Mediaboss Marketing

A year ago, Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives staged a sit-in demanding a vote on federal gun-safety bills following the shootings at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. The National Rifle Associations lobbying was largely blamed for no vote happening. But looking deeper, the Second Amendment, with the unique American individualism wrapped around it, underlies all. It is Americas fundamental gun problem.

As Michael Waldman at the Brennan Center for Justice suggests in Politico Magazine, the NRAs construing of the Second Amendment as an unconditional right to own and carry guns (a right beyond actual constitutional law in Supreme Court rulings) is why it thrives and has clout.

Without clout derived from Second Amendment hyperbole, we might not have, for instance, stand your ground laws in more than 20 states starting with Florida in 2005, laws that professors Cheng Cheng and Mark Hoekstra report in the Journal of Human Resources do not deter crime and are associated with more killing.

Pockets of America were waiting for the NRAs Second Amendment fertilizer.

For many gun advocates, the gun is an important aspect of ones identity and self-worth, a symbol of power and prowess in their cultural groups. Dan Kahan at Yale University with co-investigators studied gun-safety perceptions and wrote in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies how those most likely to see guns as safest of all were the persons who need guns the most in order to occupy social roles and display individual virtues within their cultural communities.

Or, as the essayist Alec Wilkinson writes more starkly on The New Yorkers website, although the (gun) issue is treated as a right and a matter of democracy underlying all is that a gun is the most powerful device there is to accessorize the ego.

A gun owner carrying his semiautomatic long rifle into a family department store, like Target, in a state permitting such if asked why will likely say because it is his right. He is unlikely to reveal the self-gratification gained from demonstrating the prowess and power of his identity, gained from using the gun to accessorize the ego. The Second Amendment here is convenient clothing to cover deeper unspoken needs, needs that go beyond the understandable pleasures and functions of typical hunting, for instance.

Australia is often mentioned as an example of nationwide gun-safety legislation reducing gun violence. Following the 1996 massacre of 35 people in Port Arthur, Australia, the government swiftly passed substantial gun-safety legislation. And as Professors Simon Chapman, Philip Alpers and Michael Jones wrote in JAMAs June 2016 issue, (F)rom 1979-1996 (before gun law reforms), 13 fatal mass shootings occurred in Australia, whereas from 1997 through May 2016 (after gun-law reforms), no fatal mass shootings occurred.

But Australia also has nothing akin to the Second Amendment.

Anthropologist Abigail Kohn studied gun owners in the U.S. and Australia who were engaged in sport shooting. She describes in the Journal of Firearms and Public Policy (2004) how it is immediately apparent when speaking to American shooters that they find it impossible to separate their gun ownership, even their interest in sport shooting, from a particular moral discourse around self, home, family, and national identity.

And thus, American shooters are hostile to gun control because just as guns represent freedom, independence the best of American core values gun control represents trampling on those core values.

In contrast, the Australians view guns as inseparable from shooting sports. And perhaps most importantly, Australian shooters believe that attending to gun laws, respecting the concept of gun laws, is a crucial part of being a good shooter; this is the essence of civic duty that Australian shooters conflate with being a good Australian. While the Australian shooters thought some gun-safety policies were useless and stupid, they thought that overall gun-safety measures were a legitimate means by which the government can control the potential violence that guns can do.

Unlike Australia (itself an individualist-oriented country), America has the Second Amendment. And that amendment has fostered a unique individualism around the gun, an individualism perpetrating more harm than safety.

Maybe someday the Second Amendment will no longer reign as a prop serving other purposes and, thus, substantive federal gun-safety legislation happens. But as Professor Charles Collier wrote in Dissent Magazine: Unlimited gun violence is, for the foreseeable future, our (Americas) fate and our doom (and, in a sense, our punishment for (Second Amendment) rights-based hubris).

The Second Amendment, today, is a song of many distorted verses. A song of a uniquely American tragedy.

Fred Decker is a sociologist in Bowie, Md., with a background in health and social policy research. He wrote this for the Orlando Sentinel.

See the rest here:
Second Amendment: An American tragedy - Arizona Daily Sun

BY: David Rutz June 15, 2017 12:21 pm

The liberal hosts of "The View" were well-armed with dubious talking points about gun control and the Second Amendment during a fierce debate Thursday in the wake of Wednesday's shooting that left House Majority Steve Scalise (R., La.) and four others wounded.

Host Sunny Hostin said "more guns is not the answer." Fellow host Joy Behar boasted of living in New York State with its strict gun laws, claiming that she would be afraid to live in an open-carry state and would never take public transportation.

"I'd be afraid that some guy on the subway would have a fit, just go mad because he was upset somebody took his seat and shoot somebody else," she said, not noting that the exact same thing could happen in New York.

Non-liberal hostJedediah Bila countered, however, saying she felt safe in states like Arizona and Texas.

"I'm not worried about law-abiding citizens carrying guns," Bila said. "They don't make me nervous."

Host Whoopi Goldberg cut over Bila to ask her if she had been around "afraid people with guns."

"I have," Bila said.

"I don't believe you, Jed. I don't believe you," Goldberg said.

"I'm a conservative! They're a very pro-gun, pro-Second Amendment [group]," Bila said, laughing.

Goldberg said that when assailants start shooting, people run, and the police may not know how to shoot if there were multiple people carrying guns. She did not point out that citizens bearing arms may be able to defend themselves against an attacker before the police arrived.

"The problem is, if the Capitol Police weren't there there would have been a massacre there," Bila said.

Told that's "their job," Bila was incredulous.

"If you live in a society where only the police have guns, that's called a police state," she said. "That is not the United States of America."

Goldberg then offered a dubious examination of the Second Amendment.

"The Second Amendment is about a militia," she said. "That's what it says."

It actually says more than that. Its full text reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"It's the right to bear arms, to protect yourself and your family," Bila said.

Hostin said quietly that being able to defend one's self and family was "not what the Second Amendment is about."

See the original post:
'The View' Explodes Over Second Amendment Debate, Goldberg Says 'It's About a Militia' - Washington Free Beacon

In the course of yet another dull, straw-clutching broadside against the right to keep and bear arms, the Atlantics David Frum repeats a commonly asserted myth:

That kind of supposedly defensive, actually aggressive, violence has become an even graver risk after today, in an American society that regards personal arsenals to be at least as much of a human right as the rights of free speech and peaceful assemblyand in actual practice, often amorefundamental right.

This is a popular talking point based upon a popular premise: That the Second Amendment is accorded a latitude that is no other. The trouble for Frum is that its nonsense. As it should be, the First Amendment is extremely broadly interpreted,to the point at which even sedition is legal unless it is accompanied by incitement to imminent violence. In recent years, the courts have prohibitedthe government from banning crushvideos in which kittens are killed with stilettos; they haveprotected the rights of bigots to protest military funerals; and they havegutted the countrys campaign-finance laws on the (correct) grounds that they cant be enforced without undermining core political expression. Before that, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, theyhad outlined speech protections that have no parallel in the history of the world.

Has the same thing happened for the Second, as Frum suggests? Not on your life. Indeed, Second Amendment advocates such as myself could only dream of such a trend. As is clear from his cringeworthy displayson Twitter, Frum does not have even a basic grasp of Americas gun laws, forif he did hed understand just how ridiculous is his claim. ASecond Amendment jurisprudence that echoed or exceeded the First would yield the voiding of almost every one of the thousands upon thousands of gun laws that obtain; itwould put an end to all licensing, requests for cause, andbackground checks; it would nix the prior restraint rules that areimposed in many states; it would open up the right to felons, to children, and to those in institutions; and, crucially, it would meanthat the courts had to usestrict scrutiny when evaluating claims, rather than the thumb-on-the-scales intermediate level that they tend to opt for in cases to do with guns. In practice, the First Amendment is as close to an unalienable right as has ever existed; one can do very little to lose ones shot at enjoying it. The Second, by contrast, is heavily locked down. One can argue that thats good or that, in practice, its inevitable and one can complain that America is far more liberal on the matter of arms than every other free country. But one cannot pretend that, culturally or legally, the Second Amendment is accorded special treatment.

Unless, that is, one doesnt care whats true and whats not.

Read more:
No, the Second Amendment Is Not Given Special Treatment - National Review

Rep. Mo BrooksMo BrooksCongressional aide: 'If I wanted to live I needed to make a run for it' Lawmakers recall the attack: 'I felt like I was back in Iraq' Capitol Hill shaken by baseball shooting MORE (R-Ala.), who was one of about two dozen GOP lawmakers present when a gunman opened fire on their baseball practice early Wednesday, vigorously defended the Second Amendment after a reporter asked him if it changed his view on the gun situation in America.

"Not with respect to the Second Amendment, Brooks responded. The Second Amendment, the right to bear arms is to help ensure that we always have a republic. And as with any constitutional provision in the Bill of Rights, there are adverse aspects to each of those rights that we enjoy as people, and what we just saw here is one of the bad side effects of someone not exercising those rights properly.

"We are not going to get rid of freedom of speech because some people say ugly things and hurt some peoples feelings, and were not going to get rid of the Fourth Amendment's search and seizure rights because some criminals could go free who should be behind bars, Brooks said at the scene of the shooting in Alexandria, Va.

Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), the House majority whip, is recovering from surgery after being shot in the hip, and four others were taken to hospitals after a gunman opened fire on Republican lawmakers practicing ahead of a charity congressional baseball game on Thursday.

At a press conference shortly after Brooks's comments, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) advocated for stricter gun laws in the wake of the shooting.

I think we need to do more to protect all of our citizens, McAuliffe said. I have long advocated this is not what today is about but there are too many guns on the streets. We lose 93 million Americans a day to gun violence. I have long talked about this. Background checks and shutting down gun show loopholes, and thats not for todays discussion, but its not just about politicians. We worry about this every day for all of our citizens.

McAuliffe later clarified that 93 Americans, not 93 million, die every day from gun violence.

The rest is here:
GOP rep defends Second Amendment in wake of shooting - The Hill

Within the whirlwind of the news cycle the anti-Second Amendment refrain has already begun. CNN hosts and the editorial boards at many big newspapers are muttering the gun, the gun, as if the gun is responsible, as if the gun had an evil spirit that convinced this mannot a shooter as so many in the media will call him, but a killer, a would-be murdererto shoot members of Congress and their staff. As if an American freedom is causing some to do evil.

It is too early in this attempt at mass murder to know much about this murderer now confirmed dead, and identified as James T. Hodgkinson his mental state or why he chose to do evil. But it is not too early to see the heroism from Capitol Hill Police and others. It is not too early to see American goodness and even innocence for what it is.

At 7:15 a.m. Rep. Brad Wenstrup and Rep. Chuck Fleischmann, Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Jeff Flake, and about two dozen others were at Simpson Field in Virginia just outside of Washington, D.C., to practice for the Congressional Baseball Game thats scheduled for June 15 at Nationals Park, a game that has been a tradition since 1909. They were getting ready to put politics aside and to come together again within an American pastime.

Early reports indicate that, from behind a dugout, shots began to shatter the early bright June morning. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise went down, shot in the hip, according to early reports. A congressional aide and two Capitol Police officers were also hit.

Many are already blaming the gun used or gun-rights in general, as if a long-held American freedom is to blame.

None of the congressmen or their staff members were armed. Sen. Rand Paul said that if Capitol Police werent there it would have been a massacre. This killer could have walked around unhindered if that were the case, as has happened too many times before in gun-free zones.

Police investigate a shooting scene after a gunman opened fire on Republican members of Congress during a baseball practice near Washington in Alexandria, Virginia, June 14, 2017. (REUTERS/Joshua Roberts)

The police were there because Rep. Scalise, being a member in congressional leadership, had a security detail.

The gunfight went on reportedly for a mad 10 minutes. The murderer had taken cover and the officers were likely, at least at first, only armed with their sidearms. Witnesses say Rep. Scalise dragged himself as far as he could away from the killer and toward people taking cover.

The police kept the killer pinned down and eventually took him out its not clear exactly how he was taken down.

Police man a shooting scene after a gunman opened fire on Republican members of Congress during a baseball practice near Washington in Alexandria, Virginia, June 14, 2017. (REUTERS/Joshua Roberts)

As soon as the police got the killer, Rep. Flake says he and Rep. Wenstrup, who is also a physician, ran onto the field to help Scalise, to apply pressure to his wound. Other physicians were soon on the scene as first-responders heroically rushed to the scene.

Now the analysis and the speculation has already turned political. Many are already blaming the gun used or gun-rights in general, as if a long-held American freedom is to blame.

Many in the media wont acknowledge that over 100 million Americans now legally own guns for sport or self-defense and that these people are largely safe and responsible.

They also arent likely to report that homicides are more likely to occur in areas with the strictest gun controls in place and they are unlikely to interview the women and others who have unfortunately had to rely on their right to bear arms to fend off attackers.

Police investigate a shooting scene after a gunman opened fire on Republican members of Congress during a baseball practice near Washington in Alexandria, Virginia, June 14, 2017. (REUTERS/Joshua Roberts)

Right now, about 15 million Americans have concealed-carry permits to carry handgunsthis number has been rising fast. Studies show that these people rarely commit violent crimes.

In the aftermath of evil visited upon us like this, it is also easy to forget how good and safe America really is. Any foreigner who has visited Capitol Hill must have been surprised with just how open the city isWashington, D.C., is still often thought of as a big, small town. Congressmen largely walk the sidewalks without security details. If someone wants to meet their representative it can often be arranged. A visitor must simply pass through one security checkpoint in the congressional buildings.

Maybe some of that needs to change, especially in view of recent terrorist attacks, but American freedom is not the problem, but rather it is what we are fighting for.

Frank Miniter is author of "The Future of the Gun" & "The Ultimate Mans Survival Guide". His latest book is,is "Kill Big Brother", a cyber-thriller that shows how to balance freedom with security without diminishing the U.S. Bill of Rights.

Continue reading here:
Scalise shot: What the Virginia attack should teach us - the Second Amendment is not the problem, in fact it can ... - Fox News