Over the course of generations, gun rights advocates have embraced a radical libertarian ideology that does not expand liberty for Americans, it undermines it. And though [former solicitor general Paul] Clement, [Justice Samuel] Alito and [Rep. Marjorie Taylor] Greene style themselves as defenders of the original vision of the U.S. Constitution, the authors of the Second Amendment were not opponents of gun regulation, but heirs to a long tradition of regulating arms in the public square. …
If the Supreme Court accepts this radical gun rights agenda it will facilitate anarchy, not liberty. …
The permissive public carry championed by today’s gun rights advocates is a sharp break from all this. It is not rooted in text, history or tradition but is a recent development in American history, one that only gained ground in the late 20th century. Such laws have not made Americans safer, but have led to more gun deaths and injuries. It’s little coincidence that states with stronger gun regulations are also those with fewer gun deaths.
In short, there is a long history of robust gun regulation dating back to the earliest days of the republic, and New York’s existing law is firmly anchored in that tradition. If the high court — via a majority that purports to care most about the narrow language and initial public meaning of the Constitution — refuses to engage in an honest reading of history and strikes down New York’s law, it will have perverted originalism beyond recognition and engaged in a type of activism that would have made the judges of the Warren Court-era blanch.
Expanding the scope of Second Amendment rights beyond traditional historically grounded limits, including the type of good cause permitting laws New Yorkers have lived under for more than a century, would be an example of living constitutionalism on LSD, not a sober, rigorous application of originalism, the supposedly preferred method of many on the court. Engaging in judicial activism under the guise of originalism would make it painfully clear that the current Supreme Court has become an extension of the Republican Party, not a judicial body engaged in the solemn act of interpreting the law.
New York’s Sullivan act at the heart of this iteration of the Supreme Court drama is a bit over 100 years old and was intended to disarm Italian immigrants who wisely carried pistols and used them to defend their businesses and lives against union thugs out for shakedown money. I think we could use a little “anarchy”
Watch the movie “Gangs of New York” for a Hollywood style history lesson on New York and their historic corruption. The movie the “Godfather” is also pretty good at illustrating the real New York. These people look at the Moon and see the Sun and apparently, logic, reason and human liberty mean nothing to them. Anything that threatens their power must be destroyed. As a kid in the 1970’s I remember sitting and watching TV and the cop dramas were dominated by “Quinn Martin” Productions. Two themes which always stuck out to me were criminals walking into a dry cleaner demanding protection money “or else” and “Evil” Landlord who presided over apartments that were rat infested slums. I asked my Dad why the dry cleaner just didn’t shoot the gangsters threatening his family and call the police? His answer was to laugh and say, “That’s New York”. As a child it never occurred to me that all those forcers were cooperating to oppress the population. The “Slum Lord” theme never discussed generational rent control by law, the taking of property rights, to explain why in a big, expensive city like New York, a property owner would let his property fall into disrepair, rather than continue to improve it and raise the rents according to market value. Even in the 1970’s TV was propaganda.
Exactly. NYC was IIRC the first major city that instituted gun control.
Me personally and I would advise other that whatever NYC government does, just do the opposite. City was screwed up then and is still, along with LA, Chiraq, Philly, ect
History has confirmed Gun Control in any shape, matter or form is agenda rooted in racism and genocide…That’s Chiseled. And just like racists and nazis concocted “reasons” to justify Gun Control so has the nasty nice Saul Cornell.
Now that the very sneaky Saul Cornell has explained himself to-himself he expects you slaves to cease with any further gun talk and get back to picking cotton. Not f-ing happening Saul Cornell…
1) The Second Amendment is one thing.
2) The criminal misuse of firearms, bricks, bats, knives, vehicles, etc. is another thing.
3) History Confirms Gun Control in any shape, matter or form is a racist and nazi based Thing.
DW…”Now that the very sneaky Saul Cornell has explained himself to-himself he expects you slaves to cease with any further gun talk and get back to picking cotton. ” Cotton Plantations are so, so yesterday. Today’s Libturds expect everyone to belly up to the Free Shit Control Bar on the Government Plantation Dwellers Express. There is way more power, wealth, control in Government than there ever was in cotton. And, they can tax Productive Citizens to pay for the free shit sow belly and collard greens, shanty shacks, and OBlunder phones….and, now Illegals’ phones, and the Dwellers will still give all their votes to their former Cotton Plantation Masters, and the Dwelles can grouse and complain, burn/loot/murder, and excel only their race to the dependent bottom of society, dragging all non-Elites with them. And, Libturds can put an array of colors on the new Government Plantation, not just the traditional dwellers. Forrest said, “Stupid is as stupid does.” Dwellers are their own….and our…. worst enemy. That is all. Class dismissed.
What planet did Cornell just drop in from? Has he been on a 20 year sabbatical to Baluchistan?
In addition to the two motion pictures listed, I suggest the book for those who can still read, “Paddy Whacked.” It deals with Irish gangsterism in the New World, brought over from the Ould Sod in the wave of Irish immigration mid-19th century. Brings us up to current times, although the book was written before Whitey Bulger was caught and jailed.
Today. one says “insurrection” as though it were a bad thing. Fortunately, our Founding Fathers took exception to that perspective Maybe nigh on to time for another Rx.
Insurrection is a bad thing. It means that government oppression has become extreme, for,
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” — Declaration of Independence
One says “insurrection” as if that is what occurred on Jan 6th.
“Today. one says “insurrection” as though it were a bad thing.”
The founders were not shy about putting down both Shay’s Rebellion, and the Whiskey Rebellion.
