Nap Has Lost His Mind
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Display list of topics
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Sarah's Blog Buy Sarah's Pictures
Full-Text Search & Archives
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2019-01-13 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in 2ndAmendment , 261 references Ignore this thread
Nap Has Lost His Mind
[Comments enabled]

It's unreasonable to expect a person to publicly state that the opposite of that which he has spent his entire life decrying -- or profiting from.

Most of the mass killings by guns in the United States in recent years — Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Newtown, Charleston, San Bernardino and Orlando — took place in venues where local or state law prohibited carrying guns, even by those lawfully licensed to do so. The government cheerfully calls these venues “gun-free zones.” They should be called killing zones.


The term “pre-political” derives from the language of the Second Amendment, which protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” The constitutional reference of “the” right to keep and bear arms makes clear that the Framers recognized that the right pre-existed the government because it stems from our humanity. That’s why pre-political rights are known as fundamental or natural rights.

Because the right to use modern weaponry for the defense of life, liberty and property are natural, we should not need a government permission slip before exercising it, any more than we need one to exercise other natural rights, such as speech, press, assembly, travel and privacy.

Indeed, that's what shall not be infringed means.  It's obvious.  It's plain language.  And it's unambiguous.

Hillary Clinton called the rifle the Orlando killer carried a “weapon of war.” It is not. It is the same rifle that her Secret Service detail carries. Many of her acolytes have called it an assault rifle. It is not. It fires one round for each trigger pull. True assault rifles — not those that the politicians have renamed assault rifles because they have a collapsible stock and a bayonet holder (I know this sounds ridiculous, but it's true) — fire numerous rounds per trigger pull. They have been outlawed on U.S. soil since 1934.

That's a lie.

Machine guns have not been outlawed.  You can own one.  As a civilian.  I have been at a range where many of them are present and legally owned.  You can even rent one from said range and go fire it.  If you wish you can buy it, although again we start talking about permission slips, in the form of what is called a "Form 4."

Of course what Napolitano doesn't want to talk about is his own lie.  He's not "inconsistent", he's lying and he knows it.

He knows good and damn well, because he says so directly, that the right to defend one's life against any who would unlawfully take it predates government.  The Government has no right to prevent you from such defense because it's a natural right; government cannot refuse to permit that which it didn't have control over in the first place.

I cannot give you my next door neighbor's house because I don't have lawful possession of it.  Since I don't own it I can't give it to you.  I also can't take it from my neighbor; again, it's not mine to take.

Tyrants come in all shapes, sizes, colors and numbers.  The everyday tyrant is the robber, mugger or rapist -- and occasionally, very occasionally by the statistics, a mass-shooter.  Against any of them any firearm is better than none, and since magazines have a finite capacity as soon as he or she has to reload you can shoot back.

You might win that battle and you might not, but at least you have a fighting chance.

On the other hand if the tyrants that are after you are not singular then you may have need of a weapon that can fire rapidly -- more rapidly than a semi-automatic.  There's nothing in our Constitution that says your right to defend against a tyrant that would take your life only includes common criminals that come one at a time.

Indeed we have actual Congressional Representatives stating in public that should they not get what they want "we will take to the streets."

If that occurs the tyrants will not be coming one at a time or in singular number.  Indeed the very threat is to engage in violence en-masse.  My right to life does not suddenly become not a pre-political right when a government tyrant proposes the idea of fighting "in the streets" by a proposed mass number of individuals.

It is for this specific reason that the Second Amendment says shall not be infringed, the NFA is unconstitutional, the GCA is unconstitutional, Brady is unconstitutional and so are the rest of these alleged laws.  If and when the time comes it will only be through many, en-masse, who say "NO!" to such tyranny that this nation shall endure as a Representative Republic.

