Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro has a new national goal: He’s going to expand his massive private army to 4 million gunmen by the end of 2020. Another triumph of socialism!
And never mind that the policies of Maduro and his late predecessor, Hugo Chávez, have brought the nation to ruin, with all but the rulers and their clients facing slow starvation and “health care” without any medicine. Well over a tenth the population has fled, with more leaving all the time.
Sadly, the opposition — including Juan Guaidó, the legitimate president recognized by most of the world’s democratic countries — is powerless, not least because the regime confiscated all private firearms back in 2012.
Exempted from the ban: the regime’s “Bolivarian Militias” — modern-day brownshirts who have done much of the work of crushing protests for years now.
The government says their ranks now number 3.3 million, so Maduro’s 4 million goal seems all too reachable.
All around the world, earnest fans of socialism insist it has never failed, as critics claim, since “true socialism has never really been tried.” Maduro is showing that the sure way to make it “succeed” is for the self-proclaimed socialists to have all the guns.
All controllers want all of the guns, all of the time, and in every situation. It’s what they do, it’s how they survive.
What an odd thing to see this in the New York Post, in which I’ve seen anti-2A commentary before.
The liberty-loving Georgian lady did not let that comment go unanswered. She proceeded to school the older woman on the fact that they were talking arms to bring a tyrannical government down, so if the other lady wanted to talk intent of the founding fathers then today American citizens would be free have all the armaments that they could afford to have.
Arms that are equal to what America’s soldiers have access to.
She continued by stating that “gun violence” is a myth. If politicians wanted to truly take on the problem of murder they would have to find a way to deal with the corrupt hearts of mankind.
Since they do not do this, the best answer is for good guys to have guns and be ready and efficient with them to kill the bad guys.
She’s got her theology right, her politics right, and her understanding of the second amendment right. Would that Americans were such clear thinkers.
Via reader Fred, this idiotic missive from a Duke University professor with whom we’ve crossed paths before.
The main problem with relying solely on text, history and tradition, however, is that it doesn’t provide useful guidance for modern-day regulations that respond to modern-day gun violence. The text alone can’t tell you whether a machine gun is an “arm” or whether convicted felons are among “the People” the Second Amendment protects. The 27 words of the amendment are silent on many questions, and history and tradition don’t speak with one voice—there were and are significant regional differences in approaches to gun regulation, as well as divisions between urban and rural areas.
Perhaps in some extreme cases (a total ban on public carry, for example), text, history and tradition would provide relatively clear rules. But for most standard forms of modern gun regulation—restrictive licensing schemes for public carry, for example, or prohibitions on high-capacity magazines or on gun possession by people convicted of domestic violence—all of the work would be done by analogical reasoning. Judges would have to decide for themselves whether certain modern guns or gun laws are relevantly similar to laws from 150 or 200 years ago.
“AMGOA is growing into a new role by becoming a non-profit organization,” the group announced Monday. “Over the years as our site and membership have grown there have been many calls for us to convert to a 501c4 and now we think the time is right. We are currently asking for donations and seeking new supporting members…”
The change will facilitate fundraising to allow for greater litigation support. The expansion will also allow for coordinating smaller groups to work together on local matters.
I don’t make endorsements lightly. Dalton and his team have been working tirelessly at great personal cost for years and they have an exciting vision that has great potential.
I’ll consider doing just that after an examination of them. I was discussing this with Len Savage, and his advice is as sage as ever. “You will know them by their fruits.” He’s hopeful, as am I. We’ll see.
If we can identify the mentally ill people that are suicidal, I think that is another conversation that is worth having.
I said, “We shouldn’t take some guns from all people; we should take all guns from some people,” but I think an important part of that is that it is the people we all agree shouldn’t have guns. I am not looking to be prescriptive there as much as I am looking to find where that common ground is.
We’re going to have a hard time finding that common ground, Dan. The problem is that ” … efforts to limit firearm access only for persons with a mental health condition (including substance use disorders) or those who previously attempted suicide would prevent few suicide deaths by firearm.”
It just doesn’t work the way you’re saying it works. And besides that, if we agree to agree on just a tiny little bit, like say, on a category of prohibited persons, who’s to say you won’t expand that list of prohibited persons to include someone who believes in Jesus, or believes in the RKBA?
No, I think forty years ago that speech would have worked. It’ll probably work today with Wayne and the other folks in Fairfax. But history has taught us that the words and meaning of the 2A are unalterable and not up for negotiation.
Does the English right matter to Americans? It is key to our right because every colonial charter promised settlers to the New World that they and their descendants would have all the rights of Englishmen as if born and abiding in England. It was these rights the Revolutionary War was fought to preserve. After 1689 these rights included the rights incorporated in the English Bill of Rights. The dangers of life in the American wilderness made the English practice of an armed citizenry essential. In many colonies all householders were ordered to be armed. A 1625 law of Plymouth colony, for example, stipulated that “in regard of our dispersion so far asunder and the inconvenience that may befall, it is further ordered that every freeman or other inhabitant of this colony provide for himself and each under him able to beare armes a sufficient musket and other serviceable peece for war . . . with what speede may be. A similar 1640 Virginia statute required “all masters of families” to furnish themselves and “all those of their families which shall be capable of arms (excepting negroes) with arms both offensive and defensive.” Some colonial laws actually required residents to carry their guns. A Newport law of 1639 provided that “noe man shall go two miles from the Towne unarmed, eyther with Gunn or Sword; and that none shall come to any public Meeting without his weapon. Virginia laws required “that no man go or send abroad without a sufficient partie well armed,” and “that men go not to worke in the ground without their arms (and a centinell upon them).” They further specified that “all men that are fittinge to beare armes, shall bring their pieces to the church upon payne of every offence, if the mayster allow not thereof to pay 2lb of tobacco.
These early laws were needed in a dangerous new land but Connecticut’s revised militia act, a century later, still ordered all citizens, both “listed” soldiers of the militia and every other householder, to “always be provided with and have in continual readiness, a well-fixed firelock . . . or other good fire-arms . . . a good sword, or cutlass. . . one pound of good powder, four pounds of bullets fit for his gun, and twelve flints. In 1770, five years before the American Revolution Georgia felt it necessary “for the better security of the inhabitants” to require every white male resident “to carry firearms to places of public worship,” to defend themselves “from internal dangers and insurrections.” Whether the threat came from slaves, foreigners or native Americans the means of defense was an armed citizenry. There was never a ban on taking a gun outside, on the contrary in many instances it was mandatory. Ordinary precautions that limited storage of gunpowder, shooting guns in crowded areas or carrying a weapon to terrify others were put in place, but the emphasis was on the duty to be armed and a freer use of private firearms than existed in England.
As we’ve discussed before. But in this day and age, the statists know better, because they are out betters. We need their protection and wisdom.
Second, they don’t know the law the way they should.
Third, and I’ll say this for the hundredth time, muzzle flagging people like cops do is dangerous to life.
Fourth, listen again to the “commander’s” words. Any time someone says that they support the second amendment, but … you know they’re lying.
Fifth, it’s good to see folks in Florida challenging the cops. These 2A audits are becoming a thing. I like that. A man has no business telling me how I should carry my weapons.
Arkansas CopWatch gets stopped for open carry. I thought this was a settled issue in Arkansas? Anyway, it’s good to see folks conducting 2A audits, and more specifically, open carry audits.
Dawsonville attorney John Monroe—a founder, board member and corporate officer of GeorgiaCarry who represents Evans—said he is confident that a careful review of the garden’s lease with the city will make it clear that the garden is prohibited by state law from banning guns on its premises.
“We never argued it as a Second-Amendment issue,” said Monroe, who said he helped to write the 2014 amendment that forms the basis for the high court’s reversal. “It was really about an interpretation of state law. … The idea was, if you are going to lease public property, you should not have the same right that private property owners have to exclude firearms.”
Monroe said the 2014 amendment is in keeping with a separate state law barring cities and counties from introducing or enforcing their own gun regulations.
GeorgiaCarry sued the botanical garden five years ago after one of its members twice visited the venue in 2014 while openly carrying a gun in a holster on his waistband. On his second visit, police escorted member Phillip Evans from the premises. GeorgiaCarry subsequently filed suit challenging the garden’s gun ban. A Fulton County judge dismissed the case, but the high court reversed, claiming the dismissal was improper.
I’d never thought about this before, but it makes perfect sense. Someone who leases property doesn’t own the property, and therefore doesn’t have the right to forbid perfectly constitutional and legal activities on that property. Only the owner does.
Gun control advocates say they’ll spend October distributing “firearms prohibited” window stickers to Oklahoma business owners who don’t want untrained and unlicensed consumers carrying guns into their establishments.
The effort marks gun-control advocates’ next effort to thwart the new controversial gun law, which takes effect Nov. 1.
“We know that our businesses are allowed to prohibit guns on their property,” said Kay Malan, of Tulsa, who volunteers with Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.
In recent weeks, the gun-control group also participated in a citizen-led ballot initiative that sought give voters a say on whether to accept or reject the legislation. The effort failed to garner enough signatures to get the issue before voters.
The legislative measure allows anyone at least 21 years old without a felony conviction or other criminal records to carry with no permitting, licensing or training. The bill does not allow people to brandish firearms nor does it change where Oklahomans can legally carry. For instance, people would still be prohibited from carrying on college campuses.
So let’s make a prediction and see how accurate it was later on, say, a year from now.
There will be blood running in the streets because of this. Or not.
5 years, 6 months ago
