Image 01 Image 03

NC Man Gives Passionate Defense Of Second Amendment At City Council Meeting

NC Man Gives Passionate Defense Of Second Amendment At City Council Meeting

“The law-abiding citizens of this community, of other communities we are the first ones taxed and the last ones considered”

It’s difficult sometimes to remain positive in the seemingly pervasive post-Parkland gun-grabbing fever, but as pervasive as that fever feels, it’s heartening to remember that we are not alone in the seemingly daily battle against leftist attacks on our Second Amendment.

Mark Robinson attended a city council meeting in Greensboro, North Carolina when he learned that it was set up to discuss cancelling a gun show.  After listening to several speakers advocating anti-Second Amendment policy, he decided to speak up.  The result has gone viral, and with good reason.

Robinson blasts gun-grabbing leftists for their assault on the rights of law-abiding gun owners and asks why they are so interested in “these minorities and that minorities.”  He then asks, pointedly, “when are you all going to stand up for the majority?”

Rush has a partial transcript:

I’ve heard a whole lot of people here talking tonight about this group and that group, domestic violence, blacks. These minorities and that minority. What I want to know is, when are you all gonna start standing up for the majority? And here’s who the majority is. I’m the majority. I’m a law-abiding citizen who’s never shot anybody, never committed a felony. I’ve never done anything like that.

But it seems like every time we have one of these shootings, nobody wants to put the blame where it goes, which is at the shooter’s feet. You want to put it at my feet. You want to turn around and restrict my right, Constitutional right that’s spelled out in black and white, you want to restrict my right to buy a firearm and protect myself from some of the very people you’re talking about in here tonight. It’s ridiculous. I don’t think Rod Serling could come up with a better script.

He then notes, “It does not make any sense.  The law-abiding citizens of this community, of other communities we are the first ones taxed and the last ones considered. And the first ones punished when things like this happen.”

Robinson also points out the glaring problem with the left’s anti-Second Amendment stance: criminals are criminals, so by definition, they don’t obey the law.  Street gangs, he notes, are not going to turn in their weapons.

So the criminals are gonna hold on to their guns. They’re still gonna have ’em. They’re still gonna break in my house, and they’re still gonna shoot me with ’em. And guess who’s gonna be the one that suffers? It’s gonna be me. Well, I’m here to tell you tonight, it is not going to happen without a fight. And when I say fight, I don’t mean shots fired; I don’t mean fists thrown.

I mean I’m going to come down here to this city council and raise hell just like these loonies from the left do until you listen to the majority of the people in this city. And I am the majority. The majority of the people in this city are law-abiding, and they follow the law. And they want their constitutional right to be able to bear arms.

. . . .  They want to be able to go to the gun show and buy a hunting rifle or sport rifle. There are no military grade weapons sold at the gun shows. An AR-15 is not a military grade weapon. Anybody would go into combat with an AR-15 is a fool. It’s a semiautomatic .22 rifle. You’d be killed in 15 minutes in combat with that thing. So we need to dispel all these myths, and we need to drop all this division that we got going on here. ‘Cause the bottom line is, when that Second Amendment was written, whether the Framers liked it or not, they wrote it for everybody. And I am everybody. And the law-abiding citizens of this city are everybody. And we want our rights, and we want to keep our rights — and, by God, we’re gonna keep ’em, come hell or high water.

It’s well-worth watching.  Twice.

Robinson appeared on Fox and explained that he didn’t originally intend to speak at all.  He was inflamed by some of the comments from his fellow citizens about curtailing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens and felt inspired to speak out.

When normal citizens stand up and make impassioned speeches in support of the Second Amendment, everyone takes notice.

Remember this guy:

It’s easy to forget that we are indeed the majority and that our voice matters.  However, when citizens like Robinson speak up and make us all cheer, we know that we are not alone.  We might also wonder if we are doing enough.  Good people, Robinson says, should not be cowed by the left and should stand up for what is right in city council meetings, in town halls, in every public forum.

Videos like these go viral because so few of us bother to stand up and speak out.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Molon Labe.

Hope his taxes are paid in full and there is nothing in his background because he is about to get a deep state anal probe.

Just awesome. This should go viral.

Duh- you mean those poor mistreated ms 13 gang bangers won’t obey the law ?
What have we done to deserve SO MANY STUPID MORONS that claim to be educated ???

Remember why the children at Parkland died. Despite numerous people begging the police and FBI to protect them from the shooter, they ignored the people and the result was 17 dead children.

And even worse, while the shooter was killing children, the police were ordered not to go into the school and save their lives.

And people like Mr. Robinson are being blamed for the killings and will be punished for the police and FBI’s failures to protect children.

Mr. Robinson is a hero. You know in your heart that if he had been at Parkland, he would have risked his life to save the children.

The present shooting resonates with parents. The risks are not 0 but extremely low which does not register in the world of one or two child designer children.

The one question no one needs to ask of a parent is ,”what would you give up to make your child (even negligibly) safer?

The real question is , “what are you willing to take from everyone else to make your child even negligibly safer?

Further, “what liberties are you will to do away with to make you feel safer.”

Today’s parents will easily say, “everything, everything, everything.”

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. (some dead white guy said that but fortunately he wasn’t a slave owner)

    This is not quite right, though, alaskabob. There is no proposed gun law that would make any child safer in school, and that’s the actual point. Not “what makes you think/feel/hope your child is safer?” but “what actually makes your child safer?”. These are not the same question, and restricting or revoking the gun rights of law-abiding citizens makes only criminals and those who would do harm to our children safer.

      alaskabob in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | April 7, 2018 at 4:23 pm

      I agree completely. My point is that in this bubble wrapped culture any perceived risk is zero tolerated. Josh Sugarman from Handgun Control was so right when he said the confusion of what really is a military rifle and a civilian rifle version will allow bans to be passed. Wait… we already had a ban and it didn’t do anything… and now here we go again.

      The Left says 2A was to protect the States from an overbearing Federal government… but what protects the people from a corrupt State? We did have corrupt state governments during Jim Crow.

      i am presently visiting in SoCal and remember the Rodney King Loot Scoot and Shoot I and II where the police protected the government infrastructures and private citizens were on their own. Human nature as it is… that and any major disaster will require citizens to have more than a token firearm approved by prog legislators.

    DaveGinOly in reply to alaskabob. | April 8, 2018 at 2:20 pm

    During the course of a year in the US, any particular student is five times more likely to be struck by lightning than shot and killed at school. (I did the math.)

This was an epic, heartfelt, logic-based and eloquent statement.

It is people like Mr. Robinson who make this country great. Ordinary Americans, standing up for their Constitutional rights, and, for the rights of others.

And, Mr. Robinson is exactly right — why should the Second Amendment be judged and constrained by the acts of those who abuse it, as opposed to the 99.99% of Americans who lawfully avail themselves of it, for personal protection, sport shooting, etc.? We don’t judge the utility of automobiles and trucks based upon drunk driving accidents.

    alaskabob in reply to guyjones. | April 7, 2018 at 4:27 pm

    AAA does not promote drunk driving and the NRA does not promote crime.

      Shane in reply to alaskabob. | April 7, 2018 at 6:01 pm

      AAA (Car Club) —> AA (Alcoholics Anonymous)

        AKBobs’ statement still makes sense as written, Shane, so I don’t think it’s a mistake…

        AAA (the car club) doesn’t promote drunk driving (the activity)
        It follows the set up, pay off witty statement/joke formula.

        AAA or AA? can be confusing…for a long time I thought AAA was an association for really bad drunks!!!

    DaveGinOly in reply to guyjones. | April 8, 2018 at 11:33 pm

    Cruz (and others) did not “abuse” a right. When a person is intentionally harmed by another, a right is not “abused,” a crime is committed.

Second time I’ve watched this. Got goosebumps both times.

The man is well spoken and direct, going through that whole un-prepared speech with barely missing a beat.

Hope he’s ready for the death threats, but he look like a man who could take care of business with or without a gun.

Mr. Robinson has such an impact because he is SANE. And, this is a startling contrast to most of the people who are making public speeches.

But, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING that every single person, who supports the 2nd Amendment right of people to be able to own and posses weapons, must understand and must continually keep harping on, no matter what the reaction, is that the right is clearly spelled out in PERMANENT INK, in black and white, in the Bill of Rights. It BANS the government from restricting that right in any way. There are NO EXCEPTIONS. And, if anyone does not like what it says, then there is a mechanism for changing it. And, it is NOT the courts.

This is not a logical debate. The anti-gun people care nothing for the facts, for the truth, or even for reality. Their arguments are all based upon feelings and desires and flat out delusion. Most of them want only to be safe and in delusion, they hope that by disarming everyone else this means that no one can ever hurt them. Of course, they ignore the history of our species where human beings have harmed others with their bare hands and their teeth. The rest of them see armed people as an impediment to their desire to exercise control over those people.

