Below is my column in The Hill on the calls for gun bans after the massacre in Uvalde, Texas. The massacre has already been used as the basis for calls to end the filibuster, pack the court, limits on gun ownership, and outright bans. One member called for all of the above. The rhetoric is again outstripping the reality of constitutional and practical limits for gun control. Last night, President Joe Biden formally called for banning “assault weapons” while repeating the dubious claim that an earlier ban sharply reduced mass shootings.
Here is the column:
In our increasingly hateful and divisive politics, there are times when our nation seems incapable of coming together for a common purpose. Tragedies — moments of shared national grieving and mutual support — once were the exception. Yet one of the most chilling aspects of the aftermath of the school massacre in Uvalde, Texas, was how the moment of unity was quickly lost to political posturing.
Politicians have long admitted that a crisis is an opportunity not to be missed — the greater the tragedy, the greater the opportunity. After the mass shooting at a Buffalo supermarket, New York’s Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) called for censorship to “silence the voices of hatred and racism.” After the Uvalde massacre, some Democrats renewed calls for everything from court packing to ending the Senate filibuster.
The most immediate response, however, was a call for gun bans. Vice President Kamala Harris got out front of the White House by demanding a ban on AR-15s, the most popular weapon in America. Then President Joe Biden created a stir by suggesting he might seek to ban 9mm weapons.
Such calls are not limited to the United States. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that his government is introducing legislation to “implement a national freeze on handgun ownership.” He said Canadians would no longer be able “to buy, sell, transfer or import handguns anywhere in Canada,” adding that “there is no reason anyone in Canada should need guns in their everyday lives.”
The difference between the push in the two countries is the existence of the Second Amendment in the United States — a constitutionally mandated “reason” why Americans are allowed to have guns; they don’t have to prove it to the government.
While the White House subsequently tried to walk back his comments, Biden saying there’s “no rational basis” to own 9mms and AR-15s sounds like he’s channeling his inner Canadian.
There is now a strong majority for gun control reforms. However, politicians are once again ignoring what is constitutionally possible by focusing on what is politically popular with their voting base.
In the past, politicians in cities like New York, Chicago and Washington, D.C., have proven to be the gun lobby’s greatest asset. They have pushed ill-considered legislation and litigation that only served to create precedent against gun control. The same pattern seems to be playing out as leaders like Biden and Harris voice sweeping, unsupportable statements about guns and constitutional protections. For example, despite being repeatedly corrected, President Biden continues to repeat the same false statements about bans on weapons when the Second Amendment was ratified.
Those false statements can be dismissed as just another “Corn Pop” story, but they refer to the constitutional foundation for gun control. This concern is magnified by other recent claims that would quickly collapse in court. For example, in support of the ban on AR-15s, Harris declared: “Do you know what an assault weapon is? It was designed for a specific purpose, to kill a lot of human beings quickly. An assault weapon is a weapon of war, with no place, no place in a civil society.”
Courts do not interpret the Constitution by soundbites but, rather, by sound historical and textual arguments. Courts likely would press the Biden administration on why it is seeking to ban this model when other higher-caliber weapons are sold. AR-15s can handle a variety of calibers. However, they are no more powerful than other semi-automatic rifles of the same caliber and actually have a lower caliber than some commonly sold weapons which use .30-06, .308 and .300 ammunition; many of these guns fire at the same — or near the same rate — as the AR-15. None of these weapons are classified as actual military “assault weapons,” and most civilians cannot own an automatic weapon.
President Biden showed the same disconnect as Harris between the factual and the rhetorical basis for some gun-control measures. He condemned “high-caliber weapons” like 9mm handguns and said “a .22-caliber bullet will lodge in the lung, and we can probably get it out — may be able to get it and save the life. A 9mm bullet blows the lung out of the body.”
While gun experts mocked the notion that 9mm rounds blow organs out of bodies, the president’s singling out of these handguns led many to cry foul about using the Uvalde massacre to impose a Canadian-like ban or moratorium. The 9mm round is the most popular handgun caliber in the U.S., with more than half of all handguns produced in 2019 using that round, according to Shooting Industry magazine. If Biden pushed a ban, he would target more than 40 percent of all pistols produced in the U.S.
