A shall-issue state like Pennsylvania will issue a concealed carry permit to anyone who meets the legal requirements. That doesn’t mean just anyone can get a permit — the law carves out several groups including convicted felons, people “not of sound mind,” and “habitual drunkards.” But if you are legally qualified, you get the permit. …
In no other circumstances do we require people to apply to the subjective judgment of a cop or judge before they can exercise a right. If this were any other civil right, New York’s law would have long ago set off alarm bells in the minds of liberals. And indeed, some on the left in New York got that message, including the Black Attorneys of Legal Aid, the Bronx Defenders, and the Brooklyn Defender Services, all of which joined several other groups in an amicus brief in support of striking down the law. …
In New York and any other state whose laws must now change to be more like ours, the effect on crime will likely be undetectable.
Don’t believe me? Just look at the data. Between 1998 and 2020, the percentage of people with concealed carry permits nationwide has grown by more than sixfold, yet for most of those years (until 2020) the murder rate declined. The rate of violent crime overall declined even more sharply.
Our state does not break down crime data into permit holders vs. non-permit holders, but one state that does, Michigan, found that out of more than 750,000 permit holders in 2021, only four were convicted of homicide. That’s a rate of 0.53 per 100,000 — compared with 7.4 per 100,000 in the state as a whole. The rate for all crimes was 1,856 per 100,000; for permit holders, it was 177 per 100,000.
Pennsylvania changed from a “may issue” to a “shall issue” state in 1989. After that, the state’s murder rate rose slightly, then declined again. Only in 2020 did that rate reach the heights of the early 1990s. Meanwhile, across the river, New Jersey remained a “may issue” state and saw the exact same rise and fall in murders. The trend in New York was the same.
Conservatives will often say that concealed carry makes us all safer, while liberals say it makes us less safe. But according to the data, neither is correct. Things essentially stay the same, because would-be criminals don’t typically wait until they get a government permit before shooting people.
The changes that will follow in New York and New Jersey after Bruen will not make people there more safe or less safe. What they will do is bring order and equality to the administration of a constitutional right, guaranteeing that all applicants for permits will be treated equally under the law. Equal justice under the law should be uncontroversial in a democratic republic.
— Kyle Sammin in If You Legally Qualify for a Gun Permit, You Should Get One
Just clicked on it for the picture. It’s a damn nice picture.
That looks like an El Paso Saddlery holster. It’s the only thing I have anymore and the drawer full of holsters went to the can. It doesn’t get any better than that.
Really attractive holster. Unfortunately, the gun for which I’m in the market for a holster is a CZ, and they apparently don’t do that. Too bad.
Try Kirkpatrick Leather. Also Texas, excellent quality, fair price. I have several for different guns.
highly recommend r. grizzle.
https://rgrizzleleather.com/handgun-list.html
I believe it is. It looks identical to mine except more brown than reddish brown (lighting?). Bought it used on a ride down through Oregon in Rogue River for ten bucks (so forty Canadian). It’s for a g19 but fits my commander and hi-power perfectly. Great holster. Carlos: see if you can’t get someone to test fit a diff model, maybe even El Paso themselves?
Ahhh someone else carrying a BHP.
“If this were any other civil right, New York’s law would have long ago set off alarm bells in the minds of liberals.” The writer fails to understand two things. 1) Liberals minds are not wired for anything other than control. They only see those sections of the bill of rights that enable them to exert control. And 2) the second amendment stands athwart their control agenda and therefor must be eliminated by any means necessary. I admire her for the erudition of the article otherwise.
Right, and I’ve been trying to expose the ‘great mass disarmament hoax’ of the ’68GCA for years. As a cop I saw decent persons including relatives and friends who made one bad mistake being punished for life as an ex-felon even after being rehabilitated and integrated back in society when this defies all construct logic, crime and punishment, and inalienable rights. Until I realized it was actually a well-planned early initiative for their disarmament agenda starting with disarming anti-g dissidents during the Viet Nam War. which was a blatant Racist and Rights deprivation.
For years I watched the proliferation of more and more ‘laws’ of these Marxist agenda-based laws getting away with slowly but surely erasing our Constitutional Rights. Even though it is a Federal Crime to do this under color of law.
So here’s the last round in all your high cap mags: They already are almost copying Western Marxist countries like UK, and Australia in their set-up to take your shit shamelessly while laughing in our faces. But they are going to I mentioned what was coming in a previous post and Dan Z exterminated it for some reason?
Mental Illness in and of itself is NOT a crime. But since they ‘get away’ with everything else that has to do with the lies about public safety and crime prevention, all they have to do is make a “Crime Prevention” Public Safety mandate that ‘nobody in their right mind would disagree with which would require a little ‘evaluation’ testing to see if you are Safe to be involved with ‘dangerous tools’ and of course the attendant medication or other substance use (At the VA hospitals they ask you how many drinks you have a week and what the AMA consider average, the VA considers an alcohol problem!
Get ready boys and girls. Nov 8, 2022, it’ll be all over one way or the other.
“As a cop I saw decent persons including relatives and friends….being punished for life as an ex-felon even after being rehabilitated and integrated back in society…”
Felony convictions are a backdoor life sentence, without the messy need to inform juries that the advertised length of sentence is just the start. Once the stealth life sentence is set in law, the public, and juries, don’t consider all the implications. Seems the public likes the idea that making actions felonies results in a more satisfying, greater punishment for disfavored activities. Virtually none are aware that even minor infractions of laws are being elevated to felonies on a wide scale.
“Virtually none are aware that even minor infractions of laws are being elevated to felonies on a wide scale.”
I’ve heard compelling arguments in the aftermath of the ‘Bruen’ decision that the only constitutionally-valid felonies to strip away 2A rights should be ones of violence, since that’s how it was in the earliest days of this nation.
The Leftist Scum ™ are apoplectic with rage over the ‘Bruen’ result and will do whatever they can to make as many people legally-prohibited persons as possible.
They may be in for very rude surprise if that gets in front of the current SCotUS… 🙂
And there are a tremendous number of “actions” that are falsely labelled “felony” that oughtn’t be, all so handy to use to disarm us one more person at a time.
THIS needs addressed, but is unlikely to be any time soon.
If the felony wasn’t a hanging offense then time served and the person gets All their rights back.
Theres a lot of felons getting turned down when their wanting to work a decent paying job.
Most people dont ” turn their lives around” with a minimum wage job, not with the cost of the hoops a released felon has to go through.
Once a felon, always a felon.
By design or flaw.
I am perfectly happy with the idea that a permit/license would have certain legal requirements. Those that can pass this level of scrutiny should NOT be denied. THIS is why NICS gets bypassed for such individuals. Specifically because of the fact that the state would not give this to just anyone, this becomes defacto proof of someone’s clean background. Atleast for the time of issuance. It’s as close to an official “good guy” card as is possible.
Single women looking for a man would do well to make this a requirement when dating.
Anyone that does not want this should be in favor of their state having Permitless Carry.
No. It is a civil right. Simply carrying a gun should not be the states business. It is already illegal to commit murder, robbery, etc.
People who support gun control are civil rights violators.
And this constitutes probable cause for indictment under 18-USCC-241-242 as a serious felony as a Conspiracy or Commission. Like Daren Chauven was just convicted of.
No, getting a license to carry a firearm is NOT a civil right.
Buying, owning, and carrying a firearm IS a civil right.
Being responsibly and reasonably armed in your defense as you see fit and according to ones situation is not a civil right. It is a naturally inherent and fundamental human right. Indeed, it is THE human right. Without weapons we would all, every last one of us, still be running, naked and screaming, for the nearest tree, desperately hoping the predator chasing us cannot climb as high or as fast as we can. There would exist no fabrics, no electricity, no Harley Davidson’s, no dimensional lumber and no three ply asswipe, nor even two ply. Make no mistake on this.
@Rider/Shooter
I agree.
On the three ply or the two ply?
I hafta agree with jwm on this one. In CA, for example, open carry is, for the most part, prohibited. Due to Bruen, we’ll get to some sort of “shall issue”. At some point. But even so, applying for a permit is, by its very definition, requesting permission to exercise what is actually a civil, constitutional, and natural right.
As many of you know, I applied for a CCW here in Los Angeles a full year ago. Was told by two separate Deputies my “qualifications” look good and the process should move forward. But no word from LASD, no response to my follow-up inquiries, and no permit.
Am I therefore not allowed to carry? I’ve followed all their rules, jumped thru all their hoops, and paid the fees. Yet they haven’t processed my applucation in anyone’s definition of a timely manner. Is my right placed on a shelf and not available to me because it’s sitting on some desk somewhere? Not exactly what the Founders meant for us, or what Justice Thomas clarified. Free men do not beg permission.
I am not in favor of askng permission. Or permits in general. Or background checks.
This is common in NY as well, but there is a provision that, by the six month point, the decision must be made. If it hasn’t, the applicant must be told, in writing, why not. This provision is routinely violated and the permit process drags on for many extra months. When I applied for my NY CCW, six months came, and I wrote a polite email to the county clerk’s office mentioning that they would need to provide me some written indication of why the decision hadn’t yet been made. By some miracle, my permit suddenly arrived that week…
The whole thing is a ridiculous farce, and NY is now trying to make it so much worse and even less legitimate. CA too, I imagine. More lawsuits needed, stat.
I am perfectly happy with the idea that a permit/license would have certain legal requirements
The 2nd does not say “shall not be infringed AFTER you get permission from the government” There is no provision anywhere in the Constitution that gives the government the right to restrict gun ownership for ANY reason, bad guys are NOT asking permission, anyone the state considers to be excluded from gun ownership/concealed carry does not give a damn about state or federal laws, they have already proven their propensity toward breaking those laws by being in an “excluded” class. Allowing other men to restrict YOUR rights just emboldens them to take more of YOUR freedoms while exempting themselves from those same restrictions.
There is nothing in The Constitution or The Bill of Rights that guarntees a license to carry. I can easily see the exact opposite in that the license itself becomes an infringement. This is why we should have Constitutional Carry. But if we are to argue in favor of such licenses then it should be acknowledged that it is a registration of the user. THAT’s what it is and that’s ALL it is. That registration comes with a deeper background check than NICS of capable of producing and is THE reason why Liberals/Democrats should be more in favor of it than they are.
I’m in favor of it because it’s obvious that it isn’t going away (just like NICS). If we are to have such things in the system then it needs to be seen for what it is.
A licensing system or a background check is only necessary if one is to maintain a restricted or prohibited class in society. No point other than registration/confiscation/graft if there isn’t and mandatory if there is. No way around it.
@Rider/Shooter
THAT is why we should be pushing for permitless carry across the country.
The Bill of Rights reads:“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.”
The word “bear” means and is equal to carry on one’s person,conceal,or wear.
You fail the 2nd A test.
Prndll said: I’m in favor of it because it’s obvious that it isn’t going away (just like NICS). If we are to have such things in the system, then it needs to be seen for what it is.
(1) NOTHING ever changes (goes away) if THE PEOPLE allow it to continue.
(2) Yes, IT needs to be seen for what it is, REGISTRATION which is in violation of Federal law. The Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA):
FOPA is a United States federal law that revised many of the Gun Control Act of 1968 provisions. As such, FOPA makes it illegal for the national government or any state in the country to keep any database or registry that ties firearms directly to their owner. The exact wording of the provision is as follows: No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.
Surely you are aware that EVERY time you buy a firearm you must undergo a federal level background check and that form 4473 DOES include the firearm make, model, type, caliber/gauge AND the firearm serial number, I hope you don’t believe that information tying YOU to a particular firearm just magically disappears after the background check is completed.
Prndll, I agree, albeit from Canada. I think it’ll happen. For you…
So what requirements are you willing to impose on all the rest of OUR Constitutional RIGHTS? Only those with a clean background check can speak their minds?
But in a state like New York, you have to do a NICS check to get a permit and a NICS check every time you buy a gun. In a constitutional carry state, you have to get a NICS check every time you buy a gun, or if you get a permit just a NICS check when you apply for the permit (at least in those I’m aware of).
So honestly, what’s the actual point of a permit in any state if you’re getting background checked either way? For a “good guy card”? seriously?
n, or if you get a permit just a NICS check when you apply for the permit (at least in those I’m aware of).
Fl still requires NICS even with permit but allows you to take the gun home without a waiting period.
not in MY state since BloomingIdiotBurg made a “little investment” a couple years back. Must have the Mother May I Card to carry concealed, must get NICS check for every weapons acquisition, even to boirrow one from a friend visiting my house for a few minutes to see how it handles for a few rounds. Then another to return it to him. Honest. And waiting period for all handguns and all semiautomatic “assault weapons” which BloomingIdiotBurg also invested to redefine.. to nnow include a Ruger 10/.22!!!!
I recently saw some of the same statistics at our gun club’s ” Intro to guns for Women”, and one gal said due to that, she now didn’t really see any advantage to carrying.
The presenter pointed out that a permit shouldn’t be considered as a magic talisman or a hunting license… if you didn’t feel safe going unarmed somewhere, it’s still a good idea to avoid those places and situations, and remember that those you want to avoid DON’T care about being legal. Also, I remember the statistics show us carriers to be involved in a much lower incidence of charged shootings than even off-duty police.
Violent criminals can and will use anything they can to wreak havoc. Yet to defend you and yours you need a permit to wear a coat over a firearm or have one in a purse. Permits sound insane because they are.
Truly. Tammany Hall certainly has legs…
The general theme of the article is correct, and uncomfortable. The harsh fact is that crime rates cannot be attributed to a single action, or lack of action. To make the case that “guns make is safer” is impossible. The same was true of the disaster that was Covid-19. Same with trying to implement a centrally controlled economy: too many factors to consider and accurately weigh.
It wasn’t Covid that caused the collateral damage, and it wasn’t a single government action. It was all the contributory factors, combined. To date, no one has been able to statistically, or empirically prove that if this particular thing, or that particular thing had been done/not done, X would have been the result. What we do know is that some states experienced different government responses, but all the factors (environment, heat/cold, humidity, population concentration, medical response, individual response, and I don’t know how many other factors) were different enough that no two states could get the same result.
So, no, more guns does not indisputably “prove” that less crime is the result. What we can say is that the individual has a greater chance/potential to survive an armed encounter if carrying a gun; not a 100% result, but an improved possibility.
I would completely agree except for one single thing. We can point to a single factor when it comes to ALL of it…..FEAR
The Democrats and the MSM have gone above and beyond to instill fear in EVERYONE and the result is death, an economic disaster, and Biden as president.
There are those that are scared to death of guns and others that are scared of losing them. As a nation, we have become weak. That is sad. It is that weakness that will lead to losing the country.
“I would completely agree except for one single thing. We can point to a single factor when it comes to ALL of it…..FEAR”
Probably the most difficult factor to quantify and remove in trying to prove guns equal more, or less crime.
Proving that is playing the Democrats game.
The way to deal with it is through education, dealing with reality, and maturity. People have to be allowed to grow. America has proven it’s ability to do that and it’s being takin away from us. Large portions of this country are not just allowing it to be takin but are begging for it. This is where we lose our identity as a sovereign nation and our souls.
“You and I know that fear exists for one reason…to be conquered”
All prob quite true.
That improved possibility surely is measured by an order of magnitude if not greater. And diminished possibility carries severe penalty. Also who can say if the increase in guns did indeed not result in lower crime rates? I would expect that it actually did: without that increase we may very well have seen crime increase substantially.
“Also who can say if the increase in guns did indeed not result in lower crime rates? I would expect that it actually did: without that increase we may very well have seen crime increase substantially.”
This is not rigid, statistical, scientific proof, but a reinforcement of assumption/preference. Reinforcement of assumptions gets in my way all the time.
“Also who can say if the increase in guns did indeed not result in lower crime rates? I would expect that it actually did: without that increase we may very well have seen crime increase substantially.”
Well actually it does. But the way it does is the thing.
As law abiding gun carriers are more known to exist in an area the criminals tend to avoid those areas more. Thus a decrease in crime rate in those areas where law abiding gun carry happens when the number of those make it more likely that a criminal would encounter one of those gun carriers. There is still some crime in those areas, but the overall rate of crime incident decreases.
But…. the criminals avoiding those areas tend to switch to preying on other areas, or increase their activity in other areas.
The effect is that although crime rate reduced for those law abiding gun carry areas it reminded the same or increased overall in the stats/numbers because the criminsl activity concentrated more on areas not as likely to have a lot of law abiding gun carriers thus the rates increased in those areas.
This increase offsets the decrease so the overall stats/numbers don’t reflect the decrease in the areas where law abiding gun carry is in abundance.
We saw this effect here when we went to constitutional carry. The crime rates dropped in the areas where carry became very common and there were a lot of people carrying. Its still the same here today, areas where a lot of people carry the crime rates are a lot lower then they are in areas where there is not a lot of carry. For example, when convinance stores here started allowing employees to be armed and customers to carry in the stores the number of robberies dropped from several a month for some of them to a few a year overall as gun carriers are in abundance using those stores and the employees are armed (most of the employees are)
This decrease effect i wrote about is also demonstrated on an individual basis. How many times have you read the stories about the bad guys that ran away when their intended victim brandished the gun? Well thats this effect…although crime rate at the instance decreased by the bad guys running away those bad guys made up for it by committing a crime elsewhere there was not a victim with a gun. So overall the stats/numbers don’t reflect that decrease because they are offset by the bad guys committing more crime elsewhere.
well, before guns on general public’s bodies were as common as today, a dirtbag staging a mugging was committing a crime. Today, when around one in twelve are carrying about in public, a dirtbg staging a mugging is STILL committing a crime, and the stats will show this event. However, now we have Mother’s Permission to carry about upon our persons the best tool to possess in such situations, we can END the mugging early in a statistically relevent larger percentage of the time. REAS the statistics… an attempted mugging/rape/murder is still a crime. My odds of overcoming such an attack and prevailing increases hugely, but the frequency of the crime itself has not changed signficantly.. yet. When sevently percent of the “good guys” are caarrying about in pubic AND know how to properly use their own defensive handguns, the numbers will mitigate toward a very signficant decrease in the number of crimes.
Even i I never end up having to USE my own personal protective device in public because those considering such attempts upon the public tend to make informed decisions along the lines that the risk is greater than the reward. Particlualry when the “reward” is far more likely to be tendered by 125 grain doses at about a thousand feet per second… a wee bit too short to react and avoid the paycheck. Thus it either thins out the heard by reducing the perps to anmbient temperature, or by putting a rational fear into their black hearts.
Either way, I win they lose. Which suits me fine.
This is my only single issue with th Hi-Power: I’m far more partial to 230gr at around 900fps or just below. Or just above, whichever.
Same here RS.
When suppressed with an Obsidian suppressor (in long length) it’s as quiet as a paintball gun, yet rings steel plates and gongs like they got hit by an 8lb sledgehammer.
Physics dictate 9mm Para can NEVER achieve that combination.
If the presence of firearms does not have a noticeable effect on crime rate, then get rid of all un-Constitutional regulations and laws.
That’s not logical, duhhhh
It’s Common Gun Sense™…
SCOTUS simply pointed out the obvious in Bruen – in NO OTHER PLACE in the Constitution does the language “the right of the PEOPLE” refer to a collective right. The RKBA is clearly an individual right. “The militia” as anyone not a complete, lying Leftard is “all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service”, and there IS no “language of limitation” in the 2A restricting the RKBA to “the mliitia” – it is simply cited as a prefatory or explanatory clause. NO OTHER right requires a government permission slip to exercise it. While a “shall issue” regime is better than the crap we are dealing with now, it still requires a “permit”. 26 states have more-or-less done away with this requirement, thank God, but that still leaves 24 restricting, to some extent, the RKBA – even “shall issue” presumes you are getting your permission slip.
I still see Bruen as a major step in the right direction, but ONLY a step. While I agree that felons serving sentences for a felony should be deprived of the RKBA while serving their sentences, what is the rationale for continuing to deny civil rights to someone who “paid their debt to society”? Where in the Constitution does it say that rights are taken away for committing a crime?
TRUE “Constitutional carry” should be the law of the land. Criminals don’t seek “carry permits”, but they carry. They acquire guns (between 70 and 80% of crime guns) by theft or on the black market. Criminals are armed, without permit . . . but I’m supposed to have to go through the nonsense that Haz has described to us??
Bruen was a start, but we need to keep pushing – more “constitutional carry” states, some real discussion around what “crimes” should deprive you of rights, and for what period. “Red Flag” laws are inherently unconstitutional, or they are nothing more than our existing procedures to have a person declared a danger to themselves and others AFTER affording due process – get the hell rid of them.
The only persons impeded by idiot gun laws like those in effect in NY, NJ, HI, RI, MD, CA are . . . law-abiding citizens. Criminals ignore them, and ARE NOT PROSECUTED. A system designed by idiots like dacian the stupid and MinorIQ, and administered by anti-liberty zealots. SCOTUS has signaled a clear interest in treating the 2A as an actual RIGHT; let’s keep moving the ball. I’m very interested to see what happens to the cases that SCOTUS reversed and remanded. How those are dealt with will tell us a lot. The 9th Circus will undoubtedly jump through every hoop they can invent to “interpret” Bruen to say what they want it to say, so SCOTUS needs to be ready to slap that nonsense down.
‘it is simply cited as a prefatory or explanatory clause.’
What do you think it cites or explains? Just curious.
I’m a big 2A supporter, I have a ‘few’ guns, SBRs, silencers, SBS, and pistols. I carry everywhere.
Cato,
The prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment explains the most noble/important application of the right. The prefatory clause is not the only application of the right and it is not a limitation of the right.
Compare with the 1st Amendment right of Free Speech. The 1st Amendment spells out a noble/important application of the right: petitioning government for a redress of grievances. Of course that is not the ONLY allowable application of Free Speech. Similarly, keeping and bearing arms for service in a militia is not the ONLY application of our right to keep and bear arms.
It’s blatantly obvious what it is saying. Don’t even try, if that’s where you’re heading. Better yet, why don’t you give us your ‘opinion’ on what it conveys. Just curious…
Rider/Shitter
Don’t even try what? Start a discussion you are too stupid to participate intelligently in?
There are many who find the 2A unclear. I’m not one of them.
Courts throughout the years have found it to be a collective right. It’s rather recently, IMO, that things have changed (for the good). I’m interested in peoples views on the subject, views on both sides. I like debating/explaining the issue with my anti-gun relatives and friends.
Unlike you, I don’t think I know everything. More info isn’t a bad thing.
You apparently struggle with simple things Cato, respect being one of them. I’ll say it again: it is screamingly obvious what the first half of the 2A conveys just as it is screamingly obvious what the second half conveys and you know it. You say you enjoy the discussion but you are talking out your ass, which I can smell a mile away, mr intelligent. You are being disingenuous exactly as miner49 is everytime he draws breath. In fact, according to your reply to me, you would be asking a pro gun/2A individual (Lamp) who’se ‘interpretation’ of the words is already well known to you while you bat your eyes innocently and say “but gee Lamp, tell me what you think it really means”. What horseshit, every bit as obvious as the message of the 2A itself. You know very well what it all means. It is crystal clear to anyone born to the English language. Or are you really so obtuse as to not understand what that exceedingly plain wording is saying? I don’t believe that for a second… miner. Further, your last paragraph of 100% oh so liberal and oh so clever bullshit: “imma huge 2A supporter n I gots lotsa different types of guns and pistols n stuff” best friend is a black man crap coupled with your immediate and childish “rider/shitter” reply containing a string of ad hominems gives up the game as well. Just another transparent cookie cutter fool is what you are. So come on ‘cato’, give us your educated, interesting POTG Intelligentsia take on the matter. I mean, it’s what you enjoy, right? Let’s hear YOUR considered and learned opinion. You were trying to “start an interesting and intelligent conversation”, were you not?
Rider of the C*ck
I asked the question because I was curious about this line, ‘it is simply cited as a prefatory or explanatory clause.’ I was curious what Lamp thought it explained. I think some people believe it explains why Americans have the right to own guns (militia) NOT that the RTKABA is a natural right on it’s own.
I also think the 2A on its own, without taking into account other writings, is used by anti-gunners to ‘prove’ the 2A is about gun use for militia service only.
Here’s what I think… Get your mommy to help with the big words
I believe that the 2A isn’t solely about guns to arm the militia. I believe the militia is mentioned in the 2A because the militia is what will guarantee people remain free.
The Constitution, before the Bill of Rights was written, states three duties of the militia: 1) Uphold the laws, 2) repel foreign invasion. 3) put down insurrections. It also says the militia will be armed by the federal government (Congress).
The anti-Federalists immediately saw two big problems with this, the feds could disarm the militia by not supplying arms and there was nothing mentioned about the militia being able to take out a tyrannical govt.
Federalist 46 talks about the militia, it’s additional role as a guarantor of freedom, and how Americans have the advantage of being armed. It mentions this right is unique. I believe this is one of the most important documents proving the individual right to keep and bear arms.
The argument that the 2A justifies the right to arms for militia service falls apart when the Constitution, Federalist 46, and the 2A (all written by Madison) are taken together.
The Constitution says the the govt will supply weapons to the militia. This is no different than any other country/kingdom at war during this time. What is unique, according to Federalist 46, is the right Americans have of private gun ownership. The 2A says the existing right TKABA cannot be infringed. It adds to the Constitution the duty of the militia to keep Americans free and use privately owned weapons if necessary.
Cato dacian miner hall; again, you opening with addressing a person that way immediately proves you out. Do try to not be so obvious. Your first paragraph: bullshit. You know exactly what Lamp thinks on that subject so don’t pretend you don’t. That’s called playing the fool. Your second paragraph: ancient news. This is an item of “interest” to you? Bullshit. More playing the innocent eyed fool. Your third paragraph: I already have your mommy to help me with the big ones. What do you think her screaming “Don’t stop! Don’t stop! Oh god yes!” and all that crashing and banging upstairs is all about when you’re sent back into the basement? As to the rest: all common enough knowledge to those interested in the subject, such as the individual whom you disingenuously asked thought the words inferred. He knows, you know, I know, we all here know exactly what they mean and the rationale underlying them. So why even ask that of such a person? No, cato dacian miner hall, you’re full of it, sitting there with Wikipedia and whatever else eternally open on your mommy’s other missing laptop for your referencing. Lucky for you I keep her ass more than occupied. As I stated: I can smell you a mile away. We all can. You’re just not as accomplished at your ‘art’ as you like to think you are. None of you are. Now off to huffpost or whatever with your sorry butt and stir up some crap about abortion or white supremacy or something. I’m sure they all miss you terribly.
Rider/Shart Sniffer
I doubt that any ‘guy’ that constantly talks about sniffing my ass from a mile away is interested in dear old mom or any other woman. The only crashing and banging upstairs would be from mom rolling on the floor, laughing her ass off at your inability to perform.
The only thing big on you is your mouth and imagination.
Rider/TLND Tiny Limp Needle Dick
Still disappointed, unsatisfied, and unimpressed.
A militia is a group.
A group is 3 or more people
Me , my old lady and a friend can technically be called a militia.
Have fun with what is and what it is
Pfft. Like I said ‘cato’, your crap is as blatantly obvious as the meaning of the 2A. But go ahead, prove me right again. We all know you can’t help yourself. It’s in your genes, stilted, diseased and programmed as they are. Tell us more about your few guns n pistols n stuff cato and how you “carry everywhere”. I’m sure Wikipedia has some pictures you could copy n paste. Hell, you’re actually good at that part. The rest… not so much. Say hi to yer mom for me, hope she can walk with her knees together again soon. Oh, your sister asked if she could be next. Actually cried when I told her not till we know her mom is ok. See cato, it’s easy acting like you… you need to seriously up yer game bud.
Rider/Loser
You repeat the same thing over and over. That’s not ‘upping yer game’. Like I said in the beginning, starting a discussion you are too stupid to participate intelligently in was a mistake. Come up with something that refutes my ideas on the 2A if you can. None of it comes from Wiki, if it did even you could Google it and find what I copied.
You’re just upset you were so wrong about my views on guns and can’t admit it. You are a fool arguing with someone that agrees with individual gun rights. What a ignorant loser.
