Adopting Gun-grabber Arguments on ‘Common Use’ Ignores Intent of Second Amendment

What is the reason the Second Amendment exists? (American militia firing at the British infantry from behind a split rail fence during the Battle of Guilford Courthouse, March 15, 1781: Illustration by Don Troiani, National Park Service)

U.S.A. -( “New industry statistics underscore popularity of ‘America’s rifle,’” the National Rifle Association declared Friday. “During a confirmation hearing for President Trump’s latest Supreme Court nominee, [Sen. Dianne] Feinstein ludicrously claimed that semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15 … are not ‘in common use.’

“We now have more than 16 million reasons to disagree with her,” NRA explained, citing National Shooting Sports Foundation calculations for “the number of semi-automatic rifles – including AR and AK pattern rifle – produced (minus those exported) and imported in the U.S. on an annual basis between 1990 and 2016.”

“In any case, the Supreme Court could not have been clearer in Heller that the arms protected by the Second Amendment depend on the choices of law-abiding Americans, not criminals,” NRA concluded. “And Americans have made their choice by elevating modern semi-automatic rifles to the top of the list.”

Arguing with NSSF’s numbers is The Trace, a self-proclaimed “independent” news site about guns that just happens to be funded with “seed money” from Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety. The “report” cites academic Aaron Karp, who crunches numbers for the globalist Small Arms Survey in Geneva and who claims “None of those numbers are great.”

Just to be clear on motivation, it doesn’t hurt to understand that group’s stated purpose:

Our main objective is to reduce the illicit proliferation of small arms and light weapons and their impacts.

Making semiautomatic rifles “illicit” is what this is all about, no?

“[T]he overall number of assault-style weapons in the United States is not just an academic matter: the constitutionality of gun bans rests on their historic popularity,” the Bloomberg narrative continues. To “prove” that, it interprets Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion in Heller “that the government cannot prohibit guns ‘in common use’” and concludes “Longstanding firearm restrictions like the National Firearms Act are therefore okay, because they do not affect weapons owned by a large number of people.”

Here’s what Scalia wrote:

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939.

Yeah, how about that? But Scalia wasn’t finished, even though he would have been had he paid attention to founding era understanding that “Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American,” instead of to stare decisis über alles:

We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”

The weapons that were in common use at that time were precisely the arms the military had, that is, what was in common use by the infantry.  Considering that many Patriots were equipped with rifles and the standard issue British long arm was a musket, in those cases, “the authorities” were even “outgunned.” We simply cannot ignore that the militia, at the time the Second Amendment was ratified, kept the same types of weapons at home as they were likely to encounter when called forth – otherwise, they would be marching off to their slaughter. That’s hardly an outcome that would be “necessary to the security of a free State.”

While such uses are certainly supposed to be protected, this isn’t about what is “popular” for sport or even for self-defense. This is about the grand intent behind the Second Amendment and the ultimate reason the Framers concluded “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Besides, protecting unpopular minorities from the tyranny of the majority is what the Bill of Rights is about. Losing sight of all this – hell, not even mentioning it – means letting those who would deny a right define the terms and the extent of its scope and of its recognition.

Who thinks the authorities on that should be Dianne Feinstein and Michael Bloomberg?

About David Codrea:David Codrea

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

  • 87 thoughts on “Adopting Gun-grabber Arguments on ‘Common Use’ Ignores Intent of Second Amendment

    1. Can I simply say what a relief to search out someone who actually is aware of what theyre talking about on the internet. You definitely know methods to convey a problem to gentle and make it important. More individuals have to learn this and perceive this facet of the story. I cant consider youre no more popular since you undoubtedly have the gift.

    2. Because the second amendment is absolute, I will soon have nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and secret weapons I will not tell you about to protect myself and the rest of America from gun slinging idoit mental cases posting their stupid hateful KKKuntservative Republitard Hilteresque comments here.

      1. you will soon have nuclear weapons?…really…what a stupid, ignorant statement…do they have any understanding of how difficult that would be…how complex they are and the resources required to obtain them…something most countries can’t manage..let alone an individual…

      2. I enjoyed you equating gun rights with Hitler instead of accepting that your own views on the subject are very similar to Hitler’s.

        Excellent parody of a cultural Marxist useful idiot! Bravo!

      3. @ At Large, You will never be able to afford more than a sling shot, if you don’t get a better job than Internet Propagandist. How is that going to look on your resume? If you think that your current low level prevaricator job is going to get your promoted in the Democrat National Socialists of America party, I have news for you: you do not come from one of the chosen families.
        For your own sake, go get a job.

    3. The 2nd Amendment is not absolute. Non the less no democrats want to take away semiautomatic rifles. It is some of the assessories that rational people believe should be banned and some people with certain violent criminal convictions and mental illnesses should not have weapons. If you Republitarded Trumpanzees don’t like what I just wrote go shoot yourselves.

      1. At, Liberty, Hilteresque is to deny the populace from being armed……diametrically opposed to the Second Amendment. As usual, Libtards excel only at running their mouths displaying their ignorance…..WELL DONE!!!

    4. As a Finnish citizen I am very amused by the hypocrisy of the anti-gun crowd. While they paint pictures of massively escalating death toll due to guns, it is very easy to note that that the U.S. homicide rate per capita has been decreasing for over 30 or more years.

      Someone claimed that “voting is the means” from tyranny. Is it? Finland is supposedly a democracy based on voting, yet several key elite politicians have said here it outright that people should not expect “wrong” voting to shape national policy. Basically he message was that Third World immigration should not be allowed to be limited by popular voting.

      What is, here (Finland) we are now seeing such basic rights as freedom of speech being eroded while civilians are disarmed. Just recently a government prosecutor demands a prison sentence for a singer who has basically simply expressed his worries about Muslim immigration through caricature songs. Not a single word in his songs is factually false, yet the government wants him jailed.

      In view of the above alarming developments, I urge every gun-owning American to oppose any restrictions on the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms! Those who claim to support “sensible gun laws” are dangerous for the European examples are clear: the elite wants to disarm ordinary citizens and then force their views down the folks’ throats!

      1. “Someone claimed that “voting is the means” from tyranny. Is it?”
        Radio personality Ernie Hancock regularly says that “in all of human history, no people have ever voted themselves freer.” So far, I have not yet encountered an example that contradicts his claim.

    5. A Liberty find a large hole and test fire them on yourself and let us know if they work also take K Brk and J B M with you I’m sure they would be of great help! Chris right INDIVIDUL RESPONSIBILITY! John Perfect on J B M! VIEN they are working hard on the First Amendment ALSO! Reason it is being tested right now about Privacy! K D: Where have you been since 94 on semi-auto rifles? Ross: We still have work to do on the schools! C M: YOU NAILED IT to coin a phrase! Blame the ACLU, for the closures of most Mental Institutions, as to being able to get treatment for those in a time now! Kurt GREAT STAND!!! Now I said it !!!!!!!!!!

      TRUMP2020 TRUMP2020 TRUMP2020 TRUMP2020 TRUMP2020 TRUMP2020 TRUMP2020 TRUMP2020 TRUMP2020 TRUMP2020 TRUMP2020 TRUMP2020 TRUMP2020 TRUMP2020 TRUMP2020 TRUMP2020 TRUMP2020 TRUMP2020

      1. The 2nd Amendment is not absolute. Non the less no democrats want to take away semiautomatic rifles. It is some of the assessories that rational people believe should be banned and some people with certain violent criminal convictions and mental illnesses should not have weapons. If you Republitarded Trumpanzees don’t like what I just wrote go shoot yourselves.

        1. @Ken Driessen, Opening with two lies. I’ll see you and raise you three truths: 1. Actually Rights were considered absolute before O. W. Holmes (who hated the thought of ordinary people being his equal). 2. The residue left in the democrat party, after all the regular working folks left, do want to take semi-autos away. Reference statements made over the years by Diane Feinstein. And finally, a democrat party politician in So. Cal. recently said over an accidentally open mic that, “We (presumably democrat politicians or possible all elitist politicians) need to regulate every facet of their (the voters’ lives.)”

          1. Thus sayes wild Bill the Trump jizz swallowing buffoon. Since th second amendment is absolute we liberals will soon have chemical weapons and nuclear weapons to protect ourselves from you ignorant fascist greedy Republitard pigs and your AR will be as a pee shooter in the hands of your corpse.

        2. [Firearms, first and foremost are instruments of liberty, and as tools to protect life and liberty. Everything else is secondary.]

          The 2nd Amendment, IF it’s not an unalienable right in itself, it is at least an extension of two unalienable rights – the right to life (to protect that right) and the right to liberty (again to protect that right). At the time of their passage, the Bill of Rights were considered “no-brainers” AND ARE AS ABSOLUTE AS THEY COME.

          The entire concept of unalienable rights, endowed by our creator, is that these rights CAN NOT be abdicated and they CAN’T be taken away by ANY earthly authority, except on an INDIVIDUAL basis, and ONLY when that right interferes with someone else’s right, or in the case of individual punishments as in imprisonment or the death penalty. Felons and those ADJUDICATED mentally ill are ALREADY PROHIBITED (individually) from owning firearms as well as other weapons because they have individually demonstrated that they no longer deserve that right, as they pose a direct threat to the life and liberty of the general population. To prohibit the general population from exercising their rights based on the actions of a few individuals is scapegoating. And to punish the law abiding based on what someone else MIGHT do, is prior restraint as well… you almost can’t get more unethical and evil.

          The idea that the government can come up with reasons / excused to restrict basic, fundamental, unalienable rights is contrary to the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights; and is woolly repugnant. The mere idea that we can “rationally” decide that certain types of arms, especially arms that don’t even meet the basic requirements of a useful military weapon, that could be used by a member of the militia for defense of the state is absolutely reprehensible. If the government has the authority to strip one set of rights based on one group’s idea of “reasonable restrictions” then any right is up for grabs, along with the interpretation of what’s “reasonable”. If you can justify stripping of our right to own and bear arms for our defense and defense of the nation, then what’s to prevent us from saying “screw you, we’re going to bust down your door, kick you out of your home and confiscate your property because you and your house are in the way of progress”? Your property, along with your neighbors’ properties can better be used as a hotel or apartment building… More people can be housed, and the city will get more tax money because of it…. if you can ignore the concept of the 2nd Amendment and “shall not be infringed” along with our 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendment rights along with the 1st Article prohibition on ex post facto laws, because our guns make you “feel scared”, then what’s to prevent us from ignoring your 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendment rights and taking your home just because we feel like it?

          And if you don’t care about the concept of unalienable rights (since you justify in your own mind the stripping of rights to make ignorant people feel safe)…According to CDC numbers, there are approximately 6,300 defensive gun uses per DAY in the USA (approximately 2.3 million per year), on the other side, you have 9,500 gun murders per year in the US (the 30,000 number touted by the gun ban crowd includes suicide by gun as well as justifiable homicides and accidents). Guns in the hands of the law-abiding save far more lives than guns in the hands of criminals and “madmen”. And the “threat” of AR-15’s and other so-called assault weapons is statistically non-existent (according to FBI / CDC data). Handguns are used the VAST majority of the time. Stop worrying about red herrings, especially when it involves assaulting people’s rights and trampling on the Constitution…. and making people less safe.

          Speaking of less safe… How many school shootings happened before President Clinton passed the “Safe schools act” in 1994 that banned, under federal law, guns within 1000 feet of a primary school, and introduced “zero tolerance policies”? How many school shootings have happened since? The answer to the first question is almost none. The answer to the second is quite a few.
          Then there was an “assault weapon ban” from 1994 to 2004. By all the numbers, that law had statistically NO AFFECT on crime, not when it was enacted, and not when the law expired…
          So when the gun bans either CAUSE a rise in crime or DO NOTHING, how can you justify punishig law abiding people and stealing their property for the crimes or potential crimes of others?

    7. I would like to share this article. It’s my habit to copy a few paragraphs from the article and put them as the heading. They’re “teasers” so to speak. But the way you have it set up only a link to the article transfer over, and not the copied paragraphs. Because of that I won’t share the article. It’d be great if you’d change that.

    8. What you absolutely dont get or understand. Is that there are 348 million Americans who dont own guns and dont want them. You are the minority and this country has become a killing field with your irrational take on the 2nd ammendment. Everyone has a gun has become a scholar of the constitution. How about you recite the whole 2nd ammendment to us and then read the first amendment. Which has more importance to all us. Thats why its #1.

      1. But there aren’t 348 million Americans, there are 328 million and 30-40% of them are gun owners. There are more guns than ever and more people than ever are carrying them in public, yet violent crime has drastically decreased. Deaths from gun accidents are down, mass shootings are down, and schools are safer than ever. In view of the decreasing violence hyperbolic claims, like America has become a “killing field,” make us doubt the intentions of the anti-gun crowd. It looks like they want to scare people into thinking violence is increasing so they can get more laws controlling American’s freedom passed.

      2. You think there are 348 million people in the US who do not own a gun and do not want to own a gun!?!?! What is your source for such an absurd statement?

        Killing fields? Other than in a few inner cities that Obama and the media egged on to riot in 2016 and the subsequent Ferguson effect, the murder rate has continued its 25 year plus decline in this nation.

        In fact, the 2017 FBI murder stats were just released and blacks were over half the known murderers yet only 13 percent of the public. The left wing welfare state you love and promote sure has done a bang up job with that them, hasn’t it?

        Sorry, but the gun banners like you are the minority. Maybe the stats you just made up count as facts among your fellow correct the record trolls, but we don’t take seriously anyone associated with david brock or George “nazi collaborator” soros here.

      3. There are about 328 million Americans. About a third Ian guns.

        Are you saying that the equal right amendments aren’t as important as guns rights because they come later?

        Just trying to understand. When do you think guns should be allowed? Cops? On duty only or off duty too? What is your criteria?

      4. Ed, you’re obviously a grade school child who hasn’t yet been taught how to use the internet, or a book, to look up the populations of various countries. Go back to your room, be quiet and do your homework until your single (apparently liberal) parent calls you for dinner. When you’ve learned how to read and use reason, then you can join the adults in conversation.

    9. Nonsense. The originalist interpretation of the Constitution as used in defense of the determination in Heller (a 5-4 decision) is completely backward for interpretation of what is purposefully designed as a “living document”, a document designed to reflect the times. There was no presumption prior to Heller that individuals had the right to own whatever sort of firearm they like without restriction. That was the agenda put forth solely by the NRA in 1977 that the Republicans caved to and subsequently weaponized the court to get their way and secure votes from frightened sheep like the posters here. You should all go back to school and double down on the logic and history courses.

      1. At the time the 2nd amendment was written (IE, before 1977) it was indeed presumed one could have whatever arms they like. If they had a cannon on the farm that was kosher.

        Dont let a little thing like facts get in the way of your trolling, though.

        1. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. [Federalist 29]
          If you are going to go along with this ludicrous article, at least provide for scheduled training and readiness as suggested by Hamilton above. The only requirement to purchase and own a handgun in Virginia is to be of age 21, no felonies, and a legal citizen. There is zero requirement to know the barrel from the butt (grip). If we are going to allow anyone to purchase and own, mandate preliminary training/testing, and succesive scheduled training to show readiness.
          In the military, you are not issued a weapon until you have performed a series of tests demonstrating your knowledge of said weapon and once issued, you are under strict supervision until proficiency and responsibility or demonstrated. Everyone fighting for commonsense gun laws is asking for the same of the general public.

          1. @BC, There is no allow to it. Just out of curiosity, who is the “.. we..” that would do the allowing in your little propaganda piece?
            If your argument about needing knowledge first before Civil Rights attach were applied to the Civil Right to live, what knowledge would you require? What knowledge would you require before the Civil Right to speak and communicate? What knowledge prior to voting?
            Go back to your puppet master and tell him that it did not work.

      2. You must have skipped the courses you recommend. You might want to study some.

        First off, it’s a document that can only “live and breath” as authoritarian apologist think by an extremely difficult process, in one case it took nearly 200 years for an amendment to pass. The “liberal” interpretation of the bill of rights in a “living breathing document” would increase freedom, much as it did when a “right to privacy” became accepted (I agree with that), otherwise in your interpretation of how it works the descision should have been, no right to privacy, and in fact the publication of everyone’s personal details.

        Take some history, law and logic courses, look at the second amendment as you look at the others, you will come to quite a different conclusion, an actual logical one.

      3. Don’t like guns? Cool. As 4 myself when it hits the fan if l die I will go out on my feet taking as many of my aggressors as I can with me. Not on my knees holding my phone that’s on hold for 911.

      4. “Purposefully designed as a “living document”’

        This is what is nonsense, the Founders wrote the Constitution as a binding legal agreement between the people and the government. ‘Living document’ is a nonsense phrase, a document means nothing if it the meaning of the words in it can be changed on a whim. Do the meaning of words in a contract change with time? The Constitution means what the Founders said it meant when they wrote it. But that doesn’t mean it’s written in stone, they built in a mechanism for properly changing it.

        On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed. —Thomas Jefferson

        The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it. —James Wilson, in Of the Study of Law in the United States

      5. News Flash! The U.S. Constitution is NOT a living document. The founders of our constitution wanted to get away from the pitfalls of a “living document” like the one the British government had/has. That is why it takes an amendment to change it, instead of passing a law. Nice try though.

    10. Numbers are irrelevant. AR and AK rifles are clearly constitutional while bans on them are not. Period.

      It is amusing to see gun banners denying basic math and claiming these rifles aren’t common though. I also like how the trace stumbled on the truth – ar rifles actually were not all that commonly owned until gun banners banned them with he clinton awb in 94. Demand has exploded ever since, so I suppose we owe a big thank you to the gun banners for creating such strong public demand based on their own policies.

    11. My ancestors included Captains in the Naval Militia, they had under their command PRIVATE ships, armed with cannon… and the power to “lay waste” to seaside or port towns. The British redcoats marched on Lexington and Concord, not just to go after the rifles and muskets that the individual members of the militia had, but the cannon and mortar, along with the powder and ball that the colonials had in their possession. As far as the militia went, the citizenry wasn’t expected to show up for service with whatever they had, they were expected to show up with something suitable to actually fight and defend themselves, their homes, their town and their colony. The second Amendment prefaces the right with the reason. The reason why the right is important to liberty is for the preservation of a well functioning militia, but the right is that all people are guaranteed the right to own and bear ARMS, not just firearms…. and clearly they at least meant military arms sufficient not just to piss off the enemy, but to actually take the fight to the enemy. In colonial times, that meant “Pennsylvania Rifles” were preferred over the muskets that the British Army issued. If the militia was actually used today the same way that it was used in colonial times, I have 100% certainty that we, as individual citizens would absolutely be expected to show up with M-4’s, SAWs, and the like… and the 2nd Amendment is there to protect that.

      There are NO reasonable restrictions on specific types of arms. There are no reasonable restrictions when it comes to broadly applicable personal restrictions like FOID cards, gun possession licenses, concealed carry licenses, etc. The concept that the government has the authority to restrict an unalienable right, to only grant those who have obtained a permission slip, with all the necessary bribe payments, before the right can be exercised is absolutely repugnant!

      The right to Liberty, as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence is an UNALIENABLE right. I strongly contend that the right to self-defense is equally unalienable, and the right to own and bear arms is an extension of both of those rights, and therefore equally unalienable. And as such NO one could possibly take those rights away… unless those rights, on an individual level specifically interfere or are otherwise in conflict with someone else’s unalienable rights. Then and ONLY then can the government step in to abridge a right… and only for that particular individual involved.

      Additionally, besides being in violation of the 2nd Amendment, restrictions on arms for the law abiding (the criminals don’t follow the law, they are only punished by it – if the governmenthas the will to actually punish them) is scapegoating the law abiding for crimes committed by others, or worse, scapegoating AND prior restraint, in punishing others for a crime that some criminaly disposed person MIGHT POSSIBLY commit at some future time!

      1. I will soon have a personal nuclear arsenal and chemical weapons to defend myself against second amendment nut cases. The Amendment begins ” A Well Regulated”, now go back to playing with your privates and thinking how wonderful Trump is.

        1. Anti Liberty, Most nations can not afford nuclear or chem. weapons. Your hypo falls flat. Social malcontents and hard core unemployable can not afford a BB gun, so go find some work, now that work is available due to the Trump economic miracle.

    12. I wonder if any of the Grabby lefties like Bloomie, Watts, DiFie, Gabby, are aware of a rather interesting “weapon of war” that was available at the time of our war to beat the Brits away, not that common only because it was quite dear (expensive) and not yet produced in large numbers.

      I can’t remember what it was called, but I do remember most of the specifics.
      It was a fairly long barrelled rifle, firing a pretty standard round lead ball of the day, was semi automatic, that is, self-reloading after each round was fired, had a magazine capacity of about forty rounds, and could fire all forty of them with consistent accuracy in the space of a couple of minutes. Compared to the rifled musket, smoothbore, Brown Bess of the day it seemed impossible. Those black powder instruments took considerable time to reload, and were decidedly single shot weapons. The Brits typically took well over a minute to reload once having fired, and many of the Colonials had perfected the fine art of reloading and could fire at the rate of three rounds per minute when pressed. This made the Redcoats often think there were several times as many militlamen as actually were engaged.

      Though not in “common use’ because of its scarcity and great cost, that auto-loading rifle was known to the Framers and they failed to exclude it from the types of armes they envisioned militia having.

      As to tne issue of full automatic weapons being “not in common use”, have any of these dimwit disarmers evern bothered to consider WHY they are “not in common use”? Let me remove their ignorance right now: as heavily TAXED and restricted as they are, and the FACT that new production is banned, including the import of new units, they are removed from common use by virtue of unconstitutional government infringement upon their production, sale, distribution, possession, transfer, sale, and use. Sort of like government prohibiting a car with a thousand horsepower being sold because they are not common which is because they are prohibited.

      But then who ever thought the gun grabbers to be rational beings anyway?

    13. To all you gun nuts. It’s quite simple. The second amendment states:
      In order to maintain a proper militia, the right of the people to bear arms may not be infringed. There is a reason they put the in order to maintain a proper militia first, because it defines the reasoning for the right. Its basic second grade English. You can’t just cherry pick the words that fit your agenda and ignore the rest. We don’t have proper militias in this country anymore. We have a standing army. And to all you dumbasses who say it’s to protect us from the possible tyranny of the government. Well you all have obviously never served in the US military and seen the awedome power they wield. Your ak 47s and handguns ain’t gonna do shit if military turns on us. Try shooting down a drone or taking out a tank with an ak. Voting protects us from they tyranny of the governement. Not guns. After the end of the cold war the gun manufacturerers had no one left to sell their guns to. So they created another arms race. One with ourselves. As we sit and watch children and co workers die in record numbers to senseless gun violoence you assholes say it’s not ok to use their death to further the cause of gun control and instead send thoughts and prayers( what a fucking joke. A mother’s child is dead and you pray instead of act.). But then when an illegal immigrant kills a white woman it’s ok to politicize her death to rail against immigration. Fucking hypocrites. Every single last one of you. I hope their is a God. So you can all rot in hell for eternity next to the people you’ve fought so hard to arm that have taken the the lives of so many innconent children in this country.

      1. Viet Cong and Rag Heads have put a real hurt on US military. US citizens interwoven into the US society fabric would be even more lethal and dedicated should the need arise……actually already has. Our Founding Fathers would already have been finished shooting…a second time!!!
        Where will the Liberals/Progressive/Socialists stand when the Second American Revolution breaks out??
        DOWN RANGE!!!

      2. So, then, your comment is that we, the ordinary citizens of America are the root cause of “senseless gun violence” because we have created a demand for guns we can (and may) use against those “our” government have enlisted against us to cause our submission to their proto-fascist designs? I am thinking you have been chewing a stink pickle, because it is certainly flowing forth from your brain.

        If you extend the logic of the Second, in its original intent, we, too, would have tanks, and RPG’s, and most certainly Browning 50’s, and any and all other means necessary to support a resistance against a tyrannical government. Minus F-22’s and 35’s, of course, unless captured and pilioted by competent pilots. Therer isalo he concept ofgiero;;a re[risals and harassment. , used with great success by Frances Marion in the swamps of the Carolina’s. There remains the likelihood that vast numbers of US Soldiers, Our children and grandchildren, just may refuse orders to direct fire on their neighbors, frriends and siblings. Ditto the Police, and most certainlhy the National Guard.

        But this appears to have gove over your head, in favor of an emotional and utterly irredeemable argument that we are all “assholes” and “hypocrites” because we favor the means to defend ourselves with contemporary weaponry, and that it is us who have been responsible for the random and wanton murder that ravages this country, perpetrated by those creatures largely created by the general government and their “social programs”. Not to mention the hordes of armed predators and drug dealers that cross our borders with impunity each day, with the tacit blessing of our dear Federal government. I am thinking you may be a troll. Or you are just stupid. In any case, you, sir, are a twit.

      3. HEY MORON; I guess you are NOT bright enough to notice the COMMA between the bit about the militia and the words regrdiung the RIGHT to bear arms that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
        Typical liberal indoctrinated fool you are.

      4. The original amendments proposed by Pennsylvania, New York, Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina did mention “the right of the people to keep and bear arm” first and the militia second and separately. When Madison rewrote the Second Amendment into the Bills of Rights, he assumed that merely switching the order did not change the meaning. Read “The Debates on the Constitution.”
        I will not exchange insults with you. Only state that you really need to read and learn history before you repeat some platitudes that reveal you have no knowledge of the area of which you comment.

