Ethics Quote Of The Day: Charles W. Cooke

“You’re going to need a plan. A state-by-state, county-by-county, street-by-street, door-to door plan. A detailed roadmap to abolition that involves the military and the police and a whole host of informants — and, probably, a hell of a lot of blood, too. Sure, the ACLU won’t like it, especially when you start going around poorer neighborhoods. Sure, there are probably between 20 and 30 million Americans who would rather fight a civil war than let you into their houses. Sure, there is no historical precedent in America for the mass confiscation of a commonly owned item — let alone one that was until recently constitutionally protected. Sure, it’s slightly odd that you think that we can’t deport 11 million people but we can search 123 million homes. But that’s just the price we have to pay. Times have changed.”

—-Charles W. Cooke in a National Review self-described rant in 2015, ” …Aimed at Those Who Would Repeal the Second Amendment”

I missed Cooke’s piece in 2015, but it should be required reading today. Today was “Kill the Second Amendment Day” on social media and among the talking heads on Sunday Morning TV shows, in part because the obligatory coordinated freak-out over any tragic shooting always hits a brick wall of reality that disingenuous talk of “sensible gun reforms” won’t remove, and because for the second time in barely a week, , a New York Times op-ed regular advocated taking a big chunk out of the Bill of Rights. Once again, it was another Times house conservative, Bret Stephens, making the very un-conservative case for abridging individual rights. Earlier it was Ross Douthat wanting to hamstring freedom of speech in order to make “better men.” Stephens wants to repeal the Second Amendment.

I received fair criticism for attributing Douthat’s column to the leftist agenda of the Times, but Stephens’ piece reinforces my theory. For quite a while it has been clear that the Left views the Constitution as an impediment to it ascendance to transformational power the U.S. This has been on display from many angles, on many fronts, and with increasing intensity.  Progressives tried to get around the Electoral College to elect Hillary, and attacked that Constitutional device for months. They still regard the Due Process clause as an annoyance and an obstacle to blocking untrustworthy citizens from acquiring guns. During the battle over Obamacare, multiple leaders of the Democratic Party mocked the idea that the Commerce Clause imposed any limits at all on Congressional power, hence its ability, in their eyes, to “pass a law forcing citizens to buy broccoli.” (SCOTUS ruled otherwise, but the individual mandate was rescued by a creative Chief Justice.)

Hillary Clinton proposed excepting political speech in the form of purchased public advocacy for political candidates from the First Amendment. The grass roots Left, along with members of the media and leaders of the Democratic Party like Howard Dean, have not only denied that so-called “hate speech” is protected, but have acted as if it isn’t, and demanded that it shouldn’t be.  Majority Democratic states and cities are actively defying federalism in their efforts to prevent the enforcement of immigration laws. Since President Trump’s election, many Democrats in Congress and elsewhere that Constitutional requirements for impeachment should yield to simple numbers: If a party has enough votes, it should be able to remove a President, or at least this one.

I think it’s clever for the Times to use its nominal conservative writers to advance the progressive cause of selectively gutting the cornerstone of everything the United States of America has achieved in two and a half centuries. I also think that is what it has done here.

But I digress.

On “Meet the Press” host this morning, Chuck Todd at least was honest, as opposed to anti-gun activists who either  deny that their ultimate goal is banning private gun ownership, or who refuse to acknowledge that all their proposals will be futile as long as the United States has a gun culture bulwarked by the enshrined principle  that the government may not infringe the right to bear arms. He directly stated that the Second Amendment was “the problem,” and suggested that it simply had to go:

CHUCK TODD: But isn’t the difficulty here legislatively the constitution? Which is Bret Stephens’ point in The New York Times, he’s calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment. And he says, “The United States has, by far, more guns in more hands than any other country in the developed world. It has, by far, the highest incidence of firearms-related homicides and suicides. Correlation is not causation, but since Americans aren’t dramatically crazier than other nationalities, what other explanation is there?” However, it is in our constitution, unlike other western democracies.

Ah, but the United States IS “crazier,” by Stephens’ definition, than other countries and cultures. That’s what makes it unique, and uniquely idealistic. The United States is crazy, other nations (and progressives) believe, because it values individual liberty over safety. It is crazy because it does not, according to its founding documents, believe that the government should have dominance over citizens regarding how they choose to lead their lives. It is crazy because—we are getting into Bizarro World logic now—it does not agree with the rest of the world that big governments solves all problems rather than making unbearable new ones. He falsely begins with the premise that just a few tweaks in the laws, and the U.S. can be just like Europe, because people are the same all over.

He does not understand his own country, apparently. Neither, I have increasingly come to believe, do progressives. Or perhaps it’s more accurate to say they understand it, but they don’t like it.

Journalist Hallie Jackson came back to the idea of banning the Second Amendment a bit later in the discussion:

JACKSON: The bottom line is, this is a philosophical difference here. Because when you have conversations, the one you called an intellectual exercise, about the abolition of the Second Amendment, that is exactly what conservatives are terrified about. That is exactly the conversation that they don’t want to be having because there is a philosophical difference on this. Because this is, as you alluded to in your opening piece here, symbolic in a lot of ways.

TODD: Cornell, the NRA, I think their great strength here has been how they’ve re-messaged gun ownership, and they’ve wrapped it in the flag.

Someone tell Chuck and Hallie that the Bill of Rights is inextricable from the culture, our history, our success, our values, and thus is already “wrapped in the flag.” Don’t blame the NRA for that. Blame Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Madison, Mason and Washington, if you dare.

Then Democratic pollster Cornell Belcher weighed in, making an assertion that also surfaced during Don Lemon’s train wreck debate on gun control. Things are changing! The young and the moms are rising up to take down the Second Amendment!

 BELCHER: … But I think something is changing, Chuck. When you look at the way those young people are mobilizing, you look at the way some of the gun organizations are raising money and they’re mobilizing now. If this is a front-and-center issue for suburban moms in this coming election, it will change.

“We shall see,” said Todd.

What shall we see? Cooke’s scenario is exactly right, and so is his challenge as he calls the Democrats’ bluff:

What the hell are they waiting for? Go on, chaps. Bloody well do it. Seriously, try it. Start the process. Stop whining about it on Twitter, and on HBO, and at the Daily Kos. Stop playing with some Thomas Jefferson quote you found on Google. Stop jumping on the news cycle and watching the retweets and viral shares rack up. Go out there and begin the movement in earnest. Don’t fall back on excuses. …And don’t pretend that you’re okay with the Second Amendment in theory, but you’re just appalled by the Heller decision. You’re not. Heller recognized what was obvious to the amendment’s drafters, to the people who debated it, and to the jurists of their era and beyond: That “right of the people” means “right of the people,” as it does everywhere else in both the Bill of Rights and in the common law that preceded it. A Second Amendment without the supposedly pernicious Heller “interpretation” wouldn’t be any impediment to regulation at all. It would be a dead letter. It would be an effective repeal. It would be the end of the right itself. In other words, it would be exactly what you want! Man up. Put together a plan, and take those words out of the Constitution. It’ll be tough explaining to suburban families that their established conception of American liberty is wrong. You might even suffer at the polls because of it. But that’s what it’s going to take.

This will involve hard work, of course. You can’t just sit online and preen to those who already agree with you. No siree. Instead, you’ll have to go around the states — traveling and preaching until the soles of your shoes are thin as paper. You’ll have to lobby Congress, over and over and over again. You’ll have to make ads and shake hands and twist arms and cut deals and suffer all the slings and arrows that will be thrown in your direction. You’ll have to tell anybody who will listen to you that they need to support you; that if they disagree, they’re childish and beholden to the “gun lobby”; that they don’t care enough about children; that their reverence for the Founders is mistaken; that they have blood on their goddamn hands; that they want to own firearms only because their penises are small and they’re not “real men.” And remember, you can’t half-ass it this time. You’re not going out there to tell these people that you want “reform” or that “enough is enough.” You’re going there to solicit their support for removing one of the articles within the Bill of Rights. Make no mistake: It’ll be unpleasant strolling into Pittsburgh or Youngstown or Pueblo and telling blue-collar Democrat after blue-collar Democrat that he only has his guns because he’s not as well endowed as he’d like to be. It’ll be tough explaining to suburban families that their established conception of American liberty is wrong. You might even suffer at the polls because of it. But that’s what it’s going to take. So do it. Start now. Off you go.

Good for Cooke. There is no hyperbole here, rant though it is. Every one of your smug Facebook friends who make such unconscionable statements as “Republicans care more about the Second Amendment than dead children” need to read it. Those who issue such emotional foolishness need to start looking at reality or shutting up, except for the most cynical and dishonest anti-gun advocates who know that all of their “sensible” proposals boil down to doing what they don’t have the guts or integrity to try: repealing the Second Amendment. That’s why Democrats didn’t go ahead and pass massive gun bans when they had an anti-gun President and both Houses of Congress. They just want to use these tragedies to stir up more fear and partisan hate for political gain. Oh, your Democrat and progressive friends on social media are sincere. They just don’t know what they are talking about.

They should read Cooke’s rant.

Help them.

_____________________

Pointers : Instapundit; Newsbusters

114 Comments

Filed under U.S. Society

114 responses to “Ethics Quote Of The Day: Charles W. Cooke

  1. dragin_dragon

    Wow! Just WOW. Is the Left actually aware of what it truly takes to amend the Constitution? Do they truly believe that they’d ever get a 2/3’s of State Legislatures to agree to DROP a right guaranteed by the second amendment? Never happen…but have fun trying.

    • Not only that, but how many States have their own version of the 2nd Amendment? Colorado does. So…then we have to ask if it’s a state’s rights issue and we’d have to consider that it might then be exactly like how Marijuana is controlled currently. The Feds have a national ban and the States are a hodge-podge of varying degrees of tolerance.

  2. Sue Dunim

    Is the ban on individuals possessing tactical nuclear weapons unconstitutional under the 2nd amendment?

    If so, why? If not, why not?

  3. Charles C.W. Cooke was the author of this interesting article.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2014/02/voter-id-and-gun-rights-charles-c-w-cooke/

    Of course, anyone who is “woke” ought to know what the plan would be.

    Warrantless searches of the homes of black people.

    Here is a hint. a state willing to defy the 2nd amendment will have few reservations defying the 4th or 14th Amendments.

    • A state unchecked by the 2nd Amendment will have no reason to bother with reservations when defying any of the other Amendments.

    • ”a state willing to defy the 2nd amendment will have few reservations defying the 4th or 14th Amendments.”

      Or the 6th.

      • Steve-O-in-NJ

        Or the First, and given the anti-faith and anti-free speech stuff we hear coming from the left these days, that’s a little scary.

        • ”that’s a little scary.”

          You’s want scary?

          • Steve-O-in-NJ

            This comes as no surprise. It’s very easy to say you don’t care about the rights of those you don’t agree with when no one is going to enforce those rights, and in higher education it’s more likely to go the other way, as someone calls “can I get some muscle over here” to get rid of those who might stand up for those rights. One of the reenactors at Fort Ticonderoga 2016 said in a lecture that (paraphrase) you can write and say all you want, but until someone picks up a weapon and makes it happen, it doesn’t mean much.

  4. Let’s look at this from an economic perspective: people have $$ tied into these arms. My single sidearm cost $400-$600 to buy new. An AR-15 set up as you like it could be $2k.

    Some firearms are classics and expensive for other reasons. Do we think people will part with these for free or squirrel them away hoping one day the law will be repealed or struck down by the courts?

    • adimagejim

      It’s the same old stuff, isn’t it? By the logic offered we should have banned alcohol and automobiles decades ago. After all those who kill with all of them are not in control of themselves in one manner or another.

      The next argument is mass killings. Got it. So killing people incrementally is fine or at least not noteworthy.

      This all comes down to Alinskyites using the sycophantic media to do their bidding. Big events, even bigger lies told about the events (18 school shootings in 2018) and a media dedicated to lying to protect elitist power.

      The anti-NRA narrative is garbage. By all means, let’s diminish the first amendment for some to suit our elitist power grabbing ends as well.

      The FBI, state, and local law enforcement are either handcuffed, incompetent or both. That’s how a known nut gets away with most things.

  5. DaveL

    The United States has, by far, more guns in more hands than any other country in the developed world. It has, by far, the highest incidence of firearms-related homicides and suicides

    There are three red flags here showing how the writer is trying to limit debate and cherry-pick data. The obvious one is the “firearms-related” qualifier. Someone who wants to save lives would care about overall homicide or suicide rates, and would not be content with the substitution of one means for another. But the writer here is concerned with establishing gun control, not saving lives, so it suits his purposes. The second tell is lumping homicides and suicides together. If you lump homicides and suicides together in general, you’ll find that places like Japan or South Korea are more “violent” than the US. But of course the two are very phenomenologically different and there’s no real reason to combine the two. We would never combine lynchings, climbing accidents, and hanging suicides and count them as one aggregate value called “rope violence”. Yet this measure is accepted when it comes to guns because it inflates the number of dead threefold. The third tell is “the developed world.” It is never explained why, exactly, it should be off-limits to compare the US to less developed countries when it comes to homicide. The supposed gulf that’s supposed to exist between the “developed” countries and everyone else is tenuous at best. Sure, Europe, Japan, and Australia put up low rates, but so do large swaths of Southeast Asia, Oceania, North Africa and the Middle East.

    Why should we expect it to be otherwise? Development is measured with a collection of “big numerator” statistics – things like average income, years of schooling, and life expectancy. These average out things that apply to almost everyone. Sprinkle in a few people with no income, or no schooling, who die before age 30, and it doesn’t move the needle on “development”.

    Homicide rate, on the other hand, is a “small numerator” measure. It’s not that normal people each commit 2/100,000ths of a murder each year, it’s that a very few individuals out of hundreds of thousands commit murder. Here, adding a few highly dysfunctional individuals to the population has a big effect on the measurement. Now, let’s get something straight: while the rare instance of a seemingly normal person “snapping” may capture the imagination more, a hundred years of criminology tells us that murderers are overwhelmingly not normal, but highly dysfunctional individuals. And these are invisible to measures of “development”. That’s why limiting the comparisons to “developed” countries is just an example of cherry-picking in the service of propaganda.

  6. Steve-O-in-NJ

    Supposedly this is an “appropriate” response and what we should all be listening to. If my daughter posted something like this I’d take her phone and suspend her computer privileges for the rest of the year, although I wouldn’t post a video of me putting a bullet through it like that one guy from Texas did. Now it’s no longer even about cherry-picking data, or implying that the other side doesn’t get laid enough, or even out and out lying. It’s just about screaming and cursing and calling names. The next generation should be labeled the Cartman generation, after the fat, cursing bully from South Park.

    • Glenn Logan

      The national media is now appropriating adolescent children to argue their case for them. That’s quite possibly as disgusting as anything I’ve seen, and these are young people who are about as aware of American in an absolute sense as a communist Chinese farmer living in a hut is about geopolitics. All many these kids have ever been exposed to is one side of the argument, and the trash of the Internet.

      Think about it — we’re actually seeing adults, especially in the media, applauding a young student using the words “fucking piece of shit” directed at the President of the United States. Applauding, and encouraging such rhetoric from callow young men and women is ethically intolerable and completely irresponsible.

      Any sane parent would congratulate this young woman for taking a stand and then ground her for a month for having the poor judgment to tweet profanity at the President, and for lacking the ethics alarms to understand that even though her desire to protect her fellow students is laudable, her methods were intolerably rude, juvenile, unnecessarily profane and unworthy of anyone.

      Tolerating this behavior is what is killing this country.

      • Glenn Logan

        Oops. Proofread fail. “…aware of American in an absolute sense…” should read “…aware of American politics in an absolute sense…”.

      • Matthew B

        The parents fail for teaching the lesson that the internet is forever.

        If you were a hiring manager, would you pick this young lady?

        • Steve-O-in-NJ

          Hmmmm…nope. Leaving a profane rant online is not the same as having an angry conversation with your friends.

          • Seriously, this is what you’re upset about? I sense a lot of “keyboard warrior” type mentality here. What is wrong with you?

            So if your daughter had just been through a large mass murdering incident like that, had friends or people she had known just killed, and had been in rational fear for her life, that you would punish her because in her emotional reactive state she used some curse words a few days later when reacting to it? First off, I call Bull. Unless you’re the biggest jerk of a dad out there. You would be trying to make sure that emotionally she is alright, and if needing a week of lashing out with a few curse laden posts to do is required, you would back her up on it. “Callow young men and women”? Seriously? Good lord give these kids a break, while you’re sitting safely in your house. I’m thinking you don’t actually have kids, or have not seriously thought of how you would feel if your teenage daughter just went through that.

            I’m sure you would all arrest a mother who recently lost her child that was screaming and cursing in the street for civil disobedience while you were at it too.

            And do you really think a business would not hire someone who stood up for themselves and was actively engaging in things after going through an incident like that, you’re disillusioned (or a bad hiring manager). I would take her in a heartbeat over one who is now locked up in her room afraid to go outside. These are the personality types that businesses want to have.

            Now the media, I can agree with that. Though I don’t think there is a large difference between the anti-gun people using these kids to push their agenda as the pro-gun people pushing more guns for everyone using these kids as well. Both of them are wrong in this, the liberal media even more as they’re putting them front in center instead of using them as a background prop.

            • Glenn Logan

              Seriously, this is what you’re upset about? I sense a lot of “keyboard warrior” type mentality here. What is wrong with you?

              Nothing, but I think I know what’s wrong with you.

              So if your daughter had just been through a large mass murdering incident like that, had friends or people she had known just killed, and had been in rational fear for her life, that you would punish her because in her emotional reactive state she used some curse words a few days later when reacting to it?

              No daughter of mine would ever do that, primarily because I would teach her at a young age that the person occupying the presidency may not have your respect, but the office damn sure will, and you won’t ever make vile comments like that to anyone, let alone the president, and remain in my good graces.

              If something like this came along, I’d get her whatever help she needs, but carte blanch to make horrid comments to vent her spleen would not be among them.

              “Callow young men and women”? Seriously? Good lord give these kids a break, while you’re sitting safely in your house. I’m thinking you don’t actually have kids, or have not seriously thought of how you would feel if your teenage daughter just went through that.

              C’mon, dude, emote a little more for me. “Give[ing] these kids a break” is exactly why they act out. They get too many breaks. They don’t have a clue how to behave. Anyone who spoke to the president that way, kid or adult, should be ashamed. When somebody posts her tweet of contrition for losing her cool, that would be something, but that isn’t going to happen because of people like you who want to give them breaks and ignore bad behavior in the name of trauma. Good people do not use trauma as an excuse to do irrational things, but callow young people do because they have been taught they can get away with it.

              How I’d feel is angry, at the shooter. Not at the president. And my daughter would have more sense than to engage in such behavior, trauma or no.

              I’m sure you would all arrest a mother who recently lost her child that was screaming and cursing in the street for civil disobedience while you were at it too.

              Nobody suggested arresting anyone. Strawman much? Oh, wait, your feelz… “Strawperson” much?

              Now the media, I can agree with that. Though I don’t think there is a large difference between the anti-gun people using these kids to push their agenda as the pro-gun people pushing more guns for everyone using these kids as well. Both of them are wrong in this, the liberal media even more as they’re putting them front in center instead of using them as a background prop.

              I’m pretty sure I haven’t seen the pro-gun people doing what you describe. Trying to equivocate is a bad look, especially when its a vast difference in who is doing the parading. Remember, the media are supposed to be neutral, and the NRA et. al. have a definite dog in this fight.

              • -Nothing, but I think I know what’s wrong with you.

                Yes, I have empathy for someone who went through a very traumatic experience, particularly a teenager.

                -No daughter of mine would ever do that, primarily because I would teach her at a young age that the person occupying the presidency may not have your respect, but the office damn sure will, and you won’t ever make vile comments like that to anyone, let alone the president, and remain in my good graces.
                If something like this came along, I’d get her whatever help she needs, but carte blanch to make horrid comments to vent her spleen would not be among them.

                Got it. You don’t have one. Not really surprised about that one from your responses.
                So you have never, in your life, disparaged a president? And forget cursing at one, you’ve had complete respect for every President, and have never said a bad word about one in public. If one went back through all your posts on social media, or discussed in public in conversation, there would be no bad words said in a non-respectful manner about Obama or Trump or Bush or Clinton (depending which party you are for or against)?
                And how do you define between when someone is talking about the office of the Presidency, and the person who is sitting in that office? There are many who have respect for the office of the President, and no respect for Trump, who they feel is tarnishing the rest of that office. Much like some didn’t respect Obama.

                -C’mon, dude, emote a little more for me. “Give[ing] these kids a break” is exactly why they act out. They get too many breaks. They don’t have a clue how to behave. Anyone who spoke to the president that way, kid or adult, should be ashamed. When somebody posts her tweet of contrition for losing her cool, that would be something, but that isn’t going to happen because of people like you who want to give them breaks and ignore bad behavior in the name of trauma. Good people do not use trauma as an excuse to do irrational things, but callow young people do because they have been taught they can get away with it.
                How I’d feel is angry, at the shooter. Not at the president. And my daughter would have more sense than to engage in such behavior, trauma or no.

                I love how everyone thinks every teenager has had it so much easier now than when they were young and the same age I have to admit, I probably thought that a bit too before I had kids myself. You see these kids and think they have it all handed to them with no responsibilities. Many teens have it tough, even if they’re not poor. The expectations of them are so much greater then when we were young. Not everyone walked 5 miles through the snow to school, uphill both ways, when they were young after all.
                And yes, you give people a break when they’ve gone through a traumatic experience. If my daughter did this on a regular day, she’d be punished. Heck, if she did it on a spur of the moment because of something that was angering her on a normal day, she would be. I’ve punished her for a number of things, and I get annoyed when I hear teens (and adults, as there are just as many adults as teens who do) using profanity and it’s one of the many things my daughter knows not to do. But in situations like this, if you can’t understand and empathize about what they go through, then I’m wondering what you empathize with. I am sure they’re angriest most at the shooter. But I can understand having an anger to the government as well in letting situations like this happen. Like it or not, Trump is the main figurehead of the government, and will be blamed by some people, especially by those on the Democratic side and anti-gun people. How many times did Obama get blamed (and still get blamed) for things?

                -Nobody suggested arresting anyone. Strawman much? Oh, wait, your feelz… “Strawperson” much?

                I’m using another example of punishing someone for saying profanities during times of reactionary emotions after traumatic experiences. There’s no strawman or difference between them, just in who is doing the punishing and who is being punished. If you can come up with a better one, I’ll take it.

                -I’m pretty sure I haven’t seen the pro-gun people doing what you describe. Trying to equivocate is a bad look, especially when its a vast difference in who is doing the parading. Remember, the media are supposed to be neutral, and the NRA et. al. have a definite dog in this fight.

                Come on, you haven’t watched any conservative media? Heck aren’t the liberal media people getting on Fox News for doing that exact thing bringing on Rush Limbaugh to say that, just for one example, right after having some of the kids on it? Not to mention some of the other pieces on there by Newt Gingrich and others. I think the liberal handling of it is worse, that’s for sure. But I can’t believe you have not heard any media pushing for more guns in classrooms, arming teachers, etc.

                • Glenn Logan

                  Yes, I have empathy for someone who went through a very traumatic experience, particularly a teenager.

                  Hmm. I’ll just give you the benefit of the doubt on that.

                  Got it. You don’t have one. Not really surprised about that one from your responses.

                  This is so. And this matters because… Oh, that’s right, it doesn’t.

                  So you have never, in your life, disparaged a president?

                  I have never in my life used profanity in connection with the president, any president, in public. Never. Nor have I used profanity toward a president in writing on the Internet.

                  I have most definitely said things to friends and family that were profane in connection with more than one president, but I would never have said something like that to his face, or to the modern equivalent thereof. I wouldn’t post it on Facebook, or tweet it on Twitter, or write it on a poliblog.

                  How’s that for unambiguous?

                  But in situations like this, if you can’t understand and empathize about what they go through, then I’m wondering what you empathize with.

                  Well, let me just tell you so you won’t wonder. I empathize with everybody in a tough situation. But it isn’t as if the president attacked her, or disparaged her, or said something that was unkind in connection with what happened. Instead, he offered his support, his prayers, and his genuine concern. She returned that with invective. Trauma or no, there is no excuse for that. I can empathize with her pain without being forced to countenance such reckless, rude behavior.

                  Like it or not, Trump is the main figurehead of the government, and will be blamed by some people, especially by those on the Democratic side and anti-gun people. How many times did Obama get blamed (and still get blamed) for things?

                  Well, I certainly don’t like Trump and would happily blame him for anything I could if he were blameworthy. When it comes to this matter, he isn’t to blame, and his actions in my view have been sincere if not perfect.

                  I wanted to blame Obama for the IRS scandal, but I couldn’t &mdash he didn’t do it. I do blame him for not taking action after it was discovered, but Obama didn’t do that. Oh, he tacitly approved, probably, but that’s just my bias showing.

                  I’m using another example of punishing someone for saying profanities during times of reactionary emotions after traumatic experiences.

                  Well, since you apparently don’t know, nobody gets arrested for directing profanity at … anybody, especially not a politician. There’s this pesky First Amendment, you see …

                  Come on, you haven’t watched any conservative media?

                  Ummm… No. Why would I? I have neither the time, nor patience to do that, I get my news online and over AM radio. What I do know is that I read headline after headline in the leftist media telling us that the kids have the moral authority to set gun policy in America… by implication, of course. I don’t see that in the conservative online media. I have seen one story where a kid said he didn’t think that more gun control would stop this kind of thing. But only one.

                  But I can’t believe you have not heard any media pushing for more guns in classrooms, arming teachers, etc.

                  I have read and heard that, and I think it has merit. But that’s not what we’re talking about… well, at least not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about the mainstream media parading the kids in front of cameras and in quotes demanding gun control, and spewing harsh criticism of president Trump in a virtually fact-free way. See David Hogg on CNN, for example.

                  “Some of our policymakers and some people need to – they need to look in the mirror and take some action because ideas are great but without action, ideas stay ideas and children die,” Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School senior David Hogg told CNN’s “New Day.”

                  “I want to show these people exactly what’s going on when these children are facing bullets flying through classrooms and students are dying trying to get an education. That’s not OK, and that’s not acceptable and we need to fix that.”

                  Pure hyperbole and Something Must Be Done-ism by a person unqualified to speak on the subject. All the facts aren’t even in yet, but Hogg has the SMBD solution — except he doesn’t anymore than anyone else does. But this gets parroted by every left-leaning news outlet out there, including the NY Times, Esquire, Washington Post, the lot of them.

                  From the mouths of children, we get… exactly what we should expect. This is CNN.

                  • -This is so. And this matters because… Oh, that’s right, it doesn’t.

                    Of course it matters. You’re saying what you would do in a situation as a parent of a teenage daughter who went through what will probably be the most emotionally traumatic moment they will face. I admit, I was like that too, until I had kids. Then you realize there are times you have to be supportive and let things slide, temporarily only, during extreme times.

                    And my goodness, do you know what your life would be like once her friends start telling everyone you are punishing your daughter for using some profanities against the president under this situation (one who, allegedly, uses his own profanity)? You would have most mass media camped at your door vilifying you.

                    -I have never in my life used profanity in connection with the president, any president, in public. Never. Nor have I used profanity toward a president in writing on the Internet.
                    -I have most definitely said things to friends and family that were profane in connection with more than one president, but I would never have said something like that to his face, or to the modern equivalent thereof. I wouldn’t post it on Facebook, or tweet it on Twitter, or write it on a poliblog.
                    How’s that for unambiguous?

                    I have to hand it to you, you’re one of the very few. I’m sure I’ve had a few choice words about a couple of the Presidents in the past, and I guess to me the thinking is they deserve them. I wouldn’t broadcast it openly, but then I was never in a situation like that girl was. Plus, as much as I respect the Presidency, I don’t respect some of the Presidents as a person, and feel they probably deserved it.

                    -Well, let me just tell you so you won’t wonder. I empathize with everybody in a tough situation. But it isn’t as if the president attacked her, or disparaged her, or said something that was unkind in connection with what happened. Instead, he offered his support, his prayers, and his genuine concern. She returned that with invective. Trauma or no, there is no excuse for that. I can empathize with her pain without being forced to countenance such reckless, rude behavior.

                    I feel the rude behavior is part of her reacting to her pain. Which is why I give it a pass. Because I do feel there is an excuse for what people do under extreme circumstances. That doesn’t mean I give a pass for overly extreme illegal responses, but there is definitely some leeway for things like profanity, no matter who they’re directing it too.

                    -Well, I certainly don’t like Trump and would happily blame him for anything I could if he were blameworthy. When it comes to this matter, he isn’t to blame, and his actions in my view have been sincere if not perfect.
                    I wanted to blame Obama for the IRS scandal, but I couldn’t &mdash he didn’t do it. I do blame him for not taking action after it was discovered, but Obama didn’t do that. Oh, he tacitly approved, probably, but that’s just my bias showing.

                    He’s still the figurehead of the government though. So blame will get sent in his direction as that figurehead. Continuing with the last thing, of his offering support and being attacked in return with profanities. Here’s what these kids see in their lifetime. A mass shooting occurs, lots of people die, government offers their prayers and support. No changes are made to prevent it from happening. Another mass shooting occurs, government offers their prayers and support. No changes are made to prevent it from happening. Another mass shooting happens, repeat. Then it happens to them. Of course they’re angry at the government. And Trump represents the government at this point. How is blaming Obama for not taking action about the IRS scandal any different than the recent mass shootings and the government taking no action though?

                    -Well, since you apparently don’t know, nobody gets arrested for directing profanity at … anybody, especially not a politician. There’s this pesky First Amendment, you see …

                    Of course I know you don’t get arrested for it. It’s an Analogy. A person in authority is punishing a person under their authority for the sole reason of using profanity while under extreme situations. No you can’t “arrest” them, but you can punish them. (Which makes an interesting discussion then, do children have a First Amendment right? )

                    >>>Come on, you haven’t watched any conservative media?
                    -Ummm… No. Why would I? I have neither the time, nor patience to do that, I get my news online and over AM radio. What I do know is that I read headline after headline in the leftist media telling us that the kids have the moral authority to set gun policy in America… by implication, of course. I don’t see that in the conservative online media. I have seen one story where a kid said he didn’t think that more gun control would stop this kind of thing. But only one.

                    Conservative media includes online media. Foxnews.com being the most widely seen one. I get much of my news from online as well, as the talking heads on TV do far too much opinion pieces of news then facts. And I can skip the blatant opinion pieces online after checking them out for a few seconds, unlike TV. And on conservative online media, there are definitely many articles, using the school shooting, as a rallying point to get more guns in schools. It’s put in a few of the headlines, and shows up in many of the articles.

                    -I have read and heard that, and I think it has merit. But that’s not what we’re talking about… well, at least not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about the mainstream media parading the kids in front of cameras and in quotes demanding gun control, and spewing harsh criticism of president Trump in a virtually fact-free way. See David Hogg on CNN, for example.

                    It’s not much different in what you’re talking about. The liberal media uses it much more obviously, which is why I say it’s certainly worse. But the conservative media is also using the kids, using them and the shooting as the reason we need more guns and guns in schools. That’s why I say they’re a background prop, used to push their agenda. The liberal is just doing it much worse. Of course, almost all the kids are calling for gun control, so it’s not surprising the lone kid who says otherwise would be the only one promoted on a conservative media site.

                    On a side note. Do kids have any moral authority to call for gun control? Does moral authority only happen when one turns 18? They are citizens (well…most of them).

                    >> Other persons post attached in your response>>“Some of our policymakers and some people need to – they need to look in the mirror and take some action because ideas are great but without action, ideas stay ideas and children die,” Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School senior David Hogg told CNN’s “New Day.”

                    “I want to show these people exactly what’s going on when these children are facing bullets flying through classrooms and students are dying trying to get an education. That’s not OK, and that’s not acceptable and we need to fix that.”

                    -Pure hyperbole and Something Must Be Done-ism by a person unqualified to speak on the subject. All the facts aren’t even in yet, but Hogg has the SMBD solution — except he doesn’t anymore than anyone else does. But this gets parroted by every left-leaning news outlet out there, including the NY Times, Esquire, Washington Post, the lot of them.
                    From the mouths of children, we get… exactly what we should expect. This is CNN.

                    I know this was in response to someone else you added in. But I don’t get the answer. I think saying “something must be done” is a valid response. Because it’s clear the “nothing changing” response is not helping the situation at this point. WHAT should be done, and is it worth it, is still the question on it. And what makes a person “qualified” to speak on the subject, or are you just referencing the fact that not all facts aren’t in on the subject. (Which is a valid point). Though that person did not actually say what they think should be done. Just that the current status quo of civilians being shot in mass shootings is not OK.

                • Chris

                  I think the liberal handling of it is worse, that’s for sure.

                  Wayne Allen Root, the head of the NRA, just tweeted to the president that we need to consider armed drones around schools. This isn’t a fringe figure–this is the head of the NRA, and he recently hung out with the president. The president himself used the killing of 17 kids to make it about himself and blame the FBI, by making the absurd argument that the counter-intelligence division investigating a hostile foreign power’s attacks on our country (and possible connections to his campaign) somehow inhibited the crime division from investigating the shooter. Gateway Pundit is attacking the survivors and their parents.

                  I’ll grant that the liberals who are straight-up calling for the repeal of the second amendment to the Bill of Rights are pretty bad, but the majority of the gun-control crowd are genuinely concerned about the lives of kids and trying to balance that with a respect for individual rights. I’ve come to believe that most on the right are also concerned with the rights of individuals and don’t want them to be taken away because of fear tactics. But let’s not pretend that both sides don’t have significant segments that are politicizing this tragedy for their own ends.

                  • Yes, but. False equivalency. The anti-gun shooting exploiters were out of the box before the bodies were cold. No Republicans are saying Democrats have blood on their hands, or accusing them of accepting bribes so maniac can keep killing children. Trump’s in his own world: his agenda is to troll all of those who argued that the FBI could do no wrong as the text messages between the FBI love birds raised legitimate questions about anti-Trump bias in the Mueller probe. (No, Trump was not seriously suggesting that the botch on the school shooter was related to the Russian investigation. His objective is to undermine their credibility, and the agency is making it easy for him. It’s still an irresponsible tweet.)

                    The gun nut argument that the best way to stop maniac shootings is to have everyone armed like in the Old West is embarrassing and simple-minded, an effort to make a constructive suggestion that does nothing but convince moderates that they are batshit insane.

            • Steve-O-in-NJ

              She can rant all she likes – to me, at home, where no one will see her acting like she’s lost her mind. She is not going to be allowed to write it down for the entire world to see. My father would have smacked and did smack me pretty hard for cursing openly in public, and the Scout leaders didn’t hesitate to strike us if they caught us using foul language. If write that stuff you must, write it in your journal where the world doesn’t see it. You don’t curse out your parents, you don’t curse out your teacher, and you don’t publicly curse out the president.

        • Zanshin

          The winners create history. So, depending on who ‘wins’, she is a deplorable ranter or a proud vanguard of the resistance.

      • Jack Houghton

        Red Guards, Cultural Revolution!!! Give little kids the power and the weapons and great things will happen. What could possibly go wrong?

    • Matthew B

      Why didn’t Obama ever get one of those?

      The Democrats had the oval office, the House and the Senate from 2008 to 2010. They could have passed any law they chose at that time. They didn’t.

      They just drove the fear that they might while doing absolutely nothing. That made Obama the best gun slaesman the world has ever seen.

      • Steve-O-in-NJ

        Because they knew they wouldn’t hold onto them for very long if they actually picked that fight then and there. The fact is that the Democratic Party doesn’t give a damn about public safety, or kids, or much else. Neither party does. Both parties give a very big damn about getting elected and staying in power. The Democrats know full well that they can gin up a lot of votes from the suburban parents and teachers by preaching fear and “common sense gun control.” They also know full well that if they take concrete steps toward significant weakening of the Second Amendment or anything that smells even a little like confiscation, they will stir up a whole lot more votes and money from the other side, and there are only about half a dozen states where they could still buck that without serious political consequences. They want a blue wave this year, and they are hoping this will help propel that blue wave. However, they might just as easily hand the other side a big red brick to put in the dam against it.

    • ”I wouldn’t post a video of me putting a bullet through it like that one guy from Texas did.”

      Of course you wouldn’t, especially when there are FAR more civilized ways available: wiping it clean, like with a cloth….

    • luckyesteeyoreman

      Aww, SHIT! Nikolas Cruz MISSED her! Well, maybe next time…

      • Really luckyesteeyoreman, you had to go there?

      • DaveL

        You’d wish death on an innocent teenager for holding and expressing foolish political beliefs?

      • Steve-O-in-NJ

        Aaaaaaall right then…

      • Chris

        Signature significance. I’ve said before that you are a profoundly, disgustingly unethical person. Thanks for proving it to everyone else.

        • Steve-O-in-NJ

          Chris, with respect, shut up unless you have something to add to this discussion. Don’t go back down that road of throwing insults and just plain invective.

          • Chris

            I suspected that you’d respond with more anger to my condemnation of lucky’s wish for a child to be murdered than to lucky’s actual wish for a child to be murdered.

            I just hoped I was wrong.

            • Steve-O-in-NJ

              And I hoped you might actually keep your one cent’s worth out of this discussion and not take the bait, which had already been roundly condemned by more like-minded folks. I guess I was wrong.

            • Steve-O-in-NJ

              P.S. You didn’t condemn what he said. You condemned him personally. You upped the ante.

              • Chris

                Do you not know what “signature significance” means? Do you disagree that this is an example of it?

                • Signature significance kicks in when you have a SMALL sample group to draw from and the sample you are evaluating are all important characteristics of an individual. It would be like Johnny Bridge Builder has ONLY built 2 bridges and ONE collapses…that is signature significance that he is an awful bridge builder and that his next 100 bridges won’t fair much better…because we would assume a self-styled bridge builder would do far far better than 50%. If Johnny Bridge Builder has built 10,000 bridges and ONE collapses…that is not signature significance.

                  Well, Lucky Sarcasm Maker has 10,000 sarcastic jokes and like 1 miff.

                  • (And yes, the bridge builder analogy is flawed in that Bridges are far far more serious endeavors than sarcastic jokes, so that, probably in real life, a single collapsed bridge out of 10,000 is still serious for a bridge builder…but the analogy points clearly to why, as sarcastic jokes really aren’t that important, this is NOT signature significance)

          • I see Chris’ comment as wound-licking. He’s had a very bad go of it in several Trump-derangement discussions on other posts. I don’t think it’s fair, but I can understand his quickness to pile on luckyest in the rare instance that he miffed a joke.

      • Lucky is a good and thoughtful man who often engages in sarcasm and satire, a dangerous pursuit, even for one as skilled in it as he. In this case, he miscalculated, as do we all. I assume he will eventually concede this.Stephen King recently tweeted about the train wreck that killed a man while carrying GOP Congress members to a conference: “A trainload of Republicans on their way to a pricey retreat hit a garbage truck. My friend Russ calls that karma.” DC shock jock Doug Tracht, aka “The Greaseman” twice made tasteless jokes about killings, and worse, they had a nasty racial tinge that got him fired and ruined. The first, and most famous, was during the decision to make Martin Luther King Day a national holiday. He said, “Shoot six more, and we can have a whole week off!”

        Such comments are not, and should not be treated as signature significance when they are uttered in haste or off the cuff, like radio jocks, improv comics, tweeters and web commenters. It’s too easy to slip, and it can happen to anyone.

        • Steve-O-in-NJ

          Let’s not forget the time Howard Stern played Selina’s music accompanied by gunfire right after her murder. I have to disagree that saying things like that is usually a slip or an attempt at humor that falls flat. When people are angry, stressed, emotionally aroused, or under the influence of alcohol or something else, they tend to be a bit more frank. There’s a reason to say that when the liquor is in the truth is out. I would take it a step further and say in ira est veritas. This is a stressful and angering discussion, and it should come as no surprise that people’s filters switch off and their masks of civility slide out of place. Stephen King knew damn well what he was writing, but it sounded good and the moment was hot, so he wrote it, thinking of all the likes and reposts he would get. Doug Tracht was a racist pig, he just stepped over the line from plausible deniability. More than a few of us have stepped over the line when discussions here have gotten ugly, and there’s no doubt in my mind that when we do that we mean exactly what we say.

        • luckyesteeyoreman

          Second try…

          “Aww, SHIT! Nikolas Cruz MISSED her! Well, maybe next time…”

          Those were my growls, through my fangs, during a particularly intensely Pissed-Off Monday Morning.
          I am not “feeeeeeeling” contrite quite yet, and maybe never will be.

          I’ve continued pissed-off all day. For that – not helped by the latest shit-dumps by the mind-fucking Marxist media on Trump, the NRA, Republicans, and anyone “outside centralized government channels” who dares to own and use a gun – I blame CNN, for showing last night, hours-on-end, an ostensible biography of Patty Hearst – her younger times among some Marxist revolutionaries. Perhaps I should blame Vietnam, too, or prison, or both…

          I’m pissed-off in part because I dared myself (tortured myself) to take in CNN’s saga-izing of the holy and revered S.L.A. – that stood for the Symbionese Liberation Army, but I still call them the Shithead Lackeys for Anarchy: the terrorist ideological cult-cell (and abductors of Hearst) of mostly women, who – for ONLY peaceful purposes, of course, and purely out of their flower-power free luv for The Peeple, of course – had PIPE BOMBS (I.E.D.s!) and truly, no-shit, AUTOMATIC rifles THAT THEY POINTED AT AND FIRED AT innocent persons…those altruistic-as-angels, petite, gentle giants of superior thought and culture, who were “murdered” by “pigs” (so the story was told) after police surrounded them in their hideout. The truth is, the damned fools brought their violent deaths on themselves. They got what they deserved.

          That May ’74 cleansing of a neighborhood by the L.A.P.D. – close by where I enjoyed some of my mostly care-free, mostly Lucky teen years – was a seminal moment that turned me against Marxism, and for law and order [as it was at that time], at the perfect time, in the perfect way. Yeah: the SLA’s bullshit “radicalized” ME – AGAINST them and their ilk.

          Observing the SLA, from their first publicity, to Patty’s “communiques,” to their “involuntary battlefield ‘expropriation’ [of most of their ‘troops’] from their self-bondage,” never before had I been shown so clearly, so unforgettably, how easily and tragically just a few self-absorbed, self-isolated, self-righteous little assholes could, with sufficient focus on the hated alien externalities of their own pathetic existence, transform themselves into a little mobile hell-on-earth Marxist Mickey Mouse Club traveling shit-circus for the terrorization of a larger general public – all the while, claiming, “But we’re on YOUR side, Peeple! We LUV you! We do this for YOUR emancipation!” Uhhhhh-huh. Juuuuuuuust like ISIS.

          Never before was Marxist bullshit more naked to me, more audacious in its hypocrisy, than that of the SLA. My last straw was their mind-fucked Berkeleyan wannabe terminology-flipping – the “murder” and “pig” terms, flipped in their meanings at the Marxists’ convenience, and applied to Marxism’s enemies, when in truth they apply most accurately and unarguably to the Marxists themselves and their actions. Today’s leading leftists in this was-country continue that very same bullshit, just with different terms; their aims and means are DEJA VU SLA Marxism. Nation of Assholes? Houston, we HAVE one.

          Make no mistake: the extreme leftist, Marxist forces of today carry on the militant revolutionary ways of the SLA. Some forces remain concentrated in places like Berkeley. But their numbers are quite larger today, and with “bases” from coast to coast. They have much better connection with the levers of power in governments today, too. It can even be said that today’s Marxist militants have their own “DoD” entrenched in the “Deep States” within state and federal governments. You think the NRA and its members are dangerous? Figure it out: middle North American society isn’t evolving leftward; it’s being FORCED in that direction. It must be FORCED BACK, else unprecedented poverties, sufferings, destruction and tyranny WILL be pandemic.

          So. It was in that frame of mind that I decided, via my comment earlier today, to reflect back into “the Intercloud” the venom, the hate, the blind and hypocritical and counter-productive partisanship, of “Sarah” and her ilk. What I wrote – what you read – was a reflection, as from a mirror, of not only HER bullshit, but the bullshit of the generals and front-line ranks of a burgeoning army that frankly, MUST BE ANNIHILATED by ways of WAR. I saw immediately in “Sarah,” via her tweet, a glimpse of a future, perhaps aspiring and even ambitious, shit-clone of those SLA assholes. I vowed a long time ago, that if I ever personally encountered toxicity-personified-in-a-living-human like that, I would not hesitate to confront it, and I would not rest until I destroyed it. That toxicity cannot and will not be “re-educated” out of its carrier. The CARRIER must be DESTROYED.

          Still saying “Wow,” La Sylphide? Want more? I got plenty.

          Everyone: It’s your was-country, too. Ignore my words at your peril.

      • I could paper The Sistine Chapel, and have enough left over for the Rose Bowl, with the times I’ve gone a little too far for laugh.

        Mercifully, none of those myriad attempts have come to define me….as far as I know.

        Play on.

    • This also shows the dishonesty and invincible ignorance of the anti-gun cult.

      We have the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1968 Gun Control Act. But these anti-gun cultists acknowledge the existence of those acts the same way Holocaust deniers acknowledge the existence of the Wannsee Conference.

      Think of all the black men, not even accused of hurting anyone, who went to prison for violating these laws. And we took away their freedom to achieve what?

      Nothing.

      Absolutely nothing.

  7. bexhrob

    I am ready to get rid of the 2nd. But that’s because I am just done with the dying of people w go don’t have a dog in the fight until they’re, yannow, dead. But I don’t want to abolish other parts of the Constitution. I think you agree I’m pretty reasonable. Do I actually think we will abolish it? No. But I don’t think there’s enough support in Congress to do some common sense changes to federal gun laws, either. There’s support in the *country*, but not lawmakers.

    • DaveL

      Wait, why do you think abolishing a constitutional right will do anything about the violence?

      First of all, as the article quoted in the OP suggests, any attempt to do so would likely lead to civil war. That would make every mass shooting of the past 30 years look like a nosebleed.

      Second, ask yourself who’s going to enforce this new ban? That wouldn’t happen to be the very same people being now accused of apathy and inaction when it comes to protecting the public, would it? You can expect them to continue to display the same apathy towards your safety and the enforcement of our laws as they did before, except now you’ll be relying on them exclusively, having demanded they abrogate your right to defend yourself.

      And if you don’t like that, well, you can always start a hashtag campaign. If they allow it. Or vote them out, if they keep allowing that. Which is, of course, entirely dependent on their devotion to democratic principles and the rule of law, and who could doubt that?

      • “First of all, as the article quoted in the OP suggests, any attempt to do so would likely lead to civil war. That would make every mass shooting of the past 30 years look like a nosebleed.”

        This is a weak argument against repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Whether or not making something illegal will lead to more bloodshed in the enforcement of the law is immaterial…because at that point the fault of the bloodshed lies with the lawbreakers, not the law enforcers. This is a 2nd cousin of the “Don’t make fun of Mohammad because Muslims will start murdering people” principle.

        This is a 1st cousin of the war on drugs argument: enforcement is too costly. And also, I’m sure, someone may have argued that a federal law banning slavery in the 1850s might lead to massive bloodshed in its enforcement…now we never got to see if that would have occurred, but I think we got a notion that it would have occurred.

        I think we consider it a valid consideration because we intrinsically know it is wrong to abolish the 2nd Amendment, and therefore blood shed enforcing wrong law is *extra* bad.

        But it’s a weak argument, I think. There are much much more solid grounds to defend the 2nd Amendment on than that.

        • But I don’t think Cooke is using that as an argument not to repeal the Second. The whole article says, “Go ahead, but don’t kid yourself.” If it’s the right thing to do, then opposition shouldn’t be determinative, but in the end this is a utilitarian problem, and balancing requires all the weights.

      • The best meme so far that I’ve seen floating the internet essentially boils down to this: “So you accuse Trump of being a fascist…now you want Trump to disarm the People…hm…”

    • I don’t think there is informed support in the country, Bex.

    • Glenn Logan

      Let’s get rid of the first amendment as well; You know, hate speech and all that. Surely the government knows best. Religion? You mean that stuff they mock on The View? Lose it – nothing but superstition anyway. The press works for the government, and is free to print what their masters tell them, which is what’s important, right?

      The third amendment is an anachronism. We can trust the government not to put troops in our houses, surely. Let’s get rid of that as well.

      How about the fourth – we don’t need that, we have nothing to hide if we’re doing it right, n’est ce pas? It’s just a way to get criminals off on a “technicality.”

      Fifth? Another anachronism. Everyone knows a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich with a competent prosecutor, and they have no authority to do anything without one. If we need to know the against us, the government will tell us when their ready. Confronting our accuser? How is that justice, making the poor victim have to stand up to some blood-sucking attorney’s cross after being injured so badly? The colleges have that all figured out, and our legal system needs to follow. Self-incrimination? Hey, if you did the crime, do the time, and tell the truth. I say we’re okay without that one, too.

      Seventh? Anachronism. Twenty dollars to get in front of a federal judge? And who wants to serve on a jury, anyway. Let the judge decide. Remove.

      Excessive bail, schmail. Only bad people are ever really charged, and they don’t deserve bail, anyway. Lose the eighth.

      The ninth is a joke. Not even the Supreme Court believes in that one. Delete.

      The tenth is just as bad as the second. State’s rights are why we have all these lax gun laws. Let the feds make the laws and the states obey them. Another strikeout.

      Looks to me like we can just get rid of the whole bill of rights, after all. We all trust the government, so why try to protect us from them? Old white men making old white laws for an antebellum time – Let’s modernize this sucker an put our faith in good ol’ Uncle Sam!

    • How will repealing the 2nd Amendment stop people from dying?

    • Can you tell me how amending the constitution to remove the 2nd Amendment will stop people from killing each other? Show me the road map.

    • I think at the end of the day, the gun-centric arguments of the Left, if they are genuinely interested in reducing violence in our society and not just taking an emotionally evocative route to disarm the citizens, is they only seem to focus on symptoms of the problem, and not the problem itself, which, increasingly, seems to be assimilation of the upward invasion of barbarians every society faces…that is raising its young to be well adjusted citizens.

      I don’t think fixing symptoms does us any good. I think attacking the disease is much more fruitful.

      • The disease is disrespect for law.

        People should fear the law. How do you think Singapore is such a safe society? Because the people there fear the law.

        In the continuity of Star Wars, the Galactic Empire had something called the Tarkin Doctrine, and its cornerstone was “rule through fear of force, rather than through force itself,”. It is time to adapt this.

        • No it isn’t. The disease is disregard for life, elevation of fame to unhealthy heights, glorification of the self in one’s own imagination, and incivility. The law exists to punish those whose disease has gotten so bad they act violently on it. The law comes after the disease.

    • That’s far too drastic for my tastes. I have posted a few posts on gun control. Some of it is just to have discussions on it and see people’s opinions and ideas, some because I’m not sure semi-auto weapons really belong in civilians hands. But there are certainly reasons for the 2nd amendment, and there are valid reasons for people to have some weapons.

      • dragin_dragon

        Steven, do you actually know what a semi-auto is? let me give you a break-down on what an auto-loader, or semi-auto actually does. Assume a bullet in the chamber…the trigger is pulled, the hammer drives the firing pin into the primer of the bullet, which sets off the powder, expelling the slug down the barrel. Either recoil or gas from the explosion operates the bolt, which extracts the spent cartridge as it slides back. When it reaches the limit of it’s travel, it starts forward, stripping a round from the clip or magazine and pushes a round into the firing chamber. Then, everything stops. In order to repeat this process, you MUST release, then pull the trigger yet again. This process will save maybe a half-second over a bolt action rifle. So why not in civilian hands? All this does is save a half-second. I can also assure you that An assault weapon works in quite the same way, though some have selector switches that will allow what we veterans call ‘rock-and-roll’, which is to say, full automatic fire. Remington makes a hunting rifle, called a GII, magazine capacity 4 rounds, with a 1 in 10 twist. AR-15’s have a 1 in 12 twist, making them SLIGHTLY more accurate. I have to admit, I do not understand your objection.

        • Apparently, the rates of fire of these mass shooters have reveal that it doesn’t matter that they had automatic weapons. They fire methodically and that a ban on automatic rifles won’t do anything to the rate of fire these shooters engage in.

          • I have become certain that 90% of the anti-gun activists misunderstand what a semi-automatic is. I think they are thinking of automatic weapons even when they say otherwise. They are thinking of machine guns from Jimmy Cagney movies, or Charley Sheen in “Hot Shots Part Deux.

            • Yes. Increasing rates of fire become justified when opposing forces have closed with each other and the final violence of action requires massive suppressing fires – in war or in home defense. Apparently, when shooters are facing unarmed targets, they take their time.

            • The anti-gun cult being ignorant of firearms?

              That is like the Holocaust denial cult being ignorant of German history and WWII history…

        • I have a 1 in 9 twist, which allows me to shoot both smaller and larger bullet sizes.

          I have killed many deer with my M4gery, at ranges up to 120 yards. I have decided to go back to a .30 caliber since most shots lately are at twice that range.

  8. dragin_dragon

    Just idle curiosity…has anybody but me noticed that the information needed for a thorough background check would make stealing your identity a slam-dunk?

    • I think we cannot have background checks that will prevent 100% of nefarious actors from purchasing weapons without also having background checks that are wildly invasive of the private lives of good citizens. I think this means we have to be comfortable with a certain percentage of nefarious actors getting their hands on weapons. What percentage this is is up for debate.

      • I propose we allow 1 in 5 as a percentage of nefarious actors getting their hands on weapons.

        But we have to identify every such person so as to accurately maintain our percentage, so until that time we will have to muddle through with what we have.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.