Second Amendment is not license for treason, armed revolt
According to some, the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that citizens have enough firepower to overthrow the federal government, should it become necessary to do so. If the government ever loses its fear of such a revolt, the theory goes, our liberty ends and tyranny begins.
Let me be blunt: That is mythological claptrap. But like a lot of mythological claptrap, it can push weak-minded people — the Timothy McVeighs of the world — to do stupid and dangerous things.
It is certainly true that when the Second Amendment was drafted back in the 18th century, it was plausible to believe that an armed citizenry could be a check on overweening government power. Back then, there wasn’t much difference in the weapons available to private citizens and the weapons available to the military. It could have been, and sometimes was, a more or less even fight.
Today, that is no longer the case, and it hasn’t been the case for a century or longer. Around the world, governments have access to a range of weaponry that private citizens have no hope of matching or withstanding. There is simply no comparison between the brute, deadly force that a government can wield and that wielded by private citizens, individually or collectively. Technology has rendered that aspect of the Second Amendment a dead letter.
If you want to rejuvate that aspect of the Second Amendment, you have to be willing to grant private citizens access to fully automatic weapons, Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, grenade launchers, etc. And it’s not going to happen.
That’s not just my opinion. It is also the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, as expressed by one of its most conservative members, Justice Antonin Scalia, in the most important Second Amendment opinion the court ever issued.
In District of Columbia v. Heller, issued in 2008, Scalia and the court made it clear for the first time that the Second Amendment “protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.” But in that same opinion, Scalia brushed aside claims that the Second Amendment guarantees citizens the means to armed revolution. He concluded that technology has rendered that part of the amendment an archaic artifact, because “a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large” and that “no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.”
For that reason, Scalia made it clear that the Second Amendment “does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” and that the government is fully within its rights to ban military-style weaponry.
In Iraq, for example, gun ownership is extremely widespread, with many if not most households owning fully automatic weapons that would be banned in this country. Yet Saddam Hussein had little trouble imposing and maintaining a brutal dictatorship in that country for decades. He did not confiscate guns, because he understood that such guns posed no real threat to his tyranny.
And as Joshua Keating notes at ForeignPolicy.com, look at Tunisia and Egypt, where private gun ownership is very low but citizens have nonetheless managed to overthrow brutal military dictatorships. If government now has a massive advantage in terms of brute force, innovations such as Twitter, Facebook, cellphones and satellite TV have more than offset it in the cause of freedom.
Guns don’t overthrow tyranny or guarantee liberty. People do.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
1,326 comments Add your comment
nelson
January 17th, 2013
9:01 am
Treason is a term used in time of war. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were convicted of espionage for spying for the Soviet Union,but was not during a war with that country so it was not treason. I would see the context alluded to in the story above, would be revolution or insurrection.
Whatever
January 17th, 2013
9:02 am
Aquagirl,
Many are willing to be crushed to have a chance at freedom. I respect them better than those that live in chains because they fear.
We wouldn’t be here today if our founders had your attitude.
JohnnyReb
January 17th, 2013
9:02 am
Jay, want to do something today that will make a real difference for improvement?
Tell your AJC fathers they have succeeded in loading down the website to the point that it is no longer a pleasure to use.
It all started with the Mebo bar. It stops navigation until loaded. It has to go. It sucks.
Jed Eckardt
January 17th, 2013
9:03 am
Cherokee….If you want a no-gun society, I would suggest Delta Airlines with a destination of Washington DC, or anywhere in NY state, or Chicago…..Just a few disarmed places for you that just happen to have some of the highest violent crime rates in the country. But go ahead and be a sheep. Lay down and do nothing while criminals rape, burn, and pillage. Be a good American and turn in your guns while you wait for a police response of 10-15 minutes before you can be protected. I think I’ll keep mine, thank you very much. One thing is for certain. Liberals would be an easy group to get rid of in the event of civil war……you have no weapons to defend yourselves with. You’ll turn them all in!
Peadawg
January 17th, 2013
9:03 am
The moment someone brings video games into the equation = the moment the lose the argument.
vinny
January 17th, 2013
9:04 am
The real claptrap came out of the mouth of the liar-in-chief obama yesterday. Flanked by Joe “Shemp” Biden and children who presented letters written by their liberal government school teachers – obama came across as weak and ineffective. The fact that he used children as a shield for his idiotic proposals was a very pathetic display. obama should have been wearing a pink dress.
None of his ideas will curb gun violence, it will only punish law abiding citizens. Why didn’t he propose something that will work like very long prison terms for any type of gun crime? Because it was nothing but a bunch of pathetic, shameless showboating by a little boy that does not have a clue as how to fix a problem, much less lead a country.
Whatever
January 17th, 2013
9:04 am
Jay,
On Yeager……yes, each time an idiot says something stupid/dangerous let’s be sure to limit everyone’s rights. That’s a great way to preserve freedom.
Looney Bin
January 17th, 2013
9:04 am
The NRA is obviously good at manipulating the simple minded….anyone else notice how “elitist” was used in the ad about the President’s daughters yesterday? Who do you think that word was meant to fire up? I pity these people who are so obviously being played for a mark.
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
9:05 am
“Obamas Tyrannical Ways”
tee hee hee
Chad
January 17th, 2013
9:05 am
Couple of questions… how did we get our superior butts kicked in Vietnam? Do you think the Viet Cong had anything close to the superior weaponry that the US possessed in the 60’s and 70’s. No they had small arms a bit of ingenuity. I believe that happened in the last hundred years.
Iraq? and Afghanistan?… not sure we have wielded our superior might to destroy our enemies there either.
I think anyone with a brain can figure out that… but sheep usually are not burdened with an over abundance of brains. Thanks for the laugh Jay!
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
9:05 am
Liberal buffoon Andrea Mitchell gets put in her place… Imagine this is Bookman and not Mitchell….
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/16/andrea-mitchell-argues-govt-can-infringe-upon-americans-inalienable-rights-hear-pro-gun-advocates-epic-response/
Wilbur
January 17th, 2013
9:05 am
And the Second amendment is not to be disregarded, ignored and submarined because you find it inconvenient. Obama has decided to rule as a tyrant through executive order and his loyal followers will allow him to do what ever he pleases.
Never has a politician been followed for so long with such miserable performance in office. If Obama required every American to have sex with a goat, Jay Bookman would find a reason to support the plan. It’s funny and scary at the same time.
Steve
January 17th, 2013
9:06 am
I love how sensible gun control measures equates to “taking away all of our guns” via uneducated, paranoid people (who probably would fly Confederate flags in their yards if it wasn’t such a negative stigma).
independent thinker
January 17th, 2013
9:06 am
Federal government tyrranny:
In 2007 the ATF was able to trace over 6,600 guns seized in crimes to Georgia.
Luckily since then the NRA and its patriots in Congress made it nearly impossible for the ATF to trace gun sales with mandatory destruction of background checks after 48 hours, no digital recording of gun sales etc.
That is how you maintain a well regulated militia for the security of the free state of Georgia.
Keep arming that Georgia militia to rise up against the Black communist from Kenya in the White House !
Butch Cassidy (I)
January 17th, 2013
9:06 am
Jed Eckardt – “One thing is for certain. Liberals would be an easy group to get rid of in the event of civil war……you have no weapons to defend yourselves with. You’ll turn them all in!”
Tell ya what Jed, let’s make a little wager. I’ll be you an even $10,000 that over the course of the next 4 years, there will be no mandate to either turn in your guns, or that armed patrols of Obamas Secret Army will arrive at your door and demand your weapons. You in?
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
9:07 am
Take my Guns
Turn in my guns
Lay down and be raped
Crushed for freedom
tee hee hee
Aquagirl
January 17th, 2013
9:07 am
I respect them better than those that live in chains because they fear.
I respect people with the discernment to reject obviously fake dumb quotes. Guess who that rules out?
Our country wouldn’t be here if our founders were not smart, like Ben Franklin. He went to France to secure support instead of waving his musket balls around like they were the scariest thing EVAH for the Brits.
Whatever
January 17th, 2013
9:08 am
Independent,
I don’t care who is in the White House. I have felt this way my entire life when all the presidents were just a pasty white.
Keep throwing the race card around though. Makes you look intelligent.
Jim
January 17th, 2013
9:08 am
Here is where you catch yourself and Scalia catches himself. If Saddam Hussien didn’t take automatic weapons from his people because it was erroneous to the situation then why is the US govt doing it? It should be a non factor here just like in Iraq due to the fact that if there is an uprising then military will stomp it’s own people like a bug. Learn how to write with truth and facts that don’t contradict themselves. The US Citizens are free to own what they want. Just because a firearm is tactical doesn’t mean it is wrong to own it. These are primarily used in target practice and competitions and for home defense. The .223 is not a man slayer as the false statements from the fear mongering media reports. It is .001 inches bigger than a .22. Really???? A man slayer???? C’mon man, get your facts straight.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 17th, 2013
9:09 am
JohnnyReb is about as brave as that TN gun nut. As soon as you start asking questions about his “2d amendment remedies” he bravely runs away.
Aquagirl
January 17th, 2013
9:10 am
It all started with the Mebo bar. It stops navigation until loaded. It has to go. It sucks.
The Meebo bar goes away if you click on the arrows at the far right.
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
9:12 am
Its really sad that Oblama and his dem cohorts want to ban guns and are even talking confiscation….
Steve
January 17th, 2013
9:12 am
No, JohnnyReb, polls show that even NRA members want more gun control.
My cousin’s fiance in Canada is a hunter and owns guns. But he appreciates the strict gun control measures there, as it provides for a safer culture. The 2nd Amendment was obviously related to militias and slavery and a time before electricity for crying out loud. A time when people lived very simply, and weapons were simple.
Pigkiller
January 17th, 2013
9:13 am
Concerning the reason for the ratification of the second amendment, stands for decibels has linked to an opinion for this. I would suggest that everyone read the book(s) The Debate on the Constitution. (unless, of course, you attended the Atlanta Public Schools) This juxtaposes the papers and columns written by both the Federalists and Anti Federalists. Mason, and many other Antis, were worried about not having a bill of rights included in the constitution, not just the concept of militias. They were worried as well that a standing army, controlled by the. executive, could at any time remove rights granted by this constitution. Hence, the second amendment is in place to ensure that our other rights are protected. Concerning Mr. Bookman’s article, it seems that he would like to pick and choose the rights that are of his liking, and ignore those that do not suit him. Those he deems out of touch with today’s thought, technology, etc. should be eliminated. This is how it starts.
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
9:13 am
JohnnyReb
To think the NRA is manipulating people is ridiculous. The NRA is carrying the message from the people forward
.
.
.
.
Then why is it not promoting those things its members support?
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/15/1341181/the-5-sensible-gun-safety-regulations-that-even-nra-members-support/
Welcome to the Occupation
January 17th, 2013
9:13 am
bubba: ” Before you spout off, please learn the difference between a Court’s HOLDING and DICTA. One has the force of law and one does not.”
Because of course they (and their staffs) expend all kinds of their precious time expounding on things that have no force and in fact don’t express how they actually view issues at all. It’s meant to just be ignored and disregarded and so much empty verbiage.
Try wrapping your big thick arms around a clue, bubba.
Whatever
January 17th, 2013
9:13 am
Aqua,
On the fake quote…. I did not know it was fake until this morning. I did not intentionally try to mislead anyone. I apologize for using it but it was an honest mistake.
That still doesn’t change the fact that there are 100s of quotes from the founding fathers insisting the 2nd Amendment was an important right to maintain our freedoms.
JohnnyReb
January 17th, 2013
9:14 am
Na, Na Water Girl – the Meebo bar just hides. It’ still loaded, still scewing up the works. A program that actually shuts down won’t pop back up instantly with one click, it has to load.
BW
January 17th, 2013
9:14 am
Christian Conservative
No one here is arguing about protection of the home. Hell…I’m not even arguing on any gun control aspect….my point is that we have no chance against a modern military force in quest to “take our country back”. The people who are talking about King Obama, stripping Constitutional rights and the tree of liberty needing to be refreshed with the blood of tyrants from time to time, need to wake up. War is hell and I feel as though there is this illusion that it wouldn’t be. Do you really think if you were plotting armed rebellion the feds wouldn’t know before it was time to enact the plot? After the Patriot Act was passed, the possibility of that is nil to none. Rebellions take money and weapons….things that the feds that the feds are fairly decent at tracking in the quantities needed. Too much flapping of the gums and not enough common sense in the populace….just my opinion.
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
9:14 am
Sadder still….bearing false witness.
Don’t you Christians agree?
Steve
January 17th, 2013
9:15 am
PigKiller – do you, as a citizen with some rifles and guns, have the ability to stop our government now, when we have enough nuclear weapons to bomb the world 10 times over?
J.B. Stoner
January 17th, 2013
9:15 am
Over 50% of the gun murders committed in the U.S. annually are committed by less than 6% of the population. That’s right, afro-american males. Stop their aggressive behavior and you put a real dent in gun violence rather than restricting law abiding Americans.
BLK09GT
January 17th, 2013
9:15 am
Banderson @ 8:50 AM What’s the big deal? Simple, by advertising to criminals the locations of gun owners, they can be selective in the “soft” targets that they hit. The local police force has put out a statement basically saying you are giving criminals a road map as to houses they can freely burglarize. Its what liberals like to refer to as “gun free zones” where the evil of our world so love to attack.
As to the article, its simple. What part of the word “infringe” do you guys not understand?
Steve
January 17th, 2013
9:16 am
And let the racists posts begin…
JohnnyReb
January 17th, 2013
9:16 am
Good Fight – where did I run. I must have missed it. Just because I choose not address your ridiculous scenario does not mean I ran. I replied to your post. Others saw it – the one where I accussed Obama of being a tyrant.
Steve
January 17th, 2013
9:16 am
My question to you so called Christians – was Jesus pro gun? I seem to remember that whole ‘turn the other cheek’ thing.
Melanie
January 17th, 2013
9:16 am
No one wants to take away the guns that you need to defend yourself. But the NRA and the gun lobby hype that fear to increase donations and gun sales. And boy, has it worked. Nothing like the blood of 26 innocent people and the hope of rational efforts to the address the issue of mad men in public places with weapontry that lets them kill so many so quickly. The last two months have probably been the most profitable for the NRA and the gun manufactures and dealers for years. Cha-ching!
JF McNamara
January 17th, 2013
9:18 am
Wolverine!
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
9:18 am
Newtown changed everything.
JohnnyReb
January 17th, 2013
9:19 am
J B Stoner – now there’s a name not heard in a while. And, most of the youngsters here will have to look it up. JB’s crystal ball was correct in many ways, but he was hopelessly lost morally and other ways also.
And, there is a problem in the black community with violence, which they don’t want to keep at the forefront, but the mass shootings are almost always white boys.
Soothsayer
January 17th, 2013
9:19 am
Well, like I said yesterday, a thread having to do with guns and/or the NRA really brings the nutcases out of the woodwork. I hate to tell you this, nutcases, but Jay’s blog is really the government in disguise getting you to reveal yourselves. You’re going into a database of gun-totin’ nutcases! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Can somebody tell me where I can find a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread?
Bob
January 17th, 2013
9:19 am
The holding of public office is not license for treason, either. Not even a high one. Treason is a crime against the people, not defiance of unlawful orders by public officials who disregard the law.
Aquagirl
January 17th, 2013
9:20 am
The .223 is not a man slayer as the false statements from the fear mongering media reports. It is .001 inches bigger than a .22.
Jim we recently had a dispute about why a liberal blog would post a pic of a .223 next to a .22. This is why.
Thanks for proving there are fact-fudging gun nuts deliberately trying to mislead people. Next time one of the NRA drones starts claiming oh noes I’ll link to your post. They can put that in their manly gun and smoke it.
Jm
January 17th, 2013
9:20 am
Obama is doing a stand up job with the Islamists
They’ve controlled Mali for the last 8 months and are now taking over Algeria
Obama’s response is: you can have Afghanistan back, please
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
9:20 am
Steve
My question to you so called Christians – was Jesus pro gun? I seem to remember that whole ‘turn the other cheek’ thing.
He was certainly pro defending the word of GOD….. And would certainly be pro defending our GOD given rights as American citizens… Ponder on that for awhile…..
BLK09GT
January 17th, 2013
9:21 am
One other aspect of this article that is not discussed, in a worse case scenario, how many military and police personnel are actually willing to confiscate weapons/fire on American citizens? This argument that they have greater firepower is correct. However, you want to bring up Afghanistan? Look at what some locals with small arms living in caves were able to do against our military. They put up a heck of fight didn’t they? Back to the police, my local sheriff along with many across the country have come out and stated they would not obey any unconstitutional laws passed. There are many in our military, I would even say majority that support the second amendment. It wouldn’t be as lopsided as you have stated here.
ATL Tiger
January 17th, 2013
9:22 am
The Second Amendment does allow for a militia but more importantly, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
vinny
January 17th, 2013
9:22 am
Steve,
My old man’s a t.v. repairman, and he has this ultimate set of tools. I can fix it.
Spicoli.
joe
January 17th, 2013
9:22 am
Of course one gun owner can’t do anything to curtail the government with their armies…but that same one gun owner, aligned with 300 million other gun owners can certainly dictate what the government can or can’t do…so bookman’s point falls flat on his ugly face. Keep it up loony libs…you know your views are wrong.
TaxPayer
January 17th, 2013
9:23 am
Now the cons have confessed to us that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and Vietnam and Korea were all doomed because of their well-armed militias.
You cons are truly entertaining when all you can shoot off are your mouthes.
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
9:23 am
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
9:20 am
Steve
My question to you so called Christians – was Jesus pro gun? I seem to remember that whole ‘turn the other cheek’ thing.
He was certainly pro defending the word of GOD….. And would certainly be pro defending our GOD given rights as American citizens… Ponder on that for awhile…..
.
.
.
.
Yep, he was packing all the time he was being scourged.
Jay
January 17th, 2013
9:23 am
“The .223 is not a man slayer as the false statements from the fear mongering media reports. It is .001 inches bigger than a .22. Really???? A man slayer???? C’mon man, get your facts straight.”
Yes indeed. Let’s get our facts straight. Let’s begin with your absurd comparison between a .22 round and a .223 round, which demonstrates that you are either a willful liar or incompetent around firearms.
A .223 round is fired with three times the muzzle velocity of a .22 long-rifle round. Basic physics known since the time of Isaac Newton tells us that force = mass X velocity, which means the .223 round packs at least three times the punch of a .22.
So again, let’s get the facts right shall we?
NoJohnLocke
January 17th, 2013
9:24 am
The revolutions of modern day happen when the people of a country (even those, especially those in the military) fail to be represented by their government. See: Arab Spring http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring.
At this point, the majority still feel represented, even if it isn’t.
Modern interpretations (by supreme court justices) of the 2nd see it protecting firearms for self defense, recreation, provision… see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
The court then held that the Second Amendment “protects an individual right to keep and bear arms”, saying that the right was “premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad).” They also noted that though the right to bear arms also helped preserve the citizen militia, “the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.” The court determined that handguns are “Arms” and concluded that thus they may not be banned by the District of Columbia; however, they said that Second Amendment rights are subject to reasonable restrictions.
Now stop marginalizing people. The crazies will call themselves out, you don’t need to go out of your way to find them.
Paul
January 17th, 2013
9:25 am
Brendan O’Brien
“If anything the fact that the people of this country couldn’t stop a systematic genocide if it came to that, is an argument for better arming and better balancing the power against the people so that the government will only rule when it has the consent of the people.:
What part of Justice Scalia’s majority opinion “Scalia brushed aside claims that the Second Amendment guarantees citizens the means to armed revolution” do you not understand?
Christian Conservative
“What exactly is the point of an assault ban Jay? Why do you and your dem friends want to take guns from people?”
Why don’t you address that in a letter to Justice Scalia? Ask him why “the government is fully within its rights to ban military-style weaponry.”
He is the source, after all –
“Scalia stuns Identity Conservatives: says guns can be regulated”
“… there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned some weapons. There were also “locational limitations” on where weapons could be carried. –They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne.”
http://www.examiner.com/article/scalia-stuns-identity-conservatives-says-guns-can-be-regulated
GT
January 17th, 2013
9:25 am
Your online spell checker
What we have here ,that is so encouraging, is a cultural change coming about in this country. It may not be the instant cure this modern world demands but like smoking in the generation before it starts to put a negative light on the foolery of being macho as oppose to developing the health and mind of the body. For some reason the right has been lead to believe a physical presence trumps mental and moral strength in a country.
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
9:27 am
http://www.downvids.net/you-must-see-this-testimony-then-share-share-share–332398.html
Pigkiller
January 17th, 2013
9:27 am
Steve, not the point. We could get into a what if discussion as to whether or not the armed forces would as a whole or in part attack its own populace, but we would be off track. The real issue is which omnipotent being (hopefully not Bookman) is to decide which of the rights in the bill of rights the unwashed masses are allowed to have. And by the way, there are some things worth dying for.
TaxPayer
January 17th, 2013
9:27 am
All Jesus had was a bag of nails (he was a carpenter, wasn’t he) and a slingshot back in the day. He was known to sing while walking about, this timeless classic.
Lord Help Us
January 17th, 2013
9:27 am
‘which demonstrates that you are either a willful liar or incompetent around firearms.’
I posit it could be both…
Bob
January 17th, 2013
9:28 am
Steve–”Turn the other cheek” is about enduring personal insults, not sitting idly by while someone massacres innocent children. Jesus advised his disciples to carry swords.
Now, I wouldn’t “claim” Him for a political debate, per se, but both Jewish and Christian theologians have long agreed that the negative prohibition against murder carries with it a positive duty to protect and preserve innocent human life from the murderous, reckless (and even the “merely” negligent), and that duty brings with it a right to defend self and third parties, which right carries with it the right to the means conducive thereto, namely, equal or superior weaponry.
Jesus said that He did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it, and that anyone teaching others to ignore it would be least in the Kingdom of Heaven. By doing so, He affirms all the law of God, including the duty to preserve life just described.
You may not agree, but that has been the historic orthodox Christian position. Are there divergent positions? Sure, to varying degrees. But this has been the solid consensus on this issue (use of force in defense of life and property) throughout the history of the church. Hope that helps.
Aquagirl
January 17th, 2013
9:28 am
Na, Na Water Girl – the Meebo bar just hides.
Yeah, it’s apparently helped some folks so I thought I’d mention it. Hiding meebo is some small measure of retaliation so there’s that.
jtmcnsltng
January 17th, 2013
9:28 am
RE: Meebo – You can block anything from that site loading by adjusting you privacy / security settings.
In IE (gasp!), it is in the tools / intenet options / security tab / restricted sites. Just block anything from http://*.meebo.com
Paul
January 17th, 2013
9:29 am
There are many fine examples posted this morning as to why so many fear mental health checks as a prerequisite to gun ownership.
Donovan
January 17th, 2013
9:29 am
Enough with the second amendment discussion and confiscation of assault weapons and magazines.
Take your emotional liberal fight to mental health experts and Hollywood. Mass murderers are typically the nut cases that slip through the cracks or the ones who watch too many action hero movies.
Why aren’t you more concerned about confiscating cars and alcohol that kill more people each and every year? Could it be that liberals have a thing about controlling guns (now retermed as “controlling gun violence), controlling the military, and controlling the voting public?
By the way, libs…nice touch with the children props yesterday.
JohnnyReb
January 17th, 2013
9:29 am
I’m not the gun nut some here believe, but I do know Jay is correct on the .223. It’s all about the velocity.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 17th, 2013
9:30 am
JohnnyReb: “If you are concerned of propaganda, you should concentrate on the collusion of the White House and legacy media.”
Ah, so it’s not a “liberal” media any more? Oh, tiny inch of progress! if these people are at long last forced to concede that there is nothing “liberal” about the media.
“The NRA is a vehicle to help protect rights dear to conservatives. Just like the Democratic Party is a vehicle for a coalition of special interest groups.
To think the NRA is manipulating people is ridiculous. The NRA is carrying the message from the people forward.”
Hiliarious non sequitur! The party that represents the biggest “special interest” outfit known to man, the National child slaughter R’us Association (NRA), is not a party of special interests. I love it! Keep ‘em coming, JohnnyReb, you’re on a roll bub.
ramblingbuzz
January 17th, 2013
9:30 am
Hey Cons,
Don’t let the facts get in your way re: tyranny by Executive Order:
Obama – 144 EOs
Bush – 291 EOs
Clinton – 364 EOs
Source:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html
I call BS on your foolish, bigoted propaganda.
TaxPayer
January 17th, 2013
9:30 am
Uh Oh! Jay has done increased the momentum against the massive arguments presented to date by the cons through the use of science. Jay knows they have no defense since cons don’t do math or science. Well played, Jay.
Pissed Off Redneck Conservative
January 17th, 2013
9:30 am
This arguement is absurd…No sane person would care if restricting weapons was the answer. People aren’t pissed off about guns being limited, as much as they are in the fashion it has been handeled. There is no statistic or logical reasoning behind banning guns and the people who have suggested these bills do not have enough weapons experience to suggest they should be banned. Not only that, but even if you lean to the left or right are you not pissed about the backroom politics that have plauged New York the last 5 days?
Assuming everyone posting here is also a taxpaying American citizen, it is your tax dollars that allow the government to pay to have these weapons developed. Why shouldn’t you have access to them?
At the end of the day anyone who owns a firearm buys it for protection, wether they believe the government will eventually strip them of there rights or if. They believe a petty criminal decides to put a 9mm to their head while walking out of a gas station. There’s no reason to take guns away from mentally stable law abiding citizens. Starting an arms race with the people of America and creating a war on guns is assanine. I believe we tried doing this with drugs about 40 years ago and tell me, how hard is it to find weed?
ATL Tiger
January 17th, 2013
9:31 am
“Yes indeed. Let’s get our facts straight. Let’s begin with your absurd comparison between a .22 round and a .223 round, which demonstrates that you are either a willful liar or incompetent around firearms.
A .223 round is fired with three times the muzzle velocity of a .22 long-rifle round. Basic physics known since the time of Isaac Newton tells us that force = mass X velocity, which means the .223 round packs at least three times the punch of a .22.
So again, let’s get the facts right shall we?”
Yeah, and let the facts show that 50% of all murders in the US come from handguns (.22, .38. .357, 9mm, .40, .45), while rifles account for 2.6% of all murders. It is clear that the .223 packs more punch than a .22, but more murders are committed with a .22
Conculsion, ‘assault rifles’ and ‘high capacity magazines’ do no account for a signicant amount of murders in the US.
Jay
January 17th, 2013
9:31 am
Let me also deal with the earlier poster who cited successful 20th century revolts in Cuba, China and Russia as somehow negating my theory. To the contrary, those examples bolster it.
The communist dictatorship in Russia was overthrown with no shots being fired between the Soviet military and its citizens. People ended that tyranny, not guns.
Fidel Castro overthrew the Cuban government not with handguns and shotguns in the hands of Cuban farmers and workers, but with top-of-the-line military weaponry supplied by the Soviet Union. The notion that Mao’s Red Army was armed with sidearms kept by the Chinese peasantry is even more bizarre, because the peasants had no such arms. Again, it was heavy arms supplied by the Soviet Union, including tanks, as well as military weaponry recovered from the recently defeated Japanese forces in the area.
Scott
January 17th, 2013
9:31 am
“no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.”
Tell that to the Viet Cong – Pushed US out of Vietnam
Tell that to the Somalis in 1993 – pushed US out of Mogadishu
Tell that to the Muhajadeen in Afghanistan during the 80’s – pushed the Soviets out of Afghanistan
Tell that to the taliban in Afghanistan – withstood the US after 10 years of pressure
History shows that great military powers can be successfully opposed with asysmetrical warfare.
The 2nd Amendment can and does represent a free peoples right to resist tyranny.
JohnnyReb
January 17th, 2013
9:31 am
jtmcnsltng – re, Meebo. I tried your suggestion when Meebo first appeared. It doesn’t work. It will keep it from displaying, no double hash for on/off, but it still loads and runs. The AJC guy I talked to agreed with me as he suffered through my rants.
stands for decibels
January 17th, 2013
9:32 am
Video games do not cause violent behavior in society. That is a complete red herring.
Gale, I’m going to have to take polite issue with you again.
I am inclined to agree that violent entertainment is likely a symptom, not a cause, of nasty behavior. However, the opposite possibility is a very long-running concern among not-stupid people. There’s no definitive answer available to us yet, and perhaps there never will be. However, using the CDC and other government statistical resources to give us a higher-probability take, I think, would be a responsible thing to do.
I AGREE that some who bring this up, ARE just tossing a red herring out there. But that doesn’t mean the issue shouldn’t be addressed, rationally.
Paul
January 17th, 2013
9:32 am
“Its really sad that Oblama and his dem cohorts want to ban guns and are even talking confiscation….”
Christian Conservative, are you trying to take the “trolling while wearing the ’saying stupid stuff’ crown that Harry Callahan once wore?
Okay…. show us the citation…..
Brosephus™
January 17th, 2013
9:32 am
Do you think that the military or law enforcement would follow his orders to disarm the American people? Remember that most law enforcement are veterans. All military and law enforcement take an oath to uphold and protect the constitution. They would be within their rights to refuse to disarm the population.
If the population picks those arms up in rebellion against the Country, the military and law enforcement would be derelict in their duties if they did not disarm the people. Protecting the Constitution comes first and foremost. If you doubt that, ask Al Walki what happens when you rebel and become an enemy of the Constitution. Your US citizenship is not an automatic “get out of jail free” card if you screw around and cross over into that “enemy” role.
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
9:32 am
Granny Godzilla:
Yep, he was packing all the time he was being scourged.
Its really sad how clueless some people are about Jesus. He died for our sins…
Paul:
Last I checked Scalia is not against assault rifles…. You fruits can take him out of context all you want… He’s for specific military style weapons like grenade’s, Uzi’s, and rocket launchers..
Butch Cassidy (I)
January 17th, 2013
9:33 am
Christian Conservative – “Its really sad that Oblama and his dem cohorts want to ban guns and are even talking confiscation….”
Same offer to you buddy. $10,000 bet that over the next four years no one will force you to turn in your guns or come to your home demanding your weapons. Care to put your money where your paranoia is?
keithb
January 17th, 2013
9:33 am
Try to convince a shark not to eat you, because you are a vegetarian.
jconservative
January 17th, 2013
9:33 am
The Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says.
Everyone should read Justice Scalia’s majority opinion in the Heller case. You can find it at the Supreme Court website, click on Opinions and go to Docket # 07-290. The case is District of Columbia v. Heller. This opinion is ready made to be the basis for any legislation relating to gun ownership and use.
The key finding by the Court….”Held: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
Together, these two cases take the issue of an individual’s right to bear arms off the table. That issue is no longer under discussion.
The case of McDonald v. Chicago applied the findings in Heller to states, counties and cities. That is Docket # 08-1521 with the majority opinion written by Justice Alito.
Williebkind
January 17th, 2013
9:33 am
“That is mythological claptrap. But like a lot of mythological claptrap, it can push weak-minded people — the Timothy McVeighs of the world — to do stupid and dangerous things.”
Unless we remember history we will repeat it. No, it is you who do stupid and dangerous things by not understanding the intentions of our forefathers. Our forefathers had the best military weapons available to them at that time and yes the citizens kept them in their homes or property. Yes governments are taken over by liberal/communists like Linnen, Marx, and many more self declared democratic fighters for the people. You can not read the constitution for what it is so you want to make what you want it to be. Define Arms and come up with just a shotgun and a hunting rifle! Show me you understanding of the English language as used by the writers of the constitution.
You want to disarm America! You can not do it all at once so you chip at it constantly. This time you are using a trajedy to gain sympathy from the public to create SYMPATHY LAWS or now should I say SYMPATHY EXECUTIVE ORDERS. Once again–define ARMS!
larry
January 17th, 2013
9:34 am
I support the NRA!!
I do too!!
The National Refrigeration Association appreciates your support !!
rightwingextreme
January 17th, 2013
9:34 am
Jay
January 17th, 2013
8:43 am
Afghanistan? Yes, let’s talk Afghanistan.
With all the guns in private hands there, how “free” are its people?
How was freedom and liberty faring under the Taliban dictatorship before we arrived? Did all those guns allow the Afghans to employ “Second Amendment remedies” and overthrow the viciously repressive Taliban? No, not even close. The Taliban had a death grip on most of the country.
So yes, let’s throw Afghanistan into the argument.
Yes…let’s compare a country under strict Islamic Rule to our country. That’s good Jay….real good.
Paul
January 17th, 2013
9:34 am
Christian Conservative
If you mean assault weapons, you could be more specific. That was worded the way it was because you’re implying the same ‘all guns’ meme others have been using. If you want to differentiate yourself from them, you know how to do it.
stands for decibels
January 17th, 2013
9:34 am
The .223 is not a man slayer as the false statements from the fear mongering media reports. It is .001 inches bigger than a .22.
There are no words.
Only face palms.
Peadawg
January 17th, 2013
9:34 am
“I seem to remember that whole ‘turn the other cheek’ thing.”
I’m not going to “turn the other cheek” when my family is in danger and someone is breaking into our house.
Sagegirl
January 17th, 2013
9:34 am
“Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.”
-Citizen
With guns
Liberty for all
January 17th, 2013
9:35 am
The second Ammedment was in-fact created to protect the citizens from a tyrannical Gov’t Jay. “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. -The U.S. Constitution
It’s always comical to watch delusional liberal wing-nuts come out of the woodwork to demonize people, and facts they disagree with. The best part is reading the hilariously mis-informed comments by the far-leftists a.ka. the un-glued, irrational, emotional crowd. Like clock-work, imaginary characterizations of people they don’t relate well with find their way into their responses.
Try to remember, being dimwitted and dopey isn’t an excuse for being wrong.
Lord Help Us
January 17th, 2013
9:35 am
‘The AJC guy I talked to agreed with me as he suffered through my rants.’
I feeeel his pain…
JohnnyReb
January 17th, 2013
9:35 am
So that Good Fight does not think I tucked tail and ran – goodbye for now, some of us really do have to work.
Plus, all this is academic as far as banning the tactical rifles again – its not going to happen. Obama knows it, you know it.
The real issue is the executive orders. Obama is not king. Legislation is suppose to come from Congress.
Georgia
January 17th, 2013
9:36 am
I was going to comment but before I did I read all the comments above so I wont comment because all the cliches have been expressed. The discussion is where it as when Jay posted the piece. This is a direct result of the commenting by AJC stooges from his office. They don’t want the discussion advanced or resolved because then there’d be no reason to blog, and all those pop up goat porn ads would go unclicked. Shame on capitalism, journalism, and plagiarism, but then I repeat myself.
larry
January 17th, 2013
9:36 am
You want to disarm America! You can not do it all at once so you chip at it constantly.
Disarming me?
Wouldnt that hurt? I mean pulling my arms out of my shoulder sockets , thats really painful.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 17th, 2013
9:36 am
JohnnyReb: Just because I choose not address your ridiculous scenario does not mean I ran
Well then brave Sir JohnnyReb…. explain what is the “ridiculous scenario”. YOU stated Obama is committing tyranny. You also assert that YOU have a remedy under the 2d Amendment when there is tyranny. Since YOU have determined there is TYRANNY, what remedies to you NOW have under the 2d Amendment? You can hide behind a broad brush of constitution waiving telling us how you will bravely use a gun to defend against tyranny but you won’t articulate your remedies? You now claim that the 2d Amendment has some sort of “defensive” component?
Aquagirl
January 17th, 2013
9:36 am
tell that to the Muhajadeen in Afghanistan during the 80’s – pushed the Soviets out of Afghanistan
Yes, after WE armed them with weapons that could take on Soviet tanks and helicopter gunships.
Why are gun advocates so crummy at history? Is this like the .223 vs. .22 thing, or is it just plain ignorance they think a few rebels with small arms overturn governments?
roughrider
January 17th, 2013
9:36 am
It seems that the rebels in Syria are doing fairly well against planes, tanks etc.Also the Taliban in Afghanistan does well against the government forces.
jtmcnsltng
January 17th, 2013
9:36 am
RE:RE: Meebo – Not sure why it is not working for you. I have not tried blocking it on other browsers yet. Perhaps you could filter at the Windows Firewall level, or at your router level. Same concept, just different ways to do it.
Google is very helpful in finding creative ways to bend the internet to your will.
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
9:37 am
Butch Cassidy (I):
Ok I’ll take that bet if you make the same bet that Republicans are no trying to outlaw abortion as was spewed so much before the election….. All I heard was Republicans trying to infringe on a woman’s right to kill her baby… No its the other way around. dems trying to infringe on the right to bear arms…
http://youtu.be/FsQl6wWuRCc
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
9:37 am
These Uncle Sam hating, enraged gun nuts wondering around in perpetual fear of everything and everyone are all hat and no cattle.
You better run
‘Cause I’m young, dumb and I’ve got a gun
Public idiot number one
‘Cause I’m young, dumb and I’ve got a gun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8INrv5dgNI
Georgia
January 17th, 2013
9:37 am
And I am sick and tired of fending off all those malicious cookies. Give it a rest, Jay. Gads. Have you no sense of journalistic integrity at long last?
too little time
January 17th, 2013
9:37 am
According to some, the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that citizens have enough firepower to overthrow the federal government, should it become necessary to do so. If the government ever loses its fear of such a revolt, the theory goes, our liberty ends and tyranny begins.
Let me be blunt: That is mythological claptrap.
Not quite mythological claptrap, but almost. Let ME be blunt: EVERY government that ever existed on the face of the earth has become a corrupt cesspool that has collapsed… every one. And every single government suppressed it’s people until they could no longer take it, and revolted.
So while you declare it mythological claptrap, Jay, history is stacked against you.
I could go further: EVERY “paper” currency that ever existed failed… for the reasons that we have a 16 trillion debt and absolutely no will in government to control spending. EVERY paper currency has failed… 100%. People who say “deficits don’t matter” (both Democrats and Republicans) have obviously not noted that small footnote in the history of failed currencies.
Sorry to beat you over the head with facts, Jay, but those are the facts. They are not pretty. Our founding fathers knew that it was true then, and it would be true in the future. They planned for it. They wrote the 2nd amendment. Deal with it.