Guns

J.D. Martinez's Second Amendment Stance Is Patriotic, Not Controversial

Why should an athlete be subjected to a nonsensical controversy ginned up by reporters?

|

Someone recently dug up an old pro-Second Amendment Instagram post by Boston Red Sox star J.D. Martinez, in which the potential Triple Crown winner posted a picture of Adolf Hitler featuring the quote, "To conquer a nation, First disarm it's (sic) citizens." Martinez captioned the post, "This is why I will always stay strapped! #thetruth."

Needless to say, the discovery triggered a torrent of stories about the "controversial" nature of Martinez's 5-year-old post—because, apparently, disagreeing with a Hitlerian sentiment is now a provocative position. As it turns out, Hitler never said the words in Martinez's pro-gun meme, although the dictator indisputably embraced a policy of disarming, in both rhetoric and action.

Perpetuating a questionable quotation can happen to the best of us. But what seems to really tick off people—and it's difficult to judge how many average sports fans really care about Martinez's politics (I suspect far fewer than the coverage suggests)—is the notion that an armed population can be a freer one. "The rhetoric of invoking Hitler is indefensible because it trivializes what he and the Nazis did," Mike Godwin of "Godwin's law" fame told the Boston Herald. "It's historically inaccurate to state that Hitler wanted to take people's guns away. If anything, he wanted all citizens to have guns, except Jews."

Avoiding Nazi analogies is, generally speaking, a very good idea. But there's no evidence that Hitler wanted "all citizens" other than Jews to possess firearms. It's true that the Nazis relaxed a few gun laws that had been forced on Germany after World War I, but by 1938, the Third Reich had banned all Jews, Gypsies, and "enemies of the state"—which is to say, anyone the state deemed problematic—from possessing any weapons, including knives, firearms, and ammunition. Even for other Germans, gun laws remained relatively strict.

You may remember the feigned outrage over Ben Carson's 2015 contention that "through a combination of removing guns and disseminating deceitful propaganda, the Nazis were able to carry out their evil intentions with relatively little resistance." The folks at PolitiFact rated his argument completely false, because fact-checkers now believe they are gifted with the supernatural capability of judging the veracity of counter-histories.

The thing is, Carson hadn't claimed in his book that the Holocaust could have been averted. (Neither did the admittedly crude meme that Martinez used.) Rather, he argued that Nazis wouldn't have been able to implement their plans with "relatively little resistance."

Considering the damage Jews were able to inflict with only few weapons at the uprising in the Warsaw ghetto (and Jewish and non-Jewish partisans could throughout Europe), a person can plausibly argue that at the very least, an armed populace makes it harder for tyrants to succeed.

So though the notion that an armed population can stop mechanized armies or domestic military forces from implementing something like the Holocaust is debatable, what isn't debatable is that, whether we're talking about Mao Zedong or Josef Stalin or some tin-pot dictator of a banana republic, there's virtually no authoritarian, tyrant, or statist in modern history who hasn't attempted to disarm citizens. That includes Fidel Castro.

"As most of you guys know, I'm Cuban-American," Martinez explained. "Most of my family was run out of Cuba because of a brutal dictator. It's terrible…. My parents still talk about family members that are back in Cuba that I'll never get to meet. And it sucks." It sure does. Here in the United States, though, Martinez can celebrate the fact that a heavily armed citizenry helped repel subjugation.

"I love my country," Martinez went on to tell the New York Daily News. "I stand by the Constitution and I stand by the Second Amendment." It seems that he does. After all, the Founding Fathers believed that disarming the populace would be an attack on a fundamental liberty and a recipe for tyranny. John Adams argued that the right to have a weapon is a "primary canon of the law of nature." George Mason maintained that disarming the people is "the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

Nearly every Founding Father believed that an attempt to disarm the population would be casus belli. The men at Concord and Lexington didn't stand up to the far superior British force because they were concerned about income inequality. They were protecting a cache of weapons. (I take a deep dive into the topic in my forthcoming cultural history of guns in America, First Freedom.)

Yet Red Sox President Sam Kennedy says the team has spoken to Martinez about being more cautious on social media. The question is: Why should an athlete be subjected to warnings from his team's president—or a nonsensical controversy ginned up by reporters—for showing appreciation of an enduring American value?

NEXT: Movie Review: Kin

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.

  1. The Martinez Hitler meme shows the hysteria — this time from the right — that “they” are coming for all your guns, like Hitler did,” which is a crazy as anything screeched by Bernie or Elizabeth. Whatever any founder “believed” about gun ownership has no meaning. What did they put in the Constitution? The sole constitutional reason was to maintain a citizen militia, because there was to be no standing army.

    “What the Founders intended” is stated piously by many on the right, unless it’s inconvenient to their tribal agenda. What the Founders intended, regarding church and state is far more explicit, but they ignore that too, and also lie about it.

    … the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
    Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated under Washington, signed by Adams, after unanimous ratification by the Senate.”

    Will they now claim I’m coming for your Bibles? That’s silly, of course, nobody would foment hysteria to gain political power, screeching about “a war on Christianity,” right?

    The Senate knew the Treaty would become the Supreme Law of the Land. To them., add the first three Presidents. And know the (un)Holy Inquisition was still committing moral atrocities in Europe (the state punishing what the church told it to). Plus our own Salem Witchcraft Trials. The case for Separation is undeniable. But the theocrats deny it anyhow, claiming to represent The Word of Almighty God.

    Hysteria.

    (cont’d)

    1. (Re-placed to keep unbroken)

      Part 2/2

      The right of self-defense is easily defended, but that’s in the Ninth Amendment, not the First. Read the text. We no longer have a citizens militia, having later chosen to secure our free state with a military more powerful than the next nine nations combined, So Harsanyi is a revisionist, not an originalist.

      Thomas Jefferson would reject Harsanyi, and already has. Jefferson said our current Constitution has no authority at all. None. Consent of the governed? When?

      We now have what Jefferson called an instrument of might, not of liberty. No Constitution can justly bind a later generation, without their consent. Just as no generation may impose debt on a later generation, without their consent. Thomas Jefferson, a real libertarian. No poser.

      So, while today/s conservatives and “libertarians” eagerly defend stealing from their own children, dooming them to massive debt, they defend the tyranny of our Constitution, by lying about its clear language, also without our consent. . Just don’t call it liberty. Stop disgracing the moral concept

      Hysteria? Rage? Check the responses to these comments and principles.

      P.S. :”to secure a free state” means securing a government. If the Founders intended us to be armed AGAINST the state. they’d have said so. They did not. It’s not just libruls manipulated by hysteria, is it?

      Left – Right = Zero
      That’s why God created libertarians. To defy them both.

      1. You don’t make friends with (word) salad

        1. I don’t understand a grown man having multiple accounts to post the same patented nonsense on a daily basis.

          1. Grown does not automatically imply wisdom or maturity.

          2. It’s a robot.

            A very unsophisticated robot.

            A very unsophisticated robot designed to shitpost on Reason, and to sodomize baby goats.

            1. A very unsophisticated robot designed to shitpost on Reason, and to sodomize baby goats.

              Why the hate?

              1. I don’t “hate” the hihnbot swarm any more than I “hate” cockroaches or fecal bacteria. It’s just something to be avoided if possible and cleaned up if necessary.

          3. I don’t understand a grown man

            All of them, or just that one?

            having multiple accounts

            And easily manipulated.

            When they’ve lost on the issues, they evade it.

            1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano has to use sockpuppets to prop up his dementia-addled stupidity.