So, forget all of your logical arguments to follow the law, as clearly expressed in the 2nd Amendment, they mean nothing to the people that they are directed at. Forget trying to portray people in general, and firearms owners in particular, as being big, lovable, harmless teddy bears. We may be big and lovable, but we are not harmless. We are all human beings. That makes us ALL supremely dangerous. We gained mastery over all the other animals on this planet, and ended up on the pointy end of the food chain, long before the firearm was invented and certainly before it was in widespread use. We did it with our hands, feet and teeth; with sticks and stones. We did it with groups of people banded together. We developed better weapons to protect ourselves, not from those other animals, but from other people.

The 2nd Amendment means exactly what it says. It is the law of the land. And, it gives the populous the means to enforce that law, as written.

I have always chuckled at the “military-grade weapons” argument for classifying certain weapons as unsuitable for private possession. Civilian weapons have always been better than the weapons used by the military. When military troops were being issued single shot rifles, the repeating rifle was taking over the civilian market. Why? Because the military moves in large groups. Single shot rifles in the hands of 100 troopers was a formidable defensive force against attack, even by another group. However, that lone traveler, or family group, on the frontier needed to have the firepower of a much bigger force at his disposal. The repeating firearm gave that to him. When military troops were using smooth bore muskets which were only accurate to a couple of hundred feet. The civilian was using a rifle, accurate to three or four times that distant. Why? Because, with only a single shot, the civilian had to hit his target more often and at longer range or die of starvation. The military-grade firearms argument is simply more spurious argument to justify something which is patently illegal, gun control.

It is about time that sanity prevail.

    Before someone less polite tries to rip your comment apart, this “bans the government from restricting that right in any way” is fairly… wrong, from what I can tell. The 1st Amendment gets restricted in plenty of ways. There is a presumption that the reason should be highly compelling and not on some official’s whim. However, the man in that video has a more level-headed view than you have presented here. If he ceases to be a law-abiding citizen, he expects his rights to freedom of speech, mobility and to bear arms to be restricted. That is consistent with a well-regulated militia. The amendment does not refer to unregulated militias.

    At any rate, sanity – as opposed to emotions and virtue posturing – certainly should prevail. We will see if it actually does.

      Mac45 in reply to JBourque. | April 7, 2018 at 7:54 pm

      “Before someone less polite tries to rip your comment apart, this “bans the government from restricting that right in any way” is fairly… wrong, from what I can tell. The 1st Amendment gets restricted in plenty of ways.”

      This is incorrect.

      The 1st and 2nd Amendments are very different animals.

      In the first place, the 1st Amendment clearly states that the Congress, can not restrict a person’s speech. There is no prohibition against any other organ of the US government, or any government, other than the federal government, from restricting speech. The 14th Amendment can not, technically, apply the provisions of the 1st Amendment to the states, as it applies ONLY to Congress. Now, the courts have tried to expand the 1st Amendment protection to state an local governments. But, they have problems with that. This was the reason for the community standards doctrine in the obscenity cases.

      You have to actually read the language of the amendments to understand what they say. For 227 years, courts have been trying to amend the wording of amendments through judicial fiat. So, today, people who rely upon the media and modern publications really have no idea what these amendments actually say.

      The 2nd Amendment is completely different. As it was a document aimed at government power, it clearly prohibits the government from restricting the ownership and possession of weapons, including firearms. It only allows the state to restrict how those weapons are used. Use a weapon as a threat, except in lawful self defense, or exhibit it in a grossly reckless manner and these uses are not barred from regulation under the 2nd Amendment. There is simply NO exception to the clear prohibition that the right of the people to keep and bear arms may not be infringed, found in the language of the 2nd Amendment.

      The militia argument is also a red herring. Its wording and location in the sentence, which is the whole of the 2nd Amendment, only give a reason why the government can not infringe upon the right of people to keep and bear arms. If the framers had obviously intended that people could only keep and bear arms for service in a militia, then it would have said the keeping of a well-regulated militia, by the states, shall not be infringed. But, that is not the way it is worded. It clearly states that the right OF THE PEOPLE, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As there were, and still are, so many other lawful uses for weapons, that use in a militia is one one. Even the SCOTUS acknowledged that in Heller and McDonald. To limit the protection, to own and possess weapons, only to service in the militia, would be like telling someone that they could own a car, but could only drive it to pay their taxes. Or could only own a knife if they were a member of the active militia.

      No, the language of the 2nd Amendment is strikingly clear. It prohibits the federal government from regulating the ownership and possession of weapons, including firearms, and that prohibition was imposed upon the governments of the states by the language of the 14th Amendment.

        I said nothing of service in a militia. Like this gentleman in the video, I am honoring the notion that the militia is every citizen capable of bearing arms. Clear? I hope so.

        There is nothing in the 2nd amendment, combined with the 14th, that obligates federal, state and local governments to tolerate the bearing of arms by ex-felons, current felons, escaped convicts/ fugitives, people declared mentally incompetent to safely handle a firearm, and so forth. This man is standing up for the law-abiding population. You are not. You are saying the government (through laws passed by legislatures) cannot restrict the right of criminals to bear arms. I am politely informing you that this is relatively insane.

          Mac45 in reply to JBourque. | April 7, 2018 at 11:41 pm

          Actually, the very wording of the 2nd Amendment itself says that no government may infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. I did not draft the amendment. The Framers did. One thing to remember about the Framers of our Constitution was that they were extremely intelligent and learned men. In that era, learned men carefully crafted their words to clearly express exactly what they meant. Wording and construction were crafted to clearly state their intentions. And, this is true of the 2nd Amendment.

          There are exceptions listed in the Amendment for a very good reason. That was because the Framers wished to totally ban the federal government from imposing any restriction upon the ownership and possession of weapons, including firearms. They expected the states and their local political subdivisions to make the determination as to what was best for their citizens. Then along came the Reconstructionists. being mainly zealots and activists, they were incredibly short sighted. In their zeal to impose their idea of equality upon the citizens of the various states, they enacted the 14th Amendment; quite possibly the most stunning example of the Law of Unintended Consequences in US history. That Amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the states, including the 2nd. And, as I have pointed out, there are NO exception to this ban anywhere in the 2nd Amendment. Somewhere along the line, well before McDonald, someone in a position of power realized exactly what these fools had done. What happened? For the next 140 years, people in positions of power ignored it. They continued on as though state legislatures actually still had the authority to regulate the ownership and possession of weapons. Why? Because there was onoly one legal way to change the situation and that was to either repeal or amend the 2nd Amendment. And, they were terrified of doing that. Any action which would have changed the Amendment would run the risk of removing the prohibition on the regulation of weapons and firearms by the federal government, while make it abundantly clear that the states no longer had the authority to regulate weapons themselves. Understand? It was the ultimate catch 22. So, they not only ignored it, but went along when the federal government began to violate the 2nd Amendment in the 1930s.

          So, to answer your question, I am saying that no government in this country has the power to pass or enforce any law which will infringe upon a person’s right to own and possess arms, unless such person is being held for trial or incarcerated after an adjudication of guilt. Once the person has successfully completed his sentence, then the government has no right to deny him his right to keep and bear arms. As to a person being mentally incompetent to safely handle a firearm, if this is true, then the person would have to be so declared and would have to be placed under the supervision of a guardian who would then be responsible for that person’s behavior, just as a parent is responsible for the behavior of a child. And, it would be the guardian who would be responsible for any harmful actions of the incompetent person, not the incompetent person himself.

          Now, let me give you an example of the slippery slope we are now on. A man and a woman are having an argument. The woman attempts to stab the man with a knife. The man disarms her and, in the process causes a bruise. He is charged with a domestic violence battery. being a he said/she said situation and the only evidence to support either story is the wife’s bruise, the man is convicted of a misdemeanor battery. But, because it is the result of “domestic violence” he is now stripped of his right to own or possess a firearm. In essence he has been improperly rendered helpless to defend himself. A person who is committed for psychiatric evaluation for depression, is now stripped of his right to own a firearm, even though he is allowed to walk among the general population without close supervision. He is essentially being classified as no danger to society. Now, he has access to matches and gasoline, automobiles, knives, bomb making materials, he can even fly an aircraft. But he can not own a firearm. Does that sound sane to you?

          Look, either the wording of the 2nd Amendment means what it says, or it does not. If it can be ignored or changed, by judicial fiat, then the Constitution is nothing but toilet paper. It is either an ironclad contract or nothing. The Progressives would have it mean nothing. They would be happy to impose all kinds of exceptions to the Amendments, which they have been doing for the last hundred years. One day people in this country will wake up and find that the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights have been totally rewritten and not to their liking. Think about it. There is a procedure for amending the Constitution. If people want to amend the language to the 2nd Amendment, then they have to follow the procedure to do so. Except, in case you haven’t noticed, a method has been found to circumvent that procedure; judicial review. Courts come up with decisions which actually amend the language of the constitution illegally. Then they blithely declare such illegal amendment to be legal. There is a reason why the 2nd Amendment exists. Look around and you can see it every single day in this country. If you want to renegotiate a contract, you have to follow the rules set down for doing that. You can not do it unilaterally.

          Mac45 in reply to JBourque. | April 7, 2018 at 11:43 pm

          Correction: That should read “There are NO exceptions listed in the Amendment for a very good reason.”

          alaskabob in reply to JBourque. | April 8, 2018 at 11:40 am

          In the late 1800’s… once one did their time all of their Constitutional rights were restored … even the 2nd.

          All of this garbage comes after the 14th… and the selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights which I believe was primarily to restrict rights of the newly freed slaves. This includes the Supreme Court grabbing power as it can.

          I agree that the present workaround to diminish the Bill of Rights is through legal precedence and selective reinterpretation of the law. Wisdom isn’t generational. Judges are not smarter now than in the past… I would say the same hodge podge of talent as throughout history.

        DaveGinOly in reply to Mac45. | April 9, 2018 at 12:02 am

        Please read the preamble to the BOR. It makes it plain that the purpose of the BOR is to acknowledge that the organic Constitution does not empower the federal government to infringe upon any of the people’s rights, except by due (judicial) process as a punishment for crimes (Fifth Amendment).

        However, because the BOR recognizes that the People (who were citizens of the States in which they resided) have rights, the fact that those rights exist (and adhere to the citizens of the States) means that the States must also guarantee the same rights, if for no other reason that it doesn’t makes sense to guarantee them federally if they can go missing in every State due to state government legislative action. Also, the directive in Article VI became a deterrent to State action against the rights recognized in the BOR when the BOR’s amendments were ratified.*

        *Because recognition of the People’s rights is now part of the Constitution, those rights must be considered with respect to every other element of the Constitution that pertains to how the Constitution must be administered and considered. Among those protections is Article VI’s demand that anything in a State law or constitution that’s inconsistent with the content of the federal Constitution is null and void. Legislation that’s inconsistent with the rights of the People recognized in the BOR is therefore void under Article VI, no 14th Amendment needed. The 14th Amendment was needed for ex-slaves and other non-white people because they hadn’t yet been generally recognized as a part of “the People” whose rights were already protected by the Constitution.

Boutique: “That is consistent with a well-regulated militia. The amendment does not refer to unregulated militias.”

Are you applying the modern definition of well-regulated or the definition in common use in 1783? Because they are not the same.

If the framers intended a well-regulated militia to be insurance against a tyrannical government, why would they allow that tyrannical government to regulate the militia? It’s not logical.

Like building a city wall to keep out barbarians and then giving the barbarians the keys to the gates.

“people declared mentally incompetent”

That sounds reasonable… Until you see this:

Conservatism is a mental disorder

And that’s just one of many that crop up every 6 months or so. Such junk science is good for a chuckle… followed by an abrupt silence as you remember the science was settled on Global Warming.

We can be sure the Marxists will declare us mentally incompetent as an excuse to strip us of our rights. It’s already in their playbook, they ran it several times in the 20th century.

I agree the mentally ill should not have a loaded weapon, but can we really trust the State to determine who is mentally ill?

    You and that other person are just imagining definitions out of me. It’s immature.

    If a court of law declares an individual incompetent in accordance with due process, the state has a legitimate right in not wanting that person being part of “the militia” of law-abiding gun-bearing citizens. That is a high bar. It should be a high bar. But it’s insane not to have any bar at all.

    Let’s take the “people who have fully served their sentence” as Mac45 brought up. We’ve all heard of parole, yes? A lot of people are freed on parole. By definition, these people have not finished their sentences, else they would not be on parole. The state has a legitimate interest in controlling their access to weapons. This is reasonable. If you want to ban even this, it’s not reasonable, and if you want to argue the 14th amendment forbids it, I’m confident the courts will laugh in your face.

    Preventing a single individual from bearing arms does not mean the public is banned from bearing arms. Such rights are intended for law, abiding, people. Everything flows from there.

      Mac45 in reply to JBourque. | April 8, 2018 at 11:44 am

      You keep missing the point. So, let me attempt to explain it ONE MORE TIME.

      This has nothing to do with what people may want. It has nothing to do with what people may believe is sane or insane. It has to do with the sanctity of the contract upon which this nation is based, the Constitution of the United States of America.

      In the case of laws, the courts may rule as to their Constitutionality. They do this by gauging the actions of these laws against the restrictions within the Constitution and its various amendments. What they are not free to do is to rewrite the Constitution and its amendments or to “interpret” that document in a way which does not strictly adhere to the strictest interpretation of its language.

      Now, does the state have a legitimate interest in regulating the ownership and possession of weapons? Yes. However, the Framers of the Constitution, representing the states and their inhabitants, drafted the Bill of Rights to restrict the power of the federal government. One of the things that they wished to restrict was the ability of the federal government to regulate to ownership and possession of weapons by the citizenry. Nothing within the Bill of Rights applied to the states in 1791. The Framers, all men of power and influence within their states, assumed that the states, which were the dominant partners in the new nation, would decide to what extent their citizens’ right to keep and bear arms would be infringed. Notice, this is another of those rights which are apparently not universal and inviolate in the minds of the Founding Fathers.

      But, as went into at length, idiots failed to understand the Law of Unintended Consequences and drafted and ratified the 14th Amendment. This extended the Bill of Rights to the states, in toto. And, it was done by the method authorized by the Constitution, ratification. So, like it or not we, the people, are stuck with this situation. And, as I said, the 2nd Amendment clearly and concisely prohibits the government from regulating the ownership and possession of firearms and other weapons. So, if people want to change it so that governments can regulate this “right”, then the Constitution has to be amended by the authorized procedure. It can not simple be ignored.

      As to parole. Parole is supposed to be a transitory stage, whereby a person proves their desire to function in society without the strict supervision of incarceration. And, they waive their protection [their rights] guaranteed under the constitution for the privilege of remaining out of confinement. In other words, they freely agree to waive certain of their rights, most notably those guaranteed under the 2nd and 4th Amendments. However, this probationary period may not extend past the limits of a normal period of incarceration for the crime for which they were convicted. At the end of that time, the voluntary suspension of the person’s rights ends and he is then entitled to the same protections as any other citizen of the US. Now, what has happened is that the governments of this country have decided that they can suspend certain of a person’s guaranteed rights even after a person has completed his sentence. This includes the protections of the 2nd Amendment. Again, nowhere within the Constitution is there ANY clause which allows this and especially not within the body of the 2nd Amendment. And, what is with the notion that a person serves a life sentence for a simple battery, just because it involved a person with whom the convicted had a relationship? Is that sane?

      As to being declared mentally incompetent. Everyone, myself included, agrees that anyone who is declared mentally incompetent should not be allowed own or possess a firearm, or other weapon. The problem that attend today, is the assumption that once a person has been involuntarily committed for any mental issue, he is permanently barred from exercising his right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment. yet, he is deemed sane enough to wander around in the general population without any supervision what-so-ever. During this time, he has unfettered access to all types of dangerous and destructive agents, including knives and swords, flammable materials, dangerous chemicals, motor vehicles [land, air and sea]; all of which can cause immense destruction, injury or death. But, he can not own or possess a firearm. Is this sane?

According to the racist 4th Amour Div., black people have contributed nothing to America.

    That’s why I said when this post first went up that not enough people stand up for the black law-abiding citizen. That’s a real shame. People need positive role models.

So put about 20x shorter, you concede that people on parole or court-declared mentally incompetent should not have firearms, even by a very strict reading of the 2nd and 14th amendments. I would like to point out, politely, that the 14th amendment contains the language, “except by due process of law”.

That doesn’t mean there are not bad laws. That does not mean there are unreasonable laws that are bad policy. It means that the 14th is not enough to make them unconstitutional.

Now, as for losing gun rights permanently for ever being institutionalized or for “simple battery” (…isn’t that, for domestic violence?), I applaud you challenging states that want to be unreasonable about this and to whittle 2nd amendment rights away beyond the point of sense. You’ve imagined I am arguing against you. I am not. I am just pointing out that your doctrine of a completely unregulated militia is silly.

Even a very generous interpretation of that phrase simply cannot support the notion that states are powerless to regulate people who stray from the straight and narrow path. If a militia is called up to serve, there are rules: you do not drink while on duty, you do not sleep on watch, you do not stand and smoke within sight of enemy snipers, you do not engage in physical violence against your officers. A demobilized militia of law-abiding citizens also has rules. Why is this concept so difficult? Because of the poison left by leftists manipulating this wording to argue it is a collective right of the government? That was silly then and it is silly now.

The right of the people, as a whole, to bear arms, is not infringed by insuring you, an individual, cannot bear arms if you are found, via due process, to violate the reasonable regulations laid down by human society. What is due process? What is reasonable? Let’s work those out. Let’s not chuck rotten tomatoes at the principle that there is such a thing as process and reason where guns are involved.

    Aaaand that was meant to Mac45. This happens too often after logging in. Apologies.

    Anyway, summation: people should find reasonable ground. Too many people don’t, that is a problem.

    Mac45 in reply to JBourque. | April 8, 2018 at 3:53 pm

    Good try. But, you seem to want to completely ignore the language of the 2nd Amendment. There is no due process of law which allows a person to be stripped of his right to own and possess weapons.

    Now, let me explain what transpires in the only two instances where a person can be stripped of his “right” to own and possess weapons.

    The first is when a person is incarcerated for a criminal offense. In such a case, that person actually becomes a ward of the government. He has the legal status of a child and he can be denied anything, by his guardian, the state, which does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, especially if allowing that person access to certain things, such as weapons, places others at risk.

    The second is when a person is adjudicated incompetent, either temporarily or permanently. In the first case, that person becomes a ward of whatever agency holds him in custody and in the second it is whomever the court acknowledges as his guardian. These guardians are responsible for the actions of the incompetent person and, as with a child, can deny him access to certain items, such as weapons.

    Understand? In both these cases, the person is deemed incompetent to wander at-large in society and is assigned some type of guardian. The person on parole or probation agrees to waive certain rights in order to avoid incarceration.; However, in the case of the criminal, once he has successfully competed his sentence, he no longer has a guardian and therefor can not be denied his rights, under the Constitution. In the case of the person involuntarily committed, temporarily, by releasing that person back into society, without a guardian, society is accepting that this person is both competent and no longer a threat to himself or others. If this is the case, then there is no grounds to withhold hid exercise of all of his rights. The person who is declared to be permanently incompetent, then he is treated like a child his guardian is responsible for his behavior.

    Now, about your due process of law. Sorry, but this does not apply to the 2nd Amendment, as the 2nd amendment clearly states that the right of the people shall not be infringed. As this was directed to the government, this would mean that there was simple no due process which can strip a person of this right, with one exception, legally making someone a ward of another. Historically, those people who have not yet reached the age of majority are considered a ward and that ward can, and does, have the authority to ignore Constitutional protections which exist for adults. It also applies to incarcerated criminals and those found to be incompetent by a court. I have already explained how both of these classes of people actually exist under the mantel of guardianship. These people are legally wards and their guardians, whomever they may be, are responsible for them.

    I see that you simply can not let go of the “militia” argument. I have already explained that this amendment was not aimed solely at safeguarding a state militia, but at the right of the people to be armed. And, while the citizens of our nation have to follow many rules, one of those rules is that the government can not regulate the ownership or possession of firearms and other weapons. It becomes a big problem when governments decide to selectively follow laws and rules, based upon their own desires. If you want government to have the authority to regulate the ownership and possession of firearms, then the 2nd Amendment has to be amended to allow for that. Otherwise any such government regulation is in violation of that Amendment. I can’t help that. The idea that Mark can be denied his expressed right to keep and bear arms simply because he stole a $300.01 television does not make society any safer. To deny a woman her expressed right to own a means of protection because she was involuntarily committed because she was depressed and threatening suicide following a miscarriage does not make society any safer. Both of these people have unfettered access to a plethora of dangerous items, even if their possession of firearms is restricted. I have already listed many of those items TWICE.

    The bottom line is that the Framers of the Constitution drafted the 2nd Amendment over 225 years ago. The states ratified it at almost the same time. Then in 1868, the states ratified the 14th Amendment, which applied the Bill of Rights to the state governments. This included the 2nd Amendment. The language of the Amendment has not changed in al of that time. It still says the same thing “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”. I do not know how much clearer it could be.

    Good luck with your argument. You’ll need it.

      I’m going to stop you at “due process of law… does not apply to the 2nd amendment.”

      The 14th tells the states they may not deny life, liberty or property except by due process. The 14th is what makes the 2nd apply to the states. You’re saying the 14th, which is conditional, makes the 2nd apply to the states in a manner that is unconditional. This is illogical, and real life is not a game of “gotcha!”.

      Arguing that thieves, the mentally unstable, and similar persons, should have unfettered access to firearms, is not a legal argument; it is a political one. Certainly the legal precedents don’t support you. So, you’re going to have to go through the same process as everyone else: vote, lobby, convince. If you can convince law-abiding citizens that thieves and the unstable should have guns – that is, without some kind of showing that they have ceased to be a danger to human society, “the militia” itself – good for you! Let me know how that goes.

