“I Support the Second Amendment, BUT…”

Opinion

Second Amendment But Liars Democrats Fake Lies
“I Support the Second Amendment, BUT…”

Ft Collins, CO –-(Ammoland.com)- “I support the Second Amendment, but…”

Common refrain of mendacious gun-grabbers.

Any time a politician uses the word, “but,” he has effectively erased everything he has just said.

I am frustrated with politicians and political groups who pick and choose which parts of our Constitution, particularly our Bill of Rights, they like, and simultaneously pretend pieces that don’t fit their agenda don’t exist and can thus be ignored.

“Due Process,” for example is written in stone, particularly when it comes to the rights of accused violent criminals and illegal aliens.

Due process does not apply to innocent American gun owners, who have never even been accused of a crime.

If it did, “red flag laws” would never see the light of day.

On this issue, even the ACLU has finally found common ground with the NRA. Such a wake-up call for the ACLU required at least some intellectual honesty on their part, something for which the ACLU has never been famous.

Our Fourth Amendment rights are sacred too, for all Americans, except, of course, gun-owners.

And, our Second Amendment rights, as clearly, boldly stated in our Constitution, and reaffirmed by our Supreme Court, still don’t exist in the minds of many who otherwise “like” other parts of our Bill of Rights.

I identify these dishonorable “pick-and-choosers” for what they are: Constitutional criminals.

The presumption of innocence is another fundamental tenet of Western Civilization. It is increasingly abandoned in a rush to enforce orthodoxy. High-minded claims to act in the name of “tolerance,” “compassion,” and “diversity,” are all fluff, a commitment to these principles is purely abstract.

In practice, these Constitutional criminals are cruel, brutish, intolerant bullies, who demand total conformity. Their goal is never to persuade, nor debate. It is to humiliate and vilify all who hesitate to support them. Their ultimate objective is to destroy independent thought.

They are not good people, nor good citizens.

/John


Defense Training International, Inc

About John Farnam & Defense Training International, Inc
As a defensive weapons and tactics instructor John Farnam will urge you, based on your own beliefs, to make up your mind in advance as to what you would do when faced with an imminent lethal threat. You should, of course, also decide what preparations you should make in advance if any. Defense Training International wants to make sure that their students fully understand the physical, legal, psychological, and societal consequences of their actions or in-actions.

It is our duty to make you aware of certain unpleasant physical realities intrinsic to the Planet Earth. Mr. Farnam is happy to be your counselor and advisor. Visit: www.defense-training.com

Subscribe
Notify of
196 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Aardvark
Aardvark
1 year ago

One of my favorite: “I support the Second Amendment but I don’t think civilians should own guns.” Makes my head spin all the time.

George
George
1 year ago

The only difference between a “gun control advocate ” and a nazi is when nazis imprison people exercising self evident rights they kill them , “gun control advocates ” dont advocate murdering the people exercising the right they are against.

Jim
Jim
1 year ago
Reply to  George

We need capital punishment people responsible for there actions like Cruz down in Florida why are we wasting all our tax dollars on him hang him and all the cancers on our society like him everything else will take care of itself to many bleeding hearts

Vanns40
Vanns40
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim

Yeah, until we execute an innocent person. Yeah, I know, that probably doesn’t bother you.

Charles Moore
Charles Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  George

Haven’t been paying attention for the last 30 years of so, have you? Waco, Ruby Ridge, midnight raids for “red flag” lawa and MANY others. . . . .

Rad37801
Rad37801
1 year ago
Reply to  George

No that only comes later after they have taken the guns

EricL
EricL
1 year ago

I support the 2nd Amendment. BUT I want a government that supports: – Equal treatment for minorities and non minorities by law enforcement – A demilitarized law enforcement – one that’s not capable of seizing guns or oppression – Protection for our environment – Equal rights for women, minorities, and LGQTB people – Consumer protections for people vs predatory corporations – A free and open internet – Keeping the Russians in line – Defending our allies in Europe – Alternative energy sources so we don’t have to rely on terrorist funding nations for our oil – An actual free market… Read more »

dillon
dillon
1 year ago
Reply to  EricL

Nice to hear a rare voice of sanity in this site’s readers’ comments!

Ray Tomason
Ray Tomason
1 year ago

Arms means guns. No? In 1755 Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language was first published. It defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”(*) The thing is, the 2A, not one time, grants rights to accessories. Sure. Have your AR-15 (I have two), but nothing guarantees anyone’s right to a bump stock… or a 30rd magazine, or a binary trigger, etc. Everyone’s rights have already been infringed by gun control acts in 1934, 1968 and 1986. While I’d think it’d be great to own a machine gun from pre-1986 (it’s really just a matter of $$), I… Read more »

Vanns40
Vanns40
1 year ago
Reply to  Ray Tomason

So, “I fully understand WHY these acts became law.” Really? Well, please enlighten most of us why, especially given the fact that since you admit it’s just about “$$$”, does that mean that you’re all for massive taxes on certain firearms? It certainly can’t be because of any reduction in crime due to all the “$$$” involved in owning them. In fact, since the inception of NFA, in 1934, there has been only one legally owned machine gun used in a crime and that was by a police officer. So please, tell us all why you understand these Acts became… Read more »

Scotty
Scotty
1 year ago

I’m still waiting for the definition of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You have a tax system in place the basically does what it wants, you have an elected government that basically takes your money and spends it anyway they want. If you don’t comply you will go to prison. Please explain to me again the definition of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness…… But remember were only 21 trillion dollars in operating debt, only one president was able to eradicate the national debt most people don’t even know who it was, it was Andrew Jackson. Most… Read more »

R Vincent Warde
R Vincent Warde
1 year ago

Whenever I hear a politician use these words, my ears perk up and I become suspicious. That said, it is what comes after the “BUT” that counts. For instance, “I wholeheartedly support the 2A, but I fully support the Heller and McDonald decisions, to include the legal tests for what arms are protected.” is very different then, “I support the 2nd Amendment, but I also support an assault weapons ban.”

George
George
1 year ago

The 2a is an unlimited right all arms are protected . See nunn vs ga. Either you support the 2a which shall not be infringed (to limit ) or you dont . Any restrictions to a right that says not limit is the same as ignoring the entire thing.

Matt in Oklahoma
Matt in Oklahoma
1 year ago

“I Support the Second Amendment, BUT…”
WE WANT YOU TO VOTE FOR TRUMP AGAIN ANYWAY
yeah bout that

B Brown
B Brown
1 year ago

Huh? What are talking about?

Vanns40
Vanns40
1 year ago
Reply to  B Brown

B Brown: Really? Have you been on a different planet since the election? Okay, Incase you have: 1. Campaigned on National Reciprocity then, six months after being in office, said “Reciprocity is dead” despite majority support in the House. He could have told McConnell to bring it up for a vote in the REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED Senate but instead let McConnell, with the blessings of the NRA, sit on it and kill it. 2. Campaigned on passing the Hearing Protection Act. After being in office refused to do anything to get Congress to move on it despite overwhelming support in the… Read more »

John Roseborough
John Roseborough
1 year ago

The 2nd Amendment states “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” which means not to be restricted. All Senate members and House members are directed to read and swear under oath to support and defend the Constitution as it is wr – PERIOD. Failure to do so should be adequate grounds for impeachment and removal from their position.

GeoDub
GeoDub
1 year ago

Ok, John, since you are a 2A expert, what does “in order to maintain a well-regulated militia” mean? Explain what is “well-regulated” about the current state of gun ownership in the United States? And where is the milita being maintained?

Vanns40
Vanns40
1 year ago
Reply to  GeoDub

GeoDub:

You may look no further than Constitutional Scholar David Hardy:

https://blog.consource.org/post/44714921891/david-hardy-second-amendment

Charles Moore
Charles Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  GeoDub

Wow — you are REALLY the expert! Tell me where the words “in order to maintain a well-regulated militia” are found??? What “well-regulated” means, specifically is this; when a firearm is manufactured, the sights were brazed, filed and otherwise ‘regulated” to make their alignment agree with the strike of the bullet from a given weapon at a certain distance. Members of a well-regulated militia are simply, therefore, able to hit what they are shooting at. Otherwise, they (like many who post leftist tripe and other such nonsense and treason here and elsewhere) are utterly useless. The Militia Act is still… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  GeoDub

@GeoDud, We practice all the time. Just because you don’t participate does not mean it is not going on. If you participated, you would not have to ask. The militia consists of anyone capable of participating, and members maintain themselves. You are also part of the not organized yet militia, whether you want to be or not.

Randy Locher
Randy Locher
1 year ago

Yadda, Yadda, Yadda, until Americans wake the hell up nothing will be done to get this Country back on course. We Must have a Civil War Now!!!!!! Everyone wants change but no one wants to get their hands dirty. You would rather see your Children and Grandchildren enslaved first. No one wants to rock the boat as they’re too worried that they’ll lose their position in life. They’re more concerned with their money, house, car, the latest Iphone, job and keeping up with appearences than losing their freedoms. What a Bunch of Spineless Cowards.

Mike Kent
Mike Kent
1 year ago
Reply to  Randy Locher

Well… Unfortunately,complacentcy has been a problem every since the days of the revolution,even just before the U.S. got involved in the second World War,the people needed a swift kick in the ass such as the attack on Pearl Harbor to get em fired enough to get into the fight… I agree that there needs to be something done&soon or it gonna be too late,but gettin people off they’re dead asses to do anything is a chore in itself…

LT9er
LT9er
1 year ago
Reply to  Randy Locher

It’s good to know a few nut jobs like you will be quickly snuffed out if or when you stop your big talking and act on it. Imperfect as the American democratic republic is, it’s infinitely better than the chaos and violence a loudmouthed dip$h!t like you advocates.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  LT9er

@LT, Constitutional republic.

Greg
Greg
1 year ago
Reply to  Randy Locher

I agree. If only I could gather thousands of like minded Americans to get this civil war started, I would. Too many people chicken out. The only way these evil democrats will be defeated is by physical force.

Vanns40
Vanns40
1 year ago
Reply to  Greg

Only a complete idiot wants to see a civil war. The loss of life would make you keyboard warriors crap in your pants. Your neighbors, friends, relatives would die. War isn’t pretty, it doesn’t play by rules, it doesn’t care who it kills. Your pastor, your priest, your children. No one will be spared. You people who pray for Civil War should go to a deserted island, take all your families with you for a week and have at it. Then come back and imagine what the country would look like.

yessmm
yessmm
1 year ago
Reply to  Vanns40

Absolutely right on! These dimwitted rejects really get old with their macho crap and hoping someone else will make a move so they can sit back and wonder which hand to scratch their @$$ with next. It ain’t gonna happen, you losers, so try to get a life if you can!

William Shumate
William Shumate
1 year ago
Reply to  Randy Locher

Where is the muster point?

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 year ago

Shumate, Whom ever answers your question with “My house” will be in the Marshal Service lockup be for cob the next day!

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  Randy Locher

L, It is not really an issue of courage or coward. You would need millions of American patriots to kill enough libtards. How will you feed your troops? Ammo gets used up. Clothing and boots need replacing. And what would be in your target folder? What is your plan. Got any leaders? Got secure comm.s? Transport? Maits? Are you starting to see the magnitude of the problem?
Lets let the libtards revolt.

Jim
Jim
1 year ago
Reply to  Randy Locher

Very well said unfortunately American people are so . Preoccupied the world is caving in on them and most of them don’t realize it they are like sheep

Witold Pilecki
Witold Pilecki
1 year ago

Patriots….killing tyrants since 1775

It’s better to die upon your feet than to live upon your knees!
-Emiliano Zapata Salazar 1910

I have vowed to die a free man and take out as many jack-booted goons before I do, whenever that may be

Richard Travick
Richard Travick
1 year ago
Reply to  Witold Pilecki

Exactly! And I’m a black man with guns with a license and conceal. Even though 2 Amendment historically and statistically doesn’t apply to us (black people) i.e. Phillando Castille etc.. I ain’t giving up my guns. I have a family to protect against assailants foreign and domestic. I wish the NRA didn’t have a double standard when it came to certain races having firearms and whatnot.

Jim
Jim
1 year ago

It doesn’t have a double standard facts are facts so quit playing your black card by doing that you are a prisoner within yourself free yourself the same God made us both

Kenneth Clark
Kenneth Clark
1 year ago

Does anyone really think that politician’s will be satisfied with their common sense gun laws ? Allowing Government to modify the bill of rights is dangerous.. Gun control works ! For those who own all the guns.. Politicians care (NOTHING) about your wellbeing or safety.. They will use any and all means to achieve their goals.. If you are looking to the government to keep you safe ? You are delusional.. you and only you are responsible for protecting yourself and your family.. Giving up rights and freedom under a promise of safety is a lie.. Power and Control is… Read more »

Jack A Furbush
Jack A Furbush
1 year ago
Reply to  Kenneth Clark

I have no concept of what a “common sense” violation of my liberty graentied by the Bill of Rights is. Every time I hear some meely mouth brain washed idiot or pandering political whore say that all I can do is shake my head in discust. It’s tragic that Americans today are so weak and gutless to actually believe the police and government can and will protect them. After 33 years as a cop I’m here to tell you that 911 won’t save you. All the cops can do is investigate your murder. What the Hell makes them believe they… Read more »

Ben
Ben
1 year ago

I support the second amendment no ifs ands or buts.

Daniel McNabb
Daniel McNabb
1 year ago

Sorry , BUT,,,, I have to disagree with your misguided assessment of the 2nd Amendment. A well regulated Militia does not refer to Federal troops. It refers to the standing armed citizenry , put in place to keep check on Government , should Tyranny arise. The Militia is not the Army , Navy , Marines , nor the National Guard. It is the armed Citizen ready to defend Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness from a tyrannical government .

Jack A Furbush
Jack A Furbush
1 year ago
Reply to  Daniel McNabb

Your absolutely correct. A militia is not part of any Government. The Bill of Rights was crafted to protect Americans from the Government. The responsibility to live up to these protections and liberties is ours alone. The Founders knew that all Government becomes a tyrant at some point, as this one has become. The recent behavior of the Democrats and some Republicans are obvious prof of this. Trump is the first American elected President since Eisenhower that isn’t a politician. Look at how they behave

L
L
1 year ago
Reply to  Daniel McNabb

And i have to disagree with your misguided interpretation of the 2nd amendment. It was written because we “had no standing army.” It was not so we could rise up against a corrupt government. Thats a later interpretation made by those profiting off of gun sales. I totally agree. We have every right to bear arms. And the government has 100% authority to decide which arms we can have. This isn’t anything new and the government has stepped in several times in the past to limit specific arms they knew the people had no business having. This is exactly the… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  L

@L, Nearly everything that you have written or implied is wrong. You imply that the peoples Right to bear arms is based upon the Second Amendment. That is wrong. The Right to bear arms predates the Constitution and does not depend upon that document for its existence. The Right to keep and bear arms was enshrined in Second Amendment so that people like you would not forget or intentionally misrepresent the Right. The Right to keep and bear arms is to protect ourselves from anyone that would harm us, to include: criminals, those who would destroy our nation, and our… Read more »

Charles Moore
Charles Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  L

1.) NOT to hold the government in check and overthrow it if necessary? You’d best read the Declaration of Independence. It is our right and DUTY. 2.) Any comments by any legislator while in office, let alone attempt at limiting or regulating in ANY way, our rights protected under ANY part of the Bill of Rights is absolutely forbidden. The BOR is not amendable, for the Constitution itself does not exist without them. 3.) We are, under law (The Militia Act, etc.), required to possess any and all small arms – at the least – that are suitable and essential… Read more »

Dan
Dan
1 year ago

Just because your reading comprehension doesn’t allow you to understand what is written in the bill of rights doesn’t mean you can take our God given right to own guns! Per the SCOTUS…pretty sure they know better than you!

Sven
Sven
1 year ago
Reply to  Dan

The SCOTUS also said that it was LEGAL to OWN other HUMAN BEINGS, that SEGREGATION was legal, and that the government has a RIGHT to TAKE YOUR rightfully OWNED property, and give it to another, for the sole purpose that it might be able to get a higher tax rate ….. We can go on for a LONG time …. But please, expound on the infallibility of a SCOTUS who very recently showed us that they were WILLING to be PURCHASED … John Roberts anyone.

Brian
Brian
1 year ago
Reply to  Dan

The SCOTUS (Antonin Scalia, no less) also said the Second Amendment is NOT unlimited, in scope.

Charles Moore
Charles Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Brian

Only limit, perhaps, would be nukes (which Enenmy and Tyrant First Class Eric Swalwell said he wanted to use on Americans that wouldn’t become his slaves and subjects.

I’m sure that Scalia was wrong from time to time.

m.
m.
1 year ago

f all of you anti-2a dicksuckers, come and get it

Tionico
Tionico
1 year ago
Reply to  m.

put yer wanger back into yer skirt…. we’re not interested in it here.

Michael Moment
Michael Moment
1 year ago

The funny thing is not one gun has ever killed anybody. It’s the person behind it that has done The Killing and for the life of me I don’t understand how politicians and people don’t understand that.

David Hermes
David Hermes
1 year ago
Reply to  Michael Moment

Why don’t they just look at the court record? No gun has ever been convicted of murder, only the criminal who held it and fired it.

Son_of_Liberty
Son_of_Liberty
1 year ago
Reply to  David Hermes

Historically democracy HAS persecuted inanimate objects involved in crimes. They can’t do it with legislation, or at least haven’t been able to up until now, because we aren’t a democracy. That is why they made bureaucracy a thing. Bureaucrats such as the BATFE can bypass the republic’s checks and balances without need for accountability. Democrats use agencies to push their agendas. They have done this since democracy was invented. Democracy and it’s tactical overreach has been the root cause of almost every civil war.

Nathan
Nathan
1 year ago

Couldn’t agree more. Especially that part about presumption of innocence, which has never been thrown out more than the recent #metoo movement (dont get me wrong. Fantastic idea. Very poorly executed).

For those that dont know, that’s the part about innocent until Proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Norman Cox
Norman Cox
1 year ago

I find it amusing that when questioned on their stance regarding the 2nd they reply “I like to hunt and fish”. When was the 2nd Amendment ever about hunting?

Raymond Hudson
Raymond Hudson
1 year ago

How can anyone make a post here and even suggest that Conservatives are for Rapists, murders and so forth, how absolutely False and Ridiculous!! We want those people off the streets and stripped of every means of hurting another Human being! How many new aws will you pass that criminals simply ignore, just as they ignore the ones that are already on the books and have been for hundreds of years?! How many more judges will you elect that simply let these same criminals off with a slap on the wrist? How many more elected officials will you vote for… Read more »

LH
LH
1 year ago

2nd Amendment “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Remove the qualifiers set off by commas and you get “A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed.” Period. Not your stupid so-called “gun rights”. This gives nobody but those in well-regulated militia a right to bear arms. A well-regulated militia such as the National Guard, perhaps. It does not say anybody and their brother or mentally ill cousin have a right to own any “arm” they want or what kind… Read more »

Coelacanth
Coelacanth
1 year ago
Reply to  LH

The “People” are the militia. If you had ever read the Federalist Papers, you’d know. You appear to be like an oyster on the beach that has learned to talk.

James Hammond
James Hammond
1 year ago
Reply to  LH

So the 2nd amendment is a right for the government?
Using your interpretation the other 9 amendments are also for the government.
One more problem the commas are there, grammar and punctuation count.

Steve Harvey
Steve Harvey
1 year ago
Reply to  LH

National guard is regulated by the state. A militia is not there regulated by the freedom loving people of that state separate from the government

Charles Moore
Charles Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Harvey

U.S. Army National Guard. Feds have final say.

Morrolan
Morrolan
1 year ago
Reply to  LH

Wow, so you choose the side of Racism? The ‘Militia’ mentioned was NOT a State or Federal force, but more akin to an armed community watch. The first statement was added to the amendment due to racial fear of southern landowners that Free Blacks would stock armed to help slaves revolt! At the time, there were revolts in the west indies, and fear ran high. The original statement wasn’t No free man shall be barred the Right to keep and bare arms.”

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  LH

@LH, “A well regulated Militia” is a nonessential claus. “being necessary to the security of a free State” is a nonessential claus. Look up nonessential clauses in your Practical English Handbook by Watkins, Dillingham, and Martin. “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” is the subject of the sentence. “shall not be infringed” is the verb. Please see Watkins, Dillingham, and Martin. Thus the sentence that enshrines our pre political right to keep and bear arms is “… the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Also you should know that… Read more »

och will
och will
1 year ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

Outstanding post LH. God Bless You. Stay Safe.

Vanns40
Vanns40
1 year ago
Reply to  och will

Oh look, it’s the latest incarnation of the Green Watch Puppy!

Or, as we like to call them, JAT (just another troll)

Dan
Dan
1 year ago
Reply to  LH

Just because your reading comprehension doesn’t allow you to understand what is written in the bill of rights doesn’t mean you can take our God given right to own guns! Per the SCOTUS…pretty sure they know better than you!

m.
m.
1 year ago
Reply to  LH

fu, asshole

Tony Evans
Tony Evans
1 year ago
Reply to  LH

Good thing the forefathers included the comma structure in their writing to clearly state in true context that no one’s right (including what YOU might perceive as crazy or non eligible ) to bear arms shall be infringed upon. They were brilliant huh?!

Tony Evans
Tony Evans
1 year ago
Reply to  LH

Good thing the forefathers included the comma structure in their writing to clearly state in true context that no one’s right (including what YOU might perceive as crazy or non eligible ) to bear arms shall be infringed upon. They were brilliant huh?

Adam
Adam
1 year ago
Reply to  LH

So how do you protect your amendment to freedom of speech ? Some extremists would say that’s not a god given right !! People like Hitler,Stalin, Kahn, and many others !! Hey if you want guns gone that’s YOUR CHOICE !! But if someone his harming you or your family and you need help you can wait till someone shows up eventually !! That’s if someone is willing! Remember people don’t want to get involved due to fear of getting sued nowadays! And if someone is using a gun to commit the crimes most people will be running in the… Read more »

Tionico
Tionico
1 year ago
Reply to  LH

Remove the qualifiers set off by commas and you get “A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed.” Lets try that one again. I did what you said, and HERE, cut and pasted directly from what YOU wrote, I find remianing: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, Note well the subject-verb connexion here… the structure of the sentence makes a clear and inambiguous connexion between “right” (subject) and “keep/bear” (verbs). NOWHERE connected to “keep and bear” is the word “militia”. Further, there is a subordinate clause that details another connexion between the word “right” (subject) and… Read more »

Vanns40
Vanns40
1 year ago
Reply to  Tionico

I agree with one thought: The Constitution, and included Bill Of Rights, really only reaffirms our inalienable Rights. Sort of like putting down on paper that when the sun shines it’s daylight. We already know it, it’s just reiterating it on paper.

Unfortunately there are those who have challenged the notion that when the sun is shining it really is daytime. In the past we used to shake our heads and say these people were “tetched” and, in extreme cases, we’d institutionalize them. We might have to revisit those days again and build some very large institutions!

Daniel McNabb
Daniel McNabb
1 year ago
Reply to  LH

Sorry , BUT,,,, I have to disagree with your misguided assessment of the 2nd Amendment. A well regulated Militia does not refer to Federal troops. It refers to the standing armed citizenry , put in place to keep check on Government , should Tyranny arise. The Militia is not the Army , Navy , Marines , nor the National Guard. It is the armed Citizen ready to defend Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness from a tyrannical government .

John L. Battey
John L. Battey
1 year ago
Reply to  LH

Are you really ignorant enough to believe organizations like the National Guard existed in1790? At the time the Bill of Rights was written, the Militia consisted of every able bodied and mentally competent citizen. At need volunteers were called for and if the number was insufficient additional citizens were drafted for the necessary duration. The British would never have been defeated even in the War of 1812 without that militia.

tomcat
tomcat
1 year ago
Reply to  LH

@ LH You sure took a lot of sentences to say I AM A CONSTITUTIONAL CRIMINAL just like the article says. You are wrong on your interpretation of the second Amendment because you are reconstructing it from it’s original meaning.
Second, being able to protect yourself, your loved ones and your property is a right given to us by God and is well established in the Bible.
You need to go play someplace else because the majority of the regular posters here are ignoring you. That means your comments are of no value to anyone, not even worth disputing.

Daniel Eaves
Daniel Eaves
1 year ago
Reply to  LH

Well Regulated Militia are the key words. The issue is, what that is has not been actually defined by the Courts

Wes Bielinski
Wes Bielinski
1 year ago
Reply to  LH

Hey Dummy, well-regulated does not mean GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED! It means in proper working order and the militia consists of all capable men.

Mike Castle
Mike Castle
1 year ago
Reply to  LH

By the way moron. Its “anybody can have my guns when they pry them out of YOUR cold, dead hands.” Come and take them, because you will have to.
Educate yourself about your country and the men who founded the USA. Read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers and get a clue.

Richard Keller
Richard Keller
1 year ago
Reply to  LH

Hey LH … You have missed the part that says a well regulated militia is the right of the people who bear arms shall not be infringed. Get your facts straight before you make such an foolish statement.

Phil in TX
Phil in TX
1 year ago
Reply to  LH

You have deceived yourself by trying to interpret the Second Amendment using “modern” language. The word “militia” meant all able bodied men, excluding criminals and mental defectives, when it was written. There was no National Guard, which was not created until at least 100 years later. The militia was to be practiced and drilled in place of a standing army such as we have today in the active duty and Army National Guard as well as the reserves of the other branches. The framers were not in favor of having a standing army as they feared a military coup or… Read more »

RicksterAR
RicksterAR
1 year ago
Reply to  LH

LH , stupid so-called ” gun rights ” that in itself screams troll , in Capitol letters !! I guess you think the punctuation in the second Amendment was accidental. Who are you to remove the so called ” qualifiers ” the founding fathers knew exactly what they meant , you obviously do not. In your world , only National Guard members have the right to keep and bear arms ? You must be a sight to behold in all your righteous glory ,atop your high horse , above the lowly peasants like the rest of us , law abiding… Read more »

RicksterAR
RicksterAR
1 year ago
Reply to  LH

LH , how disturbingly ignorant you are. You should not be allowed to speak , unless you hold a doctorate in English.

Sven
Sven
1 year ago
Reply to  LH

Before arguing about the 2nd, or the 5th, where you will find the Militia to be DIFFERENT FROM,and. SEPARATE from the land and sea forces (wow .. today we refer to them as Army, Navy, and Marine forces … If only out founders would have written in terms that we’re understood by their illiterate posterity) …. You make clear reference (without clear intent of it’s position in your argument) to the word GOD on several occasions … I will assume you meant to imply an ACTUAL “ownership” of RIGHTS comes from man (a man who claims to have ownership rights… Read more »

Frank P.
Frank P.
1 year ago
Reply to  LH

“The right of the people shall not be infringed”…not the right of the militia.

Jody
Jody
1 year ago
Reply to  LH

I’m with you.

George
George
1 year ago
Reply to  LH

According to your interpretation the miltia acts of 1903 are unconstitutional and I have unlimited right to form a civilian miltia. I can support that I would love to own a mig 17. Also defending oneself from being attacked doesn’t make us an extremist the government doesnt have a specail right to seize property no matter what it is, see the 4th ammendment , all the “cold dead hands ” expression means is we are willing to defend ourselves and others rights to the death no matter who comes for them. “I dont agree with what you say but I… Read more »

Sara Russo
Sara Russo
1 year ago
Reply to  LH

LH,
I suggest that you read the Heller decision. It explains the wording of the 2A from a 1790’s dictionary. Every. Single. Word. So everyone can understand what they meant in today’s words.

Charles Moore
Charles Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  LH

Failed English and sentence structure, apparently. The first part is not the operative clause of the sentence and merely states one of any number of reasons WHY the content of the operative clause is true. The operative clause is the ONLY part of the sentence that can (and does) stand alone; “….the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” (See one of my replies above to learn what “well-regulated” means.) Does NOT mean “subject to restrictions and conditions,” which would be completely tin opposition to the OPERATIVE “shall not be infringed.” By ANY measurement.… Read more »

D Smith
D Smith
1 year ago

I support the second amendment but… Not your particular interpretation of it. That doesn’t erase everything I just said, it simply stipulates that you are wrong about what the amendment means. People can reasonably disagree about matters of interpretation…

Tionico
Tionico
1 year ago
Reply to  D Smith

words have meaning, and meaning has consequences. The problem is the usage and meaning of many words has “evolved” over the centireies since our Constitution was written. Words like arms, regulated, militia, keep, bear, security, free state, people the word “regulate” had a very different meaning in 1775…. its present mangling, relative to what it meant then, is at the root of much of the problem we face today. It is used in the Second Article of Ammendment, it is also used in what is commonly called the Interstate Commerce Clause… and the present mis-interpretation of that term has resulted… Read more »

John A Jameson
John A Jameson
1 year ago

Didn’t yall know? The Bill of Rights is an a la carte menu? At least the news media thinks it is. “We support the first amendment, BUT not the second amendment!” They don’t think the second amendment has anything to do with guaranteeing the first. It is just like a gun owner that refuses to support a pro-gun organization because they support the second amendment but not such organizations because they believe the government will confiscate other people’s guns, NOT THEIRS! The news media believes the government is only going to attack the second amendment, NOT THE FIRST! They will… Read more »

Coelacanth
Coelacanth
1 year ago
Reply to  John A Jameson

The mass media of today is nothing more than the mouthpiece of the democrat party.

Bugs
Bugs
1 year ago
Reply to  Coelacanth

Look deeper brother. Dems, Reps, doesn’t matter. Look deeper.

Collin Fields
Collin Fields
1 year ago
Reply to  John A Jameson

None of the language of the second amendment supports the idea that it exists to fight “governement tyrrany”. In fact, the only explicit reason given for it’s existence is to form a militia to protect the government. That aside, the government doesn’t need to take away your guns to strip you of your first amendment rights, they’ve already done it. Just one example, there are now laws on the books in dozens of states that force those who work for the government to sign a contract which bars them from openly criticizing Israel. These laws were pushed through by the… Read more »

George
George
1 year ago
Reply to  Collin Fields

The 2nd isn’t the only right under attacks
I’m an independent both sides pick and choose .
The 2a was meant to prevent tyranny not fight it. The people will always outnumber the officials and as such an armed people will be able to fight agiants a government that tries to take advantage of it.

Jason Lindsay
Jason Lindsay
1 year ago

Some of the comments are just down right appalling. The Constitution is set in stone what the founding fathers wrote on that parchment was not to be interpreted as anybody sees fit too as a matter of fact Congress is actually supposed to enforce the constitution not interpreted it and these anti-gun fanatics. I will let you in on a little secret on average annual guns save 3 million people and only 300,000 where taken by guns btw that’s a survey done by the cdc so a more reputable source than CNN. So I want to ask you if more… Read more »

Tionico
Tionico
1 year ago
Reply to  Jason Lindsay

Your point stands, but you are way off on the numbers. It is far better than what you say. “only 300,000 where taken by guns btw that’s a survey done by the cdc” Uhm,, WHERE did you get THAT number? Seems to me you’ve added a zero thus are off by a factor of TEN CDC stats indicate nust above 30,000 deaths by gunfire for all reasons….two thirds of those are suicdes, leaving 11,000 homicides…. which INLCUDES shootings by cops and those defending their own lives, and accidental ones. The actual number of deliberate homicide by gun is likely less… Read more »

m.
m.
1 year ago

“butt” = what every anti-2a, lard-a** dhimmi-rat sits on & thinks with

Ray Tomason
Ray Tomason
1 year ago
Reply to  m.

Bet your mom has a big butt.

m.
m.
1 year ago
Reply to  Ray Tomason

not when she passed on over 20 years ago, or at any other time, a**hole

Rc
Rc
1 year ago

If you haven’t do so watch buy rent
DEATH OF A NATION

Huapakechi
Huapakechi
1 year ago

Those who think that there are “commonsense” limitations on Constitutional freedoms deliberately ignore the fact that there are consequences to the abuse of those freedoms, and seek to limit the rights of every citizen to avoid having to provide moral and legal education to the children of this nation while at the same time inhibiting (to the point of near active prohibition) the teaching of such a moral foundation.

Collin Fields
Collin Fields
1 year ago
Reply to  Huapakechi

You can’t teach someone to not be psychotic. If you think that mass killings are simply a problem of morals and not of regulations though, does that mean you’re in favor of the right to bear weaponized anthrax and dirty bombs? Clearly there are weapons which are too dangerous to justify their availability to every asshole with a few dollars and abone to pick. Stop with the NRA apologetics bullshit.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  Collin Fields

@Collin Fields, A ridiculous argument. Few nations on earth have the financial resources to develop those weapons, much less maintain and store them. There is no individual within the jurisdiction of the United States that has the finance to develop, maintain, and store this weapons. Try to pick a relevant hypothetical.

George
George
1 year ago
Reply to  Collin Fields

Those 2 examples violate genava regulations. If the us military can have it then so should us citizens. As far as teaching people not to be psychotic no but you can treat mental illness and we can try to stop sane people from being violent . This ban guns solutions to mass shootings will only lead to mass murders with a different object. And while less deaths might result with stabbings, truck attacks, arsons etc vs shootings people are not numbers , and stripping rights for anything other then no deaths and instead mathematically dropping the body count per massacre… Read more »

Thomas Patitucci
Thomas Patitucci
1 year ago

The first thing that was done in Nazi Germany was to take away every one’s guns to protect the children then everything else was taken away and you had to pledge allegence to the socialist state or die

Vanns40
Vanns40
1 year ago

Please don’t take this as defending anyone or anything that was done in that time & place, but gun control in Germany started way before the Nazis. The German government, under the 1928 arms law required citizens to have a permit to carry firearms and registration predated that. The Nazis simply utilized what was in place, in 1938, to keep strengthening existing laws and finally outlaw ownership to all but “special” classes. Sound familiar? It should. If you can find a copy of JPFO’s book “Gun Control, Gateway To Tyranny” pick it up. They’re pretty rare and expensive and for… Read more »

Collin Fields
Collin Fields
1 year ago

The Nazis actually didn’t take guns away from Germans. In fact, they gave tons of guns to citizens, especially once they started losing the war. Also they were not socialist. Maybe educate yourself a bit.

m.
m.
1 year ago
Reply to  Collin Fields

national “socialist” workers party – what were they then, a**hole?

Schofield Kid
Schofield Kid
1 year ago
Reply to  m.

This is a widely misconstrued concept and I’m sorry to tell you you’ve got it wrong. Snopes(dot)com has an excellent article explaining this without getting too gnarly, titled “Were the Nazis Socialists?” Well worth reading the entire article.

Hugo Benito Gonzalez
Hugo Benito Gonzalez
1 year ago

This includes Tr(D)ump of course.
Quote: Take the guns away first. Then do process.” He also gave Hillary standing ovation at his Inauguration Luncheon.
Lest we forget.

James Campbell
James Campbell
1 year ago

“Then do process”
What process are you referring to them doing?

Faisal
Faisal
1 year ago
Reply to  James Campbell

He meant “due process” as in due process of law. Trump in a press conference said after Parkland, “take the guns first, due process second”.

Chris
Chris
1 year ago
Reply to  James Campbell

The person was referring to when Trump said ” take the guns first then follow due process later”. Trump was pushing Red Flag laws at the time.
That’s was before Trump pushed to ban bump stocks, also before he brought back gun grabber William ” Ruby Ridge” Barr as attorney general.

Schofield Kid
Schofield Kid
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris

Which is why it baffles me that there’s so much staunch support for Trump by conservatives.

Steve
Steve
1 year ago

I support the 2nd Amendment! I own 7 different various pistols, a Mosin-Nagant, AK-47, 2 AR’s & an SKS…….BUT I still support the ban on bump stocks that just passed.

Adam
Adam
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve

Then unfortunately Steve, you don’t understand the issue. The issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the device itself, and everything to do with the vehicle of its banning. I encourage you to do some homework on the way they were banned and the implications it has on the rest of our gun rights as soon as a liberal is elected. I agree that bump stocks are a silly novelty, but regulating an accessory to make people “feel safer” is A slippery slope.

Mike
Mike
1 year ago
Reply to  Adam

Slippery slope or not, look at the second amendment case law. Some restrictions are consonant with the 2nd amendment. I don’t see anybody whining about the NFA. Instead of saying ‘any restrictions are bad” it would be better if a collective line was drawn. For example, Semi automatic weapons can never be banned outright. Magazine capacity cannot be set below _____. We already accept some restrictions, as stated above, and obviously if we are going to say mass shootings are a mental health problem (they are) something has to be done about those with mental issues. Red flag laws are… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike

, and just whom do you think made that so called Second Amendment Case Law. Yes, elitists that did not agree with the founding fathers that you should have plenipotentiary Rights. Educated people, the kind appointed to the judiciary, have a long history of loathing and fearing the common people.
You have been stolen from, lied to, and deceived.

Greg K
Greg K
1 year ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

Extra points for “Plenipotentiary.”

Link
Link
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike

Lots complain about the NFA, just because you don’t know about it does not make it not a thing.

Jim
Jim
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike

Be specific. Which restrictions are “consonant”?

Schofield Kid
Schofield Kid
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim

Not necessarily advocating one way or the other, but just guessing here… maybe bazookas, flame throwers, vulcan cannons?

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim

, the consonant restrictions are that one needs to be a … “people”. I have to explain this to my cows, regularly.

Tionico
Tionico
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike

If you don’t see/hear anyone “whining about the NFA” you are not awake, or you do not spend your time with real people. REQUIRING, as a precondition to the “keep” and/or “bear” parts of that Second Article, that I must go to any of certain designated individuals, pay a fee, wait while they make a phonecall or go online to “verify” me, then, in many states, wait a certain period of time before I can take possession of MY property is an INFRINGEMENT. REQUIRING me, as a precondition to the “bear” part of that article, that I appear in person… Read more »

Bugs
Bugs
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike

Y’all have forgotten original intent. The Constitution is a simple list of rules for the federal government telling it what it can do. Which is very little in fact. You mentioned the NFA that is regulated by the ATF. The Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to do anything that is not specifically mentioned there in. We have allowed our servants, the government, to take authority on their own. When was the last time anyone actually took the time to read the Constitution and really think about it. Read the other documents of the time and the… Read more »

George
George
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike

I complain about the NFA all the time.
The 2nd ammendment is unlimited to support bump stocks is not support the 2nd ammendment.
Infringe-to limit
I dont see how people debate this I guess if someone wants something to be true they came make themselves believe it.

Vanns40
Vanns40
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike

No, Mike, you may accept some restrictions (if you call 22,000+ gun laws “some”), I do not. I don’t believe in ANY firearms laws and believe every single one should be repealed. As a retired LEO I’ve seen, first hand, that those pesky criminals just keep on refusing to obey any and all laws all while the judicial system pleas down charges to keep them going through the rotating door. All arms laws do is prevent law abiding citizens from owning and carrying guns. So nope, count me out for accepting any firearms laws. Send me my FNC through the… Read more »

Who Me
Who Me
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve

I don’t see the reason to ban the bump stock. It is legally possible to acquire fully automatic weapons. So they could have simply required that the same process be followed in order to own bump stocks. Of course, they would, then, need to be serialized.

Tionico
Tionico
1 year ago
Reply to  Who Me

that “process” you describe is an INFRINGEMENT. Rubber bans, belt loops, all can duplicate the effect of the bump stock. I’ve even seen video of a well known master gunner who can out shoot, with far better aim, anyone with w bump stock. But the main reason we’re so bent about the bump stock ban.. it was NOT enacted as law, it was an administrative cheat the system RULE made by unelected and unaccountable executive branch poohbahs…. this has the result of executive branch MAKING law, and REPEALING law, duties assigned exclucively to the Legislative Branch. Next thing ya now,… Read more »

Greg
Greg
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve

I don’t support any bans. Everyone should be able to own anything they want. What are we 5 years old? Sick of people telling other what they can or can’t own, when the military can own anything because of our tax dollars.

Rock
Rock
1 year ago

Everything before “BUT” is a lie, been proven throughout history.

Old Corps
Old Corps
1 year ago

It won’t be long before the first of many jackboot forced seizures of firearms will begin in states that imposed these unlawful “red flag” laws. In fact, it might be an “interesting” betting game, which state is first. And, then what? I expect a lot of backpeddling, excuses, justifications, and lies will follow.

The key question: What will WE do, the supposed staunch defenders of the Second Amendment? Watch, in disbelief, shake our heads, and go back in, back to our own business? Probably.

david nicholas
david nicholas
1 year ago
Reply to  Old Corps

it has already happened in Maryland and the gun owner was shot and killed by the swat team,and it turned out it was a bogus complaint

Alan
Alan
1 year ago
Reply to  Old Corps

Already happened in FL

Stu Johnson
Stu Johnson
1 year ago

Lots of hot air phony conservatives blow off the 1st amendment.
See that here sometimes in the comments
My relationship with God is NOT subject to anyones approval!

Alan
Alan
1 year ago

Support, or do not,. There is no but.

Travis
Travis
1 year ago

when people use that it drives me insane. in my area it seems to be fudds that use it all the time. The “i support the 2nd but no one needs these assault rifles and extended clips”. As long as they get their hunting rifle and shotgun they dont care about anything else.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  Travis

@Travis, Good point. There are some things that their hunting rife and shotgun will not be effective against. I speak of China’s development of the Autonomous Killing Machine (or AKM). Chinese developers are working on the AKM as a way to supplement and eventually replace the infantry. The AKM utilizes artificial intelligence programing. That is to say that each AKM can “learn” to be a better infantryman, and transmit that knowledge. North America is the target.
Your local fudds and their hunting rifles will be ineffectual against such AI machines.

Core
Core
1 year ago

So many American’s have been fed unconstitutional nonsense by our Democrat leaders for so long, it’s become second nature for freedom loving folks dropping buts into the narrative. And yeah, there’s no buts in the US Constitution, and as awareness increases we will enforce Article VI and restore the constitutional rights that are currently being infringed.

Gregory Owens
Gregory Owens
1 year ago

All this has done has given a tool to gun grabbers to call the authorities that I have a gun and they think I am crazy. What can I or anyone do because there is no due process. The gun control activist are happy to see this legislation not because it ” might keep a dangerous person off of the streets” but they can take anyone’s gun simply by making a referral.

hippybiker
hippybiker
1 year ago

Finally, some trut( from the Green boy!

Justin Bowen
Justin Bowen
1 year ago

So glad to see that right-wingers are totally in favor of rapists, murderers, burglars, crazy people, and terrorists having access to guns.

After all, the 2nd Amendment doesn’t say “…shall not be infringed, except for…”

Sheryl
Sheryl
1 year ago
Reply to  Justin Bowen

So… rapists, murderers, burglars, crazy people and terrorists don’t already have guns? What is your plan for them to turn them in? What is your plan to get them to submit to a background check of any kind so you know if they’re crazy or not? The flaw in your thinking is that you think all of the above give a rats a$$ about laws.

Sal Trent
Sal Trent
1 year ago
Reply to  Sheryl

The above mentioned have never been through background checks.they purchass their weapons on the streets from gun rinners..no background checks,no paperwork just cash on the barrel. Yet these gun grabers zelots claim that the legal un owners commit all the crime..this is Demarat spoon feed Bullshit and we legal gun owners know it.not 1 of these Illegal gun laws has taken criminals,thugh,illegals off the streets and removed their weapons.so tell us How all these laws make people safe when the above mention still poses theirs while the legal gun owners have their legally purchased guns taken way

Schofield Kid
Schofield Kid
1 year ago
Reply to  Sal Trent

Sal and Sheryl make a critical point in the gun rights struggle that seems to rarely get mentioned. All these efforts to ban guns only remove them from law-abiding citizens and not a bit from those bent on their criminal use, thus leaving good people defenseless against bad ones.

Justin Bowen
Justin Bowen
1 year ago
Reply to  Schofield Kid

I’m not concerned about the bad guys anymore than I am about my shadow.

