Second Amendment

The Second Amendment Is Not Restricted to White Conservatives

An encounter between militias in Louisville shows the enduring practical and symbolic importance of the right to armed self-defense.

|

Last Saturday in Louisville, Kentucky, about 300 armed members of the NFAC (Not Fucking Around Coalition), a self-described "black militia" based in Atlanta, had what the Louisville Courier-Journal called "a tense standoff" with about 50 armed Three Percenters, which the paper described as a "far-right…militia." While the incident, which ended without violence, could be seen as yet another sign that the country is descending into 1968-style chaos, it was also a striking illustration of the Second Amendment's enduring practical and symbolic importance that scrambled conventional stereotypes about the right to armed self-defense.

Since Kentucky allows open (or concealed) carrying of firearms without a permit, the two groups, both of which disavow aggression, were acting lawfully. And while their motives may look different, both are drawing on a long American tradition of wide gun ownership as a safeguard against tyranny.

NFAC members came to Louisville in support of protests provoked by the shooting of Breonna Taylor, an unarmed 26-year-old African-American woman who was killed by white police officers during a fruitless drug raid on March 13. The circumstances of Taylor's death gave the guns carried by those militia members added significance.

Plainclothes police officers broke into Taylor's apartment in the middle of the night based on meager evidence that a detective used to obtain a no-knock search warrant. Mistaking the armed invaders for robbers, Taylor's boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, grabbed a gun and fired a single shot that struck one officer in the leg.

The cops responded with a hail of bullets, at least eight of which struck Taylor and several of which entered a neighboring apartment. Prosecutors initially charged Walker with attempted murder of a police officer but dropped that charge in May.

As Rep. Tom McClintock (R–Calif.) observed last month, "the invasion of a person's home is one of the most terrifying powers government possesses," and "every person in a free society has the right to take arms against an intruder in their homes." While McClintock was emphasizing the dangers posed by no-knock warrants, his comments also raised the question of how Americans, no matter their skin color, can defend themselves against police officers who behave like criminals.

NFAC has one answer. By parading with military-style rifles of the sort that Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, wants to ban, the militia's members show they are prepared to exercise the Second Amendment rights that gun control supporters typically portray as a fetish of white conservatives.

The assertion of those rights resonates historically, since modern gun control laws have their roots in the efforts of Southern states to disarm freedmen, depriving them of a constitutional right that Chief Justice Roger Taney, author of the Supreme Court's infamous 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, warned black people would enjoy if they were recognized as citizens. Under Jim Crow and during the civil rights movement, the right to armed self-defense was vitally important to African Americans resisting government-imposed white supremacy.

The Three Percenters, by contrast, were responding to NFAC's presence in Louisville, aiming to "aid police" (as the Courier-Journal put it) in maintaining order. Yet the group, which rejects the "militia" label and disavows racism, also describes itself as defending civil liberties and resisting the illegitimate exercise of government power.

You need not endorse the tactics or ideologies of these organizations to recognize that both are relying on a legal legacy that makes mainstream Democrats like Biden uncomfortable. As the Supreme Court recognized in its landmark 2008 decision overturning the District of Columbia's handgun ban, the Second Amendment was based partly on the premise that "when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny."

The fact that two opposing groups are dedicated to defending the right of armed self-defense should not be surprising. The Second Amendment, like the First, is of value to people with divergent backgrounds and political views. Gun controllers should stop pretending otherwise.

© Copyright 2020 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

NEXT: Leaks From the Supreme Court, Part II: Justice Gorsuch Look Decisive and In Control

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. ●US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours.Everybody can get this job now and start earning online by just open this link and then go through instructions to get started………. Click For Full Detail.

    1. ●▬▬▬▬PART TIME JOBS▬▬▬▬▬●

      I am making $165 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the same time as my neighbour advised me she changed into averaging $ninety five however I see the way it works now. I experience masses freedom now that i’m my non-public boss. that is what I do……
      ↓↓↓↓COPY THIS SITE↓↓↓↓

      HERE►USA Dollars.com 

    2. Start getting paid every month online from home more than $15k just by doing very simple and easy job from home. Last month i have earned $17954 from this online job just by giving this 2 hrs a day using my laptop. I am now a good online earner. Get this job you guys also and start earning money online right now by follow details
      Here══════❥❥❥❥❥    Read more  

    3. Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money.

      Everybody must try this job by just use the info on this page……….????????????????????????.????????????  
      ????????????????????????.????????????

      1. I basically make about $12,000-$18,000 a month online. It’s enough to comfortably replace my I was amazed how easy it was after I tried it . This is what I’ve been doing old jobs income, especially considering I only work about 10-13 hours a week from home………..Cash Mony System

    4. The circumstances of Taylor’s death gave the guns carried by those militia members added significance.

      Did it though?

      NFAC has one answer. By parading with military-style rifles of the sort that Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, wants to ban, the militia’s members show they are prepared to exercise the Second Amendment rights that gun control supporters typically portray as a fetish of white conservatives.

      Like, I read the article and . . . this isn’t that ‘added signficance’ right? Because it seems to me that this is *the point* of carrying here. That government won’t take you seriously unless you show at least the form for having the capability to resist.

      So . . . what is the added significance you see?

      1. What are the odds these not fuckin arounders vote for Biden this year?

  2. Not exactly a bold or insightful take here.

    Look, NFAC can walk around with weapons and posture all they want. But considering that one of their members accidentally discharged his weapon and wounded three of their members, they’re not the best demonstration of people safely exercising their 2nd amendment rights, either.

    1. Yea, the Not Fucking Around Coalition needs to stop fucking around when it comes to gun safety

      1. Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job. Click For Full Detail.

    2. Also not mentioned in the article is NFAC’s threat to “Burn this mothefucker down” if they didn’t get what they wanted, when they wanted it.

      1. We’ll see if they attempt to follow through. Didn’t they demand that we give them Texas in order to found a new black nation?

        1. Didn’t hear that. Just know they’ve given Louisville a 4-week deadline to investigate the Taylor shooting (and one assumes, give them the result they want).

          1. Aren’t the cops in that shooting already facing charges? What more do they want?

            1. I basically make about $12,000-$18,000 a month online. It’s enough to comfortably replace my I was amazed how easy it was after I tried it .JHg This is what I’ve been doing old jobs income, especially considering I only work about 10-13 hours a week from home………..Cash Mony System

            2. I don’t think so, but they have been fired.
              Really don’t know what you could charge them with, unless you want to go full Howard

        2. a new black nation

          What’s wrong with all of the old ones?

          1. Past their warranty. After 150,000 miles it’s time to get a new one.

          2. They’re full of blacks.

            I’m kidding! I’m kidding!

            1. Judging by all the people around the world voting with their feet, that’s exactly the problem.

        3. Sure, but they were just fucking around.

      2. So they’re libertarians.

        Oh I forgot, you’re the “law and order” people now.

      3. No offense – but if you’re not willing to ‘burn this motherfucker down’ then you’re not really negotiating.

        1. Its not like you’re allowed to walk away – Civil War put paid to that option.

          1. I thought the Revolutionary war said we DO have that option.

            I guess the team with the most guns will decide what’s allowed next time, too.

            1. The legal justification for every revolution is “The winner makes the rules.”
              The U.S is no longer part of the British Commonwealth because Cornwallis surrendered to Washington at Yorktown. The Confederacy is still part of the U.S. because Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox.

      4. § 11.402 Terroristic threats.
        A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if he or she threatens to commit any crime of violence with purpose to terrorize another or to cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly or facility of public transportation, or otherwise to cause serious public inconvenience or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience.

        1. Interesting that the author of this article left out this minor detail. You know, the overt terrorist threat that the NFAC chanted in unison.

    3. Interesting the different takes from Reason regarding the couple with bad trigger discipline in St Louis that never actually pulled the trigger vs a group that had an actual discharge that injured three people.

      1. And why hasn’t the NRA issued a statement about the Paris Agreement? They must want more pollution.

        1. At this point, I’m thinking Tuccille or whomever wrote that article to solicit for the NRA.

          They certainly look more principled and taciturn relative to Reason these days.

      2. And had unloaded guns, for that matter…

        1. Not just unloaded, but inoperable, at least the wife’s handgun. They had removed the firing pin to use it as a courtroom prop.

          1. Technically, as I understand it, put it in backwards. Same effect.

      3. The mob in St. Louis made a terrorist threat against them. I dont remember all the details, but I beleive it involved killing their dog, them and burning down their house among other things.

    4. Did Sullum really think people wouldn’t know about that when he said “the incident, which ended without violence…”???

    5. Gonna hold cops to that same standard? Most police departments have a record of officer-involved accidental shootings and injuries. The fact that they have a couple unsafe idiots does not discredit the entire group.

      1. Why not? Before the Great Left-Wing Gun Buy and Riot Party of 2020, the constant refrain from these chowderheads was, “Only law enforcement and the military should have firearms!” They didn’t consider the fact that your average fat hillbilly militia LARPer probably has more range time in three months than the average cop or militia member does in a year. Usually, when one of those guys has an accident, it’s because they were stupid and didn’t lock them up after using them.

        1. Fat hillbillies don’t have authority to enforce laws, so what use are they to me?

      2. I have some relation where most of the family is law enforcement. There is more than one set of inadvertent piercings in the walls of their house.

    6. Apparently they studied gun safety and awareness like anything else in their life requiring rigor and discipline. Long-term practice isn’t as cool as holding your gun sideways while grabbing your dick.

    7. That’s what is known as “a negligent discharge” not “an accident”, just a little FYI.

    8. Satire video of what happens when NRA’s talking points fall into the ‘wrong’ hands.

    9. One out of 300. Some of those were war vets and one was a marine sniper vet. They have the right and knowhow jist as much as whites.

  3. It’s nice to see Americans exercising their rights.

    I did notice that “peaceful” does not show up once in this article to describe a protest where nobody was killed and nothing was burned down.

    1. Three NFAC members were actually shot, though, by one of their own members. So, I dunno, sort of a lateral move.

      1. That was accidental, and self-inflicted, violence…

        I think a bigger deal needs to be made out of two heavily armed “racist” groups facing off and maintaining their composure.

        Interesting that we have months of rioting, but when “both” sides show up armed everyone stays calm.
        Might be a lesson there

        1. See the michigan armed residents that entered the state capitol? Not a single cop messed with those protesters.

          The founders were correct that an armed populace will keep the government in line.

        2. People do seem to be more polite when the other guy is armed.

      2. Well that I didn’t know. I guess that’s why it wasn’t called a violent terrorist uprising like the protests against coronavirus lockdowns.

        1. To be fair, it was accidental and non-life threatening. But clearly they weren’t following the basic rules of gun safety, ie, do not point a weapon at anything you aren’t prepared to destroy.

          1. 2/10

          2. Not sure about that last bit. Sadly there has been almost no reporting other than to say “it happened.” Nothing about what actually happened or the type and extent of the injuries.

            It is possible the weapon was pointed in a safe direction (e.g. at the ground) but that the ground surface was hard enough to create ricochet or fragmentation that then injured bystanders.

            Which might also explain why the injuries from rifle rounds were “non-life threatening.”

            1. That’s a good point. I did make a bit of an assumption there.

            2. “It is possible the weapon was pointed in a safe direction (e.g. at the ground)…”
              That is why you point them UP and NOT DOWN.
              The odds of any harm from a falling bullet are vanishingly small.

      3. I’d still give it to them on points.

        Morons are gonna moron – and you can’t get rid off all the morons. If you don’t know who the moron in the room is, its you.

        Nobody was shot *on purpose*.

    2. To quote Joe Biden, hes blacker than those armed black americans protesting.

    3. I did notice that “peaceful” does not show up once in this article to describe a protest where nobody was killed and nothing was burned down.
      That is because ‘peaceful’ in NewSpeak means violent.

  4. unreason didnt cover the largely black american and armed protest at stone mountain in Georgia.

    Democrats sought gun control to make sure newly freed slaves didnt seek armed revenge against them for violating their human rights to be free.

  5. Fvcking Reason sinks to new lows daily, now several times each day.

    Interjecting fvcking race into a straw man debate that doesn’t exist. I wish some Peaceful Protestors would set up shop in tReason Offices and peacefully burn out this wokester idiot element we are subjected to instead of thoughtful pieces from a Libertarian perspective

    1. job opportunity for everyone! Work from comfort of your home, on your computer And you cAn work with your own working hours. You cAn work this job As A pArt time or As A full time job. You cAn eArn from 65$ An hour to 1000$ A dAy! There is no limitAtions, it All depends from you And how much you wAnt to eArn eAch dAy…..ReadMore.

  6. WTF do ya’ll think a bunch of untrained hotheads parading around with rifles is a good idea? Do the retard in Austin and the three NFAC bystanders not offer any lessons at all?

    1. WTF do ya’ll think a bunch of untrained hotheads parading around with rifles is a good idea?

      This column isn’t about the police.

      1. Evidence suggest that all this time it wasn’t the police but firearm triggers themselves that are systematically racist.

        White people stand in the sun too long and develop cancer. Black people stand around a gun too long and it goes off. Science!

    2. Untrained hotheads have been running around with rifles for several months now – we got one ND incident to show for it.

      1. If we’re going back several months, gotta count all the CHAZ shootings too at least.

        1. I think the guys that did the shooting there were decently practiced at it, though guns were definitely handed out like lollipops to people who weren’t

          1. And by “the guys who did the shooting there” I mean murderers

  7. The III%ers were invited to the protest by NFAC. Seems odd that Jake either doesn’t know this or chose to leave it out. When NFAC had their unannounced march on July 4th at Stone Mountain Park Grand Master Jay asked, specifically of 3%ers”:we’re here, where y’all at”?. They peacefully took up the previous invitation in Louisville.

    I’d be kind of surprised if even one member of any III% group doesn’t condemn the police’s actions in murdering the late Ms. Taylor.

    1. Cite? Or is this just based off their statements at Stone Mountain?

    2. This sounds infinitely more plausible than a “tense standoff”.

      1. You’re right, it sounds more plausible.

      2. In some minds, things like sitting in a room alone with an unloaded gun are tense and discussions about the weather with loose ammunition in plain sight constitute tense standoffs. Your average gun or sporting and outdoor shop, with people brandishing and pointing weapons, debating prices and technical specifications, are open confrontation centers just waiting for violence to break out.

  8. Hi…..Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info on this page. … Click For Full Detail.

  9. Eat my ass you faux libertarian Koch heads.

    1. Get bent.

  10. Every month start earning more cash from $20,000 to $24,000 by working very simple j0b 0nline from home. I have earned last month $23159 from this by just doing this 0nline w0rk for maximum 3 to 4 hrs a day using my laptop. This home j0b is just awesome and regular earning from this are much times better than other regular 9 to 5 desk j0b. Now every person on this earth can get this j0b and start making dollars 0nline just by follow instructions on the given web page>>>Click Here For Full Detail.

  11. Really, not ONE mention of the ND?

    1. Didn’t they have two during the event? The one that smacked three people, and another one a bit later, that injured nothing except people’s hearing.

    2. I think the entire article was a negligent discharge.

  12. “Since Kentucky allows open (or concealed) carrying of firearms without a permit,”
    should read:
    “Since Kentucky follows the second amendment,”
    (reason editors, please take note)

  13. I wonder if any of those NFAC fellows plan to vote for Biden, and if they understand the implications of doing so.

    1. Democrats supposedly capture, what, 90% of the black vote? I’m guessing I know what some of the 10% do in their spare time.

      1. Used to be 90+ a couple decades back.

        Supposedly there’s a Rassmussen poll that claims trump is as high as 30% of the black vote at the moment. Take that for what any poll at this point might actually be worth…

  14. Last Saturday in Louisville, Kentucky, about 300 armed members of the NFAC (Not Fucking Around Coalition), a self-described “black militia” based in Atlanta, had what the Louisville Courier-Journal called “a tense standoff” with about 50 armed Three Percenters, which the paper described as a “far-right…militia.”

    So the self-described black militia gets to go with its own self-description while the self-described “organization made up of patriots of all races, colors, creeds, religions, background, ethnicities, orientations but explicitly not a miltia” gets the “far-right… militia” moniker ascribed to it by a third party.

    Good to know the media hasn’t gotten any more objective or honest in the time since the groups would’ve been described as an uppity group of armed negroes and upstanding white citizens.

    1. Sullum was going to get around to noting that eventually.

      Really.

    2. “gets the “far-right… militia” moniker ”

      I’m not sure calling an armed organization a militia is so dishonest. There’s more dishonesty in the armed organization’s disavowal of the word. Is it a right wing thing? Germany’s Freikorps never shied away from the word.

      And while we’re on the subject of politically acceptable terminology, didn’t this phrase set off any alarms:

      “parading with military-style rifles”

      What exactly is a military-style rifle if not an assault rifle, a term we have repudiated as liberal every time it appears.

      1. There is no such thing as a military style rifle.
        There is no such thing as an assault rifle.
        There are automatic rifles, and there are semi-automatic rifles, and there are single shot rifles. Period.
        Anything else is political propaganda.

        For instance, the M-1 Garand, the semi-automatic rifle used in all US military assaults during the last numbered war, does not meet the definition used by gun banners; no detachable magazine, 8 round limit, no thumbhole, not black, etc. It does have a bayonet lug, but that’s it. Well, other than awesome firepower effective out to 500 yards with a rate of fire in the 40 – 50 rounds a minute range.

        1. There is absolutely such a thing as an assault rifle. They are select-fire. There is no such thing as an “assault weapon”.

        2. “There is no such thing as a military style rifle.
          There is no such thing as an assault rifle.”

          This is exactly what I thought. Yet the phrase ‘military style rifle’ appears in the article and met with apparent approval by the hyper-sensitive mad.casual. I figure the writer originally wrote assault rifle, and meant assault rifle, but changed it to military style rifle out of concern for offending our sensibilities.

          1. So because mad.casual criticized one point in the article, that means he agrees with everything else in the article?

            That’s a weird conclusion, but you do you.

            1. It’s perhaps unfair to single out mad.casual. But I suspect the term ‘militia’ offends him more than the term ‘military style rifle.’

          2. That term covers everything including those rimfire plinking guns. Left wingers wanna ban everything so it’s gonna sound as menacing as they can make it.

      2. What exactly is a military-style rifle if not an assault rifle, a term we have repudiated as liberal every time it appears.

        You realize that you’re pretty overtly equating people and inanimate objects with this argument, right?

        “We should set up a program to destroy all military-style rifles.” vs. “We should set up a program to destroy all militias.”
        “Every rifle is a military-style rifle.” vs. “Every group of people is a militia.”

        It’s a bizarre collusion of facts that you should feel compelled to fall on your knees and pray that men with higher morals than yourself don’t shoot you for your stupidity, but it’s no surprise that you don’t.

        1. Now that you mention it, what exactly is a military style rifle? One that shoots military style bullets?

          1. You’ve had no problem fabricating incorrect definitions all day long and now, all of the sudden, you can’t fabricate one, incorrect or not?

            It’s beginning to seem like you choose to be this consistently stupid.

            1. “It’s beginning to seem like you choose to be this consistently stupid.”

              Welcome to my world.

  15. Outside of democrats, not sure who wants blacks or minorities to not exercise their 2nd amendment rights.

    1. I can agree that it would be nice if they could do it without shooting so many black people.

      1. Well, when the Democrats tell them for decades that their only chance at better schools, jobs, social services, etc. is to elect Democrats, and those promises are always forgotten the day after the election, you can see why they might want to shoot someone. Too bad they shoot the wrong people.

        1. I wonder what it is about black people that makes them so inclined to vote for the wrong party. Like almost 100% of them.

          Would you care to explain? I gather that somehow they, but not you, are easily duped by snake-oil sales jobs?

          And that’s why you love Trump!

        2. It’s been almost 60 years of the “black vote” being something the Dems have taken for granted; the GOP had 100 years before that.

          Any group that brings a smaller bloc of voters and not much else to the table will end up virtually disenfranchising themselves in a 2-party system by providing such loyal support that one party can take them for granted and the other can’t hope to ever win their support. The time that the civil rights movement really got anything done was the time that black voters switched their allegiance, but very few people seem to have made that particular connection (if the stage play/HBO movie about LBJ is accurate, Malcolm X seemed to understand it though).

    2. Agreed. “since modern gun control laws have their roots in the efforts of Southern states to disarm freedmen
      Should read: “since modern gun control laws have their roots in the efforts of Democrats to disarm freedmen

      And yes, the history of racism in the Democrat party should make mainstream Democrats like Biden uncomfortable. Their platform hasn’t really changed since reconstruction.

      1. Get your own thoughts for fuck’s sake. You all say the same lies all at the same time. Memo to Putin, the material is getting boring.

        The more you talk about “the history of racism in the Democrat [sic] party,” the more you peg yourself as a fucking racist. Do you get that? Try being less lame and hiding it more. These talking points are fucking stale.

        1. You used to actually make a thoughtful comment once in a while Tony. Been a long time.

          1. It used to not be overrun with Alex Jones cultists and Russian trolls all spouting the same simpleminded horseshit talking points all at the same time.

        2. You seem to be suggesting that the airing of old grievances is fucking stale. I must have that wrong.

          I will agree that virtue signaling sucks. The “our team didn’t hate “those people” as much as your team did 50 years ago is an eye roll for me.

          1. Old grievance? The Democrats are still trying to suppress people selling themselves by putting up new barriers. It’s not stale if they’re still doing it to this day.

        3. Not sorry to spoil your fun you SJW but I’m an american. You just can’t face the fact the Democrats are the Party of Slavery, Jim Crowe, and Segregation. Gun Control laws have always been about disarming the politcally disadvantaged and event Californias most recent bout of laws have their origin of disarming blacks exercising their rights to keep and bear arms.

