I'm pretty conservative and a gun owner, but I have no use for this demonstration on MLK day, of all days, and I really have no use for parading my guns around in public (unless concealed of course). I am glad there is now a republican governor, as I should be a resident of the state in a few years.
Good point. At first, I agreed with Sniggle that it seemed in poor taste to march for gun freedom on MLK day. However, your point that MLK did himself march and protest for civil rights himself.
If you have a "use for parading your [concealed guns] around in public", then that might be public; but it certainly wouldn't be parading. Seems like a logical fallacy to me.
Dude, you need to chill. You can be you and I will be me. My main point is that using MLK day as a show of force is no way to win friends and influence people. I am a firm 2A supporter, but I see no reason to shove it in people's faces, as long as they are not coming to take away my ability to protect myself.
It is a meme. A metaphor. It’s about virtual signaling by deflection … “I own a gun so you can’t accuse me of being anti gun…”. “I have Black friends so don’t call me racist”.
This is what's so annoying about the right. I'm a completely disaffected traditional liberal who absolutely cannot stand the left anymore -- but this complete unwillingness to have ANY regulation in regards to gun laws is exactly like the left. I live in Nashville (TN where there basically are no gun laws) --- we had over 1,000 guns stolen out of cars last year (hundreds of thousands of cars broken into to find them), that's 1,000 irresponsible people who own guns and I expect my life to be safe???? We were also just named one of the most dangerous capital cities in the US. The FIRST amendment ISN'T absolute so why do they expect the second amendment to be? I don't want to outlaw guns but this unwillingness to be reasonable is not going to get me on their side.
Okay, hang on here. You want to regulate gun ownership for the vast majority of the state because, in your words, "we had over 1,000 guns stolen out of cars last year (hundreds of thousands of cars broken into to find them), that's 1,000 irresponsible people who own guns and I expect my life to be safe????"
This is not a gun regulation problem, it's a stupid person problem. And frankly, it's exactly the kind of mindset that Republicans are opposed to, using the force of the government to address what should be smaller scale efforts to address specific issues.
Part of the point is the complete unwillingness to address the fact that there are flaws in human nature - EXACTLY like the left. It's a "Stupid person problem" is 100% true but that proves my point EXACTLY, that's why we should have common sense regulation. You're reaction is the typical reaction to the word "regulation" - "let me freak out bc you want to take my guns away" when that's not the case. We need to have open discussion to reach a common sense middle ground.
Following up, of you want to regulate something, then encourage the legislature to pass harsh laws on those who steal firearms. Make it a felony with a stiff jail term. Maker it an enhancement for those with adjacent charges. Why criminalize the law abiding gun owners?
I recently retired after 40+ years of working in live theater in SF. Prior to live events being shut down due to Covid I witnessed organized auto break-ins of cars parked on the street while walking to my car (parked in a garage).
In SF they don't enforce the law concerning what they call "quality of life" crimes, which includes non-felony theft. One of the results of this non-enforcement policy is a van slowly driving through an outdoor plaza parking area with 3-4 people breaking into cars along the way while dropping off the their take in the van and moving onto the next car.
Maybe I am just a simple rube, but to me if you don't enforce "quality of life laws" in a locale it seems obvious to me locale will have very low to zero "quality of life". It seems like a horrible platform for a politician to run on, "vote for me and I'll lower your quality of life", but it seems to work in SF.
Which brings me to your post here. You seem to be using the same "logic" as the people running SF. Why would anyone think law abiding gun owners would object to enacting and enforcing laws that prohibit gun theft while providing for stiff penalties for gun theft as a deterrent? And you double down with a 90% estimate? I own bicycles, I think stealing bicycles is a crime and that laws against stealing bicycles should be enforced. I am also able to say, I don't own a gun but I think, given the amount of murders in the US wherein stolen guns were the murder weapon, stealing a gun should be a felony and have a mandatory prison sentence.
Flaws in human nature are not always solved by government regulation. Your example, guns being stolen from cars, ought to be low hanging fruit for community activists or gun shop owners to address at a one on one level. Why bring the government into it?
Execute the criminal. They will stop. Laws are too liberal. Taxes are too high to keep them in prison. Carbon foot prints must be removed. There will never be a middle ground with this debate. You waste your time with an unreasonable person.
Exactly. I am a hardcore 2nd Amendment supporter, but I support intense crackdowns on illegal weapons ownership. Liberal cities give criminals slaps on the wrists or refuse to prosecute illegal gun possession b/c to do so would produce uncomfortable demographic statistics-ie-more blacks and Latinos in prison.
Gun ownership should not be restricted for law abiding, non-felonious individuals-period. If you do have a felony and are caught possessing a firearm-guess what-10 years in the clink, do not pass go, no parole eligibility.
Liberals are literally refusing to enforce laws on the subject they claim to care about-gun violence and illegal gun possession,b/c the demographic committing said crimes-black and Latino males would bear the brunt of legitimate prosecutions, not law abiding Trump voters with large personal arsenals.
Yeah, until Dems get serious about prosecuting illegal gun possession (and other crimes committed) by their favorite demographic groups, assume that the real point of gun law proposals is to torment Deplorables.
"[N]ot a gun regulation problem, it's a stupid person problem." Like the OP, I live in Nashville. Doubtless car burglaries are endemic in the USA, and it seems to be getting worse. With no gun regulations to speak of here in TN, cars are an easy target -- a trip through a parking lot in an apartment complex trying doors or smashing windows has a decent "find" rate. ... I think gun owners should accept that owning and carrying a gun should carry (sorry) responsibility. Such as, securing your weapon. There are gun safes that are designed for motor vehicles that do the trick.
Leaving a weapon unsecured in the vehicle is stupid. The use of safes is a minimum precaution, I agree. And it doesn't take the legislature to compel it, only common sense. Nice post.
That's a great question and I certainly don't have all the answers nor do I know all current gun laws but some things that should be explored are:
1) If it's a major emergency - The ability to get a specific type of non semi-automatic gun right away by going to a local police station and applying for it under an "emergency situation" but that should come with restrictions and requirements also. Obviously someone who has been convicted of certain crimes wouldn't be eligible.
2) If you purchase a gun you must purchase some type of a lock box for your car of which the key is required not to be left in the lock box (ie. put on your keychain etc). If your gun is recovered by it being stolen, there should be consequences for the original owner based on the situation but shouldn't be a slap on the wrist.
3) All taxes from the purchase of guns should go toward mental healthcare (Granted we need to establish a working, effective mental health system)
4) MANDITORY gun safety training. You have to do this just to drive a motorcycle why shouldn't you to own a gun?
I appreciate your attempts, but your first fails utterly. In a major emergency - in any emergency - the need, by definition, would be imminent, and a trip to the station, the wait for a free sergeant, the filling out of paperwork, the checking, and the then-finding that the weapons are all out on loan, are not conducive to emergency-relief.
That's not the point. A gun is made with the purpose to cause damage and is dangerous. It has nothing to do with the constitution and being allowed to own a gun.
A gun is possible of killing and one person being killed by a gun BOO HOOO HOOO. You just want power. Guns were legal NOW all of a sudden there is a problem. Voting was great NOW all of a sudden there is a problem. YOU make the problems with your unreasonable power grabs. Does it puff you up, does it make your ego rise? I knew you were unreasonable from your first comment. The poor poor victim.
I'm a Marine Infantryman why should I need "mandatory" gun safety? Just because guns are foreign to you doesn't mean they are foreign to us. What data do you have to suggest that gun owners largely can't safely handle their firearms? Do we have a gun crime problem or do we have a problem of people accidently shooting eachother?
Also, you are going to let me maybe hair a "non-semiautomatic firearm"? Awesome shucks. So my 1911, a firearm literally over 100 years old, is to modern?
Also you are going to tax poor people out of their constitional right?
I agree that the background check process could be strengthened, but that operates on a state-to state basis. I'm not sure I understand your first point.
FYI, there is already an 11% tax on all gun sales that makes up most of the funding for state wildlife commissions. So I guess you'd be clawing away their funding under your third point... But I guess it shows that there's some precedent for what you're suggesting.
You go through a FEDERAL BACK GROUND CHECK by law. If you use marijuana it is illegal to own a firearm according to federal law. The federal government will not change the marijuana laws so they can one day get the guns.
Billboards. Text messages. Commercials on local stations. I don't know if such efforts are being or have been undertaken. I'm responding to the knee jerk "government regulation is the answer" response.
More like Libertarians oppose that type of mindset. There are plenty of Republicans who would be more than happy to use the force of the government to address what they consider to be a problem.
I'm not familiar with exactly what their gun laws are or how they're enforcing them but the answer could be none....I have outlined some ideas in a reply below to another commenter in this thread if you would like more details on my thoughts.
4. Is only for handguns according to the state website. The MSNBC website says "Constitutional Carry": The new measure means Tennesseans of certain ages will no longer have to apply for a permit or go through the required safety courses to legally carry a handgun. You would have to be 21 to legally carry, or 18 if you're active duty military, and there would be restrictions against people with certain convictions like DUI's and stalking.
You're asking me what do I think of the guns that criminals destroyed property for in order to get them are doing with them....ummmmm......they're used for committing other crimes most likely. If that wasn't 100% their intention they would have obtained them legally. I don't understand how you don't clearly see that an item purposely created to cause destruction in one way or another (be it good or bad- but thats it's sole purpose) is just a "theft" problem
Do you favor prosecuting car owners whose stolen cars are used to commit crime? They probably didn't lock their car so they deserve it. What if my wallet is stolen and the money inside of it is used to purchase an illegal weapon? Am I guilty of something? What about stolen baseball bats? Knives? Sorry but this is a dumb idea.
Has the double benefit of drumming up sympathy for criminals (who of course are "victims" first) while punishing the law-abiding whose views do not align with the left-woke dogma.
People that steal guns should be executed. That way criminals commit no other crimes including killing anyone else. That would stop it, and save my poor old rusty guns.
Let's pretend you're a police officer. You have obtained a gun which was reported stolen from an automobile. Prove that it was improperly stored before it was stolen. Prove that it was parked on a public street when it was stolen. It's unenforceable. And on top of that you've made the victim of theft subject to more legal action than the actual thief. How is that justice?
Look, I was attempting to make some common ground. It's a lot of years since I lived in a city. I don't relish the notion up here in the wilds - totally unworkable.
Two twenty-something NYPD officers were were shot, one died the other in serious condition. A stolen gun in the hands of an emotionally disturbed man. That's were one of those stolen guns went.
Yes, gun owners need to secure their guns. That being said why is Eric Adams like all the other Democrats always saying they need to get the guns off the streets, but never they need to remove violent people from society? Once again the CRIMINALS are not being held accountable. There's always an excuse made for them. Somehow they lacked control over their own actions and were compelled to get illegal guns. It's always everyone's fault but the criminal and we have to restructure our entire society to cater to the deranged.
Perhaps then you don't understand the scope of the problem city dwellers must contend with, which unaddressed by your self-interest, is motivating most reasonable people to favor the "well regulated" part of the 2nd amendment. Are you familiar with Adam Wrinkler's book "Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America". Check your gun's at the stable (parking garage?) or the sheriff's office (local precinct) and receive a token. We have the right but it seems that it only takes a few idiots to screw it up for the rest of us. That's not you but I hope you know what I mean, I suspect you would agree. A lot of jurks at the firing range looking down the barrel. Walking around town like GI Joe is not helping us move forward and the NRA is NOT you friend although they would be happy if you died helping to sell their sales message.
"you don't understand the scope of the problem city dwellers must contend with..."
If you think the problem is guns, you are not paying attention. Everyone that left the cities over the past 60 years knows what the problem is.
My city and state are loaded to the gills with guns - no concealed carry regs, guns of college campuses - but we do not have a gun crime/homicide problem? Nope.
There have been more homicides in Baltimore in the last year than my entire state, which has 3-4x as many people, in over 30 years combined.
Gee, what could it be, then??? Oh well, I guess we'll never know. Enjoy your city, I'm sure it has some nice parts...unless you're in Baltimore.
But this is one reason for localized solutions. As I pointed out above, in my small Maine town, I suspect the vast majority of us without criminal records have guns. I do. We have almost no crime, gun are for hunting and self-protection, and aren't used in aggression (as is the case for over 90% of the guns purchased legally in the U.S.).
So you have a problem, and everyone everywhere in the nation must be burdened according to what you think will make your locality safer, when we are already safer than you'd be if you enacted every stringency you dream of and would be burdened because of your criminals who have nothing to do with us?
YOU DO NOT GET IT. You are out to grab innocent people's weapons outside of the city because you animals can't handle yourselves. When there was stop and frisk there were no problems. I don't care what happens in your city but screw you on trying to change our lives. It is a power grab. You want to tell someone else what to do.
You spout out literature written by someone who wants to get rid of firearms. Look at FBI statistics on firearms and crime, you will open your eyes. Your city also wants illegals to vote and change the way the country votes. Voting was fine till George Floyd. All of a sudden there is a problem. You NYC bastards just want to change other people with your unreliability. Well I have no tolerance for your repressive tolerance. Don't tell us what to do. BRING BACK STOP AND FRISK and go screw yourself.
So, you are terribly concerned about gun crime, except when the crime in question is the murder of police officers. Now, there's a principled stance to hold up as a shining example. Good Lord.
I guess I don't understand what regulation you'd be looking for to keep guns from being stolen out of cars. A prohibition on leaving them there? Maybe.
I think when people make arguments like this, what they're really looking for is fewer guns. And that makes sense to me. But the way that the left approaches that goal is by chipping away at certain categories of gun use without any particular rationale. NY and CA only allow handguns to have a capacity of ten rounds... but they don't prevent you from carrying extra magazines. The result is a law that has no positive affect, but inflames gun rights activists and shows that the liberal side doesn't know what they're talking about.
But I do agree, the number of guns we have on the streets is scary. I think the proper approach is to strengthen the process around background checks and education for gun purchasers, not to outlaw categories of products and behaviors. Gun rights supporters usually are very lawful people, and a lot of them agree with that approach.
But it's a lot easier for liberal groups to raise money talking about "assault weapons" so it'll take a lot of effort for us to get un-stuck here.
Our unwillingness is that, much like COVID, Democrats want power not solutions. Anyone who understands firearms and the 2A understands the futility of more gun control. Every gun owner I know would be more than supportive of a good-faith efforts ton prosecute *criminals* with guns. But the left would rather let the criminals out while making gun ownership so hazardous for anyone without a lawyer on retainer.
Yes, our constitutional rights are non-negotiable. As a "disaffected liberal" you should strongly consider why we are so reluctant to give these idiots any say in how we protect ourselves. You don't know what the lead up to lobby day 2020 was like. VA wanted to impose the most radical gun control in the country and the people making these laws had absolutely no clue what they were talking about.
A thousand, sounds like a big number, a hundred thousand is way out. You want guns outlawed, and you are probably unreasonable. I want my guns for my sport, live in a better neighborhood, buy a gun and defend your life. I can be unreasonable too.
Nashville is not that bad. Memphis is. 100,000 cars broken into? Really? Worst cities are listed below. Nashville does not appear. You spew lies and try to twist reality. You have an unreasonable stance and you must be treated unreasonably. Talking compromise is out of the question. Your repressive tolerance should be treated with intolerance to force you to really look at truth. You are nothing but a power grabber that likes to puff up their ego by taking rights away from others.
The end of the year 2019 witnessed a decrease in the crime rate across the majority of the neighborhoods in Nashville. Property crime in East Nashville dropped by 7.3% and property crime by 4%. In North Nashville, both property and violent crime dropped almost 8%.
Although Nashville crime in total may not have registered any drop in crime level. Violent incidents, in total, summed up to 7,713 and property 28,284. The crime rate turned out as 11.53 violent crimes for every 1,000 residents, and 42.27 for property crime.
Conclusion
Nashville crime Statistics is enough to send panic to a traveler. As there are growing numbers on assault and theft; property crime seems unchanged year and year. But Nashville is an amazing tourist destination with incredible historical musical facts. Hence, just as Nashville safety is still a concern, being intentionally cautious of personal safety would go a long way to keep you from the worst troubles.
Not to mention there are a lot of days in the calendar, and they choose this day (not date) as their day to rally. Yeah, that convinces us as to the nobility of their cause.
That being said, all these heavily armed people appeared to walk around; did they "storm" anything?
I was thinking the same thing too - I totally agree. I'm in no way a SJW or easily offended but it does seem like an overt and aggressive attempt to slap people in the face by doing that.
Not to mention that January is a busy month for anniversary events. 20th for Inauguration, 6th for so-called Insurrection, 17th for MLK, 22nd for Roe v Wade. So happens that 17th is the only one that is a holiday and folks are off work and could gather. May be coincidence. May be a message may be nothing at all.
Well, the Constituon says that the right to keep and bear arms is a right "of the people." It is not the right of a state to have a militia.
I fully support the militia argument. We can set it up like a voluntary fire service. The government should give counties funding to build ranges and procure ammunition and weaponry for the people to train with free of charge.
A citizen should have the right to volunteer for the militia and purchase military firearms.
If you want "well regulated militias" then let's have the Sheriff's organize militia programs where citizens can seek firearms and training in exchange for yearly drills and being available during times of emergency.
I hear you, but the federal government eliminated the "well regulated militias" run by states when it nationalized them into the National Guard. By 1933, National Guard's connection to constitutionally described militias was completely severed.
So you're left with a second amendment where the government has already infringed on it in a certain sense. Or, it is left to be reinterpreted. At the time the militias were nationalized, nobody thought that future radicals would want to outlaw guns. The second amendment was there to prevent overreaching government forces from doing so.
I don't even think you remember what you said in the first place. Nobody here is arguing for militias. The states had good reason to relinquish their militias as the country was changing in the 30s. The point is that this doesn't cancel out "the right of the the people to bear arms", or else that nationalization of the militias would have been unconstitutional in the first place.
Enjoy your keyboard battle against all the imaginary right wing insurectionists on TK News.
If you want to have a rational, good faith conversation then feel free to add to my response to your otherwise identical post (minus qustion marks), but I feel like I'm just encouraging some unhealthy social media rage posting by continuing to respond, so I may be done. Good night sir.
It's very well accepted among historians that the presence of militias... AND... an armed populace were a deterrent on government tyranny.
It's well established that this was a huge part of the framers goals when creating the Bill of Rights. Americans were uncomfortable with large standings armies through the majority of our history for that exact reason.
But I disagree that that is "the key point", since I'm not saying we need militias, I'm saying the second amendment protects the right of private Americans to bear arms, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed, and until an amendment to the constitution is passed to change it.
First point... there is no correlation with legal gun ownership and gun crime.
Second point... there is a solution to the problem. Use a gun in the commission of a crime and get 3x the sentence/penalty than otherwise. For First Degree murder, mandatory life in prison without parole.
The number of people using guns to commit crimes will go WAY down.
Until Soros funded corrupt DAs get in power and let the gun killers get away with murder.
Then there is the primary risk of death from gun... suicide. That is not any justification for gun bans as we are not effective at banning illegal opioids and they are causing far more suicides (either intentional or not) than are guns. The solution for suicide is to fix the broken economy that leaves so many despondent and hopeless, build more asylums and change the laws to allow doctors to force admission, and build more drug treatment facilities... again where doctors have the call to force admission.
Number of firearm deaths in 2018 among young people ages 14–18. Firearms are the leading cause of death in this age group, a rate more than 25% higher than deaths from motor vehicle accidents.
91.2%
Percentage of firearm deaths in 2018 from suicide among people ages 66 and older. Among young people ages 15–24, 56.6% of firearm deaths were HOMICIDE.
2/3rds of gun deaths are suicide and most the rest is inner city gang violence that is left uncontrolled by urban police and prosecutors.
When the police pull back like in Chicago what are regular people to do to defend themselves?
The anti-gun lobby doesn't want to go after gun criminals with the ample tools available to them they want to control the vast majority of law-abiding gun owners
That makes it seem like white suburban Moms should be terrified of guns...
YAWN. We know who commits the gun crimes and who are the victims and they overwhelmingly are not rando kids aged 14-18. Your rand 14-18yo kid is way more likely to be killed texting and driving/passengering than being involved in a gun killing.
The number of K-12 killings where there has been more than 3 kids killed is less than a dozen since Columbine, yet 50,000,000 kids are in K-12 schools every year.
My point is you said the primary risk of death is from suicide. However, that appears to only be among people older than 66--- Also, Homicide (by gun) is a major problem among youths and if they're youths and your solution is death or a life sentence?
Don't you see the problem here? Urban kids are using guns to kill each other and you seem to be inferring that a life in prison for the killer is somehow worse even as that killer is removed from being at risk for another killing. Guns are already banned in most of these high gun crime cities.
How would you then reduce gun death for these urban youth?
Right. This is the common left-tilt world view. I have a theory that has been pretty well vetted by this point. My left leaning friends seem to have some trouble with their own self-control. They don't make good rational decisions when their emotions are stirred up. That is why they see this gun thing differently.
Here is an example. Husband works hard and long hours. He works out in the morning. He is healthy and fit. His wife decided to exit her career to raise children. She struggles with weight gain. The husband likes a bit of ice cream in the evenings. He eats less than half a cup, but it satisfies his hunger and helps him sleep. The wife cannot stop eating the ice cream during the day and asked her husband to stop buying it. He refuses because he is not the one with the control problems.
This type of scenario illustrates the problem. Liberals will see the husband as a jerk, conservatives will see the wife as needed to get her shit together and not lay her problems on others.
Liberals want to remove guns because they empathize with people lacking self-control. Conservatives think that the problem is in only those lacking self-control. Guns don't shoot themselves and ice cream does not eat itself. If we are to take the approach that people cannot be trusted to control themselves and thus we need a nanny state that protects everyone from themself, we will not have a free society.
I’ve got a not-so-novel idea. STOP glamorizing gun violence in movies and video games. That’s about all the “gun training” most inner city youth (and regular school kids) get before they actually pick up a gun. The military uses “video games”, but they call them simulators...to train how to kill. What fun!
Years ago, it was decided that smoking shouldn’t be glamorized in movies because it might be encouraging kids, so cigarettes were pretty much banned from media and advertising. Today, I don’t see any gun ads on tv, but virtually non-stop gun violence purveyed as “entertainment”. So gun ads would be abhorrent, but actors shooting each other, OK?
I’m a big fan of the First AND Second Amendments (and the rest) but how about a little self restraint from the media? If they were regulated half as much as the gun industry and owners, they’d scream their heads off. And don’t believe all that crap about there not being enough “common sense” gun laws. Look’ em up and educate yourself...there are hundreds.
That is a what, but not a how. I agree with you by the way. I get these video feeds that come up on my social media of a first person game where a character is just walking around a city knocking people down and stomping them. Crazy and sad.
There is such irony and hypocrisy on this from a political perspective. The left is against censorship of media that glorifies violence, but for banning weapons. I think in London and Paris they are now banning knives. The right would support banning of the glorification of violence to some degree (although sensitive to 1st Amendment rights), but hell no to gun restrictions.
Who knows what the Supremes will allow? Do those w/o a gun fetish have any rights? What's the point of having an self-appointed, armed militia invade our state capitols if it's not to intimidate? Surely it isn't just some sad people wanting to show off. Are we no longer able to have public discourse w/o the presence of armed factions? So, the 2nd Amendment allows each and everyone of us to become warlords? Welcome to the new, improved America. One bright spot, I suppose we can shove concerns about micro-aggressions down on our lists of concerns. Turns out that bullets actually do more harm than words.
BULLETS are meant for killing animals and people. People who obey the law should have guns for defense of themselves, their property, hunting and sport. No MIDDLE GROUND. NO BEING REASONABLE.
I wasn't aware that this was a no levity zone. We'll leave open for now the question of how much damage unkind or even ill-chosen words can cause. We have a good idea of the damage caused by bullets if and when they exit a weapon.
Apparently, unlike you I haven't sufficient interest to wade into the thicket of gun control laws. The Supremes for better or worse will handle that. I suspect that I'm one or many who are fed up with all forms of intimidation in the public space. Whether you're threatening to loot and burn the town or positioning yourself as ersatz militia, you are nothing more than antisocial, self-important, egoists. Let's agree to spread pox to both sides. What we don't know for sure is whether we've become a nation of snow flakes who'll melt when exposed to intimidation.
The headline suggests that the way to decrease the number of pesky, annoying and scary gun rights activists is to just pass more gun control laws that make it harder for them to conduct their rallies. I follow gun issues fairly closely and I haven't seen that assertion before, so maybe Ford Fischer should be congratulated for coming up with a new angle on the topic.
On the other hand, I didn't hear anyone talk about how the continuing pandemic and omicron spike has made it more difficult for the activists to organize. Or how the election of a Republican governor took away their energy.
I agree with other commenters whose main impression from this video is that the demonstrators are enjoying a day of LARPing. But looking deeper, I'm thinking that this points to the decline of gun control as a top political issue. We have so many big problems right now and there is only so much outrage that people can muster. Americans are worn out and demoralized.
Not sure if dwindling protests a result of stronger gun control, or election of Republican administration in VA reassuring to pro 2A crowd & causing more would-be protesters to stay in their armchairs at home.
Matt, one important thing that cut down on the number of citizens lobbying (it's not just gun rights people, MLK Day has been Lobby Day for all manner of things for *years* because, as noted above, it's a Fed holiday)was the snowstorm that hit VA the day before. Granted, Richmond didn't get much, but Western and Central VA got hammered. The weather, more than anything, I think is what cut attendance.
These Ford Fischer pieces get better and better. They illustrate the complexity of many issues in today's political climate, without heavy-handed editorializing. Compare that to legacy media, which tries to present every issue in sternly simplistic, black & white terms, with the spin presented before the story.
(Also a fan of the Orfalea pieces, which are often more funny, but cutting.)
Here's one of my favorite non-Matt tweets from his twitter stream:
Umar
@ScorpionJungle
· Jan 22
Replying to @mtaibbi and @ZaidJilani
We're in a war. You joined the Right. Others joined the Left. Don't ask others to abide by principles when you abandoned yours. We're all enemies now. At least be honest about it.
Hmmm...so it's a war, eh? This is not an uncommon sentiment coming from the pseudo-left these days. I do wonder if these people are high. Do they think an actual war can be won with pithy tweets and hysterical outrage? Maybe someone should remind them which side has the armaments.
I do enjoy the fact that she thinks the anti-mandate rally is a Trump rally. Completely oblivious to the fact that the "white supremacist rally" has some black folk sprinkled in.
That's why I think I found her mom & some of her mom's friends here:
George Takei on 6/1/20 said, "The erosion of our cherished press freedoms, through constant attack on the media by Trump, is directly to blame for this. His rhetoric puts our brave news reporters lives at risk. Stand up for them. We need their truth.
Yet on 1/24/22 Ensign Sulu said this, "My only critique of Joe Biden calling Peter Doocy a stupid son of a bitch over a hot mic was that he didn't do it sooner."
Once again the gander had no interest in enforcing the same rules it insists that the goose must follow.
/\ the lunatic above is a degenerate maniac in the clutches of an ether binge. I myself am currently wired with a combination of benzadrine and mescaline, and I am here today to share the good news. FRIENDS: There is truly a light at the end of this chaotic lower intestine we sometimes call a political system. I call it that myself, on the toilet, with one of those magazines that folds out in the middle my God Nancy- you truly have the breast intentions of any- as I was saying- FRIENDS: Every year you are lied to by some idiot wearing a suit about this country- why not be lied to by some idiot wearing a boot? VERMIN SUPREME FOR PRESIDENT! ladies and gentlemen-otherkin and alternatively binaried individualities- alien visitors and predatory algorithms- after all, there's a Democrat in office, so all of you can probably fuking vote, after all- VERMIN SUPREME has promised a PONY, yes, thats right a PONY, to ride, stable, or consume, for every Man, Woman and Child, in the United States of America. My fellow Americans, let me ask you this today.... you've doubtlessly wasted your votes in every election prior to this one. Why not waste it one More time?
Libertarians seem to get even more shit than the greens, but they are a lot of fun. These comment sections don't really even get started until you guys show up.
Minor note: Ralph Northam was not ousted. He didn't run for re-election because the Constitution of Virginia doesn't permit governors to run for consecutive terms.
Very granular and did not feature just the easily discounted wack jobs. Advocates always define any issue by the worst reps of any take they oppose. I admired Taibbi’s real journalism re the VA governor race and how the educational issues in the burbs defined it. His story was a 180 from the MSM Lib media racial takes and showed how Fox also missed the boat. Maybe It is not that hard to look for real answers and find the real deal if you start without a preconceived opinion. He has some I am sure but not on thus topic.
Most Gun owners do not know it but if you use marijuana in a state where it is legal for recreational use or medical use, you are committing a Federal crime.
I don't know if authorities can say you are a marijuana user with a urine test and take your fire arms. THE ATF COULD HAVE A FIELD DAY, If they wanted to get rid of White Extremists they could use this tactic, as long as marijuana is illegal to use federally.
That's why anyone reflexing at gun regulation should also find the marijuana rule a grotesque infringement of their 2A right, not to mention numerous other aspects of civil liberty in general.
Correct. Marijuana is a loose end that no-one cares to unravel. The silly Gun Control people should be against marijuana federal legalization to entrap all the gun people. That goes for opiates, and other drugs. I'm sure many "legal" gun owners are users of something. What is stopping the Feds from checking who owns a gun to show up at your door and take a urine test?
I'm pretty conservative and a gun owner, but I have no use for this demonstration on MLK day, of all days, and I really have no use for parading my guns around in public (unless concealed of course). I am glad there is now a republican governor, as I should be a resident of the state in a few years.
Lobby day has always been on MLK day because it's the first holiday during the legislative session.
Also kind of wierd that you are against protesting for civil rights in MLK day.
Good point. At first, I agreed with Sniggle that it seemed in poor taste to march for gun freedom on MLK day. However, your point that MLK did himself march and protest for civil rights himself.
If you have a "use for parading your [concealed guns] around in public", then that might be public; but it certainly wouldn't be parading. Seems like a logical fallacy to me.
And some of your best friends are “negroes”, right?. You’ll carry a concealed gun around town but those who expose the gun you have no use for right?
Dude, you need to chill. You can be you and I will be me. My main point is that using MLK day as a show of force is no way to win friends and influence people. I am a firm 2A supporter, but I see no reason to shove it in people's faces, as long as they are not coming to take away my ability to protect myself.
What a fragile mindset.
What is “fragile” about the comment, huh?
WTF are you talking about? Your comment doesn't seem to align with the original one. What is the point you're trying to make?
It is a meme. A metaphor. It’s about virtual signaling by deflection … “I own a gun so you can’t accuse me of being anti gun…”. “I have Black friends so don’t call me racist”.
Get it now?
Some of my best friends are guns.
Thank you Phisto for providing my mid-afternoon chuckle.
I live to serve.
You REALLY don’t have room to talk.
This is what's so annoying about the right. I'm a completely disaffected traditional liberal who absolutely cannot stand the left anymore -- but this complete unwillingness to have ANY regulation in regards to gun laws is exactly like the left. I live in Nashville (TN where there basically are no gun laws) --- we had over 1,000 guns stolen out of cars last year (hundreds of thousands of cars broken into to find them), that's 1,000 irresponsible people who own guns and I expect my life to be safe???? We were also just named one of the most dangerous capital cities in the US. The FIRST amendment ISN'T absolute so why do they expect the second amendment to be? I don't want to outlaw guns but this unwillingness to be reasonable is not going to get me on their side.
Okay, hang on here. You want to regulate gun ownership for the vast majority of the state because, in your words, "we had over 1,000 guns stolen out of cars last year (hundreds of thousands of cars broken into to find them), that's 1,000 irresponsible people who own guns and I expect my life to be safe????"
This is not a gun regulation problem, it's a stupid person problem. And frankly, it's exactly the kind of mindset that Republicans are opposed to, using the force of the government to address what should be smaller scale efforts to address specific issues.
Part of the point is the complete unwillingness to address the fact that there are flaws in human nature - EXACTLY like the left. It's a "Stupid person problem" is 100% true but that proves my point EXACTLY, that's why we should have common sense regulation. You're reaction is the typical reaction to the word "regulation" - "let me freak out bc you want to take my guns away" when that's not the case. We need to have open discussion to reach a common sense middle ground.
Following up, of you want to regulate something, then encourage the legislature to pass harsh laws on those who steal firearms. Make it a felony with a stiff jail term. Maker it an enhancement for those with adjacent charges. Why criminalize the law abiding gun owners?
I have never owned a gun in my life.
I recently retired after 40+ years of working in live theater in SF. Prior to live events being shut down due to Covid I witnessed organized auto break-ins of cars parked on the street while walking to my car (parked in a garage).
In SF they don't enforce the law concerning what they call "quality of life" crimes, which includes non-felony theft. One of the results of this non-enforcement policy is a van slowly driving through an outdoor plaza parking area with 3-4 people breaking into cars along the way while dropping off the their take in the van and moving onto the next car.
Maybe I am just a simple rube, but to me if you don't enforce "quality of life laws" in a locale it seems obvious to me locale will have very low to zero "quality of life". It seems like a horrible platform for a politician to run on, "vote for me and I'll lower your quality of life", but it seems to work in SF.
Which brings me to your post here. You seem to be using the same "logic" as the people running SF. Why would anyone think law abiding gun owners would object to enacting and enforcing laws that prohibit gun theft while providing for stiff penalties for gun theft as a deterrent? And you double down with a 90% estimate? I own bicycles, I think stealing bicycles is a crime and that laws against stealing bicycles should be enforced. I am also able to say, I don't own a gun but I think, given the amount of murders in the US wherein stolen guns were the murder weapon, stealing a gun should be a felony and have a mandatory prison sentence.
As well they should be.
Flaws in human nature are not always solved by government regulation. Your example, guns being stolen from cars, ought to be low hanging fruit for community activists or gun shop owners to address at a one on one level. Why bring the government into it?
If someone's feelings get hurt, should we regulate speech?
NO COMMON GROUND with a person wanting unrealistic expectations.
Execute the criminal. They will stop. Laws are too liberal. Taxes are too high to keep them in prison. Carbon foot prints must be removed. There will never be a middle ground with this debate. You waste your time with an unreasonable person.
Exactly. I am a hardcore 2nd Amendment supporter, but I support intense crackdowns on illegal weapons ownership. Liberal cities give criminals slaps on the wrists or refuse to prosecute illegal gun possession b/c to do so would produce uncomfortable demographic statistics-ie-more blacks and Latinos in prison.
Gun ownership should not be restricted for law abiding, non-felonious individuals-period. If you do have a felony and are caught possessing a firearm-guess what-10 years in the clink, do not pass go, no parole eligibility.
Liberals are literally refusing to enforce laws on the subject they claim to care about-gun violence and illegal gun possession,b/c the demographic committing said crimes-black and Latino males would bear the brunt of legitimate prosecutions, not law abiding Trump voters with large personal arsenals.
Yeah, until Dems get serious about prosecuting illegal gun possession (and other crimes committed) by their favorite demographic groups, assume that the real point of gun law proposals is to torment Deplorables.
And, assume the above, until Dem brass, & the MSM cut the BS about "insurrectionists" and the "vax hesitant" (as being the drivers of covid spread).
This also applies to Dem-appointed Judges, e.g. the (implicit) deceit by Kagan.
"[N]ot a gun regulation problem, it's a stupid person problem." Like the OP, I live in Nashville. Doubtless car burglaries are endemic in the USA, and it seems to be getting worse. With no gun regulations to speak of here in TN, cars are an easy target -- a trip through a parking lot in an apartment complex trying doors or smashing windows has a decent "find" rate. ... I think gun owners should accept that owning and carrying a gun should carry (sorry) responsibility. Such as, securing your weapon. There are gun safes that are designed for motor vehicles that do the trick.
Leaving a weapon unsecured in the vehicle is stupid. The use of safes is a minimum precaution, I agree. And it doesn't take the legislature to compel it, only common sense. Nice post.
Thanks. And I like the avatar.
So I'm asking seriously, how do you propose addressing it? What small scale effort do you propose and is it being done by anyone? Anywhere?
That's a great question and I certainly don't have all the answers nor do I know all current gun laws but some things that should be explored are:
1) If it's a major emergency - The ability to get a specific type of non semi-automatic gun right away by going to a local police station and applying for it under an "emergency situation" but that should come with restrictions and requirements also. Obviously someone who has been convicted of certain crimes wouldn't be eligible.
2) If you purchase a gun you must purchase some type of a lock box for your car of which the key is required not to be left in the lock box (ie. put on your keychain etc). If your gun is recovered by it being stolen, there should be consequences for the original owner based on the situation but shouldn't be a slap on the wrist.
3) All taxes from the purchase of guns should go toward mental healthcare (Granted we need to establish a working, effective mental health system)
4) MANDITORY gun safety training. You have to do this just to drive a motorcycle why shouldn't you to own a gun?
I appreciate your attempts, but your first fails utterly. In a major emergency - in any emergency - the need, by definition, would be imminent, and a trip to the station, the wait for a free sergeant, the filling out of paperwork, the checking, and the then-finding that the weapons are all out on loan, are not conducive to emergency-relief.
Driving a motorcycle is not a constitutional right. That's why.
That's not the point. A gun is made with the purpose to cause damage and is dangerous. It has nothing to do with the constitution and being allowed to own a gun.
A gun is possible of killing and one person being killed by a gun BOO HOOO HOOO. You just want power. Guns were legal NOW all of a sudden there is a problem. Voting was great NOW all of a sudden there is a problem. YOU make the problems with your unreasonable power grabs. Does it puff you up, does it make your ego rise? I knew you were unreasonable from your first comment. The poor poor victim.
AHHHAHHHAHAHAHHHHA
Congratulations, you know what guns do?
Do you know which end goes bang, too?
What's your point?
Guns save lives.
I'm a Marine Infantryman why should I need "mandatory" gun safety? Just because guns are foreign to you doesn't mean they are foreign to us. What data do you have to suggest that gun owners largely can't safely handle their firearms? Do we have a gun crime problem or do we have a problem of people accidently shooting eachother?
Also, you are going to let me maybe hair a "non-semiautomatic firearm"? Awesome shucks. So my 1911, a firearm literally over 100 years old, is to modern?
Also you are going to tax poor people out of their constitional right?
Mental health. Cut me a break
I agree that the background check process could be strengthened, but that operates on a state-to state basis. I'm not sure I understand your first point.
FYI, there is already an 11% tax on all gun sales that makes up most of the funding for state wildlife commissions. So I guess you'd be clawing away their funding under your third point... But I guess it shows that there's some precedent for what you're suggesting.
You go through a FEDERAL BACK GROUND CHECK by law. If you use marijuana it is illegal to own a firearm according to federal law. The federal government will not change the marijuana laws so they can one day get the guns.
I've legally purchased numerous firearms with NO FEDERAL BACKGROUND CHECK.
Billboards. Text messages. Commercials on local stations. I don't know if such efforts are being or have been undertaken. I'm responding to the knee jerk "government regulation is the answer" response.
More like Libertarians oppose that type of mindset. There are plenty of Republicans who would be more than happy to use the force of the government to address what they consider to be a problem.
Which city with stricter gun laws would you like Nashville to emulate? Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit….
I'm not familiar with exactly what their gun laws are or how they're enforcing them but the answer could be none....I have outlined some ideas in a reply below to another commenter in this thread if you would like more details on my thoughts.
1, 2 & 4 are already covered under TN law and further enforced under additional laws passed last year.
#3 taxes are already diverted to TBI for background checks and the TWRA.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/here-are-the-new-laws-taking-effect-july-1-in-tennessee/ar-AALDdhc
https://www.tn.gov/safety/tnhp/handgun/faq.html
https://law.justia.com/codes/tennessee/2014/title-39/chapter-17/part-13/section-39-17-1313
4. Is only for handguns according to the state website. The MSNBC website says "Constitutional Carry": The new measure means Tennesseans of certain ages will no longer have to apply for a permit or go through the required safety courses to legally carry a handgun. You would have to be 21 to legally carry, or 18 if you're active duty military, and there would be restrictions against people with certain convictions like DUI's and stalking.
What happened with those 1,000 guns? Any idea? Right now, you’ve only explained a theft problem.
Regarding the danger of Nashville, why is it deemed so?
You're asking me what do I think of the guns that criminals destroyed property for in order to get them are doing with them....ummmmm......they're used for committing other crimes most likely. If that wasn't 100% their intention they would have obtained them legally. I don't understand how you don't clearly see that an item purposely created to cause destruction in one way or another (be it good or bad- but thats it's sole purpose) is just a "theft" problem
You don’t restrict critical rights on the basis of, “most likely.”
Do you favor prosecuting car owners whose stolen cars are used to commit crime? They probably didn't lock their car so they deserve it. What if my wallet is stolen and the money inside of it is used to purchase an illegal weapon? Am I guilty of something? What about stolen baseball bats? Knives? Sorry but this is a dumb idea.
Never mind that it takes talent to be a proper thief. You can make a profession out of it!
I wonder how many of those guns were stolen from responsible people… just the thief was better.
Step 1: Prosecute the victims of theft instead of the thieves.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Utopia.
Has the double benefit of drumming up sympathy for criminals (who of course are "victims" first) while punishing the law-abiding whose views do not align with the left-woke dogma.
People that steal guns should be executed. That way criminals commit no other crimes including killing anyone else. That would stop it, and save my poor old rusty guns.
Maybe people should not be allowed to leave guns in cars except on their own property, not on the street. For urban locales, that might be sensible.
Up here where I live, we leave our cars unlocked. Sometimes we leave the motor running when we run into a store for a quick purchase.
And a lot of us own guns - I live alone, and keep a loaded revolver in a drawer by my bed, though it's unlikely I'll need it.
Let's pretend you're a police officer. You have obtained a gun which was reported stolen from an automobile. Prove that it was improperly stored before it was stolen. Prove that it was parked on a public street when it was stolen. It's unenforceable. And on top of that you've made the victim of theft subject to more legal action than the actual thief. How is that justice?
Look, I was attempting to make some common ground. It's a lot of years since I lived in a city. I don't relish the notion up here in the wilds - totally unworkable.
Two twenty-something NYPD officers were were shot, one died the other in serious condition. A stolen gun in the hands of an emotionally disturbed man. That's were one of those stolen guns went.
Yes, gun owners need to secure their guns. That being said why is Eric Adams like all the other Democrats always saying they need to get the guns off the streets, but never they need to remove violent people from society? Once again the CRIMINALS are not being held accountable. There's always an excuse made for them. Somehow they lacked control over their own actions and were compelled to get illegal guns. It's always everyone's fault but the criminal and we have to restructure our entire society to cater to the deranged.
As I've stated elsewhere, if politicians wants to remove violent people from society they can start with themselves.
So that’s one gun accounted for. Progress, I suppose.
I think the vast majority of reasonable people would agree what happened, while unfortunate, is not enough to restrict basic rights.
Perhaps then you don't understand the scope of the problem city dwellers must contend with, which unaddressed by your self-interest, is motivating most reasonable people to favor the "well regulated" part of the 2nd amendment. Are you familiar with Adam Wrinkler's book "Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America". Check your gun's at the stable (parking garage?) or the sheriff's office (local precinct) and receive a token. We have the right but it seems that it only takes a few idiots to screw it up for the rest of us. That's not you but I hope you know what I mean, I suspect you would agree. A lot of jurks at the firing range looking down the barrel. Walking around town like GI Joe is not helping us move forward and the NRA is NOT you friend although they would be happy if you died helping to sell their sales message.
"you don't understand the scope of the problem city dwellers must contend with..."
If you think the problem is guns, you are not paying attention. Everyone that left the cities over the past 60 years knows what the problem is.
My city and state are loaded to the gills with guns - no concealed carry regs, guns of college campuses - but we do not have a gun crime/homicide problem? Nope.
There have been more homicides in Baltimore in the last year than my entire state, which has 3-4x as many people, in over 30 years combined.
Gee, what could it be, then??? Oh well, I guess we'll never know. Enjoy your city, I'm sure it has some nice parts...unless you're in Baltimore.
But this is one reason for localized solutions. As I pointed out above, in my small Maine town, I suspect the vast majority of us without criminal records have guns. I do. We have almost no crime, gun are for hunting and self-protection, and aren't used in aggression (as is the case for over 90% of the guns purchased legally in the U.S.).
So you have a problem, and everyone everywhere in the nation must be burdened according to what you think will make your locality safer, when we are already safer than you'd be if you enacted every stringency you dream of and would be burdened because of your criminals who have nothing to do with us?
YOU DO NOT GET IT. You are out to grab innocent people's weapons outside of the city because you animals can't handle yourselves. When there was stop and frisk there were no problems. I don't care what happens in your city but screw you on trying to change our lives. It is a power grab. You want to tell someone else what to do.
You spout out literature written by someone who wants to get rid of firearms. Look at FBI statistics on firearms and crime, you will open your eyes. Your city also wants illegals to vote and change the way the country votes. Voting was fine till George Floyd. All of a sudden there is a problem. You NYC bastards just want to change other people with your unreliability. Well I have no tolerance for your repressive tolerance. Don't tell us what to do. BRING BACK STOP AND FRISK and go screw yourself.
I’m just poking holes in your utterly lacking argument.
If you want to respond with, “REEEEEEEEEEEE!!!” that’s fine.
Or you could make a better point, instead of just trying to make me feel bad about a couple “twenty something” cops.
Which, I don’t.
So, you are terribly concerned about gun crime, except when the crime in question is the murder of police officers. Now, there's a principled stance to hold up as a shining example. Good Lord.
That's in you head bro, not coming from mine.
You've reliable evidence the gun employed came from one of these Nashville thefts?
WAAA WAA WAAWAAA. VICTIMS in Asshole NYC. Gun control does not solve the problem, take away everybody's guns. NYC needs the power.
Execute the criminals then there would be no problems. There also would be less carbon foot prints, that would drain society. THINK GREEN.
I guess I don't understand what regulation you'd be looking for to keep guns from being stolen out of cars. A prohibition on leaving them there? Maybe.
I think when people make arguments like this, what they're really looking for is fewer guns. And that makes sense to me. But the way that the left approaches that goal is by chipping away at certain categories of gun use without any particular rationale. NY and CA only allow handguns to have a capacity of ten rounds... but they don't prevent you from carrying extra magazines. The result is a law that has no positive affect, but inflames gun rights activists and shows that the liberal side doesn't know what they're talking about.
But I do agree, the number of guns we have on the streets is scary. I think the proper approach is to strengthen the process around background checks and education for gun purchasers, not to outlaw categories of products and behaviors. Gun rights supporters usually are very lawful people, and a lot of them agree with that approach.
But it's a lot easier for liberal groups to raise money talking about "assault weapons" so it'll take a lot of effort for us to get un-stuck here.
"Common sense regulation" is an Orwellianism, and you make no effort whatsoever to demonstrate otherwise.
Our unwillingness is that, much like COVID, Democrats want power not solutions. Anyone who understands firearms and the 2A understands the futility of more gun control. Every gun owner I know would be more than supportive of a good-faith efforts ton prosecute *criminals* with guns. But the left would rather let the criminals out while making gun ownership so hazardous for anyone without a lawyer on retainer.
Yes, our constitutional rights are non-negotiable. As a "disaffected liberal" you should strongly consider why we are so reluctant to give these idiots any say in how we protect ourselves. You don't know what the lead up to lobby day 2020 was like. VA wanted to impose the most radical gun control in the country and the people making these laws had absolutely no clue what they were talking about.
A thousand, sounds like a big number, a hundred thousand is way out. You want guns outlawed, and you are probably unreasonable. I want my guns for my sport, live in a better neighborhood, buy a gun and defend your life. I can be unreasonable too.
Nashville is not that bad. Memphis is. 100,000 cars broken into? Really? Worst cities are listed below. Nashville does not appear. You spew lies and try to twist reality. You have an unreasonable stance and you must be treated unreasonably. Talking compromise is out of the question. Your repressive tolerance should be treated with intolerance to force you to really look at truth. You are nothing but a power grabber that likes to puff up their ego by taking rights away from others.
You live in a different reality lady.
NASHVILLE CRIME 100,000 cars (property crime) REALLY?
The end of the year 2019 witnessed a decrease in the crime rate across the majority of the neighborhoods in Nashville. Property crime in East Nashville dropped by 7.3% and property crime by 4%. In North Nashville, both property and violent crime dropped almost 8%.
Although Nashville crime in total may not have registered any drop in crime level. Violent incidents, in total, summed up to 7,713 and property 28,284. The crime rate turned out as 11.53 violent crimes for every 1,000 residents, and 42.27 for property crime.
Conclusion
Nashville crime Statistics is enough to send panic to a traveler. As there are growing numbers on assault and theft; property crime seems unchanged year and year. But Nashville is an amazing tourist destination with incredible historical musical facts. Hence, just as Nashville safety is still a concern, being intentionally cautious of personal safety would go a long way to keep you from the worst troubles.
https://usaestaonline.com/is-nashville-safe
https://www.roadsnacks.net/worst-places-to-live-in-america/
https://www.alarms.org/top-100-most-dangerous-cities-in-america/
https://safeatlast.co/crime-rates/dangerous-cities-in-the-us/
Do you think more guns are stolen from cars or homes?
Not to mention there are a lot of days in the calendar, and they choose this day (not date) as their day to rally. Yeah, that convinces us as to the nobility of their cause.
That being said, all these heavily armed people appeared to walk around; did they "storm" anything?
Thank you for this feature of TKNews.
I was thinking the same thing too - I totally agree. I'm in no way a SJW or easily offended but it does seem like an overt and aggressive attempt to slap people in the face by doing that.
Not to mention that January is a busy month for anniversary events. 20th for Inauguration, 6th for so-called Insurrection, 17th for MLK, 22nd for Roe v Wade. So happens that 17th is the only one that is a holiday and folks are off work and could gather. May be coincidence. May be a message may be nothing at all.
Maybe.
What you don't seem to understand is that the 2A is more than "...well regulated militias..."
Well, the Constituon says that the right to keep and bear arms is a right "of the people." It is not the right of a state to have a militia.
I fully support the militia argument. We can set it up like a voluntary fire service. The government should give counties funding to build ranges and procure ammunition and weaponry for the people to train with free of charge.
A citizen should have the right to volunteer for the militia and purchase military firearms.
If you want "well regulated militias" then let's have the Sheriff's organize militia programs where citizens can seek firearms and training in exchange for yearly drills and being available during times of emergency.
I hear you, but the federal government eliminated the "well regulated militias" run by states when it nationalized them into the National Guard. By 1933, National Guard's connection to constitutionally described militias was completely severed.
So you're left with a second amendment where the government has already infringed on it in a certain sense. Or, it is left to be reinterpreted. At the time the militias were nationalized, nobody thought that future radicals would want to outlaw guns. The second amendment was there to prevent overreaching government forces from doing so.
I don't even think you remember what you said in the first place. Nobody here is arguing for militias. The states had good reason to relinquish their militias as the country was changing in the 30s. The point is that this doesn't cancel out "the right of the the people to bear arms", or else that nationalization of the militias would have been unconstitutional in the first place.
Enjoy your keyboard battle against all the imaginary right wing insurectionists on TK News.
If you want to have a rational, good faith conversation then feel free to add to my response to your otherwise identical post (minus qustion marks), but I feel like I'm just encouraging some unhealthy social media rage posting by continuing to respond, so I may be done. Good night sir.
It's very well accepted among historians that the presence of militias... AND... an armed populace were a deterrent on government tyranny.
It's well established that this was a huge part of the framers goals when creating the Bill of Rights. Americans were uncomfortable with large standings armies through the majority of our history for that exact reason.
But I disagree that that is "the key point", since I'm not saying we need militias, I'm saying the second amendment protects the right of private Americans to bear arms, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed, and until an amendment to the constitution is passed to change it.
First point... there is no correlation with legal gun ownership and gun crime.
Second point... there is a solution to the problem. Use a gun in the commission of a crime and get 3x the sentence/penalty than otherwise. For First Degree murder, mandatory life in prison without parole.
The number of people using guns to commit crimes will go WAY down.
Until Soros funded corrupt DAs get in power and let the gun killers get away with murder.
Then there is the primary risk of death from gun... suicide. That is not any justification for gun bans as we are not effective at banning illegal opioids and they are causing far more suicides (either intentional or not) than are guns. The solution for suicide is to fix the broken economy that leaves so many despondent and hopeless, build more asylums and change the laws to allow doctors to force admission, and build more drug treatment facilities... again where doctors have the call to force admission.
10.19 per 100,000
Number of firearm deaths in 2018 among young people ages 14–18. Firearms are the leading cause of death in this age group, a rate more than 25% higher than deaths from motor vehicle accidents.
91.2%
Percentage of firearm deaths in 2018 from suicide among people ages 66 and older. Among young people ages 15–24, 56.6% of firearm deaths were HOMICIDE.
Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32965479/
2/3rds of gun deaths are suicide and most the rest is inner city gang violence that is left uncontrolled by urban police and prosecutors.
When the police pull back like in Chicago what are regular people to do to defend themselves?
The anti-gun lobby doesn't want to go after gun criminals with the ample tools available to them they want to control the vast majority of law-abiding gun owners
That makes it seem like white suburban Moms should be terrified of guns...
YAWN. We know who commits the gun crimes and who are the victims and they overwhelmingly are not rando kids aged 14-18. Your rand 14-18yo kid is way more likely to be killed texting and driving/passengering than being involved in a gun killing.
The number of K-12 killings where there has been more than 3 kids killed is less than a dozen since Columbine, yet 50,000,000 kids are in K-12 schools every year.
So you are parsing the data by age group. What is your point?
My point is you said the primary risk of death is from suicide. However, that appears to only be among people older than 66--- Also, Homicide (by gun) is a major problem among youths and if they're youths and your solution is death or a life sentence?
Ok. Thanks.
Don't you see the problem here? Urban kids are using guns to kill each other and you seem to be inferring that a life in prison for the killer is somehow worse even as that killer is removed from being at risk for another killing. Guns are already banned in most of these high gun crime cities.
How would you then reduce gun death for these urban youth?
Gods forbid we address the reasons why people shoot each other.
No, clearly more strict gun laws are the answer.
Right. This is the common left-tilt world view. I have a theory that has been pretty well vetted by this point. My left leaning friends seem to have some trouble with their own self-control. They don't make good rational decisions when their emotions are stirred up. That is why they see this gun thing differently.
Here is an example. Husband works hard and long hours. He works out in the morning. He is healthy and fit. His wife decided to exit her career to raise children. She struggles with weight gain. The husband likes a bit of ice cream in the evenings. He eats less than half a cup, but it satisfies his hunger and helps him sleep. The wife cannot stop eating the ice cream during the day and asked her husband to stop buying it. He refuses because he is not the one with the control problems.
This type of scenario illustrates the problem. Liberals will see the husband as a jerk, conservatives will see the wife as needed to get her shit together and not lay her problems on others.
Liberals want to remove guns because they empathize with people lacking self-control. Conservatives think that the problem is in only those lacking self-control. Guns don't shoot themselves and ice cream does not eat itself. If we are to take the approach that people cannot be trusted to control themselves and thus we need a nanny state that protects everyone from themself, we will not have a free society.
I’ve got a not-so-novel idea. STOP glamorizing gun violence in movies and video games. That’s about all the “gun training” most inner city youth (and regular school kids) get before they actually pick up a gun. The military uses “video games”, but they call them simulators...to train how to kill. What fun!
Years ago, it was decided that smoking shouldn’t be glamorized in movies because it might be encouraging kids, so cigarettes were pretty much banned from media and advertising. Today, I don’t see any gun ads on tv, but virtually non-stop gun violence purveyed as “entertainment”. So gun ads would be abhorrent, but actors shooting each other, OK?
I’m a big fan of the First AND Second Amendments (and the rest) but how about a little self restraint from the media? If they were regulated half as much as the gun industry and owners, they’d scream their heads off. And don’t believe all that crap about there not being enough “common sense” gun laws. Look’ em up and educate yourself...there are hundreds.
That is a what, but not a how. I agree with you by the way. I get these video feeds that come up on my social media of a first person game where a character is just walking around a city knocking people down and stomping them. Crazy and sad.
There is such irony and hypocrisy on this from a political perspective. The left is against censorship of media that glorifies violence, but for banning weapons. I think in London and Paris they are now banning knives. The right would support banning of the glorification of violence to some degree (although sensitive to 1st Amendment rights), but hell no to gun restrictions.
"Homicide (by gun) is a major problem among youths"
No it's not, especially if you back-out gang and drug-related killings.
Suicide is way more problematic and idiot policies like maskings/stay at home classes, etc are far worse.
Who knows what the Supremes will allow? Do those w/o a gun fetish have any rights? What's the point of having an self-appointed, armed militia invade our state capitols if it's not to intimidate? Surely it isn't just some sad people wanting to show off. Are we no longer able to have public discourse w/o the presence of armed factions? So, the 2nd Amendment allows each and everyone of us to become warlords? Welcome to the new, improved America. One bright spot, I suppose we can shove concerns about micro-aggressions down on our lists of concerns. Turns out that bullets actually do more harm than words.
BULLETS are meant for killing animals and people. People who obey the law should have guns for defense of themselves, their property, hunting and sport. No MIDDLE GROUND. NO BEING REASONABLE.
I wasn't aware that this was a no levity zone. We'll leave open for now the question of how much damage unkind or even ill-chosen words can cause. We have a good idea of the damage caused by bullets if and when they exit a weapon.
A failed attempt at levity isn't a pretty sight.
Apparently, unlike you I haven't sufficient interest to wade into the thicket of gun control laws. The Supremes for better or worse will handle that. I suspect that I'm one or many who are fed up with all forms of intimidation in the public space. Whether you're threatening to loot and burn the town or positioning yourself as ersatz militia, you are nothing more than antisocial, self-important, egoists. Let's agree to spread pox to both sides. What we don't know for sure is whether we've become a nation of snow flakes who'll melt when exposed to intimidation.
Your ignorance of how to safely handle firearms has been duly noted.
The headline suggests that the way to decrease the number of pesky, annoying and scary gun rights activists is to just pass more gun control laws that make it harder for them to conduct their rallies. I follow gun issues fairly closely and I haven't seen that assertion before, so maybe Ford Fischer should be congratulated for coming up with a new angle on the topic.
On the other hand, I didn't hear anyone talk about how the continuing pandemic and omicron spike has made it more difficult for the activists to organize. Or how the election of a Republican governor took away their energy.
I agree with other commenters whose main impression from this video is that the demonstrators are enjoying a day of LARPing. But looking deeper, I'm thinking that this points to the decline of gun control as a top political issue. We have so many big problems right now and there is only so much outrage that people can muster. Americans are worn out and demoralized.
I wouldn't analyses too deeply. Many of the citizens are probably expecting lobbyist groups to advocate changing gun legislation.
**It looks like until gun activists can reverse Northam’s laws, “We Will Not Comply” has become, for now, “We Will Not Bother.”**
Or, as my father taught me, discretion is the better part of valor.
Not sure if dwindling protests a result of stronger gun control, or election of Republican administration in VA reassuring to pro 2A crowd & causing more would-be protesters to stay in their armchairs at home.
Matt, one important thing that cut down on the number of citizens lobbying (it's not just gun rights people, MLK Day has been Lobby Day for all manner of things for *years* because, as noted above, it's a Fed holiday)was the snowstorm that hit VA the day before. Granted, Richmond didn't get much, but Western and Central VA got hammered. The weather, more than anything, I think is what cut attendance.
These Ford Fischer pieces get better and better. They illustrate the complexity of many issues in today's political climate, without heavy-handed editorializing. Compare that to legacy media, which tries to present every issue in sternly simplistic, black & white terms, with the spin presented before the story.
(Also a fan of the Orfalea pieces, which are often more funny, but cutting.)
There's lots of things you have every right to do that you shouldn't.
Smartest thing I’ve read in this comments section in some time.
Here's one of my favorite non-Matt tweets from his twitter stream:
Umar
@ScorpionJungle
· Jan 22
Replying to @mtaibbi and @ZaidJilani
We're in a war. You joined the Right. Others joined the Left. Don't ask others to abide by principles when you abandoned yours. We're all enemies now. At least be honest about it.
Hmmm...so it's a war, eh? This is not an uncommon sentiment coming from the pseudo-left these days. I do wonder if these people are high. Do they think an actual war can be won with pithy tweets and hysterical outrage? Maybe someone should remind them which side has the armaments.
Then again watching folk like this:
https://twitter.com/VishBurra/status/1485292670939500546
running face first into cold hard reality will be awfully amusing.
First comment: "that's someone's ex right there ....."
HeHe
You have to admit that the bouncy delivery shows commitment.
It's not nice to make fun of people with mental problems - so I am told by Mrs. Pump-a-loaf.
Otherwise, I'd call her a spaz-tard.
Holy shit. There's more. https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1485428130080722944?cxt=HHwWgMCsjfTApp0pAAAA
And the concern shown for her cats, who are probably waiting in the van
I do enjoy the fact that she thinks the anti-mandate rally is a Trump rally. Completely oblivious to the fact that the "white supremacist rally" has some black folk sprinkled in.
That's why I think I found her mom & some of her mom's friends here:
https://twitter.com/cliftonaduncan/status/1485696214419095559?cxt=HHwWjoC-iby1oJ4pAAAA
They attack an unmasked black guy in an elevator, hitting him with their phones & chanting "black lives matter."
To say that it's both surreal & unhinged does not do it justice.
Lol, right?
Hope these kids are wearing diapers.
I don't know. People who tantrum that hard might need to feel the run off in their shoes before reality fully sets in.
What is it with my fellow pampered Americans and their crackpot zeal for war?
At the risk of sounding like a pearl clutcher, too many movies and video games.
Man cannot live on Call of Duty, alone. You gotta throw in some Spec Ops: The Line once in a while.
No doubt.
If I didn't live here the fact that this guy;
https://twitter.com/thecoastguy/status/1484221102960295938?cxt=HHwWhICyodfOgZkpAAAA
will be the one leading the charge would be a lot funnier.
Actually it's still pretty funny.
But still, what the fuck are they thinking?
The liberal response to this is quite amusing.
George Takei on 6/1/20 said, "The erosion of our cherished press freedoms, through constant attack on the media by Trump, is directly to blame for this. His rhetoric puts our brave news reporters lives at risk. Stand up for them. We need their truth.
Yet on 1/24/22 Ensign Sulu said this, "My only critique of Joe Biden calling Peter Doocy a stupid son of a bitch over a hot mic was that he didn't do it sooner."
Once again the gander had no interest in enforcing the same rules it insists that the goose must follow.
There's more at: https://twitter.com/DefiantLs
/\ the lunatic above is a degenerate maniac in the clutches of an ether binge. I myself am currently wired with a combination of benzadrine and mescaline, and I am here today to share the good news. FRIENDS: There is truly a light at the end of this chaotic lower intestine we sometimes call a political system. I call it that myself, on the toilet, with one of those magazines that folds out in the middle my God Nancy- you truly have the breast intentions of any- as I was saying- FRIENDS: Every year you are lied to by some idiot wearing a suit about this country- why not be lied to by some idiot wearing a boot? VERMIN SUPREME FOR PRESIDENT! ladies and gentlemen-otherkin and alternatively binaried individualities- alien visitors and predatory algorithms- after all, there's a Democrat in office, so all of you can probably fuking vote, after all- VERMIN SUPREME has promised a PONY, yes, thats right a PONY, to ride, stable, or consume, for every Man, Woman and Child, in the United States of America. My fellow Americans, let me ask you this today.... you've doubtlessly wasted your votes in every election prior to this one. Why not waste it one More time?
VS 2024
Libertarians seem to get even more shit than the greens, but they are a lot of fun. These comment sections don't really even get started until you guys show up.
Minor note: Ralph Northam was not ousted. He didn't run for re-election because the Constitution of Virginia doesn't permit governors to run for consecutive terms.
He was ousted by foresight.
I read that as “ousted by foreskin.”
I do not regret the error.
Doh. Repub Gov, Republican Lt Gov, Republican AG. No likelihood of fascist Dems restricting gun rights. Cities with bad laws? Why bother protesting. It won’t matter.
Dontcha get it, Taibbi?
Very granular and did not feature just the easily discounted wack jobs. Advocates always define any issue by the worst reps of any take they oppose. I admired Taibbi’s real journalism re the VA governor race and how the educational issues in the burbs defined it. His story was a 180 from the MSM Lib media racial takes and showed how Fox also missed the boat. Maybe It is not that hard to look for real answers and find the real deal if you start without a preconceived opinion. He has some I am sure but not on thus topic.
Most Gun owners do not know it but if you use marijuana in a state where it is legal for recreational use or medical use, you are committing a Federal crime.
I don't know if authorities can say you are a marijuana user with a urine test and take your fire arms. THE ATF COULD HAVE A FIELD DAY, If they wanted to get rid of White Extremists they could use this tactic, as long as marijuana is illegal to use federally.
That's why anyone reflexing at gun regulation should also find the marijuana rule a grotesque infringement of their 2A right, not to mention numerous other aspects of civil liberty in general.
Correct. Marijuana is a loose end that no-one cares to unravel. The silly Gun Control people should be against marijuana federal legalization to entrap all the gun people. That goes for opiates, and other drugs. I'm sure many "legal" gun owners are users of something. What is stopping the Feds from checking who owns a gun to show up at your door and take a urine test?