Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, August 12, 2019

The Washington Post made a powerful statement about the toll that mass shootings have taken on the U.S. over the last few decades by printing the names of all those killed by such acts of violence since 1966. "Eleven hundred ninety-six," the newspaper tweeted alongside an image of the list.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Of the nearly 1,200 victims listed, roughly a third of them died between the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, in December 2012 and the massacre in Dayton, Ohio, last Sunday.

"This is a moment to reflect on the horrific human toll of mass shootings in our country and to remember the individuals whose lives were cut short," Martin Baron, executive editor of the Post, said in a statement.

Obligatory thoughts and prayers to all those affected by these untimely deaths. Apparently, that's all our federal government is prepared to offer.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-08-11 11:21 PM | Reply

I wonder what criteria they are using to drive the numbers of mass shootings down so low.
307 Mass Shooting Jan-Nov of 2018
valdostatoday.com

#2 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-12 11:19 AM | Reply

I wonder what criteria they are using to drive the numbers of mass shootings down so low.

#2 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE AT 2019-08-12 11:19 AM | FLAG:

They disqualified black market related violence.

They also started at 66, which is a little odd to me given that the .30 carbine, a lightweight, magazine fed, rapid fire rifle available to civilians 20 years earlier and flooded the market as cheap surplus should have also led to mass shootings.

#3 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-08-12 11:43 AM | Reply

Now do Marxist policies of the Democrats.

#4 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-08-12 11:44 AM | Reply

So many good guys with guns, until they weren't. 1,196 victims, or as NRA and gun wackos put it, collateral damage. These killings are avoidable when a society places good people in executive and legislative positions. When they don´t ....

#5 | Posted by CrisisStills at 2019-08-12 11:48 AM | Reply

So if it's not Trump rhetoric, then what now?

#6 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-12 11:48 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I think we should blame the Muslims. If it weren't for the raging hordes of smelly incoming foreigners knocking on our doors with their strange cuisines and petrol-soaked suspenders and garter belts of trinitrotoluene, we wouldn't be having this problem.

#7 | Posted by pumpkinhead at 2019-08-12 11:52 AM | Reply

Trump has been president for 54 years. He has blood on his hands.

#8 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-08-12 11:54 AM | Reply

#3 | Posted by sitzkrieg

and that's what's frustrating to an old fart like me. the world really started changing in about '66 and the people that you'd think would be the shooters, young white guys, they'd grown up in the 40' and 50's and it was a totally different country then.
viet nam and the accompanying civil unrest started going strong in '65 and the rate of change since then has been exponential. it's hard to tell a 50 year old man today that he really doesn't have a clue about what he's saying if it's about when his dad, at 50 probably his grand dad did when he came home from WW2 . to start with we have twice as many people to deal with.
discounting tech advances the difference between 2019 vs. 1966 is far far greater than the difference between 1966 vs. 1912

#9 | Posted by ABlock at 2019-08-12 11:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

No proposals other than full ban and confiscation of weapons offer any hope of even tiny improvement. Ban and confiscation will not happen. So deal with it.

#10 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-08-12 12:05 PM | Reply

"Of the nearly 1,200 victims listed, roughly a third of them died between the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, in December 2012 and the massacre in Dayton, Ohio, last Sunday."

So, once one gets passed all the ignorant political hate that does nothing to help find a solution, then logic is all you have left. In this case, if the number has skyrocketed since 2012, then what changed? People still have the same guns they had before 2012. We've gone through 2 Presidents since then. What could have changed around 66-2011 that would pre-empt a large increase in mass shootings? There are a lot of answers but, unfortunately, America is so filled with hate that people have not only divided themselves up into 2 ideologies but they have also lost all willingness to compromise and accept their own faults. The reason this has almost destroyed America's foundation is that it prevents research being done that would help find out where the problem is. For example, one could say that the snowflake mentality is causing the problem. Since we baby our kids, they don't learn to accept hate or failure with dignity. But if you bring that up on the main stage, half the country will demonize you and, instead of doing research, the country will just argue about it and hate each other over it. One could say that the ability to get guns of all kinds has increased dramatically so not only finding one but getting one when you are angry about a situation is too easy. So we would need research. But if you bring that up on the main stage, half the country will demonize you and, instead of doing research, the country will just argue about it and hate each other over it. There are so many good possibilities that will never, ever become serious research because of the hate.

Neither side is willing to accept that maybe their ideology causes a problem so neither side can ever truly be part of the solution.

#11 | Posted by humtake at 2019-08-12 12:15 PM | Reply

Neither side is willing to accept that maybe their ideology causes a problem so neither side can ever truly be part of the solution.

Maybe the unwillingness is based on the fact that ideology alone doesn't always define the gun divide. Many Americans of all ideologies believe in the concepts enshrined in the 2nd Amendment, while many also agree that its "unabridged' personal rights interpretation must be balanced with the Founders' language on "a well-regulated militia" regardless of how our SCOTUS has ruled on the subject throughout the years.

Many of those technically informed often correct the ignorant that the weapon nor ammunition in and of itself isn't as important as the damage specific combinations can do to human tissue when utilized in non-battlefield conditions. Maybe we do need to start this conversation at how to alleviate the problems and work backward towards solutions that still pass constitutional muster. The advance of technology and individualized firepower available today was unimaginable when the Founders created our Constitution and they indeed expected us to amend it as the needs of the future nation dictated. We shouldn't shirk from this duty right now.

Somewhere along the way our nation has placed more value on the individual's right to keep and bear all types of handheld guns than it has on the safety and concerns of those who both choose not to, or those who don't want to become victims or casualties of another person's rights. There should be plenty of room to accommodate the reasonable desires of both sides without scapegoating unworkable, draconian scare tactics that only the most rigid extremists ever mention.

#12 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-08-12 01:54 PM | Reply

The advance of technology and individualized firepower available today was unimaginable when the Founders created our Constitution and they indeed expected us to amend it as the needs of the future nation dictated. #12 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-08-12 01:54 PM

This theory is flawed.
Private people owned and used cannons as protection of their merchant ships.
The Girandoni air rifle, firing 20 shots in 60 seconds,was invented in 1779. It was adopted for use in the Austrian army in 1780.
en.wikipedia.org

Perhaps the rate of fire has increased slightly due to technology, but to pretend that the founders were unaware of the weapons of the day when the 2nd was ratified (1791) is fantasy.

#13 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-12 02:24 PM | Reply

Perhaps the rate of fire has increased slightly due to technology, but to pretend that the founders were unaware of the weapons of the day when the 2nd was ratified (1791) is fantasy.

#13 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE AT 2019-08-12 02:24 PM

Perhaps, just maybe the founders knew about such weapons but never intended the 2nd amendment to cover ALL weapons?

Perhaps, just maybe they actually wrote the first half of the amendment on purpose?

Perhaps, just maybe if you ignore the first half of the amendment the amendment means something different than what they intended?

#14 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-08-12 02:49 PM | Reply

#14,

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.

Perhaps, just maybe the founders knew about such weapons but never intended the 2nd amendment to cover ALL weapons?

"Perhaps" is like "could be" or "could have" or "possibly". It doesnt apply.

And even then, if they didnt intend for it to cover weaons of war, they would have said "Cannon shot" or "grape" or whatever.

Fact is the first half of the sentence has nothing to do with the second half as liberals are implying. There are two different things being talked about in that sentence, a regulated militia AND the right of the people to KEEP (that's what liberals cant get around) and BEAR (meaning we can walk around armed, if we so choose) Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED (liberals really hate that part).

#15 | Posted by boaz at 2019-08-12 03:04 PM | Reply

#13 | Posted by Avigdore

You're cited this before. Facts are not on your side.

The first known example in the U.S. of the Girandoni air gun was in 1803, long after the 2nd Amendment was ratified.

No more than 1500 were ever built. And it took 1500 strokes with a hand pump to fully charge.

#16 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-08-12 04:46 PM | Reply

And even then, if they didnt intend for it to cover weaons of war,

Of course they meant it to cover weapons of war for the time they lived in. My statement couldn't have been clearer:

The advance of technology and individualized firepower available today was unimaginable when the Founders created our Constitution and they indeed expected us to amend it as the needs of the future nation dictated.
The 2nd Amendment is no more inviolate than any other amendment and can be changed through the constitutionally described process if that is what the end result calls for.

Fact is the first half of the sentence has nothing to do with the second half as liberals are implying.

Constitutional interpretation is ultimately determined by the SCOTUS, and those interpretations have varied throughout the years. Again, I accounted for that with this statement:

Many Americans of all ideologies believe in the concepts enshrined in the 2nd Amendment, while many also agree that its "unabridged' personal rights interpretation must be balanced with the Founders' language on "a well-regulated militia" regardless of how our SCOTUS has ruled on the subject throughout the years.
Yet again, the meaning of the amendment is only decided by the SCOTUS in its rulings or by Congress they start the amendment process and the states agree with their ascent as well.

Keeping and bearing the arms of the 17th century is not quite the same as keeping and bearing the arms created and intended for nation/state warfare in the latter-20th and early 21st Century. I don't think that is a controversial concept in the least. The individual does not have the right to possess any and all types of "arms" even though the unambiguous wording seems to say so. And that is codified in a ruling from a conservative majority SCOTUS ruling, not a liberal one.

#17 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-08-12 04:51 PM | Reply

Fact is the first half of the sentence has nothing to do with the second half as liberals are implying. There are two different things being talked about in that sentence, a regulated militia AND the right of the people to KEEP (that's what liberals cant get around) and BEAR (meaning we can walk around armed, if we so choose) Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED (liberals really hate that part).
#15 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2019-08-12 03:04 PM | REPLY

Sorry you do not get to interpret away the first half. Punctuation has meaning. The first half MODIFIES the second half and declares its purpose. Your interpretation is contradictory to the writings of the founding fathers and also does not make sense in the context of article 1, section 8.

Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the Fist Congress' debate on arms and militia, you'll see a constant theme: the 2nd
Amendment was created to protect the American government.

Virginia's support of a right to bear arms was based on the same rationale: "A well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State"

during that first gun debate, the state of New Hampshire introduced an amendment that gave the government permission to confiscate guns when citizens "are or have been in Actual Rebellion." To those early legislators in New Hampshire, the right to bear arms stops as soon as those arms are taken up against our "we the people" government.

Just ask the ancestors of those who participated in the Whiskey Rebellion. In 1794, armed Americans took up guns against what they viewed as a tyrannical George Washington administration imposing taxes on whiskey. President Washington called up 13,000 militia men, and personally led the troops to squash the rebellion of armed citizens in Bedford, Pennsylvania.

Washington Said "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite" Where's your uniform concealed carry boy?

The Founders engaged in large-scale disarmament of the civilian population during the American Revolution. The right to bear arms was conditional on swearing a loyalty oath to the government. Individuals who refused to swear such an oath were disarmed.

#18 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-08-12 05:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Bailing political hay with mass shootings is foolish. They've obviously been on the rise for a long time. Mental health, medications, political polarization, the devaluing of human life all play a part.

#19 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2019-08-12 05:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#18

Federalist #29

Alexander Hamilton

To the People of the State of New York:

THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority.
_______________________

But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.
______________________

There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia.

#20 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-08-12 06:03 PM | Reply

TONY

You're hurting the brains of the 'everyone should own several assault weapons' crowd!

They won't read it anyway because it destroys their ridiculous memes.

#21 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-08-12 06:08 PM | Reply

Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress' debate on arms and militia, you'll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.

It certainly appears that way if Hamilton's logic enshrined in Federalist #29 accurately portrays the mood and consensus of the Founders at that time.

I guess the operative question is how did the notion that the 2nd Amendment was about the "individual's" right to personal arms when there is nary a word not connected to the states' need to provide protection for the federal government, since there wasn't a standing army?

Hamilton even made a joke about it being 'raillery' that state militias comprised of citizens was in any way a 'danger to liberty,' so there goes any notion that the individual's rights to arms was based upon anticipating a need to bear them against the federal government which had no army.

Quite enlightening.

#22 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-08-12 06:22 PM | Reply

the first half of the sentence has nothing to do with the second half

You don't get to rewrite the rules of language to accomplish your political objectives. Oh wait, i guess you do, since that's what has happend with respect to the 2nd Amendment.

--------- need to come to grips with the facts that virtually every pre-2000s appellate and supreme court case addressing the issue held that a weapon needed to have some nexus to a "well-regulated militia" for the Second Amendment to confer any ownership rights. Their decoupling of the Amendment's first clause from the second is a departure from nearly two centuries of jurisprudence, and is one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on American citizens.

#23 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-12 06:45 PM | Reply

You're cited this before. Facts are not on your side.
The first known example in the U.S. of the Girandoni air gun was in 1803, long after the 2nd Amendment was ratified.
No more than 1500 were ever built. And it took 1500 strokes with a hand pump to fully charge. - #16 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-08-12 04:46 PM

The weapon didn't have to be here for the writers to know that they existed. Only a fool would continue to pretend so. Jefferson, in France from 1784 to 1789 and the first owner of the weapon in the US, certainly was aware that they existed. The theory was that the founders didn't understand that weapons, like ones that had already been invented a decade prior and were in use in a modern (at the time) military, would come to exist. It is a baseless, and frankly stupid, theory that shows ignorance of the 1780's.

#24 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-13 06:11 AM | Reply

Remember, the 2nd amendment does not apply to modern firearms, because of technology.

Remember, the 1st amendment does apply to electronic communications, because of technology.

We are definitely not trying to cherry pick here...

#25 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-08-13 10:16 AM | Reply

I don't need the Constitution to "grant" me the right to self defense.

#26 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-08-13 10:44 AM | Reply

When the 2nd amendment was ratified...

When the State needed to be defended, did the people leave their homes and go to the State to get a gun or did they bring their own?

Splintering the Wooden Wall. - Something to read about citizens having more than just a pea shooter.

#27 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-08-13 11:26 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort