Notations For the Week-End: On #Guns

As the debate over Guns rages on in the United States, our team was shocked to it's core as it reviewed the speech by the President of Liberty University, Jerry Falwell Jr., as it called for all students to arm to take out "those muslims".  He sought to clarify it further and underscore how all faiths attended Liberty and he estimated approximately 15 to 20 Muslims attended his University.    This was in pale comparision to what Erik Erickson did yesterday as the New York Times came out with a rare Front Page Editorial calling for Gun Violence to once in for all stop.

In an Email, Mr. Erickson asked that his "image" be sent out to the World.    We have decided not to accomodate him in this quest because we are of the view that what he did went against everything he claimed in his email as he professed his love of the US Constitution--even though it has gone "Viral".   It is also just as unfortunate as we see other commentators somehow buy into his narrative as underscored by this released by Professor Jonathan Turley to his blog:

President Obama Reportedly Preparing Unilateral Gun Control Regulation As Response To Recent Shootings

by jonathanturley
SseudqLThe New York Daily News has a controversial front page this morning blasting politicians and others who are offering prayers while opposing to take steps to curtail gun access in this country in the wake of the latest massacre in California. It is the same message sent by President Barack Obama who appears ready to use executive authority to restrict gun sales at gun shows. The problem with calls for such action is that Congress has declined to order such changes -- raising yet another potential conflict over executive overreach in our system.  Moreover, the right to own firearms is now recognized as an individual right under the Second Amendment, limiting the extent to which gun ownership can be meaningfully curtailed. Absent a constitutional amendment, many of the calls for banning gun ownership would fail as unconstitutional.

He underscored his view that, ".....It should be striking to every American citizen that the New York Times believes the nation should have unfettered abortion rights, a right not made explicit in the Constitution, but can have the Second Amendment right curtailed at will though it is explicitly in the Constitution....Again, we have suffered the worst terrorist attack in more than a decade and the New York Times believes now we must have our rights taken away as a response to terrorism..."     But as a lawyer he should know this--and we fully concur: "...No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation....". That's the bottom line and someone with a law degree, he and others need to understand that.       What is ever more unfortunate is that America is not even trying--and Nicholas Kristoff noted this in his Column.

As We have decided to feature the editorial in its' entirety for all to judge for themselves, we could not help but wonder what would move America--Sandy Hook didn't, the shooting of a Congressman didn't--what would, then?    
CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times
All decent people feel sorrow and righteous fury about the latest slaughter of innocents, in California. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are searching for motivations, including the vital question of how the murderers might have been connected to international terrorism. That is right and proper.
But motives do not matter to the dead in California, nor did they in Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, Connecticut and far too many other places. The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who place a higher premium on the money and political power of an industry dedicated to profiting from the unfettered spread of ever more powerful firearms.
It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection. America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday. They distract us with arguments about the word terrorism. Let’s be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism.
Continue reading the main story

Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.
But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not. Worse, politicians abet would-be killers by creating gun markets for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs. It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.
It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.
Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.
What better time than during a presidential election to show, at long last, that our nation has retained its sense of decency?

No comments: