Sunday, May 16, 2021
Opinion The Tom and Tim Show The Tom and Tim Show: A week of tragedy...

The Tom and Tim Show: A week of tragedy (without enough talk about gun control) plus Oracle, Uber, and more

-

We talk about the events of the week — and ask whether Oakland ought to be able to keep the Warriors

 

 

Tim Redmond
Tim Redmond has been a political and investigative reporter in San Francisco for more than 30 years. He spent much of that time as executive editor of the Bay Guardian. He is the founder of 48hills.

36 COMMENTS

  1. What bothers me more is the prospect of gun control, which won’t stop criminals getting guns, but would stop law-abiding people like me from having a gun to defend myself against them.

  2. How would the US government use nuclear weapons to force its citzenry to, say, not use Airbnb, which some governments seem to think is a smart idea?

  3. I understand that but the idea that citizens should be armed with guns as defense from an oppressive government doesn’t seem as relevant today. The government has nuclear weaponry and sophisticated technology citizens will never have. It seems the biggest threat now is from our fellow citizens. But it is a very complex issue without an easy solution

  4. Part of the reason for the 2nd is so the people could resist an oppressive government, just like they did to gain independence.

    Much of the Bill of rRghts is about putting limits on what the government can do.

  5. In my opinion the people who wrote the Constitution were concerned about invading armies, not citizens shooting each other. But my point is that America is inherently violent and will probably never change. If I were 30 years younger and raising a family I would consider moving elsewhere – this is not a safe society.

  6. I would support that. So would a lot of people I know. It was written at a time when people armed with muskets. things are a little different now.

  7. To comment on a murder of a black by a white, and then say nothing about the much larger number of murders of whites by blacks, is to introduce a presumption of racial bias.

  8. Nobody said its not possible to change the Constitution. People only say it is very difficult to do. It’s been changed only 27 times in total, and only once in the last 50 years

  9. The words of the second Amendment are fairly clear, timeless and unambiguous. If you don’t like what it says, why don’t you tart a movement for a new Amendment?

  10. It can’t … until it can. There are serious structural issues right _now_ to doing it, but it’s easy to lose sight of how things can change quickly with the right catalysts.

  11. Why? Because of sentiment? That’s not my point – the point is constitutional amendments can be, and have been, amended.

  12. The 27th amendment took 202 years to be ratified by the states. The 26th amendment was ratified in 1971. Both were with regards to relatively uncontroversial revisions. A constitutional amendment to undo the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the individual right to bear arms provided by the 2nd amendment is extremely unlikely and a political non-starter.

  13. So you’ve just proved my point – you could amend the 2nd Amendment the same way the 18th Amendment was amended. They aren’t set in stone.

    I hear the argument from gun nuts all the time – “you can’t change the 2nd Amednment” when in fact, you can.

  14. The Constitution is a living document subject to changes and interpretation. The right to bear arms did not mean the same thing 300 years ago as it does today, just as the idea that a slave is 3/5 of a person is no longer valid.

  15. I don’t believe that an Amendment to the Constitution can be changed. Rather, a new Amendment is approved which changes or reverses a previous Amendment.

    That is what happens when Prohibition ended. The new 21st Amendment nullified the effect of the 18th Amendment.

    So in theory you’d need a new Amendment specifically stating that Americans do not have the right to bear arms. I’d assess the probability of that as being so close to zero that it is not measurable.

  16. Since when did believing in our constitution mean that we were “clinging” to anything?

    Are we “clinging” to the ideas of free speech, a jury trial and equality?

  17. The United States is an inherently violent society. The country was borne of a violent revolution. We have the largest, most powerful military in the world and over 50% of the population which still clings to the “right to bear arms” phrase in the constitution. We also have a per capita prison population which dwarfs that of other countries. Violence is so deeply ingrained and institutionalized in our culture it may never go away. And yes the rest of the world thinks Americans are fat people who shoot each other and they are often right.

  18. Violent crime correlates near perfectly to large cities with large non-white populations.

    Gary, Indiana is a lot more dangerous than Helena, Montana

  19. No. What’s odd is that a racist like you is allowed to spew your drivel here.

    FYI, your question seems to be lifted from Fox News.

  20. Do inner-city non-whites account for the high rates of gun deaths in Idaho, West Virginia, Montana, etc?

    I didn’t think so.

  21. Those other nations do not have a large underclass of non-white inner-city people dealing drugs smuggled in from a nation next door which we do not control our huge border with.

  22. Yeah, but isn’t it odd that he gets all worked up about it when a white guy shoots black folks

    While ignoring the constant massive wave of violent crime committed by blacks? And also ignores that black-on-white violent crime happens at 40 times the rate of white-on-black violent crime?

    All so convenient and self-serving

  23. Tom is so right…. gun massacres and carnage… that is what U.S. is best known for these days.

Comments are closed.

More by this author

Not one dollar of state rent-relief money has arrived in SF

Hundreds of millions in federal funding is available -- but tenants aren't getting it.

Can people paying rent for a parking space be evicted for living in cars?

Caltrans is about to try to remove people from a lot under I-80.

Boudin allies speak out at a rally against ‘recall madness’

Elected officials, labor, and community leaders say that the DA has kept his campaign promises.

State Legislature moving to give telecom companies immense power

Bills would block any local control over placement of cell towers and antennas -- and it's passing with almost no opposition.

Is San Francisco a ‘conservative’ city? That’s what the Chron thinks.

But is opposing the Big Business and Big Tech Agenda really 'conservative?' Plus: Free Muni --and a complex new Muni yard. That's The Agenda for May 10-18.

Most read

What happened to Halston? New doc dives deep into designer’s story

In Halston, the new biopic about the visionary American fashion designer, director Frédéric Tcheng makes every effort to remain objective when portraying the contentious...

Not one dollar of state rent-relief money has arrived in SF

Hundreds of millions in federal funding is available -- but tenants aren't getting it.

Boudin allies speak out at a rally against ‘recall madness’

Elected officials, labor, and community leaders say that the DA has kept his campaign promises.

Can people paying rent for a parking space be evicted for living in cars?

Caltrans is about to try to remove people from a lot under I-80.

You might also likeRELATED