In addition to repeating (for the second time in two days) a false claim that certain weapons were banned at the ratification of the Second Amendment, Biden made the claim that an assault weapons ban in the 1990s “significantly cut down mass murders.”
There is small support for saying that earlier ban on assault weapons had any appreciable impact on mass murders; there is no support for saying it caused a reduction in gun violence overall. Thankfully, mass shootings are statistically rare. Even studies that noted a drop in mass shootings during this earlier period noted that such a cause-and-effect claim is “inconclusive.”
Moreover, the earlier ban was imposed in 1994 — before the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the right to bear arms is an individual right. Any such ban today would face a far greater court challenge and would require a far more compelling factual foundation to pass constitutional muster.
While making these dubious claims, President Biden stressed that “I can’t dictate this stuff … I can’t outlaw a weapon.” He added: “I think things have gotten so bad that everybody is getting more rational about it. At least, that’s my hope and prayer.”
There is room for rational reforms, ranging from better funding of mental illness treatment to “red flag” laws. However, a “hope and prayer” is unlikely to succeed if the president continues to inject hype and politics into our national debate over gun control.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
“President Joe Biden formally called for banning ‘assault weapons.’”
Name a single tool that cannot be used as an “assault weapon.” A knife? A baseball bat? A rake? A toothpick?
No. 2 pencil? They have proved to be effective assault weapons quite possibly rendering some attackers unable to reproduce if you know what I mean.
“. . . if you know what I mean.”
Not really.
I appreciate the Professor’s analysis very much, thank you Prof. Turley, but let’s just finally say it: our modern DNC are globalist communists with the entire earth in their sights, period. Ironic that ‘Stranger Things’ came out recently and in it we are fighting *against* Russia. Those of us that are old enough to know better do indeed, know better. Reject the DNC in every shape or form it takes.
James warns:
“our modern DNC are globalist communists with the entire earth in their sights, period.”
All the more reason to get your hands on full automatic machine guns for that all important suppressing fire against the communist attempt at a takeover! You do want an Uzi don’t you? Be honest.
So, the Democratic agenda on law & order seems to be shaping up like this: defund the police; eventually abolish the police force; release all prisoners from our racist jails; and take away all weapons from ordinary citizens because… there’s no rational reason any citizen should need a gun.
BS. There is no plan to defund and abolish the police, release all prisoners from jails and take away all weapons. You just say this to make yourself feel good that you get to own the same gun used by mass killers. All you people that love your semi automatic weapons for “self defense”, are just deluding your selves as you pretend you’re a big macho man that is going to protect yourself and your family against the “bad guys”. BS. The odds of your gun being used against one of your family members is higher than being used against an intruder. But of course you’re smarter than all those idiots that don’t know how to use their guns. You’re so smart, until your kid walks in quietly after a night on the town at 2am and you grab your gun and shoot the intruder. Or in the heat of an argument, your wife grabs the gun and shoots you. Both of those events happen far more often than a good guy killing a bad guy with a gun.
Even if true, which it isn’t, that’s my problem and concern, not your’s.
https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/oakland-city-council-votes-defund-police-stripping-17-million-department-budget/
You were writing?
The tragic event in Uvalde shows us more than ever the need for 2A. Heavily armed and trained govy LE stood by for over an hour while children and teachers were slaughtered = when it comes to self defense you‘re on your own.
Meanwhile, per UPD Police Chief, Uvalde is overrun with cartel members carrying automatic weapons. In the 2020-21 school year there were so many LE encounters with these cartel soldiers schools had to be locked down 48 times.
Seems like we’re in agreement that the police were too inept or just too cowardly to prevent this situation. So if the cops aren’t doing the job we’re paying them for, why not defund them? Maybe some other group could do the job easier. Let me be clear: if cops are gonna be the ones to charge into dangerous situations then sure they need to be compensated for that. But if they’re just going to stand around or sit in their cars all day and/or its gonna be every man for himself like you describe then I don’t get why I the taxpayer should have to pay for that. Spend the money on teachers instead or mental health programs or just return it to the citizens to spend on whatever they see fit. Otherwise it’s just a welfare program for non-college graduates, which, as a liberal, isn’t the worst idea I’ve ever heard. But then no need for the badges and the “respect mah authoritay!” And all that.
