MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

At the March for Our Lives, Kids Say Their Right to Feel Safe Trumps Your Right to Own a Gun

“Certain guns, like AR-15s, shouldn’t even be accessible to the public.”

MarchKyle Grillot/Sipa USA/Newscom"Guns are for the police and the government," a 13-year-old girl confidently assured me.

She was one of the hundreds of thousands of people taking part in the March for Our Lives rally in Washington, D.C., on Saturday. She was flanked by two friends—another 13-year-old, and an 11-year-old—who were equally confident that violence in schools was the problem, and banning guns was the answer.

"Our school could be next," said the other 13-year-old. "What if it is?"

It wasn't just these three—from what I saw and heard at the rally, dying in school was a remarkably ubiquitous fear among young people. I spotted a little girl, perched on her father's shoulders, waving a sign bearing the text "Am I Next?"

Marissa, a teenage girl from Michigan, told me she felt unsafe in school, and thought more security would help. Teenager after teenager testified that their fears of death were all-consuming, ever-present, and more justified than ever before.

Missing from these conversations was any awareness of a very basic, indisputable fact: Gun violence has declined precipitously over the past 25 years, and most Americans are much safer today than they were a generation ago.

Schools are no exception. They are "increasingly free of mass shootings," according to researchers James Alan Fox and Emma Fridel. As New York Magazine's Eric Levitz put it:

American children do not "risk their lives" when they show up to school each morning — or at least, not nearly as much as they do whenever they ride in a car, swim in a pool, or put food in their mouths (an American's lifetime odds of dying in a mass shooting committed in any location is 1 in 11,125; of dying in a car accident is 1 and 491; of drowning is 1 in 1,133; and of choking on food is 1 in 3,461). Criminal victimization in American schools has collapsed in tandem with the overall crime rate, leaving U.S. classrooms safer today than at any time in recent memory.

Obviously, it's understandable for the survivors of the horrific events in Parkland to be feeling unsafe, given what happened to them. But mass shootings are not the norm, and kids don't need to be terrified of going to school.

In any case, most young people I talked to on Saturday possessed both an overriding fear of being in school and a willingness to experiment with enhanced security.

"I don't feel safe in school," a teenager from a high school in Maryland told me. "I think there should be more security measures put in place, and the ones that are being put in place are ineffective."

The least popular solution was arming teachers. That was something virtually everybody at the rally seemed to oppose, kids and adults.

When I asked people whether they wanted more school resource officers—a security measure that utterly failed to stop the Parkland shooting, and creates plenty of negative externalities relating to school discipline and zero tolerance—opinions were mixed, though some reluctantly supported it.

"I think there should [be more cops in schools] but I don't think that would be as helpful as just taking guns from those who shouldn't have them," said the Maryland teen. "Certain guns, like AR-15s, shouldn't even be accessible to the public."

Several protesters mentioned that they were more comfortable with the idea of hiring veterans to patrol schools. "They already have the gun training and everything," Marissa, the Michigan teenager, told me. "I don't think there should be an excessive amount [of cops], like, to the point where every hallway you turn down there's one."

One teenager, a female student who attends a private boarding school in Pennsylvania, cornered me after I had finished interviewing her friends. She was carrying a sign that said, "The FBI has blood on their hands," and was eager to explain it.

"I'm not for taking away guns," she told me. "I think that really this isn't possible in the U.S. But multiple sources, and the FBI itself, confirmed that there were signs that were definitely missed, in Parkland and in other cases around the country. I think that's a matter of them doing their jobs and protecting the country like they're supposed to."

Photo Credit: Kyle Grillot/Sipa USA/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Why were there no Child Props for Gun Confiscation marches in Omaha NE?

    /Captain Obvious

  • JFree||

    Probably because 'Hey gunowning dad, can you drive me to the Eff You and your guns rally' was met with 'Eff you son'. So someone who might have carried a 'We told you assholes that this guy was nuts and dangerous - 40 times - and you bastards STILL armed him. Eff everyone over the age of 18.' sign didn't show up.

  • Brian||

    But nobody wants to take your guns away.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Smirks.

  • Brendan||

  • KevinP||

    No one wants to ban or confiscate guns. Ever! It's a crazy and paranoid idea!

    Democrat Candidate for Sheriff Daryl Fisher Suggests Killing People to Take Their Guns - and audience applauds

  • James Pollock||

    You're conflating two different things.

    1. Taking guns away from people who misuse them.
    (There's almost universal support for this.)

    2. Taking guns away from people who handle them safely and responsibly.
    (There's almost no support for this.) (OK, there's not agreement on what, exactly, "safely and responsibly" means, so this still leaves plenty of ground for debate. But if you are not causing problems, and your firearms are not causing problems, there is little support for separating you.)

  • Brian Mcfarlane||

    And who decides whether YOU are handling them safely and responsibly, or whether YOU are mentally capable of owning a gun?

  • BambiB||

    Lifetime odds of dying in a mass shooting 1: 11,125?

    I call bullshit.

    There have reportedly been 1,077 people killed in mass shootings since 1966. If we call an average life span 72 years one might expect ~1600 people to be killed in mass shootings during a lifetime. There are ~310 million people in the US. So, during the course of a lifetime, the odds of being killed in a mass shooting (1600/310,000,000) is more on the order of 1 in 193,750... or about 17 times LESS than cited.

    Robby: Can you explain the discrepancy? (Do you expect people to start living to 1200 years old? Or for the number of people killed in mass shootings to jump to 17 times the current rate?)

  • ThomasD||

    As if Soave even understands that even now that you have plainly spelled it out.

    Why do you think he does what he does?

    Brainless twits have so few options.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Checking math -- never my strong point, but ...

    1,077 people killed in mass shootings since 1966. 310,000,000/1077 = 287,387. I realize you amortized or did some kind of actuarial adjustment, but either way the odds are incredibly against. What we have is a panicky young generation that feels it is government's responsibility to "keep them safe" -- today in school, tomorrow in university, the next day in everyday life. I say "no -- it is your responsibility to keep yourself safe, and your community's responsibility to keep your community safe."

  • TxJack 112||

    Sorry but these types of statistics about "mass shootings" are garbage and you know it. In this context a "mass shooting" is any event where 4 or more people are killed or injured. It implies they are random events but many of them are gang/crime related shootings or murder/suicides. Although all are terrible, they are not "mass shootings". Crime related shootings are unavoidable and those involved are already barred from owning guns. Murder/suicides are terrible tragedies, but they are domestic violence events or mental health issues and again, people with these problems are already barred from owning guns.

  • James Pollock||

    " they are domestic violence events or mental health issues and again, people with these problems are already barred from owning guns."

    People with mental health issues are not barred from owning guns, and owning guns isn't the problem, it's possessing them. The gun control advocates are pushing for more measures that limit possession.

    SOME individuals with domestic violence history are barred from owning guns; some are not.

    There are people who want to take away all your firearms. They are a tiny minority and not to be taken seriously. There is a much more substantial number of people who wants to leave you alone if you handle your firearms safely and responsibly, and push you towards safety and responsibility if you aren't. If you refuse to handle your firearms responsibly, I have no problem considering that to be a voluntary waiver of your right to possess them.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Obviously, it's understandable for the survivors of the horrific events in Parkland to be feeling unsafe, given what happened to them. But mass shootings are not the norm, and kids don't need to be terrified of going to school.

    THIS OPINION DOES NOT SUIT THE GOALS OF THEIR MASTERS.

  • dchang0||

    Agreed.

    Here's another solution that would work great AND save us all a ton of money AND almost certainly get us better educational outcomes all without having to violate the 2nd Amendment rights of millions of innocent gun owners: end public education and stop forcing kids to go to school (let their parents pay for private school, homeschool, send them to work right away, or do nothing).

    But it would destroy the teachers' and education administrators' unions and thus severely weaken the Democratic Party, so it'll never happen.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You HAD to convert this into tribal gooberism! How will that get enough people elected? Authoritarians like you don't give a shit about that.

  • John||

    There you go. Bring out the caps. It makes you sound so smart. And you leaned a new word. Goober. Be sure to use it over and over again because it makes you sound so smart

    I have to hand it to you, I don't get to laugh out loud that often. But your trolling really makes me smile.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Still peddling nonsense I see.

    It was authoritarian to use government force to make people pay for government schools and make children attend them to begin with.

    Refraining from doing so is the opposite of authoritarian.

  • BambiB||

    True.
    And if a kid doesn't want to go to school, or his parents decide not to send her to school - doesn't the government use FORCE to send that kid to a indoctrination center public school?

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Home schooling is more accepted than previously, but it was not all that long ago that it would come up in dependency proceedings as an indicator of parental neglect rather than increased parental involvement

  • Mark22||

    I can't tell anymore: is that actually Hihn or a parody of Hihn? His responses are getting more and more preposterous.

  • Morbo||

    He's slowly sinking further and further into dementia.

  • MarkLastname||

    How on earth would getting rid of public education be authoritarian?

  • A_Spellman||

    It's Hihn, everything that makes logical sense, he rails against. Usually in all caps, with a good bit of insults. Tis a troll, I'd suggest ignoring him.

  • Texasmotiv||

    Hey man, quit cyber bullying him with your measured responses!

  • Mock-star||

    You forgot the irrelevant links to the very thread that he is commenting on.

  • I'm Here, for MOAR Hihn||

    Damn, I missed him!! He's always fun to rile up, step back, and watch the fire in the large garbage receptacle

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    In any case, most young people I talked to on Saturday possessed both an overriding fear of being in school and a willingness to experiment with enhanced security.

    Anyone in high school today grew up in the shadow of the security state, from the Patriot Act to the illegal NSA surveillance that most have blindly accepted. If that's all they know (and what they hear from schools/leaders), why would anyone expect something else? Some of them will wake up. Others won't.

    The bumper stickers used to say "Question Authority". They don't say "accept it" quite yet, but the sentiment is there.

  • Hank Phillips||

    I earned some credit toward U.T. degree plan requirements with no truancy law or biking across campus. Forced collectivized schools produce the Orwellian idiots you see in the photo.

  • The Last American Hero||

    I don't know, those EU = bumper stickers have been out for a while.

  • Mark22||

    Some of them will wake up. Others won't.

    The problem is that the socialist kids in the East Bloc saw the relative wealth and freedom in the West. But today's kids in the West have no other country to look up to or emulate.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    That's what beatings and blacklists are for. No mercy for communist sympathizers.

  • libertynugget||

    These kids weren't alive when you could just board a plane. Its the norm for them to be searched, scanned, xray'd, and groped when going to catch a flight to see grandma (unless they're with grandma, who will be strip searched randomly).

  • Elias Fakaname||

    This article is proof that children need more beatings. As do dirty hippies.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its our fault that we allowed that to happen.

    Every inch we gave the Nanny and Police staters allowed them to take a mile.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Maybe what they (and we) need is more student experience in real authoritarian systems. Summer internships in North Korea?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Similar to a 'Holiday in Cambodia'?

  • JFree||

    I think the attitude goes deeper than that and the accident in Tempe has made me think.

    Most everyone in school today has been driven to school and to other activities most of their lives. That is a very new phenomenon and far more common in the US than elsewhere. Used to be that the first act of independence and self-reliance was learning to walk. The second was learning to ride a bike. Those attitudes were reinforced, learned about, expanded on every day from a very young age. Play in the yard OK - walk to playmates house OK - walk/bike to school w friends is OK - bike to after-school stuff is OK. Pretty soon - everyday independence with only curfews and check-ins at dinner. Increasingly deal with and become confident with the everyday. And the actual threat there has been car for generations - car itself, stranger in car, even drive-by shooting, etc.

    But we designed everything for the car. Nothing now within walk distance. Bike distance now limited by arterials/traffic hassle. So we have to reinfantilize our kids by driving them. Which also leads to helicopter mindset because they are re-infants now. At age 16 now, they are rebelling as only infants can. But it's OUR fault that they are infants at that age.

  • JFree||

    'Car' is a very real threat to kids and always has been. Most kids first experience of peer death is car-caused. It's easily the main cause of death for every age group from 4 to 24 (when OD takes over). Unlike guns, the injury/nearmiss rate for cars is far more significant - so pretty much every kid has direct experience (Darwinian memory) of that as a personal threat. If car (and the people inside) were a separate species, it would easily be the major predator of human young.

    Ability to deal with an actual threat is what usually immunizes people (of all ages) against hyped/fearmongering/BS threats and allows them to distinguish the two. And that is exactly what driving kids everywhere robs those kids of. Hell, this protest is just another 'drive the kids to an extracurricular activity' where at least they get to socialize with peers and piss off some older folks.

  • John||

    That is a really good point

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Even more to your point is that we have so spoiled our kids that they may scale back the helicoptering on their kids since it has not worked well.

    I still don't understand why school buses have to drop off kids at each driveway rather than drop all kids at a subdivision or street and let them walk home.

    I had to walk 3/4 miles to the bus stop on a major highway where all the kids had to congregate and be there for the bus pickup. If you missed the bus, you either walked miles to school or skipped school. There was no mommy will drop you off at school. That was still better than older relatives who walked miles to school without a bus.

  • JFree||

    Apart from the older relatives who are Yorkshiremen, I always wonder why they walked miles to school and didn't think to ride their bike instead

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    My high school was in the central city, about 5 miles from my house. I had options: I could take the school bus, walk to the main commercial street and catch a city bus that brought me within a few blocks, or walk the whole way. I not uncommonly walked, not because I wanted to brag about walking uphill to and from school both ways in the snow, but because I knew the exercise did me good. And, not uncommonly, one of my neighbors taking his boys to school would pick me up about halfway and ride me in. Can't remember a day when I felt unsafe except for the occasional gang member, and for whatever reason they usually just let me be

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    My sister and I were what are now called "free range kids". Both our parents worked. Our only rules were to be home before they were, keep the living room and kitchen cleaned up and start dinner. In summer we could go back outside after dinner assuming our homework was done. So far as I know neither of us is a mass murderer (though she is a doctor, so there's that to consider).

    Years later my wife and I adopted a 10-years old, and for his 11th birthday we gave him a dirt bike. We lived in a semi-rural area and he could go over the hills and back roads up to 10 miles without encountering any kind of regularly traveled road. Now, that's what I call "free range" (well, I actually don't use that kind of hipster phrase -- we were just letting him do what kids of his age in our area did).

    To quote that eminent libertarian Jimmy Durante: "Don't put no constrictions on da people. Leave 'em ta hell alone". Amen.

  • Unemployed Armenian Tranny||

    The bumper stickers now say "Swallow Authority, and Don't Forget to Cup the Balls!"

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    "Question Authority" -- but don't expect authority to give you an answer you can accept. BTW, my current fave bumper sticker (I hate bumper stickers): Eschew Obfuscation. I know it's an oldie but goodie, but I've seen it making a comeback

  • I see wood chippers||

    Obviously, it's understandable for the survivors of the horrific events in Parkland to be feeling unsafe, given what happened to them.
    Why? Are they stupid? These aren't 5 year olds that you were interviewing. Anyone who can't grasp the concept of rare events at age 13 will grow up to be an idiot.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    I'd just like to point out that lots of people in this country consider playing the lottery as "investing for retirement".

  • Trumptard||

    Yeah, but that is the definition of stupid

  • Elias Fakaname||

    And coincidentally, only the state can run a lottery.

  • CE||

    They run it 40 percent better. For the state.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    It's not that they can't grasp the concept of rare events, it's that they have the experience of an extremely traumatic event seared into their memories. PTSD is a thing.

    I can understand the survivor of a plane crash staying away from planes regardless of how much they're informed about the relative likelihood of dying using planes vs. other modes of transportation.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "I can understand the survivor of a plane crash staying away from planes regardless of how much they're informed about the relative likelihood of dying using planes vs. other modes of transportation."

    But they don't usually go around demanding that everyone else be prevented from flying on planes.

  • Texasmotiv||

    This is because there is no 'anti-flying' activist machine to co-opt then as human shields.

  • Brendan||

    I could understand this coming from students who were actually at a school where there was a shooting, BUT that's very few of these students. Some of these areas have never seen a school shooting, at least not in the last 20 years. Due to the actual rarity of school shootings, it's highly unlikely that all but a few of these protestors even know a student who attends a school that had a shooting.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Look, the actual school shootings might be incredibly rare, but the coverage of them, if you're not looking at objective statistics, would understandably make a student think they were being educated in a war zone. They're basically being brainwashed by the media and school administrations into thinking, (No, believing, because thinking is the last thing they're being encouraged to do.) that it's a horrific problem.

    The challenge is to deprogram them.

    I think we're reaching the point where the damage the schools are doing with deliberate indoctrination far exceeds any educational benefits. We need a new model for education that doesn't allow education to be replaced with indoctrination. Computer aided home schooling, maybe.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    How much is biased media coverage, and how much is the modern hyper-connected mind? Are young people less able to separate physical and virtual reality?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You would think kids today would be better educated about historical events and things like the Constitution, since they can access almost anything online now.

    Schools have mostly failed kids in the USA as its a requirement to have a gullible population to push socialism on.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    "You would think kids today would be better educated about historical events and things like the Constitution, since they can access almost anything online now."

    You can lead a horse to water ....

    Also, lest we forget, historical events and things like the Constitution are typically presented in a less than honest fashion and many either lack the simple skills required to investigate further or are entirely happy to accept the nonsense being peddled.

  • JFree||

    The challenge is to deprogram them.

    No the challenge is to actually fix the damn problem. I can understand why every kid would be pissed off after this latest school shooting. Every single adult in the US on every 'side' of this issue has failed them utterly and completely and exhibits precisely zero chance of ever doing anything but the sameoldsameold. And that failure is - basically - that American adults have de facto declared war on their own children and are now complicit in killing them.

    For 20 years the aftermath of these things has been identical - with adults coming up with this idea and that idea. All completely predictable and more political/tribal than intelligent but still. 20 years - you either fix the fucking problem or you ARE the problem. And what is imo very clear to these kids now is that adults - no exceptions - ARE the problem. They are correct.

    And you think the 'solution' is for those adults to 'deprogram' the kids? The American adult is no more intelligent than a parrot on this issue - has no possible chance of learning - and has absolutely nothing to offer.

  • Trollificus||

    Sooo...the problem is that adults have failed to make the world perfectly safe? Is that your point?

    Coz it's a fucking stupid one, if so.

  • JFree||

    No the fucking point is:

    Adults told kids to 'tell us when someone is nuts and imminently dangerous' - Tell me again - what's the fucking point of that?

    Adults said 'Good guy with gun blahblahvomit' - So they can what - hide when the shooting starts?

    Adults say - '2nd Amendment important - self defense against oppressors' - What you mean like someone shooting at you in school? Someone coercing you into paying $20 trillion of their bills? That kind of oppression?

    You can look at the same crap from adults on the other side of the parrot perch. They are ALL - without exception - useless at best, imminently dangerous - and, in your case, transparently stupid as well.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    There's no question that the "stranger danger" era laid the groundwork for a lot of this. Kids grew up fearing general society. Very few paid attention when all research showed that young children were far more at risk from family members than from strangers. Didn't suit the narrative.

  • Trollificus||

    Sooo...the problem is that adults have failed to make the world perfectly safe? Is that your point?

    Coz it's a fucking stupid one, if so.

  • CE||

    Armed guards at the school seems to work, as long as the guard doesn't chicken out like in Florida.

  • JFree||

    Maybe it works. But at core it still requires some group of adults to decide who is the 'good guy' who gets a gun and who is the 'bad guy' who doesn't. Otherwise it is basically just deliberately setting up a battlefield not really attempting to fix anything.

  • I'm Here, for MOAR Hihn||

    Jfree - all this whining and bitching you are doing, I've yet to see any sort of constructive idea or plan come across your "adults are bad" diatribe.

    What exactly are you suggesting we do to fix it? Beyond the platitudes and non sequiturs you've already documented

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    We have that in California. The state school system has created a K-12 program that corresponds to the curriculum kids in school will take, though as a practical matter you are not limited to it. I cannot give stats as to the overall success of the program or how it compares with what passes for public education today

  • Ron||

    There may be few shootings but every school at every age teachs how to go into lockdown for a shooting incident. The kids are taught to be scared

  • R. K. Phillips||

    Sort of like the "air raid drills" we suffered through in the 1960s cold war.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Oooh. Run inside from recess (remember that?) and dive under a desk. Always made me feel safe to know that if the school were obliterated by a bomb my desk would survive it.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Those desks had magic force fields.

  • Unemployed Armenian Tranny||

    There is probably at least one future school shooter at the protest.

  • JFree||

    Anyone who can't grasp the concept of rare events at age 13 will grow up to be an idiot.

    That's just crap. NO ONE understands the concept of rare events except as some meaningless abstraction. Some who are mathematically inclined may be able to process the probabilities and risks in the posterior parietal cortex and the ventrotemporal occipital cortex. But when that rare event actually happens, they are just as likely as (and probably more likely than) everyone else to fall on their other posterior and whimper.

    Ain't no one in a rare event crisis ever said - OK. We're in a real pickle here. Anyone good at math?

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    No, but people of rational mind will at least at some point say "let's gain some perspective here."

  • R. K. Phillips||

    They aren't stupid, but they ARE ignorant. They don't yet know the difference between emotion and logic (a fact ow which every trial lawyer and prosecutor tries to take advantage.)

  • Longtobefree||

    Were there any signs actually saying "repeal the second amendment"?

  • Don't look at me.||

    Coming soon to a march near you.

  • dchang0||

    ZeroHedge and RedState have some photos of some of the signs they were carrying.

    The closest ones to "repeal the 2nd Amendment" that I can see in the photos are:

    "Let's get down to business to defeat the guns"

    "Let's ban guns like we ban boobs" (The interviewer asked her for a clarification, she said "Ban guns - legalize nudity."

    "I wish Obama had taken your guns"

    I'm pretty confident at least one sign explicitly said "repeal the 2nd Amendment."

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    The leftists that actually organized this march know that sign would blow up in their face. It'll be few and far between.

  • SIV||

    "Let's get down to business to defeat the guns"

    That one refers to pressuring the "private sector" to outlaw facilitating normal legal firearms transactions. It seems to be working out well for them. Youtube, Citigroup, Delta etc.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You are a fool if you buy anything gun related via credit card.

    Cash is your friend with anything armaments related. Weapons, ammo, accessories, etc.

  • SIV||

    Lol!

    I never use cards face-to-face but my email inbox fills up with offers from so many shooting, outdoor and sporting goods vendors.I'm not about to freak out about using a card to buy an optic, a mag or a can of Ballistol. Of course all my firearms were lost in that tragic boating accident, especially all the private purchases. It's a damn shame.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I never have used a card even for accessories. Why would you buy a scope if you didn't have a rifle?

    With that being said, having guns is more important than worrying about record trails. If the government started a confiscation scheme, there would be millions of Americans preventing them from easily targeting those they suspect have guns.

  • jelabarre||

    You are a fool if you buy anything gun related via credit card. Cash is your friend with anything armaments related. Weapons, ammo, accessories, etc.

