There is room for looking at the lethality of modern firearms when considering the constitutionality of gun regulation. The court implicitly acknowledged this in its Heller decision when it stated that machine gun bans were acceptable. It’s a difficult concession to explain unless the court is considering the modern capabilities of firearms outside of the historical scope of regulation.
The issue before the Court this fall concerns the conditions under which an individual can carry a firearm publicly on their person. That question is not independent from the deadliness of the weapon that they choose to carry.
Weapons designed with an ever-increasing capacity to kill large numbers of people in battle, with long barrels and large-capacity magazines, have no place in public spaces, supermarkets, and shopping malls — not on the grounds of a generic right to self-defense. When it takes up this new gun case, the Court should take technological innovation into account and acknowledge that guns are now exponentially more lethal than they were when the Constitution was written.
— Jennifer Tucker in Now that guns can kill hundreds in minutes, Supreme Court should rethink the rights question
Yeah…..there is nothing reasonable about banning machine guns. In order to produce self determination by self determined means, the people must have access to military firearms…PERIOD.
Especially, if we have mobs in the streets and cartels shooting across the border and taunting the military.
The author was probably doing her nails in between her paragraphs of utter stupidity. I have news for you jennifer tucker you ignorant slut…The weapons available to the public today are nowhere near equal to what perverts could do to you should they get you off somewhere where no one hears you scream for days much less ever find your remains. In other words jennifer tucker…You Have No Podium Whatsoever.
Using “long barrels” to bolster her attempted argument of increased lethality exposes her total lack of credibility, knowledge, and logic.
The only proper response to this entire article is “WTF are you even talking about?”
The “long barrels” is also a reference to penile extension meaning gun owners are trying to compensate for something they supposedly lack. The same arguement could equally apply to tennis, golf, baseball, cricket, polo, archery, and other sports.
But at the same time these academic types appear to be completely illiterate with regards to firearms law, history, and design.
maybe she’s just into long barrels?
Debbie:
Slut? Where are your manners? Don’t you think that “slut” is just a little extreme? In essence you are calling her a whore. Even if you knew the woman, which you probably do not, you would still be out of line.
Go on somewhere with that white knighting. While Debbie W is a mouth breather that whines about race as much as a SJW, she’s well within her rights to call anyone anything she wants. And if Tucker was loose with her body why would Debbie be out of line for mentioning it? Stop being a simp and putting every woman on a pedestal.
More along the lines of using an older SNL skit. Don’t get your panties all wound up over it.
https://youtu.be/c91XUyg9iWM
Whore would be more accurate. She is being paid for her propaganda.
Love the nod to early SNL skits.
If there is a legitimate argument concerning machine guns vs 2A, that argument should be put before the American People in the course of proposing a Constitutional Amendment, SCOTUS not involved. 2A says clearly “shall not be infringed”. Altering that is the work of the PEOPLE, all 340 million of them, not 9 old farts in black pajamas. The reason it has not been proposed is the same as the reason no one has proposed an Amendment barring abortion, ie everyone is fully aware that neither would stand the slightest chance of passing.
The Hughes Act should never have been put forward at all. It should NEVER have passed and shouldn’t have been signed off on neither the way it was passed.
No need, the founders affirmatively addressed the question and left no room for debate, removing the very means of debate by denying the government ANY authority over the arms of citizens. “Shall not be infringed” is absolute, with no exceptions or qualifiers.
Reproductive Rights Should Limited Based on Modern Medicine’s Increased Infant Survival Rates.
Voting Rights Should Limited Based on Modern Technology’s Increased Risk of Fraud.
Free Speech Rights Should Limited Based on Modern Technology’s Increased Reach.
Women’s Rights Should Limited Based on Modern Women’s Increased Progress.
See what I did here?
thanks for sharing
woOoW
Who the hell is Tennifer Jucker ?
And why does she think she owns logic?
Absolute click-bait.
Thousands of people clicking thinking it was Tucker Carlson saying something completely out of character.
Very shameful TTAG.
You lost a lot of cred on this sheet-post.
So.. “Tucker” said it, and you ASSUMED it was a different Tucker, thus TTAG lost credibility?
I don’t think you understand how credibility works!
agreed.
I would never click an article about the ravings of ___ Tucker, CNN opinion columnist.
That’s interesting itself. I remember when Tucker was left-ish. Apparently he must not have been left or moderate enough when everything swung to commie standards in the obama years, because he started rocking the #1 show as a nationalist on fox news.
I think that says more about the rest of media than it does about him.
M11-9 (one of my most favorite PDWs by the way). Then you are obviously ‘holier than thou’. Because most people are not, if they regularly follow him and would have thought that T Carlson said it. As a former advertising copywriter even I bit the hook until the first couple sentences when it hit me that it was the Court Ruling because I’m up on that. So let’s cut the bullshit excuses. It was clever clickbaiting and there’s nothing inherently wrong with that and it’s done every day in almost every venue. It’s euphemistically called ‘key words’ elsewhere in web marketing and can rise to a point of annoyance which is why Amazon, I think, limits them.
Sounds like a gun control advocate playing defense.
Right in one.
The antis see that there is a very serious likelihood that SCOTUS is going to seriously upset their applecart, and this time no procedural tricks are gonna save them. So it’s time to start throwing up every gonzo argument they can think of and hope one sticks.
On the merits, of course, she ignores what *was* plainly allowed under 2A at the time of enactment: cannons (indeed, private warships were allowed and encouraged). So the idea that the degree of “lethality” was somehow understood to be a limiting factor of the 2A when passed is garbage.
Of course, she’s from the “Living Constitution” school of thought that believes the Constitution is just a guide, the history, original intent, and literal language of its provisions are meaningless, and that SCOTUS should be free to interpret it however modern sensibilities dictate (as long as those sensibilities accord with the left’s views; otherwise, you are impermissibly “politicizing the court”).
The second amendment is no more about self defense than it is about hunting. It’s about maintaining a free state, whether means repelling invaders or overthrowing a oppressive central government. To do so, the public must have the means to do battle on comparable terms.
PRECISELY!
In the history of mass murders in the United States in recent times the largest killers were a gallon of gasoline in one instance and a few thousand pounds of fertilizer in another.
On top of that, organized government, not individuals, are the largest killer and murderers in history. The 20th Century was really bad, but so were the many centuries proceeding it.
All rights have limits and I’m willing to forego Nukes, Poisson Gas and Biological Weapons. In fact I would say that these don’t have a place in any arsenal of governments either. Look at the recent loss of life and political and economic damaged caused by the Wuhan Virus and its release. A test tube did more damage than civilian held weapons.
What many forget is that after the illegal 1934 Gun Control Act, which gave us the NFA and the BATFE, that the number of machine guns in civilian hands vastly out numbered the machine guns held in police arsenals. This changed when the government became more tyrannical and therefore lead to the militarization of all police in the United States, because they feared the backlash from the People.
I don’t know about all of you, but I want a Phaser, a Railgun and what ever else I can get my hands on. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect the People from foreign and domestic enemies, including a government that wishes to strip us of our rights and enslave us.
They are coming, and there is no legal definition in us code, so full auto is simple with electronic triggers.
Coil Gun https://arcflashlabs.com/_accelerators/fully-assembled-guns/
Rail Gun
https://youtu.be/izW1X2555Wg
Leftist academic; Stalin, Pol Pot and Castro would applaud her communist views. #SOCIALISMKILLS
Tell me you know nothing about modern or historical firearms, without saying that you know nothing about modern or historical firearms.
The Brown Bess and Puckle gun were far more lethal than a modern .223, and modern sporting rifles are generally carbines, with short, not long, barrels.
And as for “deadliness” of a weapon being a standard for regulation: rifles (of which modern sporting rifles are merely a subset) are used to kill fewer people each year than hammers (blunt instruments) and open hands/fists.
Nailed it shut, brother!
