A Truly Conservative Reading of the 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms

Our Hero

Judge Scalia
Judge Scalia

God, Guns, Guts!

As a true and complete conservative, as far to the right as one could possibly imagine, I hold that each and every true American should be armed to the teeth at all times – bristling in armament like angry porcupines when we go to our Churches, Synagogues, when we assemble to protest the Socialist-Communist-Fascist-One World Government Conspiracy to strip away our valued Freedoms and Liberties.

Yes, we should be loaded with weaponry when we yell outside abortion clinics, when we eat at restaurants, when we go to the airports and ride planes, when we go to the bar, when we solemnly attend book burnings and the closing of Godless public schools. I say the 2nd Amendment gives us this right, absolutely and completely, and government has no business ever limiting it or defining it any such way as to limit it.

After all, as another prophet of wisdom has offered through the fount of true knowledge called the Internet:

The Second Amendment is one of our most cherished. The right to keep and bear arms is what keeps government subservient to its citizenry. Without the right to bear arms, we would have anarchy in the streets, the criminals would still have guns, and violent crime would escalate.” [http://www.wtv-zone.com/Mary/BEARARMS.HTML]

But the devious courts, ruled by Liberals and other such dangerous minds, keep interpreting the 2nd Amendment in ways that violate this sacred and basic right given to us by God Himself. Again:

First of all, lets see what Jesus Christ, the original Founding Father of us all, had to say about the right to bear arms! Gunpowder had not yet been invented. The weapon of the day was the sword. One of the last instructions he gave his disciples in the Garden was Luke 22: 36. The key admonishment "LET HIM WHO HAS NO SWORD, SELL HIS CLOAK AND BUY ONE.”’ [http://www.wtv-zone.com/Mary/BEARARMS.HTML]

The context of this statement by Jesus, as all statements in the Bible or anywhere else, is unimportant – it is the literal written word here that is everything. Jesus commanded us to carry swords. Just bladed weapons, nothing else. I used to go about with a saber everywhere I went, though that made sitting on busses and subways difficult. I also used to wear a cloak, but when I sold it, I didn’t get enough to buy more than a really cheap reproduction saber at the pawn shop, but, by God, I had a sword as commanded, purchased in the precise manner ordered. And I follow my orders to the letter.

But then, as I got older and grew in wisdom, I realized the lesser Founding Fathers had added some detail to the armaments I could own and walk around with. I know this because I am a Constitutional Originalist, like Judge Scalia on the Supreme Court, Blessed Be His Name. For those of you who don’t know this doctrine of Constitutional interpretation, the most perfect and Conservative means of understanding ever devised, here’s another tidbit from the All-Knowing and ever-accurate Wikipedia:

Originalism is a family of theories, principally:

  • The 'original intent theory,' which holds that interpretation of a written constitution is (or should be) consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it.
  • The 'original meaning theory,' which is closely related to textualism, is the view that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have declared the ordinary meaning of the text to be. It is with this view that most originalists, such as Justice Scalia, are associated. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism]

Or, as the Internet Sage whom I appeal to tells us:

James Wilson, an original Justice on the Supreme Court, exhorted: "The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it.”’ [http://www.wtv-zone.com/Mary/BEARARMS.HTML]

Thank the Lord the interpretation of any document, much less the supreme law of the land, should be so easy! I, being a very reasonable person with access to a few history books left over after a book burning, made an exhaustive study of some facts relevant at the time of the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and came to some perfectly sane conclusions about the Holy and Inviolable Right to Bear Arms:

1. It says, plainly, everyone has the right to keep and bear arms.

2. The Constitution was ratified between 1787-1788.

3. The common arms available in 1787-88 were single shot black powder muskets, single shot black powder pistols, both of which used flintlocks and a primed pan and were muzzle loaders. Of course, people also had access to bows and arrows, bayonets, swords, knives, clubs, pole arms, broken bottles, rocks, and there were crude forms of extremely inaccurate rocket and smoothbore cannon.

4. Complex arms were mostly hand-made by craftsmen in the late 1700s using crude factory techniques without electricity. The same goes for the bullets and black powder.

5. If the Conservative interpretation of the Constitution must be consistent with the original meaning of its authors and their ordinary understanding of reality at the time they wrote the law, then the “arms” they had in mind are pretty much those and only those listed above, under number 3. Also, they must be constructed using techniques listed under number 4. Why? The Founders had no knowledge of future developments in armaments when they wrote the law, just as Jesus did not tell his Apostles, “Sell your cloaks and buy an AK-47 as soon as those become available in a couple of thousand years.”

So, for this reason, I understand that the truly Conservative interpretation commands me to go about armed as I presently am: a Native American spear and tomahawk (which I carry in my belt); a long rifle; six flintlock pistols strapped across my chest; two hunting knives in my buckskin boots; a sling and rocks in my back pocket. All handmade using non-electric means and involving homemade black powder. Admittedly, it’s bulky, but I feel I am armed sufficiently to keep the Government in fear of my might and will.

Contemporary weaponry is nowhere mentioned or intended in the 2nd Amendment – no cartridge weaponry, tasers, no poison gas, no nuclear weapons or artillery, no machine guns or semi-automatics, no revolvers or automatic pistols. No reasonable person at the time the law was written would have declared that the ordinary meaning of that law intended weapons of such power and complexity as to have been unimaginable to an average person of the 18th century.

So, there it is. The 2nd Amendment gives me a limitless right to carry handcrafted, bulky 18th c. arms, and nothing else, just like the Founders had. And I, as a proud Patriot, am pleased to drag these with me everywhere I go with my tricornered hat and faked vaguely British accent.

Now, you must forgive me, I am off on my horse to attend the latest Tea Party screaming match with a senator at the Town Hall meeting.

Signed,

Hieronymous Subintellectus

More by this Author


Comments 59 comments

Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

lmc sez: How about this: you 100% don't let criminals, wife-beaters and nut-jobs have an assault rifle that shoots 54 times in 5 minutes?

Jack replies: Oh... I am sorry... I thought you were posting about a "4 year old child".

Do you know many 4 years olds that are criminals, wife-beaters and nut-jobs?


SassySue1963 3 years ago

@lovemychris

If you're talking about background checks being required, I'm all for it. However, and if you can lead me to a source that proves this incorrect, it is my understanding that the proposed Bill would preclude you from owning a gun if you've been ACCUSED of domestic violence. Not convicted mind you, but accused. That, I take issue with.

If you're talking about taking names & numbers & addresses of law abiding citizens...what for? What does that accomplish other than the government knowing just where to go when the time comes that they'd like to collect your guns.

I might add, that law enforcement in Colorado blasted their new gun legislation, saying it does nothing to deter atrocities like Sandy Hook and their concerns were completely ignored. Hmmm...guess you, the Dems, and everyone else knows better than the men standing up and fighting crime every day what will and won't have an effect.


Mike 3 years ago

@love

"How about this: you 100% don't let criminals, wife-beaters and nut-jobs have an assault rifle that shoots 54 times in 5 minutes?"

Please explain what an "assault rifle" is and how you would keep them out of the hands of "criminals, wife-beaters and nut-jobs?"


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

How about this: you 100% don't let criminals, wife-beaters and nut-jobs have an assault rifle that shoots 54 times in 5 minutes?

Is that fair? Or does the 2nd amendment trump life itself?


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

I wonder what other objects and areas of life lmc demands 100 percent perfection in. Please tell us, lmc. Is it 100 percent accident-free swimming pools? 100 percent accident-free autos? 100 percent accident-free baseball games?

Oh.... none of these? Just one, single type of object in the whole world MUST have a 100 percent accident-free rate or else it is of no value whatsoever.

And ~this~ is the type of logic that they use to declare their desires and wishes "reasonable" and that we should all just shut up and follow them like sheep.

Oh... did I use the word "logic." I meant "emotion." There is no logic in lmc's posts.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

Oh sorry...maybe you missed it. 4 yr old kills 6 yr old with.......ummmm. Let's see: psychic rendering?

Oh yeah....it was a useless, innocent gun. AKA killing device.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

Guns don't kill people.....4 yr olds do...right?


Mike 3 years ago

I can't say I'm surprised that Ralph didn't answer back. He doesn't seem to like it when facts and numbers get in the way of his argument. On another Hub he was just talking about the dreaded AR-14. I guess that's related to the ceramic Glock 7 from Die Hard.


Raul 3 years ago

Nobody on this Hub is dealing with the secular trends that account for some of the changes in murder rates. America's murder rate peaked over a decade-and-a-half ago, with about 23,000-25,000 dying annually. The reason for this was simple, a crack epidemic, and a culture of permissiveness that treated felony convictions as a revolving door where the criminal was in and out of prison, and criminals manipulated the system with plea bargains. The high rates of murder started to decline when a number of states instituted minimum sentencing, three strikes and you are out, and when forensics improved so that previously unsolvable crimes could be investigated using DNA evidence.

