Sadly, VOV has run out of Amendments to discuss…

| September 4, 2019

Except for one.

Veritas Omnia Vincit
The Second Amendment or, Why Were These Amendments Written In The First Place?

“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.”

Well here it is a short essay on the second amendment. Some have called it the means to protect all the rest of the amendments, others have called it a scourge that allows scoundrels to maintain an arsenal to murder their neighbors with on a whim.

I didn’t necessarily save this as the “best for last” it was more of a problem with my thoughts on which approach I wanted to discuss with you and which lines of attack those who would infringe upon it would use and why those were wrong.

There’s the entire discussion around the collective rights approach of US v Miller in 1939 and the more accurate personal rights approach of DC v Heller in 2008. Which interpretation is more to one’s perception of what a government is, and where the power of such a government should lie were all considerations. There are endless dissertations on both sides of this conceptual duel of personal versus collective rights, all of them written by far more scholarly and intellectual writers than myself. In reviewing much of that material I was fascinated with both sets of reasoning and how passionate each side of that issue is with their respective interpretations.

Another approach I considered was the defense against the old canard about how the second was written in the times of muskets and consequently should only apply to muskets and not modern firearms. A cute, albeit idiotic, simplification of a very complex issue. Along with this approach is the term “well regulated” which our gun grabbing fellow citizens always take out of definition as well as context. I thought quoting several text references from those days where “well regulated” simply means nothing more than well calibrated, or even more simply, in good working order might be an effective approach to dismiss that line of reasoning from the grabbers. That approach would parse every line and every word of the second amendment as it was understood and used in those days as opposed to the meaning of those words in today’s far different society.

To be honest I was not at all certain what approach would best convey the strength of my desire to protect the second from all infringement (as I desire to protect all the Bill of Rights protections) without resorting to the standard lines of defense against an ever more idiotic series of sound bite level attacks. Which approach made the most sense to articulate my thoughts and no doubt similar thoughts from many of you as well.

While writing the essays for the ninth and tenth amendments I had done a great bit of reading (again) on the principles behind the Constitution itself and the amendments and their addition to the final document. Several of the quotes from those who felt the amendments were unnecessary struck me as indicative of the actual mindset of the men who wrote these documents. In that reading it struck me that what I really needed to write about was the intent and purpose of the amendments themselves, and the intent of those writing it and what they wished to achieve with the Constitution and a Bill of Rights. Much was made of the fact that the Constitution so limited the powers of Government that many of those involved in writing it felt it needed no Bill of Rights as the Government they formed had no power regarding those rights, that in their writing they had given that Government no ability to address things like religion, or possession of firearms, or the necessity for speedy trials or due process to take property. A few wiser men pointed out that every Government exceeds its charter and subverts the intent of those forming it, usually within a generation or two. Their arguments for the inclusion of a Bill of Rights would be a further reminder that Government could not tread in certain areas under any circumstance.

That’s really the bulk of it for me. The second amendment was not written to let you have a rifle for hunting, or a pistol for plinking, nor was it written as a permission slip to keep a loaded shotgun in your closet. The Second Amendment, and all of the amendments really, was written as a restriction against the Government. It was written to prevent the Government from ever writing any laws about Americans keeping whatever weapons and however many weapons they wished among their personal possessions. It was written by men who had seen entire populations subjected to gross injustices and brutally beaten down by overbearing governments that disarmed the populace and left them nothing more than slaves to whatever government was in power at the moment. The second amendment is not about the collective rights of states to possess a militia within their borders or the personal rights of each of us to keep our weapons on our persons and in our homes. The second amendment is about the Government having no power to address either the collective rights of the states or the personal rights of the people PERIOD.

In reading the US v Miller decision and the ideas behind collective rights it occurs to me that even the SCOTUS can be turned into nothing more than the legal arm of government intrusion into areas where the government was never intended to have any authority or power. It’s another example of SCOTUS getting it wrong and getting it completely wrong and enabling a government to infringe in a protected area of our personal liberties and freedoms.

In reading the quotes from the men who wrote this, or had a large part in the debates about the document and its approval it’s really quite clear the second isn’t at all a set of permissions for the people but a powerful restriction against the government’s natural tendency to encroach and restrict the rights of the governed. Consequently in that reading I realized that this approach was really the only approach that matters, what did those men desire for the people when they wrote this, I think we all know the answer to that. However instead of my thoughts on their words I will let their words speak for themselves….

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
– Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…”
– George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

“To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.”
– George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

Some of you may take exception with my comments about the SCOTUS getting it wrong in their 1939 Miller decision and the “collective rights” theory. I understand that, and once again I would point you to one of our most important founders (in my opinion) and the most libertarian perhaps of all the founders, Thomas Jefferson. His concern for personal liberty and protecting that liberty was unsurpassed and all of his work and writings reinforce that notion for me. Here’s his advice for anyone hoping to “re-interpret” the text of the Amendments and the Constitution.

On every question of construction, (let us) carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying (to interpret) what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was past(passed).
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

Here’s hoping the SCOTUS may ever remember these words and whenever asked to do so rule in favor of the people’s rights against the Government as the last line of defense against an ever more over arching and freedom restricting government.

As this concludes the series on the first ten amendments I hope you found them at least worth a read and of some value in your understanding of the reasons behind these amendments and the mindset of the men who created this great nation. May we always remember their intent and their wishes for a government that was truly only possible with the consent of those being governed.

Thank you as always for your time and I welcome your thoughts.
VoV

All good things, V. Its been quite an experience; I appreciate your works, as I’m sure most of our fellow Delta Whiskies and Whiskettes do.

Category: America, Guest Post, Guns, Second Amendment

Comments (103)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Berliner says:

    A good read. Thank you.

  2. David says:

    I have two responses to the ‘strict interpretation’ folks who think the 2nd only protects muskets:
    1) So you write everything on parchment with a quill pen and send it by horse courier?
    2) So if it is to be strictly literal, please explain ‘shall not be infringed.’ Can’t have it both ways.

    • LC says:

      So I’ll bite, and I do so as a (general) supporter of gun rights, but one who doesn’t quite get where people draw the line and why. Let’s take your idea and reverse it – in the Revolutionary War, private citizens owned muskets, yes, but they also owned cannons and even armed naval ships. These were instrumental to the success of the war effort, in fact.

