Why regulate guns? The standard answer is that gun laws can prevent needless deaths and physical injury. But this is not a complete accounting. As gun-brandishing protesters and armed invasions of legislatures demonstrate, guns inflict more than physical injuries—they transform the public sphere on which a constitutional democracy depends. America must regulate guns not only to protect life, but to protect its citizens’ equal freedoms to speak, assemble, worship, and vote without fear. If legislators and judges do not focus on the freedoms that gun regulation protects, guns will threaten those freedoms.
Is the Second Amendment an obstacle to gun regulation intended to protect the public sphere against weapons threats? In 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court found that Americans have a right to keep and bear a handgun in their home for self-defense. In doing so, the Court assumed a paradigmatic scene of gun use: a “law-abiding citizen” defending his or her household against a criminal invader. But the Court did not address scenes in which guns threaten the exercise of liberties by other law-abiding citizens, whether those threats occur in the home or in public.
Heller’s distinctive focus may well have created a blind spot. The Court—changed by Donald Trump’s appointments—is now poised to expand constitutional protections for gun rights outside the home, but may do so without taking into account how the practice of public carry has changed in the past decade. Over the past 10 years, advocates have sought, with some success, to normalize open carry of firearms in public spaces as they participate in market and political activities. The result is not just lone individuals carrying guns while buying coffee at Starbucks or shopping at Walmart. Open-carry advocates in militia dress amass at right-wing political protests, including in Charlottesville in 2017, at “gun sanctuary” rallies, at anti-lockdown demonstrations, and at Black Lives Matter counterprotests.
This phenomenon raises fundamentally different questions than does the scene on which Heller was premised. These gun owners are not wielding guns against home invaders—they are bringing their guns to public spaces, seeking to dominate those spaces. Though armed protesters may employ a language of self-defense and victimhood, they do so to justify acting against those with whom they disagree. Some of them do not even invoke the self-defense that Heller described, but rather rely on the “insurrectionary theory” of the Second Amendment—claiming they are defending the republic against its enemies.
— Joseph Blocher and Reva Siegel in Guns Are a Threat to the Body Politic
Ah yes, the old “guns r scurreh” argument. How many years of schooling do these people have?
Question of the day…How do you fight Gun Control if you do not know what Gun Control is? It should be plain as day by now that Gun Control perverts use everyone from kids to moms to sugarcoat their perverted desire to eventually abolish the 2A along with your ability to defend you and yours. The thought of you defending your life is something ivory tower Gun Control zealots disdain. They would rather see you and yours slaughtered so they can incarcerate the perp and have a fun time using taxpayer grant money to determine what makes the perp tick.
Make no mistake about it…Gun Control in any shape or form is rooted in racism and genocide. Therefore when you deal with Gun Control zealots you deal with individuals who share the agenda of racists and nazis. Gun Control zealots know that and that is why Gun Control zealots try so hard to hang the race card around the necks of Gun Owners. “Accuse your opponent for what you are guilty of.” It’s straight from the communist manifesto to your doorsteps..
“. . . when you deal with Gun Control zealots you deal with individuals who share the agenda of racists and nazis.” Absolutely correct!
We may ask, today, about the rights of citizens of Hong Kong or the Uighurs of mainland China. What of their “. . . citizens’ equal freedoms to speak, assemble, worship, and vote without fear.” Should we bother to pause to ask them what they think is “necessary to the security of a free state”?
Admittedly, the Chinese (and their several ethnic constituents) are a world-away from America. Yet, America’s history of minority oppression is no more than a generation or two from our own.
Should we not consult the considerable literature such as: “Negros and the Gun: The Black Tradition of Arms”? What of Ida B. Wells admonition: “A Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give.”
Do these sentiments no longer resonate with Black, Brown, Red and Yellow minorities today? If today’s minorities are so sanguine in their confidence in modern American institutions’ benevolence then – presumably – we’ve made much more progress toward Martin Luther King Jr.’s goals than I had thought heretofore.
Far, far more. Those same minorities, now that they have an inside track to the halls of power, intend to do to everyone else exactly what was done to their grandparents 75+ years ago. Now *that* is progress.
Look at the current South Africa.
If you want to protect gun right then, as Donald Trump said in his letter yesterday, send your political dollars to his Save America PAC. Do NOT send any money to the RNC. Support the Save America PAC. The cease and desist order that he sent to the RNC states they cannot use him or his likeness to solicit funds. If you see the RNC using his likeness report it to the Save America PAC. Support the Save America PAC. DO NOT SUPPORT THE RNC.
Or, you could send it to an organization that actually supports gun rights, such as 2nd Amendment Foundation.
SEND ANY monies you can to S.A.F., G.O.A., C.C.R.K.B.A., ANY state rifle org. Like T.S.R.A.(TX), I.S.R.A.(IL.) I hate to say it but EVEN the nra. ANY is better than none.
Apparently enough to fry their brains.
Two clueless idiots.
We must limit the stupid of lawyers to Ensure Our Democracy, Our Republic and Our Freedom
This prof thinks he has a right to be free of fear? Good luck with that.
Yeah, like, Professor of what? Does he also believe he has a “right” to be free from want? How long did he need to study what discipline in order to become that stupid?
Guns are a threat to the regime. That’s why the 2A is there. Give up your 2A so the government can ‘protect’ your 1A and you’ll soon have neither.
+5
100/\’S
“to protect its citizens’ equal freedoms to speak, assemble, worship, and vote without fear.”
There is no right to be “without fear”. And even if there were, that’s a meaningless platitude. We fear is an emotion, that only exists inside a persons mind. Once we cave to fear, that fear owns and controls us.
Do I have the right to have public policy cater to my fears?
Fear really is meant to motivate you to improve your situation not be an endless state of alert but yes control is a bitch.
Chris, apparently only if you are a snowflake Dimocrat. THEIR fears matters – your fears of armed predators (put and kept on the street by Dimocrat policies) are irrational.
It’s all very simple, if you just pay attention!
The enemy brings an AR, you bring yours.
Fear of what?
Lack of skill?
“ These gun owners are not wielding guns against home invaders—they are bringing their guns to public spaces, seeking to dominate those spaces.”
Really? How can you know their motives? Have you asked every gun-wielder why they have brought their gun to the public space? Because I don’t know a single person who carries so that they can “dominate” the place to which they are going.
Pretty childish argument, author.
As long as citizens could exercise their 1st Amendment rights of free speech in a civilized manner, guns were not wielded as they could be left at home for self defense and protection. As liberals and the media have come to “dominate” what citizens can and cannot say, (Look at what happened to even President Trump who was restricted from his 1st Amendment rights by the liberal media) the last resort in our society is the exercising of our 2nd Amendment rights, which is our “RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS AND WILL NOT BE INFRINGED.”
So ask yourself, Stephanie, who is it that is trying to “dominate” who? Conservatives are not allowed to speak or express themselves in free speech any longer without being labelled “a basket of deplorables,” “terrorists,” and “racists.” You see, Stephanie, these terms are used by liberals and the media to quiet conservatives and, essentially, “dominate” society and conservatives.
Here’s the deal: Allow citizens to express their views and opinions in free speech, and you will not see anybody wielding their guns. But I almost know with certainty that liberals will not allow conservatives to express themselves because then they, the liberals and media, would not be able to “dominate” society.
It was non other than Adolf Hitler who stated, “First you disarm them, then you can control them.” This is precisely what Biden, Pelosi, and liberals are trying to do. They clearly want to disarm Americans so that they can control us under a totalitarian government. Sorry, but, no thank you, we are not going to allow this to happen without one hell of a fight.
Yes. Exactly why I took issue with the author’s false assertion that people who carry are doing it to “dominate.”
When this is worse than my local area paper for one sided reporting I have to wonder if the Albany riots did the area some good with 15 fold increases in pistol permit applications and thousands of first time buyers. Will probably not change who gets elected but may not see as much enthusiasm for some nonsense in next year’s elections.
These law professors need to study and learn that criminals do not obey the law. How the hell did they graduate and not learn that fact. I’m sure they got their degree at the bottom of a Cracker Jack box. Idiots.
Wait we are supposed to learn things while being educated?
It’s not just spring break and sniffing staffers hair!
Jeez what’s next actually having to think for myself or work for what I want? Sounds like fascism. (Sarcasm obviously….. hopefully)
You’re not giving them enough credit. They’re not trying to stop criminals — they’re trying to make MORE. Criminals are universally poor and stupid…but what if they could turn people who already have money into criminals? More criminals, more $. I bet Germany’s lawyers LOVED Hitler.
They aren’t all stupid, Ing, and you know that. The smart ones are the worst…
True, it’s usually good to add an “almost” to assertions like that. The criminals we usually think of when we think self-defense are indeed poor and stupid (double on the stupid). Some criminals are also lawyers and legislators, and those are smarter, richer, and far more dangerous.
Ivy League inspectors of link in navel.
Ivy League – the height of arrogance, mediocracy, entitlement, and socialism in the American “Education” industry.
We Must Limit Gun Rights To Ensure Our Democracy, Our Republic and Our Freedom in GULAG.
More over educated morons, educated beyond their intelligence. “Shall not be infringed” is too complicated to understand.
The politicians are supposed to be afraid of the constituents. When you have a healthy fear of something you rarely mess with it.
At some point they may have feared being voted out, but it seems they are starting to get that risk under better control.
No, we must limit liberal alleged educators filling people’s heads with sh*t!! Apparently these elites were all on spring break or too stoned when constitutional studies were scheduled!
Why do all the whack jobs get a soap box to stand on. Wheres the pro gun conservatives quoted thousands of times across the internet?
To the dummy, you think gun fear is fear. Wait until you see what happens once their banned, then you’ll know what real fear is.
Like most FUDDS and free thinkers. They believe they are safe by a given standard and guns are making them less safe when the truth is the guns keep them safe. It is easy to think life is naturally safe when you’re surrounded by a population that is highly armed. Roaming bands of evil men cannot gain traction. If you feel so safe, go live and thrive in Mexico or some other gun free countries, if you can.
America must regulate guns not only to protect life, but to protect its citizens’ equal freedoms to speak, assemble, worship, and vote without fear.
EDIT: America must regulate guns not only to protect Democratic-Socialists lives, but to protect the Democratic-Socialists freedoms to speak (aka lie, riot, loot, occupy, burn and destroy), worship(?) and VOTE without fear of EVER losing another election… There I fixed that one for you..
This^
MADDMAXX, you are 100% correct. Gun control is all about protecting Demtard/Socialist/Elitist/One Worlders politicians’ asses from American Patriots with AR-15s and “every other terrible instrument of war.”
And there, boys and girls, is the Cliff’s Notes version of the Xiden/KamelHo/O’Dork/Pigloosi/Slummer/Jacsome-Lee et el Gun Violence Prevention Plan in a nut shell.
Yeah, call me when Bloomers and Slummer aren’t protected by guns, and we can walk in and sit with our muddy boots on Pigloosi’s desk without becoming a felon. Until then, up yours per gun control and open borders.
The new agenda for humanity requires that no one will have the capacity to fight back. It has been said: “Our Task of creating a Socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.” No other explanation is possible.
History has repeatedly demonstrated that disarming good people in the name of making bad people harmless only eventually facilitates politicians shooting their own countrymen. History…learn from it or be doomed to relive it…….or die by it.
“A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie.” – Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.
The high licensing fee is revival of the Jim Crowe and Poll Tax Democrat playbook…..and, another step toward licensing/registration/confiscation. Germans used this play with the Jews pre-WWII. and, they played along. Ala why the Libs are calling that play again. If a play call is successful, it gets called until the opposition presents a decisive defense against it. Learn from history….or be doomed to relive it….or die by it.
Oh, okay. If firearm owners dominate a public space, that is destructive to the fabric of our nation. If Progressives dominate a public space — such as Twitter, Facebook, and Google — that is not destructive to the fabric of our nation since they are “protecting our nation from right-wing poisonous speech”. Got it.
Thus, according to Progressives, whether or not something is “wrong” or “right” is simply a function of who is doing it rather than a function of whether something is intrinsically wrong or right. In other words, Progressives can do no wrong and Conservatives can do no right. If that will not destroy the fabric of our nation, I don’t know what will.
Precisely! It depends exclusively on whether the jack-boot is worn on the right foot or the left.
That’s exactly the case. We’ve already seen the contrast with Biden and Trump separating children at the border using the same facilities. One was met with a yawn, one was met with endless screaming. It’s the same with dropping bombs on Syria, etc. How do Democrat voters never notice the complete insincerity in the reporting?
Many never hear about their heroes’ actions, we are already attempting to hide Biden’s actions while simultaneously lying about Trump. It won’t be much longer before Biden will repeat his claims that he alone is responsible for Covid vaccines, and this time no one will object. Or at least no one who gets reported.
According to their own words, the issue is never the issue.
But the Court did not address scenes in which guns threaten the exercise of liberties by other law-abiding citizens, whether those threats occur in the home or in public.
That’s because THAT was not the question… The ILLEGAL use of firearms to threaten “law abiding” persons right to exercise their liberties is covered by a number of laws that have been on the books for decades/centuries and are not in question by ANY law abiding gun owner exercising his/her liberties as defined by Federal and State Constitutions, Laws, statutes and regulations…
^says the black pot.
I was gonna say says the choad, but that works!
Yeah it’s momma lied, she said she bolted the basement door and cut off the power but yet, here it is…
How can they demand I call upon the sacred justification of muh self-defense and simultaneously demand I be disarmed when out and about?
Does self-defense only happen in set places at set times?
The idiots that agree with this article aren’t capable of thinking to ask such a question as yours. So the writer’s can pretty much word vomit without being held to account.
“Though armed protesters may employ a language of self-defense and victimhood, they do so to justify acting against those with whom they disagree.”
Leftists didn’t invent projection, but they seem to have raised it to the highest art.
Regardless, there’s a fundamental assumption underlying this article: Government (with leftists in charge) is absolutely trustworthy and incorruptible, and will always work for the best interests of the governed. Whereas your neighbors, if left alone to live their lives, will always try to screw you over. As insane as that is, and as contrary to numerous historical examples (and consistent with no historical example of which I’m aware), I cannot help but accept that most of them actually believe it.
Phil Wilson,
Excellent observations and conclusions!
Again I ask, how do Democrat voters never notice the inconsistencies, as you point out, in left wing propaganda? Why would anyone trust a person who became wealthy from government work?
Oh that pesky constitution…FWIW I have stood guard in my home against BlackLootersMurder scum. I’ve never demonstrated with my rifle either. Suck it!
Open-carry advocates in militia dress amass at right-wing political protests, including in Charlottesville in 2017, at “gun sanctuary” rallies, at anti-lockdown demonstrations, and at Black Lives Matter counterprotests.
In one paragraph you complain that law abiding citizens are being deprived of the right to speak and assemble and in the next you complain about law abiding citizens are exercising rights to speak and assemble (because you don’t like their clothing choices?)… You site BLM gatherings but fail to mention that BLM protesters were also armed.. One person in “Charlottesville was arrested for “suspicion of discharging” a firearm (no one was arrested for CARRYING a gun) and there were guns on ALL sides.. The anti-lockdown rally was attended by those same law abiding citizens, you seek to protect, exercising THEIR rights under Federal AND State laws, and Holy shit, they were actually carrying guns at a “GUN SANCTUARY” rally? WTF?… What really is your problem? Did some bully dressed in camouflage beat you up when you were a kid?
Madmaxx,
The root “problem” is very simple: one of the two overriding facets of Progressives is that they have a pathological need to be part of the tribe and maintain tribe cohesion at all cost. Since we “deplorables” are outside the Progressive tribe and threaten the cohesion of the Progressive tribe, they justify all sorts of evil actions against us with the intention of either eliminating us or coercing us into compliance within their tribe.
In other words, what we see in Progressives is the same simple tribalism that has plagued mankind forever. The only unique aspect of modern Progressive tribalism is that membership is a function of your declared/demonstrated politics rather than your ancestry.
I half-agree. I think the “uniqueness” is minimal, and the tribalism is mostly the same-old shit.
If you’re in one of the “progressives'” preferred demographics, you can do no wrong, unless your politics are very far from theirs (Clarence Thomas, Ann Coulter).
Conversely, they consider everyone in the “wrong tribes” inherently evil – redeemable only via constant criticism / disavowal of their own demographic, coupled with incessant, fawning worship of everything said and done by the others.
They don’t believe the “wrong tribes” are in any way redeemable.
Those groups are useful for a singular purpose: Shaming into virtue signaling, preferably at the ballot box.
I’ve had one of these ‘tards [try to] explain this to me. How I’m irredeemable but I must work to overcome it. (Uh, do you know what “irredeemable” means?)
It was nothing more than a cutsie way to try to emotionally extort me into supporting what they wanted to do. I declined. They got angry.
The problem is worse for minorities that don’t go along. My wife found that out the hard way. Me, well at least I have the advantage that, being a “white devil”, they don’t expect me to automatically accept this shit. My wife? Nah, she’s not just expected to accept it, she’s basically an apostate if she doesn’t. Which is why my wife’s all about magazine capacity because these fuckers came after her in reasonably large groups of 6-15 people.
