Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Are We Experiencing Peak Gun Rights?

A look into a more restrictionist future for the Second Amendment.

Gun storeAbaca Press/Douliery Olivier/Abaca/Sipa USA/NewscomWe may have reached peak gun rights.

History could very well record that in the modern era, the Second Amendment received its most generous reading in 2010 when the U.S. Supreme Court decided its last major case, and that gun rights have been declining ever since.

This prospect is as worrisome for anyone who takes an expansive view of the Second Amendment as it must be exhilarating for anti-gun advocates.

Since 2010, residents of California, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Washington, Colorado, Oregon—and states with similarly minded legislatures—have found themselves slapped with new restrictions that did not exist eight years ago. The U.S. Supreme Court has done precisely nothing to stop this extra-constitutional adventurism.

Meanwhile, attempts to liberalize gun laws in the U.S. Congress have run aground. The U.S. House of Representatives approved concealed carry reciprocity last year, but both it and a related bill remain stuck in the Senate. A hearing protection bill, modeled after similar laws in Norway and Denmark that deregulated suppressors for firearms, has been waiting for a House vote since last September. So has another House bill that would curb overly broad state and local restrictions on rifles and shotguns.

After President Trump's brainstorming session with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) this week about new firearm restrictions, the political outlook has darkened. Instead of working to advance pro-gun rights legislation, however fitfully, Second Amendment supporters are now trying to imagine what form a restrictionist proposal—possibly written by Feinstein, author of its 1994 ancestor—might take, and precisely how confiscatory it will be. (Trump's remarks also invite speculation about what kind of Supreme Court justice he might appoint, should another vacancy happen.)

Trump seemed to backpedal on Twitter yesterday morning, and later announced that he had a "great" meeting with the National Rifle Association that evening. Perhaps he was reminded that, if gun owners choose to sit out the 2020 election, this particular chief executive should not expect a second term. But without clear direction from the White House, and without a president willing to devote the energy required to advance good legislation, the Second Amendment's legal protections are likely to continue to shrink.

Most of the blame should land on the shoulders of a supermajority of the current Supreme Court justices. In the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller and 2010 McDonald v. City of Chicago cases, the court declared the Second Amendment to be a fundamental constitutional right that states and municipalities must respect. After that pair of decisions, courts were supposed to review laws restricting gun rights with the same reflexive skepticism as they would laws that restrict free speech or abortion.

That did not happen. A series of lower courts, in particular the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, creatively interpreted those important rulings into near-nullities—effectively overruling the Supreme Court. Bizarrely, at least six justices have decided to let them: it takes four votes to accept an appeal to overrule a lower court, and those four votes have not been forthcoming.

"If a lower court treated another right so cavalierly, I have little doubt that this Court would intervene," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in last week's dissent from his colleagues' decision not to hear the Silvester v. Harris case from the 9th Circuit. "But as evidenced by our continued inaction in this area, the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this Court… The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this Court's constitutional orphan." (Justice Neil Gorsuch joined Thomas in another dissent last year that made a similar point.)

To be sure, some states have veered in the other direction. Texas, Kansas, and New Hampshire are among those that have liberalized their laws, typically relating to carrying firearms. But the grassroots wins during the last eight years have been dwarfed by the losses. New York state banned magazines that can hold more than seven rounds of ammunition, belatedly realizing that seven-round magazines for many models of firearms may not exist. California residents now may no longer buy ammunition without submitting themselves to a background check. They can't even loan firearms to someone they know, creating a challenge for instructors who would like to lend students a .22 caliber rifle.

Reversing this process will not be a trivial task. "If the Supreme Court continues to duck these cases, a constitutional amendment might be the only civil option left," says Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition. Combs says a federal law preserving national carry reciprocity is crucial, predicting that without such a measure, "I don't think the Second Amendment culture can survive."

Technology may step in where law falls short. Hobbyists have long built AR-15 rifles (including the so-called lower receiver, which is what the law views as a firearm) in garages using drill presses or other shop tools. Advances in 3D printing and CNC machining in the form of Defense Distributed's Ghost Gunner make creating guns in your own home much easier—though state governments are responding with new registration requirements. California's takes effect this summer; widespread non-compliance is likely.

"I think people are tired," says Combs, who was also one of the two plaintiffs in the California lawsuit the Supreme Court refused to hear last week. "There are a lot of gun owners out there. There are a lot of new gun owners. But they feel like it doesn't matter. If the Supreme Court isn't going to do anything about it, people aren't going to comply. They don't care about activism. They just won't comply."

Photo Credit: Abaca Press/Douliery Olivier/Abaca/Sipa USA/Newscom

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.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Are We Experiencing Peak Gun Rights?
    We have not had peak gun rights in decades.

    Gun rights are making a comeback. Only the media thinks anything against the 2nd Amendment will happen.

  • Eric||

    ^delusions brought on by intellectual incest

  • loveconstitution1789||

    ^goober who babbles and touches kids inappropriately

  • mooo||

    Ignoring the name-calling, the answer to the title question is best found in Somalia today. Somalis Are Experiencing Peak Gun Rights.

    It's time for us in the US to Experience Peak Human Rights. A well-regulated militia does not go into schools and kill children.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    No, first it fails to educate them --indoctrinating them instead-- and then starves them to save the cost of a bullet (see Venezuela with its Peak Human Rights).

  • rudehost||

    I forgot but maybe you can refresh me. Is self defense a human right?

  • Sevo||

    Fuck off, Mike. You are an embarrassment to the human race.

  • Presskh||

    Mooo, Venezuela is a good example of a government taking away citizen's guns, which Maduro did in 2012. Fast-forward just a few years and he is now re-arming certain citizen militias, e.g., those who support him. These militias and the regular army are helping to squash the unarmed peasants who oppose him. Venezuela has declined from South America's most prosperous country in the 1970's, with more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia, to ever-increasing food shortages and power blackouts, a precipitous drop in oil production, and an inflation percentage rate in the thousands. Of course, for Maduro and his inner-circle of crooked wealthy friends, life remains good. By golly, it's a real left-wing utopia!

  • FlameCCT||

    No different than many Progressive Plantations here in the USA, like Chicago, with its Elitist Masters and Uncle Tom Overseers controlling the Proletariat Serfs.

  • BambiB||

    Let's put the school shootings issue in perspective.

    Annual Deaths by Cause of Death
    (Average per year, or most recent year for which data could be found)
    Heart Disease : 614,348
    Cancer : 591,699
    Falling down : 556,000
    Medical Malpractice : 250,000
    Respiratory disease : 147,101
    Suicide : 44,962
    Suffocation : 35,600
    Car crashes : 32,166
    Drowning : 3,536
    Fire : 3,362
    Bicycle Accidents : 818
    Bus Accidents : 295
    School Bus Accidents : 138
    Heat or Drought : 112
    Thunderstorm, fog, hail, wind : 107
    Winter Weather : 103
    Flooding : 80
    Tornado : 66
    Lightning : 65
    Drowning (in 5 gallon buckets) : 27
    School shootings : 23
    Coastal (storm surge, rip current) : 13
    Hurricane or Tropical Storm : 9
    Earthquake, Tsunami, Volcano : 9
    Mass Movement (avalanche, landslide) : 5
    Terrorism (in the United States) : 5
    Wildfire : 2
    Shark attack : 1

  • junyo||

  • DJ2||

    Right, because firearms are the only way to commit mass murder. Excellent red herring.

    Answers to your "questions":

    1. Because they like to be sitting ducks. What's your point?

    2. The principal. Nobody likes their boss.

  • David Nolan||

    In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. WHY? And HOW?

    Because they like to be sitting ducks. What's your point?

    You just proved his point

    And if teachers are armed, who will be shot first? duh

    The principal. Nobody likes their boss.

    Thanks, Hihn, for exposing the rot inside gun nuts

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Yes, that's exactly what was exposed here.

  • Steevie||

    Hihn, thanking himself. Even cuter.

  • Steevie||

    Hihn, talking to himself. Cute.

  • Texasmotiv||

    I've pointed out before this is bad math, fix your copy/paste unless you are intentionally trying to be misleading.

  • LR Heckerman||

    Inconvenient answers:

    1) In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. WHY? And HOW?

    -This is bullshit. Many officers in the UK are now armed.

    2) And if teachers are armed, who will be shot first? duh

    -Duh? Which teacher is armed? What about administrators and resource officers, etc? They won't know who or how many. You like to cherry pick, I see. Explain Israeli armed resources at EVERY school armed with full auto machine guns. Duh.

    (NOT advocating gun grabs, just calling out the bullshit)

    Not advocating arming EVERY teacher, just calling out your bullshit.

  • TxJack 112||

    There are 100 districts in Texas that have decided to arm teachers. Some of these districts have signs stating there are personnel in the facility who are armed. Other districts have opted to design schools so there is no way to enter except through one door during the school day. This entrance leads straight into the school office. How many school shootings have there been in Texas? ZERO!!! The shooting in Sutherland Springs was a domestic violence event perpetrated by a person convicted of domestic violence and yet the Air Force failed to report the convictions. If they had, he would not have been able to buy the rifle he used. In addition, when he attempted to escape, he was stopped by a man with an AR.

  • FlameCCT||

    He also misses that there are several States that allow teachers & legal age college students with CCW permits to carry at work/school.

  • TxJack 112||

    I have no idea where you get your stats, but there are not 69.3 mass shootings a year unless you use the totally bogus definition of groups like Everytown. Since 1979, there have been 50 mass shootings in the US. These are random mass shootings, not the drug/crime related shootings that gun control groups love to throw in to inflate the numbers. In addition, comparing the UK and the US is apples and oranges. For one, the population of the US is 10x that of the UK. In addition, the UK has seen a massive increase in bombings and attacks using vehicles which are rare in the US. The last, important difference is the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution because the Founding Fathers had led a country against the tyranny of the very country you seek to idolize. The intent if very clear if you bother to read the writings of the day by those who wrote the Constitution. The #1 crime in the UK is murder by knife or other edged weapon. Ban guns and all you will do is make crime more gruesome and personal. A person with a gun shot wound has a 60% chance of survival if not critical areas or major arteries are hit. A person attacked with a knife or edged weapon has a 85% chance of death because even if they survive the initial attack, they often die from complications and secondary infections.

  • FlameCCT||

    UK had at least 3 mass murder events in 2017 alone, none with firearms. I would note that the deaths and injuries in each event were far higher than any US mass shooting event in the same time period and in total.

  • Fmontyr||

    BambiB, not at all in perspective. You did not include mass shootings at concerts, nightclubs, churches, etc., nor did you include gun homicides which indicate a strong bias. These deaths are preventable as they result from guns which aren't necessary except for sport. Eliminate all guns judged unsuited for hunting or competitive target shooting. BTW, your numbers are not accurate, e.g., suicides, car deaths, and others. Why did you lean so heavily on deaths by age-related illnesses and natural disasters as these are in the normal course of events? Back to the drawing board for you.

  • LR Heckerman||

    Fmontyr

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    Are you embarrassed? Did you even read the 2nd Amendment? Where in this amendment is the right to hunt protected? The main objective of the recognition of our right to be armed is to keep our government in check should they overstep their authority to deny citizens of their rights and impose their will over that of the people.

    Back to school for you.

  • TxJack 112||

    " The only protection of the people from the excesses of government is the right to keep and bear arms." - Federalist #29. "We did not fight a war to trade one tyrant for another. The only way for a standing army to rule is to first, disarm the people" - George Mason, Constitutional Delegate from Virginia and person who demanded the inclusion of a Bill of Rights. It is very easy to reinterpret the meaning of the wording of the 2nd amendment, but it is impossible to reinterpret the words of those who demanded it be part of the Constitution and wrote it. The Founding Fathers considered the right of self defense a "natural right" and never imagined the day when people would try to deny us the right to protect ourselves, our families and our homes. As for the "guntards" portion of your post, Grow Up. Insults are the last defense for those with a weak, immature and illogical mind.

  • LR Heckerman||

    I was not talking to you.

  • LR Heckerman||

    Micheal Hihn that is.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    "delusions brought on by intellectual incest"

    Who mentioned Socialism?

  • Dariush||

    Or an old crank that needs his Depakote dosage upped?

  • Cy||

    "Who mentioned Socialism?"

    It takes a really big government to take all of those guns.

  • David Nolan||

    Not even if all gun owners are assholes.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Eric, why don't you get Tony's cock out of your asshole and try and learn something for a change?

  • LR Heckerman||

    Michael Hihn|3.3.18 @ 10:52PM|#

    Elias Fakaname|3.3.18 @ 8:17PM
    why don't you get Tony's cock out of your asshole

    Praise God for family values!

    I do believe he was talking to Eric.

  • LR Heckerman||

    Ok. You through that out there. Now provide an argument to support it.

    Some facts:

    Over 300 million firearms in citizen ownership
    This may come as a shock to you but not only conservatives own guns.

    The AR 15 is the most popular rifle in the US.
    The AR 15 IS NOT a military firearm.
    There are no AR 15's in the military

    The 2nd Amendment is written in clear and concise language that has been upheld and AFFIRMED by the SCOTUS. It is just a matter of time before cases ripe for certiorari by the SCOTUS. It will happen.

    Your turn.

    I suspect you won't be back.

  • LR Heckerman||

    Eric|3.2.18 @ 4:39PM|#

    ^delusions brought on by intellectual incest


    Ok. You through that out there. Now provide an argument to support it.

    Some facts:

    Over 300 million firearms in citizen ownership
    This may come as a shock to you but not only conservatives own guns.

    The AR 15 is the most popular rifle in the US.
    The AR 15 IS NOT a military firearm.
    There are no AR 15's in the military

    The 2nd Amendment is written in clear and concise language that has been upheld and AFFIRMED by the SCOTUS. It is just a matter of time before cases ripe for certiorari by the SCOTUS. It will happen.

    Your turn.

    I suspect you won't be back.

  • A_Spellman||

    By the very bolding you've done, you appear to be arguing for legalizing the purchase of new fully automatic rifles, machine guns, crew served, and grenade launchers. Since the men, if they are called up, need to be armed with common use weaponry.

    Bravo Hihn! We knew there was some common sense in that empty skull of yours!

  • FlameCCT||

    IOW the AR platform is the sort of weapon in common use at the present time.

    I would note that the semiautomatic AR-15 (original AR platform) was produced by civilians for use by civilians; the fed gov't came later and requested an automatic version, what became the M-16.

    I would further note that semiautomatic firearms have been produced by civilians for use by civilians since ~1905; the fed gov't didn't start using them until decades later.

    This is the usual manner in which the fed gov't allows civilians to produce products and choose from the best for a military/gov't version. I've seen it with parachutes, firearms, vehicles, etc.

  • LR Heckerman||

    Michael Hihn|3.4.18 @ 1:35PM|#

    Some facts:

    How many times can this troll humiliate himself on one page?

    The AR 15 is the most popular rifle in the US.
    The AR 15 IS NOT a military firearm.
    There are no AR 15's in the military

    blah blah blah

    ;has been upheld and AFFIRMED by the SCOTUS.