Go to responses (registration required to post)

User: Not logged on
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
User Info Nap Has Lost His Mind in forum [Market-Ticker]
Posts: 299
Incept: 2017-04-29

DeKalb, Illinois
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Some of my friends in Wisconsin told me that the main reason that Wisconsin got shall-issue concealed carry was that some black thugs were assaulting white families trying to attend the Wisconsin State Fair a few years back. Scott Walker rode that issue into the Governor's Office. These friends attended a mass concealed carry course in a Milwaukee auditorium on Valentine's Day about a year after the law was passed and signed. There were 1,000 people there, largely married couples. It was taught by the person who wrote the statute.

Illinois had to be forced by the federal courts to come up with a concealed carry law. On paper Illinois has some very strict gun control laws, but they are rarely enforced except against white suburbanites. In Crook County, Illinois, the States Attorney, Kimesha Foxx, whose campaign was largely funded by George Soros, refuses to enforce these strict gun control laws on minorities. Those charges are immediately dropped, and many violent crimes such as armed carjacking are not prosecuted at all. This is amply shown by the blog, Second City Cop.

Since the Bolsheviks swept all of the statewide offices in Illinois, I fully expect more unconstitutional gun control laws to be passed, and signed, but they will be selectively enforced like all of the others.
Posts: 110371
Incept: 2007-08-26

East Tennessee Eastern Time
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I don't understand. That's a wonderful article appearing in a hugely public forum...

Why would that BS about the machine guns even be there? For public consumption? Editor insisted on it? There has to be some reason, and it's not that he's simply a liar and I know he's not ignorant.

I just don't get it.

It's justifiably immoral to deal morally with an immoral entity.

Festina lente.
Posts: 392
Incept: 2017-06-26

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Yeah, the Judge somehow got a screw knocked loose in his head.

They can call guns whatever they want. I call mine "counter-assault weapons". How's that? --- Or "self-defense machines"? "Anti-Marxist boom-boom sticks".

Whatever guns are called I have a natural right to own one or two or a whole damn collection. And no dumb-ass judge can abridged that....

Some of us in Texas are working on Constitutional Carry this year. Any Texans reading this please contact their reps and ask them to vote yes on a forthcoming bill. And write the Governor, too....

Posts: 177
Incept: 2009-10-23

On a rock in the river
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
PPD=Personal Protection Device.

I try to change the narrative a little.

A motion to adjourn and go fishing is always in order.
--me channeling Heinlein
Posts: 646
Incept: 2009-03-25

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
In the movies, on the TV, the sound machines for gun shots are automatic firing because nobody would believe a gun fight of a single shot.
Posts: 5588
Incept: 2009-03-19

Just North of Detroit
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
That might have been editing - but I'd refuse to OK it and go forward with publishing rather than allow a flat out falsehood.
Posts: 24
Incept: 2017-02-14

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Although the ownership of automatic weapons is not illegal, thanks to the Hughes Act of 1986 (known as the Firearms Owners Protection Act) it effectively makes it so for anyone unable to pay anywhere from $10,000. to $40,000 to be able to buy one of the automatic weapons in existence as of 1986 in the USA. After that date, further importation of automatic weapons into the USA or manufacture in the USA of automatic weapons for sale to civilians was prohibited by that act. I would like to exercise my right to buy an MP5 or an MG42, but I don't have the discretionary funds to do so. Since most American families can't scrape $400. together for an emergency, they effectively don't have the right to own an automatic weapon either.
The as*holes who rule us made a big stink in the 1960's about how poll taxes deprived poor people the right to vote. The "Firearms Owners Protection Act" of 1986 robs us of the right to own a class of weapons unless we have lots of money. If the FOPA act were constitutional, wouldn't limiting the number of voters to the number registered in 1986 be constitutional as well?
When the government enacts some law abrogating our rights they dress it up with a noble sounding title like the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act, or the Firearms Owners Protection Act. When the FEMA camps are set up to incarcerate and reeducate "deplorables", perhaps an enabling act will be titled the Public Higher Education and Enlightenment Act.
Posts: 299
Incept: 2017-04-29

DeKalb, Illinois
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I remember when liberal Democrats drafted me and forced fully automatic weapons into my unwilling hands. This was back in 1968. When I was in Infantry AIT at Ft. McClellan, Alabama, we were issued our M16s, and our field gear, but no ammunition, and were confined to our barracks pending deployment to The Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Fortunately, Mayor Daley's Finest cracked enough heads so that I didn't have to do the same. I got sent to Vietnam by LBJ, and then Nixon, a liberal Republican took the reins, and made me carry a grenade launcher, and a 50 Caliber Browning machine gun. I also got to shoot enough 81 millimeter mortar rounds to wreck my hearing.

So, now that I am 70 years old, and increasingly slow, the liberal Democrats and liberal Republicans think that I should not be able to own the most popular rifle in America these days? Such Ingratitude! At least I have Single Payer Healthcare, but I am afraid to use it much...
Posts: 866
Incept: 2017-06-27

The People's Republic of New York
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
during the czar rule Russia was by any era's standards the most heavily civilian armed country in the world. how did disarming the people during the communist takeover help them during the Stalinist regime?

on a related note, at some time in our future an invading army will land on our shores. the military will be spread too thin and focused on necessary conflicts and missions. the people will become the army defending against invaders and it would be nice if they have the means to fight effectively. we will also need to repel mass hordes of USA residents who become like locusts once their population centers become untenable. these will not be refugees looking to relocate and at best earn their keep in new communities but violent invading hordes loosely organized supplemented by super predators like the nice gangs we currently tolerate. only automatic weapons and explosive armaments will offer the normal people a chance. the government will do little effectively to protect civilized areas, forget about the state and local police, and before thinking about the National Guard, they will be deployed to the same theaters as the regular military along with all of their armaments.

at this point it would be nice if the powers that be have a plan to quarantine the problematic areas and people in a situation where the above becomes a factor, preferably at the start or before. sadly for any such plan to be effective it would must involve mass elimination of the threat which makes it impossible to consider. we will be caught expending massive resources suppressing a threat with increasing ineffectiveness.

if you do not think that the above has been majorly considered, well let's just say that your well-being was never a concern.

There are two ways to be rich: One is by acquiring much, and the other is by desiring little.
snow, seasons, distance and dirt roads: SSDD
"Be not deceived; God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap" (Gal. 6:7)
Posts: 3
Incept: 2013-02-13

North Carolina
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I hate to say so, because I wouldn't wish this on anyone... but our domestic population has lived without war on these shores for too long to have any sense of what it's like, or what's real.

Yes, we have sent our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines to other countries to fight, but since Korea the perspective of veterans has been marginalized. Nobody on the left wants to hear what a veteran has to say, and the media pushes the agenda that if you've been to war, you're damaged goods and not to be trusted.

Our civilian population has live with peace for so long that they consider it the natural order of things. They take it for granted. Too few of them have ever been in a position to live or die as a result of their own action (or inaction). Our country has taken advantage of the "blessings of liberty" to construct a hothouse in which we grow delicate flower citizens with no common sense, critical thinking skills, or understanding of history.

I'm not stupid enough to wish for a domestic US war... but from here it looks as though one is inevitable.
Posts: 168
Incept: 2009-03-05

Sunny UK
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
"Most of the mass killings by guns in the United States in recent years..."

Nice wording there, douchebag. It's not the guns that kill people, it's people that kill people.
Posts: 115
Incept: 2007-09-28

Greenfield, IN
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
The insanity knows no bounds. FU Trump if William Barr, who you nominated for AG, supports any form of self defense control.

During the hearings for the AG position in 1991 William Barr expressed his support for gun control:

On the assault weapon front, the proposal before us is the DeConcini amendment. And I think ... I would support both the Brady Bill waiting period and the DeConcini [semi-auto ban] amendment, provided that they were parts of a broader and more comprehensive crime bill that included ... very tough provisions on the use of firearms in crimes and illegal purchase and trading in firearms...

So Barr endorsed both the Brady Check portion of the Brady Bill and the semi-auto ban, although he did express a preference for magazine bans: "I would prefer a limitation on the clip [sic] size."

You can see Barr's remarks at the 1:42:23 mark in this C-Span video:

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