Protect your rights against those claiming a crisis
This is precisely the time to protect our rights against those peddling a crisis for ulterior motives as part of a total political war.
Every time I think the media-Democrat frenzy could not get any more frenzied, it gets more frenzied.
How seamlessly they have transitioned from almost three years of Russia-collusion-mania to the current frenzy claiming that anyone and everyone who supports Donald Trump is a white supremacist.
Trump supporters now, according the narrative, are both Putin-puppet traitors AND Hitler-wannabees. It’s all so dishonest by design; the leaders of this charge don’t actually believe it, they cynically manipulate their media and social media power to drive their supporters, many of whom do believe it, into hating political opponents as an ideology. MSNBC is ground zero for this manipulative denigration of half the population.
If it only were dishonest, it would be bad enough. But it’s worse because it now has become a hunt to find heretics for public shaming. This is not new, but now it is legitimized as an anti-Trump strategy by the Resistance. Congressman Joaquin Castro naming names in his community, including retirees and homemakers, is a symptom of a culture of total political war on the left. Other symptoms include the attempt to deplatform non-liberal voices from the internet and airwaves, led by well-funded groups like Media Matters.
Take the smear campaign directed at me when I spoke in defense of free speech at Vassar, and compare it to what is taking place in our current political culture directed at Trump supporters, and you will see how the campus culture of intolerance now has escaped campus into the political culture. It’s only going to get worse because the anti-social social justice warriors now work in the high tech companies that control almost all the essential means of communication.
Against this backdrop of total political war from the left, it’s amazing that so much of the country refuses to succumb. It’s why I noted not long ago after the Mueller testimony fiasco that I still had hope:
Yes, I still have hope, but it’s hard. When the weight of the media, entertainment and educational industries is so hostile to non-liberals, and when it combines with the power of the state, it’s tough. It seems overwhelming at times. It’s emotionally and physically draining. And it’s been going on for several decades. Yet I still have hope despite that overwhelming disadvantage.
It’s almost unimaginable that after this decades-long onslaught, Republicans nonetheless control the Senate and the presidency, and most state legislatures. How can that possibly be, it’s seemingly impossible. The American people are resilient, and that gives me hope.
But vigilance must be eternal, going to sleep politically even for a year or two is not an option. You cannot give an inch, or they’ll take a mile. And people need to be held accountable.
How is it even possible in this environment that MORE people like Trump than when he was elected in 2016? That’s the conclusion of NY Times analyst Nate Cohn: “Millions of Americans who did not like the president in 2016 now say they do”:
Donald J. Trump doesn’t always seem like a candidate focused on expanding his base of support. He may have done so anyway.
The share of Americans who say they have a favorable view of him has increased significantly since the 2016 election.
And over the last few months, some of the highest-quality public opinion polls, though not all, showed the president’s job approval rating — a different measure from personal favorability — had inched up to essentially match the highest level of his term….
Millions of Americans who did not like the president in 2016 now say they do. Over all, his personal favorability rating has increased by about 10 percentage points among registered voters since Election Day 2016, to 44 percent from 34 percent, according to Upshot estimates.
It seems that the Russia-collusion and White-Supremacist narratives pushed by the media and Democrats are not penetrating. Perhaps they have cried wolf too many times.
Rahm Emanuel famously said: “you never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.”
The shootings in El Paso and Dayton have created a crisis atmosphere, and calls for suppression of 1st and 2nd Amendment rights. While we should consider serious ways to prevent future mass shootings, we should not give up our rights in this time of crisis.
This is precisely the time to protect our rights against those peddling a crisis for ulterior motives as part of a total political war.
[Featured image: Inauguration Day Rioters, via YouTube]
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The Bill of Rights is always the first thing that liberals go after in a crisis. This has been true since Wilson and has been writ large since they lost the Civil War. Perhaps the Democrats most successful attack on the Constitution was the 17th Amendment, but they persist in watering down every single Amendment by legislation, judicial fiat, and presidential decrees which appear to be invulnerable to later modification or erasure because of a corrupt judiciary.
It’s the Biggest “Tell” that their end goal is
Dictatorship for the U.S. of A.
they want another Civil War.
they will lose this one too, and this time their leaders will not be safe.
not even here in bluest #Failifornia.
Good advice, and its what our constitutional system was designed to protect against. The fact that it works to slow things down is driving progressives into a frenzy as they try to push their way through.
It is horrible to watch, and it is horrible to see friends, relatives, colleagues knuckle under or join the mob.
But there is also hope.
Every time I talk to a muslim immigrant woman who is a fired up Trump supporter and rejects identity politics, when I talk to Liberian immigrant Dad taxi driver who rails against the nonsense in the urban area he lives, when I talk to the woman at the government agency who is making fun of the latest trans crisis du jour with her colleague while handling my request – I see ordinary Americans who aren’t buying what elites are selling.
I wish we had a better Republican party that knew how to fight like Trump. Now is the time to go into urban Baltimore, Chicago, etc. and ask why all the young black males getting gunned down aren’t getting the same concern, ask why elite white liberals are trying to disarm law-abiding blacks so they are easier to kill, etc.
There are a lot of people ready for change beyond the core Trump supporters – we need more people willing to carry the fight to them.
This over the top reaction of the past few days has really, really gotten to me. Thanks professor for putting some words to help crystallize what’s going on out there.
Because its cray-cray.
“It is horrible to watch, and it is horrible to see friends, relatives, colleagues knuckle under or join the mob.”
This is the creepiness of life today that I keep mentioning, how cell phones and other personalized media receptors have corralled people into echo chambers and brainwashed most of us into believing that we are the only ones who know “the truth”. When husbands and wives, fathers and sons, friends, brothers and sisters stop talking to each other over politics, we surely have lost our way. There is no lie big enough nor hoax so bizarre and illogical people won’t buy into?
When I think about how easy it was to detach us from our families, friends, values and priorities to make us willing to act against our own best interests, it makes this all so creepy. People need to wake up and get a grip. Put the damn phones down and let’s all start talking to each other again! “The Day of the Locusts” has arrived.
“Perhaps they have cried wolf too many times.”
You can’t cry wolf too many times. Wolf is clickbait. New charges are always entertainment.
Politics free-rides on entertainment.
The problem is that many anti-BDS laws directly violate the 1st Amendment, and I don’t know if you are okay with that or not. That people in Texas had to sign pledges. That were overturned at the first test.
Should we boycott, divest, and sanction Iran?
Sometimes we have to trust Divine Providence will work things out via grace instead of using human coercion and force.
I prefer free speech even though it means Omar and Talib can spew their trash.
I don’t care, not my problem. I disagree with what they say, and I won’t defend their right to say it either.
Courts will either stop it or they won’t, but if courts don’t support BDS, I will take advantage of the opportunity to take as much real estate from them as I can.
You’re right. But then, like the fools in venezuela who voted themselves into fascism, so can we.
Our protection against fascist government is the Fourth Estate (that’s gone – they’re part of the plot), the opposition party (the GOPe – that’s gone: the crying boehners sold us and our country down the river), our educational system (that’s gone – we gave it away to the most vile of people), and…..THE FIRST AND SECOND AMENDMENTS.
Protect EVERYONE’s free speech rights, and EVERYONE’s 2A rights as if your freedom depends on it.
Bullsh*t.
What’s wrong with that? How does that contradict the first amendment? How does it impair their freedom of speech? The pledge required was exactly the same as the one every government in the USA requires from those it does business with, that they don’t discriminate on the basis of race, sex, etc. No government in the USA will do business with a racist company or contractor, and nobody has ever raised a first amendment objection, because it’s obvious that the first amendment does not protect a “right” to boycott black people. Nor does it protect a “right” to boycott Israelis. It is already illegal for many companies to do so, and there’s nothing wrong with governments requiring certification that someone is complying with that law before they will do business with them. Contractors remain free to advocate whatever they like, including white supremacy, antisemitism, or rape; they just can’t act on that advocacy.
The judge was either dishonest or ignorant.
So do I, and if anyone were to propose a law to shut them up I would oppose it. But no one has done so.
You make a very good point; wonder what the poster would say to a requirement that any state official pledge not to discriminate against black businesses?
with respect to the court case, I read it, it was based on facts specific to the case. Some women was hired by an education department, she refused to sign the pledge, was refused employment, and sued on the grounds that the position for which was seeking to be hired had no purchasing or contracting authority or duties, and that it had nothing to do with the job she was seeking to be hired for. Although I disagreed with the ruling, the Judge in the case found in her favor on those limited grounds.
True, but irrelevant. Every government in the USA requires contractors to certify that they do not discriminate on the basis of race, not only in the work they will do for the government but at all. They can advocate racism all they like, but if they won’t pledge not to practice it they can’t do any work for the government. How is this woman’s case different?
Apparently the Amendments aren’t binding, they’re only privileges if you’re buying anything the liberals are saying.
Can’t wait for the 1st Amendment privilege bite them in the ass when they get shut down and want me to defend them.
And how many pleas have they made to help support that amendment.
2020 will decide which direction our country will go. Will the so called silent majority take a decisive stand and deliver a decisive blow to the liberal/marxist/Democrats.
The chains that fall lightly on the shoulders of citizens is because the chains have been supported by government funding and an easy life buffered from reality. Life is so good it is so easy to forget it’s underpinnings are a generation away from failure as Reagan warned. Safeguards of freedom cost and sometimes very much. They get in the way of buying that new 4K TV. Nothing can go wrong they think. We are in Huxley mode but soon Orwell mode with Google as the Ministry of Truth. Hoping to be pre-trib!
If Trump pushes gun control I’m not voting for him. I’ll vote democrat and hope they pursue him and his family after he loses for the rest of his life.
The effin’ democrats won’t ever stop until they’ve enslaved the entire country and pandering to them won’t make them stop.
Trump needs to push back hard.
The Left absurdly equates speech from the Right as violence. When do we get to righteously equate their oppression as violence?
I think we’ve made a little progress against that one. We laughed at that stupid idea enough that they’ve backed off calling everything “violence”. Now they call everything “racism”, flavor of the week anyway.
Same song, different verse:
There’s a climate crisis, you must give all your money to the government to protect you.
There’s a mass shooting crisis, you must give up all your guns so the government can protect you.
There’s an educational crisis, you must give up all your authority over your children to the government so they can protect you.
There’s a racism crisis, you must give up your freedom to speak your own mind to the government so they can protect you.
Feel protected yet?
Apparently you didn’t get your WHO virus shot this year. What is killer virus that will wipe out half of the world this year? There is always something new to panic about and it is always worse than the others. Heck of a world we live in. Nothing but crises and none “going to waste”.
“for ulterior motives as part of a total political war….”
When the likes of a rather mainstream actor like Prof. William Jacobson says that, you know it’s Paul Revere time.
Thank God he’s saying it.
“Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13 but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.
Mathew 24
By all measures, it is the Left who are the bigots and hate mongers. It is also the Left who has created the environment that causes people such as the recent shooters in El Paso and Dayton to come forward and do what they did.
>
Think about it. If you do not blindly accept climate change with the associated wealth transfer and demonization of many basic industries, then you are a denier to be hated and even jailed. If you support Trump then you are a neo-Nazi deserving of an ever increasing level of vitriol that has now culminated in your extermination. If you do not blindly support wokeness with ideas such as letting your 5 year old child decide which sex they really are (this month), allowing transvestites to read to your child in public libraries, men who identify as women to use women’s locker rooms, etc., then you are a bigot of the nth degree deserving shaming and utter destruction. If you are a Christian, heterosexual, a white male, or an combination of the above, then you are a person who deserves no rights and cannot even be allowed to speak in a classroom. Should you try to live by your religious convictions, then you should be destroyed and bankrupted, followed by government mandated reeducation. If you dare to own a gun, then you are a neo-Nazi, skin head responsible for every death in the world which means you and your livelihood should be destroyed. No matter how much you support legal immigration, if you are against illegal immigration, then heaven help you for all the damnation and evil that will come your way. Should you wear a MAGA hat, use the wrong pronoun, or violate some other unwritten social “norm” as defined by the Left, then you will be thrown out of restaurants, confronted and shamed on the street, and so forth. The list goes on.
>
In this environment the Left demonizes everything conservative, Christian, or that even adheres to basic common sense or rights in America. When the public does not cooperate by behaving in the bad manner the Left demands in order to support/justify their outrage, they create fake crimes, selectively edit videos to create the vision of bad behavior, and completely misrepresent what was said. They continue to hammer away with these lies again and again until they are accepted as fact. When called out for this behavior, the Left demands victim status for being accused of doing anything the least bit wrong and then, audaciously, points the finger back at the accusers as being the real villain. All of this bad behavior is made possible by a news media largely owned by the Left who is willing to print or say whatever propaganda suits them and their purpose.
>
Given this environment of nonstop anger and hate, is it any wonder why violence is on the rise? And here’s the huge secret that no one is allowed to speak about. When you carefully analyze the motives behind these latest shootings devoid of any political slant, it becomes clear that many of the reasons that encouraged these shootings was the vitriol in America, illegal immigration that is out of control, and other Leftist sponsored issues.
What Congress is heading for is a national database of citizens who are prohibited from owning firearms. Dana Loesch wrote an article (Why Red Flag Laws Are Not A Good Solution To Mass Shootings) questioning the practicality of such a list. She failed, though, to discuss the Constitutionality of such a list, and especially the issue of federalism. The Tenth Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The federal government is prohibited from abridging the right to keep and bear arms, but the States are not. (Yeah, I know the Fourteenth Amendment mucked up the Tenth, but bear with me.) I may be too late, but I oppose a national list of citizens for whom the Bill of Rights does not apply. Not only would that be unconstitutional, but it would be impractical. We know that there are people who shouldn’t be trusted with firearms but how is some list going to stop them? It hasn’t worked in the past so how is some new law going to change that? Any “Red Flag” database should be at the state or local level. But that doesn’t really work either, does it? I think the only way to stop these crazies from shooting up innocent people is to make “gun free zones” illegal so law-abiding citizens can protect themselves and others. If Congress feels the need to “do something”, maybe they should make gun free zones illegal everywhere, citing the 2nd and 14th Amendments.
(I apologize for any typos; The Preview function seems to be broken.)
Red Flag laws are equivalent to search, seizure and conviction by political interests with no crime required as a premise.
Many gun owners cannot afford as many guns and ammunition as they would like let alone the lawyers they would require to keep Red Flaggers at bay.
Look at Nadler, Shiff et al. to see how expensive legal harassment can be and that’s nothing when compared to Red Flag laws run rampant.
Let me clarify what Red Flag laws actually are and are not.
Existing and proposed red flag laws allow a judge to issue an order to seize a person’s legally owned firearms, based solely upon the testimony of ordinary citizens, not experts, that the owner or possessor of said firearms is a potential danger to other members of society, without the subject of the order being able to enter any objection to its issuance. These red flag orders DO NOT order the subject to the order to be taken into custody, though. So, what is wrong with all of this?
First, it does not “protect” other members of society at all. The supposed danger to society is not the instruments seized, firearms, but the person who possesses them. A firearm, sitting in a closet has never gone on a rampage and harmed anyone. In fact, the firearm is incapable of doing that. It is only magnifies the danger represented by the human being using it. So, removing firearms from a person’s possession does not render that person harmless.
Second, those serving the order have no way of knowing if they have, in fact, seized all of the firearms to which the subject has access. It is assumed that the subject is essentially a law abiding person and would therefor not secret firearms in out of the way places where they would not be found [bury them in the back yard, rent an out of the way storage unit, hide them in hidden storage spaces within a residence or business, etc].
Third, it assumes that the person is law abiding enough not to replace the seized forearms through the black market.
Fourth, it forces the subject to prove a negative, in order to recover his property. The subject of the order has to, essentially, prove that he is unlikely to use a firearm to harm another person. How Minority Report.
Red Flag laws are totally ineffective. By allowing the subject of the order, who has essentially been classified as a dangerous person, at large, the basic threat still exist and is unmonitored. As there is no actual way to know exactly how many firearms a person possesses and their locations, there is no way to be assured that all were secured. And, as firearms can be purchased from illicit sources, there is no way to guarantee that the subject will not acquire more.
They are also unnecessary. Virtually every state in the Union has emergency commitment laws which allow a person to be involuntarily committed, for observation and diagnosis of a dangerous mental disorder, if that person meets certain criteria which clearly indicate that the person is an immediate threat to himself or others. A commitment can also be court ordered upon presentation of a compelling diagnoses of mental illness, which is likely to lead to a person harming himself or others or being mentally incompetent, presented buy a competent mental health professional. In both cases, the actual component of the equations, which provides the actual danger, the human subject, is removed from society to negate the threat.
These orders are dangerous, both legally and physically, because they significantly reduce a person’s ability to protect himself, without providing any substitute means of protection, and they deprive a person of his property without substantive due process. It is no different that seizing a law abiding man’s car, in the middle of the interstate and forcing him to walk home, because his estranged ex-wife claims he may drive drunk and harm someone.
These laws are ineffective, stupid and dangerous.
Well said Mac.
Should be require reading.
In the current over hyped environment it is difficult for me to try and remain objective. Here goes.
1. Deplatforming – Yes these are private sector entities who should be able to set their own rules for content. The problem is they do not set objective rules nor enforce those subjective rules for content on a fair and non partisan basis. The solution is to require these content sites and search engines: Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Google etc to become either absolutely neutral anything goes early internet wild west regarding content
OR
Create clear and objective standards for what content is disallowed. Initial appeal remains with the site. However if they are not applying their own rules in a nonpartisan way then allow folks to use in small claims court or district court at the individuals option. Imagine one of these entities like Twitter facing off against several hundred individuals in several hundred separate small claims courts with a potential $10K judgment in each one. Think of this as requiring Twitter to defend in each location and being unable to face a unified class action in terms of the cost of defense for them…..
2. Firearms- In a nation of over 300 million people with more firearms than the total population we have very few mass shootings all things considered. That said each is tragic and many could have been prevented or at least mitigated with a bit of reform to the way we and our institutions report, receive and act upon mental health and criminal behavior. Think about the information that was known about the Parkland shooter but was not acted on. We don’t need some sweeping new gun regulation. However, maybe we could live with a background check system that allowed a ten day period vs the current three days. Then you could be issued a gun buyer card valid for say six months or maybe one year. This card would be real ID compliant and issued by County Sheriff’s office. Not optional, this would be Shall Issue. Now to complete the idea at every gun show an FFL simply looks at the card and records the transfer. So this solves the mythical ‘gun show loophole’ and allows for less hassle for normal purchase because you can simply go to a store and purchase same day with the card.
Just ideas, I am not married to them. Interested in any rational response.
Interesting idea, issuing permits of 6 to 12 months during which time one has Bill of Rights protection. California has a 10 day period and now background checks for ammo. Some have suggested a 6 month waiting period and any firearm owned destroyed at owners death. Only the most trusted by government will have anything…. Plenty of examples of that which have turned out badly.
Alaskabob,
Due respect to you but you seem to have reframed my argument. The issuance of the proposed purchase card simply makes it easier for law abiding citizens to purchase firearms during the six months to one year period because they have already undergone the ‘background’ check. The extension for completion of the check from 3 days to ten days allows for more time and hopefully less mistakes.
This is a proposed solution to help make firearms purchase easier due to less frequent checks. When card is valid no more background check during that period. This in no way creates a limitation on 2nd amendment right, in fact it does the opposite.
It also removes the tired anti-gun talking point regarding the ‘gunshow loophole’.
If I misstated your response I apologize.
Background checks are bad enough, but universal background checks (UBC) are onerous and are meant to act as a deterrent. With UBCs, you may neither borrow nor lend a gun without a background check and the gun so transferred cannot be transferred back without another background check. These checks include your spouse and your children.
Stablesort,
My proposal creates a six month or one year period in which you do not have to undergo a background check because you have been issued a card showing that. This eliminates additional background checks during that period of time.
As for family transfer, all of us in the gun culture/community must regulate ourselves. If we don’t or won’t then there is some weasel politician who will do it for us.
Example/hypothetical- Father inherited Grandfather’s 1903 Springfield Rifle that Granddad used in WW1. Unfortunately the only child of the Father is a convicted felon so he can’t pass on this legacy rifle. If we can’t agree on something that fundamentally basic then we aren’t going to agree about what constitutes responsible gun ownership.
Regarding item 2:
Nothing should be done that violates the constitution. It is the constitution and only the constitution that is protecting us from the gun grabbing state. They would, and will if they can, come for your guns as they need you disarmed.
Nothing should be done that doesn’t solve the problem. Without rounding up all the guns you will not solve the mass murder by gun problem. If you do round up all the guns you will get mass murder by other weapons.
The only practical solution is to make the commission of such a crime to carry a heavy enough penalty to dissuade someone from carrying out the crime. When that fails (as it does when a person is committed to their own death) you are left trying to identify these people ahead of time. In a country of 300+ million, good luck.
Perhaps there is not a solution, save one – the population at large is armed and able to shoot back. This has two distinct advantages. 1) the killer doesn’t survive long enough to carry out a large scale mass murder 2) after a few killers are shot down by armed citizens, the message is sent that your plan will fail and the number of these drops.
Now, it must be noted, the goal of the ruling class, the more equal pigs, is not to stop the mass murder, it is to disarm the citizens. So they will not allow the only solution that works.
Barry,
I concur that no proposed laws should violate the Constitution. However, SCOTUS has repeatedly held that background check is fine. I would hope that we all agree that they are a necessary burden to attempt to keep firearms out of the hands of folks like these Looney tunes mass shooters.
To your larger point, I also agree. These gun free zones don’t seem to have any affect other than to prohibit lawful gun owners from defending themselves. In fact these so called gun free zones seem to attract Looney mass shooters. My preference would be to allow businesses to be a gun free zone but they would then have a civil liability for a failure to defend the safety of their patrons. After all if you tell me I can’t possess the means to protect myself then you should be obligated to due so.
The SCOTUS has NO authority, under the Constitution to rewrite any portion of that document. The 2nd Amendment is very clearly written. It states that the government can NOT infringe upon [regulate] the right to keep [own] or bear [possess] arms. Not allowing a person to purchase arms is an infringement. The purpose of a background check, prior to being allowed to purchase a firearm is done in order to deny a person the right to purchase that firearm. This is infringement.
What the courts have done is to rewrite the 2nd Amendment to add the words, except for reasonable exceptions. No such wording exists in the 2nd Amendment.
Mac45,
I think we need to leave off art. 3 powers for another day. The fact is SCOTUS has been making ‘questionable’ rulings since Marbury so the idea that they shouldn’t do so is water over the dam. It’s not that I necessarily disagree with you but the power or limits of SCOTUS is not germaine to my argument or proposal.
“It’s not that I necessarily disagree with you but the power or limits of SCOTUS is not germaine to my argument or proposal.”
YOU used the SCOTUS decision to lend legitimacy to the practice of requiring a background check for the purchase of a firearm. And, as I pointed out, IMHO any decision by any court to restrict the ownership and possession of weapons, including firearms is a violation of the 2nd and 14th Amendments and are, therefor, unconstitutional themselves.
As to your requirement that a person NOT have to complete a background check for 6 months after passing a background check, it already exists in certain states [~25] along with the waver of any waiting period to pick up the firearm. State issued license holders, who have passed a background check for a carry license [performed by a LEA] do not have to submit to a NICS background check to purchase a firearm. Of those states which require a state Point Of Contact check, through a state agency, the waiting period is usually waived.
Now, postulating the premise that a background check to purchase a firearm is constitutional, waiving it on the basis of having passed one at a future time is counter productive. The alleged purpose if to prevent a person, who has been either arrested or convicted of a disqualifying criminal offense or has been committed for a disqualifying mental condition, from lawfully purchasing a firearm. If the person becomes disqualified, between the time of the current purchase and the time of the previous check, then foregoing the check for the current purchase allows an unqualified person to obtain a firearm; undermining the stipulated purpose of the background check.
No, it is far better to simply eliminate the unconstitutional background check altogether.
Mac45,
In your response to my reply you seem to be taking the post Marbury v Madison actions of SCOTUS and laying them at my feet to defend. I decline to do so. Instead I will simply point out that the effects of post Marbury SCOTUS rulings exist. That is the reality we live in, whether we like it or not. Personally I do not but until such time as the doctrine created by Marbury is changed I as a rational person must accept the fact.
I thought that the purpose of Professor Jacobson post was to generate a thoughtful exchange of ideas between the folks who frequent this website, this exchange to be positive and collaborative in search of some workable solutions. Your current ranting about SCOTUS/Article 3 powers is not helpful to this end.
While I can wish we could all exist in the utopia of Gault’s Gulch where each individual could live according to the rules of a libertarian ideal, alas we don’t. Instead we inhabit the real world where politics is the art of the possible and compromise to get ‘half a loaf’ today so we can come back tomorrow to try and get the other half is required.
From my reading of many of your posts on lots of topics you and I agree much of the time. This time we don’t but let’s agree not to unnecessarily alienate people who should be natural allies. When anyone demands absolute adherence to some political ideology that person is going to be isolated on the political battlefield because they refused help from allies who they deemed too ideologically impure.
We, all of us who frequent this amazing website, need to be willing to work together to make sure the flipping ‘progressives’ and their totalitarian goals don’t win.
The SCOTUS has reversed existing ruling in the past and can certainly do so in the present. To simply adopt the premis that the Court is divine and no ruling which it makes can ever be challenged or reversed is idiocy. It also suggests that you are willing to accept ANY ruling from the Court, no matter how ridiculous it may be.
As to discussing solutions to defending your rights against usurpation by those claiming a crisis, several things are required.
The first is no allowing your rights to be usurped in the first place. Once you allow that to happen, it is very difficult to regain your ability to practice those rights, freely.
The second thing to do is, if your rights have been usurped, strive to regain them. Simply throwing up your hands and saying, “Oh well. I guess that right is gone for good,” one should strive to force the government to reestablish the unfettered practice of that right.
The third thing to do is never, ever suggest further measures to restrict a right which has been unconstitutionally restricted.
When a claimed crisis is used to justify the suspension or revocation of a right, the first thing to do is to independently confirm that such a crisis actually exists. In most cases, there is no crisis to begin with. No crisis = no justification for action. If a “crisis” is found to exist, a determination has to be made if a course of action will, in fact, address the causes of the crisis in such a way as to eliminate it or mitigate it significantly. If so, then a determination gas to be made as to the desirability of suspending or revoking an enumerated right, if that can be done at all. And, finally, unintended consequences have to be considered. What will be the consequences, both intended and unintended, of any action taken.
Now, statistically, mass shooting incidents are very rare. Most years see ~50 people killed in mass shootings, such as those in El Paso and Dayton. However, 300-400 times that many people die as the result of criminal assault, with a firearm, every year. And, the number of mass shooting incidents remains fairly stable from year to year. Finally, not ll mass shooting incidents use high capacity, semi-automatic rifles. So, are mass shootings involving HCSA rifles really a crisis, on a national level?
Next, if they are, then what can be done to stop these incidents? Limiting magazine capability will have very little effect, as these types of weapons are designed for rapid magazine changes and a person can carry several additional magazines. The Parkland Florida shooter actually used 10 round magazines in his weapon and that did not stop the incident from occurring nor did it reduce the number of dead and wounded to any significant degree.
How about increased background checks? Well, Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the US and one of the highest murder rates. And, these laws do not seem to affect the availability and use of firearms to criminals, many of whom are legally ineligible to possess firearms due to felony conviction and being under age. And, most of the shooters in these cases actually obtained their weapons after passing a background check and had no record of mental illness or disqualifying criminal violations. So, no real effect from background checks.
How about eliminating this class of weapon altogether? This might have an effect. Except that there are so many of them in circulation that it would be virtually impossible to do. But, if you did it, there would still be a black market in existence which built weapons of this type or modified existing weapons to function in a similar manner. Also, this would also eliminate a portable means of self defense against attack by large groups.
So, what actually works against firearms assault which can result in mass casualties? Armed intervention at the time of the incident. Someone on scene shooting the attacker, before he can injure and kill a large number of people. The problem here is having someone on scene to intervene in an effective manner. If you disarm the general population, then you have to rely upon specialized armed security being in place. This can prove very expensive. And, who is going to pay for it?
So, is there a true crisis? And, can additional restrictions actually eliminate or mitigate it significantly? Or is all thos hullabaloo simply eyewash for another agenda?
Mac45,
Once more I am going to decline to defend SCOTUS. Please stop inferring that I am under an obligation to do so.
The 2nd amendment, IMHO, has a very small limiting principle: nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. After if the citizenry don’t already possess small arms, heavy weapons and canon to whom is the Congress going to issue a letter of Marque and Reprisal?
I am a life NRA member, and 100% combat disabled veteran with four combat tours in Iraq. Heck, my wife has two combat tours.
We own and continue to train with many firearms.
Hopefully that is enough ‘street credibility’ to satisfy you.
Preaching to me is not making any converts. I am already on the side of the law abiding citizen.
If you go at someone this hard who is neutral or simply ambivalent and uninformed about ‘gun culture’ you are going to turn them off. So please don’t go out and try to convince someone who doesn’t know didly about guns with arguments about the legitimacy of the SCOTUS. It ain’t going to benefit us. Please practice in front of a sympathetic audience.
The bottom line is that in the current political climate of a basically 45% support for each major political party and a soft, malleable middle remainder we don’t have the votes to roll back what I and likely you believe to be stupid, ineffective and likely unconstitutional gun laws.
That is the reality. We have to operate within that reality to get the best terms we can. Every day is another political opportunity to advance the rights, note, rights not privilege of gun owners. We have to advocate and educate without alienating potential converts to the cause of law abiding citizens free to exercise their rights.
All I was proposing is one potential idea in which we get less interference and bureaucratic hurdles in exchange for shutting down the progressive straw man argument about the ‘gunshow loophole’. If you don’t like that idea that is fine and dandy. If you have an alternative idea I would be happy to hear it. If you don’t have an idea to share that is fine as well. After all it is still a free country, mostly.
CommoChief out.
CommoChief,
Serving in the military, or even being wounded in combat, does not establish any bono fides in this discussion. I could regale you with my combat service to the nation, both military and civilian, but it is meaningless in this context.
As you saw service in Iraq, you come from a much more recent generation than do I. And, means you grew up in a society which had accepted a greater restriction of personal rights than someone from my generation. That is my point. For the last 50 years, our society has been allowing government to infringe upon our enumerated rights. A large portion of our society has looked the other way when Congress passes ridiculous laws, the Executive unilaterally decides to act, without proper authorization, and the courts hand down horribly flawed decisions which are lacking in any legal foundation.
We already have background checks to purchase firearms, a totally unconstitutional requirement. And, in none of these cases would a reasonable background check have revealed any reason for these shooters to be denied permission to exercise their constitutional right to own a firearm. In the case of Adam Lanza, he would not have been allowed to purchase a firearm. So, he simply killed his mother and stole hers. So, how much are we going to expand background checks? Are government agents going to conduct personal interviews of all of your family, friends, neighbors, possibly your 5th grade teacher? How long is that going to take, how much will it cost and who will pay for it? We already pay for the privilege of exercising a Constitutional right to own a firearm because we pay for the NICS check at the time of purchase.
Now this idea the we have to go along with restrictions on our rights because members of the government have convinced a certain segment of the population that it can legally restrict these constitutional rights is why we are at the point that we are now; with high capacity firearm bans, magazine restrictions, ammo restrictions, etc. The time is long past for people to stand up and say no more. Those who wish to further restrict a citizen’s tight to own and possess firearms, in the name of safety and security, will not be satisfied until they totally disarm the citizens of this country. They will never say a partial infringement on 2nd Amendment rights is enough. It is time to push back and push back hard. The NRA is fee to leave the ranks of the submissive and join us. An right, clearly enumerated can only be eliminated, or changed by amending the amendment. there is set process for that. It does not matter if a majority of the population wants to eliminate that right, they can only do so by passing a Constitutional amendment.
What has been proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that disarming the populous not only does not make them any safer, it puts them at greater risk. Gun-free zones become shooting galleries. The rich and powerful hide behind secure walls protected by armed security guards and flout the laws that they themselves have passed; while the rest of society cowers, helpless before armed criminals. It is far past time to allow the citizenry to arm themselves in their own defense. If we need to change any laws, we should change them to expand the ability of the populace to exercise their constitutional right to own and possess personal weapons in public areas. My argument against closing the “gun show loophole” is that there is NO gun show loophole to close. As you said, it is a straw man argument. And, once you accept the position that the government has any authority to infringe upon an adult’s right to purchase a firearm, you have already lost the argument.
As you say, you are entitled to your opinion. I have no desire to change yours. However, I want people to clearly understand what it means to surrender a right or allow it to be taken from you. The liberals who fought tooth and nail to defend the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments, either ignored the attacks upon the 2nd or actively worked to infringe upon the rights enumerated there. It is never wise to allow tyranny to overwhelm you simply because it is uncomfortable to resist its encroachment.
Actually, in Fort Hood, the Major was in violation of standing security regulations by having his personal handgun on base. The Army also knew that he was a Muslim convert as it had several complaint concerning his behavior due to that.
Aurora, CO. could have been stopped handily, except for the fact that the law abiding patrons of the theater were honoring the “gun free zone” restrictions. And, again, the shooter could have obtained a similar rifle from the black market. Or he could have achieved the same result with a couple of pails of gasoline and a Zippo.
At Parkland, the problem was not that Cruz had not been arrested for previous actions, but that the School Board refused to provide adequate security at the school. There was no effective entry control in pace. School employees, who were familiar with Cruz, knew him to be disruptive and dangerous saw hi enter the campus and walk to bldg 12, carrying what was obviously a rifle case and not only made no effort to stop him, but failed to notify the office, until after he had opened fire.
In all of these cases, if there had been effective security at the point of entry to these facilities or if the victims had been armed, casualties could have been greatly reduced.
Mac45,
Clearly you are not in favor of my idea.
So what is your idea that can pass in democratic controlled House of Representatives and over come a potential filibuster in the Senate?
Chief, my point is that the proposed background checks will do nothing to stop madmen from killing. They are clearly unconstitutional as well.
History shows us there is one and only one solution, evil exists and you defend against it.
Barry,
I hear you. Background checks have a minimal deterrent effect at best on every day criminal. The average criminal uses a stolen or non FFL purchased firearm. However, there is value in at least forcing the Looney tunes mass shooters away from FFL. As a practical matter there is zero likely hood of abolishing the background check. If anything it is likely to be made more intrusive. That being the case, let’s fight to get all the relevant data into the system, make the system work for the gun community by granting a six month buy as many guns as you want to card. In exchange for the elimination of the ‘gun show loophole’ and that stupid progressive talking point.
Finally before I get jumped on again, not that you Barry were anything but reasonable, this is coming from a life NRA member, four combat tour, 100% disabled combat veteran. My whole family owns and continue to use, at firing range, firearms. I have enough to ‘ invade Cuba’ as the old saw goes. So I get the concerns about govt. Believe me I do. I had to stop Ft. Bliss from asking about firearms ownership for off post residential property when I in processed. So I have fought the fight.
This is about getting the best outcome we can, not demanding that things be the way we wish them to be.
“However, there is value in at least forcing the Looney tunes mass shooters away from FFL.”
It will have zero effect on mass murderers which makes it an onerous and useless tool. I do not and would not support it in anyway, shape, or form. It is also unconstitutional – “…shall not be infringed.”
“That being the case, let’s fight to get all the relevant data into the system…”
No.
“This is about getting the best outcome we can, not demanding that things be the way we wish them to be.”
Shall we compromise on free speech also?
We shall disagree. I’ve seen the result of “getting the best outcome”. It always reduces freedom and liberty and increases violence.
Barry,
For the every day criminal use of firearms you are correct. The folks that shot 50+ people in Chicago over the weekend almost certainly used firearms obtained by theft and illegal purchase.
For mass shooters you and incorrect.
1. Ft Hood, Army failed to accurately report his adoption of and adherence to a violent ideology.
2. Aurora, Air Force failed to accurately report shooters felony criminal record. In the AAR the AF discovered this to be a systemic failure to accurately report across the AF.
3. Parkland, both school resource officer and touchy feely school administrators failed to accurately report his behavior.
That is three mass shooters who would have been prevented from making a lawful purchase. That is an observable and absolute fact.
This debate shouldn’t be about firearms. It should be about accurate and complete information in the background check systems. Last I recall neither the unibomber nor the OK City bomber fired a single round. Help, four folks were killed with a doggone machete today.
So what to do? If you are a convicted felon you can’t possess or purchase a firearm. If you are a Looney ditto.
What is a Looney? If you are adjudged as in need of being institutionalized in the Psychiatric hospital because you are that ‘cra cra’ then you can’t have a firearm. Now when you are adjudged to be ready for release into society you automatically get removed from the list.
Now the progressive folks will complain about this because the definition of a Looney is too narrow and they want to put everyone on a list. The mental health professionals will complain because actually having to treat and deal with Loonies is hard. Way harder than passing out a valium RX to some bored housewife.
In conclusion having an background check system with accurate and complete information is necessary to prevent loonies from making a legal purchase. Is that going to prevent a work around solution by a Looney? Maybe not but do you really see these Looney whitebread kids going into a ‘bad neighborhood’ to try and buy an AR or an AK from some gangbanger? I sure don’t.
Actually, in Fort Hood, the Major was in violation of standing security regulations by having his personal handgun on base. The Army also knew that he was a Muslim convert as it had several complaint concerning his behavior due to that.
Aurora, CO. could have been stopped handily, except for the fact that the law abiding patrons of the theater were honoring the “gun free zone” restrictions. And, again, the shooter could have obtained a similar rifle from the black market. Or he could have achieved the same result with a couple of pails of gasoline and a Zippo.
At Parkland, the problem was not that Cruz had not been arrested for previous actions, but that the School Board refused to provide adequate security at the school. There was no effective entry control in pace. School employees, who were familiar with Cruz, knew him to be disruptive and dangerous saw hi enter the campus and walk to bldg 12, carrying what was obviously a rifle case and not only made no effort to stop him, but failed to notify the office, until after he had opened fire.
In all of these cases, if there had been effective security at the point of entry to these facilities or if the victims had been armed, casualties could have been greatly reduced.
“That is three mass shooters who would have been prevented from making a lawful purchase. That is an observable and absolute fact.”
You’re missing the point Chief. It would not stop the mass murder. They would purchase weapons illegally or use a different weapon. If I should choose, I could have killed more people in El Paso or Dayton with no guns at all. Once you have the evil desire to murder there is only one way to stop it, someone stops you. That’s it.
Under your plan, everyone will be a looney. Sorry, that’s how governments operate.
Barry,
Ok you don’t like my idea of what we in the gun community can do given the political reality to respond to this latest attempt by progressives to further undermine our 2nd amendment rights.
What is your proposal for something that can actually pass in a democrat controlled House of representatives and attain enough votes in the Senate to overcome a potential filibuster?
Here’s what red flag laws do – allow the state to murder anyone standing in their way.
Make no mistake, this is murder by the state, by the police:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/man-killed-by-police-during-attempted-gun-confiscation-in-maryland_2714962.html
I’ve already given you the solution – you just ignore it. You think there is some law you can pass. No law is going to change the fact that some humans are evil and twisted.
The solution is the same we have had since humans have existed, armed humans can fight back and will. When there are no “safe spaces for killers”, which is what all “gun free zones” are, the killers will be responded to quickly, reducing the effect of their murderous rampage and dissuading future killers.
So, the solution, take those violating 2a to court, like states with their restrictive laws, and win. That’s your solution. Allow people to freely arm their selves.
Barry,
Not surprisingly we agree that there is no benefit to ‘gun free zone’.
We also agree that a lawful gun owner with appropriate training is the best solution to stop some Looney and your average criminal.
That’s great that we agree. However, you failed to answer the question, so I will repeat it for you.
What is your proposal that will pass or at least has a realistic chance to pass through the democratic controlled House and pass through the Senate with enough support to overcome a filibuster?
If you don’t have one that’s fine but please just say so. Repeating talking points from an absolutist perspective on the 2nd amendment does not answer the question.
Chief, I already gave you my solution. Just read the comment before your last one.
In part:
“So, the solution, take those violating 2a to court, like states with their restrictive laws, and win. That’s your solution. Allow people to freely arm their selves.”
Barry,
I did read that. Again the question your were asked to answer is: what is your idea that can actually pass through the democratic controlled House and through the Senate with a filibuster proof majority.
The answer you gave is to file lawsuits against overbearing anti-gun laws. I don’t disagree with you on filing those lawsuits but that didn’t answer the question.
IMHO there will be some sort of ‘gun control’ legislation very soon. Neither of us think that legislation will have any impact other than making law abiding citizens jump through more bureaucratic hoops.
Stipulating to that reality my idea was to try and make this legislation as painless as possible to law abiding citizens, while taking away the ‘ gun show loophole’ talking point. So I ask again for your idea within that context.
While there are folks who don’t care to engage about drafting proposed gun control legislation, you better believe that legislation is going to care about you and me and all other law abiding citizens who still want to have a meaningful 2nd amendment to pass on to our kids.
I like you and Mac45, don’t think additional gun laws are the answer. The democrats who control the House and the ones in the Senate combined with a few squish republicans disagree. Those folks are who we have to work with. Not by choice but by necessity because they not we have the political power.
I hope I am wrong about the current situation but I fear I am not and new gun control legislation of Nancy Pelosi’s ideals is almost certainly to come. That’s all I have attempting to communicate, poorly I suppose.
Thanks for staying between the lines and not getting too angry, I enjoyed our discussion.
Sounds like it would make my dad or grandpa giving me a firearm illegal. Would make it illegal for a coworker to sell one to me. Would make it illegal for me to sell one to somebody outside a gun show. Background checks apply to retailers and gun show vendors, but not to private sellers or gifters.
Buckeyeminuteman,
For clarification expanded background checks are very likely to become law. My proposal for the ‘one background check a year I’d car’s is in that context and seeks to minimize the amount of intrusion and bureaucratic hurdles the so called progressives want to impose. So yes every transfer not involving family members would be through an FFL.
This is in the spirit of negotiating something for lawful gun owners in exchange for the flipping expanded background checks.
I intentionally did not address family transfer of firearms because as we all know it ain’t going to be enforceable without a totalitarian registration regime. Any permanent firearm register is a no go as far as I am concerned.
Mitch McConnell’s “Team Mitch” Twitter account was just suspended. Smart move Twitter. Between Google and Facebook garnering the wrath of many of the Dem Clown Car candidates last week and the leak that Google is committed to prevent Trump from winning in 2020, I would say that the odds of Congress stepping in to break up the Masters of the Universe just increased substantially.
Maybe just wishful thinking, but I suspect the Pentagon issuing big contracts to Google and Amazon is the first step in reining in the national security risk involved were the government to break up these companies. File that with learning that Trump’s 2 new Federal Reserve appointees back a return to either the gold standard or other basket of stable money. “Gold is the ONLY money.” JP Morgan. There are a lot important things going on that don’t get the reporting they deserve. Like Russia taking control of the Strait of Hormuz and thus the Persian Gulf Monday.
Thank you for a splendid and sobering article.
What’s more sobering is knowing that the politial pendulum always swings, and that the Democrat candidates have already told us what they plan to do upon regaining power. And that they’ve justified a willingness to regain power by any means necessary.
Biggest Balls In Human History
That’s why Americans love Donald Trump. He represents all that middle class, fly-over country stand for. He is the Wall, holding back the onslaught of SJWs and blood-thirsty liberals.
So, what actually works against firearms assault which can result in mass casualties? Armed intervention at the time of the incident. Someone on scene shooting the attacker, before he can injure and kill a large number of people.
____________________________________________________________
exactly–corto y derecho–lone wolf attacks are virtually impossible to prevent, especially if perpetrated by a clever and determined individual, until the assault actually commences
have been on the scene at a couple of mass shootings and background checks would have accomplished zero in the prevention of same
Evidently American citizens don’t even have any rights to keep their own jobs – during this manufactured crisis – per the AFL-CIO.
“….AFL-CIO Labor Union President Richard Trumka supports the principle of illegal alien workers taking the jobs of American workers. This is quite a bucket of sunlight upon a previously hidden agenda….”
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/08/08/wow-afl-cio-union-comes-out-in-support-of-illegal-alien-workers-taking-u-s-jobs/
Our constitution was written to protect the rights of it’s citizens. The Red Flag or mass shootings have only served to allow our Government to ELIMINATE THOSE RIGHTS. The Patriot Act (that isn’t patriotic) doesn’t support the constitution, it provided a means to bypass it and reduce your freedoms. The same with all of the other shootings or fake shootings. America needs to wake up because it may take another war to correct the actions we have allowed to transpire. Freedom is not free and it never will be. Men have died to provide you those freedoms, don’t be so quick to waive them away in the name of false security. Are you more safe or secure now than 10 years ago? Not eve close. Trump appears to support our rights but all politicians are subservient to the $$$$$$$$. Where can I find some tar and feathers??