Within minutes of the shooting at a Minneapolis Catholic Church Mass on Wednesday, politicians and pundits were calling for new gun control measures and blaming conservatives for the deaths of the children. These are the same calls that have emerged after past shootings for everything from a ban on “assault weapons” to a total ban on all guns. What the public is not being told is the limited range of options under existing constitutional precedent.
The inconvenient fact in these interviews was that Minnesota has some of the nation’s strictest gun controls, and these weapons were acquired legally in that state by the shooter. The state has “red flag” laws and other provisions, but this was someone who did not raise “red flags” or other barriers. The state is at or near the maximal level of gun controls permitted under the Constitution. What remains are bans that would trigger greater serious constitutional challenges.
After calling for more limits, Sen. Tina Smith (D., Minn.) admitted to CNN that the guns were legally obtained in her state, but insisted that “there are only so many things that an individual state can do, because guns pour into Minneapolis and Minnesota from all other parts of the country.”
Over at MSNBC, pundits were suggesting that it may be time for an Australian-like ban and seizure of all guns. The Trace reporter Mike Spies told MSNBC’s Katy Tur that “[guns are] too powerful, even handguns too, again, that’s why in Australia … The only thing that really works, if you really wanted to bring down gun violence, was to do what Australia did and to do what many other countries in Europe do.”
The problem, of course, is that this is not Australia, and we have a Second Amendment protection of gun ownership with over 490 million guns in private hands back in 2022. In 2008, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing the Second Amendment as encompassing an individual right to bear arms. The Supreme Court further strengthened the right in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen.
Politicians know that, but continue to call for measures that would be presumptively unconstitutional. Any Australian ban would require a constitutional amendment, absent the most extreme interpretation of the Second Amendment to flip its meaning.
As I have previously written, these calls often appear entirely disconnected from the actual crime or the constitutional protections afforded gun owners, including President Biden demanding a ban on assault weapons after a shooting with a handgun. Biden and others often collectively call these guns “assault weapons,” a standard reference to such popular models as the AR-15.
The AR-15 is the most popular gun in America and the number of these guns in private hands is continuing to rise rapidly, with one AR-15 purchased in every five new firearms sales. These AR-15s clearly are not being purchased for armored deer. Many are purchased for personal and home protection; it is also popular for target shooting and hunting. Many gun owners like the AR-15 because it is modular; depending on the model, you can swap out barrels, bolts and high-capacity magazines, or add a variety of accessories. While it does more damage than a typical handgun, it is not the most powerful gun sold in terms of caliber; many guns have equal or greater caliber.
That is why laws to ban or curtail the sale of the AR-15 would likely run into constitutional barriers. Even the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit struck down a California ban on adults under 21 purchasing semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15.
After past tragedies, some of us have cautioned that there is a limited range of options for gun bans, given constitutional protections. There are also practical barriers, with roughly half a billion guns in the United States and an estimated 72 million gun owners; three out of ten Americans say they have guns. Indeed, gun ownership rose during the pandemic. When former Texas congressman and U.S. Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke declared, “Hell yes, we are going to take your AR-15,” he was widely celebrated on the left. However, even seizing that one type of gun would require the confiscation of as many as 15 million weapons.
These calls for greater gun control remain either factually ambiguous or legally dubious. For example, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe declared after an earlier shooting that it is time to “change the context of gun ownership.” It is unclear what “changing the context” means, particularly when the context is first and foremost constitutional.
While a few courts have upheld such bans in places like Illinois, it has yet to face a full review in the Supreme Court. In Barnett v. Raoul, the ruling of U.S. District Judge Stephen P. McGlynn was upheld. Notably, the appellate majority was composed of conservative Judge Frank Easterbrook and liberal Judge Diane P. Wood. Conservative judge Michael P. Brennan dissented.
The majority stressed that in Heller, the Supreme Court held, “[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” They further noted that the court has previously found that machine guns are not protected under the Second Amendment because they were not “bearable” arms under the Second Amendment.
While gun rights advocates have stressed the similarities with other clearly protected weapons, Easterbrook and Wood stressed the similarities between AR-15s and M16s:
The similarity between the AR-15 and the M16 only increases when we take into account how easy it is to modify the AR-15 by adding a “bump stock” (as the shooter in the 2017 Las Vegas event had done) or auto-sear to it, thereby making it, in essence, a fully automatic weapon. In a decision addressing a ban on bump stocks enacted by the Maryland legislature, another federal court found that bump-stock devices enable “rates of fire between 400 to 800 rounds per minute.”
In an analysis that gun rights advocates challenge, they stressed that the guns use the same ammunition and “deliver the same kinetic energy.” Yet, the kinetic energy used in AR-15s is also analogous to that of clearly protected weapons.
The ruling was challenged but a petition for certiorari in the case was denied on July 2, 2024.
In addition to calls for assault weapons bans, some like Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris have supported handgun bans. (Harris later seemed to reverse that position in her own presidential run in praising her own ownership of a 9mm handgun). President Biden suggested in the past that he might seek to ban 9mm weapons. In reference to guns that use 9mm ammunition, Biden declared, “there’s simply no rational basis for it in terms of thinking about self-protection.”It is a call that has been echoed in Canada where Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that his government is introducing legislation to “implement a national freeze on handgun ownership.” He insisted that “there is no reason anyone in Canada should need guns in their everyday lives.”
For gun owners, the political rhetoric shows the slippery slope of gun control in using vague terms to ban large categories of weapons. Many gun owners suspect that these incremental moves are indeed geared to achieve an eventual Australian-type ban and seizure.
Much of this debate has been fueled by the inaction of the Supreme Court in resolving the underlying question of the permissible range of gun control. It is possible that some justices, such as Chief Justice John Roberts, could support an assault weapons ban. However, the question is how it would define the underlying terms and how it would distinguish such ownership from other lawful weapons.
In the meantime, politicians and pundits will continue to call for “major gun reform” without addressing the constitutional limits on such action.
At the time 2A was written, militia captains exercised loose supervision over the distribution of muskets, and could disarm the habitually drunk, the immature, the senile, the mentally ill, the criminally-minded and those undergoing marital strife. It was common sense to make these informal judgments in the interest of public safety. Thus the Preamble to 2A
“A well regulated militia being necessary….”
So the Constitution does allow for a degree of grass-roots, decentralized supervision to balance rights of self-protection with the right to public safety. That balance is seriously out of kilter when a deranged, socially isolated 23-year-old misfit can purchase 3 guns legally and methodically plan and kill innocent children.
Detecting and intervening to stop these school shootings is a “needle in a haystack” problem. It requires up-close observation and interaction. The 2 question are 1) who best can given that supervisory responsibility, and 2) what conditions would make the supervision remain diligent?
One idea not mentioned by Prof. Turley is to make gun ownership by the youngest adults contingent on an older adult co-signing for the purchase. For example, those under 25 years old would require a sponsoring adult over 35. The sponsor would face liability (both criminal and civil) for any illegal use of the weapon(s). The same adult sponsor would have to co-sign for every gun purchased by their charge, preventing the unnoticed build up of an arsenal. If the sponsor lost contact, or had suspicions of being deceived, or that criminal activity was afoot, s/he could revoke the sponsorship at any time without cause, the guns would have to be placed in escrow until a new sponsor co-signed to get them back.
This approach might just stand up to Constitutional challenge, based on the fact that at the time of ratification, the 2nd Amendment allowed for militia captains to exercise common sense supervision, and because of that exercise, not every person wanting a musket was allowed to have one.
BTW, Heller defined an individual right to own a pistol for use in one’s home for self-defense. The good professor overstated its impact by omitting “pistol” and “in one’s home”. There is no general right to own and carry a firearm anywhere-anytime, as gun rights are able to be balanced with public safety under 2A per the “well regulated” qualifier.
Motor vehicle driving is not turned on like a switch at age 16, but rather goes through a “permit” phase which requires adult supervision. This is a sensible way to acculturate teens to the skills, knowhow, and responsibilities of driving.
We have a very strong, positive culture among most gun owners of safety and responsibility. Why not utilize that culture to pass along responsibilities gradually to its youngest members? Why continue a mindless (legalistic) approach where zero socialization into gun culture is allowed for lone wolf misfits?
Sorry for the chuckle on the 2nd. Yes, States might need to fight the feds one day. Good thing the confederates were stocked up. They fought their way down anyway and many fine men were lost.
The 2nd, 2A. It’s all right there. Hand to hand combat with the feds today? JFK was assassinated. 🤔
*. Your comments are all namby pamby. It’s 2A and the Civil War should be a BIG CLUE as to its meaning. On the otherhand treasonous scum Biden told the CITIZENS he HE had you outgunned.
So namby pamby blah blah which side do you think Abrego Garcia will fight? How many? Millions, you stupid SOBs.
Which swide and mwaybe we could swine some oafs? Swum mental health swervices.
pbinca stopped to proudly display her lack of understanding of the Second Amendment and logical thought:
Thus the Preamble to 2A “A well regulated militia being necessary….”
pbinca, you poor dear: at the time that was written ‘well regulated’ meant well equipped – NOT tied down with bureaucratic regulations, bylaws, pointless red tape, etc. Are you embarrassed for yourself yet
But wait! The display of your ignorance of the Second Amendment and rational thought got even worse!
One idea not mentioned by Prof. Turley is to make gun ownership by the youngest adults contingent on an older adult co-signing for the purchase. For example, those under 25 years old would require a sponsoring adult over 35.
You never got past the preamble to the Second Amendment that you mentioned? Attention span so limited you never got to the part that reads SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED – like a requirement to first be 25, and then in addition require a sponsor?
Under your idea of what the Second Amendment should allow with your latest California bred infringements, most of the soldiers in both the Revolutionary War and in WWII would have been considered too juvenile to be allowed to own firearms – under 25. Old enough to volunteer to fight and perhaps die for their country – but too young for pbinca and her fellow Democrats to trust them to own firearms under the Second Amendment.
Here’s a different idea: make firearms possession a felony for young adult males under age 25 in the inner cities of large cities run by Democrats. Now THAT would be more likely to have an affect on the murder rate in the USA.
Tired of the ‘assault weapon’ rhetoric, which is intentional obfuscation (read: lying to people’s faces). Indeed, much higher caliber guns are available and an AR-15 is a pea shooter by comparison. It’s the Derringer of rifles but for perhaps a .22 or BB gun, and many pistols are also semi-automatic. This is likely not news to anyone here. The vast, vast majority of these weapons that have been legally acquired stay locked in safes but for target practice.
This kid was spectacularly effed up, it appears his mother was well-aware and possibly enabling, and anytime ‘gun control’ comes up you can bet it it’s a deflection because something is going wrong for the left or there is something incriminating they do not want us to know about or acknowledge (such as the fact that the shooter deeply regretted transitioning). It’s getting pretty old, and it’s despicable.
Blame the mother?
Will, if you don’t know. She is NO where to be found.
And all lawyered up, apparently. The very first thing that loving, grieving parents typically think of… [sarcasm off]
And the State of Minnesota. Tim Walz too.
@Anonmous
If the person in question was a minor at the time things started getting screwy, and the mother condoned it, then to an extent, yes. We’ve had some olympic level bad parenting over the past 30 years, and it was/is bound to have repercussions.
“Tired of the ‘assault weapon’ rhetoric, which is intentional obfuscation”
You aren’t lying. How many self-styled “experts” expounding on the subject of firearms violence even know that the “AR” in “AR-15” does not refer to “assault rifle” but to Armalite, the company that developed that named firearm: a convenient, small-caliber, semi-automatic, center-fire rifle for CIVILIAN use in the mid 1950s? When the US Army wanted an infantry weapon to standardize on to replace the M1 Garand in the mid-1960s, they adopted several features from the AR-15 into the M16 (adding a fully automatic mode, among other changes), which became the new standard. Turley himself did nothing to clarify the terms in his column, I don’t know if that was out of ignorance or a desire for brevity, but it is unfortunate, regardless of the reason. As a result, the column does nothing to clarify the issues in terms of either practicality or Constitutionality.
@Anonymous
Yup. Tell us you know nothing about firearms without telling us, MSM (though I think they know perfectly well they are lying; their comfort level with that is more troubling than anything they actually say). I am by no means an expert marksman or sharpshooter but come on; I am ‘trained’, at least, and I’m familiar with firearms. We used to think understanding and familiarity were the cure for ignorant fear, let alone personal responsibility. No longer, apparently. Really: the AR-15 is basically a nothing gun, even if it is ‘modular’ (so is literally every other gun, with expertise). Certainly not when people acquire things like AKs illegally. Even an ancient Thompson gun outclasses it in terms of lethality. But what are you gonna do? These are people that have never even ordered their own coffee or bought their own snacks. Those of us with lineage and knowledge will hold the line.
Another thing these fools fail to realize: the whole point of a gun is that in training you hopefully never have to use it. Thugs do not obey that rule. One of the first things I was taught is that you don’t even point it at something you don’t actually intend to shoot, so if one is pointing a gun at something, the threat level has already been assessed. That brings the mental illness back in, and we refuse to readdress it; it’s something we used to openly talk about, and now apologize for.
Screw these people that were born and/or raised during the Obama years- this did not used to be the world. Was not a constant, it was a 16 year blip, just a temporary and insane interference they had the bad luck to be born and or raised under. Enforcing the law is not a ‘new’ normal, just normal, and that got lost for awhile. It’s coming back, and it will continue to. Likely with great ardor, going forward.
I understand why the good professor did not address the obvious mental health issues this guy had. He is addressing the Constitutional aspect of it.
However, as others have noted, it most definitely was not a gun issue but the mental health issue. Would of it be good if “red flag” laws could stop this kind of tragic incident? Yes. But no law I know of can look into the heart of another and see what darkness may or may not lay there.
Also of note, Minnesota governor Tim Walz provided funding for additional security for public schools but not for private schools. He made them soft targets.
Minnesota’s school security failure and pathway to radicalization probed after shooting
“Failed vice-presidential candidate and current Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz refused to extend school security funding to private schools despite repeated pleas from Catholic bishops for years.”
https://justthenews.com/nation/crime/school-security-failure-radicalization-pathway-under-scrutiny-after-minnesota-shooting
mental health evaluation laws, when effectively enforced, are literally designed to look into the mind of another (which is really what you meant).
Seems they failed in this case and in others.
Firearms are just a means to commit a crime. A crime, in order to be committed needs motivation and opportunity.
This recent tragedy has stirred up a lot of perspectives. Some people want to talk about guns, some people want to talk about SSRIs, some people want to talk about Transgender pain and the responsibility of parents.
my heart goes out to the parents of the children who were lost in this horrible act. This movement of trans gender, ism is at the root of something nobody wants to look at. We are in a quicksand and will continue to be so until the ugly truth of it is revealed and properly dealt with.
“Firearms are a means to commit crime”. That’s a very unusual analysis.
So what about baseball bats, bricks, knives, fists, and words? Are they a “means” too?
Though I detest transgenderism among teens, and would use every tool possible to discourage it, transgenderism does not in any way predict murderous ideation. There is mostly some elevated % for self-harm. Therefore, focussing on trans youth as potential mass murderers is illogical and a waste of time and effort.
A careful analysis of these mass shootings does have some strong predictors which have to overlap (not be used individually):
• young and male
• socially adrift
• secretive
• internet addicted to dark-themed content / interaction
• fascinated with weaponry
• takes steps to gain access to weaponry
Some think parents should be indicted for crimes committed by their young offspring. That is too easily blown off as “it couldn’t happen to my family” escapist thought.
A better approach would be to require the parent to co-sign for junior’s weapon purchase, and in so doing, carry liability (civil and criminal) for misuse of the weapon. If things changed where the parent lost confidence in junior’s ability to act responsibly, they could revoke the sponsorship, and the weapons would be put into escrow until a new co-singer could be arranged.
This approach brings a level of adult supervision with “skin in the game”.
Blame the parents huh? What if there is no father or mother? What if the kid is abandoned and sat in an orphanage for 18 years. Blame who then?
Corporate television and social media corporations.
DNC MSM propaganda, far-left wing teachers who indoctrinate kids to think they can be the opposite sex and so-called mental health professionals who think children can be a different gender every morning they wake up or that gender is seasonal. People who use pronouns or think there are 97 different sexes.
Americans should not allow the Left to reframe current events to their Left-leaning satisfaction. This tragic event has nothing to do with gun violence anymore than highway accidents have to do with eliminating automobiles. Bishop Robert Barron of Minnesota has it right
Minnesota bishop rebukes Dem mayor for dismissing prayer following deadly Catholic school attack</b
“In the past seven years in our country, there has been a 700% increase in violent acts against Christians and Christian churches. Worldwide, Christianity is by far the most persecuted religion…..
“If someone attacked a synagogue while congregants were praying, would anyone doubt that it was an antisemitic act? If someone shot up a mosque while the devout were praying, would anyone doubt that it was an anti-Islamic attack? So, why would we even hesitate to say that a maniac shooting into a Catholic Church while children are at prayer was committing an anti-Catholic act?”
Hang this event on Democrats and their anti-religious, pro-violent fervor like the Jacobins’ Reign of Terror.
JD Vance succinctly summarized the response of many of Americans:
We pray because our hearts are broken. We pray because we know God listens. We pray because we know that God works in mysterious ways, and can inspire us to further action,” Vance wrote. “Why do you feel the need to attack other people for praying when kids were just killed praying?”
https://www.foxnews.com/media/minnesota-bishop-rebukes-dem-mayor-dismissing-prayer-following-deadly-catholic-school-attack
Democrats need to be condemned in the most forceful terms. Nothing less will suffice to change the trajectory of America.
The bishop is correct to speak of the increased hate and abortive ideation targeting Christians around the world. This latest incident is an intersection of that hate and a mental break by a simulant suffering from cognitive dissonance progressed by a liberal culture affirming his psychosis.
Since we know that a small group of people frequently are involved in crime and keep getting involved and often are either not convicted or convicted and released and then return to crime. Probably arresting and keeping those people in prison would likely reduce crime. Seems that if those involved with crime and using a firearm were actually convicted and confined with enhanced sentencing for using a firearm then the problem could be severely reduced.
If I stab you or shoot you I am the one committing the crime, not my weapon. Too often the firearms charge is eliminated in plea bargaining and the person who used the firearm is back on the street quickly. Seems that there is a means to resolve this staring us if the face but will not be dealt with. The Uk has removed almost all firearms but now has an epidemic of stabbings that at times exceeds 50,000 cases per year.
I think the problem is a certain group of people not the weapon.
That “small group” of the US population, do you mean Blacks? Referencing FBI stats, Blacks commit a very large proportion of crimes in the USA based on race.
Criminals and they come in all colors. As well as certain homicidal mental health cases
But most criminals are Black. Check the stats sir. Thank you.
It’s not Guns.
It’s that fact that Democrats need to get a handle on their own Kind! (LGBTQ’s)
Stop being ‘DEMO’crats
Kind (-be kind-, not being a Kind)
“. . . politicians and pundits were calling for new gun control measures . . .” (JT)
When a criminal goes berserk with a gun, the Left punishes the innocent (by throttling 2A).
When a criminal goes berserk on the streets (muggings, carjackings), the Left’s response is: It sucks to be you (the victim).
Thus the modern Left: We embrace criminals. And punish the innocent.
Guns don’t kill people, . . . the Second Amendment kills people.
Morning, can you please explain your reasoning. Thank You, TM
Matthew Dunce isnt going to explain anything.
He’s just another idiot libtard with a 40 proof rant.
A companion read to this is Karol Markowicz’s column today:
https://nypost.com/2025/08/28/opinion/after-the-deadly-minneapolis-school-shooting-its-time-to-stop-indulging-delusions-and-talk-truth-about-transgenderism/
Not a gun owner myself, as a senior lay American male I’ve been writing attorneys and/or public officials of the underlying causes of mass and school shootings at least since the brutal attack on former US Representative Gabby Giffords (obviously, now, in-vain). Simply put, in 1980 the US FDA illegally (FFDCA) approved the expanded use of added artificially cultured “free” (can cross the blood-brain barrier) monosodium glutamate (MSG) as an alleged “flavor enhancer,” fully aware then it would be harmful to some of us (FASEB) but, apparently not “how, how many or how soon?” I only know of this because I became mysteriously, seriously ill in early 1981, at thirty-seven years of age, including serious mood swings. Since then, cases of obesity, diabetes, depression, anxiety, dementia and mass/school shootings, minimally, have skyrocketed. Especially tragic when young children are the victims, gun deaths really only amount to a tiny fraction of all US premature deaths after two and a half generations (not decades) of Americans unwittingly ingesting brain damaging, mind altering (no real motive needed) FDA approved food poisoning, which I estimate to total about 5,000 to 6,000 unsuspecting Americans daily in 2025, mostly from chronic and degenerative diseases. Here’s a link to a new-to-me authoritative source of school shooting data: https://k12ssdb.org/
“You’ve been writing to attorneys etc…” If you cause is so great, why not share it with us. Identify yourself here please. Got a website?
I’ve tried to get my name, Charles G. Shaver, to replace anonymous but it didn’t work. As to a website, https://odysee.com/@charlesgshaver:d?view=about. Thanks for asking.
Not one single word written re: Trans. Not even one. Just stunning.
Democrats have targeted the sanctity of marriage, families, children, pregnant
peoplewomen, people of Faith, ordinary Americans, US Democracy, and the US Constitution. It is only a matter of time when the public will come for America’s self-appointed elites (Democrats/Jacobins) and end their Reign of Terror on AmericansI was talking to someone I know at a public venue this morning. This person is relatively intelligent, and tends toward a conservative POV, but relies on mulitple MSM-type sources for news, nothing else. The person brought up the shooting, because of a desire to know how so many casualties could have occurred, given that places of worship usually have windows placed relatively high off the ground. When I informed this person that the shooter was a transgender individual who left a manifesto that stated he was tired of being a tranny (among other things) the person with whom I was speaking had not found transgenderism mentioned in any of the several accounts. That is beyond absurd, ntm a despicable abandonment of fundamental responsibilities for news reporting. Re the question of window placement and injuries, I regard that as a good point that I had not seen addressed. I imagine that there could have been quite a lot of ricochets.
I have long believed, the problem is NOT the gun, or any other weapon (knife, stone, etc.). It is the ATTITUDE of the PERSON doing the crime! In the 1970’s and 1980’s, I remember going to High School and seeing people with Gun Racks in the back window of their trucks, with loaded rifles, in those racks, and NO ONE getting shot. Why? We had been taught they RESPECT for human life. Now, we don’t even have respect for our own lives, let alone ourselves.
It’s like, comedian Jeff Allen has said, if you look at Ecclesiastes, and Solomon, and extrapolate what he says. If you have no meaning and no purpose, you have nothing, and therefore suicide is the answer (and in my humble opinion), the same can be said when you commit these acts of mass murder.
That last sentence of the first paragraph should read, “Now we don’t even have respect for our own lives, let alone others!” Sorry.
Democrats push crime…more drugs, more insanity, more 3rd world, more failed culture(think inner cities where 50% of child don’t have 2 parents & graduation rates are 80% while reading and math proficiency are 0-30%)
Wouldn’t it be grand if only the actions of drunk drivers killing innocents led to banning cars?
Related to my thinking. Nearly 40,000 people on average are killed every year in motor vehicle accidents. By the same reasoning, we should ban cars.
Okay guys, please explain the “reasoning”.
And pills too.
Democrats are fascist fighting a Civil War against America…. Their judges couldn’t care less!
I want Judges PUNISHED when they willfully or ignorantly ignore the laws!
“PUNISHED”? For what? Seems to me those judges all made lucid and coherent judgements. They used existing law. I’d say PUNISH the law not the judges. Just like those two guys (invisible and anon) previously reasoned.
Gender psychosis in a liberal culture following progressive principles that entertain abortive ideation to relieve “burdens” is a toxic combination.
gobbledygook
Gobbledy, perhaps. Gookish, no.
n.n.’s diagnosis is perfectly cogent, concise, and correct…if read with comprehension: A comprehension that seems sorely, sadly, and severely lacking in a great number of modern-day simpletons.
(Ain’t alliteration awesome!?!)
KyDave, “comprehension”? I hope you are being sarcastic. Anon and KyDave are, I assume, intellectuals. What would America be with them? I bow to your intellect.
Throw in powerful medications and you have a really toxic brew. We must thoroughly investigate these mass shooters for the therapy and medication connections
Politicians would have a lot more credibility when speaking about gun control if they refused to be surrounded by heavily-armed bodyguards, State and Local Police security details, Secret Service, and Capitol Police. It’s easy to squawk for more gun control when you have multi-layered armed protection squads. Plus, they ought to learn a little about firearms because they often sound stupid discussing the subject to everyone except low-information voters. Imagine passing laws regulating motor vehicles if you’ve never driven a car, ridden in a car, fixed a car, or even looked under the hood of a car.
“I presume he is a gun-man, as I am sure he ought to be, and every American who wishes to protect his farm from the ravages of quadrupeds and his country from those of biped invaders. I am a great friend to the manly and healthy exercises of the gun.” (Thomas Jefferson to Peter Minor, July 1822)
We have more of an issue with mental health than we have with gun control.
NAILED it!