Second Amendment will be Nullified if ‘Common Use’ is Restricted to ‘Popularity’

2nd Second amendment Preemption Photo Courtesy of Jeremy Tremp for NRA-ILA
Only proponents of a dystopian future will demand technology render an armed citizenry obsolete. Photo Courtesy of Jeremy Tremp for NRA-ILA

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “The Second Amendment protects modern weapons,” Judge Roger T. Benitez observed in his landmark Miller v. Bonta ruling striking down California’s so-called “assault weapons” ban. He was citing Caetano v. Massachusetts, a 2016 United States Supreme Court decision vacating a woman’s conviction for carrying a stun gun for self-defense.

“The Court has held that ‘the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,’” the High Court, citing the Heller case, unanimously held. “In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining ‘whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.’”

Aside from the obvious, no-nonsense assertions of Founding-era voices such as Tench Coxe (“every terrible implement of the soldier”) and James Madison (see “militia” observations in Federalist No. 46), it helps to understand another gun-grabber lie, that the Founders only had single-shot muskets and couldn’t have imagined technological advancements leading to more lethal weaponry.

Firearms technology from long before their time included Fourteenth Century multiple-barreled volley guns and a design by Leonardo DaVinci for a rotating triple-barrel breech-loading cannon. The Founding Era had already seen pepperbox revolvers, Kentucky/Pennsylvania rifles, cartridges to combine shot and powder, the British breech-loading Ferguson rifle, the 11-cylinder crank-operated Puckle gun, and the Girandoni air rifle, capable of firing 22 .46 caliber balls and that had actually been used by the Austrian army 11 years before the Bill of Rights was ratified. And the above is by no means an exhaustive list.

The Founders were enlightened men, schooled in classical, political, and legal history, aware of current developments (and in cases like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, innovators and inventors themselves), and visionaries with eyes toward the future, and to “secur[ing] the Blessings of Liberty to … Posterity.”

Oblivious to that, Constitutional and historical illiterates, like the head of the oxymoronically named “Texas Gun Sense,” are getting ink spreading astonishingly ignorant assertions like “There weren’t automatic weapons or 100-round magazine capacities in the guns 100 years ago.” And, like useful idiots, they’re making such moronic pronouncements for Chinese communist propagandists (who want Americans disarmed and live Chairman Mao’s maxim that “Political power grows from the barrel of a gun”).

That’s bad enough, but the grabbers then bring those arguments into court cases and equally corrupt judges then create “settled law.”  As the Brady Center argued in a brief supporting the State of Maryland’s semiauto and magazine ban:

“Suppose, for example, that a new, unregulated and highly lethal weapon were developed before a statute was enacted. When first offered for sale, the weapon would not be protected because it would not be in common use. However, under Plaintiffs’ theory, if sales of the weapon grew explosively over the next year, prior to any legislation, then the weapon would, within that short time frame, become constitutionally protected, even though a ban would have been permissible had the legislature acted just a few months earlier. Such an approach makes little sense.”

That’s the crux—if new developments in weaponry can be denied to We the People, then it’s just a matter of time before the disparity between what the government has and what the people have will be as wide as if we were relegated to Brown Bess muskets and flintlocks against modern infantry. Unless “in common use at the time” is held to mean by soldiers in the field, with real “weapons of war,” as opposed to a sporting arms popularity contest,  the Second Amendment will be nullified as a last-resort defense against foreign and domestic tyranny.

To argue otherwise is to argue the Founders thought sending an outmatched yeomanry to their slaughter was “necessary to the security of a free State.” That’s insane.

We’re well on our way along with that, though, notably with the National Firearms Act restricting the transfer of militia-suitable arms to tribute-paying supplicants meeting overlord approval, and the illegitimate (whether a real vote was taken or not) Hughes Amendment denying post-1986 select firearms to all but government troops and enforcers. I’d argue that one of the most in-your-face tyrannical phrases ever constructed is:

“RESTRICTED FOR GOVERNMENT OR LAW ENFORCEMENT USE ONLY”

“Things to Come” was my Second Amendment column in the January 2002 issue of Guns & Ammo magazine. I wrote a bit about the bans but focused on developing technology, definitely stuff the Founders would have never imagined — as if that’s supposed to make a difference. I always began those articles with a quote to set the tone, and for this one, I borrowed from H.G. Wells in The Shape of Things to Come:

“We have declared the Declaration of Independence is inoperative…”

How that could happen isn’t hard to see.

“It’s the difference between a bow and arrow and a modern rifle,” I quoted an executive describing his company’s Objective Individual Combat Weapon System, a weapon that could “hit targets completely behind barriers.”

I cited articles on supposedly “less than lethal” microwave weapons that could burn the skin or temporarily blind, or “tetanize” (paralyze skeletal muscles). If stun guns are “protected,” why wouldn’t they be?

But who needs phasers set on “stun” when the real thing is being developed to vaporize targets Star Trek-style, along with assurances that “advances will be made and power plants will be shrunk and one day it will dominate the battlefield”?

Since when have rayguns not been seen as the great future equalizer, and who thinks keeping them away from the bad guys will work any better tomorrow than what we see happening today?

“Just remember, not so long ago your pocket calculator would have filled a room, requiring programmers, technicians and keypunch operators, and cell phones, laptops, and GPS units would have been considered no more plausible than … paralyzer beams and death rays,” I wrote. Unarguably, those advances are now all “in common use.”

“It’s been said a battle isn’t won until a man with a rifle occupies and controls the field,” that article concluded. “Someone probably once said the same thing about spears.”


About 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. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

David Codrea

Subscribe
Notify of
72 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Roland T. Gunner
Roland T. Gunner
14 days ago

Mr. Codrea, that fraudulent vote on Hughes seriously needs to be forced upon the courts and be set right.

DIYinSTL
DIYinSTL
26 days ago

I’d bet that the number of rifles vs. muskets issued to troops in the 1770’s was far fewer in number and percentage than were owned by the civilian population. Up until the 20th century, not counting heavy weapons, civilians had superior fire power to the government.

David: typo with “post-1986 select firearms”? Perhaps “select-fire [fire]arms” or “weapons?”

Plain Old American
Plain Old American
26 days ago
  1. Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 15 & 16 presuppose the existence of the Militia of the Several States before the 2A was adopted.
  2. Article 13 of the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights tells us the militia is “composed of the body of the people trained to arms”
  3. The Declaration of Independence says we have the right, the duty to alter or abolish the government if it evinces a long train of abuses and usurpations designed to reduce us under absolute tyranny. That cannot be done if we must beg permission to have arms.
Rogue
Rogue
27 days ago

Absolutely correct. Too bad the “Constitutional and historical illiterates” who need these lessons will never read this, seek the knowledge, understand it or accept it because of their early indoctrination and inadequate primary education. Ya can’t fix stupid!

Bill
Bill
27 days ago

Should this come about, then apparently radio, television, ink-jet printers, the internet, Satellites, etc. none would be covered by the First Amendment as none were invented or probably envisioned at the time the Bill of Rights came into being!

Wass
Wass
27 days ago

After sixty years participating in shooting sports and as interested observer in the struggle for civilian gun rights, let me humbly advise: Never argue over types of guns, gun technology, calibers, mag capacity, etc. The gun control advocates will always get you to yield, if you wade into that mire. Always shift the argument to ubiquity of crime, the lack of law enforcement, the support by Dems for early release of felons and their failure to blame perps for gun crimes, instead of law-abiding Americans. There’s not a one of the gun control groups which doesn’t fall into the above… Read more »

Last edited 27 days ago by Wass
Roland T. Gunner
Roland T. Gunner
26 days ago
Reply to  Wass

Capital punishmemt is a terrible thing; but I do not oppose it.

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
27 days ago

 EXCELLENT POINT:
I’d argue that one of the most in-your-face tyrannical phrases ever constructed is:

“RESTRICTED FOR GOVERNMENT OR LAW ENFORCEMENT USE ONLY”

Roland T. Gunner
Roland T. Gunner
26 days ago

There, cancelled out that single, solitary, dumbass thumbs-down.

Macpuma
Macpuma
27 days ago

You are wrong on one point. Under the 1986 machinegun ban, the states have the power and authority to issue or sale machineguns TO ANYBODY they want. You don’t have to be a police officer, in the National Guard, or be any type of government employee. That may be what Congress thought it was doing, but the law DOES NOT restrict that authority. Of course, pretty much everyone can be designated as a member of the state militia, and Congress cannot do anything to restrict how the states go about arming the militia. There is a Supreme Court case that… Read more »

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
27 days ago
Reply to  Macpuma

I would love to see the case law, but it is confirmed under: 18 U.S. Code § 922 – Unlawful acts (o)(1)Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun. (2)This subsection does not apply with respect to— (A)a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or (B)any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection… Read more »

Mack
Mack
27 days ago

Look, it’s very simple.

We have God-given Natural Rights.

These rights are not subject to what is popular and what is not.

Since we are not born weaponized like the American Bald Eagle, we have a right to become weaponized as we choose. No one can interfere with that right.

And we have the right to use those weapons to defend Life, Liberty, Property — and our Republic whether anyone likes that or not.

Patriot Solutions
Patriot Solutions
27 days ago
Reply to  Mack

And the clearly written English language contained in 2A specifically addresses all restrictions when it says “shall not be infringed”! There is no “but” in 2A. nor does 2A. protect and/or promote any crime as the Kool-Aid gulpers imply.

Last edited 27 days ago by Patriot Solutions
Mack
Mack
27 days ago

Correct.

And just to remind the Harold-types, infringed means:

No Interference or Not to be trifled with.

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
27 days ago
Reply to  Mack

WRONG! REALITY ORIETATION: Republics defend the republic first. They have the power to conscript you into slavery. Slaves do not have a vote or arms. The 13th Amendment’s exception allows the republic to enslave you if you break a law and SO, they made over 10,000 felonies in the US Code ALONE.

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
27 days ago

CLEARLY WRITTEN: Article 1, Section 8 – Powers of Congress: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,….To provide for calling forth the Militia…To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; You can be declared to be militia the moment you take up arms and the government can say which arms those are. AGAIN: Slaves do… Read more »

Arizona
Arizona
26 days ago

Oh Johnnyboy, You desperately seek to impress others with what you imagine is a dazzling intellect, but is in fact just misplaced arrogance. So sad. Go preach your victimhood elsewhere; the diarrhea of your mind and mouth are not the truth, nor anywhere close to it. You may be a slave, as your own words admit. But we are not. We the People are not subjects or slaves like you, as We hold to the following: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,… Read more »

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
26 days ago
Reply to  Arizona

Child, only trolls call me Johnny or boy. YOU ARE IN DENIAL. You are just another free range slave.
You sound like an anonymous troll intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses, or manipulating their perception with your inflammatory, insincere, digressive, extraneous, and off-topic comment. You spout the same old narrative of endless inbred bloggers playing the telephone game with factoids and never-do-well high school dropouts who never learned how to discipline their thinking with facts or logic.

Russn8r
Russn8r
26 days ago

How about we just call you Schart. Pretty much sums it up.

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
26 days ago
Reply to  Russn8r

Vulgarity, name calling, strawman claims, and personal attacks are not a substitute for civil communication, logical argument, or facts. YOU WIN THE WEASAL AWARD: For distinguished use of words and phases communicating vague or ambiguous impressions that something meaningful has been said.

PMinFl
PMinFl
25 days ago

This person is well spoken , but incorrect in his thinking.

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
26 days ago
Reply to  Arizona

You are desperate to believe the government is your protective mommies and daddies rather than slave masters. GROW UP.

By the way,” WE THE PEOPLE” is the propaganda of the Constitution, not you the slaves. What you quote after that is the Declaration of Independence, which was voided by the Constitution. There IS no consent of the governed in the Constitution. No plebiscite. No referendums. No Initiatives. Your party picks your candidates; not you. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution and the US Code; NOT YOU.

PMinFl
PMinFl
25 days ago

Where did this guy come from?

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
27 days ago
Reply to  Mack

Look. It is NOT simple. God mandates submission rather than creating/issuing rights. Read Romans 13 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will [a]bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be… Read more »

Russn8r
Russn8r
26 days ago

JESUS said nothing like that. If that simplistic, groveling, authority-worshiping POV prevailed in 1775, even among preachers, you’d be a subject of the King of England right now, since he was “the ruler appointed by God”. Fortunately, Christian preachers rejected that mindless POV. They believed in obedience to righteous authority, righteous rulers.

And that crap about rulers not being a terror, and being appointed by God to fight evil, tell it to the 100 million innocents terrorized and murdered by their own governments in the last 106 years or so.

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
26 days ago
Reply to  Russn8r

So, you do not believe all the Bible. Of course, you have no clue what Jesus said, were it not for those who saw him. Just the parts that agree with you. Stop pretending you know anything about the one who wrote it. Nowhere does it say HE gave you RIGHTS. THAT is what I proved you wrong on. In no way were the pagan Romans righteous authority or rulers where the believers lived which that letter was addressed to. Even Abraham, Moses, David, and Solomon were not righteous. DO NOT SPEAK for HIM. You are blasphemous. I have no… Read more »

Russn8r
Russn8r
26 days ago

Hey Schart, I didn’t say it was simple. Someone else did. Your brain’s misfiring off the map as usual. Lay off the mescaline. I know what Jesus said in the bible from Matthew, Mark, Luke & James. Nothing He said implies what you think. “The” bible wasn’t published by God. It was published by men in power. Emperors. Hence the diff between Catholic & Protestant bibles, and the ‘apocrypha’. The authority-worshiping crap is self-serving. If anyone’s putting words in His mouth, it’s you. So who’s blasphemous? You are. Now bend over & Schart some more self-righteous diarrhea on the screen.… Read more »

Last edited 26 days ago by Russn8r
JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
26 days ago
Reply to  Russn8r

You sound like an anonymous troll intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses, or manipulating their perception with your inflammatory, insincere, digressive, extraneous, and off-topic comment. You spout the same old narrative of endless inbred bloggers playing the telephone game with factoids and never-do-well high school dropouts who never learned how to discipline their thinking with facts or logic.

Russn8r
Russn8r
26 days ago

Troll says troll, still evading. At least you pinched it off this time, Schart Boy.

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
26 days ago
Reply to  Russn8r

Vulgarity, name calling, strawman claims, and personal attacks are not a substitute for civil communication, logical argument, or facts. YOU WIN THE WEASAL AWARD: For distinguished use of words and phases communicating vague or ambiguous impressions that something meaningful has been said.

Russn8r
Russn8r
26 days ago

You win the Cut & Paste award, Schart Boy

PMinFl
PMinFl
25 days ago

WHERE did this guy come from?

Arizona
Arizona
26 days ago

Look, it’s Johnnyboy, the all-knowing. He can cut and paste from the Bible, as well as the Federalist Papers! He can paste like a pro, and pretends it makes him smart! He actually believes he is right, and that he is teaching us! His delusions of grandeur are epic.

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
26 days ago
Reply to  Arizona

You sound like an anonymous troll intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses, or manipulating their perception with your inflammatory, insincere, digressive, extraneous, and off-topic comment. You spout the same old narrative of endless inbred bloggers playing the telephone game with factoids and never-do-well high school dropouts who never learned how to discipline their thinking with facts or logic.

Last edited 26 days ago by JohnLloydScharf
Russn8r
Russn8r
26 days ago
Reply to  Arizona

More like Cut & Schart. The guy’s mentally incontinent. Bends over and sprays a stream of consciousness.

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
26 days ago
Reply to  Russn8r

Vulgarity, name calling, strawman claims, and personal attacks are not a substitute for civil communication, logical argument, or facts. YOU WIN THE WEASAL AWARD: For distinguished use of words and phases communicating vague or ambiguous impressions that something meaningful has been said.

Russn8r
Russn8r
26 days ago

You should probably learn how to spell weasel before cutting & pasting it 100 times, Schart Boy.

PMinFl
PMinFl
25 days ago
Reply to  Russn8r

Russ, people like this will wear you out , paid trolls have nothing better to do than to stir up the conversation and make you feel defensive.

Russn8r
Russn8r
25 days ago
Reply to  PMinFl

Thanks, but he didn’t wear me out. I find him amusing.

PMinFl
PMinFl
25 days ago

That always works with the uneducated doesn’t it? Bring God into your arguments with a carefully chosen bible quotation.

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
24 days ago
Reply to  PMinFl

As a troll hiding behind a fake profile, do not claim G_D gave you a right without expecting a Bible quote. Do not make personal attacks and claim OTHERS are paid trolls to make you feel defensive. I attacked the pure dogma of claiming any deity issues you rights. Justice gives you inalienable self-evident rights. All quotes of the Bible should be carefully chosen. Regarding education, I have had far more than you ever will. After high school I had a year straight of formal electronics school in the Navy. As an aviation technician, I worked on the radar and… Read more »

Russn8r
Russn8r
24 days ago

Hey Schart, lay off the mescaline before your next “discharge”. No one gives a F about your alleged brilliant career and it doesn’t make your arguments less lame.

Orion
Orion
27 days ago

outstanding article and right on point!

Roland T. Gunner
Roland T. Gunner
27 days ago

Excellent article, Mr. Codrea.

Vince
Vince
27 days ago

Our civilian guns today are the same as those in 1776, you squeeze the trigger and it fires exactly one shot, never more, for each time you squeeze the trigger. These are exactly the type of firearm the founding fathers were familiar with when they wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment.

Arizona
Arizona
27 days ago
Reply to  Vince

The founders would be outraged that the Politicians in our current government believe the government not only should but must have more powerful and effective weapons than the citizens, as their intention is to be used against the citizens should the citizens resist the government’s demands.

Patriot Solutions
Patriot Solutions
27 days ago
Reply to  Arizona

Demands and outright financial theft as in this Standing Akimbo case that was denied like the gun cases.

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/06/28/justice-thomas-decries-contradictory-and-unstable-state-of-marijuana/

While some might think Saint Thomas dissented I found his instructions to be worthy of resubmitting but then that is just another reason why Mr. Fed is no friend of mine.

Last edited 27 days ago by Patriot Solutions
JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
26 days ago
Reply to  Arizona

The “founders” did not agree and “we the people” did not have a vote on the Constitution.  By no means can you claim to know the “intention” of those in charge at the time. The Constitution made the Presidency a Monarchy and the Congress an Aristocracy – as intended by those who betrayed the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionaries who gave liberty a chance. Patrick Henry refused to ratify the Constitution saying, “Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without… Read more »

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
26 days ago
Reply to  Arizona

You sound like an anonymous troll intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses, or manipulating their perception with your inflammatory, insincere, digressive, extraneous, and off-topic comment. You spout the same old narrative of endless inbred bloggers playing the telephone game with factoids and never-do-well high school dropouts who never learned how to discipline their thinking with facts or logic.

Finnky
Finnky
27 days ago

This article highlights one aspect of Saint Benitez’s genius. Don’t remember which of his rulings, but in at least one of his rulings he obliterated state argument that something (“LCM”s or “assault weapons) were not common in California. He essentially said that if something is not commonly owned, but there are indications it would be if not for long standing prohibition – then it qualifies as common. I would argue that if something is generally owned for common purposes, then it is commonly owned. A man portable ray-gun would (at least initially) be a variation of semiautomatic rifles. One trigger… Read more »

gregs
gregs
27 days ago
Reply to  Finnky

who gets to say what is common? leftists are always attempting to change the definition of words, i.e. antifa are actually fascists, and “common” is another. burning, looting, property destruction, assaults and murders are peaceful protests. need i go on. just like magazines, who gets to say what is a large capacity, and how many rounds that is? one is larger than zero. standard is what the manufacturer designs and ships with the firearm in the majority of states. progressives/leftists are afraid that they won’t be able to enforce their radical totalitarian agenda if people who are opposes to it… Read more »

Roland T. Gunner
Roland T. Gunner
27 days ago
Reply to  Finnky

If not for the NFA, every AR-15 ever manufsctured gor US sales would have included that dreadful giggle switch. Why not have it, its use is not mandatory.

Patriot Solutions
Patriot Solutions
27 days ago

You may want to watch this story roll out David because things in this county tend to have a foul odor and it is smelling like something is up because the DA who has opened the doors in the past to the jail letting the criminals out with charges dropped and he is suing the County Board and the Sheriff in two different suits which leads me to think is this something to do with the 2A sanctuary resolution that they have in this county. The Covid scam revealed that the globalist has their fingers pulling strings in this county… Read more »

Last edited 27 days ago by Patriot Solutions
Arizona
Arizona
27 days ago

SBR’s are in common use, as are submachine guns. Just like tasers, they are protected. SCOTUS ruled it so, stating 200,000 in the hands of Americans defined common use. Time to take back our right, and get rid of the NFA and every statute that attempts to regulate our right to keep and bear arms. Anything appropriate to militia use is protected per Miller, the original.

Patriot Solutions
Patriot Solutions
27 days ago
Reply to  Arizona

2A protects our arms, it is the top precedent. None other is higher, a fact the court jesters would like to ignore.

Heed the Call-up
Heed the Call-up
27 days ago
Reply to  Arizona

I was going to comment about the line, “SBRs and SBSs are sold over the counter as regular firearms.” SBRs and SBSs are regular firearms, just because our government tries to make appear to be somehow more dangerous than any other firearm and created laws to regulate them, does not change their basic characteristics. That is akin to the Clinton era ban on “assault weapons”, which arbitrarily banned certain firearms, mostly due to their being black.

Arizona
Arizona
27 days ago

Suppressors are sold over the counter too, totally in common use, millions out there. You buy it, then give it back and wait in jail for 6-14 months to take possession. All gun laws are infringements.

Patriot Solutions
Patriot Solutions
27 days ago
Reply to  Arizona

There is only one federal gun law on the books and it is 2A which is not an infringement the rest are rules which do not replace or supersede 2A therefore the rules are factually null & void.

Last edited 27 days ago by Patriot Solutions
Roland T. Gunner
Roland T. Gunner
27 days ago

Why’s it always gotta be a black thing?

Heed the Call-up
Heed the Call-up
27 days ago

I believe it is due to the nature of “gun control” having racist roots, and its being discriminatory. I can only comment on the reality of “gun control”, not on what others perceive it to be.

Orion
Orion
27 days ago

lol… wrong article.

Heed the Call-up
Heed the Call-up
27 days ago
Reply to  Orion

Yes, I see that, but my comment still fits this thread, too.

Patriot Solutions
Patriot Solutions
27 days ago

We don’t need the Vatican/Crown pedophile court jesters to tell us what 2A means.

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
26 days ago

Vulgarity, name calling, strawman claims, and personal attacks are not a substitute for civil communication, logical argument, or facts. YOU WIN THE WEASAL AWARD: For distinguished use of words and phases communicating vague or ambiguous impressions that something meaningful has been said.

Ryben Flynn
Ryben Flynn
27 days ago

I’m getting REALLY annoyed with “Awaiting for approval” on comments that are not in any way controversial.

Patriot Solutions
Patriot Solutions
27 days ago
Reply to  Ryben Flynn

They are in essence cutting off the communication because typically I won’t see my post until the next day if I even bother to go look for it so yes I agree that it is really annoying. Maybe Ammoland is our publisher…..

Last edited 27 days ago by Patriot Solutions
Ryben Flynn
Ryben Flynn
27 days ago

BTW, the comment that was in jail is below.

Ryben Flynn
Ryben Flynn
27 days ago

We better get those Star Trek Phasers up and running soon or they will be banned. /s

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
26 days ago
Reply to  Ryben Flynn

Too late. 500 watt lasers are banned federally. Stun guns are banned in many States. The staff sling, also known as the stave sling, fustibalus (Latin), fustibal (French), consists of a staff (a length of wood) with a short sling at one end. One cord of the sling is firmly attached to the stave and the other end has a loop that can slide off and release the projectile. A 320 grain projectile has a much energy as a 9mm at 300 yards. No silencer is needed because it makes less than 85 dB of noise when it launches. As… Read more »

PMinFl
PMinFl
25 days ago

go away quietly, or just go away period.

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
25 days ago
Reply to  PMinFl

You sound like an anonymous troll intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses, or manipulating their perception with your inflammatory, insincere, digressive, extraneous, and off-topic comment. Your denial, dishonesty, and deflection are indisputably incontrovertibly conspicuously crystal clear-cut. You spout the same old narrative of endless inbred bloggers playing the telephone game with factoids and never-do-well high school dropouts who never learned how to discipline their thinking with facts or logic.

Russn8r
Russn8r
25 days ago

Scharf noun: A tedious, self-contradictory, sanctimonious, hypocritical, redundant screed or ‘stream of consciousness’ relentlessly and mercilessly barfed in chatrooms from a mentally incontinent troll’s anus.

Verb examples: John Lloyd just Scharfed on Ammoland again. Idiomatic, U.S.: Take a scharf.

Synonym: Schart noun: A fully-automatic, rapidly spray-pasted scharf.