The Position All Thinking Americans Are FORCED To Adopt
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
2017-11-10 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in 2ndAmendment , 661 references Ignore this thread
The Position All Thinking Americans Are FORCED To Adopt
[Comments enabled]  

When the evidence available to you changes what do you do?

An intelligent person changes their opinion.

I've changed my opinion.

As I'm sure you're aware if you've been reading my column I'm utterly outraged at the willful and intentional malfeasance and misfeasance within our government when it comes to truly dangerous and severely-deranged individuals irrespective of their motivation.  A few years ago I wrote a column on a loser a few hundred miles east of here in Florida who shot and killed a Marshal coming to serve him with a warrant.  He had previously been convicted of not one but two violent felonies; first carjacking and then, after being convicted and subsequently released from prison, sexual assault on a minorDespite not one but two serial convictions for serious anti-social and violent behavior our "very faithful and good" alleged just-us system let him out unsupervised again.  I can be convinced that someone can do a horrible thing and reform but after the second serious felony involving violence, especially when the second offense involves sexual assault on a child, there's no excuse for him being a "free man."  Quite obviously being a convicted felon didn't bother him in the least when it came to firearms either as he acquired a shotgun (illegally) with which he killed said Marshal.

Given the news flow and count of incidents where our government simply fails through malfeasance and misfeasance to do that which is not only a matter of common sense but is actually required by law, and there has never once been a single government employee or official prosecuted, stripped of their office and benefits or imprisoned for same, even when the duty to perform is in fact set forward by law, I am now of the opinion that the Second Amendment has no exceptions as to persons whatsoever, except for a person who is currently under active court supervision (e.g. between arrest and trial, post-trial up to the termination of probation or parole, or under active mental supervision as directed by a court under due process of law.)

Yes, that includes felons, even violent felons, so long as they have served their sentences in full.

Why?

The simple answer is The Second Amendment says so; it makes no exceptions.

The more-complicated answer is that it is clear by the manifest weight of the evidence that the government will not hold anyone to account when they fail to enforce laws and as a direct and proximate consequence people die at the hands of violent criminals, whether their motivation is insanity or something more-nefarious.  Further, it is clear by the manifest weight of the evidence that violent felons are not deterred by laws criminalizing acquisition and ownership of weapons (of which there are more than 40,000 on the books at present) but certainly are deterred, sometimes terminally and justifiably so, through ownership and carrying of firearms by law-abiding civilians.

Obviously someone cannot deter a violent felon with a gun unless said person has a gun on them at the time.

Texas is just the latest.  Had 1 in 10 of those church attendees been armed because some of them decided to carry; carrying having become a normally expected thing and not requiring a permit any more than you need one to have a wallet in your pocket the first time the assailant ran dry and had to change a mag someone off to his side or behind him would have had the opportunity to draw and plug him.  Some would have had no clear lane of fire to shoot him without hitting possible innocents, but it's nearly-certain someone would have had a clear lane of fire with nobody behind him.  He would have still killed people, but not as many.  In the end a man who wasn't inside heard the gunfire, grabbed his rifle and in concert with a second civilian shot him twice and chased him down, resulting in the assailant committing suicide rather than being apprehended.  The assailant was a known nut with not one but two disqualifying prior actions known to the authorities including one involving a threat to murder multiple people in his chain of military command and an attempt to smuggle weapons onto a military base to do exactly thatneither of which was reported to the so-called "background check" database system.

I see nobody in handcuffs for their failure to make those reports, there has been not one call by a Senator, Representative nor our Attorney General to level such charges against the responsible parties yet 20+ people are dead as a direct consequence of their failure to do so.

Then we have Aurora. If 1 in 10 of the theater goers had been armed the outcome would have been materially different.  In a dark theater someone not directly in the gunman's line of sight would have been able to draw without being seen and odds are they would have had a clear shot without the risk of hitting innocent movie-goers.  That assailant was a known nutjob as well.  Nobody was prosecuted for that failure to report nor were any professional licenses revoked despite there being evidence that his violent tendencies were known by people with a professional duty to act.  Again, not one politician or justice department official made any attempt to go after those who, in my opinion, had both civil and criminal culpability as a result of their gross negligence.

