I mentioned this a bit in an earlier post, but that was more a case of the typical “Blame The Gun” duckspeak, often coming from people who are they themselves protected by either carrying a gun themselves or having armed security protecting them. But, now the gun banners are starting to chime in at full throat, starting with the always unhinged Salon, as written by Heather Digby Parton
Nobody needs an AR-15: The Orlando massacre teaches us (again) that we must ban semi-automatic human killing machines
Do it now: Congress must ban military-style weapons and make it harder for terrorists to act on their hate
The headline and subhead say it all. Of course, they are already banned. Private ownership of any automatic weapon is, for all intense purposes, banned. The article also mentions this
It’s time for Congress to finally act on gun violence & ban military-style weapons, limit clip size & require background checks on all sales
— Senator Bob Casey (@SenBobCasey) June 12, 2016
Background checks are required for most sales. What Casey is implying is that all scary looking weapons be banned. Even though the previous assault weapons ban did not work. And I love when people chime in who are too incompetent to use the correct terminology.
And then there was Bernie Sanders, calling for a ban on automatic weapons. Glad a major presidential candidate has such great knowledge.
Hillary wants to reinstate the “assault weapons ban”. Funny how Democrats didn’t do this when they had full control of the House, Senate, and White House in 2009, with the GOP unable to stop them at all.
The Hartford Courant is likewise calling for a ban on assault weapons
But we must set aside, for this moment, the temptation to focus on the abhorrent zeal that apparently drove Omar Mateen to murder on Sunday. This conversation could just as easily be about the delusions of Adam Lanza, who killed 20 children and six women at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012.
Illness, prejudice and ignorance will always be with us. But the guns don’t have to be.
This is where it gets odious. The blame is place on the guns, rather than the idiology of those using them for mass murder.
There is no excuse for allowing madmen access to assault weapons. Military-spec weapons have no business being in the hands of anybody other than the military. The Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to the technology of mass murder.
Last time I checked, murder was illegal, but people still do it. Furthermore, if you’re saying civilians should not have access to military spec weapons (they generally don’t), then this would restrict citizens from having certain knives and handguns. It would restrict citizens to pretty much a .22 caliber, as the military makes big use of 9mm weapons. It would mean hunters would not be allowed to have rifles that could actually take game down. The military uses shotguns, so they would be banned.
Oh, and the Second Amendment does say that the right “shall not be infringed”.
The Boston Globe picks up the insanity even more
Prayers aren’t enough. The US needs fewer guns.
…
It makes no more sense to blame Islam for the Orlando shooting than it would to blame mental illness for the Sandy Hook massacre. The common thread and decisive factor in those and so many other mass shootings was the availability of powerful semiautomatic weapons that serve no purpose but to kill. It’s not likely the nation will ever be free of malcontents, whether they’re homophobic religious zealots or unstable nuts. But it could be free from the guns that enable them to do so much harm, so easily.
See? It’s the gun, not the disciple of a segment of extremist Islam. So, ban the gun!
Tell you what: let’s ban all guns. And I mean all guns. No waivers for certain people. Not for politicians, including the president and his protection. Not for celebrities and sports figures. No excuses allowed. What you’ll be left with are bad people who get them. Banning alcohol worked well, right? No one in the United States drank, right?
And, we have to ask, who does this hurt the most? Women, who like the lightweight weapons, handguns and “assault weapons”, for protection. They are a great equalizer. Liberals would prefer they have rape whistles, though.
Expect more ban calls from liberals.
Hillary 2016!
More muzzies, Less guns.
Hey Bob careful for what you wish , it may come true. You unknowingly attack the very foundation of the US. The same document the reinforces my inalienable right to self defense is also the same document that limits your mandate to govern and tax. There is a mountain of difference in ruling people and leading people. Here in America we elect leaders not rulers. The first has supporters the latter has subjects. You can choose your road to hell as you please, I am not bound to follow. You see sir it is a package deal we all get to enjoy our rights or you do not have your precious mandate to lead. It really is that simple and we are the ones that get to decide individually when the time comes.
You know you are dealing with a bunch of idiots when they can’t get the terminology correct.
Yes Teach murder us illegal and people still do it
But
Fewer people do kill precisely because it is illegal and they face punishment if they are caught
Trying to defend the right of ANYONE being able to easily purchase any weapon capable of killing so many people so easily is a futile endeavor
The Constitution of the USA is not a suivide pact all Amendments have some restriction built into them
The 2nd should also
The original intention of the Founfing Fathers was not to have the People have access to weapons so lethal as are now readily available
And no Teach even though forks are also used by the military they woukd not be banned
That whole line was a very weak straw man argument
Why don’t you tell us what arms should be banned from the public
John wrote:
Really? Just where, in the First Amendment, do you see “some restriction built in” in “Congress shall make no law?” Where, in the Second Amendment, do you see the built in restriction in “shall not be infringed?”
When the First Congress was writing the proposed Amendments, James Madison took some guidance from Bills of Rights in some state constitutions, but where the state constitutions tended to say “should not” or “ought not,” words which left some wiggle room, Mr Madison used the absolute term, “shall not.”
The courts have interpreted those amendments wrongly, and allowed the government to restrict them, but such was never built into the amendments, nor was such intended by the First Congress.
“The Constitution of the USA is not a suivide pact all Amendments have some restriction built into them”. I’m glad you pointed that out John. Let’s start with the “built in restriction” to freedom of religion and non-discrimination and throw out all the moslems. Then we can talk exactly about what type of arms we need.
You state: “The original intention of the Founfing Fathers was not to have the People have access to weapons so lethal as are now readily available”. Really, John? And just how the hell would the Founding Fathers have known what weapons we would be able to access? Crystal Ball perhaps? The Second Amendment was written to give the people the ability to defend the country as militia and defend against a tyrannical government if necessary. So their intentions had to be that the citizen be as well armed as needed to accomplish those two duties.
well certainly according to John’s methodology the banning of Alcohol, tobacco and firearms is a MUST…As each of these ITEMS LIKE THE >>>>GUN<<<<
AIDS is killing people right and left……OPPPS better blame aids and ban the activity that does the most damage…..SEX and DRUGS…..
WHY MAKE IT EASY TO SPREAD AIDS? OR TO DRIVE DRUNK….or to SMOKE POT and become Obese….after all this is against Michelle Obama’s mantra of fat kids go home.
NOW there……we’ve eliminated some killers….But what of Abortion….IT KILLS TENS OF THOUSANDS PER YEAR….It is abortion and SEX that causes this…..ban them both.
Were making headway……Now let us think what else causes massive deaths in the world.
Why that would be CANCER….cancer is the cause not ones actions….so ban a persons ability and CHOICE to partake of an action that could lead to Cancer as in smoking working in hazardous jobs such as firefighting, asbestos removal, chewing tobacco etc…etc…etc.
This is the slippery slope the anti gun anti global warming crowd always want to descend….they blame and thing and then head straight for the activity and cannot wait to BAN THE ACTIVITY that causes the thing.
Their entire political foundation is based upon a slippery slope thesis and if they do not carefully fight for every nuance of their agenda then they are liable to find themselves at the bottom in a dung hole of putrid lies.
Oh make no mistake the right is no different but we are talking about GUNS now so this rant is based upon the lefts idiocy.
Hoagie wrote:
I’d point out here that the Framers knew about cannons, but they didn’t write the Second Amendment to ban personal ownership of a cannon.
Is it wise to restrict assault weapons, the guns of choice for mass murderers these days? Ammosexuals will counter that assault weapon regulations won’t work, but restrictions on automatic weapons sure keep terrorists in the US from using them. And why aren’t terrorist shooting down commercial airliners willy-nilly?
Assault weapons are easy to handle in combat, have interchangeable magazines, flash suppressors, are semi-automatic and fire rounds more powerful than a handgun but less than a typical game rifle. They’re just right for killing larger numbers of people in a short amount of time!
They will protect you from other guys who have assault weapons!
Restrictions on assault weapons are a reasonable discussion to have.
We infringe the right every day. We regulate automatic weapons, hand grenades, rocket launchers, sawed off shotguns, land mines, concealed weapons, etc
Dana,
So you disagree with Mr. puppies’ contention that the Federal government should punish US Muslims for saying nice things about ISIS?
That’s a stretch there, little guy.
Who’s making up shit now?
The problem with banning a specific class of weapon is that is does nothing about the root cause of the problem and only harms those who are innocent of crime. Time and again the US has reacted to a concern by banning something, alcohol, drugs, weapons. The end result is that it does nothing to correct the problem and yet the politicians come away thinking they have done something great. The ban usually results in harm to the community. Take alcohol, totally stupid, resulted in more crime and did nothing to solve the problem of alcohol abuse. Same for bans on drugs, which only results in the suffering of people who need the drugs. As to assault weapons, who knows what effect that would have on law abiding citizens. So, The restrictions on weapons is clearly not reasonable. Now, targeting Muslims and restricting their freedoms would be the best thing to do, making it against the law for Muslims to have guns of any kind would be reasonable. In other words target and profile those of the religion that has been causing death and misery for over 50 years.
Jeffrey wrote:
Mr Puppies did not say that, but if he had said that, yes, I would disagree: you can say any stupid thing you wish.
Now, if someone happens to say, “I love Da’ish, and I want to kill infidels,” then the FBI has probable cause to surveil him.
So you do agree that limits to the 1st Amendment do exist.
dave,
The US Supreme Court agreed to regulate saw-offed shotguns. A very specific ban.
Automatic fire weapons (machine guns) are strictly regulated. Also very specific.
We already regulate all sorts of weapons and firearms.
Discussing whether or not to more strictly regulate assault weapons or high capacity magazines is not out of line.
dave typed:
Of course you typed that in jest, as it is obviously contrary to the US Constitution. Or is it?
You are correct, Dana.
The little guy forgets anything past his last post.
And he posts a lot of dishonest shit but like all lying leftists he makes it easy for us to mock him and I find a certain amount of amusement in that.
Thanks again for your comments.
Is this “Jeffrey” guy a real person or is he a puppet for some nut who just likes to post at this site? I went down the postings and read some of his comments and he seems like he’s joking.
As usual Jeffery is trying to make the legal equivalent of apples and oranges.
Yes, we do regulate some weapons. The question should not be whether we should regulate more weapons, but rather why we have the regulations in place on some weapons now.
The ban on sawed off shotguns is one that Jeffery likes to use as the Supreme Court upheld a ban on that weapon. Yet the logic behind the ban is baffling to say the least. The SCOTUS ruled that the sawed off shotgun did not have “any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” That is odd because the US’s involvement in WWI included extensive use of sawed off shotguns in trench warfare. Prior to WWII, demand from the military for shotguns in general and sawed off shotguns swelled because of the type of fighting, including house to house. The sawed off shotgun was used by squads in the trenches and in house to house fighting. It is therefore hard to understand the 1939 Miller decision banning the sawed off shotgun as it was clearly being used by militia and Guard units.
Yet the argument whether an right is absolute or restricted is in the long run, a diversion. Even if one were to say that no right is absolute, the restrictions come into play when someone uses a right to harm others.
That means the statement “I love Da’ish, and I want to kill infidels,” in an academic setting or forum is legal as there is no “clear and imminent danger.” A guy with a knife rushing into a building saying the same thing is illegal because of the intent to harm someone.
Yet people like Jeffery, (who wrongly call certain civilian weapons “assault weapons”) want regulate and ban those weapons based not on the harm of what lawful gun owners do with their weapons, but what illegal acts criminals do with those “scary looking guns.”
If one were to take the logic that gun grabbers are using, we should outlaw cars because cars illegally used cause more deaths than homicides from guns.
Prescription drugs cause more deaths than the illegal use of a weapon, and yet you don’t hear the left calling for the ban on prescription drugs.
If the left were to be consistent in their arguments, they would be calling for bans of cars and drugs, but they are not. And despite the fact that only 2% of crimes are committed with a weapon similar to that used in Orlando, gun grabbers focus on those weapons not because they care about safety, but because they want people to not have any weapon to legally defend themselves with.
(And for the record Jeffery, an AR-15 or variant is a much better home defense weapon than your Remington 700.)
That is truly what this is all about – the left doesn’t want people to be able to defend themselves from crooks or the government.
It should also be noted that while the left makes the false argument that because we restrict rights on a limited basis, we should be able to restrict rights on a much larger basis (an idea that no court has ever held) Jeffery also argues that we restrict hand grenades, etc. What is surprising is that he didn’t say that we ban bombs and bomb making. To argue that would have blown up (no pun intended) his point because yesterday the shooter was wearing a suicide vest – a bomb.
Regulating bombs didn’t do a darn thing to stop the shooter from having a bomb and it sure as heck didn’t stop the making and use of bombs in Boston.
Somehow people on the left are shocked that criminals don’t care about laws. It didn’t matter to the shooter and the Boston bombers that bombs are illegal. They made them anyway.
It also escapes the notice of the left that while Paris and France have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world, that didn’t prevent the November 2015 massacre in Paris where terrorists killed 123 people using “illegal” weapons.
How did the ban on weapons help those murdered in Paris?
There is a lot of blood on the hands of gun grabbers in this world, and yet all they want to do is create more blood by grabbing more guns from being used legally.
Fixed that for you.
Except, it is not considered Free Speech. The roots of Free Speech are in political speech, the ability to criticize the Government and governmental figures without fear of reprisal, as had happened under the reign of the British monarchy, British governors, and British officials. Threatening people has never been considered free speech, just like slandering people, defamation, etc, are not political speech nor free.
That said, to do more than surveil said person would be in violation of the Constitution in this case, as no action had been taken, nor specific threat. If I said “i’m thinking of killing people named Jeffrey”, well, that is not actionable, like if I said “I’m going to kill Dana.” Even then, it is difficult to prove the actual threat criminally, but, Dana could take a restraining order out. (Dana’s like, “how the hell did I become involved in this?”
)
If you or I complain about the government, or Obama or Bush, while they could reply to attempt to change our minds or set us straight, they cannot intimidate us, defame us, abuse us, or attempt any form of reprisal. If Bush used the power of the IRS to go after Liberal groups, that would be wrong, correct? Just like someone used the IRS to come after conservative groups. That is the spirit of the 1st.
The letter is that Congress can pass no law restricting our political speech, nor ability to protest peaceably, etc.