And, of course, there is the “treason” clause in the base Constitution.
Blah, blah, blah………we really don’t want to take your guns, honest!!
Based on his vision of history, the British Army was right to try and seize the people’s arms stored in Lexington and Concord. After all, they wanted to preserve the peace and prevent weapons of war from be used by criminal gangs against the populace. Over 10% of the population of the Americas died from various causes during the revolutionary war. This was all caused by criminals armed with guns. No guns and the Crown would have retained control and the world would be a better place.
Dennis Sumner Horse pucky! You want to disarm America so you can impose your Leftist agenda on the population and make sure there is no meaningful opposition to your government takeovers. The 2nd Amendment was designed to preclude just such an imposition of government control over people.
“From my cold dead hand”. Charlton Heston
Saul, Saul, Saul,
Guns are already everywhere. The only problem is, at present, the vast majority of those who carry currently are criminals. In States where Constitutional Carry has passed, the Fear Mongers have been proven WRONG!!! The places where gun crime is rampant is exactly where you said it was less, in those States with the most restrictive Laws limiting Concealed Carry Licenses, and no Constitutional Carry! Chicago is the Poster Child for gun crimes. NYC is a leader as well. Neither allow much in the way of concealed carry, but Chiraq CC is growing since the Supreme Court ruling.
Guns are not the problem Culture is. Another lie you tell. Our Founders had no limits on Keeping and Bearing of arms, once the British Rule was overthrown. There were gun laws however. Every able bodied man was required to keep a musket and sufficient powder and balls for at least 80 shots. They were to keep Proficient with their musket and regular drills were required, on the Commons, or church field, so as to ready the community to rally to the defense against all enemies. Both Foreign and Domestic!
Billy Boy, No, No, a thousand times NO…. “The only problem is, at present, the vast majority of those who carry currently are criminals.” The vast majority of those who mis-use guns are criminals. All of the good guys who carry do not mis-use guns.
You will never get Cornell to admit that. His urban, government-dependent world is a low trust, highly litigious society where nothing should be allowed unless it has the approval stamp of The State apparatus. The mostly peaceful suburbs and small towns don’t exist in his mind or are a relic of 1950s TV shows.
This fellow essentially ties himself into a semantic pretzel by attempting to “argue” an incredibly distorted version of originalism regarding the 2A.
You seriously cannot make this up. And if we were to descend into “anarchy” (as has often been preached nigh on 3 decades now) because law abiding people can exercise their right to carry, we would have been at that state long before now. Criminals are the exception, not the rule.
Really, I took the whole article as a pseudo-intellectual version of a primal scream. SCOTUS is likely to rule that “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says, and poor little Cornell just can’t even.
Why would anyone be surprised these days with the left these days? This is the same left after all that categorically states we need more censorship and control and less free speech because free speech is dangerous and ‘violence’. Why not throw in the rest of the constitution while they’re at it. Gun control is historically deeply steeped in institutional racism so who exactly are the demons in our political discourse? The people who want minorities disarmed by determining who is worthy enough to be armed or the person like myself who says that the second amendment is for everyone.
Your making this sound like it’s a problem.
Yep, it sure would have been awful if a couple of those subway shooting victims had been capable of shooting back. It would be blood on the tracks just like all the blood on the gravel roads out here in flyoverland.
Only the stupidest of gun owners would try to return fire in a crowded subway train full of smoke and innocent bystanders where it is impossible to be sure of (or even see) your target and what is behind it. I’m not sure that even the NYPD would be that stupid.
Returning fire depends entirely on position, timing, relationship to the smoke generator, direction of air flow (visibility).
The perp was standing somewhere when the smoke bomb was activated. Someone observing the act, standing directly behind the perp might have been able to put the perp down, long before smoke permeated uniformly and entirely throughout the subway car.
Not being there, no one can be sure a defensive act was possible. Not being there, no one can be sure a defensive act was impossible.
Didn’t they spend much of the last few years pushing for anarchy or was Antifa just an idea?
No.
The short answer is that those people were communists, not anarchists. They have liked to appropriate the term “anarchist” for a century and a half as it is always a big hit with the younger crowd.
Young anarchists are like lesbians when I was in college; every girl was one back then, but now they are all married to men and have 2-3 kids. Typically college and high school anarchists grow up, sell out, and join the work week.
The long answer is that, unsurprisingly, there are a number of different branches in anarchy that disagree with each other, and all consider the other forms “not real anarchists”.
Anarcho-socialists, -communists, -syndicalists, -etc will say that anarcho-capitalists and free market anarchists like myself are not real anarchists because capitalism is not compatible with anarchy.
I would say that an-socs, an-coms, and an-synds, etc are not real anarchists because they all advocate for a massive totalitarian state to enforce their very non anarchic positions.
And example would be that when shit went wrong in CHOP they (An-coms, an-socs, an-synds, etc) called for tax payer funded police and community medical services, while still claiming to be wholly independent of the US. Anarcho-capitalists, on the other hand, want you to be able to choose what police and medical services to use, and pay for it yourself without being compelled by force to send money to the government to take a cut first.
You will also notice that An-caps don’t typically take over a portion of a city, terrorize the local residents, and claim independence while still using municipal power, water, and sewage. We’re too busy going to work and grumbling about taxes and regulations to engage in things that make life more difficult for people.
If you are interested in the topic I would recommend starting out by reading everything Murray Rothbard wrote. It’s all available for free in various formats at mises.org L Neil Smith is also incredibly good, and a big gun guy. IIRC some of his stuff may have been published here before. JPFO has run quite a bit of his material. That should get you a good start.