As she will tell you “It’s not about incapacitation. The simple fact is that a Leftist with a GSW is easy to out run. One shot each and you can make tracks a lot faster than they can”.
I’d quibble the point but I’d lose because 1) she’s mostly right and 2) she’s my wife so I can’t win [Dat patriarchy!].
Your wife sounds awesome! Her view could be construed as mutually beneficial, too: any white leftists she disables would finally gain coveted victim-group status.
“It was nothing more than a cutsie way to try to emotionally extort me into supporting what they wanted to do. I declined. They got angry.”
That’s the end game of the ‘white superiority’-slash- ‘systemic racism’ card they are playing. She’s perfectly rational in being worried, with an added twist- Being Asian and being in (much) higher education exposes her to accusations of being ‘uber-white’ (so to speak), since Asian study efforts result in higher acceptance rates to the higher education she’s now getting.
I don’t envy the tightrope she’s having to walk, but I’m glad she’s armed…
strych9,
Can you share a bit more detail about your wife’s experience with 6 to 15 aggressors/attackers? What was the setting? Context? Why were they harassing/intimidating/attacker her?
@uncommon:
Her last semester of grad school the first time her university ever dealt with serious Lefty activism. BLM and Antifa both showed up. They made a point of trying to recruit any “BIPOC” they could find, especially females.
She was approached about it, rebuffed them and they started following her around. A rotating group of 6-8 of them “audited” (this is where you can sit in on classes as a non-student, ostensibly to see if you want to take that class/attend this school) the classes she was teaching but since they claimed it was an “audit” the school couldn’t do anything about it. They’d then follow her and make veiled threats and when she notified the campus cops the “prospective students” claimed they were auditing the class and just so happened to have the same path to “get lunch” as my wife did.
So, she started cutting through a pass-carded/restricted entry building to lose them. That worked for a couple of days.
Eventually they figured out what she drove and what lot she was assigned to park in and started, on apparently random days, trying to sandwich her between the group following her around and another group that would wait in the parking deck.
It was an overt attempt at intimidation but it was, as noted, essentially random except for the “audits” which were constant. The university had no idea what to do and the cops couldn’t call it stalking because the people doing it had plausible deniability and/or rotated so it wasn’t the same crew every time. The only time they could do anything was when one of the BLM folks followed her into the pass-carded building and attempted to follow her to a restricted floor, which did result in his arrest.
Other than that there wasn’t much that could be done other than police escorts which were not really feasible with her schedule. They didn’t know she carried a gun and suggested she get one.
So, partly taking that advice, she switched from a Springfield XDs 3.3 in .45 to an FN FNS-9c.
@Geoff:
Sorry, I scrolled past your comment the first time.
Thanks but she’s fine. She’s done and gone. She has an offer to return for a tenure track position and is debating taking that but that comes with other issues.
Now if I could just finish school… and maybe pull a burner on some ‘tards in a parking garage/lot, that would be nice. But that’s a while off.
strych9,
Thank you for the explanation. I am really surprised that the BLM/Antifa goons persisted for several days. I can see one day, maybe two days. And I am surprised that they were that persistent.
“How I’m irredeemable but I must work to overcome it. (Uh, do you know what “irredeemable” means?)”
LOL! Apparently not. They’re just following Hillary Clinton’s “irredeemable” lead. Their religion teaches that you’re evil scum, and the only way to save your soul is to vote for Democrats (because an honest debate on ideas is like hard yo). And they called Republicans cultists! BTW, no one’s irredeemable.
“And I am surprised that they were that persistent.”
I’m not sure why this would surprise you. People who are getting what they want and are unopposed rarely stop their behavior. Last summer should have shown you that. I’d expect however, this summer will be a rather intense refresher of that lesson.
And why wouldn’t they keep pushing? The Americans that really matter at this point are more concerned about “super spreader events” and violations of masking mandates than they are about cities being looted and burned.
There’s a cadre of people who have wanted this for more than a century. They now feel that they might be on the precipice of getting it, of course they’re gonna try.
Joseph Blocher and Reva Siegel in Guns Are a Threat to the Body Politic
Yeah that’s the real issue isn’t it.. Guns (and gun owners) are a threat to the Communist (Body Politic) take over of our Constitutional Republic… And these Clowns are LAW professors? No wonder we’re in such deep shit…
I often state NAZIs are a threat to the body politic.
