Quote of the day—Bob Cunningham

“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”

In that one paragraph, Scalia kills any argument that individuals have the right to carry weapons similar to those used in the military. Not only does he address military-style weapons, he anticipates the argument that every “pro-gun” advocate makes in declaring the militia equivalent to the military, and rips its heart out.

Bob Cunningham
June 12, 2018
Why There Is No Constitutional Argument Against Gun Control
[Interesting.

Reality is extremely difficult thing to observe and you don’t have to go to the subatomic or cosmic scales to be convinced of that. Here, Cunningham and I can read the same exact words, written by an experienced writer, and arrive at completely different unambiguous conclusions.

I wonder what color the sky is in his universe.—Joe]

10 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Bob Cunningham

  1. He got several words wrong:

    “In that one paragraph, Scalia CONFIRMS THE argument that individuals have the right to carry weapons similar to those used in the military. Not only does he address military-style weapons, he anticipates the argument that every “ANTI-gun” advocate makes in declaring the militia NOT equivalent to the military, and rips its heart out.”

    This is gaslighting, and nothing more.

  2. “But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”

    How on earth can you read that sentence and come up the conclusion that Cunningham did? It’s mind-boggling.

    • My thoughts exactly.

      As I’ve gotten older I’ve stopped being surprised (impressed?) at the depths of stupidity these people plumb. I can only surmise they are mentally deficient and unable to think beyond the echoes in their head.

      • As I stated above, it’s “gaslighting”. When it’s done over and over and over, always with a straight face, the attempt is to get you to doubt YOUR sanity, not HIS.

        • Yes, we read his “argument” and his conclusion and we waste time trying to see where Scalia comes to that conclusion, when we should be putting our hands on our wallets and heading for the door because Cunningham is in the room. Gaslighting is about the simplest way to describe it, but “word salad” comes to mind as well. He can say anything is like anything else, but as Abraham Lincoln said, calling a dog’s tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.
          Scalia said that effectiveness against a regular army doesn’t change the right memorialized by the Second Amendment, and all the mendacious misrepresentation and bewildering, unconnected conclusions can’t change that.

  3. I am still wrapping duct tape around my head after it exploded from reading his conclusion. If his argument is that technology has made the Second Amendment invalid, what about the First Amendment’s protection of a free press? Certainly the founders did not anticipate the internet and the ability of everyone to publish an electronic newspaper. Why don’t we invalidate the Fifth Amendment protection on self-incrimination? After all, we have technology that can ferret out a confession without resorting to “torture” or other coercive methods.

  4. “Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.”

    Sure, that is why the Russians spent 9 years in Afghanistan before withdrawing with no clear victory and also why we are still there after 17 years with no clear victory. It is only a fool that believes that modern stand-off weapons will translate to unequivocal victory. The Founding Fathers were not fools.

  5. Err, so they pass the NFA of 1934, making the possession of true military arms uncommon, then claim that lack of common possession as a pretext to more restrictions. I see what you did there…

    As for the idea that two people can read the same, simple and concise text and come to opposite conclusions; you’re beginning to understand what Martin Luther was up against, five hundred years ago.

    Regardless; the Rulers of Evil will never give up, never give in; they will never stop. No little old concept like reason or truth will ever get in their way. They see authority as their birthright, and no puny, impudent upstart movement, no matter its determination, will ever change their minds. We’re dealing with the mindset of a “holy Roman emperor” here. If the imperial court, with all its adherents, is banished for ten generations, or a hundred, the mindset will never change.

    Pontifex Maximus in exile is still Pontifex Maximus. It will be with us, poisoning and corrupting from without and from within our ranks until the end of time. The best we can hope to do is expose it.

    Also, I agree; “gas-lighting” is a good term for it, being that we can never be allowed to perceive the truth, else the authoritarian system be exposed as nothing but fraud. They will kill, and have killed millions and millions, to protect that fraud. And remember; there are billions too many people on the planet already and not enough room for “nature”, according to them, so the thought of violence, chaos, warfare and mass killing is no hindrance to them whatsoever. They have a motto which covers that, stating one of their goals; “Ordo ab Chao” ([New World] Order out of Chaos). They’re counting on it.

  6. Bob Cunningham has a micropenis and so that’s why he feels so strongly compelled to have the government control other people, enforcing federally mandated weakness, so he can feel like a big strong man by comparison.

    See what I did? And it’s not even Monday.

Comments are closed.