While I was being a bit snide in my use of anarchist as opposed to the more appropriate useful idiot (commie type) you explained both how it does not apply logically as well as how it is coopted by many who seek totalitarian power through “grass roots” movements in a way that will make several bitch and moan on either side of the political isle (well done). Will look up the authors when I get through some of the rest of my pile
Saul wants North Korean gun laws so we’ll be “safer”.
Got it.🖕
There are no crazy black men shooting people on North Korean subways and North Korea has strict gun control! Coincidence? I think not!
Cloudbuster North Korea is also a Communist dictatorship. Is that what you are espousing? Fact is that there are no Black men in North Korea unless you count the dumb ones from the NBA who go there to visit.
Okay, let’s have a little fun this morning.
Last I recall, New York City subways are “gun free zones” already, and carry of a firearm in general is functionally prohibited in NYC. Clearly, prohibiting law-abiding citizens from exercising their constitutionally protected right to bear arms a) didn’t stop a madman bent on massacre, and b) merely served to disarm anyone who might otherwise have availed themselves of the means to defend against that madman.
Wait, wait, wait… hold up just a minute here. Aren’t you the one making the claim that respect for exercise of the right to bear arms is a movement that is nascent in our nation’s history, originating in the “late twentieth century”? If so, how is this New York law only a century old? What were the laws prior?
Maybe try preventing the proliferation of criminals and madmen on subways? Clearly, New York’s existing gun control laws prevented neither the ability of a madman to acquire a firearm nor the ability of that madman to carry that firearm onto a subway train and subsequently to use it against his disarmed victims.
No. What undermines liberty is preventing the free exercise of constitutionally protected rights by the law-abiding while criminals act with impunity. What undermines liberty is the revolving-door catch-and-release criminal justice system that lets violent criminals and dangerous lunatics back onto the street to prey on the law-abiding. (See also: South Carolina mall shooter this weekend.)
Perhaps you missed the time period from about 1773, in particular 1776, and culminating a few years later, during which our Founding Fathers led – and succeeded in – an effort to free our country from the shackles of English law? We are the United States of America, precisely because we declared our independence from England, and asserted that declaration with our firearms.
“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.”
Say what? There is no constitutional right to be “free of fear”, whether exercising other constitutionally protected rights or in any other pursuit.
You deign to lecture on historical ignorance, yet you completely ignore that gun control laws originated in the slave-owning south, and were intended to keep slaves (and former slaves) disarmed.
So, gun regulation didn’t intensify until approximately a full century after the second amendment was written? And further, it is merely coincidental that gun regulation proliferated (in the south) after slaves were freed and started arming themselves? Really? That’s what you’re going with?
Yes, they were quite effective – at keeping former slaves disarmed.
…which explains why several States ignored the Fourteenth amendment as it applies to the Second amendment for a century and a half, until SCOTUS formally incorporated the Second amendment under McDonald v Chicago in 2010.
Ah, yes – now waving the bloody shirt of suicide numbers, as if those who kill themselves by some means other than via firearms are somehow… less dead.
I don’t blame you. It’s all you have.
Chip I applaud your ability to wade through, sort, and address each line of bullshit in that screed that quickly this early in the morning in such a tidy and entertaining manner. Remind me not to get on the wrong side of you in litigation.
Nice analysis!
Saul Cornell has made his career examining the Second Amendment. He is fighting for relevance on an issue that is rapidly bypassing him and his life’s work…it’s all about HIM and the preservation of his ego. What a “turncoat” putz.
““The idea of proliferating arms on the subway is precisely, I think, what terrifies a great many people,” said {Justice Elena} Kagan. When pressed, Clement hesitated to concede but reluctantly admitted that it might be permitted for the city or state to impose such a restriction.”
Like hell.
At least on a city sidewalk, I might be able to run away from the thug.
Inside that subway car in motion, there is no escape. You are trapped inside that thing until it stops and the doors open. The next thing to work on is the elimination of ‘Gun-free Zones’, except in extremely limited circumstances. No free American should ever be forced tolerate such a level of contempt by their elected ‘leaders’… 🙁
“It’s little coincidence that states with stronger gun regulations are also those with fewer gun deaths.”
of course, because criminals then can’t get them! brilliant.
That slightly misses the point. Those “gun deaths” count suicides, which comprise 2/3 of all “gun deaths”. States that have more restrictive gun control still have suicides; people just use alternative means. Fewer “gun deaths” doesn’t mean fewer deaths. It is a straw man.
Ya better not call Saul.
quote————– Engaging in judicial activism under the guise of originalism would make it painfully clear that the current Supreme Court has become an extension of the Republican Party, not a judicial body engaged in the solemn act of interpreting the law.———-quote
The current Supreme Court is an outrage and an insult to every American who believes in the Constitution.
As Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor said “The Court will not survive for much longer if the current Justices continue to be an extension of the Republican party and continue to overturn prior court rulings”. She was referring to the planed overturn of Roe v/s Wade.
I might add the current court has no credibility with the American people. The Courts pro- Republican party, big business favoritism and anti-union rulings have sickened the American people. They have become a dictatorship that totally ignores the Constitution and the welfare of every American working person.
A modern version of the French Revolution would be most welcome with the American people. We would finally achieve what was stolen from the people in the 1776 Revolution by greed monger, power mad, corrupt oligarchical merchants.
Psst: FBI. Hey, since I know you’re reading comments here, you might want to take a look at this guy calling for a violent revolution against the government (complete with guillotines, it seems).
He’s a pedo too, check out his Facebook.
dacian the stupid,
“A modern version of the French Revolution would be most welcome with the American people.” Yeah, umm . . . this is not going to turn out well for you and your Leftist/fascist fellow travelers.
Sure, dacian the stupid, bring on the boogaloo. We have most of the guns, and ALL of the skill using them. Start the party, idiot. It will quickly reduce the number of Leftist/fascist idiots we have to deal with.
The French Revolution is all fun and games till the Jacobites turn up. I swear nobody who advocates for such things has ever done even a cursory reading of the French or Mexican revolutions.
SAFEupstateFML,
“I swear nobody who advocates for such things has ever done even a cursory reading . . . ” of ANYTHING. There, FIFY.
dacian the stupid, MinorIQ, et al. read (or more probably DIDN’T read, but just listened to the lecture and cribbed some notes) in their Leftist/fascist taught “history” or “sociology” classes, and haven’t applied a single thought to the subject since. They are uneducated, ignorant, brainless, pathetic morons, who feign intellect. A cold glass of water and a new thought would kill them both stone dead.
Lamp I tend to agree with you re dacian I think miner has cracked a few books but didn’t like what he found. God only knows what has him the way he is but not sure I care enough to figure it out with everything else to learn and improve.
Uh… no it isn’t!
Sotomayor is literally a left wing activist on the court. While the “perceived” right wingers on the court, as perceived by the left, discussed logical and reasonable arguments about Roe V Wade, Sotomayor drew the emotion card and went hysterical and waived a bloody shirt. Hard pass dacian.
The court has more credibility now than ever before, after having diluted the activists votes on the court that referenced past decisions fabricated from thin air, made out of whole cloth, by pragmatist judges, rather than originalists or textualists. Sweet jesus. Read the constitution. Consider those who wrote it, and ask yourself, did this constitution give people the right to abort babies? No. You want to vote on it? Fine. But it’s not in the constitution, weirdos.
Delusional. Total delusion. Any “revolution” that would occur in the US today, would be a forceful and violent divorce between republican and democrat, and between majority republican states, and majority democrat states.
“…did this constitution give people the right to abort babies?”
The US Constitution specifically prohibits withdrawing the protection of the law from any human being or class of human beings:
“No Bill of Attainder…Law shall be passed.” — US Constitution, Article I, section 9, clause 3, and
“No State shall…pass any Bill of Attainder…” — Article I, section 10, clause 1
dacian, the Dunderhead, Actually the outrage is the so called “progressive” wing of the court that apparently ignore or can’t read the Constitution. You see when someone writes a document such as the Constitution, it is to be followed as WRITTEN.
Sotomayor is the epitome of judicial activism. She doesn’t interpret the Constitution she writes her decisions to suit her own Leftist agenda. Show me where in the Constitution does it say that a woman has the “right” to terminate a life? I’ve read it from the first word to the last and I sure as heck can’t fine it.
The only “people” don’t think the current Supreme Court has credibility are you Leftists who want to actually do away with the Constitution and rewrite it to fit your Leftist-Socialist agenda.
I have more bad news for you, Dunderhead. The American people by and large support the Constitution as written by our Founding Fathers. They have got to be turing over in their graves with your diatribe of nonsense about a “revolution.” We already had one and it has been quite successful.
We have made the offer to you many times. If you don’t like the Constitution as written, go to a country that would be more to your liking. While you are at it, take Sotomayor with you?
These libs should get a lesson on why army-navy laws were passed and pre civil war it was a crime for blacks to own musket balls much less an actual firearm. Perhaps we could also talk about why MLK was denied a concealed carry permit for his own good while he was obviously being threatened with death by the klan.
Sure, Saul, just like the anarchist hellscape of <checks>… Vermont.
They were saved by Bernie Sanders, to see your anarchist hellscape you need only look a bit further east to the region known as New Hampshire. A land so bleak and barren the wealthy citizens of NY and MA only go there to see the trees die for entertainment.
I get so tired of this garbage. The real reason they want gun control is because they do not want to prosecute the criminals who ignore gun control laws. Why? The criminals are mostly “people of color,” and the Powers That Be see prosecuting “people of color” as racist. Witness the DAs in blue cities, and the reluctance of the police to enforce the law.
Ironically, those who would benefit the most from firearms are, indeed, “people of color.” They could defend themselves, their families, their businesses, and their homes against the predators in their midst.
If the Powers That Be succeed in gun control, the strong will prey on the weak even more than they do now.
If any of this were true then the 2nd Amendment (which was established before the 20th century) would not say “…shall not be infringed”.
In all this twisting of the English language, all kinds of words have lost their meaning and one such word is ‘infringement’. ‘Racism’ is in the process of loosing it’s meaning. We cannot make the pieces fit until we rediscover communication. That will not happen with such a radically motivated group of socialists pushing hard to remove all hope and change America to it’s weakest most pathetic animalistic levels of human debris. If this isn’t put down, we will lose it.
“It’s little coincidence that states with stronger gun regulations are also those with fewer gun deaths.”
Being in Illannoy, home of the shooting range of Chitcago with the strictest of gun regulations, I could only laugh.
After seeing that, there was no point in reading any further.
You don’t really ever hear about any of those guys doing serious tome for FOID card violations do you? Or lack of a CC Permit? If anything they get to shoot up stuff while on supervised release.
A 10 minute visit to CWB Chicago definitely doesn’t inspire confidence in the gun laws of Illinois does it? I mean they managed to chase me off although my wife and I were dumping significant amounts of money into their tax base. Money they desparately need. The funny thing is although I made it out in time to escape the gun tyranny they are enacting it was more because the place was becoming a dive than anything.
The two issues tend to go hand in hand. My guess is if they are incompetent enough to think gun control is a good idea they probably cannot run a solvent state longer term.
As a matter of fact, there was one Chicago woman who was convicted after supplying *three* handguns to gang members (including a juvenile and another individual prohibited due to DV conviction). Now, if you’re like me, you’ve seen those signs “don’t lie for the other guy” talking about 10 years federal time. So, shouldn’t that equal 30 years (3×10)?
She got 18 months probation + a little “community service” and her FOID was revoked.
Those of us in southern IL–well, we have our guns and our ammo–and a local government that supports us.
Anderson’s new book quotes the Criminal Founders of the U.S. such as the Incompetent George Washington, the hypocrite Jefferson and Madison etc. who were absolutely terrified of the slave uprising in Haiti and the overthrow of the French Government there. The Founders of the U.S. were worried that the White Slave owners who were fleeing and bringing their slaves with them would influence U.S. Slaves into an all encompassing U.S slave revolt which certainly had a big influence on the writing 2A the most disingenuous Amendment of the Bill of Rights and it was meant to be that way. More on that shortly. 2A was also written to cajole the States into joining the new Federal Government by promising them a State Militia independent of any Federal oversight (at least it was that way in the beginning).
The Scoundrels that founded the U.S. were well aware of the rather low educational level and often low intellect level of the average citizen, it was almost as low as the current Trumpite morons as well as the Qanon nut cases of today. 2A was political and gave the proletariat the illusion they had the right to own arms as individuals but nothing could have been further than the truth about the right to own arms for the individual.
I might add that there were anti-gun laws in all of Colonial America in the bigger cities such as laws forbidding concealed carry and laws forbidding keeping a loaded firearm in your place of residence. Yes children were being accidentally shot back then in the home too. None of these anti-gun laws were rescinded after 2A was passed, and gun laws actually began to increase after 2A was passed and continued to increase to this very day and most were blessed by the gun hating courts.
Yeah, dacian the stupid, you’ve bored us with that ahistorical, fact-free bulls*** so many times, our eyes have glazed over. Not true, never was, and you’re an idiot. Nice chatting with you, dacian the stupid.
Now, while you’re busy giving us historical revisionism and Marxist drivel, please tell us all about the SUCCESSFUL Marxist governments all around the world. There must be dozens of them, amirite???? List them, t***waffle. Or, STFU, which would be far preferable. You are boring, stupid, uneducated, ignorant, deluded, irrational, hysterical, and most of all, annoying. Just go the f*** away.
Washington incompetent? Your hero uncle ho copied exactly Washington’s strategy for beating a superpower. Every move ho made was following in Washington’s footsteps.
You’re just too uneducated to see that.
to Jethro the high school drop out who now claims to be a history major.
Except Jethro Uncle Ho beat and humiliated the French at the battle of Dien Bien Phu and in the American war of rape, pillage and conquest beat the Americans in many fierce battles despite not having air superiority.
The loser Washington on the other hand lost more battles than he won and made a complete fool of himself in the prior French and Indian War when he was a prostitute of the British Army and applied for a generalship with them after the war. Some patriot eh?
What an uneducated moron, herr dacian. I don’t know where to begin. Step by step uncle ho copied washington to the letter. He got support from outside sources. In ho’s case the Russians and the Chinese. In George’s case the French. And just like George he won by keeping his army alive, not by winning battles.
ho and his forces never won a major battle against the US. He might have won a couple of small actions but never a big one.
And ho, true despot that he was, arranged to get rid of his southern communist allies, the vc, so he would not have to share power. He used them up fighting and then finished them off during Tet.
Wrong Jethro
The battle of Khe Sanh was a false victory as the U.S. Military when they found out that the North Vietnamese were assembling an even bigger force to attack them a second time they then abandoned the base to them.
Another example: When Nixon sent the U.S. forces into Cambodia they assaulted a hill with great losses to destroy and ammo bunker but U.S. intelligence warned them the North Vietnamese were marching a huge force down the trail to annihilate them. The U.S. forces turned tail and ran for their lives.
Another example of many: In the closing days of the war the North Vietnamese launched an all out invasion of the South in the Southern part of Vietnam and were marching towards Saigon. U.S. forces despite massive air power turned tail and ran when the Vietnamese opened up on them with hundreds of artillery pieces despite not having control of the air.
Care to try again High School drop out.
The closing days of the war? Citations please. Or is like the claim you made of Texas executing a 6yo child for stealing bread. The closing days of the war were in 75 and American ground forces were long gone then.
I think all your ‘examples’ are phony. Like every comment you make here.
Speaking of education credentials. What degrees do you have. According to the info I have on jerry p. of canton ohio you are a washout from school.
Jethro I could give you a library full of books on the Vientam war and you would claim they were all fake news because it did not fit your political agenda. Since your reading comprehension is rather low I will make it easy for you. Here is just one link of many and it was conducted by an outside source Canada so it has a balanced view of the war. A 10 part series called “The 10,000 Day War”
I am sure you will say its all fake news.
And you are confusing me with someone else.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x62g6vq
And another thing, herr dacian. You’re always claiming that a citizens militia could not defeat .gov forces because the .gov forces have air power.
So, again, you’re a liar and a poor one at that.
jwm,
Attempting to “reason” with dacian the stupid is akin to attempting to knock down a stone wall by consecutive headbutts – you MAY succeed, at the cost of much wasted effort and a severe headache. There is a reason I refer to him as “dacian the stupid”. I used to think he was merely ignorant and uneducated (and he is BOTH of those things), but as I continued to read the stream of word vomit that issued from his keyboard, it became clear to me . . . he’s stupid. As the old saying goes, “Ignorance can be cured; stupidity is a life sentence.”
To Jethro
quote————–jwm April 19, 2022 At 09:23
And another thing, herr dacian. You’re always claiming that a citizens militia could not defeat .gov forces because the .gov forces have air power.————quote
Like most of the far right you love to quote people out of context and seek simplistic solutions to complex problems. What you mentioned above was just one facet of what I originally posted and naturally you left out much of the most important reasons , just one of them being modern electronic surveillance. There were other reasons as well including resupply.
herr dacian. No I did not mistake you for someone else. You made that claim about the 6yo and I dogged you about. Finally you tried to weasal out with some lie about having been confused when watching a documentary.
You have never made a truthful comment here, yet. As for out of context, your comments are written so poorly that it is a waste of time trying to get context from them.
You really should try to get an education. Just because you’re mentally ill doesn’t mean you can’t live a full life. But you have to do it yourself.
dacian, again the US never engaged in a war waging rape, pillage etc. We were attempting to stop Communist expansion in Southeast Asia.
\For your continued edification, your Uncle Ho did not win any major battle with US troops, Army or Marines. Again, you are lying right through your eyeteeth.
Your Uncle Ho won the war here in the US where you Leftists demonstrated, rioted, etc. to show support for the enemy Communists.
Dacian, the Dunderhead. Horse Pucky! Khe Sanh was a MAJOR defeat for your Viet Mihn. There was no “massing of” VietMihn forces after they were soundly thrashed. You are making up this nonsense.
As to your “many books”, there are a lot of books in print that are pure unadulterated garbage.
To Walter the Hillbilly
quote——– There was no “massing of” VietMihn forces after they were soundly thrashed. You are making up this nonsense.—–quote
You never cease to make a complete fool of yourself. Try doing some research or if you cannot read at least watch the 10,000 day war. North Vietnam did indeed mass forces for a second attack AND THE U.S. DID INDEED ABANDON THE BASE. This was a key area to stop the infiltration of North Vietnam’s forces into the South and the U.S. AND ABANDONED IT. THAT IS HISTORICAL FACT ANYONE CAN VERIFY.
And yes we Socialists did indeed help put an end to an IMMORAL , UNJUST, OBSCENE WAR OF RAPE, PILLAGE AND CONQUEST WHERE 3 MILLION CIVILIANS WERE MURDERED BY THE JACK BOOTED U.S. MILITARY WHOSE POLICY WAS TO KILL CIVILIANS. Next you will claim that was not U.S. policy or that there was no Mai Lai Massacre and many like it.
HISTORICAL QUOTE——————
Why did the U.S. abandon Khe Sanh?
Friendly strength, mobility and firepower, had increased since the Army forces had arrived, but the extent of the enemy threat had increased due to a greater flow of replacements and a change in NVA tactics. Consequently, the base at Khe Sanh was to be abandoned.—————-HISTORICAL QUOTE
MORE QUOTES
Vietnamese view Khe Sanh differently. For them, not only did the Americans not win a victory at Khe Sanh, they were forced to retreat in order to avoid destruction. The Communists claim Khe Sanh was a stinging defeat from both the military and political points of view.
MORE QUOTES
Although many claim that the United States never lost a battle in Vietnam, it is impossible to reasonably put the fighting at Khe Sanh in the American win column.
And in conclusion. Uncle Ho was never a Communist he was a Nationalist and only linked with China and Russia to receive the necessary aid to defeat the Jack Booted American Army. As a matter of fact Vietnam fought a war with China after the end of the American War in Vietnam but what would an uneducated Hillbilly like yourself Walter know about that? Answer nothing.
dacian, the Dunderhead. You are so full of sh*t you are like Christmas Turkey.
There was no “mass of” VietMihn forces after the Marines beat back the enemy. Your source is of course another one of your Leftist mind boggled sources. Yep, the US abandoned the base after the victory as it was no longer necessary to monitor VietMihn infiltration. The powers that be switched to electronic sensors just for your edification. The Army command believed that they could control the infiltration with B-52 strikes. I disagree with their evaluation but then again, that’s the Army. I guess you didn’t know but it was US Marines that manned Khe Sanh. I don’t give a flying you know what how the VietMinh consider their defeat. It’s clear you were cheering the VietMinh. along with Hanoi Jane.
For your further edification, Uncle Ho was a Communist was got much of his education in MOSCOW. Of course you Lefties deny this but facts are still facts even if you don’t )and you don’t) like the facts. Jack boot your posterior.
The child of married siblings would be more intelligent.
And the paradise Haiti became still inspires the world.
You’ve been “going down” on Nicole Hanna Jones here, and it seems Anderson has too. The answer to pretty much all of that – is “no, that’s all BS.” And even if it was correct, – let’s play along and assume what you said was correct – more the reason, the slaves should have access to guns. Unfettered access actually.
You are like: The plebes didn’t have rights to guns! It was an illusion! Then you proceed to side on the elites that would restrict the plebes.
Yea.. sure. Common sense musket control?
Well – the courts are less gun hating today. Maybe you can take a hint from them, or see a therapist about your bigotry.
First, early concealed carry laws (in the early 19th Century and not before) were enacted because it was believed only the evil and depraved would carry concealed weapons, while honest men carried their arms openly. Look it up. It’s in Heller. Second, Boston had laws about keeping of powder in the home because of the risk of fire, not risk of violence. It was the BRITISH military governor who forbade firearms in the home, not because of safety, BUT SO THAT HE COULD DISARM THE POPULACE. And that is why troops were sent to Lexington and Concord, to seize weapons and powder stores. The British were well aware of the discontent of the colonists with the Crown and were acting proactively to win the war before it started.
