Category Archives: Second Amendment

A few more Maine towns this month have declared themselves to be Second Amendment sanctuaries, following a trend in which pro-gun advocates are hoping to fend off possible gun control measures from Congress and the state Legislature.

In the past month, boards of selectmen in Harrington and Princeton have signed similarly worded resolutions expressing support for their constitutional rights to bear firearms and opposition to any laws that they say would infringe upon those rights. On March 16, residents of Columbia Falls passed a resolution by voice vote at their annual town meeting to declare their town a Second Amendment sanctuary.

An official with the Maine Gun Safety Coalition said Tuesday that the resolutions are a continuation of an effort that began a few years ago in which state, county or municipal governments publicly declare their support for the Second Amendment. The resolutions have no legal standing, he said, and often are coupled with a declared opposition to any additional gun control measures that resolution proponents say would be unconstitutional.

Our general stance is that these are symbolic measures that have no force of effect, Geoff Bickford, executive director of the coalition, said Tuesday. Theyre just pieces of paper as far as were concerned.

Bickford said that there is proposed legislation in the Legislature and in Congress to enact gun control measures. Among them is a bill in Augusta that would mirror a federal ban on bump stocks, which increase the firing rate of semi-automatic weapons, while another in Washington would renew an expired ban on so-called assault rifles.

But Bickford said the bump stock ban in Maine already is in effect, courtesy of federal law, and that the likelihood of any additional gun control measures being passed by Congress are low, given the 50-50 split between Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Senate and the need to get 60 votes to overcome a filibuster in that chamber.

There is no compelling reason to adopt these resolutions, Bickford said, adding the courts decide what is constitutional, not boards of selectmen or county commissioners.

Even so, many Maine towns are considering similar resolutions. Paris, Fort Fairfield, Van Buren and Caribou all have voted to declare themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries, while similar resolutions have failed to pass in Ellsworth and Bridgton.

Steven Cilley, a selectman in Princeton, acknowledged that the March 3 resolution in that Washington County town was symbolic, but said that as more Maine cities and towns adopt similar resolutions, it will send a message to policymakers in Augusta and Washington.

It made us feel a little bit better with everything else going on in this country, Cilley said, adding that some local Vietnam veterans approached him about bringing the resolution to the Princeton board of selectmen.

A Navy veteran, Cilley said he is concerned that President Joe Biden will push through more gun control measures such as universal background checks for gun buyers and bans on high-capacity magazines, which allow gun users to fire off more rounds before they have to stop to reload. Biden has said enacting the measures will save American lives by helping to prevent mass shootings like those that happened earlier this month in Atlanta and Boulder, Colorado.

But Cilley said that people arent buying into Bidens argument.

A lot of states and towns are doing this, Cilley said of passing resolutions. There are more deaths with automobiles than with AR-15s.

Original post:
Down East towns declare themselves 2nd Amendment sanctuaries - Bangor Daily News

Mahalo for supporting Honolulu Star-Advertiser. Enjoy this free story!

Second Amendment outlives its purpose

That America stands out in gun-related deaths, where mass shootings have become almost routine, is due to one simple fact, according to gun violence research: There are far too many guns, too easily acquired, in the hands of too many Americans.

America justifies this with the belief that gun ownership is an unalienable right of its citizens. This belief is enshrined in the Second Amendment, which has far outlived its purpose.

Today, anyone who wishes to bear arms to protect the state can join the National Guard. It is a myth that unregulated gun ownership will produce a well regulated Militia necessary to protect freedom.

It is past time to repeal the Second Amendment. It has become the greatest impediment to meaningful gun ownership regulation. Remove this crutch to those Second Amendment politicians who argue that unregulated gun ownership is worth this horrible cost to society.

Arthur Mersereau

Manoa

Consult doctor on allergies to vaccines

With respect for those worried about getting vaccinated because of either underlying conditions or possible allergic reactions, the wisest course would seem to be addressing this directly with your doctor (Those with allergies need vaccine reassurance, Star-Advertiser, Letters, March 25). Ideally this professional has your records, sees you annually and is trained to give you current, correct advice.

As for places that are medically prepared in case of problems, it seems reasonable to assume that the state Department of Health could answer those questions.

Having received my vaccinations at Pier 2, I was thoroughly reassured through the entire process that my well-being was under close observation, including the post-shot monitoring period.

Andrea Bell

Kailua

State keeps changing the rules on vaccines

During the past three months, the state said that people with medical issues will be classified in the 1c category. Now that we are in the 1c category, the state is changing its mind, only allowing people with serious medical issues to get the vaccine.

It also seems that people with these issues arent in the 1c category anymore, having to wait for their age group to get the vaccines. Except for our kupuna, people with medical issues can suffer greatly if they catch COVID-19, possibly even threatening their lives.

It is disappointing that Lt. Gov. Josh Green doesnt help people in this group get their vaccines. As a doctor he should know that this group can suffer if they catch COVID-19. I was hoping that Green wouldnt continue the Ige legacy of being wishy-washy, but he continues the legacy of poor planning and not keeping the public in the decision-making process.

Stan Sano

Makiki

Parentage, not paternity, crucial

The commentary, Birth certificates should identify paternity, not parentage (Star-Advertiser, Island Voices, March 23) is unsurprisingly sexist. The author said that birth certificates are to identify the biological participants in the creation of the baby.

No, they are not. To frame birth certificates as an inconsequential biological record is lazy and self-serving to those empowered by the traditional family model.

Birth certificates establish parental rights, are critical documentation to travel, provide authority for health care decisions and school applications, just to list a few.

Current laws allow male partners to volunteer their information on birth certificates. Only male partners. To not allow female or non-binary partners this option is outdated and discriminatory. A bill in the Legislature attempts to rectify these current prejudices.

The legislation in question is an intersectional feminist issue, an issue on the financialized penalty imposed on those who exist outside of, and in spite of, gender binaries and patriarchy.

Chauncey Hirose-Hulbert

Manoa

Include parentship on birth certificates

Birth certificates should identify paternity, not parentage (Star-Advertiser, Island Voices, March 23), was a thoughtful and important article. I support the author.

Instead of ditching paternity in the current formula, why not keep paternity but add parentship as a separate, alternative field on birth certificates?

This subject puts me in mind of a recent article in the Star- Advertiser about COVID-19 vaccines and the difficulty of manufacturing, and shortages of, biologic medications. Why deny future science the possibility of pursuing the biological trail?

Scarlett Zoechbauer

Makiki

EXPRESS YOURSELF

The Honolulu Star-Advertiser welcomes all opinions. Want your voice to be heard? Submit a letter to the editor.

>> Write us: We welcome letters up to 150 words, and guest columns of 500-600 words. We reserve the right to edit for clarity and length. Include your name, address and daytime phone number.

>> Mail: Letters to the Editor, Honolulu Star-Advertiser 7 Waterfront Plaza, 500 Ala Moana, Suite 210 Honolulu, HI 96813

>> Contact: 529-4831 (phone), 529-4750 (fax), letters@staradvertiser.com, staradvertiser.com/editorial/submit-letter

See more here:
Letters: State keeps changing the rules on vaccines; Second Amendment outlives its purpose; Parentage, not paternity, crucial - Honolulu...

On Friday night in Virginia Beach, Virginia, two people were shot dead in yet another public mass shooting the third in two weeks after a gunman killed 10 people in Boulder, Colorado, and another gunman summarily executed eight in Atlanta, Georgia.On Sunday, a Maryland man shot and killed his parents and two other people before killing himself.

If you Google the word shooting inside the US, the internet search engines autofill function now suggests the phrase shootings near me. Thats because shootings here are so rampant, so uncontrolled, that its practically impossible to keep track of all the violence. You only see the shootings that make the news becauseevery day more than 100 people are killed by gun violenceandevery month 53 women are shot and killedby an intimate partner.The people doing the killing are overwhelmingly men, but not everyone is affected the same. According to Everytown Research, Black Americans experience nearly 10 times the gun homicides, 15 times the gun assaults, and three times the fatal police shootings of white Americans. Women experiencing domestic abuse are also five times as likely to be killed if their partner has a firearm.

Americans live in an upside-down world where about44 percent of people report living in a house with at least one gun, butaccording to one survey, more than 66 percent worry they wont be able to afford health insurance this year. What was supposed to be the land of the free and home of the brave is, today, a country where anyone can get their hands on a firearm with almost no questions asked, but if you try and give water to someone trying tovote in Georgiayou will be criminally charged. Our priorities are chillingly clear, but this unbridled bloodshed certainly wasnt what the drafters of our Constitution had in mind when they wrote theSecondAmendment.

Like clockwork, every time a mass public shooting happens in the US, Republicans (and even some Democrats) and NRA lobbyists take to the airwaves and regurgitate nonsense about the Founding Fathers and style themselves Constitutional Originalists.But if gun-loving Republicans read the entire Constitution (along with a bit of history) theyd know to read the Second and the Third Amendmentstogether, which makes for an entirely different vision of gun rights in America from the point-of-view of their beloved Founding Fathers.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Those are the succinct words of the Third Amendment a section of the Constitution that has never been challenged in the US Supreme Court because it holds no meaning in todays society. The two amendments were enacted into law as part of the Bill of Rights when American colonists were looking to safeguard against the tyranny they saw in Europe and at home.

You see, when the Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights (including the Second and Third Amendments), they feared the mutinies theyd seen in the UK, the disarming of Catholics by King James I, persecutions of protestants in France under King Louis XV, and the repercussions of the Quartering Act of 1765, which allowed for British soldiers to stay on in the colonies as a standing army in times of peace.

For the Founding Fathers, a permanent, professional army wasnt a stabilizing force. Instead, paid full-time soldiers were the henchmen of tyrants (foreign or domestic) and the only way to prevent a dictator from sending his soldiers to occupy your house (and all that was implied by that act) was to arm yourself if the need arose fora limited time and for that limited purpose.

Now, I am no fan of the Founding Fathers for a host of reasons, especially their appalling legacy in human enslavement. But if today they were able to look upon the country they helped shape, they would see that words intended to prevent military tyranny at the hands of an autocrat had been turned into a license for any civilian to kill any other civilian. And I am quite sure that they would be horrified at that outcome.

The Founding Fathers wrote about militias in the late 18thcentury because they were against professional, full-time armies. If we want to stick to the original intentions of the men who wrote the document we work so hard to interpret, then we are faced with the sticky conclusion that we must choose between armed militias organized in times of war, or a professional standing army. If we want to be Originalists then we cant have both at the same time and we certainly cant have armed civilians and law enforcement officers killing people whenever, however and for any reason they want.

In fact, I would argue that, like the ThirdAmendment, the Second Amendment has no place in todays society, considering our governmentbudgeted $740 billion dollarsfor national defense, including a professional army. When you have nearly a trillion-dollar military budget, armed militias are no longer necessary.

Since the 1990s, mass shootings have been the status quo in a country where gun rights have come to trump individual rights to safety and freedom from violence. Now, one year after the pandemic started and during a time we saw the country temporarily press pause on the bloody spectacle of public mass murder, things are clearly getting back to normal in the US. But whether Republicans like it or not, the truth is that this is far from the normal our Founding Fathers ever intended, or imagined, for what they hoped would become a great nation.

Read the rest here:
The inconvenient truth about the Second Amendment and mass shootings - The Independent

On Monday, the House General Laws Committee is hearing House Bill 1068, to ensure Second Amendment rights remain protected during states of emergencies. Please contact committee members and ask them to SUPPORT HB 1068.

House Bill 1068 designates firearm businesses as essential and prohibits the state, government officials and agencies, or local governments from prohibiting, restricting, or reducing their operations during declared states of emergencies or disasters.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many anti-gun officials around the country, at both state and local levels of government, took the opportunity to unilaterally suspend Second Amendment rights by shutting down gun stores and ranges. Unfortunately, this coincided with many Americans trying to exercise their Second Amendment rights for the first time during that period of uncertainty, and resulted in them being unable to access arms, ammunition, or proper training. HB 1068 protects the exercise of a constitutional right from such politically motivated attacks and ensures that citizens have those rights when they need them most.

Again, please contact committee members and ask them to SUPPORT HB 1068.

Read the original here:
Missouri: Committee Hearing Bill to Protect Second Amendment in Emergencies - NRA ILA

Why protecting the Second Amendment matters

I disagree with the recent letter urging the Tiverton Town Council to rescind the Second Amendment-related resolution passed two years ago. Had the writer researched the resolution, she would have discovered that it did not make Tiverton a sanctuary city.After some emotional testimony by a few individuals predicting that, if made so, the streets would run red with blood, the council adopted a compromise. The resulting resolution became a bulwark against the potential abuse inherent in so-called Red Flag laws, stating that the town will expend no resources in supporting them. It also reaffirmed that the citizens of Tiverton believed in the rule of law, specifically the state and federal constitutions, a concept frightening to progressives.

While red flag laws were sold to legislators by anti-firearms groups as public safety measures,their real intent was the creation of a tool to isolate and persecute individuals who choose to exercise their civil right to own a firearm. They allow anyone to make a phone call claiming someone they know (or don't like) is planning a mass shooting. With no warning, local police then descend on the individual, search their homes, confiscate their private property (firearms), arrest them and begin a lengthy investigation certain to ruin their lives and reputations, whether or not the accusation is true. The accused is never told who their accuser is and there is no penalty for making a false accusation. These are laws with the potential for extreme abuse. They also have the potential for wasting vast amounts of scarce police resources, things the town council, two years ago, recognized. If the current council rescinds the resolution, then theirs is a vote to sanction, and pay for with tax dollars, the persecution of local firearm owners, something that will not endear them to the majority of town residents.

Finally, I infer by the tone of the writer's letter that she is either a member of, or has been influenced by, one of the small, but noisy, anti-Second Amendment groups operating in the state. Her assertion that firearm owners are protected by the Second Amendment is laughable, considering that there are now 11bills (more on the way) in the R.I. Statehouse specifically designed to destroy firearms ownership in this state; all of them crafted with the heavy-handed aid of these groups.

And this prompts a gentle warning to all those reading this. These groups are notorious for lying to and deceiving their members in order to create and spread hysteria, thus advancing the political agenda of their wealthy out-of-state benefactors. Sadly, this callous practice often makes believers look foolish, at best, when faced with the truth.

Scott McCarthy,Tiverton

See original here:
OPINION/LETTER: Why protecting the Second Amendment matters - newportri.com

CHARLESTON, WV (WOWK) West Virginia voters could see an amendment to the state constitution in the next general election.

Its related to the second amendment the right to bear arms.

The Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this week passed a number of pro-gun rights legislation, one of which is called The Protection of the Right to Bear Arms Amendment, or Senate Joint Resolution 1.

It would require a two-thirds vote of the house and senate before being put on the ballot.

The state of West Virginia currently has an F letter grade on gun safety from the Giffords Law Center.

The Mountain State also has the 13th-highest gun death rate in the country according to the CDC.

While gun safety and banning assault rifles are back in the national conversation following three mass shootings the latest overnight in Virginia Beach the West Virginia Senate Judiciary Committee is busying itself upholding gun rights.

This is a very 2nd Amendment right state, said Senator Jack Woodrum (R-Summers).

Woodrum is one of 11 republican senators sponsoring SJR 1 which would amend the state constitution to read: No agent, agency, municipality, county, or any other political subdivision of state government may restrict this right by means of locality, ammunition capacity, caliber, modification, accessory, decibel, method of carry, or by any other means.

Put another way, cities and counties could not pass gun control measures more stringent than what is set by the legislature.

Were trying to guarantee peoples constitutional rights here in West Virginia and some of that is dealing specifically with the second amendment which is under attack kinda seems like every day right now by our counterparts in the federal government, said Woodrum.

Reaction on 13 Newss social media to enhanced gun control was mixed.

Sounds good. Guns are only as dangerous as the owner, wrote one follower.

My children are talking about leaving this state with all of this idiotic legislation being passed, they certainly arent making the wild and wonderful state inviting to others, wrote another social media follower.

Still, Woodrum says he doesnt see how banning firearms would put a stop to people committing harm.

The firearm didnt go out and kill people, youve got an individual who used a firearm in the commission of that crime, he said.

SJR 1 is on its first reading in the state senate.

Its important to note that federal law trumps state law, so it remains to be put into context how any federal legislation if passed would affect this state constitutional amendment.

Read the rest here:
Right to bear arms amendment could be on West Virginia ballot - WVNS-TV

To a far-right state senator who wants to knock off a suddenly unpopular Wyoming Republican congresswoman next year, sponsoring a bill called the Second Amendment Preservation Act probably seemed like a sure vote-getter.