Incorrect. Nowhere did I mention or even infer what you may or may not believe or grasp. Further, why would any of us believe anything you say? That was entirely outside my solitary issue with you and your character(less) type and once again, you well know it. As always your type, and you especially, obfuscate and shift the goal posts, continuously, like a useless, mindless junkie. And, as always, you well know it. We all know it. We hear your crap all day. “Different views” my ass. Fuck off. Crawl back into your liberal slime hole, cato dacian miner hall. You’re a cancer.
Rider/Liar
‘Nowhere did I mention or even infer what you may or may not believe or grasp.’
You’re not just an ignorant loser, you’re a liar too.
‘100% oh so liberal and oh so clever bullshit: “imma huge 2A supporter n I gots lotsa different types of guns and pistols n stuff” best friend is a black man crap…’
You say it’s obvious what the 2A means but you couldn’t explain it if you had to.
You added nothing to the conversation except to say you like banging my 84 year old mom and sniffing my ass. Your words not mine, you sick pervert.
You’re a big mouth pu$$y who likes to talk tough, saying nothing intelligent.
Cato,
Wish they hadn’t included it, but they couldn’t know that idiots would (DELIBERATELY) misinterpret it. During the DoI/Revolutionary War period, the colonies faced two seperate-but-related issues – they didn’t have (and were ENTIRELY unsure they even wanted) a “standing army”, and England had begun an aggressive “gun control” campaign – they were seizing armories, gunpowder, etc.
MOST Americans in 1776 owned guns – if they were wealthy enough, multiple guns (can’t hunt ducks with a rifle, shotguns aren’t great for deer anywhere that a shot beyond 50 yards is likely). The English mostly relied on the “Brown Bess” musket; Americans had (for personal use) mostly opted for the greater accuracy and longer range of the “Kentucky Long Rifle”. Both weapons had their place, both in “civilian” life and in battle.
Madison, in writing the 2A, was trying to walk a fine line – there was a strong argument against the BoR in its entirety – “If we list some rights, the argument will be that those are the only rights. We CAN’T list all “inherent rights”, so we shouldn’t list any, to avoid that argument.” Turned out do be prophetic, didn’t it?
But Madison bought the argument on the other side, that some rights were deserving of being called out separately. He wanted to recognize the INHERENT right to keep and bear arms, for WHATEVER reason, but acknowledge the necessity/desirability of a militia-based national defense (and the potential undesireability of a standing army).
Just like the Founders chose to avoid the slavery question to insure the Southern Colonies joined in, the Continental Congress recognized the reality that they couldn’t oppose the British Army without their own “standing army” – which they authorized and funded. Compromises are often necessary, but usually are an exercise in kicking the can down the road. Just like we ended up having to fight the bloodiest war in our history over the deferred issue of slavery, we now have almost exclusively a “standing army” – even the NG is just a part-time adjunct to the standing army, with some (laudable) local/emergency duties thrown in. So we’re stuck with the Pentagon, graft, and $600 toilet seats – and perpetual war.
Madison wanted to acknowledge the necessity of the militia (at the time, all able-bodied men between 18 and 40), but also protect the INHERENT right to keep and bear arms. It’s all there in the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers (more people should read these), the debates around whether or not we should even HAVE a Bill of Rights (the anti-crowd were championing my view, that the Constitution “granted” NO rights; it was intended solely as a LIMITATION on government. Would that that view had prevailed!!!)
So, with due deference to the FACT that James Madison was a far better writer than I will ever be, a fair (based on actual expressed intent of the parties at the time) reading of the 2A translated to modern language might be “Since we know we have to have a militia to oppose tyrants like King George anyway, and we have an inherent right to keep and bear arms, let’s make sure the government keeps its f***ing hands OFF the RKBA – to protect our inherent rights AND to enable our (necessary) militia.”
THAT’S what I mean by prefatory and explanatory. Sorry to run on, but the history (necessary to an understanding) is both important, complicated, and fraught. Unfortunately, only a handful, these days, seem to even be AWARE of the history.
Lamp
Thanks for the response. I think we agree on the basics, but I think the reason the militia is mentioned in the 2A is to enumerate a vital duty left out of the Constitution originally.
Anti-gunners focus on the 27 words of the 2A and ignore everything else. They try to twist the meaning to make it seem the 2A is solely about allowing guns for militia service. They ignore other writings and actions of the period, the most important of which is the fact that the first Presidents (including Madison) were some of the Founding Fathers. Not one privately owned gun was confiscated and placed in a militia armory. This proves more than anything else their views on private gun ownership.
“Unfortunately, only a handful, these days,
seem to evenwant to be AWARE of the history.”FIFY
Cato,
I believe we are in “vehement agreement”. My entire point was that the extant (and EASILY researched) history of contemporaneous writings is . . . well, “conclusive” doesn’t actually do it justice.
Madison, Jefferson, et al. accepted several compromises (slavery being the most obvious) that their principles would probably have mitigated against. The “militia” vs. a standing army was one of those. But there is literally NOTHING in contemporaneous writings that supports an argument that the idea of the RKBA was “limited to” a “militia” (and even if it had been, ‘the militia’ was ‘all able-bodied men between 18 and 40), or that “the militiia” was the purpose of the 2A.
Again, IMHO, political compromise degraded transparency of drafting in the 2A. Just like Leftist/fascist idiots (like dacian the stupid and MinorIQ) are apparently unaware that Lincoln’s “Emancipation Proclamation” freed . . . exactly zero slaves, at the time it was adopted. Not that it wasn’t an appropriate and noble effort, but . . . Lincoln did NOT “free the slaves”.
I personally think the existence, and wording, of the prefatory/explanatory clause are pretty obvious to anyone who studies history, and the argument that the 2A was either primarily about, or exclusively about, the “militia” is an argument that can only be made by propagandists, historical ignoranuses, or liars.
Lamp
Agree, but unfortunately it is only fairly recently SCOTUS has agreed despite what was written by the founders. Lower courts still deny the individual right in many places. Heller was a 5-4 decision in 2008, it’s scary how gun rights are based, not on the words written by the Constitution, but on the interpretation of the courts. Libs like to say elections have consequences.
How would things be different if Hillary won in 2016.
Get your stuff straight, cato dacian miner hall. Me calling out your bullshit line of ‘ lotsa guns n stuff and I carry everywhere’ does not in any way correlate with me stating what I think you do or do not believe. More bullshit and obfuscation again. And you and I and Lamp, whose comments and views are certainly not remotely new to you (I’ve read every comment you’ve ever posted here, ‘cato’) all know very damn well what those plain and exceedingly simple words mean. All day long. Or are you saying you just mighta thought to yourself “gee, this Lamp guy sounds like he thinks the militia phrasing means the rkba only applies to the militia. I should quiz him on this”? Yeah, right. Don’t even try, cato dacian miner hall, you flat out suck at it. Get a better hobby.
Retard/Shithead
Like I said before, you’re saying the same thing over and over, and no real discussion of why and how things have been interpreted differently and how views on guns and the courts have changed over the past 250 years.
I was curious when Lamp said the first part of the 2A was explanatory. I wasn’t saying he was wrong, but I think it is ironic that something meant to explain something seems to have caused confusion for so many people throughout the years. Not just liberal, dumbass, anti-gunners, but also the courts. I was interested also in how public opinion has changed.
