Hijacking the Second Amendment

The gun lobby has hijacked the Second Amendment, which was intended for citizen militias to provide domestic “security” without a standing army. The amendment is a dangerous relic, never clearer than  after El Paso and Dayton, writes Joe Lauria.

By Joe Lauria
Special to Consortium News

The Second Amendment was written after a war in which a new nation without a standing army defeated the biggest standing army on the planet. To defend itself, the new country relied on citizens arming themselves in civilian militias.

Ever since Britain had permanently garrisoned troops in Massachusetts to put down the brewing rebellion in 1768, opposition to standing armies ran deep among Americans. The Revolution was nearly lost because the Continental Congress for years refused George Washington’s pleading for a standing army. Sam Adams, before he and his class of merchants had won, believed a permanent force was “forever dangerous to civil liberties.”

“Soldiers are apt to consider themselves as a body distinct from the rest of the citizens,” Adams said. “They have arms always in hand.” But, “the Militia is composed of free citizens. There is, therefore, no danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own rights.”

Trump boards Air Force One on Wednesday for Dayton, Ohio, and El Paso, Texas. (Official White House Photo/Shealah Craighead)

Adams amended his position as the war dragged on, realizing the necessity of a trained, disciplined force in extreme circumstances. But once the war was over, he returned to his earlier position, saying a standing army was no longer needed.

Because of this distrust of standing armies the new republic wrote into its Constitution the Second Amendment, ensuring that citizens, and not a permanent state military, would bear arms to protect the land. However, the United States today has the largest standing armed forces ever assembled. The militias are now called the standing National Guard.

Thus, the rationale for the Second Amendment is completely lost in history. It has as much relevance and moral force today as Section 2 of Article 1 that permitted slavery. The Second Amendment means nothing unless we disband the National Guard and America’s armed forces.

It is a dangerous absurdity to think it can justify the sale and possession of handguns (and even more lethal firearms). The Framers would surely be horrified by the events last weekend in Dayton and El Paso and would wonder what had become of their republic. The Second Amendment must be repealed.

This article, originally published on Dec 17, 2012, has been updated to mention the latest massacres, illustrating that nothing has changed in seven years.

Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, Boston GlobeSunday Times of London and numerous other newspapers. He can be reached at  [email protected] and followed on Twitter @unjoe .

598 comments for “Hijacking the Second Amendment

  1. James B. Parker
    August 18, 2019 at 05:12

    The mistake is to construe the Second Amendment as establishing a militia. This was neither the effect nor the intent. Militias were the primary defense force from colonial times through the Revolution. The Second Amendment was drafted as part of the Bill of Rights, to satisfy objections by the Anti-Federalists that the powerful federal government could trample individual rights. The Bill of Rights limited the powers of Congress and the rest of federal government in areas such as free speech and the individual carriage of arms.

  2. August 16, 2019 at 00:15

    The purpose of the Second Amendment was the impossibility of Congress to maintain a standing army sufficient to ensure that Indians could not attack again; During the Revolution, Cherry Valley was raided and 20 of the people were massacred, as well as another 70 taken hostage and ransomed. (With memories of the atrocities of the French And Indian War still well remembered, this event left the Americans very fearful, and rightfully so.)
    The Founders realized a fundamental truth; No matter how much money they threw at the problem, they could not form a force able to ensure that the people would be safe against acts of violence; They had to give the people the means to defend THEMSELVES.
    This was the First Purpose of the Second Amendment, and though the source has morphed over time it remains as much a fact now as then.
    Had the founders foreseen the future, the Second Amendment would have read very different indeed:
    “A well protected Public, being necessary to the security of a free State,
    the Duty of the people to keep and bear arms shall be Enforced.”

    • Abe
      August 20, 2019 at 19:03

      Ninnys from the gun lobby emit an endless stream of ahistorical craptrap about the Second Amendment.

      Comrade “Mandatory Carry” imagines it was about citizens defending “themselves”.


      The truth is the Second Amendment directly concerned military arms and indirectly concerned the composition of military forces available to defend the United States.

      Given the desire of the Framers of the Constitution to limit the capacity of a standing federal army of regular troops, a “well regulated Militia” was deemed “necessary to the security of a free State”.

      Madison wrote In Federalist No. 46 how a federal army could be kept in check by state militias, “a standing army … would be opposed [by] a militia.” He argued that state militias “would be able to repel the danger” of a federal army, “It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.”

      Thus the purpose of Second Amendment, ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, was clearly military.

      However, ensuring “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” had absolutely nothing to do with “giving the people the means” to defend “themselves” as individuals, let alone overthrow the national government.

      In fact, “Militia” made up of male white citizens over sixteen years of age were required to provide their own weapons, equipment, or supplies in order to defend the “State”, not themselves.

      Military concerns of the “State” were additionally addressed by the Militia Acts enacted by the second United States Congress in 1792. The acts provided for the organization of the state militias and provided for the President of the United States to take command of the state militias in times of imminent invasion or insurrection. This authority was used to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794.

      All too frequently, ninnys from the gun lobby resort to frankly racist propaganda to justify their ahistorical craptrap about the Second Amendment.

      Comrade “Mandatory Carry” imagines it was about being “safe” from “Indians”.


      The truth is that none of the three references to “Indians” in the Constitution appear in the Second Amendment. Two of the three are found in Article I and the Fourteenth Amendment, which exclude “Indians not taxed” from the counts for apportioning direct taxes and representatives to Congress among the states. The third reference is a grant of power to Congress in the commerce clause of Article I to “regulate Commerce with … the Indian Tribes.”

      The phrase “Indians not taxed” was not a grant of tax exemption. Rather, it described the status of Indians at the time the Constitution was written. Indians were not taxed because they were not United States citizens (white males), and thus were not governed by ordinary federal and state legislation.

      Unmistakably racist political propaganda tales about “Indians” allegedly perpetrating “atrocities” reached a fever pitch during the intercolonial French and Indian War (1754–1763), and were continuously recycled during the Revolutionary War (1775–1783) and subsequent United States campaigns of conquest against native populations across North America.

      Both French and British colonial forces, as well as their Indian allies, sometimes committed atrocities. The British proved particularly adept at using “atrocity” propaganda to demonize the French and Indians.

      The intercolonial war in North America officially ended with the signing of the Treaty of Paris in February 1763. The elimination of French power in America meant the disappearance of a strong ally for some Indian tribes, and left the Ohio Country more available to British colonial settlement.

      The Royal Proclamation of October 1763 issued by King George III included provisions that reserved lands west of the Appalachian Mountains to its Indian population, a demarcation that was only a temporary impediment to a rising tide of westward-bound settlers.

      Historian Colin G. Calloway, noted author of The Indian World of George Washington (2018), analyzed the complex relationships and alliances between Native Americans and the opposing forces during the American Revolutionary War.

      Notwithstanding the defamatory accusation presented in the Declaration of Independence that King George III had unleashed “merciless Indian Savages” against innocent colonists, Calloway observed that the lurid propagandist “image of ferocious warriors propelled into action by a tyrannical monarch” was used to demonize the British and justify the Americans’ subsequent treatment of native populations:

      “many Indian nations tried to stay out of the conflict, some sided with the Americans, and those who fought with the British were not the king’s pawns: they allied with the Crown as the best hope of protecting their homelands from the encroachments of American colonists and land speculators. The British government had afforded Indian lands a measure of protection by the Royal Proclamation of 1763 which had attempted to restrict colonial expansion beyond the Appalachian Mountains, and had alienated many American colonists. Indians knew that the Revolution was a contest for Indian land as well as for liberty.

      “Some Indian tribes went to war early. Cherokee warriors, frustrated by recurrent land losses, defied the authority of older chiefs and attacked frontier settlements, only to be soundly defeated by expeditions from Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas. On the other hand, Indians from the mission town at Stockbridge in western Massachusetts, like most New England Indians, supported their colonial neighbors. They volunteered as minutemen even before the outbreak of the fighting, joined Washington’s army at the siege of Boston, and served in New York, New Jersey, and Canada.

      “The Revolution split the Iroquois Confederacy. Mohawks led by Joseph Brant adhered to their long-standing allegiance to the British, and eventually most Cayugas, Onondagas, and Senecas joined them. But Oneidas and Tuscaroras sided with the Americans, owing in large measure to the efforts of their Presbyterian missionary Samuel Kirkland. The Revolution became a civil war for the Iroquois, as Oneidas clashed with Senecas at the Battle of Oriskany in 1777. Iroquois sufferings were compounded in 1779 when General John Sullivan led an American army through their country, burning forty towns and destroying crops.”

      American Indians and the American Revolution
      by Collin G. Calloway

      Attempting to advance a fictional gun lobby “protection” narrative, comrade “Mandatory Carry” specifically mentions a raid that happened at Cherry Valley raid in upstate New York in 1878.

      In fact, the Cherry Valley raiders were a mixed force of Loyalists, British Army regular soldiers, Seneca and Mohawks under the overall command of Loyalist officer Walter Butler. While Butler attempted to blame Mohawk leader Brant for the “massacre” of the inhabitants, some Americans on the Revolutionary side asserted that it was Butler who ordered the killing of the women and children at Cherry Valley. Nevertheless, lurid propaganda tales about “atrocities” by “Indians” were part of the undeniably brutal frontier war in the Northern theater of the Revolutionary War.
      Given the Second Amendment military concern of arms for “well-regulated Militia”, the availability of Militia troops to supplement the United States’ standing army was guaranteed. The Second Amendment ensured sufficient armed force to attack the Indians – again and again and again – enabling the newly minted “free State” to grab ever more land as the frontier was pushed westward.


      Given the Second Amendment military concern of arms for “well-regulated Militia”, the availability of Militia troops to supplement the United States’ standing army was guaranteed. The Second Amendment ensured sufficient armed force to attack the Indians – again and again and again – enabling the newly minted “free State” to grab ever more land as the frontier was pushed westward.

      The point of “atrocity” propaganda to demonize a perceived “enemy” and make people “fearful”, therefore more easy to manipulate.

      Both sides of the current gun debate have resorted to such manipulation. But in the face of ongoing actual horrific armed attacks, the gun lobby is more extreme in its imagination of the ghastly atrocities that would somehow ensue if even modestly increased gun regulations were instituted.

  3. Miller
    August 13, 2019 at 14:28

    Bottom line, if you want to make a serious change in the course of this issue, the Constitution needs to be amended. Nothing less will do.

    We have gone from a world where gangbangers were forced to make zipguns, to a world where prepubescent kids can buy well machined, reliable autoloading handguns for the cost of a pair of basketball shoes, and on to daily mass shootings by people with lawfully acquired hi-cap long guns.

    Rapidly approaching a world where all of us will need to be armed or under the armed protection of a surrogate everywhere we wish to go, dragged there by folks who refuse to take up arms against a govt that has already declared every other freedom in the B of R to be null and void – leaving them with weapons that are only a danger to the civilian population.

    That is not freedom, that is madness. Sane people need to stop wondering how to address this and get to the heart of it – push to amend the Constitution or put up with it.

    August 13, 2019 at 11:13

    I might suggest the huge number of rather short comments you’ve received on this story suggests the gun lobby at work.

    The tone of many are not like you expect to find in Consortium News.

  5. Abe
    August 12, 2019 at 22:24

    “border militias, nativist vigilantes, and wayward white supremacists—espouse a deep distrust of the federal government is not so much awkward irony as bald hypocrisy. Far from fighting a tyrannical federal sovereign, these militiamen have express permission from the United States government to intimidate and terrorize Black, Indigenous, and Latinx communities. In fact, they always have. Since its days as a precarious congregation of colonies, the United States has called upon willing white men to band together and arm themselves to execute its white-supremacist settler-colonial vision, a mission to subjugate and eventually eliminate racial minorities. It’s as American as apple pie.

    “Purported patriots and avowed white nationalists alike often invoke the Second Amendment to justify their vigilantism, by emphasizing the right to bear arms. Though this is a useful way to frame this discussion, the Second Amendment provision that most benefits vigilantes like the UCP is actually the right to maintain a militia, a right that the government deemed necessary. Historically, we didn’t just fete militia rights, we enshrined them in our federal Constitution. As the Second Amendment provides, ‘[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.’ In his notorious 2008 opinion in the Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, Justice Scalia struck down a District of Columbia handgun ban as violative of the Second Amendment. In the process, Justice Scalia famously divided the Amendment in two:

    – the ‘prefatory” clause: ‘A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,’ and
    – the ‘operative’ clause: ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’

    “Panned for his ahistorical analysis and cheap division, Scalia—focused on appeasing the neo-conservative desire for an individual right to own firearms—elides over an important, almost unmissable point in the prefatory clause. In passing the Second Amendment, the federal government explicitly conceded that White America needed militias, and that militias were ‘necessary to the security of a free State.’ Scalia was simply using the judicial branch to reassert a rationale adopted by the legislative. After all, the American government has long authorized vigilantism, border-based and elsewhere.

    “Federal and state laws have, at times very explicitly, encouraged white men to defend this country’s nationalist visions because the government needed them to. From explicit federal laws such as the Militia Acts of 1792 (and 1795), to direct state sanction such as what occurred during Tennessee’s Creek War of 1813-1814, American institutions have used militias to forcibly depopulate land. Militias were essential to effectuate the country’s goal of seizing the American continent and establishing a white-led, capitalist state. The government couldn’t violently expropriate that territory all on its own, so it authorized its citizens do it for them. As scholar Roxane Dunbar Ortiz perfectly hammers home in her book, Loaded: A Disarming History of the Second Amendment, the government appointed white nationalist militias as an essential part of the existing political-economic order and protected them however it could. It paved the way for genocide. Meanwhile, seeing little conflict with other constitutional guarantees, the Supreme Court then upheld these laws under the guise that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to “’assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of militia forces.’

    “America’s obsession with militias dates back to colonial times. As early as 1705, slave patrols tasked with capturing and returning escaped slaves were mandatory in colonies like Virginia. These militias were necessarily armed. White men were required by law to carry guns to school, work, and church. Virginia and Massachusetts even once required every household to possess a firearm and a certain amount of ammunition. As the institution of slavery proliferated and the number of slaves expanded, so too did armed white vigilantism. This antebellum institution culminated in the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which forcibly compelled citizens to assist, by force if necessary, in capturing runaway slaves.

    “At the close of the Civil War, in 1867, Congress suddenly outlawed Southern militias. But by then, militia culture, and its violent, hetero-patriarchal brand of viperine hatred formed an integral part of white Southern culture. In fact, the federal law proved so controversial that Congress revoked it barely a year later. Militia culture lived on, mounting on full display in the anti-reconstructionist movements and the rise of white vigilante groups like the infamous Ku Klux Klan and the lesser-known White League, which terrorized black communities and executed black militiamen who sought to exercise the same rights. In his vigorous dissent to Scalia’s opinion in Heller, Justice Stevens recounted the macabre tale of Jim Williams. Williams, a Freedman and captain of a Black-led South Carolina “’militia company,’ met a grisly fate in March of 1871 when six KKK members lynched and shot him for exercising his Second Amendment rights. The right to a militia has always meant the right to a white militia.

    “Not satisfied with subjugating merely Blacks in its quest for total racial dominance, the United States actively encouraged militias to forcibly remove and, if necessary, exterminate entire Native American tribes. The chief architects of this plan included Andrew Jackson. Before his ascent to the Presidency in 1829, Jackson had led a militia comprised of more than 2,500 West Tennesseans. During the Creek War, the Tennessee legislature charged him and his militia to ‘exterminate the Creek Nation,’ a task for which Jackson was handsomely rewarded. Over his two terms as President, Jackson ordered federal troops to systematically steal upwards of 20 million acres of land from Native Americans, killing thousands in the process. Meanwhile, Congress legalized these genocidal and expropriatory missions by ratifying the Indian Removal Act of 1830 and supporting massacres like the Trail of Tears, which remains perhaps this nation’s most crystalline depiction of ethnic cleansing. Once again, the government found allies in settler militias, armed vigilantes, and bellicose opportunists who seized the chance to enrich themselves at the expense of the destruction and control of Native communities.

    “No signs of abatement showed as the country marched westward. As historian Greg Grandin brilliantly articulates in his new book The End of the Myth, the United States needed willing violent zealots and foot soldiers to wage successful frontier warfare. Settlers pursued ethnic cleansing with the explicit goal of depopulating land that they could then claim for themselves and off of which they could profit. Forcible seizure of land was, and always will be, a fully capitalist undertaking.”

    Necessary to the Security of a Free State
    By Angelo Guisado

  6. AnthraxSleuth
    August 12, 2019 at 18:38

    Banning guns would be worse than prohibition and the war on drugs combined.
    Anyone willing to be disarmed with the current crimnals we have running our country into a ditch is a complete idiot.

    • August 13, 2019 at 01:16

      All the guns in the world still don’t keep you from being shot, they just make it so you can possibly return fire. Caught by surprise, it’s still best to just hit the floor.

  7. J
    August 12, 2019 at 12:51

    I will give my opinion at the 24th of August conference at Dulles

  8. August 12, 2019 at 08:54

    The fascists among us are cultivated for decades on the likes of Rush Limbaugh, InfoWars, the NRA, Jerry Faldwell, and Breitbart. Now the Emperor with No Clothes gives these fascists-in-waiting the public green light to come out of the closet, out of the hovels, out from under the cinder blocks and do their thing. And what we get is mainstream fascism. Not only can it happen here, it is happening here in America right now as you read this.


  9. Keith
    August 11, 2019 at 22:22

    I think this man is an idiot

  10. O Society
    August 11, 2019 at 18:50

    Here’s your Second Amendment hero the white male terrorist:


    Folks need to understand, we’re not going to put up with this nonsense trolling bullshit.

    Get strapped to the nines. Walk into your local Springfield Wal-Mart a couple days after a mass murder in an El Paso Wal-Mart.

    Pretend you don’t understand why folks assume you are a lunatic come to shoot them all.

    Get charged with terrorism.

    Yep. Terrorism. What this guy just did in Springfield, Missouri is terrorize everyone who lives there because he thought it would be fun to troll them. Imbecile.

    See folks, it isn’t just the internet. Some morons take their issues out real people in real life.

    This is all going to get far worse before it gets better, precisely because there is a sizeable population of idiot American white man-children who do not know how to conduct themselves in public, be it on the internet, in Wal-Mart, or anywhere else in American society.

    • Evangelista
      August 12, 2019 at 20:27

      O Society,

      The question in the case of Andreychenko walking into a Springfield Mo Walmart armed is were the Walmart employee, police and others’ responses appropriate?

      The case, if it goes to Federal Court, as it should, 2nd Amendment infringements being in Federal jurisdiction, will hinge on whether or not the MO authorities, and Walmart employee and others’ responses infringed on Andreychenko’s protected right to go peaceably armed in a public-inviation business location. Peaceably armed means carrying arms but not appearing to imminently intend to use the arms in an offensive manner. Note, in this regard, that legal law in United States, and, where a Federal regulation is involved, in any State of the United States (defining the States subordinate to Federal law is what the Civil War was fought about, and decided, as was then spelt out in Amendments to the Constitution) must respect presumption of innocence, which means that absent areal act demonstrating a real threat, and a real probability of an actual intent to act to intentionally threaten.

      Note that under legal law, if yourself, or anyone else who is inclined to hysteria and over-reaction (including the very popular on police forces across the land steroid-addled hyperventilate-and-shout and draw weapon and threaten prone to hysteria and pants-pissing police officers, who are a bigger threat to lives, limbs and liberties in America today) are sent into paroxysms of hissy-fit and loss of bodily-function control by mere sight of an armed person, that is your personal problem. If carrying arms peaceably in the USA is the law, so long as it is, carrying arms peaceably is not an offense, even if it offends you, or the scaredy-cop on the corner. Wherefore, if you, or the scaredy-cop, over-reacts and has a cow, creates a hysterical scene, hurts someone, or even kills someone shooting first before asking questions and defining the situation, you are guilty of whatever might ensue in result of your actions that may constitute crime or that may hurt, harm o damage non-involved and innocently acting others, including persons peaceablt carrying weapons.

      Did a Walmart employee speak to Andreychenko? Did anyone approach Andreychenko in a peaceable manner? Did a police officer approach Andreychenko as a police officer, to inquire his purpose in carrying a weapon into the store? If not, if someone else pointed a gun at Andreychenko in a threatening manner and infringed on his liberties in an aggressive and threatening manner, then Andreychenko’s rights were violated, and he is entitled to compensation for damages he may have suffered (it sounds like, aware of the level of aggressive hysteria in the USA today he wisely wore body armor, in case of an aggressive hysteric over-reacting).

      Walmart could ask a weapon carrying person to exit the store , if the person had no business in the store necessitating carrying the weapon, including an arm (a weapon whose primary design-intended use, or situational use purpose is to stop human actions). But, Walmart selling weapons in its stores, every person walking into a Walmart with a weapon must be assumed, first, to have a legitimate-to-Walmart-trade reason for carrying the weapon into the store.

      It does not matter how howling-stupid crazy you might be, it does not matter what recent nose-bleed-inducing experiences you have suffered in your personal life, or from watching scary movies or overdosing on hyperventilation-high inducing news reports. Your responsibility is to treat others reasonably, presuming them innocent.

      If you have been reading too many #metoo web-confessions (real or fictitious) and then go to a mall with your sister and see some old geezer wearing an overcoat appearing to smile at your sister, because you conclude he is probably a pervert and could be a rapist, you do not have any kind of a “right” to attack the geezer, or knock him down, or grab him and scream for a cop. Your hysteria is not probable cause for him.

      Re-read the above again and again, until it sinks in: We have a very big problem in this country that is caused by mental-case hysterics reacting like your post indicates you to, and as the police report in the incident shows those who infringed on Andreychenko did, pre-supposing, on their own imaginings and then aggressively imposing on others they target with heir hysterical imaginings. We see the problem manifesting especially acutely amongst seroid-addled bone-head cops, who, if they were really policemen, instead of thugs hired by self-aggrandized to authoritarians in what is supposed to be government service, would have enough courage, and confidence in the authorities of their occupations, to behave calmly, correctly and professionally, to inquire and then resolve where questions appear and appear to need answers. We do not need more hysteria and aggressive blowing off and ignoring the civil rights of others, whether the others be church-goers or gun-owners, or both.

  11. robjira
    August 11, 2019 at 17:09

    I’d like to second Vinnieoh’s great comment.
    I’d also like to point out that the “tyranny” everyone is up in arms about (couldn’t resist), has been in place since at least the first Kennedy assasination. This tyranny officially became the law of the land with the passage of the “Patriot” and Defense Authorization acts.
    Once your butt is held in indefinite incommunicado, you can pretty much forget any claim to rights, “god-given” or otherwise.

  12. vinnieoh
    August 11, 2019 at 15:15

    About a third of the way down the thread (currently) David Casso made a point that should reiterated. So, listen up all you gun guys and girls because this is important. You would be hard pressed to find another internet site that does better investigative reporting than Consortium News concerning the abuses of power committed by government. Our own US government as well as other governments around the world.

    As a matter of fact (not that you particularly care about facts,) it is this site – among too damn few – concerning Mueller’s investigation, or “Russiagate,” or as your MAGA hero calls it a “witch hunt,” that has consistently called “bullshit” on the whole mess, and not only that but has done some investigative work that those in the government charged with that duty have amazingly failed to do.

    It is not because they love Donald Trump, his policies, his bigotry, his grandstanding, and his conning hustle. Quite the contrary; I’m sure it irks the investigators and writers as much as many of the regulars here to have to come to the defense of that POS. But they know that what is going on is wrong and it is dangerous and they speak directly against those tyrannical forces which you seem to envision as some cavalry charge coming over the hill.

    But many of you don’t care about such things. In your bunkered single-issue world, someone said “Repeal the Second Amendment” and so call out the cyber militia and let’s go show those liberal commie snowflakes who the fuck they’re dealing with! Let’s go crash that party!

    Well, while you’re here and now that I hopefully have your attention, how about contributing a donation to the operation of this site, because truly if anyone is resisting the tyranny you so righteously abhor, it is the writers and editors of this site.

    No? I didn’t think so. You’re used to sites that are “free” and that “only” harvest your personal information for their use and profit, inundate you with advertising for overpriced and often useless garbage, and invisibly share that info with those that truly have tyrannical inclinations. This site has no advertising and relies in large part on the donations of its readers. And, unlike Disqus, or Facebook, or Twitter which openly warn you that they exist by harvesting info about you and selling it, this comment section belongs to CN only.

    I believe in free speech. So do those that operate this site. And this site has been the target of operational attacks from both the (so-called) left and the (so-called) right recently, for exercising that right. To lump those faux camps together, we could say “the powers that be” or what many of you amorphously refer to as “tyranny.”

    Many of you have accused Joe Lauria of things that are so off the mark, but I also sense that many of you have neither the wit nor the attention span to care.

    Mr. Lauria was correct that the 2nd Amendment is a relic, written in compromise language, for the realities of an earlier time that don’t reflect today’s realities. And I was right with him until he said repeal it. If only for the fact that it is part of the Bill of Rights, then – IN MY OPINION (only) – SCOTUS ruled correctly that the amendment affirms the right of individual citizens to own and use firearms for legal purposes. Those (fairly recent) rulings ended the ambiguity that has always existed in that wording and has kept this a hotbed of argument. Whether they did so out of wisdom or just logical and pragmatic necessity, and whether one agrees with it or not, they have in fact cleaned it up. The court also concurrently affirmed that necessary regulations and restrictions on gun ownership do not violate that right. God has nothing to do with it; it is a natural right to be secure in your self and your effects. And murder is a crime everywhere.

    But what this train wreck of a comment thread has taught me, from many of you new “friends” here is this: If I were to go to my local gun store (and there are a half dozen within 15 minutes of here) and the sales person happened to ask me why I wanted to buy that 9mm semiautomatic, I’d have to honestly tell him (or her) – “to protect myself from your regular customers.”

    Down, down, down, deeper into the vortex.

    One last time: If you truly care about government over-reach and illegality – tyranny – please give a small monetary donation to the continued operation of this site.

    • ML
      August 11, 2019 at 21:22

      Vinnieoh, you are a gem here at Consortium News. That was beautiful. I have to agree that the outrageous ignorance and trash-talk mentality of some, not all, but a significant number of malevolent souls here of late, has made it even clearer than it ever was to me that we are indeed a very sick society. Anyone who could use the suggestions of violence so vile as they did in this comment section, is someone who needs to be locked away for good in an asylum for the criminally insane.
      You have inspired me to make another donation to Consortium News. This site is a lifeline in a sea of news sludge. I just wrote Julien Assange and Chelsea Manning letters today and I wrote my rep in the House and my two senators about freeing these two courageous people. Would that more people be like Manning and Assange and not like some of the merciless, crude simpletons on this long, long thread.

      • vinnieoh
        August 12, 2019 at 18:47

        Thanks for your kind words, again. I doubt whether any of the weekend’s visitors have even so much as stuffed a greenback in the tip jar. I usually wait until CN has a drive, but I should do the same.

        A sad coincidence made this very personal. This week we’ll be attending a memorial for a very close friend of ours who just recently died. Not by gun, but from natural causes. He and I had been estranged these last ten years, and the last time we were together this is what we argued about. We were all very close, did everything together; our eldest is his namesake. At ten their son was bewildered to find out his closest aunt and uncle weren’t really family. Before the day we parted ways we had moved back to the small town we came from and they had moved even further away because of a business relocation, and we saw each other only once or twice a year.

        That last day we were together I heard things that I heard on this thread. Not only some of the visceral condemnations, but all of the arguments that have swirled for so long. And the distilled message, which I didn’t understand at the time coming from him, was the abandonment of any belief that we can function as a civil nation, or a just one. Violence is all around us, I get the fear and self-defense arguments, and I wasn’t able then to tell if something had happened to trigger him. He was drinking heavily and probably had been regularly, their marriage on the rocks. He told me he’d been practicing at the shooting range with his new handgun regularly, so by all means if you want more of the same as we just had here, take that dusty old handgun, fire a clip or cylinder or two and mingle there for a while. The similarity of the formulation of the arguments he made and some I heard here isn’t a coincidence, and seemed so unlike the character and personality I knew. Something latent there had been touched.

        Much trepidation and remorse, but shame on me if I don’t go.

        We’re all subject to confirmation bias, or putting it another way, gravitate to our own safe comfort zones. Everyone must have an operant philosophy, that individual guidance program that allows the individual to navigate, in their own manner, the world around them, minute by minute, and day after day. Confirmation bias helps preserve and update that program. I think I understand now, after this weekend odyssey, some of the other things he said to me. And then something else smacked me in the awareness, the fact that my father, of whom I’m not only a virtual physical clone but apparently also a behavioral one, had a very close friend in his life and they also parted in anger. My mother on rare occasions would mention him as something that had been taken from all of us. And he, like me, said nothing, and neither did those friends ever reconcile. I’ve got a few things on my mind. What would Yogi Berra say?

        The remorse of course happens over time; our friends separated then reconciled and re-united, he became critically ill of leukemia, beat it into remission, and then recently had several major strokes from bleeding into the brain, and died. And we weren’t there for any of it, to do what friends are supposed to do. My oldest son may never forgive me for my part in keeping us apart all these years, because now he’s gone. It was like fighting with family, and this here has become very personal. This was instructive, though not in the way some advocates would like to think, but I haven’t bought that 9mm yet: trying not to step into the vortex, or in the bullshit.

        Our previous neighbor right across the street “he blew his brains out in a car,” and none of us neighbors here knew or ever heard the “why.” When they cleaned out his house they removed at least 70 firearms. He was a bit of an odd duck, and though I don’t correlate strange behavior with guns, I worry at the often close proximity.

        It will be a long drive to get there, but my best friend and advisor will be with me, and she’ll have that opportunity to translate (or vivisection) those parts of me that I don’t or won’t understand. I hope I can face it. Our friends were very precious to her, and she’s waiting for a sign from me that I comprehend what was fumbled carelessly away, and that I share their sorrow. And if remaining friendships can be renewed, and ties mended. Wish me well; wish us all well.

  13. Walter
    August 11, 2019 at 12:07

    Many Thanks to “Abe” for his repetition of ad homenim, as this rams home the reality of trollism and the appeal to emotion as well as strongly indicating his inability to present a logical argument, as educated persons all realize since, being educated, they have studied logic and rhetoric.

    But moving along…see> “Police have killed 5,000 Americans since Ferguson protests”. I myself happened to be listening to the copradio a few weeks ago at about midnight…and overheard a cop shooting a man dead in our nearby small town. The cop had to run after the guy and assault him in order to avoid shooting him in the back. Then they let him bleed-out…no EMS was requested even though dispatch suggested it… Withal, https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/08/10/poli-a10.html

    Naturally I am all for confiscating firearms, starting with the army and the cops, then we can speak of regulated militia… Which in the context means, or meant, “well equipped [and able to use in a coordinated way…]” Noah Webster’s early American Dictionary shows such a definition.

    That said, I got rid of my few guns years ago, when the kids were small – I needed the dollars and also wanted a safe home situation…and I am unwilling to shoot a man under any circumstances. I am too old to carry the soul…which you do take on when you kill something, it seems to me. However I am glad that the neighbors have weapons, I have seen bears and lions within a mile…

    • Abe
      August 11, 2019 at 23:37

      Comrade “Walter” is “all for confiscating firearms” and “glad that the neighbors have weapons”.

      In fact, the highly “educated” comrade presents a brilliant “logical” disquisition on the firing rate of “a muzzle loading black-powder revolver”.

      That said, check out the repetition of the trollism “ad homenim [sic]” by comrade “Walter” in the CN comments here:

  14. Em Sos
    August 11, 2019 at 11:59

    Hardly ever witness firsthand, in these huge numbers, in written expression, such a stir up of a hornets nest of instinctively ignorant insects – in one vicious swarm – going against their own best interests!
    What more proof is required of a herd mentality?

  15. August 11, 2019 at 09:57

    I’m always amazed at the sheer stupidity of gun owners. The thinking that goes along with owning a gun baffles me – bravado overtakes common sense and fear wins every time. It’s too bad there is so much cowardice in this country otherwise it might be a fairly nice place to live…

  16. Willow
    August 11, 2019 at 01:10

    ?When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.”

  17. Hide Behind
    August 10, 2019 at 22:33

    Article has a lot missing from it, such mention of Aams who had been a Royalist up until outbreak of armed conflict.
    What part did Adams play with James Madison’s group that added not just the 2nd Amendment but 10 with the 2nd a part of them.
    Why was it found necessary to hold another Convention to trash Articles of Confederation and lay basicly our now useless Constitution, stresses upon National unity?.
    While a standing Army was unfavorably looked upon the Federaly organized institution of a Standing Navy, with their armed sea borne marines, (small m), was popular.
    Why were the borders recognized by the Federal Government at variance with those of many States?
    During Madison’s time how many States were actively considering petitioning for readmittance to Great Britians fold?
    What militia uprising did President George Washington put down and reasons behind that group.
    What was real reasons for War of 1812, persons instigating it, popularity by others outside of US merchants, and what faction wanted to grab portion of Canada?
    Pick and choose by certain authors makes one wonder what f’n history books did they read while in school.
    Each of the first 10 Amendments, are part of the Bill of Rights, and for each there were definitive, and while somewhat loosely connected each was deemed necessary to the whole, and only by reading of conditions of that time as regarding merchant class, religious classes, taxation within States and Duties or Tarrifs between goods shipped and traded abroad and domesticly.
    History behind the why’s of State Formation of Guard Units who were under State Control and seperate from Federal military, until as a case in point, why was there no outcry when Under Regan/Bush Presidency they unconstitutionaly activated State Guardsmen for illegal wars in Latin Americas?
    And another question is real reason Bush the minor used as an excuse during Katrina that it was up to La. governors National Guard and he needed permission from LA Govenor before entering State.
    Psst first responders were private security firms under Dept of State and included an Israeli firm.
    Author reminds me of an old non biblical reference by a religious group:
    “Within the best lies men can form, there lays a kernal of truth.”
    And therein is what is called an entymeme and entymeme argument, partial truth with lies and popular of past true and untrue memes to hide the lie (s).
    Also as to those who use such tactics, WMD-IRAQ anyone, what is behind, motive, for doing so?

  18. robert e williamson jr
    August 10, 2019 at 22:24

    Joe the book I mentioned in the earlier post looks at the Continental Congress period into 1795. By that time the Constitution had been ratified and a Bill of Rights produced.

    What is missed by not reading this work is that the country had no congress in session for two years during this period 1783-1795. What is explained by this book is that during the period leading up to 1795 is how the money grubbers out EAST stymied any attempts by all involved to have any halfway reasonable settlement with the Indian Nations. This is a sad sad story and shows just how distant our founding father were from what this country’s bogus history taught in schools claims.

    I think you may enjoy this book, one gets a very real sense of ljust how bad things where then for the Indians and frontiersmen both.

    No sir Joe these guys were out for themselves first.

  19. robert e williamson jr
    August 10, 2019 at 21:56

    WOW! So much for trying to educate “exceptional Americans” by having them read something. What the hell was I thinking.

  20. Rong Cao
    August 10, 2019 at 21:40

    Who are those congressmen that dare to put an end to weapon manufactures as well as their Wall street investors making profiting from selling the guns to its citizens? Those congressmen are trying so hard to do their jobs by creating manufacturing jobs for his constituents in his own district. And the controlled chaos has always been part of factors to sustain the US economic development and its governance. If the US wars in the Middle East had subsided, the asteroid might hit the earth soon.

  21. MLS
    August 10, 2019 at 21:10

    Pretty much spot on, Joe.

    The sheer screeching lunacy of many of the commenters here only supports the conclusion that a significant portion of America has gone stark raving mad.

    Apparently it hasn’t occurred to the “over my dead body” types that if the day should come that the they were truly deemed so important that they needed to be taken out by the big bad gubmint, they’d have a drone-fired missle up their ass before they had finished looking for their AK under the bed.

    Get it? That unblinking devotion to bloated Pentagon waste is gonna pay off after all.


    • robjira
      August 11, 2019 at 16:59

      MLS, you’re right on target (couldn’t resist).
      I would also imagine the NSA is having a field day hoovering up metadata on all the “blood of tyrants” type comments.

  22. Dave McElroy
    August 10, 2019 at 21:09

    When guns are outlawed only outlaws and police will have guns. It took the El Paso police 6 minutes to respond. The problem is not the firearms, it’s the average law abiding citizens refusal to be armed and defend themselves, their family and friends, and those around them. Of the 1000 shoppers reported to have been in Walmart at the time of the shooting not one returned fire. Police generally show up in time to take a body count and that is why I am armed everywhere I go – to protect my self, my family, and those around me.

    • August 11, 2019 at 02:29

      Wahey! Yay! The best way to prevent people shooting with guns is to make sure everyone carries assault rifles at all times… so that everyday life is one long adventure of gunfire! Great logic, Dave. Thankfully, I live in the UK. A long period of caring for the victims of your precious guns, perhaps in a VA hospital, might cure you of your toxic fanaticism.

  23. Joel Walbert
    August 10, 2019 at 20:18

    Repeal of 2A means nothing. Every human that has ever lived anywhere has the God given right to self defense by any and all means necessary. Learn some dam history and what happens every single time a country bans the tools of self-defense. Worked out real well in dictatorships since the beginning of time. Bans precede confiscation. Confiscation precedes genocide. So my guess is you a supporter of top down tyranny and population cleansings. Must be hard work being such a petty wanna-be tyrant. Oh, heroin is illegal. How is that ban working out? And can’t ignore the knife attack recently. Evil will do what evil does. By definition a criminal does not follow the law, so gun bans will do exactly nothing except leaving the most vulnerable without a means to defend self and family.

    • C.J. Hutchins
      August 10, 2019 at 23:14

      The problem is that the Founding Fathers apparently did not believe that people have a God given right to self defense given the fact that they never stated that in the very brief Second Amendment. Michael Waldman informs the reader of this in his brilliant book The Second Amendment: A Biography

    • Rick
      August 11, 2019 at 00:29

      Perfectly stated, I’m glad to see I’m not the only person who believes in the second amendment and my god given right to self defence against all enemies, foreign and domestic, aka tyrannical givernment.

  24. August 10, 2019 at 19:36

    Due to lack of moderation, this comment section devolved into fascist baloney. Happens anytime anywhere the trolls are allowed to roam freely. Either break out the roach spray or get used to it.


    • Consortiumnews.com
      August 10, 2019 at 23:46

      We made a decision to not remove any of these multiple comments that clearly violate our comments policy in order to maintain a public record of these comments, several which border on death threats.

      • August 11, 2019 at 18:15

        We’re on the same page. Figured it’s an exercise in giving ’em enough rope to hang themselves.

        These kind of trolls wonder why someone would have reservations about their brandishing weapons…

        Well maybe it’s because you can’t have a conversation on the internet without threatening people, ya think maybe that’s it?

        Why the hell should I trust anyone with a loaded firearm who speaks only in passive aggressive rant?

  25. Matthew
    August 10, 2019 at 19:00

    The national guard is an extension of the US army. The fact that they get deployed overseas now should make that obvious even to those with limited mental facalties. Jfc.

  26. 3RA1L
    August 10, 2019 at 18:46

    “It is a dangerous absurdity to think it can justify the sale and possession of handguns (and even more lethal firearms).”

    Now, this can easily be interpreted as a blow to gun owners whom go by the importance of self-defense and their form of freedoms, HOWEVER, it’s more well noted that gun manufacturers (e.g. Remington, Colt, S&W, SIG, take advantage of the people by advertising, persuading, and buying THEIR products as a means of further enhancing those same corporations rather than take it as a means of awareness. In other words, those same manufacturers also lobby and influence lawmakers by either making matters “better” or “worse” in regards to the 2nd Amendment (in many ways, the latter), hence the sales and possession stint.

  27. August 10, 2019 at 17:43

    Guns dont kill people do.

  28. August 10, 2019 at 17:27

    Regardless of mass or individual murders with firearms, the fact remains American citizens have the right to bear arms due to the 2nd amendment. In times like these a standing or sitting army for our Nation is advisable and practical due to the 2nd amendment. Using an arguement such as mass murder in El Paso or anywhere to disarm American citizens is as illogical as to outlaw automobiles for the thousands of deaths “they” cause? There will always be those who try to protect us from ourselves which is only a smoke screen to a more evil agenda. I believe disarming America will be a bloody disaster by any government foreign or domestic. Passing unconstitutional laws does NOT mean that common sense Americans will comply.

  29. Tom babbitt
    August 10, 2019 at 16:54

    I do not have a policeman at my side at all times why not breaking does occur it will take about five minutes for officer to arrive I could be dead and shot by the time they get here where is my second amendment right now

  30. August 10, 2019 at 16:34

    You are a fucking moron. You are not even a good leftist aparachik. You are an epic failure with an ideology that has left over one hundred million people murder victims if the state. If you took the time to have a basic education on the matter you would see that each state ratified in thier state Constitution a need for the citizens to have modern small arms to protect thier individual state POST the end of the revolutionary war. I could include much more , however I will just direct your aparachik self to us supreme court ruling in 1939 Miller vs US where the supreme court ruled that individual citizens have an unalienable individual right to modern small arms commonly used by modern armies. Move to China you clown, you look like a crackhead.

  31. August 10, 2019 at 16:30

    How is the author of this allowed to be published? I have never seen such idiocracy in print.

  32. Realist
    August 10, 2019 at 15:53

    Maybe the founding fathers were just being realistic about this whole matter of gun ownership.

    If guns were outlawed, who would enforce the law? Individuals with privately owned guns, which is what the militias were like at the time, according to others who have posted here. So the law enforcers would simply be privileged characters? Twas ever thus and allegedly a significant rationale to found a new state with “freedom and justice for ALL.”

    How would these state-approved private gun owners ascertain your illicit gun ownership and take your property from you? Probably by kicking in your door, invading your home, searching it and seizing any guns–acts totally at odds with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

    The people in charge knew that folks on the frontier needed and used guns to hunt for food and protect themselves against brigands and native hostiles. That shiny new constitution would never have been approved, or followed, if such an impact had been levied against an important component of the populace. Remember, most of the population was rural and agrarian, not urban and mercantile back in the late 18th century. So, people were guaranteed freedom and security with respect to their shooting irons as well as their papers and effects. The 2nd amendment was formally stated to bolster support for the whole document, I would surmise. Those 18th century boys had to be just as shrewd as a modern day Philadelphia lawyer to get a deal done, especially in a growing diverse population full of self-styled “sons of liberty.”

    It would take another outrage like 9-11, which served as the impetus for the intrusion of the security state deep into every American’s personal life with the “Patriot Act,” mass 24/7 electronic surveillance, limitations on travel, warrantless searches and seizures, the elimination of habeas corpus, extreme rendition, torture, indefinite incarceration without charges, let alone trials or convictions, and even summary execution at the order of the president outside of American legal jurisdiction, to formally expunge the 2nd amendment and other targeted rights amongst our Bill of Rights.

    But with the “feds gone wild” don’t think these usurpers of liberty in a land they want to micromanage like Oceania in “1984” are not hard at work making such plans. If they can recruit suicidal jihadis to wage a war of terror in the Middle East, if they can partner with Colombian drug lords to flood American cities with hard drugs to fund death squads in Central America, don’t think they aren’t recruiting mentally ill social misfits to perpetrate mass shootings to instill fear and hopeless in you and discourage you from protecting your dwindling body of rights defined in the constitution. These are true globalists at work: they want you to eventually have as few freedoms as the rest of the planet which they are in the process of systematically conquering through the incessant use of extreme military force.

  33. August 10, 2019 at 15:40

    Over my dead body will they my guns.

  34. August 10, 2019 at 15:11

    This is the most BS I’ve heard in along time. Get your shit straight or get the f*$k out of our country. The people are the mailitia you idiot.

    • ML
      August 10, 2019 at 15:46

      Your country? It’s OUR country- that means everyone’s country, Kelly. You don’t have a corner on the market of America. She belongs to us all and whatever we can do to make her more secure for ALL of us, cleaner, more compassionate, more functional for the majority, more prosperous for the common man and woman, we will do. Don’t be an exclusionist. Be better than that. Work together, not at cross purposes with each other. That is how we make America better.

      • Neil S
        August 11, 2019 at 16:42

        Um…ML? Kelly did say “our country”.

  35. shaktiman
    August 10, 2019 at 15:05

    Fiction from Joe Lauria

  36. Jim Congleton
    August 10, 2019 at 15:02

    Look at Venezuela if you thats what you THINK our founding father’s meant. It is what i fought for this country to protect. I am truly sorry for what’s happened but removing honest people’s ability to defend against this an an oppressive government. Is not the answer that’s like making cars illegal because drunk driver’s kill with them.

  37. Jim Hamilton
    August 10, 2019 at 14:54

    That is your misplaced and mythical perception of what you want the second amendment to portray putting words in the mouth of the founding fathers of this nation to say what you think they meant.
    The send amendment will never be removed or repelled by the congress or a corrupt US Supreme Court as long as our elected leaders abide by he US CONST.

  38. August 10, 2019 at 14:19

    This show how stupid you really are!!!!!!

  39. Alan Harper
    August 10, 2019 at 14:08

    You are so stupid. The government is behind all of this gun shootings. They want to take all our guns to easily control us all. Wake up before it’s too late

  40. August 10, 2019 at 13:56

    This article written by Joe Lauria is right on track. It was refreshing to hear his approach. There are way too many assault rifles. Something needs to be done stop the flow of them into our society. I believe we should have strict background checks in strict laws governing the sales of guns with penalties for those who distribute assault rifles illegally. It sounds like Elizabeth Warren might have a pretty good plan to get the situation in control. Listen to her.

    • August 10, 2019 at 18:35

      Henry Norton = moron turd and fool you are so arrogant and stupid at the same time

  41. August 10, 2019 at 13:23

    Written like a true anti 2nd Amendment commie. No thanks, I’ll keep mine and stock up on more!

  42. I am Joe P Calces
    August 10, 2019 at 13:20

    Founding fathers hated standing armies so give people the guns… Government forms permanent standing armies so people should give guns back… At least the author was right about one thing; the founding fathers would be horrified.

  43. Dave Boso
    August 10, 2019 at 13:06

    Wow, talking about researching two words for a full opinion. Your the reason the media is considered a bunch of lazy hack’s now.

  44. Tom
    August 10, 2019 at 12:51

    The second amendment’s much like the first we need to redo it because people bully people over the internet and they claim that freedom of speech people say things that aggravate people and they say that’s freedom of speech and what the hell did the founders this country know anyway the only made the greatest country in the world.

  45. Eric32
    August 10, 2019 at 12:31

    “O society” has spewed a number of easily knocked down propaganda falsehoods. He’s posted them in this comment area, I’ve refuted them previously, but somehow, someone edited them out. Let’s see if they get censored this time.

    1) American militias O society > These state militia organized to catch runaway slaves and put down slave rebellions. That’s why the powers that be said you need a gun. To go catch slaves. That’s the purpose of a state militia in those days. Shay’s Rebellion 1786-7 civil rights militia men attack the government offices over inequality conditionsStronger national government *not* give people guns so they can overthrow the government. WTF would any founding father set up a government and then say, “Hey y’all, please go get some guns so you can over throw us and the government we set up ASAP”?!? That Charlton Heston NRA crap is crazy talk.The 3/5 Compromise says the black man isn’t a real human being like a white man, but he counts for something, so we’ll count him as 3/5 of a human being and make sure you guys have access to firearms so you can keep him in his place. <

    No fool – it was a compromise agreed to by the North, which had few slaves and had numerous slavery abolitionists.

    The South demanded it in order to increase its numbers of in the House and the Electoral college.

    • Eric32
      August 10, 2019 at 12:59

      Incredible – the above is NOT I posted a few minutes ago, 80 percent of it is missing.

      I wonder if THIS will get through.

    • Eric32
      August 10, 2019 at 13:08

      Whoever it is that is interfering with and changing my posts – you really are a reprehensible POS who does poor service to Robert Parry’s memory, work and standards.

  46. Gary Reynolds
    August 10, 2019 at 11:52

    GFY! The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “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.” … 307 U.S. 174.

    “The right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed”

    NOT THE STATE, the people it clearly states.

    Your bulls**t excuse “the 2nd amendment is a relic” is a pathetic attempt to make our nations constitutional amendments irrelevant. Irrelevant because the idiot writing this article thinks so. Good luck with your progressive liberal agenda, Americans dont support your BS.

    • August 10, 2019 at 13:32

      The 2nd Amendment clearly states the militia is to be regulated because a militia is necessary for the preservation of a free state BUT should be regulated and the right of THE PEOPLE to bear arms not be infringed BECAUSE an armed militia had the potential to become totalitarian and oppressive and enslave a free people. We see this all the time in 3rd world countries where a military force carries off a coup of a duly elected head of state and martial law imposed.

  47. August 10, 2019 at 11:51

    You need to read your history, and the documents that are this nations foundation.
    You clearly have no clue who the founders were.
    The Founders saw the Amendments not as an expansion or restriction of the Constitution, but as a recognition of God given or naturally existing rights!
    Even it you manage to get the document altered to change or remove the Second Amendment, it will still exist.

    • August 11, 2019 at 12:20

      It is pretty difficult to have a ‘God-given’ right, when that ‘God’ doesn’t exist.

  48. Jason Aguirre
    August 10, 2019 at 10:02

    Good review of history and the contextual motivations for decisions. Problem is, soldiers are loyal to their orders, not our rights. While not universally true, it’s been irrefutibly demonstrated many times. The so called national guard is literally part of the larger standing army and is actively being deployed abroad. So everything Adam said in that regard has proven true.

    Blaming the tool, however dangerous or unnessicery to modern day civilian life, undermines the justice which should be directed towards the sick individuals who pulled the trigger. Your reassignment of blame dishonors the victims and reaks of agenda pushing in the wake of a tragedy.

    Maybe the 2nd should be repealed. It should certainly be clarified by SCOTUS, but to insist it’s not what the people want is a clear personal bias. Obviously a good portion of the country believes having a right to arms is important, so if you had any constitutional integrity you would agree that just wiping out the right because of what one portion of the country is irrationally afraid of does not fully represent the will of the people. A compromise is needed, yes, but let’s be realistic about what that should or even would be allowed to be.

  49. Daniel j olanyk
    August 10, 2019 at 10:01

    Sounds like this is written by someone who has not read the bill of rights in is entirely, including the pre amble. The amendments were added to limit our government from becoming too powerful, and to keep the rights of the citizens intact. It is clearly written and is not as ambiguous as some whould like to make it sound. But it needs to be read in its entirety including the pre amble which gives the full meaning of ‘why’d is was written.

  50. Daniel j olanyk
    August 10, 2019 at 09:58

    Sound like this is written by someone who has not read the bill of rights in is entirely, including the pre amble. The amendments were added to limit our government from becoming too powerful, and to keep the rights of the citizens intact. It is clearly written and is not as ambiguous as some should like to make it sound. But it needs to be read in its entirety including the pre amble which gives the full meaning of ‘why’d is was written.

  51. August 10, 2019 at 09:35

    You should leave the country & live elsewhere! England or Australia maybe??

    August 10, 2019 at 09:31

    The “founders” were somewhat on the paranoid side. After the French and Indian war, British authorities determined that the continued safeguarding of the colonies from the defeated but still defiant adversaries would require stationing 10,000 troops in the North American colonies. Some locals feared that the troops would be an enemy occupation force rather than the colonists’ protectors. And remember that smuggling was a major cottage industry throughout the colonies; among the biggest operators was John Hancock, the richest man in Boston. A vigilant military presence would put an end their illegal, lucrative trade and might indeed be perceived by some as a species of tyranny.

    In Colonial America, guns were expensive and owned by few. In the days before factories, each was handmade by a skilled gunsmith and might cost the buyer a half year’s wages or more. In addition, possession of powder and shot was strictly regulated. They were by municipal law stored in town magazines, not singly in people’s homes. Every old American city still has a Powderhouse Road or a Magazine Street testifying to this universal practice. Our ancestors had the wisdom to understand that in the presence of a loaded weapon, a moment of passion might end in a family member facing the hangman’s noose.

    Guns were simply not a great part of American culture in the early days. Samuel Colt devised a revolutionary method to mass-produce cheap guns in the 1830s, but he went bankrupt because not enough people were interested in purchasing them. It was the Civil War that changed America’s habits and accustomed men to the daily carrying and use of firearms. The massive postwar spikes in the rates of crime and homicide were the result of this sinister habit, which began the transformation of a once open, safe American society toward the fearful crime-ridden world we have today.

  53. Josef
    August 10, 2019 at 09:04

    Gun ownership will not go away. Stop the sobbing, and accept that fact. The sooner you lunatics do it, the better you will feel. Nobody, but nobody will give them up. Will not happen. You can state the number of legal firearms a million times, and it is irrelevant. 99.99% of them harm nobody. Focus on the real enemy and murderer: The govt and military. They kill and maim millions of innocents, and nobody bats an eyelid. In fact, you troglodytes cheer and praise them.

  54. D. Hockenson
    August 10, 2019 at 09:04

    The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be INFRINGED.

    Do you get it know?

    You, sir, are a moron

  55. Amy
    August 10, 2019 at 08:16

    You are hijacking the 2nd admenment for your own uses. You are also putting words in the framers mouths when many of then left us with plenty of their own words. They would be ashamed of our lack of value in freedom. Their world wasn’t safe either.

  56. Ryan N
    August 10, 2019 at 08:00

    There were multiple firearms and rifles at the time that could fire multiple rounds without being reloaded. do a Google search of the different types of firearms and rifles that were around at the end of the 1700s and you’ll discover that there were multiple types of firearms, not just muskets. The founders absolutely were aware of firearms that could discharge more than one round at a time.

    • August 10, 2019 at 16:26

      I guess there were “multiple round weapons” if you consider guns with two barrels. Even so, if you were in the mood to kill many people in 18th century, a broadsword could be a better choice — no reloading problems at all. Another option would be to use a cannon, making a massacre with one shot. Were cannons restricted?

      Anyway, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is a strange combination, I guess Japanese have a more logical Sword and Firearm Control.

  57. Ryan N
    August 10, 2019 at 07:57

    Do the research, when the prefatory clause and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment are read in context (in relation to the language used in the entire document), it is absolutely clear that “the right of people” refers to all citizens of the nation, not just those designated in military service. Further; “The militia” (again, when read in context to the entire document) refers to a force of free and able bodied citizens NOT enlisted into regular military service. The militia is literally every free citizen in this nation…not The National Guard! The right to bear arms is a RIGHT; based on the natural law that we all have to defend ourselves individually and collectively; recognized by our government and our founding documents and cannot be infringed upon! The explanation you offer here of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment is a blatent misinterpretation. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms” is a right for all free citizens.

    As a side note, our entire body of armed forces is made up of roughly 1.3 million individuals… Far from the largest standing army in the world at this time.

  58. August 10, 2019 at 07:47

    P.S. The levels of emotional retardation, willful ignorance, and spiritual contortionism displayed by many in this comments section today is a great reminder of why your fellow Americans are reluctant to allow you unsupervised access to firearms in the first place.

    Verily, go back under the rocks whence you came; it is the perfect breeding ground of fascism. That is where you will thrive as a carcinoma thrives in the gut of the sickened and dying.

    • August 10, 2019 at 13:38

      You guys are the fascists, people who suppress freedom of speech and honest and open debate. Any ideas contrary to your own are to be silenced, by force if necessary, right?

    • Willow
      August 11, 2019 at 01:34

      Your ad hominem attacks stifle rather than promote discourse. Tolerating a different opinion is not easy, but it’s worth the effort.

    • Bri 3D
      August 11, 2019 at 08:23

      The only emotional retardation and WILLFUL ignorance I see is coming from those that believe they have the right to take away other peoples rights. The ones that want to protect their own rights and otherwise just want to be left alone are not the fascists. The ones that want to use government force to take rights from others ARE the fascists.

      • August 11, 2019 at 12:31

        In all seriousness, we ‘normal folk’ in America are with very few ‘rights’. Rights come and go as easily as a person can write a law and sign it.

        In a functioning democracy, the people SHOULD have the ability to make determinations of what is or isn’t a good law and make changes, add or remove laws at any time. Unfortunately, what we have now is a corrupt representative capitalist nightmare, with officials who listen ONLY to those with the most money.

        There have been many changes to our laws and ‘rights’ over the decades, and there will be many more. It is our DUTY to discuss how our current laws benefit or harm our society and attempt to do what we can to change harmful laws.

        Taking the stance that people should not even dare discussing current laws, because it is a law you agree with, is contrary to a functioning society.

        I’ll end this by saying that it appears that someone put out a call to people at a different community to come to Consortium and post. There is nothing wrong with inviting users to come comment, but it should remain civil.

    • August 12, 2019 at 00:05

      Yawn. The Emperor’s Not Wearing Any Clothes.

      What is a Fascist Neo-Nazi Troll?


  59. American
    August 10, 2019 at 07:31

    As long as we continue to support people with these idiotic articles they will continue to be employed. By support I mean we reply to their articles. Do not reply put them out of business. Continue to purchase, shoot, trade, hunt, compete, collect and support the firearms market we believe and have the right to do. Keep them in business. People like this author will need to learn how to become pretty familiar with a knife, spear, snare or trap when they have to use them to survive.

  60. August 10, 2019 at 07:30

    The 2nd Ammendment should stand as it is, who are we to think we smarter than the Framers of this great nation. Do you honestly think ant person out there to do us harm could not get a gun, any gun, and what of our government …this is how socialist counties begin. Put them on welfare (and absolute ton of people are on it in this nation, plus illegals) and then disarm them. I think not…We are not stupid, and way to many of our government are wanting to take away our rights. Start with one and next will come our 1st Ammendment.

  61. August 10, 2019 at 07:21

    Robert Parry, one of the few honest men:


  62. August 10, 2019 at 07:19

    If I am assaulted by someone who had on qualms about injuring or killing me and have no way to defend myself that’s ok with you. Oh yes, ill just call the army/national guard. They can bury me. I have the right as a free American to be able to defend myself and those I love. Surly, you don’t believe that I will be safe from harm just because you have taken away my means to protect myself.

  63. William Donk Jr
    August 10, 2019 at 07:15

    A well regulated militia can not be given Rights. Rights are bestowed upon individuals which is why the 2nd Amendment states, The Right of the “people” to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
    It is well documented that the founders felt it necessary to protect against any tyrannical government not just our own.

    The militia during this Nations founding was made up of unpaid citizens armed with their own weapons equal to those of any standing army. The National Guard is a State (government) controlled entity and therefore does not meet the criteria of a militia.

    This is America you can not disarm free and lawful individuals. To pass more gun control measures is an attempt to not only weaken their rights to self defense but to deem them unlawful should they refuse to comply. This would lead to gun confiscation from law abiding citizens.

    Democrats and their Socialist agenda clearly want everything under government control including the Right to bear arms. In essence total control of FREE Americans.

  64. Aztek man
    August 10, 2019 at 06:59

    What a dork-article.
    Only picked quotes, to fit the narrative.
    No quotes from Jefferson?

    The 2nd has been challenged on the points the author brought up and has been found that the citizens have the right to bear arms.

    Fun ownership is NOT the problem.
    Education is the issue that would solve many of the problems.
    In the 70s, when him ownership was near its peak, was there horrible shootings?
    And why does the author not address the the other 17,000 homicides that happen every year?


  65. Antonio Costa
    August 10, 2019 at 06:29

    My guess is the “NRA” has “guns” on Google Alert. And they take it from there, i.e., many of these comments are not from casual or avid readers of CN.

    When Robert Parry’s post was issued the responses were not like these as I recall.

    Sadly we live in a militant, violent society. It’s been that way since the beginning. A MLK put it a nation that is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world. That culture runs much deeper than the 2nd amendment or the kind of weapons. We’ve been at war/conflict 93% of this nation’s existence. The chickens have long been coming home to roost.

  66. Waldo Haythorne
    August 10, 2019 at 03:59

    You are full of shit. YOU need to be repealed.

  67. August 10, 2019 at 03:30

    I’m sorry you are so wrong on many levels
    “The right to bear arms shall not be infringed”, was not a suggestion!

  68. Kevinl
    August 10, 2019 at 02:37

    No the second amendment is clear the problem is that all of you want to try to take our gun rights away from us so you can enslave us or use cheering me against the population the Second Amendment says we have the right it’s a god-given right now given to us by you and you’re just part of that media that’s all by those Elites that don’t want the small citizens to be on so that you can just take over the world it won’t happe

    • August 10, 2019 at 10:46

      Shall not be infringed! That’s clear enough.

  69. geeyp
    August 10, 2019 at 01:53

    Hello Joe – Gee, Consortium News has quite the readership! That much we’ve learned here with this article reprint although I would not presume half the commenters actually read it.

    • Deniz
      August 10, 2019 at 11:17

      It is curious, where do they all come from? Does an alert get sent to a distribution list saying we need to stage a spam rally around CN because they are attacking God and Country? I have to say that they are making a strong case that a psychiatric evaluation should be required to purchase a gun.

      • John S
        August 10, 2019 at 19:26

        Yeah, I’m trying to figure out how many are ‘bots’, but the poor spelling and silly arguments lead me to believe that they’re NOT bots, unless the programmers coded them to intentionally sound stupid to imitate real gun nuts? Maybe CN needs to re-install that ‘bot-detector’ filter they used to have for comments — most of these gun nuts wouldn’t be able to get through that!

  70. Kenneth Clark
    August 10, 2019 at 01:41

    You forgot.. to protect against foriegn AND DOMESTIC..
    And with the liberal pushing Sosialist Communism, I believe that constitutes a Domestic threat..

  71. Passing By
    August 10, 2019 at 00:37

    Morons abound on these comments. Here’s something to consider. Nobody alive today entered into a contract with the Constitution. This was noted long ago, “The Constitution of No Authority” by Lysander Spooner published in 1867. The Constitutions is an outdated document that has no legal authority, period. This is important reading: http://praxeology.net/LS-NT-6.htm

    “The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago.”

    Nobody signed this contract that lives today, or was even given the opportunity, and yet they babble on about how this is the law of our land? Really? Not legally. Contract law requires one to be fully informed and obtain your consent.

    Paper worshipers such as “Constitutionalist” and all their ilk pretend that what our ancestors wrote is written in stone. Even if they insist that it still is, they have utterly forgotten that we have the right to change it ANYTIME WE WANT.

    Go READ the Declaration of Independence – it’s right there. “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

    So they are wrong no matter how you slice it or dice it. If we are under the Constitution anyway, then we can change it, and the Amendments. If we are not legally under the Constitution, then we can simply change the LAWS in this country.

    As a long time Class 3 gun dealer, it’s time to stop the mass slaughter. Dead children do not belong in our streets, shopping centers and schools.

    • Mo
      August 10, 2019 at 02:46

      If you don’t agree to the contract you’re more than welcome to leave.

      • Wortmanberg
        August 10, 2019 at 10:23

        I think you missed the point. He didn’t sign the contract, so the Constitution violates the most fundamental principle of what a contract is supposed to be.

    • Cadre Ops
      August 10, 2019 at 03:57

      The very first part of the US Military Oath of Enlistment is similar in the wording as it is for all federal government employees and or volunteers, from lowest private to the Commander in Chief.

      Every one swears an oath, an oath that reflects the “contract” you claim is no longer around. Let me tell you pal, it is very much still around.

      Your ignorance or willing blindness to be such, proves you are an anti American sympathizer, and a fifth column shill.

      Or a useful idiot, aka an ignorant tool…

      To you and your ilk, I leave these words to reflect upon and consideration;

      “If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”
      ~Samuel Adams

    • August 10, 2019 at 07:07

      Brainwashed comment you have there.
      Yes, we are legally bound by the Constitution.
      The states ratified the Constitution.
      There are means to change the Constitution.

      Your logic makes the Constitution not a legal document because it is old. Silly logic

    • William Donk
      August 10, 2019 at 07:23

      How does disarming law abiding citizens accomplish this goal? Criminals don’t follow laws and psychopaths will use any means possible. All your new gun control laws will change nothing.

    • David b hughes
      August 10, 2019 at 08:28

      if it became necessary to change the government the Second Amendment Arms the citizens so that they can achieve this goal as you just said

    • Art Weaver
      August 10, 2019 at 12:16

      You say your a class III gun dealer.
      Your a liar.
      No one gets to be a Class III dealer for any about of time and remains as stupid as you are on this subject.

      The Constitution and BOR are NOT contracts, PERIOD.
      They are recognitions of God given or naturally existing rights.
      The entire point of the founders and those documents were to create documentation that sets PEOPLE and their rights above the governments.
      And recognize that those rights preexist the government and are above and over the law and the government!
      You cannot change or remove what you did not create.

      You may not know this, understand this, or accept this…..
      But the People do.
      And if you try to take that right you will soon find yourself getting a lesson on what it means and why it’s there.
      Unfortunately for you, that may very well be at the end of a rope…..

  72. Gregory
    August 10, 2019 at 00:34

    What a moron! The second amendment was and still is in case we have to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government including our own. The national guard is controlled by the government, so why would we want them in charge of the militia to fight against the government that controls them? The guy that wrote this article is a clown…

    August 10, 2019 at 00:05


  74. JS
    August 10, 2019 at 00:02

    Because fuck the constitution right? If you’re not happy with America and our constitutional rights, and I mean all of them, you can piss off and go live somewhere else.

  75. Merle D. Rouze
    August 9, 2019 at 23:41

    Do not say that the 2nd amendment is anything but exactly what it was meant to mean. It is the right of the people in this a free Nation to stand against their enemies both foreign and domestic. That well never change, nor can it be allowed to be presented by anyone.

    • Merle D. Rouze
      August 9, 2019 at 23:45

      That would be rescinded not presented.

  76. Eric32
    August 9, 2019 at 23:31

    Gun control?

    After the assassinations of John Kennedy, Martin King, then Robert Kennedy, there was a wave of sentiment in the US in 1968 against the widespread civilian ownership of guns.

    The problem is that all three of these murder events were almost certainly “deep state” events carried out and covered up by elements of American law enforcement, intelligence and security organizations.

    Those killings had nothing to do with civilians owning guns.

    What is there that should make anyone confident about the intentions and actions of the US govt?

    The Operation Northwoods memo of the Joint Chiefs? (search on that one)
    The phony Tonkin Gulf attacks?
    The Iran contra affair?
    The sanctions on Iraq that resulted in 500,000 innocent deaths?
    The 9/11 attacks and the “investigation”?
    Sadaam’s mass destruction weapons?
    The non-investigation of the corrupt Clinton Foundation?
    The Russia-Trump collusion? Maybe Seth Rich should have had a weapon.

    Can any of us be sure these atrocious lone gunman attacks that have been occurring are what they seem?

  77. Dennis Urquhart
    August 9, 2019 at 23:31

    Well since your a journalist and have such a full picture of how you think the second amendment should be thrown away.We may as well make sure we take away the Freedom of speech and definitely the Freedom of the Press too.I myself don’t trust journalism anymore and any newscaster or thier Cult like Organizations.One problem I definitely see is that the Majority of News sources do not have ethics anymore and they spin stories basically to keep up thier ratings and Cause division between races and different generations in our country.But hey I’m not some big fancy Journalist News Guy or should I be correct and say News Person.You and all of your cronies just keep pushing on things thinking your in charge,and I think you will see things that will change this Country, and it won’t be for the better.

  78. Rob
    August 9, 2019 at 23:25

    It’s amazing how quickly some Americans are willing to just throw away a right that was literally paid for in blood. How about we get rid of some other rights? Let’s start with freedom of religion. No way the framers could have known that freedom of religion would lead to people being refused the cake they wanted. Why should we bother protecting anyones right to believe in God? It’s not like anyone would be forced to quit praying. The freedom of the press hell the press doesn’t need protection from the government if anything the government needs protection from the press. What kind of crazy person thinks the government is going to force the press to only report the good things in this day and age. Free speech lmao once again we live in modern America no way our government would start punishing people for speaking the truth. Hell that would take a tyrant. The right to petition the government. Our government would never intentionally wrong us, so not needed. Lastly the right to peacefully assemble…. You already need a permit, but really why would the government care if we get together to talk??
    So what the hell, we don’t need a 1st amendment because only a crazy person thinks our government would stop us from doing these things even with out it.
    Yeah it’s a stupid argument for sure, but no worse than telling me to give up my weapon because I’ll never need them. I’ve been in combat. I’ve used my weapon to protect myself, and my brothers, and God willing I will spend the rest of my life in peace. If how ever evil darkens my doorway I will do what ever it takes to protect those that I love, and if I die there will be boots on my feet, a gun in my hand, and a pillow made of brass under my head. Come get some!!

  79. CitizenOne
    August 9, 2019 at 23:25

    I lived in the South as a youth and can remember AR15s hanging on the back wall of the sports section of the local TG&Y department store. You could buy one for around $300. There were aisles of ammo and every type of reloading equipment as well as an assortment of gunpowders. Every type of handgun was on display in the display case. Everyone who owned a truck had a rifle rack in the window many stocked with rifles. And there were a whole bunch of bumper stickers with the familiar “They will take my guns away when they pry my cold dead hands from the barrel”. All the road signs especially in rural areas were shot to Hell and there was no better pastime than the enjoyment of firearms or hunting or vandalizing road signs. A life of enjoying firearms was kind of idyllic and shooting people was the last thing on anyone’s mind. In fact, people seemed more obsessed by tragic accidents like car wrecks where somebody made a mistake and paid the price. Gun owners were more concerned for their safety and the safety of others. People grew up learning how to handle a gun properly and it was a great responsibility.

    But after I moved away from the town of Edmond Oklahoma an employee of the Postal Service committed a mass murder in 1986 which gave rise to the phrase “going postal”.

    My experiences of living much of my childhood in Edmond have never reconciled with what happened there. Growing up in the land of guns where it was not even a second thought that guns were everywhere never caused me one second of anxiety. It was a place where your neighbors were your friends and nobody even thought to make sure their doors were locked or their kids were safe yet this place was the birthplace of the modern era of mass gun killings.

    To me there is a chasm or rift in my mind between the peaceful chock full of guns town I grew up in and what happened in that same town years later that gave rise to a national phrase for mass killing. I cannot connect the dots between that place where guns were a peaceful way of life and the actions of one person to commit mass murder.

    What I do know is that making owning guns illegal in that place would have been tantamount to inciting a revolution. The society had been at peace with and had no qualms with the ability of anyone to walk into a department store and buy an AR15 or a police style shotgun with a rotary ammo clip. There were no protest movements to ban the sale of those weapons and nobody I knew even thought about it as alarming. It was no more alarming than stocking up on the latest Bass lures fishing rods.

    I can also say that the lone gunman that started shooting at a post office had nothing to do with the easy availability of these types of weapons.

    What I also have come to believe is that the easy solution to make guns illegal should be met with caution as such laws have had little impact on illegal drug use. The saying that if you make guns illegal then only criminals will own them seems to fit perfectly with the current failure of drug laws to keep drugs off the street.

    Based on my experiences I do not think that banning guns of whatever type will do anything to solve this current problem and will alienate and anger an entire section of the population of this nation that are accustomed to the availability of these weapons and will react very angrily to the notion that they should give up their guns to prevent mentally disturbed people from committing mass murder.

    I remember conversations with old folks who recalled the days where even dynamite was something you could buy at the hardware store.

    On the other hand there has been a history of mental health and law enforcement officials to fail to act when the circumstances warranted it. The Texas Bell Tower shooter Charles Whitman had seen a minimum of five doctors between the fall and winter of 1965, before he visited a psychiatrist from whom he received no prescription. At some other time he was prescribed Valium by Dr. Jan Cochrum, who recommended he visit the campus psychiatrist. Whitman met with Maurice Dean Heatly, the staff psychiatrist at the University of Texas Health Center, on March 29, 1966. Whitman referred to his visit with Heatly in his final suicide note, writing, “I talked with a Doctor once for about two hours and tried to convey to him my fears that I felt come [sic] overwhelming violent impulses. After one visit, I never saw the Doctor again, and since then have been fighting my mental turmoil alone, and seemingly to no avail.” Heatly’s notes on the visit said, “This massive, muscular youth seemed to be oozing with hostility […] that something seemed to be happening to him and that he didn’t seem to be himself.””He readily admits having overwhelming periods of hostility with a very minimum of provocation. Repeated inquiries attempting to analyze his exact experiences were not too successful with the exception of his vivid reference to ‘thinking about going up on the tower with a deer rifle and start shooting people.'”

    Parents of Columbine high school contacted police to ask what could be done about the threats from Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. They were told there was nothing the police could do since they had not committed a crime.

    The Fort Lauderdale Airport shooter Esteban Santiago-Ruiz visited the FBI field office in Anchorage in November 2016 and reported that the U.S. government was controlling his mind and making him watch online videos by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and that he was being forced to join that group by the CIA.[38] He stated that he was hearing voices in his head telling him to commit acts of violence.

    The 2011 Tucson shooting where U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords and eighteen others were shot during a constituent meeting held in a supermarket parking lot in Casas Adobes, Arizona, in the Tucson metropolitan area. was perpetrated when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a parking lot. Former classmates stated Loughner (at the time) cared about his education due to his appreciation of knowledge. Because of teacher and student complaints about Loughner’s increasingly disruptive behavior in classes, the college suspended him on September 29, 2010, and he dropped out of the school in October. Loughner chose not to return, as the college required him to have a mental health evaluation and clearance to be readmitted.

    The Sutherland Springs church shooting by Devin Patrick Kelley might have been avoided. Kelley was prohibited by law from purchasing or possessing firearms and ammunition due to a domestic violence conviction in a court-martial while in the United States Air Force. The Air Force failed to record the conviction in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) National Crime Information Center database, which is used by the National Instant Check System to flag prohibited purchases. The error prompted the Air Force to begin a review.

    Northwest Airlines Flight 253 Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian man who had concealed plastic explosives in his underwear but failed to detonate them properly. Reports indicated that the U.S. had received intelligence regarding a powder bomb planned attack by a Yemen-based Nigerian man. While describing security measures taken by U.S. and foreign governments in the immediate aftermath of the attack, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, said, “once the incident occurred, the system worked.” She cited “the actions of the passengers and the crew on this flight” to show “why that system is so important.” After heavy criticism, she stated the following day that the system “failed miserably”, this time referring to Abdulmutallab’s boarding the flight with an explosive device. U.S. President Barack Obama called the U.S.’s failure to prevent the bombing attempt “totally unacceptable”, and ordered an investigation. It was Umar’s concerned parents that had alerted members of he US Nigerian Embassy concerned that their son was meeting with a known bomb maker and was planning to board a plane bound for the USA.

    Initial corrective actions proposed by FAA were to prohibit passengers access to the lavatory 10 minutes before landing. The investigation revealed that the Father of Umar had contacted CIA officials at the Nigerian Embassy to warn them of his son’s extremist views but he was allowed to board the plane.

    From local domestic terrorist events to international terrorist events there is mounting evidence that law enforcement, mental health professionals and federal agencies have all been involved in failures to correctly identify individuals that pose threats. The commonality between individuals that could have raised red flags and the failure to raise red flags resulting in mass murders becomes an overwhelming theme when we dig through the backgrounds of the perpetrators of these crimes.

    This mounting body of evidence into the failure to identify people who openly profess their desires to harm others is today magnified by the recent published manifestos of mass killers online and their links to violent extremist movements that preach violent action as the only solution to perceived problems in society.

    This is the root cause that needs to be solved. Taking guns away from the law abiding citizens that enjoy the recreational use of firearms which is deeply embedded in the social fabric of the Nation is not a solution.

  80. Curtis
    August 9, 2019 at 23:19

    The National Guard is 100% Federal troops. How silly you are to believe anyone thinks that they are anything else.

    • Sj
      August 10, 2019 at 10:31

      Well they are state funded troops but they can be federally activated

  81. CR
    August 9, 2019 at 23:08

    This is absolutely and utterly appalling. Every bit of these words have no place in a free society and this is the kind of oppressive propaganda I would expect to find on this outlet. Very disappointed this was promoted in any shape or form on this outlet. I may need a break from all the hogwash I just read. I actually feel ill and may vomit. I wonder how proud the writer would feel to know he would’ve had an opportunity to defend himself from tyranny, both foreign and domestic, but yet failed in that endeavor only to suffer a miserable tyrannical death and witness the death of loved ones because he promoted repealing a god driven right of self defense which includes protecting property. Which brings me to my next point. To be so entitled to wealth as to not imagine a situation of economics hand to mouth, that’s repugnantly erroneous. They didn’t use to justify self defense as a means of entitlement. It’s based upon a logical deduction of a natural negative right. You can’t own exclusively own property if you don’t have a right to defend it. You think they hung horse thieves because they were only cruel. If you didn’t have at least a mule you were pulling crops profitably. You might starve to death or foreclose to a bank. Ignorance and ungrateful ness, in my honest opinion.
    (In a nasally annoying voice, sardonically): “this could never happen in this country”.

  82. Eric32
    August 9, 2019 at 23:06

    I have had several posts EDITED, that is changed, over the last couple weeks.

    There wasn’t anything in them that nasty or offensive, no foul language.

    I spend some time and effort writing them up.
    I save them on my machine.
    I post them, and then sometimes when they appear on line, substantial parts are missing.

    What’s going on and who is taking it upon themselves to do this?

  83. Your mom
    August 9, 2019 at 22:38

    You can rightly go f yourself.

    The second amendment is TWO SEPERATE SENTANCES. One, stating that militias are necessary to a free state. The other clearly defining that a CITIZENS RIGHT, not a priviledge granted by government, to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed.

    They are two seperate ideas bundled into one.

    The people had just fought off a tyranical government, and wanted to insure that we the people, can do that again with our own government. ANYTHING the government can have, I should be able to have. To fight the federal government should they begin infringing upon my natural rights.

    Which if someone as crazy as you get into office, and call for my right to self preservation be taken away? The first thing im doing is forcibly removing you from office.

    • August 10, 2019 at 00:29

      I certainly DON’T support this writers Political Anti-2nd Amendment diatribe too promote “Authoritarianism and Governmental Paternalism!”

    • Passing By
      August 10, 2019 at 00:42

      You are apparently, grossly incapable of reading. They are not two separate sentences, it’s called a “comma”, not a period, and carries the same single sentence.

      “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.”

      The first clause is well regulated Militia, which being necessary to the security of the free State (second clause), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms (third clause), shall not be infringed (fourth clause). Because this was prefaced with the premises that the Militia, being well regulated, it is the people in the Militia that can keep and bear Arms.

      I am quite aware of the Supreme Court’s decisions on this, I’m a class 3 dealer and have been for decades. They’ve made a huge mistake because of pressure from the gun lobby by interpreting this the way that they do, as many legal scholars have attested to. Not the first time the Court has screwed up, but it’s clearly an error, leading to the dangerous conditions we have today. It needs to be rectified.

      • Freedom
        August 10, 2019 at 09:19

        You are partly right but completely wrong…
        The recognition that the malitia is necessary is correct. But it is the people of this nation who are the malitia (by the definition of the day).
        So therefore the “right of the people to keep (own/maintain) and bear (carry and use) arms (all items that may be used as a weapon) Shall Not Be Infringed. The Supreme Court had it correct but did not go far enough.

  84. August 9, 2019 at 22:23

    Wrong it’s to protect the citizen from the GOVERNMENT’S ARMY !!!

    • Dustin Yetman
      August 9, 2019 at 23:26

      ?????????????? what?!?! Who the hell gave you a computer to type on?

      • Jason Aguirre
        August 10, 2019 at 10:11

        He isn’t wrong…there are several well documented quotes from the founders about the potential for even their new government to become corrupt and necessitate the civilian population rising up to overthrow or restore it.

  85. Greg Cantin
    August 9, 2019 at 21:57

    All enemies. Foreign and DOMESTIC. Take a hike, Joe.

  86. Rodney Burch
    August 9, 2019 at 21:35

    When this happens we the people are subjects to a country that is so divided it could be two or three separate countries! So this is the United States of America with our constitution and Amendments no fork tongue individuals make up the decision of the whole country! So if we are to make a decision on this the whole country votes.

  87. Not Yo Daddy
    August 9, 2019 at 21:30

    Being new to CN, I see that I will not last here long. It doesn’t really matter about the twenty year old scribbler’s of this dribble background, because he’s so off on this issue, it’s pathetic.
    NRA he says, hijacked the 2nd amendment. It may sound good for an A.D.D. person, but in reality it’s an absurd statement. Hijacked, means what? It means to steal, to rob and/or to seize by force. Hey Joe, before it was hijacked, did the ammendment say to kiss any tyrannical government soldier or a bureaucrat? Did it say anything else – other than mention guns? If it had, only then you would have had a valid point – that the NRA have hijacked the 2nd ammendment. NRA exists simply to protect United States citizens from people like you. You’re the hijacker, Joe! There is too much to explain here to Joe, but thank G_d I’m not his daddy, thus it isn’t my job.

    • aaron luras
      August 9, 2019 at 22:29

      Well said.

  88. Greg Grady
    August 9, 2019 at 21:24

    You need to read Federalist Papers especially 29 which points out that the citizens are the malitia not “the national guard” which is simply a State run military. The purpose as you point out was for the citizens to protect themselves from a permanent State military which the National Guard is. As well as the Federal military, though neither of these are officially permanent, they need to be re-approved regularly.
    The framers would be mortified, that there was no one there who was armed to defend themselves and others.

  89. Matt Roth
    August 9, 2019 at 21:21

    Joe, you ignore or fail to mention that Adam’s, Jefferson, Madison and many other “anti Federalists” actually put the right to keep and bear arms in the constitutions of Massachusettes, VA and PA…and later MA and NC among others. The clause you hold as primary…is secondary to “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed” which you choose to ignore. The first ten amendments are INDIVIDUAL rights. That secondary clause was to appease the Federalists–it doesn’t take away “the right of the people”.

    This is not a “States Right” to create militias…it is an individual right…citizens shall not be deprived of the right to self defense and one of the primary goods is to defend liberty against tyranny, a secondary goodness is ensure citizens are well versed in the use and access to arms…the population IS the militia.

    Patrick Henry, the fiery patriot of the American Revolution, said: “The great object is that every man be armed…. Everyone who is able may have a gun.” Richard Henry Lee, a fellow Virginian and member of the first Senate, wrote: “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.” And George Mason, also a Virginian, declared: “To disarm the people [is] the best and most effective way to enslave them.

  90. August 9, 2019 at 21:08

    Its too bad not every cracked pot liberal agrees with you, since all the mass shooters are liberals. Swimming pools kill more people every year, but your’re not going to get my pool either.

  91. August 9, 2019 at 21:01

    You’re one f@cked up SOB.

  92. lizzie dw
    August 9, 2019 at 20:58

    I would feel safer on the streets if everyone was carrying a gun.

  93. lizzie dw
    August 9, 2019 at 20:57

    repeal the second amendment? not in a million years.

  94. FIT101
    August 9, 2019 at 20:54

    Realist, I agree with your thought process of ‘Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. But to have it and not be proficient in using it accurately is akin to not having it at all. May I suggest you get in some range time and training? Part of being a responsible gun owner is learning how to properly fire it with confidence.

  95. August 9, 2019 at 20:51

    The second amendment was written to protect citizens from a tyrant government. Ours included.

  96. Timothy Moore
    August 9, 2019 at 20:51

    Clever words to be sure but misleading as can be. Every individual is born with the right to life AZ nd the right to defend that life and the lives of those he or she is responsible for. Not an army. Not a militia. An individual who has the God given right to have the means relevant to the times meaning just as effective a means of self defense as an evildoer might have for instance a semi automatic rifle or pistol.
    No. We will never comply with the infringement of our right to live!
    We will not comply!

  97. Floy
    August 9, 2019 at 20:47

    You are so stupid. That amendment was for us to protect against foreign army’s and most of all a rouge government. Our government is not working and the people are pissed . We will never give up our guns. It’s there for a reason and that reason is slowly becoming reality.

  98. August 9, 2019 at 20:47

    Joe Lauria is a moron. The 2ndA is also to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic, like you Joe! People like joe here dont want you to also read up on what the fathers of the constitution said later on in life about it. The 2ndA isnt about hunting or any crap like that. It’s about being able to overthrow the governing body if they start to trample us and take away our rights and set themselves up as a dictatorship. Saying that the 2ndA is a relic is no different that saying the 1stA is a relic. They are are just as important today as when they were written. Also remember, without the 2ndA you cant defend the 1stA.

  99. Chet todd
    August 9, 2019 at 20:09

    Keep studying, you got a lot to learn about the constituion.

  100. August 9, 2019 at 20:01


    • August 10, 2019 at 00:17

      Well said!

      • Mo
        August 10, 2019 at 02:52

        So why didn’t the founding fathers add in a caveat for the second amendment to expire/be suspended once a standing army was established?

        Also, can the national guard protect you from armed home invasions?

  101. Snapturtle
    August 9, 2019 at 19:58

    The second amendment was put into place for tyrannical idiots like you. If the central or state government were to turn on its own people, as it’s been doing gradually, it’s civilian subjects would have no standing army. Thus the second amendment was written to PROTECT our rights to keep and bare arms, not grant them. Such ignorance.

  102. August 9, 2019 at 19:56

    This man’s article actually argues for the opposite point of view. We should get rid of the standing armies and go back to a nation guarded by its citizens. You know; the people who have the greatest amount of skin in this game.

  103. August 9, 2019 at 19:54

    Joe, I doubt either of us will live long enough to see the Second Amendment repealed. The reason is that this is largely a rural vs. urban issue.

    Folks who live out in the country tend to have a much different viewpoint about gun rights. That’s because they live so far away from first responders that they can’t look to first responders in an emergency. I’ve lived in such a situation myself; an hour and a half for a first responder to get to our farm if they bothered to come. So the means of self-defense is far more important to those living in rural areas. (And even in urban areas, the degree to which first responders actually assist can be deadly; for example, in the Columbine School Massacre, law enforcement did not enter the building until more than an hour after both gunmen had killed themselves, leaving the wounded to bleed.)

    Rural residents are also way more into hunting than urban folk, an activity that requires a weapon.

    Short story, it would be very hard to find a rural politician willing to vote for a repeal of the Second Amendment regardless of their personal feelings about gun rights.

    Most states have both urban and rural areas, but state senates in which there are sufficient senators from rural counties that a vote for repeal of the Second Amendment could easily be defeated. That makes ratification of an amendment to repeal about as likely as the sun rising in the west and setting in the east.

    And even should a repeal of the Second Amendment be successful, most (all?) states have equivalent provisions in their state Constitutions that would also have to be repealed to avoid a gun black market between states.

  104. Tenko
    August 9, 2019 at 19:42

    A February 1982 report by a Senate subcommittee that studied the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution concluded:

    The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.[1]:12

  105. August 9, 2019 at 19:41

    You are devoid of historical facts and full of garbage.

  106. August 9, 2019 at 19:34

    We have the Right to defend ourselves. It’s a God-given right,so keep your anti 2nd Amendment bullshit to yourself.

  107. August 9, 2019 at 19:31

    Where do these writers come from, and how can they be so out of touch?

    • Mo
      August 10, 2019 at 02:53

      So why didn’t the founding fathers add in a caveat for the second amendment to expire/be suspended once a standing army was established?

      Also, can the national guard protect you from armed home invasions?

  108. Eric32
    August 9, 2019 at 19:25

    O society (weird name) –

    You are a propaganda fed clown, trying to spread propaganda. You’re one of these nitwits that gets told rubbish, then can’t get it out of their deficient mind.

    You don’t have enough innate intelligence to be suspicious of and evaluate slanted junk that turns up on the internet, like on “Truthout”. The points you tried to raise:

    1) American militias O society > These state militia organized to catch runaway slaves and put down slave rebellions. That’s why the powers that be said you need a gun. To go catch slaves. That’s the purpose of a state militia in those days. Shay’s Rebellion 1786-7 civil rights militia men attack the government offices over inequality conditionsStronger national government *not* give people guns so they can overthrow the government. WTF would any founding father set up a government and then say, “Hey y’all, please go get some guns so you can over throw us and the government we set up ASAP”?!? That Charlton Heston NRA crap is crazy talk.The 3/5 Compromise says the black man isn’t a real human being like a white man, but he counts for something, so we’ll count him as 3/5 of a human being and make sure you guys have access to firearms so you can keep him in his place. And those are the last words of yours I am reading and the last time I spend time trying to have a civil discourse based in reality with you, Eric 32.<

    Reality???? Yes, now live up to that as you wander around in your own little world.

    LOL bye bye….

  109. Jim B Dare
    August 9, 2019 at 19:18

    On January 8, 1790, President George Washington delivered the very first Annual Message to a Joint Session of Congress (now known as the State of the Union address)

    A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a Uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.

  110. Todd Hardage
    August 9, 2019 at 19:11

    The National Guard is part of the United States Army. And, you fail to point out the standing army these Patriot militias opposed was actually their own army. Yes, believe it or not, the colonists were citizens of England. Your argument does not hold water.

  111. August 9, 2019 at 19:03

    The national guard is the state militia has already been debunked. The national guard is a creature of the federal government, not the state. It is merely on loan to the state. The president can deploy the national guard without the state’s permission. But the state cannot deploy without the presidents permission. Here in the Democratic peoples republic of Maryland, Larry Hogan as our present governor can lawfully deploy the Maryland defense force. Our official state militia authorized by legislation. Without permission from potus. And lastly we the people DO NOT need permission from any legislative body to form a citizens constitutional militia to enforce the supreme law of the land. Against userpticious multiple felons pissing on it

  112. August 9, 2019 at 18:59

    the writer apparently have no grasp of history.

  113. August 9, 2019 at 18:42

    This is the most ridiculous liberal see it my way article I have ever read. Americans will never we give up their guns just because u radical liberals want us too! That kid who shot up the Walmart in ElPaso was a liberal ! So I’m guessing the liberals are the nutty ones.

  114. Patrick
    August 9, 2019 at 18:41

    Actually, Jackson mentioned to citizens should be prepared to defend themselves from tyrannical governments…even our own. Sounds like we need to rise up and take down the tyrannical liberals. The 2nd amendment also states that it shall not be infringed upon…. Can’t be any clearer libertards

  115. August 9, 2019 at 18:34

    No messing with the second amendment once you take a right away from a citizen you never get it back. I don’t trust our government anymore I haven’t trusted it for quite a while because they’re trying to take our rights of freedom from us. It’s time that we fight back and keep our constitution together and no messing with the second amendment the first amendment or any amendments leave it alone that’s the right of the people leave it alone that’s what we want. Today Congress and the Senate one what they want for us know what we the people want so it’s wrong to even think about moving the Constitution or touching it. Yes violence is bad I agree 100% percent but this is not the way to stop it it has to stop first in schools in the home you need two parents to teach these kids right from wrong and that’s not happening today but my opinion on this is though no amendments changed in the Constitution leave it alone there are right. You’re taking a right away us protecting our families and ourselves and our belongings. we don’t need the government telling us anything else to do that’s why the Constitution the Bill of Rights were made so we would have our freedoms. Right or wrong there are freedoms that’s what we the people still want.

  116. Jerry gidster
    August 9, 2019 at 18:34

    The 2nd amendment is the body guard of the first…..it is not a recreational right. It has nothing to do with hunting ,fishing ,tennis or volleyball. It is there to safe guard our 1st amendment rights. When we lose our rights we lose it to army and police…not to the dog catcher. The citizen must possess the same arms and magazine capacity the police have. Judge Napolitano reminds us government’s have slaughtered more people than have died in all of nature’s calamities. The holocaust and the myriad other government organized slaughters were perpetrated by police. Every police department of nearly every country in Europe were murdering or assisting in the murder of their Jewish citizens. Police are paramilitary..they obey orders. They are necessary to keep the peace but they are a double edged sword. The framers knew that and in their brilliance they immunized the American people from the police organs of the state with the second amendment.

  117. BobbyNew
    August 9, 2019 at 17:59

    This guys is a fuuking reytarded person. Move to the UK you pansy if you hate guns so much. Last time I checked, my guns don’t fire by themselves. You can’t blame what ppl do on guns. If that’s the case, by your logic, we should outlaw cars too because cars cause more deaths per year than guns by a long shot.

  118. Old Sarge
    August 9, 2019 at 17:52

    Hey stupid. The 2nd amendment was ratified in 1789. Care to tell me the birthdays of the US Army, Navy, and Marines? Army-6/14/1775 Navy-10/13/1775 Marines 11/10/1775. Care to tell me again how the United States didn’t have a standing military? Revisionist history can’t change facts.

    • August 9, 2019 at 18:35

      Sarge, I think you misunderstood what Joe was saying. The debate at the Constitutional Convention was not over whether the U.S. had a standing army but whether it should continue to have one. The compromise struck was the provisions providing for the citizen militia and a provision requiring that no money could be appropriated for use by the standing army lasting more than two years. Hence, our biennial National Defense Authorization Act. But even that was not enough to attain ratification by all of the states, hence the Bill of Rights with its Second Amendment, buttressed by a series of state constitutions whose bills of rights proclaimed the right of revolution.And Congress quickly followed with the Posse Comitatus Act, which outlaws the willful use of any part of the Army or Air Force to execute the law unless expressly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress.

      The issue of a standing army was a very big deal at the Constitutional convention.

      Representative quotes from back when:

      “No man has a greater regard for the military gentlemen than I have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valour. But when once a standing army is established, in any country, the people lose their liberty.” — George Mason.

      “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in 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 band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.” — An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787

      “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.” — James Madison

      “Whenever a people… entrust the defence of their country to a regular, standing army, composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will remain under the direction of the most wealthy citizens.” — A Framer (Anonymous ‘framer’ of the US Constitution – Source: Independent Gazetteer, January 29, 1791).

  119. Scott Arnett
    August 9, 2019 at 17:39

    I might agree with this line of thought if the second amendment said the right of the states to arm a militia, but it doesn’t. It is Number two on the top ten and plainly states it is the right of the people. There is no context to that statement. It is short, sweet and to the point. Additionally it states “shall not be infringed”. Now I do agree that there is no need for fully automatic weapons, because if that need arose to fight tyranny there would be nothing to stop citizens from building there own or modifying existing guns. And the use of the term “assault rifles” is all about the cosmetic appearance of the gun, not of it’s bullets velocity or impact. So it becomes nonsense to even use the term.

    • Patrick
      August 9, 2019 at 18:45

      Liberals are the new Nazis party. The Nazis party in 38 disarmed it’s citizens. The only party in US history to round up citizens and put them in concentration camps have been the Democrats. They rounded up native Americans … Japanese Americans…etc
      Coincidence? I think not… history does repeat itself

    • August 9, 2019 at 19:01

      its automatic or semiautomatic. no fully of anything

  120. Realist
    August 9, 2019 at 17:38

    Sorry, Joe, but the conservatives convinced me 32 years ago that under certain circumstances it might be preferable to have access to a gun for the protection of oneself and one’s family. Every passing year suggests to me that this society is existing in only a precarious metastable state that is easily subject to economic collapse, social disorder and ensuing violence. The police and military authorities too often seem more the enemies of the American people than their protectors. Back in 1987, when even Michael Kinsley, an outspoken liberal pundit, conceded that the conservatives were correct about private gun ownership under the 2nd amendment, I purchased two semi-automatic handguns and stored them away in separate locations within my house. I have never since ever fired either one of them, not even at a practice range. I may look at them once every few years to make sure they are still there. But there they are just in case civil order breaks down and I may have to defend myself, my friends or my neighbors from domestic bandits or even the malign actions of a police state run wild. Why should only the bad guys be armed? Frankly, such scenarios seem much more proximate threats than any invasionary forces of Russians, Iranians or Chinese.

    • FIT101
      August 9, 2019 at 20:54

      Realist, I agree with your thought process of ‘Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. But to have it and not be proficient in using it accurately is akin to not having it at all. May I suggest you get in some range time and training? Part of being a responsible gun owner is learning how to properly fire it with confidence.

  121. Greg Chase
    August 9, 2019 at 17:34

    Yes…. Change the meaning of the second amendment for your agenda. The amendment doesn’t give the right if INDIVIDUALS to keep and bear arms, it confirms the GOD given right. We don’t need a piece of paper to protect ourselves. Try and find out.

    • Steve
      August 9, 2019 at 20:15

      Which God? Whose God? What if I don’t believe in your God? Sounds like reactionary defensiveness.

    • Kenneth Schnitzmeier
      August 9, 2019 at 21:10

      You are an idiot.

  122. August 9, 2019 at 17:29

    Pretty revisionist view of history. It wasn’t militias that beat the British. It was trained soldiers. You might not like it but in 1776 no one had any doubt about the right to defend themselves, their family or their propert with their personally owned arms. Nearly every adult male had a gun.

    • August 9, 2019 at 20:00

      You clearly have no idea what your talking about.

  123. Richard Boucher
    August 9, 2019 at 17:18

    In World War II we have the National Guard and a standing army However the reason the Japanese never attacked the mainland United States is because one of the Japanese generals said There is a gun behind every blade of grass meaning the citizens of the United States were armed and they could not win the 2nd in them at is still prevalent today My guns have never jumped up and shot anybody it’s not a gun problem it’s a People problems

  124. August 9, 2019 at 17:06

    So the campaign for a coup d’etat against the American people continues. Now Consortium News gives you a platform to join the assault.
    I might suspect you of working for the forces of global empire as an undercover agent posing as a common, concerned citizen. But in actuality, you are probably just another gullible, uninformed dupe.

    Some people have somehow been convinced that support for the elitist gun control agenda is a liberal position. It has practically become a definition of liberalism. Fortunately, not all liberal minded people agree.

    I would ask, how is it liberal to:
    1) give government absolute power over the people?
    2) to distrust The People but trust Big Brother to do the right thing?
    3) to give no weight to the value of personal liberty and freedom?
    4) to mock and denigrate the strongly held beliefs and values of well over 1/3 of your fellow citizens?

    I was proud to call myself a liberal all my life. Now the word makes me ashamed, not only because of gun control. Many liberals these days are nothing but Democrats, which is almost as far from liberal as Republican. You must be a Democrat. Are you positioning yourself to get a job working for Michael Bloomberg?

    Please don’t come back with the standard gun control reply “I support the second amendment and only want ‘common sense’ reforms”, because there is no common sense in the reforms being proposed. They are not intended to save lives. They would have no effect in minimizing gang violence or stopping occasional nuts from committing heinous acts. The Gun Control Lobby’s only mission is to eliminate private gun ownership. And who would benefit from that?

    I will encourage Consortium News to discontinue publishing your work. Propaganda has no place on that site.

    • ML
      August 9, 2019 at 19:34

      Bill N, as to your comment that, “I will encourage Consortium News to discontinue publishing your work” regarding Joe’s article…. uh, seeing as how the publisher of this work happens to be the editor in chief of Consortium News, it is doubtful your encouragement will be fruitful. Lol.

      • TalleyUp
        August 12, 2019 at 17:50

        ML, I think Bill N meant what he said exactly. That’s my take anyway. And btw, I just read today that the UN, which JL covered for 20 years as a journalist, is pressuring the USA to open its borders and also allow more abortions; both. In other words, pushing for globalism and it’s leftist agenda (AGENDA 21, now 30, I believe).

  125. The American Crusader
    August 9, 2019 at 17:01

    This article is typical of anti gun activists who cherry pick pieces of history to misrepresent the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. This author correctly describes the Founder’s concern over large standing Federally controlled armies while entirely missing the point that the 2nd Amendment is intended to ensure the THE PEOPLE retain the means to defend against the tyranny of a large powerful federal government and any army such government may impress to oppress and tyrannize The People.

  126. Kevin
    August 9, 2019 at 16:59

    You are so misguided and ignorant, this is both disturbing and laughable! Your understanding of the second amendment is utterly asinine!

  127. Tom Cook
    August 9, 2019 at 16:56

    Did the author even read their own article? The US armed forces is not the largest standing army ever assembled!
    2nd per the authors own words “soliders are apt to consider themselves as a body distinct from the test of the citizens” being ex-military I can pretty much agree with that. The standing military takes its orders from the government, those that are threatened by our rights and liberties. The national guard is not the militia as it to is commanded by the same government that is threatened by the rights and liberties of its citizens.

    The author also left out a very important part of the 2a… it was drafted so citizens could protect their rights from tyrants foreign and DOMESTIC. Without our 2a threat to our government they would do as they please and abolish the constitution all together leaving its citizens at the mercy of that government.

    Yes the recent mass shootings is a tragedy but that does not make the 2a “rationale lost to history”

    Millions of law abiding citizens of this great country own guns without incidence, but when a few in-law abiding citizens commit these horrific crimes, the rest of the citizens are called to bow down to the government and give up our rights and protections. Yet when our goverment commits these crimes they go unpunished to continue with the tyranny against its citizens. ( referring to to 100s of the unjustified police killings of citizens every year ie domestic tyranny)

    I can see why the author no longer works for any reputable news sources with his views. I bet he would defend the 1a with his life if the government would go to repeal it. But he has no problem calling for the repeal of the 2a. Sir how are you to defend your 1a without the 2a?

  128. Newshound
    August 9, 2019 at 16:45

    Interesting comments. I’d love to know how many of these are real people and how many are bots and trolls. “BigK” — a man of very few words? “O Society” — is that a sequel to “Mr Robot”? “R” — someone who really, really, wants to stay in the shadows, except for peeking out to spout nonsense. And my favorite, “Mr.jack Yrself”. who provides both a commentary and a description of what we’ll be doing if we follow his advice. Nice.

  129. Deniz
    August 9, 2019 at 16:38

    Lauria seems to have missed history class when they discussed Sherman’s Scorched Earth Policy. Our criminal aristocracy would have no problem turning the US into another Iraq if it meant they would have to relinquish power. After they slaughter half of America, including wives and children, they would deal with it by writing the history books to state that the Rebels aligned with Putin but Schumer and Pelosi saved the country.

    I am not a fan of guns, but the cure is far worse than the disease.

  130. August 9, 2019 at 16:36

    Your a communist.you take your lilly white a$$ out of my America your the one that dont fit. Itll take power your kind will never have to get my and all true patriots guns.your stupid story does not and will not hold water.you seem to forget how this country was founded and protected.lillys such as yourself only know how to cowtow to the democrats.WE ARE NOT GIVING ANYTHING TO THE LIKES OF YOU COMMIE

  131. Gr
    August 9, 2019 at 16:31

    The writer doesn’t know what he is talking about all of forefathers let their resons for writing the second amendment be know lack of knowledge is a dangerous in the hands of the of someone that has a agenda in mind stop writing on something you know nothing about

  132. Brock Landers
    August 9, 2019 at 16:25

    Anyone who is against owning/possessing firearms legally should be required by law to post on their property or business a sign that is large & clearly legible stating “THIS IS A GUN FREE ZONE” but we all know the Constitution haters aren’t BRAVE enough to do so!…Also the fix to most or all violence is to pre-screen anyone who has the NEED to CONCEIVE A CHILD by submitting to a Criminal, Psychological, Financial/Credit & Employment background checks & I GUARANTEE that MOST will not qualify to reproduce! Now for the wave of haters coming my way so bring it!

  133. Mark
    August 9, 2019 at 16:12

    The 2ND was written to protect people from a tyrannical government. Got to be a militia for a country it did not have a standing army. I love the way you anti-gun lobbyist like the mutilate the first words of the amendment. You love to transform well regulated militia into a form of government and try to make it into your own definition to fit your own cause. But yet the second half of the amendment the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is something you never touched. Why is this because there’s only one way to interpret shall not be infringed. I bet that if a government or people of a political party wanted to do background checks on journalists and have licenses for journalist and clearances I want they write or decide to report on the first thing you would scream is that’s a violation of my first amendment rights.

    • Skip Scott
      August 10, 2019 at 07:01

      Lots of luck standing up to a tyrannical government with the arms we are allowed to possess. Nowadays they could do a drone strike on your house, and you’d never know what hit you. Just like bringing a knife to a gun fight, you’d be bringing a gun to a missile fight. So maybe the answer is we should all be allowed to have predator drones? Maybe a couple home operated nuclear missiles?

  134. Jim Schue
    August 9, 2019 at 16:10

    To the O.P:

    Section 2 of article 1 is irrelevant because another amendment (the 13th) was passed to make it so. If you want to repeal the Second amendment, then repeal it–don’t illegally infringe upon it. In this limited sense, you are as lawless as the shooters we abhor.

  135. August 9, 2019 at 15:54

    The 2nd Amendment was written so the people could arm themselves against an oppressive government. Among other reasons.

    I love my country. But if my government ever decides that it does not exist to protect my rights, I will take up arms against it. Same as I would if the Russian or Chinese or Iranian or any other government tried to take my freedoms from me.

    We aren’t there yet, but we do have an Antifa who wants to take away my free speech. We do have people like the author of this article who want to take away my guns. We do have Kamala Harris running for president who wants to take away the rights of anyone who is anti-abortion. On the other side we have a president who wants to take away rights of non-citizens and a governor in my state who wants to illegally extend rights to illegal aliens.

    We do need gun reform. But there has never been a time where the 2nd Amendment is more necessary than right now.

    There are those who abuse that right just as there are those that abuse every right afforded by the US Constitution. But we don’t take away free speech just because someone publishes donors to the Trump campaign. And we don’t take away law-abiding citizen’s right to defend themselves because of a few abusers.

    The lives of thousands of people are saved every year because of our RIGHT to bear arms. If someone actually starts taking guns away, I think everyone knows many more lives will be lost than saved.

  136. Steve Strange
    August 9, 2019 at 15:53

    Joe Lauria is a stupid asshole. To deny average citizens access to firearms. That’s what the socialists want, to disarm the average American citizen so they can take over. Guess again. There are millions of us.

  137. Tedder
    August 9, 2019 at 15:51

    This is a pretty busy and confused comments section, but still…
    The Second Amendment primarily preserved the State Militias that were useful for killing Indians in order to steal their land; secondarily, it allowed for Slave Patrols to preserve the institution of slavery.
    There might have been other reasons as well, but for a right to own an AR-15, forget about it!

    • August 9, 2019 at 19:05

      @ “The Second Amendment primarily preserved the State Militias…”

      No. Militias were organized at the local level, not the state (there were no states before the Constitution was adopted, only independent republics). They became partly subject to state governance pursuant to the Constitution’s Article 1, section 8, enumerating the powers of Congress:

      “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…”

      The militias initially retained a large bit of self-governance under the constitutional scheme.

    • August 10, 2019 at 12:20


  138. Neil
    August 9, 2019 at 15:50

    The guns never hurt anyone ,it’s the people that pull the trigger. Should we ban cars that kill people everyday? It is a lack of punishment from our legal system that tempts convicted felons to possess firearms. When caught they should be severely punished not just slapped on the wrist. When these mass shooters are caught they should be hung or decapitated in public so others would think twice. It is crazy as hell to think banning guns will stop criminals acts, if anything it will increase due to lack of self defense. It is time that we as a nation realize we need stiffer laws for crooks and not make things difficult for the law abiding citizens. Wake up people!!

  139. Rick Kean
    August 9, 2019 at 15:28

    Your Handler put you up to this?
    I’m armed to protect myself from your Bleeding Hearts and Tyrannical Governments of all stripe.
    Come on down to Dallas or Houston and suggest repeal, Joe, or, better yet, confiscation.
    I doubt it will end well.

    • Nick
      August 9, 2019 at 15:50

      ‘Come On down here and say that.’ Do you know what tyranny is? It’s threatening people who use words with physical violence. Which is what gun owners want. ‘It’s my way or I’ll blow you away.’ And you say you wanna fight tyranny.

      • Rick Kean
        August 9, 2019 at 19:32

        I never threaten; just a wakeup call, that’s all. If you’re uncomfortable, find your safe space.

      • Rick Kean
        August 9, 2019 at 19:53

        Nick, I never threaten. If I’ve made you feel threatened, I’d suggest retreating to a safe space.

    • ML
      August 9, 2019 at 16:31

      You sound dangerous to good people everywhere. Keep calm and don’t carry…

    • August 9, 2019 at 16:32

      Your a communist.you take your lilly white a$$ out of my America your the one that dont fit. Itll take power your kind will never have to get my and all true patriots guns.your stupid story does not and will not hold water.you seem to forget how this country was founded and protected.lillys such as yourself only know how to cowtow to the democrats.WE ARE NOT GIVING ANYTHING TO THE LIKES OF YOU COMMIE

      • Nick
        August 9, 2019 at 19:09

        Yeah you don’t sound like a tyrant at all.

    • Nick
      August 9, 2019 at 22:43

      I don’t ever feel threatened because I can back myself up with my fists. And I never said you threatened anyone, I just used your language as an example of how idiots don’t think.

  140. Keith Perrin
    August 9, 2019 at 15:27

    I agree with you 100%

  141. Nick
    August 9, 2019 at 15:14

    India was able to rebel against Britain (an empire armed to the teeth) without use of a single firearm. Passive resistance won that revolution. Anyone who thinks pointing a gun at people will save them from tyranny rather than turning them into a tyrant themselves clearly doesn’t think at all.

    • Richard miksell
      August 9, 2019 at 19:39

      How did passive resistance do for the Jews? Did they win over the Germans. Should we have not fought back against the Japanese. Do you think we would have won that?

      • Nick
        August 9, 2019 at 22:38

        Maybe we shouldn’t have put the Japanese in a corner and dared them to do something about it. Maybe we shouldn’t have helped European tyrants, all of whom were responsible for WWI, put Germany in a corner and thus facilitate the rise of Adolph Hitler. It certainly would have helped if American industry didn’t help Germany rearm after the rise of Hitler. What helps is people banding together to put a stop to things like this. Not falling for the lies of people who want power only and don’t care about your life. That’s how you stop it. Not with a gun.

    • John S
      August 10, 2019 at 09:49

      Good comments Nick, although — because they’re humanistic, coherent, and the words are spelled correctly — they seem out-of-place in this particular Comments page…

      • Nick
        August 10, 2019 at 16:43

        Haha, for real man! This is absolute insanity here on this post.

  142. August 9, 2019 at 15:12

    There is nothing “wrong” with the Second Amendment.
    The problem is the idiotic (and bought and paid-for) interpretation of the Supreme Court.
    The words of the Second Amendment begin, “A well-regulated militia….”
    It says nothing about any nut-job or group of nut-jobs having access to weapons of war without some form of governmental approval such as from the elected bodies of the States, Counties, or Cities.
    We need to recognize that “Well-regulated militia” as the intended definition and go back to it, as well as recognize that the NRA has become a Terrorist Organization and needs to be disbanded.

    • Jim
      August 9, 2019 at 16:28

      Well regulated, as used and understood by the authors of the 2nd ammendment, is as follows- ” suitably equipped and in good order”. I.e. a well regulated watch. It by no means restricted, diminished, nor blatently ignored.
      Also, the militia, as referred to in the 2nd ammendment is NOT the government, military, nor law enforcement. It is on fact every citizen except them.

    • August 10, 2019 at 00:37

      Allan Hyde@ You obviously have absolutely no understanding of the US Constitution/Bill of Rights, and those that pertain to the people (individual). As well the lack of interest in general. Shillimg to promote “Authoritarianism amd Governmental Paternalism!”

    • John S
      August 10, 2019 at 00:40

      Yes, in a way I agree with both you and Joe L. The 2nd Amendment reads:

      “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.“

      In a 1992 opinion piece, six former American attorneys general wrote:

      “For more than 200 years, the federal courts have unanimously determined that the Second Amendment concerns only the arming of the people in service to an organized state militia; it does not guarantee immediate access to guns for private purposes. The nation can no longer afford to let the gun lobby’s distortion of the Constitution cripple every reasonable attempt to implement an effective national policy toward guns and crime.”*

      Then, thanks to ‘canned-hunt’ Scalia and the ‘Heller’ decision, it was reinterpreted (for political pandering purposes) as an individual right in 2001.

      Realistically, it should never have been reinterpreted like that and ideally that should be overruled by subsequent SC decisions, but unfortunately we’ve been going in the wrong direction since then, so I don’t see that happening. Maybe after enough slaughtering of school children and other innocents takes place people will rise-up and vote for repeal of the 2nd Amendment, in spite of all the phony arguments of the gun-nuts as displayed on this Comments page and elsewhere. In a modern urban society, armed individuals other than police/military are a dangerous anachronism. We HAVE peaceful ways (including non-violent resistance, voting, legal recourse, and even social media) to effect change in our society — widescale armed rebellion in the US would be disastrous for everyone involved, even if it were possible, rather than a wet-dream that gun-nuts like to throw around.

      * Washington Post. October 3, 1992. Retrieved May 23, 2018 – via http://www.washingtonpost.com.

  143. DisgustedwithDisbelief
    August 9, 2019 at 15:04

    Simply put….the person who wrote this article…is an idiot.

  144. Corey
    August 9, 2019 at 14:50

    So your point is that the founding fathers didn’t like standing armies because they could be used against civilians, but because we have them civilians don’t need guns?

    You’re some kind of backwards logic, my guy.

  145. Ruppert Baird
    August 9, 2019 at 14:45

    Why do you and I need the Second Amendment? Just look at Venezuela.

    • Tedder
      August 9, 2019 at 15:45

      And what do you see in Venezuela? The ‘opposition’ kills people by stretching wires across roads at motorcycle rider head height or by starting fires. They don’t need guns to kill people.

  146. Michael Gagnier
    August 9, 2019 at 14:44

    So, what you’re saying is that now, a distrust for government is an antiquated point of view and we should all surrender our weapons to our clearly incorruptible government?

    • hans
      August 9, 2019 at 15:44

      The 2nd Amendment never gave us the right to own firearms. It was a compromise so we disn’t have to have a standing army in peacetime. The militia was a tool of the US government, not permission for citizens to own firearms. The ”well regulated militia” was used to supress slave and farmer uprisings. This was the total and complete opposite of the modern day NRA interpretation.

    • David Casso
      August 9, 2019 at 16:55

      I don’t think anyone distrusts the government more than the folks who write and regularly comment here at Consortium News. Which is why I question the 2nd amendment as interpreted by our compromised elected officials. You seem to be under the impression that your government has been working hard to take away your guns when, in fact, the EXACT OPPOSITE has been true (at least in my lifetime). The government has ALLOWED and SUPPORTED the arming of American citizens…to ridiculus levels. This is simply the reality. So, as someone who distrusts the government, I have to ask why is there such a strong desire from the powers that be to keep us armed and fearful? Surely the weapon makers benefit. But I think it also helps our mafia government in many different ways.

  147. August 9, 2019 at 14:43

    All the mass shooting this past weekend one need to look at the chicago crime rate in a stringent gun law state 53 shooting happened in chicago the same days as the mass shootings but no one will ever hear of the chicago .ny.la crimes rates cause the mass shooting only help the left wing medias agenda

  148. Danny Whitehurst
    August 9, 2019 at 14:40

    Alcohol kills. It’s legal. Cars kill. They’re legal.
    Cigarettes kill. Their legal. Citizens are mostly responsible. We need the second amendment to protect citizens from an overbearing ever increasing socialist
    Government. Their are too many laws enacted that hurt honest citizen’s rights to try to curb dishonest citizen’s desire to break the law. The proposed Red Flag Law is a disgusting gun grab that violates due process. A typical gun grab from the left. The majority of the millions of American gun owners do not commit crimes. Of the millions of those that have mental issues a very small amount commit criminal acts. Quit trying to screw the majority. This is supposed to be a majority ruled government. But little by little small factions of America are deciding they should decide who runs the country.

  149. Mr.jack Yrself
    August 9, 2019 at 14:32

    You’re such a left-wing tool you have no idea what the second amendment was added for it was for the right of the people to defend their self from their own government you dumbass do your research and pull your head out of your ass look at all the communist and socialist countries the first thing they do to take over is disarm the people!

    • Tedder
      August 9, 2019 at 15:46

      Mr jack, the Second Amendment primarily kept the guns useful for killing Indians and terrorizing slaves.

  150. Matt
    August 9, 2019 at 14:26

    Shall not be infringed!

  151. Bruce Fairbanks
    August 9, 2019 at 14:25

    The real problem is leftists believe that the protection of the citizenry lays firmly with the government. A government that takes an average of 15 minutes to respond to a break in while the people inside that home are victims since they’ll never be able to defend themselves. I, for one, don’t trust the government to protect me or anyone that I love. I carry a gun every day, everywhere I go and no one ever knows because I don’t go waving it around like an idiot. I don’t threaten people with it simply because they disagree with me politically. But I do follow the law. I simply don’t enter a “gun free zone” because that takes me from my own protector, to potential victim in the space of time it takes me to place my gun in the lockbox that I have in my vehicle. “Gun free zones” are where all mass murders take place. They know that they’ll be unopposed when they open fire.

    But the left keeps pushing a gun control agenda as much as people pushed the “kill all the cats, they carry the plague” happed during the black death. That’s because they refuse to look at the underlying causes of why people are doing these horrific attacks.

    • Tom Cook
      August 10, 2019 at 07:49

      Remember the Supreme Court stated that it is not the job of the police to defend the public. its job is to enforce law hence their name of LAW Enforcement not public defenders.

  152. August 9, 2019 at 14:24


  153. August 9, 2019 at 14:23

    Number 1The national guard Is not Militia it’s part of the u.s armed forces. Number 2 accountably and mental health is the problem. As American we have the right to bear arms Legally Is anybody holding the illegal arms dealers accountable that cross state lines to sell illegal guns to the same degree as the crime the gun was used for. Are mental health check or social media look at before the weapon is purchased . Mabe this should be the way its done. Hold someone accountable for the crime of there gun let’s be for real u can’t lose or have bin robbed of uer weapons 10 times a year, looking someone up on social media takes minutes to see someone’s state of mind , I’m all for the 2nd amendment and the 2nd amendment can’t be stopped . But there some that shouldn’t have that right, there people who have committed minor crimes who’s rights have bin removal that can be considered unjust but a person who has purchased 30 weapons in a year and lost half or had the stolen isn’t checked, or the person on Facebook show mass depressed and Destructive behavior is ok . We all should be able to own a gun I think but we all know that not everyone should .its not easily fix but I think it’s a start

  154. robert e williamson jr
    August 9, 2019 at 14:18

    To Murder Liberals, thank you sir so much for furnishing me an example, some how I don’t think i could have gotten away with writing what you so graphically described. Once again thanks so much for the assistance in my proving a point.

  155. August 9, 2019 at 14:15

    Even if we were to vote the 2cnd amendment as being irrelevant, absurd, and downright dangerous as all the socialist nervous Nellies would have us do, We would still have that niggling factor of potential tyrannical abuse by governance using state assets (e.g. military, NG) to argue. Soldiers do not make policy nor do make decicions; they follow orders.

  156. R.
    August 9, 2019 at 14:11

    No sir I have a right to bear arms to be able to defend myself from all enemies foreign and domestic which is a tyrannical government. The problem in America is not a gun problem it’s a people problem. And a problem of our children are being systematically indoctrinated into political wars. Everything is politically correct or it is removed. Lest we learn from the past we will repeat the past. You cant make it disappear and learn from it. Also I would like to know how these laws are going to change anything. How many years have we had laws for methamphetamine and that is working out great for us…….

  157. robert e williamson jr
    August 9, 2019 at 14:09

    Boy after reading some of these comments I’d buy everyone here a copy of this book, if I could afford to. All here could benefit profusely from reading it. This story is amazing and what makes it amazing is knowing the amount of land that changed hands in twelve short years.

    During Vietnam LBJ and RMN coluded to let the war in Vietnam continue on so Tricky Dick could get the credit for ending it. SEE or listen (I did)) to Ken Hughes Chasing Shadows, Virginia press- he had to tapes on line at Chasing Shadows for some time, it’s down now.

    So LBJ waited and Kissinger massaged the situation for all it was worth to him and another 18K or so more U.S. children died as well as thousands of Vietnamese.

    I have news folks every country this country has troops in wishes it only lost s many children to gun violence as America does.

    Apparently it’s only American kids that Americans hate to see die because we sure as hell put up with the bull shit that come out of D.C. claiming, as I might remind you Madeleine Albright said 500,000 Iraqi dead children were worth it.

    So sure lets keep little Johnny and little Suzy safe so we can send them off to endless wars for profit and empire.

    We cannot continue to have it both ways the world has grown so small with instantaneous world wide communications there are no longer any secrets for very long.

    So we American now find ourselves, our serious inner thoughts naked to the world. Time to wake up and smell whats cooking world wide “youngin’s”.

  158. August 9, 2019 at 14:03

    The Consortium News comment section was hijacked by trolls.

    Did y’all call your mom over at the FoxNews comment section and let her know you’ll be over here today?


    • Jim
      August 9, 2019 at 16:40

      By your logic, the antiquated 1rst amendment is no longer relevant, nor necessary. You, apparently, have no understanding of the purpose of the 2nd amendment, nor of the Bill of Rights in general. Its sole purpose is to restrict the government; not the civillian citizenry. The 2nd amendment is no less valid, and no less relevant than any other rights addressed in the Bill of Rights, and no more subject to restrictions nor limitations than the others. Unless you willingly accept the EXACT same restrictions and limitations on ALL of your other protected rights, you are nothing more than a hypocrite.

      • August 9, 2019 at 18:21

        So which one do you need to defend yourself from, Jim? The merciless Indian savages or the 3/5 of a human Negro slaves?

  159. August 9, 2019 at 13:58

    Your erroneous opinion is not only an emotional anti-American attempt to defy constitutional law, but an opinion that is NOT shared by the majority of voting electorate who are taking a stand to protect rights predicated on facts. HONOR our vote and stop your aberrant drive toward New World Order!

  160. Michael
    August 9, 2019 at 13:48

    “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

  161. Sorensen
    August 9, 2019 at 13:43

    Nope not taking my fire arms. I’m a military veteran my weapons are my tools to protect my family. Just bc dumb people do bad things does not mean you punish the good ones. My thought is this why didn’t anyone go to sporting goods section of Walmart get a shot gun and protect those in need before LEO got on scene.

    • bigK
      August 9, 2019 at 14:20

      This article totally misses the reason for the 2’nd Amendment. It is not that we fear the military, but rather that we have learned that no government can be completely trusted. History is ripe with examples of governments who, once they have complete power over a population, will exploit and abuse that power to the detriment and even demise of those under them.

  162. Jay
    August 9, 2019 at 13:34

    Your an ass!

  163. robert e williamson jr
    August 9, 2019 at 13:26

    Sure the framers would be shocked. Shocked that someone killed brown people instead of red people.

    Or maybe they wouldn’t since they were instrumental in having “Indians and settlers who squatted on government or “their” land, burnt out by mercenaries or fed troops.

    I have the greatest respect for you Joe and so I suggest you read “Theft of Ohio” , 1783-1795 by Gale Richard Walker, ISBN-13:
    978-0-9832342-9-6 Library of Congress: 2016953687 TURAS publishing http://www.TurasPublishing.com available on Amazon

    The wealthy declared war on the native Americans and anyone else who got in their way.

    I left the Army in May of 1970 just in time to get home and learn of Kent State. It left an impression I have never lost.

    When I learned that a private citizen could buy and AR-15 I was shocked. But that sh0ck turned to dismay when I learned how many were being bought. Now millions are in the hands of just about anyone who can come up with the money to buy one.

    Hundreds of ghost guns are being built legally everyday, and those guns are the simple to construct AR-type rifle.

    Now I’m not so concerned about the average Joe as I am the hate filled hold over from the Civil War who is crazed by his miserable existence. He never learned a thing in school, if he finished, he can’t identify with women and often hates them and everyone else.

    So you or anyone else who expects me to have faith that a totally dysfunctional federal government will protect me or anyone else you are not living in the real world.

    Yes I totally agree this is really screwed up all of it but it will get worse if bad guys, cops and soldiers are the only ones with firearms.

    Sort of ironic that someone like me so sick of war feels the need for protection from his government right? Well maybe not when you realize that a vast majority of citizens in the U.S. find themselves diametrically opposed to the Israeli government and it’s policies. A government that wantonly kills unarmed civilians, just like our forefathers and the framers of the Constitution. And do it with total impunity.

    So which is it Joe do you read this book and get a real feel for those blood letting framers and founding fathers and come to grips with our true history and we make these steps of acknowledging those framers and founders bloody past was of genocide on everyone who stood in “Their path, or do we included continue to stick our heads in the sand.

    Note for clarification on this period history Dr. Walker’s book is invaluable. Seven hundred pages of text, each chapter with it’s own pages of end notes, 100 pages of appendices, 893 pages of raw information about the topic – non-fiction – the brutal truth of our early history and the lives of the indigenous people and the slaves the wealthy owned for the 100 or so years. A highly documented and richly noted sad history of the greatest Americans, the American Indian.

    I am of the firm opinion the this book should be required reading and the subject of serious debate for all who wish to graduate from high school.

    I sincerely mean no disrespect here but our framers didn’t have 2019 in mind when they created their constitution and they didn’t have peace in mind when the waged a genocidal war on the natives. Our present Supreme Court however seems to think so.

    Do we put this is into the context of today’s reality of a country flooded with weapons of war with a president and congress who are terrified of the country’s true past and what it might mean to all of us. These people are cowards and their bowing to those of affluent means and selling their services to the highest bidder (congress) so they too can be members of the wealthy elitist super-wealthy (SWETS) are the proof. Both friggin’ parties Joe.

    Joe U.S. law enforcement continues to shoot unarmed individuals in the back and everywhere else with impunity and the OPTICS are truly terrible.

    To anyone who thinks you know this early history, especially of the Ohio Valley I suggest this book. It was not an easy read for me but I got through it and it’s stuck in my head now like a bad dream. This ugliness of mans treatment of his fellow man. They did it to the Indian and the black African , the Chinese , whites and now anyone who isn’t with them.

    Where was this Constitution 1783-1795?

    Thanks again for putting up with such a crass-ass!

  164. Hammer
    August 9, 2019 at 13:26

    A standing army is from the same men and women you want to take guns from. My Point is who is going to keep the guns. Just because you put on the uniform or elected to office does not stop people from going crazy. All men are created equal.
    1 Corinthians 8:2

    “And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.” No man rule another man. The government workers public servants should have guns any time because you think they special. Get rid of all the guns or stop trying to take your fellow men guns. I don’t like guns but who is going to regulate guns the Corrupt government. Thia is why we have a United States Constitution for corrupt people working for the government .

  165. August 9, 2019 at 13:26

    You have completely ignored both the Heller and McDonald ruling by us supreme court

  166. August 9, 2019 at 13:23

    No, it does not need repealed.

  167. Mike Rusch
    August 9, 2019 at 13:11

    Go home to England.Write about the increased crime rate and home invasions.The 2nd amendment is to protect us against a tyrannical government trying to take our freedoms.

    • David Casso
      August 9, 2019 at 13:48

      If that’s the case then it seems the 2nd amendment has failed.

    • hans
      August 9, 2019 at 15:56

      The 2nd Amendment never gave us the right to own firearms. It was a compromise so we disn’t have to have a standing army in peacetime. The militia was a tool of the US government, not permission for citizens to own firearms. The ”well regulated militia” was used to supress slave and farmer uprisings. This was the total and complete opposite of the modern day NRA interpretation.

      • August 9, 2019 at 19:32

        @ “The 2nd Amendment never gave us the right to own firearms.”

        That’s right. The right to keep and bear arms predated the Constitution; all the second amendment did is to preserve that right from future infringement. I’ll repeat my post from a few days ago here.

        The text of the amendment reads:

        “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.”

        Like the other rights preserved by the Bill of Rights, this is worded as a right that pre-exists the Constitution, a right that shall not be infringed. A right that shall not be infringed *because* a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

        The reason given for the government preserving the right does not define the right’s scope, or even other possible reasons for protecting it.

        One might imagine another Bill of Rights provision that reads:

        “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to grow and eat food, shall not be infringed.” Thus arguing that the right to sustenance is necessary to a well regulated militia, which is certainly true. Does that preclude other reasons for growing and eating food being recognized by the courts? No, because our imaginary amendment does not define the scope of the right any more than the Second Amendment does.

        What then is the source of this preexisting “right of the people to keep and bear Arms” so that we might ascertain its scope?

        For that, we must look to Natural Law rights, particularly as espoused by John Locke, whose Two Treatises of Government had been published in 1690 and was enormously influential upon the founders of the U.S. constitutional government, particularly his second treatise, “an essay concerning the true original extent and end of civil government.”
        And early in the third chapter we are told that the right to use violence in defense of self is fundamental to Locke’s vision of Natural Law:

        “Sect. 16. THE state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man’s life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other’s power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the commonlaw of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.

        “Sect. 17. And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a design to take away every thing else, that freedom being the foundation of all the rest; as he that, in the state of society, would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth, must be supposed to design to take away from them every thing else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.

        “Sect. 18. This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else. And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i.e. kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.”

        Notice that the free exercise of this Natural Law right of self-defense and defense of property is independent of any government need for a militia. It is a personal right, pre-existing the Constitution and certainly not overruled by the Amendment’s reference to *government’s* need for a militia, not dependent on any government’s blessing.

        Later on in Locke’s essay, we learn that there is also a right of revolution (in fact Thomas Jefferson lifted some of Locke’s words verbatim for use in the Declaration of Independence), which is most surely to be acted upon through violence unless carried out legislatively.

        True, the English Bill of Rights of 1689 has language speaking of the right to bear arms, but its language is quite different from the Second Amendment: “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law[.]” There, the right is established to provide for *self-defense;* the right is is limited to protestants; and the right is subject to limitation “by law.” None of those topics is discussed in the Second Amendment. That suggests that Mr. Walkman is surely not squarely on the mark in suggesting that the Second Amendment was drawn from the English Bill of Rights provision, a provision intended to preserve the right of self-defense, not to maintain a militia.

        The Constitution is chock full of undefined terms, like “liberty” in the 5th Amendment. And we can often see meaning of those terms in full bloom when we look to Natural Law rights that the Founding Fathers so fervently believed in. The Second Amendment’s “right of the people to keep and bear arms” is one of those terms.

        Don’t get me wrong; I’m not a gun-nut. I took a vow of non-violence when I returned from the Viet Nam War. But I care deeply about Law as the organizing principle of our society. Wishing the Second Amendment did not exist cannot destroy it. In my opinion, the only lawful way to substantially narrow gun rights is through amendment of the Constitution.

  168. David
    August 9, 2019 at 13:07

    Conservatives quote the Constitution. Liberals interpret it. This guy is so far off base. Adams was fearful of tyrannical government not the army. Like every liberal he ignores the fact that the 2nd Amendment has two parts one about the militia the other about my right to protect myself with any type of firearms. They actually said that right shall not be infringed! There is no interpretation it’s crystal clear!

    Mass shootings are an extremely rare anomaly that affects an infinitesimally small fraction of our population. It’s absurd people like this intellectually dishonest individual is advocating that we erode our constitutional rights because a criminal commits a crime. That’s as logical as him getting a vasectomy because he thinks his neighbors have too many kids.

  169. Carl Osgood
    August 9, 2019 at 13:05

    So, while we’re arguing over the Second Amendment, Hollywood continues to glorify violence and the video game industry continues to sell first person shooter video games which are really murder simulators–these were factors in many of the mass shootings by the way. The Columbine shooters and the Virginia Tech shooter, to name but two examples, were all addicted to violent video games and yet no one wants to investigate this aspect of the mass shootings. Instead, they want to blame the NRA and/or Trump but these are dead ends that won’t go anywhere. It’s the popular culture, stupid, and the only way to fight that is to elevate people through classical culture, but that’s a fight that requires real courage while using the NRA as a punching bag does not.

  170. Bob In Portland
    August 9, 2019 at 12:55

    Third verse of the Star-Spangled Banner. The Second Amendment was about hunting parties to kill runaway slaves and indentured servants.

  171. Bob
    August 9, 2019 at 12:55

    Half true. The founding fathers were totally against having a standing army. but the right to keep arms for their own self protection and for hunting was considered an inalienable right. The second amendment was not intended to keep arms only so that people could be in militias. although that is what gun control advocates would like everyone to believe.

  172. Bob In Portland
    August 9, 2019 at 12:51

    Hopefully, I can get past whatever is blocking this comment.

    From the third verse of our “National Anthem”:

    Their blood has wash’d out their foul footstep’s pollution.
    No refuge could save the hireling and slave
    From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
    And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
    O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

    This verse, which no one ever sings, firmly links the 2nd Amendment to slavery. The well-organized militia references southern groups called to hunt down runaway slaves and indentured servants.

  173. Bob In Portland
    August 9, 2019 at 12:46

    From the third verse of our “National Anthem”:

    Their blood has wash’d out their foul footstep’s pollution.
    No refuge could save the hireling and slave
    From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
    And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
    O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

    This verse, which no one ever sings, firmly links the 2nd Amendment to slavery. The well-organized militia references southern groups called to hunt down runaway slaves and indentured servants.

    • August 9, 2019 at 16:04

      I wish you understood what hirelings and slave in these lyrics. Just a quick education. It had nothing to do with blacks in America.

      One of the reasons we declared war on Great Britain in 1812 was because of their capturing American merchant vessels and enslaving the sailors. The slavery in this verse had to do with the enslaving of white people, not blacks.

  174. Ronald Giesler
    August 9, 2019 at 12:43

    The National Guard is not a civilian militia it is a another branch of government Armed Forces get your facts straight.

  175. William
    August 9, 2019 at 12:24

    Notin my life time

  176. August 9, 2019 at 12:19

    The thing about repealing the 2nd Amendment is you have SOME gun “enthusiast” that are hoping there would be a push to do this so they could get involved in a Civil War. How do you get the guns back and out of the hands of people that are holding guns without starting a Civil War? Advantage: Gun Owners.

    • Eagle275
      August 9, 2019 at 13:57

      We have the 2nd Amendment because of dictators tyranny and others who want to take our rights away. You can’t have any of the other rights or Amendments without the 2nd Amendment. The Founder’s lived under a king and tyranny and had first-hand knowledge. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out

  177. olivio
    August 9, 2019 at 12:13

    Joe needs to do something about the quality of commentary. some moderation is called for as the comments were once a major attraction to the site and often carried as much information as the article itself. The comments on this read like something on fox or reddit.

    • Kenneth
      August 9, 2019 at 13:39

      In other words, this should be moderated so only people who think like you can comment.

      • Skip Scott
        August 9, 2019 at 15:27

        Maybe just moderated so only people who actually THINK AT ALL can comment. ‘MURICA- LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!

  178. August 9, 2019 at 12:07

    2nd amendment is so people can fight the commies rats like you , you treasonous filth bag !

  179. ML
    August 9, 2019 at 12:02

    Joe Lauria, I for one, support you and your stance here. The vitriol expressed here in spades shows you have hit a nerve with the lunatic fringe that comprise a subset of the pro-gun at-all-costs lobby and their public. Yikes. With “fellow Americans” like some of these hate-addicts, have we any chance at sanity regarding gun laws that make sense and that a vast majority of people want, despite this very vocal, vituperative bunch? In my little city this weekend, a group of pro-Trump, gun toting folks will hold a rally with a gay pride group celebrating just blocks away… what could possibly go wrong…? And my city sanctioned this crazy idea.

    • David
      August 9, 2019 at 13:09

      Conservatives quote the Constitution. Liberals interpret it. This guy is so far off base. Adams was fearful of tyrannical government not the army. Like every liberal he ignores the fact that the 2nd Amendment has two parts one about the militia the other about my right to protect myself with any type of firearms. They actually said that right shall not be infringed! There is no interpretation it’s crystal clear!

      Mass shootings are an extremely rare anomaly that affects an infinitesimally small fraction of our population. It’s absurd people like this intellectually dishonest individual is advocating that we erode our constitutional rights because a criminal commits a crime. That’s as logical as him getting a vasectomy because he thinks his neighbors have too many kids.

    • Skip Scott
      August 9, 2019 at 15:56


      I am also surprised at the extreme vitriol of so many posters on this article. Where did they come from? Most are names I’ve never seen before. Who turned them on to this site? It seems like a coordinated attack.

      As to the issue itself, I must confess I am a gun owner. I live in rural Arizona and I have a pistol that I keep next to my bed. The county I live in is the size of the state of NJ. Law enforcement arrives in time to pick up the bodies. That said, I feel obligated to lock the house whenever I leave to ensure the gun never falls into the “wrong” hands. And even though everyone out there has a gun, I feel much safer in rural Arizona than I do in any major city.

      There is a behavioral science experiment that takes a box and adds rats to it one by one. At a certain point of overcrowding, the rats start attacking each other. Whenever I am in a big city, my first thought is “there’s too many rats in this box”.

      I have been spending most of the last couple years in southern N.J. caregiving an elderly uncle. Watching the local news out of Philadelphia is incredible. The top stories every day are people getting shot and killed in North Philly, Camden, or some other war zone.

      I’m not sure that there is a “one size fits all” answer. Maybe it is best left to the individual states. However I realize that allows for a huge black market between the states. I was hoping for a more thoughtful exchange in the comments for this article.

      • ML
        August 9, 2019 at 20:03

        Hi Skip, remember when Robert Parry said right after Trump was elected that he was surprised that suddenly, right-wing people started visiting and commenting on this site? But what drew many of the more intelligent commenters was the fact that Mr. Parry was simply reporting truthfully on the issues of Russiagate and legacy media was not. In this particular case though, “they” must have gotten a text or email to come flood CN with comments regarding Mr. Lauria’s article. Hence, like flying monkeys, the worst of them descended in droves. It’s too bad that many are so thoroughly uneducated in their responses. Some of them, like Realist, are thoughtful and whip-smart, but several of them seem to lack opposable thumbs.
        I understand why you want to own guns. My husband has a couple as well and grew up hunting. I am not wholesale against gun ownership. But we should enact a ban on assault-style weapons and have rigorous background checks with teeth. At the same time, reopening and refunding community mental health centers and enacting Medicare for All is key, as is job retraining in vocations, and low-cost college for those who want it- I’d also add that we need to address the enormous economic inequality with massive tax reform to force the very wealthiest and corporations to pay their fair share of taxes. Maybe all these things would help to heal the alienation and anger that pervades our society and give all our young the better lives they deserve. You have been a favorite of mine to read here at CN since I’ve been visiting this site for the last three years. It’s so good of you to care for your ailing uncle. You seem like a person who would be a great friend to those lucky enough to know you.

      • Skip Scott
        August 10, 2019 at 06:43

        Thanks for the kind words ML. I enjoy your comments here as well. The social remedies you suggest are all badly needed, and would go a long way towards lessening gun violence overall. I am not a hunter, although many of my friends are. I just have one semi-automatic pistol that my father gave me. It is a WWII relic, but it still works great. One of the reasons for the vast proliferation of guns is that, properly cared for, they last a very long time. With no planned obsolescence, and more being manufactured all the time, the inventory piles up. Today our inner-cities are flooded with guns, and our arms industry is flooding the entire planet.

        Realist is one of my favorite commenters as well. I have cautioned him on this issue previously that he needs to take his pistols out to a range on occasion, and get some safety training. I became “small arms qualified” as part of my job as a merchant seaman. Accidents, especially with semi-automatic pistols, are quite common. They are also prone to jamming, especially if they are left unused for long periods. Any gun owner should be able to use his weapon like they drive a car- automatically without thinking about it. It takes practice.

    • Tom Cook
      August 10, 2019 at 07:25

      “the lunatic fringe” is that why the MAJORITY think Joe is nuts with his opinion? sorry that’s not what fringe means. Also your city didn’t sanction that idea the constitution did, you know the 1a? And what makes you think that 1. Trump supporters hate the pride community? 2. what makes you think that trumps supports are just gun toting?

      I’m sorry but you are huge part of this problem with your hate.

      • ML
        August 10, 2019 at 14:53

        I laugh at folks like you, but I don’t “hate” them. And yes, the pro-Trump group holding a rally today is specifically a “GOD, GUNS, AND TRUMP” rally. They posted that they will all be armed with guns of all sorts, including assault rifles and they will be in front of city hall near our weekly Saturday Market, full of people just trying to have a nice, peaceful time buying vegetables from our local farms. You don’t think that will make a lot of citizens very anxious and afraid to even appear downtown what with all the recent violence visited upon our country with deranged, hate-filled, gun toters supporting a racist, vile man for president? You are the one who is the problem, Tom Cook. And the only reason y’all have come out in droves here, is because you got some text or email to descend like locusts here at a site dedicated to truth and honesty in journalism. Oh, and the leader of this rally today is anti-gay. So there.

  180. Joseph Perez
    August 9, 2019 at 12:01

    So the 4 words together in that sentence, “the right of the people”… wtf you think it means? You’re clueless. It was a right to defend against the States as much as the Federal Government. States can become tyrannical. Look at California for example. Or NY. The people in those states are not free.

    • joe Jarrette
      August 9, 2019 at 13:44

      DITTOS, Mr. Perez.
      Apparently La u r i a, has not even taking the time to research the writings of the founders the constitute their reasoning behind what is now the Second Amendment. If they did not have to Molly the Federalist group the word militia probably would not be in there.
      II is there, and you said as a tripwire setup by the founders to circumnavigate and hopefully prevent a tyrannical government you and I are old from becoming what they saw across Europe

  181. Joe
    August 9, 2019 at 11:48

    Go back to your fairy land It does not need to repealed Typical Communist .you Democrats we’ll be singing a different tunebwhen we get invade by another country An you the same ones that send there kids off to war

  182. August 9, 2019 at 11:45

    If the Government was to turn tyrannical as seen with the Democratic party of today the standing Army would follow as in Germany in WWII leaving the citizens defenseless to stop mass Democide.
    Maybe use a little common sense for you’re next article on this issue maybe a little history will help you, also if you don’t study history you are doomed to repeat it and this article paves the grounding for that road.

  183. August 9, 2019 at 11:45

    The Militia is composed of two parts, the organized Militia (State and National Guard) and the Unorganized Militia, which is the total of all full Citizens of the United States, also known as the Draft Pool. That covers the National Security issues, right? Right! That is not as important as the Right to Self Defense. Every rational, law abiding, adult has the INALIENABLE RIGHT to defend themselves from other Individuals, Groups, and the State itself. If the State takes away the Citizens means to defend themselves, the Right is lost.
    Without the Means to protect your own life, how long do you imagine your Freedom of Speech will last? People are already being physically attacked for wearing clothing with campaign slogans on them. Curtail one Right, and you set a dangerous precedent. Curtail the Right to Self Defense and you might just as well scrap the entire Bill of Rights.

    • Bruce Hitchcock
      August 9, 2019 at 16:12

      Some are being shot for being born nonwhite. True gun control is not possible because we have 250 million guns. I am concerned the well armed will start a civil war ,a revolt against the left, to make us like Nazi Germany
      The answer is not more guns.It is more empathy and true Journalism

      • TalleyUp
        August 12, 2019 at 17:37

        Mr. Lauria, You are no Robert Parry!

