ChrisWeigant.com

The March For Our Lives Could Change The Politics Of Gun Control

[ Posted Monday, March 26th, 2018 – 18:06 PDT ]

Students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School staged an incredibly successful rally in Washington this weekend, as hundreds of thousands of students, parents, teachers, and other concerned citizens marched to demand stricter gun control laws. It was an impressive feat, since in general high school students are not normally expected to organize anything more complicated than the school yearbook or the prom. I personally could not imagine my former self (at that age) joining together with other students to create such a massive event in a little over one month's time. So the students deserve a whole lot of credit for pulling it off in such spectacular fashion. But the biggest question overhanging the success of the march was whether it will actually change anything or not in the politics of gun control legislation.

There is some cause for cautious optimism, although it has to be said that the odds are against the students achieving real and lasting change. The optimistic part comes from something often heard in relation to the students' effort: "This time feels different." The students are leading the charge, which means the gun control effort has been transformed into a youth movement. This is why so many comparisons are being made to the Vietnam era anti-war marches. But will even having literal poster children in charge change anything, in the end? This remains to be seen.

There have been previous gun-control efforts, with varying degrees of success. The earliest in my memory was James Brady leading an anti-handgun crusade after being shot during the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan, in the early 1980s. Brady joined with the group Handgun Control, Inc., which is now known as the Brady Center to Prevent Handgun Violence. They and other affiliated groups (the National Coalition to Ban Handguns, which later became the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence) led the political push against handguns, which resulted in the passage in 1993 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which instituted background checks for gun purchases.

Other groups haven't had such high-profile successes, although they have occasionally chalked up some victories. The "Million Mom March" happened in Washington on Mother's Day of 2000, with an even more impressive turnout than we just saw this past weekend. Gabrielle Gifford, after being shot in the head, formed the super PAC Americans for Responsible Solutions, and Michael Bloomberg, after leaving the New York City mayor's office, formed his own super PAC, Independence USA. Survivors of previous school shootings (such as the Sandy Hook parents and survivors) have also led their own gun control efforts. Not many people remember it now, but it was an elementary schoolyard shooting in Stockton, California which gave rise to the assault weapons ban in the 1990s.

So is this time different, or will the #NeverAgainMSD movement simply join the ranks of other such like-minded political movements as they attempt to move the debate forward? This movement seems to have a real opportunity to change the politics surrounding guns in two significant ways, although neither is guaranteed. This movement has the potential to get teenagers personally involved, and it also has the chance of making a real sea-change in gun politics, if it gives rise to single-issue voters who will only vote for politicians who support their agenda.

What is most striking about seeing these students protest is their rage. That's one of the reasons this time around feels so different. The students are not projecting sorrow or pleading, they are instead angry. They are angry at the adults for allowing the situation to get so bad. They are most angry at the politicians, especially their own senator, Marco Rubio. Some wore price tags with "$1.05" on them during the march, which they calculated by dividing the over $3 million Rubio has accepted from the National Rifle Association by the number of students in Florida -- the price for Rubio to sell their lives out, in other words. That's a lot edgier than a lot of previous anti-gun efforts. The kids are getting in the pro-gun politicians' faces in a way never really seen before.

Of course, this movement could never have gotten to where it is without the media. A confluence of factors boosted their cause in the spotlight in a new way, this time around. The students themselves (unlike the Sandy Hook students) were old enough to be effective spokesmen. The leadership of the movement which emerged was articulate and clear-spoken on television. They've spent a lot of time thinking about what they are for and what they are against, and they communicate their agenda brilliantly -- no matter what idiotic question gets thrown at them by a journalist bemused by interviewing children on a serious political matter. They are thick-skinned, which they are going to have to be. The N.R.A. and its supporters have already launched multiple personal attacks on the students, and they've borne these attacks well. The students point out that being personally attacked in such fashion means the other side has a weak argument on the facts, and they're right.

There are nitpickers from across the political spectrum who have a variety of complaints about the students. They are from a school district in a well-off suburb, meaning the students are from a socioeconomic class that isn't representative of all school districts with gun problems across the country. But they didn't ask to be spokesmen of a movement, it just happened at their school, so they can hardly be faulted for their background. People of color aren't as well represented by the students, but they are reaching out to all students across the country, so that is a problem that should solve itself in quick order (remember, this movement is only a little more than one month old). Inviting Martin Luther King Junior's granddaughter to speak at the march was a brilliant move to counter this criticism, as well.

Republicans grumble that a lot of wealthy Democrats (including those from Hollywood) bankrolled the movement and the march. This is pretty easy for the students to counter, with a resounding: "So what?" Conservative groups are often bankrolled by deep-pocket donors (as happened with the Tea Party movement, for example), so it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. It's also impossible to make the case that these kids were somehow hijacked into someone else's agenda (which is what complaining about their funding is attempting to do), since they have been clear and firm about what they are demanding since the day after the attack happened. Their agenda hasn't changed one bit since then, so how could it possibly have been "hijacked" by anyone? They have publicly stated that they are only accepting money from donors with no strings attached, and that they've turned down money that did have preconditions. In other words, they accept donations from people who agree with them, they don't sell their agreement for donations. They have also decided not to issue endorsements for politicians, even if they agree with the cause.

So far, the students have weathered all these criticism and attacks admirably. In a little over a month, they have become polished and effective spokespeople for their political cause, despite never having previously voted in an election. As all the sister marches in cities all over the country prove, the issue is resonating far beyond their own school. Young people nationwide are getting interested in politics in a way seldom seen in America.

The general public's attitudes have been shifting as well, and individual ideas to curb gun violence are polling at an all-time high. Indeed, it's hard to find anyone who doesn't now support universal background checks, to pick the easiest example. But no matter how high the ideas poll, what could also be changing is the way voters see the issue. The N.R.A. isn't all that big, when you count up their card-carrying members. But they have had an outsized influence on the debate for decades because there are many people for whom the Second Amendment is the only thing they base their votes upon. There could be a politician who agrees with these voters on everything else under the sun, but if they disagree on gun control, the voters will vote for someone else. The gun control side of the debate has never mustered a similar group of voters on the other side of the divide. So politicians know that supporting gun control is going to lose them a certain number of votes, with no assurance that they'll pick up any votes from voters who agree with their stance. That has been, historically, the reason for the N.R.A.'s outsized influence.

But that may be changing. In the wake of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas school shooting, more and more voters are becoming much less forgiving of the politicians they vote for. This could be the key factor in whether the #NeverAgainMSD movement will actually change the politics of gun control in America or not. Polling on whether gun control really is emerging as a single-issue voter litmus test so far seems to show that minds are being changed. But we've yet to see how it plays out in an election cycle, and this year it might be tough to measure how important the issue really has become (since Democrats were already looking pretty good, even before the school shooting took place). It will likely take a few more election cycles before anyone can accurately tell whether gun control has become just as strong a voter motivation as the pro-N.R.A. side of the equation.

If this movement does change voters' attitudes to such a degree, it will have been more successful than most other gun control movements which preceded it. Passing gun control bills into law is obviously the achievement the students are hoping for, but even if they do chalk up some victories from their agenda, the shift in voting behavior will be a much more lasting change, over time. Politicians running for office now routinely either shy away from the entire debate or jump in with the N.R.A. due to fears of voters punishing them for not doing so. But if gun control supporters can effectively counterbalance this political calculation, then politicians will be much more open to bucking the N.R.A. That will in turn get more politicians supporting gun control elected to office, which is the real precursor for enacting legislative change. As I said, it is still way too early to tell if any of this is going to happen or not, or whether the movement will fade over time. Will young people really turn out to vote over the issue, or will their voter participation rates stay dismally low? Will the movement survive if the media loses interest? Will voters really begin voting on gun control as a true litmus test issue? All of this remains to be seen. But, at this early stage, things do feel different about this movement. Maybe it is the students themselves and the authenticity of their rage that has made this seem different, or maybe it is just the public's weariness of hearing of yet another school shooting every few weeks (or even, at times, every few days). For whatever reason, the #NeverAgainMSD movement has already changed the debate over gun control in a big way, so perhaps it is a time to be optimistic that this time around isn't like the previous efforts. Maybe, over time, #NeverAgainMSD won't just "feel different" but will actually create a permanent shift in the politics surrounding gun control. If they can manage that, the Marjory Stoneman Douglas students will go down in history for more than just one impressive march on Washington.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

63 Comments on “The March For Our Lives Could Change The Politics Of Gun Control”

  1. [1] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Unfortunately, the Big Money bankroll and the attention the students are getting does make it seem like they may be getting exploited.

    The test will be how much attention and funding they get after November.

    And do you really want to make "the way to stop the bad guy with Big Money is a good guy with Big Money" argument?

    Let's hope if the students get ignored when they are no longer useful that they don't get disillusioned and give up, but stay pissed off and fight back.

    Who knows, they might pick up on a hashtag campaign like:

    #FU- IT'S YOUR TURN

    Think how much fun it could be to have all those young pissed off people breaking into a chant of "FU- IT'S YOUR TURN" whenever some politician pulls out the half a loaf bullshit.

    Isn't it amazing how fast things can happen nowadays?
    Just ONE MONTH.

    And who could have thought that people could mobilize around just one issue as a starting point for supporting a candidate?

    Of course, that could never work on an issue that 80% of citizens, including a majority of Republicans, say they want- getting Big Money out of politics.

    After all, the good guys with Big Money aren't good enough to bankroll that, even if that could work.

    So it would take journalists that are willing to explore all possibilities and present all options to citizens so citizens can decide if they want to fight back and participate in building a movement to get the Big Money out of politics instead of giving up.

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    Students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School staged an incredibly successful rally in Washington this weekend, as hundreds of thousands of students, parents,

    Hardly...

    If you believe the HIGHLY inflated count, then yea...

    As an aside, funny how ya'all don't mind highly inflated attendance counts if they are for events ya'all approve of, eh??

    Irregardless, the count wasn't more than a yearly DC MARCH FOR LIFE march that has occurred every year since 1974..

    And, of course, the marchers were a bunch of slobs..

    https://a.disquscdn.com/get?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fmarch-for-our-lives-trash.jpg&key=sGTXKbhwqQ4H_y7AAVui2w&w=800&h=264

    Typical Left Wingers...

    But the biggest question overhanging the success of the march was whether it will actually change anything or not in the politics of gun control legislation.c

    This is simply an iteration of the OCCUPY movement.

    All flash and sizzle and then burns out under the weight of it's own incompetence and unpopularity..

    This is simply a case of a bunch of spoiled kids enjoying their 15 mins of fame and playing hooky from school over the dead bodies of their fellow students.

    That's all this is..

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Stupidity of the 'March For Our Lives'

    It is not a “personal attack” on these kids to say that they are “misinformed, arrogant, and misguided.” It’s a statement of fact. And the moment they accepted a litany of interviews for CNN their ideas became fair game.

    It is certainly the opposite of “personal attacks" if the policies they are trying to gather steam for (banning of certain types of instruments, advocating for ages of legality, all while mix-minusing the moral question) are ones that will put more children (like mine) at greater risk in years to come.

    You don’t get to use your victimization (as real as it was) to advocate for an even less safe school for my children.

    Hogg reminded everyone on Saturday that the hashtag for their cause is #NotOneMore. He then cited 96 gun deaths per day in America (not just of kids but of gun users of all ages.) Meanwhile in abortion clinics across America each day (according to the Guttmacher Institute - the research propaganda machine for Planned Parenthood) 2635 children’s lives are ended due to legal abortion.

    The moral dissonance is deafening. The slogan is hypocritical. The icons are babies.

    It’s time to stop manipulating them, allow them to finish their high school experience, and address the real issues.
    https://townhall.com/columnists/kevinmccullough/2018/03/25/the-stupidity-of-the-march-for-our-lives-n2464388

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    School shootings are extraordinarily rare. Why is fear of them driving policy?

    The first recorded school shooting in the United States took place in 1840, when a law student shot and killed his professor at the University of Virginia. But the modern fear dawned on April 20, 1999, when Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris killed 12 classmates and a teacher, and then themselves, at Colorado’s Columbine High. Since then, the murder of children in their classrooms has come to seem common, a regular feature of modern American life, and our fears so strong that we are certain the next horror is sure to come not long after the last.