Lamp gets it. You are incapable…
I fucked up thinking you could have an intelligent conversation on ANYTHING.
Asking you to speak intelligently on any subject is like asking a monkey to split a fucking atom.
“I think it is ironic that something meant to explain something seems to have caused confusion for so many people throughout the years. Not just liberal, dumbass, anti-gunners, but also the courts.”
Two things, first of all you have misinterpreted “confusion” for deliberate misdirection by those “lying”, liberal, dumbass, (say something loud enough and often enough and the sheeple will believe it) anti-gunners, a group to which those “COURTS” you speak of are mostly proud members like the oft overturned 9th circuit.
MAX
The court/courts that have overruled the 9th or have ruled in favor of gun rights (rulings on illegal age restrictions, ‘high’ capacity magazine bans, etc) prove you wrong.
There have been changes and things will continue to change.
Alright, cato, fine. If I’m wrong about you then you have my sincere apologies but only you will ever know the answer to that and I still think I’ve got you and your original intentions pegged. Of course I’m saying the same thing over: I never once intended to enter into a discussion with you over the obvious or over the entirely uninteresting and again, obvious, reason why so many see it differently. My only interest was in calling you out on your (apparently as well as transparently, if I am correct) insincere, leading and disingenuous line of asking Lamp, of all commenters: “what do you think it means”. Now if you are indeed who and what you say you are, you go back to your original comment, have a good look at it and you tell me if it does not look and sound exactly as I say, given you and I both know what Lamps reply/stance obviously would be. If there lays fault anywhere it is in two places: your unfortunate wording in framing your question and the tiresome and persistent bullshit from the resident troll/s provoking reactions such as mine. Like I said, if you’re one of those trolls then you are absolutely a cancer, not just here but on all of society everywhere. You would be a big part of “the problem” and I would be entirely justified in calling you out.
Rider/Shooter aka Lying ignorant fuckface
My original question to Lamp was in reference to something he specifically said. There is nothing wrong with the way I worded a question to him, not you. It in no way revealed my hidden agenda to piss off, befuddle, or troll anyone. This entire episode is due to your stupidity and inability to ratchet down the rhetoric when it was glaring obvious you had no idea what the fuck you were talking about. It is even more obvious now considering Lamp’s response, he was able to understand the question, its intent and have an intelligent conversation, unlike you.
Give it up, you are embarrassing yourself. Each time you reply you sound like a retarded, petulant child, throwing a fit, needing to up your dose of anti-fucking-retard meds.
I stand by every single word I said previously. If anyone is cancer, it’s you, ass cancer. Now STFU and go lay down next to your dish like a good boy.
“Equal justice under the law should be uncontroversial in a democratic republic.”
And there you have it: many/most Progressives do not want a democratic republic.
Instead, many/most Progressives want a totalitarian state where the most “enlightened” Progressives are the Ruling Class and they control everything for their exclusive enrichment. (Enrichment includes anything and everything which aids their acquisition of ever increasing money, power, ego, and amusement.)
Do not disagree, but don’t forget the inherent, subsumed belief that “feels and nose-counting override inherent rights”. Leftists believe that; libertarians and MOST Republicans don’t.
The argument the Leftists can never confront is simple – there was a time in our history, around the time of the DoI, where a MAJORITY of Americans would have supported slavery. Did that beliefs of that majority somehow override the INHERENT rights and freedom of those enslaved? Did a “majority” of SCOTUS agreeing that “separate can be equal” override the rights of blacks to a TRULY equal education (if you accept the idea of “public education” as a societal good; I think we’ve all seen how deluded that is)?
Counting noses, WHATEVER the “outcome” is irrelevant to my inherent rights. If 80% of Americans decided that returning to chattel slavery was a good idea, would that make it “right”? Or overrule the INHERENT right to freedom of those they chose to enslave? “Opinions” of idiots like dacian the stupid and MinorIQ mean exactly dick – they are welcome to spout them; I am free to ignore them or mock them. Everyone is entitled to an opinion; your opinions do not EVER overrule my inherent rights.
A point the Left NEVER addresses or deals with. We aren’t a “democracy” because our Founders expressly DID NOT WANT a “democracy” – for reasons obvious to everyone other than abject idiots like dacian the stupid and MinorIQ. Democracy = tyranny of the majority. Screw that crap.
@Rider/Shooter
“Being responsibly and reasonably armed in your defense as you see fit and according to ones situation is not a civil right. It is a naturally inherent and fundamental human right…”
No one should have a natural, human and/or civil right that I do not personally approve of. I’m against everything.
Well, me too in general, but, but… muh gunms!!
“Well, me too in general, but, but… muh gunms!!”
You can have your gunms, until I say “No”.
Well, okay, if I really have to. I guess. ☹️.
mi No Habla senior Sam
Sam,
*snicker*
Well played, sir. Well played, indeed!
That our Leftist/fascist “friends” will not admit that that is their basic belief and premise shows how dishonest they are.
Happy to be here, grateful for the opportunity, proud to serve.
And you’re here all week – try the veal, and make sure to tip your waitress!!!
@Prndll
“@Rider/Shooter
THAT is why we should be pushing for permitless carry across the country.”
Permitless carry is ephemeral, temporal, subject to the “might makes right” of elections and legislation. Permitless carry is an outgrowth of the US and state constitutions, the authority for legislation. If a constitution isn’t sufficient to prevent infringements, legislation is simply a candle in the wind.
It is our corrupted nature to see an object, and work to find a way to get around it. Evading the law, through use of law, is the human pastime.
Sam, and in the US that’s even more the case. Due to political processes you’ve alluded to previously it really has just become a game, a veritable football to kick back and forth. Not to be flippant but it borders on passing for entertainment at this point. Up here it’s more in the nature of a realistic and looming threat due to the entirely arbitrary claiming of it to be a ‘privilege’ where the only ‘authority’ to do so was indeed by might makes right. To borrow from and paraphrase Trump: “their not after guns, their after your freedom, the guns are just in the way”. And up here a queen like wave of the effeminately manicured idiot manchild kings hand might just suffice. Until we say no, of course…
“Until we say no, of course…”
Been overdue for at least 200yrs.
(pardon my ill-mannered criticism of your country)
Couldn’t possibly agree more. Maybe now is the time. Push hasn’t really come to shove till now. See, 200yrs ago a few of you, 3%, booted yer demanding parents collective asses out of their summer cottage and new hunting estates, for good reason, and drew up a list of playground rules to see that it wasn’t gonna happen again. But now those teenagers is all growed up with kids of their own and some, many, are apparently just like their mommy’s n daddy’s and the other guys n gals don’t like that cuz there’s, like, you know, rules, see. A 100yrs ago us other younger kids up north finally and politely begged our rich parents to let us move into their summer cottage and manage the hunting estates for them, promising to send them more than half the furs and apologizing as we moved out. All this under strict supervision of course, yet we were pretty much left alone after the first few years, being such polite and good kids, even eventually getting to keep most of the furs, but we did continue to write home. Now we, just like you, are finding that most of the damned apples do not roll far from the tree and a good case can be made that in a way, we now find ourselves where you were two centuries ago except to our dismay the king, or maybe more properly the wannabe queen, along with all the kings goons, is not only deep into our pockets but actually in our backyard, as well as in our faces. And push is most definitely coming to shove. And waaaay more than just 3% of us are waaaay more than a little ticked off about it. And just like when your parents where young and you guys were just toddlers, we got lotsa muskets n powder n balls too, even if half you guys don’t seem to think we do… you know, looking over from your long ago fortified castle with all the rules already written down for you. And I hear the price of tea here in the northern colonies just went up, again…
If you think Constitutional Carry is even possible…well great. Let’s do it!
Until then:
It’s permitless carry and if we can’t have that then
It’s permits/Licenses and if we can’t have that then
we have a serious problem
@Geoff “I’m getting too old for this shit” PR
“I’ve heard compelling arguments in the aftermath of the ‘Bruen’ decision that the only constitutionally-valid felonies to strip away 2A rights should be ones of violence, since that’s how it was in the earliest days of this nation.”
Can’t find any provision in the constitution for that. No authority for permanently denying human rights for anyone not imprisoned for life. The authority for legislation is derived from constitutions, not from legislation itself.
As the saying goes, if a person is too dangerous to allow to vote, or possess firearms, then a life sentence incarcerated should be applied.
From what I’ve seen, the concept of ‘life sentence’ simply does not exist in this country. Not even for presidential assassins.
“if a person is too dangerous to allow to vote, or possess firearms, then a life sentence incarcerated should be applied”
Too expensive. Just hang ’em.
Sam,
And isn’t it mostly the Left that (in a separate context) touts “rehabilitative justice”, and “everyone should get a second chance”??? As usual, if they didn’t have double standards, they’d have none at all.
IF you believe in “rehabilitation”, and “the punishment should fit the crime”, then the ONLY logical conclusion is that there is absolutely no justification for limiting human rights beyond the period of the sentence (and note the other trend of shortening “actual” sentences, then layering on YEARS of “probation” – “OK, we’ll let you out, but you’re not really a citizen”). The “standards” of the Left – “That is OUR position, and if you don’t like that one, we have another!”
“That is OUR position, and if you don’t like that one, we have another!”
Game, set, match.
“From what I’ve seen, the concept of ‘life sentence’ simply does not exist in this country.”
In practical operation, you are correct as regards jail time served. The life sentence of not being legally able to possess firearms, or vote, remains in effect.
@.40 cal Booger
“Well actually it does. But the way it does is the thing.”
Or maybe not. FBI and Rand Corp. data show some interesting information: 2019 – Montana recorded 1.5 gun murders per 100,000 population (Montana is not a gun control state); Massachoochoo had 1.25 gun murders per 100,000 population (Mass. is a gun control state). Was the presence, or lack, of guns in important factor?
There are just too many variables to capture. We can believe that more guns equals less crime, but cannot prove it. On the whole, proclaiming that more guns makes for less crime is an argument for “needs based” justification for owning firearms. We shouldn’t engage anyone on that contention; 2A exists because it protects a natural, human and civil right. No further conversation should be accommodated.
Well, except for loudly proclaiming why the Second Amendment exists: overthrowing a tyrannical government (per the DOI).
That’s the problem with relying on stats to define this effect. The decrease effect is there but overall in the stats is not reflected because crime marches on to more victimze elsewhere those without guns so the decreases are not seen in numbers because they are offset by the numbers of crime comitted elsewhere.
So say 1.5 murders per 100,000 but what about the murders not comitted because the bad guy was thwarted by a would be victim with a gun?
“…what about the murders not comitted because the bad guy was thwarted by a would be victim with a gun?”
Moving crime is not the same as lowering crime. As with background checks, moving crime (deterring through self-defense that does not result in the death of the attacker) simply stops a criminal event at a specific moment. Background checks can only end an illegal purchase at a specific location, at a specific moment in crime. BGCs do not lower the number if illegal gun sales, only moves the location.
Reduction in crime must be observed only in the net. If overall there were 10 crimes committed in a previous moment, and 9 in a later moment, we can conclude that overall crime was reduced (in cases of crime “moved” we have no way to determine of the same intended crime was committed, or not, at a different location).
An overall reduction in crime simply depends on too many variables to ascribe a single act (armed resistance to crime, or general knowledge of the likelihood an intended victim is armed).
When states with gun control end up with the near-same overall crime rate as states with looser gun laws, the presence of a legally owned firearm, or lack of, cannot prove that guns make crime worse, or less so.
Simple case: city one declares zero tolerance for crimes where a gun is used. The overall crime rate drops. City two has zero gun control law, and overall crime for the same period drops. Which single factor was responsible for reduction in crimes committed with use of a firearm?
The honest best conclusion we can draw is correlation. Which is interesting, but not proof. In the end, it matters not whether the presence of legal firearms lowers the crime rate. What does matter is that every adult has the right to own, or not own firearms. Movements in statistics related to gun ownership is completely irrelevant. Tying “results” to the presence, or lack thereof, of firearms is just arguing that the right to firearms is needs based. It is the equivalent of arguing with pigs.
“On the whole, proclaiming that more guns makes for less crime is an argument for “needs based” justification for owning firearms.”
There is some validity in that until we get to the part about it being a right anyway even if there is no “need” justified.
“We shouldn’t engage anyone on that contention;”
100% correct.
The right exists, period. These anti-gun and their cohorts should accept that and move on to other areas where their time is better spent like actually removing criminals from society.
A reduction in violent crime demands a removal from society of those that commit those violent crimes, not a reduction or removal of the rights of the law abiding.
“Well, except for loudly proclaiming why the Second Amendment exists: overthrowing a tyrannical government”
Not exactly, its one of the reasons in terms of the people composing that which would overthrow a tyrannical government (or in our national guard/military) but its not the only reason. Another reason is also the individual and their own desires to have the means for self/home defense and other lawful uses and those are also part of the ‘people’ and it is also a reason (per Bill Of Rights in Constitution Second Amendment and SCOTUS – “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”)
“There is some validity in that until we get to the part about it being a right anyway even if there is no “need” justified. ”
Not quite understanding.
“Well, except for loudly proclaiming why the Second Amendment exists: overthrowing a tyrannical government”
It is not the only reason, but the primary. If government can subjugate an unarmed populace, no other use of firearms is possible. The framers of the Constitution were quite clear that an armed citizenry is the last-resort protection of a free society. The arms and right to throw off a tyrannical government ensures the continued exercise of other reasons for possessing individual firearms. The phrase, “security of a free State” indicates that all other uses of firearms are derivative of securing a free State.
@Sam I Am
I wonder how many people out there are getting confused by the phrase “tyrannical government” thinking that the US government is purely what is being referenced. Too many people in this country simply cannot conceive of this nation being attacked the way Ukraine is by Russia. People think it cannot happen. Even with our southern border being erased.
The Democrat party cries about Jan6 but there is no concern at all for the danger that actually exists from a group coming in across the border with every intention of taking over DC and killing every US leader they see. They want to focus on ‘Trump supporters’ when they need to be looking at the border.
“The changes that will follow in New York and New Jersey after Bruen will not make people there more safe or less safe.”
Utter nonsense. Their odds of being a criminal’s victim may not change, but the probability of them being a government victim will be less. That’s why the G wants everybody — needs everybody — disarmed.
