One of the most powerful moments of the entire interview and so true. These people pushing gun control are all surrounded by people with guns. Take those people away and they'd all be singing a much different song. Thanks for posting this.

In the past, many societies existed where you were only allowed to bear arms at the whim of the king, or you had to be connected, you had to be knighted, etc. This is why the caricature of peasants fighting with pitchforks and torches-- they weren't allowed to own swords.

Why do so many progressive policies seem aimed at returning us to this state? Taxes to resume serfdom, regulations to resume cartels, gun laws to resume the divine right of kings. How long until leftists are arguing for the resumption of first night rights?

Why do so many progressive policies seem aimed at returning us to this state?

because there is a core cadre of american leadership that use progressive ideology to camouflage their desire to sit as regents at the head of kingdoms, with us as their chattel.

that was well said

"For your safety."

It's the quintessential excuse for the new age.

"We don't trust you to defend yourself, let us do it for you." - The State

And it's not like they're saying "Let's defend ourselves together". They're saying you need protection and the best way is for you to be disarmed and us to be armed so we can protect you.

They will never get our guns with 2nd amendment protection. They may seriously raise the price of ammo to the point only rich people can get it.

Amendments can be amended.

Wrong. Amendments can be added, but the Bill of Rights can not be amended.

I think you're splitting hairs. Amendments can neuter other amendments, in effect, amending them. You don't have to change a word in an amendment to wipe it out.

The Bill of Rights can not be neutered. Are you really advocating adding an amendment to neuter the 2nd Amendment?

He's not advocating it, he's saying it's doable.

Huh, is that your alt account, or do you usually make it a habit of answering for other people?

You misunderstood him, and i tried to help you, but i guess you're being defensive about it. Anyone else, me included, can understand what he meant if they actually read the comment.

You really think he's advocating neutering the 2nd amendment with his comment?

Maybe you should work on reading comprehension before accusing me of things.

Maybe I did misunderstand him, but for you to say that, and not him, makes me suspicious. I'd rather hear that straight out of the horses mouth if you know what I mean. You could have said, I think he meant, and I wouldn't have said anything about it. Carry on friend, no hard feelings.

I feel you. Sorry for being snippy, I guess I was the one being defensive and was projecting that. It's good that you're suspicious about that stuff, I should be too.

No worries at all, actually looking back on it, I clearly did misread what he said.

Nope. I'm saying that we shouldn't have a false sense of security about the second amendment's vulnerability.

Thanks. I misunderstood your reply earlier. My bad.

Its also the 2nd amendment for a reason, because it's really important. So important, that besides free speech and press, the ability to protect yourself is literally intrinsic to a truly free society.

[deleted]

Certain things are inherent. If the rights indicated under the first or second amendments were cast aside, it would be time to do the same with the government.

...you mean repealed.

The individual right interpretation of 2nd amendment comes from D.C. v Heller in 2008. It was a 5-4 vote. It only applies to federal regulations and even that could be easily reversed. Your state can still take your guns away unless your state constitution forbids it.

It's interesting how the federal government likes to invoke the fourteenth amendment to spread all kinds of agenda items, but if there is a roadblock their ability to steal our liberties, they are glad to let the states take over.

Sorry, I was totally wrong about that part. They settled that issue in 2010, with McDonald v city of Chicago. Due process clause of 14th amendment makes it apply to states too. I guess I just assumed that since they didn't clear up that obvious contradiction in the Heller case they just never revisited it. I don't understand what the point of clearing up one constitutional issue that just creates another one immediately and then letting it go for two years.

Good point. What the Obama administration is considering though is a federal gun control law, which would violate the 2nd amendment.

How so?

Or just fake another school shooting to artificially reduce supply.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuBBDDcscS4

The clip

Not a Drudge fan but this comment deserves to be heard widely.

Sick or medicated? Sometimes the medicine causes the sickness.

Matt Drudge is a FOX Shill. He was a traitor to Ron Paul - a mouthpiece for Establishment Mitt Romney.

Romney's crowds were crickets.
Ron Paul had massive waves of supporters -

And he was essentially shut out by Drudge.

How Ron Paul was Cheated Out of the Presidency
Drudge did his part.

Please avoid at all costs - unless you're researching Government Propaganda like every mainstream media outlet.

oh, do i need "internet points" before my words make sense ?

Take a logic class or grow up and try again.

I don't see the objectivity here. It's difficult to claim that 15 billion dollar a year industry, that has lobbying power and can recruit voters so readily is a true victim. Yes indeed politicians want to restrict guns but the fact that they can't seem to make any serious headway suggests to me that this is just politics. Which I don't think belongs in this sub.

Except that the PTB keep staging false flags with the hope of expanding gun laws.

It's true they talk about it. There is no evidence that it working. All it seems to be doing is providing a national debate and the republicans with a life line.

The reason it isn't working is because people strongly want to keep their shit.

Second Amendment had become obsolete by the twentieth century, gun manufacturers gave it a new lease on life as the universal license for virtually all adults to purchase weapons for themselves and indeed even their children. This was clearly not the "well regulated militia" the Founders had in mind, especially since the founders were all members of the commercial elite, which was exceedingly wary of the larger populace and hence of direct and popular democracy. They would of course not have approved of every common individual having access to fearsome weaponry singularly capable of killing dozens within mere fractions of an hour.

Can't we just accept that the founding fathers weren't heros? They were rich men who wanted control, just like any king/baron/politician. How many of those living throughout the country before them wanted a state?

Control is bad. Controlling other people always leads to open doors that cause suffering. Controlling guns will not prevent anything.

Drudge is an idiot and his followers are even worse.

Eh, I don't think that's really a fair comparison (President of the U.S. vs some bloak on the couch).. not to mention, they aren't advocating removing guns all together (yet), just stricter control.

For the record, I agree with stricter background checks and the closing of loop holes, but beyond that.. we have the amendment in there for a reason. And that reason has never been more valid than it is today.

The reason we have that amendment is no longer relevant because we have a permanent federal army. We no longer need to rely on state militias to protect us from the natives and to round up runaway slaves. Now we interpret the amendment to mean something different than what James Madison intended when he chose which of the proposed clauses to include in it.

The Supreme Court is in charge of interpreting the Constitution. They say otherwise:

"The court then held that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to keep and bear arms", saying that the right was "premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)."

http://marker.to/patoGr

"In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the court's judgment was "a strained and unpersuasive reading" which overturned longstanding precedent, and that the court had "bestowed a dramatic upheaval in the law".[51] Stevens also stated that the amendment was notable for the "omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense" which was present in the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont.[51]

The Stevens dissent seems to rest on four main points of disagreement: that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the "militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only; that many lower courts' later "collective-right" reading of the Miller decision constitutes stare decisis, which may only be overturned at great peril; and that the Court has not considered gun-control laws (e.g., the National Firearms Act) unconstitutional. The dissent concludes, "The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.... I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice."

Justice Stevens' dissent was joined by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer."

I've read both Scalia's opinion and Stevens' dissent on this case. They are both fascinating but Stevens has a way better argument that is rooted in actual history.

What do you propose we do with gun laws?

Let the people, rather than the People, decide.

So direct Democracy is what you're suggesting?

Yes.

Comparing the security needs of the President or Secretary of State to a normal citizen is a fallacy. The entire quote is a straw man argument.

The point doesn't pertain to security needs. The point is that why should a government, even a benevolent and fair government, need to restrict the people's ability to arm themselves? Isn't this just a symptom of a bigger problem?

Maybe I did misunderstand him, but for you to say that, and not him, makes me suspicious. I'd rather hear that straight out of the horses mouth if you know what I mean. You could have said, I think he meant, and I wouldn't have said anything about it. Carry on friend, no hard feelings.

Thanks. I misunderstood your reply earlier. My bad.

The point doesn't pertain to security needs. The point is that why should a government, even a benevolent and fair government, need to restrict the people's ability to arm themselves? Isn't this just a symptom of a bigger problem?