Racism, Ignorance and Hypocrisy: My Confrontation With an Open Carry Activist

open-carryYesterday I decided I’d engage in a debate with a family member who supports the right for Americans to openly carry their firearms.  Normally I wouldn’t do such a thing, but to be honest I had no choice but to be around them for a couple of hours and they were annoying me.

They were going on and on about the “rights of Americans to carry guns!”  How it’s “unconstitutional” to deny Americans these rights and anyone who opposes the right to open carry hates freedom.

At first I didn’t say much – their ignorance is so embedded within them that no fact I would present was going to change their mind.  But after listening to them blather on and on for a few minutes, they finally decided to ask me what I thought about it as a “fancy politics writer.”

I paused for a moment, looked at them and asked one simple question, “What if you saw various groups of 100 or so African-Americans, Mexicans or Muslims gathered on the side of roads all over Dallas-Fort Worth with loaded AK-47’s, AR-15’s and a whole host of other semi-automatic weapon they could get their hands on, can you honestly tell me you wouldn’t feel threatened or alarmed?”

They stammered for a few seconds into a mumbling, “Uh, um…well, you know.  That’s, uh…” followed by, “Well that’s different.”

“How?” I asked.

What followed was some drivel about how open carry activists aren’t racist and the gatherings you see are composed of people of all races and genders.  Never really answering my question, I pressed it again.

“If you saw a group of 100 African-Americans standing on a street corner, all openly carrying some form of semi-automatic weapon, would you not feel threatened?  What if 1,000 Muslims gathered in “stereotypical Muslim garb” near a government building that you worked in (they don’t work in a government building, it was just a hypothetical situation) would you feel completely safe?”

Still, no real answer.  Just more of the same, “Typical liberal, trying to make it about race.”  Which is usually what someone says when they’re busted for being racist.

And while it’s true there are other races of people seen at these open carry rallies, the vast majority of those in attendance are your typical white male right-wing conservative gun nuts.

It’s the same pattern you see with conservatives on a lot of issues pertaining to “rights.”  They love going on and on about “freedoms” and “Constitutional rights,” but what they really mean is that they’re fighting for these rights for only those who they feel should have them.

When they talk about religious rights, they mean Christian.  When they talk about protecting equal rights, they mean heterosexuals.  When they talk about shrinking government, they only mean laws that are preventing them from getting away with what they want to get away with.

So when they talk about “open carry rights” they’re really only talking about those people who they feel safe around.  Because I really can’t imagine a group of rural country folk sitting in their local diner feeling at ease with a group of 30 openly armed African-Americans strolling in.

And what about our rights as Americans to feel safe when we’re out in public?  I’m sorry, but someone feeling the need to strap an AK-47 to their back to attend a Little League baseball game isn’t someone I think is mentally stable.

What the hell kind of society do these people want to create?  One where everyone’s armed, guns strapped to their backs or holstered on their hips, strolling around Pop Warner football games or local restaurants ready for a good ol’ fashion shootout if the situation calls for it?

Yeah, I don’t see any potential problems there.  None at all.  I’m sure untrained civilians would act perfectly calm and precise if some armed gunman unexpectedly happens upon whatever establishment they happen to be attending.

There’s a reason why the wild west died – society evolved.

Why not just say we should be allowed to carry grenades with us everywhere?  Wouldn’t that be an effective way to take out a “bad guy with a gun”?

But don’t tell me for a second that race still doesn’t play a huge part in all of this.  I live here.  I talk to these people.  Those who say racism isn’t an issue are either lying, gullible or don’t talk to anyone – ever.

Living in Texas I constantly see racism.  And you can’t tell me for one minute that these racist white conservatives who seem so proud of their desire to openly carry firearms would feel safe with a large group of “stereotypical urban African-Americans” walking into one of their local establishments armed to the teeth with semi-automatic weapons.

It just all goes back to a question I’ve asked before, “What is it about the gun debate that seems to render people incapable of using common sense?”

Because these open carry activists clearly aren’t using it.


Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Dave

    I’m a white male left-wing liberal gun nut, and I, for one, would LOVE seeing minorities exercising their right to bear arms. Even if you’re right about these guys being racists, you’re wrong about it not being a Constitutional right.

    • Mrs_oatmeal

      And how in the hell does that make everyone else feel safe? What happens in ” stand your ground” states when someone feels threatened because they are dealing with a ” threatening” person with a gun? What about ” life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”? Do your gun ” rights” trump my rights to not be subjected to living with people that threaten my life? Do we think if everyone were armed to the teeth we would all behave better and our lives would be more peaceful?

      • Dave

        I know my opinion is not popular, with either side. But please open your mind a little.

        It all comes down to how much you trust your fellow citizens. If you trust them to vote, you’re already trusting them with your life. Or do guns only in the hands of police, the same ones who persecuted the 99% protesters, and who regularly violate the rights of people of color, really make you feel safer?

        Unless you can magically eliminate all firearms from the world, you’re much better off trusting trusting large numbers of armed citizens to protect you, than trusting armed police thugs who don’t even claim to be able to protect you (look it up), against the rare crazy with a gun.

        These racists carrying their AR-15s on their backs aren’t really to the point of that, though. They’re protesting government restrictions, existing and proposed, that make it harder for them to exercise their Constitutional rights. It’s over the top, on purpose.

        BTW, THANK YOU Alan Clifton for intelligently saying “semi-automatic rifles” instead of “assault rifles”. You demonstrate your attention to detail over slogans, and I appreciate it.

      • Kenneth H Ransome jr

        The real issue is the NRA makes millions of $$$$ with the ‘open carry’. The NRA don’t give a F*&% about neither you nor I nor our constitutional rights but the $$$$ in their pockets. The more people who want to bear arms leads to more gun purchases which leads to more $$$$ in their pockets. I continue to be astonishingly amazed at the ‘open carry’ gun nuts’ stupidity.

      • Shelea

        Amen!!

      • Dave

        The operating budget of the non-profit NRA for 2012 was $256M. 5 million individual members, most of whom you don’t agree with. Wiki. For comparison, the non-profit AARP 2012 budget, from their annual report was $1,386,946,000, with more than 37M members. Just to give you a comparison of political clout. American Automobile Association has 50M members, with revenues about $500M. NRA is small fry, compared to a lot of other membership non-profit clubs. I happens to be a whipping-boy for the left, however.

      • Mary Beerman

        I’m not going to check your stats because it doesn’t matter to me. The NRA is not a whipping boy, it’s an extremely powerful organization that buys off politicians to get what they want, like “stand your ground” laws that help NO ONE! AARP wants to help their members have a better quality of life, the NRA just wants money and power.

      • Dave

        If you think political action is the ONLY thing NRA does, well, you haven’t done much reading. There are politics-only gun organizations, like GOA, but NRA goes all over the map in gun sports, and very much supports it’s membership’s “quality of life”. Like I said, whipping boy. Someone said “follow the money”. The NRA is much smaller than several other non-profits, both in money and membership.

      • Katrina Engel

        That’s what all us liberal weenies keep forgetting in the gun debate. Big Brother is out to get us, the NSA is watching, and the police are the enemy. But I’m confused, because I get to elect my sheriff with my so powerful vote, so why do I need to be afraid of him?

      • Travis Hughes

        Why do you need to be afraid of someone openly, casually carrying a firearm moreso than someone who does not seem to be carrying any weapon at all?

      • Mary Beerman

        “It all comes down to how much you trust your fellow citizens. If you trust them to vote, you’re already trusting them with your life.”

        This makes no sense at all. There is no “trust” in who others vote for, we only trust our own vote. And if someone, a stranger, is carrying an assault weapon, why should we trust him? We have no idea of his true intentions. Sorry, I don’t trust them, I am watching their every move if they are near me or my loved ones. They have not earned my trust.

      • Dave

        This lack of trust of fellow voters shows a paranoia that I’m glad I don’t share. Remember the famous quote from John Wayne about Jack Kennedy? “I didn’t vote for him, but he’s my President, and I hope he does a good job.” I don’t like the voting block known as the Tea Party, but I trust that the majority vote, even if it’s not how I voted, will elect someone who won’t hurt the country (or state, or city) in which they were elected. I hope my minority vote makes them think a bit.

        Likewise, I trust others who carry weapons, until they prove otherwise. Taking my CCW classes, and many hours of additional training, I met a LOT of responsible gun owners. Asking the instructor, who is an active police instructor, he said that vanishingly few of his civilian students would he consider irresponsible. And to those he denies CCW certification.

      • Mary Beerman

        It’s not paranoia to distrust other voters. You mentioned the tea baggers and there is no way I trust them! They are uneducated, simple-minded and you want to talk about paranoid!! They will believe any conspiracy that comes out, no matter how bizarre or foolish, as long as it is something bad about President Obama. They don’t bother to fact check, they just spread the stupidity farther.

        And good for your one instructor who denies certification. There are a dozen more that will, so it doesn’t matter. My husband is a responsible gun owner, but he doesn’t have to strap a rifle to his back to go to Starbucks. Other countries are laughing at us and think we have all gone insane.

      • jd

        And the “Tea-Baggers” don’t trust you either, since you are obviously paranoid and bigoted.

      • Marlon

        Not every fight should potentially be a gun fight. I do not trust my fellow citizens to be a decent shot. Not every gun owner perfects their aim and relies on proper training to guide their response to a threat. I’m near sighted and jumpy on my third cup of coffee. Do you really want me shooting back at the bad guy if you are anywhere within 4 blocks? Thankfully perhaps, I’m an unarmed, and guess what: I’ve never run across a situation that would have been improved if I had a weapon. Let’s do this: how about open carry if you take the same hours of weapons training as it takes to, say, obtain a bartender’s license?

      • Shadow8088

        any gun owner that doesn’t practice with it, shouldn’t be carrying it… Most of us have more trigger time at the range than most law enforcement officers…

      • Marlon

        Can we mandate then that people wishing to open carry have more training than law enforcement? It would help my peace of mind.

      • Shadow8088

        I suspect that even that wouldn’t help your peace of mind. Forcing people to exceed the minimum required training for law enforcement just to be able to carry a firearm openly (but not concealed) is just plain silly IMHO…

      • Marlon

        Well then, just as you should treat any gun as loaded for safety purposes, I will treat any person openly carrying a firearm as an potential imbecile who may or may not know how to properly load or shoot a weapon since there is nothing to indicate they know what they are doing.

      • Shadow8088

        You can say the exact same thing about cars… Or forks… Or pretty much anything…

      • Mary Beerman

        True, about cars. But they are licensed, regulated, inspected, insured, etc. Let’s have the same for guns! And also have the gun owner re-licensed as drivers have to be. And when someone is drunk and has their license taken away for a time or they are put in jail, same goes for the gun owner. If found drunk with a gun or rifle on their person, it gets confiscated. Agree?

      • Shadow8088

        Disagree… driving a car wasn’t listed as a right… owning a firearm was….

      • Mary Beerman

        Actually, it’s a right to “bear arms”, not to OWN them. And it’s also for a WELL-REGULATED militia, not these morons in the Home Depot parking lot who are anything but! Oh, and cars weren’t even invented back then……just like the assault weapons of today. Too bad our founding fathers couldn’t foresee what the future would bring.

      • Shadow8088

        Look, you want me to say that I think these morons walking around with long guns strapped to their backs are wrong? I’ll say it. They are. There is no reason for people to walk around with loaded rifles in public places. You want me to say that people walking around with a firearm on their hip in a holster? That’s where we’re gonna disagree. They have every right (as per their state’s laws and regulations) to do so. Technically, the guys carrying rifles aren’t breaking any laws either. It’s just usually frowned on by others as it’s usually just for attention.

      • Mary Beerman

        I appreciate that you at least partially agree. Still, even with state regs there are plenty of hotheads out there that should not be carrying. Anyone that kills a man for texting in a theater, or kills for playing loud music, or for wearing a hoodie while black, etc. These people should not be allowed to carry guns on their person. But how do we regulate that? Something better than what is being done now has to be done, and fast. Too much carnage in this country.

      • Shadow8088

        well, to be fair, they’re not.. with the exception of the guy that they tried to get on murder 1 and failed… (they probably would have gotten him on murder 2)

        And that “carnage” you speak of has been on a steady decline for 20 years now… We just get to hear about it a lot more. Like MSN showing the shooting statistics for Chicago… a gang ridden town with a severe poverty issue… also with the most stringent gun control (until recently) laws in the country.. and they haven’t helped one bit… not even a little… figured out why yet? Laws only affect the law abiding.

        The news outlets find hot-button topics, blow their dog whistles, and rake in the cash.. They have to have SOMETHING to fill the 24hr news stream. Feel good stories don’t draw the crowds, but you throw something out there that really gets under peoples’ skin and you’ve got a gold mine.

      • Mary Beerman

        Take for instance, road rage incidents. If one of the hotheads has a gun, someone will probably die. It happened in my area recently. One guy punched the other so he was shot dead. No reason for that. Death does not equal a black eye.

        As for new laws, the NRA fights every idea that is brought up. My state wants to pass a law that a “law abiding” gun buyer/owner has to report lost or stolen guns. No, says the NRA. So anyone can buy some guns and “lose” them and make some money on the side. Nice side job. Close this loophole and that will keep some of those guns off the street that don’t belong there.

      • Shadow8088

        You should look up how many people have DIED from one, single, punch… The guy that got punched had every right in the world to defend himself… whether by gun, knife, or two by four…

        So what you’re saying is… people are breaking the law by selling guns they “lost”… and a law will fix that?

      • Mary Beerman

        Yes, you can only “lose” so many before you look suspicious. Especially when those guns turn up at crime scenes.

      • Shadow8088

        I think you missed my point. People that are already breaking a law, are going to follow another law to stop them from breaking the law they’re already breaking?

      • Sue Roediger

        the Founding Fathers can be forgiven for not anticipating the need to specify cars or cell phones in their writings.
        They didn’t mention semi-automatic weapons or tasers either.

      • Shadow8088

        well, then they can be forgiven for not anticipating anything other than a musket…

      • Sue Roediger

        I used to be really anti-gun, until I saw a documentary on the rise of the Nazi’s. The first thing Hitler did was take away guns from the common people.
        However I support background checks, felons should not be allowed own guns, perhaps after a period of probations where they are crime free. Certain class of mental illness should be restricted, perhaps not for life but after an evaluation. Law abiding citizens should most likely not be restricted but should demonstrate completion of a safety course, and a safe handling qualification. Before purchase, you can’t but a car without a license, and registration. I shouldn’t be able to go to a gun shop or a gun show — and just get me a gun because I don’t know the first thing about it — accept to ALWAYS consider a gun to be loaded.
        I agree they there could be a reason to resist rogue vigilantes, or even a band of military bent on a coup.— imagine if the Jews had been armed when the Gestapo came for them …………….

      • Michael Brian Woywood

        Sue, the assertion that Hitler took guns away from the common people is simply untrue. Hitler’s government relaxed post WWI gun restrictions on everyone but certain oppressed groups – like the Jews. And the argument that somehow armed Jews would have made that point in history any less bloody is a bit ridiculous. Stalin’s Red Army lost 7 million soldiers fighting the Germans in WWII, and they had the full might of the combined Soviet military. Jews in a ghetto armed with pistols and rifles wouldn’t have made a dent.

        Iraq under Saddam Hussein had a fully-armed populace. Most households had multiple guns – which is why we had such a damn hard time when we occupied. Yet, with all those guns, they still lived under a brutal regime for decades. Why? Because Saddam had more guns, and he controlled the media.

        I don’t care if you want to keep a gun in your home to protect your property; that is your clearly defined right in the Constitution. But, I care deeply if you bring that gun with you out in public, to places where I bring my sons. As a veteran of Ramadi in OIF, I find your eagerness to use lethal force on American soil disturbing. I do not want my sons to live in a world where might means right, and I do not want to be concerned for my safety because you think that your right to carry a rifle into a restaurant trumps my right to eat dinner without watching your trigger finger for signs of itching.

        Freedom of the press protects democracy. Freedom of speech protects democracy. Freedom of religion protects democracy. Freedom to shoot people who you think threaten you only protects your sense of safety, not American freedom.

      • Sue Roediger

        I think I was unclear. I don’t have a gun… I don’t trust my self. I have a bad temper. As it is now I might throw a spoon, or maybe a chair. If I had a weapon and was really pissed off ….I don’t know what I might do.
        I think if people are walking around armed………….one will pullout his gun thinking he will have the edge – then imagine his surprise when the other guy pulls out his piece too. It would mean a return to the old days of the duel. I don’t like open carry except military and law enforcement. Concealed carry is different for qualified people, only though. Most amateurs usually end up with the bad guy taking the gun away and shooting them with it. I don’t want to see just anyone walking around with a AK47 sung over their shoulder….it’s creepy.

      • jd

        So, since you have serious impulse control issue, the rest of us lose a right…… nice….

      • Sue Roediger

        well I am hardly the only one.
        Actually I have pretty good impulse control, having been a teacher for over 20 years, some of them middle school students – and NEVER giving in to the impulse to knock a kid down. You know there are many dudes out there who ought not have a weapon strapped on ………………….you really want just any schmuck to have a gun, in Target or wherever?

      • Travis Hughes

        “Jews in a ghetto armed with pistols and rifles wouldn’t have made a dent.”

        Oh, you mean like the lack of a dent the French Resistance made?

      • Shadow8088

        There’s actually 4 rules for safe gun handling.

        1.) Every gun is always loaded.
        2.) Never let the barrel cover something that you are not willing to destroy. (Muzzle discipline)
        3.) Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.
        4.) Know your target, and what is behind it.

        As for the training? Many of us have been trained since childhood on the safe handling and shooting of firearms. If you want to get firearm safety training, be my guest. It’s expensive and not required by law. Until that changes, we have nothing to discuss.

        I’ve been around guns since I was a baby. I’ve always known where my father kept his guns and because I knew about them and had handled them under supervision, I wasn’t curious enough to go search them out when my Dad wasn’t looking. I mean, we all know how well preaching abstinence has helped avert teen pregnancy…

        When I buy a firearm, I go through a NICS background check. Yes, face to face sales exist. And yes, some sellers don’t follow the rules (or are lied to by the buyer), but every classified I’ve read, the seller asks for a drivers license (to prove residency) and a LTCH (License To Carry Firearm – To prove background check) Perhaps if the NICS were available for private sellers that would alleviate that issue, but no one wants to discuss that part.. they just scream for background checks and gun show loopholes as they were trained to do…

      • Travis Hughes

        Cars didn’t exist when the Constitution was written. You know a freedom the Constitution DOES give us, though? The freedom to movement between states unimpeded. One could argue that requirements for licensing, insuring, etc infringes upon that freedom.

      • Shadow8088

        No, you really can’t argue that. You could do that if you had to have a special license in each state to drive through them… but, unlike concealed carry permits, and Licenses to carry handgun, Driver’s Licenses have universal reciprocation provided that you’re still a resident of the originating state.

      • Kristina Anderson

        the definition of defensive driving is to be prepared for other bad drivers to make mistakes… So unless everyone carries their weapon armed and aimed at the “bad guy”, there is the potential for fatal mistakes… and I hope I’m not shopping/eating/watching a movie/at a bar/at church/etc… at that open carry place…

      • Shadow8088

        If you choose to avoid places that allow open carry, or people that open carry, you are perfectly within your rights, and so are they provided that they’re following the laws.

      • Marlon

        I had a cousin that once got hit by a stray bullet fired from a half mile away. Try that with a fork.

      • JD

        Because random injuries never would occur without firearms….. pathetic…

      • Marlon

        Oh, go buy a puppy.

      • Travis Hughes

        And I have two friends who were both struck by lightning. You want to argue chance through anecdotes?

      • Travis Hughes

        You know you’re more likely to die in a car accident than to be killed by a person with a gun, right? The difference is STAGGERING: 10.8 deaths per 100,000 for motor vehicle fatalities compared to 3.6 per 100,000 for firearms.

      • Mary Beerman

        And also that they are mentally evaluated at least once a year!

      • jd

        Can we then have you mentally evaluated before you post on public forums and spew ignorance and fear?

      • Mrs D

        Sure you can, as soon as you prove that her WORDS are of a danger to me or you, like a gun most definitely is.

      • Kristina Anderson

        AND there it is… the word “mandate” is exactly what those “My rights shall NOT be infringed” gun owners are shouting about… They object to ANYTHING that remotely even sounds like a restriction, even it is just about safety…

      • JD

        And why should they allow you to infringe on rights for the sake of “safety”? Would you allow the freedom of speech to be restricted in the name of safety? Speech causing riots in Harlem should be restricted and anyone caught making race baiting speeches should be imprisoned. How about your 4th amendment rights? Can they be restricted so that the police can wantonly search anyone they choose to ensure public safety? Would this be right? How far are you willing to go in the name of safety?

      • Kristina Anderson

        yelling Fire in a crowded theater is illegal, as is yelling bomb in an airport…. All rights come with limits and responsibilities… Should the right to bear arms be exempt? No age limits, no training, nothing?

      • Travis Hughes

        I support gun rights and oppose unreasonable gun bans, but I also think that all gun owners should be required to be licensed, that in order to get the license they should be required to pass firearms safety training and marksmanship training, and that said license must be renewed on a regular basis by passing those tests again. I also believe that all firearms should be registered.

        I do not believe that this infringes upon the 2nd Amendment in any way. The only people who this would be affecting are people who are *unwilling* to go through the steps to be licensed.

      • JD

        Your piece of mind is completely irrelevant. I am not here to assuage your fears. Your cowardice and ignorance will not impact my rights.

      • Dave

        I haven’t been in a “fight” in my adult life. Have you?

      • Marlon

        I live in Chicago, and I play music in dive bars. I have occasionally witnessed over-served patrons not acting on their best behavior.

      • mikep

        If it comes down to trusting yourfellow citizens… which it sounds like you are saying we should do…why do we need to be armed? I mean if we trust our neighbors enough to open carry, shouldn’t we trust them to not assault us in the first place?

      • Dave

        There are always a small minority of crazies out there, or people with bad intentions, and they have access to guns, whether we make laws against that or not–witness NYC and Chicago gun crime stats–places where firearms are just about forbidden.

        These demonstrators are not the crazy bad guys. Evident by the fact that there have been NO bloodbaths with them. People who openly carry guns are generally very peaceful, since they’re on display.

      • Paul Martin Armstrong

        Gun violence in NYC has been declining since the 1990’s. What are the statistics per capita across America? Also the gun violence in and around Chicago is mainly due to poverty and the lax gun laws in neighboring states. Here are 2 statistics I wish you to discuss. America has more guns than any other nation and the fact that America has more gun deaths than any other nation. Or is that just coincidental?

        Per Capita Annual Gun Death Rate (per 100,000 population):

        Highest: Louisiana (19.04, 45.6% households contain guns)

        #25: Pennsylvania (10.90)

        Lowest: CT, NY, New Jersey (4.99), RI, MA, Hawaii (2.20)

        National: (10.32)

        Source: Centers for Disease Control

      • Shadow8088

        Well since my last post appears to have been adminned away, I’ll paraphrase it for you…

        Gun crime is down in the last 20 years despite gun ownership rising. Like.. by as much as 50%. Since I’m not allowed to link the web page that makes these claims, you’ll have to go take your own look. CNN posted an article called “Study: Gun homicides, violence down sharply in past 20 years.” Forbes also put out an article from may 2013 called “Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet.” I doubt any of you will actually go read them as they don’t support your side of the argument, but it doesn’t make them any less poignant.

      • walnutosage

        Homicides went up 20% in Missouri when background checks were done away with this past year.

      • Shadow8088

        Did I say ANYTHING that said we should do away with background checks? anywhere? Take a look, and get back to me.. Know what? I’ll save you the trouble.. I never said anything about removing background checks.. That’s just asinine…

      • Chadlius

        Paul good points, however it is not to the neighboring states to which gun runners have to travel it is just to the neighboring county or potentially anywhere outside the city of Chicago. The same thing holds for D.C. a half hour of driving gets you beyond the local laws. Not likely to be very successful when a bicycle could get you there in an afternoon.

      • Charles Vincent

        Your statistics are irrelevant as they show no time frame for context learn to use statistics properly.

      • Travis Hughes

        ALL violence in the United States, including gun violence, is on the decline.

        And don’t use ‘Gun Death Rate’ when talking about ‘violence’ because those numbers include individual suicide and accidental deaths. We don’t include suicides or accidental deaths in drowning murder statistics, now do we?

      • Loraine Lawson

        Statistics do not support this line of reasoning, given that injuries rise when guns are present and there are lax gun laws.

      • Dave

        Show me those statistics, please, from someone other than those with a stated goal of eliminating gun rights. As far as I understand the statistics, it’s quite opposite.

      • Sue Roediger

        two guy argue in a parking lot over who blocked who in their bad parking. If they are unarmed they may duke it out — if they have guns – in their heated emotions – shooting will likely ensue.

      • jd

        And there again is your lack of self control showing through. Because you would use the firearm inappropriately, you believe that everyone else lacks proper self control. Now who is paranoid here?

      • gian keys flat mom

        the potential exists more than U want to admit. ergo your attack upon sue R is typically regressive and nugatory

      • Chomper Lomper Tawee

        If you trust your fellow citizens why do you need guns?

      • Dave

        That’s a valid point. I clearly don’t trust ALL people. The trouble is, you can’t tell who the very rare people are that intend to do you harm. These open-carry 2nd Amendment demonstrators are not the guys I’d worry about, though clearly the point of the article is they are somehow as dangerous as rapists, robbers, carjackers, hold-up men, and muggers. I don’t agree.

        From what I’ve seen in my 51 years, gun everyday gun enthusiasts, even those demonstrators, are the good guys, when it comes to directed criminal violence.

        The point I was trying to make is that gun owners are a HUGE minority of Americans, as much as 39% of Americans. It’s one thing to disagree with them, but to demonize them, distrust them to do more than vote a way you don’t like, and try to restrict their rights, as a group, well, don’t you see anything wrong with that, American?

      • Travis Hughes

        If you trust your fellow citizens, why are you afraid of them carrying guns?

      • Chomper Lomper Tawee

        I don’t trust all my fellow citizens…..

      • Matthew Reece

        “Do we think if everyone were armed to the teeth we would all behave better and our lives would be more peaceful?”
        Nuclear weapons have done this to governments by making the cost of aggression beyond a certain point far too high. I imagine that proliferation of guns would cause a similar effect among individuals, without the world-destroying, species-ending risk of nuclear weapons.

      • JD

        Since when did you gain the right to “Feel Safe”? Your right to “Feel Safe”, now trumps my actual rights, codified in the Second Amendment….

      • Travis Hughes

        If you have problems feeling safe around people who are openly armed, why aren’t you just terrified ALL THE TIME and thus permanently locked in your house? That guy over there might be a serial killer who likes to kill people with tire irons. The lady across the street might kill you with her gardening trowel. The man you bumped into at the library might decide to kill you with his bare hands.

        OH, but none of them are as likely to kill you as your best friend or someone in your family… so you better just live alone and lock your doors 8 times.

    • Chris Harrell

      This has already been attempted. They were called the Black Panthers, and were part of the reason Ronald Reagan supported gun control. It resulted in many BPs being assassinated by the police, or sent to prison for decades on trumped up charges.

  • Marilyn Olsen Scheffler

    Amen!!

  • Tothiwim

    Sometimes it’s hard to pick out the mentally defective in a crowd. At least open carry makes that a lot easier.

    • Travis Hughes

      Wow. So people who have opinions that don’t mesh with your own are ‘mentally defective.’ Wow. Nice to meet you, Bigot.

    • Matt Redman

      Dat tolerance.

  • Jerry Graybosch

    All rights come with limits and responsibilities. The right to bear arms has always been subject to certain common sense limitations. Even in the “wild west” guns were often checked at the city limits. This effort by extremists to throw it in our face is an over-reaction to an imaginary threat (that they will be disarmed) nurtured by the gun industry and the NRA.

    • srsmith56

      Amendment II

      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.

      • korhal

        Eeeeeexactly. Well-regulated, not the bullshit we have going on right now.

      • gun owner using FACTS

        The PEOPLE in the 1st amendment are the SAME PEOPLE in the 2nd amendment and what part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do you not understand. If you do not accept the PEOPLE to have this right then they do not have the right to free speech or any other right in the 1st amendment. The 2nd Amendment protects our 1st Amendment rights.

      • worrierking

        The right to free speech is not absolute. Neither are the right to counsel, the right to peaceful assembly and the right to a speedy trial. All of these other freedoms have been abridged and limited recently and these limitations have been supported by the very same people who want everyone to carry guns.

      • Max

        what part of WELL REGULATED do you not understand

      • Charles Vincent

        Well regulated mean how the militia is to be trained and organized it doesn’t mean anything when it comes to private citizens going about daily affairs.

      • julianenglish

        It is not at all clear that the ammendnent means people have any right to privately owb gins. Taken in context, it might mean only that people can “keep” as in store, hold on to, etc. arms that have been issued by the govt for use in militia service.

      • tedthornton

        Not at all clear, eh? How long ago was Heller issued? You’re inexcusably behind in your reading. The matter is long settled law (how I am grateful to Obama’s apologists for that phrase). Why are facts bad? Why do you not like them? Have facts harmed you in some way?

      • julianenglish

        Thanks, Ted, for your helpful comments. I’m a great fan of facts. Don’t know why you would think otherwise. Regarding my reading on this subject, i have to confess that i have many interests and cannot be an expert on all of them. Truth be told, I rarely join in online debates about matters within my realm of expertise. Usually, as i’m sure you’ll agree, the level of discussion online is somewhat short of professional or expert, so i’d just as soon conduct professional discussions among other professionals in the field. There are only two ways to participate when one intentionally seeks out udiscussants who they believe to be inferior to themselves: (1) try to gently educate those who really want to learn, or (2) do what you do, which is insult and belittle others, attempting to impress them with your superior knowledge. I find both options boring, frankly. So, i prefer to join in discussions with people who are neither insufferable bores who think they are geniuses among fools, nor actual fools who have nothing interesting to add to the debate. No matter how you try, though, there is always at least one blowhard in every crowd. Regarding this being a settled issue, it is settled neither historically nor legally. The law is fluid. Plessy v Fergusson was settled law until Brown v Board, etc.

      • chedd

        I’ve read Heller, Ted, and note that in his majority opinion, Scalia was careful to say that like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not
        a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner
        whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons
        prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. Prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally
        ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
        such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions
        and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms are all ok. This means that, if Congress can summon the guts to do so, any requirement that you register your weapons or undergo a background check are fine constitutionally.

      • julianenglish

        Well said, Chedd.

      • Charles Vincent

        Read DC v Heller and federalist 29 and 42 the second amendment clearly denotes individual owner ship and use of arms.

      • l dean

        Why aren’t you responding to the questions asked, Charles? or responding to your opponents statements? … IMHO, instructing the person you disagree to “go read” the constitution etc. is ineffective as an argument tool. It is a negation that serves no purpose if you want to convince those of us “listening in” that you are right.

      • Charles Vincent

        Well I wasn’t responding because I was out running errands. Second I am not in the business of doing someone else’s leg work. Secondly I already posted the appropriate portions concerning well regulated and how it pertains to training on this thread so stop being lazy and scroll the thread until you find it. I told you where to look go look.

      • RealAmericanPatriot

        There goes Charles citing a single ruling that broke from centuries of precedent.

        You keep telling yourself this Charles.

        No one else buys it but you seem to do a very good job convincing yourself.

        Once again you dishonestly cite federalist 42 even though you have been corrected by JullianEnglish and have previously acknowledged that you cited it incorrectly.

        You are just a bold faced liar Charles.

        Do you have any integrity anywhere in your life? Wow!!

      • Charles Vincent

        “Once again you dishonestly cite federalist 42 even though you have been
        corrected by JullianEnglish and have previously acknowledged that you
        cited it incorrectly.”

        Strawman that was the post he corrected.

        “There goes Charles citing a single ruling that broke from centuries of precedent.”

        actually if you knew your ass from a hole in the ground you would have know that it isn’t a break from precedent.

        the militia act of 1792 confirms that the 2nd amendment is an individual right as does DC v Heller .

        (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

        (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

        (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

        (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

      • RealAmericanPatriot

        Your arguments will never convince a rational person. Your bias and resulting intellectual dishonesty show your arguments to be seriously flawed.

      • Charles Vincent

        Says the troll.

      • RealAmericanPatriot

        Is that an example of the intellect you were bragging that you had.

        I told you already little ignorant liar. You are dismissed. Really…. run along.

      • Charles Vincent

        Yeah I think I will keep slamming you with facts Chief.
        You’re the only willfully ignorant person here.

      • JohnFMayer

        There’s absolutely no basis for assuming that only members of a militia can possess guns; it only makes the point that when we need to form a militia it would be good if the citizenry knew how to use firearms. Considering the time when it was written it would have been preposterous to have been suggesting disarming everyone who wasn’t a militiaman. It’s clear that was not the intent. Citizens needed their guns; some still do.

      • Every American citizen is a member of the ‘militia’ as it was always intended to be defined, so really…there is a basis. The point is being obfuscated by liberals with no idea what a militia is.

      • Spicy Ray Swinehart-Patrick

        Exactly. What is the militia? it is “the whole people”

      • RealAmericanPatriot

        Not according to Article 1 sec 8 and Article 2 sec 2.

      • RealAmericanPatriot

        You fail to consider Article 1 section 8 and article 2 section 2 which clearly define Militia differently. Your selective picking and choosing is intellectually dishonest.

      • RealAmericanPatriot

        Yes there is, the entire sentence in the 2nd Amendment is exactly the basis.

      • So…”the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is not at all clear???? I think you need to clean your glasses, because…that’s pretty damn clear.

      • julianenglish

        “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is indeed clear. But those little dots, or ellipses, that precede “the” are a linguistic sign post that we can’t ignore. Ellipse, from the ancient Greek, signifies something has been omitted. In this case, the entire first half of the amendment is missing. This is very important, because it qualifies the second half of the amendment that you quote. It reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…” If you read the entire amendment as written, you’ll see that only by an extreem distortion of logic can one conclude that there is an unqualified right to the private ownership of guns conferred by the constitution. When i said the issue was unclear, I was being generous. The intent is perfectly clear, except to the intellectually dishonest and mentally deficient. The only thing that remains unclear is which of these are you?

      • Well, THAT was certainly childish and sophomoric. But it fits the liberal template, so whatever. In any case, since the Constitution was written and approved by our Founding Fathers, I’ll let them speak to the plainness of the Second Amendment, and let you liberals continue to obfuscate and overcomplicate the dirt-simple…because you think that’s smart, or something. “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
        – Thomas Jefferson
        “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
        – Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

        “A free people ought to be armed.”
        – George Washington

        “The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
        – Thomas Jefferson

        “Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense.”
        – John Adams

        “I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians.”
        – George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

        “The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
        – Noah Webster

        “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
        – Richard Henry Lee

        “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
        – Patrick Henry

        “The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
        – Samuel Adams

      • julianenglish

        I’m sorry you were not amused by my attempt at humor. You tea baggers do tend to be s rather humorless lot.

        The bulk of my post — which you ignored — is a serious critique that stands unscathed by your list of quotes. I don’t know what 2nd Amendment worship site you cut and pasted it from, but it”s good stuff. I’ll bet at least half would still support your position if put back into their original context. What you dont mention is the federalist papers, the single most authoritative source for undrrstanding the intent of those who drafted the constitution and bill of rights. Interestingly enough, earlier in this thread another second half of the second amendment fan did cite the federalist papers, numbers 25 and 29, in support of your interpretation. Funny thing, though. A moderately close reading demonstrated both to argue just the opposite. It’s one thing to post pithy quotes, but another thing entirely to understand what they mean.

      • “Tea baggers”…wow, that’s original. Did you come up with that by yourself? No, you did not. Liberals don’t have original ideas…just regurgitate talking points from idiots higher up the chain. I never expected you to accept facts; liberals never do. They accept nothing but their own counsel, from their own warped minds. It’s obvious you fancy yourself ‘enlightened’ or some sort of ‘intellectual’. Many of you buffoons do. You illustrate nothing, however, but a grasp of a few five dollar words, and your ability to completely, totally, inconceivably miss the point. Why? Because you complicate the simple. You MUST find more in a small sentence than is there. There just MUST be something to this sentence that you can mine for your own warped outlook. There is not, unless you can talk and talk and talk and wordsmith and obfuscate and belittle and shout down. It’s what you do. So you go on pretending that you know something about this…which you clearly do not, you keep on ignoring the simple staring you directly in the face, shaking its’ head in incredulity at the bald faced attempts at some sort of intellectual dishonesty, and I’ll leave you to it. Because I will not have a battle of wits with someone only half armed. Good day.

      • julianenglish

        Wow, man. Get a life. That is a lot of verbiage to waste on a guy you don’t know and presumbly don’t give a s**t about. Sorry i got you panties all in a twist.

      • Browncoats

        Pseudo Intellectual progressives…you pin them down and they always “That’s not what my professor said…” Your buddy Karl wasn’t born when the 2nd Amendment was written, ergo his Collectivism was not the prevalent disease that it is our current society, promulgated by troglodyte pseudo intellectuals college professors, who’s biggest claim to fame is they smoked dope in the 60’s and protested Vietnam. It isn’t a collective right, it is an individual right. The Supreme Court has upheld that it is an individual right. You guys had your turn the last 100 years and did a pretty good job of selling us all back into to slavery. Our turn now!

      • Tim Anderson

        Jason…you fail to equate a gun that fires two rounds per minute, during the time of the Founding Fathers, vs a gun that can fire 5 bullets a second today. The Bill of Rights has been amended over and over…and I think it’s clear that we need to rewrite the 2nd amendment to read, “The rights of those in the Armed Forces, Police, Fire Depts, and licensed security firms necessary to insure safety, the right of those individuals to own a fire arm shall not be infringed. All others who wish to own a firearm must pass a test, pay for insurance, and risk losing the right to own a fire arm if you accidentally let a child injury someone.”

      • Charles Vincent

        Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just asthe First Amendment protects modern forms of nmcommunications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), 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.

        Justice Scalia
        United States Supreme Court
        District of Columbia v. Heller – 07-290 (2008)

      • Tim Anderson

        The sheer power of the weapons goes far beyond the simple technological difference between a town crier and a radio or television. And with the 4th amendment you’re still supposed to through proper channels to obtain warrants for information regardless of the device. But that’s why I said rewrite the 2nd amendment…we realized we’d made a mistake when it came to prohibition…we’ve made a horrible mistake when it comes to military style rifles with huge magazines…we rarely charge adult owners of guns used to accidentally kill children by children because prosecutors figure the family has suffered enough. I know we’ll never get rid of guns…but we could pass laws that demand responsibility.

      • Charles Vincent

        It wouldn’t matter the natural right of defense isn’t given by the constitution, its only enumerated as being important. And if the 2a can be rewritten so can all the other rights you really want to go down that road? Laws dont promote responsibility, education does and so does keeping the government out of this sort of thing.

      • Tim Anderson

        The natural right of defense…I never heard that…using your “technology” logic, then anything goes? A bullet laced with plutonium? I sure hope that’s not your idea of frivolous. BTW, if the entire country wants to rewrite the Constitution…then it’s the people’s will…shouldn’t that be the bottom line in any government..the people deciding?

      • Charles Vincent

        Google Lord Blackstone or John Locke. And then take a look at the declaration of independence.

        http://scholarship DOT kentlaw DOT iit DOT edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3292&context=cklawreview

        “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
        that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
        that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–”

        Notice the term Unalienable rights.
        http://dictionary DOT reference DOT com/browse/Unalienable?&o=100074&s=t

        inalienable
        in·al·ien·a·ble [in-eyl-yuh-nuh-buhl, -ey-lee-uh-]
        adjective
        not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights.

        “I never heard that…using your “technology” logic, then anything goes?”

        Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), 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.

        Justice Scalia
        United States Supreme Court
        District of Columbia v. Heller – 07-290 (2008)

        BTW, if the entire country wants to rewrite the Constitution…then it’s the people’s will…shouldn’t that be the bottom line in any government..the people deciding?
        Yes it is but be prepared to lose more than the second amendment when you travel that road, and I would wager that you couldn’t get 3/4 of the states to ratify any changes to the second amendment nor any other amendments.

      • Browncoats

        In the latter half of the 20th century there was considerable debate over whether the Second Amendment protected an individual right or a collective right. The debate centered on whether the prefatory clause (“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State”) declared the amendment’s only purpose or merely announced a purpose to introduce the operative clause (“the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall
        not be infringed”).

        Three basic competing models were offered to interpret the Second Amendment: The first, known as the “states’ rights” or “collective right” model, holds that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals; rather, it recognizes the right of each state to arm its militia.

        Judicial reluctance to consider seriously whether the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms from state infringement perhaps reflects a tendency to view the Second Amendment,
        with its apparent guarantee of gun ownership, as embarrassing and politically incorrect. Under the twentieth-century “State’s rights” view, “the people” have no right to keep or bear arms, but the states
        have a collective right to have the National Guard.

        The second, known as the “sophisticated collective right model”, holds that the Second Amendment recognizes some limited individual right. However, this individual right could only be exercised by actively participating members of a functioning, organized state militia.

        Indeed, the fact that the collective right theory was once so confidently advanced by gun control enthusiasts is on its way down the collective memory hole as though it had never been asserted. With its
        demise, the intellectual debate over the original meaning of the second Amendment has turned in a different direction. Although now conceding that the right to keep and bear arms indeed belongs to individuals rather than to states, almost without missing a beat, gun control enthusiasts now claim with equal assurance that the individual right to
        bear arms was somehow “conditioned” in its exercise on participation in an organized militia.

        The third, known as the “standard model”, is that the Second Amendment recognized the personal right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

        However, the weight of serious scholarship supports the historical intent of the Second Amendment to protect individual rights and to deter governmental tyranny. From the Federalist Papers to explanations when the Bill of Rights was introduced, it is clear that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect individual rights.

        Under both of the collective right models, the opening phrase was considered essential as a pre-condition for the main clause These interpretations held that this was a grammar structure that was common during that era
        and that this grammar dictated that the Second Amendment protected a collective right to firearms to the extent necessary for militia duty.

        Under the standard model, the opening phrase is believed to be prefatory or amplifying to the operative clause. The opening phrase was
        meant as a non-exclusive example—one of many reasons for the amendment. This interpretation is consistent with the position that the Second Amendment protects a modified individual right.
        The question of a collective right versus an individual right was progressively resolved with the Fifth Circuit ruling in United States v. Emerson (2001), along with the Supreme Court’s rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago (2010). These rulings upheld the individual rights model when interpreting the Second Amendment. In Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. Although the Second Amendment is the only Constitutional amendment with a prefatory clause, such constructions were widely used elsewhere. (Thanks wikipedia)

        Finally as Karl Marx and Collective rights was not a current philosophy at the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment (Karl Marx, born 1918) the thought of societal Collective Rights at the writing of the Constitution was highly unlikely. The Collective Rights position is yet another case of Marxist Socialist trying to re-write the actual history in order to justify government over reach.

      • Spicy Ray Swinehart-Patrick

        Anyone who wonders what the founding fathers meant, here are some quotes: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”- Thomas Jefferson
        “A free people ought to be armed.”
        – George Washington

        “I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians.”
        – George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

        “Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense.”
        – John Adams

        “To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.”
        – George Mason

      • julianenglish

        And yet, there is still doubt to be found, written in the founder’s own hands, that an unfettered, unlimited right was intended. The most obvious text that casts doubt on their intent is the second amendment itself. Why would James Madison include the first clause, explaining, qualifying, and limiting the final clause if he did not intend for us to pay any attention to it?

        Or consider Thomas Jefferson, who is selectively quoted above. In point of fact, he wrote very little about guns. It certainly was not considered by him to be an especially inportant issue among all the constitutional issues he had to consider. One of the few times he mentions them is found in his drafts of Virginia”s constitution. Although this language was not ultimately adopted in the final version, his his second and third drafts contained this: “No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands and tenements].” As you can see, it certainly not a ringing endorsement of uregulated gun ownershit.

        Or this, by Geoge Washington.: “a free people ought not only be armed, but diciplined; to which end, a regulated and well digested plan is requisite.”

        The fact is, there was dissent among the framers of the constitution. They didn’t differ, by much, from their counterparts today. On one side, what might be called “classical republicans,” among whom was James Madison. This faction saw gun onwerdhip as more of a collective right, conditional upon its civic value as in militia service. The were more concerned with creating a robust, stable union. They leaned toward emphasizing the signigicance of the first clause, as though failure to include such a cause would not simply be a benign ommission, but a dangerous one. One the other side, what we might call “proto Jeffersonians.hough he spoke little of guns, TJ’s vision was of an aggrarian nation, rather loosly bound, a concept that lends itself to private the private ownerdhip view. Citizen- soldier- legislator would serve in the state regulated milita as needed, they would serve in the legislature when called, but in the end, they would return to their homes and largely independent lives, their guns were entirely the own unless or until they are called upon again.

        Neither view is without merit. So, how does one decide? The Heller decision certainly doesnt settle the questlon.

        At this point, i ask myself not what the founders intent might have been, but what they might do if they were here in 2014? They were largely pragmatic men. I suspect the if Madison and Jefferson were here today they would be appaled by the 32000 gun deaths in America each year (5 times greater the dearh toll in the american revolution). They would be horrified and disgusted if they could walk through the scene of one if our weekly mass shooting, seeing first hand the carnage made possidible by todays’ weaponry. I cannot imagine a single one of our founders would deviate from the obvious response: “our second ammendent made sense in tthe late 18th century, but things have changed. We have to figure out a way to stop the bloodshed.

      • RealAmericanPatriot

        Any quote can be taken out of context to support any position.

      • gian keys flat mom

        regulated means more than just training and how they are organized. it means how they are watched using laws–federal 1st and foremost; states second– to keep them in step socially and legally.
        your otiose point extrapolates into REGULATING tobacco is ONLY in training and organization.
        ========================================== wanna try again?

      • Charles Vincent

        Again no read what the constitution says and then realize what the tenth amendment says means the people are atop the hill followed by the state and last the federal government.

      • John

        The second amendment “doesn’t mean anything when it comes to private citizens going about daily affairs.”

        It was intended to allow a militia…and was interpreted that way by all the courts until about 60 years ago.

      • tedthornton

        That book you’re referring to that makes this argument ignores 1. writings of the founders 2. the many state constitutions that talk about all citizens keeping arms for self defense. See for example the Connecticut state constitution.

      • chedd

        It doesn’t really matter, Ted, what any state Constitution says regarding guns. Under the Supremacy Clause, when the Supreme Court says that you have to register your weapon, that’s it (this will hopefully happen sometime during Hillary’s second term, if not Julian Castro’s first)..

      • Skip Tilley

        At the time of the framers the word “Militia” meant the same as “National Guard” does today. If you will read our history you will se references to State Militias in both the Revolutionary and Civil wars. I firmly believe the Second Amendment means that States may keep Citizen Soldiers for the defense of a free State.

      • Spicy Ray Swinehart-Patrick

        The militia is the whole people. “I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians.”- George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

      • Charles Vincent

        Wrong read the federalist papers 29 & 42. And then google unalienable rights or natural right of self defense key word lord Blackstone.

      • julianenglish

        Charles: In Federalist 42 Madison says nothing at all about the right to keep and bear arms, or the need for a militia. Read it. In Federalist 29, Hamilton does indeed discuss the need for a militia. Recall that the Constitution was drafted with the intent to replace the Articles of Confederation precisely because the later formed too weak a union to function. It was a giant leap toward a stronger federal government. However, there were legitimate fears on the part of Madison, Hamilton and Jay, as well as the citizens of the various states, that a strong federal government carried its own risks. Two among these were, first, the federal government would usurp all powere from the states (it mostly did, a matter settled by the civil war. Nope, tea partiers, the states are not soverign), and second, that a standing army would hold tge civilian population and civilian government in fear, and be its master. Hamilton attemots to mitigate moth concerns in federalist 29. No, there would be no standing army. There would, instead, be state militias, and well regulated militias, at that. The states are to be comforted by the fact that the militias will be well trained and under control of officers who are chosen snd controlled by each state. There is nothing in fed 29 that can be construed as conferring a private right to gun ownership, or any purpose outside the need for state militias. I do not know how or why you have cited these two essays in support of your position. Did you mistype the numbers?

      • Charles Vincent

        “Did you mistype the numbers?”
        Quoting from memory sorry

      • l dean

        Thank you for taking the time (and patience) to post this. I learned something new, and I appreciate your synopsizing it in such a way that it was easy to read, clear and concise (and I’m sure I’m not the only one).

      • christianh

        Ike Clanton would check his gun and he was a savage criminal…

      • Charles Vincent

        Irrelevant and out of context with my post. Please don’t make me set your flimsy straw man ablaze.

      • alikhat

        It doesn’t mean anything about private citizens AT ALL. It plainly – and solely – refers to a militia. An organized, well-regulated military group, not Billy Bob Peabrain and his private weapons horde that he keeps next to his still.

      • Charles Vincent

        Re-read the DC v Heller decision the right to bear arms is an individual right unconnected to the militia.

      • alikhat

        Typical gun nut. So now it’s NOT about the actual Constitutional Amendment, it’s about its *interpretation* by the most far right crazy neo-fascist Supreme Court this country has ever seen. The same court that gave us the Citizens United decision and told us all that corporations are people.

        Basically, you’ve conceded that the 2nd Amendment does not remotely state what you want it to unless its meaning gets conveniently twisted by a pack of evil old wingnuts.

        But hey, keep trying to move those goal posts! I’m sure there’s someone trolling this thread besides you who’s dumb enough to fall for it.

      • Charles Vincent

        All rights are individual rights read the other rigs listed they are also individual rights collective rights are only an extension of individual rights. So keep up with the ad hominem if it makes you feel better and keep believing that your opinion is based on fact even when it isn’t.

      • alikhat

        Wow. I bet you think you typed something with meaning. That’s adorable!

      • Charles Vincent

        Ad hominem means you have no factual argument. Your just a tiny little person that struggles with adult words and concepts and you lash out with childish insults because that’s all you can muster. I imagine you on the floor kicking and screaming like a two year old when you start name calling and I get a chuckle knowing I got you all angry.

      • alikhat

        Here’s a word for you to struggle with Chuckie: Projection.

        Sound it out slow and look it up.

      • Charles Vincent

        No need. Your pea brain and three syllable words are puerile at best. Cry more please and then let me know when your ninnyhammer fades away.

      • alikhat

        “you pea brain”??? S’cuze me, but do you really imagine (oops, that’s wun uh them thar three seelabull werds agin!) that I – or anyone better educated than your sad self (a considerable number, that) – would be chastened by one who bestows to the universe, “you pea brain”?

        Me no think so.

      • Charles Vincent

        Not sure why you quoted me wrong but what else should I expect from a person like you, can refute facts, and still no facts to your posts, just more hate filled name calling.

      • alikhat

        I didn’t quote you “wrong” (and I think the grammatically correct big word you’re looking for is “incorrectly”). You just edited after I pointed your ignorance out.

        Of course you then lied about it because that’s what you wingnut losers do. You parrot, you blather, you whine, you misspell and, most of all, you lie.

      • Charles Vincent

        No I haven’t edited it, it has been like that since I posted it sorry, ooh ouch the grammar nazi attack what ever shall I do…. That’s right I consider the source. You’re even more pathetic than before. Lie lie lie and then lie some more seems to be your whole argument with a mix of puerile insults and hate mixed in, and still no facts to rebut my argument.

      • alikhat

        Oh, right! I keep forgetting that shouting, “Nuh-uhhh!” and accusing your opponent of doing precisely what you are guilty of is the gold standard wingnut idea of a debate. Thanks for reminding me!

      • Charles Vincent

        One only needs to read your posts to know you’re an idiot and that the only thing you have done is name calling. This is hardly an unknown fact.

      • Steve Lowther

        [email protected] “grammar nazi attack”. So you latch on to a phrase new to you and wear it out until it is beyond being used up. It makes you look stupid, Charles.

      • Charles Vincent

        I don’t need to you’re putting on a clinic on ad hominem just like alikhat. What’s pathetic is how you’ve devolved from marginally intelligent to well being just like alikhat and their ilk.

      • Steve Lowther

        Charles, you are such a hypocrite. I stated your using the redundant phrase “progressive liberal” makes you look stupid. You then whined it is an ad hominem attack and invoked the phrase “grammar nazi” when it was related neither to debate nor grammar.

        This abuse you gave alikhat is an ad hominem attack, Bucko. You are mired in your own hypocrisy.

      • Charles Vincent

        You called me stupid and were correcting my grammar like a typical grammar nazi does. Also if stating a fact is considered whining you have a tilted view. And the abuse aliphatic got was in direct response to the abuse they were dishing out from the get go. Secondly hypocrisy would be me saying I didn’t do it which I never said. I will however give people like alikhat a dose of their own medicine.

      • julianenglish

        Ad hominem doesnt mean you have no factual argument, it just means, at that particular moment, you are attacking the person rather than engaging the argument — which is precisely what you do in the above post! I love irony with a side order of hypocracy.

      • Charles Vincent

        alikhat Charles Vincent • a day ago
        Typical gun nut. So now it’s NOT about the actual Constitutional Amendment, it’s about its *interpretation* by the most far right crazy neo-fascist Supreme Court this country has ever seen. The same court that gave us the Citizens United decision and told us all that corporations are people.

        Basically, you’ve conceded that the 2nd Amendment does not remotely state what you want it to unless its meaning gets conveniently twisted by a pack of evil old wingnuts.

        But hey, keep trying to move those goal posts! I’m sure there’s someone trolling this thread besides you who’s dumb enough to fall for it.
        ^^^^^^^^^^^Alikhats original insult barrage
        I treat you how you treat me pretty simple. Second in order for me to be a hypocrite I would have had to said I don’t do it which I never said.

      • julianenglish

        I think you mudt have intended this response for someone else, as it has almost nothing to do with my post.

      • Charles Vincent

        Nope in your post you eluded to the fact that I am a hypocrite not asking you to like how I deal with people like alikhat nor am I asking permission from you nor anyone else.

      • julianenglish

        I did’t allude to your being a hypocrite, i directely stated it as fact. Otherwise, you’re drifting further from reality with each word. Where did the notion of asking for my permission come from? I’m not your daddy.

      • Charles Vincent

        Let’s start with the definition of hypocrite;

        1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
        2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

        I’ve not done either of those things here. In fact I have done exactly what I have said in that I treated alikhat the exact same as he/she treated me that’s not being a hypocrite.
        Alikhat Had no argument only insults. Your tone seemed to imply you disapproved, ergo I stated I don’t need your approval.

      • julianenglish

        Is this your job, Vincent? Are you ticking off community service hours or something? Take a break. Get some rest. Go to the Dr. and get some meds.

      • Charles Vincent

        “Ticking off community service” are you trying to poison the well J? I been on break all day helping make a costume for a con, this whole conversation is just filler when I am waiting for costume stuff to dry.

      • Charles Vincent

        What’s more ironic is that you didn’t scroll up and see my first two posts which didn’t contain insults and are now caught with you pants down trying to poison the well.

      • julianenglish

        It matters not what the previous posts said. Yours was an ad hominem attack, and it was hypocritical. “He did it first!” Is not a legitimate defense.

      • Charles Vincent

        Exactly where have I ever said I didn’t hurl insults? Because I order for me to be a hypocrite I would have needed to say I didn’t resort to insults.

      • Hypocrisy. You’d think someone so adept at the practice of the word would at least know how to spell it.

      • julianenglish

        You must br kidding. Correcting my spelling? I’m typing with one thumb while eating dinner and watching a movie and youre correcting spellibg. What a douche.

      • RealAmericanPatriot

        Except the 2nd has a limitation, a condition, the people who are part of the WELL REGULATED MILITIA have a right to keep and bear arms.

      • Charles Vincent

        DC v Heller and the federalist papers and the constitution say you’re wrong

      • You’re too stupid to argue with.

      • RealAmericanPatriot

        Reread all the legal interpretations that preceded DC vs Heller.

      • Liberals and their lovey-dovey attitudes…

      • julianenglish

        That is a.powerful and profound defense of your position on guns. May I quote you?

      • You have no idea whatsoever what you’re talking about. But that never keeps you people from talking…indeed, it makes you talk all the louder.

      • julianenglish

        How do you figure that? That deviates botg from common 21st century usage and 18th century usage (to the extent that i understand its usage in the late 18th century, drawing on the OED).

      • Charles Vincent

        I wasn’t talking about people checking their weapons. You asserting that I was is a straw man argument. My op that you replied to dealt with the meaning of well regulated not checking a firearm.

      • julianenglish

        Where do i say anything about checking a firearm? Did i write something that i don’t know i wrote?

      • Charles Vincent

        My apologies I had 13 posts to mine I confused you with another poster.

      • julianenglish

        No problem. Thanks.

      • Charles Vincent

        It comes from the federalist papers and the constitution under congressional powers.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        It doesn’t NOT mean private citizens can’t be regulated.

      • Charles Vincent

        Regulated in the context of the 2nd amendment referees to training and organization of the command structure so as to be patterned on professional military in terms of how militia members are trained and organized both into fighting units and how the command structure is organized. This is to facilitate synergy should a militia unit have to be working in concert with a standing military unit and in their command hierarchy.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Which we don’t have anymore.

        So, how are the kids?

      • Charles Vincent

        Actually we do have the militia look it up in current US Code. Kids are good growing like weeds they are.

      • l dean

        hm. I went to your reference and this is what I learned. Only men ages 17 to 45 can own a gun, you have to be a citizen, and if your female, you can’t have a gun unless you are a member of the National Guard. As a 60 year old female, that kinda ticks me off!

      • Charles Vincent

        That has been amended, my point is it is an individual right regardless of gender.

      • l dean

        Point is… you have no reference to present your argument as fact; er go, it’s nothing more than an opinion. P.S. You need to let Cornell university know that you know more than them. lol

      • Charles Vincent

        I have the references you’re just not wanting to go look. My opinion is based on historical documentation some of which has been posited here you know that cut and paste stuff your so irritated by.
        There is a and old saying you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink, I’ve lead you to the water it’s your choice to drink or not.

      • Charles Vincent

        That has been amended, my point is it is an individual right regardless of gender. Modern unorganized militia has female members.
        Info on militia scroll down to the USA.
        http://en DOT Wikipedia DOT org/wiki/Militia

        Replace the “DOT” with. “.” And remove any spaces to get the link to work.

      • RealAmericanPatriot

        There goes Charles, making stuff up again.

      • Charles Vincent

        Article 1 section 8 Us constitution Chief.

      • julianenglish

        What part of snappy but meaningless little retort do you not understand?

      • You apparently don’t understand a single part of it.

      • Spicy Ray Swinehart-Patrick

        Have you checked out a real local militia lately? They do train, they train often. They take it seriously and train safely. They are regulated and trained.

      • pszymeczek

        In the Constitution, wherever an individual right is intended, Madison, et al., used the word PERSON or PERSONS (see Amendment VI). The word PEOPLE, as in “the right of THE PEOPLE,” is a collective right.

      • Charles Vincent

        DC v heller says different bud and so does the federalist paper 29, and several other historical writings.

      • pszymeczek

        I am not “bud.”

      • Charles Vincent

        And still wrong.

      • Charles Vincent

        Links are not allowed on this site your post has been deleted.

      • pszymeczek

        Are you a moderator on this site? Let me hear from a moderator that links are not permitted.

      • Charles Vincent

        Do you see your post to me that had the link in it? My guess is no. Which means the site deletes posts with links. Don’t believe me post a reply with a link and I bet you it say awaiting approval by a moderator and if you leave or refresh the post will be gone.

      • julianenglish

        Here’s a tip i learned in school: always read a document before you cite it. But what are those “several other historical writings.” Maybe they will make your point more clearly.

      • Charles Vincent

        I have read them there are many I am not at I am posting from a mobile device. Also it was 25 not 42.

      • julianenglish

        Federalist 25 does deal with defense, and militias are touched upon, but no where does it suggest that there is an individual right to gun ownership. No where does it suggest that militias stand on their own, of the exercize is aimed toward the people taking up arms against their government in the event that tyranny ensues. Regarding Blackstone, yes they read his commentaries. They also read Locke, Rousseau, the Bible, epicurus, Aristotle, Plutarch and Thucydides. Can you show how Blackstone can be found in the constitution? Im not saying he can’t be, but just dropping the name doesnt do much to help us here.

      • Charles Vincent

        And did not Blackstone say the self defense is an individual right and did he also not say that arms were an extension of the natural right of self defense?
        Also the DC v heller highlights the historical writings the framers used and how the constitution itself prove that all rights are individual rights including the second amendment do the leg work it’s right there the framers also knew that I order for a government to attack the militia they would have to first disarm the populous. Also look at the militia acts the first one in 1796 I think clearly shows that militia members had to provide their own arms and ball caps and powder. The logic here is owning arms is an individual right unconnected with service in the militia other wise the citizens couldn’t lawfully provide their own arms to meet the requirement set up in the militia act. This is all elementary you should have already known this.

      • julianenglish

        It is so elementary that no one knew it until 2008, and even then, nearly half the SCOTUS still didn’t didnt know it. Sounds like a settled issue to me.

      • Charles Vincent

        You’re ignoring the historical and legal precedent they looked at. Not to mention they directly said its against the constitution to do what doc did and they gave some other examples.

      • julianenglish

        Maybe you should start by reading the dessent to the decision. In any event, i have to confess that i’ve grown bored with this thread. Im tired of hearing myself talk about it, and god knows i’m tired of hearing what you have to say on the subject. So, im off to enjoy a beautiful saturday afternoon, and hope i don’t get shot by some misguided patriot.

      • Charles Vincent

        I have and the dissenting members ignored all the applicable historical evidence. Evidence that goes clear back to the beginning of recorded history. Any way good Saturday to you.

      • Charles Vincent

        Militias were never suppose to stand on their own. They were how ever to bee fully an equal to the standing army in terms of training and equipment I think fed 25 talks about that. Also the judges looked at other state constitutions of the period and there were instances of them explains tell stating it as an individual right.

      • Charles Vincent

        DC v Heller
        The Supreme Court held:[44]

        (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
        (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
        (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
        (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
        (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
        (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
        (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

      • julianenglish

        Wow, Charles. You needn’t have gone to so much trouble. It was easy enough to find this on line. As we’ve already noted, this 5 to 4 decision sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb, running counter to almost two centuries precedent. The court makes mistakes. This is the Dred Scott decision of our times.

      • Charles Vincent

        That’s your opinion and most Supreme Court did deal with the individual rights secondly all rights listed in the first ten amendments are individual rights it’s a logical fallacy to say all rights are collective. Sorry it’s distasteful to you but but the heller decision ergo nixed that rights are individual.

      • julianenglish

        It isn’t simply “distasteful” to me; it is a debatable issue. I disagee with you, and do so with sound reason. I’m glad you mentioned the quote from the declaration of independence. You will note, first, that the declaration of independence is not the constitution. It is a much more raducal document written for a much more radical purpose. It is not a governing document but a revolutionary one, severing ties from the government. The phrase you quote, claiming a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is problematic for the very reason you’ve found convenient regarding right to bear arms. A right inplies an obligation. If you have a right, then it is my obligation to respect that right. So what does it mean to have a right to life? You say it entails the right to self defense and then take the nexy (illogical) step that the rest of us have an obligation to let youv have a gun to facilitate your self defense. Well why stop there? You could defend yourself even better with a mine field durrounding your house, and 50 caliber machine guns mounted on the roof of your personal fortress. A bazooka would be nice. Do you have a right to all this? Myself, i interpret ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” differently.

      • Charles Vincent

        Sir you have shot your own argument in the foot. Those rights you mention go both ways and one cannot have life and not have the right to defend it. Also I have to respect your choice to live your life how you see fit and vice versa. Also if you think that the constitution isn’t tempered by the words in the declaration you have made a grave error.

      • julianenglish

        I didnt say the constitutiin wasnt “tempered” by the DOI. I sad they are teo dif docs. Actually finding/manufacturing a right from the DOI is a non starter. If the framers of the constitution wanted to carry something over and include the same language in the constitution, they certainly would have. Now really, i gotta go.

      • tedthornton

        Even the DISSENT in Heller disagreed with this silly notion

      • Linda

        Why is this line of thinking spewed? On what do you base it?

      • Sean Hellems

        Considering that the 2nd amendment says that we have the right to keep and bear arms for the purposes of participating in the militia, the police should ask these open carriers if they’re carrying these weapons as part of participation in a federal and state recognized and regulated militia. These small militias running around here are illegal–plain and simple.

        CONGRESS has the SOLE authority
        “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
        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;”~~Article I sec. 8, US Constitution

        “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States”~~Article 2, sec. 2, clause 1, US Constitution

      • Rick Fader

        Congress has the sole authority to “call force the militia…” However, the “Militia, is NOT described ANYWHERE as a State or Federally recognized entity. The use of the word Militia is NOT a reference to an entity of ANY branch or part of Government.

        Get your facts straight before you spout Liberal Talking points.

      • julianenglish

        Our condtitution is a brief document. There are many things it does not mention explicitly. The founders knew the country would grow an evolve, and the flexibility was a virtue. On both the state and federal levels there are many entities that are not explicitly mentioned, such as the FCC, SEC, Treasury Department, Agg departments, health departments, etc.– none of which are mentioned, but they are legitimate government entities. Your interpretation of militia, in the context of the 2nd amendment on this matter is plausible; however, the constitution mentions few things by name that are not govrrnment entitie. So while your interpretation id plausible, it is not probable.

      • tedthornton

        You had ONE job. To be informed and READ. One decision. Heller. But nooooooo you wanted to enter the debate and argue qith the big boys.

      • julianenglish

        Here is the deal with supreme court decisions: they are written by people. Yep. It’s a fact. Hence, they are subject to error. And, as the composition of the court changes, some issues — contentious ones in particular — often arise from the ashes to be reconsidered. You keep shouting “HELLER! HELLER! HELLER!” as if it were the Benghazi of the judiciary. Fact is, Heller was a 5 to 4 decision, it’s findings deviated from almost 200 years of common and legal understandings, and is clearly not settled law (even to the rather limited extent that any law can be fully settled). I do not know why you think it necessary to insult me rather than engage my arguments, or you might simply ignore me altogether if you think my arguments are too far beneith you. Ad hominem attacks can be such fun, but they weaken your credibility and make you look like a tool.

      • tedthornton

        “I do not know why you think it necessary to insult me rather than engage my arguments,”

        then

        “that would explain both the oxygen
        deprivation-induced cognitive lapses as well as the personality profile
        known as bigus dickus.”

        “it’s findings deviated from almost 200 years of common and legal understandings,”

        The dissent rejects your argument right in the decision. Why are facts bad, Julian? Why is objective reality a bad thing? Why is it good to write about the law but bad to write about the law? Just because you feel like inventing some nonexistent argument?

        Again — why are facts bad?

      • julianenglish

        You had one job. I’m guessing of the hand variety, as that would explain both the oxygen deprivation-induced cognitive lapses as well as the personality profile known as bigus dickus.

      • julianenglish

        See federalist 29, wherein Hamilton sells the new constitution to the public, on the issue of militias vs a standing army, on precisely the point that militias are creatures of the individual states. Much is made of the fact that each state militia will be lead by officers appointed by that state. There is a direct line from what Hamilton describes to the national guard.

      • Jose Canario

        Sorry “gun owner using FACTS”, I didn’t see your reply to this post. Did I miss it or did you finally realize you really don’t have the “FACTS”…

      • BigDan57

        The supreme court has ruled that the second amendment is a personal right.

      • DoubleDogDiogenes

        Oh. It also ruled that abortion is legal. When I see you right wingers stop “punishing” women with “government regulations,” we’ll then I might even take you seriously about your love for the Supreme Court!

      • richfs

        How have women been punished with government regulations over abortion?

      • gian keys flat mom

        at state level——– crybaby regressive religious trash force women– thru STATE legislation– to travel much 2 far to get abortions.
        shall we have white trash aging men travel much to far to get surgeries????

      • l dean

        … or to buy their guns and ammo?

      • gian keys flat mom

        right on bro!!!

      • Mrs D

        Seriously????? How long do you have? This is going to take a very long time to list the overwhelming number of ways gov’t regulations over abortion have hurt women. Pretty obvious that you have turned a blind eye and deaf ear to what is going on in the world. Sheesh!

      • richfs

        So far I’ve seen no one answering my question. My stand on abortion is that I will never personally get one but I can’t make that decision for anyone else.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Is that a serious question?

      • l dean

        Here’s a few:
        1) states have passed laws defunded Planned Parenthood and preventing them from participating in public health care programs,
        2) politicians manipulate laws- from tax credit programs to federal family planning funding policies- to undermine any organization that even mentions abortion,
        3)Politicians across the country are willing to sacrifice community family planning centers and even domestic violence shelters as collateral damage in their efforts to limit access to abortion care,
        4These cynical attempts to insert ideology into personal decisions between women and their health care providers put hundreds of thousands of families, including the uninsured, unemployed and underserved, at risk of losing essential health care services,
        5)i.e., Texas The law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic – forcing the closing of 16 out of 37 clinics,
        6) In MI, a Nov. 2013 law pohibits all Michigan insurers from providing insurance coverage for elective abortions, unless women buy a separate policy. Healthcare providers who seek reimbursement for an elective abortion procedure are subject to a $10,000 fine,
        7) IA has passed a law opening doctors up for liability if they fail to “prepare” a woman for the emotional/mental distress that her abortion “might” cause her – Doctors are required to explain to the woman that she “is killing her child rather than trying to find someone who can adopt it. There are many people who would be willing to adopt this child and they are choosing to bypass this ethical route.”

      • richfs

        One of the problems with political discourse today is that while there are honest people with genuinely held beliefs on either side there are also the fringes on either side who are willing to sacrifice truth for spin to get their way. This exists in the abortion issue also. On the one side we have people who honestly believe that abortion is murder and don’t want them performed and don’t want public money to pay for them. On the other side there are people who do not believe it’s murder but believe it’s simply a health issue between a woman and her doctor. Then there are the people who haven’t really thought about it and are more concerned with their own day to day issues. The fringe spinners keep people from wholly believing either side. I honestly asked for examples of state laws that “punishing women with government regulations” you presented me with a list that has a lot of spin in it. You lead off with Planned Parenthood. They have been shown to urge women to have abortions. Those wanting to withhold public funding because of that have a lot of support and for good reason. I know women who have had abortions who deeply regret it. I know other women who have had abortions who say they don’t have regrets. Others probably haven’t discussed it with me or even told me about abortions they may have had. I don’t want public funds being used to talk people into having abortions. Especially by Planned Parenthood, an organization founded partial on the belief that the “black and yellow” populations had to be controlled.

        The right and the left fringes are both wrong. All have the right to keep and bear arms and women have the right to get abortions, he Supreme Court said so and that is the Law of the Land. Neither right is absolute. The right fringes want no restrictions on guns and the left fringes want no restrictions on abortions. Both are, in my opinion, wrong.

      • l dean

        you asked for some facts – I gave you some facts. Now, you take my facts and try to meld in your “opinion.” Not a debate. I’m not going to address your “beliefs” that planned parenthood “have been shown to urge women to have abortions” (not true) or that it was founded on the belief that the ‘black and yellow’ populations had to be controlled (spin and irrelevant as to why funding has been cut). I’m done here.

      • richfs

        No, you gave me opinion and spin.

      • BD

        But they have NOT ruled that it is without limits… you can’t mount a .50 cal on the back of your pickup truck… you can’t buy a Stinger missile or grenades… I’ve trained with weapons both for the military and for law enforcement and judging by the way people drive cars I wouldn’t want 99% of the idiots out there to have to be carrying a gun if a bad guy started shooting. I have no doubt that they would just add to the collateral damage! Firearms should be at least as well-regulated as vehicles are. I support the right to own a weapon to defend yourself and your family but all firearms should be registered, licensed, with 100% background checks from a national database for ALL sales and the right to carry a weapon ends at your front door!

      • richfs

        Automatic weapons have been banned since 1933 and that ban was upheld by the Supreme Court.

      • Shadow8088

        You’re wrong there. You have to jump through some very expensive hoops, but you can own and operate lots of different “banned” NFA items.

      • richfs

        Interesting, I had always heard they were banned in 1933 but the 1934 law taxes and regulates them but doesn’t ban them so you and T.R.Rollins below are both right and I was wrong.

      • julianenglish

        I dont know the legalities of thr issue, but i applaud your very mature concession on this point, especially since Rollins, in particular, was such a condescending jerk. Would that app’

      • julianenglish

        When i was in high school I played guitar in a banned. It was my axe. An axe is a weapon. I played killer tunes that sounded like s**t. The second amendment is number two, too, and so is poo. And this is why everything is Obama’s fault. BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI!

      • Shadow8088

        how utterly random…

      • T.R. Rollins

        100% False. They were not banned, they merely became subject to a $200 transfer tax. Know what you are talking about before posting a falsehood as a “fact”.

      • julianenglish

        Much like moonshine is not technically illegal, just subject to a 100% tax. A rose by any other name….

      • l dean

        That’s incorrect.

      • tedthornton

        Topic is open carry, you’re goingon about 50 caliber machine guns on vehicles. And WE’RE the goofy ones? Ok, professor

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        No, topic is “right to bear arms” without any kind of government regulation.

      • Charles Vincent

        You can own a 50 cal the BATF has the procedure to get one on its website. And it works the same for all fully auto firearms. It’s expensive to buy one though on the order of $50,000 I think.

        “The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” – James Madison, The Federalist, No. 46

      • Skip Tilley

        I am not so sure about that. I am retired law enforcement so I still get catalogs and one I received the other day had RPG’s in it

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        I can’t get a 50 cal for my truck? WAAAAAAAA!!!!. (Actually, I’d have to get a truck first).

      • Ken Wilson

        They also ruled money=speech so there goes any notion of intelligence emanating from that bench.

      • tedthornton

        Yes but WHEN? 2008. This simpleton hasn’t picked up a newspaper since 2007.

      • julianenglish

        An historical anomaly of the most activist court in 60 years.

      • julianenglish

        Once. And that says more about the lurch right since 1980 than it does about the constitution.

      • richfs

        See below.

      • richfs

        Where in the 2nd Amendment does it say the right to keep and bear arms is for the purposes of participating in the militia?

      • julianenglish

        That would be the first part, the part that the far right seems never to read.

      • richfs

        Show me the Supreme Court decision that backs you up on that.

      • julianenglish

        This is information i recall from a grad level const law class 20 or 25 years ago. I don’t have the citations off hand but if you’re interested in following up it should be fairly easy to do. I’ll assume my memory has not failed me and you will rip me a new one if it has. All best. J

      • tedthornton

        20 years ago *facepalm* Son, and I don’t mean your age I mean it condescendingly about your ignorance… Heller was 2008

      • julianenglish

        Hard to believe, i know, but the second amendment predated heller. People actually discussed the second amendment way back in the 1980s. At some of the finer universities. I mean, those that already existed. It was a long time ago. Some people are kind of ignorant about that.

      • tedthornton

        It creeps me out that you don’t realize that the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution and that case law affects how rights are implemented.

        I mean… look at your “argument.” Only the Second Amendment text matters and University conversations about it that took place in the 1980s. Supreme Court decisions about it in the 21st Century don’t matter at all.

        Do you even read what you’re writing?

      • tedthornton

        Oh God stop. Just stop. You are making people cringe in embarrassment. Read Heller.

      • julianenglish

        Deal, dude. I’ll read heller. And you read the constitution, at the very least, and the federalist papers if you’re feeling precocious.

      • l dean

        “Precocious” is his middle name – Ted Precocious Thornton

      • l dean

        Incorrect. There are quite a few of us watching. I’m having to give every point to Mr. English. He has read Heller, evidently and replied to you several times. When he makes a point, you respond with a personal affront. I keep waiting for you to give up and leave. “JulianEnglish” is to be applauded for his patience. Me? not so much.

      • julianenglish

        Thanks for the generous praise. It feels strange to get something other than an insult. Is this some kind of trick?

      • l dean

        That’s too funny. You can get a bit paranoid here. lol. No trick (I’m a retired Eng prof in NC. I was ready to propose to ya! ) lol

      • julianenglish

        Needless to say, “I do.” 🙂

      • chedd

        Thank you, Sean, for pointing out these facts that most gun nuts don’t seem to get. Along those same lines, it’s important to note that, like the text above suggests, the militia’s purpose is to QUELL insurrections only, which meant that every ammosexual who claims that the purpose of the second amendment is to allow citizens to protect against a tyrannical government are WRONG.

      • julianenglish

        Maybe they are militias of one? Each playing with himself to some discordant tune in his head, marching to voices only he and he alone can hear. This would explain so much, wouldn’t it?

      • Travis Rex

        I don’t want people at a Chillis restaurant armed with guns protecting my rights…keep your guns to yourself and no one will care

      • julianenglish

        But Travis, doncha sometimes just wanna haul off and blow the bejebus out of taco or something? Dont we have that right, as americans?

      • Doug Williams

        What part of “Well regulated militia..” don’t YOU understand??

      • gian keys flat mom

        and the 1st amendment protects all other amendments
        =========================================

      • christianh

        Did you read the part about not being mentally stable…?

        I wouldn’t call myself “PC owner using FACTS…”

        The fact is that for every case of someone protecting themselves with an AK or AR, there are several MASS MURDERS…

        Fact; overall gun ownership is dropping in the US… The NRA and gun makers are pushing to a smaller group and must try to sell more…

        More people are taking advantage of buybacks, but we still have 8 guns for every 10 people…

        So if even little kids blowing each other away doesn’t cause you to reevaluate your are the aforementioned mentally unstable…

      • Erik Griffiths

        I hate to tell you this, but your guns, wouldn’t stop the US military from taking away your 1st amendment rights.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Since when is responsible regulating guns infringing on your rights? And what happened to that WELL-REGULATED part? Why are you guys so paranoid and so hell bent on believing “gummint is comin’ fer mah gunz!”??? No one has come knocking on your door to collect your guns. And if you think you can take on the US military, I invite you to try.

      • JohnFMayer

        The right to free speech also must yield to circumstances. You not only do not have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater, you also do not have the right to shout and disrupt the performance. You don’t have the right to give false reports to the police. And so on. Hardly surprising that the right to carry firearms might also encounter certain common sense restrictions.

      • Charles Vincent

        Well regulated refers to how the militia is trained and organized. Just saying…

      • gian keys flat mom

        not limited to those two things chuckie

      • Charles Vincent

        Yes it is read the constitution and the dick act circa 1902. And then read federalist paper 29.

      • Josh

        What does reading the Federalist Papers have anything to do with our government and the laws it abides by. The Federalist Papers were a set of opinions by two early politicians in America. There were also the Anti-Federalist Papers. Should we reference them as well, since we are already choosing to listen to documents that actually have no bearing on the law of the land. Source: Political Science major, apparently the only major besides Anthropology where you can have a PhD in it and people will still think they are right and know more than you do.

      • julianenglish

        Im on your side, Josh (i think?), but the federalist papers (written by Hamilton, Madison AND John Jay) are invaluable in understanding what the founders had in mind, and thus interpreting the constitution. Original intent isn’t the only was to evaluate constitutionality, but it is a great place to start.i do agree with you about how people discount the value of a poli sci degree. I have a Phd and used to teach at the university level, yet routinely have people dispute facts that I lay on the table using only opinion, seemingly incapable of distinguising between the two.

      • ljm

        Thomas Jefferson vehemently disagreed with Hamilton. So quoting Hamilton’s writing does not get you “original intent.”

      • RealAmericanPatriot

        There is a large body of Americans that believe their opinion, however refuted by facts and evidence as their opinion may be, is just as valid as the facts.
        They believe what they want to believe and ignore the facts and evidence.
        Most of those people, it seems, are poorly educated, gullible, easily led to believe “common sense” and most seem to be members of the right wing fringe, gun-nuts and religious radicals.
        Sanity and critical thinking as well as knowledge are eschewed by these people.

      • Charles Vincent

        Because they were written by the people that drafted the constitution you know that document that is the supreme law of the land, and it was three not two people who wrote the federalist papers, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison.

      • RealAmericanPatriot

        Charles: … and there were others who disagreed with the opinions expressed in the federalist papers, for instance ljm referenced Thomas Jefferson. Patrick Henry and all of the anti-federalist founders also disagreed with various points made in the federalist papers. The purpose of the federalist papers was to provide support for the ratification of the constitution, mostly in NY, they were arguments for why we should even have a constitution.
        Unless you are a recognized constitutional scholar with standing in the academic community, what you believe and your opinions are just that, you opinions. They are only valid for you and anyone gullible enough to believe you and NO ONE else.
        If you have not taken the time to become a recognized expert in history or constitutional law then what you think the constitution says or what you think the founders meant doesn’t matter at all.

      • Charles Vincent

        Ohh but I have and I have read both the federalis papers and anti-federalist papers and i know all about the constitution. and SCOTUS decisions concerning the second amendment and the bill of rights in general. Furthermore the framers wrote the document in Plain English you do not need to be a scholar to know what it says and means.

      • RealAmericanPatriot

        Apparently you do need to be a scholar to know what it says and means, at least it might help you personally, because you are not actually reading it, you are interpreting it to say what you would like it to say when as you stated it is in plain English. Everyone can see you are intellectually dishonest on this topic.

      • Charles Vincent

        NO you don’t need to be a scholar. You have offered no factual rebuttal to anything on this thread you only called names and belittled others You are a small person with an even smaller amount of intellect.

      • RealAmericanPatriot

        Apparently reading comprehension and honesty are even bigger weaknesses than I originally thought for you.
        It is a fact, that everyone reading this thread can see you are lying in your comment above and that you are merely stating your personal (and by my judgement deluded) opinion on this topic.

      • Charles Vincent

        SO you have been condescending and derogatory to people here? Check and your calling me intellectually dishonest. Everything I have stated here is backed up by historical documentation and Other documentation in law and legislation including current us code. You suffer from Mind projection fallacy, and or Cognitive Dissonance.

      • RealAmericanPatriot

        Ironic that you would use the words projection, fallacy and cognitive dissonance. Are you feeling a little exposed?

      • Charles Vincent

        No but you must be your posts still have no facts and are getting shorter.

      • RealAmericanPatriot

        I’m sorry, it is just impossible to take you seriously.

        You’ve been dismissed.

      • Charles Vincent

        AWWW do you want your ball so you can run along home?

      • RealAmericanPatriot

        What part of it is an illogical waste of time to debate liars do you not understand.

      • Charles Vincent

        Cry more your tears fuel my happiness machine.

      • Elmar17

        This assumes scholars are also not doing that which my direct experience shows to be a largely false assumption.

        Myself and the supreme court have found the preponderance of evidence is on the side that the 2nd amendment like the 1st 3rd 4th 5th and 6th amendments restrict the government from infringing on specific pre-existing rights of individual persons. Not only does the text of the amendment reference the right of the people is what is protected (not the right of any assembly of the people such as militias) but the historical discussion and sources of the amendment indicate this purpose as well to the point that no writing of any of those involved in the discussion of the issue at the time had any counter-position that it referred to an individual right.

      • RealAmericanPatriot

        Actually that is not true Elmar. Only the most recent ruling supports your interpretation. All rulings, over 200 years worth of rulings, of the SCOTUS prior to DC vs Heller too a much narrower and much more conservative view of the 2nd Amendment. Your arguments on this thread are loaded with assumptions, very poorly supported assumptions at that.
        When you say that the 2nd does not reference the right of the people in Militias you are just flat out lying, you have an interpretation based on an assumption that the militia qualifier is actually not that but you are making an assumption that over 200 years of SCOTUS rulings disagree with.
        It is your argument that is new, liberal and unsupported by precedent.

      • Elmar17

        Like Miller where the SC said that firearms had to have a military use to be covered by the 2nd amendment? Thus indicating that the personal ownership of firearms was related to arms as in the weapons used to wage war?

        Or do you mean Cruikshank where it was ruled “was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens” indicating the rights protected are individual.

        Could you possibly mean Presser in which the court ruled “We think it clear that there are no sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”?

        To which specific historical cases are you referring because these trace the early 19th to mid 20th century rulings.

        Maybe you’re referring to cases which have mentioned the 2nd amendment but only do so in passing.

        Such as Dred Scott which affirmed the second amendment applies to all citizens (though it did incorrectly limit it by race) “the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

        Perhaps Duncan v Louisiana in which the court discussed incorporation mentioning it applied broadly to all of the first 8 amendments: “..the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms…”

        So please which cases explicitly are they to which you refer?

      • l dean

        Thank you Josh for helping my blood pressure come down. good post.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        there U go again,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,annoying a regressive with facts

      • Yes it is, ignoramus.

      • gian keys flat mom

        no it isn’t ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, regulated also includes how they are REGULATED within the ( a)federal laws) and (b) state laws pertaining TO the militia OF THAT STATE– and federal laws usurp state laws. REGULATE also involved things such as age OF militia members; when they may NOT gather,,,,and different states have different applications of individual states regulations of each state. example: the types of weaponry allowed and not allowed; and chains of command within the militia and within the state and local community.
        ========================================
        ignoramus? wanna try again: or are U sucking more white trash FOX “news” scum from some flatchested overweight religious family member that U share poor genetics with?
        lemme know

      • Thanks for chiming in and proving the ignorance of liberal talking points. You clearly have zero grasp of reality. Oh, and you can try to ‘level the playing field’, as your benevolent dictator loves to say, with those idiotic, completely immature little attacks of yours, but it just makes you even more irrelevant.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        wow—
        did the states and federal govt change all of this overnight? wow–
        I am very appreciative of thy insight and alacrity to point it out to me!!!
        I gotta read up again after reading all of this stuff Saturday night! they MUSTVE done the sneaky changes ‘ en masse” Monday morning while I was trading the market!! those commie Kenyan bastards!!

      • Bob Browning

        The only problem with this comment is tge lack of historical grammer knowledge. In the day the second amendment was written the common definition of “well regulated” was not the same as today. It meant “in good working order”. They meant to say that because we need a well functioning militia, the people must have firearms.

        If you read a letter from a parent in the 60’s that referred to their child as gay, that has a drastically different meaning than today, and should be interpreted using the definitions of the day.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        my comment?

      • Bob Browning

        Yes, above you said:

        ” regulated also includes how they are REGULATED within the (a)federal laws) and (b) state laws pertaining TO the militia OF THAT STATE– and federal laws usurp state laws. REGULATE also involved things such as age OF militia members; when they may NOT gather,,,,and
        different states have different applications of individual states regulations of each state. example: the types of weaponry allowed and not allowed; and chains of command within the militia and within the state and local community.”

        The phrase “Well regulated” back then was not used in the sense of meaning “lots of regulations”. It meant to keep things maintained and in good working order. They were saying that America needs to keep its civilians armed for both the protection of the state, and for protection from the state.

        Remember, these guys just went thru a time where the king tried to outlaw guns and seize them. They knew that citizens with guns are free, and they wanted to maintain that.

        This amendment is saying that because we need to keep a fighting force that is at the ready, the people need to keep firearms. The same firearms that the infantry would have. They chose to use the seperate words Keep and Bear for a reason. Keep means to own, this word protects us from the government making all guns against the law. Bear means to not only own, but to have with you. Bear means it is present on your being, as in bearing a burden. This means that the government can not make it impossible for the average citizen to carry a gun with them.

        We can’t re-define words over time, then re-interpret the meaning of the Constitution based on the new meaning.

        If you want to talk about “sensible restrictions” use this logical test. Any restriction that you would like to place on the practice of the second amendment, should also go in to place restricting the First.

        If you want to ban “High Capacity Magiznes” because they pose a danger to the average person, then I want to restrict Twitter so no one can have more than 10 followers without passing a background check and proving that they are responsible enough to unleash their thoughts on the public. Miley Cyrus and the Kardashians are more of a danger to our society than any gun I own.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        well as we are splitting hairs; perhaps u may want 2 show better spelling. I will ad that well regulated means well regulated– and as that ( regulated) word is anathemal to rightwing regressives who apply it to TOOBIG GOVT I will add that regulated means regulation(s). Regulations includes but is not limited to ‘good working order’ and anyone/everyone idiotic enough 2 claim they KNOW what men of nearly 250 yrs ago meant EXACTLY is showing a partial to complete “religious” application of MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY mentality . You do NOT know exactly what English/American was limited to 240 yrs ago– also: as a militia was needed for a MYRIAD of reasons back then many of those reasons have wilted ( England/france /mexico potential hostilities). Our militia needs are totally changed now- we didn’t have the luxury back then of the finest military which we have now– NO ONE CAN TOUCH US TODAY– so we do not need to callup Davey crockett and heroes who have colored the Americana landscape in our history
        –we need a well regulated militia today to keep our federal govt from even thinking about tyranny; and also to keep scumbag groups such as KKK or these white trash supremists(Nazi ETC) as well as any black radicals ( if they exist) or religious trash ( radical christian/radical muslim etc) from being able to terrorize any americans within any/all states. Regulation DOES include such important items as what weaponry is appropriate; the terms of militia membership ( pay/duties/ qualifications) as well as regulations which fit in with federal guidelines and not to infringe upon bordering states rights.
        Ive overwritten– so to summarize I am willing to wager that your opinions of how our language and definitions have changed/not changed thru the centuries are — as mine may also be– inconclusive.
        BYTHEWAY– when EXACTLY is “Obama coming for (our) guns”????? to paraphrase the regressive crybaby rightwingers– ,,,,,,perhaps: after he leaves office?

      • Elmar17

        Regulated at the time of writing meant “in good working order”. It is a term whose meaning still has that specific use such as a regulator in machines that makes operation regular. The equipment and people are made regular through training and inspection. This is why there are “irregular” troops and “regular” troops today.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        since I suspect strongly that U were NOT there at the time of its written inception I can wager a whole dollar that you do NOT KNOW exactly what the writers exactly were conveying. I do agree with your inclusion of INSPECTION. as to whom ” inspects” today is usually mandated by federal and ( to an extent) state legislation

      • Elmar17

        So you’re taking a position that outside of one’s lifetime one cannot possibly know the meaning of words regardless of the context or amount of literary data regarding it. I hate to tell you but there are entire scholarly works dedicated to this pursuit and is embodied in the field of etymology.

        Regardless of your desire for the word to be not well-defined in context at the time of writing it is and there is a large amount of documentation and research to that end.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        I cannot disagree as I am not enough of a ‘scholar’ within this field. I can again state with 100% certainty that REGULATING anything is NOT ( in this case “militias”) limited to training and organization; or at least ORGANIZATION MUST be larger that the over-simplified meaning of ‘putting together’. Regulating HOW it is organized and subsequent continuing to amend the organization remains mandated by (a) federal laws (b) state laws ( which can be supplanted by federal law)
        ========================================
        please note: a “well defined ” word can change over time: many times in a relatively short amount of time ( SEE: egregious)
        A perfect example is ” gracile” which initially conveyed the meaning of ‘slight’ and ‘slender’ but now has been made more colloquially floral by having added ” graceful” to its MODERN meaning.
        *********************************************************
        I have made “lexiphania” part of my college studies and now simply a hobby of mine as words are many times THE ultimate weapon. Parisology anyone?

      • Elmar17

        The meaning of the second amendment today would be best translated as “Since an effective fighting force composed of the members of the public body is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the individual members of the body public to keep and operate the weapons used to wage war shall not be restricted.”

        Regarding how the militia is operated when a declared war is used is under the powers of the Executive but only when the militia is called into duty by the Executive under that granted power. This turns the unorganized militia in the current US code into the organized militia under military control.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        aint it funny how I just kicked your ass upon that which we were discussing– quite civilly I may mention– and now u spin away after seeing that .
        You have — again– attempted to infer a meaning ( accuracy subject to arbitrary debate) upon something outside your level of expertise ( outside mine also; but I do NOT TRY to sound like I know)
        NOTE: restricted and infringed ( upon) have different meanings; U should know this ( u do but wanna cry as most regressive white trash repubs do)
        im so sick of limited cretins such as you-
        ********************************************************
        please now send back your pedantic and inaccurate reply.
        UGGGH— pseudo intellectuals seem to overtly populate the “right wing” of this fine country

      • Elmar17

        In a discussion there is no “kicking of ass”, nor do I believe that your rather incoherent ranting and frequent appeal to the shift key would qualify. If you wish to be taken seriously you may also want to not undertake the frequent ad hominem attack which not only distract from your position but also indicate that you view your argumentative position as weak and you feel you need to bolster it by including insults.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        hey crybaby,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,U adroitly spun away from the topic which U freely fed until U got eviscerated by me.
        taken seriously? by someone who continues to spew bavardage after seeing his vanilla argument evaporate?
        =======================================
        my aspersions at you are well deserved. my gross inconsistency in “perfect” punctuation ET HOC GENUS OMNE are for color; of which I see U lack totally——————– besides; im dictating whilst mt pet ARGENTINE TEGU types. although he IS a quadruped his skills in typing ( and listening) mirror your ineptitude socially here
        *****************************************************
        write back soon!

      • RealAmericanPatriot

        That’s cute, and that is what you would like it to say. That is however not what the 2nd amendment says.

      • Charles Vincent

        The Supreme Court held:[44]

        (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
        firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
        traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
        Pp. 2–53.

        (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does
        not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause.
        The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an
        individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

        (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of
        the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically
        capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists
        feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to
        disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a
        select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to
        abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that
        the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

      • Christopher Denney

        I would say that: “and to use that arm for
        traditionally lawful purposes” doesn’t mean “carry it around everyplace” or “eat dinner with it”
        I don’t see how marching around outside a school or otherwise publicly brandishing a firearm constitutes anyone’s definition of lawful PURPOSE, traditional or otherwise.

      • Charles Vincent

        Defense of ones self or other from an aggressor is a lawful employment of a firearm.

        You misuse brandish in a poor attempt to prop up a weak argument.

      • Christopher Denney

        Look up the definition of brandish, I used it correctly. Bringing a rifle to dinner at Burger King, or whatever, is not defending oneself, it is an ostentatious display, or an attempt to intimidate.

      • Charles Vincent

        Brandishy means in hand not slung on the back or in a holster and merely having a firearm for that purpose is lawful whether the need to use it arises or not .

        For reference the two definitions from dictionary dot com
        verb (used with object)
        1. to shake or wave, as a weapon; flourish:
        Brandishing his sword, he rode into battle.
        noun
        2. a flourish or waving, as of a weapon.

      • Christopher Denney

        also:
        2. To display ostentatiously.
        Many legal definitions are simply: display.

      • Charles Vincent

        They go by various names. and differ from State to State. the laws you refer to are and example of how law works in the gray areas, instead of using common sense. I can show many problems with your version of brandish.

      • Christopher Denney

        Common sense is neither common, nor sensical to everyone equally. For instance, I would consider it common sense to lock up anyone who thought they needed a loaded gun to eat a hamburger, as a dangerous, mentally unstable threat to everyone in the vicinity.
        I like guns, I like to shoot targets, I like the mechanical feel of the parts working, I’ve even dabbled in reloading; I don’t need a gun to eat though.

      • Charles Vincent

        That is your prerogative but you don’t get to tell others how they get to defend themselves.
        Additionally self defense is a proactive endeavor not a reactive one. Also last time I checked none of our species has the ability to foresee the future and that is why people carry firearms, because they never know when or if they might need to defend themselves.

      • gp3

        A gun on your back is not a display. It is the only legal way to carry a firearm in texas without paying for a card…. i have a license so i conceal but i do not begrudge anyone the right to carry a rifle on their back or shoulder. When i travel to places that allow it i prefer to carry my pistol on a belt holster… among other things i have found that it often starts a conversation. While i have seen people be wary at first glance, i have never seen anyone actually recoil at the sight of a properly holstered or slung firearm. On the contrary, very few people react at all, if they even notice.

      • Charles Vincent

        In your opinion that is.

        Sound to me like your ascribing hoplophobia to people. People who carry are carrying to protect themselves from unknown and unknowable threats, sorry that bothers you, but that’s your problem not theirs and under the law you can’t do anything unless they violate the law. As I said in a prior post self defense is proactive not reactive, as the saying goes an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

      • Elmar17

        No you did not.
        http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/brandish
        : Wave or flourish (something, especially a weapon) as a threat or in anger or excitement.

        So carrying in a holster or a sling is neither waving nor a flourish nor is it don’t as a threat or in anger or excitement. Thus it doesn’t meet either of the joint criteria for ‘brandish.

      • Sinan

        Heller. First declaration of this right in the history of the nation. Up until this decision, this was not a right. It was a protected right after this decision. So the argument that it was the intent of the framers to grant this right somehow escaped the framers, their period of control over government for the next 20 years and about 200 more years until Scalia pulled it out of his arse.

      • Charles Vincent

        wrong again.

        US v Miller “‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further,
        that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to
        appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use
        at the time.”‘”

        See also the

        English Bill of Rights of 1689

        and

        The federalist papers on the subject of bearing arms.

        and the several iterations of the second amendment written by James Madison.

        see here the first iteration of the second amendment “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

        and refer your self to also other state constitutions of the era which also explicitly state the right as an individual right.

      • Elmar17

        It was always a right. The 2nd amendment simply codified it in law. As in “the right of the people to…” the context is very simple for any person who doesn’t let cognitive bias interfere with their reading comprehension.

      • Sinan

        Right. If you care to read Heller you will see that Scalia had to go to extreme lengths to parse that amendment so it supported his decision. Anyone who knows anything about the BOR debates knows that the foundation for it was not a personal right but a collective right in order to insure that militias could be armed, state militias not federal ones. And why did states want to insure that their militias were armed? Because many were nothing but slave patrols or keeping the slaves from revolting.

      • Erica McClellan

        The Supreme Court also says corporations are people and their money equals free speech.

      • Charles Vincent

        Exactly how is that any different than the legal fiction the government created for your person?

      • Erica McClellan

        ” …fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer (….) If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?…..”

      • Charles Vincent

        Quoting Schall is a poor argument., and not relevant to anything here.

      • Erica McClellan

        Wow. I was quoting Shakespeare, Shylock in Merchants of Venice and it was relevant to the question I was asked. Thanks for playing!

      • Charles Vincent

        Indeed it is, Google steered me wrong. Either way the argument is irrelevant here. Quoting plays to prop up a “factual argument” is poor form and I think your ad lapidem is childish. Come back with actual factual rebuttals please.

      • RealAmericanPatriot

        Elmar are you a recognized or credentialed constitutional scholar with any standing or recognized expertise as a constitutional scholar or an expert on history? If you are who consults you and cites your research and publications on a regular basis. If not, what you think is just your opinion and really is not relevant.

      • Elmar17

        It is precisely as relevant as your opinion on my position is.

      • RealAmericanPatriot

        You answered my point by not answering my question. You made my point exactly. Who cares what you think or what you write since you have no credibility as an expert on history or the constitution.

      • ts

        no he’s right the term “regulated” was commonly used back then and meant in good working order. IT is found in many of the books and paper of that time .

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        again,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, who inspects to make certain it is ‘in good working order’? that will be mandated by federal and state legislations
        I also doubt that placing the staunch but LIMITED ” in good working order” is the ONLY thing meant- as today: English has many many meanings and ‘sub’ meanings

      • RealAmericanPatriot

        OK even if it means in good working order (which as you have admitted requires validation & inspection) that means that we should have laws allowing only those persons or groups of persons who pass the inspection/validation to purchase, own or legally use arms.
        So like we regulate the use of an automobile, ability to use a tractor trailer on the highway the right to operate as a public service taxi or bus driver, the right to be a realtor or stock broker we should regulate guns and gun owners by checking to ensure that they are in good working order before they are given the ability to purchase and then on a regular basis, yearly or bi-annually to ensure they are still in good working order, mentally, physically etc.
        Still want to stick with that definition of well-regulated?

      • Elmar17

        No, that is not how the sentence is constructed. The people have the right to keep and bear arms so that the militia can be in good working order. While I agree that the militia once called into service must be monitored like all regular troops the sentence structure places no such burden on ‘the people’.

      • Jared

        You don’t have to be alive at the time. They wrote plenty of books and letters clarifying what they meant.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        so,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,what is included with ” well regulated” that the posts here may have missed?

      • Anthony Caranci

        Yea, well unless you look at the Oxford English Dictionary during that time which shows the common usage of those terms.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        dictionaries are always behind language incursions.

      • RealAmericanPatriot

        Exactly Elmar a militia must be maintained and inspected (and overseen to ensure continued training and inspection). It is all right there in what you said. The peoples right to bear arms is subject to proper
        training regimen and proper organization. This means chain of command and oversight. It does not mean any random person gets to have any gun they desire unless they are part of a well-regulated militia or they getto throw a screaming blue faced tantrum.

        Currently there is no training requirement to own guns, many second amendment radicals don’t
        want any training requirement and scream bloody murder when one is suggested but as you have identified, that is what well-regulated means,
        how they are trained (and how they maintain training) which of course requires oversight. A training requirement would require training before purchasing and keeping training up on a regular basis. So as
        long as a training requirement is implemented and the training is kept current through regular training as overseen by officers of the militia appointed by each state then yes the people have a right to bear arms
        that shall not be infringed. People who are not part of a well-regulated militia, have no constitutional right to arms. I believe we should still allow them to maintain hunting and reasonable personal defense weapons as long as they prove proficiency and mental stability.

        That said however, if a person is not part of a well-regulated militia with regular training and inspection then they have no constitutional right to keep or bear arms. They have no constitutional right to possess or use whatever weapons they desire.

        This training requirement for the militia would of course be overseen by officers of the militia appointed by the state as stipulated in Article 1, Sec. 8.

        Article One

        Section 8

        “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

        To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

        To
        provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for
        governing such Part of them as may beemployed 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;”

        Furthermore Article 2,
        Section 2 states that the POTUS is Commander in Chief of the Militia
        when it is called into service for the US, this further reinforces that
        the militia is an organized body, not random unstructured individual
        people with a gun fetish or obsession.

        Article Two

        Section 2

        “The President shall be Commander in Chief
        of
        the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the
        several States, when called into the actual Service of the United
        States;”

      • Widows Son

        RealAmerican, If you take a look at the statement, it could very well be”
        “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State; and
        the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

        I’m no constitutional scholar, but if the first amendment has multiple segments that are all individually unalienable, why can’t the second hold the same value?

        I have next to no issues with open carry. Don’t get me wrong, if someone wants to walk down the street with an AK, or AR-15, while perfectly legal, doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Am I uncomfortable with people carrying openly? No, but if I see a person carrying, openly or “concealed”, I make sure I am alert and ready to respond if something goes dreadfully wrong.
        Just my opinion.

      • RealAmericanPatriot

        It is a comma not a semi-colon after State.

        Let me ask you a question. Some evening out with your children if you are on your street and there are 40 or so men wearing turbans, long wite and striped robes, all have black beards and all have AK-47’s, or there are 30 African American men in jeans and hoodies with blue bandana’s tied around their thigh or arm and AR-15’s slung on their back. You are honestly telling me you are OK with that that you feel safe in that situation?

        If good ol’ boys have the right to do it so do African Americans and Iranian-Americans.

        You’re going to fight for that right for all of them to walk into the restaurant with weapons on your shoulder during your daughter’s 6th birthday party at Chuckie Cheese?

      • Widows Son

        I understand what the print of the amendment is. My point is, that each of those statements are completely capable of standing alone and without the other.

        Again, I am not uncomfortable with open carry. It doesn’t make sense to walk down the street with an AR or AK, but it is legal. If 100 men in turbans and dresses do it, and they are not breaking any laws, then it’s nothing more than an open carry rally. The same with the African American folks you described. See, I grew up in a predominantly African American neighborhood and learned incredibly young that the visual has nothing to do with the actual. In fact the people I grew up with have become pillars of the community, including borough councilmen and women, police, business owners, and all are great parents. Not all of them carry or even own a firearm, but there are more who do than don’t and they are responsible owners who have passed the love of shooting and hunting on to their kids.

        In response to your last question, I don’t have a daughter, I have a son, and he has been taught to respect and enjoy the sport of shooting. If I were at Chuck E. Cheese and a group of people came in with whatever they were carrying, I have no doubt the management would ask them to leave. I have no fear about legal citizens openly carrying, it’s part of what this country was founded on. Just because the idea of an AR or AK being an “assault weapon” it shouldn’t be allowed is ridiculous.

        While we’re at it, can you explain to me what makes an AR15 an assault weapon?

        Have you ever heard the adage “don’t judge a book by it’s cover”? I think you would do well to learn the same lesson.

        Yes, I will defend the right of every citizen to keep and bare arms.

      • RealAmericanPatriot

        If the intent was to have the two thoughts stand independently, the very wise and learned framers would have used two separate sentences with a period between them or at the very least a semicolon to indicate a new thought. The had excellent command of the English language, grammar and punctuation.
        The comma indicates a continuation of a thought and makes the part about the militia a qualifier for the second part of the sentence. To suggest that their intent was to have two independent thoughts is an insult to the framers.
        It is quite easy to see this in the sentence if one is intellectually honest with oneself and others.

      • Elmar17

        I wouldn’t be worried about the first because the first sounds like a bunch of Sikh’s and every one I’ve known takes their religious duty to cause no harm and protect the innocent very very seriously.

        The second would worry me because people with matching parts of clothing that are color-coded is indicative of gang association. Sans the coloration I’d likely go up and talk guns with them.

        Rights are based on our human state not on religion (or perceived religion) or state of dress.

      • Elmar17

        You’re reversing the order of the amendment. It doesn’t read that being part of a well operating militia is the entry for the right to keep and bare arms but because a well operating militia is necessary the people have a right to keep and bear arms. The people have this right individually just as they have all other rights individually mentioned in the BoR. The people must have a working knowledge of keeping and bearing arms because as Von Steuben found at Valley Forge such an everyday familiarity with arms makes them much better soldiers. It is after all why Americans have Ready, Aim, Fire instead of the European standard of the time of Ready, Fire. We were more practiced in the art of shooting and thus more accurate even with smoothbore longarms.

      • Rain

        And arms at the time of writing didn’t mean much beyond a 6-shooter and a rifle…

      • Charles Vincent

        Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), 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.

        Justice Scalia
        United States Supreme Court
        District of Columbia v. Heller – 07-290 (2008)

      • Rain

        People cannot have both ways… If you want to interpret the word regulated as it was used then you must interpret all words in that manner… If you want to include today’s available arsenal then you must include today’s concept of regulation.

      • Charles Vincent

        Wrong read the passage from SCOTUS.
        People cannot have both ways… If you want to interpret the word regulated as it was used then you must interpret all words in that manner… If you want to include today’s available arsenal then you must include today’s concept of regulation.

      • giankeys loves shemale porn

        “you do not get to tell OTHERS how 2 run theirs”
        ======================================
        chuckie– we agreeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!
        *******************************************************
        question: would that include barring gays from marriage or telling women what to do with THEIR OWN body?
        …………………….lemme know

      • Charles Vincent

        marriage as a whole shouldn’t be something government licenses. It is a social contract between private individuals. the only thing government should be involved in with respect to marriage is to make sure every individual is granted equal protection under the law. i.e. law recognizes the marriage contract regardless of sexual orientation, and provides equal protection under the law as it currently does for traditional marriages.

        I presume our talking about abortion, but the answer is yes. With a few caveats.

      • giankeys loves shemale porn

        so- U are OK with govt intrusion on telling OTHERS how 2 run THEIR life? ( in the application of abortion)
        =================================
        above; james———– U wrote “u do NOT get 2 tell others how 2 run ur life”
        ********************************************************
        Charles; I don’t think U can cherry pick-
        does govt get to tell OTHERS how 2 run THEIR life?
        you just ( CORRECTLY) SAID NO,,,,,,,PLEASE CONFIRM

      • Charles Vincent

        I didn’t say anything about the state regulation of abortion i said caveats but lets refresh the what I have said on the topic.

        1) Roe v Wade was about a doctors right to practice medicine absent a compelling state interest not about women’s rights.

        “The Court asserted that the government had two competing interests –
        protecting the mother’s health and protecting the “potentiality of human
        life”. Following its earlier logic, the Court stated that during the
        first trimester, when the procedure is more safe than childbirth, the decision to abort must be left to the mother and her physician. The State has the right to intervene prior to fetal viability
        only to protect the health of the mother, and may regulate the
        procedure after viability so long as there is always an exception for
        preserving maternal health. The Court additionally added that the
        primary right being preserved in the Roe decision was that of the
        physician’s right to practice medicine freely absent a compelling state
        interest – not women’s rights in general.”

        The caveats I mentioned were personal i.e. between the father of the child and the mother.

        this thread on FP kind of hops around but you can clearly see my line of thought where the government isn’t concerned.

        http://www DOT forwardprogressives DOT com/judge-blocks-wisconsin-governor-scott-walkers-unconstitutional-new-abortion-law/

      • giankeys loves shemale porn

        W.
        R.
        O.
        N.
        G…………………………………….
        YOU SAID ( above) “YOU DO NOT GET TO TELL OTHERS HOW TO RUN YOUR LIFE”
        =======================================
        that’s leaves NO wiggle room chuckie- it IS an absolute statement–
        UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
        LUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUZ

      • Charles Vincent

        Not really you seem to have missed that I was saying someone i would be in an intimate relationship with i.e. a girlfriend/wife and you missed my pie analogy.
        there is a distinct difference between me trying to tell someone who is a stranger what to do and me wanting input with my significant other.

        What I said verbatim none of which had anything to do with state control nor telling someone unrelated what to do.
        “I want you to think of abortion as a whole pie. There are three pieces
        to that pie, the woman, the father, and the doctor, each having an equal
        portion of the pie. In one portion of the pie is the woman, in one the
        father and in the last is the doctor. Under the woman’s portion is the
        ultimate decision making on either having or not having an abortion.
        Under the fathers portion is moral support and him being able to express
        his feelings and opinions on the topic of the abortion, for the woman
        to thwart this opportunity robs the father of the chance to be
        responsible. The last portion is that of the doctor, he is responsible
        for making sure the woman is given all the information available to him
        to the mother so she can make an informed and responsible decision in
        the matter. Mind you that the father isn’t telling the woman what to do
        either way he is expressing his opinion and feelings, the final decision
        is still up to her.”

      • Christopher Denney

        I have to disagree with you here Charles; regardless of whatever else it is, marriage is a legal contract, with legal rights and responsibilities, tax exemptions, etc, At both the state and federal level. The religious wakos want to deny people that status on purely religious ground, which is patently unconstitutional. However, since many of them also perform a non-legally binding ceremony in a church they think they get to decide who does the legal part as well.

      • Charles Vincent

        marriage shouldn’t be state sanctioned period. and anyone can make a church so finding one that would perform the ceremony is well obvious. second all people are entitled to equal protection under the law. you see marraige is a contract of sorts and under our law they are binding the law has to enforce that contract.

      • Christopher Denney

        A significant number of marriages (some say 40%) are purely secular, no church involved at all. The point I was trying to make is that marriage is something that has purely secular effects, legally and financially.
        That is what the religious Reich is trying to deny people they disagree with.

      • Charles Vincent

        There will always be people who dis agree with thing other do. Secular doent mean that its state sponsored or regulated.

      • Christopher Denney

        In this case, however, it does. I am unaware of anyplace in the US that the state doesn’t have a hand in marriages. (that is to say regulates) People can get married in the church all they want, but until they get a marriage license, or register a common law marriage, they are not legally married. The whole issue with same gender marriages is that religions people want to block them from getting the LEGAL recognition due them, which is unconstitutional.

      • Charles Vincent

        Which is my point The state should not have a say in the peoples right to contract other than to enforce those lawful contracts.

      • Christopher Denney

        Um, what else makes it lawful but the state?

      • Charles Vincent

        The contract that the two parties agree on. The state is bound by law too honor a contract made and accepted in good faith.

      • RealAmericanPatriot

        More like black powder rifles, pistols and muskets in the 1770’s when these documents were written. Revolvers (1814) and repeating rifles (if that is what you meant – 1860) came much later, well in 1800’s.

      • Elmar17

        First off arms at the time of writing meant “weapons used to wage war”. Second taking that view then you wouldn’t have protections against search and seizure of your effects that didn’t exist back then nor would religious freedoms cover Scientology or Mormonism let alone Pastafarianism, and you would lack the right of free speech on the internet. Obviously it is a good thing that the idea you propose is invalid.

        Also revolvers weren’t around until near the civil war period and rifles were exceedingly rare with most long arms being smoothbore at the time of the US Revolutionary War.

      • Elmar17

        Arms at the time of writing in such context meant “weapons used to wage war”. This is why even during the war of 1812 private ships had canon’s which were the most powerful weapon used to wage war at that time.

        Revolvers did not exist in the revolutionary war as any regular form of arms, as they were extraordinarily rare and expensive. Rarely a Pukcle gun may have seen use on the battlefield but it wasn’t until Colt’s cap and ball revolver. It wouldn’t be until the Civil War and Colt’s 1951 navy revolver that revolvers would see much action in a war.

        Also rifles wouldn’t see much standard use in the Revolutionary war as rifles have rifling (hence the name) and most of the arms used in the Revolutionary war were smooth-bore muskets. A few of what would become known as “Kentucky long rifles” may have seen service from the areas in and around Pennsylvania.

      • Aaron Tappe

        I think everyone has taken stupid pills.

        The sentence structure is what reveals the meaning. Which states;
        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.
        one idea A well regulated Militia, coma infers second idea which is being necessary to the security of a free state, coma infers the third separate idea which is the right of the people to keep and bear arms, coma fourth and final separate idea which is shall not be infringed.

        The reason that there is separate inferences is because militia of the times and of today is separate of the people however militia of the times was made up of regulars and patriots (if regulars were to fail patriots could take the place of the regular militia in defending the country.) While I hear many arguments that continue to say that the 2nd amendment is specifically for militia(military) and not for the people as individuals to me sounds like people have forgotten grade school teachings about sentence structure. Arguing about the definition of what well regulated means becomes a mute point when the context of the 2nd amendment in its simplest terms is a right for the military and the people to bear arms in order to defend and keep free the state both from oppressive government and any foreign oppressive government.

      • Nancy L. Rattigan

        For those of you big sissies who need to carry heat everytime you leave your house, I suggest you move to a safer neighborhood! As for the militia nonsense, we no longer require them. Why? Well, that’s because we have a standing army, of course, unlike our fore fathers who had to depend on the Continental army that disbanded after the Revolutionary War. Am I the only one who ever cracked a history book around here? I am almost 66 years old and have NEVER been afraid to go grocery shopping until you jackasses decided to show off in Target and half of the grocery stores all over the South! Grow up!

      • Louis Mingüey

        Bullshit semantics.

      • Paul Rizzo

        where does it refer to how they are trained? if you look up regulated in the dictionary there is no, nor was there ever, any mention of training.

      • Charles Vincent

        The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word “regulate,” which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

        1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
        2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

        3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

        4) To put in good order.

        [obsolete sense]
        b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

        1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.
        We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton’s words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

        The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
        — The Federalist Papers, No. 29.
        Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of ‘disciplining’ which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.

      • l dean

        Cut ‘n paste is a lazy man’s tool. Can you synopsize?

      • Not reading is a lazy man’s response. Can you read?

      • l dean

        No. My computer is braille.

      • Charles Vincent

        Read it and make your own synopsis dean the I for is there. Sorry if cut and paste offends you it doesn’t make the the argument less factual, so you can quit with the logical fallacy argument you’re trying to posit.

      • Roger Barton

        Charles, the insistence on providing an accurate synopsis (i.e. an interpretation with which the critic can agree, couched in terms comprehensible to the average eighth-grader) is the typical response to extensive documentation.

      • Charles Vincent

        Everything I supplied is in plain English. Secondly when I did provide truncated versions people complain I didn’t have the facts so there you have it you get the long version.

      • RealAmericanPatriot

        Really Idean, you cannot read an article and you claim someone else is lazy. Oh the irony of your post.

        One would think you would not want to take someone else’s interpretation and synopsis.

      • ldean

        I didn’t say that I didn’t read it, nor did I give any indication that I “would not want to take….”. What’s your point. P.S. you need to look up the definition of “irony.” Your avatar tells me you are a Tea Party member? correct?

      • RealAmericanPatriot

        Irony – a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result.

        You ask someone else to take their time to provide a synopsis of an article and claim that cut an past is the lazy man’s tool. YOU WERE BEING LAZY. Hence your request was ironic.

        There is not a single thing about The Tealiban or the Teahadists that is Real, American or Patriotic. They are hypocritical, unamerican nationalists (at best and usually terrorists). They are not patriots.

      • ldean

        I used lazy to describe lazy of the mind… it’s a lazy man’s tool, because it requires no knowledge or understanding to cut and paste; therefore it is not ironic… and there certainly was no amusement.

      • RealAmericanPatriot

        Your request for him to summarize was an event and it was amusing and contrary in my view and in Jason Teal’s view when you requested that he summarize his post and stated that HE was being lazy (in any form).

        That you still cannot see that makes it all the more ironic.

        I reject your assertion that it requires no knowledge or understanding to cut and paste. He cut an pasted a very relevant article that reinforced his points and countered arguments. It’s not like he cut and pasted an article on how to make a quiche, which would require no understanding or knowledge.

        What he posted was very relevant to his position on the discussion at hand.

        Just realize that you might be wrong on this one.

      • ldean

        .

      • Paul Rizzo

        Well argued sir. Wish more people would support their claims in such a descriptive manner. In defense of my ignorance, though, one in the modern world would not have linked regulation to this anachronistic connotation without the support you gave after I called you out on it.

      • Charles Vincent

        Glad to have been of service.

      • Charles Vincent

        And so you can’t weasel out here’s the definition of discipline:
        dis·ci·pline [dis-uh-plin] Show IPA
        noun
        1.
        training to act in accordance with rules; drill: military discipline.
        2.
        activity, exercise, or a regimen that develops or improves a skill; training: A daily stint at the typewriter is excellent discipline for a writer.
        3.
        punishment inflicted by way of correction and training.
        4.
        the rigor or training effect of experience, adversity, etc.: the harsh discipline of poverty.
        5.
        behavior in accord with rules of conduct; behavior and order maintained by training and control: good discipline in an army.

      • Charles Vincent

        And article 1 section 8 of the US constitution;
        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;

      • Daniel

        Actually at the time, militias were under the statutory authority of the state government. The governor would call up the mitia. This translated directly into the national guard. An individual right to bear arms was not out forth until the middle of The last century. Look at the war of 1812.or the Mexican American war. This isn’t ancient history.

      • Charles Vincent

        Look the federal govenrment has the wherewithal to organize and train the militia its in the constitution article 1 section 8; 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;
        Learn to read the constitution and maybe crack open a book that has the federalist papers in it.

      • RealAmericanPatriot

        “when called out to exercise or into service,

        No one that wants the gun free for all is being called to exercise or into service. This last line indicates that the militia was expected to be regularly called to exercise to ensure that the militia was maintained, inspected and organized.

        Anyone operating in a group that is overseen by the state appointed officers of the militia for maintenance (training), inspection (physical and mental fitness) is a member of the group of people that have the right to bear arms. Anyone not in such a group under the leadership and regular exercise requirements has NO constitutional expectation or right to bear arms.

        HOWEVER I believe they should still be allowed to own and use hunting and personal defense weapons but only under reasonable regulations.

        Again if a person is NOT part of an organized, inspected, regularly trained (by the state militia officers) militia —> NO Constitutional Right to Arms.

        It is all right there.

      • Charles Vincent

        10 U.S. Code § 311 – Militia: composition and classes
        (a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32,under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

        (b) The classes of the militia are—
        (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
        (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

        And DC v Heller

        The Supreme Court held:[44]

        (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

        (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

        (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

        (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

        (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

        (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

        Try again spanky

      • RealAmericanPatriot

        Really another out of context citation Charlie?

        There was no National Guard when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written.

        Here you go being intellectually dishonest and maintaining your own cognitive dissonance again.

      • Hunter Herr

        Great, let them join well-regulated militias, then.

      • Charles Vincent

        They don’t need to its an individual right unconnected to the militia or service in one.

      • RealAmericanPatriot

        That is a single opinion that is in opposition to all the other historically established interpretation.

      • Charles Vincent

        No it has been established by the supreme court, and historical documentation. You should change your screen name you’re not a patriot cause you don’t know anything about this country.

      • RealAmericanPatriot

        It was a single SCOTUS opinion that was in opposition to all the other historically established decisions/interpretations. It was a break and did not follow precedent.

        You are so intellectually dishonest in your effort to maintain the lies you tell yourself and others.

      • Charles Vincent

        Actually that’s the whole of the law.

        “There was no National Guard when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written.”
        the dick act of 1902 created the national guard and that law specified the difference between organized and unorganized militia.

        Your cognitive Dissonance has struck again.

      • RealAmericanPatriot

        Yes correct Charles, when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written there was NO SUCH THING as a National Guard so when you claimed in a post that you have now deleted that when the framers used the word Militia in the 2nd Amendment that they meant National Guard.

        YOU WERE LYING.

        I don’t think you know what Cognitive Dissonance means, you keep using the words but always incorrectly. It is not simply an insult but has a very specific meaning. One which describes your arguments precisely. It means holding two opposing and contradictory positions at the same time. Something you do frequently, when you are not flat out lying.

      • Charles Vincent

        First paragraph is a straw-man argument I never said that and my post is still there.

        Cognitive Dissonance

        anxiety that results from simultaneously holding contradictory or otherwise incompatible attitudes, beliefs, or the like, as when one likes a person but disapproves strongly of one of his or her habits.

        Word Origin & History
        cognitive dissonance

        1957, developed and apparently coined by U.S. social psychologist Leon Festinger (1919-1989).

        The rest of your post resembles how Charlie browns teacher sounded.

      • jjdoe

        We have NO IDEA what ‘well-regulated’ meant to the founding fathers. Or why the term was included. It obviously means something, or it wouldn’t be in there. What we have to day is NOT well-regulated, in any sense of the word.

      • Charles Vincent

        Yes we do and SCOTUS confims what I just said and if you bothered to read the constitution article 1 section 8 you wouldn’t be saying asinine things like that.

      • RealAmericanPatriot

        Exactly Charles “how the militia is trained”. It is all right there in what you said. The peoples right to bear arms is subject to proper training regimen and proper organization. This means chain of command and oversight. It does not mean any random person gets to have any gun they desire unless they are part of a well-regulated militia or they get to throw a screaming blue faced tantrum.

        Currently there is no training requirement to own guns, many second amendment radicals don’t want any training requirement and scream bloody murder when one is suggested but as you have identified, that is what well-regulated means, how they are trained (and how they maintain training) which of course requires oversight. A training requirement would require training before purchasing and keeping training up on a regular basis. So as long as a training requirement is implemented and the training is kept current through regular training as overseen by officers of the militia appointed by each state then yes the people have a right to bear arms that shall not be infringed. People not part of a well-regulated militia, have no constitutional right to arms.

        This training requirement for the militia would of course be overseen by officers of the militia appointed by the state as stipulated in Article 1, Sec. 8.

        Article One

        Section 8

        “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

        To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

        To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may beemployed 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;”

        Furthermore Article 2, Section 2 states that the POTUS is Commander in Chief of the Militia when it is called into service for the US, this further reinforces that the militia is an organized body, not random unstructured individual people with a gun fetish or obsession.

        Article Two

        Section 2

        “The President shall be Commander in Chief
        of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;”

      • Charles Vincent

        “The peoples right to bear arms is subject to proper training regimen and
        proper organization. This means chain of command and oversight. It
        does not mean any random person gets to have any gun they desire unless
        they are part of a well-regulated militia or they get to throw a
        screaming blue faced tantrum.”

        Wrong
        DC v Heller
        (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
        Pp. 2–53.

        (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

        (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

        The article one section 8 only applies to the militia not to private citizens way to make a poor strawman argument.

        The whole part about the POTUS calling the militia is in the Dick act 1902 and only applies to the militia or what portion the POTUS calls forth.

        “Furthermore Article 2, Section 2 states that the POTUS is Commander in Chief of the Militia when it is called into service for the US, this further reinforces that the militia is an organized body, not random unstructured individual people with a gun fetish obsession.”

        Again you’re wrong

        10 U.S. Code § 311 – Militia: composition and classes

        (a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

        (b)The classes of the militia are—

        (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

        (2) the unorganized militia, which consists
        of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

        Man you’re a real gem. Learn to read next time.

      • Really? Just those two things? Not any of the following?

        a. To what lawful authority it answers to.
        b. How it’s recruited.
        c. How it’s disciplined.
        d. How do you distinguish the well-regulated militia from the deranged homicidal maniac walking down the street with an AK-47 BEFORE he opens fire.

        But let’s just stick to your two points for now. How are they trained and how are they organized?

      • Charles Vincent

        The second amendment expresses an individual right to bear arms unconnected to the militia

        “But let’s just stick to your two points for now. How are they trained and how are they organized?”

        Take a look at the DICK act(1902) Gary. and then look at the national guard its glaringly obvious how Militias are to be trained and organized

        “a. To what lawful authority it answers to”

        It’s called the Chain of command Gary

        “d. How do you distinguish the well-regulated militia from the deranged homicidal maniac walking down the street with an AK-47 BEFORE he opens
        fire.”
        Irrelevant and also argumentum absurdum.

      • Gary Menten

        In what way are these open carry clowns part of the National Guard?

        P.S. Guard members don’t get to carry their Guard issued M-16’s when shopping at Walmart.

      • Charles Vincent

        “In what way are these open carry clowns part of the National Guard?”
        They aren’t and they do not need to be to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.
        DC v Heller
        The Supreme Court held:

        (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

        (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

        (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

        (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

        (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

        (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

        (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

        “P.S. Guard members don’t get to carry their Guard issued M-16’s when shopping at Walmart.”

        Nope. But nothing but a 200 dollar transfer tax and the cost of the actual M16 prevents them from buying an M16 and carrying it.

        http://targetworld DOT net/Steps%20for%20buying%20NFA%20%28Class%20III%20Weaponry%29%2011-3-07 DOT pdf

      • Bill Engfer

        The second amendment does not exist in a vacuum. The duties of the militia as outlined in article I section 8 of the constitution under powers of the congress.

        “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”
        Supressing insurrections. Not inciting or participating in them. Its spelled out right there. Not ‘fighting tyrannical government,’ the favorite refuge of second amendment misinterpreters. That’s why the second amendment exists.

      • Charles Vincent

        Go back and re read the minutes from the constitutional debates and also peruse the federalist papers.

        Here is one of several samples
        Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust thepeople with arms.
        And it is not certain that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.
        James Madison, Federalist # 46

      • newrevolutionone

        then why is it filed with the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed they’re not talking about the military nice try Charles

      • Charles Vincent

        I think you need to read the whole discussion Chief.

      • Jared

        Do you not understand basic history? well regulated does not mean government oversight in that context, lol. Militia also refers to all able-bodied citizens. Did you flunk high school?

      • korhal

        This isn’t the 1800’s, fool. Come join us in the present.

      • Jared

        I didn’t know moving forward in time gave us the ability to abolish certain rights. Weird.

      • korhal

        I don’t want to “grab” your guns. Keep them, as long as you continue to obey the law. If you start changing the law to suit yourself instead of the public at large, or start breaking the law by endangering the lives of others, then yes, you should absolutely lose the right to own a firearm.

      • ibz1550rg

        “the people”, as referred to in the constitution, is not meant to subclass people into specific roles. instead “the people” is all inclusive. therefore, the militia argument has nothing to do with 2A. the purpose of a militia is to defend a community. and a militia is comprised of the very same people. because of that need, the people’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. damn, people. in our ignorance, we have been the ones who strayed from the founders intent – by creating classes of people who can, and cannot own firearms.

      • korhal

        “The people”, in the founding fathers’ original intent, meant free, white men. Times change. Definitions change.

      • Browncoats

        Funny how the only people who disagree about what the 2nd Amendment actually says are the people who have no full understanding of history, haven’t read the Federalist Papers or bothered to read and digest the writings of the time or the history of debate on the Amendment. They only want to look at the NFA and the most recent Court rulings and try and judge the Amendment and determine meaning based upon a limited scope. I submit to you a plethora of historic writings on the subject. This address all of your issues…

        “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.”

        For, in principle, there is no difference between a law

        prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the
        wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the
        latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is
        not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is
        the right entire and complete,
        as it existed at the adoption of
        the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired,
        immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time
        at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution.”
        [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec.
        251 (1822)]
        ” ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
        infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and
        boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description,
        and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed,
        curtailed, or broken in upon, in the
        smallest degree; and all this
        for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a
        well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free
        State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to
        the
        Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.” [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]

        “The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to
        bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any
        law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the
        Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff.” [People
        vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189
        N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)]

        “On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or
        invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12,1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)

        “The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals…. It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.” (Albert
        Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)

        “The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States….Such men form the best barrier to the
        liberties of America” – (Gazette of the United States, October 14,1789.)

        “No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers,
        334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

        “The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…” (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

        “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

        “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the
        establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty…. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an
        army upon their ruins.” (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

        “…to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

        “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, The Federalist Papers
        #46 at 243-244)

        “the ultimate authority … resides in the people alone,” (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.)

        “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the
        whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States” (Noah Webster in ‘An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution’, 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the
        Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))

        “…if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?” (Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail,
        Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888))

        “…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the
        government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights…” (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in
        Federalist 29.)

        “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . .Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)

        “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” (Tench Coxe in ‘Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution’ under the Pseudonym ‘A Pennsylvanian’ in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
        at 2 col. 1)

        “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are thebirthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the
        people” (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

        “The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only
        be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”
        [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)

        “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people,
        except for few public officials.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

        “The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms” (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in
        the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

        “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.” (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate,
        which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of nAlabama Press,1975)..)

        “The great object is that every man be armed” and “everyone who is able may have a gun.” (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,…taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed.
        Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

        “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.” (Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646)

        “Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and
        under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal
        safety to us, as in our own hands?” (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

        “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)

        “That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…”
        (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))

        “And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms….The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and
        tyrants” (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)

        “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined” (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

        “The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” — (Thomas Jefferson)

        “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present
        day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with
        all that is good” (George Washington)

        “A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the
        mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.
        (Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 [Foley, Ed., reissued 1967])

        “The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside…Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them…” (Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56
        [1894])

        “…the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms” (from article in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789 at 2, col.2,)

        “Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a
        court awed by the fear of an armed people.” (Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and
        Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697])

        “No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another,
        must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he
        possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion.” (James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775])

        “Men that are above all Fear, soon grow above all Shame.” (John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, Cato’s Letters: Or, Essays on Liberty, Civil and Religious, and Other Important Subjects
        [London, 1755])

        “The difficulty here has been to persuade the citizens to keep arms, not to prevent them from being employed for violent purposes.” (Dwight, Travels in New England)

        “What country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.)

        (The American Colonies were) “all democratic governments, where the power is in the hands of the people and where there is not the least difficulty or jealousy about putting arms into the hands of
        every man in the country. (European countries should not) be ignorant of the strength and the force of such a form of government and how strenuously and almost wonderfully people living under one have sometimes exerted themselves in defence of
        their rights and liberties and how fatally it has ended with many a man and many a state who have entered into quarrels, wars and contests with them.” [George Mason, “Remarks on Annual Elections for the Fairfax Independent Company” in The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792, ed Robert A. Rutland (Chapel Hill, 1970)]

        “To trust arms in the hands of the people at large has, in Europe, been believed…to be an experiment fraught only with danger. Here by a long trial it has been proved to be perfectly harmless…If the government be equitable; if it be reasonable in
        its exactions; if proper attention be paid to the education of children in knowledge and religion, few men will be disposed to use arms, unless for their amusement, and for the defence of themselves and their country.” (Timothy Dwight, Travels in New
        England and NewYork [London 1823]

        “It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national
        will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily
        overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it.” (James Madison, “Federalist No. 46”)

        “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are
        successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.” (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States before the Adoption of the Constitution [Boston,
        1833])

        “The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military.
        The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government – and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws.” (Edward Abbey, “The
        Right to Arms,” Abbey’s Road [New York, 1979])

        “You are bound to meet misfortune if you are unarmed because, among other reasons, people despise you….There is simply no comparison between a man who is armed and one who is not. It is
        unreasonable to expect that an armed man should obey one who is unarmed, or that an unarmed man should remain safe and secure when his servants are armed. In the latter case, there will be suspicion on the one hand and contempt on the other, making
        cooperation impossible.” (Niccolo Machiavelli in “The Prince”)

        “You must understand, therefore, that there are two ways of fighting: by law or by force. The first way is natural to men, and the second to beasts. But as the first way often proves inadequate one must needs have recourse to the second.” (Niccolo Machiavelli
        in “The Prince”)

        “As much as I oppose the average person’s having a gun, I recognize that some people have a legitimate need to own one. A wealthy corporate executive who fears his family might get kidnapped is one such person. A Hollywood celebrity who has to protect himself from kooks is another. If Sharon Tate had had
        access to a gun during the Manson killings, some innocent lives might have been saved.” [Joseph D. McNamara (San Jose, CA Police Chief), in his book, Safe and Sane, (c) 1984, p. 71-72.]

        “To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . .is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.” [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]

        “The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions.” [State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)]

        “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense ofhimself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and ‘is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the
        lawmaking power.” [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402
        (1859)]

      • korhal

        You’ve only reinforced that law-abiding, non-crazy people should own firearms. Most of the lunatic fringe on the right shouldn’t be let anywhere near a firearm. Not only are they a significant danger to themselves, they are a significant danger to others as well, because they’ve been whipped up into a frenzy by people like you.

      • Browncoats

        Well, you’re only reinforced that only the government should be allowed to own firearms. You people seem to think that you can just wish them away and then what? Your very naive to believe that the government can be trusted. How many dogs and innocent people have the police killed through over reaction in the last 10 years? So, then the police have nothing but billy clubs and harsh words, like the British Bobbies, I’m sure that the drug dealers will turn in their weapons and I’m sure the government wouldn’t just turn into a tyrannical totalitarian regime, because that has never happened before. I’m not Right Wing, I’m for Liberty and Freedom, which is the basis of the United States Constitution, which is the basis for the United States Government which makes me, a moderate and a realist. You are the left wing lunatic advocating government take over of American Freedoms and Liberty, which makes you the fringe and if you would go through and conduct a little research, you would find that most mass shootings are conducted by left wing fringe people. I think what it boils down to is the lefts hoplophobia and impulse control. You guys see things through a prism of if you had a weapon you’d suddenly loose your mind, yell “I HAVE THE POWER” and suddenly start shooting up the place up. Basically, the leftist fringe has issues and they think that we who advocate for our 2nd Amendment Rights have issues. We don’t have an issue except that morons keep advocating for the downfall of a free society because they lack a complete understanding of history, the rule of law and believe in Unicorns, Leprechauns and Fairy Dust. Those beliefs can’t and won’t help anything in our society.

      • korhal

        You’ve stopped making any logical sense whatsoever. Stop sniffing fairy dust and come back to reality.

      • Dave

        In this case, will regulated precedes “Militia”, and means “well trained and regimented”. So it’s saying that well-trained citizens soldiers are necessary to keep freedom. For this reason, it’s important that the people have arms, it says. “The right of the people” is unequivocal; it has specific meaning in the Constitution, and stronger meaning than “Congress shall make no laws”, and always pertaining to the rights of the individual people. There’s no other place in the Constitution that “the right of the people” means anything other than individual people.

      • pszymeczek

        I think you have that confused. Where an individual right is intended, the word “PERSON” or “PERSONS” is used. See Amendment VI.

      • Dave

        Amendment I: right of the people peaceably to assemble

        Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

        Which of those rights to do you feel are reserved only for the National Guard, and not to individuals in society?

      • pszymeczek

        Amendment IV: In their PERSONS

      • Dave

        So, you’re saying the the right of peaceable assembly is a government function at some level, and not an individual right of the people, because it doesn’t use the word “Persons”?

      • pszymeczek

        Not saying it is a Governmental function, just that it is generally a collective action.

      • Rick Fader

        But your previous “arguments” against sanity state that the GOVERNMENT must decide what IS and what is NOT…therefore if the Government must “recognize” a militia for it to be valid, then the Government must “recognize” that you are peaceably assembled, or you are not, and the Government must “recognize” that you have a Right to your speech, or you do not.

      • Dave

        If peaceable assembly is a collective action ONLY, it seems to me that people can be arrested for peaceably assembling, even if the collective action is legal.

        ORRR, perhaps the collective action of the People means ad-hoc assembly, needing no permission from the government, and having participants immune from prosecution because of the Amendment. But, then, that would imply that the “Militia Movement”, as creepy as that seems, is the ACTUAL meaning of the 2nd Amendment. And only if we’re a member of an ad-hoc militia group, can we bear arms.

        Oh, but wait, we ARE a member of an ad-hoc militia group, and it’s even recognized by the Federal government. It’s known as the “unorganized militia”. You and I and everyone is in that militia. So I guess the 2nd Amendment applies to everyone.

      • Rick Fader

        The Militia Act of 1903 is NOT an Article of the Constitution. The Constitution is the SUPREME Law of the land. It can NOT be subservient to ANY Laws. It is ILLEGAL to have a Law that is “Superior” to the Constitution. Your Argument is folly, and invalid.

      • Dave

        Only if the Supreme Court decides it’s incompatible with the Constitution.

      • pszymeczek

        The Militia Act of 1903 is one of the LAWS enacted as “appropriate Legislation” to enforce the Second Amendment. It has not, in 111 years been declared unconstitutional. Therefore, my point is totally valid.

      • gian keys flat mom

        would that include the constitutional ACA?

      • Chadlius

        Dave you almost sound logical, however if you read Madison and the rest of the Constitution thoroughly you can see that the Militia is a group and not an individual. It is stated that this militia is for the defense of the state (nation) and in the Constitution that the President is to be the Militia’s Commander in Chief. In those days a standing army was not an expense for which people wanted to be taxed. The Militia is now replaced by the National Guard, organized on the State level but the Commander is still the President. I am an English Teacher and it is clear that “the people” referred to here are to be members of the “well regulated Militia” just as they have in Switzerland where every weapon is registered and ammo is inventoried and no longer kept in homes(too many people committing suicide). George Washington used the Militia to put down a bunch of individuals who thought he was a tyrant and didn’t want to obey federal laws or pay federal taxes on alcohol. You may have heard of the “Whiskey Rebellion” ?. Also the words “bear arms” does not even assume individual ownership. The 2nd Amendment is not one of the checks and balances intended to avoid dictatorship. First of these is the Vote.

      • Rick Fader

        Negative. The President is NOT stated to be in charge of ANY Militia. The President is the Commander-In-Chief of the ARMED FORCES.

        The Militia is NOT an entity that is defined as a government agency ANYWHERE in ANY writings of Law.

        If you were an English Teacher, you would (Hopefully) understand the dynamics of how an Amendment of the Constitution is written. The location and terminology of “A well regulated Militia” is NOT used to “define” the SCOPE of the Law, as is often misunderstood by Liberals.

        Do your research, and gain some knowledge before spewing your diatribes and trying to pass it off as intelligence.

      • Chadlius

        Rick you have only proved your own ignorance. Original text of the Constitution, article 2, section 2, “The President shall be the commander in chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states,. Since you make categorical statements that deny the reality of what is written in the Constitution I will have to take the rest of what you say with a load of salt. I sugest you take your own advice and do your research.

      • pszymeczek

        The Governors of the several States are in charge of the Militias of the States, unless those Militias have been federalized in accordance with the law, in the event of insurrection or other national emergency. At that point, they are under the command of the President of the United States.

      • gian keys flat mom

        lets see the “militias” u name try anything against presidents command
        =========================================
        lets see how they fare against our military

      • Dave

        The vote cannot protect us against dictatorship. The first thing a dictator will do, after taking all the guns away from the populace, is to eliminate the vote. Voting is at the behest of the government. We maintain that it’s a right, and it’s true that being popularly elected gives a measure of legitimacy to a leader, but it’s not a weapon against dictatorship.

      • Mary Beerman

        We have quite a few republican governors that are doing their best to eliminate the vote.

      • Chadlius

        So sorry to hear that you have no faith in voting, but how will an American Dictator “take the guns” as Alex Jones puts it. If you add all the effectives (able bodied) from the Army, Navy, Marine corps, Air force and Coast Guard plus the FBI, CIA, ATF and Fema you might total 1.5 million. Organize these into platoons of twelve and spread them secretly across the country with metal detectors and sniffer dogs the night before the summer solstice and prepare to shut down all communications and power at the crack of dawn. These 200K>300k platoons would of course need to search every domicile even though only a estimated third have guns, since even the NSA can’t be sure which ones to target. My estimate is that they would have to hit 80 to 100 units before dark. Figuring even minimal travel time they would not have more than 10 to 15 minutes per dwelling to find each arsenal. Could it be done? I can’t find my car keys that fast sometimes and I think I know where I left them so I have my doubts. This is assuming all our soldiers would follow such unlawful orders and that such a conspiracy could be kept secret . (I left out the National Guard for that reason). As for whittling away our rights that evil genius dictator wannabe Obama has been unable to get any new regulations passed. But maybe you are worried about the Governors of the blue states? I have yet to hear of any general confiscations and how can I disprove secret ones? If an attempt were made to do one state or just a few at a time it would certainly start a new civil war. I personally know of many itchy trigger fingers who can hardly wait for the fun to start. It seems that you may agree with those who feel the last two elections were stolen? I know many people accept the myth that ALL the states with photo ID requirements went for Romney and those without for Obama. Not true, but if it were then why did this incredibly successful operation neglect to steal enough House seats so that the Dictatorship could really get the steamroller going? Oh that’s right the evil genius O. is really a moron who can’t do anything right. By the way a real look at history will show Alex Jones is wrong about Stalin, Hitler and Mao confiscating guns as a lead-up to total Dictatorship. Russia and China had their civil wars before power was consolidated. Hitler confiscated a few guns from Jews. His success was in getting control of the media much like Putin. None of them attempted anything like what would need to be done here in the States for the simple reason that they never had a fraction as many weapons in the hands of the general population as we have. For the record I still support Reagan’s restrictions on military grade weapons. But I am not for any general confiscation and I don’t personally know anyone who is. Yes I can dream of a day when we treat ballistic weapons like we do wheeled ones. License to operate, register to own and transfer of title when sold. Won’t happen but I can dream. In the meantime don’t worry your nightmares aren’t real.

      • Charles Vincent

        1.5 million people divided in to 12 man platoons makes 125k platoons not 200-300k. Secondly 1/3 of the us population is ~104 million people versus your 1.5 million people attempting confiscation that’s basically 100 to 1 in favor of gun owners not very good odds for your poorly thought out scenario.

      • gian keys flat mom

        agreed————— and until then we are a voting country.
        when Obama comes for your guns,,,, lemme know-
        ……until then shouldn’t U be crying “BENGHAZI”??

      • Sean Hellems

        Considering that the 2nd amendment says that we have the right to keep and bear arms for the purposes of participating in the militia, the police should ask these open carriers if they’re carrying these weapons as part of participation in a federal and state recognized and regulated militia. These small militias running around here are illegal–plain and simple.

        CONGRESS has the SOLE authority
        “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
        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;”~~Article I sec. 8, US Constitution

        “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States”~~Article 2, sec. 2, clause 1, US Constitution.

      • Rick Fader

        So, to pick apart things as a Liberal would…you are saying that the President is NOT the Commander-In-Chief of the Air Force. Since it is a part of the Armed Forces, and has nothing to do with being a part of a militia, and since the PRES is ONLY in charge of the Army and Navy. (See how STUPID one can be if they think like a Liberal and try and push an agenda over common sense and reason?)

      • gian keys flat mom

        there was/is no point 2 that bavardage

      • Pehr Smith

        Like David Koresh?

      • pszymeczek

        And the Militia Acts of 1792 (which were superseded by the Militia Act of 1903) specifies just who was to be included in the Militia (Postmen, stagecoach drivers, and Congressmen were among those exempted), specifies how they were to be structured, specifies how they were to be equipped, right down to the number of musket balls and amount and type of powder, and specifies how often they were to meet for training. THAT is what “Well-regulated” means.

      • Mary Beerman

        What well-regulated militia do you belong to?

      • Rick Fader

        The United States Navy. Once the oath to defend the citizens from all enemies, foreign and domestic, is taken, it is never rescinded.

        But, some Liberal retard suddenly thinks that my service entitles me, and others who have served, to be considered “enemy combatants” by this un-sovereign Administration.

        Now, For your “Freedom Of Speech”, what news agency do YOU belong to?

      • Jose Canario

        Thanks for your service Rick but as former Naval Officer myself I don’t see how your service “entitles” you to be an enemy combatant…Surely though you remember the Conservative individual who put the nation in this position to begin with, claiming victory, but leaving a freaking mess for us, United States citizens, and the rest of the world to clean up. He put you there without an exit plan…just saying…

      • gian keys flat mom

        conservative administration,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, please give ” credit” when due

      • Mary Beerman

        My husband served in the Army, but he is no longer a part of that WELL-REGULATED MILITIA, since his honorable discharge and reserve status is completed. Unless you are still actively in the Navy, you are not in a WELL-REGULATED MILITIA. Who called you an enemy combatant?

      • Charles Vincent

        The us army is not the militia as understood by the constitution.
        http://www DOT law DOT cornell DOT edu/uscode/text/10/311
        The militia under current us code is defined as either organized militia which is the national guard courtesy of the dick act of 1902.
        And the unorganized militia. The militia consists of all citizens 17 to 45 I believe.

      • pszymeczek

        The “unorganized militia” is the Individual Ready Reserve, composed of former active duty or reserve military personnel and is authorized under 10 U.S.C, Ch. 1005. For soldiers in the National Guard, its counterpart is the Inactive National Guard (ING). You were transferred into the Individual Ready Reserve upon your discharge from active duty or active membership in the National Guard.

      • Charles Vincent

        No the unorganized militia isn’t national guard, the national guard is the organized militia us code clearly states that. As does the militia act of 1902 that created the national guard.

      • Janet Engebretson

        You just said links are not allowed and then you post links. Typical rwnj!

      • Charles Vincent

        You have to modify the link sweet cheeks see the DOT where the associated “.” Should be???? Typical lefty slinging ad hominem because they are ignorant and lack common sense.

      • Janet Engebretson

        First of all, my name is listed here so please stop being the condescending ass you obviously are and calling me sweet cheeks. Second, you are clearly exactly what I labeled you as, a rwnj. They are the only people on the planet that want us all to go back to the 1950’s. You would actually prefer it if we could go back to before women could vote. Guess what Charles. We are women, WATCH US VOTE! Your baggers are a thing of the past, that’s why you’re such a condescending ass. No reply necessary as it would just be more of your asinine drivel.

      • Charles Vincent

        Awwww poor baby can’t take what you dish out? Tough cookie. And take your own advice if you don’t want someone to be an ass to you don’t be an ass to them sweet cheeks. In short man up and take the medicine you so cavalierly tried to dish out. Then learn to use your adult words instead of being a child.

      • River

        Thank you for your service. Watch the use of the word retard. I expect more from the Navy than to insult those with intellectual disabilities. If you can’t argue or facts, and you wouldn’t use that language with your CO, don’t use it here.

      • Marlene Ross

        Thank you for pointing out this insult to those having intellectual disabilities. One might want to questin the intelligence of anyone who lowers himself to argue through such insult.

      • kim

        rick fader….I took the same oath when I joined the Air Force……and I have seen a whole lot of those on the right whom I consider domestic enemies….much of the HoR in fact. Too many in the unsupreme court as well.

      • gian keys flat mom

        how about the part of the oath to follow ‘commander in chief’ orders?
        keep crying

      • julianenglish

        Very cute. Gotta love a quick wit. But… unlike the second amendment, which explicitly mentions “well regulated militia,” the first amendment doesn’t mention news organizations. Still, that was damn funny.

      • Dave

        One last thing. In WWII, America had an advantage–REALLY good mechanics. This was because working on cars was a popular hobby among teenagers before the war. Likewise, US armed forces have an advantage that many recruits have a pre-existing understanding of firearms, due to the gun-culture in the US.

        Aside from any 2nd Amendment issues, it’s a benefit to the defense of this country to tolerate, or even support the “Gun Culture”. To that end, there USED to be the Civilian Marksmanship Program, by which the government trained and equipped the Unorganized Militia.

      • Mary Beerman

        Yeah, back in the 1940’s, TEENAGERS worked on cars. Since there weren’t as many cars before the war, as there were after the war, when things got more prosperous and the US was humming along, I think you pulled that “fact” right out of your backside. Teenagers in the 50’s & 60’s played around with cars, but the 40’s, not so much. The “gun culture” nuts of today are not much help in the present war. How long does it take to learn how to shoot a gun? My brother never shot a gun in his life and was the top sharpshooter in his unit when he joined the Army.

      • Charles Vincent

        The right to bear arms isn’t connected to militia service.

      • Mary Beerman

        Oh, but it is. It’s right there in the constitution. I guess you pick your faves from the bible too?

      • Charles Vincent

        Please read DC v heller it say different.

        “(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
        (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
        (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
        (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
        (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
        (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.”

      • BD

        Did you read the part that says “such as self-defense WITHIN THE HOME”? Not walking around the little league game with an AR-15! No court has ever found the he second amendment right to bear arms is without limits.

      • Charles Vincent

        Yep they posited and example of lawful use they did not say that’s the only instance.

      • Charles Vincent

        The second amendment intended private citizens to have the same level of firearms as the standing military.

      • gian keys flat mom

        ‘intended’???
        where do U READ that? or do U just suppose?

      • Charles Vincent

        The Federalist papers.

      • gian keys flat mom

        and did those papers foresee the types of evolved weaponry OUR military has now; and subsequently would allow PRIVATE citizens to have access to ALL that ?????
        I doubt it- but if so: I want a nice new shiny tank

      • Charles Vincent

        Yes I am sure the framers new things would evolve and you only need to look at how history shows how thing evolved. Well if you have a couple hundred grand I am sure you can buy a tank probably from the ww2-Vietnam era buy you can buy them and it’s completely legit.

        http://www DOT militarytanksforsale DOT net

      • Charles Vincent

        “For Coxe, the 1808 Act was an ideal opportunity to use federal resources to help build a strong domestic firearms industry. Coxe’s letters to Secretary of War William Eustis set forth the relation between the industry and an armed populace. [192] To defeat a standing army, a populace must be well armed:

        *382

        No part of Europe will permit us to obtain arms from them…. A general armament for the purpose of a general stand is a measure … worthy of consideration. The omnipresence of the public force is the consequence of a general armament. The skill of modern regular armies require the mass of the population to be equipped for resisting the potent invaders of this time. [193]
        Sales of arms to the public would not only arm them, but would also generate industry advances:

        A decided tone, a good inspection, good patterns and in short much care, pains and vigilance are necessary to procure substantial Arms from public & private Armories. If sales to the Militia & private persons [&] to ships should at any time be desired and practicable, it would keep up the manufacture and enable us to improve the standard quality. [194]
        Coxe proposed the sale of 10,000 muskets, rifles, pistols, and swords. [195] The Jeffersonian promotion of the firearms industry represented a return to the values of the Revolution, according to Coxe:

        The manufacture of Arms was dormant at the time of the first operations for rifles, pistols and swords. Same had been since the War till the end of Adams’ presidency. The private arms makers were generally discontinued for regular Military use. We had to revive them. [196]
        In a circular to contracting gunsmiths, Coxe emphasized: “The importance of good arms is manifest…. The lives of our fellow citizens, to whom the use of them is committed, depend upon the excellence of their arms.” [197] In his correspondence with manufacturers and inspectors, Coxe demonstrated great technical expertise in *383 the design and manufacture of muskets, rifles, pistols, and swords. [198] But despite Coxe’s expertise and dedication, the public arms program ran into trouble.”
        Tench Coxe one of the framers

      • pszymeczek

        The Supreme Court has made several mistakes in the past 13 years, such as Citizens United, the McCutcheon decision, and the VRA decision. DC v. Heller falls into that category.

      • Charles Vincent

        That’s your uninformed opinion there are Supreme Court cases that they referenced to support their decision and their decision is correct in context of the historical reference and other Supreme Court decisions. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.

      • pszymeczek

        No, that’s my opinion AFTER informing myself by doing considerable research on the subject. Your opinion is based on revisionist history, spurious quotes, and the propaganda of paid shills for the firearms industry.

      • Charles Vincent

        Not really my opinion is based on the writing of the people who drafted not only the 2nd amendment but the entire constitution. You sir are nothing but a mouth piece for the propaganda machine. Have fun swilling the koolaide they keep handing you.

      • T.R. Rollins

        Your gratuitious ASS…ertion does not make it so.

      • Charles Vincent

        “I guess you pick your faves from the bible too?”
        Non sequitur and irrelevant. And FYI I am agnostic.

      • Chris Ritzer

        Slightly off topic, but being (Simply) agnostic is being quite dishonest with yourself spiritually and intellectually. Are you Theistic-leaning Agnostic? Atheist-leaning Agnostic? In truth, being anything but that latter is somewhat off-putting, as it show that while the doubt is there, you haven’t bothered to take into account the PROBABILITY that a deity exists. It’s not 50/50. In all probability, a deity or god does not exist, based on the existing evidence, and trying to paint the chances as 50% For, 50% Against is like saying ‘I either will of will not win the lottery, thus I have 50/50 chance of winning the lottery.’

        I apologize for seeming rambling, or long winded, but this is important for me to understand, as it let’s me know how honest you actually are with yourself, and tells me if you’re actually capable of critical thinking and understanding all the facts, as opposed to twisting them to say what you want them to say (Again, like most modern Christians do with their book that endorses slavery, the ownership of women, and the idea that one person can be held accountable for the actions of another (ie, original sin, the sacrifice on the cross, etc…))

      • Charles Vincent

        Short answer I am an a middle of the road kind of guy. I do not pretend to know the how’s and where’s of creation or god. I have my own opinion on the subject but that is a different topic and a far more personal one, I also do. Ot subscribe to organized religion or lack there of. God and or the belief in god is personal and between that individual and god IMHO.

      • gian keys flat mom

        it is constitutionally connected to a well regulated militia ; chuckie

      • Charles Vincent

        Read DC v Heller the right to bear arms is not reliant or connected to service in a militia it is an individual right.

      • Matt Redman

        I belong to the one called “the People”

      • Gina M. Nardoianni

        a well regulated militia does not go into elementary schools and gun down first graders.
        see the difference there? anything getting through?

      • Shadow8088

        you’re absolutely right! Mentally damaged individuals do…

      • Judith Finley

        What does well regulated mean to you?

      • The Dane

        However, what constitutes Arms? Knives? Swords? Bows? Handguns? Rifles? Rocketlaunchers? Machinecannons? Small tactial nukes? Weaponized vira?

        Further, is it linked to the Millitia? So perhaps you may only bear weapons as long as you are part of a militia group, and thus under command by senior officers?

      • Matt Redman

        Like a box of rocks, ain’t ya?

      • Sounds great. Every American has the right to carry a muzzle-loading black powder weapon. Oh, and we also need to disband our professional military, because we’re going back to a civilian Militia, since the second amendment was written before we had a professional military.

      • Matt Redman

        Do I get a cannon?

      • chedd

        “Shall not be infringed.”
        Fine, no infringement. Just some common sense regulation.

      • Matt Redman

        If stupidity were a crown, you sir, wear it quite well.

      • chedd

        If you were to pretend to use elevated language, sir, you WOULD not screw up the syntax. Moron.

      • Matt Redman

        Oh I insist. You have the moron department covered much better than I ever could.

        Either you actually don’t know what ‘infringe’ means, or you really despise the constitution. Both, maybe?

      • The 1st use of the 2nd amendment militia was to suppress an anti tax rebellion, a year or two after it was enacted. But maybe the Founders didn’t really understand the Constitution as well as today’s gun nuts.

        The last significant use of the militia as envisioned by the Founders was our civil war, when it turned out not up to the task of assuring the security of freedom. There may have been militia calls here and there to fight Indians or whatever, but America has never since had an existential threat in which a militia would have been helpful. We got the draft instead, because in a real fight Cliven Bundy is not an asset

      • Matt Redman

        Well, it might elude you that we live in a world of drug cartels and warring gangs.

        Just because YOU can’t recognize a threat doesn’t mean there are none.

      • Bill Johnson

        It is called the National Guard.

      • Matt Redman

        What does the National Guard have ANYTHING to do with this discussion?

      • disqus_bvzyOg5eso

        If you are going to quote “part of the Constitution” Why not spell it out word for word???—-

        The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the “right of individuals” to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right vests in individuals, not merely collective militias, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.
        State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments comprising the Bill of Rights.

        This means EVERY American not just militia’s!!!

      • JacksMomDawn

        The phrase well-regulated militia means just that, so who is regulating these people?

      • Matt Redman

        Often the militias regulate themselves. There is so much structure and guidelines, it is so similar to the US Army.

      • But the ‘right’ people’s rights shall not be infringed. If you’re not ‘OK’ with me, then you don’t have the same rights I do. Which is the point of the article.

      • getreal5

        it is BECAUSE of a well regulated militia ( the ones whose masters can be changed by election , appointment or choice or coup)
        the PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms.
        Jesus h Christ, you people have ZERO reading comprehension.
        no wonder zero won the election. you people shouldn’t vote

      • Sandra Chung

        This was also written during a time that the US didn’t have a standing army, that anyone could be called upon to defend the country.

        In simpler terms, this was written for Goodman Farmer Robert with his ball and musket. Not for Crazy Neighbor Bob with his collection of UZIs.

      • Matt Redman

        Never heard of the Continental Army?

      • JJ5306

        Fucking dumb ass, YOU ARE NOT A DAMN MILITIA. THIS WAS WRITTEN WHEN THERE WAS NO ARMY. IT WILL BE CHANGED BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO OPEN CARRY, ASSHOLE.

      • Jim

        Yea we all know that one, the missing part in the photo is the part about the well regulated militia.

    • Browncoats

      Funny…I don’t see the 4th clause in stating “as long as it is only a
      single shot, muzzle loaded weapon.” Guns being checked at the City
      Limits was unconstitutional as stated by Nunn vs. State (1846), prior to Wyatt Earp and Dodge City mind you and while the movie portrays the Wild Wild West, all said in total 15 people were killed in Dodge City in the time of the cattle boom, yet another Eastern Myth and false history. Dodge City was actually safer than New York and Chicago at the time, both of which had implemented their gun control policies. Though recent court decision fail to note the true history and why should they when so few people fail to read and know their history and there by willingly walk themselves and their progeny into the bonds of slavery.

      ” ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.” [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]

      You accusing people of being extremist for defending their Constitutional Rights is a misrepresentation of the truth. The extremist are those who do not support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the extremist are those who would see a Free Nation of Free People walked slowly and surely into a Totalitarian Regime and Tyrannical rule, all to make you “feel” safer. Those of us who advocate for our Constitutional Rights do so with a FIRM KNOWLEDGE of how your proposed policies have turned out in the past and know the repercussions of failing to standup, result in living and ultimately dying on ones knees.

    • Cathryn Sykes

      Very true. NO Constitutional “right” is absolute. You have a right to free speech. You do not have a right to slander someone. You have a right to write and publish what you want. This does not give you immunity from criticism or being sued for copyright infringement. You have a right to worship as you please. This does not allow you to have human sacrifice as part of your rituals. What gets me is the that Right to Bear Arms people all ways ignore the beginning of the Second Amendment, which states the GOAL of that amendment: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state…..” The Amendment wasn’t written to protect Americans from their
      government….it was written to help Americans DEFEND their government!

    • emeraldeyes24

      This group, however, would never be willing to check their guns at the city limits as they did so sensibly in ”The Wild Wild West”. Ergo, there are LIMITS ON RESPONSIBILITIES in their minds! You just can’t win with this paranoid group!

    • newrevolutionone

      I like you for you to show me where in the Second Amendment it says that there is a limitation on the right to bear arms you people crack me up the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed the founders made it pretty clear

    • newrevolutionone

      Amendment II

      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.

  • JZ71

    In many areas, you can’t even get away with “driving while black” without getting hassled. Add a gun to the mix and watch things get much, much worse, for everyone involved.

    • Rick Fader

      That is not an issue with the guns, that is an issue with the assumed guilt of blacks by who???? Oh, that’s right, the LIBERAL Fraternal Order Of Police. (You know, the ones you keep referring to as your “militia”.) Funny how you denounce the Republicans, but then complain about the Liberal Union that is the Police, and think that their evil is visited upon you by the Right…

      • Sue Roediger

        you think every cop is a liberal ? seriously?

      • Eric

        Sue, most wing nuts are delusional, no difference here. Every single chop that I have spoken with is conservative and had usually been in the military, but don’t let facts get in the way of your rent right, Rick?

      • Sue Roediger

        thanks — that is some rant by Rick Fader.

      • Matt Redman

        Liberal or not, must cops are not freedom friendly.

      • Sue Roediger

        The “law and order” types are usually conservative. I would love to see a survey of the political leanings of police. The ones I know personally are definitely NOT liberal.

      • Matt Redman

        I agree. And I think a poll would support the sentiment. My point is, by and large, they are not fans of individual liberty.

  • Kenneth H Ransome jr

    The real issue is the NRA makes millions of $$$$ with the ‘open carry’. The NRA don’t give a F*&% about neither you nor I nor our constitutional rights but the $$$$ in their pockets. The more people who want to bear arms leads to more gun purchases which leads to more $$$$ in their pockets. I continue to be astonishingly amazed at the ‘open carry’ gun nuts’ stupidity. It’s time to wake up, idiots!

    • HeidiH

      You nailed it. Always follow the money. It’s always the root of whatever is going on, if only people would dig deep enough to see it.

      • Rick Fader

        Let’s follow the money. If the “people” were actually FREE to carry arms as is GUARANTEED by The Constitution, who would lose benefit of money?

        The Government would no longer be allowed to “regulate” with taxes, and would lose that income. The Government could no longer require “tribute” to do an illegal “background check” on Citizens who have never been even ACCUSED of a crime. The Government could not gain extra taxes to pay for “regulators” who attempt to make gun ownership as difficult as possible for Law Abiding Citizens.

        Obama and Holder could no longer make illegal gun deals with foreign nationals and charge higher prices for guns bought WITH TAX PAYER’S DOLLARS, when they sell them to Mexican Drug Cartels.

        I have followed the money…but oddly, where the money goes never leads to the NRA, it ALWAYS leads to the Government. Wonder why that is?

      • Sue Roediger

        The 2nd amendment refers to a “well-regulated militia” this would involve registraition and training.

      • Eric

        And you win dumbass of the day. You know when the 2nd Amendment mentions “a well regulated militia” it’s referring to government regulation, retard.

      • gian keys flat mom

        would that have included saint Reagan selling arms in iran-contra scandal?
        =======================================
        praise jeeeeeeeesus

    • Matt Redman

      Are people really this dumb? The NRA has REPEATEDLY sold open carry down the river. They have supported legislation against it.

      The NRA is no friend to open carry. If you think so, you’ve been drinking the loony left kool aid. How does open carry make people want to buy guns? I swear, people are so dense.

  • Chris Vali

    If everone carried guns then why would I feel threatened if 30 black men walked into a diner I was in carring weapons? I don’t see bringing a gun to a pop warner game as being a problem, most people leave their guns in their cars as it is so bringing them to the field isn’t “nutty”. For those protestors who are carrying their weapons openly, I support them. If evetyone was to carry guns it would be the norm and no one would feel threatened. I dont have any guns myself but I’ll defend someones right to carry til death.

    • Sue Roediger

      Given the way people fly off the handle in arguments – I really don’t want to see people waling around armed – without appropriate screening and training . Two guys in the parking lot get into it over who blocked whose car…………if they are unarmed – a fistfight ensues – if they have guns it could be a shoot out. Bullets that miss their target are still lethal,

      • Dave

        Actually, most commonly, a guy starts pummeling someone, who, afraid for his life (fistfights are commonly deadly, or didn’t you know that?), pulls out his concealed weapon and shoots the guy. However, since such an action is questionable, and witnesses tend to report different stories, I myself stay out of “fistfight” situations, even if it makes me look like a pussy, when I’m carrying.

      • Dave

        ‘scuse my French.

      • Sue Roediger

        no kidding fist fight can be deadly. As a teacher of emotionally disturbed kids – I had to undergo training called PART- Personal Assault Resistance Training. How to avoid getting attacked in the first place, reading body language, diffusing techniques, personal space, etc. Then hands-on, end-up-on-the -floor, getting out of holds, and “take-downs”. Even in practice with adults who are trying not to hurt you – it is rugged — in a classroom with a 5’7″ 140 pound 15 year old — adrenalin inducing. I am 5’4″ … I held my own – only had a handful of actual physical encounters. As a woman among men and adolescent boy I didn’t dare look “pussified” …. I am told I have an awesome “teacher-face”.
        You sound like a solid guy – I would probably be comfortable around you, when you were carrying – (or not) can’t that about everyone.

      • Travis Hughes

        “How to avoid getting attacked in the first place, reading body language, diffusing techniques, personal space, etc.”

        Congrats, with that training you know how to tell the difference between someone openly carrying who means you harm and someone openly carrying who doesn’t. Wherein lies the problem again?

      • Sue Roediger

        An unarmed person whose body language indicates trouble is one thing — I can keep my space, avoid eye contact etc, Someone with a gun, with the same attitude … can shoot me from across the room — and even if I manage not to provoke …. I can still end up with a bullet in , when he shoots at someone else. It is not the weapons that scare me so much as that there is no – or very little 0 regulation to keep idiots from walking around armed. There is bound to be a shoot out one of these days soon. Alcohol and testosterone will be involved,

  • Bonta-kun

    I think I spotted the key in the argument when you mentioned the death of the Wild West, Allen.

    “…society evolved.”

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t most of the wingnuts we’re referring to denounce evolution as well?

    • Dave

      Not in this case.

    • gian keys flat mom

      because regressive rightwing trash is not evolving

    • Matt Redman

      If by rejecting medieval sorcery passed off as “science”, then I will be the first to reject the theory of evolution as popularized by Darwin. Totally off-topic, though.

  • Grum Fan

    So clearly what you need to do is assemble huge groups of African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans who own guns, to join these guys during their protests…

    Then watch their minds melt.

    • Matt Redman

      Send them all! If they are also peaceful, mild people, we need all the freedom supporters we can get!

      See, the loony left has all these ‘wonderful’ ideas. Until they are put into practice, then we get to see just how silly they are.

  • Sean Jones

    remember, 2 unarmed black males outside a voting station is “intimidating”, 20 armed morons at Home Depot is “exercising our rights”

    • worrierking

      They had sticks, don’t forget that. The right has been going into convulsions for more than 5years now over two black guys with sticks.

      I’m sure if they had AR-15s the baggers would have been fine with it.

  • Thomas Barnidge

    So what would the author do if he saw a group of 100 or so “African Americans, Mexicans, or Muslims” on the side of the road with AK-47s etc,.? I imagine he would call the police. So I guess that makes him a racist also.

    • Dave

      I would hope he’d try to find out their intentions before calling police. In such a case, I’d expect the police to over-react, more than the typical citizen. Surely open-carry-while-black would garner more police brutality than driving-while-black.

      • Thomas Barnidge

        So the unarmed Mr. Clifton would confront a heavily armed group if men? Wow, what a Rambo! Must people I know would call the cops,no matter what the race of the armed group was.

      • Mary Beerman

        That would be stupid.

    • Mary Beerman

      If I saw a group of ANY color or race with weaponry I would call the police. That is the sensible thing to do. Better than waiting to see what their intent is.

      • Shadow8088

        Police generally have more important things to deal with than a bunch of hoplophiles standing around talking about guns…

  • I saw a comment that said “most people leave their guns in their cars.” In a society that’s plentiful with coke, meth and crackheads taking GPS devices out of people vehicles. Is it really smart to have that much money in weaponry just lying round in parking lots across America.

    • Dave

      I leave my carry gun in my car, locked up, only when I’m visiting somewhere that prohibits concealed carry. Like picking my daughter up from school, or my workplace. I suspect that someone who wants to steal firearms would do well to break into cars outside schools and museums.

    • Rick Fader

      No, not smart at all. IT SHOULD BE ON YOU AT ALL TIMES. But, the Liberals who like to allow the criminals to have a free pass, want to ensure that they have a “gun-free” zone where the criminals can find easy prey.

      Wonder why no one has reported a robbery, or a murder at an NRA event? But, at a school, or movie theater, where you are NOT allowed to carry, they have issues almost DAILY.

      • Mary Beerman

        Haha, that’s hilarious. The NRA don’t allow guns at their events!!

      • Kristina Anderson

        on you at all times… so a loaded gun is sitting by your side at all times in case of a break-in, regardless of who else may already be in the house… I mean if you are going to be prepared, then be prepared…

      • gian keys flat mom

        hey creep; NRA doesn’t allow public to carry weapons ( firearms) at their events
        =========================================
        wanna cry some more? try BENGHAZI

  • JustKreuzin

    Stick to the issue and stop using racism as a distraction. Open carry is open carry. Racism is racism. I’d feel a bit ‘alarmed’ if there was a group of 100 PEOPLE all congregated together on the side of the road or at a government building carrying automatic weapons and I wouldn’t care WHAT their race or religion is. It would be intimidating in that context.

    • Matt Redman

      Open carry rallies hardly have more than 10 participants that I’ve heard of. This article is so slanted, it’s painful that people agree with it.

  • kd92mesa

    The only comment necessary for this article is, “Very well said”, and that is all that needs to be said. Thank you Mr. Clifton

    • Travis Hughes

      Except for the fact that this is a poorly thought-out and terribly written article.

  • Matthew Reece

    “Why not just say we should be allowed to carry grenades with us everywhere? Wouldn’t that be an effective way to take out a ‘bad guy with a gun’?”
    You do not appear to understand how a grenade works. Grenades are area-of-effect weapons that deal damage to everything within a certain radius. While it may be an effective way to take out a bad guy with a gun, it is also likely to cause unnecessary collateral damage. A typical bullet does not behave in this manner, unless it is a high-powered round capable of penetrating a target and causing damage behind the target.

    • Chris Harrell

      assuming the intended target is what is hit by the round

  • David Erlandson

    I live in Arizona, where it is legal to Open carry or Carry concealed, without a permit. I have found the more you make a fuss about the carry nuts, the more they want you to know they have the right. I carry some times, and I don’t feel that race has anything to do with it. If you are a legal resident of the U.S. and in our state a resident, and you are a legal possessor, then you have the right to carry, no matter what race you are.

  • 1Billiam

    Untill all the liberals and all the conservatives want to open constitutional debate ….it will remain a basic right.

    also, has everyone forgot Waco ? They weren’t open carrying yet the democratic administration seemed fine with assaulting and killing people over it.

    Fact is the USA has 270 million privately owned guns. legally. Umpteen thousand illegal ones too. If laws were passed to take them away from owners there would be a fight. A fight I could see slipping into a civil war. As it is now..once the dollar falls far enough…the ‘stuff’ is going to hit the fan. When that happens the people should have their weapons exactly for the reason stated in the constitution. To protect them FROM their government.

    • Mary Beerman

      NO ONE has said anything about passing laws to take guns away! Has the president knocked on your door yet?

      • 1Billiam

        Remember Waco? oh right they didnt knock…

      • Mary Beerman

        The govt dicked around with those people for quite a while until they finally tired of the game. There were children and women being mistreated, so force was used. Unfortunately, Koresh was so insane that he took all those innocent people with him. Compounds like Waco do not belong in America. I don’t blame our govt for that, Koresh gets all the blame. And the govt wasn’t there to take guns, they were there to remove those children. Again, has the president knocked on your door yet?

      • Shadow8088

        You apparently don’t know a whole lot about the Waco incident. BATFE (Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives) went up there after reports of people hearing automatic gunfire. That’s how the whole thing started. They were MOST CERTAINLY there to take guns.

      • Mary Beerman

        They had illegal weapons there. Should we allow anyone to have any kind of weapon they want? Grenades, mortars, bombs?

      • Shadow8088

        Apparently you didn’t know that people already own LEGAL machine guns… Grenade launchers, mortars, short barrelled shotguns, machine pistols, silencers, etc.. all legal with a background check and tax stamp for each of them…

      • gian keys flat mom

        they had ILLEGAL weapons in Waco; as well as keeping adults and CHILDREN against their will
        ==========================================
        wanna try again?

      • Shadow8088

        I didn’t say whether the weapons they had at Waco were legal or illegal, but thanks for the snide comment…

      • gian keys flat mom

        accuracy is snide? im guilty

      • gian keys flat mom

        wow–
        can U ( no; U cannot) tell me any legislation from Obama trying to “get your guns”?
        ====================================
        no? ok; now cry BENGHAZI

      • Shadow8088

        If I was actually a RWNJ, screaming Benghazi would work.. But I’m not a RWNJ… I just happen to be a Democrat that owns some firearms and is sick of hearing the dog whistle…

        btw, the benghazi bit you’re throwing around this thread is getting old. Got any other witty repartee?

      • gian keys flat mom

        I do; but why are U bitching at me as U claim to be a dem? im a centrist liberal independent
        and isn’t Benghazi the latest regressive ( dated) crybaby rant? or are they resurrecting fast and furious/ Kenya/ spending??

  • Lynn Fisher

    Why are we arguing about this? Make it hard to buy a gun by requiring certificates of education and license then make it even harder to carry one in public by requiring education and further license. There are state laws that are suppose to keep people from having guns on their property–did they all suddenly fly out the window?

  • CJS

    Excellent article…thank you for sharing your voice of sanity in all this.

  • ruffian

    The authors gun right family members thought the idea of Muslims or African Americans gathering with AR-15s at the local Chili’s was ‘different’ than a group of white dudes. They couldn’t answer why it was different, it just was. When he asked how that was different, the only answer was to deflect that he was a race baiting liberal. They obviously took the bait. If you truly believe in the right to bear arms, any answer other than “I have no problem with it as long as they are within the state open carry laws” is the wrong answer. Baiting someone is a great way to find out their true intentions. If you feel that a group of black men/women or Muslims dressed in traditional clothing have any less right to assemble with AR-15’s than a group of white dudes, that’s racist. If you feel that someone shouldn’t be afforded the same rights at yourself, based only on skin color or religion, your believe is that of a racist or bigot.

  • Gabrichidze Nick

    “What if you saw various groups of 100 or so African-Americans, Mexicans or Muslims gathered on the side of roads all over Dallas-Fort Worth with loaded AK-47′s, AR-15′s and a whole host of other semi-automatic weapon they could get their hands on, can you honestly tell me you wouldn’t feel threatened or alarmed? -” African Americans, Mexicans and Muslim Americans have same rigt to gather with guns and white folks do. They also can form well orgnized militia. Costitution does not make racial difference.

    • Shadow8088

      someone actually answered this down-thread… The correct answer to your questions is: As long as they are following the laws of their current state, I have no problem whatsoever with who is holding what.

    • Shadow8088

      adminned again… Provided they were following the laws in whatever particular state they’re in, I’d have no problem whatsoever.

    • Sue Roediger

      any gathering of even a dozen guy with AK47’s or even side arms strapped on would make me uncomfortable.

  • No one is addressing the original purpose for the relaxed approach to the open carry movement. The state of Georgia is conducting a social experiment by allowing individuals to carry weapons overtly. The strategy involves getting people accustomed to seeing guns in public places. Then, the republican party will recruit posses of “volunteers” to mill about at polling places on election day. One particularly imposing individual will be assigned to stay alone to portray the proverbial “lone gunman”. The idea is to post these individuals in districts where republicans are losing ground for the purpose of intimidating voters. The republicans cannot win on policy so they need to add intimidation to their list of voter suppression tactics.

    • Matt Redman

      No problem. If what they are doing is legal, they will be joined by armed democrats. And armed libertarians. And armed independents…… If everybody respects one another, who cares?

  • Dorothy Dill

    Great article and I agree with you 100%

  • Ckernzie

    I think you’re on to something. Recruit a bunch of Muslims (pick your racial group) and have them parade around with assault rifles holding signs about the 2nd amendment and pronouncing how much they love open carry laws. I think you’d find the proponents of such stupidity would get the message real quick.
    The fact that this is a debate at all and that open carry exists, assault rifles and handguns are not restricted is a very sad commentary on the state of your nation and the ignorance within it. America’s founding fathers did not intend this are turning in their graves over the prostitution of the Constitution. It’s sad that true patriotism is so elusive to those who profess to be its biggest champions

    • Matt Redman

      “assault rifles and handguns are not restricted”

      I refuse to engage this level of stupidity. Have a nice day.

  • jason

    Wow, it sounds like your the racist. I see no reason to fear any group of calm rational people, armed or not. You seem to be describing an angry mob, yet labeling them of another race or color only to bring race into the discussion.

    • Michael Case

      See paragraph 8.

  • anon

    this is a long response, and i apologize for the length, but it’s necessary in order to properly express myself. there’s a bit of narrative and a bit of polemics, so if you can suffer through the former, i welcome you to pick the latter apart.

    i’d like to point out that there is a genuine issue of culture clash here, lest it be ignored in favor of white-supremicist / FauxNews neo-con bashing, which everyone loves (including me).

    the vast majority of the people who i encounter in social and professional circles (i’ll be an attorney in about a year) grew up in urban or suburban settings, and their exposure to guns was limited to hearing about violence on the news, and playing violent video games. on the other hand, i grew up on a farm, and growing up, gun ownership and use was just another fact of life for me, like brushing my teeth or watching saturday morning cartoons. i would bet that most of these open-carry “activists” have a similar background.

    now, the culture clash, and i promise this is relevant to the story. when i was 20 i was down at the farm just plinking away with a .22 revolver, blowing off some steam and enjoying a nice, sunny day, as i would do on a regular basis. the next thing i knew, there were 4 police cars with lights strobing and sirens blaring, screeching to a halt on the farm road, and police officers pouring out with handguns drawn and aimed at me. the cops said that a neighbor had seen me walking down the farm road with the revolver on my belt. the neighbor was probably also upset at/irritated by my shooting – it seems likely to me that this was the actual reason for the call, but, it’s irrelevant to the point i’m going to make.

    this neighbor had recently moved from a suburban area to a rural area. they had the same sort of mentality that i described above – when they think of guns or hear a gunshot, they think of violence, crime, and the killing of human beings. on the other hand, when i hear a gunshot, i think that someone is either doing some target practice, or capping a tractor-destroying groundhog or a rabid raccoon, as we farming and rural types are wont to do.

    at least in my opinion, it’s doubtful that my neighbor thought that a skinny kid standing in one place and shooting at a couple of plastic bottles halfway up a hill posed a threat to them. i expect it was instead something more inchoate, some sense of moral outrage at a seeming affront to deeply-held values, and a desire to see the offender brought to justice. i still couldn’t put a name or a face to this person… this was a purely anonymous act, not something inspired by personal animus. my neighbor performed, in essence, an act of cultural imposition. perhaps information costs are too high, and they simply didn’t know that guns can be considered to be more a “part of life” in the country, as opposed to wherever they came from.

    the point i’m trying to make is not that my neighbor’s act was morally culpable – maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t, depending on what their internal dialogue sounded like – my point is just that cultures clashed, and you can bet that i was mad as HELL about it, both about the actual imposition on my time – standing there for about an hour until things got resolved with the police – and about the more abstract imposition of one set of values upon my own without any intelligent dialogue or attempt to understand. i felt like my privacy and my way of life had been violated, that someone had as much as told me that their values were superior to mine, and that i was required to accept this and to act in conformity with it.

    i think that it is likely that a lot of these open-carry “activists” have had similar experiences. maybe through FauxNews’s lens, maybe through conversations with other people with differing cultural backgrounds, maybe vicariously through others. it doesn’t really matter. these people are reacting – in a peaceful manner – to a perceived attack on earnestly-held cultural values. it’s natural to feel defensive when one perceives that one is being attacked, and it’s natural to demonstrate, loudly, publicly, and often offensively (to some), one’s rejection of the imposition of the cultural values of another upon oneself.

    a lot of these folks are probably racist white guys. fine. clearly bigotry is bad. but DON’T ignore the validity of their upset and their outrage at an attack upon what they perceive as a way of life; an attack spearheaded by people who DO NOT UNDERSTAND that these racist white guys actually do have a defensible basis for being upset.

    this is a problem brought about, first and foremost, by a lack of intercultural communication. calling open-carry activists racists is missing the point, and it seems to me (although i admit that this is an unresearchedsmug generalization) that the people doing most of the finger-pointing are out-of-touch suburbanites engaging in a self-congratulatory circlejerk. “look at how clever we are, look at how we understand that our values are good and true, whereas these idiots, look at how wrong they are – they’re racists and therefore any argument which they make is invalid, and all beliefs which they hold are inherently suspect.” fuck you if you think that way, and fuck you for not making a better attempt to understand the issue that you’re taking a position on, and to understand your fellow human beings who are invested in it.

    those who laud those who fight for rights being denied them and others should think more critically. it is not logical that we ignore the validity of an argument simply because we do not like something about the person making it. a man who kicks his dog is entitled to a trial on the subject of whether or not he is guilty of fraud. we may not like him very much, and we may not agree with his treatment of his dog, but we shouldn’t/can’t conflate the two issues and yet be logical and fair.

    i personally am all for regulation which will effectively reduce the number of deaths caused by guns in the united states, and i’m willing to sacrifice something i consider to be part of my life

    • anon

      whoops, lost track of what i was writing there. i was gonna append a disclaimer to the effect of, i’m not quite in the same camp as these folks re: gun control etc., but i guess it wasn’t so important to my point as to need completion.

    • Shadow8088

      Outstanding point of view. I think you’re spot-on with your deduction. I have nothing to add or counter.

    • Matt Redman

      Okay, so to recap:

      Culture war
      People who don’t agree must be white and racist
      Sacrifice freedom

      Next!

  • When my work required me to go into all areas of my city and state I went. I used my discretion and caution, but never had a gun or a bodyguard. When there was a sick person who needed care it did not matter where they lived. I am not overestimating my self-defense ability, but when I see these men carrying guns into the shopping mall I wonder why they are so afraid.

  • zak

    I agree with what your saying whole heartedly! Im an advocate for gun laws, but i don’t think i should have more right to carry one more then the next person, no matter what color, race, or religion you are. We are all humans, and if we wanna roll around town with a gun, be you Christan, Muslim, Jewish, or Hindi, go right ahead. I won’t stop you.we are all equal. We are all human, no?

  • Tillmann Puschka

    spot on on this one, Allen. if only blacks realized the power they have to change America for the better. Americans have them to thank for the implementation of the strict laws that forbid the use of cocaine, for example: back in the day when it was still legal to use it, officials were afraid that black men would become violent and rape white women if they were to ever come under the influence of the drug, and so it ended up becoming an illegal drug for everyone just to prevent blacks from freely using it. never mind the fact that cocaine is just downright harmful to humans in general- the concern was that black men would be interacting with white women under the influence of the drug, and that’s the primary reason it became illegal for all.

    you probably know that the patron saint of right wingers (that would be Ronald Reagan) decided to introduce gun laws in California in the sixties after the Black Panthers, with guns and rifles in hand, went to pay him a personal visit in his office and have a nice little chat about the rights that they and other blacks were being denied at the time. this law, too, came into existence solely because of the fear of what would happen if African Americans started carrying firearms around the way their white counterparts did.

    so anyway, you’re spot on with your arguments- and as much as i hate guns and what they stand for, i would absolutely LOVE to see large groups of blacks who’re “responsible” gun owners start showcasing their firepower all over the country, just like these open carry fools are doing in Texas- the day that happens is the day you will see very strict gun laws come into existence in your country.

    • Matt Redman

      Your ignorance aside, if you can find 100 black people in a city who care about freedom that much, you should get a medal.

  • Jeremy

    “When they talk about religious rights, they mean Christian. When they talk about protecting equal rights, they mean heterosexuals. When they talk about shrinking government, they only mean laws that are preventing them from getting away with what they want to get away with. ”

    And when liberals talk about religious rights they mean everything but Christian. When they talk about protecting equal rights, they mean homosexuals. When they talk about shrinking government, they only mean laws that are protecting THEM from getting away with what THEY want to get away with.

    What’s the author’s point?

    This article and others like don’t really say much at all.

    Is the author insinuating that most of those who carry guns are racist?

    Where in the world is he from? If I had racist family members like him I’d probably become a flaming liberal as well?

    • Guest

      <<<<<>>>>>
      That’s a lie. You’re a parnoid, delusional fool.

      • Jeremy

        How did I know you’d say something like that?

    • gian keys flat mom

      hey scumbag– we are tired of aging regressive white trash voodoo( religious) crybabies bitching about non whites and non hetero and non “Christian” americans wanting the EQUALITY our constitution gives americans

  • Guest

    Don’t forget: the one time the NRA supported gun control was when the Black Panther Party wanted to defend themselves in a pre-Civil Rights-era society…

    • Matt Redman

      No, they STILL support gun control. Panthers or not.

      Get with it, people.

  • Ryan Alderman

    Don’t forget: the one time the NRA supported gun control was when the Black Panther Party wanted to defend themselves in a pre-Civil Rights-era society…

    • Matt Redman

      Ummmm, they constantly to this day support gun control.

  • anthonyadams

    One question I have for all these open carry nuts, “Just what the hell are you so afraid of that you have to carry loaded weapons around in public?”

    • gian keys flat mom

      they are afraid the truth of their weak sexuality–both physically and ‘performance’ wise– will be made common knowledge.
      ====================================================
      low IQ regressive white trash religious ( see: VOODOO) scum

    • Matt Redman

      What are you so afraid of when you wear your seat belt?

      The fact that you would even have to ask your question is a clear indication of American intellectual bankruptcy.

      • anthonyadams

        You just proved my point; you have no logical answer but have lots of insults to justify your opinion. Your fear is an illusion created by the radical right.
        The fact that you cannot answer my question is a clear indication of intellectual bankruptcy of conservatives.

      • Matt Redman

        Oh, no no no no no. Not letting squirm away with this garbage. Your question is so easy to answer that a straight answer is not warranted. Therefore, my answer was rhetorical.

        The decision to carry a loaded weapon in public is not based on fear, as you arrogantly claim. I know what my motivations are. You do not. So stop pretending at any time. Instead I carry a firearm because I am educated in the way of firearms and self defense, and I use what freedom I have left to give myself an edge against people who try to hurt me. There is no fear. Just an understanding that my life is worth protecting.

      • anthonyadams

        Haha – “a straight answer is not warranted”? Oh, how typical. Just who do you think it going to hurt you that you need to carry a gun around to protect yourself? THAT is the question that eludes you; you only speak of “people who try to hurt me.” Who ARE those people?
        Guns are made for two purposes; hunting game for food and for killing people. Which do you propose you will do? No one hunts game with an AR-15 assault rifle with an extended clip. Walking around in public brandishing your weapons just because you think it will impress others is a joke; you might walk into a fast food place and find others in there who are carrying and consider YOU are a threat to them and open fire on you. Maybe that is who you fear…..other open carry armed vigilantes.

      • Guest

        Before I pick you apart, I need to confess that I have been attacked
        before, in a Wawa parking lot. I was unarmed, and I was lucky. I’m not
        sure why you are asking who is going to hurt me. Are you expecting me to
        know the names, places, and details of every future crime? Violent
        crime does exist, and only an idiot will pretend that it’s not a problem. So stay smart and stay safe. ANYWAY:

        1.
        Guns are made for many purposes. Some are literally made for fun. Some
        are made for Olympic grade target shooting. Just because you can’t
        imagine other uses for guns doesn’t mean they only hunt and kill.
        2. People DO hunt with AR-15s
        3. The AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle
        4. The AR-15 does NOT use clips
        5.
        I do not agree with brandishing weapons. I have a feeling none of the
        people interviewed for this article were brandishing. I also have a
        feeling you don’t know what brandishing means.
        6. Nobody in open
        carry is trying to impress anyone. Unless you are what’s called an “OC
        Exhibitionist”, which is like a walking museum of firearms. Never seen
        it, but heard it’s really neat.
        7. I see other people open carrying
        in public several times a year. Nobody gets shot because neither of us
        are a threat. We’re there to mind our own business. Unlike you, we’re
        not panicky and can use reason and observation to tell when a threat is
        real. Take notes.
        8. If I feared other open carry people, I would likely not be friends with them.
        9.
        We’re not vigilantes. You can believe whatever you want, but so far
        everything….. EVERYTHING you believe is wrong. Don’t stop now, though!
        In fact, you’re a great role model for this whole site!

      • anthonyadams

        Only people like you would find great joy in “picking apart” another person, their argument, or their opinion. That makes you pretty damned unworthy of any discussion or conversation. Adios – and I hope you never have to use your arsenal against another human being. I have shot and killed men in war and I hope you would never be in a similar situation. At least I was given permission to kill others…in service to my country. So you really don’t need to mount a lecture about guns to me – especially off subject – just to make you feel better and keep your superiority complex running.
        Don’t bother with a reply as I am done with you and your nonsense. Your mind is one of stone and it is not my job on this earth to attempt to change you.

      • Matt Redman

        Before I pick you apart, I need to confess that I have been attacked before, in a Wawa parking lot. I was unarmed, and I was lucky. I’m not sure why you are asking who is going to hurt me. Are you expecting me to know the names, places, and details of every future crime? Violent crime does exist, and only an idiot will pretend that it’s not a problem. So stay smart and stay safe. ANYWAY:

        1. Guns are made for many purposes. Some are literally made for fun. Some are made for Olympic grade target shooting. Just because you can’t imagine other uses for guns doesn’t mean they only hunt and kill.
        2. People DO hunt with AR-15s
        3. The AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle
        4. The AR-15 does NOT use clips
        5. I do not agree with brandishing weapons. I have a feeling none of the people interviewed for this article were brandishing. I also have a feeling you don’t know what brandishing means.
        6. Nobody in open carry is trying to impress anyone. Unless you are what’s called an “OC Exhibitionist”, which is like a walking museum of firearms. Never seen it, but heard it’s really neat.
        7. I see other people open carrying in public several times a year. Nobody gets shot because neither of us are a threat. We’re there to mind our own business. Unlike you, we’re not panicky and can use reason and observation to tell when a threat is real. Take notes.
        8. If I feared other open carry people, I would likely not be friends with them.
        9. We’re not vigilantes. You can believe whatever you want, but so far everything….. EVERYTHING you believe is wrong. Don’t stop now, though! In fact, you’re a great role model for this whole site!!

  • Voter4America

    Texas Ammosexuals. They should be declared domestic terrorists and taken out. Every single one of them. Truth is, if they blatantly bully’d and intimidated people without wearing automatic rifles, they would most certainly be arrested and charged. So what about wearing guns gives them extra protection from the law? In point of fact, if they were caught bullying and intimidating people without guns, the mere addition of guns to the mix would only make it an aggravated crime, would it not? Evidently the police have become such pussies these days, they’ll only shoot unarmed barking dogs, not armed criminals. I say open fire on them. Or tell the police to back away and let the Pentagon send in the drones.

    • Matt Redman

      Ladies and Gentlemen:

      The tolerant left.

  • jring281

    Perhaps some thought could be given to exactly what enabled society to evolve (ways and means). Meanwhile, the polemics exhibited by Allen Clinton certify that he should not be allowed to own or borrow a firearm.

  • Brandon

    I don’t care the color white, black, yellow, red or purple if they are carrying automatic or even semi automatic guns I’m gonna be a little uncomfortable. Side arms for protection and rifles and shotguns for hunting are a different story, people have the right to protect themselves. Bad people aren’t going to follow any of the regulations anyway.

  • doninkansas

    funny thing is, even in the wild west they regulated open carry. most towns required visitors to check their guns with the marshal and people were discouraged from open carry without a legitimate reason for it.

    • Matt Redman

      Guess what? Also unconstitutional.

  • Bill Hale

    The
    article makes some sense, but I think that it misses the point. What is
    it about the time and place these folks are in that provokes that much
    fear? I’m not saying in any way, shape or form that this is cowardly,
    just that my belief is a person is not going to feel the need to carry a
    gun unless there is a perceived threat. When I was growing up, and take
    into account that I’m 55 so that was back in the Dark Ages, my parents,
    my parents friends, no one I knew other than our police chief and his 2
    patrolmen ever carried guns or felt the need to. It wasn’t that there
    weren’t any. Many people hunted and my neighborhood, having a lot of
    veterans, had a lot of people with souvenirs from their time in service.
    So what is it about now vs then that has so many people feeling that
    the only thing standing between them and harm is a gun. And even more to
    the point, isn’t it a concern that many of the people carrying are
    already feeling a lot of fear? I’m not speaking for everyone, but if I’m
    suffering under a high level of fear am I more likely to make a safe
    choice in using a weapon?

  • Bill Hale

    And,
    the part of the article that I don’t like is that whether right or
    wrong, the author makes more of an effort to slam his family member’s
    opinions than to understand why they feel the way they do. Is it more
    important to win an argument or to address someone’s concern in a way
    that doesn’t result in them shooting someone?

    • BD

      Implying that you think they’re going to shoot somebody because they are offended by an argument isn’t winning any points for the gun rights argument!

  • marckohler

    What the hell kind of society do these people want to create? One where guns are carried by the “rights”people to threaten and shoot the “wrong” people. This is fascism in action,thought and deed. Fascism is now the government of the United States. Bill Moyers and Henry Giroux have made it clear that we live in an oligarchy now–NOT a democracy. Every facsit believes that the power of the industrial state lies in the hands of a superior few directing the lives of the non-humans. In Germany, it was Jews, socialists, and other minorities. In America, the enemy are all minority populations. The fascists are a intramural hate group. Born-again Christians are the largest identifiable group, Tea partiers, and conservatives of all ills are being asked to support with blind devotion the dictates of the Kochs and other super-rich. Just think about it..only 15% of the American Southern school population is white. Th either 85% have been attending private fanatical Christian schools, and they are the 35% of Americans who believe that the world is 6,000 years old and the sun revolves around the earth. Perhaps. the war is over–they have won, and the rest of this talk and writing is just disappointment at our failures. Think about it, when a $100,000 house goes into foreclosure, a Credit Default Swap Bond holder is paid $3,000,000 by AIG, and the press stays silent about it. We are duped, continue to be duped, and we will see shooting on the streets of America.

  • james

    I think that people misconstrue “shall not be infringed, with that wasn’t a really a good idea”. I am a veteran, firearms instructor and advocate, but what message does “look at me” send? Your right, does not trump someone else’s right. The balance being in a group of people, something, a middle ground we all can except. We are allowed to own and with the right paper work and laws carry firearms. But, just as we don’t want, other things thrown in our face and forced upon us, neither do people who don’t support gun ownership. Flaunting and forcing doesn’t change minds. Education and understanding do. We as American’s must except all freedom’s, not just the one’s we like. If we give our opponents no ammunition to fight, how can they win. I know people will argue both sides and say what they will, but to be better people is just that, being better and taking a different path. I carry, but I don’t walk around flaunting it. I have to respect others, if I am going to asked to be respected.

    J.R.

    • Matt Redman

      Grammar hammer incoming.

  • doug

    Under Wyatt Earp, it was illegal to carry guns in the Dodge City limits.

    • Shadow8088

      Yup, and the Great Wyatt Earp is long dead and buried. What point was it that you were trying to make?

      • gian keys flat mom

        perhaps that wyatt earp had a brain and recognized a potential problem and de-fused it b4 it happened?

  • Crystal Clear

    Love the article.

  • donnabella77

    I live not far from cowtown. Although I have yet to encounter these folks, I have encountered a lot of folks who are blind with racism and who believe all the birther nonsense, etc. it’s just sickening.

  • Evil Genius

    I live in an open carry state (Nevada). I carry on occasion, usually when I’m out camping or riding ATV’s in the wilderness. A couple weeks ago I went to drop my 10 year old daughter off at a classmate’s birthday party at Chuck E. Cheese. The birthday boy’s 20-something uncle was there carrying a 9mm semi auto pistol on his hip. I spent 20+ years in the military and have been around guns my whole life, but I have to tell you that seeing a firearm at Chuck E. Cheese just looked so incredibly WRONG. Once my daughter saw the gun she didn’t even want to stay so we left.

    • gian keys flat mom

      FOX “news” has reported that your 10 yr old now MUST be considered a muslim communist Kenyan secular bent on destroying America and taking ” our” guns

  • June Goetz Lynne

    interesting that none of the comments addressed what she said … in your typical rural town comprised of almost all white people … if a large group of a different color came into town with their ak47’s strapped to their shoulder, what would you do??? after all, they have a legal right to be there and to carry their guns.

    • Matt Redman

      Well that’s that then. Find enough people of different color who are interested, and there you go.

      • June Goetz Lynne

        We would have a hell of a time to find a group of a different color in my small rural town

  • Brian Daniels

    You have the “right”, if you wish, to take a dump in a mixing bowl, place it in the freezer, take it out later and call it ice cream and eat it. That is your right. It doesn’t make it the correct, or healthy, thing to do. These cowards who feel compelled to take assault rifles to buy Oreos or double cheese burgers are just as idiotic as the ice cream eater. Anyone who feels compelled to wander around aimlessly in public places with a loaded AR or AK needs to have his guns taken away and be forced into serious counselling. Someday soon someone is going to use “stand your ground” to blow away one or more of these so called patriots. And unlike mister Zimmerman, who was threatened by clothing, ice tea and Skittles, they will be justified.

  • wvawmn

    Good article.

  • Warren Klofkorn

    That discussion sure went to Hell quickly. I don’t think the main point of the article had to do with the 2nd Amendment. The article seems to me to be mainly about hypocrisy and double standards. How many of you are old enough to remember how badly many people just freaked when Huey Newton and others advocated blacks take up arms in self defense? Let’s stipulate for the sake of the discussion that people do indeed have a right to bear arms. Do you really think white people, and particularly conservative white gun owners, would react well to publicly armed groups of other ethnic groups? How about cops? Would they react well to armed minority groups? I have my doubts.

  • Anonymous

    It is true, hardcore liberals, not all liberals, love to make any debate about race or bigotry. Its a sensitive issue and its an easy way demonize someone’s message when you can hint towards racial undertones. The first thing the author did was ask a question about race to the activist. Nobody mentioned or said anything about race. I don’t think anybody else noticed what color everyone was, except for the author. The author chose to bring race into the equation. That is not progressive journalism Allen, that is objective/ambush journalism. Your not looking for “truth” or “answers”, you went to this event with an intention on what you would report, in the hopes of finding a good soundbite, and I guess, through your strategic questioning, you got what you came for. Your no better than CNN or Fox news. You are here to cater to a specific audience. That is not journalism, that’s entertainment “news.”

  • Anonymous

    By Forward Progressives you mean, Democratic Party groupies? This blog is ridiculous. Nothing but Blue State, Boot Licking rambling. Do you folks truly believe that conservatives are everything wrong with this country and liberals are everything right? The divisive ideology I read on the pages of this blog is what has been eating away at the core of what makes America great. We all have contributions, we all have value and we all have ideas that can help make America great. The sooner you folks realize that, the sooner we can start building the America that we all know we deserve. Until then…smell ya later.

  • thesquire1

    Ideal scenario:- One bunch of gun nuts feel threatened by another bunch of gun nuts so a fire-fight breaks out in the shopping mall during which they shoot each other but no bystanders are hurt.

    Result = a lot of Gun nuts are serious wounded and then complain that it was the ‘others’ because they felt threatened by them carrying ‘bigger’ guns.

    • Matt Redman

      Why is your ideal scenario one where people are hurt or killed?

      You people are sick.

      • thesquire1

        It ISN’T but its preferential to one where one where unarmed innocent bystanders are threatened or injured by people who feel it make them more ‘macho’ to waltz around dressed like Rambo – THEY are the sick ones !
        My very point was that the day something like that happens may just be the day when people realise that ‘open carry’ of assault rifles is fucking STUPID and sign a law to STOP IT !

      • Matt Redman

        No no no no…..

        Not letting you squirm out of this one. Backpedal as hard as you want, your words are “Ideal scenario”.

        Anyone can pretend to be Rambo all day, as long as they do not hurt or threaten anyone. Believe me, you take the cake for sicko. You’ve already told us everything we need to know.

        PS: Show me one instance where anyone has open carried an assault rifle in USA. Time to put up or shut up.

      • thesquire1

        ‘Squirm’ is not something I find the need to do.
        If you need evidence of assault rifles, shotguns and any other nasty weapons being carried in US stores you only need to look for yourself.
        If it hadn’t been the case, why would some stores feel the need to ask them NOT TO ?
        You seem so easily able to throw ‘sicko’ at me so I am guessing (wildly ?) that your in favour of the ‘Rambo’ mentality ?
        YOU explain what exactly is gained by wandering around stores armed to the teeth.
        YOU explain if it ‘intimidates’ customers to shop closeby to ‘armed’ men ? How soon before one of those ‘armed men’ decide to go off their net and start opening fire ?
        I have no need to ‘backpedal’ since before a whole bunch of innocents are slaughtered – the IDEAL SCENARIO IS for some crazy gun toting morons to let loose at each other and you will not I didn’t say KILLED.
        BECAUSE – once that scenario has happened – MORONS like YOU will suddenly wonder WTF you defended them for ?

      • Matt Redman

        No, I asked you a specific question regarding the open carry of assault rifles. It’s never happened. You can not put up. Now you must shut up.

        I am not, nor did I ever say I was in favor of Rambo mentality. Stop grabbing at straws. I encourage people to carry in an educated, respectful, polite way. Can’t expect you to understand.

      • thesquire1

        So your denying what anyone can see with their own eyes – a whole page full of photographs of morons ‘touting’ their guns in stores ? Interesting – I know 3 monkeys like that !
        You ‘encourage’ people to carry ” in an educated, respectful, polite way” ??? WTF happens when they DON’T ?

        NO – your right you cannot expect me to understand WHY people should feel the need and comfort of a KILLING TOOL by their side 24/7 even in a COFFEE shop !
        I class people like that as ‘paranoid’ and struggle to come up with a different ‘reason’ for why they have such an obsession ?
        It will be interesting(and frightening) when those same hick/rednecks actually see another group in their ‘store’ but of Latino, Coloured or GASP Islamic appearance ? Continue to bury your head where its snug and warm and where the sun never shines.

      • thesquire1

        I don’t know if you travel but I and most people find it very intimidating to see armed Police patrolling airports..however we excuse that because we know they may be protecting us.
        If you think the same can’t be said about moronic Hicks and rednecks sauntering about various stores with all forms of lethal weapons strung over their shoulder, then your a bigger C**T then I took you for in the first place.

      • Matt Redman

        I see you absolutely ignored the assault rifle question. Predictable.

        Yes I travel. I try not to be intimidated by police. But I know they are not just standing around, they are often looking for a reason to start trouble. You double down on your gullibility by suggesting that cops may be ‘protecting us’. In reality cops are protecting themselves. Police typically harass people even when there is no probable cause. You. Me. Whomever. We are all fair game to them. So don’t be so naive.

      • thesquire1

        How did I ignore your question ?

        I posted a whole Google page of images of examples ? Or perhaps they were deleted as they were a link….- just try for yourself..its easy just enter ‘open carry in stores’ – images.

        Are you really ‘reading’ my responses ?
        If you travel (especially outside the US) cops don’t intimidate – their GUNS DO – much like those morons wandering around stores with them.

        If you and your buddies really feel so insecure – perhaps you need to hire people to do your shopping for you and stay locked at home instead of ‘intimidating’ other customers.

      • Matt Redman

        Sorry, I’m not getting all your stuff here. Try to limit your responses to one post. It might be an issue with the blog format.

        Regardless, a quick internet search for “open carry assault rifle” gets plenty of hits, but none of the weapons featured are actually assault rifles, even if the media has misidentified them. So no, nobody has EVER done open carry of an assault rifle in USA. The news media gets this wrong on an hourly basis, so don’t believe everything you see on tv, ok?

      • thesquire1

        I can imagine only one reason for ‘me’ walking around shop armed to the teeth – that the stores are full of people walking around ‘armed to the teeth’

      • Matt Redman

        Sounds good to me. This and similar instances have already happened.

        Amazingly, we all continue shopping and have a great day.

  • chedd

    As an advocate of common sense gun safety regulations, I heartily endorse all the open carry people to parade around as many public venues as possible – the mall, church, Taco Bell, your kid’s school – you name it. Because whenever sane citizens see these yahoos parading around with their prosthetic phalluses, the open carry conversation is no longer theoretical, but very real; and when that happens, people will realize how monumentally stupid it is to carry around weapons in public – especially in this day and age, when mass shootings are becoming all too common – and will welcome gun safety legislation. I only hope it happens before a Gunfight at the OK Corral happens on somebody’s Main Street.

    • Travis Hughes

      Ok, so all open-carry people are insane.

      Bigot, party of one?

      • Rhonda Painter

        It’s bigoted to judge people by their actions?

      • RitaArm

        Why does one need to open carry long rifles to go to Starbucks or Home Depot, if you feel the need to do so, yes, you are mentally unstable. And statistically at least 1 in 10 of those people marching about the Home Depot parking lot is mentally unbalanced. Why should the rest of us need to guess who that person is? Maybe you all you brain healthy gun toters should get matching jackets.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        not insane,,,,,,,,,,
        socially oligophrenial; but not insane

    • getoffmylawn

      Got to agree with this. Open carry advocates hurt their cause every single time they parade around like idiots.

  • BeauDCrab

    didn’t happen.

  • rockinpinkfloyd

    I think they should do it. A group of black and brown (some with turbans!) people (some with turbans!) should band together for no real political reason other than to show off their legally obtained guns. In a parking lot.

    Yes, how long before the national guard is called?

    • Matt Redman

      Who’s parking lot? Would they be asked to leave? I wouldn’t do it on private property.

  • Tyler

    I love all of the broad generalizations in this post. 100 white guys lined up on the road with guns would scare me… but so would 100 of any other race… not because of the race… but because of 100 people the most common denominator is a weapon. One person with a weapon doesnt scare me. the race is irrelevant. 100 people with weapons… even if they were all white, black, muslim… doesnt matter the race… have gotten together because of >the weapons< and weapons are dangerous. Lets say you line 100 white people up on the road… and one of them has a weapon. the weapon is inherently less threatening because its no longer the common denominator.

    • Travis Hughes

      100 guys lined up on the road looking angry would be intimidating even if they were not armed with guns. If you think a mob of 100 unarmed civilians isn’t dangerous even without firearms, you are incredibly mistaken.

  • ArizonaLiberal

    I am a liberal that has a concealed carry permit and carries a concealed weapon. I think that common sense gun control should be in order. I had to submit a set of fingerprints to the FBI and get a background check in order to get my permit plus I had to pass a test after taking a class. I feel that anyone that carries a gun, be it concealed or open carry should have to get this permit like I did. I do not think anyone that is not in the millitary would ever need to own a semiautomatic assault style weapon like an AK-47. I really do think you need a mental evaluation if you think you need a gun that can put out 200 rounds a minute. The thing is that most people do not understand that most gun owners do not support the extremist views of the NRA. They are a very small fringe group that unfortunately has a lot of power.

    • Travis Hughes

      FYI, your handgun can probably put out 200 rounds per minute. That’s.. uh.. not very many (~3 rounds per second.. pretty easy with modern semi-auto handguns). As for your comment about ‘semiautomatic assault style weapons like the AK-47:’ First off, the AK-47 is a full-fledged, fully automatic assault rifle. Secondly, there is extremely little difference between a ‘semiautomatic assault style weapon’ and any other form of semiautomatic rifle.

      As for the rest of your comment, I pretty much agree with you.

    • SophieCT

      I’m part of the “most people” who does “not understand that most gun owners do not support the extremist views of the NRA” because every time single time the vote came up to close the background check loopholes, the entire right closed ranks with the extremists. If you don’t want to be judged with the extremists, stop doing their bidding.

      • ArizonaLiberal

        I fully agree with you on this issue. I want the background check loopholes closed. It is only a few of the NRA extremist types that do not. I am not a member of the NRA and I would never consider joining them. When I get their mailers in the mail asking me to join or give money I very promptly throw it away. (That is another thing that upsets me as a liscensed gun carrying liberal, the tea party and other conservative groups get their mailing lists from a database of people like me that have permits and automatically assume that if you own a gun or have a permit you must be a conservative). Unfortunately, the NRA has a bit more clout than it really represents. Most of my gun owning friends want the background check loopholes closed. When I go to the shooting range I very rarely meet a person that is in favor of keeping them open. Even the gun shop owners that I frequent want them closed. Unfortunately, the NRA has a lot of money behind it so it is able to make a platform for its extremist agenda. The NRA though does not represent the mainstream of thought for the gun owning public.

  • americanwoman343

    The answer to your question is, that they are thinking with their viscera. It’s not about thought at all – it’s an emotional reaction to losing…something – the world as they thought it was, the world they knew, the world where they were in charge…something. To someone. That’s where the racism comes in. And because it’s now identity politics, you can’t argue – it’s only something to actually fight over. You’re attacking who they are, not what they think. I don’t know how this ends.

  • Travis Hughes

    So, you argued this with one person and clearly that’s the mindset of all people who support open carry. They’re all absurd, extremist, ignorant, racist rednecks. They, they, they, they. Like they’re some hive-mind, like every single one of them shares all of the exact same opinions. Do you realize how stupid you sound? How immediate the loss of your credibility becomes? You scoff at how your family member brushes off the questions by calling you a ‘typical liberal,’ YET YOU ENGAGE IN THE SAME STEREOTYPING IN YOUR VERY OPINION PIECE.

    I’m sorry, but your bias is showing. You might want to talk to a doctor and get that looked at.

    Also, your ‘why not carry grenades’ is absolutely ridiculous. Sure, a grenade might be highly effective in taking out the ‘bad guy with the gun,’ but it would also be highly effective in killing his hostages and/or innocent bystanders just by virtue of them happening to stand nearby. Comparing a grenade to a firearm in the hands of a well-practiced shooter is like comparing a lighter to a flamethrower: Both will light the candles on the cake, after all!

    Oh, and here’s something you need to think about: Those open-carry gun nut strangers you’re so afraid of? You’re FAR more likely to be murdered by someone you know and love than any one of them.

    Anyway, I’m not right-wing. I’m not conservative. I’m not a fan of the NRA. If anything, I’m ‘liberal.’ And you make me sad to be associated with them.

    • SophieCT

      Open carry is stupid. The proponents failed to think it through. Open carry is only a recipe for disaster. Using your own language, how on earth will you be able to tell the good guy from the bad guy? As the author suggests, the only method you have is to use your pre-existing biases (IF you have them, and judging by the comments, most of you have them).

  • Lisa Dillon

    your article made some very good points. I would say that I, for one, would appreciate it if you hadn’t of lumped all conservatives into one category. granted, there are some out there like you described. but, when you say all of us are like that, you make yourself and all left wingers look as bad as the extreme right wing. if you stop and listen, you will find we have common ground. as far as open carry, I don’t like it cos it gets everyone riled up and lookin for something to rant about. you don not have to exercise your right to bear arms. but, if you choose to do so, please take time out to learn about your fire arm and how to handle it safely, remember, there are more good guys around you than bad. calm down

  • caleegirl76

    My question is this..Do you think that the writers of the constitution would have added ‘the right to bare arms’ if they knew blacks would be freed and the good ole USA would become the melting pot that it is?..I’m thinking they wouldn’t have…

    • RitaArm

      Especially when you consider the right to “bear arms” was a concession to the Southern Militia, who used them to chase wayward slaves in parties. The very origins of the amendment, which based on the primary sources was specifically drawn up with Militia’s in mind, not private use, was racist… A concession much like the electoral college and the formation of the Senate, to those states who felt they were in a weakened position either by size or voting numbers.

  • It’s categorically impossible to engage in a common sense conversation with a liberal over damn near anything…and gun rights near the top of the list.

    • Rhonda Painter

      Well, let’s test that theory. Would you feel safe around a dozen New Black Panthers carrying large weapons? Do you think they have the right to do that?

      • Shadow8088

        Provided they are following the law? Absolutely.

      • Rhonda Painter

        And how would you determine that quickly enough to decide how to react? Wait until they threatened someone? Opened fire? Stole a package of cigarettes? What would you do if you decided they weren’t following the law? Call police? Open fire with your own weapon? Run?
        Now, how would the scenarios be different if no one was carrying weapons?

      • Shadow8088

        Considering that I actually know the carry laws in my particular state, a bunch of guys wearing rifles/shotguns/etc on their backs are perfectly within their rights. If they were carrying them at low ready (like the dumbass in the one heavily circulated picture) it’s a different story. I would be wary of their intentions. Aiming them at people would warrant a response from me or others. But we’re not talking about 100 guys with guns.. we’re playing the “Hypothetical Game”… If you don’t want to be around people carrying firearms, fine. Don’t. Simple as that. If they go somewhere you are and you don’t like it, leave. and yes, it really is that simple.

      • Shadow8088

        oh, and as I’ve posted elsewhere in this thread.. I don’t think people walking around with rifles/shotguns/etc is a good idea. IMHO it’s people looking for attention. Period. People carrying a sidearm is quite a different story.

      • Rhonda Painter

        If I leave, I’ll be sure to let the manager know why. Just like I do if I walk into an establishment where Fox Noise is playing on a television set.

      • Shadow8088

        Good! Welcome to what I like to call “being an adult”… If something is bothering you, say or do something about it instead of sitting and pouting in the corner.

      • Rhonda Painter

        Oh, I do plenty about things that bother me, like advocating for sensible public policies. Nice to meet you fellow adult, I’m a Democratic activist.

      • Test what theory? That liberals’ favorite ‘end the discussion right here and now’ card is always some racist nonsense? Yep. That theory is intact. What kind of stupid, nonsensical question is that? Would you feel safe around a bunch of La Raza gang members carry large weapons? It’s a non sequitur…but you folks are grossly over-enamored with those, so it’s hardly a surprise. But what the hell, for some reason, I feel like answering your idiotic question: Would I feel safe? Safe enough. They’re guns, not entities. And I carry myself, so…y’know, equality. But you know what? You actually just proved a salient point among those of us who actually KNOW that guns are inanimate objects, incapable of self determination or self awareness. It’s all in the hands of the one using it, and what they choose to use it FOR. So you can take your race card and put it back into the stacked deck that it came from…

      • SophieCT

        How long have you had this problem?

      • gian keys flat mom

        since he recognized that following is easier than trying to lead or THINK for himself

      • Rhonda Painter

        So, you’re fine with any group of people who decide to get together and carry large weapon en masse in public? Uh-huh. I’d be more inclined to believe that if I didn’t know that many of the restrictions on open carry actually were put in place in the ’60’s when it was the Black Panthers who carried them into Sacramento to protests near the CA capitol. The governor of CA at the time? None other than Saint Ronald of Reagan.

    • gian keys flat mom

      shall we start with how regressive white trash has screwed America with its repub policies ( on federal level) in past 25 yrs?
      no? ok; how about JOB CREATION: U can have the 20 yrs of Reagan/bush1/bush2,,,,and I will have the 14 yrs of Clinton and Obama,,,,,,,,,,,,
      I bet ur small dicked ass loves those numbers; eh “ignoramus”???

      • No, we won’t start with that, because, just like with every other argument a liberal can’t win, this is a turn that has nothing to do with the focus of the argument at hand. Not to mention that it’s breathlessly ignorant. Oh, and on the level of a first grade bully. Nice job, poindexter…

      • RitaArm

        Uhm. Maybe you didn’t notice but Gian Keys just won. Lets make a blanket statement about the right. Besides denying scientific fact, they refuse to acknowledge Historical fact. Gian brought up that the economy has flourished under Democratic Presidents who were not stonewalled by the right. That is historically accurate. Maybe you can’t engage with liberals because you, like your party have nothing to bring to the table, other than being incapable of admitting you have been wrong. And it has become obvious that “feeling” that you are right is more important than actually being so…

      • gian keys flat mom

        am I allowed to award U my medal of honor?
        I love eviscerating the regressive crybabies on the “right”
        ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,love even more when they spin away from that WHICH THEY BROUGHT UP!!!
        ************************************************************
        please take a peek at MY reply to that coelacanth above

      • SophieCT

        What the heck are you talking about? Liberals are able to win every argument based on facts. The unwinnable arguments are like these, where you guys simply turn incoherent on us as if you had absolutely no connection with reality.

      • gian keys flat mom

        Jason teal’s favorite 70’s group is ” the spinners”
        ***********************************************************

      • gian keys flat mom

        hey crybaby– YOUR ( above) rant was ” a common sense conversation….with a liberal”
        my ‘rant’ is: a common sense conversation ( topic: repub federal level policies over past 25 yrs / job creation.)
        and now U care NOT to have a common sense (??) conversation upon a common topic? delightfully FOX “news” -esque
        *********************************************************
        bully? that’s what regressive white trash losers cry when confronted by facts which they call ignorant and are easily shown as TRUE
        -maybe we should cry BENGHAZI —-as “obamacare’ ( see: ACA) is working so well– as predicted– that lachrymose “poindexters” have shuttered away the noise they reveled in last year

    • SophieCT

      You might want to reconsider your world view. Fact is, there is barely any discernible difference between you gun nuts and terrorists. But you blame the liberals for not wanting to live in the kind of F’d up world you and your ilk are trying to create. Priceless.

      • Shadow8088

        I am so very glad that I have just been lumped in with people that strap on explosives and detonate themselves in public areas, hoping to take as many people with them as possible. All because I enjoy firearms and shooting sports. Please, lets add more comments like this to improve your credibility. Oh, and if we’re adding labels… I’m a Democrat and a firearm enthusiast…

      • Rhonda Painter

        I think you misunderstand the term “gun nut”. It is not equivalent to the term “gun owner” or even “gun enthusiast”. It refers to those who are obsessed with the idea that their right to own and carry any weapon they damn well please to any place they want to go trumps everyone else’s discomfort with seeing high powered weapons paraded around in public. Does that apply to you?

      • SophieCT

        I was talking to Jason Teal, not you. When you’re butting in, you should read what you’re butting in to. I said gun nut, not gun owner. So, you wasted a perfectly good soapbox speech. But thanks for being my own special pompous a$$ of the day.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        I also LOVE when some creep interjects his/her bavardage into a thread even though they were NOT initially contacted by me– such as shadow does quite often

  • walnutosage

    Didn’t the NRA actually support stricter gun laws in the ’60’s during the Civil Rights movement and the rise of the Black Panthers? And don’t 74% of paying NRA members support some rules on weapons? Course, I could have my facts mixed up.

    • Matt Redman

      Well, the NRA has been known to show its true colors. They are NOT freedom friendly. But for some reason people keep thinking the NRA is pro-2A…..

  • The first state gun control act was the Mulford Act of 1967, signed into law by Governor Ronald Reagan. It was expressly written in response to Black Panthers showing up in Sacramento armed to the teeth.

    IMO, the only way to put paid to this idiotic discussion is for a new generation of Black Panthers to start counterpointing these clowns.

  • Erick Barkley

    I was almost excited to read this post, until I immediately sensed YOUR opinion towards the open carry activist in your family. Sure, I appreciate your opinion and the way you view these headline topics; this IS America, and we do have this right.

    But, if you are going to expound on the seemingly lop-sided views of “all” gun rights activists and suggest that they are all ‘hit or miss’ racists, then please discuss how a black man, Hispanic man, Muslim man, or even a Jewish man can throw down the ‘race card’ whenever a white man (immediately accused of being involved in a white extremist group), but once any member of the various ethnic groups start trashing a white man, it is overlooked.

    This world and our government is so jacked up because everyone wants to throw trash at one another. I don’t care if you support gun rights, gay rights, if you are Right Wing or Left Wing. Shut up. You believe what you want to believe, and leave it alone. Chances are . . . the boring arguments you initiate WILL NOT change the other person’s views.

    There. Off my soap box.

  • Elmar17

    If I saw 100’s of armed anyone with rifles protesting for their rights I’d join them if I had the time.

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      if they were gold toothed African americans covered in tattoos and listening to serious RAP music would U cheerfully join them as they ‘protested’ for their rights whilst adorned with rifles?
      ===================================================
      I wonder if your above rant regarding the authors purported ‘singular person/population 100 million’ has –by you– been used vocally when FOX “news” and ITS ilk has done the EXACT same thing while ‘reporting’ in items revolving around the ACA and other current stories which FOX “news” doesn’t like.

  • Elmar17

    I hope the author understands how illogical it is to extrapolate an interaction with one person to a population of over a hundred million. I doubt it as the author expresses no interest in selecting against confirmation bias. The author would have done much better in college taking a course in argument or logic, they could write far more persuasive pieces if they had.

  • Martha Boltz

    I see no reason for open carry — I have a concealed carry permit which is certainly sufficient to me, I don’t want to announce I’m carrying, just have it in case I need it. These people just want to cause trouble and be obvious.

    • fucawe

      Nice job BUTTer.

  • AsIfUknow

    yeah, thee WHITE “patriots” (FAKEtriots) aren’t racists. That’s what they like to Twitter back to our #gunsense feeds. So ignorant it hurts my soul!

    • Matt Redman

      Huh?

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        brilliant matt,,,,, U are brilliant!

      • Matt Redman

        No, I insist. The post does not make sense to me. Who tweets to who? Why? Who is ignorant? I’m assuming the first sentence was sarcastic? Was it supposed to be funny?

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        to quote you:
        U should ask her,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
        I will concur it is written bereft of proper english syntax

  • KeMc

    To quote: “At first I didn’t say much – their ignorance is so embedded within them that no fact I would present was going to change their mind.” As a write, you SHOULDN’T try to change their mind. You should look at the FACTS and report accordingly. So Allen Clifton, you have lost all cred as a writer, and since you obviously are biased, your article just another opinion piece. These are very good people you are talking about. Just because you don’t believe in their opinion does not make THEM ignorant, but you. Why do liberals have to resort to name calling and cry racism whenever someone doesn’t agree with them? Sad, but typical.

  • Big_Gay_Al

    Every other right in the Bill of Rights has been described by liberals as “Individual rights.” These are all amendments that say “the right of the people…” Yet, for some really assinine reason, “the right of the people” is now a collective right? I don’t think so.

  • TheSzerdi

    “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” refers to people of a military age and fitness bearing arms in defense of the state from foreign or domestic tyranny.

    “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” implicitly states that the people’s (Everyone who can carry a firearm.) right to own and carry firearms of equal quality to military arms (militia arms) shall not be interfered with as they are the individuals that would make up the well regulated militia.

    It is absolutely impossible for the military to outnumber the general populace and the militia being made up of the general populace with free access to military grade armament ensures that the government cannot enforce it’s will through might of arms.

    A militia by definition is any and all citizens capable of bearing arms. Not necessarily those organized into paramilitary units, but ALL citizens capable of resisting tyranny.

    The 2nd amendment MUST refer to an individual right to own and carry arms equal in quality to those of the military to provide citizens the necessary armament to resist tyranny.

    For those that would argue citizens should then have access to tanks and APC’s and jets, etc. While those machines are excellent tools for capturing ground and smashing massed enemies, they CANNOT hold ground. Infantrymen with their boots in the dirt will always be the only viable occupational force. Additionally in our current era of technology the infantryman can easily carry weapons capable of destroying those heavy machines.

  • Valno

    That question is racist. The Black Panthers exist. The Muslims don’t even make up 1%.

    HOW ABOUT WE SETTLE THIS IN REALISTIC TERMS.

    The constitution doesn’t include an apology.

    I know you’re butt hurt; get over it.

  • Mitch

    When you minorities carry guns they start with the gun control laws by your Democratic elected official. Just like in Detroit when a Black doctor did not live in the right neighborhood. Although he and those who came to his aid were acquitted, the next think we have is handgun registrations. Even in CA when the black panthers took over congress that was some fast legislation.

  • Josh N

    First, this article is a textbook example of the Strawman fallacy. Not untrue (I’m from Georgia; I know the subculture you refer to very well, and recognize the cultural prejudices that are rife among it), but certainly misleading as far as characterizing the issue.

    First thing to realize is that open-carry activists are to the 2nd Amendment what the KKK is to the 1st. They are the hyperbole that prove the rule. Recognizing that hateful speech is still free speech is, in my mind, pretty crucial to understanding the cost inherent in equal social rights. Understanding the role of the aggressive, “freedom fighter” persona that many open-carry activists embody is comparably crucial to understanding the value and cost of the 2nd Amendment.

    If you want to understand my point, imagine this: the philosophy that created the foundation for our United States of America was rooted in limiting centralized power. These limitations were enshrined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in order to keep them sacred. Say what you want about the founding fathers and their lifestyles, politics, etc. You could talk for days about all the contradictions, but it would be very hard to empirically deny their genius in drafting these documents. As far as legal documents go, they are very succinct and minimalist, and pretty much every major subject remains highly relevant to this day, almost 250 years later. That, in itself, is an impressive and notable feat.

    These limitations were placed in many different realms in which government operates. The 1st Amendment protects the social realm of society; there can be no opinions or conversations which are illegal. This protects our country from the kind of political muscle that isn’t shy to punish those who voice opposition. World history and current events are full of evidence for the ubiquity of such groups and the danger they pose to free societies.

    Now, the 2nd amendment places a different kind of limitation, but one equally important in my reckoning. Unfortunately, firearms cannot be erased from history any more than the atom bomb can. For now, at least, they are here to stay. What the 2nd amendment does is prevent the state (centralized power) from having a monopoly on contemporary martial force (guns). In the event that a truly tyrannous government emerges and attempts to oppress its citizens openly, we have the capacity to meet that challenge with equal force.

    Do I think guns are the answer? Of course not. But in a world where guns exist, where they are used domestically and abroad by our government to pursue its interests and maintain/expand its notion of what “order” is, I think the 2nd Amendment protects our ability to sustain the question. What is the question? For me, it’s as simple as “how do we create communities with more symbiosis and less injustice?” Step one is to level the playing field in every realm we can touch. If our government is willing to disarm the police and the military, perhaps I’ll be more open to limiting or repealing the 2nd Amendment. But until the centralized power of the state leads by example, gun control strikes me as incredibly naive.

  • texshelters

    Well said. Thanks!

    PTxS

  • Spicy Ray Swinehart-Patrick

    You have got to be kidding me, with everything that’s going on in the world, who wouldn’t be alarmed by seeing a group of armed muslims on the side of the road? That’s not being racist (muslim isn’t a race anyway) that’s being real!
    As for the mexicans, didn’t obama just release 36,000 illegal immigrants, many of which were felons, most of which were charged with very serious crimes, from prison? Again, being real.

  • T.j. Thomas

    And they’re not taking two things into account, on top of all of this. One, if a would-be mass shooter sees one of them openly carrying a gun, Open Carry Guy becomes their first target. And second, Open Carry Guy probably won’t think twice about seeing Mass Shooter whip out a gun because hey, he must be One Of Us.

  • Nunn Yabizz

    So much wrong with the conclusions drawn in this article that I don’t even know where to begin. Ok, let’s start with the “wild west” theory. The gunfighting in the west didn’t stop because society evolved as you put it; just look at the violence in the inner cities since the 80s to see that proof. The fighting died down because there simply was more people, which meant more law enforcement, more jobs, more money for people.

    Next, you encountered one group of people, a relatively small group, and you asked only a few of them questions. I bet you met more people that did answer your questions honestly but their answers didn’t fit your narrative so you fail to mention those people in your opinion piece.

    The group you encountered is also ONLY open carrying rifles in Texas because they are trying to get the law that disallows them to carry handguns changed. I live in Nevada and I see people of all races, and probably religions, as well as I have seen both men and women open carry here. It’s normal and most people don’t bat an eye. That’s what they are trying to do in Texas. One has to really search through the sensationalistic news to find the stories of people who have stopped bad things from happening because they were armed, and most of those instances no one even has to shoot! Of course, those who have people control on their agenda don’t like to mention it. Let’s be honest, here, gun control is NOT about stopping violence, it is about controlling people. Why do you think there were laws about black people being able to possess firearms in the areas where they were severely oppressed? Or even the areas in which they are STILL oppressed, like Chicago?

    Having been raised in New Jersey and having lived in several states throughout my life, I have also seen a lot of racism. I have seen it from from every single race I have encountered, from Jamaicans hating Africans, Mexicans hating El Salvadorans, Koreans hating Chinese, Protestants hating Catholics, the list goes on and on and on. Humans are naturally prejudiced, and a lot of humans are selfish and ignorant. That’s just how it is. We’ve made a lot of strides but that is still the case throughout the world. The great thing about the United States is that we allow people to have different opinions and for the most part the country has done a lot to right the wrongs of our past. If you are against gun ownership, that’s perfectly fine, but remember it is precisely because people are able to defend themselves that we have all those other freedoms.

  • Stanley J. Walljasper

    We had a similar concern here in California about 3-4 years ago when a much-publicized and small group wanted to show off and carry pistols in holsters in Starbuck stores (open carry)

    I am a gun owner and I can tell you, these guys acted like the perfect shills for liberal gun grabbers and their causes. I still wonder if they were part of a set up – they sure did not help the cause of legal and responsible gun owners.

  • buricco

    1. Nothing stops a private business from saying “we won’t serve you if you bring in Kalashnikovs”. Free market at work.
    2. Why is it that so many of these people wrap themselves in the flag and brandish Kalashnikovs—Russian assault rifles?

    • Shadow8088

      the AK-47 is one of the most reliable semi-auto rifles ever produced. (Yes, I know that there is a full auto version of this as well, but I don’t have my class III license yet) You can bury it in mud, sand, etc. and it will still fire. Its origin of manufacture is unimportant.

      And you’re right. Private businesses can do that. I don’t recall anyone saying otherwise.

      • Stephen Polasky

        Yes it is one of the most reliable assault rifles ever produced. And it belongs on the battlefield in the hands of trained soldiers, not in the hands of fanboys.

      • Matt Redman

        The difference is?

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        the difference is that our soldiers are trained physically and psychologically HOW to handle such weaponry– unlike the religious white trash losers shown here-
        – white trash regressives who hate equality want2 be “heroes” and ” patriots” ( see: cliven bundy and Michael Griffin and Scott Roeder) without actually participating in defending america
        ===========================================

      • Matt Redman

        “religious white trash losers shown here”

        Where? In the article? I’m sorry, I must have missed the part of the article where it went into meticulous detail about the previous experience, level of expertise, and credentials of the individuals interviewed.

        So please, point it out for me. Cause you somehow know everyone there was totally untrained, right? I wouldn’t seriously think you are just a silly person spouting off propaganda about things you know nothing about. Nawwww.

        Couldn’t be.

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        actually COULD be:
        I refer to the creeps in the photo: and Im willing to wager a fair amount that these same creeps (!!) are NOT as well-trained as our soldiers—
        AND— I did NOT say UNTRAINED
        ====================================
        wanna try again?

      • Matt Redman

        Your own word was “unlike” implying that the individuals were not trained at all.

        Point is, neither of us know the exact extent of everyone’s training. And many open carry people are current/prior military/LEO. So stop assuming you know their level of training.

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        implying? really? that’s suppositious totally.
        many people “open carry” do have superb training
        ======================================
        many do NOT. Im not interested in ANYONE carrying weaponry when not only their ” training” is suspect but equally important is where their mental faculty and level of psychological tuning is unknown and thus fraught with a capacity to shoot first and question later
        ====================================
        your accusation of my “assuming” is on par/ transposed with your assumptions

  • Kristiann Mann

    All this talk about race in a color blind society like ours. paraphrasing MLK, ” I have a dream that I will be judged not by the color of my skin but purely by my actions”. Same for all. So if we have a group of 30 armed muslims, more power to em as long as they have are legally armed and are not up to no good.

    • Stephen Polasky

      Seriously? You think our society is color blind? Yes, that is what we should be striving for, but again, seriously? You honestly think we’re there already? What country do you live in? And as far a open carry, with it you don’t know when someone is up to no good until it’s too late and you have a body count. Back in saner times when there was no open carry and concealed carry was for trained professionals, if you saw someone carrying, you could call the police and that person would be able to identify themselves as law enforcement or security, or they would be arrested.

      • Kristiann Mann

        “Those that would give up essential liberties in exchange for temporary security deserve neither” – One of our founding fathers

  • Tim Anderson

    Bravo…great essay.

  • Hunter Herr

    I really hate this “bad guy with a gun” argument. These people aren’t trained law enforcement officers. They are wannabe vigilantes, and they are going to enforce their personal ideas of what justice means. If an African American enters a building with them while open carrying, you better believe he is going to die, because to them, a black man carrying a gun is a threat, but for whatever reason (racism), a white man doing the same is just exercising his rights.

    We don’t need vigilante citizens shooting up a venue trying to take out the “bad guy”. Even if they are going after an actual bad guy, they aren’t trained to handle that situation, and are very likely to take down a few innocents in the attempt. Vigilantism never works.

  • If even 10 people (never mind a hundred) wearing Muslim dress and carrying AK-47’s decided to hang around a public building in any open carry state, they would quickly be surrounded by the police, disarmed and arrested. Open-carry was never intended to apply to brown people.

    • fucawe

      Wow spoken like a true racist prick.

      • Where’s your momma at, Jethro?

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        his momma is in church raffling off white trash fried food and pies

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        yep– and highly accurate

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        awwww,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, did U faw’ down and go BOOm again??

  • Kristiann Mann

    Guns dont kill people, people do.

  • sherry06053

    I hate guns. The regular population of gun owners uses them to give themselves a false sense of security and power – or as a “toy” to destroy things. You want to own a gun? Keep it at home – I don’t want to see it. At least I have that right, here in New England, where I will keep my tax dollars and my tourism dollars. You “gun nuts” ARE nuts! There is not a logical cell in your body. “Freedom” and “rights” are only for white people who agree with you. I would be looking forward to the day when, as this article says, a group of non-white, armed people get together to make a point, but I don’t because you people have so much hate in you that making that point would turn into a violent event, and it’s just not worth it. Nature will take it’s course and your numbers will dwindle with your accidental killing of each other and your kids. You really don’t see what an embarrassment you are to our country, do you?

    • Matt Redman

      Self-admitted hoplophobia. Nice. You can get help for that, you know.

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        with all she stated u focused ONLY upon that?
        U cannot get ” help” 4 that,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,as it is stoically ingrained in your anti liberal skull- which; bytheway— we love to see as it reminds us exactly WHY we need2/are progressing as a nation

      • Matt Redman

        Of course I focused on that. An argument made from the standpoint of bias arising from a mental disorder sort of shoots the whole post dead from the get-go. Sort of silly that I have to explain this.

        PS: Our nation is NOT progressing. We are regressing into a nation gripped by oligarchy, and supported by weak-minded masses of voters. The republocrats and demicans have been ruining us for decades.

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        I will agree that the atavism of “oligarchy” may indeed be here– so to civilly continue I will ask you: when- in your opinion– did our regression ( listed above) start; what date?

      • Matt Redman

        An exact date? Oh, I cannot say. But the evidence of this societal degeneration has become increasingly visible in the past 50 years or so.

        A long time ago, there was a United States that supported personal freedom. Do what you want, so long as it does not interfere with the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of anyone else.

        Somewhere, somebody figured out how easy it is to manipulate people. Now, instead of our free America, we have different groups at each others throats. The real issues are altogether forgotten, and one group says the other is a bunch of hippies, and the other groups says the others are just hillbilly rednecks. Or one group the wall street fat cats, and the other group stupid welfare moochers. Even when the media is corrupt, and prone to inaccuracy, people have the greatest communication tool in the world, internet, and use it to look at funny cats.

        At any rate, I’m worried that thinking individuals are going extinct. Have a look around this page, for example. Hardly anyone here can do their own research and thinking, and come to their own conclusion, without being told what to think by someone else. It’s tragic. Everyone here is locked in the iron grip of ignorance and panicky fear, and instead of finding real solutions to the issues, just play the name game. It’s those tea baggers! They’re vigilantes! They are all dangerous killers! They’re regressives! I could go on all day, but you get the point.

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        I do and agree with point. Im certain that U recognize its all about (1) power (2) money
        ………………. akin to all history

      • Matt Redman

        Perhaps. I am not so sure I subscribe to this idea that our problems all stem from some secret power-hungry group or individual.

        Rather, the fight should be against ignorance. What does it matter if someone is secretly pulling the strings somewhere, if the average American idiot wouldn’t know truth if it hit him in the head with a two by four?

  • kim dyer

    In the “wild west” you were supposed to leave your gun in the sheriff’s office when you entered town, and pick it up on the way out.

    These folks really need to move to Somalia if they want to see what it’s like where there are hordes of armed people around all the time.

    I seem to recall they had whole LITTERS of kittens over two black men with guns standing outside a polling place. It seems THEY felt threatened, even though those men did not approach anyone.

  • Lawrence Devine

    I think it is about fear. The NRA has spread the notion that you must be ready at all times day and night to fight off armed attackers. It makes a fearful guy feel omnipotent when carrying an assault rifle. He feels that he is ready to protect law and order and the American way, everyone else is a potential threat who deserves to be intimidated.

  • ibz1550rg

    any gun owner would not call you a hater of freedom. in fact – every gun owner and member of the open carry groups that i know would be fine with your stance because that is what freedom is all about. we all have the freedom to choose, we all are ultimately responsible for our choices. it is you who are trying to put your perception of the world onto us. you who are trying to change our behavior, to limit our freedom of choice, and to ultimately deny us that ultimate responsibility of self governance.

  • Joseph Tye

    @allen clifton, Who did you talk to? I call B.S. on this whole article unless you can name people there. OCT supports all people’s right to keep and bear arms. I always love to see a large group of people exercising their rights.

  • fucawe

    “Living in Texas I constantly see racism. And you can’t tell me for one minute that these racist white conservatives”. Yup so do I. Right here in this article.

  • Cytozen

    In the first couple paragraphs I already came across inconsistencies. You said you interacted with One person, however you said that “They” stammered along. This means that either you’re lying about talking to only one person and it would make sense that you talked to several members to attempt to find someone who Was to make racial comments. The other option is that you are lying about talking to anyone about this comment.
    As a member of Open Carry Texas, I can openly say that No, we are not threatened by those kinds of instances, though we would be Aware of the people who are exercising that right. The point of open carrying is for people to know that you are packing and deterring their possibly intention of committing a crime. It’s about awareness, not fear. The only time I would feel threatened is the moment they start pointing their firearms at people, then I would draw my own weapon to protect myself. The comment about “Typical liberal, trying to make it about race,” is completely a true comment. YOU made it about race as soon as you asked whether that particular situation with that/those race(s). The reason why they scoffed at that question is because they Weren’t racist. They understood that YOU felt threatened by that situation, proving that You were putting racial emphasis on the situation. (Doesn’t that make You the racist?)
    As a Political Science major, you should have more common sense. The “Wild West” no longer exists, because of the advancement in TECHNOLOGY and the development of cities and urban areas. Because there is more technology available there are more jobs (in urbanized areas) that are necessary for America to develop further. As a “Progressive” you should understand this. More people and more diverse jobs brought people together. This “Wild West” that you claim this movement is about, is a poor excuse for not saying what you really think: “No one should have guns because they’re only purpose is to kill.” The fact of the matter is that Everything can be used to kill someone. I choose to protect myself with this tool because it is the most effective way to. It doesn’t matter if you take us law-abiding citizens guns, because criminals will still find a way. I will not set down such an effective tool of defense because of your irrational fear that anyone with a semi-auto rifle on their back is out to kill YOU. And what “facts” were you pointing out to this/these members of the Open Carry movement? Because from my experience, the “facts” that you point out are ones that are claimed by newsrooms, which are then disproved a couple days later by the real report from the investigators. So since you neglected to mention these said “facts” I have to assume that you are making it up to get a rise out of people or to gain approval from people that are ignorant to the fact that you failed to prove anything by this article.

