Friday, January 11, 2013

Tyrants, not deer.

Judge Andrew Napolitano:
The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, thus, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis did, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.

Most people in government reject natural rights and personal sovereignty. Most people in government believe that the exercise of everyone’s rights is subject to the will of those in the government. Most people in government believe that they can write any law and regulate any behavior, not subject to the natural law, not subject to the sovereignty of individuals, not cognizant of history’s tyrants, but subject only to what they can get away with.

Did you empower the government to impair the freedom of us all because of the mania and terror of a few?

Please read the whole thing.

Napolitano gets it right: the Second Amendment is about defense against tyrants, not about hunting or sporting clubs. This explains a remarkable dissonance: the very politicians who are most in favor of gun control to stop gun violence are the politicians who have given us the most gun-violent municipalities in our country. In Chicago and Washington and New Orleans and East St. Louis, only the bad guys and the government have guns. That is, only the Democrats have guns.

I believe that the bizarre obsession of the Left with AR15s and high-capacity magazines has nothing really to do with stopping spree killings. After all, the same folks who push gun control are the ones who created the gun-free zones that spree killers love and who have given us the most violent cities in our country.

Gun controllers are nervous about armed free citizens with a right to keep and bear arms. Such a right is an impediment to government power, which is the altar at which the Left-- the faction of government--worships.

The Left hates the Constitution, and works to dismantle it. They understand the impediment that the Second Amendment poses to their agenda. What is disturbing is the vigor with which they are attacking the Second Amendment, which is a measure of their ultimate intentions for the Constitution.

Lately, they've become quite explicit about what they intend to do with the Constitution.


110 comments:

  1. Judge Napolitano is a lunatic.

    It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, thus, with the same instruments they would use upon us.

    If you accept this crazy interpretation, private armies, navies and air forces should be allowed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure I see how your conclusion follows the premise. Rather than hand-waving, could you fill in a few steps?

      Delete
    2. Let me help you, Dr. Boggs.

      If the US citizens are entitled to "the same instruments" as the tyrannical government, what are those instruments? The US government (the presumed tyrant) has tanks, warplanes, and aircraft carriers. A private citizen cannot physically handle a tank, let alone an aircraft carrier. You would indeed need private armies, navies, and air forces to effectively manage those.

      Hope this helps.

      Hoo

      P.S. I still recommend a morning crossword puzzle as a daily exercise.

      Delete
    3. Why is the US government the "presumed tyrant"? How do you know this? If I may say so, that's... presumptuous. :-)

      Assuming private citizens were entitled to buy an aircraft carrier (and, frankly, I don't know for a fact that they are not), do you have any thoughts as to who might have both the desire and means to do so? The construction cost alone was several billion dollars and when you throw in qualified staffing and supply (including aircraft, without which and "aircraft carrier" is just a big boat) would be several billions more. Are you worried about Glenn Beck? Or - cover your ears - the Koch brothers. Oooooooh!

      Interestingly, according to news sources, individuals can already buy fighter jests on eBay. "The eBay Web site for the transaction shows the plane is currently located in Lewiston, Idaho.It said the fighter jet, last flown in 1995, has been inspected by a museum and found to be in excellent condition." (2007)

      Why is it that leftists are such a bunch of panty-wetting apocalyptics?

      Delete
    4. Dr. Boggs,

      To know that the presumed tyrant is the US government you need (1) to read Judge Napolitano's essay and (2) minimal reading comprehension.

      A clue that might tip off an observant reader is the use of the definitive article the before the word government. Judge Napolitano refers to the government more than a dozen times. And by that he does not mean the British Queen.

      I do not know whether your failure to comprehend stems from not doing (1) or not having (2). The first is easy to fix. The second probably not.

      Hoo

      Delete
    5. Interesting to know you're a fan of Judge Napolitano's writing.

      I'm not.

      But why are left-wingers such panty-wetting apocalyptics?

      Delete
    6. Dr. Boggs,

      I am not a fan of Judge Napolitano. One needn't be his fan to comprehend what he writes. Not being a fan of his is not an excuse for a failure to read and comprehend his essay. Which, by the way, is being discussed in this thread.

      This is the equivalent of not doing your homework because you don't like the textbook. Laughable.

      Hoo

      Delete
    7. I read his Constitution in Exile. Bored me to death.

      Also, he adores Ron Paul and I don't.

      Little John

      Delete
    8. I didn't do my homework.

      And I refuse to do so.

      And I'm laughing... At you.

      By the way, you don't happen to know anybody interested in a Sukhoi-27? A guy in Ukraine has one for sale. (Don't tell Michelle Malkin)

      Delete
    9. Oh, and by the way, a WWI-era Hurricane went up for sale in the UK:

      "With 12 Browning .303 machine guns and a maximum speed of 322mph, this Hurricane can certainly still pack a punch.

