The nation is united this morning in shock and horror after a gunman’s attack on a crowded movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, that left 12 persons dead and wounded at least 38 others. This is a moment to put politics aside to allow the families of the slain to mourn and for the police to do their job. But that hasn’t stopped some in the mainstream media from rushing to judgment about this tragic event even before we know a thing about the shooter. So it was especially distressing to see, as Joel Pollak of Breitbart.com noted, that this morning on ABC News’ “Good Morning America” reporter Brian Ross threw out the suggestion that the alleged killer was a member of the Tea Party.
What was the basis for this accusation? The Colorado Tea Party website mentioned having a member named Jim Holmes, which happens to be the same name as the man who has been arrested in connection with the crime. But there are lots of people who go by that name in the state and, as Pollack notes, the Tea Party member appears to be someone in their 50s while the gunman has been said to be 24. One would think that elementary ethics, let alone the ethics of journalism, would have required Ross to verify the identity of the Tea Party Holmes before telling millions on national TV that this might be the Aurora terrorist. But because it fit in with the mainstream liberal media narrative that has labeled the Tea Party as a violent extremist group, rather than a group of citizen activists who pursue change through democratic means, he felt no compunction about slyly insinuating this choice piece of slander into our national discourse while saying he wasn’t sure if the Tea Partier was guilty. Nor did host George Stephanopolous feel compelled to caution Ross against this statement.
Let’s be clear that at the time of the broadcast as well as at the moment this piece is being written, the motivation for this crime has yet to be discovered. That was also true in January 2011 when a deranged gunman attempted to assassinate Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona. But that didn’t stop much of the media from broadcasting incorrect assumptions about the perpetrator being part of the Tea Party or acting out what he thought was its ideology. Indeed, Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz has continued to feed that libel even though it was almost immediately debunked.
We may expect that no matter what the story about the shooter turns out to be, gun control advocates will exploit this tragedy. We don’t know if restrictions on gun ownership would have made this event less likely, but it is also true that the majority of Americans are not likely to change their minds about maintaining their Second Amendment rights. If the atrocity in Aurora turns out to be motivated by something other than the madness of the killer, it will compound the tragedy. But the effort to push the narrative in that direction on the basis of a name without any research or legwork to back it up is outrageous and, ABC has belatedly apologized for the gaffe on its website. That otherwise respected members of the journalistic establishment have no shame about doing so tells us a lot more about them and liberal media bias than it does about the Aurora killings or violence in general.
This stunt has been used by the media for years. Immediately after JFK's assassination, media types speculated that then unknown killer was affected by the "climate of [rightwing] hate" in Dallas. The climate must have been very powerful, since Oswald had only been living in Dallas for a month and a half prior to his shooting of JFK. However, the damage was done, and the narrative was followed.
n nInteresting too that when Bibi pointed out that Iran was behind Burgas, many in the media jumped over all over him despite it being based on Israeli Intelligence, whereas when it came to Aurora, it was fine for the media to immediately jump to the conclusion that it was the fault of the Tea Party.
This is the same DEVIL EVIL DEMON John Holmes of the Tea Party… The TRUTH is going to come out. You ALL are EVIL and the World See it- Bless the HOLY Iran will end you DEMONS Soon
You know who really kidnapped the Lindbergh baby, right? Yep…Tea Party.
Who can say what the Second Amendment means? It begins with the words, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…” In what way does the right of individuals to bear arms have anything to do with a militia, or with its being well regulated? The Second Amendment must have meant something in 1791, when it was passed, but today it is gibberish. n nRetired Representative Jay Dickey, Republican of Arkansas, has his own interpretation of what the amendment means. He said, “We have the right to bear arms because of the threat of government taking over the freedoms that we have” (cited in The New York Times, January 25, 2011). Representative Dickey is in favor of overthrowing the government of the United States by force and violence. If the purpose of the Second Amendment really was “to stop the federal government from disarming state militias,” as Representative Dickey agrees, then the Founding Fathers supported the idea of overthrowing the government. Is that what the Constitution is about? n
I support the 2nd Amendment, but it would be unwise for me to try to paraphrase arguments made so much better already in defense of it. So please do not take this as a proper defense of the 2nd Amendment! What I do want to stick a couple of cents worth in on, though, is your unease that 2nd Amendment advocates seem to be suggesting the overthrow of the government. n nIn the 1780's they wanted to make sure they could (and militias, in large part, were every able-bodied man who was supposed to have a gun and supposed to come to the aid of his community, sort of like everybody would try to put a fire out, etc.). Americans had just used guns to throw out the British government in the 13 colonies — so, yes, the 1st Amendment assured the people they could criticize the new government and the 2nd Amendment said the people could do something about it if the government wouldn't listen. Social contract, the "new" thinking in the 18th century (Rousseau particularly) stated that there was an agreement between the people and the government that the people would be faithful to the government as long as the government was faithful to the people. The implication led to both the American and French revolutions. n nThe Bill of Rights was written as a guarantee of THE PEOPLE'S rights, which absolutely had to include a future tyrant (like the British monarch, who wasn't an abstract bogeyman) couldn't take away their ability to defend themselves from the tyrant.
I gather you agree with Congressman Dickey.
"Representative Dickey is in favor of overthrowing the government of the United States by force and violence." Do you have a link for more evidence of that? because that hardly follows from what you say he has said even if we trust you as a source. And even if such IS what he is saying, well, let's not conflate him to necessarily be that important a person or that strong a force for whatever it is you are arguing. n nI read the Second Amendment as effectively saying "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed[,]" that being the second part. I think that's quite clear. The first part ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary…") is a sort of justifying clause. While that may or may not be unclear in meaning, or antiquated (as you argue) or not (I mostly try to be fair and comprehensive), the declaration of the Amendment as regards our rights is found in the second part, at least per my reading. n nNow I take no issue if you "merely" want to amend the second amendment–good luck trying with that. If you suggest we just abandon it, well, I'd much sooner just abandon you.
If you wish me try and justify the right to bear arms in the modern age though (absent the fact that with the being of the Second Amendment I'll never need to), well, then maybe I will (the last line of mine in the post above was a little sassy, which I regret if you are at all somewhat inquisitive and probing). Liberty and security are fundamental rights, and government can't always in times and situations (more the latter, lest you misunderstand, as when a would-be kidnapper enters a home or such) account for their protection. (Such would suggest vast powers if they could.) Why should the right to protect these things ourselves (our best guarantee of their protection) ever be forfeited? n nArguably, is it not also sensible for those who might do wrong when they know they need not fear to have at the least some general reason to fear? n nAnyway, I'm reminded of the dissent in the Supreme Court's ruling of Obamacare's constitutionality, where the dissenters say that the goal of its legislators may certainly be done within the spectrum of their afforded powers. Well, hopefully, theater security and escalated casualties come an atrocity (can we ever stop a sudden gunman from killing at least one person?) can be avoided without trampling constitutionally-observed (and hence, so-protected) rights.
The meaning of the second amendment is clear. The portion of the Second Amendment that you quoted is the preamble of the amendment, not the active words of the amendment. The full text of the amendment is "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." The active words of the amendment are the parts you left out and are crystal clear: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It does not matter what the preamble of the amendment says, since it sets no limitation on the right itself. The active portion of the amendment makes it clear that the second amendment is meant to protect thr right of the "people", not simply the "militia", to keep and bear arms. Even with that said, at the time of its adoption, the "militia" was considered every able-bodied citizen, and so in the amendment's adopter's eyes, there was no significant difference between the two.
"Gibberish"? You have got to be joking (or borderline senile). The meaning is plain as paint, today as in 1791: If a State [NY, CT, etc] is to remain free, then its citizens must have the unencumbered right to own guns. n nWhat on earth is gibberish about that? The 2d Amendment is a well-formed English sentence, with a subject, "the right to bear arms," and a predicate, "shall not be infringed." The clause that you quote is known as an absolutive, namely, it is a (nonessential) introduction to and not a condition for what follows. It could be dropped without altering the meaning of the 2d Amendment. That is why it's called an "absolutive," which means a "severable" clause. What follows it, "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed," is not only the essence of the amendment, it is also logically a necessary condition for "the security of a free State." n nThe use of absolute constructions has grown rarer since the 18th Century, but that is no excuse for being ignorant of their plain meaning or disparaging them as "gibberish." Absolutives are very common in Latin and Greek, for example, ablative and genitive absolutes, which is extremely relevant here because James Madison was thoroughly schooled in Latin grammar, having read numerous ancient authors on the subject of republics in Latin while preparing for the Constitutional Convention [that last is an absolutive clause by the way]. It is therefore unsurprising that he embroidered the introduction to the amendment with an English nominative absolute. Jefferson, too, described himself as inconsolable if he could not read "my Tully [Cicero]" before bed at night. A fondness for antique prose style was true of nearly all of the Founders, who would not have been confused in the slightest by the construction that so befuddles you.
Your first paragraph contradicts your second and third paragraphs. The second and third paragraphs say that the introductory clause is unnecessary and irrelevant; the first paragraph says that guns are necessary for freedom. nSaying that the citizens of a state (you mention NY and CT, suggesting they have the right to secede) need the unrestricted right to bear arms to remain free is nonsense now that we have an established army–unless you are talking about the right to overthrow the government by force and violence. That's what the leftists of the late 60s and 70s–the counterculture–wanted.
You're getting in over your head and embarrassing yourself. There is NO contradiction. n nI am speaking of logical necessity, not whatever is necessary semantically to convey the meaning, which means no more than stylistically preferable or, possibly, necessary as a matter of fact. That the nominative absolute is not necessary, in your sense, to the meaning of the amendment does not mean that it is "irrelevant." You threw that word in with no justification whatsoever. As a matter of fair construal, if the amendment is recast as an hypothesis, its sense does make guns necessary for securing freedom, but again that is as a matter of logic, not fact. You keep comically mixing the two up and the only remedy is for you to consult an elementary text on logic. n nYour remark that my parenthetically mentioning two States, NY and CT, endorses secession is bizarre, since it indicates that you fail to understand the simplest facts in the 2d Amendment. When Madison uses the word "State" he means "A State" like New York, NOT the Federal government. It is appallingly illiterate, not to mention tendentious, to read the word "secession" into any of this. Part of the wherewithal to resist tyranny is what guns provide. The fact that guns had been used by Madison and others less than 10 years before to accomplish just that should be blindingly obvious and inform any proper understanding of the Bill of Rights in general and the 2d Amendment in particular n nYour smug 21st Century complacency in these matters is truly pathetic: Now that we have a "standing army," you clearly imply — an institution, by the way, that Madison and most of the founders were strenuously opposed to in principle — the need to resist a tyrannical government may be supposed NEVER to arise again in future, as if what you personally may or may not foresee, are or aren't capable of imagining, is an adequate safeguard and reassurance against the vicissitudes of history. Good grief! You cannot distinguish between a necessary and a sufficient condition in an hypothesis. How on earth do you know what the future holds? Neither I nor Madison, I'm sure, favor violent revolution as a means for redress of grievances except as a last resort. And I do mean "last." But that is just what the Bill of Rights represents: restrictions of last resort, estoppels that trump any and all arguments that a government whose actions tend towards establishing a tyranny may advance under color of law or, never forget, by employing that same standing army you idiotically find so reassuring.
EXCELLENT Rebuttal …. ! 'shall not be Infringed' [clear as day]
What I find ridiculous about Ross's actions, is that he immediately thought "oh, those Tea Partiers must be responsible for this" and then sought to prove his point (even though mere membership in an organization is not necessarily strong evidence that the organization agreed with, or caused a member's acts). This libel by Ross is disgusting, but unfortunately expected.
Our propaganda organs masquerading as sources of journalism are a mortal threat to our republic. Something has got to be done. We can't continue to permit this gross irresponsibility.
This drives me crazy too — but I don't want to infringe upon a free press (like I sure don't want to be like Democrats and their fairness doctrine because too many people listen to talk radio, except for leftist talk radio, and they don't like it, so they want to do away with it). I get mostly angry at Republican politicians who don't ever hold the MSM to task (but who all criticize Palin for being "un-presidential" for doing so). To me, somebody needs to be asking the media questions, like if they can sit there and laugh at something stupid and unbelievable Carney says, why do they then NOT rake the Obama White House over the coals like they did Bush? How many dozens of times did the MSM show clips of shoes flying at Bush … and I have yet to see one clip of shoes flying at H. Clinton's car with her in it? Something is wrong with the profession — and you're right! — but what do we do?
My sources tell me the shooter is a Democrat and works for the Obama campaign in Colorado.
One person's "exploitation of a tragedy to attack gun rights" is another person's "gee, maybe it isn't so smart to have so many people killed by so many guns so loosely controlled." So many people are slaughtered by guns in the U.S. that "defense of the 2nd amendment" is starting to look like a reductio ad absurdum argument that idiots will hold on to until everybody is dead. In other words, how many people do crazy or upset people have to kill before we start to look at some sensible restrictions on firearms? Like the civilized countries do. I won't say "other" civilized countries because I'm not sure the U.S. is in that group anymore. One of the finest people I knew was killed by an ex-boyfriend who then killed himself. Well regulated militia didn't have much to do with that one. And the girl is dead and her family and the man she would have married have lost her forever. And the other dad the 3 year old killed his dad with a shotgun. And now this Aurora thing. Maybe the Tea Party member is or isn't involved here, but certainly the Libertarian, pro-gun mindset has to take some of the blame. And that means you people at Commentary are included among the morally responsible.
Let’s unpack this unholy mess sentence by sentence. But first, I recommend donning an apron, a ventilator mask, and rubber gloves. Having a 10-ft pole handy couldn't hurt either. n n1) “. . . gee, maybe it isn't so smart to have so many people killed by so many guns so loosely controlled." n nTranslation: “Objecting to gun control on the basis of the 2d Amendment equals an intention to kill a lot of people.” Do the 50-thousand or so people killed in automobile accidents year in and year out result from a plan to kill people in car crashes? It makes about as much sense. n n2) “. . . ‘defense of the 2nd amendment’ is starting to look like a reductio ad absurdum argument that idiots will hold on to until everybody is dead.” n nCome on, admit it, you wouldn’t recognize a reductio ad absurdum argument if you married one. It doesn’t mean arguing a position that you, personally, find absurd. It means (a) state an hypothesis that is to be proven, (b) assume that the hypothesis is false, then (c) by valid reasoning reach a contradiction. Because a true premise cannot logically be self-contradictory and remain true, the only alternative is that the premise is false. But the premise here is, by hypothesis, the contradiction of what is to be proven. If its contradiction is false, then what was to be proven must be true. n nGot it? Now do it. With regard to the 2d Amendment, I mean. Try not to get dizzy. Or else shut up, particularly when it comes to deploying words you do not understand. n n3) “Well regulated militia didn't have much to do with that one.” n nAnd why should it? A well-regulated militia is a sufficient condition for the 2d Amendment, not a necessary one. More pertinently, I repeat, if it is unnecessary to have “a well-regulated militia” that the right of the people to keep and bear arms be uninfringed, why should it be surprising that “a well regulated militia” has nothing to do with someone’s murder, an event YOU brought up here (for tendentious reasons) rather than with a sympathetic therapist. But just think, with him you won’t even have to shut up. n n4) “Maybe the Tea Party member is or isn't involved here.” n nWell now, “Is or isn’t” and “Maybe,” too? That’s pretty bold, Max. Are you sure you want to go quite so far out on a limb? Let me help you, because you have evidently been sound asleep since ABC, the folks who arranged the libel in the first place and who babble just like you do, announced in English that the “Tea Partier” IS NOT INVOLVED, which would seem to dispel all doubt. Yet you have a pathological need to keep alive the exciting possibility that the Tea Party WAS involved in Aurora, don't you, Max, and if keeping so forlorn a hope alive comes at the price of remaining more or less permanently confused, well that’s a small price to pay, isn’t it? Alternatively, I suggest that it is Item number two for you to not shut up about with that sympathetic therapist. n n5) “. . . certainly the Libertarian, pro-gun mindset has to take some of the blame.” n n“Certainly”? Get a dictionary. What’s certain is that neither you nor anyone else has any idea how to apportion blame to a “mindset.” Does such a dog’s breakfast of a sentence mean anything other than that you, Max, strongly disapprove of something or other? If you could only attach some names to that “mindset,” you would at least have the opportunity of accusing someone. But here’s a crazy idea (which puts it right up your alley): Start with James Holmes, male, age 26, of Denver, CO. Then go from there directly to shut up. n n4) “And that means you people at Commentary are included among the morally responsible.” n nSorry. I plead innocent. What bizarre theory of mortal responsibility are you reasoning from? Moral responsibility really isn't separable from agency, and the question of agency here is this question and only this question: Who pulled the trigger? Metaphorical or symbolical or analogiocal trigger-pullings don’t count when it comes to producing actual corpses for the sufficient reason that no one in history has been murdered by a symbolic bullet.
