“Screaming Into The Void”: Why Gun Control Is So Hard To Enact

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.

426 thoughts on ““Screaming Into The Void”: Why Gun Control Is So Hard To Enact”

  1. The “thing” itself speaks. The thing is a gun. When it speaks, people listen– or move.
    We need roses without guns. I know that sounds arse backwards but it is time to have a nation without guns– except in the hands of cops and the military. We do not need a well regulated militia. The Redcoats are not coming back.

    1. Liberty2nd – I think the governors of the southern states would be within their powers to call out their state militias to protect their southern borders.

  2. There is a law against murder. The law does not stop mass shooters who do not care about the consequences of their actions.

    There is no law that will physically prevent Rick from buying Steve’s gun directly, san background check. Our open borders allow the illegal gun trade to thrive in both directions.

    If a guy like the Dayton shooter can openly fantasize for years about mass murder and rape, and never get on NICS, then the database isn’t much use.

    Meanwhile, CA has made it illegal to buy ammunition without a license, or to use someone else’s gun, like a spouse, that is not registered to you. That means that if a wife grabs her husband’s gun to defend her kids, she could get arrested.

    These laws punish the law abiding, not the criminals.

    Red Flag laws sound good, but they will probably be used to harass conservatives. If you oppose illegal immigration or the forced use of 75 different gender pronouns, you’ll probably be reported by an activist. We can improve the system that gets unstable people before a judge, with due process, to put them in NICS, but there needs to be some protection from abuse and harassment.

    It is as unjust to sue a gun manufacture for the criminal misuse of their products, as it is to sue a knife or duct tape manufacturer.

  3. The assault rifle pictured for this blog, I don’t believe that it is an AK-47. It looks like a Sturmgowere(please forgive my German), STG44. The worlds first assault rifle.

  4. Last weekend in Chicago, 55 people were shot, 7 died. Typical weekend in the Windy City. Does anybody care? Of course not, they’re black. Why doesn’t the msm tell us about what’s happening there. It’s because it doesn’t fit the liberal narrative. Check out the 5 most dangerous cities on this country. This violence goes on every week in these cities, but it seems to go right over our heads and nobody cares. Always remember to never let a good crisis go to waste.

    1. You know Bob, you are considered a racist for exposing this tragedy happening to predominantly black men. But somehow it’s not racist to withhold making that data public knowledge.

      Do I have that about right?

    2. Bob, common sense suggests there are too many guns in Chicago. But I don’t think rightwing media wants that discussion.

      1. common sense suggests there are too many guns in Chicago. But I don’t think rightwing media wants that discussion.

        That’s because it’s a stupid suggestion. Since the gun violence in Chicago is predominantly carried out by blacks against blacks, why don’t you suggest there are too many blacks in Chicago? Because that would be equally as stupid. Maybe there’s too much ammunition. Come on Hill, if you’re not going to bother using the Left half of your brain, then do us a favor and limit your commentary on this blog to Turley’s pretty trip photos and such.

        1. Olly, you think Chicago needs ‘more’ guns??? And maybe you think they need silencers as well? So that all the shooting doesn’t disturb communities.

          1. Nope. It’s just like the wealth argument; it’s all in the wrong hands. They need a gun redistribution plan. Go confiscate all the guns and redistribute them to all the law-abiding citizens. At this point I believe I’m supposed to finish this by saying:

            And they all lived happily ever after!

          2. Hill:

            A common Democrat meme is that mass shooters are white men, and therefore white men are the biggest threat to society. This is an obviously racist statement.

            The truth is that most gun crime is gang related, and black on black. It would obviously be racist to suggest that black people are a threat to society, and yet, that logic is suspended in the blithe repeating of the statement above. What would be more accurate is that gun violence is mostly perpetrated by gangs, and there are also high profile mass shootings of total strangers. What drives the former is poverty, unsafe streets where kids join gangs for protection, adulation of criminal subculture, an exaggerated sense of grievance, and single motherhood that helps drive the cycle. What drives the latter is the failure or inability to deal with dangerously mentally ill or antisocial people, teenage access to unsecured firearms, an exaggerated sense of grievance, revenge, and a complete and total lack of empathy for their victims. The are other drivers, too. This is just spitballing.

            The truth in Chicago undermines the racist statement that mass shootings is strictly a white male problem. Personally, if someone is spraying bullets, it does not matter what skin color the shooter is. What matters is what’s eroding our society, undermining values, putting children in precarious environments, and perhaps a diminishing belief in God. After all, if there is no higher power, and no final reckoning, can there really be a desire to do good? Atheists may do good works because it feels good to help others. But what about those who don’t care about helping others? Don’t care if they get caught? With no afterlife, then nothing you do in this life matters, as long as you don’t care about the consequences. I wonder how many people without a belief in God, and lacking community with a church, synagogue, mosque, or temple, would still be good, just for the sake of the community. A lot of America is completely disconnected from each other. People may have closer ties online than in real life, and a lack of face-to-face conversation. A religious community was one of the ties that bound. There are others.

            I think there are consequences to add, on top of all the risk factors stated above, a young generation that is adrift, anxious, separated, lonely, purposeless, conditioned to take quick offense and demand the world alter to suit their feelings. You turn on the TV or computer, and it’s all hate all the time. Labeling those with whom you disagree as evil is encouraged. Killing evil is not wrong. Hence, the more we label evil, or without value in its life, whether it’s a racist, gang member, or psychopath doing the labeling, the more killing.

            1. Karen begins with:

              “A common Democrat meme is that mass shooters are white men, and therefore white men are the biggest threat to society. This is an obviously racist statement….”

              and near the end complains:

              “Labeling those with whom you disagree as evil is encouraged.”

              Say what?

              1. Anon – Democrats have claimed, on TV, that mass shooting is a white male problem. This is both racist and incorrect. In addition, labeling those with whom you disagree as evil is encouraged. Republicans have been called evil, rather than debated, for decades. There is an infinite mine of racist misandric comments about white men, conservative blacks, etc.

                What’s your question?

                1. FBI Director, and Republican Trump appointee Christopher Wray before Congress 2 weeks ago:

                  ”I will say that a majority of the domestic terrorism cases that we’ve investigated are motivated by some version of what you might call white supremacist violence,…”

                  Karen is not only wrong on her accusation, but apparently thinks she can label all Democrats as racists – we were anti-semites previously in her demented mind – but she is the put upon and stigmatized evil one.

                  Say what?

                  1. Anon1 – the key to Wray’s statement is the words “that we’ve investigated”. How about all the ones the FBI has not investigated?

                    1. …some version of what you might call white supremacist violence,…”

                      To add to your good point Paul. The FBI defines Domestic terrorism: Perpetrated by individuals and/or groups inspired by or associated with primarily U.S.-based movements that espouse extremist ideologies of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.

                      Who is and is not on this list? What does he mean by some version? Why does he say might call? Sounds like Wray is twisting himself into a knot trying not to say something definitive, instead providing space for imaginations to come to their own conclusions.

                    2. OLLY – how many of these terrorist events were investigated by the FBI while the SPLC was still making up the “hit list.”?

                  2. Anon – thank you for clarifying. I refer you to the various gun violence databases available, listing all mass shootings as occurring with 4 or more victims. 4 or more victims would include gang violence, domestic violence murder/suicide, and the mass shootings of complete strangers. Each sub category has its own risk factors and demographics. Most gun violence are gang crime, which are not white supremacist.

                    Your comment was on “domestic terrorism” not “mass shootings.” Domestic terrorism is Muslim terrorists, Antifa, KKK, Neo Nazis, and the Gilroy and El Paso Shootings, for example. The KKK is no longer very active. I do not know any black people who wake up in the morning afraid of what the KKK is going to do, like people were in the 1940s. Islamic terrorists bomb for Islamic supremacy. Antifa targets political opponents or anyone who looks like they might be an opponent (i.e. a white guy with a southern license plate.) The guy who plowed his car into the crowd in Charlottesville is included in far right domestic terrorism, and his weapon was a car.

                    Therefore, I am not wrong. You cited a comment about domestic terrorism, rather than mass shootings. The former precludes organized crime, such as gangs.

                    “apparently thinks she can label all Democrats as racists”. Where did I label all Democrats as racist? I have merely pointed out racist statements against white males, in addition to black males, black females, etc.

                    “we were anti-semites previously in her demented mind.” That’s ignorant, and not a reflection of what I’ve written. Many Jewish people are Democrats. I have remarked, however, how anti-semitism is gaining steam in the Left, often under the guise of BDS or pro-Palestinian rhetoric. Democrats have elected an open anti-semite to Congress, Ilhan Omar, a fact that many Jewish Democrats are outraged over. Remarking that anti-semitism is increasing on the Left, and not discussed enough, does not say that all Democrats are anti-semitic.

                    Anti-semitism can exist in either the right or the left. It’s just not discussed often in terms of Leftist anti-semitism. There is no end of discussion about Neo Nazi antisemitism or alt-right antisemitism. As a statistically successful minority, Jewish people do not fit in on the identity politics victimhood scale. The Holocaust was so long ago that many high school graduates do not know what it means.

                    This is not only an American problem, but a global one.

                    https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-new-anti-semitism-11562944476

                    ““When there is a world-wide economic and social malaise, people look for scapegoats—and the Jews have always served as scapegoats,” said Francis Kalifat, the president of CRIF, the council uniting France’s Jewish institutions. “Anti-Semitism creates bridges between the far right and the far left: They have such a hatred in common that they come together.”

                    French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut arrives at a Paris courthouse on May 22 for the trial of a Yellow Vest protester accused of jeering at him and calling him a ‘dirty Zionist’ last March.

                    In France and other Western societies, the proliferation of new political forces that challenge the established liberal order—from both the right and the left—has revived old patterns of vilifying the Jews as the embodiment of the corrupt elites supposedly responsible for society’s ills.”