      Now aviation enthusiasts will have a rare chance to bid on one of them, with the 70-year-old fighter aircraft from World War Two expected to go for £1.7million this December in Weybridge, Surrey."

      Don't tell Charles Krauthammer.

      Delete
    10. "I didn't do my homework.

      And I refuse to do so.

      And I'm laughing... At you"

      So... you're laughing at someone else because you were too dim to read the article that you're commenting on? Okaaaayyy

      Boo

      Delete
    11. Being ignorant is one thing. Proudly flaunting ignorance is the next level.

      Hoo

      Delete
    12. Boo-Hoo,

      I wasn't commenting on the article. If you knuckle-draggers had actually read my comment, you'd see I was commenting on Troy's comment. I could care less about the article.

      Okaaayyy?

      Delete
    13. Sorry, that should read "Troy's inane comment".

      Thanks.

      Delete
    14. You failed to demonstrate my comment was "inane", Dr Boggs. If the 2nd amendment means that civilians are allowed to match the firepower of any potential tyrant, as judge Napolitano seems to suggest, then civilians should be allowed to own weapons of mass destruction.

      Do you agree that Napolitano's interpretation of the 2nd amendment implies that civilians are allowed to own weapons of mass destruction?

      Delete
    15. Your comment was inane on its face. Who do you think has the hundreds of billions or the inclination to establish a Navy?

      So it doesn't matter if it "should" be "allowed". If it were, in fact, "allowed" who the hell could possibly do it? That's like allowing terraforming. So what? Who can do it?

      To suggest that private citizens could possibly assemble a military unit of any type or configuration that would threaten the US is f**king moronic. Tuvalu, maybe. Saddam Hussein had the 3rd largest, Russian supplied, military on the planet with a multi-billion dollar annual petrobudget. What's he up to now? Just hangin' out, or so I hear.

      You're just a panty-wetting apocalyptic.

      And I have no idea what Napolitano's interpretation of 2A is, nor do I care. The only one that counts is the SCOTUS. Go read it for yourself. I don't think it mentions ICBMs or B2 bombers. So stop worrying about it.

      Idiot.

      Delete
    16. Dr Boggs, you're being evasive. Do you think civilians should be allowed to own any kind of weaponry or not?

      Delete
    17. George Boggs: And I have no idea what Napolitano's interpretation of 2A is, nor do I care.

      Perhaps then you should not comment in this thread, Dr. Boggs. It is none of your fucking business.

      Hoo

      Delete
    18. "I wasn't commenting on the article. If you knuckle-draggers had actually read my comment, you'd see I was commenting on Troy's comment. I could care less about the article.

      Okaaayyy?"

      And what do you think Troy was commenting on? Think hard now...

      Boo

      PS When you're in a hole, stop digging.

      Delete
  2. Saying the Second Amendments is the “right to shoot tyrants” is a gross misreading of history, and a lie. The debate at the time was that between having a standing army, or well regulated citizen militias, to provide for the security of the country. Shooting Tyrants never came up.

    Right-wingers are all about blaming gun deaths on everything but guns. Hollywood, video games, gun-free zones, poor mental health infrastructure, anything but guns. Well, not anything, they ignore their own gun glorifying campaign that fights to ensure everyone should have a gun, with heroic images of people saving the day with a quick thinking gun battle, or protecting the country from tyrants. This constant glorification of the gun is what makes this country so shoot ‘em up fucking gun crazy.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right. All those Republican NRA members in inner cities shooting day in and out is evidence for the "Right-wing glorification of guns". The Chicago gang-bangers follow the NRA twitters.

      Oh, wait... conservative NRA members are among the demographics least likely to commit gun violence... Democrats in inner cities are the most likely to commit gun violence...

      Hmmm

      Delete
    2. Right-wingers are all about blaming gun deaths on everything but guns.

      And left-wingers are all about blaming "gun deaths" on everyone except the guy who did it. So let's recap--right-wingers blame the person who did it, left-wingers blame the tool he used. And Wayne LaPierre.

      This constant glorification of the gun is what makes this country so shoot ‘em up fucking gun crazy.

      Constant glorification? What constant glorification? I see constant vilification. Everyone from Mayor Bloomberg to Hollywood celebs hates guns. Hating guns is cool. It means that you really care.

      "After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it."--William S. Burroughs.

      Ben

      Delete
    3. Constant glorification! LOL. Like when the newspaper publishes the names and addresses of legal gun owners? That kind of glorification?

      Guns are not at fault for America's violence problem. People are.

      Little John

      Delete
  3. Hey, what ever happened to "We don't vote on civil rights?" Or does that only apply to same-sex "marriage?"

    The main difference between SSM and the right to bear arms is that one of them is actually contained the Constitution. Guess which one?