    (snort)

    Justice Scalia's ruling in Heller, SCOTUS website.
    We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. 'Miller' said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.' 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"

    Continue for the Miller precedent (1939), while I keep laughing at you"

    I was not talking to you.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...it takes four votes to accept an appeal to overrule a lower court, and those four votes have not been forthcoming.

    Some constitutional rights are more problematic than others.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    The media will keep encouraging school shooters, paying them with endless publicity, until they get the laws they want.

  • Eric||

    So school shootings are the media's fault?

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Yep. The NRA doesn't want school shootings, CNN does.

  • Eidde||

    The shooters' fault. The media *encourages* them.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    That much is true, but it is CNN encouraging it, not the NRA.

  • Don't look at me.||

    They do add a bit of oxygen to the fire.

  • mpercy||

    And gasoline.

  • Cy||

    I think the ritualistic dancing afterwards is the most nauseating part of their ceremonies.

  • LR Heckerman||

    Cy|3.3.18 @ 7:52AM|#

    I think the ritualistic dancing afterwards is the most nauseating part of their ceremonies.

    It seems to me that many on the left are addicted to candlelight memorial vigils. It is the only thing that validates many of them.

  • JeremyR||

    I think the media is probably the single biggest factor, making them into media stars

    Hell, Roger Ebert pointed this out decades ago, when the media tried to blame movies for them.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Yeah, but that was movies, not guns.

  • Craig J Bolton||

    I guess, probably, Time Magazine was also responsible for Hitler's invasion of Poland. After all, they had recently featured him on their cover.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The media is complicit in making schools unsafe. The media has demanded that there be gun free zones. Gun free zones do not allow people to defend themselves with guns.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Do YOU have any kids in an American classroom? Do you even have any kids at all?

  • vek||

    How about you adjust those murder rates for the RACIAL DISPARITIES between the USA and Europe! WHITE Americans have comparable to lower murder rates than Europe. It's black and Hispanic gangs almost exclusively that jack our numbers up.

    So obviously the correct thing to do is to disarm brown people in the USA, and then we'd have murder rates in line with Europe! Except criminals don't obey laws, soooo there's that whole problem...

  • DJK||

    Dude. You raised the question of murder rates in a country as a whole. vek made a point about murder rates as a whole. Now you're talking about mass shootings? What? The overall murder rate (your original point) is very far removed from the question of mass shooting, which are a rounding error on the murder rate. Let's take the most favorable (highest) estimate of mass shooting deaths in a year to make your stronger case. 500 mass shooting deaths in a population of 325 million is 0.15 per 100,000. This is a rounding error on the overall number of 5.3 per 100,000.

    Compare this to the estimate that 50-75% of all homicides in the US are linked to the illegal drug trade and inner city gang violence. That's a murder rate somewhere between 2.65 per 100,000 and 4 per 100,000. In other words, the vast majority of the overall murder rate in the US. The victims of such crimes are overwhelmingly black. The perpetrators often aren't caught. But we know from other crime data that intraracial violence is significantly more common (80-90% of all killings) than interracial violence. So it only stands to reason that the vast majority of these murders (which are the vast majority of all murders) are by black killers.

  • DJK||

    Saying this doesn't necessarily make one racist, though it of course can. For instance, one can point to historical and continued oppression of blacks as a major contributor to this phenomenon. What's indisputable is that there is no other country on the planet that has such a significant racial disconnect in murder rates. Try solving that and you might actually bring the murder rate in the US down to those of (your significantly cherry picked list of) lily white European countries.

  • vek||

    DJK said everything to say.

    And YOU are a liar Hihn. You cited both overall murder rates, and mass shootings. Mass shootings ARE overwhelmingly white, but also a tiny number. I only addressed the important number, the total murder rate... Which is almost entirely black and Hispanic gang/drug related.

    If you remove those, the USA has comparable murder rates to anywhere else, even though we have exponentially more guns. Guns aren't the problem, the people are. Mass shootings have only become a thing as we've made more gun free zones, and since the media started turning every one into a massive national story.

    I bet if we got rid of gun free zones and the media didn't cover these lunatics so heavily we wouldn't have hardly any mass shootings, not that they're actually common or a major problem now.

    So fuck off you stupid twat.

  • FlameCCT||

    Hell, if we just remove a few Progressive Democrat controlled Plantations like Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, etc. from the stats then the USA is lower than almost all countries.

  • mpercy||

    I thought maybe Dianne Feinstein was paying them.

  • BambiB||

    An interesting take on the ROOT causes of school shootings.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwLjFm6GMBM

    Don't miss the part on the New York Times' list of characteristics of the "Modern Man".

    "America wasn't designed to be safe."

  • David Nolan||

    "America wasn't designed to be safe."

    The Federalist papers are full of shit?

  • BambiB||

    An interesting take on the ROOT causes of school shootings.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwLjFm6GMBM

    Don't miss the part on the New York Times' list of characteristics of the "Modern Man".

    "America wasn't designed to be safe."

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    The media will keep encouraging school shooters, paying them with endless publicity, until they get the laws they want.

  • David Nolan||

    And you're also a Birther, right?

  • Steevie||

    And you are Hihn, right?

  • A_Spellman||

    Not enough bolding, can't be Hihn

  • fish||

    "If the Supreme Court isn't going to do anything about it, people aren't going to comply. They don't care about activism. They just won't comply."

    .
    Sweeter words never spoken!

  • Eidde||

    "(Trump's remarks also invite speculation about what kind of Supreme Court justice he might appoint, should another vacancy happen.)"

    Assuming that the part of his brain which is looking for a photo-op Grand Bargain on Guns is the same part of his brain which nominates judges.

  • Alcibiades||

    Well that was depressing reading.
    Thankfully I don't think the prognosis is nearly as bad as stated as long as this situation holds:

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....hen-americ

    As far as I'm aware no action has been taken against any of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who are now criminals.
    I wonder why and am heartened by the most likely reason...

  • Alcibiades||

    And yet once again I give praise and thanks to our great leader for Neil Gorsuch.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    If Trump can just get two more originalist justices in there, I would die happy.

  • Alcibiades||

    Oh God, such a sweet outcome, it's almost sexually arousing...wait a sec., it is!

  • colorblindkid||

    Well it's gotta happen before November.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    That would be the sure bet. The Republicans are not losing the House or Senate though.

    Kennedy does need to retire now to avoid the same stupid mistake that RBG has made. If she finally takes a forever nap at work, the lefties will riot in the streets because they know that Trump will get a young non-lefty on the SCOTUS.

  • Moridin||

    You know Ginsburg is just hanging on by a thread waiting for a Dem POTUS before she retires.

    Refusing to confirm Obummer's nominee is the greatest thing the Republicans have done in my life time.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I agree that she thinks that but there is zero chance that lady can make it 7 more years. Hearing Gorsuch's pro-constitution legal reasoning has got to give her mini-strokes.

    I didn't think McConnell had the balls to pull that off.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Movement conservatives celebrate and work toward a handful of short-term victories while pining for illusory good old days.

    The rest of America enjoys decades of sustained progress along multiple fronts and welcomes societal improvement.

    Over her lifetime, Justice Ginsburg has won -- her preferences have been realized and vindicated. Over their lifetimes, Justices such as Scalia, Alito, and Gorsuch are destined to be losers, with a periodic respite of delayed progress.

  • epsilon given||

    Isn't this the same Progress that gave the Soviet Union the gulags and the Nazis concentration camps?

    What makes you so certain we even *want* that kind of Progress?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Toleratimg communism, instead of eliminating it.

  • A_Spellman||

    And you can thank the conservative movement for the progress, economy, and allowing societal progress.

