That someone can easily dispatch a roomful or two of elementary school children, or college students, or theater-goers, or restaurant-goers with these same weapons is not seen by these people as something that needs fixing—at all. Yes, it's sad that those particular people got murdered, but whether Americans have the God-given right to murder a large number of people quickly, and easily, if they feel the circumstances warrant it is something the tyranny fetishists will go to their graves, or your grave, or the local sheriff's grave believing in.
The other tricky part of this is that (of course) the people most obsessed with defending themselves against government "tyranny" are the people who see "tyranny" in absolutely everything. The United Nations is coming for them; Barack Obama is a crazy Marxist; bicycle paths are a sign of the devil. The most unhinged people among us are the people who have volunteered themselves as the judges, juries, and executioners of any American government figures they've decided they don't like—and those are the people that a large segment of our no-gun-regulations-ever crowd are catering to. Why? You could suppose the NRA, as obvious example, is merely acting as passthru for the manufacturer's lobby, which makes a very sizable income off of crazy frightened people, or you could suppose them to be unironic believers in the tyranny theory of American proto-terrorists someday becoming American freedom fighters—but why does the we'd like to maybe someday be able to kill members of the government theory get so much mainstream love from supposedly mainstream sources?
It seems rather obvious that we could take all the arguments as to why one might need a 30-round clip because of potential tyranny and just flush that entire population from legitimate discussion. If tyranny does come to America, your little closet stockpile is not going to do a damn bit of good against the Air Force, and basing all our public safety decisions around your own little delusion that it might, someday, is not a very good reason for our continued enabling of frequent, convenient mass murder. So that seems a good first step: If you're arguing that people need to be able to speedily murder other people because someday you and your little band of societal malcontents may want to murder the right people, the ones who really need murdering, all of the policymakers concerned with American public safety ought to write off your opinions on the matter from the outset. Then the rest of us can begin to have a discussion on guns in America that isn't objectively, you know, insane.
-Hunter, Daily Kos
.
26 comments:
The author at least "gets" the Second Amendment. He acknowledges it has nothing to do with hunting or "sportsmanship." It was envisioned as a firewall to tyranny. So far so good.
But, he thinks it is now (or perhaps always was) bad public policy. He's wrong, very deeply wrong--but that's ok, his opinion doesn't change the fact that the US Constitution was ratified by the states long ago, and is now the supreme law of the land.
Article V of the US Constitution provides the procedure for amendment. There was a time alcohol was banned by constitutional amendment, and when that proved to be bad policy the constitution was amended again. It is a simple and fair democratic process.
Query as to why, if the case against the Second Amendment is so strong, nobody seriously proposes repealing it? If defense against tyranny is bad policy, or if "militia" should mean national guard, or if "arms" only means bolt action hunting rifles, then why not just amend the constitution? You argue (wrongly) that the public can't possibly defend itself from tyranny, so why not codify that policy in an amendment and end the debate?
Rick and others keep arguing that anybody who believes in the original principles of the 2A is a "nut", a fringe loon out of touch with the majority. Well if that is the case, then wouldn't it be a piece of cake to amend the constitution with so much (alleged) public support behind Rick's view? Rick wouldn't be distorting the political landscape now would he? He wouldn't be distorting the fact most Americans don't want to see AR-15s or high capacity magazines banned, now would he?
I doubt that ever in the history of the US has there been such strong rhetoric from fauxgressives to ignore the constitution and just rule by "enlightened" fiat against the will of the majority of Americans. Ignore the Second Amendment and just ban what we want to ban! Ignore Article III and Obama should just raise the debt ceiling or mint a $3 trillion platinum coin! Rule of law schmule of law!
JM, the reason why you are always confused and seemingly perplexed and frustrated with what I write is because you make assumptions....wrong assumptions.
For instance, you assume that because Americans would like stronger gun safety measure enacted, that means guns will be banned . You assume that because some folks want want more restrictions on the ownership of guns that means they want the 2nd Amendment repealed. Tell me, is it a good thing that grenade launchers and shoulder-fired missiles and similar "arms" are prohibited from sale? If you answer "yes" to that question, does that mean you hate the 2nd Amendment and want it abolished?
You see, I would suspect that close to 99.9% of all people in this country would say that you should be allowed to own firearms if you want to. No one really wants that right to go away. But the only way that gun advocates can block a commonsense approach to high powered weaponry is to paint this as a black and white issue. Which is how LaPierre and the radicalized NRA who sincerely believe that the government is coming for their guns and that every Jew should have a .22 try to frame it no matter what commonsense measure are considered.
I get it but that doesn't make it any less annoying and frustrating when I have to spoon feed folks like yourself in comments like this one.
Now, about your assumption that I believe that anyone, including me, who believes in the 2A is a "nut." I can't speak for others, but do think it's nutty to think that the government is going to drive around my neighborhood confiscating guns from homes. I think it's nuttier to believe that I have a chance at defending my gun stash from these imaginary gun collectors with my deer rifle and "a little motivation." I also think it's nutty to oppose full background checks for all gun buyers. Wanna hear something else I think is nuts? Demanding smaller government and less regulation while complaining that the government doesn't adequately enforce laws. THAT'S really crazy.
But here's the wackiest of them all: professing to be a gun expert, spending an inordinate amount of time on a website commenting on gun issues, and writing something like this:
"Rick wouldn't be distorting the political landscape now would he? He wouldn't be distorting the fact most Americans don't want to see AR-15s or high capacity magazines banned, now would he?"
Because when you are such an expert and invest so much time in articulating your opinions, how in the Hell can you fail so very miserably?
.
The fundamental problem is that you and the fauxgressives believe that *your* so-called "common sense" somehow passes for the rule of law. You can play semantic games all day long, and call your policies "common sense," but that does not make your policies ipso facto wise, effective, or even lawful under the US Constitution.
That is not to say that any constitutional right is unlimited or absolute. But any constraint of a constitutional right is subject to testing, and the test varies with the nature of the right.
In the case of the 2A, the case law has established that the state (that is you in this case, trying to use the power of the state to restrict my rights) can indeed restrict access to certain kinds of weapons. But the state must demonstrate that the restriction will very likely solve a compelling need. Read that last sentence two or three times until you understand it. Because that means Biden's rhetoric "if it just saves one life" is not enough.
Restrictions? There is a clear compelling need that we do not live under fear of nuclear holocaust by allowing private ownership of nukes. Or that someone might take down an airliner with a SAM. Or any kind of safe handling of high explosives.
But the fundamental fact remains that mass shootings have been absolutely and irrefutably proven to have taken place with semi-automatic pistols like the supremely popular Glock family of pistols which reside in millions of American homes, and are the #1 sidearm of police forces in the US. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that in a close quarters mass shooting that an AR-15 is superior to a Glock. To the contrary, the pistol is concealable and more easily brought into "gun free" zones without detection. So it stands to reason, that if you ban so-called assault rifles, that a mass murderer will just use a semi-automatic pistol. You claim you are not prepared to ban the Glock-style pistols. So at the the end of the day, you accomplish nothing. Thus, your proposed ban on "assualt rifles" is unconstitutional. It may make you feel good, but if you can't demonstrate any reason why it would work, then you can't go constraining a fundamental constitutional right. So go repeal or amend the 2A if you think that's the best policy, otherwise you are just a little pocket dictator.
Oh and "common sense"? Of course, never mind that "common sense" in the US once was that Blacks were inferior beings who were rightfully slaves. Or that "common sense" was that alcohol was the root of all evil. Or that "common sense" was that vaccines were causing autism in children. Or that "common sense" was that smoking was healthy.
Again, "common sense" is BS, and in any case, is not the basis on which we restrict fundamental constitutional rights.
As for opinion polls, there are as many opinion polls on either side of the issue as you care to google. The bottom line is that AWB 1.0 expired under Clinton and efforts to renew it failed, because it wasn't making any difference and people know that. The bottom line is that you fauxgressives are afraid to repeal or amend the second amendment to "clarify" it because you know the majority of the country won't get behind you.
Which brings us back to your one and only argumentative tool, demonization.
Oh and by the way, I'm not the least bit confused or perplexed by you. I know the game you and your ilk play.
"As for opinion polls, there are as many opinion polls on either side of the issue as you care to google."
It's Gallup, JM. Gallup. From a week ago. But, okay. There's also Pew, chump.
You're wrong. And the fact that you can't admit when you are ends this exchange immediately. I don't have the time to debate with people who look at facts conveniently and when it benefits them.
Be careful with whatever comment you decide to drop next. I'm going to be REAL strict with my policy, if you catch my drift.
.
Oy Vey. Let's do this Rick...let's assume for the sake of argument that you are 100% correct about popular opinion. Let's go even further, let's say that 99.999999% of Americans, and heck, even "undocumented residents" too, all favor banning semi-automatic rifles. Let's assume I am the 1 and only citizen in opposition. Let's call this the "1-holdout scenario." Take the opinion polls off the table, let's just assume you're right.
1. Do you realize that the above facts, if true, would be absolutely irrelevant in determining whether or not society can infringe on my constitutional rights? The same would be true if only 1 woman in the US wanted to have an abortion. Popular opinion and "common sense" are irrelevant when it pertains to constitutional rights, even in a 1-holdout scenario.
2. Do you understand that the only way that the state can limit a fundamental constitutional right is to demonstrate that the proposed state action has a high likelihood of actually working? Have you read Judge Posner's opinion in the Illinois concealed carry case, Madigan? Do you understand that a federal court has now ruled that Illinois cannot ban concealed carry, because it could not demonstrate that banning lawful concealed carry would do anything to stop crime?
3. Do you understand that this entire time, the burden has never been on me (the 1-holdout) to give any good reason whatsoever as to why I "need" a semi-automatic rifle? The burden is squarely on the state to implement a policy with a high likelihood of preventing mass shootings, or even just significantly reducing the death toll when it occurs.
4. From day 1 since you went on your demonization campaign, I have been demanding that you and your ilk rationally explain why banning semi-automatic rifles and limiting the size of magazines has a high likelihood of a) preventing mass shootings in the first instance, or b) limiting the death toll. You have not been able to do this, nor even acknowledge any obligation on the part of the state to do so. Again, some vague notion that it "might" save a life is insufficient.
Now, if you believe that the state does not need to demonstrate that its proposed constraining of my 2A right has a high likelihood of solving a compelling social need, then cite the case law. But you can't.
What is happening in this country ought to disturb anyone that cares about civil rights. "Common sense" is never the standard the state must meet to infringe on a fundamental constitutional right. I see on your blog you like to support Carlos Miller. Well to a lot of people it is "common sense" that if a cop tells you to stop taking photographs of something you have to stop. There may be rational arguments against empowering cops in that manner, but a rational basis is not enough to limit free speech. And it is no matter that you say to Miller, well we are not banning all photos, just some locations or situations. That is just a silly semantic game.
Now, either you think the 2A is somehow less important than the 1A or 4A, or you think the constitution just doesn't matter. Or you are just clueless about constitutional jurisprudence. I think its none of the above--fauxgressives are just another dictator-wannabes who can't stand it when things like the constitution get in the way of their self-anointed dictatorship.
Hey, and what's with registering our cars? Didn't Hitler do that, too? I don't want to be on some State list somewhere. Why can't I drive a fuel truck if I want to? Why does the government dictate the kind of vehicle that I can climb into and operate? This is a free country, right?
Morty-
Owning or driving a vehicle is not a fundamental constitutional right.
Thanks for playing. Read the US Constitution first before you play again, you might not make a fool of yourself.
I see, Jewish Marksman. No need to be rude to me.
So why can't I carry my gun every where that I want. Like, I would like to take it with me to New York but I understand that the guards at the airport wouldn't let me get on the plane. If it's my right, why can't I do it?
And I also want to get one of those cool machine guns but everyone is telling me that they're illegal. How can they be illegal if the Constitution says I can have them?
These are questions that I'm hoping you can help me with.
"So why can't I carry my gun every where that I want. Like, I would like to take it with me to New York but I understand that the guards at the airport wouldn't let me get on the plane. If it's my right, why can't I do it?"
You have no fundamental constitutional right to ride a plane in the first instance, let alone take whatever you want on board. The airlines are private companies, and they can refuse to carry or not carry whatever cargo they choose. Some don't let you transport dogs and cats.
But even if an airline would allow you to carry a firearm on board, that's not to say that congress, pursuant to its right to regulate interstate travel and commerce, might not be able to regulate cargo. Perhaps the logic is that a single errant bullet could pierce a small plane's cabin, or that terrorists would bring guns aboard. By banning *all* firearms aboard a plane's cabin (or the "safe area" of an airport), not just certain types, there is a substantial likelihood that the policy will be effective. Note that most airlines do allow people to transport firearms and ammo with checked luggage, and it is perfectly legal. The cabin is a "gun free" zone, except of course for air marshals and the pilots.
"And I also want to get one of those cool machine guns but everyone is telling me that they're illegal. How can they be illegal if the Constitution says I can have them?"
Machine gun ownership is not illegal in many states. In Florida it is legal to own one. In Heller the Supreme Court stated, in passing, that a state could ban machine guns, because machine guns were "unusual" and not in common use (the Heller case was primarily about handguns). If you are in Florida, and have about $10K to spare, a machine gun is yours to buy and own, and there are many other states where it would be fine as well. Given that some states do not ban civilian ownership of machine guns, there is some debate as to whether federal statutes banning new manufacture for anything but military and law enforcement use is constitutional.
I hope that answers your questions.
*Insert dining room table reference*
If anyone is the dining room table here, it is Rick. Rick posted an excerpt from an article titled "Second Amendment is not a suicide pact." I agree with that statement.
I merely pointed out that in order restrain a fundamental constitutional right (access to firearms, taking photos, abortion, etc), the State must demonstrate a high likelihood that the restraint will actually solve a problem. A theoretical "hope" or "common sense" is insufficient.
I asked Rick, or anyone reading, to set forth a defensible case as to why banning semi-automatic rifles and magazines carrying more than 10 rounds is highly likely to save lives, given that semi-automatic pistols have proven just as effective and are more concealable, and magazines by their nature can be swapped in a second. "Common sense" suggests that instead of an AR-15, Sandy Hook would have turned out exactly the same with a Glock pistol.
And you know what squatty? Neither Rick nor anyone else here: a) has voiced disagreement that the framework I set forth for restraining fundamental constructional rights is correct, or b) set forth a case that the proposed bans in Congress now, or the one recently passed in New York, are highly likely to work.
As to whether or not the 2A is a good policy or not is an argument for another day, if and when an amendment to the US Constitution is on the table. But yet again, Rick doesn't seem to answer the question as to why, if the Supreme Court in Heller got it so badly wrong, why an amendment movement hasn't surfaced?
So who is really the dining room table?
So if Spirit Airlines or Southwest decided that they would allow their passengers to carry guns on board the aircraft, then you're saying they could. I guess they would have a deal with TSA that their passengers would go around security or something. I never knew they could do that. Interesting.
But I'm still angry that my 2nd Amendment right to defend myself with a gun on a plane is being violated right now. I should be allowed to do that. Who do I talk to about that, Mr. Marksman?
I don't live in Florida but maybe I should move because, again, my 2nd Amendment rights are be trampled on in my State. They are telling me that I can't own a machine gun. Do you think I should be allowed to own a machine gun, Mr. Marksman? All Americans should be allowed to defend themselves with guns and I'm confused why they would place any restrictions on me.
"So if Spirit Airlines or Southwest decided that they would allow their passengers to carry guns on board the aircraft, then you're saying they could."
If there were no federal law or regulation against it, yes. I believe, however, that there are such laws, although I'm not sure about small private planes.
"2nd Amendment right to defend myself with a gun on a plane is being violated right now."
1) Your 2A right is definitely being limited, but 2) not necessarily violated. I think the argument the State would make is that banning *all* guns from planes will definitely prevent hijackings and depressurization due to accidental or intentional shootings, and that planes are not the only way to get from point a to point b, so you can travel by other means with whatever firearms you are legally allowed to.
"Do you think I should be allowed to own a machine gun, Mr. Marksman?"
Assuming you are otherwise a law-abiding and mentally fit citizen, yes.
"All Americans should be allowed to defend themselves with guns and I'm confused why they would place any restrictions on me."
Read the Heller case. Machine guns are considered unusual and not commonly owned by the public.
I think there are some attempts working their way up to a change/partial repeal of the 2A. (things I've read online, don't know how serious they are)
My personal feeling is that JM puts way too much credence, as do some other strict constructionts, in the fact that if something is in the Constitution, it's the ultimate absolute gospel; not subject to interpretation regardles of changes in the world we live in.
The courts are currently dealing with the 4th Amemdment in similar ways lately.
The right of the people ... against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...
Well, back in those days, did anyone consider whether police could attach a GPS to a suspect's vehicle, or force a blood draw of an intoxicated driver, or allow cellphone pings as evidence. No. But we're dealing with it now.
Same way we now have to deal with gun issues and come up with reasonable rules regarding their safety; even if it means 'interpreting' the Constitution in a way that some people don't agree.
And who knows, maybe if they had cars back then, they would have felt that a person had a 'right' to own a car without registering it.
Good point, Anonymous @ 1:59. The First Amendment says that Congress can't restrict the freedom of the press, and yet there are laws against pornography. Going by the strict constructionist logic, those laws are unconstitutional.
By the way, they did have pornography back in the 18th century and throughout history. (Ever read the Song of Solomon in the Old Testament? Solomon had a lot to sing about.) The framers apparently were not worried about it since they did not limit the First Amendment to allow freedom of the press except for naughty bits.
"Same way we now have to deal with gun issues and come up with reasonable rules regarding their safety;"
I have no problem with this. Reasonable to me means that a) a serious problem needs fixing and b) the the "rule" is highly likely to fix the problem. If a) and b) are not met, then it is not reasonable. "Might, maybe save one life" does not cut it for me. We don't take that approach for ANY product in life, even products we know cause death.
"even if it means 'interpreting' the Constitution in a way that some people don't agree."
Now if by "some people" you mean me, then that is fine, so long as you are willing to abide by and respect the rulings in the courts. NY just passed an AWB, components of which are likely unconstitutional, and are likely to be challenged very soon.
If by "some people" you mean the Supreme Court and federal judges, then no sir, and you pound sand. I really suspect you have not read the Heller case, or Moore v. Madigan, or even just the Wikipedia summaries. I would post the links but Rick would consider it spamming. The general public is about 10 years behind in the 2A judicial interpretation debate, and the fauxgressives don't want you to know it, because they keep losing in the courts.
I'm getting reports that yesterday and armed guard at an Atlanta School, Price Middle School, just stopped an active shooter...Rick?
"The First Amendment says that Congress can't restrict the freedom of the press, and yet there are laws against pornography. Going by the strict constructionist logic, those laws are unconstitutional."
I think you have to define what you mean by "strict constructionist", but most conservatives accept that most forms of speech can be restricted subject to what is called the "strict scrutiny" test, which most proposed restrictions never pass. Other forms of speech, like commercial speech, might be subjected to less strenuous tests, such as "intermediate scrutiny", etc.
No serious conservative legal scholar suggests that restraints of the 2A, like the 1A, is not subject to strict or intermediate scrutiny. If you bother to read Heller or Moore v Madigan you'll see this from even the most conservative justices.
So please take your red herring back, because it's stinking up the place.
The comment was not directed to you, JM. And even if it was, your "red herring" comment is rude, childish, and uncalled for.
Thanks Bobby. Victim card, check. Squathole or Rick, you feel like playing the race card as the last word on this?
"Victim card"? Are you kidding me? I taught high school for five years. There is absolutely nothing you can say to me that I haven't heard before, and nothing at all that you can do or say that makes me feel like a "victim." Feh. That's your schtick.
For some reason, JM, you're fixated on me caring about how many people are joining the NRA. To put in perspective, I care about those numbers about as much as you care about Pew and Gallup poll stats.
.
Anon above here:
By "some people", I was generalizing, not referring to anyone in particular, because on any issue there will be people who don't like the way things are decided.
Interesting that you say "might, maybe save one life" doesn't cut it for you.
I know you don't like the 1stAm comparison but the speech restrictions we have on things like obscenity were originally not even to protect a life. It was to protect our morals. Heaven forbid a little kid could see something that others find abhorrent.
But here we are talking about something that could actaully save a life, not just keep someone from blushing or having to avert their eyes.
To me, life is sacred. Saving one, for me, gets priority over what some guys thought up 250 years ago and called a 'right.'
"To me, life is sacred. Saving one, for me, gets priority over what some guys thought up 250 years ago and called a 'right.'"
Do really believe this with respect to the entire bill of rights, or just the 2a? The 4a and 5a, to the extent they constrain police investigations and interrogations, have been abused by violent criminals for decades. Murderers and child molesters have been and are today set free on "technicalities." Read about the history of the "exclusionary rule" for illegally obtained evidence against criminal defendants. Most liberals say they are willing to break a few eggs for the sake of the omelette. I suspect you feel that way too, just not about the 2a.
The riots that were (supposedly) caused by an anti-mohammed youtube video. Rice told the UN the video caused more death than at Sandy Hook. Obama and Billary immediately rushed to defend the 1A, despite calls for Euro-style blasphemy laws.
Ask yourself, why should the 2a be treated differently than the rest of the Bill of Rights? What kind of civil rights do we really have if the party in power at the moment just does as it pleases?
"I know you don't like the 1stAm comparison but the speech restrictions we have on things like obscenity were originally not even to protect a life. It was to protect our morals. Heaven forbid a little kid could see something that others find abhorrent."
To the contrary, I think 1A jurisprudence is very instructive. With the exception of child porn, the content of pornography cannot be limited by the state in any way. Neither can possession. The restraint in the case of porn is on the time and place of its exhibition. The burden on the State when restricting time and place is somewhat less than content itself. For example, the State can charge a fee and require a permit to use a public park for a rally, but it cannot discriminate against the content or message of the rally. And to be clear, under some conditions the State can ban certain kinds of speech. For example, intelligence officers can be criminally charged, even after they leave office, for revealing classified information. Inciting a riot, defamation, slander, etc. But the burden is very high, and the law must have a very high likelihood of preventing the harm.
In my view, talk of banning certain weapons is like trying to ban certain kinds of porn content. The burden on the State should be very high, and I think 1A jurisprudence is a good guide. There is a theory that the Bill of Rights was ordered that way for a reason, suggesting 2A is next in importance after the 1A.
Controlling the places where weapons are allowed is another matter, the same as controlling the time and place for speech. That is a debate for another day, although the Heller case gives a hint of the Supreme Court's views (i.e. that time and place restrictions on concealed carry is more lenient). Suffice to say that I respect Heller and the State's right to regulate, say, where I can carry concealed, but I think the State the sometimes makes foolish choices. I think in Florida we have a pretty good balance, could be better, but it's pretty good.
And again, coming full circle, if you don't like what the Supreme Court and federal courts have to say, the proper and IMO honorable approach is to amend the constitution.
This is all separate and apart from my view that the 2A is actually good public policy.
But Anon, you'll notice that as the comment count has risen on this post, not a single comment addresses my basic request that someone make an effort to prove banning semi-automatic rifles and limiting magazine capacity will actually work. What does that tell you?
“...not a single comment addresses my basic request that someone make an effort to prove banning semi-automatic rifles and limiting magazine capacity will actually work. What does that tell you?”
Maybe it's because most readers have better uses of time than arguing with a logic -proof fanatic? But it’s a cold Saturday morning and I’m stuck at the keyboard.
Anyway, here’s some of those things called “statistics” that speak to the issue. In the 10 years the loophole-ridden AWB was in effect, the number of people killed in mass shootings declined (save for 1999, when Columbine students exercised their 2A rights). The number of mass shootings per year has doubled since the ban expired.
So even that crappy ineffective AWB worked to a modest extent, despite the fact that perfectly legal and accessible weapons of matching destructive capacity were available. Hard to say why. But there’s the data, which nicely refutes your not-too-clever theory that reducing availability of the one style of weapon would be ineffective because there are others equally as deadly. On the contrary, your argument, if it demonstrates anything, suggests the limits should be even *more* inclusive. If you could do as much damage with a slingshot as an AK-47, that doesn’t argue that the AK-47 should be sold without background checks to felons and madmen at Circle Ks, it argues that slingshots shouldn’t. (Actually, from personal experience, in some regions like NJ, a slingshot is harder to buy than a firearm. Go figger.)
As you damn well know, there are many similar stats, drawn from individual states and municipalities as well as abroad. Australia is a singularly clear example of how well gun control works, although the challenges there are considerable less than those we confront here.
One could deduce, then, that limiting the availability of these and similar weapons might enhance the nation’s security. That outcome must be weighed against the cost in terms of individual rights. Not a tough call for those who are neither G-n worshippers nor puppets of the National Rifle Selling Association.
Now, which weapons with what magazine capacity? Automatic vs. semi-automatic and which modifications? I’ll leave that debate to the fetishists like yourself and the experts like the Brady Commission members. As I told you before -- you didn’t get it; you were still on the Rooms To Go van awaiting delivery to a dining room somewhere -- when you start with a few basic premises such as the number of gun-related injuries and killings per year in this country; the data showing that states with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths; that in the USA over the last 30 years there were over 60 mass murders in the carried out with firearms which in most cases were purchased legally, etc. it’s clear that there’s an unacceptable situation specifically focusing on weapons of this nature. Sort it out, fellas, and make Americans safer.
I look into my crystal ball and predict that Jewish Marksman will discount your data like he discounted Pew and Gallup polls. Furthermore, he will cite examples, all without links, of studies that somehow make a case for military-style weaponry actually making the world safer.
Watch.
.
Squat-
Quick answer:
Generally speaking, neutral authorities have concluded that the AWB *not* cause the dip in crime that coincided with its being in effect. Since Rick wants links, the CDC and the NIJ studies are the most referenced:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf
Assault weapons were involved in a minuscule number of gun crimes, and that remains true today even including recent mass shootings. Feinstein's claim that the original AWB somehow caused the dip in crime is not taken seriously by anyone, except those on the far left. It simply makes no logical sense, and does not stand up to statistical analysis. Correlation is not causation, just as I may fart at 6:05 am but that didn't make the sun rise.
I will grant you that post-ban there have been more "mass" shootings. But there is no reason why the expiration of the ban could possibly have contributed to this uptick (which by the way, is still a relatively too small sample size from which to draw scientific conclusions), because again, the availability of the prohibited weapons never significantly changed. As recognized in the CDC and NIJ reports, the weapons were still available, and the modifications to make a banned weapon compliant would have little effect on the weapon's firepower. Clearly, and I think even Obama seems to recognize better than a lot of others on the left, the type of guns involved are not the problem. Something has changed in society, be it mental illness, greater tendency to violence...we're not sure. But there is no logical explanation as to why certain features on guns being banned somehow prevented mass shootings. And off the top of my head, pretty sure Columbine was late into the ban when it should have been most effective.
"Now, which weapons with what magazine capacity? Automatic vs. semi-automatic and which modifications? I’ll leave that debate to the fetishists like yourself and the experts like the Brady Commission members."
This attitude of yours squat, is fundamentally why you scratch your head at my arguments. The concepts are fairly straightforward, and your willful ignorance, frankly, disqualifies you from passing judgment on any policy from the left or the right. These are serious issues indeed. Truly sad when citizens shirk their responsibilities to educate themselves and leave it up to whorish politicians. Not saying you'll agree with me if you knew what I knew, but at least you could have an informed opinion.
"On the contrary, your argument, if it demonstrates anything, suggests the limits should be even *more* inclusive."
That's right. You're finally starting to comprehend. Imagine mayor bloomberg's next great idea is that new yorkers should eat less sugary foods. So he bans brown sugar, but not white sugar. Well clearly sugar is still available, people will just substitute white sugar in their cooking, so his new law is pointless. Well that would be constitutional if it were only sugar, notwithstanding its a stupid policy. But since guns implicate the 2a, you can't constitutionally pass hair-brained laws that don't work. And of course, you cannot ban all guns because of Heller.
"Sort it out, fellas, and make Americans safer."
Some of us want to do that, others are just obsessed with "never wasting a crisis" and want to demonize and score political points.
Rick can simply google John Lott and find all the data, peer reviewed, he wants to see that more guns=less crime.
have a great weekend Komerades!
Post a Comment
Spam, vulgar language, trolling and off-topic comments are not tolerated at SFDB and your comment will be removed if it meets this criteria.