Boston Marathon

[Dino Velvet]

Some Breaking News http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/01/us/boston-attack/index.html?hpt=hp_t1


3 more detained in Boston attack

By Matt Smith, CNN
updated 12:41 PM EDT, Wed May 1, 2013



(CNN) -- Two classmates of Boston Marathon bomb suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and a third person face federal charges in connection with the April 15 attack, a federal law enforcement source said Wednesday.
Boston police announced the arrests Wednesday morning, adding that there was "no threat to the public." They were expected to appear before a federal judge Wednesday afternoon, U.S. government sources said.
The classmates -- Azamat Tazhayako and Dias Kadyrbayev -- are both from Kazakhstan and had been in federal custody on immigration charges already, their lawyers told CNN. The third person arrested is a U.S. citizen.
The Kazakh students face charges of making false statements to investigators and conspiracy to obstruct justice, according to a federal law enforcement source with firsthand knowledge of the investigation.
Latest on the investigation (http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/01/us/boston-bombings-latest-developments/index.html)
No details of the charges against the third person were immediately available. But Alan Dershowitz, a prominent defense attorney and Harvard law professor, said the new charges don't appear to be related to the bombing itself.
"If they knew about the bombing, if they were involved in the bombing, the charges would be conspiracy to do the acts for which the other man has already been charged," Dershowitz told CNN. "So it sounds like at this point in time the only evidence they have is actions that took place after the bombing."
Two bombs exploded in the crowd gathered near the finish line of the marathon, killing three people and wounding more than 260. Federal agents blame Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his brother, Tamerlan, of carrying out the attack.
Carjacking victim recalls experience (http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/01/us/boston-attacks-carjacking/index.html)
Tamerlan Tsarnaev died after a shootout with police on April 19, while Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was wounded but survived.
Tazhayako and Kadyrbayev appear in a photograph with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev taken in New York's Times Square during an earlier visit. They were taken into custody last month on charges that they had violated the terms of their student visas and had already been questioned by investigators on April 19, hours before Tsarnaev's arrest, Kadyrbayev attorney Robert Stahl told CNN.
Federal law enforcement sources said at the time that the Kazakh students were being detained "in an abundance of caution" because authorities wanted detailed information on the Tsarnaevs' movements in the weeks and days before the attack.


http://newsonia.com/media/upload/images/2013/04/27/SpJ3pgAVe4ZnWVGDU5hQVx4oepkgBGRt_598x414.png

[up_for_it]

So...four fucks instead of two.

[Rabbiteyes]

I'm struggling to get my head round the fact that a home-made pressure cooker bomb is defined as a "weapon of mass destruction" yet a legally held, fully automatic assault rifle isn't.

Only in America ... :(

Didn't you know? We went after Osama because he had some pressure cooker bombs! They is dangerous stuffs!

[up_for_it]

So, according to some other news articles, a jar of vaseline was found in the kid's dorm room. What was going on in there?

[Ben]

Radicalism in ALL Religions:

Radicalism in ALL Religions - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO_dO-oA4rM)

[surf4490]

Ben one little problem Socialist atheism has murdered far more people than religious bigots in the last 100yrs ,Stalin ,Hitler ,Mao and Pol Pot ect:

[Ben]

Ben one little problem Socialist atheism has murdered far more people than religious bigots in the last 100yrs ,Stalin ,Hitler ,Mao and Pol Pot ect:

Hitler wasn't a socialist. He was a fascist. Different ends of the political spectrum. (Mussolini coined the term fascism. Which is a merger of state power with corporate power.)
And actual socialism, whereby working people take control of the state, hasn't really happened -- over a long stretch.
There was Spain. Briefly. Paris. Briefly.
And the Kibbutz.
But nothing large scale over an extended period.
Centralizing power -- like Stalin, like Mao, like Pol Pot -- is the antithesis of actual socialism.
Again, socialism is, at its core, about working people running their own affairs, controlling their own destiny, as it were. It's about handing power to people.
Would actual socialism work? Who knows. Would actual capitalism work? Doubtful. I mean, strip away the functions of government and see what happens....
Both may and could work in small numbers. I mean, you might be able to have a capitalist paradise with a population of, say, 300 people. Same with actual socialism. I don't know.
So, pure -- and I mean pure -- capitalism has never happened. If we were to have pure capitalism we'd have to remove government from the equation. Again, would that work? I mean, it'd be a raw experiment involving millions and millions of people.
Pure capitalism would mean: no child labor laws, no minimum wage laws, no public police force etc., etc.
Wanna try it??? :)
Again, the centralization of power is not socialism.
And government intervention in a system isn't capitalism.
I mean, Stalin was a pure statist.

[surf4490]

What school did you go to ,Its a nice big lie that he wasn't a socialist ,invented to distance European communist parties post ww2 .National Socialism = Nazi .Just to make the point I'll leave it to the nasty little shit, to educate stupid modern political illiterates, "We are Socialists, we are enemies of the capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions".Socialism is Right wing ,every socialist dictatorship degenerates into what you say is right wing .

[surf4490]

We dont live in a capitalist society ,It corporatism ,with a very thin veneer of democracy .

[dderek123]

100% capitalism nor 100% socialism has ever been used for large nations. Probably because it wouldn't work that well.

[surf4490]

It's a game of tug-of-war ,as long as its even were generally ok.

[Gillian]

Hey thanks eurotrash, you can't pass up any opportunity to bash the US even after a heinous act of terrorism. Bravo douchebag. Maybe you'd like to rub salt in the bloody stumps of all the innocent bystanders who had their arms and legs blown off ...

So trailer trash, where do you stand on "My First Rifle" for toddlers?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pm_tifmLxvw/UYG31xGsRyI/AAAAAAAAZ_k/QC5iT3QPvJM/s1600/my_first_rifle_.jpg

What's next? My first "WMD" ?

Wrong ... plain wrong ... :rolleyes:

[hippifried]

Ben one little problem Socialist atheism has murdered far more people than religious bigots in the last 100yrs ,Stalin ,Hitler ,Mao and Pol Pot ect:

Atheism? Really?
Over a hundred year span, the "Inquisition" killed enough people to equal the entire population of Europe at any one point in time during that 100 year span. I know that falls outside of your of your "in the last 100yrs" caveat, but precedents can't be ignored. This kind of bullshit has nothing to do with religious belief or lack of same. It's not about high faulting socio-economic theories either. It's just assholes trying to control everybody else. None of them deserve the respect that comes with leadership.

Throughout recorded history, nothing has been more damaging to the human race than the notion that people can't think for themselves, & must follow the orders of someone or something who is "superior" or in communication with a superior or supreme.

Hitler was neither a socialist or fascist. He merely glommed onto whatever label might make him more palatable. He was just another asshole.

[BrassVillanueva]

I love it when people blame the weapon instead of the person behind it. It strengthens my faith in humanity.

[BrassVillanueva]

What's next? My first "WMD" ?

Wrong ... plain wrong ... :rolleyes:

What's wrong is to equate proper training and usage of a firearm with someone blowing up a pressure cooker in public in the name of political and religious extremism. The vast majority of us who own guns have never had an accident or suddenly decided to go on a shooting rampage for whatever reason. Your assertion is ridiculous.

[Gillian]

What's wrong is to equate proper training and usage of a firearm with someone blowing up a pressure cooker in public in the name of political and religious extremism. The vast majority of us who own guns have never had an accident or suddenly decided to go on a shooting rampage for whatever reason. Your assertion is ridiculous.
-
Ah ... so if only that four year old had been properly trained. The availability/existence of the weapon in the first place had nothing to with it?

Thankfully, we're each entitled to our own opinions.

[surf4490]

I love it, the inquisition killed millions of people ! I will have to get a refund from Liverpool University or just smoke whatever historical crack your on.The inquisition ,at it's most rabid ,executed about 5% of those questioned .Fact is Elizabeth 1 ,during her reign ,executed 4 times as many people as the Spanish inquisition in the same period .

[MacShreach]

Ben one little problem Socialist atheism has murdered far more people than religious bigots in the last 100yrs ,Stalin ,Hitler ,Mao and Pol Pot ect:
Just FYI, Hitler was a devout Catholic all his days. I don't mind taking shit for the actual atheists, keep the religious headbangers to yourself though.

[MacShreach]

What's wrong is to equate proper training and usage of a firearm with someone blowing up a pressure cooker in public in the name of political and religious extremism. The vast majority of us who own guns have never had an accident or suddenly decided to go on a shooting rampage for whatever reason. Your assertion is ridiculous.

Correct. I have had guns all my life, and outside of having fun blowing the fuck out of miniature flying saucers, tin cans, water melons (hilarious) &c I have no desire to destroy anything.

PEOPLE KILL. Not guns.

[surf4490]

Hitler wasn't a devout anything ,but that wasn't my point. Religion and money were the excuse used to murder people but now it's politics and money .Sadly those who climb the greasy political pole all seem to have a smiling face and a stone heart .

[notdrunk]

Just FYI, Hitler was a devout Catholic all his days. I don't mind taking shit for the actual atheists, keep the religious headbangers to yourself though.

Just FYI, the Nazis sent Catholic clergymen to the camps. +2,000 died in those camps. There was special barracks for priests at Dachau. If Hitler was a devout Catholic, those clergymen wouldn't been sent to their deaths.

[Stavros]

Matthew White has compiled a directory of mass murders in history; a lot must depend on how one calculates the deaths caused by the famine caused by The Great Leap Forward in China (1958-61) -if one were to add the people killed in the wars against the Japanese and the Guomindang -vs-Communists between the mid-1930s and 1940s, the figure for Chinese murdered/killed/died in conflict could top 50 million but that pales into insignificance besides the Black Death which not only slaughtered up to 200 million, but in percentage terms devastated Europe in the 14th century, but not 'man made' although malpractice in terms of public hygiene would have contributed to a lot of deaths.

White's book is called Atrocitology:
Atrocitology: Humanity's 100 Deadliest Achievements: Amazon.co.uk: Matthew White: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51g8gJvAzsL.@@AMEPARAM@@51g8gJvAzsL (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Atrocitology-Humanitys-100-Deadliest-Achievements/dp/0857861239)

[MacShreach]

Just FYI, the Nazis sent Catholic clergymen to the camps. +2,000 died in those camps. There was special barracks for priests at Dachau. If Hitler was a devout Catholic, those clergymen wouldn't been sent to their deaths.



In Hitler's OWN WORDS!!!
“I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty
Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.”

[Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]
There are numerous other quotes from Hitler's speeches and letters, eg this:
“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so”

[Adolph Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941]
and also his writing, eg Mein Kampf:



“I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.”


[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp. 46]



(http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/08/23/list-of-hitler-quotes-he-was-q/)


Also, according to Hitler's chief architect Albert Speer, Hitler remained a formal member of the Catholic church until his death and even ordered his chief associates to remain members Albert Speer .Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs. New York: Simon and Schuster(1997)

Also see; The Religion of Hitler, JPM Murphy 1988


Now, I didn't say that he was a good Catholic; that would have been impossible. But he did believe he was Catholic, or at least profess to be devout as one. His killing of Catholic clergy was not because of their religion, but was purely political; they had been helping Jews to escape his campaign of terror.


So when you have chopped up your hat nicely and eaten it, you might consider revising your above statement. I'm done on this one, case proven.

[trish]

The Judeo-Christian-Islamic God wiped out the entire human race save Noah and his family. Of course that's not true, but fundies everywhere applaud this appalling act, and masturbate over the fantasy that they too might someday be privileged to restock the Earth after Heaven takes its vengeance upon the non-believers.

[dderek123]

^ Yep. What a fucked up dogma.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZSbIwE_BKM

Oppression is the holy law
In God, I distrust
In time, His monuments will fall
Like ashes to dust

Is war and greed the master plan?
The Bible's where it all began
Its propaganda sells despair
And spreads the virus everywhere

Religion is hate
Religion is fear
Religion is war
Religion is rape
Religion's obscene
Religion's a whore

The pestilence is Jesus Christ
There never was a sacrifice
No man upon the crucifix
Beware the cult of purity
Infectious imbecility
I've made my choice, 666

Corruption breeds the pedophile
Don't pray for the priest
Confession finds the lonely child
God preys on the weak

You think your soul can still be saved
I think you're fucking miles away
Scream out loud, here's where you begin
Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned

Religion is hate
Religion is fear
Religion is war
Religion is rape
Religion's obscene
Religion's a whore

The target's fucking Jesus Christ
I would've lead the sacrifice
And nailed Him to the crucifix
Beware the cult of purity
Infectious imbecility
I've made my choice, 666

Jesus is pain
Jesus is gore
Jesus is the blood
That's spilled in war

He's everything
He's all things dead
He's pulling on the trigger
Pointed at your head

Through fear you're sold into the fraud
Revelation, revolution
I see through your Christ illusion

The war on terror just drags along
My war with God is growing strong
His propaganda sells despair
And spreads the violence everywhere

Religion is hate
Religion is fear
Religion is war
Religion is rape
Religion's obscene
Religion's a whore

There is no fucking Jesus Christ
There never was a sacrifice
No man upon the crucifix
Beware the cult of purity
Infectious imbecility
I've made my choice, 666

[Dino Velvet]

^ Yep. What a fucked up dogma.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZSbIwE_BKM

Oppression is the holy law
In God, I distrust
In time, His monuments will fall
Like ashes to dust

Is war and greed the master plan?
The Bible's where it all began
Its propaganda sells despair
And spreads the virus everywhere

Religion is hate
Religion is fear
Religion is war
Religion is rape
Religion's obscene
Religion's a whore

The pestilence is Jesus Christ
There never was a sacrifice
No man upon the crucifix
Beware the cult of purity
Infectious imbecility
I've made my choice, 666

Corruption breeds the pedophile
Don't pray for the priest
Confession finds the lonely child
God preys on the weak

You think your soul can still be saved
I think you're fucking miles away
Scream out loud, here's where you begin
Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned

Religion is hate
Religion is fear
Religion is war
Religion is rape
Religion's obscene
Religion's a whore

The target's fucking Jesus Christ
I would've lead the sacrifice
And nailed Him to the crucifix
Beware the cult of purity
Infectious imbecility
I've made my choice, 666

Jesus is pain
Jesus is gore
Jesus is the blood
That's spilled in war

He's everything
He's all things dead
He's pulling on the trigger
Pointed at your head

Through fear you're sold into the fraud
Revelation, revolution
I see through your Christ illusion

The war on terror just drags along
My war with God is growing strong
His propaganda sells despair
And spreads the violence everywhere

Religion is hate
Religion is fear
Religion is war
Religion is rape
Religion's obscene
Religion's a whore

There is no fucking Jesus Christ
There never was a sacrifice
No man upon the crucifix
Beware the cult of purity
Infectious imbecility
I've made my choice, 666

I remember watching that Rollins show. RIP Jeff

[BrassVillanueva]

-
Ah ... so if only that four year old had been properly trained. The availability/existence of the weapon in the first place had nothing to with it?

Thankfully, we're each entitled to our own opinions.

Hey, you know what? I grew up in a house FULL of guns. I learned darn near from birth that you always treat a gun as if it's loaded, and weekly target practice and trap shooting as a family taught me just what harm a firearm is capable of.

The availability or existence of such weapons is irrelevant. You don't blame the existence of the printing press for typos, do you? That, again, is a ridiculous assertion and a logical fallacy.

[trish]

I too grew up in a household (in rural Pennsylvania) and learned to hunt at an early age. I too learned that you always treat a gun as loaded and never to let the muzzle pass across another person. Everyone learns that. They're are so drilled into us they are cliches. Yet hunters, police and others with experience and training (who surely will tell they learned the same practices until they became second nature) have accidentally injured themselves or others with firearms.

Even professional secretaries make typos and transcription errors. So too those well trained and experienced with firearms still have accidents.

Yes indeed, there are more typos in the world then ever before. Why? Because more people write. Why? In part because writing tools, are more available than ever before (and there are more opportunities and reasons to write). Nobody worries about typos 'cause they're rarely lethal. It's logical, the more people typing, the more typos there are going to be. Equally, the more people handing firearms, the more accidental discharges there are going to be.

[surf4490]

Adolf Hitler was raised by a sceptic, anti-clerical father and a devout Catholic mother; he ceased to participate in the sacraments after childhood.[1] Contradictory accounts exist about Adolf Hitler's adult religious views, including his relationship to Christianity and the Catholic church. According to Hitler's chief architect, Albert Speer, Hitler remained a formal member of the Catholic church until his death, and even ordered his chief associates to remain members; however it was Speer's opinion that "he had no real attachment to it

case disproved ! you obviously missed Speer's last statement to mislead :jerkoff

[surf4490]

Prior to the vote for the Enabling Act, Hitler promised the Reichstag on 23 March 1933, that he would not interfere with the rights of the churches. With power secured in Germany, Hitler quickly broke these promises[8][9] He dishonoured a concordat signed with the Vatican and permitted a persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany.[10][12] He divided the Lutheran Church (Germany's main Protestant denomination) and instigated a brutal persecution of the Jehovah's Witnesses.[12] A special Priests Barracks was established at Dachau Concentration Camp for clergy who had opposed the Hitler regime.
Many historians say that Hitler had a general covert plan, which some say existed even before the Nazis' rise to power, to destroy Christianity within the Reich, which was to be accomplished through control and subversion of the churches and to be completed after the war.[6]<ref="Concise" /> According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, Hitler believed Christianity and Nazism were "incompatible" and intended to replace Christianity with a "racist form of warrior paganism
Hitler was like all Socialist dictators ,anti religious and used political control of religious groups to further Socialist doctrine .

[Gillian]

The availability or existence of such weapons is irrelevant. You don't blame the existence of the printing press for typos, do you? That, again, is a ridiculous assertion and a logical fallacy.
-
To conflate guns with typos is ridiculous.

Thanks goodness there's an ocean between us, literally and in terms of our views ... ;)

[Ben]

Comfort Dogs help Boston victims heal:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3Ly_MqPTi0

[BrassVillanueva]

-
To conflate guns with typos is ridiculous.
It's not ridiculous at all. You're blaming the tool for the actions of the user. It's the same thing the media here does with SUVs. Every time there's an accident caused by someone who was driving an SUV, the headline is "SUV crashes into storefront" or "SUV runs red light, two in hospital." Any other vehicle and you'll see "Local man crashes vehicle." It's the blaming of the vehicle for the driver's actions. Same principle with a printing press and typos or a gun and the act of murder. You can blame dinnerware for obesity all you like, but you'll still be making a ridiculous argument.

[trish]

No one is blaming the tool. We are noting, however, that if you make tools designed for killing more accessible, then (all things being equal) there will be more people killed. We're not blaming the tools. We're blaming our lawmakers for making the tools of death readily available...especially to children, idiots, losers and even people on the no-fly list.

[Gillian]

No one is blaming the tool. We are noting, however, that if you make tools designed for killing more accessible, then (all things being equal) there will be more people killed. We're not blaming the tools. We're blaming our lawmakers for making the tools of death readily available...especially to children, idiots, losers and even people on the no-fly list.
.
Thank you. The voice of reason ... :)

[up_for_it]

I love it when people use Hitler to win arguments.

[Rabbiteyes]

I love it when people use Hitler to win arguments.

I love it when people think we should ignore a recent piece of history that serves as a perfect example of how a society can do amazingly horrible things.

Hitler and the Nazi weren't fantasy, they aren't just something to use for easy enemies in games or movies.

[trish]

Of course in the U.S. it's losers with guns who are doing amazingly horrible things while telling us how safe, necessary and well intended they are. The first people who will call you unpatriotic for questioning our country's war policies are the people who masturbate over the fantasy of taking up arms against the government.

[buttslinger]

I love it when people use Hitler to win arguments.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
-Joseph Goebbels

Only an idiot believes that Obama is trying to take away their guns or freedom, the only people these common sense law adjustments would hurt is criminals, and the NRA says it's ALL ABOUT stopping criminals. The NRA want to establish themselves as the go-to guys when it cums to guns, and arguing with them is like arguing with Tony the Tiger if you find a rat in your sugar frosted flakes. If you put an ad on tv for Budweiser beer every 30 minutes, people will buy it. And if the NRA puts an ad on every 30 minutes, people will buy it. Guns are entertainment.Guns are Product.


Future First Person Shooter - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyCyzB0CedM)

[BrassVillanueva]

No one is blaming the tool. We are noting, however, that if you make tools designed for killing more accessible, then (all things being equal) there will be more people killed. We're not blaming the tools. We're blaming our lawmakers for making the tools of death readily available...especially to children, idiots, losers and even people on the no-fly list.

