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

Aha!  Someone is finally actually taking up the debate that, if you wish to disrespect the Second Amendment, you actually need to have.

I teach the Constitution for a living. I revere the document when it is used to further social justice and make our country a more inclusive one. I admire the Founders for establishing a representative democracy that has survived for over two centuries.

In other words, when the Constitution furthers a "progressive", "social-justice" end, it is to be revered.  When it does not it is to be reviled.  Well, so be it -- at least this douche declares his intent up front in the first paragraph.

But sometimes we just have to acknowledge that the Founders and the Constitution are wrong. This is one of those times. We need to say loud and clear: The Second Amendment must be repealed.

Ah, now we get to it.

Good.  Unlike all the other jackwads who have talked about "gun control" (and managed to pass over 50,000 blatantly unconstitutional laws), this one wants to talk about the lawful means by which one can infringe the Second Amendment -- simply write it out of the Constitution itself!

However, in the process of attempting to make his argument he lies -- repeatedly.  Let's go through the lies, because virtually the entire argument he makes is a lie.

Sure, the Founders knew that the world evolved and that technology changed, but the weapons of today that are easily accessible are vastly different than anything that existed in 1791. When the Second Amendment was written, the Founders didn't have to weigh the risks of one man killing 49 and injuring 53 all by himself. Now we do, and the risk-benefit analysis of 1791 is flatly irrelevant to the risk-benefit analysis of today.

Oh really?

Well, don't tell Jefferson that, who armed a private militia with a couple dozen cannon.  Or, for that matter, anyone who owned a Blunderbus back then, which were a crude form of shotgun that was often loaded (as were cannon) with grape -- named for it's rough shape and size.  Grapeshot was the preferred anti-personnel load because like a shotgun it spread out and covered a lot of people, but unlike a shotgun each piece was deadly on its own, and in a cannon each piece wasn't much different in size than a musket ball.

Incidentally, The Founders also didn't have military weapons that murdered millions with one button push, nor "remote weapons" that could be fired without personal risk.  Today we have both, and yet the purpose of the Second Amendment is to prevent any sort of tyrant from using any of their weapons against the people at-large without the risk of the people firing back with equally-effective weapons.

We have spent close to 70 years under the premise in this world that if one party has really horrible weapons then others must develop and keep them because the risk of retaliation is too high and that deterrent effect will inhibit their first use.  You can disagree with the premise but not the result; 70 years hence beyond the point at which only one party has had those weapons they have not been used.

The burden of proof is on those who claim that such a policy and capability is ineffective; the overwhelming evidence is that it is.  That's one reason that I have repeatedly advocated that the United States must declare as formal policy that if a weapon of mass destruction is used on our territory by Muslim Nutjobs we will immediate nuke both Mecca and Medina at ground levelrendering both impassible to humans for 1,000 years.  Since these nutjobs also believe that you cannot go to heaven without having made said pilgrimage in your lifetime the continuation of the principle of MAD, which has served the world quite well on the manifest weight of the evidence for 70 years, would be promulgated to said Muslim nutjobs quite effectively.

Second, at a more-micro level, the worst rates of crime are where the most onerous gun laws exist.  Chicago is just one big fat example; the entire State of Illinois requires a registration with the State Police for any purchase of a gun or ammunition and the bearing of an FOID card, and until recently (when the Supreme Court struck said law as unconstitutional) the mere ownership of a pistol was a crime anywhere in the city itself since the 1960s.   Yet the gang-bangers don't seem to care about such things; they buy, own and use guns and ammunition all the time, every one of them illegally.  Unfortunately since those guns are illegal to own and possess they also don't practice with them so their use tends to be inaccurate and thus they often shoot someone other than their intended victim by accident.  Gangbangers and their violence are horrible, but what's even more-horrible is when they wind up shooting a 3 year old accidentally because they're a terrible shot.

Third, again at a more-micro level, in states where gun laws have been liberalized violent crime rates have gone DOWN at a rate that exceeds that where such changes in the law have not been made.  It appears that "MAD" works on both a macro, international level and at a micro level, in that thugs actually consider the possibility that they may wind up with a bunch of extra holes in their body in unpleasant places if they attempt their crimes.  Where that possibility is higher, they are deterred and choose either non-violent, non-personal criminal acts or no crime at all.

In point of fact so far in Chicago (as of 6/15) this year there have been 1451 people shot and 259 killed, or more than five times Orlando.  Chicago remains a place where it is basically impossible for a citizen to lawfully own and possess a firearm for self-defense, and the gang-bangers know it.  They are also not deterred by lots of cops who cower instead of respond.