        Mac45 in reply to JBourque. | April 8, 2018 at 9:31 pm

        “The 14th tells the states they may not deny life, liberty or property except by due process. The 14th is what makes the 2nd apply to the states. You’re saying the 14th, which is conditional, makes the 2nd apply to the states in a manner that is unconditional. This is illogical, and real life is not a game of “gotcha!”. ”

        The 2nd /amendment should apply to the states under the privileges and immunities clause, not the due process clause.
        Why? Because it is a privilege and an immunity, not a due process right. Here is the relevant section of the 14th :

        “Section 1.

        All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

        See? Technically, the federal government, as it is not covered by the 14th Amendment, can not regulate firearms because the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. It had always been that way, up until the 1930s. Then the Progressive courts started playing games to attempt to limit the scope of the /amendment. See, the 2nd is an absolute prohibition against regulating private ownership and possession of weapons. The 4th, on the other hand, is a due process right. It only protects a person fro UNWARRANTED searches and seizures, not from all searches and seizures. When the SCOTUS heard McDonald, Scalia wanted to rule that the 2nd was incorporated to the states under the due process clause. This was adopted as the reason for the incorporation. Thomas dissented, on the grounds that this was a privileged right, not a due process right, which could be legislated away. Thomas was correct, Scalia was incorrect. But, later in McDonald we see why Scalia wanted to use the due process clause. This was for the express purpose of allowing exceptions to the ban on regulation of firearms, and other weapons, for “reasonable restrictions”. This was political and flies squarely in the face of historical fact and logic. There is no exception to the ban on regulation on owning or possessing a weapon anywhere in the body of the 2nd Amendment. Scalia essentially rewrote the 2nd Amendment to allow for “reasonable restrictions” on the right to keep and bear arms. I have explained why this has bcome the trend. Prior to the 1930s, there were no federal laws which abridged the right of a person to own and possess arms. That was because it was always assumed thjat the 2nd Amendment was an absolute ban on that right. In other words, it was viewed as a privilege which was immune to infringement. The states never stopped infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms, even after the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868.

        Again you make my point about courts indulging in judicial fiat for political purposes. The wording of the 2nd is totally unambiguous. It is clear and concise. It absolutely prohibits the government from restricting the right of the people to own and possess weapons.

        so far, you have used just about every anti-2nd Amendment argument out there, including the well regulated militia argument and now the due process argument. I have answered all of them. No government can abridge the protections of the 2nd Amendment because there is no where in the 2nd Amendment, or the Constitution where this is allowed. The 2nd Amendment says what it says and that is all that it says. It is not amended by the 14th Amendment, because it is not subject to due process. It is a violation of the 2nd Amendment, and therefor a civil rights violation, for a government to infringe upon any person’s right to keep and bear arms.

        Sorry, that is what the Amendment says and there is nothing to change it.

        A couple more things.

        What makes you think that if a government is allowed to violate the civil rights of convicted criminals or people who were mentally ill but have now been released, unsupervised, back into society, that they will not dream up reasons to do the same other people? Look at NYC, Chicago, D.C. and a dozen other places in the US. The law abiding citizenry is effectively disarmed in these cities. But, the criminals still seem to be armed.

        Also, lets talk about danger to society. Do you know who really needs a firearm for protection? The weak; women, the elderly, the disabled. The 2nd Amendment protects these people’s right to be armed in self defense, except in NYC, Chicago, D.C. and other places. If everyone is legally allowed to own and carry firearms, then everyone is equal. They all have the same means to resist unlawful attack. As to denying criminals and the mentally ill from obtaining firearms, how is that working out? Perhaps you should go to Chicago and talk to the gangbangers there about giving up their guns. The only thing that keeps criminal from preying upon the rest of society is if that society is armed and can protect itself. This does not work all the time, but being armed at least gives the populous a fighting chance against criminals. Od course no one ever thingks that these criminals and former mental patients all have access to gasoline and matches, dangerous chemicals, motor vehicles, including airplanes, knives, swords, iron pipes and other clubs and a myriad of other improvised weapons. But, no one ever gets run over by a criminal or lunatic, or set on fire, or stabbed, or beaten to death. Nope, people only get shot. Let me kow how banning access to all of these other things works out for you.

This man is my new hero! He states what is obviously the “common sense” that liberals decry but only give lip service to. Other words they have problems with are “fair” and “justice,” to name a few.

Bottom line: liberals just don’t trust the people.