The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [2ndAmendment]
2015-08-28 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in 2ndAmendment , 405 references

When you're right -- you're right.

Donald Trump says the fatal shooting of two journalists on live televisionshould not be seen as another example of America’s problem with gun violence.

“This isn’t a gun problem — this is a mental problem,” Trump said on CNN’s “New Day” on Thursday, a day after WDBJ-TV reporter Alison Parker and her cameraman, Adam Ward, were killed in Virginia by a gunman who was fired from the station in 2013. “It’s not a question of the laws. It’s really the people.”

We used to have real no-BS mental institutions where people like this could get actual help.  Yes, some of what happened in those institutions was outrageous -- but not all of it, and some of the people who were institutionalized really did need to be.

We decided, as a society, that we were a "kinder, gentler place."  Unfortunately those who are insane didn't share that change in worldview -- they were and are still nuts.


Nonetheless, Trump suggested, Flanagan’s victims might have been able to save themselves had they been armed.

“I’m very much into the Second Amendment,” Trump said. “You need protection.”

“You’re not going to get rid of all guns,” he added. “If you tried to do it, the bad guys would have them … and the good folks who abide by the law would be hopeless.”


And that's the problem with so-called "gun control" -- the lawbreakers, whether just plain criminal or flatly insane, don't give a damn about the law.  That's the entire point of why we call their acts "crimes"; were they to give a damn the problem wouldn't exist.

It sucks that there is a certain percentage of people who are violent jackasses but you can't change that, nor can you change their willingness to break the law up front, including acquiring weaponry of various sorts.  All you can do is give people the tools to be able to protect themselves if the worst comes to pass -- and the closer the ability to mount a defense is when necessary the better the odds of success.

It is for this reason that I support the original intent of the founders when it comes to firearms and advocate strongly for the 2nd Amendment meaning exactly what it says -- it is your right to keep and bear arms as your conscience directs.  The very premise of a "permit" violates that right and as such those structures and laws are unsupportable as they criminalize acts that harm no person or property.

It is only your abuse of said right, defined as your actual assault, battery or injury to another person or property through other than a legitimate defensive act, that should be considered a crime.

It appears that of the current candidates Trump has come closest, thus far, to staking out that position.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

I have a question for this jackass:

“The Sheriff Office Association feels that each sheriff of their county has a pretty good feel for their constituents and their county and who should and should not have a permit,” said Sheriff Taylor. “That goes beyond just running a background check and seeing who has a felony in their background.

“We know things that the computer can’t tell us. We know things about our citizens. We know who’s going through a divorce. We know who’s in a bad time, who may be drinking too much, who may be abusive, but hasn’t necessarily crossed the line of a crime. But in our opinion, they don’t need a pistol permit.”

Did you pass grade-school grammar?

I'm serious.  I'm wondering if there's something about Alabama inbreeding that leads you to be this stupid, or if the people of your county have too few firing neurons between them to discern the clear language in the 2nd Amendment.

Let me quote it again for you:

"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."

What part of this leads you to believe that one needs a permit to own and carry ("keep and bear") a firearm -- including a pistol?

This is why, by the way, several states have passed preemption statutes and, if we had a President who gave a damn about the Constitution the FBI would be out with an arrest warrant for you, sir, under 18 USC 242.

Maybe we'll get that President in 2015.

Hope springs eternal.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
Why I Find It Hard To Give A F**k

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.