      5. @JBM, You can’t even quote the Second Amendment properly, but you think that you know what you are writing about. The “Collective Right” theory, that you espouse has been entirely repudiated. It is obvious that you have not read the founders’ definition of Militia.
        English is taught in sixth grade, not second grade, and you, apparently did not pay attention, in your spelling class (dumbasses is two words: dumb ass; awesome is not spelled with a d), nor in your English class (evidenced by your not knowing where to make your paragraph breaks and picked the wrong their/there).
        Guns do not commit violence. Inanimate objects can not commit violence. What you wrote is either a logical error or intentional propaganda. There is so much more, but I tire easily.
        Finally, many, many of the patriots on this site have served and do know the awesome power of the military, and risked their lives so that you could vomit prevarications. Go back to your Minster of Propaganda and tell him that your amateurish efforts have failed.

      6. Since you brought up this hypothetical set of circumstances, let’s turn this around. The American government has enjoyed running drone strikes and aircraft bombing missions in foreign nations where it has almost no vulnerability.

        In america, however, how are they going to be able to launch drone missions, go door to door seizing guns, launch armed raids, or aircraft bombing and keep their families in the area safe? How will they keep the power turned on at their bases? How will they keep supplies coming via truck into the bases? How will they be able to focus knowing their houses might be burning down and families unable to defend themselves?

        Note: the above is paraphrasing an article that paul howe wrote in response to calls by gun banners to go door to door and confiscate privately owned guns. Considering he is a delta force vet of the battle of Mogadishu and thinks this way, I think his experience trumps whatever amount of time you serve as a clerk in the air force or navy.

      7. Gun enthusiasts don’t want anyone’s children to die, though I wouldn’t shed a tear if your children are murdered but an illegal immigrant.
        The right to bear arms protects every other right, including you right to spew bullshit on the internet. I’m going to go ahead and keep my guns, especially since I know that it bothers you. If for nothing else, I’m going to build another AR-15 this week, just to bother you.
        You can Chortle my balls.

      8. James B Mchugh
        You and your Hypocrisy. You blame me for the deaths of these people. You seam to be the Asshole. Do you not know that when they silence me, then they will come for you? You only have the right to say what you want too on this site because you have the 2nd Amendment to thank. When 2A is gone so will be your right to speak your mind. I will defend my constitutional right till the death. What will you do but take them.

      9. Oh James…..
        Why…if you are so concerned about the people who die each year from firearms ( approximately 33,000 …2/3 rds of which are from suicides) do you not focus your ire on the medical industrial complex? It is estimated that there are over 250,000 each year. Hmmmm. Or any of the other ways people kill one another, like knives, fists or hammers. Check the status on blunt force homicides. Why guns? You can’t answer that question can you? Do you know what a lemming is? Look it up. It’s a real challenge though, right?
        And regarding military vs the people? Most soldiers would defect and join “The People” simply because it would be the right thing to do. There are btw, millions of gun owners that probably would have a say in the matter.

      10. Spoken like the true mindless idiot that you are, quit blaming the gun and start blaming the individual that chooses to pull the trigger! You left wing idiots can’t understand that a gun is a tool and a hammer is just as deadly as a gun, if the person with the hammer beats you to death with it! Your response would be ban the hammer!
        How about holding the individual responsible not a tool.
        Yes it is the same thing!!!!

      11. “You can’t just cherry pick the words that fit your agenda and ignore the rest.”

        Like you’re doing? Yes we have a standing army, that’s exactly why the Founders wanted the people armed with the same weapons as the army (“well regulated,” as it meant then), to serve as a counterbalance. There was no standing militia, they were formed as necessary, from the armed populace. Why have a counterbalance to a standing army, dependent on the government that controls that army for guns? That makes no sense.

        As for second grade english, think of it this way:

        “Because a healthy, well nourished electorate is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to have and eat vegetables shall not be infringed.”

        What is it that “shall not be infringed?”

      12. When you’re done persuading SCOTUS of your repressive interpretation, then you can come back and persuade us.

        Oh, wait — SCOTUS already said your interpretation was total horse cobblers, so you’re screwed right out of the starting gate.

        Have you even read the Heller decision? Obviously not. Come back when you’ve done the homework, junior. Meanwhile, STFU and let the adults talk.

      1. Silly boy, in those times EVERY noun was capitalised. Haven’t you noticed? Its kind of a holdover from the strong German influence on the english tongue at that time. You may or mayn’t know, but even today German, when written, persists in capitalisting ALL nouns.

        You might as well make the point that the word :”state” is written in roman characters…… its that significant.

