Here is an old comment about the Second Amendment from the past (1991) by Warren Burger, the former Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, when he was a guest on PBS News Hour: “If I were writing the Bill of Rights, there would be no such thing as the Second Amendment—that a well-regulated militia being necessary for the defense of the state, the peoples’ rights to bear arms.” He continued “This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have seen in my lifetime.” Previous to this, Chief Justice Burger had penned an op-ed for the Associated Press titled “2nd Amendment has been distorted: The Second Amendment does not guarantee every citizen the unfettered constitutional right to have a machine gun.”
Burger argued that the sale, purchase, and use of guns should be regulated just as automobiles and boats are regulated. He felt that such regulations would not violate the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. I agree with Chief Justice Burger.
For some reason, Americans also feel that the US's Second Amendment is a God-given right - not true!
Our society does need to attempt to put guardrails on gun ownership. I’m not sure what that looks like since I’m not a gun owner ( my husband, son and daughter are, however). But if I could use an analogy to illustrate a point. Another item that can do great harm and death is a motor vehicle. People are supposed to have a license to drive which is obtained after s test to prove one knows how to operate a vehicle. I remember when cars didn’t have seat belts. But after many injuries and deaths these are now required and most (all?) states require usage or get ticketed. Speed limits on streets whether residential or highways are posted and if ignored will result in a ticket. Infant and child seats are required to protect the little ones. These are guardrails regarding operation of a vehicle. Can’t we extrapolate that thinking to the ownership and use of guns in our country? I think we have some pretty smart and common sensed people, right leaning, left leaning, gun owners, non gun owners, who could formulate something. We might not be able to solve every issue but by not doing anything, we’re not solving any issue. Adam is right that we all need to start addressing this problem.
This country has a serious gun problem. I will agree with that. And something does need to be done. My husband and I were on lockdown when the shooting happened at Michigan State University which is in our backyard literally in our backyard. It's pretty sad when you make out your grocery list. You also make out your escape plan in case there's a shooting at the store. I understand the right to bear arms but we need change.
Listen here, Tubberville, in the high-octane, adrenaline-pumped arena of Uncle Sam's defense, you're playing a game of Russian roulette with the military promotions, jamming the gears while the specter of war hovers like a hawk. If you keep this up, when the iron bell tolls, and it will toll, thunderous and grim, we'll be caught flat-footed, a skeleton crew facing the abyss. So mark my words, if you're going to chain the hands of readiness, you better be ready to don the helmet yourself. Lead the charge, Tubberville, because if this ship sails into the storm with no hands on deck, it's you who'll be at the helm, staring into the gale. Let loose the chains, man, for it's your signature on this potential calamity, and when the smoke clears, it'll be 'Tubberville's Army' that'll either stand tall or fall hard.
Nothing can be done until we have a Supreme Court that interprets the Second Amendment as an entirety. "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." That "well-regulated militia" part seems to have been completely forgotten.
Agreed - though it has to be said that that "well-regulated militia" clause, no matter your thoughts on what it was meant to say, should go down in history as one of the worst pieces of writing in the history of legislative or constitutional history - because it is a phrase that just hangs there ambiguously failing to state how it applies to or qualifies the underlying right being laid out. It therefore ends up meaning whatever any given reader wants it to mean (or nothing at all).
Well, yeah, there is that. But I'd argue that the irrelevance was effectively stitched into it by not writing it in the form of words that actually state what is intended. As it was written, one has to wonder if somebody simply accidently left out some words in copying from a draft version.
Grandfathering in 400 million guns fully negates doing anything else to limit access for several generations; it’s a stupid idea. The second amendment was never intended as a personal right--it was intended only that individuals would bring self-owned weapons to war, as we had no standing army; it needs to be eliminated. The fed should have regularly scheduled buybacks of all guns; when paid, people do give them up. Red and yellow flag laws are completely useless because they attempt to prejudge acts that haven’t occurred, which is precisely why authorities are loath to use them, fearful of being sued--and they’re right. For the rest, gun ownership must require everything driving a car requires: an in/person range shooting test the first time, a written safety awareness test that also shows understanding of applicable regulations, repeated annually, a paid license, and proof of insurance with legislated minimums. I suggest regular testing for mental illness, as well. We should also make it much easier for gun manufacturers and sales agents to be sued. Sellers who bypass regulations and sell through loopholes should be prosecuted and jailed or imprisoned . There should also be strictly imposed limitations on the numbers of bullets that can be purchased within a prescribed time.
Sadly, the right will never agree to any of this; they believe government shouldn’t exist. They are fragmenting our society just as they are fragmented in Congress.
I particularly agree with the idea of a federal buyback and limitations on the types of “arms” capable of mass killings that can be sold and possessed. But some of these other proposals represent government harassment of legitimate gun owners and constitute the “slippery slope” that NRA types are so concerned about, apparently with some justification.
The mental health evaluation might stress limits, and I acknowledged that. Still, it’s amazing we agree on something! This is how communication should work. THX, Carlton.
“As most everyone knows, the resistance to commonsense gun policy has been fueled and sustained by the enormously influential National Rife Association (NRA) and other groups like the Gun Owners of America.”--Adam
First off, Happy belated Veteran’s Day Adam.
Secondly, it’s not just the NRA or GOA. Religious organizations have been co-opted by these two organizations to do their bidding for them.
Religion to these wing-nuts means freedom, and the right to bear arms, without restriction, is an extension of those religious freedoms. Or so, the rest of us are to believe.
Additionally, during COVID, another 60 million firearms were purchased. Today, of the 400 million guns in civilian circulation, 3% of gun owners account for 33% of guns.
And recently, a Brady report found that 5% of dealers are responsible for selling 90% of the guns used in crimes (analysis of data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives).
There are common sense regulations and laws that can be implemented to reduce gun violence; if at least 50% of republicans actually had any common sense.
Adam - speaking as a fan of your courageous actions & words going back at least as far as 2020 (when I became aware of you), and an enthusiastic reader of "Renegade" (which is adding more and more to my understanding of your story the further I get into it), I have to say that (a) I do agree that more needs to be done to address the problems of crimes in cities, but also that (b) my perception, as someone who has evolved from being a somewhat Republican-leaning independent going back to days of Reagan & Bush Sr. to one leaning more and more to the D side, without (for the most part) actually changing how I believe and think - I would quibble with your framing this question here as one where nothing can get done about gun violence because both the Republicans and Democrats are too extreme. My quibble is this: yes, indeed, the Democrats have some people who are very extreme on this question - but please show me where the Democratic party overall is unwilling to do ANYTHING at all if they can't get everything the most extreme ones want? I'm just not seeing that - can you make the case showing where & how that's happening?
My perception is that there is a substantial, almost certainly critical-mass-sized portion of the Democrats who would be inclined to support nearly any common-sense measures that could be proposed - but other than the limited bipartisan bill passed last year or so, nothing at all seems possible, not because the Democrats as a body aren't willing to take anything less than everything they want, but because enough Republicans are not inclined to vote for any change beyond what is already in place, if even those laws are kept - and no matte what happens in the House, nothing can pass without 60 votes in the Senate. Am I missing something here? I mean, sure, the Democrats are more than capable of over-reaching and proposing too much - but it doesn't seem like we're choosing between "too much" vs. "too little" - but rather between "nothing at all" vs. "anything at all."
With the current house in total disarray, finding common sense solutions to gun issues and anything else is virtually impossible. We need to “rehire”! (Vote) for a government that is willing and able to work together. Otherwise this is a pipe dream~ (and NO, I do not mean NO LABELS!)
If centrist independents don’t quit competing with one another and coalesce around a new centrist party, the current movement to two extremes will only continue.
(1) if there is a place for a centrist 3rd party to start, it really needs to be at the Congressional level, not the Execitve (Presidential). State Houses could also be a place to start. The problem with thinking "let's start a centrist 3rd party movement to take the White House" is that the presidential electoral system, as enshrined in the Constitution, and elaborated by states, sets up a winner-takes-all contest for each state's electoral votes (with slight caveats for the split distribution in Nebraska & Maine). A 3rd party candidate (No Labels or other) is almost ccertainly fatally handicapped from actually winning states until they become big enough to challenge the existing behemoths - but could peel off enough voters from the behemoths to tilt a state's results from one to the other. Thinking that one's idealized centrist 3rd party movement is going to suddenly catch fire and push aside not just one but both of the existing behemoths is what's known as "magical thinking" - one convinces oneself that indeed, yes, because I really, really believe in this candidate, I also really believe that they are going to go on and win everything. What's really going to happen is maybe to influence the election - and not necessarily in a predictable way where we get the "next-most-preferred" result (like if we had ranked-choice voting, for instance).
(2) Congressional seats (and/or state legislature delegations) provide more of an arena where a 3rd party (centrist or not) could begin making progress towards achieving the strength & breadth of relevance where it could essentially take the place of one of the two behemoths.
(3) I think that the premise that the current choice is between two parties that are both extremists is seeing things inaccurately. Without question the Democratic Party has extremists within it - but they do not dominate that party. Even their Progressive Caucus is made up mostly of members who understand the need for moderation, as evidenced by their willingness to go along overwhelmingly, even unanimously, with the necessariily bipartisan compromises initated by the Biden administration. The "extremists" on the D side may have relatively radical ideas, but they are not looking to burn the place down. I would contrast that with the Republican side, where the extreme wing (Freedom Caucus, most notably, but supported by others) are essentially driving the Republican House's agenda. Biden was influenced by the Progressive wing of the Democrats - but the most radical wing of the Republicans effectively control the House. And the House is relatively reflective of the two parties' voting populace.
I would love to see a centrist party emerge - but I don't think the Presidential race is where that happens. The reason it sort of happened in the 1850s/1860s was the way the big parties were literally fracturing and splitting up their votes between multiple other candidates. The nascent Republicans kind of picked up pieces from the dying Whig party and had enough strength to capture the Presidency with a plurality - they couldn't have done that unless and until the existing major parties were in fact actually breaking apart.
In terms of political strategy, this makes sense. But I think that the U.S. is facing the greatest political crisis since 1860, with two major candidates that a substantial majority of voters find unacceptable. And I for one find Biden and his likely successor, Harris, to be as unacceptable as Trump and his likely successor. If people insist on voting for terribly flawed candidates just because they are Democrats or Republicans, they will get what they deserve.
Carleton - while the electorate ultimately is likely to "get what they deserve" in any event, and maybe I would prefer a reality in which the Democrats had a different/younger candidate than Biden, I have to say I can't agree with the premise that Biden and/or Harris are as unacceptable as Trump and an even-more-loyal-than-Pence draft pick to be named later. Whatever differences I might have with Biden's policies, communication, or other, and even if one believes that the administration's policies are bad, or that Biden is too old to be effective, or that Harris is too ____????____ , I believe the likely worst case outcome is that some decisions and actions are made that are not the best - but that at the end of such an administration they will willingly hand the keys to the White House back to the American people. The all-too-likely worst case I anticipate from a 2nd Trump administration is a change to our form of government to a more authoritarian/autocratic form, with elections more controlled by the people in power, and an authoritarian leader inclined (as he has not just been seen but has literally been saying) to simply remain in power no matter what. The risk and likelihood of that to me makes any other preferences pale in comparison. As to Harris, while I can't say I've become a fan, I also haven't seen even one concrete reason given by anyone as to why she wouldn't be as capable as pretty much any sitting VP in recent memory of stepping into the higher role if required. VPs almost by definition don't show themselves to be great potential presidents who are just temporarily sitting on the bench - and while I'm not saying that she IS a great potential president on the bench, the only thing I hear / see anybody saying is "man, I don't wanna see Harris as president." I never see specific complaints.
As a retired teacher, I understand the fear of young children engendered by shooting drills, although I’m not sure it’s much different from the fear my classmates and I felt while practicing ducking under our desks as preparation for a nuclear attack in the 1950s.
However, as much as we need to stop school, etc shootings, please stop adding to the confusion over automatic vs semiautomatic weapons. Automatic weapons from AR15s to Tommy guns fire bullets as long as the trigger is held down until the magazine is empty. They are very strictly regulated and controlled and require a special license to purchase/possess.
It is possible to modify a semiautomatic to function as an automatic, but that is already illegal.
A SEMIautomatic, once cocked, fires one bullet for each trigger pull. This functions the same way in an AR15 as it does in a modern hunting rifle or pistol. The AR15 has a handgrip that makes it easier to hold and to swing back and forth. It also looks tough, which is why it appeals to some men.
As I read about so many mass shootings, I’ve noticed that almost every one is committed by a male. The only one I can recall that involved a female was a couple that shot up a holiday party on California a few years ago. So I suggest: If we in the US can have anti abortion laws that apply only to women, why can’t we have an assault weapon ban that applies only to men. Seems fair to me.
As a former Army officer who was qualified and instructed in the use of many types of “arms,” I can state that the main source of lethality in rifles or handguns is their magazine capacity. A semi automatic weapon can fire one or two rounds per second fairly accurately at close range, whereas automatic weapons lose accuracy after the first couple of rounds and run out of ammunition faster. So , I would limit magazine capacity, as has long been done for shotguns being used for hunting.
