By FITSNews || We were forwarded a video (above) of S.C. Fourth Congressional District candidate Christina Jeffrey discussing the Second Amendment and God bless her bat sh*t crazy, Rudy Giuliani-lovin‘ ass but on this issue she’s dead right …
The Second Amendment wasn’t put in the Bill of Rights to protect our ability to hunt, it was put there to protect our right to “take the power back,” yo. That may not be politically-correct to say, but it’s accurate.
Now … is Jeffrey still a loon? Absofrigginlutely … although we’re not going to call her one while she’s brandishing an AK-47. Well, at least not until after we’ve “Manchurian Candidated” her …
By wayne May 11, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Would be nice if this American politician could pose with an AMERICAN MADE weapon.
By WorkingTommyC May 11, 2010 at 7:01 pm
Now how can you NOT love a candidate that packs deadly weapons?
By Amanda Colt May 11, 2010 at 7:06 pm
perhaps next time she shouldn’t stand in front of something that is reflective and thus allow us to see her cue cards… Busch league
By Someone in Spartanburg May 11, 2010 at 7:39 pm
I bet Rudy G. is shittin’ his pants right now seeing her walking around with an AK-47.
Not only that, that gun would probably knock her on her ass.
By Someone in Spartanburg May 11, 2010 at 7:41 pm
She looks kind of scared of the damn thing too…
By baker May 11, 2010 at 8:32 pm
l am not a Constitutional scholar, but my understanding is that there is significant debate over the meaning of the Second Amendment: does it extend a Constitutional right to individuals, or only to organizations defined as militias?
But, even going along with Dr. Jeffrey’s point of view on the matter….how does it possibly square with modern reality?
Her gun in this YouTube video is indeed impressive — scary, even. But is it going to defend her against the full force of the United States military? Or even a well-trained municipal public safety department. I mean, in the 18th Century, I figure a musket vs. musket fight might have been something — particularly with a “well-regulated militia” in play. But haven’t the scales been tipped to the point that Jeffrey’s (and Will’s) view is a tad out of touch with reality?
And how far do the weapons-related rights of individuals and militias go? Can Jeffrey put together a group of wealthy like-minded folks in Spartanburg and purchase a nuclear weapon and aim it at DC?
I’m also interested in the phrase “well-regulated militia” — what does that suggest? Who “regulates” it, and how?
By SubZeroIQ May 11, 2010 at 9:27 pm
Baker: You don’t need to be a constitutional scholar to know that NOTHING in the REAL Constitution allows the “taking of the government back” by force of arms as this idiot running for Congress claims.
You know what the Consitution calls “trying to take the government” by force of arms? TREASON and INSURRECTION.
This woman’s claim that the Second Amendment is there to facilitate armed coups d’etat at all, much less by idiots like her, is like the now-gone and much-unlamented Tandy Carter’s false claim that he is “a constitutional officer.”
The real Constitution has prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures, which the Columbia Police Department (CPD) practiced under Carter’s brow-less eyes. The problem is: they have guns.
How does this woman suppose to “take back the government with her guns?”
This is too frightening to even make fun about.
What is even more frightening is her effect on impressionable young minds like FITS’.
FITS: think before you write. Would you?
By OhNoNotAgain May 11, 2010 at 9:50 pm
You know, I’d like for her and all her AK-wielding sympathizers to go ahead and declare a revolt against the government.
It would be over in like 15 seconds, and we’d be rid of them. Then we could amend to get a right to bear arms that makes sense against, as stated above, a nuclear military.
By SnakeMD May 11, 2010 at 9:54 pm
Wayne:
The AK-47 she is holding is a Romanian WASR-10 with a 30 round magazine. The surplus sling is a little slack along with her grip. The AK is used by many of “our” contract workers and is the unofficial weapon of choice for those who make a living doing dangerous things so the majority of you can sleep without worry.
DE OPPRESSO LIBER
By Teddy May 11, 2010 at 10:16 pm
WOW
By Silence F-ing Dogood May 11, 2010 at 11:23 pm
Trigger control you wench! Finger out – learn how to hold a damn gun befor your talk. Also, I agree an M-16 would have been much more appealing and American.
By ManWithoutaParty May 11, 2010 at 11:32 pm
If she were wearing a bikini it would have been the WORST recreation of that doctored Sarah Palin photo EVER!!!!
By tammy May 12, 2010 at 12:16 am
ROFLOL. Common sense grandma, no doubt.
By Stacy May 12, 2010 at 4:38 am
I love her. The wood on that AK and the lack of the slant brake on the end of the barrel makes it look a lot like my Egyptian Maadi AK. My only beef is that she’s not holding it by the pistol grip. Did I mention that I think she’s awesome?
By WorkingTommyC May 12, 2010 at 8:36 am
If those who are discussing the “real” Constitution above would read the plain English of a document that (And this is REALLY going to blow your minds!) DOES NOT EXIST IN AN INTELLECTUAL VACUUM, they might understand the REALLY REAL Constitution.
There are many, many references to, and much written directly about, the U.S. Constitution by the Founding Fathers that make your arguments about as worthless as spitting on a broom:
——————-
“We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed . . . ”
—Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
“No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
—Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
—Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
“To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character.”
—Alexander Hamilton
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”
—Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
—Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
The militia is defined by the South Carolina State Constitution in article XIII, section 1:
“The militia of this State shall consist of all able-bodied male citizens of the State between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, except such persons as are now or may be exempted by the laws of the United States or this State, or who from religious scruples may be adverse to bearing arms, and shall be organized, officered, armed, equipped and disciplined as the General Assembly may by law direct.”
——————-
But then, don’t let the FREAKIN’ FACTS get in the way of your masturbatory fantasies of a volatile, meaningless, “living” Constitution:
——————-
“Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written
Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.”
–Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1803.
“On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit
manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning
may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform
to the probable one in which it was passed.”
–Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823
“I had rather ask an enlargement of power from the nation, where
it is found necessary, than to assume it by a construction which
would make our powers boundless.”
–Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1803.
By sid May 12, 2010 at 9:57 am
Good stuff, WTC. One may also look to the ruling by SCOTUS that struck down the DC handgun ban. The ruling clearly stated the 2A protects a right of individuals (as did previous rulings). The pending ruling by SCOTUS in the McDonald case (should come out in a month or two), challenging Chicago’s own ban, should further explain that this protection also prohibits states and municipalities from banning handguns. There really is little debate that the 2A protects an individual right, including among Constitutional scholars. Only a small group of such “scholars” try to claim a “collective” right model for the 2A.
By Skidmarks May 12, 2010 at 10:02 am
From the way she handles it, she’s better off with a loud dog.
By No Name May 12, 2010 at 10:39 am
A couple of quick thoughts.
1. Have to love the diverse group here on FITS that can answer with basic gun tips and great constitutional context in the same article.
2. Video was not well thought out enough …. If she had called the local fightin fourth company success story Teludyne …she would have known they are marketing the outstanding new barrel technology for the AR ……civilian series M-16….and they would have been glad to not only lend her an American AR….but no doubt would have explained how to hold\shoot\reload and given her a range to shot a clip into a target.
3. She is not stupid and her looniness can be really compelling….I might call it crude….but she has visited the big time so I have a hard time understanding her end game here. Radio show maybe.
4. If she is going to do these publicity events…..and thank god she did not go naked…..I suggest she do a few Inglis ambush ploys to see how Bob handles the TARP question now that it so obvious that he got suckered by Lindsey. ” Bob ….do you still support TARP and where are you on Arizona Immagration and Lindsey leading the State GOP. Now that would be entertaining .
By WorkingTommyC May 12, 2010 at 10:39 am
Sid:
Just for the benefit of others here–we’ve already discussed this, IIRC:
I agree wholeheartedly on the D.C. case–clear case of Federal jurisdiction.
Where the states are concerned however, it’s up to them. The prohibition in the Constitution is applicable only to Congress. That being said, the states, I would pray, would have their own versions of the RTKBA as most do.
In any case, it is always much easier to have the people rise up and take control at the state level than at the federal level.
By WorkingTommyC May 12, 2010 at 10:43 am
BTW, Stacy:
From what I understand, she’s more used to shooting and handling shotguns and rifles that do not have pistol grips–that probably explains her grip on the AK.
By sid May 12, 2010 at 11:58 am
We’ll see what SCOTUS says regarding allowing states/municipalities to restrict our RKBA, WTC. Fortunately, we won’t have to wait long. I’m betting the ruling will come down on the side of those who feel the 2A protects against state/local infringement through the 14A. How far they’ll go, though, I’m just not sure.
By Varga May 12, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Will, do not agree with you on many things, but this woman is a loon. I knew her in Georgia when she worked for a prominent university there. She was probably not as crazy then,
By WorkingTommyC May 12, 2010 at 1:52 pm
Sid,
You’re probably right. Still wish the SCOTUS would just read the d—-d words on the page for a change, though.
By DanielSC May 12, 2010 at 2:00 pm
I liked the video – though it could use some serious retakes.
Thanks FITS for the info.
By Brian Frank May 12, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Here is a new video of her actually shooting!
Machine Gun Granny runs for Congress!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qrwoniMQnc
By WorkingTommyC May 13, 2010 at 6:12 am
Ha! Good one, Brian!
She shoots surprisingly well for a girl! I think she killed Obama =:>)
By Scooter May 13, 2010 at 2:12 pm
somebody take that frigging gun from that crazy person.
By Michael May 14, 2010 at 10:34 am
She’s right! I wish she had included the tenth amendment in her explanation which reads as follows:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Translation, the federal government has over-stepped its constitutional authority!
By Max The Dog May 14, 2010 at 7:34 pm
Now … is Jeffrey still a loon? Absofrigginlutely … although we’re not going to call her one while she’s brandishing an AK-47. Well, at least not until after we’ve “Manchurian Candidated” her …* Fits
Smart Dude! But the second part about her being “Manchurian Candiated” might piss off her 2 Sons, both former hard core military with one being a lawyer and the other a Cop standing over 6’4″ and weighing in at 230 or so…..I would suggest you stay away from Gun shows for a least a year unless you want to be the target of the show about calling Christina a loon or Bat Sh## crazy….And another thing! Christina has always been a Gun show fan since her first campaign in 98 where she became a gun show favorite and hit. I suspect she could unload that sucker in a new york heartbeat if some neo-con idiot like you demanded to see her skill at 100 yards……Besides, her family, father [ Citadel grad] and mother [Nurse] were in the military together in WW2 as the last great generation of modern times
By T4 May 15, 2010 at 1:45 am
This is South Carolina; this is what the average voter appreciates, and she knows it.
Clearly, she knows nothing about the Constitution, so the parameters of the Second Amendment are not worth arguing. However, someone has steered her in a relatively positive direction when it comes to voter empathy. Most SC voters like to a candidate who is combative, and unwilling to work with others. It’s fair to say that, in the unlikely event of her success, she will accomplish little for the people of SC. Facing reality is not always easy, but stagnant politics is kind of what South Carolina does.
By Kelly May 15, 2010 at 7:52 pm
What is that makes her a lunatic? Are you that afraid of conservatives? She is dead on about the constitution.
By stevetclark May 17, 2010 at 2:30 pm
fits you may want to edit this article about the 2nd amendment supposedly not protecting our hunting rights. It clearly does and this article kind of made you seem like the Brady campaign.
By SubZeroIQ May 18, 2010 at 4:33 pm
Working Tommy C: You are doing so well ignoring me.
But I cannot afford to ignore Kelly’s question, which will answer your out-of-context quotations.
It is not the right to bear arms that is a threat to an order-loving and civilized society, IT IS LUNATICS WHO THINK THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS THEM TO SHOOT TO KILL any elected persons whose views they do not like or any person they fantasize is coming to rob their house.
There is a constitutional way “to take back the government.” It is called voting.
This lunatic who advocates armed rebellion against any law the population dislikes should be arrested, not elected.
Seriously, Working Tommy C, please work on this question: Exactly what is it you think armed private citizens should do with their arms other than hunt carefully with a hunting license during hunting season?
Seriously, name ONE type of human being the Constitution allows the privately-armed private citizen to shoot without legal retribution.
The Second Amendment was to protect “a free state,” not to make the United States the “agree with me or I shoot you” mayhem that this idiot running for Congress presents as nobility.
By kelly May 19, 2010 at 1:51 pm
So anyone who disagrees with you is a lunatic? It is our sovereign right to bear arms. This is not a matter of opinion. It is in the constitution. Any other loony birds out there agree?
By Step to the Right May 20, 2010 at 1:18 pm
Thank you Kelly – good points! Beware of the social progressive, living constitution, social justice, can’t we just get along without weapons SubZero Types. And by the way, could you please hand over all your money, your freedoms and your children’s minds to the government indoctrination centers while I pass laws that exempt me from them and I put my children in the Washington DC Friends Quaker School (and criticize others who do the same) and I get special treatment all my life and appoint judges who hate the military and think our constitution is the problem and I really love the idea of socialized medicine! I do not care if Ms. Jeffery does not have liberal Hollywood producing her videos; I care that she seems to want to protect the Constitution.
By SubZeroIQ May 20, 2010 at 8:27 pm
All I did was ask: Whom do you want to shoot with your arms?
By SubZeroIQ May 20, 2010 at 8:58 pm
Really, Kelly and Step to the Right: Whom do you want to shoot or be able to shoot?
I want you to think about that calmly and with the long view.
I do not fit into any of the stereo-types you mentioned. In my view, the world is not divided into American Democrats and Republicans.
By SubZeroIQ May 22, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Really, Kelly and Step to the Right (wrong): It is a straight forward question: WHOM DO YOU WANT TO SHOOT WITH YOUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS?
When you think about this question, you will realize that not everyone who things that guns in the hands of civilians in 21st Century America is not a good thing fits a litany of setreotypes from sending their children to private school while bussing others and bailing Wall Street out.
So, do you want the guns to go to Wall Street and shoot the bankers?
Do you want the guns to go to D.C. and shoot the Senators and House Memebers who voted for Health INSURANCE Reform?
Do you want the guns to shoot corrupt policemen?
When you think of everything of which you disapprove, you find that the answer is in the civil litigation process and the politcal electoral process. THAT’S WHAT THE CONSTITUTION OFFERS AND GUARANTEES.
And the Consitution guarantees that if WE abide by the idea that guns and violence are not the back up. If we were to think for a second that the Constitution allows us to shoot the winner of a political election because we do not like that winner, then that is to say the Constitution gives a right to mount Coups d’etat.
Arms and dangerous things, even in the most experienced hands. The more arms in a society, the higher the suicide rate in it, for one.
So, rather than a knee-jerk stereo-type of “Real red-blooded, conservative Americans are for guns. Everyone who thinks there are way too many guns in this Society is a looney liberal,” I want you to think very hard and smart and tell me who should be allowed to use guns for what? And why do you think there is no non-violent alternative to what you want to accomplish with your guns?
I am really waiting for your answer.
By Terrier Grad May 24, 2010 at 10:50 am
SHE IS NOT A WOFFORD PROFESSOR
SHE IS NOT A WOFFORD PROFESSOR
SHE IS NOT A WOFFORD PROFESSOR
SHE IS NOT A WOFFORD PROFESSOR
She taught a class at Wofford once or twice. She is not faculty. There is a serious difference.
Her husband is a Wofford professor, and he’s the man. She is a terrifying woman who should not be pretending to teach anyone about anything.
http://writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/Holocaust/historian-fired2.html
By Terrier Grad May 24, 2010 at 10:52 am
http://writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/Holocaust/historian-fired2.html
“WASHINGTON – Speaker Newt Gingrich on Monday night dismissed
the historian of the House of Representatives (Jeffrey) … after learning
that she had once helped to deny federal financing of an
educational program about the Holocaust on the ground that it did
not present the views of the Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan.”
By Kelly June 8, 2010 at 11:14 am
Terrier Grad and Sub Zero,
First to sub zero, we have the right to take up arms against a tyrannical government. When the government becomes tyrannical and democratic elections are no longer allowed then it becomes the right and I would say the duty of Americans to exercise their 2nd Amendment right. Again this it not a debate. It really really is in the Constitution. Jeffrey who supports gun rights is say exactly why she supports gun rights. It is not our constitutional right to hunt. It is our constitutional right to bear arms. I do not the right to shoot at anyone! If I break the law and commit a violent crime then I will go to jail.
I apologize for the delay in answering you but I have not been back to Fits in awhile. Also if you could please calm yourself then you won’t have to worry about people wanting to shoot you.
Terrier Grad
Quit reading liberal crap. Here is what really happened http://apache.northgeorgia.edu/bdf/bfried/cjeff.htm and you can ask the other Dr. Jeffrey who is tenured staff at Wofford about it as well. He was there right by her side through the whole thing. I get the feeling you would not be as brave. Hopefully you will learn to emulate men like Dr. Jeffrey and grow up to be a well educated man and not a whiny little brat like you are now.
By Her Son June 8, 2010 at 3:15 pm
Some of you are crazy. Many of you are brave when writing from the safty of emails. Not one of you would be brave enough to say these things to my mother’s face.
Also, I am very protective of her. It was written that I am 6’4” that is not true; I’m 6’6″.
SubZero, “who do I wish to shoot?” Anyone who tries to deprive me of my liberties, life, or endangers my family, friends, or the general public.
And for this ya’ll will call me a nut, crazy, or a loon. I guess anyone who signs up for the military are by your definition is a loon.