Not wrong, Chip, but you missed another point that the gun grabbers always elide over:
If you think an AR is unusually deadly, but are totes OK with my bolt action .300WinMag?? “Tell me you’re stupid, without saying you’re stupid.”
Their nearly total ignorance about firearms is dangerous because they don’t even recognize how bomfozzlingly stupid they sound to someone who DOES know something about firearms – and most people don’t. They say, with total conviction, absolutely stupid things . . . because (a) it suits their narrative, and (b) they simply don’t know any better (OK, a few of them do, and are just unprincipled liars, preying on ignorance).
On a similar point, my eyes almost roll out of socket when I read about armor-piercing ammunition being controlled. There are readily available rifles in calibers that completely defeat ballistic plates.
We have long since passed the era when police having soft body armor was a new development. As much as I am in favor of them having it and wearing it when on normal patrol, there is a damn good reason why SWAT teams use ballistic plates. However, they are hoping that the suspect does not have anything above a .30-06.
Chip Bennett,
Keep in mind that there are two dimensions to the non-specific term, “lethality.”
The first dimension is how likely and how quickly a single projectile is to kill a person. In that regard pretty much all long guns–including muzzleloaders as you hinted–are very likely to kill a person very quickly within their intended maximum range.
The second dimension to lethality is rate of fire. If two long guns are equally lethal in terms of how likely and how quickly their single projectiles are to kill a person, the long gun with 10 times the rate of fire is clearly more “lethal” than the other long gun.
In light of both dimensions of “lethality”, I believe it is entirely accurate to say that a semi-auto rifle in pretty much any caliber is more “lethal” than a muzzleloader in any caliber.
Nevertheless, any argument about the “lethality” of a firearm platform is a Red Herring with respect to the scope and meaning of the Second Amendment.
I’ve always kinda thought any limitation should be the other way. Since we have the right to remain armed, in case we need to throw off a tyrannical gov’t again (insert teenage sigh and eyeroll when you say “again”), then it stands to reason that the gov’t shouldn’t be permitted by us to have “more lethal” arms than the general population. Another leftist has it backwards. Picture this…a federal agent being arrested by a local sheriff’s deputy for carrying a firearm without a permit.
No.
Given that stupid drivel can be distributed much faster and further than in colonial times, the first amendment must be revisited.
The firearms she mentions are rifles, which few, if any, carry into supermarkets or wherever.
the fact that a few do is damaging to our cause….
Agree. We should outlaw murder and be done with the entire question! Why has no one thought of that?!
Humans designed with an ever-increasing capacity to kill large numbers of people in battle, with long sticks or bats or knives and large-capacity of criminality, have no place in public spaces, supermarkets, and shopping malls — not on the grounds of a generic ’cause human.
yet, here we are being forced to be ready to defend ourselves lethal force vs lethal force against criminals, and possibly at some point from a government that is trying to impose restrictions on rights because they are nestled all warm and fuzzy in their ignorance, because people like Jennifer Tucker have a very thin grasp on reality if any grasp at all.
I’ll bet if Jennifer Tucker were to have her 1st amendment rights attacked by the government threatening to restrict or remove them she would be writing a different article in a different tone begging for someone to defend her rights with a gun if necessary and she would not give two hoots about lethality.
Revolvers and lever guns. That’s the ticket. ‘ll bet she’d be comfortable seeing me at the grocery store with a six gun and a coach gun, amiright?
Well, it is 2021, it would be nice to have a link provided so I can watch the video myself.
And while they’re at it they should consider the increased lethality of matches, especially when combined with gasoline and glass bottles. It would be perfectly reasonable to ban matches, bottles and gasoline in the interest of public safety.
Governor Le Petomane,
Along the same lines, we would have to ban large pickup trucks with snow plow blades. (Imagine the potential carnage when a large sporting event ends and tens-of-thousands of people are streaming out of a stadium on foot toward distant parking lots.)
Oh, and we cannot forget about chemicals, chains, and locks. (Imagine the carnage in a building after someone locks the exits with chains/locks and mixes certain widely available chemicals together.)
Darn it, now we also have to ban modern food service and production. (Imagine the carnage that would result from a food service/production worker discretely adding certain substances to our food supply.)
