Water Cooler 01/17/19 Open Thread: Ammunition For The 2nd Amendment

A Stake Through The Heart , Burning On A Pyre, And Burying The Ashes At A Crossroads

It seems all the above have been done, to the arguments about the Second Amendment not meaning exactly what it means and exactly what the supreme court has said it means going back to even before the founding of the republic to English common law. But it’s still never enough and like braindead zombies the gun grabbers are always rising from the dead and lurching forward repeating the same mantras over and over again. Verbal head shots that leave no doubt that they are unthinking and brainless are what’s needed to put them down. Thankfully we have them against all their arguments that don’t consist of screaming and whining.


The Founders Couldn’t Conceive Of Modern Weapons So It Doesn’t Apply.

I love this one. It’s what should be the easiest to deal with and anyone that brings it up has no brains, thinks you have no brains, has no shame, no strategic skill and most like some combination of all the mentioned character defects.

Whoever makes this particular argument is stating at worst that the men who founded this country couldn’t conceive of change, and at best couldn’t conceive of weapons better than whatever common weapon is being used as a strawman. Now think about that the men who had just pulled off the greatest revolution in history and watched the enormous changes in their society just from settling the “NEW!!!” continent suddenly thought nothing would change going forward.

The weaker idea that they weren’t about fire arms (really ?? most had military service) and didn’t anticipate better weapons being available is also ridiculous. They not only new of rapid fire weapons and improvements in guns but had actively used them or were in the process of buying them.

Bbbbbbbut how could they foresee machine guns ?

Well, there was this little invention called the Puckle gun from 1718 that was a predecessor to the Gatling gun , and was a rapid fire hand cranked weapon.

Too rare ? Well there was the Belton flintlock, get this a semi auto musket, don’t show it to anyone in the media they will think it’s an AR-15. That the inventor was trying to sell to congress during the revolution.  Apparently the science of defense contracting hadn’t been worked out yet because they didn’t buy it.


Just in case the gun grabber goes for a last ditch, that there was no way they could have thought guns might be so common that you could buy them in what doubled as a clothing and grocery store, just point out that while congress didn’t buy the Belton flintlock, they did fund Eli Whitney and his system of interchangeable parts for gun manufacture. What would later go on to be the basis of the American system of manufacturing.

So yes the founders had a pretty good idea of where they were going, far better than the average gun grabber has of where he came from.

The Second Amendment Doesn’t Mean What It Says.

This one is sad, courts have been coming to the same conclusion over and over on this one going back to the 1800s with Nunn vs Georgia

Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: “The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.” The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta

Nunn Vs Georgia 1846


You show me someone that can read that and come to any conclusion other than the right to arms is an individual right that government has no right to infringe upon, I will show you someone whose head you can use as an ocarina by blowing into an ear. Oddly enough I can show you a bunch of such people because they managed to get elected in D.C. which brings us to the SCOTUS completely demolishing this in DC vs Heller

In DC vs Heller, Justice Scalia did a masterful job of destroying the revisionist interpretations of what the simple  phrase

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.

I am going to just hit the highpoints of the decision, because they are more than enough and everyone who believes in individual rights as enshrined in the constitution should treat themselves and read the whole thing.

First It’s only about the militia, it says “a militia”,  in law prefatory clause don’t limit operative clauses, so when it says we need a well regulated militia, it’s like me saying because I am hungry I am going grocery shopping*. No one with any sense would say, YOU YOU, You’re not hungry get out of the market. *(don’t do that you buy far too much food). The same holds here.

Further, the militia at the time was every able bodied man and was considered separate from the government but could be called forth by the government. So if someone argues “If you aren’t in the militia you can’t have a gun” well both of you are part of the militia.


Second, this is some sort of collective right, that people only had in a group. Let that sink in and think about today’s left. No real surprise that they would try to project that onto the founding fathers no matter how ludicrous. Justice Scalia pointed out everywhere in the constitution that the phrase (“right of the people”) was used it was about individual rights, not collective ones that mysteriously emerge from membership in a group.

Finally Guns Are Useless For Defending Your Liberty

It’s the ones like this and everything that comes out of Miss Occasional Cortex’s mouth that make me think that either the left’s strategy is to throw so much stupidity at their enemies that they are too stunned to rebut the idiocy, or that they actually are badly programmed automatons faking a human existence.

Think about this these are people that cheer the Ewoks taking down the Empire, love the idea that the U.S. was stymied in Viet Nam (not really but that’s another topic), and want us out of the middle east because we can’t somehow fight poorly armed people with a 6th century mindset, but the U.S. civilian population which possesses more armaments than all the worlds combined militaries including our own wouldn’t be able to do a credible job of defending their liberty.

Yeah that makes a lot of sense



Shamelessly stolen from DiamondBack again the information about the Redstate hangout on slack

RedState Slack – Realtime Chat and Private Messaging for the VRWC

Several of us commenters put heads together to address some longstanding desires for features the Disqus platform lacks like private user-to-user messaging, and we’ve started up a Slack server for private messaging and chat. If you’d like to join the fun Slacking Off after hours, your invitation to the party is here.

RedState Slack is not officially endorsed or authorized by the staff, advertisers, management or ownership of RedState, Townhall Media or Salem Communications. It is intended to complement the RedState Disqus comment platform, not compete with it. While we have made every reasonable effort to provide a secure platform, user assumes all risks.


Drink up That’s it for the Watercooler today. As always it’s an open thread


Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos