This law provides an interesting precedent. As justice Thomas pointed out, this is the only misdemeanor violation that results in the loss of a constitutional right. Quite possibly in the not-to-distant future there will be a call for the loss of Fourth Amendment rights with the similar claim that “safety” is more important. I do wonder if then that those who have no problem with the sacrifice of a right and freedom they fear and would never personally exercise will be so understanding when a right they do value is the one to be sacrificed. My guess is they will not.
11
Domestic violence is only one part of our cultural gun abuse sickness in this country.
The NY Times is big on regs. and domestic violence but it is only a small part to the cure.
One thing they could do is stop reviewing, taking ads for Hollywood's grat. violent gun media targeting our youth, especially youth of color.
Not a word from the NY Times re this....not a peep
The NY Times is big on regs. and domestic violence but it is only a small part to the cure.
One thing they could do is stop reviewing, taking ads for Hollywood's grat. violent gun media targeting our youth, especially youth of color.
Not a word from the NY Times re this....not a peep
8
Again the Gun Grabbing NY Times which seems to be on a perpetual mission to subvert the Constitution won't tell its readers the whole story.
The Times is simply being disingenuous.
"Today, despite horrifyingly frequent mass shootings and yearly gun deaths topping 30,000"
What the Gun Grabbers like the Times never admit or clarify is that of those 30,000 deaths 2/3 are suicides, but the Times needs big numbers so the truth gets bent.
France with much stricter Gun Control laws has a higher suicide rate than the US.
Take away inner city violence of which there has yet to be a gun law passed by the Gun Grabbing Left Wing Fringe that has had any significant impact on improving those abysmal numbers and the US "gun homicide" rate immediately starts to look no different than the rest of "1st World Countries" i.e. Europe.
What the Times never seems able to state is today despite the constant hyperbole of their Gun Grabbing Left Wing Fringe editorials is that the "gun homicide" rate has fallen by 1/2 since the 1990's
Yet millions of guns have been acquired by millions of new gun owners.
What they never tell you is that you're 4X's more likely to killed by a knife or sharp instrument that a rifle.
They never tell you that the number of people killed by rifles has fallen by ~1/2 in the last 15 years, yet the ban on sporting rifles expired and there are now 8 million sporting rifles owned by millions of Americans.
How about some truth from the editorial board for once?
The Times is simply being disingenuous.
"Today, despite horrifyingly frequent mass shootings and yearly gun deaths topping 30,000"
What the Gun Grabbers like the Times never admit or clarify is that of those 30,000 deaths 2/3 are suicides, but the Times needs big numbers so the truth gets bent.
France with much stricter Gun Control laws has a higher suicide rate than the US.
Take away inner city violence of which there has yet to be a gun law passed by the Gun Grabbing Left Wing Fringe that has had any significant impact on improving those abysmal numbers and the US "gun homicide" rate immediately starts to look no different than the rest of "1st World Countries" i.e. Europe.
What the Times never seems able to state is today despite the constant hyperbole of their Gun Grabbing Left Wing Fringe editorials is that the "gun homicide" rate has fallen by 1/2 since the 1990's
Yet millions of guns have been acquired by millions of new gun owners.
What they never tell you is that you're 4X's more likely to killed by a knife or sharp instrument that a rifle.
They never tell you that the number of people killed by rifles has fallen by ~1/2 in the last 15 years, yet the ban on sporting rifles expired and there are now 8 million sporting rifles owned by millions of Americans.
How about some truth from the editorial board for once?
20
Gee whiz!
The number of traffic fatalities has rocketed up by 8% last year.
All those Good Drivers with a License and most of them with insurance and all the money that's been spent on enforcing traffic laws yet the rate of traffic deaths is up.
Very few of the ~30,000 traffic deaths involve suicides.
Which makes obvious the fatuousness of a "good guy with a car" and a "bad guy with a car." Everyone of us (except you, of course) is capable of doing something monstrous with a car. Too many of us are angry or easily offended drivers.
We need the courage to separate the culture from so many cars.
The number of traffic fatalities has rocketed up by 8% last year.
All those Good Drivers with a License and most of them with insurance and all the money that's been spent on enforcing traffic laws yet the rate of traffic deaths is up.
Very few of the ~30,000 traffic deaths involve suicides.
Which makes obvious the fatuousness of a "good guy with a car" and a "bad guy with a car." Everyone of us (except you, of course) is capable of doing something monstrous with a car. Too many of us are angry or easily offended drivers.
We need the courage to separate the culture from so many cars.
4
One trusts that the various right-wingers insisting that Justice Sotomayor agreed with Justic Thomas will a) at some point notice that she concurrd with only PART of his dissent, and b) forevermore stop howling about how them libber women always just act PC.
8
Article cannot be taken seriously because in the first article the author stated, "...yearly gun deaths topping 30,000" when in fact over 60% of those deaths are suicide as reported by the NYT(http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/upshot/gun-deaths-are-mostly-suicides..... This statistic also doesn't take into account how many of these deaths were due to illegal guns. The author also is in support of a bill that would restrict American's Constitutionally guaranteed right without due process.
Republicans, are all ears when it comes to gun-control that would prevent mass shootings. However, of the bills voted on, 0 of them would've stopped a mass shooting.
Republicans, are all ears when it comes to gun-control that would prevent mass shootings. However, of the bills voted on, 0 of them would've stopped a mass shooting.
15
July 1, 2016
Like an auto license is would be best to give a full testing of basics to the applications for filing for a weapon for all ages – with renewals as say every five years…….. Having a weapon is an earned right and as well so as a hunting license…. In my youth I was tested for an NRA Hunting license and later served as a Military Policeman in Vietnam – I know from experience that we all better when we are tested for our educated basics to save ourselves and others as weapons are exposed to our everyday experience – with limitations and oversight for a happy hunting – and military trained world.
jja Manhattan, N. Y.
Like an auto license is would be best to give a full testing of basics to the applications for filing for a weapon for all ages – with renewals as say every five years…….. Having a weapon is an earned right and as well so as a hunting license…. In my youth I was tested for an NRA Hunting license and later served as a Military Policeman in Vietnam – I know from experience that we all better when we are tested for our educated basics to save ourselves and others as weapons are exposed to our everyday experience – with limitations and oversight for a happy hunting – and military trained world.
jja Manhattan, N. Y.
20
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Well regulated. Well regulated. Well regulated. Well regulated means regulated. Keeping guns out of the hands of people who commit domestic violence should be part of that regulation.
Well regulated. Well regulated. Well regulated. Well regulated means regulated. Keeping guns out of the hands of people who commit domestic violence should be part of that regulation.
31
What is "reckless" domestic violence? Can someone give an example?
6
That the law doesn't work is whose fault? The court system's fault. If you issue an injunction, you should confiscate weapons from the abuser. Follow through.
7
We may never know exactly how many thousands of lives this law has likely saved. How many times in the heat of blind rage did an abuser think about buying a weapon, before realizing he couldn't? Sure, some have skirted the law. Many others did not. Either they calmed down, or just didn't want to take the risk. Sensible gun control isn't about perfection, it's about increasing the odds.
19
Largely Democratic lawyers working divorce cases routinely try to get the divorcing dads' weapons seized as a method on intimidating their opponent in the legal process. But thanks for bringing up this aspect of legal doings.
If more and more gun controls make the people safer, why are Chicago, Baltimore, New Orleans, Washington, D.C., New York City, San Francisco, L.A, and St. Louis the most dangerous places on the planet to live?
The class of people exemplified by the NY Times' admin types live their lives behind armed guards but REFUSE to think that the average citizen should be protected. Even Congressman Rangel thinks he is too important not to be guarded but that his constituents should just tough it out.
If more and more gun controls make the people safer, why are Chicago, Baltimore, New Orleans, Washington, D.C., New York City, San Francisco, L.A, and St. Louis the most dangerous places on the planet to live?
The class of people exemplified by the NY Times' admin types live their lives behind armed guards but REFUSE to think that the average citizen should be protected. Even Congressman Rangel thinks he is too important not to be guarded but that his constituents should just tough it out.
5
"But prosecutors are not going after accidents." This sentence should bother most readers. To grant the government more power than it needs to while trusting prosecutorial discretion is to invite abuse. Liberal acceptance of overbroad statutes is why we have mass incarceration and a declining respect for the rights of criminal defendants.
Notably, this piece omits the fact that Justice Sotamayor joined Clarence Thomas in the dissent (except for the portion on the Second Amendment). I expect more from this editorial board.
Notably, this piece omits the fact that Justice Sotamayor joined Clarence Thomas in the dissent (except for the portion on the Second Amendment). I expect more from this editorial board.
3
The NRA, the al;edged shill for the gun industry, proudly boasts that the only way to protect against a bad guy, with a gun, is a good guy with a gun. So tell me, exactly how do we tell who IS that good guy, without background checks?
Just trust him? Trust the NRA? Trust the GOP that has sold its collective soul to the NRA?
It must be difficult to fight an enemy when you see different iterations of them behind every tree, in every place of business, newspaper banner, university structure, etc. And apparently, any differentiation between ISIS, Kurds or just rebellious Turks seems to be of lesser importance.
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
Just trust him? Trust the NRA? Trust the GOP that has sold its collective soul to the NRA?
It must be difficult to fight an enemy when you see different iterations of them behind every tree, in every place of business, newspaper banner, university structure, etc. And apparently, any differentiation between ISIS, Kurds or just rebellious Turks seems to be of lesser importance.
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
13
At this point, I'm about to throw up my arms.
Let those who wish to own guns, own them. Tanks, for that matter. Overwhelmingly, these guys kill each other.
Though they most likely don't believe in it, evolution will do its job.
Let those who wish to own guns, own them. Tanks, for that matter. Overwhelmingly, these guys kill each other.
Though they most likely don't believe in it, evolution will do its job.
6
The issue of domestic violence is undeniably an important one. Combined with suicides, and accidental shootings caused by kids playing with guns or clumsy mishandling of guns vastly more innocent people are killed than criminals and terrorists by a vast margin. How do you strike an acceptable balance?
There was once a popular bumper sticker: "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will accidently shoot their children!"
There was once a popular bumper sticker: "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will accidently shoot their children!"
8
Guns are an unneeded commodity. For all the reasons stated by gun owners that they are an absolute necessity, they are misguided, mere arguments of the delusional. The only need for guns in the hands of every individual is because everyone is allowed to own them. Guns have no other purpose but to be used as deadly force.
Guns are not needed for survival. Most Americans who live in a most violent gun happy country spend their entire lives not owning one gun, not firing a single shot. Why can they do so while others claim their very existence depends on arming themselves to the teeth? Paranoia and obsession.
Some say that we should give people who want to purchase a gun some psychological test. Really? Anyone who wants or needs to have a gun should be a case for immediate failure to procure a gun.
Owners of massive arsenals who claim to be the greatest defenders of the police will also argue that they need all these weapons to protect them from the police coming to take away their guns. Now, explain how such an individual who thinks this way should be allowed to carry anything but a butter knife on them for protection.
The real threat for Americans comes from believers of a distorted Second Amendment who warns anyone supporting gun control that you will have to take their weapon out of their cold dead hands. Try to make some sense out of that. Gun owners are our real enemies to a sane society.
DD
Manhattan
Guns are not needed for survival. Most Americans who live in a most violent gun happy country spend their entire lives not owning one gun, not firing a single shot. Why can they do so while others claim their very existence depends on arming themselves to the teeth? Paranoia and obsession.
Some say that we should give people who want to purchase a gun some psychological test. Really? Anyone who wants or needs to have a gun should be a case for immediate failure to procure a gun.
Owners of massive arsenals who claim to be the greatest defenders of the police will also argue that they need all these weapons to protect them from the police coming to take away their guns. Now, explain how such an individual who thinks this way should be allowed to carry anything but a butter knife on them for protection.
The real threat for Americans comes from believers of a distorted Second Amendment who warns anyone supporting gun control that you will have to take their weapon out of their cold dead hands. Try to make some sense out of that. Gun owners are our real enemies to a sane society.
DD
Manhattan
36
The article repeatedly refers to domestic violence perpetrators are men and victims as women. I recognize that traditional gender roles require men to be active and not victims and women to only be passive, however the facts don't agree with that convenient traditional notion.
The CDC's intimate partner violence survey in 2014 found 3 in 10 women and one in 10 men experienced " rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner and reported at least one impact related to experiencing these or other forms of violent behavior in the relationship (e.g., being fearful, concerned for safety, post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, need for health care, injury, contacting a crisis hotline, need for housing services, need for victim’s advocate services, need for legal services, missed at least one day of work or school)."
It may be inconvenient to your point of view to acknowledge that there are both male and female perpetrators, but if we are to hold all perpetrators accountable, we cannot simply ignore perpetrators who happen to be female.
As a male victim of domestic violence that attitude sickens me and empowers perpetrators.
The CDC's intimate partner violence survey in 2014 found 3 in 10 women and one in 10 men experienced " rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner and reported at least one impact related to experiencing these or other forms of violent behavior in the relationship (e.g., being fearful, concerned for safety, post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, need for health care, injury, contacting a crisis hotline, need for housing services, need for victim’s advocate services, need for legal services, missed at least one day of work or school)."
It may be inconvenient to your point of view to acknowledge that there are both male and female perpetrators, but if we are to hold all perpetrators accountable, we cannot simply ignore perpetrators who happen to be female.
As a male victim of domestic violence that attitude sickens me and empowers perpetrators.
10
Gee whiz! All of these men (and maybe a few women) were "good guys with a gun." Somebody picked each of them for a loving partner. Or they were part of the family.
Which makes obvious the fatuousness of "bad guys with guns" and "good guys with guns." Every one of us (except you, of course) is capable of doing something monstrous with a gun. And too many of us are angry or easily offended. (Not certifiable, of course. Not "bad guys," not yet.) Don't tempt us.
We need the courage to separate the culture from so many guns.
Which makes obvious the fatuousness of "bad guys with guns" and "good guys with guns." Every one of us (except you, of course) is capable of doing something monstrous with a gun. And too many of us are angry or easily offended. (Not certifiable, of course. Not "bad guys," not yet.) Don't tempt us.
We need the courage to separate the culture from so many guns.
26
Domestic violence seems widespread and prevalent even among the elites, and across all cultures. It makes great sense not to allow guns in the hands of abusive partners, mostly men. That Clarence Thomas had the nerve of treating this in a 'cavalier' fashion is ludicrous. If the republican congress were not so coward and so accommodating to the gun lobby, it would by now have passed prudent common sense laws to regulate firearms. This is an emotional issue, reason-deficient, awaiting a legislative body free from interference and with the courage to do the right thing. For now, we are dealing with "political prostitutes", selling themselves to the highest bidder...so they can keep warming their seat, impervious to the daily killings by a loaded gun.
44
Great move, kudos to the SCOTUS.
3
The problem is Republicans prostrating themselves before their God, the NRA. We can't even get a law that keeps machine guns out of the hands of suspected terrorists. The rest of the world looks on in horror and disbelief.
24
Legal machine guns have been HEAVILY controlled, registered, and tracked in the US since 1934!
Suspects? HINT: In the US, people are considered innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilty! What should we suspect YOU of???
Suspects? HINT: In the US, people are considered innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilty! What should we suspect YOU of???
7
Every illegal firearm starts as a legal one...go figure.
6
Really? All those guns smuggled in over our Southern Border were legal in Mexico?
6
I will support "gun control laws" provided:
*They do NOT deprive me of the right or ability to continue owning, transporting, lawfully using or designating as an inheritance any legally-acquired item I currently own.
* They do NOT prohibit manufacture, sale, or purchase of any firearm with characteristics and capabilities identical to firearms legal on July 4, 1965 (e.g. Winchester Model 100).
* They do NOT require me to inform any government agency of any legally-obtained firearm currently in my possession.
* They DO require establishment of a federal system that allows INSTANT background checks for prospective gun purchasers and stipulates a payment of $1 million to any individual who is denied right to purchase in error.
* They DO prohibit any and all government agencies from compiling and/or maintaining any records of firearm and/or ammunition purchases whatsoever.
When a senator or congressman has such a law drafted, he/she can count on my support.
*They do NOT deprive me of the right or ability to continue owning, transporting, lawfully using or designating as an inheritance any legally-acquired item I currently own.
* They do NOT prohibit manufacture, sale, or purchase of any firearm with characteristics and capabilities identical to firearms legal on July 4, 1965 (e.g. Winchester Model 100).
* They do NOT require me to inform any government agency of any legally-obtained firearm currently in my possession.
* They DO require establishment of a federal system that allows INSTANT background checks for prospective gun purchasers and stipulates a payment of $1 million to any individual who is denied right to purchase in error.
* They DO prohibit any and all government agencies from compiling and/or maintaining any records of firearm and/or ammunition purchases whatsoever.
When a senator or congressman has such a law drafted, he/she can count on my support.
5
"They DO require establishment of a federal system that allows INSTANT background checks for prospective gun purchasers and stipulates a payment of $1 million to any individual who is denied right to purchase in error."
Interesting idea.
I would like to propose a fund at the state level to pay individual voters $1 million if they are denied the right to vote by application of a state law, payable by the taxpayers of that state.
Interesting idea.
I would like to propose a fund at the state level to pay individual voters $1 million if they are denied the right to vote by application of a state law, payable by the taxpayers of that state.
5
So, to put it much more briefly than you did, George, you are against gun control - period.
5
Change the date to 1865, or perhaps 1797 and I'm with you!
4
In refusing to forbid terrorists from buying guns, Republicans can be said to be supporters of terrorism!
21
I would recommend you go to the ACLU's website and look at their opposition to the watch list ban. This is not a republican or democrat issue. It's a constitutional issue and the substance of maintaining the constitution affects all Americans regardless of political affiliation.
6
A gun in the home increases the risk of homicide, suicide, and accidental death. Guns lethalize anger, domestic disputes, mental illness and despair. A gun in the home makes the likelihood of homicide three times higher, suicide three to five times higher, and accidental death four times higher.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marian-wright-edelman/guns-leathalize-ange...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marian-wright-edelman/guns-leathalize-ange...
78
Look at the results of the weapons bans in Australia and England, the tools may have shifted but overall crime is NOT down. But that does not fit the control agenda does it?
2
Americans love to shout, "I have a right!" Or, in this case, "...don't infringe on my Second amendment rights...!". Rights are rights only when they don't infringe on someone else's right; even when it's a counter -right. There is a balance. Where is the discussion on this point? I have a right to safety, which I feel is being infringed upon in our weapons focused vigilante culture. I demand my right!
42
You also have a right to protect yourself from someone who is going to harm you. And to many people, a handgun provides that protection, especially in rural areas where law enforcement may be 30 minutes or more away.
3
Who can doubt that the most gun obsessed nation on this planet is a nation of cowardly shortsighted fools?
Imagine public policy that officially endorses a right of citizens to be prepared at all times to shoot each other. That is why the US is an inmate run nuthouse collapsing into bedlam.
Imagine public policy that officially endorses a right of citizens to be prepared at all times to shoot each other. That is why the US is an inmate run nuthouse collapsing into bedlam.
20
I do not know why men commit domestic violence. Are they bad? Do they feel trapped by a society which constantly harps on women's rights with nary a thought for men's rights?
And what about the San Bernardino shooters? Shall we regard them as examples of a "good marriage", husband and wife working together?
I have very little confidence in the NY Times because instead of thinking about causes and solutions, it tends to follow a PC line, "women matter, men don't" and "Republicans are evil".
It is too simplistic, too divisive, and too unfair.
But it sells.
And what about the San Bernardino shooters? Shall we regard them as examples of a "good marriage", husband and wife working together?
I have very little confidence in the NY Times because instead of thinking about causes and solutions, it tends to follow a PC line, "women matter, men don't" and "Republicans are evil".
It is too simplistic, too divisive, and too unfair.
But it sells.
9
How is it divisive to point out the number of victims of domestic violence which nuumerically is a much bigger problem for Americans than terrorism.
3
If you check out the facts, Ludwig, you will notice (at least I hope you will) that MOST victims of domestic violence are women, not men.....and that having a gun in the home increases the chance of death by more than double (regardless of whether it is murder, suicide, or accident. By MORE THAN DOUBLE.
3
"yearly gun deaths topping 30,000,..."
Of which 60%+/- are suicides.
I never give any credence to a writer who does not mention this fact.
Of which 60%+/- are suicides.
I never give any credence to a writer who does not mention this fact.
13
Whether the gun is used against yourself-suicide-or against others, it is still a violent act with a gun. Suicide is not an excuse pro-gun advocates can use to lessen the violent act of using a firearm to kill as a way of keeping the numbers of reported gun related deaths down.
3
Many if not most suicides are preventable. Fewer guns would lead to fewer suicides. We get it though, gun nuts love guns above everything else, including human life, and your obsession trumps every other value in society.
I've completely given up on our society being able to effectively address gun violence. My only consolation, and it's very scant, is that evolution will eventually take care of the problem, given the rate at which gun owners accidentally shoot members of their own families.
I've completely given up on our society being able to effectively address gun violence. My only consolation, and it's very scant, is that evolution will eventually take care of the problem, given the rate at which gun owners accidentally shoot members of their own families.
5
There were only six to seven thousand gun deaths in the U.S. in 2015.
Cops killed as many suspects as died in mass shootings, around 165 each category.
Cops kill three whites for each black, nearly all males in each group. Studies using real-world situations find cops usually wait longer to fire at black suspects than whites. Sorry, BLM. Blue Lives Matter.
We are losing MORE people to drug overdoses than car crashes OR firearms. Again and again, the OD's are former users who went back to get high and took their last level of drug. Their now-healthier body sees that old dose as too much and they respiration or heart fails.
Cops killed as many suspects as died in mass shootings, around 165 each category.
Cops kill three whites for each black, nearly all males in each group. Studies using real-world situations find cops usually wait longer to fire at black suspects than whites. Sorry, BLM. Blue Lives Matter.
We are losing MORE people to drug overdoses than car crashes OR firearms. Again and again, the OD's are former users who went back to get high and took their last level of drug. Their now-healthier body sees that old dose as too much and they respiration or heart fails.
2
I have a better idea- put domestic abusers in jail! They are violent criminals and should be punished.
This isn't a gun control issue; it's a safety issue.
This isn't a gun control issue; it's a safety issue.
7
surgres, many are put in jail but not forever!
3
The rates of incarceration per 100,000 people:
India: 33
Japan: 49
Sweden: 60
United States: 698 (not including juveniles).
Clearly 698 is not enough for you, surgres. What if we lose our lead?
India: 33
Japan: 49
Sweden: 60
United States: 698 (not including juveniles).
Clearly 698 is not enough for you, surgres. What if we lose our lead?
2
The Lautenberg Amendment applies to people who have been charged and convicted of misdemeanor or felony domestic abuse. Some have done jail time while other have paid fines and placed on probation.
4
I'm trying to get my head around the notion that Mr. Justice Thomas is worried about somebody treating something "cavalierly."
10
He has almost never spoken up vocally in a case....I guess I should be glad.
2
Bullet-Riddled Bodies Do Not Lie. GUNS KILL. Get them off the streets of America. We must DEMAND that every gun in America be REGISTERED on a national database, state LICENSED and fully insured for LIABILITY.
22
No.
3
Bullet riddled bodies do not lie but if they could talk, the first question asked of them would be: "who did this to you"? The answer would not be: "an AR-15".
The answer would be, "Joe Blow, my husband," or, "Jane Doe, my ex."
For the five hundred fifty seventh time: Guns DO NOT kill.
Guns are USED BY PEOPLE TO KILL.
I agree with everything else you write: "every gun in America should - must - be REGISTERED on a national database, state LICENSED and fully insured for LIABILITY."
The answer would be, "Joe Blow, my husband," or, "Jane Doe, my ex."
For the five hundred fifty seventh time: Guns DO NOT kill.
Guns are USED BY PEOPLE TO KILL.
I agree with everything else you write: "every gun in America should - must - be REGISTERED on a national database, state LICENSED and fully insured for LIABILITY."
@njglea
Here is how your demands are met.
You need 2/3 of the Congress to vote to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
You then need 3/4 of the States to agree to the repeal.
Good Luck!
Here is how your demands are met.
You need 2/3 of the Congress to vote to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
You then need 3/4 of the States to agree to the repeal.
Good Luck!
1
What is really needed in this country is for unbiased, academic historians to begin a scholarly discussion of the 2nd Amendment.
James Madison and many of the Northern states were in favor of the people's right to bear arms because most of them already had some kind of firearm in their homes and many of the Founding Fathers were deeply suspicious of a standing army.
Patrick Henry, the third largest slave holder in the Nation, forged a change to the original wording of Madison's 2nd Amendment from "Nation" to "state" because he wanted an armed force that could be quickly assembled to quash any slave rebellions..... or so I have read.
The 2nd Amendment should have been repealed once the Nation had a standing Army and slavery was abolished.
Most of the civilized world does not have the problem of tens of thousands murdered by firearms each year because they are not saddled with an obsolete 2nd Amendment, nevermind one that has been so radically interpreted by our Supreme Court. The lack of a 2nd Amendment allows these countries to approach firearms sanely, reasonably and logically.
This slaughter on our streets, in public places and in our homes is illogical and makes no sense.
Although the finest Congress money can buy will have to be forced to repeal the 2nd Amendment, with a groundswell of public support, it can be done.
James Madison and many of the Northern states were in favor of the people's right to bear arms because most of them already had some kind of firearm in their homes and many of the Founding Fathers were deeply suspicious of a standing army.
Patrick Henry, the third largest slave holder in the Nation, forged a change to the original wording of Madison's 2nd Amendment from "Nation" to "state" because he wanted an armed force that could be quickly assembled to quash any slave rebellions..... or so I have read.
The 2nd Amendment should have been repealed once the Nation had a standing Army and slavery was abolished.
Most of the civilized world does not have the problem of tens of thousands murdered by firearms each year because they are not saddled with an obsolete 2nd Amendment, nevermind one that has been so radically interpreted by our Supreme Court. The lack of a 2nd Amendment allows these countries to approach firearms sanely, reasonably and logically.
This slaughter on our streets, in public places and in our homes is illogical and makes no sense.
Although the finest Congress money can buy will have to be forced to repeal the 2nd Amendment, with a groundswell of public support, it can be done.
6
Good luck. But the American public has made it quite clear that the majority has no problem with the individual right to bear arms.
3
I thought the conservative Supremes were 'originalists' -if so where is the Wlee Regulated Militia?
I'd be much more sympathetic to gun rights advocates if gun use came with requirements for education, insurance and responsibility like everything else in our society.
I'd be much more sympathetic to gun rights advocates if gun use came with requirements for education, insurance and responsibility like everything else in our society.
14
Perhaps prosecutors *should* go after certain accidents, particularly if they result from gross negligence and involve chlidren or domestic partners.
My point, however, is that just as we can't assume that all drivers are "law abiding" and we regulate the operation of motor vehicles, the same is true of gun owners. As a society we pay the relatively minor price of regulatory inconvenience for the privilege of driving. Most of us understand that public health and safety require as much.
Cars aren't designed for lethality; guns are. That's what they do; they kill living things. The notion that guns brook no regulation whatsoever is pure madness. The framers of the Constitution, all of them sane and sentient, would have understood this very well.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
My point, however, is that just as we can't assume that all drivers are "law abiding" and we regulate the operation of motor vehicles, the same is true of gun owners. As a society we pay the relatively minor price of regulatory inconvenience for the privilege of driving. Most of us understand that public health and safety require as much.
Cars aren't designed for lethality; guns are. That's what they do; they kill living things. The notion that guns brook no regulation whatsoever is pure madness. The framers of the Constitution, all of them sane and sentient, would have understood this very well.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
15
The only problem with the Lautenberg Amendment is that it is an amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968, not an amendment to the Constitution. It strips people of a constitutionally guaranteed right due to misdemeanor offenses while the Fourteenth Amendment is normally interpreted as permitting forfeiture of constitutionally guaranteed rights only for felony offenses. We need to repeal the Second Amendment and replace it with a new amendment that permits reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, including those contained in the Lautenberg Amendment.
4
Clearly. the inimitable Clarence Thomas is deeply concerned that people like Dick Cheney, who recklessly and negligently managed to fill his "friend's" face with buckshot while "hunting," would be denied the right to his guns under the "reckless" standard. The best thing we could do is to repeal the 2nd Amendment entirely, and stop the absurd contortions and grotesque malevolence of the NRA and the gun fetishists in the U.S. Coupled with a massive gun buy-back program, we could likely save tens of thousands of lives a year. Thomas is a knee jerk, extremist right wing ideologue and apologist, to be sure, but this issue is real and it is all-to-deadly. We must all wonder what on earth it will take to stop the carnage.
8
There is nothing that can be done about gun violence. It is impossible to scientifically predict who will engage in gun violence beyond the reasonable shadow of a doubt, and there is no way to reduce the number of guns or their availability. Gun violence in the United States is just an unavoidable cost of doing business in the United States. Let it go and focus on problems than can be solved, we have enough of those.
5
And that price of freedom is SIGNIFICANTLY less than many other objects, including kitchen knives.
Any preventable death is one too many but NOT at the cost of an ominous Big Brother Government.
Any preventable death is one too many but NOT at the cost of an ominous Big Brother Government.
1
Justice Thomas in a part of his dissent joined by no other justice said "the Government could not identify any other fundamental constitutional right that a person could lose forever by a single conviction for an infraction punishable
only by a fine." Well, now it can!
He lamented that the second amendment right, which he fathered, is being treated in many decisions as a second class right. He couldn't get the support of even justice Alito; the thin edge of the wedge has been broken off. Good for the court.
only by a fine." Well, now it can!
He lamented that the second amendment right, which he fathered, is being treated in many decisions as a second class right. He couldn't get the support of even justice Alito; the thin edge of the wedge has been broken off. Good for the court.
5
Since gun rights advocates like to style themselves as such history buffs, I suggest they take a look at Alexander Hamilton's Federalist No. 29, the backbone of the 2nd Amendment, and really get to know it.
https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers...
In it, Hamilton concludes that the proper treatment of armed services is to allow the states to develop and maintain their own militias, called into action only when necessary. The 2nd Amendment enshrines this right of the states in the Constitution. Justice Scalia's 2008 assertion in District of Columbia v. Heller that the first half of the Amendment means nothing and is counterproductive to its true intent of guaranteeing the private "right to bear arms," is a gross and intentional misreading of the very text of the Amendment. It is sadly ironic due to his and many conservatives' strict insistince on Constitutional originalism and his wanton disregard of the principle when it became politically expedient. What a shame that he should so denigrate the Founders' intent, which he all the while claimed to lionize.
Even beyond solving this nation's ingrained gun violence epidemic, we should start by returning to the Court and reversing this disgraceful act of willful historical ignorance. And before conservatives cry foul at the next instance of the Court's "legislating from the bench," they should take a long, hard look in the mirror and at the decision they hold so dear.
https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers...
In it, Hamilton concludes that the proper treatment of armed services is to allow the states to develop and maintain their own militias, called into action only when necessary. The 2nd Amendment enshrines this right of the states in the Constitution. Justice Scalia's 2008 assertion in District of Columbia v. Heller that the first half of the Amendment means nothing and is counterproductive to its true intent of guaranteeing the private "right to bear arms," is a gross and intentional misreading of the very text of the Amendment. It is sadly ironic due to his and many conservatives' strict insistince on Constitutional originalism and his wanton disregard of the principle when it became politically expedient. What a shame that he should so denigrate the Founders' intent, which he all the while claimed to lionize.
Even beyond solving this nation's ingrained gun violence epidemic, we should start by returning to the Court and reversing this disgraceful act of willful historical ignorance. And before conservatives cry foul at the next instance of the Court's "legislating from the bench," they should take a long, hard look in the mirror and at the decision they hold so dear.
19
If you look at the state constitutions, virtually all of them make it clear that the right to bear arms is an individual right. The Patriots knew it was the only way to guarantee freedom from oppressive governments, including our own. Hamilton was rightly concerned about how the federal government could defend the country when the constituents were very leery of any standing army and had strong misgivings about the federal government having veto power over the states' rights. So the particular section of his work you are invoking is being used out of context. I don't believe you could find a scholar of colonial America who would not agree that the People at that time demanded and understood that the right to bear arms was a primary, universal, individual right.
5
When it comes to issues of morality and justice, Clarence Thomas and Congressional Republicans appear to lack hearts or consciences.
And all members of Congress --including Democrats-- who refuse to take on the National Rifle Association because they might lose their seats and thus their privilege and their power are guilty of allowing an annual slaughter to continue in this country where almost anyone with the money to buy a gun now has the power of life and death over the rest of us.
Here are the facts:
Between 2001 and 2012, a total of 6,488 American soldiers were killed in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
During that same period, the number of American women who were murdered by current or ex male partners was 11,766. That’s nearly double the number of casualties lost during the most deadly periods of those wars.
A 2014 study on femicide in abusive relationships showed that women who are victims of domestic violence are eight times more likely to be killed by an intimate partner if there are firearms in the home.
How long before our so-called “representatives” band together across party lines to stop the gun madness? How long will Wayne LaPierre and his relatively-small band of people with a pathological need for guns have the legal right to place guns of all kinds, including assault weapons, in hands that will raise them, pull triggers and each year end the lives of 30,000 plus women, children and men in the United States of America?
How long?
And all members of Congress --including Democrats-- who refuse to take on the National Rifle Association because they might lose their seats and thus their privilege and their power are guilty of allowing an annual slaughter to continue in this country where almost anyone with the money to buy a gun now has the power of life and death over the rest of us.
Here are the facts:
Between 2001 and 2012, a total of 6,488 American soldiers were killed in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
During that same period, the number of American women who were murdered by current or ex male partners was 11,766. That’s nearly double the number of casualties lost during the most deadly periods of those wars.
A 2014 study on femicide in abusive relationships showed that women who are victims of domestic violence are eight times more likely to be killed by an intimate partner if there are firearms in the home.
How long before our so-called “representatives” band together across party lines to stop the gun madness? How long will Wayne LaPierre and his relatively-small band of people with a pathological need for guns have the legal right to place guns of all kinds, including assault weapons, in hands that will raise them, pull triggers and each year end the lives of 30,000 plus women, children and men in the United States of America?
How long?
39
And how long do we allow people with anger management issues to walk freely among us? When do we start locking up the mental misfits with violence in their souls, instead of taking guns away from all the safe, responsible citizens?
3
Two things are missing from this editorial. The first is that Justice Sotomayor joined Justice Thomas in the dissent. So this wasn't a right - left divide on either side of the opinion.
The second missing piece of information is what proportion of women killed in domestic violence incidents were killed with a gun. A recent case here in Columbus illustrates the problem. A recently released felon stabbed his former girlfriend to death and killed her two young daughters by slitting their throats. The good news is that gun control worked - as a felon he wasn't legally allowed to own a gun. The bad news is that 3 people are still dead.
The second missing piece of information is what proportion of women killed in domestic violence incidents were killed with a gun. A recent case here in Columbus illustrates the problem. A recently released felon stabbed his former girlfriend to death and killed her two young daughters by slitting their throats. The good news is that gun control worked - as a felon he wasn't legally allowed to own a gun. The bad news is that 3 people are still dead.
10
Mr Waddell, by providing anecdotal evidence to belittle gun control policies you fail to undermine the argument made here. Overall, a combination of guns and domestic violence increases the likelihood that the recipient of that violence will die as a result. Guns are useless for anything other than killing or providing a thrilling experience at a shooting range. A knife in the hands of a stable minded individual usually serves a fundamental purpose--for instance, a well prepared meal to be enjoyed by both partners in a relationship.
Re: Your Sotomayor comment. She only joined Thomas on Parts I and II of his dissent (presumably because she too was concerned about how 'reckless' and 'intentional' use of force would be subsequently interpreted). The editorial was not making a 'right - left divide' point here. It was just, correctly, labeling the dissenting opinion as his.
Re: Your Sotomayor comment. She only joined Thomas on Parts I and II of his dissent (presumably because she too was concerned about how 'reckless' and 'intentional' use of force would be subsequently interpreted). The editorial was not making a 'right - left divide' point here. It was just, correctly, labeling the dissenting opinion as his.
2
I liked the way you asked a question, and then didn't bother to answer it, so that you could get on to the old drone about how if there were no guns, people'd use sticks and brooms.
Beyind noting that countries such as Australia and England have LOWER assault and murder rates by far, here's your answer:
At least half.
http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2014.pdf
Beyind noting that countries such as Australia and England have LOWER assault and murder rates by far, here's your answer:
At least half.
http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2014.pdf
3
This law will not prevent these abusers from getting guns. Not until real gun control legislation is passed will protection against gun violence commence. Where is the common sense?
19
"As one senator said during debate over the bill, all too often “the only difference between a battered woman and a dead woman is the presence of a gun.”" The only difference between a live hostage and a dead person is often the presence of an automatic weapon meant to be used in a war zone. These weapons leave very little room for anyone, even an armed person, to emerge alive once the bullets start to be fired. Other than fighting in a war, one declared by the country not by some disgruntled citizen who feels that it's his God given right to be able to threaten and shoot anyone he suspects of being dangerous to his life, there is no reason to own a semi-automatic repeating firearm.
In case it's escaped the Grandiose Odious Prunes, embryos and fetuses are not the only life forms worth protecting. Every person killed in a mass shooting is related to someone who may need them alive. They are lovers, friends, spouses, parents, grandparents, nurses, doctors, teachers, etc. They deserve to live more than any person deserves to own a weapon designed to shred people's flesh. The GOP has screwed up values when it kowtows to the NRA in order to continue to get its endorsements. They claim to value life: value it then and stop saying that some life is worth more than others until it's born. Children need parents, live ones. We need to have a society where guns are not king. If you must own a gun to kill people, go live in a war zone: Syria comes to mind.
In case it's escaped the Grandiose Odious Prunes, embryos and fetuses are not the only life forms worth protecting. Every person killed in a mass shooting is related to someone who may need them alive. They are lovers, friends, spouses, parents, grandparents, nurses, doctors, teachers, etc. They deserve to live more than any person deserves to own a weapon designed to shred people's flesh. The GOP has screwed up values when it kowtows to the NRA in order to continue to get its endorsements. They claim to value life: value it then and stop saying that some life is worth more than others until it's born. Children need parents, live ones. We need to have a society where guns are not king. If you must own a gun to kill people, go live in a war zone: Syria comes to mind.
29
It is obvious, hen3ry, that you have little knowledge of guns. To my knowledge, no automatic weapons have been used in a mass killing in America since the St. Valentine's Day gangland massacre during prohibition. Personally, I have no issues with abortion and believe all such decisions should be between a woman and her doctor, and nobody else. I own several guns and in 62 years have never broken a single firearm law or raised a weapon of any kind against another human being. I am thankful my country protects my rights and the freedom of its citizens to buy and own firearms. Save your anger for the mental defectives who choose to be murderers and leave the rights of your law-abiding neighbors alone.
5
The NY Times editorial board along with most the mainstream media continue to harp on gun control when the real causes and diversions from violence have little to do with the Second Amendment rights. The best diversions from violence including homicide are employment, anger management and mentoring which we've conclusively shown in Chicago with over $130,000,000 in public and private funded summer programs for high risk youth saving 324 homicides and over $2,005,000,000. There are not enough police to enforce the laws we already have so passing another gun control law will have little to no effect on the homicide rates.
19
"Anger management" is widely known to be an ineffective treatment for domestic violence. DV is not about the inability to control one's anger -- it is a pattern of coercive control perpetrated in an on-going relationship where violence is selectively threatened or used against an intimate partner, and rarely used against other people in the abuser's environment.
9
It is somewhat difficult to educate, counsel, and job search for a guy who's dead or in the slammer because he's shot his much-abused wife to death.
But that diff is as nothing compared to the difficulty of helpng the dead woman.
On the other hand, taking a bad guy's boomstick away wouldn't seem to interfere much with his going to school..
But that diff is as nothing compared to the difficulty of helpng the dead woman.
On the other hand, taking a bad guy's boomstick away wouldn't seem to interfere much with his going to school..
1
That's a ridiculous argument. Haven't you read what happened in Australia? They haven't had a single mass shooting in years. We have them almost every day.
3
"The Lautenberg Amendment is not a perfect solution." That's because no private citizen should have the right to own a gun.
8
They will ban people being convicted of Domestic Violence from holding Fire Arms.
But will not Ban People on no fly list from holding Firearms. Possible Terrorist can still hold Firearms
Bizar
But will not Ban People on no fly list from holding Firearms. Possible Terrorist can still hold Firearms
Bizar
2
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE & laws forbidding those convicted of it from owning firearms, save lives. From Thomas's objection to the state-level laws as treating the 2nd amendment "cavalierly," I suppose, the notorious "originalist" found a way to pervert the interpretation of the Declaration of Independence that unalienable human rights include Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Clearly, domestic violence is a threat to all three. Being killed by a gun as a result of domestic violence is as well. Had Florida had such domestic violence laws in place, they would have increased the probability that the violent spouse who killed the most people during a mass shooting, would have been unable to have purchased the murder weapon. His first wife said that she was glad to have gotten out of the marriage alive. The GOP's ongoing attempts to support mass slaughter using the 2nd Amendment as a magical talisman is as lethal as it is infantile. The truth is that if we do not hang together as a nation, surely we will hang separately. Or be shot to death, the latter being far more likely. Too bad no history of domestic abuse was known to or considered by the FBI in blocking the murderer in Orlando from purchasing the murder weapon. The same type used in San Bernardino. A terroristic history repeating itself far too rapidly. I hope that there are sit downs in legislatures nationwide to demand gun safety laws. 25% of the NRA hold the US hostage to gun violence; 75% want gun safety.
67
This opinion is highly gender biased. It parrots the standard notion that women are only victims and men are only perpetrators of domestic violence.
A true feminist perspective would recognize the full range of women's emotions( including rage) and actions (including manipulation and control).
The CDC's intimate partner violence survey found: "Nearly three in 10 women and one in 10 men in the United States have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner and reported at least one impact related to experiencing these or other forms of violent behavior in the relationship (e.g., being fearful, concerned for safety, post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, need for health care, injury, contacting a crisis hotline, need for housing services, need for victim’s advocate services, need for legal services, missed at least one day of work or school)."
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_executive_summary-a.pdf
It is only outdated notions of traditional gender roles that causes us to ignore, minimize, or explain away female perpetrated domestic violence.
Hold all perpetrators accountable. Stop using gender biased language when discussing domestic violence
A true feminist perspective would recognize the full range of women's emotions( including rage) and actions (including manipulation and control).
The CDC's intimate partner violence survey found: "Nearly three in 10 women and one in 10 men in the United States have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner and reported at least one impact related to experiencing these or other forms of violent behavior in the relationship (e.g., being fearful, concerned for safety, post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, need for health care, injury, contacting a crisis hotline, need for housing services, need for victim’s advocate services, need for legal services, missed at least one day of work or school)."
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_executive_summary-a.pdf
It is only outdated notions of traditional gender roles that causes us to ignore, minimize, or explain away female perpetrated domestic violence.
Hold all perpetrators accountable. Stop using gender biased language when discussing domestic violence
5
In the first place, this article discusses a Court case--a SPECIFIC one--in which a man who'd been barred from gun ownership because he'd beaten up his girlfried, and then got caught using a gun to kill a flipping bald eagle, sued on the grounds that he had been denied his Second Amendment rights and should have been allowed to have a gun all along.
Then, the article simply says "domestic abusers." Doesn't gender a thing.
Then, you seriously warped the stats you pointed to (but did not read, I bet), mostly by smooshing together different types of abuse. Nor did your citation talk about gun deaths.
The fact is, men are several times more likely to commit these crimes, and to shoot women and kids to death, just as they are much, much more likely to be serial killers and/or mass murderers.
Sorry, but the fake PC doesn't convince.
Then, the article simply says "domestic abusers." Doesn't gender a thing.
Then, you seriously warped the stats you pointed to (but did not read, I bet), mostly by smooshing together different types of abuse. Nor did your citation talk about gun deaths.
The fact is, men are several times more likely to commit these crimes, and to shoot women and kids to death, just as they are much, much more likely to be serial killers and/or mass murderers.
Sorry, but the fake PC doesn't convince.
5
"... lawmakers, nearly all of them Republican, stand in lock-step formation against even modest gun-control efforts like preventing people suspected of terrorist ties from easily buying firearms."
Suspected =/= convicted
Under our legal system we have something called "due process." The government can't just say you pose a threat to do something nefarious and deny your rights. They have to prove it. In a court of law.
Substitute any other right provided for in the bill of rights - religion, speech, assembly, etc - for the 2nd amendment's right to own and bear arms. Imagine the outrage this paper would express if the government could just create a list of people it suspected might commit a crime and strip away any of these other rights?
Tyrannical governments creating clandestine lists that deprive citizens rights is one of the reasons we have the second amendment.
Suspected =/= convicted
Under our legal system we have something called "due process." The government can't just say you pose a threat to do something nefarious and deny your rights. They have to prove it. In a court of law.
Substitute any other right provided for in the bill of rights - religion, speech, assembly, etc - for the 2nd amendment's right to own and bear arms. Imagine the outrage this paper would express if the government could just create a list of people it suspected might commit a crime and strip away any of these other rights?
Tyrannical governments creating clandestine lists that deprive citizens rights is one of the reasons we have the second amendment.
7
The key word here is conviction. Anyone can get a 'protection order' against anyone, but a conviction requires due process of law and a trial.
3
I should add that if being deprived of your civil rights is the penalty for such a conviction, many more men are going to want to go to a jury trial with a full defense.
1
Or, a prosecutor to over charge someone to the point where they are forced into a plea deal.
1
It is absolutely untrue that "anyone can get a protective order against anyone." Prosecutors' office around the country require substantial evidence before such orders are issued. Please don't play fast and loose with the facts.
1
While the idea of banning people who have an ongoing violent relationship with their women from owning a gun is a most sensible law, this ban on such people owning a gun goes allot further than that. And that is that they are forever banned from ever owning a gun.
This despite the plain and obvious fact that the time period that a man poses to a woman by resorting to using violence against her last only till for a certain amount of time after they permanently part ways with each other. So a lifetime ban makes little sense, as it does nothing to prevent lethal violence after a certain time.
A law similar to this is the ban on a "drug user" owning, or even being in the possession of a gun. According to this law any person who was documented as having ever used marijuana is a "drug user" under the law for the rest of their lives. And the penalty for being a drug user in possession of a firearm are severe.
So while both of these bans make sense, they make sense only as long as the person is a "domestic abuser" or a "drug user". However in practice what these laws do is to make it a serious crime for any person who at any time of his life had used violence against a woman he was in a relationship with, or who at any time in his life was documented as having used drugs.
As such these laws as they are enforced in practice make no sense and must be adjusted to target only those for whom the law is intended, which are active domestic abusers of drug users.
This despite the plain and obvious fact that the time period that a man poses to a woman by resorting to using violence against her last only till for a certain amount of time after they permanently part ways with each other. So a lifetime ban makes little sense, as it does nothing to prevent lethal violence after a certain time.
A law similar to this is the ban on a "drug user" owning, or even being in the possession of a gun. According to this law any person who was documented as having ever used marijuana is a "drug user" under the law for the rest of their lives. And the penalty for being a drug user in possession of a firearm are severe.
So while both of these bans make sense, they make sense only as long as the person is a "domestic abuser" or a "drug user". However in practice what these laws do is to make it a serious crime for any person who at any time of his life had used violence against a woman he was in a relationship with, or who at any time in his life was documented as having used drugs.
As such these laws as they are enforced in practice make no sense and must be adjusted to target only those for whom the law is intended, which are active domestic abusers of drug users.
4
Under the law, recklessness means that it was highly probable that one's conduct would cause harm and that one knowingly disregarded this risk. It is the conscious disregard as the probable consequences of one's actions. If one, for example, gets behind the wheel when intoxicated, it is highly probable that harm can result. If one domestic partner is convicted of recklessly causing injury to his or her other domestic partner, it is hardly reasonable to argue that the Second Amendment prevents barring the convicted person of owning a gun unless one values gun ownership over human life. And, isn't that really the problem. Some folks simply value gun ownership over human life.
70
"Separate is not equal" were four pivotal words. These led to school desegregation.
"A well regulated military being necessary to the security of a free state," twelve words -- the preamble to the Second Amendment, indicate clearly that the authors intended that the possession of arms be well regulated. This is coupled to “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
There’s no question one can see what they want in these words but it’s well to remember that “All men are created equal” was a big miss because it excluded women and slaves.
There's more. There are 11,000 violent and accidental non-suicide gun deaths in the USA each year and a companion 60,000 wounded. That's 5.45 wounded for each one killed. That's 71,000 gun victims each year which extends to 7.1 million friends, family and acquaintances who knew these victims using a 100X formula. That's 2.2% of the population -- not including the 21,000 suicides.
Yet we endure a Republican Party and its allegiance to the NRA and its fog of information.
The question now is have we come to a political inflection point? That's why 2016 is a historic election year.
How long it will take for America to realize that Sandy Hook, Charleston, San Bernadino and Orlando were any town, anywhere and a massacre could happen in your town.
Gun Safety Regulation prohibition is a USA man-made nightmare that has fingerprints on it.
"A well regulated military being necessary to the security of a free state," twelve words -- the preamble to the Second Amendment, indicate clearly that the authors intended that the possession of arms be well regulated. This is coupled to “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
There’s no question one can see what they want in these words but it’s well to remember that “All men are created equal” was a big miss because it excluded women and slaves.
There's more. There are 11,000 violent and accidental non-suicide gun deaths in the USA each year and a companion 60,000 wounded. That's 5.45 wounded for each one killed. That's 71,000 gun victims each year which extends to 7.1 million friends, family and acquaintances who knew these victims using a 100X formula. That's 2.2% of the population -- not including the 21,000 suicides.
Yet we endure a Republican Party and its allegiance to the NRA and its fog of information.
The question now is have we come to a political inflection point? That's why 2016 is a historic election year.
How long it will take for America to realize that Sandy Hook, Charleston, San Bernadino and Orlando were any town, anywhere and a massacre could happen in your town.
Gun Safety Regulation prohibition is a USA man-made nightmare that has fingerprints on it.
92
I don't agree with all you say, but I would like to state that your comment was better written and more logical than The Board's. While I do agree that those CONVICTED of DV should lose some or all of their gun rights, I'm getting awfully tired of a Board that generally supports Right to Die including suicides in the body count for shock value.
2
I don't see that there is much difference between a domestic abuser killing a spouse with a gun used recklessly or a gun used intentionally. When you're dead, you're dead, whatever the original intention.
43
Why doesn't shooting a bald eagle initiate a lifetime gun ban all by itself?
130
For 'carriers', hand guns quickly become an obsession/addiction, and the handgun manufacturers both know it and rely on it.
Once you can get someone to 'carry', their sense of personal security depends on it.
So, MEN (especially)... can you go cold turkey ? Just say 'NO' ? Or will your mostly groundless fears win over your integrity ?
'Carrying' is evidence of cowardice....
Once you can get someone to 'carry', their sense of personal security depends on it.
So, MEN (especially)... can you go cold turkey ? Just say 'NO' ? Or will your mostly groundless fears win over your integrity ?
'Carrying' is evidence of cowardice....
66
Go travel through South Florida's worst neighborhoods like I do.
1
An amazing misuse of data and rhetoric to justify yet another fascist incursion into supressing a constitutional right.
This is most egregious when you consider that the majority of those "convicted" pled guilty based on an attornies advice that the conviction would be wiped after a class and a year. Avoiding the risks of a trial is a constant sales pitch.
Like rape, a charge of "reckless" domestic abuse is easy to bring and difficult to dispute. It always boils down to she says and he has to prove she lied.
SCOTUS got this wrong.
This is most egregious when you consider that the majority of those "convicted" pled guilty based on an attornies advice that the conviction would be wiped after a class and a year. Avoiding the risks of a trial is a constant sales pitch.
Like rape, a charge of "reckless" domestic abuse is easy to bring and difficult to dispute. It always boils down to she says and he has to prove she lied.
SCOTUS got this wrong.
7
It's not easy. I've studied domestic violence for many years; working with police, social workers, courts and judges. Domestic Violence is the real hidden terrorism in our country. This is the least the SCOTUS could do for women and children who have been beaten and abused.
12
"Like rape, a charge of reckless domestic abuse is easy to bring and difficult to dispute."
You just completely negated any validity to your comment with that bit right there.
Both men in the Maine case had TWICE been convicted of domestic assault. Twice. Where their partners actually called the police, the police believed an arrest was warranted, and the DA's office believed charges could be brought. Whether they pled out or not is moot to this particular case.
Considering one of them shot a bald eagle I'd say he's not the type of upstanding American citizen the gun lobby wants as their poster child for the "Good guys with guns" campaign.
You just completely negated any validity to your comment with that bit right there.
Both men in the Maine case had TWICE been convicted of domestic assault. Twice. Where their partners actually called the police, the police believed an arrest was warranted, and the DA's office believed charges could be brought. Whether they pled out or not is moot to this particular case.
Considering one of them shot a bald eagle I'd say he's not the type of upstanding American citizen the gun lobby wants as their poster child for the "Good guys with guns" campaign.
79
It would be well if you studied the meaning of the word "fascist." It would also be well if you studied how fascism actually operated in the politics of the 20th century. It might persuade you to use the word "fascist" more appropriately. One more thing--you really should educate yourself about how trials work. Your statement "It always boils down to she says and he has to prove she lied" shows that you privilege propaganda above facts, not a good thing for a voting adult to do (I'm only assuming that you're an adult and that you vote, of course.)
10
Oh no. I may be falling in love with Justice Kagan, though I've already committed my heart to RBG.
Clarence Thomas is the strangest, weirdest performer on our national stage ... after Donald Trump. Apparently he just wrote an opinion arguing that slaves during the Confederacy had plenty of innate dignity ... (in the same way they had plenty of blood).
Let's be grateful for the 1993 federal Brady Bill requiring background checks for gun purchases, and grateful for the 1996 bill denying handguns to domestic abusers. Hmm ... and who was president during those years? Bill Clinton. So often vilified. And crackerjack smart.
Clarence Thomas is the strangest, weirdest performer on our national stage ... after Donald Trump. Apparently he just wrote an opinion arguing that slaves during the Confederacy had plenty of innate dignity ... (in the same way they had plenty of blood).
Let's be grateful for the 1993 federal Brady Bill requiring background checks for gun purchases, and grateful for the 1996 bill denying handguns to domestic abusers. Hmm ... and who was president during those years? Bill Clinton. So often vilified. And crackerjack smart.
86
@Deborah
So you think it is okay for a someone to abuse their spouse, just as long as they don't have a gun?
If you really cared about domestic violence, you would incarcerate abusers.
So you think it is okay for a someone to abuse their spouse, just as long as they don't have a gun?
If you really cared about domestic violence, you would incarcerate abusers.
Don't forget that Justice Sotomayor joined Thomas in the dissent.
"In all but nine states, those who already own a gun are not required to turn it over to the authorities." So most men convicted of domestic violence may continue to own guns, and most women who've suffered at the hands of their men must continue to live in fear for their lives. The Supreme Court was required to preserve this tiny slice of our right to life and liberty against the gun lobby. What have we come to?
52
The problem is still implementation. Some jurisdictions have no plan for collecting the gun collections of donestic abusers. And the abusers play "come and get it."
2
That's actually not correct, but 'hey' when does skewing the facts matter?
1
"....and yearly gun deaths topping 30,000..."
Almost two thirds of those are suicides. Though, one supposes that if limitations on basic Constitutional rights, including outright bans, are to be referred to as "modest gun-control efforts" it might be equally easy to infer that suicide is some sort of domestic violence.
And never mind that Western nations with stricter gun control laws also have higher suicide rates than the US. Even Cuba, which allows no private gun ownership, has a higher suicide rate than the US.
http://www.suicide.org/international-suicide-statistics.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/oregon-mom-kills-stranger-snuck...
Almost two thirds of those are suicides. Though, one supposes that if limitations on basic Constitutional rights, including outright bans, are to be referred to as "modest gun-control efforts" it might be equally easy to infer that suicide is some sort of domestic violence.
And never mind that Western nations with stricter gun control laws also have higher suicide rates than the US. Even Cuba, which allows no private gun ownership, has a higher suicide rate than the US.
http://www.suicide.org/international-suicide-statistics.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/oregon-mom-kills-stranger-snuck...
10
Assuming what you are saying is correct, then how does this change anything for victims of gun violence. The dead aren't able to read your words.
2
So 10,000 gun deaths a year are not suicide. 10,000. That's triple the amount of people killed on 9-11. That's still a massive number.
2
I agree with the article but on the other side some states will not allow the woman the right to own a gun to protect herself or make the wait so long she is attacked again or killed as has happened in the past.
5
What states? Or are you pretending a woman is being deprived of a right that a man has? What states?
4
I'll believe Republicans' position against restrictions on guns the day they check every person entering the Republican Convention to make sure they're carrying a gun, and hand out assault rifles to those who accidentally left their weapon at home.
123
The recent killings in Texas by the mother of her two young daughters was horrible and preventable.
The mother had been treated for mental problems..
The mother and the father should have been asked if there were guns in the home and the guns should either have been removed or secured so the mother did not have access.
Failure to take these steps by the treating mental help personnel is really medical malpractice.
While I support banning gun sales to CONVICTED domestic abusers and violent felons there are other things that must be done to get guns out of the homes of mentally ill people.
The mother had been treated for mental problems..
The mother and the father should have been asked if there were guns in the home and the guns should either have been removed or secured so the mother did not have access.
Failure to take these steps by the treating mental help personnel is really medical malpractice.
While I support banning gun sales to CONVICTED domestic abusers and violent felons there are other things that must be done to get guns out of the homes of mentally ill people.
46
"david" wrote, "The mother and the father should have been asked if there were guns in the home." Republicans have fought--and won--battles to ensure that physicians are forbidden to ask about the presence of guns in the home.
100
I know Florida had or may still have such a law.
That does not change the fact that physicians [especially those treating mentally ill] ask about guns and make recommendations about gun safety.
Such laws are a clear violation of the First Amendment.
Talking about guns is not in any way equivalent to Justice Holmes statement about not yelling fire in a theater.
That does not change the fact that physicians [especially those treating mentally ill] ask about guns and make recommendations about gun safety.
Such laws are a clear violation of the First Amendment.
Talking about guns is not in any way equivalent to Justice Holmes statement about not yelling fire in a theater.
8
Physicians in Florida are prohibited by law from asking their patients about gun ownership. They are subject to prosecution if they ask, this includes pediatricians and physicians of people who are mentally ill or who have dementia. The NRA rules supreme in Flori-duh!
4
The recent killing of two young women in Texas by their deranged mother has made me angrier than ever by the out of control gun situation in this country. I'm sure I'm not alone in this. Gun lovers would do well to start allowing reasonable safety regulations to be enacted to take some pressure off of the mounting anger of the majority of Americans who want action taken. When a bad situation is allowed to fester, pressure builds, and the reaction is often all the more extreme. Gun lovers, think it over and do the responsible thing.
143
That is a horrific case. Apparently the mother was a big Second Amendment and gun rights supporter who failed to develop the coping skills, like self control, that adults are supposed to possess and model for younger people - role models.
As horrific as this case is, it is rare, and more or less a one-off as opposed to the everyday domestic violence carnage that does not disturb you the way that case does.
So, here's some stats, because everyday a minimum of 3 women are killed by their male partners.
"Gun Violence & Women
94% of female murder victims killed by men are killed by a man they knew. In other words, females are 16 times as likely to be killed by a male acquaintance than by a male stranger. In 2010, 1,017 women, almost three a day, were killed by their intimate partners. viii
Of females killed by men with a firearm, more than two-thirds were killed by their intimate partners.ix
In 2010, 52 percent of female homicide victims killed by men were shot and killed with a gun. Female intimate partners are more likely to be murdered with a firearm than all other means combined.
Women suffering from domestic violence are eight times more likely to be killed if there are firearms in the home...
In 1998, for every one woman who used a handgun to kill an intimate acquaintance in self-defense, 83 women were murdered by an intimate acquaintance using a handgun."
https://www.futureswithoutviolence.org/userfiles/Gun%20Fact%20Sheet_FINA...
As horrific as this case is, it is rare, and more or less a one-off as opposed to the everyday domestic violence carnage that does not disturb you the way that case does.
So, here's some stats, because everyday a minimum of 3 women are killed by their male partners.
"Gun Violence & Women
94% of female murder victims killed by men are killed by a man they knew. In other words, females are 16 times as likely to be killed by a male acquaintance than by a male stranger. In 2010, 1,017 women, almost three a day, were killed by their intimate partners. viii
Of females killed by men with a firearm, more than two-thirds were killed by their intimate partners.ix
In 2010, 52 percent of female homicide victims killed by men were shot and killed with a gun. Female intimate partners are more likely to be murdered with a firearm than all other means combined.
Women suffering from domestic violence are eight times more likely to be killed if there are firearms in the home...
In 1998, for every one woman who used a handgun to kill an intimate acquaintance in self-defense, 83 women were murdered by an intimate acquaintance using a handgun."
https://www.futureswithoutviolence.org/userfiles/Gun%20Fact%20Sheet_FINA...
117
Ellen - you seem to be minimizing the recent example of a female killer by saying its a "one off". You then proceed to give one sided statistics that only portray women as victims.
In fact in the US one man a day is killed by his female partner (FBI supplemental homicide data). That may be less than the one in three women killed daily, but can it really be ignored?
The website you list is biased towards ignoring domestic violence when it is perpetrated by a woman. I believe it promotes the "teach a boy what not to hit" campaign. While you are busy teaching boys what not to hit, who is teaching girls?
More balanced statistics concerning domestic violence are available at www.gnvpc.org
In fact in the US one man a day is killed by his female partner (FBI supplemental homicide data). That may be less than the one in three women killed daily, but can it really be ignored?
The website you list is biased towards ignoring domestic violence when it is perpetrated by a woman. I believe it promotes the "teach a boy what not to hit" campaign. While you are busy teaching boys what not to hit, who is teaching girls?
More balanced statistics concerning domestic violence are available at www.gnvpc.org
5
FBI supplemental data show that the case of the mother killing her daughters in front of her husband is NOT rare. A man is killed by a female partner in the US on a daily basis. Compared with your statistic that three women are killed daily, can the fact of one man killed by a woman be ignored?
If the rate of women killed by male partners was one per day - would you then ignore that fact?
If the rate of women killed by male partners was one per day - would you then ignore that fact?
5
Would be useful to make it easier for domestic violence victims to obtain guns for self protection
5
They don't want guns. That's the point.
34
A gunster demands that everyone be armed, 24/7. Wants to play cowboys and Indians.
84
Maybe if guns worked on fingerprint identification. But domestic abusers are more likely to use that gun against the woman. Also women don't carry guns all the time. An abuser just has to catch the woman unaware - like cops with guns killed in their cars
13
Easy solution. Stop giving the NRA a platform. Or make all these puppets practice what they preach. All guns allowed in all branches of government fro the White House, to the Capitol, to the Supreme Court.
We have more restrictions on fishing or driving a car. And the federal government has nuclear weapons. So that's settled.
Pediatricians have a job to keep little kids safe and this country is trying to stop them from asking if firearms are in the house? We deserve every mass shooting, every accidental shooting and every domestic violence shooting because we vote these idiots into office.
And I'm pretty sure I couldn't get into Wayne La Pierre's office locked and loaded.
We have more restrictions on fishing or driving a car. And the federal government has nuclear weapons. So that's settled.
Pediatricians have a job to keep little kids safe and this country is trying to stop them from asking if firearms are in the house? We deserve every mass shooting, every accidental shooting and every domestic violence shooting because we vote these idiots into office.
And I'm pretty sure I couldn't get into Wayne La Pierre's office locked and loaded.
218
I don't agree with NRAs Platform but it's not their fault their inane Guns, Guns, Guns, and More Guns "Position" is followed by so many.
And they have the right to have it.
And they have the right to have it.
4
It absolutely is the NRA's fault, together with self-serving legislators. They craft "sample" legislation for states, stand your ground laws, laws prohibiting the CDC from researching gun violence, laws prohibiting physicians from talking to their patients about guns in the home, guns on campus and the list goes on and on while the bodies pile up.
5
"Fault"? -- the NRA works very hard at their "guns, guns..." position and puts up millions of dollars to 'buy' congressional favor. Their following is not blind nor accidental --- congress people who follow the NRA are bought and paid for. Yes, this is all their fault!
2
This case is not entirely what it is portrayed to be. And you know that because Alito agreed with themajority while Sotomayor agreed with Thomas (!). Both are former prosecutors, which has a lot to do with their votes.
While this case comes down hard on gun possession and domestic violence, it likely will tend to fill our prisons with more and more offenders. By holding that reckless conduct constitutes the use of physical force, it likely will result in much stiffer sentences for non-intentional crimes by triggeing mandatory sentencing laws for offenses ranging from reckless driving to manslaughter. This case could lead to the imprisonment of countless reckless offenders for the use of physical force and could cause many more serious offenders to be sentenced to many years or even life. That's good news for Alito and bad news for Sotomayor, explaining their shrewd votes.
How anyone could ignore the fact that Sotomayor joined with Thomas here is beyond me. I'll say, for the tenth time, the Editorial Board needs a lawyer.
While this case comes down hard on gun possession and domestic violence, it likely will tend to fill our prisons with more and more offenders. By holding that reckless conduct constitutes the use of physical force, it likely will result in much stiffer sentences for non-intentional crimes by triggeing mandatory sentencing laws for offenses ranging from reckless driving to manslaughter. This case could lead to the imprisonment of countless reckless offenders for the use of physical force and could cause many more serious offenders to be sentenced to many years or even life. That's good news for Alito and bad news for Sotomayor, explaining their shrewd votes.
How anyone could ignore the fact that Sotomayor joined with Thomas here is beyond me. I'll say, for the tenth time, the Editorial Board needs a lawyer.
11
Reread this, nowhere does it suggest more people will wind up incarcerated.....
5
"Sotomayor certainly did not join, the opinions are dry stuff: statutory interpretation involving in-depth exegesis of dictionary definitions of the word “use.”
But the portions that Sotomayor did join argued that federal prosecutors were applying statutes like Maine’s too broadly because they cover the reckless use of force. That could include, Thomas wrote, a father getting into a car crash while texting, injuring his child." From salon.com.
It's important to note only Thomas reads a 2nd amendment issue. Sotomayor only disagrees with the implications of achieving the desired result by using the word 'reckless'
But the portions that Sotomayor did join argued that federal prosecutors were applying statutes like Maine’s too broadly because they cover the reckless use of force. That could include, Thomas wrote, a father getting into a car crash while texting, injuring his child." From salon.com.
It's important to note only Thomas reads a 2nd amendment issue. Sotomayor only disagrees with the implications of achieving the desired result by using the word 'reckless'
6
Agreed that the editorial board could use a good lawyer writing here, though I'd like to know is an act of domestic violence ever NOT intentional? My understanding is that it is always intentional, despite whatever the abuser may plead in court.
I too am shocked that Sotomayer sided w Alito, and have yet to fully understand why that happened, despite reading several pieces on the legislation (as a lay person not a lawyer).
I too am shocked that Sotomayer sided w Alito, and have yet to fully understand why that happened, despite reading several pieces on the legislation (as a lay person not a lawyer).
1
The idea that the right to bear arms, as misdefined by Scalia years ago, is more important than every other right in American society is grotesque. The guns should be removed from the home at the time of arrest. We know, beyond any doubt, that as soon as the abuser is able to return home the abused woman is at risk.
274
that's right hang 'em before they've actually committed a crime, because "you know beyond a shadow of a doubt" that it's going to happen....way to go
2
Yes. This is exactly why such a huge number of domestic abuse attacks go unreported: victims are terrorized about the retribution which will be handed to them once the perpetrator is free to return, sometimes hours after a 911 call is made, when police come and determine there's "not enough evidence to arrest" or the perp is arrested briefly and then let out in the next hours or next day.
That's when the murdering begins, and if he has a gun, it's EiGHT times more likely to end in her death.
Can we pass legislation which requires all guns to be removed from perps possession upon arrest for DV?
That's when the murdering begins, and if he has a gun, it's EiGHT times more likely to end in her death.
Can we pass legislation which requires all guns to be removed from perps possession upon arrest for DV?
10
I don't feel it's more important than the rest of our constitutional rights. I do feel ours equally important. However, it's not being treated as such.
1
It's hard to muster much sympathy for Mr. Voisine ... indeed I wonder how this case ever made it to the Supreme Court?
Are gun advocates and the NRA so outrageously tone deaf as to fail to appreciate ... hmmm how to put this ... Mr. Voisine is no Rosa Parks?
Finding a presentable wife-beater is intrinsically a tough proposition, but a guy who got caught for the gun violation because he shoots an eagle? Really? The gun lobby couldn't do better than that?
And folks ... the other guy was worse -- he was caught in possession of a large quantity of illegal drugs, and a minor arsenal and stockpiled ammunition.
As the Supreme Court justices sliced and diced this one, trying to decide what the legislators who enacted the Lautenberg amendment intended ... how could they not have thought: "Did the legislators intend to give angry losers like this a free pass? Is this the kind of guy you want to see with a gun?"
It's curious to read Thomas' dissent -- it goes on and on He conjures up "Instead, under the majority’s approach, a parent who has a car accident because he sent a text message while driving can lose his right to bear arms forever if his wife or child suffers the slightest injury from the crash."
Mr. Thomas misses wildly -- this constitutes Felony Child Endangerment or similar statutes, in many states it can have a penalty of 1 year or more, particularly for repeat offenses, with automatic loss of gun rights having nothing to do with the Lautenberg law.
Are gun advocates and the NRA so outrageously tone deaf as to fail to appreciate ... hmmm how to put this ... Mr. Voisine is no Rosa Parks?
Finding a presentable wife-beater is intrinsically a tough proposition, but a guy who got caught for the gun violation because he shoots an eagle? Really? The gun lobby couldn't do better than that?
And folks ... the other guy was worse -- he was caught in possession of a large quantity of illegal drugs, and a minor arsenal and stockpiled ammunition.
As the Supreme Court justices sliced and diced this one, trying to decide what the legislators who enacted the Lautenberg amendment intended ... how could they not have thought: "Did the legislators intend to give angry losers like this a free pass? Is this the kind of guy you want to see with a gun?"
It's curious to read Thomas' dissent -- it goes on and on He conjures up "Instead, under the majority’s approach, a parent who has a car accident because he sent a text message while driving can lose his right to bear arms forever if his wife or child suffers the slightest injury from the crash."
Mr. Thomas misses wildly -- this constitutes Felony Child Endangerment or similar statutes, in many states it can have a penalty of 1 year or more, particularly for repeat offenses, with automatic loss of gun rights having nothing to do with the Lautenberg law.
152
"Finding a presentable wife-beater is intrinsically a tough proposition,"
I'm very sorry to say that certain far right (or allegedly far right), evangelical (or allegedly evangelical) males would disagree that statement. I'm also sorry to say that there are many such people at large, people who vote.
I'm very sorry to say that certain far right (or allegedly far right), evangelical (or allegedly evangelical) males would disagree that statement. I'm also sorry to say that there are many such people at large, people who vote.
6
Please don't judge Supreme Court decisions by the like ability of the defendants. All deserve justice.
3
Justice Thomas lack of logical thinking is amazing. If a parent injures his children by texting while driving, he should lose all parental rights and certainly his right to bear arms because that person is incredibly reckless period.
4
This may be the way to incrementally tone down the raucous over guns in our country and take us forward productively; and it has required compromise by the far-right: isolate the relatively few whackos in our society who are anti-social either by mere proclivity, by psychosis or by evil intent as demonstrated by past activities, and forbid them lawful access to guns. Like the editors, I support this piece-part action by Congress to ban serial spousal abusers from access to guns.
If we can manage in our newfound-willingness to be sensible the wisdom to agree on classes of mental state or past behavior that are suitable bases for such bans, then a great deal of gun violence might be averted without significantly affecting the right of civilians to own, keep and use firearms.
There will remain those who argue that so long as one child is shot accidentally by another playing with a parent’s gun, we need to keep pressing for draconian limits on such rights; and those pressures will continue to be resisted. But an incremental and highly selective approach to banning access is intelligent and just what this frozen argument so desperately needs.
It’s great that people are finally talking about it instead of merely spitting at one another.
If we can manage in our newfound-willingness to be sensible the wisdom to agree on classes of mental state or past behavior that are suitable bases for such bans, then a great deal of gun violence might be averted without significantly affecting the right of civilians to own, keep and use firearms.
There will remain those who argue that so long as one child is shot accidentally by another playing with a parent’s gun, we need to keep pressing for draconian limits on such rights; and those pressures will continue to be resisted. But an incremental and highly selective approach to banning access is intelligent and just what this frozen argument so desperately needs.
It’s great that people are finally talking about it instead of merely spitting at one another.
12
"Draconian?
16
"There will remain those who argue that so long as one child is shot accidentally by another playing with a parent’s gun, we need to keep pressing for draconian limits on such rights"
Really Richard? Hope it's no child of yours.
Really Richard? Hope it's no child of yours.
45
I couldn't agree more. This approach could solve, or at least tangibly reduce the severity of, problems in a number of large, hot-button issues, if only people would discuss rather than, as you so eloquently put it, spitting at one another.
1