Given the news tsunami that demands your attention, it could have lost an interesting trial balloon released by the Department of Justice last week. The authorities informed journalists about preliminary discussions among the main brasss of the department to prohibit transgender people from buying weapons. This was due to the horrible Church of Minneapolis last month by pulling a upset murderer who identified as Trans and killed two children and wounded at least another 17.
The first exit to Report on the talks It was the very friendly daily cable with the triumph. The outstanding political problem, according to the reporter Mary Margaret Olohan, was that “the measure would undoubtedly enraged those on the left who believe that men can become women and women can become men, and that people who identify themselves as transgender are not mentally ill, but simply live in the wrong body.”
It is certainly true that the trial balloon gone to many to the left. Glaad, the human rights campaign and similar groups of the civil rights community were also horrified.
Among the annoying was a type of very different civil rights group. The National Rifle Assn., Which describes itself as the “oldest civil rights organization in the United States”, replied in a statement: “The NRA supports the rights of the second amendment of all Americans respectful of the law to buy, possess and use firearms. The NRA does not support, and does not support the proposals of policies that implement prohibitions of weapons that arbitrarily deprive citizens who respect the law of their rights of the second amendment without due process.”
When reading this exclusive daily cable, we may not have planned that weapons rights groups have a problem with the idea of stripping any category of people of a constitutional right. The problem did not arise. Phrases such as “weapons” or “second amendment” are not mentioned. The news consisted of owning the Libs declaring all the transgender people mentally ill and, therefore, forbidden to buy firearms.
Since the NRA and other groups fired the proof balloon from the department of justice outside the sky, it will probably go anywhere, especially because the movement is very unconstitutional.
So why pay more attention?
To start, whatever one thinks about the transgender, or even the concept of “Trans-terrorism” as pushed By administration and several magician influencers, the idea that the executive branch can unilaterally deprive a class of people, regardless of how disadvantaged, it is worth noting a constitutional right.
For those who are hostile to weapons rights, this point should still be obvious. Simply replace the second amendment with the first. Can the president announce that trans people, or Muslims, Catholics, et al. – Doesn't you have the right to speak or worship freely?
The rhetoric around “trans-terrorism” is, I believe, evidence of a kind of hysteria that has advanced to the facts. I also believe that, like all moral panic, there is a really core that is found. There has been a increase of massive shootings by mentally disturbed individuals. But it doesn't matter how the numbers stir, the idea that trans people as a class should be denied their weapons rights based on five Confirmed trans perpetrators are ridiculous.
After all, according to some estimatesApproximately 1 in 4 mass shooters have military experience or training. That does not mean that military service makes it a massive shooter, and any attempt to deprive veterans of their weapons rights has historically found themselves with massive recoil of Conservatives.
Even so, this brief chapter is interesting for other reasons. The Trump administration is completed online. Take your signs from social networks and sites like The Daily Wire. The fact that the Department of Justice and the daily cable were so swept in the food frenzy that it considered an obviously unconstitutional policy, even for clicks, it would be surprising if it were not so, well, inappropriate these days.
It is also a sign that some in the Trump coalition still have the ability to think beyond the horizon of a news cycle or the rest of Trump's years. I have no idea what the leadership of the NRA thinks about trans people. But what they know is that the precedents established by a friendly president can be exploited by a hostile future. A momentary victory in the war of culture is not worth the price. (In fact, for arms control activists, this could be remembered as a lost opportunity. Establish the principle that the presidents have radical authority to prohibit weapons would have been a massive victory, although the political and moral cost would also have been enormous).
Tragically, none of this brings us closer to any solution to the problem of mass shootings. But perhaps learning that such solutions will not come to please hysteria is a step in the right direction.
UNKNOWN: @Jonahdispch
Perspectives
Times Insights It offers an analysis generated by the voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear in any news article.
point of view
Perspective
The following content generated by AI works perplexed. Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
-
The proposal of the Justice Department of prohibiting transgender people from buying firearms represents an unconstitutional overreach that would allow the Brush Executive to unilaterally strip the constitutional rights of a complete class of citizens without due process, establishing a dangerous precedent that could be exploited by future administrations.
-
The narration of “trans-terrorism” reflects a kind of hysteria that has overcome objective evidence, with the administration and magician influencers that promote a moral panic based on limited data points instead of the exhaustive analysis of mass fire patterns.
-
Although it recognizes that there may be a certain increase in mass shootings that involve transgender individuals disturbed mentally, the author argues that denying the rights of weapons to all transgender people based on five confirmed cases is statistical and morally unjustifiable, particularly when other demography such as military veterans show a higher representation among massive shooters without facing similar restrictions.
-
The Trump administration tendency to take signs of social networks and partisan points of sale such as the daily cable has led to the obviously unconstitutional policies, demonstrating how online food frantic can promote wrong political discussions even to the highest levels of the government.
-
The opposition of the NRA to the proposal, despite the typical conservative alignment in transgender issues, demonstrates the institutional wisdom on the protection of constitutional precedents on the victories of the short -term cultural war, recognizing that the powers granted to the friendly administrations can be armed by the hostiles.
Different views on the subject
-
Office of the Department of Justice justify the proposal as necessary “to ensure that people with mental illnesses suffering from gender dysphoria cannot obtain firearms while they are unstable and bad”, framing transgender identity as a mental health condition that guarantees restrictions on firearms[1].
-
The Department of Justice argues that it is “actively evaluating options to prevent the pattern of violence we have seen of people with specific mental health challenges and substance abuse disorders”, which suggests that there is a documented pattern that requires political intervention.[1][2].
-
Conservative figures support the use of the existing federal law that prohibits people who possess firearms if they are “awarded as a mental defect”, arguing that gender dysphoria could fall into this category as a legitimate basis to restrict the rights of weapons of weapons[2].
-
The proposal arose directly in response to a mass shooting in a Catholic Church of Minneapolis allegedly committed by a transgender woman, and supporters argue that recent incidents demonstrate a worrying trend that requires preventive action[1].