Criminals kill thousands. Governments slaughter millions. It’s not illegal when the G does the killing since the G writes the laws. And then the G tells us that they did it to defend “our democracy” and we’re supposed to lap it up like a bunch of starving dogs.
Exactly so. It’s to such a point there shouldn’t even be standing room left in the town square. And there should be an overly ripe fruit n vegetable shortage, not pablum and asswipe shortages. Speaking of asswipe, where’d miner scurry off to?
Tossing salad at one of my Marxist meetings…
YUM!
Ha! Funny and disturbing at the same time. I like it.
@Rider
“And I hear the price of tea here in the northern colonies just went up, again…”
Putin’s war tax. And gas station owners raising prices at the pump.
Damn Tsars anyways. As long as zelensky comes out of it smelling all rubles n daffodils. I mean, such a hero of the people…
@Cato
“The argument that the 2A justifies the right to arms for militia service falls apart when the Constitution, Federalist 46, and the 2A (all written by Madison) are taken together. ”
I can’t see that you and Rider are actually in disagreement.
Sam, scroll up to his opening comment and see how you read the lay of the land.
“Sam, scroll up to his opening comment and see how you read the lay of the land.”
Not saying you guys aren’t being contentious, disagreeable. Just noting that you both argue in defense of 2A, and its meaning.
Sam, you entirely miss the point, a rarity I will say 😉. ‘Cato’ (undoubtedly our regular troll and not just from this one time observation) asked Lamp what he thought the Militia segment of the 2A might mean in his view. Now c’mon, neither this cato dude nor, certainly Lamp, are new on the scene here. And if this fool hasn’t gotten Lamps ‘gist’ yet, especially to the point of asking him such a fool ass question when Lamp’s comment itself left pretty much zero doubt as to how he would view it, much less dozens more he has heaped on, probably, this very same fool over the months, well, as I pointed out: he is being entirely disingenuous. A shit disturber if you will. Apologies for the run on. He blinks his eyes in innocence when asking stupid or contentious, leading questions and then feigns the same when he is called on it. Every time. Ask me how I know. And then calls us names and no doubt pleasures himself while thinking how he’s won again. Read his replies to me, how he speaks, how he immediately mocks people with ignorant word play, if one can even call it that, on their screen name. Now, who else besides wally the LE liar (who at least ain’t a troll) does that… without fail. He almost forensically busts himself. What he spews out about what he does or doesn’t “believe” about things is entirely beside the point. He’s a redundant troll, an addict, a junkie. And not very clever at his infantile games… but I’m sure he thinks he’s most definitely got it ‘going on’. Sorry to rant but I would think you could easily see this.
Rider,
I always TRY not to impute bad motive (OK, my attempts totally failed with dacian the stupid and MinorIQ, but I TRIED taking them seriously, until they proved themselves wholly unserious and bad faith). I took Cato’s comment as a legitimate inquiry as to how I (historically) interpreted the prefatory clause of the 2A, and I responded in that vein (see my somewhat verbose response to him).
If he chooses to respond to MY response, that should pretty much determine whether he was in good faith, or not. Until he proves otherwise, I will assume that was his intent. There ARE no commenters on this forum that I don’t disagree with at least some of the time – and that is a good thing. I learn from many of the commenters here (dacian the stupid and MinorIQ being obvious exceptions – they have NOTHING to teach), but that doesn’t mean I don’t sometimes disagree. We can disagree on details, or sometimes on underlying principles. I find legitimate disagreement intellectually stimulating. I find ideological blathering either annoying, or fodder for mockery. I will not assume Cato was inquiring in bad faith unless he makes that conclusion inevitable. Just his inquiry was not obvious evidence of bad faith, to me.
“There ARE no commenters on this forum that I don’t disagree with at least some of the time…”
Now hold on, I say hold on there, son.
If you disagree with me, about anything, I will use my exalted position to have you permanently placed in moderation, for everything, all the time. Disagree with me at your own peril !!
Sam,
” . . . I will use my exalted position to have you permanently placed in moderation, for everything, all the time.”
So YOU’RE the dirty sumbitch that is responsible for the “moderation policy” around here?!?!?! Sirrah, I challenge you to a duel!!!
FWIW, I have noted you have an AMAZING level of patience in dealing with other commenters . . . I’m too old and crotchety for that. I TRY to be reasoned, but . . . it takes surprisingly little f***tardery to push my buttons. But, you have to admit, I did give Cato his chance, and his response seemed to prove that he was inquiring in good faith. (Pardon me while I pat myself on the back.)
Lamp, I hear you but I’m sure you can see my point even if I’m wrong about him: his inquiry to you, a known entity with a (very) presumably known response, just reeks of miner/dacian poo and I have little doubt I pegged him for what he is. His subsequent conversation with you gives me some pause (and I’ve responded to him again) but not much and I can totally see him engaging in that to continue his games (remember, people like this are fucked in the head). You read thru his stuff again, including exactly how he replies to me, and then you tell me I’m wrong when I say he and his patterns sound exactly like miner but with dacian writing the introductory hail.
Lamp, Big Brother should be releasing my reply to you from moderation/re-education camp soon 🙄. Let Freedom ring…
Comment moderation testing: …poo… I repeat… poo… testing, testing.
Comment moderation testing 2: …fucked… I repeat… fucked… testing, testing.
Comment moderation testing 3: …miner… dacian… miner/dacian… testing, testing.
Comment moderation testing 4: …socialism… Dan Z, if this gets moderated while the tests above did not, then please explain to me why my last reply to Lamp just above did get moderated, like so many times over. To quote the most popular president in the history of your great nation: “c’mon man…”
And Sam, I should add: I wasn’t arguing the meaning of the words in the 2A. All I ever said was the meaning was obvious, which it is. And that’s it. That was never part of my issue with this clown, although now of course he shifts the goal posts trying to make like that was the whole deal. Deflecting when called out, as he always has and as he always does. Now what demographic is famous for that characteristic as well?
bring order and equality to the administration of a constitutional right
since when does any “constitutional right” need “administration” Do I have to register to have a letter to the editor printed in the paper, or just pay the cost of insertion and walk on? Must I apply to the government of the State of Nebraska to exercise my right to freely move about and enter that state from a ni=eighbouring state? Not that I recall.
“The Democrat party cries about Jan6 but there is no concern at all for the danger that actually exists from a group coming in across the border with every intention of taking over DC and killing every US leader they see.”
No savvy politician cuts off the endless supply of captive voters.
I suppose theres equality in the right to be armed.
But not really.
Let’s Go Brandon
He did, possum.
In his drawers. Him and Jerry Nadler seem to have an incontinence problem, no?
@possum
“mi No Habla senior Sam”
Not to worry. We are discussing my beneficence as Master of the Universe. Trashcans and garbage dumps are not under threat. You can continue to eat free.
@Lamp
“And you’re here all week – try the veal, and make sure to tip your waitress!!!”
Nah. I’m in the Catskills. Next week in the Borscht Belt.
The Staten Island gig got cancelled.
@Lamp
“So YOU’RE the dirty sumbitch that is responsible for the “moderation policy” around here?!?!?!”
Puhzakly.
Tread lightly, homie.
Comments are closed.