I Love the Smell of Racking Shotgun in the Morning

by Glenn Fairman1/5/16

In a nominally free republic, a tyrant is still the best argument for the possession of firearms. As always, honeyed lips and crocodile tears are the grist for liberalism’s True Believers. But for those less inclined to accept the Progressive articles of faith, the unmistakable sound of a racking shotgun echoes the throbbing pulse of America’s collective heartbeat.

Glenn Fairman writes from Highland, Ca.
About Author  Author Archive  Email

Have a blog post you want to share? Click here. • (1249 views)

Glenn Fairman

About Glenn Fairman

This entry was posted in Blog Post. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to I Love the Smell of Racking Shotgun in the Morning

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    But Slick Barry has assured us that if we want our guns, we can keep our guns. Are you saying we shouldn’t trust the word of a pathological liar? After all, every liberal in America does.

  2. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    the unmistakable sound of a racking shotgun echoes the throbbing pulse of America’s collective heartbeat.

    Someone told me that said sound was the international greeting understood by all criminals as an invitation to depart the area as quickly as possible. It needed no translation. (or something close to that)

  3. JNagarya says:

    “In a nominally free republic, a tyrant is still the best argument for the possession of firearms.”

    The entire Constitution is in effect at the same time, and includes the following:

    Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, [and] SUPPRESS INSURRETIONS.

    The Constitution DOES NOT authorize violating the Constitution. Nor did the Founders tolerate the “taking up of arms” against their gov’ts: see how they dealt with “Shays’s” rebellion, under the Articles of Confederation, and the “Whiskey” rebellion under the Constitution.

    They characterized the perpetrators as “common criminals,” charged them with, tried them for, and convicted them of treason — and sentenced them to death.

    And that was done AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified.

    There is also this:

    Art. I, S. 8., C. 16. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia . . . reserving to the States respectively . . . the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed BY CONGRESS.

    So the militia — as has always been the fact — is UNDER constitution and laws. And under the US Constitution, the Congress has regulatory control of the Militia even when NOT Federalized. Because the Founders were intent on preserving CIVILIAN rule.

    Thus the Second Amendment, the purpose of which was to establish a National Defense, does two things:

    1. Secures the right of the states to keep their already-existing already-well regulated militia; and,

    2. Secures Congress’ regulatory control of the militia even on the state level.

    The Founders did not “take up arms” against gov’t — they were PRO-gov’t, and all along controlled the gov’ts that mattered. They took up arms in defense against the other side of what was not a “revolution” but a civil war.

    With all the self-righteous and self-satisfied criticisms of the mythic “Liberals,” one would expect such individuals to affirm and preach a firm compliance with the rule of law, especially as it, beginning with the Constitution, impliedly underlies the claims to credibility and authority of non-“Liberal” “Conservatives”.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      As you would know if you had learned English properly, the purpose of the militia clause in the Second Amendment is not to limit the pre-existing right of “the people” (i.e., individual people, as is meant everywhere else the phrase is used in the Constitution), but as an explanation for why this right “shall not be infringed”. J. Neil Schulman established this by asking some actual professors of English about this, but it should be obvious anyway.

      • JNagarya says:

        I have an education in law, and the focus of my research for more than twenty-five years is exactly this topic. Let’s try it from the fake “militia”/gun-nut point of view:

        1. James Madison was the “Father of the Constitution”.

        2. James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights.

        Assuming, arguendo, those are the facts, then the term “people” means the same thing throughout the Constitution — which is not separable from the body of the Constitution. (Caveat: Madison wanted the proposed Amendments to be interwoven with the original text of the Constitution; he lost that argument.)

        And the first appearance of the word “people” is at the very beginning of the Constitution:

        “We the people”.

        “We” is plural; therefore, in accordance with grammatical logic, “people” is plural. It is not “We the individual,” or, “I the people”.

        Further: Powers of governance of “We the people” are DELEGATED to the gov’t. thus the gov’t exercises such powers AS PROXY of “We the people”. Thus the gov’t — not “the people” — controls all military forces.

        “The people” and the gov’t are not the same thing. That distinction — between “We the people” and “gov’t” — is made expressly obvious in the hallowed Tenth Amendment:

        “The power not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States [the Constitution also imposes LIMITS on the states], are reserved to the States respectively, _OR_ to the people.”

        See that “_OR_” up there? It means that “the people” and “the State” — the latter being GOV’T — are not the same thing. Thus all the military forces (as relevant to this context) is controlled by the GOV’T, NOT by “the people”.

        Those elected to gov’t swear an oath of loyalty, then are allowed to make, amend, and repeal laws. The UNelected have no such power, “right,” or authority.

        There is no “right” — in fact the act is expressly PROHIBITED — to “take up arms” against the gov’t, the misrepresentations of the intents of the non-law “Declaration” notwithstanding. And your-name calling in effort to avoid that fact will not change the fact.

        J. Neil Schulman is a gun “rights ADVOCATE; he is NOT OBJECTIVE.

        Additional clue: contemporary rules of grammar do not apply to a period during which there was no standard grammar (the effort to apply them is the fallacy of “presentism”). Italics and underlining hadn’t even been invented yet, and punctuation itself was a relatively new innovation..

        Again, I have an education in law, and have been researching exactly these issues for more than twenty-five years — beginning with reading from the very first Charter/s. NONE of those facts are “Left” or “Liberal” — and personally attacking the person who presents them is an intellectually dishonest effort to avoid the facts simply because you don’t like them. Your position is essentially that of the British: you OPPOSE the Founders views, and their constitution and laws.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          Again, I have an education in law

          Yet Joseph, from what I have been able to ascertain, you are not and never have been licensed to practice law in Mass.

          I see you claim to be a “Legal Professional, Constitutional Scholar and Ethicist”. Is this because you sued a hospital?

        • Dave Glabais says:

          Though I’ve never had the opportunity to flunk out of Law School, I’d submit that your Liberal “collective theory of rights” was dismissed by Antonin Scalia in 2008 for the “individual rights theory” based on the language of the Constitution you claim to know so much about. As for your narrative on “mythic Liberals”, they’re not exactly Leprechans. In fact many of them wear robes. Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg to name a few.
          God bless Ted Cruz for successfully defending the Constitution and the Second Amendment right which guarantees the individual’s right to bear arms.
          As you had alluded to masturbation in your previous dissertations, just make sure it’s over 18″ then it’s all good. There are laws about “sawing” off you know. .

    • Declaration of Independence says:

      That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        In this morally obtuse world created by the Left, all they know is Government as God. If government says it, then it is the highest authority. As the poster, Declaration of Independence, pointed out, the Founders believed (as do all good people believe) that there is a higher law than what some faceless bureaucrat dictates.

        That’s not to say that law and the rule of law aren’t important. They are extremely important. But there are good laws and bad laws. And it is quite possible (and it has become regular now) for those in government to break the laws themselves and thus create a mockery of law and of government.

        So this bizarre response from JNagarya seems to be “You can never oppose whatever it is the government wants to do.” Again, I suspect this fellow draws some or all of his paycheck from the government, via a job or welfare of some sort. He has likely been bought and paid for. So he has to come on here and justify this blind acquiescence and present it as something noble. Well, it isn’t noble.

        • JNagarya says:

          We “oppose” the gov’t — “revolt” against the gov’t — by VOTING.

          The Constitution you so love PROHIBITS that you propose doing —

          Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The CONGRESS shall provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, [and] SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS.

          I respect the rule of law. You reject it by endeavoring to substitute therefore a history- and law-illiterate politics, all of it self-righteous and self-serving — and anti-social.

      • JNagarya says:

        1. The “Declaration of Independence” has never been LAW.

        2. It applied EXCLUSIVELY to BRITAIN. It did not apply to Germany, France, Holland — or the “American” colonies/states.

        3. Nowhere in the “Declaration” does the word “revolution” appear.

        4. You’ve obviously never READ the “Declaration” in full. It so happens that the “Declaration” includes a catalog of grievances against King George II. This one is directly on point:

        “[King George III] has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.”

        In short: the author/s of the “Declaration” were OPPOSED to military threat to their gov’ts. And, in fact, that principle was carried forward into the law that is the Constitution:

        “Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The CONGRESS [NOT the private citizen] shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, [and] suppress Insurrections.

        Yes: the treasonous thugs in Oregon are barbarians.

        And calling other names is not going to change those facts.

        Nor this fact:

        Art. I., S. 8., C. 16. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia . . . reserving to the States respectively . . . the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed BY CONGRESS.

        And in what form does Congress prescribe”? In the form of STATUTES — in this instance Militia Acts. Those Acts, self-evidently, apply to — REGULATE — the subject of the Second Amendment:

        Well regulated militia.

        All of the above statements of law substantiate the obvious: the militia operates UNDER the regulatory stipulations and strictures of LAW — see the Founders’ responses to “Shays’s” and “Whiskey” rebellions for their actual position on the point.

        None of that is changed by your name-calling, or your misrepresenting the Founders views as presented in the “Declaration,” and in the Constitution itself.

        Quibble all you want in effort to get around those indelible facts: you will be engaging irresponsibly, by means of intellectual dishonesty, in pseudo-intellectual masturbation divorced from and hostile to the actual history — of which you are uninformed — and system of laws that is the Constitution/gov’t.

        Your view was expressly characterized by the Founders as being TREASON. And you needn’t guess at that: READ the Constitution.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” The Bundy group hasn’t made war against the US, and certainly hasn’t adhered to any real enemies (much less assisted them). By contrast, the Fascist Messiah has made it clear that he does adhere to some of our enemies, and has certainly given them aid and comfort on occasion (e.g., the Bowe Bergdahl affair). They’re many things, but not traitors (at least as of yet).

        • Bell Phillips says:

          Warning: The following content may consist of troll fodder.

          I’m the guy who posted the Declaration of Independence quote. I did so to emphasize that it was not my words.

          No one here contends that armed rebellion is in any way, nor should be, a legal act. Furthermore, it is entirely obvious that no government could ever possibly function on that basis. Nor did I, in any way, mean to imply that the Declaration of Independence had the slightest force of law.

          What everyone here has said, is that an armed populace is an effective deterrent to a despotic government that is not under the control of its citizens. (A good demonstration of that may be the fate of the Russians in Afghanistan.)

          While you may be a complete retard and disagree with that, the men who founded our country left adequate evidence that they did not. They also stated quite clearly, that they believed that taking up arms was a dire, last-ditch action not to be taken lightly.

          I strongly suggest that you ask for a refund from whatever institution provided your so-called “education”. You may want to use some of your posts here as evidence of their defective product.

  4. Timothy Lane says:

    Charles C. W. Cooke had a nice article in the December 31 National Review (the magazine tends to be more politically reliable than NRO, even when the same people are writing) on the right of self-defense. He nicely points out the fallacy of the “ban bullets” meme (to allow guns but not ammunition is meaningless, and clearly violates the right to “keep and bear arms”, and also argues that ordinary people should have the right to the same weapons that the police need for personal use. (This would not apply to the weapons of tactical units designed to fight major attacks, something ordinary people don’t need.)

    Cooke points out that self-defense is actually the key right (and was recognized as such by both Locke and Blackstone, as well as in law codes as far back as the Code of Justinian). Nevertheless, liberals increasingly oppose it, often on the spurious grounds that most people are unable to defend themselves even if armed, and are much likelier to have their guns taken from them. Of course, this ignores all the successful acts of defense that don’t get reported (often because the criminal wisely chooses not to challenge the defender).

    He also makes an interesting point about an armed citizenry as a protection against tyranny. New Hampshire, in 1784, put in its state constitution: “The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd,slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.” He says that there were similar statements, at one time or another, in state constitutions in Kentucky, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Texas, and Tennessee.

  5. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Here is the latest joke from a friend in Europe.

    A Romanian, Arab and Swiss maid are sitting in a bar having a drink.

    The Romanian finishes his schnapps, throws his glass in the air, pulls out his Makarov 9mm and shots the glass to pieces.

    He says, “in Romania the glasses are so cheap that we don’t have to use them twice.”

    The Arab finishes his alcohol-free beer (his is a Muslim after all) throws his glass in the corner and pulls out his AK-47 shooting the glass to pieces.

    He says, “in Saudi Arabia we have so much sand that we can make glasses so cheap that we don’t have to use them twice.”

    The Swiss maid finishes her gin and tonic, throws her glass up in the air, pulls out her .45 Colt and shoots the Romanian and Arab.

    She catches her glass, puts it back on the bar and orders another drink.

    She says to the bar tender, “we have so many illegal immigrants in Switzerland that we don’t have to drink with the same ones twice.”

    God Bless Switzerland.

  6. GHG says:

    JNagarya said “J. Neil Schulman is a gun “rights ADVOCATE; he is NOT OBJECTIVE.

    Pot meet kettle.

    Too funny.

  7. Timothy Lane says:

    Word has just arrived of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. One can only hope that hte Senate Republicans will block the Fascist Messiah’s nominee (who will undoubtedly be a radical leftist and a member of an Official Victim Identity-Group). But even so, there will be a 4-4 conservative-liberal split (at best) until the next president appoints a replacement who gets confirmed by the Senate. RIP the Bill of Rights.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      If people think the shenanigans going on in primaries are distasteful, wait till we all see the push for the next justice. I happened to be in country during part of the Bork hearings and was appalled at the way that man was treated.

      I believe it is tradition to avoid such appointments during an election year so, as Senate Leader, McConnell could refuse to bring any nominee up for discussion, but I have my doubts he will do this.

      I am not sure how the 4/4 split will effect things. I believe the Court is not in session and will not be until October this year.

      I would not be surprised if Ginsberg tendered her resignation in the not too distant future.

      If I were Trump, I would come out almost immediately and make this a political issue. I would hammer away at the tradition of not nominating justices during election years. I would also let the Republican controlled Senate know they should block any election.

      I think Cruz may do something like this, but I don’t know if his voice will be as effective as Trump’s.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        The Court is currently in session until sometime in June, when they will announce their final decisions and recess for the summer.

        Assuming the conservatives and weather vanes stick together, what will happen is a series of 4-4 votes, in which case whatever decision the lower court made will be upheld.

Leave a Reply

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