Guns, Terrorists, And The Constitution
As I write this, there is a filibuster currently going on in the Senate. Senator Chris Murphy and other Democrats launched this filibuster to draw attention to the fact that suspected terrorists in America can still legally buy guns. Murphy represents Connecticut, where the Newtown massacre happened, and thus he feels very strongly about the issue of gun control.
Republicans, at least as of this writing, seem more willing to compromise on the issue than they've ever been before. Bills with a similar objective have been rejected by a (mostly) party-line vote in the very recent past, in fact. But the outrage over what happened in Orlando is tangible, and the GOP seems to actually realize it this time. Even Donald Trump says he's about to meet with the National Rifle Association in an effort to convince them to support banning suspected terrorists from legally buying guns. This is a significant shift from the party that has been refusing to do just that for the past few years.
But I have to say, while all this seems laudable at first glance, the underlying (and bipartisan) disdain for the United States Constitution is extremely worrisome. Just to be clear, I'm not talking about the Second Amendment here, but rather the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Here are the relevant clauses: "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...." (Fifth Amendment); and "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...." (Fourteenth Amendment).
It's always a little tricky to oppose such popular legislation, and that is even more true when the idea comes from your side of the political spectrum. But I have to say I am with the American Civil Liberties Union on this one. From an article written just this past December, the A.C.L.U.'s director of their National Security Project wrote:
Last night, in response to last week's tragic attack in San Bernardino, California, President Obama urged Congress to ensure that people on the No Fly List be prohibited from purchasing guns. Last week, Republicans in Congress defeated a proposal that would have done just that. "I think it's very important to remember people have due process rights in this country, and we can't have some government official just arbitrarily put them on a list," House Speaker Paul Ryan said.
There is no constitutional bar to reasonable regulation of guns, and the No Fly List could serve as one tool for it, but only with major reform.
I'd go one step further, personally. If we're going to have a No-Fly List and a Terrorist Watch List to provide security for American citizens, then we need to codify such programs by passing a constitutional amendment which clearly spells out the limits and scope of such programs. To me, there is simply no other constitutional way to achieve this goal.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing that such pre-emptive security measures are inherently a bad thing. And I'm certainly not arguing that suspected terrorists should be able to easily acquire high-powered weapons. I'm not "pro-terrorist" in any way, shape, or form. Just to be clear.
But I am arguing that what we've got now is blatantly unconstitutional. And it appears nobody else is even willing to make such an argument, at the moment. Republican Senator Pat Toomey, who is trying to forge a compromise between the two parties on the issue, stated his concerns today:
What we need is a process that would block terrorists from being able to purchase a firearm and at the same time, make sure there's a mechanism whereby someone who gets wrongly put on a list has a chance to clear their name and you know, get their Second Amendment right.
He falls short of questioning the constitutionality of such lists in the first place, but rightly points out that the due process to get taken off the lists is currently woefully inadequate. Even the National Rifle Association seems to now be singing the same tune:
The N.R.A.'s position on this issue has not changed. The N.R.A. believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period. Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the F.B.I. and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing.... At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed.
Both of these statements fail to make the truly constitutional argument about the concept of the lists themselves. Which is a shame, because it's almost impossible to argue for their constitutionality.
There are many of these blacklists that the government now keeps. The two most often referenced in the debate are the No-Fly List and the Terrorist Watch List. Both are incredibly secretive in nature, making even knowing how many people are on the lists almost impossible to determine. The most recent numbers I could find showed that there were 47,000 people on the No-Fly List as of 2013, and 800,000 people on the Terrorist Watch List as of 2014. But it's really anyone's guess how extensive either list is, due to the secrecy surrounding who is on these lists.
The criteria for inclusion on the lists is also secret. Few people have any idea they're on the list until they attempt to fly on a plane, for the most part. Mistakes abound. Just on the smaller No-Fly List, the number of prominent people who have been mistakenly listed is a long one, and includes members of the U.S. Congress itself (the most famous being Edward Kennedy, who was apparently matched up with the vague "T. Kennedy" even though his legal name was not Ted or Teddy). And that's only the shorter of the two blacklists.
The A.C.L.U. is challenging the No-Fly List in court. From the same article:
Separately, the government made two basic arguments in its defense of the No Fly List, both of which the court rejected. First, it argued that U.S. persons had no constitutionally protected right to fly. In August 2013, the court disagreed, holding that constitutional rights are at stake when the government stigmatizes Americans as suspected terrorists and bans them from international travel.
Second, the government asserted that national security concerns meant the government couldn't confirm or deny whether people were on the No Fly List, and it couldn't give them reasons or a hearing before a neutral decision-maker. This is absurd as a practical matter and violates due process as a constitutional matter. Practically speaking, people know they are on the No Fly List when they are banned from flying and surrounded -- and stigmatized -- by security officials publicly at airports. Some of our clients were told they would be taken off the list if they agreed to become government informants. Again, the court agreed with us and held that the government's refusal to provide any notice or a hearing violates the Constitution. As a result, the government announced in April that it would tell U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents whether they are on the No Fly List, and possibly offer reasons.
Unfortunately, the government's new redress process still falls far short of constitutional requirements. In our case, it refuses to provide meaningful notice of the reasons our clients are blacklisted, the basis for those reasons, and a hearing before a neutral decision-maker. Much as before, our clients are left to guess at the government's case and can't clear their names. That’s unconstitutional.
Now, the Founding Fathers didn't explicitly list the right to fly anywhere in the Constitution. Airplanes wouldn't exist for over a century, when the document was written. But the right to freely travel on public conveyances is definitely covered by the word "liberty" in the due process clause. Banning a citizen from flying is restricting their liberty. Period. And that is only supposed to happen after due process of law has been followed.
The No-Fly List and the Terrorist Watch List turn the legal concept of "innocent until proven guilty" on its head. The government -- without any legal due process whatsoever -- puts people on the lists merely because it suspects them of wrongdoing or evil intent, and then it is up to them to try convincing the government to remove their names. That is constitutionally topsy-turvy, which is why it's disappointing that even conservative Republicans and the N.R.A. refuse to make this case (where are all the Libertarians when you need one?).
Blacklisting people from flying is one thing, but blacklisting people from buying a gun is another, because of the Second Amendment. The courts have declared that individuals have the constitutional right to own and purchase guns. So taking that right away becomes even more problematic, legally speaking. There are several classes of people who are banned from owning or purchasing guns already, but each has some form of legal process that has to happen before such a ban takes place. Violent felons are restricted from owning guns, but they are already felons -- in other words, they were previously convicted of a felony in a court of law. The gun ban is part of their punishment. People with mental problems usually have some sort of competency hearing in court, or at least their lawyers can press for one if they are involuntarily deemed a risk by a doctor. Dangerous threats (such as stalkers or domestic abusers) are dealt with by restraining orders -- issued by a judge.
But no one included on the blacklists has had any such legal proceeding. The government makes a determination that you are too dangerous to fly, and bingo, you're on the list. You are not even informed of this decision by the government, and they certainly don't have to present evidence for why you should be blacklisted to any judge (much less give you the opportunity to rebut their evidence). Until the government was challenged in court (and embarrassed by Teddy Kennedy in public), there wasn't even a process for being able to prove you were mistakenly included at all. And currently, this process is completely inadequate (which is why the A.C.L.U. is still fighting it in court).
The entire concept of governmental blacklists is completely unconstitutional. But, as people back to Abraham Lincoln have pointed out, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. This feeling is often invoked in a time of war, when the government sees fit to curtail certain rights. But we are currently in what can only be called a generations-long conflict. The other side does not wear uniforms or follow the Geneva Conventions. Therefore the government might need to take measures in the name of national security. Rational people would all agree, most likely.
Such measures have already curtailed the freedom of movement for some citizens, who are not allowed to board a commercial airline. What is now being discussed (with a filibuster to draw the nation's attention) goes even further and would deny citizens one of the rights explicitly spelled out in the Bill of Rights itself. This all might be a necessary and commonsense reaction to the very real threat of terrorists having access to military-style weapons.
Fortunately for us all, there is a remedy to reconcile the passion some are now feeling on the issue with our founding document. It's spelled out in the Constitution itself, in fact. What is absolutely necessary for the continuation of such blacklists as the No-Fly List and the Terrorist Watch List -- and for any expansion of them to ban gun sales -- is that a constitutional amendment be drafted to grant the government what would otherwise be an unconstitutional power. The usual argument against a constitutional amendment probably wouldn't apply, because due to public outrage it would probably be pretty easy to get both Congress and the state legislatures to quickly ratify such an amendment. Due process would be included to get folks like the N.R.A. (and the A.C.L.U.) on board. It would achieve the Democratic goal of stopping terrorists from easy access to weapons. Constitutional amendments are -- by design -- hard to pass, and we haven't seen one succeed in two decades. But "it's too hard" or "we just don't do that anymore" are not valid excuses for attempting to pass some legislative shortcut that will eventually (almost inevitably) be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
If America does have a consensus that we're all basically OK with the concept of governmental blacklists, and that we further approve of curtailing constitutional rights for people on such lists, then it should be relatively easy to get the necessary votes in Congress and the statehouses. And then, once enshrined in the Constitution itself, there would be no further questions of the legality of such blacklists. If it's in the text of the Constitution (as an amendment) then it is, by definition, constitutional.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Wouldn't the "constitutionality" of the the question depend on exactly what is being proposed? This argument seems to be conflating No-fly lists with what, exactly? With banning of certain types of weapons altogether? With background checks? With registering of all weapons? Licensing? Etc.
We don't allow people who can't pass driving tests to get their licences -- my elderly Mom, as an example. How would that be different from not allowing mentally unstable people from buying guns?
Isn't there a difference between taking property someone already has and keeping people from getting their hands on certain things in the first place?
I was having this exact conversation earlier with a friend who was upset that the coward was able to purchase a gun even after the FBI had questioned him about possible terrorist ties. I could not make him see that just because the FBI talked to him, that doesn't mean he had done anything wrong that should have prevented him from being able to purchase a gun. Just because a person is suspected of a crime does not mean that they committed a crime. We allowed the fear and pain of 9/11 to blind us from seeing how unconstitutional our government's response to terrorism has been; or worse, it caused us not to care if our actions were unconstitutional as long as we believed someone was being punished who deserved it!
Re: my first comment -- I see what I missed. You are specifically addressing the idea of prohibiting suspected terrorists in the U.S. (Citizens) from being able to buy guns, right?
Long day.
Anyway, I think that would be rendered moot if we enacted the kinds of across-tnhe-board gun control measures that are needed.
Cheese and crackers got all muddy, Congress banned assault weapons once before, why not reinstate the ban on the manufacture or transfer of semi-automatic weapons, and tax the living bejesus out any existing weapons.
Teacher1941 -
Dianne Feinstein learned back in the 1990s that an "assault weapons ban" was easier to give a speech about than legislate. What is an "assault weapon"? That (shaky) definition weakened the ban, and led to it being sunsetted out and not reinstituted.
For the gun control folks, it should be a simple "semi-automatic rifle" ban, because anything short of that is going to be open to interpretation... as DiFi's ban was. It's either all or nothing, in other words...
-CW
Side note:
I have to say, I'm really happy comments seem to be working just fine again...
:-)
-CW
Very good commentary, CW...
I really don't have a constitutional problem with the No Fly list..
The Constitution guarantees freedom of travel.. Air travel is a privilege and the airlines (and government) should be able to adopt the age old business mantra WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON..
No one is curtailing anyone's freedom of travel. They are just curtailed from traveling in the most convenient way..
Again, I don't have a problem with that, constitutionally speaking..
I also don't have a problem with the Terrorist Watch. Having been involved in the field, I know a lot of facts that indicate a person's affiliation with terrorist groups cannot and will not ever see the light of a court room.. And, in this day and age, the old adage BETTER A THOUSAND GUILTY MEN GO FREE RATHER THAN ONE INNOCENT MAN BE DETAINED is no longer applicable when that "innocent" man can trigger an attack that will kill hundreds, thousands or even millions..
In this day and age, the NFL and the TWL are necessary evils...