      So if the ‘strict interpretation’ is garbage, and muskets should apply equally to their modern equivalent, what’s the rationale for not allowing private citizens to own a Howitzer or an MLRS? What about a ship with cruise missiles?

      This takes on more importance, in my mind, if the armed populace is truly to be a deterrent to the federal government, since fantasies aside of mounting a reasonable guerrilla war against the US government, an AR-15 doesn’t quite have the same capability as an Apache gunship, or an MQ-9 Reaper drone. Should those sorts of weapons be available to those with the means to buy them?

      Again, not trying to argue, I’m just honestly curious – the only response I’ve heard to that in the past is, “Nobody is arguing that, it’s a false comparison”, but nobody says why.

      Where is the line of what weapons an armed populace should have access to, if one exists at all?

      • OldManchu says:

        You already know the answer. Stop acting so neutral and confused. Seriously.

        • Deckie says:

          This.. ^^^

        • LC says:

          I truly don’t know the answer, hence why I asked the question – whenever it comes up, it’s brushed aside instead of answered.

          My own personal take on guns is that well-trained people with guns reduce crime, so from a practical point of view I see no need to forbid guns – a useless endeavor anyway, given the ability for people to make their own with modern technology pretty easily. I’m considerably less enthused about untrained people having them. I don’t have any real confusion on that, but I have plenty of confusion as to the above question with respect to the ‘strict interpretation’ stuff.

      • 11B-Mailclerk says:

        Well, one clear interpretation is that the Federal government shall not infringe. That means “shall not”.

        that isn’t “gray”, or open to “but surely we can infringe X”

        Shall not.

        And since rifles, pistols, and shotguns (regardless of mechanism), blades (regardless of type), bludgeon, and similar hand weapons are absolutely “arms”, then “shall not” clearly applies.

        So first concede the obvious, above. Then we can discuss what you think are weird edge cases.

        “Shall not infringe”. “arms”.

        Totally unambiguous.

        • LC says:

          Well, naturally we’re going to disagree with this – lets go to the 1st Amendment just to change the venue. What constitutes a religion? What constitutes the press, for that matter? And didn’t the court rule unanimously in 1919 that there are in fact limitations to ‘freedom of speech’? This was later modified, but the fact remains that speech which can incite ‘imminent lawless action’ can be limited. And the scope of that is still in debate.

          The point is, what you claim is cut and dry appears less so to plenty of people who study this stuff for a living. I’m inclined to think maybe they have a point.

          All that said, my question wasn’t about the 2A as a whole, it was specifically about where we draw the line on what constitutes ‘arms’, given the weapons we had in history, and their modern equivalents. It’s a question which three people have replied to, and none gave an answer – which ironically is why I don’t know the answer. This is what usually happens.

          I’m open to any response that makes sense. And it doesn’t change my perspective on guns one way or another either; it’s just curiosity about the argument.

          • Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

            Indeed SCOTUS can be an arm of the government as opposed to the voice of the people. That’s the problem with government the three branches of checks and balances don’t always maintain the adversarial nature of their original intent. Consequently SCOTUS will rule that we have a “collective” right as opposed to a personal right. Anyone reading the founders with a serious intent to understand their frame of mind will quickly realize that the founders intent was always the preservation of individual rights over any collective right. To protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority.

            They wanted no part of a traditional democracy which is largely why we don’t have one.

            With respect to Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos owning a destroyer what’s wrong with that? If they use it to protect their goods being shipped around the world that’s their right in my opinion to own that equipment. If I have a rocket launcher no one will be harmed by it because I’m not a murderer.

            The idea that our government is our protector and friend is one of the most wrong headed notions to ever exist in this country after WW2. I am with Jefferson in preferring that dangerous freedom, because limits on the second and limits on the first amendments are nothing more than government intrusions into your personal right to live unfettered by any government.

            • reddevil says:

              “The idea that our government is our protector and friend is one of the most wrong headed notions to ever exist in this country after WW2.”

              I am with you in that the government is not my friend, but was the nation not founded in part to protect the people?

              If not, what does the phrase “provide for the common defense” mean? The easy answer, of course, is defense against a foreign enemy, but the oath we all swore specified foreign and domestic.

            • LC says:

              Thanks for the reply, VOV – this is definitely something I need to think about, as previously my understanding of the dismissal of the question (perhaps erroneously) was that it was a ‘ludicrous’ notion that average citizens should be able to own such things, and we even see some dissent to that angle below, but you make a perfectly fine point that it comes down to the fact that responsible owners of such weapons systems will be responsible.

              I guess I’m just unsure what we do with the irresponsible sorts who may get their hands on such things. If someone levels a school with a missile, you can certainly lock them up after the fact, but that’s of little consolation to the dead and their friends. Whether it’s society or the government, isn’t there some threshold beyond which individual rights reign supreme? Where do things like mental illness fall in the scope of an individual’s rights? And who decides that? If an angry, disgruntled individual is talking about how he’d like to hurt people, but hasn’t, do we just happily let them buy a weapon that can enable that on a horrifying scale simply because of the 1st and 2nd amendment?

              Dangerous freedom, sure, but danger isn’t binary – there are degrees to it, and responsibilities that go along with those degrees. It pains me to go to the beach and see roped off areas where I’m allowed, whereas in Europe that’s more a matter of personal responsibility. On this, we err far too much towards eliminating any potential danger vs. giving people freedom and responsibility. And I feel that’s largely because the only real risk is to one’s self. On the other hand, if one were ‘free’ to drive where they want, without any rules and limitations, I feel that’d be reckless and invite immense danger to countless others – something I’ve seen in a few places around the world, despite it being more ‘free’. Weapons, at least the modern ones, are one of those things where the calculus shifts from being a personal choice that mostly impacts yourself to one that can massively impact others around you, and that comes with responsibility. But if someone is irresponsible, do we just shrug and let them cause harm because of freedom? Maybe that’s fine now, but what happens when they get access to more destructive weapons? Is there a point where the collective does outweigh the individual?

              Apologies for what is surely less coherent than I’d hoped, and later, too. Been a busy 48 hours. You give me a lot to think about, though, and I deeply appreciate the reply.

