The Watering Hole, Wednesday, January 9, 2013, The case for repealing all gun control.

The Second 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.

Those who oppose gun control cite the 2nd Amendment as their Constitutional source for their right to bear arms, and oppose any legislation that restricts that right.

Ok. Fine. Let’s repeal all legislation that restricts the “right to bear arms.”

Individuals, and terrorist groups, within the United States can then own nuclear, chemical and biolgical weapons. The same would go for surface to air missles, drones, fully automatic weapons, anti-personal mines, anti-tank mines, tanks, artillery, you name it. Repeal all those bans, all those “infringements” on the “right to bear arms.”

Let the carnage begin.

Perhaps then, and only then, will we be able to take a fresh look at the 2nd Amendment…we, being the survivors of the cataclysmic Civil War that follows allowing free reign to kill whomever you happen to disagree with at the moment…we will be able to say “never again.”

Or are we wise enough to say, “never again” now and not wait for another mass murder of kindergartners?





130 thoughts on “The Watering Hole, Wednesday, January 9, 2013, The case for repealing all gun control.

  1. OK, so … you’ve stolen my thunder! I’ve already been working on my Friday-scheduled Watering Hole post. It’s about guns, I mean, really! GUNS! Amurka. Guns DEFINE Amurka! Don’t they?? I mean, y’know, GUNS are … sacred? Biblical? God maybe? Where would we be without guns??

    “Commanist! Marksist! Facist! Nazi! Kenyan! Muslim!”

    Yeah, allathat. But here’s the thing: what do ducks think about guns? What do deer and elk think? Wolves and bears?

    My guess is that probably THEY each and all think as I think. About guns.

    Guns are for killing. Period.

    Ban the goddamn things.


    And yes, still, I eat duck. And deer. Also have tried elk. And the occasional goose. Even ate bear. Once. So, OK, I admit my genetic hypocrisy. I am a meat eater. And yes, I own a gun. It’s a 30-30 thingee, never been fired even once in the five years we’ve “owned” it. Stated another way, since we’ve owned it … one gun … one IT … nothing has died by IT. Period. Not even a bad guy.

    And not even a duck.

    But I really do like to eat duck. Thank all gods for Safeway! (and equivalent).

    Q for the NRA: are bad guys good eatin’?


    Repeal the Second Amendment!

    • I agree with BnF. Go ahead and write up your own opinion. One of my recent posts was about guns. The more we talk about it, the harder it will be for the issue to get quietly swept under the rug. Of course, since Newtown, dozens, if not hundreds, of people have died from gunfire.

      If we stop talking about guns, the killing never will.

    • This morning on Bill Press, they keep ragging on the Kardashians’ celebrity status. I thought we had free will and could change the channel to avoid watching them. I learned a long time ago that my tastes didn’t match what the majority of people liked.

        • They have a show (or shows), on E!, a channel I stopped watching when Howard Stern moved to Sirius. One or more of them have posed for Playboy. The one named Kim is pregnant with Kanye West as the father. There is also a Kourtney and a Khloe, They aren’t bad looking girls, and money has apparently improved that.

        • Their father was Robert Kardashian, one of OJ’s lawyers, and the one who was seen walking around with a gym bag that, I believe, he retrieved from an airport locker. Speculation was that it contained the murder weapon.

        • like you Cats, i’ve been oblivious to the K-Klan. though i’ve heard the name over and over again, i’ve never been interested enough to investigate what i assumed to be the next coming of Paris Hilton…

            • Paris Hilton is no longer relevant and the Kardashians are certainly on their way out because now we have Honey Boo Boo or whatever that cretin is called.

            • oh shite!….i just googled “Honey Boo Boo”

              a television show about the spawn of southern redneck trailer trash..

              i have a headache now…..bourbon?

          • I call these obsessions with these unimportant rich people the “Britney Spears” moments. Wonder who will steal the spotlight next. The Kardasians only get so many days or months in the spotlight and then the press is off to someone new. These are all tabloid stars.

