Columns Jeffrey Salkin: Martini Judaism Opinion

Kids can fix our gun fixation

Jorge Zapata, Jr., center, a student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, holds candles with his mother Lavinia Zapata, and father Jorge Zapata, Sr., during a candlelight vigil for the victims of the Wednesday shooting at the school, in Parkland, Fla., Thursday, Feb. 15, 2018. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

(RNS) — In Broward County, Fla., it has been like we are all sitting shiva.

The shooting in our backyard — 17 students and staff killed at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Wednesday (Feb. 14) — affects us in large, overwhelming, and small ways.

  • Reading the names of the victims on Shabbat in synagogue.
  • Realizing the three dead members of the school staff had died trying to protect their students.
  • The baby naming we had to reschedule to start earlier, so people could go directly from the celebration of new life to a funeral for a victim.

My parents were both schoolteachers. They woke up early; worked very hard (my mother, of blessed memory, to an early grave); gave tests; filled out numerous reports; and loved their students.

They knew that their job was to shape their students’ lives.

They never imagined that their job was also, potentially, to save their students’ lives.

It is now up to the kids. 

It is now up to the kids — who saw their friends and classmates gunned down; who are now too traumatized to go back to their classrooms; who saw their peers murdered in cold blood.

It is now up to the kids — to the teens and the hipsters and the young people in their 20s. They now have to do it. They now have to fight against American gun culture.

We tried.

Actually — no, we didn’t. We think that we tried, but we didn’t do nearly enough. We screamed, but not loudly enough. We have been too nice, too polite, too neat.

It is now up to the kids. 

I am old enough to remember when a younger generation created revolutions.

I am old enough to remember how we fought against an illegal and immoral war in Vietnam. Some of us got hit with tear gas. It was awful; we survived.

Our parents supported us. They let us cut school for moratoriums, and marches on Washington. 

We saw our friends, our peers, cut down in gunfire at Kent State University in Ohio, in May 1970, as they were protesting the invasion of Cambodia.

The four students who were shot by the National Guard (several of whom were Jewish; one of whom lived in the town adjacent to where I grew up) would have been about 67, 68, 69 years old today — ready for retirement, playing with their grandchildren.

Their blood cried out from the ground, like that of Abel, Cain’s brother. That happened two weeks before my confirmation ceremony. At the service, we all wore black armbands. We were not silent. We would not let this go.

So, this is what I am saying to the younger generation.

If you are my students at my synagogue, know that I love you and that I am here for you — always.

So, I am asking you — and every other kid in America — to walk out of school on April 20. 

Do it. Walk out.

Not quite a half century ago, we walked out of our schools.

We took to the streets — because we didn’t want American kids to die in Vietnam.

You must now walk out — because we don’t want American kids to die in America. 

Teachers should walk out as well. Parents should support them.

Know this, as well.

If you are 14 or 15 or 16 years old, you will be voting very, very soon.

You must vote for politicians who are committed to keeping you, and America, safe.

Let 250,000 people descend on Washington, D.C. We did it, 30 years ago, for Soviet Jewry. We demanded that our government intervene on their behalf.

It worked.

Please — you must never, ever say that the cause is hopeless. It is so far from hopeless.

How many of you smoke cigarettes?

Why not?

I will tell you why not.

You don’t smoke cigarettes (OK, maybe you do. Maybe you vape. But you know that you shouldn’t, I say parentally) for one basic reason.

In 1964, the U.S. surgeon general said that there was a definite link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.

That was the moment smoking began to become uncool. It took a while, but everyone got the memo.

Cigarette advertisements in magazines? Nope.

On television? You have got to be kidding.

If you are of a certain age, you know what the phrase “a silly millimeter longer” means.

You also know how to hum the Benson and Hedges commercial. 

Just try smoking in public places in most states of this country. 

Go ahead. I dare you.

At the very least, you will get creepy looks.

Why? Because it became abundantly clear.

Cigarettes were a public health emergency. 

So are guns. 

You can change the culture, if you want to. It takes work and yelling and screaming, but it can be done.

Take it from a veteran of a generation that saw its own share of changes.

Smoking was a national health hazard. So was Vietnam. (So was the plight of Soviet Jewry — a health hazard for Judaism and Jews in the former Soviet Union.)

We won those battles.

You can do it as well.

You, after all, are our children.

My colleagues and I — we expect to do funerals for people in their 70s, 80s, and 90s. We don’t like it. But, we do it. It is what we signed up for.

But, kids in their teens? Teachers, cut down in their 30s and 40s?

No way.

We must now all say to ourselves and to each other:

If this is going to end, it has to start with me.

About the author

Jeffrey Salkin

Rabbi Jeffrey K. Salkin is the spiritual leader of Temple Solel in Hollywood, Fla., and the author of numerous books on Jewish spirituality and ethics, published by Jewish Lights Publishing and Jewish Publication Society.

394 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • Why do people believe that the young should carry the heavy burden of gun control. Where are the adults in this country? This mentality that it is their problem is so outrageous, perhaps if adults did not leave the young to their own devices and took responsibility as adults these murders would not have happened. The author is advocating that society throw the young to the wolves to solve a problem adults seem to think they cannot solve. Is he advocating protesting? That does little to nothing these days. If adults were fully engaged in the youth of this country, they would be more aware of those living on the edge, in need of help, instead of navel gazing the throwing their hands in the air.

  • Yes, I’m afraid only young people and generational change can fix this…the Boomers and older demographic has been craven on the gun issue –shame on them…the same older generation that invented the “God, Guns and Gays” demagoguery. Sadly many more will be massacred until we get this under control 🙁

    Also note — that God apparently is watching all this…not impressed enough to intervene here in Christian USA…while godless Europe, Japan, Australia, etc. don’t seem to have this problem. Free will? an evil God? …Or just maybe we invented this so-called loving God in the first place ?

  • I hope that the kids are supported by their broader communities – community leaders, faith leaders, politicians, law enforcement, They unfortunately are likely to find themselves subject to some vitriolic attacks at an age where they to a large extent, lack the maturity and experience to put into context. Support and guidance will likely be needed. But they still need to own it. My hope is that they can force a turn around and generate change.

  • Rabbi Salkin wrote a good commentary. But honestly? It ain’t gonna work. Not one armed, mentally troubled time-bomb (and there are several in your hometown right this minute), will be deterred on April 20th. They’ll simply pick another day for Show-And-Tell.

    Meanwhile, these activist high schoolers are already way too politicized, far too one-sided — another reason why it ain’t gonna work. Accusing Sen. Marco Rubio of “blood on his hands”? Seriously? Nobody dares to criticize these bereaved kids, but they’ve LOST some real bipartisan ground instantly.

    (By Sunday, you could tell that some Adults had been emergency-coaching them on how to talk to media in a bipartisan way, to avoid turning off half of America. Maybe it worked. Or not. We’ll see.)

    But what’s still missing from all sides, all groups, all ages — is a solution. (Yelling at politicians to “Do Something” is not a solution.) A small quiz: Here’s a diverse list of guns used in mass shootings, so please offer an effective solution that does NOT involve repealing the 2nd-Am, nor government door-to-door confiscation of all legally bought guns. https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0057.htm

  • The above is a good article, but it leads me to ask two questions. First, why should the kids have to wait til April 20th to walk out of their classes? And why should we adults only let the kids have fun in having their voices heard on gun control?

  • This was written by Rabbi Joe Black of Colorado:

    Opening Prayer For the Colorado State House in the Aftermath of a Tragedy February 15, 2018

    Our God and God of all people,

    God of the Rich and God of the poor.

    God of the teacher and God of the student.

    God of the families who wait in horror.

    God of the dispatcher who hears screams of terror from under bloodied desks.

    God of the first responder who bravely creeps through ravaged hallways.

    God of the doctor who treats the wounded.

    God of the rabbi, pastor, imam or priest who seeks words of comfort but comes up empty.

    God of the young boy who sees his classmates die in front of him.

    God of the weeping, raging, inconsolable mother who screams at the sight of her child’s lifeless body .

    God of the shattered communities torn apart by senseless violence.

    God of the legislators paralyzed by fear, partisanship, money and undue influence.

    God of the Right.

    God of the Left.

    God who hears our prayers.

    God who does not answer.

    On this tragic day when we confront the aftermath of the 18th School shooting in our nation on the 46th day of this year, I do not feel like praying.

    Our prayers have not stopped the bullets.

    Our prayers have changed nothing.

    Once again, a disturbed man with easy access to guns has squinted through the sights of a weapon, aimed, squeezed a trigger and taken out his depraved anger, pain and frustration on innocents: pure souls. Students and teachers. Brothers and sisters. Mothers and fathers- cut down in an instant by the power of hatred and technology.

    We are guilty, O God.

    We are guilty of inaction.

    We are guilty of complacency.

    We are guilty of allowing ourselves to be paralyzed by politics.

    The blood of our children cries out from the ground.

    The blood of police officers cut down in the line of duty flows through our streets.

    I do not appeal to You on this terrible morning to change us. We can only do that ourselves.

    Our enemies do not come only from far away places.

    The monsters we fear live among us.

    May those in this room who have the power to to make change find the courage to seek a pathway to sanity and hope.

    May we hold ourselves and our leaders accountable.

    Only then will our prayers be worthy of an answer.

    AMEN

  • This is not a total solution, but here’s a start. Ban AR15s. They are a military weapon designed to kill a lot of peopel fast. You don’t need an AR15 to hunt or protect yourself. Even Scalia said that you don’t have a constitutionsl right to own an AR15. This has nothing to do with government confiscation of guns which is a fantasy the NRA uses to frighten people with. The NRA is the lobby of gun manufacturers, not gun owners. Everyone who needs to vote these people like Ryan out of office. We need to fund, not cut, mental services. Cruz’s mother died in Novermber where were the social services?

  • “. . . the “God, Guns and Gays” demagoguery.”

    Speaking of three Gs, it seems obvious that the Religious Blight worships God, Guns, and Genocide. If they didn’t worship genocide, they wouldn’t be fanatical advocates of virtually unrestricted access to guns. And, the major driving force for the 3G crowd may be the genocide committed by their bible-god that they worship. . . .

    The Bible “documents” that God killed about 2,500,000 people, and Satan killed about 10. If we try to estimate the additional killings that are not “documented” with specific numbers, then God’s killings zoom to about 25,000,000 while Satan’s killings zoom to about 60. It’s no contest – God is an egotistical barbaric genocidal maniac, whereas Satan is a progressive liberal with much higher standards of decency.

  • You got it all wrong. The writer is admitting the adults have failed. AND he is admiring the young for stepping up and attempting to do what the adults can’t. He pointed out the young did just that in the late 60s over the Vietnam War.

    Your last point is right on, we need adults that are engaged, not only with the youth in their communities, but with ALL the people in their communities.

    I hope the young people of Florida, stick with it, in spite of the criticisms. I will join their walk on April 20th. Will you?

  • Not going to happen considering the “Wild West” mentality in states like Texas where almost everyone has a gun.

  • You might see a limited AR15 ban this time in Broward County and a few nearby counties. Maybe.

    Probably not Florida-wide or national unless somebody can win the entire war at the USSC level.

  • It will not happen immediately, but High School students will be voting soon and they have grown up with these school shootings. They probably don’t see guns the same way some adults do.

    When the constitution was written the only guns available were flintlocks. I don’t think they envisioned AR15s.

  • SOME adults– at least the ones posting here who identify themselves as adults– think the problem cannot be dealt with. Other adults, like myself and you, obviously, disagree.

  • I am not on one side or the other when it comes to guns, but, what these kids really should be promoting is a unity on morality, so that children knowing Christ is the way, the truth, and the life and no one comes to the Father except through Him and His morals are absolute, not subjective like the world asserts. Subjective morals gets you this type of crime because everyone is free to do as they wish.

  • That’s what you have to say in the wake of 17 murders? I don’t think you have an ounce of morality, and your stupid comment is proof.

  • You whined for four paragraphs, asking for a “solution”, but you offered nothing. What is your solution?

  • Guns and gun ownership need to be highly regulated. The current losers in Congress have been purchased and regulated by the NRA. That has to stop.

  • That”s the kicker Sandy. The national media — and even these Florida activist schoolkids — **only** wanna talk about this issue in highly limited, politicized gun control terms.

    Underlying moral and spiritual causes and aspects of this astonishing national epidemic of tragedy — you can see how most people are visibly avoiding serious discussion in that sobering direction.

  • I don’t mean to start an argument with you, just provide my opinion on the matter. I fit into this age demographic that is being called to action to promote change. And in my opinion getting rid of guns would not solve any problem but would rather antagonize the situation. Like I said before I respect everyone’s opinions and I hope I receive the same.
    I believe that America and Americans need to remember where we came from and how we got here. We never ran away from a fight because we thought it might be dangerous. In the same way we don’t run away from our problems we shouldn’t push them to one side. We tried doing this with prohibition in the 1920’s in an effort to rid the streets of drunks and alcohol related accidents and crimes. But rather than improve the situation, prohibition actually increase the amount of alcohol being consumed an all of it illegally. In the same way we tried to do it with alcohol, if we try to abolish all gun ownership, we run a major risk of leaving those who would use them for personal protection and the protection of loved ones, undefended and unprotected against those who, just as in the times of prohibition, will succeed in purchasing or possessing illegal firearms for illegal or less honest purposes. Many times the anti-firearm community (no slur is meant by this name) uses other countries as examples of how gun control can work and how it is effective. Now I do not wish to argue the specific statistics of those countries because the numbers can be manipulated and confused by both sides of the argument. However I do wish to make two points. The first point being the comparison of other countries. We can look at many countries as being “gun-free”, however there are also countries (besides the United Sates) that are proponents of firearms. We can look at Switzerland as well as Jerusalem. Both exemplify certain aspects of American culture and both are “Pro-Gun”. The second point I make is in regards to the American Spirit. We may look to other countries as comparisons to our own great country, but since when do we do that? In all of our great time as a country when have we modeled ourselves after other countries. Even our basic system of government is our own invention. Other countries have a habit of following us, not the other way around.
    I hope I have not offended anyone by this. I just wanted to provide another viewpoint so maybe we can all come to a general consensus, and a general agreement as how to keep America safe and keep it America.

  • I don’t mean to start an argument with you, just provide my opinion on the matter. I fit into this age demographic that is being called to action to promote change. And in my opinion getting rid of guns would not solve any problem but would rather antagonize the situation. Like I said before I respect everyone’s opinions and I hope I receive the same.
    I believe that America and Americans need to remember where we came from and how we got here. We never ran away from a fight because we thought it might be dangerous. In the same way we don’t run away from our problems we shouldn’t push them to one side. We tried doing this with prohibition in the 1920’s in an effort to rid the streets of drunks and alcohol related accidents and crimes. But rather than improve the situation, prohibition actually increase the amount of alcohol being consumed an all of it illegally. In the same way we tried to do it with alcohol, if we try to abolish all gun ownership, we run a major risk of leaving those who would use them for personal protection and the protection of loved ones, undefended and unprotected against those who, just as in the times of prohibition, will succeed in purchasing or possessing illegal firearms for illegal or less honest purposes. Many times the anti-firearm community (no slur is meant by this name) uses other countries as examples of how gun control can work and how it is effective. Now I do not wish to argue the specific statistics of those countries because the numbers can be manipulated and confused by both sides of the argument. However I do wish to make two points. The first point being the comparison of other countries. We can look at many countries as being “gun-free”, however there are also countries (besides the United Sates) that are proponents of firearms. We can look at Switzerland as well as Jerusalem. Both exemplify certain aspects of American culture and both are “Pro-Gun”. The second point I make is in regards to the American Spirit. We may look to other countries as comparisons to our own great country, but since when do we do that? In all of our great time as a country when have we modeled ourselves after other countries. Even our basic system of government is our own invention. Other countries have a habit of following us, not the other way around.
    I hope I have not offended anyone by this. I just wanted to provide another viewpoint so maybe we can all come to a general consensus, and a general agreement as how to keep America safe and keep it America. Again I hope to not have offended or alienated anyone.

  • I would like to point out that they were not flintlocks, which were much earlier. They had weapons that performed much better. They also had cannons, which are protected and condoned under the second amendment. The second amendment was not written for the ability to hunt, but rather the ability to protect oneself from a tyrannical, oppressive government. If this is the purpose for the second amendment, then it stands to reason that if the military has a certain type of weapon, the citizens of that country should also have that weapon.

  • Honestly? After trying out the above exercise for myself, and and listening to both adults and teenagers and media throughout the week, I’m convinced yet again that NO humanly achieveable solution exists. No joke.

    Especially if the moral and spiritual aspects and causes of this spiraling situation are ignored.

  • “. . . what these kids really should be promoting is a unity on morality, so that children knowing Christ is the way, the truth, and the life and no one comes to the Father except through Him and His morals are absolute . . .”

    People had been indoctrinated with a “unity on morality” for nearly 2,000 years with Christian preaching and teaching that the hatred of Jewish people represented a major part of absolute morals. And then a demagogue exploited that mass hatred by orchestrating the genocide against six million of them – which otherwise would not have happened. So, yes, “His morals are absolute,” and I’m proud to say that I do not worship him.

  • It doesn’t matter if they are’t using flintlocks. The point is still the same. The were nothing like our modern weapons.

    There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that suggests your interpretation is right.

  • The see children are not alll Christian. This area had a large number of Jewish students. At least three Jewish students were murdered.

  • More of the “let’s not do anything about it” approach to doing something about it.”

    Prohibition failed because it was the imposition of the will of a few over the harmless pleasures of the many. Drug prohibition fails for exactly the same reasons that alcohol prohibition failed.

    Guns, however, are not inherently harmless. Guns kill people. Another poster threatened blood in the streets if someone tries to take their guns. No one is threatening whiskey in the streets.

  • First the majority of Americans are not calling for outlawing ALL guns. Saying they are only inflames the rhetoric. AND it detracts from the issues really being discussed, assault weapons, bump stocks, background checks, etc.

    There is nothing wrong with looking at and learning from other countries. NOTHING about our country is unique to us, we have borrowed our ideas on republican and democratic and socialistic governments from early Greeks and Romans. We take ideas, modify them and give them our own twist. BUT none of those ideas were ours alone!

    You don’t like comparing our gun laws to other countries because of the differences YET you try to compare gun laws to prohibition laws. NO comparison. Alcohol was never used to kill large numbers of children in schools or adults at concerts. Alcohol destroyed the individuals that drank to excess and their families NOT their friends and neighbors and kids in the schools.

  • Guns are inherently harmless.

    A gun has never killed anyone.

    People have killed others, using bats, knives, cars, guns, fists, fire, poison, and a host of other inanimate objects.

  • the second amendment states:
    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.

    A well regulated militia, a militia is a group of armed citizens acting under the authority of a certain political group or government, being necessary to the security of a free state, the security of a free state, but from who or what are we being secured from? other countries? no, this is in relation to the possibility that our government could turn tyrannical, there are multiple historical examples of this happening. The rest of the amendment is self explanatory. the right to posses guns will not be taken away.

  • You sure know when you think it’s time to change positions on rights – the moment someone else’s rights offend you.

  • I advise you not to use Israel as an example, it is a very dangerous country to live in. They may not have our gun violence BUT they have other just as serious problems.

    What does “keep it America” mean to you? Keep it white? Keep it free of immigrants? Keep it enthralled by the fantasy of the rough, tough independent gun toting, protector of his family and the fatherland?

    I’m not sure I’d want to live in the “America” you believe in. So I will speak up for and encourage those High School kids to try to do what the adults have failed to do change a culture of violence, a culture of toxic masculinity that has just about destroyed all that is GOOD about America.

  • I appreciate your honesty and open opinion. I do not suggest that we do nothing about these horrible incidents of mass killing, and I do admit that there are people who act as radicals and abuse these tools. Both are good points, as well as your point about alcohol an drugs. But as stated in another comment, guns are merely a piece of metal and plastic, they cannot kill anyone of their own free will anymore than any other object can. Now this does not mean that certain precautions are necessary in order to provide a more secure environment to use these tools. just as a 5 year old is not permitted to drive, and the drinking age is 21.

  • The death of my fellow citizens, especially the 26 children of newtown, the 49 murdered at the pulse night club, and the 17 teenagers last week, because of your need to stroke your gun, offends me. If you were actually a moral person, it would offend you, too.

  • A gun has never killed anyone? true, but pointless. A person with a gun, however, has. I have noticed that people without guns rarely shoot anyone.

    Guns have no other purpose but to injure or kill. they never have, they never will. People use guns to kill other people.

  • Unfortunately for your maudlin illogical appeal over the bodies of youths for a tight fist on other people’s rights, not a single child, not a single club goer, not a single teenager died because of my or anyone else’s need to stroke a gun.

    They died because lunatics and criminals kill people.

    Timothy McVeigh did not use a single firearm in Oklahoma.

    The fact that other people’s rights offend you to the point where you would concoct this “morality” slime ball offends me.

  • I don’t mean to have a heated discussion. Only providing my point of view just as you are providing yours. You are correct when you say that we take ideas and modify them in regards to government. I did say I did not want to compare to other societies in regards to our laws, but comparing our own laws to each other I find no logical error in that. If you do please let me know. I also appreciate your statement “the majority of Americans are not calling for outlawing ALL guns”. And I agree that this really does inflame the discussion and alienates people and groups.

    I do make the point that alcohol was used to kill people during that time. For example the infamous Al Capone was heavily involved in the illegal trade of alcohol, now he does not have anything to do with guns and I acknowledge that, just pointing out that because of alcohol people died. In the same regard people die from drunk drivers on a frequent basis.

    Thanks for your opinion, I always appreciate learning from others.

  • Israel is a dangerous country to live in, this is true, but with these recent events are we not moving in that direction? maybe not to the exact point they are at but on a similar path?

    And my previous statement of “Keeping it America” has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. I am honestly appaled that you would bring these into the discussion. I believe that discussion is better left for another page. But for the record I do not agree with keeping America White, I do not agree that we should close our borders to others of any nationality. I love people of all nationalities and it saddens me to see the color lines that we self impose on ourselves as a nation. People are people.

    Now the gun toting fantasy, I chuckled to myself as I read you rather well put together description of it. I do enjoy studying about the “western” time period but by no means do I recommend reinstating it as a type for our social order. That would be rather ridiculous as I think you’ll agree. However I do believe that people have the right and responsibility to protect their families. And if necessary even their country. I do believe that.

  • No humanly achievable solution exists? We can have sensible and strict regulation of guns and gun owners without taking away all the guns. But that won’t happen until the NRA stops buying our legislators. What exactly are the “moral and spiritual aspects and causes” you’re talking about?

  • Alcohol is not inherently harmless.

    On a per capita basis it multiple times more harmful than firearms, as are both swimming pools and bathtubs. Calling it a “harmless pleasure” is a flight into unreality.

    Guns do NOT kill people. You will not get cancer from a gun, or cirrhosis, or intoxicated.

    However, they are already more regulated than alcohol.

  • It may be legal at this time for you to have an assault weapon, but it is not a right. I and all of us have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. With assault weapons easily available to anyone who is angry or temporarily insane our right to life is imperiled. Without that right the others are useless.

    Why do you need to endanger our lives so that you and others can have weapons capable of killing dozens in a few minutes.

  • Of course is is inherently harmless. Alcohol doesn’t kill people, people abusing
    Alchohol kill people— themselves and others.

    Just like guns.

  • Yes, you have alienated people — by twice posting here, your long rambling comment…

    -> “I believe that America and Americans…[all the way to]…keep America safe and keep it America”.

    Once was too many times. And how many times does the word ‘America’ need to be in the same sentence? Knock it off !!

  • People with guns are more capable of killing people. Why do people that don’t want to kill people have guns. I would guess it is to be prepared to kill people when you do want to or think you need to.

  • If these assault weapons are used by a group of armed citizens it will probably be a para-military organization similar to the Nazi Storm Detachment or Black Shirts that protected Hitler’s rally’s before he gained government control. I am afraid this is a real threat. This group will probably include the poster that threatened to fight for his right to keep his guns. To avoid responsibility the governments of para-military groups that our government has supported in Latin America and elsewhere did not oppose these groups. If this government wanted to take fascist control, it would also not oppose a paramilitary group that arose here.

    There is no way a group could defend themselves from the U.S. military or defend from external aggression. The purpose of the second amendment is obsolete in our times. It is only useful for the NRA, the Republican Party, and the alt-right.

  • I am advised that the politicians who deny that guns in the hands of non police/military personnel is a bad idea insist on keeping all guns not carried by non police/military personnel from the Capitol.

  • Here’s a 2015 example for you:
    “What is the cause of this shooting spree in our nation? Opinions abound, every one is expressed passionately, and they are debated continually. Yet, almost no one discusses the real problem, which is much deeper.”

    “The problem is the condition of the human heart, as affirmed by the Holy Scripture in Jeremiah 17:9, “The heart is more deceitful than anything else, and incurable — who can understand it?”

    “The human heart has the potential to express evil in unimaginable ways.
    We are experiencing this today. While each of these shootings is occurring in different cities and for different reasons, the root problem is consistent in each of them — the evil condition of the human heart.”
    — Dr. Ronnie Floyd, SBC

    http://www.bpnews.net/45966/

  • As the young Florida survivors said, “I call BS!” If what you say is true, then there should be gun massacres occurring all over the world. There are not.

  • I have read the Second Amendment. One would need a “well regulated militia” in a brand new country to serve as a police force when necessary of to protect ourselves from a foreign invasion. I agree completely with Bob Harrisons’s response. The people most likely to use assault rifles to protect themselves from the government are Nazis, far right-wing militia groups and other assorted far right wing groups.

  • It doesn’t matter if they were flintlocks or not. They couldn’t kill 17 people in minutes. I heard a news reporter say that it took 3 minutes to kill 17 people. The Nazis had Brown Shirts before they came to power and they had military weapons too. See my reply above for the rest of my answer

  • We also need to discuss the way we bring up boys. Why are 993/4% of mass shooters male? It seems so obvious that we never discuss it. This sort of toxic masculinity is dangerous to everyone.

  • Be sure to tell criminals and psychotics that. They seem to use whatever is available.

    Odd also how that factoid eluded Timothy McVeigh, Andrew Kehoe, Paul Orgeron, and a host of others.

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1927-bombing-remains-americas-deadliest-school-massacre-180963355/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe_Elementary_School_bombing

    The error is in blaming things, not people, and not recognizing that the perpetrators of this sort of thing are not dissuaded by laws, regulations, restrictions, or anything short of incarceration or death. That’s why we call them “criminals”.

  • It is legal to own a real assault rifle under the National Firearms Act of 1934 by the payment of a tax, registration, background check, fingerprints, and the other requirements if it was manufactured or imported before 1986.

    It is a right to own a rifle, be it bolt-action or semi-automatic, even if some misguided individual calls it an “assault rifle”.

    The “right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” comes from the Declaration of Independence which is not part of our law.

    The right to own a rifle comes from the Second Amendment, which is part of the Constitution.

    I do not endanger anyone’s lives with my firearms because I am not a criminal or a lunatic.

    The misinformation you’re processing is simply erroneous and propaganda.

  • Your argument isn’t rational. According to you, human nature is inclined toward evil. And this evil is responsible for ongoing gun massacres — ONLY IN AMERICA.

  • The 2nd Amendment, as now interpreted by the Supreme Court, and various state and national laws do make it legal for you to buy and have an assault rifle. Because it is legal does not make it right.

    The 2nd Amendment was written at a time when flintlocks were the military weapon. The purpose of that amendment was to be certain that citizens could form an armed militia in event of internal or external danger. At this time our police forces and if necessary the U.S. military provide that function. If the government were to become authoritarian, as is possibly happening, it would be impossible to defeat the U.S. military even if assault rifles were in the general population. The 2nd Amendment can no longer support the purpose for which it was written. It is now obsolete.

    In order to be right the laws of this country must protect us from the distribution of these dangerous weapons among the general public.

    You may not be a criminal or a lunatic, but your possession of this type of weapon is a danger to society. You may not always be sane and honest. You may have been so far, but how do we know you are now, or tomorrow. I doubt that you can justify a reason for having such a weapon that is more important than the safety of society.

  • I do think changes to our gun laws need to happen but what about the rest of what makes some kid grab a gun and shoot up a school, a movie theater, etc. The gun is only 1 part of the equation.

    There are correlations to violent and angry behavior, domestic violence, social isolation, history of animal abuse, depression, psychiatric medication, and a fascination with violence, guns and killing.

    Any one of these things does not make a killer but what cocktail of these things along with some sort of trigger causes a person to do the unthinkable? We need to be looking at all sides of this, not just one.

    https://www.peta.org/issues/companion-animal-issues/companion-animals-factsheets/animal-abuse-human-abuse-partners-crime

    https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/28307-from-prozac-to-parkland-are-psychiatric-drugs-causing-mass-shootings

    https://www.cheatsheet.com/health-fitness/the-crazy-thing-most-deadly-mass-shootings-have-in-common.html/?a=viewall

  • The criminals and psychopaths are enabled by law and ineffective gun regulations and avoidance of responsibility for gun ownership. We don’t have an issue of guns being snuggled into the country. The ones used in crimes and massacres are largely bought in stores. In seemingly legal and normal looking transactions.

    It takes an atypical skillset to make an effective homemade bomb and killing people with knives is difficult en masse. Guns, especially military style assault rifles with high capacity magazines make it easy.

    Your excuses are coming in fast and thick.

  • Alcohol isn’t created for the purpose of killing living things fast and easily. An assault rifle is. We regulate the production, sale and distribution of alcohol to a greater degree than firearms.

    Show me where alcohol kills 17 people over the course of two hours and you might not sound so ridiculous.

    You aren’t seeing massacres done with revolvers, hunting or target rifles. You are seeing them with assault rifles and pistols with large capacity magazines.

  • We regulate far less dangerous things more readily. Only with guns do you see vehement arguments against responsible use or mild rational limitations on sales and use.

  • Alcohol is not protected by the Second Amendment.

    Bona-fide assault rifles have been highly restricted, taxed, and regulated since 1934 by the National Firearms Act. They have not been made or imported for civilian sales since 1986, and as a result sell for prices starting in the $10,000 range.

    Here’s a case where alcohol killed 26 children and one adult in the space of a minute or so:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrollton_bus_collision

    I am not seeing many massacres done with anything, but the big ones usually don’t involve firearms.

  • “our government could turn tyrannical”

    So you are saying you have a right to kill police and act as a terrorist under our second amendment. That is clearly not what was intended nor a sane reading of it.

    I hate to break the news to you, but a well regulated militia is meant to be in support of the government, as in paramilitary forces or death squads.

    You are engaging in “Red Dawn” masturbatory fantasies and willing to have scores of people killed to keep it going.

  • Because Neo Nazi bullcrap is making its way into mainstream politics more easily. For example the president’s plan for immigration came straight out of white supremacist groups. Even using their terms and rhetoric.

    Far right extremists feel emboldened nowadays. For the last 8 years they were calling blatant racist appeals “political dissent”. Now their agenda has a major public voice.

  • The whole constitution is subject to how five political appointees (hacks?) on the Supreme Court says it is. Arms by a vote of five could refer to almost anything from two upper limbs on a human being to privately owned tanks and cannons. Look at the evolution of freedom of speech, what it means the Congress cannot establish a religion, who gets to be president or equality based on race by this court.

  • So what do you think of the people who claim that if the government comes to take their guns, assuming it is done legally, of course, that there will be armed insurrection against the govern,ent and blood in the streets?

  • The second amendment like the first amendment is subject to limitations which require the government to meet some burden to justify. Guns require a host of regulations in of themselves for simple law enforcement needs.

    Your statement about assault rifles is flat out wrong. Automatic weapons were banned in 1934. Assault rifles didn’t exist until 1944 and weren’t commercially available to the public until the last generation or so.

    Assault rifles fire intermediate size cartridges and are semi automatic for civilian use. They are largely regulated in the same manner as other rifles with some state exceptions. They are useless (and in most places illegal) for hunting and very expensive for just target shooting. They are marketed and designed for the purposes of killing people.

  • Mr. Rush’s point well illustrates the need for Bible teaching to more consistently decry literal interpretation and lift up the movement of the Scriptural witness toward the prophets and toward Jesus, purer avatars of a just and loving God. The logic of literalism can only lead to the rule of sacerdotal sociopathology, some of which the Bible enshrines. Clergy and other religious leaders need to recognize the presence of this tendency throughout our traditions, turning instead toward the God who transforms hearts.

  • Absolutely NOT.

    An assault rifle is a select-fire rifle firing an intermediate size cartridge. Assault rifles are now and have been since 1934 highly regulated and restricted under the National Firearms Act. No new ones for civilian sale have been made since 1986, and also none imported.

    Your understanding of the Second Amendment is based on purposely misleading propaganda.

    For an understanding I would suggest reading the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

    http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Dist_of_Columbia_v_Heller_554_US_570_128_S_Ct_2783_171_L_Ed_2d_63

    the first points of that decision being:

    “Held:”

    “1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 576-626.”

    “(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 576-595.”

    “(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Anti-federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 595-600. [*571]”

    “(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 600-603.”

    The Second Amendment is no more obsolete than the other provisions of the Bill of Rights, all of which someone or other “for good reasons” would very much like to disregard.

  • Thank you for you unsupported erroneous opinions.

    Just to gain some perspective on them, when the so-called assault rifle ban came up for renewal in the Congress, the FBI testified that there was no discernible effect on gun crime of either that ban or the ban on large magazines during the period the law was in effect.

    No discernible effect.

    The law was not renewed.

  • I have yet to see you make an informed opinion or even honest and correct factual assertions.

    That being said, the assault rifle ban did not represent the be-all or end all of regulation on the subject. It was filled with carveouts and exceptions which undermined its intention and effectiveness.

    It had the effect however of curbing the importation of cheap AK variants coming in from the former Eastern Bloc. Which is primarily why you are seeing American made AR-15’s being used in many of these mass shooting incidents. The market is flooded with them ranging from about $600-$2000

    Your argument is rather silly. Because something wasn’t 100% effective, it is somehow worse than doing nothing at all and making excuses. Its the sort of argument one uses when they are looking to avoid reasonable and rational discussion on a subject. You have been giving nothing but empty aphorisms and canned arguments here. Some action is better than bad excuses.

    The more reasonable study on the subject found:
    ” “a new ban on large capacity magazines and assault weapons would certainly not be a panacea for gun crime, but it may help to prevent further spread of particularly dangerous weaponry and eventually bring small reductions in some of the most serious and costly gun crimes.””
    https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

    “It’s time to bring back the assault weapons ban, gun violence experts say”
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/15/its-time-to-bring-back-the-assault-weapons-ban-gun-violence-experts-say/?utm_term=.61a07284ddf6
    “Compared with the 10-year period before the ban, the number of gun massacres during the ban period fell by 37 percent, and the number of people dying from gun massacres fell by 43 percent. But after the ban lapsed in 2004, the numbers shot up again — an astonishing 183 percent increase in massacres and a 239 percent increase in massacre deaths.”

  • I think the real danger is the Christian Nationalists. They include most of the Trump appointments and most of the Republican politicians, The alt-right will get the go-ahead from them.

    Andrew, the answer is yes. Spuddie is right.

  • Those are likely the people that will do it, but it will be against the civilian population to support a fascist coup for our current leaders.

  • You do tend to get your knickers in a twist BEFORE you get your facts in a row.

    Fully automatic weapons were not banned in 1934. They are heavily taxed and ownership requires a background check, fingerprinting, and compliance with a host of regulations. You can buy a fully automatic weapon today in most states.

    http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/02/actual-federal-laws-regulating-machine-guns-u-s/

    If “assault rifles fire intermediate size cartridges and are semi automatic for civilian use”, rather than the actual definition of an assault rifle, then assault rifles were on sale early in the 20th century:

    http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/07/23/semiauto-rifles-wwi/

    among them the Remington 8 and the Winchester 1905/07/10, both of which were sold in hardware stores across the USA before 1910 in large quantities. Neither appears to have resulted in massacres.

    Not only are semi-automatic rifles NOT useless nor illegal for hunting, they are the #1 most popular hunting rifle and have been for the last 5 to 7 years.

    And, no, they are not marketed and designed for the purpose of killing people, although like any hunting rifle, handgun, baseball bat, kitchen knife, or brick they can be used for that purpose.

    Please do get some facts together.

  • Your point seems to be that you know what rights you like – which are about things you like and/or do – and what rights you like to thrown in the mud and jump up and down on – which are about things you don’t like and/or do not do.

    If you’ve got something more in the way of point, a team of strong horses will not be able to prevent you from sharing it with everyone.

  • And with cars. And with bats. And with knives. And with hands. And with bricks.

    I see the commonality and the fix: ban people.

  • Name one far less dangerous thing which is actually protected by one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights.

  • Here’s the Supreme Court’s interpretation, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008):

    https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Dist_of_Columbia_v_Heller_554_US_570_128_S_Ct_2783_171_L_Ed_2d_63?1519159861

    Held:

    1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 576-626.

    (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 576-595.

    (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Anti-federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 595-600. [*571]

    (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 600-603.

    (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 603-605.

    (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts, and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century, also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 605-619.

    etc

  • I posted the beginning of the decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

    It outright rejected the notion that the amendment was intended to protect a militia rather than an individual right to bear arms.

  • Except that none of those things are intended and designed for killing other people. And except for a car, none of them can kill a lot of people quickly. And even with a car, you are limited.

    Your disingenuousness on the subject, your lack of concern for other humans, and your pretenses at morality are all duly noted. People like you are the reason I don’t look to people like you for any kind of morality, let alone compassion or concern. You hide behind your religion when it comes to authority over the Iives of others, but otherwise, it makes no 8mpression on you.

  • Now you’re hiding behind your “rights” but of course the rights of other people are of no concern to you.

  • When you write “they had military weapons too”, it would seem to indicate that military weapons are currently for sale.

    With the exception of handguns and sniper rifles, that is not the case.

  • The right to bear arms is the second in the ten amendments that make up the Bill of Rights.

    The right to same sex marriage is …. in a fortune cookie Justice Kennedy opened.

    I believe both to be the law, my personal feelings being irrelevant to the law.

    You find the second to be gobsmacking wonderful and give the first one the one-finger salute.

    How does that constitute “hiding behind your ‘rights'”?

    What rights of other people are of no concern to me?

    You’re advocating rights you like – which are about things you like and/or do – and indicating what rights you like to thrown in the mud and jump up and down on – which are about things you don’t like and/or do not do.

  • The vast majority of guns sold are NOT sold to kill people.

    The largest massacres of civilians in the USA have NOT been accomplished with firearms – think Timothy McVeigh.

    That is not disingenuous, but claiming firearms have no other purpose but killing people is.

    People like you are why no one looks to the left for any kind of morality.

    You cut and paste to back into the position you wish to hold, and law, reason, and facts are as nothing to you.

  • The 1934 law concerned fully automatic weapons. It is an irrelevance to the discussion as they are rare and require a federal license to own. Your reference to it was comically off target.

    The first assault rifle was produced in 1944, the StG44 from Nazi Germany. It became the model for the AK-47 (produced in 1947). The first Western ones were first produced in the 1950’s They weren’t widely available to the general public in civilian versions until about the mid to late 1970’s. It was really in the 1990’s when the general market was flooded with cheap former Soviet bloc weapons that they received the notice of the general public.

    You didn’t read your firearmblog source (or didn’t understand it). The examples used fired full sized rifle ammunition. The “intermediate” cartridge was the innovation of the Germans during WWII. Generally the definition falls as something larger than a .45 pistol round and smaller than a .30 rifle round. Semi-auto rifles are not even close to synonymous with assault rifles.

    Your argument fails because you can’t distinguish between a semi-auto rifle and an assault rifle. Your ignorance is pretty funny here. You are out of your depth.

    One is a subset of the other. All assault rifles available for general purchase are semi-auto rifles. But not all semi-auto rifles are assault rifles. The differences are largely due to the size of the ammunition used and intended magazine capacity. A Remington or Winchester fire a rifle cartridge of about .30 caliber and carry no more than 8-10 rounds. An Ar-15 fires a smaller bullet (.223 caliber) and holds between 15-30 rounds

    Hunting grounds generally ban use of rifles which hold more than 5-10 rounds. This is done for hunter safety. So hunters consider their shots well and don’t endanger other hunters who may be in the area but unseen. You cannot take an assault rifle hunting in most places unless it is severely modified for the purpose.

    “And, no, they are not marketed and designed for the purpose of killing people”

    Your ignorance shows again. There are two reasons an intermediate cartridge are essential to assault rifles:
    1. The small size tumbles in the body of a target causing more grievous damage than going through one. Something not too useful for hunting where you want to avoid spilling internal organ material all over your meat, but very useful for killing man sized targets

    2. One can carry far more of it in smaller weapons and magazines. A key necessity for military use. Not so much for hunting where you are limited by how much your rifle can hold and are fairly sedentary in actions.

    These are weapons designed for military use being slightly downgraded to meet civilian legal requirements. They are useless, overly expensive, or counterproductive for most legitimate non-law enforcement uses of firearms.

  • Disingenuous as always. I never said guns have no purpose but to kill people. They have no purpose but to kill. People are just one of the things they kill.

    Timothy mcveigh was a terrorist. We’r3 taking about guns.

  • The right to bear arms. If we,re going to go by original intent, was the right to bear single shot muskets and pistols. The right to own assault weapons and weapons of mass murder is just a fortune cookie that right wIng zealots opened.

  • An amendment you didn’t read clearly. It even says WELL REGULATED right in there.

    Of course if we were to take the wording of the amendment at face value, a well regulated militia bearing arms would not be gun toting civilians anymore. It would be the National Guard. The successor to the obsolete militia system which did so poorly in the Revolution and Civil War.

    That is assuming we read it literally. No alleged “2nd Amendment” supporter does that.

  • No intoxicant is “inherently harmless,” and as far as “whiskey in the streets” is concerned, no one has to “threaten” anything — whiskey shows up in the streets on a regular basis in the form of drunk drivers who kill innocents…on a regular basis.

  • Time to pretend I am a conservative.

    Those judicial activist hacks ruled in a way which exceeded their power with judge made law rather than rule on the Constitution as written. Appointed officials completely subverting the work of the democratic process and its elected officials with their ruling from the bench, blargity blarg blarg…… 🙂

    Play time over.

    Ther shorter version: its funny how you will accept the reasoning of the Supreme Court and its given interpretation when it is something you support but totally attack it for doing the same thing on issues you do not.
    You would never apply such a deferential attitude to decisions like Obergfell or Roe v. Wade.

  • Then I’ll ask you the same question I asked Sandi: why, in countries much more “godless” than the US, are there approximately zero mass school shootings?

  • Speaking of comically off-target, this latest of yours is rife with factual errors which are the result of cobbling off anti-gun propaganda.

    The 1934 law concerned fully automatic weapons, which is what a bona-fide assault rifle is. They do NOT require a “federal license to own”.

    What they require is a tax stamp, the acquisition of which requires a background check, fingerprinting, and acquiescence to a plethora of very strict regulations.

    The progenitor of assault rifles was in fact the Sturmgewehr 44. It used an intermediate size cartridge and was select fire (single shot, fully automatic).

    The Remington 8 was available in unique cartridges .25 Remington, .30 Remington, .32 Remington, .35 Remington, and a lever action cartridge the .300 Savage, all of which were in the power range of the StG 44’s cartridge for the same reason.

    You obviously did NOT read the entry on the Winchesters:

    “The Winchester rifles were chambered for .32 and .35 caliber straight-walled rounds which developed much less velocity than the Remington line – around 1400fps (although the Winchester 1907 was used the larger .351 Winchester round, and the 1910 model the even larger .401 Winchester round). By using lower powered ammunition, Winchester was able to design the 1905 as a simple blowback action, using a large weight inside the handguard fixed to the bolt.”

    No, they did NOT use “full sized rifle ammunition”.

    You already screwed up failing to note assault rifles are regulated as machine guns, now you’re trying to create an imaginary difference between two semi-automatic rifles predating WWI and the semi-automatic rifles you want to ban because you read somewhere they should be banned.

    An AR-15-style rifle can fire anything from .204 varmint round to a .450 bear stopper depending on the upper and barrel fitted to it. Magazines come in a variety of capacities, from 3 or 4 for hunting, to considerably larger depending on what state you live in.

    You can take any of the rifles you’re going on about (ignorantly) hunting by using a smaller magazine. Most states have changed their regulations to allow the .223 cartridge to be used for hunting deer due to improvement in bullet design. In those states where that cartridge is not legal for deer, the upper and barrel can be changed to a larger round.

    The first reason why intermediate cartridges were developed was to get recoil down to a controllable level and the second was to allow soldiers to carry more ammo. Studies showed that most combat took place at relatively close range and that the cartridges of WWI and WWII were overkill for the most part.

    The size has zero to do with tumbling. Tumbling in flight is bad, you can’t hit anything.

    Bullets which tumble on impact can be any size. The standard .303 British round used in Enfields in WWI and WWII tumbled on impact. That was unintended result of modifications made to the bullet over time.

    The Warsaw Pact 5.45×39mm M74 assault rifle round uses a steel-jacketed bullet with a two-part core, the rear being lead and the front being steel with an air pocket at the tip. Upon impact, the unsupported tip deforms, bending the bullet nose into a slight “L” shape, which causes the bullet to tumble in the tissue, thus increasing its effective frontal surface area by traveling sideways more often than not. This was done to get around the Hague ban on expanding bullets.

    If you believe smaller weapons and magazines are much use for hunting you have never been hunting.

    http://newultralightarms.com/

    Climbing a mountain with a backpack and firearm and doing 20-30 miles over a couple of days would snap you back into reality right quick.

    Stick to what you know, which is not firearms.

  • Unlike Obergfell or Roe, DC v. Heller cited the actual words of the Constitution and their universal interpretation from the inception of the republic until the late 19th century when southern Democrats decided to disarm blacks.

    Now pretend you’re intelligent and don’t respond.

  • You may see some mid-to-late 19th century clocks with REGULATOR on them.

    It means “works with precision”.

    At its face value it means that those with arms should practice and become proficient in their use.

    You might try actually reading the opinion rather than making it clear you have no idea at all what you’re writing about.

  • If we go by the original intent, it was the right to bear arms (swords, knives, pistols, shotguns, long arms, and so on) suitable to defend one’s self, family, and property.

    Just as we don’t restrict free speech to printed media, but have extended it as technology has extended, so we don’t restrict the right to arms to those in use in 1789.

    The difference is that I read the opinion you like, and this one, and actually have some idea of how they were arrived at.

    District of Columbia v Heller is well-grounded in a vast legal background which did not differ at all anywhere until southern Democrats were looking to disarm free blacks.

  • Unlike Obergfell and Roe, you like the result of Heller and therefore are deferential to the arguments made in the decision. All despite the contorted reading of the 2nd Amendment being made. Somehow a well regulated militia is not an important part of the amendment but right to bear arms was. It was a citing to the actual words, just not the most honest one.

    “and their universal interpretation from the inception of the republic
    until the late 19th century when southern Democrats decided to disarm
    blacks.”

    …and then came up with something completely off the wall.

    Its still a funny thing for you to say considering we had a discussion not long ago about your disdain for the universal interpretation of Constitutional amendments from inception until a given time. You will make up any excuses to avoid the rank hypocrisy of the argument you are employing here. 🙂

  • The Olympic target shooting folks must be out to kill targets, along with all those Boy Scouts working on their marksmanship merit badges.

    Timothy McVeigh was a murderer. We’re talking about murder, in this murdering a lot of people.

  • I respect, as law, Obergefell and Roe.

    My liking or not liking a decision is irrelevant to whether it is binding.

    To state “the contorted reading of the 2nd Amendment being made” indicates you haven’t bothered to read the decision. I read it, and I read the other two you mention, which I why I know what the decisions are based on and can form an intelligent coherent opinion on whether they’re well-grounded in American law or are innovations of some justice with an agenda or a big idea.

    I don’t have to like a judicial opinion to understand its authority.

    Where hypocrisy raises its head is some one can only tell us what he likes, and has zero idea of what the opinion that he happens to favor actually says.

  • I of III

    Speaking of comically off-target, this latest of yours is rife with factual errors which are the result of cobbling off anti-gun propaganda.

    The 1934 law concerned fully automatic weapons, which is what a bona-fide assault rifle is. The do NOT require a “federal license to own”.

    What they require is a tax stamp, the acquisition of which requires a background check, fingerprinting, and acquiescence to a plethora of very strict regulations.

    The progenitor of assault rifles was in fact the Sturmgewehr 44. It used an intermediate size cartridge and was select fire (single shot, fully automatic).

    The Remington 8 was available in unique cartridges .25 Remington, .30 Remington, .32 Remington, .35 Remington, and a lever action cartridge the .300 Savage, all of which were in the power range of the StG 44’s cartridge for the same reason.

    You obviously did NOT read the entry on the Winchesters:

    “The Winchester rifles were chambered for .32 and .35 caliber straight-walled rounds which developed much less velocity than the Remington line – around 1400fps (although the Winchester 1907 was used the larger .351 Winchester round, and the 1910 model the even larger .401 Winchester round). By using lower powered ammunition, Winchester was able to design the 1905 as a simple blowback action, using a large weight inside the handguard fixed to the bolt.”

    No, they did NOT use “full sized rifle ammunition”.

  • II of III

    You already screwed up failing to note assault rifles are regulated as machine guns, now you’re trying to create an imaginary difference between two semi-automatic rifles predating WWI and the semi-automatic rifles you want to ban because you read somewhere they should be banned.

    An AR-15-style rifle can fire anything from .204 varmint round to a .450 bear stopper depending on the upper and barrel fitted to it. Magazines come in a variety of capacities, from 3 or 4 for hunting, to considerably larger depending on what state you live in.

    You can take any of the rifles you’re going on about (ignorantly) hunting by using a smaller magazine. Most states have changed their regulations to allow the .223 cartridge to be used for hunting deer due to improvement in bullet design. In those states where that cartridge is not legal for deer, the upper and barrel can be changed to a larger round.

    The first reason why intermediate cartridges were developed was to get recoil down to a controllable level and the second was to allow soldiers to carry more ammo. Studies showed that most combat took place at relatively close range and that the cartridges of WWI and WWII were overkill for the most part.

  • III of III

    The size has zero to do with tumbling. Tumbling in flight is bad, you can’t hit anything.

    Bullets which tumble on impact can be any size. The standard .303 British round used in Enfields in WWI and WWII tumbled on impact. That was unintended result of modifications made to the bullet over time.

    The Warsaw Pact 5.45×39mm M74 assault rifle round uses a steel-jacketed bullet with a two-part core, the rear being lead and the front being steel with an air pocket at the tip. Upon impact, the unsupported tip deforms, bending the bullet nose into a slight “L” shape, which causes the bullet to tumble in the tissue, thus increasing its effective frontal surface area by traveling sideways more often than not. This was done to get around the Hague ban on expanding bullets.

    If you believe smaller weapons and magazines are not much use for hunting you have never been hunting.

    http://newultralightarms.com/

    Climbing a mountain with a backpack and firearm and doing 20-30 miles over a couple of days would snap you back into reality right quick.

    Stick to what you know, which is NOT firearms.

  • This is funny. I just saw the same post originally done as Bob Arnzen in this same thread. Down to the same exact citation. The trick to a sock puppet is not to use it in the same thread.

  • “which is what a bona-fide assault rifle is”

    Actually what you
    call a “bona-fide assault rifle” is an irrelevance to the discussion.
    You are talking about purely military weapons which are not sold to the
    general public. They are either automatic or can fire in bursts. An
    assault rifle for this discussion is the civilian version,
    semi-automatic versions of those weapons, sold to the general public.
    You are creating your own terms to discuss.

    You also miss the
    part where assault rifles have large capacity magazines unlike your
    Remingtons and Winchesters. Its a two part definition, intermediate
    round + magazine over 10 round (large capacity). One which covers an
    array of originally modern military designed rifles but not most hunting
    rifles. Your argument is deliberately obtuse and dishonest by covering
    only half of the definition here.

    “You already screwed up failing to note assault rifles are regulated as machine guns”

    No,
    that was you bringing up the law which regulated machine guns. It was
    an irrelevance to the discussion. The 1934 law does not affect the
    weapons being discussed here at all. Your need to bring it up was to
    deliberately use misleading arguments and terms.

    “An AR-15-style rifle can fire anything from .204 varmint round to a .450
    bear stopper depending on the upper and barrel fitted to it. Magazines
    come in a variety of capacities, from 3 or 4 for hunting, to
    considerably larger depending on what state you live in.”

    And when you are selling them with high capacity magazines, you are selling them for purposes having zero to do with hunting.

    “You can take any of the rifles you’re going on about (ignorantly) hunting by using a smaller magazine. ”

    So what is your excuse for opposing bans on high capacity magazines. I am all ears.

    “The size has zero to do with tumbling. Tumbling in flight is bad, you can’t hit anything.”

    Holy
    crap you are ignorant. Tumbling inside a person upon impact. How dense
    and dishonest are you? This is a well known characteristic of the round.
    I am not going to argue with you on a point which is so well known it
    shows up on the History Channel and Discovery Channel military based
    shows concerning firearms. Common freaking knowledge.

    “The first reason why intermediate cartridges were developed was to get
    recoil down to a controllable level and the second was to allow soldiers
    to carry more ammo.”

    Recoil
    down to a controllable level for automatic fire. Soldiers needing to
    carry more ammo, as opposed to hunters or target shooters. Civilian use
    was an afterthought.

    “If you believe smaller weapons and magazines are much use for hunting you have never been hunting.”

    Now
    you are strawmaning. Smaller weapons and large capacity magazines
    aren’t much use for hunting. Most places ban the use of large capacity
    magazines in hunting grounds for safety reason. If you are taking your
    AR-15 or AK variant with a 30 round magazine to a hunting grounds, get
    me the hell as far from you as possible. You are a menace to everyone in
    the area!

    “Stick to what you know, which is not firearms.”

    You have not made a single good faith non-weasel worded honest assertion of fact here yet.

    “Climbing a mountain with a backpack and firearm and doing 20-30 miles
    over a couple of days would snap you back into reality right quick.”

    Because that is typical hunting activity? Not even close.

  • LOL! Not in the least. You want them subverted by any means fair or foul. Mostly foul by creating bullcrap end runs and calling them “sincere religious belief”. When have you stopped being such an obvious l1ar?

    Funny how it is only judicial activism and legislating from the bench when a conservative doesn’t like a decision. Somehow SCOTUS didn’t have the right or power to do what you didn’t like. But now they do.

    “My liking or not liking a decision is irrelevant to whether it is binding.”

    So I will have no discussion from you about trying to make abortion illegal or supporting discrimination against the civil liberties of gay couples. Its binding law so you better shut the hell up!

    I am not arguing about the validity of Heller. I am arguing of the sanity of you bringing up such arguments in support of Heller.

  • That was an irrelevance which avoided the point.

    Unlike yourself, I know how to read a legal decision. I will not spend days pretending language within it isn’t there or somehow doesn’t count.

    I am not disputing Heller, I am having fun with your sudden and hypocritical deterrence to “judicial activism”. Typical full of crap conservative.

  • Most Americans are in favor of sensible gun legislation. So your goddamned guns are more important than people’s lives? Got it. And what part of the 2nd Amendment and “the People” has to do with nefarious lobbyists buying politicians to skirt the People and control legislation?

  • That’s a mighty fine Gish Gallop you got there. Almost touching on relevant topics for this discussion, but not quite.

    Three long posts BS’ing about not being able to distinguish an assault rifle from ones typically used for hunting and target shooting.

    The only thing I can take from it is that I would never go hunting with you. 🙂

  • Hmm. (Extended Reply.)

    1. Check the stats. If you don’t blow off America’s far greater population size (4X Germany’s and 5X Britain’s) and a few other important aspects, then you can see where those “godless nations” are actually closer to America than what some gun-control politicians have tried to sell people on.
    https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

    “Germany is now second only to the US in terms of the number of deaths that have resulted from school shootings.” — Tony Paterson, “In Europe’s league of school shootings, Germany comes top”, The Independent, 15 March 2009.

    2. God judges nations, Arbustin. You and I know what happened to ancient Israel, the most blessed and lavished nation on Earth, when they rejected and spat on God. They couldn’t hide behind ANY “godless” nation. So let’s just be honest: Godless America has been the most spiritually blessed, militarily, economically, politically, educationally, technologically, modern nation. And yet America is openly imitating the progressive & fatal rejection of God that the prophets warned Israel about. We messing up even worse. God let us — OUR nation — set foot on his Moon, and in return we spit in His face.

    Yet we all wonder why people of all flavors are going crazy, shooting up Chicago, Sandy Hook, Orlando, Las Vegas, Parkland. But you know why. The further we walk away from God, the closer we get to something that ain’t God.

  • You’re the perfect example of what I was talking about. I suggest that we should change soemthings about the way we raise boys in our culture and look how you respond. Now I know why guns are so important to you.

  • Here’s a more relevant question, concerning our own history as a nation and as a national culture – it’s about a history that some of us can still remember: As recently as the 1940s and ‘50s, guns were both more widely distributed (more households possessed guns) and more freely available (with fewer restrictions on their sale or possession) than they are today. But mass shootings of any kind were unknown – they simply didn’t exist. Fast-forward to today, with our accumulating tally of murderous rampages.

    What happened? Why have these changes occurred? Where is the flow-chart of history that will explain how we got to this point?

    I think it’s self evident that if you are struggling with that quandary, the solutions have very little to do with guns, per se. Simply put, cultural problems are not amenable to political and policy solutions, and there are limits to what governments are able to improve, with all of their thrashing about

  • So far on this topic you have yet to present a correct factual assertion.

    Re: “a new ban on large capacity magazines and assault weapons would certainly not be a panacea for gun crime, but it may help to prevent further spread of particularly dangerous weaponry”, “It’s time to bring back the assault weapons ban”:

    Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:

    “The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

    https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1

    Add that to the fact the FBI testified that the assault weapons ban accomplished nothing measurable. Nor was there any measurable effect from the large capacity magazine ban:

    https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

    Your argument is rather silly. Because a flyswatter did not kill the fly, blowing the house up MIGHT work, in this case blowing up a house the owner had a constitutional right to own.

    That’s a rather cavalier approach to other people’s rights.

    And your citations call into question the veracity of the Washington Post.

    Here is what your article at Factcheck.org quoted from the actual study post-ban:

    “Therefore, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury, as we might have expected had the ban reduced crimes with both AWs and LCMs.”

    In other words, as the FBI said there was no discernible effect.

  • We have background checks.

    Assault weapons, along with all other fully automatic firearms, are heavily regulated and taxed and have been since 1934.

    Yes, there is something about our country that is unique to us: the Bill of Rights.

    Prohibition was an American experiment in control. That would appear to be relevant.

    Alcohol is responsible for more deaths than guns.

    And yes, it kills more than just the people who drink it.

  • McVeigh was an adult and a former soldier. A 19 year old teernager is not going to do what McVeigh did. He was enamoured of guns and admired school shooters. He picked an AR15 because that is the weapon of choice for school shooters. In Florida you need to be 21 and go through a backgrouond check to buey a handgun, but assault rifles are unregulated.

    Yes, we do also need better mental health services, but the GOP comes up with endless ways cutting funding for mental health care.

  • So Bob, your suggested course of action is essentially the status quo which enables both a rigorous illegal arms trade and the highest per capita gun deaths for a country not embroiled in a civil.war.

    Mass shooting incidents rose after the assault weapons ban as noted in both articles I linked to.

    Drops in crime and death rates are largely functions of declining demographics. Your argument rests entirely on misrepresentation, spurious logical leaps and and flat out lying. There was a discernible effect of the assault weapons ban, even though it was a weak bit of legislation. Which was noted. It shifted the marketing strategy of assault rifle manufacturers towards encouraging panic buying and increased lobbying.

    The need for more rigorous regulation exist because you just can’t handwave a very high gun death count for a developed country and expect to be taken seriously.

    Your solution is to ignore a problem or pretend it doesn’t exist. Nobody needs to take it seriously.

  • Most Americans are happy with the sensible gun legislation we already have. The biggest thing they advocated for in the last two or three decades was liberalized concealed carry laws, which most states now have.

    So wrapping your goddamned opinion in an American flag doesn’t cut the mustard.

    Got it?

  • When you get a few minutes explain for all of us how a fully automatic military assault rifle for use in military assaults became a semi-automatic “assault rifle” with a completely different operating system sold only to civilians.

    Did the Firearm Fairy wave a magic wand?

    My reading indicates it happened during the Clinton Administration when a gun control maven suggested that renaming a relatively innocuous civilian firearm with a scarey military name would fool people who knew little about guns – you for example.

    In fact the list of distinguishing “characteristics” for the Clinton ban was formulated by Dianne Feinstein’s staff who looked through pictures of “scarey” firearms and listed purely cosmetic “characteristics” to use in the law.

    As to “Gish Gallop”, simply responding point-by-point. The Gish Gallop was yours, as usual. My response has the advantage of being factual.

    Since you’re not a hunter, you would never go hunting with me or anyone else. Thank God.

  • You do understand YOU are the one who brought it up, right?

    Probably not.

    From the decision:

    https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Dist_of_Columbia_v_Heller_554_US_570_128_S_Ct_2783_171_L_Ed_2d_63?1519167643

    “Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121-122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights § 13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”). “

    Please get your facts together and stop wasting both our time.

  • A “bona-fide assault rifle” is capable of fully automatic fire. That is the definition. If the weapon being examined is not, it is not an assault rifle. The Stg 44 was fully automatic.

    I am glad you finally recognize that real assault rifles are purely military weapons which are not sold to the general public.

    Real assault rifles have interchangeable magazines, just like the Remington and Winchesters.

    They come in various sizes.

    The regulation of machine guns IS the regulation over real assault rifles.

    The weapons you wish to discuss are operationally identical to the Remington and Winchesters – intermediate cartridge, interchangeable magazine, semi-automatic – one pull of the trigger, one shot.

    We’ve already discovered that banning them and the larger magazines had no discernible impact on gun crime.

    Yes, high capacity magazines probably have zero to do with hunting. So what? The Second Amendment does not protect hunting.

    My “excuse” for opposing bans on high capacity magazines is that experience proves they accomplish nothing.

    As to “Holy crap you are ignorant” – holy crap, are you ignorant! Tumbling on impact is 100% bullet design and 0% bullet diameter.

    Again, if you believe smaller weapons and magazines are not much use for hunting you have never been hunting. Smaller weapons are easier to carry and maneuver. Interchangeable magazines have been a feature of hunting rifles since the late 19th century.

    The fact that you’re old and toothless and couldn’t climb a flight of steps with a backpack and firearm has nothing at all to do with real hunting or real hunters, neither of which are you even vaguely familiar with.

  • Fair means only – amendment. I have never taken any other position.

    As to “sincere religious belief”, you’re apparently conflating my position on your attempt to compel individuals to perform services contrary to their religious beliefs and your attempt to take private property for that use with opposing Roe v. Wade itself. Your lack of reading comprehension is not my problem.

    Unfortunately you never tire of making it clear you have no clue at all what you’re talking about.

  • I’m not struggling with anything. Yes, there have been cultural changes. For example, the NRA and the Republican Party were once much more amenable to reasonable restrictions on firearms. Now that’s anathema. There were no open-carry activists whose egos are so diminished they need to carry a big object to compensate for something small. Guns are fetishized to a degree never before known in this country. The right has created a culture in which it’s perfectly acceptable for a mentally ill teenager to possess an assault rifle.

  • I of II

    A “bona-fide assault rifle” is capable of fully automatic fire. That is the definition. If the weapon being examined is not, it is not an assault rifle. The Stg 44 was fully automatic.

    I am glad you finally recognize that real assault rifles are purely military weapons which are not sold to the general public.

    Real assault rifles have interchangeable magazines, just like the Remington and Winchesters.

    They come in various sizes.

    The regulation of machine guns IS the regulation over real assault rifles.

    The weapons you wish to discuss are operationally identical to the Remington and Winchesters – intermediate cartridge, interchangeable magazine, semi-automatic – one pull of the trigger, one shot.

    We’ve already discovered that banning them and the larger magazines had no discernible impact on gun crime.

  • II of II

    Yes, high capacity magazines probably have zero to do with hunting. So what? The Second Amendment does not protect hunting.

    My “excuse” for opposing bans on high capacity magazines is that experience proves they accomplish nothing.

    As to “Holy crap you are ignorant” – holy crap, are you ignorant! Tumbling on impact is 100% bullet design and 0% bullet diameter.

    Again, if you believe smaller weapons and magazines are not much use for hunting you have never been hunting. Smaller weapons are easier to carry and maneuver. Interchangeable magazines have been a feature of hunting rifles since the late 19th century.

    The fact that you’re old and toothless and couldn’t climb a flight of steps with a backpack and firearm has nothing at all to do with real hunting or real hunters, neither of which are you even vaguely familiar with.

  • Still more bullcrap Gish Gallop, but ultimately saying nothing of value on the subject.

    You are trying to pretend there are not fundamental differences between an assault rifle and rifles designed for hunting or target use. All for the purposes of making wild claims that laws limiting assault weapons would affect those used for more socially and legally legitimate purposes like hunting rifles. An assault rifle is easily defined by both its ammunition used AND detachable high capacity magazines. They are the weapons that have been typically employed as of late forAmoklauf style massacres.

    “Yes, high capacity magazines probably have zero to do with hunting. So what? The Second Amendment does not protect hunting”

    They are used and designed especially for killing people easily and quickly. Something which easily falls under what is meant to be well regulated under the 2nd Amendment.

    Your response shows how little you want to take the subject seriously and how much you are trying to dodge the obvious.

    There is no legitimate civilian non-law enforcement use for military style weapons designed to kill people quickly and easily like the ones in question. There is no reason they should be as accessible to the general public as they are.

    The second amendment does not mean guns can’t be regulated according to
    local law enforcement needs. Not even SCOTUS made such a wildly open
    interpretation.

    You are typing a lot to say absolutely nothing here. Your big suggestion to the intolerable level of gun deaths in this country as of late is to do nothing. Well we have seen how well that is working out.

  • The Right has been criticizing these bereaved kids since they dared to speak out. Actually you did it yourself by saying they’d been “coached,” as though parents talking to their children is suddenly a horrible thing. Those far to the right of you are claiming they’re “crisis actors,” etc.

  • I am making fun of someone who is demanding acquiescence to SCOTUS interpretation but avoids doing so themselves. The excuses are getting pretty lame.

    So this decision is one where one cannot question its reasoning because you agree with it. But others you attack the very power of the Court to make the decision because you don’t.

    Yes, you made your hypocrisy and inability to understand judicial power quite clear here.

  • I did not reference Heller and claim that no further arguments can be made because of it. That was all you.

    As with all conservative arguments, rules and binding law are beyond criticism only when applied to opponents. Never to things which affect them.

    Hypocrisy at its most blatant.

  • I realize that the Supreme Court has interpreted this amendment in a way that the NRA would appreciate. I understand that guns of most types are legal in this country. My point is that in our current social environment weapons designed to kill people should not be available or legal for civilians to own. This would decrease many preventable injurys and deaths. If this is a democracy, and most of us come to this position, we may be able to change what is legal.

  • The better reason not to use Israel as “pro-gun” is that they actually have serious gun control, much more serious than anything possible in the US. Israeli law includes multi-week training; national security, criminal, and mental health screening; a genuine need to have each gun you want (my spouse’s former landlord, for example, had a gun because he handled a lot of cash); minimum age of 21 IF you’ve completed your military service; high costs of licensing and ownership including a 100% value-added tax; and no private re-sales.

  • Germany coming in second to the US in mass school shootings is kind of like the Washington Generals coming in second to the Harlem Globetrotters. There’s no contest. I agree that we spit in God’s eye — although we obviously disagree over what. But the other nations are doing it too. And they don’t have the mass school shootings.

  • God wasn’t bound by other nations’ sins or sinful reputations when He judged ancient Israel. Prophet Jeremiah was stunned that God allowed Freakozoid
    Assyria of all sinners, to literally smash up Israel’s babies/kids.

    America is facing judement too. This epidemic of horrificschool shootings is very unusual. We gotta get real about the possibility of judgment.

  • There is no “vigorous illegal arms trade” which any rational laws could alleviate. As with heroin, opiates, prostitution, cigarettes being transported into NYC, and so on the existence of a criminal subculture is the problem.

    The major source of firearms used by criminals is theft, often from law enforcement.

    The United States has had the highest per capita gun deaths etc etc for well over a century and a half. It has not gone up or down with gun laws.

    As the CDC funded study I provided demonstrated, mass shooting incidents are rare, follow no observable pattern, and result in fewer deaths than either bath tubs or swimming pools.

    Your argument is 100% based on misinformation cranked out by the gun control fronts funded by multi-billionaire Michael Bloomberg, also the father of the large soft drink ban in NYC, who apparently has never met anyone he doesn’t want to tell what to do.

    Fortunately most people – except on the coasts – see through the charade and want the rights of lawful gunowners protected.

  • That McVeigh was former military actually contradicts your argument. He would not have been familiar with a diesel fuel/fertilizer explosive from anything he did in the military. He would have been familiar with firearms.

    Given the number of school shootings, it is hard to call an “AR15 …. the weapon of choice for school shooters”. The Columbine shooters did not use one. Btw, to this point you have not provided a definition of what you call an “AR15″.

    Your constant misuse of the term “assault rifle” renders your comments a bit shaky.

    Handguns work a lot better because they are concealable. Like a sporting rifle they can be magazine fed, and semi-automatic, so they are more likely to be used in shootings and they are.

    If I were going to undertake a project along these lines, and was not worried about concealability, I would not use a semi-automatic rifle or a handgun.

    I would use a commonly available magazine fed pump-action shotgun firing pellets in the BB to No. 1 range. If I did not plan to live through the project, I’d saw the barrel off before I began.

    Ban something or other and a determined shooter will head in another direction.

    The actual track record of “mental health services” in identifying and treating individuals who will engage in murder is hardly salutary. More prisons might be a better use of funds.

  • The Supreme Court interpreted it the way it was written and understood until the post-Reconstruction era in the South and everywhere else until just after WWII.

    Every hunting rifle suitable for deer-sized game and larger is capable of killing people.

    This a republic, not a democracy, and the laws in this case are restricted by the one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights.

    The solution if you feel that you have enough backing is amending the Constitution.

  • Hard cases make bad law.

    Millions of law-abiding gun owners more than offset Charles Whitman, Devin Patrick Kelley, George Hennard, Thomas Alton Caffall, and Ivan Lope. It doesn’t advance your argument that Charles Whitman used a bolt-action hunting rifle, not your imaginary “assault rifle”, and Hennard used pistols.

    As was pointed out to you, the largest mass murders have not involved firearms at all.

    Write Michael Bloomberg, tell him that didn’t work, and ask him what you should write next.

  • If “value” means you’ll read and understand, I am sure you are correct.

    If “value” means presenting facts to offset your ungrounded propaganda and misstatements, I am sure you are incorrect.

  • You referenced “well-regulated” and imputed to that phrase a meaning idiosyncratic of the mid-20th century and later, an error.

    I provided the actual meaning when the amendment was written using the Supreme Court’s words to end the debate.

    I could have as easily provided the brief of three English and Linguistics professors explaining the meaning of “well-regulated”:

    http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/07-290_PetitionerAmCu3LinguisticsEnglishProfsnew.pdf

    The way this works is if you post something, others can support it or point out why and how it misses the mark.

    Which I did. And you complained. Hypocrisy at its most blatant.

    Time to put on your big boy pants.

  • And I am posting to someone who can’t get one fact straight.

    The phrase “demanding acquiescence to SCOTUS interpretation but avoids doing so themselves” is unmitigated manure.

    However a decision of the Court is arrived at, it is the law of the land. Not liking it is not avoiding it.

    My solution is to seek an amendment to the Constitution.

    What’s yours?

  • Anything to correct your misstatements which you like to pretend are “facts”.

    For someone who doesn’t like the process of debate, you sure like to walk into them.

  • Speaking of “Gish Gallop”.

    “You are trying to pretend there are not fundamental differences between an assault rifle and rifles designed for hunting or target use.”

    No, I am pointing out there is no fundamental difference between WHAT YOU CALL AN ASSAULT RILFE and rifles designed for hunting or target use.

    “They are the weapons that have been typically employed as of late forAmoklauf style massacres.”

    Several million of them are used for hunting and target shooting. The research says they are rarely used in crime.

    “They (large capacity magazines) are used and designed especially for killing people easily and quickly.”

    And yet the government’s own research, and the FBI, say the contrary.

    “There is no legitimate civilian non-law enforcement use for military style weapons designed to kill people quickly and easily like the ones in question.”

    Several million of them are used for hunting and target shooting.

    “The second amendment does not mean guns can’t be regulated according to local law enforcement needs. Not even SCOTUS made such a wildly open interpretation.”

    Yes, the SCOTUS ruled out the notion that “special cases” for certain locales voiding the Second Amendment could be constitutional. In fact that was one of the arguments the District of Columbia put forth in the Heller case.

    You are typing a lot to say absolutely nothing here.

  • Bob, your denial here is pretty obvious and poorly done here. The nickname for such trade is “The Iron Pipeline”. Straw buying in states with lax ownership regulation supplies guns going to places with stricter regulations. The differences in enforcement and regulations enabling the trade.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Pipeline
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/07/opinion/the-iron-pipeline-thrives.html
    http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/death-rides-iron-pipeline-article-1.1801004
    [Your opinion of the sources cited means absolutely nothing to me, there are plenty of others as well]

    “The major source of firearms used by criminals is theft, often from law enforcement.”

    Got a source to back that up. Your word is not particularly reliable here.

    “As the CDC funded study I provided demonstrated, mass shooting incidents
    are rare, follow no observable pattern, and result in fewer deaths than
    either bath tubs or swimming pools.”

    The CDC was banned from collecting relevant data on gun deaths under the aegis of being prevented from using “data which could be used to advocate for gun control” Your study is not reliable nor relevant.
    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-launched-comprehensive-gun-study-15-years/story?id=39873289

    Dishonest presentation of information is the main part of your arguments here.

    Thanks for playing Bob. But so far your entire argument has entailed simply denial and pretending the status quo is an acceptable norm. You offer nothing of value in the discussion here except as an example of the kind of unreasonable, dishonest and craven people who oppose sane regulation of firearms.

  • If analogies are outlawed, only outlaws will have analogies. But Spuddiesaurus is falling down on the job – your response to me failed to include any of your trademark ad hominem imprecations. You neglected to call me a Neo-Nazi, a white supremacist, a liar, a hypocrite, or, your personal favorite, simply a “bigot” (now there’s an all-purpose Progressive insult). No rhetorical exercise is complete for you until you’ve personally denigrated your opponent. Eventually, one begins to suspect that the ultimate point of it all is really your personal exaltation, not the ostensible subject of discussion.

  • “No, I am pointing out there is no fundamental difference between WHAT
    YOU CALL AN ASSAULT RILFE and rifles designed for hunting or target use”

    Other than original design for modern military use, high capacity (over 10 rounds) detachable magazines and using rounds which are uncommon for hunting and target rifles but common in military use.

    Yep, you are trying to BS your way through the discussion through deliberate and dishonest exaggeration of basic facts of the matter.

    “Several million of them are used for hunting and target shooting. The research says they are rarely used in crime.”

    But appear to be common for mass murder. Mass murder using them is statistically small compared to other forms of peril but are becoming alarmingly common and newsworthy. Terrorism is extremely unlikely, yet our government puts billions into preventing it as well. In fact the distinction between mass murder and terrorism has more to do with motivation of the actor than methods, resources employed or results.

    “Yes, the SCOTUS ruled out the notion that “special cases” for certain
    locales voiding the Second Amendment could be constitutional.”

    That is not what SCOTUS ruled on the issue. They found a specific regulation to be an overreach. There are already plenty of ways guns are regulated well within given interpretations of the Second Amendment. At this point its a given that you don’t know how to read legal decisions and have rather goofy ideas what our Bill of Rights entails.

    “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not
    a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner
    whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons
    prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.
    The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding
    prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally
    ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
    such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions
    and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
    Miller’s holding that
    the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time”
    finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of
    dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

  • Sorry buddy, but the people who make a big stink about SCOTUS power with terms like “judicial activism” and “ruling from the bench” don’t get to make arguments about the binding power of their interpretations with a straight face.

    Your attempt to invoke Heller without any criticism of it is laughable. Besides, you didn’t actually understand it anyway (as usual). It has a huge carveout which supports sane regulation

    “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons. (pg 54)
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

    Oh and besides, I wasn’t making the argument for it applying to militias, I was making the argument that “well regulated” is an important clause to justify limitations on gun ownership. One that apparently was also adopted by SCOTUS in Heller.

  • Shorter Bob:
    1. An assault rifle is whatever I say it is, (Despite clear indications to the contrary)

    2. The second amendment means there can be no gun regulation, according to Dist of Columbia v. Heller (Despite the fact that the decision says no such thing and actually supports regulation)

    3. I say we do nothing to regulate gun ownership because the status quo works so wonderfully

    There, saved you a lot of typing.

    The rest is just you acting like a little dishonest whinybaby.

  • You are just annoyed I can rattle off mass murdering Texans so easily. So much for guns making people so polite.

  • “You neglected to call me a Neo-Nazi, a white supremacist, a liar, a hypocrite, or, your personal favorite, simply a “bigot””

    I can always do that if it makes you feel better. 🙂

    You are such a snowflake. So annoyed about being called such things but not really doing much to show I am incorrect in doing so.

    I will leave you with some cartoons

    https://mystery756.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/nra-uncle-sam-youre-safe1.jpg?w=768&h=643

    http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/BergeP/2017/BergeP20171004_low.jpg

  • of course not. Nobody is claiming that. Life is not a black and white, there is a whole big area between ” outlawed” and ” widely available with minimum control over purchasing, ownership and usage”

  • You’re the one who says an assault rifle is whatever you say it is. You correctly (what a surprise) said that the StG 44 was the first assault rifle.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44

    As anyone can read, it was a fully automatic weapon, actually based on a larger machine gun.

    What I said was that the Supreme Court said the Second Amendment could not be nullified locally:

    “We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government – even the Third Branch of Government – the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.” Opinion, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

    I suggest we enforce the laws we already have. For example, during the Obama Administration over 40,000 people were turned down for handguns because they were prohibited persons. Attempting to buy a handgun if you are a prohibited person is a felony under Federal law. Care to guess how many people were investigated and charged during the eight years of the Obama administration?

    Bottom line: you’ve apparently been getting away with bluffing for quite some time.

  • https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Dist_of_Columbia_v_Heller_554_US_570_128_S_Ct_2783_171_L_Ed_2d_63?1519249400

    “Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121-122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights § 13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”). “

    That requirement is made by allow citizens to keep and bear (carry and use) arm.

    Apparently you cannot read a Supreme Court opinion.

    It didn’t support your reading.

    Is there a reason why you continue to pretend you actually know anything about this decision?

  • Sorry, but I have never taken a position that any Supreme Court decision is not the binding law of the land.

    The section you just cited, btw, supports my position.

  • I dominate your syntax once again!

    Forcing you to make a ridiculous mirror of my prior comment. Kneel before your clear intellectual superior!!!!

  • Funny how it doesn’t actually support your position at all.

    You really stink at citation to a legal decision. From the same decision:

    “we cannot say that the Second
    Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” The view of the Amendment we took in Miller — that it
    protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but
    that it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary
    use and ownership of weapons — is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most
    faithful to the history of its adoption.

    You lose. You have been pwned again.

  • You are just annoyed that I distilled your arguments down to their most basic points. I couldn’t care less about arguing the finer points.

    The whole point of a Gish Gallop is to waste time on ancillary irrelevancies rather than address an issue directly.

    “What I said was that the Supreme Court said the Second Amendment could not be nullified locally”
    And you were wrong. Even the quote you used doesn’t say that. It said that judicial power can’t nullify the Second Amendment.

    In fact the case specifically says that at no point does the 2nd Amendment prevent regulation of firearms for non-military ownership. (See prior quotes)

    You really stink at citing legal decisions.

    Your suggestion is the status quo. Basically ignoring mass murder, a vigorous illegal trade in firearms due to state by state loopholes and encouraging people to hoard guns out of well marketed panic. Exactly the sort of thing I just described for point #3

  • Thanks to the lack of nationwide gun ownership record keeping. The NRA clearly supports people getting shot in Chicago by guns acquired in straw purchases.

    Thanks for confirming that for me.

  • Your “sensible gun legislation” resulted in 17 young lives ended. Fk you. And it’s another fvvking goddamned lie that “most Americans” are happy with the sensible gun legislation we already have”. How the fk can you even say that after 17 more senseless deaths??? Because you’re evil.

  • Any realistic approach to the problem HAS to be comprehensive — otherwise, it’s just political posturing and pandering. And that’s why “We don’t want to take your guns away” is belied by the logic of their convictions — once you become convinced that a government fiat can solve our “gun problem,” you become locked into an escalating series of restrictive regulations that despite their intrusive and oppressive effects, do NOT have much effect on the problem, and — obviously — will require even more restrictions to achieve the desired result. Where does it all end? Well, since one after another level of gun regulation has failed to solve the problem, the “solution”
    of an all out gun ban will suggest itself, because at that point, there is no other conclusion their baseline conviction can carry them to.

  • Well, I live in Berkeley, and with my views, I get called stuff like that on a regular basis. I’m psychically well armored against that kind of benighted drive-by abuse, so in your case, it’s not the insults and personal slurs themselves that bother me, it’s that you try to make them a component of your rhetoric, presenting the put-downs as though they were a rebuttal to some statement or argument of your interlocutor. They are your default defense. Your ultimate argument-ender is to accuse your opponent of bad faith, ignorance or stupidity, and then exit the discussion.

    By the way, I am (of course) not trying to coax you into seeing the light. I’m just trying to alert your potential discussion partners as to what they’re in for.

  • Hunting weapons are not designed to kill humans. Assault rifles and handguns are. There are many ways to murder or commit suicide. Still, we would be much safer if these weapons were not available.

    If we had enough support to pass a federal law banning the possession of these weapons, the Supreme Court might re-interpret the 2nd amendment. Of course that won’t happen while the Republican Party controls our government which is in turn controlled by the NRA. It won’t happen until people are determined and replace this government with one that supports the people instead of corporations.

  • You’re not “struggling with that quandary” (of how and why our culture changed), because you already have your answer. And your answer is: “Conservatives and the NRA did it.”

    I’m sorry, but that is a political response, not a serious attempt to answer the question or comprehend the history involved. Cultures change in response to an enormous array of influences – psychological, sociological, technological, political and mercantile, among others. If you are unwilling to consider analyzing our condition on that level, you can contribute little to our insight on the subject. Political finger-pointing doesn’t add to our knowledge or understanding.

  • Bill, “Your word is not particularly reliable here” is particularly amusing since to this point you have been unable to support anything you’ve alleged.

    The CDC was banned from any “studies” of guns after its senior executive announced support for gun control and his intention to use the CDC to gin up support for stricter gun laws. “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes,” Dr. Mark Rosenberg, who oversaw CDC gun research, told The Washington Post in 1994. “Now [smoking] is dirty, deadly and banned.”

    That ban expired.

    In the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, President Obama issued a list of Executive Orders. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) was given $10 million to research gun violence. The result was the following report from the prestigious Institute of Medicine and National Research Council Of the National Academies:

    https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1

    It notes it was funded by the CDC. Findings key to this discussion:

    Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:

    “The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

    “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce ‘mixed’ results”:

    “Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”

  • cont’d

    In one of your sources we read:

    “President Obama stated that, ‘Guns cross state lines as easily as cars do. If your state has strong gun laws but the neighboring state does not have strong gun laws, the guns come into your state. That’s called the Iron Pipeline.’

    And yet, and yet, NONE of your source mention more than a few hundred – 250 in one article, hilariously 320 in another supposedly based on the same data – guns recovered with points of origin in the South.

    All of these articles are based on the same propaganda source: Michael Bloomberg, at that point funding Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which he since folded and rolled into yet another propaganda front. He concocted a “sting” while mayor of NYC, which was then rolled into a “report” by the New York Attorney General’s office.

    And then it sort of fell apart. It turned out officials in New York had broken several Federal laws in conducting the “sting”. Fortunately Barack Obama was President, so no charges were filed.

    Where are the arrests of gun dealers or of supposed operators of this imaginary “Iron Pipeline”? Straw purchases are felonies, as are falsifying firearm purchase paperwork, transferring firearms to residents of a different state, dealing in firearms without a license, transferring firearms to prohibited persons, removing federally required markings from firearms, transporting or receiving a firearm with reasonable cause to believe it will be used in a felony, or transferring a firearm knowing it will be used in a violent or drug trafficking crime.

    Where are the indictments? There are basically none. A few criminals were caught in Queens hawking stolen guns. This must be a paltry “pipeline”.

    I am not going to attack your sources. I am going to point out you’re either gullible or purposely peddling misinformation.

  • Thank you for sharing your nervous breakdown.

    The project in front of you can be found here in Article V of the Constitution of the United States:

    “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”

    You target is the Second Amendment.

    Good luck.

  • If you actually looked at the facts, you would find that there is no evidence that reducing the supply of guns will “dramatically” reduced the number of murders, that mass killings are a minuscule portion of murders in the US, and that gun ownership is protected by the Second Amendment just like speech is protected by the First Amendment.

    I provide some instructions in another post for you to begin process of changing that second part if you ever get some energy up, get out of your chair, and decide to try.

  • There is a mechanism for amending the Constitution; “the Supreme Court might re-interpret the 2nd amendment” is not it.

    Hunting rifles, all rifles, are designed to send an object – usually metal, increasingly polymer/metal – stabilized by spinning at high speed.

    Any hunting rifle suitable for killing deer – the most commonly hunted large mammal – or feral hogs is perfect for killing humans, a similarly sized mammal.

    Therefore “designed to kill humans” is meaningless.

    Handguns are clearly protected by the Second Amendment. The landmark decision District of Columbia v. Heller was based on the District’s prohibition of handguns. The 1934 National Firearms Act specifically did not regulate handguns because, as the record of the debate shows, the Congress was completely aware that handguns were protected by the Second Amendment.

    The NRA is a grassroots organization of over 5 million ordinary citizens. Its members vote in local, state, and national elections and are generally very active in politics and civic affairs.

    That is the source of its influence, not a government that support corporations.

  • And you have to muster! The NRA nuts never seem to read everything the founders wrote about the 2nd amendment. Heck they don’t even fully read the amendment itself!!!

  • Bob, you are telling people to trust a source which was hobbled by a Republican led Congress to avoid collecting relevant data. One which has not put out a study for more than 17 years nor can make a methodologically valid one. The CDC admits themselves they can’t do a definitive study on firearms deaths worth a damn. I believe them more than you.

    Your opinion on my citations in response mean absolutely nothing. I was being upfront and honest about my assertions. You have been acting dishonestly. You aren’t actually denying the existence of this fairly well documented illegal trade nor providing evidence to the contrary.

    Straw purchases are pretty much impossible to detect given the sorry state of gun ownership record keeping. If you wanted to curb them, national level record keeping is essential. Otherwise all that can be practically done is try to follow confiscated guns from their source. A quixotically difficult task given the minimal standards for firearms ownership in several states.

    Still waiting on that source which says stolen firearms make up the majority of those in the black market. You were full of crap there as well. Oh well

  • Excellent article. I am filled with hope in our next generation. Unfortunately these kids will not seem any immediate change. What is worse, is that they will not even see an EFFORT to address the issue. While the students were in attendance at the FLA state house the politicians offered their phony prayer for the victims and immediately voted to not even have a discussion about gun control. Their message and middle finger to the kids could not have been clearer. What gives me hope is that these students are well poised to become politicians themselves and make a change. I am excited to see them do it and not be beholden to the NRA!

  • You are using a sockpuppet account. Why would I need to take your word on anything?

    Too bad the CDC was hobbled by Congress years earlier to avoid collecting data which “could be used to promote gun control”.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/02/gun-violence-public-health/553430/

    The actual amendment (from 1996) sponsored by Jay Dickey, a congressman from Arkansas, did not explicitly forbid research into gun-related deaths, just advocacy. But the Congress also lowered the CDC’s budget by the exact amount it spent on such research. Message received. It’s had a chilling effect on the entire field for decades

    “Researchers who do want to study gun violence have cobbled together funding from a patchwork of sources, often from private foundations. President Obama signed an executive order directing the National Institutes of Health to fund research into gun violence after the Sandy Hook shooting, but the program has since petered out.

    The problem, researchers say, is also a lack of data. While motor-vehicle deaths are tracked in minute detail in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, no such comparable database exists for gun deaths. Basic questions like exactly how many households own guns are not definitively answered.”

  • No, that’s not my answer. It is part of my answer, specifically in response to your “cultural change” question. It’s a lot more than just the NRA-driven change in gun culture that has brought us to this point. But by all means, feel free to share your answer and/or solution.

  • I do suppose that the ability to read, and actually reading the Heller decision and the various briefs submitted pro and con, gives one a somewhat different perspective than someone looking at it from the perspective of, say, the Washington Post or one the various Michael Bloomberg propaganda outlets, or perhaps thinking Obergefell v. Hodges represents the ne plus ultra of judicial consideration.

  • What part of the Second Amendment do you believe they do not read?

    And how would that relate to the very clear plain words of the Supreme Court on the Second Amendment?

  • No, an evil young man who had been the object of numerous complaints and reports to the police, with zero action by law enforcement, ended 17 young lives in Florida.

    I appreciate a “Fk you” from the left-of-whoopee contingent, everything we’ve come to expect and less from you, but you already have demonstrated you’re not quite on the same planet as most of us, although you are rather loud about not being on it.

  • All that’s being confirmed is that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    The issues in Chicago center around incompetent and corrupt police, an administration that refuses to do law enforcement or let the Federal government help them do it, and a large and powerful criminal element which multiple city administrations have let get completely out of control.

    Chicago is fully committed to relying on unworkable gun laws as its bulwark against crime and jamming its fingers in its ears as to why they don’t work. Its spiel is your favorite, the imaginary Iron Pipeline.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago

    There is no reason to believe that nationwide gun ownership record keeping would ameliorate Chicago’s problems.

    Thanks for confirming you’re a Michael Bloomberg propaganda mouthpiece.

  • I don’t really want to argue the finer points, but it is worth pointing out you have no idea at all what you’re writing about.

    “What I said was that the Supreme Court said the Second Amendment could not be nullified locally” was correct, and I quoted the passage saying that.

    If you were smarter you’d drop “You really stink at citing legal decisions”, but go ahead and keep making it clear that you really stink at citing legal decisions.

    Yes, we live in a country with a lot of freedom, which means we have more nutty speech like yours, more demonstrations, more automobile accidents, more murders, and on and on and on than people that live in Red China or Cuba. Police states are safe, except from the government.

    If you don’t like it, I can give you a list of places you can move to.

  • You pretty much skipped the part about what regulations would be permissible without infringing on the Amendment.

    What you’re engaging in the sort of thing one normally finds with a guy at the door, a King James Version Bible under his arm, who is doing proof texting. Proof texting, of course, takes things out of context.

    So, here is a project for you. Precisely what kinds of arms does the Second Amendment protect, and for what purpose?

    The Heller decision says it in plain English.

    Show us all what a really great legal scholar you are.

  • The independent clause. You know the clause that comes before the one the NRA and gun nuts always quote? The one they leave out.

  • I do like that the president is advocating more reporting of mental illness. I am going to report everyone I know who has more than two guns (one for home and one for hunting). Any more shows a clear mental problem with killing devices. Normal people don’t obsess over guns like that.

  • Wow, that was quiet the most ridiculous and ignorant response you have given so far here. All strict gun control laws are undermined by law ones in neighboring areas and a complete and total lack of coherent ownership records nationwide. The lack of coherence enables organized crime here.

    Chicago’s current gang troubles come from disastrous misconceptions. Law enforcement took down the major leaders but the gangs simply devolved from there. Like Iraq on a small scale. Decapitation tactics did not produce the desired results. The result was more violence and less sense to it.

    Calling the Iron Pipeline fictional doesn’t make it so. Illegal guns aren’t being smuggled into the country. They are coming from gun stores and lackadaisical regulations in many states. So where are all those guns in Chicago coming from? You have no answer or care.

    “There is no reason to believe that nationwide gun ownership record keeping would ameliorate Chicago’s problems.”

    Except for the ability to drastically curb the straw buying and interstate smuggling which allows for so many guns to hit the streets.

    What was your suggestion here? Doing nothing. So what.

  • You have no finer points. It’s all trolling, awful appeals to authority (that you didn’t understand), wild misrepresentation of facts and just silly attacks.

    All for the premise “we need to do nothing and ignore the situation” .

    You have no real point to make here.

  • Um, I quoted the part where they said, at no point does the second amendment preclude regulation of civilian firearms ownership rights.

    That alone showed you didn’t understand the decision nor are supporting your argument honestly or effectively.

    Now you are conceding “well regulated” involved actual regulations to be considered. You shot yourself in the foot. Now you are trying to shift goalposts and pretend your prior position was more reasonable than it was.

    You lost.

  • You “quoted the part where they said, at no point does the second amendment preclude regulation of civilian firearms” in support of voiding Second Amendment rights where they said elsewhere could not be voided.

    That alone shows you neither understand the decision nor can you support your argument.

    I specifically rejected the notion that “well regulated” had anything to do with “regulations”, a use of the word that did not exist prior to the mid-20th century and is an anachronism when used with the Second Amendment, and by claiming the exact opposite you shot yourself in the foot.

  • Calling the Iron Pipeline a reality doesn’t make it so.

    The same goes for the rest of your unsupported tommyrot.

  • “your own personal unlawyerly opinion” Oops gotcha – I have a “lawyerly” (not a word) opinion in fact!

    You should read the dissenting opinion in that case. Scalia created something in the constitution that does not exist…

  • I have read the opinion and the dissents.

    I have read a series of state Supreme Court decisions commencing in the early 19th century right through the few decisions of the 20th century. I have also read the contemporaneous scholarly commentary right through the early 20 th century.

    There is not a single decision – not one – prior to the end of Reconstruction that in any way questioned that the Second Amendment did not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. And then a few state decisions to the contrary are found in the South where the KKK et al were disarming blacks.

    That is pretty robust stare decisis for a right that you claim Scalia created.

    And the Heller decision quotes much of it.

    I think what we can say is that “Scalia confirmed the existence of something in plain English in the Constitution that Etranger does not like” and call it a day.

    The funniest dissent was Breyer’s, who claimed it was a right, but could be overridden by various practical considerations. Scalia points out that such a “right” is not much of a right, and if Breyer were correct, it would be the ONLY right in the Bill of Rights subject to this Breyer-invented condition.

    Applying Breyer’s theory, has he been on the bench when the Nazis sought to march in Skokie, he would have denied their right because the march could require local law enforcement to enforce the law!

  • Which you either don’t understand or don’t present honestly.

    You conceded the point that regulations of gun ownership do not in of themselves violate the second amendment. You lost.

  • “Voiding the second amendment” is a nonsense term. You are ly!ng about my position. That is what happens when you work off a script. You can’t argue on points which don’t follow it.

    You used it in opposition to the notion of regulation of gun ownership and claimed Heller supported that. You were wrong.

    No need for further discussion. Even SCOTUS supports regulations for firearm ownership and expects the government to meet a specific 2nd amendment burden for them.

    You lost.

  • I dominate your syntax!!! Mirroring my statement to say something ridiculous.

    I can’t help it if cheap denial and excuses are all you have here.

    So where are all those illegal guns coming from? You got nothing. So you just make ridiculous attacks.

    You lose.

  • Your evil young man got his guns legally, but you think “law enforcement” should have taken them away?? You belong in the Florida House, where assault weapons are accepted and pornography is labeled “dangerous”.

  • ENOUGH ALREADY.

    Other countries do not have a Second Amendment.

    The USA has had higher gun crime for 150 years than Western Europe.

    No one knows why.

    Do get a grip.

  • I provided a comprehensive study by one of the most prestigious and objective think tanks and research bodies, funded by personal order of the Democratic Chief Executive, and expect folks to make up their own minds as to whether it is trustworthy.

    Of course “one which has not put out a study for more than 17 years nor can make a methodologically valid one.” is silly, or every new bit of research would be methodologically invalid.

    The CDC has not claimed it “can’t do a definitive study on firearms deaths worth a damn” since the restrictions were lifted. I believe them more than I believe you.

    Of course my opinion on your citations in response mean absolutely nothing. My better citations from better sources contradict them, and I expect folks to consider both and make up their own minds.

    Rather than “being upfront and honest about (your) assertions”, you’ve been funneling unsupported propaganda that is provided to news outlets by one or more of the various Michael Bloomberg funded propaganda machines.

    I haven’t “den(ied) the existence of (a) fairly well documented illegal trade”. I have simply pointed it is not documented at all. If it was well-documented there’d be a record of raids, arrests, interdictions, and so on. There is nada.

    Of course the last administration also convinced itself that guns were “flowing” into Mexico from American gun dealers and wound up with the embarrassment of actually proving the contrary, but managing to provide the means for the shooting death of a Border Patrol officer in the process.

    Straw purchases are not pretty much impossible to detect. If they were, the ATF and the New York folks couldn’t have provided charts showing the point of origin of guns. You’re contradicting your won narrative.

    There is a national standard for handgun purchases and ownership. Long arms are looser, but they are used in less than 2% of gun crimes.

    Oh well.

  • Your real name is not “Spuddie”, Bill. Why would I need to take your word on anything?

    Of course I have not put anything forward based on “my word”.

    The CDC hobbled itself by violating Federal law. But Michael Bloomberg has poured many millions into “research”, and his organizations are actually lobbyists and advocates, which is as it should be.

    Government agencies are forbidden by law to be lobbyists.

    That “the program has since petered out” was a result of the stunning results of the single CDC-funded study, which not only did not support the Democratic Party’s anti-gun agenda, it substantially contradicted it. Obama got the message loud and clear.

  • Bob, I already pwned your reference with a recent one showing how unreliable your source was.

    Now you are trying to weasel your way out and save face. You lost.

    It was rather lazy on your part to reference the CDC without expecting people to bring up the deficiencies in doing so. You flat out lied about the source of guns in the illegal market as well.

    When have you stopped being so dishonest?

  • Funny that you tried to bring up the CDC study and didn’t expect anyone to look up its obvious deficiencies. From this point on you are just trying to save face in light of obvious dishonesty on your part. A little goalpost shifting here, gish gallop there.

    So where was that source that said stolen guns were the source of the illegal gun trade? Oh right, that was pulled from your posterior orifice.

    You’re done. Thanks for playing. You have nothing to say here.

  • “Act! Act NOW!”

    Act HOW?

    Doesn’t matter, just DO something – ANY thing.

    And be sure to resort to the default Progressive response: denigrate the character of your opponent.

  • Now that you’ve brought it up, let’s put America to an actual comparison “with the civilized countries of the world”:

    A study of global mass-shooting incidents from 2009 to 2015 by the Crime Prevention Research Center, shows the U.S. doesn’t lead the world in mass shootings. In fact, it doesn’t even make the top 10, when measured by death rate per million population from mass public shootings.

    Here’s the list of the 18 countries with the top death rate per million people from mass public shootings from 2009 through 2015:

    1 Norway: 1.888

    2 Serbia: 0.381

    3 France: 0.347

    4 Macedonia: 0.337

    5 Albania: 0.206

    6 Slovakia: 0.185

    7 Switzerland: 0.142

    8 Finland: 0.132

    9 Belgium: 0.128

    10 Czech Republic: 0.123

    11 United States: 0.089

    12 Austria: 0.068

    13 The Netherlands: 0. 051

    14 Canada: 0.032

    15 England: 0.027

    16 Germany: 0.023

    17 Russia: 0.012

    18 Italy: 0.009

  • They all say “I’m not in need of meds” to the nice men in white suits with the straight jacket.

    Remember what happened last time and you know how you hated electro-shock.

  • And here we all thought the cow said “Moo” when it actually says “IT’S TIME FOR GUN CONTROL and gun reduction.”

  • Thank you for your latest zany look at the life of unreality from the inside.

    This young man had been reported multiple times to the local police and the FBI for threats.

    The FBI admitted it screwed up.

    But you know better.

    Not.

  • I see, as usual, you left out “reasonable” from the phrase “reasonable regulations”.

    And we both know why.

  • “Voiding the second amendment” is precisely what you suggested to the extent the Amendment as written and interpreted stood in the way of your plans. “‘Voiding the second amendment’ is a nonsense term.“ is a nonsense sentence.

    Yes, every right including the Second is subject to reasonable regulation.

    However, you have it bass ackwards.

    The presumption is the right is sacrosanct and the onus is on the government to demonstrate cause and that the proposed regulation does not infringe the right.

    That’s precisely why the District of Columbia lost against Heller. Their regulations effectively voided the Second Amendment altogether.

  • In the sentence “So where are all those illegal guns coming from?”, how many is “all”? And do provide a citation for the number.

  • Sorry Buddy, but you already admitted the 2nd Amendment leaves room for regulations and limitations You conceded defeat and are now trying to save face. You’re done.

  • You were arguing against the very concept of regulation. You are trying to shift goalposts to save face. You lost.

  • You’ve managed to completely screw that up.

    1- “Well-regulated”, used in the Second Amendment.

    I pointed out that it did not mean “regulated” in the 20th century sense of applying legal regulations to it.

    In 18th century English it meant “well operating”, “well functioning”, “practiced”, and I provided two citations – the brief of three English and Linguistic professors, and the Court’s decision which stated that.

    2 – “Regulated” in the 20th century sense I commented that the Court said that reasonable regulations – note the new use in a different context with a different meaning – were not ruled out, but within the context of rights that means that infringement may not take place nor may the right be effectively voided by regulations as happened in the District of Columbia.

    These are two separate things in two different contexts.

    The fact that you’ve managed to conflate them would seem to indicate you might consider some tests for dementia, hardened arteries, that sort of thing.

  • At this point you are practically admitting you were just trolling. While you cited sources saying there is an iron pipeline, you’ve yet to find one that identified any identifiable component of an actual pipeline.

    Don’t feel bad, the Obama administration was also unable to do so over an eight year period.

    As for Chicago, thanks for all the material that supports my view and undercuts your own.

  • “…comparing America with the civilized countries of the world. 5-10 times the gun death rate per capita of several comparable countries…”

    That is completely and demonstrably false. I’ve already posted the disproving statistics in response to one of your other posts, but you apparently haven’t read it, so here it is again, for all to see:

    “As Investor’s Business Daily points out, “a study of global mass-shooting incidents from 2009 to 2015 by the Crime Prevention Research Center, headed by economist John Lott, shows the U.S. doesn’t lead the world in mass shootings. In fact, it doesn’t even make the top 10, when measured by death rate per million population from mass public shootings.”

    Here’s the list of the 18 countries with the top death rate per million people from mass public shootings from 2009 through 2015:

    1 Norway: 1.888

    2 Serbia: 0.381

    3 France: 0.347

    4 Macedonia: 0.337

    5 Albania: 0.206

    6 Slovakia: 0.185

    7 Switzerland: 0.142

    8 Finland: 0.132

    9 Belgium: 0.128

    10 Czech Republic: 0.123

    11 United States: 0.089

    12 Austria: 0.068

    13 The Netherlands: 0. 051

    14 Canada: 0.032

    15 England: 0.027

    16 Germany: 0.023

    17 Russia: 0.012

    18 Italy: 0.009
    https://www.dailywire.com/news/27401/democrats-say-america-worst-western-country-mass-hank-berrien

  • Funny you’re talking about its deficiencies when you have not even read it.

    It is bit of slog, and I am sure you’ll need a dictionary to get through it.

    Also funny that it was done by the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council Of the National Academies, one of the most prestigious bodies in the United States, hand-selected to do the job and be credible and above partisan reproach and yet you believe it to be “deficient”.

    Take a look at the well-known individuals who did the study and peer-reviewed it.

    Here is the catalog of National Academies’ publications.

    https://www.nap.edu/

    And, so far, you have not been able to establish there is an Iron Pipeline.

    As to guns used in crime:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-evidence-confirms-what-gun-rights-advocates-have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime/?utm_term=.3d5a06286b5d

    https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

    http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/05/joe-scarborough/msnbcs-joe-scarborough-tiny-fraction-crimes-commit/

    Notable is the lack of any reference to a “pipeline”.

    Well, back to your finger twiddling.

  • It was the only part of your answer that you articulated. So, now that you’ve expanded your analysis of the situation, what is the “lot more” that “has brought us to this point?” Whatever it is, that’s what needs to be changed – and that’s where we need to start. Culture-change is a complicated process. I don’t have a bullet-point agenda to turn things around, because there isn’t one.

  • Watching you try to double down on a clear misrepresentation on your part is hilarious. You used a source which not only is unreliable, but well documented as being so. Your ego won’t let you walk away from being called out on fairly obvious BS.

    As to the pipeline, lack of reference does not mean lack of existence. Your claim it is a myth is unsupported. You made a positive claim about stolen weapons being a main source. When asked for a citation, you balked. You were full of it.

    When have you stopped being dishonest?

  • Bob, I am not the one trying to rely on the authority of a nonsense study by an agency well documented to be lacking in overall data collection on the subject.

    You lost. Get the net, you are in a tumble.

  • Syntax Domination!!!!!

    I referenced it upthread. Your inability to find something here is your problem, not mine.

    It’s funny how you feel the need to claim organized interstate gun smuggling does not exist, but you can’t seem to cough up any alternative source for illegal guns hitting the streets. Oh, right, because you are full of crap. Same old Bullcrap Bob

    As for Chicago, you didn’t look at what I referenced. You are lazy that way. You don’t read things very closely or honestly.

    You lost Bob. The Second Amendment does not preclude regulation. Even SCOTUS agreed with me with the case YOU referenced.

    You have nothing of value to say here. You are just flinging poo to save face.

    Bye bye.

  • You argued with me on “well regulated”. You lost.

    You are conceding my point entirely now and trying to shift goalposts to pretend your original position made a drop of sense.

    “Reasonable” is like “bone fide” from you. A nonsense qualification which will be entirely self defined and irrelevant.

    Were done here. Bye bye.

  • I don’t have bullet points either. Our culture has become coarsened to a point where these things are repeatedly happening and happening on a larger scale. You see in it our politics on both sides, but that’s more of a symptom than a cause.

  • It is sidesplittingly hilarious watching you trying to dismiss a nationally pre-eminent research organization as “unreliable”, then writing “well documented as being so” when it is no such thing.

    Yes, you’re right, the lack of any evidence whatsoever does not mean the pipeline does not exist, just like the fact that you’re paranoid doesn’t mean people aren’t following you.

    It does mean my claim it is myth is better supported than your claim it exists.

    I just provided citations on the stolen weapons, so you can put a sock in that one.

  • Your inability to accept a loss is quite amusing.

    You were done when you misinterpreted “well-regulated”.

    If you want to run with the big dogs, you need to learn to kick leg in the big bushes.

    Bluffing used to work, eh?

  • You are just flinging poo to save face.

    SCOTUS said the Second Amendment, like all amendments, is subject to regulation.

    Unfortunately their version of what was permitted agreed with me.

    Keep trying and you will get something correct.

  • The other purpose of a militia that no one wants to talk about was for slave owing states to prevent uprisings and find runaway slaves.

  • It is hard to see how running around in circles, screaming and shouting, and demanding ineffective actions that infringe on fellow citizens’ rights could be characterized as anything but crackpot, even if the crackpot says he is motivated by a desire “to save kids’ lives”.

  • Do children have a right not to be murdered at school with your goddamned precious assault weapons? There’s something very perverted about your crackpot love of guns.

  • That is a fairly modern gloss on the issue based on something said at the Constitutional Convention taken out of context. It is really nonsensical.

  • Everyone agrees that children should not be murdered.

    Where the problem occurs is:

    – there is zero indication that “goddamned precious ‘assault weapons’ ” are a cause and that a ban would be the cure. The ten-year ban did nothing, according to the FBI, to reduce anything

    – there is zero indication that ordinary mentally sound individuals who have what you call an “assault weapon” placed in their hands turn into murderous rampaging mass murders

    – the worst school massacres have not involved firearms at all

    So, there is something very perverted about your crackpot hatred of firearms, and your zany attribution of evil to inanimate objects.

  • The AR-15 was used in just about every mass shooting, but you say it’s not a cause? No guns = no gun massacres. You offer no solutions at all. Your guns are more important to you than saving people’s lives.

  • 1) No, the “AR-15″ is not used in just about every mass shooting.

    2) Americans have the Second Amendment which precludes “No guns”. This has been pointed out to you several times.

    3) “You offer no solutions at all.” Well, I am not going to run around with you waving my arms in the air, screaming “Do something, anything!”, and stepping all over other people unless and until it is demonstrated that the “something” will actually accomplish its purpose. We have had “assault rifle” bans, magazine bans, you name it with zero effect.

    My own theory is that the problem seems to be evil, but given your rejection of your own church and adoption of a pagan philosophy I can see why that doesn’t appeal to you.

    My suggestion is that you get a grip on yourself.

  • Funny how you go through all this effort to deny something which is plainly obvious. In some states it’s easier to buy an assault rifle than it is to but Sudafed or get an abortion.

    There are no interstate gun ownership records, several states don’t even keep them. So what is the alternative source of illegal guns other than straw buying? You don’t have one. You are full of crap.

    You have nothing of value to say here.

    BTW you already conceded SCOTUS contemplated regulations and restrictions on gun ownership. So you have nothing to say here either. Bye bye. You lost.

  • Yes your inability to understand you conceded my point. I simply brought up well regulated. Now you are just lying about it.

    You lost. Bye bye.

  • these kids are natural leaders. They are better organized, more nimble, and more focused than their opponents. And they are absolutely dominating multi-channel media right now. This is their turf and they are staying on point with devastating effect.

    good for them.

  • Your magical thinking won’t change anything. “Evil” must only affect America, because these shootings aren’t happening elsewhere. Americans must be particularly evil. You’re willing to let more kids die in service to the 2nd Amendment. This is why you’re an a$$ with no conscience.

  • don’t over shoot. you are smarter than this and you know perfectly well that there are plenty of normal people who own more than 2 guns.

    One of the many reasons the neveragain students are going to win and keep winning is they are being absolutely brilliant about staying on target.

  • Do you think your inability to obtain land mines, surface-to-air missiles or hand grenades is a violation of your “rights”? Talk about evil — it’s YOU.

  • I was just pointing out that making this a “mental health” issue is stupid – it would require me to report people who, as you maintain, are not a mental health risk (though I would debate that).

    But I agree – it is important to stay on target as these kids are doing. If only we can keep the other side to stop bringing up the absurd “mental health” issue.

  • Time to pretend I’m a Progressive:

    “I’m sick and tired of you hoi polloi carping all the time and standing in the way of our obviously superior program for society. So we’ll use our allies in the government and the media to shut you up and shame you into silence and political impotence. Once we’ve isolated you, we’ll further diminish your political weight by flooding the country with millions of unskilled immigrants, thereby creating a dependent class of reliable voters who will be able to establish a permanent Progressive regime in this country. It will be the Californication of America.”

    My pretense has more credibility than yours.

  • You had it right until the “millions of unskilled immigrants part”. That is actually a conservative point. They want the labor to exploit, they just don’t want to talk about it in public.

    Its funny how the “democrat plantation” argument is usually used in response to being called racist, yet it is about as racist as you can possibly get. 🙂

  • The nra is desperately trying to push this angle and any other they can think of…and they are getting eaten alive by the neveragain kids because they consistently ignore the bait and stay on their message: gun control, and end the nra’s influence. They are dominating the adults attacking them on their own turf by shredding their credibility and responding by bringing it back on message…

    They are pushing angles across the board and not letting up. Companies are severing ties with NRA in response to these kids pushing boycottnra.. the nra is already defensively lashing out. they are pushing registrations drives and mobilizing the several million teens who will be able vote in upcoming elections. they are publicizing and and targeting individual politicians who take nra donations. they are planning and and executing targeted high profile events, they are mobilizing national protests, they are blowing the nra out of the water with exponential growth in followers on social media, and they have raised several million dollars in days.

    so yeah, there are news stories about law enforcement failures.. and these kids are turning every one of them back into an accusation against nra influence and leveraging it to push their agenda.

    it is a wonder to behold.

    is. 11:6

  • That’s a mighty slick piece of propaganda there.

    Here’s some facts to go with it:

    https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3?term=school#13

    https://www.cato.org/blog/are-mass-shootings-becoming-more-frequent

    https://www.snopes.com/2018/02/16/how-many-school-shootings-in-2018/

    http://dailysignal.com/2018/02/15/6-common-media-myths-gun-control/

    In this case simple competent law enforcement could have, and should have, prevented the shooting.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/23/florida-deputys-inaction-latest-missed-opportunity-to-stop-nikolas-cruz.html

    Will that dissuade you and other Chicken Littles from running around like the Nazis after the Reichstag fire?

    Of course not. Facts mean nothing to you.

  • No, because the Second Amendment protects arms, not ordnance.

    Of course, you wouldn’t know that because it is a fact, and you and facts are not even acquainted.

    Talk about crackpots — it’s YOU.

  • For at least 150 years America has had more violence then Western Europe.

    No one know why.

    No gun control scheme anywhere in the USA has had the intended effect – Chicago and Baltimore being two very good examples.

    So, your magical thinking that THIS time THIS scheme is going to solve the problem indicates you’re more gullible than most Americans and experience means nothing to you.

  • 1) it doesn’t even address the figure you are trying to counter. The claim was deaths, you are responding with death rate from mass shooting.. different data altogether
    2) this study excludes the vast majority of deaths involving gun violence by focusing soley on mass shootings.
    3) then it excludes the majority of deaths in mass shootings by redefining mass-shooting

    This is a classic example of building a “study” to support a predetermined conclusion. it is methodologically dishonest and simply reeks of desperation.

    did you think you no one here would actually read the link or did you just not understand the study?

  • slippery slope, straw man, false dichotomy, no perfect solution.. my god man, I can’t even count them all…. are you capable of putting up a post that isn’t riddled with logical fallacies and dishonest rhetoric?

  • oh my. I hope you aren’t depending on making this a an article V issue. It isn’t clear you will be able to handle the disappointment.

    heller confirmed our basic 2A rights AND explicitly says regulation doesn’t violate 2A. but by all means.. carry on thinking it would take repealing the 2nd.

  • You’re full of sh*t, yet amazingly, you don’t know sh*t.

    arms
    ärmz
    noun
    1.
    weapons and ammunition; armaments.
    “they were subjugated by force of arms”
    synonyms: weapons, weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, artillery, armaments, munitions, matériel
    “the illegal export of arms”

  • The fact is you’re attempting to minimize the death of children. No conscience whatsoever. Sociopathic loser.

  • Here’s a fact that fits you: “the less education you have, the more likely you are a gun owner. About a third (31%) of the people who only have a high school diploma have a gun, 34% of those who some college education, but only a quarter of those with a bachelor’s degree report to be gun owners. Among whites only, the number of high school diploma owners with a gun jumps up to 40%, compared to 26% for college graduates.”

    http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/a-minority-of-americans-owns-most-of-the-guns-and-drives-gun-agenda-studies-show

  • The fact is that 23 deaths a year on average, while unfortunate, does not constitute a national emergency, nor does anything you advocate seem likely to reduce the number of deaths.

    I will not join you in hysteria.

  • In 18th century parlance the division was between arms and ordnance, much the same as today.

    Arms were borne – knives, swords, axes, pikes, handguns, muskets, rifles.

    Ordnance was moved – cannon, mines, and the like.

    Arms were kept in the hands of the populace.

    Ordnance was kept by the state, usually at an armory, also much the same as today.

    Since we analyze the Second Amendment in terms of the time, that’s the division.

    https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Dist_of_Columbia_v_Heller_554_US_570_128_S_Ct_2783_171_L_Ed_2d_63?1519557864

    “Before addressing the verbs ‘keep’ and ‘bear,’ we interpret their object: ‘Arms.’ The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined ‘arms’ as ‘[w]eapons of offence, or armour of defence.’ 1 Dictionary of the English Language 106 (4th ed.) (reprinted 1978) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham'[****6] s important 1771 legal dictionary defined ‘arms’ as ‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’ 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary; see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).”

    “The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: ‘Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, & c. and not bear other arms.’ See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, § 6, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing ‘arms’). Although one founding-era thesaurus limited ‘arms’ (as opposed to ‘weapons’) to ‘instruments of offence generally made use of in war,’ even that source stated that all firearms constituted ‘arms.’ 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed [*582] Synonymous in the English Language 37 (3d ed. 1794) (emphasis added).”

  • As I guessed, you’re an elitist.

    I had just assumed that fewer farmers, ranchers, shepherds, and the like who normally carry a gun at work had Ph.D.s.

  • …zzzzzzzzzz Could you be any more pretentious if you tried? Since you obviously masturbate while reading the 2nd Amendment, and you put it into historical context, then logically the only “arms” allowed should be those that existed at the time it was written.

  • I am sure that the fact that other people are capable of masturbating perturbs to no end.

    It is also clear that facts and you are not on the same planet.

  • Why are so many Roman Catholics such whiny, wacko conservative turds? Maybe you have the answer to that.

  • Reread your response to this for an example of how you process facts:

    In 18th century parlance the division was between arms and ordnance, much the same as today.

    Arms were borne – knives, swords, axes, pikes, handguns, muskets, rifles.

    Ordnance was moved – cannon, mines, and the like.

    Arms were kept in the hands of the populace.

    Ordnance was kept by the state, usually at an armory, also much the same as today.

    Since we analyze the Second Amendment in terms of the time, that’s the division.

    https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Dist_of_Columbia_v_Heller_554_US_570_128_S_Ct_2783_171_L_Ed_2d_63?1519557864

    “Before addressing the verbs ‘keep’ and ‘bear,’ we interpret their object: ‘Arms.’ The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined ‘arms’ as ‘[w]eapons of offence, or armour of defence.’ 1 Dictionary of the English Language 106 (4th ed.) (reprinted 1978) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham'[****6] s important 1771 legal dictionary defined ‘arms’ as ‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’ 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary; see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).”

    “The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: ‘Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, & c. and not bear other arms.’ See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, § 6, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing ‘arms’). Although one founding-era thesaurus limited ‘arms’ (as opposed to ‘weapons’) to ‘instruments of offence generally made use of in war,’ even that source stated that all firearms constituted ‘arms.’ 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed [*582] Synonymous in the English Language 37 (3d ed. 1794) (emphasis added).”

  • It does not say “regulation doesn’t violate 2A”. What it actually says is:

    “2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those ‘in common use at the time’ finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”

    https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Dist_of_Columbia_v_Heller_554_US_570_128_S_Ct_2783_171_L_Ed_2d_63?1519556401

    Since the weapons in question are “in common use at the time”, and in fact use much the same manual of arms as the common fully automatic “militia” weapon making them particularly suitable to practice to proficiency in their use (well-regulated), they are not “dangerous and unusual weapons”, despite the drumbeat of propaganda to identify them as “assault weapons”.

    Regulation of a fundamental right, which includes the rights in the Bill of Rights, must meet strict scrutiny requirements:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

    Read Article V and then take a look at the state-level liberalization of gun laws over the last three decades. Outside California and a cluster in the northeast, there is zero interest in stricter gun laws, nor is there any evidence such laws accomplish anything.

  • No, the “NRA” is not the problem.

    No, significant number of companies are not “severing ties” to the NRA. Less than a dozen will no longer be offering discounts to NRA members.

    The law enforcement failures were serial, months long, and catastrophic, concluding with the deputy sheriff who was supposed to respond armed to the shooter disappearing in fear.

    A bigger problem is people who run around with hands in the air screaming “Do something! Do anything!” empowering politicos like Dianne Feinstein to push for more idiotic laws which wouldn’t be enforced and would accomplish nothing if they were.

    Most Americans believe they should own the means to protect themselves, firearms.

    That’s why we have the current laws, which draw a proper balance between rights and dangers.

  • The raw “per capita” death data is skewed by the fact that that approximately 60% of all adult firearm deaths are by suicide – 61% more than deaths by homicide (as reported by The U.S.Department of Justice). So the raw numbers are bloated by a heavy proportion of people who have killed THEMSELVES.

    And, after all, a “mass shooting” was the subject of the article and the focus of the subsequent discussion, so the relevance of the mass shooting data should be obvious. The claim is often made that these kinds of insane public mass firearm murders happen “only in America.” But proportionate to population (the meaningful comparison) the actual figures show that to be flagrantly untrue.

  • Sock puppet…how much do you get paid to lie like a rug?
    What, you don’t get paid for this garbage?? More fool, you.

  • “That’s why we have the current laws, which draw a proper balance between rights and dangers”
    I, honestly, don’t know anyone who believes this. One the 2A side , pretty much no one… no correct that, it isn’t pretty much.. it is: not a single person at my range believes any current regulation makes sense. Putting holes in things and yapping about nonsense regulations is pretty much all we do. And most certainly, the anti gunners don’t think gun regulations are anywhere near where they want them.

    Trust me, I know their tendency to overreach is more than a little scary, but at the rate things are going, if responsible gun owners don’t start taking control of the conversation away from the fringe wackos in the NRA leadership and start talking honestly with the gun control folks, we are going to lose more of 2A than any of us want.

    NRA is absolutely the problem. It has been sliding down the crazy hill since Cincinnati and completely fell off the cliff in the last few years. These kids are doing little more than calling it as it is: any conversation about guns and our 2A rights in this country has been so corrupted by the NRA that none of it, either side, is rational anymore.

    to put a line from the NRA is a different light: there are 100 million gun owners in this country. less than 5% of us are members of the NRA. That means 95 million gun owners choose not to support them. that is a whole lot a room to have an adult conversation if we can get there as a country. These children, might just be able to lead us there.

  • seriously curious: is it that you aren’t capable of understanding the study and the data or do you understand what is being measured and compared and choose to misuse it in a dishonest attempt to argue your opinion?

  • I am no lawyer, so not going to argue the finer points of the case with you. If you want to believe that any meaningful gun regulation requires repealing 2A, then feel free. I think that is a ridiculously stupid position to take for anyone who cares about keeping our gun rights…. setting this up as ALL or NOTHING, leaves us with a distinct possibility that NOTHING will be result. 2A is a fundamental part of our democracy and our society, requiring full repeal to address guns in our society is just asking for that happen.

    Heller is an opportunity. It 100% protects our fundamental, individual right to bear arms while simultaneously opening the door for rational conversation and legislation. I would rather protect our rights and find some common ground than risk it all making a last stand on repeal. Remember, we lost the Alamo… glorious and heroic last stands are usually that: last stands.

  • silly otto. trix are for kids. they finished breakfast a few days ago and are already eating your lunch. Please try to keep up.

  • I’m not sure why Progressives seem to think that throwing cliches around constitutes a rebuttal. But it doesn’t

  • When did you recite facts? You have been trying to polish a turd of a study the entire time. Despite a ton of evidence showing it cannot be relied upon. You got caught doing something dishonest and have been treading around ever since.

  • My point is two-fold. First, that the per capita raw data on gun deaths is not a reliable indicator of the social presence of armed violence in a society because of the suicide factor, and will only mislead observers unless that factor is filtered out. I didn’t make that point explicit to begin with because I merely passed over the skewed data and passed on to the more significant indicator. My failure to report that movement apparently resulted in confusion as to what I was trying to say. If you want to say the omission was a “fault,” so be it. I probably should have been more comprehensive and precise in my presentation. But the point remains.

    My second point is that the prevailing popular opinion about mass shootings (the subject of the article) – i.e., that they happen “only (or at least mostly) in America” – is quite simply false, and that by a wide margin.

  • The NRA is not the problem.

    I was in Cincinnati in 1977, and it was make a stand or lose fundamental rights.

    The 5 million ordinary citizen members of the NRA vote, write their legislators, and otherwise earn their creds.

    95 million gun owners don’t want to spend $30 or so a year. They generally support the NRA at the ballot box, and many of them belong to other Second Amendment rights organizations in lieu of the NRA. They shoot and hunt with NRA members.

    There is no one to talk to on the other side. Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, the Clintons, et al have zero respect for the Second Amendment and have demonstrated that.

  • You mean the CDC-funded, Obama-ordered, $10 million study by the preeminent American research body?

  • this is YOUR president being incoherent….like you can be incoherent.

    US Business and World Report.”

    “INCOHERENT IS A WORD I tend to use a lot about President Donald Trump, and with good reason: It is often an ideal descriptive, especially when it comes to his policy pronouncements.

    Take his position on guns, which last week’s tragic massacre in Parkland, Florida, has brought to the fore, specifically that the surest way to make our schools safer is to dramatically increase the flow of weapons into them.

    This is on its face a bad (farcically bad) idea: Guns beget gun violence, armed guards don’t actually deter violence, and there are obvious issues of how to secure firearms in schools, how to properly train teachers and so on.

    Even setting those objections aside, Trump’s own internal logic doesn’t hold up. “If this guy thought that other people would be shooting bullets back at him, he wouldn’t have gone to that school,” Trump told the crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Friday. These shooters, who he describes as “very sick” and “mentally ill,” tend to “feel safe” at schools, he said, because “there’s nobody coming to come at them.”

    But if these shooters are truly unhinged, what makes Trump think that they’re rational enough to overly worry about their own safety? Was the Parkland shooter drawn to his old school because it was gun-free (which it wasn’t, of which more in a moment) or because it was his old school? As Mark Barden, who lost his seven-year-old son in the Sandy Hook Elementary School murders, said at Trump’s White House event on Wednesday: “A deranged sociopath on his way to commit an act of murder in a school with the outcome – knowing the outcome is going to be suicide – is not going to care if there is somebody there with a gun.”

  • Look, you and I are on the same basic side: pro 2A. And I completely understand that there are not good alternatives to the NRA. There is a natural instinct to hang on to the perceived safety of the NRA as the biggest pro 2A org out there. But being paralyzed with fear and latching onto to an organization that represents us so negatively is not likely to end well.

    do you see how much you are rationalizing here? “95 million gun owners don’t want to spend $30 or so a year. …. many of them belong to other Second Amendment rights organizations in lieu of the NRA.” – so, um, we don’t want spend 30 on nra but we are willing to spend to join other organizations in lieu of nra? That’s kinda exactly my point. 95% of us choose to not support the nra, kinda a problem when 95% of most likely supporters do not support, and worse many can.. but choose to support another group instead. 95 million of us.

    “They shoot and hunt with NRA members.” Of course we do. We have a shared hobby and we like spending time with our friends. Most of us are perfectly capable of being friends with people who have different opinions than our own. That is maturity and respecting alternative viewpoints and has nothing to do with supporting the nra.

    “There is no one to talk to on the other side” Not being willing to listen is not the same as not being able to talk.

    The polemic, crazy train of the nra is putting our shared goals are risk. Time to get off that train and get back on track.

  • We only have one President.

    Arming teachers does not “dramatically increase the flow of weapons into” schools in any coherent understanding of that phrase.

    Whether at this school, or in Aurora, shooters look for free hunting zones where they are likely to encounter no resistance. Targets that shoot back aren’t on their desirable list.

    Yes, these are very emotional events.

    No, I really don’t think taking directions from muddle-heads who read from a script – pro-abortion, anti-capital punishment, pro-gun control, yadda, yadda – in lieu of thinking the matter through in a detached rational way is beneficial.

    No, running around with your hands in the air yelling “Do something, do anything!” when the track record has been that the laws that result simply annoy law-abiding citizens and do nothing worthwhile is not a good approach.

  • I didn’t forget – I merely didn’t mention it, because it’s irrelevant. Try this one on for size: “I don’t know why Progressives seem to think that throwing (deplorably coined) cliches around constitutes a rebuttal. But it doesn’t.”

  • Riiight: “I’m rubber and you’re glue — what you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.” Are you finally going to make it out of the third grade this year?

  • “The nra is desperately trying to push this angle…and they are getting eaten alive by the neveragain kids because they consistently ignore the bait and stay on their message: gun control, and end the nra’s influence.”

    Riiight – let’s not pay attention to the fact that procedures currently in place WOULD have stopped the massacre from taking place IF they had been followed. Oh no –instead, let’s pay attention to kneejerk demands that we need to pass even more laws that criminals will ignore, but that will burden the law-abiding.

  • The NRA does not represent gun owners negatively.

    The gun control lobby represents the NRA negatively.

    Punch 1977 nra into Google. Article after article misrepresenting the annual meeting in 1977, presuming to speak for the members who were actually there on the floor. It is complete and utter hogwash.

    The NRA Board had become a self-perpetuating self-serving country club elite. With nomination by member petition and a selection larger than the open seats, members get their voices hear.

    The NRA gets results.

  • yeah, I’m good. As a law abiding, responsible gun owner with a clean record and well beyond any age minimum they might implement, it really ain’t gonna be a burden for me… and I am pretty sure there are somewhere north of 90 million other owners just like me. Though, of course, statistics aren’t reliable for lots of stupid reasons, not the least of which is nra shenanigans over the years.

  • “The NRA gets results.”

    yep. but not the kind of results you are hoping for. nra leadership is a stain on us all and it ain’t going to end well at this rate. And hell no. As one of the more than 90 million+ of us who don’t support them, they do not represent me or my interests .

    you got played in 77 and its a damn shame it has taken this long before a handful of teenagers are making you realize it.

  • It gets, and has gotten, EXACTLY the results its membership wants.

    No, you’re getting played by a plethora of anti-gun propaganda.

    Every drama needs a villain, and the Bloomberg-funded anti-gun folks have fabricated the NRA as the villain.

    They NEVER point out that it is a membership-run (annual meetings have 80%+ turnout of voting members) organization of 5 million ordinary citizens who propose leadership, vote on issues, and exercise democracy.

    I do understand they do not represent you or your interests.

  • So the problem, is I think you are right. The tiny minority… 4-6% of gun owners who are members are getting exactly what they want and love their leaders. The NRA strategy has been effective and has put us where we are today…. and I don’t think we are in a good spot. They turned this into a battle of nitpicks and dishonest debate (which the anti gun nuts do just as much.. two side to this, I know). So we end up fighting on stupid ass issues like raising age on rifles to 21 and the definition (impossible) of “assault” rifle. We nitpick them on “features” and the net result is ridiculous patchwork of state laws and when effective opposition happens (like now). We end up losing on stupid ass points… all hand guns have to be 21, and soon is some states.. all rifles.

    The 90-95 % of us owners who don’t agree with the minority hardline NRA end up losing important shit so some 18 year old punk can get an AR.

    That’s dumb.

  • He is not fit to be president. He is not my president. I honor the office but not this excuse for a human being holding it.
    “Muddle heads”…look in the mirror. You cannot do even basic critical thinking. And you project onto me and other all your venom. Spew it like the garbage it is.

  • Most of us felt the same way about some of his predecessors.

    Speaking of looking in the mirror …. you really ought to.

  • My experience is that 80% of gun owners agree with the NRA, and they tend to vote much the same way as the members.

    This is not a battle of nitpicks. The old saying is “give them an inch and they’ll take a mile”. That’s what appeasement accomplishes, and it worked no better with the gun control crowd then it worked for Neville Chamberlain prior to WWII.

    The straw that broke the camel’s back was the 1968 Gun Control Act. “This will do it”, they said, “this is all we want”, and then they turned around began lobbying for yet more controls.

    Dianne Feinstein at least had the honesty to say that if she had her way she’d grab’em all.

    Your lack of experience leads you to believe that you’re dealing with reasonable people. They’re not.

    Americans have a right to own firearms, period. I defend that like I defend every single other part of the Bill of Rights.

  • my experience is pretty much the opposite, the vast majority of folks I chat with while waiting for the range to go hot are not nra members. and frankly if 80% agreed with the nra, they would have significantly more members. Sure, some percent may not have the funds, and some percent arn’t members because the NRA isn’t hard-line enough for them… but even if you those groups 20% each (and that is way generous), you still got somewhere around 55% of gun owners who are not members. As a faithful, engaged member yourself, I am sure it is hard to accept, but the nra just doesn’t pull a very large number of the gun owners out there.

    the rest of your response is just reverting back to towing the line on nra strategy.. which is exactly what I am worried about. Constantly playing the cards to frame any and all discussion as unreasonable, or appeasement, or ineffective, is exactly how we got to where we are today: a steady erosion of our rights through illogical piecemeal infringements.. death by a thousand paper cuts if you will. That strategy has held off draconian actions like repeal or systematic confiscation and wins head-up battles but we are losing the war and the nra is dragging the rest of us down with it.

  • What you’re saying is that you don’t need to rebut a lie. Fine. But you do need to have an actual lie in hand for that rhetorical ploy to work…and you don’t have one. The study on mass shootings I cited to begin this so-called “discussion” is beyond reproach both as to its data and its methodology. It merely collects the numbers killed by mass shootings in various nations, then compares them proportionate to the population of each nation; the rest (i.e., the rankings) is simple mathematics. You’re just flinging baseless charges around as a smokescreen to cover the fact that you bring nothing to this discussion but your personal hostility.

  • Just as I expected. No reference to the study in question. No effort to challenge any of its conclusions. No substantive content of any kind. Nothing but hostility

    Thanks for confirming my assessment.

  • That’s it? So, where’s the “lie,” liar?. You’ve got nothing, and it shows. I expected at least that there’d be a spirited defense of your personal attitudes, but I guess you decided to pass on that one…for obvious reasons.

  • You’ve solved your problem, you’re not an NRA member.

    The fact that you have gun to take the range, and the existence of the range itself, can be attributed to the NRA defending your rights.

    Your error is believing that your approach would prevent the steady erosion of our rights through illogical piecemeal infringements. Your approach is why that process got as far as it did.

  • “You won’t face facts.”
    You haven’t given me a fact to face. So far, you’ve offered nothing but name-calling.

    Here’s a fact for you to face: you called me a “liar,” but haven’t been able to name the “lie”I supposedly told. Major Fail.

  • “Everything you’ve written is a lie.”

    But you can’t specify a single one of them, can you? Because to make a specific charge, you’d have to deal with some actual facts, instead of simply broadcasting your personal hostility. It’s evident you don’t even know how to conduct an argument, much less a “discussion.” Insult and imprecation are the only things you bring to any encounter. I imagine you win a lot of arguments within the protected confines of your own mental bubble. But that’s not even a “Fail” — it’s just a joke.

  • I’m through trading personal slurs with you. There’s nothing else you have to offer. You can’t answer a single question, or even levy a single specific charge. You’re a toxic-gas bag, full of noxious hostility and very little else. Now, prove me right by launching another round of personal insults. Or, alternatively, do the right thing, and just shut up.

ADVERTISEMENTs