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
Paul
January 17th, 2013
9:39 am
Christian Conservative
“Liberal buffoon Andrea Mitchell gets put in her place… Imagine this is Bookman and not Mitchel”
Eric Pratt, of Gun Owners for America, chose to mislead by pretending Justice Scalia’s majority opinion didn’t exist.
Wilbur
“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”
You have examples of HOW the 2nd Amendment’s been disregarded? Something other than your unsupported opinion?
LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB
January 17th, 2013
9:39 am
Had the founding fathers the ability to see into the future, the 2nd Ammendment would never have seen the light of day. Any reasonable thinker would agree that repeal is the correct path.
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
9:39 am
The real issue is Reb’s laughable ignorance surrounding executive orders.
As proven by myself and ramblingbuzz.
But Reb is so damn fact-averse he just shrugs off what he doesn’t want to know.
i.e., the perfect con…
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
9:39 am
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…
.
.
.
.
I’m guessing your praying hard all the time for him to return, as in your case it didn’t work.
Shaw Staff
January 17th, 2013
9:39 am
Liberals should rid themselves of the crazy freedom lovers and form their own country. Secession is the answer! In fact yall can keep your god, barack obama and the freak show that comes with him. Just don’t forget to enjoy the unicorns in utopiaville.
Williebkind
January 17th, 2013
9:39 am
“All military and law enforcement take an oath to uphold and protect the constitution.”
The annointed one took an oath to uphold the constitution and the laws of the land. How is doing so far on that one. I grade him a complete failure.
Georgia
January 17th, 2013
9:40 am
The historical inaccuracies come entirely from the AJC confederates who are just trying to stir the pot. The trick is to post as much stupidity as you can and see who’s dumb enough to swing at it, and then target that IP address with all the malicious cookies. And I for one think it stinks. The comments are not coming from actual beliefs, but from a commercial conspiracy of Jay and his editors and their paid stooges on this blog.
larry
January 17th, 2013
9:41 am
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.
Well, that doesnt bode well for the state of Georgia .
Williebkind
January 17th, 2013
9:41 am
“Had the founding fathers the ability to see into the future, the 2nd Ammendment would never have seen the light of day. Any reasonable thinker would agree that repeal is the correct path.”
They did see the future from history but you are not a reasonable thinker and would never get it.
IdiotsonParade
January 17th, 2013
9:42 am
Macho? Lets trade in objects and actions deemed to promote “macho” in favor of things which promote health and mind? I’m curious how you’re able to contribute from your Tibetan Temple. Actually, I have a feeling you are pro-marijuana at this very second.
JohnnyReb
January 17th, 2013
9:42 am
JamVet – if it was W issuing 19 EO’s at once you would be screaming to high heaven. You know it, I know it, so stop the BS.
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
9:42 am
Paul:
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.
You could be more specific sport. Scalia has never stated there should be an assault weapons ban. Or Magazine ban for that matter. Do you honestly think Scalia would come down on infringes one’s right to bear arms. I don’t think so. Thats why your opinion along with you alter ego Jay is worthless and baseless… Scalia will rule for the people as he always does. Not for the gubmint….
Shine
January 17th, 2013
9:42 am
Those pesky founders…
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Suzanne Chupp
January 17th, 2013
9:42 am
While Scalia is quoted as saying that assault weapons could be restricted, bear in mind that this is his opinion. The 2nd amendment is very clear. This right “shall not be enfringed”… Regardless of of the time this was written, even the Declaration of Independence makes it very clear that when a government becomes tyrannical, it is the duty of the citizenry to revolt.
This modern government believes that the Constitution is a document that was designed to be in constant metamorphasis which couldn’t be further from the truth. The federal government had explicit limits put on them for the purpose of keeping a central government from becoming too far reaching into our personal lives and limiting our rights. We the people should be very clear that this government has overstepped its constitutional bounds.
Paul
January 17th, 2013
9:43 am
“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…..”
A picture of Jesus with an assault weapon, bandoliers draped over his chest, firing into a crowd of families who are demonstrating for some heathen purpose comes to mind….
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
9:43 am
Secession is the answer!
Isn’t “states rights” something you new age seccessionists are always spouting off about?
Nope, we libs ain’t going anywhere; we’ll just do the same thing we did last time. Send a few hundred thousand of you traitors to meet your maker…
rightwingextreme
January 17th, 2013
9:43 am
Jay, regarding your “article”. You need to go do some serious reading of U.S history and the concerns of the Founding Fathers on tyranny. I’ve included this link below for an excellent article on how we got the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights. And yes, the primary reason for the Second was to be able to defend the country from enemies both foreign and domestic…and that would include any government…both republican or democrat.
http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor.htm
I leave you with this interesting quote from Jefferson:
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
RB from Gwinnett
January 17th, 2013
9:43 am
“Scalia brushed aside claims that the Second Amendment guarantees citizens the means to armed revolution.”
Gee, Jay, you make it sound like we’re all “subjects” of our government and are at the mercy of whoever is in the house at 1600 Penn.
Two points you liberals just don’t seem to have the mental capacity to understand. 1) When it comes to a revolution, nobody gives a crap what Scalia, Obama, or any other name in Washington says you can and can’t do, have, whatever. It is those people and their rules you’re tossing out with the bath water. 2) You’re making potentially a fatal mistake by assuming our military will follow the “orders” of those same individuals and fire on their own families with that weaponry you mention. Big mistake.
We have sherriff’s all over this country telling Obama they have no intention of enforcing his executive orders because they deem them to be unconstitutional. If you can’t see the impending problems we’re headed toward when local law enforcement is telling the federal government to eff off, you’re just not thinking through this very clearly. Ask King George how all that turns out.
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
9:43 am
What EO will do anything to curtail gun crime libs?
Butch Cassidy (I)
January 17th, 2013
9:44 am
Christian Conservative – “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”
Okay, I never thought the Republicans were trying to outlaw Abortion. So you’re in on the 10K that no weapons will be required to be turned in and no one will come to your house to take them away? Any other takers?
Georgia
January 17th, 2013
9:45 am
The second amendment was passed during president Burr’s administration. It was signed into law after Burr shot Hamilton clean through the gizard during his first inaugural address when Hamilton jumped up and shouted, “YOU LIE!”. Hamilton needed killin’ for that. (hint)
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
9:45 am
Reb, doubling down on your EO imbecility?
Good job…
wayne
January 17th, 2013
9:45 am
Obama would love to have unarmed citizens, he would never leave office. Look at his power grabs so far, the auto industry, student loans, financial industry, making appointments while the senate was not in recess ect. Leave the guns alone and go back to teaching morals beginning in grade schools. Teach traditional marriage and balanced families. Go back to treating mental illness and let families turn in their children that need help and services. the above is mot o the problems. The entire Democratic party is about controlling the citizenry in any way possible!
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
9:45 am
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
9:43 am
What EO will do anything to curtail gun crime libs?
.
.
.
.
Which one will do harm?
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
9:45 am
Paul:
A picture of Jesus with an assault weapon, bandoliers draped over his chest, firing into a crowd of families who are demonstrating for some heathen purpose comes to mind….
I certainly wouldn’t picture that either you fruit… But I do picture Jesus sitting beside every law abiding citizen and soldier for that matter that could have this on defending themselves…..
keithb
January 17th, 2013
9:46 am
Matthew 13:15
For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’
Jer 17:9-10
9The heart is deceitful above all things
and beyond cure.
Who can understand it?
10“I the Lord search the heart
and examine the mind,
to reward a man according to his conduct,
according to what his deeds deserve.”
Roekest
January 17th, 2013
9:46 am
Jay,
I’d like to know how you speak with such authority on the Constitution and American History? Not disagreeing with you, but I’d like to know how a person who can command the attention of the public is able to speak with intellectual knowledge of what he writes. No offense, you’re just a blogger who gets paid by Cox Media. In my opinion, that does not make you a fountain of knowledge; just a man in a very persuasive position.
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
9:46 am
Granny Godzilla:
Just asking a simple question and you loons still can’t answer……
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
9:47 am
Butch Cassidy (I):
Well if you won’t take my bet I won’t take yours….
Paul
January 17th, 2013
9:47 am
Christian Conservative
“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”
Really?
REALLY?!!?
And you have a citation to back up that statement?
snert -
Chris
January 17th, 2013
9:47 am
That’s funny that you say the American public wouldn’t be able to compete with the military… I’m sure the government thought the same thing about every one-sided war we’ve ever entered. Where there is a will, there is a way. Guerrilla warfare has proven effective against every military giant throughout history. It’s very shortsighted to say us citizens would have no chance. I think you’re selling us short. Don’t forget, if this were to happen, the government wouldn’t be leveling cities with bombs like they do in foreign lands… they would want to preserve everything they could, so in essence many of their typical options would be off of the table on the home front. I don’t think it’s as cut and dry as you, or the Supreme Court, make it sound. I believe if semi-automatic assault rifles remained legal, it would be enough fire power, along with guerrilla tactics, to compete with the military on the home front. This is the EXACT reason why semi-automatic assault rifles (as they are today) should remain LEGAL. The only people these gun control laws hurt are the law abiding citizens. I’ll end with this… To say banning assault rifles and making them illegal will make us safer, is like saying nobody in this country can obtain illegal drugs when they look for them. Again, these laws only HURT us. The “bad” guys will always obtain what they need.
1776
January 17th, 2013
9:48 am
The 2nd Amendment provides the citizens the right to defend themselves against a treasonous government (which has trampled the law of the land….the Constitution). It’s not “overthrow” that most NRA & GOA members seek, but protection (to some degree) from an over-reaching, overly empowered, tyrannical “gubmint”. For those who don’t see that there is an (obvious) police state being build, do some research beyond the spoonfed propaganda the “mainstream” media churns out.
http://www.infowars.com/index.php?cat=4
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
9:48 am
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
9:46 am
Granny Godzilla:
Just asking a simple question and you loons still can’t answer……
.
.
.
.
Me, too, and YOU loons can’t answer.
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
9:48 am
Butch Cassidy (I):
I showed you proof of a dem considering it… You showed me nothing but baseless words…. Are you sure you’re not Jay?
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 17th, 2013
9:48 am
No other cons want to help out JohnnyReb. He says there is TYRANNY NOW. So what are his constitutional remedies under the 2d amendment. [And please, don't deflect with an argument about his assessment, let's assume for argument, that he believes with all his heart and soul that there is tyranny.]
larry
January 17th, 2013
9:49 am
If you can’t see the impending problems we’re headed toward when local law enforcement is telling the federal government to eff off, you’re just not thinking through this very clearly.
Yeah, my sheriff isnt going to arrest me for my anti-aircraft rifle i have in my back yard or for my M1A1 tank that i have in my driveway.
So, yeah just bring it on……….. huh? But…. 2nd Admendment says………………
Oh, nevermind.
keith
January 17th, 2013
9:49 am
Bookman is assuming that members of our military would attack their own friends and families on American soil. I sincerely doubt they would do that even if ordered to do so by the most divisive little dictator this country has ever had. I have a whole lot more respect for the men and women in uniform than to believe as bookman does, that they would kill their own countrymen and women. This shows just how little regard the left has for our military.
skipper
January 17th, 2013
9:50 am
Gun control has worked extremely well in Cesspool, er, Chicago. Maybe we need to let the gangs up there ALL have busmasters, kill each other off, then do something. That probably is absurd (and was meant to be) but in the words of a wise old fellow: “What we doin’ ain’t workin’!” I agree with privacy, but when someone is a pure loonie………(see the Colorodo shooter for one) he has given up his civil rights and access to records. As long as we protect loons using the mantra “their rights” among other stupid stuff, the root of the problem is gonna still be there….control or not.
Michael
January 17th, 2013
9:50 am
Let’s now stop with guns. We can stockpile grenades, landmines and bombs in our basements. I am convinced that if we gave Wayne La Of the NRA a psychological test and didnt put his name on it and we read the results that most of us would say this guy doesnt need to own a gun. We are not talking about regulars guns, but assault rifles and only the army, law enforement need such type weapons.
Aquagirl
January 17th, 2013
9:50 am
This modern government believes that the Constitution is a document that was designed to be in constant metamorphasis which couldn’t be further from the truth.
So why is the Constitution fairly vague and short, compared to other governance documents? Did the Founding Fathers run short on ink?
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
9:50 am
Holy crap on a cracker!
The crazies have invaded.
Is this somehow link to drudgey?
Scott
January 17th, 2013
9:50 am
Aquagirl
I would retort that you are “crummy at history”…the muhajadeen was successfully opposing the Soviets long before the CIA gave them stingers…and they were doing it with rifles from WWI and on horseback. While it is true that once the West started arming them, they were able to successfully counter Soviet airpower and eventually force thier withdrawl. However until that time the Soviets controlled only the major cities. They did not control the entire country by any means.
cloudodust
January 17th, 2013
9:50 am
Back in the 18th century, there weren’t as many crazy folks. Most people stood on their own two feet and practiced a thing called discipline plus the reliance on Big Brother Britain was practiced by those that garnered favor from the Empire or was comfortable with the status quo. Granted, the British fired the first shot in Boston that eventually brought forth the fight for Independence but the Fore-fathers recognized that the gun, not the lip, was the ultimate equalizer when and if a goverment becomes the oppressor.
will-o-the-wisp
January 17th, 2013
9:51 am
armed citizens taking on corrupt governments, ha!! Americans, excel at being a fat, silly people, ignorant barbarous and cruel, especially to those they unleash packs of killers armed with wmd on unarmed peasants– 3-16-1968.
Paul
January 17th, 2013
9:51 am
Christian Conservative 9:42
“You could be more specific sport. Scalia has never stated ”
I was. I was referring to YOUR post. Not Justice Scalia’s post, ’cause he doesn’t post here.
“Scalia has never stated there should be an assault weapons ban.”
Never said he did, Strawman. Quoted and cited him as saying “… 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.”
So… care to address what you meant in your post to which I was responding?
SPC
January 17th, 2013
9:51 am
So why have so many guns been sold over the past several years? In my opinion, it’s the result of a slow but steady increase in the distrust of those who govern us.
keith
January 17th, 2013
9:51 am
obama had over half the states suing him over his misguided healthscare plan. Now cops are telling him to take his anti-American ideas and go to hell. I LIKE IT!
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
January 17th, 2013
9:52 am
Well, seems to me there’s only one thing to do to even things up. They need to change the laws to let us private citizens buy them Stinger missiles and tanks and fighter planes and stuff like that. Otherwise we won’t never be able to overthrow tyranny if the guvmint turns that way.
And this means we’re going to need a little guvmint help us catch up. Maybe some guvmint paid storage buildings and some of them guvmint grants to help us take care of the sky-high prices of some of this stuff. And maybe we need some of them Defense Contractors to work for us and build new weapons the guvmint don’t have and of course that costs money we’ll need help with.
I figure if we go on a crash program now the civilians can catch up to the guvmint in 10 years or so. Right about the time we decide to Succeed from the Marxist, Socialist country we’ll become. And of course if you Succeed from the US of A you got to be able to defend yourself from the Tyrannical guvmint.
Anyhow, you got to think ahead, and I hope I’ve gave some of the good pro-gun people on here a start on ideas to flesh out.
Have a good Thursday everybody.
Butch Cassidy (I)
January 17th, 2013
9:52 am
Christian Conservative – “Well if you won’t take my bet I won’t take yours….”
Uhhhh…. yeah, because it’s not a bet when I agree that the Republicans weren;t going to outlaw abortion. However, you made the claim that Obama was going to make people turn in their weapons as well as confiscate them. The bet is that will not happen. Since I never claimed that Republicans were going to outlaw abortion, there is no wager to be made. I will however, stand by my original offer. $10,000 that you’re claim will NEVER happen.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 17th, 2013
9:52 am
SFD — “This commentary on the actual reasons behind the 2nd Amendment (that it was basically a wet, sloppy BJ to slave owners) seemed to upset the tender feefees of our Towncrier yesterday.”
I’ve been arguing with TC (and others, but mostly TC) for over a week now that there’s no right to armed insurrection or armed revolution in the Constitution.
He and others claim that the “militia” spoken of in the 2A is intended for citizens to join so that they can resist government tyranny, but the Constitution in Article 1, Section 8 makes it quite clear that *Congress* has control and authority over the militia.
So if anyone would like to show me where in the Constitution the Founders made an explicit distinction between the “militia” in A1, S8 and the “militia” in the 2A, then there’s no logical or Constitutional argument to be made that they’re in any way different — and that the “militia” has nothing whatsoever to do with revolution or insurrection.
Erwin's cat
January 17th, 2013
9:53 am
yawn >^..^<
Shine
January 17th, 2013
9:53 am
The founders were themselves were “traitors”, destroyers of private and government property, etc etc etc
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”
– Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good”
– George Washington
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
– Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
“This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it.”
– Abraham Lincoln, 4 April 1861
“As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks.”
– Thomas Jefferson, writing to his teenaged nephew.
No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave.
– “Political Disquisitions”, a British republican tract of 1774-1775
& what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that his people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to Col. William S. Smith, 1787
“The great object is, that every man be armed. [...] Every one who is able may have a gun.”
– Patrick Henry, speech of June 14 1788
Simple Truths
January 17th, 2013
9:54 am
Kamchak: Is this somehow link to drudgey?
No, it is a link to kammey.
Paul
January 17th, 2013
9:54 am
Christian Conservative
“Do you honestly think Scalia would come down on infringes one’s right to bear arms. I don’t think so.”
Justice Scalia: “… In a shocking statement made this morning on FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said he believes the U.S. Constitution allows states to regulate firearms.”
If you don’t know how to swim, you really should carry a life preserver.
Michael
January 17th, 2013
9:54 am
@1776, and have you heard of the word “Paranoid.” You buy right into the NRA’s Mantra. My father and my grandfather and myself have never worried about tyranny of the government, except for McCarthy. Maybe you can move to Syria where you can live out your dreams.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
9:55 am
Bookman is assuming that members of our military would attack their own friends and families on American soil. I sincerely doubt they would do that even if ordered to do so by the most divisive little dictator this country has ever had.
If you are so sincere in your doubts, why then do you need to be armed to the teeth?
keith
January 17th, 2013
9:55 am
COVERUPS LIKE fAST AND fURIOUS AND bENGHAZI HAVE GIVEN US PLENTY OF CAUSE TO DISTRUST THE CLOWNS RUNNING THIS COUNTRY. eSPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE APOLOGISTS LIKE BOOKMAN IN THE MEDIA THAT CONDONE THEIR EVERY ILLEGAL ACT.
Woodstock Mike
January 17th, 2013
9:55 am
Politicians are making all Americans look so silly these days…
Last week Obama slams the NRA for having children involved in a speech and yesterday Obama did the exact same thing…
Last week Obama slams the NRA for suggesting schools need armed sercurity and yesterday he says he wants the same thing…
I don’t believe assault weapons have a place in our society but these politicians on both sides of the aisle really take advantage os so many stupid Americans and it’s getting worse and worse.
And if Jay Bookman doesn’t realize that changing the rights of American citizens is taken very seriously by some he also must think we are all stupid…
Paul
January 17th, 2013
9:56 am
Christian Conservative
“I certainly wouldn’t picture that either you fruit…”
Your unresolved issues are peeking out again…..
will-o-the-wisp
January 17th, 2013
9:56 am
if i need to carry my m1A1 762 nato to the grocery store as a security blanket, then i should be institutionalized
keith
January 17th, 2013
9:56 am
Because there are criminals out there. Havent you heard?
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
9:56 am
keith
January 17th, 2013
9:51 am
Now cops are telling him to take his anti-American ideas and go to hell. I LIKE IT!
.
.
.
.
What 3 or 4 nut cases?
The rest…not so much.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/jan/16/Police-chiefs-back-Obama-gun-control-plan/?print&page=all
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/16/1179619/-21-000-Law-Enforcement-Pro-s-say-Yes-to-Obama
stands for decibels
January 17th, 2013
9:57 am
the “militia” has nothing whatsoever to do with revolution or insurrection.
Of course not. Our founders were simply cheap and cowardly on *this* issue, and we are paying the price for it now.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 17th, 2013
9:57 am
So why have so many guns been sold over the past several years? In my opinion, it’s the result of a slow but steady increase in the distrust of those who govern us.
More guns have been sold but number of families with guns in their homes have declined. Have you tried looking for a correlation between the rise of Fox and rightwing punditry and the paranoia of the gun nuts and preppers? Perhaps your opinion has been skewed by the lack of facts?
rightwingextreme
January 17th, 2013
9:58 am
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.
Jay…counter argument. The Soviets did crush rebellions in Hungary and Czecholslovakia with armed force when the civilians were unarmed.
The examples you mention of China and Cuba further bolster the argument and reasoning behind the 2A. A well armed people have a much better chance of defending themselves.
I will agree on one point….there has to be the will to use them and in those examples you cite the will was there.
Jay
January 17th, 2013
9:58 am
“Bookman is assuming that members of our military would attack their own friends and families on American soil. I sincerely doubt they would do that even if ordered to do so by the most divisive little dictator this country has ever had.”
Actually, I’m making the exact opposite assumption. I am assuming that the US military would never fire on crowds of protesters (Kent State being the rare exception) gathering to protest government overreach, which is why guns in private hands are so useless and unnecessary in that context.
However, I do assume that the government would and should intervene against people who launch armed attacks claiming that they have the right to institute a government of their choosing at gunpoint. Which is yet another reason that guns in private hands are so useless and unnecessary in this context.
(Please note “in this context.” I am not arguing that guns have no legitimate purpose for self defense, because clearly they do and clearly they are protected by the Constitution in that regard.)
TSteaks
January 17th, 2013
9:58 am
Jay you ignorant slut. Obama isn’t stepping on the Constitution by trying to outlaw private ownership of a B-2 bombers. He wants to outlaw private ownership of ordinary weapons. Yes a clip that holds more than ten rounds is still ordinary. And their is no such thing as an “assault” rifle. A rifle can’t assault anyone any more than a hammer can (by the way see the FBI statistics showing more people are killed in the U.S. each year with hammers than guns). Also, though a rifle may look menacing it its actually no different from many hunting rifles. It still only shoots once every time the trigger is pulled, and it may even be the same caliber.
stands for decibels
January 17th, 2013
9:58 am
What I learned from last night’s Bookmaniacs?
if i need to carry my m1A1 762 nato to the grocery store as a security blanket, then i should be institutionalized
The correct reposte to this librul thinking is: “Good thing YOU weren’t around in 1812!”
Paul
January 17th, 2013
9:58 am
keith
“Bookman is assuming that members of our military would attack their own friends and families on American soil. ”
Not at all. Jay’s responding to the right wingers who say the 2nd Amendment exists so they can have guns and fight a tyrannical federal government which includes the military.
Your beef is with them, not Jay.
keith
January 17th, 2013
9:59 am
if i need to carry my m1A1 762 nato to the grocery store as a security blanket, then i should be institutionalized
i agree. And if we have riots like the Watts riots, LA riots, looters like during Katrina you may need a rifle like that to keep your home from burning down with you inside of it.
larry
January 17th, 2013
9:59 am
Now cops are telling him to take his anti-American ideas and go to hell. I LIKE IT!
Yeah, i do too!!
Hey Keith, you wanna ride in my M1A1 tank, Come on buddy.
Oh , its the sheriffs office again. Whattya mean i cant have a M1A1 tank, it’s my 2nd admendment right. The right to bear my arms. My really big arms.
Lord Help Us
January 17th, 2013
10:00 am
According to Reagan: the Nicaraguan Contras were “the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers.”
That worked out so well, the neocons have upgrade to, ‘the Afghanis. Somalis, etc. are the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers.’
Maybe it will work this time…
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
10:00 am
Brother Kam, these post election meltdowns are a hoot, huh?
The faketriots can no longer win with the ballot, so they want to resort to the bullet.
And I’m so afraid of them!!! LOL!!!
cc, keith and JohhnyTraitor and a bunch of their pal right wing losers are all vewwy, vewwy upset and they are heavily armed!!!
Oh my goodness, whatever will we do???!!!
My guess is that one of these nutjobs from the GOP’s lunatic fringe will try to go all James Earl Ray in Obama’s second term.
RB from Gwinnett
January 17th, 2013
10:00 am
“No offense, you’re just a blogger who gets paid by Cox Media. In my opinion, that does not make you a fountain of knowledge; just a man in a very persuasive position.”
More like a bully pulpit from which he spews his radical left wing propaganda from, actually. Nothing here resembling the “journalist” he claims to be.
Paul
January 17th, 2013
10:01 am
SPC
“So why have so many guns been sold over the past several years? In my opinion, it’s the result of a slow but steady increase in the distrust of those who govern us.”
In my opinion, it’s the result of very effective propaganda and flat-out lying by the NRA, gun manufactures and right-wing talk show hosts.
Recon 0311 2533
January 17th, 2013
10:01 am
Another stupid commentary attempting to stereotype firearm owners who disagree with federal government gun bans. It’s highly unlikely that there would be an armed insurrection in this country, however, in a hypothetical scenario where that became actionable out of necessity the military would probably join with the people in deposing a rogue government.
TaxPayer
January 17th, 2013
10:01 am
Holy crap on a cracker!
The crazies have invaded.
Is this somehow link to drudgey?
I’m reminded of the good old days when Jay would call out the Fairly Odd Tax whackos. Anyway, different topic-same crowd. Earth cons are easy.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 17th, 2013
10:01 am
R. W. Extreme — “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.”
Fine. Reason your way out of the nonviolent Polish and Czech ‘velvet revolutions’ of the last 35 years.
Jay
January 17th, 2013
10:01 am
“Jay…counter argument. The Soviets did crush rebellions in Hungary and Czecholslovakia with armed force when the civilians were unarmed.”
Right. Because a few more hunting rifles and shotguns in private hands would have surely turned the battle against Soviet tanks, fighters, artillery and infantry divisions.
cloudodust
January 17th, 2013
10:01 am
will-o-the-wisp : If you did need to carry that amount of firepower anywhere, I really don’t think the grocery stores would have any thing left on itheir shelves…
stands for decibels
January 17th, 2013
10:02 am
More guns have been sold but number of families with guns in their homes have declined.
and I see no reason to think that this trend won’t continue. Having some kind of gun because there’s a chance to literally walk outside and go hunt game, or maybe set up a target for fun in the back yard, that makes sense if you’re out in the boonies. But fewer and fewer Americans (percentage wise) choose to live in the boonies. We’re becoming more urbanized, not less.
for all their blather, the NRA and their apologists are, statistically speaking, shoveling crap against the tide with a pitchfork.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
January 17th, 2013
10:02 am
Jay:
You forget some VERY important points that have occurred in countries the world over.
1) I PRAY this never happens but if the Constitutional order of this country ever broke TOTALLY down then millions of gutsy Americans just might try to RESTORE (NOT REVOLT) BUT RESTORE what had been. That would not be treason ………… that would be patriotism !
2) You must remember that those citizens would have fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters in the military who might feel the same way. The military would become highly fragmented (as has happened in other countries/situtations) and then an armed citizenry along with at least part of the military could tip the balance and make the difference.
3) You continue to ignore excerpts from Heller v. D.C.
“It was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.”
P.S.
Since you are so good at statistics, how many children in the U.S. in the last ten years have been killed by drunk drivers ? If we had a national database of those convicted of DUI’s offenses then we could stop them from buying (or renting) a car ! Oh, they could borrow or steal one but law enforcement could be alerted when they moved into a certain area so they could be monitored.
What say ye ???
keith
January 17th, 2013
10:02 am
Not at all. Jay’s responding to the right wingers who say the 2nd Amendment exists so they can have guns and fight a tyrannical federal government which includes the military.
you are wrong. the military consists of men and women who have family and friends that would, in my opinion, defy any order from a tyrannical govt like we currently have to attack their fellow citizens. i know many many people in the military that would never ever follow such orders from the little dictator.
Seriously Folks
January 17th, 2013
10:03 am
Couple of things…
CC – “Scalia will side with the people as he ALWAYS does”…really? Bush v Gore?…oh well, sleep tight in your bubble.
Secondly, PLEASE spare me the “literal” translations about the 2A…again, I, for one, could care less if you own a pistol, a M-16 or whatever…but you have an OBLIGATION and RESPONSIBILITY to register and learn how to operate. Period. ALL the President proposed was that we have a discussion on what we can do a better job of to address this problem.
I have a “right” to go buy a bulldozer….doesnt mean I can drive it down the middle of I-75 in the middle of rush hour, no matter HOW much I plead that there are “bad drivers out to get me in my car” and I shove them out of the way…
Also, I have said this countless times on these types of threads…CONTEXT people. All those wonderful quotes and espousing of rights did NOT include women or minorities….
Jeffrey
January 17th, 2013
10:03 am
Ya’ll mean I can’t hunt deer with a Hellfire missile?????!!!!!! And I had a nice RPG all picked out to take care of those pesky gophers in in the back pasture. Dern SOCIALISTS!!!!!!!
The other half of your brain.
January 17th, 2013
10:03 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
” Well that was just plain dumb. Afghanistan has a president with an army and he couldn’t control the Taliban. Hell, he was terrified of them, mainly because they had all those guns.
