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 , 638 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.


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.

View with responses (opens new window)
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.


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.