Calling Out Evil By Its Name
[guest post by Dana]
Rant: I know I’ve written about this before but I’m going to say it again: One of the more disturbing demonstrations of our rapid descent into the politicization of human tragedy happens after a terror attack takes happens and before we know who is responsible. It’s as if both sides of the political aisle wait with bated breath, hoping that one of their own isn’t responsible for the devastation. It’s a sick mindset, this putting politics before humanity. Anyway, in the aftermath of Dayton and El Paso, we are seeing it happen again. Those on the Left are relieved, and yet outraged at the Right that a white nationalist was responsible for the deaths in El Paso. Those on the Right are relieved, and yet outraged at the Left that the Dayton shooter was a self-proclaimed socialist who favored Elizabeth Warren. And on top of these reactions, there is an even grosser reaction by the politicians and media: how to most effectively capitalize on the tragedies. The intentional killings are almost immediately seen as an opportunity to push policies and agendas. This as they know they will have several news cycle’s worth of material with which to work. And there’s an important election around the corner. It’s disgusting.
With that, I read these two editorials and thought I’d pass them along to you because both are worth your time.
First, “Trump Must Name The Evil” from the Washington Examiner:
You could call the killer who shot up a Walmart in El Paso evil, a madman, or a lone wolf, if you like. But it would be an intolerable omission if we did not also call him a white nationalist terrorist. This ideology is a growing sickness in America, and President Trump has a duty to thoroughly and roundly denounce it.
Trump ought to use the bully pulpit to become a leading crusader against white nationalism and racism. These mindsets are immoral and they threaten everything that makes America great. Some conservatives and Republicans have hesitated to acknowledge that this a growing scourge, but after El Paso any such reluctance is unacceptable.
The shooter is a white man from Dallas who traveled to El Paso so he could murder as many “Mexicans” as possible. He targeted Mexicans and Mexican-Americans because he held a vision of America as a white nation.
The vision, while un-American and non-conservative, is wedded to an ideology. And just as conservatives regularly call on our leaders to name and condemn the evil of radical Islamic terror when it is behind shootings and bombings, we call on Trump to name and condemn the evil of white nationalism.
…
A majority of domestic terrorism cases are motivated by white supremacism, according to Christopher Wray, the man Trump has put in charge of the FBI. So why hasn’t Trump spoken out against our leading source of domestic terrorism?
There are many possible explanations, but we suspect part of it is the same reason he has failed to acknowledge and condemn Russian interference in our election and other Russian misdeeds. When the media and the Democrats use some real evil as a cudgel for attacking Trump, his instinct seems to be to deny the evil rather than to dissociate himself from it.
Trump should deliver a prime-time speech as soon as possible that names the evil at play here and denounces it. He has on Twitter rightly condemned the actions in El Paso. Now he needs to face the cameras, address the nation, and condemn the motivation. Trump needs to make clear that he hates white nationalism as something un-American and evil. And he ought not dilute this attack by talking again about “many” or “both” sides, by offering up nonconstructive criticisms of liberals which (intentionally or not) stoke racial tensions, or any other such distraction.
And “Crush this evil” from National Review:
…[T]he patterns on display over the last few years have revealed that we are contending here not with another “lone wolf,” but with the fruit of a murderous and resurgent ideology — white supremacy — that deserves to be treated by the authorities in the same manner as has been the threat posed by militant Islam.
We will see a myopic focus on guns in the coming days, tied to a broader discussion of America’s “mass shooting problem.” This will be a mistake — not because America does not have such a problem, but because to focus on limiting a certain tool in a country with half a billion of those tools in circulation and a constitutional provision protecting their ownership is to set oneself up for guaranteed failure. In the last decade, we have watched in horror as devastating attacks have been carried out with the help of trucks, cars, bombs, grenades, incendiary devices, matches, and more. The task before us, to nip this grotesque insurgency in the bud, should transcend our debates over means.
[…]
Addressing the problem will require a number of different approaches, some broad, some narrow. President Trump, a man who is comfortable using his bully pulpit for the most frivolous of reasons, should take the time to condemn these actions repeatedly and unambiguously, in both general and specific terms. Simultaneously, the president should work with Congress to devote more resources to infiltrating, tracking, and foiling nascent plots (during the 1940s, the KKK was partly destroyed by a radio show that weaponized insider information against it), and he should instruct the federal government to initiate an information campaign against white-supremacist violence in much the same way as it has conducted crusades against drunk driving, human trafficking, and domestic violence. Just as the government must not react to these incidents by abridging the Second Amendment or the Fourth Amendment, obviously the First Amendment’s crucial protections must also remain intact. But where action is consistent with the law — there is no prohibition on monitoring hotbeds of radicalism, nor against punishing those who plan or incite violence — it must be vigorously taken.
[…]
Now, as ever, evil is evil and murder is murder, and we gain nothing by refusing to call them by their names.
Q: Given everything we know about Trump, do you think he can even name the evil and vigorously condemn it, no holds barred? And if he were to come out with unwavering condemnation directed at a specific group, would it even matter? Or would it be too little too late because the die has been cast by his own actions, and no one is buying what he’s selling?
President Trump is scheduled to make remarks from the White House tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m.
(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)
–Dana
Do read both editorials. They are a bit of rational thought in a sea of chaos.
Dana (fdf131) — 8/4/2019 @ 8:14 pmEven if he denounces it tomorrow, he was spouting it last week. Heck, the only reason he wasn’t in the last 24 hours is the fact that El Paso happened. Give it a few weeks after a denouncement he’ll be back to talking about the evil invasion of Mexicans, even though most of the “invaders” are not from Mexico.
I keep hearing “well the white supremacist in El Paso specifically said it wasn’t because of Trump, he’d formed these ideas before Trump.” Trump came down the escalator in 2015, when the shooter was a 16 year old child, so that BS doesn’t wash.
This kid isn’t the first, this week, and won’t be the last, and did we forget the mental midget living in his Trump-mobile in Florida attempting to mail bomb people? The saving grace was he’s actually dumber than Trump and couldn’t actually follow the directions.
Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c) — 8/4/2019 @ 8:29 pmMy editorial:
How many times do you have to be smacked in the head with a 4X4 to realize it hurts?
The problem is assault weapons.
We know how to solve it.
Do it.
=30=
DCSCA (797bc0) — 8/4/2019 @ 8:38 pmI’m going to need a 23&me of the El Paso suspect before I call him a ‘white nationalist’, he looks more like El Waspo Choate Peabody-Cortes:
https://twitter.com/CityBureaucrat/status/1158200259635494914
His dad the Scientologist psychiatrist looked far whiter than him, is this another case of big-brained altruistic interracial adoption gone wrong? All signs point to possibly another Nikolas Cruz type. The double whammy of alienation from both adoption and general Americano culture is a hell of a thing (as David French himself well knows and has written about himself before,) but as so many previous incidents (including the case of the swarthy gigolo Trumpmobile guy Colonel Klink referred to) have demonstrated, ‘the Alt-Right is Latinx.’
Well, if you didn’t want white nationalism, you shouldn’t have let Mexico import it! But I guess the price was right!
But if you really want the Tweet of the day that pertains directly to this post, it’s this one:
https://twitter.com/vbuffyp/status/1158179816455233536
Latinxzi (071488) — 8/4/2019 @ 8:42 pmThe problem is assault weapons? Really? How so? And we know how to solve it? Like New Zealand? Tell us how that’s working out
Stacy0311 (3d63e6) — 8/4/2019 @ 8:49 pmHey DCSCA, looks like your little Antifa buddy also thought exactly like you and repeated your talking points, now are you SURE you’re not just opportunistically radicalizing the troubled young American youth created by your terrible economic policies and border policies to propagate your terrible social and civic policies? Should we put everyone who makes anti-gun arguments on a watchlist?
https://imgur.com/58T7QBB
Evil Gun (1047cb) — 8/4/2019 @ 8:51 pm@5. Yes. End of story.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 8/4/2019 @ 8:53 pm@6. Splinters hurt, don’t they.
A good post, ruined by podex loquists.
Colonel Klink is right, I’m afraid. Trump does not have the moral authority to denounce anything, because he is entirely devoid of morality.
nk (dbc370) — 8/4/2019 @ 9:11 pm7. What part of “Shall not be infringed” did you miss? If you want to disarm me, the proper way to go about doing it is to work to repeal the 2nd amendment. Good luck with that.
Gryph (08c844) — 8/4/2019 @ 9:14 pmRemember when Bush and Obama named the evil of radical Islam? I don’t either.
Their excuse for not using the term “radical Islam” was that it would grant “legitimacy” to those terrorist organizations. This never made any sense, but only now when the focus is on white nationalism has everyone reached consensus. We’re now all eager to “legitimize” this form of evil by calling it what it is.
Munroe (33bad0) — 8/4/2019 @ 9:33 pmIt will be impossible for Trump to denounce white nationalism, because he considers white nationalists to be a crucial element of his base. When many states are won or lost by small margins, he can’t afford to alienate the racists. The sad thing is that he doesn’t think that a denunciation of white nationalists will generate enough votes from anti-racist conservatives to be worthwhile.
Trump himself, insofar as he has any ideology at all, has white nationalist instincts. His treatment of the “Squad” (I hate that name) shows that he believes that people of color cannot truly be citizens of the United States. They have “countries” somewhere, where they are supposed to return to. This is particularly absurd in the case of Ayanna Pressley, whose ancestors were brought to this continent centuries before Trump’s grandfather arrived. Or AOC, whose indigenous ancestors have been in the Caribbean for millennia, and her Spanish roots predate the Mayflower. Trump was also the leader of the birther movement, so he has a proven history of casting doubt on Black people’s citizenship rights. Trump truly believes that the United States is a white country, created by white people for white people only. Black and brown people are barely tolerated and can never be real Americans in his worldview.
Jasperjava (f647ff) — 8/4/2019 @ 10:19 pm@5 They’ve had a single mass shooting in the last 20 years. So pretty well?
@9 I am not for banning guns. However, just like there are situations when freedom of speech can be curtailed (yelling fire in a crowded theater or defaming someone), the right to bear arms doesn’t mean all arms in every situation. The assault weapons ban, for example, was sustained despite legal challenges.
Nic (896fdf) — 8/4/2019 @ 10:31 pmAt the risk of going slowly off topic:
Gryph @9
According to Heller, the Second amendment “right to bear arms” applies only to arms “in common use.”
That’s really incoherent and begs the question, but that’s what they did.
The Supreme Court (or Justice Scalia) didn’t want to sanction the possession of nuclear weapons by civilians, or SAM missiles, or even machine guns.
Congress can outlaw the manufacture of certain guns. They will then no longer be in common use.
And my insurance proposal is even less than that. Just making sure that there are people who know who has a weapon and approve and require people to put their money where their mouth is if they say someone is OK.
Sammy Finkelman (e806a6) — 8/4/2019 @ 10:52 pmBan the n.r.a. as a terrorist organization. then ban bullets they are not protected by 2 amendment.
lany (327e71) — 8/4/2019 @ 10:58 pmThe NRA does not actually support murder or murderers.
Sammy Finkelman (e806a6) — 8/4/2019 @ 11:00 pmYour memory isn’t very good then.
Dave (1bb933) — 8/4/2019 @ 11:05 pmThe n.r.a. are enablers of murder and murders. I.G. farben claimed that zyklon b was a pesticide that was misused too!
lany (327e71) — 8/4/2019 @ 11:06 pmUh, no.
Paul Montagu (35419a) — 8/4/2019 @ 11:33 pmTrump didn’t pull the trigger, some public school educated moron did.
mg (8cbc69) — 8/5/2019 @ 3:15 amWarren is blaming Fox news. Her supporter is the killer. Maybe she should hire Nathan Phillips to explain.
mg (8cbc69) — 8/5/2019 @ 3:26 amDana,
Time123 (d1bf33) — 8/5/2019 @ 5:43 amI think it’s fair and appropriate to ask about a killer’s motivation. While it’s clear the Dayton Shooter was a lefty, it’s not clear to me, at this time, that his killings were in support of his political goals. If anyone has a link to that please share it. It’s possible he was just a complete lunatic, but there’s usually some internally consistent reasons motivating these killers.
From what I was able to find over the weekend the El Paso shooter went to El Paso to kill people in furtherance of his political goal of stopping an invasion of Latino people. It wasn’t his ONLY political goal, but it seems like that was the one motivating this horror. It’s also the latest in a series of murders by white nationalist 8chan losers.
When Islamic extremists committed Terrorism we’d call on Muslim leaders to speak out for 2 main reasons. (I’m using “We” in a very broad sense and not everyone would agree with 1 and 2)
1. We wanted people with moral authority in the eyes of the killer’s demographic to say that these actions were wrong in hopes of discouraging such acts in the future.
2. We suspected that all Muslims somewhat supported these acts of terror and wanted them to prove that they didn’t.
We want Trump to do it for the same reasons. I think if Trump went after white nationalists in the same way he went after the FBI it would have an impact. Regular, frequent attacks not just on the actions but on their character, their achievements, and their social status would have an impact if it came from him, in his own voice. I think a forced reading from a teleprompter will have little real impact. I think that will be dismissed by the white nationalists as “something he has to do for the normies”. But we’ll see.
I tried to re-submit my comment with better formatting for readability.
Time123 (d1bf33) — 8/5/2019 @ 5:45 am@ DCSCA, 3:
Larry Correia already addresses your line of thinking years ago.
http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/06/23/an-opinion-on-gun-control-repost/
You won’t care. Everyone else should read for enlightenment and fortification.
Demosthenes (7fae81) — 8/5/2019 @ 5:56 am#21
The problem is that what Trump should do is something Trump won’t stick to. He’ll be offended by the idea he has to spend his time denouncing people he thinks of as part of hs base. He might mouth appropriate words from a teleprompter and sound like he is mouthing words from a teleprompter. Then someone will leave him alone with his phone and he will contradict himself with over the top rhetoric, or blame the media (as he did this morning) for white nationalist attacks.
These attacks are a symptom of a national sickness. So is the predictable response Dana notes. So is Trump.
Appalled (d07ae6) — 8/5/2019 @ 5:57 amBoth the shooters this weekend are registered Democrats and leftists. The left is the source of all the political violence in this country. Every single act of political violence, no exceptions, in the last two presidential elections was committed by a leftist.
Trump is not a racist, and he does not use racist language. Claims to the contrary are outright lies. Nor is he inciting racial violence. Obama spent eight years doing that, and the Democrat candidates for President are openly racist, denouncing whites, especially white males, and Jews for merely existing.
Clean up your own dirty act.
ROBERT SYKES (696a35) — 8/5/2019 @ 6:14 am13. I get that, Finkelman. But how can the Supreme Court infringe a right that the constitution clearly and absolutely says “shall not be infringed?” The constitution does not say “…the righ to keep and bear arms in common use shall not be infringed.” It does not say “…the right to keep and bear arms that have not been outlawed by Congress shall not be infringed.” It says “…the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
I get that all the time, even from otherwise well-meaning people. “Oh, Gryph. You’re so absolute.” Well, you can thank the framers of our constitution for that. The only thing you can blame me for is understanding plain English. Every law on the books that restricts my right to keep and bear arms is a violation of our constitution. But then again, given the ways we violate the constitution on a literally daily basis, *YAWN*
Gryph (08c844) — 8/5/2019 @ 6:17 am“Q: Given everything we know about Trump, do you think he can even name the evil and vigorously condemn it, no holds barred? And if he were to come out with unwavering condemnation directed at a specific group, would it even matter? Or would it be too little too late because the die has been cast by his own actions, and no one is buying what he’s selling?”
Trump is a nationalist who supports all things American, which he’s admitted.
Trump, August 2017:
“We ALL must be united & condemn all that hate stands for. There is no place for this kind of violence in America. Let’s come together as one!”
“We condemn in the strongest most possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides. On many sides.”
“Racism is evil and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups.”
Colonel Haiku (70e093) — 8/5/2019 @ 6:40 amWell, when you have a political party and national media preaching that all young people have to look forward to is an apocalypse and not taking a stand that preaching hatred and bigotry toward anyone – including white folks – is abhorrent, you may just reap what you’ve sown.
Colonel Haiku (70e093) — 8/5/2019 @ 6:47 amCH, The anger and vitriol he’s directed at the El Paso Shooter, and the people who encouraged him, and the people he identified with, is minimal to non-existent. He comes across as very insincere. Your other comment appears to say that the shooters were justified because people say mean things about white people. Did you mean it that way or am I misreading you? I’m not trying to put words in your mouth. It’s a serious question. I disagree with you frequently here but value the conversation.
Time123 (797615) — 8/5/2019 @ 6:57 am27. Trump’s nationalism is a campaign strategy. Don’t fool yourself into thinking he’s principled, even if you find his principles distasteful. Trump looks out for Trump and if anyone else benefits from his scheming, that can be chalked up to coincidence.
Gryph (08c844) — 8/5/2019 @ 7:10 amHaiku:
I don’t think there is much dispute Trump says the right things, every so often, usually with an expression that suggests that his aides are making him eat spinach again, and he doesn’t like it and just for that, he’ll get himself a new DNI or Chief of Staff or something.
But he does stuff like this too:
Here is another tweet:
Now I am sure these statements can be twisted into a pretzel and parsed and prodded so that all it really means is that kids should drink more milk, and Nancy Pelosi is a meany. But Trump owns the word “invasion” and has embraced it and the half jokey approval of violence he does in those rally speeches. Not that he’ll admit ownership, now it seems that inconvenient people have been listening to him.
Appalled (d07ae6) — 8/5/2019 @ 7:11 amThat’s not true. First, The guns of those types that are already in the hands of law-abiding citizens are by definition “in common use”. Outlawing their manufacture does not remove them from use. Second, Congress can outlaw the manufacture of guns in the United States, but it can’t prevent their manufacture in other countries. And guns manufactured in other countries will eventually find their way into the US.
Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71) — 8/5/2019 @ 7:13 am32. God save us from the lawyers. SMDH
Shall.
Not.
Be.
Infringed.
Gryph (08c844) — 8/5/2019 @ 7:19 amThere is a polarizing divide in this country on many issues, including guns. Lawyers try to overcome them through peaceful means.
DRJ (15874d) — 8/5/2019 @ 7:32 am34. The polarizing divide is encouraged by lawyers. Without it, there is no place for them in an adversarial justice system.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Gryph (08c844) — 8/5/2019 @ 7:35 amTrump today:
DRJ (15874d) — 8/5/2019 @ 7:35 amYou want no infringement, no limits at all? What if your neighbor lets his 4 year old have and carry a gun?
DRJ (15874d) — 8/5/2019 @ 7:37 amGryph, I agree with you. I was just pointing out the flaw in Sammy’s argument.
Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71) — 8/5/2019 @ 7:40 am37. Of course, there are limits to responsible firearms ownership. No one is suggesting otherwise. The NRA itself was founded expressly for the purpose of training rifle owners and getting rifles into the hands of freed slaves. What I’m saying, and what is the absolute and undeniable truth, is that our constitution forbids the government from having a role in limiting citizens from owning weapons. I get to decide how I will defend myself from an aggressor, not Daddy FedGov. If you think this is dangerous and/or irresponsible, you are welcome to attempt to repeal the second amendment. Until then, every law restricting firearms ownership is unconstitutional.
Gryph (08c844) — 8/5/2019 @ 7:43 amDana… I echo your rant, particularly the macabre efforts to “never let a tragedy go to waste” mindset to push agendas.
I think he can. He has before.
Would it matter?
No. It wouldn’t matter because of how divisive and toxic ANY politics is these days. (and Trump isn’t blameless either)
A not insignificant number of people scoffs at this… but I think both sides has lost their everloving minds in politics.
We’ve lost our way in being able to have polite disagreements and being okay with agreeing to disagree.
whembly (51f28e) — 8/5/2019 @ 7:44 am38. I think I’m coming across a bit saltier than I normally intend. I apologize. The caps certainly don’t help in that regard. But this is a very hot-button issue for me. The very foundation of the 2nd amendment is the idea that I am responsible for defending myself and, ergo, I get to decide how I will do so.
Gryph (08c844) — 8/5/2019 @ 7:45 amThe problem here is that white supremacy, at least as it is manifest in actions like this shooting, is indeed done by lone wolfs who are inspired by poisonous ideology. Which, thanks to the internet, is easily spread among those attracted to it.
But the glaring difference between this and, say, Islamic terrorism, is that the latter is organized. Groups of like-minded people get together and plan terrorist acts. See 9/11 as the most spectacular and successful example. When that happens, it is relatively easy to crack down against these organized groups.
Here, in contrast, the only organization seems to be some websites that spread hatred. Cracking down on that faces a major barrier: the First Amendment. So saying you want to “crush” these ideologies is easier said than done.
I don’t disagree that this deserves strong moral condemnation. We will see what our president does. But, frankly, talk is cheap. The problem here, as a I see it, is that all you have is talk, until some nut job decides to do something and commit mass murder, by which point it is too late.
Bored Lawyer (998177) — 8/5/2019 @ 7:45 am42. I’d like to know what percentage of “mass shooters” are on mood-stabilizing drugs. I highly doubt that poisonous ideology is new, but the existence of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors certainly is (among others).
Gryph (08c844) — 8/5/2019 @ 7:48 amPer the Left, the Right’s speech is violence, the Left’s violence is speech.
Colonel Haiku (70e093) — 8/5/2019 @ 7:49 amEven a broken clock is right, twice a day…
https://static.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Screen-Shot-2019-08-05-at-7.57.34-AM.png
Colonel Haiku (70e093) — 8/5/2019 @ 7:52 amNow off to Zion NP!!!
Colonel Haiku (70e093) — 8/5/2019 @ 7:54 am45. I know, right? I was a little surprised, myself.
Gryph (08c844) — 8/5/2019 @ 7:55 amNational Review has be-clowned itself again. Whatever credibility it has left after its attempted lynching of the Covington Catholic Kids has been blown away by this nonsense. So, is NR in favor of free speech uber alles or is it just like the Liberal/Left? It seems the later. One minute its, “Don’t touch Google, freedom Bro” Next its “We need to destroy and censor those awful “White Nationalists -no matter what”.
Hysterical, emotional, liberal. That’s what I think when someone mentions David French or national Review.
rcocean (1a839e) — 8/5/2019 @ 7:56 amSorry, but godlessness is to blame for these disgusting acts. We have encouraged a mentally ill, narcissistic society to walk away from Him and yet expect people to act morally and righteously. The only way to heal this wound is to return to Him.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people”. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
– John Adams
NJRob (4d595c) — 8/5/2019 @ 7:58 amYou cannot repeal the Bill of Rights. They are rights that were acknowledged by our Founders to be God given. They were statements of fact. Not things granted by government.
NJRob (4d595c) — 8/5/2019 @ 7:59 am@48
You seem to be in some confusion. The First Amendment precludes the GOVERNMENT from censoring speech. It does not preclude others from speaking their minds and calling something evil and obnoxious, evil and obnoxious.
The First Amendment protects the Nazis and the KKK to hold marches and rallies, and set up a website.
But all normal people also have First Amendment rights to condemn them with all fervor.
Do you really not understand the difference?
Bored Lawyer (998177) — 8/5/2019 @ 7:59 amNational Review has made it clear the don’t opposed the Liberal/Left establishment, they ARE the Liberal/Left. They’re just the conservative wing of it. And they will jump through any hoop and take any position necessary to keep that “reasonable Conservative” slot. And the NYT and Wapo become more crazy left, national review moves leftward with them.
I’m getting to the point, where I’m not getting upset anymore, just bored with them. I reached that point with Bill Kristol and David Frum. National Review is getting there.
rcocean (1a839e) — 8/5/2019 @ 7:59 amDon’t give me the 1st Amendment only protects against the Government. The courts have made exceptions to that. Businesses can regulate speech at the work-place but only up to certain point.
rcocean (1a839e) — 8/5/2019 @ 8:01 am“May God bless the memory of those who perished in Toledo, and may God protect them,” Trump said.
Dave (1bb933) — 8/5/2019 @ 8:01 am50. Then perhaps the federalists were right — the bill of rights really was unnecessary. That’s a debate for another time; I really don’t wish to inflame the Rothbardians right now.
The 2nd amendment is essentially the government’s recognition of the people’s inherent right to self-defense. The idea that the government can hypocritically turn its back on such a recognition just because it feels like doing so is even more odious to me.
Gryph (08c844) — 8/5/2019 @ 8:02 am54. And God bless the speechwriter who put that on Donald Trump’s teleprompter.
Gryph (08c844) — 8/5/2019 @ 8:02 am@51 I don’t appreciate the put downs. You want to make little baby insults – I can return the favor.
rcocean (1a839e) — 8/5/2019 @ 8:03 am53. The right of free speech is pretty absolute as well, except in cases where someone is maliciously and measurably harmed by a falsehood. Even for that to be punished, it must be litigated first; even the courts have held time-and-again that speech can not be restricted out-of-hand.
Gryph (08c844) — 8/5/2019 @ 8:04 amWe are in agreement.
NJRob (4d595c) — 8/5/2019 @ 8:04 am57. Someone’s kind of brittle. I didn’t see anything in post 51 that I would consider a put-down at all. I guess YMMV.
Gryph (08c844) — 8/5/2019 @ 8:05 am59. On the other hand, if the people were to allow the repeal of the 2nd amendment, as a nation we’d get what we deserve for doing so. The amendment process can not happen without the implicit consent of the individual states which is why no one has attempted to repeal the 2nd legitimately.
Gryph (08c844) — 8/5/2019 @ 8:09 amThose that find the Constitution to be a hindrance to their goals will try a go around just like they are with the Electoral College.
NJRob (4d595c) — 8/5/2019 @ 8:12 am62. If only civics education in America was worth a warm bucket of spit…
Gryph (08c844) — 8/5/2019 @ 8:37 amBoth the shooters this weekend are registered Democrats and leftists.
Paul Montagu (35419a) — 8/5/2019 @ 8:54 amThe El Paso shooter isn’t a registered Democrat, and his views are anti-immigrant and racist.
How? What is so offensive about, “Here, as elsewhere, the best prophylactic against mass killings is individual intervention and social responsibility”?
Paul Montagu (35419a) — 8/5/2019 @ 9:04 amWhat is offensive about, “But where action is consistent with the law — there is no prohibition on monitoring hotbeds of radicalism, nor against punishing those who plan or incite violence — it must be vigorously taken”?
So you agree with some restrictions on other people’s use of guns, but not on your use. How do we write that law, Gryph?
DRJ (15874d) — 8/5/2019 @ 9:04 amCongress can outlaw the manufacture of certain guns. They will then no longer be in common use.
32. Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71) — 8/5/2019 @ 7:13 am
I think maybe I was wrong there about “common use” But what you have makes any gun that ws once sold into a roach motel – into Hotel California. You could never get anything out of common use.
I ta;ked about outlawing their manufacture, not outlawing their possession. There is a distinction between possession and manufacture.
And there’s a reason this distinction is important. Most of these mass shootings are committed with weapons the gunman bought relatively recently (the Las Vegas shooter might be a little bit of an exception, but even he bought some new stuff.)
That’s pure regulation of interstate commerce. Congress could also outlaw the manufacture and sale of ammunition (in large quantities) that fit these weapons. And eventually they’d fall out of of common use by anyone’s definition. And furthermore, even if there was no regulation, the free market would operate to make ammunition more and more difficult to get, like refillable seltzer bottles are. They are no longer made. A lot of them were made in Czechoslovakia before 1938 Boittles break.
The old customers would still get their ammunition, but the old customers are not too likely to do this, because if they were likely to use them to slaughter people, they’d have done it or tried it already! (there are not too many people like that old American Nazi who waited until he was 88 years old to shoot people)
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/us/11shoot.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Holocaust_Memorial_Museum_shooting
hat was not actually his first federal offense. He;d previously been convicted of entering a federal building with various weapons, 28 years earlier, in 1981. But then , with more life still ahead of him, he was careful not to shoot people. Now he was suffering from congestive heart failure and sepsis, and, in fact, died in jail not quite seven months later.
The problem there seems to have been that he was too aware his time on earth was limited. That always makes someone thinking of killing people more likely to kill, because there’s little or no deterrent left (if he does not fear God)
Sammy Finkelman (e806a6) — 8/5/2019 @ 9:12 amRC@ 53
The argument for companies not doing business with 8chan is the same one for Christian Bakeries not making cakes for gay weddings. The difference is we’ve decided as a democracy to give special protection to gay people and not allow for discrimination based on sexual orientation. You can think it’s a bad law, but it’s currently the law and there’s no serious effort to change it.
But if I am rude, insulting and threatening to a baker they don’t have to do business with me. there’s no special class for ‘jerk’. Someone in cloud source decided that 8chan was too obnoxious to do business with. Apparently, they drew the line at encouraging mass murder and turning it into a game. As a conservative I support their right to do what they want with their property and time. As a free speech supporter I think they made the wrong call here, but I don’t think government should intervene. It’s a private matter between private citizens.
Time123 (797615) — 8/5/2019 @ 9:12 am66. DRJ (15874d) — 8/5/2019 @ 9:04 am
By something that’s nicknamed the grandfather clause. It’s often used when imposing new occupational licensing requirements.
Sammy Finkelman (e806a6) — 8/5/2019 @ 9:15 amI’m curious how far you imagine this absolute right, to the exclusion of any competing public interest, to bear arms extends.
To the mentally ill?
Aboard airliners?
Within line of sight of the President?
If “infringement” is allowable in those three cases, how do we square that with an unconditional, inflexible reading of “shall not be infringed”?
Dave (1bb933) — 8/5/2019 @ 9:25 amCamel’s nose. Tent.
NJRob (754ad5) — 8/5/2019 @ 9:29 amSammy,
The guns you want to ban include the most commonly owned rifle in America. If that isn’t common use, what is?
NJRob (754ad5) — 8/5/2019 @ 9:30 amYep.
Dave (1bb933) — 8/5/2019 @ 9:31 am64. Paul Montagu (35419a) — 8/5/2019 @ 8:54 am
He thought the Democratic Party was all bad, but the Republican Party was only half bad.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/04/opinion/mass-shooting-white-nationalism.html
which quotes and links to the manifesto:
This person almost seems to be anti-immigration only because , the way it’s playing out, it will help the Democratic Party. Or he’s plagiarizing.
I heard this argument before. I think it’s appeared in National Reveew and even Rush Limbaugh said it. That immigration is bad because it hurts the Republican Party.
From the killer:
Sounds like hes been listening a little bit to Andrew Yang, who warns of automation and wantsa universal basic income. By the way, this seems to be writen at a level that is probably beyond his capability.
And look at this:
Sammy Finkelman (d542b2) — 8/5/2019 @ 9:35 am72.
Sammy Finkelman (d542b2) — 8/5/2019 @ 9:38 amAccording to the same documents, he was also a radical eco-terrorist and anti industry.
NJRob (754ad5) — 8/5/2019 @ 9:39 amSammy,
How is banning manufacture not the same as banning ownership? How do you plan on selling that with a straight face?
You have the right to speech, but I’m preventing the sale of any tools to actually speak.
NJRob (754ad5) — 8/5/2019 @ 9:40 am74. I didn’t format the end of this right. That should have been:
And look at this:
The economics is crazy, but, of course, that’s not the main thing wrong with his thinking.
Here is where he gets close to advocating mass murder:
Sammy Finkelman (d542b2) — 8/5/2019 @ 9:41 amI say most common because it’s a fact.
NJRob (754ad5) — 8/5/2019 @ 9:42 am77.
How is banning manufacture not the same as banning ownership?
Chuck Bartowski said it @32
There are plenty of old guns around.
Banning their manufacture will disproportionately keep them out of the hands of killers.
Sammy Finkelman (d542b2) — 8/5/2019 @ 9:45 am79. What percent of all guns? Of all rifles?
Sammy Finkelman (d542b2) — 8/5/2019 @ 9:46 am26. Gryph (08c844) — 8/5/2019 @ 6:17 am
Well, how does the Supreme Court do alot of other things?
Scalia didn’t like that logic, so he added a clause about “common use.”
The real problem is with the defintion of “People”
“The People” means a collective body, not necessarily formal. As in “We the People” in the Prwamble to the constitution. (that was how they excused violating the restrictoons on how the artiles of zconfederation could be amended.
A right to self defense might be truthfully found in the 9th amendment,
Sammy Finkelman (d542b2) — 8/5/2019 @ 9:51 amDuring the Revolution the Continental Congress passed a resolution requesting that the colonies pass laws confiscating guns and ammo from citizens deemed insufficiently loyal to the American cause. Mass, PA, and New Hampshire did pass such laws. (Maybe other States did too, not sure). It will be pointed out that this was a time of war, and that this was pre-constitution. Noted, but also noted that the resolution was championed by John Adams, one of the authors of the Constitution (and the author of the Mass Constitution on which it was based).
JRH (52aed3) — 8/5/2019 @ 9:54 amI wouldn’t say “only”. The guy genuinely does not want Hispanics to cross the border to pollute the purity of the white race. Quote:
Paul Montagu (35419a) — 8/5/2019 @ 9:59 amalso the Founders sure could be ambiguous when they wanted to. They forever tied the 2A to “a well-regulated militia,” forever ensuring that we’d be debating this forever, and we will be.
JRH (52aed3) — 8/5/2019 @ 10:01 amAhem:
https://proteinwisdom.com/?p=58664
Narciso (72d34b) — 8/5/2019 @ 10:10 amSometimes people register with one party – especially in states requiring registration as R/D/or NPS as somewhat of a “cock-block”, voting for either the most extreme candidate most likely to lose tho their truly favored candidate from the other party or as a hedge to assure that the “least-worst” wins in the event that their truly favored does lose in the general. Trump benefitted from the former and McCain benefitted from the latter, but from diametrically opposed sub-groupings. In several IL primaries, I’ve done variations of both more times than I have affirmatively supporting a candidate.
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 8/5/2019 @ 10:18 am85. JRH (52aed3) — 8/5/2019 @ 10:01 am
They weren’t ambiguous.
An alternate false interpretation of the term “militia” was created by the National Guard Association, which, starting in 1864 with the New York Militia, (which at that time it gave the nickname of National Guard) successfully lobbied every state to change the name of their militia to the “National Guard.”
And then lobbied Congress successfully in 1903 to define the “militia” as every male over 21 or something like that.
(In the 1930s, the job of misinterpreting the Second amendment was taken over by the National Rifle Association.)
The actual meanng of the word militia should never have been in doubt.
You should study the (virtually unknown) version of the Second amendment that’s in the Articles of Confederation – that should make it clear what it means:
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp
Article VI, clause 4
Sammy Finkelman (d542b2) — 8/5/2019 @ 10:22 am“a well-regulated militia” has definite meaning.
well-regulated: meant having the firearms maintained
militia: meant able bodied men. (current, ‘militia’ has statutory meaning… something like men aged 18-57, or something like that).
It’s constantly debated because the pro-gun control crowd refuses to acknowledge that.
whembly (fd57f6) — 8/5/2019 @ 10:23 amNinja’ed by sammy.
whembly (fd57f6) — 8/5/2019 @ 10:24 amYes, I know the difference. That’s why I said that banning their manufacture would not mean the guns are not in common use. See, there’s a difference between manufacture and use.
And banning manufacture does not ban their sales or importation. So, identical guns made in other countries could easily come to the U.S.
Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71) — 8/5/2019 @ 10:28 am@88. Sure. but the founders could have just said “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Period. Instead they chose to associate the right to bear arms with the necessity to have a militia and a secure state. This enables and strengthens the argument that the right was less an individual right than a collective one.
JRH (52aed3) — 8/5/2019 @ 10:31 am84. He also seems to have been in favor of black separatism – a separate country (part of the American South) for blacks – although probably not Aztlán for Hispanics, although he doesn’t specifically disavow it.
He claims he would never surrender, and that he knew his family would despise him.
He wrote: “But the idea of deporting or murdering all non-white Americans is horrific.” But if they are not Americans, or maybe if it only a dozen or two, not so bad?
His ideas may predate Trump but people are skeptical he himself had held them at the age of 16 or so.
The question is: Wo invented this ideology?
Sammy Finkelman (d542b2) — 8/5/2019 @ 10:32 amChuck Bartowski (bc1c71) — 8/5/2019 @ 10:28 am
Yes, “common use” was he wrong caveat to use – excet maybe , is this really Hotel California?
Sammy Finkelman (d542b2) — 8/5/2019 @ 10:38 amSammy, may I respectfully suggest that you (re)read Heller, pages 47-54 at least, to see what the Court meant by “common use”? It’s not what you think it means. I’ll give you a hint:
nk (dbc370) — 8/5/2019 @ 10:40 amWithout the add-on limitation of “unreasonably dangerous”, “common use” includes machine guns, bazookas, and howitzers, but not sawed-off shotguns.
The reason for the clause abot a “a well-regulated militia” is probably to increase the chances of ratification, or to justify putting it in the constitution, because some people might oppose it.
It’s an argument.
It may be the only place in the U.S. constitution where you get an argument for a provision.
Sammy Finkelman (d542b2) — 8/5/2019 @ 10:41 amI never really read Heller, although I had it on my screen, so I’ll take a look.
Sammy Finkelman (d542b2) — 8/5/2019 @ 10:42 am“Radical” is an opinion and he wasn’t an “eco-terrorist” because he didn’t drive 650 miles and target brown-skinned people at a Walmart because they didn’t recycle.
Paul Montagu (35419a) — 8/5/2019 @ 10:47 amThe guy had serious issues about Hispanics “invading” (his words) the southern border and was willing shoot them on the lazy assumption that, being so close to the Rio Grande, he wouldn’t hit any “fellow Americans”.