    You

    Joey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Never believe what they say, Joey. They'll vote on our civil rights all day long, just not homosexuals' "civil rights."

      That whole yarn is just a ruse to suckerpunch the democratic process. No matter what the public says they still win.

      Little John

      Delete
  4. While I certainly believe in the 2nd amendment and the Right for everyone (who isn't insane, criminal, etc.) to own a gun, my struggle is to ask for a debate about where limitations might be in order. In other words, would it be a violation of the 2nd Amendment to limit the size of the arm? For example, do we really want our neighbor to possess bazookas, tanks, etc. and claim that falls under the 2nd Amendment? Can there be limits? If so, where should these limits be?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dude, people can already own tanks, and there are military tanks in private hands in both the US and the UK. The tanks are "demilitarized", but any bright person willing to break the law could "remilitarize" one.

      And in Mexico (which, by the way, has some of the strictest gun laws in the world), the cartels' private armies have fleets of aircraft and even small navies with custom-built submarines. One of the most vicious organizations is the Zetas, which was originally a group of former Mexican Army special forces commandos and was referred to by the US government as "most technologically advanced, sophisticated, and dangerous cartel operating in Mexico." As an aside, these were the organizations, the "private armies", that the Obama Administration was supplying with semi-automatic rifles and handguns.

      Delete
    2. It all sounds reasonable, anonymous, until the increminetalist leftists get ahold of this logic. Then they constantly add new limitations while simultaneously claiming to respect the 2nd. "We believe in the right to bear arms but you can't have THAT."

      "That" becomes smaller and smaller until the point that you can't own much of anything. We've seen this already. First they said that they needed to ban fully automatic rifles, which they have succeeded in doing. Surprise, surprise, spree killings still happen. So now they need to ban semiautomatic rifles too. Will they stop there? I doubt it. Handguns are next. Cho Seng-hui carried out a horrific massacre with two 9mm's. So they have to go too.

      The problem is that the gun control fanatics are not good faith bargainers. They see compromise as a stepping stone toward a larger goal. Can't we just compromise a little with them? How can we when we know that each compromise will only lead to new demands?

      Think about it this way. Imagine the pro-life movement using the very same tactics. With each passing year they pass new restrictions on abortions, all the while pretending that they will go no further. And yet they are never happy. The pro-abortion crowd can clearly see that the end goal is complete abolition of the insufferable institution. They don't want to go there, and yet every time they object they are accused of being extremists because they won't take even the smallest steps toward the pro-life side. Anyone can see why they wouldn't--they want to keep baby-killing legal and they can see that the momentum is against them. A few more compromises and they'll have no territory left to defend.

      If we were dealing with honest people, I would be able to understand compromising on certain common sense limitations. Gun control fanatics are not honest people. They are trying to make private gun ownership so expensive and regulated that it is for all practical purposes illegal.

      Little John

      Delete
    3. Mr. Little John,

      Why should we imagine that the pro-life movement does what you describe? It most definitely aims to impose new restrictions every year and to outlaw abortion altogether in the future.

      Hoo

      Delete
    4. Any thoughts on the private market for aircraft carriers?

      Delete
    5. Hoo: Are you willing to go down that road with them? Are you willing to compromise, knowing that each concession will only be met with more demands? If the answer is no then I think you recognize my point.

      If a ten round magazine is good, isn't a five round magazine better? How about a two round magazine? Then we get load musket balls. Then those will be illegal too.

      Little John

      Delete
    6. Actually I think there is a big difference between the pro-life movement and the anti-2nd amendment movement. I quote myself:

      "With each passing year they pass new restrictions on abortions, all the while pretending that they will go no further."

      The pro-life movmement is pretty explicit that they do want a human life amendment that will end abortion in all cases except to save the life of the mother. That's the end goal and they don't hide it. The problem is that it's a very, very long way off. Americans love their abortions and they aren't going to pass any such amendment in the forseeable future. And so pro-lifers offer restrictions that they think will have more support: parental notification laws, partial-birth bans, etc. That's not the same as pretending not to have an agenda while pursuing that agenda at the same time.

      Little John

      Delete
    7. Mr. Little John,

      The UK has outlawed most guns. I don't know if I would consider that country to be a tyranny (even though they have a monarch!), so it and Australia are examples to be considered. It might be impractical, with guns in the hundreds of millions, but yes, I would be willing to go with a complete ban.

      Now that I have answered your question, would you perhaps answer mine concerning the anti-abortion advocates? They don't aim to merely restrict abortions. Their ultimate goal is to outlaw them entirely. Wouldn't you agree with that? Does it make them bad-faith negotiators?

      Hoo

      Delete
    8. If we were dealing with honest people, I would be able to understand compromising on certain common sense limitations. Gun control fanatics are not honest people.

      That's the crux of the matter right there. If I thought for a second that we could all settle on no assault rifles and no magazines with more than ten rounds, I would say fine, let's do it. But I don't believe that that will be the end of it. Someone else will shoot up a school or a movie theater or a college campus, and there will be renewed calls for gun control. Instead learning that the previous gun control measures didn't work they will conclude that the previous gun control measures didn't go nearly far enough and they will propose more.

      You're right, Little John, handguns are next. You mentioned the Virginia Tech shooter. How about Tucson? They'll take your 9 mil and your revolver too. All guns are dangerous in the wrong hands, so they will continually broaden the scope of their gun-grabbing until all guns are illegal, which is exactly what the second amendment prohibits the government from doing and exactly what they claim they don't want to do.

      I'm not compromising with people who will never be happy. Sorry.

      Ben

      Delete
    9. "Their ultimate goal is to outlaw them entirely. Wouldn't you agree with that? Does it make them bad-faith negotiators?"

      I think I already answered the question. Yes, they do propose that abortion be banned in all cases except one: to save the life of the mother. They are up front about that. They are not bad-faith negotiators, they're simply settling for the scraps because too many hearts and minds have to be changed. If they were pretending that they "only" wanted a few concessions here or there, while continually winning and continually pressing for more, that would be bad faith negotiation.

      I assume you're likely pro-choice. Not my favorite word, but that's how the movement likes to be called. Now, are you willing to go down that road with the pro-lifers? Are you willing to concede and concede until you have nothing left?

      Little John

      Delete
    10. Mr. Little John,

      No, I am not willing to concede. I think pro-lifers should be free to persuade, but they have no business restricting abortions piece-meal through government intervention.

      Hoo

      Delete
    11. All guns are dangerous in the wrong hands, so they will continually broaden the scope of their gun-grabbing until all guns are illegal, which is exactly what the second amendment prohibits the government from doing and exactly what they claim they don't want to do.

      Well, no. The Second Amendment talks about keeping and bearing arms, not guns. But we've already decided as a nation that this doesn't include keeping and bearing privately owned nuclear weapons and many other types of arms. There's nothing about "guns" that are sacrosanct in this.

      Delete
    12. Oh, I see. And unless we allow private citizens to own nukes we must ignore the Second Amendment entirely.

      Actually, you're reenforcing my point. The gun grabbers start big--nuclear weapons, for example. They say that no one has a right to own those, and everyone agrees. Then they get smaller and smaller--shoulder fired missiles, then full automatics, then semi-automatics. The moment someone says "Hey! You can't do that! We have a Second Amendment, you know," they say that we can ban whatever we want. After all, we already ban nuclear weapons, shoulder fired missiles, and full auto. Et voila, we have interpreted away the amendment so that it effectively means nothing. You can do the same thing with the First Amendment's right to free exercise of religion.

      Stop telling me what it doesn't protect and tell me what it does.

      Ben

      Delete
    13. And unless we allow private citizens to own nukes we must ignore the Second Amendment entirely.

      No. What is being said is that the Second Amendment doesn't make any specific guarantees, because the question boils down to what "arms" means. Does it mean guns? Maybe. But there's nothing in that conclusion that is sacred. Because the question of what "arms" are is open to interpretation.

      The Second Amendment also makes it clear that the arms are for the provision of a well-regulated militia. Does this mean that the possession of arms could be regulated as part of a militia statute? Again, maybe. Could a state declare every resident to be part of their militia and place restrictions on the use of firearms by militia members? Possibly. It has never been tried, but that doesn't mean it could not be.

      Saying that the Second Amendment protects "guns" is simply wrong. It protects arms. And it is incredibly vague on exactly what that means.

      Delete
    14. Well, we could always employ Saclia-style strict originalism and say the 2nd Amendment only protects the right to own late 18th century muskets. I mean, that's how the right usually wants the courts to rule, isn't it?

      Boo

      Delete
    15. No. We Constitutionalists want the courts to rule based on the clear intent of the framers who ratified the Constitution.

      The Right to Keep and Bear personal firearms was the clear intent.

      Delete
    16. Dr. Egnor,

      Not everyone agrees with that. In fact, for more than a hundred years people interpreted the Second Amendment the other way around.

      Does the Second Amendment prevent Congress from passing gun-control laws? The question, which is suddenly pressing, in light of the reaction to the school massacre in Newtown, is rooted in politics as much as law.
      For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.


      So you think you know the Second Amendment? by Jeffrey Toobin in the New Yorker.

      Hoo

      Delete
    17. Of course not everyone agrees.

      But the meaning is clear. "A well-regulated Militia being necessary for the security of a free state, " is the subordinate clause, explaining the main clause " the right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed."

      The Right to Keep and Bear arms is recognized in the main clause. The subordinate clause (A well-regulated militia...) does not limit it, it explains it.

      It would be the same as if the First Amendment had read "An independent Press being necessary for information in a free state, the right to Freedom of the Press shall not be infringed".

      The subordinate clause would explain the need for a free press, not limit the free press.

      Delete
    18. Dr. Egnor,

      The language is ambiguous, so it pays to know the historical context. For a hundred years, the accepted interpretation was as explained in Toobin's article: states had rights to form their own militias. Perhaps the judges and constitutional scholars were on to something?

      At the time, many delegates worried about the sovereignty of their states and about the possibility of a federal takeover. The role of the second amendment was to solidify the right of the states to maintain their own militias. An early transcription of the amendment read:

      A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

      This is more expanded than the version that was eventually adopted, so the intent of the amendment is easier to glean. It is concerned with security of states. Everyone was part of state militia at the time, so people had reason to keep and bear arms.

      We live in a different country. Few of us are involved in defending our respective states against a possible intrusion of the federal government. The intent of the Second Amendment no longer applies.

      Hoo

      Delete
    19. "The intent of the Second Amendment no longer applies"

      It applies now, more than ever.

      [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/lets-give-up-on-the-constitution.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&]

      Delete
  5. You know what really scares me???

    There's a bunch of dudes in California that OWN A FRACKING ROCKETSHIP!!!!

    How can that be legal???

    Next thing you know, the Pentagon is going to get a text transmitted from the space station:

    "All your base are belong to us."
    Sincerely,
    Wayne LaPierre

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh dear. I'm so embarrassed. I used the F-word in a public comment forum where children might be reading. It's such a dirty, dirty word. Literally.

      Because everybody knows that

      FRACKERS WITH GUNS WILL DESTROY AMERICA!!!

      I saw the movie.

      Save us, Obama!

      Delete
  6. Seidman says that the Constitution should not be fetishized. Heresey!

    Napolitano says that "natural law" trumps the Constitution. Praise him!

    The double standard here is hilarious. And sad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Constitution is *based on* natural law, you moron.

      Delete
    2. The Constitution is *based on* natural law, you moron.

      No, it isn't. And if you weren't a moron you'd know this. The Constitution is positive law that derives its authority from the consent of the governed, which is the antithesis of "natural law".

      Delete
  7. "Lately, they've become quite explicit about what they intend to do with the Constitution."

    Sort of like how the right has become quite explicit about their desire to blow up government buildings, eh Mr. Egnor?

    Boo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Boo:

      Your comparison between Prof. Seidman and Timothy McVeigh is a bit edgy, but I see your point.

      Delete
    2. Are you referring to Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, friends of Barack Obama, who actually did bomb police stations, the US Capitol, and the Pentagon?

      Or the "[f]ive men involved in Occupy Cleveland stand accused of plotting to blow up a bridge over Cuyahoga Valley National Park in Sagamore Hills"? (clevelend.com)

      Perhaps it was the arrest of "[...] a New York City couple [the Gildemans] in their apartment on Saturday after authorities investigating a credit card theft found a highly explosive compound [HTMD], bomb-making manuals, a sawed-off shotgun and ammunition, officials said on Monday." (Reuters)

      Tell your Mom to help you out with left and right. And wipe your nose.

      Delete
    3. Tell your Mom to help you out with left and right.

      Yeah, because McVeigh didn't destroy a Federal building and kill more than a hundred people or anything like that. And LeRoy Schweitzer didn't take over a federal courthouse and didn't engage in a nearly three month long standoff with federal authorities. Modern domestic terrorism in the last forty years has been primarily a phenomenon of the right.

      Delete
    4. There have been domestic terrorists of all persuasions. My sense is that historically Dems and the Left have a huge lead in domestic terrorism (Booth, all other presidential asassins, the myriad leftist terrorist groups of the mid-20th century, the Occupy movement today). There have certainly been right wingers as well (Eric Rudolph), but he was a piker compared to the Weather Underground.

      We on the right imprison and execute our terrorists.

      You on the left give them tenure and have them host introductory fundraisers and ghostwrite books for your presidential candidates.

      Why do you support a President who has intimate links to actual domestic terrorists?

      Delete
    5. And of course the most prolific domestic terrorist organization in American history-- the KKK-- was essentially the enforcement arm of the Democrat Party for a century.

      Delete
    6. And of course once again you're equivocating between Democrats and leftists. I'm actually surprised you didn't try to push McVeigh and the militia movement off on the left as well. I'm sure part of you wanted to.

      Boo

      Delete
    7. Booth, all other presidential asassins

      You're going to assert John Wilkes Booth, a man dedicated to preserving an inherently conservative regime, was a "leftist"?

      Your grasp of history is as weak as your grasp of science. You seem to be more than a little unhinged from reality.

