Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
How Many Children Must Democrats Execute Before Parents Surrender?
That’s what’s going on here.
Democrats commit the vast majority of every type of crime imaginable, including school shootings. Democrats secretly rejoice in their heart of hearts at each school shooting. No matter who did it, the apparent solution to the apparent problem is one of their political Holy Grails — the disarmament of Americans. The solution to too many guns is indeed fewer guns, but too many guns is not the problem. The problem is too many lawless idiots; full-grown infants with no emotional continence or impulse control. Shrieking in public, raging at traffic, shooting at children.
The Second Amendment does not grant us the right to bear arms. It recognizes the existing right and forbids the government from infringing upon it.
Hold on to your guns like they were your kids, and your kids like they are your guns.
Here’s a church school I’d happily send kids to:
Instead of giving up our guns, this is how we actually stop school shootings.
Pass it on. pic.twitter.com/IsNofj7MEh— Anny Sharma (@anny25717503) March 27, 2023
.
Published in General
No gun zones are targets.
Okay, Oklahoma – 2016.
The only proven way in the history of mankind for stopping a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Guns are not the problem democrats! And yet here they are lying again!
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6321514304112
https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/kjp-nashville-republicans
Republicans could claim that the democrats are to blame for these killings for promoting transgenderism, which would be just as outrageous and obscene.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/nashville-shooter-audrey-hale-transgender-woman-opened-fire-covenant-school
Just as the “Gun-Free School Zone” sign sends one message, this sign sends a very different but important message.
And at least whe the police showed up, they went right in and took out the shooter, unlike what happened in Uvalde.
Given the number of people like this in our society, one might wonder if a better effort to limit their access to guns might be a good idea. But every effort to do so is thwarted by those on the right who see nefarious gun-grabbing tyrants in every shadow. Even common sense red flag laws, imperfect as they may be (and as every law is) are suspect.
Im a huge supporter of the 2nd Amendment. But the fact is that we do have a cultural problem with insanity and gun availability, and too many political extremists on both sides demonizing those who are looking for compromises that might help.
“Shall not be infringed”
Adam Carolla understood the NRA’s policies many years ago, when I was listening to his show. He wasn’t fully on board, but understood what they were trying to prevent by comparing them to smokers.
Non-smokers: Hey we don’t like smoking and want a small section of the restaurant.
Smokers: Sounds reasonable. Okay.
Non-smokers: Give us the whole restaurant. You can have the bar.
Smokers: What?
Non-smokers: Smoke still wafts over from the bar. Go outside.
Non-smokers: You’re too close to the building. Stay at least 10 yards away.
I thought the same. The difference could not be more stark.
Because there are nefarious gun-grabbing tyrants in every shadow. This isn’t theoretical, historical. This is evergreen human nature, with no end of current world examples.
“Shall not be infringed” cannot be compromised. Regulate the use of arms at the state and local level, sure, but the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Why? Because it is the fundamental backstop to liberty, and history isn’t over.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Call me what you like.
It confuses me to encounter both-sides-ism arguments today in 2023 from the right. Sincerely. We’re facing an opposition who believes literally crazy things, is corrupt in terms of obligations and to our system of government, and who is willing and increasingly able to silence and/or punish dissent from their craziness. You will bake the cake, you will acknowledge and celebrate two-spirit gender, you will mask and vax and go into lockdown, you will accept the election results regardless of any number of alarming issues that go unresolved.
Red Flag laws could be common sense compromise if there were any trust remaining in our institutions and half the electorate. Half the country can’t tell us what a woman is without being circular – if ever there was such a thing as common sense it is long gone. Can there ever be such a thing in a multicultural environment? No, because identitarianism overrules and overrides everything.
When even Republicans are endorsing “gender affirming care” (i.e., sterilization and mutilation of children) then no, we cannot trust that these idiots would understand a thing about protecting our second amendment rights.
Fairly common at schools across Texas, including those in my local district. We live in a town that also the county seat, so there are police and sheriff around. But I still remember the first of these signs I saw at a school in west Texas that was at least 20 miles from the nearest sheriff’s office (and there was no town that would have a town police force), so it really made sense because if an emergency happened, that school would be waiting a long time for any outside help.
I don’t think our church pastor carries, but many in the congregation do.
FIFY.
Red flag laws would almost surely be abused to disarm conservatives and patriots. People who won’t knuckle under to drag queen story hour and use people’s preferred incorrect pronouns.
You’re not living in Reagan’s America, have you noticed?
Hang on. Democrats AREN’T promoting transgenderism?
This was already a situation where the shooter should have been prevented at least from legally obtaining guns, under existing law. A “transgender” person is exhibiting sufficient mental illness to be blocked from buying guns. But the left would never admit that.
I expect the Uvalde example was a strong motivator.
“Are we going to just stand around for an hour like those idiots at Uvalde? Hell no!”
I almost said that, but — if they change the law, then we’re no longer law-abiding.
All that does is help them believe they’re right about wanting to alter or abolish the Constitution.
Occupant of the White House Biden and spokes-idiot Ms. Jean-Pierre both immediately said the answer was an “assault weapons ban.” Alright, let’s play along to figure out how an assault weapons ban would reduce gun deaths:
So certain firearms are prohibited by law immediately. Every firearm currently in the hands of the public is still out there, so we’ve done nothing to reduce the possibility of a future shooting death.
Eventually, a portion of people who tend to follow the law meticulously turn their guns into the authorities. Past experiences with such laws suggest the portion of people who will do so is small (20% ish). So the vast majority of “prohibited” guns are still out there. And since the most law-abiding individuals are the ones who will have turned in their guns, the average person now in possession of a “prohibited” gun is a more dangerous person than the previous average.
We then start the door-to-door searches necessary to find the prohibited guns that have not been turned in. Every place everywhere will have to be searched in a very intrusive search, since the authorities have no way of knowing who might have a prohibited gun. Grandma’s underwear drawer. The baby’s toy box. Every book in the personal library. Your china cabinet. (How many pieces of your great-grandma’s china are going to get broken during the search?) Every box of inventory in every store and factory. [Side note, how many personnel is this searching going to take? How many other things will such searches uncover that will subject the searched person to civil or criminal liability? How much other crime might go unanswered on the streets while authorities are busy searching for guns?]
We can’t physically search everywhere all at once, so it is likely that prohibited guns will migrate ahead of the authorities’ search program. And the average person who will engage in such gun migration is probably more dangerous than the current average gun owner, so the average dangerousness of a person remaining in possession of a gun will again rise.
So now many of the most dangerous people will now be in possession of many of the prohibited guns. How many of them will react violently to the efforts of the authorities to confiscate those guns? How much force will the authorities use to gain possession of the “prohibited” guns?
In short, how many people are you willing to kill or to have killed in order to effect a ban on “assault rifles,” including particularly the children of the men who possess such guns? Have we reduced the net deaths? Without extreme measures, including the possibility of extensive violence, a “ban” on “assault weapons” will still leave a large number of assault weapons on the street.
And in the hands of more dangerous people than those whose hands they are in now.
Of course this is ignoring that we do not know how the Nashville shooter got the guns she used. Did she steal them? “Gun free zones” cause law abiding gun owners to leave their guns in their cars, creating a frequent target for thieves. Did she buy the gun herself? Did she answer the questions on the background check honestly? Or did she have a “straw buyer” buy it for her? Certain prosecutors refuse to enforce already-on-the-books laws prohibiting “straw buyers.” If prosecutors refuse to enforce existing gun laws, why should we expect them to enforce new gun laws?
I also notice that the calls from Democrats and other leftists continue to take no notice of the successful defensive uses of guns by “good guys.” Home invasions halted when a resident produces an AR-15 (with the AR-15 often cited as an example of an “assault rifle”). Street robberies or store robberies or rapes aborted when the potential victim or another person produces a pistol.
I see from news reports that the Nashville shooter used two rifles and a pistol. Occupant of the White House Biden and White House spokes-idiot Jean-Pierre already insist the answer is to ban “assault rifles.” Besides the obvious point that “banning” “assault rifles” will not do much if anything to keep dangerous people from gaining possession of “assault rifles,” even if it were successful, the Nashville shooter could possibly have done everything she did with several pistols. In other words, focusing on the type of gun does nothing toward solving the problem.
Cold, dead hands.
I agree. But the point is that showing them what the Constitution says doesn’t even slow them down.
Mostly agree Ed G., however I’m stuck on the fact that even if we could trust the institutions, Red Flag laws would still be unconstitutional because they deprive people of due process. For that reason, no Red Flag laws are ever acceptable without strong due process protections. Of course the point of Red Flag laws is to circumvent due process, so I’m back to my first position of opposing all such laws.
Neither does anything but hot lead. So they can just come for it.
The 2A says “the right…” shall not be infringed, not “the ability..” The ancient right protected by that amendment never meant the ability to keep weapons at all times and in all places. And it never meant the ability of a dangerous person to keep weapons, otherwise every time a police officer disarms someone it would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment. That’s obviously not the case.
Red flag laws typically have plenty of due process, which will be enforced by locally elected judges. The opposition to them, well intentioned as it might be, is generally based on an overreaction to that concern.
Exactly, people with mental illness, in particular mental illness that inhibits them from recognizing their own gender, should not have guns.