Sunday, September 08, 2019

Senator Majority Leader McConnel, Do something: Protect the Bill of Rights!

In an editorial, the Washington post calls on Senate Majority Leader McConnell to "Do something".

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 obviously 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, 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 murders, 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 were 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 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.

The Washington Post demands "Do something" in an plea to the emotions. Pleading to emotions is something the Left does very well. It is the opposite of good government. The Left has always pushed emotional pleas because they despise the idea of limited government. Pleas to emotion allow them to pass statutes that would never stand up to clear, logical discussion, because they lack logic and facts. Emotion is a way to bypass ordinary Constitutional restraints.

The designers of the Constitution deliberately created a system that resisted pleas to "Do something" on the instant. The designers knew those emotional pleas were a guarantee of bad law.

The takeover of the American Media by far left Progressives circumvents much of the restraint built into the American Constitutional system. The Progressive Media has the ability to do a full court press on the President, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and even the Supreme Court, all at once, rapidly and emotionally.  Only recently have a small amount of conservative, Constitutional, media been able to provide a minimal voice to counter them.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost their lives to preserve the Bill of Rights. It has made us the exception in the world. In most of the world, free speech, the rule of law, and right to bear arms are ignored, or only given lip service. It has made us the most powerful, free, and arguably, rich, nation on earth.

Don't throw away the American heritage for a false promise of preventing a small number of murders. Murders that have been promoted by the Progressive media.

Yes, Mr. McConnell, do something.

Follow your oath of office and protect the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

©2019 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch 


Anonymous said...

The primary purpose of the second amendment in the constitution is to give the citizens the ability to guard against Tyranny. According to the constitution, every male between the ages of 18 and 45 is automatically in the national militia. any one either side of 18 or 45 can volunteer for the militia. the Militia will need weapons equal to any thing the military has or the Militia is useless. Liberals like to use the term assault weapon and try to get that term in to any gun control law. Point in Fact any thing you are assaulted with is an assault weapon. If this country were ever to be invaded by a hostile force there may be little time or no notic3e to arm civilians in the militia or those that would be patriotic enough to volunteer to defend our home land. I was raised to believe you never kill unless you have to. I am a Vietnam veteran much older than 45. As long as I can still pull a trigger No body is going to confiscate my guns without paying a very heavy price. Self defense is a personal responsibility, any one unwilling to defend themselves deserves any thing that happens to them. Those unable to defend themselves is why the second amendment allows someone else to defend them. Every sovereign citizen has the right of self defense. Any right you refuse to use is undeserved. Just like the first amendment You do not have to like what I say. I don't have to like what you say but I will defend the right to say it. The same goes for my weapons you don't have to like my weapons and I will defend my righ5t to have them. I have thought for a long time that the second amendment issue will cause a civil war. Any one wants to take odds on who would survive that war? WAR, Been there done that. Advance on me at your own risk. I can train, arm, equip and supply a sizable squad. The Bible says the taking of innocent life is murder, Soldiers are never held accountable for self defense. Self defense has a lengthy definition. The Gadsden flag says it all, "Don't Tread On Me". How will gun grabbers win that war? maybe they will pass a law that requires all patriots to just lay down and die? Or, will they get a lot of people killed trying to enforce their opinions of weapons? The cowards will not be doing the gun grabbing. Wal-Mart just announced it is creating thousands of soft targets, Brain Fart !! almost all of the mass shootings have occurred in soft targets.

Anonymous said...

If McConnell wanted to be President. He could repeal all of the unconstitutional infringements passed by previous administrations on the second amendment. Shall Not Be Infringed are the words written in the second amendment. Legally what that Phrase means is the right to keep and bear arms is limited to the 26 words in the second amendment and any other words added are infringements. We have the constitutional right to remove or replace the federal government should it become a tyrannical government. You cant do that if you are out gunned by the federal troops. The constitution forbids the use of federal troop against civilians. That prohibition only has effect if the government never becomes tyrannical. If the government becomes tyrannical the prohibition is useless. The teeth in the constitution to prevent tyrannical government is the second amendment. That is why it is unconstitutional to pass gun control laws. Civilians must have weapons equal to what the military has. Nancy Pelosi has made a public statement. we accomplish everything in small steps. Small steps or large steps once you get where you are going You have arrived. The term Assault Weapons is a favorite of gun grabbers. If you get hit in the head with a rock and don't feel assaulted the rock did its job. Eat that steak without a knife to cut it because that knife is a possible assault weapon. Once all of the assault weapons are collected the only way left to rebel is to take a weapon from a government person that has one. If you take the weapon effectively that government person will never need it again. Get one weapon and that weapon gets two and so on. Pretty soon you have enough weapons to rebel and fewer government people to stop the rebellion. That is how it has always worked through out history. American Patriots won the revolutionary war with mostly home made weapons and only about 2% of the civilians actually fought that war. I just happen to be a descendant of the Baptist Preacher that formed a militia from his church congregation that militia fired the first shot of the revolutionary war. the shot heard around the world.

ScienceABC123 said...

Senate Majority Leader McConnell nor anyone else in Congress can do anything to protect the Constitution, that's the sole job of the nine members of the US Supreme Court.

Anonymous said...

The supreme court lost its credibility in the year 1803. the word interpret and the authority to interpret is not written any where in the constitution. The court of 1803 ruled it had the authority to interpret, unconstitutionally increasing its power s and authority, the laws and the constitution are written to be enforced as written and until they are legally amended, repealed or changed by the citizens only the words actually written can be enforced, we are not ruled by ideological opinion we are ruled by what the laws actually say. According to the volumes of American Jurisprudence, Judges that rule by any thing other than those written words , violates their oath of office and must resign or be impeached and removed. Under American law activist judges are a disgrace and unfit to serve. Liberals protect their activist judges. Our third branch of government has been trashed, the courts are an embarrassment to this nation and an insult to our constitution. Unless and until we can restore Honor and integrity to our court system the dignity of being an American will suffer.