No one wants to take your guns, right? New York Times: “Repeal the Second Amendment”

In the wake of the Las Vegas shooting, the usual suspects have come out in full force.  This showed up on my news feed this morning:

From a law-and-order standpoint, more guns means more murder. “States with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides,” noted one exhaustive 2013 study in the American Journal of Public Health.

Nothing like a Post Hoc ergo Propter Hoc fallacy to start things off.

From a personal-safety standpoint, more guns means less safety. The F.B.I. counted a total of 268 “justifiable homicides” by private citizens involving firearms in 2015; that is, felons killed in the course of committing a felony. Yet that same year, there were 489 “unintentional firearms deaths” in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Between 77 and 141 of those killed were children.

And a smooth transition to cherry picking by comparing justifiable homicides to accidents.  As usual, defensive gun uses that do not result in a dead criminal aren’t worthy of being counted, despite estimates of them ranging from 50,000 to 2 million a year.

From a national-security standpoint, the Amendment’s suggestion that a “well-regulated militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State,” is quaint. The Minutemen that will deter Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un are based in missile silos in Minot, N.D., not farmhouses in Lexington, Mass.

The venerable strawman appears!

From a personal liberty standpoint, the idea that an armed citizenry is the ultimate check on the ambitions and encroachments of government power is curious. The Whiskey Rebellion of the 1790s, the New York draft riots of 1863, the coal miners’ rebellion of 1921, the Brink’s robbery of 1981 — does any serious conservative think of these as great moments in Second Amendment activism?

Someone’s clearly never heard of the Battle of Athens.

But hey, there’s a moment of self awareness:

Given all of this, why do liberals keep losing the gun control debate?

Maybe it’s because they argue their case badly and — let’s face it — in bad faith. Democratic politicians routinely profess their fidelity to the Second Amendment — or rather, “a nuanced reading” of it — with all the conviction of Barack Obama’s support for traditional marriage, circa 2008. People recognize lip service for what it is.

Then there are the endless liberal errors of fact. There is no “gun-show loophole” per se; it’s a private-sale loophole, in other words the right to sell your own stuff. The civilian AR-15 is not a true “assault rifle,” and banning such rifles would have little effect on the overall murder rate, since most homicides are committed with handguns. It’s not true that 40 percent of gun owners buy without a background check; the real number is closer to one-fifth.

The National Rifle Association does not have Republican “balls in a money clip,” as Jimmy Kimmel put it the other night. The N.R.A. has donated a paltry $3,533,294 to all current members of Congress since 1998, according to The Washington Post, equivalent to about three months of Kimmel’s salary. The N.R.A. doesn’t need to buy influence: It’s powerful because it’s popular.

Nor will it do to follow the “Australian model” of a gun buyback program, which has shown poor results in the United States and makes little sense in a country awash with hundreds of millions of weapons. Keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill people is a sensible goal, but due process is still owed to the potentially insane. Background checks for private gun sales are another fine idea, though its effects on homicides will be negligible: guns recovered by police are rarely in the hands of their legal owners, a 2016 study found.

In fact, the more closely one looks at what passes for “common sense” gun laws, the more feckless they appear. Americans who claim to be outraged by gun crimes should want to do something more than tinker at the margins of a legal regime that most of the developed world rightly considers nuts. They should want to change it fundamentally and permanently.

Holy shit, this is the most honest assessment of the gun control movement I’ve seen in ages.

Too bad it doesn’t last:

There is only one way to do this: Repeal the Second Amendment.

Repealing the Amendment may seem like political Mission Impossible today, but in the era of same-sex marriage it’s worth recalling that most great causes begin as improbable ones. Gun ownership should never be outlawed, just as it isn’t outlawed in Britain or Australia. But it doesn’t need a blanket Constitutional protection, either. The 46,445 murder victims killed by gunfire in the United States between 2012 and 2016 didn’t need to perish so that gun enthusiasts can go on fantasizing that “Red Dawn” is the fate that soon awaits us.

Oh ok dude.  You just spent paragraphs telling us how the gun control movement argues in bad faith and now you want to repeal the constitutional protection that prevents firearms from being banned from ownership.

Let’s also not pretend that banning & confiscation wouldn’t be immediately put on the menu.  You know how I know this? Because even with the 2nd Amendment protections, gun control zealots frequently propose just that.  Here’s a bill that was put forward for banning firearms in Wisconsin.  Here’s another one in Missouri.  Here’s one in Georgia that called for confiscation.  California & New York both have already passed bills that ban firearms & do not allow for grandfathered possession, with New York using their registration database to require turning them in or destroying them – notice that the firearms referenced are .22lr rifles, deemed illegal because they have a magazine capacity greater than 5 rounds.

Let’s not pretend that allowing people to own a single shot .22LR or over & under shotgun, stored at a hunting club, isn’t effectively banning firearms ownership.

I wonder what Madison would have to say about that today, when more than twice as many Americans perished last year at the hands of their fellows as died in battle during the entire Revolutionary War. My guess: Take the guns—or at least the presumptive right to them—away. The true foundation of American exceptionalism should be our capacity for moral and constitutional renewal, not our instinct for self-destruction.

How would the the Founding Fathers feel about privately owned guns? Dude, they issued Letters of Marque to allow for privately owned warships.  They had personally owned cannons. The Brown Bess rifle commonly owned by citizens was better than what was issued to the Continental Army.

Heck, even your math is bad – the population of the US during the Revolutionary war was roughly 2.5 million.  Regarding casualties during the Revolutionary war:

Throughout the course of the war, an estimated 6,800 Americans were killed in action, 6,100 wounded, and upwards of 20,000 were taken prisoner. Historians believe that at least an additional 17,000 deaths were the result of disease, including about 8,000–12,000 who died while prisoners of war.

America’s population today is 330 million, or 132 times greater than in 1776.  Let’s do some simple math:

6,800 war casualties times 132 = 897,600.  In comparison, we had 11,004 homicides by firearm in 2016.

So what would Madison say? He’d probably tell you to go pound sand, just in less polite terms.

Advertisements

NOWTTYG: MSNBC Urges Dem Senators to Seize ‘Opportunity’ of Terror Attack to Push Anti-Gun Agenda

Newsbusters posted this a few days back, with a clip from MSNBC’s Morning Joe show.

Here’s the transcript:

JOE SCARBOROUGH: …background checks, still 97% of Americans support background checks. 60% of American support some sort of ban on so called assault weapons. In that stricter gun law, 61% support. That assault weapon number is higher than usual. So now does seem like again an opportunity, I think, in large part because of the acts of terror that have happened in San Bernardino and then in Orlando. 

KATTY KAY: You know I think there is an opportunity, but all of us who have watched this over the years right Joe after Newtown we’re so feel so cynical and defeated about the prospect of getting anything done. But I was wondering, from the senator, is there anything that can be done short of changing the statutes. For example, red flags that pop up to the FBI if somebody has been under investigation, but that investigation is now closed. Which is what the FBI’s argument is in this case. Is that you know is there something that can happen short of having to actually get congressional approval?

Oh, this is an opportunity for change? Let’s approach this from a facts based manner:

The last “several” mass shootings were carried out by people who were background checked, or more. In the case of the Orlando shooter:

  • The shooter bought his guns at a gun store, where he was background checked.
  •  He had a concealed carry permit, for which he was background checked.
  •  He had a state firearms license, for which he was background checked.
  •  He was also an armed security guard for a government contractor which required an active security clearance, for which he was (you guessed it) background checked.
  • Somewhere in the last two he had to have 60 hours of training and a medical exam that certified he had no issues.
  •  The FBI interviewed him, twice, and investigated him for 10 months. He wasn’t on the Terrorist Watchlist either – they pulled him off after they didn’t find anything actionable.

Universal Background Checks wouldn’t have stopped this. Using the Terror Watchlist wouldn’t have stopped this. FBI interviews didn’t stop this. This was a government failure all the way around. This guy was a poster child for antigun policy proposals and still turned around and killed people.

In the case of San Bernardino, the shooters killed their victims in spite of a litany of California laws:

  •  Assault weapons ban.
  •  Mandatory handgun registration
  •  Mandatory rifle registration
  •  Mandatory safety training requirements
  •  Mandatory waiting periods before picking up guns after buying them.
  •  High capacity magazine bans
  •  Detachable magazine bans on rifles
  •  Mandatory Universal Background Checks
  •  Ban on open carry of weapons
  •  De facto ban on concealed carry thanks to arbitrary “may issue” requirements
  •  Total prohibition of bombs

Something does have to give. We need to stop rewarding the failure of gun control with more gun control. We need to examine whether these laws work, and if they don’t, eliminate them because they aren’t serving their purpose (other than to make red tape for non-criminals).

No one wants to take your guns: “Why It’s Time to Repeal the Second Amendment”

It’s gotten to the point where I’m going to have to create a new category: No One Wants To Take Your Guns.

Because this shit is getting out of hand.

Supposed Constitutional Law Professor David S. Cohen penned this nonsensical rant for Rolling Stone the other day, “Why It’s Time to Repeal the Second Amendment

In the face of yet another mass shooting, now is the time to acknowledge a profound but obvious truth – the Second Amendment is wrong for this country and needs to be jettisoned. We can do that through a Constitutional amendment. It’s been done before (when the Twenty-First Amendment repealed prohibition in the Eighteenth), and it must be done now.

Yeah, because we should just eliminate constitutional rights because something bad happened.  My rights end where your feelings begin. Mind you, this only applies to the 2nd amendment.  Hate speech? Well no, we can’t eliminate the 1st amendment!  A criminal getting away with murder because of the right to remain silent? Not a good reason there.

Rather, it’s only the burdensome 2nd amendment that is regularly targeted for elimination.  And remember, no one wants to take your guns.