Gun owners should contribute to the ACLU.

Brilliant.

Can't wait to see what all the self-professed freedom lovers/defenders have to say for themselves on this one.

My guess would be--not a lot.

Thankyou Steve.Excellent point.FYI,once we give up our guns it's game over,thus they will have to pry mine from my stiff fingers.

What the fuck is with all you people who equate the return to more sensible gun safety laws with giving up your guns? Who has proposed everyone giving up all their guns? Do you think giving up the right to have an unlimited arsenal is the same as giving up your gun? Maybe you should learn how to shoot better and perhaps then you wouldn't feel the need for 10 Uzis.

Besides which in Australia they actually DID give up a bunch of their guns and to my knowledge the game is still going on there. But with zero mass shootings since. Much less chance of being shot Down Under than here. So for all those people not dead in Australia due to gun violence I'd have to say, game on. They still can do whatever they want with full use of their fingers.

In general, gun owners hardly dwell on wanting "to protect our liberties."

They simply like making big bang noises, they like having the ability to kill or instill fear, and they like having a powerful phallic symbol they can stroke and shoot off.

Period.

Since the Patriot Act doesn't appear to hinder or promote gun sales, it's as irrelevant to the NRA (and ALEC and Walmart and the Kochs and armament manufacturers) as the second amendment.

The Patriot Act offers real hope for investors interested in privatizing jails and prisons.

Behold the new American dream: Profiting from fear and punishment. Tune into one of your local right-wing radio stations for more details.

Steve hits the nail on the head. I spent 3 years in the 82nd airborne and my father 20, stepfather 32 years. We consider ourselves patriots, but the country has changed. Those gun lovers clutching to their 2nd amendment rights to "protect" themselves from oppression haven't done squat. Heck, those kids who "occupied" Wall St showed more courage. NO, most fervent gun-owners are just brainwashed consumers of ammo and iron. What a perverse take on the law. As for those "semi auto" assault weapons, some right wing radio show claims they don't play a major role on most recent, mass killings; mental health does. Simply put, to calculate the potential destruction of an assault rifle, ex 5.56 mm ruger mini 14, just take the caliber x grain x cyclic rate per minute x magazine. You will be able to prove they have the most "fire power" and destructive capability. And to what end? To protect us from the right wing lawmakers who abridge our constututional freedoms? yea, right.

When the founders allowed us to arm ourselves to stand against tyranny by our own government, they envisioned a well-regulated militia armed with muskets and bayonets going up against cannon fire in statehouse coups. They could never have envisioned remote control flying machines, atomic power or electronic eyes + ears in every home.

By the age of mortars and machine guns, the ability of the public to outgun the government was lost, but after they developed the Apache copter, stinger + hellfire missiles or predator drones, the concept was relegated to an exercise in fantasy.

The individual gun owner today might be able to defend themselves against a single rogue FBI agent on their lawn, but cannot hope to overcome a local SWAT team, let alone lead a revolt to overcome the the US military, were they to turn on us.

The power of the people today lay in our political and aggregate strength. We are what keeps the country functioning civilly and economically, so our voices mean more in public debate than in military oversight.

We have not been able to monitor and police government corruption because the federal government hydra has grown over 470,000 times it's size since the Second Amendment was ratified.

It's a miracle we are not worse off than we are, but we likely owe this to the Bill of Rights, the power of the free press and the internet, which remain under manipulation and outright assault. We owe this to those in public service with a conscience, with a serious understanding of our place in the world and in history. By and large, it's been the vigilance of the people keeping unchecked power from eating itself and everything else, but it's getting increasingly difficult.

Concerning "tyranny", the government has already violated the Constitution, many times. We have been under-using the power of impeachment and have become servile, unquestioning serfs to an elite political class.

Since 2000, Bush/Cheney's War-on-Terror propaganda froze all the so-called patriots into total compliance. This has been by far the biggest anti-Constitutional power grab, the new idea that terrorist acts constitute a 'war' which suspends our civil liberties, treaties and checks and balances.

The Patriot Act, torture, the Iraq War, the drone program, the warrantless surveillance were all high crimes and misdemeanors sold to gun-toting Republicans as necessary during "war" time to guard against an unseen enemy, the Islamic terrorist cells hiding out among us from coast to coast.

Thanks to Fox and the Limbaugh/Hannity lot, Republicans have become agents arguing for our rights to be taken away by the government. After 9/11, we traded our liberty for security, directly contradicting the clearest language in the Constitution, without a peep. We expanded War Powers without a true war, we secretly spied on ourselves and we invaded sovereign nations without cause.

Obama continues to sap our rights, through the Trespass Act which strips our 1st Amendment right to petition elected officials with grievances, now a felony punishable by 10 years in federal prison. The Tea Party who used to love picketing and protesting stood by deaf and dumb as this passed both houses unanimously on the fast-track.

Then, the NDAA stripped our 6th Amendment right to a speedy trial by a jury of our peers, to face our accuser, to have an attorney and to enjoy the protection of due process enshrined in over 800 years of democratic tradition.

Obama also laughs at our 4th Amendment protection of privacy, collecting all emails, texts and call data to create long-term profiles of every single citizen.

If you told a GOP candidate he could run against Obama on multiple violations of the US Constitution, laid out so explicitly that any low-info voter could digest it, you'd think they'd be all over it. They could also run against his non-prosecutions of banks and surge on polls, but choose not to.

Curiously, Republicans across the board give Obama a pass on what should be slam-dunk issues that grab US voters by their red-blooded heartstrings. Why? Republicans are even more power-mad than Obama, hoping to get back in power to enjoy Nixonian spying, executive assassination, indefinite detention, corporate glad-handing and absolute suppression of dissent.

Like David Lasagna said here, we need to see what the freedom fighters have to say on this issue. They will not speak much on it.

Not one person has raised the issue that every massacre of the last ten years has been medically triggered. Why not get after the FDA for approving totally unsafe, unproven pharmaceuticals?

Anti-psychotic drugs are a hallmark of mass shooters, but you won’t see any call in the mainstream media to see them banned, despite the fact that even gun control advocates like Michael Moore have admitted the clear connection.

1. Huntsville, Alabama – February 5, 2010: 15-year-old Hammad Memon shot and killed another Discover Middle School student Todd Brown. Memon had a history for being treated for ADHD and depression. He was taking the antidepressant Zoloft and “other drugs for the conditions.” He had been seeing a psychiatrist and psychologist.

2. Kauhajoki, Finland – September 23, 2008: 22-year-old culinary student Matti Saari shot and killed 9 students and a teacher, and wounded another student, before killing himself. Saari was taking an SSRI and a benzodiazapine. He was also seeing a psychologist.

3. Dekalb, Illinois – February 14, 2008: 27-year-old Steven Kazmierczak shot and killed five people and wounded 21 others before killing himself in a Northern Illinois University auditorium. According to his girlfriend, he had recently been taking Prozac, Xanax and Ambien. Toxicology results showed that he still had trace amount of Xanax in his system. He had been seeing a psychiatrist.

4. Jokela, Finland – November 7, 2007: 18-year-old Finnish gunman Pekka-Eric Auvinen had been taking antidepressants before he killed eight people and wounded a dozen more at Jokela High School in southern Finland, then committed suicide.

5. Cleveland, Ohio – October 10, 2007: 14-year-old Asa Coon stormed through his school with a gun in each hand, shooting and wounding four before taking his own life. Court records show Coon had been placed on the antidepressant Trazodone.

6. Red Lake, Minnesota – March 2005: 16-year-old Jeff Weise, on Prozac, shot and killed his grandparents, then went to his school on the Red Lake Indian Reservation where he shot dead 7 students and a teacher, and wounded 7 before killing himself.

7. Greenbush, New York – February 2004: 16-year-old Jon Romano strolled into his high school in east Greenbush and opened fire with a shotgun. Special education teacher Michael Bennett was hit in the leg. Romano had been taking “medication for depression”. He had previously seen a psychiatrist.

8. Wahluke, Washington – April 10, 2001: Sixteen-year-old Cory Baadsgaard took a rifle to his high school and held 23 classmates and a teacher hostage. He had been taking the antidepressant Effexor.

9. El Cajon, California – March 22, 2001: 18-year-old Jason Hoffman, on the antidepressants Celexa and Effexor, opened fire on his classmates, wounding three students and two teachers at Granite Hills High School. He had been seeing a psychiatrist before the shooting.

10. Williamsport, Pennsylvania – March 7, 2001: 14-year-old Elizabeth Bush was taking the antidepressant Prozac when she shot at fellow students, wounding one.

11. Conyers, Georgia – May 20, 1999: 15-year-old T.J. Solomon was being treated with the stimulant Ritalin when he opened fire on and wounded six of his classmates.

12. Columbine, Colorado – April 20, 1999: 18-year-old Eric Harris and his accomplice, Dylan Klebold, killed 12 students and a teacher and wounded 26 others before killing themselves. Harris was on the antidepressant Luvox. Klebold’s medical records remain sealed. Both shooters had been in anger-management classes and had undergone counseling. Harris had been seeing a psychiatrist before the shooting.

13. Notus, Idaho – April 16, 1999: 15-year-old Shawn Cooper fired two shotgun rounds in his school, narrowly missing students. He was taking a prescribed SSRI antidepressant and Ritalin.

14. Springfield, Oregon – May 21, 1998: 15-year-old Kip Kinkel murdered his parents and then proceeded to school where he opened fire on students in the cafeteria, killing two and wounding 25. Kinkel had been taking the antidepressant Prozac. Kinkel had been attending “anger control classes” and was under the care of a psychologist.

Its a fallacy to think the 2nd amendment was intended as a bulwark against tyrrany. The only crime defined in the Constitution is treason - armed overthrow of the government. The very purpose of the Constitution was to prevent the need for violent political uprisings, by providing for elections and an independent judiciary.

What the 2nd was intended for is obvious: A well-regulated militia...

There was no standing army. With memories of the French-Indian war still fresh, and very real threats from Native Americans, the national defense consisted of calling up citizens to serve in militias.

Not a very good plan, either, Washington considered citizen militias to be worse than useless in actual large scale operations.

Now that we have a standing military, the only role for the 2nd is to provide for the National Guard, which is today's citizen militia. It was never intended to be some guarantee of gun ownership by individuals for non-militia purposes, and certainly never intended to provide citizens with the capability of committing terrorist acts. Its a relatively modern interpretation by SCOTUS that established this bizarre and unfortunate notion.

If you believe in God, then you have the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness granted by your creator.

If you do not believe in God, then you have the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by the very fact that you exist.

If you do not believe you exist, then you aren't actually reading this.

The US government is a government of limited, listed ('enumerated') powers. The amendments in the Bill of Rights are limits on possible future powers of the government. They state what the government is not permitted to do.

The US Government is not permitted to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. Each person in the US ('of the people') has the right to life and liberty and is permitted to keep and bear arms to secure it.

That's where the Second Amendment affords the people the civil liberty to 'purchasing as many semi-assault rifles, boxes of ammo and high-capacity magazines as they want'.

You are incorrect in that there is no restriction, however. Prior felons and the mentally insane can be legally restricted from bearing arms just like one cannot fraudulently shout 'Fire' in a crowded theater because it is intentional reckless endangerment. Semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines have been shown to be used safely by millions and so are not in and of themselves intentional reckless endangerment.

Now someone has shown you where the Second Amendment affords these civil liberties.

For Ronbo - on A Well Regulated Militia:

A 'well-regulated militia' means a well-trained militia who can move as a unit, fire to a commanded point of aim, and who will not break under fire.

You would be more familiar with the opposite term, an 'irregular militia'. The most likely fiction you would have come across the term in is Sherlock Holmes's books, movies, and cartoons; where he maintains what he calls the 'Baker's Street Irregulars.' They are his pack of orphans and street kids whom he pays to keep him informed and whom he can marshal into a dangerous slingshot-wielding cadre at a moment's notice. Alas, they didn't show up in the recent Sherlock Holmes movies.

'Irregulars' can be dangerous troops to fight, but have a tendency to break and run. Famously, President Theodore Roosevelt fought in the American First Irregular Cavalry in his famous charge up San Juan Hill. The First Irregular Cavalry was made up of highly skilled volunteers - all famous lawmen, trackers, sharpshooters, and rangers - but because they had never had the opportunity to train together, they were called 'Irregular Cavalry' as opposed to 'Well-Regulated.'

If you ever read western fiction, or histories from the Western and Civil war area, people often refer to 'regulars' or 'reg'lars' in dialect. In Disney's The Ballad Of Davy Crockett, one line is 'Andy Jackson is our gen'ral's name, his reg'lar soldiers we'll put to shame.' A related term is 'regulators' which means an armed group who is trained to work together, likely to impose the will of a landowner more than a government. The Pinkertons (the first modern detective agency) maintained 'regulators'. Stephen King has a novel out whose title, The Regulators' refers to a Western television show inside the book where a noble posse roams the Wild West bringing law to the lawless and putting everything to order.

Currently, the army of a state is called the 'regular army' (you can look up 'regular army' on Wikipedia) while guerilla forces who may work for a state at some remove, like terrorist groups with deniable contacts or the Civilian Irregular Defense Groups trained by the Green Berets in Vietnam, are called 'irregulars.' Someone who has been through US Army Basic Training used to be called an 'Army Regular.'

If you check Dictionary.com, the first definition is 'to control or direct by a rule, principle, method', the third definition is 'to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch', and the fourth definition is 'to put in good order: to regulate the digestion.' Obviously the meanings are related, but the 'well-regulated militia' in the Second Amendment pertains to the third and fourth. Justice Scalia specifically refers to these definitions in his statement in the Heller decision. Other dictionaries will have more references as to this standard use of the term and will specifically state its relation to machineguns (a 'regulated' machinegun uniformly shoots to the same point of aim) and militias (able to move in unison under command, will not break under fire, shoots at designated targets when commanded). I have included several references - even ones in current use today.

Obviously, in the Revolutionary War period, the United States did not have a standing army and would not for many years. A 'well-regulated' militia did not mean one controlled by rules from the government, but one which had drilled together and practiced with their weapons so that when they were called out, they could march to where they were needed and shoot at what they were supposed to shoot at.

LUAGHA,

Your interpretation of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment is just that-- your interpretation. The second amendment itself does not say what you claim it says. And unless you bother to take into consideration the context in which the thing was written and the meaning intended by the people who wrote it you're just being another ahistorical loose cannon.

Ronbo is right on.

I have provided evidence on the use of the term. References that you can look up.

Please, feel free to show some evidence of your point of view.

(I see that David Lasagna may be responding to a different post than I thought. I apologize. My earlier post was merely a restatement of the classic 'pre-existing rights' argument that underlies the entire Constitution. It can easily be websearched on for a better legal explanation if he doesn't feel it is historical.)

This is the 2nd Amendment--

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 interpretation by Robert Parry of both the Framers intention in writing it and the history informing that intention, that I linked to before, sounds right to me.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/12/22

I give the Robert Parry article about a fifty percent. He doesn't realize how intelligent the Founders were and that they came from England, a land of religious persecution, where the question of keeping and bearing arms was very well alive.

He doesn't realize that the answer is 'both'. The country was under the Articles of Confederation which all had realized had too weak of a central government. The local militias were intented to be trained and trainable, and to be called out against enemies both foreign and domestic, not just domestic. AND, that every man be armed provides a check against local tyrannies, such as the Battle Of Athens against a corrupt local power system. The comments have several of the other quotes that he alludes to that make it clear that the founders included BOTH possibilities.

He also classically neglects standard sentence construction because he has an axe to grind, but hey, everyone does that. The first phrase is the explanatory clause, the second phrase is the controlling clause, exactly like in the earlier sentence in the Constitution:

(The congress shall have the power) To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

But now we are getting afield.

This discussion is all very interesting [not really, but I'm trying to be polite], but nobody really responded to the point of this post: Why is it that the NRA (and gun owners as a pro-freedom lobby) were silent while the Patriot Act was being debated and then passed with bipartisan support in Congress? Silent when it was signed into law by then-Pres. Bush? And silent yet again when the Patriot Act sunset provision was coming up?

And most importantly, why didn't the Second Amendment devotees protect us from the REAL and TRUE threat to our liberties contained in the now-the-law-of-the-land Patriot Act?

Of course, the reason is that "the 2nd Amendment is there to protect our liberty" argument isn't valid in today's America. The REAL protectors of liberty are the citizens who actively engage in the political process. Gun owners like myself don't, as gun owners, do a damn thing to protect liberty. Citizens, gun owners or not, can protect liberty by being engaged in the process.

Only a person stuck at the emotional level of an adolescent and engaged in a "Red Dawn" fantasy of using his guns to bravely hold off an invading army, foreign or domestic, would believe such nonsense. The truth is that if any military, ours or some other nation's, brought their full force to bear on American citizens, we'd be slaughtered wholesale. Maybe a few might get off a lucky shot and take down one of the "bad guys," but beyond that...

Look, save that fantasy stuff for the first-person shooter video games (which I also love to play!). The REAL American freedom fighters work within the political system, and they do it sans guns.

I have a lot of sympathy for the idea that the 2nd Amendment is about providing a last-ditch defense against tyranny. The trouble I have these days is that I can't imagine that the "tea party" types would be able to figure out who to shoot. If the 1st Amendment isn't doing it's job, the 2nd isn't going to help us much.

Ah. As for the NRA, they make it clear that they are a single issue organization. They choose not to dilute their singular focus by getting involved in other things. That is their choice, as much as you or I or anyone might like it to be different.

As for the tactical use of firearms, you are clearly not familiar with how insurrections go. First, the leadership is unlikely to be able to get the american military to fire on massed civilians and if they do it will make things worse as per the Kent State massacre.

You assume that there will be stand-up fighting when instead it will be hidden guerilla warfare. Afghanistan and Iraq will be the model, except with more iPads.

I don't assume anything. I know that our guns won't help us keep our Constitutional rights any more than they helped protect us from the liberty-killing Patriot Act. And as a gun owner, I also know that the only way citizens can protect their liberty is by leaving their guns safely locked up at home and actively engaging in the political process.

David Lasagna -

Thanks for posting the link to that Robert Perry article: "The Right’s Second Amendment Lies".

It's one of the most succinct, well-supported cases I've seen and should be read by every gullible mope who's fallen for that re-written history (a fairly new development, by the way) that the 2nd Amendment was written by the Founders in hopes that the people would be able to rebel against the federal government (which they also declared to be treason in the same document, but let's ignore that part, shall we?!) Sigh...

From an Iraq vet: "The Second Amendment stopped giving the insurrectionists among us a chance as soon as military technology advanced beyond the rifle. No modern Shays’ Rebellion is viable, militarily speaking, unless the Second Amendment is read to protect an individual’s right to bear surface to air missiles, personally owned Abrams tanks and state-sanctioned depleted uranium artillery. Who in their right mind would want to live in a place that gave access to these things to any person, no matter how law abiding or responsible?"

There was no such thing as "Regulation" as we understand it TODAY, back in the day it was written. So when it says "well regulated militia" it really means giving them the best weapons possible!

