A reader posted this observation:
Already back in 2008, the conservative majority of Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court issued an outright appeal to state and municipal governments to pass laws controlling gun sales and ownership. That appeal is clear on pages 54 and 55 of the Court’s 2008 Heller decision. Think about it: That appeal comes from the Court’s conservative Justices who are still on the Court. The moderate and liberal Justices certainly agree with them, thereby forming an overwhelming majority that favor gun control.
On pages 54-55 of their opinion — their appeal for action on gun control — the conservative majority flatly state that “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…” [it is] “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
The conservative majority of Justices pointed out: “Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or on laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
The conservative majority also declared that “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller [an earlier case decided by the Supreme Court] said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time’ [when the 2nd Amendment was written]. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’.” Weapons “in common use at the time” of our Founding Fathers were single-shot rifles, single-shot pistols, and single-shot shotguns; no multiple-shot revolvers, rifles, or semi-automatic weapons.
With this clear appeal in hand from the Supreme Court’s conservative Justices for gun control, all that’s actually needed is for moral and courageous state and municipal lawmakers to enact the laws, and for a few moral and courageous billionaires to back them up and provide the money that these state and local governments will need to battle the expensive court fights that will be launched by the well-financed gun lobby because making gun control laws too expensive for governments to defend is a key strategy of the gun lobby.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Excellent!
After the 1996 Port Arthur mass shooting, Australia banned assault weapons. They haven’t had a mass shooting since.
Sensible gun control operates in other developed countries. It’s time the U.S. caught up to them on this, as well as on truly universal health care – single-payer Medicare for All.
LikeLike
Yes, there have been mass shootings, albeit few, but also mass killings using other means. Unfortunately, deranged people (usually male) find ways to satisfy their derangement.
I have no answers to America’s addiction to weapons, other than our culture is so steeped in violence, state-sponsored or otherwise that to ignore/deny that state-sponsored (military) violence that is oh so patriotically glorified by almost all the citizens ought to be seen for the largest influence on that violent culture and addiction to weapons. Start by eliminating that state-sponsored violence and the other problems will shrink back to a manageable scope. Until the pseudo-patriotic, actually nationalistic love affair with the death and destruction machine that is the US military and foreign “policy” is eliminated the same tragic happenings will continue.
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure that US military and foreign “policy” was sponsoring violence in the 1950s and 1960s. And 1970s. And 1980s.
I’m not sure what that has to do with whether sensible gun control — especially when it comes to making it easy for civilians (including teens) to obtain assault weapons — is something that the US needs to do.
Do you or do you not support an assault weapons ban? No one believes this will stop all killing in the US. That is just as absurd as anyone believing that if our foreign policy is pure Quakerism we will stop mentally disturbed young teens from using their assault weapons to mow down dozens of students.
But making it harder to mentally disturbed teens or adults to mow down dozens of innocent people with their weapons will cut down deaths.
LikeLike
You haven’t grasped what I am saying. We are a death and destruction culture, plain and simple. As such one could, and perhaps should, expect that attitude to filter down to anyone.
LikeLike
Duane, are you defending easy access to semi-automatic weapons for all? Do you agree with the NRA? Does American foreign policy, bad as it has been and is, justify selling weapons of mass murder to anyone regardless of age or mental condition? I support a total ban on selling Weapons of war to civilians.
LikeLike
I’ve never said anything about “supporting easy access to semi-automatic weapons.” Please don’t put words in my mouth.
I have pointed out where I believe posters have used terms improperly, causing further misunderstanding of the whole issue.
I never said that American foreign policy “justify selling weapons of mass murder” (which I find to be one of those misleading phrases used to describe certain weapons-misleading in that it tugs at heart strings), especially to anyone. Never said anything of the sort. So, again, please do not put words in my mouth.
LikeLike
Duane,
The culture is pseudo-patriotism and love of death and destruction is integral to the existence of the NRA. I’m confused to see you condemn it and defend it (“it will never change”) in the same breath.
I know you are a hunter and own guns. Do you own an AR 15 or some other semi-automatic weapon? If so, what do you use it for? Do you think teens should be able to buy them?
LikeLike
Please show me where I have defended the NRA. Again, I have not. I was a member of the NRA back in the 80s for a couple of years but felt that their positions were far more extreme than my own and that they were involved, still are, in political stuffing of pockets of many politicians. I’ve also been a member of the NEA and also the ACLU and various other organizations over time. Currently no one gets any of my money other than a little that I can afford for the NPE.
As far as the death and destruction pseudo-patriotism, I see the NRA as a symptom of that scourge and not as a result of it.
No, I don’t own an AR-15 or similar gun. My shotguns are semi-automatic pump actions which are used for small game hunting-turkey, doves, ducks, rabbits, squirrels and for shooting clay birds.
No, I do not believe teens under the age of 18 (since that is the legal age for most everything) should be able to buy any firearm. As I have gone through, there should be proper background checks and also proper, ethical gun handling/usage classes that should be passed. Although, I’ve not had to do the hunters ed course because due to age I was grandfathered in here in Missouri.
LikeLike
Just curios. Why do you need a semi-automatic to kill little animals? I learned how to handle a rifle and a shotgun but I can’t bring n myself to kill anything. I don’t even fish. I hate to see people killing creatures for sport when they don’t plan to eat them, just throw them away. But that’s just me.
LikeLike
A gun being semi-automatic is not in and of itself the problem. And your aversion to killing anything is not unusual. And that aversion is fine as your personal way of being. But it’s not that way for many others.
This is more of a rhetorical statement and not meant as a condemnation, but if one is not a complete vegetarian (and even then plants are losing their life so that a human may live) to condemn others for the act of killing an animal for consumption is, for me, more than just a tad off-base.
As far as hunting for meat, well that is the only legitimate reason for hunting. Anything else is just selfish ego satisfying obnoxiousness. Hell, I’m not a fan of “catch and release” fishing as that is basically torturing an animal for a cheap thrill. When I fish I aim to keep all that I legally can to eat.
As far as a single shot shotgun, yes, they are available. I actually got my youngest son a 20 ga single shot to learn on, to learn to take one shot to kill. However, things don’t always go as planned, so it is good to be able to sometimes take a quick second shot to finish off the animal, hence the pump shotguns we use.
While you may call them “little animals” like any other animal they will do their best to survive. And if they survive a hunter, well the next encounter with death will more likely than not be a lot more gruesome encounter with a wild predator, who is only seeking to keep itself alive. Life/death are intimately intertwined in the “natural” world. So much so that to believe otherwise is to not understand what happens in nature. Many humans are far from nature and the essence of its being.
LikeLike
Duane, I gotta admit, you confound me. You are so incredibly articulate and forceful on the issues you hold dear, but as I read your comments on guns, there is so much rationalization and equivocation that just doesn’t mesh with the other person I’ve come to know through this forum.
You obviously love hunting and I think you think (I may be wrong and I don’t want to put words in your virtual mouth) that any infringement in the way the 2nd amendment is read by most people will necessarily impact your right to use your guns responsibly when you hunt. As I have written on many occasions here, I think that is a fundamental misreading—or a revisionist interpretation—of the 2nd amendment. As I’ve made clear before, in my view, a fair reading of the history of the sources of the 2nd amendment makes it clear that it is about the protection of the nation during a time when a standing army was viewed with suspicion and as being impractical. I disagree with other interpretations and have not been convinced otherwise.
Two things trouble me about your views. When you write “Unfortunately, deranged people (usually male) find ways to satisfy their derangement.”, it is, to me, a curious resignation that I don’t see on other issues about which you are passionate. It’s a rhetorical throwing up your hands, a “well that’ll never change and there’s nothing we can do about it” attitude. It doesn’t jibe with me when you are so forceful about writing about the death/militaristic culture that predominates our society, an opinion with which, by the way, I am in full agreement.
When you characterize the NRA as a symptom, I disagree. It is the most fundamental virus that causes these symptoms. One only has to look at the history of Harlon Carter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlon_Carter) and how Wayne LaPierre has driven it to levels that make your statement far too charitable. Their ideological and mercenary advocacy has created an interpretation that the framers of the Constitution would not recognize.
There is nothing in a correct, historically accurate interpretation of the 2nd amendment that would take away your ability to hunt in a responsible manner. Registering firearms, limiting their firepower, prohibiting their proliferation unconditionally, regulating the type of ammunition people can legally purchase, for example, are all matters that the legislative process can handle and is designed to address. None of those items are secured by the 2nd amendment.
Lastly, I encourage you to view a recent episode of Andrew Zimmern’s Bizarre Foods when he travels the Romantic Road in Germany. You will see him hunting for small game and fowl near roads and on land in a country that has very strict gun control laws, that has a scant history of shootings and even fewer mass killings. I imagine it looks a lot like what you do when you hunt. But there is nothing that equates that privilege and responsibility with some notion that “deranged people” and people who are not deranged should have unfettered access to weapons that puts our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness in jeopardy (and worse). When you link your claim on a right to hunt with “I have no answers to America’s addiction to weapons”, it makes me scratch my head.
LikeLike
First to answer to your “head scratching” at the end of your response. I don’t have answers to America’s addiction to weapons, that addiction applies not only to individuals but to the body politic, society and government via the military, police and security forces. I don’t see a problem nor incoherence is stating such while at the same time supporting a right to hunt (which is not the same as a right to bear arms which I also support). Please explain what you perceive to be the incoherence involved as I don’t see any.
Back to the top. No, I don’t see that “any infringement on the 2nd amendment” would necessarily impact my personal right to use firearms in an ethical and judicious fashion whether target shooting or hunting. There are already restrictions on one’s ability to bear certain arms, ammunition, etc. . . . I have not clamored against those restrictions at all. They are what they are. Could there be more laws against gun ownership? I suppose, but the fact is that most of the problems that stem from illegal and unethical use of firearms would not be curtailed by any more laws.
The biggest loophole that doesn’t help to prevent the illegal ownership and usage is that no checks are required when weapons are sold at gun shows or when guns are sold between individuals. And I’m not sure how to solve that second part as I have legally transferred guns I have purchased to family members and or friends whom I have known for a long time. But the gun show aspect probably could be reined in somewhat with tighter laws.
As it is, and as I said, deranged people will do their deranged things. Cruz had let it be known quite openly that he considered himself a “school shooter”. Nothing, nothing happened to prevent him. Why not? Because we in this country have a very strong tradition of liberty and freedom for an individual that “prevents” others from infringing upon someone else’s rights. It seems to me that the strong history of individual rights, liberties, and freedoms hold sway over something that may or may not occur. And that aspect allows, then, for someone like Cruz to “slip through” and do his deranged thing.
Without trampling everyone’s rights, what can be done? What should have been done in Cruz’s situation? Again, I don’t know and don’t have an answer other than I don’t believe trampling on the rights of all to prevent a very rare occurrence is the answer.
And we’ll have to agree to disagree on the NRA aspect as I see it as a symptom of a very sick society that glorifies death and destruction via the military and foreign policy wherein it has been just fine with the vast majority of people, no matter their political leaning-they’re all gung-ho pro-American, “America is right and mighty”. So I see these shootings, and deaths also as symptoms of our sick, demented and deranged society.
LikeLike
Duane said: “(and even then plants are losing their life so that a human may live)” Hilarious, thanks for the laugh. Taking an apple from an apple tree, doesn’t kill the plant, the tree. Oh wait, I guess an apple is a feeling, sentient being. Who knew? Didn’t mean to put words in your mouth.
LikeLike
“I have no answers to America’s addiction to weapons, other than our culture is so steeped in violence, state-sponsored or otherwise…”
….
I agree. We are now militarily in 76 countries. Most people including members of Congress aren’t even aware of our interferences. We certainly aren’t told the amount of money our military is taking but it is an unheard of amount. The military isn’t even held accountable for the trillions that it receives.
Look at the outcry that occurs every time there is any mention of controlling any type of killing machine. Why not go to the local gun shop and buy something to kill? It’s easy.
We are a violent culture. We ‘need’ guns to prove that we can control the rest of the world and that we can control everything by violence. It is a loosing game but the one the US continues to ‘play’. My motto is: STOP THE KILLING! That goes for those inside this country and the excessive force used outside. We cannot bring peace with more guns and more killings. This is a love affair that needs to stop. It’s wishful thinking that it ever will end.
LikeLike
I’m glad you posted this. It is a sign of how even the supposedly “liberal” media ignores the facts to spew the right wing propaganda they always fall for.
This is what a NY Times journalist (really just another poorly educated pseudo-journalist who fell for right wing propaganda) wrote yesterday in an article about the Russian bots:
“One of the most divisive issues in the nation is how to handle guns, pitting Second Amendment advocates against proponents of gun control…”
SHEERA FRENKEL and DAISUKE WAKABAYASHI — those are the NY Times reporter who wrote this idiotic statement that accepts without question the right wing propaganda that the Second Amendment forbids any gun control. They need to be called out for their laziness and failures to do even basic reporting and simply repeat right wing propaganda.
Maybe if we call out these lazy and poorly informed reporters enough, we can shame them into doing a better job. And not simply accepting the propaganda as if it was the truth.
Every time I read a journalist talking about “repealing” the Second Amendment, I know that journalist has fallen for the propaganda and has absolutely no knowledge of US history.
And what is worse is that they are far too lazy to do a few hours of research to learn that we have had gun control in the recent past because the notion that the Second Amendment forbid any gun control is simply the right wing propaganda that is now repeated by lazy and poorly educated journalists who have no business working for the NY Times.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/02/20/video-gun-owner-destroying-ar-15-goes-viral/354003002/
And also: Savvy students with cell phones…a force to be reckoned with. It is their future and they know it.
LikeLike
There is no “anything goes on guns” and other weapons authorized by the Supreme Court.
This is an important post.
Thanks for bringing it the foreground. The NRA propagandists cannot be left unchallenged. They are functioning as outlaws–literally.
LikeLike
Then there was the era when the NRA defended gun control and Governor Ronald Reagan supported the ban of loaded weapons. The result? Only 2 school shootings in one decade!
You see, during the 1970s, there were only two mass shootings at public schools. During that decade common sense prevailed in terms of weapons in school and the acquisition of guns, common sense that was written into laws in the late 1960s. During that era there was bi-partisan political support and NRA support for gun control, which led to the passage of the federal gun control act (GCA) of 1968. At the hearing on that bill, NRA Executive Vice-President Franklin Orth supported the bill’s ban on mail-order sales, stating, “We do not think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States.” In the late 1960s several states also passed laws limiting the use of firearms, including California’s passage of the Mulford Act which forbid the carrying of loaded weapons in public. In response to the passage of this law, then California Governor Ronald Reagan stated that he saw “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons” and asserted that guns were a “ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.”
Despite these mass killings over the past decade, we have been unwilling to limit the rights of anyone to acquire any kind of gun and carry it anywhere because we have accepted the NRA’s most devastating assertion of all: that citizens need to have guns to protect themselves from each other and “the government”. In the 1960s, the gun control act (GCA) of 1968 was passed in response to the Kennedy assassination. California’s Mulford Act, introduced in 1967, was passed in response to the Black Panther Party’s decision to conduct armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods because of their objection to treatment by the local police force. By contrast, in today’s world neither the shooting of innocent civilians by individuals with high-powered weapons nor the presence of armed militias in Charlottesville “to provide order at the protest” compelled any legislative action except to call for more citizens to carry concealed weapons and to encourage more “armed volunteers” to patrol school grounds and public spaces. In effect, we have adopted the view that vigilante justice needs to replace the rule of law.
The NRA has since changed its direction, become more politically active, and framed the gun debate. We need to seize the debate away from gun owner’s rights, driven by fear, toward the need for us to support each other, driven by hope. https://wp.me/p25b7q-24Q
LikeLike
The Supreme Court has ruled, unanimously, that the Federal government can ban a class of weapons (sawed-off shotguns), because these weapons are clearly not functional as a weapon for a well-regulated militia.
see Miller v. USA (1939). Nearly all 2d amendment supporters, are in agreement with this decision. Private citizens should not be permitted to own weapons of this nature.
LikeLike