Washington appears to be settling around background checks as the response to the latest massacres in Texas and Ohio despite the fact that such background checks would not have stopped most of the past mass shootings. What politicians will not admit to the public is that there is a very limited range of actions that Congress can take in curtailing an individual constitutional right.
Here is the column:
At a vigil for the latest victims of a mass shooting, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine, a Republican and a supporter of gun rights, was offering his condolences when the crowd began to chant, “Do something!” It is a desperate mantra being repeated across the country. Do something, anything, to end our continual cycle of boom and bust. Mass shootings are followed by scenes of sorrowful politicians, which are then followed by minimal actions. Worse yet, politicians routinely propose reforms they know will not pass constitutional review, creating the appearance of “doing something” when, in reality, they do little beyond giving cover.
This latest bloodshed has politicians once again pledging action. Many of these politicians opposed the decision of the Supreme Court in 2008 in District of Columbia versus Dick Anthony Heller, establishing that the right to bear arms is an individual right under the Second Amendment. The court has repeatedly reaffirmed that landmark decision. In 2010, the court ruled that this constitutional right applied to the states as it does to the federal government since it is one of those “fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.” Just two years ago, the Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision and held that this right is not confined to firearms “in existence at the time of the founding” but to “all instruments that constitute bearable arms” including, in that specific case, stun guns.
Despite these and other rulings by the federal courts, politicians still act as if they are still operating before Heller in which any rational gun control is presumptively constitutional. The legal results are predictable. New York City mayor and Democratic candidate Bill De Blasio complained in the aftermath of the recent shootings, “It feels like we are screaming into a void.” It feels that way because we are, and that void is a space that no longer exists for many measures after Heller. As an individual right, there is a higher showing required from both state and federal governments, a standard that is unlikely to be met in many proposed gun regulations.
For example, many politicians are pledging again to remove all “assault style weapons” such as the AR-15. However, such limits must meet a standard that requires a narrowly tailored law advancing a compelling state interest. While a ban on AR-15s sounds compelling, it breaks down under closer review. The AR-15 and other weapons in its class use an intermediate cartridge that actually is less powerful than that used in a rifle. These weapons are often twice as powerful as a handgun but not nearly as powerful as a rifle. Moreover, guns like the AR-15 are popular because they are modular and allow for different grips and barrels.
A law cannot ban the look of a rifle. It must focus on the inherent power of the weapon, which may prove less compelling for some justices. Such a ban would have to pass muster with Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, the newest members of the Supreme Court. Both justices are viewed as supporting gun rights under Heller, and Kavanaugh wrote a dissent in a 2011 case saying that an assault weapons ban would be unconstitutional.
The road ahead may therefore prove more difficult for gun control. A federal judge in San Diego shot down the California law banning high capacity ammunition magazines with more than 10 rounds. While the ruling could now be reversed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the decision repeatedly hit on what the court felt was an arbitrary ban given the common use of such magazines. The court noted that the Glock pistol “is designed for, and typically sold with, a 17 round magazine,” as is true of a wide assortment of other such popular weapons. Moreover, banning high capacity magazines will not likely have a transformative effect. It is relatively easy and fast to swap out magazines on a weapon. This and other such cases are currently working their way to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court is already poised to rule in a critical gun rights case, a decision that will come a decade after its last major decision in the area, with New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus City of New York. This will once again test the mettle of the Second Amendment right and could result in a substantial blow to an array of laws passed across the country in the wake of Heller. Gun control advocates have adopted a strategy long used by pro-life advocates. Rather than seeking a direct challenge to the right to bear arms, they advocate laws limiting the right on the edges, chipping away at the scope of the Second Amendment.
The New York case is an example of this “death by a thousand paper cuts” approach. Not to be outdone by the already restrictive gun laws in the state legislature, the New York City Council passed a law that not only required most owners to keep their guns unloaded and locked away at home but curtailed their ability to take their guns outside of their homes. It banned gun owners from transporting guns except to one of the seven city shooting ranges, preventing owners from taking their guns outside of city limits, even to second homes. The law is simple harassment, but two lower courts upheld it. It is scheduled to go before the Supreme Court.
An appeal from gun manufacturer Remington is also pending before the Supreme Court. The company seeks to overturn a decision that supports the right of families of victims in the Sandy Hook massacre to sue gun manufacturers. However, Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2015, giving gun manufacturers immunity from most lawsuits. I opposed this law as unnecessary and unwise. Courts had already ruled against product liability and nuisance challenges to gun manufacturers without giving the industry immunity, yet Congress still passed the law under pressure from the National Rifle Association.
In response, various states have sought to develop exceptions to the blanket immunity. In the case pending before the Supreme Court, the Connecticut high court declared that people could sue the manufacturer of the assault rifle used by the killer under a state law on advertising. The plaintiffs relied on the company slogan, “Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single handedly outnumbered.” That would seem a particularly weak claim even without immunity. While it is a bit chilling, the company slogan is not an invitation to mow down children. As a result, this could prove a bad case creating even worse law for gun control advocates.
The latest suggestion is the red flag law to allow the police to remove weapons from individuals who are viewed as unstable or dangerous. These laws could prove more successful. But the challenge to some of these “red flags” may come down not to the Second Amendment but to the due process clause because of the lack of protections for gun owners seeking to challenge such seizures of their property. Moreover, while red flag laws could deter some violence, they would not necessarily have prevented many of the recent massacres by shooters who did not show such red flags. The shooter in Dayton had plenty of flags including “rape lists” for students at his high school. Conversely, the suspect in the El Paso shooting had few red flags and was described as a “loner” during college.
The point is not to abandon efforts to seek reforms. I have long supported gun controls. However, we can either work with legal realities in crafting such reforms or simply “scream into the void” of our constitutional law.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
In case anyone wonders about the left’s propensity to promote violence and even death look at Hollywood’s recent promotion (that might fail). You guys that promote the left ought to start promoting ideas and principles. Your hate has gotten the better of you.
—
‘The Hunt’ Shows Liberals Murdering Conservatives. Do We Really Need That Right Now?
AUGUST 9, 2019 By Emily Jashinsky
This week’s tragic mass shootings reportedly have Universal Pictures “re-evaluating its strategy” for “The Hunt,” a forthcoming satire film that depicts elite liberals hunting “MAGA types” for sport. A Wednesday article in The Hollywood Reporter spotlighted internal deliberations over the movie, which stars Hilary Swank and is slated for release on Sept. 27.
According to the report, ESPN has already pulled ads for the film, originally titled “Red State Vs. Blue State,” which “features guns blazing along with other ultra-violent killings as the elites pick off their prey.” The trailer does a pretty good job illustrating why Universal is grappling with the film in light of recent tragedies.
video at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lqCjai8LDo
https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/09/hunt-shows-liberals-murdering-conservatives-really-need-right-now/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=ae561a8295-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-ae561a8295-84104567
Allan,
My initial reaction when I heard about this movie and saw the trailer was this should never be released. But if you are of the mind that the violence perpetrated or voiced by the Left is not being reported by the MSM, then this movie is a workaround.
The movie represents a breakdown of morality and common sense. Leftists might end up getting what they want but before they push further they ought to read about the Jacobins.
Everyone agrees that guns are dangerous, even fatal when in the hands of dangerous people.
This is especially so when no one is around with equal force to preserve, protect and defend the targets.
🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫
DEMOCRAT HIT LIST
Amendment 1 🔫
– Freedom of Religion, Speech, and the Press
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religionor prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redressof grievances. 🎯⚰
Amendment 2 🔫
– The Right to Bear Arms
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.🎯⚰
Amendment 3 *
– The Housing of Soldiers
No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war but in a manner to be prescribed by law. * On Hold until CW2.
Amendment 4 🔫
– Protection from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searchesand seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue butupon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.🎯⚰
Amendment 5 🔫
– Protection of Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property
No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in casesarising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy oflife or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.🎯⚰
Amendment 6 🔫
– Rights of Accused Persons in Criminal Cases
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him;
to have compulsory processfor obtaining witnesses in his favor;
and to have the assistance of counselfor his defense.🎯⚰
Amendment 7 🔫
– Rights in Civil Cases
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law.🎯⚰
Amendment 8 🔫
– Excessive Bail, Fines, and Punishments Forbidden
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.🎯⚰
Amendment 9 🔫
– Other Rights Kept by the People
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others
retained by the people. 🎯⚰
Amendment 10 🔫
– Undelegated Powers Kept by the States and the People
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.🎯⚰
Wouldn’t an assault rile’s ability to hit multiple targets in a short time frame make it more powerful than a rifle? I think it’s an open question whether SCOTUS would extend the 2nd amendment to protect automatic rifles. My guess is they wouldn’t.
Both a rifle and an ‘assault’ rifle shoot one bullet at a time, one bullet per every trigger pull. Semi-automatic ‘long’ rifles have been out there for a long time and they can be aimed and fired as quickly as an ‘assault’ rifle. Even a bolt action rifle can be aimed, fired and cycled at a high rate of fire. Don’t forget that two of the most notorious murders of our lifetime, Lee Harvey Oswald and Charles Whitman used bolt action rifles.
An AR15 fires low caliber, high velocity rounds. The damage a bullet does is exponentially increased by it’s velocity, while the caliber size results in a straight line increase with size. The small caliber also means low recoil and maximum in control shooting by the user. Trauma doctors attest to the damage they see from these weapons which are often not repairable and result in a higher death rate and/or permanent damage.
“With their diameter roughly one-third that of a dime, the bullets apparently used in the Orlando mass shooting were small.
But because they travel at nearly three times the speed of sound, they deliver a punch well beyond the hole made by the bullet, pulverizing nearby blood vessels and turning soft tissue to jelly.
Combat surgeons who have treated wounds inflicted by this type of high-velocity rifle, the AR-15 class, say the weapons scare them.
“The wounds are just otherworldly,” said Penn Medicine trauma surgeon Jeremy W. Cannon, an expert marksman who served with the Air Force in Iraq and Afghanistan. “You’re talking big, giant cavities and a hole you can put your fist through.”
John M. Porter, chief of trauma at Cooper University Health Care in Camden and a former Army trauma surgeon, said injuries caused by high-velocity rifle rounds are “much harder to fix” than those from a handgun.
“It actually puts kinetic energy into tissue that it didn’t hit,” Porter said. “It can go next to the blood vessels and still destroy the blood vessels. It can go next to the liver and still destroy the liver.”….”
https://www.inquirer.com/philly/health/science/20160616_Doctors__High-velocity_Orlando_rifle_inflicts__quot_devastating_quot__wounds.html
“The amount of work or damage inflicted on tissues depends on the amount of kinetic energy possessed by the bullet when it strikes the body and the amount possessed when, and if, it exits the body. Kinetic energy (KE) is given by the following equation:
KE=mv22
Where
m = mass
v = velocity
Modern military ammunition, i.e., the 5.56 × 45 mm SS109 and M855 rounds used by NATO forces and the 5.45 × 39 mm 7 N6 used in the AK-74, are all high velocity with relatively low mass, allowing soldiers to carry more rounds for the same weight while still potentially possessing a large ”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4596205/
“As I opened the CT scan last week to read the next case, I was baffled. The history simply read “gunshot wound.” I have been a radiologist in one of the busiest trauma centers in the United States for 13 years, and have diagnosed thousands of handgun injuries to the brain, lung, liver, spleen, bowel, and other vital organs. I thought that I knew all that I needed to know about gunshot wounds, but the specific pattern of injury on my computer screen was one that I had seen only once before.
In a typical handgun injury, which I diagnose almost daily, a bullet leaves a laceration through an organ such as the liver. To a radiologist, it appears as a linear, thin, gray bullet track through the organ. There may be bleeding and some bullet fragments.
I was looking at a CT scan of one of the mass-shooting victims from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, and was bleeding extensively. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?
The reaction in the emergency room was the same. One of the trauma surgeons opened a young victim in the operating room, and found only shreds of the organ that had been hit by a bullet from an AR-15, a semiautomatic rifle that delivers a devastatingly lethal, high-velocity bullet to the victim. Nothing was left to repair—and utterly, devastatingly, nothing could be done to fix the problem. The injury was fatal.
A year ago, when a gunman opened fire at the Fort Lauderdale airport with a 9 mm semiautomatic handgun, hitting 11 people in 90 seconds, I was also on call. It was not until I had diagnosed the third of the six victims who were transported to the trauma center that I realized something out of the ordinary must have happened. The gunshot wounds were the same low-velocity handgun injuries that I diagnose every day; only their rapid succession set them apart. And all six of the victims who arrived at the hospital that day survived.
Routine handgun injuries leave entry and exit wounds and linear tracks through the victim’s body that are roughly the size of the bullet. If the bullet does not directly hit something crucial like the heart or the aorta, and the victim does not bleed to death before being transported to our care at the trauma center, chances are that we can save him. The bullets fired by an AR-15 are different: They travel at a higher velocity and are far more lethal than routine bullets fired from a handgun. The damage they cause is a function of the energy they impart as they pass through the body. A typical AR-15 bullet leaves the barrel traveling almost three times faster than—and imparting more than three times the energy of—a typical 9mm bullet from a handgun. An AR-15 rifle outfitted with a magazine with 50 rounds allows many more lethal bullets to be delivered quickly without reloading.
I have seen a handful of AR-15 injuries in my career. Years ago I saw one from a man shot in the back by a swat team. The injury along the path of the bullet from an AR-15 is vastly different from a low-velocity handgun injury. The bullet from an AR-15 passes through the body like a cigarette boat traveling at maximum speed through a tiny canal. The tissue next to the bullet is elastic—moving away from the bullet like waves of water displaced by the boat—and then returns and settles back. This process is called cavitation; it leaves the displaced tissue damaged or killed. The high-velocity bullet causes a swath of tissue damage that extends several inches from its path. It does not have to actually hit an artery to damage it and cause catastrophic bleeding. Exit wounds can be the size of an orange.
With an AR-15, the shooter does not have to be particularly accurate. The victim does not have to be unlucky. If a victim takes a direct hit to the liver from an AR-15, the damage is far graver than that of a simple handgun-shot injury. Handgun injuries to the liver are generally survivable unless the bullet hits the main blood supply to the liver. An AR-15 bullet wound to the middle of the liver would cause so much bleeding that the patient would likely never make it to the trauma center to receive our care…..”
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/
yes, rifles are designed to kill from a distance. a single shot rifle usable for deer hunting is equally usable to hunt humans. the implication of this, which is spelled out directly by pro gun advocates, is that this discussion will lead to a ban on all firearms, if allowed to proceed piecemeal by such justifications.
concealability is the big complaint with handguns. that used to be the fad. ban “saturday night specials” so muggers could not have guns etc. that went by the wayside. now the focus has gone onto rifles.
shotguns have even more muzzle energy, so they will be “in the sights” eventually too. pardon the pun.
for some reason, mass murderers almost never use shotguns. but, many suicides and murders are committed with shotguns. shotguns are preferable for use over both, in spaces from ten to one hundred feet, in the opinion of many.
the liking that freaks have for long military style rifles is due to their craziness, the key factors of having a high magazine capacity and rapid fire capability can be found in other mundane semi auto rifles that are not so scary looking. such as the ubiquitous ruger 10/22. …. i think this is well known to shooters who often giggle at the stupidity of some of these public debates, and their naivete.
yes. this is called muzzle energy.
You pretend top not understand a lot of things.
Read my lips:
As a majority of Americans advocate for, ban assault rifles. An assault rifle is a highly portable semi-automatic long gun capable of firing low caliber high velocity rounds (provide technical limits) carried in a high capacity magazine ( provide technical limits).
The clear reason why we should pass this law is the devastation these weapons produce on our citizens, and especially by mass shooters, who favor them.
Your push-poll respondents likely have a half-dozen different notions in their head as to what is an ‘assault rifle’, and some have no clear idea at all.
When they learn what constitutes an assault rifle, and including the revolting damage they quickly do to human bodies, they’ll be more galvanized.It’s not hard – high portability, high velocity rounds with low recoil, and large magazines.
When they learn what constitutes an assault rifle, and including the revolting damage they quickly do to human bodies, they’ll be more galvanized –
Now where have I heard that appeal before?
When they learn what constitutes an abortion, and including the revolting damage they quickly do to human bodies, they’ll be more galvanized.
How about we work together on limiting these situations through education, root cause analysis and tougher consequences for the criminal possession and use of guns?
Or something like that.
Olly, a clear majority already favor banning assault rifles and that is not the case with abortions. It is true that promoting the grizzly nature of abortions has increased the number of those who oppose them.
How do you educate people to not become mass shooters or conversely not be a victim of one? Stay out of any public space?
a clear majority already favor banning assault rifles and that is not the case with abortions. It is true that promoting the grizzly nature of abortions has increased the number of those who oppose them.
First, I would pray there is a majority that favors protecting life. That should be civil societies primary purpose.
How do you educate people to not become mass shooters or conversely not be a victim of one? Stay out of any public space?
Second, I don’t believe your first question is the right question. What is/are the root cause(s) leading people to become indiscriminate killers? What should innocent people do to not be a victim?
FALSE
and I could care less anyhow. the day a majority of Americans actually does want to take my guns or my surplus wealth or my life, I will not cooperate!!!!!
I should cut back on the drinking, but I actually agree with Anon1 here. Not the mean girl snark against Kurtz, but the banning of definitively defined “assault rifles”. My concern, though, would be that after this sensible legislation, she and her ilk would then move on to the next firearm, and then the next, and so on. I fear the “camel’s nose”.
I’m a he, but appreciate your comments. Sure, some won’t stop at seeking a ban on other weapons, but the camel’s nose is already in the tent – some firearms are already illegal.Besides, that should be the process in a constitutional democracy – debate issues and proposals on their specific merits. I understand that momentum, as well as false information and emotionalism play a part , but hopefully more are as deliberate and objective as you.
PS kurtz gets his shots in, including in the posts above.
not sure what your point is but rifles are intended to kill from a distance.
that includes every rifle, including single shot 22s
rifles ARE inherently, potentially, “offensive” weapons, whereas a handgun is a more self-defensive weapon.
one could argue for a right to handguns as a matter of self defense, without the second amendment.
some infantry in different countries are not issued handguns, but they all get rifles. the idea is, they are equipped to attack as a group force, not defend themselves individually. so handguns are basically defensive by design.
the second amendment clearly protects rifles, which are inherently offensive. the context of armed rebellion was unmistakable for the second amendment, like it or not.
finally, i would say, handguns are always more dangerous for the user to handle, to possible inflict accidental self harm, because they can be pointed at the self or extremities easily, and are more prone to accidental discharge because of the way a hand naturally gripping a handgun will go into the tirgger guard, rather than index alongside, which is more of a natural hand posture for grippping long guns.
this is an element of safe firearms handling, to understand that, and train to index the finger and not let it accidentally stroke the trigger
this comment is imprecise. the term for what you are grasping at is “muzzle energy”
that is a measurement of the energy of the round when it escapes the end of the tube.
the energy delivered from a bullet to whatever it hits, creates harm in the target
this is a function of the weight of the cartridge and its velocity.
a bullet at rest, zero velocity., does no harm. of course when it has more energy moving it forward it does more
a faster bullet of the same size does more damage than a slower one
a heavier bullet at same velocity does more damage than a lighter one
heavier slower bullet, versus lighter faster, theoretically could have same muzzle energy
this is basic newtonian physics.
finally, caliber is a measurement of width. not weight. not volume. length and depth are also aspects of volume and hence also weight, of a thing.
I am not sure whatever your point was anon1 maybe you could clarify it
kurtz, you’re blowing smoke. Velocity damage is squared with an increase while mass is straight line. The docs who see this damage are not blowing smoke and the designers of these weapons weren’t f..king around.
Anon, when the issue is common sense regulation of guns, which 70% of Americans want, conservatives respond with wave after wave of arcane specifications regarding various gun models. And the whole strategy, as you surmised, is to simply disperse the discussion with a fog of minutiae. The idea seems to be gun restrictions are impossible because there’s just so much minutiae to consider!
Hill, th epoint is there isn’t any minutae to consider when it comes to assault rifles, They were designed for a certain effct and it is not that hard to understand and define the necessary components – portability, high velocity rounds with low recoil, and large magazines. How hard is it to write a bill covering those factors?
if you think its blowing smoke then go study the legislative and judical history of other “assault” weapons bans. you will see i was not just blowing smoke about “minutiae.” go look it up or ask a criminal defense lawyer or go to law school if you’re thinking its just smoke. seriously. you’re rude.
not at all. the details are important in crafting laws and criminal statutes most of all.
where’s that one loudmoth who called us all names? mark? he could explain this
CRIMINAL STATUTES MUST BE STRICLTY CONSTRUED
THIS IS A BASIC REQUIREMENT OF ALL AMERICAN CRIMINAL STATUTES COMING FROM DUE PROCESS
it means we must know EXACTLY what is lawful and what is not. or the statute gets struck down.
problem comes up in a lot of contexts, used to, with obscenity, a lot. but now, with drugs, molecular analogs. here, precisely what guns are legal or not, what characteristics can be clearly identified and known with clarity.
it’s a solid system we have, don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater just cuz you’re hot about gun violence
I don’t see where I negated anything you said in those specific comments about muzzle energy, just clarified some terms. ……. but you are contentious and offensive person, so you want to argue with me, and say FK again and again. Do you talk like that all the time or what?
kurtz, would my posts amuse you more if I included rapid gunfire with my exclamations? You sure liked that video.
Yeah, I talk like that a lot. My wife hits me.
US V Miller makes it clear that sawed off shotguns are not “militia” weapons. 1934, in relation to the National Firearms Act
That is a nice picture of the stg 44 on the leader to this article. Sweet gun!
They are already banned
Former Pennsylvania, Gilberton Police Chief Mark Kessler apologizes for using profanity…..And says I’m sorry
i like that very funny
What’s funny about it? Is that what you guys mean when you say we should tie mental health tests to gun ownership?
i am amused by it. CHACUN A SON GOUT
look it up
He must be an unstable genius.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Don’t scream into the void. Find out which country you’re in and how you get out. The 2nd Amendment is the definition of “original intent.” The 2nd Amendment is America. In the United States of America, citizens have the right to keep and bear arms in order to effectively oppose the military force of a tyrannical and oppressive government.
The Constitution must not be amended simply because it is discovered that there are some insane people among the populace or that .000001 % of the population is irrationally fearful. Even the slightest modification to the right to keep and bear arms would require an amendment to the Constitution. Any legislative changes to the 2nd Amendment must be struck down by the Supreme Court or the Justices involved in its failure to do so must be impeached, convicted and penalized with extreme prejudice. The Supreme Court cannot conduct acts of nullification of fundamental law, corruption and treason with impunity.
________
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.
________
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
Good essay. Thank you.
Prof Turley,
You say in the second sentence of your preamble, “an individual constitutional right.” You are incorrect. Former conservative Chief Justice of Supreme Court Warren Burger said something very powerful in 1991 on PBS. Let’s go to the videotape. https://youtu.be/Eya_k4P-iEo
Furthermore, the Brennan Center recently published a piece describing the history of the Second Amendment, including the way in which the gun industry lobbied for pervert, distort and warp the amendment into conning the public to believe it is an “individual right.” https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment
Lastly, former conservative Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Antonin Scalia was egregiously wrong in the Heller decision.
The only solution to end “gun violence” in America is to remove “gun” in front of the word violence. That means repealing and never replacing “the right to bear arms.” I’m sure your aware that prominent scholars of the amendment have proved that James Madison, a white supremacist, wrote the amendment to appease the South. It was written to combat African slave uprisings. When Lincoln abolished chattel slavery, then Second Amendment became null & void, too, and should’ve been abolished.
Sincerely,
An average U.S. citizen
’m sure your aware that prominent scholars of the amendment have proved that James Madison, a white supremacist, wrote the amendment to appease the South.
Really? LOL!
