How to Argue with People Who Reject The Right To Keep And Bear Arms [CBD]

I saw this last month over at The Lid, and a recent discussion with someone who was woefully ignorant of...oh....pretty much everything reminded me of the article. The title says it all:
Three Basic Facts About The Right To Keep And Bear Arms

There are other points to be made, and most of them have been made forcefully and eloquently (and profanely) on these pages. But this is a good beginning.

The U.S. Constitution doesn't grant or create legal rights. It recognizes and protects rights that already inherently exist -- what the Framers called, "inalienable." As such, inalienable rights cannot be created, altered, limited, or removed by man-made laws or governments.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 10:45 AM

Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1

Thanks to obama and the democrats, these inalienable rights are more important than ever.

Everyone sees what is happening all around the world.

Everyone, including democrats.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 13, 2016 10:48 AM (qCMvj)

2 First!

Posted by: Rudy at February 13, 2016 10:48 AM (brIR5)

3 and I must repost

Speaking of guns, hair and elections...

http://freebeacon.com/judgment-day/

Judgement Day indeed.
the awesomeness of the freebeacon

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 13, 2016 10:49 AM (qCMvj)

4 Did anyone get the others?

Posted by: HH at February 13, 2016 10:49 AM (DrCtv)

5

...back to reading and watching my favorite sport...

double rainbow

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 13, 2016 10:49 AM (qCMvj)

6 Missed it by that }{ much

Posted by: Max 86 at February 13, 2016 10:50 AM (brIR5)

7 OK, I did.

Posted by: HH at February 13, 2016 10:51 AM (DrCtv)

8
Too bad I won't be reading that. Not disabling my Adblock and it won't run with my configuration.

Posted by: irongrampa at February 13, 2016 10:53 AM (P/8aq)

9 This gun rights post is also excellent(long, but worth it):

http://preview.tinyurl.com/pqks7o7

Posted by: Lizzy at February 13, 2016 10:55 AM (NOIQH)

10 The U.S. Constitution doesn't grant or create legal rights. It recognizes and protects rights that already inherently exist -- what the Framers called, "inalienable." As such, inalienable rights cannot be created, altered, limited, or removed by man-made laws or governments.

I would are that this is THE main difference between liberals and conservatives. Progressives believe that rights are handed out by governments like party favors and do not exist outside of the state, conservatives hold that rights inhere in human beings prior to any form of government being established.

A simple distinction, but uuge.

Posted by: OregonMuse at February 13, 2016 10:57 AM (08fIE)

11 I have found that arguing with most "true believers" in left-wing causes to be pointless. That said, it is still worth confronting them if others are around. I've noticed that take for granted that they can spew their venom and their opposition - if any - will sit by quietly. Recently I calmly started to disagree with an "anti gun" person and they became completely unhinged - in public. Their meltdown make quite a spectacle, and discredited them without my hardly saying a word. For better or worse I did add "and he thinks gun owners are unstable ?!" as he was leaving, but that was it.

It IS time for us to not let progressive rants go unanswered, we just need to realize who the real "audience" is for our points. Important for any reasonable bystanders to see us as the calm reasonable ones. I think that speaks more for our cause than the content, much of which may be forgotten.

Posted by: McBane at February 13, 2016 10:57 AM (WmLD5)

12 Some versions say "unalienable," not "inalienable." Latinates in English were fairly new then, so you were free to make up your own when the situation called for it. Like that damned comma in the second "ammendment," this nulls and voids the entire document, to hear a postmodern semanticist tell it.

Posted by: Stringer Davis at February 13, 2016 10:58 AM (xq1UY)

13 Thanks to obama and the democrats, these inalienable rights are more ~~important than ever~~ semi-inalienable suggestions.

Posted by: The Great White Snark at February 13, 2016 10:59 AM (Nwg0u)

14 "A simple distinction, but uuge."

Yep.

Posted by: Lauren at February 13, 2016 11:00 AM (3DIzJ)

15 I don't argue with anti-gunners. If they're open-minded, I take them to the range and help them actually learn something about guns. Most of the time, they at least get over their irrational fear of guns. If they're not willing to learn, I mark them down as idiots who will be left to their own woefully inadequate devices when the SHTF.

Posted by: PabloD at February 13, 2016 11:01 AM (c9t4Y)

16 Judgement Day indeed.
the awesomeness of the freebeacon
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 13, 2016 10:49 AM (qCMvj)
---
I would love to have this playing at my place of employment (but, you know...Hatch Act).

What's on the white trucker cap?

Posted by: All Hail Eris, Literate Savage at February 13, 2016 11:01 AM (jR7Wy)

17 "A simple distinction, but uuge."

This coincides with the overarching liberal idea that all things come from government. Happiness, fairness, equality of outcome....all sourced from and enforced by law from "government."

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at February 13, 2016 11:01 AM (9ym/8)

18
Why do most people now use the term "unalienable" in place of "inalienable"?

Posted by: Ed Anger at February 13, 2016 11:01 AM (RcpcZ)

19
The wording of 2A voids all the "legislation concerning various types of firearms, as it DELIBERATELY avoids any mention of particulars.

Only says arms.

No reason for all the shit about assault weapons, etc. Totally specious.

Posted by: irongrampa at February 13, 2016 11:03 AM (P/8aq)

20 Unless they are one of the ever-more-numerous bits of my local, state, or Federal government, acting in an official capacity, I am not sure why I should deign to voice any argument, excepting:

Molan labe

Posted by: Sweet Lou at February 13, 2016 11:03 AM (Fzaq0)

21 In a breakroom conversation of current events I once remarked, "My rights don't come from government--my rights come from God."

No one in the conversation recognized this as the Natural Rights position on which the Constitution is based.

I was accused of being a theocrat.

A great deal of our problem is that most Americans citizens are fucking dolts.

Posted by: Cloyd Freud, Unemployed at February 13, 2016 11:03 AM (u5gzz)

22 "Only says arms"

Towns used to cast their own cannon and cannon balls for defense. Indians, the French, etc. Don't really remember the Army riding in and confiscating them when they did.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at February 13, 2016 11:05 AM (9ym/8)

23 Ricardo, what burns my brain is Their total fear of the govt when Bush was President. That they feel so comfortable now as if all those spectres disappeared overnight And the presumption there will never be an ideological opponent in power again.

Posted by: willow at February 13, 2016 11:05 AM (9XzdI)

24 As I said yesterday, I don't even try to argue with idiots anymore. Why do I need an AR-15? Because fuck you, that's why.

Posted by: Duke Lowell at February 13, 2016 11:06 AM (kTF2Z)

25 My right exist, quite simply, because I do. Neither you, nor anyone else can do anything to negate that.
Certainly not some empty suit in a pretty office in DC, living large on the backs of real working Amercans.

Posted by: Chi at February 13, 2016 11:07 AM (OUpHg)

26 hell i can remember through the 2000s they actually wanted the constitution as a tool to stop Bush and govt agencies, now they just grow the fk out of the govt and give it more strength.

Posted by: willow at February 13, 2016 11:07 AM (9XzdI)

27 That they feel so comfortable now as if all those spectres disappeared overnight And the presumption there will never be an ideological opponent in power again.
Posted by: willow at February 13, 2016 11:05 AM (9XzdI)

Because they figured their side would finally be able to shut us up and disarm us once and for all. Then its a simple matter to march us off to Hillary's! Fun Camps for adults.

Posted by: Iblis at February 13, 2016 11:08 AM (rP2JJ)

28 I hit post too soon.
That is my standard reply when some idiot says "you don't have the right to..."

Posted by: Chi at February 13, 2016 11:08 AM (OUpHg)

29 I believe "Fuck you that's why" has been trademarked by Say Uncle.
He also coined "Bam! It's coloring books for Christmas."

Posted by: Stringer Davis at February 13, 2016 11:09 AM (xq1UY)

30 Iblis, i would have felt that was a paranoid comment just a few years ago!

now i srsly entertain the possibility

Posted by: willow at February 13, 2016 11:09 AM (9XzdI)

31 And, irongrampa -
Yeah, that site is a mess of ads. Almost unreadable. At least on a mobile device.

Posted by: Chi at February 13, 2016 11:11 AM (OUpHg)

32 ported to new thread:

impression is that the WSJ is as protective of selected

The local ads in my small hometown always had.
Manure for sale - highest quality - from racehorses.

Same thing, different street.

Horseshit jokes travel pretty well.

Posted by: DaveA at February 13, 2016 11:12 AM (DL2i+)

33 The Michael Walsh podcast gives a good insight into why leftists/statists hate the 2nd amendment and the other 9 amendments.

Posted by: Arson Wells at February 13, 2016 11:12 AM (UnJ7w)

34 More from Bookworm:

The Constitution is a contract between the People (acting through their state-elected representatives) and the government...

Rights, on the other hand, belong to the People independent of government. Rights have nothing to do with government control over people, and everything to do with the People's right to control government.

The first ten amendments to the Constitution describe rights that are fundamental to the individual and, therefore, transcend government. The Founders stated them explicitly, however, because they refused to assume that a beneficent government would automatically protect these rights. It was therefore necessary to err on the side of caution and warn the federal government away from touching the People's core liberties.

The net result of adding a single extraordinary sentence in the Declaration of Independence and the first ten amendments to the Constitution is pure magic: For the first time in history, a government exists that respects the bright line of human inviolability into which government cannot intrude.

Posted by: Lizzy at February 13, 2016 11:12 AM (NOIQH)

35 "As such, inalienable rights cannot be created, altered, limited, or removed by man-made laws or governments."

Doesn't this position necessarily imply that we have a positive moral obligation to disobey the law when it unjustly infringes on our rights?

Why, of course it does.

Posted by: Cloyd Freud, Unemployed at February 13, 2016 11:12 AM (u5gzz)

36 No reason for all the shit about assault weapons, etc. Totally specious.

Posted by: irongrampa at February 13, 2016 11:03 AM (P/8aq)

One small step at a time, comrade citizen, one small common-sense step at a time!

Posted by: Bernie S Hrothgar at February 13, 2016 11:13 AM (wYnyS)

37 Charlie Daniels lays down his fiddle and picks up his Twitter:

1) Islamic terrorist Machete attack in Columbus Ohio
Another good reason for concealed carry
Time to put an end to this foolishness

2) If 1 Baptist murdered in cold blood nobody would blame it on the denomination,but what if hundreds of them did it every day around the world

Posted by: The Great White Snark at February 13, 2016 11:13 AM (Nwg0u)

38 Too bad I won't be reading that. Not disabling my Adblock and it won't run with my configuration.

Install a different substitute browser, use just for trouble spots, un/reinstall when it goes sideways.

Posted by: DaveA at February 13, 2016 11:14 AM (DL2i+)

39 Good to see this in print in this "modern" world. It was not a radical idea in the Britain of the 1600's and the colonies in the 1700's. This comes right out of Locke. It is only a radical idea today due to the last 75 years of progressive education and subtle changes in the historical narrative. Along these lines, we should be questioning the ant-gun folks to determine if they are willing to die trying to take away our inalienable rights. We should stop claiming we are willing to die to protect our inalienable rights. That is a given. Sort of frames the discussion a "little" bit differently?

Posted by: rich at February 13, 2016 11:15 AM (jxpou)

40 I haven't looked at the linked article, but the problem with arguing with liberals is that they are not subject to logic, evidence, common sense or anything else used to establish a position. Once their "feels" is locked into place, there is no moving it through argument or persuasion.

Posted by: BeckoningChasm at February 13, 2016 11:16 AM (B8JRQ)

41 "Doesn't this position necessarily imply that we have a positive moral obligation to disobey the law when it unjustly infringes on our rights? "

I believe that's the way the Founders largely looked upon it. Of course they took a bunch of guff before the camel's back finally broke.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at February 13, 2016 11:16 AM (9ym/8)

42 37 Charlie Daniels lays down his fiddle and picks up his Twitter:

1) Islamic terrorist Machete attack in Columbus Ohio
Another good reason for concealed carry
Time to put an end to this foolishness

2) If 1 Baptist murdered in cold blood nobody would blame it on the denomination,but what if hundreds of them did it every day around the world

Posted by: The Great White Snark at February 13, 2016 11:13 AM (Nwg0u)

Clearly Charlie Daniels is just engaging in irrational fears!

Posted by: buzzion at February 13, 2016 11:17 AM (zt+N6)

43 Watched a couple of movies last night in which the "loving" households had no means of self-defense against the evil intruder.

In each movie, what did they do? They ran to the uncooth, unvarnished neighbor who was armed, who saved most of them (except in one of them, the evil capitalist running dog got his come-uppins').

Posted by: Soona at February 13, 2016 11:17 AM (Fmupd)

44 @11 very good point.

Posted by: BeckoningChasm at February 13, 2016 11:17 AM (B8JRQ)

45 The net result of adding a single extraordinary sentence in the Declaration of Independence and the first ten amendments to the Constitution is pure magic: For the first time in history, a government exists that respects the bright line of human inviolability into which government cannot intrude.
Posted by: Lizzy at February 13, 2016 11:12 AM (NOIQH)

we honestly were so fortunate to have been awarded such a document. It's unfortunate so many think it isn't worthy to be upheld. and that we the people shouldn't really have been afforded such potential freedom.

Posted by: willow at February 13, 2016 11:17 AM (9XzdI)

46 Posted by: DaveA at February 13, 2016 11:14 AM (DL2i+)

I am using PaleMoon with Adblock Latitude and the site was fine.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 13, 2016 11:17 AM (Zu3d9)

47 "Once their "feels" is locked into place, there is no moving it through argument or persuasion."

It is so much emotion. Not logic, events and consequnces, reason. Just emotion.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at February 13, 2016 11:18 AM (9ym/8)

48 Our son was telling us over dinner last night about walking into a class with a coffee mug with the gun logo of a coffee company that's supporting his campus veterans' group.

Apparently, the gun logo triggered extreme anxiety in a Special Snowflake princess, who asked, "Are you allowed to bring that to class??!!!???"

Son said, "What? A cup of coffee?"

Princess: "No! That mug! It has a gun on it!!"

Son: "The only way the gun on this mug could hurt anyone is if I beat someone across the head with it."

Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 13, 2016 11:18 AM (FsuaD)

49 we honestly were so fortunate to have been awarded
such a document.

Posted by: willow at February 13, 2016 11:17 AM (9XzdI)

We weren't awarded it. Our forefathers earned it with their blood.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 13, 2016 11:19 AM (Zu3d9)

50
Irongrampa,what you rightly (and mildly) term "specious" is the whole edifice of make-believe "jurisprudence" that is used to justify all the infringement that, uh, is expressly and clearly forbidden in the 2A.

I refer to this ludicrous framework of "rational basis/intermediate scrutiny/strict scrutiny" concocted to- and this is the jaw-dropping part - make sure that "compelling state interests" are protected.

Now, the Enabling Act and the RSFSR Criminal Code didn't, so far as I know, actually use the German or Russian equivalents of "compelling state interest". But, ahemm, the state was supreme in those vile and vanquished systems, and somewhere in the back of my head I seem to recall that the American system was unique and precious for .... what was it? Oh, right. The citizen, the individual, and that individual's rights AGAINST state power were enshrined in a constitution, that created a govt. "of, by, and for the people".

"Compelling state interest" - in any context involving individual rights - is as inherently alien and unacceptable a concept as one can imagine to have anywhere in the judicial system. Yet it is the cornerstone of thelegislation and decrees that issue from the lawless judiciary - euphemistically called "rulings" - to infringe on 2A and other rights.

Posted by: rhomboid at February 13, 2016 11:19 AM (QDnY+)

51 My right exist, quite simply, because I do.

-
This can be fixed, comrade.

Posted by: The Great White Snark at February 13, 2016 11:20 AM (Nwg0u)

52 CBD, emes, Yet they set it out for Future generations .

Posted by: willow at February 13, 2016 11:20 AM (9XzdI)

53 I believe that's the way the Founders largely looked
upon it. Of course they took a bunch of guff before the camel's back
finally broke.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at February 13, 2016 11:16 AM (9ym/

But who can argue that in these modern times, a common sense reasonable reinterpretation of the First Ten Amendments is not long overdue! It's clear they don't have the nuance required to permit the effective governance of a large population in today's dynamic technology driven world!

Posted by: Bernie S Hrothgar at February 13, 2016 11:20 AM (wYnyS)

54 Whether on purpose to bury the truth, because the concept infuriated/frightened leftists, or a combination of the two, schools stopped teaching about rights. So nobody knows what they are or how they work.

The fact that a right cannot place an obligation on someone else is never taught.
The fact that rights are an inherent part of being a human and cannot be granted or taken away by any human or group is never taught.
The fact that rights are granted by an external, absolute, objective authority is never taught.

To do so would negate much of the left's agenda and tactics.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 13, 2016 11:21 AM (39g3+)

55 Your attitude has been noticed.

Posted by: Comrade Kaprugina at February 13, 2016 11:21 AM (RrDm2)

56 Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 13, 2016 11:18 AM (FsuaD)
--
Jane, was it Black Rifle Coffee Co? I love their "Caffeinated as F*ck" line.

Posted by: All Hail Eris, Literate Savage at February 13, 2016 11:21 AM (jR7Wy)

57 Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 13, 2016 11:18 AM (FsuaD)

Sounds like you raised a fine young man. And quick witted.

Posted by: Arson Wells at February 13, 2016 11:21 AM (UnJ7w)

58 "For the first time in history, a government exists that respects the bright line of human inviolability into which government cannot intrude.
Posted by: Lizzy at February 13, 2016 11:12 AM (NOIQH)

we honestly were so fortunate to have been awarded such a document."

We are. And the creators of that document fully expected for duly elected bodies to meet regularly, but limitedly, to take care of the nation's business and then go home and live under the laws that they had just created.

That's lost as well.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at February 13, 2016 11:22 AM (9ym/8)

59 I haven't looked at the linked article, but the problem with arguing with liberals is that they are not subject to logic, evidence, common sense or anything else used to establish a position. Once their "feels" is locked into place, there is no moving it through argument or persuasion.

It's one thing to tell me I am wrong to think that way. It's another to tell me I am wrong to feel that way.

Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at February 13, 2016 11:22 AM (vCyy6)

60 Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 13, 2016 11:18 AM (FsuaD)

It is always clear that the D'oh family raised a really good kid!

Posted by: Bernie S Hrothgar at February 13, 2016 11:22 AM (wYnyS)

61 48: Jane, a mug to the head may have improved her fucking attitude. So sick of these limp wristed lick knobs. The burning will be tough on them I'm afraid. Asshats the lot of them.

Posted by: chavez the hugo at February 13, 2016 11:24 AM (ucDmr)

62 The first 4 amendments exist for very simple reasons. They were written by people where their government tried to take all of them away.

Posted by: buzzion at February 13, 2016 11:24 AM (zt+N6)

63 Jane, was it Black Rifle Coffee Co? I love their "Caffeinated as F*ck" line.

Posted by: All Hail Eris, Literate Savage at February 13, 2016 11:21 AM (jR7Wy)

Yes! Son is fundraising chair for his campus veterans' group, and they are a donor. Son loves their Caffeinated as F*ck brew!

Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 13, 2016 11:24 AM (FsuaD)

64 >>Apparently, the gun logo triggered extreme anxiety in a Special Snowflake princess, who asked, "Are you allowed to bring that to class??!!!???"

Wow.

Posted by: Lizzy at February 13, 2016 11:25 AM (NOIQH)

65 I haven't looked at the linked article, but the problem with arguing with liberals is that they are not subject to logic, evidence, common sense or anything else used to establish a position. Once their "feels" is locked into place, there is no moving it through argument or persuasion.

-
My feels trump your logic.

- Snowflake Stormtroopers

Posted by: The Great White Snark at February 13, 2016 11:25 AM (Nwg0u)

66 The flip side is understanding responsibilities. You don't have a right to health care, we have a responsibility to care for those in need.

You don't have a right to marriage, we have a responsibility to build stable relationships as a framework for society and offspring to be raised within.

You don't have a right to birth control, you have a responsibilty to restrain yourself and show caution when engaging in acts designed to generate babies.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 13, 2016 11:25 AM (39g3+)

67

Posted by: rhomboid at February 13, 2016 11:19 AM (QDnY+)

I still contend that the very concept of 'compelling State interest' is a canard.

States are not thinking entities. They have no interests. Those interests are actually the interests of the people in CHARGE of said State.

'State interest' is a term used to excuse a multitude of sins against people.

Posted by: Don Quixote at February 13, 2016 11:26 AM (f7rv6)

68 I'd start wearing an NRA hat.

Posted by: buzzion at February 13, 2016 11:26 AM (zt+N6)

69 Ricardo, It's nuts that we cannot reach half the countrys citizens to have them understand What they are allowing to be given up everyday with their greedy desire for free phones and condoms consorting/ actually hugging with the pimps trying to steal their own power and prosperity away from them . for nickels

Posted by: willow at February 13, 2016 11:27 AM (9XzdI)

70 Apparently, the gun logo triggered extreme anxiety in a Special Snowflake princess, who asked, "Are you allowed to bring that to class??!!!???"

Wow.

"Why yes, I am allowed to do all sorts of things.

You should try it sometime. It's called Freedom."

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at February 13, 2016 11:27 AM (LUgeY)

71 Posted by: willow at February 13, 2016 11:20 AM (9XzdI)

With the expectation that we would continue to earn it every day.

For the most part our country has done a good job of it, but recently not so much.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 13, 2016 11:28 AM (Zu3d9)

72 Son wears a military hat with a "waterboarding expert" logo on the back.

He loves triggering snowflakes. Heh.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 13, 2016 11:28 AM (FsuaD)

73 sometimes i just want to scream at them, to Wake Up!
but they'd likely send me to happy fun camp.

Posted by: willow at February 13, 2016 11:29 AM (9XzdI)

74 Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 13, 2016 11:24 AM (FsuaD)

All fixed!

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 13, 2016 11:29 AM (Zu3d9)

75 >>Son wears a military hat with a "waterboarding expert" logo on the back.

Posted by: Lizzy at February 13, 2016 11:29 AM (NOIQH)

76 "they inherently exist." Of course, they don't seem to exist in any other country except the one with the Constitution that expressly includes them, but, sure, they inherently exist.

Posted by: Dave H at February 13, 2016 11:29 AM (xMMIg)

77 now i srsly entertain the possibility
Posted by: willow at February 13, 2016 11:09 AM (9XzdI)

The current crop of brain dead morons graduating from college are all in favor of doing this to their political opponents. The Alinskyites are really pushing for what I call a "counter" revolution. They're going to go nuts when we win this year. It won't be pretty. But it will be funny watching them lose their shit.

Posted by: Iblis at February 13, 2016 11:29 AM (rP2JJ)

78 Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 13, 2016 11:25 AM (39g3+)

Well said... and I would add, there is no NATURAL Right to vote.

Its a Privilege and Power.... because the vote is given to us by our form of government.... not by Nature.

So when voting was given that status, it actually DILUTED the meaning of what a Right is...

Posted by: Don Quixote at February 13, 2016 11:31 AM (f7rv6)

79
And forget trying to reason with ignorant, authoritarian-leaning, bigoted anti-gun sorts. Things are much worse than that.

Just try raising the outrageous nature of this whole "compelling state interest" concept and the related ramshackle framework of "scrutiny" with many PRO-2A legal types. A major internet gun forum's legal section won't even tolerate any discussion of the orwellian inversion of constitutional concepts in today's lawless and arrogant judiciary. No discussion of substance - for example the absurd, baseless, unprofessional rantings and emoting literally written into dissents by losing anti-2A crusaders. Only horse-race speculation about mechanics and circuit splits and SCOTUS certs are permitted.

Inertia and narrow good breaks have recently been favoring not "gun rights", but constitutional integrity, in SOME areas (like concealed carry). Yet the overall picture remains absurd and dark.

Striking down obviously, facially, spectacularly unconstitutional infringements in states like CA and NY etc. is a gruelling uncertain process taking decades. Meanwhile, it's a snap of the fingers, for example, for SCOTUS to beclown itself by inventing "rights" out of thin air to redefine marriage (a topic outside its purview and obviously its moral or intellectual reach, to boot).

The catastrophe of the judiciary has dire implications far beyond 2A rights, and even the small "victories" recently seen in that area don't do a thing to change the fundamental crisis. It's enough to consider that people, reasonably, talk about the SCOTUS being "one vote change away" from effectively repealing the 2A.

Forget the 2A topic for the moment - what kind of constitutional system, or rule of law, effectively exists if it is reasonable to handicap the odds of fundamental rights being eliminated simply due to turnover on a court?

Posted by: rhomboid at February 13, 2016 11:31 AM (QDnY+)

80 Ugh, yes: The "right" to healthcare, marriage, birth control, etc... = total perversion of the concept of rights.

Rights aren't a gift from gifts from the government, SJW's!

Posted by: Lizzy at February 13, 2016 11:32 AM (NOIQH)

81 You guys should check out Black Rifle Coffee Co. For all your triggering needs:

http://www.blackriflecoffee.com/

Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 13, 2016 11:32 AM (FsuaD)

82 Get him a Modern Warfare 3 shirt to wear.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/zedtkh6

Posted by: buzzion at February 13, 2016 11:32 AM (zt+N6)

83 The other thing about rights is that they are absolute in nature, but limited in application. My right to liberty is unlimited, but the free exercise of that right can be resticted by society so that other peoples' rights are not interfered with. I still have the right to liberty when I'm jailed, I've just forfeited the free expression of that right because of my actions against others.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 13, 2016 11:32 AM (39g3+)

84 CBD, One would think we would demand our leaders be ousted for not upholding our freedom.

perhaps we are by the last 2 election results , but i have not seen any srs action/demands by our reps, is it impossible?

Posted by: willow at February 13, 2016 11:32 AM (9XzdI)

85 I got some work done on a car early yesterday morning, so of course I had to have coffee. I brought it in an NRA travel mug. I got a glance from one woman...undoubtedly a liberal, based on her rude and loud complaints about the garage's lack of respect for her precious time.

Eh....rear brake pads and rotors, plus checking the front suspension (shit! I need a control arm). All in about 70 minutes. I have no complaints at all about their efficiency.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 13, 2016 11:32 AM (Zu3d9)

86

Posted by: Dave H at February 13, 2016 11:29 AM (xMMIg)

You appear to have missed the point.

Posted by: Pappy O'Daniel at February 13, 2016 11:34 AM (oVJmc)

87 Well said... and I would add, there is no NATURAL Right to vote.

Nah,
you getta say in what goes on, same as you getta shot at stopping it.

Posted by: DaveA at February 13, 2016 11:34 AM (DL2i+)

88 The fact that a right cannot place an obligation on someone else is never taught.
The fact that rights are an inherent part of being a human and cannot be granted or taken away by any human or group is never taught.
The fact that rights are granted by an external, absolute, objective authority is never taught.

To do so would negate much of the left's agenda and tactics.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 13, 2016 11:21 AM (39g3+)

These rights are not taught because they indicate they come from God. And the left cannot have a God other than the state.

Posted by: Jen the original at February 13, 2016 11:34 AM (K0Iz7)

89 http://www.blackriflecoffee.com/

Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 13, 2016 11:32 AM (FsuaD)

That link sure wants me to unblock a lot of support sites to be usable.

Posted by: Hrothgar at February 13, 2016 11:34 AM (wYnyS)

90 " sometimes i just want to scream at them, to Wake Up! "

Yes, I know. I can't say where it's all leading but it's not good that half the country has no clue, no cintilla, of what the country's about.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at February 13, 2016 11:35 AM (9ym/8)

91
23
Ricardo, what burns my brain is Their total fear of the govt when Bush
was President. That they feel so comfortable now as if all those
spectres disappeared overnight And the presumption there will never be
an ideological opponent in power again.

Posted by: willow at February 13, 2016 11:05 AM (9XzdI)
This reminds me, sometime back during the eeeeeeevil Bush years, I was watching one of those Crossfire-type shows where the panel was discussing some latest OUTRAGE that Bush was perpetrating on the nation, and one of the leftie panelists said: "Let's not forget, it's not the government that is doing this, it's the Bush Administration that is doing this." And that just cemented in my mind what these leftists really think of government. It is an idea that is divorced from reality, some noble aspirational ideal, not the actual government that exists. To them "government" is the superhero that swoops in to save the day, not a real person, not based in reality.

Posted by: chemjeff at February 13, 2016 11:35 AM (uZNvH)

92 Posted by: willow at February 13, 2016 11:32 AM (9XzdI)

Our complacency on the Right has been matched by lots and lots of hard work on the part of the Left.

Freedom has to be defended every day, or we will lose it.

You are correct...the message from the last two elections to congress is to stop screwing us, but they haven't heard it, or more probably just don't care.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 13, 2016 11:35 AM (Zu3d9)

93 "they inherently exist." Of course, they don't seem to exist in any other country except the one with the Constitution that expressly includes them, but, sure, they inherently exist.

We've been on the leading edge of the freedom movement for centuries. The fact that the fight never ends shows that it is the struggle that defines us. Shall we govern ourselves or have the chains of someone else upon us?

If I don't encourage and enforce my own God-given rights, no one else will.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at February 13, 2016 11:36 AM (LUgeY)

94 What the Snowflake Stormtroopers understand:

- Sexual orientation inherently exists.

What the Snowflake Stormtroopers do not understand:

- Inalienable rights inherently exist.

Posted by: The Great White Snark at February 13, 2016 11:36 AM (Nwg0u)

95 Something to keep in mind when arguing with leftists is that the shunning that they practice against apostates or even anybody who asks too many questions means that if they were to debate with you in good faith and change their mind if you had a more persuasive argument they would risk losing all their friends and their steady poontang.

You would need a really persuasive argument to overcome that sort of motivation.

Posted by: Obnoxious A-Hole at February 13, 2016 11:36 AM (QHgTq)

96 "And the left cannot have a God other than the state."

Nutshell. That's the divide.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at February 13, 2016 11:36 AM (9ym/8)

97 Forget the 2A topic for the moment - what kind of constitutional system, or rule of law, effectively exists if it is reasonable to handicap the odds of fundamental rights being eliminated simply due to turnover on a court?
Posted by: rhomboid at February 13, 2016 11:31 AM (QDnY+)

Excelllent post..

Posted by: Jen the original at February 13, 2016 11:36 AM (K0Iz7)

98 'State interest' is a term used to excuse a multitude of sins against people.

Posted by: Don Quixote at February 13, 2016 11:26 AM (f7rv6)

Whenever I hear the term "State Interest", I mentally replace it with "Cartel Interest"!

Posted by: Hrothgar at February 13, 2016 11:37 AM (wYnyS)

99 91 -

And that just cemented in my mind what these leftists really think of government. It is an idea that is divorced from reality, some noble aspirational ideal, not the actual government that exists. To them "government" is the superhero that swoops in to save the day, not a real person, not based in reality.

You talk bad about the government in front of them, it's as if you've insulted their mother.

Posted by: Josephistan at February 13, 2016 11:37 AM (7qAYi)

100 Spied at Black coffee site:
https://www.instagram.com/p/BBm8O_7OOyO/

Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at February 13, 2016 11:39 AM (RrDm2)

101 And since rights are granted innately by being human, no human lacks these rights, regardless of their political status, race, gender, personal preferences, height, age, state of health, etc. Its just a universal and inalienable part of being human.

That's where the Supreme Court messed up on "inter-racial" marriage. They tried to create a new "right" which imposes an obligation on another person: marriage. They should have approached it from the perspective of liberty, in which all human beings are free and able to engage in contacts and relationships with other humans regardless of ethnicity and national origin.

By creating this faux right of marriage, they've opened up a gigantic can of worms which they are unable to now close. Why can't I marry Aisha the 9 year old girl? I have a right, don't I?

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 13, 2016 11:39 AM (39g3+)

102 79 rhomboid

Another deep & apropos post, Rhomboid.

I have been doing a lot of thinking about reforms leading to Republic 2.0.

This one is gone. We can plan for a replacement.

Or we can plan on being replaced.

Posted by: NaCly Dog at February 13, 2016 11:40 AM (u82oZ)

103 You are correct...the message from the last two
elections to congress is to stop screwing us, but they haven't heard it,
or more probably just don't care.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 13, 2016 11:35 AM (Zu3d9)

As long as the chains rest lightly enough on you that you can easily get to your EBT card and Obamaphone, we have nothing to worry about comrade!

Posted by: Bernie S Hrothgar at February 13, 2016 11:41 AM (wYnyS)

104 "By creating this faux right of marriage, they've opened up a gigantic can of worms which they are unable to now close. Why can't I marry Aisha the 9 year old girl? I have a right, don't I?"

Law and morality. The two only occasionally meet.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at February 13, 2016 11:41 AM (9ym/8)

105 the left cannot have a God other than the state.

-
Build that Tower of Babel. What could possibly go wrong?

Posted by: The Great White Snark at February 13, 2016 11:41 AM (Nwg0u)

106 Very windy, 19 deg. here. Who knows what the wind chill is.

Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at February 13, 2016 11:42 AM (RrDm2)

107 @79

We live in the figment of a Constitutional system.

We've been post constitutional since Marbury v Madison.

There are currently only two option to claw back constitutional order, Article V or secession and the formation of a new American Republic predicated on absolute fealty to an origionalist constitutional system.

Posted by: Kreplach at February 13, 2016 11:42 AM (WVvzl)

108 Forget the 2A topic for the moment - what kind of constitutional system, or rule of law, effectively exists if it is reasonable to handicap the odds of fundamental rights being eliminated simply due to turnover on a court?

That's another thing I don't get about the spineless Repumpkins in DC and why they refused to even try to counter TFP's illegal actions. I don't care who the president is, his power is restricted by the Constitution. He can't do anything he feels like doing just because he's preezy.

Why haven't we heard anyone in DC say this?

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at February 13, 2016 11:43 AM (LUgeY)

109 ..the message from the last two elections to congress is to stop screwing us, but they haven't heard it, or more probably just don't care.

The problem is, by "stop screwing us" we mean "leave us alone" and the left means "stop restricting the amount of free stuff you give us."

The left and right can use the same words, but we're ultimately speaking a different language.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 13, 2016 11:44 AM (39g3+)

110
Wanna hear how I argue my 2nd amendment right with a liberal?

Pull my finger.

Posted by: Ed Anger at February 13, 2016 11:44 AM (RcpcZ)

111 Or we can plan on being replaced.

Posted by: NaCly Dog at February 13, 2016 11:40 AM (u82oZ)

I followed the GPS directions to get to a friend's house yesterday and cut through a new residential neighborhood that I had never been to before. Stopped for a school bus to drop off some kids. As I watched the large crowd of them spread out and begin walking down the side walk, I realized we've already been effectively replaced, and in basically one generation!

Posted by: Hrothgar at February 13, 2016 11:44 AM (wYnyS)

112 108: Cause they are all pussies like Yeb Bush?

Posted by: chavez the hugo at February 13, 2016 11:45 AM (ucDmr)

113 inalienable rights cannot be created, altered, limited, or removed by man-made laws or governments.

Challenge accepted!

Posted by: Democrats at February 13, 2016 11:45 AM (OLNwX)

114
With the inalienable rights defined and affirmed in the Bill of Rights by our Constitution also comes the freely accorded PRIVILEGE not to live in accord with them. This applies with all rights.

Someone lost track of the fact that a privilege cannot trump a right.

And that was not stopped in it's tracks.

And you see what happened.

Posted by: irongrampa at February 13, 2016 11:45 AM (P/8aq)

115 Why haven't we heard anyone in DC say this?

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at February 13, 2016 11:43 AM (LUgeY)

All those bastards are in on the game!

Posted by: Hrothgar at February 13, 2016 11:45 AM (wYnyS)

116 The only way an Article V stunt works is if the culture changes, resulting in a government that would listen and restrain its self to proper constitutional boundaries.

Without that? People keep electing the sort of politician that simply ignores the constitution - or at least fails to stop others from doing so.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 13, 2016 11:46 AM (39g3+)

117 The "gun problem" will always be something that Leftists are incapable of understanding, simply because they think everything that is allowed, is granted to them by the government.

Posted by: Matt at February 13, 2016 11:46 AM (3wxbV)

118 106 Very windy, 19 deg. here. Who knows what the wind chill is.
Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at February 13, 2016 11:42 AM (RrDm2)
---
19 degrees (feels like 3 degrees) here in my twee little towne.

Good day to stay inside and read.

Posted by: All Hail Eris, Literate Savage at February 13, 2016 11:46 AM (jR7Wy)

119 111 Hrothgar

For certain values in certain neighborhoods.

Which will not do well if our increasingly interlocked and fragile societal infrastructure has a glitch.

Posted by: NaCly Dog at February 13, 2016 11:47 AM (u82oZ)

120 Chem, i am not even certain they are committed as believing the govt is an angel, i think They just believe they have the ability to control/use the govt to give them what they want.

unless of course an ideological opponent in any agency exists

CBD, yes we have abrogated our responsibilty to leaders we elect that shut us down as soon as they are exposed to DC . and what other tools/support do we have to stop overreach ?
we have a few outside of the govt fighting . NRA, Levin. others i cannot remember their names, But we have the govt then Used by both sides to shut our tools down (true the Vote etc.)

Posted by: willow at February 13, 2016 11:48 AM (9XzdI)

121 Why haven't we heard anyone in DC say this?

Cruz does, a few others. But not many.

Our problem is not that we have an insufficient number of laws. Its a mistake to think that if only we had one more law, or the right sort of law in place, it would stop the corruption and evil. They're corrupt and evil in part because they ignore laws to begin with.

We need a change of heart in our culture that results in leaders who obey the law, show integrity, and have honor. Without that, we can pass a billion new laws worded however we want, and nothing will change.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 13, 2016 11:49 AM (39g3+)

122 Why haven't we heard anyone in DC say this?

Is it the fear or the complicity? Would knowing why help?

Posted by: DaveA at February 13, 2016 11:49 AM (DL2i+)

123 You know on that sidebar about only Loyal GOP supporters will be in the audience tonight. Its not just going to be a Trump gets booed system. It will also be a Cruz doesn't get strong support system. Because it will be Lindsey Graham supporters in the crowd.

Posted by: buzzion at February 13, 2016 11:49 AM (zt+N6)

124 "I was accused of being a theocrat. "

Yeah, even our dear ewok fights this point.

Posted by: Lauren at February 13, 2016 11:50 AM (3DIzJ)

125
Any new start or Republic, if you will, MUST be based on the original blueprint or it's doomed to failure.

That is what I consider our bedrock and consists of these.

The Declaration of Independence--the WHY.

The Bill of Rights--that which is inalienable.

No better has yet been devised.

The Constitution--the blueprint.

Posted by: irongrampa at February 13, 2016 11:51 AM (P/8aq)

126 Rhomboid does write some very heavy and informative posts, i always want to throw glitter on them. i wish i could send to other people that i know, but everyone around me are of the left.
and they wouldn't listen to the message

Posted by: willow at February 13, 2016 11:51 AM (9XzdI)

127 People reject the authority and idea of God not out of some allegiance to science and reason but because in the end, they fear and hate the idea of an absolute authority over them.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 13, 2016 11:52 AM (39g3+)

128 IG - Ran across this quote the other day,and thought of you:

"You may call me selfish if you will, conservative or reactionary, or use any other harsh adjective you see fit to apply, but an American I was born, an American I have remained all my life."

Henry Cabot Lodge

Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at February 13, 2016 11:52 AM (RrDm2)

129 "Rhomboid does write some very heavy and informative posts, i always want to throw glitter on them"

YES!

Posted by: Lauren at February 13, 2016 11:52 AM (3DIzJ)

130 124 Lauren

Maybe we should replace God with DNA or single-nucleotide polymorphisms.

Because Science.

But we mean God as the Universal Rule-maker.

Posted by: NaCly Dog at February 13, 2016 11:52 AM (u82oZ)

131 For certain values in certain neighborhoods.

Which will not do well if our increasingly interlocked and fragile societal infrastructure has a glitch.

Posted by: NaCly Dog at February 13, 2016 11:47 AM (u82oZ)

I know it was an anecdotal sample of one, but I've been to grand-kids schools as well and think it is far too common in my area.
And I don't think the glitch is far off.

Posted by: Hrothgar at February 13, 2016 11:54 AM (wYnyS)

132 Lauren, they seem so lost in my mattering on in small chat.

i suppose that is why we are supposed to have open threads And informational posts.
i need to learn to respect that.

Posted by: willow at February 13, 2016 11:54 AM (9XzdI)

133 So shooting them is right out, then?

Posted by: blaster at February 13, 2016 11:55 AM (2Ocf1)

134 125 irongrampa

I agree. I help put on a Constitution Bee every year to give scholarships to HS students. I fight the fight.

Our 5th Annual Constitution Bee is March 6th.

Link in nic.

Posted by: NaCly Dog at February 13, 2016 11:56 AM (u82oZ)

135 It doesn't matter how good the foundation of a nation is, though. The founders were adamant and repeated over and over that the only way this works is if the people are virtuous. Unless the citizens of a nation are basically good and follow certain limitations and personal guidelines, it cannot long last. And the left was very skilled at undermining every single last virtue until now they're mocked and condemned.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 13, 2016 11:56 AM (39g3+)

136 or nattering on*
sigh.
and yes i've had coffee, no excuse.

Posted by: willow at February 13, 2016 11:56 AM (9XzdI)

137 "Whenever I hear the term "State Interest", I mentally replace it with "Cartel Interest"!"

Not an inconceivable reaction.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at February 13, 2016 11:56 AM (9ym/8)

138 they fear and hate the idea of an absolute authority over them.

Au contraire, they hunger for an absolute authority that says that they are special and blessed snowflakes.

Posted by: t-bird at February 13, 2016 11:57 AM (OLNwX)

139 I heard a comedian on the radio the other day, talking about how it's not unreasonable to tell people not to bring their rifles into Jack-in-the-Box restaurants.

It's a cute line, probably gets laughs in the context of his act, but the hosts were predisposed to his line of thought (this was a sports radio station), and instead of asking any questions like "Why would you worry about a law-abiding citizen bringing guns into your fast food joints? The criminals ALREADY ARE bringing them in?"

What it all boils down to, really, is some people don't like guns. They find them scary. They wish the world didn't have guns, so they do the only thing they think they CAN do, which is alter the ability of law abiding citizens from having guns. Legally. Because, logic dictates, the only people who will abide by your laws are law-abiding citizens. You won't have fewer criminals having guns, just fewer law-abiding citizens.

And how does that make you safer??

Posted by: BurtTC at February 13, 2016 11:57 AM (TOk1P)

140 131 Hrothgar

It is everywhere. Today the illegals are guided to their new neighborhood by US DHS agents.

Posted by: NaCly Dog at February 13, 2016 11:57 AM (u82oZ)

141 The Leftists and their SJW Special Snowflake Handmaidens are able to use their magic decoder glasses to find rights that fit their agenda. The most starkly evil "right" that they discovered was the 'right" to infanticide by tortuous dismemberment on demand. If one strips away the "excuse" of it's my body, so I have a right to decide what happens to any parasites within it --including a fetus, one is left with the inescapable fact that someone dies at someone else's whim and convenience.

Not content to find this infanticide right, the Left then found the right for it to be paid for by someone other than the woman and the sperm donor. Then, they found the right to see those chopped up little baby bit for profit.

Right now, they are busy finding the right to ruin and silence anyone who might think any of the moral ambiguities, arcane and inhumane machinery of Big Abortion is the least little bit wrong. Apparently, from the events at Purdue, it's now double plus un-good wrong to hint that unfettered abortion is meeting the eugenics goal promulgated by its heroine Sanger.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at February 13, 2016 11:58 AM (kXoT0)

142 "That's another thing I don't get about the spineless Repumpkins in DC and why they refused to even try to counter TFP's illegal actions."

The simplest and best answer is "because they actually agree with him."

Posted by: Cloyd Freud, Unemployed at February 13, 2016 11:59 AM (u5gzz)

143 Inalienable rights are aliened all the time. That is why they felt it necessary to put in writing that the gubmint wouldn't be allowed to do that.

You, we, all HAVE inalienable rights. Not everyone has them protected.

Posted by: blaster at February 13, 2016 11:59 AM (2Ocf1)

144 And yeah, that website is so full of garbage, people with effective ad blockers turned on probably won't be able to reach the content.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 13, 2016 11:59 AM (TOk1P)

145 Inalienable rights are aliened all the time.

No, their free expression is violated all the time. The rights cannot be taken away. I can be killed but my right to live is inalienable. The constitution instructs the government to protect that free expression.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 13, 2016 12:02 PM (39g3+)

146
You folks are too kind. Aside from being too long, my comments are too often dark and discouraging. But sadly it seems there is a basis for my points.

As to CBD's initial topic, I don't encounter as much outright idiocy on 2A matters as on everything else, for some reason. In any case I avoid/deflect on 99% of anytopic most deem "political". I don't see much potential for growth or learning in most people I know, sadly. They didn't get where they are by thinking critically, having a good grounding in logic or history, having direct experience in relevant topics, or being otherwise well informed.

As I like to put it, I am most often in the role of the undercover FBI agent at the KKK rally - wondering, do these people REALLY believe this crap? Yet, obviously, deeming it best just to deflect or ignore.

Posted by: rhomboid at February 13, 2016 12:02 PM (QDnY+)

147
The pope is in mexico yammering on about how it has a young face and a future. Get a clue! They gun down kids there without hesitation.

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at February 13, 2016 12:02 PM (iQIUe)

148 Let's talk about that capabilities and intentions thing.

If you walk into a restaurant with a rifle slung over your shoulder, your intention is unknown. But your capability is there for everyone to see. If it makes people uncomfortable in their place of business, they aren't going to want it.

Respect other people. That helps a lot of things.

Oh, and please, someone tell me how I am a RINO who wants Obama to take all of our guns for writing that.

Posted by: blaster at February 13, 2016 12:03 PM (2Ocf1)

149 ""That's another thing I don't get about the spineless Repumpkins in DC and why they refused to even try to counter TFP's illegal actions."

The simplest and best answer is "because they actually agree with him."

One might get a little tin-foil-hatty and nutty enough to think they were all in league. Padding their nests and making sure their troughs were full.

One might. Oh well.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at February 13, 2016 12:03 PM (9ym/8)

150 I am using PaleMoon with Adblock Latitude and the site was fine.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 13, 2016 11:17 AM (Zu3d9)

There are some "directed ads" posing as news links down the right sidebar. I think that's Taboola. But Ididn't click on them.

Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at February 13, 2016 12:04 PM (Z8fuk)

151 They have made it pretty clear that their token effects at gun control aren't really about taking guns away from criminals, it is to place the issue of guns out of the realm of law-and-order politics (where Republicans do better) and to place it into the realm of culture-war politics (where Democrats do better), by otherizing gun ownership and otherwise turning gun owners into the modern-day era of cigarette smokers, shunned and ostracized members of society.

Posted by: chemjeff at February 13, 2016 12:05 PM (uZNvH)

152 The Pope needs to give up Communism for Lent.

Posted by: buzzion at February 13, 2016 12:05 PM (zt+N6)

153 @151 that's a very good analysis of it - that is why lefties want to talk about penises and all that when gun issues come up.

Posted by: blaster at February 13, 2016 12:07 PM (2Ocf1)

154 Part of the problem is that inalienable rights also carry with them inalienable responsibilities.

Far too many (at least 52% based on a recent poll of all actual voters) can't handle the responsibility aspect of the Constitution.

The percentage is much higher amongst elected officials!

Posted by: Hrothgar at February 13, 2016 12:07 PM (wYnyS)

155 Open carry and guns is a rights/responsibility issue as well. You have the right to carry a gun, but the responsibility to do so wisely and with due restraint. Freedom dictates you can carry your AK-47 with you shopping. Wisdom dictates you leave it in the truck unless you're living in Israel.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 13, 2016 12:09 PM (39g3+)

156 "The Pope needs to give up Communism for Lent."

Now that's funny right there, I don't care how dead you are.

Posted by: Larry the Cable Guy at February 13, 2016 12:09 PM (u5gzz)

157 We have our rights because we are self-aware.

They were not given to us in any way, shape, or form.

They are a natural outcome of evolution of intelligence.

Posted by: eman at February 13, 2016 12:09 PM (MQEz6)

158 Unless the citizens of a nation are basically good

Better people, better food, better beer.

Great song but utterly ridiculous.

Posted by: DaveA at February 13, 2016 12:10 PM (DL2i+)

159 @ 154

Yeah, accountability can be a real bitch now and then.

Posted by: irongrampa at February 13, 2016 12:10 PM (P/8aq)

160 NaCly, I visited your site and took the quiz.

Nice.

http://www.yesforliberty.org/

Took the test and got 3-of-5.

One was a "gotcha" though.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at February 13, 2016 12:12 PM (9ym/8)

161 What it all boils down to, really, is some people don't like guns.

Not entirely, sometimes tools are just out of place. It'd be weird if you walked into the McDonalds with your chainsaw too.

Posted by: DaveA at February 13, 2016 12:12 PM (DL2i+)

162 Yeah, accountability can be a real bitch now and then.

Posted by: irongrampa at February 13, 2016 12:10 PM (P/8aq)

That does seem to be a real sticking point!

Posted by: Hrothgar R Clinton at February 13, 2016 12:12 PM (wYnyS)

163 Let's talk about that capabilities and intentions thing.

If you walk into a restaurant with a rifle slung over your shoulder,
your intention is unknown. But your capability is there for everyone
to see. If it makes people uncomfortable in their place of business,
they aren't going to want it.

Respect other people. That helps a lot of things.

Oh, and please, someone tell me how I am a RINO who wants Obama to take all of our guns for writing that.

Posted by: blaster at February 13, 2016 12:03 PM (2Ocf1)

Fine. Then have a restaurant dictate the conditions under which its owners will operate. If you don't want guns? Say so. If you don't mind smoking inside your building? Great!

People will self-select the ones they go into.

If the restaurant I go into has LAW-ABIDING citizens openly carrying weapons, personally I'm going to feel much safer than ALL THE RESTAURANTS that currently operate, where the only people carrying weapons are the people who are willing to break the law.

Because, you can pretend they're not there. But they are.

It doesn't make you a RINO to pretend they're not there. Maybe it makes you something else, but that's not the condition that determines one's RINO status.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 13, 2016 12:12 PM (TOk1P)

164 i have to commit to chores. I really love these discussions (Thanks CBD) even though i'm always in a learning mode, instead of offering anything of value.

amazed at the collective knowledge of you guys .

anyway, love and peace. bl

Posted by: willow at February 13, 2016 12:13 PM (9XzdI)

165
No, blaster, your point is quite reasonable.

But I wonder. Maybe the insane catastrophe that"public accommodations" doctrine has become in the "law" (bake that gay wedding cake, comrade, or The State will crush you) offers potential for some reductio ad absurdum.

Why shouldn't business "owners" be compelled to allow open-carry customers into their stores and restaurants? Why not?

"No shoes, no shirt, no service" doesn't engage what SCOTUS (in its munificence, all bow) has "recognized" as a fundamental right. So why should the antiquated bourgeois concept of private property be allowed to trump a fundamental right?

Would be nice if such logical crap could be crammed down society's throat, but it won't happen, and they wouldn't take the lesson anyway.

Posted by: rhomboid at February 13, 2016 12:13 PM (QDnY+)

166 " Open carry and guns is a rights/responsibility issue as well. You have the right to carry a gun, but the responsibility to do so wisely and with due restraint."

Why, CT, I believe I see a change in you.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at February 13, 2016 12:14 PM (9ym/8)

167 The Pope needs to give up Communism for Lent.

Consider that stolen.

Posted by: DaveA at February 13, 2016 12:15 PM (DL2i+)

168 Not entirely, sometimes tools are just out of place. It'd be weird if you walked into the McDonalds with your chainsaw too.

Posted by: DaveA at February 13, 2016 12:12 PM (DL2i+)

Well the next time a tree suddenly grows inside a McDonalds will be the first.

The next time some criminals walk into a fast food restaurant, waving weapons (and using them), will not be the first. I'd prefer some law-abiding citizens were armed in those situations. So no, not out of place.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 13, 2016 12:15 PM (TOk1P)

169 2) If 1 Baptist murdered in cold blood nobody would blame it on the denomination,but what if hundreds of them did it every day around the world

Posted by: The Great White Snark at February 13, 2016 11:13 AM (Nwg0u)

Oh yeah they would. Lil Bammy would run to the microphone as fast as he possibly could.

He does the same thing to gun owners; do you think for a minute he wouldn't love for a 'christian' to do this? Better yet, a white, mail, Christian, republican.

Posted by: blindside1973 at February 13, 2016 12:15 PM (e792M)

170 For the record... sitting here in my concrete house in the country in NE Okla, felt my chair wobble back & forth slightly as if the dog were leaning against my chair scratching himself... except the dog's outside. Guessing it was an earthquake, probably down near Oklahoma City. 11:08am CST per the computer. Nothing on USGS site yet.

Posted by: mindful webworker - i feel th earth move? at February 13, 2016 12:15 PM (Q1QrS)

171 The pope is in mexico yammering on about how it has a young face and a future. Get a clue! They gun down kids there without hesitation.
Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at February 13, 2016 12:02 PM (iQIUe)

So Mexico has a future? Then why are some many of her citizens fleeing to America? Riddle me that, Francis.

What a gasbag.

Posted by: OregonMuse at February 13, 2016 12:17 PM (08fIE)

172 He does the same thing to gun owners; do you think for a minute he wouldn't love for a 'christian' to do this? Better yet, a white, mail, Christian, republican.

Posted by: blindside1973 at February 13, 2016 12:15 PM (e792M)

Kasich's dad is going to go on a shooting spree?

Posted by: buzzion at February 13, 2016 12:17 PM (zt+N6)

173 Looks like there was a little one near Pawnee just a few minutes ago: 2.5 richter, about 3 miles down

http://tinyurl.com/c6pafml

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 13, 2016 12:17 PM (39g3+)

174 The Left also does not care about Columbine, Sandy Hook, or even San Bernadino. The Left worries that when the time comes, there will be no way to force the wrongthink ones chosen to be Other onto the trains and buses.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at February 13, 2016 12:18 PM (kXoT0)

175
Kasich's dad is going to go on a shooting spree?

Posted by: buzzion at February 13, 2016 12:17 PM (zt+N6)

Wait...Kasich's dad is a zombie?!?

Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 13, 2016 12:18 PM (FsuaD)

176 Fear and the need for control are strongly linked together.

The Left is governed by theses two things and the link between them.

It is a madness and some folks can be cured of it, but many others not.

I fear we now have a very unstable situation on our hands and it will result in the USA fragmenting into at least two nations.

One governed by fear and the need for control, and the other the restored Republic.

My fear comes from not knowing the path the change will take.

Posted by: eman at February 13, 2016 12:19 PM (MQEz6)

177 160 Ricardo Kill

Thank you. -takes ironic bow-

The gotcha was deliberate. We pay out over $7,500 in hard-earned cash to the winners. They have to earn it.

I am the quizmaster these days, after I got someone to replace me as Chairman.

We're a plucky group of great people putting on a bit of Americana, and then there's me.

Posted by: NaCly Dog at February 13, 2016 12:19 PM (u82oZ)

178
C Taylor and DaveA have it right on the open-carry thing.

Funny, DaveA, in the context of this topic I will say I'm scared of chainsaws, but not guns. Because I have experience with guns, thus know how to handle/use them safely, and have no experience with chainsaws. Two kinds of potentially dangerous tools (like countless others), which are not dangerous at all when used properly ("dangerous" as in inherently or uncontrollably dangerous).

I still like the idea (silly fantasy) of compelling business owners to allow open-carry customers. Simply to illustrate the noxious idiocy of compelling business owners to do anything apart from complying with fraud, contract, and public health laws.

Posted by: rhomboid at February 13, 2016 12:19 PM (QDnY+)

179 Oh, and please, someone tell me how I am a RINO who wants Obama to take all of our guns for writing that.�Posted by: blaster

No. I agree. I have a very adapted 'fight or flight' system that nature has provided me with. I see someone with a rifle my blood pressure rises, my heart begins to beat faster, I begin to plot either escape or fight scenarios. I cannot discern intent in mere seconds.

Obviously not conducive to enjoying a meal. I have a lot of rights that I chose not to practice in an improper place. Not that I object to concealed carry in a restaurant -- it's an out of sight out of mind thing.

Posted by: zika bearing mosquito at February 13, 2016 12:19 PM (fbovC)

180 40 I haven't looked at the linked article, but the problem with arguing with liberals is that they are not subject to logic, evidence, common sense or anything else used to establish a position. Once their "feels" is locked into place, there is no moving it through argument or persuasion.

Posted by: BeckoningChasm at February 13, 2016 11:16 AM (B8JRQ)

Those are drones, and they'll do whatever their master tell them is the thought du'jour. Kill babies? Sure thing boss. Herd people into concentration camps. We're on it.

The masters are the ones to which this applies, EXCEPT that the reason they are subject to none of the above is they are ONLY about power and will use whatever means necessary to get it.

That's why they can hold disparate 'beliefs' simultaneously. Whatever it takes to gather power.

Posted by: blindside1973 at February 13, 2016 12:20 PM (e792M)

181 It'd be weird if you walked into the McDonalds with your chainsaw too.

Posted by: DaveA at February 13, 2016 12:12 PM (DL2i+)

You obviously haven't had a McDonald's hamburger recently.

