Illinois School: Gun Rights Only What Government Allows Them to Be

The U.S. Constitution says that our Second Amendment rights shall not be infringed. That’s pretty straightforward. But a middle school in Illinois has decided that shall not really means that you have no rights unless government says you are allowed to have them.

According to a workbook handout from Grant Middle School in Springfield, Illinois–that happens to be the capital city of the most corrupt state in America–Americans only have Second Amendment rights if they go and “register” with government and if government has decided they are worthy of being allowed those rights. (See image below.)

Here is the full text of that worksheet:

Amendment 2 (1791): Right to Bear Arms

This Amendment States that the people have the right to certain weapons, providing that they register them and they have not been in prison. The founding fathers included this amendment to prevent the United States from acting like the British who tried to take weapons away from the colonists.

So many lies in so few words.

First of all there isn’t a thing in the Second Amendment specifying “certain weapons.” It says firearms. Not “certain weapons.” The Amendment also doesn’t say a word about “prison” being a reason to exclude gun ownership. In fact, it makes no exceptions at all even going so far to say that the right “shall not be infringed.”

Here is the full text of the Second Amendment as ratified in the Bill of Rights:

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.

That bears no semblance to what the school said at all, now does it?

The person who brought this travesty to the nation’s attention is a father to one of Grant Middle School’s students. He wishes to stay anonymous because he feels the school will punish his child. He is probably right, too.

In any case, who he or his child is doesn’t matter because the school has admitted that the story is correct and that they have, indeed, been using the workbook.

Turns out it was written by some unionized, left-wing past teachers that used to work with the school. The school has agreed that the workbook needs a revision.

Again, it should be noted that this school is in the capital of the most corrupt state in the nation. It should also be noted that this is the same state that still has the most restrictions on its citizens’ Second Amendment rights and was the last state in the union to allow concealed carry–even thought it is still all up in the air and many legalities have yet to be worked out.

So, no one should be surprised that this corrupt school in this corrupt state is lying to its students about their rights.

One other thing should be noted to show that this school is a corrupt institution. It is really named U.S. Grant Middle school after the famed Civil War general. But the school has dropped the “U.S.” and is going simply with “Grant Middle School.”

Does it surprise anyone that this corrupt school is doing its best to whitewash its connection to the famous Civil War General. That it is the same school trying to undermine our Second Amendment rights?

Unsurprisingly, on its website the school also celebrates its Common Core standards.

A corrupt school in a corrupt state–the home of Barack Obama, natch–doing its best to destroy this country. That is modern education today.

'NY Daily News' Article Calls Gun Owner 'Gun Nut,' Misidentifies Guns
'Queer Theory' Professor Charged For Assaulting a Teenaged Pro-Life Demonstrator
  • jim_m

    They are trying to distance themselves from the President because they don’t want the students to discover that it was the republicans that freed the slaves and the dems that fought to keep slavery.

    • Paul Hooson

      The Republicans were the liberals for quite a long time in American history, especially before and after the Civil War, but were gradually absorbed with Southern conservatives since the days of Strom Thurmond in the 50’s and 60’s when many Democrats became Republicans. – The Democrats traditionally tended to be a larger tent party, comprising liberals as well as racists from the far right during the 50’s and 60’s. After Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller, the Republicans have become much more conservative as well as big business in nature. The Democrats have moved a little to the right as well, since the days of Bill Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Conference. Both parties are more conservative than the early 70’s, when Vietnam moved many towards the left politically and created the groundswell of left-leaning voters that nominated George McGovern, causing many more moderate and conservative Democrats to support President Nixon in 1972.

      • jim_m

        The Democrats traditionally tended to be a larger tent party

        Except when they were sending the American Indians on the trail of tears or forming the confederacy to preserve slavery.

        If you are going to spout bullshit do it in your strip joint where nobody knows the difference.

  • Lawrence Westlake

    Hell, this is nothing. Can you fathom what textbooks, workplans, etc., in the likes of Chicago, Detroit, Philly, etc., will look like in 20 years? Forget it. Then in the next breath the same liberal idiots (BIRM) will congratulate themselves at cocktail parties, while the inner city communities of poor whites and racial minorities at public K-12 schools become underclasses of epic proportions. The attendant unemployment and underemployment rates will be catastrophic. Cycle, repeat. Leftism has severe consequences.

  • Mr. Mike

    While I am never short of words and now is no exception, I will use only one… unconscionable.

  • Commander_Chico

    The felon-in-possession law bothers me, because it’s pretty easy to become a felon these days.

  • ackwired

    I wonder what the handbook had to say about the rest of the bill of rights.

    • I’m sure it was consistent, and that other “rights of the people” likewise could only be exercised by registered persons who have not been to prison — like peaceable assembly, and petitioning the government for a redress of grievances, and being secure from unreasonable search and seizure…

      God knows Holder’s DOA is working on making them so.

      • ackwired

        Perhaps. If it said that I would be bothered that nobody bothered to point it out. I sometimes wonder if our focus on the 2nd amendment is resulting in our loss of other rights (such as our warrant rights).

        • jim_m

          I think the real problem here is that (shocker) our textbooks are driven by ideological concerns rather than a desire to communicate the truth, This is going to evidence itself in all sorts of falsehoods and inaccuracies.

        • I should have closed my snark tag. 😉

  • Big error in the article. The author states the 2nd Amendment refers specifically to “firearms”. It does not. By definition the Amendment would extend to ALL arms including firearms, blades, etc. We do it disservice when we ourselves limit its scope.

    • Hawk_TX

      I noticed that error as well. The Constitution only refers to “arms” which encompasses all weapons both offensive and defensive.

  • dchrist81

    The Constitution NEVER limited gun ownership.
    There were never any limitations such as “registration”.

  • Scott Barton

    I hate to nit-pick, but the Second Amendment doesn’t use the word ‘firearms’, it says ‘arms’. The people have the right to keep and bear any weapons, not just guns.

    • Brucehenry

      Nope. “The people” don’t have a right to keep and bear, for example, howitzers or M-1 tanks. They don’t have a right to tactical nukes.

      Even automatic weapons are, for reasons of common sense, restricted. When gun advocates mock weenie liberals for calling semi-automatic rifles “assault weapons,” one of the standard mockeries is that “possession of automatic weapons is ALREADY illegal.”

      Hell, even switchblade knives and brass knuckles are illegal in some jurisdictions and this has been upheld, I believe, in the courts.

      • Yes, and we all know that the courts never get anything wrong. Tell Obama we said hi.

      • Howitzers? Noise ordinances should keep that under control, plus the cost of rounds. Crew served weapons (as opposed to Krew-served floats) aren’t going to be all that cheap in the first place… and there’s not that much of a use for them. But if someone wants to buy one as a curiosity, and maybe fire it once or twice a year at a local range (and that’d have to be some range, I’ll admit, probably an old army base that was used for artillery training) then I see no problem with that.

        M1 tanks? Traffic ordinances, plus the cost of running and maintenance, not to mention (again) the cost of rounds for the main gun.

        “No, you can’t signal a left or right turn with your turret! You keep knocking over traffic signals!”

        And tanks aren’t illegal to own and operate…

        Not worth it to me – but to some? I’m not gonna gripe as long as they don’t block traffic. (And even then, I’d gripe very quietly, lol…)

        • Brucehenry

          If someone is only allowed to fire the weapon at a designated range he’s not being allowed to “bear” this particular arm in an entirely unrestricted fashion.

          Which is my point. We’ve got fellows on here claiming the government cannot restrict a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms in any fashion whatsoever, which is nonsense, of course it can.

          Just as a lawful assembly can be dispersed when things get ugly and it turns into a mob, just as speech can be restricted by the prohibition on shouting fire in a crowded theater, just as freedom of the press does not extend to libel or slander, so also can common sense restrictions on certain weapons be imposed, without actually infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Hence the prohibition in most jurisdictions on automatic weapons and the denial of tactical nukes to your local hunting club or survivalist militia.

          • Part of ‘bearing’ is knowing what’s an appropriate and legal use, and what isn’t. I wouldn’t support a CCW bearer who was waving his carry pistol around because he was pissed off about a parking ticket or something. You bring it out when/if the situation is legally appropriate, and it’s incumbent on you to know when it’s appropriate.

            But looking at the traditional arguments for concealed carry (that it’ll turn the (city/county/state) into the Wild West with people shooting each other for no reason) – it’s odd how those predictions have failed to come true… consistently. Where CCW laws are enacted, crime goes down. Where guns are prohibited, crime goes up. But if the argument you’ve been supporting for years fails, you expand the argument and push ideas that haven’t been discredited.

            Suddenly, it’s not about CCW and about how it puts everyone at hazard – it’s now about discrediting the idea of bearing arms by using a drive-by poster’s comment to justify a rant using examples like tanks and tactical nukes – which (unless you’re Bill Gates) you’re pretty unlikely to be able to afford.

            Scott Barton. 2 comments – 3 votes. If one were of a suspicious bent (which I’m not, usually) I might almost think that was a sock puppet used to put up a comment you could disagree on.

            We may disagree on things, but I think you respect the folks here enough to not pull crap like that. At least, I’d like to think you do.

          • Brucehenry

            Two things, Lawson.

            One, of course I didn’t “invent” Barton or his comment and I find it offensive to be accused of such a thing. Ask your “moderator” friend to check on it if you wish. I’ve been commenting here regularly since 2008 and have never ever done anything like that.

            Have you?

            And two, there was no “rant,” at least not on my part. Yes I used some over the top examples like howitzers and nukes, but I also mentioned automatic weapons, brass knuckles, and switchblade knives as examples of how the government can and does, and appropriately so, impose common sense restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.

            I was simply pointing out that commenters here who claim that no government body can legally impose ANY restrictions whatsoever on the right to keep and bear arms are incorrect. It can and does. Violent felons aren’t allowed to keep and bear arms and most folks would say rightly so. It’s not appropriate to allow every Tom, Dick, and Harry to swagger around with m-16s and most people would say appropriately so.

            No rant. Just a rejoinder. Keep your wild accusations to yourself, thank you very much.

          • Of course you didn’t, Bruce. You just happened to be the first one posting on a drive-by. Sheer coincidence.

          • Brucehenry

            DUDE, this “Scott Barton” person you call a “drive-by” — and keep insinuating that I have invented as a sock puppet — was only one of THREE people who made similar comments about the government having NO right to restrict, in ANY fashion, the right to keep and bear arms. I could as easily have replied to “Hawk-TX”, a regular long-time commenter here who was saying essentially the same thing. Or another newbie, someone named “Rich,” diito.

            I don’t know where you get off and who you think you are accusing me of that kind of dishonesty, but screw you, pal. You owe me an apology. Ask your friend the soi disant “moderator” to check the IP address, genius.

          • Bruce – look at how many comments the guy’s made. 2. On ONE thread – this one. What more classic definition of a drive-by IS there?

            Sure – I’ll apologize. I’m not holding it against you, or thinking you did it. Like I said – it was a coincidence.

            LOL at your rage antics though. Are they supposed to be intimidating?

          • Brucehenry

            Screw you again, pal — you’re STILL doing it with your “sheer coincidence” snark. And gee thanks for not “holding it against me” considering I never did what you accused me of.

            I don’t know how one guy commenting on the Internet can be “intimidating” to another guy. What’s the worst he can do? “Say that again and I’ll type MORE words at you!”

            Oh and let me say how hilarious it is hearing about how over-the-top language undercuts an argument, coming from a guy who never utters a PEEP when Warner vomits up articles about “welcome home galas” and “bullying czars” and who remains silent when Jim calls everybody and anybody “fascists” and “racists” at the drop of a hat.

          • Aw, poor little butthurt Brucie. I apologized – that’s all you’re gonna get. Any absurd connotation you attach to ‘coincidence’ at this point’s in your own head. You said you weren’t Scott Barton, so I’ll believe you.