True. Limiting magazine capacity would help a lot. Having to pause to change magazines would slow the shooter down, especially if he hadn’t had military or law enforcement training and lots of practice. That would give people a chance to run or try to tackle the shooter. As a school librarian, during active shooter drills, I instructed students to each grab a book off the return cart. We obeyed orders to hide (difficult in a room with glass walls), but I told them that if a shooter got in, to start throwing books at him. Grab lots of books and throw.
I was taught to shoot a .22 rifle at age 8, and as an adult went through the NRA training class. I was not in the military, but my son is in the Army.
The first point I was trying to make was that there’s a difference between automatic and semiautomatic weapons and people keep confusing the two. Adam should know better.
True. There’s no chance of that passing with the current members of Congress, but it seems just as fair to me as the anti abortion laws passed by those same men.
Exactly why we need more females in Congress to better reflect the makeup of this country. That also goes for Black, Brown, Asian, etc as long as they would want to actually govern and uphold the Constitution.
It's way past time to get serious! I remember crying hearing about the babies killed at Sandy Hook and thinking that surely, now we'll get gun laws. Those who take the 2nd Amendment literally should be allowed to have their guns - MUSKETS & single shot pistols! That's what the founders were using. There is no comparison. I agree that we shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good enough, but we have to start somewhere. AR15's are not for "sporting" unless your sport is killing another human being.
These are quotes from Anton Scalia's opinion giving the right to have guns to everyone, DC v. Heller (2008):
“….we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.”
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
My dad was a competitive target shooter, my older brother collected guns for years, my younger brother was a police officer for 30 years. I have been around guns, I owned guns, I love to shoot guns (well when I was younger, I'd probably blow my foot off now), I don't fear guns. My dad belonged to the NRA but it's NOT today's NRA. We were taught gun safety from the time we were six years old and started shooting. We respected guns as something that if handled wrong could kill someone. My dad locked the guns away when we were not going shooting.
Now, it seems any idiot that wants one can get one without even "breathing hard". So we have tragedies, not just the mass shootings and such. The stupid idiot woman in Texas who had a loaded hand gun on the back seat of the car next to her three year old who picked it up and shot her dead through the seat back. The small child who found the hand gun between the couch seats and killed her sister and so on.
I'm tired of hearing it, I'm tired of talking about it, until there is a REAL effort to get something concrete done. I remember when a shooting like Lewiston and others were TRULY shocking and it WAS earth shattering. I am not being flippant. I'm being honest, when I hear about those shootings anymore I just go on with my day and just hope it doesn't happen to me and mine. Its' just another day in America. When someone wants to really get serious, I'm there.
You can look up what Australia did after they had a terrible mass shooting and there are a whole lot of gun owners there. It might give some ideas for discussion.
Let me state something obvious. It doesn’t help that Donald Trump is openly gratified by violence. And he sets an example for millions.
Also, I question the sincerity of the “mental health” argument coming from the right. If Adam K really sees something to it, I hope he’ll step in and explain, but until then it seems more like an especially transparent excuse to keep doing nothing.
Indeed, the mental health issue is INTENDED as a nonstarter. Same with colorful laws called red/yellow flags, which require judging acts which haven’t yet occurred--authorities don’t enforce such laws because the law, like nature, abhors a vacuum, and a non-act is a vacuum--flag laws do nothing but threaten lawsuits ad nauseam.
Adam’s solutions are dead on arrival, as are, tragically, thousands of our children. Guns are now the #1 cause of deaths for children and teens.
Grandfathering in 400 million guns proves how absurd even the allegedly thoughtful members of the GOP have become. More people have died by guns since 1968 than in all US wars COMBINED. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna807156
The shooter was 18 and bought the gun days before from outback oasis. The gun makers and gun dealers need to be held to account for the damage there business model does to people.
Here is an old comment about the Second Amendment from the past (1991) by Warren Burger, the former Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, when he was a guest on PBS News Hour: “If I were writing the Bill of Rights, there would be no such thing as the Second Amendment—that a well-regulated militia being necessary for the defense of the state, the peoples’ rights to bear arms.” He continued “This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have seen in my lifetime.” Previous to this, Chief Justice Burger had penned an op-ed for the Associated Press titled “2nd Amendment has been distorted: The Second Amendment does not guarantee every citizen the unfettered constitutional right to have a machine gun.”
Burger argued that the sale, purchase, and use of guns should be regulated just as automobiles and boats are regulated. He felt that such regulations would not violate the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. I agree with Chief Justice Burger.
For some reason, Americans also feel that the US's Second Amendment is a God-given right - not true!
Our society does need to attempt to put guardrails on gun ownership. I’m not sure what that looks like since I’m not a gun owner ( my husband, son and daughter are, however). But if I could use an analogy to illustrate a point. Another item that can do great harm and death is a motor vehicle. People are supposed to have a license to drive which is obtained after s test to prove one knows how to operate a vehicle. I remember when cars didn’t have seat belts. But after many injuries and deaths these are now required and most (all?) states require usage or get ticketed. Speed limits on streets whether residential or highways are posted and if ignored will result in a ticket. Infant and child seats are required to protect the little ones. These are guardrails regarding operation of a vehicle. Can’t we extrapolate that thinking to the ownership and use of guns in our country? I think we have some pretty smart and common sensed people, right leaning, left leaning, gun owners, non gun owners, who could formulate something. We might not be able to solve every issue but by not doing anything, we’re not solving any issue. Adam is right that we all need to start addressing this problem.
Love the car comparison.
This country has a serious gun problem. I will agree with that. And something does need to be done. My husband and I were on lockdown when the shooting happened at Michigan State University which is in our backyard literally in our backyard. It's pretty sad when you make out your grocery list. You also make out your escape plan in case there's a shooting at the store. I understand the right to bear arms but we need change.
Let’s honor #VeteransDay everyday. I have an ask.
Jam @SenTuberville Phone Lines⬇️
DC 202-224-4124
Mobile 251-308-7233
Mobile Text 202-539-7432
Huntsville 256-692-7500
Hoover 205-760-7307
Montgomery 334-523-7424
Listen here, Tubberville, in the high-octane, adrenaline-pumped arena of Uncle Sam's defense, you're playing a game of Russian roulette with the military promotions, jamming the gears while the specter of war hovers like a hawk. If you keep this up, when the iron bell tolls, and it will toll, thunderous and grim, we'll be caught flat-footed, a skeleton crew facing the abyss. So mark my words, if you're going to chain the hands of readiness, you better be ready to don the helmet yourself. Lead the charge, Tubberville, because if this ship sails into the storm with no hands on deck, it's you who'll be at the helm, staring into the gale. Let loose the chains, man, for it's your signature on this potential calamity, and when the smoke clears, it'll be 'Tubberville's Army' that'll either stand tall or fall hard.
Nothing can be done until we have a Supreme Court that interprets the Second Amendment as an entirety. "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." That "well-regulated militia" part seems to have been completely forgotten.
Agreed - though it has to be said that that "well-regulated militia" clause, no matter your thoughts on what it was meant to say, should go down in history as one of the worst pieces of writing in the history of legislative or constitutional history - because it is a phrase that just hangs there ambiguously failing to state how it applies to or qualifies the underlying right being laid out. It therefore ends up meaning whatever any given reader wants it to mean (or nothing at all).
Ambiguous wording is the bane of much legislation.
Agreed completely, though the fact that our courts seem to ignore it (whatever it may mean) renders said meaning irrelevant no matter what.
Well, yeah, there is that. But I'd argue that the irrelevance was effectively stitched into it by not writing it in the form of words that actually state what is intended. As it was written, one has to wonder if somebody simply accidently left out some words in copying from a draft version.
Or at least the "Well Regulated" part of it 😏
Grandfathering in 400 million guns fully negates doing anything else to limit access for several generations; it’s a stupid idea. The second amendment was never intended as a personal right--it was intended only that individuals would bring self-owned weapons to war, as we had no standing army; it needs to be eliminated. The fed should have regularly scheduled buybacks of all guns; when paid, people do give them up. Red and yellow flag laws are completely useless because they attempt to prejudge acts that haven’t occurred, which is precisely why authorities are loath to use them, fearful of being sued--and they’re right. For the rest, gun ownership must require everything driving a car requires: an in/person range shooting test the first time, a written safety awareness test that also shows understanding of applicable regulations, repeated annually, a paid license, and proof of insurance with legislated minimums. I suggest regular testing for mental illness, as well. We should also make it much easier for gun manufacturers and sales agents to be sued. Sellers who bypass regulations and sell through loopholes should be prosecuted and jailed or imprisoned . There should also be strictly imposed limitations on the numbers of bullets that can be purchased within a prescribed time.
Sadly, the right will never agree to any of this; they believe government shouldn’t exist. They are fragmenting our society just as they are fragmented in Congress.
I particularly agree with the idea of a federal buyback and limitations on the types of “arms” capable of mass killings that can be sold and possessed. But some of these other proposals represent government harassment of legitimate gun owners and constitute the “slippery slope” that NRA types are so concerned about, apparently with some justification.
The mental health evaluation might stress limits, and I acknowledged that. Still, it’s amazing we agree on something! This is how communication should work. THX, Carlton.
“As most everyone knows, the resistance to commonsense gun policy has been fueled and sustained by the enormously influential National Rife Association (NRA) and other groups like the Gun Owners of America.”--Adam
First off, Happy belated Veteran’s Day Adam.
Secondly, it’s not just the NRA or GOA. Religious organizations have been co-opted by these two organizations to do their bidding for them.
Religion to these wing-nuts means freedom, and the right to bear arms, without restriction, is an extension of those religious freedoms. Or so, the rest of us are to believe.
Additionally, during COVID, another 60 million firearms were purchased. Today, of the 400 million guns in civilian circulation, 3% of gun owners account for 33% of guns.
And recently, a Brady report found that 5% of dealers are responsible for selling 90% of the guns used in crimes (analysis of data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives).
There are common sense regulations and laws that can be implemented to reduce gun violence; if at least 50% of republicans actually had any common sense.
Adam - speaking as a fan of your courageous actions & words going back at least as far as 2020 (when I became aware of you), and an enthusiastic reader of "Renegade" (which is adding more and more to my understanding of your story the further I get into it), I have to say that (a) I do agree that more needs to be done to address the problems of crimes in cities, but also that (b) my perception, as someone who has evolved from being a somewhat Republican-leaning independent going back to days of Reagan & Bush Sr. to one leaning more and more to the D side, without (for the most part) actually changing how I believe and think - I would quibble with your framing this question here as one where nothing can get done about gun violence because both the Republicans and Democrats are too extreme. My quibble is this: yes, indeed, the Democrats have some people who are very extreme on this question - but please show me where the Democratic party overall is unwilling to do ANYTHING at all if they can't get everything the most extreme ones want? I'm just not seeing that - can you make the case showing where & how that's happening?
My perception is that there is a substantial, almost certainly critical-mass-sized portion of the Democrats who would be inclined to support nearly any common-sense measures that could be proposed - but other than the limited bipartisan bill passed last year or so, nothing at all seems possible, not because the Democrats as a body aren't willing to take anything less than everything they want, but because enough Republicans are not inclined to vote for any change beyond what is already in place, if even those laws are kept - and no matte what happens in the House, nothing can pass without 60 votes in the Senate. Am I missing something here? I mean, sure, the Democrats are more than capable of over-reaching and proposing too much - but it doesn't seem like we're choosing between "too much" vs. "too little" - but rather between "nothing at all" vs. "anything at all."
This, directly into my veins
With the current house in total disarray, finding common sense solutions to gun issues and anything else is virtually impossible. We need to “rehire”! (Vote) for a government that is willing and able to work together. Otherwise this is a pipe dream~ (and NO, I do not mean NO LABELS!)
If not No Labels, then which organization?
If centrist independents don’t quit competing with one another and coalesce around a new centrist party, the current movement to two extremes will only continue.
Respectfully, I would say that:
(1) if there is a place for a centrist 3rd party to start, it really needs to be at the Congressional level, not the Execitve (Presidential). State Houses could also be a place to start. The problem with thinking "let's start a centrist 3rd party movement to take the White House" is that the presidential electoral system, as enshrined in the Constitution, and elaborated by states, sets up a winner-takes-all contest for each state's electoral votes (with slight caveats for the split distribution in Nebraska & Maine). A 3rd party candidate (No Labels or other) is almost ccertainly fatally handicapped from actually winning states until they become big enough to challenge the existing behemoths - but could peel off enough voters from the behemoths to tilt a state's results from one to the other. Thinking that one's idealized centrist 3rd party movement is going to suddenly catch fire and push aside not just one but both of the existing behemoths is what's known as "magical thinking" - one convinces oneself that indeed, yes, because I really, really believe in this candidate, I also really believe that they are going to go on and win everything. What's really going to happen is maybe to influence the election - and not necessarily in a predictable way where we get the "next-most-preferred" result (like if we had ranked-choice voting, for instance).
(2) Congressional seats (and/or state legislature delegations) provide more of an arena where a 3rd party (centrist or not) could begin making progress towards achieving the strength & breadth of relevance where it could essentially take the place of one of the two behemoths.
(3) I think that the premise that the current choice is between two parties that are both extremists is seeing things inaccurately. Without question the Democratic Party has extremists within it - but they do not dominate that party. Even their Progressive Caucus is made up mostly of members who understand the need for moderation, as evidenced by their willingness to go along overwhelmingly, even unanimously, with the necessariily bipartisan compromises initated by the Biden administration. The "extremists" on the D side may have relatively radical ideas, but they are not looking to burn the place down. I would contrast that with the Republican side, where the extreme wing (Freedom Caucus, most notably, but supported by others) are essentially driving the Republican House's agenda. Biden was influenced by the Progressive wing of the Democrats - but the most radical wing of the Republicans effectively control the House. And the House is relatively reflective of the two parties' voting populace.
I would love to see a centrist party emerge - but I don't think the Presidential race is where that happens. The reason it sort of happened in the 1850s/1860s was the way the big parties were literally fracturing and splitting up their votes between multiple other candidates. The nascent Republicans kind of picked up pieces from the dying Whig party and had enough strength to capture the Presidency with a plurality - they couldn't have done that unless and until the existing major parties were in fact actually breaking apart.
In terms of political strategy, this makes sense. But I think that the U.S. is facing the greatest political crisis since 1860, with two major candidates that a substantial majority of voters find unacceptable. And I for one find Biden and his likely successor, Harris, to be as unacceptable as Trump and his likely successor. If people insist on voting for terribly flawed candidates just because they are Democrats or Republicans, they will get what they deserve.
Carleton - while the electorate ultimately is likely to "get what they deserve" in any event, and maybe I would prefer a reality in which the Democrats had a different/younger candidate than Biden, I have to say I can't agree with the premise that Biden and/or Harris are as unacceptable as Trump and an even-more-loyal-than-Pence draft pick to be named later. Whatever differences I might have with Biden's policies, communication, or other, and even if one believes that the administration's policies are bad, or that Biden is too old to be effective, or that Harris is too ____????____ , I believe the likely worst case outcome is that some decisions and actions are made that are not the best - but that at the end of such an administration they will willingly hand the keys to the White House back to the American people. The all-too-likely worst case I anticipate from a 2nd Trump administration is a change to our form of government to a more authoritarian/autocratic form, with elections more controlled by the people in power, and an authoritarian leader inclined (as he has not just been seen but has literally been saying) to simply remain in power no matter what. The risk and likelihood of that to me makes any other preferences pale in comparison. As to Harris, while I can't say I've become a fan, I also haven't seen even one concrete reason given by anyone as to why she wouldn't be as capable as pretty much any sitting VP in recent memory of stepping into the higher role if required. VPs almost by definition don't show themselves to be great potential presidents who are just temporarily sitting on the bench - and while I'm not saying that she IS a great potential president on the bench, the only thing I hear / see anybody saying is "man, I don't wanna see Harris as president." I never see specific complaints.
As a retired teacher, I understand the fear of young children engendered by shooting drills, although I’m not sure it’s much different from the fear my classmates and I felt while practicing ducking under our desks as preparation for a nuclear attack in the 1950s.
However, as much as we need to stop school, etc shootings, please stop adding to the confusion over automatic vs semiautomatic weapons. Automatic weapons from AR15s to Tommy guns fire bullets as long as the trigger is held down until the magazine is empty. They are very strictly regulated and controlled and require a special license to purchase/possess.
It is possible to modify a semiautomatic to function as an automatic, but that is already illegal.
A SEMIautomatic, once cocked, fires one bullet for each trigger pull. This functions the same way in an AR15 as it does in a modern hunting rifle or pistol. The AR15 has a handgrip that makes it easier to hold and to swing back and forth. It also looks tough, which is why it appeals to some men.
As I read about so many mass shootings, I’ve noticed that almost every one is committed by a male. The only one I can recall that involved a female was a couple that shot up a holiday party on California a few years ago. So I suggest: If we in the US can have anti abortion laws that apply only to women, why can’t we have an assault weapon ban that applies only to men. Seems fair to me.
