The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [2ndAmendment]

Wow, Judge, such strong words!

The Patriot Act is the centerpiece of the federal government’s false claims that by surrendering our personal liberties to it, it can somehow keep us safe. The liberty-for-safety offer has been around for millennia and was poignant at the time of the founding of the American republic.

Yes, just like you don't need to be able to defend yourself when in a place that serves alcohol, or if you've been involved in a misdemeanor domestic violence incident (in other words, an event no more violent than lightly pushing someone) or, god forbid, if you got caught using some substance the government doesn't like.  In the latter two instances you have no right to defend yourself, ever, anywhere, period but even without such infirmity you must ask permission in the form of a "license" and pay a tax before you may attempt to defend yourself and then only in the places and in the way the goons government say is "ok." 

The Framers addressed it in the Constitution itself, where they recognized the primacy of the right to privacy and insured against its violation by the government by intentionally forcing it to jump through some difficult hoops before it can capture our thoughts, words or private behavior.

Those hoops are the requirement of a search warrant issued by a judge and based on evidence -- called probable cause -- demonstrating that it is more likely than not that the government will find what it is looking for from the person or place it is targeting. Only then may a judge issue a warrant, which must specifically describe the place to be searched or specifically identify the person or thing to be seized.

None of this is new. It has been at the core of our system of government since the 1790s. It is embodied in the Fourth Amendment, which is at the heart of the Bill of Rights. It is quintessentially American.

The Framers addressed the other problem too.  They declared that you, individually, have the right to defend yourself everywhere, all the time, irrespective of being accused of or even convicted of a criminal offense at some point in the past.

None of this is new.  It has been at the core of our system of government since the 1790s. It is embodied in the Second Amendment, which is supreme to the 4th Amendment as the Framers felt it was so important that it was only subservient to the right of free speech (which they listed first.)  It is quintessentially American.

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.

But "Judas" Napolitano doesn't support that one as written, does it?

Nope.  Neither does Congress as a whole.  Neither does the NRA.  Neither does Rand Paul, or Ted Cruz, or any of these other clowns.

But most importantly, neither do people, probably including you, who are so "outraged" about both free speech and the 4th and 5th Amendments, although if you really want to get down to it none of the other alleged "rights" you have matter if you're dead, and the point of the 2nd Amendment is that you have the right to keep and bear the only devices ever invented by mankind that make a material difference in evening the odds should someone unjustifiably attempt to make you dead!

Come talk to me about the Patriot Act Mr. Napolitano when we have restored the right to not be dead, and the right to be secure from being searched will have some sort of meaning.  After all if you make me dead I will not be capable of giving a damn about what you search.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

As I pointed out to Allen West earlier this morning we have two choices in this country when it comes to the Islamo-nutjobs: Be prepared to defend ourselves at all times and in all places, or consign ourselves to the fact that some percentage of them will get what amounts to a free shot at us.

“I think there’s been an uptick in the stream of threats out there,” Texas GOP Rep. Mike McCaul, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, told “Fox News Sunday.” “We’re seeing these directives on almost a daily basis. It’s very concerning. Terrorism has gone viral.”

This is not unexpected.  In fact it cannot be otherwise. There's no way to prevent people from talking, and technology means they will do so using increasingly-difficult to watch and monitor means and methods irrespective of what the government, or law enforcement, may want or think.

It is a fact that we have coddled and encouraged Muslim nutjobs who think that being "insulted" gives license to armed criminal violence.  We have encouraged this behavior through our media and politicians cowing at their feet, refusing to stand for Free Speech worldwide and our collective failure to insist that a perceived insult is simply not a license to commit murder nor is it a reason to ban or discourage speech -- end of discussion.  The outrageous double-standard of "shaming" people who speak in a way that you don't like while at the same time ignoring those on your side of the political spectrum who do the same thing is cowardly and in fact exactly what ISIS claims a right to do: Control speech through violence such that only their offensive speech and actions are ok and everyone else's is proscribed and punished, up to and including by death.

Further there is no crime in thinking about doing something ugly, only in actually taking a step forward furthering a plan to do so.  And finally, "they" (the terrorists) only need to be right once; law enforcement has to be right 100% of the time, and present 100% of the time.

Neither law enforcement or the military can be either of those two things; that's an impossible remit and we all know it.

There is only one means available for we, the people, to put a stop to this -- make our nation and her people such an uninviting target that the nutjobs decide they'd rather go play somewhere that is less likely to wind up with them dead instead of us.

The Founding Fathers knew all about these risks to a civil society, they debated them at length and then wrote a nice, short sentence that speaks directly to the point in our Constitution.  It reads:

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.

We have spent the last 100 years, more or less, ignoring the Second Amendment to varying degrees.  There are ten thousand or so "laws" on this point most of which are flatly unconstitutional and we, the people, have sat still for it in the name of "reasonable" constraints on a sentence that factually permits none.

Look folks, this is real simple: When some nutjob decides to get out of his car and start shooting you can hope there's a cop there (unlikely) and you can pray one will get there before he shoots you (even more unlikely) or you can be armed and have at least a fair crack at stopping that jackass right there, right now.

When you have 2 seconds to either act or die the cops will be around to zip your corpse up in a black plastic bag in a few minutes.

This doesn't mean you won't be in mortal danger; quite to the contrary, in that if you have to draw a weapon it is precisely because you are in mortal danger that you are within your rights to do so.  Indeed there is no guarantee of success in being armed; you may die anyway.  But you, at that moment of extreme need, will have a fighting chance to live.  Today, right here and now, you have less of one and it's all of our fault.  That's not because you can't go get some sort of permit and whatever but because this willful and intentional interference with the Second Amendment decreases the odds of said nutjob encountering effective resistance to their evil plans and as a direct result you are at much greater risk than you should be.

We, the people, need to insist that all of our State and local governments, along with the Federal government, cut the crap right here, right now, today.

We must make clear that will will not compromise.  We must insist that the wide body of unconstitutional constraints on being armed are removed from the law here and now.  Not next legislative season, not next month, NOW.

No damn permits and no horsecrap about not being able to carry openly or concealed as each of us individually choose. Prosecute those who misuse weapons to commit assault or otherwise as the law directs -- not those who keep and carry them for lawful defensive purposes, whether in defense of self or others.  The Second Amendment says permits and restrictions on the keeping and bearing of arms are unconstitutional, the language is clear, it's concise, there is no argument on that point and further our position is the only reasonable defensive measure that we, as ordinary Americans, can take against a very real and very current threatened assault by religious nuts, say much less common criminals.

If you want to designate specific areas with big signs as "gun free zones" (e.g. airports) go right ahead.  There's a decent argument to be made about guns in the cabin of a pressurized aircraft, for example, but as soon as you put up a "No law-abiding citizens are armed here" sign we as Americans must insist that you take full responsibility for the safety of everyone in that place, including the provision of full-time armed security.

“It’s going to get worse, not better,” he said. “This is very difficult to stop.”

This sort of nutjob crap is impossible to stop and this is why each of us has every right to be capable of stopping it on our own in the gravest extreme.  We do not have the right to a guarantee of success but we do have the right to even the odds.

Nobody from any government has any right to interfere with your lawful right of self-defense.  So says the Constitution and so says the very premise of any legitimate system of law -- that you have natural, unalienable rights and among them are your right to life.

The choice before you today is simple America: Stand up now or fall down tomorrow -- bleeding to death.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

So you like Allen West, eh?

What part of coward did you take into yourself when you made that decision?  Why?  Because Allen is a coward, and he proves it right here:

Friday, I had a conversation with a stellar young man who is the Chairman of the Palm Beach County Republican Party — Michael Barnett. I could hear the anxiety and sorrow in his voice as he tried to lead me into the topic — so I knew it wasn’t good. Annually the Palm Beach GOP has an event called “Lobsterfest” which is one of their major fundraisers. This year’s invited guest speaker is none other than The Netherlands MP Geert Wilders — yes, the same individual who was at the “Draw Mohammed” event in Garland, Texas.