There was also a cultural change… if murder and other crime rates had stayed at the levels that they were in the early 1960s, then perhaps 400,000 or more lives would have been saved. Think about it this way, more Americans have been murdered in the last 53 years (without referring to govt stats I'm guessing over 700,000) than were died in two world wars, Korea and Vietnam.

One aspect that the media do not want to address, is that the high murder rate is concentrated in a criminal subculture of the Black community. While most Black Americans are law abiding, there is a criminal subset of that community which up until fairly recently accounted for perhaps 40-60% of all murders in America. Interesting also, is the media's failure to address that while most crime is intra-racial, most of the interracial crime and interracial murders between the black and the white communities is black on white crime, and not white on black crime.

Of course there are other factors, but that will have to wait for another time.


Mike 3 years ago

@ Ralph

Chicago had over 500 murders last year and also has some of the nation's strictest gun laws. Chicago’s murder rate was 15.65 per 100,000 people. The average for the U.S was 4.2 and the state of Illinois had 5.6. Why was that?

A breakdown of Chicago murders show that 83% of those murdered in Chicago last year had criminal records. In Philadelphia, it’s 75%. In Milwaukee it’s 77% percent. In New Orleans, it’s 64%. In Baltimore, it’s 91%. Many were felons who had served time. And as many as 80% of the homicides were gang related.

Why are you guys continuing to blame guns?


Mike 3 years ago

@ Ralph

In 2011, there were 31,940 firearm-related deaths according to the CDC. 19, 766 of those deaths were suicides. The CDC figures are listed below.

Accidental discharge 851

Suicide 19,766

Homicide 11,101

Undetermined Intent 222

It's too bad I couldn't find a more detailed of the break-out of the homicide statistic. I wonder how many of those homicides were justified or associated with criminal activity related to gangs or drugs. I would also like to know how many of the unjustified homicides were committed by criminals with a history of breaking the law and where they got their firearms. I imagine this kind of information is hard to find and possibly intentionally not recorded.

@Rich and the rest of the folks after "assault rifles"

According to the FBI, there were 12,664 people murdered in 2011. Out of those, only 323 in the entire country were committed with a rifle of any kind. “Assault weapons” are really just rifles that happen to look a certain way, so the FBI does not currently list them separately from hunting rifles. By my math only 2.5% of all murders are committed with any type of rifle. At the same time, there were 496 people murdered with blunt objects such as hammers, 726 using hands or feet, and a whopping 1,694 using knives or other cutting instruments. In other words, you are more then 9 times more likely to be beaten or stabbed to death then you are to murdered with a rifle.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

I agree Ralph... you just simply cannot hold up your end of the discussion. As noted earlier, when presented with facts your preferred method of dealing with them is to ignore them.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 3 years ago

Tighter, better enforced gun laws can reduce all of those types of shootings without infringing anybody's 2nd Amendment rights.

Further discussion is pointless.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

Disappointing but predictable response, Ralph. I asked for a specific problem that you think a gun control law will solve and you are only capable of repeating generalities.

Out of these "30,000" how many are suicides? You don't care, do you.

How many of them were killed by a gang banger in gang warfare? You don't care, do you?

How many of them were shot and killed by a cop in the legal exercise of his duty? You don't care, do you.

But you think there is some magical "one size fits all" type of gun control that I personally am keeping from becoming a law that would prevent each and every one of these 30,000 deaths.

Ralph, again, you just don't know what the problem is... and yet you expect people to take you seriously when you claim that you have the answers?


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 3 years ago

As you know 30,000 people die from gunshots each year in various circumstances. As I suspected, you don't support any change in our ineffective, poorly unenforced gun control laws in an effort to make a dent in that number.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

Do you own a car, Ralph?

If you do then you know a car is made up of many systems. You have the hydraulics, the electrical system, the engine itself, the body and other parts. The engine has it's own sub-systems.

Now... you can ask, what preventative measures one should/would "support" to help the car run smooth and with the least amount of wear and tear, but FIRST you have to define the system that you are concerned about.

If a car model is known for an engine that never wears out even under abuse but having a body that rusts in five year, then having preventative measures to keep the engine running and neglecting the body just doesn't make sense.

If the car has a rock solid electrical system then it might be best to spend money and time on making sure the suspension, which is known to have problems, behaving properly.

The best preventative measures match up to the greatest areas of concern.

Now... let's bring it back home.

There are many different areas of concern about our society and the violence that is found in some of those areas.

For example, about 80 percent of all crime is committed in urban zip codes with a significant minority population. Until this is openly and honestly acknowledged by our lawmakers and society then trying to come up with a "preventative measure" or "additional gun control regulations" that work is futile.

About 80 percent of domestic killings are done in homes that have multiple police calls prior to the murders. Trying to come up with a "additional gun control regulations" that broadly treats ALL families as the same is futile.

There are many different examples that I can come up with. You want me to come up with "additional gun control regulations" that I would be agreeable with? Okay... first YOU come up with the specific society problems with firearms that are trying to be prevented. Urban crime? Recidivist crime? Crimes from a feeling of entitlement? Third-world shooting guns up in the air on New Years Eve celebration crimes?

There are no "one size fits all" additional gun control regulations because there are dozens of motivating factors behind the behavioral groups.

Several Sundays ago one of the leaders promoting the proposed gun control laws in Congress admitted on TV that the bill would have done nothing to stop or prevent Sandy Hook. When asked why he was trying to push a bill that did not actually do anything to solve the problem that caused the bill to be put forth he did the only thing he could -- change the subject.

Define the SPECIFIC problem... .then we talk possible solutions.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 3 years ago

Jack, I'm familiar with them. Are you opposed to any additional gun control regulations?


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

ralph sez: Carlos, nobody has proposed taking anybody's lawfully owned gun away. Where did you get that idea?

Jack replies: Ralph has been given dozens of quotes over the years from dozens of politicians, media people and others in power who want just that.... the 2nd repealed, or all guns taken away.

Ralph has always pretended the list does not exist. This is the problem with dealing with some one such as Ralph. If he doesn't like the facts, he is more content with living (and posting) in fantasy land. Ralph KNOWS that what I just quoted from him in untrue. Yet, he posts it anyway. And ~this~ is the type of people who want to have a "reasonable" discussion about "reasonable" firearm laws.

Ralph sez: The Supreme Court has ruled that state and local gun control regulations, not prohibitions as in D.C., are permissible under the Second Amendment.

Jack replies: No, the SCOTUS has rules that ~some~ regulations ~may~ be permissible as long as they do not violate the core intent of the 2nd Amendment.

Ralph sez: Please be more specific about the Fourth, Fifth, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendment violations in any of the proposed legislation. Do you have legal training?

Jack replies: Study up on Schumers and Feinstiens bills and get back to us.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

ralph sez: We don't want to "re-write the 2nd Amendment." All we want are some practical, sensible, cost-effective regulations which would not restrict anyone's rights under the Constitution. Plus funds sufficient for effective enforcement. Opponents have an unrealistically expansive view of their rights.

Jack replies: Of course, Ralph has never been able to actually articulate any law that even comes close to meeting those criteria. He lives in fantasy land, where it is much easier to just express emotions than to have workable answers.

But it's nice to know that Americans have an "expansive" view of their rights.


Carlos 3 years ago

Diane Feinstein on Gun ban in 1995 -Mr. and Mrs. America, turn your guns in!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_LaBJvI0BI


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 3 years ago

Carlos, nobody has proposed taking anybody's lawfully owned gun away. Where did you get that idea? The Supreme Court has ruled that state and local gun control regulations, not prohibitions as in D.C., are permissible under the Second Amendment. Please be more specific about the Fourth, Fifth, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendment violations in any of the proposed legislation. Do you have legal training?


Carlos 3 years ago

If you read many of the proposed gun bans, many of them violate other constitutional rights such as the Fourth, Fifth, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments. If the government can take your guns away without compensation, what is to keep them at a future date from taking other property away including your home without payment? If the ex post facto clause can be ignored, it will greatly enhance the power of government.


SassySue1963 3 years ago

@Ralph Some do have an all encompassing view of the right to bear arms. Many do not hold that view however. A national registry of law abiding gun owners serves no deterrent nor purpose towards preventing the atrocities such as Sandy Hook.

I would suggest that those proponents of such strict gun laws, have a narrow view of the actual cause and effect. Guns don't kill, guns in the hands of the wrong people do. But we never address that issue, it's always "guns evil, ban guns".


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 3 years ago

We don't want to "re-write the 2nd Amendment." All we want are some practical, sensible, cost-effective regulations which would not restrict anyone's rights under the Constitution. Plus funds sufficient for effective enforcement. Opponents have an unrealistically expansive view of their rights.


SassySue1963 3 years ago

I do love how those who wish to rewrite the 2nd Amendment to suit their meaning think our Founding Fathers were shortsighted stupid people who assumed that the musket would always and forever be the only weapon available to the citizenry.

The 2nd Amendment HAS been limited, restricted etc time and time again. The question becomes if that has had any effect at all on violent crime. I say violent crime and not gun deaths because they are two entirely different things.

The current restrictions being proposed would not have had an effect on Adam Lanza and his ability to get guns. He broke 7 laws before he even entered that Elementary School. Criminals do not follow laws. Do we understand that? Gun bans only affect law abiding citizens, not those who would commit atrocities.

The main issue is pretty much being ignored. It is not about registering guns of law abiding Americans (check out history. anytime a call is made for a national registry, the next step has been collecting the guns), because this does nothing to deter crime. It is a mental health issue. Check out the latest shootings and you will find that in 90% of the cases it is a gun in the hands of someone with a known mental health issue. Nothing will eradicate such things completely, but going after law abiding citizens certainly will have no effect.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

Gotta admit, Richard, you had me going for a while. That line about Jesus and the sword got me going for my copy of the "good book". Did I miss something somewhere? I am glad that you are a man of reason and not just another 'wing nut' Most clever lay out!

Cred2


Mike 3 years ago

@Ralph

No, if I have to explain to you or anyone else that the Second Amendment was not used to supposedly compromise your First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights you are beyond hope and very possibly retarded. I'm not going to waste my time typing an argument up. Good luck in magic Fairyland.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 3 years ago

Why don't you fill us in?


Mike 3 years ago

@love

You are just batshit crazy and have no understanding of how the Second Amendment fits into the Bill of Rights or our constitution.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

:-)

:-)


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

Yes...funny too, how the 2nd amendment is the only one left standing, after they got done w 1,4 and 14.

And I know why: They use guns to enforce the banishment of the other 3.


Richard VanIngram profile image

Richard VanIngram 3 years ago from San Antonio, Texas Author

Thanks, folks, for reading and enjoying, taking it in the spirit it was written.

peoplepower: if you have any connections to Colbert or Stewart, I have shtick & will travel.

ahorseback: I've been accused of being tinged red on more than one occasion. But where in the 27 words of said amendment do you find that the weapons may be otherwise? Originalists say that the document

MUST be interpreted according to the reasonable understanding of a late 18th c. person, preferably educated male. I don't find Enlightenment minds so literalistic that they would have invented such an interpretive philosophy, but people like Scalia live by the fundamentalist hermaneutic. When it suits them, though, noticably, or else they'd sound something like the nut I allowed to narrate this little essay.

Audrey: Thank you, from a pen also liberal, aka "commie."

Ralph: Glad you thought so.

lovemychris: Funny how emphasis on the God of love and peace flies out the window the moment some strange "divine right" to guns & bullets becomes the subject, right?


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

Ahaha.....

"Thou shalt not kill".......except with fully-loaded military-style weapon that can kill 26 people in 5 minutes, and vest-piercing bullets.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 3 years ago

Cool!


peoplepower73 profile image

peoplepower73 3 years ago from Placentia California

I could see this as a satirical sketch on the Jon Stewart Show or Stephen Colbert show. Excellent writing and excellent way to make a point. Voting up, interesting, useful, and humorous and sharing.


ahorseback profile image

ahorseback 3 years ago

Amusing at best , and yet at the worst where in twenty seven words of the second amendment , does it say arms MUST be equivelent to the seventeenth century arms quality and configuration ? Are you a commy in diguize ? lol


AudreyHowitt profile image

AudreyHowitt 3 years ago from California

Amusing and intelligent (and this from a very liberal pen)


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

Well, your strawman "Originalist absurdity of thinking" is getting in the way of a decent conversation since no one actually uses that as a definitional concept except for folk such as you.

Since it doesn't really exist except in your imagination I really don't have to defend it then, eh.


Richard VanIngram profile image

Richard VanIngram 4 years ago from San Antonio, Texas Author

Well, Master Jack, which way do you want it? The Constitution can be used to regulate and recognize modern technology or are we stuck with the Originalist absurdity of thinking that the Constitution is a dead document and implies nothing beyond its literal meaning at the time it was written? Doesn't it protect and regulate new technologies, too? That was pretty much my point, sweetheart, the one in-between the lines. Thanks for helping me make my point further.

Your student,

Richard


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

Satire should really be done by those good at it.

But let's take Richard at his word. When the Constitution was ratified there were no high speed presses, no radio, no television, no internet. It was unlikely the Founding Fathers could foresee them. Therefore, the freedom is speech is limited to only what was available at that time. Richard can have all the free speech he wants, as long as he uses a printing press that cranks out a couple of hundred sheets a day, or a tree stump. Anything else is fair game for the government to intervene and control.

Since there were no x-ray machines, mini-microphones, hidden broadcast camera and phone taps then the 4th Amendment has no rule over the government use of them as they please.

No lie detector machines or truth serums means the government can use them as they desire in a prosecution, with no 5th Amendment protection against them.

Electricity had barely been discovered so using cattle prods or hooking a car battery up to someone's genitals would not be prohibited by the 8th Amendment.

If Richard really wants to play that game I'll be happy to show him how a master does it.


billgm42 4 years ago

Since handmade, muzzle loading muskets don't really meet modern safety standards, I would be willing to compromise with a single shot, bolt action cartridge rifle, with a safety and no scope . And also only allow the citizen to carry five cartridges in his pants pocket (or purse). I think this would meet the spirit of original intent.


Richard VanIngram profile image

Richard VanIngram 4 years ago from San Antonio, Texas Author

I was being ironic. That line is too good to be mere sarcasm.


listener 4 years ago

"The context of this statement by Jesus, as all statements in the Bible or anywhere else, is unimportant"

I hope you were being sarcastic on this line as well...


Richard VanIngram profile image

Richard VanIngram 5 years ago from San Antonio, Texas Author

Thanks for getting me, there, Chefsref! I *am* a bit nuts, but, yes, filled to the brim & beyond with sarcasm. (And irony.)


chefsref profile image

chefsref 5 years ago from Citra Florida

Hey Richard

As I began reading this Hub, at first I thought: This guy is freaking nuts! So I read a little further and finally the thought dawned on me: This is just dripping with sarcasm.

printed sarcasm is a hugely difficult thing to accomplish, the ideologues you skewer often fail to get the joke.

So, Well Done!


Richard VanIngram profile image

Richard VanIngram 6 years ago from San Antonio, Texas Author

Hah! Ah, Good Lord, Paradise! Thanks for reading to the end to see it is a humorous attack on both originalism and a strictly literalist reading of the 2nd Amendment. The frightening thing, I suppose, a sign of the times is that it is completely believable someone might speak like this *seriously* and some people would be willing to embrace it -- as some of the early supporting comments seem to bear out.


Paradise7 profile image

Paradise7 6 years ago from Upstate New York

I was hoping you were kidding...I'm glad to find out you were, otherwise, y'know, you shot yourself in the foot there, a few times!


Richard VanIngram profile image

Richard VanIngram 6 years ago from San Antonio, Texas Author

Ah! De Greek -- at last, someone who understood it was a satire! Thank you.


Richard VanIngram profile image

Richard VanIngram 6 years ago from San Antonio, Texas Author

Thanks, thevoice.


De Greek profile image

De Greek 6 years ago from UK

PERFECT!!! And funyyyy... Well done :-)


thevoice profile image

thevoice 6 years ago from carthage ill

terrific detailed hub read thanks


Richard VanIngram profile image

Richard VanIngram 6 years ago from San Antonio, Texas Author

William - Don't take it too hard. I just think the issue is more complicated than it's often made out to be.


William Weaver 6 years ago

Indeed some ire as I sat.


Richard VanIngram profile image

Richard VanIngram 6 years ago from San Antonio, Texas Author

Why, thank you, loveofnight.


loveofnight profile image

loveofnight 6 years ago from Baltimore, Maryland

some very strong statements, i do believe i am a fan....


Richard VanIngram profile image

Richard VanIngram 6 years ago from San Antonio, Texas Author

By all means, Slinky! Just don't forget the sugar cube!


Slinky the Wonder Ferret 6 years ago

Is it legal now to become power-drunk on absinthe?


Richard VanIngram profile image

Richard VanIngram 6 years ago from San Antonio, Texas Author

Oh, be careful Sheri! After you discover all my faults you may not like me much at all.


SheriSapp profile image

SheriSapp 6 years ago from West Virginia

I think I may be falling in love with you. My husband may argue about just how conservative you are because he swears there is NOBODY to the right of me. Great hub, and really relevant information--especially with this current power-drunk regime running the show. I have no doubt at all that they would take our guns IF they really thought they could/would get away with it.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working