is about the tradition of hunting. It is just a ploy to the get the heads of the sheeple nodding in the affirmative. That would be like saying that we have freedom of speech so we can talk about the weather. We have the right if free speech so we can criticize the government.

    Obama is really good at wearing a mask, while acting as a tyrant. He wants to commit treason by violating his oath of office as he has done time and time again. He wants to look like a reasonable person, while he incrementally assumes ultimate power.

    Look under the mask and see him for what he is. He is a Marxist/Leninist and if you don't know what that is, you might educate yourself.

    The man supports the idea of having a secret kill list. He want to disarm you, because he is a tyrant.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement