.
So, the US Conference of Mayors – an “official nonpartisan organization of cities with populations of 30,000 or more” (sorry Rossmoor) – is sending an open letter, which I’m reprinting below, to the President and Congress, demanding three common-sense responses to America’s plague of gun violence – passing Feinstein’s “assault weapons” ban, strengthening the national background check system, and strengthening the penalties for “straw purchases” of guns.
I became aware of this letter yesterday when MY mayor, Huntington Beach’s Connie Boardman, posted on Facebook that she had signed it. I wondered what other Orange County mayors had also signed. I realize most of them are Republicans, and may be automatically against any sort of gun control, although at this point in our history it really shouldn’t be a partisan issue any more. So I thought I’d just check with the mayors of our two biggest cities, which have the most violence, Santa Ana and Anaheim.
And when I called SA Mayor Pulido, and described the letter to him, he asked me to send him the link right away so he could sign it (especially when he heard all the mayor friends of his who were already on board.) So we’ve got two down there. Not a surprise, with Democrat Pulido, even though I disagree with him on many other things.
But when I called my good friend Anaheim’s Mayor Tom Tait (Republican) he was more skeptical. He had heard of the letter, but isn’t so sure that more gun control “will help much with the problem.” Still, he asked me to send him a copy, and I’ll follow up with him. Perhaps he doesn’t want to piss off the OC GOP too much, where he is already known as quite a maverick. But then, he does have a reputation for doing what he thinks is the right thing, damn the political consequences. And far from all the shooting deaths in Anaheim are at the hands of the police there! (dark snark) Maybe he should ask his police chief John Welter about the 40 illegal guns that were seized in Operation Halo. Well, commenters, what do you think, should Mayor Tait sign this letter? I know that he reads this blog!
Well, here’s the letter, and any other OC mayors, of towns larger than 30,000, you can click here to sign: http://usmayors.org/presidentcongressletter
*
December 17, 2012
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE CONGRESS FROM THE NATION’S MAYORS
Dear Mr. President and Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate:
Again and again and again, Americans are stunned by senseless acts of violence involving guns. Friday’s tragedy targeting young children in Newtown is incomprehensible. Too many times this year, mayors have expressed shock at a mass shooting. Even more frequently, many of us must cope with the gun violence that occurs on the streets of our cities.
Through The U.S. Conference of Mayors we have sent our condolences to the victims, their families, and their community. We know that Newtown First Selectman Patricia Llodra and Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy continue to do everything possible to help the families of those killed and the entire community cope with so much loss and pain.
The Conference has been calling for sensible gun laws to protect the public for more than 40 years. Mayors and police chiefs from cities of all sizes have worked together in this effort over the years.
We urge you to take immediate action: the President to exercise his powers though Executive Order and Congress to introduce and pass legislation to make reasonable changes in our gun laws and regulations. Specifically we call on you to:
- Enact legislation to ban assault weapons and other high-capacity magazines being prepared by Senator Dianne Feinstein and others;
- Strengthen the national background check system and eliminate loopholes in it; and
- Strengthen the penalties for straw purchases of guns.
We know that preventing gun violence – whether it is a mass shooting in a school or a murder on a street corner – will take much more than strengthening our gun laws. We need to reverse the culture of violence in our nation so that a violent act isn’t the first response to settling a difference or compensating for a wrong. We support the idea of a establishing a bi-partisan Commission that looks at the broader issues of violence in our country. We need to strengthen and more adequately fund our mental health system so that we can identify troubled individuals earlier and get them the help they need. But strengthening our gun laws should not have to wait for these other actions to occur. The time for action is now!
We believe that with this latest national tragedy and the high incidence of gun violence that continues to plague our streets, we have reached a tipping point. The nation’s mayors pledge to work with you to build a safer America for our children and all of our citizens.
Sincerely,
Michael A. Nutter, Mayor of Philadelphia, President
Michael R. Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City, Past President
Antonio R. Villaraigosa, Mayor of Los Angeles
Rahm Emanuel, Mayor of Chicago
Kevin Johnson, Mayor of Sacramento, Second Vice President
Joseph P. Riley, Jr., Mayor of Charleston, Past President
Thomas M. Menino, Mayor of Boston, Past President
Donald L. Plusquellic, Mayor of Akron, Past President
Tom Cochran, CEO and Executive Director.
We need a new approach, – not more demagoguery.
Mayors need to ask themselves ‘How many people did the Connecticut shooter ‘kill’ on his computer screen? How many hours of ‘Kill Them’ video games does it take to desensitize a normal person; how many hours does it take to desensitize the mentally disabled? The mentally ill have less ability to separate fantasy from reality.
Senator Feinstein should first introduce legislation to limit the access to violent video games by: 1) Holding the manufactures responsible for the action by their viewers. 2) Tax violent video games out of the marker. 3) Require a mental health background check for parents and/or children that purchase, sell, loan, or trade violent video games.
Members of Congress should vote “Hell No” on any gun legislation the does not address the “culture of violence” – specifically the ‘Kill Them’ video games.
“Perhaps he doesn’t want to @#!*% off the OC GOP too much, where he is already known as quite a maverick.
Or perhaps, as you seem to have forgotten, Tom is a conservative who knows there’s this thing called the Second Amendment that guarantees our right to bear arms, and who understands that laws dimishing our constitutional right to bear arms will do absolutely nothing to prevent tragedies like Newton.
The Second Amendment guarantees a well-regulated militia, and it has been recently interpreted to include individual gun ownership. Notice the word “regulated” there? That’s all we’re talking about (we = the vast majority of us by now.) Got any problems with the three measures suggested in the letter?
Couldn’t hurt to read the bill before promising the enact it. Has a draft been released?
We’ll keep our eyes out for it, couldn’t be long. It’s sure to be debated and amended at length, and if it becomes more than it should be, I’m sure it won’t pass.
“Notice the word “regulated” there”…………. Hmmmmmmmm
Obviously you do not know how to reed your own language especially the one written in 18 century where the entire constitution fit on one sheet of paper.
The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation inserted by William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:
A well regulated Militia [comma] being necessary to the security of a free State [comma] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms [comma] shall not be infringed.
Grammar: A punctuation mark (,) [comma] used to indicate a separation of ideas or of elements within the structure of a sentence.
Therefore, there are 4 distinct ideas and elements:
1) A well regulated Militia
2) being necessary to the security of a free State
3) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms
4) shall not be infringed.
1) The founders didn’t want a renegade militias so they stated that the only “well regulated Militia” is legit. [noting to do with the guns]
2) “the security of a free State” can be destroyed only by the government so the founders stated that a “well regulated Militia” is necessary to overthrow such tyrannical government. [noting to do with the guns]
3) After the experience with Brits who were going house to house and confiscating “Arms” (notice capitalized “A”) founders want to make sure that it couldn’t be repeated by the Obama’s regime and socialists so they specifically stated that it is “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” and [not] only by well regulated Militia.
4) So founders clearly caveatted the government that the elements 1); 2); and 3) “shall not be infringed“ by the government:
The Constitution is Law written by the People against the Government not by Government against the People.
You should study the history about how the rights of people in constitution evolved and not to repeated the left liberal talking points like a moron mongoloid.
I am sure that you would support mew constitution, like in Egypt, if one day Obama would say that the GOD told him to destroy the current one.
“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.”
You can hang your argument for gun control on that discredited militia argument all you like, Vern – the right to bear arms is still an individual right. I doubt you have any understanding of what the Founders meant by a militia.
I do have a problem with those measures. Assault rifle bans and magazine capacity limits are idiotic. They target the cosmetics of certain rifles, banning guns that look “mean.” An “assault rifle,” like any other semi-auto firearms, is one in which rounds are fired only as fast as a person can pull the trigger.
The Virginia Tech shooter didn’t use an assualt rifle. The Seal Beach massacre was committed with handguns. Charles Whitman killed 13 at the University of Texas mainly with a bolt-action rifle.
The Left is exploiting this tragedy to legislate its dislike of guns.
YOu don’t even read what people write, do you, Jerbal? MY first sentence was not the one you quoted, but
“The Second Amendment guarantees a well-regulated militia, and it has been recently interpreted to include individual gun ownership. Notice the word “regulated” there?”
Learn to read, Boy Wonder, then come back.
Didn’t take you long to resort to name-calling, did it, Vern? Utterly predictable.
I can read. And I understand that “regulated” is not what the Second Amendment hinges on, Justice Nelson (as intoxicating as the word “regulated” is to a denizen of the Left). It doesn’t obliterate the rest of the 2nd Amendment and grant license to take guns away.
Your “regulated militia” argument is a discredited one. And that is not just my opinion, your hankering to ban guns notwithstanding.
Hey Matt– wanna buy a surplus B-52? I’ll go halfsies with you.
And your point?
Was that a no?
It was a question.
I asked you first.
Oh for crying out loud.
No, Ryan, I don’t want to go halfsies on a B-52.
Again, what is your point, if any?
I’m going to guess that Ryan’s suggesting it might be a good idea for such a transaction to not be allowed.
But then, where does the slippery slope begin and end?
Or is it really all that slippery and not just common sense?
Yeah, I thought that was pretty transparent, Vern. I guess not.
Matt, one could reasonably infer from your statements that you favor no restrictions on the right to bear arms. I think that’s probably not a correct statement of your belief, so I suppose my point is that you may want to consider being a little less open ended while you’re flying the Conservative banner.
Help us out, Goldilocks style.
1) Are existing restrictions already too overbearing?
2) Are existing restrictions just right?
3) Is the room to expand reasonable restrictions– if so, what does that look like?
“Plying dumb” is a prized piece of Cunningham’s rhetorical arsenal. I’ve been duking it out with this character for years. “Jubal-baiting” is a disreputable but irresistible sport harking back to the Middle Ages of the OC blogosphere.
To all of you Left/ Right Socialists,
The element in the 2nd which states: “being necessary to the security of a free State”
Means that the people have constitutional right, Ryan/ Jubal to arm themselves even B-52 if it is “necessary to the security of a free State” without being called terrorists by Obama regime.
The only civil war can resolve this highly polarized issue when citizens who love the security of a free State, while serving in Military, Air Force and police will join the American Spring and will lawfully bring with them B-52 etc. etc. etc. as provided by the constitution.
I suspected Ryan was employing some reductio ad absurdum debate ploy. And that’s exactly what his B-52 question is – as if a transcontinental bomber is remotely the same as a semi-automatic rifle, in any way.
The same with Vern’s trotting out the over-used “slippery slope.”
I don’t think any constitutional right is absolute. No reasonable person thinks so. But it doesn’t follow that government can then restrict gun ownership as it sees fit.
Vern is the one calling for restrictions, not me. I simply pointed out the flaws in the proposal he supports. If your interrogatories on restricting gun ownership are sincerely intended, then their proper object is Vern.
And finally, Ryan: I’m not “flying the Conservative colors” here. I didn’t bring conservatism into this discussion. Good old Vern injected that distraction all by his lonesome.
So . . . that’s a decline to state?
That’s a “not sure, haven’t yet received my instructions, but I sure don’t want to stick my foot in it so soon after being caught red-handed shilling anonymously for big-government liberal programs, for a paycheck.”
No, Ryan. It’s not allowing myself to get sucked into discussing this with you when it’s pretty clear you aren’t sincere about having a genuine discussion with me.
Are you able to catalog these existing restrictions you are asking me to comment on?
“That’s a “not sure, haven’t yet received my instructions, but I sure don’t want to stick my foot in it so soon after being caught red-handed shilling anonymously for big-government liberal programs, for a paycheck.”
Vern, the shame of distorted misrepresentations like that one is they ought to be beneath someone who is obviously an intelligent person.
It’s too bad you so quickly and comfortably go down the ad hominen route.
Jeez, Matt.
No, I’m not prepared to present an exhaustive list of active federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to firearms.
I’ll mark you down for decline to state.
Ryan, you can hardly complain when I ask you to furnish that which you are asking me to comment on.
I wasn’t complaining.
If I were complaining, then clearly I can complain.
It seems my last comment didn’t go through.
Essentially, Ryan, you are asking me to comment on “existing restrictions,” and it turns out you don’t know what those are yourself.
If you’re not prepared to furnish what you are asking me to comment on, then don’t ask in the first place.
You seem to know a lot of latin. Please enlighten everyone with the name for the fallacy you just used.
If you don’t want to answer, then don’t answer. It was a very simple question. I even made it multiple choice.
There’s no reason to go all “Mater Dei” on me. Please respond like a normal person.
Haha, that’ll get a rise out of him.
I’m Mater Dei, Jerbal is Servite!
Ryan: I am answering you like a normal person, asking reasonable questions and making reasonable points.
I used two common Latin phrases which are not unusual to use in these circumstances. I’m sorry if that bothers you.
I didn’t commit any logical fallacy. I stated the facts: you asked me my opinion of “existing restrictions,” and then said you are unable to provide what you want me to comment on. That’s on you, not me.
You could always make your multiple choices more specific so that a normal person can answer it.
By the way, I went to Servite, not Mater Dei.
It was an insult, Matt. It was supposed to be funny, which it’s not if you don’t get it. How unfortunate.
Anyway, I see this is a lost cause.
A quick record check:
I said unprepared, not unable. It has to due with the sheer volume of law you requested. If you want to fund the research team, I’m sure we can get a few semis to drop of all the rules. I’ll check back in 2013 when you’re done reading it.
For any reader who cares, just so you don’t have to scroll up, the question that Matt is ducking is:
Regarding gun control: Do we have too much restriction, the right amount of restriction, or not enough restriction? If not enough, what would be enough?
Man, you’re touchy, too.
“I said unprepared, not unable.
Either way, you haven’t provided what your asking me to give you an opinion on.
“For any reader who cares, just so you don’t have to scroll up, the question that Matt is ducking is:
Regarding gun control: Do we have too much restriction, the right amount of restriction, or not enough restriction? If not enough, what would be enough?”
Come one, Ryan. “Ducking”? You can do better than that. It’s not as if my opposition to gun control is a secret. And judging from your preceding comments, you couldn’t even answer those questions.
Like you, I don’t know the entire coda of federal firearm legislation. I can say I think existing stringent federal regulation of machine gun ownership is reasonable (contrary to popular belief, it is not illegal to own an operational machine gun). I don’t think the prohibiton on sawed-off shotguns makes any sense. I don’t think guns should be sold to crazy people.
Maybe you can answer you own questions: Do we have too much restriction, the right amount of restriction, or not enough restriction? If not enough, what would be enough?”
Hey, look at that! We got an answer on the third attempt. Well done, sir.
To answer your question, I don’t know. I would suggest (and have suggested in another thread) that banning a firearm classification is unlikely to prevent tragedies like what happened in Newtown. If the gun control solution were perfect, at best, it would mitigate a tragedy (which, in itself is important work.) I believe the intent to commit mass murder evolved well before securing a weapon, but perhaps that’s not correct.
But honestly, I don’t know if we have enough regulation or the right kind of regulation.
Yes, I do get intoxicated at the thought of keeping guns and ammo such as Adam Lanza had far away from people like Adam Lanza.
Vern, leaving aside your desire to restrict everyone’s liberty on the chance such a law might keep a semi-auto rifle out of a mentally ill person’s hands — there is also the practical matter that there are millions and millions of guns in this country. This legislation doesn’t reduce that by a single firearm. Adam Lanza could have accomplished his evil deed with a shotgun instead of a Sig Sauer 400.
Your post highlights the problem with legislating from emotion, rather than reason.
“I’m Mater Dei”……….. Hmmmmmm
Obviously you have been sexually abused and that is why you are ticking bomb like Adam Lanza.
Stanley, I strongly suggest that you not call others “ticking bombs.” You can’t win that competition.
Also, 1. I like guns. 2. None of these measures will prevent ALL outrages and massacres, but they’ll go a long way in diminishing them. And 3. You can be as orthodox as you like on this issue, but your conservative bona fides ain’t coming back, Cunningham.
“…but they’ll go a long way in diminishing them.”
That’s nothing more than wishful thinking, Vern.
“You can be as orthodox as you like on this issue, but your conservative bona fides ain’t coming back, Cunningham.”
It’s not a matter or being orthodox, Vern. The Second Amendment guarantees our right to bear arms, whether anyone likes it or not. And I never lost my conservative bona fides — which aren’t yours or anyone else’s to grant or cancel, in any case.
You really do have trouble disagreeing without being disagreeable, don’t you?
“The Second Amendment guarantees our right to bear arms, whether anyone likes it or not.”
That’s because a recent Supreme Court ruling interpreted the Second Amendment that way.
The Supreme Court also said a woman has a right to seek an abortion. Do you also accept their interpretation of the Constitution on THAT issue?
“The Supreme Court also said a woman has a right to seek an abortion.”
Not quite – what that Court cited was a non-existent “right to privacy.”
That’s a difference without a distinction.
I’ll also point out that in the wake of Roe v. Wade, conservatives have had no problem pushing for regulations on that right.
So you’ll pardon us while some of us push for regulations on the kinds of guns a person may own.
You moron mongoloid, you have already screw up a punctuation mark (,) in the bill of right.
No wonder that no one understands it if they do not understand their own language.
LOL. Go get ‘im Stanley!
Well you too do not use proper grammar when reprinting the second amendment.
Like a good liberal you are out of context cherry picking.
Proofs of Demagoguery from some Mayors:
“But strengthening our gun laws should not have to wait for these other actions to occur.”
(Translation: Anti gun ownership is our only goal.)
“We need to reverse the culture of violence in our nation so that a violent act isn’t the first response to settling a difference or compensating for a wrong.”
(First response: Was it a “First response” for the mentally ill Connecticut shooter to murder his mother, kindergarten children, teachers, and himself to “settle a difference” or “compensate for a wrong”?)
“We need to strengthen and more adequately fund our mental health system … ”
(In the Real World: ‘Mental Health System means keep the patients sedated and never asking if the drugs make conditions worse. Please read the http://www.theliberaloc.com article from Dec. 17 “A Must Read on Mental Health Illness”)
“Strengthen & fund mental health system, –“so that we can identify troubled individuals earlier and get them the help they need. “
(“Identify troubled individuals” Really? Were there insufficient indicators?)
Summary:
The Mayors that signed are not going to allow this tragedy to go to waste; they are going to exploit the tragedy to advance their political agenda.
Am I missing the language on the bill that Feinstein is preparing (sorry if it was already addressed above…)? How would one sign onto a letter unless they knew what was in the Feinstein bill language? This would be especially true for someone who may be “on the fence” about the topic…
If someone has the language of the bill that the Mayors who put their signature to the letter agreed to, that would be great as I am having trouble finding it via my not so superior google skills…
Yeah, I asked the same thing. Seems a bit odd to jump off the dock if you don’t know what’s on the ship.
I see now…it was even before the debate over comma placement. As I tell clients, don’t sign something unless you know what you are signing.
This is a good point, really, and, getting back to the immediate point of the post, if certain mayors like Tom Tait are waiting to see what exactly the Feinstein bill looks like before they express support, then that’s certainly legitimate.
Like I said above, we have a basic idea of what the bill will try to achieve, and it will certainly be debated and amended at length. And if it ends up limiting the availability of any arms that a large group of people feel they need for protecting their homes, or hunting, I’m sure the bill will go down to defeat. And some people who supported the idea early on might recant that support.
So, yes, some caution on that count might be understandable, if that’s where Tait is coming from. But I think that the guns Feinstein et al will be trying to ban will be ones that Mayor Tait would also not want to see on the streets of Anaheim. Again, maybe he should consult his Police Chief.
As far as the second and third demand go (“Strengthen the national background check system and eliminate loopholes in it; and
Strengthen the penalties for straw purchases of guns.”) it sounds like even Cunningham would agree, as he found himself saying, above, “I don’t think guns should be sold to crazy people.” And how else would we go about preventing that?
Perhaps you can enlighten us if a felon convicted of DUI can get a gun under the current laws.
Judge Larry Alan Burns’ “Conservative Case for an Assault Weapons Ban.” Hat tip to Ricardo Toro, Michael Fox, and Lawrence O’ Donnell.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-burns-assault-weapons-ban-20121220,0,6774314.story
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Last month, I sentenced Jared Lee Loughner to seven consecutive life terms plus 140 years in federal prison for his shooting rampage in Tucson. That tragedy left six people dead, more than twice that number injured and a community shaken to its core.
Loughner deserved his punishment. But during the sentencing, I also questioned the social utility of high-capacity magazines like the one that fed his Glock. And I lamented the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban in 2004, which prohibited the manufacture and importation of certain particularly deadly guns, as well as magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
The ban wasn’t all that stringent — if you already owned a banned gun or high-capacity magazine you could keep it, and you could sell it to someone else — but at least it was something.
And it says something that half of the nation’s deadliest shootings occurred after the ban expired, including the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn. It also says something that it has not even been two years since Loughner’s rampage, and already six mass shootings have been deadlier.
I am not a social scientist, and I know that very smart ones are divided on what to do about gun violence. But reasonable, good-faith debates have boundaries, and in the debate about guns, a high-capacity magazine has always seemed to me beyond them.
Bystanders got to Loughner and subdued him only after he emptied one 31-round magazine and was trying to load another. Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooter, chose as his primary weapon a semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines. And we don’t even bother to call the 100-rounder that James Holmes is accused of emptying in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater a magazine — it is a drum. How is this not an argument for regulating the number of rounds a gun can fire?
I get it. Someone bent on mass murder who has only a 10-round magazine or revolvers at his disposal probably is not going to abandon his plan and instead try to talk his problems out. But we might be able to take the “mass” out of “mass shooting,” or at least make the perpetrator’s job a bit harder.
To guarantee that there would never be another Tucson or Sandy Hook, we would probably have to make it a capital offense to so much as look at a gun. And that would create serious 2nd Amendment, 8th Amendment and logistical problems.
So what’s the alternative? Bring back the assault weapons ban, and bring it back with some teeth this time. Ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Don’t let people who already have them keep them. Don’t let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market. I don’t care whether it’s called gun control or a gun ban. I’m for it.
I say all of this as a gun owner. I say it as a conservative who was appointed to the federal bench by a Republican president. I say it as someone who prefers Fox News to MSNBC, and National Review Online to the Daily Kos. I say it as someone who thinks the Supreme Court got it right in District of Columbia vs. Heller, when it held that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to possess guns for self-defense. (That’s why I have mine.) I say it as someone who, generally speaking, is not a big fan of the regulatory state.
I even say it as someone whose feelings about the NRA mirror the left’s feelings about Planned Parenthood: It has a useful advocacy function in our deliberative democracy, and much of what it does should not be controversial at all.
And I say it, finally, mindful of the arguments on the other side, at least as I understand them: that a high-capacity magazine is not that different from multiple smaller-capacity magazines; and that if we ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines one day, there’s a danger we would ban guns altogether the next, and your life might depend on you having one.
But if we can’t find a way to draw sensible lines with guns that balance individual rights and the public interest, we may as well call the American experiment in democracy a failure.
There is just no reason civilians need to own assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Gun enthusiasts can still have their venison chili, shoot for sport and competition, and make a home invader flee for his life without pretending they are a part of the SEAL team that took out Osama bin Laden.
It speaks horribly of the public discourse in this country that talking about gun reform in the wake of a mass shooting is regarded as inappropriate or as politicizing the tragedy. But such a conversation is political only to those who are ideologically predisposed to see regulation of any kind as the creep of tyranny. And it is inappropriate only to those delusional enough to believe it would disrespect the victims of gun violence to do anything other than sit around and mourn their passing. Mourning is important, but so is decisive action.
Congress must reinstate and toughen the ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
Larry Alan Burns is a federal district judge in San Diego.
If you take out the 2nd, which one is next?
Lets regulate the right to vote with poll taxes and intelligent tests. Oh wait that was tried in the past and ruled upon. A right to vote is a RIGHT, and obstacles and tests cannot be used to diminish that right.
Now back to gun control. The only way to change gun rights is to change the US Constitution by amending it. Tossing some BS obstacles, test, Poll taxes, etc. does not fly.
“If you take out the 2nd, which one is next?’……….. Hmmmmmm
There is no next one cook!
They were all taken in the war on drugs, poverty, immigration, Obama care and political correctness.
The 2nd, is last one!
Interestingly, Hitler too started with the National Heath Care and ban on the weapons. in mid 30’s. WE know what happened after that.
Dammit, cook, please try to say something worth arguing with. I think that you’re misunderstanding what a reductio ad absurdum is — it’s the other argument that’s supposed to be absurd, not your own..
No one is saying “take out the 2nd.” In fact, most people accept that SCOTUS decided in Heller that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right of self-defense in the home. The Supreme Court also decided 75 or so years ago that you can’t own a machine gun, so it has long been clear that this right is not untrammeled. Stop whining.
You want to see some amendments that really have been watered down by the Court? Check out the 1st and the 4th. Where were you in complaining about the Supreme Court decisions undermining each of those?
Out of morbid curiosity, what the basis for your opinion that “to change gun rights” would require a Constitutional amendment? Don’t you have to figure out what those rights are first? And is that meaning determined in Supreme Court Decisions or in Cook Assertions?
Greg do you remember when the Black Panther Party discovered the 2nd amendment and “open carried” rifles and pistols. Many people dropped a log in their pants. (late 60’s early 70’s?)
“your opinion that “to change gun rights” would require a Constitutional amendment?” GD
My assertions (opinion) is that since it is a numerated right, it would / should take amendment to change it.
What’s the content of that enumerated right, though?
Hint — check out Scalia’s opinion in DC v. Heller. I had arguments at the time about the decision, where I contended that even though it broke new ground (with a dubious foundation) in finding an individual right to keep and bear arms, it was not otherwise a radical decision and was something that gun control proponents ought to be able to live with. Scalia recognizes home protection — not government overthrow and the like — as the core of the right and notes that many reasonable regulations might be placed on it.
We’re now at the “placing reasonable regulations on it” stage — and they don’t require an amendment, but only that clause in Heller.
I guess the Supreme Court will have to decide on what is reasonable too.
I do find it interesting that the focus of gun control is on the rife and not the hand gun. Is this miss direction?
“Also, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned” Scalia’s Majority Opinion
I find the above interesting to. Since at the time of ratification those rifles and hand guns were the top of the line in military style weapons.
But if we the citizens owned our own RPG’s, retired F-14 Tomcats, 50 caliber machine guns, Tanks, etc. Then the US government would not need as big of a defense budget. At the time of need, just call up the bazooka boys and the fighting girls of the tomcat wing.
I think that rifles and shotguns are fine for home use (for those who want them.) You don’t need a huge magazine to defend your home.
Hand guns are, absolutely, a problem — but for today I’m not trying to solve the problem of all shootings, but only of massacres. Six victims dead in Sandy Hook Elementary from handguns would have been a terrible tragedy — but I’d sure prefer it to 26.
Just curious how all of this idealistic rhetoric about gun control accounts for preventing the William Spenglers of the world, convicted felons for whom it is a FELONY to possess a firearm, from obtaining a S&W .38, a shotgun and Bushmaster .223 (almost the same gun that Lanza used) in order to ambush volunteer firefighters? I’d be all for gun-control if I believed background checks would prevent illicit weapons from falling into the wrong hands (it won’t). Look at all the contraband that gets into prisons: the most restrictive environments in America? The mayors are on a better track trying to understand and address our culture of violence, but, sadly, that would cost a lot of money. And this horrifying crisis looming before us, the utterly terrifying fiscal cliff, is so much more pressing and evil compared to babies and their heroic protectors being murdered. Until our politicians get their heads out of their asses, I am not optimistic about significant, meaningful progress being made in this arena. The only thing I see continuing to happen is the frenzy of paranoid Americans parading to the gun stores to arm themselves because they rightfully lack confidence in the government’s ability to solve this problem.
Longboobs .. a member of the NRA .. who would have guessed? .. possibly the Tea Party as well?
Wrong on both counts, ‘Wag. I am a bleeding-heart liberal who finds it shameful the NRA (or any organization) can wield such power. I am also a peace officer and I carry a weapon. More ironically, I would fight to my death protecting YOU (assuming, of course, that you weren’t the one in need of handcuffs). Careful with those broad generalizations … I can’t help but think they are one factor that contribute to our culture of violence.
So longboobs my .. “broad generalizations” … “contibute to a culture of violence” .. and I should “be careful.”
You are a prick cop making threats under color of authority in order to goad a person into a position under which you can bust ’em & cuff ’em – that is your M.O.
I’ve dealt with your type of cop and I don’t think we need need your kind.
The 2nd amendment in action, a documentary about armed citizens overthrowing a corrupt local government by force of arms.
http://voxvocispublicus.homestead.com/Battle-of-Athens.html