Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Who benefits from the McDonald decision? Also, I unload on a Fudd. First the firearms, then the liberty.

Why Democrats, of course.

Here's the first few paragraphs of the Politico story:


But who won the day in politics? The Democrats.





"Everybody agrees that it’s subject to regulation," huh? Well, not everybody.

Yesterday I had a bit of verbal tussle with a guy in a gun shop who was enthused over McDonald. He was waxing eloquent about how "the NRA" had saved "our Second Amendment rights." After I set him straight about the odious nature of the NRA's real actions in this case versus the Second Amendment Foundation, he admitted he hadn't known that. He just assumed that the NRA MUST have been behind the legal challenge, because, well, they were the NRA and wasn't that what they did?

Then he screwed up and offered this gem: "Well, at least the Supreme Court has guaranteed our Second Amendment rights."

I unloaded on him in words to this effect:


"God?" he offered.





The McDonald decision, like the Heller decision before it, means exactly dick in the grand scheme of things. Liberty is secured by free men who are willing to kill for it and who hold the means to accomplish that in their own hands.

Everything else is eyewash.


Sedition said...

Absolutely brilliant speech you gave to the poor, ignorant sod.
Hopefully he took it to heart and learned something new that day.

flacmonkey said...



Dedicated_Dad said...

How like a lying commie to pretend they're in favor of something they've been fighting against for years -- seconds after the news their opposition is a lost cause.

Flip-flop anyone?

Then there's *THIS* bit from TFA:
"...Rep. Zack Space (D-Ohio), [from] eastern Ohio, quickly sent a blast to his 'Constitution-loving' constituents.

'Today’s ruling has put the Supreme Court on the side of every Constitution-loving American,' he said in the e-mail. 'Our right to keep and bear arms is a cornerstone of our Constitution, given to us by our Founding Fathers, and it can never be taken away.'

I'll stake 'most anything that he was singin' a different tune just a couple of short weeks ago!

Further, the cognitive-dissonance is APPALLING. Our Rights to self-defense (and the tools necessary and appropriate to support that right) are granted by **G*D*!!

They're enshrined in the Constitution by our Founders (PBUT) as an attempt to prevent tyrants like the current regime from attempting to revoke it.

/preaching to the choir...


Chris Vaughn said...

Thanks, Mike, for writing about this exchange. I have been troubled by the pundits' declarations that this McDonald case has put the issue to rest once and for all, but have been unable to express the thoughts cogently.

And I want to go to a gun store with you!

MikeH. said...

We can only hope that your educational offerings to the Fudd have taken root.


Anonymous said...

The Internet Commandos are in full bloom today.

May they never know the true horror of what they wish and never lived.

Old Pablo said...

Two years ago, I thought exactly like that guy in the gunshop.

Toaster 802 said...

As Always Mike, you put things in the proper perspective.

I quoted part of this post in my blog, and will be quoting your wisdom to those fellow gun owners who think this was some big victory.

If this had gone the other way, do you think obot one would be on the tv right now with his "new" gun safety bill?

Anonymous said...

Exactly, Mike. Though I took a certain and small amount of satisfaction from the Supreme Court decision, I took no comfort in it. I take comfort in the weapons I and many others will use to KILL to maintain our God-given rights and freedoms.

Brutus said...

What you had:

I republic madam ... if you can keep it.

How to keep it:


How anyone can fail to grasp that simple logic is beyond me.

We don't lose our "rights" through the "law". We lose our "rights" by the threat of violence and State sanctioned homicide behind those "laws".

It only stands to reason then, when they are pointing a gun at you in enforcing their laws that restrict your freedoms and liberty ... is to shoot the bastard.

skybill said...

Hi Mike,
"I snatched a rifle off the display rack........Everything else is eyewash." Well said!!....and worth repeating....! I will!!



PS Fly the "Bravo Flag" A/R.

Taylor H said...

I hate to think what's going to happen once Kagan gets on board.

Anonymous said...

SQotD (Stupid Question of the Day).
Just what exactly is the definition of a Fudd ? Is this a 'Fudd' as in Elmer Fudd being outwitted by Buggs Bunny? Or is it something else?

Johnny said...

If you have a strong stomach, take a look at this:

No prizes for guessing which commentator is me.

Anonymous said...


The central law-judging organ in your republican form of government has ruled against you. Now what? Do you get into the boxcars willingly because 90% of the adult German population has voted to eliminate you?


That's right. A "constitutional republican government" plays no part in defending liberty. I look forward to your coming out of the closet as anarchists. To gain the maximum number of allies, you need to abandon your attempts at bans: abortion bans, border crossing worker bans, not made in America bans, gay marriage bans, etc.

"Old Pablo said...

That's why I comment here.

WordsMeanLessThanNothing said...

"Dick" is exactly right.

More lies and subterfuge to hide in, not that they really need to hide since the media happily says and does all that is required of them. Every word perfectly crafted and sounding so very much like the Pravda of old.

Isn't it a coincidence that their political views also parallel those news and editorial pages. That their pages never deviate in support for any cause supported by leftist traitors and enemies from without and within?

I do not wish for a civil war or another revolution but I am not the aggressor. I will be free and I will see my children free and I will honor those who have provided me with that freedom at the cost of their lives and fortunes. I hope it does not come to this but I am neither blind nor deaf and this enemy is well known to me and he is stronger than ever before and grows by the day in power.

I will accept nothing less than freedom. I will have it no other way. If the worst fears come to pass my heart and conscience are clear.

Anonymous said...

Look at the bright side guys!
This might lead to a temporary drop in the price of weapons and ammo!

Then we can stock up more!

And more time/money for more Appleseed Events!

Don't let the opportunities go to waste!

The Optimist.

barnstormer said...

If I'm not mistaken, a "Fudd" is a person who believes that guns are only useful for the specific purpose of hunting, and that any firearm that doesn't "look" like a classic hunting rifle or shotgun is bad. They gladly accept ownership restrictions because a govt would "never" take their hunting firearms. In other words, a "Fudd" is only one step removed from a Brady Gun Control zombie.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Anonymous said...

The issue is far from dead. 4 out of 9 Supreme Court justices openly declare that the Bill of Rights does not have anything to do with the rights of individual citizens. One of the four very recently stated under oath in Senate confirmation hearings that the 2A did protect an individual right.

We can't afford one more progressive on the Supreme Court.

Anonymous said...


Everyone agrees? I can tell you right now gun owners don't agree.

I take that back. We mostly agree that felons, illegal aliens, and those who are *truly* mentally unstable should not own a gun.

Beyond that, a person should be allowed to own any damned thing they want. Assault rifle, light machine gun, submachine gun, short-barreled shotguns. All the stuff that makes a gun grabber cry.

On the other hand, Democrats think that "regulation" mean that they can force licensing, classes, one-gun-a-month, restrictions on magazine capacity, restrictions on the number of firearms owned, ad nauseum.

As soon as they try that crap, they'll be right back to facing those angry gun owners, not that their arrogance and control-freak instincts allow them to even consider that.

If the Dems LEAVE GUNS ALONE, and don't get in the way to any attempts to remove unnecessary rules (Sporting Purposes, 86 MG Ban, 68 import ban), then they'll be ok.

Not that this will ever happen, and the short-sighted Dem leadership certainly won't allow that!

Anonymous said...

Excellently explained!

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It is not what gives us the right of self-defense, either. The right of self-defense is God-given, and the 2A only codifies this right against infringement by Government. As for protecting the right, God-given also comes with a responsibility. Let us not forget this responsibility, to preserve the God-given right for our children and our children's children for all time.

-- G

Brutus said...

I also want to point out that our betters were no dummies.

You will note that the 1st amendment tell us to use our speech and to pray...

When that fails, the 2nd amendment tells us to muster the Militia and shoot if necessary.

Anonymous said...

You know what? Billy Beck taught me something about the USSC a long time ago.

"Its just an opinion."

And to top that off *4* of the bastards voted against it, so if you think its decided law you better strap in tight.


Brandon S. Gray said...

this is great

it's so nice that a few real americans still exist

Dan said...

Damn well said, Dutchman.
It's why I stand with you.

I Am Spartacus said...

Scalia's words in Heller should have been enough of a warning. He used the words, "Reasonable restriction on a right." There is no such thing. A right is a right. Some things are not rights. But there is no such thing as a restriction on a right.

Do you have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, to bring up that thug, Oliver Wendell Holmes? You absolutely have the right -- as long as there is a fire, and it is the safest way to get people out of danger. You do not have the right to deliberately, recklessly, or directly put others at the risk of grave harm. To say that you can't falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater is harm's way is not a restriction of your right to free speech, precisely because you are not free to truly and unnecessarily endanger others.

Bottom line: carrying an M249 does not, in itself, truly or unnecessarily endanger anyone. So buzz off, Scalia. You've got no right to tell me what I or any of us may or may not peaceably do.
You're as much of a thug as the cop who enforces the bad ideas you legislate from the bench.

Dennis308 said...

Not all of us agree with the Idea that a Convicted Felon should not have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. I think that if a person that commits a crime they should stay in prison until they can be trusted with all the rights of a free society. Also just which Felonies are you referring to. There are to many Unconstitutional Laws that are Felonies,such as possession of say a half pound of Marijuana. Or using diesel as a weed killer along Your Own Fence line.
Furthermore The Second Amendment´s purpose is so that the citizens will always have the means to dispose of any Tyrant/s or Oppressor/s that would come to power in these United States,and has Nothing to do with either self defence or hunting.


I Am Spartacus said...


Amen. If a pair of hands are too dangerous to be holding onto a firearm, they should be holding onto prison bars, period.

No prior restraint. Ever.

J. Croft said...

It means they have full legal license from their Supreme Court judicial gods to "regulate" your guns out of your hands. Wrote about it here: