Sunday, September 20, 2015

Trump on the Second Amendment

By Karl Denninger

The cuckservative world is agape, and the liberals are running screaming -- and scared -- today.

Donald J. Trump on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms


Let me begin: While Mr. Trump's position is miles ahead of many others in the political sphere, he could have stopped right here when it comes to the law -- after all, The Second Amendment is clear.




Enforce The Laws On The Books


Yes.  A person in prison for a violent offense should not be let out until they are no longer a danger to society.  We can, arguably, make a mistake once.  However, it is unconscionable that we would permit violent felons to walk time after time, even after conviction, and commit further crimes.

No restriction on their right to keep and bear arms will keep them from obtaining arms nor using them.  That's why we call them criminals; they don't give a damn about the law.

I have written many articles on this point.  Most violent, gun-toting felons have been arrested and prosecuted before for a violent offense, especially those who are the worst of the worst, the gang-bangers and others who take most of the lives.  Every one of these people is by law today barred from owning a firearm, yet they have no problem getting them and never will because they can be stolen just like anything else.  Once you decide to commit murder all the other felonies, including theft, are "free" because it is not possible to impose more than one life (or death) sentence.

This is basic logic and no amount of feel-goodism will change it.  Therefore, if we are serious about addressing violent crime, especially violent gun crime, we have to cut the crap and put an end to revolving door jails for violent criminals.

One way to do this is to stop prosecuting and jailing people for non-violent consensual conduct under the rubric of it being "criminal", such as (for example) non-violent drug offenses.  This will free up ridiculous amounts of prison space which can then be productively used to keep violent offenders off the streets.


Florida has a 5, 10, 20 law.  Use a firearm in the commission of a felony, do 5 years -- no parole.  Discharge it, 10 years.  Shoot someone, 20 to life.  All are "serve every day" sentences and mandatory -- no parole.  It's logical and it works.  You can argue deterrent all you want but a violent criminal that is in prison cannot commit more crimes against the rest of us while he or she is there.  Prison should be a place for those who do serious harm to others, not those who engage in consensual economic transactions we dislike, and those who do harm to others should be locked up until they are no longer a threat to others.  Florida's law goes a long way toward this goal.



Exactly, except for one problem Donald.  You said:


I don't need any damned permit to exercise a right and neither do you.  Period.  The Second Amendment is your "permit" because it recognizes a fundamental right that you already have.

A permit grants permission to do a thing that is otherwise prohibited.  The Second Amendment says that any such scheme in the context of firearms is unconstitutional -- period.

Fix Our Broken Mental Health System





Right.  And let's start with the mass-murdering rage-monsters.  They all appear to have something in common -- they're young men and were on SSRIs.  Maybe there a few exceptions but the exception makes the rule even stronger.  These side effects have been known going back decades and yet they have been ignored for the benefit of these drug companies and physicians.

If I give you a ride to the bank knowing you may rob it then I'm guilty as an accessory before the fact.  Why are we not prosecuting these drug firms when there is evidence that they knew and hid results that showed these drugs were dangerous when given to people under the age of 25?

Even today, with this knowledge, why are prescribing, outside of controlled, in-patient residential settings, these drugs to people in this age group when we know that there is a risk of them causing rage-monster style behavior?

If I'm responsible for my actions if I take a recreational drug (such as alcohol) and then crash my car, injuring or killing someone, who is responsible when I am directed by a medical professional to consume a drug that said professional knows may alter my consciousness and precipitate violent behavior?  The correct answer is "The person who directed me to take the drug outside of a setting in which any such side effect can be reasonably controlled."

Do these drugs have benefit?  Yes, I'm sure they do.  But that's not the point.  The point is that they also do harm to others in certain age cohorts for reasons we do not understand.  When a huge majority bordering on virtually all of the mass-shooting assailants over the last several decades have been taking these drugs how can anyone defend their continued prescription to people in this age group?

Defend The Rights of Law-Abiding Gun Owners


Good.  Then I assume your first act as President will be to repeal the National Firearms Act?  Suppressors, for example, are barred in many areas because they require a federal permit.  The commonly-repeated lie in the movies is that such a device makes a gun go "pew-pew-pew" instead of "bang-bang-bang."  It does not; the gun still goes "bang-bang-bang."

Hollywood intentionally puts forward a false narrative in this regard, although I'm sure they would simply call that "dramatic license."  Uh huh.  Go to a range that has weapons for rent with suppressors -- they can easily be found -- and shoot a weapon with one.  You'll instantly understand that a suppressor does not in any way make the discharge of a firearm "stealthy."

What a suppressor does do is reduce the risk of hearing damage to those in the vicinity of said weapon by dropping the absolute sound pressure level by 20db or so.  It is still loud as hell and absolutely sounds like a firearm to anyone in the vicinity.  However, it is less likely to cause injury to those lawfully using it for purposes such as target practice or hunting or, for that matter, in a defensive shoot.

If you are ever unlucky enough to have to fire a weapon in a closed space, such as inside your house, without hearing protection you will be deafened for hours and may suffer permanent hearing damage.  Suppressors greatly reduce the risk of permanent hearing damage.  There is utterly no reason for them to be restricted, licensed items -- especially given the Second Amendment's guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms.  It does not say "except for suppressors."