Then, in that case, you have to also ban all knives, all pens, all pencils, frying pans, baseball bats, straight razors, hedge shears, anything with a sharp edge or that can be used a blunt object... all things which are even MORE accessible than guns and ALL of which have been used as a deadly weapon, either with the intended effect or simply with the intent.

No, not an acceptable argument. You don't take away the tools from the people who use them properly just because some whackjobs use them improperly. That's the whole point. No more regulation will do any good, and the regulation that's already in place doesn't do any good, either. Gun control does not work. It never has and it never will.

[trish]

Then, in that case, you have to also ban all knives, all pens,...No, we don't. The very same week of the Sandy Hook shootings a guy went on a knife rampage in a school in China and injured twenty some students. Guess how many he killed. If you guessed none you're correct. The determination of how easy is too easy depends in part on the lethality of the weapon.

A gun is designed to kill. If you're using it properly then your killing something or practicing to kill something.

[BrassVillanueva]

Oh, come on now; that's a lousy argument. Any weapon can be just as lethal as a gun, you just have to know how to use it to that effect. I could make a lethal weapon out of a paperclip, a folded up sheet of notebook paper and a rubber band. I'd have to have pretty good aim for it to actually be effective in killing someone, but that weapon is no more or less lethal than any other. You're talking about banning something on a basis that simply does not exist.

[trish]

I could make a lethal weapon out of a paperclip, a folded up sheet of notebook paper and a rubber band. So why do you need a gun? You can effectively defend yourself against bad guys and the tyranical government with a bag of paper clips and rubber bands. Why are we wasting money arming our soldiers with automatic weapons when paper clips are equally lethal?

[yodajazz]

Then, in that case, you have to also ban all knives, all pens, all pencils, frying pans, baseball bats, straight razors, hedge shears, anything with a sharp edge or that can be used a blunt object... all things which are even MORE accessible than guns and ALL of which have been used as a deadly weapon, either with the intended effect or simply with the intent.

No, not an acceptable argument. You don't take away the tools from the people who use them properly just because some whackjobs use them improperly. That's the whole point. No more regulation will do any good, and the regulation that's already in place doesn't do any good, either. Gun control does not work. It never has and it never will.

Motor vehicles are registered. Look at all the regulations on the use of motor vehicles. Guns are instruments that can be used specifically for crimes. The registration of guns, primary purpose is to prevent easier access, for criminals,and identification their misuse, such as those with serious mental health issues. It's really the same with vehicles. There are many restrictions on who is allow to drive. The fact that someone can use a vehicle for illegal things, regardless is not a valid argument, for non regulations. Since people, will always speed while driving through school zones, does not argue there should be no speed limits. The fact that many will comply, raises the level of safety. Yes criminals will always have guns, but to argue, that we should let it be easier for criminal to get them, does not follow true logic. In fact you can argue, that there should no rules in society, because someone will violate every rule.

[Ben]

Interesting article....

Post-Boston vulnerability will at last force Americans to consider ‘why they hate us’:

http://mondoweiss.net/2013/04/vulnerability-americans-consider.html

[fivekatz]

Interesting article....

Post-Boston vulnerability will at last force Americans to consider ‘why they hate us’:

http://mondoweiss.net/2013/04/vulnerability-americans-consider.htmlI don't think Boston was that moment. LOt of factors there from the relatively low loss of life, to the speed with which the terrorists were caught, to the fact that the brothers appear to be idiots on their own that were so cold that one laid his backpack bomb at the feet of a child and the other brother ran his brother over and dragged his body down the street in the getaway car.

There are genuine issues that people have with the American empire but if history teaches us anything when you attack the civilian population you will initially only fortify their support for their government and only total victory will ever cause capitulation.

If the "oppressed"peoples of the world want to hit America where it will hurt and cause a change in attitude they need to attack corporations not civilians at work or play IMHO.

[BrassVillanueva]

So why do you need a gun? You can effectively defend yourself against bad guys and the tyranical government with a bag of paper clips and rubber bands. Why are we wasting money arming our soldiers with automatic weapons when paper clips are equally lethal?

Because guns are easier to use. And the very reason WHY the general populous is supposed to arm themselves with those guns is to be able to defend themselves against people who, for whatever reason, decide to use the same type of weapon for the wrong reasons. Mutually assured destruction is proven to prevent more crime than anything else. That's all there is to it.

[BrassVillanueva]

Yes criminals will always have guns, but to argue, that we should let it be easier for criminal to get them, does not follow true logic.

It would be no easier for criminals to get them without gun control than it would be WITH gun control. That notion is absurd. Gun control has never and WILL never force criminals to obey gun control laws. They'll find guns regardless of how difficult the legal channels are made, because they don't GO through legal channels. What about this is so difficult to comprehend?

[dderek123]

^ The guns used in the Sandy Hook shooting were obtained legally. Not difficult to comprehend either.

[BrassVillanueva]

^ The guns used in the Sandy Hook shooting were obtained legally. Not difficult to comprehend either.

No, actually, they weren't. Lanza stole them from his mother in the process of killing her. That's not legal.

[dderek123]

No, actually, they weren't. Lanza stole them from his mother in the process of killing her. That's not legal.
But how did the mother get them?

[fivekatz]

But how did the mother get them?Legally. But the fact remains that Lanza stole them and the incident at Sandy Hook once again brings up why should citizens have large capacity magazines for supposed recreational use?

American citizens are guaranteed the right to bear arms but that was not without any limitation and only the gun lobby has been effective in taking so few words and defending them as absolute and without need of modern adjustment.

With every death and there are many every day proponents of unfettered access to firearms end up further and further on the wrong side of humanity and real justice IMHO. The reasoning that no action will eradicate all violence is a weak and disingenuous obstructionist play.

[dderek123]

Legally. But the fact remains that Lanza stole them and the incident at Sandy Hook once again brings up why should citizens have large capacity magazines for supposed recreational use?

American citizens are guaranteed the right to bear arms but that was not without any limitation and only the gun lobby has been effective in taking so few words and defending them as absolute and without need of modern adjustment.

With every death and there are many every day proponents of unfettered access to firearms end up further and further on the wrong side of humanity and real justice IMHO. The reasoning that no action will eradicate all violence is a weak and disingenuous obstructionist play.
I agree. If the guns in Lanza's house were less lethal or not there at all it's logical to think that things could have happened differently.

[trish]

Because guns are easier to use.Thank you. That is why firearm regulation doesn't entail the regulation of paper clips, forks, knives or spoons (as you earlier suggested).

[trish]

Remember the word "bear" is not synonymous with "own."

[yodajazz]

It would be no easier for criminals to get them without gun control than it would be WITH gun control. That notion is absurd. Gun control has never and WILL never force criminals to obey gun control laws. They'll find guns regardless of how difficult the legal channels are made, because they don't GO through legal channels. What about this is so difficult to comprehend?

If what I read before is true, then 100,000's of gun applications have been turned down through Federal gun registration checks. And we can make it harder for criminals by required private owners to register sales. Right now I could sell weapons to people I know are criminals without consequence. If I sold a vehicle, it would have to be registered. Seems like we have a pretty high compliance with vehicle registration.

The spirit of fear that you live in in more dangerous that most criminals. It suppresses your immune system and other natural healing functions. Stress on the brain from worrying about imagined criminals coming after us, makes us seek out temporary pleasures, and more risky behavior in general. The spirit of fear is put out for profit. More people use a gun for suicide than shooting a criminal. With other things being similar, I would bet that I will outlive you for at least ten years, mainly from living gun free. Now if someone were to seriously threaten me or my family, that would be different. I have nothing against people getting guns to deal with specific issues. But I think we all need to be more aware of the hidden dangers of owning a weapon. This includes other people getting access, such as curious youth, or someone who has mental health problems, but also has some access to our homes. The Sandy Hook shooter had some mental health issues. There are legal consequences for letting people use our vehicles, but not guns designed to injure people.

[dderek123]

The spirit of fear

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TtGQnyPZ6g

[Jericho]

Oh, come on now; that's a lousy argument.


Yah...I can see what you're saying there! :rolleyes:

[sweetts18]

Remember the word "bear" is not synonymous with "own."

Hmm... what about "keep?" ...can that be a synonym for it? ...and as to the picture of the paper clip and the gun... you DO realize that the average American citizen can't own the pictured firearm, right??? ...it's fully automatic, and thus subject to countless laws and restrictions... great job at using something scary looking for the knee-jerk though!

[trish]

you DO realize that the average American citizen can't own the pictured firearm, right???Thank God!

it's fully automatic, and thus subject to countless laws and restrictionsAs long as we're complaining about hyperbole, you do realize "countless" is refers to the size of the first infinite cardinal. The restrictions on fully automatic weapons is surely countable.

what about "keep?"Do you mean as in the phrase, "Keep this safe for me until I return," or the phrase, "You get to keep this weapon until you're discharged?"

[sweetts18]

Lmao... touche on the latter... yes, the laws regulating the sale/transfer/ownership of fully automatic. (and other) firearms here in the states IS countable ...but you go ahead and start counting the applicable laws and ordinances on them... see you in a month or two.

[trish]

The more restrictions, the better. Continuum many restrictions wouldn't be enough...unless we just simply restrict from all non-military use no exceptions no matter how loudly the NRA complains.

[sweetts18]

And "keep" means just that: to own, to possess... to have. ...trust me, that's EXACTLY what the founding fathers meant.

[trish]

So military personnel who keep weapons, own those weapons? Can they sell them? Pawn them? Give them away? Melt them down?

[sweetts18]

...how about the word "not", or the phrase "the people"... as in "the right of THE PEOPLE to KEEP AND BEAR arms, shall NOT be infringed."

[sweetts18]

And no... the people in the military don't own those weapons... they don't keep them either... that firearm belongs to the people.

[trish]

And no... the people in the military don't own those weapons... they don't keep them either... Ah but they do KEEP them. "Keep" has a more a complex contour of meaning then you might find convenient. If you want to bear fully automatic weapons join the military. Anyone can. No infringement.

[sweetts18]

Let me tell you something... I.. like most Americans, have no desire for an automatic firearm... I've spent time operating them, and honestly, unless there are a lot of bad guys, you're pretty much wasting ammunition. ...BUT your point is pretty much invalid, because almost nobody has a fully automatic weapon here in utopia.

[trish]

...your point is pretty much invalid, because almost nobody has a fully automatic weapon here in utopia. That would make my point (whatever you take it to be) mute, not invalid.

My points have been

1) If you increase the availability of firearms in a society, then (all things being equal) the number of deaths caused by firearms will measurably increase. Replace "firearms" with "paper clips" and the rate of increase in paper clip deaths may not be measurable (though do keep in mind paper clips are a choking hazard and you may not want to make them readily available to toddlers).

2) The Second Amendment is a result a compromise. That's why it's brief and ambivalent. You cannot say your know exactly what the "founding fathers" meant because the "founding fathers" were not of one mind.

As far as I can see, your reply hasn't touched upon their validity nor their relevance in any possible way.

[sweetts18]

First... the word you're looking for is "moot." ...second: “On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

[sweetts18]

Oh, and: "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington

[sweetts18]

You can argue many things, Trish, but the meaning and the constitutionality of private firearms ownership isn't one of them. You can disagree, and I fully support your right to do that, because the ability of the people to disagree is pretty much our whole basis for government.

[Jericho]

...and as to the picture of the paper clip and the gun... you DO realize that the average American citizen can't own the pictured firearm, right??? ...it's fully automatic, and thus subject to countless laws and restrictions... great job at using something scary looking for the knee-jerk though!


Talking about knee-jerk reactions, guilty of one yourself there, sunshine.

I could of used a nuclear explosion to illustrate the idiocy of the (quoted) argument (I'm assuming Americans can't privately own those either?), but i figured that might be a little obtuse for some...Seems i still aimed too high.

[notdrunk]

That would make my point (whatever you take it to be) mute, not invalid.

My points have been

1) If you increase the availability of firearms in a society, then (all things being equal) the number of deaths caused by firearms will measurably increase. Replace "firearms" with "paper clips" and the rate of increase in paper clip deaths may not be measurable (though do keep in mind paper clips are a choking hazard and you may not want to make them readily available to toddlers).

2) The Second Amendment is a result a compromise. That's why it's brief and ambivalent. You cannot say your know exactly what the "founding fathers" meant because the "founding fathers" were not of one mind.

As far as I can see, your reply hasn't touched upon their validity nor their relevance in any possible way.

1) There are a record number of firearm flowing in society; however, since the 1990s, the rate of illegal deaths by firearms has actually decreased.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

2) How about reading the Federalist Papers? Federalist Paper #46, written by James Madison (author of the Bill of Rights), explains one of the main purposes of the Amendment.

[sweetts18]

I understand the point you were trying to make, Jericho, however you and almost anyone else that chooses to argue against private firearms ownership always picks the same stereotypical ugly, frightening, black firearm for their argument. Americans are NOT a bunch of tobacco chewing crazy hicks with automatic weapons and flame throwers in the closet or behind the door in the event of a home invasion or just because we want to have a good time.

[trish]

Yes, of course, "moot," not "mute." Thank you for the correction.

Of course the probable meaning of the second amendment is that the right to bear arms is modified by the expectation of being called to bear those arms in service to a well regulated militia in time of need. The amendment itself is now moot, for (as you pointed out) soldiers do not add their private arms to the militia stockpile, but rather are equipped with arms owned by the people at large; i.e. bought by the tax payer.

Washington's concern was for the defense of the Nation he helped build and not for those who might want to arm themselves against that Nation. The Second Amendment is no longer relevant to that defense.

[trish]

1) look up "all things being equal". Moreover that study is about homicides involving firearms, not deaths caused by firearms.
2) the federalist papers do not speak for all signers of the Constitution, they were in fact written to address those who opposed the Federalists.

[nysprod]

The idea of making firearms illegal is so stupid, it's comical.

We've been through this in the 1920's with prohibition...all you do with these laws is enable criminal activity.

[trish]

Of course it would be stupid. I'm not suggesting that.

[sweetts18]

And that... is bullshit. pure and simple. ...The entire bill of rights was written by people who had just fought a long, drawn out, bloody war for independence from tyranny. The amendment was written to ensure that the people of this nation would have the means to resist should the government get "too big for its britches" and start trampling on the rights of the citizens. The second amendment is the last line of defense against tyranny, and it's there as a safeguard in the event that all peaceful attempts fail. History tends to repeat itself, and the founders had seen what happens to a disarmed populace, not only in the annals of history, but with their own eyes.

[trish]

Bullshit. Don't swallow the NRA Kool Aid. They were partisan politicians with a wide ranging set of conflicting views.

[sweetts18]

Please quote ONE framer of the constitution that was against private firearms ownership...

[Jericho]

I understand the point you were trying to make, Jericho, however you and almost anyone else that chooses to argue against private firearms ownership always picks the same stereotypical ugly, frightening, black firearm for their argument.

Would you have been happier if I'd tinted it pink?

Oh, and by the way, I'm not against private firearms ownership (but, understandable assumption).



Americans are NOT a bunch of tobacco chewing crazy hicks with automatic weapons and flame throwers in the closet or behind the door in the event of a home invasion or just because we want to have a good time.

Add most to the beginning of that statement and I'd agree with you.
Sadly...

[sweetts18]

I read that, Trish. :p

[trish]

And I withdrew it. Name a framer who at the time supported armed insurrection the United States of America

[sweetts18]

And yes, Jericho, a pink mp-5 would be amazing! lmao ...you get my point. Average people don't have them here, but it's not as shocking an image as say, a bolt action rifle. ...and yes, there are SOME stereotypes here in the states, but don't judge an entire people on a few samples.