    The Education Department reports that roughly 50 million children attend public schools for roughly 180 days per year. Since Columbine, approximately 200 public school students have been shot to death while school was in session, including the recent slaughter at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. (and a shooting in Birmingham, Ala., on Wednesday that police called accidental that left one student dead). That means the statistical likelihood of any given public school student being killed by a gun, in school, on any given day since 1999 was roughly 1 in 614,000,000. And since the 1990s, shootings at schools have been getting less common.

    The chance of a child being shot and killed in a public school is extraordinarily low. Not zero — no risk is. But it’s far lower than many people assume, especially in the glare of heart-wrenching news coverage after an event like Parkland. And it’s far lower than almost any other mortality risk a kid faces, including traveling to and from school, catching a potentially deadly disease while in school or suffering a life-threatening injury playing interscholastic sports.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/school-shootings-are-extraordinarily-rare-why-is-fear-of-them-driving-policy/2018/03/08/f4ead9f2-2247-11e8-94da-ebf9d112159c_story.html?utm_term=.892363e992d1

    It's time for the anti-gun nuts to end their hysterical and fear-mongering attacks on the US Constitution..

    If ya'all want gun control, find.. Repeal the 2nd Amendment and you can have all the gun control you want..

    It's that simple..

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya gotta love the irony..

    A hooker's coked-up interview took the wind out of the sails of Hogg's March For UnConstitutional GunControl event.. :D

    It's rather ironic that a coked-up druggie hooker is the new spokesperson for the Democrat Party and the NeverTrumpers, eh?? :D

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's rather ironic when you think about it...

    The right to own guns is part of the US Bill Of Rights and is only surpassed by the right to free speech, the right to free expression of religion, the right to a free press and the right of assembly..

    The right to vote is NOT part of the Bill Of Rights and is way WAY down on the list...

    Ironic... :D

  7. [7] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    It's time for the anti-gun nuts to end their hysterical and fear-mongering attacks on the US Constitution..

    If ya'all want gun control, find.. Repeal the 2nd Amendment and you can have all the gun control you want..

    It's that simple..

    The hysterical comments come from the guns-make-up-for-having-a-small-penis ammosexuals. Gun control doesn’t require repealing the 2nd Amendment, but that’s what you are always squawking about for some reason. Nor are gun control laws an attack against our Constitution.

    These young people are mad, and for good reason! They have grown up witnessing their elected officials displaying blatant acts of hypocrisy and dishonesty on behalf of different special interest groups. They are sick of seeing chicken-shit politicians make up stupid excuses for not doing the right thing on behalf of their constituents.

    Go ahead, piss them off at your own risk! Talk down to them. You and your generation are going to have to rely on them to take care of your elderly asses before you know it. Just remember how you talked down to them when they won’t let you watch Fox News at your nursing home, and force you to watch BET all day instead!

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    from the guns-make-up-for-having-a-small-penis ammosexuals.

    So... Cops and military are "guns-make-up-for-having-a-small-penis ammosexuals."

    Nice :^/

    Gun control doesn’t require repealing the 2nd Amendment,

    These kids' version of gun control do...

    The version of gun control that is being pushed by Dumbocrats does...

    These young people are mad, and for good reason!

    No, not for good reason.. For a fear-mongering and pushing an unpopular and unconstitutional agenda reason..

    Go ahead, piss them off at your own risk!

    Yea.. Just like pissing off the OCCUPY group was "risky"... :D

    You funny.. :D

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Teenage Demagogues

    Stoneman Douglas students’ passion is not wisdom
    All you needed to know about student activist David Hogg’s speech at the “March for Our Lives” in Washington, D.C., over the weekend was that he affixed a price tag on the microphone to symbolize how much National Rifle Association money Senator Marco Rubio took for the lives of students in Florida.

    The stunt wasn’t out of place. Indeed, it perfectly encapsulated the braying spirit of the student gun-control advocacy in the wake of the Parkland, Fla., school shooting.

    These young activists are making our public debate even more poisonous and less civil, and are doing it as teenagers. They are precocious that way.

    The Stoneman Douglas students experienced a horrific trauma. No one can deny their grief or blame them for being impassioned. And allowance has to be made for the fact that they are teenagers, who universally believe that they know better than their hapless elders (Hogg says the problem is that their parents don’t know how to use a democracy).

    Yet none of that excuses their scurrilous smears of the other side in the gun debate. The student activists presume that there is a ready solution to mass shootings that everyone knows, and the only reason why someone might not act on this universally accepted policy is malice or corruption. This makes the other side the equivalent of murderers.
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/march-for-our-lives-teen-activists-poison-gun-debate/

    Let these whiners get a little life and maturity and experience under the belts.. THEN they might have something worthwhile to say..

    As it stands now, all they are doing is parroting the BS of their hysterical anti-gun puppeteers...

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Teenage Demagogues

    Stoneman Douglas students’ passion is not wisdom
    All you needed to know about student activist David Hogg’s speech at the “March for Our Lives” in Washington, D.C., over the weekend was that he affixed a price tag on the microphone to symbolize how much National Rifle Association money Senator Marco Rubio took for the lives of students in Florida.

    The stunt wasn’t out of place. Indeed, it perfectly encapsulated the braying spirit of the student gun-control advocacy in the wake of the Parkland, Fla., school shooting.

    These young activists are making our public debate even more poisonous and less civil, and are doing it as teenagers. They are precocious that way.

    The Stoneman Douglas students experienced a horrific trauma. No one can deny their grief or blame them for being impassioned. And allowance has to be made for the fact that they are teenagers, who universally believe that they know better than their hapless elders (Hogg says the problem is that their parents don’t know how to use a democracy).

    Yet none of that excuses their scurrilous smears of the other side in the gun debate. The student activists presume that there is a ready solution to mass shootings that everyone knows, and the only reason why someone might not act on this universally accepted policy is malice or corruption. This makes the other side the equivalent of murderers.
    https://tinyurl.com/y8vj7adv

    Let these whiners get a little life and maturity and experience under the belts.. THEN they might have something worthwhile to say..

    As it stands now, all they are doing is parroting the BS of their hysterical anti-gun puppeteers...

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    In accusing their opponents of being bought off, the students deny the sincerity and legitimacy of supporters of gun rights. They treat the Second Amendment as an inkblot on the Constitution and dismiss all counterarguments as transparent rationalizations. Not only is this a (appropriately) juvenile view of the gun debate that ignores Supreme Court jurisprudence, the genuine support of the NRA by millions of people, and the serious, practical objections to gun-control proposals, it removes all possibility of a middle ground.

    In accusing their opponents of being bought off, the students deny the sincerity and legitimacy of supporters of gun rights.

    Tellingly, it is Marco Rubio who is the foremost object of the ire of the students, when he has been notably open and accommodating. He showed up at the CNN town hall to get abused and has shown remarkable forbearance in handling political attacks on him that are shameless blood libels. He sponsored incremental school-safety legislation that is becoming law, and for his trouble he is deemed a moral monster who doesn’t care how many people have to die as long as he gets a few more campaign contributions.

    Maybe all of this can be written off as the work of overenthusiastic, underinformed 17-year-olds. But the student activists aren’t acting alone. They are promoted and praised by adults who should know better. Since the kids serve a useful purpose in promoting gun control, though, it is practically forbidden in much of the media to dissent from anything they say.

    It was hard to believe that our public debate could get even more sophomoric. The student activists are here to say, Yes, it can.

    Yes, it can.. :^/

  12. [12] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    A recent study shows that firearms are now the third-leading cause of death for children ages 1 to 17 and, according to C.D.C. data, the leading cause of death for 15- to 24-year-olds.

    Gun violence kills children at a rate of one child per hour in this country.

    The Second Amendment’s purpose is found at the very beginning:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

    The founding fathers weren’t interested in securing your right to your hobbies; the guns served a purpose and came with an expectation of service in exchange for being granted the right to bear arms.

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    A recent study shows that firearms are now the third-leading cause of death for children ages 1 to 17 and, according to C.D.C. data, the leading cause of death for 15- to 24-year-olds.

    That's a bullshit stat ordered by the Odumbo administration that has absolutely no basis in reality..

    The Second Amendment’s purpose is found at the very beginning:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

    As usual, you are wrong.. First off, you are clueless as to the definition of "well regulated"... Secondly, that part of the 2nd Amendment simply provides a reason WHY the right of the PEOPLE (not militia, but PEOPLE) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..

    The 2nd could just as easily have said:

    "The defense of one's self and other innocents being necessary to a safe and civil society, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

    And it would have the same meaning..

    Finally, it doesn't matter what YOU say the 2nd means.. It doesn't even matter what *I* say the 2nd means..

    It only matters what the SCOTUS says it means..

    And the SCOTUS have ruled unequivocally that the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is the operative part of the 2nd Amendment...

    The founding fathers weren’t interested in securing your right to your hobbies; the guns served a purpose and came with an expectation of service in exchange for being granted the right to bear arms.

    That's yer claim..

    I, and the Supreme Court Of The United States, says different..

    And my (and their) interpretation is the law of the land..

    You don't like it??

    Then repeal the 2nd...

    That's your ONLY alternative..

  14. [14] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    As a member of the very small fraternity of "gun-nuts in favor of banning so-called assault weapons", I hope their efforts do achieve some success, but the history is not very encouraging.

  15. [15] 
    neilm wrote:

    Wow Michale, the kids did a number on you - you're running scared.

    The bad news all around is that this is an issue that won't go away easily because we all know that we are just waiting for the next atrocity. And the kids are calling BS on the NRAs arguments.

    Basically, when you put pressure on a gun extremist all their arguments fail and once you peel it back the fantasies come out and they end up arguing that their guns are necessary so they can fight against the U.S. military.

    There is no armory in the World big enough to fight the imaginary black helicopters in the gun extremists heads.

  16. [16] 
    neilm wrote:

    The original intent of the second amendment was to ensure a well trained populace that could be marshaled in time of need as an alternative to a standing army. This is well documented and explains the "well-regulated militia" aspect of the second amendment.

    Given that a bunch of extremists have hijacked the interpretation to read as carte blanche for their almost fetish-like behavior, it seems the best route is to change the wording to make it clear.

    Here are two alternatives, let's see which one the population likes best:

    1. To ensure that the United States has no standing military in time of peace, the right to be proficient in arms shall not be infringed for those who participate in a well regulated militia.

    2. If there is no standing military, the right to be proficient in arms as part of a well regulated militia will not be infringed.

    The extremists can't have it both ways, if they want to keep our Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard and Marines they have to change the second amendment to allow them. If they want to abolish them and leave us with no army, just the National Guard, then they can participate in that organization in a similar fashion to the Swiss.

    What they can't do is have both the current second amendment and a military in time of peace. Using the second amendment to disband our current peacetime military (and it is peacetime because only Congress can declare war according to our constitution) would be rather poetic justice for all the "original intent" crowd.

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    As a member of the very small fraternity of "gun-nuts in favor of banning so-called assault weapons",

    Define "assault" weapon..

    You can't because no such definition exists.. It's a media/political construct...

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    The original intent of the second amendment was to ensure a well trained populace that could be marshaled in time of need as an alternative to a standing army. This is well documented and explains the "well-regulated militia" aspect of the second amendment.

    Really??

    You don't even know the DEFINITION of "well regulated" and you think you can mind-read people from 260 years ago???

    Funny guy.. :D

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS,

    I hope their efforts do achieve some success, but the history is not very encouraging.

    Democrats voted down an "assault" weapon ban in the aftermath of Sandy Hook...

    If 20 dead kids didn't bring about any "success", nothing will..

    Ya'all really need to face the reality... Until ya'all can repeal the 2nd, nothing is going to substantially change...

    I doubt that even a 7-2 liberal SCOTUS will dare try and ban/take guns from Americans...

    The point ya'all refuse to acknowledge is that owning a gun is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT... right up there with Freedom of Speech and Freedom of religion and FAR surpassing the right to vote...

    Ya'all simply CANNOT win...

  20. [20] 
    neilm wrote:

    You don't even know the DEFINITION of "well regulated" and you think you can mind-read people from 260 years ago???

    Funny guy.. :D

    You do understand that the current interpretation of the second amendment comes from the "original intent" school of thought? This is Scalia's method of interpretation:

    https://content.law.virginia.edu/news/2010_spr/scalia.htm

    And it isn't necessary to read any 260-year-old minds - we can just read what they wrote at the time.

    Also, here is the part of the constitution that makes the Army and Air Force illegal:

    The U. S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, states:

    “The Congress shall have Power ... To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    And it isn't necessary to read any 260-year-old minds - we can just read what they wrote at the time.

    And what they wrote was THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED and gave an example of WHY the right of the PEOPLE (not the militia but the PEOPLE) shall not be infringed...

    You can't win, Neil.. I have the SCOTUS on my side.. :D

    You want to change things, repeal the 2nd.. That's your ONLY course of action..

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    What's the definition of "well regulated", Neil

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html

    There ya'all go...

    That's all ya'all have to do to have your gun control fantasies come true..

    Now, until ya'all can do that, why not quit whining and crying and stamping yer feet...

    It's unbecoming people of ya'all's intelligence...

  24. [24] 
    neilm wrote:

    So, face up to the facts Michale, if you were in the Army for more than two years you were violating the constitution.

    And you an MP of all people - you were empowered to uphold the constitution and you were flagrantly flouting it for every day beyond two years you were in service ;)

  25. [25] 
    neilm wrote:

    Funny how you always omit the "well regulated militia" when you cherry pick from the second amendment Michale. Why would that be?

  26. [26] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michale Your [16]

    That's simple, for me at least. The word "assault" (in the term "assault weapon") is defined as 'UGLY', as in the phrase 'This UGLY black piece of shit would offend any real hunter'!

    And don't bother responding about 'beauty being in the eye of the beholder', I already know that.

    Non-assault weapons (for a person my age anyway) are a blend of hand-rubbed black walnut and blued steel, and can be considered 'works of art'. Defy you to show me a modern military-style weapon that anybody could consider a 'work of art'!

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Funny how you always omit the "well regulated militia" when you cherry pick from the second amendment Michale. Why would that be?

    Because it's not relevant..

    You can substitute any phrase there and the amendment says the EXACT same thing.. The first part simply gives one reason WHY the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..

    Why do you refuse to define what "well regulated" means?

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's simple, for me at least. The word "assault" (in the term "assault weapon") is defined as 'UGLY', as in the phrase 'This UGLY black piece of shit would offend any real hunter'!

    Exactly...

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9d019cfc43b72b2006394ec97fa084bfb31bc33c8e780a887a9b0c794f7f661b.jpg?w=800&h=382

    Of those two, which would you vote to be banned and which one would you say would be OK for hunting??

    Defy you to show me a modern military-style weapon that anybody could consider a 'work of art'!

    A gun is a tool. Nothing more, nothing less..

    If ya'all are so concerned about saving lives, why don't ya'all oppose cars?? Or abortion??

    Because it's NOT about saving lives..

    It's about pushing an unpopular and unconstitutional agenda..

    Which is fine...

    Get rid of the 2nd Amendment and you can push yer agenda all you want..

    But NOT until then...

    It really is THAT simple..

  29. [29] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michale

    I'd ban both. By my standards, both are UGLY.

  30. [30] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    18

    The point ya'all refuse to acknowledge is that owning a gun is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT... right up there with Freedom of Speech and Freedom of religion and FAR surpassing the right to vote...

    The bane of your existence on this board is making up lies about what others think/believe and spewing your made up bullshit that no one said. Who here has said any of that bullshit above? You think you can mind-read people?

    Ignorant goober. :D

    The point you repeatedly refuse to acknowledge is that owning a gun is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT that is regulated... as are they all. The idiots who insist that the decision of SCOTUS in Heller grants them an unlimited right to carry whatever firearm they choose should read the decision and otherwise stop making shit up.

    Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

    Heller - Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

    One needs only to read the damn decision they keep whining about to determine that there is zero reason to believe that gun rights cannot be regulated by law. Zero.

    Find me a major Second Amendment case the SCOTUS has taken up since Heller and refute what I've said above. Actually... don't bother; there isn't a single one. The Supreme Court hasn't taken up any major Second Amendment case in almost a decade, and they've had plenty of opportunities to do so regarding cases dealing with age restrictions, trigger locks, waiting periods, thresholds on applications for concealed-weapons licenses, and that includes bans on assault weapons.

    Once more for effect: Restrictions placed on gun ownership have been refused review by the SCOTUS for the previous 10 years. Got that? Every. Single. Restriction.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'd ban both. By my standards, both are UGLY.

    Perhaps... Beauty is in the eye of the beholder after all...

    But the point is, moronic and hysterical anti-gun nuts would ban the black one because it "looks" evil and would allow the wood grain one because it "looks" like a hunting rifle.. Even though BOTH have the exact same specs...

    That's my point.. "Assault" rifle has absolutely NOTHING to do with reality.. It's a political construct designed to fear-monger... That's it..

    It's like the gun ban the Democrats are pushing... No chance in hell it will ever pass because it's SOLELY based on fear-mongering with NO grounding in facts or reality...

  32. [32] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    the constitutional argument rests on the disputed meanings of "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed"

    well-regulated means under someone's control, but the constitution doesn't specify whose control. as i understand it, the supreme court decided in kachalsky that states are within their rights to regulate possession by strict limitations on carry permits. presumably that doesn't infringe on the rights enumerated in the second amendment. and as marbury v madison established early on, the constitution means whatever the SCOTUS says it means.

    JL

  33. [33] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    pardon, that was the second circuit. scotus didn't intervene though.

  34. [34] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    14

    Wow Michale, the kids did a number on you - you're running scared.

    While Michale can quite obviously piss and moan and whine and fail miserably insisting that legislators will have to repeal the Second Amendment in order to ban assault weapons, the facts and the SCOTUS say otherwise and have been saying so and reiterating the facts of Heller for the past decade and refused to strike down gun restrictions anywhere.

    The Governor in the Shithole State Michale lives just signed legislation that further restricts gun ownership. So let him blame Democrats and continue to throw up the NRA spoon-fed straw man argument about a "gun ban" and the necessity for the repeal of the Second Amendment. If states are doing it... and I can assure you they are... and the SCOTUS has refused to take up the multitude of NRA-fueled cases in opposition to gun restrictions for the last decade... then all his whining and posturing are nothing but bullstank.

    Anyone who claims these kids can't make an impact, particularly one who lives in Shithole/Florida is simply deluding themselves and ignoring the reality that they've already made an impact. We know this is true because the Republican governor of the State of Shithole who signed the legislation said they did.

    To the students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, you made your voices heard. You didn't let up and you fought until there was change. ~ Governor Rick Scott (R)

    First you change minds; then you change laws. These kids have already done both. :)

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    well-regulated means under someone's control,

    Factually not accurate..

    At the time of the creation of the 2nd Amendment, "well regulated" meant operating perfectly or correctly.. As in a timepiece that told the correct time was "well regulated"....

    So, even IF the well regulated militia had relevance to the right of the PEOPLE (not militia) to keep and bear arms, the "well regulated" had nothing to do with how "well regulated" is defined today..

    the constitution means whatever the SCOTUS says it means.

    Exactly... And in the here and now, the SCOTUS has ruled that THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is the operative phrase of the 2nd Amendment..

  36. [36] 
    SF Bear wrote:

    In one way this argument misses the point. The Supreme Court has ruled that restrictions on what ever rights the second amendment affords are OK. Most gun control proposals are just that restrictions on the second amendment rights. It is not necessary to repeal the amendment to have age restrictions, background checks, waiting period etc. Furthermore the Court has ruled that restrictions on certain kinds of guns are also a permissible restriction. The Finstine Assault Weapons ban was indeed constitutional. If we were to enact all the aforementioned restrictions we would go a long way toward eliminating the gun carnage in this country and no one's "rights" would be infringed upon. control

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    It is not necessary to repeal the amendment to have age restrictions,

    Age restrictions would be unconstitutional, as it would effectively bar 18-21 year olds from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights..

    Furthermore the Court has ruled that restrictions on certain kinds of guns are also a permissible restriction.

    The current Democrat legislation will ban ANY gun with a clip or magazine... That would, in effect, ban ALL modern firearms and a good portion of not so modern firearms..

    You would need to repeal the 2nd to allow the current Democrat legislation to pass...

    If we were to enact all the aforementioned restrictions we would go a long way toward eliminating the gun carnage in this country

    Assumes facts not in evidence..

    and no one's "rights" would be infringed upon.

    In your opinion...

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    It is not necessary to repeal the amendment to have age restrictions,

    To give you an example...

    How would ya'all react if the voting age was raised to 21???

    And voting is not even a BILL OF RIGHTS right...

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny how ONLY the survivors of the Parkland shooting who toe the Democrat anti-gun line have any relevance in the discussion..

    That right there proves it's NOT about the survivors, but all about the anti-gun agenda...

  40. [40] 
    Kick wrote:

    The Supreme Court can and already does put age restrictions on constitutional rights. It doesn't matter how anyone "feels" about the restrictions. If age restrictions exist for one right, they can damn well exist for another. It's not complicated. :)

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Supreme Court can and already does put age restrictions on constitutional rights.

    Not factually accurate...

    The SCOTUS does not place any restrictions, age or otherwise, on ANY constitutional rights..

    The SCOTUS simply rules on the constitutionality of restrictions that GOVERNMENTS (local, state, federal) place on constitutional rights...

  42. [42] 
    Kick wrote:

    It's funny how ONLY the survivors of the Parkland shooting who toe the Democrat anti-gun line have any relevance in the discussion..

    It's funny how you keep making up bullshit in order to claim it's what everyone else believes. Are you so damned ignorant that you believe Gabby Giffords is a survivor of the Parkland shooting?

    It's also funny how the right-wing zealots keep characterizing the ban of assault weapons as "anti-gun" when nothing could be further from the truth. Under the definitions of the straw man arguments being spewed by the right-wing zealots of today, Saint Ronald Reagan {genuflect} was "anti-gun."

    That right there proves it's NOT about the survivors, but all about the anti-gun agenda...

    That right there proves that the right-wing pro-gun slaves are attempting to redefine the push for a ban on assault weapons as "anti-gun." It might come as a surprise and/or shock to the seriously ignorant and/or spoon-fed sheeple spewing that NRA straw man argument, but a person can be against a civilian having access to military-style weapons without being "anti-gun." Clue in.

    You're arguing something no one here is actually arguing and insisting everyone here believes it, and that makes your argument total bullshit.

  43. [43] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    40

    Mere semantics. The SCOTUS has decided multiple times that age restrictions are constitutional by refusing to rule that they weren't unconstitutional. Define it however you wish like you do with your bullshit definition of well regulated that has already been debunked by CW. :)

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mere semantics.

    No.. Facts that prove you wrong..

    I took a shot, thinking you might want to actually have a serious debate and discussion..

    But yer just interested in being a bitch....

    That'll teach me to actually pay attention to anything you have to say...

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    But yer just interested in being a bitch....

    Apologies... That may have come out wrong..

    Yer only interested in being an IGNORANT bitch....

    That's what I meant to say....

  46. [46] 
    Kick wrote:

    Exactly... And in the here and now, the SCOTUS has ruled that THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is the operative phrase of the 2nd Amendment..

    They also ruled there are limits on those rights so if you're going to keep reiterating the ruling of SCOTUS, why do you insist on reading things into it that aren't there? They ruled that Heller had a right to have a handgun in his home for self defense in order to defend himself in his home. Beyond that, they in fact haven't ruled any of the other things you keep insisting they have and have also refused to do so for the last decade.

    It's not complicated, you uneducated bastard. Read Heller. :)

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    And to think I thought things could change around here...

  48. [48] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    43

    I took a shot, thinking you might want to actually have a serious debate and discussion..

    But yer just interested in being a bitch....

    That'll teach me to actually pay attention to anything you have to say...

    So you've established that you're a pathetic wussy. Next! :)

  49. [49] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    46

    And to think I thought things could change around here...

