Low expectations for failed viewpoint

Via email from Ladd Everitt, Director of Communications, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence:

I am excited to announce the launch of another limited-edition CSGV t-shirt featuring the slogan, “What Part of ‘Well Regulated’ Don’t You Understand?
This 100% cotton, U.S.-made t-shirt is available in three colors (black, navy blue and light blue) and sends the message that the overhwhelming majority of us do not agree with the NRA’s extreme and insurrectionist interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Our goal is to sell 250 tees in the next 20 days. If we can reach that goal, Represent.com will print and mail out the t-shirts, and donate all but $1 of the proceeds from each shirt directly to CSGV! [Because Represent.com uses the Kickstarter model for their campaigns, if you purchase a shirt and we do not reach our goal of 250 sales, your money will be returned.]


Even ignoring the typo of the word “overwhelming” this email is filled with fail.

The “well regulated” part of the Second Amendment has been explained so many times that the only way someone who follows the issue could be unaware of true meaning of this is if they put significant effort into denial. For example in the Heller Decision we find (pages 23 and 24):

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing
more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.
See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or
method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights
§13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well regulated
militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

So Everitt, mocking people for failure to understand the meaning of “well regulated”, gets it totally wrong himself.

Given such a poor foundation it comes as no surprise that he has a goal of selling 250 t-shirts. 250? For an overwhelming majority of the people opposing the NRA and Supreme Court’s viewpoint? The NRA has about five million members. That would mean Everitt believes there are several times that many people who agree with him. Yet he only expects to sell 250 shirts to those 10 to 50 million people that disagree with the NRA and the Supreme Court viewpoint of the Second Amendment.

One has to marvel at the amount of stupid in this guy if he believes what he is saying. It isn’t even internally consistent. He truly has crap for brains.


16 thoughts on “Low expectations for failed viewpoint

  1. The NRA could sell 250 t-shirts in the first 20 minutes.

    But you could easily turn around that “what part of well-regulated do you not understand”, maybe preface it with “Hey Congress! Where’s my M-4? Where’s my monthly ammo allotment? Where’s my weekly training drills?” Because really, Congress is totally failing in their duty to regulate the militia.

    • Of course the subject of that thing that should be well-regulated is “the militia”, not “the right”. It certainly does not say: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be well-regulated”.

      • Actually, given period-correct usage of “well regulated” it is fairly clear that what the framers intended the Second Amendment to mean was:

        “A [well trained and equipped] militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

        If you actually read through old dictionaries, that is the *only* logical conclusion as to the meaning of the phrase “well regulated.”

        Thus, the Second Amendment was intended to protect the right to own/possess/use all arms, especially those with military utility.

        Frankly, every (read: at all levels of government) law that restricts the right to purchase, possess, keep, and/or bear arms is unconstitutional, and should be subject to challenge in court per the McDonald Doctrine….

  2. Pingback: Maybe it's time to do another t-shirt run - An NC Gun Blog

  3. Maybe I should do a run of shirts myself.

    “Well Regulated” means “Subject to Lots of Laws” in exactly the same way that “Infantry” means “Filled with Children.”

    Want one?

    • I like that! 🙂 Make it and I’ll buy one.

      But seriously, 250? That’s all? I made more patches than that on spec for BoomerShoot. (Still got some if anyone is interested)
      Pretty pathetic if that’s their goal.

      • I might, though it’ll be a bit before I have a mailing address. I’m sure they’d look good between my MHI and WOTC patches.

  4. What part of “subordinate clause” do THEY not understand?

    I wonder how many “Stand and Fight” T-shirts the NRA has sold – 250,000?

  5. I’ve never heard an anti explain why they think the 2a would contradict itself like that. They way they read it, it says, “stiff restrictions on gun ownership being necessary for the security of the government apparatchik, the the right…shall not be infringed”.

    How do they deal with “well regulated” = heavily restricted and “right of the people..shall not be infringed” in the same sentence? Either they think the authors were illiterate or they think “the people” means “Progressive government office holders only”.

    Has anyone ever heard an explanation of this contradiction from an anti? I haven’t.

  6. Remember, there are also a lot of people who think that the power to “regulate commerce among the states” includes the power to prohibit such commerce. That after all is the purported authority for federal anti-drug laws.

  7. They also failed basic english regarding dependent and independent clauses. In the 2nd amendment there is a dependent and independent clause, IE one explains the other which stands alone.

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    However the first part of the second amendment cannot stand by itself. Bunch of idiots indeed.

  8. A great resource for this topic is Halbrook’s “That every man be armed”. (The only thing wrong with that book is the subtitle: “The evolution of a constitutional right”.) It discusses in depth the meaning of the amendment, as proven by many contemporary sources discussing it and the right to bear arms in general.
    It is also a great resource on the 14th amendment, and the fact that it was plainly understood to apply the 2nd amendment to the states. (Not that it really needed to be said; a lot of courts that could read plain English had already noticed that the 2nd amendment applied to the states from the start — unlike the 1st.)

  9. When those lines were written “regulated” meant trained, I have no objection to guns owners everywhere being trained to be as best a shot as possible. All the easier and better to keep elitist bungholes and swarmy politicians in their places.

Comments are closed.