As a former Army officer who was qualified and instructed in the use of many types of “arms,” I can state that the main source of lethality in rifles or handguns is their magazine capacity. A semi automatic weapon can fire one or two rounds per second fairly accurately at close range, whereas automatic weapons lose accuracy after the first couple of rounds and run out of ammunition faster. So , I would limit magazine capacity, as has long been done for shotguns being used for hunting.
True. Limiting magazine capacity would help a lot. Having to pause to change magazines would slow the shooter down, especially if he hadn’t had military or law enforcement training and lots of practice. That would give people a chance to run or try to tackle the shooter. As a school librarian, during active shooter drills, I instructed students to each grab a book off the return cart. We obeyed orders to hide (difficult in a room with glass walls), but I told them that if a shooter got in, to start throwing books at him. Grab lots of books and throw.
I was taught to shoot a .22 rifle at age 8, and as an adult went through the NRA training class. I was not in the military, but my son is in the Army.
The first point I was trying to make was that there’s a difference between automatic and semiautomatic weapons and people keep confusing the two. Adam should know better.
Very unique perspective on limiting ban to men. But then again since men are 90% in charge I’m thinking that has no chance to become law.
True. There’s no chance of that passing with the current members of Congress, but it seems just as fair to me as the anti abortion laws passed by those same men.
Exactly why we need more females in Congress to better reflect the makeup of this country. That also goes for Black, Brown, Asian, etc as long as they would want to actually govern and uphold the Constitution.
It's way past time to get serious! I remember crying hearing about the babies killed at Sandy Hook and thinking that surely, now we'll get gun laws. Those who take the 2nd Amendment literally should be allowed to have their guns - MUSKETS & single shot pistols! That's what the founders were using. There is no comparison. I agree that we shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good enough, but we have to start somewhere. AR15's are not for "sporting" unless your sport is killing another human being.
The very first thing we need to change is the belief in the illusion of “sides”. There is only one side, the side of humanity!
The most basic fundamental desires of ALL people is the desire for a roof over their head, a full belly, a modicum of stability, Love and respect.
These are quotes from Anton Scalia's opinion giving the right to have guns to everyone, DC v. Heller (2008):
“….we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.”
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
We CAN make reasonable regulations on guns!!!!
My dad was a competitive target shooter, my older brother collected guns for years, my younger brother was a police officer for 30 years. I have been around guns, I owned guns, I love to shoot guns (well when I was younger, I'd probably blow my foot off now), I don't fear guns. My dad belonged to the NRA but it's NOT today's NRA. We were taught gun safety from the time we were six years old and started shooting. We respected guns as something that if handled wrong could kill someone. My dad locked the guns away when we were not going shooting.
Now, it seems any idiot that wants one can get one without even "breathing hard". So we have tragedies, not just the mass shootings and such. The stupid idiot woman in Texas who had a loaded hand gun on the back seat of the car next to her three year old who picked it up and shot her dead through the seat back. The small child who found the hand gun between the couch seats and killed her sister and so on.
I'm tired of hearing it, I'm tired of talking about it, until there is a REAL effort to get something concrete done. I remember when a shooting like Lewiston and others were TRULY shocking and it WAS earth shattering. I am not being flippant. I'm being honest, when I hear about those shootings anymore I just go on with my day and just hope it doesn't happen to me and mine. Its' just another day in America. When someone wants to really get serious, I'm there.
You can look up what Australia did after they had a terrible mass shooting and there are a whole lot of gun owners there. It might give some ideas for discussion.
Let me state something obvious. It doesn’t help that Donald Trump is openly gratified by violence. And he sets an example for millions.
Also, I question the sincerity of the “mental health” argument coming from the right. If Adam K really sees something to it, I hope he’ll step in and explain, but until then it seems more like an especially transparent excuse to keep doing nothing.
Indeed, the mental health issue is INTENDED as a nonstarter. Same with colorful laws called red/yellow flags, which require judging acts which haven’t yet occurred--authorities don’t enforce such laws because the law, like nature, abhors a vacuum, and a non-act is a vacuum--flag laws do nothing but threaten lawsuits ad nauseam.
Adam’s solutions are dead on arrival, as are, tragically, thousands of our children. Guns are now the #1 cause of deaths for children and teens.
Grandfathering in 400 million guns proves how absurd even the allegedly thoughtful members of the GOP have become. More people have died by guns since 1968 than in all US wars COMBINED. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna807156
The shooter was 18 and bought the gun days before from outback oasis. The gun makers and gun dealers need to be held to account for the damage there business model does to people.