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
Thomas
January 17th, 2013
10:08 am
Let see- the gov’t needs people to register and provide identity proof for Obamacare and to purchase guns but voter ids send the libs into shock.
simple minds- simple solutions
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
10:08 am
keith and tyranny…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
TaxPayer
January 17th, 2013
10:09 am
That’s “Fairy Tale Tax” whackos, buck-o.
I sit corrected.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 17th, 2013
10:09 am
Recon — “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.”
I agree.
That said, I don’t think that those who are murmuring about ‘rogue government’ and ‘tyranny’ and ‘revolution’ over the gun issue are going to be the ones driving the train. If the people who are so strongly opposed to the President and his policies were actually the opinion leaders they imagine themselves to be, he wouldn’t be having his second Inauguration next week.
stands for decibels
January 17th, 2013
10:10 am
If we had a national database of those convicted of DUI’s offenses then we could stop them from buying (or renting) a car !
You post stuff like this like it’d be cray-cray to do this.
It wouldn’t be, not if there were some national movement afoot to do so.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
January 17th, 2013
10:10 am
Excuse me again:
I mean “succinct”
Aquagirl
January 17th, 2013
10:10 am
However until that time the Soviets controlled only the major cities. They did not control the entire country by any means.
The various factions and warlords have been armed and used by one side or another for hundreds of years. They have a long history of waging warfare against whatever government is in power, each other, and anyone who looks at them sideways. Continuous warfare is pretty much their natural state. They’re not free and independent, unless you define freedom as “being shot at a bunch.”
So if you want to count that as successful and a hoo-ray for guns ‘n freedom point, you’re welcome to go live there. It’s not coincidental that life in Afghanistan sucks. That’s what happens when you have a bunch of yahoos obsessed with their machismo and guns.
Shine
January 17th, 2013
10:10 am
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)
The Draft Riots in New York and Bonus Army attack never happened……………..
barking frog
January 17th, 2013
10:10 am
This debate is about the word infringed. The only use of this word I
could find in Madison’s journal of the Constitutional convention was
in regard to each state printing it’s own money and that this should
be infringed meaning stopped completely. This indicates that infringed
in the 2nd amendment means the right to keep and bear arms shall
not be taken away completely.
Atlanta Native
January 17th, 2013
10:11 am
When there is money to be made the LEFT is as greedy as anyone…
Don’t Tell Rabidly Anti-Gun Hardball Host Chris Matthews, But His Employer Sponsors a Gun Show
On his January 10 program, pro-gun control Hardball host Chris Matthews was utterly perplexed at the very notion of gun shows themselves, going further than the call to close the so-called gun show loophole regarding background checks. ” I’m a suburbanite city mouse. I generally have lived in urban — suburban areas, but I don`t know why you need a gun show. I mean, if you want to buy a gun, you buy a car, you go to a dealer. Why do you have to have a show?” Matthews griped.
Well, now it turns out that Matthews’s employer, NBC Universal, is actually sponsoring a massive three-day-long gun show in Las Vegas. The Washington Free Beacon’s C.J. Ciaramella reported shortly after 6 p.m. Eastern on Friday:
The NBC Sports Network, a subsidiary of the communications giant Comcast, is helping to sponsor the largest gun trade show in the country despite anti-gun rhetoric on the NBC family of television networks, including a controversial monologue by one of its sports announcers.
NBC Sports is listed as one of the primary sponsors of the 2013 SHOT Show, which takes place Jan. 15 to18 in Las Vegas and bills itself “the world’s premier exposition of combined firearms.”
[...]
Neither MSNBC nor Comcast responded to a request for comment.
Adam
January 17th, 2013
10:11 am
in a hypothetical scenario where that became actionable out of necessity the military would probably join with the people in deposing a rogue government.
Rendering the need for private ownership of powerful weapons moot.
larry
January 17th, 2013
10:11 am
Kumbaya while they’re all down at the gun store stocking up on guns, magazines, and ammo to tell you to eff off.
Yep, reading a magazine is a perfect way to tell someone to eff off.
Where’s my Sports Illustrated?
AtlJack
January 17th, 2013
10:11 am
Jay- great column!
Let’s face the truth. People who obsess over “the guvment” taking their liberty and who count on their personal arsenal of AR15s are basically VERY frightened people. The world is beyond their mental grasp and the swirl of social and economic changes overwhelm them.
The carry their Glock (patting it repeatedly) and fondle their Bushmaster much like a child holds their security blanket. They live in fear. This is why the phrase “you’ll get my guns when you take them from my dead fingers” is so important to them. They CAN’T live without their guns because they would be too afraid to live.
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
10:12 am
half a brain, I doubt you never-served cons could fight off a determined Boy Scout troop.
Seriously.
And you’re going to take on Uncle Sam?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Skip
January 17th, 2013
10:12 am
When the Cons come out in favor of down sizing the military I’ll believe they fear a Government takeover of their lives.
will-o-the-wisp
January 17th, 2013
10:12 am
i do not carry it around, it lives in a safe with the bolt removed in a safe deposit box.; for personal protection, i prefer bladed weapons and chains.
Paul
January 17th, 2013
10:12 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.”
Aw, nuts…. our senior military and political leaders were dead wrong when they said we needed to establish NATO, base hundreds of thousands of US troops in Europe, adding to the western European forces, to counter a possible Soviet invasion and takeover.
Coulda’ got off cheap by just giving the citizens some automatic weapons. THAT woulda’ scared the Red Army!
What were we thinking?!!?
The other half of your brain.
January 17th, 2013
10:13 am
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.
” Paul every year there is a poll that shows how much the people of our country hate politicans, Congress has a ratinf of about 10% if I’m not wrong.
So yes, people distrust those who govern us. There have been a lot on the left on this site who have expressed that also.
Recon 0311 2533
January 17th, 2013
10:13 am
“More guns have been sold but number of families with guns in their homes have declined.”
In the face of firearm and ammunition sales in the United States that’s an incredibly stupid supposition not a fact.
MANGLER
January 17th, 2013
10:13 am
At least we’ve moved on from Banghazi. This is a much more civil argument.
barking frog
January 17th, 2013
10:14 am
Militia in the 2nd amendment refers to state militias that are
now the National Guard and the people refers to the populace.
TaxPayer
January 17th, 2013
10:14 am
An armed rebellion against a duly elected government would be an act of treason. Our patriotic cons would commit treason. So sad. Sore losers.
rightwingextreme
January 17th, 2013
10:14 am
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 17th, 2013
8:21 am
The Tyranny crowd believes that at some point they are “justified” in killing law enforcement, govt officials and civilians. But they never tell us what the “test” is to determine when they have this “second amendment remedy”. Was it tyranny when civil rights were denied in the south by state governments (and where were they they)? Was it tyranny when Japanese Americans were sent to internment camps (and where were these “freedom fighters”? Could McVeigh have asserted a viable defense that the tyranny crowd would support by claiming that he determined he saw tyranny and he took action as is his “second amendment” remedy right?
Come on cons….tell us when does this right arise in clear and uncertain terms.
I think this is the answer you’re looking for. Worked pretty good back in 1776.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Jay
January 17th, 2013
10:14 am
You do realize, I hope, that during the Cold War the assumption in the U.S. military was that with all our tanks and air power, we very likely would not be able to stop a Soviet invasion of Europe with conventional arms alone and would probably need tactical nukes such as the neutron bomb?
And you seriously propose that privately armed Hungarians could have succeeded?
keith
January 17th, 2013
10:15 am
how did the citizens of Vietnam fair against the mighty American military in Vietnam bookman? sure we had the planes, the bombs etc but they had the resolve. Keep restricting our rights and you may see more of that resolve.
AWJ
January 17th, 2013
10:15 am
The problem with your point of view Jay is that you have no problem allowing your government to slowly take away your liberties, and thus, becoming more reliant on your federal government, i.e. you trust the government to make better choices for you than you do yourself. You trust that your government has your best interest at heart. I don’t. If your argument is true, how did we ever defeat Great Britain back in the day? That had the most powerful and advanced military of the times. Why did we not win “Afghanistan or Iraq” in 1 week? You see, the fact that the 2nd amendment exists allows us, among other things, to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. An armed citizenry has the choice whether or not they subject themselves to brutal oppressive treatment. Have you never taken a history class? Look at all of the different scenarios where oppressive governments have murdered millions of their own citizens in the 20th and 21st centuries alone. It all starts will unarming the citizenry. I am not making the point that this is where our country is headed, but because of the existence of the 2nd amendment it will make any government think a little harder before they act. It is similar to the belief that the mere existence or possible existence of a “good guy” with a gun can prevent crime from happening, yet that type of scenario is never part of a data set on guns and crime.
Common Sense is Uncommon
January 17th, 2013
10:15 am
“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” ~ Founding Father, George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment.
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
10:15 am
Paul:
There are many posts on here Jay, I mean Paul… Please refresh my memory….
The whole Jefferson quote
January 17th, 2013
10:15 am
http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/exercise
1785 Aug. 19. “Encourage all your virtuous dispositions, and exercise them whenever an opportunity arises, being assured that they will gain strength by exercise as a limb of the body does, and that exercise will make them habitual…Give about two of them [hours] every day to exercise; for health must not be sacrificed to learning. A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprize, and independance 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 of your walks. Never think of taking a book with you. The object of walking is to relax the mind. You should therefore not permit yourself even to think while you walk. But divert your attention by the objects surrounding you. Walking is the best possible exercise. Habituate yourself to walk very far. The Europeans value themselves on having subdued the horse to the uses of man. But I doubt whether we have not lost more than we have gained by the use of this animal. No one has occasioned so much the degeneracy of the human body. An Indian goes on foot nearly as far in a day, for a long journey, as an enfeebled white does on his horse, and he will tire the best horses. There is no habit you will value so much as that of walking far without fatigue. I would advise you to take your exercise in the afternoon. Not because it is the best time for exercise for certainly it is not: but because it is the best time to spare from your studies; and habit will soon reconcile it to health, and render it nearly as useful as if you gave to that the more precious hours of the day. A little walk of half an hour in the morning when you first rise is adviseable also. It shakes off sleep, and produces other good effects in the animal oeconomy.”[3]
indigo
January 17th, 2013
10:15 am
Our country is over 200 years old and the Govt. has NEVER tried to impose tyranny on us.
If they did, we civilians would not last very long against tanks, fighter jets, RPG’s, flame throwers, artillery and heavly armed soldiers and marines.
Therefore, believing you need guns to protect yourself against the Govt. indicates the following:
1. You are suffering from paranoia. This is a serious mental disorder and you need to get immediate help.
2. You are suffering from a serious case of erectile dysfunction. Instead of getting help, you’re using guns as a phallic substitute.
Either way, mental illness and guns are a bad mix.
Williebkind
January 17th, 2013
10:16 am
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
When Christ returns as stated in the Book of Revelation, will he turn the other cheek? No he will come to claim his kingdom. Now liberals will be fighting him unto the death.
Jay
January 17th, 2013
10:16 am
“The Draft Riots in New York and Bonus Army attack never happened……………..
And those would have turned out SO much better had the protesters been armed with AR-15s, right?
I’ve got to run out to the Capitol. Please keep it clean and sane….
Jefferson
January 17th, 2013
10:16 am
Gun and their owners along with stories about them are pretty much boring and silly.
Banderson
January 17th, 2013
10:16 am
Thanks to @skipper for pointing out that even places with strict gun control still have gun violence. @skipper makes the case that we need a national policy on gun control, rather than a patchwork of local laws that can be easily skirted by going to the neighboring state for weapons.
The other half of your brain.
January 17th, 2013
10:16 am
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
10:12 am
half a brain, I doubt you never-served cons could fight off a determined Boy Scout troop.
Seriously.
And you’re going to take on Uncle Sam?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JamitVet, First of all, have you taken your meds today? I have served, but unlike you I don’t crave sympathy where I have to wear it on my sleeve.
Your post is rather delusional, kinda like you.
keith
January 17th, 2013
10:17 am
You do realize, I hope, that during the Cold War the assumption in the U.S. military was that with all our tanks and air power, we very likely would not be able to stop a Soviet invasion of Europe with conventional arms alone and would probably need tactical nukes such as the neutron bomb?
And you seriously propose that privately armed Hungarians could have succeeded?
Do you seriously think that members of our military would turn on their friends and family just because obama told them to? Seriously jay?
GT
January 17th, 2013
10:17 am
RB from Gwinnett ain’t no hate here bro. We are just trying to get out of the way of this bull in a china shop you boys have created. And as you are knocking everything loose from the economy, lives and even real Christian belief you’re denying to the shop owners your responsibility. You’re just a dumb cow lost in a china shop making lots of noise; don’t know how all that damage happened.
