Another Mass Shooting and the Dance of the Plum Crazy Gun Cultists begins once more.
Faux News sent out their pretty little bleach blonde to decry... Video Games. Joe Scarbourgh followed the standard script as he declared it's too soon to talk about Politics vis-a-vis Gun Control and then followed it up with the right-wing buffoonery of Could You Imagine If Bush had given a political speech on the day of the shooting;
"Can you imagine what certain people at this network would have said?" Scarborough asked. "Mika would be killing George W., everyone here on this network would be killing George W."Except of course, George W(orst President Ever) Bush did just that on April 16, 2007 the day of the Virginia Tech Mass Shooting, when W yelled at Congress for failing to give him another few hundred Billion in Supplemental War Spending for the Glorious Iraq War.
Then Brave Gun Hugging Crazies sporting Internet Muscles immediately descend on ever news story threatening anyone daring to speak of Gun Control while the NRA prepares to spend millions to eliminate any politician who dares to introduce legislation aimed at curtailing the Unrestricted Gun Violence which is the new normal in America.
This is what the Gun Cultists always do, It's too soon! It's too soon! Liberals don't use reason they're relying on emotion! We have to wait! It's despicable to politicize this tragedy! Shut Up! Shut Up! Shut Up! Then after enough time, the Gun Cultists declare well it's too late to mention the specifics of that particular Mass Shooting Now!
A certain segement of out society believes in their inalienable rights to own a gun without any restrictions despite the fact that the Second Amendment reads,
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.Despite the fact that "Arms" in late 18th century parlance meant a brace of flintlock pistols, a muzzle-loading blunderbuss, a dirk and a small sword or claymore. There are no restrictions that Gun Cultists will support because they are fanatics.
There is a certain segment of our society which believes it is their right to strut around in heavily trafficked public places with whatever weapon they wish to display. This has happened several times, most recently, when two young entitled white men strapped their AR-15s to their backs and attended a Wisconsin Farmer's Market.
These incidents fail the reasonableness test. Walking around a shopping center, a park, or a farmer's market with a conspicuous long gun is not done for personal protection but as a display of power or privilege and the equivalent of a primate genital display meant to overawe and cow their "opponents".
When I see someone walking around with an AR-15, uncased, magazine inserted, slung tactically (or not) on them, my first assumption is Mass Shooting Incident imminent.
More Guns have not made Americans safer. It's absolutely proven by the mass shooting incidents and a study just released by the American Journal of Public Health. The study led by Boston University researcher Dr. Michael Siegel,
covering 30 years (1981-2010) in all 50 states found a "robust correlation" between estimated levels of gun ownership and actual gun homicides at the state level, even when controlling for factors typically associated with homicides. For each 1 percentage point increase in the prevalence of gun ownership, the state firearm homicide rate increases by 0.9 percent.But, the Gun Manufacturers have an incestuous symbiotic relationship with the NRA. There's Huge amounts of Money to be made through the selling of weapons to America.
Of course, the money is soaked in the blood of innocents and dead children but what does that matter to Sig Sauer CEO Ron Cohen, Smith & Wesson CEO James Debney, Wayne LaPierre or David Keene?
Despite the fact that "Arms" in late 18th century parlance meant a brace of flintlock pistols, a muzzle-loading blunderbuss, a dirk and a small sword or claymore. There are no restrictions that Gun Cultists will support because they are fanatics.
ReplyDeleteThe "Arms" the 2nd Amendment protected were modern military weapons at the time. Therefore the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted as a guarantee that our right to own modern military weapons shall not be infringed.
David is correct. The Founders vision of firearms in common use, has been upheld by SCOTUS, and the Founders could absolutely understand technological advances, as they were occurring f=during their lifetime.
ReplyDeleteDidn't reference the POTUS ordered CDC study I see.....but certainly long on editorializing with colorful adjectives.
I'd have trouble keeping my mouth shut if I saw a dude walking around with an AR-15 at a farmer's market or other public venue. The urge to say "sorry about your tiny dick" would just be too strong. So I guess if there's ever a mass shooting and I'm one of the victims, y'all will know what triggered it.
ReplyDeleteFocusing on what arms were common in the 18th century is a distraction. The key word for me has always been "well regulated." If the amendment itself calls for regulation, why do all the gun nuts think it means they shouldn't have to register their guns and/or meet some basic ownership standards (like sanity)?
David,
ReplyDeletePoint out in the Constitution where the Founders declare Arms=Modern Military Equipment and that the 2A can be interpreted to mean future generations can own modern military weapons.
"the second amendment has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, ever perpetrated on the American public by an interest group in my lifetime." Chief Justice Warren Burger
And as Nan properly pointed out Well Regulated. But, of course the Cult of the Gun takes that to mean trained or some such nonsense.
The Gun Fanatics are forcing Americans to abide by their warped view of the Laws of the Nation with the eventual end state of Gun Nutters have the Freedom to Shoot and Kill people with out ramification.
Nan - I don't know why the gun conmtrol cabal accuses gun owners of employing rhetoric, yet tries to frame the narrative in the exact same way. The 2A is already the most heavily reguilated Constituional right, and there is really nobody raising a hue and cry over NICs checks and CCWs. Implying that the body of law abiding firearms owners support zero regulation and protections against the mentally ill owning firearms...is disengenuous.
ReplyDeleteGene - Please point to the caveat in the Constitution where it states that an enumerated right prohibit technological advances, and why would such a prohibition apply to only one right and not the others?
Constitutional Insurgent,
ReplyDeleteTime and again, Larry Pratt, Ted Nugent, Wayne LaPierre are given platforms either at press conferences or on major media television to spout off that background checks and/or any regulation will enviability led to wholesale confiscation.
The body of law-abiding firearms owners give tacit approval by remaining quiet and in the case of the two Colorado State Senators actively target anyone attempting to deal with this plague.
Here's at least two caveats: The Necessary and Proper Clause and the Amendment procedure. The Founders could not imagine the firepower available to a single individual that exists today.
And I've already defeated you on this line of argument when you've made it before. The 7th Amendment specifically states where the "value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars". $20 back in 1789 was the price of 1oz of gold. Yet, the Amendment hasn't been reinterpreted to mean the price of 1oz of gold in 2013 dollars.
Gene - "Time and again, Larry Pratt, Ted Nugent, Wayne LaPierre are given platforms either at press conferences or on major media television to spout off that background checks and/or any regulation will enviability led to wholesale confiscation."
ReplyDeleteAt the very least, you're wrong about La Pierre. He reiterated just this past April that the NRA has no issues with the current NICS checks. Firearms registries have all been the integral piece in the banning and confiscation that has occurred in other nations. I'm all for discussions on compromise, but there's only one side that has been asked to compromise....and that fails the very definition.
"The body of law-abiding firearms owners give tacit approval by remaining quiet and in the case of the two Colorado State Senators actively target anyone attempting to deal with this plague."
Absolutely correct, though the effort was spearheaded by the Colorado body of law abiding firearms owners. Not tacit approval....overt and undeniable approval.
"And I've already defeated you on this line of argument when you've made it before."
Defeated me? Whatever makes you fell better.....
If the gold standard that we're not on provides you with the foundation to propose that the 2A be restricted to only encompass musketry, then you cannot logically be inconsistent and not support holding the other enumerated rights to the same standard. If you're going to oppose civil liberties, don't half-ass it.
"The Founders could not imagine the firepower available to a single individual that exists today."
And wildly incorrect. No reason to rely on historical and factual inaccuracies [or inventions] to hold your position. Aside from the fact that you have to suspend the non-firearm technological innovations occurring during the Founders lifetime, firearms were undergoing such innovations as well, such as the Ferguson Rifle.
Even automatic firearms had been well envisioned at least since DaVinci's day, not to mention the 16th century Austrian Double Wheellock.
Look CI you can pretend the founders knew about lasers because of Archimedes and his defense of Syracuse in 214 BC. The fact is we have a serious problem in the nation and the "compromise" you speak of is capitulation to the whims off the gun nuts.
ReplyDeleteNow I'm not accusing you of being a gun nut, you aren't, you're just aligned with a cadre which is willing to accept mass shootings.
I disagree. Compromise means both sides coming to a mutually agreed upon position. The gun control position wants their laundry list of restrictions, but what are they willing to compromise on in return?
ReplyDeleteI as well, do not count you as among the fringe of the gun control position, but you would be equally aligned with those such as the late Pete Shields [of handgun Control/Brady Campaign] who favors exactly the incremental approach to banning the civilian ownership of all firearms, that the gun rights position warns of.....or Josh Sugarmann [of Violence Policy Center] who espouses a campaign of mis- and disinformation in regards to civilian confusion over what constitutes a 'military' or automatic weapon.