Terrorist that severed the heads of Christians: AUSTERE RELIGIOUS SCHOLAR
Trump balloon popper: SLASHER https://t.co/M61qFsNBFb
— Razor (@hale_razor) November 10, 2019
Last week, the Wall Street Journal published an op ed by prominent firearm policy researcher John Lott Jr., and big shocker – the anti-gunners immediately got their knickers in a bunch.
Entitled Mexico’s Soaring Murder Rate Proves Gun Control Is Deadly, Lott very effectively spells out some sound reasons as to why our southern neighbor has become a mecca of murder.
“Another month, another record number of murders in Mexico” reports Lott. “For the first nine months of 2019, Mexico had 25,890 murders—almost six times as many murders per 100,000 people as in the U.S.”
Not content, however, to marvel at the sheer horror and atrocity of these numbers, anti-gun fanatics instead are shrieking at the Wall Street Journal for having the gall to give Lott anything other than print space in the obituaries.
Moms Demand Action founder Shannon Watts – head anti-gun dogmatist and Bloomberg’s political honey screamed through Twitter “Why would the WSJ allow John Lott to lie about gun violence in their newspaper?”
And she continued by doing what she does best – being flat-out dishonest – calling Lott a “shill for the gun lobby.” She knows full well this is bogus but that hasn’t kept her and others in the anti-gun circle from spreading the lie. On the Crime Research Prevention Center’s website, Lott responded:
“It is a false claim that Shannon Watts and other gun control advocates have floated before and I have responded before. Neither the Crime Prevention Research Center nor I have received a $1 for any of our research. We have that policy posted on our website. Shannon Watts also links to an attack on Dr. Lott in the left wing Vox, but that was also something that we had previously responded to. Not that Watts could respond to our responses, she finds it necessary to keep repeating the same links over and over again.”
In direct response on Twitter, Lott asked “Why is it acceptable for gun control activists like Shannon Watts to always push to keep others off the media – why can’t they ever provide substantive comments on the actual content of what they are criticizing?”
He concluded with “Of course, neither Shannon Watts nor any other gun control advocates responded to my Tweets. As is typical, they attack and then move on.”
Lott’s article is well worth a read. He reports “Mexicans had a right to own guns until 1971, when the constitution was amended to give the federal government total control over firearm access. In 1972 the government passed strict gun-control measures. registered, unloaded, in a locked container, and going from one residence to another.”
For decades Mexico has had only one gun store in the entire country, a military-run establishment in Mexico City. The store’s prices are very expensive, and the most powerful rifle that you can buy there is a .22 caliber.
John Lott – WSJ 10/21/19
Although this sounds eerily familiar as to what Californians face, Mexico has taken private ownership of firearms to a level far beyond what we experience.
“Getting permission to purchase a gun is a feat in itself. Background checks take six months to complete and require fingerprints and an evaluation of the buyer’s employment history. Only 1% of Mexicans possess a license to own a firearm.”
John Lott – WSJ 10/21/19
There’s nothing scary or inaccurate about anything Lott has written – in the Wall Street Journal piece or anywhere else. That being said, it’s clear to GOC why Shannon Watts and those like her want to shut the John Lotts of the world up. It’s because the more people know the facts, the anti-gun movement will be just like that Emperor…you know, the one with no clothes.
To read the full John Lott article, click here.
If we’re going to discuss guns in this country, it’s important that we know what we’re talking about first and foremost. That’s why we consulted the on-staff gun experts at hundreds of different news outlets across the country. We compiled their hands-on experience and book knowledge on guns into the handy image below. It’s a part-by-part breakdown of assault rifles. Consult it whenever you need to talk about guns, whether you’re chatting with your Uncle Cletus at Thanksgiving this year or CNN asks you to come on the air and tell them how deadly an AR-15 is.
The top trending featured news story on Twitter is a story no journalists are really talking about and no major news network or outlet is covering.
