Come and Take It

"You may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas."

Archive for the category “Second Amendment”

Towards Liberty

Several days ago Republican Sen. Rob Portman, in a major switcheroo, came out (in support of gay marriage). Good on you, Senator.

People often accuse me of being a conservative, or even a Republican. I understand their confusion, but I am neither. I hew to an antiquated definition of liberalism. I am a Lockean. Much like the majority of the Framers, the guiding star of my political firmament is John Locke. I try to conduct my political commerce according to his creed:

“The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the world by His order, and about His business; they are His property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during His, not one another’s pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another’s uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our’s. Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.” – John Locke, from Two Treatises of Government Read more…


The above is my re-post of a TWG re-post of an excellent 2nd Amendment apology by Forbes blogger Lawrence Hunter. Hunter’s article is one of the most cogent defenses of the true purpose of the 2nd Amendment that I have ever seen.





It is time the critics of the Second Amendment put up and repeal it, or shut up about violating it. Their efforts to disarm and short-arm Americans violate the U.S. Constitution in Merriam Webster’s first sense of the term—to “disregard” it.

Hard cases make bad law, which is why they are reserved for the Constitution, not left to the caprice of legislatures, the sophistry and casuistry of judges or the despotic rule making of the chief executive and his bureaucracy. And make no mistake, guns pose one of the hardest cases a free people confronts in the 21st century, a test of whether that people cherishes liberty above tyranny, values individual sovereignty above dependency on the state, and whether they dare any longer to live free.

A people cannot simultaneously live free and be bound to any human master or man-made institution, especially to politicians, judges, bureaucrats…

View original post 1,389 more words

A Second Amendment, If You Can Keep It

In a dark day for Liberty, Senator Feinstein today introduced to the Senate The Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. The Senator’s summary may be found here. The bill explicitly bans 157 specific firearms, apparently on the basis that they are simply too scary looking. Furthermore, the bill bans all magazines with a capacity in excess of ten rounds, apparently on the specious contention that the additional seconds required to swap out two ten round magazines, as opposed to continuing to fire from a single thirty round magazine, might save a life or two. (Never mind the Sandy Hook scenario, where all the victims are defenseless, and the police are nowhere in the vicinity.) The bill grandfathers possession of existing specimens of the banned varieties, but prohibits transfer or sale of these guns without a federal background check, even between family members. Sale or transfer of existing high-capacity magazines is simply outlawed. No exceptions are made for small caliber cartridges like the venerable .22 long rifle. Read more…

Every Gun is an “Assault Weapon”

Following the tragic events at Sandy Hook Elementary School, we’ve heard the predictable chorus from the left for a reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 or even more stringent gun control measures. As a shooter, gun collector and sportsman, I find myself bemused by the ever evolving definition of “assault weapon,” and amazed by the nonsensical notion that banning such weapons will prevent incidents of mass violence.

The Bushmaster .223 allegedly used by Adam Lanza is only the latest incarnation of the “assault weapon.”


In fact, nearly every gun I own was designed as an “assault weapon” and used as such at one time militarily.

Read more…

Illinoisans in the State of Nature

The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals today struck down Illinois’ blanket ban on firearms carry for self defense outside the home. Read the decision here. As did Justice Scalia in District of Columbia v. Heller, Circuit Judge Richard Posner relied primarily on an historical analysis of prior law (going back to English Common Law) to support the Court’s decision. While historical analysis is certainly a valid approach to understanding and interpreting the Second Amendment, a larger moral argument can and should be made.

The Declaration of Independence informs us that we humans institute governments to secure our basic, unalienable rights. But what does that mean, really? At what point are you justified in the use of force against another, even to the point of taking another’s life, to protect your own life, and secure your own rights? The answer can be found by examining ourselves as we existed in the “state of nature,” before the advent of organized, formal government.

Read more…

Post Navigation