
He was 16 months old.

About aweisbrot

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Shoot!

  1. Jeff Rosner says:

    Well written however your essay is entirely emotional and wrong on so many issues. 1st issue: if the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution was only for single shot muskets, then the 1st amendment is only for printed newspapers, handbills and public assembly and does not extend to TV, Radio, Internet. 2nd Issue: The individual right has been affirmed by US Supreme Court 3rd Issue: You are emotionally blaming the gun not the bad people. 4th The Torah gives us the right to self defense. (see Mishpatim and Gemare) How can you defend yourself without modern weapons. 5th Full auto (AK-47) have been illegal since 1934.

    • aweisbrot says:

      These are good points. If not entirely accurate. First, the freedom of press and speech are unconditional in the bill of rights. The rigfht to bear arms is specificially circumscribed to the foudnation of a milita. Second, the supreme court is not always right. when they are filled with gun-supporters, they will find a personal right. Third, I am blaming bad people. But, less guns mean less accidental murders.

  2. Yet, the murder of Antiq Hennis occurred in New York City, which has the the strictest gun laws in the nation. And D.C. v. Heller addresses the Second Amendment: “Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”

  3. Jeff Rosner says:

    The first 10 Amendments are known as Civil Rights for all the people. However under your definition and the ACLU’s the 2nd Amendment is excluded. Yet the Supreme Court upholds the word Militia as “all the people” in case law. This is the original intent of the Founding Fathers and authors of the Constitution. The word absolute is not in the 1st Amendment nor has case law upheld absolute. Your essay is nothing but an emotional rant without fact. I take my leave asking you to study the Second Amendment and also what the Torah and Gemara have to say about self defense.

  4. Paul Malek says:

    Ari — there is so much disinformation in your piece that its difficult to respond.

    I guess one could start with your utter disregard of Supreme Court precedent in Heller and McDonald and the Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment. The meaning of the “well regulated militia” prefatory clause was addressed convincingly and at length by Justice Scalia. It is not a limitation on the individual right( and yes, the “the right of the people…” conveys an individual right, not a collective right). Rather, it sets the framework and explains why the right is important. You essentially read the prefatory clause to mean: “a tightly controlled [well regulated] national guard [militia] being necessary to the security of a free state…” The Court correctly understood it to mean (to paraphrase) “a prepared and functioning (the meaning of the word “regulated” at the time) body of free people (the meaning of “militia” at the time), being necessary to the security of a free state (to preserve and defend the liberties set forth in the rest of the bill of rights), the right of individuals to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..” You are obviously free to disagree with the Court’s (binding) interpretation, but to summarily dismiss it with your statement “the right to keep and bear arms is not a personal right” is intellectually dishonest, particularly from an officer of the court such as yourself.

    As for your regurgitation of Brady Center talking points on “assault weapons”, relative murder rates, George Zimmerman, etc., it would be nice if you conducted a more thoughtful cost/benefit analysis. Are there societal costs to widespread gun ownership? Absolutely. But let’s at least consider those costs honestly and in context. Take the UK, gun control advocates’ favorite example of gun control nirvana. The gun murder rate there is 20x higher than the us, but the overall murder rate is 4x higher. Still not great, but not nearly as dire. Then consider that the UK has significantly higher rates of robbery, assault and burglary than the US (check the UN crime statistics if you don’t believe me). Which society is truly “safer” for the average person? Then consider that the sad reality is that in the US a hugely disproportionate number of gun murders are committed by young African Americans against other young African Americans. Gun violence in the US is to a large extent a localized urban problem that is attributable to myriad social, economic, political and cultural factors. The availability of guns is a small part of that. And yes, we DO need reasonable gun regulations — laws against felons possessing guns, background checks, training requirements for concealed carry. But, as you know, those and many other laws are already in place but unfortunately often not enforced (or plea bargained away). Also consider that gun accidents are exceedingly rare –approximately 140 per year for young people ages 18 and younger, with a portion of those undoubtedly hunting accidents. (again, feel free to check the CDC statistics).

    As for the benefits, forget about the Gary Kleck study asserting 2.5million defensive gun uses a year. As the liberal Dan Baum points out in his book “Gun Guys”, even if you take the DOJ’s National Criminal Victimization Survey number if 80,000, that is still a substantial societal benefit.

    Even given the natural emotional reaction to tragedies involving gun accidents or violence, it is difficult to understand why people like you are unwilling to accept the fact that ordinary people are capable and regularly do defend themselves and their families using firearms (in addition to the numerous other lawful reasons people have for owning firearms). Your gross inflation of societal costs and minimization of the benefits of gun ownership can only be seen as an emotional but not a rational response to what should be an issue on which people of goodwill share common ground.

    • aweisbrot says:

      But you think that being able to carry around a weapon is a fundamental right, like life and liberty?

      • Paul Malek says:

        Yes, I think the right to possess the means to protect oneself and one family and to oppose tyranny if need be is a fundamental right. That doesn’t mean the right to own — and carry — a firearm is limitless. Training and qualification requirements for carry, for example, make perfect sense. Why is this notion strange? The founding fathers memorialized and formalized certain fundamental, individual rights in the Bill of Rights. Free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, due process, etc. They created a constitutional system of checks and balances that has worked amazingly well. But no system is perfect, and the founding fathers recognized that. They recognized that, ultimately, having all the instruments of power — the right to keep and bear arms — in the hands of the state is a bad idea. That’s something someone inured to living in nanny states like NY and NJ find that difficult to accept.


Leave a Reply to Jeff Rosner Cancel reply


You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s