              *This message brought to you by Red Rocks White Privilege, the ONLY HnR commenter listed twice on Dumbfuck Hihnsano’s Enemies List*

          4. Simpsons lines are never nonsense.

        2. Nor do you encourage readership. Brevity is indeed the soul of wit. You witless buffoon.

      2. “The right of self-defense is easily defended, but that’s in the Ninth Amendment, not the First. ”

        Absolutely true. The 2nd amendment secured an individual right to be armed for any lawful purpose, but aside from training for the militia, did not set out the lawful purposes. Self defense, and I think hunting, are lawful purposes protected by the 9th amendment, but it’s simply owning and carrying about guns which the 2nd amendment protects.

        1. The 2nd amendment secured an individual right to be armed for any lawful purpose,

          By a well-regulated militia
          And to provide the security of a free state.
          That’s all my constitution says. Can you please link to whichever one you’re citing.

          1. The one that says “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

            You keep assuming that, if a lot of people decide they don’t want to. Be in militias, then the rest gets nullified.

            It doesn’t. But you’re free to rant and rave that it’s really supposed to, for all the good it will do (none).

            1. You keep assuming that, if a lot of people decide they don’t want to. Be in militias, then the rest gets nullified.

              We no longer defend the country with a citizen’s militia,

              1. That doesn’t amend constitutions.

                If you want to know the amendment process, read the text.

                1. If you don;t know what a militia is … you may be beyond help.
                  If you think we still defend the nation with a citizen’s militia, that is indeed beyond help.

                  1. If you think states creating a national guard or the people’s opinions of the military modify the highest law in the land, then you don’t understand how constitutions work.

                    1. If you think states creating a national guard or the people’s opinions of the military modify the highest law in the land, then you don’t understand how constitutions work.

                      It’s a poorly programmed robot. It doesn’t “understand” anything.

              2. We no longer defend the country with a citizen’s militia,

                It would be a lot cheaper to do it that way.

                And isn’t that what the National Guard is supposed to be?

                1. “And isn’t that what the National Guard is supposed to be?”

                  Legally, the National guard is organized under the clause permitting an army.

                  Otherwise it couldn’t be used overseas.

                  Some states *also* have militia, though.

                  1. “Legally, the National guard is organized under the clause permitting an army.”

                    And so would a militia be, if one were actually in place. The colonial “army” was in fact an army together with a collection of militias, more or less under a central command but often operating independently.

              3. We no longer defend the country with a citizen’s militia…

                What makes you say that? The country hasn’t had to repel an invading force in a while.

                1. What makes you say that?

                  The world’s largest, most powerful standing army.

                  The country hasn’t had to repel an invading force in a while.

                  So, you say our standing army can be eliminated. Okay, but that has not yet happened.

                  And you want is us to rely on a citizens militia — then build our military from scratch ,,, after the nukes from North Korea, Russian and China wipe out Los Angeles and New York City.

                  Can anyone get elected on that?

                  1. Given that you never could get elected, it is any surprise?

                    1. I was elected three time, in two different states, It’s harder than being an infantile cyber-bully,
                      What have you ever done, other than posturing in online forums?

                    2. I was elected three time, in two different states

                      For town crier–“Saying mean things about me is the same as throwing me in the oven at Auschwitz!”

                2. Never forget the (sometimes disputed) quote attributed to Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto after Pearl Harbor contemplating the possibility of success in a land war against the United States: “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass”. Regardless of historicity the core concept remains valid. There is all the difference in the world between contemplating an invasion of a country with a pacified citizenry and of one with a citizenry capable of defending itself regardless of the ability of its government to do so.

              4. Come up with that on your own? Since when does the the fact we don’t use something make its founding principles that are protected as unalienable suddenly void and null?

                Left – Right + Hind = retarded

              5. 10 U.S. Code ? 246 – Militia: composition and classes

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

          2. The one that says “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

            They use the term “Milita” in the predatory clause. That means the drafters knew how to limit the right to the Militia. They could have said:

            “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

            They didn’t. They instead used People.

            Yes, at the time, all able-bodied men were in the Militia, so the terms are somewhat co-extensive. But they aren’t interchangeable?if the right was a collective right, belonging to the Militia, they could have phrased it as such. Instead, they gave the rights to the individual components that made up the Militia.

            1. “Prefatory clause”?I blame Siri. Or Steve Jobs.

              1. The commerce clause and the general welfare clause are the predatory clauses.

              2. Siri too belongs in the woodchippers. Maybe moreso.

                1. She sounds a lot better if you change the default settings and give her a British accent.

            2. I always find if funny when people say the right belongs to the militia when the text is extremely clear. “The right of the people”, for some reason doesn’t mean “The right of the people”.

              1. “The right of the people”, for some reason doesn’t mean “The right of the people”.

                Thanks! Now I don’t have to say it. For what purpose?

                1. And “shall not be infringed” means “shall only be infringed as specified by federal, state and local governments, so long as they don’t take the infringing too far, too far being subject to court interpretation.”

                2. For what purpose?

                  One stated purpose was “the security of a free State” but that doesn’t imply that there are no other purposes. Also note that a free State is one where the people are free and enjoy such freedoms as owing firearms and pursuing happiness. There is no other possible meaning of a free State because the entire purpose of the document itself was to bind the power of the States in the Union as evidenced by the Compact Clause.

            3. They could have said:
              “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

              Like confusing a soldier with the army?

              1. I don’t follow your point.

                It’s a basic principle of statutory interpretation?if the drafter uses a term in one section of a “statute,” and omits it from another, the presumption is that both its use and omission were intentional.

                An example: One section of a statute says: “You have to provide X disclosure, in writing.” A later section says: “You have to provide Y disclosure.”

                The proper interpretation is that the second disclosure need not be in writing?otherwise the drafter would have said so, like he did in the earlier section.

                Same thing here?if they wanted to limit the right to keep and bear arms to the Militia, they would have said: “. . . the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

                But they didn’t. They purposely used a different word.

                1. It’s a basic principle of statutory interpretation

                  Ithought so, until you fucked it up

                  ?if the drafter uses a term in one section of a “statute,” and omits it from another, the presumption is that both its use and omission were intentional.

                  1) We’re talking a single sentence
                  2) You should learn he difference between a stature and the Constitution
                  3) I assume your reading skillls flunked high school English

                  1. (1) Please explain to me why the principles of statutory interpretation change based on the number of sentences.

                    If anything, the fact that this example is limited to a single sentence means the argument is even stronger, as opposed to some statute that has dozens of sections and subsections, and was cobbled together over the years via numerous amendments and authors.

                    (2) I put “statute” in quotation marks, precisely because we are talking about the Bill of Rights, and not a statute. Regardless, these are known as the principles of “statutory interpretation,” so that’s what I called them.

                    (3) Yes. Clearly, I’m illiterate. Miraculously, however, I made up for my illiteracy with the ability to make logical arguments?something you have not done (see numbers (1) and (2) as evidence).

                    1. (1) Please explain to me why the principles of statutory interpretation change based on the number of sentences.

                      Please explain to be where you got such a wacky notion.

                      If anything, the fact that this example is limited to a single sentence means the argument is even stronger,

                      You said different sections, so being in ONE section (paragraph) proves DIFFERENT sections. .

                      (2) I put “statute” in quotation marks,

                      Now you deny saying “statutory interpretation” to mean interpreting the Bill of Rights, BECAUSE that would NOT be a statutory interpetation

                      the ability to make logical arguments

                      One section proves different sections
                      Statutory means the Bill of Rights.
                      War is peace, Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength

                    2. Huh?

                      I explained a principle of statutory interpretation, which is also used in interpreting other types of legal writings that aren’t technically statutes (regulations, guidelines, and yes, Constitutions).

