Quote of the day—Braden Lynch

I appreciate “studies” about firearms, but discount them in regards to policy decisions. The absolute right to be armed was decided in 1791.

Braden Lynch
November 30, 2018
Comment to Quote of the day—Jacob Paulson
[Furthermore, this right includes military weapons. Thinking about it from the point of the founders and the text of the 2nd Amendment this makes sense. But following up on this it was clearly pointed out in the Miller Decision. Even further it implies that unless it was a weapon useful to the militia it is not protected. In other words, it could be claimed that according to SCOTUS the 2nd Amendment only protects military weapons:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

I would also point out that the right preexists 1791. It is a right which has been claimed by all species for all time. Even mushrooms claim this right.—Joe]

4 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Braden Lynch

  1. I think I’ve worked out a response to the mouth-breathers who snottily declaim, ‘Well, you must think people should be allowed to own nukes!’.

    Just about every gun owner and pro-2A type accepts responsibility for what their weapon might do in their hands. This is why we have rules like ‘be aware of what’s beyond your target’.

    If I, hypothetically speaking, used a nuke, I would be responsible for all effects. Since I do not WANT to be responsible for things like radiation fallout and major real-estate alterations, I would not own one.

    But then, personal responsibility has always been deeply confusing to statists.

    • The other response to the nukes argument is that it is so extreme and so stupid that it proves a lack of any real argument. It’s like any leftist who, in attempting to justify coercive redistribution as national policy, will eventually use the “Let’s say you’re stranded with a small group of people on a small island” argument. If you have to fabricate such extreme scenarios to support your case, you never had a case.

      Governments or foreign invaders taking advantage of a disarmed or poorly armed population, on the other hand, and becoming more and more coercive toward that population, is a common, predictable, even inevitable, occurrence.

      That fact is addressed in the explanatory clause of the second amendment;
      “…being necessary to the security of a free state…” meaning that without a freely self-armed populace you won’t have a free state– You’re missing a necessary component of a free state.

      The right to keep and bear arms, exercised widely, does not guarantee a free state, but a free state cannot be maintained without it. Likewise, having woodworking tools does not guarantee you can make a new set of exquisite hardwood furniture. There’s a LOT more to it than the mere possession of the tools, but a new set of exquisite hardwood furniture cannot be made without them.

      Turn a child loose in a machine shop and nothing good will come out of it, no matter how good and plentiful the tools.

      Without the knowledge, skills, attitude, desire, physical ability and faith necessary for maintaining a free society, the hand tools (armaments) become worthless.

      The Powers That Should Not Be have understood this all along, and they use that understanding to defeat us prior to any shots being fired. Likewise, if you haven’t “won the war” before the first shots are fired, you’ve probably already lost.

    • One I’ve used: “If Bill Gates or Steve Jobs decide to develop a weapon for the deterrent protection effect it may have to preserve their marketing/customer base, and has safeguards designed equal or better than the government’s track record, (look up how many have been lost over the years…) then who are you or I to argue?”

  2. US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11:
    “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”

    I.e., they explicitly expected and allowed for privately owned warships.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.