        4. The more you talk about “the history of racism in the Democrat [sic] party,” the more you peg yourself as a fucking racist. Do you get that? Try being less lame and hiding it more. These talking points are fucking stale.

          Oh, and since i forgot to address this part. Try again SJW loser. I support blacks being armed and being able to defend themselves. I don’t support killer cops. I talk about the history of racism in the Democrat party because it has a history of racism which continues to this day. Funny how you can’t actually contradict any of this and instead try to say pointing out the Democrat parties racism is racist.

  16. “The Second Amendment Is Not Restricted to White Conservatives”

    So who said it was?

    1. It’s an assumption pampered leftists make, so they have to then write an article telling other people they’re wrong

    2. So who said it was?

      I haven’t read Robert’s Unabridged Constitution, it may say it there.

      1. Roberts’ Unabridged Constitution. Dammit.

  17. Hate to break it to you, Jacob, the rest of us here aren’t as racist as whoever you hang out with. None of us was saying blacks shouldn’t have the right to bear arms. Just your friends apparently.

    1. Sullum could make a career out of sharing the ignorant stereotypes held by his oh-so open-minded friends.

      1. Wait, I think he has…

    2. That’s fairly common in the more elite social circles.

      1. Yep. I have leftist/Democrat friends who privately admit they are not worried about “my” guns, it’s those other people that scare them.

        It’s not overtly or specifically racist, as it applies equally to country Bubbas, and urban Guidos as well. But it is entirely based upon xenophobia and a desire to control others.

        1. I’ve heard this too. Good point. I also had a dem friend say something along the lines of “we have to keep giving them welfare or they’ll riot.” Now *that* is racist!

    3. Consider that *maybe* – just maybe – not all these articles are aimed at us here in the comments.

  18. I can not think of a better impetus for gun control than the thought of a bunch of scary black men walking around with guns. This convinced Gov. Reagan in 1967 and I am sure many 2A voters will be thinking the same thing right now.

    1. Yeah. I’m sure the good people of Kentucky are going to be screaming for a gun ban now. Idiot.

    2. The only people it convinced in 1967 was Democrats and it still is that way today.

    3. Apparently the only thing we have to fear is them injuring each other.

      Otherwise it should be an opportunity for outright – they obviously would benefit from some time with an NRA certified instructor.

      1. outreach, not outright.

        Spellcheck is a fucking curse.

    4. This comment is a joke, right?

      1. The comment is sincere, the commenter is a joke.

  19. The NAP is not restricted to white Marxists.

  20. “The Three Percenters, by contrast, were responding to NFAC’s presence in Louisville, aiming to “aid police” (as the Courier-Journal put it) in maintaining order.”

    So NFAC, though horrible regarding gun safety, was there expressing their 1st and 2nd Amendment rights and The Three Percenters showed up to help police stop that from happening? Did I get that right? Guess I’m confused as to why they call themselves the 3%.

    1. They were silenced by anybody?

      No?

    2. Did I get that right?

      Are you asking us to check your reading ability or your assessment of the facts as they occurred? If the latter, you’re putting a lot of faith into a newspaper that called one side by their self-described moniker and the other by a moniker that they explicitly say the are not.

      Guess I’m confused as to why they call themselves the 3%.

      Probably because you seem to be putting a lot of faith in a bad faith representation. There were probably some people who were confused when Thomas Dewey wasn’t sworn in in ’49 too.

      1. In moron’s defense, there’s a lot of people that comment here that will say BLM isn’t Marxist, even though they say they are, so believing that what the 3%’s say they are isn’t who they are is a logical conclusion.

        1. Exactly, thank you!

    3. 1. No, you did not get that right. Like, not at all right.

      2. Some bullshit about how 3% of the population joined the militia during the revolutionary war or some crap like that.

  21. Since I started with my online business I earn $90 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it out.Click For Full Detail Here.

  22. So…
    1. The police have a no-knock search warrant for illegal drugs.
    2. The go to the residence and enter.
    3. The guy in the residence opens fire on the police and hits one.
    4. The police return fire, a person in the residence is mortally wounded.
    5. This, then, becomes a “white cop kills a black” issue?!?!

    1. Makes one really wonder about the “golden question”. Did the police yell, “This is the Police! We’re here to search for illegal drugs.” That detail would really shape the story.

    2. It becomes a “white on black” issue or a “cop” issue in order to avoid addressing the real heart of the problem. Those cops serving that no-knock warrant are mere instruments of higher authority.

      They only do what they do, and do it how they do it by and on the leave of those higher authorities. Those being the elected officials and either elected or appointed judges within the municipalities where these sorts of episodes have occurred, be it Houston, Louisville, Minneapolis, and all the others. It wasn’t a cop who signed off on that no-knock warrant and city police leadership is appointed, not elected.

      The proper way to rein in the police would be to hold those higher authorities to account. The problem with that is that those municipalities and their political machines are the heart and $oul of the Democratic Party. Can’t break any eggs in that basket.

      And just look at how Reason’s own rhetorical stance displays their willful double standard on the matter. Article after article where Federal enforcers are treated like nothing more than a direct extension of Donald Trump with nary a mention of the actual powers in charge of those cities where the precipitating episodes have occurred. The contrast is stark – Reason is plainly running cover for one group while attacking the other.

      1. One thing we might be missing is that even the nearest alternative to no-knock warrants are just as bad. This may have been a situation where police knocked three times, shouted that they were police (that nobody heard) and then immediately started breaking down the door.

        That’s not technically a no-knock entry, but when they can serve that search warrant at 12:40 am and people are asleep, it’s not really any better in creating clarity.

        1. Different detail, still the same underlying problem.

          Getting lost in the details is losing the forest for the trees.

        2. You raise some good points here. Maybe if blacks weren’t hype as shit about everything being racial we could perhaps focus on serious issues like law enforcement having wide latitude to knock down doors, the rapid approval of warrants, the fact that the war on drugs is disastrous etc etc.

    3. Sounds an awful lot like another botched drug raid in Houston, and a lot of other botched drug raids.
      Maybe the issue is botched drug raids.

      1. Maybe the issue is drug raids.

        1. Maybe the issue is the war on drugs.

  23. I’ve made $84,000 so far this year working and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I’ve been doing HERE? full detail

  24. The Second Amendment Is Not Restricted to White Conservatives

    Jacob has assimilated the social justice belief system so thoroughly that he has no trouble writing headlines implying that maintaining white (conservative) supremacy is the objective of US law.

    An encounter between militias in Louisville shows the enduring practical and symbolic importance of the right to armed self-defense.

    Nobody used their weapons for self-defense at the event, they used them as props, so it can’t have demonstrated that. Bringing weapons to protests is certainly legal under the 2A, but all it demonstrates is that racist, testosterone-laden young males come in all colors.

    And just to be clear: if you behave in ways that would otherwise be benign and non-threatening, you may legitimately get killed by police or private individuals if you carry a gun, because carrying a gun transforms a non-deadly threat into a deadly threat.

    Many things that are legal (and should be legal) are a bad idea. This is one of them.

    1. “Jacob has assimilated the social justice belief system so thoroughly that he has no trouble writing headlines ”

      The writers usually don’t write headlines. That’s the editor’s job.

      “And just to be clear: if you behave in ways that would otherwise be benign and non-threatening, you may legitimately get killed by police or private individuals if you carry a gun”

      This is far from clear. How is it legitimate to kill someone behaving benignly just because s/he has a gun?

      1. The writers usually don’t write headlines. That’s the editor’s job.

        Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason

        Dumbass.

        1. It doesn’t mean he wrote the headline. As I said, the writer doesn’t typically write the headline.

          And how exactly is it legitimate to kill someone acting benignly if they are armed? I found this ‘clarification’ baffling.

          1. And how exactly is it legitimate to kill someone acting benignly if they are armed? I found this ‘clarification’ baffling.

            That’s not what I said. Perhaps you would be less baffled if you actually read what you responded to.

            But, of course, you’re not actually interested in understanding, you’re interested in empty posturing and manipulation.

            1. I’m surprised people actually read trueman.
              I just scroll past, like with sqrlsy or hihn posts

            2. It’s a legitimate question.

              “And just to be clear: if you behave in ways that would otherwise be benign and non-threatening, you may legitimately get killed by police or private individuals if you carry a gun, because carrying a gun transforms a non-deadly threat into a deadly threat.”

              You gave no qualification at all. You stated that a person may legitimately be killed merely by carrying a gun even if they were behaving in a “benign and non-threatening” manner.

              1. Apparently you can’t read either. I said “if you behave in ways that would otherwise be benign and non-threatening”. I.e., carrying the gun turns a benign and non-threatening behavior into a hostile and threatening behavior.

                See, whether a behavior is “benign and non-threatening” depends on context, like whether you carry a gun or not.

                1. Shouting deaths threats at people is not benign and non-threatening, you fucking idiot. Learn some English you fucking moron.

                  1. I’m sorry, I tried to give a simple example to you that would help you understand the concept of “context”. Obviously, you are still having trouble with it.

                    The fact remains that both legally and to normal human beings, the meaning and threat implied by a statement changes on whether the speaker carries a gun. Sorry if you still have trouble grasping this simple concept.

          2. “It doesn’t mean he wrote the headline.”

            It means if he does not like the headline he has the power to change it.

            We also have a comment section attached to every article. So, at some point every writer either owns the attached headline, or speaks out about it.

            1. “It means if he does not like the headline he has the power to change it.”

              I don’t get the impression he cares all that much. Less than we do, in any case.

              1. Do you get that impression from conversations you’ve had with him?

          3. And how exactly is it legitimate to kill someone acting benignly if they are armed? I found this ‘clarification’ baffling.

            I’m not and have made no claims to your personal lack of clarity. Given how you understand or determine the legitimacy of things on which you acknowledge you lack clarity, as well as demonstrating your inability to otherwise grasp the obvious, I would be ill-advised to assume such a responsibility.

            1. It’s simply a poorly worded comment. He could do with an editor.

              1. He could do with an editor.

                Too bad you wouldn’t know one if they introduced themselves as such. Running around declaring things to be a mess while demonstrating an inability to clean them up, your caregivers must love you.

                1. I get the impression he didn’t understanding the meaning of benign. That’s why the part following ‘just to be clear’ was far from clarifying anything.

                  1. Or his definition of ‘legitimate’ and your definition of ‘legitimate’ aren’t one and the same but, again, it would be a fool’s errand to plumb the depths of your lack of clarity.

                    1. “Or his definition of ‘legitimate’ and your definition of ‘legitimate’ aren’t one and the same”

                      Possibly. But I suspect it’s ‘benign.’ It’s admittedly a difficult word. A benign tumor. Is it good or bad? It’s like testing positive for AIDS. It that good (positive) or bad (negative)? Who knows?

      2. This is far from clear. How is it legitimate to kill someone behaving benignly just because s/he has a gun?

        Someone shouting from behind a chain link fence “I’m going to kill you now” is not a serious threat when that person is not carrying a gun, but you can reasonably conclude that your life is threatened when that person has a gun in their hand.

        1. I wouldn’t say that someone shouting death threats is acting benignly, whether there’s a fence there or not. Benign means “harmless, gentle, or kind” according to an online dictionary. Maybe misunderstanding the word is the cause of your confusion.

          1. Well, I’m sorry you don’t understand the fact that the meaning of words in the real world depends on context, including whether you carry a gun.

            Fortunately, your lack of understanding doesn’t change reality or the legal system.

            1. You’re an imbecile. I’m sick of responding to you.

              1. I’m glad to hear it. Don’t let the door hit you.

        2. What if the unarmed person shouting at you is Dolph Lundgren?

      3. Either a gun is a dangerous deadly explody death machine or it’s not, in which case it’s not a self-defense tool. Cops are perfectly rational to consider the presence of a death machine to increase the risk of their death. It doesn’t become a neutral benign toy or a dangerous death machine whenever it’s rhetorically convenient.

        1. So, then shouldn’t non-cops be perfectly rational to consider the explody death machine the cops are carrying around to increase *their* risk of death?

          1. I imagine all this stuff sounds better in the bathroom mirror. ‘Are you talkin’ to me? Are you talkin’ to me?’

          2. Of course. The point is guns are not a benign hobby when the subject is carrying them around in parks with children, yet a deadly force multiplier when being used in for hypothetical self-defense. Either they’re meant to be scary or they’re not.

    2. they used them as props

      This is the part that really gets me, it’s not like a riot or lynching or execution was going to happen and NFAC was going to disrupt it. Not to dictate NFACs policies but, unless your explicit message is some suicidal/nihilistic/numerical threat, “You kill one of ours, we’ll shoot three of our own.” there shouldn’t have been a single chambered round or arguably loaded gun among the lot of them. Loaded magazines and loose ammo in kits makes sense but showing up to the capitol building in Condition Red is just begging for an ND, confrontation, or both.

    3. It’s kind of more of a bad idea for blacks to open carry than whites, don’t you think? Just a little?

      1. No. That’s just your racism talking. You’ve absorbed too many Democratic talking points and are now oozing the same toxicity towards non-whites they have and have had for, oh, a good 150ish years now.

        1. Trayvon just had skittles and his killer got off anyway.

          1. Ah, the SJW talking point that having your head pounded into the concrete is no justification for defending one self.

            1. How unlucky that he found himself in Trayvon smash! mode against a rampantly insane white supremacist gun nut.

              1. George Zimmerman is white? Could have fooled me. They again, CBS had to invent the Hispanic White label to even bring in white into it, along with editing the 911 transcript to fake the outrage.

                Keep on trying SJW.

      2. How many open-carrying BLM protesters have been shot by police in the last couple of months?

  25. One group was there to maintain law and order while the other group was there demanding the government give them what they want with the threat they would return and burn it all down. I didn’t see that contrast in the groups by this article. One group is of Biden supporters while the other is more conservative. Which group do you stand with?

    1. Scariest words in the English language:

      Hello, I’m here to maintain law and order.

      1. Not even close.

        “It’s for your own good.”
        “It’s for the greater good.”
        “We’re all in this together.”
        “You need to…”
        “Or else…”
        “Allahu Akbar!”

      2. Sure: scary to lawbreakers and criminals.

        1. No, scary to everyone. The Richard Jewell movie was interesting in this regard. Jewell was the security guard who discovered the bomb during the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, probably saving hundreds of lives.
          https://www.pirate-bay.net/search?q=richard+jewell
          He was a sort of law enforcement wannabe whom I imagine would fit in with an outfit like the 3 %ers. But he never explained himself as ‘wanting to maintain law and order,’ but rather ‘a desire to protect people.’ While they arguably mean the same thing, maintaining law and order is bureaucratic cop speak while Jewell spoke more humanely, more comfortingly, less scarily.

