"We treat the Second Amendment—and a questionably broad reading of it—like an immutable commandment rather than a matter of policy."
And therein lies much of the problem in politics overall in this nation. Rather than a one-off matter, it has become firm policy of those on the political right. And it is not a new development, having been inculcated for at least three decades via talk radio and other right-wing platforms, and now reinforced daily by social media, podcasts, and any other form of technology that gets the point out to the willing and eager. The movement has become a commandment to them -- Thou Shalt Destroy Liberals and Liberalism -- that justifies any and all behavior, formally and informally, collectively and individually. The person who (supposedly) wrote The Art of the Deal now feels that deals are for losers and suckers -- the system must be rigged, rules and laws are mere guidelines for them and imperatives for others, and when caught in lies and misbehavior, the solution is to double and triple down on the original approach and give neither ground nor quarter to the opposition.
The right has been on a war footing for decades, despite the absence of a war. It is their cause, their mission, to blow everything up that does not suit them and take us down with it. There is no public policy for them anymore so much as commandments from the Orange Moses who decides it all, seemingly on the fly, not meant to be questioned or obstructed. But you know that. We are left to hope that the cracks in the tablets that we currently see opening up are the signs that the movement itself is cracking up, as more and more people see that give-and-take public policy and shared governance are a better way to do things after all. Fingers crossed for a long-term awakening from our national slumber.
I want to suggest that the way we read the second amendment is simply wrong and a-historical. The second amendment was really about the right to have state militias and not be overruled by a standing army.
The first version of the second amendment even included exceptions from being called for militia service based on religious scruples.
Of course the is a non enumerated right to own a gun and a right to self defense. And in 1776 the most effective weapon for a single man along would have been a sword or axe.
Militias did rely on personal gun ownership but they also owned lots of weapons - also gun powder and musket balls. In fact gun makers - like Samuel Colt hoped to sell to state militias.
Representative Debbie Dingell said that gun rights were the only topic she and her husband disagreed. She didn’t say why her husband worked with the NRA to get the Amendment’s definition altered from militia to individual which came about in 2008. Up to then, there was no mention about individual rights as part of the Amendment. I looked up Militia in the Federalist Papers; it was mentioned 59 times. Individuals owning guns was zero. We are not reading this amendment correctly Terry. You are correct.
I saw I guy yesterday at a grocery store parking lot with a ‘second amendment’ sticker, a US Flag with the scroll, ‘second amendment’ written stylishly underneath it. I had inadvertently parked right next to his pick-up truck. I had just spent a half-hour reading coverage of the massacre in Bondi Beach and the School shooting coverage at Brown University before I went to pick up a few items we needed. By coincidence, he was coming out of the store with a bag of groceries as I was exiting my car to go into the same store. In my state of anger and disturbia about the media I had just consumed, I looked at the guy. He looked kind of normal, maybe 50 years old or so. So I asked him, “Hey! Good Morning. I just want to know, What well-regulated State Militia do you belong to? Maybe I could join”. He looked at me like I had three heads. He walked past me and got into his pick-up, slammed the door, started the truck and backed out of his parking spot. He put the vehicle in ‘drive’, flipped me the bird, and drove away. I immediately had the gift of gratitude that he only flipped me off and didn’t shoot me. Must have left his automatic rifle back at the armory of the militia…..
Wow this reminds of a similar experience I had a few weeks ago. Also a grocery store parking lot I saw a big suv with all kinds of 2nd amendment stickers including one with a rifle that said Oregunian (I live in Oregon). Two teenage girls were walking by and they were saying WTF is up with that! I waved by little finger and mentioned how it was just serious overcompensating for having a small thingie! They really laughed. It was pretty funny but also somewhat scary because I can only imagine what the anger is that the owner of that car is packing around..
It is scary to think about what actually - besides penile compensatory complex - is going on inside people’s minds. And I often feel like I’m better off not knowing than actually finding out.
Reality is foreign concept to the MAGA right. One of their own apostles, Kirk, was gunned down while speaking on campus. You'd think that would open their eyes.
They were mostly confused by it in my experience, they've spent too much of thier lives cheering on school shootings to be able to switch gears on a dime just because one of thier leaders was killed. Besides, that would require them to be able to read and understand and recall well enough who Charlie Kirk was without references to the blatant racist fascist dog whistles (which very few of the reports of his killings in the media bothered to mention) that Kirk championed to help them understand why they were supposed to be upset.
I would often fight with Fox News viewers about the 2nd amendment. I would challenge them by asking if they could own a machine gun...and then point out that they were already OK with some restrictions in gun owning. Then I would ask them if would be ok for citizens to own tanks, nukes or bazookas.
For the most part...they never had a good comeback against these points that supported "Yes...we can limit what weapons people can own" but one guy was pretty creative. He said that no one can own these advanced weapons because of the proprietary rights involved. Lol...other than that...it would be ok...
In addition to tanks, nukes, and bazookas, I would ask them if the typical American should be turned loose with a flame thrower, for self defense or otherwise. Some of them thought that was a good idea. I didn't ask whom they wanted to set on fire and why. I really didn't want to know -- too much information when I already had enough.
I'm getting a Sykes inspired vision of a guy wearing a clown suit walking into a store called Bozo's Armory...and ordering the new M5000 flamethrower...
"More accurate, longer distance, better safety features...only sold to those 18 years and older"
Customer: "Two for me, please. I'm going to the bar to have a few drinks. I'll pick them up afterward, on my way home." Should make for an interesting evening.
Washington DC had strong gun control legislation. I was listening to a NPR discussion between a NRA gun advocate and a member of an anti-gun group while there was a lawsuit to overturn the law. I remember the woman in the anti-gun group asking, “Why do you want an Uzi? Why would anyone want an Uzi?” The man had no real reply to the question, only that they should have that right regardless. She didn’t follow up on the flamethrowers. Would have loved to hear the reply.
Not long ago, Charlie Sykes posed this rhetorical question to those people who feel they have to arm themselves to the teeth: And who are you going to use them against; police, the military, the government? And just what would happen then?
So: I went from a bullshiter, "a rifle behind every blade of grass," gun collector to someone who is anti-gun, pro Repeal the 2nd Amendment nowadays. Sold all my guns after Sandy Hook.
I used to very much think we ought to allow weapons of war, for the purpose of resisting a "tyrannical government." This was always armchair bravado and fake ass machismo, insecurity posturing as tough talk. Therapy and psychiatry proved much better at making me happy than target shooting.
Besides tanks, or nukes, or bazookas, the big one for me that I realized was MANPADS. Basically, for the past few decades, a bunch of bozos with civilian-equivalent AR-15s are not going to be able to defeat the US military if the US military takes the gloves off and uses air superiority and combined arms to take down the civilians in their homes or compounds. The standing US military can assassinate terrorist leaders with over-the-horizon drone capabilities, delivering flying-ginsu-knives that Julienne human beings into lunch meat with pinpoint precision. What the fuck is Bubba going to do with his AR-15 against that? The only reason Waco or Ruby Ridge or Ammon Bundy in Burns, OR, any of those turned into stand offs, that is because the Government was holding back and didn't want to turn people into mist, if avoidable.
The thing civilians would need to fight back against a 21st century army, really, is anti-armor capability, yes, but also anti-aircraft. And yet, we, THANKFULLY, as a society have agreed that angry divorced dads and edgelord teenage incels should NOT be able to buy a MANPAD and go sit at the end of the runway at their local municipal airport. The principle that there's no reason for a civilian to be able to cause mass death with a shoulder mounted anti-aircraft missile is exactly the same for why we ought to limit semi-automatic weapons fed from a detachable magazine with a capacity over N rounds, where N is whatever your preferred line in the sand might be.
Grew up in a fairly rural and right wing corner of the country, and I went through much the same evolution that you described. I think the ability of a citizen to oppose the military ended with the development of mobile, breech-loading artillery. Free elections and a free press are much more essential to our control of the government than the second amendment.
I would add one factor to your rule for limiting firearms - the technology used to make the firearm reload and cock itself. Older hunting rifle designs use the recoil to eject the spent cartridge. All assault rifles use the expanding gas in the barrel to operate a piston. I would prohibit any rifles with a gas-operated bolt and a removable magazine. I would also ban any magazine larger than N rounds. The combination of those rules might start us on a path to sanity.
Let me add: the right of States to have militias was superseded by the National Defense Act of 1916. "The National Defense Act, ratified by Congress in May 1916 and signed by Wilson on June 3, brought the states’ militias more under federal control and gave the president authority, in case of war or national emergency, to mobilize the National Guard for the duration of the emergency." Isn't that interesting? "... gave the president authority ..." I mean, VERY FEW people talk about this.
That's because its only relevant to people who understand why the second amendment itself should no longer be relevant. To the unwashed, uneducated barely literate Republican masses the second amendment only matters so that they can have weapons of war and unlimited ammunition to hand whenever they feel the need to force thier beliefs on thier next victim.
Maybe the simple fix is ... allow those 2nd Amendment folk to bear arms that were available at the time the Amendment was ratified and ONLY THOSE. I'll loose 6 arrows in the time it takes them to reload one round. LOL!
That's an actual fact, you dont need to suggest it. Its no surprise that this Courts Constitional "Originalists" have about as strong of a grasp of reading of the Constition both as a product of its time and in the intent of its founders as the average Republicans ability to critically read anything, ie at about an elementary school level on thier best days.
Wandyrer - yes, the VERY subjective cherry-picking "research" cited in SCOTUS 2A cases would earn a C- (generous grading scale, I'm a such a lib 😉). Plus, their use of some adept hair-splitting. So there can limitations against individual ownership of cannons, because our ancestors didn't have their own personal culverins in the colonies? But we CAN have AR-15s because our ancestors would have had those if the village smithy just woulda thought outside the box of their time & place? ...and these modern devices, unimaginable to our Founders and invented for military purpose, are more "arms-ish" than cannons?
Because obviously the common language of December 15, 1791 used the word "arms" to specifically include some things that hadn't been invented yet (e.g., ArmaLite AR-15), while excluding other items that hadn't been invented yet (e.g. Colt Model 1921A Thompson with 100-round drum magazine).
If you read the Federalist Papers, the issue was for states to have militias with equal weaponry to the federal government. Also, the federal government would have a small military. It wasn’t until after World War II that the US created a large standing army. For over 200 years, there was no personal right to own arms, until the “originalist” Scalia magically found one. Of course, SCOTUS and congress makes sure they are well protected from people “exercising their rights “. At the Charlie Kirk memorial, no guns were allowed in to the memorial of 2nd Amendment lover Charlie Kirk.
I don't see it exactly in those terms, but rather that our founders feared a standing army (remembering Cromwell). They also feared having a national church (likely Anglican/Episcopalian) imposed on states. Re the right to own weapons, i suggest that conservatives looked for an angle to destroy the non-enumerated rights that were used by the Warren Court and to enhance American Rights - the right to privacy was one of them. And they argued strongly that non enumerated rights are not the equal of enumerated one. This of course went against what our founders believed. Then they looked to favor concepts that were politically useful. So the destroyed voting rights, created a strange right to spend lots of money on elections, and gun rights. it was all of a piece.
Great summary! In my time studying and teaching (not as a full prof, though) US History, this is spot on (IMO). The "unitary central authority" that the Trump Admin is trying to consolidate is exactly antithetical to the Founders' vision. The best thing we could do right now (again, IMO) is return the National Guard TO THE States. (Well, as long as I'm wishing, let's demolish that outmoded artifact of slavery, the electoral college.)
2 things. the first is that I have a few Canadian friends and am sad how poorly our president treats the best neighbors and nation could have. the second is that in the era of the Wild West it was the usual practice for local sheriffs to impound firearms from those who came into town. This suggests that no one thought the second amendment was in play.
I have imagined an advertisment for a Canadian Tourist Bureau using the slogan ...... Come visit Canada, the nicer America.
Don't bring your originalist thinking to this debate Terry! The only originalist thinking is that should be discussed are those original to the current SCOTUS seating and their efforts to empower authoritarians.
Of course it's ahistorical. Every intellectually honest person acknowledges that, which is why Scalia had to apply his bullshit legal framework in Heller to change it.
The things is, this court doesn't actually care about history. They have gutted so much court precedent that nothing is safe anymore. It is entirely clear that they see themselves as more than just mere caretakers of our legal system. They are on a mission—the Federalist Society wouldn't have approved them otherwise—to remake the legal landscape of this country in their image, stare decesis be damned.
They've got to be countered somehow. I don't care if we end up going back and forth with court packing until we all agree that something needs to change and we institute real reform, because the alternative is to just sit back and let them reap the spoils of stealing a Supreme Court seat and engineering SCOTUS to undo so much of the progress the US made in the 20th century.
It doesn't matter that the second amendment has been misread deliberately. Justice Stevens's dissent in Heller was clear about the ridiculousness of the majority opinion. What matters is that a large number of people who wanted that meaning accepted it eagerly while the people who know how to read didn't apprehend the seriousness of Heller, didn't see how to fight incorrect scotus decisions, and were not single-issue voters. Heller's consequences are everywhere, and under its reading the Constitution is indeed a suicide pact.
I know the deification of firearms was already underway by the time the Cold War fizzled out. Yet it's almost a turning point, as in a dystopian novel - "when their external enemy was eventually vanquished, their gaze turned inward... and they turned their weapons on themselves."
If you want to see the deificaton in action, read "Patriots," by James Wesley, Rawles (he fancies himself a sort of warlord). It is a novel of guns wielding humans. It's actually quite comical, except for its contributions to the collective identity of We Are A Tough Band of Hombres.
Woof. Looks like Turner Diaries redux, with reduced racism and broad spectrum grievances. Wonder if school libraries are getting guidance on this title from Moms for Liberty?
The sooner Republicans turn thier firearms on themselves the happier Americans and the rest of the world will be. it will be the best, most effective way imaginable for them to Make America Great Again.
I doubt that Republicans will ever be able to see, like Dr. Morbius, that their own darker impulses are the source of the rampant, lethal violence around them. They aren’t repressing their anger into a Monster of the Id that will destroy them. They aren’t repressing their anger.
After every big public shooting I always try to remember two things and put them out into the world:
1) Mass shootings of the terrorist or nihilistic or angry public variety, even in the US, are quite rare. Even if they are getting more frequent (and I don't have data on that) they are still very rare. So we should not live in fear. And further we should not buy or own guns out of a generalized fear of violence... which is why a ton of guns are purchased.
2) I once saw David Brooks, who I enjoy reading even when I think he's totally wrong, say that we have a culture problem when it comes to guns. That seemed TOTALLY correct to me and was not something I'd previously considered. There are a lot of people for whom guns are part of their identity in some way and they are terrified or threatened by the idea of taking that away. That seems incredibly unhealthy. Weapons should not be part of someone's identity. If we want to make any progress in there being less guns we probably need to change that or reassure these people.
So in general, it seems kind of weak sauce, but at this point after these kinds of events I like to just put out there into the world that it's absurd to suggest making guns illegal and anyone who suggests that should be pilloried and laughed out of the room, but... We should own less guns. We should expect and demand that there be less guns around. That there are gun free spaces. We should encourage people to give up guns and not to buy them without a specific reason. We should advocate a culture of less guns and more gun safety. Just don't buy guns unless you have a concrete specific reason to and tell other people to do the same. Treat most decisions to own guns as bizarre.
When I visited North Carolina over the summer, a friend of the family took me to a gun range. While loading the weapon, he explained to me that he was truly free, unlike me in New York, because he could have as many guns as he wanted.
I thought of countering with the fact that in New York, pregnant women can get health care, and other women can buy birth control pills. But I wasn't holding the gun, he was. So I shut my mouth and did not debate. Such are the ways of the South.
Because of course no one owns guns in New York, and there are no gun ranges in New York either. I’ve heard the same thing about California how they wouldn’t feel free or ever move to the state due to the gun laws. I know plenty of people in California who own guns, whose hobby is shooting, going to gun ranges and belonging to shooting clubs. But somehow in their minds we aren’t free and can’t/don’t own guns just because these states might put minimal limitations on ownership.
