In Defense of Self-Defense

The modern-day massacres are proof beyond a doubt that the government cannot protect us.



Most of the mass killings by gun in the United States in recent years—Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Newtown, Charleston, San Bernardino, and now Orlando—took place in venues where local or state law prohibited carrying guns, even by those lawfully licensed to do so. The government cheerfully calls these venues "gun-free zones." They should be called killing zones.

As unspeakable and horrific as is the recent slaughter in Orlando, it has become just another example of the tragic consequences of government's interfering with the exercise of fundamental liberties. After a while, these events cease to shock; but they should not cease to cause us to re-examine what the government has done to us.

We know from reason, human nature, and history that the right to defend yourself is a natural instinct that is an extension of the right to self-preservation, which is itself derived from the right to live. Life is the great gift from the Creator, and we have a duty to exercise our freedoms to preserve life until its natural expiration. But the lives we strive to preserve should not be those actively engaged in killing innocent life.

The Framers recognized this when they ratified the Second Amendment, which the Supreme Court recently held was written to codify—and thus prevent the government from infringing on—the pre-political right to own and use modern-day weapons for self-defense or to repel tyrants.

The term "pre-political" derives from the language of the Second Amendment, which protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." The constitutional reference of "the" right to keep and bear arms makes clear that the Framers recognized that the right pre-existed the government because it stems from our humanity. That's why pre-political rights are known as fundamental or natural rights.

Because the right to use modern weaponry for the defense of life, liberty, and property is natural, we should not need a government permission slip before exercising it, any more than we need one to exercise other natural rights, such as speech, press, assembly, travel and privacy.

Yet since the Progressive era 100 years ago—ushered in by Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson and enabled by nearly every president since—the government has taken the position that it can care for us better than we can care for ourselves. So it has severely curtailed our rights and left us reliant on the government itself for protection.

The modern-day massacres are proof beyond a doubt that the government cannot protect us.

In the Orlando tragedy, the man who killed 49 and wounded 53 used a handgun and a rifle. The handgun accepted magazines containing 17 bullets, and the rifle accepted magazines containing 30 bullets. The killer, using both weapons, fired more than 250 times last Sunday morning. That means he reloaded his weapons about a dozen times. Each time he reloaded, he stopped shooting, as it is impossible for any person to shoot and reload simultaneously.

We know from forensics that the killer was a poor shot. We can deduce from that knowledge that he was a slow reloader. One learns to shoot first and reload later. It is likely that it took between three and seven seconds each time he reloaded the handgun and longer with the rifle. In those time periods, any trained person carrying a handgun in that Orlando nightclub could have wounded or killed him—and stopped the slaughter.

Don't expect to hear that argument from the gun control crowd in the government. It is the same crowd that has given us the killing zones. It is the same crowd that does not trust you to protect yourself. It is the same crowd that ignores the reality that in the post-World War II era, there is not one recorded example in the U.S. of a person in a restaurant or bar getting drunk and shooting his lawfully carried handgun.

Hillary Clinton called the rifle the Orlando killer carried a "weapon of war." It is not. It is the same rifle that her Secret Service detail carries. Many of her acolytes have called it an assault rifle. It is not. It fires one round for each trigger pull. True assault rifles—not those that the politicians have renamed assault rifles because they have a collapsible stock and a bayonet holder (I know this sounds ridiculous, but it is true)—fire numerous rounds per trigger pull. They have been outlawed on U.S. soil since 1934.

What do we have here?

We have a government here that is heedless of its obligation to protect our freedoms. We have a government that, in its lust to have us reliant upon it, has created areas in the U.S. where innocent folks living their lives in freedom are made defenseless prey to monsters—as vulnerable as fish in a barrel. And we have mass killings of defenseless innocents—over and over and over again.

How dumb are these politicians who want to remove the right to self-defense? There are thousands of crazies in the U.S. who are filled with hate—whether motivated by politics, self-loathing, religion, or fear. If they want to kill, they will find a way to do so. The only way to stop them is by superior firepower. Disarming their law-abiding victims not only violates the natural law and the Constitution but also is contrary to all reason.

All these mass killings have the same ending: The killer stops only when he is killed. But that requires someone else with a gun to be there. Shouldn't that be sooner rather than later?


NEXT: Donald Trump Was Right That U.S. Soldiers Stole Money in Iraq—Why Are Democrats Denying The Truth?

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Wow what utter bullshit. If you don’t like the gun laws in your town then either change them or move to another town that allows the behavior you want to indulge in. It’s a big country and you have many options. If Orlando wants to change its laws then so be it. It’s not for you to decide if you don’t live there, and it’s not for you to call their government ‘tyrannical’. It’s not for you to decide that these people are too ignorant to understand their own ‘natural’ rights and whatever other techno-legal mumbo jumbo you think should be perfectly obvious and anyone who doesn’t get it is an idiot. No, you are the idiot.

    And by the way, the fundamental problem in all these cases is parents who refuse to teach their kids right and wrong. His father was a homophobe and Taliban sympathizer who rejoiced on 9/11 (I’ll give Trump credit on that). San Bernardino: “Israel will be gone in a year or two anyway, God willing.” Santa Barbara: “Oh My God!” (an anti-religious screed). Aurora: “Take these pills and you’ll feel better. And don’t stop or you could become a mass murderer.” Sandy Hook – the same. Charleston – Dylan “Storm” Roof – the middle name should give you a clue. I could go on.

    1. You should talk to the survivors of Charleston and Orlando and then decide if you still have the right to decide who is ‘ignoring reality’ and ‘filled with hate’ and ‘self-loathing’ and ‘tyrannical’ so that you can take your AK-47 into a gay nightclub.

      1. Nice little hysterical rant-a perfect balance of emotionalism, strawmen, and sheer idiocy. You have to be one of the most tiresome, stupidest motherfuckers on this site. Right up there with Hihn. Congrats!

      2. Yeah, because emotional arguments are so much better than logical ones.

      3. What a putrid little bitch you are.

        Contrary to what history deficient ignorant hacks in the progressive ranks think, there’s something called the SECOND AMENDMENT that protects ALL AMERICANS everywhere. It’s not a question of ‘leave if you don’t like it’. Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

        I also have come believe if the 2A goes, they will set their sights on the 1A.

        It’s what tyrannical zombies do.

        1. Hey, I’m sure the idiot would feel the same way and say “leave if you don’t like it” regarding onerous restrictions and bans on abortion and freedom of the press, too. Because I’m just certain he’s logically consistent.

        2. . . . And 4th and 5th.

      4. You should talk to the survivors of Charleston and Orlando

        I bet a lot of them would say they wish they had been armed so they could have defended themselves.

        1. WTF – So much this. How many died thinking, “I would give all that I own right now for a gun”?

      5. You can’t take a gun into a gay nightclub. That’s why it didn’t happen, magic laws. We need more magic laws. Maybe if we make it against the law to have bad thoughts. We’re just one or two more laws away from utopia.

        1. Maybe if we redesigned the Statue of Liberty so she’s holding a giant “GUN FREE ZONE” sign instead of that outdated torch. Torches are probably a coded symbol of racism anyhow, I’ll bet.

          1. Torches are probably a coded symbol of racism anyhow, I’ll bet.

            Night riders, burning crosses. You bet they are.

      6. Er, uh AddictiontoMeth, you forgot to add, “Sarc off” at the end lest anyone be convinced you are a knee jerk asshole with an inability to think clearly. Better go consult your talking points bulletins to come back with a great retort.

        I channeled some of the victims you spoke of and every one of them told me the same exact thing. “Fuck, I wish someone else there had a gun to help us.”

        You must be one of the bleeding heart liberals my momma warned me about way back when.

      7. AK’s are so 1990’s. I mean, it’s CURRENT YEAR!


    2. the fundamental problem in all these cases is parents who refuse to teach their kids right and wrong

      So what’s your solution? Or do you just feel the govt should take over parenting too?

      1. The government should assign one man and one woman to be in charge of raising every child.

        1. I believe current procedure automatically assigns that to the aforementioned parents.

          1. That’s the joke.

            1. Actually in Scotland this August any household with children will be assigned a monitor. one for each house. so your joke is not that far off.



        1. I should of checked your link before posting

        2. Roughly 110 years ago, this country had pretty much the same antagonism over compulsory state education. Look where we’re at today.

        3. What if a child is a little brat and doesn’t deserve to be respected?

      3. Or sometimes the problem is that the parents do too well teaching them a sense of right and wrong that is incompatible with that of the broader society.

    3. So if North Carolina wants to restrict who can use what bathroom, just move if you don’t like it. It’s a big country, right? If some town wants to let bakers choose which weddings they’ll provide their services to, just move to a town where bakers don’t get that decision. Yup yup yup.

    4. So AM went full troll. Been waiting for that.

      1. Full troll? Meh…. I’ll remind you of the comments from yesterday about who is allowed to speak on the Orlando shooting:

        “Shut up. We are speaking. Do not speak over us. This is our time.”

        You can’t effectively troll if reality is beyond your imagination. In that event you just end up sounding weak and kinda douchey.

    5. One of my kids has a middle name “Cranberry” and another “Sloopy”. What does that tell you about them, oh great seer of signs?

      1. That they have odd parents.

      2. Obligatory

        (I went to the same college at roughly the same time).

        1. Who cares what they named the little buggers, she’s hot!

      3. What happened to “Ordeath”?

        1. Reason Sophia spicer
          Liberty Ordeth Cranberry Spicer
          Justice Forall Sloopy Juneteenth Spicer b

    6. Well, I think we’re all in agreement that hysterical sock puppets should be prevented from carrying anything more dangerous than blunt-tipped scissors.

    7. Where do those laws come from? Did such restrictions arise from the land Orlando lays on like gravity? Or are they hmm….come from other men? And how did these men get the right to have such power when they are cut from the same cloth as everyone else?

      Isn’t it strange how such laws didn’t prevent Omar from carrying his gun into the club?

      And I would hope that everyone in the club would’ve carried an AK (regardless of any positive law). Instead of about 50 dead, you would’ve had a dead bigot and perhaps an injured patron or at most one dead patron.

    8. So to be clear, because you don’t have to live in a town if you don’t like it, any city in the United States can overrule the Constitution?

      “Look, I know you thought you had that whole freedom of religion thing, but the City of Boise changed its mind, all Catholics go to jail. If you don’t like it, move when you get out of the slammer.”

      “Hey guys, about the whole “jury trial” thing…wasn’t really working for us in Nashville. Everyone’s guilty now if they get caught.”

      “Cruel and unusual punishment? Look, I know you’re stuck in the past, but here in San Francisco we get off on waterboarding our jaywalkers. It’s a big country and you have many options.”

      1. “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.” Bringing a gun to a night club does not infringe on your right to a well regulated militia. Please, read the constitution before you bloviate mindlessly about it.

        1. “Bringing a gun to a night club does not infringe on your right to a well regulated militia.”
          That is correct, especially if you know what “militia” means.

          I guess you’ve come around since your initial post. Well done.

        2. Funny how it actually say you have a right to a well-regulated militia.

          Nice try, though.

          Now, explain to me how a law prohibiting you from bearing arms isn’t an infringement of your right to bear arms.

        3. If you honestly think we have an amendment to guarantee a right to the National Guard, you’re some combination of lazy and stupid.