    But you CAN buy household chemicals & such with a CC. Nails, electromagnets, batteries, all perfectly incongruous pieces that someone someday will turn into a portable automatic railgun (no, not that Railgun.

  • Malvolio||

    It is a play on a line from a song in "Mulan".

    > Let's get down to business to defeat the Huns.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSS5dEeMX64

  • SIV||

    Thank you.

    My cultural literacy does not extend into this computer simulation century.

  • CE||

    Mulan was last century.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Events like this are we need McCarthyism back. Every bit of this is sponsored by marxists.

  • R. K. Phillips||

    So many people are Marxists until the government becomes Marxist.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    That's why we must destroy them now. So the government doesn't become any more Marxist than it already is.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Were there any signs actually saying "repeal the second amendment"?

    Only brainwashed goobers believe that shit.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Now are you a real Hihn or are you a Sears Hihn?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Only brainwashed goobers believe that shit.

    Add two more.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    They pretty much all knew I'd turn bad.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    It wasn't. I totes missed the Central Scrutinizer joke.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    It's gonna hurt when you pee.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Lucille? 'Cause she messed my mind up.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Fine. I'll just move to Montana.

  • Mark22||

    Be careful; Montana is right next to Idaho, where Hihn trolls from.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Ya picked a fine time to leave me Lucille!

    Four hundred children, and the crop's in the field!

    Ya picked a fine time to leave me Lucille!

  • SQRLSY One||

    Ya picked a fine time to leave me Lucille!

    Four hundred children, and the crop's in the field!

    Ya picked a fine time to leave me Lucille!

  • GeneralWeygand||

    Or as my friend who crashed while pumping a rhythm section at nationals said when his front tire went rogue:

    "You picked a fine time to leave me, loose wheel."

  • hardcorps||

    I believe it is four hungry children, but then I could be wrong.

    Still not sure what Nagen's baseball bat has to do with feeding hungry children or four hundred children that may or may not be hungry since the song may not be clear on that.

  • Mcgoo95||

    "BUT I GOT DE CRYSTAL BALL!"

  • KevinP||

  • Hank Phillips||

    There were very few whiners saying "Surrender to the Soviet Union." Instead they all shrieked "Freeze!"... kind of like Trooper Tiller of Seneca... Nobody said surrender to NSDAP Germany either. They gurgled "peace!" Government Schools are a worse thing than the Second Amendment. People everywhere seek to emigrate to where there is a Second Amendment.

  • the original jack||

    Yes, there were signs promoting the repeal of the 2nd. Look around the net and you can find them.

  • hardcorps||

    I saw a sign at two separate marches that said "18th century laws are not for 21st century guns". Not sure how that can be interpreted any way other than that dirty old piece of paper written by wealthy white slave owners is not adequate for our woke 21st century world. I wonder if these people feel the same way about the first amendment. Sadly, many of them probably do.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    There would be if the students knew what the Second Amendment was. Or our Constitution, for that matter.

  • Rat on a train||

    Kids Say Their Right to Feel Safe Trumps Your Right to Own a Gun
    This mythical right to feel safe trumps all other rights, correct? My right to feel safe trumps your right to speech, privacy, due process, etc. Who knew children were such strong supporters of the government's anti-terror programs.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    A natural outcome of the participation trophy and play-date generation.

  • DesigNate||

    In my experience, play dates are just an excuse for moms to get together and have a glass of wine at 1030 in the morning.

    Not sure that's got anything to do with these kids being authoritarian douche nozzles.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Yes, it does. It's early conditioning to accept having the personal relationships managed for them by authority figures.

  • GeneralWeygand||

    And us fathers with full custody

  • GILMORE™||

    "Right to Feel Safe"

    I'd be happy to discuss this with people if they could point me to a single instance in history in which this "right to feel safe" has ever been recognized in some court of law, or by the Geneva Conventions.... or even if it has been given some formal-argument by a handful of well-respected philosophers.

    As in, 'any clear and reasoned argument for why "the right to feel safe" exists, made by people whose professional reputations rely on "not being idiots"" (*obviously does not include journalists)

    Just... something, anything other than 'kids making shit up which sounds nice" which is then repeated by journalists.

  • Adans smith||

    The U.N will get right on it.

  • Michael Hihn||

    It's the right to BE safe. (lol)

  • John||

    lol. The retard who acts smug is an oldie but a good one. I like your new stuff but sometimes it's good to hear the hits.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Why do you reject a right to be safe?

  • John||

    I don't. That is why I own a gun. I have a right to be safe in my own home and can't be if I can't defend myself.

    Thanks for playing doofus.

  • Finrod||

    Why do you invent bullshit, troll?

  • GILMORE™||

    I am relying on the article-headline as being an accurate summary of what the people Robby spoke at this rally are insisting upon.

  • Michael Hihn||

    LAME

  • Mark22||

    Sure, Hihn! That's what the Second Amendment is for.

  • Mark22||

    Sure, Hihn! That's what the Second Amendment is for.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    They are, in effect, the same thing.

  • MarkLastname||

    You're already pretty damned safe from guns. Safer than you are from food, alcohol, or automobiles.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Alas, one of FDR's four freedoms was "freedom from fear".

  • Gilbert Martin||

    FDR had a lot of stupid ideas.

  • GILMORE™||

    not sure a political-slogan meets the test-of-rationality i'm looking for.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Wasn't a political slogan. From da wiki:

    The Four Freedoms Speech was given on January 6, 1941. Roosevelt's hope was to provide a rationale for why the United States should abandon the isolationist policies that emerged from World War I. In the address, Roosevelt critiqued Isolationism, saying: "No realistic American can expect from a dictator's peace international generosity, or return of true independence, or world disarmament, or freedom of expression, or freedom of religion–or even good business. Such a peace would bring no security for us or for our neighbors. "Those, who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    Actually kind of embarrassing since BO was bending over backwards to give dictators peace all over the place.

  • GILMORE™||

    i suppose it would be futile to point out that rhetorical appeals don't quite rise to the articulated standard either. i admire your persistence

  • GILMORE™||

    I mean, Hoover promised "a chicken in every pot".

    I don't recall anyone proposing subsequent legislation based on any "Right to Poultry"

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    If anyone ever did, you know who would be the first to get behind that.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Yeah, but Hoover lost, while FDR was president for four terms.

  • GILMORE™||

    I had no idea you could vote "rights" into being. I am learning so much.

  • SIV||

    I like "Freedom From Want". Every time I see that picture I can taste that turkey.

    The Rockwell paintings are much less objectionable than what FDR meant. For you art/Americana collectors there are nice prints of the paintings that were offered as a premium on the purchase war bonds. I keep mine in the original envelope. From an aesthetic perspective "Freedom of Worship" is the only weak one of the four.

  • The Last American Hero||

    I'd feel safer being armed, especially with all this talk in the air of Nazi's and Trump being a fascist. Does my right to be feel safe not count?

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    Correct, Dude.

    /A bunch of 17 year olds, Washington, DC

  • StackOfCoins||

    Living in a state with open carry, I feel extremely safe seeing my fellows citizens strapped. I don't carry myself, so I'm glad to have those people around.

  • I'm Not Sure||

    "In any case, most young people I talked to on Saturday possessed both an overriding fear of being in school and a willingness to experiment with enhanced security."

    The Parkland Students Just Learned What Asking For More Safety Means, And They Naturally Don't Like It

    According to the DailyWire, the Superintendent of the Broward County School System issued an order that all students must have their student ID on them at all times. Furthermore, the students may only have clear backpacks, that the school will issue free of cost, that display their contents for everyone to see.

    "Enforcing students to wear clear backpacks is simply like putting a band-aid on a broken bone"

    "Marjory Stoneman Douglas Penitentiary"

    "also clear backpacks are a mistake because now if someone asks for a pencil i HAVE to give it to them. they'll see right through my bag and my lies. gross"

    "Great. Because clear backpacks are gonna fix everything. I appreciate the attempt, but I'd rather have common since gun laws than a clear backpack."

    The high school students are now being introduced to the bed they made, and must now sleep in. They demanded better security, more oversight. What they got was better security and more oversight, but it wasn't what they intended. They wanted OTHERS to have to change in response to their demands, not themselves.

  • Rat on a train||

    Of course they wanted the bill sent to someone else. Next you'll tell me they support raising taxes on other people.

  • libertynugget||

    Nice

  • Rat on a train||

    Best quote:

    "It's unnecessary, it's embarrassing for a lot of the students and it makes them feel isolated and separated from the rest of American school culture where they're having essentially their First Amendment rights infringed upon because they can't freely wear whatever backpack they want regardless of what it is," Hogg said.


    So now he's concerned that the government is infringing on rights. Oh, it is his rights. That's different.

  • John||

    And it doesn't seem to dawn on him that other people could feel the same way. What a narcissistic little twat

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    I think calling him a narcissist is a bit premature. He's a dupe.

  • John||

    He is eating up the attention. He is a dupe as well but he is a narcissistic twat. You can be bothering

  • Michael Hihn||

    In this thread, how many goobers believe gun ownership is an absolute right?

  • John||

    You forgot the caps. Here you are just a tiresome moron. Without caps you are nothing Hihn. It is your whole act

  • Mark22||

    I don't think this is the actual Hihn: not enough caps, not enough bold face, no accusations of bullying or aggression.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Someone else is writing his stuff. This version of Hih writes more like........Tony maybe?

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    In this thread, how many commenters think Hihn is an absolute jackass?

  • John||

    Jackasses are noble beasts who have uses. Don't compare them to something as useless as a Hihn

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    I offer my humble apologies to equines of all varieties.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    I don't honk this is actually Hihn. The writing is much different, and without constant sustained shrill responses.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Get back to us when you can prove it's not.

    Goober.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Goober doesn't know what unalienable means. And inconvenient fact.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Inconvenient for you that you have no facts - about anything.

    Doofus.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Here is a hint, Michael. It's the opposite of what you think it is.

  • DesigNate||

    I love that you're still pushing this idiotic "conflict of rights", as though the mere fact of owning a gun is somehow in conflict with any other right.

    Keep being the senile old fuck you are Hihn.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    I am so happy "Reasonable" is functional.
    I never have to read a word from that thread-shitter Hihn again.

    Life is good.

  • Trumptard||

    Yeah he is quickly becoming a major league asshole.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Most Americans exhibit the same belief -- that all those other people should have their rights taken away to solve their own problems. At least this kid has the excuse of being a kid.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Kid has to learn sometime. This might as well be the time.

  • StackOfCoins||

    Kid has to learn sometime.

    Pretty sure I heard Crusty mutter this when he was shuffling a kid into a broom closet.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    zoinks.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Most humans exhibit the same belief -- that all those other people should have their rights taken away to solve their own problems.

    FIFY

  • Gleep Glop||

    This Hogg kid is not only ignorant of the 2nd Amendment but also of the 1st Amendment.

    I guess he's invoking the Jansport Clause?

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    "Our parents don't know how to use a fucking democracy."
    That is because we live in a Representative Republic, not a democracy, you fascist simpleton.

    https://youtu.be/RIRNURx1-3ELying Bastard sez:

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Something about "be careful what you ask for, you just might get it"

    May teach the students the difference between thinking things through and knocking yourself senseless when your knee jerks into your chin.

  • Finrod||

    Here's a block of cheese and some crackers that they can have to go with that fine whine.

  • CE||

    If they feel afraid just being in school, it's well past time to close the schools down, for their emotional well being.

  • I'm Not Sure||

    "Guns are for the police and the government," a 13-year-old girl confidently assured me.

    Show of hands- who arranges their lives based on what 13-year-olds want?

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    STEVE SMITH WITHHOLDS COMMENT AT CURRENT TIME.

  • John||

    People that get put on lists?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Show of hands- who arranges their lives based on what 13-year-olds want?

    You've arranged yours based on a 13-year-old mentality.

    Show of hands. How many others have no clue what "unalienable rights" are?
    Slept through the subject in school .. or just forgot?

  • John||

    Hihn if you just scream the words enough time maybe you will magically understand what they mean.

  • John||

    A how of hands of everyone who thinks Hihn needs more CAPS. Your problem Hihn is you just don't scream enough. You are just not angry enough. You are here to entertain. Troll harder dipshit. Give the readers what they came here to see

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    You misspelled blood.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    That's what you think.

  • Michael Hihn||

    NONE know what unalienable means. (lol)

  • John||

    NONE of you. NONE. LOLOL You can't even read dumb ass. Why don't you quote some more portions of Heller that makes our exact point.

  • Mark22||

    I want my real Hihn back; this one is obviously fake.

  • MarkLastname||

    Maybe he just got prescribed new anti-psychotics?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    E appear t have t least three Hihns. Original Hihn, psycho all caps troll Hihn, and now this bdag.

  • Hank Phillips||

    People who put dumb planks in LP platforms in the 1980s?

  • Finrod||

    I think Black Lives Matter would have something to say about that allocation of guns.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Other than the parents of 13-year-olds, nobody I can think of

  • SIV||

    "The FBI has blood on their hands,"

    Shoulda asked Miss Alt-right MAGA if she thought Trump sold out by signing the Omnibus bill.

    While I agree in the broader sense, in this instance fault beyond the killer lies with the school, police and social services.
    The FBI ignored a couple of tips about a threat the local authorities were well aware of.

  • John||

    Usually the Famous But Imcompetents are to blame for something. In this case, however, the fault lies entirely with the local authorities

  • SIV||

    I blame the FBI for what they do.

  • Brendan||

    True, but it doesn't help that the FBI did nothing when they connected a lengthy phone call about Cruz with the posted threat to youtube. Just sending it to the local office would have been better than the nothing they did.

    Who knows what the local field office would have done? Perhaps their inquiries to the local police would have been what was necessary to motivate them to finally do something about Cruz.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    The failure is in the system. An overload of regulations combined with territorial jealousy seriously inhibits the ability of local, state and federal agencies to interact successfully on this (and other issues)

    I'm no fan of regulations or the federal government, therefore do not want more regulations and more intervention by the federal government. Let's just focus on getting what we have to work, and see where we are after that.

  • ipsquire||

    If you knew anything about Pennsylvania boarding schools, you'd understand that "alt-right MAGA" is laughable. That was her attempt at having a conversation about meaningful change/blame in an environment of "guns BAD".

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    The term "alt-right" was Hillary's contribution, making "alt-right" a subset of the conservative wing of the country, not the nutball outlier it really is.

  • Otis B. Driftwood||

    The level of sheer fucktardery on Twitter is absolutely staggering.

  • Finrod||

    Their 'Trust and Safety' Council ensures that the ones with the highest levels of sheer fucktardery can't be challenged by anyone else.

  • jelabarre||

    The level of sheer fucktardery on Twitter is absolutely staggering.

    Well obviously, after all the only logical definition of "Twitter" is "a shade stronger than Twit".

  • SIV||

    "Guns are for the police and the government," a 13-year-old girl confidently

    She reads Vox too!

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Her statement can be interpreted in multiple ways.

  • SIV||

    "When they come for your guns, give them the bullets"

  • IceTrey||

    People who have never even held a gun opining on guns. It only takes 13 states to defeat an amendment so the 2nd is not going to be repealed.

  • John||

    True but judges can read it out of the document and just refuse to enforce it. Gay marriage wasn't supported by most states. But it was popular as hell among judges. So they just read it into the constitution. Gun control is popular with judges. They can and if we are not lucky will read the 2nd amendment out of the document just as easily as they read gay marriage into it. The living constitution giveth and the living constitution taketh away.

  • Finrod||

    Just like they read out the Constitutional restrictions on eminent domain, with Kelo.

  • ||

    Well, marriage is one of those "non-enumerated" rights that could reasonably fall under the 9th amendment, with equal protections extended by the 14th. As federal programs are often based on marital status, it's hard to deny the 14th Amendment basis for extending the right to gay couples as long as the government is involved in marriage and administering programs, privileges or tax cuts based upon that status.

    Whereas gun rights are clearly and explicitly protected via the 2nd Amendment. At best, they may try to turn the 2nd Amendment into something that applies to militias only...of course then their fear of "right-wing militias" will skyrocket when every defiant gun owner decides to join one.

  • Rat on a train||

    But it can be reinterpreted by the courts. The interpretation is whatever the Nazgul decree.

  • Michael Hihn||

    The courts ruled that the Second Amendment protects ONLY those weapons in common use at the time, that citizens brought from home to militia duty -- roughly what we now call single-shot hunting rifles (and pistols)
    That was 1939. Confirmed by Scalia in Heller -- citing the militia clause, But SOME right-wing goobers promote a "living constitution", witlessly, as they even piss on the principle of unalienable rights.

    That's why the NRA was POWERLESS to overrule the Assault Weapons Ban (what it's called) ... for ten long years, until it expired. Oooops

    Left - Right = Zero

  • John||

    Lolololol. You are killing me. It only applies to muskets. At some point, you almost go a little too far. It gets so stupid that the audience is almost in on the joke. More caps. More goobers.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Lolololol. You are killing me. It only applies to muskets. At some point, you almost go a little too far. It gets so stupid that the audience is almost in on the joke. More caps. More goobers.

    Even Scalia ridiculed your bullshit! (sneer)

    Page 8, Heller ruling, Scalia
    Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, ... and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search

    Another one bites ... another one bites ... another bites the dust!

  • John||

    Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, ... and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search

    That is exactly what I am saying. You just citing a quotation that makes exactly my point. Is this supposed to be surreal comedy now?

  • Mark22||

    My conclusion: this Hihn is either fake, or Hihn has had another stroke.

  • Johnny Lawrence||

    It's hopeless. He has Heller ass-backwards, and cant wrap his head around it.

    Scalia is calling Hihn's argument frivolous. The unintentional comedy of Hihn relying on that passage is pretty wonderful.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    I dunno John. He sneered. That's like playing a trump card or something. Can't beat a sneer.

  • ChuckNorrisBeardFist||

    Reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Neither is being a good troll

  • hello.||

    Fortunately there have been further rulings since the last time you learned anything in 1939. Individual right to bear arms for self defense affirmed without limitation to muskets. Go buy yourself a Barrett .50, shove it up your decrepit old asshole and pull the trigger you useless scumfuck.

  • Michael Hihn||

    That was 1939. Confirmed by Scalia in Heller

    Fortunately there have been further rulings since the last time you learned anything in 1939

    Scalia's Heller ruling was 2008.

    He also ridiculed your other bullshit, on muskets, which I documented here.

    I provide links to original sources,
    You whine.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano called for a firearm ban here

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    The courts ruled that the Second Amendment protects ONLY those weapons in common use at the time, that citizens brought from home to militia duty -- roughly what we now call single-shot hunting rifles (and pistols)

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano has recently added in pistols at the end because he'd been claiming for months that it only applied to hunting rifles, until I repeatedly threw page 2 of the Heller decision in his face.

    (smirk)

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    (snicker)

  • Finrod||

    Similarly the First Amendment protects ONLY the forms of speech in common use at the time. Want free speech? Go shout your lungs out or buy a printing press.

  • soflarider||

    Touche.

  • jelabarre||

    Similarly the First Amendment protects ONLY the forms of speech in common use at the time. Want free speech? Go shout your lungs out or buy a printing press.

    A *MOVABLE TYPE* printing press, no less. None of that newfangled offset printing will be allowed.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Four justices in the Heller case would have rendered the 2nd amendment completely irrelevant; they said that a complete gun ban would be fine if the govt deems it necessary to prevent crime. No kidding, that's literally written in the dissent.

    Assuming Sotomayor and Kagan would parallel Stevens and Souter, and Gorsuch would parallel Scalia, the grabbers only need to flip/replace one of the majority justices to read the 2nd out of the BoR. Had Merrick Garland been confirmed it would probably already have happened.

  • Joe_JP||

    The dissent would have interpreted the 2A as it was likely originally intended -- to protect the militia in a specific fashion, the individual right to own a gun at home for self-defense present but not the point of the 2A -- which would not make it completely irrelevant. If anything, like Joseph Story said back in the 1830s, truly honoring the sentiment might mean doing more to honor the militia than we do today.

    There were two dissents in Heller. The outer limits of the dissents doesn't really matter to me since we are dealing here with what would happen if they actually had to draw up a majority opinion. Breyer, e.g., argued that even granting an individual right, the various provisions of the law could be upheld -- e.g., there could have been a self-defense exception to use & striking down a trigger lock provision surely isn't necessary there.

    Anyway, I do think the dissents didn't need to go as far as they did. The majority would allow a range of gun regulations. As is, most states had some fairly strong individual rights protection in their state constitution and Congress repeatedly cited or assumed a basic individual right as a given. The case really dealt with some outliers involving regulating some urban areas. One or more of the court liberals probably recognize all of this & would accept Heller as precedent, realizing in practice few laws would be struck down other than a total handgun ban (even there, both cases involved the home) anyway.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    The dissent would have interpreted the 2A as it was likely originally intended -- to protect the militia in a specific fashion, the individual right to own a gun at home for self-defense present but not the point of the 2A

    This is a confusing way of putting it. Do you think 2A was intended to protect individual right to bear arms or not? I really don't give a damn about what the point was, that's irrelevant to the actual implementation.

    The outer limits of the dissents doesn't really matter to me since we are dealing here with what would happen if they actually had to draw up a majority opinion.

    No conceivable gun control law would be considered unconstitutional under the logic of either dissent. Either would have upheld the absolute ban on handguns and practical ban on long guns, so it is obvious that had they been in the majority, the second amendment would have been rendered a dead letter.

  • KevinP||

    Yep. The Second Amendment hangs by a thread at the Supreme Court. All the liberals on the court voted against both Heller and McDonald. The Heller ruling struck down DC's handgun ban but also DC's ban on keeping any gun loaded for self-defense in your own home. And the four liberals on the court voted to uphold that effective ban on self-defense. Why do Hillary Clinton and four out of nine justices want to ban the use of guns for self-defense in the home?

    The lower federal courts have been generally hostile to the Second Amendment. They have already rubberstamped as permissible:
    * New York City's $340 permit fee and one year process to get a permit to keep a handgun in your own home.
    * Discriminatory gun carry permitting in New York, New Jersey, Maryland, California and Hawaii, where only those who are wealthy and connected can get a license to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense.
    * A complete ban on any gun possession by anyone who has a doctor's prescription for medical marijuana.
    * Bans on firearms based upon cosmetic appearance. This is the most troubling because the bogus legal reasoning behind these bans leaves the door wide open to wide bans on entire classes of firearms, not just the so-called "assault weapons".

    A Hillary Clinton Supreme Court would have voted to uphold all of these laws and more, including enabling the bankruptcy of gun makers by frivolous lawsuit. Our liberties dodged a bullet with her defeat.

  • Joe_JP||

    So, when all the gun owners support a range of gun regulations, you are okay with them the opining?

    I doubt none of the mass of people in those crowds "held a gun" but well, the number who do support the types of things ridiculed by some around here is a thing too.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    All the gun owners will never support gun regulations.

    As a gun owner, I support zero gun regulation as protected in the 2nd Amendment, which definitely applies to the states via the 14th Amendment.

  • Cy||

    We've been down the 'reasonable' rabbit hole. It just led to more 'reasonable' legislation attempts and the continued blaming of every tragedy on all of the "Unreasonable" people. Not the ones who disarmed the victims. No, they're the 'reasonable' ones.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Yup. Claw back our gun rights and then never give those gun grabbers an inch.

    No background checks, no limitations on any armament or its accessories.

    Grenades, rockets, machine guns, silencers, armor piercing bullets, bump stocks, etc.

  • Brendan||

    Someone let the mask slip too early:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ORCmn3snhY

  • Elias Fakaname||

    This all just proves that something must be done about America's progressive population sooner than later. As they ignore the rule of law, losing elections means nothing to them. Some,thing needs to happen to sto them.

    At the very least, Sessions could grow a pair and have the mayor of Oakland arrested, amd perp walked into federal custody.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Dianne Feinstein never even heard of a "bump stock" before Vegas, and even today wouldn't know a bump stock if it climbed into her lap and called her "mommy". But boy, is she an authority on the subject.

  • Michael Hihn||

    BEING dead is not FEELING unsafe. Shame on you.
    And NO rights are absolute, if and when they conflict with any other fundamental right -- per the definition of unalienable that SOME of us remember being taught in high school.

    How would YOU choose between two conflicting rights, when they are BOTH absolute? (Don't hold your breath waiting for a coherent response)

    So we have a once-libertarian publication that now SHITS on the core foundation of individual liberty, Pandering to the alt-right. IGNORING our own majority. Brilliant tactic! Like George Custer's.

  • John||

    Gun rights are just pandering to the alt right. They conflict with your right to feel safe!! You are the funniest troll on here. You really are. The caps are what make it funny. Without them you would just be a garden variety angry idiot. But with them you become a histrionic moron worthy of high comedy

  • Michael Hihn||

    Gun rights are just pandering to the alt right.

    That would be crazt, But you're John.
    So you keep pulling psycho lies like this:

    BEING dead is not FEELING unsafe. Shame on you.

    They conflict with your right to feel safe!!

    Shame on YOU.
    Pathetic.

  • John||

    Yeah shame on me. The sad clown is sad tonight.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    A sad clown? Perhaps a clown clown clown?

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x1rTglvW3ZI

  • hello.||

    You don't have a right to not be dead either you stupid old fuck. Everybody dies. Some people just take a lot longer and spend a decade shitting their diapers in an old folks home ranting like madmen first.

  • John||

    Holy cow he has a newsletter. That is kind of terrifying. Nah. He cannot be real. No one is actually that stupid and crazy and not institutionalized.

  • John||

    He is a troll. My guess he is one of the old regulars who went over to Glibertaians and comes back here to troll.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You don't have a right to not be dead either you stupid old fuck.

    (snort) I never said it did. That's as crazy as your other bullshit on what I said. here.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano called for a firearm ban here.

  • hello.||

    How many dead students were at the rally you senile old piece of shit?

    Fuck you are stupid.

  • John||

    He is a troll. It is a comedy act. Laugh at it. Hihn is not an actual person. He is here to entertain and parody leftists.

  • Get lit||

    I thought that you were the a fake John and a parody of a Republican. I don't remember "John" immediately and almost exclusively resorting to ad hom attacks in every post he made.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    There is no such thing as conflicting rights as all rights are negative liberties.

    There could only be a conflict if there was such a thing as affirmative rights.

    But there isn't any such thing so there's no conflict.

    And that's that.

  • Michael Hihn||

    "There is no free speech right to real fore in a crowded theater."

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Yes there is. The courts just refuse to do their jobs and prevent any infringement of protections listed in the BoR.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    How does anyone other than a golfer "real fore"?

  • Hank Phillips||

    Howcum inalienable is definable but a right isn't?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Howcum inalienable is definable but a right isn't?Howcum you ask such a fucking stupid question?
    What does unalienable mean?

    (Not all rights are unalienable -- aka fundamental)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano called for a firearm ban here.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    What does "unalienable" mean? It most certainly does not mean "fundamental". Try this:
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-g.....le-rights/

    The term is not in the Constitution but in the Declaration of Independence. The Bill of Rights was how that concept was codified in our basic concept of government, expressed as "negative rights" -- "Government shall make NO LAW ..." as Justice Black emphasized. But of course, no government ever existed that could accept the idea that it should make "no law". And here we are.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Well someone has t out those fucking Vulcans in their place! Pointy eared hobgoblins!

  • Johnny Lawrence||

    "Ignoring our own majority . . . Like Custer."

    Methinks you have this backward.

  • DesigNate||

    Point out the fucking conflict or shut the fuck up Hihnsano.

    Oh that's right, you think the mere act of owning a gun somehow conflicts with other rights. And you have the audacity to bitch about Reason and the commenters?

    Go fuck yourself you authoritarian fuck.

  • ChuckNorrisBeardFist||

    You know you paint the picture of a neck bearder, shouting at his computer *listen to me* while jumping up and down in your moms basement.

  • gah87||

    Rape and forced sexual assault are on the rise in New York City public schools, with 21 cases in 2017, and a sharp rise in first quarter of 2018. I don't see any marches though.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Were you proud of that bullshit?

  • John||

    Angry clown is angry. You tell em Hihn

  • Paloma||

    Wait, I thought it was 1 in 5? Unless there are only 100 or so girls in New York City public schools, they're actually ahead of the curve.

  • ||

    The least popular solution was arming teachers. That was something virtually everybody at the rally seemed to oppose: kids and adults.

    Because reasons.

    Literally that's the whole argument. Guns are icky, can't have them in school. Of course, most don't realize that plenty of guns are already in school, in the hands of teachers and staff. But to know that would require them to do basic research.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Stupid little SOBs.

  • Cy||

    They're just tools. Their parents are just getting them lubed up to be puppet voters. Question nothing. Give the government everything. The government is your friend, even after they grossly failed you and your comrades. It's someone else's fault. It's someone else's responsibility.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    I doubt there is that much intent and organization. This is mostly about feelz and herd behavior.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    "Guns are for the police and the government," a 13-year-old girl confidently assured me.


    Why are guns for the police?

    Because they habitually gun down unarmed black men?

    If so, that means guns are for the Crips too.

  • Hank Phillips||

    In "Schindler's List" the kids were good guys and only the Political State guys had guns.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano called for a firearm ban here.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    "Guns are for the police and the government," a 13-year-old girl confidently assured me.

    When I was a young man I was led to believe there were organizations to kill my snakes for me.
    i.e., the church
    i.e., the government
    i.e., the school
    But when I got a little older, I learned I had to kill them myself.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Do YOU have a child or grandchild in an American classroom?
    Inconvenient facts (fully documented)

    Gun rights ate NOT absolute, because NO rights are absolute – WHEN they are conflicting or competing. THAT is what "unalienable" means

    Intentional Homicide Rates (Latest available, UN)
    Per 100,000 population
    5.3 United States
    3.0 Europe and Asia (each)
    1.7 Canada
    1.0 Australia
    0.9 UK

    FACT: England's 2nd gun control (1996) saw ONE mass shooting in 22 years
    FACT: United States had 317 mass shootings from 1999-2013.
    UK = 0.2 mass shootings per year (ZERO school shootings since 1996)
    US = 79.3 mass shootings per year = 39,600% higher (Seventeen school shootings this year)
    Is that YOUR "sanctity of life?"

    Inconvenient questions:

    1) MIGHT we have so many ARMED bad guys ... BECAUSE our citizenry is so highly armed? Might it work like the nuclear arms race did?

    2) In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. WHY? And HOW?

    3) if teachers are thought to be armed, who will be shot first?

    (NOT advocating gun grabs, just calling out the bullshit by puppets)

    Left - Right = Zero

  • John||

    More caps. More goobers!!!

  • Michael Hihn||

    Caught you.

  • John||

    Does this Hihn Person know you sock puppet with his name and make him look like a comical moron? If he doesn't or hasn't given you permission, that is a serious dick move.

  • John||

    There is no such thing as bad publicity I guess. I think all of our trolls, sans Shreek and Tony who have been on here as long as I have, are likely sock puppets of the same person or group of people. Open borders Libertarian, Stalin Robespierre or whatever he is, and Hihn are all just variations of the same stupid act. Before them there were others, all sockpuppets of the same weirdos who like to troll this board.

  • Mark22||

    You can look up the libertarian "Michael Hihn" online; just use Google. He's in his 70's and doesn't seem to have been particularly successful in his life.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    And more cut and paste of the same old crap over and over again from other threads.

    That's why it will never get more than a C- troll grade.

    Too lazy to come up with new crap.

  • Michael Hihn||

    "It cannot be true because I already saw it."

    But he's not a goober ... proven wrong.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Per 100,000 population
    5.3 United States
    3.0 Europe and Asia (each)

    So, the difference between getting struck by lightning and drowning in a bathtub.

    Take out Chicago and Baltimore and we're roughly equal to the homocide rates in Europe.

  • John||

    If you take out Chicago, Washington DC, St. Louis, Detroit and New Orleans, the US homicide rate is among the lowest in the world. We don't have a gun problem. We have a city run by Democrats problem.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Exactly.

  • NicholasStix||

    John|3.24.18 @ 10:59PM|#

    "If you take out Chicago, Washington DC, St. Louis, Detroit and New Orleans, the US homicide rate is among the lowest in the world. We don't have a gun problem. We have a city run by Democrats problem."

    What a ridic statement. Detroit was run by Democrats for generations, and was considered the most beautiful city in America. People didn't lock their doors. Their kids could leave their bikes outside, unlocked.

  • John||

    Detroit was a Republican city, like all the north until the 1930s. You don't know what you are talking about

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    You're reaching pretty far back into the past, far enough that the party labels have completely different significance. When Detroit was in its heyday, most blacks were Republican and southern whites were uniformly Democrat.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Yes, and I think you've pretty concisely made the point that the problem is Democrats.

    When the South was comprised largely of Democrats it got a reputation for cousin-fucking and klanning around.

    When the black people in Detroit were Republicans, Detroit was amazing.

    It's like there's something inherent to being a member of the Party of Slavery that just ruins people and everything they do.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I have a link You babble assertions.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    omigod you have a link! I apologize and bow and scrape for your forgiveness for disagreeing! [/sarc]

    Seriously though, I did not dispute the point you used that link for, dumbass.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano wants that gun ban desperately!

  • Hank Phillips||

    Again, no clew offered as to what a right is. A lot of people have this invisible friend they can't define, but that doesn't stop them from larding on adjectival attributes and expecting you to kowtow before them. Imitating superstition is a poor way to defend individual rights.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Michael, do you have children to worry about? Then move them forthwith to Vermont, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Maine, or Wyoming, all with statistically zero murder rates (according to CDC National Center for Health Statistics), way better than any of those horrific foreign killing fields. But be warned that 4 of those 5 states have gun ownership rates above the US average (and all have many more guns than even Canadia).

  • mpercy||

    Per 100,000 population
    5.3 United States

    Of course, if black-on-black murder--much of which is urban gang-related homicides--was not grossly disproportionately outsized relative to their percentage of the population, our numbers would be quite similar to Canada and Europe.

    In the larger category of general murder, blacks comprised 37.7% of offenders (whites comprised 32.5%, unknown kicks in 28%). Of the all the intentional homicides tracked by the FBI, 39% were black-on-black violence. So 12.3% of the population accounts for 40% of murders.

    And those murders are almost entirely male-on-male (almost 90%, which is basically the same as white-on-white murders committed by males, i.e., 90% of all white-on-white murders were committed by males) so we're talking about something like 40% of all murders are committed by one group comprising about 6% of the population.

    The very small subset of people who account for a very disproportionate share of murders are certainly skewing the statistics and if they they all picked up and moved to Australia, I think we'd see a big shift in the numbers on both ends.

    It should go without saying that I don't think blacks are 6 times more likely to be murderers, anymore than I think Americans are 4 times more likely to be murderers than Australians. But if we're going to compare murder statistics, let's at least focus why our overall numbers are worse than, say, Canada. It's because we have a small group totally messing up our numbers.

  • ChuckNorrisBeardFist||

    Wow goober king, you can't even read. From your links.

    Intentional homicide demographics are affected by changes in trauma care, leading to changed lethality of violent assaults, so the intentional homicide rate may not necessarily indicate the overall level of societal violence.[3] They may also be under-reported for political reasons.[4][5] Another problem for the comparability of the following figures is that some data may include attempts. In general the values in these lists should not include failed attempts except when mentioned otherwise.

    So you really trust your numbers? Also, where is this gun violence?

  • ChuckNorrisBeardFist||

    Well Britain is having issues now.

    I've been to Iceland. Guess what goober-king - they are a homogeneous population. They don't have different religions or cultures there. They also have a crazy cost of living.

    Again, learn to read -

    "When adjusted for population, the United States ranks in the upper half of their list of 11 countries, ranking higher than Australia, Canada, China, England, France, Germany and Mexico. The United States did rank lower than three countries -- Norway, Finland and Switzerland -- but they have populations so small that one or two mass-casualty events can produce a relatively high per capita rate."

    Oh my gawd! Norway is a murder captial of the world!

  • ChuckNorrisBeardFist||

    Well Britain is having issues now.

    I've been to Iceland. Guess what goober-king - they are a homogeneous population. They don't have different religions or cultures there. They also have a crazy cost of living.

    Again, learn to read -

    "When adjusted for population, the United States ranks in the upper half of their list of 11 countries, ranking higher than Australia, Canada, China, England, France, Germany and Mexico. The United States did rank lower than three countries -- Norway, Finland and Switzerland -- but they have populations so small that one or two mass-casualty events can produce a relatively high per capita rate."

    Oh my gawd! Norway is a murder captial of the world!

  • Rebel Scum||

    if teachers are thought to be armed, who will be shot first?

    Statistically speaking, places where there is a chance that there are armed individuals do not get shot up. So if teachers are armed, a shooter will likely not even try to shoot up a school.

  • KevinP||

    Why do you support increasing the rate of rape and other violent crime in America?

    Huge increase in crime across UK with 29% increase in both rape and robbery

    By comparison: US: 130,603 rapes in 2016 for a rate of 32 per hundred thousand population
    England and Wales: 48,773 rapes in 2017 for a rate of 84 per hundred thousand population - nearly three times as much!

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    No, "unalienable" means what it says: may not be taken away by government. "Congress shall make NO LAW" -- and in fact there is generally no conflict between rights except insofar as some aggrieved victims' group calls for restrictions and opportunistic politicians and gutless judges find ways to accommodate them

  • John||

    Likely he eats tide pods.

  • John||

    My guess is he was institutionalized. He clearly isn't playing with a full deck.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Being a pan-dimensional being, he moves to a different plane of existence where he's just as insufferable.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    If you and Yellow Tony had a child, would it be Orange Tony?

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    My understanding is he tried and failed 16 times last year.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    And was that a Better Off Dead reference?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "Its a shame when folks be throwing away a perfectly good white boy like that."

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    I learned English from Howard Cossell. True story.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hihn would just use it as an excuse to put his testicles all over me.

    Tentacles...."n" ..."t".

  • General_Tso||

    'Tentacles!', big difference...

  • Rat on a train||

    $2

  • Mark22||

    Red Tony is usually spicier than Yellow Tony.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Being a pan-dimensional being, he moves to a different plane of existence where he's just as insufferable.

    If you're pan-dimensional you exist on all planes simultaneously--duh.

    Multi-planar is the word you're looking for.

    you know.....this sounded a LOT funnier in 9 dimensions.........

  • GeneralWeygand||

    Your humor is consistently the best here.

  • Azathoth!!||

    do you mean 'here', or 'here' or 'here' or 'here or

    here

    ?


    asking for a friend

  • ChuckNorrisBeardFist||

    I picture him more eating cheesy puffs while staring a Stephen A Smith poster

  • ChuckNorrisBeardFist||

    I picture him more eating cheesy puffs while staring a Stephen A Smith poster

  • Michael Hihn||

    Non-responsive

  • John||

    He was likely institutionalized Red Tony. Understandably doesn't want to talk about it.

  • Cy||

    "Non-responsive"

    In medical terms, brain dead.

  • MarkLastname||

    He hangs out at the bus stop handing out copies of his newsletter to disappointed beggars.

  • SimonP||

    Fewer kids die from gun violence than they do from traffic violence, true, but that's just an invitation to re-think the tens of thousands of deaths we tolerate each year from traffic violence, not a reason to wave off the number of kids who die from guns.

    I'm not sure where this contempt for the "right to feel safe" comes from, given that the non-aggression principle is central to any libertarian worldview. Doesn't it naturally follow from the fact that I have a right not to be aggressed upon, that I ought to have a right to feel like I won't be aggressed upon?

    The right to bear arms is a positive right, largely a fiction of modern jurisprudence and decades of marketing by the NRA. We may have a natural right to exercise legal force in order to defend ourselves or another from grave bodily harm, but this right is not meaningfully impacted by firearm bans or other restrictions. That is, it's not the case that a right to engage in lethal force in our self-defense implies a right to acquire any lethal instrumentality we might view to be helpful in doing so. The fact that the Supreme Court has held otherwise just goes to show the quality of Scalia's thought in his latter years. But the point is that none of the heat over these kids' protesting for their lives has any basis in genuinely libertarian thought. You're just doing the NRA's groundwork for it.

  • John||

    If you have a right to use deadly force but the government can deprive you of all means to do so, then you have no right. It is like saying you have a right to free speech but that doesn't mean the government cant' control what you print or broadcast. And owning a gun is not a positive right. My owning a gun in no way infringes on your right to do anything or expects anything from you. My using the gun unlawfully violates your right. But my possessing a gun does nothing. You have it completely backwards.

    You are dumber than Hihn and worse, might actually be a real person. You are terrifyingly stupid on this. You might as well just write "War is Peace" and "Freedom is slavery". It would be no less irrational than what you wrote and would at least have the virtue of being honest about your leftism.

  • SimonP||

    If you have a right to use deadly force but the government can deprive you of all means to do so, then you have no right.

    A ban on some guns, or all guns, is not a ban on all means of deadly force. The government denies our right to act in our self-defense by punishing us when we so act. That is different from saying that we may not, in any given case, be unable to so act because we don't happen to have the means to do so. I'm not any less entitled to act in my self-defense when I go about without a gun, nor am I more entitled when I go about with one.

    And owning a gun is not a positive right. My owning a gun in no way infringes on your right to do anything or expects anything from you.

    I was inattentive to what libertarians sometimes mean by "positive" rights (which I would more typically describe as "claim" rights). What I meant was that the "right to bear arms" is a right found in positive law, namely, the Constitution, and does not logically follow from a philosophical libertarianism.

    You are dumber than Hihn and worse, might actually be a real person. You are terrifyingly stupid on this.

    Says the guy who can't string an inference together.

    It would be no less irrational than what you wrote and would at least have the virtue of being honest about your leftism.

    "Leftism," of course, is not incompatible with "libertarianism," save for those who view "libertarianism" as really just another way of being a paleoconservative.

  • John||

    A ban on some guns, or all guns, is not a ban on all means of deadly force

    I suppose banning speech the government doesn't like on the internet is not banning all speech. You can still wisper it to y our neighbor. If you admit people have a right to defend themselves, then you can't claim the government can effectively deprive them of the ability. Sorry but "you could use a sword" is a nonsense answer.

    What I meant was that the "right to bear arms" is a right found in positive law, namely, the Constitution, and does not logically follow from a philosophical libertarianism.

    The constitution only memorialized rights that already existed. And the right to self defense is a necessary consiquence of the NAP. Further, the NAP and Libertarianism states that you can own or do anything you like provided it doesn't infringe on someone else' right. My owning a gun does no infringe on anyone else' rights to do anything and it is essential for my right to self defense to be meaningful. So, it absolutely falls from philosophical libertarianism.

  • SimonP||

    I suppose banning speech the government doesn't like on the internet is not banning all speech.

    The correct analogy would be the government banning the internet. And no, "banning the internet," whatever that would look like, would not be "banning speech." It might infringe upon the "freedom of the press," but not speech.

    The constitution only memorialized rights that already existed.

    No, it didn't, but regardless of whether it did, constitutional rights are just features of positive law.

    And the right to self defense is a necessary consiquence of the NAP.

    It's not, but I agree that the two complement one another.

    My owning a gun does no infringe on anyone else' rights to do anything...

    Agreed, merely owning a gun is not a violation of the NAP.

    ... and it is essential for my right to self defense to be meaningful.

    This is the step that doesn't follow, because a gun is not essential for your self-defense. We had that right long before we had guns, right? Was it meaningless before guns were invented? And we would have that right even in situations where guns were not available. The right to self-defense does not necessarily entail the right to use any particular instrumentality in our self-defense, much less the right to acquire any particular instrumentality for that purpose.

  • John||

    The correct analogy would be the government banning the internet. And no, "banning the internet," whatever that would look like, would not be "banning speech." It might infringe upon the "freedom of the press," but not speech.

    Freedom of the press and freedom of speech are the same thing you half wit.

    No, it didn't,

    Yes it did. That is why we have the 10th Amendment. The entire debate about the BOR was whether listing rights would cause people to think those were the only rights. And every right in the BOR has a long history in the English common law. Serious question, are you fucking 12? Really? You don't seem to know anything.

    My right to self defense while not meaningless, was effectively moot before firearms. Before firearms the world was ruled by armed thugs. You have no chance against someone with martial training in hand to hand combat. Read about the middle ages sometime. People were at the complete mercy of the warrior class.

  • SimonP||

    Freedom of the press and freedom of speech are the same thing you half wit.

    Read the First Amendment. This was actually an important point in the minds of the founders. Brush up on history?

    Yes it did. That is why we have the 10th Amendment. The entire debate about the BOR was whether listing rights would cause people to think those were the only rights.

    The "savings clause" of the Tenth Amendment does not imply that the enumerated rights were or were understood to be merely memorializing pre-existing rights. It just meant that the founders didn't want the enumeration itself to imply that other possible rights were excluded from protection.

    And every right in the BOR has a long history in the English common law.

    Uh... you mean that same "English common law" that contemplated state censorship, establishment of state religion, quartering of soldiers, and the like?

    My right to self defense while not meaningless, was effectively moot before firearms.

    And yet you are referring the Second Amendment as memorializing a right to self-defense found in English common law, most of which predated firearms. So did the Second Amendment memorialize a "moot" right?

    You don't seem to know anything.

    The Dunning-Kruger is strong with this one.

  • Finrod||

    Wow this SimonP is a clueless fuckwit. It needs to learn what the fuck a logical fallacy is cause that shit is full of them.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    So a nationwide ban on ink, paper, routers, computers, radios, televisions, antennas, printers, and bullhorns would not be a violation of the freedom of speech, because you can still speak as loudly as your voice allows.

  • SimonP||

    Isn't that literally obvious?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    SimonP is in favor of banning free speech too.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    I was inattentive to what libertarians sometimes mean by "positive" rights.

    Is there somebody who defines "positive rights" the way you now claim to have been using the term? Call me crazy but I think you just don't know what you're talking about.

    You are also contradicting yourself, since you blamed "modern jurisprudence and decades of marketing by the NRA" for the right to bear arms, but now blame the Constitution, which is over 80 years older than the NRA and long before "modern jurisprudence".

  • SimonP||

    Is there somebody who defines "positive rights" the way you now claim to have been using the term?

    No, as far as I can tell, calling rights found in positive law "positive rights" doesn't seem to be what people do. I come at this discussion from a jurisprudential and philosophy of law perspective, not a lay-libertarian one, so the terms I use draw from that field. I find "positive right" actually a very confusing way of referring to the concept of a claim-right, but I can't find any vindication for my preferred term.

    You are also contradicting yourself, since you blamed "modern jurisprudence and decades of marketing by the NRA" for the right to bear arms, but now blame the Constitution, which is over 80 years older than the NRA and long before "modern jurisprudence".

    I haven't contradicted myself. I'm not sure how you think I have, since I've nowhere "blamed" the Constitution for an individual right to bear arms. I don't think it contains one.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Dude, here's what you previously wrote.

    What I meant was that the "right to bear arms" is a right found in positive law, namely, the Constitution

    I can't shake the feeling that I'm being run around in circles arguing with a child. Bye.

  • SimonP||

    I can't shake the feeling that I'm being run around in circles arguing with a child. Bye.

    The difficulty here is that I am trying to speak of both of the "right to bear arms," as the legal right now acknowledged by the Supreme Court as a matter of positive law, and as a potential natural right that may or may not have some philosophical connection to the NAP or some other fundamental libertarian principle.

    I am trying to say two things about the so-called "right to bear arms": First, that it is not a natural-law right, but a positive-law right founded in the Second Amendment and related jurisprudence. Second, that what we now understand to be the "right to bear arms" is itself largely a recent creation and not even that essential to traditional American identity or freedom, much less central to any libertarian conception of freedom.

    I don't see any contradiction here, just two types of distinctions.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Second, that what we now understand to be the "right to bear arms" is itself largely a recent creation and not even that essential to traditional American identity or freedom

    You do realize that Bellesiles propaganda piece was discredited and had its Bancroft price revoked, right?

  • SimonP||

    You do realize that Bellesiles propaganda piece was discredited and had its Bancroft price revoked, right?

    I am not relying on Bellesiles here.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I am not relying on Bellesiles here.

    Given that you're using the same talking points regarding the right to bear arms, it says something about how ubiquitous they've become in the gun control movement.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Fortunately for us, it does contain an individual right to bear arms. Go Google natural rights and get back to us.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    If the Constitution did not protect the individual right to keep and bear arms, the lefties would not be making such a fuss over it.

    The 2nd Amendment impedes their ability to grab guns, so they must destroy it.

  • Jerryskids||

    What I meant was that the "right to bear arms" is a right found in positive law, namely, the Constitution, and does not logically follow from a philosophical libertarianism.

    The right to keep and bear arms does not come from the Constitution. The Constitution specifically prohibits the government from infringing the right to keep and bear arms just as it prohibits the government infringing freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to due process and all the rest. The Bill of Rights, by specifically mentioning rights that cannot be infringed by the government with no prior mention of where those rights come from, is an admission that those rights precede and are superior to the Constitution. That's the whole bit in the Declaration about people being endowed by their creator with rights and that government is created to secure those rights. Not to bestow rights, to secure them.

  • DesigNate||

    Hear hear.

  • Finrod||

    Precisely.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The right to feel safe has nothing to do with the NAP.

    You can abide by the NAP and still feel unsafe.

    The right to bears arms is one of the most fundamental rights that was so fundamental that the Founding Fathers did not even want to include it. It would have been deemed unthinkable even considering Americans not having the right to have armaments.

    You are doing the gun grabbers work for them or you are one yourself.

    Continue trying to enslave people with the Nanny-State and sooner or later Americans will fight back.

  • SimonP||

    You can abide by the NAP and still feel unsafe.

    Not if other people are also abiding by the NAP.

    The right to bears arms is one of the most fundamental rights that was so fundamental that the Founding Fathers did not even want to include it. It would have been deemed unthinkable even considering Americans not having the right to have armaments.

    What was actually "unthinkable" to the founders was the notion of a standing army, and they made provision for the national self-defense through the Second Amendment. Now that we have a standing army, we have found other uses for the Second Amendment. If you want to argue that you've won that fight, fine - you have. The Supreme Court has discovered an individual right to bear arms in the Second Amendment. But don't pretend that it's enshrined in the Second Amendment. Not even the Supreme Court found it directly there.

    Continue trying to enslave people with the Nanny-State and sooner or later Americans will fight back.

    Is that a threat of rebellion, kemosabe? Should I report you to the FBI now or later?

  • John||

    Yes Kemosabe it is. And you wouldn't rebel? You would just go along and stick people in ovens if it came to that wouldn't you? If not, then is that a threat of rebellion? Do we need to report you to the FBI?

    Christ you are a fucking asshole.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The FBI is already aware of SimonP. He's a socialist and he's been trying to murder and enslave Americans for years.

  • SimonP||

    Yes Kemosabe it is. And you wouldn't rebel? You would just go along and stick people in ovens if it came to that wouldn't you? If not, then is that a threat of rebellion? Do we need to report you to the FBI?

    I am not the one threatening to "fight back" if politicians pass legislation I don't like.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Yes you are threatening to "fight back" you are fine with damaging property, committing violence against people, and taking away people freedoms by force.

    You are so delusional, you think politicians passing legislation trumps the Constitution and its limits on government.

  • SimonP||

    Yes you are threatening to "fight back" you are fine with damaging property, committing violence against people, and taking away people freedoms by force.

    Son, you're confused. I only was here talking about the right to bear arms. You seem to be off on some antifa-related tangent.

  • John||

    Yes we know. You would never fight back. People like you is why we own guns.

  • SimonP||

    Yes we know. You would never fight back. People like you is why we own guns.

    You own guns so that no one can take them away?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Not just guns. Its why we own Armaments.

    Tyrants don't like to fuck with people with armaments without that patriot having committed a serious crime.

  • SimonP||

    Tyrants don't like to fuck with people with armaments without that patriot having committed a serious crime.

    No, and it would be inefficient for them to do so anyway. Much easier to tweet propaganda and convince the people with armaments that creeping authoritarianism is in their own interest.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Much easier to tweet propaganda and convince the people with armaments that creeping authoritarianism is in their own interest.

    Or tweet propaganda and convince the people who don't own arms that the NRA is going to come up and shoot them all in the face tomorrow if we don't ban guns right now.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Unfortunately for creep authoritarians, socialism is not working as well as they hoped.

  • Jerryskids||

    You're delusional if you think socialism isn't working as well as they hoped. True socialism works fine. The places where "socialism" has failed, it wasn't true socialism. True socialism is a Coca-Cola commercial world where everybody's singing and dancing and deliriously happy, with free ponies for everybody. It's a magical fantasy world easily achievable with massive doses of benzodiazepine, prefrontal lobotomies and advanced degrees from Ivy League schools.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    No country on Earth has "true" socialism. certainly, no the USA. There is plenty of socialism here in the USA.

    Its part of the reason lefties hate Trump. The lefties has to expose themselves to go after Trump because he is actually rolling back some parts of socialism.

    If socialism was not being rolled back at all, the lefties would not be losing their collective shit.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    What happens when people don't abide by the NAP? What happens when the government doesn't abide by the NAP?

    Without armaments, Americans cannot protect themselves. So, guns are here to stay.

    No.... it was unthinkable for government to grab arms from Americans. The Supreme did not find an individual right in the 2nd Amendment, they found out what their job is- protect constitutional rights like the right to keep and bear arms without government infringement of any kind.

    Funny how you think the SCOTUS is wrong to accept the people's right to keep and bear arms but they cannot be wrong about that right being absolutely inviolate.

    It will not be the first time that I have kicked FBI agents off my land and it won't be the last time with little fascists like you.

  • SimonP||

    What happens when people don't abide by the NAP?

    In this country of laws, we call that "crime" and "tort."

    What happens when the government doesn't abide by the NAP?

    Then you have pretty much any conceivable government. I take it you don't believe that governments should have a monopoly of force? Or, uh, any force whatsoever?

    No.... it was unthinkable for government ...

    The rest of this comment is a garbled mess. Please re-do and re-submit for credit.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Unfortunately for you, we also have Common law and the Constitution which allows for people to defend themselves without having to retreat and take the person to court or call the police.

    You can shoot a violent attacker dead if they are committing a threatening act that could reasonably lead to injury to you or others.

    We will need better arguments from you to consider you more than a troll.

  • SimonP||

    Unfortunately for you, we also have Common law and the Constitution which allows for people to defend themselves without having to retreat and take the person to court or call the police.

    More precisely, we have legal defenses that exempt people who kill others when they do so in their self-defense. Again, laws.

    You can shoot a violent attacker dead if they are committing a threatening act that could reasonably lead to injury to you or others. We will need better arguments from you to consider you more than a troll.

    And you should probably review the legal standard applicable in your jurisdiction before you act on it, because I'm not sure you've accurately described the relevant standard for any jurisdiction I'm aware of.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Are you giving legal advice? That is illegal, ya know?

    Shame shame shame.

    You are getting behind on the discussion you and your buddies are trolling here.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    More precisely, we have legal defenses that exempt people who kill others when they do so in their self-defense. Again, laws.

    Only in a technical sense. If there were no laws regarding homocide, self-defense would still be possible. The laws in question merely avoid covering homocide in self-defense.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Self-defense is an affirmative defense to murder (homicide).

    Homicide is the deliberate and unlawful act of killing another human.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    If you want to argue that you've won that fight, fine - you have. The Supreme Court has discovered an individual right to bear arms in the Second Amendment.

    They didn't have to "discover" it because it was already there and was respected for decades. Gun controllers hang their hat on Cruikshank, which overturned the convictions of a white mob that had rioted and beaten a number of black men who had armed themselves in self-defense.

  • Paloma||

    There can not possibly be any right to "feel" anything. Feelings are not facts. Feelings are not tools of cognition. It's stupid that teachers are even promoting that notion to kids. I would bet most of Ted Bundy's victims FELT pretty safe getting into the car with him.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "The right to bear arms is a positive right, largely a fiction of modern jurisprudence and decades of marketing by the NRA. "

    Apparently you are incapable of reading comprehension. The 2nd Amendment clearly states the the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

  • SimonP||

    Apparently you are incapable of reading comprehension. The 2nd Amendment clearly states the the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Sure, if you read only half of it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its two halves of different limitations on government. One to prevent government limiting militias and another limit on government infringing in any way on armaments.

    Most people understand the 2nd Amendment just fine.

  • SimonP||

    ts two halves of different limitations on government. One to prevent government limiting militias and another limit on government infringing in any way on armaments.

    Most people understand the 2nd Amendment just fine.

    Mostly because, I gather, they don't really do the work of parsing its structure.

    Look, it's fine. The Supreme Court comes out to the place where you want it to. But it certainly didn't find the answer obvious from the text itself. Let's not lie to ourselves about that, shall we?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Look, it's fine. The Supreme Court comes out to the place where you want it to. But it certainly didn't find the answer obvious from the text itself.

    Yeah, I know it really rustles your jimmies that we're allowed to own a firearm for the purposes of self-defense. Just because you would rather see us and our families killed in a home invasion than rely on the gentle hand of the state to provide for that defense, doesn't mean you're getting your progressive feudal utopia.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Because you are incapable of understanding dependent and independent clauses? Must have attended our wonderful public school system. Good thing you didn't get shot, because mass shootings are a daily thing or something.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "parsing its structure."

    Good 'ol lefty code for bureaucrats taking away rights and violating the constitution because they don't understand basic English.

  • MarkLastname||

    "Shall not be infringed." Pretty clear. You're the one here who's delusional.

  • DesigNate||

    someone doesn't understand what a preferatory or a dependent clause are.

    Go back to high school, moron.

  • Mock-star||

    "Mass shootings being an intolerable atrocity, the people have no right to bear arms"

    "Why this obviously means that we can own any arms that we want, as long as we arent shooting masses." - no one, ever

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Sure, if you read only half of it."

    It means that if you do read the other half because the other half places no constraints on that half.

  • SimonP||

    It means that if you do read the other half because the other half places no constraints on that half.

    So it's just meaningless surplusage, then. Got it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    To a lefty it s useless surplusage.

    To Americans, it protects the rights of the militias to exist and the individual right to keep and bear arms.

  • MarkLastname||

    No; it merely says nothing that you want it to say; nothing that says "what comes next is totally irrelevant because of this."

  • Finrod||

    Go read what the fuck a subordinate clause is and get back to us, slaver.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "I'm not sure where this contempt for the "right to feel safe" comes from, given that the non-aggression principle is central to any libertarian worldview."

    Because there is no such thing as as affirmative rights.

    And it has nothing to do with a non aggression principle.

  • Mark22||

    Doesn't it naturally follow from the fact that I have a right not to be aggressed upon, that I ought to have a right to feel like I won't be aggressed upon?

    No it doesn't naturally follow. It's not government's jobs to cater to your irrational phobias.

    The right to bear arms is a positive right, largely a fiction of modern jurisprudence and decades of marketing by the NRA.

    You need to look up the definition of "positive rights". The right to bear arms is not a positive right, it is a negative right. It is also defined as such in the Bill of Rights.

  • MarkLastname||

    The right to bear arms is not a positive right.
    And no one has a right to 'feel safe.' That concept deserves total contempt. Feeling is subjective. Some would people only feel safe outside if automobiles were outlawed.

  • Johnny Lawrence||

    Exactly this.

    Hell, this very article discusses the irrationality of students in thinking that schools are murder factories. They should feel safe, they just don't. In order to feel safe, they want to infringe on the rights of others (an aggression in violation of the NAP).

  • KevinP||

    The right to bear arms is a positive right, largely a fiction of modern jurisprudence and decades of marketing by the NRA.

    Speaking of justification clauses:

    In criminal prosecutions, the trial of facts in the vicinity where they happen, is so essential to the security of the life, liberty and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed . . . .

    New Hampshire Const. pt. I, art. XVII (1784). Source: The Commonplace Second Amendment http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm

    Question: In New Hampshire, can a crime be tried in a county other than which it was committed? Even when it might actually move the trial closer to the scene of the crime, depending on the location of the county courthouse?

    And if not, how does this illuminate the justification clause of the Second Amendment?

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    The right to bear arms is not a "positive right". Read the text. The right to bear arms is treated as a given; the government is prohibited from infringing on that right. Hence, in today's silly parlance it is a "negative right", i.e., a right not conferred by government but one pre-existing our government, protected from government intrusion.

  • Hank Phillips||

    How cute. Reminds me of the closing scene of Cabaret! We started out with scrubbed little brainwashees Just Saying No. Now we are back to Hitlerjugend reciting slogans for Kristallnacht laws to again take guns away from selfish people. How predictably altruists zigzag back and forth between the two versions of sozialismus.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Fewer kids die from gun violence than they do from traffic violence, true, but that's just an invitation to re-think the tens of thousands of deaths we tolerate each year from traffic violence, not a reason to wave off the number of kids who die from guns.

    Not sure what "traffic violence" is; assuming you mean motor vehicle accidents, we "tolerate" a nonzero number of deaths because the alternative would be to ban motor vehicles entirely. We do work to minimize fatalities at the margins, with safer vehicle and road designs and discouraging drunk driving. However the restrictions on motor vehicle ownership and use are far laxer than the restrictions on firearms under existing law.

    The right to bear arms is a positive right

    No. A positive right is a right to have something provided for you. The right to bear arms is a right to be left alone, so it is a negative right.

  • John||

    Calling the right to bear arms a positive right is some first class newspeak.

  • SimonP||

    Not sure what "traffic violence" is; assuming you mean motor vehicle accidents, we "tolerate" a nonzero number of deaths because the alternative would be to ban motor vehicles entirely. We do work to minimize fatalities at the margins, with safer vehicle and road designs and discouraging drunk driving.

    We do far, far less than is possible, when it comes to reducing traffic violence. Road designs more typically speed traffic than make it safer; safer vehicle designs tend to prioritize passengers' safety over the safety of others; and drunk driving is its own whole kettle of fish.

    No. A positive right is a right to have something provided for you.

    Fair enough. I misused the term; I meant only that the right to bear arms is a feature of positive law, not natural law.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    You still haven't defined "traffic violence". We can't have a discussion if you are speaking some strange language that nobody else does, as you were doing with "positive rights". It also gives the impression that you don't know what you're talking about.

  • SimonP||

    You still haven't defined "traffic violence". We can't have a discussion if you are speaking some strange language that nobody else does,...

    I mean more or less the same kind of thing we mean by "gun violence" - deaths and injuries caused by traffic, automotive and otherwise, passengers and bystanders. It may be jargon, but it's not nonsense.

    It also gives the impression that you don't know what you're talking about.

    I am not sure why you keep hitting this button. It's just an ad hominem. Whether I "know what I'm talking about" is irrelevant to whether what I am saying is correct. I've already clarified what I meant by "positive right," and I've now clarified what I mean by "traffic violence." Is there anything else I need to clarify for you, or are you done pouting?

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Auto accidents are not violence, dumbass. BTW, that's an insult, not an ad hominem.

    You also apparently don't know what an ad hominem is either. An ad hominem attack is an attempt to refute an argument by pointing to some unrelated fact about the person who made the argument. I did not engage in ad hominem; I refuted your argument without any reference to your personal characteristics.

    After finishing, I merely observed that it's hard to discuss things with someone who uses idiosyncratic and confusing language. And that it makes it look like you don't know what you're talking about. That may be an insult, but it is not an ad hominem as I was not basing my argument on that observation. It would be wise for you to take it as constructive criticism.

  • Johnny Lawrence||

    Your clarification of "positive right" is also wrong, in that you say the Second Amendment is not based on natural law.

    The wording of the Amendment speaks of a preexisting right that shall not be infringed. How does that square with your notion that the Bill of Rights was the creator of the right?

  • Mark22||

    Fair enough. I misused the term; I meant only that the right to bear arms is a feature of positive law, not natural law.

    That's incorrect too. The right to self-defense is a natural law, and that necessarily includes the right to bear arms.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    "We do far, far less than is possible, when it comes to reducing traffic violence. Road designs more typically speed traffic than make it safer; safer vehicle designs tend to prioritize passengers' safety over the safety of others; and drunk driving is its own whole kettle of fish."

    Yep, time to resurrect those laws mandating a 5 mph speed limit and requiring a man on foot with a red flag walking in front of all motor vehicles.

  • CE||

    You don't have to ban cars to save tens of thousands of lives each year -- just cut the max speed limit to 30 miles per hour. No one would stand for that though.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Stupid kids speaking about taking away a fundamental protection in the USA that sets this country apart from nearly every other nation in the World. The protected right to defend yourself and others from violence.

    As primaries unfold around the USA, stupid shit like this will push Democrats further and further out of the political mainstream resulting in more and more non-lefty politicians.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Leftists claim Chicago, Baltimore, and other crime-ridden shitholes with massive gun control are that way only because of the ease with which guns can be brought in from areas with more lax gun laws. Fine. Let's build a wall around Chicago and a wall around Baltimore, and require every person and vehicle entering to be searched, to keep the eeeeevil guns from getting in.

    In no time flat, the inner cities would prosper under socialism just like Sweden in the 1950s. Meanwhile, us yokels in the rest of the country will have to suffer a death by a thousand cuts under our lax gun law regime. Come on leftists, this is your chance to prove yourselves right.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The left's little ploys are just failing and this march was an example of that.

    The shooting in Maryland where the armed resource officer stopped the shooter directly counters this nonsense about getting rid of guns makes schools safer.

    Corrupt cities like Detroit, Chicago, and Baltimore just rot under the socialism and then it dies. Other people move in and reform the area and start over. The more times this happens, the more Americans will remember how much of a scam socialism (gun grabbing being one of their tactics) is.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Leftists claim Chicago, Baltimore, and other crime-ridden shitholes with massive gun control are that way only because of the ease with which guns can be brought in from areas with more lax gun laws."

    What they can't explain is why those other places that have lax gun laws don't have crime rates as high as Chicago, Baltimore, etc.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its why the lefties are NOT the group that values scientific method nor facts that dissent from their narrative.

    Gun grabbing is the priority and they will use every tool Goebbels gave the modern day little Nazis to accomplish this.

    They hate freedom and anything not socialism.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    "What they can't explain is why those other places that have lax gun laws don't have crime rates as high as Chicago, Baltimore, etc."

    Oh they can ... they just won't.

  • SimonP||

    Fine. Let's build a wall around Chicago and a wall around Baltimore, and require every person and vehicle entering to be searched, to keep the eeeeevil guns from getting in.

    I thought, in an age of Trump, we all agreed that walls were good things? Here I thought that the Reason-libertarian view was that governmental units were like houses, such that the people living in them had every right to decide what kinds of people/things flowed into them? Why such contempt for the idea that Chicago might like to limit the flow of arms from Indiana?

    East Chicago is a shithole, anyway.

  • John||

    Cities are not nations dumb ass.

  • SimonP||

    They're also not superheroes! Good job! Is this kindergarten?

    Why should the rule for a city be any different?

  • John||

    Because it is not a nation. There are different levels of sovereignty. You don't know much do you?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    SimonP is getting behind in the discussion.

  • SimonP||

    States are sovereign. Maybe Illinois could build a law between Chicago and East Chicago, then.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    States gave up some/much of their sovereignty when they joined the USA.

    Read the Constitution sometime. You will find quite a few clauses about interstate restrictions on individual states.

  • Sevo||

    SimonP|3.24.18 @ 11:21PM|#
    "They're also not superheroes! Good job! Is this kindergarten?"
    Gee, brand new and already competing for imbecile of the (day) (week) something!
    And doing a good job, too!
    Fuck off, imbecile. You offer nothing that lefty twits havn't lied about for years.

  • SimonP||

    And what is it that you have to offer, Sevo?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    SimonP, you're getting behind in the discussion. We need to get the comments up to 5000 tonight.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Why such contempt for the idea that Chicago might like to limit the flow of arms from Indiana?

    I have no problem with limiting the flow from Indiana. What I have a problem with is doing this by forcing Indiana to have the same gun laws as Chicago.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I have a problem with Illinois limiting the flow of guns that people want to take into Illinois. The 2nd Amendment protects the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. If those people want to take arms from Indiana into Illinois, to fucking bad for Illinois.

  • SimonP||

    And if Chicago wants to fart industrial pollution into Indiana, you're totes okay with that, too?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Industrial pollution isn't a Constitutional right.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    If it weren't for invalid analogies, he'd have no analogies at all.

  • Cy||

    Exactly. The gun deaths in these very cities are what's used to argue for gun control. The gun free zones are just a place for the Democrats to generate the needed gun violence to justify more gun laws.

    Also, the less people we have wandering around thinking they're not responsible for their own defense, the better. Thats what gun free zones do, they create people who THINK they're safe. When statistically they're in far more danger.

  • SimonP||

    Who is talking about forcing Indiana to do anything but what its own residents or elected representatives, acting through a normal political process, choose to do?

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Those pushing federal gun bans.

  • MarkLastname||

    Did you not read the article?

  • Mark22||

    I thought, in an age of Trump, we all agreed that walls were good things?

    Hence the suggestion of "building a wall around Chicago and a wall around Baltimore".

    Why such contempt for the idea that Chicago might like to limit the flow of arms from Indiana?

    No contempt at all: Chicago is welcome to inconvenience travelers in and out of the city as much as it likes. What it isn't free to do is to force the rest of the country to adopt policies that may or may not help solve its self-created problems.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    So after compiling and sorting data on gun stuff (murder, suicide, ownership) and demographics, and doing some elementary cross plotting, here is what I found, comparing across the 50 states plus D.C.:

    All gun deaths (including suicides, in deaths per 100,000) vs. % gun ownership: correlation coefficient 2.0, R2 = 0.85

    All gun murders (in deaths per 100,000) vs. % gun ownership: CC = -0.9, R2 = 0.01

    All murders (per 100,000) vs. % white population: CC = -2.0, R2 = 0.23

    All murders (per 100,000) vs. % black population: CC = 2.2, R2 = 0.64

    All gun murders (per 100,000) vs % white population: CC = -3.1, R2 = 0.22

    All gun murders (per 100,000) vs % black population: CC = 3.4, R2 = 0.61

    My facile interpretation:
    Suicides correlate strongly with gun ownership. Clearly a human tragedy, but not the issue the media and marchers are ranting about.

    Gun-related murders do not correlate with gun ownership, at least at the state level. Some of the "safest" states (WY, MT, ND, ID) have high gun ownership rates. Some of the most dangerous states (MD, IL, DE, FL) have low ownership rates (at least legally).

    Murders and gun murders correlate strongly with race, for white and black categories (but not for hispanics). As the percent whites increase, murders decrease, with weak statistics. As the percent blacks increase, murders increase, with strong statistics.

  • KevinP||

    Washington D.C. has the strictest gun control laws in the nation.

    State, Violent Crime, Murder (2012 crimes per 100,000 people from FBI UCR)
    District of Columbia, 1244, 13.9

    Gun control advocates claim that criminals in DC get their guns from neighboring Virginia with its "lax" gun laws.

    Virginia is a very pro-gun state, awash in legally owned guns, and citizens can legally carry guns openly or concealed. But Virginia's crime rate is a small fraction of DC:

    State, Violent Crime, Murder (2012 crimes per 100,000 people from FBI UCR)
    Virginia, 190, 3.8 (less than a third of the DC murder rate)

    More guns owned and carried by law-abiding citizens = Less Crime.

  • NoVaNick||

    Was driving home last night on the GW parkway and saw several old Volvos and Subarus with out of state plates, and crunchy looking teens being driven by crunchy looking parents l, some had signs, all had mattresses and sleeping bags. Would have thought that Phish was in town, but no- they were all going to the MARCH.

    I am all for the right to protest but where were they after all the shootings that happened under Obama? It's just another prog pep rally to bitch about Trump, only they brought the kids this time

  • John||

    That is all it was. Why didn't have this march after Sandy Hook, which was much worse? It is just a fund raising even for the left. With the left is is always first and foremost "fuck you pay me".

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    Why didn't have this march after Sandy Hook, which was much worse?

    Because they did not have DAVID HOGG (TM), savior of all pre-pubescentkind.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    To be fair there were a lot of protests after Sandy Hook.

  • NoVaNick||

    yeah, but not on this scale. If these kids really wanted to try to try to make a difference, they would go to DC when congress is in session and block their Congressman's office door, risking arrest. That would certainly send a message. Not "lets grab some coffee, go to a march, get lunch and go home"

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    The grabbers have been planning this march since the Sandy Hook gun control drive fizzled out. All they needed was for there to be another large-scale school shooting.

    Also, 2013 wasn't an election year.

  • John||

    Vegas was a bigger shooting than this

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Vegas did not get the required lefty useful idiots to do what they do unlike Parkland.

    Barely a word about the Maryland shooting where the armed staff stopped the shooting. In other words, the entire reasoning that armed staff cannot work to save lives is a lie. A bold faced lie.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Yes but Vegas didn't play into the leftists meme of "we must do it for the children".

    They have used the Parkland shooting to play that to the hilt.

    It's part and parcel of the silly notion peddled in Hillary's idiotic "It takes a village" book that any expansion of government power is automatically justified and beyond discussion if it's claimed to be "for the children".

  • SimonP||

    You're just jealous because it was all fat old white people coming out to protest Obamacare.

  • Sevo||

    SimonP|3.24.18 @ 11:18PM|#
    "You're just jealous because it was all fat old white people coming out to protest Obamacare."

    You're just jealous because other people have brains.
    Fuck off.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    SimonP, when did you learn to operate that goal moving equipment?

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Seriously. It's almost impressive how blithely he disavows and forgets what he previously wrote while scolding you for thinking he wrote it. Either a child, a troll, or a psychopath.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    He's probably all three.

  • MarkLastname||

    Right, we all just wish we're fat brown teenaged lesbians.

  • Finrod||

    Fuck off, slaver.

  • Cy||

    I'm curious how much crime spiked. I mean, if you're a criminal, it's basically a rally of victims who're away from home and local resources. AKA, really easy to rob.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Spring Break! Spring Break! Spring Break! Spring Break!

  • Iheartskeet||

    This March/protest was blaring in the hotel bar where i am at, an hour at least of hectoring, screeching teenagers and fawning media idiots.

    My guess is many will take a good long at these dimwits, soak it in, and decide that's not the side they want to be on.

    In other words, this has backfire written all over it.

  • John||

    Is anyone who before this supported gun rights going to suddenly decide to stop because of what a bunch of snot nosed smug little bastards ordered them to? I can't imagine many or any would. So, this whole thing is like all these events, an exercise in virtue signaling to the converted.

  • SimonP||

    Is anyone who before this supported gun rights going to suddenly decide to stop because of what a bunch of [recent victims of gun violence]?

    Fixed that for you.

    Why don't you get yourself shot at, you pansy-assed, small-dicked stupid piece of shit, and then come tell us about gun policy?

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Fixed that for you."

    Actually you didn't.

    Only people who actually get shot are victims of gun violence. Seeing someone else get shot doesn't make you a victim.

  • John||

    I love how these idiots talk shit about violence without any idea who they are talking to.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    But speech is now violence.

  • Cy||

    The 'survivor' label being thrown around like the kid got a medal of honor is pretty disgusting.

    I think it's a pretty disingenuous shortening of "My parents, school system, city, county, state and federal governments failed me in almost every way and now they're offering me a vacation to come and tell you that you need to give up your guns. Cuz... Guns are bad mmmmkay?"

  • NoVaNick||

    The vast majority of marchers today were not shooting victims

  • John||

    I have been shot at. Spent about a year in the Middle East hearing shots fired in anger most every day. And one of the lessons of that experience is you don't ever want to be defenseless. Someone who has a gun and means you harm can only be stopped by you or someone else with a gun.

    Try again tough guy.

    What a fucking doofus.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    There comes the profane violent ignorant ramblings of a loser gun grabber who has lost the debate.

    Here lies SimonP... tomb if the unknown dumb-dumb.

  • Mark22||

    Why don't you get yourself shot at, you pansy-assed, small-dicked stupid piece of shit, and then come tell us about gun policy?

    Well, because I'm a pansy-assed, small-dicked stupid piece of shit, I have moved to a place where there are lots of legal guns and very low crime rates. That's why I don't get shot at. I highly recommend it.

  • MarkLastname||

    "Why don't you get attacked by a black guy at school and then see how you feel about desegregation."
    Emotive reasoning at its finest.

  • Finrod||

    Why don't you go throw yourself into a running woodchipper feet first, fucking slaver?

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Is anyone who before this supported gun rights going to suddenly decide to stop because of what a bunch of snot nosed smug little bastards ordered them to?

    Marco Rubio

  • Earth Skeptic||

    OK, anyone not an opportunistic pussy?

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    /steps in for Hihn

    Goober Goober Goober Goober Goober Goober Goober
    Goober Goober Goober Goober Call me an Uber
    Goober Goober Goober Goober I'm a You Tuber
    Goober Goober Goober Goober Goober.

  • inoyu||

    When adults use children as billboards and vehicles to drive a public policy debate, they are guilty of a disgusting and sinister act.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Perhaps you missed the Occupy protests where they used their children as human shields.

  • Sevo||

    "Guns are for the police and the government," a 13-year-old girl confidently assured me."

    Yeah, when you trot 13-YOs out as props for your imbecilic cause, you should expect brain-dead comments. I kinda sorta remember being 13; not sure I was any smarter than her.

  • NoVaNick||

    'Guns are for the police and government' -obvious white privilege on display here

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    "Guns are for the police and the government," a 13-year-old girl confidently assured me."

    That can be interpreted multiple ways.

  • Cy||

    She just hasn't been properly introduced to government official's tools yet. One day, she'll figure it out.

  • Joe_JP||

    I though this was a libertarian blog but so many seem to be concerned with "leftists" or "progressives" (not just on this issue), which is a bit curious to me. Anyway, there is a range of sentiment -- children weren't the only people who filled those crowds, liberals aren't the only ones supporting change here, gun owners are involved too. But, if you want to pick some easy target [pun not really intended] be my guest. Another adult gun owner will disagree with many here too.

  • Joe_JP||

    In certain communities, gun violence is a thing. We worry about a single whale or dolphin getting stuck in ice. A few wrongful executions bother us. Yes, tens of thousands of gun deaths a year will bother people. Add the non-lethal violence too. It's helpful to break down the numbers there (suicides dominate) but there has been an uptick on mass shootings. Relatively speaking, twenty kids dying is a drop in the bucket, yes. A dollar and a dream like given the number of schools. Horrible that it keeps on happening though. Understandable that people don't like kids dying in chunks, even a few times a year.

    The Declaration of Independence speaks of the government being in place to 'secure' our rights, including the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Some basic right to feel safe is what good society is all about. For many teens, though maybe not by death, they are not secure in schools. Sneer at them all you like. But, unlike other nations, we keep on killing and harming each other and ourselves in large numbers with guns. There just might be another way, like in the past when certain things like basic racism was seen as the normal.

  • John||

    Would it make you feel better if those people were pushed out of windows?

    But, unlike other nations, we keep on killing and harming each other and ourselves in large numbers with guns. There just might be another way, like in the past when certain things like basic racism was seen as the normal.

    If you think because you own a gun it is normal to go out and just murder people, then you really need not to own one. Moreover, if your solution to lunatics murdering large numbers of people is to take the guns away from sane people who don't, then you probably ought not to be voting certainly and hopefully are not living on your own where you are expected to do tasks like feed yourself.

  • Joe_JP||

    If there was a few mass murders in schools annually where somehow they were pushed out of windows, I would be concerned too, and would like to figure a way to not have that happen. So, not really.

    Nor, does your second paragraph follow much either. Still, I don't find it a good idea for people not to vote, even if on one issue or the other they have certain wrongheaded ideas. They also manage to feed themselves.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    If you could just stop one murder via window push, it would be worth stomping on the constitutional protection to keep and bear arms.

  • Joe_JP||

    Constitutional rights are not absolute. But, determining limits require a bit more finesse than this.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "Constitutional rights are not absolute. But, determining limits require a bit more finesse than this."

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Shall not be infringed means that government does not get to determine limits. Its the whole point.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Constitutional rights are not absolute."

    They are unless the text of the Constitution explicitly lists any exceptions to them.

  • Metalib||

    Cool, so you're good with nuanced limitations to freedom of religion and freedom of speech and freedom of association. Got it.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Then you should support banning swimming pools, since far more children die from drowning in them than die in school shootings. Next, lets move to banning motor vehicles where it's orders of magnitude more deaths.

  • Joe_JP||

    "Banning" things aren't the only way to address problems though if a certain specific type of swimming pool or pool part is dangerous, maybe it would be a good idea to not sell them.

    We should not ban motor vehicles, but over the years, many things were done to address problems with them. There probably are other things that can be done too.

    We regulate other items too. Governments are set up to secure our rights. One way they do this is to regulate cars, swimming pools, guns etc. The specifics can be hashed out as they always has been.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    OK then. Work on lowering the number of deaths caused by motor vehicle usage and swimming pool usage to the quantity of people being killed by other people with guns, and then we'll talk. If you insist on starting with guns rather than these far greater sources of death, then I must ask again how you justify that.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I will never talk about giving up one more inch on keeping and bearing armaments. I am glad more Americans have been taking back their gun rights.

    Fuck the gun grabbers and their attempts to enslave Americans.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Wow, another person who talks about things they don't know what they're talking about. "to secure these rights" means that the rights themselves are secure; feelings about security don't matter.

    What does the DOI say?

    ...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

    Try doing that without guns.

  • Joe_JP||

    Yes, it says governments are in place to secure our rights, and a basic thing governments do is provide a range of regulations and limits; ordered liberty. I don't think this could currently be done "without guns." All or nothing there isn't necessary. There are a range of ways to regulate guns differently in this respect.

    I'm aware of the text -- security of our rights is a basic thing. If people don't feel secure, it will be a problem, since again security of our rights is basic. Feeling can mislead, but in humans, it is an important thing. On a basic level, if one does not feel secure, it tends to be a warning sign at some point.

    Again, teens in real life don't feel secure repeatedly because factually they are not.

  • Sevo||

    Joe_JP|3.25.18 @ 12:13AM|#
    "Yes, it says governments are in place to secure our rights, and a basic thing governments do is provide a range of regulations and limits; ordered liberty. I don't think this could currently be done "without guns." All or nothing there isn't necessary. There are a range of ways to regulate guns differently in this respect.
    I'm aware of the text -- security of our rights is a basic thing. If people don't feel secure, it will be a problem, since again security of our rights is basic. Feeling can mislead, but in humans, it is an important thing. On a basic level, if one does not feel secure, it tends to be a warning sign at some point.
    Again, teens in real life don't feel secure repeatedly because factually they are not."

    Care to turn that into an adult comment? It looks like so much arm-waving to me.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Again, teens in real life don't feel secure repeatedly because factually they are not.

    Baloney. Teens in the US are safer than they ever have been. If they feel unsafe it's because the media is pushing them to irrationally feel that way.

    But if you consider the current miniscule risk of teen deaths to be unacceptible, start with lowering the far higher motor vehicle teen fatality rate to the teen gun homocide rate, and then we'll talk.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Yep. We could reduce all speed limits to 25 mph and force car makers install speed governors. We could institute life in prison no parole for DUI. We could require that obtaining a drivers license require similar training to a pilot's license, and make people requalify on a regular basis. All of these actions would greatly reduce auto deaths.

    Not that we're banning the use of autos or anything. You could still drive....

  • Cy||

    +1

    Driving isn't a RIGHT!

  • Earth Skeptic||

    "Baloney. Teens in the US are safer than they ever have been. If they feel unsafe it's because the media is pushing them to irrationally feel that way."

    Then, using the logic of the marchers, ban the media, right?

  • CE||

    Yeah, don't let them drive until they're 21.

  • DesigNate||

    Just crunching numbers:

    There are approximately 12Million 15-17 year olds in America. Including suicides and accidents, about 2600 die from guns every year.

    That works out to .02%

    Fuck you if you think they aren't safe from "gun violence".

  • James Pollock||

    "Fuck you if you think they aren't safe from 'gun violence'."

    The "about 2600" dead ones aren't.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    But, unlike other nations, we keep on killing and harming each other and ourselves in large numbers with guns.

    The average American more likely to drown in a swimming pool than to be killed by another person with a gun.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hundreds of millions of guns in the USA and only a few hundred shootings each year? Usually by criminals committing violence on each other. Some of the uncounted shootings involved Americans defending themselves from criminals.

  • James Pollock||

    "The average American more likely to drown in a swimming pool than to be killed by another person with a gun."

    But the average American is less likely to be killed in a swimming pool by another person that be killed with a gun by another person, so there's that.

    A significant number of gun deaths are suicides. That's a problem, but it's not MY problem. A significant number of gun deaths are incidents of domestic violence. That's a problem, and maybe one that can be attacked in various ways. A significant number of gun deaths are intentional murders, or related to armed robberies. Those crimes are on decline, but there are various arguments about exactly why; we devote substantial resources to fighting such crimes already. There are accidents. That can be reduced (we should hope) with better education.
    And there are people with guns who, objectively, should not have them. Some are criminals, some are just not capable of handling them safely, some are people who WERE just fine with the weapon(s) of their choice but currently are not. Anyone who's spent any time at all around people who have firearms can point to some who, at that particular time, should have been separated from their weapon(s).

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Some basic right to feel safe is what good society is all about."

    Another guy peddling the notion of affirmative rights.

    There is no such thing.

  • Joe_JP||

    There are affirmative rights -- state constitutions particularly are filled with them. For instance, some right to an education. I'm using "right" here is some general sense too. Eugene Volokh, a contributor at Volokh Conspiracy, "peddles" the ideas of various affirmative rights in our society too. Yes, societies have such things.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Those documents CLAIM to provide positive rights, but they are utter bullshit from a libertarian perspective and a capital-C Constitutional perspective. A positive right necessarily restricts someone else's negative rights.

  • Joe_JP||

    There are various types of "rights" -- James Madison, e.g., said as much when he introduced the Bill of Rights. I'm not speaking from a "libertarian perspective" alone here. I'm speaking about rights in general, including in the very words of the constitutions in place. Not about "rights" in the ether.

    So, Sevo below says the right to education -- a right to something that is backed up by the government like is the case with the right to vote or a jury, which is not present in nature -- is "That is not anything close to a "right"; that's an entitlement, requiring the theft of people's wealth." I don't find a constitution passed by the consent of the people protecting education "theft" myself, but it's definitional, of course.

    Your very own comment uses an adjective in front of "rights." So, "rights" doesn't even mean "rights" here. Only some subset. No. I'm not using the word so narrowly.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    The right to a jury trial is not a positive right. Rather, it is a limitation on the government's ability to violate your negative rights. Most Americans will never have a jury trial in their lives, and will consider it a good thing.

    Likewise with the right to vote; given that there is going to be a government with the capacity to violate your negative rights, the vote is intended to provide a limitation on how freely it can do so. Unfortunately it is often abused.

  • Sevo||

    "There are affirmative rights -- state constitutions particularly are filled with them. For instance, some right to an education."
    That is not anything close to a "right"; that's an entitlement, requiring the theft of people's wealth.

    "I'm using "right" here is some general sense too"
    You're lying.

    "Eugene Volokh, a contributor at Volokh Conspiracy, "peddles" the ideas of various affirmative rights in our society too. Yes, societies have such things."
    I have not idea if he does so, but fuck off, slaver.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The People have natural rights that have been recognized for millennium, such as the right to have children and protect yourself.

    People can also try and convince others to acknowledge a right but its not a right unless others agree with you and abide by that limitation. The "right" to have other Americans pay for your healthcare is not accepted by the majority of Americans, which is why the USA does not have free healthcare.

    The US Constitution limits some of the conceivable rights to form a federal government. The states then retain the power to limit and grant rights per their constitutions. The flaw is that state constitutions don't normally grant all the power taken by state governments. The states are too lazy to change their own constitutions. You also have the US Constitution as a limitation on what states can do.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Sorry, but the people of North Korea have the right to free speech, even though their government prohibits free speech.

    The slaves held in the US pre-civil war also had a right to freedom, even thought the Constitution and the law were not on their side.

    Natural rights are a thing, and they include the right to self defense.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    It is odd to call these rights "natural" when they were not respected anywhere for 99.9% of human history and are still ignored in most of the world. In reality it seems that abject tyranny is far more natural that "natural rights".

  • loveconstitution1789||

    North Koreans have a natural right to free speech but no other country on Earth recognizes a right to free speech like the USA.

    Slaves had a natural right to be free but they were considered property in 1776 in the USA. That changed in 1865 with the 13th amendment.

    As I said, rights are not rights unless other people agree with you. Mainly because some rights involve other people losing some of their freedom for you to gain your "right".

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "There are affirmative rights -- state constitutions particularly are filled with them"

    And they are all invalid because they violate 5th Amendment private property rights of individuals not to have their property taken for public use without compensation when they are taxed to pay for them.

    Anything to imposes an affirmative burden on someone else isn't a right.

    It's as simple as that.

  • Sevo||

    Joe_JP|3.24.18 @ 11:33PM|#
    "In certain communities, gun violence is a thing."
    Yes it is, and those who live in those communities deserve police protection and the cops deserve those folks to inform on the thugs.

    "We worry about a single whale or dolphin getting stuck in ice. A few wrongful executions bother us. Yes, tens of thousands of gun deaths a year will bother people."
    "Tens of thousands"? Bullshit

    "Add the non-lethal violence too. It's helpful to break down the numbers there (suicides dominate) but there has been an uptick on mass shootings. Relatively speaking, twenty kids dying is a drop in the bucket, yes. A dollar and a dream like given the number of schools. Horrible that it keeps on happening though. Understandable that people don't like kids dying in chunks, even a few times a year."
    Uh, yeah, i guess, maybe. Was there a point in there?

    "The Declaration of Independence speaks of the government being in place to 'secure' our rights, including the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
    It does nothing of the sort. It speaks of preventing the government from interfering in our lives.

    "Some basic right to feel safe is what good society is all about."
    Bullshit. If you want Mommy to make you feel safe, you need to grow up. Fuck you with a rusty instrument if you want to use the coercion of the government to 'make you feel safe.
    Grow a pair, slaver, and fuck off.

  • Rigelsen||

    "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."

    So the guy you're responding to is right about what the Declaration says. Where he's wrong, of course, is you can't very well secure rights by taking them away. As Ben Franklin put it: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    But, unlike other nations, we keep on killing and harming each other and ourselves in large numbers with guns.

    Roughly 2.5 times the number of people die from alcohol-related causes than that from firearms. You're as likely to die in a drunk-driving wreck as you are to be killed by someone with a gun.

    Yet, I don't see national marches or calls for increasingly draconian restrictions on the sale and use of alcohol. So why focus on the thing that empirically causes fewer deaths?

  • Mark22||

    In certain communities, gun violence is a thing.

    True. Unfortunately, gun control will do nothing to change that.

    Some basic right to feel safe is what good society is all about.

    No, that's what a fascist society is all about; it is antithetical to a free society.

    For many teens, though maybe not by death, they are not secure in schools.

    Schools, even public schools, are some of the safest places in the nation. You're more likely to be killed by lightning than to be killed in a school.

    But, unlike other nations, we keep on killing and harming each other and ourselves in large numbers with guns

    "We" don't; legal gun owners are some of the least violent people in the country. High homicide rates in the US are primarily a problem of young black males.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    High homicide rates in the US are primarily a problem of young black males.

    This is sad, but true. In a community where people think it is normal to say someone should avoid a neighborhood for the sake of his health, guns are not the problem.

  • KevinP||

    Gun ban advocates don't actually care about violent death. If they did care, they would focus on violence among a small subset of black men where they could make a big difference without having to pass any new gun laws, for not very much money and without civil rights violations like Stop and Frisk. Read this hopeful and depressing article on how.

    ProPublica: How the Gun Control Debate Ignores Black Lives

    Quote:

    America's high rate of gun murders isn't caused by events like Sandy Hook. It's fueled by the deaths of black men. Gun control advocates and politicians frequently cite the statistic that more than 30 Americans are murdered with guns every day. What's rarely mentioned is that roughly 15 of the 30 are black men.

    ...

    Even in high-crime cities, the risk of gun violence is mostly concentrated among a small number of men. In Oakland, for instance, crime experts found that about 1,000 active members of a few dozen street groups drove most homicides.... the experts found that over several months only about 50 to 100 men are at the highest risk of shooting someone or getting shot.
    ...
    Many cities tried the strategy and some got dramatic results. Stockton saw a 42 percent reduction in monthly gun homicides over several years. Indianapolis experienced a 34 percent drop in monthly homicides. Lowell, Massachusetts, saw gun assaults fall by 44 percent.
  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    liberals aren't the only ones supporting change here, gun owners are involved too.

    If gun owners want to destroy or turn in their guns, and not acquire any more, nobody is stopping them. Let a thousand flowers bloom.

    On the other hand, "gun owners" who want to take away other people's guns or right to acquire guns, are gun-grabbers just as much as non-gun owners who have that opinion, and it is fitting to treat them similarly.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lies. Why would a gun owner be there to support taking their guns away without just compensation?

  • Joe_JP||

    Some gun owners have voiced the belief, "lies" aren't just things you disagree with, that people should not have the right to have certain types of guns. D.C. v. Heller itself says the government can ban certain types of guns. Scalia wrote it and owned guns, hunted etc.

    Anyway, taking guns away is but one of any number of possible gun regulations that are opposed by many around here that are of the sort of regulations on the table, including prospective limits on the types of guns sold.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Terrorists use smartphones to coordinate attacks, therefore we should limit the types of phones sold.

    But I'm not interested in taking away your phones, just not letting you buy new ones or transfer existing ones to anyone else. Nobody needs an SD card slot or wifi or 128 GB of RAM to make a phone call anyway.

  • Joe_JP||

    Smartphones and guns are different in certain ways, including how we treat handing them out to children and even those in prison cells. Hopefully schools these days teach logic and debate so people learn how to avoid such strawman tactics.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Hopefully the schools also teach about the fallacy of argument from custom. "We" also treat selling marijuana far more restrictively than selling guns, therefore marijuana must be more dangerous than guns.

  • Sevo||

    Joe_JP|3.24.18 @ 11:57PM|#
    "Some gun owners have voiced the belief, "lies" aren't just things you disagree with, that people should not have the right to have certain types of guns."

    "Some gun owners" =/= A-2.
    You really are an idiot, aren't you?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Well, you will never take away my armaments.

    Keep wasting your time on, so we can continue to rollback socialist progress in the USA.

  • Finrod||

    Because it's the fucking progs and idiots like you that are shitting on the Constitution, fucking slaver.

  • Sevo||

    My email service featured a comment by another juvenile:
    "We don't want to be afraid!"
    Well, kid, grow a pair. Like FDR's bogus 'Freedom from want', the government is not equal to the task of keeping you from 'being afraid'.
    YOU, as a moral agent, get to take control of your fear and you are not welcome to use government coercion to tuck you in to bed each night.

  • Sevo||

    Over in the Volokh Conspiracy, ( http://reason.com/volokh/2018/.....on#comment ) there's another idiot trying to square the circle around A-2. The folks over there are far more courteous to fools than are we for reasons which are a mystery to me.
    The Rev asshole posts there, and is simply, and probably correctly ignored.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Clinger from M.A.S.H. 4077?

  • MarkLastname||

    Rev is their Hihn.

  • Derp-o-Matic 6000||

    Rev has been a regular on Volokh for years and through their various moves his stupidity has remained constant.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Getting gun owners pissed before election time is a guarantee for Democrats to lose seats in Congress.

    #silentmajoritytrumpsstupidkids

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    The Democrats are guaranteed to re-take the House of Representatives this November. And part of the reason is that voters are fed up with the NRA gun fetishists.

    #BlueWave

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Nice to have a good laugh early Sunday morning.

  • Finrod||

    Just like Hillary had the election wrapped up. Oops!

  • Sevo||

    Joe_JP|3.24.18 @ 11:33PM|#
    "I though this was a libertarian blog..."

    Yes, Joe, it is.
    And, in the scheme of US politics, it does tend toward the 'right', since (in US politics) the left is populated by assholes like you, hoping somehow the Constitution really doesn't mean what it says.
    We know this, since you're already hinted that you are a more virtuous human than the rest of us here.
    Well, I have a suggestion, Joe_JP: Fuck off.

  • Cyto||

    My interest of late has been how things are being covered in the media.

    In this case, CNN and MSNBC covered the marches as participants, not journalists. They repeatedly said things like "we are accomplishing" when speaking with participants and organizers. They heaped praise upon students and their proctors alike, calling them heroes and flogging the DNC get-out-the-vote talking points all day.

    They also both hit the "this is all driven by the kids" talking point every few minutes. Wow! Isn't it amazing that these kids organized all of this?!?!

    Which should have peaked their journalist's curiosity, but didn't. Because clearly this wasn't driven by a couple of teenagers from Florida. But CNN never even asked the question. Well, I suspect that they actually knew the answers without having to ask, but still...

  • Cyto||

    So the main organizer kid gave a nice speech in which he kept hitting his refrain... a well-worn speechwriter's tactic. It was reasonably good, giving him the feel of a baptist preacher calling on his congregation for a response. And the MSNBC hosts heaped praise upon his efforts, effusive about how much he had accomplished and how powerful his speech was.... all on his own.

    Then came a really attractive and well spoken 12 year old girl. She had a speech about how she is there to represent Black Women who are being killed at an alarming rate. And it had some nice call-backs to the prior speech. She pulled out the same call and response phrase.... Hmm...... And then she went on to say "some people say I'm to young to have my own thoughts on these issues..." and lay claim to all of her speech as hers and hers alone. Again the MSNBC hosts were amazed at her powerful speech and emphasized repeatedly that it was all the kids speaking in their own words.

    Hmm..... A 12 year old gives a powerful speech in front of millions. And she's on point, delivering a message of racism and sexism as causes for lack of gun control. All by herself. And she manages to extemporize a call-back to the prior speaker. Wow.

  • Cyto||

    I mean, she was a pretty impressive young lady, even if it wasn't her own words she was speaking. But a 12 year old who can weave in topical references during a political speech and hit all of her talking points while remaining completely coherent and never stumbling for the next word?

    Ok, you guys lost me. The same speech writer wrote both speeches. There really isn't much doubt. They were the same voice, hit the same beats and used the same refrains in the same way, all while hitting obviously programmed demographic hooks.

    The whole thing was a lie. And MSNBC and CNN were willing participants. You can't report on this without asking "who wrote the speech?" and "who came up with the idea to have a march and concert?" Who discussed it first?

    I think you'll find that the same forces that drove all of the "spontaneous" marches over the last couple of years were behind this one.

  • Cyto||

    MSNBC probably interviewed a dozen people while my wife had it on in the background. Every single one hit the same talking points of "coming together" and getting out the vote for the mid-term election - things that were not on anyone's lips a week ago.

    That's some pretty effective message control right there.

    And they reported that the large donors and non-profits and organizers who were "helping" the kids wanted to make sure the focus was on the kids and so they were not going to be seen on stage. They reported this over and over again.

  • Cyto||

    So..... if you have a report that they are intentionally making kids the face of the march and of gun control.... I mean... if all of the "organizers" who are not really organizing, they are just helping, say the same thing... That they are intentionally putting kids out front. And George Clooney says the same thing. And they all say "it is all driven by the kids", but they have to tell you that they are the ones who are deciding that it is the kids who will be out front....

    Do you get the discrepancy? The kids organized it. They made the decisions..... but the moveon.org types who "helped" are the ones who decided that the kids were going to be out front.....

    And nobody with a microphone thought there might be a story here?

    Come on folks! This one is a no-brainer. The "walk out" wasn't student driven. Within a couple of days the teachers at my children's elementary school were discussing how to handle the walkout. There wasn't one kid at the school who had any idea what that was. They are little kids. Heck, I hadn't even heard of it. But the union members had.

    In fact, a bunch of them went to rallies today. It fit their pre-existing agenda, and they had a pre-existing communications network to get the message out.

  • Cyto||

    The DNC just got handed a lever, and they are pulling it. The "grass roots" organizations that put together all of the demographic-driven protests over the last couple of years were there and primed for action. They whiffed on the last couple of efforts, but this time they hit on the notion of the actual personification of "think of the kids".

    It is a beautiful piece of propaganda which allows no dissent. You can't argue about the right to self defense and the defense of a nation from tyranny with a kid who watched his best friend get shot a month ago.

    And this one is working. Make no mistake. Kids in peril is mom-porn. Moms everywhere are watching heartfelt pleas from kids with dead siblings and they are crying along with them and they are all-in. This is the gender-driven motivator that they hoped they would have with the historic "first woman president".

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Oh, its a massive propaganda play in typical lefty fashion. Straight out of Goebbels handbook. These kids are Hitlerjugend and only need black uniforms and the salute to make jews run for cover.

    Luckily, Americans are mostly sick of this bullshit and this will negatively affect Democrats during primaries over the next few months or just disappear from American's minds tomorrow.

    The media makes this stuff out to be some kind of American majority but its not. Remember that. These lefty hacks and their useful idiots are a minority which is why they act so desperate. meanwhile massive rollbacks of gun restrictions have been made over the last year.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    The propaganda would have been more effective if any number of people were watching CNN and MSNBC on an early spring Saturday.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Blaming sexism for gun control?

    The gun is the great equalizer. It allows an 85 pound woman to kill a 265 pound MMA champion armed with a knife or a baseball bat, instantly, with little to no investment in training.

    And the Jim Crow South had plenty of ideas about how to keep guns out of the hands of black people. But supporting gun rights is racist?

  • Cyto||

    She was cute. And 12. And her friend got killed. And she was there to represent some other person from another state who she never met but was of the appropriate race and gender who got killed.

    Exactly where in that list of bona-fides do you see room for your nuanced arguments? Just shut your racist mouth and pick up an anti-NRA poster and walk in lock-step.

  • KevinP||

    Why Did It Take Two Weeks To Discover Parkland Students' Astroturfing?


    Quotes (but read the whole article):
    "Can you believe these kids?" It's been a recurring theme: the remarkable effectiveness of the high school students who created a gun control organization. In seemingly no time, the magical kids had organized events ranging from a national march to a mass school walkout, and they'd brought in a million dollars in donations from Oprah Winfrey and George Clooney.

    On February 28, BuzzFeed came out with the actual story: Rep. Debbie Wassermann Schultz aiding in the lobbying in Tallahassee, a teacher's union organizing the buses that got the kids there, Michael Bloomberg's groups and the Women's March working on the upcoming March For Our Lives, MoveOn.org doing social media promotion and (potentially) march logistics, and training for student activists provided by federally funded Planned Parenthood.

    What's striking about all this isn't the organization. If you start reading books about organizing, it's clear how it all works. But no journalist covering the story wrote about this stuff for two weeks. Instead, every story was about the Parkland kids being magically effective.
  • Rigelsen||

    That's at least one rational person. I'm surprised you found any, especially amid the wall-to-wall contrary messaging.

  • Sevo||

    loveconstitution1789|3.25.18 @ 12:10AM|#
    "The People have natural rights that have been recognized for millennium, such as the right to have children and protect yourself."

    Sorry, but this is bullshit. There is no 'recognition' required.
    As a human, a moral agent, we are born with no limits regarding what we may do. We do not need "rights"; those are a construct of assholes who would limit our activities. We are free to do what we please, and own and use what we please without limits until (as social animals) we find the the proverbial limit of my fist and your jaw.
    The 'Bill of Rights' is nothing other than a specific statement to keep a limit on the government. It does not grant rights; it keeps the government from interfering in those specific areas where governments had a bad rep.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Natural rights are angels dancing on pinheads. A right that is not respected may as well not exist. A zebra can insist it has a right to life all day long, but in the end what matters is whether the lion agrees.

  • Sevo||

    "A zebra can insist it has a right to life all day long, but in the end what matters is whether the lion agrees."
    So principles are irrelevant if someone has a gun?
    Fuck off, slaver.

  • James Pollock||

    "So principles are irrelevant if someone has a gun?"
    Principles are irrelevant if a person in position to violate them chooses not to honor them, yes.
    This is true whether the person acting contrary to your principles is doing so rightfully or not.

    When the highwayman detains you and demands "your money or your life!", you can stand there and lecture him about property rights and the right to life, but it isn't going to change anything about the immediate situation.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its not bullshit because rights that nobody recognizes are fantasies. The rule of law brings us together. Likewise, acknowledging rights to be protected brings us together too.

    There has to be some foundation for a right, either a recognized natural right, like having children or the state recognizes a right to be protected, like the right to a jury trial. There is no natural right to a trial nor jury trial.

    The great thing about the USA is that the Founders tried to limit government infringing on many common rights and some new rights because government is the common denominator in violating people's rights.

    Another example is someone inventing some device that pulls all the water from everywhere on Earth to some other dimension to resell it to humans. That person could say its their right to do that. I would bet almost everyone on Earth would disagree with that person. I doubt that "right" would be recognized.

  • Sevo||

    "Its not bullshit because rights that nobody recognizes are fantasies."
    So principles are irrelevant if someone has a gun?
    Fuck off, slaver.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Sevo, if you think you have a right and nobody else recognizes that right, how do you propose to make that work?

    Luckily for you, most rights you can think of are already recognized as rights by others.

    I am not an anarchist, so in the USA we have less than 100% freedom to sustain a limited government.

    You DON'T have a right to run around naked all the time in the USA. You DO have a right to keep and bear arms.

  • vek||

    There's a BIG difference between fantasy world where everything works the way it SHOULD, and the real world.

    Go tell a Brit about their natural right to self defense, AKA owning firearms.

    Historically the moral case has basically been irrelevant. That's why the founders tried to codify in law the most important freedoms. If others don't recognize your rights, whether they are natural or not, then you need force to protect yourself and MAKE them recognize your rights. Might is right in the real world for the most part.

  • XM||

    When I was in grad school I worked as a tutor at the school's writing center. A lot of them probably should not have passed their AP English classes (much less a generic English class) and just about about every one of them repeated talking points in their essays - every one of them. One freshman kid went on and on about how there was a surge of hate crimes against Muslims after 9/11.

    There's not an iota of original thought in most of these kids. Like, zero. They were conditioned to think that EVERYTHING wrong in society is due to "discrimination" in every aspect of life or skeevy corporations. Even some astute individuals think we spend like 75% of the budget on defense and only something like 15% on medicare. There's a legion of young people who'll spend their formative years being spoon fed propaganda in school and never sniffing balanced debate.

    These Neveragain kids have not heard of stats that show gun crimes have gone down, or that most gun deaths are suicides and accidents. Their biased educators have already told then how to think. If you're in high school you should have some understanding of due process.

    A lot of these high school kids are angry little pissants or wannabe tough guys. I have friends who are teachers and they have stories to tell. Their antics in the classroom often no unaddressed. Imagine high school kids writing essays about the importance of diversity but pummeling someone in class because they looked at him wrong or something.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    I don't mind diversity. It's the receipt proving that you gave equal opportunity and didn't discriminate. It becomes a problem when diversity is "forced" by making up for lack of equal opportunity by reverse discrimination.

    But among the left, and among the children they "teach", diversity is the new religion. That's what scares me. A religion is hard as fuck to get rid of once people have been indoctrinated in childhood and/or feel they have to appear to follow it to get by in society. It's very questionable whether the brainwashed kids are going to grow out of it as adults. I don't think the leftists will be triumphant in the end; theirs is a sterile and unworkable philosophy that has only survived by leeching off of capitalism. If they destroy American capitalism and liberty, they'll quickly be overwhelmed by some sort of homegrown authoritarianism, if China or Russia or radical Islam don't conquer our former country first. Not a rosy picture either way, but I take some comfort knowing the leftists will get their desserts in the end, by which point I would be long dead one way or another.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The left is pushing these kids too hard on socialism because the left is so desperate. Luckily, kids are so stupid, they are only accepting this propaganda until they learn more in life. Then you have the break off of lefties that stay lefties and those that don't buy into the lefty BS anymore.

    We might get near a tipping point possibly. By that time, most of our rights will have been stolen from us and we'll probably be in a civil war. The lefties have pushed too hard too fast, so they won't get to gain massive support before the civil war starts.

    They are attacking gun rights without the US even having a single payer type scheme that most Americans support. Clearly socialism is not as popular as the media would have you believe.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Americans have short attention spans and only the shallowest understanding of economics. As clumsy and insulting as Jonathan Gruber was when he noted this, he was essentially correct.

    When BO-care finally keels over and fails, they're going to accept single payer as a DO SOMETHING!!!!1!! solution.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I agree with the assessment of many Americans. Quite possible with the single payer. Another possibility is young kids get sick of huge tax bills to pay for boomers on social security and Medicare and cut them off.

    Single payer would be the biggest tax bill to date.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Young people have always leaned Left. The first nudge against that usually comes when they get their first paycheck, and see all the withheld taxes. And more re-inforcement when they file their first tax returns.

  • vek||

    With respect to diversity, the one thing that has going against it is the natural human inclination to be around other people similar to yourself. They're fighting a biological imperative we all have.

    So all it will really take for that shit to completely unravel is for some dramatic event to happen along racial lines, and before you know it whites/blacks/Mexicans etc will all be killing each other along racial lines. Or if its less severe, they'll organize politically along such lines. In the USA that's basically where it's already at. White people are mostly conservative and at least begrudgingly vote Republican, everybody else is Dem. More whites will probably come over to the other side as things escalate until it is full on racial parties with just a few tokens from other groups in either party.

  • Echospinner||

    Enough is enough.

    I agree with the kids.

    This bickering among the grownups is crap.

    Forget the theory and all that. This is real time. We are at war against ourselves.

    The adults have failed to protect them. That is our job and responsibility.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    We protect kids just fine. The tends of millions of kids in the USA are safer now than anytime in recorded history.

    Never give one inch on the 2nd Amendment.

  • Echospinner||

    That is not where the grownups failed them.

    I have no issues with get second amendment.

    They deserve security at school.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    And who pays for the security?

  • Echospinner||

    We know who pays.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Taxpayers will pay and get dumb kids like we see marching to violate American civil rights.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    They have security like the rest of us have security in life. Any staff that want to be armed can be and leave it at that. End the school gun free zones so private citizens can stop someone trying to hurt kids.

    Life is dangerous sometimes yet its still safer than ever before.

    All I hear are excuses as to why kids are not getting the best education for as little money as possible. Otherwise, disband public education and let parents pay for the best education their money can buy. Poor kids will need to accept charitable education offers.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Define security. What percent of kids must go home un-killed every day? We can say 100% as an idealistic goal, but that is a statistical fantasy--and we are already at 99.999999%.

    Or do you want feelings, and want to waste money on security theater, including some methods that might actually increase the number of dead kids?

  • Derp-o-Matic 6000||

    Or end compulsory schooling. If schools are as dangerous as claimed, it's unconscionable to force children to attend.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I plan to push this comment a lot more DoM 6000.

    Nothing like forcing the lefties into a corner to choose between keeping public funds to schools flowing or allow more armed Americans in and around schools.

  • Finrod||

    Then get rid of 'gun-free zones', because every single one of these recent mass shootings have happened in one.

    Oh, that's not the solution you're looking for? Too fucking bad.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "The adults have failed to protect them. That is our job and responsibility."

    First off, you have pronoun trouble. There isn't any aspect of existence that is "our job and responsibility"
    If you have children, they are your responsibility and the responsibility of those who have been explicitly hired - and paid - to do so. They are not my responsibility in any way.

    Second, the lives of children are not one iota more important in any way than the lives of anyone else. There is nothing "special" about them that makes it so. The life of a 15 year old is no more important than the life of a 75 year old senior citizen or a 45 year old.

  • Echospinner||

    Children's rights is a difficult issue in libertarian thought. Without getting over my head into types of rights and who is an individual my argument is a simpler one.

    Reframing it this way. Given that the government has instituted compulsory education, which we don't like. The government has a prescribed role to "protect the rights of every individual including the right to life, liberty and property. " as stated in the LP platform.
    The complaint is that they have failed to do so.

    Since they have forced the students to attend school and forced us to pay for it "we" taxpayers should insist that adequate security should be provided as part of the package we are forced to fund. No different than expecting that the actual building is constructed and maintained so that the roof does not collapse due to neglect.

    It can be argued as some have here that no further security is possible and the risk of shooting is overblown. I do not agree. I also do not agree that changing gun laws will help. I think there is merit to defensive measures which could include physical barriers and armed security.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Children's rights is a difficult issue in libertarian thought. Without getting over my head into types of rights and who is an individual my argument is a simpler one."

    It's not difficult at all. Their rights are no different than anyone else's.

    The types of rights is not difficult at all either. They are all negative liberties. There is no such thing as affirmative rights - or duties.

    "Given that the government has instituted compulsory education, which we don't like. The government has a prescribed role to "protect the rights of every individual including the right to life, liberty and property. " as stated in the LP platform."

    The government's role is to refrain from violating those negative liberties of individuals itself. And to punish any other party who does so.

    It has already been established that the government has no affirmative duty to prevent any other party from violating the negative liberties of any particular individual or individuals and cannot be sued by any person for failing to do so.

  • Echospinner||

    To address you second point you are correct. There is no intrinsic value of one life over another. Children however are not small adults. It changes with age but they are less able to defend themselves and because they know less about the world more likely to make bad choices when they do have the ability to choose something. So safety for children has different considerations than for adults.

    So far as your kids vs mine. Well they are both in the same school so improving security there satisfies both of our requirements.

    Granted the whole education system we have is not libertarian.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "So safety for children has different considerations than for adults."

    There is no consideration about anything that creates a collective responsibility for anything.

    "So far as your kids vs mine. Well they are both in the same school so improving security there satisfies both of our requirements."

    I don't have (and never wanted) any kids so I have no requirement related to them that needs satisfying - or any responsibility for the kids of others either.

  • Echospinner||

    Fair enough but I was not speaking about you specifically

    In an ideal libertarian world there would be no collective taxes. In what we have tax levies for schools have to be voted in. It is still unfair to a homeowner with no kids to get hit with a school tax even if the voters approve it.

    We do not live in the ideal world. In the meantime I do not see anything wrong with allocating those tax funds that do exist to improve security in the schools.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "In the meantime I do not see anything wrong with allocating those tax funds that do exist to improve security in the schools."

    Of course a reallocation of existing tax funds is not what would happen. They will demand additional funds (and tax increases) to pay for it all. The Educrat complex has always and will always claim they are underfunded despite the fact that they are actually vastly over funded and with a substantial percentage of the money spent actually accomplishing nothing to increase student educational outcomes.

  • CE||

    Well, the armed officer at the Parkland school failed to protect the kids there.

  • Echospinner||

    Parkland was proof that we don't protect kids just fine.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Southern Maryland High School shooting was proof that we do protect kids just fine with qualified armed staff that do their job.

  • Echospinner||

    I agree. We should have more of that.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    The fatal heart attack my peer suffered doing the mile run is proof that we have to ban gym, by your logic. Then there is the student who died of hemophilia a couple of grades younger than me. Back in my day, we just took it for granted that not everyone would survive to graduation day.

  • Brendan||

    I find it interesting how many people on the left were claiming that the protestors/rioters who were shutting down various speeches were not actually violating any free speech rights of those speakers because the 1st amendment only applies to acts by the government.

    Setting aside the difference between the 1st amendment protection of free speech and the broader concept of free speech, it's interesting if we apply it to this idea of a conflict between right to bear arms and right to life. Using their approach to rights, it's not a violation of one's right to life when someone kills them unless the killer is working for the government.

    That said, it's not a surprise to see them debate like this - the same people who claim that speech is violence believe that another's mere possession and acquisition of a firearm is a direct threat to their life and/or right to live.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    GUN GRABBERS SEEK TO VIOLATE AMERICAN'S CIVIL RIGHTS.

  • Devastator||

    I'm glad they're learning about their right to protest and freedom of speech. They still aren't going to take my guns because that's also in the Constitution, you can't just take this part or that part, you have to take the whole thing or none of it.

  • Frank Thorn||

    Sounds like you've never been to NY, NJ, CA,...

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Some states move through time the hard way.

    The Southern States run by Democrats decided to start a shooting war with the United States after seceding. They wanted some parts of the Constitution and not others.

    Might just happen with the Democrats again in CA, OR, WA, NY, NJ, Illinois vs the United States.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Marissa, a teenage girl from Michigan, told me she felt unsafe in school, and thought more security would help. Teenager after teenager testified that their fears of death were all-consuming, ever-present, and more justified than ever before.

    Missing from these conversations was any awareness of a very basic, indisputable fact: Gun violence has declined precipitously over the past 25 years, and most Americans are much safer today than they were a generation ago.

    If enough people agree with you, it is not a paranoid delusion.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    The pussy generation.

  • Finrod||

    Sure it is. It just becomes a mass paranoid delusion.

  • creech||

    I'm looking at the 1902 Sears catalog. 40 pages of shotguns, rifles, pistols, ammo and gun supplies that were available by mail order to all comers. No registration, no back ground checks, just cash on barrel head. Included are many 15 shot magazine repeating rifles. America was awash in guns yet school shootings only became a "thing" in 1999.
    Why? An increased acceptance of violence, personally and politically? The sewer of violent video games, movies, and pop songs that kids today swim in? A rational discussion on violence is needed, not bumper sticker slogans and mindless marches to "do something."

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Technically, the first recorded school shooting in what would be the United States happened in July 26, 1764 Greencastle, Pennsylvania called the Enoch Brown school massacre.

    The next one was November 12, 1840 in Charlottesville, Virginia at the University of Virginia.

    List of school shootings in the United States- Wiki

  • CE||

    Violent crime is way down since violent video games started. Which I think isn't a coincidence.

  • LEAPGuyAZ||

    Apparently kids need to pay more attention to what friends are saying online and take personal responsibility to report someone showing signs of potential violence. School districts may have a responsibility to protect children, the police don't.

    WASHINGTON, June 27, 2005 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

  • Licky||

    Really impressive post. I read it whole and going to share it with my social circules. I enjoyed your article and planning to rewrite it on my own blog. run 3

  • Ken Shultz||

    The most fundamental problem with the thinking behind gun control isn't utilitarianism, the abandonment of justice implicit in violating the rights of gun owners who have never done anything wrong, or even the failure to recognize that people have rights regardless of whether we like those people and what they're doing.

    The most fundamental problem of gun control being the assumption that we can violate people's rights without negative consequences.

    We understand property rights in this way--that you can't ignore them without negative consequences--and that's cross culturally and throughout history. Adam Smith turned to economics to make this case in 1776 because trade is easier to quantify with ledgers and budgets, etc. However, he made the same points about other rights in "Theory of Moral Sentiments" in 1759.

    Violating people's fee speech or religious rights also has negative consequences in the real world--cross culturally and throughout history. Ancient Rome, the Spanish Inquisition, The Reformation in the Holy Roman Empire, China during the Cultural Revolution, Syria under ISIS--we can only escape the negative consequences of violating people's rights by not violating them. The negative consequences of violating some rights may not be as easy to quantify as violating people's property rights, but the negative consequences are consistent. Doesn't censorship, for instance, have more or less the same kinds of consequences pretty much everywhere and always?

  • James Pollock||

    "The most fundamental problem of gun control being the assumption that we can violate people's rights without negative consequences."

    The most fundamental problem of anti-gun-control being the assumption that there aren't people's rights on the other side, too.

    Both sides prioritize different rights... this is true regardless of what "rights" are being argued. The right to speak vs. the right not to hear; the right to swing one's arms freely vs. the right to not be smacked in the face by someone's swinging arms. The right to possess a weapon vs. the right not to be threatened by or injured by a person with a weapon.

    Believing, or pretending to believe, that one side has rights and the other side only wants to infringe rights, is stupid. Full stop.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I maintain that there are similar consequences to violating people's gun rights. Reasonable people can disagree about what they are and to what extent. One consequence I'd point to is that when societies are disarmed and left to depend entirely on their government to protect their rights, they become much more politically engaged and much less tolerant of those outside the in-group--which may help explain why we don't have substantial explicitly anti-immigrant parties in the U.S. like the National Front, the BNP, or their counterparts in Germany and France.

    Regardless, don't think that you can violate people's rights or revise them however you want without suffering the negative consequences of doing so. People get it so backwards. If it's our rights that continuously assert themselves--no matter what the law says (see the USSR and China)--then it's the laws, like gun control, that are the fantasy. If violating our rights has more or less the same consequences in the real world--cross culturally and throughout history--then the laws are a fantasy and it's our rights that are actually real.

  • Derp-o-Matic 6000||

    In the Parkland case, all levels of the government completely failed in exercising laws and policies already in effect that could have prevented this atrocity. It boggles the mind that people want to cede more power to those institutions.

  • I'm Not Sure||

    The people who want to cede more power to these institutions have already concluded that empowering them in the first place is the correct course of action, so they see no contradiction in insisting that they be given more power in the face of failure. The thought process is- since what they believe to be true didn't work, they need to do it harder next time.

  • Finrod||

    See: definition of insanity.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Are these the same people who were protesting police brutality in Ferguson and elsewhere? They want us to rely solely on those guys?

    For a lot of them, it's just an aesthetic thing. They don't like the look of gun owners, and they've been taught that gun owners (rather than wackos) are the problem.

    I don't think it goes much deeper than that--for a lot of them.

    The kinds of people who stand up for gun rights aren't the kinds of people who love children, unicorns, and harmony--and that's why they want the government to come down on gun owners with full force of law. Does that mean they support going house to house to look in everybody's closets and lock otherwise law abiding moms and dads up in cages for years at a time if they resist?

    Not exactly, but it's pretty close to that. They don't think about what will happen to the people they want to persecute or the likely consequences of doing that--which may not be the same as actually wanting to persecute people if you think feelings are important. It's sort of like how Barack Obama has killed more innocent children in drone strikes than Adam Lanza did with his gun. The important difference between them is the way Barack Obama feels when he's killing children and the way he talks about it. You can tell how he feels, too, because of how he . . . look, a unicorn!

    Yeah, they want to lock us all up--if we don't learn to feel how they feel and conform. But they don't say it and they don't think about it that way.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Gun control has never been about crime. The usual motive behind it is disarming one's political enemies, so that they can't resist you.

    Criminals aren't the political enemies of the gun controllers, often they're actual allies. Politically allies, and allies in that they provide a useful pretext for disarming their political enemies.

    They're the last people the gun controllers actually mean to disarm.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The kids in the streets aren't thinking about it in terms of disarming people so the government can have their way with us.

    They're against gun ownership for the same reason that they're against Lord Voldemort. They think gun owners are the bad guys, and they want to save Harry Potter.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Actually more and more older black Americans are moving toward less government power. The police shootings of unarmed black men really shook the black communities and their acceptance that the Democratic Party will help them.

    The Democratic Party is dying and whether black Americans move into the Republican camp, Libertarian camp, or some other political group remains to be seen.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, elitism, especially the kind that mocks Christianity, probably doesn't go over well with the African-American community either.

    Have you see this?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7VaXlMvAvk

  • Derp-o-Matic 6000||

    You have a right to be safe, in that no one is entitled to take your life, liberty, or property. Save for certain limited and specific exceptions (direct threats, assault, intimidation), you do not have a right to feel safe.

  • John||

    How these idiots square a perceived right to be safe with depriving people of the most useful means of self defense is mind boggling. I feel safer in my home because I own a gun and can use it if I ever have to.

  • Eidde||

    But what about someone who finds himself in your home, but you shoot him because he quote-unquote "isn't supposed to be there"? How safe would *he* be?

    /sarc

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    "I'm afraid of heights, therefore no building should be allowed to be more than two stories tall"

  • James Pollock||

    And also building codes are an infringement of my right to build as I see fit.

  • James Pollock||

    "you do not have a right to feel safe."

    Well, in the US, you do. It's covered in the first year of law school, and it's known as the right of "quiet enjoyment" of property. It goes back to the common-law of England... the crime of burglary is punished as a felony because it destroys the feeling of safety in the home. You read some court cases that involved duck hunting over someone else's property, too.

  • vek||

    These people are all a bunch of women a soy boys! I get the women, but I don't know how any man can be so stupid and cowardly.

    I was in school after Columbine. We made jokes about it, because we weren't pussies. This is all just being orchestrated by the leftist gun grabber adults. Screw those people.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    One one side, a bunch of women and soy boys.

    On the other, nothing but all-talk, half-educated, disaffected bigots, mostly from no-count backwaters.

    Where is the hope for America?

  • Eidde||

    Superman?

  • Vernon Depner||

    Superman is a stereotypical Progressive. No help there.

  • James Pollock||

    Sure, he's for Truth, Justice, and the American Way, but he's also an illegal alien.

  • Eidde||

    The Rev. is more specific about what (or who) he *doesn't* like than about what he *does* like.

    He might be willing to criticize socialism...if he could be persuaded that socialism was invented by can't-keep-up clingers of pale complexion.

  • Eidde||

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Massive flood of immigrants into the USA?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Arthur L. Hicklib projecting his self-loathing. Was moving to NYC and getting AIDS worth it, Arthur?

  • Gilbert Martin||

    And then there is your side - a pseudo intellectual bluffer with nothing to back it up.

  • vek||

    All talk huh? That's just because the hornets nest hasn't been poked QUITE hard enough to set them off yet. God help you if it is!

  • Azathoth!!||

    It's 'no account', Rev.

  • KevinP||

  • Ron||

    Of course kids are scared since these days every school in the path of police activity goes into lockdown. The school where my sister works is across the street from the court house Nd they go into a soft lock down every time the bring criminals to the court house

  • josh||

    As a teenager I would've told you that the second amendment was obsolete, but I grew up. Gun control will always be more popular, but there's hope for these kids to learn, as I did, how the issue is far from as simple as it's being portrayed. And if they do learn, it will likely be listening to the most enthusiastic gun control advocates that leads them to the other side.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    I grew up in an extremely anti-gun family, and was indoctrinated against guns at school and by the media (this was decades ago -- not remotely a new thing). This was long before the internet, so that was all I knew. Growing up, I thought it was settled that guns were for hicks and weirdos and eventually we would join the rest of the enlightened world and get rid of them. My siblings are still that way. My sister wouldn't even say the words "gun" or "shoot" around her children, but we had to spell the words out like with swear words so they would develop that association.

    I only came to understand the need for gun rights due to some really bad experiences with government and attaching to the Ron Paul RLOVEution in 2007-08. But even then, I felt an entrenched revulsion toward guns, not knowing how to approach a gun counter and feeling like I'd look like a fool or some weirdo, being an adult who wanted to learn about guns but knew nothing. Ultimately it was YouTube gun community that let me ease in to becoming a gun owner. If Gulag is successful in shutting down that community down now that avenue will be gone.

  • silver.||

    "due to some really bad experiences with government and attaching to the Ron Paul RLOVEution in 2007-08."

    This is what my mother called an, "aha!" moment. Many gun control advocates will have one where they realize the utility of a firearm in an unfortunate moment of clarity. For people I know personally it has been racists and wannabe rapists, coupled with a lack of belief in the police, that led them to the counter.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It always comes down to the same arguments about whether you're willing to let people die for your rights, too.

    Even IF IF IF, gun control meant fewer murders . . .

    When the Bush/Obama administration had the NSA sifting through all of our phone calls in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment, the question was whether I'd rather them do that or suffer another 9/11.

    When the Bush administration was torturing people, the question was whether I'd rather the government violated the Fifth and Eighth amendments or saved us from another terrorist attack.

    I've heard the violating the First Amendment rights of Christians and Nazis is necessary to protect safety of LGBTQI+ and to stop the Fourth Reich from rising in America.

    It isn't that I want children to die or that I don't want the government to protect the rights of everybody from those who violate them. I just put a premium on liberty and justice. And there's something to be said for patriotism in this country--especially--because we have two things other countries don't. We have the First and Second Amendments. They don't have either in the UK. They don't have it in Canada or Australia. And it isn't just that the First Amendment that makes this country free--they're also what make us American.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'm not giving up what makes us our society free and just and distinctly American, not just because some nut job murdered a bunch of children. I suppose we should add one more critical element to our national character--which is bravery. It is un-American and cowardly to think that we would give up who we are just because some murderer killed a bunch of us.

    I used to say the same thing about Bush. Any president that capitalizes on cowardice by trying to scare us into giving up our rights is a shitty leader. These kids grew up in that environment. Their parents should be ashamed of them. Cowardice is never a virtue, and whatever problems this country has, the solution is not to cowardly sign our rights away for fear that there might be more nut jobs in the future.

  • ||

    "When I asked people whether they wanted more school resource officers—a security measure that utterly failed to stop the Parkland shooting, and creates plenty of negative externalities relating to school discipline and zero tolerance—opinions were mixed, though some reluctantly supported it."

    Strange you did not mention what happened in Maryland last week where a SRO shot and killed an armed school shooter. Seems relevant.

  • Derp-o-Matic 6000||

    Facts are not relevant in this debate, only feelings and progressive talking points.

  • Finrod||

    Or as I spell it for them, feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings.

  • Rebel Scum||

    Their right to "feel"? You can fuck right off with that crap. Like facts, rights are not subject to feelings.

    Also I find it strange that they prefer to "feel" safe rather than actually be safe.

  • ||

    These kids have been programmed that "to feel" = "to be/is".

  • James Pollock||

    "Like facts, rights are not subject to feelings."

    That's an interesting theory, but not supported by, well, facts.

    Ask the Americans of Japanese heritage circa 1942 about that one. Or the black folks who thought they had rights, but the white folks who felt they didn't back in the 50's and 60's.

    Or chew on this... gun rights are about "feeling" safer with a firearm in your possession.

  • Rebel Scum||

    ""Guns are for the police and the government,""

    Every mass murderer in history agrees.

    ""Our school could be next," said the other 13-year-old. "What if it is?""

    If it is you will cower in a corner as you wait to be shot because, as you advocate, no one will be there with the capacity to protect you.

  • Eidde||

    The police and the government will be there, on time and on the ball as usual, just like in Fl - uh, I mean like in Maryland.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    I wonder why no one is taking a knee to protest police violemce anymore.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Schools should keep a few dogs to attract the police in case of trouble.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    The cops will make it home safely.

  • Echospinner||

    Rick Santorum came out and said the the kids should be learning CPR instead of protesting. Just another example of how our politicians speak in meaningless sound bites instead of doing anything useful.

    First it is actually possible to protest and learn CPR.

    You mean they don't learn CPR at some point? A simple skill that can be learned in a few hours and might actually be useful someday. Cancel social studies class for two days and teach them CPR instead. He could work on that project.

    Then CPR is not so much what they need to know in this situation. In gunshot injuries people mostly die because they bleed to death. CPR is not that helpful if there is no blood left to circulate.

    They need to learn bleeding control including use of tourniquets. At least the teachers and staff could. If teachers are going to gun up it would also be a good idea to throw a couple of tampons in the locker as well. They work pretty well in gunshot injuries.

  • silver.||

    Actually, I'll piggyback off you to recommend that anyone interested in stuff like this examine their local Community Emergency Response Team (CERT). It's a volunteer-taught "class" where you can learn basic crisis response like using fire extinguishers, tourniquets, triage, and managing survivors / bystanders. Ours was on weeknights for a few months taught by local fire, EMS, police, and medical personnel. Some of us also did little 5min blurbs about various topics. I'm sure the quality / success of your program will depend on many factors, so consider traveling to a more active one if you live in a rural area. Theoretically they should have some sort of web presence. I still receive e-mails every month, although I never volunteer myself. It was free, although we chipped in a few bucks each for snacks, copies of the "textbook" (a .pdf handbook, printed at Kinko's), and maybe some practice gear.

    I was pretty skeptical about it, but I'm glad I did it. I think it's come in handy two or three times.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Just another example of how our politicians speak in meaningless sound bites instead of doing anything useful."

    Which is exactly the same thing that the protesters were doing.

  • Bayardw||

    I've got a better idea. How about instead of CPR or tourniquet application, teachers spend time teaching math, science, and the humanities (the latter just to keep civilization intact). That's what they teach in other countries where students don't have to worry about being blown to bits by assault weapons "freely" distributed to anyone who wants one. Curious that Rick Santorum (aka: The Shame of Pennsylvania) has his children home schooled. Well, if they can't be slaughtered at school, they're still exposed at movie theaters and church. And maybe if such horror is visited upon his family - if he finds himself putting pieces of his dead child into a coffin - he'll start advocating for SENSIBLE gun control instead of insulting the teenaged survivors of a war-like killing spree.

  • flyfishnevada||

    There's a reason the voting age is 18...

  • I'm Not Sure||

    I've got nothing against young people (I was one once) but if you're taking advice about how the world works from them, well... maybe you (in general, not directed at anybody in particular) shouldn't be voting, either.

  • Vernon Depner||

    There were better reasons why it used to be 21. I would favor raising it to 25.

  • James Pollock||

    Isn't it funny how people who are in favor of disenfranchising other people always turn out to be in the group that will still have a vote?

  • Trollificus||

    Why does no one address (and there are probably 20 posts doing exactly this, some possibly starting this very way) the fact that in the past there was more bullying, and more guns...but less shootings?

    If guns are the problem, what has changed since the time they clearly were not the problem, and why don't people want to address THAT factor?

  • ||

    "Because guns are more easy to get now than before because...narrative"

  • Vernon Depner||

    Because addressing the real problems would involve people changing they way they live, and big businesses and institutions changing their business models. Few are willing to even discuss that.

  • ||

    It entirely depends on what you are changing, and why.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Well, for one thing, there's fatherless child rearing. 27 of the last 28 mass school shooters grew up without a father in the home. There's also mass psychotropic drugging of boys whose behavior is inconvenient for public schools.

  • James Pollock||

    In the past, American antisocial types had the option of leaving for the frontier, where (surprise!) there was no shortage of gun violence. The spots where the antisocial types left had little gun violence.

    The problem is that we don't have a "somewhere else" to send them, any more.

  • ||

    (Re)-watch Yuri Bezmenov's late 70-80's videos, a former KGB/Prpoaganda officer who defected, he is telling our present from the past. He, among many others, have been warning us for a long time regarding the Fabian march to actually get otherwise functional people to demand their rights be taken away, under the guise of taking away someone else's rights.
    I have not been able to stomach watching any coverage on this, instead of paid "actors/protesters" they are actually using children (or teens who they have infantilized). I find this particularly contemptible, and goes to show how far they will stoop.

  • CE||

    Why don't they just ban murder?

  • jfxgillis||

    And?

  • ArLyne Diamond, Ph.D.||

    It both frightens and angers me to see these well-intended kids being manipulated so badly. I even heard someone say that the NRA is in favor of school shootings. Remember the old bumper sticker: "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." I think that's true.

    Growing up in The Bronx, we learned to walk tall and talk tough. It was our stance - our image more than anything else that kept us safe. Carrying a sign - or having a sign on a building that says "gun free zone" is an invitation to be attacked.

    Self-protection - and the protection of others - prevents or at least slows down the lunatics who choose to kill.

    We need better mental health services and better screening.

  • R. K. Phillips||

    Who's gonna pay for those "mental health services" and "better screening"? Who will decide when someone cannot buy a gun, or should perhaps be removed from society, BEFORE they commit a crime? It sounds a lot like "prior restraint", and SCOTUS isn't fond of that.

  • James Pollock||

    " It sounds a lot like 'prior restraint', and SCOTUS isn't fond of that."

    At what point in history was it that SCOTUS outlawed civil commitment? They aren't as "not fond" of restraints as you seem to think.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    As Art Linkletter used to say, "Kids Say The Darndest Things", and quite a bit of it is just plain dumb.

  • Enemy of the State||

    Awe goddammit you beat me to the Linkletter quote...

  • James Pollock||

    Well, there's no shortage of dumb adults talking, either.

  • jfxgillis||

    Awesome.

    Adult libertarian gets owned by a 13-year straw-girl in his own essay.

  • Enemy of the State||

    Kids say the darndest things!

    Kudos to the teen from the private boarding school. She was the only one with a valid position...

  • rhkennerly||

    gun rights favorite Associate Justice Scalia did say in the summary of Heller that owning a gun, like any other of the the Rights in numerated in the Constitution, is not an unalloyed right. That time, place, and kind (referring to the earlier Hiller decision) were reasonable restrictions.

    A ban on assault style rifles is, as many point out, folly. But there are perimeters that thoughtful people notice about mass shootings (either like Las Vegas, Aurora, or many of the school shootings) that can be addressed:

    1. high MV rounds with unstable characteristics on impact, such as the 5.56. https://rhk.today/2DX78Fh

    Generally, handgun hits from lower velocity 9s, 40s, or 45s, if not to the head or heart, are survivable, at least initially.

    2. high rates of fire. In Parkland the shooter got off 100 rounds in a school hall in just a few minutes. This is true of all the semiautomatic attacks over the years. Which is connected to:

    3. high capacity magazines. Parkland shooter 100+, the Aurora shooter was on his way to a big kill count if the cheap drum he'd bought hadn't jammed. Lanza, according to the final Sandy Hook report, dump partials between rooms so he'd have a full mag as he moved to each new abattoir.

    At the intersection of those three point, there is considerable room for legislation, prohibition even.

  • KevinP||

    The .223 / 5.56 mm round used in the AR-15 is on the lower end of power and destructiveness. A traditional 12-gauge shotgun such as the one owned by Joe Biden will cause far more carnage.

    Projectiles, Kinetic/Muzzle Energy and Stopping Power


    Quote:
    Many people think of the AR-15 as a powerful rifle. But the AR-15 is actually less powerful than most hunting rifles used for animals like deer.

    Here's a chart with some common projectiles and bullets:

    12-gauge shotgun: 4,453 joules
    30-06 hunting rifle: 4,050 joules
    .223 (AR-15) rifle: 1,854 joules - less than half of the energy of an average shotgun!

  • James Pollock||

    "A traditional 12-gauge shotgun such as the one owned by Joe Biden will cause far more carnage."

    Rate of fire comes into play. If mass shooters were somehow magically limited to weapons that had to be reloaded between each shot, the casualty count would go down. Mass shooters who had a particular target in mind would probably spend more time making sure they got to the target and less time plinking random targets who just happened to be nearby at the time.

  • Bayardw||

    What is the point of this article? That anyone and everyone should have the right to purchase the most advanced assault weapon possible because the odds of dying in a car accident are statistically higher than dying in a mass shooting? If so, then let's arm everyone with bazookas, rocket launchers, and hand grenades. Of course, that's not going to happen because common sense tells us that "the right to bear arms" needs to be limited; "arms" is assigned a restrictive definition. Statistics can be just as twisted to make an argument as the Second Amendment has been twisted by the NRA. Any reasoned interpretation of the Second Amendment could not possibly include the right of any citizen to acquire military hardware designed for the sole purpose of slaughtering as many people as fast as possible in a war. Like any act of terrorism, the near-regular mass killing of students, church goers, shoppers in malls, and attendees of movies and public concerts has terrorized enough of the population to call "foul" on any such right claimed by the NRA. Perhaps 11 and 13 year olds who've suffered war-like experiences may express themselves in a bit of hyperbole but to categorically dismiss their horror with a bunch of propped-up statistics to justify the status-quo is disingenuous at best and inexcusable at worst.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Any reasoned interpretation of the Second Amendment could not possibly include the right of any citizen to acquire military hardware designed for the sole purpose of slaughtering as many people as fast as possible in a war.

    You're not getting your progressive feudal utopia.

  • Show Me||

    My rights should be limited because they don't feel safe? So.....I don't feel safe with teenagers driving on the road, should we take away their privilege to drive? Drunk drivers kill and maim a lot of people, should we take away alcohol?
    Or take away cars? Many older people fall in bathtubs, should we take away bathtubs? We cannot guarantee everyone's safety, in fact, we should not, Life is not safe. We should learn to cope with unsafe situations. Liberty is worth the risks.

  • Show Me||

    Oh, and how about banning furnaces and water heaters because fires hurt people every year. That would have to expand to cover stoves and ovens. How about banning people from walking outside in winter because they could slip on ice? Hmm, those electrical outlets...some people are probably afraid of being electrocuted, maybe we should ban electricity?

  • Bayardw||

    Unlike assault weapons, furnaces, water heaters, stoves, ovens, electric outlets, and ice are not used as weapons to kill people, even by the military. Therein lies the reason your response is beyond inane!

  • Show Me||

    I once cut myself with a flathead screwdriver...so watch your toolbox!

  • Bayardw||

    Let me know when you slaughter 50 people and seriously injure hundreds of others in a few minutes with your flathead screwdriver and we'll talk about regulating your tool box.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    You're as likely to be killed in a drunk driving accident as you are by someone with a firearm, but I don't see you hysterics calling for "common sense alcohol control".

  • James Pollock||

    " I don't see you hysterics calling for 'common sense alcohol control'."

    Because (duh) there's already regulation in place.
    You get hurt by a jackass who was driving impaired, you can sue him OR the place that overserved him and let him drive home. Cops routinely pull over people who look like their driving is impaired, and the department puts everybody on the street when there's reason to suspect a higher incidence of impaired driving, such as New Year's morning or after the end of the Super Bowl..

    Plus, of course, mandatory registration of both cars and drivers, with cars having to pass safety requirements to be street-legal and drivers having to pass both written and practical tests, and, oh, yeah, mandatory liability insurance.

    Imagine if a person who was shot could sue the person/place that sold the weapon to the shooter, but that wasn't a big deal because both shooter and seller had plenty of (mandatory) insurance. Get yourself involved in a few too many incidents, and your insurance rates shoot up.

  • Bayardw||

    Teenagers have to earn the privilege to drive by passing a test (in many states also a course) and getting a license. Additionally, they have to have insurance (usually as part of their parents' policies). Drunk drivers have their driving privileges revoked, pay fines, and often spend time in prison. Nonetheless, irresponsibility is not intent. Mass murderers are not irresponsible people who cause accidents. They are determined individuals intent on killing the most people with the most efficient (and available) weapon possible: the assault weapon, developed specifically for such purpose during war. Comparisons are often odious. Yours is especially stupid.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    They are determined individuals intent on killing the most people with the most efficient (and available) weapon possible: the assault weapon, developed specifically for such purpose during war

    Tell us how many people are killed every year by "assault weapons" vs. ordinary handguns.

  • James Pollock||

    "Tell us how many people are killed every year by 'assault weapons' vs. ordinary handguns."

    Gosh, heart disease kills a lot of Americans. Guess we should stop funding cancer research.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The greatest contributor to the massacre was government *policy* in Broward County, titled "Collaborative Agreement on School Discipline", in which the Schools, Courts, and Police agreed not to uphold the law on student offenders

    This primitive, stone-age thinking was made official Broward County policy in a Nov. 5, 2013, agreement titled "Collaborative Agreement on School Discipline."
    ...
    The first "whereas" clause of the agreement states that "the use of arrests and referrals to the criminal justice system may decrease a student's chance of graduation, entering higher education, joining the military and getting a job."

    http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2018-03-07.html

    COLLABORATIVE AGREEMENT ON SCHOOL DISCIPLINE
    THIS AGREEMENT
    is made and entered into as of this 5 day of November, 2013, by and between
    THE SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
    https://goo.gl/Ewbczc

  • ||

    Cops kill innocent citizens more than criminals. Why aren't these kids demanding they be disarmed? Isn't this an irrational double standard?

    Since cars kill over 25 times more people than mass shooters, why aren't kids demanding they be outlawed?

    If kids don't want to protect themselves, even when they admit they feel threatened by mass shooters, how can they deny kids who do want to protect themselves? Wouldn't that benefit them also?

    These are questions gun control kids can't answer because they won't even allow themselves a comprehensive analysis of violence. It's much easier to get emotional and let their fear take over. And they were not taught the value of reason or logic in public schools. Parents, being victims of the public school system, are cognitively challenged as well. And that is the real danger in public schools.
    '

  • CMurph||

    Please add taking prescription drugs to the list of activities FAR more likely to result in one's death than a mass shooting. In fact, prescription drugs recently surpassed vehicular accidents as the #1 cause of accidental death in the United States--at that's even without counting school shootings, which I believe are very likely to be (root) caused by psychotropic prescription drugs!

  • Tionico||

    Too bad we can't take a poll of the survivors of the Parkland school shooting. First remind them of the behaviour of Mr. Aaron Feis... the coach who deiberatly placed HIS OWN BODY between the bullets and a few of his beloved students. THEN ask them if they would strongly oppose the concept of Mr. Feis having been armed wiht his own concealed handgun. He WAS close enough to the shooter to have gotten some rounds off at him. Apparently he was murdered fairly early on in the fracas. He clearly demonstrated his willingness to pay whatever price needed to protect SOME of the students.. paying the ultimate price to save.. how many? Two? Maybe three? WHAT IF he had been armed and HAD taken one shot at the perp? At least he would have distracted the punk from his random shooting and killing. ANYONE firing back and that wimp would have melted into a puddle of yellow water on the floor.

    What these kiddies don't get is there is NO WAY all guns can be taken. Austrailia, one of the most antigun governments, 1000s of military style weapons flood in monthly. WHO is gets those? And WHAT will they do with them? The ONLY thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.WHERE ARE THOSE GOOD GUYS? Some have shown the heart of a good guy under fire. Mr. Feis, and others. WHY CANNOT THOSE GOOD GUYS be armed to stop the bad guys with their guns?

  • James Pollock||

    There is a fantasy that is common amongst firearm enthusiasts, and it's the "Die Hard" one. The notion that a lone good guy, armed, could have totally stopped whatever bad thing they're talking about. This is true, sometimes, but, all too often, isn't.
    It works in the movies, because the script says so. People who don't have a script tend to experience different outcomes. Parkland, for example, did have a "good guy with a gun".
    Mass shooters (and even most shooters that just shoot one person) usually have tactical surprise on their size. The start shooting, and nobody expects that, so chaos reigns while people figure out what, exactly, they should be doing about it. Sometimes they choose correctly, and sometimes not. Cops are specifically trained in how to deal with bad guys with guns... and they sometimes (oops) shoot people who turn out to not have guns. This is true because when you get surprised, and the adrenaline kicks in, careful analysis and attention to details becomes severely impaired. You're at least as likely to get good guys shooting other good guys as you are to get a good guy taking down the bad guy before anyone else gets hurt.

    "The ONLY thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
    Easily disproven. As a simple exercise, Google "Kip Kinkel". He was a school shooter at Thurston High School in Eugene, Oregon.

  • wearingit||

    "Obviously, it's understandable for the survivors of the horrific events in Parkland to be feeling unsafe, given what happened to them. But mass shootings are not the norm, and kids don't need to be terrified of going to school."

    Now go tell the rest of America that they don't have to fear terrorism, or immigrants, or any number of things that in the grand scheme are unlikely to hurt them. Funny though, that they are still afraid though right?

  • Tionico||

    Yeah, like cars, prescription drugs, water (swimming pools, boating accidents) food (choking), illegal drugs, for starters......

  • vek||

    I agree, other than immigration. Immigration is a LOT more than just potential crime increases in an area.

  • James Pollock||

    In the sense that, by actual statistics, you can see that crimes are committed more frequently by homegrown citizens than by immigrants?

  • ||

    Yep, all the Republicans trying to diminish the statistical likelihood of gun violence while arguing for a police state to stop the looming statistically unlikely threat of Islamoterrorism...comedy gold.

    Irrational fear is the cause for so much lost liberty.

  • colorblindkid||

    But only one side gets full-blown media support for their statistically irrational fears, and that is the Democrats, which makes them more dangerous.

  • vek||

    I'm not afraid of terrorism... I'm afraid of bringing in a voting block that shares none of my cultural values, doesn't speak the language, and has zero understand or respect for the ideas of freedom and liberty I believe in. Terrorism is nothing but a sideshow... But that said, if you don't import Muslims you WILL in fact not have Muslim terrorism either! IIRC Muslims are currently committing about 90% of global terrorism at the moment. In the past the figures were different of course. Think the IRA blowing stuff up back in the day. But in the here and now the Muslims, and specifically middle eastern Muslims (versus say Indonesian ones or whatever) are committing almost all acts of terror.

    But I'm really not concerned with terrorism, it's all the other negative effects of different cultural values taking over that I worry about. And those are very real. One need look no further than voting demographics to see just how much foreigners are helping Americans freedom out...

  • James Pollock||

    " But that said, if you don't import Muslims you WILL in fact not have Muslim terrorism either!"

    This is true, so long as you choose to ignore the Muslim terrorism caused by non-imported Muslims.
    The previous wave of terrorists was Catholic. Should we disallow their immigration, too? I mean, you can't be too careful...

    Really, the problem with Muslim terrorists comes from the "terrorist" part, not the "Muslim" part. How about if we just have a policy of not importing terrorists? I think we can all get behind that one.

  • Tionico||

    Seems amusing that every one of them uttered exactly the same words. WHO put those words into their mouths? And WHO is paying them to put on their charade?

    WHY does not even ONE of them mention the FACTS: that the coppers know about the perp's conduct long before this; that school district people refused to ;ay charges against this punk for at least three felony level charged. voncited on any one of them thjis perp could not have bought his rifles. WHO made that decision, and WHAT are his just consequences?

    What about the girl who claimed she had TALKED to the alledged perp after she exited the building, ahd WHILE THIS WAS GOING ON, she heard MORE GUNFIRE. WHILE she was standing and talking to the supposed shooter. thers have reported hearing gunfire from OTHER parts of the campus.

  • mchughjj||

    Gun control is not something I normally I post on.

    However, if this article is what Libertarians represent, I don't know what to say. The 2nd Amendment and its absolutists are mostly extremists, in my view.

    You don't need an assault rifle to kill a deer. You don't need an assault rifle to fight burglars. I think the intelligent conversation needs to be about purchasing, not owning.

    Well, unless you're of the sort that believes that, machine guns, or tanks, or fighter jets should be privatized to protect against the government. If we need private militia, well, how are you going to get that done vs. the most powerful military the world has ever seen? That actually the literal words of the 2nd Amendment.

    I would appreciate any comments...

  • silver.||

    There are a few things, some people do need weapons with adjustable stocks and lightweight materials for home defense due to physical limitations. Wooden long guns were too heavy for my mother to carry, and the stocks were too long for her arms. She could have something custom-made out of polymers, but it would have been prohibitively expensive and had low resell value. Since assault weapons have the same mechanical parts as many hunting rifles, one could easily be made in the event of a ban unless all semi-automatic weapons were banned. Additionally they account for only 3% of firearm-related deaths, so they are a high-hanging fruit for combating gun violence.

    The ARs that are being used in these shootings are not the same as military assault rifles which have burst-fire and fully-automatic modes to fire many times more rapidly. Modern assault rifles are not available for use by civilians, and even older ones are seldom used in crimes. 3 murders have been committed with them in about 30 years, 2 of which were by police officers.

    Re: your last paragraph. Some libertarians do indeed believe that all military weapons should be available to civilians as per the 2nd amendment simply because the amendments should not be infringed, as the government will only erode them more from there. In such cases the proper procedure would be to modify the 2nd amendment through constitutional processes to reflect the needs of current society.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    You don't need an assault rifle to kill a deer. You don't need an assault rifle to fight burglars.

    How is an "assault rifle" that shoots .223 rounds more lethal than a lever-action Marlin that shoots 30-06 when hunting deer? Or a 1911 that shoots .45 mag in a home defense scenario?

    Seems like you're a lot more hung up on the looks of something than how lethal it actually is.

  • vek||

    These people don't understand anything about how guns work, which is they they have all the wrong ideas about what proposed laws will or won't achieve.

  • Feiel||

    Why don't jocks drive station wagons?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    For the same reason nerds remain bitter 20 years on that they didn't get to fuck the head cheerleader in high school.

  • James Pollock||

    "How is an 'assault rifle' that shoots .223 rounds more lethal than a lever-action Marlin that shoots 30-06 when hunting deer?"

    Because "more lethal" depends on more than the mass and velocity of the bullet.
    More bullets delivered to the target zone means more chances of a killing shot.

    Deer hunters pride themselves on needing only one shot to bring down a deer; needing a second or (gasp) third bullet to do it indicates staggering incompetence.
    Mass shooters, on the other hand, tend not to be bothered in the slightest at needing to put multiple bullets into a victim to finish them off.

    Another difference is that mass shooters usually have to be mobile... so if they want to carry more bullets, it helps them if they are physically small and light.

  • vek||

    Yeah, well you know I can buy a 50 round drum for my beater .22... If you just want to spray bullets you can always go that route with high charge hollow points. Or an extended clip for a 9mm Glock. Or people who practice can in fact fire bolt action rifles insanely fast. In a big/dense enough crowd the fact that a higher caliber round will likely go through more than one person might actually make it a better choice for maximum carnage. One could also make homemade pipe bombs, run people down with trucks, etc etc etc

    Seriously, it's all hype. People won't magically stop being crazy if you can't buy AR15s anymore. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron. There are many work arounds for using other types of firearms, not to mention the myriad other ways some nut job could kill people. I mean some of these knife attacks in Europe have been worse than some shootings in the states in terms of death count! A determined nut will have no problem killing people.

  • James Pollock||

    " A determined nut will have no problem killing people."

    Sure. And tactical surprise will continue to be on their side, because most of the time, nobody is trying to kill anyone, so when we run into someone who is, it takes a while to recognize.

    I'm from Portland. We had a nutter kill a couple of people on the transit train with a knife. But he only killed two, whereas the Parkland guy got seventeen, and I like my odds of getting away from a nutjob with a knife over my odds of getting away from a nutjob with a gun, so I still favor a legal regulatory system that makes it hard(er) for nutjobs to pick up the firearm(s) of their choice. It's tough to identify some nutjobs before they lash out, and some nutjobs will buy their weapons before they get nutty, so it's not a complete shield, but it's better than counting the casualties.

  • Feiel||

    "Kids Say Their Right to Feel Safe Trumps Your Right to Own a Gun"

    I know this headline was meant to make the kids look stupid, but isn't this the justification in "stand your ground" laws?

  • Pat001||

    It's not guns, it's crazy people with guns. Few mentally ill people are violent but the majority of mass shooters are mentally ill. The number of mass shootings began to escalate during the 1960s after it became virtually impossible to involuntarily confine mentally ill persons or even make them take meds.

    Instead of conservatives always defending gun rights, liberals should be made to defend the rights of mentally ill persons to refuse treatment. My right to go to the mall and not get shot by a crazy person trumps the the right of mentally ill persons to refuse treatment.

  • James Pollock||

    "It's not guns, it's crazy people with guns."

    And also intoxicated people with guns. And angry people with guns. And people with righteous, but misdirected, grievances, who also have guns. And children with guns.

    Many, MANY more shootings are related to domestic-violence than mental illness. And that's not even getting into the accidents...

  • Anna from MT||

    All Israelis know that their entire country is facing a constant threat of terror attacks with different kinds of weapons. They know that there are millions of people who are willing to blowup themselves and their own children just to murder a few Israeli kids. Yet, Israeli kids don't feel unsafe, they don't live in a constant fear that they may be 'next'. Could it be because they know that adults around them would do everything to keep them safe, that this adults are very well trained and know how to protect them in case of danger? Of course, this is a rhetorical question. Another rhetorical question is who are the people who induce this paranoia in America? We know who these so-called 'progressive' elite are and we know that they directly profit from inducing fear, division and hatred among Americans. The real questions are: why We the People allow these 'progressive' elite to indoctrinate our children into beliefs that that disarming law abiding citizens would make anyone safer; where are the parents of all these 13 and 11 years olds and why didn't they bother to tell to their kids the truth, why nobody ever asked the same 'progressive' elite how exactly their 'tolerance', 'inclusion', 'diversity', 'gun-free' and 'bulling-free' zones ended up with such unprecedented division and hatred and why so many young Americans are willing to completely screw up their own lives just to shoot some random kids?

  • TxJack 112||

    Excuse me? One question, when did we start bowing to teenagers who have always thought they were smarter than actual adults on every issue? Every parent of a teenager knows this is true and battles it until the realize they know much less than they previously believed. In addition, why are we allowing people who were not even at Parkland (David Hogg) become the mouthpiece of this movement yet not point out this important fact, yet constantly overlook fact? If this country begins to bow to the will of teenagers when deciding major issues like amendments to the Constitution and passing federal laws that limit liberty, we are in serious, serious trouble.

  • TxJack 112||

    Excuse me? One question, when did we start bowing to teenagers who have always thought they were smarter than actual adults on every issue? Every parent of a teenager knows this is true and battles it until the realize they know much less than they previously believed. In addition, why are we allowing people who were not even at Parkland (David Hogg) become the mouthpiece of this movement yet not point out this important fact, yet constantly overlook fact? If this country begins to bow to the will of teenagers when deciding major issues like amendments to the Constitution and passing federal laws that limit liberty, we are in serious, serious trouble.

  • TxJack 112||

    So we are supposed to let 11 and 13 yr. olds tell us how to run the country? Seriously? I realize that is the intellectual level of most progressives but we do not actual children running the country.

  • James Pollock||

    Making grammar errors while criticizing the intellectual level of people you disagree with is humorous.

  • TxJack 112||

    What we are witnessing is the mass indoctrination of the next generation to oppose guns. They are being fed lies and because of their age, they swallow them, hook, line, and sinker. How many times do you hear gun grabbers say you can buy a gun on the internet without a background check or at a gun show? Those of us who know the facts know this is a lie except in very specific and usually limited circumstances. Another new lie being used by Gabby Gifford's group is "98% of dealers at gun shows are unlicensed". What they do not say is those dealers are not selling guns but other items like holsters, cases, scopes, etc. All products that do not require you have a license. This generation is being taught that they have a right to silence anyone who says anything they find "offensive" and are told the 1st amendment has limitations which makes this type of censorship legal. Like the 2nd amendment, progressives are attempting to restrict the rights of those in a position to oppose them and these kids are too young and naïve to realize it. When they do, it will be too late.

  • James Pollock||

    "What we are witnessing is the mass indoctrination of the next generation to oppose guns"

    Paranoid, much?
    Seriously, anyone talks about making it harder for a person who actively intends to kill multiple innocent people to get ahold of a tool designed for that purpose, and we start hearing about "gun grabbers". this and "gun grabbers" that.

    Yes, there is a very small number of people who'd like to take all the firearms out of private hands. They are so few in number that they are not to be taken seriously. There is a substantially larger number of people who say "look, there are just some people who shouldn't have access to firearms. How can we limit THEIR access while still allowing responsible people to have theirs?"
    Are you irresponsible? Unsafe? No? Then nobody who matters is trying to take your firearms away from you. They're not. Get over it.
    Keep whining about "gun grabbers" and I'll assume you're irresponsible, unsafe, or both... in other words, that there is, in fact, a good reason to be concerned that you're packin'.

  • modrsbook||

    We need to teach our children love .. not violence .. sad, my country
    download old snapchat

  • اذاعه مدرسية||

    "Kids Say Their Right to Feel Safe Trumps Your Right to Own a Gun"
    azhar

  • modrsbook||

    We need to teach our children love .. not violence .. sad, my country
    download.old.snapchat

  • Brian Mcfarlane||

    The comment about using veterans for security sounds ... naive? According to RAND, at least 20% of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have PTSD and/or Depression. Allowing school personnel to carry in school sounds like it might be a bit safer than using veterans, that is if the kids are not causing PTSD on teachers. ;)

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online