Mike’s office had received a visit from the FDLE (Florida Department of Law Enforcement) and the FBI JTTF (Joint Terrorism Task Force). They confided that the Islamic jihadists are at it on the internet, and they’re picking up chatter regarding the Palm Beach event. Now, instead of saying, we’re pursuing these bastards and will do everything in our power to find them and kill them first, the recommendation was to cancel the event.

Mike has often called me and asked for advice, and this was a hard one.


What was my recommendation to Michael? Forego having Geert Wilders speak, because of he high risk involved.

That's right, bow and cow to the nutjobs.

FDLE and the FBI have no ability to stop these people.  Nobody does, right up until they actually commit a criminal act.  That's how justice works in a functional nation with a real Constitution, you see, something that Allen likes to pay lip service to but doesn't really believe in.  Oh no, he wants people detained or even charged before they do anything that's illegal, simply because they are thinking about it.

That, by the way, is exactly what the Muzzies do when they show up and pass judgment by shooting or cutting the heads off people who think the wrong way -- according to them.

No, the answer is found in refusing to shut up.  It is also found in respect for our Constitution, specifically, The Second Amendment.  What Allen West could have done is told the FDLE and FBI that he was going to advocate that everyone come to that event armed -- openly or concealed as they wish and damn the alleged dead letter "laws" in the State of Florida that are unconstitutional and therefore void as the Second Amendment is very clear as to what sort of "permit" you must have to keep and bear a firearm -- NONE.  At the same time it would be very clear to all those who might be "chattering" about such event that the FDLE and FBI are paying attention to that should they appear and decide to try to kill people they'd have a very high percentage of people who are there bearing arms and who are fully aware of why -- that is, people willing to defend the right of everyone not only to the First Amendment but to the Second Amendment as well.

He could have told the FDLE and FBI that he'd be the first one through the door with said arms, and he'd be there enjoying lobster and listening to Wilders speak -- with his gun, and without any damn illegal permits.

That would be intestinal fortitude.  Sure, some people would stay away; after all, such an announcement and advocacy would mean that if you went to Lobsterfest you'd expect that you might wind up with a little more than lobster and speech on your menu for activities during the day.  But there would go the argument that anyone "innocent" would potentially be involved; the patrons would all be there with full knowledge and consent that they're acting as Americans, defending not just the piece of the Constitution that West thinks is so important but the entire damn thing, from the first letter to the last.

So Mr. Coward, why didn't you give that advice?  I'll tell you why: Allen West doesn't believe in the entire Constitution -- just certain parts of it that happen to align with what he thinks, which sadly is exactly the same brand of cowardice displayed repeatedly by Judge Napolitano.

Yes, Allen West served our country, but it appears he forgot the little ditty about defending the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.  That oath to stand by the Constitution never expires Allen, and it covers every last word of The Constitution, not just part of it.

It's time for Americans -- real Americans -- to stand and tell both of these people, along with the rest in the political and punditry sphere that The Constitution stands as a "take it or leave it" document in its entirety -- not just the pieces that someone finds politically convenient today for their particular specific purposes.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

We have, for years, listened to the NRA and others telling us that "it's ok" to have restrictions on open or concealed carry, "it's ok" to require permits, "it's ok" to have "gun-free zones" and that law-abiding citizens need to "pay respect" to those who demand that we disarm on a general and specific basis.

When the threat was simply criminals that might have sort of worked, although if you live in a high-crime area and can't realistically leave you might disagree.  Here's looking at you, Chitcago!

I have long advocated that the 2nd Amendment is very clear and leaves no room for interpretation -- it states that you and everyone else have a natural right to self-defense -- here, today, now, everywhere.  You have the right to keep and bear, that is, carry, the means of that defense with you everywhere, all the time for the simple reason that you cannot possibly know when you might need it.  You are the one who decides; openly or concealed, and what you wish to carry for this purpose whether it be a mouse gun in your pocket or a "Dirty Harry" magnum on your belt, a shotgun in the car or some combination.  Criminal sanction may, under any just set of laws, only be applied if and when you misuse the means of that self-defense to initiate aggression against others and at no other time; mere possession irrespective of when and how is not misuse any more than it is "misuse" to have a fire extinguisher on your person even though there is presently no fire.