          • 11B-Mailclerk says:

            The cut an dried part is “shall no infringe” and “shall make no law”

            It didn’t mean “but we can make the laws we really want, or we can infringe the things we want to infringe.

            No. Your position in the one in error, by the clear language of the constitution.

            The Federal Governemnt cannot infringe the right to keep and bear arms. There is -zero- ambiguity that rifles, pistols, and shotguns (of all types and formats) are “arms”, and that the Constitution specifies that our right to keep them and bear them shall not be infringed.

            The Founders -meant- “shall not”.

            Or are you arguing that Plessy versus Ferguson and Dred Scott are correct, since courts ruled that way at one time?

            No.

            • Some Guy says:

              “The Federal Governemnt cannot infringe the right to keep and bear arms. There is -zero- ambiguity that rifles, pistols, and shotguns (of all types and formats) are “arms”, and that the Constitution specifies that our right to keep them and bear them shall not be infringed.”
              And yet there are numerous cities and/or states that forbid knives, batons, and tasers, all arms as far as I’m concerned. I am not a supporter of the 2A, but it is the law of the land and should be implemented correctly. LC has a point in that a government, having access to modern military weaponry, will not fear a citizenry that has no countermeasure other than a Red Dawn-style insurgency with AR-15s and shotguns. It therefore follows that I should not be prohibited from owning an M1A1 or even an aircraft carrier, if I could afford it. Where then does the government, be it local, state, or federal, even think it has the legal standing to make laws prohibiting me from acquiring such weapons? I am curious as well, as none of the 2A supporters I’ve met so far seem to give much thought to that line of thinking, even though defense against a tyrannical government is their main argument in support of the 2A.
              PS: I am aware that civilians still can buy older automatic weapons from other citizens, but newer ones are restricted to the military, which is a restriction on the 2A IMO.

              • 11B-Mailclerk says:

                Rifles, pistols, and shotguns are arms clearly protected by the Second Amendment.

                Cut and dried.

                Note that an insurgent you using only those things is -very- effective. The Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising held off the Wehrmacht and the Waffen SS for months, starting only wiht a handful of civilian pistols. The Nazis had to resort to leveling the city block by block.

                And had that same stubbornness been everywhere else? The Reich dies.

                Oh poop poo! The State has Tanks and Planse and Guns! You cant win!

                Bullshit. Been done. Example, the American Revolution. We started with mostly civilian arms against what was the mightiest Empire and military in the world.

                And we won.

                You can squirm and shuck and jive all you folsk want. The Second Amendment clearly and unequivocally prohibits infringing the right to keep and bear arms such as rifles, pistols, and shotguns of all types and mechanisms.

                No matter how you try to edge-case, redefine, or out right baffle-with-bullfeathers, the language is clear and unmistakable, and laws/cases/whatever to the contrary are void and should be voided.

                • reddevil says:

                  Sure, we won, but of course Britain was in the middle of a world war and had bigger fish to fry, we had foreign advisors, the French fleet, and the sizable French army

                  There were just about as many Frenchmen at Yorktown as their were Americans (probably more if you count sailors).

                  Obviously you have a strong opinion on what it means, and I happen to agree with your view. However, If the language was clear and unmistakeable, everyone would agree without argument or debate.

                  • 11B-Mailclerk says:

                    They don’t like the meaning, so they redefine it to invert it.

                    Just as they invert the First to prevent religious behavior. “Not here! Not by -them-!”.

                    They want Americans ruled by Federal Government. The Constitution was explicitly written so Americans ruled the Federal Government.

                    ” but we -want- to infringe, so it must mean we can” is the heart of their argument.

                    Yes, we had lots of help in the Revolution. We only had that help because of Concord Bridge. Absent that, none of the rest happens.

                  • Just Lurkin says:

                    Yorktown was the culmination of a long campaign in which the Brits were beaten repeatedly-Kings Mountain, Cowpens and Guilford Courthouse, not a Frenchman in sight during any of those. They had already retreated to he coast, to Wilmington NC, once before that and then been forced to retreat again. Even if their fleet had been able to evacuate them their options were limited as to what to do next as they had been forced to come south, in hopes of dividing the southern states from the north, because of their poor situation in the north. We should be grateful for the assistance of the French during the Revolution, but the victory was our own.

                  • Fyrfighter says:

                    I would argue that at the time it was written, the language was clear and unmistakable. It’s not the fault of the Founders that our language has been modified and corrupted so dramatically that it is no longer so. (don’t believe me on the corruption of language? How often do you hear police or reporters refer to a murderer or rapist as “the gentlemen”.. The Founders never would have used that word in such a context.)

                • Some Guy says:

                  “Bullshit. Been done. Example, the American Revolution. We started with mostly civilian arms against what was the mightiest Empire and military in the world.”
                  I’m not sure that’s the same case today though. IIRC, when it came down to the weaponry used on the battlefield, both sides had access to roughly equivalent firepower. The british didn’t just swoop down with an A-10 and BRRRRT the colonials out of existance like the government could today.
                  I like your fighting spirit, but I don’t share your optimism. I actually agree that the wording of the 2A is unambiguous, which is why it baffles me that we already have legally placed so many restrictions on what can be owned by citizens, especially if the express purpose is to deter a tyrannical government.

                  • 11B-Mailclerk says:

                    How long did the Afghanis drive the Soviets nuts with 19th century arms an battlefield scavenging?

                    That pluck results in others playing supply and ally.

                    Samr as ours.

                    Insurgency is a winning game if you won’t quit. You do have to play smart, and not wait for the sound of hissing showerheads as “go”.

                    Note, with all those drones and A-10s and other terrible toys we did not defeat the Iraqi or Afghani insurgencies. They didn’t quit. We will leave. (Once again, politics prevented victory. )

                    I see no reason to quit. I am determined to see our posterity Free, and secure in the blessings of Liberty.

                    Oh, will it be hard? So?

                    Step one: Never quit.

              • Docduracoat says:

                I am amazed that this is a military blog and no one answers you fighting the US. Government with only AR 15’s.
                The Taliban is about to defeat the entire U.S. armed forces with nothing more than AK’s, light machine guns, and IED’s .
                They have no planes, helicopters, tanks or AFV’s.
                And they are about to drive us out of Afghanistan.
                The U.S. insurgents will have lots of current and former military and civilian contractors fighting the tyrants.
                The Government, with all its planes, artillery, tanks etc will not be able to use them on home soil the way they could in Afghanistan.
                The government will lose to a bunch of rednecks with AR’s just like they are losing to a bunch of goat herders in Afghanistan

                • reddevil says:

                  The ‘government’ is not about to lose to a bunch of goat headers, the American people are about to quit. Our interests there don’t really require us to defeat the Taliban. I don’t care who runs Afghanistan, do you?