Suppressors greatly reduce harm to those in the immediate vicinity of lawful users of firearms and there is no reason for them to be restricted in any way.  In fact common sense says that we should encourage their purchase and use to the greatest possible extent simply because they make firearms safer for the lawful user and everyone around him or her.


Again, you said:


How does a "national background check system" comport with this?  It doesn't.  And let's also cut the crap here too; a person who has been convicted of a crime but has served the entirety of his sentence, including any probationary period, has paid his debt to society.  So says our system of law.

Society already penalizes such persons in severe and impossible-to-fix ways.  Their job prospects are severely curtailed, in many cases with good reason -- a person convicted of armed robbery, for example, is unlikely to be able to find any sort of work where money might be involved.  Since these convictions are public records (an inherent part of an open, public court system) there's nothing you do about that, nor, I can argue, should you.

However, this means that said person is going to be living and working in jobs that are "less" on the societal ladder.  This is a natural and inescapable part of what happens when you commit a violent crime.  It is unconscionable to turn these people into permanent targets for other criminals by making it unlawful for them to defend themselves against criminal activity directed at their person for the rest of their lives.

Again, the Constitution is clear:


This is why we need no national background check, however, if we're going to have one then it must be limited to those who are fugitives, awaiting adjudication of a charged violent crime, while serving some part of their sentence after release, such as someone on probation or while adjudicated mentally ill.

The use of a computer-based check for these disabilities is defensible and comports with the Second Amendment.  If, as a society, we choose not to confine the adjudicated mentally ill (a separate debate) then prohibiting them gun ownership until and unless that mental illness no longer is present can be defended.  Likewise, prohibiting gun ownership for fugitives or those under indictment for violent offenses until either acquittal or satisfaction of a sentence in full is defensible as part of the punitive action taken against a criminal.

Continuing and permanent disabilities imposed upon parties who we judge to not be dangerous -- after all, we let them be present in society un-monitored -- is not defensible under the Second Amendment.



There is no need for any damned permits to exercise a right.  Period.


Prosecute vigorously those who commit violent crimes while using firearms.

Mere possession, however, is not a crime whether the person in question happens to be walking down the street, in a vehicle or in the own home and the Second Amendment says shall not be infringed.

You properly note what the Second Amendment says.

If I am acting in a suspicious manner and by doing so am detained, and I happen to have a firearm, a 30-second check of the NCIC will tell the officer in question whether I am a fugitive, wanted on a felony complaint, am out on bail or on probation.  He's going to run that check anyway, as does any officer that stops a car, to determine whether I am to be apprehended on an existing, open warrant valid in his jurisdiction.

There's utterly no reason for any inquiry to proceed further if that is not the case as I have a right, guaranteed by the Second Amendment to possess the means of self-defense.

I have no quarrel, incidentally, with the government prohibiting the possession of arms inside government facilities provided that they take full legal responsibility for my safety by standing in my stead during the time they insist that I be unarmed.  If such a responsibility fails, however, the government must be held fully liable for their failure and any harm that comes to me.  If you expect me to cede my right to self-defense then you are accepting responsibility for my safety -- period.  I believe this is an entirely-reasonable expectation.


See above.

So close, Mr. Trump.

So close, and much better than other candidates.  But take your words to heart; you get it at the core.  The Second Amendment doesn't provide a permission slip it prohibits the government from acting.

You, I, and everyone else -- including those who have been previously convicted of a crime but have served their sentences in full -- have the right to self-defense.  The only means of self-defense known to man that equalizes the old fart or 100lb woman and the young, 20-year old gang-banging weight-lifter is a gun.  It would be nice if there was some form of defensive-only technology that provided the same or better odds of success but we live in the real world and such a device does not exist.

I do not expect the police to be everywhere; that's a physical impossibility.  My primary expectation for them is to fairly and fully investigate crimes after they have been committed and deliver those who committed them to the court system so they can be tried in accordance with the law.

But this means that I, and everyone else, must have our right to defend ourselves in the gravest extreme with that right protected and respected as the Founders intended.  Today we are ridiculously far from original intent, with thousands of gun laws on the books.  

Virtually none of them, other than those that enhance penalties for use of a firearm in some other crime, are Constitutional.

Take the next step Mr. Trump -- go "all in" with your expressed beliefs as those beliefs and their effect are exactly what the founders intended and codified in our Second Amendment.



Unknown said...

The second amendment was meant for the 'militia' in the 1790's but NOT for today and must be
abolished....not by force as the trigger-happy gang would do it but in a more 'subtle' way.
"Less guns = less violence and less safety!" Dirk Holger

Backwoods Engineer said...


FORCE ME, you little puke, to give up my rights. I dare you and your fellow-travelers in government. You want gun violence and civil war? Try to force us.

And by the way, repealing the 2nd Amendment does NOT strip us of the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms.

Anonymous said...

@ Dirk Holger
Let me show around some gun free neighborhoods in Chicago