        4. English not your first language, or did you sleep through those grammar classes?

          “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, …” is a prefatory clause. It is a comment on why they wrote what they wrote in the operative clause. “..the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” is the operative clause. The operative clause stands by itself.

          Militias are State entities. In the older States the Militia is defined in that State’s founding document. For example the Indiana Constitution specifies that all persons above the age of seventeen years are members of the Militia. While the Congress has the authority to define the shape and training of the active militia they have no authority over the makeup of the total Militia.

          The Constitution is a grant of limited authority from we the people to the general government. Nothing in the Constitution grants the Congress the authority to have so much as an opinion on any weapons. There is one exception, sort of. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 places upon the Congress the duty to assure that the Militias are armed. The Congress originally made laws requiring that all persons subject to Militia membership purchase a military weapon and the items required to make it work to be kept in their homes or on their person.

          Perhaps you should actually read before you mindlessly bloviate.

    9. And by the way, the fundamental problem in all these cases is parents who refuse to teach their kids right and wrong.

      That is obviously your problem as well, since you seem to have been raised as a little proto-fascist.

    10. My friend ‘Natasha Bruce’ makes $95/hour on the internet. She has been laid off for siX mOnths but last month her paycheck was $20850 just working on the internet for a few hours. Try it out on following website,.. Go to this website and read more_______________

    11. For whom is it “to decide”? Surely not your neurotic @$$!

    12. “‘natural’ rights and whatever other techno-legal mumbo jumbo”

      Natural rights = techno-legal mumbo jumbo? What a sad little life you lead… waiting for the government to tell you what you can and can’t do.
      You would benefit by reading more.
      Or do you only read government-approved pamphlets?

      I am sorry you do not understand the American way.

    13. My best friend’s ex-wife makes $94/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for 6 months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over $14000 just working on the laptop for a few hours. I work through this Website.. Read more on this site._____________

  2. Do you have a right to defend yourself?

    If so, where does that right come from?

    Are your rights dependant on the will and whims of others?

    Can a majority vote away your right to speech? Freedom? Life? If no… then why do you presume they can rightfully vote or legislate away your other rights, especially those that are nothing more than extensions of your right to life, liberty, or freedom?

    Or… are you just a stupid emoto-bot who wants to rule others according to the dictates of whatever feelzburgerz you happen to have on any given day?

    Sorry for all the questions… I felt the judge needed some help on this one. He was losing his shtick.

    1. Or… are you just a stupid emoto-bot who wants to rule others according to the dictates of whatever feelzburgerz you happen to have on any given day?


    2. I’ll give you the answer we are coming to as a society.

      No. You do not have the right to defend yourself. You have the right to call the police. The police will defend you.

      This is not even parody, or a slippery slope argument or any other conjecture. This is what most people believe other people should do.

      Perhaps it is an extension of our schoolyard training….. if you are being bullied, you don’t punch the bully in the mouth. You go and tell a teacher.

      So as a grown-up, if you are being robbed by a mugger, you don’t pull out your trusty Glock, you hand over all of your valuables, you take your pistol-whipping and then you call the police and file a report.

      1. I understand that wanting to be able to defend yourself is for men with small penises and wannabe vigilantes.

    1. Shikha, is that you?

      1. You know that the religious bigotry and violence in India is due to Trump’s rhetoric, right?

        (Shikha actually wrote this)

          1. I believe he is referring to this, Trump Is Emboldening the Illiberal Hindu Fringe in India.

            So why are Hindu nationalists, usually so quick to take offense even when none was intended, burning incense for Trump ? rather than effigies of him? One simple reason: He shares their antipathy towards Muslims. But its not my enemy’s enemy is my friend kind of thing. As far as they are concerned, if the most successful country on the planet votes for Trump’s anti-Muslim platform, it’ll be a vindication of everything they’ve long believed but haven’t been able to openly push.

            America may survive the Trump presidency without degenerating into barbarism and bloodshed in this time of heightened worldwide religious tension. It has an established liberal democracy with firmly entrenched protections and norms of civilized behavior. But Hindu Sena’s exultations suggest that it’s an open question whether the developing world, especially a young and fractious democracy like India, can.

            1. *facepalm*

              So many Reason writers are losing their shit over Trump.

  3. Absent gun laws, why wouldn’t corporate policy make everyplace a gun free zone anyways? It’d go the same way as the transgender stuff.

    1. Been to a Kroger’s lately?

      1. No. Bagel place? What’s up with that?

        1. Grocery chain, perfectly a-ok with open and concealed carry, told MDA to fuck off.

          Corporations are run by people, and if they see that their customers prefer to be armed, they’re liable to go along with it since it amounts to free security and it makes their customers happy.

          1. And if the customers don’t prefer that?

            I’m not familiar with Kroger’s at all. Southern chain?

            1. I believe south to mid-west. I’ve never seen one in person.

              If the customers don’t like places that permit carry they will shop at the places that forbid it, and the market will provide the option. You will have a patchwork rather than a uniform blanket.

              In the end I personally believe the vast majority of customers will base their decisions on economic factors foremost, as everything else is a luxury.

            2. East, south, parts of the mid-west. Here in the Rocky Mountain West Kroger owns the King Soopers chain; in loony old Californey, they own the Ralph’s stores (where no prices are lower prices than Ralph’s!) Ditto Alaska’s Fred Myers stores.

              I know our local King Soopers stores are CCW-friendly. And UCS is right, they told MDA to go fuck themselves. “If you’re legal, you’re legal.” That’s pretty much their attitude.

            3. And if the customers don’t prefer that?

              They can go into the stores that advertise that they have policies that result in disarmed customers unable to stop a mass murderer. Have fun.

            4. They have Kroger’s in and around Pittsburgh, but not to the east of it were I am.

            5. Kroger HQ is in Ohio. they were the largest grocery in the US volume-wise (I believe) until Wal Mart decided to get into the grocery business. In less than 5 years, Wal Mart went from new kid to #1 grocery chain in the US.

          2. Do you remember how much people flipped their shit when Starbucks said they didn’t want guns in their coffee shops?

            The whole “everyone can do what they want, as long as it’s not the government” mantra really breaks down when you have a conniption when people do exactly that. It makes it seem like the original request (“let people make decisions for themselves”) was less then sincere.

            1. The whole “everyone can do what they want, as long as it’s not the government” mantra really breaks down when you have a conniption when people do exactly that.

              You don’t understand the difference between “pass a law”, and “complain and boycott”, do you?

              1. I understand, but you missed my point.

                If you campaign on a compromise, and then get it, and then continue to attack the people who compromised with you, it’s hard to believe you were ever at the table in good faith.

                It’s like when Oklahoma (I think it was. Somewhere in the mid-west anyway) said “oh, it’s okay to have a 10 Commandments statue. It was donated so it’s not really us endorsing it.” And then losing their mind when Buddhists and Satanists said “oh, in that case, we have a statue we want to donate”. When they freak out, it’s obvious they weren’t sincere.

                Or when someone pushes for “school vouchers” to be given to religious schools because Freedom of Speech/Religion and so-on. And then flips their top some of those vouchers go to a Muslim school.

                Or when someone insists they only really cared about the word “marriage”, then goes into the next state over and campaigns against civil unions as well.

                You undermine your credibility when you pull this shit.

                So sure, someone can boycott and protest all they want. But don’t be surprised when people are less willing to bargain with you after you already burned them for doing so.

            2. People briefly freaked out in Austin when Texas’ government passed a surprisingly libertarian law that said individual stores could put up signs prohibiting either concealed carry or open carry or both. Then the signs went up in some stores, and people calmed the fuck down.

              Seems like most stores here either didn’t put up signs at all, or prohibited only open carry.

    2. Absent gun laws, why wouldn’t corporate policy make everyplace a gun free zone anyways?

      Why would they? Many companies have no problem allowing guns on their property. I regularly see people carrying guns at the supermarket and other businesses around town.

      It’d go the same way as the transgender stuff.

      We had transgendered folks where I worked 20 years ago, and there was no bathroom problem. The bathroom issue is a controversy cooked up for political purposes.

    3. Absent gun laws, why wouldn’t corporate policy make everyplace a gun free zone anyways?

      In Texas we started carrying 1/1/1996. Some stores posted signs prohibiting guns, since everybody knew that all the camo-clad concealed handgun licensees would be tromping around in muddy boots spitting tobacco everywhere and driving away all the customers.

      Six months or so later, when that didn’t happen, almost all the signs came down.

      Business people discovered that people who can pass the CHL background check have clean criminal and mental health records; pay their taxes, student loans, and child support; don’t commit family violence; and haven’t renounced their U.S. citizenship. They also have the disposable income necessary for a license, tend to be concerned about security, have non-violent conflict resolution training, and are extremely law-abiding.

      In short, business have discovered that no-guns signs tend to drive away some of their best customers. And since there are now more than 13,000,000 CHLs nationwide, and over 1,000,000 just here in Texas, that’s way too many good customers to tick off.

      1. And some of them have also figured out that over 95% of those mass shootings take place in venues where state law or corporate policies prohibit guns. It’s beginning to look like a real loser of a policy.

        In fact, the Texas Association of School Boards says that more than 10% of Texas school districts now have a teacher carry policy.

  4. OT: Why didn’t anyone try to warn us?

    1. Aren’t you a time traveller? Shouldn’t you go back and warn us?

    2. How do you think this is going to affect the election?

      It’s hard to know. Most people still get their insurance through an employer, and those rates are not going up by double digits, so I’m not sure the outrage will be so widespread.

      And, anyway, Hillary is going to fix it.

      1. Just wait until the “Cadillac plan tax” kicks in.

    3. Margot: I don’t see any signs that the market is spiraling out of control. I think the insurers just underpriced to start, because of some combination of bad estimates, unexpected regulatory changes and perhaps unwise loss-leader strategies. Assuming they have better numbers to work with now and a firmer sense of the regulatory landscape, it seems reasonable to think this might be a one-time market correction.

      Bah, we’ve just had consistent premium cost increases since the law’s inception, and now an increase in the rate of the increases themselves, but I’m sure it’s just a one time thing! VOTE TEAM BLUE!

      1. Everyone knows it’s corporate greed. Corporations exist to make profits. All those increases are to pay for obscene profits. That’s why health care should be run by the government. Government doesn’t waste money on immoral profits for the rich. Sure, government is wasteful, inefficient, ineffective, incompetent, unaccountable, and uses violence to get its way, but that’s better than a capitalist system that creates inequality.

        1. I know. Everyone knows that capitalism is what caused the industrial revolution and we know what a disaster that was.

          We need to co-exist

    4. I don’t have enough curse words.

      1. I got a pretty hefty raise this year. 10.5%. I figure it will be completely eaten up by health insurance premiums within three years.

        1. Three years?


          1. The regular 3-4% raises that we get don’t even cover the insurance increases.

        2. Only 10.5%? jeeze must be lean times.

  5. Let’s compare the number of people shot at gun shows to those shot in gun-free zones.

    1. Suthen, there is one little issue – Gun shows are a time-limited affair, “Gun-free” zones are year-round. We gotta normalize the data somehow.

      1. People shot in gun stores versus gun-free zones

    2. “*Another* gun-show loophole!”