There is a fundamental disconnect between media and audience and that’s why Facebook/Social Media isn’t going anywhere. pic.twitter.com/VqxJQxM5CM
— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) November 5, 2019
Remember when the entire media had a panic attack over Trumps comments on the Access Hollywood tape? While this was going on, those same people knew that Epstein was raping children… and then decided to cover it up.#EpsteinCoverup
— Carpe Donktum🔹 (@CarpeDonktum) November 6, 2019
CIA, FBI Informant Was Washington Post Source For Russiagate Smears.
These close connections between the Washington Post’s Ignatius and individuals connected to the American and British intelligence communities, and the false reporting that has taken place over the last three-plus years, raise grave concerns that the warfare of the soft coup aimed at President Trump includes using the media to push propaganda.
The Federalist has learned that the now-outed CIA and FBI informant Stefan Halper served as a source for Washington Post reporter David Ignatius, providing more evidence that the intelligence community has co-opted the press to push anti-Trump conspiracy theories. In addition, an email recently obtained by The Federalist from the MI5-connected Christopher Andrew bragging that his long-time friend Ignatius has the “‘inside track’ on Flynn” adds further confirmation of this conclusion.
Svetlana Lokhova, the Russian-born English citizen and Soviet-era scholar, told The Federalist that she only realized the significance of her communications with and about Ignatius following the filing of attorney Sidney Powell’s reply brief in the Michael Flynn case.
In last week’s court filing, Powell highlighted how the CIA, FBI, Halper, and possibly James Baker used the unnamed and unaware Lokhova and the complicit Ignatius to destroy Flynn. This James Baker is not the one who worked under James Comey at the FBI, but a James Baker in the Department of Defense Office of National Assessment.
Stefan Halper is a known long-time operative for the CIA/FBI. He was paid exorbitant sums by the FBI/CIA/DOD through the Department of Defense Department’s Office of Net Assessment in 2016. His tasks seem to have included slandering Mr. Flynn with accusations of having an affair with a young professor (a British national of Russian descent) Flynn met at an official dinner at Cambridge University when he was head of DIA in 2014. Flynn has requested the records of Col. James Baker because he was Halper’s ‘handler’ in the Office of Net Assessment in the Pentagon, and ONA Director Baker regularly lunched with Washington Post Reporter David Ignatius. Baker is believed to be the person who illegally leaked the transcript of Mr. Flynn’s calls to Ignatius. The defense has requested the phone records of James Clapper to confirm his contacts with Washington Post reporter Ignatius—especially on January 10, 2017, when Clapper told Ignatius in words to the effect of ‘take the kill shot on Flynn.’ It cannot escape mention that the press has long had transcripts of the Kislyak calls that the government has denied to the defense…………
When the editors of the NYT start housing refugees in their neighborhoods, I might start taking them seriously. Most now come from a predominately moslem culture that is inimical with U.S. Constitutional principles.
More refugees must be resettled across the United States to fill a “void of cultural diversity” in towns that are made up of a majority of white Americans, a New York Times report states.
As President Trump is set to lower refugee admissions for the third year, keeping his 2o16 campaign promise to significantly reform the program after almost four decades, the New York Times published a report this week detailing how Congolese refugees already living in the U.S. are looking to bring their foreign relatives to the country through the refugee resettlement program.
The New York Times reports:
To supporters like Mr. Engen, the Congolese are filling a void of cultural diversity in a town that is nearly 90 percent white. In the 1980s, Hmong refugees from Laos settled in Missoula. The children of immigrant families are usually the few students of color in city classrooms, while their parents work long hours at businesses eager for the help. [Emphasis added]
The New York Times has previously claimed that “nearly all white” states like New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine pose “an array of problems for new arrivals” to the U.S., as Breitbart News noted.
I want to thank Claremont for the opportunity to reply to Michael Anton’s review of my book Bronze Age Mindset.