  2. The commenter, ‘flag_bible_gun’, at Crooks and Liars, has this for a signature line:
    An unregulated mass of armed citizens being necessary to the security of the firearms industry, the right of the people to buy and conceal the newest forms of battlefield technology shall not be infringed. — The NRA 2nd Amendment

  3. I’m appalled by this:
    “Despite the relaxing of some restrictions, parts of the original Tiahrt Amendment remain in place. The ATF can’t require gun dealers to conduct an inventory to account for lost or stolen guns; records of customer background checks must be destroyed within 24 hours if they are clean enough to allow the sale; and trace data can’t be used in state civil lawsuits or in an effort to suspend or revoke a gun dealer’s license.”

    • That’s insanity.

      I had to jump through all kinds of hoops to get my massage license including a criminal check and these potential killers can just buy a killing machine and the government can do very little to prevent these killings. I never heard of anyone getting killed while receiving a massage yet my skill is highly regulated.

  4. Unlimited weapons mean the wealthiest can buy the most destructive and hire personal armies to use them to get rid of groups that displease the. What could possibly go wrong?

    • And currently, folks on Homeland Security “Terrorist” list can buy whatever they want, legally & w/o a background check, at any gun show in the U.S.

      I feel safer already, just knowing that the Republicans in Congress are doing everything they can to maintain the terrorists’ right to bear arms. (Heck, aren’t they in a well-regulated militia – aka Al Qaeda?)

  5. Today is Richard Nixon’s 100th birthday.

    I’m trying to figure out how to “celebrate” that even as I ponder the (most gracious) reality that he’s not around anymore. I should maybe bake a cake and put some candles on it in celebration. How many candles are required to “celebrate” the fact that he’s no longer with us? What might said candle-burning impact be on global warming? Will it help to heat up Hell a bit, too?

  6. So much for the good guy with a gun to defeat the bad guy with a gun…
    oh, wait perhaps he wasn’t the good guy…oh well, either way the gun didn’t keep him safe (so there Wayne, small penis, LaPierre).

    Cult YouTube gun channel operator found shot to death on rural Georgia road

    Keith Ratliff was found shot to the head but had cache of weapons near him

    …When authorities made the grisly discovery on Thursday, they noticed there were several guns near Ratliff, according to a local radio station report.
    For him not to pull out that gun and try to defend himself, he had to feel comfortable around somebody. Either that or he was ambushed,’ said Ratliff’s heartbroken widow, Amanda.

    • Gee. How could it happen? Killed by . . . a GUN? Nah, not possible. Guns are for PROTECTION!I

      I read that someplace, can’t remember where. Thankfully.

    • Wait a minute. The opposite of feeling comfortable around somebody equals the right to pull a gun on them? What if you;re not comfortable around [people of color? Does that give one justification to wave a gun in their face?

      This idea of people being allowed to carry guns for personal protection has got to stop. Amend the Second. I know it’s all but impossible, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth trying. First, we have to educate the nation, and hopefully before we have another 20 children slaughtered.

      • “stand your ground” laws gives you the right to kill anyone, anywhere at anytime if you “feel threatened”….or at least “say” you felt threatened, ala George Zimmerman the stalker/murderer of Tayvon Martin.

        the NRA is aiding and abetting an armed society of lunatics

        • So, let’s say I have a Glock in my pocket, and let’s say I happen to be in DC, and while I’m there an orange thingee in a suit and tie walks by, and since I really don’t like orange guys in suit and tie, I’m legally ok to pull out my Glock and put holes in the orange thingee?


          Oh. Wait. Orange thingee. No. That would be bad.

          Not orange. But black would be OK, right?? Legally, morally, etc. Ja?

          OK. I understand. But here’s the thing: I really don’t much like much in re this world anymore. And I use the word “much” advisedly.

        • The way I see it, Stand Your Ground laws violate the 5th Amendment because they try to give one citizen the right to deprive another citizen of his life without due process of law.

          • Sorry, only the federal government can violate the 5th, not an individual citizen. Individual citizens can drink the fifth, however.

            Stand your ground laws merely allow someone to get away with murder, if they succeed with their “stand your ground” defense in a criminal proceeding. Then, it’s not murder, but “self defense” as defined by statute.