                    “Until the past few years, the biggest threat came from Islamists and disaffected Muslim youths, particularly in the troubled banlieues at the edges of French cities. France, home to Europe’s biggest Jewish community, has suffered a string of killings of Jews, including the deadly 2015 assault on a Paris kosher supermarket claimed by Islamic State. Anti-Jewish harassment remains commonplace in distressed neighborhoods where working-class Muslims and Jews live side by side.

                    “The Jews who lived in the banlieue have been leaving. Daily life has become impossible there,” said French Sen. Esther Benbassa, who represents many suburbs of Paris.

                    The West’s new wave of anti-Semitism, however, is increasingly coming from new quarters: from the nativist far right, with its fear of “the other” and dreams of racial purity, and from the extreme left, which often identifies Jews with the capitalist elites it seeks to destroy and glorifies Palestinian militants.”

                    Honestly, you are consistently quite far off in your analysis of what anyone says. You jump repeatedly to false conclusions and ad hominem. Why not take a moment to understand someone’s position and ask questions?

                    I learn a lot on the blog, and I’ve been wrong before. But when all someone can do is insult you, there is no learning or exchange of ideas.

                    1. I think the last homicide securely attributable to klavern members qua klavern members occurred in 1981. Over years between 1953 and 1982, the number was fewer than twenty.

                      Again, the 2d incarnation of the Klan imploded rapidly after 1924 and formally dissolved in 1944. It was refounded in 1946 but broke apart into a bevy of successor klans after the death of its grand wizard in 1949. There’s been no The Klan in 70 years. As of 1983, the Anti-Defamation League estimated klavern membership at about 8,500, of which about 3,000 each supposedly belonged to the Wilkinson outfit and the Duke outfit, respectively; about 1,500 or so to Robert Shelton’s outfit; and about 1,000 or so to miscellaneous splinter klans and unaffiliated klaverns. Wilkinson’s outfit declared bankruptcy that year and revealed a total membership of 1,800.

                      You could find hotspots of menacing klan activity in Mississippi, Alabama, and even North Carolina ca. 1964. But 20 years earlier or 20 years later you’d find little or nothing. Abuse of blacks under the ancien regime didn’t require much organizational structure. Peak lynching occurred in 1892 and 1893, when there was no klan at all; lynching was in rapid decline during the period running from 1920 to 1935, the prevalence of the 2d incarnation of the Klan notwithstanding.

                    2. Karen pretends that the supposed Democrats recently stigmatizing her where not specifically discussing the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton and Pittsburgh and Charleston, but were unfairly linking her with gang violence in Chicago. Ridiculous on it’s face.

                      As to who should be scared of white supremacists and where, black people in Charleston, Jews in Pittsburgh, and Mexicans in El Paso are obvious examples she overlooks while clearing the KKK.

                      Karen regularly calls “democrats” and “leftists” names which are moral equivalents of evil and then has the nerve to complain – in the same post – that she is the victim.

                      F… off.

                    3. PS Karen also says she learns a lot on this blog and has been wrong before. I can attest to that, having proven she was wrong on an older post and she refused to retract what was at first a mistake, but became a lie when she doubled down. I don;t think she learns a thing.

                    4. Why not take a moment to understand someone’s position and ask questions?

                      Once again, the paid trolls are not here for that. They are here to divide and conquer, manipulate, agitate and be sadists

                      If you engage them because you are bored, need a break from cerebral work, get a thrill out of mocking their stupidity (as I have been known to do) or learn by your personal research to counter them for academic reasons, then these are plausible licit reasons. Yet to debate the trolls in hopes they will genuinely dialogue….not going to happen. That has never been their intent nor purpose

                      Witness the numerous copy / paste comments they post while we sleep.They get paid by the character. They get paid as well to hit and run which is 75% of the time, with the other 25% being offensive. Sadists are like that

                    5. Anon:

                      “Karen pretends that the supposed Democrats recently stigmatizing her where not specifically discussing the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton and Pittsburgh and Charleston, but were unfairly linking her with gang violence in Chicago. Ridiculous on it’s face.”

                      There was no pretending. I remarked that the claim that mass shooting is strictly a white male problem is both racist and incorrect. Mass shootings involve 4 or more victims, and most gun violence is gang related.

                      You answered with an FBI quote about domestic terrorism. I answered that domestic terrorism is not the same as a mass shooting, although some of them certainly are.

                      Now you are claiming that you were only talking about two shootings. I call out bad behavior and bad policy.

                    6. Karen began this particular back and forth by claiming that Democrats were unfairly stigmatizing her – presumably a white person – by decrying shootings by white supremacists. This is unfair she says because “mass shootings” as an FBI category includes 4 or more victims, and given gang violence, are dominated by by blacks, not whites. The BS behind this defense is that a technical definition of “mass shootings by the FBI is not what anyone – Democrats, Republicans, or Independents – except apparently Karen was talking about after El Paso and Dayton (and previously Pittsburgh and Charleston). Except for Dayton, those were all perpetrated by white supremacists. It is not a racist slur to state that fact, whether by Democrats or the Republican FBI Director.who also points out that white supremacy is the leading cause of domestic terrorism this year.

                      Karen regularly calls “democrats” and “leftists” names which are moral equivalents of evil and then has the nerve to complain – in the same post – that she is the victim. If there is another less self aware poster here – not counting Allan who is technically 1/2 of a poster – I don.t know who it might be.

                      I await another 6 paragraph response to ignore.

                2. Karen: since you are a Faux News devotee, your only source of information about what Democrats say on any topic comes from a Tucker or Hannity rant in which they play a clip of something out of context. That’s why you have no credibility.

                  1. That’s why you have no credibility.

                    One thing is certain, it is precisely because of her credibility you pay so much attention to her. She’s thorough, she can source everything, her reasoning is sound. She is the anti-Natacha. As long as Karen participates in this blog, your stature is non-existent.

                    🙂

      2. Hill – there are idiots in Chicago shooting at each other that is the problem. Chicago might even need more guns. An armed society is a polite society. I think that is from Robert Heinlien.

      3. “common sense suggests there are too many guns in Chicago. But I don’t think rightwing media wants that discussion.”

        But if the police ‘stop, question and frisk’ suddenly Peter may not be so hot about removing guns.

          1. Peter “Grindr has blocked me” Shill sez: took part in stop & frisks.

            Oh Laaawwddddd, and the victims you manhandled turned around and decked you while the cops had to tie and restrain you with cuffs, giving you carnal pleasure. Boystown is grateful you are now in Hollywood

            🤣

          2. Great, Peter, but the question is whether you agreed with stop, question and frisk or you didn’t. If you agreed with it then I believe we have something in common. A lot of illegal guns and actions are removed from the street in that fashion. I am not happy with so much intervention but the murder rate in small areas is just too great and our obligation is to protect the good people and let their lives be peaceful while permitting the children to be safe.

            A lot of PC garbage is spewed which prevents the streets from being safe.

            1. Alan, just so you know I sympathize with cops. Chicago cops see more excitement in one day than most people see in a year.

              And I know who’s out there, in Chicago. ‘X’ number of perps walking around looking for opportunities. ‘X’ ratio of pedestrians up to no good.

              1. But Peter, you didn’t answer the question. You want to remove guns but are you against Stop, Question and Frisk or can’t you answer that simple question because the answer would alienate you from your leftist base? Stop, Question and Frisk removes guns from the most likely to kill and also most likely to have an illegal weapon.

                1. Alan, Stop & Frisks need to have some justification. There are a lot people cops should stop on ‘General Principal’. General Principal is a cynical joke Chicago cops often used. It refers to people whose looks are so suspicious they should be stopped on looks alone.

                  But in reality there needs to be a legal framework regarding Stop & Frisks. Police should have good reason the suspect has weapons or contraband. And most Chicago cops I knew understood that framework. A lot of cops secretly aspire to be lawyers.

                  And this is why you don’t want more guns in Chicago. Stop & Frisks are scary even for veteran cops. A perp wanted on Felony Warrants might just pull a gun. You never know who might start a fight or take off like a maniac. Chases are dangerous on crowded urban streets.

                  1. “Alan, Stop & Frisks need to have some justification. ”

                    Peter, stop, question and frisk is known as a Terry Stop. This is an event that takes place where there is a reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but not enough to make an arrest. This is also to prevent a criminal action from occurring. It’s a short and effective way of producing safer streets and removing illegal weapons. What you are really saying is that you want grounds for arrest which is not the Terry stop and becomes somewhat ineffective at preventing the crime in the first place.

                    There we have it. You want the “legal framework” for an arrest not for a Terry stop. That is the problem. You want guns removed from people that are not criminals while you wish to afford legal protection to those that have illegal guns and criminal behavior.

                    You are virtue signalling.

      4. Hill:

        “Bob, common sense suggests there are too many guns in Chicago.” I would drill down further on that and clarity that there are too many people in possession of illegal firearms, such as convicted felons who bought them on the black market.

        Chicago also has strict gun laws.

        So why are those two statements both true, that there are too many people in possession of illegal firearms, and that Chicago has strict gun laws?

        Because only law abiding people follow the law. By definition, criminals do not. Gang members buy illegal firearms on the black market. There is no physical deterrent from Rick buying Steve’s gun. That’s because criminals break the law. With our open borders, illegal guns also flow both ways.

        So you are incorrect. The right wing media actually does discuss, often, the number of mass shootings in Chicago, the fact that most gun violence occurs from gangs, problems getting the dangerous mentally ill into NICS, and the fact that criminals illegally possess guns. If you observed conservative media once in a while, you would know this. Another fact I’ve often brought up: single motherhood is a major risk factor for the children to join gangs, perpetuating the cycle of poverty and gun violence.

        If the Left really wanted to end the most common form of gun violence in the country, it would try to address single motherhood. Our Welfare system punishes nuclear families, and rewards single motherhood, with predictable results. Democrats stymie Republican efforts to fix this, and Republicans just cave. Democrats have fought with everything they have against securing the border, and even against deporting those who have had their day in court. Such a porous border strengthens the firearm black market. That’s a heavy responsibility.

        1. Again, Karen, you’re going really broad. It’s like a film where the camera keeps pulling back. Within five seconds the shot is so wide there’s no focal point.

          1. There is an odd dichotomy with conservatives regarding the Black urban underclass. And you can see it in Karen’s analysis.

            She pinpoints single motherhood as a likely culprit in social ills. And there could be significant truth to that. Why then are Republicans so determined to close Planned Parenthood?

            I mean, if you honestly believe single motherhood is at the root of many social ills, providing reproductive choices would seem only logical.

            But when it comes to abortion Karen and ‘most’ Republicans will pretend Black women are the ‘victims’ of Planned Parenthood. They’ll even go so far as to claim that Planned Parenthood is part of a genocidal conspiracy directed at Blacks.

            One can only conclude that Black women, and women in general, should remain virgins until marriage. And if they never marry, virgins forever! But only in a Baptist neverland will that ever happen.

            1. I mean, if you honestly believe single motherhood is at the root of many social ills, providing reproductive choices would seem only logical.

              It’s ‘only logical’ if you’re inhabiting that bizarre bubble liberals seem confined to nowadays.

              Peter. not butchering your kids is what is known as a ‘categorical imperative’.

                1. Hill – why do you think that only Catholics are pro-life, or that Catholics need the Pope to tell them if they should be Pro Life or Pro Choice?

                2. Not butchering your kids is part of natural law, Peter. One of those things ‘written on the heart’. It doesn’t require special revelation to understand it.

            2. “She pinpoints single motherhood as a likely culprit in social ills. And there could be significant truth to that. Why then are Republicans so determined to close Planned Parenthood?

              I mean, if you honestly believe single motherhood is at the root of many social ills, providing reproductive choices would seem only logical.”

              It’s been a while since I’ve posted the studies behind my conclusion on single motherhood, but I can do so again if you would like. It’s not an opinion, but a well established fact.

              Pro Lifers, whether Republican or Democrat, believe that killing a baby in the womb is a form of infanticide. Many ecologists believe that over population is an existential crisis, and yet it does not logically follow that they would support infanticide. Pro Life used to be a common position to hold in the Democrat party, although now, people have to be pretty quiet about it. It is also true that there are Republican voters who support abortion, at least up until a point.

              Those who support abortion do not consider the fetus to be a child, a person, or a baby. The word “fetus” is a clinically detached way to view the process. They do not consider a fetus to have a right to life. Well, that last is an oversimplification.

              The reality is that there is a spectrum of belief about abortion, from those who believe that Plan B One Step is wrong, to those who would support the abortion of a full term, healthy baby as long as he has not drawn a breath into his lungs. Most people believe that there should be limits on abortion. I recall hearing Joy Behar on the View admit that late term abortion is murder. Her words.

              So, at some point, most of America considers abortion to be murder. The disagreement is where that point lies. Most people probably never think about it at all.

              Another problem is Planned Parenthood itself. Its main purpose is to provide abortion. One of the ways that it reduces the percentage of its services being abortion is to break up an abortion procedure into myriad discrete steps. To get an abortion, a woman receives a pregnancy test, an exam, her blood pressure is taken, and perhaps she would get an STD test while she’s there. PP tries to claim that abortion is not its main function, which is disingenuous. PP provides abortions, STD tests, and birth control medication. Mammograms are referred elsewhere. That’s about it. All other services are typically provided during an abortion procedure. There are also ways in which taxpayers do fund abortion, skirting the Hyde Amendment. In addition, PP was caught on video admitting that it sold fetal body parts, a ghastly business.

              https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2015/10/02/are-american-taxpayers-paying-for-abortion/#725143396a4b

              Pro Life Republicans want to defund Planned Parenthood, because it has become clear that taxpayer money is paying for abortions (see article above).

              Hopefully that illustrates why the two positions are not contradictory.

              1. No one of any stature advocates “the abortion of a full term, healthy baby” except in the exceedingly rare case when the act of birth would be fatal for the mother and there is no other option.

                With that monstrous lie, throw the rest of this screed out..

                1. No one of any stature advocates “the abortion of a full term, healthy baby”

                  I have news for you: that’s the default policy position favored by Democratic politicians and the lawfare artists in the appellate judiciary.

                  except in the exceedingly rare case when the act of birth would be fatal for the mother and there is no other option.

                  LOL

                2. Dr Kermit Gosnell did a booming business in aborting full term, healthy infants. He used to cut their spinal chords with scissors. Apparently, there was a line of women.

                  New Yorkers lit One World Trade Center Pink in celebration of its abortion law, in which stress to the mother is sufficient reason for late term abortion. There must be a great many people of low stature in New York.

                  A healthy, full term infant being aborted to prevent a threat to the woman’s health is illogical. A late term abortion takes days, compared to an emergency C-Section. If the patient did not desire a C-Section, then inducing labor and delivery would still take less time than a late term abortion, in which the infant had to be killed and dismembered before delivered.

                  A late term pregnancy can be a risk to the mother’s health if, for instance, she has cancer and needs chemotherapy immediately, or if she develops preeclampsia. The treatment is early delivery. A late term abortion means the mother not only wants to end the pregnancy, but that she wants her child dead. One of the reasons cited for late term abortion is that the child suffers from a terminal illness. In that case, it should be called what it is, euthanasia against the patient’s will. There are arguments to be made for and against.

                  There are not many studies on late term abortion, but what was discovered was that the reasons are similar to early term abortion – financial, not ready for a baby, not able to care for an additional child, the break up of a relationship. Medical reasons were rare.

                  The following paper discusses the ambiguity and lack of standard in the vague language of “medical necessity” as well as the reasons given for late term abortion. Apparently, most of those having late term abortions are not of any stature, according to Anon.

                  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6457018/

                  “Essentially, Roe allowed abortion without any regulation in the first trimester of pregnancy, but made abortions in the second and third trimesters contingent upon demonstrated threats to the pregnant mother’s health. Along with rape and incest, therefore, medical necessity became the pathway to unrestricted abortion access. It should be noted that varying definitions of medical necessity for abortion have ricocheted along a continuum with consideration of a “broad range of physical, emotional, psychological, demographic, and familial factors relevant to a woman’s well-being” at one extreme and “conditions which place a woman in danger of death” at the other.1,2 However, while the occasional politician or news reporter will still indicate that late-term abortions are most often performed in the case of “severe fetal anomalies” or to “save the woman’s life,” the trajectory of the peer-reviewed research literature has been obvious for decades: most late-term abortions are elective, done on healthy women with healthy fetuses, and for the same reasons given by women experiencing first trimester abortions.

                  The Guttmacher Institute has provided a number of reports over 2 decades which have identified the reasons why women choose abortion, and they have consistently reported that childbearing would interfere with their education, work, and ability to care for existing dependents; would be a financial burden; and would disrupt partner relationships.3 A more recent Guttmacher study focused on abortion after 20 weeks of gestation and similarly concluded that women seeking late-term abortions were not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment. The study further concluded that late-term abortion seekers were younger and more likely to be unemployed than those seeking earlier abortions.4 It is estimated that about 1% of all abortions in the United States are performed after 20 weeks, or approximately 10 000 to 15 000 annually. Since the Roe framework essentially medicalized abortion decisions beyond the first trimester, and since abortions in the United States are now performed on demand and only rarely for medical reasons which could end the life of the mother, what can we conclude about the value and impact of medical necessity determination in the case of induced abortion? A prescient proabortion author predicted today’s events with remarkable foresight when he concluded that the “rhetoric of medical necessity” is a mistaken strategy because “it is not the empirical evidence of what is or is not medically necessary which is important,” but rather “who possesses the ability to interpret necessity within key political contexts.”5 When viewed from this perspective, it is possible to see the recent New York and Virginia legislation as a signal that politics, not science, is the most powerful influence on abortion issues and legislation.”

                  1. No one of any stature advocates “the abortion of a full term, healthy baby” except in the exceedingly rare case when the act of birth would be fatal for the mother and there is no other option.

                    With that monstrous lie, throw the rest of this screed out..

                    1. Anon, isn’t it odd how the demonization of Welfare and Single Mothers dissipates in a puff when the discussion turns to the services of Planned Parenthood?

                    2. Hill:

                      “isn’t it odd how the demonization of Welfare and Single Mothers dissipates in a puff when the discussion turns to the services of Planned Parenthood?”

                      Provide any example of where I have demonized either Welfare or Single Mothers? Pointing out the established fact of the statistical risk factors of single motherhood is not in any way demonizing them. Pointing out the established fact that Welfare financially punishes nuclear families does not demonize Welfare, either. Aren’t we always supposed to look for flaws in government policies and improve them? I want the rate of single motherhood to drop, because I want kids to have their best chance, crime to decrease, and for less mothers to financially struggle. It’s because I care about people, not because I hate them. I don’t even hate you, and you’ve been a pill to me lately.

                      This is exactly what I’ve been talking about. Too many people have been trained to go ad hominem, and attribute evil tendencies where they do not exist, to anyone who disagrees with any of their policies. Are you so blind that you are unaware of what you are doing? Snap out of it!

                      I cannot think of a time that you have ever gotten it right, trying to guess what I think or stand for. Why don’t you just ask me?

                    3. Provide any example of where I have demonized either Welfare or Single Mothers?

                      Karen, you haven’t and he can’t; not will not, but rather can not.

                    4. “Demonized” means you were implicitly or explicitly critical of a Democratic Party mascot groups.

              2. Karen, less than 30% of America wants choice criminalized.

                And again, conservatives like you suffer a peculiar form of hypocrisy. You’re not only anti-abortion, you don’t even want poor women obtaining any kind of birth control. If you did, keeping Planned Parenthood open would be paramount to your agenda.

                One should note that back in the 1970’s, moderate Republicans were major supporters of P.P. Because they strongly felt P.P. was important for dispensing birth control.

                Margaret Sanger had the vision to realize that chronic poverty could be alleviated with birth control. Consequently, poor women today are much better off than they were in Sanger’s time.

                But in the Trump era, Sanger has to be demonized because southern Whites support Donald Trump.

                1. Hill:

                  “Karen, less than 30% of America wants choice criminalized.” I agree with you, up to a point. Most Americans do not want women who seek abortions jailed, or their providers. However, most Americans also agree that late term abortion provider Dr Gosnell should be jailed.

                  It is also true that most Americans oppose late term abortion. Statistically, support for abortion lies mainly in earlier gestation, and begins to fall off later into the gestation of the child. Extremists in the Democratic Party who pushed for nearly unrestricted access to late term abortion (see my earlier link) have created an erosion in abortion support depending on the wording of the poll. If a poll is worded, should women have control of their bodies, then support is high. If the wording is, should women have the right to abort full term pregnancies, support drastically reduces. The wording of the polling questions is critical to truly take the nation’s pulse on this contentious issue.

                  https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2019/02/26/new-poll-big-majorities-democrats-and-young-people-reject-late-term

                  “Americans have shifted toward a pro-life stance in recent weeks during a period when some states are considering legislation that would legalize abortion up until birth, according to a new poll.

                  The Marist Poll at Marist College conducted in mid-February found that equal numbers of Americans — 47 percent — identified themselves as pro-life and as those who support abortion.

                  The findings reflect a dramatic shift from a similar poll in early January that found respondents supporting abortion by 55 percent to 38 percent.

                  “Current proposals that promote late-term abortion have reset the landscape and language on abortion in a pronounced, and very measurable, way,” Barbara Carvalho, poll director, said in media release from the Knight of Columbus, the poll sponsor.

                  The largest swing in responses came from self-identified Democrats and people younger than 45, poll officials said.

                  The poll reported that among Democrats, the gap between people who identify as pro-life and those who support abortion was cut in half from 55 percent to 27 percent. The number of Democrats who identify as pro-life stood at 34 percent, up from 20 percent in January. Similarly the number of Democrats who said they support abortion fell to 61 percent from 75 percent.

                  Young respondents in February were almost evenly divided with 47 percent identifying as pro-life and 48 percent as supporting abortion. The figures represent a dramatic shift from January’s poll in which 28 percent of young people said they were pro-life and 65 percent supported abortion.”

                    1. Sorry. I usually try to link directly to polls. (Please note the NPR-PBS) Not all polling questions are included.

                      http://maristpoll.marist.edu/npr-pbs-newshour-marist-poll-results-analysis-5/#sthash.GqTIO6to.dpbs

                      The poll questions and chart are included at the bottom of the article above. The results of polls on this issue depends upon the wording. For example, there is more support for late term abortion when there is the phrase “to protect the life or health of the mother.” However, even then, it does not drill down to the fact that a late term abortion takes longer than an emergency delivery, or that killing the child does not protect either the life or health of the mother. Ending a pregnancy may in specific circumstances, but not taking the extra step of killing the child. So such wording can be at best a failure to capture the nuanced public opinion, and at worst misleading.

                      You should take a moment to let the fact sink in, that most pro-life people support an emergency abortion to save the life of the mother, when the question is worded in that way. The problem is that an abortion does not save the life of the mother, but early delivery can.

                      “Fewer than one in five Americans (18%) think abortion should be available to a woman any time she wants one during her pregnancy, and 9% argue abortion should never be permitted under any circumstance.”

                      “The views of most Americans, however, are much more nuanced. More than six in ten Americans (61%) think significant restrictions should be placed on abortion. That is, they contend abortion should be permitted only during the first three months of pregnancy (23%), in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the woman (29%), or only to save the life of the woman (9%). 11% agree with the status quo, that abortion should be permitted during the first six months of pregnancy.

                      “Both sides in recent months have taken actions which overstep public opinion,” says Dr. Lee M. Miringoff, Director of The Marist Institute for Public Opinion. “In both instances, the reaction to their efforts has been that public opinion has moved in the opposite direction than these advocates intended.””

                      “The survey also asked people to identify as either pro-life or pro-choice. This question wording, using the labels of pro-life and pro-choice, was included in the survey because it has tracked the public debate on abortion over decades. It is sensitive to current events and public discussion even though it does not capture the nuanced positions many people have on the issue. It does drive home the point. In January, 55% of Americans considered themselves pro-choice and 38% identified as pro-life. A gap that had widened after the Kavanaugh hearings. After the debate surrounding the New York law in February, the results changed to 47% pro- choice and 47% pro-life. Currently, after a month of restrictive state efforts particularly in Alabama which criminalizes the procedure for doctors, 57% identify as pro-choice and 35% as pro-life.”

                      http://www.kofc.org/en/news/polls/new-yorkers-reject-late-term-abortion.html

                    2. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/new-abortion-laws-are-too-extreme-for-most-americans-poll-shows

                      Polls show that most Americans reject extreme abortion laws, either too restrictive or permissive.

                      “But a majority of Americans do not support allowing abortion in any circumstance, a sign that far-left positions on the issue — such as those being pushed by some Democratic lawmakers in places like Vermont — are just as politically risky as the conservative laws being passed in Alabama, Mississippi and elsewhere.”

                      Please note that PBS labels unrestricted abortion a far left position.

                      “There is some common ground among the majority of Americans who do not fall on the extreme right and left ends of the spectrum on the abortion issue. For example, roughly two-thirds of Americans are in favor of requiring women to wait 24 hours between meeting with a health professional to undergo an abortion procedure, and support requiring doctors who perform abortions to have hospital admitting privileges.”

                      “When lawmakers “change the debate toward the most extreme position on the issue, they actually do the opposite of what they want to accomplish. They move public opinion in the opposite direction,” Carvalho said.”

                      Abortion laws that are viewed as too extreme in either direction alienate moderates, but, again, it depends upon the wording of the question.

                      If you will recall, I remarked months ago that New Yorks ultra permissive late term abortion laws triggered and equal and opposite backlash, in very restrictive abortion laws in other states, and that moderates take issue with both.

                      I think the best article that I’ve read is what I posted above, on the total ambiguity and politicized term “medical necessity.” Until and unless that is defined, there is no standard of care. The difference needs to be explained to the American public between early delivery, and late term abortion. There also needs to be a tough conversation about euthanasia and eugenics. Late term abortions on children with terminal illnesses or genetic conditions are euthanasia, and that needs to be discussed. Late term abortions on children with genetic abnormalities or birth defects, such as Downs Syndrome, is eugenics, and that needs to be discussed, too. There are arguments to be made on all sides. The name calling needs to stop so serious discussion can take place.

                      Medical ethics is one of the toughest fields, because it can concern highly emotional topics. The creation of human-monkey chimeras for neurological research is another very difficult topic.

                  1. Karen, every time a pregnant woman comes to me in my line of work, their sense of protection for their baby is higher than that of any other concern. When a woman is delivered her pregnancy test result by nurses on staff, I listen and discuss objectively the next steps of gestation. Abortion is hardly ever raised by the woman, and legally we can not squash that conversation if it ever presents

                    Abortion is a business for the Left, one type of capitalist venture that all Democrats seem to love to defend even multimillionaire Elizabeth Warren

                    1. Estovir – I would have died to protect my child. Words cannot describe the fierceness of the protective instinct. I developed preeclampsia, and required an early delivery by several weeks. It was like having my own pit crew at Nascar. They were professional and efficient, and kind to me, and my baby was delivered within an hour of my diagnosis. My husband nearly didn’t make it to the hospital. My sweet baby had his own team of professionals making sure he was okay, and my husband stayed with him every step of the way while I impatiently waited for them to close and bring my baby back to me.

                    2. “I would have died to protect my child. Words cannot describe the fierceness of the protective instinct.”

                      Karen, of course you felt like that but you are not dealing with caring people rather you are dealing with the culture of death.

            3. She pinpoints single motherhood as a likely culprit in social ills. And there could be significant truth to that. Why then are Republicans so determined to close Planned Parenthood?

              I mean, if you honestly believe single motherhood is at the root of many social ills, providing reproductive choices would seem only logical.

              Good for you Hill. You asked a completely legitimate question. As you do with nearly every other question however, you began with an answer in your right brain to come up with the question. That’s not critical-thinking. That’s not using your left brain.

              Let’s examine your unasked question. If single motherhood is a significant contributor to the social ills facing society, then why are Republicans against women choosing abortion to prevent reproduction?

              Do you believe an innocent human life has conditional value? Meaning, do you believe an innocent human life can be terminated if society (government) determines the woman, family, town, city, county, state, country, planet would be better off without that life in it? On one extreme, all innocent human life is to be protected. On the other extreme is no innocent human life is to be protected. The path to the latter begins the moment we disconnect society from the former. That path is the way of the sociopath.

              The better path is to believe all innocent human life is sacred and needs to be secured. When you take the abortion option off the table as a means of preventing reproduction, then you are forced to examine other reasonable options and there are a number of them. This would make abortion services through PP a thing of the past and something R’s and D’s should support.

              An added benefit of society valuing life is that society begins to look at our unalienable rights in a more protective way. That is the path we need to get back on.

                1. While connecting the social science of eugenics and Sanger is easily provable, I doubt most women choosing abortion are doing so with eugenics in mind.

                  1. OLLY – it is what we can see and prove on the marco level, not what women are doing on the micro level.

                    1. Paul and Olly are saying we need to jail women and doctors and politicize the field of women’s health.

                    2. Peter – NEVER put words in my mouth. Women’s health is already politicized and doesn’t need my help.

                    3. Paul and Olly are saying we need to jail women and doctors and politicize the field of women’s health.

                      Once again Hill you’ve failed to connect with your left brain. This most recent example has no evidence whatsoever that you even tried. This comment of yours is purely an emotional, attention-seeking outburst one would expect from a child with limited knowledge of the real world. You may feel comfortable never using your left brain in a culture of dependents encouraged to remain in that condition, but you’ll remain completely inadequate in a nation rooted in self-government.

                      Try again.

                    4. Hill:

                      “Paul and Olly are saying we need to jail women and doctors and politicize the field of women’s health.” Please illustrate where either Paul or Olly said to jail women and doctors or politicize women’s health.

                    5. They don’t, Karen..??? Then what is this discussion about??

                      If abortion is criminalized women and doctors will most certainly be subject to prosecution. You can’t put a law on the books without any penalties.

                      Do we really want doctors under gag orders with regards to women’s health? A doctor’s main concern should be the patient. But if abortion is criminalized then a doctor’s main concern will protecting themselves against prosecution.

                    6. You can’t put a law on the books without any penalties.

                      LOL!

                      The Trump administration, his millions of followers, conservatives and especially our border patrol approve this message.

                    7. Right, Olly, so which way do you want it?

                      Hill,
                      What do you understand Paul is saying regarding the macro and micro differences?

                      I’ll wait.

                    8. Hill:

                      “If abortion is criminalized women and doctors will most certainly be subject to prosecution. You can’t put a law on the books without any penalties.”

                      There are already laws and restrictions regarding abortion, as there were in NYC until recently they were loosened up almost completely. Dr Gosnell went to prison because he was killing full term, delivered infants who had drawn air, which is infanticide, just the same as if he picked a baby up out of the cradle and cut his spinal cord with scissors. He was found guilty of murder, and sentenced to three life sentences.

                      Out of the proposed laws, Alabama’s might lead to the jailing of doctors, which, as we have both pointed out, is unpopular with most Americans.

                      Here is the law in CA:

                      “Who Can Perform an Abortion in California?
                      Decades ago, women in California could only get an abortion in a hospital if it was performed by a licensed doctor. Today, things are very different. Abortions can legally be any medical professional with hospital committee approval and specialized training, including:

                      Physicians
                      Surgeons
                      Nurse-midwives
                      Nurse practitioners, and
                      Physician Assistants.

                      What Are the Penalties For Illegal Abortions?
                      Abortions are considered illegal if they are performed:

                      Without the mother’s consent
                      When the mother is not an unemancipated minor;
                      After the fetus is viable; and/or
                      By an unauthorized individual.
                      When abortions are performed illegally in California, it is the medical professional (or other person) who may be on the hook for criminal penalties.

                      Illegal abortion involving an unemancipated minor is a misdemeanor, punishable by:

                      A maximum of 30 days in jail, and/or
                      $1,000 in fines.”

                      If a doctor performs an abortion on a minor child without parental consent, it is a misdemeanor punishable by either 30 days in jail or a $1,000 fine.

                      What happened in Dr Gosnell’s office, and why he went to prison. Please note the testimony from nurses that a baby was big and she knew it was wrong.

                      https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/58-horrific-details-from-the-kermit-gosnell-trial-that-you-do-not-want-to-read

                      “When authorities searched Gosnell’s office, they found bags and bottles holding aborted fetuses scattered throughout the building. – CNN
                      “It would rain fetuses. Fetuses and blood all over the place,” testified one unlicensed medical school graduate who worked at the clinic. – NBC Philadelphia

                      Gosnell may have severed the spines of hundreds of born alive babies with scissors. – Report of the Grand Jury XXIII MISC. NO.0009901-2008 in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania

                      One 28-week-old baby boy – featured in the trial – was found frozen in a gallon water bottle. – Report of the Grand Jury XXIII MISC. NO.0009901-2008 in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania

                      One employee testified that she witnessed Gosnell snip the necks of more than 30 babies, and that he sometimes gave her just the feet of a fetus to place in formaldehyde. – NBC Philadelphia

                      Gosnell kept up to 30 specimen jars containing fetal feet. – Philadelphia Inquirer

                      Gosnell told some of his employees the feet were for DNA testing and other employees they were for medical research. – Philadelphia Inquirer

                      Gosnell severed the spine of one breathing, moving, born-alive baby and put the body in a plastic shoebox for disposal. – Report of the Grand Jury XXIII MISC. NO.0009901-2008 in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania

                      “It jumped, the arm,” an employee testified after she performed a “snip” of the baby’s neck. – Delaware News Journal

                      One former employee testified that a baby still alive after being aborted screamed one night, and that the baby’s eyes and mouth were not yet completely formed but it was still alive. – USA Today

                      The baby was lying on a glass tray on a shelf. – Delaware News Journal

                      “I can’t describe it. It sounded like a little alien,” one employee testified. – Delaware News Journal

                      The baby was so big that Gosnell joked that “this baby is going to walk me home,” according to an employee at the clinic. – Philadelphia Inquirer

                      One of the babies was reportedly moving and breathing for 20 minutes before an employee cut the spinal cord – Report of the Grand Jury XXIII MISC. NO.0009901-2008 in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania

                      One former employee testified that she was so upset at the sight of the large baby’s bloody, mangled body that she took a photo with her cellphone. – Philadelphia Inquirer

                      The abortions of “really big ones” [illegal late-term abortions] were scheduled for Sunday, when no employees were around. – Report of the Grand Jury XXIII MISC. NO.0009901-2008 in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania

                      Gosnell only allowed his wife, Pearl, to assist him with the “really big ones” – Report of the Grand Jury XXIII MISC. NO.0009901-2008 in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania

                      One employee testified that on Monday mornings he would find bloody instruments in the sink even though they had all been cleaned before the facility closed on Saturday. – Report of the Grand Jury XXIII MISC. NO.0009901-2008 in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania

                      Most of the time, eight or 10 women were kept in a single room, moaning and groaning in pain. Gosnell’s instructions were to drug them up as much as possible to “quiet them.” – Report of the Grand Jury XXIII MISC. NO.0009901-2008 in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania

                      One woman patient was left lying in pain after Gosnell tore her cervix and colon after he botched an abortion. Afterwards, at a local hospital, doctors had to remove a foot of the woman’s intestines. – Report of the Grand Jury XXIII MISC. NO.0009901-2008 in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania

                      Gosnell sent a woman patient home with parts of a baby still inside of her. She almost died after contracting a serious infection. – Report of the Grand Jury XXIII MISC. NO.0009901-2008 in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania

                      After delivering babies, patients would have to just sit and wait – sometimes on a toilet for hours – until Gosnell arrived. – Report of the Grand Jury XXIII MISC. NO.0009901-2008 in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania

                      “I would take the woman to the bathroom, they would sit on the toilet and basically the baby would fall out and it would be in the toilet and I would be rubbing her back and trying to calm her down for two, three, four hours until Dr. Gosnell comes,” said one employee – Report of the Grand Jury XXIII MISC. NO.0009901-2008 in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania

                      One worker testified that a woman had delivered a large baby into the toilet before Gosnell arrived at work for the night. – Report of the Grand Jury XXIII MISC. NO.0009901-2008 in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania

                      One employee said that the baby was moving and looked like it was swimming. – Report of the Grand Jury XXIII MISC. NO.0009901-2008 in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania

                      That’s when an employee reached into the toilet, got the baby out and cut its neck. – Report of the Grand Jury XXIII MISC. NO.0009901-2008 in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania

                      A handyman who cleaned the clinic and bagged its infectious material testified that sometimes patients “miscarried or whatever it was” into the toilet and clogged it. – Report of the Grand Jury XXIII MISC. NO.0009901-2008 in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania

                      “I told the doc I would remove the toilet and lay it on its side, but somebody else would have to clean that out,” the handyman said. – Philadelphia Inquirer

                      Gosnell did not pay his bills in a timely manner, and the disposal provider would not pick up fetal remains on time – sometimes for months. – Report of the Grand Jury XXIII MISC. NO.0009901-2008 in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania

                      Sometimes, according to an employee, fetal remains were left out overnight. “You knew about it the next day when you opened the door … Because you could smell it as soon as you opened the door.” – Report of the Grand Jury XXIII MISC. NO.0009901-2008 in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania

                      One woman patient, Karnamaya Mongar, a 41-year-old immigrant, died after an abortion in Gosnell’s clinic. – NBC Philadelphia

                      According to testimony, Gosnell administered four doses of anesthesia to Mongar, which caused her skin to turn gray and slowed her breathing. – NBC Philadelphia

                      Gosnell continued to perform the abortion, and once the procedure was over, he started CPR on Mongar and told Williams to call 911. – NBC Philadelphia

                      Gosnell could not revive Mongar because his defibrillator was broken. – Report of the Grand Jury XXIII MISC. NO.0009901-2008 in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania

                      Clinic staff hooked up machinery and rearranged Mongar’s body to make it look like they had been in the midst of a routine, safe abortion procedure. – Report of the Grand Jury XXIII MISC. NO.0009901-2008 in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania

                      It took at least 20 minutes for paramedics to get out of the building because the back door was padlocked and no one had the key. – Report of the Grand Jury XXIII MISC. NO.0009901-2008 in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania

                      “I didn’t do anything wrong,” Gosnell said to Mongar’s brother after the procedure. – Philadelphia Inquirer

                      Gosnell taught staff to use ultrasound machines to make the fetus look smaller than it was, according to the grand jury report – Report of the Grand Jury XXIII MISC. NO.0009901-2008 in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania

                      Women sat in bloodstained lounge chairs in the “recovery room” while unlicensed, unsupervised workers gave them large doses of various drugs. – Report of the Grand Jury XXIII MISC. NO.0009901-2008 in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania

                      Patients were left naked from the waist down; the clinic provided no robes, only blankets that were washed once a week. – Report of the Grand Jury XXIII MISC. NO.0009901-2008 in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania

                      One woman delivered a stillborn baby girl weighing two pounds, one ounce at a local hospital after being treated and sent home at Gosnell’s clinic. – Report of the Grand Jury XXIII MISC. NO.0009901-2008 in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania

                      Gosnell would often have his staff physically push babies out of their mothers by pressing on the mothers’ abdomens. – Report of the Grand Jury XXIII MISC. NO.0009901-2008 in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania

                      One employee said that Gosnell took pictures of women and fetuses with a digital camera and with his phone. Gosnell told the employee that he was taking the photographs for “his teaching.” – Report of the Grand Jury XXIII MISC. NO.0009901-2008 in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania

                      The employee said Gosnell told him that he was photographing women from Liberia and other African countries who had undergone clitorodectomies, the surgical removal of the clitoris. – Report of the Grand Jury XXIII MISC. NO.0009901-2008 in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania

                      Gosnell would often show the photographs to an employee and exclaim about the skill of the surgeons who had sewn the women’s labia together, leaving only a small opening to allow menstrual flow. – Report of the Grand Jury XXIII MISC. NO.0009901-2008 in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania

                      Gosnell began an abortion on a 29-week pregnant woman and then refused to take dilators out when the woman changed her mind. – Report of the Grand Jury XXIII MISC. NO.0009901-2008 in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania

                      The woman went to a hospital where it was determined at the hospital that she was 29 weeks pregnant. A few days later, she delivered a premature baby girl. – Report of the Grand Jury XXIII MISC. NO.0009901-2008 in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania

                      The baby was treated at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and is today a healthy kindergartener. – Report of the Grand Jury XXIII MISC. NO.0009901-2008 in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania

                      Gosnell became a key figure in “the super-coil fiasco” – where he tested a device for simpler, cheaper and less painful abortions in the 1970s. – Report of the Grand Jury XXIII MISC. NO.0009901-2008 in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania

                      The super coil device was basically plastic razors that were formed into a ball coated into a gel, so that they would remain closed. These would be inserted into the woman’s uterus. – Report of the Grand Jury XXIII MISC. NO.0009901-2008 in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania

                      After several hours of body temperature, it would then, the gel would melt and the device would spring open, supposedly cutting up the fetus, and the fetus would be expelled. – Report of the Grand Jury XXIII MISC. NO.0009901-2008 in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania

                      Fifteen women in their second trimester of pregnancy boarded a bus in Chicago and headed for Philadelphia, where Gosnell had agreed to give them super-coil abortions at his clinic. – Philadelphia Inquirer

                      Serious complications suffered by nine of the 15 women, including one who needed a hysterectomy. The complications included a punctured uterus, hemorrhaging, infections and retained fetal remains. – Philadelphia Inquirer

                      Gosnell’s super-coil abortions were filmed and later shown on a New York City educational-TV program – Philadelphia Inquirer

                      Gosnell experimented with a procedure to inject a drug called digoxin into the fetus’s heart while it was in the womb. This was supposed to cause fetal demise in utero. – Report of the Grand Jury XXIII MISC. NO.0009901-2008 in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania

                      Sometimes Gosnell would “crack” the neck after the head was out – when only the baby’s torso was still inside the mother – and then suction the brain matter out. – Report of the Grand Jury XXIII MISC. NO.0009901-2008 in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania

                      During testimony at his trial, Gosnell “calmly watched and occasionally took notes with a vague hint of a smile on his face from time to time.” – Delaware News Journal

                      From an interview with an employee who took a photo of a born alive baby that was “snipped”:

                      Q. Why did you all take a photograph of this baby?

                      A. Because it was big and it was wrong and we knew it. We knew something was wrong.

                      – Report of the Grand Jury XXIII MISC. NO.0009901-2008 in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania”

                    9. Hill:

                      “Do we really want doctors under gag orders with regards to women’s health? A doctor’s main concern should be the patient. But if abortion is criminalized then a doctor’s main concern will protecting themselves against prosecution.”

                      Outside of HIPPA, a doctor is not gagged from discussing women’s health. A great many doctors, in fact, have gotten involved in the discussion. So, I am unclear on what you mean by gagged.

                      A doctor is always protecting himself against prosecution, or any threat to his medical license. Whenever a doctor makes a decision, it is based on his training, and the law, as well as a desire not to get sued. OB/GYNs re some of the most sued doctors in our country, so unfortunately, lawsuits are often on their minds.

                      Most people in the United States believe there should be some restrictions on abortions. The article I posted earlier discussed how there is no medical standard of “medical necessity”, leaving doctors without a standard of care.

                      Yes, a doctor’s main concern should be the patient. Yes, killing the late term child as an extra step in delivery is not required to save the mother’s life, but rather to ensure the child is dead. Without a standard of care, doctors are having to make it up as they go along, or based on their own personal ethics. What does concern for the patient translate into as far as standard of care? If a mother is stressed, or suffering from anxiety, and demands her healthy full term infant be killed, should the doctor comply? If you want a late term abortion for any reason in NY, you can find a doctor to accommodate you. That is why there needs to be a medical standard, since a medical reason is supposed to be required.

                      It is concerning how many pro-choice people polled did not believe that health care professionals should have the right not to participate in abortion. That is a problem in some European countries, where doctors and nurses are required to participate in abortion, and may not work in that field if they don’t want to. In the US, a doctor is not required to provide an abortion.

        2. Karen, the borders which are relevant to Chicago’s gun problem are With neighboring states, not Mexico or Canada , which is why we need stricter national laws on tuns.

          1. The Mexican cartels, however, have a strong presence in Chicago. They’re there because Chicago is great distribution point. And ‘yes, the cartels are a big factor in Chicago’s violence.

  5. There is a simple solution. 1st. Organize the crowd. 2nd. Repeal the 2nd Amendment. 3rd. Enact federal statute outlawing every kind of gun including BB guns. 4th. Enact a federal law imposing prison sentence for any human caught with a gun at home, on the street, in the woods, in a car, in a Walmart. Call it The Walmart Act. 5th. Create a federal law enforcement agency to connect with all local and state law enforcement and require all local and state law enforcement to enforce the law. 6th. Require all cops to pass a mental exam. Allow cops to shoot gun toters on sight.

    My name is Liberty 2nd. I stood for the Second Amendment. But I was for the right to arm bears not bear arms.

  6. The ruling class has never had a problem redefining words and stretching Constitutional limits to impose its values on everybody else.
    Good grief, they invented a way to call dismembering preborn children a constitutional right. The Constitution and legal precedent are no safeguard against a ruling class who seeks to impose its values on everybody else – provided the votes are there. But the votes are not there because Democrat voters and Republican voters are far apart on guns because each party’s voters use guns differently. Speaking generally based on the data, Republicans use guns for hunting, sport and self defense. Democrats use guns to kill other Democrats.

    By that I mean gun homicides are mostly a city problem and mostly a black American problem. Democrats decided upon a portfolio of policy choices designed to appeal to folks who live in cities. Big cities are where most Democrats are and big cities are where most of the gun homicides happen. Furthermore, something like 85% of all black Americans vote Democrat. Despite being only 13% of the population, blacks commit about half of all gun homicides (and their victims are also overwhelmingly black city dwellers, with the homicides often related to gang skirmishes or the illegal drug trade).

    There are over 3000 counties (or county equivalents) in the US. About half of all counties – mostly rural and small towns where Republicans are – have zero or 1 gun homicide per year.

    Democrats want Republicans to impose extreme restrictions on their gun liberty because Democrats use guns to shoot each other.

    1. …Democrats use guns to shoot each other.

      and make Hollywood producers and actors (Robert De Niro, is that you?) obscene amounts of money.

      Where would liberals like Matt Damon be if they could not make violent films killing people with their “artistic expression”?

      pathetic hypocrites that they are

    2. The Constitution allows abortion and the Constitution does not deny abortion.

      Voters engender or defeat legislation regarding abortion.

      Good people are outvoted by parasitic and evil counter-culture anarchists.

      The problem is one man, one vote democracy.

      The Greeks, Romans and American Founders severely limited and restricted the vote.

      Never were the “poor,” slaves or women intended to vote.

      Men persist.

      Women make the men who persist.

      Homogeneous and conforming adult men who are vested in the nation are the “…body of citizens entitled to vote.”

      Women make those men – it’s a big job.

      A republic is governance “…in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote.”

  7. will the real racist please stand up?

    Poor Biden….such a racist that one.

    Biden Raises Eyebrows With ‘Poor Kids’ Comment

    Former Vice President Joe Biden, who is known for his verbal gaffes, said in Iowa on Thursday evening that “poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids.”

    He quickly added: “Wealthy kids, black kids, Asian kids.”

    Mr. Biden was speaking to the Asian & Latino Coalition, a Des Moines-based group that has attracted visits from multiple 2020 Democratic candidates this year.

    President Trump campaign’s quickly tweeted a clip of the remarks and said Mr. Biden’s remarks were “not a gaffe” and instead “part of a pattern.”

    https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/campaign-wire-election-2020

    1. This is a non sequitur. Racism and discrimination are not only constitutional, they are the essence of freedom. If Americans cannot discriminate, Americans cannot be free. Have you read about the constitutional freedoms of assembly, socialization, thought, belief, speech, religion, publication, press and every other conceivable, natural and God-given right and freedom per the 9th Amendment? How far do you take that unconstitutional concept of denying the right and freedom to discriminate? Shall you dictate whom citizens marry?

  8. Poll Finds 84% Say Americans Angrier Than Generation Ago

    A majority of Americans believe the country is angrier than before, with 42% saying they were angrier now than this time last year, although 91% of respondents individuals were more likely to air their frustrations over social media than in person. What do you think?

    “Knowing most of these people are probably just mad over some dumb bullsh!t makes me so angry I could kill them.”
    SHANNA BURN • TANTRIC CLIMATOLOGIST

    “To be fair, Americans from a generation ago never had to deal with this generation of Americans.”
    ANNA RYDER • HABERDASHER

    theonion.com

    1. Estovir, it appears you want to obstruct any discussion on guns. So here you’ve posted a series of frivolous, unrelated pieces. Just crap to take up space on the thread. So random readers will find no serious discussion. ..And ‘who’ the trolls again..??

  9. Live, now:

    The Latest on Assange; Plus America and Guns; Episode 5, Today 2pm EDT Live!

    https://consortiumnews.com/2019/08/09/watch-cn-live-the-latest-on-assange-plus-america-and-guns-episode-5-today-2pm-edt-live/

    “And then, in the wake of the massacres last week in Dayton, Ohio and El Paso, Texas, we get two perspectives on the crisis that has gripped the U.S. for too long: mass murder.

    “First we are joined from Sydney, Australia by Rebecca Peters, who helped negotiate Australia’s gun laws enacted after a 1996 mass murder that has made a dramatic difference; and James Howard Kunstler will go deep into what’s unwell about American culture that contributes to the ongoing, senseless massacres.”

  10. Memo to FBI: scan “Res ipsa loquitur” as there are a few left wing, pinko trolls, drooling over themselves and emitting unhealthy levels of flatulence.

    FBI seeks to scan social media for violent threats
    The Federal Bureau of Investigation is soliciting proposals from outside vendors for a contract to pull vast quantities of public data from Facebook, Twitter Inc. TWTR -1.02% and other social media “to proactively identify and reactively monitor threats to the United States and its interests.”

    1. continuing from above WSJ article

      “In its July 8 request for proposals, the FBI’s wish list includes the ability to “obtain the full social media profile of persons-of-interest and their affiliation to any organization or groups,” as well as monitor the social-media activity of people in specific neighborhoods and search for key words connected to potential illegal activity. The FBI also said in the proposal that it requires that its data gathering leave no trace, even to other federal agencies, and states that the government would “maintain sole ownership” of the data ingested into the monitoring system.”

      https://www.wsj.com/articles/fbi-and-facebook-potentially-at-odds-over-social-media-monitoring-11565277021

    2. As Tabby (DSS, TIA x ?, SOT, and the list goes on…) would say:

      “Buzz off.”

      This is to Estovir, regarding his stupid comment at 3:15 PM.

        1. In other words, give me all your money and open the doors to your house so that I may occupy it.

          “Makers” and “Takers.”

          That sums it up nicely.

  11. THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT OF 1934

    MADE MACHINE GUNS RARE

    In the 1930s, violence by notorious gangsters was fueled by Thompson submachine guns, or Tommy guns, that fired up to 600 rounds of bullets in a minute. In response, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was pressing Congress to act on his “New Deal for Crime,” specifically a bill officially called the National Firearms Act of 1934. Informally, it was known as the “Anti-Machine Gun Bill.”

    Roosevelt’s firearms bill also proposed requiring newly purchased pistols and revolvers to be registered and owners to be fingerprinted. In February 1933 in Miami, a would-be assassin had fired a pistol at President-elect Roosevelt and then killed visiting Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak.

    In 1934, more than two dozen states passed gun-control laws. West Virginia required gun owners to be bonded and licensed. Michigan mandated that the police approve gun buyers. Texas banned machine guns.

    “Why should desperadoes, brazen outlaws of the period be permitted to purchase these weapons of destruction?” the Waco News-Tribune editorialized.

    Rather than a federal ban on machine guns, the Roosevelt administration proposed taxing the high-powered weapons virtually out of existence. It would place a $200 tax on the purchase of machine guns and sawed-off shotguns. The tax — equal to about $3,800 today — was steep at a time when the average annual income was about $1,780.

    The NRA gave qualified support to the proposed law.

    “I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses,” testified NRA President Karl Frederick, a New York lawyer. But he was dubious about the proposed law. “In my opinion, the useful results that can be accomplished by firearms legislation are extremely limited,” he said. The NRA at the time represented “hundreds of thousands” of gun owners but not gun manufacturers.

    The NRA and groups representing hunters opposed extending the tax to pistols and revolvers. “It is a fact which cannot be refuted that a pistol or revolver in the hands of a man or woman who knows how to use it is one thing which makes the smallest man or the weakest woman the equal of the burliest thug,” argued Milton Reckord, the NRA’s executive vice president. But as for a bill limited to machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, he said, “We will go along with such a bill as that.”

    Congress eventually stripped the bill of regulations on pistols and revolvers. The firearms act was then passed in June and Roosevelt signed it into law along with more than 100 other bills. By 1937, federal officials reported that the sale of machine guns in the United States had practically ceased. In 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that law didn’t violate the Constitution.

    Hundreds of illegal machine guns were still around, but a crackdown by law enforcement basically ended the run of gangster gun violence.

    Edited from: “They Were Killers With Submachine Guns. The The President Went After Their Weapons”

    Today’s Washington Post

    1. and today there are special federal licenses for certain civilians to own pre 86 NFA weapons including machine guns which are almost NEVER used in crimes.

      and yet there are a few million of them out in private hands. hmmmm.

      i recommend we legalize suppressors, since we are talking about it. it will help protect people from hearing damage. right now there is a special license and a twenty dollar device costs four hundred. however, you can bet the bill to legalize them will go nowhere now because of the hand wringing ban everything lobby.

      1. Yeah, Kurtz, I’m sure gang-bangers in Chicago would love suppressors so they don’t disturb the hood when shooting at rival gang members.

      2. Mr. Kurtz, everything Roosevelt, Wilson and “Crazy Abe” Lincoln did was and is unconstitutional.

        To review, secession was and is fully constitutional and was not and is not unconstitutional whereas suspending Habeas Corpus was and is unconstitutional treason. Wilson’s Fed as regulation, anti-trust laws, the FTC, etc. are unconstitutional. Social Security, Medicare (under THE SSA) and all the various “programs” of the 30’s are unconstitutional.

        In 1934, the Constitution held unchangeable dominion in the United States of America and its 2nd Amendment assured that the right of all citizens to keep and bear arms “…shall not be infringed.” Understanding that Americans must stand ready to join the militia of their choice to oppose a tyrannical and oppressive government, the arms they keep and bear must be sufficient to the task. Congress and inferior levels of government have no authority to “infringe” the rights provided by the 2nd Amendment.

        There are many people who can read that phrase with comprehension. Others are not so well endowed. That America exists under the yoke of oppression of the liberal, communistic “deep deep state,” does not bear on constitutionality.

      3. “Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that horses may not be stolen”.
        ____________________________________________________________

        The whole idea has always been to deter and punish people severely and swiftly for the evil that they do.

        Bloody Code – Wikipedia

        Capital punishment and transportation

        “In 1688 there were 50 offences on the statute book punishable by death, but that number had almost quadrupled by 1776,[1] and it reached 220 by the end of the century.[2] Most of the new laws introduced during that period were concerned with the defence of property, which some commentators have interpreted as a form of class suppression of the poor by the rich.[3] George Savile, 1st Marquess of Halifax, expressed a contemporary view when he said that “Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that horses may not be stolen”.[4] Grand larceny was one of the crimes that drew the death penalty; it was defined as the theft of goods worth more than 12 pence, about one-twentieth of the weekly wage for a skilled worker at the time.[5] As the 18th century proceeded, jurors often deliberately under-assessed the value of stolen goods, in order to avoid a mandatory death sentence.”[5]
        ______________________________________________________________________________________________________

        A civil society of laws does not have “gang-bangers” or any other types of criminals because most of them have been hanged, injected or otherwise “neutralized.”

  12. Don’t blame the Constitution.

    Don’t blame the right to keep and bear arms.

    Blame the local elected and appointed officials.

    After mass shootings, there is always evidence that authorities knew and failed to recognize evidence and to act on it.

    It’s not the Constitution that needs amending, it’s police, state investigative/security services and elected officials who have demonstrated their lack of commitment and incompetence and failed miserably. Why are they still paid ridiculous amounts of taxpayer dollars for persistent failure – like the teacher, police, fire and public worker unions in Baltimore, L.A., Chicago, etc.?

    In the Jaycee Dugard case, an officer was at the front door of the property where she was being held. The officer was “professionally” executing his duties to inspect for violations and any other suspicious anomalies. The officer was a few feet from Jaycee Dugard. The officer made a cursory and perfunctory appearance then left. He did nothing effective and just left.
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________

    WIKIPEDIA

    Kidnapping of Jaycee Dugard

    Missed rescue opportunities

    (Phillip Garrido, 58, and his wife, Nancy Garrido, 54, of Antioch, were arrested by police for kidnapping, imprisonment, and sexual assault on April 28, 2011)

    Police failed to make the connection that Jaycee Lee Dugard was kidnapped south of South Lake Tahoe, the same location as Garrido’s 1976 kidnapping and rape of Katherine Callaway Hall.[43]

    On April 22, 1992, less than a year after her kidnapping, a man called the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department from a gas station less than two miles from the Garridos’ home. The caller reported that he saw Dugard in the gas station staring intently at a missing child poster of herself. The caller then reported seeing her leave in a large yellow van, possibly a Dodge. In 2009, after Dugard’s release, an old yellow Dodge van was recovered from the Garrido property that matched the description of the van given in the call. The license plate was not reported in the 1992 call; the caller, the girl, and the van were gone by the time police arrived. The caller never identified himself, and the police did not pursue the matter any further.[44] In contradiction to this story, Dugard reported that she never left the Garrido property from the day she was kidnapped until shortly before her first child was born in August 1994.[45]

    In June 2002, the fire department responded to a report of a juvenile with a shoulder injury that occurred in a swimming pool at the Garridos’ home. This information was not relayed to the parole office, which had no record of either a juvenile or a swimming pool at the Garridos’ address.[46]

    In 2006, one of Garrido’s neighbors called 9-1-1 to inform them that there were tents in the backyard with children living there and that Garrido was “psychotic” with sexual addictions. A deputy sheriff spoke with him at the front of the house for about 30 minutes and left after telling him that there would be a code violation if people were living outside on the property. After Dugard was found in August 2009, the local Contra Costa County Sheriff, Warren E. Rupf, issued an apology to the victims in a news conference.[39][47]

    On November 4, 2009, the California Office of the Inspector General issued a report that enumerated lapses by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation that had contributed to Dugard’s continued captivity. The central finding was that Garrido was incorrectly classified as needing only low-level supervision; all other lapses derived from that mistake. In his report, the inspector general detailed an instance in which a parole agent encountered a 12-year-old girl at the home but accepted Garrido’s explanation that “she was his brother’s daughter and [the agent] did nothing to verify it,” despite the fact that a call to Garrido’s brother verified that he did not have children.[48]

  13. I apologize if I missed it but I have not seen anyone address the question as to whether the federal government can enact “Red flag laws” or background checks on private sales.
    It seems that only states have the police powers necessary to enact those laws.

    1. 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

    1. Constitutional attorney John Whitehead, from the link down-thread:

      “For instance, in his remarks on the mass shootings in Texas and Ohio, President Trump promised to give the FBI “whatever they need” to investigate and disrupt hate crimes and domestic terrorism.

      “Let that sink in a moment.

      “In a post-9/11 America, Trump’s promise bodes ill for whatever remnants of freedom we have left. With that promise, flippantly delivered without any apparent thought for the Constitution’s prohibitions on such overreach, the president has given the FBI the green light to violate Americans’ civil liberties in every which way.”

    2. Trump is an embarrassment. People lost their lives…, but it’s all about Trump.

      “Trump laments coverage as aides concede visits to mourning cities didn’t go as planned”

      https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/08/politics/trump-el-paso-coverage/index.html

      Excerpt:

      While at least two top staffers publicly defended the President’s trip — with one longtime aide claiming he was treated like “a rock star” at the Dayton, Ohio, hospital — multiple staffers agreed behind the scenes that it wasn’t successful from the administration’s viewpoint. They conceded Trump spent too much time lashing out at local officials, who Trump criticized after they praised his interactions with patients but criticized his stance on guns.

      Trump was also unhappy with the visit. He fumed about the coverage on the long flight back to Washington, one person said, though he remained positive in public.

      “We had an amazing day,” Trump said in the corridor of an emergency coordination center in El Paso. “As you know, we left Ohio. And the love and the respect for the office of the presidency, it was — I wish you could have been in there to see it. I wish you could have been in there.”

  14. If Trump helps pass Red Flag Laws, just right afterwards the Dims will likely move to have his 2 Amendment Right removed as there were something close to 900 psychiatrist signed a letter that they believe Prez Trump is mentally unstable & should be removed from office under the 25 Amd.

  15. OFFICIAL BLURB FOR “THE HUNT”

    Twelve strangers wake up in a clearing. They don’t know where they are, or how they got there. They don’t know they’ve been chosen… for a very specific purpose … The Hunt. In the shadow of a dark internet conspiracy theory, a group of globalist elites gathers for the very first time at a remote Manor House to hunt humans for sport. But the elites’ master plan is about to be derailed because one of the hunted, Crystal (Betty Gilpin, GLOW), knows The Hunters’ game better than they do. She turns the tables on the killers, picking them off, one by one, as she makes her way toward the mysterious woman (two-time Oscar® winner Hilary Swank) at the center of it all.
    ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

    Having watched the trailer, and reading what I could find on this, “The Hunt” looks like a recycled version of a very old story. ‘People are hunted like animals until one turns the tables and hunters become the hunted’. Nothing new here! Just a tired old formula.

    But I noticed in looking into this that rightwing media has made this yet-to-be-released picture a lightening rod for controversy. Apparently rightwing media is promoting the narrative that Trump supporters are in Hollywood’s crosshairs. This feeds into the a victim culture that Trumpers eagerly embrace.

  16. JT fails again:

    1. He cites outlier SC decisions made by a court weighted by appointments from a president who would not have held office except under a corrupt partisan SC decision which will be quickly overturned when the court again becomes once removed representative of the people of the US.

    2. An AR15 fires a smaller caliber round, but JT apprently is ignorant of the fact that it’s high velocity – 3 times that of a Glock for instance – causes significantly more damage than larger rounds, and that fact is compounded by the low recoil caused by that smaller caliber which allows the shooter to maintain better control as he quickly unloads it. This is not by accident, but integral to their function as portable killing machines.

    JT needs to spend more time on these columns. He’s giving the site a bad reputation.

    1. So the only Court decisions you respect are ones from courts packed by politicians you endorse?
      Take an ESOL course then a reading comprehension class. JT compared the .223 round to larger caliber rounds.

      .223 muzzle energy is 1300 foot pounds on the high end, .308 2800 foot pounds
      .44 Mag pistol about 900 foot pounds.

      Please, do not reproduce.

      1. Too late ti317, I already did and anyone would be proud of them.

        The SC with a majority cemented by W – he of SC creation – ruled in Heller in a unique and precedent busting manner, much like they did when they elected W. JT treats it as if it came from 1788 and hasn’t changed since. It isn’t and it will be.

        That is all.

        1. It seems like you married well then.
          I see you are really upset about “precedent busting”. I guess Plessy and Dred Scott are sacred to you?
          Seems to me that the real problem is this national anger which is encouraged by the media and the “resistance”. Your inability to let a 20 year old decision go even in the light of the recount numbers (Miami Herald and Palm Beach Post sponsored) is an example of the pernicious rage sweeping the country.

          The continued anger is infectious and fragile minds on BOTH sides, tend to snap.

          1. Indeed, I did marry well.

            I’m glad we don’t disagree on the precedent busting nature of the Heller decision, though JT fails to acknowledge that in his overly respectful reference to it.

            I also agree with you on the national anger and much of it’s source – the media – but that ncludes 20+ years of right wing talk radio along and 24/7 cable “news” shows that provide confirmation bias, It’s first result was the “tea party” movement – remember “the deficit!!” – followed by the EC election of Trump.

  17. John Whitehead, of the Rutherford Institute, understands what’s going on, as well as anyone:

    We’re All Enemies of the State: Draconian Laws, Precrime & the Surveillance State

    By John W. Whitehead
    August 06, 2019

    https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/were_all_enemies_of_the_state_draconian_laws_precrime_the_surveillance_state

    Excerpt:

    It’s all part of the grand plan for total control.

    The government’s proposed response to the latest round of mass shootings—red flag gun laws, precrime surveillance, fusion centers, threat assessments, mental health assessments, involuntary confinement—is just more of the same.

    These tactics have been employed before, here in the U.S. and elsewhere, by other totalitarian regimes, with devastating results.

    It’s a simple enough formula: first, you create fear, then you capitalize on it by seizing power.

    For instance, in his remarks on the mass shootings in Texas and Ohio, President Trump promised to give the FBI “whatever they need” to investigate and disrupt hate crimes and domestic terrorism.

    Let that sink in a moment.

    In a post-9/11 America, Trump’s promise bodes ill for whatever remnants of freedom we have left. With that promise, flippantly delivered without any apparent thought for the Constitution’s prohibitions on such overreach, the president has given the FBI the green light to violate Americans’ civil liberties in every which way.

    This is how the Emergency State works, after all.

    (“Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute.”)

  18. John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute understands what’s going on, as well as anyone:

    We’re All Enemies of the State: Draconian Laws, Precrime & the Surveillance State

    By John W. Whitehead

    August 06, 2019

    https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/were_all_enemies_of_the_state_draconian_laws_precrime_the_surveillance_state

    Excerpt:

    The government’s proposed response to the latest round of mass shootings—red flag gun laws, precrime surveillance, fusion centers, threat assessments, mental health assessments, involuntary confinement—is just more of the same.

    These tactics have been employed before, here in the U.S. and elsewhere, by other totalitarian regimes, with devastating results.

    It’s a simple enough formula: first, you create fear, then you capitalize on it by seizing power.

    For instance, in his remarks on the mass shootings in Texas and Ohio, President Trump promised to give the FBI “whatever they need” to investigate and disrupt hate crimes and domestic terrorism.

    Let that sink in a moment.

    In a post-9/11 America, Trump’s promise bodes ill for whatever remnants of freedom we have left. With that promise, flippantly delivered without any apparent thought for the Constitution’s prohibitions on such overreach, the president has given the FBI the green light to violate Americans’ civil liberties in every which way.

    This is how the Emergency State works, after all.

    1. Edward Snowden tweeted:

      “So I just completed an international conspiracy across twenty countries, and somehow the secret never leaked. On Constitution Day, the result will be on shelves worldwide.”

      https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1156920361537200133

      “Permanent Record

      by Edward Snowden

      Edward Snowden, the man who risked everything to expose the US government’s system of mass surveillance, reveals for the first time the story of his life, including how he helped to build that system and what motivated him to try to bring it down.”

      1. Edward Snowden’s new book will be available on:

        Constitution Day: September 17th

        https://www.constitutionday.com/

        “Constitution Day commemorates the formation and signing of the U.S. Constitution by thirty-nine brave men on September 17, 1787, recognizing all who are born in the U.S. or by naturalization, have become citizens.”

Leave a Reply