There is of course Sandy Hook.  There the assailant killed his mother and stole her gun.  No law would have stopped that, so all that's left is for some of the adults in the school to be armed so they have a fighting chance.  You can't prosecute a corpse, so going after the mother (for not securing a weapon adequately with a known nut living in the house) is impossible.  Since that very scenario cannot be prevented all that is left is encouraging all law-abiding people to be armed so in the unlikely and unfortunate event some nut shoots his mother and steals her gun they have a fighting chance.

We have the nut in Vegas.  There was no disqualifying prior there; losing money gambling doesn't count.  Had others in the hotel been armed they might have been able to stop him.  I'll give you this being one instance where armed civilians might not have mattered -- but then again, had the hotel security guy had a gun..... who knows.

We can consider the recent NYC terrorist.  If 10% of those in the vicinity were armed there's a very good chance someone could have shot that ******* before he could run over all those people on the bike path.  He still would have gotten some of them, but I bet the count would be smaller.

San Bernardino, same deal.  Two terrorists this time, but if 10% of the people in that room were armed the odds are very good someone there could have gotten a clean line of fire and stopped the assault, resulting in fewer casualties.

Dylan Roof would have gotten far fewer victims had 10% of the church-goers been armed.  He, like the rest, would have almost-certainly left his flank or back exposed to someone at some point and there's a good chance one of the attendees would have had a clean shot at him.

And finally we can look at the worst mass-terrorist attack in US history, 9/11.  The FBI ignored at least two separate reports of Muslim nutjobs attempting to obtain training to fly heavy aircraft under suspicious circumstances.  Had they investigated either they would have not only discovered the plot but had reason to detain and remove them immediately as most were here on expired visas!  The FBI's willful and intentional failure to act came at a cost 3,000 American lives and billions of physical damage.  Had just one in 10 of the passengers been armed Mr. Boxcutter would have gotten exactly nowhere.  And no, a bullet hole in a plane, while definitely bad, will not make it "explode" like you see in the movies.

I can go on and on and on but when it comes to mass-shootings and terrorist incidents you're left with one overriding reality: The government never brings charges of any sort against those who were grossly negligent or even active enablers (e.g. "Fast-n-Furious") if they are in any way employed by any government instrumentality.  Thus, despite whatever "laws" are allegedly there and allegedly provide "duties" they're nothing more than mere suggestions.

The logical and honest individual is thus left with no alternative but to refuse to allow, support or defend any restrictions on carry and mere possession of firearms.  I can and still do, of course, defend and fully support laws criminalizing abusive use of weapons, whether that abuse be brandishing, assault or worse. 

Do any of those things and you both can and should go straight to jail -- period.

But mere carry, no matter where you are and under what circumstance, whether concealed or openly with your weapon visible to ordinary sight, ought to be encouraged and must be fully supported under the law.  This means immediate repeal of all alleged laws contrary to the Second Amendment including those requiring permits, excepting only a handful of places of official business such as court houses and, of course, the visiting areas of jails.

Other than that?  Sorry, but no.

Not after Texas.

No thinking American can accept any such constraint for one second more, and if Donald Trump is actually a "Swamp Drainer" then he must immediately formulate and sign an Executive Order implementing same while formal repeal and incorporation under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments is forced through Congress, which he must insist occur or he will veto every single bill that reaches his desk until that law is passed and will pardon all persons convicted of or arrested for non-violent federal firearms "offenses."

It's clear that our government units, whether they be state, local or federal, will not only fail to do their jobs they will also fail to accept accountability when they don't and as a result people are either being injured or killed.  So-called "law enforcement" organizations have defined themselves not as "peace keepers" or "police officers" but rather as janitors who are willing to clean up a mess after the fact but will not discharge their duties, even when required by law, either in advance of or during an incident.  In addition there simply aren't enough cops nor can there ever be enough cops to provide meaningful security against those who the government willfully and intentionally ignores despite knowing on a factual basis that they're dangerous.

This means that the only definition of First Responder that is other than a lethally-bad joke or a tool of extortion via ever-higher taxes is you, and as a consequence it is clear that you must be free to provide for your own security and those who you love all of the time, irrespective of where you are, subject to prosecution only if your use of said tools is intentionally or negligently abusive toward others' safety.

Go to responses (registration required to post)
 
Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
Our Nation DESERVES To Fail

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 sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means 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, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

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.

 
Comments.......
User: Not logged on
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
User Info The Position All Thinking Americans Are FORCED To Adopt in forum [Market-Ticker]
Flappingeagle
Posts: 2701
Incept: 2011-04-14

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I can't stand that term "first responder". The first responder is YOU and whoever is around when whatever happens. For example, a young woman had a seizure in class this spring so another professor, a student and myself were the first responders. 10 minutes later campus security showed up followed by an ambulance 10 minutes later. First responders my ass, they are the trained responders with the specialized equipment that we bought them that show up second.

As for holding government officials liable for their misdeeds, good luck. Do you remember the Duke Lacrosse case where the DA had the evidence that those guys were not guilty but he prosecuted them anyway? He got away scot-free. Luckily for those kids their parents had enough money to hire a good lawyer for them or they would be in jail. When guys like that DA get away free I have a lot of trouble having any respect for the criminal just-us system.

Flap

----------
Here are my predictions for everyone to see:
S&P 500 at 320, DOW at 2200, Gold $300/oz, and Corn $2/bu.
No sign that housing, equities, or farmland are in a bubble- Yellen 11/14/13
Trying to leave the Rat Race to the rats...
Dapper_fapper
Posts: 4
Incept: 2017-11-06

texas
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
you never know when. you never know where.
Maynard
Posts: 419
Incept: 2007-11-27

on the move
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Its hard for most to wrap their brains around the fact that criminals inherently wont follow the law and thus you can't legislate your way out of it. For me, to say "make it legal for felons to buy weapons" is hard. But I understand the logic considering the situation(s). Gov wants to legislate everything but enforce nothing that involves them.
I have been carrying everyday in S HOU since the church attack. Even at the park with my daughter.
Tickerguy
Posts: 150417
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
For me, to say "make it legal for felons to buy weapons" is hard. But I understand the logic considering the situation(s). Gov wants to legislate everything but enforce nothing that involves them.

The root issue is this: Even a convicted, prior felon MAY WELL be the guy who shoots THE BAD GUY in a dicey situation, and if nobody will hold the government to account, and felons already don't give a **** about the law if they are not reformed then anything that INCREASES the number of not-felons-now (including those who previously served out their sentences in full) carrying at the time of the incident REDUCES, rather than INCREASES, the lethality of the crooks and nuts.

----------
Winding it down.
Wa9jml
Posts: 50
Incept: 2017-04-29

DeKalb, Illinois
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
When I was a city management intern in a small rural Illinois city, I was discussing CMP shooting with the IT guy. A police lieutenant was listening to us. He said that "civilians" should not be able to possess those sorts of rifles. So, I asked him if he was an active duty member of the U.S. military forces or the Coast Guard. He said no. So, I held out my right hand and told him, "Put it there, fellow civilian!" He didn't much appreciate that. Too damn bad!

Supertruckertom
Posts: 1511
Incept: 2010-11-07

USA
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Should have asked him to put up or shut up at the 200,300, and 600 yard line.

Most cops and Military don't shoot anywhere near as good as civilian enthusiasts.

AMU didn't even place in the top 3 teams in the Rattle Battle at Camp Perry A couple of hours ago.

Had a local 4H team get questioned as to the safety and competency of the kids using the County LEO outdoor gun range.
The coach Challenged the Sheriff to pick his best 5 guys and he would let his shoot against them.
If the Department won they would shoot on private land.

Sheriff lost, bigly.

They still got kicked off of the County Range.

Every time I hear politicians scream civilians are trained enough I cringe.
Yeah many aren't, but neither are the LEO and Military that only handle a gun in basic or qualifications.

Look up some IDPA, Steel Challenge, 3 Gun or Service Rifle Match video on the Internet.

That is shooting.

Only the top tier units train to that level and above.
Those guys have unlimited ammo budgets and are expected to be the best in the world.
Not knocking them, they are the best.

Ft. Benning usually keeps an add up for NRA certified instructors to work the range on weekends.




----------
Preparing to go Hunting.
Tickerguy
Posts: 150417
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Some of the WORST shooting I see at the local range come from the cops.