                  That’s what usually happens in an insurgency- the counterinsurgent gets sick of it somewhere between year 10 and 20 and either quits or redefines success.

                  That said, the last time our federal government fought a bunch of rednecks on American soil they didn’t quit. They laid siege to cities, blockaded the coast, watched people starve, burned cities to the ground, and killed hundreds of thousands on the battlefield.

                  • 11B-Mailclerk says:

                    If it comes down to it, there won’t be any safe areas here. Different parameters.

                    The obedience of the Regulars is not assured.

                    The insurgents will be well armed.

                    There is very little chance that there will be a beloved Lee with the moral authority to convince a side to stop. Ponder for a moment the multi-decade bloodbath that would have occurred if Lee had been killed by a stray bullet. The hotheads would still be shooting.

                    • Just Lurkin says:

                      That’s pretty much what happened anyway-the Union got tired of occupation and gave up on Reconstruction after 1877. While there is a clear, achievable objective you can continue to rally support. Absent that, people can’t see any end in sight and start looking for an out.

                    • Reddevil says:

                      Lee certainly helped with the peace process, but the Confederacy surrendered because they couldn’t fight anymore. One of Lees first requests to Grant after signing at Appomattox was for 25,000 Rations.

                      https://www.historynet.com/robert-e-lees-surrender

                • Some Guy says:

                  Interesting point, but I’m not completely convinced. Afghanistan is hard to conquer and hold because of how vast and sparsely populated it is, which admittedly also applies to much of the US. But around half of our population lives in cities and metro areas, which not only often lack guns (in the hands of lawful citizens at least), but are also much easier to conquer. I guess technically the national guards and state militias might put up a good fight, IF they’d still be on the people’s side.
                  I dunno. I’m just a little uneasy about asymmetry in firepower.

            • reddevil says:

              FIrst, to the clear language of the Constitution:

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRGp0S7qZLw

              Second, aren’t there already federal laws that infringe on our right to bear arms? Can anyone go out and buy anything they want”

              • Fyrfighter says:

                To your second point, yes, there have been significant unconstitutional infringements upon the 2nd amendment, often because they were incremental and seen as “common sense” or “reasonable”.. much like the frog in the pot.. Shows what happens when you don’t stand firm against losing your rights.

                • reddevil says:

                  Did you even watch the video?

                  Do you think anyone should be able to own any weapon they want? If not, should the restriction be on the person or the weapon?

                  In other words, should we restrict a certain class of person, say felons or the mentally incompetent from owning weapon? , Should certain classes of weapons, say explosives, machine guns, rockets, etc. be withheld from the general public?

                  • Fyrfighter says:

                    I didn’t watch the video before I posted, our internet is jacked at the station. I have watched it now, and it was amusing, though as VoV points out, the other writings of the Founders make their intent quite clear. As others have pointed out, restricting felons or mentally ill is appropriate, and yes, I think a citizen should be able to own any weapon they want (consistent with the original intent)and yes, that would include all the items you mention.

                  • 11B-Mailclerk says:

                    Flamethrower are legal.

                    So?

                    Just don’t use them stupidly or against the innocent. Punish those who do.

                    I don’t care if you collect belt-fed MGs.

            • LC says:

              I think the very fact that there is considerable disagreement in these comments, even amongst people of a generally conservative bent, is proof enough that the language is not clear.

              • ArmyATC says:

                Not true. Though I may be speaking out of turn, I’m certain we all agree that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, and that banning firearms such as the AR-15 and other gun control measures are unconstitutional.

                The disagreement, if any actually exists, is over the scope of the 2nd Amendment, whether or not it extends to protect civilian ownership of an Abrams or F-16.

          • Just Lurkin says:

            Good Lord LC, are you citing the wretched Schenck decision as proof of anything other than Justice Holmes’ creepy authoritarianism? To answer your questions, I don’t care what someone writes or believes so long as there is no provable harm to another person. If the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (bless his noodly appendages) wants to put out a newsletter which says that Marylin Monroe was killed by Ike’s pet poodle, the best reaction that the rest of us can have is to shrug and laugh.

            But to answer your original question, I don’t care what weapon platform any individual wishes to buy, let them go ahead. Any person who has the resources to buy an advanced weapons system (and maintain it) has the resources to cause chaos in other ways if they are so inclined. There are any number of examples that we could point to where those who wanted to kill or terrorize large numbers of people were able to figure out a way to do so. What has happened in response is that we have gotten a lot better about hardening the targets, which is probably about the best that we can do. People don’t like that answer, because they want to believe that the authorities ought to be able to more proactively mitigate against evildoers, but the truth is that we most likely can’t do more than learn and respond accordingly.

            Holmes’ opinion in Schenck only shows how easy it is to use the heavy hand of the state against those who have done nothing wrong. The Constitution is our protection against the depredations of the state, carefully (if imperfectly) crafted by our founders to prevent tyranny, we should adhere to it as closely as possible.

              • Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

                Love me some Hitchens…especially this quote….

                And that’s a scandal. I can’t find a seconder usually when I propose this but I don’t care. I don’t need a seconder. My own opinion is enough for me. And I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, anytime. And anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line, and kiss my ass.

            • LC says:

              I’ll be the first to admit I’m not terribly knowledgeable about the court’s decisions; if that was a bad example, mea culpa. I was just trying to get to the heart of my own lack of certainty on where the line is between an individual’s rights, and society’s – my reply to VOV above probably explains that a bit better.

              To repeat some of that here, it’s definitely interesting to hear people say they’re okay with an individual owning any weapons platform, and your point about the ability of people to cause chaos in other ways is well-noted too. Though I’d also point out that our weapons have gotten consistently more lethal over time, giving even people without considerable means the ability to inflict more and more harm. I guess for me this boils down to when do we have a societal or governmental (both different) responsibility to the many over the individual?

              Do we, in the example I gave above about a disturbed kid wanting a weapon, restrict access based on mental health? If so, isn’t that the government making restrictions? If we accept that, why? And if we don’t restrict that, even if they’re talking about wanting to kill people in the abstract -surely protected still by the first amendment?- do we bear any responsibility after they do so? Or do we literally just say, “Well, we couldn’t have done anything except apologize to the victims and their family.”?

              And I feel -though I admit I’m still forming my ideas on this- that the responsibility ‘we’ have (as society and/or the government) scales with respect to the capability of the weapon. If a disturbed person wants to buy a knife, maybe we can’t stop them – they just go into Target and get one. If they want a pistol, maybe we can’t stop them if they don’t have a record. If they want an AR-15 with a larger capacity drum magazine, .. do we pause? Again, no record, so do they have full rights? If that same person wants to buy (and has the means) an EMP weapon that can take down a plane, a bunch of grenades, some C-4, etc., .. we just say, “Well, he’s committed no crime, so sure.. no restrictions.”?

              Yes, learning and responding accordingly is the key – but part of what we may need to learn is where the line is, and part of the reaction might be to strike a balance between the need to protect against the state, and the need to protect against malevolent individuals. Each side of that is inevitably imperfect, but both are worthwhile, no?

              • ArmyATC says:

                So where is that line drawn? Should any infringement on any right be tailored as narrowly as possible, so that it impacts only those it was meant to, or do we allow the current “Kindergarten approach” and say because a distinct minority abuses product “X” to commit a heinous crime all citizens will be disallowed ownership of “X”? Not only that, all citizens who wish to exercise right “Y” will have to undergo a background check to prove they are innocent?

      • BlueCord Dad says:

        Grow. The. Fuck. Up.

      • BlueCord Dad says:

        Grow. The. Fuck. Up

      • Fyrfighter says:

        LC, I’ll agree with Just Lurkin, in that I do believe that the Founders would be just fine with someone owning an Abrams tank, a destroyer, aircraft carrier etc. As others have pointed out, the amendment says “shall not be infringed”, and allowing the govt to have any say at all in what type of weapons or weapon systems that citizens own is without question an infringement.

        Just Lurkin, your statement “Any person who has the resources to buy an advanced weapons system (and maintain it) has the resources to cause chaos in other ways if they are so inclined.” is spot on (and George Soros is a perfect example of this. In fact, i think he could do far LESS harm with a fully armed destroyer than he has without one.)

        Some Guy, I’d be curious as to why you’re not a supporter of the 2nd, but regardless, your comments are spot on.

        • Some Guy says:

          ah, don’t read too much into it. regardless of my personal views, i swore an oath to uphold the constitution, which trumps my feelings on any issue i have. in a nutshell though, i believe it is too easy to for criminals and deranged people to get ahold of guns, which i concede could also be used as evidence for more guns in citizen’s hands. so in my view, easy access to weapons, which is necessitated by the 2A, also leads to more deadly crime than if criminals only had access to kitchen knives. i’d much rather have a sort of “driver’s license” for firearms, but again, that is incompatible with the 2A.
          just my $0.02

          • Fyrfighter says:

            And that’s what separates you from the poo flinging howler monkeys on the left. You don’t let personal feelings trump (no pun intended) the law and the Constitution… Good on ya sir!

            Also, thanks for taking the time to reply.

          • SFC D says:

            With great rights come great responsibilities. Some folks and all criminals don’t quite seem to care about that.

          • ArmyATC says:

            It’s far to easy to say that “easy access to weapons…leads to more deadly crime” But where are the facts to back that statement up? That basically shuts down any discussion about the causes of such violence.

            The AR-15, the rifle the left is losing its mind over, has been available to the public since 1963. It’s been mass produced by numerous companies since about the mid-1980s. Yet it didn’t show up at a mass shooting until 2009 and wasn’t used in one until 2012. Wouldn’t that lead one to wonder what has changed in society?

            There’s also evidence that suggests that half of mass shootings are due to media exposure, what’s called “the media contagion effect.” Why aren’t we talking about that?

            My ineloquent point is that there’s much more to mass shootings than “easy access to weapons.”

        • LC says:

          For better or worse, I think the founders lived in a time where life was more harsh, people more responsible, their connections to each other more humane, and even the logistics of daily life made for a very different environment than the modern day. I think it’s not unreasonable, especially given the wide-ranging viewpoints even here, primarily among conservatives, that there’d be considerable debate amongst the founders on this issue, as opposed to them being just fine with it.

          • ArmyATC says:

            I’m not so sure they would. The Founders thought it perfectly acceptable for the average citizen to own the most destructive military weapons of their day. And they didn’t live in a vacuum. They were well aware of advances in firearms technology and were proponents of fast-firing, multi-shot weapons such as the Puckle Gun and Grandoni Air Rifle. While we may view them as quaint antiques today, they were state of the art technology at the time of the Founders.

            Yes, there may be wide-ranging viewpoints among us on the scope of the 2nd Amendment. But we do agree on certain things, such as the individual right to own firearms and the belief that the government has no right to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. I believe every one of us, perhaps with a few exceptions, would stand firm against the banning of firearms such as the AR-15, even if we may disagree on whether the 2nd Amendment stretches to include ownership of an Abrams or F-16.

      • T rudy says:

        Popular uprisings that started with armed citizens has a good track record against a better armed military….afgan vs ussr….Viet nam vs us…Viet nam vs France…Algeria vs France…Mao vs nationalist China…Castro vs Cuba….tanks and planes lost to an armed people…tanks and planes are very effective against poorly armed people, as in the check rebellion of 1956.…the military works best against another army..

        • rgr769 says:

          Let us not forget the Romanian uprising that put an end to Romania’s Communist regime and its leader. It started with citizens and soldiers using small arms and then escalated until the regime’s armed forces were defeated.

      • Ron M says:

        your comparison of using guerrilla tactics against higher tech weapons, I’ll say one should study Vietnam.
        secondly some view the second as allowing high tech weapons in the well regulated militia, and such militia be totally separate from Federal or state governments and be solely regulated by civilians. so yes civilians should be able to own howitzers , apache helicopters, and cruse missile’s under the regulation of the Militia.

        • 11B-Mailclerk says:

          I don’t have to kill a tank or gunship with a handgun.

          The crew has to get out from time to time.

          The fuel moves in rather ordinary trucks.

          Ramping up ruthless, their “fort living room” is accessible, and may be within walking distance. So are the hairs of their Quisling masters. And the latter are very much fair game. Very.

          It gets -ugly- better that the left concede that Freedom will ring, and just let go of disarming Americans. They won’t comply. They didn’t in California and New York. Nationally? Forget it.

          Then what? What does the Left -do-? When they turn a quarter to half the population into Rebels, overnight?

          Then what?

          Well?

      • Lamont Cantrell says:

        If you can afford it or build it then who is to say you can’t have it. The government of this country sales arms of that nature and also give those arms as gifts to other countries without a background check. So really let’s be real.

    • GW says:

      I don’t buy the idea that US v. Miller was an endorsement of a collective right. Miller’s defense was that a tax on what would be called a short barreled shot gun today was an infringement of his service in the Militia. The Courts reply was that such a shotgun was not in common use in a Militia. So therefore firearms that would be in common use in a Militia are protected from even being taxed. Later in Heller the protection of Miller was extended to all firearms in common use, especially handguns.
      The truth is that Libertarian Constitutional Attorney Dave Koppell wrote a book citing numerous Supreme court rulings with references to the 2nd Amendment as an individual right. Similarly, muskets aren’t in common use either in military nor civilian use. So the antigun left and lower courts have been effective in their propaganda.

      • SFC D says:

        I’m no constitutional lawyer, but it seems to me that a “firearm in common use in a militia” would be whatever firearm one chooses to use or can obtain.

      • rgr769 says:

        Let’s not forget the context of the Miller case. Miller was a convicted felon who was caught with a sawed-off shotgun. He was convicted of both being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm and possessing an illegal sawed-of shotgun. He claimed the 2A made both criminal statutes unconstitutional and thus his convictions should be reversed. The court was not really ruling on whether a non-felon could own firearms. One could argue that militia comments were dicta.

  3. Steve1371 says:

    VOV, I have read everyone of your articles and have enjoyed them very much. I think you are right on with this one. Keep it simple. Don’t try to read into the text what was never there. I look forward to more of your writing.

    • Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

      Thank you, it’s been suggested I take a good long look at the Federalist papers….

      We’ll see if that’s something that’s a possible avenue of discussion moving forward.

      • 11B-Mailclerk says:

        The impacts of later amendments are worthy of comment.

        Another area of discussion: why are folks arguing that the Commerce Clause is not amended by, and thus restricted by, the Bill of Rights?

  4. GDContractor says:

    Disarm the people and kiss “consent of the governed” goodbye, forever.

    And on another note:
    I think to a large degree, the Bill of Rights is a collection of counter-intuitive principles, much of it beyond comprehension by the modern “man on the street”. Presumed innocent until proven guilty? “Hell, I saw the video on Facebook! Lock him up!”. Right to assemble? “They can’t spew their ‘hate speech’ in public!”. And, I could go on.

    I think to many of the simple minded progs, The Bill of Rights is viewed as an anachronism of a bygone time when man was less evolved…before skinny jeans and soy milk lattes. They seem comfortable in their belief that all rights emanate from a federal government, never giving a thought to any other possibilities. And they never seem to contemplate the implications of their beliefs should the political winds ever shift unfavorably.

    Fuck them.

  5. 5th/77th FA says:

    My main man! Spot on Perfesser. It should become the Law of the Land that every sitting and potential congress critter (sic) not only sit thru your classes, but to take a written test, obtaining a score of 100%, on the meaning of the Constitution written for the protection of the people of the Republic.

    You have done a fine job on these missives and I have enjoyed studying each. Damn shame that the lawers and swamp dwellers have bent and abused this sacred document. Most of the readers on this site took that oath to defend these written words and would be the FIRST to stand up and continue to defend same. It is a true pity that we do not have statesmen (persons) today that will not pledge, as many of the founders did, their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. We few, we happy few, must insure that we teach our children well.

    I still covet the matched pair in the presentation case.

  6. Mason says:

    “On every question of construction, (let us) carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying (to interpret) what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was past(passed).
    – Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823”

    That’s a money quote right there. If only they taught this at law school. One thing about the Constitution and its amendments is they are written in plain language. At a time when it couldn’t be assumed everyone was literate, they didn’t throw in a lot of fancy word games. It was designed to be a system that could easily be understood by the layman. Compare that to the parliamentary systems in use in Europe where prime ministers change at a whim, elections are conducted God knows when, and people are elected by a series of confusing votes.

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      But that means they lose. They can only win by redefining Slavery as Freedom, etc.

      The root of the matter: they falsely believe the Constitution spelled out the manner of Government ruling Americans, not the manner of Americans ruling Government.

      It is the manner we rule our servant government. The founders were pretty explicit on this. If you dont like it, feel free to depart for climes ruled more to your liking.

  7. Perry Gaskill says:

    And no matter how much you go over the history and intent of the Second Amendment, there are going to be some who refuse to accept it.

    Those who have been following the news this week might have run across a news story that the San Francisco City Council yesterday passed unanimously a resolution condemning the National Rifle Association as a “Domestic Terrorist Organization.” Most news media predictably handled this with either applause for the domestic terrorist designation, or skepticism because it was more-or-less useless grandstanding. Almost none dug deeper into the details which can be viewed here:

    https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7568748&GUID=DF64490F-D8BC-4BF7-A43D-287F02BECCCA

    Among other things, the SF City Council apparently defines “terrorist activity” as anytime anybody uses a firearm in the commission of a crime. The city council said it includes the NRA in its definition because the organization acts “to promote gun ownership and incite gun owners to acts of violence.”

    As a means of retribution, the SF City Council has in addition decided to stop doing business with anybody who also does business with the NRA. They’ve also resolved to “encourage” others in government, including other cities, states, and the feds to adopt a similar policy.

    As additional background, the apparent sponsor of the resolution is Councilwoman Catherine Stefani, a feminist, political climber, and key player in Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      Defamation and Libel.

      This is a test case to establish that they can bad-label and un-person their opponents. Remember, San Francisco is ground zero for radioactive-stupid-insane Progressivism.

      If they get this one, they then start looking to put folks in camps. They will call it something else, but that is the next step on the progressive disorder spectrum.

