James Holmes was armed with an AR-15 semiautomatic assault weapon. He’d added a 100 bullet drum, which was theoretically capable of killing 50 or 60 people a minute. Police say the gun jammed, however, so Holmes switched to another gun that was less effective. Even so, he killed or wounded 70 people.
He also had a shotgun and two Glock handguns with him.
“All weapons he possessed, he possessed legally. All clips he possessed, he possessed legally. All ammunition he possessed, he possessed legally,” Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates said last week.
Does the right to own assault weapons supersede the rights of Americans not to be mowed down in movie theaters? It does, according to the NRA, the entire Republican Party and some Democrats. For them, the right to bear arms trumps even the unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
But here’s a surprising development — it’s the first time I’ve ever agreed with Bill Kristol about anything:
Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol on Sunday broke with fellow conservatives and backed restrictions the sales of “assault weapons” like the AR-15 that was allegedly used to kill at least 12 people and wound 58 others in Aurora, Colorado last week.
“People have a right to handguns and hunting rifles,” Kristol told Fox News host Chris Wallace. “I don’t think they have a right to semi-automatic, quasi-machine guns that can be used to shoot a hundred bullets at a time.”
“And I actually think the Democrats are being foolish as they’re being cowardly,” he added. “I think there is more support for some moderate forms of gun control if they separated clearly from a desire to take away everyone’s handguns or rifles.”
“And you could put more pressure on moderate Republicans than people think. It’s not as if Republicans from New York and Illinois and California couldn’t — that President Obama couldn’t do what President Clinton did and put pressure on them [to pass an assault weapons ban]. President Obama on this one is just unwilling to take a strong stance.”
- Section: News & Comment
- Topics: Gun Control
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGYFRzf2Xww
Jon, you and, it seems, Mr. Kristol puke forth words in ignorance. I would like to say that I am horrified of the evil that was done the other day. Also, I am saddened how you and so many others have used this tragedy to further an ignorant, knee jerk revocation of our civil rights.
Many people across this nation are pained because the evil actions of a sad little man who impacted many innocent lives. I imagine we all, at some point, ask why and we all wish for this to never occur again. In our pain we desire an answer. We want an easy answer, one that will make us feel better. We desire an answer that we can implement so we can say, “I made a difference”.
Unfortunately the answers are harder to come by than simply passing a law or eradicating such and such a tool.
People who do not stop a moment to think, are more damaging than healing. You wind people up into an emotional frenzy to force a few ineffectual “mob” rules.
There does not exist, and never has existed a “semi-automatic, quasi-machine guns that can be used to shoot a hundred bullets at a time” This is so silly it is cartoonish! Your foolishness and ignorance should embarrass you. And an apology is in order here.
However, I WILL give you this, I AGREE with you and Kristol, and I will agree to rally behind a ban of ALL “assault weapons”. I am absolutely and irrevocably against the manufacture and/or distribution of ANY weapon, be it gun, knife or text that is designed for the sole purpose of taking an innocent life. However, I am fairly confident that you feel you have the right (I would say responsibility) to protect yourself against an entity that wishes you or your loved ones harm. To that end I trust you would utilize the necessary tools. If attacked with liable, you might bring suit. Would a liable suit be considered an assault weapon? Yes, of course, IF used to commit harm upon an innocent man, otherwise it would be considered, by reasonable men, to be a reasonable legal option of recourse against an aggressor. No reasonable man would argue that liable suits be made illegal due to the sad instance of a liable claim being used illegally to harm another. I only ask that you take a minute to educate yourself and practice reason.
In addition I do not think people have the right to self-guided, quasi-jet engine cars that can be used to drive on a hundred roads at a time. Just saying…
DAG, please read this. http://www.salon.com/2012/07/22/jason_alexanders_amazing_gun_rant/
He makes the point that the 2nd Amendment calls for a “well-regulated militia.” We all seem to have forgotten the “well-regulated” part lately but it was what the founders intended.
I love shooting military-grade weapons as much as anyone but I don’t need anything more than my 870 for personal defense. Just saying…
For the record, it was your guy, Bill Kristol, not me who used the phrase “semi-automatic, quasi-machine guns that can be used to shoot a hundred bullets at a time.”
Trish and Jon,
Jon, Thank you for pointing it out but, if you read my message, it is clear I was fully aware that it was Mr. Kristol who made that statement. (I wonder why you refer to him as “My guy”, I assume you think I am a Republican?) If he is wrong then he is wrong, my point is valid. Maybe I do not see your reason for pointing this out but smart people can, on occasion give a poor opinion and as we will see, sometimes very fine actors and actresses can be terribly ill informed. – I suppose it is interesting that when he ‘broke with the Republican Party’ he made a fool of himself.
Trish, I HAVE read parts of Mr. Alexander’s rant (it was long and ill informed, when a piece looks to be filled with much silliness – as his, unfortunately was – I cannot spend much time on it. I did consider responding to him but, then I would have needed to read the entire rant and, if you read his entire rant, it seems clear he is not interested in knowing the truth. I assume he feels he has it figured out and has chosen not to listen. I decided a response would not be received honestly and chose to refrain from sending one. However I did catch the part about his take on a well-regulated militia. I think he is a fine actor and I will continue to enjoy his entertainment but insomuch as he being a great or informed thinker, he is lacking.
What Mr. Alexander said in regards to “a well regulated militia” is wrong. His view is a simple and uninformed opinion with no knowledge of history, language (one might assume an actor would have a better grasp in that) or law. There are many reasons he is confused but, for lack of time, I will only mention the following.
Mr. Alexander’s opinion is in opposition with over 235 years of great debate. Those such as Adams (“Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion…in private self-defense…”), Jefferson (“No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”) Lincoln (“If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.”), Henry (“The great object is, that every man be armed…. Every one who is able may have a gun.”), Washington (“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people’s liberty teeth keystone… the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable…”), Hamilton (“The Constitution shall never be construed…to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”) and on and on… then up to our past and present Supreme Court Judges, these wise men, since they are in opposition to Mr. Alexander’s view, must have got it wrong. Mr. Alexander with his great wealth of knowledge, his powerful command of the language of 1700’s, and his vast knowledge of history, law and firearms, should march straight up to Judges Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan and let them know that Jason Alexander will tell them what the Bill of Rights REALLY means! I imagine Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito would help him increase his understanding of the issue, as they were there in 2008 when, presumably, more educated men than Mr. Alexander decided in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an INDIVIDUAL’S right to possess a firearm UNCONNECTED to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense. Though he might find consol in Justice Beyer.
And even if our BILL OF RIGHTS were found to be IN ERROR we would STILL have our rights!
1994 Constitution Society. Permission is granted to copy with attribution for noncommercial purposes.
There is considerable confusion about the legal theory underlying the “right to keep and bear arms”. This is a brief outline for a clarification of the discussion of this issue.
(1) The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not establish the right to keep and bear arms. None of the provisions of the Constitution establish any “natural” rights. They recognize such rights, but the repeal of such provisions would not end such rights. Such rights were considered by many of the Framers as obvious or “self-evident”, but they were immersed in the prevailing republican thought of the day, as expressed in the writings of Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Madison, Hamilton, and others, which discussed “natural rights” in some detail. Others argued that at least some of the rights needed to be made explicit in the Bill of Rights to avoid having future generations with less understanding of republican theory weaken in their defense of those rights. That has turned out to have been a good idea.
Mr. Alexander (and Mr. Kristol) should educate himself before he continues to make a fool of himself.