Biden’s Inner Trudeau: On Guns, the President seems to be Operating Under the Wrong Constitution

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.


357 thoughts on “Biden’s Inner Trudeau: On Guns, the President seems to be Operating Under the Wrong Constitution”

  1. If you want the war to stop, and if we have a pretty good idea of where Putin is, there should be a barrage of missiles fired at his location. I wouldn’t be too worried about retaliation. There would be no leadership left to order a counter-strike. That’s the whole point of a decapitation strike. But if you want the war to continue, then don’t.

  2. Why does Mespo make assertions without explaining them or elaborating on them? Why does he just poo-poo and tut-tut, and leave it at that? What great debate skills are these? Here is the Wikipedia article on ipse dixit

    Ipse dixit is a Latin phrase coined by Cicero meaning “he said it himself”, an assertion without proof, or a dogmatic expression of opinion

    1. Aninny:

      “Why does Mespo make assertions without explaining them or elaborating on them? Why does he just poo-poo and tut-tut, and leave it at that? What great debate skills are these? Here is the Wikipedia article on ipse dixit.”
      Sorry, I just assumed The War in Dombas was history known to people who try to talk about Russio-Ukraine relations. My bad. You want UN data or International press articles. I also have think tank data suggesting 14,000 deaths. Just let me know Ipsy. The Dixit in your case is assumed.

  3. Russia accused Ukraine of killing a civliian.
    Ha !
    What a joke!
    Since when are Russians concerned about the lives of civilians?
    Russia also accuses Germany of militarization.
    AS IF!
    Taking something out of context is a fallacy, and as soon as someone makes a fallacy, they have already lost the argument.
    Who are they trying to kid?
    Who is the target audience of their propaganda?
    Russia needs to take the lumber yard out of its own eye before
    pointing at the splinter in Ukraine’s and Germany’s eye.

    1. So both are bad but Russia is worse. Utter nonsense, stunning naïveté and internally inconsistent thoughts – the trifecta of stupid argument. Bravo, it’s hard to get all three.

      1. I’ve been a frequent visitor to Moldova. It is no threat to Russia and militarily neutral by virtue of its Constitution. The ethnic Russians there are not being persecuted. Yet, if Russia takes Odessa, it will be a cakewalk to overrun Moldova too.

        1. You should have thought of that when you voted for Obama Biden the first time and you should have learned by the time you voted for Biden the second time.

  4. Jonathan: Having made my obligatory comment re gun control I can now move to my favorite subject–Elon Musk. One of your ardent followers thinks I am a “blowhard” for writing about Musk so much. I’ve been called worse. The reason I comment about the owner of Tesla and Space X is because you wrote glowingly about Musk’s offer to buy Twitter. You claimed the mercurial richest man in the world would bring “free speech” back to the social media giant. Many of your followers agreed I dissented then. I tried to make the case that Musk wants to buy Twitter, not to promote “free speech”, but to promote his ideas to the exclusion of others that might disagree with him. He wants to control the dialogue. Musk has already taken steps to ban those who criticize him on his own account. Since Musk made his original offer to buy Twitter you have said nothing about Musk. My role is to keep everyone up to date on Musk’s musings that resemble more and more those of Donald Trump when he was on Twitter–petty personal grievances, insults and revenge against anyone who criticized him. Here’s the latest.

    Musk just tweeted about Mackenzie Scott, an author and philanthropist. For those not familiar Scott is Jeff Bezos’ ex. She walked away with billions! She has given away more than $12 billion to non-profits–helping children, women, minorities, refugees, rural health access, etc. Not a big priority for Musk. He said in his tweet he is now voting Republican because “the Dems turned negative over the past 12 months. At least part of it is Mackenzie’s donation to PACs posing as charities”. And: “It’s safe to say that Mackenzie [ahem] Scott is not exactly a big fan of her ex-husband”. Musk believes, without any evidence, that Scott’s philanthropy is focused on non-profits critical of him and Bezos.

    Musk is embarrassed by Scott’s philanthropy because his is almost non-existent. Now you would think the richest man in the world would give a lot to charity like Bill and Melinda Gates. You would be wrong. Fortune magazine has pointed out that a recent regulatory filing disclosed Musk has earmarked $5.7 billion worth of his Tesla shares for “charity”. But Fortune says it is “possible Musk hasn’t yet given away a single cent of his largesse”. Some of the largest non-profits that focus on social justice and economic issues indicate they have received nothing from Musk. Probably with good reason. Musk isn’t concerned with income inequality. He doesn’t identify with women’s issues. He disparages women. He doesn’t like Black people much either. For years he has permitted overt racism at his Tesla plant in California. He treats all his Tesla workers with disdain. He tells them working at home is not an option. He is even laying off 10% of the Tesla workforce because the luster of his brand is wearing off. Other big auto makers are ramping up production of electric cars to compete with Tesla. Now that Musk has so many economic and regulatory problems in buying Twitter he doesn’t have time for “charity”. He needs all those $5.7 billion in Tesla shares if he wants to consummate the deal–that more and more is looking problematic. Musk is the darling of the right. But he is becoming an embarrassment. That’s probably the reason you have had nothing to say recently about the guy you thought would ride in on his white horse and save Twitter. You made a bet on the wrong horse!

  5. “This administration is hell bent on destroying our economy, our borders, our crime-infested cities, our police, our right to self-defense, and our energy independence. How could any rational person not see this catastrophe in the making?” @RealJamesWoods

    Talking to you Silberman, Nuthatch, Denny, Fishy, et al.

  6. Once upon a time, Republicans and conservatives were all gung-ho about nuking Russia. What changed?

    1. The Great Political Realignment is happening. Bye bye, adios, hasta luego Democrat Commie Party.

    2. They never were. Just some war dog psychos like the Dims of today. But at least those historical nuts had America as the focus not some former Russian province.

      1. Mespo,

        You sound like a “Putinoid” which is the name Fox host Mark Levin calls those who don’t support Ukraine’s fight for freedom. Levin will not name names, e.g., his Fox colleagues Carlson and Ingraham, but those are the ones to whom he is referring among others.

        1. JS:
          Fight for freedom? Oh please it’s a civil war that Russia stumbled into like France did in our Revolutionary War. Your heroes have been mercilessly bombing and shelling men, women and kids in eastern Ukraine for years but the Lefts compassion somehow failed them there. Now when their boogeyman came in there and whacked the whackers (and the Lefts bagman) nuclear war is the answer. Such historical illiterates these Lefties. PS: Levin’s a shrill clown who gets it right only sometimes. Not a fan.

            1. DB:
              I’m happy to discuss Ukraine at length. My guess is you know nothing judging from your blanket nonsense. Truth is that ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine provinces who “yearn to be free” have been under seige since the First Minsk Agreement was signed. Dombas residents suffered about 10,000 deaths at the hands of fellow Ukrainians in 8 years. Russia intervened to stop it. We deposed the duly elected government of Ukraine that was pro-Russian claiming it was corrupt. Sorry them’s the facts.

              1. Mespo,

                Just to determine where you stand, is there anything that Putin has done in Ukraine that is the least bit untoward?

                1. JS:
                  I dunno. We’ll have to see later. Right now everything is propaganda.

                  1. Mespo,

                    Can you at least concede that Zelensky is not a Nazi trying to exterminate Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the Donbas? Or is that Ukrainian propaganda putting words in Putin’s mouth?

                    1. JS:
                      Zelensky is not a Nazi, he just tolerates them in his army. Not sure there’s a big difference, though. What he really is is a geopolitical loser who will oversee his country’s partition because he refused to protect ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine or dispel talk of NATO membership. The war is over already and Russia isn’t going anywhere. Zelensky ought to realize that and sue for peace.

                  2. You don’t hold Putin accountable for the war crimes in Ukraine? That is Ukrainian propaganda as Russia insists?

                    1. Jeff: This is more a conflict of power than a conflict of individuals. Since you like literature refresh your memory with The Charge of the Light Brigades. (UK+France with turkey v. Russia)

              2. mespo*, yours starting from “Truth is…” is straight from Russian propaganda. In particular, the “10,000 deaths” were caused by indiscriminate shelling by the insurrectionists and the Russian so-called volunteers.

          1. Mespo says:

            “Levin’s a shrill clown who gets it right only sometimes.”

            If only Turley were as honest as you to acknowledge that his Fox colleague is a rage provocateur. Sadly, he is a sell-out.

  7. Republicans need to do this, then wait for Dem response:
    Agree to a ban on all the assault weapons used in the J6 Capitol riot.
    After they prosecute Hunter Biden’s gun crimes.

  8. Perfect response to President Biden’s proposed gun grab:

    ‘Your crackhead son lied on a federal background check form so he could illegally buy a gun.

    I don’t want to hear a word from you on gun laws until your deadbeat, crackhead, porn-addled gun criminal son Hunter is behind bars’ ~sean davis.

  9. ‘All new gun legislation should be an absolute nonstarter until Hunter Biden is fully prosecuted for violating existing gun laws. It’s not just about stripping corrupt privilege from the Ruling Class. It’s about demonstrating that the laws on the books will finally be enforced.’ ~john hayward

    1. Every country has one and that’s “AD” not the PC “CE.”

      1. Some antiChristian “intellectuals” decided over tea and crumpets that the obtuse term “common era” should replace “ammo domini” for you know reasons. Naturally, the mortar board herd at our woke universities followed suit to be ever so sensitive.

        1. I notice the retard troll is contributing at the peak of his intellectual capabilty. I would love to have a discussion about the CE invention.

          1. Means you’d have to drag your remedial butt to this century.


        2. William Safire’s article in the NYT. By the way are you related to a John Esposito who had something to say about the change? He lives 2-3 hours from your present location.

          I doubt you are and it might not make you happy if you were.

    2. “CE” stands for Common Era. Scientists use this in preference AD to avoid the religious reference. The anthropologists and archaeologists started this convention to avoid pointless contention.

      1. David,

        I knew that. I was joking when I said “CE” meant “Close Enough”

      2. “’CE’ stands for Common Era. Scientists use this in preference AD to avoid the religious reference.”

        I sincerely do not understand what is accomplished by switching from “AD” to “CE.” They both start with the same, approximate event: the birth of Christ. CE was also associated with “Christian Era.” (It’s first known use is traced to Kepler.) But the more important point is that “AD” long ago was shorn of its religious connotation, and became a notation for historical dating.

        1. Sam, I believe that one of the arguments was that many spent time on “religious argument”, which is probably true.. I think a lot of that might have come from special interests that thrive on discord. Arguments were made by many particularly from one John Esposito from Georgetown, (no relationship to anyone on the blog). John Esposito is a Muslim apologist. I can only think of the time frame in relation to Safire’s column and the WTC.

        2. An erudite and reasonable analysis. Unfortunately, the world apparently does not run on “reason”…

          1. “. . . anthropologists and archaeologists work in regions . . .”

            When I study ancient Greek texts, I need to know their system of dating (e.g., the Attic calendar). And in communicating with other *specialists*, I might refer to that system. However, in communicating with the general public, the onus is on me to translate that system to the perfectly rational one in widespread use: BC and AD.

            With respect, some are seeing giant green spiders, where none exist.

            1. Sam, to properly place the events that occurred when that “Attic” dating system was used, one also needs the dating system of at least the Persian empires and the Egyptians as well. So a common dating system was found quite helpful.

              But in the earlier days, and maybe still, archaeologists on the Arabic Peninsula need to avoid any hint or mention of Christianity, hmmm?

              Etc ad nauseam…

  10. The ONLY way to change the 2nd Amendment is written in the Constitution. (Constitutional Conventional), legally that is. Are the opposing parties willing to test the issue with the populus?

    1. Actually the first ten amendments are natural rights that cannot be taken from us, therefore, you cannot change the 2nd. Try it, but we freemen would still have the right to arm ourselves.

  11. Remember a few years ago when religious leaders met in the White House to discuss gun violence?

    From an article written by Lois Beckett

    McBride supported universal background checks. He supported an assault weapons ban. But he also wanted something else: a national push to save the lives of black men. In 2012, 90 people were killed in shootings like the ones in Newtown and Aurora, Colorado. That same year, nearly 6,000 black men were murdered with guns.

    Many people viewed inner-city shootings as an intractable problem. But for two years, McBride had been spreading awareness about Ceasefire, a nearly two-decades-old strategy that had upended how police departments dealt with gang violence. Under Ceasefire, police teamed up with community leaders to identify the young men most at risk of shooting someone or being shot, talked to them directly about the risks they faced, offered them support, and promised a tough crackdown on the groups that continued shooting. In Boston, the city that developed Ceasefire, the average monthly number of youth homicides dropped by 63 percent in the two years after it was launched. The U.S. Department of Justice’s “what works” website for crime policy had a green check mark next to Ceasefire, labeling it “effective” — the highest rating and one few programs received.

    (emphasis added)

    Later, other ministers who worked with McBride would get an even blunter assessment from a White House staffer: There was no political will in the country to address inner-city violence.

    (emphasis added)

    But his plan included no money for the urban violence strategies his Justice Department described as effective. His platform didn’t refer to them at all.

    So there was a program proven to reduce violent crime by more than half, and it is being ignored.

    This is deliberate.

    1. It is deliberate but calling it something it isn’t won’t help. This is not an “inner city” problem. It’s a black culture problem. Illegitimacy, lack of male leadership, lack of family emphasis on education and poverty are the problems. It wasn’t always this way but the stupid, feel good liberal policies of the 60s destroyed black institutions and primarily black families. We could go on all day about bandaid solutions but until black fathers start controlling black sons nothing will change.

  12. First, there were existing laws, rules, and safety recommendations that, if followed, would have prevented the massacre of innocent lambs at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde.

    The shooter should have had a mental health record that would have flagged his background check.

    The school should have gone on lockdown when the first shots were fired outside.

    Outside doors should ALWAYS be locked.

    Doors to classrooms should ALWAYS be locked. Kids should knock on the door to be let back in after using the restroom.

    As a mother, I can’t get over that a simple locked door could have saved 17 children, and their 2 teachers. People want to go after the gun used, when the stupid door wasn’t even locked???

    One should also compare the press briefing the day after the Tulsa shooting at St Francis. We were given an exact and accurate timeline of events and the response. In comparison, the police chief of Uvalde has refused to release explanations or details until after the burials and mourning have occurred. That sounds like CYOA. The Texas DPS director was at direct odds with the local law enforcement.

    If there is any lesson learned, besides LOCK THE DOOR, it should be that police across the country need to be thoroughly trained in active shooter situations. Rural areas might be more at risk of inadequate training and lengthy response times.

    Further, schools across the country should analyze the findings of the Stoneman Douglass Safety Commission. ( This committee was formed from a diverse group of law enforcement, educators, parents, and other members of the community, to bring different viewpoints. The physical structure, security, access points, and a minute timeline of the tragic mass murder at Stoneman Douglass was reviewed, with recommendations given how to prevent similar attacks. AND YET, years later, a school neglected to lock its doors upon hearing gunshots nearby, and the local police force erroneously treated the situation as a barricade suspect with hostages, rather than a mass murderer active shooter who was still near live little victims.

    To the Left, the only problem they will acknowledge is guns, which is the nail, and gun control is their hammer. That maniac could have walked in there through the unlocked door with a machete, acid, blow darts, and all manner of weapons.

    While Democrats cannot understand why anyone would want to own a gun, I cannot understand this persistent fight to prevent trained, armed security from being right there on the spot in the event of a threat against students. They’d rather wait to call 911, then wait for them to arrive, assess the situation, set up a perimeter, request backup, than have someone right there at hand? I don’t get it. For those who live in safe neighborhoods who seem to think cops can teleport to them in an emergency, OK, but there are politicians who have armed security who would deny similar protection to our nation’s children. Those children are mandated to be in school, if not homeschooled. It would appear that the State, then, has a duty to protect its captive audience.

    From the legislative perspective, I would like to see equal funding for all American schools with regards to safety. Rural schools should not be less secure than schools in wealthy areas.

    Final thoughts: LOCK THE DOOR. Check with your local schools. Do they keep classrooms locked at all time?

    1. Karen says:

      “In comparison, the police chief of Uvalde has refused to release explanations or details until after the burials and mourning have occurred. That sounds like CYOA. The Texas DPS director was at direct odds with the local law enforcement.”

      Texas is a Republican controlled state, what do you expect but lies?

      Karen says:

      “To the Left, the only problem they will acknowledge is guns, which is the nail, and gun control is their hammer. That maniac could have walked in there through the unlocked door with a machete, acid, blow darts, and all manner of weapons.”

      Exactly. The maniac could have had a full automatic weapon. It makes no different what kind of gun he used. They all kill. Maniacs kill people, not machine guns.

      Karen says:

      “From the legislative perspective, I would like to see equal funding for all American schools with regards to safety. Rural schools should not be less secure than schools in wealthy areas.”

      Sure, as long we don’t raise taxes. I’m not a gun owner, and I’m not paying for the consequences of gun violence. Tax ammunition to pay for the hardening of all schools.

      1. Jeff:

        Please explain your connection between the failure of the local police chief, and the politics of the state?

        By your logic, Oklahoma is a red state. Hence, the timely and accurate report by the police chief must be due to the Republican control of the state?

        Politics affect state and local policies. It is illogical to judge an individual’s actions based on the politics of an entire state.

        1. Karen:

          “Please explain your connection between the failure of the local police chief, and the politics of the state?”

          The same blameworthy connection Trumpists allege between George Soros and a gangster killing another because of a drug deal gone bad.

          “By your logic, Oklahoma is a red state. Hence, the timely and accurate report by the police chief must be due to the Republican control of the state?

          It is the same logic Trumpists use to hold Democratic state politicians responsible all the problems in poverty stricken urban areas.

          “Politics affect state and local policies. It is illogical to judge an individual’s actions based on the politics of an entire state.”

          How often do Trumpists blame Biden for everything wrong in this country because “it happened on his watch…”

          Your move.

          1. If I understand you, the justification for your weak minded polemic is that “Trump supporters do it”.
            Isn’t that an admission that you are no better than them? And that’s the best case.

            1. Exactly. Trumpists are no better than Liberals. In fact, they are worse.

                1. I am not political. I care only about the rule of law. Does that make me a Liberal or a Conservative? Just like Turley, I was in favor of Clinton’s impeachment, and I share his opinion of Trump as a carnival snake charmer. Does that make me a Liberal or a Conservative? You tell me.

                  1. The Liberal of today doesn’t believe in the rule of law, but he does get confused as to what Turley meant about Carnival Snake Charmers. I am sure Turley would take his wife and kids to see the snake charmer David Copperfield. Turley might even represent Trump. …Hmmm, He did.

                    All that makes you a Liberal. You don’t know what the rule of law is. The rule of law is beyond your caring. Let’s accept you as a Liberal who is ignorant where ideology is unimportant. You can take the identity of an elitist that cares only about himself.

    2. “I cannot understand this persistent fight to prevent trained, armed security from being right there on the spot in the event of a threat against students. They’d rather wait to call 911, ”

      The same reason they wish to provide entitlements and control education. Those in control want everyone dependent on the state.

    3. Karen: “Rural areas might be more at risk of inadequate training and lengthy response times.”

      I am not sure the ‘training’ is helping. They stand around following ‘protocols’ when the solution is generally to get in there fast and kill the bad guy. Better still if a teacher or administrator is armed and responds with only one protocol—kill the bad guy fast.

      Keep it simple and effective. And don’t hire idiots or cowards for your police department.

    4. Karen,
      “Doors to classrooms should ALWAYS be locked. Kids should knock on the door to be let back in after using the restroom.”

      Your concern is coming from a loving place, but it seems a bit overboard. If the main doors are locked, then the interior is fine. And, in many schools, the classroom doors can be quick-locked with powerful magnets or other means, in case an assailant has gotten in.

      Too much security and concerns about safety is bad for the soul, too.

  13. Justice Holmes says:

    “Being the darling of the right wing must mean an awful lot to you. It’s a disappointment to those of us who joined this threat when you were actually interested in the law and not pushing right wing ideology and talking points.”

    Turley is employed by Fox News. He would not have joined forces with that outfit had he not understood that he was to disparage the media competitors of his employer, CNN and MSNBC in particular. He need not be told so; he knew what was expected of him if he wanted air-time to raise his public profile. It has been reported that he is writing a book. There is no better advertising than to be able to promote your book when you make a TV appearance. Everyone does it. Turley undoubtedly has this ulterior motive in the back of his mind. That is why he is a sell-out. He does all he can to raise doubts and question the MSM narratives which undermine Fox’s false narratives. As a defense lawyer, one is often called upon to represent a loathsome client, but that’s the job, like it or not.

    1. You appear to be an unhappy, liberal beta male, Mr. Silberman.

      1. Obviously, you have never visited Southern Marin County much less lived here. I could not be happier.

        1. Oh but I have. I’ll take my little slice of Heaven in the free state of Tennessee, thank you.

          1. What Jeff is saying is that he can afford to be a liberal. He comes from a well to do family, and now lives in an area where the price of homes is very high. That means for 1-3 million he gets to live in a barn. More money and you start to live in a decent house. That is what he considers a great life style. He has money but nothing down below. He was earlier talking about Jesus wearing a gun under his loin cloth. (Jeff is crude.) Jeff wears designer clothing with the labels on the outside, but when he takes his pants off, there is nothing to see. In the Navy, you would have used Jeff as a mop. He wouldn’t be good for much else.

            1. My remark was directed at Mike Winchester USN. Thanks for your service.

  14. The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously on the constitution and this absoluteness, as well as the absoluteness of the rights in it.
    “ Time has proven the discernment of our ancestors, for even these provisions, expressed in such plain English words that it would seem the ingenuity of man could not evade them, are now, after the lapse of more than seventy years, sought to be avoided. Those great and good men foresaw that troublous times would arise when rulers and people would become restive under restraint, and seek by sharp and decisive measures to accomplish ends deemed just and proper, and that the principles of constitutional liberty would be in peril unless established by irrepealable law. The history of the world had taught them that what was done in the past might be attempted in the future. The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times {121} and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government.“

    The further states:
    “ Not one of these safeguards can the President or Congress or the Judiciary disturb, except the one concerning the writ of habeas corpus.“

    — Ex Parte Milligan The Supreme Court of the United States 1866 —

  15. For example, despite being repeatedly corrected, President Biden continues to repeat the same false statements about…

    Yeah, well, Americans are still waiting for Jim Acosta, Anderson Cooper, Rachel Maddox, and the rest of the “fact checkers” to denounce Hillary’s misinformation which led them to spread misinformation when they told two friends… and they told two friends… and so on, and so on…


    1. Aw, poor Donald was victimized by Hillary. What a shame. No one ever would’ve connected Trump with Russia had Hillary not pulled such a dirty trick. Never mind that Trump went on prime time television asking for Putin’s help. We should just block that out of our heads.

      1. Progressives lie, people die. Hillary made up all the Russian Collusion crap all the while her and Billy boy were making big bucks FROM Russia.

        1. Are you going to watch the Jan 6 public hearings next week? Or are you going to stick your head in the sand?

          You want Turley to provide a daily analysis of the revelations from Trump administration insiders? Or would you prefer he ignore it altogether?

          1. are you going to watch the abortions today in San Francisco, like the good little Leftist SF locals are?

            Biden would be more amenable to guns if abortionists were shooting “blobs of tissue” in pregnant womyn, not that Im a biologist.

            “Abort them all. Those that escape abortion shall be starved.”
            DNC plank

          2. “Are you going to watch the Jan 6 public hearings next week?”

            Is Nancy Pelosi going to reveal all of her communications having to do with Jan6 and will she be releasing all the videos from the Capitol Building on Jan6?

        2. Hillary’s man Sussman walks free.

          Peter Navarro is taken off a plane, handcuffed, put in leg irons, and hauled off to a prison cell — all for maximum public humiliation.

          Joel Pollak calls it perfectly: “A gross abuse of power by a discredited agency, acting unlawfully at the behest of an illegitimate committee.”

          The FBI is nothing more than Biden’s Gestapo. Every American should fear this lawless Biden regime.

          1. The system works!

            Wanna bet that Turley does NOT call the FBI “Biden’s Gestapo?” I guess that makes Turley a NeverTrumper, doesn’t it?

            1. Can you recall anyone who was charged with contempt of Congress ever handcuffed & put in leg irons before? Or does that only happen to political opponents of the corrupt ruling regime, no different from a Banana Republic.

              Remember AG Eric Holder? What happened to him? Nothing. Wasn’t even prosecuted.

  16. Turley On Gun Violence: “Nothing Can Be Done”

    When the issue is abortion, Professor Turley would have us believe that our Federalist court discovered ‘no constitutional basis’ for reproductive rights. So after 50 years, women are losing a long-established constitutional right.

    When the issue is mass shootings and gang violence, Turley would have us believe our Federalist court simply cannot find any ‘constitutional basis’ for gun restrictions. “I’m sorry folks, but nothing can be done without perverting the constitution”.

    These disingenuous declarations come with warnings about court-packing schemes. As though changing the court is just a radical pie-in-the-sky idea. Instead Turley would have us believe that mass shootings and gang violence are simply the price we pay for ‘freedom’.

    Then, to be completely disingenuous, Turley tosses in that hackneyed disclaimer that more needs to be done about ‘mental health’. This from a pundit who has devoted considerable energy to rolling-back Obama-care. Turley would have us believe Republicans are really serious about making mental healthcare cheap and accessible.

    No Republican in Congress has ever sponsored such a bill. And no one seriously expects Republicans to ever approve such a bill. Such legislation would mark a significant expansion of government that would be totally at odds with everything Republicans have ever stood for. Such a bill would be an admission that healthcare in general is good for the country and that government should play an active role.

      1. “Aninny” and “Dimocrats.” However, I am chastised by Conservatives here for name-calling because I use the shorthand “Trumpist” for a Trump supporter. No Conservative reprimands you despite Turley’s plea, “we have had a few people who simply want to foul the cyber footpath with personal name-calling, insults….”

        Be more like Turley.

        1. Turley would not care if you jumped off of the Golden Gate but we would enjoy watching to firm up our target practicing skills. Because you know if the 2A can be eliminated so can 1A

    1. “Then, to be completely disingenuous, Turley tosses in that hackneyed disclaimer that more needs to be done about ‘mental health’. This from a pundit who has devoted considerable energy to rolling-back Obama-care. “

      How has Obamacare made a significant impact on mental health? It didn’t. Why do you make up stories and chastise Turley for things he didn’t do?

      However, the left has caused a lot of mental health issues.

      1) The left refused to secure the border. Drug trafficking increased, and deaths from drug overdoses spiraled. Today it is over 100,000 deaths. That border problem is a leftist and Democrat problem.
      2) Covid: The Blue States and Biden have kept more people away from their jobs and outdoor activities. That dramatically increased mental health problems.
      3) Democrats closed schools which increased the pressures on children and obstructed their ability to interact with other children normally. Those policies increased mental health problems.
      4) Face masks may cause problems for the future since facial expression is part of communication. The youngest children that require such communication most were denied it and may face mental health difficulties later. That was pushed most significantly by Democrats.
      5) Rioting in the streets is not helpful to the mental health status of everyone. That rioting takes people who are already on the fringe and can make them into killers. The left was supportive of such rioting. Even the Democrat leaders of many large cities did little to stop it, and many gave emotional support to rioters.
      6) The rhetoric from the left confusing children about race and sex is another issue created by the left that causes mental health issues.

      One can state many more policies of the left that cause mental health issues. A healthy environment is needed to prevent many mental health problems which is something generally not provided by Democrat leadership.That can vividly be seen in urban cities like Chicago, Baltimore and Detroit.

      The Democrats talk a lot about spending money with programs like Obamacare. Democrats throw money, but the services received are diluted and misplaced. Democrats talk a good game about mental health, but are the progenitors of the ideas involved with the development of mental health problems.

    2. “Gun Violence”

      That expression, in a nutshell, is the Left’s materialism. It’s not “gun violence.” It’s criminal violence. It’s individuals with an evil code of values committing crimes. Their choice of tools is irrelevant to the cause of those crimes.

  17. Jonathan: It’s not the 2nd Amendment that stands in the way of desperately needed gun control legislation. It was the conservative majority opinion, authored by Justice Scalia, in the Heller case that opened the barn door to the explosion in gun sales–particularly the AR-15 and similar weapons. It was that tortured and erroneous interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that has led to the recent spate of mass shootings (See my previous comment of 5/31 citing retired Justice John Paul Stevens opinion piece).

    You accuse Biden and the Dems of “political posturing” over gun control. The real posturing is coming from the GOP. People like Ted Cruz and others who say what we need are more armed guards at schools and locking all the school doors except one. They even want teachers to be armed. Never mind that most teachers don’t want to carry a Glock on their hips in school rooms. The GOP doesn’t want to address the real problem–the readily availability of AR-15 style guns to anyone, including immature and impulsive teenagers who mistakenly believe such a weapon gives them power so they can avenge some perceived grievances.

    Now when it comes to “political posturing” you need look no farther then GOP Rep. Ken Buck from Oklahoma. He thinks AR-15s are needed by CO ranchers to control the raccoon population: “In rural Colorado, an AR-15 is a gun of choice for killing raccoons before they get to our chickens”. Sure. But do you need a 30 round magazine to stop a raccoon? Really? Buck has turning “political posturing” into an art form!

    No to be out done Rep, Billy Long (MO) has come up with the most ridiculous thing to blame mass shootings on besides guns: “…I go back to abortion. When we decided it was okay to murder kids in their mother’s wombs, life has no value to a lot of these folks”. Yes, folks, we should blame the problem on abortion and its supporters! Fox, your employer, has contributed to “political posturing”. Peter Doocy thinks Bidden is talking about the murder of 19 children to distract people from gas prices. Before accusing Biden of injecting “hype and politics” into the discussion of gun control you need to look in the mirror.

Comments are closed.