The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
A briefer reply to Orin Kerr
Replying to my recent post, Orin Kerr writes:
But I read Dave as also saying that criticizing the NRA for its positions and influence in gun control debates is somehow equal to the belief that it's okay to murder groups of people for their religious beliefs. If that's what Dave is saying, that claim strikes me as so completely preposterous and outrageous that there's some benefit in saying so publicly.
How Orin "read" my post, which he did not quote, strikes me as preposterous.
For the record, I debated a NRA representative at an event hosted by the Mountain States Legal Foundation. I advocated for Red Flag laws that have proper due process, whereas the NRA representative opposed them. I support of my view, I have testified before U.S. the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on March 26, 2019, and before the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution on April 28, 2022. So no, I don't think that disagreeing with the NRA is the same as murdering Jews.
In my view, as stated in the post, it is always and every evil to falsely accuse people of being murderers, and it is always and everywhere evil to libel people based on twisted theories of guilt by imagined association.
Outside the NRA Annual Meeting at the Houston Convention, while some of the protesters held up signs reasonably expressing their views on gun policy, some others screamed in hatred at people entering or leaving the convention building, calling people "murderer" or yelling that an elderly man in a wheelchair was a "piece of shit." I don't retract my strong criticism of the latter sort of conduct. Over the course of human history, there have been many different ways that people have wallowed in anti-rational group hatred. In my view, the details always change but the most basic source of such evil behavior remains the same.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
In a typical year, more preschoolers are gunned dead than police officers. This post is narcissistic, trivial, misdirected.
Where did you get this idea?
Yes, the vast majority of those murdered are not police officers, and several professions experience more murders than police officers.
But since when was preschoolers one of those professions?
I'm curious about the source of the alleged statistic too. My sense is that most murders of preschoolers are not by gun.
But it is at least remotely plausible: there are almost 700,000 police officers in the US, whereas there are something like 20 to 25 million preschoolers.
I tried to research it; it's difficult to find. It appears that, in 2020, 45 police officers and 4,360 children under the age of 19 were killed by firearms in the US. https://www.axios.com/2022/05/26/gun-deaths-children-america https://nleomf.org/2021-deadliest-year-for-law-enforcement/ I couldn't find stats for toddlers. Clearly officers are at far greater risk. But that's an awful lot of kids, even if (as I suspect) most of the victims were in their late teens.
That first link doesn't break out deaths for preschoolers, though, except for those under one year of age. A huge majority of gun deaths among 1- to 19-year-olds are among teens, especially older teens, so it's not reasonable to allocate them evenly across years. Also, a lot of people wouldn't call 18- and 19-year olds (who are included in that data) "children" considering that they are legally adults.
My criticism of the scumbag, evil toxic, failed lawyer profession is out of love. There is no greater love than one great enough to correct.
Kopel has the correct, responsible view of gun safety. I would add gun safety classes in high school akin to driver's ed. I would then ask all law abiding citizens to conceal carry. They should be immunized and rewarded for firing on violent criminals, including property destroyers.
The value of the life of a violent criminal is negative. If one is killed, everyone, especially the family, is better off. For example, the family of George Floyd was better off after he died of a fentanyl overdose.
"In a typical year, more preschoolers are gunned dead than police officers. This post is [absolutely bog-standard neo-Nazi propaganda]."
Fixed that for ya...
1) children are much more numerous than police
2) generally more fragile and dependent on others for security
3) have (OBVIOUSLY) a less developed sense of self preservation
And so, more preschoolers die of disease, drowning, child abuse, care accidents, ...
I suppose that's why so many people are upset when a police officer is shot, but after a mass shooting at a school, they shrug it off as "the price of freedom".
So it's 'start with outright lies' then 'retreat to a strawman' today. Hardly good debate tactics. But I guess when the facts and all of history are against you, inflammatory rhetoric is your least-bad choice.
Ah, the "price of freedom".
https://www.quora.com/How-can-a-gun-enthusiast-still-claim-their-right-to-bear-arms-is-more-important-than-public-safety/answer/Paul-Harding-14
What?
That isn't true. In a typical year, less than 20 pre-schoolers are shot, and almost all of them (80+%) are by a parent.
The number of police killed by gunfire in a typical year in about 50. This is down from the 80s and 90s, where it was over 100. But the US is potentially trending back up, with increases in recent years.
Then, by population, there are 350,000 active police officers (not dispatch, etc), vs more than 8 million preschool-age children.
Even if you count everyone in "law enforcement" to include support staff, that's still only 1 million vs 8 million.
By rate, it's
Police: 5 per 100,000
Preschoolers: 0.25 per 100,000
You're better than completely fabricating statistics.
It's from a Kristof column in the New York Times.
Snopes calls this assertion "true".
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/preschoolers-killed-police/
Snopes also ends its article thusly -- you read this part, right?
The "value" of the statistic might be "debatable", but it's still true, isn't it?
Do you get upset about a police officer getting shot? Surely.
About a preschooler being shot? No, shrugs shoulders, "the price of freedom".
We could do away with all rights and be WAY safer.
But that seems like an absolutely retarded idea to resolve the problem.
There are tons of things in the word that are true but at the same time dreadfully misleading.
If that's really the best support you can muster for your position, it just might be time to reconsider your position.
It's a complete lie, and I listed the CDC statistics to show it.
Your Snopes link is both a) cherry picking a year with high child deaths AND low police deaths, b) excluding police shot while off duty or in accidents while including accidental child deaths, and c) using an absurdly broad definition of "preschooler".
It also, as had been pointed out, ignores population size entirely.
Remember when you tried to call Obamacare the "health control law"?
That was way less embarrassing than this.
Yeah, who can forget when far left judges claimed that the commerce clause empowers Congress to regulate our economic decisions. It was sooo embarrassing when Kopel pushed back...wait, what?
From PPACA:
EFFECTS ON THE NATIONAL ECONOMY AND INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.—The effects described in this paragraph are the following:
(A) The requirement regulates activity that is commercial and economic in nature: economic and financial
decisions about how and when health care is paid for, and when health insurance is purchased
Gladys Kessler (Mead v. Holder):
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Congress had
a rational basis for its conclusion that the aggregate of individual decisions not to purchase health insurance substantially affects the national health insurance market. Consequently, Congress was acting within the bounds of its Commerce Clause power when it enacted § 1501
Ginsberg et al(NFIB):
First, Congress has the power to regulate economic activities “that substantially affect interstate commerce.” Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U. S. 1, 17 (2005). This capacious power extends even to local activities that, viewed in the aggregate, have a substantial impact on interstate commerce. See ibid. See also Wickard, 317 U. S., at 125 (“[E]ven if appellee’s activ- ity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.”
A note to those with difficulties in reading comprehension; the activity RBG mentions above is an economic decision. Tell us again who the nut bag is.
Are you using this strained interpretation of the Commerce Clause based on the same illogic found in Wickard v Filburn to impugn anyone who questions the legitimacy of PPACA?
VC contributor Randy Barnett describes the Commerce Claus thusly:
“In sum, according to the original meaning of the Commerce Clause, Congress has power to specify rules to govern the manner by which people may exchange or trade goods front one state to another, to remove obstructions to domestic trade erected by state; and to both regulate and restrict the flow of goods to and from other nations (and the Indian tribes) for the purpose of promoting the domestic economy and foreign trade.”
https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1504&context=facpub
The court’s expansionist definition of the clause has become the flood gate that now leaves leaves Congress as the interpreter of the limits of its own power with the few exclusions of specific prohibitions in the original document and bill of rights.
Yet even those exceptions seem to be under constant attacks.
Barney’s own work reflect that of Madison himself who expounded on the Commerce Clause, describing it almost exactly as Barnett does: https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_3_commerces9.html
"In my view, as stated in the post, it is always and every evil to falsely accuse people of being murderers, and it is always and everywhere evil to libel people based on twisted theories of guilt by imagined association."
You need at least a parachute to safely descend from these heights. You can almost see the curvature of the earth.
On the way down, maybe he could try to do anti-abortion protestors outside Planned Parenthood clinics.
Except people who commit murder ARE murders.
FAIL
It is not "guilt by imagined association" to claim (whether or not your agree) 1) NRA policies enable murder and 2) the people who attended the NRA convention enable murder because they support those NRA policies.
What is the basis for those claims?
There is an obvious (just ask Kopel) rational basis that red flag laws reduce gun deaths.
As reported in National Review (Geraghty), here is what the NRA is looking for in terms of Red Flag laws:
1. Anyone subject to an ERPO should have the opportunity to challenge the order with full due-process protections in place.
2. An order that confiscates firearms should only be granted when a judge makes the determination, by clear and convincing evidence, that the person poses a significant risk of danger to themselves or others.
3. The judge should concurrently make a determination of whether the person meets the state standard for involuntary commitment.
4. Whether or not the person meets the state standard for involuntary commitment, the person subject to the ERPO should receive mental-health treatment.
5. The process should allow firearms to be retained by law-abiding third parties, local law enforcement, or a federally licensed firearms dealer when an individual is ordered to relinquish such firearms.
6. There should be a mechanism in place for the return of firearms upon termination of an ERPO.
7. The process should include criminal penalties for those who bring false or frivolous charges.
Is this rational or is this obstructionist to the point of enabling murders? The NRA's aggressive advocacy does get tedious at times and frustratingly rigid, but it's certainly better than a blanket opposition that rests on something akin to "you'll never get my guns". This is reasoned. The cost of this regulation is not uniformly passed to society -- it is absorbed by law-abiding gun owners. It's easy to call someone complicit in murder when you personally have no stake in those costs. Maybe in a pluralistic society we should be more cautious about yelling "murderer"!
"1. Anyone subject to an ERPO should have the opportunity to challenge the order with full due-process protections in place."
That will be a non-starter with proponents of red flag laws, right there. The ex parte hearing is kind of central the the scheme, you'll get far fewer orders if the judge actually hears both sides of the case.
"4. Whether or not the person meets the state standard for involuntary commitment, the person subject to the ERPO should receive mental-health treatment."
Isn't that sort of self-contradictory, as well as pointless? Even if the judge finds that there are no indications of any mental issues, you have to get the treatment? And isn't having to get the treatment whether you want it or not the key element of involuntary commitment?
Typical NRA attempt to split the difference.
Is it obvious that everyone who attends the NRA convention must oppose all red flag laws? It is as though your awareness of Kopel's support for certain red flag rules is swamped by guilt by association.
It is reasonable to argue that convention attendees enable opposition to red flag laws even if they personally oppose them.
"enable" is doing a lot of work here....
Do people who oppose police performing searches sans warrants bear responsibility when somebody commits murder?
There are tradeoffs with every law. Red Flag laws wouldn't have caught this particular murderer.
Given, the person's history of documented threats, they well might have.
And if not Red Flag Laws, how about a minimum purchase age of 21?
"how about a minimum purchase age of 21?"
I've considered that item in particular, and looked at a history of school shootings and how firearms were acquired. Here are my thoughts.
1a. The right to bear arms is a Constitutional Right. There are certain restrictions that can be put in place...but in terms of age restrictions, once you hit the age of adulthood, it's very difficult to "add" more. Impossible I would say.
1b. So...if you're going to restrict firearm purchases to those over 21, you'd also need to move the age of adulthood (including the right to vote) to 21. I'm not necessarily 100% opposed to that...it does seem that childhood is getting extended. But if that's the route you want to go, that's what would need to occur.
2. In terms of obtaining firearms...age restrictions may have helped in some of the cases. In others, people got around them by being older than 21, or getting someone else to buy the guns for them, or getting the firearms by stealing them from their parents. So, it's not a silver bullet.
21 to buy alcohol, and a constitutional amendment ended Prohibition, so the right to have alcohol appears to be constitutionally endorsed. And 18 year olds could still join a well-regulated militia.
There is no constitutional right to buy alcohol. The 21st amendment did not grant such a right.
The 21st amendment merely repealed the 18th amendment.
Do we also ban voting until that age?
How about military service?
Driving (cars kill far more than guns yearly)?
It is exactly guilt by association. If the NRA didn’t exist it’s your assertion that Ramos would have been a well adjusted kid with no interest in guns?
In your silly two bullet point logic, you could replace NRA and it’s members with bail reform advocates or defense lawyers and be as accurate.
Look at how Boeing enabled 9/11! Those damn people making planes easy to fly killed more people in one day than the cumulative total of American mass shootings.
And let’s not let Ford off the hook for enabling the guy in Waukesha.
We’re surrounded by enablers. How have we lived so long?
NRA is responsible for (1) funding and development of modern gun law, and (2) development of modern gun marketing. Very lucrative per Wayne’s wardrobe and lifestyle.
1) Kopel addressed that point directly: "As if the acts of a criminal made it wrongful for lawyers to become better-educated in the law."
2) Wayne likes guns, that makes the NRA guilty by association with criminal misuse of guns?
"NRA is responsible for (1) funding and development of modern gun law,"
Actually, most of that was via the NRA's enemies, I should think. If the NRA had it's way, most of the gun laws of the last 50-75 years never would have been enacted, at most the NRA managed to slow down the progress of the gun control movement. We gun owners would much prefer a restoration of the old gun law, for the most part.
"and (2) development of modern gun marketing."
And I'm pretty sure that was the firearms manufacturers themselves.
Just as you can’t trace global warming to a single hurricane but it causes hurricanes, so too gun ubiquity and mass shootings.
S_0,
Try to be a little accurate.
Global warming does not cause hurricanes. Period
It may increase the frequency of category 4 and 5 storms, but that is a very different statement
Don,
So storms that would have been weaker are elevated to the higher categories? That seems like a significant effect.
How strong is your "may?"
I'd like to see evidence of storms that would have Cat 3 but were Cat 4/5 due to global warming.
Don't pull the "You cannot prove/disprove a hypothetical" because your case is based upon that.
There is not any evidence for any particular storm. What what can say is how the immediate atmospheric conditions contributed but NOT how a long term trend caused the event.
As for your "hypothetical" comment, that seems to be your brand of bullshit, not mine. My case is evidence based, not politics based, which yours most certainly is.
No wonder people are duped by misinformation. Simple confirmation bias.
There is no evidence for any increase period.
Last I looked, once you accounted for incomplete data early on, there's no evidence tropical storms have gotten worse AT ALL. Let alone due to global warming.
Tropical storm damage has been getting worse, but that's just due to more people building on the coasts.
bernard,
S_0 did NOT say have an effect. He said "cause."
Try to read what is written and NOT what you would like to believe.
As to your second point, there is no firm proof, just a clear statistical correlation, hence "may." That is the difference between a scientific view and a political point of view.
I used the plural. As in statistical, not individual.
Global warming causes hurricanes even if not provably any particular hurricane.
There is no evidence of any increase in either frequency or strength of hurricanes. So if global warming causes hurricanes, is that not evidence that there is no global warming?
Hm seems like by nitpicking his logic you've proved his point. Gun ubiquity may not cause mass shootings, but it sure does increase their frequency and intensity.
Obviously none of what this piece of shit says is true. We're talking about someone who openly denies the Holocaust and glories in the murder of primary school children. An actual neo-Nazi, trying to spread their death cult.
Josh R....Please explain the logic = It is not "guilt by imagined association" to claim (whether or not your agree) 1) NRA policies enable murder and 2) the people who attended the NRA convention enable murder because they support those NRA policies.
Seems like a huge leap. I am not saying you believe this, but can you explain the reasoning behind that statement, as you understand it.
Let me revise the second point: the people who attended the NRA convention enable murder because they support an organization whose policies enable murder (even if they personally oppose the policies).
Do those people who support "Defund the Police" movements and Black Lives Matter also enable murder through their actions?
Same answer as for cars: it is rational to make that argument.
You keep missing the big point about Kopel's unhinged accusations.
Kopel's accusation was that , that "calling people murderers" for supporting a tangental right or purpose is unhelpful in the extreme. Especially for an "outgroup". And bears much in common with people blaming other "outgroups" for items that were deemed undesirable.
Kopel did not say it was "unhelpful."
What he actually said was it was "evil" to falsely accuse someone of being a murderer.
Do you agree with that statement? Or not?
Of course I agree. But no one is falsely accusing anyone of being a murderer because whether the NRA and its members are complicit in murder is a matter of opinion.
I thought it was a matter of law, to be determined in criminal trials.
Yes, trials determine it as a matter of law. But, people are expressing their opinions as to what those trials should conclude. Additionally, they are expressing their view on the morality apart from the law.
But in fact they are directly accusing members of the NRA of being murderers. For example....
"This tiny 8 million folks who are members of the NRA and their Lobbyists are murderers, pure and simple."
https://www.aspentimes.com/opinion/letter-to-the-editor/blame-it-on-the-nra/
They are literally calling them murderers, simply because of their membership in a society. Is that accusation evil?
The accusation is that they are at least morally culpable as murderers for being members of an organization whose policies enable murder. And since that is a matter of opinion, it is not evil.
+1 lol "unhelpful"
Also lol "outgroup," the fact that conservatives have convinced themselves that they're being persecuted would be hilarious if it weren't so dangerous.
"It is not "guilt by imagined association" to claim (whether or not your agree) 1) NRA policies enable murder"
Any connection between NRA policies and murder are tenuous at best.
And do you think that reasoned distinction better matches the beliefs and behaviors of the people outside the NRA convention who:
a) "held up signs reasonably expressing their views on gun policy"; or
b) "screamed in hatred at people entering or leaving the convention building, calling people 'murderer' or yelling that an elderly man in a wheelchair was a 'piece of shit.'"
Give it up. You're trying to defend the indefensible. Yes, there are reasoned arguments for gun control. That's not what's happening here.
It is "guilt by imagined association". Because you can play this argument with any number of items. Let's give an example.
The killer wouldn't have been able to get to the school without a car. Therefore, those who enable automobiles enable murder. People who promote permissive automobile use enable murder.
Indeed you can make the rational argument that people who attend automobile conventions enable murder. However, you are not very likely to persuade many people because of the extremely tenuous link between cars and murder. And perhaps many people won't be persuaded by the link between the NRA's policies and murder either, although I expect many more will be than by the link between cars and murder.
But the big point is Kopel's claim that these arguments are categorically invalid guilt by association by haters who advance blood libel is unhinged.
"The extremely tenuous link between cars and murder"
If we're talking about just "murder" in general, and not this particular case...Vehicular homicide is a thing. And it's not exactly a "tenuous" link either between the automobile and the homicide.
" However, you are not very likely to persuade many people because of the extremely tenuous link between cars and murder."
The link between NRA policies regarding legal gun sales and murder is not one bit less tenuous than the link between cars and murder.
In your opinion, of course. But that keeps on missing the big point about Kopel's unhinged accusations.
So, you're saying that your accusations are not irrational because you believe them?
And you find counter examples of irrational behavior being treated to the same logic to be unpersuasive because you know that in this case the behavior is justified?
No. My judgment of whether an argument is rational is not based on whether I am persuaded.
So its really your great, great, grand mom's fault?
WTF?
And yet when presented with the fact that the accusations linking the NRA members to the murder of children are even more tenuous than linking cars to the murder of children would be, you dismiss it outright as just "opinion"... but the original false accusation was somehow not "opinion"?
Then you call the argument that people should not be falsely accused of murders because of extremely tenuous links to be "unhinged".
That is not rational argument in either respect.
It is opinion.
What original false accusation?
It's not a false accusation because it is a matter of opinion.
NRA policies enable me to keep myself and my family members from being harmed by criminals.
Various Democrat / "liberal" / "progressive" policies (including, but not limited to, "gun control") enable criminals to safely commit robbery, assault, rape, murder.
4th Amendment enables crimes
5th Amendment enables crimes
6th Amendment enables crimes
So what?
Dude. You’re not the victim. To the extent you are a “victim” of false accusation or whatever, in the grand scheme of victims this week you’re in the bottom 99.999999999999th percentile. You’re down there with me not being able to get the drink I wanted because the keg was out. And when you’re at that level…maybe just STFU?
He's not even at that level. He's stooped to Holocaust denial and antisemitic hatred, because his child-killing campaign isn't going well enough.
Objectively, being falsely accused of murder, and being a Holocaust denier, and being the target of a bomb threat, is far worse than your preferred draught beverage being out of stock.
Stop digging.
The only people digging are kopel and his defenders. Once again, in the immediate aftermath of a mass shooting where they couldn’t even identify the victims without DNA samples, Kopel decided to make the gun lobby seem like the real victims. That’s psychotic and deranged.
No, you are psychotic and deranged, by claiming that a bomb threat doesn't count for anything more than your tipple running dry, and based on your unhinged speculation about DNA testing.
Unhinged speculation?? Why I just happen to have the Texas Rangers (The Walker kind, not the baseball kind) right here:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna30632
Very well, I withdraw that comment. My searches didn't find that kind of clear statement about the ability to identify the dead, only statements that it was to spare parents having to look at pictures.
But LTG is still unhinged and overly emotional. He should, as the kids these days say, "touch grass".
Does the fact that these children were mutilated beyond recognition by either photographs or a description of their clothes change your thinking as to whether these sorts of weapons should be available to any 18 year old who can fog a mirror? I suspect no, but one never knows.
And yes, to preempt your next Donald Jr. talking point, I realize that this amount of damage can be done to a body with any number of non-firearm blunt instruments. Perhaps not as quickly.
I won't hold my breath for you to propose "common sense" regulations for axes, chainsaws, wood chippers, trucks, or anything else that can do similar amounts of damage within 75 minutes.
So… no?
It's very hard for people to identify the bodies when people that can identify them are not allowed to see them.
Without knowing exactly what wounds were inflicted, it is impossible to be certain, but this isn't TV - bullets do not cause heads to explode into tiny peices.
When the only people allowed to see bodies to do identification are completely unfamiliar with the person, then a blood test is about the only way to do it.
Also, it can't have been too bad, because all bodies were identified within hours - and a full DNA test takes significantly longer than that.
And finally, yes, any 18 year old that has not committed a crime should have the same rights as any other adult.
Are you arguing that 18 year-olds should not be considered adults? I'm down with that; no voting, no military service, no contracts, no guns until they're adults. How does 25 sound?
Toranth you are disputing the Texas rangers. They said they needed dna. They couldn’t identify bodies by pictures or clothing. Your dispute is with them. I’m gonna guess the number of autopsies you’ve done. ZERO. Why dont you fuck right off with this?
That is how I read Kopel's original piece and I think any fair minded, reasonable person who had a few critical thinking brain cells left would have also interpreted it.
I know, generally, bullies hate being called out on their behavior and react in weird emotional ways when that happens. Here Kopel called it like it is - the left is using guilt by association to score cheap political points against the NRA using the bodies of 19 dead kids as their props. That is sick.
Just watch some of the videos of "protesters" yelling at attendees of the NRA convention and tell me if you condone that type of behavior. Because that is what rhetoric like this breeds - unjustified and undirected contempt and hate.
But, if associational guilt is the new thing I'm sure there will be plenty to go around. Guess we can just start lumping all illegals together because why not. Letting them across the border is basically approving of human trafficking and importing violent crime. And next time Antifa does their thing, we can just round up everyone in the area that looks like a member because I'm sure they are guilty of something.
Of course, nothing bad will come out of this. But, hey, the left has some elections to try to dampen the loses of in November so whatever accomplishes that. We can worry about the other stuff later, right?
There was a mass shooting where good guys with guns did nothing. Stop trying to pretend you’re the victim in this situation. Jesus Christ.
If you are referencing the cops that did nothing, aren't those supposed to be the guys on who we can rely for our safety and don't need guns because we have police that are trained to use them? How did that work out for those kids?
Wtf are you talking about? Stop being a dork-ass loser and touch grass FFS.
Your name-calling is truly convincing about who has the better argument here.
I’m not trying to convince anyone. I’m pointing out that Jimmy is a dork-ass loser who needs to touch grass.
They werr worthless government workers, agents of the worthless toxic prosecutor.
Cops are not the "good guys with guns". That's especially true when they used those guns to stop real good guys (the parents) from attempting to rescue their children.
And no one defends the cops in this situation. Perhaps further funding for proper training is required. Maybe "Defund the police" backfired horribly....
They had training, lots of it. On this topic in the same school. Their funding was 40% of the city’s budget. Nothing was defunded.
Did they? 40% of the budget for a small town isn't actually that much. The police budget was all of about $250 a resident. And the training clearly wasn't good enough.
There were a series of failures. Including the school security officer apparently not even being at the school when this tragedy started.
Here's an idea. We spend an absurd amount of money on TSA. 50,000 Employees. What if....instead, we had those employees act as school security officers?
"There were a series of failures."
Starting with the teacher who propped open a door that was supposed to be locked.
Indeed...
"40% of the city’s budget"
It was not a city cop who decided to wait while children were killed, it was the chief of the 4 person school police force.
Their chief just ordered then to stand in place.
One of many failures.
So, the cops did nothing...so we should disarm ourselves and rely on them more?
Also, have you ever considered being less of a weirdo?
Says the guy who uses dead kids as political props and thinks that is normal and fine.....
I assume you have some kind of personality disorder and won’t be helped by medication or cognitive behavioral therapy, but in the event you don’t can you please go get help? I’ll cover the co-pay.
My co-pay is $100,000. Can send you the details where you can wire the money. Thanks.
I assume it’s less than that
Why? It's no less plausible than most of his assertions.
Fair enough. Jimmy being the victim of an insurance scam would make sense. Although you’d think he’d be more upset about that than the cultural bullshit
Hey, one problem at a time. Today you cover his co-pay. Tomorrow he deals with the libs.
You mean this health insurance policy I bought from an African prince who randomly emailed me one day isn't good?????
I'd match my stridently pro-gun credentials against anyone's, but come on.
High- profile gun crimes inevitably inspire hoplophobes to propose irrelevant or counterproductive new gun restrictions. Comparing that to antisemitic murder and screaming about how you renounce Satan is not helpful.
Hoplophobes? Come on, dude. Has it ever occurred to you that the fact that your fellow travelers are full of shit is maybe a reason to think that maybe they shouldn’t be your fellow travelers?
I would absolutely love it if they'd stop traveling with me, or at least be a little less ostentatious about it.
But I'm also not going to believing in what's right just because some degenerates advocate for something resembling what's right to own the libs.
And yet you make many of the same shitty arguments as your full-of-shit fellow travelers. How does it feel to be marching side by side with Davedave?
"Hoplophobes?"
Why not? Your side uses "homophobes" and "transphobes".
Calling your foes irrationally afraid to imply they have mental problems is a time honored tactic.
Yes we all know what you envy and are trying to replicate the effectiveness of.
"Has it ever occurred to you that the fact that [people who are not like me] are [evil] …."
"High- profile gun crimes inevitably inspire hoplophobes to propose irrelevant or counterproductive new gun restrictions. "
Tuesday inspires them to propose irrelevant or counterproductive new gun restrictions.
Anti-gun people all seem like 12 year old girls. They’re all completely ignorant about anything even tangentially related to guns, gun crimes, security situations, or life outside rich neighborhoods. They refuse to learn anything about any of those subjects.
And they think anyone with different experiences than them is a lesser individual who needs help to know the right way to live.
I was most curious about the meaning of the comment about Satan.
He spells it out for you:
Satan is the source of the lips dripping with blood libel? That totally checks out as a reasoned argument and levelheaded response.
Who decides the "right" way to protest?
Protests are often emotional. Is "hate" always the wrong emotion to have?
Asking for a friend who is a hater of evil.
If one's goal is to convince people, screaming "murderer" at someone who has not personally been involved in killing anyone, or "piece of shit" at random convention attendees, or "fucking pig" at police officers working at a meeting, are probably undermining the goal.
On the other hand, a lot of protests these days seem to have the same goal as the Two Minutes Hate, in which case those kinds of behavior are aligned with the goal.
Hmm...sounds like you're against protestors at abortion clinics then....
Tu quoque, huh? Leftists here argue that means you don't have a valid point to make.
Sometimes pro-life protesters break the law or call people names. I think breaking the law should be prosecuted, and that calling people names is counterproductive there too. What do you think?
You are against name calling now?
Stop digging
This is good advice for you, and LTG, and several others here that are directly accusing people completely unrelated to the crime of being responsible for it.
Fuck off, you Holocaust-denying Nazi scumbag. You are campaigning for the murder of infants.
"Holocaust-denying Nazi scumbag"
Glad you are using calm reasonable language, unlike Kopel.
I am both calm and reasonable. That is a calm and reasonable response to Nazis marching down the street waving swastika flags and carrying pictures of Adolph. That's what this is.
Shouldn't you be demonstrating that he denied the Holocaust, before calling him a Holocaust-denying anything?
some others screamed in hatred at people entering or leaving the convention building, calling people "murderer" or yelling that an elderly man in a wheelchair was a "piece of shit." I don't retract my strong criticism of the latter sort of conduct.
You went way past "strong criticism" with your blood libel crap. Way way past.
Over the course of human history, there have been many different ways that people have wallowed in anti-rational group hatred. In my view, the details always change but the most basic source of such evil behavior remains the same.
You are comparing some people yelling insults at the NRA with things like murderous racism and antisemitism, with various ethnic cleansing campaigns.
Get a fucking grip. You've gone off the deep end.
Do you find it at all ironic that you posted that comment just after one by Davedave? Or did you not read what was just above the comment box?
Use of harsh language is reserved only for libs, it is known.
Use of violence too. It's just about established as a legal rule now.
Harsh language like crap and fuck is not what people see as the problem with Kopel here. It's funny and telling that you think it is. The problem is the content, not the style (although the style doesn't help... "lips dripping with blood libel" being one of the worst writing examples by a lawyer that I've ever run across).
No. I don't find it ironic. I likely paid not attention to Davedave's comment. I don't recall it registering on me.
Any law that leftists push for is "reasonable" so that if conservatives oppose them, they must be "unreasonable."
We can't be opposing their proposals because they're ineffective at best, and malicious at worst.
It's very simple. As long as guns are generally available as a "right," not as a "privilege," then there will be occasional mass shootings. The only way to eliminate it is to amend the Constitution and ban guns (and institute the police state it would require to get all of the existing ones out of circulation), because none of your "reasonable" and "common sense" restrictions like banning scary black rifles or magazine limits will do a damn bit of good. Anyone who says otherwise is either stupid or a liar.
The Texas killer could have had a colonial era musket and likely have killed just about as many. He was given so much time and opportunity due to police negligence.
Hey Bob in your estimation how many shots from a colonial era musket would it take to mutilate a body beyond recognition from either a photograph or a description of clothing?
Related follow up: how long did it take to reload a colonial era musket?
It's not unreasonable to oppose a reasonable policy. In fact the usual case is for there to be multiple reasonable policy options to choose from. The reason people are defending the left's options as reasonable is because people like Kopel are trying to undermine them as illegitimate without actually engaging with them substantively. So, in that sense, get a grip.
I do appreciate your honesty about the tradeoffs here. We could amend the Constitution or tolerate occasional mass shootings. I wish the right were more willing to acknowledge this obvious logical conclusion. The more typical heads-in-the-sand helpless schtick is tiresome.
A false dichotomy is not an 'obvious logical conclusion.' What it is, in fact, is an obvious logical fallacy.
In my comment on Professor Kopel’s initial post on this subject I called the NRA’s (and not Professor Kopel’s) position “bullshit.”
Rereading the original post, I would note that in fairness to Professor Kerr, Professor Post didn’t do much to distinguish homself from this position or to suggest he had a different position from the NRA’s.
And in those most recent post, Professor Post appears to double down. Referring to protestors chanting “murders!” Outside NRA events, Professor Post ascribes these chants to “irrational group hatred.” He appears to be implicitly justifying the inference that protest against the NRA and its positions as a whole is based entirely on “irrational group hate.”
It is a common tactic in those who don’t have much in the way of rational policy to justify their positions to lasar-focus on the most exponents of their oppoments, talk about them at length, present them as typical, and imply that the entirety of opposition is equivalent to that extreme.
It has a long history. Slaveholders regularly justified slavery by arguing that it is only slavery that kept all white people in the country from being murdered. While there were certainly John Browns and Nat Turners active, this is not the entirety of what was being said against slavery. Focusing on the Nat Turners and the John Browns was easy. And it helped avoid having to talk about anything else.
This seems, frankly, a similar rhetorical tactic.
All I can say is Kopel, so proudly peacocking his self-regard here, is such a pathetic shitweasel.
While gleefully wrapping himself in the bloody shirt, while wheezing about blood libels, he parrots one of the foulest strategies of his Evangelical keepers - their obsessive need fight from a position of victimhood.
What a sad little man.
Yeah, I guess my question is how did your feelings about satan and his works make it into a CLE? From the way it’s described it seems like there were actually continuing legal education credits awarded to attendees for this event. Does this strike you as appropriate?
"They [people criticizing the NRA] operate by the same rule as the medieval malefactors who thought they were entitled to kill Jews because, supposedly, Jews from 1,500 years before had been responsible for the killing of Jesus."
Prof. Kerr's reading of this seems reasonable to me.
I agree, this is the punchline. Kopel concisely does exactly what Orin accused him of and he denied.
Please accept a big ol' reassurance from me to all those here who have been traumatized and wounded by mean words. Wipe away those tears, hold your head up high, and keep packing!
Quick show of hands -- how many knew that Orin Kerr was working with Satan before David Kopel showed us?
My father-in-law is watching Face the Nation right now. Chris Murphy was on and is advocating expanded federal “expanded” background checks and red flag laws. Ok, fine.
The host, who is certainly not sympathetic to the NRA, asked him “would this legislation have stopped Uvalde or Buffalo since those shooters had no criminal record or documented mental health record?” His answer was a non-answer - something along the lines of not tailoring a law designed for a recent event. So can’t even bring himself to lie that the law would have changed anything.
Earlier a guest pointed out that California passed a law banning gun purchases before 21 but that a court has already declared it unconstitutional.
Y’all are looking for a solution that doesn’t exist. The needle has no eye.
If gun enthusiasts do not develop a solution, better Americans will impose some adult supervision in the form of improved gun safety laws, probably disregarding the opinions of gun nuts as they do so.
Be part of the solution or prepare to comply (once again) with the preferences of your betters, clingers.
I have no "betters," much less "betters" who preference I must somehow obey. How do I know? Because the birth certificate of this country -- the Declaration of Independence -- states as much with "All men are created equal." That means you are not better than me nor I you. That's why my family came to the United States from Ireland in the 1890s -- to get away from noxious people who consider themselves better than others.
You see, the British justified their invasion and subjugation of Ireland on the basis that they were "better" than the Irish and thus entitled to foist their "preferences" upon others. Others like the Nazis believed themselves the "betters" over Jews. Slave owners in the United States before the Civil War justified their enslavement of others on the pretext that they were the "betters" of their slaves and thus also entitled to impose their "preferences" -- it was "for their own good" you see. And, of course, the British thought themselves the "betters" of the rustic colonists in North America. Using that belief, the British believed themselves entitled to impose their preferences. Luckily, the British failed.
Part and parcel of subjugation is disarmament. The Irish were not allowed weapons, the Jews were not allowed weapons, the Americans were not allowed weapons -- don't forget that the battles of Lexington and Concord were fought to prevent British confiscation of colonialists' weapons.
Once my family came to the United States we believed in the idea of "no betters" (and the freedom that comes with it) so much that my grandfather fought for the U.S. Navy in WWI, and my father in the U.S. Army in WWII, and I in the Persian Gulf War. My sister was career Army and my uncle was career Navy.
Your frequent use of the noxious phrase "your betters" on this and related threads betrays your odious character aligns with historical oppressors like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, slaveowners in the United States, and the British over the Irish.
I don't hide under a pseudonym; I am not hard to find. Just try to impose your preferences on me without a fight.
Barry Sullivan
Your betters have been shaping American progress against your wishes for at least a half-century, Barry Sullivan, and you have been complying with those preferences just as long.
Whether you are smart enough to recognize it or not.
Losing a culture war has consequences. For conservatives, one consequence is a lifetime of complying with societal rules established by better Americans.
Thank you for your compliance, Barry.
Sorry Barry, the good Reverend (despite his unhelpfully divisive rhetoric) is quite correct. The right has been losing the culture war continuously since before the revolution. If it were up to the right, we'd still be a colony. The way this country works is for the progressives to set the agenda for progress, and for the conservatives to come along kicking and screaming, but even they eventually come to appreciate the forward progress. So the culture of the country you love and enjoy today is the one that was determined by the progressives of a few decades ago. A few decades from now, the conservatives will be the ones arguing to preserve Obamacare and touting their equal treatment of trans people as that era's progressives set their sights on the next set of improvements.
This is the sense in which conservatives might be right to feel a little persecuted... they are and always will be the losers. Cultures change, and so when your political position boils down to "let's just keep doing what we're doing," you'll never win. Better to be guiding the cultural changes than to be resisting them.
Considering that the 'progressive' policies are nothing more than insanity trying to out-crazy itself year after year, I'm going to have to disagree with your 'insights.'
Just think how insane the colonists would've found today's America. Men marrying men... and then getting pregnant, a female Vice President, a black Vice President, Chinese everywhere, women voting, no alcohol for minors, fiat currency, an enormous federal standing army, domestic violence laws, Social Security, Catholics everywhere, and sushi.
Today's insane policies are tomorrow's status quo.
The main discussion here is not about policy.
So gun control is not a policy thing?
I mean, it's not an EFFECTIVE one, mind you, but it is ONE, no?
So much pearl clutching over some hyperbolic language in a speech before activists.
Stop saying "conservatives love guns more than children", "blood on hands", "child-killing campaign" etc. Then you might have a point.
Until then its standard "civility bullshit", merely intended to silence one side.
indeed.
“conservatives love guns more than children",
Maybe if they ever behaved as if they gave a shit about kids rather than doubling down on gun love this wouldn’t be a criticism.
It’s not that hard to conclude that they like guns more than children.
Up above I discuss that the cops needed more training and potentially more funding in order to provide for better school security.
You seem to shoot that idea down, arguing they had 40% of the town budget.
So, would it be accurate to say that I'm arguing for more security for schools? And you're arguing against it for some reason? What would that infer that you think about the children in the school? Are they not deserving of more security? That something else is more important than providing security for our children?
I said that because you made a dumb and false connection to them being defunded. I didn’t say they DIDN’T need more training and funding.
“So, would it be accurate to say that I'm arguing for more security for schools? And you're arguing against it for some reason? What would that infer that you think about the children in the school? Are they not deserving of more security? That something else is more important than providing security for our children?”
Literally none of this is accurate. You are making up a fake argument between you and me that you won in an attempt to do a clever twist around. But winning fake arguments with yourself isn’t that clever, dude.
Rhetorical tricks aside, you implied they didn't need more funding with your 40% comment, while you you didn't agree with me that they did need more funding.
In fact, you still haven't agreed they needed more funding.
Now, you can dance further...or you can agree that the school police needed more funding and training.
"It’s not that hard to conclude "
Yes, of course, "my use of harsh accusations is totally supported by reason, your use is not".
It's not hard if you're a moron, for sure.
Now tell me how being pro-abortion is totes about protecting kids.....
None of this excuses invoking Blood Libel,
Or the weirdness of bringing in Satan.
This just in: Sarcastr0 thinks blood libel should not be considered a work of Satan.
The "conservatives love guns more than children" one is true, if indelicately phrased.
The more sensitive phrasing might be "conservatives think guns are a civil right and a constitutional amendment unlikely and undesirable, so to the extent that makes mass shootings more frequent and intense, we'll need to look for other solutions, even if they're less effective." It would be nice, though, for more conservatives to be honest about that. Some are, but most try to weasel out of it one way or the other.
Anyway, it's not even logically sound, since there's a lot of gun control we could do that doesn't run afoul of the second amendment. It's hard to see what the argument is for not doing that stuff. That's where "conservatives love guns more than children" starts to feel not only technically true but also substantively accurate.
"so to the extent that makes mass shootings more frequent and intense"
First of all, I don't give a fuck about "school shootings", as such, because I'm not obsessed about one solitary instrument by which murder maybe committed, to the exclusion of all others, nor do I tend to obsess about rare categories of murder. If the goal is saving lives, neither obsession makes any sense. Focus on why people murder, not how they murder! Do you really imagine the world can be full of people intent on murder, and denying them one potential instrument will save lives?
Reducing the desire to commit murder is the only way to significantly reduce murder.
That said...
Use of internal combustion engines "makes arson more frequent and intense", in the sense that gasoline is a convenient accelerant. It's not the only accelerant available to arsonists, and arson isn't the chief use of gasoline, so few people would be so stupid as to propose banning internal combustion engines in order to reduce arson.
But the exact same reasoning, (If we can call it such.) that they'd recognize as irrational in the case of gasoline, they cling to in the case of guns. Why?
Because banning guns is the end, not the means to some other end.
Why do you keep saying it's irrational? It's totally rational, and you could say "liberals love gas more than unburnt property" and be on pretty much the same footing as the left is here.
It's a tradeoff, and the right twists itself in knots trying to avoid acknowledging that it's a tradeoff, because they're embarrassed about what they're trading away.
I'm totally willing to admit to trading unburnt property for access to gas. Are you willing to admit trading children's lives for access to guns?
No, it's not a tradeoff.
Claiming that it's a tradeoff depends on a number of assumptions:
1) HOW people get murdered matters. Why this specific focus on guns? Is it better if people are blown up, burned to death, run over, knifed, bludgeoned? Substitution effects are to be ignored; If you admit the possibility of substitution effects, you have to consider that you might not save lives by taking the guns away.
That's what I mean when I talk about gun controllers imagining a world full of homicidal killers wandering around frustrated by the lack of one particular instrument.
2) Guns can't have any murder reducing effects. Only murder increasing. So, in the gun controller's imagination, banning guns can only save lives. That it might make things worse is starkly unimaginable.
I would argue that it is irrational to care HOW somebody is murdered, as though murderers were incapable of adapting their means.
And it's irrational to ignore lives saved by self-defense.
And thus, it is far from clear that there's any tradeoff here.
Oh, and
3) It's assumed that taking the guns away won't, itself, involve any deaths.
Let's be blunt: We're talking about an attack on an explicit civil liberty, which is very widely treasured, so "enforcing" this law is going to take a fair amount of force. People aren't going to cheerfully comply, they'll be forced to comply with threats of violence, which to be at all plausible, will have to be demonstrated not to be hollow.
Remember the deaths at Waco? They were literally deaths in the cause of gun control, nothing else. It isn't just guns that kill, gun control kills, too. If it didn't, people would just ignore it.
Yep, just like I thought, the answer is no, you can't admit it. So let's break this down.
I think #1 and #2 are obviously nonsense it that neither one could tip the scales. They just mean that gun control won't be 100% effective. But let's say it's just 5% effective, so like, one less life lost in Texas. That's still a tradeoff, and you're still embarrassed to admit you're making it.
#3 is an important unintended consequence to consider, but at least if we're talking about #3 we've made the decision to do some gun control and now we're just figuring out the best way to do it. I'm not sure about others, but I don't imagine a swift absolute gun ban and collection effort. I'm thinking of a very incremental policy and mindset shift that leads to a different world decades from now. I think that's achievable. Right now we're going in the wrong direction, with deaths increasing and schools getting turned into prisons. Let's reverse course.
Do you even know what proposals you're rejecting out of hand with your desperate, slipshod reasoning? There could be ones in there that you think are pretty ok. Gun control policy is ripe for compromise; the absolutism on the right is Exhibit A that they're in thrall to Big Firearm and the NRA, and love guns more than the lives of children.
"but at least if we're talking about #3 we've made the decision to do some gun control"
Nope, not remotely. Discussing the consequences of a stupid policy doesn't imply making a decision to implement it.
"I'm thinking of a very incremental policy and mindset shift that leads to a different world decades from now. I think that's achievable."
Ok, then,
4) Gun controllers actually believe that the arc of history magically guarantees they win. Because they live in a bubble where everyone agrees with them, I guess.
You know what proved to be achievable? No, not a gun ban: Making shall issue concealed carry the rule across the nation, except for a few radical outlier states, in the course of a single generation. That actually was achieved in the real world.
You know what's "achievable", in the real world? Following that up with 'constitutional carry', where you don't need no stinking license to exercise your constitutional rights.
"Do you even know what proposals you're rejecting out of hand with your desperate, slipshod reasoning?"
Why would you think I don't? I've been a gun rights activist for decades. Let's see:
Red flag laws that let any rando who dislikes you have a SWAT team drop by your house to confiscate your guns, on the basis of an ex parte hearing. Maybe you'll even get them back, eventually. Maybe.
Bans on any gun a gun controller thinks looks scary. That IS, after all, what "assault weapon" means: "Looks scary to a gun controller".
Limiting magazine sizes to abnormally small capacities, and then requiring that guns not accept normal sized magazines.
Imaginary guns that only fire for the owner. Unless the battery is low, they're wearing a glove, or their fingers are dirty. Then they're out of luck.
Long waiting periods, taxes on ammo, registration requirements so they know who to go after as existing guns get banned...
I miss any?
Your plain devotion to guns in all their forms has done a brilliant job of proving my initial point: conservatives love guns more than children's lives.
See, you can't bring yourself to give an example of a reasonable gun regulation, because you're perfectly aware on some level that nobody who actually respects the 2nd amendment would think your regulations "reasonable".
Obviously this has little to do with the second amendment, which neither compels nor prohibits pretty much anything we've been talking about (whether pro-gun or anti-gun). Your #4 is a new one that I've never heard before: that gun control measures should be abandoned as politically infeasible. That argument is certainly the refuge of scoundrels. It's a very weak way to avoid confronting the question I've been asking from the beginning: are you willing to trade children's lives for access to guns. You still haven't answered it explicitly, although all your non-answers (just as I predicted early in the thread) imply "absolutely yes" loud and clear.
Let's recap your "position": a couple of reasons why gun control might be only partially effective (as if that's an argument for doing nothing), a potential (but avoidable) unintended consequence, a self-serving estimate of the political challenges, then a bunch of superficial talking points responding to strawmen. That's a lot of weaseling!
Just say it: you're ok with a few extra casualties as the price of easy access to guns in this country. Other people on the thread have. I'm not going to rub your nose in it since I already know it's true anyway. I just think this would be a healthier discussion if the right were being more honest. It's yet another case of the right refusing to face facts.
The Constitution neither compels nor prohibits anything we've been talking about if you relentlessly ignore the 2nd amendment. Which I'm not interested in doing.
My point #4 isn't that gun control should be abandoned because it's politically infeasible. It should be abandoned because it's largely unconstitutional, and would be bad policy even if it weren't.
#4 is about the way you can explain much of the behavior of lower level gun controllers, such as yourself, by their being deluded about how popular their cause is.
It's not by accident that the only time gun controllers see any chance of winning is right after some horrific crime their proposals wouldn't have prevented. Because the only time their proposals seem to make sense to people is when they're not thinking, just emoting.
Which of the things we've been talking about in this thread do you think are either compelled or prohibited by the second amendment?
If people disagreed with positions that the NRA actually takes, that’d be all right. However, folks accusing them of wanting to arm criminals or do away with all gun laws are just making false accusations based on nothing but their own prejudices, and refuse to accept contrary arguments or facts.
Making false accusations based on prejudices is the mark of a bigot.
Previously familiar with David Kopel from living in Colorado 1996-2017, his original spittle-spewing diatribe did not surprise me.
Nor did the equal accuracy of his unique interpretations of the phrase, "Blood Libel" and the adjective, "Briefer."
Here is what Kopel wrote in his first post on this subject:
The haters declare guilt by perversely imagined association. They operate by the same rule as the medieval malefactors who thought they were entitled to kill Jews because, supposedly, Jews from 1,500 years before had been responsible for the killing of Jesus.
This is absurd beyond belief. (Not to mention that much of that persecution was about the blood libel that Jews murdered Christian children as part of their religious rites, especially the Passover Seder.)
The "haters" have not killed any NRA members, nor do they seem to want to. This alone puts Kopel's post in the "raving lunacy" category.
The guy actually thinks he's fighting Satan. Like my five-year-old thought he was battling Junior Gorg while watching Fraggle Rock.
One difference: My son now recognizes that Junior Gorg was a fairy tale.
Gun controllers kill gun owners:
https://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2018/11/05/fatal-officer-involved-shooting-in-anne-arundel-county/?amp
There are lots more examples before Heller.
This can't be good for VC merch sales.
On second thought, of course it can. In fact, who could doubt there may even be a brisk market among some VC regulars -- Jimmy the Dane, I'm looking at you! -- for a VC-branded AR-15?
Democracy and republican forms of government can’t last very long when people use rhetoric as weapons, purely for its emotional shock value. When political opponents are portrayed as enemies to be liquidated by all means necessary, that often happens. But before the actual killing, before the rhetoric about killing, demonization sets in.
Fundamental to preserving a republican form of government is preserving a discourse in which people do not lightly demonize each other. That goal has been central to my critique of some of the Supreme Court’s decisions in the last few decades. In earlier decisions, like Brown v. Board of Education, Griswold, Atlanta Hotel, even Roe, the Supreme Court never declared that the side it ruled against was motivated by hate or completely illegitimate. Even in Eisenstadt v. Baird, a nominally rational basis decision, the court said that the distinction the state made didn’t make sense, but it didn’t say it was invidious or hateful.
The court’s increasing tendency to declare this or that idea or faction invidious and hateful has, in my view, done a great deal to undermine and destroy civil democratic discourse in this country. It has encouraged the other side to respond in kind, declaring the left illegitimate and enemies of America. The result is a power struggle that will lead to one side winning and the other side losing, not just without any possibility of reasoned compromise, but much more hurtful to the country, without the losing side regarding its loss as legitimate.
I don’t say the court is entirely responsible for what America is becoming. But its animosity rhetoric, its tendency to find people invidious, its imperial certainty regarding its moral superiority, its repeatedly characterizing dissenters as enemies of the constitution, did a great deal to legitimize the kind of political discourse that Professor Kopel’s recent posts all too sadly illustrate.
"…declaring the left illegitimate and enemies of America. "
They could side with America sometimes, when there are two sides and America is on one of the sides.
They could be less universally critical of America, Americans, and American ways of life.
They could dial back the environmental stuff that intentionally makes life worse for Americans.
They could propose laws for what they want enacted instead of using regulations, "dear colleague" letters and phony sue and settle scams. They could propose constitutional amendments when they want the constitution changed, instead of workarounds.
Lots of things like that would help the left be more legitimate and look less like the enemies of America.
When you start the hand wringing about "gun control" the second a body hits the floor, before the blood is even dry, before anyone knows any details, yes that is using dead kids as a political prop. It is abusing a tragedy to forward a stalled political agenda. It denies the actual victims their humanity and relegates them to little more than pawns in your little political chess game. That is sick and if you think it is OK then you really need to get some mental help.
They always use this talking point and then they’ll turn around and start spouting off about someone they said was killed by immigrants. (NB they’ll never ever talk about when a white person kills an immigrant or someone else undesirable in their mind).
“It denies the actual victims their humanity and relegates them to little more than pawns in your little political chess game.”
This is pure projection: you do this all the time. You are one of the most paranoid and heartless lunatics who posts anywhere on the internet.
“It denies the actual victims their humanity and relegates them to little more than pawns in your little political chess game.”
Reading this again makes me really angry. The fact that you, Jimmy the Dane, a person who routinely dehumanizes others and makes unsubtle calls for violence DARES to co-opt the language of empathy and humanity is fucking disgusting. Just utterly appalling.
And If ANYTHING denies a victim their humanity it’s just letting them fade from public memory just in time for the next shooting. You’d prefer them to be away from the public consciousness so that your precious guns aren’t hurt in anyway.
Hey, why don’t you just fabricate a bunch of bullshit out of thin air that nobody said in the attempt to make people you hate because they disagree with you worse. Great persuasive arguing you’re doing, chief.
Right wingers love to use people who are killed to support their positions. Indeed, Kopel’s original post names a crime victim! And I’m not trying to persuade anyone. I’m simply telling someone who sucks that they suck. Idk if anyone is going to do it offline, so it might as well be me online.
"paranoid and heartless lunatics who posts anywhere on the internet"
Did I win a prize????
You ignore the fact that this was obviously timed to be used as a political football. This isn't some retrospective activity designed to improve a system once a fault is discovered. It was harnessing pure and raw emotion to forward a political agenda based upon unfounded conjecture that the policy being advocated for might have made a difference.
As for arming teachers, where did I write that? (Answer I didn't. You are just making shit up).
" Awful deaths happen, talking about how to prevent those deaths is hardly ‘using’ them."
Nothing proposed in the way of gun control will prevent even a single death.
When you have an internet commenter that has nothing but then tries to make up some stuff that sounds intelligent, you get a something like the above.
I remember about 15 years ago the "complaint generators" were a thing on the internet. This comment sort of reminds me of the nonsense those would spit out.
Yet someone still has to continually point out that the events of that day were a mostly peaceful protest with tourists sightseeing. I know the media is trying to pull A Clockwork Orange on this subject by just repeating the same lie over and over again. But, that doesn't mean it is true....
Hi, Queenie. Stop being such a hysteric. The Jan. 6 event was a pro-democracy protest. The only people hurt were murdered by the Democrat Gestapo thugs.
Hi, Queenie. What a thoughtful reply. The Terms of Service require that you be nicer to me. You need to comply with them.
I thought the argument a legitimate claim to make. It’s not a valid argument, because as the court noted a variety of occupations (innkeepers, taxi drivers, railroads, many others) have been traditionally subjected to “common carrier” type obligations to serve the public and prohinitong refusing service, they have a long history, and they have never been regarded as evidence of slavery, especially simce common carriers often own their inns, vehicles, etc. so extending this duty more broadly foesn’t create a state of slavery either.
But it’s not a frivolous argument.
Indeed, the “tone deafness” argument was often made on tbe other side - these “all people are created equal” extremists are so tone-dead and operate at such a high-in-the-clouds level of abstraction they completely fail to see obvious differences everybody knows is there. They can’t even see the difference between black and white!
Since the equal protection clause, and the post-Civil War amendments fenerally, really are somewhat tone deaf in their nature (perhaps the equivalent metafor in a different sense, color blind, might help make this clear), I don’t see that tone-deaf type arguments are really going to be useful. The amendments as a whole stand for the proposition that society should stop mKing obvious distinctions everybody had previously “known” were there. That’s exactly what tone deafness is. So tone deaf seeming arguments are always going to be fair game. They will have to be refuted in a more rational, careful way than simply dismissing them as tone deaf.
I subscribe to both statements.
I agree with the jurist who wrote in 1959:
Hi, Queenie. Don't you agree, all nitpickers should get the lash, after due process, of course?
Mostly tourists! Just taking pictures! Very fine people!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_a3RGlu5yLs
How does pointing out that "...the events of that day were a mostly peaceful protest..." contradict the fact that there were also rioters that day responding to Trump's call to arms by storming the Capitol to disrupt Congress? You are the one repeating the lie.
Nearly 300 guilty pleas out of 800 charged— you’d think someone would have mentioned they were just on a nice guided tour and just snapping selfies
Can you point me to the people in this video just snapping pictures. It’s three hours long, surely there’s someone?
Yes. A lifetime of people being weirded out by you and an inability to form meaningful friendships.
And that has absolutely nothing to do with prosecutorial abuses, holding people for more than a year without bail on relatively minor charges, overcharging to inflate the political value for the left, and a myriad of other government abuses. But, hey, enjoy that echo chamber. I hear the weather is nice this time of year.
So a whopping ~38% plea bargains for this group, against a national average of 97+%? I'm not sure you're quite making the point you intended.
Ok huckleberry
I mean....what do you think happened after the shirtwaist factor fire? Or the giant molasses flood? Was it politicizing those deaths to enact policies that required fire exists? That's no different than this situation.
"Something horrible happened. Let's enact policies to prevent it." is a very, very common mode of political operation.
You're essentially asserting the appropriate response to the attack on pearl harbor was not to declare, as that would be politicizing the deaths of those soldiers.. but instead...do nothing for a while until everyone can have a good calm thing about it?
Those rights reached dead center when the thirteenth amendment to the United States constitution abolished the ancient wrong of Negro slavery.
Slavery abolished! Dead center! Your jurist was a complete jackass.
“I’m not trying to persuade anyone”
You’re doing great then!!
“I’m simply telling someone who sucks that they suck”.
In other words, “I don’t want to accomplish anything, I just enjoy being an asshole online”.
Doing great there as well. Problem is that in the eyes of us that want reasonable solutions, you suck as much as the people that you describe as sucking. You’re their digital doppelgänger.
I mean holy shit. To have actually believed in 1959 that the rights of African-Americans were even close to "dead center" at that moment, much less 94 years earlier.
And to agree with that now? Again, holy shit.
Can you cite Trump once calling for them to take arms and storm the Capitol? Nobody has to date, but maybe you will break the streak.
And what are your thoughts on BLM's responsibility for the riots? Or the DNC? This is a basic consistency test.
Their legal rights WERE dead center. They 'just' were being violated.
Show me a filed response in federal court that asserts as a defense to a trespassing charge permission. Then show me one that has been accepted by a magistrate. There are none. You are a clown. Piss off with this.
Wow, now there's some naked goalpost moving/table pounding in response to some painfully objective statistics that demonstrate exactly how few moves you think ahead. Cheers, buddy.