The Second Amendment: Does Anybody Understand It?

Russell shares some thoughts on the 2A’s relevance.

One hopes that Americans are prepared to address the “reconsideration” of Heller, either by this mook (following more Republican treason) or the nominees to be made by President Clinton.

TINVOWOOT, but there is also no parsing or talking our way out of this, either.



16 responses to “The Second Amendment: Does Anybody Understand It?

  1. Lost Patrol

    Ha Ha Ha. Sure they are. Uh huh. Ha Ha Ha Maybe in Maryland or Conn.

  2. Simplicity and Continuiyy!
    No ifs,and, nor buts!
    emper WTF!
    aja Gunny G

  3. Unass all the unconstitutional laws already on the books or FOAD.

    Tyrants are already downrange they just don’t believe it. Reality is gonna b a bitch.

  4. Hallelujah!
    You win the question of the century.
    Maybe the question of 235 years.
    That is the question Pete.
    Everything is tied to it.

    I hold to the truth I don’t have to understand the 2nd, though its good to know why and how it was created, they are paramount reasons why it was created in the first instance, and what matters is I don’t need the 2nd to own property, my arms, nor the use of them, defense, or the reason for using them, self determination, those are my business, that is the first thing, it was the reason for the 2nd to begin with. I do not need the government to determine these things, don’t want the government to determine these things, and it can’t determine these things. The 2nd, a great a thing as it is, does not sanction these things, those are primal things that are natural to my being born a free man. The 2nd is redundant. It is culturally rhetorical to the primacy of the human terrain which is always on top, always upstream of politics. The 2nd is a guide in a sense, that makes the 2nd a good thing in its own right. But is it essential to these things that make me free? Noooo.
    And hell no.
    And NO again!
    In no uncertain terms NO!

    We got things backwards these days. And that is no coincidence.
    It is exactly what is opposite that matters:
    The only thing that makes the 2nd the 2nd is the very thing the 2nd was designed for. That makes the 2nd secondary to what matters most. My arms are to protect and defend what the 2nd implies is the reasons and truths behind its creation, not the 2nd to protect and defend my arms. They are my arms, because they are my arms used to protect things to start with.
    My arms are to protect what the 2nd Amendment represents.

  5. Kudos for drawing upon Scott Bieser’s political cartoons. To the best of my knowledge, he’s ceased creating these (in favor of other projects, emphasis on his Web comic *Quantum Vibe*), but what he continues to keep available online has been useful as all hell.


    • Agree about Scott Bieser, but don’t discount his fictional efforts. As L. Neil Smith (who doesn’t get nearly the bandwidth around here he should, IMO) says:
      . . .
      What Libertarians lack, in their hearts & minds, what they fail to communicate to others, is a vision of the new civilization they intend creating. It may be sufficient motivation, for Libertarians, that America today, politically, economically, socially, is repulsive. It may be enough, for Libertarians, that what they propose is morally right. It is not enough for others. Most people require a fairly concrete picture of the future which will motivate them to learn what Libertarians mean by “right” & “wrong”, & inspire them to work toward its fulfillment.
      . . .
      The great tragedy is that, when Left Utopia fell into dishonor, it took all the rest with it. Shattered socialist dreams have discredited any dreams at all of a rational, humane, social order. Libertarianism was born an orphan in an age of disUtopias like Brave New World, 1984, & Eugene Zamiatin’s We. Ayn Rand wrote disUtopias, Anthem, Atlas Shrugged, We The Living, admirably showing us the dirty, bloodstained underside of collectivism’s brilliant promises. But she & others like her made too few promises of their own. She pointed out a great deal to avoid, but very little to aspire to, which, I submit, is piss-poor motivational psychology.
      . . .
      People want Utopia. They’ve watched Star Trek until the emulsion wore off the celluloid & helped Star Wars outgross World War II, because Kirk, Spock, & Luke Skywalker assure them that there is a future, one worth looking forward to, in which human beings (& other critters) will still be doing fascinating, dangerous things. Having a good time.
      . . .
      For our purposes, Utopia might just be a place where people look forward to getting up in the morning.
      . . .
      Lacking gun control to protect them, the few criminals left won’t live long enough to transmit their stupid-genes. The next century will give us a welcome look at the other side of a familiar paradox: people free to carry weapons usually don’t need them.
      . . .
      More important are the social, psychological effects of liberty. I can’t tell you what it’s like to be free, having never had a chance to try. I’d be up against the unpredictability of human action any Austrian economist or quantum physicist delights in lecturing about. Those few leftists who still believe in a static notion of how things ought to be, which they’re willing to impose at bayonet-point, work their butts off making society dull & boring. In Unanimous Consent Utopia, the one rule is that no one imposes his views on anyone else, which makes for an open-ended culture, impossible to describe in detail. There’s no single Libertarian future, but as many different futures as there are individuals to create them. For each Sunday-supplement guess I could make about who’ll take care of the street lights or paint the stripes down the middle of the road, coming generations will produce thousands of answers not even remotely similar to mine. Our future may be weird & confusing, but it’ll never be dull & boring.
      . . .
      RTWT A bit long, but it just might cheer you up a little. 🙂

      • Why do you think I keep pushing the concept of Liberty/Patriot Community’s… I can see the opportunities and possibilities…

  6. “In the past, the judge has won praise from senior Republican figures that include Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch and Chief Justice John Roberts.”

    Not what I would consider sources of glowing endorsements.

    • it’s a(nother) gun-grabbing, anti-2nd Amendment Jew. I put a comment to this effect – and other, related issues – up on the NPR thread. It took the on-duty communist censor no more than 8 minutes to notice and kill it. Fair efficiency, I’d say

  7. Alfred E. Neuman

    Reblogged this on MCS.

  8. One common misunderstanding about the 2A, indeed the rest of the Constitution, is that it is NOT a set of laws for US to obey. It is the law for our servants in Washington to obey, and for us to enforce upon them. See 1A, “Congress shall make no law…”. In the 2A, “…shall not be infringed.” Elsewhere, the people shall be secure, etc., which requires no action on the people’s part.

    O-zone actually mitched and boned about this, if you recall.

    Someone is going to pull out St. Spooner’s statement about the Constitution. I’ve seen it. Has everyone by now seen my rejoinder about the Ten Commandments?

  9. The Usual Suspect

    To have this Constitutional Serial Rapist preach to us about
    our Constitutional duty is indeed rich in irony.

  10. The frequently pedantic Cassandra (of Troy)

    Answers to Mr. Longcore’s question.:
    (2A: Ideological origins)
    (An anti-2A law prof’s opinion of the pro-2A position)
    (2A: The Framer’s Intentions)
    (Meaning of the 2A)
    (Militia: Explanation of the term)
    (Militia Act of 1792)

    (National Guard Act)
    (National Guard background)
    (Determines the National Guard to be part of formal U.S. military structure & thus NOT the 2A militia. Fun Fact: This case was started by a LEFTIST!)
    (Well regulated: Explanation of the term)
    (The People: Explanation of the term, referral courtesy of the late Neal Knox Sr.)
    (These 2 are rebuttals to the anti-2A cult’s BS line “The Founders NEVER could have forseen things like semi-automatic assault weapons/rifles”, i.e., “If that’s true then why did they create the USPO?”)

    And for those who want to go high-yield thermo-nuclear on the anti-2A cult, the following scholarly coup de grace from Prof Eugene Volokh.:

    Looks like Mr. Longcore seriously over-estimated his isolation regarding comprehension of the 2A.