          1. No, scary to everyone.

            Not to me. Not to most conservatives.

        2. I’m pretty sure he has “I’m here to maintain law and order.” confused with something considerably less benign like “I’m here to establish order and enforce the law.” Barring stupidity and psychoses on the part of the listener, the former is about threatening as “I’m here to serve.”, it carries no implications about the existing situation one way or the other or any actions to be taken, whereas the latter expresses the use of force to change the existing order.

          But given mtrueman’s general lack of clarity, I strongly suspect that ‘he brain no catch words good’ and lots of English phrases as well as everyday things like lit candles and ‘talking picture boxes’ scare him.

          1. They make his eyes rain

    2. One group is of Biden supporters while the other is more conservative. Which group do you stand with?

      Neither and both. The lie is that you have to be 100% for one group and 100% against another. Reality is people agree with a parts from both of them and then there’s the 43 other groups & viewpoints as well.

  26. I have nothing against guns. Every adult in my close family has them and knows how to use them.

    My problem is the country is going to hell in a hand basket. This is not about legal rights. We have an out of control viral pandemic. We have violent riots in our cities. We have an economic crisis. Cannot even get the kiddos to school. Government just printing money and handing it out. You go to the grocery and it is a nightmare. Half of the stuff you want is not even on the shelf. Things you took for granted, restaurants, barbers, medical services, the list goes on is limited or unavailable. Those of us who can are working from home now. Those who cannot are facing economic hardship.

    So how great is it that two armed militias faced off in a public space and nobody got killed. Well nobody got killed, that is good. You have to ask why is this happening? How did it get to this tipping point. Why is the federal government deploying in our cities?

    It is time to look at fundamental values. Libertarians see everyone as an individual with natural rights. That is a good beginning.

    1. Out of all those issues, state governors preventing healthy people from working seems to be the biggest problem, followed closely by Congress spending trillions they don’t have.

      1. The despair, hopelessness and cynicism of your so-called ‘healthy people’ is the bigger problem. It’s a totally self inflicted injury and trying to blame politicians isn’t going to cut it.

        1. Everything happening in Michigan in this regard is by executive order of the governor. But don’t blame her? Man, you’re just not smart.

          1. No, he just believes if we give into government almighty we will “get our liberties back” to paraphrase Kelly Anne Conway.

            1. I’ve worked all my life. I’ve never sought or felt the need to obtain government permission. It’s the same with taking drugs, something I’ve enjoyed doing since I left high school.

          2. Man, you’re just not smart.

            Don’t worry. Despite stumbling over simple phrases (intentionally or not) and somehow not knowing that Reason employs practically all editors and no writers, he’ll explain to you the parts of stoicism you don’t understand before explaining to you how Americans and The West are destined to lose because they don’t and culturally cannot appreciate Taoism and/or selflessness. Like a 10-yr.-old boy saying, “I think I’m smarter than you.”

          3. Go ahead and blame everything that is happening in Michigan on the governor. Though my expectations were never high in the first place, it’s exactly what I expect from you.

            1. You should look into the facts. She’s ruling by executive order, right down to making budget changes without the say of the legislators. She’s written over 150 of them this year.

              It seems you want something to be true, so to you, it is.

              1. I don’t care what the governor of Michigan is doing, as I’ve already mentioned. If blaming the governor for the malaise the nation finds itself sunken into makes you feel better, then blame away. It’s pathetic but I don’t expect any better from cowardly fools.

                1. R Mac
                  July.29.2020 at 1:57 pm
                  Everything happening in Michigan

                  “If blaming the governor for the malaise the nation finds itself sunken into”

                  I think I’ve found where your confusion is coming from.

                  1. You fucking jellyfish. That soft thing running down your back is supposed to be a spine. You won’t be able to stand up on your own until you learn how to use it.

                    1. You really enjoy being ignorant. I’ve been working this whole time. But lots of people can’t. Regardless of the condition of their spine. I know several people that own breweries, bars and restaurants. Do you understand how liquor licenses work? If they had remained open, the state would have yanked their liquor licenses. Distribution companies won’t deliver to an establishment that doesn’t have a liquor license. So they had no choice but to close. County health departments have been going to other businesses and ordering them to close. Many people work for companies that followed the state order. Should they have just kept going to work despite their place of employment being closed?

                      The state made hospitals cease all “non-essential” treatments. Are you implying that if you needed such, you’d just go to the hospital and make them treat you? My wife has had three older family members die during all of this from non-Covid illnesses. A friend of mine who’s daughter has mental illness died of an overdose.

                      My niece was a senior in high school. Is there a way that I could have forced her school to have prom and graduation against state orders?

                      Should I have gone armed to all the nursing homes that she forced to take Covid patients and made them discharge them?

                      Seriously, you’re really just proving what a simple minded fool you are.

                    2. “Should they have just kept going to work despite their place of employment being closed? ”

                      This is the problem when you run a business that relies on the government’s stamp of approval to exist and continue. I think people should be looking for independence, like growing your own food rather than wringing your hands over restaurant owners. They will have to adjust to new circumstances, and they are business people and no reason to doubt that many will find success, even if it takes a while. I think there will be more tough times ahead. Looking to any governor or politician to sort this out is delusional. Best bet is to be on good terms with your family, friends and neighbors and learn to rely on each other. Become a communist, in other words.

    2. We have an out of control viral pandemic.

      Well, yeah, in the sense that warts are an “out of control viral pandemic” too. But the social and economic problems from COVID are entirely man-made.

    3. “out of control viral pandemic”

      Found one of those people who thinks 30 million Americans have died.

      We do not have an out of control pandemic, at least not one that’s any different than every flu season every year.

      1. You people and your talking points. Is 150,000 dead no big deal?

        What if it was 40 million? Still no big deal? What’s the number at which it becomes serious? I need to know where you’re coming from because I have a slight apprehension that you guys might be going around coughing on children to signify your political party.

        1. Accuses others of talking points, by using talking points and strawmans.

        2. I need to know where you’re coming from because I have a slight apprehension that you guys might be going around coughing on children to signify your political party.

          And whaddyagonna do about it? Get within 6 ft. of us?

        3. Roughly 35-40 thousand people die each year in car crashes – I don’t see you freaking the fuck out over it.

          When does it stop being a big deal?

          146,000 deaths from stroke so far this year – when does it start to be a big deal?

          600,000 from cancer – when does it start to be a big deal?

          170,000 from accidents – when does it start to be a big deal?

          1. Those are all things we make an effort to mitigate with whatever tools and laws make sense.

            You are seriously arguing that because people die anyway, there’s no need to pay attention to a pandemic. And you’re doing it because of some convoluted logic that says it helps Trump’s poll numbers if we downplay the seriousness of a fucking virus that’s killed hundreds of thousands in six months.

            Your correct answer is “There is no amount of death that could rip me from Trump’s sweet, sweet teat.”

            1. My main point, as I predicted months ago, is that covid19 is statistically indistinguishable from common flus

    4. You go to the grocery and it is a nightmare. Half of the stuff you want is not even on the shelf.

      Where do you live? I live in a tiny little town (20k people) in bumfuck southern Arizona and my local store’s shelves are fully stocked and the Walmart even has full shelves of toilet paper again.