      1. Using the logic that Obumbles, Lynch, and state AG’s acting under his urging used in going after AGW deniers I wonder how long before it is used to indict anyone anywhere who disagrees with the left on any issue?

        Christ, these people are evil.

        1. Remember, the buzz word around here lately is “optimism”. Your evil comment isn’t in keeping with the times.

    3. There have been a few shootings at gun ranges. Though pretty much all by seriously disturbed or suicidal people, so lots of armed people around wouldn’t be much deterrent.

      A thing that drives me nuts about all the “conversations” following high profile shooting incidents is that people act like no one had ever considered the possibility before. Anyone with half a brain should know that such things are possible and have already taken that into account in their position on guns. But I guess most people run on their emotional reaction to things more than reason.

      1. But I’d bet the body count of victims didn’t rise much above one per incident.

  6. Shouldn’t that be sooner rather than later?

    I’m disappointed I had to wait til the end for a rhetorical question.

    1. Should we have to do so?

  7. Here’s the correct reaction to an attack on gays. An open offer from shooters across the country to teach them how to shoot.…..rwhelming/

  8. How dumb are these politicians who want to remove the right to self-defense?

    They’re mighty dumb, but I don’t think that means that they aren’t deliberately trying to strip common citizens of the right to self-defense while knowing that they (who think of themselves as the elite) will have heavily armed bodyguards looking after them. Look for example at the California Senate, which voted to exempt its members from the concealed-carry rules that California citizens will be punished for disobeying.

    1. Don’t ascribe to stupidity what can be properly ascribed to evil.

  9. That night there were tens of thousands of bars, nightclubs, taverns, restaurants, etc. across the US where people were not armed and nothing happened. If you think that people with guns around alcohol will decrease the murder rate, you’re delusional. People who have no training in weapons and the mindset that they think they need to be armed to go out to a bar will be looking for a reason to use it (my gun is bigger than your gun). A few beers and a wrong word will get someone shot, most probably an innocent person.

    1. +1 Wild Bill Hickok

    2. I believe the technical term for this argument is “projection”.

    3. In states with concealed carry, probably 1 out of every 20 people COULD be carrying (not all concealed carriers carry all the time). Probably 1 out every 50 people in a concealed carry state is carrying SOME sort of weapon. And yet, do you hear about massive amounts of death and murder and mayhem? There is some, in every big city, the occasional incident in a smaller community. But the VAST amount of gun deaths/maimings are self inflicted or are a part of gangland warfare. The idea that the “wild west” will reemerge doesn’t comport with the reality that surrounds you every single day. And, the reality is the “wild west” wasn’t nearly how it has been portrayed, anyway. In any event, mass shootings represent a statistical outlier of guns and ammunition used.

      Millions of guns are owned. Hundreds of thousands are used during a day, likely some several hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition are used a day. It is estimated that 8%, or about 300,000 or nearly 1 out of 10, people in my state have a concealed carry permit. Is there carnage in the streets? Bodies piling up like cord wood? Nope. Most of the gun deaths and violence is within the inner portions of the larger cities. And very few of them worry about CCW’s etc.

      1. What state do you live in? I think the “gun” problem is a culture rot one. We have a rotten drug culture in urban America. We have a rotten jihadist culture in a segment of Muslims. And we have a significant amount of rotten loners/psychopaths who are disturbed and mentally ill. Even with all those rotten cultures, gun violence has been cut in half since the 90s.

        1. Yep, most gun murders in the US are because of drug gangs fighting each other (enabled by prohibition). And those people will find ways to murder each other however easy or not it is to get a gun.

    4. When Virginia altered its concealed carry statute to permit carry in restaurants which serve alcohol (so long as the person does not consume alcohol), the exact argument you make there was repeated ad nauseum. Well, we’ve had that amendment in place for a couple of years now; so, where are the bodies? Show me your data.

      1. Don’t forget that police, judges, and even commonwealth’s attorneys are exempted and can drink and carry.

    5. Facts contradict your belief: Caucasian Americans carry a lot more guns than Europeans, yet Caucasian Americans have a comparable or lower murder rate than most Europeans. Homicides in the US are a problem of certain subgroups; gun control will do nothing to fix it.

      Of course, private property owners are free to restrict guns any way they like, so if a bar is prone to bar fights, the owner will presumably disallow guns; again, no laws needed.

      1. OOOHHhhhhh…hahahahaha….your “poliical incorrectness” is killing me…I’m gonna die of laughter. You are absolutely correct of course, but you will have a hard time getting any “subgroup” or their self-appointed spokesersons to even discuss it with you. The violence in those subgroups is always a result of repression, abuse, and victimization of said groups by WHITE PEOPLE. They are not responsible for their own choices or behaviors, it’s someone else’s fault.
        As for private property owners restricting firearms, yes, they should be free to do so and their customers are free to go elsewhere (economic freedom). Same should hold true for anyone not wishing to cater or provide a cake for a same-sex wedding…

    6. To be fair, the stories I can think of off the top of my head aren’t of people getting shot in bars.

      It’s people getting into fights/arguments/whatever in bars, then going back to their cars and getting their guns and tracking the person down.

      So with that in mind, I think “Stand Your Ground” has done far more to encourage/escalate violence then allowing guns in bars would do.

      1. If you go and get your gun and track a person down, you aren’t really standing your ground.

        1. I wasn’t speaking in hyperbole.

    7. If you think that people with guns around alcohol will decrease the murder rate, you’re delusional.

      I suspect you have no idea how much alcohol and guns mix in this country already. I, personally, won’t shoot with or stick around people who drink (always beer) and shoot – skeet, hunting, plinking.

      It is shockingly, and depressingly, common. I don’t stick around because I’m afraid of accidents, not alcohol-fueled gunfights, and I’m not interested in saying “OK, two beers is fine, but three is right out”.

      The only exception I have every made was one of Pater Dean’s hunting buddies, old as the hills, who would take a nip of whiskey before heading out to hunt quail. “Knee oil”, he called it.

    8. it’s a wrong assumption that armed concealed weapon carriers in a bar will “get drunk”,or that a “few beers” and they will get hypersensitive and use their weapon. In Florida,one can legally carry into a restaurant that serves alcohol,have a few beers,OR,they can choose to no imbibe at all. The fact remains,there are hardly ANY examples of lawful permit holders doing as you fear. The same goes for other states where CC is allowed even in bars. So you’re stating an unfounded assumption,that has no factual basis. Ever hear of “designated drivers”? they go into bars,DON’T drink,and then drive their drunk friends home. The same is done with concealed weapon holders. They’re there,but not drinking,or maintaining a low alcohol level,and acting rational and lawful.

      It’s another misconception that people who have carry permits are “untrained”. To get a carry permit,one has to take a class,and learn when one can and cannot use their gun,learn what constitutes a CREDIBLE threat permitting use of deadly force,etc,and generally have to demonstrate they can handle a gun safely and hit a target. Usually,the permit holder goes to a range and practices regularly,aka “training”. it does NOT require SWAT level training to use a gun in self-defense.

  10. Gays were subjected to horrible threats by other gun nuts to ‘finish the job’. The response is love in the face of anger. Like the victims of the Charleston shooting, they are more Christian, tolerant, and peace loving than most of you can hope to be. Obviously you just want to make excuses to brandish your piece. You should have been gay.

    1. Do you actually believe what you say?

    2. Gays were subjected to horrible threats by other gun nuts to ‘finish the job’.

      I think you must have SF’ed your link, because I’m not seeing it.

    3. “Gays were subjected to horrible threats by other gun nuts to ‘finish the job’.”

      No, they weren’t. You’re lying.

  11. It;s hard for people to conceive of the way things used to be–before public acceptance of gays became like it is today.

    Back in the ’80s, in places like San Francisco, LA, Orange County, and San Diego, bash crews used to be a real thing. It was something punk and skinheads used to do for fun. Conversely, there were other crews that would go out looking for bash crews in action, but in certain areas, where gay “cruising” (looking for anonymous hookups) was common–Balboa Park in San Diego was one, there was Hollywood Blvd. in LA, Golden Gate Park in San Francisco was another–drunken teenagers would beat the shit out of cruising queers for fun on a Friday night–like they were toilet papering someone’s house.

    Metallica’s Seek and Destroy, for instance, is song for and about a San Francisco bash crew where Metallica was based at the time.

    The accusation of “gay bashing” nowadays (bad mouthing gays) came from actual bash crews. The big inertia for laws against “hate crimes” was to protect gays from bash crews.

    It’s astounding to me that even back during the Reagan Administration, when the gay rights movement was coalescing around public funding to fight Aids, their response to gay bashing wasn’t that gays should be free to arm themselves in Balboa Park or Golden Gate Park. Their response was more government through hate crime laws.

    1. I think at the heart of things, it’s about fundamentally differing visions of society and government. A lot of people think the purpose of government is to keep us safe. If everyone is allowed to be armed, then we are not safe. You can’t allow people to be armed, because that is not a “safe society”. Therefore, the government should do everything possible to keep people safe, including not allowing them to be armed. Even if the believers in this philosophy admit that people being armed might have helped in a specific situation, it fundamentally goes against their vision of society. So they can’t admit it as a reasonable possibility, and the only thing they can suggest is “govern harder”.

  12. I used to wonder if maybe there was something effeminate about expecting men in government uniforms to come save you, and something masculine about saving yourself. Maybe it’s just that since the left was seen as more openly supportive of gay causes, gays tended to support leftist solutions. I’ll certainly think the latter if gays become more supportive of gun rights–now that struggling against the right on gay issues is flogging a dead horse.

    No pun intended.

    1. Whenever they want to stop flogging the horse, they’ll find more gay folk willing to listen. But so long as the GOP uses gay people as punching bags and bogeymen, it’s not going to happen. You can rant and wail about how people shouldn’t think emotionally, but that’s flogging a dead horse itself.

      That said, if Trump wins in November, a less hostile-to-gays GOP might happen. He’s been as inconsistent with the flogging as he has with everything else. If he loses, however, then he probably won’t have a lasting impact on the party and it’ll go back to trying to use LGBT issues as wedges to rile up their base for at least another election cycle or two.

      And if we’re going to be honest, as long as libertarians/Libertarians keep cozying up to the GOP, then yeah, the libertarian/Libertarian brand is tainted as well. Libertarians/libertarians really lack the visibility to get their distinct message out, so what most people hear is that they’re GOP-lite.

      And you can flog the dead horse on why people shouldn’t act like that (associating libertarians/Libertarians with the GOP, refusing to listen to the GOP’s other messages because of it’s anti-gay messages, etc.) but that’s, as I said, flogging a dead horse.

      1. No libertarians really cozy up to the GOP.
        The GOP is proven to be just as reckless as the left. The GOP’s bible is the military industrial complex and the gun lobby. The left bible is climate warming. both sides love the big state and the FED.

        I can’t see how libertarians would cozy to either.
        The gun rights thing is the only thing left that is similar with the GOP. Libertarians simply believe in the right to self defense and are smart enough to know that any regulation will only lead to more.

  13. It is the same crowd that ignores the reality that in the post-World War II era, there is not one recorded example in the U.S. of a person in a restaurant or bar getting drunk and shooting his lawfully carried handgun.

    While I agree with The Judge’s overall point, I don’t think this is true. In fact, I’m pretty sure just a couple of weeks ago Aquib Talib got drunk and pulled a “Plaxico Burress,” shooting himself in the leg. Speaking of Burress, I’m pretty sure he was drunk too when he shot himself.

    Also, I’m sure that with all the thousands if not millions of people who have gotten drunk and had a gun handy since 1945, there’s bound to have been at least a few who fired them while intoxicated.

    1. Agreed, but he did say “lawfully carried”. Plaxico Burress wasn’t lawfully carrying, since he did not have a permit for the gun in NYC. Not sure about Talib, but somehow I doubt he was lawfully carrying either. Still, your general point is right too – in a country with this many people, some of them are going to get drunk and do dumb things.

      1. Ah, that’s the key words that I failed to properly parse. Talib was at a strip club in Dallas, which of course serves alcohol. I don’t know if TX has a similar law to FL that makes anyplace that serves alcohol a “gun free” murder zone, but if it does than he wasn’t lawfully carrying either.

        1. In Texas any premises that has an alcohol license is basically off-limits for carrying long guns and unlicensed handguns, and the offense is a felony.

          Licensees are prohibited from carrying handguns where the business gets 51% or more of its income from the on-premises service of alcohol.

          So licensees can carry in grocery stores, convenience stores, liquor stores, and most restaurants. We can’t carry in bars or other venues with heavy alcohol sales for on-premises consumption.

  14. I am fighting the urge to go to the Flickr account of the woman in the photo (who appears to be Canadian, BTW) and mansplain that she isn’t firing an AR-15, since that is clearly a Colt 9mm carbine.

    1. Why are you fighting the urge?

      1. Because I have been way too spun up online lately between the election and Orlando. I don’t want to start spewing at anyone else. This woman probably doesn’t even know why the traffic to that image spiked today.
        I don’t think her error is having much impact on the big picture of the RKBA, so I’ll leave it to someone else if they feel they must do it.

  15. We have plunged so far do the rabbit hole that there are actually articles of defending the concept of self defense. Amazing.

    1. thats how Australia got rid of guns by claiming people do not have the right to self defense and you may recall the 9th circuse court just made the same claim, that there is no right to self defense

    2. I blame conservatives/Republicans.

      They expanded the concept of “self defense” to “go back to your car, get your gun, and chase someone down that is walking away” and “shooting into a van as it’s driving away”.

      1. The fuck do keep yammering about? Cite where its legal to hunt someone down or quit this schtick

        1. Byron Thomas
          Omar Bonilla
          Anthony Gonzaels Jr.

          I could keep going. There have been many many successful “Stand Your Ground” defenses (meaning they were granted immunity) where the defendant shot someone as they were leaving. Fewer where they tracked the person down, but those happen to.

  16. The usual argument is that we even limit free speech such as you can’t yell fire in a crowed theater. but that is not true if the theater is on fire I will yell fire. Could you imagine if it was illegal to yell fire when a theater was on fire? So why would you limit my ability to protect myself when I may need it. They also claim you can’t slander with speech but we don’t make it illegal to speak all the time. We have laws that limit gun use, such as in harming or threatening others, but just like speech we only outlaw certain acts but not the tool.

    1. Could you imagine if it was illegal to yell fire when a theater was on fire?

      Don’t worry, yelling won’t be illegal, but it will be licensed after a background check. You may keep your vocal cords if you can provide sufficient justification that you need them, otherwise they will be removed.

  17. 4″I quit my 9 to 5 job and now I am getting paid 100usd hourly. How? I work-over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try-something NEW. After two years, I can say my life is changed-completely for the better!Learn More From This Site…


  18. This article will not improve lives. It will only incite self-righteous and stupid people to break the law. And provide fodder for the court system. Hmmm……

  19. The TRUTH about the “supremacy clause” – our Constitution does not delegate to the national government authority to restrict our arms, ammunition, regulate firearms dealers, do background checks, etc. The national government may not lawfully circumvent this restriction by means of a treaty wherein the signatory governments agree to disarm their Citizens or Subjects. ?s=The+TRUTH+about+the+”supremacy+clause

  20. Napolitano might be one of about 10 rational, smart guys left in this country.

    1. two days ago grey McLaren. P1 i purchased afterearning 18,512 became my previous month’s payout..only a littleover.17k greenbacks ultimate month..three-five ?h?ours ??job ?a day…with weekly is realy thesimplest. task i’ve ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. in the past. and now making overhourly.

      Go to the website>>>>> http://www.CashPay60.Com

  21. I would like to draw your attention to an inaccuracy in your article. “Assault rifles” (selective fire (i.e.- semiauto or full auto) rifles of intermediate power), machine guns of .50 caliber or less, sub-machine guns, “silencers”, sawed-off shotguns, and sawed-off rifles are NOT BANNED in the USA. Ownership of such items is very heavy regulated and taxed by the National Firearms Act of 1934, but to say their ownership is “banned” or “prohibited” is not true. To own such items, a prospective owner must apply prior to purchase to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), be fingerprinted, investigated, approved, and then obtain local law enforcement or judicial approval. The prospective owner then must decide on which device he wishes to purchase (make, model, serial number and current owner) and pay a $200 “transfer tax” for EACH ITEM he wishes to purchase. At any time they wish, BATFE can demand to see the Form 004 for each item, and require presentation of each item without prior notice or warrant. Any time such items are being transported, the owner must carry the Form 004s with the item.
    While these requirements are onerous and of dubious effectiveness in preventing crime, they are the details of the National Firearms Act of 1934.
    A good source of accurate information on the subject of firearms law is The National Rifle Association.