“There is no reason anyone in Canada should need guns in their everyday lives.” (Trudeau)
Tyrants rule at the point of a gun. During their reign of oppression, they do not want a gun pointed back at them. It is no accident that tyrannical countries, such as China, criminalize private gun ownership.
Sam,
Why do you accept the government depriving you of machine guns? You Trumpists claim that you need weapons in order to protect yourself from a tyrannical government. Don’t you need machine guns and RPG’s to make it a fair fight against a Democrat backed military?
“You Trumpists . . .”
If you want to communicate with me, can the slurs. (And you can skip the denials. I’m not buying them.)
Sam,
If you are part of the MAGA movement or believe the election was stolen, you are a Trumpist. What would you call such a person? You may call me a “NeverTrumper.” Fair enough?
Please ignore what Turley refers to as “trolls and juvenile posters”. They add nothing constructive. They’re just here to agitate so don’t give them what they want…..a response.
Is this guy a dummy or a democrat? Am I belief redundant?
They usually go hand in hand. You gotta admit I am right about that even if it kills you to agree with me!
Right, you are a democrat dummy and”not much of a real man.”
See #6:
https://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/11/15/tf.emotional.men/index.html
You see, I am not ALWAYS wrong as you claim I am!
Advocates of gun ownership and their “right” under the 2nd amendment, almost always never quote the whole 2nd amendment.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
It seems to me the militia is not well regulated. Especially by people like ZZClancy. “I will not comply”, really? You precious militia is killing 7 year old kids. Grow up, you are not a 1776 militia member that could shoot about 1 round a minute.
People love to talk originalist with regards to the constitution. So take your 2nd amendment and your muzzle loading rifle and walk around with it. But not a 20 round magazine with a rifle that can kill 20 people in about 20 seconds.
The Supreme Court stated that “The Second Amendment protects weapons for self-defense purposes and not just for military reasons, and it applies to weapons “that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” SCOTUS also clarified that simply being a “modern invention” did not make it dangerous and unusual.”
https://www.uslawshield.com/key-second-amendment-supreme-court-cases/
You can take your printing press and rant all you want, otherwise you can shut the hell up.
The right to self defense is God given, per musket argument, are criminals using muskets to commit crimes, many of them lethal?
UPD police chief said UISD had 48 lockdowns during the 2020-21 school year. Many of the incidents involving cartel members, UPD found they had automatic weapons.
If they are killing 7 year old kids, prosecute them.
No militia was involved at Uvalde. Just a mentally unstable young man. Muzzle loading rifles were considered “weapons of war” when the Second Amendment was ratified and yet the Founders encouraged the people; even teenagers, to “keep and bear” them. A semi-automatic rifle like the one used at Uvalde fires one round at each pull of the trigger just like any pistol or revolver which according to FBI stats were used to murder 6,368 people compared to 364 with rifles of all types in 2019. Handguns are the most common firearm used in mass shootings in the U.S. Mass shootings take place every day with handguns across the country but they go largely ignored by the media and Democrats pushing more gun control because those incidents don’t help their narrative. Not one firearm is responsible for murdering anyone.
Gun sales skyrocketed when the call to defund the police was front and center. Law enforcement are harassed and denigrated in an already thankless job.
Thankfully, there remain individuals willing to enter and remain in this vital profession. However, many departments are now understaffed. Some courts are a revolving doors for violent offenders.
What is a rank and file citizen do when police response times are slow and they cannot afford personal armed security like the elites?
I despise guns but when I decided to obtain a firearm I took a five hour class before making that decision. My instructor was a retired law enforcement officer who had nearly been killed in a confrontation with a serial killer. She was amazing. The next step was another class for conceal carry. That was fifteen more hours of training, test, FBI background check, range qualification, registry with the state. Many conceal carry individuals do not carry. I certainly do not want that responsibility.
Hours of instruction were devoted to the legal consequences of owning or using a firearm. Every bullet is a 100% chance of a lawsuit and the potential for collateral damage. We were encouraged to never use a gun unless it was a last resort, life and death situation.
The stereo type gun owner put forth by bloviating politicians is far from the vast majority of responsible citizens who own weapons and loath the thought of ever having to resort to their use. But a drugged up and desperate criminal will not likely see reason. Many in my class were attorneys. I live in a blue state.
Why not federalize gun crimes? Any person who commits a gun crime must automatically serve significant mandatory time. All gun crimes should be reported in a national registry, readily available for the press to see. There are solutions that could be put on the table but that would be practical. Presently, this is about politics.
Check out the list of those will be exempted from any new gun control legislation. There will be an explosion of people becoming “bodyguards”.
Yep. Our elites must have the most lethal protection. Us peasants, not so much.
Do the bodyguards of the elites carry concealed fully automatic weapons?
To answer your question, “Do the bodyguards of the elites carry concealed fully automatic weapons?”, Mr. Silberman, yes. Yes they do carry those. Please see the H&K MP7.
When the Democrats say Gun Safety or Gun Control what they seek is Gun Confiscation.
I am the Militia. I WILL NOT COMPLY!
Government has essentially confiscated machine guns. Why do you put up with it?
Many are saying that a ban on high capacity magazines would render useless many guns in common use, including hand guns, that require them. If that is true, such a ban would appear to violate the second amendment, since it is in effect a confiscation of those guns. Any thoughts?
Daniel,
What about ammunition limitations? Do laws limiting the amount of ammunition pass constitutional muster?
Poll taxes dont work. and requiring a simple ID to vote is a restriction to vote, according to Dems. So taxing bullets is a restriction…according to democrats.
Government taxes food despite our having a Constitutional right to life.
How does the federal government tax food for consumption by the individual?
Which states tax food?
Ever eaten at a restaurant?
“Ever eaten at a restaurant?”
Considering the fact that you said: “Government taxes food despite our having a Constitutional right to life.” Your response isn’t too bright.
All the time. Prepared food is taxable for the labor. Un processed food is not taxed in the state I live in.
As usual, opinions about everything while at the same time knowing anything.
Don’t know the laws. How do they render the guns inoperable?
Turley says:
“Moreover, the earlier ban was imposed in 1994 — before the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the right to bear arms is an individual right. Any such ban today would face a far greater court challenge and would require a far more compelling factual foundation to pass constitutional muster.”
Has the restriction on the sale of machine guns ever been litigated? Would it pass constitutional muster?
How much faster can an automatic weapon than a semi-automatic discharge a clip? Do we have any gun experts here? Let’s say a gunman is standing before a group of, say, 30 persons at a music concert. Given the same size clip in each, how many more people can be killed by a machine gun than by a semi-automatic? Would it depend upon how fast people would scramble for cover? Suppose it was an open field, would the death count be the same?
Are these not the sort of considerations which need to be determined to decide if a machine gun passes constitutional muster?
I’m serious.
Machine guns are not now, and never were, in common use for a lawful purpose, so they likely would fall outside the protection of the second amendment.
So what. Why is that relevant? Aren’t there all types of weapons that are legal now which were not in common usage in the late 1700’s?
That is the main part of the Supreme Court’s current standard for testing whether a gun is covered by the second amendment.
jeffsilberman Those naive questions just speak to your ignorance of guns. Most people would stick to subjects they know — unless they’re megalomaniacs.
Giocon,
I’m a lover; not a fighter. Where I reside, neighbors still keep their doors unlocked, and we fear not from porch pirates. Enlighten me with your gun knowledge. Why do you accept the government depriving you of machine guns? You Trumpists claim that you need weapons in order to protect yourself from a tyrannical government. Don’t you need machine guns and RPG’s to make it a fair fight against the Democrat backed military?
Not everyone who disagrees with you is a “Trumpist”. maybe they’re just not a “Clintonista” or something far worse – if that is even possible
Whig98,
Why are you so offended by being identified as a person who believes Trump when he says Mueller’s investigation was a witch-hunt, Russian collusion was a hoax, the MSM is fake news and the election was stolen?
