David Codrea:
The point I was trying to make is the Bill of Rights gives and grants no rights. It merely defines some, but not all rights, which the Founders correctly viewed as preexisting to the government they were establishing. That understanding was further solidified in the 1875 Cruikshank decision (and repeated in the 2008 Heller decision), when the Supreme Court noted, “The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.
For having the cheek to point that out, along with citing the debate between the Federalists and anti-Federalists on the need for a Bill of Rights in the first place, I was called “a Trojan horse” a “clown” and an “idiot.” I “sound[ed] like an anti-gunner.” Even if I was right, I shouldn’t have written what I did, because it might somehow tip off the anti-gunners to use the information against us, and “if this kind of article or information appears again, refund my money and cancel my subscription.”
Sorry, but I’ve got to do it once more, and this time risk being labeled a Begala puppet, to boot.
The Second Amendment does not “give” us the right to rebel against civil and military authorities. Focus on the word “give”.
Well, if people are too stupid to read with their brains in gear, then ignore their dumb ass comments. David’s point is important. Yes, I believe that the second amendment stipulates certain things, and that it speaks to the states as well. But in focusing on the second amendment I believe that we ignore the important things to our peril.
I have always said my rights are granted by God. I believe in God, not the second amendment. My beliefs are not subject to the vicissitudes of judicial interpretation or the latest trends in literary deconstruction. Read all of David’s piece – with your brain in gear. I’ll mention one semi-related thing about Ms. Joni Ernst. I have heard twice now that she endured and commanded a “combat deployment” in Iraq. Her political opponent may have been a putz, but according to the record, she commanded a logistics group who moved supplies from Kuwait to Baghdad. I’m sorry, but there’s a huge difference between what my son did in Fallujah and what Ms. Earnst did in wherever she was at the time. For me to believe that she had a “combat” deployment I need to see the Army equivalent of the Marine Corps Combat Action Ribbon.
Kurt Hofmann:
These developments have prompted AWR Hawkins, writing for Ammo Land, to ask, “Are Millionaire-Funded State-Level Initiatives the Next Phase of Gun Control?” If so, it’s a very dangerous new phase for gun rights advocates, because it would take the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, and hold it hostage to the popularity contest of the vote. We live not in a “democracy,” as we’re so often told, but in a republic, in large part because the Founding Fathers had the wisdom to take certain policy options off the table–off limits no matter how popular they are. As John Adams reminds us …
And you have to go visit Kurt to see what the great John Adams said. Good on Kurt. No innate right – and I claim my rights are granted by God whether they are recognized by the state or not – should be left for a vote. See my take on holding rights hostage to favorable statistical outcomes, and also see Kurt on that same subject.
David Codrea: “Just a chest full of ammo makes the medicine go down … medicine go doowwwnnn …, but David doesn’t sing it for us. I don’t know about you, but I have a problem with that.
David asks, is Facebook deleting gun pages? Could be, but I wouldn’t know for sure. I deleted my Facebook account. When they asked me why, I told them Mark Zuckerberg is a horrible person. I haven’t heard back from them.
Mike Vanderboegh posts concerning Fast and Furious. We all knew it – that the program wasn’t a “botched operation” as the talking heads and pampered class likes to say – that it was designed all along to justify a demand letter on long gun sales, or better yet, what I really think, more laws from a Congress too damn stupid to know what was really going on.
Charles C. W. Cooke passes on the fact that recently elected Greg Abbot in Texas said he will approve a Texas open carry bill when it crosses his desk. So what are you waiting for, Texans?
By the way, in the same Cooke article linked above, Charles says concerning I-594, “This will presumably be touted as a great victory. But it’s really not. For a start, universal background checks represent the most modest of all the Left’s aims in this area. This was not a ban on “assault” weapons, which remain legal in Washington. It was not a reduction in magazine sizes. It was not a ban on open carry. Instead, it was a law that requires residents of the state to involve a gun dealer when they transfer a weapon to another resident within the state. (Transfers between immediate family members and between spouses or domestic partners are exempt.) I’m against these rules because I think that they are pointless and because they seem invariably to ensnare innocent and unaware people. Nevertheless, the significance of Washington’s having adopted the measure should not be overstated.”
Ahem … um. Charles. Dude. What the hell is wrong with you? As recently as October 2, you thought differently.
I think there are two big threats at the moment. One is the continuing attempt to criminalize firearms that look a certain way, these so-called assault weapons. I have an AR-15. It looks like a machine gun, but it’s not. It’s no different than my hunting rifle. It’s just lighter. It’s more customizable, and it’s easier for my wife to shoot because of that. That gun has, in some states, been banned for those reasons. There’s no material difference whatsoever. The second threat is, I think, from these universal background checks.
I disagree with the November 5 Charles C. W. Cooke, but I agree with the October 2 Charles C. W. Cooke. I too think that universal background checks pose an extreme threat to our liberty.
So now. Would the real Charles C. W. Cooke please stand up?