Since at least 2015—but in fact from before Trump ever came along—there has been a tremendous intellectual disturbance or ferment online, among both the right and the left, that has escaped the notice or surveillance of the mainstream media, the literary and pundit-political establishment, and all those who imagine themselves gatekeepers of public taste and opinion.
Trump’s campaign beginning in 2015 brought this countercultural phenomenon to view of the authorities, who have been struggling to understand it and contain it ever since.
What are the “crazy Pepe frog people” online all about? The terms “altright” and “altleft” have been designed as catch-all categories to describe what is going on, but they’re misleading. There have been a few inadequate attempts to understand this phenomenon before Anton’s article: for example Angela Nagle’s book Kill All Normies, or a few articles by lesser-known journalists.
But Anton’s review of my book is the first big attempt, as far as I’m aware, to really try to understand what’s going on from a sympathetic point of view; which is to say, non-polemically and without the ulterior intention of getting us censored or of bringing the weight of the national security establishment on our backs.
I think Anton, whatever our disagreements—and they seem to be considerable—must be praised for realizing that the phenomenon in question isn’t going away and cannot simply be suppressed, but must be understood.
What you are witnessing, I would like to tell the readers of Claremont, is the unraveling of the postwar American regime—or what is mendaciously called by its toadies the “liberal world order”—in a way that is far more thorough than the disturbances of the 1960’s, and with consequences that will be far more dire…………….
The anti-male and anti-White rhetoric of the new left is extreme. The racial attacks on whites in particular approaches exterminationist propaganda seen only in, e.g., the Hutu against the Tutsi in 1990’s Rwanda.
For anyone who doubts this, consider the following few examples, which are far from complete:
A columnist for the Huffington Post, a major leftist publication, wrote an article titled “Towards a Concept of White Wounding,” apparently calling for racial violence.
The New York Times hired a columnist who had repeated vulgar racial attacks on whites, calling “whiteness” “awful,” whites “only fit to live underground like groveling goblins,” expressed great joy at “being cruel to old white men,” and declared that whites will be “extinct soon.” The Paper of Record stood by her when these attacks were exposed, and only quietly let her go recently when she supported a boycott against her own employer.
Symone Sanders, currently a senior adviser to Joe Biden and previously the national press secretary for Bernie Sanders, mocked a disabled white teenager who was tortured on camera in 2017 by a black mob screaming “Fuck Trump! Fuck white people!” and otherwise called cases of antiwhite political violence “a protest.”
The New York Times—again, hardly an unknown blog—published an opinion column by Michelle Goldberg with the eliminationist title “We Can Replace Them,” ostensibly against “white nationalism,” but in fact directed against a demographic white majority as such, which the author seeks to replace with nonwhites for what she imagines to be political advantage.
Kevin Drum at Mother Jones, a major organ of the Left that pushes the security establishment’s Russia Hoax conspiracy theories, called this summer for “a literal or figurative war” on whites and a “race war” that the DNC must be willing to get “Lincolnesque” about.
Major leftist and establishment media such as Newsweek publish cover stories titled “Is Your Baby Racist”; major publishers promote books titled White Fragility, or The Dying of Whiteness, and CNN—not white nationalist outlets—runs graphics on “The Vanishing White American.”
Again, all this is par for the course these days; as everyone knows, state-funded universities routinely hold “white privilege” seminars and orientation sessions, promoting a concept the plain meaning of which is to dispossess people of property and civil rights based on their biology.
“Curiously, the segment was videotaped in a Los Angeles television studio, and not, you know, smuggled out of a concentration camp. But then, every Republican president or presidential candidate since Calvin Coolidge has been compared to a Nazi.”
Appearing on Friday’s edition of Real Time, the always hyperbolic MSNBC talking head Donny Deutsch referred to Donald Trump as an “all-out dictator” and warned that “whatever the worst tyrants in history were capable of doing, he is capable of doing.”
Host Bill Maher also subscribed to the “Trump is a dictator” narrative, arguing that he checked off more items on the “dictator checklist” over the past week and worrying that eventually, the only people remaining in the Trump administration will be “the Goebbels,” comparing the President’s closest advisors to Hitler’s propaganda minister.
To those of us who have been watching this spectacle from the beginning, this was inevitable. After all, where’d the Mueller/Russia probe come from in the first place? Since there was absolutely no there there, it makes no sense that it wasn’t a fraud from the outset. Who started it? Who are the treasonous/seditious culprits who conspired to overthrow an election? Well, we should soon be finding out, although we can make some educated guesses.
But we do know absolutely who collaborated in the crime, who were the accessories to and in some cases the instigators of this most heinous plot in American history….
… the mainstream media!
They were the more than willing conduits to lies leaked to them by a long list of truly dishonest, unpatriotic Americans — some inside our intelligence agencies and no doubt some foreigners as well.
“All the people who spent the last four years calling Trump a Nazi are suddenly getting the vapors over this “unprecedented” violation of civility.”
Pot meet Kettle.
We should be bored by now — perhaps we are. Certainly, the anger against Donald Trump’s tweets isn’t quite as vociferous as before. We are used to @realdonaldtrump now. Three years in, who cares if he sounds presidential?
But the media outrage machine still limbers up, on demand, at every provocation.
Today’s doozy: Trump compared the Democratic attempts to impeach him over Ukraine to a ‘lynching’.
Sure enough, the media explainers did their job. Lynching, we are told by every wired copy monkey who has to file 600 words to their line editor, is a ‘racially charged/loaded term’ that refers to — here I quote the BBC — ‘historic extrajudicial executions by white mobs mainly against African Americans.’
The inevitable ‘backlash’ follows. Cue pundits and politicos all agreeing that this sort of language from a president is ‘unprecedented’.
Rep. Jim Clyburn, a South Carolina Democrat, told CNN: ‘I’ve studied presidential history quite a bit and I don’t know if we’ve ever seen anything quite like this.’
Bless you, Jim. Rep. Bobby Rush, an Illinois Democrat, added his two cents on Twitter: ‘What the hell is wrong with you?’ He asked the president:
‘Do you know how many people who look like me have been lynched, since the inception of this country, by people who look like you.’
He asked the president to delete the tweet.
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, the New York Democrat, added: ‘The president should not compare a constitutionally mandated impeachment inquiry to such a dangerous and dark chapter of American history.’
Then come the wannabe-reasonable Republicans, who say that, while they wouldn’t use that language (no no!), they sympathize with the president’s frustration. Thus every political talking point gets boiled down to an eighth-grade group seminar about civil rights and appropriate language. That’s the only public conversation we seem willing or able to have.
Everybody knows — sort of — that the president does it on purpose. But nobody can help themselves. Pundits and politicians react this way because they feel they have to: the temptation to sound important — by saying the president shouldn’t be so trivial — is overwhelming. The feedback loop never breaks.
Sane people wish it would stop. Sane people can see that Trump uses provocative words because he wants to provoke, such as when he says immigrant Democratic radicals should ‘go back’ to where they came from.
It isn’t because he’s stupid. It isn’t even because he’s smart. It’s because the media is stupid and thinks it is smart. Trump may have foolish traits but he’s astute enough to see that. He knows the mainstream media will always fall for his bait, even when it knows it is being baited.
The media rarely stops to ask why Donald Trump might be goading them into talking about the impeachment story. The answer is that Trump Derangement Syndrome is a real phenomenon and it never ends. It always makes his fiercest critics look silly and vain. It only ever makes the president look better.
Here’s ABC News passing off footage from a Kentucky gun range as action from the Turkey/Syria conflict pic.twitter.com/WeaI2XebSE
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) October 14, 2019
ABC News showed stunning footage last night of the ‘slaughter in Syria.’ Just one problem: the footage appeared to be from a 2017 nighttime gun range event in Kentucky (Knob Creek .ed). Which, as it happens, is not anywhere near Syria.
Freedom of speech is one of those things that has a tendency to unite a large number of people on either side of the ideological divide. While you’ll have people in each camp opposed to certain forms of speech, most people see it as pretty much an unmitigated good for our nation. After all, if the government can limit speech, just how long until they start to limit speech critical of them? Don’t pretend it can’t happen in supposedly free societies. It has.
However, a writer at the New York Times has argued that free speech is “killing” us, and to make his point, he tries to invoke guns.
After one of the 8chan-inspired massacres — I can’t even remember which one, if I’m being honest — I struck up a conversation with a stranger at a coffee shop. We talked about how bewildering it was to be alive at a time when viral ideas can slide so precipitously into terror. Then I wondered what steps should be taken. Immediately, our conversation ran aground. “No steps,” he said. “What exactly do you have in mind? Thought police?” He told me that he was a leftist, but he considered his opinion about free speech to be a matter of settled bipartisan consensus.
I imagined the same conversation, remixed slightly. What if, instead of talking about memes, we’d been talking about guns? What if I’d invoked the ubiquity of combat weapons in civilian life and the absence of background checks, and he’d responded with a shrug? Nothing to be done. Ever heard of the Second Amendment?
The writer, Andrew Marantz, seems to believe that this simply proves that we should be willing to discuss speech control just as we talk gun control.
I, on the other hand, simply want to point out that this is something many of us have warned people about for years now.
You see, when you place restrictions on one right, regardless of how well-meaning you may be in doing so, you provide evidence that rights can be restricted. The plethora of gun control laws that exist in this country only serve as a reminder that there are those who are more than willing to restrict your rights.
Marantz justifies his tyrannical views, in part, by pretending that gun control is such an unmitigated good that we should expand such totalitarian ideas and restrict speech some people find repulsive.
In the process, though, he illustrates precisely why so many of us refuse to budge on the Second Amendment even if we were to see definitive evidence that gun control works.
We keep our guns because some jackwagon like Marantz will want to tell us what we can and can’t say and if that particular jackwagon has the power to make laws, we need a way to resist.
The effort begins with guns for a number of reasons, but the curtailment of rights will never end there. Someone will invariably seek more and more control. Someone like Marantz.
Do you want to know why I “need” an AR-15?
Because some wannabe dictator like Marantz thinks he has any business telling me where my right to say what I want should end. No, this isn’t a threat. Marantz is free to spout his nonsense position same as anyone else–that’s the thing about free speech. Either everyone has it or no one does–but it’s a warning. I will speak my mind, whether you agree with it or not, and I’ll defend my right to do so with my life if need be.
— Matt Pearce 🦅 (@mattdpearce) September 27, 2019
Many journalists resent Ngo’s politics, ethics, and sudden success. Yet the establishment media’s approach is the same when Ngo is out of the picture. Antifa is a subject that major media outlets tend to cover once, as a box to be checked. Far-left attacks are treated as isolated incidents rather than episodes in an ongoing story. They are not to be covered like violence from the far right or white nationalists. Andy Ngo covers the story that way—and the media do not like it or the mirror he holds up to them.
The establishment media’s lopsided approach to political violence ultimately damages both our politics and journalism. Politics are supposed to function as nonviolent dispute resolution. Weimar-style street brawling is a signpost on the path to the collapse of normal politics, one we ignore at our peril. Pretending that groups such as Antifa are not a problem is a tactic that will be noticed by at least half the country, accelerate the vicious cycle of our political discourse, and desensitize partisans to political violence of all stripes.
Turning a blind eye to left-wing violence may have the corollary effect of burning up whatever moral and institutional capital the establishment media have left. The media will be seen as knuckling under to—or even embracing—Antifa’s core beliefs. After all, many progressives already believe hate speech is no different from physical assault, which is the root of Antifa’s belief in preemptive violence.
To blame Andy Ngo for injuries he suffered while reporting on Antifa, even if one finds him biased, is to tacitly accept Antifa’s general demand that its members are not to be photographed or identified on threat of violence. No respectable journalist would accept that demand from the Ku Klux Klan. Those who accept it here will similarly lose public respect. The establishment media need to do the right thing covering left-wing violence, if only out of self-interest. Whether they will is another story.
Sounds to me like just another example of the crap-for-brains MSM cheerfully glomming onto a story without doing their due diligence first.
The whistleblower who filed a complaint with the intelligence community inspector general did not have direct knowledge of the communications between President Trump and the foreign leader in question.
The conversation was reportedly a July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. It is alleged that Trump urged Zelensky multiple times to work with his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani to investigate Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden and his ties to an energy company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch. Giuliani has previously urged a top official in Ukraine to look into the ties.
An official who has been briefed on the matter, however, told CNN that the whistleblower “didn’t have direct knowledge of the communications.” The official said that the concerns and subsequent complaint came in part from the whistleblower “learning information that was not obtained during the course of their work.”
Those details have reportedly played a role in the administration’s determining that the complaint, lodged in August, didn’t fall under the reporting standards for intelligence whistleblower law.
Although many details are still unclear, the communications in question reportedly involved a “promise,” and House Democrats, as well as the elder Biden, are pushing to have the complaint and a transcript of the call between Trump and Zelensky released.
Inspector General of the Intelligence Community Michael Atkinson received the initial complaint and forwarded it to acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire, who has so far refused to pass it along to Congress.
The root of the proposed investigation into Hunter Biden stems from his being a 2014 board member for the natural gas firm Burisma Holdings. While he was still vice president, Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees if Ukraine did not fire its top prosecutor, who was accused of corruption and was investigating the oligarch who owned Burisma Holdings. That raised concerns of a potential conflict of interest, which could be damaging to Biden’s presidential campaign.
At the time of the prosecutor’s departure, Hunter Biden was being paid $50,000 per month for his work with the energy company. Hunter Biden left Burisma’s board earlier this year.
Both Trump and Biden have denied any wrongdoing, with Trump describing his phone call to Zelensky as “perfectly fine” and Biden saying he has never spoken to his son about his overseas business dealings.
Yet, we hear next to nothing on the national media do we?
Must not be the correct subsection of the population.
The symptoms of age-related cognitive decline include being unable to remember whether you’re in Vermont or New Hampshire, and what the talking points of your own presidential campaign are, but recalling exactly what you said nearly 60 years ago when you had a summer job as a lifeguard at a pool in Wilmington, Del. and a ‘bad dude’ called Corn Pop took umbrage when you ordered him to put on a shower cap so he looked like an old lady and then, to further emasculate him in front of his ‘boys’, called him ‘Esther’……
The Kavanaugh and Corn Pop stories must at all times be considered separately, for two reasons. First, if taken together, these stories show the extent to which pro-Democratic media, even the upmarket kind which advertises its fact-checking, will go in order to slander its enemies and support its team — and that the obvious cognitive decline of the Democratic frontrunner might not be as alarming as the obvious ethical decline in the press, because a party can find a better candidate, but the Times, it isn’t a-changin’.
Second, there’s the risk that the two stories will merge into a single image in which Joe Biden’s friends push his penis into Corn Pop’s hand in order to prove his tolerance, while Brett Kavanaugh the Porn Cop stands pink and proud for family values. This composite is the true image of American politics today, so is best not considered at all, let along pushed into anyone’s face as part of a presidential nomination strategy
A new poll conducted by ABC News and the Washington Post was just released. Specifically, pollsters asked Americans what they thought about various gun control proposals. Gun rights advocates have long said that using correct terminology and being familiar with laws that are already on the books is important. Terminology matters because it can mean the difference between a person breaking a law or not. The same goes for knowing what laws already exist.
Radio host and Second Amendment advocate Dana Loesch took to Twitter to explain some of the issues with the ABC News/WaPo poll.
“I’ve never before seen a topic where a lack of education isn’t just encouraged, but is seen as a virtue by leftists politicians and certain members of media. That’s not a convincing enough argument to engender trust in the proposed policies or reporting. Terms matter. Law is written based on certain terms. In some cases, certain terms are the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony,” Loesch told Townhall. “Regarding loading mechanisms: A magazine feeds a chamber and a clip feeds the (internal) magazine. In discussions about magazine bans and capacities, this is an important distinction. So one magazine is the limit but numerous clips are fine? I want to believe that these people are interested in actual solutions, but refusing to learn important terms and why those terms are important makes it hard to believe so.”
The polling here is problematic. I’ll explain why in a thread — and on air. https://t.co/EHiZEFulOo
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) September 9, 2019
The editorial lists names of people killed in the last 20 years in mass public murders that involve guns. All of them easily fit on less than one page of the Post. The writer calls for action, out of emotion, and nothing else but emotion. From the Washington post:
The list below, far from comprehensive, is tragic, in part, because it is so far from inevitable. No, no single law would end gun violence. But there are reasonable, obvious measures that would help. For example: Ban the sale of military-grade assault weapons. Unneeded by civilians, they are a blight on the nation, their ready availability a national disgrace. Eliminating them would slow the growth of this list. It would save lives.
There are many falsehoods and misstatement of fact in the above paragraph. It is unknown what a “military-grade” assault weapon is. No “assault weapons” used in the U.S. military are readily available for sale to U.S. residents. The AR-15 semi-automatics sold in the United States are not issued to the U.S. military, nor are AK47 semiautomatic clones. Details are important in legislation.
It is far from obvious that an unconstitutional ban on “military-grade” “assault weapons” would reduce mass public killings one iota. Most of them do not involve semi-automatic rifles; the involvement of semi-automatic rifles appears to have increased as the media has promoted the idea they were the firearm of choice in public mass killings.
There is the little detail of the Bill of Rights. There are quite a few rights which, if ignored, might result in taking criminals off the streets and reducing the number of murders by significant amounts.
- If we do away with the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, the police would be able to solve more crimes, more easily. Doing away with the requirement for warrants will simplify police work considerably.
- If we do away with the Fifth Amendment protections of double jeopardy, and due process of law, we will be able to lock up criminals more easily, preventing innumerable crimes. As the vast majority of murders are not mass public shootings, this will save many more lives than focusing on rifles such as the AR15, which are used in a tiny percentage of murders.
- If we do away with the Sixth Amendment’s pesky requirement for speedy trials and juries, prosecutions can be done at the whim and convenience of police and prosecutors, keeping many dangerous criminals off the streets for longer periods.
Doing away with the Eighth Amendment requirement for reasonable bail and the prohibition against excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishments could free up the system to extract justice from, especially evil criminals.
If we wish to make a serious dent if mass public killings, there is one amendment we should focus on. It is not any of the above.
It is the First Amendment. Study after study shows that mass public killings are promoted and spread by media publicity and glorification of the perpetrators. Eliminate the First Amendment, and we can return to the day when mass public killing was rare (or rarely heard of).
Semi-automatic rifles and pistols have been commonly available in the United States for over a hundred years. Millions of military rifles with a standard magazine capacity of 15 and 30 rounds were sold to the public as surplus after World War II (6.2 million M1 carbines were made during the war). They have figured in remarkably few mass public killings. What happened? The rise of the 24/7 news cycle, social media, and the Internet have all contributed to the media contagion effect that spreads mass public killings.
A ban on “assault weapons,” whatever that fuzzy, imprecise term means, would not make a difference in mass public killing, just as it did not make a difference from 1995 to 2005. It would make a difference in the destruction of the Bill of Rights, and the rule of law, just as violating the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments would.
In the end, violating the Bill of Rights does far more damage than it prevents.