            • OK, so: guns can indeed be useful. Had I been there; armed, Glock or whatever in pocket; Jones ‘over there’ spitting his venom; BANG!! No more Jones. Better world results. And hey, I “stood my ground” right”

              Hmmm. OK, so, well, maybe guns shouldn’t be totally banned. … (?)

              Tricky world, this one.

            • Of course I respect your interpretation of the Law, but when I read the text of the Fifth (just like Justice Scalia would), I do not see anything in there that says it is the government restrained from violating your rights. In fact, aren’t people allowed to bring civil lawsuits against people who, deliberately or negligently, cause the death of a family member? Isn’t the basis of these lawsuits that the victim’s civil rights were violated?

              I’m not arguing with you, I’m just trying to understand. Some amendment specify that it is the federal government that can’t do certain things to you. And the 14th Amendment, says your federal rights apply at the state level, too, meaning (as I understand it) what the federal government can’t do to you, the states can’t, either.

              So, by my own reasoning (which we’ve established is incorrect), if the federal government can’t pass a Stand Your Ground law because it could bring about your deprivation of life without due process, how can any state do it? Or can the federal government do that?

              I mean, you can clearly see how anyone could just kill someone, make up a story afterwards and claim they “felt threatened.” I understand self-defense, and I have no argumetn with ACTUAL self-defense. How are my rights not being violated when someone kills me because he imagined (simply imagined) that I posed some kind of vague threat to him?

              I’d really like to know. Thanks. 🙂

            • Short answer:

              Civil lawsuits for violation of civil rights stems from statutes that were enacted pursuant to the 14th Amendment.

        • What if Piers Morgan had pulled out his Glock and plugged Gun Nut Jones on his show after Jones started in with the yelling and the wagging finger in the personal space? Stand-your-ground, right?

  7. Texas School Can Force Students to Wear Locator Chips, Judge Rules

    A public school district in Texas can require students to wear locator chips when they are on school property, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday in a case raising technology-driven privacy concerns among liberal and conservative groups alike.

    U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia said the San Antonio Northside School District had the right to expel sophomore Andrea Hernandez, 15, from Jay High School because she refused to wear the device, which is required of all students at the magnet school.

    The judge refused the student’s request to block the district from removing her from the school while the case works its way through the federal courts.

    This will keep the RWNJs occupied for a day or two.

  8. Voters Shut Out Hall of Fame Candidates

    In perhaps the most resounding referendum on the legacy of steroids in baseball, voters for the Hall of Fame rejected the candidacy of Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens in voting announced Wednesday.

    The highest vote this time around went to Craig Biggio, who received 388 votes and was named on 68.2 percent of the ballots cast. Biggio, a former Houston Astro who ended his career with 3,060 hits, fell 39 votes short of election. Bonds, meanwhile, was named on 36.2 percent of the ballots and Clemens on 37.6 percent.

    Another star from the steroids era, Sammy Sosa, who slugged 609 home runs and was reported by The New York Times to have tested positive for steroids in 2003, finished far behind. He was named on 12.5 percent of the ballots.

    Maybe Biggio can make it next year. I’m doubting any of the ‘juicers’ ever make it.

    • I’m a lifelong Mets fan and Biggio has been a bit of a Met-killer throughout his career, but I would be really happy for Biggio if he were to get elected to the HoF. He would be one of the last people elected to the Hall of Fame who spent his entire career with one team. Until David Wright gets in. 🙂

  9. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to arm people in order to prevent future tyranny. They need the tools to do this.

    The term “Well Regulated” in the Second Amendment meant “Well Manned and Equipped ” in 1791 as was determined in the 1939 United States v. Miller case after referencing the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. The concept of Government Regulation, as we understand it today, did not exist at the time.

    United States v. Miller also determined that the term “Arms” refers to “Ordinary Military Weapons” (not crew operated). American Citizens have the right to Keep and Bear, which means Own and Carry, any weapons that a soldier carries into battle. That includes past, present and future weapons. A Militia consisted of armed volunteers willing to fight with their personal arms and not under government control.

    The 2008 Heller v. Washington DC decision reaffirmed that the Right to Bear Arms was an Individual right. The 2010 McDonald v. Chicago decision reaffirmed it yet again and made it clear that it applies to every state, every city and every town in the United States.