It's most likely, given his age, the perpetrator was already having symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia. He dropped out of medical school, so that is a big "red flag". He probably consumed a steady diet of what passes for entertainment these days–the violence, the degradation and the depravity. He probably fancied himself a super-villian of sorts. n n
This reminds me of the news chaos after President Kennedy was assassinated on 11/22/63. The country was stunned. Our hearts go out to the families who lost loved ones and the wounded, especially the many who even now are in critical condition from the bullets fired by the shooter. I don't pray often but I am praying today. n nABC earlier described the gunman as a Tea Party member. ABC has since apologized for the false report. Is George Stephanopolous ADD? He ought to have eliminated all the other 50 plus James Holmes in the Colorado white pages before pretending that insufficient investigation is truth. n n NBC has avoided ABC's hasty (and false) account. If my sources are correct, the political party (D) Mr. Holmes checked when he registered to vote last June is PUBLIC RECORD in Aurora. Also, id it likely that anyone who chose that particular party would be sympathetic to the Tea Party's fiscal common sense message?. n nAnother angle: movie critics say the Batman movie script portrays the antagonist as an evil OWS type. Did this anger Mr. Holmes or incite his rage? 'Why this particular movie and the outfit he wore for the massacre? Is James Holmes sympathetic with Black Bloc OWS, which also wears dark clothes and masks? n nIn a mere eight hours, the gunman, who was a Tea Party murderer in the a.m., is now, in NBC's p.m. headlline, mentally ill. That's 21st century PRAVDA, er, I mean US journalism. n nNBC p.m. headline: "'Very deranged' gunman shoots 71, killing 12 at Dark Nights Rise"
No matter how many times they try, the incompetent excuse for a journalistic profession called the lamestream media just keeps getting it wrong. You'd think they would have learned after the shooting of Gaby Giffords. They are so desperate to gain political mileage out of premature and, ultimately, false charge against conservatives or Tea Party members that they keep making fools out of themselves. This latest example is beyond despicable. Brian Ross should be permanently ostracized from the journalistic profession. The man is a fool.
If they wnat to keep any credibility on "Good Morning America" Brian Ross should be permanenly fire. What an idiot!
Alas, he'll probably be promoted in keeping with the much observed fact that in a sewer the s**t can be found floating on top.
Ah, and you get 5 or more votes for that. So much for the site of intelligent conservatives.
"Put politics aside" Right-wing code for do nothing about guns, the feel of which, for right-wingers, is better than sex. n nIsn't it fantastic, that healthcare-as-a-right and gun control are considered by the rest of the civilized world as no-brainers, but not here? Rather, that being sick is a character flaw, that greed is a virtue, that more guns make us safer. It's OK to be conservative; just think, for a change, instead of reacting.
Conjecture is one thing, but it is a fact that he had four long guns, some of which were assault rifles, and clips holding as much a 100 bullets each. These are not deer hunting or home defense weapons. We need to restore restrictions on Assault rifles and large ammo clips.