    • Perry Gaskill says:

      It’s likely to open a can of worms. For example, the city passed the resolution without doing any study of the potential financial impact to the city itself; my guess is that it’s going to cost SF residents some money.

      Another slippery slope might be that the resolution is vague on what it means to “do business.” If the SF city council can define the NRA as a domestic terrorist organization, it can define, say, being a member of the NRA as doing business with it. Or it can refuse to do business when a company acting as a vendor to the city has employees who are NRA members.

  8. Green Thumb says:

    Well, then, if you are out of Amendments to discuss (with us), then lets talk about….

    The False Commander “Phony” Phil Monkress (CEO of All-Points Logistics)and his bullshit and nefarious claims of Native American ancestry, Brevard County Sheriff’s Department LEO claims and of course, is false SEAL claims that are netting him millions in taxpayer-funded projects!

    But of course, we could digress and have a beer.

    Anyway, keep up the fight.

  9. 26Limabeans says:

    I am that well regulated militia.

  10. ArmyATC says:

    I’m not a lawyer. I didn’t even stay at a Holiday Inn last night. So anything I have to say on the subject can be taken in the context of a somewhat informed layman who may be incorrect.

    My own reading of Miller and the commentaries I’ve read dismissed any notion that Miller had anything to do with answering the question whether the 2nd Amendment guaranteed an individual or collective (states) right. It was narrowly tailored to decide what ‘arms’ are protected by the 2nd Amendment. It appears the Court devised a ‘test’ to make that determination. The Court wrote that protected ‘arms’ are those with, “any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,” “is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense,” “and of the kind in common use at the time.” The ‘test’ can be taken in two ways. it can say that only those firearms with a military purpose are protected – sorry folks. Grandads old fowling piece isn’t protected, or that only small arms are protected and the federal government alone can possess fully functional tanks, artillery, and ships.

    It seems that somewhere in our history the idea that citizens could only own small arms crept in. As has been pointed out by others, at one time citizens owned field pieces and armed merchant ships. Not even the states own that sort of military equipment. The federal government can take any or all of it at a whim as they’ve done in the past. When did this happen? How did it happen?

    Though I don’t agree with LC on much of anything, I ask a similar question as he did. What is the true scope and limits, if any, of the 2nd Amendment? Are we so intent on holding onto our AR-15s that we are completely ignoring what we should be able to own?

    • ArmyATC says:

      I forgot to add; VOV, I’ve enjoyed your commentary on the first ten amendments to the Bill of Rights immensely. Thank you for writing them and for giving us all something to think about and research on our own.

    • CDR_D says:

      Well, I would suggest that the types of arms protected by the 2A should meet a three pronged test: 1) suitable for self defense; 2) suitable for law enforcement; and, 3) suitable for individual duty in the militia. Temper that with the “common use” rule mentioned in both *Miller* and *Heller*, and I think we have a reasonable definition of arms for 2A purposes.

      • ArmyATC says:

        I agree…to a point. The problem with the “common use” rule is that it rules out more than it allows. The “common use” rule would disallow the average citizen from owning anything beyond small arms. So, again I ask, what is the true scope and intent of the 2nd Amendment, especially as our history shows that citizens at one time did own military equipment such as artillery and armed naval vessels? How did we lose that ability or right?

        • 11B-Mailclerk says:

          The 2A was written when men owned private cannons and private warships.

          Single-man wielder, single-man target was one proposed clear standard. Note this covers belt-fed machineguns and solid-projectile cannons, at least the ones short of battleship guns.

          Criminalize inappropriate use, and mostly the problem goes away. What the antis claim want is to be the arbiters of “pre-crime”. (What they actually want is control and Government rules Americans, not Americans rule Government.)

  11. Martinjmpr says:

    The founders didn’t create the Second Amendment out of whole cloth. To see the origins of the 2a, you have to go back 100 years to the English Bill of Rights of 1689.

    Many people may be surprised to know that England has a “right to bear arms.” But it’s right there in the EBOR:

    “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;”

    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp

    The origins of the EBOR go back to the nearly 200 years of religious conflicts that swept across England in the 16th and 17th century. During the latter part of the 17th Century, Protestant citizens were disarmed and were then preyed upon by Catholic gangs who were allowed to keep their weapons. This was done deliberately as a means of sowing terror.

    So when the last Catholic king of England, James II, was finally driven out in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, Parliament put the EBOR into effect to prevent such conflicts from happening in the future.

    The Glorious Revolution would still have been “recent history” to those who grew up in the early 18th Century and who ultimately went on to become the “founding fathers” of the new United States.

    Obviously the EBOR has no effect in modern day England since it was merely an Act of Parliament, and can be overruled by a subsequent act of Parilament (and in fact, has been.) There is also the “subject to law” clause in there which pretty much robs the English “right to bear arms” of any real effect.

    Nevertheless, it’s important to understand that the US Constitution and Bill of Rights were not created in a vacuum, they were created by people who had had recent history of tyrannical or despotic governments running roughshod over people’s liberties.

  12. Martinjmpr says:

    Another key point when discussing the Bill of Rights is that when it was written it ONLY applied to the Federal (national) government. It did NOT apply to the states.

    See Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore

    The BOR was not applied to the States until after the 14th amendment was ratified in 1865 following the Civil War. And even then it was done piecemeal.

    So states and their subsidiaries (cities, counties and townships) have always had the authority to regulate the ownership or carry of arms.

    Even the Heller and McDonald decisions did not say that the second amendment was an unlimited right because there are no such rights. Even the vaunted first amendment is subject to ‘reasonable time, place and manner restrictions.’ See In Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972)

    https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/366/grayned-v-city-of-Rockford

    So to say that the 2a means that the government cannot regulate firearms in any way is just not a reasonable interpretation. Certainly the specific LIMITS of what government can regulate have yet to be determined, but it just doesn’t make sense to say that there can be NO limits.

    • Lthrnck1775 says:

      Wrong!! If you read the founding fathers correspondence, it is VERY clear the intent of the 2A is that the populace be as equally armed as the “Gov’t.”, in case a little more Revolution is needed. Yes that includes tanks and flamethrowers (to take a lib argument to its absurdity.)

      Since every other Gov’t agency now has belt fed and/or fully automatic weapons (Parks, SS, IRS, DHS, you name it..) so should the rabble.