Both of the authors are at the Yale Law School and are part and parcel of the self-styled elite that always “know” what is best for the world, detest the United States, and long for one world government with the elite (them) ruling and being provided for in comfort (an Elysium world).
I can’t recall armed protesters assembling outside legislative buildings before politicians in those buildings began attempting to take away those protester’s 2nd amendment rights. Let’s recall that back in the 50s the only way black individuals and communities in the deep south could protect themselves and their families was with firearms. Let’s also remember that the Left has been arming up and they consider disagreeing with them to be an act of violence. This was demonstrated by the murder of unarmed Patriot Prayer member Aaron Danielson by Antifa member Michael Reinoehl. There will be more. After all if criminals don’t observe gun laws why should the Left?
can’t recall armed protesters assembling outside legislative buildings
I believe they are referencing the Anti-Lockdown protests in Michigan last year..
MADDMAXX,
He didn’t say they were never there; he said, basically, that there had never been a need for it before politicians started being assholes. You’ve highlighted one perfectly illustrative example of the latter.
I’m not surrendering my Rights………
………and you’re not taking my Rights!
Beware of the old guys. It’s all about Spiritual Fitness. No fear of death.
Just a little too late for this bill. What were they doing in Congress 4 yrs ago when they had both chambers and a Republican president? I guess they need to get re-elected soon to show a little bit of support for us 2nd Amendment supporters.
I posted in the wrong article. LOL. Why are the pages loading so slow?
How about someone with opposing views to Antifa or the BLM crowd(just saying “All lives matter”) is enough for a beatdown. If we can not defend ourselves, we are just fodder for their bike locks and skateboards or other items used as they are not designed to.
How come they are no lawsuits against bicycle lock or skateboard manufacturers for misuse of their products?
Yea I saw a bunch of “lethal weapons” during those mostly peaceful protests… But it’s not brandishing? It’s not intent to commit assault?
Anytime you leas with “we must limit. (Insert right here).” followed by “to ensure freedom and democracy…” You lose all credit. Freedom is the opposite of limit. If they carry a big stick, mine will be bigger. I wish we could say the same for our government, but drones, nukes, satellites and privacy invasive tech kinda numbs that argument currently…
Well said.
There’s nothing stopping the “other side” from going to a protest armed as well.
As it should be. But when one side is punished for “brandishing” to prevent the “other side” from being everything we saw in 2020, it’s not exactly equal is it? But hey, that’s woke equality…
Anything to disarm the populace and finish the communist takeover.
They know what they are doing. They are sticking to the script to turn public opinion against freedom.
Here on Earth, we do so enjoy reading the latest screeds from the quislings of Htrea, also known as Bizarro World. To them, I extend the middle finger of friendship and display a respectful moon.
Pol Pot, who murdered millions of Cambodians, was a college professor.
Yeah, Obama was a law prof, and how well did that work for us?
As I heard it, he was no professor, only a part-time lecturer any grad student does for next to no money…
Best job he could find was “community organizer”? And surrendered his law license along with his wife? WTF was happening there? Somehow no one in America wanted to know why anyone would do the things those two Communists did.
“armed invasions of legislatures.”
I didn’t follow the Michigan shenanigans. So I can’t speak to that. However, by using “legislatures”, plural, it’s clear he’s also lumping in the January Congressional riot. Well.
Exactly ZERO firearms were recovered by the FBI from that day and no one has been charged with a firearm crime related to that event. In fact, the only one who discharged a firearm thay day and the only one who shot anyone there was an officer who shot and killed a trespasser. So much for the armed invasion myth.
HEAR YE HEAR YE , THATS WHY USA HAS 2A , SO , PRESERVE , PROTECT , DEFEND OUR CONSTITUTION .
This is just a bunch of words being used to try to “justify” infringing our rights. It starts here and will eventually spread to more. 4A has been in serious trouble since the Patriot Act. It’s about gaining more control over the people under the guise of “public safety”. They plea for tyranny is almost always about public safety or to benefit the collective at the expense of individual rights. Sounds like communism to me.
What utter bullshit! There is a whole mountain range of data that proves guns in the hands of civilians is a deterrent to crime at all levels. We’ve known that for 30 years at least, and that is only considering the academic research done by guys like John Lott. Add in the statistical data from the FBI’s UCR and it is incontestable.
The ONLY reason the gov’t wants to push gun control is to gain political power over the citizens so that they have no means to fight back, whether its against the corrupt politicians and criminals at the bottom, or the corrupt politicians and criminals at the top running things.
I don’t get it… Folks- we, and especially these esteemed bottom feeder educators know full well that firearms are already the most highly regulated products in the US. Why posters don’t point this out and also reply to places and press to make this clear to the less-interested public is a mystery. Guns are already under severe regulation and restriction. Keep repeating that and don’t stand around acting like they aren’t or trying to rationalize why they shouldn’t be, or why new restrictions shouldn’t be added.
Seriously- what would be a good estimate? Perhaps 2000+ laws and regulations concerning firearms already on the local, state and federal books with more constantly being proposed? If any suggestions should be made it would be for all aspects of government and LE to enforce those 2000+ laws and regs already ther- to hell with any more.
Those rights mean nothing without the ability to ultimately defend them with force. There is a mask of ignorance over people like this. Our last summer was just a taste of what could happen when some peoples’ free speech (AKA Burning, Looting and Murdering) are backed with the will (or indifference) of the state to do as they wish.
Perhaps someone should ask him about the Deacons of Defense? Or MLK being heavily armed to keep the Klan from smashing his head in, hanging him from a tree or some other horrible death at the hands of a mob or even the authorities of the government at the time.
Also, if people are carrying guns as a form of speech when was there ever a “making people scared” exception? Hell, I’m scared that his idea of curtailing the second amendment could lead to totalitarianism taking force. Does that mean he can’t say what he is saying?
“our democracy” is just more newspeak and coded language that doesn’t include us, I.E non-conformists and people who no longer buy into the left/right Hegelian farce and illusion of choice.
our democracy” is just more newspeak and coded language that doesn’t include us,
Especially those of US who live in a “Constitutional Republic”….
Indeed, sir. A constitutional republican has as much say in the running of this dumbocracy as a shit-shoveler had in Louis XIV’s Versailles.
shit-shoveler had in Louis XIV’s Versailles.
Big difference is that “shit-shoveler” had NO rights, that “shit-shoveler” was OWNED… No one “owns” me, I am free to think, say and do what I want and until some asshole comes to my door to take my guns I will be free to determine my own destiny… Unlike your “shit-shoveler” analogy I have the capability and the free will to fight back against a tyrannical authority and have every intention to do so… A defeatist attitude is what Biden’s Chinese Overlords are counting on, you should probably just call your local cops and turn in your guns now because apparently you intend to do just that if they actually come for them…
“Turn in [my] guns?” I did not say that, or anything that implied it; simply summed up some historical facts:
Some laborers were serfs, and others were not. For those who weren’t, the government (especially the central government) had an infinitesimal fraction of today’s ability to interfere in people’s daily individual / family lives, or “free[dom] to think, say and do what I want”.
They could be punished for disloyalty to their country. We could be punished for daring to say or believe that our country and its culture are in any way better than those of stone-age Third World shitholes.
Change (toward individual liberty) happened slowly in those days. These days, it’s happening quickly – but in the exact opposite direction.
It took a long time for Louis’s monarchy to turn into a (short-lived) republic. Absent some all-out, existential disaster, I don’t see our dumbocracy ever turning back into a republic (not just because of history – arithmetic!). If you do, I’m curious how.
Votes from unarmed people are merely polite suggestion. As long as the state has guns, their votes can be ignored.
Consent is meaningless without the means to revoke consent. Guns ARE democracy.
Positively Orwellian in it’s Newspeak, Doublethink Projection Writ Large.
In their worldview, even CONSIDERING the exercise of a right, being able/ willing/ equipped to defend one’s self or another against their Sanctioned And Approved Surrogates like Antifa types , not to mention Good Old Fashioned Criminal Predation is akin to” dominating the public space and preventing the expression of other viewpoints”.. .. while blissfully ignoring the ever growing number off assaults by the” Not A Group, Only An Idea” group who target those who are… expressing another viewpoint.
Nope. I don’t” dominate the public space”..
But any space I am in, I do guard zealously it’s borders. They’re called ” Personal Space’.
And these Progressitards not only want your disarmament, they want your abject submission to their surrogates; and the removal of any of YOUR personal space,be it ideological or physical.
At least until they can convince you that YOUR personal space lies at the end of a long journey in a freight car.
The writer of this article is a putz. You could replace guns and 2nd Amendment with Free Speech and the 1st Amendment and he would be equally guilty of screaming for the removal of a Constitutional Right.
Comments are closed.