“Expanding the scope of Second Amendment rights beyond traditional historically grounded limits … would be an example of living constitutionalism on LSD [the psychedelic drug], not a sober, rigorous application of originalism…” — Saul Cornell
Okay Saul. According to your standard, the political Far Left should therefore graciously embrace the historically grounded limits of killing and removing babies from the womb (a.k.a. abortion, which all states deemed illegal 120 years ago).
Make no mistake everyone: the Far Left wants what they want and will attempt to acquire what they want by any means necessary. That translates to their simple standard: by definition anything that the Far Left does in an effort to achieve their goals is “good” and “legal” and anything that anyone else does which interferes with the Far Left’s efforts to achieve their goals is “bad” and “illegal”.
Saying it another way, the Far Left defines actions as being right/legal versus wrong/illegal based on the identity of the actors rather than timeless objective standards of right versus wrong.
That’s what happens when you replace morality with tribalism. Notice how they mock traditional morality every chance they get. People virtue signal because they’re compensating for a lack of actual virtue.
Dude,
“That’s what happens when you replace morality with tribalism.”
That is really profound.
I have mentioned tribalism lately on this forum and in my personal conversations–and yet I failed to recognize the magnitude to which tribalism enables all manner of atrocities.
Hey Cornell, why don’t you concern your over-educated ass about the Russian use of flechettes on civilians in the Ukraine rather than bloviating about limiting one of our Rights in the U.S.?
He’s just another pimp for the Democrats.
Historically illiterate and intellectually dishonest.
Freedom at any level is quickly becoming the next Boogeyman. If you don’t support regulated speech, measures funneling money to the ultra-wealthy while your small business is shut down, medical procedures being withheld from the non-compliant, letting the state convince your kid it need surgery and drugs to be accepted, means of travel should only be up to those with means…..
You’re a domestic terrorist. Autonomy, self-direction, individualism and, worst of all, wanting to be left alone are crimes against the state and you don’t want to be an insurrectionist, right?
There was an episode from the original b/w Twilight Zone subtitled “The Obsolete Man” that depicts this quite well.
“Freedom at any level is quickly becoming the next Boogeyman.”
‘Freedom is slavery’.
Orwell’s warning about fascism has been corrupted into a playbook for the actual totalitarians.
“If you don’t support regulated speech,…”
The ‘Ministry of Truth’ can be entrusted to insure that… 🙁
“If you don’t support regulated speech…”
should end with “…utterly obliterate the bloodlines of those who do”.
They wanna go full-bore utilitarian, return the favor.
Like virtually all statists Saul makes up facts to fit his narrative and ignores anything that that disagrees with his chosen narrative. He talks about states when the subject is New York City and distracts with attempts at scaremongering. In short Saul is using the long discredited blood in the streets argument mixed with a bit of historical fiction to try to make a dishonest point for the statists and tyrants he supports.
“In addition to book writing, he has contributed to numerous Amicus curiae briefs in court cases involving the 2nd Amendment.[5] Most notably, he is the co-author of an Amicus Brief supporting Washington D.C.’s hand gun ban filed in District of Columbia v. Heller.”
So evil statist. A special place in hell.
“So evil statist. A special place in hell”. And a hell-bound fast train to get there…
Someone needs to remind the Marxists that theirs is an unsustainable system, and Orwell’s “1984” was a warning, not a playbook. Always the dream of some statist utopia that has nor will ever be attainable.
I think that this article, torn from the pages of the New York Daily Noose, was actually ghostwritten by Chicken Little.
The thrust seems to be that if gun control is relaxed, we are all going to die. But this cannot be true under leftist orthodoxy, which proclaims that we’re all going to die from climate change. Or nuclear war. Or not wearing face masks. Or whatever we’re supposed to be panicked about this week.
Fear is just another weapon used to keep us passive, infantile, and under control.
Now imagine depending on that same, ever expanding government for food and a place to live. Imagine that same government stripping you of your dignity and verbally abusing you into believing that you can’t make it on your own without their support. That would almost be like slavery. Maybe it is slavery if the slaves help the masters somehow, like say, keeping them in power.
Well, the simple truth is that we ARE going to die…at some point. I guarantee it.
Life is a terminal disease.
This sounds like the Max Boot theory of free speech: You have to censor speech to not allow unapproved ideas in order to have truly free speech.
Liberals prescription for liberty is always subtractive and never additive. They seem to believe that taking away your rights will set you free.
Welcome to 1984…
Like it or not, anarchy, defined as “absence of government,” means ultimate freedom of people. It is virtually impossible in real life, like a utopia of sorts, but for arguments sake, the definition of the word must be respected. Thus, this guys premise is completely bullsh*t.
I can make sh*t up with illogical premises too:
A Radical Democratic View of Voting Regulation Will Mean Dictatorship in America
“Under English law, the preservation of the peace, not a right to carry arms in public, was the governing norm. Apart from a small number of exceptions designed to preserve the peace, traveling with arms was a crime.”
Hmm, seems as if I’ve read this line somewhere before….Oh yes. it was in the en banc decision of the Ninth Circus in Young v. Hawaii where the Court held that there is no right to bear arms outside the home. And it was repeated in the NY brief in Bruen. It comes from a misstatement of the old English law which forbade the bearing of arms…wait for it…in terror of the people. that last little bit is always left off as if it is mere surplussage. It is not. It forbade the bearing of arms WITH CRIMINAL INTENT, but not otherwise. It was centuries later that the Parliament forbade the bearing of arms by the peasantry.
Anarchy IS liberty. Sorry to break it to you.
Left unabated by regulation, a carpenter could create all manner of wood objects in his shop. If you drop some rules on him, that he can only make cabinets, then he will make all manners of cabinets. If you drop further rules on him that he can only make one style of cabinets, and he is not allowed to teach others how to make cabinets, then he is strictly regulated in cabinet making, and has been reined in, away from being a woodworking anarchist.
This analogy might sound absurd, but it is not. 99.999% or more of gun owners in the US like to shoot guns, own guns, collect guns, modify guns, and make guns, and these people don’t want to hurt anyone, and will go their entire lives without committing crimes with guns. These people want anarchy with guns, but not anarchy with murder. Murder is illegal. We all agree, it should be illegal. Why the gov has to continue with “mission creep” to not only encompass murder, but objects that can be used to commit murder, is an area i’ll always vote against.
anonymous I hate to break it to you but anarchy is NOT “liberty” in any way shape or from. We have this thing called the Constitution and as a result we also have laws. Other than that, I agree with your post.
Walter.
All there is, is anarchy. There is nothing else. What you call the rule of law, is just the largest mob has taken over, established a constitution (albeit a decent one) and took over. The natural state of existence, is anarchy.
Further, the absence of government, (anarchy) is the ultimate form of freedom. That said, it is not something attainable. Because the largest mob will take over, and then start issuing “rules.” Which is what we are living right now.
anonymous, The HELL it is. Anarchy is what causes societal breakdown. That is not freedom in any way shape or form.
The constitution is a fucking joke and you boot lickers just love being subjugated.
Troll
If you don’t like the Constitution or the USA it is your right to get the hell out.
“Murder is illegal. We all agree, it should be illegal.”
No we don’t. That’s why it’s illegal unless you’re a government agent. Which is shockingly similar to cocaine and LSD when you think about it…
Quips aside, is that you Michael Malice?
OK, quips really aside…
This is one of those things like separation of powers. It’s not really about being in a state of anarchy or having an extremely powerful government. The crux of the issue is the tension between those two options. The Constitution is meant to provide that tension but not allow them to completely separate.
In essence the idea is to create a permanent tug-o-war between the two which is then overseen by an educated population in such a manner that both sides have a Sisyphean Task so that neither side ever wins. The eternal battle keeps the government from getting too big and also prevents the country from disintegrating.
We the People have majorly fucked up the overseer task for a very long time and so what you’re going to get is a spin off of Irish Democracy, a Irish Anarchy aka “Venezuela”.
Now, that’s not going to be popular here and our government can’t control the territory it has the way Maduro can (as to why this is the case, I recommend The Prince by Machiavelli, particularly Chapter III). So the question is what happens afterwards?
Well, that’s up to We the People as well. One might spice up that last sentence with a “frighteningly enough” just as easily as one could say “happily enough”.
Anarchy in America , LOL. You mean like when food and gas becomes so expensive you’ve got to take apply for a loan
If I was the Pestident I’d be damned proud my citezens had more gunms then most countries armies.
Well, TBH possum . . . the citizens have more gunms than ANY army. Estimated 300M guns in the US (WAAAYYY too low), vs. about 1M active military, and somewhere around the same for sworn LEOs. Give them each FIVE guns (they don’t have that), and they are about . . . one-thirtieth the armed force of the American populace.
Our Founders are seeing their vision come true – the American people, (supposedly) guaranteed their right to keep and bear arms, are quite capable of taking care of themselves.
“Estimated 300M guns in the US (WAAAYYY too low)…”
Even if there are a billion guns in private hands, the number is irrelevant. The only number that would matter is the number of gun owners who would represent a credible threat to the gunslingers working for the government. Owning a gun (or dozen) isn’t an indication of political persuasion/intent. The government is not so stupid as to not know that the entire gun-owning population will not rise up and oppose government tyranny.
The proper calculation would be the number of private gun owners likely to forcefully resist government arms. That number is not 300M+.
Still more than they have.
The Second Amendment was intended to protect the natural, civil and human right of people, not their “safety”.
Saul is a long term college perfesser steeped in the ivy covered walls of academia and probably has never had to worry a day about actually working to earn a paycheck
Hey! Undermining the social order and democratic governance is a lot of work!
“It’s unpossible have liberty without government controlling what you do. The MOAR we control of your life the freer you are! Also, you’re ugly, stupid and that’s not your currency. Gibs dat or we’ll kill your family, canids first.”
-Government, when it’s drunk and being honest.
Oh no…
Not ACTUAL freedom… Can’t have that. We must have government and label things created by man as “God given”.
Your temporary freedoms and man made rights are not actual freedoms.
You want to be free? It’s chaotic. So which one is it? Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or work to live for mans created laws and government with the illusion of freedom being dangled in front of you.
I’d rather have “anarchy”.
@Huntmaster
“Still more than they have.”
Comforting thought, but unassessable until “der Tag”. Kinda cools the jets, don’t you think?
A good article, a good book can change the fate of so many people. Thanks for the valuable sharing, please keep it up to date and I will always follow you.
What a crock of crap. 25 States have adopted Constitutional Carry, so where’s the anarchy, where’s the wild wild west . . . It isn’t happening. Anyone with a half a brain that’s read American history and the writing of Jefferson and Company knows this guy is full of crap.
The only thing that will bring true freedom to society is to lock up the criminals and crooked politicians so we may lay our arms aside.
Constitutional carry seems to work well in the states which have adopted it.