"You will know when the time comes!"
I hope you reflect back when you said this some 6 years back. Behavior lately kind of makes me KNOW your a sold out fake journalist, lookin for de profitz. Since electronic voting is a done, fucked up deal, why are you even HERE ANYMORE?!!!

[Ed Note: Comment deleted. Personal attack on other commenters violated one of our very few rules for commenting here. - BF]

[Ed Note: Comment deleted. Personal attack on other commenters violated one of our very few rules for commenting here. - BF]

FTDT -

As noted in response to your babble on the other thread:

You are welcome to insult me all you like (and I in return) since I have the bully pulpit as an author here. You are not, however, allow to personally attack other commenters here, as per our very few rules for commenting at The BRAD BLOG. You may vigorously disagree with others points of view, but you may not personally attack them. Keep it up and you won't be commenting at all here for very much longer.

As to this particularly idiocy:

There was no such thing as "Regulation" as we understand it TODAY, back in the day it was written. So when it says "well regulated militia" it really means giving them the best weapons possible!

Don't know who sold you that bill of goods, or if you just pulled it straight out of your ass, but congrats on what I might have included in my "Dumbest responses to Newtown" article had I seen it before writing that piece. You should read more actual history and less propaganda from brainwashed NRA dopes.

And, again, one more reminder. Insult me all you like, as per our rules for commenting (try not to avoid breaking any others, while you're at it), but knock off the attacks on commenters here. Thanking you advance for acting like a grown up from here on out if you're able to do so. Yes, I have deleted your attacks on both Steve Heller and David Lasagna in violation of our rules. Please knock it the fuck off. Thanks!

My Grandfather got me a lifetime membership in the NRA when i turned 12. I had been shooting on his farm since I was 5 and hunting (illegally) since I was 10. I liked the magazines, tips on ballistics and loading your own shells, and the historical articles on guns and hunting. This was in the '60s. I sort of lost interest after I got back from Vietnam, but still read the magazines for the same reasons.
But by then I had a new understanding of the 2nd Amendment and its underlying implications for the defense of the people against the Federal Government, and sort of respected the organizations' support of that right. Not supporting it radically or even overtly, but respecting their stance on principle.And on that principle I cancelled my free lifetime connection to the LaPierre NRA.

After Waco, the NRA publications loudly (and Rightfully in my opinion) screamed about the "Jackbooted Thugs" of the ATF, FBI, DOJ and all the federal Stormtroopers using tanks and more against a building full of men, women and children that posed no immediate threat. And killed them.
Whether you agree or not, the NRA seemed to take this stand on principle. But when their corporate rulers in the arms industry and their law and order Republican bosses told them differently, they dropped their opposition and spouted the Government line like the good toadies they still are today. So the lost my membership and respect. As a rare liberal and libertarian member. So you are stating here a lesson they taught me years ago, they exist only to pay lip service to liberty only in that it helps sell their members votes to the Republicans in service to the arms merchants they serve.

Hey Brad,

Just came across your blog and I enjoyed it. Don't know how I missed it all these years. Sorry I didn't edit the above post better. Next time.

NortonSmitty
dsaenergy@yahoo.com

OOps, please delete #29,wrong button.

I have always been for sane gun control, the same regulations as proposed in the article about the stupidest things said about gun control, the same one that most NRA members agree with. Yes, I agree with gun control, but I have to tell you I'm very surprised that the Bradblog has not found the incredible amount of evidence that we are not being told the truth about Sandy Hook, Aurora, or event the one in Illinois. Time and again the public has been lied to by people who claim to be authorities on all things you are supposed to think. From the reasons to go to war in Iraq that killed at least a million people and left 5 million orphans to ridiculous reports that the banks paid back their bail out money. Inexorably, our rights are being taken away one by one as to make us completely powerless. Free speech is not free because it is prohibitively expensive. Our candidates are chosen for us and we live under a two tier justice system where the people who do most of the damage do not even face investigations. What I say is don't even start the debate of giving up any more of our rights until we get all the other rights that are rightfully ours back. People should never forget that the Patriot Act was signed under duress of a second so called terrorist attack that used government issued anthrax through our mail system and was mailed to politicians voting on this matter. The Patriot Act is so extensive, it could not have been written between 9-11 and the date it was voted on. Remember that the military prosecuted a man they accused of the attacks for over a year for this crime just to have their asses handed to them in court. The very next day after losing their case against this man, they said they had another suspect, yet this one could not defend himself in court because the man they accused was already dead. Why on earth would they continue to prosecute an innocent man when they had this other suspect under investigation? Until we have transparency, a reformed media, a reformed justice system, why should we feel safe to trust our government with taking away anymore of our right?

My grandfather left England because of his love for the US constitution. My father (US born) raised me to defend the constitution and I happen to not only believe in it I actually admire it as well as understand it. Its entertaining that people use it to protect their rights, is it not? Shame on anyone for reading it and trying to misinterpret it purposely. We should be watching our elected / sworn closely to make sure uphold and protect as I know I and many others in fact are.

I am not going side with gun rights activists and or anti gun activists. Your both wrong! The language is clear, we have the right to bear arms period. There really is no need to feel strongly about it. Your personal position can not and should not change the constitution. Look around at other governments and the history of governments, it the best deal our species has come up with, by far!

If you own a gun to hunt deer great. If you fear government and stock up guns, okay... If you don't want any guns, wonderful, good for you. If you want to talk - text - blog or whatever about your personal feelings on the subject, well we have the right?.

They are your rights... Stop bickering about them, we are damn lucky to have them. Maybe, I don't know... Use some of your energy to defend them?

I must say... If you want to alter, change or misinterpret our constitution... I will fight you with every fiber of my being. I "will" sacrifice my life to uphold as so many brave men and women have done before me. "This you can absolutely count on".

Oh and one more comment after reading all the unconstitutional comments in this particular blog...

Petitioning elected officials to legislate laws that are in fact unconstitutional is a best insulting to the countless that have given their lives to protect and preserve it for YOU!

=============

RESPONSE FROM BRAD FRIEDMAN

Since the comments had timed out by the time I read Steve S' comments (since I was on the road over the last week or so), I'm just going to use executive privilege here and append my responses to his here....

Steve S said @ 32:

I am not going side with gun rights activists and or anti gun activists. Your both wrong! The language is clear, we have the right to bear arms period.

The language is clear, but apparently you only bothered to read half of the language. The full amendment reads [emphasis added]:

So, which part of "well regulated" is not clear to you?

And if no regulation is allowed, why is that even Antonin Scalia agrees with the many regulations we've long had on the books, such as a complete ban on automatic weapons such as machine guns (and many more such safety regulations).

Your personal position can not and should not change the constitution.

Right. They don't. Neither can or should yours.

If you want to talk - text - blog or whatever about your personal feelings on the subject, well we have the right?

Only to a certain extent. There are many regulations on free speech. I can't, for example, shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. You can't write a blog encouraging people to kill someone or to overthrow the democratically elected government.

They are your rights... Stop bickering about them, we are damn lucky to have them. Maybe, I don't know... Use some of your energy to defend them?

We do that nearly every day here at The BRAD BLOG, champ. But we also realize, unlike you, apparently, that every right is not necessarily "absolute", as has been known, and has been the law in this nation since it's founding. Is that confusing to you? Or are you just misinformed?

I must say... If you want to alter, change or misinterpret our constitution... I will fight you with every fiber of my being. I "will" sacrifice my life to uphold as so many brave men and women have done before me. "This you can absolutely count on".

You're very brave, sweetheart. In the meantime, we have a system of government and checks and balances, including a judiciary, which alters, changes and even misinterprets our constitution on a regular basis. But you go ahead and be a hero if it makes you feel better. Just be sure you don't run up against any laws while you're out defending what you think are your absolute rights. You may find yourself in prison or even dead in the bargain.

Good luck, though! And thanks for stopping by!