You DO believe ALL these claims? That defines you as a believer of Trump- a “Trumpist” for short. What is the big deal?
This fool still things the Steele Dossier was good intelligence.
For the most part areas with unlocked doors are that way because there is an armed person on the other side. Anyone who leaves themselves both open and undefended is a fool.
Currentsitguy says:
“For the most part areas with unlocked doors are that way because there is an armed person on the other side.”
In my case, I will release the hounds.
I suppose if loving you to death is good my dog has me covered.
Good boy!
Please stop replying to “trolls and juvenile posters”. The trolls adds nothing constructive. They come here to agitate.
Ok, serious answer. Generally speaking fully automatic weapons tend to have a lower kill rate than a semi automatic gun. Their purpose is more effective in what is called “suppression fire”. In other words they keep people under cover unable to shoot back. This is why they are far less common in military usage than the M4 and the preferred setting is 3 round burst.
Scenes of someone spraying a machine gun mowing down crowds of people is the stuff of movies. Magazines, not clips that’s an inaccurate term, are too small and the rate of fire too fast to go accurately connect with much of anything effectively.
Think about the Uvalde tragedy. He had an hour. Obviously rate of fire was a complete non issue.
Even the Las Vegas shooter had time to compose his shots, the same with the Texas Tower. All of these would have been just as deadly with a plain old lever or pump action game rifle. Think about how many rapid accurate shots Lee Harvey Oswald got off with a bolt action.
It’s more about the shooter than the gun.
Thanks. Finally, someone who knows their stuff. I had heard that machine guns are less accurate than semi-automatics on account of recoil if that is the proper term. You’ll have to forgive me; I’ve never handled a gun. I guess I’m not much of a real man in your eyes.
Do you not agree that machine guns are just as harmless as semi-automatics until picked up by a bad person? That is the NRA’s chief argument to legalize all guns- people kill, not guns. Furthermore, I often hear Patriots like you exclaim that they need weapons to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. Wouldn’t you need machine guns to suppress the fire of a military of a tyrannical government?
No you’re not. You’re a troll.
From what I’ve read so far, all you do is smear and insult.
Everyone who disagrees with you is a ‘Trumpist’
You deserve nether respect, nor the time it takes to write anything but ram it right back in your face.
Miles,
You are new around here. So you don’t know that I have explained several times that “Trumpist” is not a pejorative. Instead of saying, “Trump follower” or “a person who believes the election was stolen,” I say “Trumpist” instead for short. You may call me a “NeverTrumper.” I won’t be offended.
Silberman, stop it already. You can’t stop insulting Turley who is your host, so nothing else need be said to prove yourself a jerk
I am still waiting for anybody here to defend the laws democrats are wanting to enact.
I’m still waiting for someone to explain WHY fully automatic guns are treated so much differently than semi-automatics.
Does anybody know?
jeffsilberman Does anyone know? Yes, anyone who has ever shot a gun knows. Your “question” is too stupid to be given the time of day.
Giocon,
If I shoot a handgun, I’ll know why machine guns are treated differently under the 2nd Amendment than semi-automatics?
Does anybody know?
All can agree to reasonable restrictions on guns. That is why the heavy licensing passed by legislatures on automatic weapons has not been challenged.
Democrats today have no desire to reach reasonable legislative solutions. Democrats believe they have the power dismantle SCOTUS.
Retards like you keep wanting to yell and stomp your feet at the fringes of the debate. You have zero interest in logical, constitutional discussion. You are obsessed and mesmerized, with meaningless minutia, just like a toddler finger painting with his own feces. Because that is your maximum intellectual capacity.
Irrational fear and a legacy of the days of 20s Chicago mob wars.
You said it! “Irrational fear.” It is irrational to treat Tommy guns differently than AR-15’s! People are frightened by those gangland movies. Tell me, if AR-15’s with large magazines were around in those days, would the hitmen still have preferred the machine gun? Which do you prefer?
Mr. Silberman,
The reason that machine guns aren’t widely used today is because of legislation throughout the last century which:
1) Imposed an, at that time exorbitant, tax of $200.00 for obtaining a fully automatic weapon, short barreled rifle or shotgun, or a suppressor/silencer. This tax is now, while unconstitutional, much more affordable to the average gun owner. As a result, more people are obtaining and legally owning SBR’s and silencers now than before the legislation was enacted.
2) Banned the production and importation of fully automatic weapons for use by civilians. Now, if you want to own a machine gun legally, the cost is so high on these weapons due to their scarce availability. Without that law, you’d see many more people with fully automatic weapons.
Turley says:
“most civilians cannot own an automatic weapon.”
Why the hell not? I thought the argument is that guns don’t kill people, people do. So why aren’t machine guns legally available to all citizens? Will someone explain this to me?
Jeff, machine guns are available for civilians. The only obstacle to owning one is cost and the requirement that you register and get a license from the ATF.
A fully automatic machine gun will cost you ar least $10,000 on the low end.
They are also rare in civilian hands, but they are not illegal. The fact that they require registration and the high cost makes them extremely hard to get for the average Joe. That’s why you don’t see them being used in mass shootings.
The last time they were used in a mass shooting I think was in L.A.
Svelaz,
They are not banned in any state? Upon whom does one have to perform fellatio in order to get a license? Seriously, what are the requirements to get registered? You have to be in law enforcement? Why are they so expensive? Is it because the gun manufacturers know that gun owners will pay an arm and a leg in order to have bragging rights?
I am shocked that gun advocates do not demand that machine guns are as available as semi-automatics. After all, they claim that if you restrict good people getting arms, then only bad people will get their hands on them. Why are they not worried that a criminal will bring a Tommy gun to a gun fight?
Machine guns are completely banned in 13 states.
Why?
You are on a computer to post your inanities. Type ‘google’ in the address bar. Go there, type a question. The world is at your fingertips.
5th graders know how to accomplish this simple process.
Yet again renewing you position blog of Retard.
You don’t know either. Ok.
The only way to learn. If that is a goal. Is to research.
Your goal is to ruin the discussion. Because that is the perfect example of the behavior of a retard.
Ask the legislatures of those states. The point is that machine guns are not protected by the second amendment, as I have said before. You may not like the way the Supreme Court has interpreted it, but that is the current law.
I am asking gun advocates why they are not fighting to get machine guns made as readily available as semi-automatics.
1. Machine guns are just as inanimate and harmless as any other weapon until picked up by a bad person.
2. If you restrict machine guns from the hands of good people, only criminals will get them.
3. The people need machine guns in order to fight off a tyrannical government.
It makes no sense that gun owners are letting the government deprive them of the weapons of their choice.
jeffsilberman: There is no blanket federal ban on civilians owning full-auto firearms (machine and sub-submachine guns) , but as someone has said here, some states do ban civilian ownership. In a nutshell, full-autos registered with the federal government before May 1986 may be bought, owned and sold by civilians, but the process involves filling out forms, fingerprint, the federal government and local law enforcement, When I bought a full-auto in 2012, the process took about 6 months, but now, I am hearing it can take up to a year.
This is my understanding as well.
Ok, but how does the state justify the extra forms and safeguards? Are machine guns that much more lethal than semi-automatics? Given the same amount of ammunition for each, how many more people can a machine gun kill than a semi-automatic, say, in a school house? And why does the killing power matter? Aren’t AR-15’s much more lethal than a handgun? I assume that gun advocates would prefer the option of fully automatics over mere semi-automatics.
Usually you pay the ATF a fee usually a couple of hundred dollars for a special license to obtain a fully automatic weapon. It HAS to be registered and it only applies to weapons prior a certain year. It’s completely legal to purchase a fully automatic weapon. But one can expect to pay anywhere from $10,000-$30,000 for one. They are expensive because there are so few and are vintage weapons. AR’s are so plentiful and cheap because they are literally everywhere.
Gun supporters wouldn’t want easy access to such powerful weapons because it serves only one purpose. To kill on a mass scale and police would be extremely vulnerable to such overwhelming firepower.
Svelaz,
So you can’t buy a new machine gun. I see. When you say “powerful,” do you mean more lethal? You don’t buy the NRA argument that machine guns are just as harmless as any other weapon until picked up by a bad person?
No machine gun made after 1986 can be registered, with a few narrow exceptions not relevant here. Only previously registered machine guns made before then can be owned and transferred.
Considering how cheap home CNC machines have become and how readily available plans are online to make your own why aren’t people making them enmasse? Its because most realize they are an ineffective waste of good ammo..
Making your own fully automatic gun is that easy nowadays? So only show-offs sport fully automatic guns? It’s just for Hollywood movies?
There is a lock down of information coming out of Uvalde TX. Murmurs are starting that the shooter was well known to all concerned before he bought the guns….on credit with little to nothing as down payment. I’m fine with requiring gun sales have to come from cash accounts, like gambling. Gun laws are too often
But what is emerging across the entire swath of government, is a necrotizing stupidity.
Law makers think they can write laws that ignore simple incentives and then scramble to fix a problem they created.
The school shooters seem to be males without fathers in the home. Federal govt welfare offerings incentivize the breakup of family and Uncle Sam there to provide, food, shelter, utilities. all the necessities of life. Except the necessity of two parents, one, male, one female.
Now instead of going back to fix the real problem, they instead are going to strip all people of their enumerated rights.
Huh, several Appeals Courts have upheld bans on “AW’S) since Heller. But I suppose that is defensible, because Heller did not clearly say what weapons are constitutionally protected. It appears though, that there are two standards, one advanced by Justice Thomas and others, which is, weapons commonly owned for lawful purposes are protected and United States v. Miller seems to suggest that if a weapon is suitable for militia purpose, then it is protected.
Steve:
The Amendment says “arms” not “muskets” and its history includes cannon, war ships, machine guns etc.
I believe the 9th Circuit recently held unconstitutional a state law raising the age to 21 for the purchase of a semi-automatic rifle. Common use for a lawful purpose appears to be the main part of the current standard. The widespread ownership of semi-automatic rifles for self defence and other lawful purposes would appear to protect them. That having been said, it’s hard for me to see how raising the legal age for them to 21 would violate the constitution. Even in Texas, that is the age limit for handguns.
Daniel,
We should not be raising the age of gun ownership. We must LOWER it. I keep hearing that the only way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun. One armed security guard at every school is not enough to deter a mass murderer with an AR-15. Archie Bunker had the right idea 50 years ago:
https://youtu.be/-lDb0Dn8OXE
If we could arm and train all the students, the school would no longer be a soft target, I’ll tell you what.
End of problem.
In all seriousness if you are a household with firearms for everyone’s sake you are obligated to educate your children about the safe use and most importantly the responsibility that comes with guns. I live in an area where many kids are given their 1st gun at age 12 to hunt and target shoot. I was given a shotgun at that age and told my job was to help protect the home from then on. There are many models sold that are scaled down in size to make them easier and safer to handle at that age.
Really it’s the same reason many families serve wine with dinner to kids much younger than 21 to teach responsible use and to demystify it before they learn bad habits from others.
Ok. I understand. That’s your culture. I grew up in the city, but I used to watch the Beverly Hillbillies as a kid so I am not completely unfamiliar where you are coming from. So, you subscribe to the NRA’s argument that the only way to stop a bad man with a gun is a well-trained good man with a gun. Is it legal for a parent to gun train their offspring at ANY age? I presume kids can handle a gun as soon as they are able to hold one, but there must be laws that prohibit their having one absent parental supervision. Or do you keep guns laying about your house?
It is the job of the president to inject hype and politics into gun debates. Also, their is no textual or historical evidence that the 2A protects and individual right to a gun. That is a Republican lie.
It is the job of the president to inject hype and politics into gun debates.
President Trump could not be reached for comment.
Sammy:
Well let me tell you about Alfred the Great, the Glorious Revolution, Heller et als. So typical of a Dim, wrong again and brazenly so.
Or you can read this, too, if you can read above a high school level:
https://jonathanturley.org/2011/01/16/their-rights-as-englishmen-a-brief-history-of-the-second-amendment-part-i/
Excellent article, mespo727272 !! I looked all over for a Part II, but couldn’t find it — can you give me a pointer to it? Many thanks, and I read some other of your weekend contributor articles as well — all primo stuff!!
“[T]heir [sic] is no textual or historical evidence that the 2A protects and individual right to a gun.”
Except for the historical fact that the entire Constitution was written to protect individual rights — and to limit *government* action.
The Constitution did not originally touch individual rights at all. That is another Republican lie. It was not till the Bill of Rights that individual rights were addressed.
Without which the Constitution would never have been adopted.
Read your history. One of the arguments against a Bill of Rights was that they were implicit in the Constitution.
Sammy I know you’re just a troll, but others are interested in learning
The BoR was added as an incentive for the people to ratify they Constitution and form the United States. The BoR protected individual people from the government.
“The Constitution did not originally touch individual rights at all.”
Such a view reveals a glaring ignorance of U.S. history and of the Founders’ political philosophy.
The entire Constitution — with its brilliant three-branch structure and its focus on “checks and balances” — was designed to protect the *individual* from government usurping rights. Individualism and individual rights is what animated the Founders, from the first capital letter to the final period.
Um, Sam, the founders also had an innate fear of would-be autocrats like Trump for example.
“It is the job of the president to inject hype . . .”
We are ruled by a gaggle of demagogues. A gaggle is good for geese; not so much for humans.
There was a news clip, showing debate in the house. On member said he wanted to ban all guns, and if SCOTUS overturns the law, he said Congress will dismantle
The Supreme Court so the right things can be done.
It takes a special kind of stupid to be a Democrat.
Mondaire “Nothing will stop us” Jones
After that deranged “come on, man” speech last night by POTUS coupled by the deranged cheerleading of that dimwit, Mondaire “Nothing will stop us” Jones, I’m feeling pretty good about gun control dying a quick death and bolstering the GOP’s chances in November. People are seeing the Dims as the power grabbing fools they are. Release criminals, defund the cops and then take our guns. Yeah, sure. Like someone on Twitter said: you arm your friends, you disarm your enemies. We know where we stand with these Dims. “You say you want a revolution ….”
It’s a safe bet that 99% of the Civil War re-enactors are Trumpists. I just hope I live long enough to witness your insurrection put down again. I would enjoy that very much.
Oh, don’t worry I’ll be marching in the victory parade. The arc of the moral universe stuff ya know.
Since I’m already banned for some reason from commenting (apparently I made too much sense) I’m just going to go ahead and say what nobody else is going to say which is that we already know that the FBI organized the Vegas shootings. They gave the guy weapons and transportation. We know that they organized the plot against Whitmer and we know that they organized much of the Jan 6 protests. But we’re supposed to believe that all these other mass shootings just “happened.” I think history will reveal that these things happened because somebody wanted them to happen and paid for them to happen with specific goals in mind i.e. stripping Americans of their rights one by one. By the time the “gee ain’t it awful” people wake up and realize that all of this is deliberate and has been for many years it will be far too late to do anyone any good.
Yep. You’re a Trumpist.
JS:
Like that’s a bad thing? Send me a T-shirt.
Mespo,
You agree with this Trumpist who says:
“I’m just going to go ahead and say what nobody else is going to say which is that we already know that the FBI organized the Vegas shootings.”
Well, do you?
Guess you’re selectively reading today. Try again.
When you have nothing call someone a name, eh?
Are actually implying that calling someone a “Trumpist” is name-calling? I define a “Trumpist” as a “follower of Trump.” I employ the word as a shorthand. It is not meant to be a pejorative like Mespo’s use of “Dimocrats,” for example.
Now do you define the n word?
You mean “nagger”?
Try again. It’s shorthand, just like your word for anyone who might have opposite ideas to Joe Biden.
Not sure about all your “facts” but it’s true that when you are dealing with traitors and seditionists there are no coincidences.
Govy would never do that. Oh wait a minute. DOD’s Operation Northwoods, the US government’s plan to commit terrorist acts against its citizens and blame it on the communists;
https://historyofyesterday.com/operation-northwoods-the-us-governments-plan-to-kill-its-own-citizens-3dabbc5858de
Dems aren’t stupid (contrary to all the evidence).
They are engaged in a cynical attempt to boost their power at the expense of the Constitution.
Ugly people.