    To limit the Second Amendment to muskets would be the equivalent of limiting the First Amendment to writings in quill pens.

    Liberty is worth the risk of death!

    • Uh huh. I take “well regulated” to mean that people must meet certain standards to qualify for the possession of firearms. Limiting all sales of guns and ammo to federally licensed dealers, who face very severe penalties should they knowingly sell arms to those deemed ineligible, and creating a database of those who are ineligible does not violate the 2nd Amendment in the least. Private sales must end. Period.

      And your “freedom” to carry enough firepower to saw a car in two with a hail of bullets isn’t worth so much as a bruise, much less the death of innocent children.

    • Thank you for your informative post.

      But, a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary to a free State. And we already prohibit citizens from owning certain types of weapons our soldiers can carry into battle.

      I am unaware of any militia units called into battle since the Civil War. Are you?

      Are we so threated with invasion from our neighbors we need to keep a well-regulated militia in addition to our armed forces and National Guard?

      Do the people in other industrialized countries have less “liberty” because they cannot arm themselves in the same way Americans can?

      Do you send your children to school reminding them that some crazed shooter may show up at their school and kill them and their classmates, but that’s the risk they have to take for the sake of “liberty”?

    • I dearly love how the Founding Fathers were so darn prescient as to put in a law that encouraged the arming of American citizens to protect themselves from the very government they were forming. And it only took us 239 years and electing a black President to figure it out!

      • Count on it, pete. I bet the piss-soaked gun-humper has posted that crap on every post on WordPress tagged with the word “gun.”

    • I don’t find guns to be liberating. You forgot to mention anyone with a musket was required to be registered with the government so that in case of war, the government knew who to contact. The militias were under government control. The nation was poor and could not afford to pay for a standing army so the volunteer militias were our nation’s first army. That right there blows your argument.

          • Speaking of which. There has been some speculation that gun nuts are nuts due to lifelong exposure to lead. I used to make ammunition both privately and professionally and spent several years living in lead dust. I am a bit weird though my higher nervous functions seem to be intact. But? I shudder to think what happens to the brains of children raised in a house where someone reloads ammunition. Lead paint is more widespread but pales in comparison to the amount of lead it adds to an environment.

            • About one year ago, the local gun club had to dig up one of their fields and remove the lead pellets from the soil. This was a field where they were doing live pigeon shoots. You make a good point.

            • It’s not just me, Cats. The more that we research the subject the more we find that there’s a correlation between lead in the environment and aberrant behavior. Most studies target environmental lead levels due to gasoline, paint, and industrial pollution but I know from experience that shooting and loading lead ammunition makes for far more acute problems in small spaces. The home that I owned back when i loaded all my own ammunition was deemed unfit for sale and it was hideously expensive to clean it up.

              On a related note: There is growing evidence that there has been a reduction in violent crime and it is proportional to reduced lead levels since we went to unleaded gasoline and eliminated lead-based paint. It doesn’t take much of a chemist or biologist to connect a pervasive neurotoxin to said aberrant behavior.

    • The purpose of the Second Amendment is to arm people in order to prevent future tyranny.

      With all due respect, I disagree that this was the “purpose” of the Second Amendment. It may have been a side benefit, to have an armed citizenry to overthrow a tyrannical government, but it was not the “purpose.” The purpose of the Second Amendment, if one reads the whole thing, is state and national defense. It makes no sense to me to think of the amendment as being for the purpose of protecting the nation from invasion while simultaneously giving citizens the means to turn against the nation asking them to defend it. There would be no reason to expect a militia to defend the nation if you were expecting them to turn on the government seeking their service.

      Then again, I’m crazy, so what do I know?

    • Words have meaning, dude, and you don’t get to change them just because it fits your agenda.

      Speaking of agendas, it seems that you have a financial interest in gun craziness continuing in this country, so I don’t mind sending a “pffttt” in your general direction.

  10. And here’s another thing.

    During WW2, at the first blush of our military dominance, the prospect of the people of Japan wielding bamboo spears spurred the most expensive military programs, the atomic bomb and B-29s to carry it, in the history of Man. The arms of a people pale in importance compared to their resolve. If the evil guvmint wanted to impose tyranny they would do so despite an armed populace. And? An unarmed populace would stop them if we had the will. Military grade small arms wouldn’t even be a factor one way or another.

  11. Limerick of the Day:

    A one-trillion coin, it is said,
    Could be minted and shipped to the Fed,
    In order to pay
    What the US of A
    Might be forced to renege on instead.

    (not the author)

      • A platinum coin is sorta silly. I remember when coins were given a copper center to save money. And I can’t imagine a vending machine being geared to supplying change.

        • Plus. If they were going to make the coin from enough platinum to cover the debt it would halt many industries; including automobile production. If you think people will get violent if the evil guvmint tries to take their guns just imagine what would happen if people were denied their cars!

          • The coin can be any size they want to make it. But it’s silly.

            Can you imagine a president giving a prime-time, Oval Office address and saying, what we’re gonna do, people, is mint a coin worth $1 trillion. That just doesn’t pass the laugh test. I’d bet Obama would drop a bunch in the polls within days of making such an announcement. And no doubt, heated impeachment talk would begin.

            • Heck, mint two of the buggers. Sell one to a collector at 2x the face value.

      • I don’t think there’s even a remote chance that any court in the country would uphold a Treasury reading of this law that used it as a pretense for minting a $1 trillion coin.

          • From HuffPo:

            “While the $1 trillion coin approach may sound ridiculous, a mid-1990s law does give the Treasury Department the right to mint a coin made out of a tiny bit of platinum and stamp whatever denomination it wants on it.”

    • A ‘platinum coin’ does not have to actually be a coin with enough platinum to be worth it’s denomination. It would be a shortcut to minting a trillion one dollar platinum coins, which would be legal for the US Mint to do.

      What makes no sense is for the Federal Reserve to be in charge of the printing of currency. The Fed is not the government.

      • True. Any piece of currency is worth whatever a government and their trading partners say it’s worth. However, it would take a giant coin or coins that can’t be moved without a forklift to placate the rubes. This proposed coin would not be worth any more than a $1 trillion banknote but it would make people say “oooo” and “ahhhh”. The biggest problem, as I see it, is that such a measure would take so much platinum out of circulation that it would do more harm than good.

        • …placate the rubes.

          Nothing Obama has done in nearly four years has even begun to satisfy the RWNJs. He’s re-elected now. He can start to do the next right thing from now on.

          Pete, the coin wouldn’t have to contain any real platinum, any more than ‘silver’ coins contain any real silver.

          • I agree. Money is worth whatever the issuing entity says it’s worth. The national debt could be waved away with a stroke of the pen and no one would even notice as long as payments are still being made in a timely fashion even if there was no intent to pay off the whole amount plus interest. My point is that it would take tons of precious metal and a glitzy display of dancing girls to placate the rubes.

  12. I could use some help, good people. The comments on my local paper’s site have been seized by trolls and they have managed to get me banned. If you are so inclined; please take a few minutes out of your day to try and balance them out with a little sanity. I don’t really care what subjects you would choose to tackle but gun control seems to be the hot topic. Thanks!

    • I wish I could help, but if I could tolerate fucked-up Facebook commenting, I’d still maybe give a damn about Think Progress.

        • I can’t remember my login. They don’t use the Hotmail one I can use at TP.

          How do they manage to ban you on there?

          • I just applied a little logic and the trolls filed complaints. They are very sore losers so, when they get schooled, they try and close down the school.

  13. The only thing Michelle Bachmann can accomplish by being in the House Intelligence committee is to lower the average intelligence of the committee members.

  14. “Al Jazeera”. “Al Qaeda”. I guess we can’t expect a moron who can’t figure our how tides work to be able to tell the difference. I’m a little drunk and in a bad mood so I won’t beat myself up for wishing that Al Jazeera starts with him if they do, indeed, start beheading people. Alas. Bill0 has poisoned so many minds that it wouldn’t mitigate the damage done but at least it would raise the collective IQ of the human race a couple points.

Comments are closed.