I'd like to comment on Mr. Codrea and his recent article about the second amendment not guaranteeing the right to bear arms. My thought is maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. The fact of the matter is we don't need clowns like this idiot pointing this out to the antigun crowd. You don't think they don't read articles in gun magazines? Think again. [More]I talked about these letters here. They're now online. And by the way, what I said was the Constitution does not "grant" rights.
David you must really have hit a nerve with this idiot. He's not ignorant, he's stupid and you can't fix stupid. I didn't see any place for 'comments' on his site. Maybe he saw "I,Trojan Horse" comments and realized he couldn't counter them. I've gotten the NRA surveys asking "Do you believe the 2nd amendment guarantees the RTKBA?", so the NRA is onboard with Bob and Bob-er's line of thinking.
ReplyDeleteThose letters were published in the April issue of GUNS Magazine, SameNoKami--see the earlier blog post I linked to. The FindArticles site they appear on is licensed to post magazine contents to the Internet, so there would be no place for comments as they are simply a content provider.
ReplyDeleteJust more evidence that I am correct in my steadfast refusal to support the NRA!
ReplyDeleteI have read the article and the letters and I don't think you can do much to fix stupid. The stupid sonofabitch doesn't know the difference in definitions between 'grant" and "guarantee".
ReplyDeleteAnd he thinks your opinions should be vetted?
Gee, it's online before I see one issue of my subscription. Maybe I should have sent you a check for the amount and just read findarticles.com.
ReplyDeletetjh, I sent your comment to my editor--he won't be able to do much with just your intials, though.
ReplyDeleteSend them an email at:
subs@gunsmagazine.com
If that still produces no results, email me with particulars and I'll see if I can break anything loose from my end...
I would say that the Supreme Court agrees with David:
ReplyDelete"The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
(page cite not available)
Oh, oh oh! What if the Anti's see what we're talking about!?
ReplyDeleteNever speak the truth..
Always be PC..
Never try to actually fight for gun-rights. It's just not "realistic", "that's the way things are"...naive, absolutist.. It's all your fault for the loss of our "rights" (privileges).
GROVEL! GROVEL! Grovel, or you are troll sent by the Antis to make us look bad!
WAaaaaa!
C.H.
Not to be unkind, but the man is woefully uninformed. Unfortunately, he is like the vast majority of gun owners — UTTERLY IGNORANT!
ReplyDeleteYeah David, I get the online issue before my magazine arrives, also. However, I refuse to read it online until I see it in hard copy.
ReplyDeleteSort of a ritual of mine. I subscribed because of your column and I decline to be disabused of the privilege of reading it on the printed page first.
Trivial, I know. But if the Constitution was good enough for hard copy, I prefer exposure to its supporting documents in the same vein. Call it traditionalism or old fogeyness. But that's the way it is.
I was a little burned when I got the next issue and found that they not only ignored my response to this idiot (submitted the day after I received my GUNS magazine), but they failed to print any rebuttal. Or did I just miss it?
ReplyDeleteThe next issue was at the printer/distributor. Look for around a 3-month lag time from when a letter is sent until it appears if they select it.
ReplyDelete@ The Infamous Oregon Lawhobbit:
ReplyDelete> U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
>
> (page cite not available)
Page 553.
Mark Odell
Thanks. The first site that I googled up didn't have the page breaks on it.
ReplyDelete