      Since the police apparently no longer have an ‘obligation’ to defend you or your property … how does one stop a marauding band of thugs intent on attacking you or your dwelling? Answer: AT4 lol /sarc.

      The point is valid however silly the example. Its a slippery slope tied to the words “common sense”

      Keep in mind these “war weapons” that they want to ban … at one time muskets and bolt actions were “war weapons”.

      Crimes are still crimes… owning whatever hardware I feel necessary to defend myself with should not be.

      Lthrnck1775 out.

      • 11B-Mailclerk says:

        I can probably handle a “band of thugs” with the eight rounds in my Winchester Carbine. (Grin)

        But those who keep an M-4gery for such moments are probably better prepared, and more practical.

        Now, an AT4 sounds dandy for discouraging a large mob of attacking BlackheadSS, but I suspect the backblast would make quite a mess of my dwelling.

        I prefer a more … discrete method of communicating “F### Off, thugs.”

  13. Ex-PH2 says:

    While you guys are busy dissecting the term “arms”, the states all have various rules and regs concerning openly carrying a knife or sword.

    Here you go: https://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/02/is-it-legal-to-carry-a-sword-in-public.html

    The next thing the libidiots will do is go after bladed weapons the way they have in England, including kitchen knives, and making it illegal for you to defend yourself against a physical attack.

    Never mind the quibbling over the meaning of the 2nd Amendment and what the “intent” was of those who put this stuff together. The object is to disarm the public, period.

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      “Every terrible weapon of the soldier”

      They meant it, 200 proof.

      Blades are highly regulates, often outright banned, in a whole bunch of jurisdictions. More Jim Crow B(Rosebush fertilizer)t.

      Weapon prohibitions are Jim Crow. Let go of the hate, racists! Americans that look a bit different are not the Enemy.

  14. Harley Hays says:

    I spent my working life serving this country. I am not prepared to see Dems dismantle our constitution.

  15. 11B-Mailclerk says:

    VOV, how about the 27th? It was part of the original bill of Rights, just not ratified for 200 years.

  16. AW says:

    The problem is a pointed effort to ignore what is clearly the only correct way to apply Constitutional tests by our government.
    They simply don’t like the reality, because accepting that reality severely limits governments ability to enact sweeping changes.
    When we say that a person cannot shout “FIRE,” in a crowded theater to cause chaos, or that a felon cannot possess a firearm we are not regulating the FIRST or the SECOND AMENDMENTS.
    We are regulating an individuals specific behavior under specific circumstances.
    This is without a doubt the ONLY correct viewpoint and was clearly that of the founders and authors of the Amendments.
    This does in fact render moot most of our current firearms and weapons laws. Machine gun bans, background checks, and prohibitions of things like bump stocks and sawed off shotguns were nothing more than matters of convenience for our government.
    They are interpreted as meeting a standard called, “overwhelming need by the government.” This cavalier attitude has only gotten worse over the years.
    These things we’re enacted in spite of their unconstitutional nature!
    And stupid people have allowed it to happen because it made them “feel” better about the real problems that our government either refused or simply found inconvenient to address properly.
    Like organized crime.
    The machine gun bans we have today had nothing to do with making things safer for the people or the cops.
    THE COPS WERE JUST AS CROOKED AS THE MAFIA!
    Machine gun bans were created for the mafia bosses. The top dog could then use the cops to disarm his rivals of Tommy guns!
    We have got to stop allowing our government to make things easy for itself when it comes to addressing crime and criminals!
    And force them to take real action to stop criminals and crime and stop slamming innocent citizens!

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      Why, one might think they meant to secure the blessings of Liberty to themselves and Posterity.

      Including the reality that Liberty is neither tidy nor quiet.

      They meant it. All of it.

  17. NATDOS says:

    Good read but. here’s a proposal. Sense I don’t believe in mass shootings coincidentally taking place one after another in the same exact fashion with the same guns – at an increasing rate as other government agendas intensify & news media gets completely out of hand… I’d like to say, the best thing that could ever happen to this country, or the world really, would be outright banning government psychological operations against civilians FOR ANY REASON. Period.
    All of these damn “shootings” with a white kid and an AR-15; lately against minority populations, whose victims ALWAYS get a Gofundme payout of millions – not to mention the organizations and government branches involved in paying out to these alleged victims as well.
    A lot of money is going around and it’s all funneling into something very evil. Something that is causing people to want to give up their birthrights. The biblical equivalent of giving up your birthrights for damn lentil soup – essentially NOTHING.
    Also if you don’t believe me, archive.org has a lot of good information & original PDF documentation on Government psy-ops (among other things). I.E. Michael Aquino “From Psy-op to Mind War” is just one example.
    Take away the 2012-2013 NDAA amendment to the Smith-Mundst Act that allowed for media to spread government propaganda, outright ban psychological operations (psy-ops) against the American people for any and all reasons, and GET THESE PEOPLE OUT OF HERE. The people in government now, from top to bottom are completely sinking this country. The definition of a parasite! They are inside us and funneling all the money and power outwards. No more!

    *Side note on government news propaganda – The recent story about the boat that caught on fire. The diving boat called “The Conception” in which 33 people died. If you’re unaware, Free Masonry has always used the number 33 as essentially their favorite number, associating it with the phrase Ordo Ab Chao or Order Out of Chaos.
    The boat was allegedly 30 feet from the coast (I heard from an original broadcast) and it occurred at 3:30am. There were 39 people on board.
    This is just one small example, fact is the story makes absolutely no sense with how it occurred and something just smells fishy with it all.
    To further reinforce this in my mind, a local newsanchor said after and interview with someone in the area of the Cali fire, “maybe the answer to what happened at the Conception lies at the bottom of the sea.” WTF???
    Don’t trust them at all. Get them out of office and out of the country. They will flood us with immigrants whilst taking away weapons, increase military spending, push veganism, push for solar energy and carbon taxation. The only way we are heading is downwards, no more.

    Time for this to end – only if the people are willing.

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      If you go looking for number coincidences, you find them. It is a form of confirmation bias.

      From you example, “30” is not “33”. The fire happened over a span of time that included moments before and after ” 3:30″.

      Conformational bias is the constant bugaboo of statistical analysis in studies. We appear to be hard-wired for it.