Posted by: RickZ at February 13, 2016 12:20 PM (Ix+HS)

182 Just call them white nationalist POS who don't respect the Constitution to get them onside.

Oh. Sorry, that's how you convince Trump supporters to switch over.

Never mind.

Posted by: andycanuck at February 13, 2016 12:22 PM (WOyz5)

183 "We're a plucky group of great people putting on a bit of Americana, and then there's me."

That's awesome, Na.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at February 13, 2016 12:22 PM (9ym/8)

184
I consider open/concealed carry to be strictly a matter of personal preference.

Mine is concealed carry.

I don't get too upsettled either way.

Posted by: irongrampa at February 13, 2016 12:24 PM (P/8aq)

185 No. I agree. I have a very adapted 'fight or flight'
system that nature has provided me with. I see someone with a rifle my
blood pressure rises, my heart begins to beat faster, I begin to plot
either escape or fight scenarios. I cannot discern intent in mere
seconds.

Obviously not conducive to enjoying a meal. I have a lot of rights
that I chose not to practice in an improper place. Not that I object to
concealed carry in a restaurant -- it's an out of sight out of mind
thing.

Posted by: zika bearing mosquito at February 13, 2016 12:19 PM (fbovC)

I understand the notion of feeling, and how it affects behavior. I just don't think it has any real place in the decisions we make as far as laws go.

As I said, there are plenty of people in your restaurants (and shopping malls, and on your roads, at bars, ballgames, etc) who are ILLEGALLY carrying weapons. That you don't know they are carrying helps you feel safer. It doesn't make you safer, however.

Having law-abiding citizens, who KNOW how to use firearms effectively, carrying them in all those same places? Makes you safer! You may not FEEL safer, but you are.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 13, 2016 12:24 PM (TOk1P)

186 "and yes i've had coffee, no excuse."

Haha no worries. I'm in the same boat.

Posted by: Lauren at February 13, 2016 12:25 PM (f3Iw2)

187 I also support a business being able to say "check your weapons at the door" too. Its their private business; your right to keep and bear arms does not trump their right to property.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 13, 2016 12:25 PM (39g3+)

188 Yep, there it is... a 5.1 quake. Whoo!

Posted by: mindful webworker - i feel th earth move? at February 13, 2016 12:26 PM (Q1QrS)

189 That's why they can hold disparate 'beliefs' simultaneously. Whatever it takes to gather power.

Posted by: blindside1973 at February 13, 2016 12:20 PM (e792M)

Yes, it is. There is no clearer nor starker example than the dichotomy on the Left which ardently believes that abortion is a wonderful wholesome thing, but, that the death penalty for a serial killer is not just wrong, but, barbaric.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at February 13, 2016 12:26 PM (kXoT0)

190 I feel safer if I see an obviously responsible gun owner carrying a holstered gun.

Now if I saw some maniac running around with a gun hanging out of his coat pocket, that feeling would likely be very different.

Posted by: Lauren at February 13, 2016 12:27 PM (f3Iw2)

191 Sullivan Act was passed in NY by a corrupt politician of Tammany Hall fame. The promoted idea was for sensible gun control. The idea was corruption in all things gun. If you wanted a gun you would have to pay a fee and Tammany Hall a bribe. If Tammany didn't 'like' you then no permit and they kept the permit fee. If they really didn't like you they would beat you and bust you for a gun they 'found' on you. You would get jailed and fined and pay Tammany Hall. If they really didn't like you they would kill you and show everyone the gun they found on you. Tammany Hall were Democrats. Eventually they moved the gun football to where only criminals, cops, and a few select citizens (Trump!) carry.

The NY Court system holds the 2nd Amendment is inapplicable to the States.

This crap has been going on since 1911.

Democrats were the Confederates in our Civil War. Hot heads in their ranks provoked the firing on Ft. Sumter...it got out of hand. After they lost that fight they resorted to using the system. A very patient bunch, they work tirelessly to undermine the Constitution like termites.

Eventually they hope to yoke us to the government like drone ants. They get to be the bosses because their collective mindset puts them in charge.

It's bizzarro world folks where a party that started fought and lost the Civil War is winning.

Posted by: torabora at February 13, 2016 12:27 PM (GE/J+)

192 I consider open/concealed carry to be strictly a matter of personal preference.

Mine is concealed carry.

I don't get too upsettled either way.

Posted by: irongrampa at February 13, 2016 12:24 PM (P/8aq)

I do find it a bit odd though. I have to hide mine. Cops walk into the same locations, and everyone sees the weapons. If you can tell they are cops, everyone suddenly FEELS safer. After that moment of heart-pounding at seeing a gun, that is.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 13, 2016 12:27 PM (TOk1P)

193
Last nite, there were 2 shot in the ass. In Jan, there were 27 shot in the ass.

http://heyjackass.com/

I think rubber donut ringss would be a good investment.

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at February 13, 2016 12:28 PM (iQIUe)

194 I also support a business being able to say "check
your weapons at the door" too. Its their private business; your right
to keep and bear arms does not trump their right to property.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 13, 2016 12:25 PM (39g3+)

I agree. I would also like to see businesses be able to have a sign outside that says "this is an open-carry establishment."

Let the marketplace dictate whether it can abide both.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 13, 2016 12:29 PM (TOk1P)

195 Now if I saw some maniac running around with a gun hanging out of his coat pocket, that feeling would likely be very different.

The problem is, you can't always tell who the maniacs are at first glance.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 13, 2016 12:30 PM (39g3+)

196 Posted by: BurtTC at February 13, 2016 12:27 PM (TOk1P)

I live in NJ, where there is no carry, concealed or otherwise. The only time I have ever seen concealed carry was at a bar, on the belt of a police detective who was hammered off his gourd.

I felt much safer!

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 13, 2016 12:30 PM (Zu3d9)

197 Nood. Pet Thread.

Posted by: HH at February 13, 2016 12:33 PM (DrCtv)

198 I haven't worked this out very far, but it seems to me that there is a hierarchy of rights as well, and the Declaration of Independence gave a hint (assuming you go with Locke's original trilogy instead of Jefferson's imbecilic one): Life -> Liberty -> Property.

You cannot have anything without life. Owning anything means nothing if you have no liberty. So each right can be placed on a table of priority, which makes deciding who wins what argument (e.g. can I carry my shotgun into your cafe) easier to consider.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 13, 2016 12:33 PM (39g3+)

199 I understand the notion of feeling, and how it affects behavior.

It's not a feeling, it's an automatic reponse outside of control. If I see a policeman no response. If I was in Israel were military walks around with rifles there would be no response. But when someone in street clothes walks into a restaurant with a rifle, I would guarantee automatic autonomous response.

I have to sit, stewing, while my brain looks at the evidence and processes the information available.

This has nothing to do with 'feelings'.

Posted by: zika bearing mosquito at February 13, 2016 12:33 PM (fbovC)

200 I do find it a bit odd though. I have to hide mine. Cops walk into the same locations, and everyone sees the weapons. If you can tell they are cops, everyone suddenly FEELS safer. After that moment of heart-pounding at seeing a gun, that is.
Posted by: BurtTC at February 13, 2016 12:27 PM (TOk1P)

Actually, I have noticed that a LEO with a gun gets sideways looks. Last fall when fiance was in the hospital dying, his deputy Sheriff son would come by after work to see him. He got looks. On the days he came straight from SWAT training, he really got looks. The first doctor to see him after he was admitted stopped cold when he came into the room and saw the son. He then asked, "Do I need to stay clear of your line of fire with regards to the patient." After we explained, the doctor said, "I have had to examine a patient and leave the sight line clear for the officer and it's nerve wracking."

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at February 13, 2016 12:33 PM (kXoT0)

201 Nood DOGGEHS

Posted by: Lauren at February 13, 2016 12:34 PM (f3Iw2)

202 Posted by: BurtTC at February 13, 2016 12:27 PM (TOk1P)

I
live in NJ, where there is no carry, concealed or otherwise. The only
time I have ever seen concealed carry was at a bar, on the belt of a
police detective who was hammered off his gourd.

I felt much safer!

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 13, 2016 12:30 PM (Zu3d9)

Heh, yep. My workplace has little signs everywhere, the silhouettes of various types of weapons, with a big line through them. It lets everyone know weapons aren't allowed.

Sadly, these signs do not come with a feature that keeps said weapons from discharging, as there have been several incidents over the past few years. Not a one of them carried out by law-abiding citizens, by definition.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 13, 2016 12:34 PM (TOk1P)

203 151 They have made it pretty clear that their token effects at gun control aren't really about taking guns away from criminals, it is to place the issue of guns out of the realm of law-and-order politics (where Republicans do better) and to place it into the realm of culture-war politics (where Democrats do better), by otherizing gun ownership and otherwise turning gun owners into the modern-day era of cigarette smokers, shunned and ostracized members of society.
Posted by: chemjeff at February 13, 2016 12:05 PM (uZNvH)
---
This is a very astute observation. And being shunned by one's tribe is a horrible fate to the Chatterati. Being banished meant you were no longer a part of the civilized world but had to wander among the woad-daubed howlers and stump-toothed chigger-pickers of march-through country. Horrors!

Posted by: All Hail Eris, Literate Savage at February 13, 2016 12:36 PM (jR7Wy)

204 You could argue with them, I suppose.

I opt for a prepared statement. " Come get it motherf*cker".

Posted by: Malcolm Tent at February 13, 2016 12:36 PM (JNQGk)

205 Actually, I have noticed that a LEO with a gun gets
sideways looks. Last fall when fiance was in the hospital dying, his
deputy Sheriff son would come by after work to see him. He got looks.
On the days he came straight from SWAT training, he really got looks.
The first doctor to see him after he was admitted stopped cold when he
came into the room and saw the son. He then asked, "Do I need to stay
clear of your line of fire with regards to the patient." After we
explained, the doctor said, "I have had to examine a patient and leave
the sight line clear for the officer and it's nerve wracking."

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at February 13, 2016 12:33 PM (kXoT0)

Hospitals are funny places. And by funny, I mean there are people with labcoats and stethoscopes around their necks that make those people think they are in charge, in all ways. Including over life and death. So when someone with a gun shows up, they are suddenly confronted with the fact that they are not, indeed, in control over all.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 13, 2016 12:37 PM (TOk1P)

206 No. I agree. I have a very adapted 'fight or flight' system that nature has provided me with. I see someone with a rifle my blood pressure rises, my heart begins to beat faster, I begin to plot either escape or fight scenarios. I cannot discern intent in mere seconds.

Obviously not conducive to enjoying a meal. I have a lot of rights that I chose not to practice in an improper place. Not that I object to concealed carry in a restaurant -- it's an out of sight out of mind thing.

Posted by: zika bearing mosquito at February 13, 2016 12:19 PM (fbovC)

Therein lies the problem with open carry in places of business: it puts a burden upon all to try and discern the intent of those displaying weapons. Even other open carriers have to try to do a mental calculation, "is that guy one of us, or is he a muzzie terrorist about to go on a shooting rampage?"

I suppose if open carry, particularly of long arms, which are so strikingly obvious, became much more commonplace, we would get used to the idea, and stop noticing. And also, if say, 5 out 50 customers in a premises were carrying, should one of those 5 go postal, the other 4 could quickly put an end to it.

I saw a guy toting a slung Saiga (I think) rifle in Wal-Mart a couple of weeks ago, and while it didn't totally weird me out, I did at least mentally try to discern his intent.

Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at February 13, 2016 12:38 PM (Z8fuk)

207 I also support a business being able to say "check
your weapons at the door" too. Its their private business; your right
to keep and bear arms does not trump their right to property.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 13, 2016 12:25 PM (39g3+)

That's a dangerous precedent there comrade. Why that sort of thinking might lead to people choosing not to bake cakes for very special snowflakes!

Posted by: Hrothgar at February 13, 2016 12:41 PM (wYnyS)

208 81 You guys should check out Black Rifle Coffee Co. For all your triggering needs:

http://www.blackriflecoffee.com/
Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 13, 2016 11:32 AM (FsuaD)

I might give that a try! It's more expensive than what I buy at the supermarket, but a bag will last me about a month so it's no great sacrifice. And I don't have to worry about supporting hipsters and commies.

Posted by: rickl at February 13, 2016 12:42 PM (sdi6R)

209 "The problem is, you can't always tell who the maniacs are at first glance."

A terrible haircut seems to be a big clue.

Posted by: Lauren at February 13, 2016 12:44 PM (3DIzJ)

210 Liberals and commies, birm, believe what they want to believe despite facts, not because of them. Arguing with them is pointless.

Posted by: Grump928(C) says Free Soothie! at February 13, 2016 12:48 PM (rwI+c)

211 A terrible haircut seems to be a big clue.

I often resemble that remark, especially after one of my self-inflicted haircuts.

Posted by: Grump928(C) says Free Soothie! at February 13, 2016 12:51 PM (rwI+c)

212 163
Fine. Then have a restaurant dictate the conditions under which its owners will operate. If you don't want guns? Say so. If you don't mind smoking inside your building? Great!

People will self-select the ones they go into.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 13, 2016 12:12 PM (TOk1P)

I've said it before, but the anti-discrimination laws of the 1960s, though well-intentioned, established the precedent that the government gets to dictate how business owners run their businesses, and led directly to anti-smoking laws and such.

Why, if we let business owners allow smoking on their property, they might also decide to allow concealed carry. Or open carry. Or, horror of horrors, they might get the idea that they can hire or fire whomever they please. And that would be discriminatory and we can't have that.

Posted by: rickl at February 13, 2016 12:54 PM (sdi6R)

213 And in the time it took to talk about it, Caffeinated As Fuck has sold out.
"Sold out faster than a Tea Party congressman..."

Posted by: Stringer Davis at February 13, 2016 01:01 PM (xq1UY)

214 A terrible haircut seems to be a big clue.

You talkin' to me?

Posted by: Travis Bickle at February 13, 2016 01:03 PM (JO9+V)

215 "Sold out faster than a ~~Tea Party~~ Republican Establishment* congressman..."

Posted by: Stringer Davis at February 13, 2016 01:01 PM (xq1UY)

Nuts, no wonder I couldn't find it on the page!
Ah the power of moron advertising!

*Corrected per AoS Style Manual

Posted by: Hrothgar at February 13, 2016 01:04 PM (wYnyS)

216 I just opened a bag of Peet's this morning, but I will bookmark the BRCC for my next purchase.

Posted by: rickl at February 13, 2016 01:13 PM (sdi6R)

217
Our newly inaugurated dem governor here in LA, this week, threatened to cancel college football, among other onerous cutbacks, if his proposed sweeping tax increases are not approved. No word on cutting any of the pork or social programs.

I predict if he tries to follow through, he will find out the 2A is a bipartisan issue here, especially if he does cancel the LSU season.

Pitchforks are "arms", right?

Posted by: Spun and Murky at February 13, 2016 01:21 PM (xRA8Q)

218 Never trust a political party that descends from those who supported the enslavement and annihilation of others.

The 2nd Amendment protects all of us from being enslaved again.
Now, if we could get rid of Johnson's Great Society enslavement, imagine the resurgence of strong families and being responsible for the choices made in life.

As to the public safety aspect of the 2nd Amendment, the time it takes for the Police to get there in a "they're breaking in" situation, is a one trigger pull away difference of seeing a sunrise and planning a funeral.

Posted by: Pamela at February 13, 2016 01:45 PM (nO7IA)

219 I don't argue with gun grabbers. It's a waste of time.
It's easier to tell them to fuck off and walk away.

Posted by: Bea Arthur's Dick at February 13, 2016 02:08 PM (pldrX)

220 I suppose if open carry, particularly of long arms, which are so strikingly obvious, became much more commonplace, we would get used to the idea, and stop noticing. And also, if say, 5 out 50 customers in a premises were carrying, should one of those 5 go postal, the other 4 could quickly put an end to it.

Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at February 13, 2016 12:38 PM (Z8fuk)

I lived in Israel for years, where you see people with machine guns all over the place. Fewer with open carry pistols, but they're all around, too. Don't even notice it.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 13, 2016 02:28 PM (zc3Db)

221 SCOTUS. Homosexual "marriage". 16th Amendment. Cultural Marxism. "Emerging Awareness Doctrine"... I dunno - I got nuthin'!

Posted by: Zettai Ryoiki, Proctologist to the Stars at February 13, 2016 02:31 PM (5csB/)

222 On a radio sports talk show ( who I know is a lefty, and a legal lawyer to boot) this week 1does trivia questions to callers. One question was on constitutional rights and the caller had to name 3 rights. He started with free speach, then said right to bear arms. The host quickly said that you don't have that right.

Posted by: Skip at February 13, 2016 02:37 PM (BkhW6)

223 In a more perfect society, you Jesusland freaks would be allowed access to murder weapons crafted by the death merchants. Of course you should not be allowed your hateful, bigoted, and outdated ideals, either.

Posted by: Mary Cloggenstein from Brattleboro, VT at February 13, 2016 03:04 PM (HJEuH)

224 16th Amendment? Reckon that's why I'm not a "constitutional scholar"... Prolly thinkin' the 14th!

Posted by: Zettai Ryoiki at February 13, 2016 03:06 PM (5csB/)

225 ...I need to go read all the comments above, but for now...

Not sure where the Constitution (unamended) explicitly recognizes inalienable rights (the word 'right' is used only once - WRT writings and inventions) and I don't see 'inalienable' in there either.

So the article is poppycock? I don't think so, just that there is an often unspoken assumption what the Constitution means without keeping it in conjunction with the Declaration of Independence. At least that was what I was taught in history and civics back in middle school an high school - neither stands alone very well.

The Declaration of Independence speaks of the "Laws of Nature" (natural law) in its introductory paragraph and 'unalienable rights' in the second.

It is also useful to be aware of what the Articles of Confederation provided before the the adoption of the Constitution (some apparently throw away one liners like 'a more perfect union' actual make sense with the Articles).

Taken as a whole, those founding documents clearly call out that there are some things bigger than Government.

Unfortunately, bottom line is that 90% have no concept that buzzwords inalienable/unalienable and natural law/rights have any substantial meaning at all - they just mean 'whatever current law requires'.

Posted by: Burnt Toast at February 13, 2016 03:10 PM (T78UI)

226 "Inalienable" means "not on the table". It means "molon labe". Or it doesn't, and then it goes away forever.

Posted by: Antonin Scalia RIP, and may God help us at February 13, 2016 06:53 PM (CKGil)

227 So cough.

Posted by: phunctor at February 13, 2016 06:54 PM (CKGil)

228 You should make clearer the distinction between "reject" and "oppose". The former, to me, could be taken to mean "I choose not to carry, use, or own firearms", while the latter definitely means "I oppose anyone else's right to carry, use or own firearms". The former I have no issue with as an individual position; the latter is problematic to say the least.

Posted by: perturbed at February 14, 2016 05:07 AM (XI3Cr)

229 155 Even in Israel, carrying an AK47 into a shopping mall may give people the wrong idea about your allegiances. Take an AR or a Galil or a Tavor or suchlike!

Posted by: perturbed at February 14, 2016 05:22 AM (XI3Cr)

Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.0378 seconds.
14 queries taking 0.0129 seconds, 237 records returned.
Page size 146 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.