----------
Winding it down.
Aztrader
Posts: 7869
Incept: 2007-09-10

Scottsdale, AZ
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
We have run into problems in the NE selling our non-lethal pepper guns. I had two separate customers arrested in New Jersey for carrying our pepper guns. This state ignores federal law on the product and because it looks like a gun, they call it a gun.
The whole adage that it's the cops that should be armed is total BS. The entire Northeast has been swamped with drug crimes and the people need to protect themselves. The pricks that run government think they are gods and can do whatever they want to the masses.
It's not just the ability to carry a weapon, but what municipalities are doing in regards to taxes and fees. The residential and commercial permit fees have exploded in recent years to cover for lack of sales tax revenue and it has made it insanely expensive to build here. Government has raised the cost of living for everyone and then they have the audacity to tell us who and who can't have a weapon. We are on the edge of what started the 1776 revolution in this country. Watching these idiots and their tax reform is a complete joke. The real winners are the corporate big shots and their shareholders.
Ckaminski
Posts: 4285
Incept: 2011-04-08

Mass-Hole!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
> We are on the edge of what started the 1776 revolution

I believe the reason we haven't tipped over that edge is because most people are dependent on big companies for the paychecks (and/or the government).

200 years ago almost everyone had some sort of small business/barter trade going on to make ends meet.

We're all one big nation of dependapotamusses.

Gauntlet33
Posts: 35
Incept: 2009-03-30

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I agree with Karl's new position that felons should be able to carry weapons. First, many are reformed. I know this from first hand experience. Second, many were convicted of "white collar" crimes and therefore were never violent to begin with. Last, even convicted felons have a right to life, and therefore a right to protect themselves, their loved ones, and even strangers. If you don't agree with that, with all the evidence around us and what Karl has presented here and in various other blogs, then you can #$%* OFF!
Aquapura
Posts: 673
Incept: 2012-04-19

South of Canada
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I agree c o m p l e t e l y...but the gun-control narrative has nothing to do with keeping us "civilians" safe. It's about controlling us. I'm sure the power brokers in DC and elsewhere are fully aware that more guns = less crime however that's not what they want and have done a superb job at selling the gun control myth of lowering crime.

Perfect example, when the Texas shooting was still in the news I read an article online and made the mistake of flipping through some reader comments. Some jackhole was saying Sutherland Springs has a higher per-capita murder rate now than Chicago and therefore was using that broken logic to say gun control works. That's what we are up against.
Tickerguy
Posts: 150417
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Well, I was having a conversation on this with a friend in a bar the other night and managed to offend a lefty, who said that "gun control" would have helped in Texas.

I looked blankly at them and asked if they were willing to immediately murder both myself and my friend who I was having the beer with.

"Of course not" was the response.
"Well, then you better drop your views on gun control, because the only way you're getting mine is to kill me first, and I suspect my friend here feels the same way (to nods from him.)"

Ms. Lefty went wide-eyed and shut up.

----------
Winding it down.
Nadavegan
Posts: 61
Incept: 2017-05-03

The South
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
"Most cops and Military don't shoot anywhere near as good as civilian enthusiasts."

The GM of a plant facility I worked at a few years ago was one such. He had never been in the military, but was/is considered one of the best long distance shooters in the world. He showed me a photo of him at 3 with a rifle in his hand. He told me he has no memory in his lifetime where he hadn't handled guns. He is considered the world authority on wind conditions and their effects on extreme distances, and would spend a month every year with various military groups, sharing what he knows.

His 8 year old daughter could hit at 750 yds. He once had to remove his 16 year old son from a range when his son won a tournament over the local SWAT studs, and they got belligerent and attempted to assault the boy.

Even accounting for the "good ol boy" factor of his stories, guys like that are light years above the local police.
Mjsmith
Posts: 162
Incept: 2011-12-08

United States
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I was going to say something to this effect in the prior discussion, but decided a nod to John Ross was good enough.

The second amendment 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."

There are no exceptions or exclusions or conditions in there.

There is no exception in there about "prohibited" persons.
There is no exception in there about "reasonable" restrictions.
There is no exception in there about training requirements.
There is no condition in there about "sporting" purposes.
There is no condition in there about "hunting" purposes.
There is no condition in there about "military style."
There is no condition in there about "non military style."
There is no condition in there for "long guns."
There is no condition in there for "short guns."
There is no condition in there for "hand guns."
There is no condition in there for "concealed guns."
There is no condition in there for "unconcealed guns."

