The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

[TS Evelyn Summers]

Soooooooooooo....


With all the crazy'ness in the world goin on....


What do all the firearm owners in on the forum think YOUR president will do about arms in January???


I tried to get as many 18 rnd 9mm & 14 rnd .45ACP mags I could find before the ban takes place.....and there WILL be one!


But....EVERYWHERE I go...All "Hi-Cap" Mags & Rifles are gone!!!!!!



I couldnt even get one!!!!!


Unreal.......


Gun shops are chaging almost $200 for ONE used 30 rnd magazine....


Its all about the money I guess!!!!!


No one said anything when the IRS ( Internel Revenue Service ) bought 1,000,000 rounds of 9mm!


WTF does the IRS need with a million rounds of 9mm!
Damn...They got all the money....now they want all the ammo too ?!....


SOMETHING is going down.....WAKE THE FUCK up people!!!!

Share your thoughts!


Eve,


xoxo

[tao1kiku]

Easiest way to control the populace is make them live in fear, take away their firearms and give extensive powers to the police and government agencies enough so that it becomes a Police State.

What gets me is, with the populace fearing an upcoming restriction on firearms, this will make the people go out and hoard as many firearms and ammo as they can get, making disarming the people even harder!

Your papers please? I must see your papers! You have no papers? Come with us please.

[runround04]

AR's are hard to find, PMags sold out early last week and people have bought all the ammo they could get their hands on. So, all the cries to ban "assault weapons" has done was get more of them into peoples hands, and some people really shouldnt have then, its not daddies .22. Good job anti-gun folks, you've made everyone more well armed.

I imagine this wont get much further than the last hi cap mag ban got in 94, too many people are fighting it. Fingers crossed things get worse in Syria to the media can have that to keep them entertained. Without the media jamming this shit down every soccer moms throat 24/7, most people will stop caring and move on to the next popular cause they can bitch about on FB or at their book club.

There was a shooting on Christmas eve in Rochester NY, a guy killed 2 fireman and wounded 2 others and before the guy had even been found/killed I heard a reporter say "No word on whether or not an assault rifle had been used". They're just lookin for for shit now. Turns out, an AR had been used and wasnt the property of the shooter, so no law would have saved the firemans lives. I will say, had the shooter been using a shotgun with slugs, which are plenty accurate at 100yrds, the 2 men that were only wounded would likely have died, so which is more deadly?

All these points can be argued all day by both sides, in the end, its the guy behind the weapon that makes it kill people, address that and lives will be saved.

[Odelay]

AR's are hard to find, PMags sold out early last week and people have bought all the ammo they could get their hands on. So, all the cries to ban "assault weapons" has done was get more of them into peoples hands, and some people really shouldnt have then, its not daddies .22. Good job anti-gun folks, you've made everyone more well armed.
Okay, so what are the anti-gun folks supposed to do? Had everyone stayed silent, it seems there still would have been a run on these guns and ammo. It's been shown that more shootings = more sales of weapons and ammo. Why are you blaming the rhetoric.



I imagine this wont get much further than the last hi cap mag ban got in 94, too many people are fighting it. Fingers crossed things get worse in Syria to the media can have that to keep them entertained. Without the media jamming this shit down every soccer moms throat 24/7, most people will stop caring and move on to the next popular cause they can bitch about on FB or at their book club.Seriously? You wish for more bloodshed in another nation so that opinions that are different than yours in this nation aren't aired?


There was a shooting on Christmas eve in Rochester NY, a guy killed 2 fireman and wounded 2 others and before the guy had even been found/killed I heard a reporter say "No word on whether or not an assault rifle had been used". They're just lookin for for shit now. Turns out, an AR had been used and wasnt the property of the shooter, so no law would have saved the firemans lives. I will say, had the shooter been using a shotgun with slugs, which are plenty accurate at 100yrds, the 2 men that were only wounded would likely have died, so which is more deadly?But dont' you have to operate the bolt to load another shotgun shell into the chamber to get off another shot, as opposed to an AR-15 which you can just reel off bullet after bullet on successive squeezes of the trigger finger? Seems like after killing one or maybe two firemen with an "accurate" shotgun shot, that the other 2 or 3 firemen have time take cover.

The more arguments I hear from gun enthusiasts, the less I'm hopeful that any meaningful reform will happen. These are just irreconciliable differences that lead to maintaining the status quo.

[runround04]

Okay, so what are the anti-gun folks supposed to do? Had everyone stayed silent, it seems there still would have been a run on these guns and ammo. It's been shown that more shootings = more sales of weapons and ammo. Why are you blaming the rhetoric.


Seriously? You wish for more bloodshed in another nation so that opinions that are different than yours in this nation aren't aired?

But dont' you have to operate the bolt to load another shotgun shell into the chamber to get off another shot, as opposed to an AR-15 which you can just reel off bullet after bullet on successive squeezes of the trigger finger? Seems like after killing one or maybe two firemen with an "accurate" shotgun shot, that the other 2 or 3 firemen have time take cover.

The more arguments I hear from gun enthusiasts, the less I'm hopeful that any meaningful reform will happen. These are just irreconciliable differences that lead to maintaining the status quo.

Blame? Id say more of a cause for sales.

Syria is goin downhill regardless, I dont have the numbers of any warlords or rebels to speed things up. Ill go ahead and wish for peace in the middle east tho, I bet nobody's tried that yet...

Really? Are you familiar with firearms or just goin of the facts that Fox news tells ya? Operate the bolt on a shotgun? Not often, Mossberg 695 and a few others are bolt guns, but most are either pump 6-8 shells, or semi auto. I could write 3 paragraphs explaining which guns do what, but Im sure you wont understand most of it, which is fine as your not into guns, but that also means you should try to tell folks what firearms do what.

End of the day, the man, not the firearm kills people.

[trish]

End of the day, firearms make evil easy.

[Ben]

Domino liking guns is good enough for me... :)

Domino Presley shooting...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qztXOmjH-OA

[fred41]

Domino liking guns is good enough for me... :)

Domino Presley shooting...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qztXOmjH-OA



Tea cup grip is not recommended.

[Prospero]

If it is people not guns that kill people (yawn) then make it harder for them to kill by taking away their guns. The gun lobby is a brainwashed and heartless cabal of fools.

[beatlephil]

Obama cannot take away guns or bullets with an Executive Order. And the gun control NAZiS know this latest attack on gun owners will be as futile as all the past attempts to disarm us legal gun owners.Their only hope is to try to shame us into willingly give up our weapons and put so much heat on the NRA that it won't go to court to knock down the gun control laws no matter how unconstitutional they may be. As I said it will be futile and I certainly have no intention whatsoever of giving up my gun collection which includes several so-called assault weapons. So long as the 2nd Amendment says I can own as many firearms ammo as I want, I will continue to collect them. And if we're going to repeal the 2nd Amendment why stop there, and lets repeal the 1st and 5th Amendments while we're at it. Either the whole Constitution will stand or it won't stand at all.

[beatlephil]

Obama cannot take away guns or bullets with an Executive Order. And the gun control NAZIS know this latest attack on gun owners will be as futile as all the past attempts to disarm us legal gun owners.Their only hope is to try to shame us into willingly give up our weapons and put so much heat on the NRA that it won't go to court to knock down the gun control laws no matter how unconstitutional they may be. As I said it will be futile and I certainly have no intention whatsoever of giving up my gun collection which includes several so-called assault weapons. So long as the 2nd Amendment says I can own as many firearms and as much ammo as I want, I will continue to collect them. And if we're going to repeal the 2nd Amendment why stop there, and lets repeal the 1st and 5th Amendments while we're at it. Either the whole Constitution will stand or it won't stand at all.[/QUOTE]

[yodajazz]

Obama cannot take away guns or bullets with an Executive Order. And the gun control NAZiS know this latest attack on gun owners will be as futile as all the past attempts to disarm us legal gun owners.Their only hope is to try to shame us into willingly give up our weapons and put so much heat on the NRA that it won't go to court to knock down the gun control laws no matter how unconstitutional they may be. As I said it will be futile and I certainly have no intention whatsoever of giving up my gun collection which includes several so-called assault weapons. So long as the 2nd Amendment says I can own as many firearms ammo as I want, I will continue to collect them. And if we're going to repeal the 2nd Amendment why stop there, and lets repeal the 1st and 5th Amendments while we're at it. Either the whole Constitution will stand or it won't stand at all.

I get the point that you dont want to give up any weapons. But let me ask you if they are secured and non-operable, and that no one else has access to them? You dont have any children or youth relatives, is one main category of people. I take it that you are not in a relationship, that would have access to your private info. Do you have anyone that has come into your home that has anger, substance, or mental health issues? A more general question is just about safety in general? Would people be more safe, if everyone carried assault weapons? Should pre-schoolers be allowed to carry them. My point is that at some point there should be some limitations of weaponry, in the hands of people. So why not look at adjusting the boundaries for the sake of safety?

[muh_muh]

And if we're going to repeal the 2nd Amendment why stop there, and lets repeal the 1st and 5th Amendments while we're at it. Either the whole Constitution will stand or it won't stand at all.

thats not how amendments work

Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-first_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[robertlouis]

Obama cannot take away guns or bullets with an Executive Order. And the gun control NAZIS know this latest attack on gun owners will be as futile as all the past attempts to disarm us legal gun owners.Their only hope is to try to shame us into willingly give up our weapons and put so much heat on the NRA that it won't go to court to knock down the gun control laws no matter how unconstitutional they may be. As I said it will be futile and I certainly have no intention whatsoever of giving up my gun collection which includes several so-called assault weapons. So long as the 2nd Amendment says I can own as many firearms and as much ammo as I want, I will continue to collect them. And if we're going to repeal the 2nd Amendment why stop there, and lets repeal the 1st and 5th Amendments while we're at it. Either the whole Constitution will stand or it won't stand at all.[/QUOTE]

I don't favour a total ban simply because at a practical level it's unenforceable, and in the context of the US's historical culture it would not be accepted. Here in the UK we have tightened our gun control laws with each successive mass killing - three in the last thirty years - because it fits in with our cultural norms and history, and the vast majority of people are entirely supportive of laws which give us amongst the toughest gun controls in the world. We feel safer without guns.

What I can't understand, however, is the view expressed here which instantly assumes that any call for reasonable control, such as a review of assault weapons and multiple cartridge magazines, implies the intention to take away all weapons. That simply isn't going to happen. Yet the hysterical overreaction of people like Phil will not countenance even the sanest review.

What a fuckup.

[trish]

Many gun enthusiasts blur the distinction between weapons and manhood. Giving just a little bit on gun control is like giving up the tip of their penis. The thought of it makes them whine like babies. Nevertheless, there will be tighter gun laws in the U.S. in spite of the Freudian identifications. The patient is already strapped to the table. The nurses are already sympathetically calling him a "gun enthusiast" instead of "gun nut." The patient is wincing. The tip's coming off.

[fred41]

This is what Sen. Feinstein is working on for January : http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=10993387-5d4d-4680-a872-ac8ca4359119



...sorry if this has already been posted.

[martin48]

Many gun enthusiasts blur the distinction between weapons and manhood. Giving just a little bit on gun control is like giving up the tip of their penis. The thought of it makes them whine like babies. Nevertheless, there will be tighter gun laws in the U.S. in spite of the Freudian identifications. The patient is already strapped to the table. The nurses are already sympathetically calling him a "gun enthusiast" instead of "gun nut." The patient is wincing. The tip's coming off.

Do you really believe that any serious restrictions will actually come about? Surely, we have been here before - public memories are very short.

[trish]

Do you really believe that any serious restrictions will actually come about?... Depends on how seriously one takes circumcision. The NRA is still a wealthy lobby and they will put the brakes on any sort of regulation. But the violent deaths of more than a score of first grade children mowed down by semiautomatic weapons fire is not an easy image for the NRA to live down.

My Father belonged to the NRA when it was a organization devoted to promoting hunting, the preservation of game-lands and gun-safety. In the sixties the NRA actually supported firearms regulation in the interest of public safety. The ordinary membership hardly noticed when the organization was taken over by survivalist nuts and became the tool of firearms manufacturers. Those who did notice quit. Those who didn't are now learning to their dismay just what kind of crazy organization they've been paying dues to.

[maxpower]

Guns kill people, in one chilling graph. - Washington Post by Ezra Klein

This isn’t the merriest graphic we’ve ever posted, but it’s important. The Washington Post’s Todd Lindeman picked through the data on the cause of violent deaths by age and illustrated the results. He included a separate category for suicides, which is important because those are more common than homicides. The results are sobering:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/26/guns-kill-people-in-one-chilling-graph/?tid=pm_business_pop

[maxpower]

Study shows restrictions reduce gun deaths. - CT POST Bob Egelko

States with the most restrictive laws, including Connecticut and California, have lower rates of gun-related deaths, while states with few limits on firearms have the highest rates.


http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Study-shows-restrictions-reduce-gun-deaths-4147569.php#ixzz2GDhtbwah

[maxpower]

Legal Curbs Said to Hamper A.T.F. in Gun Inquiries - NY Times By Erica Goode and Sheryl Gay Stolberg

Law enforcement officials say that in theory the A.T.F. could take a lead role in reducing gun crime, but that it is hampered by politically driven laws and by the ferocity of the debate over gun regulation.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/us/legislative-handcuffs-limit-atfs-ability-to-fight-gun-crime.html

[maxpower]

Silencing the Science on Gun Research - FREE ONLINE FIRST JAMA by Arthur L. Kellermann, MD, MPH; Frederick P. Rivara, MD, MPH

The nation might be in a better position to act if medical and public health researchers had continued to study these issues as diligently as some of us did between 1985 and 1997. But in 1996, pro-gun members of Congress mounted an all-out effort to eliminate the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Although they failed to defund the center, the House of Representatives removed $2.6 million from the CDC's budget—precisely the amount the agency had spent on firearm injury research the previous year. Funding was restored in joint conference committee, but the money was earmarked for traumatic brain injury. The effect was sharply reduced support for firearm injury research.
To ensure that the CDC and its grantees got the message, the following language was added to the final appropriation: “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”


http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1487470

[martin48]

This seems like a good summary of some of the many questions:

Why can’t the US just ban guns?
The US Constitution prohibits Federal government and States from completely banning gun ownership. Despite the popularity of this statement, gun owner was actually a grey area until 2008, when the US Supreme Court ruled that gun ownership was actually an individual right.
However, this ruling doesn’t mean the US government or the States can’t ban ANY gun. The federal government has passed laws prohibiting the sale or ownership of assault weapons, which generally include many semi- and fully-automatic rifles. States can also pass their own laws, which vary significantly. However, the last major federal ban on assault rifle ended in 1996, due mainly to influence from the National Rifle Association (NRA).
Other laws have also been passed, such as the Brady Bill, which governs who can’t own a gun, such as felons, anyone judged to be a mental defective, or a drug addict.

What would it take to get a total federal gun ban?
Two things would be needed.
First, you would need a general turnaround in the mindset of most Americans. In a 2011 Gallup poll, only 43 percent of American thought there was a need for stricter gun laws. That’s a dramatic shift from
20 years ago, when 78 percent of Americans supported stricter laws.
Second, you would need an amendment to the US Constitution. To even start that process, you need either the approval of two-third of both the US House of Representatives and the Senate or for two-third of the states to call for a national convention. Getting the amendment passed is even harder. The result has been that only 17 Amendments have passed over the last 220 years. Given today’s polarized political environment, an amendment would be practically impossible.

What is the NRA?
The National Rifle Association is a not-for-profit lobbyist group in the US, with estimated assets of $280 million. They are routinely listed at the most influential lobby in the US. It was established in
1871 and has an estimated 4.2 million members.

Why is the NRA so controversial?
They are known for opposing any law that would limit or restrict gun ownership. Notably, the NRA successfully opposed a 5-day waiting period for gun-ownership in the Brady Bill, a US law which governs who can be stopped from owning a gun. They also successfully opposed a federal law requiring local enforcement to conduct background checks on anyone seeking to purchase a gun.
The NRA is also known for arguing that Americans should be allowed to have guns to protect themselves from crime - a position many anti-gun advocates argue only increase the likelihood of violence and would be better left to police - and to protect people from governmental oppression. In 1996, Former President George H.W. Bush resigned his membership in the NRA when the group issued a fund raising letter that described federal law enforcement agents as “jack-booted thugs.” NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre later apologized for the letter, saying the statement didn’t apply to “all federal law-enforcement officials.”

Are the NRA members generally responsible for gun crime?
No. Actually, NRA members are usually viewed as being responsible gun owners who take gun safety quite seriously. It is the organization’s active resistance to laws that seek to govern guns that often lead it into controversy.

Was the NRA serious in its suggestions that more armed police officers in school would stop assaults?
Probably not, but they were certainly aware of the unfeasibility of their own suggestions. Due to the financial situation in the US and its impact on federal and state budgets, 53 percent on countries in the US had fewer staff members in 2011 than in 2010. Twelve-thousand officers across the country were laid off. 2012 is also looking bad for local law enforcement budgets. Putting aside for a second the desirability of armed guards in school, police forces are struggling to keep the staff they do have, let along add staff.

Wouldn’t a ban on assault rifles cut down on the number of murders?
That’s hard to say. Certainly a ban on assault rifles would make it more difficult for gunmen to commit mass slaughter, but the main culprit in most US gun crimes is handguns, not assault rifles. While FBI statistics don’t specially address assault rifles, in 2011, handguns were responsible for at least 72 percent of gun-related homicides. Twenty percent of firearms homicide was listed as “type not stated.”

How easy is it to get a gun in the US?
Laws governing gun ownership vary tremendously from state to state.
Anyone purchasing a gun from a federally licensed gun dealer must have a background check. Unless a check find some reason the person should not own a gun, such as a mental disability or prior criminal record, the sale will be permitted. However, an estimated 40 percent of all gun sales in the US are conducted between private parties, which do not require a background check. As of 2012, 156 million background checks have been performed.

It seems like everyone in the US owns a gun. Is that right?
No, 45 percent of homes in the US have a gun, and even that number is often taken out of context. In California, the largest state by population, only 21.3 percent of households own a gun, according to USACarry.com. In New York, gun ownership is only 18 percent. Even in Texas, a state often associated with a pro-gun population, only 35.9 percent of household own a gun. According to the Pew Research Center, 49 percent of Americans in 2011 believes it is important to protect the right of Americans to own guns.

Lost the link I ripped it off!

[Stavros]

A useful set of indicators, Martin. As I argued around the time of the massacre in Aurora, the Second Amendment does not confer the right of gun ownership on individuals, this has been the most profound mistake in American history, but my interpretation of the amendment is not commonly accepted and is in practical terms merely academic and not just because I am not American with no input into policy.

If there were to be a repeal of the Amendment and a new one to replace it, the precision of the language required would be as difficult to agree on as the process of changing it, so I don't see the US choosing to make substantial changes to its gun laws in the near future.

However, I do think that Americans are these days more hostile to gun ownership than before, and that this may make it easier for Congress to make important changes to the law.

This suggests that the change that is most practicable would be minor changes to the definition of the firearms that inviduals can own and purchase, and I think as other posters have indicated that battlefield weapons are on the list of firearms that no individual should be allowed to purchase. How you get existing owners to hand in their weapons of this calibre I don't know.

There is a broader issue here which I don't think has been discussed enough. As far as I can make out, in both the UK and the USA, most gun crime takes place between criminals, and I suspect most of it is drug related, and turf related. The substantial decline of gun crime in Washington DC between the 1990s and the present day has been attributed to a combination of fierce policing and sentencing, but also the actual decline in the use of hard drugs. The loss of a market for these goods has in turn reduced the competition for its control, and thus the cause of gun crime, although I believe there are some situations in which a decline in the market can actually increase gun crime if gangs are competing for a diminishing share of a smaller market and thus need to be even more ruthless in protecting/extending what little they have left; this may be a temporary phenomenon as the market adjusts, although it seems to have had a prolonged life in Mexico, Honduras and Guatemala.

This suggests to me a two-pronged approach to drugs
a) to get the 'conventional' hard and soft drugs out of the criminal market, through controlled legalisation and distribution; and
b) a survey needs to be made of the medically prescribed drugs that are being given to young people in particular who are being diagnosed with 'behavioural' disorders or 'mental health' issues, and whose daily lives are therefore chemically affected.

If these people are also not being given any treatment that enables them to become part of wider society, their isolation plus the chemical input seems to me to be creating time-bombs that in extreme situations are liable explode in violence; and I am not even sure that these people are being correctly diagnosed in the first place.

Removing as many guns as possible from individuals cannot be a bad thing, but unless a better understanding of gun crime informs policy, even removing battlefield weapons from homes will not prevent massacres or claims of 'self-defence' in shootings. Somewhere in the mix, drugs are shaping this issue, so that the US has two politically difficult issues to deal with -guns and drugs. And I believe the US is not alone in this.

[Ben]

Chris Rock - Gun Control - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db0Y4qIZ4PA)

[arsenalfc70]

Gun ban in US is necessary, comparing the data from European countries, its clear that guns are the problem.

[buttslinger]

Gun ban in US is necessary, comparing the data from European countries, its clear that guns are the problem.

I may be wrong, but I think the USA was the first country not ruled by some kind of king. Electing a civil servant was a brand new idea. Just like minimum wage, or tax rates, it's where you draw the line.

Whatever team Obama comes up with, it's going to be practical and hard to argue against. Nobody likes the idea of some guy with no ID buying 30 semi-automatic weapons at a gunshow.

[Willie Escalade]

Chris Rock - Gun Control - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db0Y4qIZ4PA)

I was looking for that...!

[Queens Guy]

[/QUOTE]


robertlouis wrote:

What I can't understand, however, is the view expressed here which instantly assumes that any call for reasonable control, such as a review of assault weapons and multiple cartridge magazines, implies the intention to take away all weapons. That simply isn't going to happen. Yet the hysterical overreaction of people like Phil will not countenance even the sanest review.

What a fuckup.[/QUOTE]



One reason for the 'overreaction' is that some politicians say they are merely in favor of reasonable 'gun control' but they are really extremists that want a 'gun ban'. (And I'm not trying to say the 'gun rights' side doesn't have extremists, too).

The way the 'gun ban' politicians have ruled while claiming to be 'gun control' is the problem.

Until very recent US Supreme Court decisions, the 'gun ban' politicians, who called themselves 'gun control', did in fact ban guns. Their version of 'reasonable' was a complete ban.

In Washington, D.C. a man who worked as a Special Police Officer in federal government office buildings was not allowed to bring his gun home with him after work. He carries his gun on duty. He has cleared a federal background check. Maybe he has even been trained to respond in the case of an active shooter, since he worked at the Supreme Court Library. He has the power of arrest while on duty. 'Reasonably', I think he should be one of the people that should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon. Washington, D.C. would not allow this trained professional to bring his gun home. The city took an extreme position.

Illinois did not allow anybody, including retired law enforcement officers, to carry concealed weapons, until a few weeks ago. The plaintiff in a recent case retired after 30 years as a Correction Officer (Jail Guard) and now works as the head of his local County Jail. It's a civilian position, which does not allow him to carry a gun. Illinois would not issue him a gun permit. Now, 'reasonably' I think he may have a few former customers who might want to do him harm. Even if they don't, isn't he the kind of person we'd want to see issued a gun permit? The State took an extreme position. Not even retired law enforcement officers are issued gun permits. Nobody is.

Actions speak louder than words. Those politicians may think of themselves as 'gun control', but they took actions which are clearly 'gun ban'. Which is why when some 'gun rights' people hear the words 'gun control', they think it really means 'gun ban'.


P.S. The name of the 2 cases are 'D.C. vs. Heller' and 'Moore vs. Illinois'

P.P.S. I'm not a 'wing-nut' gun-loving extremist who sees a gun as a replacement for my penis, or whatever. I think there is a reasonable middle ground we should all agree on. I'm just trying to explain why some people see this debate the way they do.

[trish]

One reason for the 'overreaction' is that some politicians say they are merely in favor of reasonable 'gun control' but they are really extremists that want a 'gun ban'.name names and provide proofs.


'Reasonably', I think he should be one of the people that should be allowed to carry a concealed weaponThere is no legitimate need for anyone to secretly carry a firearm. If you're going to carry, have the balls to carry in the open.

[trish]

Last year the TSA found approximately 400 passengers attempting to board planes with guns. The passengers all claimed they had forgotten they were secretly carrying. This year the number is 1500 guns! Of those 170 were not only loaded but had a round in the chamber. This nonsense has got to stop.

[robertlouis]

Last year the TSA found approximately 400 passengers attempting to board planes with guns. The passengers all claimed they had forgotten they were secretly carrying. This year the number is 1500 guns! Of those 170 were not only loaded but had a round in the chamber. This nonsense has got to stop.

That is a terrifying statistic. What on earth were those people thinking?

[muh_muh]

That is a terrifying statistic. What on earth were those people thinking?

"america fuck yeah"

[fred41]

...just reread what I posted. nevermind.

[Queens Guy]

name names and provide proofs.

There is no legitimate need for anyone to secretly carry a firearm. If you're going to carry, have the balls to carry in the open.


". . no legitimate need for anyone. . . "

Not even the Secret Service when protecting the President?

Most Federal law enforcement agents?

Police Detectives? Nobody? Ever?

[trish]

If you are advocating secret carry for only Secret Service, Federal Law Enforcement Agents and Police Detectives, then perhaps we can strike a deal. Now, how about those names and proofs?

[Willie Escalade]

". . no legitimate need for anyone. . . "

Not even the Secret Service when protecting the President?

Most Federal law enforcement agents?

Police Detectives? Nobody? Ever?

In reply to the full quote "There is no legitimate need for anyone to secretly carry a firearm"...

We already KNOW they're carrying guns.

We DON'T know if the guy in the Cross Colours jacket is carrying a gun or not.

[martin48]

If you are advocating secret carry for only Secret Service, Federal Law Enforcement Agents and Police Detectives, then perhaps we can strike a deal. Now, how about those names and proofs?

Maybe easy to draft a law stating no concealed weapons (except for ...) but think of the lawyer's arguments in court about what is concealed and what is not. Impossible to define and so unworkable.

[trish]

There are already laws that distinguish between open and concealed carry. Just outlaw concealed carry everywhere (with exceptions for Secret Service Agents etc.) using the existing criteria and let the lawyers argue. If the ordinary Joe wants to carry, let him have the fucking balls to carry openly.

[buttslinger]

There is a political slant to this, a long range Obama goal is to waken Rednecks who make 40 grand a year with a wife and three kids, that hey, your concerns should be the exact same as the black man and hispanic man who earns 40K and has three kids. And that every cent you pay in taxes, your boss pays ten. And that many of the Red States rely heavily on Medicare and social services.
But as soon as Obama talks guns, those Rednecks run straight back in line with Rush Limbaugh on their pick-up radio.

[martin48]

16,808,538 applications to buy guns in the US as monitored by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. If they are all approved it would be enough weapons to arm every member of Nato’s armed forces five times over.
Who says the US is not obsessed with guns?

[martin48]

Michael Moore article worth reading!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/gun-violence-united-states_b_2358115.html?utm_hp_ref=tw


Enjoy!

[Odelay]

Last year the TSA found approximately 400 passengers attempting to board planes with guns. The passengers all claimed they had forgotten they were secretly carrying. This year the number is 1500 guns! Of those 170 were not only loaded but had a round in the chamber. This nonsense has got to stop.

Speaking of having a round in the chamber, here's a story where a guy managed to lose his gun in a theatre, loaded and with the safety off, although he claims the safety was on before it accidentally slipped from his holster. Seriously, lack of gun safety amongst gun users is giving the entire community a giant black eye.

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2012/12/tillamook_gun_owner_apologizes.html

[buttslinger]

My friend's older brother was target shooting at his country home, and he shot himself in the leg with an old Army .45...With the safety on.It was a bad wound and he had to crawl all the way back to the house. The cop who came with the ambulance accidentally shot the gun in the house, again, with the safety on.

I am too lazy to look up the data, but I'd take a wild guess that the US has so many shootings is because the US has so many guns.

The Romans used to say the people will never interfere in politics as long as they have bread and circuses. Guns are an illusion of power.

[559alphadog]

I dont mind open carry, i served 6 years as an armorer and weapons instructor, majority of accidents r do to to poorly maintaned weapons maintinance or people who never received proper training and safety classes. I beleive taking away our 2nd amendment will inly bring us closer to becoming a socialist goverment, however i agree that thete r that 1% like in evetything else that shouldnt own a firearm due mental reasons. I own a small armory, ive trained thousands of sailors and soldiers and i know irst hand that people kill innocents not guns.

[buttslinger]

The US Government recognizes that guns are dangerous, they offer a 20 year retirement to those who sometimes carry a firearm, instead of 30. The Armed Forces, Police, Postal Inspectors, Secret Service, etc. turn down many applicants they deem mentally, morally, or emotionally unfit to carry a gun. I'm not sure what percentage. Yet it is totally legal for them to personally buy as many guns as they want.

[trish]

Who says, "Guns don't kill people..."? In the case of homicides, no coroner ever pronounced a human being to be an immediate cause of death nor the underlying cause of death. The reported underlying cause may refer to arteries torn or severed by penetration wounds, blockages caused by lodged projectiles etc.

Bullets are the underlying cause of death in approximately 70% of the homicides in the U.S. Those bullets were fired with guns. Yes, those guns were fired by murderers. Yet as the availability of high tech firearms increases, those murderers have become more efficient: even though firearm related crime in the U.S. is high, the nonfatal firearm-related crime is down.

[Stavros]

If you want to be purist about it, it is the consequence of a bullet at high velocity tearing through human flesh and damaging the vessels, cells, veins, bones etc inside the human body rather than the bullet itself that kills. People who die from malaria often die from liver failure which is a typical consequence of being bitten by a malarial mosquito.

The idea that guns dont kill people, people do is one of the strangest I have heard. Even if it were true the riposte would be -then don't give people guns! But I do understand that if someone was not motivated to pull a trigger the trigger would not be pulled, but this only ducks out the core question -why do people kill?

[broncofan]

If you want to be purist about it, it is the consequence of a bullet at high velocity tearing through human flesh and damaging the vessels, cells, veins, bones etc inside the human body rather than the bullet itself that kills. People who die from malaria often die from liver failure which is a typical consequence of being bitten by a malarial mosquito.

The idea that guns dont kill people, people do is one of the strangest I have heard. Even if it were true the riposte would be -then don't give people guns! But I do understand that if someone was not motivated to pull a trigger the trigger would not be pulled, but this only ducks out the core question -why do people kill?
And why when it's easy to kill are people so likely to do it? Could the average person be a killer if you reduce the effort required to kill and make the deliberative process prior to killing ever shorter? What if people could kill by desiring it at one point in time and the action could be completed just by generating a thought? Who amongst us may have killed if only we had a gun in our hand at our angriest, least controlled moment?

[broncofan]

Advocates of free speech often decry the attempt to punish thought crimes. They say individuals should not be prosecuted for thinking nasty things or saying nasty things. This is true because we all recognize the distinction between thinking and acting. For this reason the criminal law requires both thought and action, because we can't be entirely sure that thoughts are "willed"; does the process of generating them not feel spontaneous sometimes? It is the combination of thought and action that brings culpability which is based partially on the recognition that the actor had a chance to not have done what he did.

It is with guns and high-tech weaponry that the line between thought and action is blurred. When you hold a loaded gun, the action required to kill is a slight movement of the index finger against a slight pressure. This requires intent, but the specific intent is to move your index finger with the knowledge that it will discharge a bullet and kill someone. With such a simple movement putting into motion an act with such permanent consequences, is it not predictable that we hear murderers complain that they just weren't thinking? In truth, they were doing little more than thinking.

[Ben]

Costa Rica Hunting Ban Passed Unanimously By Congress:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/11/costa-rica-hunting-ban_n_2275529.html?utm_source=scribol.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=scribol.com

[martin48]

What you should be worried about in the US!



Who says, "Guns don't kill people..."? In the case of homicides, no coroner ever pronounced a human being to be an immediate cause of death nor the underlying cause of death. The reported underlying cause may refer to arteries torn or severed by penetration wounds, blockages caused by lodged projectiles etc.

Bullets are the underlying cause of death in approximately 70% of the homicides in the U.S. Those bullets were fired with guns. Yes, those guns were fired by murderers. Yet as the availability of high tech firearms increases, those murderers have become more efficient: even though firearm related crime in the U.S. is high, the nonfatal firearm-related crime is down.

[Ben]

The Founding Fathers vs. The Gun Nuts:

The Founding Fathers vs. The Gun Nuts - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBtZ6go_R4g)

[robertlouis]

With visibly unhinged conspiracy nuts like Alex Jones on the loose - who achieves the impossible by making Piers Morgan look like a reasonable human being - the gun lobby needs more credible spokesmen. This man is crazy. Maybe he should be deported instead of Morgan.

yahoo.com/alex-jones-piers-morgan-interview-cnn-rant-on-gun-control-113924767.html#MUeDtfn

[Ben]

With visibly unhinged conspiracy nuts like Alex Jones on the loose - who achieves the impossible by making Piers Morgan look like a reasonable human being - the gun lobby needs more credible spokesmen. This man is crazy. Maybe he should be deported instead of Morgan.

yahoo.com/alex-jones-piers-morgan-interview-cnn-rant-on-gun-control-113924767.html#MUeDtfn (http://yahoo.com/alex-jones-piers-morgan-interview-cnn-rant-on-gun-control-113924767.html#MUeDtfn)

I'm not sure what to make of Alex Jones. I mean, he's entertaining. I don't take him too seriously. But a lot do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKADh_XSsyk

[Ben]

Alex Jones...

Armed Mafia Are Stalking Us: Post Piers Morgan Debate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0sE9hAXXB4

[Prospero]

Wowww......Alex Jones is seriously scarey - and I suspect he has his followers here. He broadcasts to millions, god help us. Little children die, but these nutjobs insist they've the right to own military style guns Jones is unhinged and his bellicosity is truly frightening.

I have just spent nearly a month in the US and it terrifying to see the level of violent hatred and ignorance levelled by the gun lobby against anyone who dares to suggest that there be any further restrictions on guns.

AI remained convinced, as i was on the day of the Sandy Hook slaughter that there will be no successful move to limit this madness. The NRA is too powerful - and the new Congress will blockl all and any attempts to dent this growing madness.

The next big shooting - thirty, forty, fifty deaths?. No chance of change following that either.

The second amendment calls for the right of a "well regulated militia" to have guns - not every ordinary man and woman on the street.

[NYBURBS]

The Founding Fathers vs. The Gun Nuts:

The Founding Fathers vs. The Gun Nuts - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBtZ6go_R4g)

Some quotes which would seem to refute much of what he claims about the Founding Fathers and early America's perception about the right to keep and bear arms:

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal to Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950] )

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
(James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee - Delegate to the Second Continental Congress
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788) -PA Delegate to the Continental Congress

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)

[NYBURBS]

On a related note, I personally think that any bans on certain types of firearms or magazines should also apply to both federal and state law enforcement agencies. If something is truly a "weapon of war" then the FBI and state/local police have no business owning it either.

[Dave32111]

~snip~
The second amendment calls for the right of a "well regulated militia" to have guns - not every ordinary man and woman on the street.

That's not even how it reads - perhaps you missed the USSC clarification of an individual's right to possess arms? Wiki of DC v. Heller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller)

[broncofan]

We can see in NYBURBS post that the concerns of the founding fathers was of tyranny. Militias are formed by ordinary citizens, but it is no longer plausible for a militia to oppose the U.S government with anything like success. Should they also have the right to possess tanks, cruise missiles, f-16's?

With the passage of the 2nd amendment I doubt there was any consideration of these weapons being used in public to cause mass fatalities in such a short period of time.

I also love the conditional statement by NYBURBS about law enforcement. IF they are weapons of war then law enforcement should not have them? Are they weapons of war? I would assume if a gun is too unwieldy to be used in defense of one's home, not fit for hunting, and has been used to effectively spray dozens with bullets, it is a military grade weapon. This just shows that gun supporters have an unhealthy mistrust of their government, of the society they live in, and of the people who risk their lives to help protect them. Sure, if we're talking about military grade weapons (which we are) then limit their use to the military. I hope our legislators can assuage your fear about local and federal law enforcement so that we can address this problem.

[trish]

The "founding fathers" all had their takes on what should be in and what should not be in the Bill of Rights and they all had their takes on how the Bill of Rights should be interpreted. Those opinions do not constitute the bill, nor are they a guide to its interpretation. We are not bound to the mere opinions that some men may have had two hundred years ago, founders or not. We are bound to the law not as it is opined but as it is written and interpreted by the courts. The second amendment is written as, "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." One originalist interpretation would be people can own and bear muskets, the reason being that the people may be called upon by their government to join properly formed well regulated militia in defense of their nation. A more literal interpretation is people can own and bear arms. However, there is no literal prohibition placed on the federal or state governments against regulating or banning some types of arms. The amendment doesn't even people can bear firearms, it merely establishes the right to bear some kind of arms. The literal text is so ambiguous it can be used to justify the private ownership of nuclear warheads and to justify the banning of every weapon but sharpened spoons. This very ambiguity is why we have a living Constitution. Each generation gets to decide and interpret its meaning within the confines of precedent, reason and common sense. Arming every school principal with a semi-automatic is antithetical to common sense. Allowing arms manufacturers to dictate public firearm policy through the NRA lobby is antithetical to common sense. It's time to confiscate the "man card," boys and regulate the toys.

[NYBURBS]

The "founding fathers" all had their takes on what should be in and what should not be in the Bill of Rights and they all had their takes on how the Bill of Rights should be interpreted. Those opinions do not constitute the bill, nor are they a guide to its interpretation. We are not bound to the mere opinions that some men may have had two hundred years ago, founders or not. We are bound to the law not as it is opined but as it is written and interpreted by the courts. The second amendment is written as, "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." One originalist interpretation would be people can own and bear muskets, the reason being that the people may be called upon by their government to join properly formed well regulated militia in defense of their nation. A more literal interpretation is people can own and bear arms. However, there is no literal prohibition placed on the federal or state governments against regulating or banning some types of arms. The amendment doesn't even people can bear firearms, it merely establishes the right to bear some kind of arms. The literal text is so ambiguous it can be used to justify the private ownership of nuclear warheads and to justify the banning of every weapon but sharpened spoons. This very ambiguity is why we have a living Constitution. Each generation gets to decide and interpret its meaning within the confines of precedent, reason and common sense. Arming every school principal with a semi-automatic is antithetical to common sense. Allowing arms manufacturers to dictate public firearm policy through the NRA lobby is antithetical to common sense. It's time to confiscate the "man card," boys and regulate the toys.

No you're not bound to their individual interpretation, but it's a far more sound starting area then most places one could look. Aside from that, those lists of quotes were in response to that video where the commentator claimed that defense against one's own government was not a motivating factor in the passage of the second amendment, and the quotes tend to refute that claim. Your argument over how to interpret the constitution is an old one, I don't see myself changing your mind and you're not about to change mine, but I do find it a stretch to think that the meaning of the words in a social compact (aka a constitution) can change. If it could then there'd be little need for an amending clause, or even a constitution for that matter.

[NYBURBS]

We can see in NYBURBS post that the concerns of the founding fathers was of tyranny. Militias are formed by ordinary citizens, but it is no longer plausible for a militia to oppose the U.S government with anything like success. Should they also have the right to possess tanks, cruise missiles, f-16's?

With the passage of the 2nd amendment I doubt there was any consideration of these weapons being used in public to cause mass fatalities in such a short period of time.

I've heard this argument before, and yet I can turn on the television and watch a bunch of rag tag Syrians fighting it out with their dictator or I could go watch some footage of Muslims bringing the most technologically advanced military in the world to a grinding halt. Dictators and tyrants don't kill off their entire population, even when they might be able to, because then they'd have no one left to rule over. Additionally, you can go back in history and see for yourself that every tyrannical government has sought to disarm anyone that might oppose it.


I also love the conditional statement by NYBURBS about law enforcement. IF they are weapons of war then law enforcement should not have them? Are they weapons of war? I would assume if a gun is too unwieldy to be used in defense of one's home, not fit for hunting, and has been used to effectively spray dozens with bullets, it is a military grade weapon. This just shows that gun supporters have an unhealthy mistrust of their government, of the society they live in, and of the people who risk their lives to help protect them. Sure, if we're talking about military grade weapons (which we are) then limit their use to the military. I hope our legislators can assuage your fear about local and federal law enforcement so that we can address this problem.

Idk, are they weapons of war? Having been in the military, I wouldn't call the AR-15 an exclusive weapon of war, but there are many on the other side of the debate who do. Whether that particular weapon is or isn't is irrelevant to my overall contention that if a weapon is deemed to be too dangerous for civilian use, then it shouldn't be possessed by law enforcement either. There has been a dramatic militarization of the police over the past decade or so, and it's not helping to assuage the concerns of many on the gun rights side of the debate. Go watch some youtube videos of police responses to peaceful protests or the way police handle anyone attempting to photograph/film them.

PS- The entire Bill of Rights is based off of a distrust of government. Otherwise, why would we need a guarantee that they won't imprison us without trial or that they won't abridge our right to free speech or to worship as we see fit?

[trish]

No you're not bound to their individual interpretation, but it's a far more sound starting area then most places one could look. Why is it a more sound starting place? Because you say so, or because a slave owning founder who has no comprehension of modern weaponry has a more reasoned opinion on what the modern interpretation should be?

Aside from that, those lists of quotes were in response to that video where the commentator claimed that defense against one's own government was not a motivating factor in the passage of the second amendment, and the quotes tend to refute that claim. I'm sorry but the paranoid contention that citizens need military grade firearms to keep their own government at bay is a testosterone driven fantasy.

Your argument over how to interpret the constitution is an old one, I don't see myself changing your mind and you're not about to change mine, but I do find it a stretch to think that the meaning of the words in a social compact (aka a constitution) can change. If it could then there'd be little need for an amending clause, or even a constitution for that matter.As the meaning and reference of some words evolve, others remain fixed. Meaning shift doesn't obviate the need for amendments. Sometimes the relation between the meaning and the reference of a word drifts to the point that require some contracts be reconsidered. It's not the meaning but the reference of the words in a contract that determine how it is to be practically applied. Certainly the very word in dispute, "arms" has radically changed its reference if not its meaning.

[broncofan]

I've heard this argument before, and yet I can turn on the television and watch a bunch of rag tag Syrians fighting it out with their dictator or I could go watch some footage of Muslims bringing the most technologically advanced military in the world to a grinding halt. Dictators and tyrants don't kill off their entire population, even when they might be able to, because then they'd have no one left to rule over. Additionally, you can go back in history and see for yourself that every tyrannical government has sought to disarm anyone that might oppose it.



Idk, are they weapons of war? Having been in the military, I wouldn't call the AR-15 an exclusive weapon of war, but there are many on the other side of the debate who do. Whether that particular weapon is or isn't is irrelevant to my overall contention that if a weapon is deemed to be too dangerous for civilian use, then it shouldn't be possessed by law enforcement either. There has been a dramatic militarization of the police over the past decade or so, and it's not helping to assuage the concerns of many on the gun rights side of the debate. Go watch some youtube videos of police responses to peaceful protests or the way police handle anyone attempting to photograph/film them.

PS- The entire Bill of Rights is based off of a distrust of government. Otherwise, why would we need a guarantee that they won't imprison us without trial or that they won't abridge our right to free speech or to worship as we see fit?
I agree that this is the purpose of the bill of rights but don't you think that the other amendments provide better protection against tyranny? Trial by jury, due process, privilege against self-incrimination, free speech, protection against cruel and unusual punishment. The 2nd amendment by comparison provides very little protection against the state, except in the most extreme circumstance when having a gun is very unlikely to matter. You can use Syria as an example but it was not a relatively stable democracy or any kind of democracy. The people had absolutely no choice if they wanted to oppose their leader but to resort to violence. The 2nd amendment seems unique in that it pre-supposes the abandonment of every other lawful means of resistance.

In the United States, those who want to resort to violence are the individuals who cannot get their way through the democratic process. Those who oppose many of the laws passed through the legislature, who are upset that their neighbors don't feel the same way they do about every issue. Possessing guns provides very little protection against tyranny and has led to immediate deaths in the near term. IMO this is an insurance policy in which the insurance premiums are just too expensive to cover.

I don't trust individual law enforcement officers but I do have some faith in the rule of law and the process by which laws are passed. I also have faith in the mechanisms in place to oversee and punish the behavior of rogue cops.

Since there is a 2nd amendment, laws cannot abridge the rights that it protects but I think it's a bit of a red herring since banning assault weapons might not be an abridgement on this general right.

But you have to see a sort of contradiction in the concession you make. If the 2nd amendment were really intended to protect individuals against the tyranny of government then perhaps it exclusively protects the right to possess military grade weaponry? This would make its sweep broader but would appear even more unreasonable given the costs and benefits such a protection would create. It would literally turn the man on the street into a walking militia.

[notdrunk]

I'm sorry but the paranoid contention that citizens need military grade firearms to keep their own government at bay is a testosterone driven fantasy.

What is a "military-grade" firearm? Are you talking about a MilSpec weapon? Those weapons are only for the military because they meet specific requirements for the military. Military-grade firearm is an nonsense term because there is no such thing.

Don't be like Carolyn McCarthy when she was asked what is a barrel shroud...:geek:



Should they also have the right to possess tanks, cruise missiles, f-16's?

1.) You can possess a tank. With the right permit, you can operate the main gun. There is a video on youtube of a M18 destroying some things in the desert.
2.) Can't own a cruise missiles
3.) You can own a jet fighter but it has to be demilitarized plus there are FAA regulations.

[trish]

Call them firearms, call them guns, call them whatever you wish...nevertheless... the paranoid contention that U.S. citizens need firearms to keep their own government in at bay is a stupid, numbskull, testosterone driven fantasy. Anyone who subscribes to such a lunatic fantasy should be issued round edged scissors and denied any contact with firearms.

[Prospero]

:iagree::iagree::iagree:
Call them firearms, call them guns, call them whatever you wish...nevertheless... the paranoid contention that U.S. citizens need firearms to keep their own government in at bay is a stupid, numbskull, testosterone driven fantasy. Anyone who subscribes to such a lunatic fantasy should be issued round edged scissors and denied any contact with firearms.

[robertlouis]

Bear in mind that this thread started out scaremongering against a ban that will never happen.

Meanwhile the gun nuts will continue to buy assault weapons with huge cartridge clips and more innocents will die in multiple shootings.

If that's how you choose to define freedom then I for one want no part of it.

[Prospero]

Re the "right to bear arms."

[notdrunk]

Call them firearms, call them guns, call them whatever you wish...nevertheless... the paranoid contention that U.S. citizens need firearms to keep their own government in at bay is a stupid, numbskull, testosterone driven fantasy. Anyone who subscribes to such a lunatic fantasy should be issued round edged scissors and denied any contact with firearms.

NYBURBS might be wrong but he isn't totally wrong. The problem is that the numerous men that helped create this country had issues with standing armies. For example, The Federalist No. 8 called standing armies a "malignant aspect to liberty and economy". You can read state constitutions from that era backing the militia system as the best defense for a "free" state/government. Some of the states (i.e., Pennsylvania and Vermont) explicitly mentions the right to bear arms for self defense too. So, there has always been an innate fear that the "government" could do wrong. American history has shown that it could and will do wrong to its citizens. Therefore, paranoia can be expected when the government starts mentioning restricting rights that have been apart of this country since its founding.

[NYBURBS]

Call them firearms, call them guns, call them whatever you wish...nevertheless... the paranoid contention that U.S. citizens need firearms to keep their own government in at bay is a stupid, numbskull, testosterone driven fantasy. Anyone who subscribes to such a lunatic fantasy should be issued round edged scissors and denied any contact with firearms.

Say what you will, but history is on my side of this argument.


I agree that this is the purpose of the bill of rights but don't you think that the other amendments provide better protection against tyranny? Trial by jury, due process, privilege against self-incrimination, free speech, protection against cruel and unusual punishment. The 2nd amendment by comparison provides very little protection against the state, except in the most extreme circumstance when having a gun is very unlikely to matter. You can use Syria as an example but it was not a relatively stable democracy or any kind of democracy. The people had absolutely no choice if they wanted to oppose their leader but to resort to violence. The 2nd amendment seems unique in that it pre-supposes the abandonment of every other lawful means of resistance.

In the United States, those who want to resort to violence are the individuals who cannot get their way through the democratic process. Those who oppose many of the laws passed through the legislature, who are upset that their neighbors don't feel the same way they do about every issue. Possessing guns provides very little protection against tyranny and has led to immediate deaths in the near term. IMO this is an insurance policy in which the insurance premiums are just too expensive to cover.

I don't trust individual law enforcement officers but I do have some faith in the rule of law and the process by which laws are passed. I also have faith in the mechanisms in place to oversee and punish the behavior of rogue cops.

Since there is a 2nd amendment, laws cannot abridge the rights that it protects but I think it's a bit of a red herring since banning assault weapons might not be an abridgement on this general right.

But you have to see a sort of contradiction in the concession you make. If the 2nd amendment were really intended to protect individuals against the tyranny of government then perhaps it exclusively protects the right to possess military grade weaponry? This would make its sweep broader but would appear even more unreasonable given the costs and benefits such a protection would create. It would literally turn the man on the street into a walking militia.

The 2nd Amendment is unique in that it presupposes the failure of all of the other protections. The other protections are more ideal to a peaceful democracy, but it is never guaranteed that our government will remain peaceful. Moreover, the liberal wing of the country is attempting to do to the 2nd Amendment what the Nec-Cons have tried to do to much of the rest of the Bill of Rights (i.e, water it down until it becomes meaningless). One need only look to military commissions, indefinite detention provisions, and executive assassination orders to see how the government attempts to subvert some of the protections that you mentioned.

Btw, I'm not advocating that people should grab their guns and run out to the street right now. The democratic process is far more preferable in most cases, and I'm well aware of the bloodshed that would ensue if people ever did revolt. I think the main point of contention between myself and some others is that I can rationalize a point where it would be foolhardy to rely on the system any further, and moreover I do think that a well armed populace is something that keeps those with ill intentions up at night.

PS- What I wrote earlier wasn't meant as a concession on how to interpret the Amendment per se, but more of a realist point of view that there will be some changes to the laws that the courts are likely to give their consent too.

[NYBURBS]

Bear in mind that this thread started out scaremongering against a ban that will never happen.

Meanwhile the gun nuts will continue to buy assault weapons with huge cartridge clips and more innocents will die in multiple shootings.

If that's how you choose to define freedom then I for one want no part of it.

Bear in mind that until the Heller decision, there were essentially complete bans to firearms possession in some areas (NYC still borders on being a near complete ban as they make it extremely difficult, time consuming, and expensive to even get a permit to keep a weapon in your home). There is a deep divide in this country over this issue, the only other issue I can think of as being remotely close in divisiveness is the abortion issue. So while you might view much of this as scaremongering, many of us need only look at the law codes to recall those bans, and there are more than a few in this country that would like to see a return to the pre-Heller era.

[Prospero]

And what - leaving your much vaunted constitutional "rights' aside - is so important about owning semi automatic weapons. Not hand guns. Not shotguns. But the sort used by nujobs and fanatcis to carry out slaughters like Sandy Hook. What do you gun owners NEED them for exactly? I'd love a rational argument on this that isn't circular about rights.

Do you really think the US Government is like Syria and about to turn its military firepower on the populace?

[Dave32111]

Since when does "need" drive what things we're legally allowed to have? Women don't "need" liposuction, and yet more die from complications than are killed by rifles - yet you want to ban a subset of those rifles - even when those surgeries are not protected by an amendment to the USC?

Last time there was an assault weapon ban even the CDC couldn't find sufficient data to support its effectiveness. It appeared to mostly be about how scary the weapon looked, as the provisions of the ban talked about cosmetic features.

Let's talk first about the mental health system and making records available nationally for the NICS checks to catch before we make another knee jerk reaction that just helps some of us feel better about something being done.

[Prospero]

Duuhhhh... lyposuction vs weapons whose only purpose is to kill people. Get real. Yes.. I repeat my question. Why do you gun folks need or want these people killing armaments (thus making them available to those with mental problems) . Do you want them just because your constitution says you CAN? In which case would you want flame throwers, napalm, rocket propelled hand grenades etc if you were allowed? Simple question.

[trish]

Your argument over how to interpret the constitution is an old one, I don't see myself changing your mind and you're not about to change mine, but I do find it a stretch to think that the meaning of the words in a social compact (aka a constitution) can change. If it could then there'd be little need for an amending clause, or even a constitution for that matter.
As the meaning and reference of some words evolve, others remain fixed. Meaning shift doesn't obviate the need for amendments. Sometimes the relation between the meaning and the reference of a word drifts to the point that require some contracts be reconsidered. It's not the meaning but the reference of the words in a contract that determine how it is to be practically applied. Certainly the very word in dispute, "arms" has radically changed its reference if not its meaning.

[trish]

Since when does "need" drive what things we're legally allowed to have?Then why do you guys keep saying guns are "needed" for protection? We're merely rebutting your argument, not suggesting a general principle for the creation or dissolution of rights.

[Dave32111]

I didn't. You are not rebutting any argument I've made. Don't stick me in with "you guys" and I won't stick you in with "those guys." Deal?

Why is *that* the question? Why do you feel the "need" to ban something that is causing fewer than 300 deaths every year?

[trish]

Some of the states (i.e., Pennsylvania and Vermont) explicitly mentions the right to bear arms for self defense too. That's an interpretative stretch without having the text in front of you. Perhaps they meant defense against indians, wildcats and bears. Perhaps defense against their own government never even crossed their minds. Once upon a time the violent tragedies of the day were maulings and Indian massacres. Now they are elementary school kids mowed down by semi-automatic gun fire. Once again, it doesn't matter what the founders were thinking. What matters is what they wrote into the text of the law, whether it is still law and if it is, how the courts interpret it now.

[Prospero]

Sorry 300 !!!!! I just checked and in 2011 nearly 32,000 people died in gun related incidents in the US (crime, suicides and accidents)

[Prospero]

And I'd also add that if a rule (even one written by your sacred founding fathers) is now foolish and unfitting for the times, then why should it not be changed? They were not written by god.

[trish]

I didn't. You are not rebutting any argument I've made. Don't stick me in with "you guys" ...Good, so why do you need the second amendment to cover semi-automatic weapons, large magazines etc. etc.? Are you saying there is no need for the 2nd Amendment? The only reason to keep it is tradition?

[trish]

Sorry 300 !!!!! I just checked and in 2011 nearly 32,000 people died in gun related incidents in the US (crime, suicides and accidents)Thank you, Prospero.

[Prospero]

The gun supporting people here have still not answered the question about why they WANT to own these weapons.

[Dave32111]

My point would be that it's a right guaranteed by the constitution - you need to do more than ask why I need one to just be able to ban it.

And please - let's talk about homicides, use FBI statistics. Try this one:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

323 homicides by rifles in 2011. "Assault Rifles" (whatever that term means to you) are a subset of that category. Violent crime is still decreasing every year, but you want to ban a tiny portion of guns? Why?

And finally, because you asked so nicely, I don't need to want one, I own one. I target shoot with it - because it's fun. Why do you go fishing? Because you enjoy it. When I'm not shooting it, it stays in a safe, where no one has access to it.

[trish]

My point would be that it's a right guaranteed by the constitution - you need to do more than ask why I need one to just be able to ban it.So you can't think of a reason not to ban it other than it's a currently guaranteed by the Constitution.

Why restrict the discussion to homicides? Or even deaths? Or rifles? How about gun related accidents, both fatal and non-fatal? How about rifle related accidents, fatal or non-fatal? How about those involving children? Life is tough. No need to add guns to the mix.

[giovanni_hotel]

Unfortunately, the 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere. But we should have enough public support to get rid of high capacity mags and assault rifles.

There's roughly 300+ million guns in the U.S. owned by private citizens, how do we put that toothpaste back in the tube??

[trish]

Unfortunately, the 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere. But we should have enough public support to get rid of high capacity mags and assault rifles.

There's roughly 300+ million guns in the U.S. owned by private citizens, how do we put that toothpaste back in the tube??Unfortunate, but true. It's a good reason not to break out new tubes and start squeezing them, which is exactly the solution proposed by the gun manufacturers (though their NRA lobbyist, Lapierre).

Besides the ban on high capacity mags and assault rifles I would like to see law that make gun owners and manufacturers libel for injuries caused by their weapons (stolen or not). Currently manufacturers and owners are protected from libel suits! A firearm can blowup in your hand and you cannot sue the manufacturer. A kid can steal a gun from an owner and kill someone, but the owner (as I understand the law) need not worry about liability.

Just as every driver needs to carry auto-insurance, every gun owner should be required to carry insurance on each of his guns to cover any injuries it might cause.

[Stavros]

It might be helpful to think of the USA as 50 different countries, each with its own government and laws. The original intention of the Revolutionary Congress, as I understand it, was that the Federal government would be of minimal importance across the States, and the reluctance by Washington and the first Congress to establish a standing army was not based on defence or security but driven by reluctance to create the taxes that would need to be levied to pay for it; defence issues were a matter for local communities, and because they had already created their own militias, this seemed to be the best form of defence. I don't believe that Congress ever intended individuals to have rights to arms that were greater than the rights of their communities, which is why the 2nd Amendment refers to militias and not individuals; the Heller judgement in my opinion is a perverse reading of the intentions of the framers of the 2nd Amendment, but offers a contemporary interpretation of it that is also perverse, because the nature of the USA as a federal entity has changed radically in the last 200 years, so that the original assumptions of 18th century politics, as well as the technical level of the arms that were available then compared to now, creates this confusion about then and now.

The right to bear arms is linguistically allied to warfare at any level, be it local, regional, national or international, it does not, for example, refer to a right a farmer might have to own a gun to kill foxes. To 'bear arms' is a military term; pioneers who headed out west or who made a living trapping in the wilds will have had weapons such as guns and knives as part of their work, as well as for personal security. They did not 'bear arms'; they just owned them.

Logically, the 2nd amendment should be changed, as it is now too vague and can be interpreted to mean more than one thing, but that is the one measure that I doubt will happen. Individual states will make it harder to own certain types of weapon, it has been done before, so it is not that controversial. But the right to own weapons as a political right in order to deter the growth of tyrranical government does seem to me to resonate with American history, but must apply to state governments as well as the Federal government; but it does open the door for political extremists who may claim any form of government is a form of tyranny and thereby seek to take arms to end it. At some point, democracy at state level ought to deal with these issues, as I do not believe that most Americans hate their government, be it the Federal one, or the state government.

[Dave32111]

...and we go 'round and 'round again - this is why I don't try to get caught up in these discussions - people respond to what they already think. No one's going to change their mind here.

[trish]

...No one's going to change their mind here.
Speak for yourself.

[trish]

It might be helpful to think of the USA as 50 different countries, each with its own government and laws. The original intention of the Revolutionary Congress, as I understand it, was that the Federal government would be of minimal importance across the States, and the reluctance by Washington and the first Congress to establish a standing army was not based on defence or security but driven by reluctance to create the taxes that would need to be levied to pay for it; defence issues were a matter for local communities, and because they had already created their own militias, this seemed to be the best form of defence. I don't believe that Congress ever intended individuals to have rights to arms that were greater than the rights of their communities, which is why the 2nd Amendment refers to militias and not individuals; the Heller judgement in my opinion is a perverse reading of the intentions of the framers of the 2nd Amendment, but offers a contemporary interpretation of it that is also perverse, because the nature of the USA as a federal entity has changed radically in the last 200 years, so that the original assumptions of 18th century politics, as well as the technical level of the arms that were available then compared to now, creates this confusion about then and now.

The right to bear arms is linguistically allied to warfare at any level, be it local, regional, national or international, it does not, for example, refer to a right a farmer might have to own a gun to kill foxes. To 'bear arms' is a military term; pioneers who headed out west or who made a living trapping in the wilds will have had weapons such as guns and knives as part of their work, as well as for personal security. They did not 'bear arms'; they just owned them.

Logically, the 2nd amendment should be changed, as it is now too vague and can be interpreted to mean more than one thing, but that is the one measure that I doubt will happen. Individual states will make it harder to own certain types of weapon, it has been done before, so it is not that controversial. But the right to own weapons as a political right in order to deter the growth of tyrranical government does seem to me to resonate with American history, but must apply to state governments as well as the Federal government; but it does open the door for political extremists who may claim any form of government is a form of tyranny and thereby seek to take arms to end it. At some point, democracy at state level ought to deal with these issues, as I do not believe that most Americans hate their government, be it the Federal one, or the state government.
Nicely done.

[notdrunk]

It might be helpful to think of the USA as 50 different countries, each with its own government and laws. The original intention of the Revolutionary Congress, as I understand it, was that the Federal government would be of minimal importance across the States, and the reluctance by Washington and the first Congress to establish a standing army was not based on defence or security but driven by reluctance to create the taxes that would need to be levied to pay for it; defence issues were a matter for local communities, and because they had already created their own militias, this seemed to be the best form of defence. I don't believe that Congress ever intended individuals to have rights to arms that were greater than the rights of their communities, which is why the 2nd Amendment refers to militias and not individuals; the Heller judgement in my opinion is a perverse reading of the intentions of the framers of the 2nd Amendment, but offers a contemporary interpretation of it that is also perverse, because the nature of the USA as a federal entity has changed radically in the last 200 years, so that the original assumptions of 18th century politics, as well as the technical level of the arms that were available then compared to now, creates this confusion about then and now.

The right to bear arms is linguistically allied to warfare at any level, be it local, regional, national or international, it does not, for example, refer to a right a farmer might have to own a gun to kill foxes. To 'bear arms' is a military term; pioneers who headed out west or who made a living trapping in the wilds will have had weapons such as guns and knives as part of their work, as well as for personal security. They did not 'bear arms'; they just owned them.

Logically, the 2nd amendment should be changed, as it is now too vague and can be interpreted to mean more than one thing, but that is the one measure that I doubt will happen. Individual states will make it harder to own certain types of weapon, it has been done before, so it is not that controversial. But the right to own weapons as a political right in order to deter the growth of tyrranical government does seem to me to resonate with American history, but must apply to state governments as well as the Federal government; but it does open the door for political extremists who may claim any form of government is a form of tyranny and thereby seek to take arms to end it. At some point, democracy at state level ought to deal with these issues, as I do not believe that most Americans hate their government, be it the Federal one, or the state government.

Shays Rebellion happened during the era of the Articles of Confederation. It was successfully put down by the militia. The First American Regiment (the small standing "army" at the time) didn't participate because it was assigned to the Western Frontier. The rebellion showed the weakness of the Articles of Confederation. The Army didn't expand until after the Battle of the Wabash in 1791. It was an embarrassing defeat against the Indian tribes. The battle led to the creation of the Legion of the United States and passage of the Militia Acts of 1792. After a few years, the Legion of the United States was reorganized into four regiments. The US had its first official standing army but it was small. The Government relied on the militia for 100+ years and it still does to a certain extent.

Bear arms isn't an exclusive military term. The following is from the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776:



XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Notice the right to bear arms for self defense?

How about the Connecticut Constitution of 1818:



Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

Notice again the right to bear arms for defense of oneself and the state?

By the way, under Federal law, healthy men between the ages of 17 and 45 are apart of the unorganized militia.

[NYBURBS]

And what - leaving your much vaunted constitutional "rights' aside - is so important about owning semi automatic weapons. Not hand guns. Not shotguns. But the sort used by nujobs and fanatcis to carry out slaughters like Sandy Hook. What do you gun owners NEED them for exactly? I'd love a rational argument on this that isn't circular about rights.

Do you really think the US Government is like Syria and about to turn its military firepower on the populace?

Do you actually know what a semi-automatic weapon is? Have you ever used one? Most handguns now are also semi-automatic. Just an FYI there.

[trish]

Another school shooting today.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/01/lapd-taft-school-shooting.html

Luckily no one killed.

Another reason to tighten firearm regulation. Still no reason given for the status quo other than "some two hundred year old men living under entirely different circumstances with entirely different weapons technology gave me the right to carry firearms they never heard of."

[notdrunk]

Another school shooting today.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/01/lapd-taft-school-shooting.html

Luckily no one killed.

Another reason to tighten firearm regulation. Still no reason given for the status quo other than "some two hundred year old men living under entirely different circumstances with entirely different weapons technology gave me the right to carry firearms they never heard of."

Tighten how? He was armed with a shotgun.

P.S.,

The Brady Campaign ranked California as number one with the strongest gun laws in the country. Those old men probably would know what a shotgun could do because there were buck and ball load for their muskets.

[robertlouis]

Tighten how? He was armed with a shotgun.

P.S.,

The Brady Campaign ranked California as number one with the strongest gun laws in the country. Those old men probably would know what a shotgun could do because there were buck and ball load for their muskets.

Which begs the question - WTF was he doing in a school carrying a loaded shotgun in the first place?

[notdrunk]

Which begs the question - WTF was he doing in a school carrying a loaded shotgun in the first place?

Looks like he wanted to kill somebody. He probably stole it from a family member similar to what happened at the Red Lake reservation.

[robertlouis]

Looks like he wanted to kill somebody. He probably stole it from a family member similar to what happened at the Red Lake reservation.

My point exactly. In a society without such casual access to firearms, the chances of it happening are hugely reduced. It simply doesn't happen here in the UK.

[robertlouis]

Wowww......Alex Jones is seriously scarey - and I suspect he has his followers here. He broadcasts to millions, god help us. Little children die, but these nutjobs insist they've the right to own military style guns Jones is unhinged and his bellicosity is truly frightening.

I have just spent nearly a month in the US and it terrifying to see the level of violent hatred and ignorance levelled by the gun lobby against anyone who dares to suggest that there be any further restrictions on guns.

AI remained convinced, as i was on the day of the Sandy Hook slaughter that there will be no successful move to limit this madness. The NRA is too powerful - and the new Congress will blockl all and any attempts to dent this growing madness.

The next big shooting - thirty, forty, fifty deaths?. No chance of change following that either.

The second amendment calls for the right of a "well regulated militia" to have guns - not every ordinary man and woman on the street.

Alex Jones proudly proclaims that he has a personal arsenal of more then 50 guns, including assault and semi-automatic weapons. There's the argument for gun control right there. He's visibly unhinged, yet Texas (and it would have to be good ol' Tejas), is quite happy to allow him to amass enough weaponry to start his own war.

For fucks sake America.

[notdrunk]

My point exactly. In a society without such casual access to firearms, the chances of it happening are hugely reduced. It simply doesn't happen here in the UK.

Do you remember the Cumbria shootings in 2010? So, it does happen in your country. The history and demographics between our countries are different; therefore, it foolish to compare the two.

[robertlouis]

Do you remember the Cumbria shootings in 2010? So, it does happen in your country. The history and demographics between our countries are different; therefore, it foolish to compare the two.

Of course I do. My point is that since the Dunblane horror in 1996 when firearm controls were tightened up there has been no repetition of shootings on school premises.

And I also accept that the differences between our countries in regard to gun ownership are huge. However, please take on board that the last time there was a school shooting here, the government responded, with public support, by removing handgun possession from homes and permitting their use only on licensed gun club premises where all weapons are locked in secure safes when not in use.

When there is a multiple shooting here, we do something constructive to make sure it doesn't happen again. You guys do fuck all and then seem surprised when it happens again, and again, and again, and again.....

[robertlouis]

No further comment required.

[notdrunk]

Of course I do. My point is that since the Dunblane horror in 1996 when firearm controls were tightened up there has been no repetition of shootings on school premises.

And I also accept that the differences between our countries in regard to gun ownership are huge. However, please take on board that the last time there was a school shooting here, the government responded, with public support, by removing handgun possession from homes and permitting their use only on licensed gun club premises where all weapons are locked in secure safes when not in use.

When there is a multiple shooting here, we do something constructive to make sure it doesn't happen again. You guys do fuck all and then seem surprised when it happens again, and again, and again, and again.....

The problem with your country's constructive reactions is that it would be considered illegal under our Constitution. Furthermore, the reaction to banning private ownership wouldn't be pleasant. Additionally, it would be impracticable because there are 100s of millions of firearms in the US. Good luck in finding all those guns.

[robertlouis]

The problem with your country's constructive reactions is that it would be considered illegal under our Constitution. Furthermore, the reaction to banning private ownership wouldn't be pleasant. Additionally, it would be impracticable because there are 100s of millions of firearms in the US. Good luck in finding all those guns.

I agree with every point you make. However, the choice in the USA in terms of taking the smallest practical step to place a degree of control on firearms ownership or use lies between strident and hysterical defence of the status quo by the gun lobby and helpless fatalistic handwringing on the other.

The result is that nothing changes, which means that the gun lobby wins every time. And the killings continue.

As I said before, for fucks sake America.

[trish]

And still no one can provide a reason not to tighten firearm regulation other than "some two hundred year old men living under entirely different circumstances with entirely different weapons technology gave me the right to carry firearms they never heard of."

[robertlouis]

And still no one can provide a reason not to tighten firearm regulation other than "some two hundred year old men living under entirely different circumstances with entirely different weapons technology gave me the right to carry firearms they never heard of."

Quite. Where's Jonathan Swift when you need him?

[broncofan]

The problem with your country's constructive reactions is that it would be considered illegal under our Constitution. Furthermore, the reaction to banning private ownership wouldn't be pleasant. Additionally, it would be impracticable because there are 100s of millions of firearms in the US. Good luck in finding all those guns.
The Constitution is a barricade standing in the way of a sensible policy on gun control without doubt. And certainly the reaction from certain segments of the public would be hostile. But if it could be done the result would be fewer needless deaths and a very minor curtailment of liberty.

Very sad that these weapons are so important to some people. I've often wondered what must be missing in someone's life that they witness a tragic event and immediately fear that their lethal toys will be confiscated. There's a whole world out there. Get a hobby. Play golf. Play baseball. Play tennis. Build RC cars.

Why do we have to live in a country where people feel pressure to carry a gun because someone else might have one. Where we worry about open carry versus concealed carry. Where you and your buddies compliment each other on your "sidearms"; like "hey that's a nice sidearm. Next time someone cuts you off you should show it to them." It's freaking pathetic. Take your cool sidearms and shove em. Such pseudo-masculinity is a mental disease. Overgrown fucking children.

[giovanni_hotel]

I'm still shocked by how entrenched the gun fetish society is in the U.S.
There are people in this country who own multiple firearms they NEVER SHOOT. I feel as if there's a symbolism in owning a gun that I'm missing. Is owning a gun that empowering? The knowledge the owner has that he could end the life of another human being in seconds??

Freedom = right of self defense = my kill rate potential.

Confiscating guns in this country would never work because there are too many brainwashed gunowners who would literally be willing to die in a firefight with police than turn in their .38.

The brilliance of the NRA is they've paired their interests with political conservatism, which means half of this nation's political party structure has protectively walled around them until gun ownership in the minds of many has become an unalienable human right.

If another Democrat wins the WH in 2016, I think the wacko right will eat themselves.

[Prospero]

Do you actually know what a semi-automatic weapon is? Have you ever used one? Most handguns now are also semi-automatic. Just an FYI there.


So many of the pro-gun lobby try to distract from the core issue with this kind of nit picking question. Just because you know the detailed specifications of this or that weapon is really rather irrelevent. The core issue is the obsessive concentration on the right to own these weapons, guns generally, despite the ongoing death count from their use by lunatics. Guns may not kill people, but they make it much,much easier for those who want to carry out massacres to make it happen.

Change the law and, if necessary, change your constitution. As i have said before it is NOT written in stone, You are a large and powerful nation with some of the most talented and creative and innovative minds in the world but you seem to lack the power to control the idiotic impulse to own weapons of death.

[Stavros]

Shays Rebellion happened during the era of the Articles of Confederation. It was successfully put down by the militia. The First American Regiment (the small standing "army" at the time) didn't participate because it was assigned to the Western Frontier. The rebellion showed the weakness of the Articles of Confederation. The Army didn't expand until after the Battle of the Wabash in 1791. It was an embarrassing defeat against the Indian tribes. The battle led to the creation of the Legion of the United States and passage of the Militia Acts of 1792. After a few years, the Legion of the United States was reorganized into four regiments. The US had its first official standing army but it was small. The Government relied on the militia for 100+ years and it still does to a certain extent.

Bear arms isn't an exclusive military term. The following is from the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776:

Notice the right to bear arms for self defense?

How about the Connecticut Constitution of 1818:

Notice again the right to bear arms for defense of oneself and the state?

By the way, under Federal law, healthy men between the ages of 17 and 45 are apart of the unorganized militia.

Thank you for pointing it out, if anything it underlines the violence inherent in American history, in which it is not unique; I would also assume it is uncontoversial to argue that the states of the Union are now so different from the days when a British invasion was a real threat, that the justification for bearing arms is weaker than it was. What remains is the general principle to bear arms, and the nature of modern armaments, I think a justification for both has been weakened by time, but it is for Americans to decide what place weapons have in society.

[Dave32111]

Speak for yourself.

I'm the only one who will. You have made it clear you're not interested in opinions other than the one you hold yourself in this case. I answered your silly question. The USSC has sided with the individual's right to keep and bear arms. Try to deflect this as much as you want, but this is largely a mental-health problem.

Apparently emotion is what is important in this debate.

[trish]

...you're not interested in opinions other than the one you hold...I thought you were going to speak for yourself!


...this is largely a mental-health problem.The mental health issue is a desperate diversion. The problem is that guns are so readily available that even children and the mentally ill have to problem obtaining them.


Apparently emotion is what is important in this debate.Duh...twenty first graders lie in their graves thanks to gun nuts and the NRA.

[trish]

...you're not interested in opinions other than the one you hold...I thought you were going to speak for yourself!


...this is largely a mental-health problem.The mental health issue is a desperate diversion. The problem is that guns are so readily available that even children and the mentally ill have no problem obtaining them.


Apparently emotion is what is important in this debate.Duh...twenty first graders lie in their graves thanks to gun nuts and the NRA.

[thombergeron]

The USSC has sided with the individual's right to keep and bear arms.

The Supreme Court has consistently declined to assert an individual's absolute right to bear arms. Even Heller left many of the provisions of DC's Firearms Control Regulations Act in place. Noted gun nut Antonin Scalia wrote that "military-grade" weapons are not provided Second Amendment Protections. Plus, Heller was decided 5-4, and Stevens wrote a very strongly worded dissent.

It's simply not accurate to say the USSC has decided this and it's over. Heller's attorney acknowledged that one vote made the difference. Indeed, had the Rhenquist Court not appointed George Bush President in 2000, John Roberts and Samuel Alito would not be on the Court, and DC's handgun ban would likely still stand.


Try to deflect this as much as you want, but this is largely a mental-health problem.

Awesome. So we agree that no one in the U.S. should be permitted to take possession of a firearm without a background check and a waiting period, and that we need to radically expand the scope of the NICS. I personally have been lobbying HHS to stop defunding mental health services and research for almost 10 years now. Block grants to the states have been largely ineffective because they're too small and are poorly monitored and evaluated. Currently, states are not required to send mental health diagnoses to NICS; it's voluntary. And though PPACA does include some new funding for mental health services, at the request of the gun lobby, it also includes language that expressly prohibits physicians from asking patients being evaluated for mental health issues about their access to guns.

So the NRA doesn't think it's a mental health problem. I trust you'll call them and register your dissent.

[NYBURBS]

The Supreme Court has consistently declined to assert an individual's absolute right to bear arms. Even Heller left many of the provisions of DC's Firearms Control Regulations Act in place. Noted gun nut Antonin Scalia wrote that "military-grade" weapons are not provided Second Amendment Protections. Plus, Heller was decided 5-4, and Stevens wrote a very strongly worded dissent.

It's simply not accurate to say the USSC has decided this and it's over. Heller's attorney acknowledged that one vote made the difference. Indeed, had the Rhenquist Court not appointed George Bush President in 2000, John Roberts and Samuel Alito would not be on the Court, and DC's handgun ban would likely still stand.


The same could be more easily said about most of the federal regulations and programs that the left wing in this country hold dear. Social Security, Medicare, Federal Labor regulations, regulation of intra-state affairs via the inter-state commerce clause, and the right to an abortion were all products of the early-mid 20th century progressive era, and many were decided by split courts if I recall correctly. That's the nature of our system, and I wouldn't hold my breath for seeing Heller overturned anytime soon.

[Prospero]

NYBURBS... these programmes should be "held dear" by everyone. They are designed to help make your nation a healtier, happier, safer and more just place. Unlike guns which are made for killing.

[buttslinger]

I think it's funny that the pro-gun people are anti-abortion, and the anti-gun people are pro-abortion,... I mean, pro-choice. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness......who writes this stuff?

[thombergeron]

The same could be more easily said about most of the federal regulations and programs that the left wing in this country hold dear. Social Security, Medicare, Federal Labor regulations, regulation of intra-state affairs via the inter-state commerce clause, and the right to an abortion were all products of the early-mid 20th century progressive era, and many were decided by split courts if I recall correctly. That's the nature of our system, and I wouldn't hold my breath for seeing Heller overturned anytime soon.

Oh, I don't expect Heller to be overturned. Not at all. But Dave32111 asserted that "the USSC has sided with the individual's right to keep and bear arms." That is not true. Americans do not have an unambiguous individual right to bear arms.

Various courts at various times have upheld gun bans in the face of Second Amendment challenges. There are many gun regulations that have never been argued before the Supreme Court. And the entire issue of whether or not states can implement gun bans is an open question.

[thombergeron]

For instance, this douchebag just had his concealed carry permit revoked for being a douchebag:

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/20566009/dept-of-safety-suspends-handgun-permit-of-local-man-after-gun-control-rage-video

[notdrunk]

For instance, this douchebag just had his concealed carry permit revoked for being a douchebag:

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/20566009/dept-of-safety-suspends-handgun-permit-of-local-man-after-gun-control-rage-video

Interestingly, that person isn't an unknown guy. He was a PSC in Iraq. He is known for being caught in an ambush that led to the death of three PSCs. What happened is mired in controversy. The story was all over the internet. Plus, he created a shit storm by making a video of people shooting at targets with a cameraman standing next to one of the targets. He is simply a colorful character...to say the least.

[thombergeron]

Interestingly, that person isn't an unknown guy. He was a PSC in Iraq. He is known for being caught in an ambush that led to the death of three PSCs. What happened is mired in controversy. The story was all over the internet. Plus, he created a shit storm by making a video of people shooting at targets with a cameraman standing next to one of the targets. He is simply a colorful character...to say the least.

Yes, I know who James Yeager is, and I'm familiar with his need to draw attention to himself by doing something stupid on the Internet every year or two.

The point being, the state has a right and an obligation to regulate this douchebag's access to and use of firearms, despite the holy Second Amendment.

[NYBURBS]

I think it's funny that the pro-gun people are anti-abortion, and the anti-gun people are pro-abortion,... I mean, pro-choice. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness......who writes this stuff?

Yes, that hasn't slipped my attention either, though I think one could make a stronger argument for being in favor of gun rights since the mere possession of a weapon does not mean someone will die, but having an abortion will always result in the taking of a life. The 2nd Amendment does not abrogate a state's right to pass laws related to homicide, but the abortion cases do do just that.

[NYBURBS]

So many of the pro-gun lobby try to distract from the core issue with this kind of nit picking question. Just because you know the detailed specifications of this or that weapon is really rather irrelevent. The core issue is the obsessive concentration on the right to own these weapons, guns generally, despite the ongoing death count from their use by lunatics. Guns may not kill people, but they make it much,much easier for those who want to carry out massacres to make it happen.

Change the law and, if necessary, change your constitution. As i have said before it is NOT written in stone, You are a large and powerful nation with some of the most talented and creative and innovative minds in the world but you seem to lack the power to control the idiotic impulse to own weapons of death.

I asked you that question because I find many that are opposed to gun rights have never actually held or fired one themselves. Virtually every handgun sold in the US now is semi-automatic, and the police all use semi-automatic handguns. All it means is that when you pull the trigger the spent casing it automatically ejected and a new round is loaded. It is not a machine gun where you can just hold down the trigger and it will continue to fire. And it's not an irrelevant detail since much of this debate is about banning certain weapons because they are semi-automatic.

PS- It takes 2/3 of the Congress to propose an Amendment and 3/4 of the States to ratify it, and that's just not going to happen.



NYBURBS... these programmes should be "held dear" by everyone. They are designed to help make your nation a healtier, happier, safer and more just place. Unlike guns which are made for killing.

Not necessarily, especially since one of the issues is federalism, or more succinctly, limited central government. England has a population of roughly 53 million, whereas just California and New York have a combined population in excess of 56 million people. Correct me if I'm wrong, but many English do not like the EU, and there is a push there to remove the UK from it, partly because you don't trust people in far away nations to make sound decisions for you. Well, that same issue resides here, and some don't really care for a small legislative body holding so much power over so many. So when you look at US politics it's not as simple as "hey that's a good program, people should love it!" because it's almost always more complicated than that. To give you an example, when the federal government decides to raise a trillion dollars in taxes, much of it will come from income taxes. They do it by scaled income levels, thus someone in New York City that makes 71k a year might pay 25% in income tax and someone in Alabama making 55k per year will pay 15% in income tax, even though when adjusted for cost of living they are basically at the same standard of living. That inequity is just one of the sources of contention in our politics, and of course I acknowledge that there are actual ideological splits about whether such programs should exist.

[Prospero]

I do realise that, with Congress in the thrall of the ludicrous tea party, many GOP members virtually enchained by the NRA and the public's obsession with guns that a change to the constitution is not likely to happen... probably ever. But that doesn't mean that interpretations of it cannot be considered and that some greater degree of control can be introduced.

[LibertyHarkness]

within 3-4 months it will all be forgetten about and gun sales/ammo etc will be back to normal service in the usa .... then when the next mass shooting happens it will boot off again and the cycle will repeat itself ..

Getting americans to stop owning guns would be like getting the english to stop drinking tea .. never going to happen ..

my view anyway :)

[Quiet Reflections]

I think it's funny that the pro-gun people are anti-abortion, and the anti-gun people are pro-abortion,... I mean, pro-choice. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness......who writes this stuff?
Not always true. I love guns and have many of them but I'm pro-choice and would be considered extremely liberal by most people.

[trish]

I asked you that question because I find many that are opposed to gun rights have never actually held or fired one themselves. Virtually every handgun sold in the US now is semi-automatic, and the police all use semi-automatic handguns.I won't speak for Prospero, but I am a firearm owner and I have hunted with and have fired guns. MANY who urge tightening regulations on guns have first hand experience with gun. MANY of us practice gun safety and wish other owners would be more diligent too. I've have fired semi-automatics but I do not own any. I own an old bolt action Remington thirty 'aught six that has a fixed magazine that holds five rounds. After firing one round, the act of manually ejecting it also loads the next round into the chamber. It's a marvelous mechanism. More you don't need. When deer hunting I have never desired a faster weapon. No hunter worth his salt needs a faster weapon. When hunting fowl and other small game I used a single barrel, single round twelve gauge shotgun. To load you have to break it open, pull out the spent cartridge and shove in the live round. I never need more. No hunter worth his salt does.

Yes, manufacturers are shoving semi-automatic handguns and weapons down our throats and gun-enthusiasts predictably respond to the marketing. But marketing is not what we should consider when designing regulative law.

There is a huge gap between what we can do and what we will do. What I think we can do is limit magazine capacity and require background checks in all situations in which guns legally change hands.

We can also strike those laws that excuse manufacturers and gun owners from liability. Currently a gun can blowup in your hand and you can't sue the manufacturer. A kid can steal a weapon from his grandfather, kill someone and the old fart is immune from any kind of liability. Like auto-insurance, every gun owner should carry insurance on each of his or her weapons. None of these measure comes anywhere closed to infringing on anyone's second amendment rights.

[Odelay]

within 3-4 months it will all be forgetten about and gun sales/ammo etc will be back to normal service in the usa .... then when the next mass shooting happens it will boot off again and the cycle will repeat itself ..

Getting americans to stop owning guns would be like getting the english to stop drinking tea .. never going to happen ..

my view anyway :)

You Brits are endangering everyone with your reckless tea drinking. Someone needs to put tighter regulations on it.

[Ben]

The Hitler gun control lie (http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/)

Gun rights activists who cite the dictator as a reason against gun control have their history dangerously wrong:

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/

[Ben]

within 3-4 months it will all be forgetten about and gun sales/ammo etc will be back to normal service in the usa .... then when the next mass shooting happens it will boot off again and the cycle will repeat itself ..

Getting americans to stop owning guns would be like getting the english to stop drinking tea .. never going to happen ..

my view anyway :)

Libby, I think you're right.
Anyway, two thirds of Americans do not own a gun. I mean, take, say, Alex Jones. He owns 55 guns. Maybe gun ownership is addictive, is an addiction. (So, it's about 100 million Americans who own guns -- or 1/3 of the population. So, it's a bit of myth to say Americans are acutely gun loving, as it were.)
And, too, maybe we shouldn't have any weapons control. I mean, why can't I own, say, a rocket launcher -- ha ha ha!
And, too, it's a myth to believe one can ward off the government, as it were. How is one going to defend oneself against a government drone??? I mean, if the government is coming to get you, well, they'll get you.
I think a lot of gun ownership has to do with stark racism.

[fred41]

Libby, I think you're right.
Anyway, two thirds of Americans do not own a gun. I mean, take, say, Alex Jones. He owns 55 guns. Maybe gun ownership is addictive, is an addiction. (So, it's about 100 million Americans who own guns -- or 1/3 of the population. So, it's a bit of myth to say Americans are acutely gun loving, as it were.)
And, too, maybe we shouldn't have any weapons control. I mean, why can't I own, say, a rocket launcher -- ha ha ha!
And, too, it's a myth to believe one can ward off the government, as it were. How is one going to defend oneself against a government drone??? I mean, if the government is coming to get you, well, they'll get you.
I think a lot of gun ownership has to do with stark racism.

Without looking up statistics...I would say that is probably because a huge chunk of population lives in urban areas...areas that have more police protection, people less likely to hunt...and probably stricter gun laws (which means that they don't have one because they don't like them...it means they can't always get them-legally).

[fivekatz]

IMHO the second amendment argument is weak. The current SCOTUS is staked with conservatives that say they are constitutional literalists but that seems to only be when that stand supports their political views.

The amendment states:

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.

The amendment does not say that the right is without any restriction (types, quantity, need to register and license." Further it suggest on it surface that ownership is part of a well regulated militia (what we today call the National Guard).

In fact, while the language was modified in Senate committee as initial conceived by Madison the intent regarding ownership of arms and service in a militia was considered connected:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

The gun violence problems in this country run deeper than just guns but the ease which individuals acquire guns, including assault weapons is a HUGE problem. So is the glorification of violence in entertainment.

I know it is hard for Americans who are total wrapped up in our "exceptionalism" to accept but of the "exceptional" there are things in our country are exceptionally bad.

To equate freedom with the rights of individuals to own assault weapons and corporate pirates to pollute with impunity and apparent immunity are not signs of a free people IMHO.

You register your car, you get a license for your dog and without incredible restriction you can't own a man eating tiger. So why shouldn't there be limitations on gun ownership?

And BTW the best I can tell for all the NRA goes off on Obama the only action he took in his first term regarding guns was allowing guns to be carried in national parks. While the candidate they chose to support (Romney) had signed tough gun restrictions into law while governor of MA. At this point the NRA is just an arm for gun manufactures and the GOP.

[buttslinger]

Forget 1776, when I was 4 years old in the 1950s (geezer alert) I could roam the entire neighborhood, all the Moms were home all day, they all knew my name and where I lived.
If I peered through my blinds now, and saw a 4 year old kid alone, I'd dial 9-1-1.

I saw an episode on CSI-NY where a criminal made a plastic gun on his 3-D printer.

The future of FREEDOM is going to be a retinal scan that has your entire medical, criminal, and financial history, you'll be able to board a plane in 15 minutes.

Hopefully I'll be dead by then.

[fivekatz]

The future of FREEDOM is going to be a retinal scan that has your entire medical, criminal, and financial history, you'll be able to board a plane in 15 minutes.

We are probably a lot closer to that than we would like, some of that is the expansion of technology and belief that end justifies the means.

The fear that crime in general and acts of terrorism create have done this. Certainly many provisions of the Patriot Act are in total conflict with the fundamental freedoms most Americans assume we have.

But fear always tends to make people infringe or let others infringe on freedom. Our history has many examples from the internment camps for Japanese Americans, to McCarthyism, to Gitmo and the powers of indefinite detainment and warrantless wiretaps on US citizens suspected of terrorism that the Patriot Act permits.

But the creations of the databases you envision and having more sensible guidelines for gun ownership are IMHO two different issues.

The NRA has been quite brilliant in making any measure to create a safer environment around weapons that kill somehow seem equal to an assault on freedom is amazing to me.

Guns kill 4 times as many people on our soil every year as the terrorist did on 9-11.

So basically it is guns 121,000 - Al Queda 3,000. Where does it stop?

I don't know but the way it is right now in the US is crazy and should be an embarassment to every American that a citizen can walk into a school with assault weapons and execute babies!

[NYBURBS]

We are probably a lot closer to that than we would like, some of that is the expansion of technology and belief that end justifies the means.

The fear that crime in general and acts of terrorism create have done this. Certainly many provisions of the Patriot Act are in total conflict with the fundamental freedoms most Americans assume we have.

But fear always tends to make people infringe or let others infringe on freedom. Our history has many examples from the internment camps for Japanese Americans, to McCarthyism, to Gitmo and the powers of indefinite detainment and warrantless wiretaps on US citizens suspected of terrorism that the Patriot Act permits.

But the creations of the databases you envision and having more sensible guidelines for gun ownership are IMHO two different issues.

The NRA has been quite brilliant in making any measure to create a safer environment around weapons that kill somehow seem equal to an assault on freedom is amazing to me.

Guns kill 4 times as many people on our soil every year as the terrorist did on 9-11.

So basically it is guns 121,000 - Al Queda 3,000. Where does it stop?

I don't know but the way it is right now in the US is crazy and should be an embarassment to every American that a citizen can walk into a school with assault weapons and execute babies!

The problem is that you cannot cherry pick which rights you like or dislike. It's like the far right with their attempts at censorship over the years, they didn't necessarily see those attempts as really abridging the right to free speech, but the reality is that it did.

I think 90%+ of the people out there would say there can be some regulation of weapons and gun owners, but the problem is degree. There is a fear, a justified one imo, that if given an inch people will take a foot. At the end of the day, I suppose it will be the courts that largely decide where this ends up. There is still decades worth of litigation ahead of us on these types of regulations.

[jennylicious]

When I was born my father got rid of every gun he had, to protect me and ensure I didn't grow up around guns. It was only when I was 16 and he considered me old enough to respect them that he began to keep them again.

So I find the idea that a mother who had a son with mental health issues and carried on with her hobby as terrible.

It's pretty clear that with all the gun controls that we have in the UK, the circumstances of the Newtown shootings could have been replicated. The gun her used was not his own, and belonged to a member of a gun club. Any similar restriction that was made in the U.S. in the wake of the Colorado shootings probably would had zero influence and would not have stopped this tragedy happening.

Also, nobody likes having power taken away from us. It's in our psyche that when we perceive we are losing power that we resist. If it was put to mandate, I suspect that the vote would be very close, and I wouldn't like to call it. I also think it would be close enough to justify further mandates for some time.

As my father is a gun enthusiast, I remember a lot of what was said when the law came into force in the UK. There wasn't a massive outcry like there would be in the U.S. for the simple reason of our relationship to guns. We didn't see them as some sort of National 'right', but acknowledged it for what it is. It is an instrument of death. It was what it was invented for, and it is what it is employed for.

If the U.S. want to stop further shootings, they need to fix a culture in which the gun is celebrated and desired as it is. The gun is always presented as something 'cool'. Which means people respecting them as a tool of extreme violence, understanding what the implications are, and then realising that they really are not positive items. They may be necessary, but that doesn't make them nice.

If they are necessary, then they certainly don't need any advertising or endorsement. So rather than banning them, how about illegal any positive endorsement of them instead? That means banning the NRA from their gun ownership promotion campaigns, ensuring they focus on their good instuctional work and safety programs. Stopping glossy advertisement. (The fact that Tour of Duty recently removed their web adverts for real guns from their web site is horrific)

If the gun culture in the US is curtailed, it will surely reduce the number of guns around kids everywhere that ownership wasn't necessary.

[Prospero]

Changing the culture is a pretty tall order. Even more of a challenge than restricting some of the weapons in my view.

In the US last week i looked at some of the gun magazines. Apart from the vast numbers of adverts, the articles are either very technical (understandable) or tend to glorify the weaponry - and its role in making America great. The position is essentially an aggressively nationalistic one. Lots of stars and stripes.

In the advertising there were several of scantily clad and glamorous young women - some girls in bikinis - toting big guns - conflating sexuality with weaponry.

[fivekatz]

The problem is that you cannot cherry pick which rights you like or dislike. It's like the far right with their attempts at censorship over the years, they didn't necessarily see those attempts as really abridging the right to free speech, but the reality is that it did.

I guess my contention is that the right as interpreted today by the NRA in fact does not exist. The second amendment does not state that the right to arms has no obligation of registration, nor does it have a restriction on type.

Using the NRA's definition of this right, I have the right to own a fighter jet fitted with nuclear warheads and a half a dozen drones. Not only would I not need a license for the weapons, if I bought them from a private party I would have no need to even have the purchase recorded.

Since the NRA pivoted in the late 70's as an interest group for gun enthusiasts into a powerful lobby for gun manufacturers the issue has become dramatized in my opinion.

It is now painted as a total assault on individual gun ownership as opposed to an issue of having a responsible framework for gun ownership that contributes to the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all Americans.

All I know is that the status quo is out of hand. Far more Americans per capita die from senseless gun violence than any other country in the developed world.

If the assault in Newtown had been by terrorists with IEDs instead of an American kid with assault weapons, the cries for a Patriot Act II would be deafening.

Laws as interpreted regarding guns today IMHO are as out of touch with the 21st Century as were the ideas that women could not vote and African slaves were 3/5 of a human being.

[buttslinger]

Section A of the Washington Post today was all gun talk, some highlights:

Reagan was pro gun control in 1968 because he was afraid of the Black Panthers walking around strapped. Back then the NRA accepted new gun conrol measures because it didn't affect sportsmen.

One of the presidents of the NRA had shot and killed a 17 year old kid, got off on appeal,,,self defense.

The NRA played a big part in Gore's loss for President, they swayed Democratic gun owners in Tennesee and Kentucky.

In the decade 1900-1910 there was ONE mass shooting in the US.
The Brady Bill had seemingly no affect on mass shootings.

[trish]

The Brady Bill was shot full of loopholes (the gunshow loophole for one), rendering it ineffective.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20010322&slug=gunchecks22

[buttslinger]

My damn memory is full of loopholes, Trishikins, but this chart would seem to prove that crazy is here to stay.


EDIT The math on my left chart doesn't add up with the chart on my right.
so nevermind

[jennylicious]

Changing the culture is a pretty tall order. Even more of a challenge than restricting some of the weapons in my view.

In the US last week i looked at some of the gun magazines. Apart from the vast numbers of adverts, the articles are either very technical (understandable) or tend to glorify the weaponry - and its role in making America great. The position is essentially an aggressively nationalistic one. Lots of stars and stripes.

In the advertising there were several of scantily clad and glamorous young women - some girls in bikinis - toting big guns - conflating sexuality with weaponry.

This is what the government should stop. Not their right to sell, or the right to own, but the deliberate glorification, sexualisation, and intrinsic association with national identity.

When the tobacco industry finally admitted there was a link to cancer they said on television that "There would be no Marlboro man". It's time companies took responsibility for how they market guns.

[broncofan]

I appreciate that the cultural dimension is getting a discussion here (see Prospero and Jenny's posts) because there's not a flattering portrait of gun owners to be painted.

To me, the emphasis on guns reflects the frustration and marginalization of many men who have failed to make the transition to adulthood. I know that sounds judgmental, but that's my take. They realize that being an adult man means doing things that don't explicitly call upon their full androgenic capacity like balancing a checkbook or showing up day after day to work. They yearn for conflict, for usefulness; all of the things they thought were going to define them as men when they were kids. They want to be tough, to be menacing, to be the bad boy and not the balding bureaucrat.

The social construct of masculinity is driven by the imperative to push to further extremes of ridiculous and out-moded behavior in order to define one's status as a man. In that sense what could be more masculine than buying a weapon that is more likely to blow off your child's face than harm an intruder? To them, being a man doesn't mean having utility in the world as we find it but in the world as it would be constructed by some poorly adjusted adults nostalgic about their youth. You can't take away their guns because with it you steal away their fantasies.

[Ben]

American author William Blum: "The crazed and the disturbed will always walk amongst us. What we must do is strive to deny them the facile ability to engage in mass murder. Everything else being equal, if the Connecticut killer's mother didn't have an arsenal of guns at home, including an assault weapon, the story would probably have been a very different one. Ah, but I hear you asking – on the left and on the right – so you wanna let the government have all the guns and the people nothing to defend themselves with? To which I reply: Do you really think the people could hold their own in an armed battle with the police and the military?"

[fivekatz]

Great point Ben. The idea that the citizens would over take a government run a muck in armed combat is pretty silly to me. Much more could be done through non-violent actions to bring about regime change should things ever come to a point where it would be necessary.

While mass murder tends to create temporary news cycles that create national conversation about gun safety standards (it IMO the real issue is about public safety not control) only a small % of the 11,000 a year that perish in the US do so in mass shootings.

[Ben]

THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
University of California at Davis Law Review:

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Bogus2.htm

[fivekatz]

Great read. 27 words with so many interpretations...

[rileybrown195]

Most people have very squed perspectives. I understand that someone who doesn't claim a connection to a product or lifestyle etc. doesn't feel the need for that group to defend their ideals. An example of this could be related to abortion or gay marriage. A person that is'nt for gay marriage or abortion is indifferent to the subject when it comes under attack. When a group or gov't starts to make aggressive movements to remove the rights of individuals we must as a society defend these rights. It is clear that people will always kill. The manner inwhich they do it will always evolve. What if the next series of murders of innocent children is performed by doctors. Oh, wait that already is going on. Maybe we should ban that next.
Before long they will ban the size of soda you can drink. Oh, wait that one is being done now in New York. A very slippery sloap. Indeed.

[Prospero]

Thanks for your absurd reductionism rileybrown

[trish]

A very slippery sloap.Slippery soap or slippery slope? In any case I agree, before a surgeon is allowed to wield her scalpel she is required to have an undergraduate degree, a medical degree and a degree in a her specialty (from six to ten years of high level schooling), a year or two in residency at a hospital and a State license (which require her to pass a very comprehensive examination). Can we really ask less of a man who wishes to wield a firearm, carry it in secret and walk among us? The thing about soap is it can slip in any direction :)

[trish]

My damn memory is full of loopholes, Trishikins, but this chart would seem to prove that crazy is here to stay.


EDIT The math on my left chart doesn't add up with the chart on my right.
so nevermind

Forgive me slinger, butt I do have to ask not only the source of your chart, but what it includes and excludes. What counts in this chart as a public mass shooting? Three people in a bar? Ten people in a courthouse? A drive-by killing two people in the street? Do the 2 mass shootings listed for the 1920’s include all the mass homicides carried out by organized crime at the time?

Every generation has its crazies. They are indeed here to stay. But they were always here. Look at America’s wild west (read Blood Meridian). They (the crazies) just didn’t always have access to semi-automatic firearms. In ancient Rome they had knives, swords and clubs. In the wild west they had six shooters. In the 1920’s organized crime was using tommy guns, but ordinary crazies were still using squirrel rifles and cavalry revolvers. Today our crazies wear kevlar, strap themselves with multiple semi-automatic weapons and spew death at a rate of sixty rounds per minute.

The crazies are always there, and imo probably in fairly constant proportions. The frequency of their murderous outrages increases with opportunity. Firearms increase that opportunity.

[buttslinger]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/bill-clintons-over-the-top-fact-on-mass-shootings/2013/01/10/7040d61e-5b7a-11e2-9fa9-5fbdc9530eb9_blog.html

[trish]

Now I must ask Duwe all the same questions, and how many Pinochios should we award him?

[Prospero]

Excellent idea Trish - a teacher in every gunshop. Trouble is a lot are going there to buy guns... :-(

[broncofan]

Most people have very squed perspectives. I understand that someone who doesn't claim a connection to a product or lifestyle etc. doesn't feel the need for that group to defend their ideals. An example of this could be related to abortion or gay marriage. A person that is'nt for gay marriage or abortion is indifferent to the subject when it comes under attack. When a group or gov't starts to make aggressive movements to remove the rights of individuals we must as a society defend these rights. It is clear that people will always kill. The manner inwhich they do it will always evolve. What if the next series of murders of innocent children is performed by doctors. Oh, wait that already is going on. Maybe we should ban that next.
Before long they will ban the size of soda you can drink. Oh, wait that one is being done now in New York. A very slippery sloap. Indeed.
You don't see anything different about gun ownership? You feel it's apt to compare it to the right of two same sex individuals to marry do you?

What is the tangible harm of two individuals of the same sex marrying in a secular society committed to the separation of church and state? Is it similar in scale to the harm caused by someone shooting their neighbor or entering a school and killing children? What is the upside of allowing unfettered access to gun ownership? At least with gay marriage you allow two consenting adults the opportunity to share their lives together in a legally recognized union. The only upside to owning military equipment is the false appearance of masculinity. With such weapons, there's almost no benefit and tremendous harm.

What is the fascination with guns? You say if they are banned other means of killing will be invented. Why do you want to have instruments of death anyway? I'll suspend disbelief. Tell me the role that guns play in your life that you feel so threatened that they may be taken from you. They're devices designed to cause injury or death.

[robertlouis]

Maybe it's time to reflect on the origins of this thread, in which a gun supporter urged people to stock up on guns and ammo in case of an outright ban. As long as that kind of attitude prevails there is no hope of genuine reform.

[Prospero]

Maybe it's time to reflect on the origins of this thread, in which a gun supporter urged people to stock up on guns and ammo in case of an outright ban. As long as that kind of attitude prevails there is no hope of genuine reform.\

Not much....? Not at all methinks. Congress will block any initiatives.

[martin48]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21025626

New game for the kiddies

[Prospero]

Like the Jesuits really... get em before the age of five.

[trish]

Tonight at a community college in Hazzard Kentucky a gunman killed two people.

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/crime/article/2-killed-1-injured-in-Ky-college-shooting-4196961.php

[Prospero]

Trish - the accent should be on the man not the gun. Without the gun he might have punched them to death, suffocated them or some other form of dastardly deed. The fact he used a gun is irrelevant.

[trish]

You're right. What if the shooter had sponges instead of a gun, the victims might have been painfully exfoliated to death.

[fivekatz]

Trish - the accent should be on the man not the gun. Without the gun he might have punched them to death, suffocated them or some other form of dastardly deed. The fact he used a gun is irrelevant.But if he did not have a gun he may have come to his senses before he could complete some other violent act without the benefit of a firearm.

One of the really terrible things about firearms fired in anger is that their damage is so immediate and so absolute. Firearms enable bad people to do really bad things in a split second.

I don't think anybody believes that sensible gun safety regulation would end all violence or even all gun violence. But do nothing is like saying we should not have fire departments because they can not stop all fires from destroying property and that the real problem is arsonists, poorly wired homes and hot dry weather IMO.

[buttslinger]

OKAY,
Over my life most people I've known have had absolutely no interest in guns, some have had guns, and a few were really into guns. I have a few stories that I really shouldn't tell here. I had a .22 revolver that was stolen from my house (for home protection) a .22 automatic that I bought at a gun show and sold at a gun buy-back, and now I have a .38 detective special revolver, which I bought from one of the truck drivers at my old job, no background check, no registration in Virginia. My Dad left us a .25 Luger that a Mayor in Belgium gave him in WWII, and a vintage pellet gun.
One of my best friend's step-daughter was murdered in a December 26 2000 massacre in Massachusetts, she had just returned to work that day from maternity leave. I knew her as a little girl, she was as full of life as anybody I've ever known, and very pretty. The guy who shot her was a stone cold psycho.

Before all you dang bleeding heart liberals point your fingers at hick yahoos as the problem here, remember that there is a FREEDOM precedent in play here, there are millions, literally MILLIONS of decent hard working citizens that consider transsexuals to be human abominations, freaks, mental rejects. Or whores.
Millions of church going Souls consider internet porn to be more dangerous to our children and society than guns are. You've got to know every fifth grade class has that one kid that is opening the eyes of his classmates with computer sites of shemales, beastiality, homosexuality, rape fantasies, BDSM, you name it.

I'm in favor with every little thing Obama is proposing and probably more. I would guess the overwhelming majority of serious gun owners and collectors are. The objective here is not to alienate gun enthusiasts, it's to win them over.

Of course talking about it means nothing if you don't do something about it.

[broncofan]

http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2013/01/john-rocker-holocaust-wouldnt-have-happened-if-the-jews-had-had-guns.html

Apologies if these comments by pitcher and esteemed historian John Rocker have been posted.

Hey Fivekatz, Prospero was sarcastically using the pro-gun lobby's stock argument to show how ridiculous it is.

[broncofan]

Trish - the accent should be on the man not the gun. Without the gun he might have punched them to death, suffocated them or some other form of dastardly deed. The fact he used a gun is irrelevant.
He might have stuck cotton balls in their mouth so their throats got really dry and then forced them to eat peanut butter and they would have choked to death.

[martin48]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21049942

So the guy's trying. Any chance? Or is it back to the Status Quo?

[trish]

(for home protection)I have a coffee maker, the function of which is to make coffee. It works. I use three to five times a day for that purpose.

I have a tooth brush, for the purpose of cleaning my teeth. I use it for that purpose. About as often as I use the coffee maker.

I have locks on my doors, but not to prevent people from entering my home when I’m not there. It’s easy enough, afterall, to bust the sliding glass door and walk through or core the lock. The function of door locks isn’t really to prevent people from entering my home. One might argue they function to discourage people from entering my home. Do they really work to discourage not-so-serious break-ins? Only if someone bothers to try to break in and then turns away. How often does that happen? Face it...most locks never function to prevent entry. So what function do door locks serve? Mostly they function to give people peace of mind. Do they work to give people peace of mind? I would say, “Yes, that why lot’s of people take the trouble to lock their doors...though a lot of people take the trouble.”

Some people tell me they have a gun for protection. Yet ninety five percent of those guns have never been used for that purpose. So what function do they really serve? Like the locks, they merely serve to give the owner peace of mind. Unlike locks, the presence of guns increase the risk of being killed or injured. This risk is not just shouldered by the owner alone, but by everyone in the household, every nearby neighbor and if the owner carries his firearm secretly through the streets, then everybody in the community suffers an increase risk of being killed or injured by a firearm. For the most part guns are not used for protection, they are bought and toted about for the owner’s peace of mind (and also to bolster the perception of his manhood...recall the Bush Master Ad saying as much). But that peace of mind is illusory. The presence of a gun increases the risk of death or injury for every person in it’s proximity.

[buttslinger]

The NRA is not going to say they are only in it for the money, and some kid in Iowa is not going to tell you he wants a gun for KICKS, my point is, what the fuck else does some Iowa farm kid have to do for kicks except fuck a cow maybe?

There was a time when guns really did protect homes, killing Native Americans.

Guns killed those damn British scoundrels in 1776.

Slavery helped turn Georgia Woods into thriving Plantations, paving the way for schools, hospitals, stores.

The Atomic Bomb made the USA THE world power.

Obama is at this moment spending billions of dollars refurbishing our aging Missile Defense System. capable of literally turning the entire globe into a glowing Christmas Tree Bulb for the next thousand years.


Let the poor Iowa farm kid have some fun. the world is a fucked up place.

[trish]

During the last century Iowa farm kids had fun shooting rabbits with single shot .22 caliber rifles. There's no need to upgrade to semi-automatics. Besides, like all other kids, Iowa kids can be found indoors playing video games. They rarely go out except to do their chores.

[fred41]

Well I guess we try here in N.Y.:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/nyregion/tougher-gun-law-in-new-york.html?_r=0

[Stavros]

I heard a programme on the BBC Radio about a proposal in the Journal of the American Medical Association to approach gun violence as a public health issue. The article is linked below, here are some extracts. I think this is a compelling argument, and also if it deals with the lethal connection that seems to exist between people on prescribed medicines for emotional/behavioural disorders and their use of firearms to express themselves...not sure if it would be popular, but should you create taxes for gun ownership?

Extract:

Between 1966 and 2010, the prevalence of cigarette smoking among US adults was reduced by more than half from 43% to 19%.7 (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1556167#ref-jvp130002-7) This remarkable success was achieved by multicomponent approaches across a range of public health domains.2 (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1556167#ref-jvp130002-2),4 (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1556167#ref-jvp130002-4) For example, taxation produced better representation of long-term societal costs in the purchase price of tobacco products and, crucially, secured funding for prevention efforts. Existing federal and local taxes on firearms and ammunition are neither comprehensive nor representative of the true external costs of gun ownership.8 (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1556167#ref-jvp130002-8) A new, substantial national tax on all firearms and ammunition would provide stable revenue to meaningfully target gun violence prevention. This revenue should fund a national endowment to benefit those harmed by gun violence and their families; a sustained public awareness campaign to increase gun safety, reduce gun violence, and assist in recognition of at-risk individuals; and stronger enforcement of existing gun laws. Such efforts would not necessarily be intended to reduce ownership, a key regulatory and political distinction.


A multicomponent initiative to modify sociocultural norms also played a critical role in reducing tobacco use. Through much of the 20th century, cinema, television, and advertisements glorified cigarettes as “symbols of modernity, autonomy, power, and sexuality.”3 (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1556167#ref-jvp130002-3) Strategic use of media, education, celebrities, peers, teachers, and physicians served to shift sociocultural norms toward cigarettes as symbols of “weakness, irrationality, and addiction.”3 (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1556167#ref-jvp130002-3) An analogous campaign could equate gun violence with weakness, irrationality, and cowardice. In today's society, US adults and especially youth view a staggering amount of graphic violence in television shows, commercials, movies, and video games, much of it idolized and glorified. A generation ago, many popular movie heroes smoked. Today, many movie heroes shoot at other people. To protect children, current policies strictly restrict obscenities and sexual imagery, yet remain permissive of gun violence. In a recent poll, 4 of 5 US adults agreed that decreasing depictions of gun violence in television shows, movies, and video games would be “somewhat” or “very effective” at preventing mass shootings; notably, this conviction spans partisan lines


Article is here:


http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1556167#qundefined

[broncofan]

Great article Stavros. If gun violence were treated as an externality and those who chose to engage in the activities bore the costs, their use would decrease.

In addition to taxation, better tort liability for manufacturers of guns would be useful. In the U.S there is both federal and state legislation making it nearly impossible to succeed against a gun manufacturer in a products liability action. In fact, even when gun manufacturers have been sued for promoting the illegal use of their weapons or for profiting from negative publicity after a tragedy, these suits have failed to even make it to a jury. I'm going to be reading a bit more about this in the next few months.

[Prospero]

I believe it is tucked away in the Obama package of proposals that research programmes that look at gun violence as a public health issue - previously blocked by lobbying from the NRA - will now be back on the agenda.

This is from todays NY Times.


What’s in Obama’s Gun Control Proposal
The initiative to reduce gun violence announced by President Obama on Wednesday includes both legislative proposals that would need to be acted on by Congress and executive actions he can do on his own. Many of the executive actions involve the president directing agencies to do a better job of sharing information.
Proposed Congressional Actions
Requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales, including those by private sellers that currently are exempt.
Reinstating and strengthening the ban on assault weapons that was in place from 1994 to 2004.
Limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.
Banning the possession of armor-piercing bullets by anyone other than members of the military and law enforcement.
Increasing criminal penalties for "straw purchasers," people who pass the required background check to buy a gun on behalf of someone else.
Acting on a $4 billion administration proposal to help keep 15,000 police officers on the street.
Confirming President Obama's nominee for director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Eliminating a restriction that requires the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to allow the importation of weapons that are more than 50 years old.
Financing programs to train more police officers, first responders and school officials on how to respond to active armed attacks.
Provide additional $20 million to help expand the a system that tracks violent deaths across the nation from 18 states to 50 states.
Providing $30 million in grants to states to help schools develop emergency response plans.
Providing financing to expand mental health programs for young people.
Executive actions
Issuing a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
Addressing unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
Improving incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
Directing the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
Proposing a rule making to give law enforcement authorities the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
Publishing a letter from the A.T.F. to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
Starting a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
Reviewing safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
Issuing a presidential memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
Releasing a report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and making it widely available to law enforcement authorities.
Nominating an A.T.F. director.
Providing law enforcement authorities, first responders and school officials with proper training for armed attacks situations.
Maximizing enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
Issuing a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research gun violence.
Directing the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenging the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
Releasing a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
Providing incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
Developing model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
Releasing a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
Finalizing regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within insurance exchanges.
Committing to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
Starting a national dialogue on mental health led by Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, and Arne Duncan, the secretary of education.
Source: Obama administration proposal.

and a good edtorial...

Gun Reform for a Generatio


We usually cringe when politicians drag ordinary people onstage for their events. But the four children who appeared with their parents and President Obama in the White House on Wednesday at his announcement on gun control proposals drove home the nature of the crisis facing the country. While guns and gun control have been a subject of debate among politicians and lawyers and lobbyists and pollsters and political groups in the center and on the fringes, our children have been living in a free-fire zone for sociopaths with virtually unfettered access to instruments of mass murder.
Related

It is past time that elected leaders did something about it without worrying, as Mr. Obama said on Wednesday, about getting “an A grade from the gun lobby.” It has been a bipartisan betrayal of the public’s safety, the fault of Democrats and Republicans, and of a string of presidents who have said mournful things after the mass murders at Columbine and Virginia Tech and Aurora and Newtown but did not act.

Wednesday was the exception. One month after the Newtown, Conn., murders, Mr. Obama presented a comprehensive set of initiatives that was, for a change, structured around what needs to be done and not what political tacticians think the president could get a dysfunctional Congress to pass. Mr. Obama can be frustrating at moments like this, and his delivery today was as professorial as ever. But he stepped up to the broader issue before the nation in remembering the tragedy at Newtown.

“While there is no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence completely, no piece of legislation that will prevent every tragedy, every act of evil,” he said, “if there is even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there’s even one life that can be saved, then we’ve got an obligation to try.”

Mr. Obama said he believes the Second Amendment bestows an individual right to own guns. We have disagreed with that position, but it is now the law as judged by the Supreme Court, and as Mr. Obama said so passionately, it should be no impediment to gun regulation.

“Along with our freedom to live our lives as we will comes an obligation to allow others to do the same,” Mr. Obama said, noting that 900 people have died in gun violence since Newtown, a vast majority of them on the streets of “big cities and small towns.”

We have “the right to worship freely and safely; that right was denied to Sikhs in Oak Creek, Wis.,” Mr. Obama said. “The right to assemble peaceably; that right was denied shoppers in Clackamas, Ore., and moviegoers in Aurora, Colo. That most fundamental set of rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, fundamental rights that were denied to college students at Virginia Tech and high school students at Columbine and elementary school students in Newtown; and kids on street corners in Chicago on too frequent a basis to tolerate.”

Mr. Obama’s announcement was preceded by a blast of propaganda from the far right that his proposals would be confiscatory and tyrannical. Anyone who was paying attention to the news in the last couple of weeks knew that this was nonsense, and the proposals announced on Wednesday were not remotely similar to what the gun lobby wanted Americans to believe they would be. They will not limit any law-abiding American’s right to own guns for hunting, or sport, or collection, or self-protection.

The package is a mix of executive orders intended to tighten and heighten enforcement of existing gun laws and sweep away ideologically motivated restrictions on government action against gun violence, and new laws that will have to be passed by Congress.

Mr. Obama’s bills would require universal criminal background checks for all gun sales, doing away with the loopholes for gun shows, private sales and Internet sales that have exempted 40 percent of all gun sales from those checks. He called on Congress to reinstate and toughen the ban on assault weapons that was allowed to expire in 2004. He wants to restore a 10-round limit on ammunition magazines and to ban armor-piercing bullets that are used by criminals to kill police officers. The president asked Congress to pass a $4 billion measure intended to retain 15,000 police officers who are being laid off as states and localities react to the recent recession and to budget cuts from Washington.
Related

Mr. Obama also issued executive orders to make the background checks system more comprehensive and strengthen enforcement of existing gun laws. He is ending a freeze on research into gun violence at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that was imposed by lawmakers at the behest of a gun lobby that is terrified by the prospect that gun violence could be viewed, as it should be, as a public health issue. He also signed an order making it clear that doctors and other health care providers are not prohibited by any federal law from reporting their patients’ threats of violence and that the health care reform law “does not prevent doctors from talking to patients about gun safety.”

Mr. Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden Jr. acknowledged that getting any of the president’s proposals through Congress was going to be a herculean task. Mr. Biden said, “I also have never seen the nation’s conscience so shaken by what happened” in Newtown. We have hoped, too, that the murders last month would finally inspire action, especially if Americans pressured their representatives in Congress to do something about this crisis.

Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden will have to make good on Mr. Obama’s promise to do everything they can to fight for these proposals in Congress — and that will mean twisting arms and making threats to members of his own party as well as to Republicans.

The gun lobby is focused within the Republican Party, but Democratic lawmakers have also been to blame for failing to pass meaningful gun regulations. Already, some Democrats who should be strongest on gun controls are showing familiar signs of weakness.

Senator Pat Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, will be needed as a leader in this effort but has been mumbling about the need to hold extensive hearings. And Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, was making ominous, cowardly remarks over the weekend about tailoring whatever the Senate does to what he thinks could get through a House dominated by the far-right fringe of the Republican Party. He has started to wriggle away from the idea of an assault weapons ban, for example.

This is not a time for lawmakers to do the politically safe thing or the N.R.A.-approved thing, even if they know it is less than needed. It is time to reach for big ideas and strong laws on gun violence.

•

[Stavros]

Great article Stavros. If gun violence were treated as an externality and those who chose to engage in the activities bore the costs, their use would decrease.

In addition to taxation, better tort liability for manufacturers of guns would be useful. In the U.S there is both federal and state legislation making it nearly impossible to succeed against a gun manufacturer in a products liability action. In fact, even when gun manufacturers have been sued for promoting the illegal use of their weapons or for profiting from negative publicity after a tragedy, these suits have failed to even make it to a jury. I'm going to be reading a bit more about this in the next few months.

I think you should thank the BBC as I would not these days check the JAMA on a regular basis. I think the cardinal point must be to find a way of framing legislation that is practicable, that does not focus on ownership as such, and which appeals to the general voter as a reasonable law designed to reduce extremes of gun-related violence. It would even be worth spending a year on it to get it right, rather than rushing in well-meaning legislation that is full of holes. But as Prospero's link also indicates, thinking of extremes of gun violence as a pubic health issue does remove it from the toxic arena of 'ownerhsip is freedom' and focus on the relationship of gun owners to their own societies; much as smoking is about neighbourhood effects as well as on the smoker, and motoring requires adequate roads and highways as well as safe cars, and competent drivers...

[Odelay]

During the last century Iowa farm kids had fun shooting rabbits with single shot .22 caliber rifles. There's no need to upgrade to semi-automatics. Besides, like all other kids, Iowa kids can be found indoors playing video games. They rarely go out except to do their chores.
Most of 'em have fake id and are drinking and raising a ruckus in the taverns on my block. Damn noisy Iowa kids!

[robertlouis]

If the gun lobby beats the President, then shame on you America. Get ready to mourn more massacred innocents.

[Willie Escalade]

If the gun lobby beats the President, then shame on you America. Get ready to mourn more massacred innocents.
That's going to happen regardless, alas... :(

[martin48]

I believe it is tucked away in the Obama package of proposals that research programmes that look at gun violence as a public health issue - previously blocked by lobbying from the NRA - will now be back on the agenda.


•

Yes, that's the way to do it - show the public health issues. Then in 5 years time, guns will not be allowed in public buildings or transport, guns will carry pictures of nasty gun-related injuries, and have health warnings on them as well - "shooting can seriously harm your schoolchildren". That should do it

[Stavros]

I think your sarcasm is misplaced, Martin. Cars kill people but we don't ban cars. But there are driving awareness ads on tv every now and then, and the public health aspect has been enhanced through safety improvements to cars, better roads and so on -but you can't stop someone banned from driving with no insurance, getting drunk or high and stealing a card to go on a 2am joy ride that might kill him/her and anyone else -but you have made it harder. If guns can't reasonably be banned, then the externalities can be dealt with; it will be bureaucratic, but what are the alternatives?

[fivekatz]

I think your sarcasm is misplaced, Martin. Cars kill people but we don't ban cars. But there are driving awareness ads on tv every now and then, and the public health aspect has been enhanced through safety improvements to cars, better roads and so on -but you can't stop someone banned from driving with no insurance, getting drunk or high and stealing a card to go on a 2am joy ride that might kill him/her and anyone else -but you have made it harder. If guns can't reasonably be banned, then the externalities can be dealt with; it will be bureaucratic, but what are the alternatives?Great take!

The arguments that have been mounted in recent years are either that since any regulation or "control" of firearms would not total eliminate gun violence that the efforts would be futile and therefore we must accept the status quo since only a reduction in violence could be achieved.

Why wouldn't we take steps to reduce violence, death and maiming of our citizens simply because we cab't complete eliminate it?

The other argument has been to take the 2nd Amendment and transform it for the purposes of unfettered manufacture and sales. The amendment was a 18th Century expression of a mechanism for states to have militia capabilities due to basic mistrust in Federalism. It did not deal with issues such as registration nor did it deal with types. The NRA interpretation taken to its full intellectual conclusion would be that every citizen has the right to process nuclear warheads and fighter jets from which to deliver them.

[buttslinger]

Let me expound on what I said once before....
I don't mind Republicans clinging to guns and religion, what I really hate is how the Republican Party is in the Pocket of Fat Cats.

Most of the people here who speak eloquently about gun control have been raised in good families, financially secure, well educated. Most of the problems in Society don't spring from the top half, they are born in the bottom half. And unless you can enact a law that makes people earning less than 10K a year behave themselves, crime and gunplay is going to be a fact of life, even if you don't see it in your neighborhood. If you want jails and mental health and education you've got to PAY for it. It's only when some rich kid flips out that people get upset.

Speaking of crime, I've been here almost a whole year and Trish has not PM'd me ONE underwear pic.........I've looked through the rules regs but I couldn't find it mentioned.

[muh_muh]

And unless you can enact a law that makes people earning less than 10K a year behave themselves

you mean like free education and a minimum wage thats high enough for people to actually live off of it?

[martin48]

I think your sarcasm is misplaced, Martin. Cars kill people but we don't ban cars. But there are driving awareness ads on tv every now and then, and the public health aspect has been enhanced through safety improvements to cars, better roads and so on -but you can't stop someone banned from driving with no insurance, getting drunk or high and stealing a card to go on a 2am joy ride that might kill him/her and anyone else -but you have made it harder. If guns can't reasonably be banned, then the externalities can be dealt with; it will be bureaucratic, but what are the alternatives?

OK, it was sarcasm (must remember to be very careful using it on US topics!). Long slow education is probably the best way forward (other than another civil war, of course. But that wouldn't be fair 'cos one side would have 100 rounds per second assalt rifles while the other side had "reasoned arguments") Oh shit, being sarcastic again.

[Prospero]

Yeah if there a civil war they'd reintroduce slavery if they (the red states) won. Alongside african americans would be white liberals in chains. Though of course they would then introduce controls on guns - stop the losers rearming and shooting back. Paradoxical problem for the NRA.

[trish]

Speaking of crime, I've been here almost a whole year and Trish has not PM'd me ONE underwear pic.........I've looked through the rules regs but I couldn't find it mentioned.Fuck the underwear.

[fred41]

Fuck the underwear.


I...uh...*ahem*....what were we...guns right?...can't seem to ...uh..think straight right now.








(I'm gonna vote that "best post in this section..ever")

[buttslinger]

(I'm gonna vote that "best post in this section..ever")

Seconded

[Odelay]

mmmmmm, no panties

[Prospero]

A truly beautiful butt, but does it really belong to Trish?

[supersharpshooter]

Michael Moore: In your mind, somebody might break into your house to harm you or your family. What does that person look like?
Man wearing 'Fuck Everybody' Cap: You.
Michael Moore: Me?
Man wearing 'Fuck Everybody' Cap: Her.
Michael Moore: Her?
Man wearing 'Fuck Everybody' Cap: Him.
Michael Moore: Really?
Man wearing 'Fuck Everybody' Cap: The camera guy. Anybody. There could be a gun in the camera for all I know.

The man wearing the 'Fuck everybody' cap owns a gun.:screwy

[martin48]

A truly beautiful butt, but does it really belong to Trish?


No - she just borrowed it for the day

[Prospero]

Lol...

[hippifried]

Fuck the underwear.

It's about time!

[Prospero]

Sorry to be a kill joy... but a reminder about what this thread is about.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/01/teenager-reportedly-used-ar-15-kill-five-new-mexico/61199/

A 15-year-old was arrested Sunday for allegedly killing a family Saturday evening just outside of Albuquerque, New Mexico, after using the weapon that's dominated much of the gun control conversation -- the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle.

(Update, Monday: What We Know About the Shooter, and His Plan to Shoot Up a Walmart)

Here's what we know for sure: a family of five was found dead in a house in a secluded area just outside of Albuquerque, New Mexico on Saturday night. The bodies included an adult male, and adult female, one juvenile male and two juvenile females . An unidentified 15-year-old was arrested and charged for killing all five people. Several weapons were found inside the house, including a military style assault rifle. Police officials wouldn't disclose any relation between the shooter and the family or any of the identities, either.

Locally, KOB 4 reports the father's name is Greg Griego, a local pastor who works with the fire department, and the shooter's name is Nehemiah Griego. A neighbour told the Associated Press he "has seen a married couple and their two boys and two girls from time to time." KOB also reports police believe the shooter primarily used an AR-15 rifle, the same weapon used by James Holmes in Aurora, Colorado and Adam Lanza in Newtown, Connecticut.

More details are emerging about Nehemiah Griego, the 15-year-old suspected gunman accused of shooting his father, mother, and three siblings to death with an AR-15 — and they add up to a gruesome picture of a teenager with a van packed with guns and a plan to shoot up his local Walmart in New Mexico. Here's what we've learned since the shooting early on Saturday:

Police have released the names of the victims:
Greg Griego 51, a former pastor with Calvary Church in Albuquerque, his wife Sara Greigo 40, and 9-year-old Zephania Griego, 5-year-old Jael Griego, and 2-year-old Angelina Griego.
Nehemiah Griego, Greg and Sarah's home-schooled son, shot his mother and his brothers in their beds multiple times at around 1 a.m. Saturday and then waited for his father, police said. There were 10 Griego children, but only the youngest were home on Friday night.
"[A]uthorities believe Nehemiah then put several loaded weapons, including the assault rifle, in the family van with the plan to drive to the nearest Walmart, gun down more people and eventually die in a shootout with police," report The Albuquerque Journal's Jeff Proctor and Patrick Lohmann. The Journal also reports that Griego called a friend before carrying out the rest of his plan, and that the friend got Griego to meet him at the church where Griego's father was a pastor.
The two guns used in the shooting — an AR-15 assault rifle and a .22 caliber pistol — seem to have belonged to Griego's parents. Griego "had a minor disagreement with his mother on Friday night," The Journal reports, adding:
Authorities believe Nehemiah’s parents owned the guns. The weapons had been stored in a closet, not in a gun safe. They also believe Nehemiah may have had violent fantasies including killing and murder-suicide scenarios for much of his life.


And don't blame video games, because Griego was not allowed to play them. Again, from Proctor and Lohmann's Journal reporting:
Another neighbor said Nehemiah wanted to be a soldier. Although he always wore Army clothing and camouflage, Nehemiah wasn’t allowed to play violent video games, the neighbor said, since the boy’s parents didn’t allow anything “dirty or violent” and limited TV watching.
Griego is currently in a juvenile detention center, and authorities are looking more more information: "Nehemiah Griego was charged with two counts of murder and three counts of 'child abuse resulting in death.' A motive is unclear, and authorities plan to hold a news conference Tuesday," reports The New York Daily News's Erik Ortiz.

[Ben]

The Hidden History of the 2nd Amendment - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK_XfU8Sju4)

[buttslinger]

I remember when the Manson Family was the pinnacle of insanity, but you really almost can't say anything about 20 little kids getting murdered in a school. The Republican Party gets tons of support and affirmation from the section of the country that puts God, Guts, and Guns before logic. But every redneck has a Mom, and protecting kids crosses party lines.

[fivekatz]

I remember when the Manson Family was the pinnacle of insanity, but you really almost can't say anything about 20 little kids getting murdered in a school. The Republican Party gets tons of support and affirmation from the section of the country that puts God, Guts, and Guns before logic. But every redneck has a Mom, and protecting kids crosses party lines.I only question whether a society that suffers from attention deficit syndrome and hardly hangs on to anything past a news cycle will have a lasting memory of Newtown, since it seems neither VT or Columbine made a dent.

[robertlouis]

Sorry to be a kill joy... but a reminder about what this thread is about.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/01/teenager-reportedly-used-ar-15-kill-five-new-mexico/61199/

A 15-year-old was arrested Sunday for allegedly killing a family Saturday evening just outside of Albuquerque, New Mexico, after using the weapon that's dominated much of the gun control conversation -- the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle.

(Update, Monday: What We Know About the Shooter, and His Plan to Shoot Up a Walmart)

Here's what we know for sure: a family of five was found dead in a house in a secluded area just outside of Albuquerque, New Mexico on Saturday night. The bodies included an adult male, and adult female, one juvenile male and two juvenile females . An unidentified 15-year-old was arrested and charged for killing all five people. Several weapons were found inside the house, including a military style assault rifle. Police officials wouldn't disclose any relation between the shooter and the family or any of the identities, either.

Locally, KOB 4 reports the father's name is Greg Griego, a local pastor who works with the fire department, and the shooter's name is Nehemiah Griego. A neighbour told the Associated Press he "has seen a married couple and their two boys and two girls from time to time." KOB also reports police believe the shooter primarily used an AR-15 rifle, the same weapon used by James Holmes in Aurora, Colorado and Adam Lanza in Newtown, Connecticut.

More details are emerging about Nehemiah Griego, the 15-year-old suspected gunman accused of shooting his father, mother, and three siblings to death with an AR-15 — and they add up to a gruesome picture of a teenager with a van packed with guns and a plan to shoot up his local Walmart in New Mexico. Here's what we've learned since the shooting early on Saturday:

Police have released the names of the victims:
Greg Griego 51, a former pastor with Calvary Church in Albuquerque, his wife Sara Greigo 40, and 9-year-old Zephania Griego, 5-year-old Jael Griego, and 2-year-old Angelina Griego.
Nehemiah Griego, Greg and Sarah's home-schooled son, shot his mother and his brothers in their beds multiple times at around 1 a.m. Saturday and then waited for his father, police said. There were 10 Griego children, but only the youngest were home on Friday night.
"[A]uthorities believe Nehemiah then put several loaded weapons, including the assault rifle, in the family van with the plan to drive to the nearest Walmart, gun down more people and eventually die in a shootout with police," report The Albuquerque Journal's Jeff Proctor and Patrick Lohmann. The Journal also reports that Griego called a friend before carrying out the rest of his plan, and that the friend got Griego to meet him at the church where Griego's father was a pastor.
The two guns used in the shooting — an AR-15 assault rifle and a .22 caliber pistol — seem to have belonged to Griego's parents. Griego "had a minor disagreement with his mother on Friday night," The Journal reports, adding:
Authorities believe Nehemiah’s parents owned the guns. The weapons had been stored in a closet, not in a gun safe. They also believe Nehemiah may have had violent fantasies including killing and murder-suicide scenarios for much of his life.


And don't blame video games, because Griego was not allowed to play them. Again, from Proctor and Lohmann's Journal reporting:
Another neighbor said Nehemiah wanted to be a soldier. Although he always wore Army clothing and camouflage, Nehemiah wasn’t allowed to play violent video games, the neighbor said, since the boy’s parents didn’t allow anything “dirty or violent” and limited TV watching.
Griego is currently in a juvenile detention center, and authorities are looking more more information: "Nehemiah Griego was charged with two counts of murder and three counts of 'child abuse resulting in death.' A motive is unclear, and authorities plan to hold a news conference Tuesday," reports The New York Daily News's Erik Ortiz.

With respect, that's NOT what the original intent of this thread was about. The intention of the OP was to urge gun owners to stock up on guns and ammunition quickly in the wake of the Newtown horror before the nasty government could prise the weapons from their cold dead fingers.

And that's why I rather suspect that Obama's defiant declaration will turn into dust and idiots will continue to proclaim their rights to maintain personal arsenals the size of a mountain while massacres of innocents will continue ad infinitum.

America is schizophrenic and paranoid about its mad weapons culture and is seriously, possibly fatally, fucked up because of it.

[Prospero]

You are right RL... I forgot a pro gun person started this thread.Whoops.

[yodajazz]

Sorry to be a kill joy... but a reminder about what this thread is about.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/01/teenager-reportedly-used-ar-15-kill-five-new-mexico/61199/

A 15-year-old was arrested Sunday for allegedly killing a family Saturday evening just outside of Albuquerque, New Mexico, after using the weapon that's dominated much of the gun control conversation -- the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle.

(Update, Monday: What We Know About the Shooter, and His Plan to Shoot Up a Walmart)

Here's what we know for sure: a family of five was found dead in a house in a secluded area just outside of Albuquerque, New Mexico on Saturday night. The bodies included an adult male, and adult female, one juvenile male and two juvenile females . An unidentified 15-year-old was arrested and charged for killing all five people. Several weapons were found inside the house, including a military style assault rifle. Police officials wouldn't disclose any relation between the shooter and the family or any of the identities, either.

Locally, KOB 4 reports the father's name is Greg Griego, a local pastor who works with the fire department, and the shooter's name is Nehemiah Griego. A neighbour told the Associated Press he "has seen a married couple and their two boys and two girls from time to time." KOB also reports police believe the shooter primarily used an AR-15 rifle, the same weapon used by James Holmes in Aurora, Colorado and Adam Lanza in Newtown, Connecticut.

More details are emerging about Nehemiah Griego, the 15-year-old suspected gunman accused of shooting his father, mother, and three siblings to death with an AR-15 — and they add up to a gruesome picture of a teenager with a van packed with guns and a plan to shoot up his local Walmart in New Mexico. Here's what we've learned since the shooting early on Saturday:

Police have released the names of the victims:
Greg Griego 51, a former pastor with Calvary Church in Albuquerque, his wife Sara Greigo 40, and 9-year-old Zephania Griego, 5-year-old Jael Griego, and 2-year-old Angelina Griego.
Nehemiah Griego, Greg and Sarah's home-schooled son, shot his mother and his brothers in their beds multiple times at around 1 a.m. Saturday and then waited for his father, police said. There were 10 Griego children, but only the youngest were home on Friday night.
"[A]uthorities believe Nehemiah then put several loaded weapons, including the assault rifle, in the family van with the plan to drive to the nearest Walmart, gun down more people and eventually die in a shootout with police," report The Albuquerque Journal's Jeff Proctor and Patrick Lohmann. The Journal also reports that Griego called a friend before carrying out the rest of his plan, and that the friend got Griego to meet him at the church where Griego's father was a pastor.
The two guns used in the shooting — an AR-15 assault rifle and a .22 caliber pistol — seem to have belonged to Griego's parents. Griego "had a minor disagreement with his mother on Friday night," The Journal reports, adding:
Authorities believe Nehemiah’s parents owned the guns. The weapons had been stored in a closet, not in a gun safe. They also believe Nehemiah may have had violent fantasies including killing and murder-suicide scenarios for much of his life.


And don't blame video games, because Griego was not allowed to play them. Again, from Proctor and Lohmann's Journal reporting:
Another neighbor said Nehemiah wanted to be a soldier. Although he always wore Army clothing and camouflage, Nehemiah wasn’t allowed to play violent video games, the neighbor said, since the boy’s parents didn’t allow anything “dirty or violent” and limited TV watching.
Griego is currently in a juvenile detention center, and authorities are looking more more information: "Nehemiah Griego was charged with two counts of murder and three counts of 'child abuse resulting in death.' A motive is unclear, and authorities plan to hold a news conference Tuesday," reports The New York Daily News's Erik Ortiz.

Okay, we have this shooter, with five dead, and the other recent incidents mentioned in the article. how many dead is that? Can anyone provide documentation that an 'assault' styled weapon that saved lives, where as a 'regular' gun would not have worked in saving the lives? An even if it did, how many lives did it saved versus the number of recent victims? Bottom line is that we are only talking about assault type weapons. The argument is that their potential harm of taking out a large number of people in a few seconds, is greater than it's protective factor in our nation. We have law enforcement and private security professionals who are trained to provide security.

In the past few days here, we have had two children under 6, killed by gun accidents. There was one freak accident at a gun show, where a person was wounded. One adult was killed during an argument at a bar. So far I have not heard any evidence that the person in the bar would have been saved, if more people had guns. This past weekend, I once again went to a friend's house that lives across the street from a house where one pre-teen brother killed his brother, while handling a gun. Everyone describe them as always together, inseparable. The house is very small. What did they have that was more valuable than the lives of their children? What are the chances of a 'home invasion", vs curious children in the same house? It's about safety. It's about safety, vs risk. Every child should have a chance to make it to their seventh birthday. I say more people should evaluate true safety, in terms of probability, not fear.

[robertlouis]

You are right RL... I forgot a pro gun person started this thread.Whoops.


No offence intended and hopefully none taken, P. I just don't feel that all of Obama's sincerity and determination will overcome the innate madness which demands guns and more guns.

Interesting that Bill Gates stated unequivocally in a recent interview that he much preferred the UK's stance on gun ownership and use to that of the USA.

[thombergeron]

I dunno, RL. Democrats Feinstein and McCarthy reintroduced the assault weapons ban today (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/01/24/lawmakers-to-unveil-new-assault-weapons-ban/). It's been a political non-starter for 8 years, so I think that's some progress. It will probably not become law, but it's been proposed and people are talking about it.

On the other hand, many of the measures that Obama outlined last week will likely come to pass. We will see effective and expanded background checks. We will see increased scrutiny of ammo sales. We will see the resumption of federally funded research on gun violence. We will see increased funding for mental health services and interventions.

These days, politics happens very slowly in the United States. The gun lobby has spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the past two decades buying legislators and stoking mouth-breather paranoia. You can't undo that over night. It will take a long time and tens of thousands more people will be killed. But we are moving forward.

[thombergeron]

Further, less perceptibly but perhaps more significantly, I think we're seeing a shift in the culture, some lessening of the "innate madness" as you call it. From my perspective, it seems that so-called "responsible" gun owners are becoming more and more alienated from the true gun nuts. You saw that when the NRA fell all over itself after Newtown. And keep in mind that, despite impressions, gun owners are a minority of the U.S. population. Most Americans do not own firearms. And polls consistently and increasingly show solid majorities supporting reasonable gun control.

[fred41]

A truly beautiful butt, but does it really belong to Trish?


No - she just borrowed it for the day

Nahhhh....It's hers. Her sincerity wouldn't allow her to post someone else's ass.







...(if it isn't her ass...I prefer she lies and says it's hers...lol)

...sorry,back to guns.

[robertlouis]

I dunno, RL. Democrats Feinstein and McCarthy reintroduced the assault weapons ban today (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/01/24/lawmakers-to-unveil-new-assault-weapons-ban/). It's been a political non-starter for 8 years, so I think that's some progress. It will probably not become law, but it's been proposed and people are talking about it.

On the other hand, many of the measures that Obama outlined last week will likely come to pass. We will see effective and expanded background checks. We will see increased scrutiny of ammo sales. We will see the resumption of federally funded research on gun violence. We will see increased funding for mental health services and interventions.

These days, politics happens very slowly in the United States. The gun lobby has spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the past two decades buying legislators and stoking mouth-breather paranoia. You can't undo that over night. It will take a long time and tens of thousands more people will be killed. But we are moving forward.



You have no idea how much I'd love to be proved wrong on this one, Thom. So I await developments with both interest and hope.

Meanwhile, tomorrow, Friday 25 January, is my big national celebration as a Scot, when we gather in pubs, clubs and private houses to honour our national poet, Robert Burns, by reciting his poetry, singing his songs, drinking whisky and eating haggis, our esteemed national dish.

Now, did you know that haggis imported from Scotland is a prohibited foodstuff as far as the US food and drugs agency is concerned, so if you can lay your hands on a genuine Scottish haggis you would be committing a felony?

And you can go down to your local mall and buy an assault rifle and multiple clips without any fuss.

I'll leave you to add your own expression of irony.

[Ben]

The charming nature of the Republican Party.... I mean, someone like Reagan was a liberal compared to this crazy Republican Party. (Even Reagan in '94 wrote to Congress saying they should impose a ban on assault weapons):
Blaming Black People for Gun Violence - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmHrXpJBs6E)

[robertlouis]

Only in America. I despair.

http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/article_42d81e6e-68d9-11e2-afbf-0019bb30f31a.html#.UQaPRjjHAx4.facebook

[maxpower]

....

[Prospero]

.............

[NYBURBS]

We have law enforcement and private security professionals who are trained to provide security.


And right there is the biggest problem with your argument. You want people to surrender the right/means to defend themselves to the government. Some people are not willing to do that, in fact it looks like a majority of the populace is unwilling to do that.

Also, if a semi-automatic rifle is unnecessary, then why do the police carry them? Are we arming law enforcement so that they can engage in killing sprees? Or is it perhaps because those types of rifles are easier to use and more effective when someone's life is on the line?

Murders involving rifles are a very small number of the overall homicides in this country.

In 2010 there were:

12,996 reported murders, of that only 358 were committed using a rifle.

In comparison, 1,704 people were murdered by the use of knives or other sharp objects, 540 by blunt objects, and 745 from being punched/kicked.

Needless to say, killings by the use of semi-automatic rifles have been over-hyped by the media.

[Silcc69]

....

LOL good one.

[thombergeron]

And right there is the biggest problem with your argument. You want people to surrender the right/means to defend themselves to the government. Some people are not willing to do that, in fact it looks like a majority of the populace is unwilling to do that.

Also, if a semi-automatic rifle is unnecessary, then why do the police carry them? Are we arming law enforcement so that they can engage in killing sprees? Or is it perhaps because those types of rifles are easier to use and more effective when someone's life is on the line?

Murders involving rifles are a very small number of the overall homicides in this country.

In 2010 there were:

12,996 reported murders, of that only 358 were committed using a rifle.

In comparison, 1,704 people were murdered by the use of knives or other sharp objects, 540 by blunt objects, and 745 from being punched/kicked.

Needless to say, killings by the use of semi-automatic rifles have been over-hyped by the media.

This is very confused. You're saying law enforcement agencies are unnecessary in the U.S.? And you claim that a majority of Americans are unwilling to give up their assault rifles? Most Americans do not own firearms period, let alone assault rifles.

We have already surrendered the right to defend ourselves to the government. A monopoly on the legitimate use of violence is one of the foundational principles of the modern state.

[fivekatz]

There is something very wrong in America. Since Newtown, 1,400 have died by firearm. I question your data source NYBURBS because more 358 people died by firearm in Philadelphia, PA alone in 2010.

You ask why law enforcement carry semi-automatic weapons and part of the answer at least in Los Angeles is that they did not as late as 1980's when LAPD was engaged for over 3 hours by two bank robbers armed with assault rifles and multiple magazines.

Why do we have so much death via firearms relative to the rest of the Western World per capita? Now even a left wing extreme voice like Michael Moore points out that other countries have high gun ownership per capita and watch violent movies and play video games.

But the NRA's positions just get too extreme. Today they opposed the idea of background checks. When it is easier to acquire and operate an assault weapon than it is an automobile, something just doesn't seem right.

I don't propose to have all the answers but America's seeming indifference to the obvious issues that guns are posing in our society does not make me proud to be an American.

We must be able to do better as a society than to all "gun up" and put armed guards in every public place all to protect the 2nd amendment which clearly was talking about armed militias not armed citizens paranoid of what their next door neighbor might due.

The NRA exists not to protect the 2nd amendment, they exist to protect the interests of gun manufacturers.

[Ben]

Agony of parents whose daughter, 15, was gunned down a week after she performed at Obama's inauguration:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2270628/Hadiya-Pendleton-Honors-student-15-performed-Obamas-inaugural-events-shot-dead-Chicago.html

[Ben]

Slave Patrols and the 2nd Amendment p1:

Slave Patrols and the 2nd Amendment p1 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lJcyUQ4qhE)


Slave Patrols and the 2nd Amendment p2:

Slave Patrols and the 2nd Amendment p2 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvLDEwf8L3E)

[Prospero]

A survivalist kidnaps boy and shoots school bus driver dead.... having blasted neighbours with a gun over a speed bump dispute. Ongoing....

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/child-held-hostage-school-bus-shooting-091633215.html

[NYBURBS]

This is very confused. You're saying law enforcement agencies are unnecessary in the U.S.? And you claim that a majority of Americans are unwilling to give up their assault rifles? Most Americans do not own firearms period, let alone assault rifles.

We have already surrendered the right to defend ourselves to the government. A monopoly on the legitimate use of violence is one of the foundational principles of the modern state.

No it's not confused and people have not surrendered the right of self defense. I'm well aware of the "monopoly on the legitimate use of violence," but it's my understanding (or position if you will) that that pertains to violence to enforce laws and mandates or exact retribution, and not violence to defend one's self. Self defense has long been recognized in both common and statutory law, and the notion of fighting back against an aggressor pre-dates any form of law that you might point to.

Btw, I never said that I think law enforcement agencies are unnecessary, only that most people would not accept surrendering the right of self defense. Enforcing laws and court orders are one thing, preserving one's right to their own life when under attack though is about as fundamental a right as can be thought of.

[NYBURBS]

I question your data source NYBURBS because more 358 people died by firearm in Philadelphia, PA alone in 2010.


It's not my data, it's the FBI's data:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

Though it would seem the chart I linked just now is slightly different from the one I originally looked at, but the numbers don't change much:

2010 Murders total- 13,164

2010 Murders using a rifle- 367

[fivekatz]

I now see the distinction which is rifle -367 . And I suppose we are to conclude that the FBI's classfication of assault weapons would rifle as opposed to firearms type not stated.

Total homicides- 13,752

Total homicides by firearm- 8,874

So only 65% of the murders recorded were done firearm, not bad....unless you happen tp have been one of those 8,874 poor souls or someone who loved them.

This of course doesn't account for how many people are either permanently maimed, killed themselves by accident or committed suicide with firearms.

Total firearm deaths in 2010 were almost 3 9/11 attacks.

[broncofan]

With visibly unhinged conspiracy nuts like Alex Jones on the loose - who achieves the impossible by making Piers Morgan look like a reasonable human being - the gun lobby needs more credible spokesmen. This man is crazy. Maybe he should be deported instead of Morgan.

yahoo.com/alex-jones-piers-morgan-interview-cnn-rant-on-gun-control-113924767.html#MUeDtfn (http://yahoo.com/alex-jones-piers-morgan-interview-cnn-rant-on-gun-control-113924767.html#MUeDtfn)
This is a very useful video to watch to show people what we have to fear from some segments of society. Now this is not to tar all gun owners or even those arguing against gun control generally as there are many here who have made rational and intelligent arguments whether we agree with them or not (NYBURBS etc).

However, I do want to point out after watching this video that I now recognize a lot of the more obscure posters here as Alex Jones acolytes who have parroted some of his most dubious arguments. Beandip I think was talking about the mass production of suicide pills. Others such as Jamie Michelle have ranted about how government is the greatest mass murderer of all time and even pointed to the same article referenced by Alex Jones purporting to demonstrate this statistically. Now, I think you already have to be fairly dim and a bit crazy to be a follower of someone like this, but it is nice to know the source of these bizarre hypotheses. This is a man who literally thinks he is being followed in NYC by members of the New World Order, something clinically not very far removed from paranoid schizophrenia.

[broncofan]

I think that in choosing to be civilized and to not go out in public armed to the teeth one takes a leap of faith. Yes, there is the risk that others do not take that leap with you! Maybe you are risking your individual safety in the name of public safety and doing so because you aspire not to live in a primitive culture of violence.

A major problem I have with guns is cultural. Those who are obsessed with them are expressing values that are selfish, hostile, and paranoid. They have decided to forego all the refinements of modern living in favor of the false sense of relevance they get from their guns. Instead of accepting the vagaries of life, they've decided to forego living like decent human beings.

Some might think that's a stretch, but if you really think about the value preferences of gun owners who so strenuously object to any gun control it's not. These are individuals who have placed an inordinately high value on something only beneficial in the most extreme and apocalpytic scenario. That doesn't sound very balanced does it? Wouldn't you know it by listening to Alex Jones?

[thombergeron]

I'm well aware of the "monopoly on the legitimate use of violence," but it's my understanding (or position if you will) that that pertains to violence to enforce laws and mandates or exact retribution, and not violence to defend one's self.


That's a distinction without a difference. We have laws against assault, trespass, robbery, etc. We have delegated enforcement of those laws to various professional law enforcement agencies. That is why victims of assault, trespass, robbery, etc. generally call the police rather than shooting back, and why those who do shoot back often find themselves facing some legal issues.

It also seems problematic that the only mode of self-defense that you're able to conceive of is by use of a firearm. For one thing, only about 3 in 10 Americans own a firearm (http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ownership-use-america.aspx). So, by your contention, 70% of the American population is defenseless. For another thing, my own mode of home defense consists entirely of a telephone, a wireless security camera, and a Louisville Slugger. If you own a firearm for home defense, it is an empirical fact that my household is safer than yours. (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506)



Murders involving rifles are a very small number of the overall homicides in this country.

In 2010 there were:

12,996 reported murders, of that only 358 were committed using a rifle.

In comparison, 1,704 people were murdered by the use of knives or other sharp objects, 540 by blunt objects, and 745 from being punched/kicked.

Needless to say, killings by the use of semi-automatic rifles have been over-hyped by the media.


I'm curious about your perceived threshold for policy action. From a public health perspective, all gun deaths are preventable deaths, and most of those 358 (or 367) people would still be alive if this country had a more rational gun control regime. And you cite statistics from a single year, while similar levels of gun violence occur year after year after year.

Thus, in the eight years since the assault weapons ban expired, more Americans have been killed by other Americans with rifles than have been killed by Islamic terrorism, by an order of magnitude. Even starting the clock on Sept. 10, 2001, more Americans have been killed by other Americans with rifles than have been killed by Islamic terrorists.

And yet, to address the former, we can't even get a bill through Congress, while in response to the latter, we have deployed the largest military force in the history of humankind and have spent over a trillion dollars.

Again, and for the umpteenth time, no one is arguing that we can end murder through gun regulation. But saying that we shouldn't bother passing reasonable legislation to prevent 300-some odd deaths a year just because some other people are going to be beaten to death seems nonsensical to me.

[hippifried]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Snortwheezezzzhuh?
Oh they're coming to take away everybody's guns again? ...& again? ...& again? ...& again?...ad nauseum... ??? Wake me up if anything ever actually happens.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[broncofan]

There is something attractive to people about guns that cannot be explained even by their potential effectiveness in thwarting harm. The probability that someone needs a gun on a given day when they're out in public must be on the order of one in many million. Yet many people cannot change a tire. Okay, so the consequences of not being able to change a tire are less severe.

But I'm sure many people who carry guns cannot perform CPR. What about the potential that they have a serious allergy they are unaware of? Do they carry shots of epinephrine to prevent their child from having an anaphylactic reaction?

When I said that an individual may be in his own individual capacity safer by owning a gun, it probably is empirically doubtful. But I understand one man believing that's the case and wanting to carry a gun. However, the odds of needing it are so small that anyone who chooses to carry a gun is probably looking to use it. There will be a drive to create the necessity that doesn't really exist. The simple act of buying a military grade weapon should be disqualifying given what it says about a person.

People who desire such weapons both envision and create a society nobody should want to live in.

[NYBURBS]

I now see the distinction which is rifle -367 . And I suppose we are to conclude that the FBI's classfication of assault weapons would rifle as opposed to firearms type not stated.

Total homicides- 13,752

Total homicides by firearm- 8,874

So only 65% of the murders recorded were done firearm, not bad....unless you happen tp have been one of those 8,874 poor souls or someone who loved them.

This of course doesn't account for how many people are either permanently maimed, killed themselves by accident or committed suicide with firearms.

Total firearm deaths in 2010 were almost 3 9/11 attacks.

Yes, semi-automatic rifles are classified under "rifle" as far as I know, though I will try to find a source to back that up. Firearms not stated is because the reports made by local agencies to the FBI are not always complete or accurate.

People do die from the use of firearms, I don't think anyone has ever tried to deny that fact. Nor would I attempt to diminish the pain someone feels at the loss of a loved one, but all of this still doesn't remove the fact that people have a right to defend themselves from violence. Thinking that the police will come to your rescue is foolish because most times they arrive well after the fact.

Btw, I've seen several suicide scenes, some were done by hanging, some by train, some by fire, some by pills. I won't argue that a firearm makes it easier in a moment of desperation, but people that are intent on ending their lives will find another way even if firearms are removed from the picture. I don't think that is a sufficiently justifiable reason to attempt to remove another person's right to keep and bear arms.

[broncofan]

Thinking that the police will come to your rescue is foolish because most times they arrive well after the fact.

You make some good points but I think there's a larger picture. Rights can be tempered by collective concerns. And this is the conflict we're dealing with.

In my personal experience I have gone 31 years and never touched a gun. I'm not saying that makes me superior. But I have never seen someone brandish a gun. It's not that I live a sheltered existence either. This possibility we're talking about is remote. The right we're discussing is based on such exigency.

If someone pulls a gun on me and I have no way of defending myself, I accept the risk. All of these risks are not really diminished that much by carrying around a weapon everywhere you go. It's like wearing a bicycle helmet on an airplane. Or sleeping with a stuffed animal. You can never buy total security.

[thombergeron]

even if firearms are removed from the picture. I don't think that is a sufficiently justifiable reason to attempt to remove another person's right to keep and bear arms.

You continue to tilt against windmills. No one is proposing that firearms be removed from the picture. No one is proposing repealing the Second Amendment and banning private ownership of firearms in the U.S..

The measures being proposed are attempts to improve public safety within the context of a guaranteed right for private citizens to own firearms. Universal background checks do not ban the private ownership of firearms, they enable it. Universal firearm registration does not ban the private ownership of firearms, it enables it. The assault weapons ban targets a specific class of weapons that are a demonstrable threat to public safety and which have no civilian application.

This is not an all or nothing proposition. Most civil rights described in the Bill of Rights have limits under certain circumstances. Felons generally see their First Amendment right to free assembly limited. The Ninth Amendment's right of privacy is still being hashed out. And despite the "simplicity" of the Second Amendment's language, the private ownership of firearms is, to a certain degree, regulated. No court has affirmed a citizen's unlimited right to bear arms.

[hippifried]

Hey look, that guy's got a gun. Let's go shoot him & steal it.

[buttslinger]

On the news tonight they said more people are shot in Chicago alone than all of Afghanistan. If the NRA wants to spout bullshit, fine. All that means is they're full of shit. Self proclaimed protectors of the second ammendment. Jefferson is spinning in his grave.

[fivekatz]

You continue to tilt against windmills. No one is proposing that firearms be removed from the picture. No one is proposing repealing the Second Amendment and banning private ownership of firearms in the U.S..

The measures being proposed are attempts to improve public safety within the context of a guaranteed right for private citizens to own firearms. Universal background checks do not ban the private ownership of firearms, they enable it. Universal firearm registration does not ban the private ownership of firearms, it enables it. The assault weapons ban targets a specific class of weapons that are a demonstrable threat to public safety and which have no civilian application.

This is not an all or nothing proposition. Most civil rights described in the Bill of Rights have limits under certain circumstances. Felons generally see their First Amendment right to free assembly limited. The Ninth Amendment's right of privacy is still being hashed out. And despite the "simplicity" of the Second Amendment's language, the private ownership of firearms is, to a certain degree, regulated. No court has affirmed a citizen's unlimited right to bear arms.Great post. The paranoia that the NRA has created around Obama since his election is silly really. In his first 4 years in office he avoided even touching the issues we face in the US with responsible gun ownership. In fact the only measure involving guns Obama signed in his first term gave people the right to carry firearms in National Parks.

The NRA has turned the conversation into any change is a deal breaker.

Nobody has advocated for the prohibition of guns and only NRA pretends that threat exists because it serves their purposes.

What are the measures we can take to not infringe on citizens who wish to own firearms while addressing the carnage we see today?

The 2nd Amendment taken literally means every citizen can own H-Bombs, F-10 fighters, drones, tanks, subs etc. Now while idea is ridiculous, so is prohibition. So what can we do to make the existance of firearms within our society safer.

This is the conversation that needs to place and the sooner the better. If somebody with an Arab name had attacked that school in Newtown many parts of the Bill of Rights would be flushed down the toilet jsut like they were on 9/11. Let's try to not go to the extreme of the Patriot Act but try and mitigate in some way the 11,000 plus deaths that happen every year via forearm in our nation.

We can't end every one of those deaths bt shame on us if we don't find sensible ways to mitigate them.

[NYBURBS]

I think that in choosing to be civilized and to not go out in public armed to the teeth one takes a leap of faith. Yes, there is the risk that others do not take that leap with you! Maybe you are risking your individual safety in the name of public safety and doing so because you aspire not to live in a primitive culture of violence.

A major problem I have with guns is cultural. Those who are obsessed with them are expressing values that are selfish, hostile, and paranoid. They have decided to forego all the refinements of modern living in favor of the false sense of relevance they get from their guns. Instead of accepting the vagaries of life, they've decided to forego living like decent human beings.

Some might think that's a stretch, but if you really think about the value preferences of gun owners who so strenuously object to any gun control it's not. These are individuals who have placed an inordinately high value on something only beneficial in the most extreme and apocalpytic scenario. That doesn't sound very balanced does it? Wouldn't you know it by listening to Alex Jones?

I hope that you realize that someone can own a gun without necessarily going about being armed day in and out. It's a judgement decision, but there is something to be said for having the option available. I knew plenty of cops who didn't carry off-duty because they viewed it as a potential headache waiting to happen. However, they would carry if going to a dangerous neighborhood.

Moreover, a lot of people keep banding about how they only want some reasonable restrictions, but I think the issue is their definition of reasonable. Some call for only 7 bullets, some for 5, I've even heard the fringe talking about 1 bullet. Yet the police typically carry 46 rounds on them at any given time, 2 fifteen round clips in a belt pouch, 1 fifteen round clip in the weapon and 1 round already chambered. These are people that train several times a year with their weapon, but typically need multiple shots to hit someone during an actual shooting.

Most people I know don't have an issue with background checks and some other provisions such as people that have been committed or deemed mentally defective from owning a weapon (so long as their is a way to receive judicial review of that determination).

[NYBURBS]

You continue to tilt against windmills. No one is proposing that firearms be removed from the picture. No one is proposing repealing the Second Amendment and banning private ownership of firearms in the U.S..

The measures being proposed are attempts to improve public safety within the context of a guaranteed right for private citizens to own firearms. Universal background checks do not ban the private ownership of firearms, they enable it. Universal firearm registration does not ban the private ownership of firearms, it enables it. The assault weapons ban targets a specific class of weapons that are a demonstrable threat to public safety and which have no civilian application.

This is not an all or nothing proposition. Most civil rights described in the Bill of Rights have limits under certain circumstances. Felons generally see their First Amendment right to free assembly limited. The Ninth Amendment's right of privacy is still being hashed out. And despite the "simplicity" of the Second Amendment's language, the private ownership of firearms is, to a certain degree, regulated. No court has affirmed a citizen's unlimited right to bear arms.

Well, I think the issue is that people see some of the proposed or instituted measures as a back door means to effectively disarm people. Background checks don't seem to be opposed by many people that I converse with, though registration is more contentious due to historical issues. The definition of an assault weapon is also contentious for good reason. Many of the features used in the New York law to define what is an assault weapon appear to be rather arbitrary, designed to make a broad list of weapon prohibited. As I've said before, if these weapons are really so destructive than why do we arm the police with them?

I have actually fired many types of weapons, and all in the service of either the United States or as a cop. Machine guns, grenade launchers, semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and handguns are all weapons that I have actually trained on, so I am coming at this debate with first hand knowledge of how each works and what they are capable of. On the other hand, it has been my experience that the majority of people that favor strict gun controls have never even held a weapon, and perhaps that is part of the problem here.

PS- Felons generally do not have their right to free assembly limited after they have served their sentence, and if you mean during their incarceration then that is a horrible comparison. Privacy is still being hashed out because it's an unenumerated right, so it's going to require a lot of hashing out. The best analogy in my opinion would be the laws that sought to "regulate" the handing out of political pamphlets and restrictions on small groups assembling in public, laws that were very popular during the late 1800's and early 1900's. Many of them were eventually struck down as a backdoor attempt to ban unpopular speech.

[Odelay]

I think that in choosing to be civilized and to not go out in public armed to the teeth one takes a leap of faith. Yes, there is the risk that others do not take that leap with you! Maybe you are risking your individual safety in the name of public safety and doing so because you aspire not to live in a primitive culture of violence.

I think this is an interesting comment and gets to the core of how I feel. Life is inherently risky so I go out into the world and make decisions almost every day that weigh that risk and reward balance. The # of Americans with guns is something like 35% of the population. The # of those who carry is an even smaller figure. So I really feel the risk of venturing out into the world unarmed is pretty low, and if I am caught in an altercation that involves guns, my survival instincts will kick in and lower the odds of harm even further.

I'm an engineer, by education. I'm constantly computing things in my head on the fly. On balance, it keeps me healthy and alive. The sad thing to me about opinions aired from gun proponents is how little computation, logic, or even common sense thinking lies behind their boldly proclaimed opinions. This is just one of those arguments where emotions rule the day.

[fivekatz]

The definition of an assault weapon is also contentious for good reason. Many of the features used in the New York law to define what is an assault weapon appear to be rather arbitrary, designed to make a broad list of weapon prohibited. As I've said before, if these weapons are really so destructive than why do we arm the police with them?


Well I would assume because the police should be able to bring greater firepower with them to altercation with a bad guy.

You are right that many gun owners and even some gun advocates do not object to background checks, though in a moment of either shear flex of NRA power or tone deafness (or both) Wayne LaPierre just testified before congress that background checks are ineffective.

As for registration, if the owners of guns are worried about the government will come to their homes with 18 wheelers and take away their guns, it is a theoretical argument, but when the government decides to squash the citizens, their power is far greater than the guns held by citizens. And if you have to register a car, a dog, why not a gun.

You are right at least in my case that I have never owned a firearm, though I have held and operated firearms, both shot guns as a civilian and an M-16 in basic training in USAF, though my service never called for me to operate the weapon again.

I respect the fact that there are hunters (though I would never hunt). I respect that people collect weapons like stamps or coins or sport memorabilia. And I accept that some folks actually feel more secure having a firearm in their homes even though many studies show that far more tragic consequences come from a weapon being in a home than are prevented by that weapons presence.

So I am not suggesting we eliminate guns, simply that we make weapons harder to acquire and that we limit the firepower that the average citizen can walk around with.

In no way this is pointed at you but I do find it troubling that so many citizens that feel strongly about the 2nd Amendment applauded the trashing of other parts of the Bill of Rights from internment of Japanese Americans, to Red Scare of the 50's, to Patriot Act.

And what frustrates me the most is that a literal reading of the 2nd Amendment if you read all 27 words certainly indicate that intention was for states to have a militia, what we today call the National Guard. It is quite debatable that they thought that every American should be have the fettered right to own weapons that were unimaginable in the 1790's.

And most of the NRA makes me puke. If the actual were dedicated to rights of gun owners and not gun industrialists, they never would have endorsed Romney over Obama. Obama had no record of adverse gun actions, in fact his only action as President was to allow firearms to be carried in National Parks (gun rights v. gun control). Romney OTOH as Governor had signed very strict gun control legislation. They are a manipulative group that makes themselves a pretty penny appearing to represent Average Joe when in fact they are a pro Capitalist PAC with a winning wedge issue.

[robertlouis]

I live in a country where the police are unarmed. Do I feel safer? You can bet your life on it.

[fivekatz]

I live in a country where the police are unarmed. Do I feel safer? You can bet your life on it.I envy you but that very fact probably makes it hard to understand just how complex this issue is in the US any more than I ever got what the heck was going on in Ireland all those years and why it tok so long to resolve...

There is no way that our police officers can be armed with rubber bullets and pepper spray at this stage of the Republic's history. It is something I am not proud of as an American but I accept as part of having been born and raised here and a trade-off for the very many wonderful things about the US.

[robertlouis]

I envy you but that very fact probably makes it hard to understand just how complex this issue is in the US any more than I ever got what the heck was going on in Ireland all those years and why it tok so long to resolve...

There is no way that our police officers can be armed with rubber bullets and pepper spray at this stage of the Republic's history. It is something I am not proud of as an American but I accept as part of having been born and raised here and a trade-off for the very many wonderful things about the US.

I agree entirely - you can't turn the clock back. But I can't imagine any scenario in which my carrying a weapon, whether that be a gun, a knife or a club, would make me feel any safer here in the UK. That's the way most people feel about it. It's utterly alien.

[fivekatz]

I agree entirely - you can't turn the clock back. But I can't imagine any scenario in which my carrying a weapon, whether that be a gun, a knife or a club, would make me feel any safer here in the UK. That's the way most people feel about it. It's utterly alien.Same here. While there are a stunning number of guns in America (over 3M) they are owned by less than 1M and many of them own them for pursuits like hunting or collecting.

I personally have been robbed three times in my life and I don't think that any one of those three times a gun would have made me safer because of the way the robber got the drop on me. In fact if I had been carrying I may well have died.

Robertlouis I honestly think it is a small fraction of American's that live in fear and carry weapons to counter act that. It is hard perhaps to understand from the other side of the pond but this has become a wedge issue for people in this country and is being leveraged to perfection to keep people from looking at just who they really should be afraid of.

Cheers!

[Prospero]

I am sure many gun enthusiasts are also avid readers of Stephen King. Here is the great man's argument for greater gun control - published today in the UK's Guardian.

Stephen King: why the US must introduce limited gun controls
The bestselling author, owner of three handguns, explains why Americans should accept controls on assault weapons


Kentucky high school students mourn classmates shot dead by Michael Carneal in 1997. He quoted the killer in Stephen King's book Rage. Photograph: Getty Images
During my junior and senior years in high school, I wrote my first novel, then titled Getting It On. The story was about a troubled boy named Charlie Decker with a domineering father, a load of adolescent angst and a fixation on Ted Jones, the school's most popular boy. Charlie takes a gun to school, kills his algebra teacher and holds his class hostage.

Ten years later, after the first half-dozen of my books had become bestsellers, I revisited Getting It On, rewrote it, and submitted it to my paperback publisher under the pseudonym of Richard Bachman. It was published as Rage, sold a few thousand copies and disappeared from view. Or so I thought.

In February 1996, a boy named Barry Loukaitis walked into his algebra class in Washington, with a .22-caliber revolver and a high-powered hunting rifle. He used the rifle to kill instructor Leona Caires and two students. Then, waving the pistol in the air, he declared, "This sure beats algebra, doesn't it?" The quote is from Rage.

A PE teacher, in a commendable act of heroism, charged at Loukaitis and overpowered him.

In 1997, Michael Carneal, age 14, arrived at Heath high school, in Kentucky, with a Ruger MK II semi-automatic pistol in his backpack. He killed three and wounded five. A copy of Rage was found in his locker. That was enough for me. I asked my publishers to pull the novel.

Political discourse as it once existed in America has given way to useless screaming. Although I'm a blue-state American now, I was raised a red one, and I've spent my life with at least half of one foot still in that camp. It gives me a certain perspective. It also allows me to own my handguns – I have three – with a clear conscience.

Even if I were politically and philosophically open to repealing the Second Amendment (I'm not), I don't believe that repeal, or even modification, would solve the problem of gun violence in America. The guns are already out there and the great majority of them are being bought, sold and carried illegally.

I also don't believe the National Rifle Association's assertion – articulated by Wayne LaPierre, its vice-president, each time there's another mass murder by gun in a school or a shopping mall – that America's "culture of violence" plays a significant role in kid-on-kid school shootings. If you take a close look at the dozen top-grossing films of 2012, you see an interesting thing: only one (Skyfall) features gun violence.

In video gaming, shooters still top the lists, but Super Mario Brothers and Pokémon enjoy perennial success, and when it comes to Wii, the 2012 bestseller was a pop-music sweetie called Just Dance 4. The assertion that Americans love violence and bathe in it daily is a self-serving lie.

Most Americans who insist upon their right to own as many guns (and of as many types) as they want are, by and large, decent citizens. They are more apt to vote for increasing law enforcement funds than they are for increasing school improvement funds, reasoning that keeping kids safe is more important than getting them new desks.

They can weep for the dead children and bereft parents of Sandy Hook, then wipe their eyes and write to their congressmen and women about the importance of preserving the right to bear arms.

Guys, gals, now hear this: no one wants to take away your hunting rifles. No one wants to take away your shotguns. No one wants to take away your revolvers, and no one wants to take away your automatic pistols, as long as said pistols hold no more than 10 rounds. If you can't kill a burglar with 10 shots, you need to go back to the shooting range.

Men (it's always men) who go postal and take out as many innocents as they can may be crazy, but that doesn't mean they're stupid. They don't arrive at the scenes of their proposed slaughters armed with single-shot .22s or old-style six-round revolvers; they bring heavy artillery. Some back down, but when they don't, carnage follows, the kind that gives cops nightmares for years afterwards. One only wishes Wayne LaPierre and his NRA board of directors could be drafted to some of these scenes, where they would be required to put on booties and rubber gloves and help clean up the blood, the brains and the chunks of intestine still containing the poor wads of half-digested food that were some innocent bystander's last meal.

I have nothing against gun owners, sport shooters, or hunters, but semi-automatic weapons have only two purposes. One is so that owners can take them to the shooting range once in awhile, yell yeehaw and get all horny at the rapid fire and the burning vapour spurting from the end of the barrel. Their other use – their only other use – is to kill people.

In the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings, gun advocates have to ask themselves if their zeal to protect even the outer limits of gun ownership has anything to do with preserving the Second Amendment as a whole, or if it's just a stubborn desire to hold on to what they have, and to hell with the collateral damage.

In January 2013, President Obama announced – to predictable howls of outrage – 23 executive orders and three major initiatives intended to curb the spread of guns and stiffen penalties for illegal use and possession. What they all boil down to is a trio of reasonable measures. I list them in ascending order, from the one most likely to happen to the one least likely.

Comprehensive and universal background checks. This probably will happen, and not a moment too soon. For one thing, it would entail a waiting period, and that alone might stop a number of would-be mass killers. Remember that two school shooters, Dustin Pierce and Michael Carneal, expressed incredulity at what they had done only moments later. Violent emotions, especially in teenagers, are like spring tornadoes: their departure is as sudden as their violent arrival. Given a chance to think, even for 48 hours, would be enough to stop at least some of these guys.

Ban the sale of clips and magazines containing more than 10 rounds. A shooter with only eight or 10 rounds at his disposal really might be taken down by a brave teacher or bystander. Dawn Hochsprung, the principal of Sandy Hook elementary school, died apparently in an effort to subdue Adam Lanza. If Lanza had been reloading after shooting his way in, she might have succeeded.

Ban the sale of assault weapons such as the Bushmaster and the AR-15. This is the one that probably won't happen. There are rationalisations but very little actual discourse on the subject of banning assault weapons. When I listen to gun advocates and NRA brass on this subject, I get an image of a little kid having a tantrum in the dirt, rolling around with his hands plastered over his ears. No! No! No! No! Also, La-la-la-la, I can't HEAR you. Can't HEAR you. Can't HEAR you!

What they can't hear – because they don't want to – is that the restriction of heavy weaponry works.

Here's a dope for you: Martin Bryant, of Port Arthur, in Tasmania. On April 28, 1996, he went on a spree with an AR-15. This happy asshole mowed down more than a dozen people in a crowded cafe, then moved on to a gift shop and garage. The final tally was 35 dead and 23 wounded.

Afterwards, the Australian government either banned or restricted automatic weapons and authorised a huge buyback that eventually netted 600,000 weapons. Since then, homicides by firearm have declined almost 60% in Australia. The guns-for-everyone advocates hate that statistic, and dispute it, but as Bill Clinton likes to say, it's not opinion; it's arithmetic, honey.

In the end, this sort of ban can be accomplished in only one way, and that's if gun advocates get behind it. I can hear people laughing and saying pigs will whistle and horses will fly before that happens, but hey, I'm an optimist.

If enough American gun owners urge Congress to do the right thing, and insist the NRA climbs aboard, the results might surprise you.

I didn't pull Rage from publication because the law demanded it; I was protected under the First Amendment, and the law couldn't demand it. I pulled it because in my judgment it might be hurting people, and that made it the responsible thing to do. Assault weapons will remain readily available to crazy people until the powerful pro-gun forces in this country decide to do a similar turnaround.

[Prospero]

The essential quotes... well worth considering.


"...Martin Bryant, of Port Arthur, in Tasmania. On April 28, 1996, he went on a spree with an AR-15. This happy asshole mowed down more than a dozen people in a crowded cafe, then moved on to a gift shop and garage. The final tally was 35 dead and 23 wounded.

Afterwards, the Australian government either banned or restricted automatic weapons and authorised a huge buyback that eventually netted 600,000 weapons. Since then, homicides by firearm have declined almost 60% in Australia. The guns-for-everyone advocates hate that statistic, and dispute it, but as Bill Clinton likes to say, it's not opinion; it's arithmetic, honey."

[buttslinger]

There was a time in the US when machine guns, the newest military weapons, were legal. Then came Prohibition and the Roaring Twenties, and they were completely banned.

What the Clintons started with cigarettes is mindblowing, and in the long run is going to literally save millions of lives.

[buttslinger]

Many were surprised when the president told The New Republic that he shoots clay targets "all the time" at Camp David.

[fivekatz]

Many were surprised when the president told The New Republic that he shoots clay targets "all the time" at Camp David.What he did not tell them was that each was carefully engraved with the image of John Boerner.

[robertlouis]

In the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings, gun advocates have to ask themselves if their zeal to protect even the outer limits of gun ownership has anything to do with preserving the Second Amendment as a whole, or if it's just a stubborn desire to hold on to what they have, and to hell with the collateral damage.



Here's a dope for you: Martin Bryant, of Port Arthur, in Tasmania. On April 28, 1996, he went on a spree with an AR-15. This happy asshole mowed down more than a dozen people in a crowded cafe, then moved on to a gift shop and garage. The final tally was 35 dead and 23 wounded.

Afterwards, the Australian government either banned or restricted automatic weapons and authorised a huge buyback that eventually netted 600,000 weapons. Since then, homicides by firearm have declined almost 60% in Australia. The guns-for-everyone advocates hate that statistic, and dispute it, but as Bill Clinton likes to say, it's not opinion; it's arithmetic, honey.



As you said, Prospero, it's an excellent article, and well worth quoting in full. But the two paragraphs I've pulled out really sum up the whole issue for me.

The gun nuts just don't give a flying fuck for the continuing mayhem and slaughter. They're probably unreachable, and I sincerely hope they spend all eternity in hell being mown down daily by devils wielding assault rifles.

As for the second, while it's an excellent example, we could produce statistics just as compelling from the UK.

Can people in the US not understand that the relentless fetishisation of guns and the stridency of the gun lobby makes your country diminished and less civilised in the eyes of other western democracies? I've visited all over the US many times both for business and pleasure, and I love the country and its welcoming, generous people, so I despair that nothing ever happens except that the carnage continues. How can these huge contradictions co-exist?

[fivekatz]

As you said, Prospero, it's an excellent article, and well worth quoting in full. But the two paragraphs I've pulled out really sum up the whole issue for me.

The gun nuts just don't give a flying fuck for the continuing mayhem and slaughter. They're probably unreachable, and I sincerely hope they spend all eternity in hell being mown down daily by devils wielding assault rifles.

As for the second, while it's an excellent example, we could produce statistics just as compelling from the UK.

Can people in the US not understand that the relentless fetishisation of guns and the stridency of the gun lobby makes your country diminished and less civilised in the eyes of other western democracies? I've visited all over the US many times both for business and pleasure, and I love the country and its welcoming, generous people, so I despair that nothing ever happens except that the carnage continues. How can these huge contradictions co-exist?The most common rationalization you here from good people, with good hearts but simple views is that it is people killing people not the guns. The very fact that there is nothing false about that statement makes it harder to argue with them.

And American's sadly see the world through very myopic eyes, and see our society based on the hype of American Exceptionalism. It is only when events like Sandy Hook happen that Americans are even taken a back, the daily death toll is white noise sad as that is.

[notdrunk]

There was a time in the US when machine guns, the newest military weapons, were legal. Then came Prohibition and the Roaring Twenties, and they were completely banned.

What the Clintons started with cigarettes is mindblowing, and in the long run is going to literally save millions of lives.

Machines guns aren't completely banned. They are heavily regulated. Additionally, I suggest you look up ssar-15.The BATFE gave its approval and it is legal to own.