    As a last note, before you start arguing that I could just conceal carry a pistol as a better option because it doesn’t “cause fear” in “normal” citizens, I am 20 years old. I cannot legally carry a pistol because I cannot get a concealed carry license. I have no other means of protections other than a rifle.
    Your move Mr. Clifton.

  • jsgolightly

    God I love progressives. When it comes to making me feel like an intellectual, you people take the cake.

    “their ignorance is so embedded within them that no fact I would present was going to change their mind.” A stunning display of “opinion equals fact” so typical if those on the left. No display of evidence, no effort to support such a statement, just an authoritative “so it is written, so shall it be!”

    “I paused for a moment, looked at them and asked one simple question, “What if you saw various groups of 100 or so African-Americans, Mexicans or Muslims gathered on the side of roads all over Dallas-Fort Worth with loaded AK-47′s, AR-15′s and a whole host of other semi-automatic weapon they could get their hands on, can you honestly tell me you wouldn’t feel threatened or alarmed?”

    And here we have more full on leftist “intellectualism” on display. The author thinks to himself “ah hah! This will trip those gun lovers up!” , but fails to realize he has caught himself in his own noose, for you see, his very line of logic, is racist from the start. Why does the author think that these open carriers would have a problem with minorities toting firearms? Because the author WOULD have a problem with minorities toting firearms.

    The author inadvertently blows his cover and puts his psychological progressive projection on full display.

    What I find most interesting though, is how obvious it is that this encounter never took place…. Showing another psychological phenomenon so typical to the group.

    God, how I love progressives….

    • worrierking

      We all know what they’d do if confronted by a group of angry black men with guns. We saw the right’s reaction to two black men carrying sticks at a polling place in Philadelphia in 2008 and they’re still angry about it.

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      and we love regressives such as you also,,,,,,,,,,,,, U( or at least your atavistic party) give America a near-quotidian view on how regressive crybabies “think” about the NON whites and gays in america

      • Matt Redman

        He’s right. My goodness, you people are dense.

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        yeah;;; we are dense– so here are some facts:
        republican policies in past 25-30 yrs have screwed America– unless U are a wealthy white aging scumbag CHRISTIAN regressive who hates minorities and gays and to an extent women.
        FACT: crybaby white trash regressives want JEEEESUS in their atavistic legislation as the ONLY way to govern.
        FACT: GW bush and CO had us dying ( see : soldiers) and drying ( see: economy….. Obama — in spite of no help from white trash republicans– has us turned around. economists all agree.
        FACT: U clowns offer NO ideas which might even help- except “lower taxes on JOB CREATORS” and repeal obamacare.
        FACT: America IS progressing towards ( finally) EQUAL equality for ALL americans; not just the whites who have ruled with iron financial and social fists
        ====================================
        care to usurp my positions here?
        lets start with economic numbers over past 25 yrs

      • Matt Redman

        Why the heck would I care about Republican policy? If they are messing things up (which they are), then don’t support them. I sure don’t!

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        then I am ( a wee bit) confused,,,,and surprised:
        pray tell…. whom do U support???

      • Matt Redman

        Confused? You’re CONFUSED?

        OH, what an understatement! EVERYONE frequenting a site like this is pretty confused. Everyone has to be a supporter of Republican or Democrat, right? Nobody can think outside of the box?

        As for the question itself, I support whomever I want. I always seek the party and candidate that best supports individual liberty. Some days it’s a constitutional candidate. Other times an independent. Sometimes a libertarian. Being quite aware of the massive crap that has been taken on this country the past few decades by the R and D parties, they have both lost my support. Ever wonder why we’re still fighting the same problems our parents were 30, even 40 years ago?

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        im ok w that,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but my studying and research upon dems/regressives shows me that repubs totally screw us much worse than dems. libertarians? that’s funny- the want small govt yet they seem to side with pro “life” mongrels.
        Im a registered independent: so I guess(?) that makes Bernie =sanders my guy? ( I do like him)

      • Matt Redman

        The fact that you aren’t condemning the dems as much as the repubs means that you’ve bought into the hype. Us vs them. This or that. You’re in their pocket! Break out!

        I don’t know about you, but I want a free and equal society. Where I am unmolested by government OR my fellow man. If you want this too, you MUST condemn both of those parties, since they are staggering obstacles to this objective.

  • Nancy L. Rattigan

    I’m not going to play this stupid second amendment game anymore. I am not afraid to go outside of my home without a weapon. If I were, I’d move. If you are, perhaps YOU should move! I am not afraid of my neighbor. We do just fine walking around without so much as a pen knife. If you feel the need to carry a gun, please either sign up for a fantastic military career or perhaps a job as a cop. Maybe a job in a prison. I doubt that you would pass any polygraph test or psychological tests, but give it a shot. I understand your need to feel safe and be a “big guy” to impress who knows. Frankly, I’m ashamed that so many people who once simply hunted or went to the gun range for the sport of shooting now feel the need to carry guns. It speaks of their ignorance and their paranoia, It speaks of their frustration of not knowing how to make a point (read: say something intelligent) and instead just throwing a tantrum like a tired two year old. I do feel sorry for you. You are fast becoming obsolete because you refuse to evolve. You are fast becoming the Dodo that was hunted to extinction. That is your fate.

  • getreal5

    So you failed to confront an open carry cop. Coward. A regular open carry advocate won’t pistol whip or shoot you like a cop can and will.

  • Len Charette

    ” Bear Arms ” is an ambiguous term. It can mean just about anything. Knife, longbow, crossbow musket, mace and so on. Since no semiautomatic weapons had yet been invented when the trem was used it would be an awful stretch to think they meant those type ” arms “.

    • Matt Redman

      So you have no problem with me going to the park with a cannon?

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        if the municipal/state law allows it who are we to complain?
        ( love 2 see anyone rightwing enough 2 claim “2nd amendment” with that idiocy)

      • Matt Redman

        Well, I DO have some old friends with some cannons. They’re 37mm and 45mm anti-tank guns.

        Not exactly practical open carry, but hey, I guess we could do it, huh?

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        not in my state,,,,,,,,,florida

      • Matt Redman

        Oh ok. FL no. I’m in DE, and we operate mostly in PA.

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        I lived in Allentown on business for a whole year ending 18 months ago
        UGGGGH

  • Browncoats

    If the 1st Amendment Right of the People were as heavily regulated and infringed upon as the 2nd Amendment Right of the People, all of the comments on this page would have first required the filling out of a piece of paper to be kept on file by a 3rd party advocating the posting of replies, a call to the FCC to insure that the person posting had no criminal background and did not smoke pot, along with making sure the person had a valid form of identification from the State in which this article originated, to ensure that person was authorized to post on this article. Finally you would be limited in certain states to only 10 words or less in your response. The Leftist Hypocrisy of supporting the limits on Freedom and Liberty know no bounds!

    “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.”

    I don’t see where it says, White People only. It says the people. Also, when I looked through the Bill of Rights, it didn’t say anything about people feeling secure and feeling safe.

  • RVNVET6869

    Does the author think that only white guys buy and carry guns? That’s stupid.

  • Richard Carew

    Rights don’t have any color to them. As far as I’m concerned, as long as they weren’t “brandishing” them or “pointing” them at people, I would feel no threat at all. I know people of many ethnic backgrounds who handle their arms with responsibility.

    Here’s a “progressive” thought for you. Try blaming the psychopath and the system that let him down for the atrocities that you like to use for your gain, rather than the inanimate objects you are actually targeting The problem lies within the government, not with the 2nd Amendment.

  • Patrick

    This is bullshit. This is the same straw-man crap I’ve seen “progressives” post over and over. The fact that they would even think to ask the question in the first place demonstrates a very deep level of prejudice and hatred toward America’s most discriminated cultural group. Personal friends of mine who are advocates for the right to bear arms are black. One of my best friends who was sworn into the National Guard a couple months ago is black and he supports open carry. All you ignorant neanderthals who scream and cry about the NRA’s “racism” are either purposely forgetting or ignorant of the fact that the National Rifle Association is this country’s oldest Civil Rights organization, having been formed to help freed slaves defend themselves from violent racists (who were DEMOCRATS, mind you). It sickens me that the people who claim to be tolerant are the same people who discriminate against gun owners. If gun owners didn’t have their weapons, the liberals would have hung us all years ago.

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      really? where O where was NRA when gov Reagan ( in the 1960s) signed a California bill NOT allowing black panthers to carry ( legal) guns?

      • Patrick

        why the hell would you want those thugs carrying guns in a rally? If he did that, he would have to allow the Klan to carry to, and there would be war in the streets! Give guns to law abiding Americans, not violent thugs (which is what the Black Panthers were, they were NOT a Civil Rights group). But to answer you’re question, the NRA was standing with Reagan to prevent gun violence. And you antis always shout about how if we can save even one life, we should. Well, there is no margin for doubt on the fact that that bill saved lives, so why are you complaining?

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        hey crybaby: if they OWN THEM LEGALLY then they should be able to carry……… that’s what the white trash regressive religious scum want NOW: so why not then?
        ” thugs”? seems u white trash crybabies always call blacks thugs; but when white low IQ scum do it they are called “patriots”

      • Patrick

        Do some fucking research, asshole! The Black Panthers were, in every definition of the word, THUGS. If they even suspected on of their own of being disloyal, they tortured and murdered them. They were no better than the Klan, and neither are you with your slurs “white trash” and “religious scum”. Your ignorant racism makes me absolutely sick so i suggest you educate yourself and stop being a waste of oxygen and a burden of the state.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        hey gerbil droppings,,,,,,,,,,,
        I wrote:
        “IF” they own them legally,,,,,,,,,,
        extrapolate this:
        did they own them legally??? WHAT>???? U DONT KNOW/DIDNT DO YOUR F*CKING RESEARCH????
        to quote joe pesci in ” my cousin Vinnie”
        …………… THE DEFENSE RESTS

      • Patrick

        Why all the insults? Judging by the fact that you did not address any of the points I made, I’m going to venture a guess that you’re suffering from Black’s disorder and are incapable of presenting a logical counterargument. So unless in your next comment (and I KNOW you’ll reply to this) you present a counterargument as opposed to restating your previous position for a third time as I’ve seen countless others suffering from Black’s do, I won’t be replying, and no amount of elementary name-calling will change my mind. Go on then…

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        ” do some f*cking research asshole”
        =========================================
        gee,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, that was socially uplifting!!
        ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
        hey crybaby– U ignore the simplicity yet POWER of what I wrote
        “IF”,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and as u cannot / will not research this ( as it is impossible to know if ( “IF”) they individually were OWNERS LEGALLY) you have now been found suffering from the ” patsy” disorder
        ========================================
        until U address what I wrote F.I.R.S.T. why why why should I comment upon anything that U wrote AFTERWARDS???? ( see: patsy’s malaise)
        NOTE: as U are deliriously suffering I will summarize simply 4 thee:
        where was the NRA when Reagan ,,,,,,ETC

      • Patrick

        Are you blind? Do you have the reading comprehension of a chimpanzee with massive head trauma? Because if you don’t fit either of these conditions then you would have noticed that I did answer your question in my reply, “But to answer your question, the NRA was standing with Reagan to prevent gun violence.” After which you called me racist and then hurled racial slurs at me (you might want to stop that because most people with half a brain will will laugh in your face at the utter hypocrisy). And no, I did not research the names of every black panther member and then do individual research for them to determine whether or not they legally (or illegally) owned a gun. But my abilities in internet research seem to have failed because I could not find any relevant data on this “Patsy” disorder you mention. Could you provide a link to an article about this? I’m taking psychology next year and I would like to read up on mental disorders. Thank you.

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        correct———– the NRA was standing ( ) to prevent gun violence ( then)
        ,,,,,,,,, now? they want MORe guns in the hands of MORE people. ( excluding minorities: not publicly stated)
        funny how THEN when it for the white trash conservatives it was OK to ” come for ( their)guns”
        now? MORE GUNS WILL KEEP BAD GUYS FROM GETTING GUNS/KILLING GOOD PEOPLE
        ======================================
        did I miss anything chronologically there, patsy?
        aint it FUNNNNIE how we NEVER see any blacks at tea party or NRA rallies: funny aint it?
        white trash moniker lathered in patsy “syndrome”
        enjoy the test– mention me “blacks” and get a free tea party Benghazi Tshirt
        *******************************************************
        NOTE: Im a Caucasian ( german/English and French lineage) middle ages self employed property ( 4 ) owner in pompano beach FL
        ,,,,,,,,,,and I hate white trash religious low IQ scum who FOLLOW rather than investigate and LEAD

      • Patrick

        So this is what i’m gathering from your statements: You’re ignorant of the fact that Black Panthers were a violent Black Supremacy group, You think the NRA is racist and does not allow black members even though that goes against everything the organization stands for and federal law, and you tell me that you have never seen a black person at a Tea Party or NRA rally even though you obviously have never been to one, which would make it a bit difficult to see any person at said rally. Not to mention you admit to hating a cultural group because of their religion. So allow me to summarize. You support violence against whites by blacks, you’re blind hatred of the NRA has pushed you onto the “NRA is new KKK” bandwagon, and you hate Christians. On an unrelated topic, the format in which you post your comments is very annoying to look at, not unlike the content of said comment.

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        you play albums backwards: (a) I did NOT mention Christians; I eviscerate RELIGION: ergo- U dropped the ball (b) give me a solid estimate of African americans attending a tea party rally/function,,,,,20%? 10%? FIVE PCT???? .075%?????? as 4 the NRA I didn’t call them /imply/ infer they being associated with the KKK: dear ol’ patsy did (see: dropped ball) ( c) I abhor all violence and I have a problem with BLACK TRASH as I do with WHITE TRASH ( hope your upcoming TEST has a sensitivity clause) (d) I HATE the tea( bag) party as they are simply a reincarnation of the white trash religious scum known as “john birch” society( check out the founders of JBirch and who the sons are,,,,,,Hmmmmm?) and the TEA (bag) party did NOT exist until jan 2009 when a black president with a weird name became elected here.
        your summary is noted.

      • Patrick

        So you didn’t mention Christians. Big whoop, anyone reading this knows that’s what you meant. But okay, I’ll chalk you down for an atheist who hates people of all religions then. And please don’t pretend that Obama didn’t give Republicans and Libertarians plenty of reason to dislike him. We still don’t have any proof that he was even qualified to run in the first place. I won’t give you an estimate, if you’d like to know that I suggest you research it yourself, but I do recall an incident where the only black U.S. senator wasn’t invited by the Obama administration to a memorial service for MLK Jr. simply because he was a republican, and I know that there are several congressmen who are black. Also, an NRA spokes by the name of Colion Noir is black. The simple fact is that we are not racist. The only issue people can bring against us is voter registration, and it’s know that Obama received many illegal votes in the last election, so you can see how this would be a concern. Also, we can’t have illegals voting. They don’t pay taxes, so they shouldn’t get a say in the affairs of this country. But that’s another discussion entirely, and for the sake of preserving this topic and not spilling into others, I’d like to avoid discussing that at this time. Also, if you could do away with the insults as I have done I would appreciate it. They’re not necessary.

      • Patrick

        Why all the insults? Judging by the fact that you did not address any of the points I made, I’m going to venture a guess that you’re suffering from Black’s disorder and are incapable of presenting a logical counterargument. So unless in your next comment (and I KNOW you’ll reply to this) you present a counterargument as opposed to restating your previous position for a third time as I’ve seen countless others suffering from Black’s do, I won’t be replying, and no amount of elementary name-calling will change my mind. Go on then…

      • Patrick

        (third time I’ve posted this same comment because it appears to be disappearing, so if this winds up being a triple post, my apologies)

        Why all the insults? Judging by the fact that you did not address any of the points I made, I’m going to venture a guess that you’re suffering from Black’s disorder and are incapable of presenting a logical counterargument. So unless in your next comment (and I KNOW you’ll reply to this) you present a counterargument as opposed to restating your previous position for a third time as I’ve seen countless others suffering from Black’s do, I won’t be replying, and no amount of elementary name-calling will change my mind. Go on then…

      • Patrick

        (as this is the fourth time I’ve posted this same comment, i’m beginning to suspect that you are the one deleting these. This will be my last attempt.)

        Why all the insults? Judging by the fact that you did not address any of the points I made, I’m going to venture a guess that you’re suffering from Black’s disorder and are incapable of presenting a logical counterargument. So unless in your next comment (and I KNOW you’ll reply to this) you present a counterargument as opposed to restating your previous position for a third time as I’ve seen countless others suffering from Black’s do, I won’t be replying, and no amount of elementary name-calling will change my mind. Go on then…

  • Austin Powers

    Everyone I know who respects the rights of Americans to bear arms wouldn’t have a problem with any law-abiding person at an open carry demonstration.

    You have a nice picture with your piece. Do you have any video to back up your claim that certain races or religions were excluded? They clearly didn’t have a problem with a leftist blogger…

  • JD

    If I was an ump at a little league game and someone starts hanging around with an AR-15 I can guarantee I call the game and send everyone home.

  • Ryan Charles

    to answer the “OP’s” Question how I would feel if every one had a gun? Well the answer would be: I would be the safest person on that street. No one going to pull the triggure do to the fact that common sean would set in, One shot would mean many deaths. Rase would have no baring. No one realy wants to die. I live in an area that every-one owns and carries a gun, More people own a gun means less victumes, its facts by the FBI – CIA – NSA – CSS, ect. I was robbed once – killed the guy with my gun, Word got around town – Never robbed again. Shoot i don’t even have to lock my door no more.. The point is it my GOD given right to use any tools to protect my family and to Feed my family.

  • Anthony Caranci

    Please provide video of this “encounter” or it didn’t happen. See, if I wanted to, I could make up an entirely false account of an encounter I had with someone, too. Especially if the outcome of that “encounter” proved my already biased opinion about that person. In today’s day and age, it is not outside of the norm to actually have video to prove these encounters happened, so why couldn’t you? Probably because this really never happened.

    I know, your supporters here will attack me because I want proof of this encounter, beyond this article. And I am not surprised by this. Sock puppets will be sock puppets.

  • poppaDavid

    Since you are more likely to die by fire or drowning than gunshot, shouldn’t these people be “open-carrying” fire extinguishers or life vests?

  • Russell McDaniel

    seeing as how the government will no longer allow well regulated militia from the common people (call extremist now) because they feel it is a security problem for our government, it kinda limits what our constitution intended when it was written. and if this article was written about any other race of people besides “white hatred filled racist” the author would have been raked over the coals long ago…….

  • Grits.N.Jowls

    Who cares what you think, it’s our God given right to keep and bear arms. FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!! I’m with your relatives.

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      not GOD given,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, it is constitutionally given.
      I seriously doubt “GOD” gives a sh*t

      • Grits.N.Jowls

        That’s what you say but millions believe that God gave man this right and will continue to believe and defend it. So, believe what you want and leave us to do the same.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        hey cretin: MILLIONS “believed ” that the earth was flat,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, MILLIONS believed that this planet revolved around the sun.
        I have NOOOOOO problem with “god”
        ========================================
        my hatred is towards idiotic scumbag VOODOO/ superstition ( see: religion)
        legally whatever rights we have are CONSTITUTIONALLY given

      • Grits.N.Jowls

        Yes you do have a problem with GOD and I don’t care one way or the other but there are those of us who believe these rights are self evident, given by Him, codified and set in stone. A large number of us are willing to fight to keep them.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        I have no problem with GOD– just small dicked and small brained white trash cretins who bitch about anyone elses religions.
        set in stone? because u scum like a book written by drunken smelly sheepherders over history? mad magazine makes more sense– and less enemies
        ======================================
        keep ” believing” the earth is flat– and keep praying

      • Grits.N.Jowls

        Well it’s what we believe and will defend with our AKs and ARs against you Godless infidels if you keep pushing your “diversity and inclusion” on us but I look forward to the showdown. Don’t you?

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        of course I do!! I really really want 2 see u small dicked low IQ white trash REEEEE-LIGIOUS losers ‘defend” against our military as they use the tyranny of OBAMA to eradicate chowderheads such as U — losers ( you) who have muskets and teeny weeny shotguns and tobacco and whiskey.
        keep defending; and praise the jewish fisherman whuile watching duck dynasty and praying to ted nugent and sarah palin

      • Grits.N.Jowls

        Obviously you don’t have a military background or else you’d know that a large percentage of individuals who believe as I do come from SOCOM(don’t know what it is? Look it up) Our loyalty is to the country not the President. How many ARs, AKs and how much ammo have you stockpiled? What kind of fire and maneuver drills have you “peace at all cost” types been practicing in between your pot and drug parties? Huh? What kind of MOA groupings do your snipers get when they practice? Do they use ghillie suits or leaf suits to blend into their surroundings just before they take their shots?

        If your people can’t answer these questions I’d be hesitant in putting my faith into a military force coming to save your ass when the shooting starts.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        u didnt answer my inquiry tough guy–
        NOTE: what happens in OUR military when the chain of command is broken?
        ( hint: jail time)

      • Grits.N.Jowls

        Well you got a short preview a few months back with Cliven Bundy in Nevada. Your big government types had a chance to correct things but they backed off and wimped out. Know why? Because it would have sparked a fight they weren’t ready for. Oh they’ve got the technology and arms but not the will to use them. They don’t even have the will to send thousands of scurrilous, lice ridden illegal aliens back to mexico. And you think they’re gonna fire on their own people? Girly males and lawyers like them are good for nothing but hiding behind laws, rules and policies as they have no substance.

        They do very well with rules close to HQ(DC) but tuck tail and run when there might be shooting and fighting out west where the locals aren’t too impressed or intimidated by their stupid federal laws that they’re not gonna enforce anyway.

        Finally, the only thing stopping Rick Perry and Jan Brewer from closing their borders off is that they don’t have rounds for their National Guard tanks and helicopter gunships.

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        wow– u really luv 2 spin
        ———————————————————-
        so– that was OUR MILITARY????? really???
        wow– I want to be jes like u when I grow up
        =======================================
        try that crap with OUR US MILITARY

      • Grits.N.Jowls

        No, that wasn’t the military, those were the local flunkies on the federal payroll that were and will be left high and dry if they start shooting at the locals. Also the US military is forbidden from conducting operations on US soil by federal law, it’s called Posse Comitatus, look it up. I know your education is probably limited and you’ve been spoon fed propaganda in a public school about what big government can do but look closer and you’ll notice all the big government rules aren’t worth the toilet paper they’re printed on unless they get people to comply with them and that’s just not happening out west. So bring it asshole.

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        we all are awaiting you white trash low IQ religious inbred scum to start the ‘ revolution”……..
        well? what are u waiting for? no more regressive repubs ever in the white house: so– what are u sh*tbags waiting for? a dead jewish carpenters return?

        must be fun living (???) in your dusty land locked cesspool of a backwards state U live in—

      • Grits.N.Jowls

        Naw we’re not starting anything but deer hunting season with guns start on 2 November. I’d imagine there’s gonna be a lot of random shooting in the desert, some hits, some misses. Who can say? Even with night vision those deer and hogs can be elusive.

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        properly smoked venison makes awesome sandwiches
        even here on the beach in pompano beach FL,,,,,,,,,,,1300yards from the ocean.

        we don’t use guns underwater: frightens the scantily clad nubile women on the shoreline.
        I wish we could SHOOT the skanks with booooooooob–jobs though: UGGGH!

      • Rob Bailey

        Hilarious. You HAVE to be a strong progressive posting to make light of the sheer idiocy of the caricature you represent here. Or a real coward.
        GritsNJowls. Mom’s basement.

      • Grits.N.Jowls

        Yes, even the feds practice gun control over the states but they fear Texas and the Keystone pipeline; It’s the only state that produces, controls and refines a lot of oil. The feds keep the tank rounds under lock and key on army bases and all a tank is without ammo is just a big tractor. Which is why the southwest will be important when it starts. What do you think?

      • Rob Bailey

        I love you guys and have invested heavily in the gun and ammo industry over the last six years to capitalize on your collective ignorance and paranoia. I’ll be retiring soon with seven figures in the bank and a good residual income. It’ll also be fun to sit back and burn a fattie and see you Cliven Bundy-types get locked up with a bunch of amorous big African-Americans when you whip out your penis-substitute AR-15’s in the face of legal Federal action as a result of your sedition. Better hope you can find the soap! Thanks for playing!

      • Rob Bailey

        P.S. to my African-American friends. No offense – just fucking with the redneck bible-thumping gun-toter.

      • Grits.N.Jowls

        We’ll knock the whole thing down and start over before that happens. Anyway the feds tried that in Nevada and tucked tail ran and wilted at the Bundy ranch. Did you observe that? There were plenty of AK-47s, AR-15s on display aimed by both sides at each other but your side broke it off and ran. Why?

      • Rob Bailey

        Why? Dead people – even stupid seditious rednecks – don’t make good press. Give it time – you and Cliven’s kids might get to share the same shower in prison.

      • Grits.N.Jowls

        Fine by me, bring it. Anyway after the last election things are shaping up nicely and you pro-crime, anti-gun apologists are being gerrymandered and isolated politically and geographically into your big cities. One day we’ll quit pretending and wall you off along with the rest of the exotic miscegenated animals in the zoo.

    • Rob Bailey

      Yep, Im sure Jeebus was for 30,000 annual gun deaths in good ‘ol ‘murica.
      The funny part is, you’re a lot more likely to that your second sentence is going to come true faster if you own a gun.

      • Grits.N.Jowls

        Who cares what you anti-gun types have to say? You don’t win any elections and nobody even cares about your “statistics”. But hey if your circle jerk makes you feel good then go for it. I know you people are into “therapy” and blaming others for your problems, so keep it up.

      • Rob Bailey

        Hmmmmm. Obama 2008. Obama 2012. Hillary 2016 & 2020.
        At least I don’t need an AR for a penis substitute for said circle jerk.

      • Grits.N.Jowls

        Oh yes Hillary in 2016. This looks like the same road Rome took 2000 years ago; “Democracy, the Republic and other assorted BS” You people still think changing demographics is going to make a difference, hardly. They would matter if they were spread outside of the big cities but if they’re confined to the traditional urban voting bins like Atlanta or Chicago they can only vote for the slimy pols within their district and not contaminate the rest of their state.

        Recently in GA there were two Democrats running for the US Senate and GA Governor, they lost big; No runoffs, no recounts. Why? Because they only won about 30 out of 159 counties. So deal with the math anti-gunners; It’s not on your side below the Mason Dixon line.

        Finally, both sides run around talking about how important such and such election is. The only election that really matters is the one just after the census every 10 years.

      • Rob Bailey

        Really all that means is that white-trash knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing rednecks that vote single-issue (i.e., guns) voted in greater numbers in about 130 counties. Stand proud, ignorant masses, I mean… Red State net-takers, keep-yure Gubbmint hands offin my Medicare crowd.

      • Grits.N.Jowls

        Yeah and they won(nationally). This was done fairly according to the rules, winner takes all, no “voter disenfranchisement” like you libs constantly cry about, just numbers, organization and a better message.

  • Timothy Weaver

    I see those race-card playing courses finally paid off. You’re a scumbag for hiding behind race and equating everyone who isn’t a liberal as racist. How about you actually debate the issue and not scream “RACIST!”? Oh wait! You can’t defend your position. The most crime-ridden places in the US has the strictest gun laws while states with less stringent gun laws are safer. You can’t argue with results. And that’s why you spread the lie that supporters of gun rights are white racist. Oh and speaking of blacks and open-carry, the Pradva of US, MSNBC ran footage of a black man armed with a gun, open-carry, into a townhall meeting. Only it was hard to tell that he was black since MSNBC was careful to only get close-up videos of his gun and to call him a racist ****white*** man. You and your fellow lowlifes at MSNBC can only lie and play the race card and not debate the actual issue.

    • giankeys luvs shemale porn

      wow– that was some serious crying!
      edify me here: exactly WHEN is Obama coming for your guns?

      • Matt Redman

        Obama is coming for guns?

        Well the cops sure try every day.

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        then why don’t regressive crybaby white trash tea party “patriots” mention this instead of constant hatred of Obama?

      • Matt Redman

        Who? I don’t know. Ask them!

    • Rob Bailey

      Chicago = strict gun laws. Chicago = by Wisconsin = not strict gun laws. Car = drive from Chicago to Wisconsin in a few minutes.
      Get it?

      • Timothy Weaver

        Murder rates:
        Chicago=18.5 per 100,000
        Wisconsin=2.7 per 100,000
        And it’s just as easy for a resident in Wisconsin to purchase a gun as someone from Chicago to drive to Wisconsin and do the same. Yet, it’s Chicago with a higher crime rate. Gun control will not work. Oh and a hypothetical a nationwide ban of gun that you fascists are drooling over like a teenage boy reading a Playboy will not work either. It’ll work as well as the War on Drugs.

      • Rob Bailey

        Apples and oranges, Princess. Point is that until we have a rational, effective way to keep handguns out of the hands of those that shouldn’t have them, we’ll continue to have more dead people from bullet than almost any civilized country.
        OK, now cite that wonderfully valid FBI report about hammer deaths…

      • Timothy Weaver

        Burden of proof is always on the one making the claim. No one has an obligation to disprove it. Not only that, the failed war on drugs is proof that even a total ban on guns will fail.

  • Check

    Where’s the video of this supposed convo? I doubt it went like this.

  • Nio Walters

    About the comments about hispanics and muslims, yes I would feel threatened. With the influx of illegals through the southern border, a huge amount of them are connected with drug cartels and violent gangs. As to the muslims, until I see the so-called moderate muslims taking an active stance against the jihadists, I will be suspicious of muslims since there own “religious” texts call for them to kill anyone who does not believe in islam.

    • Rob Bailey

      Uh-huh. And I’m suspicious of Christians because something in Corinthians says we must stone to death unmarried virgins (or something to that effect). What a bigoted comment, Nio. And stupid.

  • Fred Marsico

    Most of the debate by all people seems to be a true reflection of poor education and blind obedience to interpretations of the Constitution rather than true understanding.

    The Constitution did not say the Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution, it charged the Court with the obligation to test laws passed by legislators to meet constitutional merit. In other words, until Marbury v. Madison, A law was voided when it violated the letter of the Constitution, not an interpretation based on the current political climate of the time.

    The Second Amendment has a dual purpose not dual meanings. Historically, all States had militias, the communities provided the able-bodied men who formed their own local militias, but as the Constitution provides, the Executive Officer (Governor) has the duty and responsibility to call forth the militias in times of purpose to d so.

    Statutes and codes are instruments of corporate law and not that of free individuals and Sovereign States. Incorporation of government usurps the Constitution by subsidy, granting exclusive power to the corporate board (US Corp) and taking power from the State (Corp) and hence enslaving the People.

    “…the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” is not arbitrary nor is it subject to the approval of any form of government. It is not a right granted by Constitution, as it is an unalienable right granted by Creator, therefore only if you voluntarily give up your right, or by consent agree an infringement of your right, can you be restricted in any manner.

    The Revolution did not begin because of high taxes, it began when British troops came to confiscate the colonists arms. Not just muskets and pistols, but the cannons that could be (and later were) against the British.

    The Second Amendment is not only about personal protection and hunting, it was about keeping the government itself from exercising tyrannical powers over the People.

  • highwaterjane60

    Nice, thought-provoking article. I’ve asked similar questions. So what’s the response to someone who feels justified in his racism and wishes/demands his point of view be respected?

  • Cathryn Sykes

    Actually, the Wild West wasn’t all that wild. Typically, cowboys coming into town on Saturday night had to check their guns with the sheriff, who sensibly decided that the combination of very young men (cowboys tended to be in their teens and early twenties) and liquor was a bad idea. The “face off in the street” type of gunfight was pretty darn rare, despite the best efforts of Hollywood to convince us otherwise.

  • Sinan

    We already know what would happen, it happened in California in the late 60s when the Panthers showed up at the legislature armed to the teeth. Open carry was repealed soon afterwards.

  • Some Guy

    Granted you might find some open carry activists that are racist at the same time, but it doesn’t change the overall point. Many of the freedoms that african americans enjoy today came form the efforts of groups such as the Deacons of Defense. It was basically a large group of armed black men who would show up to civil rights demonstrations.

    Their enemy? Racists. Racists in the form of their fellow citizens, and racists in the form of those in power who wielded it. Namely, the police.

    Every major effort to ban weapons is always at the behest of liberal democrats and it’s always at the expense of poor minorities. Meanwhile, the crime rate in the inner cities sky rockets, and the majority of law abiding people out there who could use some defense of their lives and property can’t get it because A) The police take too long to show up, if at all, and B) because racist white democrats feel the need to protect poor minorities from themselves by making it illegal to own guns.

    Unless of course you’re a rich democrat. Then it’s okay. Because you’re important, you know?

    That’s what gun control is about, isn’t it? Protecting us from ourselves?

    • miketothad

      LOL

      Spin any way you need, moron.

  • Grand1

    Because racism is so ingrained in America, most African-Americans have better common sense than to walk around carrying semi-automatic weapons in a white, upscale neighborhood. Sad that I cannot say the same about these white gun nuts.

  • Sam Young

    The Writer of this article is your typical Liberal Racist Two Faced Hypocrite. Get saved man before you bust he’ll wide open. Repent of your Sin and Receive Jesus Christ as your Saviour. Read the Gospel of John, and the Book of Romans in the New Testament in a King James Version Bible. Attend a Good Fundamental Bible Believing Baptist Church. I know I came down hard on you but you’re living in a dream world, time to wake up man, before it’s Everlastingly Too Late. God Bless, Sam Young.

  • the_lost_cause

    Video, or it didn’t happen.