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

From the AP:

LAFAYETTE, La. (AP) — John Russell Houser was deeply troubled long before he shot 11 people in a movie theater in Louisiana, but decades of mental problems didn't keep him from buying the handgun he used.

Despite obvious and public signs of mental illness — most importantly, a Georgia judge's order committing him to mental health treatment against his will as a danger to himself and others in 2008 — Houser was able to walk into an Alabama pawn shop six years later and buy a .40-caliber handgun.

While the fingers are being pointed in terms of reporting severe mental illness the fact remains that this sort of finger-pointing is misplaced -- never mind that Reuters is reporting there was no involuntary commitment order.

Might Houser have been deterred if his purchase attempt was denied?  Maybe.  But given that it appears he was mentally deranged he might have simply been enraged instead and decided to do his level best to steal a weapon.

What's without question, however, is that everyone who "obeyed" the "no guns" sign in the theater was a sitting duck.  Houser, of course, ignored said sign and any law behind it as criminals universally do; that's why we call them criminals.

And that, fundamentally, is the root issue: Bad guys will never obey the law and for this reason the Second Amendment is clear -- the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, following The Constitution would mean that some bad people have a somewhat-easier time obtaining what they want.  But the key here is "somewhat-easier", and yet ignoring the Second Amendment's clear language means that the sane and decent people, who obey said "laws" (even though under our Constitutional hierarchy they are not actual laws), are sitting ducks if and when a nutjob decides he wants to commit murder.

This must end -- not because you, as a sane and decent person you will always or even in a majority of cases "win" such a confrontation.  No, the truth is simply this: You have a human, unalienable right to attempt defense of your life all the time and only strict adherence to the Second Amendment respects that right.

I suspect if you asked the 82 year old woman who was sexually assaulted in Milwaukee and waited three hours for the cops to show up after she called 911 if she would have liked to have a pistol on her person when she stepped off that bus the answer would be a resounding "YES!"

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Why do we have anything to do with this clown-car crap?  When is it enough?

The White House has now reversed itself and ordered flags flown at half-mast -- but not until after they refused to do so while the Capitol (and the States) did.

How much more do you need to see when 5 of our servicemembers are gunned down in an act of terrorism on our soil, potentiated by a government that refuses to recognize everyone's 2nd Amendment rights, including members of our militaryand then goes even further by posting "gun free zone" signs on the door!

Oh, it doesn't stop there either.  If your grandmother has a gun for personal protection (and is not a frail older person the exact sort of person for whom that equalizer is most important) but has someone else (like you) run her bank account for her Obama wants to confiscate her gun.

Where is your limit of tolerance for this crap America?

You don't need any damn permit to write a blog or start and operate a newspaper.

You don't need any damn permit to worship as you see fit.

If anyone tried to tell you that needed a permit to write either in print or online, or before you could pray, you'd stick up the middle finger.

A right is not conditioned on any damn permit and the Second Amendment is clear in its language just as is the First Amendment -- so why is your middle finger not in the air right here and now?

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

If you wonder why the Second Amendment is as clear as it is, this is the reason.

(Controversial Times) Tamon Stapleton. age 18, from Knoxville, Tennessee was in the process of committing an armed robbery earlier this year when he was shot and killed by an armed citizen.

Stapleton was shot and killed by Isaac Scruggs. Scruggs is a convicted felon, however authorities decided not to charge him for possession of a firearm since he acted in defense of the store clerk. Stapleton was holding a loaded gun to the clerk’s head.

The Second Amendment doesn't say "only if you've never previously committed a crime."

It says shall not be infringed.

This is exactly why it says that, and it is exactly why I have maintained that even if you're a convicted criminal once you have served your sentence (whatever it may be) the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms still applies to you.

It is never the mere possession (keeping and bearing) of a weapon, no matter what sort, that is the problem.  It is what you do with it.  The person who has committed a serious (felony) crime and is thus under the public fact that he or she has done so is disadvantaged on a permanent basis simply from that public fact, and as a result is going to be living in a poorer part of town, have trouble renting a place to live and finding a job.  This doesn't void that person's right to self-defense, it in fact enhances it because they are more-likely to become the victim of a crime.

In this case the former criminal, who had served his sentence, used a weapon to stop a forcible felony in process. 

He did a meritorious -- even valorous (as drawing was at risk to his own life) thing.

It is for this very reason that such "laws" must be struck; not only are they flatly unconstitutional but they serve to deter people who have served their sentences and have no intention of committing any further offense from acting in defense of themselves and, as was the case here, others.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

From Reuters:

Four Marines were killed on Thursday by a gunman who opened fire at two military offices in Chattanooga, Tennessee, before being fatally shot in an attack officials called a brazen, brutal act of domestic terrorism.

The FBI named the suspect as Mohammod Youssuf Abdulazeez, 24, but said it was too early to speculate on a motive for the rampage, which comes at a time when U.S. military and law enforcement authorities are increasingly concerned about the threat posed by "lone wolves" to domestic targets.

Of course it's an act of domestic terrorism.  Not only is it reported that the gunman was blogging about Islam in the days before he did this ISIS apparently took to Twitter to claim both the attack and the gunman as "one of theirs" within minutes of it happening.  All we're missing (so far) is someone with a cellphone video of him screaming "Allah Akhbar!" as he fired.

If you remember just recently ISIS said they were going to do exactly this -- start attacking people here, in particular military installations and personnel.  Well?

The gunman was killed but here's the point: A Jackass (like this guy) who wants a gun is going to get one, and he is going to attempt whatever he intends.  The cops (and military) cannot be everywhere with armed security all the time.  But we can be, we collectively are, and we have a 2nd Amendment designed for exactly this sort of situation -- both as a deterrent and, if that fails, as a means of defending oneself.

The Second Amendment is both brief and clear -- it states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In light of the fact that ISIS said they were going to come here, they appear to have made good on that threat and we are too politically correct to do anything preemptive about this (nor will we even entertain the debate over whether we should!) we are all left with, as Americans exactly one option:

We must all, now, demand that the Second Amendment be honored as written.  No damned permits.  No bull****.  No kidding.  Right now, right here, today.

If you're not willing to stand and demand this, right here, right now, today then renounce your citizenship at the nearest consulate and get out.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

What does someone think who actually had to defend their own life with a gun?

Here's the truth:

1. Criminals will always have guns, this is not about them. 

2. Americans have a constitutional right to bear arms. Humans have a right to defend themselves. If we didn't have the Second Amendment, we would create it.  

3. You can't control everything; but if it makes you feel better, go with a simple law preventing violent offenders from buying firearms. Make it "violent" offenders rather than "white collar" offenders, or most of Capitol Hill won't be allowed to own them. 

4. Get a gun, get legal, be responsible, trust yourself. Don't trust yourself? Then don't carry. But for God's sake then, shut the f**k up about it, because that's where your involvement ends. 

Exactly.

There is no means to stop criminals from gaining arms.  None.  By definition criminals do not give a damn what the law says.

You have a human right to defend yourself.  If you don't want to exercise it that's your decision but you have absolutely no right to tell anyone else that they may not.

Ask people who have been robbed, raped, assaulted or otherwise found themselves in a really bad spot -- with or without a gun.  Those who had one are invariably happy they did, whether they got to use it or not.  Those who did not have a gun with them at the time nearly-universally wish they did have one.

Duh.

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.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

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.