BLK09GT
January 17th, 2013
10:17 am
Michael @ 9:50 AM What’s your definition of an “assault weapon” I know the definition they are throwing out all over the place in regards to defining features which are only cosmetic. (folding/collapsible stock, flash suppressor, pistol grip etc.) They are now wanting the definition to be only one of these features resulting in the reclassification of the weapon. So with pistol grip for instance, this basically bans most guns, not just so called assault weapons. For example, a shotgun such as a Mossberg 500. Has a pistol grip and a collapsible stock. (scary!!) Is this an “assault weapon” ?? The true (non-liberal) definition of an assault weapon is one that is select fire (automatic). Why are the liberals trying to come up with their own definition of a word? The ban on “high” capacity mags results in the same thing. Basically the ban on most semi-auto guns. Most modern guns have a higher capacity than 10 rounds or 7. You are making criminals out of a millions of once law abiding citizens.
barking frog
January 17th, 2013
10:17 am
President Obama taught Constitutional Law, too bad the tea party
didn’t attend.
Uh Huh....Nonsensical Idea
January 17th, 2013
10:18 am
Tyranny
Treason
Opposition to Gun Laws
Resurgence of hate and bigotry
Children being murdered and some people don’t care
The UNITED STATES aint the same.
I guess if everbody went CRAZY TOGETHER
NOBODY would notice, what do you think?
stands for decibels
January 17th, 2013
10:18 am
Let see- the gov’t needs people to register and provide identity proof for Obamacare and to purchase guns but voter ids send the libs into shock
You want shock?
This dirty effing hippie is all for national IDs. I think the Federal Government should provide passports free of charge to all of its citizens. (We’d benefit from international travel as those opportunities arise, and it’d provide everyone with a rock-solid form of traceable ID).
You with me? You willing to fund something that runs $165 per person?
perhaps with volume efficiency, we could get that down to—let’s be optimistic—one fourth of that. So it’d be only 12.3 billion or so to implement.
I’m all for this. How about you?
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
10:19 am
but voter ids send the libs into shock.
And how much would you be willing to spend – on a per head basis – to produce, distribute and maintain a database that could be used for not only voting but to take care of the illegal alien problem?
You see, we’ve actually had this discussion before, but blowhards usually run away when confronted with a discussion about how to finance this voter ID thingie.
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
10:19 am
Keep restricting our rights and you may see more of that resolve.
Go for it, traitor.
BTW, the Viet Namese people were fiercely courageous, long sighted and willing to make huge sacrifices.
You Republicans?
Puhleeze.
larry
January 17th, 2013
10:19 am
An armed rebellion against a duly elected government would be an act of treason. Our patriotic cons would commit treason. So sad. Sore losers.
Considering some of them want us to default on our debts by not raising the debt ceiling , this suprises you ?
Still no response from keith or anyone about riding in my A1M1 tank.
Huh? There’s that pesky sheriff’s deputy again. But sir , it’s my 2nd admendment………………
Olderandwiser49
January 17th, 2013
10:19 am
Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English)
Classified guns for “sporting purposes”.
All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.
Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law.
Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.
The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.
If any of this sounds familiar, you must have read Obama’s gun control plans!
barking frog
January 17th, 2013
10:20 am
Jay’
I’ve got to run out to the Capitol. Please keep it clean and sane….
……………………………………………………………
clean is a lot easier than sane……
stands for decibels
January 17th, 2013
10:21 am
In the face of firearm and ammunition sales in the United States that’s an incredibly stupid supposition not a fact.
It’s not a stupid supposition. It is backed by current polling data. The trendlines are quite clear, whatever wee upticks you might see whenever the NRA goes into Tardcon 5.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/07/gun-ownership-declining1.png
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
10:21 am
half, then do you Republican duty and fire the first shot at Uncle Sam.
Didn’t work out so well for the traitors last time, as I recall…
TeeryK
January 17th, 2013
10:21 am
A fairly reasoned presentation with a major flaw. AR15 type rifles are extremly common now. They are NOT exotic, uncommon or rare.
Stingers, M 240s, M2s etc are uncommon but NOT AR15 type rifles.
30 years ago they were hard to find but now WalMart has (had) them. It’s too late fro Bookman’s example.
The same applies to high capacity magazines. In 1975 it was really hard to find a handfun with a 15 round magazine. Today they are common.
keith
January 17th, 2013
10:21 am
If they did, we civilians would not last very long against tanks, fighter jets, RPG’s, flame throwers, artillery and heavly armed soldiers and marines
your utter lack of respect for our military is disgusting. they would never turn their weapons on their fellow Americans just because your radical leader ordered them to. it also shows how you feel about obama in that you find it plausible that he would give that order. so you really think obama would order the military to kill Americans? Well he HAS done that before.
Paul
January 17th, 2013
10:21 am
other half brain
‘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.
” Paul every year there is a poll that shows how much the people of our country hate politicans, Congress has a ratinf of about 10% if I’m not wrong.
So yes, people distrust those who govern us. There have been a lot on the left on this site who have expressed that also.”
To say dissatisfaction with Congress over their performance is the reason people buy guns…..
Say, do you think gun sales would go up if a free tinfoil hat were included?
Uh Huh....Nonsensical Idea
January 17th, 2013
10:22 am
@barking frog
January 17th, 2013
10:17 am
President Obama taught Constitutional Law, too bad the tea party
didn’t attend.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There are PECANS
There are CASHEWS
Then there ARE just plain NUTS
Ruff Ruff
Bow wow bow wow
Recon 0311 2533
January 17th, 2013
10:22 am
0311/8541,
No problem I depend heavily on spell checkers. Semper Fi
stands for decibels
January 17th, 2013
10:22 am
Kam, jinx!
Joe Hussein Mama
January 17th, 2013
10:22 am
R. W. Extreme — “I think this is the answer you’re looking for. Worked pretty good back in 1776.
Good try, but no. The Declaration of Independence is a beautiful and timeless document, to be sure, but it carries no force of law in the country.
TaxPayer
January 17th, 2013
10:22 am
Ratliff says don’t forget to wear a helmet at all times, cons. In fact, you best sleep in full body armor just in case President Obama storms your houses in the middle of the night.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 17th, 2013
10:24 am
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.
Well then genius if the military will join the people, the govt has no weapons….why then do the people need anything more than self-protection?
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
January 17th, 2013
10:24 am
Hey Jay (and assorted libs.) ………… here’s your sign:
Headline (AJC): “Gun measures face a tough road. The House and Senate responded warily after Obama unveiled his proposals to curb gun violence.”
larry
January 17th, 2013
10:24 am
Jay’
I’ve got to run out to the Capitol. Please keep it clean and sane….
You mean swim out to the Capitol, and ice skate back.
Paul
January 17th, 2013
10:25 am
Christian Conservative
“There are many posts on here Jay, I mean Paul… Please refresh my memory…”
Yes there are. I try to keep focused on the particular post, with a reference to it in my first responses.
But frankly, it’s rather overcome by events, besides which, I’ll be leaving in a bit to spend the weekend with my folk and seeing one of the kids and his family.
williebkind
January 17th, 2013
10:25 am
“Didn’t work out so well for the traitors last time, as I recall…”
But they did it! And with lesser firearms, artillery, ships, clothing, and food. It was horrible. Then the reconstruction period began and that was just as horrible. We remember through letters and handed down stories of those who were there. We will defend the constitution, as we had a right to leave the union and fought for that.
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
10:26 am
Will Rush be the Impotent Army’s Supreme Commander when the cons revolt?
fedup
January 17th, 2013
10:26 am
Obama is a tyrant of a few for sure. He is mentally torturing these nuts by getting elected by the majority. These nuts think more guns is the solution. Bugs called these folks “what a maroon”.
Paddy O
January 17th, 2013
10:26 am
overthrow the gov’t? what fiction is boob writing about now? it will serve as a deterrent to the gov’t to arrest you without cause for political reasons. such liberal BS hubris.
Dirty Dawg
January 17th, 2013
10:26 am
Mythological claptrap? Is that the same thing as ‘effin bulls&$t’? You guys simply can’t believe that this President ain’t gonna take all those damn guns away, can ya? The ham-handed, idiotic, responses to Obama’s announcement by the NRA, and the rest of the wingnuters, is telling. Obama outlined a broad-range of initiatives, including money to help the States place armed guards in schools (about the only thing the NRA has proposed), and what does the damned NRA do? Run a commercial saying that he doesn’t want It. They were, and are, gonna fight him, and the majority of the Country as well, no matter what he does or what we want. Elections don’t matter to em…public opinion doesn’t matter…bullet-ridden bodies of babies and the pleas of their parents doesn’t matter…the only thing that matters to them is money and power. Just remember, the only thing that trumps money from single-agenda lobbiests is the overwhelming will of the people, and this time we won’t be denied. I’ll be able to keep my grandaddy’s shotguns and my grandmother’s 32 cal revolver with the broken firing pin and they can keep all theirs…we just won’t have, and don’t need, enough assault weapons and ammo to knock over Fort Knox…or see how many kids we can ‘take with us’ when we decide its time to go.
keith
January 17th, 2013
10:27 am
it would be funny if the guns and ammo makers decide to boycott the govt. I really hope they all relocate away from states with gun control. The economy of those state will just tank a little more.
Paddy O
January 17th, 2013
10:27 am
fedup- and how would any of the 23 EO’s impact the sandy hook cirminal? ??maroons are you.
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
10:27 am
Paul:
It must be non-sense as usual then if you can’t remember either…
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 17th, 2013
10:27 am
Recon: “More guns have been sold but number of families with guns in their homes have declined.” In the face of firearm and ammunition sales in the United States that’s an incredibly stupid supposition not a fact.
Perhaps your response and ignorance is more the problem:
DID YOU KNOW? Household gun ownership has been declining since the 1970s.
•The percentage of American households with a gun has been steadily declining over time, (from a high of 54 percent in 1977 to 32 percent in 2010) (Smith, 2008 and Violence Policy Center, 2011).
•Gun ownership is highly concentrated. Approximately 20 percent of gun owners own 65 percent of the nation’s guns (Hepburn, p. 16).
•Household gun ownership may be declining even though millions of guns are sold each year in part because gun owners are adding more guns to their collections. The average number of guns per owner has increased from 4.1 in 1994 to 6.9 in 2004 (Hepburn, p. 18).
http://bradycampaign.org/facts/gunsinamerica
weetamoe
January 17th, 2013
10:27 am
McVeigh did not have *military-style* weapons to do a pretty good job of wiping out the fraction of government that he targeted. The one percenter couple living in an upscale NY apartment —-apparently inspired by Bill Ayers and the Occupiers–had enough explosives and other weapons to do a fair amount of damage to their target.
Since the real issue (much as Obama is trying to avoid it) is the economy, maybe if we encourage young children to write to him about their angst concerning the national debt, he will publish 23 ways to reduce government spending.
stands for decibels
January 17th, 2013
10:28 am
A fairly reasoned presentation with a major flaw. AR15 type rifles are extremly common now. They are NOT exotic, uncommon or rare.
Perhaps not. However, (just so that people understand what “gun grabbing” could actually look like in the real world, as opposed to some meth-fueled fantasy) we could do like the Aussies and implement a buy back program, if there were the political will to do so. See also:
http://guncontrol.org.au/2000/11/a-beginners-guide-to-australian-gun-laws/
Paddy O
January 17th, 2013
10:28 am
dirty dawg – where is obama borrowing that “more money”?
Fred ™
January 17th, 2013
10:28 am
keith
January 17th, 2013
10:21 am
so you really think obama would order the military to kill Americans? Well he HAS done that before.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
When? I can’t wait to hear this whopper…….
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
10:28 am
Williebkind
January 17th, 2013
10:16 am
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
When Christ returns as stated in the Book of Revelation, will he turn the other cheek? No he will come to claim his kingdom. Now liberals will be fighting him unto the death.
.
.
.
.
Do you think he’ll reclaim his kingdom with an Uzi or with the power of his love?
Which do you think is more powerful?
rightwingextreme
January 17th, 2013
10:28 am
Jay
January 17th, 2013
10:14 am
You do realize, I hope, that during the Cold War the assumption in the U.S. military was that with all our tanks and air power, we very likely would not be able to stop a Soviet invasion of Europe with conventional arms alone and would probably need tactical nukes such as the neutron bomb?
And you seriously propose that privately armed Hungarians could have succeeded?
Jay…part of our defense posture in the Cold War was to use nukes to avoid having to fund and maintain a huge standing army in Europe. We can debate whether the army we had there was huge or not later.
Now to your question.
I don’t know whether the the Hungarians would have won or not if they had been armed. The point is they weren’t and the Soviets put down their rebellion.
Some have cited the peaceful overthrow of communism as a counter argument to an armed populace being able to overthrow a government. There are those examples.
There are however more examples of governments moving against unarmed segments of a society than the former.
The Founding Fathers made a decision that fighting for liberty was in their interests. Not everyone on the colonies joined in the fight for liberty. I’m sure a lot of the questions we’re asking on this board were being asked then. Do we really have the right to fight the king? Can our forces beat his? Those are good questions. I think we are all thankful for how things worked out.
We have been fortunate there have only been four wars fought on this continent since becomming a nation none of which have occured in the past 100 years. The Revoluntionary War, War of 1812, Civil War and the Wars agains the Indians which I consider one for sake of discussion.
I think if we were living in those times attitudes about the 2A might be a little different when you are fighting for your existence.
I hope we never have to those kinds of discussions again. But history tells us othewise.
Which side will you stand on if it happens? As Patrick Henry said, “give me liberty or give me death.”
Seriously Folks
January 17th, 2013
10:28 am
@Keith..seriously? your 10:06 post.. “people with small arms….” you forgot to add the SECOND most powerful Navy/Army in the world at the time at their side too…remember the French? And the fact that we made alliances with the Spanish not to engage either???? Sheesh. Please quit being selective in your history to romanticize things.
keithb
January 17th, 2013
10:28 am
Obama is simply hell bent on the destruction of our government.
An obsession ingrained since childhood.
I think we sober minded know what is at the door.
World War II was not the end of the world, but I’ll bet you would have been hard pressed to find a Jewish person, waiting for execution, who didn’t think so.
williebkind
January 17th, 2013
10:29 am
“Will Rush be the Impotent Army’s Supreme Commander when the cons revolt?”
You liberals sure are funny!
Paddy O
January 17th, 2013
10:29 am
stands for decibel: where is your budget surplus to do this new spending? or, just more borrowing? tax and spend bleeding heart liberals are still the foundation of liberaldom.
Butch Cassidy (I)
January 17th, 2013
10:29 am
keith – “people with small arms defeated the most powerful military in the world.”
Yes, with the help of the French. What country are you counting on to come to your aid once you begin your revolt?
godless heathen
January 17th, 2013
10:29 am
Heathen, if a father of a murdered child acts in a way you consider “abnormal” that’s simply not your business. Unless your kid has been blown away by a crazy you don’t know what you’d do.
Guarantee that I would not be yucking it up with my pals and then go all somber when the camera came on.
Just an observation that it seemed strange but people do strange things. No need to go all nasty on me, but that is your usual demeanor so it’s not surprising.
Paul
January 17th, 2013
10:29 am
keith
“Do you seriously think that members of our military would turn on their friends and family just because obama told them to? Seriously jay?”
ONE…. MORE…. TIME….
THAT’S WHAT THE RIGHTWINGERS OPPOSED TO OBAMA KEEP SAYING!!!
Not that shouting does any good for those who will not hear….
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
10:29 am
dB
Heh, heh, heh.
But I think your numbers are off.
Estimated U.S. pop = 315,175,866 x $165 = $52,004,017,890
An no, you don’t get to divide by 4, ’cause this sucker is gonna be privatized.
Robert
January 17th, 2013
10:30 am
A lot of posters have a very strong opinion concerning the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. What about the 14th Amendment?
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
(US Constitution, 14th Amendment)
Uh Huh....Nonsensical Idea
January 17th, 2013
10:30 am
@GT
January 17th, 2013
10:17 am
RB from Gwinnett ain’t no hate here bro. We are just trying to get out of the way of this bull in a china shop you boys have created. And as you are knocking everything loose from the economy, lives and even real Christian belief you’re denying to the shop owners your responsibility. You’re just a dumb cow lost in a china shop making lots of noise; don’t know how all that damage happened.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Feeling lost, CRAZY and desperate belongs to a good life
as much as OPTIMISM, CERTAINTY and REASON.
Where is your so called “CHRISTIAN BELIEFf” now?
larry
January 17th, 2013
10:30 am
it would be funny if the guns and ammo makers decide to boycott the govt. I really hope they all relocate away from states with gun control. The economy of those state will just tank a little more.
We have them here in Georgia. For ex: Glock in Smyrna.
And how is our economy fairing ?
Butch Cassidy (I)
January 17th, 2013
10:30 am
keith – “but bookman wants to protect tyranny by disarming us.”
I’ve got $10,000 says that no one will take away your guns or make you turn them in. You in?
Paddy O
January 17th, 2013
10:32 am
keep up the good fight: what is the basis for these statistical assertions? those statistics are IMPOSSIBLE TO obtain.
Reality Check
January 17th, 2013
10:32 am
The one that is committing treason here is President Obama and the State Department for trying to ignore the US Constitution and commit a crime against the law abiding citizenry of the USA. Hopefully the US Congress will put an end to this treachery or the US Supreme Court will stop the illegal action by the White House. The US President should not be allowed to commit treason against his people! The US Constitution should stand and it should be upheld as the law of the land.
Seriously Folks
January 17th, 2013
10:33 am
I think it should be required that ANYONE else who post long quotes by our Founding Fathers has to include the asterisk that says, ” * these rights do not extend to women or minorities”
(and, actually, at the time of the signing, it also did not extend to “non-property” owners…that came in the early 1800’s under President Jackson…and even then, of course, it was for WHITE men….)
Old Goober
January 17th, 2013
10:33 am
Whilst I was walking I couldn’t help but think about that lass Sally Hemings. The girl is looking better and better.
Thomas Jefferson
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
January 17th, 2013
10:33 am
“Well then genius if the military will join the people, the govt has no weapons….why then do the people need anything more than self-protection?”
Ah ……………… because maybe only half the military might join the people and therefore “the people” would be enough to make the difference ?
Geez !
XD9 Mom
January 17th, 2013
10:33 am
Argue all you want about tyranny and traitors. I carry a gun to protect myself, and those around me, from the violent acts of criminals. PERIOD. Blame the fracturing of the American Family, blame the violent movies/video games, whatever. It is my personal (and my family’s) SAFETY that makes me carry a gun.
keith
January 17th, 2013
10:33 am
I’ve got $10,000 says that no one will take away your guns or make you turn them in. You in?
of course not because regardless, they will never get my guns.i would “sell” them first. lol
TaxPayer
January 17th, 2013
10:33 am
So how do we get the cons to forget about all the hoopla about the debt ceiling. Well, there’s abortion. Naw, that one’s been overplayed. How about guns. That should do the trick. You’re right. Earth cons are easy.
keithb
January 17th, 2013
10:33 am
Poor Fred,
I struck a chord, you must be a mooocher.
Paddy O
January 17th, 2013
10:33 am
robert – I love the 14th amendment. IMO, it prohibits our progressive income tax system.
Paul
January 17th, 2013
10:34 am
Christian Conservative
“It must be non-sense as usual then if you can’t remember either…”
I was being polite and really saying “I initially reference the post that prompted my reply. If the other party (you) then goes down so many rabbit holes he gets lost, I’m not real inclined to help him find his way out.”
Fred ™
January 17th, 2013
10:34 am
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
10:26 am
Will Rush be the Impotent Army’s Supreme Commander when the cons revolt?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Seriously Jamvet, when one of these nutcases, or nut case groups, snaps and does do some domestic terrorism or attempt to assassinate the President Rush will say, “I’m just an entertainer.”
Reading the responses from the unhinged here the last couple of times and watching fox (I can’t bring myself o listen to Rush lol) I see the rhetoric being dialed up WAY past the crazy level. Someone IS going to snap.
von
January 17th, 2013
10:34 am
Regardless of the reasoning behind the 2nd amendment (our founding fathers believing citizenry being able to already own the tools needed to formed an informal armed force, regardless of intent or purpose) most of you anti-gun nuts are forgetting the last words of that amendment- “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” This indicates that regardless of the reason given for why they feel it needed, that all citizens can have any weapons they choose and that no government shall get in the way or interfere with that…I mean I am assuming you all know what the word INFRINGE means. As to whether the reason itself still holds water: debatable but not enough of you agree on that to get it changed and even if you did, you dont have enough guns to make it happen so your position is counterproductive to your goal. As for those arguing “Well the founding fathers didnt know about automatic weapons…” Weapons technology even in the 18th century was constantly evolving with the latest evolution being muzzle loaded rifles (as muskets were the more prevalent weapon of the day) this was important because rifles were far more accurate (a modern comparison would be dis5inguishing rate of fire since ultimately the point is likelihood of hitting a target) so now you have a weapon that can load as quickly as a musket but if far more accurate AND with longer range…furthermore they actually had the first semi automatic weapon developed during the revolutionary war. It was called the Belton Flintlock Rifle and it could in fact fire twenty rounds without reloading so dont get me started on this “They didnt know about high capacity weapons back then. They did.