The Second Amendment remains a God-given fundamental right that belongs to all Americans. Despite the efforts of some politicians and judges, it belongs to all Americans, regardless of their zip code or political beliefs. At the same time this doesn’t mean every group automatically earns a seat at the table within the broader firearms culture.
Certain organizations, most notably the Socialist Rifle Association and similar self-described radical leftist groups, don’t deserve a place among responsible gun owners. These groups openly treat the right to bear arms not as a sacred shield for individual liberty and self-defense, but as a revolutionary tool to advance their ideological agenda.
Their public statements, social media posts, and organizational literature frequently reveal a disturbing willingness to justify, romanticize, or even celebrate political violence against fellow citizens who dare to hold opposing views.
Above all, this is just a bunch of Liberal nonsense. Fuck the 2A, we are not in favor of “guns for everyone”, we are in favor of arming those groups who stand most to gain from the end of capitalism, and disarming those who stand in our way
That isn’t responsible gun ownership. Those are not our allies or supporters in our noble pursuit of gun rights for responsible, law-abiding citizens. The SRA clearly isn’t operating in the spirit of the Second Amendment, which was designed to protect individual freedoms and serve as a final check against governmental tyranny.
Instead, it represents an embrace of the kind of fascist-style intimidation and authoritarian impulses these groups claim to oppose. Their rhetoric often frames political opponents as enemies to be eliminated rather than debated (see Charlie Kirk and Donald Trump).
I cannot and will not support the normalization of such groups within the gun culture. Allowing them in risks poisoning the community that has historically stood for lawful, ethical, and defensive firearm use.
The firearms community has always been united by a core principle: the fundamental human right to armed self-defense and the ability to resist tyranny. Generations of Americans—from pioneers to modern day citizens—have viewed the Second Amendment as a safeguard of personal autonomy and a deterrent against overreaching authority.
Those who seek to pervert these principles into a weapon for partisan violence or class warfare have no place among us. True gun culture emphasizes safety, training, responsibility, and respect for the rule of law. It doesn’t include fantasies of purging political opponents.
These Socialist Rifle Association types frequently express their desire to impose their vision of tyranny at the barrel of a gun. They speak casually of putting dissenters “up against the wall” or using lethal force to impose ideological conformity.
If you can’t win a debate with reason and persuasion, resorting to threats of execution isn’t victory—it’s the cowardice of the weak. That mindset directly contradicts the values upon which America was founded: individual rights, free speech, open discourse, and peaceful coexistence under the law.
Instead, these individuals reveal themselves as would-be tyrants in waiting—social misfits and ideological extremists who rely on intimidation and the threat of force rather than the power of their ideas.
They are bullies who would force others to bend to their will, not through intellectual engagement or democratic means, but through the explicit threat of violence. That, ladies and gentlemen, is textbook fascism, regardless of the red or black flags they fly. True fascism and fascist beliefs should have no home in a free society or in a responsible gun community that’s dedicated to individual liberty and freedom.
Oh so true, thanks John.
What these groups want, the Second Amendment was not intended to be used to arm such… the Second Amendment was intended to be used to resist what they advocate which is a thing called ‘tyranny’. We fought a war to free us from such under the British and it was that impetus which prompted the founders to write down the age old inherent human right that existed before our country was even discovered – so its inconceivable, its false, its a lie, that the Second Amendment was also intended for people such in these groups who seek to bring back the same tyranny. Its pretty clear from their other writings in the federalists writings and personal papers the founders did not intend the Second Amendment to be used to arm such.
so this nation did not want to protect those that stood against it?
my snark refrain valve was just compromised.
(hits self in head with brick).
thanks, that’s enlightening.
It’s unfortunate that conservatives fell into this trap. That the libertarians and liberals created by saying that everybody had to support the rights of people that they didn’t like. Who were in fact of their enemies.
These same people were nowhere to be found. When Christians and other believers. Were being arrested trying to attend religious services. Starting in 2020 during the covid years. While g@.y pride parades were allowed to continue along with BLM protests.
Suicidal empathy, toxic tolerance, lowering the drawbridge, “judeo-christian” guilt tripping, women being women.
Being nice and polite is fine and all but somewhere along the road too many people lost the ability to discern a America loving freedom seeker from Atilla the Hun and now Western societies are welcoming all the Huns with wide-open arms and bottomless pits of taxpayers cash.
Some are just idiots who really think the Huns will be great friends. Some are nihilists like the democrats and commies who will be happy to rule over the ruins of the first world. Some are self-serving grifters like the Catholic Charities crowd trying to farm followers/tithers and the Chamber of Commerce types thinking they’re getting modern slaves.
On the macro level be selective about who you let into your country just as you would about who you let into your home. On the micro level don’t invite your homicidal cannibal neighbor to the range.
If being “nice” means being the doormat of the world as they wipe gobs of dogshit off on us then I don’t want to be nice. I want to be the exact opposite of that to the fullest extent possible until all the shit-wiping stops and catapult all the people complaining about my not being “nice” into the ocean.
A “God-given fundamental right” that only belongs to Americans seems pretty odd. If only Americans have the right, then it comes from the Constitution, not God; if it’s God-given, then everyone has it, and the focus on Americans is misplaced.
“If only Americans have the right, then it comes from the Constitution,…”
That’s the thing. It does not come from the Constitution. The Bill of Rights in the Constitution only put in writing what is a “God’ given right (i.e. a natural inherent right, for example self defense.)
Yes, that’s what I said, that’s why limiting it to Americans is wrong, and weird.
To Felix
Yes our rights are God given. Not from man’s government on earth. But we also have a right to not associate with people. Who don’t believe in god given rights.
The S0c;i@list Rifle Association, the K.K.K, the n@tio.n@l s0ci@list,s. They are all the same. None of them believe in the 2nd amendment. But they certainly do like their guns.
The same goes for the democrat party leadership. They don’t believe in god given rights either. But they do like their own guns too.
And liberal gun owners. They don’t believe in god given their either. Who are they voting for???
And… all do have the right inherently. But that does not mean its for intentional violence (i.e. criminal violence) or for tyranny (like these groups want)….and the founders made that clear as does human history before our country was even discovered.
The right to self defense is God given and belongs to all humans. That comes straight from the Declaration. We are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights. The Second Amendment does not create that right. It recognizes a preexisting one and prevents the federal government from infringing on it for Americans.
That is why we call it a God given right that belongs to all Americans. Every person has the natural right but here in America our Constitution protects it specifically for our citizens. Non-citizens inside the US still have basic human rights and due process but the full scope of Second Amendment protections has limits under our laws. Other countries often do not. It is not odd. It is how a sovereign nation secures natural rights for its own people.
Thank you for saying this, John. Tolerance sounds nice until it lets people who want to tear everything down into the tent. That mentality is being used against normal society across the culture, and it leads down a slippery slope.
A notable Marxist and communist once contributed articles to this website and TTAG, and the editors didn’t bat an eye.
Practice what you preach.
And who would that ‘notable Marxist and communist’ be?
Elaine D. Did write for TTAG. She is the daughter of a North Vietnamese general. And she was against American school teachers carrying guns in the classroom.
Oh her. She didn’t write for SNW (that I know of). That’s what threw me off ’cause he said “…once contributed articles to this website and TTAG”
@ZeeTeeHee
The article author was practicing what he ‘preached’. Did you not read the article?
whether groups are aligned or no, access to self defense places them all into a definable community. that tent contains myriad ideologies.
“whether groups are aligned or no, access to self defense places them all into a definable community. that tent contains myriad ideologies.”
don’t confuse a right to self-defense – with – an ideology for intentional murder and tyranny thinking its in the Second Amendment ‘tent’ also because “that tent contains myriad ideologies”
The Second Amendment ‘tent’ never allowed ‘tyranny ideologies’ such as put forth by these groups. We fought a war to free us from such under the British and it was that impetus which prompted the founders to write down the age old inherent human right that existed before our country was even discovered – so its inconceivable, its false, its a lie, that the Second Amendment ‘tent’ was also intended for people such in these groups who seek to bring back the same tyranny. Its pretty clear from their other writings in the federalists writings and personal papers the founders did not intend the Second Amendment to be used to arm such. Do you think the founders were sitting around discussing and said “Hey, lets do a right to keep and bear arms because we want to arm the types of tyranny we just got rid of” ? Nope.
But these groups goals for a tyranny as they have stated, then these groups are not in the Second Amendment ‘tent’ and by their own stated goals intent have excluded their selves from that tent exactly because of their ‘ideology’. Its only the wording in law that lets them continue under the Second Amendment and not the Second Amendment its self. And because the law must apply to all it applies to them also which lets them claim to be exercising the second amendment when in reality their goal as a group is not to exercise the second amendment as an individual right but rather to exploit it to be armed to bring about a tyranny the second amendment rejects as a reason for exercising it by its very existence in writing. No, their ‘ideology’ is not in the Second Amendment ‘tent’. It would be different if they said ‘in case of tyranny’ but they don’t say that, they say they want to use arms to bring about a tyranny and that was never what the Second Amendment was about.
“…by its very existence in writing.”
meaning: The founders put it in also as a means to resist tyranny, not to impose a tyranny like these groups say they want to do. By its very nature and the intent of it in writing the Second Amendment rejects its use to impose a tyranny like these groups want to use it.
nobody’s confused here, equating self defense to intentional [what other kind is there? (anticipates legal examples of unintentional murder)] murder ideology is so strained as to be offensive.
one tent: everyone has the right, even murderers.
“…do you think the… hey let’s do a…” is seriously strained.
don’t compare violent intentions to self defense.
SRA isn’t interested in “self-defense.” Unless you count using deadly force to thwart federal agents rounding up violent illegal alien monsters (and I include child sex predators among those).
everyone who is interested in self preservation has an interest in self defense.
they leave the community the moment they are convicted and imprisoned for misuse of weapons.
“We’ve got to destroy the country so we can SAVE the country!” said someone at some time…
Why do conservatives ALWAYS have to let things get to the point of complete desolation and ruin before they find the motivation and will to “do something”? Tolerance is great… to a point. Any person or group going beyond that point should be laughed out of the room and then forcefully moved out of the country.
Let’s not forget, “rights” come with responsibilities and aren’t absolute. For example the prohibition of felons possessing firearms. Is treason a felony? Groups like SRA or NFAC aren’t responsible, and are openly treasonous. Should we push for laws blocking them from buying firearms? No. But they should not be welcome in the responsible community of law abiding gun owners (2A tent), just as a KKK “militia” shouldn’t be. Their tiny numbers aren’t the threat. The real threat from them is drawing us into an argument of supporting or protecting them, and looking utterly unreasonable and unhinged for doing so. Letter of law and spirit (intent) of law are sometimes different. The “intent” of 2A was never to protect the rights of the lawless or those pushing for lawlessness.
That’s seems to be the whole demonrat RICO gang now.
Almost all demcrats I know were mad and sad trump wasn’t murdered by one of them. Then there’s the black ones calling for white elimination like in S. Africa.