What I’m talking about at the moment at the right-wing cranks who are terrified of their own shadows who think that criminals SHOULD have firearms simply because they think the 2nd Amendment is absolute and not up for interpretation (unlike all of the lesser amendments that they love to violate).

Vanns40
Vanns40
1 year ago
Reply to  Justin Bowen

Justin Bowen: So happy to see that you’re in favor of “just one more law” when 22,000+ haven’t accomplished a single goal that you’ve mentioned in any of your posts. In fact the only thing accomplished has been to increase the rate of rapes, assaults and murders on those who were denied the Right (note the capital R) to self defense by people like you, well intentioned or not. Zealots like you, throughout history, have been responsible for more violent deaths of innocent people than the flu. Even with statistics like those from Broward County, Florida, a few decades ago,… Read more »

Allen
Allen
1 year ago

Sigh. As a life long gun owner and gun rights supporter…I can’t agree with very much of this at all. While I am not in favor of “red flag laws”, I openly laugh at those, like as written here, that when a horrific incident occurs like Parkland most “2nd Amendment” guys will be the first to jump up and say that the bad guy was mentally ill and that he shouldn’t have had access to firearms and law enforcement failed. That’s what these laws about. Involuntary Mental Commitments…are basically the exact same thing. Oh…and “due process” doesn’t come into play… Read more »

fringe
fringe
1 year ago
Reply to  Allen

I agree. Also talk about picking and choosing… so many gun rights people conveniently “forget” the part that says “well regulated”. If we as gun owners would come up with some well thought out, common sense, national gun laws instead of waving our guns and “rights” around like the media likes to portray, maybe we’d actually get somewhere.

Coelacanth
Coelacanth
1 year ago
Reply to  fringe

“Well Regulated” meant properly armed with sufficient powder and shot, equipped for battle, encampment and extended military campaign.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  fringe

@fringe, The Founding Fathers meant what we would call well drilled and supplied. The Founding Fathers did not mean controlled by government when they wrote “well regulated”.
It is better to waive our Rights around and demand that those Rights be respected because Rights are controls on government powers and authorities.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  Allen

@Alien, Actually you do have a right to due process before you get arrested, among these rights is the right to be left alone. Criminal procedure due process attaches when you become a person of even minimal interest to the most junior of law enforcement officers.

Hugo Benito Gonzalez
Hugo Benito Gonzalez
1 year ago

So you are talking about Tr(D) too then.
“Take the guns first. Then do process.”

Hugo Benito Gonzalez
Hugo Benito Gonzalez
1 year ago

So you are talking about Tr(D)ump too then.
“Take the guns first. Then do process.”

Richard Zakosky
Richard Zakosky
1 year ago

When you lose your second amendment rights its why you lose them

Richard Zakosky
Richard Zakosky
1 year ago

I lost my second amendment rights by Judge Steven Stone San Diego CA superior court, after seeing a different judge 3times, my case all of sudden got transfer to judge Stone, didn’t even have a chance, I got no jail, no probation, no parole,no fine, no community service, just no second amendment rights and couldn’t appeal, there’s no such thing as due process, get rid of that phase it doesn’t work, welcome to a United States government cover up, it’s for reals.

Dino Macioci
Dino Macioci
1 year ago

“Such a wake-up call for the ACLU required at least some intellectual honesty on their part, something for which the ACLU has never been famous”
First, disseminating untruths about the ACLU does not serve you well. They were the reason the Nazi party was able to March in NYC 1934 if I remember correctly.
Second, cut the BS with the libtard crap. Not everyone who believes in the Constitution, picks and chooses their favorite verses like the Bible bangers in a Sunday sermon on the radio. Besides, how would you like to be called a “Retardicunt”?

Faisal
Faisal
1 year ago
Reply to  Dino Macioci

You might want to re-read the article, then Google John Farnam, figure out he lives in Colorado, then look up the red flag Bill, thoroughly read the text, and then Google Jared Polis. With those easy steps you might understand context. Also, John is a nice guy, not infallible, but you really don’t need to be a dick.

Buckeyechuck
Buckeyechuck
1 year ago
Reply to  Dino Macioci

Well then, explain to me why they (the ACLU) flat out refused to assist me with the civil liberties case that I had? Which btw I eventually won. After they very briefly asked me some questions, they said they would not help me because I didn’t qualify for their assistance. Gee, all they asked were questions about how long I lived were I lived, ( more than 5) , what was my family’s income level. (Fair enough, I answered honestly as I could), national guard and civilian income. And my name and my maiden name. (I gave it to them).… Read more »

Clint Baker
Clint Baker
1 year ago

Do we really need constitutional amendments to tell us our rights? Arent they self evident?

Aaron Walker
Aaron Walker
1 year ago

Excerpt from the Patriot:
Benjamin Martin : Would you tell me please, Mr. Howard, why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away? An elected legislature can trample a man’s rights as easily as a king can.

Aaron M. Walker
Aaron M. Walker
1 year ago

That’s why THEIR creatimg “Red Flag Laws” to eliminate your Constitutional Rights, (turning them into governmental privileges), to nullify due process through star chamber proceedings, prevent rebellion, legitimize THEIR authority, squash dissent, and declare US citizens enemies of the state!

Nanashi
Nanashi
1 year ago

Funny given the NRA is only in this situation BECAUSe they were “Second Amendment But”theads. They legitimately messed up when they attempted to usurp USCAA for money (not gun rights) without bothering to do basic legal research.

JoeUSooner
JoeUSooner
1 year ago

Absolutely correct! The word “but” is indeed defined as meaning “forget everything I just said!”

Green Mtn. Boy
Green Mtn. Boy
1 year ago

“I Support the Second Amendment, BUT…”I’m a closet Leftard who is against the entire Constitution.

Hugo Benito Gonzalez
Hugo Benito Gonzalez
1 year ago
Reply to  Green Mtn. Boy

So you are talking about Tr(D) ump too then.
“Take the guns first. Then do process.”

Hugo Benito Gonzalez
Hugo Benito Gonzalez
1 year ago
Reply to  Green Mtn. Boy

This includes Tr(D)ump of course.
Quote: Take the guns away first. Then do process.” He also gave Hillary standing ovation at his Inauguration Luncheon.
Lest we forget.

HoundDogDave
HoundDogDave
1 year ago

DUDE! Stop posting this over and over. You are embarrassing yourself.
It is “Due Process” NOT do process
due proc·ess
/d(y)o͞o prəˈses/
noun
fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen’s entitlement.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process