                      Call it a principle of “constitutional interpretation” if you’d like?that’s fine. It doesn’t change the underlying principle.

                      That principle applies to a lengthy statute with multiple sections, like the FDCPA, and also applies to a single sentence?like the one comprising the Second Amendment.

                      Care to state where you disagree?

                    3. You’re arguing with Michael Hihn, Johnny. He’ll never argue in good faith. Just be glad he hasn’t busted out the boldface yet.

                    4. Good point. Every now and again I do it, just to feel alive. It’s like my own cowardly (and more depraved?) version of cutting.

            4. They could have said:
              “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

              Like confusing a soldier with the army?

            5. It was actually brought up in the debates of the time, that if the right were restricted to the militia, it could be effectively abolished by doing away with the militia.

              Instead the right was intended to protect the militia from that fate, and did so by guaranteeing the right instead to the people, who are a lot harder to abolish.

              The analogy I use, is to a volunteer fire department. Suppose you’re concerned that your local government might be taken over by arsonists, who would direct the fire department to set, not extinguish, fires? You might prefer a volunteer fire department, and protect a right to own firefighting equipment, so that people could get together to extinguish fires even if the government wanted them to burn.

              As I occasionally say, a Bill of Rights is not intended to help the government do what it should. It is intended to prevent the government from doing what it shouldn’t. It has to be interpreted in that light: The Bill of Rights presumes the government has bad intent, and sets out to frustrate it.

              1. This is correct, and would be obvious to anyone who actually read opinions from that time. But, then again, you’re arguing with two complete imbeciles who aren’t worth your time.

                1. But, then again, you’re arguing with two complete imbeciles who aren’t worth your time.

                  It’s just one robot, operating under multiple handles.

                  What’s a pithy term for a mechanical sockpuppet? Robomuppet? Autosock?

                  1. I really doubt he’s a bot. While it would likely be feasible to write a bot that would largely replicate his writings, the programming effort would be considerable, for little payoff.

                    More likely he’s just a crank.

                    1. the programming effort would be considerable

                      It’s not a very good robot…

          3. Swing and a miss.

          4. “By a well-regulated militia”

            By the People. The right is explicitly secured to the People, while the militia is to be well regulated.

            Reading isn’t that hard.

            1. Reading isn’t that hard.

              For you it may even be impossible.

              1. And empirically pointless for your scrawlings.

          5. I would like to thank John Galt Jr for demonstrating his lack of English language comprehension skills.

            Truly sad but what can I say except to quote my mother: “You Americans have bastardized the English language”!

            1. I note your failure to cite an example. Just bellowing. Like a pussy,

              1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano has to use sockpuppets to prop up his dementia-addled stupidity.

                *This message brought to you by Red Rocks White Privilege, the ONLY HnR commenter listed twice on Dumbfuck Hihnsano’s Enemies List*

          6. In D.C. v Heller 2008, SCOTUS held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

            Or are you with Hillary, and believe Heller’08 was wrongly decided along McDonald’10 and are just waiting for a Democrat president who will pack a court to overturn Heller and McDonald? Or are you with loser Justice Stevens who wants to amend the 2A to make it while in militia service only? Or maybe even with Alan Dershowitz who recognizes it means what it says but wnats it repealed in toto?

            1. In D.C. v Heller 2008, SCOTUS held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

              You missed the point enrirely.
              It was the first time it had been ruled an individual right, not a group right, which was the issue at point. The court can only address the issues before it,

              The rest is childish tribalism. Only a far-left progressive would ever disagree with your slavish conformity?. Left and right are obsolete (as the only choices). for nearly 50 years. Society is several decades ahead of you. Libertarians are neither left nor right — along with over 60% of Americans, many of which are repulsed by the tribal hatred on both sides.

              1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano’s trying desperately not to give away the game that he wants a gun ban.

                1. I keep trying to remember that Hihn unsubscribed from Reason and stopped posting because of the treatment he got on these boards. Too bad he isn’t really a man of his word.

          7. And a people’s militia, properly trained (regulated), would secure the free state by armed rebellion overthrowing an oppressive government.

            I’m pretty certain King George would have loved to see “the people” disarmed.

            Why is it so hard to fathom that, having just fought a war (armed rebellion against oppressive government) that the Founders would consider that the government they were forming might itself become corrupt and oppressive and need to be overthrown by an armed populace.

            Noah Webster wrote in “An Examination into the leading Principles of the Federal Constitution”: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword because the whole body of the people are armed.”

            A more wordy, but less opaque text:

            “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
            – James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

            1. “[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”
              – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

              “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
              – Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

      3. “We no longer have a citizens militia, having later chosen to secure our free state with a military more powerful than the next nine nations combined, So Harsanyi is a revisionist, not an originalist.”

        See 10 U.S.C. Section 246 and try again.

        1. To defend “the security of a free state.” Your own living constitution extracts a single word out of context. That’s not how we interpret the Constitution.

          1. Fuck off, Hihn.

            1. Reason needs a restraining order against this nutcase

      4. The tyranny of the Constitution? The Constitution that protects our basic civil rights? In your mind that is tyranny? Securing the government? Clearly you are a left wing progressive statist who seeks to force all of us to bow at the altar of the Federal government. Wow, get some help…

        1. You seem unaware of Thomas Jefferson, and claim Nolan said anything about “tyranny” (falsely) You defend an unjust government. (Governments derive their JUST powers by the consent of the governed) And seem unaware of the Second Amendment.

          Securing the government?

          ” A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State … “

          Clearly you are a left wing progressive statist

          Jefferson wa a left-wing progressive?

          who seeks to force all of us to bow at the altar of the Federal government.

          It is you bowing down to an unjust government.
          Calling Jefferson a progressive.
          And appear unaware of what the Second Amendment says,

          Wow, get some help…

          I’ll get that help for you. Educate you on Jefferson’s objections to rule “by force, not by right,” and “consent of the dead.” His letter to Madison from Paris, during the Constitutional Convention.

          To clarify again, it you are bowing down to a government by force, not by right .. and (perhaps unwittingly) reject the right of the people to consent to a Constitution of our own choosing, replacing some or all of the current one, or simply affirming our commitment to the current one. But the statist is me?

          “The earth belongs to the living.”
          Also Jefferson, same document

          1. Fuck off, Hihn.

            1. He forgot he was still logged on under the “Nolan” name. What a dumbass.

                1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano has to use sockpuppets to prop up his dementia-addled stupidity.

                  *This message brought to you by Red Rocks White Privilege, the ONLY HnR commenter listed twice on Dumbfuck Hihnsano’s Enemies List*

              1. He forgot he was still logged on under the “Nolan” name. What a dumbass.

                I keep trying to point out that it isn’t a very well written robot.

          2. Jefferson was unduly enamored of the French Revolutionaries and history knows how pear shaped that went.

            1. Especially when it’s crackers to slip a rozzer, the dropsy in snide.

              1. Damn the robot blew a circuit and now it’s randomly parsing words based upon type.

                1. Most software has bugs. The hihnswarm robomuppets are no different.

              2. Dumbfuck Hihnsano pathetically pulling out his dated MAD magazine reference.

                1. +1 potrzebie

      5. I swear theres a part in the first amendment that talks about self defense. It comes at the end, and is in really fine print.

        1. One must rub lemon juice in the space before 2A. The words then appear.

      6. I NEVER dreamed this would be SO accurate a prediction!

        Hysteria? Rage? Check the responses to these comments and principles.

        A VERY lengthy thread of rage, whining, evasions, diversions, bellowing and just plain ignorance and confusion. Plus the typical childish snark and personal attacks

        The authoritarian right = the authoritarian left.

