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.
When It Comes To Gun Laws: Constructive Engagement or “No Quarter?”
Terrific conversation in the podcast today with Cam Edwards of NRATV. Along with Charles C. W. Cooke (of Mad Dogs and Englishmen), two of the best people to talk to about gun issues and the Second Amendment, in part because he acknowledges the legitimacy of some of the concerns gun control advocates have.
One key area where I disagree with these two (and remember–they are much smarter than me) is on the question of Second Amendment politics. They both reject the idea that, as Cooke put it recently, “it’s up to gun rights supporters to come up with gun control laws. The burden is not on us. It’s on those who support gun control.”
Well, yes…if you want gun laws written by people who hate gun rights. I don’t. I want people who respect the Second Amendment to take the lead on reasonable gun ownership restrictions, for the same reason that I want pro-law-and-order conservatives to lead on criminal justice reform and dealing with bad cops: The other side will use “reform” as an excuse for “damage beyond repair.”
Many gun-rights proponents completely disagree. They subscribe to the “Give No Quarter” theory of gun laws. Fight them all: Bump stocks, massive magazines, sniper rifles, whatever. “What part of ‘shall pass no law’ don’t you understand?” And as I conceded to Cam in the podcast, that strategy is working. Today.
In the Heller era of the SCOTUS, gun rights look pretty secure. Today, with 70 percent of Americans supporting the right of private citizens to own hand guns, it’s “no worries.”
But 40 years ago, a majority of Americans believed private citizens shouldn’t be allowed to own handguns. Ten years ago, the idea of legalized gay marriage as the law of the land seemed like a long shot. Six months ago, Harvey Weinstein was one of the most powerful people in Hollywood. My point: times change.
My fellow Second Amendment supporters are betting that there is no gun crime that will impact voters and change their views. That’s a pretty risky bet. The second bet is that, even if they lose the political fight, the courts will stop “we, the people” from passing gun restrictions. Tell that to the folks who passed the “Defense of Marriage Act.”
In my opinion, the NRA should have jumped all over the bump stock ban. Lead the way. They should be working with medical professionals on a mental-health standard that creates an obstacle for people with legitimate issues who try to buy guns, but doesn’t simply strip them of their rights. And if there are other good ideas, they should becoming from our side, not Barack “Australia Model” Obama. By offering solutions, we build support among the vast majority of non-gun-owning Americans.
Or we can just hope that the “enough is enough” moment doesn’t come, that the brittle, unbending “go screw” position doesn’t break under the weight of a last straw.
Which strategy makes the most sense to you?
Published in Guns
Times change. God-given rights do not.
Still, my offer to the left still stands. When they offer a constitutional amendment to reasonably restrict abortion then they can come and talk to me about the 2nd Amendment.
NY passed the safe act and nobody outside of blue enclaves obeyed the law, nor did any law enforcement professional sign up to enforce the law.
It is incumbent upon gun rights restrictionists to pass laws that their political opponents will obey. Respect for the rule of law also means not passing laws you know wont be complied with.
If voluntary compliance is a nonstarter then one has to plan to impose it by violence. Can one actually impose it by violence, and if so is the human and financial cost worth it?
I agree with EJHill. Natural rights are timeless, and nonnegotiable. You want me to take the lead, OK how about, “The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not be Infringed”. That is all I have to say.
Rather than ask who should craft the next round of gun-control legislation, I think I’d ask a different question:
Do we have enough gun-control laws already?
If your answer to that is “yes” — then it’s silly to ask what additional laws we need, or who should propose them.
I think we have enough — more than enough — gun control laws. The only suggestions I have to offer involve reducing gun control laws. And, sure, I’ll be happy to have that discussion.
You left out tanks, howitzers and fighter aircraft. And no, I’m not kidding. A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, and a militia has no power without howitzers.
Let me expand on my original comment. Once you accept the premise that technological change negates rights enumerated in the 1780’s then nothing is sacred or inviolable.
IF the Founding Fathers never envisioned semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines therefore the 2nd Amendment is to be compromised THEN
There are all types of “never envisioned” scenarios. It’s not a road any of us should want to go down.
Ok-a-a-a-a-y.
All I can say is “Good luck with that.”
Politics isn’t about what’s right. It’s about “who has the votes.” Right now, we do. One day, we won’t.
Preemptive surrender? THAT, Mr. Graham, is how you got Trump.
And, by all means, please use that line on the Never Trumpers when they explain to you that’s what Principled Conservatives™ do.
Thank you @michaelgraham! @frontseatcat tried to get this conversation going the other day. Though I’m glad that many of the restrictions of the past few decades have been loosened, we’ve obviously got some glaring gaps in enforcement and checks that allow unstable people and criminals to buy weapons. I’m sympathetic to many 2nd Amendment proponents, but reflexive ‘everything is off-limits’ is a loser! I’d advocate being proactive! Use some of that NRA/Dana Loesch add money to target markets and show the pitiful prosecution rates of gun crimes/violations. Come up with mental health restrictions as Michael details. The tide will turn and you will ultimately lose in the long run if you don’t.
I am wondering if a case could be made that a rapid-firing rifle that sprays bullets that can penetrate house walls and so on is a weapon of mass destruction, like biological and chemical weapons and explosives. This type of rapid-firing weapon is not needed for personal-defense situations.
Are there purchase controls on grenades, for example?
Let me be clear: I have reached the point where I think every adult should be carrying a gun. :)
I’m not talking about gun control. I’m thinking of Geneva Convention types of WMD restrictions on these particular weapons.
The logical flaw in the “constructive engagement” argument is in the supposition that it will somehow avoid calls for unacceptable regulation. It won’t, because it is not possible to strike a compromise that will preserve meaningful Second Amendment protections and prevent mass shootings.
If you think we need more gun-control laws (I don’t), and if you think that pro-gun people are the best ones to write them (I would agree with that, if I accepted the initial premise), then by all means take the initiative. But I think you’re kidding yourself if you think that, by doing so, you’ll prevent future Draconian efforts to restrict gun rights. What you’re actually doing is taking up the slack, and trading away future negotiating room.
We would do better to use the occasion of conspicuous violence to discuss the patterns and causes of the violence that America experiences — violence that is not, currently, at particularly high levels by historic standards — and see if there are changes we can encourage that don’t endanger our Constitutional liberties and that do strengthen our social institutions and/or more effectively combat crime.
The real battle is not in the law. It’s in the conditioning of people, especially children, to believe that guns are scary and evil. It’s all of a piece with the grand scheme of universal victimhood, since that absolves the victim of any personal responsibility. And personal responsibility, individualism, must be crushed so people will think of themselves as members of the great collective. Then those who understand the will of the collective can rule us accordingly. Hoplophobia is an important tool.
My first thought is “no, never”…partly because once you give a bit, they come right back for another bit (witness the march to gay marriage – it started with “stop throwing gay people in jail” and hasn’t ended yet and my not until we all have had at least one date with a gay person). Partly because I don’t think the other side is dealing in good faith. And partly because you shouldn’t ever negotiate about rights – otherwise they risk not being rights anymore but negotiation points.
In an increasingly unstable society, it seems its getting harder to secure just the basics – like unstable people who are not in the system to prevent them from purchasing – but I still think the fatalities would have been much less in many of the mass shooting we’ve had if these rapid fire weapons were not in the hands of the public. No one is trying to say you can’t arm yourself.
Agreed.
And that’s why we need tanks and howitzers.
The call against automatic weapons and semi-automatic weapons is often based on the flawed assumption that they help kill more people.
Sure, you can kill more, somewhat, with a semi-automatic, but automatic rifles without a Traversing and Elevation control and a solid mounting system aren’t going to be very accurate at all. The jerk with the bump stock would have killed a lot more people had he aimed for every shot (and we still haven’t been told how many were killed by rifles and how many by stampeding, so far as I know).
I guarantee that if I were in a well prepared position with a bolt action rifle that your grand dad still uses for deer hunting, and a horde of soviets came toward me, I could take out many, many Soviets in a short period of time (assuming they were strangely unarmed and not shooting back). You could easily kill thirty in a minute, maybe fifteen if it were a single shot rifle. Aiming is more important than speed.
By offering solutions, we build support among the vast majority of non-gun-owning Americans.
I don’t think this is correct. Any offer of “solutions” from our side will be taken by them as a sign of weakness. Our Constitutional rights are not to be used as negotiations with the Devil. The minute we allow one word of the 2nd Amendment to be altered, it will never end, and the Constitution will turn into the “living, breathing document” the moonbat Left loves to believe it is. Give No Quarter.
One thousand likes!
No law should be proposed unless there’s some rational basis for believing that it will actually accomplish the goal it’s supposed to achieve.
Every time we have some kind of high-profile shooting, the gun-control people start wailing and pointing fingers at the NRA. And yet there is no evidence that any of the so-called “common-sense” gun-control measures they propose would actually have prevented any of the crimes that make them so upset. (In the case of this most recent shooting, the killer was already ineligible to buy a gun under existing laws. The laws simply weren’t followed.)
They think that the NRA, and Republicans in general, are evil, because we won’t “do something” about gun violence. But of course they’re wrong: we just know that none of the things they propose will actually help, and we’re not willing to give up our rights just so they can feel better about themselves.
Show me a “gun-control” proposal for which evidence shows that it will actually save a meaningful number of lives, without infringing on Second Amendment rights to an unacceptable degree, and then maybe we can talk. I haven’t heard of one yet.
There. Fixed it for you.
This is like the censorship issue to me. Public school teachers think it means they can say anything they like to someone else’s kid. No. My right as a parent to control who and what influences my child is ahead of your right to say whatever you want in a classroom. What I’m saying is that there are lines we have drawn while protecting this absolute right. We want the local librarian to keep Playboy under lock and key so that the ten-year-olds can’t get at it quite as easily as they otherwise might.
What I’m saying is that there is a line. In fact, there are many lines that relate to free speech. There are libel laws galore. Political speech is controlled. Advertising is controlled.
Aren’t some weapons already controlled? Chemical and biological weapons, for example? Explosives?
Is the issue of the automatic firing rifles just a question of moving this particular weapon from one column to the other to join other restricted WMDs?
This argument has been used a lot since Vegas, but isn’t convincing to me. What difference does accuracy make when your weapon is pointed at a captive crowd of hundreds or thousands? Inaccurate shots can kill just as many people in that kind of crowd as can the acutely aimed.
These automatic-firing weapons have been glamorized in the movies, on television, and in video games.
The film producers use them because of they are shocking.
The Las Vegas and San Antonio shooters chose those same weapons for dramatic effect. They wanted everyone to know just how angry they were. And what better choice that one of these weapons.
When my kids were little, the rage was martial arts. That was because of The Karate Kid and the Ninja Turtles.
It is the same phenomenon. There is no market among theatergoers for a time lapse video of a rose blooming.
These automatic firing assault rifles have attracted the attention of a lot of people, two or three of whom are evil and angry.
In real estate law, there is a notion of “attractive nuisance.” The law holds the property owner responsible for recognizing that swimming pools and low branches on climbable trees be guarded from passersby. I understand that law.
These assault rifles that we see in the mass media on a daily basis have obviously attracted the attention of people with psychosis-level anger problems.
We need to do something about this–keep these guns from getting into the wrong hands.
No quarter.
An increasingly unstable society is not a good time to disarm everyone one.
In this last mass shooting, if every adult was carrying and able to use weapons, there would have been less dead people. Period.
But please, join the call of the left to take guns out of eveyone’s hands. That works so well in Chicago, right?
They cannot, because there is none.
By the way @michaelgraham this is the worst strategy I have ever heard on any topic at all. The idea that giving in some when 70% (unheard of support on anything these days) in the hopes that when it is lower, less bad will happen is stupid. The left never, and I mean, never, gives in at all, no matter what compromise you make. All giving in now will mean is they have less room to go later, when opinion changes. Period.
As I am sure others have said, there are far and away too many gun control laws on the books now. Amazingly few are actually consistently enforced. When a person is arrested for a crime which involves the use of a gun where both federal and local laws have been violated, it is incredibly rare that charges are brought for federal violations. The truth is, they aren’t enforcing the laws currently on the books. What they want is not gun control, but confiscation and bans. That is the only solution they will ultimately accept. Every other “solution” is merely a step in the direction they want to go, not their ultimate goal.
Michael. I listen to your podcast every morning. I have a lot of respect for you. However, I also recognize in you the same Northeastern ignorance about guns that I myself suffered from until I moved to the west. Once I got into an area where gun ownership was common and wasn’t treated as an aberration or a privilege, I began to recognize the incredible sense of freedom and personal safety that one gains when one is a gun owner and a competent shooter. I no longer felt that my safety rested with government authorities. I was a free individual, and responsible for myself. It was an enormous change from the feeling I had growing up in New York. The entire Constitution took on a different meaning, because as a free man I understood why our founding fathers fought to keep the freedoms to which they had grown accustomed. Personal responsibility, most especially that responsibility for your own actions and safety, is an incredibly liberating feeling.
Those who seek to take away our guns, and make no mistake about it, that is their goal, their only goal, want to give all responsibility to the government. They want to be cared for, trained to be dependent in our schools, dependent on government healthcare, willing to accept whatever rules and protections the government wishes to surround us with. That may be all right for sheep or cattle, but not for free men.
If you consider the number of gun owners in this country and how few, how very few ever commit a crime with their guns, it seems to me idiotic that a tiny percentage should be allowed to determine the freedom of the vast, vast majority. We see lousy, irresponsible drivers on the road every day. Do we take away everyone’s cars because of them? No. The individuals who commit gun crimes will continue to kill no matter the laws. Finding and eliminating them is the only acceptable way to protect people. As with traffic accidents. These events aren’t predictable or preventable. All we can do is punish those who commit them so that they are never able to do so again.
This strikes me as out of touch with reality. Under no stretch of the imagination could a rifle be considered a weapon of mass destruction.
Not to mention the dangerous precedent you’d set, which is: if we can’t pass new laws, let’s stretch the old ones to ban what we want them to ban.