These gun-control proposals are hardly draconian
The Second Amendment debate about what the Founders intended was clarified in 2008 when theSupreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller determined that the right of the people to keep and bear arms included individuals, not just a “well-regulated militia.” However, as Winkler pointed out, Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion left wiggle room for exceptions, including prohibitions related to felons and the mentally ill. Scalia was not casting doubt, the justice wrote, on “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
This still leaves open the loophole of private sales that do not require background checks, which President Obama wants to close. We will hear more about this in coming weeks, but the call meanwhile to ban assault weapons or limit magazines in the wake of the horrific mass murder of children and others at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut is hardly draconian. It won’t solve the problem of mentally disturbed people exacting weird justice from innocents, but it might limit the toll. Having to stop one’s rampage to reload rather breaks the spell, or so one would imagine.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Go home, Ms Parker. You are embarrassing yourself.
apostic on January 12, 2013 at 11:23 AM
So some weird spell is on the shooter and needing to reload will break it. Time for you to actually study many of the mass shootings.
The Gifford one involve the gun jamming after a reload. It didn’t break any spell.
Ms. Parker you must talk just to hear yourself because you aren’t very smart and didn’t do any research.
chemman on January 12, 2013 at 11:25 AM
I think we’ve officially lost the language. First tax deductions are called loopholes, and now selling a gun to your buddy w/o involving the feds is called a loophole.
How about we acknowledge that most criminals commit a CRIME in order to get their weapons? And forcing the rest of us to be highly inconvenienced and allowing the feds to track our weapons has zero relationship with illegal guns and where they go and who sells them.
Timin203 on January 12, 2013 at 11:25 AM
One just cannot get the deeply intellectual nuances of a highly charged issue until Kathleen Parker weighs in. Thank God we have people like her to explain all this Constitution-y stuff to us.
Rational Thought on January 12, 2013 at 11:26 AM
I would imagine having to stop to reload while defending against multiple home invaders also “breaks the spell”.
Kataklysmic on January 12, 2013 at 11:27 AM
How breathtakingly stupid of you, Ms. Parker.
steebo77 on January 12, 2013 at 11:27 AM
Breaks the spell? Know-nothing twits like you are making things worse, KP.
John the Libertarian on January 12, 2013 at 11:27 AM
One would imagine that most of these mass shooters carry multiple guns with them so they don’t have to reload as often and/or because they’re aware of the possibility that their main gun may jam.
I don’t think someone who is homicidal, shooting innocents for no reason, is going to end his rampage because he has to switch out magazines. It’s kind of a part of shooting. And anyone with any experience with magazines can switch them out very quickly. The only thing that stops these guys is running out of victims or having someone with a weapon pointing it back at them.
The kid in Newtown had plenty of time to kill as many kids as he could, the gun made no difference. He could have done the same damage with virtually any gun you can think of — the only thing that stopped him was doors being locked and that eventually the cops showed up. As soon as he realized he was in danger, he killed himself (presumably so that he didnt risk being captured)
Timin203 on January 12, 2013 at 11:28 AM
???????
thirtyandseven on January 12, 2013 at 11:29 AM
It didn’t “break the spell” at Virginia Tech, the largest school shooting ever. Witnesses reported that guy swapping out magazines the entire time.
tommyboy on January 12, 2013 at 11:30 AM
I work with a lot of people who live in NY state. I was talking with some NY gun owners, who were okay with Cuomo making online ammo sales illegal and limiting capacity. They said, “well, we can always go to CT to buy the stuff, and / or have it mailed to CT, so it’s no big deal” hey dummies — if you’re smart enough to figure that out, so are the criminals. It just means it’ll cost you more in time and money to buy stuff you already want, and will have no effect on criminals getting it. So how is that a good law?
Timin203 on January 12, 2013 at 11:31 AM
I’ll leave the magazine size alone, because I think it’s a distraction, and concentrate on background checks for legal purchases.
Opponents say that checks are required to weed out felons and the insane, in the main. To do this, everyone is a suspect until declared innocent.
Are all men treated as rapists until declared innocent – and when is this declaration made?