        Precious snowflakes, both left and right, shouting down non-conforming views, each triggered in their own Safe Zones. Which is why God created libertarians, the new majority and still growing.

        1. Back to your cryochamber, Hihnsane one.

    2. The separation of Church and State was included to prevent the creation of a State religion such as the Anglican church in England. Remember, the Puritans were expelled from England and forced to move to the Netherlands because they refused to adopt the views of the Anglican church. They came to North America for religious freedom so it only make sense they would want to make sure there was never a single “state” religion. However, the separation of church and state does not and never has meant a total separation of religion from government. If this were true, why are the official positions in the House and Senate of Chaplain? Why do both bodies open their session each day with prayer? As for your claim the state is not coming for our bibles, I would argue that too is incorrect. The state of California has a bill before the assembly making it a crime for a church to make any statements claiming homosexuality, transgenderism, same sex marriage or abortion is a sin. To do so would result in fines up to $100,000 and the seizing of church property by the state. Are you going to argue that is what the founders intended when the wrote the 1st amendment?

      1. Bigots have rights, too.

        1. “Bigots have rights, too.”
          So you can own a gun too.

          1. I believe the Constitution (although not necessarily the Second Amendment, consequent to the disingenuous gymnastics required to rely on it in this context) entitles an American to possess a reasonable firearm for self-defense in the home.

            I blame my libertarianism.

            Carry on, clingers.

            1. “reasonable” as determined by…..

              1. “reasonable” as determined by…..

                SCOTUS. Been their function for over 200 years. If you ABSOLUTELY cannot accept that, you are free to leave.

                1. How about you just add me to your enemies list a 2nd time?

                  And the word “reasonable” doesn’t appear in Article III as far as I can tell.

                  1. And the word “reasonable” doesn’t appear in Article III as far as I can tell.

                    What you cannot tell is that nobody said otherwise.

                    What’s the enemies list? Should I too seek inclusion.

                    1. “What’s the enemies list? Should I too seek inclusion.”

                      Yes.

                    2. Dumbfuck Hihnsano has to use sockpuppets to prop up his dementia-addled stupidity.

                      *This message brought to you by Red Rocks White Privilege, the ONLY HnR commenter listed twice on Dumbfuck Hihnsano’s Enemies List*

                  2. Are you (claiming to) enjoy your irrelevant life on the disaffected fringe?

                    1. No thanks. Your party sucks.

            2. Article 1 Section 8 States that Congress has the authority to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal. That means that the founder intended private citizens to posses far more then “a reasonable firearm for self defense in the home.” That means they expected private citizens to not only own firearms but ships armed with Naval guns.

              1. Article 1 Section 8 States that Congress has the authority to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

                That’s terrible. Have you no shame at all?
                If you want my nukes, you’ll have to pry them from my cold dead hands.

              2. In a world with pirates, it was only sensible for merchant ships to go about armed.

            3. In D.C. v Heller 2008, SCOTUS held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

              Not limited to, but such as, self-defense in the home.

              My state constitution has an RKBA provision also. Court rulings, statements of legislative intent and attorney general opinions have outlined “traditionally lawful purposes” to keep and bear arms as including:
              _ self-defense
              _ marksmanship training as preparation for volunteer military service
              _ hunting
              _ protecting livestock from predators
              _ recreation or sport
              _ collection as curio, keepsake or ornament
              (plus “arms” is not limited to firearms in Article I Declaration of Rights, Section 26, Weapons; right to bear arms)

              Also see:

              ARTICLE I.
              Declaration of Rights.
              Section 1. That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement of those ends they have at all times, an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.
              Section 2. That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

              1. Protected arms are limited in 2A, according to that damn proggie, Antonin Scalia.
                To anyone who’s read the opinion with their own mind.

                1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano’s pimping for his gun bans again.

                  *This message brought to you by Red Rocks White Privilege, the ONLY HnR commenter listed twice on Dumbfuck Hihnsano’s Enemies List*

                  1. I did predict more hysteria, “THEY’RE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS.”
                    The other puppers are manipulated by, “THEY’RE COMING FOR YOUR BIBLES..”

                    As a growing majority rejects both prehistoric tribes.
                    And yawns,

        2. Yes, RAK; you have Rights too!

          1. In addition to bigots!!

        3. I know you meant it as a sick burn but it is actually true. You do have rights.

        4. “Bigots have rights too”

          Which apparently supersede the right of free exercise of religion and the right of free speech of those with religious beliefs. Of course, since you are not really a man of faith, nor a man who defends our freedoms on any principled ground, that need not concern you

          1. “Bigots have rights too”

            Which apparently supersede the right of free exercise of religion and the right of free speech of those with religious beliefs

            It’s called equal rights.
            They include freedom OF and FROM religion.
            No special rights as you demand. Thanks for admitting your desired tyranny.

      2. If 1A denies a state religion, that would include Christianity. The Treaty of Tripoli is more specific proof. See Article 11.

        Not just pilgrims, MANY came to the New World to escape religious persecution. The Anglican and Catholic churches were both oppressive. And both Christian.

        the separation of church and state does not and never has meant a total separation of religion from government.

        Separation from GOVERNING. Confirmed by the first three Presidents and a unanimous US Senate, versus ? nothing.

        Why are the official positions in the House and Senate of Chaplain?

        Do we allow them to veto our laws? Do you ignore the ban on ANY religious test for federal office?

        The state of California has a bill before the assembly making it a crime for a church to ?

        Even if true, it would be unconstitutional. If you mean AB-2943 that’s … wildly exaggerated.

        Are you going to argue that is what the founders intended when the wrote the 1st amendment?

        Are you asking if I oppose separation, because I support it? The First Amendment protects freedom OF and FROM religion. As in every political issue, both sides suffer an authoritarian extreme

        Left-Right = Zero
        Libertarians have always fought abuses by both extremes.

        1. “Left-Right = Zero”

          Oops Hihn slipped up and used the wrong sock puppet.

          1. ooops. Right-wing retard does not know that has been a libertarian meme for nearly 60 years. Plus three related ones.

            Left and right are obsolete.

            The Authoritarian Right wants government out of your wallet and into your bedroom.
            The Authoritarian Left wants government out of your bedroom and into your wallet.
            ONLY libertarians DEFY government intrusion into BOTH economic and personal issues.

            Democrats borrow trillions to provide free stuff.
            Republicans and faux libertarians borrow trillions to provide free tax cuts.
            Libertarians know CUT SPENDING is the only way to shrink government. (Grade-school arithmetic, duh!)

            A growing majority of Americans agree, and now SELF-define as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Left and right are now less than 40% of Americans combined and shrinking

            Your time has expired,

            And you’ve not had a single comment of substance. Just non-stop fuckups, And socck puppet conspiracies.

            1. Sure Hihn, this is totally not one of your sock puppets. Clearly I made a terrible error that any true Libertarian would notice. Or, then again maybe you’re just a sock puppet. Hmmm, the world will never know….

              1. Also, you screwed up again by using yet a third sock puppet. You were supposed to reply with your David Nolan sock puppet and instead you used your John Galt sock puppet.

                Oops, that’s embarrassing.

            2. Dumbfuck Hihnsano has to use sockpuppets to prop up his dementia-addled stupidity.

              *This message brought to you by Red Rocks White Privilege, the ONLY HnR commenter listed twice on Dumbfuck Hihnsano’s Enemies List*

        2. At the time of our founding, the word “religion” meant a particular religious sect, and it was mainly used in that First Article of Ammdnement which was placed and written to specifically proscribe FEDERAL government (remember the first words of that Article: “CONGRESS shall make no law…..”) from selecting one particular religiious denomination from being declared the NATIONAL religion. Many of the states had their specified “religion”, and that was legal then, and would be even today. Maryland were Catholic, Pennsylvania were Quaker. Massachussetts were Congregationalists, and so forth.