    Justice Ginsburg will be known as the crazy old bat who decided to die on the bench....up there with some of the more interesting characters we've had in the SC, but not with the best scholars.

  • Egypt Steve||

    Heh. A true originalist would limit the Second Amendment's protection to single-shot, muzzle-loading muskets, rifles and pistols. It is metaphysically impossible that the Framers intended the Second Amendment to cover repeating firearms of any kind.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Ignoring your historical ignorance, it is metaphysically impossible that the Framers intended the First Amendment to apply to twitter, facebook, radio, tv... And yet it does, because non-mongoloids can actually read.

  • Horatio Cornblower||

  • Horatio Cornblower||

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Make that a triple fuck off

  • Horatio Cornblower||

    This guy gets it

  • Horatio Cornblower||

    No substantive response, Michael?

  • Horatio Cornblower||

    How about commenting on the linked article, Michael? You claim bolt-action and muzzle-loading hunting rifles are the only class of firearms protected by the 2nd Amendment, yet the Framers knew of semi-automatic firearms in existence long before the Founding. You may claim that those arms weren't in common use by the average head of household at the time, but, to use Scalia's argument (which you have clearly misinterpreted), the technology through which rights are exercised aren't locked in at the moment of ratification. And, I couldn't give two shits what Miller says. No Court is immune to poor judgements.

    It must take some Olympic-level mental gymnastics to square the totality of U.S. Constitution-era writings with your opinion on the 2nd Amendment.

  • rudehost||

    And they would also limit freedom of the press to ink printed on paper by hand presses. I wonder what kind of abortions are allowed? Were coat hangers even a thing in 1789 or was it something more primitive?

  • LarryA||

    In 1789 most people hung the set of clothes they weren't wearing on a peg.

  • Morbo||

    It is metaphysically impossible that the Framers intended the Second Amendment to cover repeating firearms of any kind.

    Except repeating firearms existed, some with capacities that are as large as modern firearms.

    The Lewis and Clark expedition sent by Thomas Jefferson was armed with one. It was a repeating firearm with a 21 shot capacity that could be fired about as fast as a modern bolt action rifle.

  • MarkLastname||

    Would a true originalist also permit government censorship of online media because the 1st amendment protections only apply to lringting presses?

  • DJ2||

    This ^

    What Mike also fails to understand is that there is no clarifying clause in the 2nd amendment that reads "in common use at the time". You can make arguments about intent all day long but the sentence stands on its own.

    Yes, I think it's ok for a citizen to own any firearm regardless of its power. Just like I believe any citizen has the right to say whatever they want. In both cases, unless those rights are used to infringe upon another's freedom/life/whatever, there is no reason to disallow it.

    Last time I checked, it's illegal to hurt or kill people. Why does it matter so much the mechanism? Guns in general are not efficient killing implements. If I want to do real damage, I'll call in a fake fire alarm and run through a crowd with my truck. Worked pretty well in Nice and NYC.

    Disclaimer: My above statement was for illustration purposes only. Derp.

  • David Nolan||

    What Mike also fails to understand is that there is no clarifying clause in the 2nd amendment that reads "in common use at the time".

    "at the time" it was ratified.
    If gun ownership required an adult IQ ... you'd be barred.

    Yes, I think it's ok

    How very precious. Thanks for sharing your feeee-lings.
    And when you become emperor ...

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Pretty rich coming from the guy who fails basic reading comprehension. Are you claiming that there IS a clarifying clause in the 2A which does read "in common use at the time it was ratified?"

    And now you're faced with your perennial dilemma: Do I use my brain to keep breathing, or do I post something self-revealingly stupid? I know you're up to the challenge.

  • Steevie||

    Fuck off, Hihn, and please stick to one handle, you disingenuous shitbag.

  • Steevie||

    Hihn = Nolan = disingenuous shitbag

  • David Nolan||

    "Would a true originalist also permit government censorship of online media because the 1st amendment protections only apply to lringting presses?"

    Scalia even anticipated dumbfucks like you ... and ridiculed your crazy bleating IN his Heller ruling.

    Page 8, Heller ruling, Scalia "Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, ... and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search..."

    Scalia ridiculed you, and so do I

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    The stupid, it burns! See that little symbol right before the closing quote? YES, that's it! That "?" - thingy. That makes what he wrote something we like to call a "question." Can you say "question?" There you go. And to take it one more advanced step, his question was clearly sarcasm. Can you say "sarcasm?" Yeah, didn't think so.

  • Violent Sociopath||

    What an interesting point you raised, on your hand-cranked printing press.

  • David Nolan||

    Yeah, we need the Christian Taliban ruling America.

  • vek||

    As shitty as that would be, it'd be better than where things seem to be heading now!

    Ask yourself honestly: Did the USA function better in 1900, or today? Was the government smaller overall? Did it infringe on fewer rights overall? Did people have more freedom?

    Most of the bible thumper stuff wasn't even on the books laws, but the fact that society itself actually had a moral code and enforced it in the private domain via shaming degenerates.

    I've yet to ever see an example of a morally bankrupt society flourishing for very long... All great civilizations had morals that they enforced strongly. They weren't always the same set of morals, but they had them. Rules need to exist for large scale society to function. I think those should be privately enforced, not via the government, but our society is crumbling because of a lack of morals.

  • vek||

    What am I doing? I don't advocate for laws, I advocate for society having morals that it holds their fellow man to. Nothing un-libertarian about that.

    Is telling people it's a good idea/cool to do drugs a good thing? I've done some drugs in my life, but never been an addict of any sort. I don't think drugs should be illegal either. But encouraging drug use in the culture is not really a positive thing is it? Is smoking crack ever really a great idea??? It might not be the worst thing in the world, but I really don't see how it is ever a positive thing. Hence crack should be legal, but people should still shame the fuck out of crack heads. That's more or less my position.

  • vek||

    I didn't change shit. This has always been my position, well ever since I appreciated the fact that society DOES need morals. I used to be a full on anything goes libertarian. Then I grew up.

    There are some supposedly un-libertarian things I believe in, like having a sane immigration policy. But there are only a handful of those exceptions. You just want to believe I'm Stalin or Hitler or whatever so you never actually pay attention to the arguments I actually make or what I actually say.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    We're not even experiencing peak retard yet.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Google news has moved on to Melina and immigration and the Nor'Easter storm.

    Two weeks news cycle is up for gun control this time.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    Oh, yeah?

    See the comment just above yours, Di.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    ...aaaaaand the one right below here.

    Who lit the fuckin' Hihnlight?

  • David Nolan||

    Why are you shouting down Hihn?
    Are you a Berkeley snowflake?
    Or still in elementary school?

    Hihn seems to believe that gun nuts are "goobers" and "guntards" so you gain what by proving him correct?

  • Steevie||

    How cute, Hihn defending himself under the Nolan handle. What a lying shitbag he shows himself to be.

  • Alcibiades||

    They're pressuring Amazon, Apple and Roku to drop NRAtv from their platforms, cause nothing says free and open debate like silencing your opponents.

    We have Amazon Prime and I've already spoken to a couple Amazon customer reps and told them drop NRAtv and we're cancelling our Prime subs.

    Amazon reps can be reached at 1 (888) 280-4331
    Maybe others here can do the same.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    FYI: Calling Amazon reps can be effective for Amazon at least. The customer service reps will blog about trends in the calls they receive.

    The more calls they receive about Amazon fucking up, the more customer service reps they need. It costs Amazon money and Bezos has people that pay attention to that shit.

    Bezos is a lefty ideologue but he runs a tight ship most of the time.

  • Alcibiades||

    I doubt Amazon will cave to the bullies, but we'll see.

    I got one of the Amazon reps I spoke with to give me their email address for public relations comments:
    amazon-pr@amazon.com

    Going to send off an email to them this evening.

    I think you're take on Bezos is a little off, basically he's a good "little" capitalist.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    He sends out intercompany emails that are far from that image.

    He was very upset when Trump blocked foreigners. He gave any Amazon employee that had trouble access to attorneys at company expense.

  • Alcibiades||

    Wasn't aware of that.
    Still, gotta admire him, he's a real disruptor, unlike Jobs, who was really just a good salesman IMO.
    Wants to start the next industrial revolution in space and establish a colony on the moon, he'll probably do it too.

    Thing is, when you look at market shares of Amazon's various interests they've still got tons of growth potential. WalMart is dying, I sold all our stock a while back. Luckily held on to our AMZN stock when it was around $60/share and everyone was saying get out while you can.

    I think Amazon will be the first trillion dollar company.

  • KevinP||

    Thanks, I sent them an email.

  • ||

    Not that I believe Trump to be a or the mastermind, but I wonder if NRA membership is up or down since his statements about due process? AR-15 sales up or down?

    If we're going to talk or complain about: Since 2010, residents of California, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Washington, Colorado, Oregon—and states with similarly minded legislatures—have found themselves slapped with new restrictions that did not exist eight years ago. The U.S. Supreme Court has done precisely nothing to stop this extra-constitutional adventurism. Then there's certainly a lot to be said for people finding laurels to sit on after Heller and McDonald.

    Progressives won Obergfell and marched right on. It would seem conservatives/libertarians have not been progressive/regressive *enough* about gun rights.

  • Alcibiades||

    I would guess it's up.
    I extended my membership by a couple years the other day.

    I bet background checks are up and AR-15s are flying off the shelves as well.

  • Cloudbuster||

    Large gun store bear me completely sold out of AR-15s. And they keep a large stock.

  • Moridin||

    As horrible is this may sound... I was just thinking I needed to stock up on ammo some more (prices were decent) and this stupid shooting happened sending ammo prices way up. Gonna have to wait a while to get my moneys worth.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    It's holding: 9mm .18 per round, 5.56 .30 if you buy online free shipping. I don't buy but reload.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Large crowds are expected at the March 24 March For Our Lives rallies in Washington, D.C., and elsewhere, so Lyft is offering free rides. The ride-hailing company's cofounders, John Zimmer and Logan Green, posted a letter on the rally organizer's Twitter Friday explaining why they support the students.

    Oh dear, reason, whatever will you do?

  • LarryA||

    Since 2010, residents of California, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Washington, Colorado, Oregon

    No surprise there. Those states have been expanding gun control since before Sandy Hook.

    There are now 16,300,000 carry licenses. States are implementing school faculty carry; I saw a recent article saying 1 of 7 Texas school districts had faculty carry; Ohio and Colorado have widespread programs, and Utah has always had campus carry. More states are debating or passing no-license carry.

    Naturally, this has been all over the msm, right?

  • ||

    Hobbyists have long built AR-15 rifles (including the so-called lower receiver, which is what the law views as a firearm) in garages using drill presses or other shop tools. Advances in 3D printing...

    I don't know who this McCullagh fellow is, but I like the cut of his jib.

  • Alcibiades||

    Personally I think David Hogg is the best recruitment drive for NRA membership to come along in ages.

  • Alcibiades||

    I doubt it's possible there's a more obnoxious jackass of a Brit in the UK than this, (Antonia Okafor did a great job standing and defending her ground):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MABTx5Yzijo&t=4s

  • Ama-Gi Anarchist||

    I've been telling my Lefty friends and relatives that they are literally trying to piss up a rope. Ban semiautos all you want and people will simply NOT comply. That's when the real fun is gonna start because then people will start converting their ARs to full auto. I mean, fuck, you're already a felon at that point for possessing one, so better to be the scariest motherfucker on the block.

  • Curmudgeon44||

    Semi-auto makes more sense when you don't have a belt feed for your ammo.

  • Cy||

    How this fact alludes everyone I don't know. If the school shooters had full auto AR's the death tolls would've been much smaller. They probably would've ran out of ammo and most of the shots would be into ceilings. The full auto guns kick up and rip through ammo ridiculously fast. Semi-auto and 3 round bursts are generally the most effect use of your time/resources in a fire fight.

  • David Nolan||

    How this fact alludes everyone I don't know.

    With a mind like that, there must be a lot you don't know.

    The Parkand shooter killed 17 and wounded 20, in three minutes.
    Other than you, how many lose total control, of a full auto, as recoil causes them to shoot into ceilings?
    And how many don't know that machine guns have been banned for over 80 years?

    Seeing people like you, in places like this, I would support an IQ test for gun ownership. You could always hunt with bow and arrow,

  • Steevie||

    Fuck off, Hihn,

  • Horatio Cornblower||

    Machine guns haven't been banned. Only the manufacture and importation. Title II weapons, of which fully automatic firearms are a subset, are still available for sale.

  • DJK||

    How does "prior approval" and "federal registration" mean "ban"?

  • Alan Vanneman||

    I've "always" thought the Court's recent 2nd Amendment decisions were as ill-advised as Roe v. Wade, though not nearly so consequential. The Court can get away with a lot of legislating from the bench when it guesses correctly as to which way the wind is blowing--gay marriage, which no one even imagined 30 years ago, being the classic example. But Nino's "right of self defense" is starting to look like a bridge too far. The Court has let the states lean on Roe v. Wade pretty hard. They're likely to let them walk all over Heller and McDonald.

  • David Nolan||

    Roe v Wade was superseded by Planned Parenthood v Casey, 19 years later.
    So your ignorance being so severe is why I'll ignore your other screwups.
    Well, except this one:

    The Court has let the states lean on Roe v. Wade pretty hard.

    Since 1992!
    But you're wrong either way.

    Today's right-wingers are about as batty as today's progtards.
    Thank God for libertarians.

  • Steevie||

    Fuck off, Hihn.

  • Craig J Bolton||

    One of the posts above wants to know about the author of this essay. Here is one important point: he isn't a member of the federal bench or bar. Not even close.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    FACT: US ranked 11th in population weighted death rate due to mass public shootings 2009-2015

    FACT: US ranked 11th in population weighted rate of mass public shootings 2009-2015

    Bully. *snort* *wheeze*

    "Have you ever considered that you MIGHT just be manipulated? Even a little? How would you know?"

    Sounds like a personal question.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    He certainly doesn't like being contradicted; that's when the bully defense sallies forth.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Are your hands literally shaking as you type? I can only imagine. As to WHY or HOW officers are unarmed on patrol, the answer is simple: WHY do I care? I ignored irrelevant questions, not "inconvenient" questions. But as an interesting corollary, what is YOUR response to this truly inconvenient question:

    Contrary to common perceptions, today both property and violent crimes (with the exception of homicides) are more widespread in Europe than in the United States, while the opposite was true thirty years ago. We label this fact as the 'reversal of misfortunes'.

    Here's another couple of truly inconvenient questions for you:

    If the UK gun confiscation after 1996 (and 1968) was so effective, why was there no beneficial change in the murder rate trend pre and post confiscation? In fact, why did the murder rate continue to increase after 1968 and 1996? Similarly, why have multiple studies shown no impact on the trend of murder rate in Australia post-confiscation?

    And if teachers are armed, who will be shot first? duh

    You tell me, Mr. Minority Report, and while we're at it I'll take the next 6 Powerball numbers, please.

    BULLY. LOUT. *snort* *gargle*

    Now please just repost your same wikipedia talking points again. I'm sure they will be convincing this time.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    I guess if you haven't been killed in a mass shooting, you haven't been killed.

  • David Nolan||

    Not to the facsist assholes who seem to dominate a once libertarian web site.

  • Steevie||

    Fuck off, Hihn.

  • DJK||

    Hihn does not understand statistics. Extrapolate 8 in 6 weeks to hold true at all other points in time, despite that not being the case at all. Small sample sizes are worthless. Try again.

  • Horatio Cornblower||

    Michael,
    You may have arguments worth discussing (and I've taken a few minutes to consider many of your points), but the way you present them makes most people, from what I've observed as a long-time lurker, want to throw their Reason-connected devices off a very tall cliff. Before you respond to criticism in your trademark, sanctimonious whoever-doesn't-agree-with-me-is-an-idiot way, has it ever occurred to you that your arguments may be better received if you didn't behave like a gaping asshole?

    Yours truly,
    H. Cornblower

  • Raoul Duke||

    This has been a delightful exchange to read!

    I thought of a couple of things:

    First, Hihn's comments are best read in the voice of the Joker from the Batman tv series (Adam West version).

    **SNORT**

    WHACK!

    Next, I'm dying to know if his home resembles an episode of Hoarders, or maybe Patrick Bateman's apartment - empty and sterile.

    Do you like Huey Lewis and the News?

  • David Nolan||

    You actually fail to see Cornblower as a personal attack?

    You claim Cornblower was NOT a bully .. because to goobers, bullying and aggression are determined by .... which is YOUR tribe!

    I am confused. How does Hihn coerce you into repeated public self-humiliation?

  • Steevie||

    Fuck off, Hihn. And at least TRY to make your sock less obvious.

  • Raoul Duke||

    I actually find Hihn to be much less astringent and offensive when filtered through a sock.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    OK, I'll play.

    Homicide rates per 100,000 (2016 data, CDC National Center for Health Statistics):
    UT 2.5
    MN 2.4
    RI 2.3
    MA 2.1
    ID 1.9
    WY, VT, ND, NH, ME statistically zero

    And most of these are "gun-filled" states.

  • David Nolan||

    "OK, I'll play."

    You lost.
    Homicides do not equate to gun homicides.
    But the NRA awards trolls with double chocolate cookies today.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    If homicides don't equate to gun homicides, then Hihn's statistics don't count, right? He didn't actually specify gun homicides.

    So you're only dead if a gun kills you? Cool. Is that kinda like how an AR-15 with 3x the muzzle velocity of a handgun renders you immune to said handgun? I like all these new physics. You're literally immortal if you carry an AR-15.

  • Steevie||

    You mean your sock, right?

  • DJK||

    By definition, the gun homicide rate is lower than the overall homicide rate, being a subset of it.

  • Alcibiades||

    "In 2008, Scalia affirmed the 1939 ruling that the 2nd Amendment protects only weapons in common use at ratification (militia clause)"

    BS

  • Alcibiades||

    Other than to say, I don't think that phrase means what you think it means.
    None.

  • Alcibiades||

    Only with respect to your sanity and if you're near any loaded firearms.

  • David Nolan||

    What do you gain by attacking Hihn in so childish a manner? I see him posting facts, with links to sources I can check. And I see you acting like the playground bullies I remember from 5th grade. Are you giggling when you click Submit?

    Or are you Hihn, trying to make those who oppose you look like fucking thugs?

  • Steevie||

    Fuck off, Hihn.

  • Horatio Cornblower||

    Who da fuk you tryin to fool?

  • ManBearPig||

    The elephant in the room is the silence of SCOTUS. If a lower court issued a ruling contrary to their precedent on any other enumerated right, it would be severely rebuke and put back in its place.

    Recent scholarship and SCOTUS opinions affirm that the right deserves the same deference as the other preexisting rights. That is something many are find unthinkable.

  • Eidde||

    "officers are unarmed when they are on petrol. WHY?"

    Because you're not supposed to be carrying firearms when you're high from sniffing gasoline.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    I really hope you live in Chicago.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    More likely a group home for severely mentally ill persons.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Imagine the Census report on that one.

    Occupancy: LEFT-RIGHT=ZERO *snort* *BULLY* *fart*

    "Hey, Bob, let's just call this one a superfund site and move on."

  • David Nolan||

    Is THAT why he reposted actual facts, from original sources ... not to make you gobbers look like lying sacks of shit, but because ... he forgot having jammed it down your throat already?

    At least he hasn't lost his mind, like all the infantile blowhards I see in this thread,

  • Steevie||

    Fuck off, Hihn

  • epsilon given||

    I have a question:

    "US = 69.3 per year = 3,100% higher"

    Where the heck do you get this 69 per year mass shooting number?!? Citation, please!

  • epsilon given||

    Ah, so it's true because you say it's true. I'd accept it, except for onething:

    I don't trust you. Show me the data, and show me the methodology. Otherwise it might as well be 0, and the US is the safest place on earth.

    Don't take it personally: I don't trust anyone. Show me the data and the methodology, or it's not worth believing.

  • Texasmotiv||

    It is an incorrect statistic that you use to mislead.

    Elementary indeed.

  • DJK||

    Again, small sample size means nothing. I can point to multi-week periods in which no mass shootings happened. Do I get to then extrapolate out to no mass shootings ever? Of course not. That's ridiculous. You're comparing apples to oranges: a small sample in one country (8 in 6 weeks) to a large sample in another (1 in 5 years). You may have a point here but it's not the one you think you're making. Until you use similar long time periods, you're just butchering statistical inference.

  • AbeB||

    Please do shut up. Reposting the same thing is frankly nothing more than annoying. Particularly when you're spouting nonsense.

  • David Nolan||

    He beat you!

    If you can't say why it's nonsense, with credible sources, you're just another bully shouting down an opposing viewpoint ,.... like those snowflakes on college campuses.

    I can see Hihn smirking in joy at what he (rightfully) calls you "bellowing goobers."

  • epsilon given||

    Hihn's comments are nonesense because he doesn't link to his sources.

    That, and when we try to explain why he's wrong, he just ad hominims both the people who disagrees with and the links they provide.

    Finally, he posts pretty much the same thing over and over again, argument ad repetum. I (and others) have refuted him on other threads. We are just too lazy, and haven't yet gotten annoyed enough, to copy-paste our responses.

  • Hell Hound||

    A determined school or any other mass shooter is gonna find or manufacture his own weapon. No law or ban is gonna prevent it: it's always politics pushing gun control not actually coming up with something that would work. Look at the Kate Steinle case, if California was serious about enforcing gun laws the shooter would have been convicted for having a stolen weapon. He didn't even get manslaughter. Just imagine if it would have been a red neck from Texas? Think politics would have changed the outcome? Why are we raising the age to 21 to buy a weapon? 1 mass shooter under 21 has actually bought his own weapon, so punish all? No it's just baby steps to reach their objectives.

  • David Nolan||

    No surprise, to we libertarians, that gun goobers suffer SEVERE denial on gun tragedies, as badly as New Dealers deny the failures of single-payer (and social welfare in general.)

    As libertarians have known for nearly a half-century: Right - Left = Zero.
    True Beleebers in BOTH tribes, seeking to impose their values by government force. Or by verbal aggression, shouting down all opposing views, triggered snowflake both onllne and on campus.

    In all of human history, there have been only two functions of government. To impose ruling values by force. Or to defend individual liberty Which of those do YOU support?

  • MarkLastname||

    You're using sock puppets to agree with yourself. Think on that and how pathetic it is for a moment.

