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
My state’s constitution says, “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be questioned.”
Get that? Don’t. Even. Think. About it.
Our state Const. is like that about religious freedom ,too. The provisions Are written as a declaration of natural rights, self executing. I dont think “State action” is even required if you want to sue a violator. Our Constitution forbids anyone, not just the state legislature, from “questioning ” or restricting these rights. If you even propound restricting a citizen’s right to bear arms in self defense, you have violated our constitution, in my opinion. ❤️ to litigate that!
That’s the difference between arms and ordnance.
But how many were shot and how many were trampled? I haven’t seen a report on that yet.
A stampede can kill a lot more than the bullets.
I’d also like to point out that Pol Pot killed a lot more than 26 people. And the 3 million people he killed were largely disarmed.
Apparently he was walking up and down the aisles shooting babies in the face point blank…. so….
I was referring to the incident at Las Vegas.
whoops my bad. Sorry.
I’m sure you are right. I don’t know anything about guns. :)
The argument assumes that the left wants some reasonable control and that if second amendment supporters provide such control they will go away happy. They won’t. What they want is to undermine the constitution without amending it which they wouldn’t be able to do. Constitutional rights as written are their enemy and their target. Disarming citizens may also be important to them, but not as important as undermining the constitution which has been a progressive goal for a century. Moreover, politics is organic not mechanical. Give them anything and it feeds the beast, fertilizes their weed garden. Anything we do can also be characterized as negotiating with ourselves. To even address the issue after one of these tragedies is playing their game, using their narrative, words and playing field. In the San Antonio shooting the issue is government and bureaucratic incompetence, not guns. The issue is real and the effectiveness of background checks whether for gun permits or visas, or jobs is critical and we just let dysfunctional government proceed as if it were doing its job.
What good would a new law do anyway. This individual shouldn’t have been allowed to buy a gun by existing laws. All another law will do is make it more difficult for the law abiding gun owner and introduce another opportunity for the bureaucracy to screw something up. Additionally, as has been pointed out we aren’t enforcing the existing laws in this area. Maybe we should try that first.
If that day comes, there will be war.
Current gun laws are not enforced properly, and until that happens, I am not willing to discuss any more restrictions.
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Your suggestion would only work if criminals, crazies, and the Left (but I repeat myself) were honest, and would abide by the restrictions. Criminals of all sorts do not obey laws.
With respect, you are talking about gun control, and you are advocating taking weapons out of civilian hands. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow the citizenry to defend themselves against hostile entities, including a hostile government. We cannot do that with inferior weapons.
Your suggestion leads me to believe that you think that there is a way to make guns less lethal. It cannot be done, because guns are supposed to be lethal. You might be able to reduce the number of evil and unstable people who have guns, but that is very difficult, as recent events have proved.
Any bolt-action hunting rifle, in competent hands, can fire rapidly and penetrate the walls of houses (look up “the mad minute” in British military history-WWI riflemen were required to fire 15 rounds, and hit a target 15 times at 300 yards, in one minute. Using the standard, bolt-action Lee-Enfield rifle in .303 British caliber, this required two reloads. The standard was for ordinary riflemen, experts could exceed the standard by a factor of two or three times).
Semiautomatic rifles and pistols have been in existence since the nineteenth century. They are the most common weapons in use today, in both civilian and military contexts. If we were to implement your supposed Geneva convention rules, law-abiding people would be at a severe disadvantage, against deranged people, criminals, and the afore-mentioned, as yet hypothetical, hostile government.
There are no reasonable weapon restrictions to the Second Amendment. The restrictions should be on those who can purchase and own guns, which are already in place. Sadly, the restrictions do not work as they should. If current laws were strictly enforced, the rate of crimes committed with guns would decrease, because more gun criminals would be in jail. A dramatic increase in penalties for violent crime, especially gun crime, and including straw purchases, would also decrease gun crime. Say what you will about the death penalty, the rate of recidivism is very low.