Michale
Paula,
Anyway, I think that would be rendered moot if we enacted the kinds of across-tnhe-board gun control measures that are needed.
There are no laws that can be passed that are compatible with the 2nd Amendment.. If you want the kind of laws you want, then you are going to have to get rid of the 2nd Amendment..
Personally, I think the ONLY relevant litmus test of enacting a new law is, WILL IT PREVENT OR HELP PREVENT CROWD-BASED MASS SHOOTINGS OR TERRORIST ATTACKS
If any new proposed law fails this litmus test, it falls under the partisan category of a WOULDN'T IT BE NICE law and should be summarily dismissed..
Michale
Dianne Feinstein learned back in the 1990s that an "assault weapons ban" was easier to give a speech about than legislate. What is an "assault weapon"? That (shaky) definition weakened the ban, and led to it being sunsetted out and not reinstituted.
EXACTLY!!
There is no such thing as an "assault rifle". It's a media/Democrat construct to promote fear mongering... Nothing more..
In CQC instances, a Browning Hi-Power is INFINITELY more deadly than ANY rifle...
I said it before and I'll say it again ad nasuem..
The *ONLY* law that will have ANY effect on crowd-based mass shootings is a ban...
And, as long as the 2nd Amendment is in play, there will never be a ban..
Michale
I have to say, I'm really happy comments seem to be working just fine again...
:-)
You and me both!!! :D
Michale
Once again, I have the perfect solution... :D
Since gun ownership is as much of a constitutional right as voting... Mirror Gun Laws with Voting Laws...
If you have to provide medical records to buy a gun, you have to provide medical records to vote..
If you have to buy insurance to own a gun, you have to provide insurance to vote...
If you have to ID yourself six ways from Sunday to buy a gun, you have to ID yourself six ways from Sunday to vote..
Every hoop that an American has to go thru to own a gun, they must go thru the exact corresponding hoop to vote..
We'll see how bid the Left's appetite is for restrictive and onerous gun laws in THOSE circumstances, eh?? :D
I have solved the Israel/Palestinian issue AND the Gun issue...
DAMN, I am good!!! I'm a legend in my own mind!! :D
Michale
Personally, I think the ONLY relevant litmus test of enacting a new law is, WILL IT PREVENT OR HELP PREVENT CROWD-BASED MASS SHOOTINGS OR TERRORIST ATTACKS
This litmus test can apply to ANY new law under consideration..
"Will this law have a real-world tangible positive impact on the incident that precipitated proposal of this new law.."
If the answer is NO then the law should be summarily dismissed as a WOULDN'T IT BE NICE law and relegated to the dust heap of history...
Michale
All this hullabaloo is nothing more than a smokescreen to cover up this administration's total and complete incompetence in dealing with ISIS..
The GO SLOWLY approach that the Left seems to think is best doesn't take into account the HUNDREDS of thousands that have died in the region and the HUNDREDS that have died worldwide...
When innocent people are dying around the world by the hundreds, is the SLOW AND EASY approach the best way to go??
Michale
Terrorism is not a gun control issue..
How many guns did the 9/11 terrorists use??
How many guns did Timothy McVeigh use??
France has some of the most restrictive gun laws on the planet.
France suffered 2 horrific terrorist attacks last year...
Anyone who thinks that they can use gun control to solve or even ADDRESS terrorism??
Well, they are living in dreamland.. And I don't mean the fun DreamLand at Area 51..
Terrorism is nothing but the Left Wingery's latest paltry excuse in a series of paltry excuses to push an unpopular and unnecessary agenda that will do more harm than good...
Michale
I know, I know.. I shouldn't keep it all bottled up.. I should say what I REALLY feel... :D
In my defense, there are very few topics here in Weigantia that I am a complete expert on..
So, when one comes up.. Well, I just gotta shine.. :D
Michale
Another fact to keep in mind..
In the past 8 years, gun ownership has increased exponentially by the millions..
Yet gun violence is going down...
That would seem to utterly refute the claim that more guns out there mean more gun violence...
One could actually come to the opposite conclusion.. More guns in the hands of legal lawful Americans mean less gun violence..
An armed society is a polite society
-Robert Heinlein
Michale
Yet gun violence is going down...
causal fallacy - violent crime in general has been going down for decades. everything under the sun has been cited as a possible cause, including roe v wade - fewer unwanted births, fewer abandoned children grow up on the streets, fewer violent crimes. at least that explanation has a plausible rationale. more guns cause less gun violence? seems counter-intuitive at the least.
JL
For the gun control folks, it should be a simple "semi-automatic rifle" ban,
And THAT will never happen..
Michale
causal fallacy - violent crime in general has been going down for decades.
I disagree, but that's not my point..
The GCFs have used fear mongering to make their point.. Their claim that more legal guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans equals more gun violence???
THAT's the fallacy..
And the stats bear this out..
Now, you may argue that more guns does not equally less gun violence... And you might even have some stats to back it up..
But you simply CANNOT argue that the fear-mongering of the Left Wingery, the idea that more guns equals a Wild Wild West (Uh, wickey wild wild, Wicky wicky wild, Wickey wild, wicky wicky wild wild wild west) has NOT occurred.. That the Left's fear mongering is just that.. Baseless factless fear mongering..
THAT is my point...
Michale
seems counter-intuitive at the least.
It does SEEM that way..
And yet, we have Switzerland where practically EVERY ONE is armed and it's as peaceful as all get out..
And we have Israel where, if you discount the terrorist, gun violence is virtually unheard of, yet again, practically every Israeli is armed..
And then we look at places like Chicago and New York and California which have de-facto gun bans and they have TONS of gun violence...
What can one deduce from these facts???
One logical deduction we can come to is that guns, in and of themselves, are not the problem...
But hay.. If the Left wants to disarm Americans.... And THAT is the ultimate goal of the Left, don't kid yourself.... If the Left wants to disarm Americans, let's start with Obama's security detail.. Lead by example and all that....
Michale
http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2016/06/15/gun-shop-owner-ar-15s-flying-off-shelves-at-500-pop.html
The BEST salesman of guns in the HISTORY of the world..
Ladies and Gentlemen... I give you your Democrat Party.....
Michale
"practically every Israeli is armed.."
Bullshit! Roughly 1 in 16 Israeli civilians possess arms to carry at any given time. Regulations abound.
Most (Jewish) Israeli's are trained in the use of military firearms, because most Israeli, male Jews are subject to mandatory military service (and many Israel women choose to enter military service). Your weapon issued to you by the military, use is subject to military regulations, and your weapon(s) almost always goes back to the military when you leave active service. Exceptions include high ranking officers and special forces. I believe the limit for this elite is one automatic rifle each. Police are armed, of course.
Legal private ownership requires a permit, background check, medical check, some additional training and this process is repeated every 3 years. Forty percent of applicants are denied a permit. Ammunition supply is tightly limited. Hunters can get one shotgun, handguns are rarely approved. There is a national gun registry.
A well regulated militia. Sound familiar?
Bullshit! Roughly 1 in 16 Israeli civilians possess arms to carry at any given time. Regulations abound.
If yer gonna nit-pick, I'll rephrase..
Practically every Israeli who is of age, is armed..
Most (Jewish) Israeli's are trained in the use of military firearms, because most Israeli, male Jews are subject to mandatory military service (and many Israel women choose to enter military service). Your weapon issued to you by the military, use is subject to military regulations, and your weapon(s) almost always goes back to the military when you leave active service. Exceptions include high ranking officers and special forces. I believe the limit for this elite is one automatic rifle each. Police are armed, of course.
Which is what I said.. Exactly.
A well regulated militia. Sound familiar?
So, you are of the mind that, at the time of the writing of the US Constitution, if a man didn't want to be part of the militia, he could have to give up his guns??
Is THAT what you are saying???
Michale
and your weapon(s) almost always goes back to the military when you leave active service.
I missed this...
This is not accurate at all... When a person leaves active IDF service, they are automatically transferred to the Ready Reserve to be activated in times of national conflict.. Their loadouts are usually transferred to the IRR with them.. In rare cases, their loadouts are re-issued due to damage or being outdated...
Now, I will admit is that this is how it was back when I trained with the IDF.. That was 20-30 some odd years ago...
Things might have changed since then...
But the fact is, beyond terrorism, there is not much gun violence in Israel.. And guns are plentiful....
Guns, in and of themselves, are NOT the problem..
When there comes a time that a gun, of it's own volition, walks into a crowd and makes a conscious and sentient decision to shoot people....
Then... and ONLY then... will you have a case to make that guns are the problem..
Michale
Back to the topic of Guns Terrorists and the Constitution.
Besides the rather blatant Constitutional Issues, you have to ask whether the no fly list is really worth the bother? Fair warning, I do not ascribe to "if just one life is saved" logic. Only melon heads don't consider costs vs benefits. Death is part of the business of life. We cannot avoid trade offs, risk of death vs quality of life.
Airline travel is extremely safe, including acts of terrorism, and this was so long before the No Fly List. The actual trend, terrorism included, is down, not up. Driving by car is orders of magnitude more lethal, and accepted. This has been true for decades.
People on the no fly list can still travel easily enough within the United States, it just takes longer. Why isn't there a no drive list? For would be terrorists traveling less than 500 miles, travel by car takes about the same time when you include commuting to the airport and check in. How far does the average terrorist have to travel within the US?
The only reasonable justification for singling out air travel, that I can see, is the possibility of a repeat of 911 style "airliner as missile." That gambit would be hard to play again, and the list doesn't end the gambit, a terrorist group just uses squeaky clean operatives.
In my opinion, the No Fly List is the Government's equivalent of "The boss is coming, look busy." The boss in this case is We The People, and sometimes the boss is WAY too easy to fool. Our Constitution ought to mean something, and not be amended for trivial purposes, especially when those purposes are to satisfy public delusions by politicians all too eager to pander.
TS
Re #25
Can't argue the logic...
Michale
nonetheless, both israel and switzerland have enacted fairly strict laws to monitor gun ownership and make sure weapons don't end up in the wrong hands. the NRA would balk at some of the requirements; both countries have a full-service militia system where all able-bodied men are required to serve (or complete alternative civil service if they conscientiously object to military service).
hence, the high gun ownership is largely due to universal conscription. if we want high gun safety, maybe military service should be mandatory for all gun owners.
JL
I posted this on the last article, but it is more relevant here. (Michale - I don't read your posts, so no need to repeat just for me).
Another benefit of a registry will be to open the door to gun insurance, similar to car insurance. Thus if a gun is used in a crime the registered owner will be financially responsible for the damage. The need to get insurance will quickly (thanks to capitalism) result in different levels of insurance for different classes of gun and gun owner (just like a 17-year-old Ferrari owner will pay more than a 50-year-old Camry owner). Somebody who is willing to install and use a gun safe will have a lower rate. Somebody who has one gun will have lower insurance than somebody with a small arsenal, and the insurance companies will flag, and refuse to insure, somebody who is quickly building an arsenal, especially if they have restraining orders etc. against them.
The free market approach is perfectly constitutional since nobody will be refused the right to own a gun, only the need to qualify for insurance for the gun.
Objections will include:
1. Poor people will not be able to afford the insurance - rebuttal: a low cost gun plus insurance will cost little more than they are already paying
2. If guns are registered then the Government will be able to confiscate guns and overturn the constitution - rebuttal: apart from being extremely paranoid, this argument fails the common sense test - the Government has a military who pledge to uphold the constitution (despite that Trump thinks it will be his own personal security service), and even if the military did go rogue, they have tanks, Apache Gunships, etc., so even the heaviest armed gun nut would last five minutes.
3. Who will pay for the registry - rebuttal: a small ammunition tax would easily cover the costs
4. "shall not be infringed" - rebuttal: we already have gun control laws - no fully automatic weapons, felons, etc.
Joshua,
hence, the high gun ownership is largely due to universal conscription.
But the point is, there *IS* "high gun ownership".... It doesn't matter *WHY* there is high gun ownership... There *IS* high gun ownership.
And those countries are as peaceful as can be.. With the caveat of Israel vis a vis terrorism...
So, the Left's idea that high gun ownership = massive gun violence is nothing more than a fear-mongering fallacy, unsupported by ANY factual data...
Michale
I posted this on the last article, but it is more relevant here. (Michale - I don't read your posts, so no need to repeat just for me).
Yer loss.. :D
So much for your claim that you are not easily offended.. :D
Gun insurance won't prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings... And they certainly won't prevent terrorist attacks..
As such, the idea is useless for it's alleged intended purpose..
It's just another backdoor way that the Hysterical Left Wingery can make gun ownership more onerous..
But hay... I'm game..
You want people to get insurance before they buy guns?? Fine...
Then people need to get insurance before they can vote...
What's good for one Constitutionally mandated right is good for the other...
Michale
rebuttal: we already have gun control laws
Then be happy with what you have and leave law-abiding Americans alone...
Any gun restriction that CAN past 2nd Amendment muster HAS already been enacted...
Michale
Jo Cox dead: Latest updates after Labour MP is fatally stabbed and gunned down outside Birstall library
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-cox-dead-live-updates-8207676
But... But.... But.... The UK has a GUN BAN!!!
How can there be ANY gun violence in the UK!!????
Guns aren't the problem, Weigantians...
Violent PEOPLE are the problem....
Michale
The Stig Wrote:
"People on the no fly list can still travel easily enough within the United States, it just takes longer. Why isn't there a no drive list?"
I used to work in the airline industry handling cargo. The rationale behind the no fly list has nothing to do with domestic airline travel at all. It has to do with possible terrorists entering and leaving the country, traveling back and forth to the USA internationally, for access to the USA in the first place, for overseas training and radicalization purposes, etc. It has nothing to do with traveling once you are already here in the USA. That restriction on domestic travel seems to be an oversight in terms of collateral unintended fallout.
Michale wrote:
"But the point is, there *IS* "high gun ownership".... It doesn't matter *WHY* there is high gun ownership... There *IS* high gun ownership."
But actually what DOES matter, in the cases of Switzerland and Israel, is that along WITH the high gun ownership, is a huge amount of regulation AND mandatory required periodic training along with some sort of testing or licensing requirement, things we don't currently have here in the USA that I am aware of and which you fail to mention.
To put it another way, would I like to see it made a requirement that every single voter have to complete some sort of civics education class periodically, so that we don't have any ignorant or uninformed voters like we do now? You bet! But at the same time, I would not make failure to complete such a course a permanent bar to voting either. If felons can get their right to vote restored, as they in fact should be able to, then so should ignorant voters as well. oh, and by the way, it has to be free education for all. Perhaps an educational pamphlet and mail in form, like the census, provided by your local Supervisor of Elections office, like they do with sample ballots now.
Michale wrote:
"Gun insurance won't prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings... And they certainly won't prevent terrorist attacks.."
However, gun insurance probably would have a huge impact on things like accidental shootings, domestic abuse, crimes of passion and certain types of murder.
Michale wrote:
"You want people to get insurance before they buy guns?? Fine...
Then people need to get insurance before they can vote...
What's good for one Constitutionally mandated right is good for the other..."
Except people generally don't kill other people through or by the ballot box. :-D However, I can still refer you to my response above about the requirement of some sort of civics education for voting.
"However, gun insurance probably would have a huge impact on things like accidental shootings, domestic abuse, crimes of passion and certain types of murder."
Plus the insurance industry would get a lot of statistical information that would allow them to start to identify black swans such as mass shootings before they occur, especially as they would be on the hook for eight or nine figure payouts after an incident like Sandy Hook or Orlando.
"Someone raised outside the United States will find this baffling. In many cases, someone raised outside the American South will struggle to follow this logic. Nothing in the regularly deployed arguments on gun rights explains a passion for unrestrained gun ownership worth the annual loss of thirty thousand lives, or the depth of fear inspired by the most modest suggestion of accountability. What leads an otherwise sane, competent, educated adult to the conclusion that their unrestricted access to guns is all that protects them from slavery?"
Answer: https://goplifer.com/2016/06/15/dark-matter-skews-the-gun-control-equation/
"Someone raised outside the United States will find this baffling. In many cases, someone raised outside the American South will struggle to follow this logic. Nothing in the regularly deployed arguments on gun rights explains a passion for unrestrained gun ownership worth the annual loss of thirty thousand lives, or the depth of fear inspired by the most modest suggestion of accountability. What leads an otherwise sane, competent, educated adult to the conclusion that their unrestricted access to guns is all that protects them from slavery?"
I was raised in Southern California..
And there is no logic to your comment..
More people are killed with cars than with guns..
Using your reasoning, cars should be banned..
JM, I'll get to your comments in a moment.. Neil's were the easiest to refute..
Michale
Toddlers on a rampage - 10 days in April that are just like every other 10 days in the USA thanks to the NRA and their minions:
On April 20, a 2-year-old boy in Indiana found the gun his mother left in her purse on the kitchen counter and fatally shot himself.
The next day in Kansas City, Mo., a 1-year-old girl evidently shot and killed herself with her father's gun while he was sleeping.
On April 22, a 3-year-old in Natchitoches, La., fatally shot himself after getting hold of a gun.
On April 26, a 3-year-old boy in Dallas, Ga., fatally shot himself in the chest with a gun he found at home.
On April 27, a Milwaukee toddler fatally shot his mother in the car.
That same day, a 3-year-old boy in Grout Township, Mich., shot himself in the arm with a gun he found at home. He is expected to survive.
On April 29, a 3-year-old girl shot herself in the arm after grabbing a gun in a parked car in Augusta, Ga. She is also expected to survive.
Except for this one... :D
Except people generally don't kill other people through or by the ballot box. :-D
Really?? The Left has accused Bush of being a war criminal and causing untold MILLIONS of innocent people to die in his "war mongering"...
Surely the people who voted Bush into office share culpability..
At least, according to the Hysterical Left Wingery....
Michale
Toddlers on a rampage - 10 days in April that are just like every other 10 days in the USA thanks to the NRA and their minions:
On April 20, a 2-year-old boy in Indiana found the gun his mother left in her purse on the kitchen counter and fatally shot himself.
The next day in Kansas City, Mo., a 1-year-old girl evidently shot and killed herself with her father's gun while he was sleeping.
On April 22, a 3-year-old in Natchitoches, La., fatally shot himself after getting hold of a gun.
On April 26, a 3-year-old boy in Dallas, Ga., fatally shot himself in the chest with a gun he found at home.
On April 27, a Milwaukee toddler fatally shot his mother in the car.
That same day, a 3-year-old boy in Grout Township, Mich., shot himself in the arm with a gun he found at home. He is expected to survive.
On April 29, a 3-year-old girl shot herself in the arm after grabbing a gun in a parked car in Augusta, Ga. She is also expected to survive.
I'll see these few anecdotes and raise you the hundreds and THOUSANDs of time that a person carrying saved innocent lives...
Yours is a hysterical and emotional argument that has no basis in logical or rational thinking...
Michale
Or I could list all the babies and children that are killed by cars on a daily basis to support a BAN THE CARS argument..
Or how about the little toddler that was attacked and killed by an alligator... BAN THE ALLIGATORS..
You are using a hysterical emotional argument that absolutely NO RELEVANCE to the issue at hand..
Michale
M-24
Israeli soldiers on active service take their rifle home on leave if that is their principle combat weapon. When not carried, the weapon and ammo must be secured under locks and keys.
Most (older) reservists are not in active service, and are only rarely called up. Most reservists must apply for a permit to own a firearm, if granted the usual result in "one gun, 50 rounds." It's easier to get the license if you belong to a gun club.
In general, The State of Israel issues weapons to citizens on the basis of ethnicity, military experience, job description, and primary place of residence. Screening is diligent, and most civilians don't qualify. The rules are frequently fine tuned to meet changing threat levels.
Well regulated militia. Up to 10 years in prison if you violate the regulations.
TS,
As I pointed out to Joshua, it doesn't matter HOW the majority of Israelis are armed..
The point is, they ARE armed...
And, with the exception of the terrorism, criminal gun violence is virtually non-existent..
But, if it makes you feel better, we can disregard the Israeli facts and use the Switzerland example instead..
Makes me no never mind... :D
Well regulated militia.
So, you are saying that, at the time the US Constitution was written, if a man didn't want to be part of a militia, he had to forfeit his guns??
What facts do you base that on??
Michale
Michale
Toddlers on a rampage - 10 days in April that are just like every other 10 days in the USA thanks to the NRA and their minions:
So, we are in complete agreement..
NO LAWS suggested by the Democrat Party will prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings or terrorist attacks..
I am glad we have that on record...
As I said.. The goal of the Hysterical Left Wingery is to disarm law-abiding American citizens...
In violation of the 2nd Amendment..
Michale
As I pointed out to Joshua, it doesn't matter HOW the majority of Israelis are armed..
that's what you wrote. but you have yet to state anything that might make that assertion valid. the whole point that makes guns safe in both israel and switzerland is that they are heavily regulated. anyone who has one has passed all the tests and checks, has had to prove they are competent in safety and care, and that they are not mentally unfit.
since most israeli and swiss gun owners are in the military, their training is almost universally extensive and highly competent. what do we have? any yahoo who has never learned about, owned, fired or cared for a gun in his life can walk into a gun shop, pass a cursory background check and start shootin' - we respect our right to own a weapon but not our responsibility to take the proper care with it.
that's what you wrote. but you have yet to state anything that might make that assertion valid. the whole point that makes guns safe in both israel and switzerland is that they are heavily regulated. anyone who has one has passed all the tests and checks, has had to prove they are competent in safety and care, and that they are not mentally unfit.
Just as Americans pass all checks and tests and training....
I fail to see any difference...
any yahoo who has never learned about, owned, fired or cared for a gun in his life can walk into a gun shop, pass a cursory background check and start shootin' -
Simply not accurate..
The "cursory" background check is a very detailed check DESIGNED and IMPLEMENTED by Democrats..
So, NOW you are saying it's insufficient??
And there are anywhere from 4 to 16 hour mandated training and classroom instruction..
You have your background checks and you have your training requirement..
But you want more..
Because the ULTIMATE goal is to make sure Americans cannot be armed...
Paula here is a perfect example of the quintessential Democrat... She wants Americans disarmed...
Michale
- we respect our right to own a weapon but not our responsibility to take the proper care with it.
Fine.. Then come up with a law that will prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings or terrorist attacks..
If you want general WOULDN'T IT BE NICE Anti-Gun laws, then bring them up when there ISN'T a crowd-based mass shooting or terrorist attack...
Either or....
Michale
Fine.. Then come up with a law that will prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings or terrorist attacks..
If you want general WOULDN'T IT BE NICE Anti-Gun laws, then bring them up when there ISN'T a crowd-based mass shooting or terrorist attack...
Either or....
Or admit to the American people..
"We know that these laws won't prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings and we know that these laws won't prevent terrorist attacks.. But, gosh darnit, these laws are Peachy Keen Wonderful laws and they MIGHT, there is a very slim chance that they MIGHT prevent an accidental shooting or two over the next 50 years.... So, com'on!!! Wouldn't it be nice!!"
If the Hysterical Left Wingery wants to be HONEST, then that's what needs to be said...
Michale
Just time for a quick aside....
I applying ones voting criterion to gun regulation mumbo jumbo....I thoroughly support regulation requiring that ANY citizen who wants to own a high capacity semi-automatic weapon undergo the training and evaluations required for a CCW permit and that many of disqualifiers from holding a permit also apply to owning a semi-automatic weapon.
If CCW permits are acceptable forms of Voter ID, then most certainly we can apply some common sense training and screening requirements to large capacity semi-automatic weapons.
Again not my criterieon...just the one I have to work with if I derived the point correctly from the 26 comments ....
Now to be clear, I think that given the sheer number of guns already out on the street and the governments inability to keep information secure, it's propensity for corruption, and the fact you never know when someone will want to be in power longer than they should a gun registry will not stop or reduce gun crimes, and to some extent will harm ultimately the law abiding citizen. If one gives pause to implementation of a registy, it will be virtually impossible to get an acceptable compliance rate as it is highly doubtful that "Joey the F-ing Neighborhood meth dealer (real name, not changed to protect anyone) is going to go on down and register his "enforcer", then you will have people like me that have weapons that do not conform with state of California law (mostly because of said Joey and a corrupt police department) that really find it unfair that criminals get to posses whatever weapon they want while a law abiding citizen does not...and thus would have it taken away and would also go to jail, I might add for a longer time than "joey".
If you want to curtail mass shootings you have to do it in the purchase phase by requiring training, screening and permitting to purchase, with a renewal requirement for you to retain holding the permit and weapon. Said permit would also be required to purchase ammo for said weapons. Just as one has to do for a CCW (which I have and find it to be a PITA to renew...).
I think it's a pretty fair idea I am proposing. Just as the 100 year old lady trying to register to vote but doesn't have the documentation because she was born in her home in the back woods, never received a SSN, and has a drivers license that is expired for 30 years that she can no longer find a copy of, can't vote because she can't get the ID.
The closeted Gay Muslim lone wolf who has had several cases of domestic violence, a history of making conflicting terrorism claims and was unstable at best, would never have been allowed to purchase the gun if he had to go through the same criterion as a CCW holder.
The closeted Gay Muslim lone wolf.....
...DEMOCRAT.... Closeted gay muslim lone wolf DEMOCRAT.... :D
You DO realize that the vast majority of guns purchased ARE "semi-automatic" guns, right??
Such a requirement emphasis on semi-automatic guns would in effect, bring the regulatory abilities to a stand still and then NO ONE would be allowed to purchase guns..
But, then again, that's the exact point, right???
And, as I said above, in a CQC situation, a semi-automatic pistol is infinitely more lethal than an... "assault rifle".... :^/
Michale
Regardless of my trademarks sarcasm and arrogance, GT...
Kudos on your comment.. At least you are putting some thought into things and not just knee-jerking the standard, "OH MY GODS, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!" Democrat response...
Like I said above.. If the Left Wingery wants to make a case for these Wouldn't It Be Nice laws..
Make it when emotions aren't so high... Make the case when the case can stand on it's own merits..
If there are no merits for the case to stand on?? Well, that should tell the Left Wingery something..
Michale
And, as I said above, in a CQC situation, a semi-automatic pistol is infinitely more lethal than an... "assault rifle".... :^/
Even a revolver in the hands of a semi-trained person is more lethal than an "assault rifle"...
Just to set the scene, whenever I type the words "assault rifle" I roll my eyes.. :^/
Michale
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/16/doj-overrules-fbi-gun-sales-debate/
Looks like the DOJ said SCROO THE CONSTITUTION!!!
"Constitutional protections are for me, but not for thee"
-The Democrat Party
Michale
Michael said:
Surely the people who voted Bush into office share culpability..
At least, according to the Hysterical Left Wingery....
Nope! Why is it that every time you accuse the entire Left Wingery of taking a specific stance on a subject, you seem to be the only person who has heard anyone making those statements? No one is taking the position that you want us to defend, but we are somehow hypocrites for not calling ourselves our for saying something that none of us said!
We're one batshit crazy cancervative justice away from the Supremes declaring that shooting somebody is protected speech. Orange Julius has Ted Nugent on his short list. Argle-bargle!
Nope! Why is it that every time you accuse the entire Left Wingery of taking a specific stance on a subject, you seem to be the only person who has heard anyone making those statements?
DO you HONESTLY believe I can't find a multitude of Left Wingers complaining about the idiot Americans who voted for Bush?? :D
No one is taking the position that you want us to defend, but we are somehow hypocrites for not calling ourselves our for saying something that none of us said!
None of you PERSONALLY said it. At least, not here.. But I am certain that many here thought it..
Just as I am certain there are hundreds, if not thousands, if not MILLIONS of Left Wingers who articulated that very thought...
I'll find examples if you really REALLY want me to...
But, if I do, will you concede the point??
Because if I find the examples and you still won't concede the point, why should I waste my time finding examples that I KNOW are out there???
Michale
But I'll be happy to take a poll... :D
Who here feels that the voters who voted Bush into office have SOME responsibility for the massive frak-ups that the Left claims Bush made...
"Anyone?? Anyone?? Buehler???"
:D
Michale
We're one batshit crazy cancervative justice away from the Supremes declaring that shooting somebody is protected speech. Orange Julius has Ted Nugent on his short list. Argle-bargle!
As opposed to Hussein Obama who is BFF with Omar Masteen..
Well, he WAS....
Michale
Really?? The Left has accused Bush of being a war criminal and causing untold MILLIONS of innocent people to die in his "war mongering"...
Surely the people who voted Bush into office share culpability..
At least, according to the Hysterical Left Wingery....
This was what I commented on. Your reply:
None of you PERSONALLY said it. At least, not here.. But I am certain that many here thought it..
THANK YOU!!! Thank you for acknowledging that no one here has made such a claim. And I don't want to know how you could possibly prove that anyone here has actually thought those thoughts. Somethings are better left unsaid. ;D
Complaining about those that voted for Bush is NOT the same as claiming that those that voted for Bush should be held culpable for any war crime he might have committed! I am not going to defend a position that I never took, so finding a quote of someone saying such a ridiculous statement isn't worth the hassle.
THANK YOU!!! Thank you for acknowledging that no one here has made such a claim. And I don't want to know how you could possibly prove that anyone here has actually thought those thoughts. Somethings are better left unsaid. ;D
Well, you have to admit, it IS a logical extrapolation..
We see what happens with people who support Trump.. They are beat up and assaulted...
And we KNOW what people here have said about Bush even YEARS after he left office..
So, it's not hard to logically extrapolate that people around here would not be so kindly disposed towards those who had voted for Bush...
I am not going to defend a position that I never took, so finding a quote of someone saying such a ridiculous statement isn't worth the hassle.
Fair enough..
But, as I said, while no one here may have said it, there are plenty of the Left Wingery who HAVE said it..
Regardless of all that, what do you think of the idea of mirroring Gun Laws with Voter Laws??
Both are Constitutional Rights... Both are allegedly being "curtailed" or interfered with...
Seems to me a perfectly elegant solution...
Michale
It's been decades since I carried a rifle into the field but I've not forgotten that if you miss the first shot, whatever you're trying to kill is no longer around.
If the weapon for sale has multiple rounds in a magazine it's only purpose to kill humans. There's no reason to allow such items to be sold to the public — Second Amendment or no. Oh yes, "Red Dawn" is a movie!
If the weapon for sale has multiple rounds in a magazine it's only purpose to kill humans. There's no reason to allow such items to be sold to the public — Second Amendment or no.
Says the guy who has never had to defend himself against armed people doing their best to kill him...
:^/
But hay.. OK.. I'll pass on your suggestion to Obama's Security Detail..
"Sorry, guys.. If you can't protect the POTUS with one bullet, you have no right to carry weapons.."
The bliss of ignorance.. I am happy you have that bliss..
Most of us live in the real world..
Michale
The "cursory" background check is a very detailed check DESIGNED and IMPLEMENTED by Democrats..
So, NOW you are saying it's insufficient??
absolutely. democrats, as you say, are much too focused on trying to limit access to guns to impose better safety and care regulations. the culture of respect for firearms imposed by universal conscription, as in israel and switzerland, would probably not be feasible here, but we can absolutely do better than a 4-hour "how to" manual.
JL
(have i mentioned that my mom and co-author attended camp beitar and has won trophies with a borrowed rifle?)
There are some things that impinge on one's liberty, that can be done on mere suspicion: suspects have to be arrested before they can be convicted; and people can be stopped briefly by police on an even lower standard of suspicion, as the officer decides whether to make an arrest.
Merely making a list cannot be an offense against the Constitution. It's a question of what is done pursuant to listing.
The introductory clause of the second amendment can reasonably be taken as restricting its scope to the sort of weapons a citizen might plausibly be expected to provide if called into militia service. So ownership of machine guns could reasonably be taken to be left unprotected by the amendment. Then there's the question of whether the second amendment confers an individual right at all. It says "the right of the people", apparently a collective right: other clauses say things like "no person shall be deprived ...", which unambiguously specifies an individual right, or "Congress shall make no law abridging ...", which is neutral about whether the right is individual or collective. So I think the most natural reading of the Constitution is that the second amendment doesn't confer any individual right. Current case law (DC v Heller) says that it does, but one can plausibly argue that the Heller decision was wrong and that the Court ought to reverse itself.
Until it does reverse itself, though, Congress should abide by its decision. And putting someone's name on a secret list is definitely not an example of due process.
If the weapon for sale has multiple rounds in a magazine [its] only purpose to kill humans.
No. Guns exist primarily to threaten people, not to kill them. A successful threat is one that doesn't have to be carried out. You can rob a bank with a toy gun, and it's still "armed robbery" as long as the victim reasonably believes the weapon to be an actual gun.
Sure, there are some creeps like Zimmerman who apparently regard people-hunting as a form of sport no different from any other big-game hunting. But they're the exception: normally, guns are about threat, both the specific threat of pointing a gun at someone to coerce compliance with a specific demand, and the more insidious threat involved in creating a climate of fear among a class of people less able to expect just treatment from authorities.
Sure, there are some creeps like Zimmerman who apparently regard people-hunting as a form of sport no different from any other big-game hunting.
I would have thought that such ignorance would NOT be possible in a breathing human being..
Michale
absolutely. democrats, as you say, are much too focused on trying to limit access to guns to impose better safety and care regulations.
EXACTLY!!!!
The Left Wingery doesn't care about safety or anything else..
They simply want to ban guns and disarm Americans..
HALLELUJAH!! Common Ground...
(have i mentioned that my mom and co-author attended camp beitar and has won trophies with a borrowed rifle?)
Not to denigrate your mom's achievement. Sincerely..
That's great if one is attacked by paper targets... But when one is being attacked by real people that shoot back with real guns..
One needs to have a little more training and faith in their own personal weapons..
as in israel and switzerland, would probably not be feasible here, but we can absolutely do better than a 4-hour "how to" manual.
I have no problem with making REASONABLE training requirements...
But, as you have said and as I have said ad nasuem..
The goal of the Left Wingery is NOT to have reasonable requirements..
The goal of the Left Wingery is to disarm Americans...
Not SAFE GUNS... NO GUNS...
Michale
It's uncanny how the Left Wingery has shut up about the gay connection to the Orlando Massacre...
I guess the Left has finally realized that you can't talk about massacring gays without acknowledging that killing gays is NOT an DAESCH issue...
It's a mainstream muslim issue...
Hence, the eerie silence from the Left...
Michale
I would like to see a world where guns exist only as museum pieces. (I don't want to get rid of those. We should never forget how violent the world was for most of human existence.)
Guns exist to threaten people. To assert an order of society where right and wrong don't matter, only who's got a gun pointed at someone and is willing to kill them if you don't comply. That sounds great if you think you're a Nietzschean superman, but it isn't.
Currently, such threat is necessary as a last-resort option for police and military. It doesn't have to be, though. Institutions can be improved: we don't have to have a world divided into nation-states that relate to each other in a Hobbesian state of nature. Non-lethal means of subduing a resisting suspect, or stopping a crime in progress, could be developed that would be as effective as killing -- more effective at protecting the police, because they wouldn't have to deal with the panic-driven responses of people who fear that the cops will kill them.
Closely related to their role in asserting a might-makes-right order of things, guns also serve as phallic symbols, helping to perpetuate a sick version of masculinity. That should also be consigned to history.
Attitudes on the left toward guns aren't pure as the driven snow. There's plenty of cultural snobbery, where some on the left look down on rural people for no good reason, as a matter of us-versus-them dynamics. But that does not negate the basic facts of what guns are about.
@dan,
wow, taking aim, so to speak, at nietzsche, hobbes and freud all in one post. i tend to side with arendt, who sees violence as justified only if its ends are required in the immediate sense, not in a distant or vague sense. so a gun as a preventative threat would be invalid, if that were the only reason - or to prevent government tyranny, for that matter, constitution notwithstanding. but at the moment there are some very real and immediate threats; thus, while i agree with you in theory, and barring a major change in society i would never own a firearm personally, that philosophy still does not fly when the rubber meets the road.
JL