EDITORS NOTE: We had some audio feed problems at the start, and since YouTube no longer allows video editing, the video portion of the show doesn’t start until about 4:57 seconds into the file.
In the ongoing (with no end in sight) debate over exactly what to do about mass shootings, the doctrines have become entrenched. On the Left, all guns must be eliminated, because Australia did this and ended gun violence. On the Right, Switzerland and Israel have guns everywhere and they have no such shootings.
Guns *must* be taken away; guns are a Constitutional right and *cannot* be taken away.
Who is correct? What if both sides are to a degree? What if neither side is correct at all?
People who refuse to think, read that last paragraph and have already tuned out because they “know” the correct answer. Nothing – not even the Finger of G-d – will change their minds.
For the rest of us, what happens when we actually read what the Courts have said about the gun? Do we come away with a our own positions further strengthened? Or more confused than ever?
Remember that until Heller (2008), the unequivocal position of the Supreme Court was that the 2nd Amendment was not incorporated, meaning that while the Federal Government could not infringe your right to keep and bear arms, any given State could do so. And some did.
And since Heller? Well… McDonald incorporated the 2nd Amendment, but does that mean that there are no reasonable limits on who can have a gun?