From Socialist President-Wannabe #257 comes this cheery little opinion:
Democratic presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg wants more gun control, and says policies like universal background checks and making it tougher to obtain assault-style rifles don’t infringe on Second Amendment rights.
“The biggest thing I can tell you about some of these weapons that I trained on and saw and carried is that there are some weapons that have absolutely no place in our neighborhoods in America in peacetime,” Buttigieg, a U.S. Navy Reserve veteran who served in Afghanistan, told a full house at Somerville Theatre on Tuesday.
The South Bend, Ind., mayor said, “We need to make it harder to obtain assault rifles. We need to have red flag laws that disarm domestic abusers. We need to establish universal background checks.”
But his ideas were, “not anti-Second Amendment, because every right and every freedom in the Constitution comes with responsibilities” he said, adding the right to bear arms “does not entitle you to … other weapons of war.”
So… “there are some weapons that have absolutely no place in our neighborhoods”, are there? Which ones, specifically, do you have in mind, my little Socialist politico?
Because if you’re talking hand-grenades, RPGs or Claymore mines, then I might concede the point. Everything else? Go fuck yourself.
As for “the right to bear arms does not entitle you to … other weapons of war”: well, I hate to break it to you, my little Indiana Mussolini, but way back when the Second Amendment was being debated, this little thought appeared:
“Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” — Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, February 20, 1789
And speaking of the federal government bringing the power of the sword nukes to the party (this applies especially to your butt-buddy-in-crime, Eric Swallwell), Coxe added this afterthought a few months later, in the same publication:
“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” — June 18, 1789
“Private arms” means not only hunting rifles and sporting shotguns, but mean and nasty assault rifles like AR-15s and AK-47s, i.e. those other terrible implements of the soldier. To protect us from you, and Swallwell, and all the others of your ilk when you start stepping on our Constitutional rights.
We’re not Venezuelans, and we’re not going to let you turn us into them.
Now fuck off back to South Bend, and disappear into your well-deserved obscurity.
Actually, the recent action of Venezuelan government troops running over civilians with armored vehicles perfectly illustrates why “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” should indeed include RPGs, Carl Gustavs, and other anti-armor weaponry.
I know of at least one photo of a militia unit in 1850s “Bleeding Kansas” with an artillery piece. And these militia cannoneers were Free State militia, which means they most certainly were not .gov supported, and thus the cannon was a privately purchased gun – the official territorial government at the time, the LeCompton government, being pro-slavery.
The Maltese Blue Falcon knows little history: The ‘Shot heard ‘Round the World’ happened because the British were going after cannon, powder and shot: Certainly what would have counted as major military weapons of the time…
And thats what we fought to keep, and what the Second Amendment keeps the government away from.
Agree with all above.
During the War of 1812, private American citizens were outfitting ships with banks of cannon to fight the British and disrupt their trade.
As previous commenters have pointed out, the right to keep and bear arms historically included artillery and warships. Clearly anything a single infantryman might carry (grenades, RPGs, etc.) are well within historical limits. About the only armaments that might be excluded are weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, biological, and chemical).
How do you pronounce that fag’s name, booty gig?
srsly? I never heard of him til recently.
BTW, he’s from up in north Indiana, close to Chicago, and does not represent the average hoosier like me. I’m south central in the state, lots of woods, hills and farmland and everybody is rural. We all have guns and will blow the heads off anybody that tries to infringe, from a mile away or right up in their face, doesn’t matter.
The right to protect your life precedes any gov’t writings.
The 2nd refers to a right. What right? The existing natural right to protect your life.
Remember, a gov’t can’t give rights as it chooses because rights are inherent. All the gov’t can do is grant privileges which it can revoke at any time. re: your drivers license.
You are seeing, right now in Venezuela, why the people must retain the right to keep and bear military-grade weapons, which the 2nd Amendment explicitly protects, and no citizen can permit or advocate for anything other than the full restoration of that right and demand same, backing that with whatever may become necessary.
Yes, I do mean all of said weapons including machine guns and even bazookas — and their modern counterparts.
What else stops an MRAP that is running over civilians as an act of tyranny?
No registration, no serial numbers, no tracking anything, period. Shall not be infringed. Period.
To those who say “That can’t happen here”:
YES IT CAN AND WHEN IT DOES ONLY THOSE WEAPONS, IN PRIVATE HANDS WITH THE GOVERNMENT HAVING NO IDEA WHERE THEY ARE OR WHO HAS THEM UNTIL THEY’RE USED, WILL STOP IT. THAT IS THE EXACT REASON THE SECOND AMENDMENT EXISTS AND CONTAINS THE WORDS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
LEARN FROM HISTORY PLAYING OUT RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW OR YOU AND THOSE YOU LOVE — INCLUDING YOUR CHILDREN — WILL BE MURDERED EXACTLY LIKE THE PEOPLE IN RWANDA AND COUNTLESS OTHER NATIONS. kd
O rly?
So what responsibilities come with the right to not suffer cruel and unusual punishment? What responsibilities come with freedom of religion? What responsibilities come with the right to not live in slavery? What responsibilities come with the right to not be placed in double jeopardy?
What responsibilities come with the implied rights to abortion and sodomite marriage, Mr. Buttgigger?
One tiny quibble: is an AR-15 or AK-47 an “assault rifle” if it has no auto-fire capability?
NO!
Only one of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution contains the word “Congress”, that being the First. I have always read the Second as an absolute: “… shall not be infringed.” It doesn’t say that the right shall not be infringed by the United States, or that the States can infringe on it, city governments, counties, whatever. The right of the people to keep and bear arms Shall. Not. Be. Infringed. And it doesn’t specify “firearms”, only “arms”. Arms includes everything, from swords and machine guns up to and including nukes. Now, is it realistic for a citizen, or a small group thereof, to have control of a nuke? No, not really; most likely we’d end up with a nuclear mortar type of situation (the gun can lob the shell up to 3 miles downrange, but the shell has a 5-mile blast radius). But the 2A does not prohibit it, nor does it prevent me from owning a tank, or a Howitzer, or a fully-loaded APC, or a battleship should I have the means. Sorry, Bootygiggles, you’re absolutely wrong.
And also, Bootygiggles? There’s no such thing as an “assault rifle”, and a pox upon everyone who invented or continues to use that term seriously.
DoD defines an Assault Rifle as a rifle using an intermediate caliber cartridge with selective fire capabilities.
Now, there is NO SUCH THING as an “Assault Weapon”, except anything you happen to pick up and assault someone with.
The term “assault rifle, or weapon” is an emotional term meant to tug on the heart strings of emotional basket cases. Normal people reject such speakers right off. Any firearm used with a criminal intent “might” be an assault weapon but so would a knife, bat, or a ham sandwich. Honest people don’t use that dishonest term except to ridicule dishonest people that do.
FWIW, nobody gets to tell me what I can possess. Ever. I have neither the time nor inclination to even consider the idea of telling other people what they can or can’t own and detest immensely people that do. They have way too much loose time on their hands and if they were condemned to say, a couple months pushing a grinding wheel in the sun they’d see the error of their ways.
If we are fortunate every Democrat Candidate will say negative things about guns, uninformed, stupid negative things and every vote against him or her due to this stance is a vote for guns. Please,,please,, please, all you Democrats keep on talking about how bad guns are and the people who believe in the 2nd amendment.
Good old Bubba Billy Clinton from Arkansas knew you don’t piss off the gun community, at least that’s the way I remember it and lots of good old boys voted for him. The fact that he was a sexual hound-dog didn’t matter too much.
It’s telling that the dems are floating that faggot reservist as a trial balloon. And in every. fucking. article that he’s mentioned it, they’ll mention Afghanistan. Yeah, you and a whole shitload of the rest of us.
Mayor ButtPlug can take his opinion on an armed society and stick it where the sun don’t shine. Lord knows there’s probably enough room up there for it.
I believe that claymores are the perfect companion for that welcome mat that says: Got Warrant? – it rests comfortably on their upturned faces.
Venezuela Norte: Give CA a chance.
“Because if you’re talking hand-grenades, RPGs or Claymore mines, then I might concede the point.”
Overkill for self defence, yeah, I’d probably concede the point there too.
Defence from tyranny? Rebellion against a tyrannical government? I’d draw the line further out: if it’s issued to said government’s infantry and you can afford it, have at it. Squad automatic weapon? No problem. RPG? Ditto. Man-portable anti-tank and anti-air weapons? Again, if you can afford it, you go buy it.
Where I live (outside the USA) you get an ID check buying plastic knives at the supermarket, and may carry *nothing* to use for self defence. Self defence itself isn’t illegal … yet.