Columns Jeffrey Salkin: Martini Judaism Opinion

And the ‘biggest post-Parkland jerk’ award goes to … Jason Chaffetz

Then-U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz waves after addressing the Utah GOP Convention in Sandy, Utah, on May 20, 2017. Chaffetz resigned from his seat the following month. (AP Photo/Rick Bowmer)

(RNS) — Ever since the massacre at a Parkland, Fla., high school two weeks ago, America has experienced moments of real nobility:

  • The kids who have become energized by this horror, and who have jumped into political and moral activism. They inspire me. I want them to succeed. I will do whatever I can to help them succeed.
  • The religious leaders who have made both comfort and challenge their mission. I refer, in particular, to my colleagues, Rabbis Brad Boxman and Melissa Zalkin Stollman of Congregation Kol Tikvah in Parkland, and Rabbi Marci Bloch of Temple Beth Orr in Coral Springs, whose congregations were seriously affected by this tragedy.
  • The companies that are putting morality over profit — by putting self-imposed limits on the weaponry that they will sell, and to whom. The list seems to grow with each passing day: Dick’s Sporting Goods, Walmart, Kroger, L.L. Bean. Their actions actually embody a conservative ideal — private enterprise doing what government can’t or won’t do.

But, as well, there has been more than a share of absolute  ….  (I’m not going to say it):

  • The right-wingers who are accusing Parkland kids of being “crisis actors.”
  • The National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre dropping anti-Semitic dog whistles, by talking about the “social engineering” of Michael Bloomberg and George Soros.
  • LaPierre, suggesting that gun ownership is a God-given right. (You wanna find that in the Bible for me, Sparky?)
  • The churches that are now using AR-15s in their rituals. (Idolatry much?)

But few acts have reached this level of disgusting: Let’s talk about former Utah Republican congressman, Jason Chaffetz.

Chaffetz had an “A” rating from the National Rifle Association, and the endorsement of its associated political action committee in his last election.

Chaffetz also aspired to win the “Most Comforting Former Congressman” award. He told Fox News that he knows exactly what the survivors of the Parkland, Fla., school shooting need.

That would be “a belief in God, in Jesus Christ.”

You do know, of course, that Parkland is heavily Jewish, and that many of the victims and their classmates are Jewish.

But, here’s what you need to know about Chaffetz.

Chaffetz, you’re thinking … boy, that name sounds ….

Yup. Chaffetz’s father was Jewish. The elder Chaffetz’s first wife was Kitty Dukakis, who later married Gov. Michael Dukakis. Chaffetz’s mother had been a Christian Scientist, but became a Mormon. In college, Chaffetz himself became a Mormon.

Chaffetz has a Jewish background, at least on his father’s side, which makes his self-righteous insensitivity to mourning parents particularly galling.

Chaffetz’s screed reminds us that throughout Jewish history, some of the Jews’ worst enemies have come from the ranks of apostates. That rogues’ gallery includes:

  • Nicholas Donin, a converted Jew of 13th-century Paris, who led the attacks on the Talmud, accusing it of being a repository of “blasphemy” against the Christian faith. Those accusations ultimately led to the Catholic Church’s burning of the Talmud.
  • Johannes (Josef) Pfefferkorn, a converted Jew in Germany in the early 1500s, a German Catholic theologian and writer. Pfefferkorn actively preached against the Jews and attempted to destroy copies of the Talmud.
  • Tomás de Torquemada, a Castilian Dominican friar, and the first Grand Inquisitor in Spain. Also, a converted Jew.

In other places, I have written about my great respect for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I had admired their religious commitment.

But, increasingly, I am developing a deep suspicion about their relationship to the Jewish people — especially their obnoxious insistence on converting dead Jews to the Mormon church.

One can only wonder, and shudder: Will that be their next move? Will we wake up one day to an announcement that the LDS church has added the Jewish victims of Parkland to their list of posthumous Mormons?

We can only hope that this won’t happen.

Likewise, I would only have hoped that Jason Chaffetz might have learned — somehow, through ancestral osmosis — one of the great Jewish traditions of comforting mourners.

Here goes.

It’s called: silence.

You don’t have to say anything.

And often, you shouldn’t.

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.

158 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • I won’t say anything. I’ll let Jesus do the talking….
    Matthew 23:37 – English Standard Version
    “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!

  • Christ came initially for the Jewish. Arb is it improper to say “Jews”, or should “Jewish” be used?

  • While I agree with much of what you’re saying, I would implore you to get the name of the Mormon church correct: it is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not “the Church of Latter Day Saints.” Considering those Christians that consider them to be a non-Christian cult, I think they’d be sensitive to that. And yes I understand that your article is about their insensitivity. Still, it always drives me crazy when I see people refer to “Reformed Judaism” so maybe you can see my point.
    Your article reminded me of what a big deal it was in the Jewish community in 1988, when Kitty Dukakis (*not* Jason Chaffetz’s mother) was poised (aside from the fact that Michael Dukakis won only 10 states) to become the first Jewish First Lady. Now we have a President with Jewish grandchildren.

  • From what I can tell, the shooting was the fault of…

    gay marriage

    video games

    not praying enough

    not allowing unconstitutional violations re: religion in schools.

    a lack of In God We Trust signs in schools (apparently they are made out of Superman’s tears)

    probably the Jews (right? everything’s their fault)

    Probably Obama and Hillary and Hillary email server

  • I thought I read somewhere you were a former youth pastor? You sound like a Frier.

    Just re-read last four lines of article. My bad.

  • What on earth does Rabbi Salkin’s essay have to do with reality?

    “The National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre dropping anti-Semitic dog whistles, by talking about the ‘social engineering’ of Michael Bloomberg and George Soros.”

    What the heck is that?

  • Friar…like Tuck in Robin Hood-holy chicken wings…Baptist youth pastor-friar…a bad joke…you don’t have to say what pops into your head…and often I shouldn’t.

  • Brother Jason Chaffetz is a likely future governor of Utah, probably with aspirations to be president of the United States.

    And thanks to the Book of Mormon, Jason Chaffetz can tell you exactly what he and Joseph Smith and the Mormon church believe and teach about the Jews….

    “Christ…should come among the Jews, among those who are the more wicked part of the world; and they shall crucify him…and there is none other nation on earth that would crucify their God.”

    “Jesus Christ, that he is the Son of God, and that he was slain by the Jews…. the gospel which should be preached among the Jews, and also concerning the dwindling of the Jews in unbelief. And after they had slain the Messiah…. concerning the manner of the Jews; for their works were works of darkness, and their doings were doings of abominations…. believe in Jesus Christ, that he is the Son of God, and that he was slain by the Jews…. by the stumbling of the Jews they will reject the stone upon which they might build and have safe foundation…. But behold, the Jews were a stiff-necked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble.”

    For specific Book of Mormon citations, see: http://jdstone.org/cr/files/antisemitismatitsworst_mormon.html

  • Indeed…there are so many problems in that process..and we’re not trying to seriously fix it in the legislature. No one seems interested in crafting a set of regs and checks and balances that both sides can agree to…no one is willing to compromise.

  • As regards

    “LaPierre, suggesting that gun ownership is a God-given right. (You wanna find that in the Bible for me, Sparky?)”

    there are at least two sources for that comment, neither of which come from the Bible (as though only Jews believe in God).

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ….”. The Bill of Rights protects rights which pre-exist the Constitution, including the right to self-defense (Second Amendment).

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/92/542/case.html

    The Supreme Court, analyzing the Second Amendment, made clear that it protected a right which pre-existed the Constitution, one of the unalienable rights with which men are endowed by their Creator:

    “6. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.” – United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

    Voila! Gun ownership is a God-given rights sans Bible and sans rabbi.

  • There are many different interpretations of the 2nd amendments. They are equally valid and some of them disagree with your interpretation.

  • Jason Chaifetz just came out and said what a lot of Christians believe, but won’t say in public.

  • The only legally valid interpretation of the Second Amendment is this one:

    https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Dist_of_Columbia_v_Heller_554_US_570_128_S_Ct_2783_171_L_Ed_2d_63?1520122216

    “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.”

    “(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States [****2] v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264-265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i. e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 619-626.”

    “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 [***647] 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. 626-628.”

    “3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. [**2787] The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition — in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute — would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and [*572] does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 628-636.”

    – Supreme Court of the United States, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

    The portion of the opinion that is relevant is “the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms”.

    Opinions contrary to any of this proposed prior to the decision are only of historical value, representing theories and interpretations that failed to pass muster.

    Opinions contrary to any of this proposed after the decision was rendered represent sour grapes, ignorance, or wishful thinking. Which category Rabbi Salkin belongs in is your choice, although ignorance is my personal choice based on his other errors in this article.

  • No, it is just plain true.

    In our legal system under our Constitution the Supreme Court is the highest authority on the meaning of the Constitution. Once it speaks, from the standpoint of law and interpretation the discussion has ended.

    E.g., you may think separate but equal is peachy, but the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional.

  • Your political views are just as wacko right-wing as your “religion”. Not at all surprised.

  • And funny how when the supreme court says something about GUNS, you’re all for it.

    But when they say something that you disagree with, why, it’s just 5 unelected black robed elitist judges pulling stuff out of their a***s

  • I believe that the Supreme Court is the final word on interpreting the Constitution. I believe that even if its reasoning is shoddy, the outcome is irrational, or Justice Kennedy cobbled his reasoning from something he found in a fortune cookie (even he doesn’t take dictation from his a*s).

    I believe that if the outcome is unjust, damaging, unpopular, or otherwise offends the populace, the remedy is found in Article V which provides a means of amending the Constitution with a supermajority.

    I believe when that was pointed out to you, you characterized that process as “might makes right”.

    Or are your recollections different?

  • I suppose that your political views are just as wacko as your “religion”. Is there some surprise there?

  • Your pervert God isn’t a Gun-nut like you. The real God condemns your guns, as Jesus condemned the sword in the NT.

  • That zany comment was self-generated rather than grounded in anything anyone else wrote.

  • I believe as things stand you have what you claim to have.

    That does not preclude me from working hard to change it.

  • You stand as much of a chance to accomplish that as a snowball in hell.

    “In our legal system under our Constitution the Supreme Court is the highest authority on the meaning of the Constitution. Once it speaks, from the standpoint of law and interpretation the discussion has ended.”

  • FYI… Article V wasn’t written to ensure that jerks are able to enshrine prejudice and bigotry into the Constitution.

  • Or apparently, in your extremely humble opinion, morality.

    As it turns out, unlike California whose Supreme Court ruled amending its constitution unconstitutional on the topic, there is no provision that an amendment has to please you or those who agree with you.

  • Whose “morality”? Bigotry and prejudice are immoral. I am more than “pleased” with the Constitution as it stands, and despite the treasonous behavior and policies of the Trump administration and his sycophants, I am confident freedom will endure.

  • The majority’s morality.

    Just calling what you disagree with “bigotry and prejudice” doesn’t make it immoral, nor does it make it bigotry and prejudice.

    I am confident that the majority in the long run will rule.

  • Your “morality” of exclusion and hatred is neither the majority or moral. A majority of Americans support same-sex marriage. You’re on the increasingly immoral fringe.

  • What you propose is tyranny, not morality. Even at the time of major civil-rights legislation of the 1960s, a majority of Americans probably opposed such measures. Mob mentality tends not to foster reason or morality. If a majority of Americans “ruled” that white people were superior and that their rights should supersede all others, would that be”moral”??

  • What I advocate is majority rule.

    There was no indication at all in the 1960s that “a majority of Americans probably opposed such measures”, and it certainly did not exhibit in a constitutional amendment or massive civil disobedience except in a few pockets of high segregation and strong emotions.

    Since you come out of a context which does not define “morality” beyond you know it when you see it and you want what you want, much like the other commentator Benjamin of Oakland, it could be interesting to hear your definition of “moral”.

    Somehow I think it’s going to involve your backing into your preconceived notions of how the world should be sans deity, natural law, or any other authoritative source.

  • No, a majority of Americans do not support same sex marriage.

    Thanks to the overreach and gloating of your side of the discussion in matters such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, all the work to kick what you support have out from under your own position is being done for your opponents.

  • You’re ill-informed. On the fringe. And in denial.

    http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

    In Pew Research Center polling in 2001, Americans opposed same-sex marriage by a margin of 57% to 35%.

    Since then, support for same-sex marriage has steadily grown. And today, support for same-sex marriage is at its highest point since Pew Research Center began polling on this issue. Based on polling in 2017, a majority of Americans (62%) support same-sex marriage, while 32% oppose it. See the latest data on same-sex marriage.

  • Your religious propaganda re: “deity, natural law” doesn’t belong in the public forum. DO you think your God is better than mine or anyone else’s? Who gets to define what is “natural law”? That’s theological BS and that doesn’t belong in the public forum, either. We have CIVIL LAW; not “natural law”, which only serves to bolster your prejudice.

  • Interestingly, police have been unable to stop ANY of the many, many school shootings. Are they ALL incompetent?

  • How many school shootings were there in 2017, referencing your use of ” many, many school shootings”?

  • What magic is of the majority that makes it right? You claim some kind of moral authority, but in practice, “majority rule” would be based on moral relativism. Same-sex marriage became the law of the land not because a majority of Americans supported it (which they did), but because its opponents had no rational argument in opposition.

  • Look it up. Since 2013, there have been nearly 300 school shootings in America. In 2017, there were 346 mass shooting incidents overall. I repeat: Were ALL the police and other local officials “incompetent”?

  • Your source:

    https://everytownresearch.org/school-shootings/

    The facts:

    Overall:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/02/19/parkland-school-shootings-not-new-normal-despite-statistics-stretching-truth-fox-column/349380002/

    Everytown’s self-serving definitions:

    http://www.politifact.com/california/article/2018/feb/28/how-are-school-shootings-defined/

    “Everytown defines these incidents as any time a firearm discharges a live round inside a school building, or on a school campus or grounds. Its database, however, includes incidents where no one was injured; attempted or completed suicide, with no intent to injure others; and cases when a gun was fired unintentionally, resulting in injury or death. The list covers schools from elementary through college.”

    “One example includes a student shot in an attempted robbery after school hours in a parking lot. Another included the accidental discharge of a school police officer’s gun.”

    You need to start getting facts and wean off propaganda.

  • God does give us the right to defend ourselves. BUT, unalienable or inalienable is a right that cannot be transferred. You can transfer your right to defend yourself and most do.The only right that cannot be transferred is the one God gives to mankind; it is inheritance. It is the only certain [ fixed ] inalienable right that you cannot transfer and no one can take away from any human being. Hence, this inheritance removes your iniquity and makes you equal to any other human being. It is not the Constitution that removes your inequality, it is God’s Law and the Constitution is the Rule of Law for the U.S.

    For the record; abortion does not circumvent God’s inheritance for the baby: abortion circumvents the Constitutional right of the mother. All men are created equal, is an ablative absolute phrase, the phrase expresses removal and in this case it removes your inequality by giving everyone an inheritance.

    Does it matter whether you believe in God? No.
    What good is it to be all created equal? It limits Power of those in Power.
    What happens without this limit of Power? Injustice, leading to death.

  • Here’s the thing…if there were only 1 in 2017 and 1 in 2016 etc…that’s damn well two too many. Don’t let the gun nuts distort the issue with irrelevancy.

    besides we all know gay feminist video games funded by George Soros with help from the lizard aliens is what causes gun violence. DUH /s

  • seems to me..humans take on the right to defend themselves with or without a god being involved.

  • This column is called Martini Judaism. I demand to have a Cabernet Humanism column!

  • Secular whine!
    Diddy! Diddy! 🙂

    You don’t sound like the typical post Baptist youth pastor. Typically I would say they tend to sound like the guy who thought he had all the right answers but now knows he has all the right answers.

  • I do not know that good and well.

    I do know that Everytown is a front for the Michael Bloomberg gun control flying circus which, as I demonstrated, has a penchant for “tweaking” the statistics and the definitions to suit.

    Michale Bloomberg is the multi-billionaire who has funded an entire series of grass roots-sounding organizations with the same address, staff, and propaganda.

    The New York Times article cites Gun Violence Archive. The address of that organization is 1718 M Street, N.W. PMB #126

    Washington, DC 20036-4504, which is a UPS store mail drop.

    It is in fact another Bloomberg-funded front started because the official crime statistics did not support the gun control narrative, so it provides its own “statistics” grounded in the same sort of “tweaking” Everytown uses.

    It is simply irrefutable that the Parkland shooting was a result of a series of series law enforcement snafus.

    In addition, Cruz was detected in high school and mishandled, landing him on the street a ticking time bomb.

    https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/02/28/obama_administration_school_discipline_policy_and_the_parkland_shooting.html

  • In our system the Supreme Court has the final word in interpreting the Constitution.

    Even in Asheville, NC, that remains true.

  • You ought to talk to your compatriots, who have been running around telling everyone same sex marriage is okay because the majority approve it. Come to think of it, you’ve said the same thing – until just now.

    Sans a deity and natural law, the adjective “moral” cannot be easily distinguished from “legal”, if indeed it can be at all.

    No, opponents had lots of rational arguments in opposition. If you go there, you’re really going to regret it.

    Same sex marriage became the law of the land because Justice Kennedy was consistent with his other fortune cookie opinions and concocted a new right out of thin air.

    If an amendment is successful, same sex marriage will cease to be the law of the land because the source of the Constitution itself pulled the plug on it.

  • Funny I just got through answering some nonsense from you about what is “moral” about a majority decision.

    Since we have CIVIL LAW, if we pass an amendment voiding Justice Kennedy’s same sex marriage opinion, it is result of CIVIL LAW, and your question about whether that’s moral becomes completely irrelevant.

    Thanks and good job.

  • I’m kind of like this. I have my personal best answers, those answers that work out best for me. Then I have those questions that ask how are my answers impacting others? I come from a southern baptist background, and their are parts of my faith that have have been nurtured and remain intact after many years. There are others parts of what I would call beliefs that are falling away.

  • So, you’re arguing that if a majority thinks something is moral, it is moral.

    Odd, later today you wrote “What magic is of the majority that makes it right? You claim some kind
    of moral authority, but in practice, ‘majority rule’ would be based on
    moral relativism.”

    So, like Ben of Oakland, morality is a bit “squishy” depending on circumstances, the outcome you want, your opponent, perhaps the barometer reading.

  • To avoid confusion, “the Church of Latter Day Saints” is not a correct title, but “the Church of the Latter Day Saints” is a correct description. They are the LDS, and it is their Church. But I agree with Sh’lama — “Mormon” is the best option. That should be adequate from everyone’s standpoint. It’s both a title AND a description.

  • So.. you wish to capitalize on the many deaths of young innocents by promoting your gun fetish. Got it.

  • Police investigate online child porn typically by deploying software developed for LE purposes- if including on-line posts threatening/inferring acts of violence, they need a similar system. And I am not going to quarterback what was done but I am sure that police investigated within their sense of what kids were like/likely to do in the community and apparently the opinion of the family he was living with saw him as no threat either.. I will tell you that in Canada, he likely would not have been able to legally buy a gun as the records check of the contacts that they did have would have raised red flags without any charges being laid.

  • You can discredit Bloomberg but there is a problem with data collection. No lead agency is tasked at looking at mass shootings which is defined federally as 3 or more victims..And the Gun Research archive sources its reports. And I believe the definition for research purposes is more generously 4 or more causalities. The FBI did look at active shooting incidents but as research into recommendations for civilian response given that most such shooting are over in less than 5 minutes with a number over in less than 2 minutes.

    And before you put the blame all on law enforcement, perhaps you might want to consider what an attending physician had to say about the weapon used and impact on outcomes of victims. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

  • I agree! Why must this be a all or nothing issue. It’s not a smart game to play when so much is on the table. There’s no reason for a law that is responsible, considerate and helpful to both sides. Hunt,concil carry permit fabulous, the minute you need a weapon that can kill with a rapid pull of a trigger that it is intended for war, to harm human beings, NOT OKAY!! And if a person Chooses to own that gun they should absolutely have a background check! If they sell that weapon it should be reported, and if they own that weapon and somebody get their hands on it in their home they should also have accountably for whatever happened with that gun. If anything is not OK with a person who owns that weapon they probably shouldn’t have one anyway.

  • I’m sure GOD has never given a right. Maybe the people that speak for god but I’m sure not God has ever had pen to paper. Unless I’m wrong about every bible or book of God.
    It’s all interpretations and never from God. Call it reincarnation or whatever you choose but let’s leave God, Higher power or whatever you believe out of this mess gun control because honestly I believe that you would be disgusting to the Almighty and the other is to even have this issue

  • Gun Research Archive is a front. It has zero revenue and zero expenses and no officers.

    Its mail is picked up at UPS store and delivered to the actual Bloomberg-funded gun control organization nearby in Washington, DC.

    Its “data collection” isn’t.

    The local sheriff and the FBI have admitted that in this case they missed multiple opportunities to seize the shooter’s weapon and compel him to undergo psychiatric tests.

    The article you cited from Atlantic is not particularly accurate.

    “I have seen a handful of AR-15 injuries in my career. Years ago I saw one from a man shot in the back by a SWAT team. The injury along the path of the bullet from an AR-15 is vastly different from a low-velocity handgun injury. The bullet from an AR-15 passes through the body like a cigarette boat traveling at maximum speed through a tiny canal. The tissue next to the bullet is elastic—moving away from the bullet like waves of water displaced by the boat—and then returns and settles back. This process is called cavitation; it leaves the displaced tissue damaged or killed. The high-velocity bullet causes a swath of tissue damage that extends several inches from its path. It does not have to actually hit an artery to damage it and cause catastrophic bleeding. Exit wounds can be the size of an orange.”

    “With an AR-15, the shooter does not have to be particularly accurate.”

    Well, in a word “no”.

    The wound she first describes on one of the shooting victims is the classic result of a hunting round. The bullet is designed to expand on impact to ensure a humane one-shot kill. It has zero to do with an “AR-15″ or any other particular brand, model, or style of rifle. In this case her unfamiliarity with wound ballistics leads her to a wrong conclusion. The shooter used something along these lines:

    https://www.federalpremium.com/ammunition/rifle/family/vital-shok/vital-shok-trophy-bonded-tip/p223tt3

    available in any sporting goods store.

    The “SWAT team” shot describes the impact of a full metal jacket bullet shot from a rifle, not particularly an “AR-15″. The police and the military use full metal jacket bullets in compliance with the Hague Convention and state laws governing LEOs.

    The bullet passes through the tissue like a thick ice pick. As it does so, it disrupts tissue and dumps energy. Here is a typical .308/7.62mm wound channel:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/7.62mm_G3_mermisi_Balistik_inceleme.jpg

    The “Exit wounds can be the size of an orange” is characteristic of the hunting bullet, not the full metal jacket.

    So, she has discovered that rifle wounds are much worse than pistol wounds due to the weight and velocity of the rifle bullet. That is why hunters use rifles rather than pistols.

    It has everything to do with rifles and nothing to do with “AR-15″s. EVERY rifle, or for that matter shotgun firing rifled slugs, will exhibit the very same wound characteristics she describes. That’s what makes them useful for hunting.

    The article is aimed at people who know nothing whatsoever about firearms.

  • http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/16/alleged-florida-school-shooter-nikolas-cruz-was-reported-to-fbi-cops-school-but-warning-signs-missed.html

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/02/16/as-florida-town-mourns-authorities-revisit-possible-warning-signs-before-school-massacre/?utm_term=.a4e040213b37

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/23/us/fbi-tip-nikolas-cruz.html

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/16/florida-shooting-fbi-nikolas-cruz

    I believe your impression that “the contacts that they did have would have raised red flags without any charges being laid” is wishful thinking.

    https://globalnews.ca/news/1378685/firearms-in-canada-how-is-someone-able-to-get-a-gun/

    “It’s unclear whether the RCMP checks the references of applicants for licenses.”

    In fact I find a number of news articles which indicate the RCMP does a computer check for a criminal record, and if nothing shows up (which would have been the case for Cruz), simply rubber stamp the application.

  • Apparently you want to capitalize on the many deaths of young innocents by exercising your free speech fetish.

  • I say…make guns legal…that were around when the 2nd amendment was written 🙂

  • “The only legally valid interpretation of the Second Amendment is this one:”

    Nope. Just the only one made by SCOTUS so far. It is clear you didn’t read it very closely. It is chock full of carveouts concerning an inherent right to create regulations and restrictions to the right to bear arms.

    Heller says a lot less than you think it does.

  • “I believe that the Supreme Court is the final word on interpreting the Constitution.”

    So we will get no arguments against abortion rights from you ever again. Right?
    No argument against marriage equality or teacher led prayer in public schools ever again, right?

    LMAO! You are such a lying sack of crap.

  • Because he is lying. He only says such things because he thinks he found one case which supports his view. A case he did not read closely or understand how limited its ruling was.

  • “So, you’re arguing that if a majority thinks something is moral, it is moral.”

    No, YOU DID THAT.

    Zaagitoon: Whose “morality”?
    You: “The majority’s morality.”

    You can’t even keep an honest position in the same conversation.

  • “What I advocate is majority rule.”

    “So, you’re arguing that if a majority thinks something is moral, it is moral.”

    Its hilarious that both lines come from the same person in the same conversation.

    You opposed what you advocated in the same conversation. When have you stopped being such a dishonest troll?

  • Perhaps English is a second or third language for you?

    “I believe that the Supreme Court is the final word on interpreting the Constitution.” = I recognize that unless and until a constitutional amendment is passed, abortion is legal in the United States, same sex marriage is legal in the United States.

    “I believe that the Supreme Court is the final word on interpreting
    the Constitution.” ≠ I will refrain from critiquing bad reasoning in a court decision, I will refrain from working for constitutional amendments to correct Supreme Court decisions which in my opinion were bad ones.

    You are such an ignorant sack of crap.

  • I advocate majority rule.

    I also note that what is a law may not be moral.

    It is hilarious that you think the two positions are contradictory.

    So, how old were you when learned English? 18?

  • Thank you for removing that from context in order to destroy the meaning entirely. It’s sort of thing you’re renowned for.

  • Thank you for making such a fool of yourself in an obvious manner. You are clearly and literally talking out of both sides of your mouth.

  • I couldn’t care less what you think your position is. You are making a
    fool of yourself by not even staying consistent in the same argument.

    You are advocating anything which makes you sound like you have an authoritative position on a subject. You make it crystal clear on numerous occasions that you have no moral positions to speak of and simply look to push whatever argument allows for maliciously attacking others.

  • They use something referred to as a PIP – police Information Portal so local police records can be checked and not simply convictions. Records are searched for specific does so any shortfall would happen at that level. However, they lack access to health records so mental health issues would rely on having police contact related to that. They have wide latitude as screening is for the purpose of public safety and does not require a conviction. In addition, local police will know when someone has been granted a license by doing the standard name search when an individual is apprehended for any reason. Which makes sense as part of a continuous screening system

  • Because we’re discussing the United States, not Canada, and because of the track record of citizens of the Commonwealth overestimating the value of their own systems and failing to comprehend the American systems and peoples, I am not going to tackle this beyond noting that for the most part approval of a firearm license is accomplished after a cursory review.

  • ” I recognize that unless and until a constitutional amendment is passed,
    abortion is legal in the United States, same sex marriage is legal in
    the United States.”

    Except that is not the case with you. You chose to argue those interpretations. Recognizing nothing of the sort.

    You are simply a l1ar who cannot stay consistent to their own points of argument.

  • My take on Heller involves (gasp!) quoting it directly. As opposed to making crap up about it. 🙂

  • You will unable to find a single post by me stating that abortion is not legal in the United States or that same sex marriage is not legal in the United States, or taking any position other than that to correct either or both of those will require a constitutional amendment.

    You are simply a l1ar.

  • I couldn’t care less what you think my position is.

    You can’t support a single statement you make by a direct quote, you’ve made a complete fool of yourself on the Heller decision, and you make it crystal clear that you sincerely belief that if you regurgitate enough nonsense it will magically be true.

  • You’re too funny. You can’t even stick to your own argument in a given discussion. I can’t help it if your own words make you look foolish. 🙂

  • You can’t support a single statement you make by a direct quote, you’ve made a complete fool of yourself on the Heller decision, and you make it crystal clear that you sincerely belief that if you regurgitate enough nonsense it will magically be true

  • Still trying to pretend you have an honest position which can be taken seriously. How cute. But we both know that is not the case.

    Your entire canned argument is laughable. SCOTUS is reviled and their very power attacked as invalid by you…until you find a decision you like.

    Being conservative means never having to be honest or consistent. 🙂

  • After reading your nonsense on Heller, and your screamer on strict scrutiny, earlier today, I am actually surprised you have the chutzpah to post.

  • LOL! Bob. Its not my fault you can’t seem to read the thing honestly. Your veracity impairment comes through rather easily in discussions.

  • LOL! I supported everything with direct quotes. It helps when you understand what is being written. A skill you have not picked up on or don’t do in a credible manner.

  • The SCOTUS decision on same-sex marriage was based on arguments in its favor. Your arguments didn’t meet the criteria, to say the least.

  • I read the opinion. It was based on Justice Kennedy’s zany libertarian ideas.

    In any case, it is currently the law.

  • You have yet to read any decision honestly, let alone Heller. It’s telling that all I ever have to do is quote it to refute your statements.

  • Your opinion as to what others do isn’t worth a thing. Your lack of honesty is apparent to anyone who has a discussion with you. Keeping a sock puppet account doesn’t give the impression of someone whose word is of value.

    You are being pathetic here. Trying to play revisionist and refight past foibles. Have fun with that.

  • It’s the duty of the Government to keep statistics on such a fraught human health crisis. But the GOP/ NRA/ extremists groups have put the kibosh on this. How pathetic it is for you to claim that there’s no information and any information is tainted when your kind of hypocrite and liar won’t let the US government find the statistics that will help officials to protect people better.

  • That is the most bizarre statement you’ve ever made.
    Free Speech is a human right–not a fetish. What a creepy / weird statement to make. Disgusting.

  • No, zagitoon is right. You blah-blah all over these pages are refuse to engage in constructive dialogue or consider what other write here. You’re a one man verbal garbage spouter.

  • The NRA and the gun fetishists have hijacked the 2nd Amendment for their own desire to have guns everywhere and get us to the place where we accept daily shootings as the ‘new normal’. They would corrupt and make the whole country as destitute of an ethical foundation as he is.

  • The ownership of firearms is also a human right.

    Suggesting that rights he likes, or that you happen to favor, trump other rights is the disgusting part.

  • lalala….the gun nuts are destroying the ‘inalienable right” of all US Citizens to Life and Liberty. When 17 people are dead, Gun nuts and the 2nd must give way. Life is too precious to destroy, I’m sure you would agree.

  • The FBI keeps statistics on gun deaths.

    Gun Research Archive is Bloomberg-funded corporate shell, sans assets, sans personnel, sans anything but letterhead.

  • your ‘god’ is part of a Death Cult. How sinful of you to worship guns. It’s called Idolatry, chump. For shame.

  • Loopy remarks fail to convince anyone. You are wrong and that’s the end of it. You are in denial and not worth talking to with your rigid defensive stance on guns.

  • “You are wrong and that’s the end of it” is pretty much your entire shtick.

    Yes, I am foursquare for the ENTIRE Bill of Rights, not just the parts I like.

  • You god can be seen by you every morning when you look in the mirror. It’s called narcissism.

  • That sounds like a pretty good argument for disregarding the First Amendment. It would sure stop all that hate speech.

  • A freak is someone who brags of his Christianity, while dishing out bigotry and hate. Congratulations.

  • I don’t brag of anything.

    If you were not so immersed in bigotry and hate you’d know that.

  • How’s the amendment to overturn same-sex marriage working out for you so far? You have no rational argument in opposition. That’s why it’s the law of the land in 2018.

  • You still need to argue your point. “Weirdness” doesn’t cut it. That’s why you lost the first time.

ADVERTISEMENTs