  • David Nolan||

    You just confused the sock puppet I responded to with the actual "Hihn" ... while lecturing me on sock puppets! Think on that and how laughably pathetic you seem.

  • Steevie||

    Fuck off, Hihn

  • Texasmotiv||

    Your math is wrong, Recheck it.

  • AbeB||

    Also consider that this recent mass shooting is a prime example of how the system which already exists doesn't work. Additional legislation will only exacerbate how inept the system is at protecting anyone. We have a system which could have caught this particular shooter, but spectacularly failed and didn't. And those are the people the anti-gun folks trust to protect us? Hah.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Hihn still evades defining what rights are before plastering them over with bumper-sticker adjectives.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    You got a hamster in your pocket?

  • epsilon given||

    If you are a libertarian, then I am Grand Emperor Mickey Mouse, President of the United States Commonwealth.

  • David Nolan||

    Thanks, Hihn, for jamming it up his ass. So rare to see a libertarian voice in these comments lately.

  • epsilon given||

    If you're so libertarian, then why are fou so heck-bent on using State power to take guns away from people?!?

    How in the world are we, as unarmed citizens, supposed to protect ourselves from criminals when the State neglects to do so? How are we supposed to protect ourselves from the State when they become the criminals?

    Heck, how is the government supposed to disarm a citizenry that is unwilling to disarm, without resorting to aggression?

  • Texasmotiv||

    It's called "cognitive dissonance" and "delusion".

  • Hank Phillips||

    What anti-gun advocates? Those are collectivist looters who can't cram enough guns and asset-forfeiture incentives into the clutches of the militarized minions who threaten lives on their behalf. For decades I've shed these creeps by asking that they first disarm plainclothes government agents. That is, after all, equivalent to the shoot-on-sight Comando Order that is invariably issued whenever looters acquire total control over a disarmed populace. Nazis were being hanged for precisely that while Ayn Rand penned the Nonaggression Principle in 1947.

  • ranrod||

    If you are one that believes the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is lawful and constitutional, then you have believed a lie and a myth that Jefferson warned about. The States still retain their rights to this day to defy the federal judiciary, which has become an oligarcy. We just need strong statesmen as governors and legislatures to make that stand!

    In writing to William Jarvis, Jefferson said, "You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."

    The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped."

  • David Nolan||

    If you are one that believes the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is lawful and constitutional, then you have believed a lie and a myth that Jefferson warned about.

    He also warned of thugs like you. And he FAILED at that ,,.. just as he FAILED to forbid ANY constitution lasting more than 20 years.

    The States still retain their rights to this day to defy the federal judiciary, which has become an oligarcy. We just need strong statesmen as governors and legislatures to make that stand!

    (sneer) The authoritarian right -- originating from the KKK ..... cloaked in LIES and PHRASES ... says
    1) We have NO DEFENSE from abuses by state and local government
    2) States have powers NEVER delegated.
    3) No 9th and 14th Amendments.
    THAT is how the Klan and southern racists "justified" their denial of unalienable rights.
    THAT is how Ron Paul TRIED to forbid SCOTUS from hearing ANY appeals to DOMA -- the cocksucker would have denied gays ANY defense of their fundamental rights ... THE FIRST GROUP SO DENIED SINCE SLAVERY.

    Fuck off, slaver

  • Steevie||

    Fuck off, Hihn. And take your sock with you.

  • ranrod||

    Marxists and Islamists who infect our federal government plus the media prostitutes who protect them will gleefully lie, falsify, fabricate, slander, libel, deceive, delude, bribe, and treasonably betray the free citizens of the United States into becoming an unarmed population. Unarmed populations have been treated as slaves and chattel since the dawn of history.
    The Second Amendment foes lying about gun control - Firearms are our constitutionally mandated safeguard against tyranny by a powerful federal government.

    Only dictators, tyrants, despots, totalitarians, and those who want to control and ultimately to enslave you support gun control.

    No matter what any president, senator, congressman, or hard-left mainstream media hooker tells you concerning the statist utopian fantasy of safety and security through further gun control: They are lying. If their lips are moving, they are lying about gun control. These despots truly hate America..

    American Thinker

  • ranrod||

    These tyrants hate freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, and private property. But the reality is that our citizens' ownership of firearms serves as a concrete deterrent against despotism. They are demanding to hold the absolute power of life and death over you and your family. Ask the six million Jews, and the other five million murdered martyrs who perished in the Nazi death camps, how being disarmed by a powerful tyranny ended any chances of fighting back. Ask the murdered martyrs of the Warsaw Ghetto about gun control.

    Their single agenda is to control you after you are disarmed. When the people who want to control you hold the absolute power of life and death over your family, you have been enslaved.
    Will we stand our ground, maintaining our constitutionally guaranteed Second Amendment rights, fighting those who would enslave us?
    American Thinker

  • Cy||

    "extra-constitutional adventurism" you misspelled tyranny.

  • mdevodude@yahoo.com||

    So President Trump and Senator Feinstein had a brainstorming session. It must be difficult to brainstorm when only President Trump has a brain, Sen. Feinstein seems to have misplaced hers if you have listened to her speak recently. The mainstream media has managed to create an emotional firestorm that has left too many 2nd amendment rights individuals jumping on the bandwagon to ban theAR 15 and AK 47. The Dems unvailed their proposal last week and funnyt thing it included over 200 firearms, 95% of which could never be mistaken for a miitary weapon. They attacked all guns with a magazine capacity of over 10 rounds. Any gun with a thumbhole stock would be banned, even a Ruger 1022, the most popular .22lr used to teach kids how to shoot. Never forget, the next step will be registration followed by confiscation, the progressive, liberal, left wants all your guns. All of them, no exceptions.

  • David Nolan||

    Trumptards are as mindless as Feinstein's cult. Even after he publicly described them as totally lacking in moral values ... said YOU would even defend him for murdering somebody, in Times Square, in broad daylight.

    So, when even your Exalted Leader says you're a lying sack of shit, and never to be trusted, I choose to follow his advice. On that. Who knows you better?

  • Steevie||

    Fuck off, Hihn

  • No Yards Penalty||

    Your time is up, Gun Nutters.

  • vek||

    That's what the idiots who don't own guns think anyway... I hope it never comes to it, but if mass gun confiscations ever happen, that's what will set off the 2nd American Civil War.

    And if that happens my money is on the side that has all the ex-military (not to mention most active duty would side with them too), police, hunters, hicks, and general not pussies on it, versus the side that has all the effeminate men, women, gays, and fat ugly SJW chicks with purple hair.

    I don't have a problem with effeminate men, or gays or any of the others so long as they don't try to fuck with me... But if it ever came down to a war between the pro gun people and the anti gun crowd, accounting for the types of people they are... There's no way the pussies on the anti gun side could possibly win. They're all a bunch of weak cowards. The other side isn't. Cowards generally don't win wars...

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Haha. Trump is on your side gun grabbers. Haha

  • vek||

    It is looking like he is, and if he does he will regret it. Everybody knew he was a totally imperfect cluster fuck of a human being, but many were hoping he'd be solid on at least a few big and important things. So far he has been OKAY, but not great, on most of the main things people were hoping for. He better not cave on gun rights in any real way or people are going to be PISSED.

    We'll see what actually happens though I guess... He might be trolling the Dems just like he did with DACA. Maybe he'll offer universal background checks if gun free zones are eliminated, national reciprocity for concealed carry, suppressors are legalized, etc. It would be HILARIOUS to see the look on Feinstein's face after hearing his proposed terms!

  • vek||

    The end of the world if we have tariffs thing is overhyped. If he slapper across the board 200% tariffs on ALL Chinese goods that could cause a melt down, but he's not, so it's not going to do shit.