      Delete
    8. The left/right distinction in 1865 was not quite what it is now. Certainly a person who asassinated a head of state would be considered more left than right, based on the scheme from the French National Assembly. The rightists supported the traditional power structure (the King and the Church). Leftists sought to depose/kill the King.

      Calling Booth, who was a violent revolutionary who killed his head of state, a leftist seems proper. He was hardly a conservative, having participated in a war of rebellion.

      I meant, though, that Booth was a Democrat, one of a long line of murderous racists who have proudly called themselves Democrats.

      Delete
  8. The Sandy Hook Shooter’s mom was a survivalist who legally purchased an assault rifle. The fact that her kid may not have been allowed to purchase the same arsenal didn’t prevent him from getting his hands on his mom’s weapons. Of course the shooter bears the brunt of the responsibility for the shooting, but there is plenty of blame to go around. The culture that makes people think they need an arsenal “just in case” contributed to this tragedy, and is a phenomenon of the right.

    Now we have people like Egnor saying we need assault weapons to guard against tyranny, and oh, by the way, Obama and democrats are tyrannical, but somehow we’re supposed to believe that doesn’t increase the chances of nut-cases shooting people.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tell you what, KW. If you don't like guns, don't buy one. If you don't like self defense against tyrants, don't defend yourself. QED.

      Delete
  9. When Obama became president it became fashionable for Tea Party types to show up at rallies with assault rifles slung over their shoulders, and “water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants” signs and tee-shirts. What really gets me is how the same people that make this thinly veiled threat to our democracy have the audacity to bemoan the fact that Obama can have security while they supposedly can’t. Sounds like what they really want is a defenseless target.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @KW:

      Care to compare Tea Party "violence" to Occupy movement violence?

      Let's start with rapes and bomb plots.

      Delete
    2. What does the occupy movement have to do with the gun culture of America and its effects on gun violence? Absolutely nothing.

      -KW

      Delete
    3. Quite an imagination you've got there, KW. Too bad you can't point to any actual Tea Party violence to back it up whatsoever, whereas your own folks, from Occupy to the unions, have proven themselves criminal thugs time and again the past four years.

      Delete
    4. @KW:

      W[hat does the occupy movement have to do with the gun culture of America]

      "Occupy". Take other people's property by force. Get it?

      The Occupy thugs-- Leftist terrorists, murderers, and rapists-- are one reason that we need the right to keep and bear arms.

      Delete
    5. Um, maybe you just didn't pay enough attention, but the only thing "Occupy" actually "occupied" were some public parks.

      Boo

      Delete
    6. Occupying public property is... occupying. Since when is occupation by a violent movement less onerous when it is public property that is occupied?

      And some of the parks were privately owned.

      When I hear of a movement called "Occupy", I can't help thinking of the Rhineland, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Lithuania, Estonia, ...

      Maybe it's just me.

      Delete
    7. The Occupy movement began and was essentially centered at Zuccotti Park in New York, which is not a publicly-owned park but a privately-owned one.

      The Federalist Papers and the statements of James Madison make it plain that the intent of the 2nd Amendment concerned the balance of power between the citizenry and the state. It was absolutely about the right of individual citizens to own guns, and to own guns equal to those of the state.

      As for nuclear weapons and such, those don't count because using them would necessarily cause collateral damage to innocents, something not lawful for citizens to cause.

      Delete
  10. Gun controllers are nervous about armed free citizens with a right to keep and bear arms. Such a right is an impediment to government power, which is the altar at which the Left-- the faction of government--worships.

    Bingo. You can point out that gun control merely disarms lawful citizens for the benefit of criminals, and doesn't diminish murder rates. You can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt with the facts. But it will always fall on deaf ears, because lawful citizens are the ones that the Leftists *want* to disarm, and their reasons for wanting to disarm them have nothing to do with diminishing crime.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So why do "Lefists" want to disarm "lawful citizens" according to you?

      Do you think lawful citizens should be allowed to own weapons of mass destruction?

      Delete
    2. Why would I answer a question that you already know the answer to, leftist?

      Watching you guys go into a hot sweat over the very thought of citizens having even the hypothetical ability to put up a collective armed defense against the state is, in and of itself, a dead giveaway of what drives you.

      Delete
    3. I don't know your answers, so please answer the questions.

      Why do Leftists want to disarm lawful citizens?

      Do you think lawful citizens should be allowed to own weapons of mass destruction? Yes or no?

      Delete
    4. Get bent. I'm under no obligation to explain your own motives to you on your terms. If you don't like the idea of armed citizens rising up en masse to throw off an oppressive government and its supporters, I've got an easy solution for you: Don't do or promote anything that would provoke them into doing so. Capiche? And just because I'm a magnanimous guy, I will helpfully point out that attempting to ban their guns is most likely one of those things.

      Delete
    5. Get bent. I'm under no obligation to explain your own motives to you on your terms.

      Of course you are under no obligation. But you claimed to know the motives of "Leftists". So I ask again: why do Leftists want to disarm lawful citizens?

      And I also ask again a very simple yes-or-no question: should it be legal for citizens to own WMD?

      Delete
    6. [But you claimed to know the motives of "Leftists". So I ask again: why do Leftists want to disarm lawful citizens?]

      Perhaps we could ask historians of communism.

      Delete
    7. [should it be legal for citizens to own WMD]

      Only if the nukes were in magazines of more than ten WMD's.

      Semi-automatic nukes should definitely be banned.

      Delete
    8. Very funny, Dr Egnor. But please answer my questions in a serious manner.

      Delete
    9. It's a fool's errand to answer in good faith a question asked in bad faith, or to attempt to explain a dishonest man's dishonesty to him.

      Delete
    10. I'll reply. As to nukes, no because of collateral damage (see below). Yes there can also be collateral damage with a machine gun, but the operative word is "can"; with nukes it's "will."

      As for why some people on the left want a disarmed citizenry, it's because it would make the people even more dependent on government. Instead of a shopkeepers being able to handle their own security, they would have to rely on government (heaven forbid should someone want to take care of him or herself).

      Government would then grow to meet the increased "demand" for its services and, voila, the full-blown police state is here.

      Delete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Interesting that nobody wants to answer a very simple question:

    Should civilians be allowed to own WMD, yes or no?

    I think I know why you refuse to answer. You would have to admit that there is an arbitrary cut-off point of the kind of weapons you feel comfortable to be in the hands of civilians. Then it's up for discussion what an appropriate cut-off point is.

    Gotcha!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Arms" in the Second Amendment refers to personal weapons.

      WMD's aren't personal weapons.

      Here's a question for you: more people are killed each year by fists than by assault rifles.

      Should fists be banned? Registered?

      Delete
    2. Not so fast, Dr. Egnor.

      The quote from Judge Napolitano in your opening post contains this sentence:

      It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, thus, with the same instruments they would use upon us.

      Clearly Judge Napolitano does not agree with you that the Second Amendment only covers personal weapons. Unless he thinks that tyrants only use personal weapons.

      Hoo

      Delete
    3. Troy,
      The reason you're getting no response is that the question and parallel it draws is childish and bears no relevance to the discussion what so ever.

      But I will humour you.
      No, civilians should not be allowed to posses WMDs under normal circumstances.

      Delete
    4. Also, WMDs would be useless for defending ourselves in a fight on our own soil. Duh.

      Delete
    5. Dr Egnor claims

      "Arms" in the Second Amendment refers to personal weapons.

      Does it? How do you know that?


      WMD's aren't personal weapons.

      Not true. I could have my own personal nuke in a suitcase.

      Here's a question for you: more people are killed each year by fists than by assault rifles.

      Should fists be banned? Registered?


      More people are killed by incompetent medical doctors than by assault rifles. Should doctors be banned?

      Fists and doctors do more good than bad on balance. The same can't be said for assault rifles owned by civilians.



      Delete
    6. crusader:

      No, civilians should not be allowed to posses WMDs under normal circumstances.

      I'm glad we agree. Then we must also agree that 2A doesn't offer any guidance about what kind of weaponry should be allowed in civilian hands. So we also agree that 2A doesn't imply that possession of assault rifles is a right.

      Delete
    7. Deuce:

      Also, WMDs would be useless for defending ourselves in a fight on our own soil. Duh.

      Not true. A nuke could wipe out an army of the 'tyrant'.

      Delete
    8. Troy,
      You did not ask me about the second amendment, you asked me if civilians should be in possession of WMD technologies. I said NOT under normal circumstances.
      However, civilians elected to office ARE the people with the power to use them.
      The CIVILIAN government holds the command codes for all the ICBM Silos, as well as the codes for the launch of submarine based, aircraft delivered, and field tactical weapons of mass destruction.
      The military only has total control of the very latest stuff in development - and even then with civilian oversight.
      So, in the strictest sense the WMD's are owned BY the civilian population, as the are paid for by and controlled by CIVILIANS.
      This is one reason why the hostile forces of this world target ENTIRE cities, and not only military facilities.
      When you elect and hire people to develop these weapons, the reasoning goes, you're a valid target for retaliation in the case of their use, or of pre emptive strike should the powers of those nations decide one is necessary.
      Still, if you're going to suggest an AR15 is the equivalent of non conventional high yield explosives, a chemical strike, a biological attack, or some sort of scalar attack.... then you've completely lost the plot.
      A business owner during a riot does not intend to NUKE his city. A home owner defending his property does not desire to gas his town. A woman defending herself from a gang of rapists does not pray for an anthrax outbreak. A patriot defending his city or state from oppression does not desire to effect changes in climate or local geology.
      They would ALL be grateful for a Bushmaster, however.
      The second amendment, as I understand it, speaks to the use of personal arms. WMD's are NOT personal weapons they are weapons of MASS destruction.

      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    10. No, because nukes and such cause collateral damage to innocents, something citizens aren't allowed to cause.

      Consider the grenade, though. Yes citizens should be able to own them. And while it should never be permissible to throw one into a crowd, if ten thugs are trying to burn your guest house to the ground, and no bystanders will be effected, by all means.

      Delete
  13. I propose that to purchase any gun or magazine, the purchaser must obtain a license, and to obtain a license they must demonstrate competency with that gun similar to the skill tests that we require for people to obtain drivers licenses. Also, like cars, we should require gun owners to carry liability insurance based on the type of gun, its intended usage, the background of the owner, and the nature of its storage. Again also like cars, we should require that the guns be inspected periodically for safety. The cost of this system should be paid by the gun owners in the form of licensing and inspection fees.

    Under such a system I would be willing to entertain the continued legality of military style assault weapons and large capacity magazines. Any takers for this common sense gun control?

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure. How about licenses to exercise all of our God-given rights.

      Speech license: the speaker must obtain a license, and to obtain a license they must demonstrate competency with speech to the skill tests that we require for people to obtain drivers licenses. Also, like cars, we should require speakers to carry liability insurance based on the type of speech, its intended usage, the background of the speaker, and the nature of its use. Again also like cars, we should require that speech be inspected periodically for safety. The cost of this system should be paid by the speakers in the form of licensing and inspection fees.

      Delete
    2. And if we required Speech Licenses, liberals who want to speak would have to demonstrate that their speech was harmless to the public...

      I'm starting to like this idea...

      Delete
    3. Well-regulated is right there in the second amendment.

      You’re quite the spokesperson for Christianity if you think assault rifles and large capacity magazines are a God-given right. People like you are the reason more and more of your fellow citizens are turning away from Christianity. Keep up the good work.

      -KW

      Delete
    4. Well-Regulated refers to the Militia, not to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

      Delete
    5. Oh, KW, before you speak, you have to show me your Speech License.

      Delete
    6. Michael,

      There aren't any 'god-given rights', because there aren't any gods. Even if there were, being allowed to own a semi-automatic gun isn't a god-given right, because humans, not gods, invented them.

      And your idea of a 'speech license' is evidence of your idiocy. Perhaps you need one? Stony Brook must be embarrassed with you.

      Delete
    7. You're right, bach. If there is no God, there are no God-given rights.

      That explains so much of the political expression of atheism.

      Delete
    8. Dr. Egnor,

      How do you know that the rights in the US Constitution are indeed God-given? I understand that the framers proclaimed them to be so, but there is no evidence that they received them from God. Do you know otherwise?

      Hoo

      Delete
    9. What sort of evidence would convince you?

      Delete
    10. Dr. Egnor,

      I would be curious to look at whatever evidence you have.

      Hoo

      Delete
    11. I'm sure you would be. But I want to know what kind of evidence you would find convincing.

      In other words, for me to answer your question about evidence, I must know what you mean by "evidence"?

      Define your terms.

      Delete
    12. It is unlikely that I will find your evidence convincing as I do not believe in God. But it isn't about me, Dr. Egnor, it is about you. You stated that the rights listed in the Constitution are God-given. I wonder what convinced you.

      Hoo

      Delete
    13. Michael,

      What would convince me that rights are 'God-given' is that; 1. There's a God, with the qualities you ascribe to God. 2. God, in some way, managed to transmit knowledge of these rights to the authors of the constitution.

      I don't see that there's any evidence for (1), let alone (2).

      Delete
    14. "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," (my emph)

      Seems the founders were convinced there was no need to prove that which is self evident.

      Delete
    15. Seems the founders were convinced there was no need to prove that which is self evident.

      1. If the rights are self-evident, then there is no need for a creator to have granted them.

      2. The Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution. The Constitution is quite clear where its powers come from, in its very first three words.

      Delete
    16. "1. If the rights are self-evident, then there is no need for a creator to have granted them"
      The founding fathers disagreed and stated so above.

      "2. The Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution."
      What a profound observation. You must be the head of your kindergarten class.

      "The Constitution is quite clear where its powers come from, in its very first three words."
      Just like a materialist. All hows and NO IDEA why.
      Go back to sleep, kid.

      Delete
    17. "1. If the rights are self-evident, then there is no need for a creator to have granted them"

      I just have to add: This is one of the most stupid things I have EVER read. I don't know if you're actually an idiot, Anon - but you're playing the part EXTREMELY well.

      Delete