When you run into someone who twaddles on about the words "well regulated" or "militia", first of all, simply punch them in the face and walk away. It's ok, they had it coming.

Regardless of how someone wants to interpret the meaning(s) of the words "well regulated" and/or "militia", the RIGHT being addressed by the second amendment is the "right of the people."

Now, second of all, if you have someone who continues to insist on twaddling on about the meaning of "militia" and/or "well regulated" after the aforementioned punch in the face, tell them "Fine, ok, go get me the definition of those words from a PERIOD dictionary."

I'll help out.

The "militia" is every able bodied adult (male) citizen, who comes to the party bringing their own privately owned arms.

A period definition of "Regulated" meant in good working order, operating properly. As in for example, a mechanical clock that kept exceptionally accurate time would be described as a "well regulated clock."








Tickerguy
Posts: 150417
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
A "well-regulated militia" is one that hits whatever it aims its arms at.

----------
Winding it down.
Click
Posts: 38
Incept: 2017-06-26

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Well written article. The good news is tens of millions of Americans actually understand enough about crime, guns and "first responders" to actually realize that the best first responder to violent crime is Smith&Wesson not 911 or any government agent who takes somewhere between 3min and 3hr to actually respond -- if at all.

No, I'll keep my guns, and all of you who really believe that a cop is your best bet can draw your cell phone out when the bullets are wizzing by.. good luck with that..
Rollformer
Posts: 59
Incept: 2013-02-13

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
If I recall correctly, Karl has pointed out that much of the cannon in the Revolutionary War were privately owned, and in the spirit of the times the 2nd amendment was written, we should be able to own crew-served artillery pieces.

Reason: Grammar.
Supertruckertom
Posts: 1511
Incept: 2010-11-07

USA
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Put another 100 9mm downrange today.
400 this week. Trying to get the feel for my new gun, a CZ Shadow 2

I need more steel.
Going to build a simple plate rack.
6 8" gongs on chains from a 2X4 24" apart about 5' high.

Went and observed my first Steel Challenge match over the weekend.
Most shooters, men and women, were hitting all 5 in under 5 seconds.
This guy is good.






----------
Preparing to go Hunting.
Jduwaldt
Posts: 638
Incept: 2010-06-10

Orange County, CA
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@Rollformer, Major defense companies will ALWAYS, quietly, back any opposition to anything heavier than what civilians have now because it might result in newer, less complicated, cheaper-but-just-as-reliable systems emerging from new companies/competitors. Can't have that...

----------
It's not an issue of "cooperation" vs "go it alone": it's a question of involuntary vs voluntary relationships.
Emg
Posts: 111
Incept: 2012-11-20

Canada
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
"in the spirit of the times the 2nd amendment was written, we should be able to own crew-served artillery pieces."

Don't forget the 'letters of marque and reprisal' clause, which implicitly assumes the existence of private warships.
Vernonb
Posts: 1913
Incept: 2009-06-03

East of Sheol
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
EMG said:
Quote:
Don't forget the 'letters of marque and reprisal' clause, which implicitly assumes the existence of private warships.

Yes, but were not those ships government authorized to commit acts of piracy? Kind of defeats the purpose to get permission if the culprit IS the government. USA hasn't issued such authority since first 39 years of its existence.




----------
"Mass intelligence does not mean intelligent masses."
Tickerguy
Posts: 150417
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Uh, no -- they were authorized to privately prosecute and punish others for committing acts of piracy against US-flagged merchant ships.

In reality it's not much different than Kuwait asking us to come kick Iraq's ass after Iraq's military invaded Kuwait.

----------
Winding it down.

Vernonb
Posts: 1913
Incept: 2009-06-03

East of Sheol
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Oops - yes I meant against hostile vessels engaged in aggression against US or its vessels. Thanks for the clarification.

Still it required a charter to be a privateer.

----------
"Mass intelligence does not mean intelligent masses."
Ckaminski
Posts: 4285
Incept: 2011-04-08

Mass-Hole!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
in the spirit of the times the 2nd amendment was written, we should be able to own crew-served artillery pieces.


I personally hold the opinion that the 2nd amendment includes all weapons capable of personal self-defense, up to and including a CVN and all it's various aircraft.

I do not believe it includes WMDs. WMDs are indiscriminate killers.

Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