    We're over due for another recession anyway. He should have been talking up the fact that one is inevitable, but he's gonna try his hardest to push it off as a talking point since he got in office. Because one should be coming any time now since it's been so long since the last one.

  • Verbum Vincet||

    I think you all are wrong on Hihn. I think he's one of us, and he's actually doing us a great service! I think he's engaged in a PSYOP which relies heavily on a variation of the "bad jacketing" technique: portray yourself as your ideological opponent and act like complete fuckwit by saturating comment sections with purposely long-winded, illogical arguments, thereby conditioning people to totally disregard the viewpoints of real, actual anti-Constitution folks. Brilliant!

  • Horatio Cornblower||

    Does "bad jacketing" somehow relate to The Jacket? Gillespie's Jacket may be sentient, but surely it doesn't have the talent to take on the personality of Michael Hinh/David Nolan.

    Who knows, though... Stranger things have happened.

  • vek||

    The beginning, middle, and end of the school shooting debate is this: We didn't have school shootings in the past when ever more households owned guns.

    Any argument that pins it on gun ownership is therefore completely fucking wrong. My dad brought his gun to school as a kid, because they had shooting related activities at his school! Nobody ever got shot at his school.

    So it is something else going on. I think culture in general is so sick that it is pushing a lot of people to the edge and beyond. Plus you drug up somebody who's a little off kilter from being told he's the worst thing in history, a WHITE MAN! Which is who many of these people have been. Then you throw in the insane amounts of media attention, and BAM there ya go.

    Most of these guys have been losers a bit, definitely a little off their rockers, and almost all drugged up on psychotropic drugs. You take somebody like that and offer them their 15 minutes of fame, and I'm surprised there aren't more mass shootings. Remember both school and other mass shootings only became a thing after the media started making a huge deal out of every one.

    If we wanted to pass an unconstitutional law to address these issues I think banning the media from covering them at all would be a better solution than any gun control law ever could be.

  • vek||

    Again Hihn, on the national rates overall it's almost entirely black/Hispanic gangs. Europe doesn't have anywhere near the number of minorities we have. If you look at only whites our murder rates compare favorably to Europe.

    On mass shootings, it is something wrong with people. I think a lot of people have lost hope for the future. Combine that with someone being a loser, a little crazy to begin with, and the media guaranteeing their name being known world wide, and you get more mass shootings.

    LOGIC dictates that if these didn't happen as often when more households had access to guns in the past, then it MUST be some other cause. I mostly blame the media. I may be wrong, but it's at least not a completely disproved theory like the fact that it's the guns themselves magically making kids shoot people all of a sudden starting in the 1990s. Guns didn't have mind control modules installed on them beginning in the 90s. It's something else at play. I don't claim to know exactly what, but it ain't guns themselves.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "and the media guaranteeing their name being known world wide"

    Mainly that, I think, and perhaps the increased tendency to drug kids who don't behave in school.

  • vek||

    Yup. I think those are the two clear causes. Psychotropic drugs have been involved in almost 100% of mass shooting events. As with many mind altering pharmaceuticals they tend to either help the person and fix them right up... Or make them 10x worse than they would be without meds. The sheer number of people on these things means there are a lot of people also being made worse. Almost every mass shooter has seemingly been one of those types.

  • LR Heckerman||

    "Most of the blame should land on the shoulders of a supermajority of the current Supreme Court justices."

    Blame? Has an offense been committed that one is being blamed for? I assume this is in reference to those that abhor guns blaming the SCOTUS for their torment.

    The genie is our of the bottle. California politicians really could care less about thugs killing citizens. They want the guns because the guns stand in their way to their ultimate goals that may cause civil unrest on a national level. Can' have armed citizens that may foil those goals. An interesting event happened in California regarding the intent of their politicians. Leland Yee, a very strong anti gun crusader, was indicted, convicted, and is now in prison for, you guessed it, trafficking in ghost guns! He took his kick backs from the San Francisco Chinese mob, Raymond "Shrimp Boy" Chow.

  • Sevo||

    OH! OH! LOOK!
    Mike once more provides !THREE! ( - count 'em: 3!) links to, uh, well, the article. The self, same article we've read. IOWs, he proposes you read the article again, I guess.
    And those links to nothing supposedly support whatever 'point' those voices in his head claimed he was making........
    Fuck off, Mike. You *should* be embarrassed.
    I'm embarrassed for you.

  • LR Heckerman||

    Michael Hihn

    (sneer)

    Each link goes to a specific, different mment of mine, where -- as stated -- Heckerman.was HUMILIATED.
    Even better than Sevo is here!

    (snort)"

    Bwahahahaha!

    You are like a pigeon that lands on a chess game in progress, craps and knocks the pieces over then shouts "I won!".

    I can't stop you from dancing with yourself in delusional victory, nor would I want to. I think you are doing a great job of proving many of my points.

  • LR Heckerman||

    Michael Hihn|3.4.18 @ 2:47PM|#

    How psycho is the LR Heckerman troll?

    YOU decide

    Here

    Here

    Here

    Those are just the craziest.

    One libertarian's view: Guntards = Libtards
    Both seek to impose an ANTI-liberty agenda by government force. a/k/a fascists

    You are no champion of liberty. You may go now.

  • Ecoli||

    Lordy, the nuts are here in force.

  • Sevo||

    Fuck off, Mike. Humanity is embarrassed for you.

  • Sevo||

    No, this is no 'Peak Gun Rights'..
    If guns were (properly) treated like, oh, a sack of rice, we would then have 'Peak Gun Rights'. We don't.

  • David Nolan Michael Hihn||

    THREAD DOMINATION ACHIEVED. (and I'll only used two handles)

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Bottom line for me is, no, I don't think it's peak gun rights.Florida just rejected gun control and decided to arm teachers. That look like peak gun rights to you?

    But, how would you know except in retrospect? Ask me ten years from now, twenty years from now.

    Even that would be soon, things looked pretty bad back in '94, and that wasn't peak gun rights.

  • LR Heckerman||

    The last estrogen induced rage-a-thon of Michael Hihn.

    He must believe his estrogen induced rage is a valid argument. Have fun, rage boy! None of what you desire will come to pass. You are reduced to copy and paste talking points. How about doing some statistical analysis from primary sources such as the UCR? You assume your emotional rage will carry the day when in reality, you come off as a bloviating buffoon. You are reduced to ad hominem attacks and insults.

    Do you have the ability to extract the emotion and insults from your argument and present what is left, if anything?

    Back off the ledge and be respectful or is your argument too weak to stand on it's own without the emotion and insults?

  • vek||

    I'm pretty sure denying people their right to self protection is a lot more statist than allowing people to defend themselves...

  • waypasthadenough||

    Well that's a load of defeatist bilge. What a cowardly bastard you are.

    Firstly: The SCOTUS is NOT the final arbiter of our rights. WE ARE!!

    Secondly, the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES rights we are born with, not granted.

    Thirdly: When they tell us to turn them in and a commie SCOTUS rules that's OK we go to war and start killing the garbage that wanted that law, passed that law and that seeks to enforce it.

    That's what it's about, not begging for reprieve from our elected public servants or black-robed shysters.

    How pathetic.

    If you wish to avoid all that, if it can be and I don't really think so, get off your ass and call the republicrat leadership and start demanding they return us to Liberty by repealing the 'gun laws' and arresting, prosecuting for treason and executing those who are working to disarm us so we can't fight back against their socialist police state.

    If that's beyond your imagination then I was right with my first accusation. Wasn't I?

    FK: AR15's are Weapons of War?
    http://www.freekentucky.com/ar.....the-truth/
    We must stop apologizing

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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