    3. The Treaty of Tripoli was a capitulation to Muslim jihadi pirates and slavers, making the USA give tribute to them because the federal government did not have the naval power at the time to protect our merchantmen from their depredations. That treaty was repudiated under Jefferson during the Barbary Wars.

      It was a shameful document that was signed for purely utilitarian reasons

      1. Anyone who clicks the link and reads the treaty will see the truth. The purpose of that section was to support WHY we had “no enmity to the Muslim religion” (a later statement.. And your falsehood fails to say WHY we would LIE by saying we are not founded on the Christian religion. Treaties are not casual. The Senators knew their ratification would become the supreme law of the land. Their vote was unanimous

        The treaty was not repudiated, one of the wackier excuses by the Christian Taliban. It was superseded by a later one, which is irrelevant. The Treaty is just one item, in a mountain of evidence, which PROVE the prevailing thought at the time on church and state. The Inquisition was still brutalizing lives until roughly our Civil War.

        Jefferson’s famous “Wall of Separation” letter to Baptists in Connecticut who feared persecution as a small minority in that state. Jefferson invited perhaps a dozen others to proofread his letter. He knew he had to get it right, else he bear some responsibility if the Baptists were later persecuted from having trusted him. (They would have left the state without his assurances.)

        1. The treaty was “superseded” as you say because of the small wars the US fought to end the tribute to jihadi pirates and force a more equitable peace on them. The humiliating terms were imposed on the United States because it was negotiating from a position of weakness. It could not prevent the Muslims from stealing its merchants goods or enslaving its passengers and crew. The Muslim Barbary States were waging religious war on the United States.

          1. Doesn’t matter why it was superseded. Or that you’re at war with the truth.

            Anyone who cares can learn the truth at Politifact. Or pehaps any web site that exposes urban legends.

            1. I do not disagree that the US motivations for the war were not religious. I disagree that the Barbary State’s motivations were not religious. The Muslim reason for attacking non-Muslims cannot really be separated between religious and plunder. The latter was the promise of the former.

              If religion was not Barbary States motivation, why would they impose such a statement in a treaty to end conflict in which they were the aggressor?

            2. And Politifact?

              Really?

              1. And Politifact?
                Really?

                Versus Micky Rat, a nobody? Yes, really
                “Or any site that exposes urban legends.”
                Vesrsus nobody at all.

        2. “The purpose of that section was to support WHY we had “no enmity to the Muslim religion” ”

          A famous quote: “Diplomacy consists of saying “Nice dog”, while groping around for a stick.”

          Diplomatically saying “Nice dog!” doesn’t imply you think the dog is nice. Just that you don’t want to be bitten while finding the stick.

    4. “they” are coming for all your guns, like Hitler did,” which is a crazy as anything screeched by Bernie or Elizabeth.

      Of course, nobody is coming for your guns! That’s just silly!

      But, really, who needs to own a gun? Don’t we have official government police that should be doing their jobs and keeping us safe? Does anyone really need to hunt to survive? Is sport shooting really a necessity? Who needs a gun?

      Hey! Calm down! I said no one is coming for your guns!

      But, we have so many more gun fatalities, and so many more guns, than any other country. Rreducing the number of guns would probably save lives.

      God damnit, I said no one is coming for your guns! You’re so paranoid!

      But, wouldn’t we be much safer if only police and licensed professionals were allowed to have guns? You know, people who could sufficiently prove to society that they needed a gun for the good of society?

      Christ! I said no one is coming for your guns! Quit being a conspiracy theorist!

      But, if we repealed the second amendment, that wouldn’t get rid of guns. It would just kick the matter to the states. States could still allow guns, just like overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn’t outlaw abortion.

      Stop screaming! No one is coming for your guns! Why are you so distrusting?

      Sure, I don’t own guns, I never will, so the second amendment doesn’t matter to me, and I would probably be better off if no one else had guns either.

      But, I promise: no one is coming for your guns.

      1. I agree. Incomprehensible.

    5. The Lie of Separation of Church and State

      The Treaty of Tripoli stating the United States was not founded on Christianity, or any religion, is just that…stating the country was not founded on religion. It doesn’t say that church and state are “separate” in the sense that you mean.

      1. Only if words have no meaning. And your “source” is a blog. By a nobody.

        Now you can recite the other lame one. “The words ‘wall of separation’ do not appear in the Constitution” — as if they’d have to!

    6. If only there was some historical context for the Second Amendment, like the Founders having remembered a time in the distant past when their distant central government became more and more tyrannical, and did indeed “come for their guns” in uppity towns like Lexington or Concord.

      1. There are tons of historical records, quoted in both relevant rulings, Miller and Heller.
        One example is Scalia’s Heller ruling, citing the gun bans that were common at ratification.

        1. Scalia was wrong like he was about many things.

          1. It’s called the Supreme Law of the Land.
            And at least a dozen historical documents.

            Who are you?

      2. As I mentioned above you can look at the Constitution. Kinda useless to issue Letters of Marque to people with unarmed ships.

        1. I thought that was satire.
          But you apparently have no idea what is meant by — the proper term is “Letters of Marque and Reprisal.”

          And by what “logic” does that have any relevance?

    7. And know the (un)Holy Inquisition was still committing moral atrocities in Europe (the state punishing what the church told it to). Plus our own Salem Witchcraft Trials.

      While the inquisition was not disbanded until the 1800s, the Salem Witch Trials occurred in the 1690s, before this country was formed.

      1. Is that satire? The trials were proof that church/state atrocities could happen here too. Many lesser known abuses are described by Murray Rothbard’s US history.

        How does the timing have any relevance at all? To anything?

        1. The trials were proof that church/state atrocities could happen here too

          Dumbfuck Hihnsano knows because he wwitnessed them firsthand.

    8. What did they put in the Constitution? The sole constitutional reason was to maintain a citizen militia, because there was to be no standing army.

      Not quite. Not by a long shot.

      They recognised that “the security of a free state” was in the hands of THE PEOPLE. Militia was understood to be THE WHOLE PEOPLE> Founders did not attempt to “maintain a citizen militia” but to guarantee that THE PEOPLE would always have the right to arms in order to maintain that security. And “free state” did not mean “government”. Not by a long shot. “Free state” meant simply the sociopolitical organisations entered into by THE PEOPLE to faciitate their better management. You make much more of it than they did.

      As to coming for all our guns…. not yet. But they are DEFINITELY setting the stage to enable this. States are now enacting “red flag” laws enabling government to take guns from individuals then make THEM some and prove they should get them back. NOT due process. Some states are using gun registration lists and corelating with other “lists” and then paying unannounced visits to take the guns from innocents, again, no due process. California, New York, Massachussetts,

      YOU wake up, man.

  2. Part 2/2

    The right of self-defense is easily defended, but that’s in the Ninth Amendment, not the First. Read the text. We no longer have a citizens militia, having later chosen to secure our free state with a military more powerful than the next nine nations combined, So Harsanyi is a revisionist, not an originalist.

    Thomas Jefferson would reject Harsanyi, and already has. Jefferson said our current Constitution has no authority at all. None. Consent of the governed? When?

    We now have what Jefferson called an instrument of might, not of liberty. No Constitution can justly bind a later generation, without their consent. Just as no generation may impose debt on a later generation, without their consent. Thomas Jefferson, a real libertarian. No poser.

    So, while today/s conservatives and “libertarians” eagerly defend stealing from their own children, dooming them to massive debt, they defend the tyranny of our Constitution, by lying about its clear language, also without our consent. . Just don’t call it liberty. Stop disgracing the moral concept

    Hysteria? Rage? Check the responses to these comments and principles.

    P.S. :”to secure a free state” means securing a government. If the Founders intended us to be armed AGAINST the state. they’d have said so. They did not. It’s not just libruls manipulated by hysteria, is it?

    Left – Right = Zero
    That’s why God created libertarians. To defy them both.

    1. Fuck off, Hihn.

      1. Hihn is a example of when down voting is a good idea.

    2. -1

      1. Count how many authoritarians reject “consent of the governed” — instead defending what Jefferson rightly called consent of the dead … governing by might, not by liberty. ..defending that any generation can impose a government and/or debt on any future generation, all without even a vote of THAT generation.

        Thomas Jefferson would reject Harsanyi, and already has. Jefferson said our current Constitution has no authority at all. None. Consent of the governed? When?

        We now have what Jefferson called an instrument of might, not of liberty. No Constitution can justly bind a later generation, without their consent. Just as no generation may impose debt on a later generation, without their consent. Thomas Jefferson, a real libertarian. No poser.

        So, while today/s conservatives and “libertarians” eagerly defend stealing from their own children, dooming them to massive debt, they defend the tyranny of our Constitution, by lying about its clear language, also without our consent. . Just don’t call it liberty. Stop disgracing the moral concept

        Hysteria? Rage? Check the whining just above, to these simple principles of individual liberty and a free society.
        Liberty? Or scum?

    3. We no longer have a citizens militia, having later chosen to secure our free state with a military more powerful

      again, a miss by a wide margin. Not even “on the paper” let alone inside a scoring ring.
      Milita is defined, back then, as “the whole people, armed, skilled, coordinated”. We may presently have a standing army, in direct violation of the Constitution, but even that does not negate the rightful existence, nor the need for, a citizen militia. And when GOVERNMENT begins to usurp powers never assigned them by THE PEOPLE (remember, it is by OUR consent government can govern…..) and subjugate THE PEOPLE in ways not authorised by the Constitution, or even contrary to it, then THE PEOPLE must decide whether to lay down and get run over by an out of control government, or stand against that now-illegal government and force it to change, or replace it.

  3. ” “The rhetoric of invoking Hitler is indefensible because it trivializes what he and the Nazis did,” Mike Godwin of “Godwin’s law” fame told the Boston Herald”

    You’re kidding me, right? THIS is what provokes Godwin to speak out about the evil of Hitler analogies? Seriously?

    1. What?! It’s like Godwin, Poe, O. Henry, and Alanis Morrisette had a baby and named it this exact situation!

    2. Germany and Hitler is a cautionary tale. It should be invoked often, and long before it is apt.

  4. The Nazis didn’t become “the Nazis” until well after they started WW2 and what I mean by that is that the truth scope of their evil crimes were not known, acknowledged or committed until well into the war. There were many Nazi sympathizers in the United States when Germany invaded Poland. There was a general feeling in the United States that Europe was someone else’s problem and there was a legal policy of neutrality in law but necessarily in fact. Had people taken up arms to defeat Hitler prior to the invasion of Poland those people would have been considered as terrorists and radicals and they would have been condemned even in Britain and the US. There was a policy of appeasement and a general feeling that Germany had been wronged by the Treaty of Versailles.. It’s childish fantasy to believe there was any way to stop or even expose the true nature of Hitler before he invaded Poland and by then people were under considerable psychological pressure to support the homeland because of the declarations of war. The Nazis were the people. The people were the Nazis.

    1. And someone did attack the Nazi state (maybe) by burning down the Reichstag and of course the “good honest” people of Germany reacted by showering Hilter with dictatorial powers.

      1. The best way to prevent something like Nazi Ger is to sharpen your intellect and better understand human nature. More library, less gun range.

        1. If only someone would combine the two.

    2. And yet a lot of people saw the problem early and left Germany.

      1. Including hundreds of Jews, That FDR refused to allow into the US, thus they wound up in the gas ovens they had first escaped.

        1. Indeed, FDR was an intolerant Leftie. He also effectively undermined the power of the Supreme Court and interned innocent American citizens. But I’m not sure how FDR’s repugnant actions are relevant to the Nazification of Germany?

          1. . But I’m not sure how FDR’s repugnant actions are relevant to the Nazification of Germany?

            That confirms my suspicions. You really do have a severe problem in elementary mental cognition.

            Those Jews were fleeing … ummmm … Nazi Germany, But the escape did no good.
            I said that in reference to CE’s

            And yet a lot of people saw the problem early and left Germany.

            I must explain even the obvious … Jews “saw the problem early and left Germany.”
            But their leaving was useless, because they wound up back in Germany.
            I hope that’s sufficient for you. I cannot dumb it down any lower.

            Your turn. What the FUCK does the Supreme Court have to do with Nazi Germany? Or what I said? That was rhetorical. Please do NOT answer.

            1. “Those Jews were fleeing … ummmm … Nazi Germany, But the escape did no good.
              I said that in reference to CE’s’

              What is relevant about the escape doing no good? East Germans were shot trying to climb the Berlin Wall. I’ve never known anyone to think the take away is that “the escape did no good.”. Your argument makes no sense. Maybe you could use smaller words.

              1. I think what Hinh is saying is that we should have invaded Germany and kidnapped every last Jew to save them all. #Progthink

                1. If one calls that thinking.
                  What’s a Hihn?

                  1. What’s a Hihn?

                    An ignorant dumbfuck who thinks using several sockpuppets in the same thread means he isn’t an ignorant dumbfuck.

              2. I’ve never known anyone to think the take away is that “the escape did no good.”

                If one escapes … must return to where they escaped from … and dies in a gas oven (there) … YOU say the escape was successful … because you’ve never known anyone more intelligent than a 10 year old … and you seem to have some quota of dumbass comments on this page …. as a stalker

  5. Objectionable speech is objectionable if somebody objects to it. It’s a corollary of the heckler’s veto. This only works one way of course, saying Martinez shouldn’t be allowed to say such hateful things because the right to free speech does not apply to hate speech can in no way be considered objectionable speech.

    1. Except he’s not saying anything hateful.

  6. I suppose any speech somebody disagrees with, “controverts”, is “controversial” in a trivial sense. But it has long been a liberal rhetorical tactic to treat any disagreement with them as “controversial” in a stronger, “beyond the limits of civilized discourse” sense.

    Disagreement with them isn’t mere disagreement. It’s like swearing in church, an offense against ordinary morality.

    The aim is to suppress public expression of views that disagree with the left, even views that are quite common or majority, in order to create the illusion that people who hold them are extremist weirdos. So that people who do disagree will self-censor.

    This is why, for instance, I flatly refuse to refer to the transgender by their preferred pronouns. Doing so isn’t a matter of politeness, it’s submission to the demand we pretend they actually HAVE changed their sex, rather than just having mutilated themselves.

    1. Well said! The fiction of “safe spaces” is nothing more than “you just shut up, poopy head”.

    2. They have gone and made the word gender meaningless, I find asking their sex is the only meaningful way you can get an answer.

    3. I share Brett Bellmore’s rejection of political correctness.

      That’s why I now call a bigot a bigot, a can’t-keep-up backwater a can’t-keep-up backwater, a superstitious yahoo a superstitious yahoo, and a half-educated, bigoted, authoritarian, disaffected, rural, right-wing, faux libertarian goober a deplorable Trump supporter.

      I have come to regard accuracy as an overarching virtue. Appeasing the left-behind, gullible, intolerant malcontents did not work.

  7. “The rhetoric of invoking Hitler is indefensible because it trivializes what he and the Nazis did,” Mike Godwin of “Godwin’s law” fame told the Boston Herald. “It’s historically inaccurate to state that Hitler wanted to take people’s guns away. If anything, he wanted all citizens to have guns, except Jews.”

    So, “Reason Contributor Blatantly Lies to Make Political Point”. Got it.

    1. Mike Godwin is a “Reason Contributor”? Are you sure? Because it looks more like he’s just a guy who got quoted (and maybe misquoted) by the Boston Herald – a conversation that was then re-quoted by actual Reason author, David Harsanyi.

      Or are you explicitly accusing Harsanyi of misquoting the Boston Herald? And if so, evidence please?

      1. Mike Godwin is a “Reason Contributor”? Are you sure?

        Yep. It came up a few months ago, and everyone was all “Whoa, the Mike Godwin from the byline is that Mike Godwin?”

        https://reason.com/people/mike-godwin/all

        1. You know who else was a Reason contributor?

          1. Everyone in the commentariat?

            1. Poor Reason. :-/

  8. Yet Red Sox President Sam Kennedy says the team has spoken to Martinez about being more cautious on social media.

    “Sadly, however, Martinez failed to learn his lesson. After being spotted wearing a t-shirt supportive of the first amendment, he was fired.”

  9. I think somebody needs to market a T shirt emblazoned with the following hate speech:

    “Bill of Rights, bitches!”

    1. I’m sure that would get a student sent home, unlike a picture of a mass murderer like Che.

  10. The Constitution places limits on the government. People who want government to solve all their problems do not want a limited government. It seems that most people are in the “government can fix it” camp, so those of use who want limited government with defined powers are in a distinct minority.

    (Shut the fuck up lc you fucking simpleton, “limited government with defined powers” does not equal anarchy. Moron.)

    1. (Shut the fuck up lc you fucking simpleton, “limited government with defined powers” does not equal anarchy. Moron.)

      If LC were willing or capable (whichever the disconnect stems from) of reading words and translating them into concepts in his head, he’d understand that “limited government with defined powers” is a pretty succinct way of describing libertarianism.

      1. Ever hear the Minarchist explain anarchy?

        First we have a small government see. It can only hear civil property cases see. The ‘court’ cant kick anyone out for not obeying the court because societal rules are voluntary see. There are no crimes see. National boundaries are imaginary see. We group together in bands of 10 anarchists see. Versus a 4 million man Chinese army see. We can take em.

        Do YOU see?

        Anarchists hate libertarianism as evidenced by sarcasmic and his sock lovers.

        1. Ever hear the Minarchist explain anarchy?

          Frequently..
          You opened by publicly displaying your ignorance of both…You being totally ignorant of the Dallas Accord is roughly equivalent to denying the Magna Carta,

          Seeing the Authoritarian Right describe either is .. amusing.

    2. How cute, the anarchists are trying to explain how libertarianism works.

      1. Same total ignorance you blasted above, like the Dallas Accord.

        Libertarian, by definition, are almost always either minarchists or anarchists. The original libertarians (that label) were anarchists. The Dallas Accord, at the Party’s founding, had anarchists and minarchists both agreeing to work together. It was kinda dumb, by hindsight, butt shows your total ignorance of even our basic history.

        The anarchists agreed to support the minarchists, to get government as minimal as possible, acknowledging they could never get so close to anarchy on their own. The minarchists supported the anarchists, to get their support. The mutual aid pact was later described by LP Chair, Steve Dasbach as were all on the same train, heading in the same direction. Different people will hop into the train if and when they saw the need. Each individual would get off, when he or she reached a level that they chose. Anarchist would finish the trip alone, likely having recruited many more.

        We call that individual liberty.

        Franklyl, the notion of an Authoritarian Right extremist describing libertarianism often leads to your own monumental errors here. Especially when you defend yourself as “entitled” to slurp the government teat. We freely admit we have a lot more work to eliminate that teat,, but no libertarian ,would claim your entitlement mentality. Not one that I’ve ever heard,

        And everyone knows you’re the major Trump Troll here.

  11. Sports Reporters as a group, view dissent (or agnosticism) from progressive pieties by athletes as something that must be repressed. Athletes, especially highly visible ones, must be soldiers for the Cause.

    1. Yet another reason why you couldn’t force me to give a shit about sports.

      1. This has less to do with actual sports than with sports reporters self image of being bleeding edge social activists. They seem to suffer shame that they are just entertainment press and need some assurance that their work is Important.

        1. Oh I get it. I’m just saying that I don’t really care about sports in the first place, so slanted commentary doesn’t make it any more appealing.

    2. Jason Whitlock is a pillar of sanity in the sports world.

  12. The progressives want to use the coercive power of government to force nuns to finance their employees’ fornication, force bakers to violate their religious convictions, strip accused students of their right to cross examine witnesses, disenfranchise voters from weighing in on issues like immigration, progressives generally persecute everybody who says anything they don’t like in public, etc, etc, etc. . . .

    And then they wonder why people on the right want guns to protect themselves and their rights from oppressive government?

    Here’s a hint: If you don’t like seeing people arm themselves for fear of oppressive government, maybe you should stop advocating using the coercive power of government against people–because you don’t like them and the way they exercise their rights.

    1. Yep, the progressives love the power of the gun when wielded by the government and used to force their ideas on others.

    2. As I’ve said before elsewhere. I don’t own a gun because I’m afraid progressives will come and take my guns.

  13. what seems to really tick off people … is the notion that an armed population can be a freer one

    *and* a more polite one.

  14. So is it controversial because the historical accuracy is a bit off in order to fit a narrative? Do the proglodytes and latte lefties really want to have that argument? They push campaigns all about actively changing history to fit narratives. So I’m forced to believe it’s because he’s pro 2nd Amendment that this is any way controversial to them, which is just as stupid.

  15. i think what is important about this is that martinez, like you’re typical uneducated moron, used a fake quote to tell what he calls “the truth.” he may work hard hitting, but clarly has no stomach for real work.

    1. “like you’re typical uneducated moron.” Ha.

      1. You missed “clarly” which returns ?\_(?)_/? even in Urban Dictionary.

        I try to proofread myself before posting criticism of others’ education.

        It’s like setting yourself up for snark.

    2. ” like you’re typical uneducated moron”

      Is this the same kind of moron who doesn’t know to capitalize proper names? Or a different kind?

  16. This arguing about Nazi gun control is just quibbling.

    The real lesson of Nazi gun control isn’t “Yeah! We could probably take down the military with our civilian guns!”

    The real lesson is this:

    A government that’s disarming you isn’t doing it for your own good.

    And that was absolutely true for the Jews.

    1. ^ This

    2. That’s fake history or something.

  17. “It’s historically inaccurate to state that Hitler wanted to take people’s guns away. If anything, he wanted all citizens to have guns, except Jews.”

    If this is supposed to be a logical rebuttal to the basic fundamental point of the (admittedly fake) quote, it might be the worst rebuttal in the history of debating.

