“I’ve been a proponent of the Second Amendment my whole life … I cannot express how wrong I was … Enough is enough … We need gun control RIGHT.NOW.” This emotional reaction by a guitarist who was performing before the Las Vegas massacre implies that the Second Amendment is an obstacle to immediate gun control, although the man did not explicitly demand its abrogation.
Others are clearer. The Portland Sunday Telegram found a man who lives high up in a balloon anchored over Monroe, Maine who explicitly demands an end to the Second. Greg Bates is an intellectual who makes his living doing intellectual things. Gazing down on the hunters and gun owners around the village of Monroe he sees that they must be disarmed. This conclusion inspired a Feb. 25 column in Maine Voices: “Yes, We Want to Take Away Your Guns.” He doesn’t elaborate on the “we” in his title but he makes his longing for Constitutional revision clear in these words: “… a fuzzy demand for ‘gun control’ will likely squander this opportunity to save lives. To end gun deaths, we need to ban all civilian guns.”
Bates has no use for control-nuts who advocate incremental aims while dodging around a Constitutional abrogation. “Background checks and banning AR-15s won’t suffice” he tells us, and “only about 5 percent of gun killings are carried out by people with mental health issues.” So, the NRA is correct when it claims that the control nuts are “either mistaken, delusional or dishonest” if they think they can have real gun control without erasing the Second Amendment.
NBC’s “Meet the Press” moderator Chuck Todd also talks openly about getting rid of the Second Amendment. The New York Times’ Bret Stephens led the way back in October when he wrote a column arguing that private disarmament is necessary to stop gun violence and that the government cannot seize guns in private hands as long as the Second Amendment remains in force. So, it must go.
Katha Pollitt, writing in The Nation, long-time flagship of the Progressive media fleet, had this to say on February 21: “Enough with the craziness, and enough with the clever pundits and the quiet politicians and the defeatist citizenry, too. There’s no reason why anyone—of any age—needs to own an AR-15. In fact, maybe I shouldn’t say this, because we progressives seem to be all about winning the MAGA-hat-wearing white working class, but I don’t believe you have a right to own a gun, period.”
Our Monroe balloonist is equally emphatic and decisive: “Instead of shying away from the NRA’s accusation that gun control advocates want to take away their guns, we should embrace it as a mantra. Let’s clear the air and call for total civilian disarmament. Period.”
Greg and Katha have nothing to say about what comes after these resounding periods!!! They see a political opportunity which must not be “squandered” and want immediate action while a majority of the public is emotionally receptive. One problem with civilian disarmament is revealed by research published in the American Journal of Public Health. Scholars from Harvard and the University of Washington have concluded that 9 million Americans carry a loaded pistol monthly. Of these, the write, 3 million pack a pistol every day. Eight percent of them say they carried loaded guns primarily for protection. It follows that if these people will not give up their guns unless and until they fear the government’s legal penalties more than they fear the thugs at large.
Another problem is posed by those gun owners who swear they will defend their gun rights with gun fire. Who knows how many guns will really have to pried from their cold dead hands, but there will be some. The control nuts should give us all an idea about how much bloodshed they think tolerable to accomplish their goals.
We also need some calculations of what it will cost to collect the 300,000,000 firearms in private hands. Australia’s buy-back program, often praised by the control nuts, cost $500 million. It’s been estimated that the U.S. will have to pay $225 billion for a similar program. Might there be better way to spend that sum to save lives?
We can expect some stress and strain on other parts of the Constitution as these millions of firearms are traced, detected, and confiscated. How many policemen will it take? How many new jail cells will we need to build? New York and Connecticut enacted laws demanding registration of AR-15s and only a fraction of those who own them have complied. This tells us that laws without corresponding coercive measures have very limited effects.
And this brings us to the problem of the inevitable black markets in firearms. Remember America’s previous experiment in prohibition? First, the Eighteenth Amendment amended the Constitution. Thus empowered Congress passed the Volstead Act forbidding the production and sale of liquor. So American’s stopped drinking booze.
Wait! That’s not quite right is it? Vast illegal enterprises sprung up in defiance of the government’s wishes. Back then Americans reacted against the idea of their governments interfering with their livers and social lives. A gun prohibition runs into a far stronger belief, shared by millions, that gun ownership is a Constitutional right.
It’s one thing to give up opportunities to lay the foundations for a hangover, quite another to abandon a right. Erase the Second Amendment and you still have right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness asserted by the Declaration of Independence. I’m sure I’m not alone in believing that the right to life necessarily includes the right to self-defense.
Sorry, JF. I was working and paying my taxes, not living off a government check like…? You can have this convenient interlude to word craft your rhetoric for the gun lobby but remember, you don’t have to commit an act to have a hand in steering fools to do it for you. I’m guessing that “Pure” didn’t get such a knee jerking reaction from you with he/she/their off the handle emotional pouting. No worries, I will keep my 9 locked up safe and sound just in case the gun grabbers come in the middle of the night to take all of our 2nd amendments away… Wait, i just heard the sound of registers ringing at gun shops around the Country. Well anyway, I learned a long time ago you cant talk to class B narcissists and get anywhere except to feed their ego. I bid you Спокойной ночи John, as you say in the mother country.
Scott, I respect your opinions and appreciate your comments on many subjects- this is not one of those times.
You wonder if suicides would be lower without guns? That’s a terrible argument to make, there would be less suicides using guns. Less suicidal people would result in lower suicides, maybe some laws and restrictions would help also…
A nuclear warhead?!? So you believe that someone with the money, desire, connections and ability to aquire a nuclear weapon has been thwarted by restricting the second amendment? Really? If not for laws in place we would all be running around with nuclear warheads strapped to our cars?
Last but not least, a hypothetical theatre shooting…first let me say I think you need to meet and talk to more concealed carry and open carry proponents . Not one person I know whom carry’s would ever touch their weapon without life threatening danger happening, they would also clearly identify the target before ever firing a shot. (Unlike police we have no immunity for stray bullets etc. even in commission of stopping a violent crime) The fact that such a large percentage of people own and carry guns without a scenario such as you describe says your argument is not valid. Second, make yourself and those around you a target? Do you really think like that? The guy shooting up the theater made us all targets, sorry if I won’t just quietly huddle on the left while he shoots to the right…and I must ask how does your scenario end? Hide and wait hoping the shooter does not find you while you wait for police to come and take reports?
I detest they Liberals dribble about gun control.
But it is scary that some of these gun owners would cause more harm than good when they draw their Weapon without knowing what they are doing…. Just because they can.
Get trained or leave it home please.
I don’t want you “protecting” me.
Pure – research suggests access to guns increases suicide rates: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/suicide-rates-maryland-rural-urban-firearms-guns-johns-hopkins-united-states-a7898951.html
It makes sense, suicide is often an impulsive act. The harder it is to kill yourself, the more likely you’ll back down.
I simply do not believe that if there is an active shooter in a place like a movie theater I could trust everyone who has a weapon to not panic, make a mistake, or do something wrong. Gun owners run the spectrum of society, as do drivers. Some are very good and careful, but many are not. And yes, if you had a gun you would make yourself and those around you targets for anyone else with guns. I’ve heard this argument from law enforcement officals too – a shooter would see someone with a gun as a threat.. The nuclear weapon example simply demonstrates that classes of arms can be forbidden without violating the 2nd amendment. .
However, if you believe otherwise, I respect that. And I’m not making an argument for gun laws here, only raising questions.
Jesse – only about 25% of Americans own guns. It seems misguided to make 75% learn something they don’t need to know. It would also be very expensive. I’m not sure there would be any benefit.
Yes Scott only about 25% of the population does own firearms. Do you see now why it should be taught to more people , this is a large part of the problem. The less people that are educated on gun safety , the harder it is to come to common ground. Most statistics are biased one way or another. People make up their minds by what they are told and read. If and maybe if we had a society that actually respected life, we wouldn’t have to have these types of conversations.
Scott, I disagree with your reasoning for not having gun safety classes. I don’t know about now but when I went to school foreign language was required ( ” made ” us learn ) and how many actually use it? Sports is another example.( I am not saying sports or foreign language aren’t a good thing to learn )
And while 25% of Americans may own firearms I would think that a higher percent would possibly want to be trained/educated in the safety of guns or already are.
Scott Erb, 20,000, that is the number of gun laws currently on the books at the federal, state and local levels. Liberals are either ignorant of this fact, or just choose to be. There is not one single law that we don’t already have. Mental health is already a disqualifying factor, PTSD for example is a disqualifying mental illness, 20% of returning soldiers are diagnosed with PTSD every year. Under federal law they are prohibited from owning or possessing firearms. Background checks, age requirements, ammo restrictions, operation restrictions, mag size. barrel length, etc. are laws. Murder is a crime, gun ownership isn’t. America doesn’t have the highest number of gun deaths, we are 25th in the world, hell, we are not even first in mass shootings or body count because of it. It seems to me that rampage killers are some of the most incompetent people on the planet. If reports are to be believed, they walk in with 100s of rounds of ammo, in a building with hundreds of people with nowhere to go(fish in a barrel) yet only a very small number of people are killed. This latest school, has over 3100 students, only 17 were killed and 14 wounded. Sandy Hook 369 students, yet only 26 people were killed. Vegas shooting, 22,000 people at the concert, 58 killed 422 wounded. Columbine, 1600 students, 13 killed 21 wounded.
By the above reasoning:
There was only a small percentage of the US population killed at Pearl Harbor and on 911. Why all the fuss?
Evidently, it’s the type guns allowed out into the general population that adds to the carnage, not the number of laws on the books. Get rid of the type guns preferred in mass shootings, you get rid of the type carnage.
I’d prefer this be done by pricing them out of the market by holding manufacturers liable. You don’t see many Pintos on the road, or people driving kids around without seat belts. The same should hold for the AR-15 and the like.
Patting ourselves on the back because we aren’t quite El Salvador or Guatemala is some argument against gun control.
Seamus the problem with what there proposing is its very vague on what it will actually affect for guns. The problem isn’t the AR15 or high capacity magazines , its a failure of states reporting certain people to the nics system and mental illness. The firearms that people are screaming about banning didn’t kill people on their own. There in fact was a bad person behind the trigger that shouldn’t have had it to begin with. We need to start enforcing the laws we have instead of micromanaging other law abiding citizens lives. And yes I have seen people riding around without seatbelts, texting, and yup still smoking in the vehicle with kids. Which are all ILLEGAL !!!
Scott, We don’t have ordinary citizens waving guns about in the name of justice. You kind of made my point when you say “an active shooter would see a person with a gun as a threat”. That is because they are a threat, that’s the whole idea!
If a good person with a gun can’t stop a bad person with a gun what would? Unless Steven Segal is in the theater in this hypothetical situation.
Seamus, by your liability standard- you would be able to sue del monte vegetables if someone beat you with a can of peas…
It really scares me that so many people are so afraid, both of their fellow man and Imamate objects. I truly think it speaks to their own fears of what they would do with a gun, which is equally scary. The fact of how many lives saved by guns is completely lost on these people, not to mention what happens to violent crime statistics when populace’s are disarmed.
I’m a gun owner and no one needs to fear my guns or myself, neither of us would cause harm to anyone unless your threaten myself or my family. I think I speak for most gun owners and the stats say this is correct.
Pure, you miss my point. First, if a number of people in a dark theater rise to confront an active shooter, there will be lots of people with guns. It is not credible to say every person with a gun is safe and dependable. You might be, most might be, but humans are diverse. There will be people – maybe even with training – who panic. Shooting starts, people will shoot first at those with guns.
Personally, I’m not afraid. I don’t own a gun or want to, because I don’t think it’s a dangerous world out there. Violence like shooters in schools and the like is extremely rare. I am not advocating gun control in part because I do not think the danger is high. A child is safer in school then the car ride to the school. Yet I don’t think you can speak for all gun owners. Just as humans run the spectrum from considerate and careful to panicky, careless and mean, so do gun owners.
I also believe that more gun accidents occur than people being saved by guns. I’ve always thought the gun owners were the scared ones – thinking they are in more danger than they really are. But that might be a misconception on my part.
Jesse, you take guns seriously so you want everyone educated on guns. Most people don’t, and don’t want to spend the money. I’m afraid you’re going to stay in the minority on that issue – but that’s democracy.
Jesse:
I don’t see how the solution to this problem can’t involve both the limiting of high potency weapons and their availability to those who should not have them (the mentally ill, violent offenders, etc…).
You are spot on in citing the gaps in the reporting/enforcement system(s), but I don’t believe it has to be an either/or solution.
One reason car insurance costs as much as it does is due to those savants you see texting and such. I’m proposing the same cost structure be embedded into AR-15 purchases. Unlike a can of peas, an AR-15’s primary function is to kill. It’s an inherently dangerous product. It also seems very well designed for mass murder. If you want to have these weapons available, purchasers and manufacturers should assume some of the cost for the crazy. We do it for cigarettes.
For the umpteenth time, if Congress has to pass a law excluding gunmakers from this liability, maybe they’re being protected from a cause of action that wouldn’t necessarily be thrown out of court.
Seamus, 224 million legal guns, 180 million legal guns owners(guns are not distributed evenly), of the 224 million guns, only 10 million are ARtype. Banning a certain type of gun like the AR for example or mag size will change nothing, More gun crimes are committed by use of handguns, than by use of rifles. Based on the number of people killed, vs the number of bullets in a given mag, mag size is of little consequence, and would not have prevented any deaths. Take the Florida school shooting, 17 killed 14 wounded. The law in California is 10 round mags, so we will use that as our baseline. 4 10 round mags equals 40 bullets, more than needed to kill 17 and wound 14. And, 9/11 killed more than 3000 people, and was perpetrated by Muslims. More than all rampage killings combined, by a lot. Yet we didn’t ban Muslims. We could, there is no law that says we can’t. There are laws, the second amendment being supreme law, that say we can have guns, ARtype rifles being guns ownership of them goes without question. Now if an individual state wants to ban them, it is that state’s right to do so. the federal government is prohibited from doing it under the 9th and 10th amendments.
Yes I do take it seriously. As to the second part of your statement many don’t and don’t want to spend the money, that is part of the problem is people don’t take them seriously. There would be less incidents involving guns if all people took them seriously (there not toys).
Seamus do you remember when Obama wanted to ban them ? The price of ammo went through the roof and the cost of an AR went from around $400 to almost $1200 yet it didn’t deter anyone from buying them. Also there only purpose is not to kill it has many purposes that being only one (if the owner chooses to use it for that ) besides that I can grab a number of things within arms reach in my vehicle to kill with yet I don’t travel with any guns.
Actually, Hrttlss, freedom of religion is an even more basic constitutional right. We can’t ban Islam, Christianity or any religion. We can limit some religious expressions with secular rules, but we can’t ban a religion.
“I’ve always thought the gun owners were the scared ones – thinking they are in more danger than they really are. But that might be a misconception on my part.”
Maine issues more than 200,000 hunting licenses each year and sport shooting has been part of both summer and winter Olympics for over a century. But you’re right, Scott, we’re all just sitting around biting our nails waiting for the inevitable zombie apocalypse.
World War Z! To be sure, I was replying in a kind of sarcastic way to a comment that said non-gun owners were scared, I know lots of gun owners and hunters, and would not dream of detracting from their hobby. I just never tried hunting. When I was a kid I asked my dad why I don’t learn to hunt, and he said, “Because I don’t hunt, and I don’t hunt because my dad didn’t hunt.” In fact, I’ve never fired a gun. But it’s on my bucket list.
SLAMMO got so upset at being accused of rationality that he shifted back to inane personal abuse.
I hear there’s a vile rumor out there that I invented SLAMMO as device of smearing all Left-lurchers as incurable dimwits. I deny it. There are a few LLs who can hold their own in debate— I knew a Stalin admirer in Grad School who made a rational case to justify his admiration.
It’s impossible for me to say if SEAMUS deliberately or unthinkingly propagating an indirect means for harassing and controlling gun-owners by attacking businesses. Nothing new or subtle about that method.
Prof. Erb has not addressed the problem most control nuts avoid. How far are they prepared to go to enforce their dreams of civilian disarmament. It’s no enough to argue that American should be more like Germans. There has to be means and method to that end.
I actually am not in support of strict gun control. I only wanted to point out that regulations do work around the world (not just in Germany), and that some beliefs, like the idea that concealed carry means someone with a gun is safer, are questionable. But at base, while I think there could be regulations on certain types of guns and ammo, this isn’t an issue I’m passionate about. I note that there are more guns around Farmington Maine than in most of the country, and yet we are extremely safe. The problem is more cultural and socio-economic.
If not having guns actually lowered the violent crime rate, I’d say do it, but it doesn’t. From 1927 until now, there have been just 18 rampage school shootings, 19 if you include the bombing in 1927 that killed 44. 168 killed, Twice has has an ARtype rifle been used, Sandy Hook and Florida. The problem is always people, ALWAYS, and even then with every thing working like it should, stupid people will do stupid things. I am sick and tired of people messing with the constitution, to suit their own agenda, “Well the founding fathers meant this, they didn’t mean that.” Or, “What do you need that many bullets for?” Because we can. that there are 180 million gun owners, Some of us will never own an AR, some will own several. We have the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, the AR-15 is small arms, that has been deemed legal to own as they are not machine guns, nor fully automatic, they are not “assault weapons” even defined in Bill Clinton’s “assault weapon” ban of 1994 the AR-15 didn’t meet the ban requirements, because it is not an “assault weapon”. Get off it, maybe we should ban the freedom of speech or of the press…mmm? people consider them to be fundamental rights for a free republic, How free would you be without guns? look at Africa, thousands are slaughtered because they can’t defend themselves, Hitler slaughtered 6 million people because they couldn’t defend themselves, Stalin slaughtered 21 million people because they couldn’t defend themselves. I refuse to be slaughtered because I can’t defend myself. You do not have the right to dictate what others do with their rights. God gave man guns, man didn’t give man guns, only God can take them away.
JUST 18 school shootings??
Mainers will not give up their guns. They hunt. Also, many live in rural areas where bears or coyotes cause a danger to their livestock and their children. When our rights are taken away once, what’s to stop the government from slowly taking away more and more? Mainers will just buy off the black market so they won’t have to register. They will hide their guns because if their guns are registered, the feds will know who they are and will take them. I don’t think many hunters want to give up eating deer meat, moose meat and even rural folks have to slaughter one of their beef critters or their pigs.
The number 18 is too low. In fact, Snopes writes about it, there have arguably been 18 this year: https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/02/16/how-many-school-shootings-in-2018/
Wikipedia has a comprehensive historical list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States
I’m not calling for strict gun regulations, but feel compelled to point out that the claim of only 18 since 1927 is not even close.
I also think the idea that armed civilians could stand up to government violence is wrong. The state has the firepower, and they will use it. Some claim US troops won’t fire on citizens. if they have guns and are painted out as traitors and threats, people will shoot. I don’t think guns protect our freedom at all – that’s through the courts, a free press and elections. I also don’t think we’re any freer because of guns than others living in advanced industrial democracies where gun ownership is very low. But you have a right to believe differently and to arm yourself if you think it will help.
I’ve read half dozen articles (one in the Portland Press Herald) explaining how the government has the power to ruthlessly crush resistance. This may reassure people living in and around Washington D.C., but it probably won’t be welcome news to those who distrust politicians and bureaucrats (i.e., the Government)
I really doubt that the will to resist would be that widespread, but the firm belief that a government only needs tanks, planes and heavy artillery to maintain its control seems dubious. When ordinary policing collapses due to armed resistance and martial law instituted then traditional government authority has already collapsed.
Scott, he was referencing “rampage” or “rage” type incidents specifically.
Snopes is possibly the most left leaning “fact” checker you could use outside of the Washington post, yet even snopes acknowledged that a great deal of the #s had very little resemblance to the discussion at hand.
I would disagree on army vs civilian, I will just say in a confiscation scenario I would take the 100mil army with semi autos over the million man army trying to take the guns. In scenarios like Waco or ruby ridge or Oregon , yes they win the battle with firepower. Freedom will never be free Scott, we’re losing a free press- and if the Democrats are to be believed- Russia controls our elections.
I’m a libertarian and distrust the federal government regardless of who is in power, I have a hard time understanding people wanting to control other people. I feel like if Orson Wells had made a prequel to 1984, it would resemble what we see today.
We are safer than those individuals living in places without guns though when you consider violent crimes.
The most killings and atrocities this world has ever seen have been perpetrated on unarmed civilians by governments…Do you believe the Jewish people were safer without guns?
All of this talk of “seizing weapons” as compared to the talk of universal background checks, red flagging violent, and/or unstable, suggesting age 21 for purchase, etc. Why not universal background checks, instead of only doing them for some purchases? If seizures have not happened with checking the “commercial ” sales, does anyone have evidence to suggest confiscations could/would take place with universal checks?
As far as “18 school shootings since 1927” Really? How about other mass shooting? Vegas? Florida nightclub? Veterans home in California? should we not consider those many dead and hundreds wounded?
Wow, just wow, what price is “Liberty” when we care not about the recently killed, and soon to be?
Can we not at least try to have fewer deaths by any shooters?
The seizing weapons talk is because that is where the road your suggesting leads. 1934, 1968, 1986, 1994…haven’t we (legal gun owners) compromised enough? Ban bumpstocks, Ban ARs, ban it all and you still won’t stop mass shooters or stop people from being killed, now what? That is the evidence that us comprmising only leads to more bans and at some point outright confiscation.
Have you noticed that Heroine is illegal, yet people still deal and people still use- until you figure out that laws don’t stop criminals, less death of any kind is probably not going to be found.
Btw, no one gets to claim outrage and empathy as only their own. Just because someone is being realistic doesn’t mean their less empathetic or don’t care that people died and will die.
Whether or not guns are banned by the authorities won’t mean a thing. The black market has always been around. Remember the stories about the thieving pirates from centuries ago? They took the loot and sold it. Besides, during the Nazi Regime, I have heard that even those who you would not believe would ever purchase stolen, valuable paintings from the Jewish people did so. It’s like Prohibition. That didn’t work. Even if the govt. shut down every single gun manufacturer, someone would still make them in secret. If it hadn’t been for my father providing deer meat when I was growing up, I probably wouldn’t be here today. I am for guns but only for hunting and for home protection. Not shooting up schools and things
” I am for guns but only for hunting and for home protection. Not shooting up schools and things ”
I agree, like I’m for drugs just not to get high and things.
Time to put this one to bed!