This Article chronologically reviews the British gun control which precipitated the American Revolution: the 1774 import ban on firearms and gun powder; the 1774-75 confiscations of firearms and gun powder, from individuals and from local governments; and the use of violence to effectuate the confiscations. It was these events which changed a situation of rising political tension into a shooting war. Each of these British abuses provides insights into the scope of the modern Second Amendment.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1967702
Lastly, former conservative Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Antonin Scalia was egregiously wrong in the Heller decision.
He wasn’t wrong at all. And you’re not an ‘average citizen’. You’re a social ideologue.
FALSE
the antebellum south is actually the source of the earliest gun control statutes, to keep them out of hands of blacks.
this is documented in peer reviewed law articles, unlike your garbage which is a naked assertion unfounded in history
Burger was wrong about a lot of things. the good news, is that he was not a Framer. that comment was barely coherent.
“Man with Guns and Body Armor Sparks Panic at Missouri Walmart”
Headline, AUG 09, 2019, DemocracyNow!
“In Springfield, Missouri, a 20-year-old white man wearing body armor sparked panic and chaos Thursday morning when he showed up at a Walmart store carrying two loaded guns and over 100 rounds of ammunition. The man proceeded to push a shopping cart around the store, filming himself on a cellphone. A manager triggered the fire alarm and called police. The man was detained at gunpoint by an armed off-duty firefighter before police arrived and arrested him without a shot being fired.”
a) “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.”
b) “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
If (a) means (b), then why all the extra verbiage in (a)?
“Washington appears to be settling around background checks as the response to the latest massacres in Texas and Ohio despite the fact that such background checks would not have stopped most of the past mass shootings.”
This is asserted without proof. And we need to know the percentage. 50% is arbitrary.
The “extra verbiage” is both an *explanation* of the fundamental importance of the right to “keep and bear arms” in protecting our collective freedom and a form of *injunction* to the States to always be ready to defend themselves through an armed and prepared citizenry.
The founding fathers were very concerned about having a standing army and viewed a properly armed and prepared militia(meaning all able bodied male adults) as the best defense for a Free State.
If the right of the people to keep and bear arms is based on the need for “a properly armed and prepared militia,” then the right is obsolete, obviously. We have a standing army. Twenty-five states have militias and those that don’t can form one. Ordinary citizens don’t need to defend themselves against Indians or slave revolts or foreign invaders.
Anyway, the point is if the Framers intended the right to bear arms to be absolute, they could have simply omitted the bit about a militia. They could have simply written “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” If they intended the right to be based on every individual’s right to self-defense, they could have written that. So it’s not clear at all that the 2nd Amendment grants citizens the right to possess modern military grade weapons.
” they could have simply omitted the bit about a militia. ”
yyy, earlier I described what the word militia meant at the time.
You wrote “all able bodied men were considered part of the militia.” But that’s clearly no longer the case, right? If the right to bear arms is based on the need for every citizen to be ready to fight in a militia at any time, then the right no longer has a basis in reality.
“But that’s clearly no longer the case, right?”
Yyy, things have changed, but the Constitution has not and the fears when writing the Constittuion and the amendments had to do with not only protecting the people from foreign adeventurers but also for protecting the rights of the State and People from adventurer’s within.
In 1791, what “adventurers within” would have been met by a militia? If it’s gangs of armed outlaws, today we have professional police forces to deal with that threat. If you say their protection may be inadequate, and every individual has the right to defend himself and his property, then you’re faced with the question of why the 2nd Amendment wasn’t simply based on every individual’s right to self-defense. Curiously, it’s not.
Yyy, when the Constitution was written there were loads of concerns about the rights of the States and the People. In fact they were so worried that they passed the Bill of Rights which wasn’t necessary if one followed the Constitution. They were also concerned with future change and included an amendment process to be used if change was required.
Questioning “why the 2nd Amendment wasn’t simply based on every individual’s right to self-defense.” isn’t at issue.
I recognize what you want and am not voicing an opinion on the subject. I am only pointing out that the proper way of handling this type of problem is with a Constitutional Amendment.
WEAPON USED IN DAYTON SHOOTING..
IS LOW-PRICED, COMPACT MACHINE GUN
The gun that was used on Sunday to kill nine people and wound more than a dozen others in Dayton, Ohio, inflicted that damage within just 30 seconds. But while the weapon might look like a rifle to many people, it’s technically classified as a pistol under federal law.
The AR-15-style pistol used in Dayton is capable of pouring a stream of high-velocity bullets, thanks to its huge ammunition magazine. Before it was turned against civilians, the gun was built from easily obtained components — leading to questions about America’s gun laws and a gray area that exists between traditional categories such as rifles and pistols.
Under U.S. law, the only part of a gun that’s technically considered a firearm — and must be shipped to a licensed firearms dealer — is the lower receiver. That’s the shell-like piece that houses the trigger and bears the maker’s serial number. Everything else, from the barrel to the firing mechanism, can be easily bought directly — online or in a store.
The gun used in Dayton had an AR-15-style lower receiver that was built by Anderson Manufacturing in Hebron, Ky. This week, such receivers were priced at $40.
Among gun enthusiasts, Anderson is known as a budget parts-maker. In touting its low-priced receiver, the company says the savings allow customers to spend more money on other accessories and parts. In the case of the Dayton shooter, the receiver was paired with a simple brace, a short barrel — and a 100-round “double drum” ammunition magazine.
To build a gun like the one used in Dayton, a lower receiver is paired with a “pistol kit” that frequently sells for as little as $300. Because they lack a lower receiver, those kits are legal to ship directly to customers, rather than to registered dealers who possess a federal firearms license.
In Sunday’s shooting in Dayton, the gunman fired dozens of rounds before being taken down within 30 seconds by police. Dayton Police Department Chief Richard Biehl said the gunman had the capacity to fire 250 rounds, given the ammunition magazines and loose ammo he was carrying.
In the ATF’s annual release of data on guns made in the U.S., it breaks down categories such as pistols and rifles. But the report doesn’t specifically list numbers for receivers. Instead, they’re classified as “miscellaneous firearms” — a category that includes other items such as pistol grip firearms and starter guns.
In the past three decades, sales of miscellaneous firearms have grown exponentially. In 1986, only 4,558 were made. By 2009, the number had grown to 138,815. And by 2016, the ATF says, it had grown to 833,123.
As for why AR pistols have caught on with gun enthusiasts, Vince said it’s partly due to market forces in a country where there are now more guns than people.
“When you start to see the saturation of firearms in this country,” Vince said, “the industry has to produce things that are different, that are going to make people want to buy something that they don’t have. And that’s what you’re seeing here: It’s to expand the market.”
Edited from: “The Pistol That Looks Like A Rifle: The Dayton Shooter’s Gun”
Today’s NPR
Regarding above, this passage stands out: “In the past three decades, sales of miscellaneous firearms have grown exponentially. In 1986, only 4,558 were made. By 2009, the number had grown to 138,815. And by 2016, the ATF says, it had grown to 833,123”.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
One has to stop right here and ask why the sales of ‘miscellaneous firearms’ has grown so dramatically since 1986. It appears that the firearms industry had been flooding the market with super high-performance guns. And all this began during the Reagan years. In fact, until the late 1980’s, high-performance guns had been hard to obtain since the early 1930’s. But since then, sales of these weapons have exploded.
Recently we learned that the pharmaceutical industry has been flooding the nation with opioid pills in the last 15 years. That torrent of sales paralleled a wave of addictions and deaths. And here we see the gun industry has flooded the nation with high performance weapons America had previously done without.
There was widespread support for stricter gun control laws in the wake of the high-end profile assassinations of the 1960s ( JFK, MLK, RFK).
The numerous state and federal gun control legislation was followed by decades of rising deaths from gun violence.
I thought about this as I watched a clip of Joe Biden “promising” a supporter that he’d deal with the issue of gun violence.
I don’t know if there will actually be legislation passed after the recent mass shootings. If there are a new series of laws, I hope that those passing the laws really look at what works, and what does not work.
I.E., “feel- good” legislation that does not work.
The issue of the opiod crisis was brought up, and there is something of a parallel to the real effects of “feel good” legislation.
If detached politicians and regulators blindly pass and enforce laws and restrictions without regard to effectiveness, you get the kind of documented results we’re seeing in the area of opiod drug abuse.
The importation and illegal domestic production of drugs like fentanyl and heroin are not manufactured by our drug companies, or dispensed by physicians.
Nor are those “producers” the cash cows that are targeted for lawsuits.
When opiod prescriptions are down 20% over the past 7-8 years, but opiod-related deaths are still climbing over that same time frame, it might be a good idea to figure out why that’s happening.
A couple of MDs gave told me that the real effect of the “war on opiods” is that they are hamstrung in their ability to prescribe effective pain relief for those with legitimate needs.
If we end up with the same kind of stupidity playing out in the gun control area, we may end up with a wave if additional legislation that does little or nothing to address the problem.
Hill – did the police say how many rounds of ammunition they could fire?
250, Paul, it’s right in the article.
Hill – did the police say how many row rounds they themselves were capable of firing?
https://kjzz.org/content/845391/arizona-opioid-overdoses-spike-state-looks-next-steps
PC Schulte….
Here’s a link that deals with an example of what I mentioned about “feel- good” legislation and regulation.
This example is from your neck of the woods, but it’s playing out nationwide.
ar pistols are the beef now huh. well, maybe a lot of people will finally rush out and buy some. gun stocks get a boost after a rocky week on wall street.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/05/investing/gun-stocks/index.html
the weapon described is NOT A MACHINE GUN. it is not select fire, fully auto. full stop! not the same.
not under federal law nor under any cognizable definition of the term. the headline is FAKE NEWS
Interesting that the picture above the article is what is considered the first assault rifle, the German Stg 44, or Sturmgewehr, introduced late in WWII.
and it was select fire, which is to say, the user can select semi auto or full auto
hence, the class of weapons which are properly designated as “assault rifles” are already banned by the National Firearms act, since oh 1937 or so. special federal license required.
Why this small scale (but ghastly) phenomenon has grown more common has to do with esoteric cultural shifts which cannot be manipulated directly.
The problem with discussions of gun control promoted by liberals is that they have a great deal to do with striking poses and little to do with practical efforts to reduce the quantum of criminal violence. Liberals have no interest in reducing the quantum of violence in society. They’re interested in harassing ordinary people and sticking the blame for street crime on social sectors they despise rather than on the social sectors predominantly responsible for street crime (who are commonly close relatives for Democratic voters). The discussion is useless unless it has practical aims; when liberals are involved, it’s all about status games.
Multi-victim instances of homicide account for just under 10% of all the homicide deaths in this country. Bloc homicides where more than two people are killed account for perhaps 3% of all homicide deaths in a typical year. The share of homicides committed with long guns also runs to about 3%. The problem is of modest dimensions in the scheme of things, though quite gruesome.
The trouble is that the only consistent element in these incidents is that they involve a man using guns (though now and again you see mass murders committed with motor vehicles). Some of these characters could have been (ex ante) stripped of their franchise to own firearms in court proceedings, but not most. Jared Loughner was deemed to be clinically insane post hoc, but he’d had only minimal contact with the court system prior to his shooting rampage (for minor crimes). The maligned Nancy Lanza owned all of four guns and was in compliance with Connecticut state law as to their maintenance and storage; she was also taking steps to have her bizarro son committed to an asylum at the time he killed her and 20-odd others.
It’s difficult to deter people who are willing to get themselves killed. The way to stop them is incapacitation. To incapacitate them, you need someone with a loaded gun nearby.
Professor, I believe there is a slight mistake in the 10th paragraph, “…Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2015.” I believe it should be 2005.
No one law or action will end all mass shootings. No one ever suggests such a result. However, gun registration, liability insurance requirements, a background check system that is fully integrated state and federal along with the banning of military weapons and high capacity magazines will go a long way to end the carnage. The argument that this or that won’t end it all is a coward’s way of evading responsibility for taking on the NRA.
It will accomplish almost nothing to do those things, except provide employment for people working in the registries in question.
Translating TIA’s post:
“I’ve got no response to your specific proposals, Justice Holmes, nor do I have a solution to the problem, but fortunately I also don’t care..”
So your answer is to disenfranchise the poor and minorities?
So your answer is to utter silly non sequiturs? The franchise is not under discussion in this thread. This thread is about regulating the trade in firearms.
“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.”
IMHO, those 4 words at the beginning of the amendment is the way forward. But the states are unwilling to bear the cost of managing a militia outside the national guard. Seems to me quite simple, if you want a gun that is not used for hunting you must be a member of the militia. And to be a member of the militia you need an extensive background check, monthly meetings to attend which includes gun safety and practice. But all this costs money. And far too many Red states are happy to have every state citizen openly carry anything they want. And the result of that will be way more deaths due to accidents or murder versus the good guy killing the bad guy. IMHO, the cost could easily be born by the bun happy militia member. You want your AK47? fine, be a member of the militia which will cost you $1000 (pick an appropriate number) per year. Loose you membership, you are no longer part of the militia, thus you loose your right to own your gun that is not for hunting purposes.
As it stands now, we do not have a secure, free state. We have nuts that can legally carry weapons that can kill 10s of people in less than a minute. Our militia is not well regulated.
The salience of the phrase, ‘a well regulated militia’ is that it indicates the authors understood this personal right to pertain to the possession of military arms.
“The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed” places no restrictions on the arms that can be borne.
Or, simply, “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be limited or infringed.”
Read the f..king constitution.
The “militia” is to be funded and trained by the Congress and under the command of the President.
By the way, Washington hated them and cosidered them a burden during the revolution.
“In a letter to his nephew,…..Washington wrote, “I am wearied to death all day with a variety of perplexing circumstances, disturbed at the conduct of the militia, whose behavior and want of discipline has done great injury to the other troops, who never had officers, except in a few instances, worth the bread they eat.” Washington added, “In confidence I tell you that I never was in such an unhappy, divided state since I was born.”
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/washington-blames-militia-for-problems
Anon, your knowledge of history is poor and shallow. One clip does not fully describe what Washington felt. Read a book. Ron Chernow’s book on Washington might be a good start. Washington also marveled at the militias when they saw action. He wanted a standing army that had uniforms, merit based rank, sanitation, a proper chain of command etc. All those are needed in wartime. The Constitution was written after the revolution.
Read the f..king constitution.
Yea, we did but you and your gal Shillary did not, and this considering she is supposedly a genius attorney.
Reading the US constitution isn’t a practice people like you find judicious nor necessary considering all you do is promote anarchy until you get your way. Antifa sends their regards. Thus your reading on gun rights is as flawed as Hillary’s understanding on how one becomes President and you still haven’t gotten over her stupidity in following simple directives. Even Trump understood them.
ROFLMAO
🤡
Article II
Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
Twelfth Amendment
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;–The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice…. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President to the United States.
militias generally were organized by states. the federally defined mlitia is a different matter.
since Congress can now federalize the state militias,,,,,, wait, why am I wasting my energy here? i would explain this but the whole thing bores me. you guys really don’t care about the history, justice, nor truth… it is all about power. well power is what you face. get used to it.
it all comes back to what Leonidas said
MOLON LABE
militias generally were organized by states. the federally defined mlitia is a different matter.
This is not the time to defer to our militia in the unsound belief they are fit to protect us.
Hang on to your Smith & Wesson and at home we will continue to stock pile our weapons to fend off the bad guys, e.g Antifa, anarchists, “resist” nut jobs threatening Sen. Mitch McConnell, liberals producing films to hunt “deplorables”, and the like
Don’t tread on me, bruh. Don’t sit on me either!
US armed forces ‘out of shape’ as obesity rises 61pc since 2002
According to a study the number of overweight soldiers, sailors, airmen and women has increased by 61 per cent over the past dozen years.
The report, compiled by Mission Readiness, a group of 450 former admirals and generals, said that the military had seen an “unprecedented rise” in injuries caused by poor nutrition and lack of physical activity.
The armed forces sacked 5,600 people for being out of shape in 2012. The problem is costing the military $1.5 billion (£920 million) annually in health care and finding replacements, according to the report.
“Given that one-third of American children and teens are now obese or overweight and nearly one-quarter of Americans ages 17 to 24 are too overweight to serve in our military, the obesity rate among active duty service members could get even worse in the future if we do not act,” the report added.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11106462/US-armed-forces-out-of-shape-as-obesity-rises-61pc-since-2002.html
Mr Kurtz – the National Guard and the state militia are two different things. The Feds can call up the National Guard they cannot call up the state militia. This became an issue during the war of 1812. Members of various state militia would not enter Canada for an invasion.
You voluntarily join your National Guard, your state Constitution will tell you if you belong to the state militia.
“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.”
“Seems to me quite simple, if you want a gun that is not used for hunting you must be a member of the militia.”
Paul, do you know what was meant by the term militia when those words were written? I’m not exactly sure but until you can show otherwise, all able bodied men were considered part of the militia and if I remember correctly men had to supply their own guns.
So how well regulated is that militia? I think I heard 60 people were killed in Chicago last weekend. Well regulated? Hardly.
Paul, take it up with the Democratic leaders of those cities that can’t seem to do the right thing so minorities can enter the mainstream of that wonderful American life.
Alternatively, if you wish to let things remain like they are with the deaths of minorities in the inner cities run by Democrats. You can also try and pass a Constitutional Amendment.
Paul – I think until I reached 50, I was automatically a member of the Arizona militia. That is part of the Arizona Constitution. We could be called up at any time. Still can. I do think it is sexist that women are not part of the militia. They should be included automatically.
Automatic enrollment in the militia does not equal well regulated. As proof I would offer the United States murder rate and mass killing rate as it compares to every other country in the world.
“As proof I would offer the United States murder …”
I suggest you look at the actual statistics and then recognize that reporting is necessary to know the exact numbers. The US is very good at reporting.
Paul – you are comparing apples and oranges. The United States has the highest obesity rate in the world, you might compare it to the murder rate and mass killing rate as it compares to every other country in the world. Same comparisons.
Seems to me quite simple, if you want a gun that is not used for hunting you must be a member of the militia.
Simple is an apt descriptor of your statement. Who gets to decide your choice of gun is not used for hunting?
We have nuts that can legally carry weapons that can kill 10s of people in less than a minute.
How do you define nuts? Are the shooters that killed and/or wounded 50 plus people in Chicago last weekend nuts or sane? We have sane people that can legally carry these weapons as well. What percentage are nuts and what percentage are sane?
@Pat C.
I’m sure the poor man who was shot and killed in the front door of his home pursuant to such a “red flag” law would disagree with you. The police were there at 5:00am to remove his firearm because the court had ordered it under a “red flag” law. He had not been party to the court order being issued, did not know it had been issued, certainly did not know it would be executed a dozen heavily armed police officers while he was sleeping. The net result was that he was too slow complying with the police and was shot and killed.
What’s wrong with this picture? Yesterday in Garden Grove California a convicted felon gang member who was released early stabbed six people killing four of them. What would have stopped him in his tracks, one person with a gun. But it’s almost impossible to get a concealed carry permit in Los Angeles county. If more people carried permitted weapons there would be less mass shootings. Almost every politician has armed guards. In the wild west when a lot of people carried sidearms there were less murders per capita than today. So why not issue more permits to citizens who are qualified and have passed tests on use and care of firearms. How many retired police officers give up their permits to carry firearms?
“What would have stopped him in his tracks, one person with a gun. But it’s almost impossible to get a concealed carry permit in Los Angeles county. If more people carried permitted weapons there would be less mass shootings”.
Facts show you to be incorrect (https://www.scarymommy.com/strict-gun-laws-reduce-gun-death-rates/). States with less stringent gun laws have more murder than states with more stringent gun laws. Just imagine a society where 50% of the people carry guns, openly or concealed. A person comes out of a store in a crowded area after a robbery, the store owner follows and yells he has just been robbed. 10 people pull out their guns and start shooting. But at who? 11 people (at least) have guns drawn. The police show up within a minute, 30 people have guns drawn, they start shooting. No thank you.
Yes we all have read the news story of the person with a gun that saved the day. Those stories are far more rare than the kid that kills his best friend after finding his dads loaded gun, or the nut that kills 20 before the good guy with a gun (and a white hat I presume so we know he is good) kills the bad guy.
Get back to us when ‘Scary Mommy’ learns to look for studies which incorporate attempts to control for confounding factors (which is going to require multivariate regression). Until then, buzz off.
John Lott’s studies, disregarded.
actually common sense and statistics indicate the opposite.
i suspect the factors which are causative of gun violence actually have nothing to do with gun laws in either direction.
those deep causes are not even properly debatable in our society now, so, we resort to other superficial notions.
Chicago has some of the most stringent gun laws in the country and they lead the nation in murders year in and year out
They don’t. The rate of lethal violence in Chicago is normal range for a core city in this country, and well below that in Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis, and New Orleans. It has, however, been one of the cities where the Ferguson Effect has had the most impact. Homicide rates are half-again what they were seven years ago.
Of course a real remedy would be a re-write of the 2nd amendment, in the form of a new and more narrow right to bear arms. I am sure this will be dismissed, but sooner rather than later, this will become a major initiative and new amendment.
The left argues for “common sense laws”; something that most reasonable people can agree on.
But the left is almost certainly being disingenuous; they are whittling away at the Second Amendment and the ultimate goal is gun registration leading to confiscation (see any number of countries around the world as precedents).
And because the left wants a total ban, they alienate people who might be open to reasonable compromise.
Plus the “never miss a good opportunity” approach of many Pinkos is both unseemly and crass. Blatant cynicism is rarely a good strategy.
On a personal note, I am delighted that the left is going after guns so hard; as middle of the road voters listen to the Dem presidential candidate talk, more and more of them are saying: “These people do not represent my views.”.
“Pinkos”, good call, anything more you have to show us your thoughtful intelligence? Name calling is always an effective tactic as your current Prez is so fond of showing us.
Paul:
Pinkos – succinct, accurate, and descriptive.
What is your complaint?
It is not a complaint, it was an observation.
Seeing phantoms and having hallucinations.
Red Flag law would be a great beginning.
I wouldn’t be so sure. Piss off a family member, friend, ex-spouse, business colleague and their first response – knowing one is a supporter of the 2nd Amendment – could then be to file a “grievance” with whatever Thought Police agency the “Red Flag” law establishes to monitor this sort of thing. And poof!, there go one’s 2nd Amendment rights.
Red Flag law would be a great beginning.
Now who would argue against a law to allow the police to remove weapons from individuals who are viewed as unstable or dangerous? Personally, I don’t want unstable people being armed, period. Think this through, how would this work? Right now we have likely 100+ million plus law-abiding people in this country being demonized as some ist without any evidence or rational basis. This is being done at all levels of society and pushed by the MSM. What criteria will be used to remove weapons or outright ban someone from getting a weapon? Who gets to define how someone is viewed? Is there any evidence out there that demonstrates this subjective form of police power, taking away someone’s constitutionally-protected right without due process, might be abused? Here’s one:
Civil Asset Forfeiture
Now who would argue against a law permitting officers and agents [to] lawfully seize the property or money of individuals they suspect of committing or helping to commit a crime? Especially if they had determined they had sufficient probable cause to seize property, as the FBI explains, [and] is defined as “reasonable ground for belief of guilt. Well of course everyone wants to prevent criminals from doing crime. But at what cost?
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/educate/educator-resources/lessons-plans/civil-asset-forfeiture/
Police abuse of civil asset forfeiture laws has shaken our nation’s conscience. Civil forfeiture allows police to seize — and then keep or sell — any property they allege is involved in a crime. Owners need not ever be arrested or convicted of a crime for their cash, cars, or even real estate to be taken away permanently by the government.
Forfeiture was originally presented as a way to cripple large-scale criminal enterprises by diverting their resources. But today, aided by deeply flawed federal and state laws, many police departments use forfeiture to benefit their bottom lines, making seizures motivated by profit rather than crime-fighting. For people whose property has been seized through civil asset forfeiture, legally regaining such property is notoriously difficult and expensive, with costs sometimes exceeding the value of the property.
https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police-practices/asset-forfeiture-abuse
OLLY, you have illustrated the crux of the issue:
“Forfeiture was originally presented as a way to…But today…”
Exactly!