But liberty is not a one way street. It also includes the liberty to enjoy a night out with friends, loving who you want to love, dancing how you want to dance, in a club that has historically provided a refuge from the hate and fear that surrounds you. It also includes the liberty to go to and send your kids to kindergarten and first grade so that they can begin to be infused with a love of learning. It includes the liberty to go to a movie, to your religious house of worship, to college, to work, to an abortion clinic, go to a hair salon, to a community center, to the supermarket, to go anywhere and feel that you are free to do to so without having to weigh the risk of being gunned down by someone wielding a weapon that can easily kill you and countless others.

That's certainly true.  But before you repeal the Second Amendment you must first show that doing so will prevent someone who wants to kill you from doing it -- and not just with a gun either, instead of increasing the risk that you will fall victim to said violence.

Of course there's that wee problem; recent history says that the Unicorn-fart utopia this "professor" believes in doesn't exist.  In France, for example, less than a year ago a bunch of Islamic Nutjobs shot up a theater and killed a lot of people -- more than double the number of dead in Orlando were accrued.  France not only has no Second Amendment it is unlawful for civilians to possess semi-automatic weapons of any sort on a virtually impenetrable basis.  Yet these Muslim Whackjobs had no trouble managing to obtain and use both the weapons and their ammunition.  I remind you that there are no EU nations with a strong Second Amendment-like part of their governing documents, which means that the common statement that places such as Chicago have a lot of gun violence "because other states that are nearby have loose restrictions" is a flat-out lie.

What France showed us, and what Orlando showed us, is that in the gravest extreme the cops will not help you either because they cannot get there fast enough to matter or will literally cower in the corner despite their superior numbers and firepower while the bastard kills you instead of taking him on.  You either have the ability to help yourself or you die.  And that leads to the next point:

Just think of what would have happened in the Orlando night-club Saturday night if there had been many others armed. In a crowded, dark, loud dance club, after the shooter began firing, imagine if others took out their guns and started firing back. Yes, maybe they would have killed the shooter, but how would anyone else have known what exactly was going on? How would it not have devolved into mass confusion and fear followed by a large-scale shootout without anyone knowing who was the good guy with a gun, who was the bad guy with a gun, and who was just caught in the middle? The death toll could have been much higher if more people were armed.

Oh really?  It appears that one third of the people who were in that building were either shot or killed.  The terrorist expended over 200 rounds unanswered (there was one off-duty cop who tried to engage the shooter at the outset but failed) and the cops sat outside for three hours despite the murderous bastard's proud declaration at the onset of violence via his own 911 call that he was a follower of ISIS and intended to kill everyone.

Rather than storm the building immediately, which incidentally was the lesson that Columbine supposedly taught, the cops cowered outside and let that murderous beast slaughter everyone he wished, literally taking his sweet time to execute the wounded!

If 10% of the 300 people inside had been armed odds are that within seconds the assailant would have turned his back on one or more of them at close range.  While there might have been collateral damage from the resulting returned fire it is incomprehensible that the death toll would have been anywhere near the 50 who died and the 3-hour delay would not have occurred -- thus more of those who were shot would have received immediate and effective medical attention instead of bleeding out on the floor while the cops refused to do their damned job.

Further let me remind you that Florida Statutes, 790.06 explicitly prohibits the carrying of a concealed weapon into any place where the primary sale is the licensed dispensation of alcoholic beverages for immediate consumption -- such as Pulse.  That law is blatantly unconstitutional as "Shall not be infringed" is not followed by "except where alcohol is commonly sold under license for immediate consumption.

Therefore, the manifest weight of the evidence is that it was the outrageous and unconstitutional infringement on the Second Amendment that was directly responsible for a large number of the people who were assaulted at Pulse meeting their demise, and a second level of direct responsibility lies with the intentional dereliction of duty on the part of the police who despite knowing that the shooter intended to kill everyone there because the shooter had made exactly that threat refused to immediately storm the building in an attempt to end the assault.

Next, I'd like to direct this blowhard professor's attention to Oklahoma City, where a man with a bomb made out of common materials (fertilizer and diesel fuel) blew up a building and killed far more than in Orlando (168, to be exact, not including himself as he didn't blow himself up in the explosion); in addition he injured something like 600 more people. There is no place in this country where you can go to the "bomb store", obviously, yet that didn't stop him from executing his murderous plan.

Finally, please list all the mass-shootings and where they have taken place.  I would like you to separate them into two groups; places that are "gun free" zones by law or policy such as schools, bars, movie theaters, military bases (except at the gatehouses) and similar, including those where concealed carry is virtually impossible such as Californiaand those that were gun-rich zones such as police stations, courtrooms and the like.

You will note that in virtually every single one of these assaults, including but not limited to Chattanooga, San Bernardino, Sandy Hook, Columbine, Ft. Hood, Aurora and now Orlando it was unlawful or prohibited by the policy of the establishment for anyone other than a uniformed officer -- and in some cases even for uniformed officers (e.g. Chattanooga) -- to possess a firearm.

You will not find said jackwads assaulting police stations, biker bars (where despite policy or even law a material percentage of the people are carrying!) or similar.   Gee, might it be that while said murderous nutjobs are willing to die they are not interested in dying as soon as they declare their intentions -- and before they can inflict material harm on others?

The manifest weight of the evidence is clear:

Virtually every mass-shooting incident has taken place where the Second Amendment is disrespected.  Said incidents do not tend to take place where the Second Amendment is respected.


This "professor" ought to be stripped of his credentials and any degree granted by his institution burned when presented by a graduate, as he clearly cannot manage to logically analyze basic facts and thus it must be assumed that neither can his students.

The manifest weight of the evidence is clear: The Second Amendment must be restored to its original intent and meaning if we are to effectively deter these sorts of attacks.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

2016-06-15 23:16 by Karl Denninger
in 2ndAmendment , 177 references




“I pledge my alliance to (ISIS leader) abu bakr al Baghdadi..may Allah accept me,” Mateen wrote in one post early Sunday morning. “The real muslims will never accept the filthy ways of the west” …“You kill innocent women and children by doing us taste the Islamic state vengeance.”

If he had time to do that while he was doing so any of the people still alive, and we know there were a lot of people still alive, could have rushed him.

Yes, he might have shot one or two more, but he was already going to do that anyway (and did as the night went on.)

But you might have also shoved his pistol up his ass and blown his brains out the long way.

Folks, as I wrote before your mindset must change right here and now just as it did on 9/11 for the folks in the plane over Pennsylvania.

People like this clown are not disciplined and they are not that smart.  This guy was dumb enough to whip out a cellphone and stare at it long enough to write sentence-long messages on an on-screen keyboard, which takes your eyes and mind off shooting people!

I'm simply stunned reading articles like this.

Wake the hell up America and demand the restoration of the Second Amendment but in the meantime pack what you can (even if it's just pepper spray) and for God's sake if someone like this shows up and gives you this sort of opportunity by pulling out his phone and diverts his eyes from shooting at you and your friends take that bastard on with whatever you have available to you, whether it's bare hands, a beer bottle, a chair or whatever.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

"Shall not be infringed."

Four little words.

Yet Hawaii doesn't only intend to infringe the 2nd Amendment (more), they intend to destroy it.

Hawaii could become the first state in the United States to enter gun owners into an FBI database that will automatically notify police if an island resident is arrested anywhere else in the country.

See the problem with this yet?


An arrest is not a conviction, and many arrests (most) are not even for felony crimes, and of those that are felonies a huge number of them are non-violent.

Let me remind you that the First Amendment prohibits abridgment of the right to free speech.

Even if you are convicted of a felony as a result of misusing speech (e.g. inciting a riot) the court system cannot, and does not, prohibit you from speaking after you've served your sentence.  You don't, for example, have your tongue cut out or vocal cords removed.

Why not?

Because it's unconstitutional, that's why.

Well, guess what?  Any law that claims to prohibit you from owning or bearing a firearm if you're convicted of an offense, even one involving the misuse of a firearm, is also unconstitutional for the exact same reason.

Oh, I know, that's not what courts have held.  But courts do not trump plain language; they are empowered to debate and decide ambiguities and the words "shall not be infringed" are not ambiguous!

There are those who argue that the Constitution and Bill of Rights was written 200+ years ago and we live in a different time.  I'm inclined to agree.  However, what I think is immaterial; what matters to statutory construction is what's on the page.

One, and only one, lawful means exists to modify the Constitution: Write and pass an amendment.

It's hard to do, and it's hard on purpose.  It requires great public support that must either exist already or be developed through a robust debate.  And by the way, The Bill of Rights has a preamble -- a reason for being.  It reads:

"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."

Have you ever seen that before?  Do you know it's in the original document, and precedes the 10 Amendments that were adopted?  Do you know there were more, that were not adopted?  Do you recognize that there was a robust debate on their adoption prior to same, and in fact that debate is memorialized in two books that are today known as The Federalist and The Anti-Federalist?  Have you read both and do you own personal copies? (Warning: It will take a while to read them!)

There are more than 50,000 blatantly unconstitutional gun laws and regulations on the books across the 50 states today.  Virtually every single one of them other than those that deal solely with constraints on firearms ownership while under felony indictment, imprisonment or post-incarceration supervision is flatly unconstitutional.

That's not my opinion, it's fact, as there is no ambiguity in the Second Amendment just as there is none in the First when it comes to your right of free speech.

Nothing in the First Amendment protects you from the consequences of misusing your right to speak freely.  Likewise, nothing in the Second Amendment protects you from brandishing, assaulting or battering (shooting) someone unlawfully with a firearm.

But just as the First Amendment absolutely prohibits declaratory actions that criminalize speech before said misuse occurs so does the Second Amendment absolutely prohibit declaratory actions that criminalize the keeping and bearing of arms before a firearm is misused.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
You MUST Change Your Attitude

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.