This is topic from the Washington Examiner in forum Politics forum at The New Huntmastersbbs!.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://www.huntmastersbbs.com/cgi-bin/cgi-ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=001066
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on August 28, 2015, 05:46 AM:
Gun control is a dead issue
By WASHINGTON EXAMINER • 8/28/15 12:01 AM
Virginia Shooting Sparks Renewed Calls For Gun Control But Old Obstacles Remain
A tourist, lost in the Irish countryside, once asked a local farmer how to get to Dublin.
The grizzled old man's reply: "I wouldn't start from here, if I were you."
Irish pessimism aside, we recount this tale to make a point. One cannot set abstract goals without considering the real-world starting point from which they must be reached.
This is the problem for the many dreamers who, seeing Wednesday's on-air slaying of two journalists by a disgruntled colleague, look cross the Atlantic today. They ask aloud why America cannot enjoy the astoundingly low rates of gun violence that exist in Western European countries, where guns are less widely available.
They are wrong in more than one way — for example, those European rates are not directly comparable to American ones, and not quite as low as they think. But their most important error is their failure to consider the starting point from which they would have to reach the utopia they imagine.
There are nearly 300 million privately owned firearms in the United States today. This fact, all on its own — without considering any constitutional or political obstacles — means that the ship sailed on gun control long ago, never to return.
No gun control measure short of universal confiscation would do anything to curb shootings in this lifetime. And the prospect of rounding up 300 million guns from some 60 million households makes the deportation of 11 million illegal immigrants seem like a simple matter of arranging a field trip.
The gun-control proposals made in the real world are all proven failures whose only result is to hassle innocent people who would never shoot anyone. Yet these proposals are recycled over and over again as silver-bullets for curbing gun violence. It is telling that the first target after each mass shooting is the so-called "assault rifle," even though all rifles — "assault" and otherwise — account for fewer than 300 shootings in the U.S. annually.
Background checks — the reform of which seems more reasonable — already cover nearly all gun transactions, one bad piece of data to the contrary notwithstanding. Moreover, shootings happen even when background checks work. A background check prevented the Sandy Hook shooter from buying guns, so he stole them instead. And in this week's shooting, the perpetrator, Vester Flanagan, had nothing on his record to stop a gun purchase.
Gun-control advocates have been losing the political and cultural battle over this issue, but they still cannot accept that their cause is a waste of time and money. In the real world, the spot where their agenda is dead and buried is the starting point for the discussion of preventing mass shootings.
If Americans seek practical ways of reducing the likelihood of future Flanagans and Adam Lanzas and even common shooters on street corners, they can make much more productive use of their time and money. They can work to reform the way America deals with drug addiction (the root cause of many, many murders). They can advocate for reforms so that American prisons stop serving as the nation's Crime University system, from which low level offenders graduate with advanced degrees.
More immediately, and much more easily, they can discourage politicians and left-leaning media outlets from the sort of irresponsible racial grievance-mongering that Flanagan used to justify his killing spree in the hours before his death — just as he had justified his litigious and incompetent career. Their propaganda, though protected by the First Amendment, is dangerous in the wrong hands.
An America with new ideas about justice, more racial healing and less irresponsible political opportunism may seem like a dream. But it is not nearly as distant a dream as an America without guns. The sooner gun-control advocates recognize this, the sooner they will be working for something worthwhile.
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on August 28, 2015, 07:59 AM:
by CHARLES C. W. COOKE August 27, 2015 3:30 PM
Talk is cheap, but persuading Americans to surrender their rights will be expensive, difficult, and time-consuming. A few hours after yesterday’s shooting hit the news, the comedian Rob Delaney penned this tweet: The @NRA & the politicians they own must not know this T. Jefferson quote. The 2nd Amendment is a FUCKING BOY’S COAT.
I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
We should be absolutely clear about what Delaney is arguing here: He is a) agreeing with Jefferson that “laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind,” b) contending that “progress” suggests that the individual right to keep and bear arms is now counterproductive, and c) concluding that it is time therefore to make a “change in law and constitution” — in other words, to repeal the Second Amendment.
This, it is true, is not a mainstream position on the American Left — at least, it is not one that is argued openly. But it is a reasonably popular one on social media, it has strong support within the more leftward-leaning parts of the political commentariat, it is often implied by the casual manner in which progressives such as President Obama refer to “Australia” and other heavily regulated nations, and it enjoys indirect approval from around one quarter of the American public.
When the likes of Rob Delaney and Bill Maher and Keith Ellison say that we need to get rid of the Second Amendment, they are not speaking in a vacuum but reflecting the views of a small but vocal portion of the American population. And they mean it. That being so, here’s the million-dollar question: 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. Don’t play cheap motte-and-bailey games. 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. GET FREE EXCLUSIVE NR CONTENT And don’t stop there. No, no. There’ll still be a lot of work to be done.
As anybody with a passing understanding of America’s constitutional system knows, repealing the Second Amendment won’t in and of itself lead to the end of gun ownership in America. Rather, it will merely free up the federal government to regulate the area, should it wish to do so. Next, you’ll need to craft the laws that bring about change — think of them as modern Volstead Acts — and you’ll need to get them past the opposition.
And, if the federal government doesn’t immediately go the whole hog, you’ll need to replicate your efforts in the states, too, 45 of which have their own constitutional protections. Maybe New Jersey and California will go quietly. Maybe. But Idaho won’t. Louisiana won’t. Kentucky won’t. Maine won’t. You’ll need to persuade those sovereignties not to sue and drag their heels, but to do what’s right as defined by you.
Unfortunately, that won’t involve vague talk of holding “national conversations” and “doing something” and “fighting back against the NRA.” It’ll mean going to all sorts of groups — unions, churches, PTAs, political meetings, bowling leagues — and telling them not that you want “common-sense reforms,” but that you want their guns, as in Australia or Britain or Japan.
Obviously, the Republicans aren’t going to help in this, so you’ll need to commandeer the Democratic party to do it. That means you’ll need their presidential candidates on board. That means you’ll need to make full abolition the stated policy of the Senate and House caucuses. That means you’ll need the state parties to sign pledges promising not to back away if it gets tough. And if they won’t, you’ll need to start a third party and accept all that that entails.
And when you’ve done all that and your vision is inked onto parchment, you’ll need to enforce it. No, not in the namby-pamby, eh-we-don’t-really-want-to-fund-it way that Prohibition was enforced. I mean enforce it — with force. When Australia took its decision to Do Something, the Australian citizenry owned between 2 and 3 million guns. Despite the compliance of the people and the lack of an entrenched gun culture, the government got maybe three-quarters of a million of them — somewhere between a fifth and a third of the total.
That wouldn’t be good enough here, of course. There are around 350 million privately owned guns in America, which means that if you picked up one in three, you’d only be returning the stock to where it was in 1994. Does that sound difficult? Sure! After all, this is a country of 330 million people spread out across 3.8 million square miles, and if we know one thing about the American people, it’s that they do not go quietly into the night.
But the government has to have their guns. It has to. The Second Amendment has to go.
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. It has to be done: For the children; for America; for the future. Hey hey, ho ho, the Second Amendment has to go. Let’s do this thing.
When do you get started?
Posted by booger (Member # 3602) on August 28, 2015, 01:05 PM:
Geraldo Rivera, that weasel, even said on Fox and Friends this morning that the 2nd Amendment was silly.
Molon Labe...
Posted by Prune Picker (Member # 4107) on August 28, 2015, 01:41 PM:
I was just watching "The 5" on Fox News , geriwaldo was spewing the same shit there and became irate when Sheriff Clark , from Milwaukee Wisconsin suggested that pezahdent ohbamama should refuse Secret Service security "if he was serious about banning all guns". After geriwaldo went ballistic (again), Greg Gutfeld called rivera a liar.
If ya'll have DVR service I suggest recording the late night rerun! Piss on the donald, Greg Gutfeld For President.
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on August 29, 2015, 06:08 AM:
Geraldo is a total asshole. He rants on guns and abortion and every liberal position there is. He's a true believer, for sure.
I mean, I knew he was a liberal a long time ago, but lately, he has started pissing me off for the forcefulness of his beliefs. Truly, a mental illness.
No more Bob Beckel, and Juan is okay, the freaky chick scares me, but Geraldo does not contribute in a meaningful way.
Good hunting. El Bee
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on August 29, 2015, 09:52 AM:
from yesterday, a completely "rational" Geraldo frets.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4451036385001/former-dem-blasts-minimum-wage-debate-in-facebook-video/?playlist_id=trending#sp=show-clips
Posted by Paul Melching (Member # 885) on August 30, 2015, 03:25 AM:
I remember Geraldo back when he was Jerry Rivers before ethnic was chic. He's still an asshole. He has a Puerto Rican father and a Jewish mother and is not Spanish at all. He was never really publicly known as Jerry or Gerry as he changed his name prior to his public career. Oh and did I mention he's still an asshole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraldo_Rivera
[ August 30, 2015, 03:44 AM: Message edited by: Paul Melching ]
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on August 30, 2015, 06:26 AM:
That link didn't say anything about Geraldo being an asshole? Wonder how they missed it?
UBB.classicTM
6.3.0