Category: Second Amendment

A Historical Understanding

So, when gun-control advocates claim that mass shootings represent a special case that the Founders never knew about or could have predicted, they’re wrong. Right now, they’re using the nation’s anger and fear over mass shootings to push for a raft of new gun-rights restrictions. But those laws will probably violate the Constitution, for reasons the Supreme Court has made crystal clear. [More]

It’s interesting how those who want to erase the Founders from the collective memory are always presuming to tell us what they understood.

[Via bondmen]

Speaking of a Constitutional Joke…

“My friend from Texas, Mr. Roy, advances the so-called insurrectionist view of the second amendment, that the second amendment’s purpose is to give the people the right to overthrow or fight our government or fight the police or threaten armed resistance if the government is somehow being unfair or unjust,” Raskin said. “This reading is totally and absolutely absurd and flies in the face of the place text of the constitution.” [More]

Don’t tell us. Tell Alexander Hamilton:

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government…

That and he’s not your friend, buddy…

We’re the Only Ones Uninformative Enough

Missouri sheriff says even under ‘threat of arrest’ he will not release gun owners’ info to FBI – ‘I will go down with the ship if need be,’ the sheriff says [More]

I’m sorry, but while everybody’s waving flags, my first thought is “What’s he doing with that information in the first place?”

[Via bondmen]

But No One is Talking About Taking Your Guns…

Not that that would invalidate the right to keep and bear arms…

Any bets on Donald Trump ever giving Thomas Massie the public apology he owes him?

I’ll have more to say on the foolish and subversive  “Active Shooter Alert” — and the foolish and subversive Republicans who appear to be doing their utmost to break up a “red wave — in an article I’m planning to write soon.

[Via Jess]

Michael Moore’s Proposed 2nd Amendment Repeal: As Impossible As It Is Evil

Make no mistake: His totalitarian position, and that’s exactly what it is, is “Surrender and obey or be destroyed.” His sick ego invites civil war and untold deaths unless his demands are met. [More]

As long as it’s somebody else taking the risks of enforcing the tyranny he demands…

Snipe Hunt

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has seen a proliferation of snipers—equipped with a variety of rifles—on both sides. Here, one of the world’s foremost authorities on the subject of military sniping takes a look at the combatants, along with their arms and ammunition. [More]

Most idiot gun-grabbers have no idea what they will unleash here if they keep squeezing.

[Via Jess]

At Issue

Particularly after Heller and McDonald, as recently reaffirmed by Bruen, the government certainly cannot prevent Petitioner from exercising his Second Amendment right to keep firearms in the home. And the Second Circuit may not use Torvicia’s exercise of that constitutional right to render him vulnerable to government searches and seizures of his
firearms which violate Fourth Amendment protections but for some atextual, judge-invented special needs exception. [More]

“Single issue” apologists and flat-out deceivers take note.

[Via Jess]

Tub of Goo Proposes Others Fight and Die to Impose His Tyrannical Fantasy

THE 28th AMENDMENT – My proposal to repeal and replace the 2nd Amendment – Michael Moore [More]

I’m just remembering when NRA didn’t have the guts to repeal and replace Michael Moore.

I am getting a kick out of “Comments,” particularly where animaladjusted leftists are melting down over this:

“Remove (a) licensed hunters of game … We don’t need to abuse and shoot wildlife but need to protect it … Hunters aren’t conservationists, they just use this as a sorry excuse for their bloody wildlife abuse and murder … Agree. It’s toxic masculinity at its best…”

You hear that, Fudds? They’re coming for you.

Polyphemus may have promised to eat you last, but eat you he will.

[Via Jess]

We Hold These Truths to Be Self-Evident

Hoover’s lawyers asked Howard last week to rule that the National Firearms Act, a 1934 law that restricted machine gun ownership by creating a tax and license requirement on them, conflicts with the U [sic] Constitution’s Second Amendment guarantee of a right to bear arms.  [More]

If the standard is whether NFA is consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding, of course, it conflicts.

Whether the rulers will admit that or not is a whole ‘nother story.

[Via Jess]

Not Up for Debate

Has The Constitutional Right to Bear Arms Outlived Its Usefulness? Intelligence Squared Debate [More]

More like Square-Rooted. A Pynchon quote comes to mind. Who but someone who misses the point, or more likely, wants you to, would ask such a question?

I like the way they kick the whole thing off by spreading an unchallenged “Constitution gives rights” fallacy, following that up with a mention of Heller, which specifically repudiated that by citing Cruikshank.

I find it telling that RealClear Politics picks now to resurrect a 2013 video to republicize the results:

Nothing like picking a conditioned and insulated New York audience with confirmation biases making them immune to reasoned evidence to guarantee an outcome.