- Following on Bob’s post about gun control, I cannot imagine that any rational person thinks that our gun laws should be such that a person exhibiting clear signs of mental illness should be allowed to buy a semiautomatic weapon without any sort of background check. Yet that seems to be what happened. At the very least, some updating to the federal gun laws would seem to be in order.
Of course, the NRA will oppose this. And if Congress cannot stand up to the NRA now that one of its own has nearly lost her life to gun violence, then Congress is more craven than I would have thought conceivable.
- Relatedly, Gail Collins makes an excellent point in her op-ed already noted by Bob. Let’s assume that even someone like Jared Loughner will always be able to find a gun if he really wants one. There’s a difference between an ordinary gun and a Glock that can squeeze off 30 quick rounds before reloading. And so, Collins says,
If Loughner had gone to the Safeway carrying a regular pistol, the kind most Americans think of when they think of the right to bear arms, Giffords would probably still have been shot and we would still be having that conversation about whether it was a sane idea to put her Congressional district in the cross hairs of a rifle on the Internet.
But we might not have lost a federal judge, a 76-year-old church volunteer, two elderly women, Giffords’s 30-year-old constituent services director and a 9-year-old girl who had recently been elected to the student council at her school and went to the event because she wanted to see how democracy worked.
That is the point I would like those opposed to any change in our gun laws to answer.
- One more thought on the gun control angle: some may opine that now that the Supreme Court has held that the Second Amendment is an individual right, there’s nothing we can do. I respectfully, but completely, disagree. No rights are absolute. Take the right to free speech, for example – that is clearly an individual right, and it is one that receives an extraordinarily high level of protection from the courts. It is nonetheless the case that (to quote Justice Holmes) “[t]he most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” Nor can you engage in speech that constitutes libel without suffering the consequences.
We don’t yet know the constitutional boundaries of the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. What we do know is that boundaries exist.
- Maybe it’s just one Palin aide who has gone rogue in embarking on this absurd quest to transform what are obviously gunsights into “surveyor’s symbols.” But whoever is behind it is engaged in one of the most cowardly acts of spin that I’ve ever seen. I agree with Charley that Sarah Palin wasn’t encouraging political assassinations with her map stunt. But for the Palinistas to be running scared from their own handiwork is not only pathetic, it actually makes them look worse, since the only reason to deny the reality of what was on that map is because you think maybe there was actually something wrong with it.
- I was on the Emily Rooney show this afternoon (along with Garrett Quinn, Dan Kennedy, and Wendy Kaminer) to talk about all of this. Here’s the audio – our segment begins at about 24:00.
I am in complete agreement with all of your points for the most part. Just like their is a lemon test for free speech and religious displays in public places, a valid argument can be made that the right to bear arms, even as an individual right, does not create a right to specific kinds of arms. The Brady Bill, named for a Reagan staffer who was a victim of gunfire, and passed under a Republican President, is a moderate and sensible common sense gun regulation. Under Brady, guns like those uesd by this killer, were banned just a few years ago. A pistol is necessary for self-protection and certain hunting functions, but one does not need 30 clip rounds for those functions. Similarly assault weapons, armour piercing weapons, and semi-automatic weapons, are designed to be used for the sole purpose of killing people, and a conservative, traditional, civic minded society would not want anyone to have access to those guns to terrorize people. Gang bangers and drug lords from the Mexican border to the South Side of Chicago are making great use of these now legal guns and the loopholes that allow them to obtain them. I disagreed with the Chicago ban for being too draconian and for preventing law abiding citizens from protecting themselves, especially in parts of the city where police could take almost an hour to respond. But the Brady Bill, and common sense regulations are moderate, centrist regulations that should be vigorously supported by this President and this Congress. As David pointed out, they have now lost one of their own.
but by Bill Clinton on Nov 30, 1993. And it was about background checks. The Assault Weapons ban passed in 1994. It expired in 2004. I think that was what banned such clips.
<
p>Congress should consider amending the Brady Law–this Loughner guy was too crazy to join the military or stay in school, but never committed to a mental institution. As I understand it, that’s not enough to show up on his background check as a red flag. It should be.
<
p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B…
Thanks for the corrections, I knew the Assault Weapons Ban was under Clinton but I thought HW signed Brady, obviously I stand corrected. That said Clinton was able to spin gun control as a law and order moderate conservative measure, as it arguably is, and I think it is up to this President to build a coalition of law enforcement, first responders, and victims to help put a human face on this issue and get this sensible legislation passed. And obviously after this and the Ft. Hood massacre, its obvious we need better mental health checkups in and out of the military. If you want a military style of weapon you should have to pass a military level psych evaluation.
between then and today, Democrats at the national level have become terrified of the NRA. It should happen, but I fear we’ll need a few more of these sorts of incidents before we’ll be able to change DC.
<
p>Being able to get back to Brady and the AWB would go a long way toward making America safer, and I think we should follow that up with Joel’s suggestion of creating a wider net to catch people who may not be fully sane.
It’s a good point that there is a big difference, a legal difference, between crazy and mentally ill. I can call the wierd guy in my class crazy but unless he hes been admitted to a psychiatric hospital he is not mentally ill as far as I know. I believe he can even have been seen by a doctor and been given medication and still not be “mentally ill”.
when said “crazy” person breaks into your house and commits crimes and his lawyers demands lenience since the “crazy” person forgot to take their meds that day… or their IQ is too low to fully understand the difference between right and wrong. These are the risks we run in today’s world because of groups like the ACLU.
… than you give them credit for.
<
p>If any cosmetic gun control measures even make it to a vote, they will only focus on individual purchasers and their mental health. It will be something minor and ineffectual, such as requiring colleges to report mental health cases to the local police.
<
p>It most certainly will not restrict weapons, magazines, waiting periods, concealed carry, etc….
<
p>The congress is bought and paid for. And the NRA, among others, has paid enough to ensure that the current crop of 535 has a firm majority of scared little cowards who willfully misinterpret the 2nd Amendment.
<
p>Hell, they already got the SCOTUS to believe that an amendment designed to protect the fledgling states from invading Red Coats and “savages” means that you can keep a loaded Glock under your pillow.
What does the list below say about the suspect?
<
p>”I had favorite books: Animal Farm, Brave New World, The Wizard Of OZ, Aesop Fables, The Odyssey, Alice Adventures Into Wonderland, Fahrenheit 451, Peter Pan, To Kill A Mockingbird, We The Living, Phantom Toll Booth, One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest, Pulp,Through The Looking Glass, The Communist Manifesto, Siddhartha, The Old Man And The Sea, Gulliver’s Travels, Mein Kampf, The Republic, and Meno.”
<
p>Source: Jared Lee Loughner’s YouTube profile.
If you’re going to try to find an ideological commonality between The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf, good luck to you. There is a generic anti-authority rule running through those, however, a “fight the system” mentality.
<
p>Now, the groups who organize and arm to fight the government, do you see those on the left or the right?
many people in this country think communism and fascism are the same things, even if they’re diametric opposites. It wouldn’t surprise me if someone as crazy as Loughner could read about those two things and not come up with the main differences, especially considering the fact that he felt words have no meaning and grammar was a ‘tool to control’ people.
both are rooted in socialism / marxist theory
<
p>both are totalitarian
<
p>both forsake liberty in the name of the greater good.
<
p>One is for ideologues who are not squeamish about genocide. The other one is… oh – well – I’m not sure the difference. Are you?
<
p>Um… no, they’re not. Complete and utter opposites. You ought to do some more reading on the subject, because your suggestion that I quoted reveals your ignorance.
<
p>The other suggestions I can agree with insofar as most of the historical examples have trended in those directions, but the fact that they were totalitarian and “not squeamish” about doing terrible things doesn’t mean their internal economic policies (ie how businesses and government interacted) were at all similar. They aren’t. No where close.
I guess we should then ignore the “socialist” half of national socialism. And the totalitarian aspect too.
<
p>Leaving us with… what exactly?
<
p>Just because you associated racism and bigotry with the right doesn’t make those things aspects of right wing theory or politics. Conventional wisdom may try to place naziism at the far right, but in truth its just another big government, totalitarian approach which should be seen in contrast to the emphasis on freedom which is espoused by most conservative thinking.
<
p>Your idea of right wing does not match the reality, at least here in America. Beyond that, it appears that anyone can take any label they wish (e.g. Anarchists are really just shady socialists)
Abortion rights, for example, and access to birth control. Many Republicans want to tightly control them. Democrats want freedom.
<
p>Gay rights is another example. Republicans in many parts of the country have led the charge to repress and control this group of people. Democrats have stood up for their freedom. Other minority groups also come to mind.
<
p>Union rights is a third example. Republicans often seek to deny workers the freedom to organize themselves. Democrats have supported their freedom to do that.
<
p>Find me a prominent national Republican who supports freedom for women to control their own bodies, freedom for gay people to live as equal citizens, and freedom for workers to organize a union.
What is more of a liberty stance:
<
p>1) A baby has a right to life
<
p>2) A fetus is just like an appendix. I can get rid of it?
<
p>So called Abortion rights are the right to murder another human that is an inconvenience to you. It is not about freedom rather the taking away of the freedom and liberty to live.
<
p>Furthermore the stated aim of the progressive Margaret Sanger who started Planned Parenthood was to purify the human race by stopping the birth of “negroe” babies.
<
p>(note: negroe is used in the historical context)
It may eventually become one, of course. And until it has left the womb, it is not truly a separate entity from the mother so there is no way to give a fetus full rights as an individual without taking rights away from the mother. If you open the door to treating a fetus exactly like a baby, then you also open the door for prosecuting women for doing anything that some misguided legislator (is there any other kind?) believes might harm the fetus.
that Republicans who are pro-life do not view it as a means to oppress or limit freedom. They view it as protecting human life, a fact which would be obvious to even the most casual observer. You can disagree with their interpretation (although, really, you ought to give it at least some respect) but I don’t think that one counts as being anti freedom any more than putting people in jail for child abuse does. You may know that I come down (barely) on the pro-choice side, but in an issue this messy, intense and complex, there are no easy answers.
<
p>As for repressing and controlling gays, I really don’t know what you mean by that. I imagine you are talking about military and marriage, but in no modern and serious case can I think of anyone telling gays what to do / how to live / so forth. If you have a point anywhere, it is here, although I think it is a rather small one.
<
p>As for unions – hah! What? Who is denying freedom to organize? OK I’ll bite, I would! I would deny freedom to organize for government workers, for the same reasons that FDR thought it was a bad idea. Beyond that, what we all know is that unions tend to kill the host. They served a purpose a century ago but then proved that opposing forces were not strong enough to allow e.g. GM (or for that matter, any business) to survive over the long haul. Guess what else? Same thing is happening to state governments in blue states this year. Just watch.
<
p>But, no one is denying them that freedom, are they?
<
p>In the same way that the “Peoples Republic of China” is neither a Republic nor of the People… and the CCCP, “Soyuz Sovietskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik” (or “Union Of Soviet Socialist Republic”) was neither a Union (by choice) or a Republic… the NSDAP, or “Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei” (or “NationalSocialist German Workers Party”) was neither Socialist nor made up, in significant part, by the labor force.
<
p>One of the hallmarks of totalitarianism is a distinct effort to subvert language, and thus thought, through labels and determined corruption of speech. One of the marks of the ‘good guys’ is a distinct effort to take people at their word. Thus the amoral also often corrupt language to keep the good guys off balance.
<
p>You should read “1984” for the clearest example of this.
that in contrast, communist party leadership in the USSR was comprised of the labor force?
<
p>Maybe you are confusing theory with implementation, because call it what you will but it always does seem to turn out the same.
<
p>Yes, because East Germany was called the German Democratic Republican because it was Democratic. Fail.
<
p>
<
p>OMG can you read? As I said,
<
p>
<
p>Fascism and communism are two completely opposite things. That they both are so far in the extremes in opposite directions that they’ve been totalitarian doesn’t mean other aspects of their ‘systems’ are at all similar. Communism is a system where the government essentially owns all companies and levels all playing fields in terms of class; fascism, at its core, is a system where the boundaries between government and private businesses are increasingly blurred and an elite group of people in the private sector ‘come together’ to decide economic policy, while preserving class lines.
<
p>The similarities that exist between them — totalitarian, nationalistic, etc. — is really just a byproduct of how far to the extreme both of the systems were. It doesn’t mean that they were both marxist — only one of them was, and the other was in many ways a response to marxism: a means to diminish its ability to proliferate, while also appealing to the ‘revolutionary’ mindset that enabled communism to fester amongst the people of those days. Fascism, in that way, protected many of those who were in power and were willing to go so low as to join the movement.
<
p>
<
p>I need to fix this quote.. “your idea of right wing does not match Demolisher’s reality.” There, fixed it. Like it or not, Fascism is a right-wing ideology, it’s the complete mixing of business and government — not the dissolution of all business in favor of government. It may not be your brand of right wing, but it’s right wing nonetheless — just like communism isn’t my brand of left wing.
<
p>Your fear of placing fascism on the right suggests, to me, that you don’t want to admit that there’s a far-enough corner of rightwing ideology that it would be dangerous for the people. Your desperation to avoid the ‘fascism is right-wing’ label would be tantamount to me suggestion communism isn’t left-wing. Of course, that would be untrue. We need to embrace the fact that our corners of the isle can go so far to the ideological extremes that dangerous things can happen, because we need to guard against that.
<
p>This is doubly true of fascism in this country, because while there’s no possibility in today’s America of a socialist revolution that ends up with America owning all the private businesses… we’re seeing examples of government and private collusion that already closely resemble fascism today. You see that in the revolving door between Treasury, the Federal Reserve and Goldman Sachs — and you see that in our embassies playing Sales Rep to Boeing. We are, today, in danger of becoming a fascist state — and the right wing should fear it as much as the left.
do you have some kind of utopian view of what went on in the USSR or something? Or in China?
<
p>Communism levels the playing field by forcing everyone into abject poverty and/or starvation, I’ll give you that much. Communist regimes seemed to kill more people, although by and large it was their own people. So thats a difference.
<
p>It almost sounds like you’ve fallen for the utopian theory and are trying to contrast that with some arbitrary implementation of it. If you are interested, read the Black Book of Communism for the horrible truth.
<
p>Aside from the special twistedness of the racial supremacy aspect of the nazis, the main difference is that a different small group of people controlled things to cruel and devastating effect. Except perhaps it was a smaller group in the USSR.
<
p>Anyway, I do not “fear” placing fascism on the right, I just don’t recognize it as something that belongs there. I especially reject the idea that racism somehow belongs on the right, an idea which seems beneath contempt.
<
p>However,
<
p>
<
p>You’ll be surprised that I partially agree with you here. Its not so much that I have my own reality, but rather that I find the 2 dimensional definition of what lies right and what lies left that conventional wisdom dictates to be overly simplistic and frankly, counterproductive. Where does libertarianism fall on left-right? It doesn’t work for that.
<
p>Another line (remember, these are all imaginary constructs) holds liberty on one and and totalitarianism on the other end. I like that one.
<
p>The libertarians I think have added a Y axis dimension to create a somewhat richer “political compass” (http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz, questionaire slanted in favor of Ls but the point is still valid) which I think does the question better service than the simple left-right line of old.
<
p>In any case, the traditional left-right line is an entirely arbitrary construct, as is any attempt to categorize a complex set of views or characteristics into something simple. Because, propaganda aside, why have categories if they are not useful?
That their philosophies are utter failures is, of course, obvious.
<
p>
<
p>You may not fear it, but the fact that you’re opposed to it when you will readily suggest communism is on the left suggests, to me, you’re being defensive over your side of the ‘isle.’ Make no mistake: there is no compare and contrast of these systems to determine which one is better. They’re both utter failures that take power away from people and create a society ripe for nationalism and atrocity, two exceedingly dangerous things.
<
p>Any political idea of a system can be abused to such an extent that none of us want to admit it “belongs” there. Yet, the right is where fascism fits. Just because it’s on the right doesn’t mean you somehow support it though, no more than I’d support communism because it’s on the left. We reject the ideas because they were bad ones (to put it mildly), that doesn’t mean we have to reject our side of the political spectrum.
<
p>The point is we need to understand these systems — both in terms of what their political theorists ‘hoped’ to do, as well as what their actual politicians did — so we can avoid voting for people who espouse similar ideas in the future, but wrap them around different labels. Given the fact that you think communism and fascism are at all similar in terms of economic and class philosophy means you have no understanding of them, and therefore can’t provide a check (in terms of your voice and vote) against politicians who would push for them.
<
p>
<
p>That’s easy: libertarianism is very much on the right. That they (purportedly) support individual freedoms on social issues is clearly a distraction for you; the reason why they support those issues is because of an ideology firmly entrenched to the right — that individuals should have all the power, and government should be able to be drowned in bathwater. When looking at systems of government on the left-right divide, social issues are a big distraction: there are systems firmly on the ‘left’ that are very conservative on social issues (including communism) and there are systems that are economically on the right that are fairly liberal on social issues (you could make the case that Ireland fits that bill, for example).
<
p>
<
p>Arbitrary? No. Simplistic? Yes. Simplifying things, though, has a place in society and can be an important tool. Getting a system of government and its economic philosophies down to its ‘least common denominator’ can help you understand a lot about it, most particularly who it chiefly serves.
your ideas very well, and in gentlemanly fashion. I enjoyed reading both takes on the issue. Respect, Edgar
<
p>Who ever said that was a distraction for me? I’m pretty sure I didn’t.
<
p>Anyway, I agree on the CW placing fascism on the right but I personally don’t see the path based on what I see the right being.
<
p>I see any imposition of values by the right (e.g. religious right) on others to be flawed and in most cases inconsistent with the deeper principles of conservatism.
<
p>I like to look at things as freedom vs. central government control, and as such, any big government solution is on what you would consider the left. Too big, too much power, always turns into disaster.
<
p>But you would never get that from a libertarian. The risk on this side is so little government it either turns into anarchy (unlikely, then we’d be called anarchists – although that label does seem to be occupied by socialists right now) or that we are insufficiently attentive to international affairs in a way that allows something like nazis to rise again, or other bad things to conspire against us unchecked.
… pardon me, but… [whisper] your education is showing [/whisper].
should be no surprise to you
… mentioned that he liked to “push buttons” and adding Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto was probably done for that reason.
I once worked with who had NRA and Audubon Society stickers on his car. He thought it was hilarious.
… that he never read.
<
p>That collection sounds extremely contrived.
Some are actually fables or parables, and others like 1984 and Gulliver are ‘children’s’ stories with very serious subtext.
<
p>Kind of illustrates his concern over word use and mental censorship. Interesting list.
we know of/identify infamous shooters by their three name convention. That plus the magical passport of Atta was found on top of the WTC rubble pile. So in light of normal people waking up to Obama’s globalist socialism something just had to be done. What am I saying? Set up. MKultra written all over it. I mean the most brillant collection of think tanks could not have provided a better problem,reaction,solution scenario. The will of the people be damned.
Billxi was banned – Lasthorseman deserves the same fate. Please consider cleaning up the site…
Yes his ideas are warped. But do you want to ban him because you don’t agree with him? That’s odd.
As far as I know, LH has never uttered personal attacks against BMGers – unlike billxi (among others), who did so enough times that we finally had to ban him.
<
p>Warning: the headline of this comment may result in pigs flying. We disclaim any responsibility from injuries or damage suffered from airborne pigs. 😉
…because he brings nothing but warped ideas to the debate – there’s nothing useful in his posts, and this one is beyond the pale as far as I’m concerned.
A crucial issue is whether the commenter makes personal attacks against other BMGers or others (slurs, invective etc.). LastHorseman has his own views, that’s all.
Celebrating the deaths of public workers is fine, as long as they don’t blog on here?
NPR had an expert on gun law on tonight who explained how an FBI background check works (Loughner had one and it didn’t flag him — apparently the gun sale was completely legal, which to me means some laws need to be changed, starting with banning these extended clips entirely).
<
p>He contrasted the gun-buying background check with the much more comprehensive check for a security clearance. The gun-buy check looks for specific things — convictions for some crimes, being under indictment for a felony, being dishonorably discharged from the service, having a domestic violence protective order on you, or being adjudicated as mentally ill. There was some evidence that Loughner was mentally ill, but nothing legally binding. The fact that he was barred from his community college for being a disturbing person wasn’t a finding that he was mentally ill. That’s something close to a protective order, but apparently it wasn’t such an order.
<
p>Barred from his college until he could pass a mental health screen is good enough for me. This guy should never have been allowed to buy that gun.
By the way, does she ever have non-liberals as guests on her program? She says that Delahunt will be a guest this evening. Do you think she will ask him if he assumes any responsibility for the torture and assassinations of anti-Chavez people? I rather doubt it; so much easier to talk about the evil words of Sarah Palin.
I’m pretty much always on with Garrett Quinn, who as a long-time front-pager at Red Mass Group is certainly not a liberal. I think she probably had Charlie Baker on more often than Deval during the Gov’s race. Etc. etc.
something you and your clones here could use a little of.
And as far as guessing is concerned, most of you and your clones’ speculations about the assassin have been incorrect guesses, and I notice that hasn’t stopped you.
How is imagining bad behavior from people you dislike or disagree with constitute “intellectual curiosity”?
<
p>Your tendency to lump all people who disagree with you as being somehow equivalent is distinctly anti-intellectual. I have made no attempt to paint this guy as a right-winger, so your retort is meaningless. I am not a clone of anyone else here. If you want to criticize someone’s specific comment, please go ahead, but don’t pin it on me.
<
p>If you want to be taken seriously here, then you must avoid the sin of just making stuff up to support your arguments.
<
p>BTW, giving me a zero for that comment was childish of you.
By all means give it a 3. But zeros should be reserved for the kind of comments that would get one banned from the site.
<
p>
Your very first sentence is contradictory. I asked a question about a radio program out of curiosity because I am not familiar with the program and you, my friend, are the one who is “imagining bad behavior from people you dislike or disagree with…”
Don’t tell me to worry about being taken seriously on a ship of fools. I had to suffer the apologies of the left for the murderous soviet regime, and I couldn’t care less as to how serious you or anyone else takes me. Too many people have been tortured and butchered with the blessings of naive lefties in the 20th century. We don’t need all-knowing governments destroying lives in the 21st.
Do your own ratings, and I’ll do mine–and I won’t imitate your habit of name-calling when there is dissonance in same.
Of course you can choose to disregard the rules of behavior for this site, but not without consequences. Do you so quickly ignore rules of behavior when you interact with people in person?
<
p>There was nothing contradictory about what I said at all. Your so-called question was really more of an assertion/aspersion for which you were seeking confirmation.
<
p>You say you could care less what people think of you, but that is clearly incorrect or you wouldn’t be spraying zeros at people who you feel have offended you without regard to the actual content of the comments. In fact, it is pretty clear you care very deeply what people think.
Must say I have been highly impressed by Rep. Giffords’ surgeon, Dr. Peter Rhee, as well as Sheriff Dupnik and others who have spoken.
<
p>After some intensely negative things in the news in 2010 pertaining to Arizona, it’s reassuring to find there are fine people there who know how to step up humanely and with competence, strength and poise in a horrific crisis. From a distance, I had been thinking rather ill of Arizona, I confess. A side lesson I will take from this tragic killing spree is to remember that there are good people everywhere.
… testament to the feeling on the Right right now. Here is a quote from a senior Republican Senator speaking to Politico (hat tipYglesias, emphasis his):
<
p>
<
p>Anyone think he’s out of line here? Anyone think he’s should feel embarrassed by saying that?
<
p>Here’s the amazing thing – the quote was given under anonymity. Yglesias:
<
p>
<
p>”Admit no errors” has been a cornerstone feature of the GOP’s playbook throughout the 21st century at least. So much so that even this modicum of soul-searching might be tantamount to party treason.
<
p>This is your “loyal opposition”.
target numero uno by Rush Limbaugh and the like right now, which is a very sad thing.
<
p>You want a Congress who can only act on something that they experience personally? Should they ignore “gang violence”, HCR… unless of course a member encounters it? Tax increases are fine until the tax increase hits their pay checks.
<
p>We have talked before on the severity of punishment for crimes and I’ve said it wouldn’t be right for me to make a decision on something like “What punishment should someone get if they are convicted of sucker punching someone in the face?… 6 months?” But… what if it was my Mother who was being punched in the face? Death penalty!
<
p>I’m on record here as not liking guns but let our Congress (our Representatives) make their decisions on their rational thoughts following the “will of the people they represent”, not an impulse, however tragic.
The statement isn’t an assertion, as you put it, that Congress “…can only act on something that they experience personally”. (It’s quite a stretch to read it that way IMO.) It is a statement of disappointment that Congress can’t act even when they are personally affected. The implication is that if it was disappointing that they couldn’t act when they weren’t personally affected and now that they are personally affected, their inaction is even more telling.
Your assumption is Congress should “naturally” be fixing this because it is a problem. Many people in this country do not think there is a problem with guns.
<
p>Did you see this chart I posted a few days ago showing the percent of gun owners by state in the US? These Congressmen are voting the way they vote against additional gun control because that’s what their constituents who they represent want them to do. And I’m sure for every gun-owner there are a number of other people who support owning guns even if they don’t (like me).
<
p>While I support the Second Amendment completely, I too wish we could develop some sane restrictions regarding permits… but I do not want Congressmen acting because of a tragedy.
<
p>In 2007, Democrats controlled the House and the Senate and during that time the Virginia Tech shooter killed 33 people. That outrageous event should have made “something” happen nationally. Instead, the only real result was Virginia changed a regulation so “mentally ill” patients could no longer get gun permits. Wow, big move.
<
p>Regardless of “who” was shot, I don’t want Congress to react simply because it was “one of their own”. Do it for the “right” reasons.
<
p>
… my assumption, the original poster’s. Given the assumption my interpretation of the comment holds.
Maybe we are disagreeing on the interpretation, so both or neither of us could be right. My answer was based on my interpretation… and it still stands.
My understanding, and I could be wrong so I defer to my legal team, is that Holmes in his famous metaphor was referring to antiwar protestors. If so, he was wrong, and his analogy is inappropriate and legally perverse.
the most famous quote in the history of First Amendment jurisprudence was from a case in which the result looks, by today’s standards, patently absurd. Holmes himself, dissenting in a case decided only a few years later (Abrams v. US), dramatically changed his tune (while not expressly disavowing his opinion in Schenck).
<
p>Nonetheless, his theatre metaphor remains apt.