Indeed, most people will go through their lives and never actually need to use a firearm defensively, just like few people actually use a fire extinguisher in anger at any time in their life.  I witnessed occasion to use one in anger as a teenager when a passing motorist had his car catch fire in front of my house; I had an extinguisher available for immediate use, fortunately, and passing it to him enabled him to put the fire out and save his vehicle from destruction.  A second time about 10 years ago here in Florida I thought I was going to have to grab for it as well (yes, one of the first things I installed in my home after buying it here was a fire extinguisher; I still keep one where it is easily accessible due to that past need!) but was able to deal with the situation without discharging it (they make a hell of a mess when used, by the way.)  That latter incident had the potential to burn down my house.  Odds are I will never need said device but I still will keep and maintain one in good working order at my home while on my boat it's actually required by law that I have a working fire extinguisher available for immediate use even though it's highly unlikely I will ever need one there either.

We have allowed ourselves to be lectured to and told that no such need for defensive weapons exists, and those who insist that there are "requirements" for the exercise of your fundamental right to self-defense are being "reasonable" -- and then, you only may exercise that right to possess defensive weaponry some of the time and in some fashion, not as and when you choose.  In some states such as Florida open carry is prohibited, period, and in all states where permits are required they come up on your driver license when it is run by law enforcement which means that if you enter a hostile state automated plate scanners on modern cop vehicles expose you to harassment for doing nothing other than driving even if you (recognizing and respecting their hostile climate toward self-defense) have no firearm with you.  This is not conjecture either; it has happened on multiple occasions and is a strong reason not to get a concealed carry permit if you live in a low-crime area but travel frequently, particularly given the fact that cops seem to abuse and even shoot people without probable cause on a shockingly-regular basis and rarely is anything done about it (never mind that suing or even prosecuting won't bring your dead ass back to life.)

No, we blew it folks and we blew it badly.  We sat and let the NRA and others tell us that it would be ok if we played "Elmer Fudd"; after all, they weren't after our hunting weapons.  The problem is that this horsecrap wasn't ok even if the threat was just the common criminal and it's certainly not ok when the threat profile includes terrorism by armed nutjobs.

As of today it officially, by their own pronouncement, does.

ISIS has allegedly announced -- that is, declared -- a six month shooting spree and claims 71 members in America ready to strike.  They allegedly have named five states, all of which have varying forms of registration or restriction on your 2nd Amendment rights, and all of which we, as Americans, have foolishly tolerated.

There are only two options: We either reverse this act of idiocy here and now, demanding that government honor the 2nd Amendment as written or we're all targets and when we're unable to defend ourselves it will be our responsibility.

Let me put it simply: If you don't stand and demand adherence to our founding legal documents right here, right now and you or your family and friends are killed by these animals you will have forfeited of your own free will your right to defend your life and the lives of your family and for that reason you will be responsible for having chosen to not fight back.

You will instead die like a pig being slaughtered in a meat packing house.



View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

So about suing gun stores....

A federal judge ordered the parents of a Aurora, Colorado, theater shooting victim to pay court costs and attorney fees as a result of a lawsuit filed last year, and the defendants in the case say the family owes around a quarter of a million dollars.

According to court documents filed April 10, in a combined sum, Lucky Gunner and Sportsman Guide paid roughly $224,600 to fight allegations that they failed to properly vet the gunman who used their products to kill 12 people and injure 70 others during a screening of The Dark Knight Rises in July 2012.

The Brady Campaign appears to have goaded the family into the suit, despite the fact that there's a law, the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, that bars such suits provided the seller does not have actual knowledge or involvement in some form with whatever unlawful act the third party engages in.

Suing a gun store is like suing a car dealer who sells you a car that you then use to run someone over with.  Unless the car dealer has knowledge that you intend to commit an unlawful act with the vehicle at the time of the sale they're not responsible.

It is quite rare in this country to get hit with fees and costs as the result of losing a suit; that usually only happens when the judge finds that there was no legitimate legal basis for the filing.  That facially appears to be the case, and as such I have this much to say about it:

It's about damn time and if you listen to the Brady Campaign and take their advice this is what you get -- and deserve.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
No Kidding? Stan Sees The Problem?

Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media or for commercial use.

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.