OldEnglish on January 12, 2013 at 11:31 AM
Yeah, because obtaining the firearms, loading them, plotting the scheme, getting dressed, spooning the cornflakes and traveling to said location didn’t seem to break the spell. But the reload? Ho-Haaaay!
John the Libertarian on January 12, 2013 at 11:35 AM
Au contraire! As “assault weapon” is loose definition, with few technical qualifiers, it is necessarily broad. Any ban of “assault weapons” will target large numbers of firearms, supply a legal definition broad enough to administer the ban beyond its initial intent (through executive orders or bureaucratic rulings), extend federal power for future gun-grabs, and establish political precedent for enactment of other laws.
David Marcoe on January 12, 2013 at 11:37 AM
Like I was arguing last night, both sides seem okay with limiting SOME arms to the civilian population. If that’s the case, lets follow the constitutional process and pass an amendment clearly defining what is and what is not acceptable for civilians to own. I have a feeling it’ll work out in gun owners favors due to the number of votes it would have to get.
We need clarification on this issue since we keep hearing “assault weapons” and “semi automatic guns” thrown around like anyone in DC understands either of those terms. I want to see something, somewhat finalized, set in stone, defining what is and what is not acceptable, then we’re done with this issue for another 200 years.
Timin203 on January 12, 2013 at 11:40 AM
How long does it take to reload? I have seen some guys do it in several seconds.
She’s not real bright. She voted for O in the past rignt?
CW on January 12, 2013 at 11:42 AM
These people have to remember, every time they endorse these heavy-handed moves by this Administration, it means that the next Administration (whoever that may be) will take it one step further. It’s hard to get the cat back in the bag once he’s set free.
mjk on January 12, 2013 at 11:42 AM
Any rifle could assault someone…no?
CW on January 12, 2013 at 11:45 AM
Really? Not a single person can point to a single mass murder where the person purchased the weapon by exploiting a “loophole”.
ButterflyDragon on January 12, 2013 at 11:48 AM
…All of this kind of assumes we get some real control of the border and staunch the flow of NEW illegals, otherwise we’re setting up a great incentive for more illegals to flow in waiting on the next wave of amnesty coming around in 20 years.
Timin203 on January 12, 2013 at 11:49 AM
lets limit the 1st amendment to limit KP ability to publicly speak ….
their are other names we can add to the list …
the magazine issue …. VT shooter … used multiple magazines …
you can swap out a mag in about a second …
the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have a good guy
with a gun …
conservative tarheel on January 12, 2013 at 11:50 AM
Being shot repeatedly by one or more of your intended victims (the good guys) works too, and also has the inherent upside of preventing the “spellbound” baddie from getting to fire all of his rounds at children.
Oh.
Nevermind. We’re debating based on something else, and any fact-based counterpoint can just be negated by your imagining something worse. Do you post at hotair.com, btw?
rogerb on January 12, 2013 at 11:50 AM
sorry wrong thread
Timin203 on January 12, 2013 at 11:50 AM
Biggest lie #1
“Just let me stick the head in.”
I’m thinking Kathleen still falls for that one too.
MikeA on January 12, 2013 at 11:51 AM
This may be inappropriate, but here goes. Does Beslan ring a bell with anyone? How do we prevent jihadist from taking over an elementary school? The only solution to school shootings is armed teachers, principals and perhaps guards at schools.
Gun free schools are a ripe target for deranged individuals and other more dangerous zealots wishing to cause major horror for our society.
Don’t think for a minute this can’t happen here. Or did you forget that in 2006 two saudi muslims casually boarded an elementary school bus by “accident”.
filetandrelease on January 12, 2013 at 11:57 AM
Let she that imagines such thoughts be next in line to receive a bullet once the cartridge is inserted into the gun to test the validity of her thesis.
I sit in stunned amazement that she manages to stuff so much vapidity into so few words column after column.
I tip my hat to you, Ms. Parker.
You doofus.
turfmann on January 12, 2013 at 11:59 AM
You know you’re washed up when Client #9 doesn’t even want you.
Flange on January 12, 2013 at 12:06 PM
Why do I need someone else saying its ok for me to have a gun?
unseen on January 12, 2013 at 12:09 PM
Private firearms sales have not been covered by federal law because it was regulation of commerce that was not interstate and therefore outside of Congress’s powers. The 1990 “gun-free school zone” law was challenged for this reason in US v. Lopez and was struck down by the Supreme Court. Congress put it back in place with the proviso that the prohibited gun must have moved in interstate commerce, but that law has yet to be tested in court, and there is a good chance it would also be struck down.
Liberals may think that they can get away with regulating private commerce because of the Obamacare ruling, but that’s because the court interpreted the monetary penalty as a tax, and banning such sales would not fall into that category. Likewise a federal ban on possessing magazines would have a hard time passing Constitutional muster. If the legislature wants to tax these transactions, like they currently do for NFA weapons, they would probably be able to get that one to fly, but I see lots of these outright bans getting challenged and struck down if they try them at the federal level.
Socratease on January 12, 2013 at 12:11 PM
Because , for the most part, the people who think a 15 year old can choose to abort there child don’t think a 38 year old is mature enough.
CW on January 12, 2013 at 12:16 PM
How can the government trust us with our kids if they cannot trust us with an inanimate object?
/
CW on January 12, 2013 at 12:18 PM
Lol! ; )
Bmore on January 12, 2013 at 12:25 PM
Oh, yes. The language of the aspiring tyrant. They use this one interchangeably with “why would anyone need x” and “I’m sure everyone can afford to pay a little more for y”, never feeling the need to explain how any of their proposals would prevent whatever catastrophe they’re using on the day or why it’s any of their business in the first place. Try and put individuals on the defensive by arousing suspicions of their motivations for opposing such “reasonable”, “no-brainer” regulations. Why would you oppose this, do you have plans to kill children? Alinsky would be proud.
By the way, if these “proposals” are hardly draconian, why are they necessary? If they’re of little-to-no inconvenience to anyone, what’s the point?
fitzfong on January 12, 2013 at 12:41 PM
17,000 people die in drunk driving crashes a year.
We need to ban all alcohol sales, and restrict car sales to one every ten years, only four cylinders, that cannot go over 55 mph.
It’s for the children.
Rebar on January 12, 2013 at 12:42 PM
Delusional is a liberal state of mind. I wondered how they would re-spin the simple fact that changing a magazine take a second or two. The shooter is under a spell by the gun I guess and having to reload is all it takes to break that spell and for the shooter to realize that they are doing something wrong.
Dr. Frank Enstine on January 12, 2013 at 12:43 PM
Shall not be infringed.
besser tot als rot on January 12, 2013 at 12:49 PM
We have been since college campuses became dominated with radical feminists. Probably since the late 80′s early 90′s.
njrob on January 12, 2013 at 1:01 PM
K.P., I assume from your name, that your are female. If you are not a liberal unthinking idiot, bring some credit to your gender by attempting to understand the issues before you comment.
trl on January 12, 2013 at 1:02 PM
We don’t know what the penalties are so we don’t know yet whether they are draconian. That’s the meaning of draconian, i.e., penalties which are unduly harsh or bordering on cruel. But let’s see what else we know about draconian laws.
They were written laws, to replace the oral laws known but to the elite who used them arbitrarily. Might be nice to have that draconian aspect to some laws we have currently on the books.
They weren’t newly made up laws. None banned possessions of otherwise law abiding citizens. Interestingly Draco divided the law for murder so as to distinguish between that and involuntary homicide. It seems that Draco had some concerns about the intent of the act not just the fact that the act occurred, something that is lacking in gun bans and a lot of other laws on the books.
I’d have to read all the laws Draco had written down, but I suspect there wasn’t one banning “assault” spears, as I’m pretty sure the Greeks didn’t go in for petty illogical characterizations of things.
Dusty on January 12, 2013 at 1:56 PM
The answer to: “These laws aren’t so bad” is: “They won’t work, and then you’ll be back for more.”
Unlike the efficacy of gun bans, which is based on speculative theories that have no basis in fact, the steady advancement of restrictions on gun ownership is a historically established fact. Gun owners know it, and they won’t give in “just this once.”
Socratease on January 12, 2013 at 2:04 PM