This is PRECISELY the kind of thing I was talking about, thank you for sharing. That's not exactly him saying guns were part of his identity... but it's the sort of cultural shibboleth that should be treated as bizarre.
We should have no problem at all with someone going to a gun range. I deleted if from my original post for length but my grandfather spent a significant part of his social life at a shotgun shooting club. All the grandkids fondly remember helping him make the shells in his basement with a fun little machine... but I can't imagine him EVER saying anything like that. It's just weird and we should point out to people how weird it is when we feel able to do so.
Same with ALL my relatives when I was growing up. They all had guns, hunted, gun ranges, etc... I worked at a gun club (trap shooting) all through high school, my uncle was state trap shooting champ, taught me how to make shotgun shells, etc... and none of them talk like the gun nutjobs do today. It is weird.
Probably no more weird than Ford or Chevy being some sort of personal identifier, or an NFL Team for that matter. It's struck me recently that these external things (guns, trucks, sport teams) have come to replace the elements identification in civil life (families, community, work, etc). Maybe it's because these things are broken, or maybe it is because they don't have massive marketing budgets, but it is, without a doubt, an effort to replace things that are missing.
For most of US history, guns were seen simply as tools. Dangerous yet necessary ones that needed to be treated with respect and handled with much more care and training than a screwdriver, but tools nonetheless. A few outliers aside, like hammers and screwdrivers you generally only bought the tools you needed. The insidious yet absurd fetishization of firearms in the late 20th Century changed everything.
A darkly funny comment. But you're right... and I think this is another example of the kind of thing it's worth asking people who are big into guns about. Is it wrong or right for those spaces to be gun free? Why? And how are they similar or different from other spaces?
You are expecting a group of people to think above their pay grade. When a person sees that owning a gun helps to define themselves, then they shouldn’t own one. Leaving that aside, there is no civilized reason to own a sub or machine gun. No civilized reason to own guns that shoot a spray of bullets in seconds, or an advanced magazine that holds the ammunition needs to spray that many bullets. They can’t be used or hunting. Target practice? Nothing left. Protection? It’s becoming more and more that we need protection from these gun owners, than to be protected by them. WAPO ran an article where respondents chose why they had a gun. The majority, 33% of the respondents said, “Because I want one.” Isn’t that what your child says when a toy is desired?
I would say that I am explicitly NOT expecting people to think above their pay grade! I am advocating (in part) for people to talk to others about their relationship with guns when the opportunity arises. I live in a city that has historically had a lot of murders... and I try to talk people who live here and are thinking about buying guns for self defense out of buying one anytime it comes up. And I talk to people I know in the rural area where I grew up about how they think about and teach their kids about guns when I can. Fortunately most of the people I know with guns really do think about them as dangerous tools for hunting that should be taken seriously.
I agree with what you wrote. My comment about pay grade is for the majority of WAPO’s poll on why they own a gun. A response of, because I can, is not adult reasoning.
Yeah that seems like a fine reason for say... owning a certain shirt, or eating ice cream for breakfast once a year. Not for owning items that let you easily point and click people dead. One of these things is not like the others.
"Mass" shootings are relatively rare when compared to other shootings that USAians are involved in. In 2023 according to Pew Research Center, 46, 728 deaths resulted from gun related injuries, most by murder or suicide. Yeah we need fewer guns around. That's an understatement.
We are just a few more mass shootings here in ‘Murica to reach FOUR HUNDRED for the year! Rare indeed. Just every freakin’ day-and twice on Saturday night, in preparation for Sunday Services at our preferred house of worship….like, the gun range. C’mon people! we gonna have to pick up the pace for the rest of the year if we want to equal 2024! We live in a very sick country, where the past weekend’s events will very soon seem like a distant memory. And as a society, we will not do one thing about it.
Yes indeed. We should be making both laws, and out own individual decisions, based on for lack of a better term "garden variety" gun deaths. One of the only encouraging things in this space in the last few years I think is that there does seem to be SOME movement towards red flag laws and taking them seriously.
Who is saying guns should be illegal? I know the right wing, which clearly you come from, talked about Obama taking away their guns, but that was just lies. You talk abbot changing culture, but how can you do that when your comment feeds into the lies that produced it in the first place? I agree we should have less guns, but treating those who own kids or have these irrational fears with kid gloves does not seem to be the answer.
Whoa whoa whoa. I also advise against rushing to judgement in comment sections on the internet, haha
I will say I do periodically hear someone suggest enacting a regime like has been done in Australia, or to do some kind of mass confiscation. Generally that's not someone who is a politician but someone in an advocacy group or just spouting off in frustration. All I was saying is that I think it's worth pointing out to them that this is, at present, a very silly and impractical idea and if their doing it in the public sphere we ought to as I said laugh them out of the room and talk about more practical government actions. I don't LIKE it, but I do think it's necessary to try and slowly convince people who have made guns part of their identity to change their minds and give them up because they don't need them and WE don't need them. I don't think that makes me a particularly right wing person, but if you disagree so be it!
But here again your generosity and persuasion only goes one way: for those owning guns. For those you deem suggesting *impractical* solutions, and what % of the populace are we talking about, you say they should be laughed out of the room. The idea that Donald Trump could become president 10 years ago seemed silly and impractical, but here we are. It is clear that you consider those owning guns *serious* people, but those advocating against gun ownership, well you’ve already made that clear.
I mean... I am personally advocating against gun ownership I just think the idea of like amending the second amendment is a pipe dream without on the ground culture change that'll happen one on one person to person and I am pretty sure I'm a serious person (albeit one who laughs a lot). I thought I made that quite clear, but clearly this is a case where we are either talking past one another right now or should agree to disagree. I appreciate having had a civil back and forth!
We are probably talking past each other. But I do think we have ceded the ground to the gun owners and those on the right who have radically interpreted the 2nd amendment which has not historically been read that way — I would argue the modern interpretation is not historically sound. As you say our obsession with guns is a problem. But something the right learned a long time ago was how to adjust the Overton Window. Who ever thought abortion would actually become illegal, and it has had tremendous consequences for the reproductive rights and healthcare for women. It doesn’t help to play into the language of the right, and those whose identities are tied to guns will never support what your persuasion.
"a regime like has been done in Australia" -- you lost me when you described a government that has been proactive about gun safety with the pejorative "regime." You evidently consider gun safety legislation to be authoritarian.
Believe it or not, I meant it entirely neutrally as a description of a way or system of doing things like a fitness regime. A scheme for gun control in other words, not the government AS a regime. In retrospect that wasn't great phrasing on my part though, as it's not a terribly common way to use the word at this point. Sorry for the confusion!
No worries. I think you have the word "regime" confused with "regimen." Easy to do, the words are the same except for one added letter, but they mean very different things. A regime is broadly used to describe an authoritarian government, while a regimen, like you say, describes a prescribed course of exercise, medical treatment, way of life, etc.
Amen to all that. As for the 2nd Ammendment, ad long as that is seen as all or nothing, things will not change. Personally, I do not believe anyone should be able to carry a weapon that has no purpose except to take a life. I totally understand that it's an extreme view. So if I can see my view us extreme why can't someone with the other viewpoint see that? Yhrre doesn't seem to be an ability to debate, discuss and work out a true compromise on this issue. Sorry, I rant. I think someone saying that vigils always help means we are needing to many vigils.
Some people think they gain power and control if they have the power to instantly take a life. Funny that, life itself has been powered by organization and survival - for 4 billion years.
It does feel a bit like the world is unraveling. Another school shooting. Another hate crime. Here, the shooting in Rhode Island will be forgotten in a few weeks. No action will be taken. This is the second time victims of a university mass shooting experienced a school shooting for the SECOND time in their young lives. They were victims in high school and were victimized again! So many gun rights advocates took the time to stupidly point out that gun restrictions didn’t stop the shooters in Australia. They completely ignore that this is the fifth or sixth mass shooting in the last 30 years in Australia. We have the same number in an average week in America. When gun control advocates cite the need for gun control in the wake of tragedy, they are deemed opportunists. Yet, gun rights advocates will brazenly distort and lie about the failures of gun control. These people have no shame.
It comes from the same place as cutting health care subsidies and unrecommending vaccines. Some children are going to die. That kind of seems like the point now.
If the moniker that you should judge someone by the enemies they have is true, then I'd say you're doing a heckuva a job Andrew. Keep up the good work.
Yep. In situations like that I often think of Rick Sanchez and his response when he is boo'd at. He just responds that he knows what they cheer for so their boos mean nothing. This is exactly how I think about MAGA. I don't care what they have to say or complain about - I know what they believe and support and they have zero, zip, zilch that is worth considering. I don't care if what they say is right, a broken clock is right twice a day too - that doesn't make it worth putting on the wall.
Thanks Hannah for that insight-filled piece on the Brown shooting.
I had an office in that Engineering building as a graduate student, close to 40 years ago now, and used the same Hope Street entrance daily that the shooter used.
The Hope Street citation jarred my memory of a popular cartoon drawn in four panels, a large copy of which was on the walls of a graduate student watering hole. The street names featured are all real streets in the city. The captions on the panels are:
Providence, Rhode Island where it rains two days out of three except during the rainy season when it snows like a bitch. (A dialogue bubble replies "A mess ain't it.")
And Friendship is a one way street.
Rich folks live on Power Street.
But most of us live off Hope.
One can easily see the appeal of this for someone living the graduate student existence. Today it takes on another meaning.
Hannah’s post was so moving and on-target. For many years I have been either enraged or in tears at the environment of helplessness in our country about gun violence. Today it’s the tears.
It’s as if because we have the second amendment here, there is nothing we can do to stop gun deaths, exponentially higher here than almost every other country in the world. The Australia mass shooting is an anomaly there. Here it’s pretty much business as usual. I will never stop saying whenever and wherever I can that we can do something about the gun violence here, if we only have the will.
Hell, she's even still, at present, pushing persecuting Dr. Fauci , who saved who-knows how many lives with his cautious approaches for preventing airborne viral transmission, with her typical extreme vitriol. And I'm sure she still holds her magical-thinking concepts of how "they" can control the weather.
She'll have to get past this: "RESOLUTION: Censuring Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene. ... Whereas Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has repeatedly fanned the flames of racism, antisemitism, LGBTQ hate speech, Islamophobia, anti-Asian
I'd advise not looking up Trump's bleat about Rob and Michele Reiner's deaths, unless you want your blood pressure to rise. What an awful, despicable human being he is.
Oh my god. How does he not have "people" to tell him that this is incredibly inappropriate? The next time he has a press gaggle, he'll probably be asked about it, so he'll be able to spew the vitriol out loud. I hope no one asks.
To him, wether so one’s death is a pity or a cause for celebration rests on their opinion of him, as does every other event in life. Like Zaphod Beeblebrox in the Total Perspective Vortex, he is the center of the universe.
Mr. Egger: I always think at stressful times like these a good ol' Lindsey Graham quote is in order. After calling Trump a lying xenophobe and a nut, He said, (I paraphrase) "if we elect this man our party will be destroyed. and we'll deserve it." Such wisdom. Such a prophetic gift. . .The grapes are indeed sour. The RNC is engaged in attempted self-defenestration. Open the windows, offer help.
My all time LG favorite is where he calls Joe Biden the most honest man he's ever known and an incredibly devoted Senator and Father. I paraphrase as it's been ages since I heard it, but I am close, maybe ?interview in the back of a car in 2015.
I remember seeing that. Lindsey Graham still has a functioning conscience which lets him recognize an honorable man when he sees one, but not enough to behave honorably himself.
Re Elise Stefanik, did she not notice how Piggy betrayed Kevin McCarthy? Kevin, we recall, was the one who resuscitated Piggy’s political prospects when they were at a post-insurrection low. He was rewarded by a notable lack of support when he was in his own existential crisis.
Elise should contemplate these famous words, “Those unwilling to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
Expecting a Republican to learn or adapt to change is literally contraindicated by thier entire philosophy. They proudly have less ability to adapt to changing circumstances than a rock, and a rock would be more useful and less likely to sexually assault someone.
Why expect Stefanik to differ from any of the dozens who've considered themselves exempt from Trump's one-way loyalty? They all think they're special up until the moment the bus--ka-thunk!--drives over them.
It is my understanding that is Donnie's true superpower. Some, despite 8 decades of evidence to the contrary, he is extremely good at convincing people he really does care about them.
Thanks for getting me to think about whether there's a category of reverse (inverted?) abusers. You know, people who behave horribly in public but charmingly in private, the exact opposite of the better-known abusive type.
We are only first world nation that legally allows any moron with arrested development and psychological problems own multiple guns, even military grade. Enough! These stupid, dickless rightwingers need to know that a big gun does not make you a big man.
It is time to name the problem. The problem is the Second Amendment. The United States will be a shithole country until we get rid of the Second Amendment. There is no other way.
And why do we even have the 2nd Amendment? The British confiscated arms that enslavers stockpiled for militias to put down slave revolts. And the British government tried to stop land speculators from sending militias west of the Appalachian Mountains to remove Natives from regions they wanted to settle. These British affronts to human decency were so appalling to our founding fathers that they wrote the 2nd Amendment into the Constitution. We have the 2nd Amendment to guarantee that a federal government can never get in the way of squashing slave revolts or ethnic cleansing. Today, that is why any deranged lunatic can walk into a gun store in the morning and shoot up a school in the afternoon. All of the other reasons you hear about "personal safety" are just stories that were made up by the gun lobby. The 2nd Amendment doesn't make anyone safe. The 2nd Amendment kills tens of thousands of Americans every year. It is a relic of the American history of slavery and ethnic cleansing.
Of course, getting rid of the 2nd Amendment is impossible, right? Well, in 1776, it probably seemed impossible to think that in 90 years slavery would be gone. We have to start sometime. Let us begin a movement to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Take it head-on. Name the cancer in American society. The problem is the Second Amendment.
The problem is conservatives and the wealthy white oligarchs who use them as stalking horses and scarecrows. There has never been a time in American history when that has not been the case.
"We treat the Second Amendment—and a questionably broad reading of it—like an immutable commandment rather than a matter of policy."
And therein lies much of the problem in politics overall in this nation. Rather than a one-off matter, it has become firm policy of those on the political right. And it is not a new development, having been inculcated for at least three decades via talk radio and other right-wing platforms, and now reinforced daily by social media, podcasts, and any other form of technology that gets the point out to the willing and eager. The movement has become a commandment to them -- Thou Shalt Destroy Liberals and Liberalism -- that justifies any and all behavior, formally and informally, collectively and individually. The person who (supposedly) wrote The Art of the Deal now feels that deals are for losers and suckers -- the system must be rigged, rules and laws are mere guidelines for them and imperatives for others, and when caught in lies and misbehavior, the solution is to double and triple down on the original approach and give neither ground nor quarter to the opposition.
The right has been on a war footing for decades, despite the absence of a war. It is their cause, their mission, to blow everything up that does not suit them and take us down with it. There is no public policy for them anymore so much as commandments from the Orange Moses who decides it all, seemingly on the fly, not meant to be questioned or obstructed. But you know that. We are left to hope that the cracks in the tablets that we currently see opening up are the signs that the movement itself is cracking up, as more and more people see that give-and-take public policy and shared governance are a better way to do things after all. Fingers crossed for a long-term awakening from our national slumber.
I want to suggest that the way we read the second amendment is simply wrong and a-historical. The second amendment was really about the right to have state militias and not be overruled by a standing army.
The first version of the second amendment even included exceptions from being called for militia service based on religious scruples.
Of course the is a non enumerated right to own a gun and a right to self defense. And in 1776 the most effective weapon for a single man along would have been a sword or axe.
Militias did rely on personal gun ownership but they also owned lots of weapons - also gun powder and musket balls. In fact gun makers - like Samuel Colt hoped to sell to state militias.
Representative Debbie Dingell said that gun rights were the only topic she and her husband disagreed. She didn’t say why her husband worked with the NRA to get the Amendment’s definition altered from militia to individual which came about in 2008. Up to then, there was no mention about individual rights as part of the Amendment. I looked up Militia in the Federalist Papers; it was mentioned 59 times. Individuals owning guns was zero. We are not reading this amendment correctly Terry. You are correct.