I'm not liberal or conservative, as attested by my other posts on Contentions. I just think, then conclude accordingly, regardless of whose company I come down. You haven't made a move at all, you just squat and squawk, which attests to your vacuity.
"'Put politics aside' Right-wing code for do nothing about guns, the feel of which, for right-wingers, is better than sex. . . . It's OK to be conservative; just think, for a change, instead of reacting.” n n"Just think," eh? Question: Are you always so economical with advice when applying it to what you yourself have written? Just asking. n n“Put politics aside” is “[r]ight-wing code for do nothing about guns.” Hmm. I think I have an idea of what constitutes a code; but what you are suggesting is very, very wide of the mark, is a very sloppy, clumsy code indeed. Perhaps “put politics aside” means “put politics aside.” There is, however, something fishy about the phrase “right wing code,” something stale and unusually smelly, suggesting that we are faced with someone, that would be you, who, say, “reacts” instead of “thinks.” Could that be because “right-wing code” is one of the most hackneyed phrases in the typical left-winger’s dictionary, appearing almost as quickly and, ahem, unthinkingly as Pavlov’s dogs' saliva did at the clang of the dinner bell? So, "Arf arf!" to you, too, pooch. n nBut how could such a failing apply to “lbjack,” who, as we read, "just thinks," savant-like, then concludes accordingly? Say now, how DO we know all that anyway? Why “lbjack” has told us so himself, don't you know, so you can take it to the bank. To save us all time, he has in effect penned hs own recommendation: n n“To Whom It May Concern: Be it known that lbjack is one smart cookie. Signed: lbjack.” n nSo it must be true. n nSelf-puffery is worth its weight in cobwebs. n nNow when it comes to the stale and platitudinous, though, you, lbjack, have few equals here. Take, for instance, this: “. . . guns, the feel of which, for right-wingers, is better than sex,” an insult that, after the one-hundred-thousandth recital, packs the punch of a fart in a gale. Come now, jack — if I might speak so familiarly — put that fabulous non-reacting, wholly thoughtful brain to work. You can do much better. My parakeet could. n nMoving along, I must ask: Is “fantastic” really the word that best describes the fact that “healthcare-as-a-right and gun control are considered by the rest of the civilized world as no-brainers, but not here”? I mean, "fantastic" means "wildly improbable," "far-fetched." Yet here we are, happy as clams in the non-rest of the world, where health care is not “a right” and gun control is often regarded skeptically. Unless (oh dear) you believe you are living in a dream world, there would seem to be nothing improbable about it. Of course “fantastic” can also mean “wonderful”; yet I’m certain you didn’t mean that. You and your non-reacting brain really are very, very sloppy with words. n nAnd what about “a right” to health care? Can it mean anything more than that a person may not be denied care because of race, creed, gender, etc? It certainly cannot mean a person has “a right” to a doctor’s uncompensated time and attention? And if compensated, it couldn’t possibly mean that a person has a right to other people’s money to pay his medical bills. n nNo one has “a right” to other people’s time and money. An indigent sick person may lay a claim on the sympathies of others, who may in turn feel an obligation to see that he is cared for; but surely that is a matter of charity not right. Unless — No — You couldn’t be — You aren’t making a normative judgment are you, jack? But that’s, well, a matter of metaphysics, of right and wrong. That is arguably a religious matter — Wait a damn minute! You’re not attempting here to — how does that go again? — “to impose your morality on the rest of us,” are you, jack? Shame on you. I thought that that was our job, the business of conservatives, I mean. Please, jack, relax that high-powered noggin of yours. Leave us something to do.
Good column. I think the Tea Party Patriots have a responsibility to not let this drop. Ross/Stephanopoulos/ABC need to be sued. If there is no law on the books which allows for legal action against such libels, one must be passed. As long as there is no price for libel, elements like the ones on ABC will exploit the tactic every chance they get.
Will somebody explain to me why any law abiding citizen needs to have a 100-round magazine for his or her assault rifle.
Why are you owed an explanation? n nBetter still, find a law-abiding citizen with a 100-round magazine and ask him.