Look at all the firepower we have and yet we have lost thousands of soldiers in Iraq & Afghanistan to bullets. So yes! lets talk about those countries.
I don’t own a handgun or rifle but I support the right of others to do so.
larry
January 17th, 2013
10:04 am
So why have so many guns been sold over the past several years? In my opinion, it’s the result of a slow but steady increase in the distrust of those who govern us.”
So, should the legislature and the governor’s office be worried, too?
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
10:04 am
http://blogs.ajc.com/mike-luckovich/2013/01/16/0117-luckovich-cartoon-gun-control/?cxntfid=blogs_mike_luckovich
GT
January 17th, 2013
10:04 am
Donovan I love how the right absent of fact or wit will grab the first hostage that comes by to make his, and very seldom her, point. In a gale wind force of reality your gun club tries to walk like it is another day in the park. I think the American public resents your cavalier stubbornness that violent gun events is not a defining factor only found in this country in the bulk supply we see today. Let’s keep the party going for your pleasure, dead children are just collateral damage to the more important person here, that being you, and your selfish desires. After all why should you be punished for the lives of a few children, lets let them be punished for your non essential pleasures.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
January 17th, 2013
10:05 am
Recon @ 10:01
Very suscinct. Thank you.
Adam
January 17th, 2013
10:05 am
Standing ovation from the majority of America for Jay for this article.
stands for decibels
January 17th, 2013
10:06 am
Fairly Odd Tax whackos
That’s “Fairy Tale Tax” whackos, buck-o.
RB from Gwinnett
January 17th, 2013
10:06 am
It’s funny watching you liberals trying to gather up the people you’ve been spewing all your hatred at (Christians, business owners, pretty much everybody who won’t bow to your wishes) to sing a big ‘ol round of Kumbaya while they’re all down at the gun store stocking up on guns, magazines, and ammo to tell you to eff off.
bookman parrot
January 17th, 2013
10:06 am
jay,
you are painfully naive in this pass at your propaganda!!! your “supportive arguments” are “head in the sand” and as usual have overexaggerated “examples” that are extremely disrespectful to anyone with common sense.
libs always seem to believe they know what is best for everyone
and that libs should decide for everyone… i.e. libs believe in ideology that easily can step
into dictatorship… especially given the arrogance of the people of the lib camp…
keith
January 17th, 2013
10:06 am
bookman forgets our own revolution. people with small arms defeated the most powerful military in the world. when the masses have the means to fight tyranny they usually win. When they dont they lose. Well we do, but bookman wants to protect tyranny by disarming us.
The other half of your brain.
January 17th, 2013
10:07 am
Jay
January 17th, 2013
10:01 am
“Jay…counter argument. The Soviets did crush rebellions in Hungary and Czecholslovakia with armed force when the civilians were unarmed.”
Right. Because a few more hunting rifles and shotguns in private hands would have surely turned the battle against Soviet tanks, fighters, artillery and infantry divisions.
” DUH!, It did in Afghanistan for 10 years, the Soviets lost their Azz their. Damn it just keeps getting easier.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
January 17th, 2013
10:08 am
Excuse me:
“susinct”
bookman parrot
January 17th, 2013
10:08 am
amen to keith at 10:06am. you are spot on.
keithb
January 17th, 2013
10:08 am
It isn’t about safety, just like Obamacare is not about health.
Political Power is the only concern here, and diminshing the power of U.S. Constitution (i.e. the people, the citizens)
Wake up America. My belief is that we very well may have witnessed the last constitutionaly elected president of the United States of America.
Only appointments will be made for the remainder of Obama’s rule. Look at Castro, will he ever die. Cuba is Obama’s ideal America. With himself being our Socio-Path in Chief and firmly in control.
The producers in America have allowed the moooochers to rule by not electing someone other than Obama to office. Is this the end for America? I’m glad I got this off my chest because the First Amendment will be next. We are a good distance down the slippery slope.
larry
January 17th, 2013
10:08 am
Since you are so good at statistics, how many children in the U.S. in the last ten years have been killed by drunk drivers ? If we had a national database of those convicted of DUI’s offenses then we could stop them from buying (or renting) a car !
And the number of people killed by drunk drivers have gone down because of government intervention, a crackdown by the government .
What you say ye? or me? or I? or pie!