    Your first post of the day here insinuated that Democrats are all typical slobs, and then you went on to say that "a coked-up druggie hooker is the new spokesperson for the Democrat Party and the NeverTrumpers."

    What kind of ignorant bastard trailer trash would post that type of shit and then whine like a pathetic wussy about "thinking things could change"? Asked and answered. :)

  50. [50] 
    John M wrote:

    [37] Michale

    "How would ya'all react if the voting age was raised to 21???

    And voting is not even a BILL OF RIGHTS right..."

    Actually IT IS. The 26th amendment explicitly sets the age to vote at 18.

  51. [51] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "And to think I thought things could change around here..."

    You haven't noticed how much better it is without the excessive comments about One Demand?

  52. [52] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    your interpretation of "well-regulated" is the smallest minority opinion. living document proponents (i.e. liberal justices) interpret it to mean what it implies today, which is to say, under the control of a larger organization such as the government. the next most prevalent interpretation is that of the textualists (roberts, alito, kennedy), who hold that the words in the constitution are limited to the current meanings of the words, i.e. monitored and controlled by a militia or similar citizen group. the interpretation you've proposed is that of the originalists (scalia, thomas... possibly gorsuch) that the text means only what it used to mean in 1790 when it was ratified. that's not a fact, it's a legal opinion, and the one that's held by the smallest faction on the scotus - which is to say based on marbury that it is also the least factually accurate.

    JL

  53. [53] 
    Kick wrote:

    John M
    49

    Actually IT IS. The 26th amendment explicitly sets the age to vote at 18.

    The Bill of Rights is defined as the first 10 amendments so Michale is right about that particular issue, but I disagree with Michale's inference that constitutional amendments enumerated by numbers 11 or higher are somehow lesser rights and those numbered 1-10 are somehow magically placed by order of importance because they quite simply weren't.

    James Madison of Virginia who authored the first drafts of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights wanted the 10 amendments incorporated into the text while Roger Sherman of Connecticut wanted them numbered and placed at the end of the Constitution. Sherman won the argument and they were listed, but the order of the list reflects Madison's view so the amendments 1-10 are simply listed in the same order as the sections of the Constitution that they would have modified.

    This concludes today's episode of "Tiny Little History Lessons." :)

  54. [54] 
    SF Bear wrote:

    The Court has ruled specifically and explicitly that restrictions on certain types of guns are indeed permitted. The need for such restrictions should be obvious. Even you would agree that private citizens should not be allowed to have a howitzer in their home so the quest simply becomes where to draw the line not if a line should be drawn.

    As to your tortured quibble about the legality of age restrictions lets look at it this way. There have been several cases where the argument was raised to the Court that age restrictions were not constitutional. In each and every case the Court has declined to take up the question, allowing the existing restrictions to stand. There is no reason to believe that age restrictions on gun use would fare any differently. I doubt even you would argue that a 3 year old child should have a gun, so again the question is where to draw the line not if a line can be drawn.

  55. [55] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Don Harris [1] -

    OK, I gotta admit "And do you really want to make "the way to stop the bad guy with Big Money is a good guy with Big Money" argument?" is a good line. Credit where it's due and all.

    But, yes, I do want to make that argument in this particular case. Because the other option, as I see it is called "unilateral disarmament."

    If the kids had hewn to an artificial limit on donations ($200 per), then they probably wouldn't have had as big a march. Which translates to "as big an impact." And the NRA certainly isn't playing by those rules, is it?

    If Hollywood types want to toss a half-million into the pot, with no strings, then what's the problem?

    The key phrase being "with no strings," of course.

    I admit I had just about given up on gun control, seeing it fail so many times even with the most sympathetic poster children (Sandy Hook), but these particular kids have resparked my optimism. And the last thing I'd want to do now is to tell them to keep to an unrealistic limit on who could support their cause. If that makes me some shill for Big Money, then so be it. So far, they seem to be doing an admirable job of exciting others like them to join their cause. We'll see how they do when they're not so much in the spotlight, but I'd be willing to bet that there will be so many other school shootings that they'll cycle in and out of that spotlight for a good time to come, personally. Their biggest challenge isn't who is donating, at this point, it is if they can keep their agenda solid and resist any attempts to take over what they have created. So far, they seem to be doing a great job of avoiding that, as far as I can see.

    Michale [2] -

    You'll notice, I avoided an actual count in this article. I've seen estimates from 200K to 800K. Going from the satellite photos, 800K seems possible, but kind of a stretch. 200K seems entirely reasonable, and probably low.

    The problem is, they applied for their permit with only like a month before it happened, so the National Mall was already booked. So they had to hold their rally on Pennsylvania Ave. It's harder for me to estimate crowd sizes on the street versus on the Mall (remember, I grew up near DC and have personally seen crowds from 50K up to a million on the Mall). But, easily, 200K, and probably a lot more -- that's my read, from the satellite photos and the press photos I saw.

    You might prove right to them being a flash in the pan. But I bet they've got a little more staying power than Occupy, personally. We'll both see in a year or so how their movement plays out...

    [3] -

    Nice try. When you can't attack their ideas, attack them directly for totally unrelated issues.

    The biggest success the kids have had so far is to challenge the NRA mantra that it's a binary choice: either support the 2nd Amend. 100% or "they're coming to take everyone's guns!!!" This is a false dichotomy, and the kids are pointing that out better than anyone I've ever seen.

    [4] -

    Worried much? Heh.

    I'd argue the modern age began with the Stockton schoolyard shooting, personally, since it led to DiFi's assault weapons ban.

    [5] -

    You're just annoyed that a porn star is so much more believable than the president, or the president's lawyer.

    Heh.

    [6] -

    The order of the Bill of Rights is not an indication of importance. The original bill, as filed, isn't in the same order (it actually had 12 items).

    Just a nitpick, but still...

    The right to vote is the reason for more amendments adopted since the BOR than any other issue, too... so it's pretty important...

    ListenWhenYouHear [7] -

    Hadn't heard "ammosexuals" before, I have to admit. Nice!

    Michale [8] -

    SCOTUS has ruled that background checks are constitutional. Kids want universal background checks. SCOTUS has ruled that banning certain types of weapons is not unconstitutional. Kids want assault rifles banned. SCOTUS has not ruled on the age limits (kids want it raised to 21), so that one is still pending. But the rest of your argument is just false, sorry.

    [9] -

    Boy, you really seem worried by this.

    The kids are "making our public debate even more poisonous and less civil"??? Really? Have you seen the NRA videos from, say, the past two years or so?

    Nice try.

    [10] -

    Marco Rubio is their target because he takes a boatload of money from the NRA and because he is their senator.

    For him to claim some sort of victim status is just downright laughable, sorry. Although I do give him credit for doing the town hall. That's ballsier than most GOP congresscritters, these days...

    [12] -

    The "well regulated militia" phrasing was to protect against a group that you used to belong to. The Founding Fathers were downright terrified of "a standing army" in the US. They thought it would inevitably lead to a military dictatorship. We didn't have a real "standing army" until after WWI, in fact. The militias were key to being able to defend the country in its absence. Read some history.

    C. R. Stucki [13] -

    Hey, I got no problem on a personal level with gun nuts. I've got close friends that are gun nuts. But I salute you for you stance, and I think "this time is different" may just win the day, this time. I could be wrong, but that's true for all sorts of issues...

    :-)

    neilm [15] -

    My point exactly, about the whole standing army thing.

    Michale [17] -

    Didn't we do this a few days ago? Do I have to dig out the OED again???

    Michale [20] -

    Let me correct that for you: "I have the CURRENT SCOTUS on my side." Things can change, never forget...

    C. R. Stucki [25] -

    How would you describe a Tommy gun? Just curious, seeing as how they are museum peices these days, and worth a lot of dough.

    :-)

    Kick [29] -

    Oooooh! Nice cite!

    Well played, my friend, well played!

    :-)

    Kick [33] -

    Good point! Michale -- how do you personally feel about the law that Rick Scott just signed?

    Just curious....

    Michale [34] -

    So you're really going to force me to look up my OED comment on well regulated? As if dictionaries dictated legal interpretations? Sigh...

    SF Bear [35] -

    Exactly.

    Michale [36] -

    The Constitution says alcohol is legal. But under-21-year-olds can't exercise that right. So what's the problem?

    As for your "Democrat legislation," I think that's actually a feverish NRA nightmare, not actual legislation...

    [37] -

    C'mon. You're not REALLY this stupid, are you?

    It's a monumentally bad analogy. Because:

    https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-xxvi

    it's actually PART OF THE CONSTITUTION, dude.

    Amendments that are not part of the BOR are JUST AS VALID as those that are. Check a history book or something.

    [40] -

    Except, you know, you're wrong:

    https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-xxi

    Where in the US can an 18-year-old legally buy alcohol? Do tell...

    John M [49] -

    Thank you. My point entirely.

    Don Harris [50] -

    I know that's supposed to be snark, but still...

    Heh.

    nypoet22 [51] -

    Nice reference to Marbury. Just had to say that...

    Kick [52] -

    Yeah, it was a giant battle between Federalists and Antifederalists. First American political compromise, in fact!

    :-)

    -CW

  56. [56] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, here's the OED reference:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2018/03/12/trump-owes-pat-toomey-an-apology/#comment-117300

    Notice that Michale didn't respond, for the entire rest of this thread...

    :-)

    -CW

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    Actually IT IS. The 26th amendment explicitly sets the age to vote at 18.

    You DO realize that the Bill Of Rights is only the first 10 amendments, right??

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

    (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
    Heller VS DC, SCOTUS RULING

    Face the FACTS people.. The SCOTUS has ruled that THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is the operative phrase of the 2nd Amendment..

    That the prefatory section, as I have proven beyond ANY doubt, is simply there to give one reason *WHY* the right of the PEOPLE (not militia, but PEOPLE... Funny no one can address that..) to bear arms shall not be infringed..

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Notice that Michale didn't respond, for the entire rest of this thread...

    I always bail when a comment thread just becomes a putrid mess of hatred and intolerant bile..

    It makes my day SOOO much better.. :^/

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is no reason to believe that age restrictions on gun use would fare any differently. I doubt even you would argue that a 3 year old child should have a gun, so again the question is where to draw the line not if a line can be drawn.

    Now look who is quibbling..

    A 3 year old is not an adult..

    A 19 year old is an adult. And you simply cannot take an adult's constitutional rights away without due process..

    These are the facts that no amount of hatred or intolerance will change...

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    your interpretation of "well-regulated" is the smallest minority opinion. living document proponents (i.e. liberal justices) interpret it to mean what it implies today

    Of course LIBERAL justices interpret it that way.. Because it fits their agenda..

    Irregardless, the SCOTUS has ruled that The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

    So, you are clearly wrong.... The well regulated (however it is defined) is merely prefatory and has no bearing on the OPERATIVE phrase of the 2nd...

    Which is.... Say it with me..

    THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED..

    Now, can that change in the future?? Yes, it can... I honestly believe there is as much chance of the SCOTUS reversing itself on the 2nd as there is the SCOTUS reversing itself on the abortion issue..

    But, regardless of whether it changes or not IN THE FUTURE, the **FACT** is that it's the law of the land in there here and now..

    So, if ya'all want your gun ban, as outlined in the Democrat legislation, you are going to have to repeal the 2nd Amendment FIRST..

    What part of that is so complex to understand???

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me tell you the story of a troubled kid, Anakin grew up in a rough neighborhood to a single Mom. He got into a lot of trouble as a kid, but nobody recorded his bad behavior because they were afraid that he might not get into the Jedi Academy one day. He then drew his lightsaber and went in to the Parkland Jedi Academy and killed 17 kids.

    Test- Who is to blame?
    1. The Dark Side
    2. The light Saber
    3. Anakin Skywalker

    If you choose #1 or #2 you are a liberal.

  63. [63] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    CW

    The "Tommy gun" (Thompson sub-machine gun) was engineered for one purpose only, that being to kill humans. It might have "historical interest value", "antique value", etc., but it has zero value as a sporting or hunting weapon.

    Basically, it's the old-fashioned version of the M15, but with full-auto capability.

Comments for this article are closed.