Megyn Kelly wants the nation to pursue "other solutions" to gun violence. Seriously, like what? ANYTHING proposed by those dirty liberals is a non-starter. I'm beginning to have a slight suspicion that she's not acting in good faith.
Megyn Kelly wants the nation to pursue "other solutions" to gun violence. Seriously, like what? ANYTHING proposed by those dirty liberals is a non-starter. I'm beginning to have a slight suspicion that she's not acting in good faith.
No "other solution" will pass the Clarence Thomas 1790s practices test. Until Breuer is overturned (after I'm long dead) or the Second Amendment rewritten (impossible), the situation is hopeless. The Founding Fathers' distrust of a standing army has bequeathed us decades of unnecessary civil strife and death.
At some point, people will stop coming here because of safety concerns. When the airline, hospitality, higher education, and tourism industries are impacted, then we will get change. Republicans donтАЩt care about people, they care about industries.
Republicans are still proposing solutions that they are unwilling to pay for -- new border тАЬsecurityтАЭ, mental health care for gun nuts, loosening the gun laws they used to insist enforcing would solve the problem. The тАЬother solutionsтАЭ always involve (wait for it) selling more guns.
Maybe the Dems would get Ms Kelly's approval if they wrote a bill mandating all US citizens of voting age must own a gun and must bring it to their voting precinct in order to actually vote.
Yes, your gun as your proof of voter registration and identification. What could go wrong? And why wait for the certification of electoral votes (J6) for the violence to start when we can just get to the violence at the polls on voting day?
She'd probably insist on some public health initiative, but that's DOA, too, with Republicans. And it wouldn't fix the problem anyway. The mass proliferation of guns is the problem.
Reducing funding for public health is part of the ransom demand for the debt ceiling. Those pesky local agencies restricted the lives and liberties of the Real Americans during covid. /s
ItтАЩs the same mentality as blaming women who are raped for.... something - being in the wrong place, wearing the wrong clothes, not screaming, being a woman. Blaming the victim is just intellectual malpractice.
Yeah, let's go with increased funding for mental health....yeah, that runs into the brick wall of republican resistance to anything non-military that has the words 'increased funding'.
Personally though, I think she may be a bit right. I don't suggest it for now (wait till 25), but how about a serious proposal for a Constitutional amendment to modify #2? It would need firm support for gun ownership, but add in language that highlights the importance of regulation for the public's interest. I don't expect anything like it to come close to passing the high hurdle an amendment needs, but I also think it could be a winning issue in elections if done right.
Alternatively, get very narrowly specific with an amendment suggestion. The no ownership under 21 amendment (with grandfather clause). An amendment sidesteps the slippery slope argument because it draws a new line in the concrete. I'm not sure that could pass either, but it might better establish the line between those looking for reasonable compromise and those who will accept no compromise. And I don't think that 'no compromise' is a winning position for a strong majority of Americans.
The only way you are going to get any movement on altering the 2A (changing or getting rid of) is when the revolution comes.
That is NOT a joke, BTW.
The way things are going, we are going to get one at some point. That doesn't necessarily mean mass carnage and violence, but it does mean a phase change in the rules and in how things are done...
Because a LOT of people on ALL sides are increasingly angry at how shitty our system is. It is shitty for different reasons from different perspectives, but the general consensus on shittiness is growing.
We are just waiting on a trigger event at this point. The re-election of Trump could potentially be one.
Perhaps, but the actual change of the amendment need not be actual goal. If say 63% of Americans think something is reasonable and politicians can cleanly be put on the record about it, progress in who we elect can possibly be made.
At the least, I'd argue that we certainly haven't made much electoral success on the gun issue to date, so a different tactic might be in order. I mean, not only can we not get meaningful reform when school children are gunned down time and again, we are actually going the other way, with making it easier and easier to own and carry weapons all the time.
There is currently no politically acceptable solution for the US gun problem. I think that is a pretty accurate statement.
There are a LOT of potential solutions. Many of these solution avoid having to deal with the Second Amendment at all. I have seen these solutions discussed in a variety of forms over the last few decades.
But they are still not politically acceptable or possible.
The defensive boundaries set against gun control ( and that have actually been expand in the last few decades with the re-interpretation of the Second Amendment) are so far out from the core issues that you can't really begin to address the core issues.
The fact that one of the major responses to gun violence is MOAR guns, indicates the depth and breadth (and non-rational) nature of the problem.
In the end, there is simply not enough anger or fear to generate change... while there IS enough anger and fear on the anti-control side to generate successful resistance.
The National Firearms Act of 1934 was pretty successful--but it was driven very much by its context (gangsters killing each other and committing crimes using fully automatic weapons). But it relied upon a SCotUS that interpreted the 2A rather differently than the current one does and it relied upon market incentives... and a much different culture.
One of the underlying problems is that there are a lot of solutions that LOOK good, but when it comes time for the rubber to meet the road, people lose their enthusiasm for them. largely because of cost/logistics, but often because people suddenly become aware of how it might actually affect THEM.
It is easy to tick off a box on a survey in favor of X. That doesn't cost anything and makes you look good, look in tune with a majority of people, look sane/rational.
When you have to cough up the money for it or when it negatively impacts you, well then it is a whole different thing.
And American politicians have become experts at poison pilling desired legislation so that nothing actually happens (because it doesn't pass ITFP) or because they tailored it so that it isn't actually effective.
Well said, R. Reduction of gun violence--which is tiny in percentage of populations but enormous in public fear--will not happen with just Moar Gun Control. A multi-pronged approach is needed: suicide intervention, crime prevention, violence interruption, criminal justice reform that diverts non-violent criminals into other forms of punishment but keeps the violent away from us for long periods of time. Strong public health messages along the lines of "don't drink and drive, don't shoot innocent people." All of that will reduce the urge to pull the trigger. Instead, we howl about assault rifles that cause fewer annual deaths than swimming pools.
But America won't take that approach because it's expensive and time-consuming. It's cheap and easy to scream "It's the guns, just ban them and nobody will murder anyone again!!" So that's what we'll do.
Except we are unlikely to even do THAT (ban guns).
The reality is that the solution lies in large cultural changes. It also requires a massive reduction in the amount of fear that politicians willfully generate in order to get and hold power.
The abandonment of a lot of American historical mythology.
It would require a far more tolerant (and community focused) society and a far more rational society. That will require a concerted effort over the span of more than 1 generation.
Here's the thing, cities have more people and produce way more wealth than rural areas. Yet, our national government gives the rural folk a veto over policy preferences of the city folk. In some cases (like abortion) the rural preferences are enacted. At some point, the more numerous folks, who in the aggregate produce this nation's wealth, are going to be fed-up with having to bow to the rural folk. The current system can only change with the approvalof rural folks. That ain't happening. Something has to give, and I fear that it won't be pretty.
Agriculture is still important in this state, producing milk, cheese, wheat, soy beans, sweet corn, cranberries, ginseng, tart cherries, potatoes, etc.
Most food is produced by Big Agricultural - factory farming animals, high-tech dairy farms with automated equipment, giant computer-controlled planters and harvesters. The conglomerates that control Big Ag are controlled in office towers in big cities. The family farm is on the endangers species list.
The family farms are mostly gone. My grandparents farm hasn't been worked for over fifty years. I don't think any of the relatives farms are in production anymore either. Pretty much all of the kids, my parents included, moved to the city. But agriculture is still important to the state.
As much as the current herd of Republican SCOTUS extremists CLAIM to focus on the original intent of the Constitution, as with abortion, they consistently misstate the actual historical practices that were in place at the time of the enactment of the 2nd amendment.
Guns and really weapons of ALL SORTS (including knives) were EXTREMELY regulated in the 18th century (which makes sense when you consider the fact that governments were by and large autocratic at that time, so royals and landowners who had some limited say in the government, had a strong vested interest in preventing the common person from being armed).
And that's even ignoring the fact that these "originalists" or "textualists" have no problem just ignoring the bloody text of the 2nd amendment in the first place, which clearly situates the right in the context of a "well regulated militia", with "militia" at the time being understood as the equivalent of each state's national guard.
There's absolutely no change to the Second Amendment that could pass in 35 states. Meanwhile, wait until they overturn Griswold, see how popular the Supreme Court is when a good chunk of women in the country can't buy birth control.
It doesn't apply to prophylactics as a class, just specific drugs. Men and women alike would be forbidden from buying Lutera; for example, satisfying the requirements you mention.
Maybe the reality of unplanned babies will induce a few to pull the "D" lever, but just lie about having done so as to "save face"? My understanding is that, before Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade, many married women were seeking abortions because they simply couldn't handle another child to raise. It's easy to sit in judgement of "sluts", but when you suddenly find yourself occupying the space you had solely assigned to "promiscuous women" (it's never the men...), perhaps some minds will change? I know, I'm verging on optimism, which is a slippery slope.
Having an abortion because you canтАЩt properly support a child or another child is not something that only happened before Griswold and Roe. ItтАЩs always been a major reason why women have an abortion.
Very true. The only reason I specified prior to those cases is because, since those cases, American women have grown accustomed to the access of the options these cases afforded them. Perhaps the sudden loss of those things will change some minds, just as Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization riled up the pro-choice and anti-abortion crowds; while there's been decades of talk on both sides, it wasn't until the law actually changed and peoples' lives were effected that everyone truly mobilized.
Well, after all, didn't you see how she was dressed? She was *asking* for it! He's just a victim of hormones and her vile temptress ways. For those Fringe fans out there:
Dr. Walter Bishop : It's all because of that temptress; she tricked my son with her carnal manipulations, and he fell right into her vagenda.
Kaitlin Collins did as well as she could. She was being tested for a primetime slot. I think she will have to wait until her hair grows down to her knees. The execs seem to like their women to have long, swirling hair and short skirts. It worked for Fox News. NPR still has 80 year-olds.
Megyn Kelly wants the nation to pursue "other solutions" to gun violence. Seriously, like what? ANYTHING proposed by those dirty liberals is a non-starter. I'm beginning to have a slight suspicion that she's not acting in good faith.
I suspect if it was someone she loved that was hurt by gun violence sheтАЩd change her tune real quick.
No "other solution" will pass the Clarence Thomas 1790s practices test. Until Breuer is overturned (after I'm long dead) or the Second Amendment rewritten (impossible), the situation is hopeless. The Founding Fathers' distrust of a standing army has bequeathed us decades of unnecessary civil strife and death.
At some point, people will stop coming here because of safety concerns. When the airline, hospitality, higher education, and tourism industries are impacted, then we will get change. Republicans donтАЩt care about people, they care about industries.
The Republicans donтАЩt care about Disney, a huge contributor to the economy of Florida.
Republicans are still proposing solutions that they are unwilling to pay for -- new border тАЬsecurityтАЭ, mental health care for gun nuts, loosening the gun laws they used to insist enforcing would solve the problem. The тАЬother solutionsтАЭ always involve (wait for it) selling more guns.
Maybe the Dems would get Ms Kelly's approval if they wrote a bill mandating all US citizens of voting age must own a gun and must bring it to their voting precinct in order to actually vote.
Well...all white citizens of voting age.
I was too chicken to go there, since it was a hypothetical Dem bill.
Yes, your gun as your proof of voter registration and identification. What could go wrong? And why wait for the certification of electoral votes (J6) for the violence to start when we can just get to the violence at the polls on voting day?
She'd probably insist on some public health initiative, but that's DOA, too, with Republicans. And it wouldn't fix the problem anyway. The mass proliferation of guns is the problem.
Reducing funding for public health is part of the ransom demand for the debt ceiling. Those pesky local agencies restricted the lives and liberties of the Real Americans during covid. /s
She provides a laundry list of stuff that Republicans are on record as rejecting, so you are correct about that.
Yet, that's somehow the Democrats' fault.
ItтАЩs the same mentality as blaming women who are raped for.... something - being in the wrong place, wearing the wrong clothes, not screaming, being a woman. Blaming the victim is just intellectual malpractice.
Yeah, let's go with increased funding for mental health....yeah, that runs into the brick wall of republican resistance to anything non-military that has the words 'increased funding'.
Personally though, I think she may be a bit right. I don't suggest it for now (wait till 25), but how about a serious proposal for a Constitutional amendment to modify #2? It would need firm support for gun ownership, but add in language that highlights the importance of regulation for the public's interest. I don't expect anything like it to come close to passing the high hurdle an amendment needs, but I also think it could be a winning issue in elections if done right.
Alternatively, get very narrowly specific with an amendment suggestion. The no ownership under 21 amendment (with grandfather clause). An amendment sidesteps the slippery slope argument because it draws a new line in the concrete. I'm not sure that could pass either, but it might better establish the line between those looking for reasonable compromise and those who will accept no compromise. And I don't think that 'no compromise' is a winning position for a strong majority of Americans.
The only way you are going to get any movement on altering the 2A (changing or getting rid of) is when the revolution comes.
That is NOT a joke, BTW.
The way things are going, we are going to get one at some point. That doesn't necessarily mean mass carnage and violence, but it does mean a phase change in the rules and in how things are done...
Because a LOT of people on ALL sides are increasingly angry at how shitty our system is. It is shitty for different reasons from different perspectives, but the general consensus on shittiness is growing.
We are just waiting on a trigger event at this point. The re-election of Trump could potentially be one.
Perhaps, but the actual change of the amendment need not be actual goal. If say 63% of Americans think something is reasonable and politicians can cleanly be put on the record about it, progress in who we elect can possibly be made.
At the least, I'd argue that we certainly haven't made much electoral success on the gun issue to date, so a different tactic might be in order. I mean, not only can we not get meaningful reform when school children are gunned down time and again, we are actually going the other way, with making it easier and easier to own and carry weapons all the time.
There is currently no politically acceptable solution for the US gun problem. I think that is a pretty accurate statement.
There are a LOT of potential solutions. Many of these solution avoid having to deal with the Second Amendment at all. I have seen these solutions discussed in a variety of forms over the last few decades.
But they are still not politically acceptable or possible.
The defensive boundaries set against gun control ( and that have actually been expand in the last few decades with the re-interpretation of the Second Amendment) are so far out from the core issues that you can't really begin to address the core issues.
The fact that one of the major responses to gun violence is MOAR guns, indicates the depth and breadth (and non-rational) nature of the problem.
In the end, there is simply not enough anger or fear to generate change... while there IS enough anger and fear on the anti-control side to generate successful resistance.
The National Firearms Act of 1934 was pretty successful--but it was driven very much by its context (gangsters killing each other and committing crimes using fully automatic weapons). But it relied upon a SCotUS that interpreted the 2A rather differently than the current one does and it relied upon market incentives... and a much different culture.
One of the underlying problems is that there are a lot of solutions that LOOK good, but when it comes time for the rubber to meet the road, people lose their enthusiasm for them. largely because of cost/logistics, but often because people suddenly become aware of how it might actually affect THEM.
It is easy to tick off a box on a survey in favor of X. That doesn't cost anything and makes you look good, look in tune with a majority of people, look sane/rational.
When you have to cough up the money for it or when it negatively impacts you, well then it is a whole different thing.
And American politicians have become experts at poison pilling desired legislation so that nothing actually happens (because it doesn't pass ITFP) or because they tailored it so that it isn't actually effective.
Well said, R. Reduction of gun violence--which is tiny in percentage of populations but enormous in public fear--will not happen with just Moar Gun Control. A multi-pronged approach is needed: suicide intervention, crime prevention, violence interruption, criminal justice reform that diverts non-violent criminals into other forms of punishment but keeps the violent away from us for long periods of time. Strong public health messages along the lines of "don't drink and drive, don't shoot innocent people." All of that will reduce the urge to pull the trigger. Instead, we howl about assault rifles that cause fewer annual deaths than swimming pools.
But America won't take that approach because it's expensive and time-consuming. It's cheap and easy to scream "It's the guns, just ban them and nobody will murder anyone again!!" So that's what we'll do.
Except we are unlikely to even do THAT (ban guns).
The reality is that the solution lies in large cultural changes. It also requires a massive reduction in the amount of fear that politicians willfully generate in order to get and hold power.
The abandonment of a lot of American historical mythology.
It would require a far more tolerant (and community focused) society and a far more rational society. That will require a concerted effort over the span of more than 1 generation.
Your view reflects mine. We will not ban guns (and shouldn't) and even if we did it wouldn't solve the problem. Cultural change is needed.
Here's the thing, cities have more people and produce way more wealth than rural areas. Yet, our national government gives the rural folk a veto over policy preferences of the city folk. In some cases (like abortion) the rural preferences are enacted. At some point, the more numerous folks, who in the aggregate produce this nation's wealth, are going to be fed-up with having to bow to the rural folk. The current system can only change with the approvalof rural folks. That ain't happening. Something has to give, and I fear that it won't be pretty.
On the other hand, rural folk provide food. Food is good.
The majority of produce, at least here in Central Texas, comes from Mexico.
Agriculture is still important in this state, producing milk, cheese, wheat, soy beans, sweet corn, cranberries, ginseng, tart cherries, potatoes, etc.
Most food is produced by Big Agricultural - factory farming animals, high-tech dairy farms with automated equipment, giant computer-controlled planters and harvesters. The conglomerates that control Big Ag are controlled in office towers in big cities. The family farm is on the endangers species list.
The family farms are mostly gone. My grandparents farm hasn't been worked for over fifty years. I don't think any of the relatives farms are in production anymore either. Pretty much all of the kids, my parents included, moved to the city. But agriculture is still important to the state.
I wholeheartedly agree, Mike.
It'd be quicker to fix the Supreme Court so we can go back to the not-insane interpretation we had for some 200-odd years.
Agreed.
As much as the current herd of Republican SCOTUS extremists CLAIM to focus on the original intent of the Constitution, as with abortion, they consistently misstate the actual historical practices that were in place at the time of the enactment of the 2nd amendment.
Guns and really weapons of ALL SORTS (including knives) were EXTREMELY regulated in the 18th century (which makes sense when you consider the fact that governments were by and large autocratic at that time, so royals and landowners who had some limited say in the government, had a strong vested interest in preventing the common person from being armed).
And that's even ignoring the fact that these "originalists" or "textualists" have no problem just ignoring the bloody text of the 2nd amendment in the first place, which clearly situates the right in the context of a "well regulated militia", with "militia" at the time being understood as the equivalent of each state's national guard.
Outside of waiting for conveniently timed deaths, I'm not sure there's a fix that is going to play well with the electorate.
There's absolutely no change to the Second Amendment that could pass in 35 states. Meanwhile, wait until they overturn Griswold, see how popular the Supreme Court is when a good chunk of women in the country can't buy birth control.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but - doesn't the gender equality act prohibit this? If men are allowed access to prophylactics, women must be also.
It doesn't apply to prophylactics as a class, just specific drugs. Men and women alike would be forbidden from buying Lutera; for example, satisfying the requirements you mention.
How about a counter -offensive and campaign against MEN being able to buy birth control? After all, fair's fair.
I sort of feel like a ban on Viagra et al. would be more apropos, to say nothing of less likely to cause permanent surprises for bystanders.
I fear that even that won't make many folks overcome their reluctance to pull the "D" lever.
Maybe the reality of unplanned babies will induce a few to pull the "D" lever, but just lie about having done so as to "save face"? My understanding is that, before Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade, many married women were seeking abortions because they simply couldn't handle another child to raise. It's easy to sit in judgement of "sluts", but when you suddenly find yourself occupying the space you had solely assigned to "promiscuous women" (it's never the men...), perhaps some minds will change? I know, I'm verging on optimism, which is a slippery slope.
Having an abortion because you canтАЩt properly support a child or another child is not something that only happened before Griswold and Roe. ItтАЩs always been a major reason why women have an abortion.
Very true. The only reason I specified prior to those cases is because, since those cases, American women have grown accustomed to the access of the options these cases afforded them. Perhaps the sudden loss of those things will change some minds, just as Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization riled up the pro-choice and anti-abortion crowds; while there's been decades of talk on both sides, it wasn't until the law actually changed and peoples' lives were effected that everyone truly mobilized.
Some women are so promiscuous they have sex with men. The men are just helpless and have no responsibility for the pregnancy.
Well, after all, didn't you see how she was dressed? She was *asking* for it! He's just a victim of hormones and her vile temptress ways. For those Fringe fans out there:
Dr. Walter Bishop : It's all because of that temptress; she tricked my son with her carnal manipulations, and he fell right into her vagenda.
Kaitlin Collins did as well as she could. She was being tested for a primetime slot. I think she will have to wait until her hair grows down to her knees. The execs seem to like their women to have long, swirling hair and short skirts. It worked for Fox News. NPR still has 80 year-olds.
Not so. Amna Nawaz for example. No more 80 yr olds/
You joke of course, but this is a theme in several major religions on this particular planet.
You go first!
Is it me, or does anyone else smell the desperation for attention wafting off La Kelly?
Dear God, she reeks!