            As far as other commenters go – show me where in the Internet Rulez where I’m supposed to reply on ANY fucking concern of yours. I comment on what I want, as I want. If you don’t like it, then too bad.

            If you WANT me to comment, we can discuss financial arrangements via Paypal, but I won’t do it for cheap.

          • Brucehenry

            I think it’s pretty clear at this point how sincere your “apology” was. You ought to be ashamed of yourself but I’m sure you’re not.

            It’s also pretty clear your avuncular, folksy Will Rogers act is a cloak that doesn’t quite conceal the asshole underneath. Have a nice day.

          • Ashamed? Of what? Insulting you, someone who has no problems at all coming on and insulting everyone else?

            From YOU, that’s hilarious.

          • jim_m

            sounds like someone objects to hearing the truth. Don’t worry, your Senators are doing their best to silence dissent and make it illegal.

          • Brucehenry

            Tell me what part of the accusation of sock puppetry is “the truth,” Jim. Show your work.

            Come to think of it, maybe YOU have been posting under Lawson’s name. I’ve never known him to be quite this much of an asshole before. You, now — sure, it’s believable.

          • jim_m

            I was referring to your support of fascist policies of the dems and how you dislike Warner pointing out the excesses of the left.

          • Brucehenry

            I think it’s fine to point out the excesses of the left. What I object to is making up excesses to point out.

            For example, in Warner’s recent voter fraud puke-up, it would have been sufficient to chastise the crowd and the Dems who organized the rally for applauding a felon. It WAS reprehensible to applaud this lady for her criminality (if that’s what they were doing).

            Where he went off the rails was in characterizing the rally as a “party” — a “welcome home gala,” no less — held in this woman’s honor. It wasn’t a party, it wasn’t held in her honor, and it would have occurred whether or not she had attended. There was a brief nod to her, applause from the crowd, and a hug from Sharpton, and that was bad enough. There was no need to lie about it. Get it?

            And Warner does this kind of thing all the time, with never a word from guys like Lawson about how over-the-top rhetoric “undercuts his argument,” so forgive me if I find it a little, ummm, inconsistent when I find my self on the business end of a scolding from him.

          • jim_m

            Yes they were celebrating her criminality and that does accurately demonstrate the attitude of the left toward voter fraud. And it is true that it was not a party just for her but the fact that they celebrate her is reprehensible.

            But excuse us if we don’t point out Warner’s errors. There are plenty of others who will do that so we need not add our voices to the crowd. I assume that you will accept this excuse because, after all, that is always your excuse when you fail to criticize a lefty.

          • Brucehenry

            Fair enough, but then don’t be scolding me for “over-the-top rhetoric” that “undercuts my argument.” If you overlook it when Warner does it don’t be shocked when someone else does.

            And yes I know you didn’t, Lawson did.

          • jim_m

            Yeah, I don’t generally call people on over the top rhetoric.

          • Brucehenry

            Also fair enough lol.

          • Like I said, Bruce, I’ll comment on whatever you want me to comment on – but you’ll have to pay in advance, and it won’t be cheap.

          • The reason I’m being more of an asshole is that I’ve realized that treating you (or pretty much anyone on the left) with any sort of respect doesn’t get any in return. I’ve tried it for years now, and what does it get?

            At best, you’re a condescending asshole, acting like you’re imparting fucking pearls of wisdom beyond price. (“Oh, what about tanks and nukes as far as the Second Amendment goes! Bet you didn’t think about THOSE, didya?!”) And then you whine when called on it.

            At worse, you’re just a fucking asshole.

            So you tell me what’s in it for me – or anyone else here for that matter – for going through the effort of treating you with respect and attempting to get through your shitloads of snark to actually have a conversation?

            A chance to actually discuss things with you, maybe come to a meeting of the minds? Woo-hoo, what an unbelieveable privilege THAT is, listening to you tell us how we’re so fucking wrong it’s pathetic.

            You’re not going to change your mind – or your charming little habit of treating us as if we’re your intellectual inferiors. You routinely discard any information we bring up that you don’t agree with.

            Of course, I’m sure you don’t see yourself as being an asshole – or maybe you do and it’s deliberate, to see how far you can push people – but I’ve just had enough.

            So – fuck it. Might as well be as abusive towards you as you are towards others. Respecting you sure didn’t get anything.

            And you know something? It pisses me off that it took this long to realize that.

          • Brucehenry

            Wow, talk about butthurt.

            Look at the comments on this thread that aren’t made toward you, Lawson. Are they filled with snark or condescension? Nope. And, aside from a one-sentence reference to howitzers and nukes, not with over-the-top anything, either.

            Mostly I talked about automatic weapons, now didn’t I?

            Look, YOU made a completely unfounded accusation that I had engaged in behavior contrary to Wizbang’s commenting policy. This policy as practiced has been pretty damn liberal, but if I had engaged in it, I could be banned, and I don’t wanna be banned. Our soi disant “moderator” would LOVE for me to pull a stunt like that.

            A stunt like that NEVER OCCURRED TO ME, and to be accused of it is offensive. When I pointed this out, I got a “Oh, sure you didn’t, just a coincidence, yeah sure,” from you which you later pretended was a sincere apology. Along with an assurance that you won’t hold it against me, what a joke.

            As far as me being “abusive to others” I bet you don’t have any specific examples. The worst I get is usually a sarcastic “genius” with a very occasional “knuckle dragger” or “neanderthal” thrown in. I might have gone a little off the rails with Jim M a couple of times.

            What kills me is your line about “I think you have enough respect for others here…” What a load. Trying to take your out-of-the-blue accusation and turn other commenters into victims and martyrs!

            In this exchange you have revealed you DON’T WANT to “actually discuss things,” but just want an Amen Chorus. What I mostly do here is point out certain absurdities in the musings of Becker, Warner, and especially commenter Jim, when they occur. Other commenters, too, but mostly them. I’m sorry you don’t like to hear when they are “so fucking wrong it’s pathetic,” but sometimes that is, indeed, the actual case.

            If you can find me ONE example of my being “abusive” I’ll eat my hat. And I am certainly no more “condescending” than a myriad of others here, now am I? Sometimes even including, yes, YOU, genius.

            It’s pretty plain who’s in the wrong here, Lawson. You are. The fact that you don’t want to admit it is very sweet to me. It shows me your “reasonable” act is just that — an act. And acted very poorly, too.

          • I think I see who’s butthurt, Bruce. You can’t even TAKE the suggestion, however vague, that you’re using a sock puppet. I apologized – but that wasn’t sufficient. You needed to scrub the stain off – get me to retract it completely and totally.

            Okay, words are cheap. I apologize and retract it completely and totally. Feel better, Bruce?

            And it’s SO nice you’ve got me figured out. You’re right – it’s all just an act. Just like you’re acting all offended and virtuous and painting yourself as a picture of offended reason ministering to the vast unwashed here.

            Shall we continue with our acts, now that we know where each other stands?

          • Brucehenry

            Oh sure thanks ever so much for the nonpology.

            Haha I remember the last time you tried to tell me off. It was because you failed to persuade. Since I didn’t change my mind in light of your oh-so-convincing arguments you decided that I was incapable of seeing reason. Not that you couldn’t convince me, mind you — I just REFUSED to be persuaded, L O Fucking L.

            Now this time you accuse me of a violation of this blog’s commenting policy — an accusation totally without foundation — and then get YOUR back all bowed up when I take offense.

            It’s typical conservative behavior. Never apologize. Never admit wrongdoing. It’s the other guy’s fault. Never take responsibility.

            I notice you got nothing when it comes to examples of my “abuse” of other commenters, too. More typical blowhard conservative argument style from you.

            Tell you what, I’ll take your criticism under advisement, even though I’m sure you won’t give a thought to mine. You’re a mensch, dude. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

          • Glad I could help your quest for personal growth, Bruce!.

            See, what I’ve always noticed it’s the thieves who are always worried about being ripped off. It’s the cheaters who are always suspicious of their spouses. Folks running scams are always suspicious of others.

            And it’s the liars who always proclaim loudly how honest they are and complain bitterly when there’s even the slightest question that they might be lying.

            One last bit of advice, not aimed at you by any means, lol – next time, maybe that sock puppet needs to be run a while before whoever the handler is makes entries here, so it’s not so obvious, okay?

          • Brucehenry

            Yes you’re right that it’s the cheaters who are always worried about being ripped off, etc. That could be why it’s so amusing that your suspicion was aroused so easily.

            In this case, there was not “the slightest suggestion” –“however vague” to use your hilarious slippery excuse — that I was engaging in this behavior. There was an outright accusation, and then insincere backpedaling. You were so unsure of your position that you didn’t want to NOT apologize, but so insecure in your manhood that you wouldn’t ACTUALLY offer a sincere apology, but instead qualify it with snark phrases like “sheer coincidence” and “you said you didn’t so I’ll believe you” and “words are cheap.”

            In this comment you actually DOUBLE DOWN on the accusation that you made without provocation, evidence, or context of past behavior. You keep on demonstrating, over and over, that you’re not man enough to sincerely apologize for your behavior.

            You may think you’re just poking me in the eye and it’s hilarious, with these attempts to have it both ways and have the last word. I don’t pretend to know how your mind rationalizes the behavior you’ve engaged in in this exchange. But I think it’s because you just don’t have the strength of character to admit you did a reprehensible thing, to own your own actions. It’s pathetic, and the longer you continue it, the more pathetic you look to anyone who may still be following this days later — admittedly a microscopic number I’m sure, so you should take some small comfort in that.

            BTW I didn’t know there was such a thing as an “IP anonymizer” — but YOU did. I noticed you edited that part out, in kind of a “woops, that’s incriminating!” fashion.

          • And as I said – the liar is always sensitive to anything that besmirches his honesty.

            You couldn’t let an offhand comment pass. If you hadn’t responded, I wouldn’t have thought another thing of it. You’re the one that made it an issue. You’re the one who demanded apologies. And at that point, I just started laughing at you. What does that say about your own insecure personality, Bruce, when you’re unable to take a joke when it’s on you?

          • Brucehenry

            If I hadn’t responded, I might have let the soi disant “moderator” around here have an excuse to ban me, genius.

            And it wasn’t a joke, it was a mean-spirited unfounded accusation impugning my integrity as a commenter. I’m not so much concerned about what YOU think about it as I am others who may believe your allegation. Hell, I’m sure Jim M would have considered it a “tacit admission” of guilt.

            No, the correct response would have been for you to say, “Wow, no offense, I’m sorry, I meant it as a joke.” That’s not what you did, though, or even what you’re doing now. No, you’re STILL, with your “only liars take offense at being called liars” schtick, insinuating that I did what you accused me of in the first place.

            In other words, you’re doubling down and pretending to be dumbfounded as to why I’m still pissed about it. It’s dishonest, it’s cowardly, it’s unmanly, and it’s fucking hilarious coming from you — a guy who’s spent paragraph after paragraph in the past boasting about how he’s teaching “little guy” to be a Real Man.

            You’re not a real man. You’re not man enough to own up to your disgraceful behavior. Your “reasonable” act is a pose. You’re nothing but a pussy, a weasel, and a would-be internet bully who can’t quite pull it off. Your “little guy” should be ashamed of you if he’s not already.

          • Hey, Warner – If I make a joke about someone (like Bruce) running a sock puppet, is that cause to ban them?

            I don’t want to see him banned, just for the record..

          • Brucehenry

            Passive-aggressive weasel behavior.

            First the accusation. Then the “oh SURE you didn’t” snark. Then the “OK, I’ll apologize — but not REALLY” bullshit. Then the “why so butthurt?” Then the “If you aren’t guilty why are you so loudly proclaiming your innocence?” nonsense, which is some WTF crap if I ever heard it. Now it’s “hey, it was a JOKE, dude!” It wasn’t.

            Bullshit. Passive-aggressive weasel.

