Caution:  Harsh language alert.

You send us this stuff and we’ll repost ’em.

How does the old expression go?

“Better to be thought an idiot than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.”

Here’s a direct cut and paste, including formatting.  (Well, except for our comment after his introduction!)


Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 12:29 AM
Subject: UR an IDIOT!!

Let me explain and finish the entire 2nd Amendment for you:

Please, Master Instructor.  Tell us, if you would be so kind!
He continues…

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

1. No single person is a militia.

2. A Well REGULATED Militia.

3. Being necessary to the security of a free State. (Where does that say SINGLE INDIVIDUAL?)

4. THE RIGHT of the PEOPLE(AGAIN Where is the single person here?)

Now if we were to take the whole Amendment in order as it is supposed to be read and adhered to then you can not have firearms as a single citizen unregulated or with out supervision.  You must be a part of a state Militia run by the state and for the state otherwise you have no legal right to bear arms.

Now do rest of us gun owners and users a favor and shut the fuck up before the government decides to make criminals of us all who do have weapons and use them responsibly…

Stop being an Asshole before you fuck it up for everybody!!!


21 thoughts on “Another simple-minded love note”
  1. I would not publish the missives from all these idiots. With the press being as slanted as it generally is, they do not need another forum. There is no debating with them, there is no such thing as civil communication, and we are clearly their enemy because we disagree with them. That sure does not leave many alternatives does it.

  2. Words mean things.

    Words written in 1791 mean what they meant in 1791.

    In 1791, “well regulated” meant well trained and / or well equipped.

    In 1791, the “militia” was everyone capable of working in concert for the common defense.

    You’re right, it’s not one single person. It’s ALL of us.

    You’re right, we should all be “regulated” – in the 1791 sense of the word. We should all be well trained and well equipped.

    And regarding your point #4, “THE RIGHT of the PEOPLE(AGAIN Where is the single person here?)” – using this logic, individual people don’t have a right to assemble [1st amendment, “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”; and individual people have no protection against unreasonable search and seizure, as that amendment reads, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures”.

    Oh, and since the 1st amendment exists, I (and we collectively at Guns Save Life) will not “shut the f*** up”. Oh, wait, in your world,, we individuals don’t HAVE a right to free speech, only as part of a state run press. And we don’t have the right to assemble, which means you should call the cops, and tell them to arrest all of us in Rantoul on the second Tuesday of the month, or in Peoria, Pontiac, or Effingham on those meeting nights.

    Perhaps you could just show up for IGOLD (Illinois Gun Owner Lobby Day) next spring and arrest 10,000 of us at once.

    1. John N. Well put , my friend. I was going to post something snotty but brief and then saw your well-written, legally-correct and polite opinion. Thank you for taking the time. Too bad that loser won’t read it and, if he did, wouldn’t understand it.

    2. Thanks. There’s always a chance that he will read it, and do a little further research on his own (he doesn’t have to take my word for it; he could read the opinions in Heller and McDonald.

  3. “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    Notice how it says “People” not the “Militia” have the right to keep and bear arms. The comma in this sentence is a direct separation between the state and it’s people.

    Now why did our founding fathers put this amendment into existence? It’s not because they wanted to go deer hunting. It’s because we just got done fighting a war against a tyrannical government that wanted to disarm “THE PEOPLE”. Research what started the battle of Lexington and Concord.

    The 2nd Amendment is so Black and White it baffles me that there’s an argument over it’s meaning.

  4. “Now do rest of us gun owners and users a favor and shut the fuck up before the government decides to make criminals of us all who do have weapons and use them responsibly…
    Stop being an Asshole before you fuck it up for everybody!!!”

    …Pot, meet kettle…

    With such a well articulated email, it’s no wonder why people call us law abiding firearms owners “gun nuts”….

    Way to go, way to make all of us gun owners look like we can have well articulated conversations about gun ownership and rights…

  5. Too bad this rocket scientist hasn’t read the Heller and McDonald decisions.

    Heller in particular was a brilliantly written majority decision…

    But reality and gun-haters’ perceptions are often at odds.


    1. Yeah, you may be right, but you know as well as anyone here that there is no reasoning with these types of people. You’ll have an easier time proving water isn’t wet.

  6. A familiar and practiced population provides a well regulated militia that is necessary for the security of a free state (both of being and boundaried land ) thus, the right of every person to keep and bear arms must be protected from the musings of people who think they ” know better”. A lifetime of exposure and practice provides a population that brings its own weaponry and knowledge AND SAFETY to the table when the militia is called forth so it diesnt start from scratch. Tactics can then be trained rather than BASIC shooting and maintaining skills !

    It’s ironic really. Statist today demand training impositions ( and call them permissible) based in a backward reading of the Second. The induvidisl right is meant to protect the militia formation by being able to draw from an already familiar people BECAUSE their individual right has “always” been NOT INFRINGED.

    Did ya send him a link to Heller and ask him for a response explaining how he’s right and the highest court is wrong?

  7. Martin D. Sloan seems quite the professor, thanks for enlightening us Doc. James Madison wrote the 2nd Amendment and by the “militia”, he meant all able-bodied citizens. “Well-regulated” didn’t mean what the professor is implying what it means, especially in 1790s colonial USA. It did not mean that the government needed to have strict oversight of people’s rights and a modicum of research by the resident professor would dig that up, but it seems like he is too lazy or non-caring for some solid education on the facts, historical and otherwise. Shall not be infringed means what it means. The government has been trying to go above and beyond to infringe since the 1930s. I think the professor should put down the Kool-Aid and get a refund on his “education”.

  8. Before anyone tries to interpret the second amendment as applying only to the militia, they really need to look at the militia act of 1862 and the militia act of 1903. The federal law defines two catagories of militia: the organized militia (National Guard and Naval Guard) and the unorganized militia (original definitions have since been expanded to include females and men capable of bearing arms, regardless of age). We, the people, ARE the militia.

    1. Just an “Amen” to your statement, and,….if you look in most state Constitutions, it (Illinois’ constitution)explicitly defines the “militia” as ALL able-bodied citizens legally able to own firearms (non-criminals).

      It’s good to see the histerical diatribes of the anti-constitutionalsts and firearm-haters, if nothing more than to shake your head in wonderment, but also to see their attitude, however mis-guided and embarassingly UNeducated they all are!

  9. I always took the 2nd amendment to mean we should be like Switzerland, I think it is Switzerland anyway where every citizen of a certain age must be trained and own a weapon to defend their country. Isnt that why we have to sign up for the draft when we turn 18 in this country. At that point we are essentially all in the militia just waiting to be told to report for duty.

    1. Thanks, John, for posting the Article (XII, Sect. 1) for all to see, it might be “lost” on Mr. Sloan, but it is good for all to know as IL. citizens. I love the graphic with Sam Elliot and have it saved on my computer, too, very appropriate for Mr. Sloan. (haha)

  10. I would strongly recommend this gentleman read the federalist papers that clearly define all the amendments as the founding fathers intended them to be defined. He should also read Thomas Jefferson’s personal quotes on the right to bear arms. But even this may not do him any good if he is highly educated by liberals this explains the total lack of reading comprehension.

    1. Mr. probably can’t read above a second or third grade level and his comprehensive level is much less. If he tried to read the Federalist Papers his head would explode from all the information contridictory to his mis-guided beliefs.

  11. If we take dipshits argument to its conclusion, the 4th Amendment also doesn’t say individuals, it says ‘people’ and ‘persons’. So that means they meant for only group property to be ‘secure’.

    A real gun owner butt….

Comments are closed.