Below is my column in the Hill Newspaper on the proposals for new gun control measures in the wake of the Las Vegas massacre. As I discuss below, there are some obvious possible measures that could pass constitutional muster like banning bump stocks (which allow semi-automatic weapons to perform more like automatic weapons) and conversion kits. However, these proposals would not have prevented the massacre. There are many “work arounds” for semi-automatic weapons and Paddock would have likely passed any enhanced background checks. Nevertheless, GOP members have expressed interest in some additional gun control measures.
Here is the column:
It is human nature to try to make sense out of even the most senseless acts of violence. That is certainly the case with the Las Vegas shooting spree. In the wake of the massacre, politicians rushed forward to give meaning to the tragedy, other than the raging madness of Stephen Paddock. Various reforms have been proposed, from new licensing laws to limiting the number of guns a person can own, to banning military-style weapons or silencers or high-capacity ammunition clips. There are some changes worth considering, but Congress will need to show they are more than simply sensible or rational. The strict scrutiny test customarily applied to an individual right demands more than blaming the gun or the gun lobby as opposed to the gun man.
In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court in 2008 ruled the right to bear arms is an individual right. Two years later, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the court ruled that this right applied against the states. Since then, courts have rejected efforts to limit aspects of gun ownership from barring concealed weapons to restricting ammunition. Last July, in Wrenn v. District of Columbia, the D.C. Circuit struck down a requirement that gun owners show “good reason” for a concealed carry permit as unconstitutional.
When legislating within a constitutional framework, Congress must meet a higher standard in the curtailment of an individual right, usually a showing of a narrowly tailored law advancing a compelling state interest. The Supreme Court stated in Heller, “If all that was required to overcome the right to keep and bear arms was a rational basis, the Second Amendment would be redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on irrational laws, and would have no effect.”
Some of the proposals seem still based on pre-Heller rational basis logic. For example, Hillary Clinton oddly responded to the attack with a tweets denouncing the NRA and raising the issue of silencers, which appear the only thing not found in Paddock’s arsenal of weapons, ammunition and explosives. After first telling people to “put politics aside,” Clinton denounced the gun lobby and observed that the “crowd fled at the sound of gunshots. Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get.”
It is not hard to imagine the use of a silencer but it is hard to imagine a different outcome in Las Vegas. The gun may be silent, but the victims are not. While a person may not actually hear or recognize the gunshots, that person would certainly see dozens of people being hit and a crowd stampeding. It is ridiculous to think that Paddock could shoot a dozen people with a silencer, but people take little notice of the falling bodies or stampeding people around them.
Other proposals are constitutionally problematic like banning weapons like the AR-15 used by Paddock. Beyond its military look, the distinction between the AR-15 and hunting rifles can be difficult to discern. “AR” does not stand for either “assault rifle” or “automatic rifle.” It stands for Armalite, the company that manufactures the rifles. It is used in hunting as well as shooting competitions. It is popular because it is modular and allows for different grips and barrels. More importantly, it has a lower caliber than hunting rifles like the 30-06 Springfield. Those types of comparisons make weapons bans more difficult under a heightened or strict scrutiny standard.
However, timing can be everything. The Supreme Court currently has a petition pending in one of the few successful cases involving a ban on assault rifles. The case, Kolbe v. Hogan, involves Maryland’s 2013 ban on assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines, which was upheld in a 10-4 decision by the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia. Twenty-one states have joined gun owners in asking the Supreme Court to reverse the Fourth Circuit and rule the ban as unconstitutional.
Cases like Kolbe could help define the outer limits of gun ownership after Heller. The Court recognized that the Second Amendment right is not absolute, any more than free speech or other rights in the Bill of Rights. One such limitation that predated Heller is the ban on that ownership of fully automatic weapons sold after 1986. Such machine guns are unlawful absent special licensing (though hundreds of thousands were “grandfathered” in by the law and can still be owned and sold in the United States). It is also illegal to convert a semi-automatic weapon into an automatic weapon.
While limiting the number of guns is dubious under constitutional analysis, some background checks could pass constitutional muster. Challengers would likely point out that Paddock passed background conditions and would likely have satisfied any additional requirements. Nevertheless, polls show overwhelming support for background checks, including some showing support at over 90 percent. There are some loopholes or “workarounds” that could be addressed. For example, it remains legal to sell conversion kits to turn a semi-automatic into an automatic weapon.
Congress could easily close that loophole by limiting such kits to only approved and licensed owners. Congress could also address “bump stocks,” a device that Paddock reportedly used to allow at least one semi-automatic weapon to function like an automatic weapon. Since it does not actually convert the weapon, it is considered legal. Once again, however, even without a bump stock Paddock could have maintained nearly the same rate of fire with rapid trigger pulls for that critical nine minutes.
While Congress does not have to show that a new law would have changed the outcome in Las Vegas, it does have to show that limiting an individual right under the Bill of Rights is more than simply a rational response to an irrational act of violence.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
A “silencer” suppressor would not have actually silenced an AR-15. It would have reduced the sound to that of a jackhammer.
There are risks involved with disarming a people. Why was it death for a slave to touch a weapon in the South? Slave owners made an example of those who did so in the most gruesome manner, because preventing their access to arms was critical to their enslavement. The Jews were unarmed in a gun controlled Germany, else they might have vigorously objected to being gassed. The Scotts after Culloden were prohibited from owning or possessing weapons to oppress any future attempts at rebellion and disentangling Scotland from British rule. There are myriad other examples of where a country completely disarmed its people, paving the way for a despot to terrorize and abuse them.
There is a reason why our Founders specifically granted individuals the right to bear arms. The abuse of unarmed people has been common for centuries, from the days of swords and pikes. The liberty to defend your house and person was considered a basic, fundamental human right.
Without a firearm, we are reduced to the rule of the club. Very few women are strong enough to defend themselves from most men. Disarming the population disproportionately affects women.
Defending our Constitutional right to bear arms in no way defends mass shootings any more than defending our right to drive would support terrorists plowing their cars through crowds of people.
There are so very many ways where a serial killer, terrorist, or howling mad person could commit mass murder. You could use a pressure cooker, common fertilizer, poison an aquifer, dirty bomb, a car or semi, an elevator, hack into the self driving cars of the future, contaminate prescription medication, plant a bomb on a high speed rail as it went into a tunnel…there are myriad ways in which people can do terrible things to each other. It is not the tool; it’s the user.
I fully understand people’s feeling of vulnerability to firearm violence. It is both its advantage and its difficulty that a firearm allows someone to kill another from far away. You want that in a weapon unless you feel like grappling with someone stronger and larger than you. But that very feature is what makes many want to ban guns. I get that. Those who want to ban guns need to grasp that banning guns does not reduce violence. There are plenty of other tools a mass murderer could use. One should recall that the shooter also had explosives. Israel suffers terror attacks with explosives, knives, vans, and many other weapons on a tragically routine basis.
I’ve said it before but it bears repeating. There are many lawful uses of firearms. There are millions of law abiding firearm owners who do not kill anyone simply because they own a gun. I don’t stab anyone because I have a barn knife. We use snake shot to kill rattlers on our property. This is routine in rural areas. A shovel works on a juvenile, but frankly, a blunt shovel is a really cruel and ineffective way to kill a 4 foot rattler. It’s difficult to chop its head off in one strike. It puts your foot within the strike zone. Rattlers out here move forward, towards the perceived threat and not away. So when you walk in front of it with a shovel, it will come towards you…and your toes. it can take multiple strikes to finally get the head off, which is inhumane. The firearm kills at a distance, and in this case that is most definitely an advantage. There are mountain lions, bob cats, and my beloved coyotes. Although we’ve worked out coexisting with our coyote pack quite well, there are other areas where that is not the case. Some fool feeds them, and that makes the coyote believe that he is scaring the food out of a lesser predator. Others leave their little dogs and cats outside and feed the wildlife. That’s when you get aggressive coyotes. I knew a mother who was trapped inside by a mountain lion, who was trying to drag her cat out from under the house. I had my own run in with a mountain lion. There are many stories like that. We have to learn how to coexist with nature, but when threatened, we also have to be able to defend ourselves. My father stopped a break in merely by chambering a round on the other side of the door. My first firearm was a gift from a cop I dated a long time ago. He told me that never once, in the history of his career, was he ever able to arrive in time to stop a violent crime from occurring. If a stalker is breaking into a woman’s house, and he doesn’t care if he gets caught or dies, she has to find the phone, call 911, explain to dispatch what’s going on, give her address, wait for cops to arrive, they have to assess the situation, check the perimeter, and breach the property. That is a really, really long time when a maniac is breaking into your house. If you defend on others to protect you, who do not live with you, then there will be more situations that you will not survive, than if you were able to protect yourself. That’s actually a key component of evolution – the ability to survive.
There has been a concerted movement on the Left to break the Constitution. They oppose the First Amendment, unless it’s their own speech, assembly, anything not Christian, or grievance. They oppose the Second Amendment because they cannot conceive of a time when they would need to own a gun. That’s what expensive armed security guards are for! They oppose the 9th Amendment when they try to strip other rights away. They oppose due process in the 14th Amendment when it suits them. They oppose Article I Section 8 limiting the power of Congress, which interferes with some of their schemes. That Constitution enumerates the individual liberties that make us a free country. Without it, we are not free, but a managed assisted living nation hoping that everyone in government is really nice and ethical.
Liberals stand for better living through Big Government. That requires the abdication of individual rights. Where, exactly, has that worked out in history? That is the very definition of a dictatorship! Few individual rights at the mercy of an all powerful government that they hope will remain benign. We have also learned throughout history that it is rare for one group to vote for rights and the best interests of another group that is powerless. If we the people become that powerless group, we have to depend upon bureaucrats to always look out for our best interests when we would lack the power to do anything about it. Liberals believe that if they only had an all powerful government ruler, there would be no more sexism, racism, homophobia, or any other unfair practice. Do they even read history?
KarenS – excellent post. I’m gonna copy it and send it out to peeps on email.
Thank you, Autumn. One day I will learn how to write more succinctly. I don’t have the knack yet.
Karen, You are a great writer. But, if you want to learn succinct writing, read Hemingway.
YouTube and Facebook remove video of Las Vegas attacker at anti-Trump protest
(Nice pussy hat and some photos of the girlfriend)
https://pamelageller.com/2017/10/evidence-las-vegas-attacker-anti-trump-protest.html/
An update on Pamela Geller’s site:
UPDATE: Steve Haffley, the intrepid citizen journalist who caontacted (sic) me with all of this information, writes me, “It is not him. I finally was able to track down a local reporter, call him on the phone, get his facebook, I attached what he said as a picture…”
Bob Conrad (the local reporter):
“Hi Steve, yes two local Reno residents contacted us immediately upon the publication of the original article and said that they knew the guy and that he was not Stephen Paddock. I know one of the people personally and trust what they said, and the other person I spoke with on the phone and said the guy in the pink shirt is a good friend of his wife’s. I hope this helps.”
Does that mean he it isn’t the shooter? No. We just don’t know and coincidentally have pictures of the girlfriend that look very similar to her. What the final conclusion is unknown and I wouldn’t exclude anything that that has a chance of revealing the reasons behind the shooting.
You seem to wish to sanitize anything that has the slightest negative impact on the progressive cause. You have never been interested in the truth. We differ. I trust no one and don’t care if they come from the left or right.
Though I wasn’t on a list with you at the time I will bet whent the Benghazi incident occurred and was blamed on a private videographer you would have closed your eyes and believed everything you were told by the administration and Hillary. Same with emails, IRS, fast and furious, Whitewater, the abuse of women, the Clinton foundation etc. You don’t seem capable of learning.
So why, compared to other advanced countries, do we have so many gun-related deaths per capita? Something in the water? Secret sabotage by Russia? Hostile space aliens? Or is it just possible that part of it is due to there being so many guns around …..
What I find most disconcerting is the view held by some, that occasional massacres are tolerable, in order to protect our sacred right to arm ourselves to the teeth.
Jay, what deaths do you deem acceptable?
Do you support a woman’s right to choose?
Do you accept fatalities based on traffic incidents, congestive heart failure, Alzheimers, suicide?
Aren’t these people just as innocent as victims of gun violence?
Regardless of all the guns we have aren’t our behaviors incredibly unrestricted and we are truly able to enjoy liberties that other countries that have restricted guns not so?
Jay did you ever consider that the progressives attacks on the NRA and those that legally own guns is nothing more than a diversion from the fact that in the cities progressives run where gun control is the strictest there are so many killings?
Why don’t you explain how gun control has limited the murder rate in Chicago.
How many drunk driving accidents do we have to suffer before they ban alcohol? (Your post is eerily similar to the arguments behind Prohibition.) How many deliberate vehicular homicides and road rage before we ban cars? How many stabbings before we ban knives? How many drownings before we ban pools and buckets of water? How many abuse of prescription drug medications before we ban prescription drugs?
If you do not support the ban because there are lawful uses that do not harm anyone, then you do not care about the dead! Maybe, we have so many stabbings because there are so many knives around. We could just as easily buy our meat ready sliced or become vegetarians.
Gun control does not stop bad people from existing or hurting others in any country. You should care most about actual deaths than the tool used. Not counting any wars, Lesotho, South Africa, Namibia, Anguilla, Bahamas, Jamaica, Monserrat, Saint Vincent, the Virgin Islands, El Salvador, Mexico, Saint Pierre, Guatemala, Colombia, Venezuela…there are many countries with high murder rates. No one would say in any serious that it’s the availability of guns or knives. It’s the issues behind the murders. Liechtenstein has some of the world’s lowest violent crime rates. It’s crimes usually involve money laundering due to the structure of its offshore financial industry. Its murder rate was 2.8 compared with our 5. Most citizens in Liechtenstein don’t even lock their door. They have knives, but they don’t seem to stab anyone. Crime rates went down as the country prospered. It’s a tiny, far more homogenous country only 62 square miles, with a conservative culture of hard work. They are so tiny that if someone is sentenced to more than 2 years in prison, they get transferred over to Austria. So even the inmates of the country couldn’t have committed very serious crimes. It’s so small that everyone gets invited over to a garden party at the castle. Everyone. Literally. Every resident of Liechtenstein. So there is a connection between them and government. It’s so small that for a while they offered to rent the entire country for $70,000 a night. Literally. They’d even make custom street signs. One of the reasons why it’s so absurdly tiny is that Czechoslovakia confiscated a huge chunk of land (about 10 times its current size) after WWII, claiming that it then belonged to Germany. Since Liechtenstein does not posses a national army, it couldn’t do anything about it except not speak to Czechoslovakia. And invite the entire country to the garden for a beer.
So there is a significant problem with comparing “gun violence” across nations. The nations are not, actually, all the same. They do not have the same socioeconomic problems, or culture, or other issues. Venezuela is not having the same day as Liechtenstein, and therefor not the same crime. We will never have Liechtenstein’s crime rate as long as we are huge, have gangs, and other cultural differences. If we import people from areas infamous for crime, then we will also import crime. (See MS13, Sureño, Norteños, La Raza Nation, to name just a few.) You cannot compare the per capita gun ownership of a part of our country with a lot of hunters, with the gun owners in inner cities who belong to gangs. They have entirely different motivation and behavior.
Much of our crime is driven by gangs and drug cartels.
According to the FBI, the vast majority of gun homicides are from gang violence. I live in a rural area where most people I know own firearms. I’ve seen people armed riding horses on trail. I walked my neighbor’s dog in an area where a mountain lion snatched his last dog right out from under him, and my husband urged me to bring his gun with me. There are many guns around, but we do not have a high rate of gun violence. We have, however, been seeing an increase in property burglaries when the owner is not home, committed by thieves from neighboring cities. I know some business owners are ensuring they have firearms on premises because this is becoming an increasing problem and they want protection.
It is not simply an issue of proximity to a weapon causes violence.
I absolutely agree with current laws prohibiting the mentally ill and criminals from owning firearms. But criminals do not follow the law. That’s why they are criminals. And as long as we have no secure border, we will have a never-ending flow of drugs and guns across the border. Sadly, Liberals seem vehemently opposed to sealing that border up in any meaningful way.
I forgot to mention that the rate of homicides committed by gun violence is Liechtenstein is 100%. But don’t panic. That’s because there was only one homicide in the entire country, and that was a shooting.
When studies show the proportion of homicides committed by a firearm, do not be lulled into thinking that the homicides would not have taken place if there were no guns. Why would that be? If a killer wanted to kill someone, but there were no guns in the entire country, he could still make like Cain and pick up a rock.
The US has the highest gun ownership per 100 people, often because gun owners own more than one gun. Second is peaceful Switzerland. In Switzerland, every man (sexist!) in the country is a member of the Swiss militia, and is therefor expected to keep a firearm at home and properly maintained out of a sense of patriotic duty (xenophobic!). Switzerland and Finland, although they do have a lot of guns, do not have our gangs.
https://www.deseretnews.com/top/2519/0/15-nations-with-the-highest-gun-ownership.html
According to the FBI, the vast majority of gun homicides are from gang violence.
Where did the FBI say that?
Homicides are sometimes a consequence of robbery or burglary (though that’s vastly less common than was the case a generation ago). Mostly it’s the usual run of interpersonal disputes in domestic settings and among acquaintances. Slums have quite a mass of volatile and impetuous people and a deviant honor culture.
I’m sorry, StepOnToads. I should have included the info.
https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/Pages/welcome.aspx
“Gun-related homicide is most prevalent among gangs and during the commission of felony crimes. In 1980, the percentage of homicides caused by firearms during arguments was about the same as from gang involvement (about 70 percent), but by 1993, nearly all gang-related homicides involved guns (95 percent), whereas the percentage of gun homicides related to arguments remained relatively constant.”
I think what you may be referring to is the statistics drilled down for women. If a woman is murdered, the statistically most likely culprit is her current or former significant other. I think that gang violence falls in the category of slums, as well, since they usually rule bombed out neighborhoods. They drive the crime rate up so high that it’s hard to recover the neighborhood and bring jobs back. You are correct that the other crimes you mentioned have their own categories, and happen way too often. But gangs drive overall violence in the country to a large degree, I’m afraid.
https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/violent-crime/gangs
I’ve got to run, but I can find the statistics later.
“most prevalent” revers to commonality in a particular population, though for what they intend ‘highest incidence’ might be better terminology. Inter-gang relations are very violent, but they encompass a tiny minority. That doesn’t mean most homicides occur between gang members. Two guys fighting over a girl or having words in a bar is closer to the mark.
So why, compared to other advanced countries, do we have so many gun-related deaths per capita?
We have a high homicide rate generally. That’s been successfully addressed in New York City and some other loci. Progtrash do not care. Their business is attempting to blame rural gun owners for this problem. That 97% of all homicides are not committed with long guns and that most homicides are in slum neighborhoods or sketchy neighborhoods adjacent they refuse to acknowledge.
This sort of discourse seems quite puzzling until you realize progs haven’t the slightest interest in crime control.
Making Stuff Up again.
David, are you telling us we don’t “Have a high homicide rate generally”? That is just pure foolishness. Are you saying NYC didn’t address that high homicide rate? That is foolish as well. This is an example of pure ignorance.
No, Allan, Benson is referring to the last sentence in SOT’s post “. . . progs haven’t the slightest interest in crime control.” That’s the “making-stuff-up-again” part.
Diane, David was too non-specific and drew too broad a conclusion. That is ignorance.
Regarding your comment, DSS was replying to Jay who asked a question. DSS’s answer was appropriate to the question asked and the person. It may not have been an entire dissertation, but as far as a reply to Jay he got one of the major points across.
Benson replied to SOT who replied to Jay. That’s how a thread works, Allan. SOT made SOT’s point in reply to Jay. Benson made Benson’s point in reply to SOT. Allan is the only one confused by that exchange. And, even then, Allan is merely pretending to be confused for the sake disparaging Benson.
Benson said something asinine or he said something ambiguous. There’s no third option, Diane.
Diane, I can’t anything more to what DSS said so I’ll leave it at that except for the fact that the left irresponsibly uses tunnel vision whenever they can’t think of something better to say.
David Benson at this point in his life couldn’t utter an honest word under torture.
That’s not ‘making stuff up’. That’s observing what people do and do not say. In New York, Gov. Cuomo had some initiatives in favor of crime control (prison bond issues) and Mayor Koch certainly had a different disposition toward social problems than did John Lindsay. The Democratic majority on the New York City Council did appropriate funds toward improving the police census.
And from there on, it’s all down hill. Cuomo and Koch were men of the older generation and both retired decades ago. Both are now deceased. Neither Mayor Giuliani nor Mayor Bloomberg worked within the Democratic Party. Mayor diBlasio has done better than expected by appointing a competent police chief and not interfering with his work. He had to start with a good situation. As for the Democratic mayors and county executives Upstate, it’s been a study in failure theatre.
Now you examine the situation in other major cities. Washington’s had a great deal of success. Baltimore’s a catastrophe. Chicago had some improvement, followed by failure theatre. Detroit’s a catastrophe. St. Louis is a catastrophe.
We’re assessing here working politicians for whom crime control is job one. Performance is not as poor as it once was, but overall the history of the last 50 years has been unedifying.
Now, look at the world of policy shops and opinion journals. Who speaks for cirme control? I think there’s a researcher named Mark Kleiman and that about exhausts the subject. Liberal advocates who specialize in discussions of public safety are almost invariably running interference for the criminal population and the social work industry.
You can even look here, Diane. Run through the remarks of Jill, Autumn, Natacha, Steve Groen, David Benson, Elaine, enigma &c. Look on your Facebook feed at the utterances of the partisan Democrats in your circle of friends (all partisan Democrats just have to tell you what they think betwixt and between posting pictures of their grandchildren). They know nothing and care nothing about public order maintenance. We’ve got a Black Lives Matter partisan in our family. She’s a lapsed social worker who used to live in St. Louis. Now I could tell her the truth: that the slum dwellers of St. Louis don’t need her. They need a corps of people who will reduce the homicide rate from 48 per 100,000 to 13 per 100,000. That’s not her or her husband, who simply do not have those skills. People they think little of have those skills.
Your thesis presupposes that there are no progressives nor any gun-control advocates in the law-enforcement community nor the courts, nor among any other group presumed to care about crime control. That’s unlikely to be true. But admittedly possible. You hope won’t mind if I neglect to take your word for it.
Correction: I hope you won’t mind . . .
Okay SOT. I found two polls, one from Pew and another from PoliceOne, both of which claim police officers favor gun rights by a 3 to 1 margin (75% in favor of gun rights; 25% in favor of gun control). Those police officers in favor of gun control are hardly progressives. But, at one fourth of the respondents to both polls, they are not negligible either.
What does it mean, brass tacks, to ‘favor gun control’? Did anyone ask a question about a precise measure? You have weapons offenses and registration requirements incorporated into state law all over the country, so it isn’t as if there are not controls now.
You don’t seem to get the implication of the complaints on this issue (aside from the disregard of an explicit constitutional provision with the pretense that ‘the people’ refers to state governments or some such). Nancy Lanza was in compliance with Connecticut state law. She owned four guns, which were kept under lock-and-key. Most of these mass shooters make use of long guns, which are seldom used in homicides in this country (and also subject to registration requirements). In a typical metropolitan region, you’ll see one or two homicides a year committed with a rifle or shotgun; I doubt these are causing police officers much anxiety.
The complaints don’t make sense unless they’re pure social signaling or the speaker wants comprehensive confiscation of guns. Read the remarks of “Jay” (who fancies the law should regard gun ownership as some sort of disgusting hobby) or “Chris P. Bacon” (who loathes anyone with masculine dispositions, habits, and skills).
“Mayor diBlasio has done better than expected by appointing a competent police chief and not interfering with his work. He had to start with a good situation.”
DSS, that is true, but I am in Manhattan quite a bit and have noticed that things seem to be going downhill. You seem to be aware of NYC politics, but are you in Manhattan enough to note how things are changing for the worse under De Blasio?
The gun homicide rate has declined almost 50% since 1993 (page 6).
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hus11.pdf
Between 1993 and 2012, around 90 million new guns were manufactured.
https://www.atf.gov/file/3336/download
Finally, gun laws have been liberalized at the state and federal level during that period.
Over that time, the data show an inverse correlation between the number of guns and gun homicide rates. That does not prove that the increase in guns is the variable the CAUSED the lower gun homicide rate, but it does seem to disprove the oft repeated rhetorical assertion that “more guns equal more crime”.
95% of all gun homicide incidents involve a single victim. According to the DOJ, mass shooting incidents have been stable (page 14 of first link, above).
See also a column in the August 6, 2012 Boston Globe by criminologist James Alan Fox titled “No Increase in Mass Shootings”. He’s been studying mass shootings for 30 years and he claims there are, on average, about 20 “mass shootings” per year resulting in about 100 deaths, with no change in trend as of 2012. It seems to me like there’s been an increase since then but I’d rather look at the data than rely on my perceptions.
Unfortunately, to try to achieve policy goals anti-gun nutters have invented their own definition of mass shooting that conflicts with the standard definition used by professional criminologists like Fox and others.
That makes apples to apples comparisons impossible. I imagine Fox has updated his data since 2012 but I haven’t taken the time to look for it.
First, we are a massive piece of land. These “other countries” are small by comparison. We have 50 different states in different places. Individually, passing any gun law at the state level might be enforceable, but one law for everybody would be hard to enforce. We can’t even pursue criminal conduct for “sanctuary cities”! Second, Hitler took the guns, Stalin took the guns, then used them on his closest supporters. By the time he died he had killed an estimated one million people. People died again, and again, and again, to keep all our freedoms safe, including the right to own a fire arm.
I listened to a Brit lecture about the incredible gift of our Constitution. We are the only country with laws requiring a warrant to search your house. We have Freedom of Speech, others don’t. You can’t have a firearm in England, not even the police! Everyone will say “just the AR-15’s”, sounds reasonable. And then another type of gun, and another, and another. “But you said just AR-15’s” yep, that’s what they said.
When you hear we should have another Constitutional Convention, run for the hills. Absolutely not! All articles and amendments are on the chopping block. Nope, let’s just keep the Amendment process.
You can have a rifle and a shotgun in England but it is a lot of trouble.
So, I would say that the view of these various commenters is, occasional massacres are tolerable, in order to protect our sacred right to arm ourselves to the teeth …..
Jay S – we arm ourselves to the teeth against people who wear pu**y hats. I live in Arizona where you do not need a permit to carry concealed. An armed society is a polite society. 😉
Or, perhaps, an armed society is a very dangerous society …..
Jay S – I was out and about today and everybody was smiling and saying hi to each other. Nobody was surly.
Ding! Ding! Ding! You get your Fox brownie points for today: fourth paragraph in, you pivot to say something negative about Hillary Clinton related to the Las Vegas massacre. Every single day, your favorite President is failing badly, is called a “moron” by the Secretary of State, has reverted again to rattling his saber just to get attention, he insulted the Puerto Rican people, but, yet, you found some way to say something negative about Hillary Clinton. You can never be taken seriously. You are a partisan hack.
you pivot to say something negative about Hillary Clinton related to the Las Vegas massacre.
Lessee, he said:
Some of the proposals seem still based on pre-Heller rational basis logic. For example, Hillary Clinton oddly responded
“Oddly”. How unutterably vicious.
The point being, Jonathan and Fox are adept practitioners of the Kellyanne pivot. Any crisis, scandal, whatever, they somehow find a way to turn the narrative in order to say something negative about Hillary Clinton.
I don’t think Hillary would even have been brought into the discussion if she didn’t interject her usual political hackery into the discussion of so many deaths and wounded. You don’t seem to see her abuses even though most Americans that might vote Democrat dislike her intensely.
Look at her poll numbers.
You mean the 3 million MORE votes she received than the fat mental patient?
He isn’t a mental patient and is not fat. Again, you need to see your doctor about adjusting your meds. You’re having a great deal of trouble perceiving the world.
Well, certainly he displays odd personality traits, and he is “heavy set.”
I mean what I said, her poll numbers today. It appears you change your subject based upon your insane whims and you add things that aren’t even true. I think that video of a untalented child trying to sing was flattery where you are concerned.
adept practitioners of the Kellyanne pivot.
You’re projecting your disordered way of thinking on Prof. Turley. He’s not employed as a press agent and he doesn’t suffer neuralgic reactions to public figures being subject to mild criticism. So, when he sees something that HRC says which is off and it’s on the subject of his next column, he may uses that as an example. It’s quite unremarkable and normal people would not have much of a reaction to it. You’ve got a problem and its one you encounter when you’re plucking your eyebrows in the morning.
No, it’s the chronicity of the constant pivot to negativity directed toward Mrs. Clinton. We have an unprecedented situation with a patently mentally ill person occupying the White House whose administration is unstable, who has accomplished little other than making work for lawyers, who trades on misogyny, xenophobia, racism and who lacks any semblance of empathy. He is so narcissistic that we need a new word for the extreme version of this disorder. His emotional instability poses a serious risk for the future of this country, and yet, JT and Fox harp on his opponent who won the popular vote every possible chance they get. That is a real problem.
You’re in a hole, stupid. Quit digging.
LOL ! The more Trumps work and results are widely praised, the more people like Natacha are sounding like they’ve descended into total madness. Good grief, emotional hemophiliacs are having a bad time of it right now. Open your mind, Natacha. You’ll feel much better.
T rump is in a whole at 32 percent.
Natacha said, “[Trump] is so narcissistic that we need a new word for the extreme version of this disorder.”
I propose combining the myth of Narcissus with the myth of Sisyphus to create the neologism Narcissyphism to characterize Trump’s self-aggrandizement disorder.
T rump has not clue about anything except real estate.
Your mom wants you to play outside today.
He has performed remarkably well on numerous items the most recent being the killer hurricanes we have faced.
That’s right. His aim was perfect, lobbing rolls of paper towels into the crowd in Puerto Rico.
Easy to do!
Natacha on Youtube
10+!
She may not sing, but she can swear! What was the point of this post?
People who work with Tillerson say he doesn’t use that language. Lots of businessmen don’t. If you can’t make a winning point without swearing, perhaps better not make it at all! Thinking Tillerson, with his incredible business career, would resort to name calling? Only if he was alone in the shower!
Senseless acts of violence leads to calls of senseless legislation and the use of a tragedy to promote one’s ideology. There is nothing wrong with sensible legislation to prevent gun violence, but that means that the violence of the future has to be prevented. There is something very wrong with those that wish to violate the second amendment using the tragedy of the other day and stoking the emotions instead of the intellect of the people.
I have heard numerous pundits provide emotional arguments for gun control absent statistics or any understanding of the problem. That doesn’t help, but it feeds a lot of ignorant people a platform to express their emotional outrage that can do as much or more harm than good.
People blame the NRA for this most recent attack. After all, they believe the NRA promotes such violence by standing up for the second amendment. Standing up for the second amendment is standing up for individual liberty.
In the present senseless act we had a man who (until better information) was able to fire in rapid succession hundreds of bullets in a short amount of time killing 59 persons. That is horrible, but what was the singular item permitted such rapid fire from the weapons he owned? Bump Stocks. We hear blame placed against the NRA, but do we hear blame placed towards the Obama administration that approved bump stock devices?
The answer is NO, and instead we hear an emotional reaction against bump stocks and the NRA because of their existence. They will probably be banned, but because that will likely occur the sale of bump stocks has probably risen to the highest ever. The emotional appeal has IMO seen to it that more bump stocks will be readily available to more people, many of whom never even knew of their existence, than ever before.
The makeup of the current Supreme Court certainly points to a gun right that is universal. However, the supreme court has on occasion reversed itself. At one time you could take your slave across state lines into a free state and keep him as a slave. Perhaps some day the Supreme court will read the first 4 words of the 2nd amendment and tie them together in a decision contrary to everyone can have the gun of their choosing.
John Mason, one of the authors of the Bill of Rights once stated, “What is a militia but the people themselves?”
Quotes from our founding fathers:
Quotes on the Second Amendment
The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment
“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …”
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.
“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot’s Debates, vol. 3 “The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.”
“… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms”
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights
“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …”
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, “Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State”
The Founding Fathers on Arms
“Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
George Washington
First President of the United States
“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.”
Thomas Paine
“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788
“The great object is that every man be armed.” and “Everyone who is able may have a gun.”
Patrick Henry
American Patriot
“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
Patrick Henry
American Patriot
“Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.”
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States
“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … ”
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.
“The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8
Dave Bufalo, perhaps Mason ought to have asked, “What is a well-regulated militia, if not the well-regulated people themselves?”
BTW, Article I, section 8, clause 18 gives the Congress the power to enact such laws as are “necessary and proper” in pursuit of those powers delegated to Congress.
Dave Bufalo, you might also be interested in Article I, section 8, clause 16 which gives The Congress the power to make rules for the organization of State militias. It’s one of those “enumerated powers.”
Dave Bufalo, here’s the text for Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 with the introductory clause “Congress shall have the power . . .”
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 “Congress shall have the power . . .”
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
will read the first 4 words of the 2nd amendment
What the first 4 words indicate is that this right refers to military arms. The plain meaning of ‘ther right of the people’ is that it is a personal right that is referred to. People arguing otherwise better up their game.
You’re conveniently overlooking the second and third of the first four words in the Second Amendment. Namely: . . . well-regulated . . .
Military arms without military discipline, military organization and military chain of command does not constitute a well-regulated militia, nor would such undisciplined, unorganized and leaderless use of military arms be especially conducive to the security of a free state.
You misinterpretation is a rather anodyne ukase for anarchy.
You misinterpretation is a rather anodyne ukase for anarchy.
I’ve ‘misinterpreted’ nothing. Let’s see you come up with an example in a state or federal charter where the locution ‘the right of the people’ does not refer to a personal right. You cannot do it.
No need. The Second Amendment itself says ” . . . a well-regulated . . . right of the people.”
Again, Diane, the language does not constrict the right, it indicates a purpose. That’s why you’re losing in the appellate courts and that’s why your partisans are reduced to historical fabrication (Michael Bellesiles).
The subordinate clause is the rationale for the main clause. Meanwhile, you’re ignoring the test for strict scrutiny wherein the state is routinely held to have a compelling interest to quash Fourth Amendment motions [individual right] to protect the public safety, but is imagined to have no compelling interest to regulate the individual right to keep and bear arms for the sake of public safety.
If the compelling interest of the state can constrain the individual’s Fourth Amendment right, then there ought to be no strict-scrutiny reason that the compelling interest of the state cannot constrain the individual’s Second Amendment right.
Diane, There is a qualifier within the fourth amendment, “against unreasonable searches”. Where is the qualifier in the second amendment?
In the subordinate clause, Allan. It is the basis for the compelling interest of the State that forms the strict scrutiny test.
State Consitutions are subordinate to the US Constitution according to Article VI, Clause 2, also known as The Supremacy Clause.
The compelling interests of the State routinely constrain the right of the people to be secure in their persons and possessions [Fourth Amendment]. Since there’s no need to construe the individual right as a State right in the case of The Fourth Amendment, therefore there’s no need to construe the individual right as a State right in the case of The Second Amendment.
Ergo, your request to the contrary is unruly, SOT.
What might be necessary is a greater measure of logical consistency in SCOTUS decisions applying the strict scrutiny test to The Second and Fourth Amendments. After all, “the security of a free State” is the compelling interest of the State. And a well-regulated militia is “necessary to the security of a free State.” Whence the State has a compelling interest in a well-regulated militia.
Meanwhile, the Congress is empowered to enact such laws as are “necessary and proper” even to the “security of a free State” pursuant to a “well-regulated militia.”
You’re throwing a great deal of verbal chaff in people’s faces because your thesis – that the phrase ‘the right of the people’ applies only to a collectivity – is a crap thesis.
Wrong. It is not at all necessary to deny that The Second Amendment is an individual right of the people. It is only necessary to apply the strict scrutiny test for the compelling interests of the State in a logically consistent manner when interpreting both The Second and The Fourth Amendments.
Your unwillingness to engage with that argument does not constitute a flaw in that argument. It constitutes a flaw in you, SOT.
I’m not sure of exactly what you are trying to say, but it appears to be very wrong and a bit of a mishmash because you need to clearly define your terms, quote the passages and then prove your case.
” After all, “the security of a free State” is the compelling interest of the State” is a prefatory statement for the statement that follows which is what must be adhered to.
“You’re conveniently overlooking the second and third of the first four words in the Second Amendment. Namely: . . . well-regulated . . .”
Diane, the first 4 words are the basis of your argument. One has to look at what the language meant when the amendment was passed. There is an amendment process to change the Constitution if need be, otherwise, the interpretation should be as follows.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” This is a prefatory statement, the purpose behind the operative statement which is not limited by this statement.
“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This is the operative statement.
Allan, the first four words in The Second Amendment, as well as the clause “. . . being necessary to the security of a free State . . .” are the compelling interest of The State that forms the test for strict scrutiny as applied to The Fourth Amendment–which is also an individual right of the people. If The State has a compelling interest “being necessary to the security of a free State” to constrict the individual Fourth Amendment right of the people under the strict scrutiny test, then The State has a compelling interest “being necessary to the security of a free State” to constrict the individual Second Amendment right of the people.
You don’t get to decide what the basis of my argument is, Allan, unless you can demonstrate a capacity to do so. Which you haven’t yet.
Diane, I repeat the first four words are prefatory and not limiting. I will also repeat that there is no qualifier in the second amendment while one exists in the fourth amendment “against unreasonable searches” (the word unreasonable).
“You don’t get to decide what the basis of my argument is, Allan, unless you can demonstrate a capacity to do so. Which you haven’t yet.”
I am not interpreting what you said. I am telling you what the words actually mean. I can’t help it if you don’t have the capacity to understand the meaning behind the second amendment and how that amendment is different than the fourth. The fourth has a qualifier the second doesn’t have. You should watch your snarky comments when you don’t know what you are talking about.
Allan, the subordinate clause in The Second Amendment is “the qualifier” that specifies the compelling interest of the State that forms the basis for the strict scrutiny test as applied to The Fourth Amendment.
P. S. Only SCOTUS gets to decide what the US Constitution means. Neither Allan nor SOT, nor L4D, get to rule on The Supreme Law of the land.
Diane – they all could be on the SC. The qualifications are minimal.
Paul, you mean I don’t even have to be a lawyer? I don’t have to pass a Bar exam? I don’t have to have a license to practice law? OMG. Wait . . . Advise and consent. I’d still have to be confirmed by The Senate. Last I checked there were mostly lawyers on the judiciary committee. I suspect that professional courtesy amongst lawyers requires being discourtesy to rank amateurs.
discourteous . . .
Diane – getting a non-lawyer on the court would IMHO require a popular President and a strong majority in the Senate. Otherwise, they would be Borqed in the hearings.
The SC ultimately decides if they wish to treat the Constitution that anchors this nation as toilet paper or not. The nation has survived because of adherence to the Constitution, not the lack of. The nation will fragment as it has been doing when the Constitution is not adhered to by using amendments to the Constitution rather than looking at outcomes. We have a legislature that is supposed manage outcomes by passing laws or amendments.
Show me how “the subordinate clause in The Second Amendment is “the qualifier” “? I don’t think the clause you refer to is a subordinate clause nor is it a qualifier. I’ll listen to your explanation.
You realize of course that many didn’t believe the Bill of Rights was necessary because the Constitution existed to limit federal control. The bearing of arms was the accepted norm of almost all parties that existed at the time. Arms are weapons used by the military. I think at least some states demanded that their militia provide their own arms.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 “Congress shall have the power . . . ”
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 “Congress shall have the power . . . ”
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Those are enumerated powers, by the way. They’re also backed by The Supremacy Clause in Article VI, Clause 2. What states require of their Militias cannot overturn nor preempt the powers of Congress enumerated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 16.
Meanwhile, there were precious few federal law-enforcement agencies prior to the Twentieth Century. Just look at how many federal law-enforcement agencies we have now. The historical observations about accepted norms of military weapons in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries are more than just a tad fetishistic these days. But then your arguments about grammar are even more fetishistic still.
“Those are enumerated powers, by the way. ” Yes, Diane they are enumerated powers and the Bill of Rights was written to make sure certain rights of the people would not be abridged by the government and one of those rights was to bear arms.
The Constitution limits the power of government so within those limitations government can do certain things needed to carry its duties. However, some of the signers recognized that people like you might want to create the setting for a tyrannical government and argued for The Bill of Rights. That is the second amendment. I guess those signers were very prescient.
“But then your arguments about grammar are even more fetishistic still.”
Is this an intent at an insult? Explain so it is understandable why my arguments “about grammar are even more fetishistic still.”. They actually are not about grammar rather how one reads the law. I can’t help it if you are ignorant in that area.
America the Beautiful
has been replaced As America the Savage Nation.
Our civility has been trampled upon by a new breed
As demonstrated by the NFL.
Time for America to wake up and watch our great culture
disappear before our eyes
The age of civility is dead.
So sad.
This story brings a tune into mind. Retired Texas Ranger, Bill Thaxton. The stories about Bill were legend. Tell Bill there’s a vicious outlaw killer named Sundown in town.
Bill Thaxton was an ex-Texas Ranger one of the bravest by far. It’s said that old Bill was the fastest man ever. Bad men all feared him way back in his day but he was now growing old. Bill was going after an outlaw named Sundown.
“Tell him that I’m on my way, I’ve never ran and I’ll meet this young man
at any time of the day.” Bill got there just about sunset. The sun still hung like fire in the sky. In just a few moments out there in the street, old Bill or the outlaw Sundown would die.
Again, the issue is smothered in this quagmire of legalese and other technical BS. It is amazing how easily people avoid the real and prime problems by focusing on what a silencer does or where this guy was when he shot or any of the other trivial BS items. This is one of the reasons the US is in this world of gun violence.
The primary reason is that regardless of the so called sanctity of the 2nd Amendment, it is the interpretation(s) that prevail, and the interpretations are for sale. The purchaser(s) include the NRA and the arms industries. The buyers are our representatives in government. When is the last time anyone ever mentioned the first half of the 2nd Amendment? If ‘a well regulated militia’ makes it into the conversation, a gun advocate or paid stooge will counter that this is a different time. Where is the ‘different time’ issue when the god like half, ‘right to bear arms’, comes up? Too many Americans are just that stupid. There is absolutely no distinct and transferable essence supporting the interpretation by the gun nuts coming from the 2nd Amendment that Americans are Constitutionally supported to arm themselves to the teeth. Stricter gun laws will have two results. Firstly, some people will be saved. Secondly, the intelligent segment of America will be given some hope that this farce of a government system may still have a chance. But, hey, get out your magic marker and block out whatever part of the Constitution you don’t agree with, then do as is done predominantly, speak out of both sides of your mouths.
Issac, I can understand your sentiments, however it’s not that too many Americans are stupid, it’s that too many Americans have limited focus on their rights. Imagine if there were as many people and support organizations for the 4th, 5th and 8th amendments as there are for the second.
We are just nowstaring to see people pay attention to the first.
I liken the the second amendment followers to Fantasy Football participants. Those guys are focused and there is a payoff.
Also precedent,along with stability, corporations and investor stability is the name of the game. Knowing what one can do going forward without having to retool one’s ideas or livelihood without future interruptions allows for investment wether it’s in amunition or energy stocks.
Mistakes are made and lives are lost but the investors assume some financial risk and when lives become part of the loss scheme people insist on zero loss without acknowledging loss as part of other games, like auto safety.
The question is just how innocent does one’s collective loss have to be to alter previously established laws?
Roscoe, there are only a few things that would make the guns themselves safer; such as trigger locks with owner ID bracelets or rings and the like. There were numerous things done to improve automobile safety and road safety. In principle the analogy should be strong. But the technological reality of the gun itself weakens the analogy. Unless, of course, we had gun-owner education of the type we have for driver’s education. The last I heard, The NRA supposedly excels at educating its members in the proper use and storage of guns.
There are 1.3 million auto deaths per year. There are 33,000 gun deaths. However, 2/3 of the gun deaths are suicides. Facts matter.
Nick and LFD, my point is we have to have a collective conversation regarding risk and loss.
How many of the 1.3 million auto related fatalities were due to car operator negligence, like overlooked or ignored needed repairs for brakes and head lights?
Again, it’s all about respecting history and acknowledging all of it’s flaws while recognizing people, people that you and I both will have known, are going to die.
Innocent or unconsciously complicit relative to blame that is the dilemma.
Roscoe, if proven guilty, the murderers will always be wholly to blame. The gun manufacturers do not ever commit homicide offenses in the act of manufacturing guns and selling them to the public. Ditto for auto makers. They can’t drive the car for me. OMG. They are thinking about doing that; aren’t they. But for the sake of reducing traffic congestion. And the insurance companies are big players in automotive and highway safety. Are there any homeowners insurance companies regulating gun safety and storage?
Apparently I’m still missing your point, Roscoe. Sorry for that.
“And the insurance companies are big players in automotive and highway safety. Are there any homeowners insurance companies regulating gun safety and storage?”
Diane, what an interesting idea. Insurance companies transfer risk from one entity to the other. I am not sure how homeowners insurance manages guns. However, I’ll bet they have statistics involving their losses regarding guns. If insurers don’t take into account the risk from gun owners to non gun owners then perhaps the risk is not great enough. One could also say that if the risk of guns is great enough that insurers would be incentivized to promote certain safety measures proven to work. Maybe the risks just aren’t that great or maybe an insurer should (unless already doing so) be looking into these numbers to provide them a competitive advantage.
Sorry for my telepathy not working as well. My point is all of our freedoms come at a cost. Wehter it’s the ability to travel freely on our roads or own weapons, or any other part of enjoying limited constriction on our behaviors in this country comes at a cost and some times that cost is lives.
We just don’t pay attention till it might be our own.
Ah-ha! I get it now, Roscoe. Moreover, I’m prepared to agree that freedom entails risk and cost. However, it seems to me that the automobile was never intended by design to become a lethal weapon, even though that certainly is one of the possibilities that motor vehicles provide. Meanwhile, the gun was and still is intended by design to be a lethal weapon.
Therefore, I argue that risk and cost that follow from the right to keep and bear arms is not especially analogous to the risk and cost that follow from the right to own, drive or ride in an automobile or any other motor vehicle. But the analogy could be strengthened by laws mandating gun-owner education and licensing exams along the lines of driver education and licensing exams. Such could be accomplished through State militias or The NRA, or both in conjunction.
Even so, Spinelli will still be right about the smaller size of the gun-death problem relative to the traffic-death problem.
Diane – the automobile was designed by Henry Ford as a sex education device. He wasn’t the first, but he was the first to make it cheaply available to college and high school students to further their education. To everyone who furthered their education in the front seat or back or both of any car, take this moment to thank Henry for this great gift to your education, fumbling though it may have been. 🙂 Henry helped you find the way to a complete life.
Paul, the truth is almost always the funniest thing we’ll ever hear.
Diane, one has to distinguish the difference between the purpose of something (an automobile) and what it was created for. An automobile’s purpose is to transport. The purpose of a gun is offense or defense. You cannot equate a gun and an automobile in this context.
The is no equivalent to the second amendment with regard to ownership or use of an automobile.
Allan, you imagine that you’ve just stated something different than what I stated; when, in fact, I specifically called Roscoe’s analogy between guns and automobiles a weak analogy. The suggestion to strengthen the analogy was just that, Allan, another exposition of the weakness of the analogy.
I swear, you just can’t follow a thread; can you, Allan?
“However, it seems to me that the automobile was never intended by design to become a lethal weapon, even though that certainly is one of the possibilities that motor vehicles provide. “
Keeping the above quotation of yours in mind you write: “ I swear, you just can’t follow a thread; can you, Allan?”
Diane, What a foolish statement to make considering how I differentiated the two items. “An automobile’s purpose is to transport. The purpose of a gun is offense or defense. You cannot equate a gun and an automobile in this context.”, but you go ahead in a lame argument and claim exactly the wrong thing when you say “the analogy could be strengthened by laws mandating gun-owner education and licensing exams along the lines of driver education “
Not only do you miss the legal idea behind understanding the difference between the purposes of the automobile and the gun, but you think your the purpose can be changed by your suggestion. You are conflating too many different thoughts and making very little sense.
Roscoe, The bigger problem w/ auto deaths is inattentive driving, not mechanical. It’s the HUMAN factor. The selfish person texting/talking/changing radio while driving; and the angry/crazy sh!tbird w/ a gun. The HUMAN factor.
Nick, I’m with you on that I just picked one of so many negligent operator behaviors that we just accept. I tried to think of some benign ones that people may not have considered that contribute to the loss of life while one participates innocently.
It’s all about the cost/risk of participating innocently.
I can’t stand car/driving analogies with gun ownership or health insurance. There is no constitutional right to drive a car (which is a privilege), you have a right to own a gun. So states can and do have their own set of rules to drive. Using your train of thought, should people have to pass certain criteria before exercising their right to free speech?
As for health care, I am only forced to have car insurance if I want to drive a car. So I don’t have to have car insurance. I shouldn’t have to have health insurance too if I choose not to. But that is another topic.
It’s not about wether it’s a state privlidge or a constitutional right, it’s about what level of consequential fatalities we accept based on our every day legal behaviors that get abused.
Sure it is. A privilege can be taken away, a right can not. So if we decide car deaths are not acceptable, than they can be made unlawful. Bearing arms is a right and can’t be taken away regardless of how we mistreat that right. Bringing the two together just acts to cloud their distinction.
Jim22 – at one time we did decide those car deaths were unacceptable so we (the states) tightened BAC limits for drunk driving. The death rate went down. We have almost stabilized deaths each year due to drunk driving, the number or percentage does not change much from year to year.
I worked the road off and on during the times when adult presumptive intoxication limit was .10 and .08 and also when “juvenile” presumptive rate was enacted to be .02. The most remarkable change came as the result of establishing the juvenile presumptive limit, which before was simply the same as whatever DWI / DUI was.
Having to go on anecdotal evidence since I haven’t yet seen official results, but prior to the Juvy DUI law (namely “Being Under Eighteen Years In Age And Driving After Having Consumed Alcohol) it was common to arrest kids for DUI. Sometime after this new law, along with changing the Minor in Possession / Consumption law which effectively allowed kids to drink at their homes and didn’t punish them unless they were out in public, the juvenile DUI rate dropped to record low levels. I estimate for my experience it dropped by 95%. I probably got a kid about every six months.
I don’t expect this to be similar in adults if the rate is dropped to .02. There are other factors involved such as alcohol experience and socialization along with the fact that minors are not permitted to consume alcohol in off-limits areas such as bars and taverns which is where most DUIs originate.
One has to always consider the unintended consequences of actions taken. Those unintended consequences sometimes are worse than the problem. Thus, it is not good enough for you to lament about fatalities unless you have actions you can reasonably prove will solve the problem without creating new ones.
Disdain for the Constitution has a lot of unintended consequences so be careful. Can we do things to reduce deaths? Probably, but they have to be carefully targeted. Will any type of legislation end the type of violence seen in Vegas? I doubt it.
Passenger-miles traveled on highways have increased by 83% since 1975. Deaths attributable to car wrecks have declined by 22% during that run of years, so there’s been a 57% decline in the rate of vehicular deaths per passenger-mile. Driving a car is a great deal safer than it once was.
It’s not about wether it’s a state privlidge or a constitutional right, it’s about what level of consequential fatalities we accept based on our every day legal behaviors that get abused.
We have every reason to believe that gun regulations are a weak vector in influencing homicide rates. The strong vector is the probability and celerity of punishment. That means hiring cops, deploying them optimally, and nurturing police morale during controversies. It also means that crime is fought with deterrence and punishment, not social work.
Progs have no interest in crime control, so they talk about guns, which allows them to treat as pathological people who own guns, who hail from social sectors progs despise.
The main point is we accept a certain amount of innocent people dying right?
Yes we do, Roscoe. Perhaps because we cannot quite legislate the full measure of responsibility required to minimize the unnecessary deaths of innocents in consequence of our civil liberties. That fullest possible measure of responsibility can only be had by means of education. And we appear to be remiss on that count.
Allan, why are some deaths more acceptable than others?
Roscoe, I can’t find where I even indicated “some deaths more acceptable than others”. Can you quote the statement and explain?
I don’t find any deaths acceptable, but I recognize among other things that some deaths are more preventable than others.
What was your point?
Allann, my point was a mistake.
My point was directed to Jim 22 and I erroneously addressed it to you by mistake.
My bad.
No problem Roscoe.
I guess the quick answer would be that again, one is there is a constitutional category and the other is a privilege. Should we ban certain music that me be deemed depressing for it might cause a troubled youth to become violent or suicidal?
In a nut shell, living a real free life is gratifying and requires responsibility and of course is dangerous. Living in a cocoon your whole life is not really living.
There are 1.3 million auto deaths per year.
You’re off by a factor of about 40. The number of deaths each year in this country is just shy of 4 million. Auto accidents do not account for 1/3 of all deaths. Miscellaneous accidents account for 3.6% of all deaths.
LOL. “Facts matter, ” says Nick.
According to Nick, “There are 1.3 million auto deaths per year.”
The facts?
https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/pdf/2016-07-vitalsigns.pdf
Let’s get rid of automobiles? And save 1.3 million lives!
Sandra Hemmings – in 2014, the last year for statistics there were 39,000 auto deaths, not 1.3 million. Not sure where that figure comes from.
As a matter of fact, I’m historically obligated to cut Spinelli some slack on the issue of misreported numbers. I presume his was an honest error. So we’re even-steven now, Nick.
issac – according to the Arizona Constitution, all males from 18 to 50 belong to the militia. I have aged out, but I am not giving up my guns. As good as my local police department is, they cannot get here before I can be shot.
And what was Franklin’s reply when asked “Who is the Militia?”
So many people today expect others to carry the load.
From food production to education, to protection from everything.
Everyone in this Nation, as a part of basic education should participate and experience growing, harvesting and storing food. Not just preparing and consuming food.
Everyone should take a course where the teach a topic to
a younger person.
Everyone should make an article of clothing, work on an automobile, understand basic medical knowledge, CPR, firearms safety and handling, their Civil Rights and Obligations as a Citizen, as a Parent and as a member of their Communities.
Now you might have an educated electorate based on doing and not just reading about it or learning through indoctination.
It’s easy to determine what comments by the Canadian Rain Man are plagiarized. Those comments are coherent. The above comment is rambling and all Rain Man’s words.
According to Nick, “There are 1.3 million auto deaths per year.” And, he added, “Facts matter.”
The facts?
https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/pdf/2016-07-vitalsigns.pdf
1.3 million? Not even close.
Nick, you are cracking me up! Great observation! =)
Nick, you forgot to add that Isaac is still an excellent driver.
Diane – and we know issac is an excellent driver because?
Because Spinelli said so.
“Nick, you forgot to add that Isaac is still an excellent driver.”
A driver of what? Bullsh!t or an automobile?
It’s a line from the movie “Rain Man,” humorless one. Don’t ask Isaac to give the baby a bath.
I know the story of Rain Man but how does your present statement “Don’t ask Isaac to give the baby a bath.” relate to my response towards “Nick, you forgot to add that Isaac is still an excellent driver.” which was (my response) “A driver of what? Bullsh!t or an automobile?”
Then again we have to remember how poorly you understood the differences between the second and fourth amendments. Your idea of humor is very low brow.
Blame Spinelli for the low brow humor, humorless one.
Spinelli didn’t write that low brow comment. You did, but you like to spread the blame. That is typical of the collectivist. What is your’s is your’s except for the blame you hold and that blame you believe should be collectively spread to others.
And what was Franklin’s reply when asked “Who is the Militia?”
So many people today expect others to carry the load.
From food production to education, to protection from everything.
Everyone in this Nation, as a part of basic education should participate and experience growing, harvesting and storing food. Not just preparing and consuming food.
Everyone should take a course where the teach a topic to
a younger person.
Everyone should make an article of clothing, work on an automobile, understand basic medical knowledge, CPR, firearms safety and handling, their Civil Rights and Obligations as a Citizen, as a Parent and as a member of their Communities.
Now you might have an educated electorate based on doing and not just reading about it or learning through indoctination.
Despite the weeping and hyperventilating by millionaire late night comedians who live in highly secure gated communities and rich cable TV dupes who make a living stoking hatred, the NRA is a relatively minor lobbyist. Not among the top 50 in the 2015-16 election cycle.
Unsurprisingly, 8 of the top 10 lobbyists donated mostly to Democrats.
https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/toporgs.php?view=fc&cycle=2016&type=src
There’s something in the DNA of those who have an affinity for violence v. those who do not. That particular DNA configuration occurs in all races, ethnic groups, on all continents, but does not exist in all people of any particular race, ethnicity, or location of birth.
If so, then it’s probably an allele series of sex-linked traits. Even then, the developmental model might still hold sway.
Chris Bacon – you got a cite for this? Would love to read the study.
He has nothing. He’s a coffee house poet who resents others who are better than he is.
Behavior patterns are not inheritable in the same fashion as eye color. (CC I am not drawing any positive or negative conclusions.)
Allan, it’ll be at least another century or more before the geneticists make any significant headway on human behavior. They just barely have a handle on song-learning behavior in sparrows. And that’s because precious few people raise ethical objections to experimenting on sparrows. Whatever the geneticists eventually come up with had damned well better not be based on human experiments.
DNA is not the only thing that controls and differentiates humans. Think of cytochromes.
For anyone who is interested:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZD.html
“There are many “work arounds” for semi-automatic weapons and Paddock would have likely passed any enhanced background checks. Nevertheless, GOP members have expressed interest in some additional gun control measures. ”
Doesn’t this kind of sum it all up? Any more discussion is just non productive juvenile pontification.
I recall an info show like 60 minutes or 20/20 users years ago showing a guy going to an Auto Salvage yard, a hardware store and a pharmacy and put together a firearm in like 3 hours.
The real issue here is the pharmaceutical companies and the drugs. Every single one of these events seem to go back to SSRIs, up serotonin inhibitors.
It’s been a pretty epic day, but I don’t think we’ve blown up enough stuff yet.
That would be a law enforcement issue. Have no fear, quadrotor drone Charlene is here.
Tacitus, first thing tomorrow morning I’m going to get my son started on deploying big helium balloons tethered to every tree around my house. I figure your quadrotor drone will waste most of its bullets shooting down the balloons. You’ll have to fly it back to your remote position to reload its armaments. How do you like that, Tacitus???
BTW, where in the Constitution are there “separate constitutional prohibitions on irrational laws”???
P. S. Fourth Amendment motions are routinely quashed at criminal trials using the exact same strict scrutiny test that Turley cites; namely, the compelling interest of the state to overcome an individual right [Fourth Amendment] for the sake of protecting the public safety, securing convictions against criminal defendants and bolstering the rule of law.
So how is it that Turley insinuates that the state has no compelling interest to overcome another individual right [Second Amendment] for the sake of protecting the public safety and bolstering the rule of law?
Why should strict scrutiny be stricter for The Fourth Amendment than for The Second Amendment?
“Why should strict scrutiny be stricter for The Fourth Amendment than for The Second Amendment?”
Diane, it is not all or none. It is a balancing act. You aren’t generally permitted to buy a machine gun.
In District of Columbia v Heller SCOTUS ruled that “if all that was required to overcome the right to keep and bear arms was a rational basis, the Second Amendment would be redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on irrational laws, and would have no effect.”
If the Fourth Amendment were just such a separate constitutional prohibition against irrational laws, then by frame substitution the following absurdity would result:
If all that was required to overcome the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against ‘unreasonable’ searches and seizures was a rational basis, the Fourth Amendment would be redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on irrational laws, and would have no effect.
Is the Fourth Amendment a constitutional prohibition on irrational laws? What other constitutional prohibitions on irrational laws might there be? The necessary and proper clause? The supremacy clause? What else?
Is SCOTUS using the Fourth Amendment to create a higher standard for overcoming the Second Amendment than SCOTUS requires for overcoming the Fourth Amendment?
Fine, I’ll answer my own question. Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 a.k.a. “The Necessary and Proper Clause” and Article VI a.k.a. “The Supremacy Clause.” If anybody else can find any “separate constitutional prohibitions on irrational laws,” then do tell, please.
It goes to the OP in re Gun Control After Heller wherein Turley claims that gun control has to be more than merely “rational” in order to overcome the SCOTUS decision in District of Columbia v Heller which stated:
“If all that was required to overcome the right to keep and bear arms was a rational basis, the Second Amendment would be redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on irrational laws, and would have no effect.”
Turley goes on to argue that “Congress must meet a higher standard in the curtailment of an individual right, usually a showing of a narrowly tailored law advancing a compelling state interest.”
The Fourth Amendment is an individual right of the people. Congress has enacted broad laws against illegal narcotics that routinely curtail the individual right of the people to be secure in their persons and possessions presumably by meeting just such a higher standard of advancing a compelling state interest.
Why can’t The Congress advance the same compelling state interest in re gun control laws curtailing the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as The Congress has advanced in re illegal narcotics laws curtailing the Fourth Amendment right to be secure in one’s person and possessions?
I don’t think these last two posts of yours, Diane, are adequately comprehensible. I believe them to be comprehensible to a group of one, you because this is what you wish to believe even though it doesn’t match the Constitution’s requirements. One statement doesn’t seem to logically follow another. Try again, but make sure that your statements are in a logical sequence and that the pronouns are spelled out.
Late4Dinner,
Charlene is equipped with an explosive payload. Screw the balloons. And target the house. Dinner is served.
Tacitus, You’re totally freaking me out. Please tell me you intend to use Charlene only for good.
P. S. If my balloon flotilla were reflective mylar, would that interfere with Charlene’s flight control?
Wait . . How do I mess with Charlene’s target sighting? Do tell, Tacitus. Please?
How’s about disco-ball lightning rods all along the ridgeboards? Would I need a permit from The FAA?
The Las Vegas shooter is a former auditor for the Defense Contract Audit Agency and a former IRS Agent (which may explain his surly attitude). Both of the federal positions require security clearances that go well beyond the background check required to purchase a weapon. So no, there is nothing that would have prevented him from stockpiling weapons.
Now that he was an auditor for those agencies DCAA and IRS explains his attitude. He has been doing that to people for years, just using an automatic lead filled pencil as opposed to a lead filled weapon. (And yes I know pencil lead is graphite.)
Silencers do not silence the weapon, only muffle it some. They still would have heard the bullets coming. The one thing a silencer can do it modify the aim of the weapon by distorting the trajectory of the bullet slightly. However, with a crowd of 22,000, people were still going to be killed.
I have seen a demo of the bump stock and besides making your shoulder very sore, you have to continually lean into the stock and use the other (none shooting hand) to brace the rifle. The difference in firepower rate is minimal, but probably significant for the Las Vegas event. He appears to have been shooting from two windows, switching between them. You go through a clip pretty fast. He either has to move or reload or rearm. According to police reports, he fired 200 rounds at the security guard that located his room and narced him out. It appears he only hit him once.
PCS,
“They still would have heard the bullets coming.”
How is this possible, PCS? The rounds were supersonic out of the muzzle and remained so until their target was struck. The rounds used were not subsonic. The bullets impacted before their sound arrived.
“The one thing a silencer can do it modify the aim of the weapon by distorting the trajectory of the bullet slightly.”
You make it sound like a good thing; do you mean to say that a ‘silencer’ modifies the ballistics?
You need to lay off the Netflix and Hulu streaming and maybe brush up on basic physics – e.g. speed of sound vs. muzzle velocity vs. ballistics.
Tass Brown – they were hearing shots fired and seeing muzzle flashes up on Mandalay Bay. Tou are correct, they would not have heard the first couple of shots, but then people began reacting to what they thought were fireworks going off (actually gunshots) However, as fast as he was shooting, you could probably hear every shot after number four, the distance is about 400 feet to the stage. And if you actually know anything about silencers, they do not silence and they do slightly modify the trajectory of the bullet. The purpose of a silencer in the home is so the homeowner can use his pistol without doing permanent ear damage. They do not work like they show them in the movies, which is why the Russians like the poison in the umbrella trick.
Paul, there was a diagram in a news article of the room and the trajectory of the bullets out from each window. That diagram showed one window lead to fuel tanks that apparently had bullets shot into them and the other window to the people.
Allan – I did hear that he might have shot at the fuel tanks near the airport. Hadn’t heard if they had confirmed it yet. There has been so much speculation, it is hard to know what to believe. Supposedly, now, the gf is telling them he was going crazy, laying in the bed and screaming things.
The girlfriend didn’t provide information we were looking for or at least we weren’t told. Now is the time to gather all the information possible and not draw conclusions. I don’t have the trust in our intelligence agencies that I used to have so I don’t know that I will ever be satisfied with their answers.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/the-strip/commissioner-calls-for-security-review-of-jet-fuel-tanks-after-las-vegas-strip-shooting/
“In a statement released to the newspaper, spokesman Chris Jones said airport officials were informed by local and federal law enforcement that one of the tanks was “struck by rifle fire during the tragic shooting event that occurred in Las Vegas the evening of Oct. 1.”
“Jones said airport management learned that two rifle rounds struck a single 43,000-barrel fuel tank just east of the Mandalay Bay.
““One round penetrated Tank 202, which was partially filled with jet fuel,” the airport statement said. “A second round was found lodged within the same tank’s outer steel shell, and did not penetrate. This tank was subsequently evaluated by experts who found no evidence of smoke nor fire.”
Jones said the tank is being drained and will be reinspected and repaired.”
I hold that the recent pronouncements by the supremes wrongly interpret the constitution. The several states can impose whatever additional restrictions the legislatures want.
Such as required membership in the well-regulated militia and restrictions on ammunitions and the distribution of such; only available at the gun club or armory.
Many states hardcoded into their constitutions that firearm possession is an individual right. Here’s ours:
SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
There is also the militia statutes:
RCW 38.04.030
Composition of the militia.
The militia of the state of Washington shall consist of all able bodied citizens of the United States and all other able bodied persons who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, residing within this state, who shall be more than eighteen years of age, and shall include all persons who are members of the national guard and the state guard, and said militia shall be divided into two classes, the organized militia and the unorganized militia
Why did he send her to the Philippines alone? I would have asked him to go with me. Then send her a cheesy $100,000, when he’s worth millions?
Sandra Hemming – reports say (and who can depend on reports) she was to visit for a couple of weeks and then sent her the 100k which she took to be a way of dumping her, kind of buying her off. Now, I could be dumped for a 100k, how about you?
1. “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,…”
2. “…shall not be infringed.”
Two material, independent clauses without ambiguity or qualification.
2nd Amendment –
“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.”
It is not possible to misunderstand the 2nd Amendment.
It is possible to commit treason by way of subversion.
You know how the Congress works. The people show outrage and it must engage in a knee-jerk reaction to pass sub-standard legislation, in order to appear like it’s actually earning its keep. This is how we arrived at the Patriot Act and many other poor pieces of law that chip away at the Founders’ sacred Bill of Rights.
The law abiding people are penalized, with their fundamental rights restricted because of the act of a singular madman. Eventually, society is dumbed down by law to the lowest common denominator. I’m glad I’ll be long gone by then, but I fear for my progeny.
While the mainstream media focuses on the Leftist Governmental Agenda–to take away all civil liberties from Americans one step at a time, with seizing their guns being one of their key objectives–some REAL news is occurring that is NOT being reported.
To anyone with intelligence who does not share the Leftist Governmental Agenda, Mark Dice’s analysis below will enlighten you:
Maybe it is time to outright repeal the 2nd Amendment–Brett Stephens laid it all out in his column (and he’s no leftie/commie):
https://t.co/ZIX3hXH66J
Good idea but unlikely to happen.
If you love the idea of having your guns taken away, just move to Lebanon. Guns are outlawed there, except for very specific purposes subject to complete governmental control. Of course, Lebanon’s gun control program is a complete failure–as all gun control programs are–but you will be delighted. Pack your bags and be off with you—please!
It is a well written argument.
Neither well written, nor an argument. Just pure, unadulterated Leftist BS. But that’s just the kind of crap that you will devour with gusto.
Bret Stephens is a Righto, Ignoramus.
No, he’s a purveyor of globaloney. The man is a progtrash editor’s idea of a token rightist, not the real deal. David Brooks and Conor Friedersdorf with a less appealing personality.
David Benson – Stephens is a Republican, not a rightist. Like McCain is a Republican, but not a rightist.
Paul C. Schulte,….
“He is a sheep in sheep’s clothing”.-Churchill
Tom Nash – when you coming to Arizona again?
Paul,..
Hopefully just before or just after the holidays.
There were a few deaths in the family in a relatively short period of time….as “the last one standing”, it fell to me to sort all lot of things out.
Takes a fair amount of time to try to do it right.
Tom Nash – sorry to hear that. Been through the executor mess a couple of times myself, never fun. Be sure to let me know so we can finally get together. 🙂
Thanks, Paul.
It’s not going to happen. People want to have the option of protecting themselves and their families from criminals. As this country becomes more and more of a demographic cess pool, the need for a gun in the home increases, not decreases.
As this country becomes more and more of a demographic cess pool,
The two immigrant groups in large numbers known to have high rates of perpetration are Central Americans and Puerto Ricans. The Puerto Ricans have been here in large numbers for 70 years and their home island is demographically somnambulant.
Puerto Ricans are American citizens.
So what? They are, sociologically, immigrants.
Immigrant: come to live in a foreign country.
Use the dictionary. I do.
Puerto Rico is a Spanish-speaking Caribbean island which has never been an integral part of the United States. It is a possession of the United States. It also has a per capita income 60% below the mainland mean and a homicide rate like that of Brazil (5x that on the mainland). The employment-to-population ratio on the island is 0.35, a figure you see only on the Arabian peninsula (that on the mainland, like most occidental countries, is 0.60). I cannot help it if you do not understand what ‘foreign’ really means.
What other civil rights would Brett Stephens recommend be repealed as well?
The views of this professional verbalizer on legal rights are not what he’s known for. He’s known for this:
http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/18/nyt-columnist-deport-americans-not-illegal-immigrants/
Of course Brett Stephens as a Leftie. He works for the New York Times–which is PURE Leftism. He is what real conservatives call a faux conservative. I call him just a plain BS-er.
Ross Douthat also works for the Times and he’s the real deal. As a rule, the Times, PBS, NPR, and Bloggingheads prefer to employ poseurs, ’tis true.
(and he’s no leftie/commie):
He’s a tedious purveyor of golbaloney and he could do the country a favor by emigrating.
mikepouraryan, why not just reinstate the State Militias and empower them to regulate their own arms-bearing defenders of liberty? Gun ownership could still be an individual right and the sovereign states could still pursue their compelling interest to protect public safety whilst securing the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity.
“Brett Stephens laid it all out in his column (and he’s no leftie/commie)”
Apparently you missed his sarcasm …………
Not sarcastic.