          • Wasn’t talking to you, Sparky – I was attempting to address a concern of yours with the guy you were worried about banning you for an accusation of sock-puppetry.

            Looking out for you, in my passive-aggressive weasel way, because I don’t want to see you banned. We may disagree on a lot of things but I don’t want to see you banned over something I said.

          • Brucehenry

            Like I said, you’re a real mensch.

          • jim_m

            I don’t want to see him banned

            There’s always one

          • As a passive-aggressive weasel, I figured I ought to state things in as unambiguous a way as possible.

          • As far as tanks go –


            Funny, but rough on the landscaping.

          • Brucehenry

            DUDE, this “Scott Barton” person you call a “drive-by” — and keep insinuating that I have invented as a sock puppet — was only one of THREE people who made similar comments about the government having NO right to restrict, in ANY fashion, the right to keep and bear arms. I could as easily have replied to “Hawk-TX”, a regular long-time commenter here who was saying essentially the same thing. Or another newbie, someone named “Rich,” diito.

            I don’t know where you get off and who you think you are accusing me of that kind of dishonesty, but screw you, pal. You owe me an apology. Ask your friend the soi disant “moderator” to check the IP address, genius.

      • Scott Barton

        I was pointing out the error in the article; the Second Amendment affirms our right to armed. What those arms may be is up to us. The federal, state, and local governments may NOT restrict our right to have weapons in any way. The fact that courts have ruled otherwise in the past doesn’t change that; just because a judge ruled a particular way doesn’t mean he’s right.

        • Brucehenry

          Actually it kinda does, until another judge rules otherwise or Congress writes new legislation. Since 1803 or so. For all practical purposes, anyway.

          Snark aside, you’re right that just because a judge rules a certain way doesn’t mean he’s right, but it does mean that’s the law until that ruling is overturned. That’s what it means to live in a democratic republic under the rule of law.

      • Hawk_TX

        Here is the text of the 2nd amendment.

      • jim_m

        Actually, the people DID have a right to all those things, and still DO have a right to them (with the possible exception of Chemical, Biological and Nuclear arms which are either outlawed globally or otherwise restricted).

        People can get a license for a machine gun, grenade launcher, howitzer and even a tank. People do have private collections of these arms but as others have pointed out they are expensive to acquire and maintain and have limits on how they can be used.

        People have a right to these weapons but the Supreme Court has held that it is not an unrestricted right. Possession of fully automatic weapons is indeed illegal except for those who have acquired a special federal license for those weapons.

        • Brucehenry

          Right. And the requirements for a license, and limits on how and when they may be used, are common sense restrictions that don’t materially “infringe” on the public’s broad right to keep and bear arms.

          The argument was being made here that the government could, under no circumstances, impose any limitations whatsoever on ANY weapon or for ANY reason. That’s all I’m arguing against. I’m not arguing in favor of any specific restrictions, just saying they aexist, and most people are fine with them and don’t consider them “infringements” on their rights.

          Again, just as there are libel and slander restrictions on the right of a free press, just as assembly may be restricted if a mob becomes unruly or if occupancy limits in a structure are exceeded, just as inciting a riot or a panic is illegal despite a right to free speech, in that same way certain common sense restrictions are indeed legal and may be desirable.

  • This is joyful – anti-gun CA state senator is really a gun runner.

    “If you thought the charges against Leland Yee would be bad, you had no idea. As in, he offered to set up an arms deal with Islamic rebels for $2 million in cash. As in, he has ties to a gangster named Shrimp Boy. As in, he makes corrupt state senator Clay Davis from The Wire look like George Washington. You can read the whole affidavit here, but it’s really, really long, so we’ve gone ahead and pulled out the highlights. The allegations (and for now they are only that—allegations) are cinematic, staggering, and remarkable in their scope. Here they are, in descending order of sheeeeeeeeeeeit:”
    Sheeeeeeeeit is right.
    I’m sure he’ll have an EXCELLENT excuse, however.

    • jim_m

      Bush was worse!!
      You’re a raaaacist!!
      It’s the NRA’s fault!!