Don’t Surrender To Do-Somethingism On Guns

Loading

by DAVID HARSANYI

Before we even knew how the killer of 19 children and two adults at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, had obtained his guns, Chris Murphy was engaging in his customary performative emotionalism on the Senate floor, literally begging Republicans to “compromise.”

 

Compromise on what exactly? Murphy has never once offered a single proposal that would have deterred any of these mass shooters. Literally minutes after his routine, Murphy was asked about the obvious mental illness prevalent among most of these shooters. “Spare me the bullsh-t about mental illness,” the Connecticut senator responded, “ripping” the GOP. “We don’t have any more mental illness than any other country in the world.” That’s how serious he is about compromise.

 

Whether America is more prone to mental illness or not, these incidents are almost exclusively perpetrated by young men who have exhibited serious anti-social behavior. All of them break a slew of existing laws. All of them have either obtained guns illegally, or legally before having any criminal record. In many, if not most, cases, the shooter is already on the cops’ radar because he has threatened others or written insane, violent manifestos. In a study of mass shootings from 2008 to 2017, the Secret Service found that “100 percent of perpetrators showed concerning behaviors, and in 77 percent of shootings, at least one person – most often a peer – knew about their plan.”

 

Rather than focusing on these tangible entry points for potentially useful legislation, instead of proposing ideas on better identifying shooters before they act, instead of thinking about how schools could be structurally safer, instead of debating the efficacy of putting more cops in schools — and none of these are panaceas, mind you — Senate Democrats were busy dunking on Republicans for failing to support bills that have absolutely zero to do with mass shootings.

 
 

Chuck Schumer planned to introduce H.R. 8, an expanded background check bill, and H.R. 1446, a bill that would close the alleged “Charleston Loophole” (before he realized it wouldn’t be politically expedient.) “Alleged” because Dylann Roof, who murdered nine black churchgoers in Charleston in 2015, got a clean background check, not because of any “loophole,” but because local prosecutors had failed to respond to the FBI’s request for information. It was a case of human error, or negligence. So maybe Democrats should be promoting a “law-enforcement-should-do-its-job” bill. Because all “universal” background checks do is stop friends and families from gifting guns. Straw purchases are already illegal, as Schumer, Pelosi, and Murphy already know. And passing expanded background checks after a school shooting is tantamount to demanding stricter drivers tests after a hit and run.

 

Democrats, obsessed with largely irrelevant issues like AR-15s and “universal background checks,” are largely living in the early 1990s. Joe Biden’s address to the nation consisted of a litany of hackneyed talking points he’s been regurgitating for decades now — including that transcendently stupid joke about deer in Kevlar. “As a nation, we have to ask, when in God’s name are we going to stand up to the gun lobby?” Biden said — again.

 
[the_ad id=”157875″]
 

Democrats love to hammer the strawman “gun lobby” because they don’t want to openly attack tens of millions of gun owners. The NRA, whose power has significantly diminished over the past decades, could disappear tomorrow and it wouldn’t alter gun policy one bit. Either another organization would emerge — probably a more rigid one — or gun owners and Second Amendment advocates (we’re in the midst of the largest expansion of gun ownership in American history) would continue voting for politicians who oppose restrictions aimed at peaceful gun ownership.

 

Meanwhile, Republicans will have to deal with a barrage of preposterous smears. “There is no such thing as being ‘pro-life’ while supporting laws that let children be shot in their schools, elders in grocery stores, worshippers in their houses of faith, survivors by abusers, or anyone in a crowded place,” Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted.

Read more
 

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
37 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

17 children severely hurt by the Waukesha Christmas parade killer. The left didn’t care; there was nothing to exploit there. Idiot Biden didn’t visit Waukesha. No laws proposed to stop BLM lunatics from killing innocent people. Anyone that thinks Democrats sincerely want to protect citizens is a stupid moron (aka, one of the 50 million that actually voted for the dumbass idiot Biden).

81 million.

Nah. I’m talking actual real votes.

Meh. Maybe…okay, not really.

No way.

Biden was installed. HRC started a coup, and it completed on J6 2020.

There’s no possible way of getting our guns now.

Joe Biden During Remarks on Texas Mass Shooting: “The Second Amendment is Not Absolute”

Repealing the 2nd amendment would require 2/3 of the states to vote in the affirm, never going to happen.

Here is a brief History lesson:

1774: The British vote to not export arms to the States. (not really a ban, they just weren’t going to sell them to the states)

-On April 19, 1775, some 800 British troops were dispatched to Concord, Mass., to arrest Sam Adams and John Hancock and to seize a cache of weapons known to be stored at Concord.

-On April 19, 1775, The Revolutionary War began.

Gun confiscation was the direct trigger that started the Revolutionary War, it began that very day.

On Steven Crowder to day, they brought up common Leftist question of “who the hell needs an AR-15?”

They basically said “Ask a Uygur.”

Who “NEEDS” an abortion? Isn’t that just a “right”?

The Wounded knee incident was the results of a Indian who refused to turn in his Gun he had paid a lot for

Repealing the 2nd amendment would require 2/3 of the states to vote in the affirm, never going to happen.

I wonder.
The Bill of Rights is slightly different from the rest of the Constitution’s amendments.
These 1st Ten were a REQUIREMENT before many of the original 13 colonies would even ratify the Constitution at all.
Can any of them simply be done away with so easily?
Or, are they special cases?

Can any of them simply be done away with so easily?

Or, are they special cases?

The Constitution outlines how to pass amendments. There’s nothing in the document about treating the first ten amendments as if they’re anything special.

There’s nothing in the document about treating the first ten amendments as if they’re anything special.

And you’re allowed to teach school?

And you’re allowed to teach school?

Please share with me the section of the Constitution that says that different rules are to be applied to the first ten amendments than to the other seventeen. It’s a brief document; you should be able to find the passage quickly.

You have got to be joking, and you teach school? No wonder kids leave school with their brains full of mush

You have got to be joking, and you teach school? No wonder kids leave school with their brains full of mush

Please share with me the section of the Constitution that says that different rules are to be applied to the first ten amendments than to the other seventeen. It’s a brief document; you should be able to find the passage quickly.

Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate; or by a convention to propose amendments called by Congress at the request of two-thirds of the state legislatures.[1] To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must then be ratified by either—as determined by Congress—the legislatures of three-quarters of the states or by ratifying conventions conducted in three-quarters of the states, a process utilized only once thus far in American history with the 1933 ratification of the Twenty-First Amendment.[2] The vote of each state (to either ratify or reject a proposed amendment) carries equal weight, regardless of a state’s population or length of time in the Union. Article Five is silent regarding deadlines for the ratification of proposed amendments, but most amendments proposed since 1917 have included a deadline for ratification. Legal scholars generally agree that the amending process of Article Five can itself be amended by the procedures laid out in Article Five, but there is some disagreement over whether Article Five is the exclusive means of amending the Constitution.

A couple of things:

First, that wasn’t a passage from the Constitiution.

Second, it doesn’t say anything at all about Amendments 1-10 being treated any differently from Amendments 11-27 when it comes to amendment of the document.

You made fun of my answer and then gave the very same answer yourself.

You are full of shit

Article V of the US Constitution

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/article-v.html

Last edited 1 year ago by TrumpWon

The passage you cited was not part of the Constitution.

Hey! That is actually a passage from the Constitution and not an article about the Constitution! Good work!

Now point out the section that says different rules are to be applied to the first ten amendments than to the other seventeen.

If they are not amendments as you argue, why are they referred to as such?

Also, if in particular the 1st and 2nd amendments were not amendments and would not follow the Constitutional process to be repealed, would not the Marxist democrat party have done away with them by now?

The first ten amendments are no different that the additional 17. But, hey thanks for playing along and go ahead and continue to elaborate on you ignorance

Last edited 1 year ago by TrumpWon

“If they are not amendments as you argue”

I didn’t say that. I’ve referred to Amendments 1 through 10 in this thread as “amendments,” and I’ve said that there’s not a different procedure for amending them than there is for “the other seventeen amendments.”

You’re just making stuff up.

“Also, if in particular the 1st and 2nd amendments were not amendments and would not follow the Constitutional process to be repealed, would not the Marxist democrat party have done away with them by now?”

The Democratic Party is not the arbiter of how the Constitution is amended. You’re the only person I’ve ever encountered who has suggested that it is.

You have missed the point entirely.
My position is because it is difficult to not only amend but also repeal an amendment or amendments, that were it not difficult the democrat Marxist party would have already removed the two they abhor the most.

It is no secret the Marxist democrat party does not support either the 1st or 2nd amendments to the Constitution

“were it not difficult the democrat Marxist party would have already removed the two they abhor the most.”

Nobody said amendments were easy to add to the Constitution. I simply said that the first are, no different than the rest, as far as the procedure is concerned.

Please share with me the section of the Constitution that says that different rules are to be applied to the first ten amendments than to the other seventeen. It’s a brief document; you should be able to find the passage quickly.

You didn’t say that originally. You did not say one thing about the application of rules pertaining to the first ten amendments. You said the first ten amendments were nothing special. You are trying to quibble apples and oranges, Groomer.
“There’s nothing in the document about treating the first ten amendments as if they’re anything special.”
If you think the first ten hold no specialness, you should have your teacher’s license revoked.

I suggest you read more than the Constitution itself. Perhaps you have never heard of the Federalists Papers? It would not surprise me. You certainly don’t exhibit any special intellect.

I was responding directly to a question about there is a different amendment procedure for the first ten documents—whether there are any “special cases.” And there aren’t. The first ten amendments are treated the same as the rest.

“If you think the first ten hold no specialness, you should have your teacher’s license revoked.”

That wasn’t the question. The question was specifically about procedures for amendment. My answer to that question stands.

“There’s nothing in the document about treating the first ten amendments as if they’re anything special.”

Do you remember how to diagram a sentence, Groomer?

Even if you weren’t pretending to misread what I wrote, that sentence is still true.

Who’s the new guy? ^^^

So you can stay in character, the poster you’re supposed to be is an English teacher with a Master’s degree who shares titillating posts, such as “so what if I suck c*ck?”

Good luck, “Michael.”

Last edited 1 year ago by Nathan Blue

 “so what if I suck c*ck?”

You appear to be thinking about that quite a bit. NTTAWWT.

Is michael a butt poker?

You didn’t say that originally.

Yes, I did. The question I answered and the answer I gave are specifically about the process of amendment and only about the process of amendment.

The Constitution outlines how to pass amendments. There’s nothing in the document about treating the first ten amendments as if they’re anything special.

No
They are for all intent and purpose amendments to the original document. It is true based on the Federalist Papers, the Constitution would not be ratified unless there were specific additions. Initially there were twelve but in Congress the twelve were modified into ten.
The first ten amendments are no different than the additional 17 in that they were ratified by the states.
The 18th amendment also known as the Volstead Act put in place prohibition in 1920. It was subsequently repealed vis a vie the 21st amendment. Both were ratified by the states.

None of the 27 amendments can be repealed without 3/4 of the states affirming the action.

Last edited 1 year ago by TrumpWon

BOOM

Last edited 1 year ago by TrumpWon

Its Schumer and his ilk that need BACKGROUND cHECKS TO SEE IF THEY CAN READ THE WHOLE u.s. cONSTITUTION AND NOT SKIP OVER CERTIAN AMENDMENS LIKE THE 2ND AND READ THE WHOLE 2ND aMENDMENT AND NOT JUST THE FIRST LINES wELL rEGULATED mALTIA

let’s see, a teacher propped open a side door for the mass killer to enter. screwed up breaching team, stories that do not make sense, the investigation is sooo compromised. mass killers operate on three premises: revenge; legend( mass killer review previous killing and want to exceed any other numbers-they do their homework; illustrating a point. All mass killers have manifestos, so where is his?