And guy isn’t “anti industry” because he wasn’t criticizing capitalism. His words were “pro-corporation = pro-immigration”. The primary reason he had a jones about corporations is because, in his opinion, they want more immigrants to increase their business (and he also didn’t like it that they didn’t recycle).
Look its just the same boring pattern. I’ll give it to the MSM and average lefitst. They never give up. They never get tired. If a leftist/person of color/immigrant kills people its “Hey he’s just some nut, maybe we need gun control”. However, if the nutty white male killer can somehow be linked to something they don’t like then its:
“Right winger racist who opposes immigration kills people” “Trump must denounce” “Internet must be policed for hate speech” “We must use opportunity to advance Left-wing agenda”.
Same ol’ pattern. year after year after year.
rcocean (1a839e) — 8/5/2019 @ 11:54 amI’m not going to sit around and parse the words of a murderous loony who was under psychiatric care. Think I’ll go and enjoy life. Adios.
rcocean (1a839e) — 8/5/2019 @ 11:56 am92: read Heller; its settled; and its rather shortsighted isn’t it, to imagine that you can impose a collective right on one Constitutional right, w/o inspiring America’s legion of law professors into a literal exorcist-like flow of articles finding a “compelling” case for the same on other rights. Time to regulate those twitter mobs! Time to have sate approved journalists!
And the “do something!” crowd. Always the niagra of emotion to “do something!” Even if it means infringing on the Constitution, and w/o any thought that the best “something” might be the undoing of last “do something” legislation. Shameful letting yourselves be stampeded like that.
Kids dying in Chicago daily and the “do something” crowd wasn’t moved by that.
As for treating it like
Harcourt Fenton Mudd (6b1442) — 8/5/2019 @ 12:27 pmNarcisco @86, thank you for the link updating us on Jeff. It is good to see he is back writing.
Colliente (05736f) — 8/5/2019 @ 12:32 pm95. nk (dbc370) — 8/5/2019 @ 10:40 am
I found this:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
It seems to be quoting a 1930s decision
From the syllabus:
From the decison itself:
Sop I think it means what I thought it meant.
Common use is the standard, because of the idea that people would supply their own weapons. If something slips out of use, the Second Amendment therefore, no longer protects the right to own it, because all this is connected to what someone might bring when they decide to assemble in a military body.
The exception for dangerous weapons is only an example – a proof that it doesn’t cover everything.
They specifcally exempt machine guns – so it can also exempt any weapons Congress will consider too dangerous for people to hold, even if they were in circulatin for awhile.
The only thing I am wrong is that Scalia did not invent that language.
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 8/5/2019 @ 2:43 pmMy mistake for thinking you actually read the manifesto and weren’t conjuring up your own spin. Mea culpa.
Paul Montagu (35419a) — 8/5/2019 @ 5:34 pmThe reason for the clause abot a “a well-regulated militia” is probably to increase the chances of ratification, or to justify putting it in the constitution, because some people might oppose it.
The phrase is there because the Federal amendment is simply an abridged version of the relevant part of the Virginia Constitution, and the phrase appears there.
A militia is by its nature a communal organization. The Founders wanted militias because they wanted something that would make a permanent military/police establishment both unnecessary and unwanted, and they didn’t want a permanent military/police establishment because it could/would be used to suppress popular opposition, unlike militias.
Self defense and other implications of the 2A were irrelevant to the Founders purpose in having the 2A.
Kishnevi (857e3e) — 8/5/2019 @ 6:09 pmYup. When the Shawnees raided your cabin in Kentucky, the Founders wanted you to dial 911 for the militia.
nk (dbc370) — 8/5/2019 @ 6:15 pmNow, if you tell me that they put “well-regulated militia” in there to justify it to the burghers fearful of an armed unwashed, that I might be inclined to believe.
nk (dbc370) — 8/5/2019 @ 6:22 pmI presume most people here are familiar with what the Founders called a “standing army”, and what the Founders thought about such a thing.
Kishnevi (857e3e) — 8/5/2019 @ 6:33 pmyeah we don’t have anything remotely resembling what the founders wanted.
I do wish I had a time machine so I could show them Heller or Roe v Wade or Wickard. Or just the democrat debates from the other day. They would be absolutely amazed by our aircraft carriers, the IRS’s armory, stuff like that.
Oh well. Still better than GB.
Dustin (6d7686) — 8/5/2019 @ 6:43 pmYes, it’s in Article I. No appropriations for an army for more than two years. And for a large part of America’s history, the “National Army”, which is to say the National Guard, Reserves, and conscripts, outnumbered the Regular Army.
nk (dbc370) — 8/5/2019 @ 6:43 pm@71. Pup tent; @72. And what percentage of 25% makes it the ‘most common?’
‘In reality, only 25% of Americans own a gun.’ – source, WaPo, 5-7-18
The tail does not wag the dog.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 8/5/2019 @ 6:46 pm‘In reality, only 25% of Americans own a gun.’ – source, WaPo, 5-7-18
It was 20% in our family when I was growing up. Only my father “owned” guns — my mother and my two brothers and I, did not.
nk (dbc370) — 8/5/2019 @ 7:00 pmHow many people “own” televisions? Wall-to-wall carpets?
nk (dbc370) — 8/5/2019 @ 7:02 pmCNN is leading their page today with the Dayton Shooter’s lefty politics.
Time123 (353edd) — 8/6/2019 @ 4:55 amThe most notable thing about the El Paso shooter’s manifesto is he completely eliminates any clue that anybody else encouraged him.
Sammy Finkelman (d542b2) — 8/6/2019 @ 6:42 am