Instead, Sen. Anthony Bouchard (R-Cheyenne) looked stunned at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Senate File 81 Second Amendment Preservation Act as law enforcement officials compared him to the GOPs No.1 anti-gun villain, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California).

[SF 81] merely copied [President Joe Bidens] administration and Nancy Pelosis effort to demonize law enforcement in the name of, in this case, the Second Amendment, said Byron Oedekoven, executive director of the Wyoming Association of Sheriffs and Chiefs of Police.

I see that the hypocrisy of this bill knows no bounds, Sweetwater County Sheriff John Grossnickle said, and frankly its a sad, sad day for law enforcement in the state of Wyoming if this bill proceeds the way it is.

Ouch! What did Bouchard do to offend his law-and-order constituency?

His bill is intended to send a message to Washington, D.C., Bouchard said, that Wyoming wont stand for any new federal laws that put gun owners at risk of losing their constitutional rights.

Bouchard is aiming to go to D.C. himself. Hes challenging Rep. Liz Cheney in next years Republican primary.

If a message is what the former director of Wyoming Gun Owners was after, he should have sponsored a joint resolution that, while not a law, would have passed overwhelmingly and made voters feel good about telling the fictional yet infinitely politically useful gun grabbers they shouldnt mess with Wyoming.

Instead, Bouchard went the full Monty, sponsoring a bill that would make cops vulnerable to lawsuits and the possible termination of their jobs by stripping them of so-called qualified immunity.

Bouchards first mistake was to declare that the federal government has no constitutional right to enact any federal statutes, executive orders, court orders, rules, regulations or other actions that collect data or restrict or prohibit the manufacture, ownership and use of firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition exclusively within the borders of Wyoming.

Because it does have such powers, of course. States cant simply ignore federal laws, as several people reminded the Judiciary Committee.

From the inception of this country, constitutional law has been very clear on this issue: There are no states rights to nullify federal law, said Linda Burt, former director of the ACLUs Wyoming chapter. The Supreme Court has repeatedly struck down these laws, and will continue to. The case law is very strong as far back as 1824.

Legislators pushing SAPA laws here and in 14 other states know this. They just dont care. Thats because their real objective isnt nullification, its scoring political points. That theyre wasting the peoples time and money very real money when it comes to defending unconstitutional laws in court is of no concern, so long as they get to blast the Biden administration and beat their chest about being gun champions.

Polls show that nearly 90% of Americans support the types of expanded background checks the administration is calling for are. But Bouchard and his ilk arent running to represent or uphold mainstream American values. Theyre running to win red-state Republican primaries where extremism is the order of the day the gun nuttier the better.

The whole idea is that we have a shift in Washington and they actually want to use everything they can to go after our guns. We have an out-of-control federal government, Bouchard said.

WASCOP officials said SF 81 puts peace officers in the untenable position of being sued and/or terminated for working on cases with federal law enforcement agencies.

The law could have some gun owners thinking federal laws dont apply to them, Sen. Tara Nethercott (R-Cheyenne) said. Bouchard replied that his bill is part of a push and shove, and [the feds are] going to shove back and were going to see where were at.

Essentially, Bouchard is willing to put residents at risk of prosecution to prove that the federal government overstepped its bounds. Law-abiding citizens, he contended, dont have anything to worry about.

Burt cited an example that showed the folly of such laws. After Kansas passed its SAPA in 2013, she noted, a military surplus company relied on the state law to manufacture and sell short-barrel rifles and silencers that were against federal law.

The business owner and a customer were both convicted of a federal felony, and the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to hear their appeal in 2019.

Bouchard sponsored SF 81 to capitalize on gun owners fears. Instead, he had to swallow Grossnickles claim: With this legislation, Wyoming is going to become the little sister to some in Washington, D.C., who believe abolishing qualified immunity, demonizing law enforcement and ultimately defunding the police is the answer to the problem.

Imagine Bouchard, figuratively joined at the hip with the Black Lives Matter movement and other progressive protesters. That had to sting. So must the Senates decision Wednesday to gut his bill, which he ended up voting against.

Veteran Wyoming journalist Kerry Drake has covered Wyoming for more than four decades, previously as a reporter and editor for the Wyoming Tribune Eagle and Casper Star-Tribune. He lives in Cheyenne and can be reached at kerry.drake33@yahoo.com.

Read the original here:
What a tangled web Wyoming senator weaves to preserve Second Amendment - Wyoming Tribune

The bill was so 'out of left field' one outspoken GOP refused to vote on it; with Rep Jim Walsh refusing because the very bill was un-Constitutional.

House Bill (HB) ESSB 5038, whose abbreviation was changed because it's an enhanced Senate subsitute bill (ESSB) passed by a margin of 57-40. It's a bill that would prohibit the open carry of guns or weapons during protests or rallies on Capitol grounds in WA State (Olympia). The bill originally began in the Senate, and moved onto the House.

The bill was a kneejerk reaction, say many GOP Leaders, to the D.C. 'riot' or tumult that happened back in January, and was related to Inslee ordering fencing put up around the legislative buildings in Olympia.

Rep. Walsh, (R-Aberdeen) argued along with other legislators for nearly five hours in a debate of the un-Constitutionality of the bill. Walsh and others said it violates 2nd Amendement rights, that persons who are legally allowed to or possess open carry permits shall not have that right infringed regardless of any state law.

Walsh also bemoaned the brief and seemingly nonchalant media coverage of the debate as well as the vote.

After the vote passed, John Sattgast, the Republican House Communications Director reported GOP members felt this about the bill:

"During the five-hour debate, Republicans arguedSenate Bill 5038is unconstitutional, violating not only second amendment rights, but other amendments, including the right to free expression."

Sattgast also reported:

"Republicans also said the 250-foot prohibition is not clearly defined, meaning that anyone walking peacefully near a permitted event with a holstered gun, knife or other weapon could be charged with a gross misdemeanor crime."

Rep. Ed Orcutt of the 20th District (Kalama) said he's heard from many of his constituents, who say this proposed bill frames them as a lawbreaker:

Thats what I hear from my constituents. Why are you needlessly turning me into a criminal when I have no criminal intent? Im just exercising my Second Amendment right."

The bill will go back to the Senate for more consideration.

See the article here:
State House Passes Another 2nd Amendment 'Erosion' Bill - newstalk870.am

Governor Tom Wolf proposed an executive order on gun violence which has people talking.

We spoke with a gun shop owner and others to get their reaction on the governors proposal.

The governors recent proposal has a lot of people taking, especially here in Erie.

Some people oppose this proposal while others believe there should be a balance.

The right of the citizens is to bear arms in the defense of themselves and the shall never be questioned, said Timothy Parker, Owner of Presque Isle Gun Shop.

What you hear from Timothy Parker is paraphrasing Article 1 Section 21 of the Second Amendment.

Parker is the owner of Presque Isle Gun Shop. He said that the governors proposal is vague and interferes with ones 2nd Amendment rights.

The governor proposes stricter background checks closing loopholes that allow some buyers to avoid them.

He supports the Red Flag Law that temporarily removes guns from those who pose a danger to themselves or others.

Parker is not sure if Governor Wolfs proposal would change how gun shop owners would run their business, but he said that gun sales are at an all time high.

I dont know what probably due to the last election cause people I dont know fearful or that theyre going to lose their Second Amendment rights, said Parker.

Although the Second Amendment is part of the constitution, others believe that there should be some kind of law to reduce gun violence.

Jaime Stoeger works at the Crime Victim Center. She believes stricter laws will have better outcomes.

Studies show that sexual assault and domestic violence do go down when theres stricter gun laws, said Jaime Stoeger, Co-Assistant Director of the Crime Victim Center.

Now its a matter of finding a balance between safety and the rights that you have as a gun owner.

If this proposal becomes law in Pennsylvania, there may be a lot of changes many would face.

Continued here:
Residents have mixed reactions to Governor Wolfs proposed order on gun safety - YourErie

BOULDER, CO - MARCH 22: Tactical police units respond to the scene of a King Soopers grocery store ... [+] after a shooting on March 22, 2021 in Boulder, Colorado. Dozens of police responded to the afternoon shooting in which at least one witness described three people who appeared to be wounded, according to published reports. (Photo by Chet Strange/Getty Images)

On Tuesday morning the hashtags #EnoughIsEnough and #SecondAmendment were trending and each had more than 30,000 tweets while there were an equal number of posts related to the topic of "Well Regulated" another reference to the wording of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

All of this was of course in response to the most recent mass shooting on Monday inside a grocery store in Boulder, Colorado. Ten people were killed, including a veteran police officer. As of Tuesday morning the motives remain unclear.

Across social media, especially Twitter, many users made their opinion quite clear.

"We aren't numb - over 90% of Americans support stronger gun laws. It's a handful of US Senators beholden to the gun lobby who have refused to act. The Second Amendment wasn't meant to be a suicide pact," posted Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts), founder of @MomsDemand action.

On the other side of the issue, the NRA (@NRA) responded by sharing the wording of the Second Amendment, "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."

Anti-social Response

The responses that followed on Monday evening and Tuesday morning were anything but social. Many users called for greater gun control, casting blame at Republican lawmakers, while supporters of the Second Amendment blamed mental illness.

As with so many issues, both sides dug in and offered sharp and concise opinions. The issue of "Well Regulated" as in the well regulated militia, wasn't so much debated but rather a read through shows that it was an echo chamber. Many who see that the wording is to mean a government-regulated military force, akin to the National Guard, repeated that argument.

Across social media the opinions of the Founding Fathers was debated; and those who are opposed to firearms and the Second Amendment clearly see this as an opportunity to push for greater gun control, while supporters of the Second Amendment seemed as determined to make their counter arguments.

But the question must be asked whether any of this is remotely productive?

"Social media discussions are primarily about reaffirming your identity in a group," explained Dr. Matthew J. Schmidt, PhD, associate professor of national security and political science at the University of New Haven.

While today the discussion is about the Second Amendment, similarly hostile discourse has been seen for any hot button issue and people seem unwilling to even listen. The posts on social media don't seem to be aimed at changing opinions, but rather reaffirming one's point of view.

"Everyone has been cooped up for months, and we're living through the most tumultuous time in history, so for some people they just want their voices heard even if no one is actually listening," said technology futurist and brand strategist Scott Steinberg.

"Social media is a great platform to do just that right now," Steinberg added. "People aren't actually going to social media to have productive casual conversations. They tune into more to be part of crowd in fiery debates and hear from those that have similar opinions."

This is absolutely true of any issue and isn't limited to gun control or support for the Second Amendment.

"I doubt the issue of gun control will find resolution on social media, and it's now a well-established fact that social media tend to have a polarizing effect on most topics," said Mike Lawlor, associate professor of criminal justice at the Henry C. Lee College of Criminal Justice and Forensic Sciences at University of New Haven.

"That being said, social media does present the most user-friendly platform for grass roots organizing," said Lawlor. "You saw that in the post-Parkland 'March for Our Lives' event and organization."

Different Topic Same Responses

In many ways social media has allowed people to feel like they are part of a group or movement, even if the debate isn't all that social.

"Think of it as shouting into the void there is something cathartic about that," said Steinberg. "People need a forum right now. The downside is that because there are two sides of every issue it becomes very polarizing."

Steinberg added that we'd have to get back to a baseline where we agree to listen to one another before we can have any chance of having a meaningful debate, and that is unlikely to happen given the tone and open hostility.

"People use language that signals their strong belief in the ideas of their own group and some people attack the other side by way of reaffirming their own position as fighters in the culture war," added Schmidt. "This kind of speech starts to look like sectarian warfare. It's not reasoned debate designed to reconcile differences or find spaces of compromise. And conducting these arguments on platforms other than social media is unlikely to resolve any differences. People have picked their sides and very, very few will change."

Given that fact there is little chance that social media will result in any social change.

"There are, of course, two extremes in this debate," said Lawlor. "But there is also a soft, persuadable middle.Those without critical thinking skills will fall victim to conspiracy theories and paranoia.Those will critical thinking skills will focus on the events surrounding yesterday's shooting and consider whether reasonable steps could have been taken to prevent it or at least make it less likely. Each one of these tragedies is a teachable moment.Our challenge is to present the facts and analysis and hope people are willing to listen."

See original here:
Second Amendment And Gun Control Debated On Twitter Is Social The Place To Have This Discussion? - Forbes