I saw I guy yesterday at a grocery store parking lot with a ‘second amendment’ sticker, a US Flag with the scroll, ‘second amendment’ written stylishly underneath it. I had inadvertently parked right next to his pick-up truck. I had just spent a half-hour reading coverage of the massacre in Bondi Beach and the School shooting coverage at Brown University before I went to pick up a few items we needed. By coincidence, he was coming out of the store with a bag of groceries as I was exiting my car to go into the same store. In my state of anger and disturbia about the media I had just consumed, I looked at the guy. He looked kind of normal, maybe 50 years old or so. So I asked him, “Hey! Good Morning. I just want to know, What well-regulated State Militia do you belong to? Maybe I could join”. He looked at me like I had three heads. He walked past me and got into his pick-up, slammed the door, started the truck and backed out of his parking spot. He put the vehicle in ‘drive’, flipped me the bird, and drove away. I immediately had the gift of gratitude that he only flipped me off and didn’t shoot me. Must have left his automatic rifle back at the armory of the militia…..
Gee, I wonder why people with guns tend to win arguments against people without guns. /s
Superior arguments Kate. Superior arguments.
Wow this reminds of a similar experience I had a few weeks ago. Also a grocery store parking lot I saw a big suv with all kinds of 2nd amendment stickers including one with a rifle that said Oregunian (I live in Oregon). Two teenage girls were walking by and they were saying WTF is up with that! I waved by little finger and mentioned how it was just serious overcompensating for having a small thingie! They really laughed. It was pretty funny but also somewhat scary because I can only imagine what the anger is that the owner of that car is packing around..
It is scary to think about what actually - besides penile compensatory complex - is going on inside people’s minds. And I often feel like I’m better off not knowing than actually finding out.
Reality is foreign concept to the MAGA right. One of their own apostles, Kirk, was gunned down while speaking on campus. You'd think that would open their eyes.
Why would I assume a school shooting would teach Republicans anything? It never has before.
I agree with what you just said. I meant that I thought Charlie Kirk's killing would open their eyes since he was an important Trump supporter.
They were mostly confused by it in my experience, they've spent too much of thier lives cheering on school shootings to be able to switch gears on a dime just because one of thier leaders was killed. Besides, that would require them to be able to read and understand and recall well enough who Charlie Kirk was without references to the blatant racist fascist dog whistles (which very few of the reports of his killings in the media bothered to mention) that Kirk championed to help them understand why they were supposed to be upset.
I would often fight with Fox News viewers about the 2nd amendment. I would challenge them by asking if they could own a machine gun...and then point out that they were already OK with some restrictions in gun owning. Then I would ask them if would be ok for citizens to own tanks, nukes or bazookas.
For the most part...they never had a good comeback against these points that supported "Yes...we can limit what weapons people can own" but one guy was pretty creative. He said that no one can own these advanced weapons because of the proprietary rights involved. Lol...other than that...it would be ok...
In addition to tanks, nukes, and bazookas, I would ask them if the typical American should be turned loose with a flame thrower, for self defense or otherwise. Some of them thought that was a good idea. I didn't ask whom they wanted to set on fire and why. I really didn't want to know -- too much information when I already had enough.
I'm getting a Sykes inspired vision of a guy wearing a clown suit walking into a store called Bozo's Armory...and ordering the new M5000 flamethrower...
"More accurate, longer distance, better safety features...only sold to those 18 years and older"
Customer: "Two for me, please. I'm going to the bar to have a few drinks. I'll pick them up afterward, on my way home." Should make for an interesting evening.
Washington DC had strong gun control legislation. I was listening to a NPR discussion between a NRA gun advocate and a member of an anti-gun group while there was a lawsuit to overturn the law. I remember the woman in the anti-gun group asking, “Why do you want an Uzi? Why would anyone want an Uzi?” The man had no real reply to the question, only that they should have that right regardless. She didn’t follow up on the flamethrowers. Would have loved to hear the reply.
Not long ago, Charlie Sykes posed this rhetorical question to those people who feel they have to arm themselves to the teeth: And who are you going to use them against; police, the military, the government? And just what would happen then?
All of thee above, is the answer to the first one.
FAFO is the answer to the second one.
Flamethrowers, of course, offer a significant improvement in hunting. Kill & cook the meal in one step. Plus, fire… ooh!
So: I went from a bullshiter, "a rifle behind every blade of grass," gun collector to someone who is anti-gun, pro Repeal the 2nd Amendment nowadays. Sold all my guns after Sandy Hook.
I used to very much think we ought to allow weapons of war, for the purpose of resisting a "tyrannical government." This was always armchair bravado and fake ass machismo, insecurity posturing as tough talk. Therapy and psychiatry proved much better at making me happy than target shooting.
Besides tanks, or nukes, or bazookas, the big one for me that I realized was MANPADS. Basically, for the past few decades, a bunch of bozos with civilian-equivalent AR-15s are not going to be able to defeat the US military if the US military takes the gloves off and uses air superiority and combined arms to take down the civilians in their homes or compounds. The standing US military can assassinate terrorist leaders with over-the-horizon drone capabilities, delivering flying-ginsu-knives that Julienne human beings into lunch meat with pinpoint precision. What the fuck is Bubba going to do with his AR-15 against that? The only reason Waco or Ruby Ridge or Ammon Bundy in Burns, OR, any of those turned into stand offs, that is because the Government was holding back and didn't want to turn people into mist, if avoidable.
The thing civilians would need to fight back against a 21st century army, really, is anti-armor capability, yes, but also anti-aircraft. And yet, we, THANKFULLY, as a society have agreed that angry divorced dads and edgelord teenage incels should NOT be able to buy a MANPAD and go sit at the end of the runway at their local municipal airport. The principle that there's no reason for a civilian to be able to cause mass death with a shoulder mounted anti-aircraft missile is exactly the same for why we ought to limit semi-automatic weapons fed from a detachable magazine with a capacity over N rounds, where N is whatever your preferred line in the sand might be.
Grew up in a fairly rural and right wing corner of the country, and I went through much the same evolution that you described. I think the ability of a citizen to oppose the military ended with the development of mobile, breech-loading artillery. Free elections and a free press are much more essential to our control of the government than the second amendment.
I would add one factor to your rule for limiting firearms - the technology used to make the firearm reload and cock itself. Older hunting rifle designs use the recoil to eject the spent cartridge. All assault rifles use the expanding gas in the barrel to operate a piston. I would prohibit any rifles with a gas-operated bolt and a removable magazine. I would also ban any magazine larger than N rounds. The combination of those rules might start us on a path to sanity.
Let me add: the right of States to have militias was superseded by the National Defense Act of 1916. "The National Defense Act, ratified by Congress in May 1916 and signed by Wilson on June 3, brought the states’ militias more under federal control and gave the president authority, in case of war or national emergency, to mobilize the National Guard for the duration of the emergency." Isn't that interesting? "... gave the president authority ..." I mean, VERY FEW people talk about this.
That's because its only relevant to people who understand why the second amendment itself should no longer be relevant. To the unwashed, uneducated barely literate Republican masses the second amendment only matters so that they can have weapons of war and unlimited ammunition to hand whenever they feel the need to force thier beliefs on thier next victim.
Maybe the simple fix is ... allow those 2nd Amendment folk to bear arms that were available at the time the Amendment was ratified and ONLY THOSE. I'll loose 6 arrows in the time it takes them to reload one round. LOL!
That's an actual fact, you dont need to suggest it. Its no surprise that this Courts Constitional "Originalists" have about as strong of a grasp of reading of the Constition both as a product of its time and in the intent of its founders as the average Republicans ability to critically read anything, ie at about an elementary school level on thier best days.
Wandyrer - yes, the VERY subjective cherry-picking "research" cited in SCOTUS 2A cases would earn a C- (generous grading scale, I'm a such a lib 😉). Plus, their use of some adept hair-splitting. So there can limitations against individual ownership of cannons, because our ancestors didn't have their own personal culverins in the colonies? But we CAN have AR-15s because our ancestors would have had those if the village smithy just woulda thought outside the box of their time & place? ...and these modern devices, unimaginable to our Founders and invented for military purpose, are more "arms-ish" than cannons?
Because obviously the common language of December 15, 1791 used the word "arms" to specifically include some things that hadn't been invented yet (e.g., ArmaLite AR-15), while excluding other items that hadn't been invented yet (e.g. Colt Model 1921A Thompson with 100-round drum magazine).
Why isn't this totally clear? 😵💫
The limits on owning a .50 caliber machine gun do not seem to be burdensome or controversial to many people.
If you read the Federalist Papers, the issue was for states to have militias with equal weaponry to the federal government. Also, the federal government would have a small military. It wasn’t until after World War II that the US created a large standing army. For over 200 years, there was no personal right to own arms, until the “originalist” Scalia magically found one. Of course, SCOTUS and congress makes sure they are well protected from people “exercising their rights “. At the Charlie Kirk memorial, no guns were allowed in to the memorial of 2nd Amendment lover Charlie Kirk.
I don't see it exactly in those terms, but rather that our founders feared a standing army (remembering Cromwell). They also feared having a national church (likely Anglican/Episcopalian) imposed on states. Re the right to own weapons, i suggest that conservatives looked for an angle to destroy the non-enumerated rights that were used by the Warren Court and to enhance American Rights - the right to privacy was one of them. And they argued strongly that non enumerated rights are not the equal of enumerated one. This of course went against what our founders believed. Then they looked to favor concepts that were politically useful. So the destroyed voting rights, created a strange right to spend lots of money on elections, and gun rights. it was all of a piece.
Great summary! In my time studying and teaching (not as a full prof, though) US History, this is spot on (IMO). The "unitary central authority" that the Trump Admin is trying to consolidate is exactly antithetical to the Founders' vision. The best thing we could do right now (again, IMO) is return the National Guard TO THE States. (Well, as long as I'm wishing, let's demolish that outmoded artifact of slavery, the electoral college.)
I’m Canadian so I’m not necessarily well informed on the topic but I too thought that’s what they meant.
I’m positive they never foresaw modern weapons and mass shootings by mentally unwell people.
2 things. the first is that I have a few Canadian friends and am sad how poorly our president treats the best neighbors and nation could have. the second is that in the era of the Wild West it was the usual practice for local sheriffs to impound firearms from those who came into town. This suggests that no one thought the second amendment was in play.
I have imagined an advertisment for a Canadian Tourist Bureau using the slogan ...... Come visit Canada, the nicer America.
Don't bring your originalist thinking to this debate Terry! The only originalist thinking is that should be discussed are those original to the current SCOTUS seating and their efforts to empower authoritarians.
Of course it's ahistorical. Every intellectually honest person acknowledges that, which is why Scalia had to apply his bullshit legal framework in Heller to change it.
The things is, this court doesn't actually care about history. They have gutted so much court precedent that nothing is safe anymore. It is entirely clear that they see themselves as more than just mere caretakers of our legal system. They are on a mission—the Federalist Society wouldn't have approved them otherwise—to remake the legal landscape of this country in their image, stare decesis be damned.
They've got to be countered somehow. I don't care if we end up going back and forth with court packing until we all agree that something needs to change and we institute real reform, because the alternative is to just sit back and let them reap the spoils of stealing a Supreme Court seat and engineering SCOTUS to undo so much of the progress the US made in the 20th century.
In the limit, every US citizen gets to be a Supreme Court justice, and we just crowd-source Constitutional interpretation.
It doesn't matter that the second amendment has been misread deliberately. Justice Stevens's dissent in Heller was clear about the ridiculousness of the majority opinion. What matters is that a large number of people who wanted that meaning accepted it eagerly while the people who know how to read didn't apprehend the seriousness of Heller, didn't see how to fight incorrect scotus decisions, and were not single-issue voters. Heller's consequences are everywhere, and under its reading the Constitution is indeed a suicide pact.
Um... just how does one fight incorrect SCOTUS decisions? Because there seems to be bunch of them all of a sudden.
I know the deification of firearms was already underway by the time the Cold War fizzled out. Yet it's almost a turning point, as in a dystopian novel - "when their external enemy was eventually vanquished, their gaze turned inward... and they turned their weapons on themselves."
If you want to see the deificaton in action, read "Patriots," by James Wesley, Rawles (he fancies himself a sort of warlord). It is a novel of guns wielding humans. It's actually quite comical, except for its contributions to the collective identity of We Are A Tough Band of Hombres.
Woof. Looks like Turner Diaries redux, with reduced racism and broad spectrum grievances. Wonder if school libraries are getting guidance on this title from Moms for Liberty?
The sooner Republicans turn thier firearms on themselves the happier Americans and the rest of the world will be. it will be the best, most effective way imaginable for them to Make America Great Again.
I think, also, echoes of "Forbidden Planet."
I doubt that Republicans will ever be able to see, like Dr. Morbius, that their own darker impulses are the source of the rampant, lethal violence around them. They aren’t repressing their anger into a Monster of the Id that will destroy them. They aren’t repressing their anger.
And we ALL know what happened to Altair IV.
After every big public shooting I always try to remember two things and put them out into the world:
1) Mass shootings of the terrorist or nihilistic or angry public variety, even in the US, are quite rare. Even if they are getting more frequent (and I don't have data on that) they are still very rare. So we should not live in fear. And further we should not buy or own guns out of a generalized fear of violence... which is why a ton of guns are purchased.
2) I once saw David Brooks, who I enjoy reading even when I think he's totally wrong, say that we have a culture problem when it comes to guns. That seemed TOTALLY correct to me and was not something I'd previously considered. There are a lot of people for whom guns are part of their identity in some way and they are terrified or threatened by the idea of taking that away. That seems incredibly unhealthy. Weapons should not be part of someone's identity. If we want to make any progress in there being less guns we probably need to change that or reassure these people.
So in general, it seems kind of weak sauce, but at this point after these kinds of events I like to just put out there into the world that it's absurd to suggest making guns illegal and anyone who suggests that should be pilloried and laughed out of the room, but... We should own less guns. We should expect and demand that there be less guns around. That there are gun free spaces. We should encourage people to give up guns and not to buy them without a specific reason. We should advocate a culture of less guns and more gun safety. Just don't buy guns unless you have a concrete specific reason to and tell other people to do the same. Treat most decisions to own guns as bizarre.
When I visited North Carolina over the summer, a friend of the family took me to a gun range. While loading the weapon, he explained to me that he was truly free, unlike me in New York, because he could have as many guns as he wanted.
I thought of countering with the fact that in New York, pregnant women can get health care, and other women can buy birth control pills. But I wasn't holding the gun, he was. So I shut my mouth and did not debate. Such are the ways of the South.
Because of course no one owns guns in New York, and there are no gun ranges in New York either. I’ve heard the same thing about California how they wouldn’t feel free or ever move to the state due to the gun laws. I know plenty of people in California who own guns, whose hobby is shooting, going to gun ranges and belonging to shooting clubs. But somehow in their minds we aren’t free and can’t/don’t own guns just because these states might put minimal limitations on ownership.
This is PRECISELY the kind of thing I was talking about, thank you for sharing. That's not exactly him saying guns were part of his identity... but it's the sort of cultural shibboleth that should be treated as bizarre.
We should have no problem at all with someone going to a gun range. I deleted if from my original post for length but my grandfather spent a significant part of his social life at a shotgun shooting club. All the grandkids fondly remember helping him make the shells in his basement with a fun little machine... but I can't imagine him EVER saying anything like that. It's just weird and we should point out to people how weird it is when we feel able to do so.
Same with ALL my relatives when I was growing up. They all had guns, hunted, gun ranges, etc... I worked at a gun club (trap shooting) all through high school, my uncle was state trap shooting champ, taught me how to make shotgun shells, etc... and none of them talk like the gun nutjobs do today. It is weird.
Yup! And we should tell them it's weird, politely and kindly.
Probably no more weird than Ford or Chevy being some sort of personal identifier, or an NFL Team for that matter. It's struck me recently that these external things (guns, trucks, sport teams) have come to replace the elements identification in civil life (families, community, work, etc). Maybe it's because these things are broken, or maybe it is because they don't have massive marketing budgets, but it is, without a doubt, an effort to replace things that are missing.
I might’ve said, “I’m free to have as many guns as I want, too, which is none.” But, as you say, he was holding a gun.
Very smart. To be able to live another day, the emphasis is on “to be able.” You have to choose your battles. He wasn’t worth it.
For most of US history, guns were seen simply as tools. Dangerous yet necessary ones that needed to be treated with respect and handled with much more care and training than a screwdriver, but tools nonetheless. A few outliers aside, like hammers and screwdrivers you generally only bought the tools you needed. The insidious yet absurd fetishization of firearms in the late 20th Century changed everything.
We have gun free spaces, like the NRA convention, Charlie Kirk memorial, Congress, and the Supreme Court.
Yeah, anywhere the Epstein class gathers. They get gun-free spaces.
A darkly funny comment. But you're right... and I think this is another example of the kind of thing it's worth asking people who are big into guns about. Is it wrong or right for those spaces to be gun free? Why? And how are they similar or different from other spaces?
You are expecting a group of people to think above their pay grade. When a person sees that owning a gun helps to define themselves, then they shouldn’t own one. Leaving that aside, there is no civilized reason to own a sub or machine gun. No civilized reason to own guns that shoot a spray of bullets in seconds, or an advanced magazine that holds the ammunition needs to spray that many bullets. They can’t be used or hunting. Target practice? Nothing left. Protection? It’s becoming more and more that we need protection from these gun owners, than to be protected by them. WAPO ran an article where respondents chose why they had a gun. The majority, 33% of the respondents said, “Because I want one.” Isn’t that what your child says when a toy is desired?
I would say that I am explicitly NOT expecting people to think above their pay grade! I am advocating (in part) for people to talk to others about their relationship with guns when the opportunity arises. I live in a city that has historically had a lot of murders... and I try to talk people who live here and are thinking about buying guns for self defense out of buying one anytime it comes up. And I talk to people I know in the rural area where I grew up about how they think about and teach their kids about guns when I can. Fortunately most of the people I know with guns really do think about them as dangerous tools for hunting that should be taken seriously.
I agree with what you wrote. My comment about pay grade is for the majority of WAPO’s poll on why they own a gun. A response of, because I can, is not adult reasoning.
Yeah that seems like a fine reason for say... owning a certain shirt, or eating ice cream for breakfast once a year. Not for owning items that let you easily point and click people dead. One of these things is not like the others.
"Mass" shootings are relatively rare when compared to other shootings that USAians are involved in. In 2023 according to Pew Research Center, 46, 728 deaths resulted from gun related injuries, most by murder or suicide. Yeah we need fewer guns around. That's an understatement.
We are just a few more mass shootings here in ‘Murica to reach FOUR HUNDRED for the year! Rare indeed. Just every freakin’ day-and twice on Saturday night, in preparation for Sunday Services at our preferred house of worship….like, the gun range. C’mon people! we gonna have to pick up the pace for the rest of the year if we want to equal 2024! We live in a very sick country, where the past weekend’s events will very soon seem like a distant memory. And as a society, we will not do one thing about it.
Yes indeed. We should be making both laws, and out own individual decisions, based on for lack of a better term "garden variety" gun deaths. One of the only encouraging things in this space in the last few years I think is that there does seem to be SOME movement towards red flag laws and taking them seriously.
Who is saying guns should be illegal? I know the right wing, which clearly you come from, talked about Obama taking away their guns, but that was just lies. You talk abbot changing culture, but how can you do that when your comment feeds into the lies that produced it in the first place? I agree we should have less guns, but treating those who own kids or have these irrational fears with kid gloves does not seem to be the answer.
Whoa whoa whoa. I also advise against rushing to judgement in comment sections on the internet, haha
I will say I do periodically hear someone suggest enacting a regime like has been done in Australia, or to do some kind of mass confiscation. Generally that's not someone who is a politician but someone in an advocacy group or just spouting off in frustration. All I was saying is that I think it's worth pointing out to them that this is, at present, a very silly and impractical idea and if their doing it in the public sphere we ought to as I said laugh them out of the room and talk about more practical government actions. I don't LIKE it, but I do think it's necessary to try and slowly convince people who have made guns part of their identity to change their minds and give them up because they don't need them and WE don't need them. I don't think that makes me a particularly right wing person, but if you disagree so be it!
But here again your generosity and persuasion only goes one way: for those owning guns. For those you deem suggesting *impractical* solutions, and what % of the populace are we talking about, you say they should be laughed out of the room. The idea that Donald Trump could become president 10 years ago seemed silly and impractical, but here we are. It is clear that you consider those owning guns *serious* people, but those advocating against gun ownership, well you’ve already made that clear.
I mean... I am personally advocating against gun ownership I just think the idea of like amending the second amendment is a pipe dream without on the ground culture change that'll happen one on one person to person and I am pretty sure I'm a serious person (albeit one who laughs a lot). I thought I made that quite clear, but clearly this is a case where we are either talking past one another right now or should agree to disagree. I appreciate having had a civil back and forth!
We are probably talking past each other. But I do think we have ceded the ground to the gun owners and those on the right who have radically interpreted the 2nd amendment which has not historically been read that way — I would argue the modern interpretation is not historically sound. As you say our obsession with guns is a problem. But something the right learned a long time ago was how to adjust the Overton Window. Who ever thought abortion would actually become illegal, and it has had tremendous consequences for the reproductive rights and healthcare for women. It doesn’t help to play into the language of the right, and those whose identities are tied to guns will never support what your persuasion.
"a regime like has been done in Australia" -- you lost me when you described a government that has been proactive about gun safety with the pejorative "regime." You evidently consider gun safety legislation to be authoritarian.
Believe it or not, I meant it entirely neutrally as a description of a way or system of doing things like a fitness regime. A scheme for gun control in other words, not the government AS a regime. In retrospect that wasn't great phrasing on my part though, as it's not a terribly common way to use the word at this point. Sorry for the confusion!
No worries. I think you have the word "regime" confused with "regimen." Easy to do, the words are the same except for one added letter, but they mean very different things. A regime is broadly used to describe an authoritarian government, while a regimen, like you say, describes a prescribed course of exercise, medical treatment, way of life, etc.
JD wants everyone to own weapons as if arming everyone would stave off any mass murder. The man's a fool, at best. A toady schmuck!
Amen to all that. As for the 2nd Ammendment, ad long as that is seen as all or nothing, things will not change. Personally, I do not believe anyone should be able to carry a weapon that has no purpose except to take a life. I totally understand that it's an extreme view. So if I can see my view us extreme why can't someone with the other viewpoint see that? Yhrre doesn't seem to be an ability to debate, discuss and work out a true compromise on this issue. Sorry, I rant. I think someone saying that vigils always help means we are needing to many vigils.
Some people think they gain power and control if they have the power to instantly take a life. Funny that, life itself has been powered by organization and survival - for 4 billion years.
I agree with everything you say.
Well said ,Tim.
Way to go, Andrew Egger! You gotta love the way these MAGA/GOP jamokes let you know when you've hit the nail on the head. My compliments.
I saw an article on the weekend about Trump’s presidential library. It’s to be in Florida and may have a “fake news wing.” The lying will never stop.
So it's actually going to have some true stuff in it? They can't have thought that through. Up is down and down is up.
It does feel a bit like the world is unraveling. Another school shooting. Another hate crime. Here, the shooting in Rhode Island will be forgotten in a few weeks. No action will be taken. This is the second time victims of a university mass shooting experienced a school shooting for the SECOND time in their young lives. They were victims in high school and were victimized again! So many gun rights advocates took the time to stupidly point out that gun restrictions didn’t stop the shooters in Australia. They completely ignore that this is the fifth or sixth mass shooting in the last 30 years in Australia. We have the same number in an average week in America. When gun control advocates cite the need for gun control in the wake of tragedy, they are deemed opportunists. Yet, gun rights advocates will brazenly distort and lie about the failures of gun control. These people have no shame.
It comes from the same place as cutting health care subsidies and unrecommending vaccines. Some children are going to die. That kind of seems like the point now.
If the moniker that you should judge someone by the enemies they have is true, then I'd say you're doing a heckuva a job Andrew. Keep up the good work.
Yep. In situations like that I often think of Rick Sanchez and his response when he is boo'd at. He just responds that he knows what they cheer for so their boos mean nothing. This is exactly how I think about MAGA. I don't care what they have to say or complain about - I know what they believe and support and they have zero, zip, zilch that is worth considering. I don't care if what they say is right, a broken clock is right twice a day too - that doesn't make it worth putting on the wall.
Lol, nice R&M reference
Thanks Hannah for that insight-filled piece on the Brown shooting.
I had an office in that Engineering building as a graduate student, close to 40 years ago now, and used the same Hope Street entrance daily that the shooter used.
The Hope Street citation jarred my memory of a popular cartoon drawn in four panels, a large copy of which was on the walls of a graduate student watering hole. The street names featured are all real streets in the city. The captions on the panels are:
Providence, Rhode Island where it rains two days out of three except during the rainy season when it snows like a bitch. (A dialogue bubble replies "A mess ain't it.")
And Friendship is a one way street.
Rich folks live on Power Street.
But most of us live off Hope.
One can easily see the appeal of this for someone living the graduate student existence. Today it takes on another meaning.
See it here!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/telstar/126653395
Hannah’s post was so moving and on-target. For many years I have been either enraged or in tears at the environment of helplessness in our country about gun violence. Today it’s the tears.
It’s as if because we have the second amendment here, there is nothing we can do to stop gun deaths, exponentially higher here than almost every other country in the world. The Australia mass shooting is an anomaly there. Here it’s pretty much business as usual. I will never stop saying whenever and wherever I can that we can do something about the gun violence here, if we only have the will.
And this is PRECISELY why I do NOT embrace MTG's recent "conversion." https://www.mediamatters.org/false-flag-conspiracy-theory/rep-marjorie-taylor-greene-facebook-2018-parkland-school-shooting-was "In March 2019, before she was elected to Congress, Greene heckled Parkland survivor and activist David Hogg. "
Hell, she's even still, at present, pushing persecuting Dr. Fauci , who saved who-knows how many lives with his cautious approaches for preventing airborne viral transmission, with her typical extreme vitriol. And I'm sure she still holds her magical-thinking concepts of how "they" can control the weather.
She'll have to get past this: "RESOLUTION: Censuring Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene. ... Whereas Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has repeatedly fanned the flames of racism, antisemitism, LGBTQ hate speech, Islamophobia, anti-Asian
hate, xenophobia, and other forms of hatred; ..." https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hres610/BILLS-118hres610ih.htm
Yep, she’s a nut!
We sacrifice children to the god of fragile masculinity.
The saddest thing about the shootings is that such are now common enough that they are almost expected. They are horrible, but i am no longer shocked.
I'd advise not looking up Trump's bleat about Rob and Michele Reiner's deaths, unless you want your blood pressure to rise. What an awful, despicable human being he is.
Curiosity got the better of me and... wow. Holy forking shirtballs. Wow.
I - Just - Had - to - look. t didn’t disappoint me. After all, everything is about him, isn’t it?
Well, we know nobody has stolen Trump's phone and started bleating on it.
Oh my god. How does he not have "people" to tell him that this is incredibly inappropriate? The next time he has a press gaggle, he'll probably be asked about it, so he'll be able to spew the vitriol out loud. I hope no one asks.
To him, wether so one’s death is a pity or a cause for celebration rests on their opinion of him, as does every other event in life. Like Zaphod Beeblebrox in the Total Perspective Vortex, he is the center of the universe.
I think Hannah needs to collaborate more with you guys. Her opener was so clear and so correct.
Very well written.
Mr. Egger: I always think at stressful times like these a good ol' Lindsey Graham quote is in order. After calling Trump a lying xenophobe and a nut, He said, (I paraphrase) "if we elect this man our party will be destroyed. and we'll deserve it." Such wisdom. Such a prophetic gift. . .The grapes are indeed sour. The RNC is engaged in attempted self-defenestration. Open the windows, offer help.
That Lindsey Graham quote should hang above the fireplace in RNC Chair Joe Graters’ office, or sewn onto a pillow on his couch.
My all time LG favorite is where he calls Joe Biden the most honest man he's ever known and an incredibly devoted Senator and Father. I paraphrase as it's been ages since I heard it, but I am close, maybe ?interview in the back of a car in 2015.
I remember seeing that. Lindsey Graham still has a functioning conscience which lets him recognize an honorable man when he sees one, but not enough to behave honorably himself.
Lindsey hasn't believed his own statement in years.
Re Elise Stefanik, did she not notice how Piggy betrayed Kevin McCarthy? Kevin, we recall, was the one who resuscitated Piggy’s political prospects when they were at a post-insurrection low. He was rewarded by a notable lack of support when he was in his own existential crisis.
Elise should contemplate these famous words, “Those unwilling to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
You know what I love? Trump is destroying the New York Republican Party on purpose for revenge and everyone is pretending not to notice.
1. Endorse a disgraced Democrat over a Republican for Mayor.
2. Refuse to contact said Republican candidate for Mayor, or his Party.
3. Lose Mayorial election, as was obvious to all for months, knowing the Republican candidate would've done well with your endorsement.
4. Sabotage your most loyal rep in New York, Stefanik, over and over.
5. Do your best to throw jam into the works for the Governor's race.
6. Force the NY Republican Party into an expensive primary they didn't want.
Am I missing anything?
Perfect. When a moronic demagogue finds his demagogic juice has run dry, all he has left are his delusions, his stubbornness and his stupidity.
Expecting a Republican to learn or adapt to change is literally contraindicated by thier entire philosophy. They proudly have less ability to adapt to changing circumstances than a rock, and a rock would be more useful and less likely to sexually assault someone.
👏
Why expect Stefanik to differ from any of the dozens who've considered themselves exempt from Trump's one-way loyalty? They all think they're special up until the moment the bus--ka-thunk!--drives over them.
It is my understanding that is Donnie's true superpower. Some, despite 8 decades of evidence to the contrary, he is extremely good at convincing people he really does care about them.
Thanks for getting me to think about whether there's a category of reverse (inverted?) abusers. You know, people who behave horribly in public but charmingly in private, the exact opposite of the better-known abusive type.
We are only first world nation that legally allows any moron with arrested development and psychological problems own multiple guns, even military grade. Enough! These stupid, dickless rightwingers need to know that a big gun does not make you a big man.
It is time to name the problem. The problem is the Second Amendment. The United States will be a shithole country until we get rid of the Second Amendment. There is no other way.
And why do we even have the 2nd Amendment? The British confiscated arms that enslavers stockpiled for militias to put down slave revolts. And the British government tried to stop land speculators from sending militias west of the Appalachian Mountains to remove Natives from regions they wanted to settle. These British affronts to human decency were so appalling to our founding fathers that they wrote the 2nd Amendment into the Constitution. We have the 2nd Amendment to guarantee that a federal government can never get in the way of squashing slave revolts or ethnic cleansing. Today, that is why any deranged lunatic can walk into a gun store in the morning and shoot up a school in the afternoon. All of the other reasons you hear about "personal safety" are just stories that were made up by the gun lobby. The 2nd Amendment doesn't make anyone safe. The 2nd Amendment kills tens of thousands of Americans every year. It is a relic of the American history of slavery and ethnic cleansing.
Of course, getting rid of the 2nd Amendment is impossible, right? Well, in 1776, it probably seemed impossible to think that in 90 years slavery would be gone. We have to start sometime. Let us begin a movement to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Take it head-on. Name the cancer in American society. The problem is the Second Amendment.
The problem is conservatives and the wealthy white oligarchs who use them as stalking horses and scarecrows. There has never been a time in American history when that has not been the case.
Can we just start calling it the Soft Civil War already. Bc that is what we’re in.
More like the Pedophile Protection Putsch.
What’s the diff