        Further, in that time, the word “state” meant any organising of society in any particular area where the PEOPLE come together in common intent to cooperate in whatever issues they wish to address in common. “Society” would be an excellent synonym today. Thus, an expanded rendering of that pesky Second Article might read: a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free Acton (or Lexington or Boston or Plymouth, or Sussex COunty, or the State of Massachussetts) the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be restricted or limited.

    14. “. . . . the constitutionality of gun bans rests on their historic popularity.” REALLY?!!? Being popular with the mouth-breathing dregs (our oppressors) OR the gullible and fearful sheep does NOT make ANYTHING constitutional — the CONSTITUTION does!

    15. Let’s simplify this. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is the intent based upon us having those Firearms which are useful in war. For any purpose that the people see fit in either overthrowing an existing tyrannical government or repelling an invading Force. When governments become destructive they always go after the people’s weapons to make the population more docile and easily controlled. That’s why when it comes to people who choose or try to use all manner of Deceit to disarm the law-abiding, those people are the enemy and unfortunately sometimes the only remedy is to use the Second Amendment for what its intent purpose was outlined for. Beating around the bush is no use. Those are straight-up facts. Best not to ignore the elephant in the room

      1. Chris, Well said. As the intelligent side of the argument, we need to be reminded of the 2A purpose, and not allow it to be watered down by the uninformed. Too frequently, we accept small infringements, not considering that they will continue to grow larger at every opportunity. Tyranny is the ONLY purpose of disarming citizens. The inability to fight off a Tyrant leads to enslavement.

    16. OK, so exactly how many of any particular item makes it “in common use”? Fifty, a thousand, a bazillion? By the ‘reasoning’ of the left, even though it is still an automobile – kinda sorta like a Pinto, a Mach 1 Mustang would NOT be ‘common’ enough so it MUST be ‘prohibited’. As usual, the left is setting the parameters of the terminology being used, and if we let them continue to do so they WILL figure out ways to further infringe.

      1. @GomeznSA, I agree, and would like to add that the “in common use” theory used to limit the Second Amendment is quite wrong because Constitutionally enumerated Civil Rights not only protect a minority of persons, but Rights also protect individuals. So If I am the only one person in the entire United States that wants to keep and bear a firearm, then I get to. No matter what I select it would not be in common use.
        Quod est demonstratum: The “in common use” theory is a false theory.

      1. They also didn’t see 170 years of immigration which would lead to that IQ drop. All immigration has been detrimental to the nation the Founders left to their posterity.

          1. Immigrants, yes; what you and the rest of the rabid intellectually underdeveloped left are wetting yourselves over are invaders and, in many cases, enemies. The “good ones” should assimilate and fully become contributing and beneficial members of OUR society. Stop planting YOUR flags and “claiming” lands and communities for your homeland. Stop forcing us to spend many billions of OUR dollars to print practically everything in numerous languages. Stop insisting that we accept and accommodate YOUR culture and customs. If you desire so strongly to live with those, go back to where they are the way of life.

            By the way; when I drove for a charter motorcoach company I noted that the most recent newly purchased motorcoaches (built in the USA, primarily for the U.S. market) had the instructions for all of the emergency exits labeled in LARGE letters in Spanish, with English below in much smaller print. See a problem there??

    17. Open Democracy and a standing army; two of the great fears of the founders and the Americans of that era! A well regulated militia was a standing army in those days and necessary then, as now, to the security of a free state but because the fears of a standing army,a “well regulated militia”, could not be overcome, the great guarantee was given to all free born Americans that government would never infringe upon the God given right to be always armed and protective of their nation. Open your eyes and see that without the 2nd Amendment, there is no Bill of Rights, there is no Constitution at all. The Americans of old knew and understood: I hope that you do also.

    18. Everyone gets the first part of the first sentence wrong. Look in your Webster’s unabridged and you will garner some insight into our founders use of language at the time. A free ‘state’ is synonymous with a state of freedom, hence the non capital use. There are to many uneducated or ignorant people that don’t understand the English language as used at that time. ‘The State’ is what the founders feared and were revolted by!

      1. Judging by the grammatical errrors contained in the previous response, I would add that there are too many uneducated or ignorant people that don’t understand the English language as used at this time as well.

        1. Agree with hippybiker! When they go to restaurants, they need pictures to place an order. Symbols and icons placed in a red circle with the a diagonal red line going through it are like the walk/don’t crosswalk signs. No critical thinking involved. Somebody else decided this for me so sure, it must be for my own good. Somehow they still found a way to get a driver’s license. Watch out!

    Leave a Comment 87 Comments