    1. Yeah, Hitler didn’t really want to take everyone’s guns, just the ones he wanted to haul off to extermination camps.

    2. Prof. Stephen Halbrook has pointed out that when Hitler became Chancellor of Germany, gun registration lists were checked against lists of Social Democrats and other “politically unreliable” persons and their permits revoked. In 1935 gun permits (to buy and own) were denied to all identified Jews: in 1938 gun registration records were used for searches of Jewish homes. (And used against others on the Nazi enemies lists.) The remaining Weimar Republic gun laws designed to disarm the National Socialist and International Communist street thugs who made urban life hell in the cities in the 1920s were seriously relaxed in 1938 for good Nazis, tightened up for everyone else. Prof Halbrook’s critic Prof Bernard Harcourt quoted William Pierce (author of “The Turner Diaries”) who praised Nazi gun laws to refute Halbrook’s argument that the Nazis used gun control to impose a dictatorship. According to Harcourt, if an American neo-nazi like Pierce approved of Hitler’s gun laws, then Halbrook had to be wrong about Nazis using gun control bolster a dictatorship. well, duh Not the first time a gun control crusader stretched their credibility past the breaking point. If the private arms of the enemies of the Nazi state were not a problem for the dictatorship, why all the effort to deny arms to Jews, Social Democrats, and other not-Nazis?

  18. J.D. Martinez appears to be half-educated (a couple of years playing baseball at Nova Southeastern Something), illiterate, and a gun nut. The kind of guy who claims he “stands by the Constitution” even if he couldn’t compose a reasonable paragraph about its contents with a gun to this temple. In other words, a natural right-winger. No wonder Harsanyi loves him.

    1. “J.D. Martinez appears to be half-educated (a couple of years playing baseball at Nova Southeastern Something), illiterate, and a gun nut.”

      Our annoying asshole is jealous.

      1. Well he doesn’t have a valid argument so he’s going with appeal to personal attack.

        1. Observing that someone is illiterate and poorly educated seems relevant to assessment of an opinion. Why do you consider that observation a personal attack?

          1. Observing that someone is illiterate and poorly educated

            Which puts him leagues ahead of you, hicklib.

        2. Well he doesn’t have a valid argument so he’s going with appeal to personal attack.

          A man has to go with what he knows, after all.

          1. Lacking familiarity with standard English is not libertarianism.

            1. It’s true, those concepts are completely orthogonal. Congratulations.

            2. That’s pretty rich coming from a subliterate hicklib.

            3. Arty, you’re a high school dropout. So just shut up and learn to obey.

    2. And you’re not racist because you’re belittling of the intelligence a minority has a progressive slant!

      Or you’re black!

    3. Put a loaded pistol to your temple, pull the trigger, and end all your misery, Mary Stack.

    4. Plus he’s a great hitter.

    5. Would you consider any part of your ideology libertarian?

      1. Kirkland has ideology? Its looks like gibberish to people.

        1. Says the guy who just made a public fool of himself on libertarians, anarchists and minarchists.. THAT is gibberish.

          From your far extreme of the Authoritarian Right, with an entitlement mentality that defends slurping at the government teat as your right … to be supported by others, even your own children and grandchildren. The right-wing version of a welfare queen … and the most frequent Trump Troll in this commentariat.

          1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano accuses others of slurping at the government teat while taking big huge gulps.

  19. Go Sox.

  20. Only Republicans and Libertarians can be compared to Nazis. Not Lefties.

    Martinez has committed a cardinal sin.

    1. Republicans should not be compared to Nazis. They should be called to account for bigotry, authoritarianism, and backwardness, however.

      Libertarians are irrelevant in this context, which involves solely faux libertarians (defensive right-wingers prancing about in unconvincing libertarian drag).

      1. So sayeth the bigot.

    2. Nazis were socialists.

      Control the means of product for aryans.

      1. Right-wing socialists. And they were corporatist, so you got that wrong too, As always.

  21. We have a current-day example of why governments seek to disarm certain people (white farmers) in South Africa.

    Gee, I wonder why they want to disarm them. Could it have something to do with the South African government’s earlier announcement that they’d be seizing the white farmers’ land?

  22. Short form: “To conquer a nation, First disarm its citizens.”

    Long form: “Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941-1944: Secret Conversations” quotes Hitler as having said the following between Feb-Sep 1942:
    “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjugated races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjugated races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police.”

    This is like the movie Tora! Tora! Tora! quoting Admiral Yamamoto: “I fear all we have done is awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve.”

    When Yamamoto actual wrote shortly after Pearl Harbor:
    “A military man can scarcely pride himself on having ‘smitten a sleeping enemy’; it is more a matter of shame, simply, for the one smitten. I would rather you made your appraisal after seeing what the enemy does, since it is certain that, angered and outraged, he will soon launch a determined counterattack.”

    The excuse is, they were paraphrases not direct quotes. [sarcasm]But it’s worse. Hitler spoke German, Yamamoto wrote in Japanese. Any English quotes attributed to them are obviously felonious perjury. Anyone who quotes the short version is evil and ignorant. Full quotes in the original language only.[/sarcasm]

    1. The 140 character limit on Tweets will be the death of rational communication.

    2. Tora! Tora! Tora! is such a sweet movie. And that is a classic quote, correct or not. Despite the fact that those sneaky bastards bombed Pearl Harbor… I do love the Japanese.

  23. Even in the Old West, towns and cities prohibited guns. Walking around “strapped” is one of the dumber of modern ideas in America.

    1. Even in the Old West, towns and cities prohibited guns.

      Not to the extent you imagine that it happened. In fact, it was pretty rare and largely unenforced where it did exist.

      PS–“Tombstone” is a movie, not fact.

    2. That was unconstitutional.

      Many people were illiterate let alone able to afford some rich city lawyer to take a 2A case to the SCOTUS.

    3. Tell that to all the people who have saved their own lives, or the lives of others, by having a concealed carry permit. They rarely make the national media, but these situations happen all the time. I remember hearing about a local case awhile back where a friend of a convenience store clerk walked into the store mid robbery, and capped the guy, who had already shot the clerk once IIRC. Pretty sure that clerk is happy his buddy had that CC piece on him!

  24. I like JD even more. And for standing up for himself and stating that he loves his country, I hope the Red Sox win the World Series.

    1. The best part is that he said it to the gun-grabbing wastes of life known as the New York Daily News.

  25. I love the belief that the Founders first major goal, upon independence, was to make their action illegal.

  26. “So though the notion that an armed population can stop mechanized armies”

    Actually, one of the easiest ways to mobility kill a tank is to stick a knife in between the track segments. From that point, you can for-real kill one with a can of gasoline and a match.

    1. Every time some moron says that, I always ask them “So how is that war in Afghanistan going for us again?” They tend to STFU right quick.

  27. “disagreeing with a Hitlerian sentiment is now a provocative position.” yet Trump, who defends the 2A on a regular basis is “literally Hitler” according to the left.

    Pick a side, people

  28. Fun Fact: Cuban Americans are THE ONLY ethnic group in the USA that doesn’t lean strongly to the left!

    Highly self selected lot those Cubans were.

  29. To be fair to the consequentialists, I think their argument is wielded rather clumsily by the people trying to embrace it.

    For example: universal healthcare.

    It’s somewhat odd for people of a consequentialist/utilitarian bent, who carefully weigh the balance between pain and pleasure, cost and benefit, suffering and contentment, realizing that prices must be paid to make society better… turn around and say every single person needs to be guaranteed life and healthcare.

    Oh, really? So we need to tax some people heavily to pay for some other people’s healthcare? Does that really lead to the most happiness for the most people? Do we really know that letting some small minority of people take financial responsibility for their healthcare, or possibly die, really isn’t the most happiness for the most people, if it means the difference for a lot of between, say, a 25% tax bill and a 60% tax bill? How do consequentialists so often get to this place of “zero tolerance, zero consequences, everyone must be guaranteed everything necessary!” place, if life is no nuanced, and costs and benefits are so complex?

    And they answer is: they’re not really consequentialists. That’s just an excuse for whining to get what they want from whoever will give it to them.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.