  184. Joe
    August 9, 2019 at 11:45

    Go back to your fairy land It does not need to repealed Typical Communist .you Democrats we’ll be singing a different turn when we get invade by another country An you the same ones that send there kids off to war

  185. Mark Walker
    August 9, 2019 at 11:41

    Mark Twain warned us, “History rhymes”.

    The article above, about #2A validity, would well be compared with:


    especially given the context of #POTUS45 policies and the #GOP’s loss of principles.

    When the firearms confiscations occur, the neo-brownshirts designated to do the collections will be the “citizens” who retain their firearms.

    It must be considered that America is careening headlong to a #PoliceState with a #POTUS following the playbook of the 3rd Reich (among others).

    #45 is wearing his 2020 campaign facade, but soon enough we may be living with this trinity: #KingDonald, #AdolfTrump, #DonaldGage.

    RE: Hijacking the Second Amendment https://consortiumnews.com/2019/08/08/hijacking-the-second-amendment/

  186. Jona Denz-Hamilton
    August 9, 2019 at 11:40

    Maybe we need an amendment to the 2nd Ammendment to clarify its intent.

    • David
      August 9, 2019 at 13:13

      Conservatives quote the constitution, liberals try to interpret it to fit their needs. What is unclear about my right to bear arms “shall not be infringed” is unclear to you?!

  187. Erika Donneson
    August 9, 2019 at 11:32

    It’s hard to believe that in a country that has mandatory education, people can be so incredibly stupid as to fall for this. You cannot take away constitutional rights. And why on Earth would you want to? Law abiding people do not do mass shootings! So why take self defense away from law abiding people? And why would innocent victims want such a thing? If were in a jam like that, l’d be praying for help, and so would any decent cop. What happened to empowerment? Why do you need someone else to give you permission to take care of yourselves?

  188. August 9, 2019 at 11:19

    All this is true. But it’s also true that the various militias were employed to round up fugitive slaves and return them to their “owners.” On the frontier they were called up to fight, kill and usurp the land of the “merciless Indian Savages.” Later, citizen militias mutated malignantly into the KKK and released decades of terrorism and lynching across the country following the failure of Reconstruction.
    See the excellent new book by Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz: “Loaded: A Disarming History of the Second Amendment.

    The ungrammatical, incoherent, and historically obsolete Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with sensible laws regulating the possession and use of firearms by private citizens. Sadly, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch are prepared to declare any “infringements” on private gun ownership unconstitutional as Jeffrey Tobin explained on NPR yesterday.

  189. August 9, 2019 at 11:15

    “A militia also helped thwart the abolitionist John Brown’s famous raid on Harper’s Ferry in 1859, and, in Southern states, they were mostly used to round up fugitive slaves.”


    • Mee Sah
      August 9, 2019 at 11:31

      Which was a different time and lifestyle. This country has already changed its ways and no longer cares about slavery as it has been done with since the time of Lincoln. Get over it. That was then, this is now.

    • Eric32
      August 9, 2019 at 12:30

      More garbage from this O Society clown.


      Sporadic fighting took place around the arsenal for two days. On October 18, combined state and federal troops (the latter commanded by Col. Robert E. Lee and including Lieut. Jeb Stuart) subdued Brown and his collaborators.

      Brown’s party of 22[1] was defeated by a company of U.S. Marines, led by First Lieutenant Israel Greene.[4] Colonel Robert E. Lee was in overall command of the operation to retake the arsenal. Stonewall Jackson was part of the troops guarding the arrested Brown,[3]:5 and John Wilkes Booth was a spectator at his execution. John Brown had originally asked Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglass, both of whom he had met in his transformative years as an abolitionist in Springfield, Massachusetts, to join him in his raid, but Tubman was prevented by illness and Douglass declined, as he believed Brown’s plan would fail.[5]

      Word of the raid spread, and by morning Brown and his men were surrounded. A company of U.S. marines arrived on October 17, led by Colonel Robert E. Lee and Lieutenant J. E. B. Stuart. On the morning of October 19, the soldiers overran Brown and his followers. Ten of his men were killed, including two of his sons.

  190. Mee Sah
    August 9, 2019 at 11:12

    The Second Amendment is not a right granted by government. It is supposed to be protected by government. Anti-gun liberals do not recognize that the Second Amendment only protects our God-given rights, which means that they existed before the drafting of the Constitution. So, in essence, the author has some church to attend in order to understand what God-given means.
    I have the right to protect myself and family in ANY way I see fit. That means that I have the right to own the multiple ARs and pistols I currently have in order to protect what I hold most important.
    This author of the article has no idea what he is talking about. He is speaking about history and he knows nothing of it.
    Here is a thought experiment, Everytime anyone begins spouting off about repealing the Second Amendment, just replace the Second Amendment with any other protected right and see if it sounds good to you. Removal of the protections of our rights is a good way to be showing how traitorous you are. Damn Communist…

    • August 9, 2019 at 11:32

      Dear Mee Sah: That’s the argument of the Christian Nationalists: “References to the divine in the founding documents may have been more deist than theist, but Christian nationalists today interpret references to the divine as necessarily Christian, conveniently ignoring the influence of Enlightenment deism on the founding fathers (Barton 2000; Fea 2011). Perhaps ironically, proponents of the “Christian nation” narrative at the time of the founding fathers opposed the Constitution because it was viewed as godless (Lambert 2003, 2008). Today, however, proponents of the Christian nation narrative go to great lengths to underscore the influence of the Christian God on the Constitution.” For more edification on this: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2378023118790189.
      The Christian Nationalists are the ones re-writing history. Peace.

      • August 9, 2019 at 11:59

        You may prefer the term Natural Rights, which is fine, however you fail to address the bedrock argument. We have as much Right as any living creature to resist violence on our bodies and to defend the area we occupy. That Right is not granted by a Government, nor should any Government seek to deny such a Right, lest the Government become a tyranny.
        We are a tool using specie, and by denying or restricting access to the tools we need to defend ourselves, the Government would be infringing on that Right.
        That is the argument, which I am sure you understood, but failed to address, which seems to signal you know you can’t.

    • Sid
      August 9, 2019 at 11:46

      Trying to respond to a total narcissist is not apropos. Aside from the authors plain facts – debunking of the crazed lunatics at the NRA who should be placed on trial for advocating mass murder of our citizens ( 30,000 plus victims a yr & counting), you & your cohorts refuse to live in an ordered society & give up your weapons for the common good – that which would have allowed all of the murder victims to the right of ” life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness.” All of us could be next – including you & your loved ones.

      • August 9, 2019 at 21:13

        You’ve got to get a clue.

    • Kilgore Trout
      August 9, 2019 at 12:19

      No. None of the amendments in the Bill of Rights is absolute. While both the 1st and 2nd are written in absolutist-sounding language, both are recognized as having practical limits–read the Heller Amendment. At the same time, most of those who call for stronger background checks, and who would like to see it made more difficult to obtain semi-automatic assault style weapons and ammo, are not interested in taking away the fundamental right to gun ownership. Protecting home and hearth, and personal protection, have long been done without assault-style weapons. Outside of a shooting range, there is no place in civilized society for weapons intended only to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. The market for such weapons is fed by the NRA and gun manufacturers’ greed, far-right hysteria about “big government”, and play-action fantasies by wanna-be Rambos. The 2nd Amendment is secure and not threatened by reasonable restrictions on the kinds of guns one may own, nor by reasonable waiting periods, background checks, or magazine limits.

    • Gary
      August 9, 2019 at 12:43

      How ignorant you are. It is your attitude and distorted thought process or lack of it, which places weapons in the very hands of those who would use them to harm the very citizens you claim to be. The process of owning weapons is not close to being stringent enough to curtail such usages, even if it were there will always be the mentally unstable and anti or pro American distorted thinking that results in these tragedies
      Why not have armouries where all citizens must store and register their semi and fully automatic weapons (probably another dogs breakfast) as a temporary measure until the American dream corrects its educational, moral and political ills that pervade this society
      Personally I think the USA is on its way out, which makes your points more poignant.
      God Bless America

  191. John
    August 9, 2019 at 11:04

    A quote from Benjamin Franklin, they that can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor Liberty.

  192. George K
    August 9, 2019 at 10:48

    If law abiding citizens no longer have a right to own guns, then only criminals and the mafia will own guns. Is that a situation we want to face? When Hitler and Stalin came to power they took the guns from citizens, then went about slaughtering millions of innocent civilians. Americans need arms to protect themselves against corrupt governments as well as criminals. Switzerland has practically no major crime because every family is armed with an automatic weapon provided by the military which also provides on-going gun safety training. Criminals and unstable individuals are aware of this fact.

  193. August 9, 2019 at 10:46

    We citizens need weapons, guns, because no government can be trusted!! Many nations ,empires , and kingdoms may have started off decent but became corrupt over time! Time and time again history has proven this to be so! Many sheriffs around our country have said and are saying that they can not protect law abiding citizen from bad guys ( murderers , robbers , rapists, burglars, and so forth) that we need to depend on ourselves! Sheriffs say that even if we have time to dial 911 ,by the time they arrive ,we could be dead! Yes many people die or are wounded in shootings , but that is one individual , compared to millions who did not use a gun in a shooting! I know many people who have guns the only thing they shoot is an animal they were hunting, they have had their guns for years and never shot any person! If we could stop all gun ownership ,there would still be guns in the hands of lawbreakers, so we would need armed security in all stores, restaurants ,fast food places, ballparks football games , we would have securitycin every place we go even our churches ,temples, mosgues ! How can we be sure that one of these security people do not use their gun, or some police officer don’t use their gun, or some soldier don’t use their gun in a shooting, as long as there are people we will have killings corrupt governments and so forth! Thank you for listening!

  194. August 9, 2019 at 10:41

    This article is full of crap!!!!!

  195. Steve Ruis
    August 9, 2019 at 10:37

    The other part of the justification of the Second Amendment was the protection of armed slave patrols. Most poorer people could not afford to even own a gun, let along keep it stocked with fresh shot and gunpowder. But slave patrols were outfitted by slave owners and it was necessary (in the minds, most prominently of Virginians) to protect the right of these “rangers” to possess and use firearms.

    This “justification” is also no longer operative, leaving the Second Amendment a testament to white privilege. Openly carrying a firearm is a manly thing to do … if you are white. If you are Black, it can get you shot to death by the police.

    • Mee Sah
      August 9, 2019 at 11:28

      Go sit in a corner and cry about how privileged you are and how others are not. And what about Asian privilege? Asians do better than whites here. You are a racist bigot and apparently dumb as a box of rocks if you really believe that the color of skin is what conveys privilege.
      The only privilege that is here is the privilege of being a hard-working individual.
      White guilt infected, milquetoast losers get nothing because they are the real racists and bigots.

    • Dee Cee
      August 9, 2019 at 11:46

      You have just turned gun ownership into racism. And I know of at least one, fairly prominent black man who would disagree with you entirely: Maj Toure.

      I am not aware of any historical documentation of your aforementioned “slave patrol.” Even my dirt poor great grandmother’s parents had guns. They emigrated from Denmark in 1916, crossed North America in an actual covered wagon, built a (for real) sod house in an actual Danish settlement in Montana (proof: I have a family photo of my great grandmother, aged 2.5 standing with her parents and 16 brothers and sisters in front of said sod house). They certainly never owned a slave. But the components of the household that were necessary for survival in pre-modern America were sugar, flour, a firearm, beeswax, an axe, a pocket knife, and a needle. I’m a trained archaeologist and I feel like I can speak to this fact pretty conclusively. Beyond that, most anything else you needed, you made.

      The writer of this article if fundamentally wrong: while standing armies were something that early settlers held suspicions of, it wasn’t simply because soldiers perceived themselves as being of some greater authority than ordinary citizens, it was because such armies could and would be used to suppress the citizens under an unjust, totalitarian rule. Such was the reality of the British Monarchy. They had been suppressed due to their religious differences over, and over again in British history–Catholic massacres occurred repeatedly under King Henry VIII, and the divisive Catholic vs. Anglican wars continued for centuries thereafter. All involving armed military personnel working under the command of the king or queen at the time. THAT was the history the belied the suspicion of early settlers.

      Today, our police and military personnel take oaths to protect the constitution from its enemies both foreign and domestic. Sadly, most of the military personnel who swear that oath can’t understand what it means–due to public education and indoctrination with anti-constitutional beliefs. This assertion that the 2nd Amendment is a “relic” of a past time that is irrelevant today is a symptom of such indoctrination. My belief, which is founded on the principals of the Constitution, is that this country, its leaders, its military personnel, are of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, and for the PEOPLE, and my family’s arsenal of firearms is there to ensure that no one can take that away from me. By the way, lobbyists, corporations, government agencies, NGOs, media organizations, etc. aren’t “people.” However, all of these entities have been given status as “people” by the courts, which has placed them in positions to take control of literally everything in this country–to further consolidate the power and control of resources, including human capital, into the hands of the progressively wealthier few. In the end, I can protect my own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, as well as that of my neighbor. And of course, if I need to, I suppose I will.

      That does NOT mean walking into Walmart and shooting all the brown people. There truly is something afoot with all this… I think what we are seeing here now is the product of a very severely misapplied set of ideas that was meant to antagonize mentally unstable young men, who justify their actions through self-agrandisation and severely underdeveloped logic. I’ve made the case that the supposed “manifesto” of the El Paso shooter is strange in how it seems to take all the classical platforms of the republican party, argues that these ideas are correct, then reaches the conclusion that the way to see them through is to commence a civil war or genocide. It’s really weird how he starts out very logical, factual, and substantially correct, then jumps the logic train in to mass-killing. It actually doesn’t make any sense at all. I am not convinced he really wrote it, actually. Nor am I convinced that he took such action without some kind of encouragement from someone, somewhere.

    • Eric32
      August 9, 2019 at 11:49

      What you wrote and what you imply is plainly false.

      The Founders had just gone through eight years of war, much of it fought with militias.

      They distrusted standing armies as a threat to freedom, especially to a new republic. They didn’t want a large standing army, and that’s the main reason the US did so poorly in the War of 1812.

      The more populous north which made up much of Congress, had very little slavery and there was growing opposition to it. If they had not supported the 2nd Amendment it’s likely it would have been dropped.

      Slavery has existed all through mankind and its history, it still exists in numerous places in Africa, it has been reinstituted in Libya in the wake of the Hillary Clinton / Barack Obama / deep state destruction of the former prosperous Lybian state.

      Were slaveholders evil?

      Southern small farm housewives were among those who least wanted to see the end of slavery since having a slave helper meant they had some time off during the day, instead of one chore after another.

      Almost all people nowadays go on using CO2 generating fossil fuels, much like some people in past times went on using slavery.
      They had/have concerns about it’s effects and the ethics of it, but it was/is difficult to change.

  196. Steve D
    August 9, 2019 at 10:36

    Sorry it was also put there to prevent the Government from becoming a Tyrannical dictatorship which the left and the Globalist forces are pushing on America. Go live in China if you like that form of government. These false flags are not about guns but about psychotic drugs being forced on our children and leftist ,Communist propaganda brainwashing them as well.

    • August 9, 2019 at 11:20

      All this is true. But it’s also true that the various militias were employed to round up fugitive slaves and return them to their “owners.” On the frontier they were called up to fight, kill and usurp the land of the “merciless Indian Savages.” Later, citizen militias mutated malignantly into the KKK and released decades of terrorism and lynching across the country following the failure of Reconstruction.
      See the excellent new book by Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz: “Loaded: A Disarming History of the Second Amendment.

      The ungrammatical, incoherent, and historically obsolete Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with sensible laws regulating the possession and use of firearms by private citizens. Sadly, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch are prepared to declare any “infringements” on private gun ownership unconstitutional as Jeffrey Tobin explained on NPR yesterday.

    • August 9, 2019 at 11:27

      Steve D, that’s a myth successfully propagated by the NRA. That’s the sentiment Jefferson expressed as an angry colonial. Once in power, the leaders of the new republic became much more concerned with preserving than overthrowing authority. They were alarmed at the impotent response to Shays’ Rebellion under the Articles of Confederation and gave Congress the authority to enlist the state militias to put down uprisings. And that’s just what President Washington did to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion — he called up the militia.
      The pro-gun forces are not above attributing fictitious statements to the framers in support of the mendacious campaign. Go to the official Monticello website to see for your self. And what tea have you been drinking, Steve? “Psychotic drugs being forced on our children?” Really?

      • Dee Cee
        August 9, 2019 at 12:03

        To the last point, psychotropic medications are forced on people quite often, actually. And the use of ADD medication was a fad among parents when I was a child. I’m 36, and quite grateful that my folks never fell for that pharmaceutical gambit. But I know adults who have been on Ridelin since they could walk, and they literally have never known a day in their lives when they didn’t use it. Getting off that drug, and all the rest of the drugs in its class, is KNOWN to cause homicidal and suicidal tendencies, especially in children! Mr. DeBarcher is speaking to a reality that you seem to have ignored despite its prevalence in our society for 30 years. And it is definitely part of the problem. We have a perfect storm today, which people in the 1980s were predicting, in which an entire generation of young people has been conditioned to believe a lot of fallacies:

        1) That if you aren’t having sex, you’re not “normal” (there’s a term among young men today called “Incel” ie: involuntary celibacy–this drives frustrations in young men)

        2) That women are superior to men (feminism is a component of this constant shaming and denigration of young men, and men in their 20s today are now so immasculated, we’re seeing the worst symptoms of this coming out)

        3) America is evil: much of what is written on this website addresses how vilification of our country serves the global elite, and it further diminishes the pride that young men used to have in themselves.

        4) I can’t live without my drugs: If you were addicted to Riddalin from age 2, you’d think that too! Sadly, this impacts brain development and produces drug addiction in society that is now rampant, everywhere. Do you deny it?

        5) Families don’t exist any more: How many people do you know who have held their families together? What impact do you think it has on society when 50% or more of the couples who wed, divorce? This problem rose to prominence since the 1970s, and you are seeing the impact of what happens when that fundamental building block of society, the family, is dissolved.

        I could go on. There are a lot of really bad things that have been done to the generation we’re talking about here. It’s time we acknowledged them and addressed them. I’m starting on it myself, by raising my beautiful, white, middle class BOYS to be men who know their value and place in society, by holding my marriage together, supporting my wonderful husband as the head of our household, passing along the values that were handed down to me by my patriotic and deeply faithful Christian father, and building my neighbors the community we all lack. You should do the same.

      • August 9, 2019 at 12:36

        You are quoting lineral talking points. You are add ing very little to the conversation.

  197. Grey Wolf
    August 9, 2019 at 10:34

    I a Native American can tell you we know what happens when you conform to give up your guns and we will protect you…the 2nd amendment still has tort as it is to protect the citizens from a government that wants to take there rights away….just as British were doing then by king orders…

    • Eric
      August 9, 2019 at 10:56

      Heck ya

  198. August 9, 2019 at 10:33

    The second amendment was to control the same people trying to take it away its to protect us from the government take our protection and the 2nd civil war will begin thats a fact then get a body count 100s of thousands

  199. Henry Molander
    August 9, 2019 at 10:33

    Bullshit. I subscribe to what Judge Andrew P. Napolitano had to say about the Second Amendment.


    The Second Amendment is not a substitute for a standing army. It’s there to protect Americans from an overreaching, even oppressive government. The Declaration of Independence gave the American colonialists the RIGHT to take up arms against the oppressive government ruling over them, namely, King George and the British Empire. That’s what the Second Amendment is all about. Thomas Jefferson said as much!

    It all goes back to what Lord Acton had to say: Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. US foreign policy proves that point in spades.

  200. Nick
    August 9, 2019 at 10:17

    Good thing all these ‘tyrannical government’ people are taking the fight to the streets. We’ll be free any minute, guys, good job! Thanks, second amendment!
    (This is sarcasm, for all you gun owners who don’t understand language.)

    • August 9, 2019 at 16:44

      Bring it on

      • Nick
        August 10, 2019 at 17:13

        That’s what I’m waiting for. But with the exception of the Bundys, no right wing gun toting idiot is doing anything to battle tyrannical government. None of them will put their money where their mouths are. Because people who need guns are inherently weak and cower in fear at other people. Fools, one and all.

  201. Jared
    August 9, 2019 at 10:16

    I was following up until the final sentence. Please clarify how that fits with the rest of the column. Unless it was sarcasm.

  202. George
    August 9, 2019 at 10:13

    The masses having guns and a means to self defense makes it more difficult to carry out the ruling class agenda.

  203. Wisdom Lost
    August 9, 2019 at 10:11

    I cannot agree with the premise of this article.

    The 2nd amendment does not grant a right to serve in a state militia. Why would the founders feel it necessary to “allow” citizens to serve under a state government? Does it make sense to provide a right to be subservient to a “well regulated militia”?

    ALL rights in the first 8 amendments are individual rights specifically guaranteed under the Constitution. The 9th Amendment acknowledges, the protects, the existence of all other natural rights. The 10th Amendment grants state and local governments (and the people) all powers not explicitly granted under the Constitution.

    Look at the text of the 2nd Amendment again.

    “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.”

    All other arguments aside, it refers to “the right of the people…” This does NOT create a right, it refers to a right. Whatever else can be gleaned from the text, it is clear that it refers to an EXISTING right. “The right… shall not be infringed.”

    Even if that were not the case, the 9th Amendment would cover the right to arms.

    “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

    As there is no specific mention of arms outside of the 2nd Amendment, and the 2nd Amendment does not bar the right to arms, it is clear that it cannot be used to “deny or disparage” the right to arms. Further, note that the 9th refers to the rights of “the people”, which is a common basis for the argument to claim that the 2nd is a “community right”.

    In summary…

    The 2nd refers to an existing individual right that cannot be denied or disparaged.

    • Henry Molander
      August 9, 2019 at 10:37

      Points well made.

    • August 9, 2019 at 11:07

      Democratic procedures exist to consider, debate, and possibly abolish or modify the Second Amendment. If we’re not going to use them, the discussion is a total waste of time. In any case the world is now awash with advanced military weapons, through the good offices of major powers like the United States, which give them to client parties like al-Qaeda. Gun control needs to start at the top. As long as the cops, the military, and the ruling classes’ favorite terrorist groups can get them, so can everyone else.

      Although for home defense I would recommend a 12-gauge shotgun loaded with buckshot; aim for the center of mass. Messy, but definitively effective.

  204. Skip Scott
    August 9, 2019 at 10:06

    “The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.” Obviously there is already some infringement. No citizen is allowed to bear nuclear arms, or even fully automatic weapons. There is also the question of the right to not NEED to bear arms. Do we really want to live in a world in which you do not feel safe if you are not “packing” every time you leave the house? Every major city has poverty stricken zones plagued by violence. Innocent people, including children, die on those streets every day. Does anybody really believe the answer is just to give everybody a gun?

    The Constitution was made amendable because our forefathers were wise enough to realize that things change with the passage of time, and the Constitution would need to be amended on occasion to continue to serve the people.

    Gun violence is a reflection of much deeper troubles our society is facing. I am not sure of the answer, but I know it will involve a lot more than just gun control.

  205. Gerald
    August 9, 2019 at 10:04

    There’s is no hijacking – except by those who attempt to steal away that which is inalienable.

    It’s an absurdity to not take the Bill of Rights as they were meant – protecting ‘all’ the Rights of each citizen, and ‘only’ speaking to – and therefore direction aimed ‘only’ at government, specifically prohibiting it from oppressing our Rights.

    With a healthy reminder of why (the militia clause), the 2nd Amendment clearly states: “the Right of the People” – referring not to the government, nor people as a collective, but an individual’s Right.
    “…shall not be infringed” – by whom? The short answer is the government, but the deeper understanding is that even demagogues or people en masse are prevented from using the government to infringe upon an individual’s Right(s).

    If you truly want clarity on the BoR’s intent, you need look no further than the arguments locked in history (thank God) between the Federalists and the Antifederalists – and their “Papers”.

    However, the simple understanding of an individual’s Rights being protected by these certain enumerations ought to be clear enough from a simple reading…if anyone cares to do that anymore.

    Our Rights are not up for argument; and, you should understand that attempting to “rope-in” someone else’s Rights necessitates the immediate condition that that same rope leads back to you, leaving your Rights that you hold precious vulnerable to the same misunderstanding and subsequent peril.

    Our Rights are ‘each’ of our Rights,…that is unarguable because they are inalienable.

  206. Brian Ray
    August 9, 2019 at 10:04

    The second amendment was put in place to protect the people from an over reaching Government. ” We will never need the second amendment untill the Government tries to take it away from us .” Thomas Jefferson

    • Brian Ray
      August 9, 2019 at 11:46

      We have always had the right to private ownership of weapons. We have never had mass shootings and killings. So what has changed?

      We started to devalue human life. We tell mothers that it is their choice to be violent to the children and have them executed by abortion. Then we call it womans health care. It is neither healthy or caring. Not for the mother or the child. We cannot pretend to care about children being shot when we pay to have women to kill their babies. Now we teach euthanasia when humans are no longer productive to society.

      When the mentality of a society accepts and justifies this culture of death. It stands to reason that we will be dehumanized and start killing each other. We will simply call it another name other than what it really is. Selfish and senseless killing.

  207. Sam Gonyea
    August 9, 2019 at 10:02

    This blurb of half truths barely scratches the surface of the reasons the Second Amendment was adopted. Even the one reason that you did address with regard to this deeply complex issue was spoken of shallowly and briefly. This is a half hearted after thought of a writing is designed to give some ammo in the form of confirmation bias to the already uninformed. You should add “opinion” to the tags here, because this is not news and cannot in good conscience be referred to as journalism.

  208. Chuck
    August 9, 2019 at 09:55

    The author does not have a fundamental grasp of what the Bill of Rights is or why it was written.

    The 2nd amendment, like the other amendments, was created to protect personal freedoms and prevent government over reach. When the author stated this, “To defend itself, the new country relied on citizens arming themselves in civilian militias,” I quickly realized his ignorance on the topic. The Bill of Rights was written for the people not the government! Articles like this should be ignored and anyone who uses a similar argument should be embarrassed.

    We need to find a solution to the horrible mass shootings that are plaguing this country but shredding the document that millions died to protect is not the answer.

    • Henry Molander
      August 9, 2019 at 10:39

      For what my opinion is worth, I agree.

  209. dean 1000
    August 9, 2019 at 09:54

    Great timing Joe.

    Yes, the gun lobby has highjacked the Second Amendment. But calls to ban assault rifles and repeal the Second Amendment drive extremism in the NRA. Assault rifles are designed to kill people so they should be banned say the extremists of the gun control groups. But the military purpose of assault rifles is what makes them Second Amendment weapons since militias are military organizations.

    The National Guard is not the militia. The weapons of guard members are stored in armories. Potential militia members ” keep ” their weapons at home as authorized by the amendment.

    The NRA doesn’t like to acknowledge that the amendment requires a “well regulated” militia. But background checks are as constitutional as assault rifles. Existing background checks are obviously lacking given that these terrible mass shootings continue to happen.

    The Constitution assumes (correctly it turns out) that presidents start unnecessary wars. The state ratifying conventions did not demand a second amendment simply to provide cannon fodder for presidential wars. The Declaration of Independence acknowledges the right of the people to alter or change an out of touch government. The Second Amendment provides a “means” for the people to do so if the preferred means continue to fail. The Second Amendment has solid support although we are nowhere close to needing it. Congress should improve and extend background checks.
    It should also consider the socioeconomic issues that drive the alienation of disturbed individuals. However domestic terrorism laws are not needed. They will further erode civil liberties that were massively eroded by the overreaction to 9/11.

    • Martin
      August 9, 2019 at 12:04

      the great timing comes from 2012. it is a republished article. it will probably be republished again and again.

  210. August 9, 2019 at 09:44

    Two Supreme Court decisions, the Federalist papers, and 200 years of precedent says you wrong.

    • August 9, 2019 at 12:38

      Yes. He needs to read Jefferson and Mason.

  211. LJ
    August 9, 2019 at 09:42

    It wasn’t that long ago when there were no supermarkets and people had to hunt a little and fish too , to eat. To survive. Ranchers still have to take a shot at a coyote or a big cat once in a while. It was a frontier and rugged individualists had to have guns to survive. That is our history Way out West and back in the Colonies too. Now it’s more of a hobby . Gun collecting, shooting, even hunting are ways that make people some money, to eat. Some people even eat a little game, deer and ducks , etc. It is business, not as big as people making bombs and drones and aircraft , Not as big as Lockeed Martin or Raytheon but they don’t end up killing as many people either. It is a horrible thing that these idiots do what they do and murder people with guns . But you aren’t going to take them away from people who use them properly or own them . Are you going to send in the army to go door to door and confiscate them? This is a big can of worms . It isn’t the 2nd Amendment, it’s everything in our toxic culture from the TV , entertainment, a War economy, drugs, advertising, a militarized police force, crime ( which will not disappear,ever ), mental health, lack there of, , all the way down the line. Every time a kook goes off on a murderous rampage this chatter returns in a knee jerk fashion and there will be more of it no matter what happens in Washington DC regarding these incidents. I think it’s louder this time because of Trump and the Democrats and media sensed that they can hurt him on this issue since they won’t succeed on Russia-gate. It’s Trump’s fault that these kooks are angry , sick, full of rage and feel powerless and hateful because of a myriad of reasons including the effect of Government policies regarding immigration on their lives. Let’s write history and only put in the things that we want to acknowledge and ignore the complex truth of the matter. We have news media for that and their role in the sensationalizing these murder sprees should not be ignored .

  212. Nunya business
    August 9, 2019 at 09:33

    Cry baby libral who the hell cares about your opinion stfu

    • Anonymous
      August 9, 2019 at 10:48

      There are plenty of solid arguments in this comment section of why the author is wrong. Yours is not one of them.

  213. Paul
    August 9, 2019 at 09:29

    No it was intended for the American people to protect us from a tyrannical government and terrorism foreign and domestic!

  214. Grillo
    August 9, 2019 at 09:26

    This is crazy leave the 2nd amendment needs to be left alone.
    You are allowed to purchase your favorite firearms. Do we need military type weapons no. Larger clips no really,even if you were hunting you favorite Deer,elk,wolf,. I say leave it.

  215. Eric32
    August 9, 2019 at 09:20

    Joe Lauria:
    >The amendment says the militias are for the “security of a free state” not to overthrow tyrannical government.<

    Your point doesn't logically work.

    By definition, a "tyrannical government" destroys a "free state".

    If people want a free state, they're going to have to oppose a tyrannical government.

    Logically, they can't use the tyrannical government's standing army, so they have to resort to forming armed groups that amount to militias.

    Where do common people get the weapons, the ability to use weapons, the mindset to fight a tyrannical government?

    Disarmed populaces probably can't, especially after a few generations.

  216. Darrell Gene Myers
    August 9, 2019 at 09:13

    The Second Amenment is there to inure that our government is not able to remove our Constution and Bill of Rights, because its citizens are armed and capable of protecting themselves.

    The government through out history has not been trusted by the citizens of this nation. And, by allowing them to remove the Second Amenment would allow this country to treat its citizens as Germany did theirs in the20s and 30s. We would become subjects not citizens and all freedoms would be lost.

    • Anonymous
      August 9, 2019 at 10:55

      And it’s possible we’re seeing how the increasing disparity in how civilians and military are armed play out in how law enforcement is increasingly overstepping their bounds (and with increasing regularity). Ask around, you’ll find that many people are not too far from living like subjects – but it is still a vast minority and that pressure to remain within the comfort zone and not to question the motives of authority is stronger than it has ever been in this country.

  217. August 9, 2019 at 09:02

    Why cant people understand that it’s not the guns?? I’m a responsible gun owner with 2 dozen guns including multiple ar15s and a ak47. I enjoy shooting them an target practicing on a regular basis an it’s amazing to think that after all the thousands of rounds I’ve fired nobody has ever been hurt in any way. Its sick people that hurt people an that’s the bottom line. Stop glorifying and glamorizing the “assault weapons” it’s a deeper issue than just a gun. STOP punishing responsible people

  218. Steve
    August 9, 2019 at 09:01

    Wow, so many morons out there with a platform that needs their heads surgically removed from their asses.

  219. Dan in Tx
    August 9, 2019 at 08:59

    Your entire assertion regarding the Second Amendment is flawed. The Bill of Rights were intended to be inalienable, natural, “God-given” rights that people *always have*. This includes the right to self-defense by practicable means.

    The Second Amendment was only specifically included because of the need for a militia, as you mention. Given how many Americans at the time relied on firearms that were exactly the same as their military equivalent for self-defense and subsistence, the Founding Fathers didn’t even see a need to mention firearm ownership for those other needs. It was a given.

    The NRA hasn’t “hijacked” the Second Amendment. It’s the statist misunderstanding of the Second Amendment and disregard for the very idea of natural rights that are in error.

  220. Eric32
    August 9, 2019 at 08:56

    After the assassinations of John Kennedy, Martin King, then Robert Kennedy, there was a wave of sentiment in the US in 1968 against the widespread civilian ownership of guns.

    The problem is that all three of these murder events were almost certainly “deep state” events carried out and covered up by elements of American law enforcement, intelligence and security organizations.

    They didn’t have anything to do with civilians owning guns.

    That sentiment gets revived in the wake of atrocities like we’ve recently experienced. The choreographed responses in the media should make anyone wonder.

    • Raymond Comeau
      August 9, 2019 at 11:21

      Dear Eric32.
      I am proud of you for pointing out what I suspect a lot of people in the USA know ( or surmise) but for some reason do not take any action to arrest the criminals. Obviously, an ELITE in the USA is given carte blanche to get away with treason and murder.

      Since some of the struggling people see this situation and see how impossible it is to remedy it because of the present “system of the USA Government” in their frustration they attempt to make a statement by becoming killers.

      Until the honest citizens of the USA demand that the Kennedy Assassination and crimes like 9-11 are independently investigated, and the real perpetrators executed, nothing will change and the elite controllers of the population will continue to reap the riches of the country and the world while the citizens either are too afraid to speak up or, to work
      to expose this “Deep State”.The USA needs a few million Eric32(s) to start the investigations of the criminal USA!

      • Eric32
        August 9, 2019 at 22:08

        Raymond Comeau-

        Thank you. The more lies the more corrosion of this society.

  221. Barmuck Obunga
    August 9, 2019 at 08:41

    Shall not be infringed. Come and take it bastards.

    • Anonymous
      August 9, 2019 at 10:56

      They usually do. You’ll die being the only one thinking you’re a hero — because the mainstream notion of PR now is more effective than it has ever been and you would be smeared to oblivion. There are smarter ways to fight this.

  222. Nick
    August 9, 2019 at 08:26

    “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent on others for essential, particularly for military, supplies.” – Speech in the United States Congress, January 8, 1790; George Washington: A Collection, compiled and edited by W.B. Allen (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1988), Chapter 11

    George Mason, co-author of the Second Amendment:

    “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” – Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1778

    “That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” – Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776

    Samuel Adams:

    “And that the said Constitution be never 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; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.” – Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of February 6, 1788; Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1788 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

    Thomas Jefferson:

    “No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands].” – Proposed Constitution for Virginia – Fair Copy, Section IV: Rights, Private and Public, June 1776; The Works of Thomas Jefferson, Federal Edition, Editor: Paul Leicester Ford, (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5); Vol. 2

    • Tweety
      August 9, 2019 at 09:23

      Thank you, GREAT post!

  223. Alan Ross
    August 9, 2019 at 08:16

    This article together with the comments actually confuse the issue further. It would seem harmless or even helpful to require greater background checks before gun purchases. That will allow the government to deny guns to the mentally ill and people who have committed violent (and non-violent?) crimes. Is a person mentally ill if he disagrees with the establishment narrative? What crimes allow prohibiting gun ownership? And then we have some gun owners making comments about committing violence that show mental illness or at least great anger without much control.

  224. August 9, 2019 at 08:01

    It’s interesting nearly all mass shootings are committed by millinials.
    All school shootings are done by millinials
    In the 60s and 70s you didn’t see a pickup truck in the school parking lot that didn’t have a shot gin and rifle on a rack in back window

    • August 9, 2019 at 12:04

      I agree. Something happened after I graduated Highschool ’69. As you said everybody had shotguns or Rifels in their car or truck. The only things that got shot were gamebirds, Rabbits, Feed signs, empty beer cans and bottles.
      Somewhere as the years went by the kids got lost. My Dad tought my sister and I gun safety! I tought my children, 2 boys & 2 girls about guns and gun safety.

  225. George Mason
    August 9, 2019 at 07:49

    If you think it can be repealed you are wrong.
    The Bill of Rights cannot be changed. If you think it can, go ahead and try. It will be to no avail.

    August 9, 2019 at 07:43

    Of course this educated biased liberal ——fails to tells his readers, on purpose, the founding Fathers would also puke and hang him and our leaders for accepting pornography, homosexuality, banning GOD from schools, burning of the flag, and various other LIBERAL montras. this man is an idiot, and educated idiot the worse kind. He has been brain washed by his handlers, of the Gov’t controlled educational system.

  227. Tom forrest
    August 9, 2019 at 07:42

    The “gun lobby” hasn’t hijacked the Second Amendment any more than the US Supreme Court has in their latest interpretation of it.

  228. Billy Strutz
    August 9, 2019 at 07:33

    America was started as Englands criminals & low life’s. When America was doing well the Queen wanted her due share , taxation without representation !! Started the Revolutionary War , Red coats against America . As before America can show it’s spirit & pride.

  229. Eddie Murray
    August 9, 2019 at 07:33

    Adams carried his amended position into the language of the second amendment. The phrase “A well regulated militia,…” Sir, means a properly trained militia- that is the accepted use of regulated.
    As to the founders horror… indeed, how could one man defeat an entire store full of armed men???
    They would be incredulous as to the nanny state nature of today’s America.

    • August 9, 2019 at 09:52

      Why cant people understand that it’s not the guns?? I’m a responsible gun owner with 2 dozen guns including multiple ar15s and a ak47. I enjoy shooting them an target practicing on a regular basis an it’s amazing to think that after all the thousands of rounds I’ve fired nobody has ever been hurt in any way. Its sick people that hurt people an that’s the bottom line. Stop glorifying and glamorizing the “assault weapons” it’s a deeper issue than just a gun. STOP punishing responsible people

  230. August 9, 2019 at 07:31

    Never give in to a courp left evil wing if pure crap we never give up ars in this country 2 nd is our rights to protect bear arms all these killings start up.bye evil sick people if we all carryed guns we be safe aver were and put in metal detector s in schools stores etc yes states take money our millions government makes just off lottery yes that suppose go schools but most to government yes left to feed igeals house and give checks to them as well thugs to so they buy drugs guns and etc put them in to protect us all gaurds tokeep it safe besrsrms and scew the left they or crooks Obama was Hillary yo they no it gdoros Nazi nwo is trying to disarm us all but not going work here no way we the people demand change vote all republicans Trump nation make it great again keep on bearing ,20 millions gun owner s say enough is dam enough on your gun grabs not disarming legel people or there ars protect your own criminal s have guns the left dount say nothing bout takeing them.wake up Americans civilwar is near if republicans or not back in 100 pre control of our country

  231. Ben M.
    August 9, 2019 at 07:27

    First of all, the second amendment doesn’t grant the right to bear arms. It recognizes we already have that right and protects it. It’s purpose is to repel tyranny. It’s to keep government from to much overreach. It’s so the people can say enough is enough and hit the reset button like they did in 1775.

  232. O Society
    August 9, 2019 at 07:26

    The antigovernment movement experienced a resurgence, growing quickly since 2008, when President Obama (who is black by the way) was elected to office. Factors fueling the antigovernment movement in recent years include changing demographics driven by immigration, the struggling economy, and the election of the first African-American president. In 2017, the Southern Poverty Law Center identified 689 anti-government groups that were active the prior year.

    *Of these groups, 273 are militias* and the remainder includes “common-law” courts, publishers, ministries and citizens’ groups. (see a list of these groups below)


  233. August 9, 2019 at 07:18

    How to End Gun Violence: buy every black man in America membership in the NRA


  234. ACP45
    August 9, 2019 at 07:12

    So if the National Guard is the citizen militia envisioned by our founding fathers, what happens when the Federal Government federalizes the National Guard? Who is going to protect and enforce our rights under the constitution against a corrupted Federal Government that illegally usurps power?

  235. Nane
    August 9, 2019 at 07:11

    National guard is not a militia

  236. Nick Adams
    August 9, 2019 at 07:06

    You clearly have no clue regarding the historical or philosophical reasons why the 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights. It was ALWAYS an individual right, going back into English common law, not a collective right. BTW, how could you have a civilian militia unless INDIVIDUAL citizens had armaments?

    If you don’t want a free citizenry, just say so. Don’t pussyfoot around with disingenuous gun control arguments.

  237. John siters
    August 9, 2019 at 07:05

    Unfortunately the threat has become the democratic party, since the big cheat scandal to take over the presidency the hate is showing these people have been in power way too long and their fear to lose it is obvious they want to ruin the country with this socialist agenda and stay in power

  238. art guerrilla
    August 9, 2019 at 07:03

    1. the author is an irrational snowflake, if we logically prioritized preventable deaths, etc, then deaths by guns would be w-a-y down the list… for mere convenience of running to the mini-mart in our metal death machines to get cheezy doodles and sugar water, we countenance tens of thousands of deaths and don’t even blink…
    2. not to mention most all the ‘children being slaughtered’ are a drop in the bucket compared to foreign children we are ACTUALLY, REALLY slaughtering, but they aren’t anywhere near as pwecious as our young and stupids…
    3. not to mention the inconvenient fact that it is NOT kops, white supremacists, or putin puppets who are doing all the ‘slaughtering of children’, it is black children slaughtering black children… IF we counted mass murders evenhandedly, black people are mass murderers at a FAR greater rate than whites… facts are bastards, i know…
    4. say, where did you go, joe ? ? ? a couple of snarky drive-by retorts, but no real response to the majority who think you are full of it ? ? ? cowards even when the only risk is a keyboard blister… maybe you should buy a gun, maybe you wouldn’t be such a coward then…
    5. i could go on, but it makes no difference, mssrs lauria et al have made up their minds, and no amount of reason, facts, or common sense are going to dissuade them from their self-acknowledged moral perfection… such people make me want to puke on them… arrogant, presumptuous shits…

  239. Lynn Brant
    August 9, 2019 at 06:55

    Clearly the objective of the democrat party is to confiscate all firearms from all law abiding citizens. It would not be the first time in history a government has disarmed its people. And in none of those cases did things go well for the people afterward. The second amendment means what it says. In the 18th century militia meant the people collectively and well regulated meant well equipped.

  240. Reddog
    August 9, 2019 at 06:49

    August 8, 2019 at 22:55
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    So you think. With the Elementary teachings that you have. Skipping lines & spaces like someone with a doubled lined book.

    Trump is the man…

    You say all without knowing the History of United States of America…
    I would suggest for you, stop. Maybe some upgrade with… Skills that you don’t have.
    Your typing skills as well.
    Over & out

    10 4

    Andy Griffin Show

    Get Real
    Too late all ready 10 4 Ya…

  241. August 9, 2019 at 06:39

    When will we stop pretending that these mass shootings are not an ongoing operation being executed against the living people of this land by negative elements within our governments and social control structures? Furthermore, the right to self defence is inalienable to every living being. If self defence were outlawed, which is what they are really after, every living being would thus become an outlaw simply by exercising its right to remain so in the face of aggression.

  242. John S
    August 9, 2019 at 06:29

    So for those that worship the 2nd amendment above all others, i have a question for you.

    The constitution gives all those in America the same rights and protections as anyone else. So if I’m an exchange student and someone hits me with their car, I can take them to court. If I’m visiting, and someone robs me, the cops will try and solve that theft. Of I’m here illegally, and I murder someone I will go to jail.

    So with the above being true, would you be ok with several gun manufacturers setting up shop and giving away their product towards illegal immigrants? And no, you can’t say the 2nd amendment doesn’t apply to those folks. Because a shown above technically as soon as they set foot in America, they deserve to be treated as you or I are.

    So would you? In fact if you believe it’s necessary to stop a tyrannical gov’t, they have more of a right / need to those firearms, because a tyrannical gov’t is causing them to lose many rights we enjoy.

    • The REAL Uncle Sam
      August 9, 2019 at 16:41

      I see what you’re trying to do here, and it’s a total strawman tactic. They shouldn’t be here if they are here illegally, therefore they don’t get to enjoy the perks that America has to offer. They need to take that up with their country that they legally have citizenship with! Good try though! Not! MAGA!

  243. Donald Phillips
    August 9, 2019 at 06:24

    Anyone who calls the 2nd amendment a relic proves they are ignorant of its purpose. It’s as valid today as the day it was written, if not more so.

  244. August 9, 2019 at 06:16

    The second amendment was also to protect us from a tyrannical government which is what is happening with the out of control FBI and other government agencies who tried to form a coup on a sitting president. And they talk of socialist views openly when we have seen what has happened to the citizens of countries who were socialist who were foolish enough to give up there guns. No, I call b.s on that and you should be ashamed for leading the weak to give up there freedom to protect themselve from the criminals on the street and the anti american criminals in the government .

  245. August 9, 2019 at 05:57

    The Right to Bear Arms

    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.

    This article left out the second part which has nothing to do with a militia.
    However I do believe there is no need to have high capacity clips or AR type weapons and I do believe we need better back ground checks. It is still very simple for anyone to possess a weapon.

  246. Russell
    August 9, 2019 at 05:50

    If you have an inalienable right to life you also have an inalienable right to protect your life
    This is the mind of the writers of the Constitution, you are saying I don’t have a right to protect my life, I can see where you are going with this.
    You want me vulnerable to your whims which is again why we have a right to protect our lives.

  247. August 9, 2019 at 05:44

    “The gun lobby has hijacked the Second Amendment, which was intended for citizen militias to provide domestic “security” without a standing army. The amendment is a dangerous relic”

    Absolutely. it is a relic, if a person interprets it clearly.

    But it is deliberately misinterpreted, all the time, and there is no one in authority to correct that misinterpretation.

    The ultra-conservative Supreme Court, much resembling a group of Catholic Scholastics from the Middle Ages in their narrow way of looking at matters, certainly will never step in the way of misinterpreting it. Their decisions on most matters are about on a level of enlightenment with the old Dred Scott decision.

    As, for example, the decision insanely telling us that “money is free speech,” leaving American politics in the complete service of the wealthy with little room for genuine democratic principles. The voice of the general populace has very little political force in America.

    Given the quality of leadership the money principle produces in the Senate, in the House, and in the White House (and, of course, in a court appointed by the White House and approved by the Senate), no wonder no significant progress is ever made in almost anything.

    And the Second Amendment has long been rather meaningless because the set of circumstances dictating its creation ceased existing a very long time ago. The idea of private militias had roots in a pre-empire English government that was not fond of spending large amounts of money on standing armies. Those ideas were transferred to, and early embraced in, America.

    But they became obsolete as America itself fairly early turned to empire, as with the thinking of the Monroe Doctrine. The national embrace of violence in a long series of imperial wars and violent activities was no friendly environment for any kind of opposition against guns.

    The interpretation of the Second Amendment morphed over time into something it was clearly not designed to be, too, a protection against tyrannical government, perhaps not surprising considering all the wars and imperial efforts of the government.

    The fact is that America, as a whole, has been very gun-friendly, and the bending and twisting of the meaning of the Second amendment serves that gun-friendly population. It certainly is not the work of just a formal lobby like the National Rifle Association. There are tens of millions of Americans with gut feelings on the matter of guns. And there is a long history.

    I think it dates back to the days of slavery when many plantation owners slept with a gum under the pillow or on a nearby nightstand.

    They were afraid of slave revolts, even though there were almost none.

    Then we had the gun as friendly tool through the Indian Wars.

    And the various imperial wars on the march westward. And efforts to seize parts South too. In all of them, the gun was a friend.

    And gun ownership remains popular with the violence of decayed American urban areas generating fears, the same kind of fears that create gated communities and much of suburbia and make driving semi-military, somewhat-menacing-looking vehicles like SUVs popular.

    The fear of violence is also to be seen in the undisciplined police in so many places in America, police who kill an average of three Americans a day, and there is very little effort to correct that ugly reality with few police ever charged with anything or even dismissed. The fear of violence is seen in notoriously brutal prisons where hundreds of prisoners mysteriously die every year. And it is seen in the world’s highest rate of incarceration.

    It doesn’t help that America is constantly at war, constantly promoting the values of war even at sporting events like football games, constantly recruiting soldiers for the wars, and constantly spending unholy amounts of money on the Pentagon and security services.

    The very air that you breathe in the United States is charged with violence.

    It isn’t just a “gun lobby” keeping the relic Second Amendment going, keeping it in a state of perpetual widely-accepted misinterpretation.

    One could say that the gun-filled, violence-charged American society serves almost as a training and conditioning ground for the rather brutal needs of empire.

    On historical aspects of America’s embrace of violence:

    On reasons America’s government is so totally ineffective about any real domestic needs:

    • W Browning
      August 9, 2019 at 15:40

      If you want true interpretation my misguided friend, read the Federalist papers.

    • John S
      August 10, 2019 at 19:16

      Excellent points JC, but of course they’re lost on most of this audience who JUST want to shoot their guns, no matter WHAT the cost is to society, which they delude themselves into believing they’re ‘protecting’, while most of them are voting for the right wingers who are causing most of their personal problems (ie; economic & military related).

  248. Dale Bohan
    August 9, 2019 at 05:33

    Such A Foolish Remark! The Second Amendment Must Be Repealed?..With This Wacko Liberal Democrat Party Tearing The Fabric From The American Landscape…I Don’t Think So…These Foolish Words Would Be Praised And Lauded By Adolph Hitler But Distained By Our Founding Fathers…It Would Be Death To America..For Christ Sake 80 Thousand Drug Addicts Overdosed Last Year And Not A Peep From The Concerned Liberal Class…And 80 Million Babies Aborted In The Last 45 Years…Yet Liberals Are Concerned About 35 Thousand Gun Deaths Many Ending In Suicides…Lets Not Forget The 15 Thousand Drunk Driving Deaths That The Liberals Also Are Silent About…The Democrats Are The Party Of The Silent Sound Of Music Until It Can Favor Their Agenda Then It’s Nothing More Than A Hypocritical Fake Focus Group Of Phony Fake Tears…

  249. August 9, 2019 at 05:24

    Another anti-gunners mixed up view of the 2nd. This same tired miss guided thought comes out about once a week now, used to be once every six months.
    Look at the papers, Joe.
    Nine other amendments to restrict the government from stepping on an individual, but the 2nd was about the government operating a malitia.
    No it’s the punctuation, LOL
    It’s okay you have enough people buffaloed with your bull.

  250. Charles Lee llewellyn
    August 9, 2019 at 05:18

    The second amendment was put in place to defend citizens from tyrannical government, even or own if it became the case. Do you really think that had of America won’t think the government is tyrannical if they try to steal everyone’s guns? What you are calling for is the start of a civil war.

  251. Loren Wilt
    August 9, 2019 at 05:15

    This person is just crazy.

  252. Hugh Mungus
    August 9, 2019 at 04:56

    I’d imagine that youre one of those “Trump is literally Hitler” type of person, so my question to you is why would you want “literally Hitler” to take our guns away? Even then, if the government were to successfully take away our guns without any backlash from its citizens, police, and military, we can just build our own guns. Biker gangs in Australia build their own guns. P.A. Lutey built his own gun in protest of England’s gun ban. People will get their hands on a gun no matter what, just like illegal drugs. If they want it, they will get it.

  253. W Browning
    August 9, 2019 at 04:17

    The first ten Amendments of The Constitution speak of mans inalienable rights. Inalienable rights are rights given to man by God, not granted to men by government. The Constitution also states that the first Ten Amendments shall not be amended or overturned. The Supreme Court has upheld this to be true several times.

    Just because 100 out of 100 million gun owners is mentally depraved and unstable enough to wantonly kill others is not enough to make the others disarm themselves in wake of these heinous acts.

    The intent and reasoning behind all aspects of The Constitution are abundantly clear from the writing’s of those who penned this beautiful contract.

    As the society of America and the world continues to devolve and become more violent, the right of people to be able to defend themselves by any and all means necessary and available should not be restricted by government or societal pressures.

    The problem is not the weapon used. The root cause and problem resides at the human level. What said problems of these twisted and tormented souls is debatable. However, until the root cause is determined, addressed, and mitigated, these types of incidents will continue.

    History has shown time and again that in order to conquer a society and people, they first must be disarmed. Cognizant Americans know this. Those same Americans will, when and if the time comes, defend you and the rest of the country to sustain our true freedom.

  254. August 9, 2019 at 04:11

    Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but yours is wrong. Your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is backwards. It states: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and besr Arms shall not be infringed. ‘Militia’ and ‘the people’ are separated. It is not saying that the people are the Militia, rather that because a Militia(Army founded in June 14, 1775, Navy founded October 13, 1775 and Marines founded November 10, 1776) was already in place, the right of the people(as opposed to the Militia) must not be infringed. The Founders knew that armed citizens would be the last line of defense against a tyrannical government, which they had just fought against. They never intended for the people to be the Militia, rather to be able to stand against a Militia if it was turned against them, which, again, they had just fought against. You are forgetting that the Founders, prior to the Revolution, were citizens of England and their government sent troops to impose its will on its citizens. The Founders were making a provision to arm the citizens in the event that the government would ever decide to use its Armed Forces ie Militia, against them, just like the war they just fought.

  255. Robert DeShone
    August 9, 2019 at 03:32

    The way the things are now, people need to protect themselves!! Proper training, and responsibility, to protect themselves. Without human contact a gun won’t hurt anyone. Please look up “Mass Murder Without Guns” Sounds like PEOPLE need the control!!! I am for owning, and carrying guns. At this time I don’t own a gun, because I don’t have the money, to buy and practice, which should be done. Years ago I had guns. Some old and some new. I never anyone! RESPOSIBILITY!! In AZ I don’t need permit to carry, but I have one anyway.

  256. Sorcerer
    August 9, 2019 at 03:30

    Half a million ppl die every year in the usA from tobacco related illnesses, yet i dont see ANY OF THESE anti-gun zealots SCREAMING about banning tobacco!

  257. Patriot III
    August 9, 2019 at 03:26

    The 2A is exactly intended to protect against all enemies both foreign
    and domestic. There are forces that intend to take freedom from this country, but the US Constitution and Bill of Rights has thus far stopped them. You who think the 2A is a relic are more than foolish! You are a fool!

  258. Judge Alan
    August 9, 2019 at 03:15

    The moment militias representing the “people” were created, State national guards, state police, highway patrol,county Sheriff’s, city police departments , not to mention the alphabet soup of police agency’s both Federal and State FBI CIA BATF HLS ICE IRS etc on and on…..the “PEOPLE” are represented at a constitutional level re the 2nd amendment and have NO INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS as that has been superseded by the REPRESENTING MILITIAS.
    Of course this comes down to individual STATES RIGHTS re the constitutional frame work.
    Any state can therefore choose to allow individuals to retain those FEDERAL RIGHTS of bearing arms.
    Many do ….. mostly states with White populations attempting to hold on to power behind the color of authority.
    Such as Georgia where Governor Kemp had 12 people of color arrested by the GBI for daring to win a local school board election.
    Make no mistake about it GUN RIGHTS are about WHITE POWER and nothing more.

  259. Gary Willis
    August 9, 2019 at 03:08

    Absolutely absurd! About 1/2 the country cherishes the 2nd Amendment and yet there is a small minority that hates it and desires to end the freedom it recognizes. This is similar to Michael Bersailles’ book Arming America. It documented the idea that the NRA created the gun culture and the individual RKBA. Trouble was it was a fraud. Bersailles was defrocked from his Academic standing but not before this book of fiction won a Pulitzer prize. The Militia argument is just an excuse to infringe upon the RKBA. It states: the right shall not be infringed, not that the Peamble, the Federal monopoly on the Militia, 9r wishful thinking by modern leftists be valid excuses to infringe.

  260. Kevin Di Bella
    August 9, 2019 at 02:21

    You can’t have The Constitution both ways… either you interpret it as time changes as though it were a living document, or you analyze what people who have been dead for 250 years thought about when they wrote it. We live in a time that the founders could never have comprehended, but they made something beautiful with out country and it’s constitution. We either interpret the constitution as our political and social norms change, or we uphold the letter of the LITERAL LAW OF OUR LAND and accept that the founders wanted Americans to be able to protect ourselves from any potentially tyrannical government.. you know, like they did when they defeated the greatest army the planet had ever seen for the right to be sovereign…??? You people make me sick when you talk about parts of the constitution that need to be changed, or are outdated, or not what was intended, but think the rest of it is just fine as written over 200 years ago. You can’t have it both ways, and you will never get the roughly 100million Americans who own roughly 400million firearms to simply give up our constitutional right to bear them. You are disgraces to America, and you can take your leftist, utopian ideologies and suck my dick if you think that the NRA has “hijacked” The Constitution.

    • August 9, 2019 at 04:03

      Let’s not forget that by REQUIRING that Texans PAY to first receive training and then PAY AGAIN for a state issued license before they can exercise the basic human right of self-defense, the government is disproportionately handicapping the poor and people of color of their natural and constitutional rights.

  261. August 9, 2019 at 02:00

    You’re right. The first amendment is also a relic. So we need to start requiring Speaking permits, and ban “assault words”.

    This is satire; you’re an idiot. All rights are equal, and if you’re not ok with that, you can leave and go to a different country.

  262. God Said so
    August 9, 2019 at 01:50

    The right of the people means the right of the people.

  263. Eric Trump
    August 9, 2019 at 01:40

    I hope they repeal the second amendment. I will be so happy the day they take your guns away from you stupid hillbillies.

    • August 9, 2019 at 03:40

      How’s that working in Australia? Illegal importation of the 6th largest amount of guns of any country, all in the hands of criminals. Do some research, you pud! Home invasions up 80%! In New South Wales alone, in a one year period, police confiscated over 10,000 forearms, this after 12 years of the ban! Feel free to be a victim. As for me, no way in he’ll!

    • August 9, 2019 at 04:02

      Then I sincerely hope that you will have the balls to gear up, stack up, and take point. If you want to confiscate guns from the law abiding citizenry, you are an enemy combatant, and deserve no better consideration.

    • Gary Musser
      August 9, 2019 at 04:48

      Hey retard you still crying we took away your slaves?

    • Loren Wilt
      August 9, 2019 at 05:24

      I don’t believe that the Eric Trump wrote this! Just goes to show you how the left
      will go to make up lies .

    • Bryan
      August 9, 2019 at 05:28

      I suppose you don’t remember history class. Every time a nation has disarmed the “stupid hillbillys”, that nation then turned on them or exploded with violence because the good people were left defenseless.

    • Russell
      August 9, 2019 at 06:05

      When they take yours you will meet those stupid hillbillies and you won’t be able to defend yourself you moron

    • August 9, 2019 at 08:20

      I hope your the one who comes to my house and tries you safe space needing pansie!

    • final_echelon
      August 9, 2019 at 08:54

      Interesting and telling comment. Clearly you don’t actually understand the second amendment, it’s purpose, or meaning. Nor do you understand what is needed to actually to repeal it.

      If the second amendment (2A) were repealed, there would still be a right to keep and bear arms because 2A does not grant that right, it prevents the government from infringing upon it.

      So what will it take to take my firearms from me?
      You first need 13 States to agree to amend the Constitution with an amendment that repeals 2A.
      You then need state and/or federal laws passed banning ownership of firearms by private citizens.
      For such a law to be passed there would have to be a period of time to allow for compliance via some agreed upon means.
      In order to ensure compliance you will need to know who all had a firearm, something like a preexisting register which does not currently exist.
      You will then need to task law enforcement with verifying compliance, which means either hiring more LEOs, or redirecting them from their current duties. There are 300M Americans, and roughly 3 firearms per American.
      In order for them to come into your home and search for firearms, they will need one of two things;
      1. A warrant issued by a judge, something that takes time and reasonable, articulable cause to get, or..
      2. A repealing of other amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. Something that will take another 13 States to make happen, unless it was already in the amendment that repaired 2A, which would likely have stopped it dead in it’s tracks.

      So assuming these things have taken place, along with the other hurdles that would come along with them, you will finally be able to come and take my firearms from me.
      And you, along with the rest of us, would get to live in a totalitarian ran country where my rights are no longer protected and have been taken from me. And so have yours. All because you were scared of something you know nothing at all about our have any experience with; firearms.

      Yeah, good luck with that.

    • robert lowther
      August 9, 2019 at 09:02

      Then who will protect you from getting knifed? They did this shit in European countries, all the murder rates went up in the countries dumb enough to ban firearms. If someone wants to kill you, they’ll find a way, firearms is what keeps the murder rates from skyrocketing here in the States

  264. Jack Walker
    August 9, 2019 at 01:32

    History is pretty clear on the results of citizens being disarmed, many times it is a precursor to many human rights violations and far more death. As well as the violence and death don’t decrease they just take different forms more often than not they increase so you gave up your rights for nothing.

    • August 9, 2019 at 02:38

      No, the second amendment is supposed to help us defend against a tyrannical government that turns on its people. And, that has been happening slowly since 9/11.

  265. Murder liberals
    August 9, 2019 at 01:32

    You need to be gut fucked to death with a goddamn knife and blow your fucking stomach out with a gun or get crushed under a car tire until your guts squirt out your fucking asshole. Get murdered

    • August 9, 2019 at 08:23

      Well said. But do us a favor don t hold back tell us whats really on your mind

  266. Walter Gomez
    August 9, 2019 at 01:29

    Please read the 2nd amendment again. It clear states “the right of the people.” Meaning people shall have the right. In this case the right to bear arms. I can not believe that people have lost their patriotism. If it were not for patriotism our great nation would have never been. To utterly disrespect our constitution which was written by free men for free men and to for ever be free, is a disgrace and treason. It is your duty as an AMERICAN to defend and preserve our constitution as it is written. Oh yeah keep in mind every military member active or not took an oath to defend our constitution against foreign and domestic terrorist. Just about all that have taken that oath will continue to protect that oath even if you want to releal any amendment. Please always keep that in mind.

  267. Garrett
    August 9, 2019 at 01:22

    The Supreme Court has already affirmed that the Second Amendment is very well still needed in this nation. The militia is still a thing even after the official founding of the National Guard. The unorganized militia is a right of the people in order to stand a chance against a possible tyrannical threat.

  268. Joseph wojtkowski
    August 9, 2019 at 01:16

    The 2nd amendment is for the people to protect themselves and their families from not just government but also from lunatics like antifa and other hate groups.so you can step right up and give your rights away ! Me? I’ll take freedom an gladly fight for it!

  269. August 9, 2019 at 01:15

    In California a man just murdered four with a knife and stabbed two others…ban knives? My family has been attacked by white nationalist jerks on several occasions since Trump has been encouraging his Tiki Torch Terrorists. Until white power is a historical footnote I will keep every bit of firepower I have to defend my family from the systemic hate which is the real problem. I was the youngest member to join the Virginia Defense Force since the revolutionary war, and have been a member of several other state militias after service in the Army. I’m trained, and I will obtain every weapon I can to fit any tactical scenario, because where we live police response time is about thirty minutes. Removing weapons from law abiding citizens is so completely ignorant and self serving. You might live in fear, we take action.

  270. August 9, 2019 at 01:13

    We need the second Amendmend to protect the country (you and me) from the US army, the Government has control of. GET IT PUNKS!!!

  271. Kason
    August 9, 2019 at 00:59

    Good thing the supreme court a2md the majorimity of americans say you are wrong, Mr Lauria

    • Lorcan81
      August 9, 2019 at 01:27

      Your opinion ridiculous. Flat out attempting to disarm the American people would be lead to another war. Anyone wanting that is a flat out idiot.

      • August 9, 2019 at 08:27

        This is very true. The day they repeal the 2And is the first day of America s 1nd civil war. I Will quote a great man ” from my xold dead hand

  272. Greg welch
    August 9, 2019 at 00:56

    Adolph hitler leader of the nazi party was the first to have gun registration imposed so when he took over france he just needed to look at the registra to know where all the guns were kept so his henchmen could kick the doors down execute the gun owners and steal there guns and ammo and anythig else they could steal from the jews the french and all the other defencless people they could find ! We. I remember the oath i took.before joining the army all enemies forighn or domestic. These. Monsters gunning down inocent people are just that Monsters! Not responsable gun owners like most of us are ! The communist would love to see the librals t take are guns away which would be not a smart move in the intrest of freedom!

  273. August 9, 2019 at 00:54

    Over my dead body.

  274. Stacy Dove
    August 9, 2019 at 00:51

    You are a joke

    • August 9, 2019 at 06:06


      • final_echelon
        August 9, 2019 at 09:01

        Remember, your a racist if you don’t agree.

  275. Jordan
    August 9, 2019 at 00:36

    Lobbyists dont sway the supreme court and the supreme court is who ruled that the second amendment applies to the rights of citizens to own guns not congress.

  276. JoJo Dancer
    August 9, 2019 at 00:33

    Why is it that in these types of arguments, the author always *conviently* overlooks the fact that every other item in the bill of rights refers to *individual* rights? Do you think the framers of the constitution somehow got a case of the dumb and said ” na, this one is only good till we get an army set up”.

    Just think about that. They just got done fighting a rebellion. If they couldn’t own guns, they wouldn’t have been able to. Because only the army had guns.

  277. James k
    August 9, 2019 at 00:31

    How silly must you be to actually believe that the second amendment is only about being able to for and arm a militia. The right of the PEOPLE to keep and Bear arms…

  278. August 9, 2019 at 00:28

    Second amendment is the back an haert of the constitution, without it we can fall under a dictatorship government, an that is a form of slavery! We the people of the United States suffer after a tragedy like last weekend, an God bless the victims and their families, but taking Americans rights away is not the answer, making new laws dont work , my thoughts are enforce the ones we have be come involved in your community an get people to quit being afraid to say something when they know of a person that is struggling with issues there has to be signals we are overlooking. And it might come to gun owners need to be certified in defensive an operation of certain firearms ,but just saying get rid of the second amendment is like saying shut up you can’t speak your opinion.

  279. Baca Abel
    August 9, 2019 at 00:27

    Meanwhile, in Hong Kong…

  280. Tommy
    August 9, 2019 at 00:27

    How ludicrous, to think that unarming its citizens and having gun free zones that invite evil to do their deeds makes no logical sense, to believe that government, its political groups, the media has the people’s safety in mind by disarming them, making them easy prey to evil as witnessed time and again, yet we continue to think taking away the tool that can protect us is the solution.

  281. August 9, 2019 at 00:23

    Ehhhh….Mr. Lauria obviously NEVER READ WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS STATED ABOUT “THE PEOPLE’S RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS”. Progressives have no argument regarding the Second Amendment – and it’s not going anywhere – and we’re NEVER handing over our AR-15s because insane people killed under 300 people with them in 2019! The way progressives beat their anti-AR-15 drum you’d think TENS OF THOUSANDS were being shot – kinda like the 300,000 PEOPLE INJURED BY DRUNK DRIVERS EVERY YEAR – no outrage or legislation needed there

  282. Jake
    August 9, 2019 at 00:23

    Sure, come and take them. Bullets first.

  283. Dr. Bill Wedin
    August 9, 2019 at 00:21

    Joe is a good white liberal., well-educated in white schools and universities. Unfortunately, this leaves him clearly ignorant of the class and race basis of the 2nd Amendment. He would do well to read the noted black historian, Dr. Gerald Horne, on this topic. He was interviewed on both the Real News and Democracy Now in 2016 on this matter. One clip may be found at: https://therealnews.com/stories/ghorne0108guncontrol

  284. Joshua Little
    August 9, 2019 at 00:20

    Your entire article is Bullshit. For starters the Supreme Court has allready ruled on the fact that the right to keep and bear arms and all other rights in the Bill Of Rights are rights that exist completely seperate from the Constitution. The exist with or without it and are not bestowed on us by it or the government. While the founders were in favor of the right of the people to maintain militias as a bullwark against tyranical government most of those rights including the rights to keep and bear arms were rights the people( us in other words) allready possessed. The only purpose of the 2nd Amendment, Bill of rights and Constitution all together is to limit government. Exercising those rights does not require service in a militia or any militia. The founders were very clear that the Constitutions ONLY function was to limit Government and should never be used to require stipulations or limit or infringe on the rights of ordinary private citizens and again the Supreme Court in the Heller Case ruled very specificly on the fact that no the right to keep and bear arms does not require Militia Service or any service and even if it did the Militia is very clearly defined as every able bodied man between 17and 47 not allready serving in the US Armed Forces or Reseve Component. The Army National Guard is a Reserve Component of the Active Army it is not a Militia in anyway. I served 15years in The Navy, Army National Guard and the Active Duty Army. I get so tired of ignorant people refering to The Army National Guard as a militia for the purpose of propping up their lame gun control arguements.

  285. John
    August 9, 2019 at 00:20

    Why don’t you take away alcohol from people…. if you are concerned with saving lives, more people are injured or killed by alcohol related incidents,
    How about bad drivers ….. gun related deaths are a small percentage compared to other i fortune deaths…. but people want their Marianna though,
    How about making passive aggression illegal…..
    Here is an idea” let’s execute violators of laws that harm others….. I think if more people just had respect for others, instead of playing games with people…. you would have less of these incidents… whether be guns, knives, hammers, autos what ever the tool they use for their evil deeds…..
    I drive a truck ….and when I put my turn signal on most people will speed up to block me from the lane…. when they could have held their speed and position and let me get over….. so all the laws in the world are not going to solve the issues with guns or anything else…..more laws just infringe upon someone else freedoms…..

    Where is this idea that it’s ok to take what others have earned to fund someone else that did not earn it
    Maybe people are the problem …. hmmm
    I hope the artificial intelligence doesn’t get rid of us….
    Just a thought or two…..
    have a great day

  286. Concerned citizen & Patriot
    August 9, 2019 at 00:18

    No it shouldn’t and your claims are ridiculous. Your leftist ideology will be our nation’s undoing. Criminals and those seeking to do harm will find a way. Taking guns away from lawful owners will only create more victims of violent crime or domestic terrorism. What we need is comon sense gun laws and better resources for mental heath so people can get the help the need before they can bring about another tragedy.

  287. August 9, 2019 at 00:17

    Promises made promises broken the 8 year assault on our second amendment has just heated up he is close to losing his base

  288. Sandy
    August 9, 2019 at 00:07
  289. August 9, 2019 at 00:03

    Really? So when another country tries to invade again what than? What about someone trying to invade your home at 2am? Or a mass shooting going on and you can stop him by having a gun? We need the 2nd more than ever.

  290. August 8, 2019 at 23:53

    It’s a right that was enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Just like the right to freedom of speech, that gives you the right to write this rubbish and ill-informed post advocate for its infringement.

  291. August 8, 2019 at 23:50

    I say boy u picking up what I’m putting down.
    Let me guess u don’t even the best cartoon ever.

  292. Son_of_Liberty
    August 8, 2019 at 23:48

    You sir, are incorrect. Lost to history? We have documented evidence that the framers declared that the “militia” is in reference to armed, peaceable American citizens. We have documented evidence of the original arguments that resulted in the first 10 amendments of the Constitution.

    “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, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

    “On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
    – Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

    “I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
    – George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

    “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
    – William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

    Next time you have a thought… Just let it go.

  293. George
    August 8, 2019 at 23:42

    This is the dumbest shit I have ever heard.

    Fighting off tyranny the founders knew a government would become corrupt as they are now hence the reason to guarantee the peoples right to defend themselves from enemies foriegn and domestic as well as the tyranny we are now seeing.

    A body such as the national guard is controlled by the states, still a governing body, they are not civilians.

    The government is not the all powerful being that gives us rights, they are here to protect our right that are endowed by our creator. They are inalienable rights you fucking moron!

  294. Jose Ornelas
    August 8, 2019 at 23:39

    Apparently you have no idea what the 2nd Amendment is all about. Read some of the speeches, letters and other writings from the founders, the same ones that authored the Bill of Rights. You seem to try to cherry pick only the things that support your narrative. We need to be diligent in defending every right we have, and like it or not, the 2nd Amendment defends the rest. Don’t believe it? Just look at other countries without a right to keep and bear arms.

  295. Ky
    August 8, 2019 at 23:38

    We also had an absorbadent amount of standing army assistance from the french so the basis of your argument is flawed from the start. You are a frustrated person lashing out at what you perceive as the problem. We all are frustrated that people can be this evil, but remember friend, the evil that is perpetrated is only done so through the will of man, by will of pure merciless evil, no legislation will make these people or their evil disappear, go watch a flick called Demolition Man if you have trouble understanding my side of the argument.

  296. Ccscott
    August 8, 2019 at 23:38

    Seemly by varying comments the 2nd smendment is open to interpretation and obviously needs adjustments and aligned for today’s society. We aren’t using to protect us against a malicious government, instead it being used to turn on each other. Not what the founding fathers meant, IMO.

  297. August 8, 2019 at 23:38

    As an Inactive Marine. I find it ridiculous that you would blame and want to repeal the Second Amendment. It’s like saying that the N.R.A. is responsible for these acts of lunacy.

  298. August 8, 2019 at 23:24

    All you Democratic liberal socialist Fox can all go and fucking hang yourselves in a fucking tree we are not going to give up our guns no matter what you say or what you do

  299. jeremiah j bates
    August 8, 2019 at 23:22

    You have no concept or idea of what the 2nd amendment stands for and if you think for one second we can trust our government you’re part of the problem

  300. jeremiah j bates
    August 8, 2019 at 23:22

    You have no concept or idea of what the 2nd amendment stands for and if you think for one second we can trust our government your part of the problem

  301. Michael E Brown jr
    August 8, 2019 at 23:18

    The 2nd amendment was written in to law so the people could protect them selves from a tyrannic government

  302. August 8, 2019 at 23:18

    Liberty for Security you have neither The 2nd amendment shall stand. Stupid.

  303. Jerry
    August 8, 2019 at 23:15

    “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
    “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.”
    – James Madison
    “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

    So as you can see, no, the founding fathers did not agree with your assessment. In the least bit.

  304. Blue
    August 8, 2019 at 23:15

    The author of this is either a liar or knows nothing about history. He should check himself into rehab based on his photo.

  305. Jt
    August 8, 2019 at 23:14

    As a American Citizen We Take An Oath To Defend Our Country And Constitution From Attack From Foriegn and Domestic threat.

    And if you choose to give up your guns that your right.

    But i will not allow my constitutional rights to be infringed on by the racist Democratic socialist party.

    More Guns Needed For All.

    A True Patriot will always fight to keep our freedoms.
    We The People.

  306. Sharon
    August 8, 2019 at 23:10

    If you think the government will protect US from all terrorist, foreign and domestic, you are fooling yourself. The sitting government officials only have enough military to defend themselves not the rest of US!

  307. August 8, 2019 at 23:10

    You take an article from 2012 and use a header pic of Trump boarding Air Force One?

    You should be ashamed of this hack effort that was a total waste of my time.

    Blocked you from my updates, bye bye hacks.

  308. Jerry
    August 8, 2019 at 23:08

    You’re right, it does have the highest rate for death via a gun. However it does not have the highest murder/homicide rate. WHAT?! That’s right, just south of the border in Mexico, 29,000+ people were murdered last year. In the US 11,500(that is altogether, including guns). Several other countries tip us as well in number of murders and they have less guns and gun homicides. So where is the correlation to more guns more death?

  309. Dav
    August 8, 2019 at 23:03

    This opinion article is both factually and historically inaccurate. Everything in it is fiction. There is so much real history at the library. Please stop spreading your political agenda as history.

  310. Charles Teague
    August 8, 2019 at 23:02

    This article was written by a 3 yr old!!! Even if we were to just protect ourselves with ourselves, how would we defeat today’s armies if they invaded?? Who would get the nuke powers?? This is ridiculousness!!! The army only goes to work if the people say too. That’s how it works!!! Let’s not make out like our founding principles were written by idiots. European powers were growing rapidly and leftist progressives were taking hold of the Eastern hemisphere even over the 1800’s. Yes this means the Germans and Nazis too. Why do you think Americans left Europe in droves to get here. Because our founding fathers knew what the world was like before any of you idiots will get a clue. The United States is and always will be the shining beacon of Independence and Sovereinty.

  311. Viva Liberte
    August 8, 2019 at 22:48

    The militia has been hijacked by the Militia Act of 1903, essentially turning it into an organized part time military known as the National Guard that is trained as a professional military rather than a citizen military. The militia, in its intended sense, not the government’s bastartized version of such, was to procure and maintain its own weaponry. However, since the federal military and the national guard are virtually interchangeable and under either gubernatorial or federal authority, the idea of defeading enemies of domestic origin, may become less viable, thus an armed citizenry ought to remain available. The Bill of Rights are God given, natural rights, that cannot be granted, restricted, or forbidden by government; the government’s duty, as the lip service oaths by career politicians seems to reiter, is to uphold the Constitution, not restrict it. The depravity, selfishness, disregard for respect, lack of discipline, and undeserved sense of righteousness are the problems that cause the increased spread of violence of lone wolf mass shootings. Only is it in the realm of firearms that guilt is being attributed to the tool, rather than the perpetrator. In any other case, whether malpractice, texting and driving, sexual assault, etc., is the antagonist behing held accountable rather than the tool or device. This duality of standards is as ludicrous as it is obnoxious. I think concern needs to be directed toward the lack of proper parenting and the idiocracy of the modern educational system.

  312. Davey Jones
    August 8, 2019 at 22:45

    In Caracas, Venezula, where it is illegal for private citizens to own firearms, there where 3300 homicides last year. Taking guns away from private citizens does not make murder stop. Personally, I sleep better at night knowing that my neighbors and myself all own firearms.
    The issue is not the guns. The issue is the desire to do harm to people. As a society, we glorify violence in media, and then wonder why it happens in real life. In my life time I have seen TV go from something the whole family sat and watched together, to something you had to make sure your kids weren’t watching.
    Guns are not the source of the problem. Lack of education and guidance, and the glorification of violence is. Guns have been a part of American culture since the country began. The new forms of get-it-now media and ease of access to violence on TV and video games haven’t.
    Statically speaking 40,000 people die from guns in the US every year. 8500 of them are homicides. 30% of those occur in the top 8 cities for homicide. Including Chicago and DC where carrying guns outside of your home is prohibited, and cities in California with strong gun laws. I’m fact, gang violence account for most shootings. Is there an uproar to clean up our streets? No. Why? Because that’s a city issue. Again, if it’s not happening in your suburban neighborhood it’s not a problem, right? Mass shootings account for far less than 1% of gun deaths. They just happen to make national news, not the 3 people who die everyday in Chicago, New Orleans, or Memphis.

    • Clark
      August 8, 2019 at 23:57

      Well said. I was just gonna suggest joe’s an effing idiot, but i guess that would be rude, huh? & anyway what could an old cop know he doesn’t?

    • Greg welch
      August 9, 2019 at 01:07

      Think about alot of the media is controled by communist librals people need to pay attention to history and not what this media is shoving down our throats yes there are crazy people out there that do bad things to good people if they didnt have a gun they would use a car truck knife whatever they could get there hands on because they frickin nut cases that are full of hate and disregaurd for humanity more reason to have a concield weapons permt to protect ourselves from being there prey

  313. Dobby
    August 8, 2019 at 22:44

    *thinks guns will disappear with a magical law*

    • Willie
      August 8, 2019 at 23:50

      The way our government and the world is right now , we the people would be crazy to lay down our arms.Liberty has a high price.God bless the USA.

  314. August 8, 2019 at 22:43

    The second amendment states aside militia, the right of the people(us) to bear arms. If more good citizens would arm themselves, if we protected our children and educators with armed citizens at schools. We would see a decrease in shootings.

  315. August 8, 2019 at 22:42

    Talking trash about people who love guns, which is a constitutional right means we love our rights the second protects the rest. Dumbacrat socialists are to dumb to realize REAL HISTORY like genocide when a populause is disarmed. Also try to read the federalist papers no. XXIX Concerning the militia it talks about if a tyrannical government were to use it’s military against the people the militia’s could protect the people should the militia’s start to loose, the people as a whole can join in. What better way to defeat a tyranical government than even half the country being armed. This is also why mainland USA has NEVER been invaded. Think about that truth then fighting each other over different beliefs.

  316. August 8, 2019 at 22:36

    Taking guns away is not the answer, more guns is what is nessiacry, these single mother raised young men (fact) are only targeting soft targets (areas known to be a disarmed location). Had a “good guy with a gun” been person or maybe more. The shooter should have been handled accordingly. Esspecially with trained current
    And former service members and law enforcement disbursed thrught the store store. The second Amendmant is very clear that it is a founding rule of land .
    And not to ever under any circumstance to be infringed

  317. Harrison Bergeron
    August 8, 2019 at 22:34

    The entire basis for this article is predicated on ignoring the fact that the Supreme Court has definitively affirmed that the right to bear arms extends to individuals. There is no legal ambiguity on this subject.

  318. August 8, 2019 at 22:33

    Get Ride of the second Amendment people are not trust worthy when they are armed anything can happen at any given time..you dont need to be a criminal to kill someone you just need to be armed and have no mercy for others..

    • Todd Miller
      August 8, 2019 at 23:12

      People like YOU ARE THE PROBLEM with this country. Trying to eliminate the bill of rights. The second is what lets you keep the other nine. Ignorance is the enemy.

    • James
      August 8, 2019 at 23:27

      So, you’re saying taking guns away from us is going to stop shootings? How’s that working in Chicago?

    • Son_of_Liberty
      August 8, 2019 at 23:38

      So in other words, you need to be a criminal? Did you read that before you posted it?

    • George
      August 8, 2019 at 23:44

      Like knife attacks in California this week. Are those next? You cant legislate away evil.

    • Clark
      August 9, 2019 at 00:07

      Do you have to train to be able to make such nonsensical remarks, or is it a natural talent?

  319. Nick neilson
    August 8, 2019 at 22:31

    Defense against tyrany both foreign and DOMESTIC. If the second falls the 1st and 4th aren’t far behind.

    • Joshua Little
      August 9, 2019 at 00:22

      Your entire article is Bullshit. For starters the Supreme Court has allready ruled on the fact that the right to keep and bear arms and all other rights in the Bill Of Rights are rights that exist completely seperate from the Constitution. The exist with or without it and are not bestowed on us by it or the government. While the founders were in favor of the right of the people to maintain militias as a bullwark against tyranical government most of those rights including the rights to keep and bear arms were rights the people( us in other words) allready possessed. The only purpose of the 2nd Amendment, Bill of rights and Constitution all together is to limit government. Exercising those rights does not require service in a militia or any militia. The founders were very clear that the Constitutions ONLY function was to limit Government and should never be used to require stipulations or limit or infringe on the rights of ordinary private citizens and again the Supreme Court in the Heller Case ruled very specificly on the fact that no the right to keep and bear arms does not require Militia Service or any service and even if it did the Militia is very clearly defined as every able bodied man between 17and 47 not allready serving in the US Armed Forces or Reseve Component. The Army National Guard is a Reserve Component of the Active Army it is not a Militia in anyway. I served 15years in The Navy, Army National Guard and the Active Duty Army. I get so tired of ignorant people refering to The Army National Guard as a militia for the purpose of propping up their lame gun control arguements.

  320. art guerrilla
    August 8, 2019 at 22:29

    ‘civilized countries’ ? ? ?
    um, like the swiss ? ? ?
    whose reputation as fierce defenders of their country was legendary back in the day… from what i understand, the swiss have a tradition of actually taking their firearms and/or swords when they go to vote, as a symbolic representation of what has kept them free…
    but, yeah, lets give away all our rights like der gut little sheeples we are…
    it is the cowardice that underlies all this fake moralizing and tut-tutting that is most discouraging… these slaves of Empire will never go full spartacus…

    • Frank
      August 8, 2019 at 23:32

      They’re obviously civilized because their army gets Swiss Army knives that come with tiny corkscrews.

  321. Mike
    August 8, 2019 at 22:28

    Actually the national guard is an extension of the military and can still be placed under ucmj soooooooo……. Not militia.
    Organized militia – consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia.[9] (Note: the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States.)
    Unorganized militia – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.[10]

    Just says well regulated in the second amendment.

    Regulated militia
    In Federalist No. 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by state militias, “a standing army … would be opposed [by] a militia.” He argued that state militias “would be able to repel the danger” of a federal army, “It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.” He contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as “afraid to trust the people with arms,” and assured that “the existence of subordinate governments … forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition”.

  322. August 8, 2019 at 22:23

    The second amendment was not written to defend the country from other countries whose defend the people from the government itself

  323. Arthur
    August 8, 2019 at 22:22

    Yes, trust the State to have a monopoly on arms. Governments with such a monopoly have a great record over the past hundred years or so. Your proposal might stop a few people from killing ten or twenty. That is great, when states with monopolies on arms are wont to kill in the tens of thousands and even into the millions.

    Why were high school boys able to bring rifles to school in their pickups a generation ago and there were no mass shootings? What has changed? Not the availability of guns. We’ve changed. Our society is sick. Our families are broken. Our schools are too big. Our souls ail. Getting rid of the guns will fix all this.

    But yes. Take all the guns away. Except from the military. And the police. And all the Federal lettered agencies. All those wise, healthy, good-intentioned, trustworthy people will take good care of us. Life will surely be better.

    • Travis
      August 9, 2019 at 00:01

      If the government attempts to confiscate guns, there will be a civil war. No American wants a civil war, but many are willing if necessary to preserve their freedom.

  324. Capt. Karl
    August 8, 2019 at 22:21

    In 2014 The BLM, The Dept. Of The Interior and a handful of other Federal Agencies and Bureaus that are explicitly prohibited from even existing in the first place, pursuant to 10th Amendment Law and Order, additionally the Supremacy clause 2 of Article VI and a Republican form of Government clause of Article IV Section 4, of The Constitution, tried AGAIN to fulfill a U.S. Government “KILL LIST” according to the honorable BLM whistleblower Larry Wooten.

    The U.S. Government had 213 Battlefield dressed Agents and Federal Sniper teams. Most with FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS and Sniper Rifles.

    The American Militia Freedom Forces of The Second Amendment Law, operating under Article I Section 8 clause 15, “to execute the (9th and 10th Amendment, the whole Constitution and the entire Bill Of Rights) Laws of Union”, out tactically maneuvered the FEDcoats, placed them in a fatal funnel and forced them to surrender and beg for a safe escort out of the area. Thus saving the Lives, Liberty and Property of up to 3000 men, women and children at The Battle Of Bunkerville at the Bundy ranch.

    Just so you know.

    • August 9, 2019 at 08:38

      You say that like it a bad thing. Don t worry tough guy no one can see you in your safe space. Go ahead continue with your porn and jerking off. Just do it quietly adults are talking

  325. John Smith
    August 8, 2019 at 22:18

    Bill, these people would have us believe that our founding fathers thought there was a need for an amendment to the Constitution to ensure that the government would not infringe on the right of the National Guard (A branch of the Military and if you want to argue that point please start with all the National Guardsmen who have served in Iraq and elsewhere recently) to be armed. It’s a real and unbelievable stretch to think that anything close to that could be true!

  326. Wyatt Winchester
    August 8, 2019 at 22:18

    Please do not try to assume what the framers would do or believe. Our nations malitia is still the citizen bodies. The national guard is still part of the armed forces, regardless of belief. The guard takes the same oath as the standing military. Thomas Jefferson once said “the strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”. Sins or the 1% should not effect the lives of the 99%

  327. Sam F
    August 8, 2019 at 22:14

    The argument is strong on both sides. Of course no thoughtful person wants private violence, or denies the need for self-defense (the claims of rape vs. child murders are not rational arguments). The historical arguments must be adapted to the present: whether support for the 2nd Amendment was based more upon the wish to leave organization of force at the discretion of the populace, the idea that militias were sufficient for defense, the realization that no one could expect to seize arms from a hunting population, or upon the need to leave government fearful of the power of the people. All of those arguments were made by the Founders, and all of the opposing arguments.

    But the fact that the arms of one or a few citizens can generally be overwhelmed by government violence does not argue that they are no longer needed to restrain or ultimately throw off tyranny. The federal government is far more corrupt and less democratic than ever in the past, ever more overreaching its original powers, evermore secretive, warlike, spying, arrogant, and evermore systematically disregarding the Constitutional limitations of federal power and the rights of citizens. It is completely out of control: we have lost democracy and nearly all of the tools to restore democracy.

    We simply do not have alternative forms of citizen power, and while not sufficient in itself, private arms would be part of any necessary future rebellion. The gun sprees are symptoms of citizen anger and confusion, the result of our commercially controlled elections and mass media, and the culture of utter exploitation and selfishness. Even when directed by racist confusion etc., the ultimate cause is this exploitative power structure, which when it descends into domestic tyranny will have to fight those forces that it has created, which will coalesce and organize despite the individuality of anger.

    It would be far nicer if we did not have institutions completely corrupted by money power, but we do. But there is no trace of evidence that the US government can be peacefully reformed to prevent tyranny. Elections are completely corrupted by bribe “donations” and money control of mass media. The federal government will never submit to the will of the People without fear of armed rebellion, which tends to lead some of the rich to seek safer policies. That is the only reason that we obtained the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the only reason that we got out of Vietnam.

    It would be far nicer if tyranny could be overthrown without armed uprising, but we would need much historical evidence of that. The USSR was a special case, where large riots were met with armed forces that did not use violence and would not attack them. The US culture of utter selfishness and opportunism would cause the pathological standing military to gladly gun down thousands and even millions of citizens while singing “Bye bye, Miss American Pie,” as it has without cause around the world. Few of the US standing military have any sympathy at all with the People or the Constitution except in name, and those who do will not called upon to tyrannize the people.

    So the question is, exactly how will private arms prevent or counteract a thoroughly corrupt federal government moving swiftly to eliminate the last few vestiges of constitutional rights? It would take generations of poverty and outrageous abuses by the federal government to bring us to the ungovernability of Afghanistan or the revolutionary fervor of Vietnam. It would take the death of thousands at barricades, demonstrations, riots and terror incidents, to alarm the rich enough to back off of tyrannical measures, and far more to actually depose the rich and restore democracy. But without private arms the tyranny will spread without limit or hope of reform.

    We have no other tools to restore democracy, and must not surrender the little restraint we have on an already completely corrupted government. Banning private arms would raise the cost of restoring democracy, and ensure many more generations of future tyranny, or enshrine tyranny forever.

  328. Jim cottrell
    August 8, 2019 at 22:07

    To ‘ve against the 2nd is to ‘ve against the whole constitution.

  329. Marty
    August 8, 2019 at 22:01

    The real danger are these clauses tacked on to these bills that would prohibit people on no fly, watch, or clear sky’s lists from buying or possessing a firearm. The criteria for getting on these lists is not public. In at least one case I know of, the only reason is political. So these bills could be used to disarm segments of the population .

  330. Dav iu d
    August 8, 2019 at 22:00

    Never happens white people and their guns

    • August 9, 2019 at 04:53

      You really think only White people have guns?! At my local Cabelas, the majority of customers in the gun section are black and its not to protect themselves from white people. It’s to protect themselves against other black people.

  331. August 8, 2019 at 21:57

    The 2nd amendment was written so that citizens could fight a tyrannical government because they just got done fighting one

  332. William Roderick
    August 8, 2019 at 21:52

    The Constitution is a legal document. It means what it says based on the definition of the words at the time it was written! Your wishfulness for those words to mean something different not withstanding. Thr right of the people which appears in two other amendments mean just that, it is an individual right!! Stop trying to twist the plain language of the Constitution!!

  333. timothy
    August 8, 2019 at 21:52

    What a fkn dope. Go ahead and leave yourself defenseless against the criminals of this country.

  334. August 8, 2019 at 21:49

    The amendment was not written for standing militias to represent the military. It was written to make sure the government did not rule the people but that the people control the government.
    Don’t let your head blow up but all of the first ten amendments were written by smarter men than you, for the sole purpose of keeping a government for the people buy the people.

  335. Oath Keeper
    August 8, 2019 at 21:47

    Joe, dont think the police and military will disarm law abiding citizens. We won’t. The fact we keep and bear arms assures this balance. The govt knows it cannot disarm its citizens, the 2nd Ammendment ensures this could lead to rebellion…see the balance at work. No one fears law abiding gun owners when faced with terror, you thank us.

    • Ethan Mac
      August 9, 2019 at 11:12

      u already do slowly and u disarm felons who have a rights to the 2nd while out, and u enforce all immoral unjust laws that violate inalienable natural freedoms, liberties and rights, ESPECIALLY firearm and defense rights, which all humans on earth have regardless if their government recognizes and acknowledges them or not! but u betray humans, especially whites, as 99% of laws violate these freedoms and rights, ur talk is cheap and cowardly like u, u do not get to pretend to be the good guy here buddy, u r the force arm of tyranny, and that makes government the enemies and traitors, as in domestic enemies, ur oath u swore to and bang on about doesn’t just give u the right to resist and arrest them, it orders u to, it is ur duty, u don’t get ur cake and eat it too, piss off coward traitor or DO SOMETHING!!!!!!!!!!!!! and if western law enforcement and military personnel do end up acting, morally and legally btw, by doing their job and duty, then we citizens have a duty to support and assist u in any and all ways! until then SHUT UR BIG FLAPPER AND STOP CALLING URSELF AN OATH KEEPER PATRIOT…UR NOT!!!! UR THE TYRANT…UR TYRANNY….UR A COWARD TRAITOR ALONG WITH ALL WESTERN MILITARY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL!!!!

  336. August 8, 2019 at 21:45

    Well, sir you are wrong on one point and absolutely ignore a more important one.

    1) The National Guard is nothing more than a US Army Reserve in the guise of a state army. It is under the authority of the governor only so long as the Federal government allows it to be so. The name more than implies its purpose; it’s a national organization. And since its inception it has been at the beck and call of the White House far more often than any governor. Most usually in foreign conflicts which have nothing to do with guarding the nation, let alone states which supposedly is its purpose.

    2) Although some of our rights may be enumerated in the Constitution and other written law, this is not the origin of rights. Governments are not the grantors of rights. They both should be protectors of rights.

    So, what are our rights? The same as they would be without constitutions and governments; the rights to one’s own life and to self-determination, to act in one’s own self interest as he or she sees it, and the right to be secure in one’s person, activities and property. By extension, to determine how one secures their self, liberty and property. And if every person has these rights, by their very existence, then those rights must extend to the border of the same rights of others.

    In other words, you have the right to be against whatever you want, to promote whatever you want, and to want whatever you want. You do NOT have the right to hire people with weapons of any kind to take away my weapons of choice unless I — me, myself, by my choice, with my actions, directly, with intent to do harm — deprives someone else of their rights.

    The Constitution was intended to codify that into law. Sadly, it, our government (both parties), and the fourth estate, have all failed miserably in that indeavor. We might as well had stayed in the British Empire.

  337. Gramps
    August 8, 2019 at 21:43

    Good luck wit dat.

  338. August 8, 2019 at 21:29

    The first ten amendments to the constitution are called the bill of rights. They protect the people from the government. They do not secure the government right to a military. So this entire diatribe is just that, bs diatribe for the purpose of controlling the people.

  339. August 8, 2019 at 21:23

    The “People” are the militia. That was resolved hundreds of years ago. “Shall Not Be Infringed” still means the same thing. “Well Regulated” meant trained. No army uses AR-15’s because they are not “weapons of war” like the fake news media purports.

  340. August 8, 2019 at 21:21

    I highly disagree with when you said the 2nd amendment is a relic and is completely lost in history. This is why the 2nd amendment is the second most important right that we Americans have. Because of the 2nd amendment we are able to protect our first amendment rights. The 2nd Amendment is very important as a Militia Member of my own citizens militia in my state we are frequently training and undergoing visits to the south border as we patrol and further or training of handeling different enviroments. We need the 2nd amendment more then evet now as Unconstitutional Infringements are always taking place we refuse to comply with a single unconstituional gun law passed by congress. I still train with my fully automatic assault rifles with extended magazines and silencers. I have never killed anyone but there were a few times in the last almost 3 years that we have had to return live fire because cartels and coyotes have began shooting at us in a attempt to kill us. This has happened atleast once or twice in our 7 visits to the southern border in almost 3 years. When the government tells you that we don’t need guns that is when you really need them. The simple fact is regardless of party the trend in America of erroding our rights slowly as to not set off a giant alarm only proves we need fully automatic weapons just incase our government starts to turn from freedom to tyranny. There are 320 million fire arms in america yet every time a single on happens they try to punish the law abiding citizens this should be alarming. The government over the last 30 years has proven that they slowly want to restrict and strip our bill of rights. Freedom has never been free we were born free because of the sacrafices of others there soon will come a time when you will see citizen militias engaging domestic or foreign enemies on us soil. I have been warning people since 2001 about the government officials who are trying to turn america into a victim country that is why they want us disarmed. They don’t care about our rights that is exactly why they have been continuously Infringing upon the 2nd amendment even though it clearly states *This Right Shall Not Be Infringed Upon* 320 million guns but yet shootings are very low for having 320 million fire arms on the streets. But the truth is most mass shootings are committed by a black man not a white supremacist. Supremacy and nationalism are teo completely seperate things supremacy is about being superior or one being inferior but nationalism is about preserving our history, traditions and legacys that our ancestors started. We will see a civil war begin within the next 2 to 6 years. It will happen sooner if Trump wins the unhinged radicial lefties will begin to target anyone who they think is a trump supporter. We are watching thr left wing of facism and tyranny start to show it’s true colors which should be alarming because they are becoming domesticated enemies of the rights and freedoms of hundreds of millions of Americans because they are so endulged in their feelings. I am a man if history a descedant of the Sons of Liberty, Descedant of the Cherokee and the Mayflower I was born into the oath of defending the constitution even at the cost of my life or freedom. Of course 99.5% of all gun owners are well trained and many militias are very well regulated and know when they can use the right of self defense which is why I call the mass shootings pre planned because they are started to help push the anti gun agenda. Free men and women need not ask the governement for gun rights because we are free and not slaves. But the left wants to make us slaves and be defenseless. The biggest threat in America are deranged left wing radicals who will be martyrs to push gun control at the cost of their lifes we are witnessing Facism taking place and we must be armed and prepared to take a stand to protect our rights and nation. Just because we have the best military on earth does not mean that we no longer need the 2nd amendment let alone civilian minute men militias it just proves we need them even more just incase out government falls into tyranny. They continue to lie to the masses and claim the 2nd amendment was for hunting which is not true at all and no arms can be legally banned or limited as the government has no rights to infringing upon the 2nd amendment. The Constitutional Republic is endanger and we must be prepared as a nation and as Americans to stand up and fight as our ancestors did so future generations will not have to take that stand for the mistakes of our current mistakes.

  341. Jager
    August 8, 2019 at 21:19

    The idea of the 2nd is also to protect the US citizens from a tyrannical government and in doing so over throw it, as stated in the Declaration of Independence.

  342. Ken
    August 8, 2019 at 21:15

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Well regulated militia…. Citizens of sound mind and body….. Being necessary to the security of a free state….. The free state being all of us. It is all pretty simple. But beyond that, as a person I am going to protect my self and my family from the idiots like the recent shooters the best I can. And that includes any weapon I choose to do it with. The recent shootings should prove to anybody with a brain that gun laws and confiscation would do nothing but make their killing easier.

  343. Tom Kath
    August 8, 2019 at 20:54

    Americans seem terribly proud of their “little red book”, constitution, or Bible, or whatever they call it, including the famous or infamous “amendments”.
    Of course these “roadmaps” need to be amended from time to time, and so do amendments need to be amended. When some George or whoever scratched these laws on a rock, circumstances were completely different. The internet would have been much slower I presume.

    • August 8, 2019 at 21:34

      The internet has nothing to do with it. Freedom is freedom no matter the time or circumstances. Live free or die! We always have to stay vigilant because our government is to be feared and contained buy honest people.

      • Skip Scott
        August 11, 2019 at 15:08

        With all the arms we currently possess, why is our government still not contained? We have SWAT teams invading the wrong home and throwing flash-bang grenades in baby’s cribs, or killing the family dog over non-payment of a gas bill. I could go on and on. Are you ready and armed enough to take down a SWAT team? I doubt any citizen is sufficient to the task.

        Our government is less contained than ever, and people have more guns than ever. When are you Rambos gonna do something about it? Our police cruisers used to have “to protect and to serve” painted on their sides, now they have “Compliance” writ large. Are we living Free?

        Peaceful protest in large numbers is the only real hope. Gandhi prevailed over the British empire through enlightened discourse and mass protest. People making the right life-style choices and speaking truth to power is much more effective than resorting to violence; now more than ever.

  344. Kevin Eugene Mackey
    August 8, 2019 at 20:52

    Your so called understanding of the second amendment is emblematic of the arrogance of those who think themselves better than the common man. The second amendment exists to ensure the people always have the power to resist the tyrany of their own government. Against those such as yourself who think you know better, and therefore what you like or believe is good and all in opposition are either evil or stupid and should be ruled by your ideology. News flash, not going to happen. Your loud and screaming peers think they are winning because we are mostly silent. We are not silent, we simply do not engage lunacy. We vote, we build businesses, civilizations. You rant about how evil freedom is, then get into your SUV, stop at Starbucks and go smoke weed in your little condos. We still outnumber, out work and out think you at every turn. Go sit down now, grown folks have work to do.

  345. Eric32
    August 8, 2019 at 20:44

    After the assassinations of John Kennedy, Martin King, then Robert Kennedy, there was a wave of sentiment in the US in 1968 against the widespread civilian ownership of guns.

    The problem is that all three of these murder events were almost certainly “deep state” events carried out and covered up by elements of American law enforcement, intelligence and security organizations.

    They didn’t have anything to do with civilians owning guns.

    That sentiment gets revived in the wake of atrocities like we’ve recently experienced. The choreographed responses in the media should make anyone wonder.

    There was more racial/ethnic intolerance in the US in past decades than there is now. There was far more poverty and angry hopelessness among all racial/ethnic groups in the Great Depression than now.

    Guns, trucks, cars, poisons, arson and bomb ingredients useful for mass murder attacks have existed for many decades. So why are mass murders apparently happening with increased frequency in recent times?

    Historically, most mass murders have had organization and economic/military/political aims and intent behind them.

    After each of these episodes involving a white perpetrator, mass media quickly emplaces memes of white mass murderers and the need for gun control. It’s almost as though it’s part of a choreographed effort – something like the mass media effort to get much of the public believing that the 2016 Presidential election was decided by the Russians interfering with the election, in collusion with Trump.

    American statistics indicate whites are actually a little less likely to be mass murderers than other races/ethnicities. Whites account for about 70 pct of mass murderers while constituting about 74 pct of the US population.

    So what’s going on with this?

    Weird psychiatric drugs being given to kids? Violent computer games? Increased use of mind fracturing recreational drugs? The increasingly bizarre garbage that turns up in US “entertainment”?

    Those factors might be part of an explanation.
    Maybe there is something else.

    What about mind control conspiracies being conducted for social psychology purposes, by the same noxious “elites” that in the past have created false predicates for wars killing millions, that engineered the 2008 financial debacle that damaged the lives of tens of millions, that arranged for the “lone gunman” assassinations of political figures who were perceived to threaten those with money and power?

    “MKUltra” applications? (If you’re unfamiliar, do a search). Locate borderline people and then manipulate them with drugs and mind technology into atrocious acts? Take offs on Sirhan Sirhan, the supposed killer of Robert Kennedy?

    Does that sound hard to believe?

    Who arranged the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy that substituted itself for attention being paid to some of the bad policies and neo-con appointments Trump has made, that were in direct opposition to what he presented to the public while campaigning? For what purposes has that plainly known conspiracy been conducted?

    Question: wouldn’t such a murderous social psychology conspiracy be detected and stopped by American law enforcement, security and intelligence organizations?

    Look at the witch occupying the top CIA position. What about the series of lying criminals preceeding her? Look at the FBI/DOJ’s corrupt “leadership” and selective investigation/indictment practices.

    Look at the Clintons and their corrupt “charity” foundation that has gone on unmolested by law enforcement or the mass media, for some reason. Look at their friend, Epstein, who was allowed to go on molesting teenage girls for years, who coached and coerced underage girls into being sex playthings for his elite friends. It appears likely these “elites” were being recorded in their activities for coercion/blackmail purposes.

    People who look for conspiracies are reacting to plainly observable events, past and present, in the US, and elsewhere.

    It’s harder to believe that all this is just happenchance, than that there is a controlled game being played for intents and purposes benefiting the sort of people who put America into a series of murderous wars, who benefited from its de-industrialization and the destruction of it’s once prosperous and healthy middle class.

    Social psychology-politcal kabuki shows exist. They are about money and power.

    • Bill
      August 8, 2019 at 21:13

      Well said, thank you for putting it out there and so clearly that even the limited thinkers of the left will be able to understand it. THANKS

    • Marty
      August 8, 2019 at 21:28

      Well said.

    • August 8, 2019 at 22:13

      Hell Mike…..your all over it.A post I`d have trouble putting together a reply to this article…but appreciate your ability to describe todays shit for journalism!! Been a “lurker” for years but had to chime in and stand in solidarity with this comment.Jeseus! What more needs to be said for the rest of our citizens who just don’t understand todays disinformation lying….deceitful…..untruthful..channel 10 news broadcasts? And reading some of these comments …one realizes without question they have to be posting from a “payed” stance. Let us all be aware that the internet and websites like Consortium.Com and their “comment” sections will someday soon be eliminated but thankfully so many of us have read and understand what really …and has been for some time…..has been deceiving us.Bold faced bullshit with no “truth” whatsoever in a worldly story be it the Congo……or Bosnia.Just plain Bullshit.Not real proud to say I’m an American.But understand……..if you claim to be an American….your also claiming to an Israeli too!

  346. IvyMike
    August 8, 2019 at 20:37

    Here in Texas around 75 humans a week, every week of the 52 week year, are killed by themselves or others using (mostly) handguns.

    • ddfaefir
      August 8, 2019 at 22:05

      In Yemen the state of Saudi Arabia has killed 600,000 in the past two years.. with their guns..
      If the Palestinians had guns there would be no Israel.
      no one can trust the state never ever for ever..

      with my life goes my guns as I see it<= it is either them or me.. my guns make the bet it is them, not me, that falls.
      but if i should fall i intend to take as many as I can with me.. they may kiss my bullets.
      come get them, but come prepared, as I do not intend to give you my guns

      • Josef
        August 10, 2019 at 08:54

        Off topic, but if the Palestinians did have guns, the zionists would not have been able to perpetrate the multiple crimes against humanity that they committed. israel was founded on murder, theft, and ethnic cleansing; it remains the same to this day.

  347. Tomaz
    August 8, 2019 at 20:35

    Only der police state should have weapons so they can protect us from themselves. A total prohibition on guns is needed – just like on alcohol and drugs. It will take a while for the 200,000,000 guns in America to be found, confiscated and destroyed, but after this is done we will be safe forever from guns!

    • Eric32
      August 8, 2019 at 21:03

      Nope, more like twice that. It’s from a WaPo article but maybe it’s not a lie.

      > more than 393 million civilian-owned firearms in the United States, or enough for every man, woman and child to own one and still have 67 million guns left over.

      Those numbers come from the latest edition of the global Small Arms Survey, a project of the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva. <

    • August 8, 2019 at 21:19

      You are nuts , right?

    • Fred Mitchell
      August 8, 2019 at 21:35

      Let’s us also confiscate all cars. Then we will be free of lives lost due to accidents and vehicular manslaughter. Let us prohibit all pharmacy’s. Then we will be free from drug abuse and deaths from overdoses. Let’s us prohibit all hospitals, doctors and nurses. Then we will free from all medical malpractice. Get the point?

    • August 8, 2019 at 21:39

      OMG. Wake the fudge up. OH wait you were joking. MY BAD!

    • Mark shy
      August 8, 2019 at 22:00


    • August 8, 2019 at 22:00

      If the vest example you have is prohibition you seriously need to read history

    • Steve
      August 8, 2019 at 22:11

      You are an idiot

    • Ethan Mac
      August 8, 2019 at 23:29

      read the founding fathers own words and stop lying…and even if there was no 2nd amendment on the us bill of rights or no bill of rights at all it doesn’t matter, the us bill of rights is mainly a guide for the gov tyrants to remind them they are SERVANTS and these are the inalienable natural freedoms, liberties and rights, ESPECIALLY firearm and defense RIGHTS(own & carry · open & concealed) of the people they SERVE…it is a check and balance courtesy reminder written down….it does not give or grant any freedoms and rights, like i said before, it’s a published courtesy reminder to potential government tyrants, merely recognizing and acknowledging these rights on written form for posterity and guidance……and it’s not just Americans who have these inalienable natural freedoms, liberties and rights, ESPECIALLY firearm and defense rights(own & carry · open & concealed)…all humans on earth have them regardless if their parasite tyrant governments recognize and acknowledge them or not! and btw, the 2nd amendment isn’t about firearms, it includes them, as they are an ARM, which is short for ARMAMENTS, so ARMS is the collsctive of ARM whoch is short for ARMAMENTS, IE; weapons, hence fireARM, the 2nd amendment is about any and all things that are and can be used as ARMS directly, indirectly, fully, partially, in support of or assistant of ARMS, meaning everything and anything for all intents and purposes, for example; fireARMS, tanks, ships, sticks…blunt and sharpened or with nails…,fists and even actual human ARMS lol, teeth, weather, satellites, animals, rocks, information/knowledge, knives, science, wheels, and yes even nukes in principle and essence, , i will not reconcile or debate the practicality, or realistic applications of this, but it is the entire and explicit point, essence, meaning and description in plain words that the individual citizen be as ARMed or more ARMed to be an equal or greater force than the government SERVANTS if the government SERVANTS confuse things, especially their role and powers and think they’re government KINGS and that the people have GIVEN PRIVILEGES….by these confused government SERVANTS thinking their government KINGS, aka government TYRANNY…TYRANTS!! and the citizen has the RIGHT and DUTY to resist all tyranny and subversion, even the “slow drip” consent of the people on average type over a longer period, aka “death by a thousand imperceptible cuts” …”thin edge of the wedge”….”long march through the institutions” ect ect yada yada…and this has proven to be a very effective strategy for these deliberate tyrants who have conspired over the long term, i am talking centuries, and are an evil satanic cabal that is not only unjust and immoral and enemies, subversives and traitors, but they are the antithesis and direct contrast to what america was fought and founded to be…FREEDOM AND RIGHTS FOR ALL UNDER A CHRISTIAN GOD FOR FREE WHITE MEN OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER. as you can see this evil cabal has drastically twisted things over the long term, but although America has been subverted 80% since founding it’s still the best most free nation on earth and can still be saved by good moral just men of God!!! America stands as a model to the world… it’s too bad people of other lands didn’t try to change things for the better in their lands and fight and earn what Americans did, instead they selfishly greedily hoped ship and fled to get the easy rewards unearned and get their piece of an economic pie, sure it wasn’t always like that, and the first 100 years the people who came were the ones who were supposed to and was wriiten for, they came for the freedom and rights values and morals under God! but demographics changed and a certain tribe came, and they infiltrated, subverted and twisted everything and changed what the focus and value of what america was founded on to be and so the reasons the people came was for an unearned pay day and they didn’t value or care for the ideas, concepts, values, morals that America was founded on, most don’t have the ability, incentive or history to understand and value such things and many never will, especially in this climate and society, precisely what the evil cabal wants and have expended enormous energy, effort, resources and actions to make sure of this……and in fact the new people started to resent these values, ideas, concepts and culture, especially the race that built and crested the culture and the people and became ungrateful and hostile, and this has come to a boiling Point today, just what the evil cabal has always wanted, the destruction of America and everything it stands for and values, ESPECIALLY God and our Lord Jesus Christ….but like i said earlier, this didn’t happen overnight or in one big swoop or even multiple swoops, but imperceptible cuts, ie; infringements and tyranny dressed up and fractions at a time ..vigilance was the citizens duty, but were too distracted by bread and circus….or perversions, degeneracy, hedonism and the exploitations and indulgences of all the 7 deadly sins in many forms to the gradual assent to the fullest degree possible, but all is not lost…with God anything is possible, hope can and must be the ingredient…hope comes from faith and faith in God is the strongest faith there is….also, i just wanted to mention that the bill of rights should have also included the words and concept of vigilance and duty/responsibility/accountability….because Duty/Responsibility/Accountability are the flip side of the coin concerning rights and the exercising of them, and is indivisibly connected to and balanced against said rights and vigilance is the right and DUTY of a free man of God! and natural laws inalienable rights! to defend against all enemies and their tactics, this is one of the main prices, cost and duty of freedom and rights, and there are many more and properties/natural conditions as well, but all are worrh said costs, for example; danerouse freedom, which is a cost worth it over secure slavery/tyranny…so go read what James Madison and others wrote about what the us bill of rights means, ESPECIALLY the 2nd amendment…in their own words, officially and unofficially, aka off the record, this will clear things up for you Marxist commie tyrants real quick. Thx for coming out

  348. Jimmy g
    August 8, 2019 at 19:51

    The gun control we should all be interested in is the unlimited sale of weapons used in endless wars, wars in which we supply both sides.

  349. O Society
    August 8, 2019 at 17:52

    Does anyone actually pay attention in history class any longer? The direct precursor to the adoption of the Second Amendment is Shays’ rebellion.

    These state militia organized to catch runaway slaves and put down slave rebellions. That’s why the powers that be said you need a gun. To go catch slaves. That’s the purpose of a state militia in those days.

    The rest of this Charlton Heston crap is just stuff y’all make up to help yourselves sleep at night.

    Shay’s Rebellion 1786-7 civil rights. Second Amendment ratified 1791. Coincidence? We think not.


    • Eric32
      August 8, 2019 at 20:22

      >Does anyone actually pay attention in history class any longer?These state militia organized to catch runaway slaves and put down slave rebellions. That’s why the powers that be said you need a gun. To go catch slaves. That’s the purpose of a state militia in those days.<

      Apparently, the author doesn't know any history either, according to you.

      Lauria outlines why militias actually were important before, during and after the Revolution.

      Britain had militias too, Edward Gibbon was a captain in one – with no slaves to capture, and not even any dispossessed "Indians" to fight.

      The Wikipedia article you reference – a search of the word "slave" gave -0- returns.

      • O Society
        August 9, 2019 at 06:59

        Eric32 ~

        Reading is fundamental:

        Joe Lauria
        December 18, 2012 at 01:50
        Dear Bill,
        That is a 21st Century Libertarian view. The amendment says the militias are for the “security of a free state” not to overthrow tyrannical government. Indeed it was the uprising of Shay’s Rebellion that bolstered the Federalists to put down such rebellions. They would hardly be encouraging that in a Constitutional amendment. While we are waiting for the armed rebellion, how many children must get slaughtered?

        • Eric32
          August 9, 2019 at 09:04

          Should there be a prize for incoherence?

      • August 9, 2019 at 11:05

        Eric 32 ~

        A prize for incoherence? Why, do you need a shiny object in your life for some reason?

        The problem is – Eric 32 – sometimes people like you run into people who actually know what they are talking about.

        This is exactly what’s happened to you here, isn’t it, Eric 32?

        So your dilemma is this:

        On one hand you wouldn’t know a syllogism if it fell out of the logic tree and hit you in the head

        On the other hand troll 101 says baffle ’em by calling them out on their logic

        There’s no hand to remove the foot from your mouth, is there Eric 32, and this is the nature of your dilemma, isn’t it?

      • Eric32
        August 9, 2019 at 12:13

        O Society,
        >The problem is – Eric 32 – sometimes people like you run into people who actually know what they are talking about.<

        You are a clown. You're at your best when you are incoherent.

        Do yourself a favor fool, and go away.

      • August 9, 2019 at 13:32

        Eric 32 ~

        I figured as an adult you didn’t need to be spoonfed. I was wrong. Sometimes that happens.

        1* These state militia organized to catch runaway slaves and put down slave rebellions. That’s why the powers that be said you need a gun. To go catch slaves. That’s the purpose of a state militia in those days.

        “A militia also helped thwart the abolitionist John Brown’s famous raid on Harper’s Ferry in 1859, and, in Southern states, they were mostly used to round up fugitive slaves.”


        2* Shay’s Rebellion 1786-7 civil rights militia men attack the government offices over inequality conditions

        “Perhaps the most significant impact of Shays’ Rebellion was the impetus it gave the movement to replace the Articles of Confederation by a new constitution, creating a stronger national government.”


        3 Second Amendment ratified 1791

        Stronger national government *not* give people guns so they can overthrow the government. WTF would any founding father set up a government and then say, “Hey y’all, please go get some guns so you can over throw us and the government we set up ASAP”?!? That Charlton Heston NRA crap is crazy talk.

        4* 3/5ths Compromise 1787

        The 3/5 Compromise says the black man isn’t a real human being like a white man, but he counts for something, so we’ll count him as 3/5 of a human being and make sure you guys have access to firearms so you can keep him in his place.


        5* Declaration of Independence 1776explicitly describes as “the merciless Indian savages,” and whom the framers saw as barring the expansion of the “superior” race.


        And ^ that ^ is a coherent logical case made – 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 – the founding fathers were concerned with killing the natives and keeping the black slaves in line in case of insurrection

        And those are the last words of yours I am reading and the last time I spend time trying to have a civil discourse based in reality with you, Eric 32.

        Have a nice day! or don’t. It’s a free country.

      • Eric32
        August 9, 2019 at 19:22

        O society (weird name) –

        You are a propaganda fed clown, trying to spread propaganda. You’re one of these nitwits that gets told rubbish, then can’t get it out of their deficient mind.

        You don’t have enough innate intelligence to be suspicious of and evaluate slanted junk that turns up on the internet, like on “Truthout”. The points you tried to raise:

        1) American militias O society > These state militia organized to catch runaway slaves and put down slave rebellions. That’s why the powers that be said you need a gun. To go catch slaves. That’s the purpose of a state militia in those days. Shay’s Rebellion 1786-7 civil rights militia men attack the government offices over inequality conditionsStronger national government *not* give people guns so they can overthrow the government. WTF would any founding father set up a government and then say, “Hey y’all, please go get some guns so you can over throw us and the government we set up ASAP”?!? That Charlton Heston NRA crap is crazy talk.The 3/5 Compromise says the black man isn’t a real human being like a white man, but he counts for something, so we’ll count him as 3/5 of a human being and make sure you guys have access to firearms so you can keep him in his place. And those are the last words of yours I am reading and the last time I spend time trying to have a civil discourse based in reality with you, Eric 32.<

        Reality???? Yes, now live up to that as you wander around in your own little world.

        LOL bye bye….

    • August 8, 2019 at 21:41

      Yep so gun control is racist. I bet it will take you years to digest that!

    • Jerry
      August 8, 2019 at 22:52

      You could bot be further from the truth. Daniel Shay was a white man who led a rebellion against the US after taxes were being imposed to pay for the Revolutionary war. It had absolutely nothing to do with slavery.

      • August 9, 2019 at 11:10

        Jerry ~

        Of course Daniel Shays was white. Black folks didn’t have guns to riot with, they were slaves.

        I suggest you ask for you money back from your high school Civics teacher. This is basic stuff.

        “Perhaps the most significant impact of Shays’ Rebellion was the impetus it gave the movement to replace the Articles of Confederation by a new constitution, creating a stronger national government.”


    • O Society
      August 9, 2019 at 07:14

      Not only is the Second Amendment founded in racism, the entire US Constitution is founded in racism.

      Shay’s Rebellion 1786-7
      3/5 Compromise 1787
      Second Amendment ratified 1791

      The 3/5 Compromise says the black man isn’t a real human being like a white man, but he counts for something, so we’ll count him as 3/5 of a human being and make sure you guys have access to firearms so you can keep him in his place.

      The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise reached among state delegates during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. Whether and, if so, how slaves would be counted when determining a state’s total population for legislative representation and taxing purposes was important, as this population number would then be used to determine the number of seats that the state would have in the United States House of Representatives for the next ten years. The compromise solution was to count three out of every five slaves as people for this purpose. Its effect was to give the Southern states a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes than if slaves had been ignored, but fewer than if slaves and free people had been counted equally. The compromise was proposed by delegate James Wilson and seconded by Charles Pinckney on June 11, 1787.[1]


      • Eric32
        August 9, 2019 at 12:55

        Here clown, is what the 3/5 thing comptomise was about.

        It wasn’t about racism, clown, it was about a way of getting the south to join the new country.

        Do yourself a favor, and go away.


        The Three-Fifths Compromise was proposed by James Wilson and Roger Sherman, who were both delegates for the Constitutional Convention of 1787. However, the Three-Fifth Compromise has its roots further back in history, dating back to the Continental Congress in 1783. The Compromise was a result of the apportionment of taxes being related to land values.

        Initially, taxes were levied not in accordance to the population numbers, but the actual value of the land. Many states began to depreciate the value of the land in order to provide for relief from their taxes. A committee was held that would rectify the situation by implementing the apportionment of taxes in relation to the state’s population. However, this idea was met with the dispute over how to consider slaves in the apportionment process and the actual ratio of slaves to free people at that time.

        For the most part, those who opposed slavery only wanted to consider the free people of a population, while those in favor wanted to include slaves in the population count. This would provide for slave holders to have many more seats in the House of
        Representatives and more representation in the Electoral College. Many ratios were considered, such as three-fourths, one-half, and one-quarter. After much debate, it would be James Madison that would suggest the Three-Fifths Compromise. However, the Three-Fifths Compromise would not be adopted until the Constitutional Convention because the Compromise was not approved by all of the states and the Articles of Federation required a unanimous vote.

        The implementation of the Three-Fifths Compromise would greatly increase the representation and political power of slave-owning states. The Southern states, if represented equally, would have accounted for 33 of the seats in the House of Representatives. However, because of the Three-Fifths Compromise, the Southern states accounted for 47 seats in the House of Representatives of the first United States Congress of 1790. This would allow for the South to garner enough power at the political level, giving them control in Presidential elections.

        However, as time moved forward, the Three-Fifths Compromise would not provide the advantage for which the Southern states and slave-owners had hoped. The Northern states grew more rapidly in terms of population than the South. Even though Southern states had essentially dominated all political platforms prior to the Civil War, afterward that control would be relinquished slowly but surely. It would not be until the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was be enacted in 1865 that the Three-Fifths Compromise would be rendered obsolete

    • August 9, 2019 at 14:12

      And where is that band who so vauntingly swore,
      That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion
      A home and a Country should leave us no more?
      Their blood has wash’d out their foul footstep’s pollution.
      No refuge could save the hireling and slave
      From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
      And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
      O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
      O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
      Between their lov’d home and the war’s desolation!

      ^This ^ is what the second half of the Star Spangled Banner says.

      This verse, which – surprise! – no one ever sings any longer, firmly links the 2nd Amendment to slavery.

      The well-organized militia references southern groups called to hunt down runaway slaves and indentured servants.


  350. Drew Hunkins
    August 8, 2019 at 17:51

    There’s no talking sense to the staunch gun-huggers.

    Having said this. I don’t begrudge a guy for enjoying an annual deer hunting trip with a deer hunting rifle.

    Lauria’s spot-on here.

    • Martin
      August 8, 2019 at 18:30

      it’s a republished article from 2012.

      • Consortiumnews.com
        August 8, 2019 at 19:37

        Precisely. Nothing has changed and it is still totally relevant, which is why it was republished today.

      • Martin
        August 9, 2019 at 11:47

        … and i fear it won’t be the last time it will be republished. shooting a gun must be something like driving a car, it does something to the brain.

    • Jager
      August 8, 2019 at 21:35

      When there are armed criminals in the US, I think it’s fair to say that people should be armed to defend themselves. I personally would rather like to have the upper hand over someone trying to do harm to me. I take my and my family’s safety very seriously. I. Not stupid, I grew up around firearms my whole life, I have ways respected them for what they are. People have a right to defend themselves from danger. Not everyone has the chance to live in a safer place. Its unrealistic to call for a wide spread confiscation of firearms. Not enough manpower to uphold it and a few will disobey and resign before they would disarm people, majority of which are not the problem.

    • August 8, 2019 at 21:42

      OMG. Wake the fudge up. OH wait you were joking. MY BAD!

      • Drew Hunkins
        August 9, 2019 at 11:57

        @ “Steve Done”

        It’s the gun-huggers who are the big joke. Clinging to their guns like some sort of genital symbol and then coming with the beyond laughable outlandish notion that they’re going to defeat the U.S. military machine in some sort of domestic insurrection.

        I love how Lauria’s touched such a sensitive nerve with the delusional gun-huggers.

  351. Kevin Zodl
    August 8, 2019 at 17:38

    Typical far left.

    • Sean
      August 8, 2019 at 20:54

      This is the most desperate and pathetic attempt to misconstrue the 2nd amendment ive ever seen these cross eyed, inbred, thumbsucking leftists come up with.

      They’ll say anything to take away the freedoms of law abiding citizens without ever solving the real problems of cultural climate and mental illness. Because deep down they know that both of those problems stem from them.

  352. tedbohne
    December 21, 2012 at 13:04

    there is no implication in the second amendment for free for all firearms. the gunhuggers use only the last sentence. when one reads the entire amendment it becomes clear that with no standing armed forces as we have today in excess, or National Guard, then perhaps a condition like this would warrant free unrestricted gun ownership, or at least in part. however that condition doesn’t exist, and the average american, like Dick Cheney can wander off and shoot peoples faces, however, unlike George’s dick, Cheney, repercussions would soon follow. the US has the highest murder rate with guns than any other country in the free world. and some of those are at war! finally, though, a firearm is nothing but a tool. it becomes dangerous only in the hands of untrained, uneducated, uninformed people. it seems time to investigate the NEW phenomenon of mass shootings by clearly crazed people. when one solves that mystery, perhaps the US can join other countries with people that walk upright

    • Cal S
      August 8, 2019 at 22:45

      That’s cute. You accuse us of only focusing on the latter part; our point is that you misread the entire thing. “Regulate” has several definitions. “Infringe” has but one.

      Also, hold up, are you really saying that you would rather have a higher overall murder rate after a gun ban so long as fewer people were killed with guns? That’s plain sick, dude.

  353. VivekJain
    December 20, 2012 at 03:49

    Disarm the police [and surveillance] state first.
    – Cindy Sheehan

    • David Gosnell
      August 8, 2019 at 20:35

      First let’s disarm the politicians and all you rich fucks security and then let’s talk about disarming my family.
      Your far left ignorance is amazing.

    • Charlene Richards
      August 8, 2019 at 22:30

      Everyone must realize that the PURPOSE of The Second Amendment was not so we could go “hunting”!

      Take note that it comes right in after the MOST important amendment! Freedom of SPEECH!! Of the PRESS!!

      The Second Amendment gives us the RIGHT to arm ourselves in order to protect our first amendment to say what ever the hell we freakin’ want!!!!

      We MUST have the Second Amendment so we can DEFEND the others!

      • Eric32
        August 9, 2019 at 13:14


        Some of these anti 2nd Amendment people are honestly reacting to these atrocities.

        But some don’t want you or anyone else to able to defend themselves.

        After the assassinations of John Kennedy, Martin King, then Robert Kennedy, there was a wave of sentiment in the US in 1968 against the widespread civilian ownership of guns.

        The problem is that all three of these murder events were almost certainly “deep state” events carried out and covered up by elements of American law enforcement, intelligence and security organizations.

        They didn’t have anything to do with civilians owning guns.

        That sentiment gets revived in the wake of atrocities like we’ve recently experienced. The choreographed responses in the media should make anyone wonder if there isn’t something systematic going on.

  354. elmerfudzie
    December 19, 2012 at 21:28

    As I’ve stated previous to this article, taking guns out of the hands of psychotics is as likely as taking them out of the hands of criminals. Even if the government could make some headway into this problem with stricter gun control laws, what’s to stop some crazy person mowing down people at busy street corners with a rented truck? Or using an axe, knife? bow-and-arrow, torching an occupied building? Here in the USA the problem began with Ronald Reagan’s policy to close public mental health facilities. The mentally ill are still roaming the streets today, grey beards, worn out shoes and all. Our alleys and parks are getting increasingly filled with the mistreated sick, post traumatic disorder Vets as well as certified sickos. But Ronney Ray Guns’ class of people do not have to see them, smell them, get mugged by them or be harassed for loose change by them either. I give a hoot what Obama ET Al says, does or thinks anymore. Their endless war(s) for endless profit- albeit for the lofty few, that is, has taken it’s toll in so many subtle and not so subtle ways.

  355. December 19, 2012 at 16:46

    “The militias are now called the standing National Guard.” Read it again, “The militias are now called the standing National Guard.” did any gun rights advocates actually read rather than glace at this totally self-contradictory article. The Constitution clearly says the right of the people to have a national guard shall not be infringed. If the freedom of the press was interpreted the way Joe Lauria wants the Second Amendment interpreted the Freedom of the Press would be interpreted as people would have to print with a old printing press not a photo copy machine.

    However there is smart technology with the solution. The militia should be phased in smart triggers that respond only to the owner’s fingerprints. That mother who was trying to have her troubled adult child committed could have easily afforded such technology. And since technology gets cheaper with time, every gun owner should realize being killed with one’s own gun is a norm not an exception. If the punishment for illegal guns was half the punishment if smart technology was used even the criminals would use it.

    Let’s get back to remembering we are the 99% that Rich Santorum and the latest tragedy made us forget, see,


    • Bill
      August 8, 2019 at 21:25

      Smart guns just how stupid can people be. But why stop there lets just have smart bullets so they will jusr shoot bad guys get real and learn something about what you are talking about I guess it is true stupid is as stupid says

      • Mark
        August 9, 2019 at 00:28

        Yes, have any of the people advocating for fingerprint reading triggers ever used fingerprint readers on their computers? They fail more often than they work properly. I would not trust my life to a fingerprint reader!

  356. Dennis Brown
    December 18, 2012 at 22:36

    Neither the American government nor the American military is concerned with the level of firepower it allows its common citizens to own. Anyone who thinks they can stave off our military with common weapons is just deluded. We need to pass common sense gun laws to protect ourselves from ourselves, not the government.

    • Rob R.
      December 20, 2012 at 01:31

      “Anyone who thinks they can stave off our military with common weapons is jsut deluded”

      Dennis, come out from under your rock. The Taliban have stymied the U.S. military for over 10 years with the very common AK-47 assault weapon and some improvised explosives. More examples? Al-Qaeda, the Viet Cong, shall I go on?

      • John S.
        August 8, 2019 at 22:37

        Yeah, why don’t you go on to Waco, or Ruby Ridge, or MOVE (Philadelphia) or the armed Black Panthers and ask THEM how that worked-out? And do you really believe that the US military—- which spends 100’s of BILLIONS of dollars on weaponry a year —- would have any trouble crushing a bunch of armed yahoos even with their semi-automatic weapons? The military would roll over their house with a few tanks, or overhead with attack helicopters, or launch drones, or numerous other methods, and that’d be the end of any ‘armed rebellion’. Unlike Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, or any of the other countries we’ve invaded, the vast majority would NOT support an armed rebellion against our own government—- that’s just some wet-dream that gun nuts like to use as a rationalization so that they can shoot defenseless animals and otherwise dick-around like juvenile delinquents.

      • vinnieoh
        August 9, 2019 at 08:46

        In the instances you cite, the US military was inserted into cultures, ethnicities, and languages that it didn’t adequately understand, comprehend, or blend with. Assume your US uprising against our own government. It couldn’t be an assortment of lone wolf macho Rambos heroically striking out against the MAN, but would have to be organized and coordinated. In this instance the military knows the culture, the language, and exactly how to blend. Infiltrators/spies could be the guy you went to school with, the woman in the next pew at your church, the kid that played ball with your own kids. Who could you trust? Who would you trust?

        An example of what is more likely to happen is the current example of Brazil. A quiet coup by the US against the people there and a military strongman appealing to racist, homophobic, and religious traditionalism. Armed paramilitary “militias,” allied with a fascist strongman. If Trump keeps turning up the heat on our own stew pot this is what I likely suspect will happen here. Those most enamored of guns will fall in with the demonization of the other, and rather than rebelling against the government, will be killing queers, Jews, blacks and browns, atheists and agnostics. Sound familiar? We’ve seen this movie before.

  357. Gary
    December 18, 2012 at 21:01

    This author is kidding himself. He wrote the very reason that citizens are supposed to bear arms – “Because of this distrust of standing armies the new republic wrote into its Constitution the Second Amendment, ensuring that citizens, and not a permanent state military, would bear arms to protect the land.”

    If that isn’t enough for him then I will quote the Declaration of Independence – “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,”. You can’t abolish a government without arms if they don’t want to give up power. How many times has history shown that people in power don’t want to give up power without a fight?

    • Rick
      December 21, 2012 at 02:35

      How effective are your weapons against drones?

      • Doug Lemski
        August 8, 2019 at 20:53

        Hey Sarah Connor took out the Terminator and it doesn’t die.
        Bring on the Drones!

    • Joe Lauria
      December 24, 2012 at 04:13

      Dear Gary,
      While we wait for armed rebellion children are getting slaughtered. There can be no successful armed rebellion in the US, especially after the NDAA. It would be crushed mercilessly unless the working class police and soldiers joined the rebellion. It is a fantasy that is costing lives. If Congress thought that gun ownership would threaten their power they’d never listen to the NRA.

      • vinnieoh
        August 8, 2019 at 18:45


        I agree completely, even though I don’t agree that abolishing the 2nd Amendment is necessary. How many years was the Brady bill in effect? 10yrs? The court can err, decisions can be reversed (which is the function of the ultra-conservative “activist” court overturning the previous liberal activist rulings.)

        Would be interested to hear your thoughts on Paul Merrill’s (sp?) comments of the other day, or did I just read that in the above? I’ll go back to that thread and see what has transpired since I was reading it last night.

      • Eric32
        August 8, 2019 at 21:25

        >There can be no successful armed rebellion in the US, especially after the NDAA. <

        Insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan show that effective resistance can be made against even high quality modern military forces.

        However, for it to work in the US, the populace would have to be willing to take severe casualties, and/or the government troops would have to start defecting.

        Also, the whole thing might get rolled up in its first stages.

        As Binney has been saying, they have 10 to 15 years of comm data (metadata, prbly much audio data) on all of us.

        A revolution, a real one, will involve violent attacks on law enforcement groups and US govt. military forces.
        Such attacks will involve KIAs, WIAs, and captures of revolutionary combatives.

        Within hours, the NSA communications data on the identified KIAs, unevacuated WIAs, captures, will reveal their comm networks going back at least a decade.

        The rollups will be quick, and lead to further rollups.

        They won't even need to threaten or use torture.

        So, you may be right.

      • Oath Keeper
        August 8, 2019 at 21:44

        Joe, dont think the police and military will disarm law abiding citizens. We won’t. The fact we keep and bear arms assures this balance. The govt knows it cannot disarm its citizens, the 2nd Ammendment ensures this could lead to rebellion…see the balance at work. No one fears law abiding gun owners when faced with terror, you thank us.

    • August 8, 2019 at 18:21

      So, if we are going to have a perpetual standing army, what do we need armed-citizen state-militias for?

      • Mike
        August 8, 2019 at 23:09

        Same reason as before. One day it will be up to the citizens to repel the standing army. The military has run many simulations in war games and they always lose to the people. Don’t underestimate our resolve to remain free.

      • Frank
        August 8, 2019 at 23:30

        Well, a well-regulated militia (standing army) is necessary for the security of a free State, but can easily and quickly become the vehicle of despotism and tyranny. Therefore, we should not prevent people from owning weaponry that can serve as a final countermeasure against the threat, however remote, that their government may someday turn against them.

        Or, as the Founders put it: 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.

        The commas are confusing but they are really the only anachronism in this text.

        I doubt it’s possible to express the need for the 2nd better than Judge Alex Kozinski, writing for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2003: “[T]he simple truth — born of experience — is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people. Our own sorry history bears this out: Disarmament was the tool of choice for subjugating both slaves and free blacks in the South. In Florida, patrols searched blacks’ homes for weapons, confiscated those found and punished their owners without judicial process. In the North, by contrast, blacks exercised their right to bear arms to defend against racial mob violence. As Chief Justice Taney well appreciated, the institution of slavery required a class of people who lacked the means to resist.

        All too many of the other great tragedies of history — Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few — were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.

        My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.”

      • August 9, 2019 at 18:04

        It is true that James Madison believed that “security of a free state” included not just defense against foreign invaders (until such time that a standing army could be raised), but also defense against a federal army, of the home-grown ambitious tyrant variety. His Federalist Paper No. 46 figured that a federal army, like European monarchical armies, could be staffed by up to 1% of the overall population. He said they would be no match for the citizen’s militia armies of all the states combined. He figured 30,000 federal troops against 500,000 citizens in their respective state militias.

        He was appealing to the voters of the time, who he hoped would ratify the new Constitution with provisions for state militias as primary for defense, and yet with a strong federal standing army available on a contingency basis. The citizens’ first love was to their state, and not to the federal part of the hybridized republic. This arrangement would overcome the weaknesses of the previous Articles of Confederation among independent states.

        The question then is whether a militia of citizens can really overcome the super-strong federal standing army of today. If it cannot, then Joe Lauria is right that we are wasting our time arguing over intent and the continued arming of citizens with army-style weapons, because the people are being slaughtered wholesale now with these weapons in the hands of savages as we wait for the time to confront the federal standing army. Possibly, however, the citizens could withstand the federals if they had a 16 to 1 numerical advantage, as Madison implies. But I think we need to give up on standing up to the standing army of today’s “united” states.

  358. pat
    December 18, 2012 at 20:37

    2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions concerning the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]

    so, i suppose you can say the supreme court hijacked it but they affirmed it means an individual right – not a collective right. If you want the 2nd amendment repealed, ok go ahead – atleast that is a fair way to enact gun control. Not other measures that are blatanly unconstitutional given the 2nd amendment and the US Supreme Court’s decision. Not sure why more people don’t understand that…

    • Rick
      December 21, 2012 at 02:31

      Those were very liberal decisions. Fans of ‘original intent’ abhor them. Those cases discovered a new right that the courts of the 1700s, 1800s and 1900s had never previously found. In fact a unanimous court had once said that the second amendment had no effect at all on states;it only limited the national government.

  359. Leslie Babbitt
    December 18, 2012 at 14:51

    what Joel answered I am amazed that a stay at home mom can earn $4783 in 1 month on the computer. did you read this page FAB33.COM

  360. Ralph Crown
    December 18, 2012 at 09:34

    Americans have a God-given right to buy guns and own guns and carry guns and use guns and kiss guns and caress guns and …

    Where was I?

    There’s nothing in the Bible against shooting people with guns, so obviously it’s okay with Jesus. There’s nothing wrong with shooting lots of people so long as you shoot yourself afterward. That way you avoid the embarrassment and expense of a trial.

    The real problem here is the number of children involved. If you don’t want bunches of children getting shot, you shouldn’t put them in bunches like that. Obviously the answer is to ban schools, am I right?

    • James Shoe
      December 18, 2012 at 11:02

      Ralph Crown — that was absolutely brilliant !!! A response worthy of “The Colbert Report”. Maybe they could use you as a staff writer.

    • TalleyUp
      August 12, 2019 at 17:26

      Mr. Lauria, You are no Robert Parry!

  361. Joe Lauria
    December 18, 2012 at 01:50

    Dear Bill,
    That is a 21st Century Libertarian view. The amendment says the militias are for the “security of a free state” not to overthrow tyrannical government. Indeed it was the uprising of Shay’s Rebellion that bolstered the Federalists to put down such rebellions. They would hardly be encouraging that in a Constitutional amendment. While we are waiting for the armed rebellion, how many children must get slaughtered?

    • Michael
      August 9, 2019 at 01:15

      How many children must be “slaughtered” before you pick up a firearm and defend them?

    • Eric32
      August 9, 2019 at 09:19

      Joe Lauria:
      >The amendment says the militias are for the “security of a free state” not to overthrow tyrannical government.<

      Your point doesn't logically work.

      By definition, a "tyrannical government" destroys a "free state".

      If people want a free state, they're going to have to oppose a tyrannical government.

      Logically, they can't use the tyrannical government's standing army, so they have to resort to forming armed groups that amount to militias.

      Where do common people get the weapons, the ability to use weapons, the mindset to fight a tyrannical government?

      Disarmed populaces probably can't, especially after a few generations.

  362. Bill Jones
    December 17, 2012 at 23:05

    The purpose of the second amendment was to ensure that the people would be able to resist a tyrannical state.
    No more, no less.

    • Marty
      August 8, 2019 at 21:42

      That’s the best explanation i heard.

    • Anonymous
      August 9, 2019 at 11:03

      Tyranny often comes in the guise of safety, comfort, and order. The problem is that people are still eating that bs right up just as they were two millenia ago.

  363. ORAXX
    December 17, 2012 at 18:26

    An expert eighteenth century muskateer could get off a couple rounds a minute. Twenty-first centry, military style weapons, were beyond the comprehension of the founders. Can anyone seriously believe the founding fathers would opt for unrestricted access to today’s weaponry?

    • Mike H
      December 18, 2012 at 11:55

      An expert eighteenth century typesetter could set and print a couple pages an hour. Twenty-first century, high speed printers, were beyond the comprehension of the founders. Can anyone seriously believe the founding fathers would opt for an unrestricted press?

      • August 8, 2019 at 21:44

        The first ten amendments to the constitution are called the bill of rights. They protect the people from the government. They do not secure the government right to a military. So this entire diatribe is just that, bs diatribe for the purpose of controlling the people.

    • Jeanne
      December 19, 2012 at 16:10

      I’ll bet they would love to have had today’s weaponry to fight the British. We might have gained our independence sooner.

      • cascadian12
        December 21, 2012 at 19:00

        What is the source for this assertion?

    • Mee Sah
      August 9, 2019 at 11:20

      Yes. Plain and simple. They envisioned a nation without a need for standing armies and navies. They wanted to create a nation in which the people would be able to protect their own nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
      Plus, they had the same thing done to them. They had their firearms confiscated because they were fighting their own government. So yes, they would be all in favor of our advanced weapons. Do you know why? Because our government has them as well….but better. They would want us to have the most advanced weapons systems and platforms in order to rival our own government.
      “Shall not be infringed” means that nobody can take my weapons whether it is nukes or biological weapons or any gun I choose to own.

    • BobbyNew
      August 9, 2019 at 18:03

      Yes, they wrote it to allow people owning cannons and other heavy weaponry. They most definitely supported owning anything the military had. This is a stupid argument written by a stupid person.

    • Ryan N
      August 10, 2019 at 08:00

      There were multiple firearms and rifles at the time that could fire multiple rounds without being reloaded. do a Google search of the different types of firearms and rifles that were around at the end of the 1700s and you’ll discover that there were multiple types of firearms, not just muskets. The founders absolutely were aware of firearms that could discharge more than one round at a time.

Comments are closed.