    1. actually,when you apply for your $200 tax stamp,you have to include the make,model and serial number of the automatic weapon you are buying,because the tax stamp applies ONLY to that particular weapon. So,you have to find a NFA weapon for sale (not easy,they’re pretty rare and VERY expensive),pay for it,then send the data along with your $200 check to F-Troop,along with several pages of your FULL fingerprints (both hands),etc,etc.

  22. My nephew posted this.

    I stand behind you in line at the store with a smile on my face…and a gun under my shirt and you are none the wiser, yet you are safer for having me next to you. I won’t shoot you. My gun won’t pull it’s own trigger. It is securely holstered with the trigger covered. It can’t just go off. However, rest assured that if a lunatic walks into the grocery store and pulls out a rifle, I will draw my pistol and protect myself and my family and therefore protect you and your family. I may get shot before I can pull the trigger…but, I won’t die in a helpless blubbering heap on the floor begging for my life or my child’s life. No, if I die it will be in a pile of spent shell casings. I won’t be that victim. I choose not to be. As for you, I don’t ask you to carry a gun. If you are not comfortable, then please don’t. But I would like to keep my right to choose to not be a helpless victim. There is evil in the world and if evil has a gun, I want one too…

  23. Now, if only Judge Napolitano could explain it to his associate, Bill O’Reilly.

  24. I fully appreciate the Judge’s comments and critiques on politics. He is on of a few I trust to provide an open opinion based on facts.

  25. Commence your Home Business right now. Hang out with your Family and Earn. Start bringing $75/hr just over a computer. Very easy way to choose your Life Happy and Earning continuously. Begin here..

    Copy This Link…


  26. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..


  27. I don’t think most people are asking to disarm gun holders. They are asking for reasonable controls, one which would entail whether AK-47s or any other assault rifle is necessary in the hands of the general public. And for those who need to hide behind the 2nd amendment, it states “A well regulated militia, being necessary…” – where is the regulation? We go to great lengths to ensure that good drivers are licensed and educated to drive on our roads. Why wouldn’t we employ rigid rules and testing for ownership and gun operation?

    1. the Second Amendment of the Constitution is NOT ABOUT hunting or sporting.
      semi-auto,magazine-fed rifles such as the AR-15 and AK-47 are today’s modern MILITIA weapons,and thus should be the most protected of firearms under the Second Amendment.

      Militiamen were expected to appear for muster bearing arms and ammo similar to and compatible with what the Regular military had in use AT THAT TIME.
      Since we “compromised” and restricted ownership of full-auto,true assault rifles,that leaves the semi-auto versions for civilian militia use.

      In US v Miller,SCOTUS asked if a short-barreled shotgun was a weapon that a militia would commonly use,implying that arms protected by the 2nd Amendment were arms a militia would use. AR-15’s,M-16’s and AK-47s would be ordinary militia arms,and “hi-capacity magazines” also would be protected.

      the Founders INTENDED that citizens have “weapons of war”,small arms suitable for militia purposes.

    2. what DOES the Second say there?
      “A well-regulated militia,being necessary to the security of a free state”.
      Hmm,it does NOT say that militias must be “well-regulated”,it does NOT say arms must be “well-regulated”,it does not restrict arms to militias. it really does not say anything,nor imply anything.
      it says militias “are necessary to a free state”,nothing more.
      IOW,just ONE of many reasons why “the right of the People to keep AND BEAR arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”
      Now that second part DOES say plenty,it makes specific prohibition -on government- to keep their hands off peoples arms.
      it says that people have a RIGHT to own and to CARRY arms,….naturally,in a lawful manner.

      So,WHY is this so hard for people to comprehend?
      I blame it on a leftist education system that turns out cretins.

    3. BucksCo, when did that going to great lengths /good drivers thing start? I drove an 18 wheeler 25 years, and saw that the average driver is at best mildly unsafe while a good many are non-thinking dangerous morons. The more power a vehicle has the worse the driving gets.

  28. Would the author recommend that we adopt US style gun ownership laws in Europe? Perhaps an estimate of the reduction in unlawful killings might be useful to help us make this decision.

    1. Maybe giving an ounce of shit about fundamental human liberties would be useful in helping you make this decision.

      1. I left my office-job and now I am getting paid 98 usd hourly. How? I work over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try something different, 2 years after…I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out what i do…

        =======> http://www.CashPay60.Com

  29. The most basic of human rights is self defense. It goes beyond any constitution. Politicians can say whatever they like but bad people will not stop killing good people for the rest of time. Unfortunately the reality is that as human beings, we have to empower ourselves to protect ourselves. The last paragraph is the sad truth. “The killer stops only when he is killed.” I respect the right of people who do not believe in guns to not carry them but when I get attacked, personally I’d rather be trained and armed myself. A gun is simply a tool and it’s use is determined by the person holding it.

  30. Commence your Home Business right now. Hang out with your Family and Earn. Start bringing $75/hr just over a computer. Very easy way to choose your Life Happy and Earning continuously. Begin here..

    Copy This Link…


  31. my friend’s mom makes $73 hourly on the laptop . She has been out of a job for 6 months but last month her pay was $18731 just working on the laptop for a few hours…..

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..


  32. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ?

  33. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??.


  34. uptil I saw the bank draft four $8760 , I be certain …that…my sister woz actually bringing in money part time from there labtop. . there neighbour had bean doing this 4 only about eighteen months and resently cleard the depts on there home and bourt a top of the range Chrysler ….

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ?

  35. Hi
    Your blog is very nice. I have really learnt a lot from this blog thanks

    Please more details visit our website

  36. before I looked at the draft saying $9453 , I have faith that my mother in law woz like truley erning money part time at there computar. . there mums best friend haz done this 4 less than 14 months and just repayed the dept on their apartment and purchased a brand new Honda . read here …..

    Please click the link below

  37. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.