Previous post
President Donald Trump addressed today the nation after a weekend that saw mass shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio. In his address, the President condemned in the strongest possible terms racism, bigotry, hatred and white nationalism. The reaction from the Left was sad and predictable.
If you did not get to see the address, you can watch it or read the transcript here. The left didn’t wait a nanosecond before calling the speech inadequate or insincere. On Fox News with Bill Hemmer, Democrat strategist Mary Anne Marsh said that Trump was right to condemn white nationalism, but that everything in the El Paso killer’s manifesto can be heard at a Trump rally. She also said that Trump didn’t call for strong enough gun control and then blathered on about the Clinton era assault weapon ban. Marsh shot out so many statistics so quickly, I couldn’t write fast enough so that I could fact check her. Meanwhile, an hour later on the Fox show “Outnumbered”, Democrat Jessica Tarlov claimed that Trump, in his speech, scapegoated mental illness. I kid you not. Both Steve Hilton and Kennedy looked at Tarlov as those she was the dumbest sentient being on the planet. She is. Scapegoating mental illness? Mass shootings are not done, by definition, by totally sane people with a grasp on humanity and reality.
And speaking of mental illness, Cory Booker tweeted:
One important thing I noted is that the leftists are no longer saying “White Supremacy”. No, that group is provable as very small. They say “white nationalism”. That phrase is used to smear a far larger group of people. This group includes anyone who is white, anyone who waves a flag, anyone who voted for President Trump. This group of people is now responsible for the heinous mass shootings. Deanna wrote about the left’s schizophrenia and you can read it here.
Trump is even being condemned for his breathing in the address. Maybe he does have dry mouth, I don’t know:
Finally, at the end of the address as Trump noted the locations of the mass shootings, he said El Paso and Toledo rather than El Paso and Dayton. As Ryan Saavedra tweeted:
The problem with that is that Joe Biden isn’t very smart. Trump is smarter than this. If this was in the teleprompter, Trump should have caught it. Also, if it was in the teleprompter, it was either sloppiness or malfeasance. It made me think of the doctored Presidential Seal behind Trump at the Turning Point Teen Action Summit last month. This kind error is inexcusable.
Trump said the right things on the mass shootings. Next week, unfortunately, some other outrage will capture the medias attention and El Paso and Dayton will be forgotten. God Bless those who grieve.
Screen Grab: Washington Post/YouTube/Screen Grab Fair Use
Scott says: I just hope he doesn’t jump on the bandwagon, and further restrict the rights of law abiding citizen due to the actions of a few evil actors. GWB nails it in a previous post, every comment the left makes is intended to increase their power, and they know full well that any / all of these laws they propose will have no effect on the violence, but when they inevitably fail, they will be a stepping stone to greater restrictions, and loss of rights, leading to total govt. control of all aspects of life, which is the leftist endgame.. “that which is not compulsory is banned”…
George V says: I am NOT in favor of gun confiscation, or “gun control” as practiced by the progressive left – or even the non-progressive left. Good, law abiding citizens have a right under the 2nd Amendment to keep and bear arms in whatever quantity they like. (OK, except automatic weapons manufactured after 1934 or whatever it is) But there’s a problem when a known potential killer gets a weapon that can be fired rapidly and accurately, so how do we stop that? This is a proposal to stop some potential killers without infringing on the solid citizen.
In these two recent cases I have not seen anywhere is the length of time these two criminals owned their rifles before committing the attack. We have heard only that the firearms were purchased legally. I have a recollection that in some past shootings that the perpetrator got the weapon legally, then committed the attack shortly thereafter.
If there is a crime timeline trend in mass shootings that goes something like “Rant online for several months or longer, then buy gun, then soon after commit attack” then maybe a reasonable step short of forbidding semi-auto rifles entirely is: A longer waiting period and a higher cost for the background check could be required for semi-auto rifles with capability to use high capacity magazines. Higher fee provides funds for a more in-depth background check. The longer wait period provides time for thorough examination of online and other behavior. An applicant who has loaded up the twitterverse or FB with manifestos and rants about how many people they want to kill will get be denied. Your average schlub gets his AR-15 clone but has to wait longer.
Does this run up against the 1st Amendment free speech proviso? Maybe, but we do have laws against assault threats. You can be charged if you tell someone you will kill them. Is a FB manifesto about killing people of a certain race or color considered assault? I don’t know, I’m not a lawyer. But I am bothered by the idea that a basement-dweller wackadoodle who has written extensively threatening groups of people can purchase a semi-auto with several detachable mags before someone has a chance to say “Wait a minute! This guy’s a nut.”
This would not solve all the ills. The Las Vegas killer did not publish anything or show any signs that we know of and would probably have the patience to wait out his 2 or 3 month wait period. It would not stop the kid who takes his parent’s weapons as in Sandy Hook. But perhaps is would have stopped one or both of these instances and perhaps others where a person purchases the weapon after an extended period of making threats.
My proposal does not address pistols, but accurate rapid fire from a pistol is much harder to do. I also do not propose any extended wait time or extra fee for a bolt action or even semi-auto rifles with an internal magazine. This proposal also doesn’t give a tinker’s d@#@n what the rifle looks like. You want a semi-auto with removable magazine – you pay more and you wait more.
I will now retreat behind the walls of my hastily built virtual fort, which is to close my laptop, to await the onslaught from verbal slings, arrows, ballista, trebuchet or catapult. I know it’s coming! Don’t bother to call me an idiot or fool. That I know already.
Scott says: No slings or arrows here George, though I will disagree with most of your points. So here goes:
“OK, except automatic weapons manufactured after 1934 or whatever it is)” Actually the gun control act of 1934 was a knee jerk reaction by democrats to a virtually non-existent problem, this video link focuses on how silencers were included in the act, but he does a pretty good job of outlining the hysteria behind the act overall.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VWcGwPJQfc
While the act did regulate actual machine guns, it wasn’t until 1986 (not one of President Reagans finer moments) when the manufacture of new machine guns for the civilian market was banned.
All of the above, along with all the actions you advocate, and definitely all the ones the left does violate the Second Amendment, as “shall not be infringed” is very clear language, and the writings of the Founders make it clear that while they may not have envisioned specific advances in firearms, they most certainly knew that the technology would advance, and that at all times, free men should have the right to own actual military weapons, for the express purpose of combating a tyrannical government, should the need arise.
While acquisition of a firearm for sporting purposes might not be negatively effected by a waiting period, one being purchased for self defense very well could be (think a woman buying one to protect against an abusive relationship, one likely to violate a restraining order.. and yes, and AR-15 makes an excellent home defense weapon), and of course, that is on top of the fact that a waiting period definitely “infringes” on the right to keep and bear that weapon.. Think about imposing a 2-3 month waiting period, or a required payment on the exercise of any other right mentioned in the Bill of Rights.. I doubt you’d think it’d be reasonable then.
As to background checks, they currently use all criminal databases. These are only as good as the info entered into them, and while ensuring that mental health and criminal records are properly entered, to go any further into personal background would definitely be an invasion of privacy, and inappropriate. This next link has many quotes from Samuel Adams, a number of which are quite relevant to this topic.
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/31693.Samuel_Adams
As to the comment about pistols being harder to fire accurately and rapidly, that is not accurate at all, given the ranges that most shootings occur at (the Vegas shooter would have been different, but the bump stock he used negated any accuracy the rifle had). Most of these mass shootings happen at very close ranges, and usually, if semi-auto rifles are used, the criminals fire them from the hip, without use of sights, whereas a pistol is more likely to have the sights employed, making them MORE accurate, not less.
And lastly, if one looks back at the history of gun control, it can be seen that most laws are passed, knowing (at least by those that push them) that they will do nothing, thereby setting the stage for further restrictions / legislation (see also the “affordable” care act), all moving towards the end game of a complete ban on private ownership of firearms..(unarmed peasants are much easier to rule over than armed citizens)
George V says: Scott,
Thanks for your reply. At the risk of sounding two-faced, I agree with much of what you state. I did give this proposal some thought because the “slippery slope” argument is a good one. There is always a way around laws, and a restriction can be abused by the gov’t. I have a real problem with the so-called “Red Flag Law” concept for this reason, where guns can be confiscated by a determination of threatening behavior. The next designation will be “You are a conservative, you are therefore threatening and we will take your guns.” Sort of like “All whites are racist.” My own proposal does start to head in that direction where it could be abused by the authorities.
The privacy issue, looking into background with no documented criminal behavior, is also a legal issue. It steps us into another slippery area of constitutional law. But law enforcement has followed certain individuals online and in their physical activities with regards to Islamic terrorism. Is identifying someone actively contemplating in a public forum (online or “in real life”) what i’s effectively terrorism any different? Does law enforcement have a legal authority to investigate?
On personal home protection that you need ASAP, I would argue there are alternatives, although indeed an AR-type rifle is great for this. But a pistol or semi-auto shotgun also works.
I am not sure what the answer is. There will always be nut-jobs who stew in their own juice until they decide to act in some way. In Britain now they use kitchen knives. (Ban the knofe!) More concealed carry licensees can provide some deterrent, unless the perp is also expecting to die in their assault and there will always be casualties. I just hope there is some way found to ID and stop these nuts. I tossed my idea out there for comment – thanks again for answering.
Scott says: George,
Your reply ” I tossed my idea out there for comment – thanks again for answering.” just shows what can happen when adults have a conversation.. something that is lost on the left. That’s how we grow as individuals and a society, by having rational discussions on topics that may not be comfortable.
As to your question “Is identifying someone actively contemplating in a public forum (online or “in real life”) what i’s effectively terrorism any different? Does law enforcement have a legal authority to investigate?”, while some may view it as semantics, I think it’s a “which came first” kind of situation. If they’re looking into things because you want to buy a firearm, I have an issue with that. If they’re watching social media in general for indications that someone is a danger to themselves or the community at large, than I’m all in favor of it (as you point out, these are public forums, no different that standing on a street corner and shouting your thoughts).
Hope that makes sense, and again, thanks for the rational discussion!
5 Comments