As countless people have said countless times, effective solutions address the actual problem–evil people who seek to maim and murder others. Chasing after items which evil people would use to harm others is ineffective and a fool’s errand.
But they won’t ban feelings, the most dangerous weapon known to man.
Unless you love Trump, those feelings are verboten!
Gasoline is not necessary where hard liquor can be purchased, we must outlaw liquor as well! Do it for the children!
Fake narrative, fake credentials, fake concern. Move along everyone, it’s just another swamp monster vocalizing, there’s nothing special about it.
Tucker who?
So “modern” is what, 1860’s?
I wish I worked in a field that paid me to be a moron and say stupid shit all day.
“long barrels”
What a stupid bitch
mostly came here to see how carlson had lost his mind.
jennifer lost hers at that initial spanking in the room with the birthing parent.
something about knocking an appendage off of the dumb ones.
Whew fella…I knew it wasn’t Tucker Carlson. Whether he beleves what he says I know he wouldn’t repeat this drivel in has current iteration. This twit is a dimwit…
Yep, low class click bait by TTAG
It got a lot my clicks than the proper title…..
No-name douchebag tw@t: Gun Rights Should Limited Based on Modern Guns’ Increased Lethality
There is a line to be drawn, but it’s not where Ms Tucker thinks it is.
I’m fine with drawing the line at nuclear and chemical munitions. I’m willing to debate drawing the line at high explosive munitions. I’m not going to tell anyone what kind of gun they can own.
As for the lethality of small arms on the battlefield, the question is not how many people a rifleman can kill in a minute, but how many rounds a rifleman typically fires to kill just one enemy soldier.
Man, fuck that chick.
Are you kidding me? I wouldn’t, not even with someone else’s Johnson.
It seems that trying to use an argument for defending the Second Amendment that addresses a secondary (but less scary sounding) purpose of the Second Amendment: self-defense. Nothing I have read from any “pro-gun” organization, or legal case, goes right to the heart of the matter: defense against government.
By focusing on self-defense, we admit that the Second Amendment is anchored in need; usefulness – just where the anti-2A mob (including courts) wants us. “Need” reduces a natural, human and civil right to a second class right, rendering the appropriate “level of scrutiny” to be either intermediate, or “rational basis”.
Heller took us there when Scalia concluded that the “core” of the 2A was self defense in the home, a line that has been used by “certain” courts of appeal to justify restrictions outside the home as entitled to less protection, all the way up to the Ninth Circuit’s bold challenge to SCOTUS when it held that the 2A does not protect a right to bear arms outside the home.
“Heller took us there when Scalia concluded that the “core” of the 2A was self defense in the home”
The “core” of the Heller complaint was about self-defense, so the scope of the ruling was limited to that issue. Not sure how one brings forth a suit regarding the full scope of the Second Amendment.
The limits of bringing an action to trial based on asynchronous weaponry of the people versus government, but it seems “we” should be pushing the argument forward that the Second Amendment is about maintaining free States, and the right of States (consisting of “the people”) to wage war against enemies foreign and domestic.
Figuring an argument to support or oppose the 2A is unimportant at this juncture, we can simply wait until an actual proposal to amend it is on the table. Until then, 2A *IS* the argument to support, none other is needed.
“Until then, 2A *IS* the argument to support, none other is needed.”
Yet, here we are, consistently arguing 2A is about self-defense. The courts refuse to address RTKBA (or “shall not be infringed”). It is indisputable that there are not enough votes to reinforce 2A via amendment (and if, with “100 million gun owners we cannot win politically, there never will be a time that 2A is ruled “absolute”.
Still….why do the RTKBA and “shall not be infringed” insist that “self-defense” is a winning ticket? Why do 2A supporters fear facing government (and its drones) with the truth: private ownership of firearms is about retaining the power of the people to replace a tyrannical government.
The ignorance of this person on firearms is palpable. The barrels have gotten progressively shorter over the years. A 2 second Internet Search says a Brown Bess has a 42-46 inch barrel. Even the carbines were 26″ which is as long as almost all rifles would have today period.
I’d like to see how guns could kill hundreds in minutes short of having a Vulcan and a crowd. Cannon were considered the part of the 2A, that may come close as well.
Weapons are more lethal than they were 200 years ago, and should be restricted?
Well, as far as the weapons are concerned, the argument is pointless. Any repeating firearm has a higher capacity or potential of lethality than a smooth bore, single shot flintlock musket. Even a basic, breech loading single shot rifle or shotgun is potentially more lethal. Simply because modern ammunition, is usually more powerful than a black powder charge with a patched ball. Even the 1860’s vintage, 69 cal. rifled musket using the Minnie Ball and percussion cap ignition system is more accurate, has a longer range, and could be claimed to be more lethal.
The MSR, AR type rifle is no more or no less lethal than the intent of the person using it. The gun itself, whether it be an AR or AK, a lever action Marlin or Winchester, or even that musket, is not in and of itself dangerous to anyone. And the argument of anything being a military weapon, so was that musket in it’s time. As was the single shot, breech loading, 45/70 Government, Springfield. Or the Bolt action 1903, 30-06 cal. Springfield. Or the M1, Garand. A semi-automatic, clip fed weapon of war.
The tool itself matters little. What the person using it intends, and does, is the issue. As always, it still comes back to the person.
oldmaninAl,
“As always, it still comes back to the person.”
As does the entire point of
gun controlcivilian disarmament which is reducing the person to semi-slave status.This was written by someone who has zero understanding of the historical lethality of firearms and who equates more bullets with more dead people. Clearly this person is ignorant of the complexities of the subject from projectiles, caliber, propellants, and velocities to the effects modern medicine has on gunshot outcome and thus unworthy of our time or attention.
Sounds to me like she wants We The People to have only guns that make others “just a little bit dead”. What she fails to realize is…dead is dead. A lethal weapon is…a lethal weapon. End of story.
There is no point in publishing some bimbot’s term paper.
When it takes up this new free speech case, the Court should take technological innovation into account and acknowledge that publishing technology is now exponentially more prolific than it was when the Constitution was written.
“…the Court should take technological innovation into account and acknowledge that publishing technology is now exponentially more prolific than it was when the Constitution was written.”
Indeed. Technology allows people to create and spread lies faster than at any time in history. The First Amendment only applies to legitimate speech (that which does not upset me).
“…not on the grounds of a generic right to self-defense. ”
That’s because the second amendment isn’t about “a generic right to self-defense.”
It’s about protection against a tyrannical government. It says so, right there in the amendment. Is reading that hard? Did she dictate that article?
Mr. Taylor,
Perhaps you have heard about some of the more recent and interesting Bible translations such as the Amplified Bible or the Easy-to-Read Version Bible.
I have it on good authority that Ms. Tucker had a more recent translation of the Second Amendment (the New Progressive Version to be specific) which reads:
“A mostly defunded police force being the best way to enforce government policies, the authority of government to dictate which firearms people can use for hunting (and maybe for self-defense if the people ask nicely and show good cause after passing a psychological test and background check) shall not be challenged.”
That translation of the Second Amendment clearly supports her position.
, its more cost effective buying meat at the store.
Exclude the “right to hunt ” also.
Item #1 on the checklist. Tyrannical government. Check!
Now that modern communication and the internet is allowing abject morons to share their idiotic unfounded opinions and lies to millions within seconds maybe it’s time for the Supreme Court to reevaluate the First Amendment.
Dev, let’s not go that far. That could be turned into a weapon to tell the truth. This is kinda already happening anyways on social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, etc. While they claim to use fact-checkers, even they have been wrong (often, on purpose, but sometimes on accident) before.
Oh I don’t believe for one minute we need to review the 1A but I do believe in turning someone’s stupid argument against them.
“…I don’t believe for one minute we need to review the 1A…”
Agree. 1A has been completely surrendered to government…which can not only restrict speech, it can compel speech.
The title of her article shows her ignorance. There isn’t even any example in modern history short of the genocides where they lined people up in front of a ditch. And even then, it was a group effort, so probably most didn’t even breach a hundred by themselves. And they were using automatic weapons, which we already don’t have. As to the lethality of a weapon, weapons were pretty dang lethal back then as well if not as accurate. As mentioned above, take the Brown Bess and pickle gun. Then there was the maxim gun, which while being a pretty old design, was more lethal then modern sporting rifles. Heck, bows and arrows can be just as lethal, especially for how quiet they are. And as others have mentioned, how many see people walk into a grocery with a MSR? I’ve never seen it. And yes, there are extended mags for pistols, but really haven’t seen that either and if we are honest, how many of these have been used in crimes? Furthermore, the rifles and pistols of that time where the same technology that the military had, which the founding fathers were well aware of. Yet the founding fathers did not limit what the civilians could have. I wonder why… oh yeah, because in the Declaration of Independence, they wrote that if an abusive and tyrannical government (cough… Obama, cough… Biden) ever came to power, it was not just the right, but the duty of the people to overthrow said tyrannical government. Considering Jennifer doesn’t know what the hell she’s talking about, maybe she should spend less time giving us her opinion and more time researching the facts so she doesn’t look like an idiot… much like dacien, who rarely even provides a source for his rants.
“Weapons designed with…long barrels and large-capacity magazines, have no place in public spaces…”
So my compact pistol with its industry standard 17-round magazine is good to go, then.
I’m glad that’s okay with you,
JenniferKaren, because as much as I love my rifles, they’re pretty darn inconvenient to carry around when I go out in public.ATF doesn’t regulate long barrels…only short ones…this would appear to be a rather clumsy attempt on her part to describe a rifle….her limited knowledge is quite apparent….
There are more words than ever in the American English language. Many that cause great outrage and incite violent acts. Perhaps we should ban all modern words that one may find offensive as they were not in use at the time the first amendment was written.
The author of this piece is a turd.
Fuck you, no.
“Gun Rights Should Limited Based on Modern Guns’ Increased Lethality”
personally I’d like to see it tied to actual service in an actual well-regulated militia, say under the county sheriff.
American citizens have, and should have both by the Constitution and Natural Law, the right to own any and all personal arms equal or superior to those of current military issue, bar none.
Anything less is a direct and unpardonable infringement.
End of story.
“should have … the right to own any and all personal arms equal or superior to those of current military issue”
sure. as an active member of a well-regulated militia. the original intent being that the militia would be “the military” under normal circumstances.
We do not have a “well regulated militia”. The failure of the states to maintain such does not negate the rights of citizens, but it does indict the legislators for failure to do their jobs.
“We do not have a ‘well regulated militia’”
yep, it’s obsolete now. was almost obsolete at the time the 2nd was written.
“The failure of the states to maintain such does not negate the rights of citizens”
no, it doesn’t. but the framers did not distinguish between “bearing arms” and militia duty. the 2nd simply does not address any individual right to bear arms, in the sense that modern rightists et al understand “individual”.
Indeed, the framers did just that, as evidenced by the structure of the second amendment, in which the reference to the militia is in the preferatory (i.e. dependent) clause, and reference to bearing arms is in the operative (i.e. independent) clause.
What second amendment have you read? The one in my constitution says, and I quote: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Every right addressed in the bill of rights is explicitly and understood to be an individual right. There are no collective rights in the bill of rights.
“What second amendment have you read? The one in my constitution says, and I quote: ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'”
this one.
“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 purpose of the people bearing arms is to bear them in a well-regulated militia.
“understood to be an individual right”
as I said, the framers would not understand the present right-wing’s version of “individual”. the framers understood individual citizens to operate within a community and within a society and within a state, not as isolates in disregard of it.
Wrong. The militia is the State interest in not infringing upon the right. The right itself is inherent and not dependent upon the State or the State’s interest.
“The militia is the State interest in not infringing upon the right”
again, you’re making a distinction that the framers would not have accepted. they would have seen you as a savage indian and told you to go west.
“We do not have a “well regulated militia”. ”
True, but legislators at both state and federal level failed. Indeed, the entire militia/RTKBA history is little understood.
First, it is imperative to read the letters and constitutional debates of the founders. It is here, not subsequent court decisions, where the intent is most explicit and understandable. Most germane are the statements about precisely who makes up “the militia” (hint: it is not restricted to a standing/formed militia)
Next, one must consult the base Constitution as regards the use and control of militia. In short, Congress is required to arm the militia(s), and the then States were obligated to organize and train militia.
Following that, it is important to understand why there is a BOR at all.
Proceeding, one then comes to the Second Amendment. And here is where full appreciation resides. The BOR is not the first appearance of the rights enumerated. The BOR is further instruction to the federal government that the States did not delegate to the federal government power over the enumerated rights. In current vernacular, the BOR is a harsh rendering of the phrase, “We really mean it !”
To establish and maintain militia, the militia must have arms. Under the original clauses in the base Constitution, Congress is required to arm the militia. In order to ensure that by failure to provide arms Congress (federal government) could not neuter the States by refusing to provide arms, the Second Amendment states that the members of the militia cannot be made useless because there were no arms for the militia. Thus, RTKBA is declared an individual right, providing a means for the States (“the people”) to field their privately owned arms in establishing and maintaining militia, even if and when Congress failed to arm the militia.
The elegance of all this is the framers required the federal government to arm its potential enemy in the event government became tyrannical, and again needed to be replaces.
This woman has just provided another example of what a waste of money it is to get a formal in person college education. She is a well-paid stupid person, when it comes to talking about guns and history in the USA.
Her position in the academy explains the moral corruption in higher education in this country.
And yes I read the article.
It makes no difference the “lethality” of an “Arm”, any “Arm”. The paramount reason for the existence of the Second Amendment (2A) is so the people will have the ability to resist governmental tyranny. At the time of the revolution, the Colonialists and the British, both with muzzle-loading arms, were equally armed. This was the case when 2A was ratified in 1791 – all Americans were equally armed, government and citizen alike. That was the intent of the Framers, for how can a free people defend themselves against tyranny if the government is equipped with more powerful and superior arms? Nowhere in the text of 2A does it give the government the power to restrict the people’s right to keep and bear Arms in any manner. To the contrary, it prohibits it from doing so in writing. If the government and its agents can possess Arms of a certain type, then so can the people. Anything that prevents the equality of Arms between the people and the government is obviously unconstitutional. Are we to be second class citizens to the agents of those we elect to office? If we are to be, that is the definition of tyranny.
“The paramount reason for the existence of the Second Amendment (2A) is so the people will have the ability to resist governmental tyranny”
can’t do that alone.
Why can’t it be done alone? Resistance is resistance whether is succeeds or not.
you’re correct, of course. I merely presumed a desire not merely to posture but to succeed.
This is just TTAG click bait. Sad.
ATF doesn’t regulate long barrels…only short ones…this would appear to be a rather clumsy attempt on her part to describe a rifle….her limited knowledge is quite apparent….
Stupid liberal bitch needs to go live elsewhere right along with those in the SCOTUS that feels such concessions we’re righteous. I’ll tell you what; LET’S FIGHT ABOUT IT, those who support the private untaxed and non-controlled ownership of full autos VS the ignorant communist trash that supports this. More than the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, the decrepit lost souls liberals are EXPENDABLE. They should be given the last and final choice to either accept a full unconditional repeal of ALL small arms restrictions and laws or surrender their US citizenship and find another country to live in. If those terms aren’t acceptable they can face their final expendability.
Tanks
You’re velcome.
The proper venue should then be to amend the 2nd.
They don’t do that because they know they can’t. So they try these end-arounds.
GUILLOTINES are also end-arounds. These TURDS that want to shred the constitution and Bill of Rights are nothing short of TRAITORS. We still have such punishment on the books for treason. An aggressive AUSA is all that’s needed to start the process of charging such scum accordingly.
“So they try these end-arounds.”
Because “end-arounds” work.
So do Guillotines.
“So do Guillotines.”
Wonder who the government contractor is for provisioning?
Nice to see a supposed pro 2A site pushing the anti gun agenda.
This place is the last one I check for news anymore cause it’s becoming a trash heap.
Thanks to those that are anti-gun.
Long breath hold to get to the end of that BS, and gratefully discover the Tucker wasn’t Carlson.
Arms available to civilians should be proportionally as powerful as colonials muskets were to the combined British army and navy – as compared to any army in the world today. Meaning… F-15’a and Nukes of course. Even faux potus agrees.
“With long barrels” ? I guess this is like tel
Me you know nothing about guns without saying “i know nothing about guns “. Long barrels are for sure the key to a mass shooting.
Like the means for faster reloading and multiple barrels didn’t exist when the founders wrote the constitution.
Please. There is NOTHING that’s made firearms more deadly. It’s still one shot one kill. the increase of shots can be effected in many ways and a lot of them legally.
Not only that but these days of lock back and ceramic knives have made edged weapons more deadly and a knife is more concealable and quieter than a firearm. Yet banning those doesn’t work either.
If someone has a mind to bring death and injury to someone for whatever reason, they will find a way to do so regardless of any laws. Once that framework is accepted then we can talk about rules that might actually prevent some deaths or injury. But banning the means will never work.
As to the wording of the 2A. When written, the English civil war was not that long gone. One of the prime abuses of the King was to demand (as was the Kings right and the obligation of the citizenry) the mustering of the various militias. These militias were composed of individuals and groups that were created to answer the sovereigns need for armed men to render themselves and their arms to the defense of the realm.
the king used those musters to seize the arms of the citizens thus removing their use from the side of the rebellion. Regardless of whether the citizen was a part of the rebellion or not. This preemptive seizure was seen as a violation of the pact between the soverign and the citizen as those arms were also used by the citizens for their own protection and for the provision of game for the table. Thus they wanted the government to be restricted in it’s ability to disarm the citizens for whatever reason. Leaving the judiciuous usage of those arms to the good and righteous citizenry of a polity. They recognized that the lawless could gain possession any number of ways of firearms for illegal use against other citizens but was more concerned with the government being able to disarm the citizen and did not perceive the armed citizen to be akin to the lawless. In fact the citizen was more likely to be the ones to take after said lawlessness and needful of firearms to be effective.
One of the more egregious situations of misinterpretation due to changes in the composition of the English language over the years. And one we all wish was better formed. That said, many if not most all States have as part of their constitution similar set aside rights disallowing the government from banning and/or seizing firearms from its citizens.
We hear all the time about the 2A and yes it could be changed with enough votes. That does not change the fact that the States also have the right to determine the rights of their citizens. And altho Federalism would make it a direct conflict if the 2A was removed, the states could and would still allow it’s citizens to remain armed. And rightfully so.
Who?
You e ff ers……..
YOU KNOW “TUCKER” MEANS TUCKER CARLSON…..
That was PURE, UNADULTERATED CLICK BAIT RIGHT THERE…..
GUESS YOU GOTTA PLAY THE DEMOCRAP GAME…… THAT’S RIGHT FROM THEIR PLAYBOOK….
The foundation of and the reason for continued democracy is the capability of the common man to commit ranged, lethal, and precise violence with portable means requiring little preparation. That is the only language that tyrants cannot ignore. You say that AR 15 rifles are not designed for killing deer, I agree. Mine is for killing people, may it never come to that. Like it or not, we aren’t more civilized than we were 245 years ago. We are well fed, and in the meantime, positions of power will always attract people who seek to abuse that position. Your equilibrium is dependent on trucks running on time, and the government remaining afraid of We The People. Remove one, and watch everything come tumbling down.
As we’re about to learn, with the current administration seeking to destroy both pillars.
Omg, this is so tough. It is generally necessary to prohibit the free use of weapons by ordinary citizens, because people cannot cope with their aggression and can simply kill someone. Just restricting rights is not enough.
Comments are closed.