      Restaurants and barbers are open.

  27. Breaking news: DHS will begin withdrawing federal police after Oregon’s Governor agrees to send Oregon State Police to protect private and federal property downtown. So, Oregon Governor agrees to protect property and the feds withdraw. Also, breaking news, US military will decrease troop levels in Germany by over 11,000, with between 6 and 7 thousand troops returning home, the rest will be repositioned in Central European NATO countries to counter growing Russian antagonism.

    1. Cool. 6 or 7 thousand additional troops to enforce the will of the federal government.

      1. I was wondering how Reason will frame this as anti-federalist and Jack booted thugs.

        1. I guess that’s where we’ll have to discuss Trump’s handling of the situation being more Constitutionally sound and classically liberal than Jefferson’s handling of Burr.

  28. Just to clarify; a militia is a group of armed citizens when attached, of their own free will, to a military unit of a state.
    A bunch of citizens with guns not acting under government direction is a bunch of armed citizens.
    So in this case, neither group is a militia, and Georgia did not invade Kentucky with militia.

    1. “a militia is a group of armed citizens when attached, of their own free will, to a military unit of a state.”

      This is not correct. A militia is an armed organization typically attached to or unified by a political movement. Hezbollah, Taleban, and IRA are some of the more notable militias existing today. None of them are attached to a state’s military units. The IRA, for example, is attached to Sinn Fein, a political party.

      1. This is not correct.

        God what a dumbass. If you’d stopped at just this, you would’ve been right. There are definitions that agree with you. But the defintion you substituted, with examples, is even less correct.

        mi•li•tia mə-lĭsh′ə►
        n. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
        n. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
        n. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service

        Weird how there’s no mention of political attachment or motivation.

        Moreover, while these are the linguistic or lay definitions LTBF’s comment is directed more to the legal definition. No roaming gang is automatically a militia, even if they have socio-political aims.

        Again, if you’d just said “This is not correct, they don’t need to be attached to a military unit to be considered a militia by themselves or others.” You’d have been correct. Instead you fabricated your own shittier definition.

        1. I prefer my definition. A militia is an armed group. Organized, not just a mob, and it has some common ideas that unify it. Taleban, Hezbollah and IRA all fit the definition. They are not armies comprised of ‘ordinary citizens.’ They are not subject to be called in case of emergency. And they are not a whole body subject to be called into service.

          Think a moment and you will see the fitness of my definition.

          1. A militia is an armed group. Organized, not just a mob, and it has some common ideas that unify it. Taleban, Hezbollah and IRA all fit the definition.

            So does MS-13, the Gambino Crime Family, The Sinaloa Cartel, The Hatfields, The McCoys, The Branch Davidians, The Hell’s Angels, The Black Panthers, The Cherokee, The Choctaw, The Crow, The KKK, every American Legion and VFW, 4-H, The Boy Scouts, Cub Scouts, the majority of rod and gun clubs, a number of outdoor and outfitting businesses…

            Generous inspection suggests your definition, at the very best, doesn’t fit any better.

            1. I disagree. I still prefer my definition. Nobody here is claiming that Indian tribes, criminal enterprises and so on are militias.

              It’s not difficult. A militia is an armed, organized group unified by some political goals. Like Hezbollah, Taleban or IRA. It’s not like the Gambino family or the boy scouts. Militias are not composed of ‘ordinary citizens’ but militants. They are not subject to be called upon in times of emergency or even meet some standard of physical fitness. Mullah Omar, one time head of the Taleban, was blind in one eye.

              I urge you to take a moment and meditate on these words.

    2. So, if there was no state, there could be no militia?

    3. Just to clarify; a militia is a group of armed citizens when attached, of their own free will, to a military unit of a state.

      No, they are not.

  29. Who do you think the 2nd Amendment was written to protect white people from? Serial killers? The French? Slave rebellion of course is a fear primal to this country, and anyway we can just see what happens when black people behave as reckless with public displays of firearms or god forbid legal firearm ownership during a traffic stop. And it’s a fucking de facto death sentence for a black boy to brandish so much as a toy gun. And some states have written new laws to make it OK to shoot first if you feel the fear tingles.

    1. I don’t know – maybe tyrannical governments? Like the one they were in the midst of fighting a war with?

      And you say the 2nd amendment was in place because of fears of slave uprisings? When, to quell fears of slave uprisings, the government trampled on the 2nd Amendment rights of non-whites? Non-whites who, if they had had legal access to firearms, might not have been made slaves in the first place? Ie, it was the *suppression* of the 2nd amendment that was done in response to fears of slave uprisings.

      Like, I don’t get you Tony. You write these things like they’re some sort of ‘gotcha!’ but . . . you never stop to *think* about them before you hit ‘submit’. Or else you wouldn’t come off looking so stupid by destroying your own point.

      1. The 2nd Amendment was not put there to secure a right for the people to violently overthrow the government.

        If you wanted to use it for that purpose, I hate to break it to you, but the government has drones that can kill you from 10,000 miles away if it wanted.

        I’m just saying that slave rebellion was perhaps the primary motivation for including the 2nd Amendment. Its language was dictated by slave owners. Sure, it’s there for militias to help fight any war that might get sparked in their area, but it’s mostly for slaves.

        Fast forward and a black guy on a corner holding a gun is still the primal anxiety of white soccer moms everywhere, while Bubba with his MAGA hat and AR15 is the poster boy for freedumb. I ask again, just who do you think he wants to protect his brood from? We’ve established it’s not the federal government, because that would be retarded, so…

        1. “If you wanted to use it for that purpose, I hate to break it to you, but the government has drones that can kill you from 10,000 miles away if it wanted.”

          Could you explain why that hasn’t stopped the Taliban? The US military deploys fighter jets, drones, tanks, etc. and hasn’t been able to root out an insurgency consisting of fanatics almost all of whom have no formal military/police training.

          1. The US is not in Afghanistan because of the Taliban. True, eliminating the Taliban would take some effort, but it’s effort the US government is capable of. It would just make for some bad headlines. The US government can level cities if it wants to, and has done so in the past.

            Your cute little insurrection plans (which, again, is not an activity endorsed by the US constitution) rely on the US government rolling over and letting you win. Which it might very well do. But they will be in control of the outcome, not Bubbas with guns.

            1. “The US is not in Afghanistan because of the Taliban. True, eliminating the Taliban would take some effort, but it’s effort the US government is capable of. It would just make for some bad headlines. The US government can level cities if it wants to, and has done so in the past.”

              Ahh, so you’re one of those people that thinks a willingness to go full scorched earth on a local population is what stops an insurgency, and somehow the USA is holding back in Afghanistan (and was holding back in Iraq). This isn’t a view endorsed by any of the counter-insurgency literature or theory (see David Galula or Lester W. Grau’s translated work) or by history.

              The Wermacht/SS were incredibly brutal in occupied territory and failed to prevent full blown insurrection, as were the Soviets in Afghanistan. There is absolutely zero reason to think extreme brutality is what wins the hearts and minds of the people, which is the key terrain in any insurgency/counterinsurgency.

              1. Agreed, but you can in theory be brutal enough to put a population under submission. It’s just that we haven’t been able to justify that morally since WWII. But I said the Taliban is not why we’re there anyway. They may be the excuse, but the reason is that it’s the back yard of the world’s most dangerous nuclear power.

                I think, assuming the US government wouldn’t go full Hiroshima on an armed insurrection, the key for the rebels to win hearts and minds for their side is to make their grievance about some real oppression and not your typical hysterical militia movement stuff. And of course a lot more of them would have to be willing to die for the cause.

          2. I hasten to add, I didn’t elect any Bubbas with guns to determine when the government has become too tyrannical for their taste. If armed militias are making national policy, we have become what’s known as a failed state.

        2. “The 2nd Amendment was not put there to secure a right for the people to violently overthrow the government.”

          No, it definitely was.

        3. “If you wanted to use it for that purpose, I hate to break it to you, but the government has drones that can kill you from 10,000 miles away if it wanted.”

          No, I’m pretty sure the drones have to be closer than that.

          “I’m just saying that slave rebellion was perhaps the primary motivation for including the 2nd Amendment.”

          This is more 1619 BS. Everything the left doesn’t like about the Constitution has to be in defense of slavery, to delegitimize it.

        4. “The 2nd Amendment was not put there to secure a right for the people to violently overthrow the government.”

          Correct. It was put there for the people to defend themselves against the government. Federalist 46.

  30. “The Second Amendment Is Not Restricted to White Conservatives”

    That is a strange headline. I’ve never come across any “white conservative” that claimed anything different nor have I ever come across any that even complained about it. So, who is this statement directed at?

    1. At liberals who, as the author wrote, consider the 2nd amendment to be something white conservatives fetish.

    2. ” So, who is this statement directed at?”

      Those who like guns but have no warm feelings toward the constitution. These black militia people for example. Guns probably give them a feeling of power and safety while they are ambivalent about anything connected with the constitution, a document which codified and recognized black servitude.

      1. Nah, that was Taney’s fraud: The Constitution codified and recognized servitude, period. They went out of their way to avoid specifically recognizing black servitude.

        And, in fact, at the time the Constitution was written, slavery wasn’t quite as uniformly a race based thing as it became later. There were black slave owners, and white slaves. Distinctly the exception, but they were around. So they weren’t even being fraudulent in avoiding race in acknowledging slavery.

        1. “The Constitution codified and recognized servitude, period.”

          The constitution also recognized the inhumanity of black people. They were 2/3rds human and 1/3rd something else. 1/3 beast, I guess. It’s little wonder that black people don’t typically share white reverence for the constitution, as boldly racist a document you can imagine.

          1. Again, the 3/5th compromise explicitly referenced status of servitude, NOT race: “which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”

            Recognized: Free people, indentured servants, Indians who weren’t “taxed” (IOW, not citizens.) and “other persons.”

            They were all recognized as human, and people. And no reference to race was made at all.

  31. For y’alls edification and entertainment.

    I present

    Lesson 1 on why the 4 rules of gun safety are important.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/WinStupidPrizes/comments/hzz3aj/idiot_accidentally_shoots_himself/

    1. I’ve long assert that there needs to be a 0th law of gun safety: If it’s not yours or you’re not 100% sure on how to use it, don’t even fucking touch it.

      Watching the above, I think I need to amend it so that it includes some situational awareness.

      If it’s not yours, you’re not 100% sure on how to use it, or if in the current situation it would be shady as fuck for you to be handling a gun, don’t even fucking touch it.

      Nothing says gangster (of the white or black variety) like showing off your gun to your friends in the back seat of a car.

  32. what a dumb premise for an article for a libertarian

  33. “Last Saturday in Louisville, Kentucky, about 300 armed members of the NFAC (Not Fucking Around Coalition), a self-described ‘black militia’ based in Atlanta, had what the Louisville Courier-Journal called ‘a tense standoff’ with about 50 armed Three Percenters, which the paper described as a ‘far-right…militia.'”

    So, the NFAC gets to describe themselves, but the media decides how they want to brand the 3 Percenters?

    1. You can’t blame the media if the 3%ers don’t have a press officer.

      1. Did you get that from the writers at Reason or make it up on your own?

    2. Forget it Paul. Identity politics is a fundamental human right and an irrefutable force for unabridged human prosperty… unless right-wing conservatives do it.

      1. What’s wrong with being a far-right militia? That is what they are, right?

        1. “What’s wrong with being a far-right militia?”

          Aside from being Marxists? Nothing.

  34. What a stupid click bate headline…The 2nd Amendment was never an exclusionary and restricted to “white” conservatives. Libertarianism is starting to sound more and more like Leftist Democrat light.

  35. Very efficiently written information. It will be beneficial to anybody who utilizes it, including me. Keep up the good work. For sure i will check out more posts. This site seems to get a good amount of visitors.

  36. Is there a real libertarian site anywhere? I’m seriously asking. I’ve been following reason for years and there are a few authors I still respect, but I’m getting tired of this drivel. Please advise if there are better resources out there.

    1. A few private blogs, maybe. Most of the libertarian sites fell for the “liberalitarian” alliance some years back, and got taken over by the left.

    2. Is there a real libertarian site anywhere? I’m seriously asking

      Depends on what you mean by “real libertarian”. Self-declared libertarians encompasses some progressives, socialists, communists, anarcho-capitalists, classical liberals, centrists, and lots of other groups.

      Even Reason is “libertarian” in the sense of preferring short term policies (open borders, no tariffs, drug legalization, etc.) that are inspired by libertarian ideas, though will destroy libertarianism in the long term.

  37. Every month start earning more cash from $20,000 to $24,000 by working very simple j0b 0nline from home. I have earned last month $23159 from this by just doing this 0nline w0rk for maximum 3 to 4 hrs a day using my laptop. This home j0b is just awesome and regular earning from this are much times better than other regular 9 to 5 desk j0b. Now every person on this earth can get this j0b and start making dollars 0nline just by follow instructions on the given web page.Click For Full Details.

  38. While there is probably little I agree with this group on, the excessive use of ‘no knock’ warrants and the right to keep and bare arms are two things that I do. The more people who lawfully exercise their rights, the less likely the government is to restrict those rights. Now if they come back and “burn this f***er down” like they have threatened, then they cross a legal line and all bets are off as they would be if any extremist group – right or left – broke the law.

    1. They already crossed the legal line by making the threat.

  39. End.
    the.
    Drug.
    War.

  40. It’s nice to see Americans exercising their rights.

    I did notice that “peaceful” does not show up once in this article to describe a protest where nobody was killed and nothing was burned down.

    http://www.beggar.news

    Begging is an old industry, but it is not a derogatory term. It is a life experience. So Beggar news is a platform that you can post your begging information in article, When a philanthropist will fulfill your wishes, You, the philanthropist and us all are happy.

    Good luck, Beggars!

  41. Start making cash online work easily from home.i have received a paycheck of $24K in this month by working online from home.i am a student and i just doing this job in my spare HERE? learn More

  42. Non white people are disproportionately likely to be victims of crime, if anything they have more of a justification to be armed than some goofball at a statehouse.

  43. I am making $165 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the same time as my neighbour advised me she changed into averaging $ninety five however I see the way it works now. I experience masses freedom now that i’m my non-public boss. that is what I do……══════❥❥❥❥ CLICK HERE

  44. Start making cash online work easily from home.i have received a paycheck of $24K in this month by working online from home.i am a student and i just doing this job in my spare HERE? Read More

Please to post comments