[nysprod]

And that... is bullshit. pure and simple. ...The entire bill of rights was written by people who had just fought a long, drawn out, bloody war for independence from tyranny. The amendment was written to ensure that the people of this nation would have the means to resist should the government get "too big for its britches" and start trampling on the rights of the citizens.

See, that's where you and a lot of people go utterly wrong...the 2nd amendment was put there so that it would be legal to have an armed militia to defend against an invasion by a foreign power, and not so that people could "defend" themselves against a U.S. government which had gotten "too big."

If you think I'm wrong, try announcing the U.S. government is too big and that you're going to take up arms against it. See what happens.

[sweetts18]

They didn't! ...because they had just started a new nation. ...but they recognized that people with power tend to abuse it... if you read the Washington quote, its obvious that he meant for firearms to be a safeguard against ANY threat to freedom and liberty.

[sweetts18]

I urge all of you to research further... the founding fathers clearly meant it as a means of defense against any and ALL threats to the people of the nation. "when the people fear the government, there is tyranny. when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

[trish]

They didn't! ...because they had just started a new nation. ...but they recognized that people with power tend to abuse it... if you read the Washington quote, its obvious that he meant for firearms to be a safeguard against ANY threat to freedom and liberty.Doesn't matter what the framers meant; if you hitch the Second Amendment to that wagon you render it irrelevant. No armed populace is a match for the U.S. military.

[sweetts18]

Maybe not... and honestly, I hope we never find out. I love peace, and I'd like to see it worldwide... but that will never be a reality, but the IDEA of the people having the right and means for defense is what its about.

[sweetts18]

And that's pretty much what the crown said back in the day, btw...

[fivekatz]

They didn't! ...because they had just started a new nation. ...but they recognized that people with power tend to abuse it... if you read the Washington quote, its obvious that he meant for firearms to be a safeguard against ANY threat to freedom and liberty.And he sure as hell did not envision 15 year old kids ending an argument with Saturday Night Specials, or kid with anxiety issues breaking into his mothers gun case, strapping on more firepower than Washington had at Yorktown and blowing the living shit out of the mother, jumping into a horseless carriage at speeds faster than any recorded at that time and gun down a bunch of babies in less time than it took to load, fire and reload a musket?

Over the years there have been further definition and condition for freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The rights of white landholders expanded to included women and creeds and races not considered in the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights is not the Ten Commandments delivered to us by G-d him/herself. It was a mostly brilliant piece of work but the philosphical waxing of the second amendment which took place in the 18th century pure and simple needs to have better definition of what rights citizens actual have regarding firearms and just as importantly what obligation they have when they possess them.

To me the argument to the contrary is made by well meaning folks who wish to take the American heritage respectfully and find comfort in literal interpretation,

But then you also have an industry and the interest groups it bankrolls that wrap themselves in the flag so nobody will notice their only interest is unfettered markets, the profits the create and to hell with the carnage.

If America took up arms against 1% elite in full force I think some of the dudes bankrolling this insanity would look at 30 clip mags differently after the first clip ripped through their family and the gun man was making that seamless switch to the next magazine of mass destruction.

If the Bill of Rights is so pure, how come Joseph McCarthy ever existed and it would be impossible to have an organized communist party in the US? How could we perform ethnic cleansing on the entire native races of peoples?

[trish]

...but the IDEA of the people having the right and means for defense is what its about. http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/images/ca_serenity/buttons/report.gif (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/report.php?p=1321747)But the idea is antiquated, unless you want to extend the Second Amendment to cover grenades, grenade launchers, missiles, tanks, drones etc. etc. To implement the IDEA that the people have the means to defend against the U.S. government, shouldn't the people have the right to same sorts of arsenals the military has? Are you really a supporter of that IDEA? If so, I would further asked, just what in your mind would justify an armed insurrection against the United States Government? A 37% tax rate? The patriot act or an extension thereof? If you're arguing for the right to preparations sufficient to mount an armed insurrection against the government, shouldn't those of us yet to be persuaded be informed just what would be a sufficient trigger for such an insurrection?

[sweetts18]

What we're talking about here is the constitutionality of private firearms ownership, and none among you can claim in your dissent that it ISN'T a constitutionally protected right. ...I will agree that the tragedies that have occurred right here on our soil are outrageous and saddening to me, but each and every one of these was the result of somebody locating an easy target that wasn't armed. ...The shooter in Colorado purposely chose that theater, for instance, because it was the only gun free theater close by.... and obviously at Sandy Hook, most of the victims were children... in a "gun free" zone.

[Dino Velvet]

Remember the word "bear" is not synonymous with "own."

Little off topic but ever since I joined this forum I've become more conscious of how I use the word "bear".

[sweetts18]

Trish, do not misunderstand me...I am neither anarchist nor am I plotting an insurrection in any way. I am simply a peaceful U.S. citizen and a constitutionalist. All I am saying (without any factual rebuttal, I may add) is that the purpose of the second amendment is to allow citizens to lawfully possess firearms... and yes, as written and interpreted through historic documentation, they are intended for defense against tyranny.

[trish]

Forget constitutionality for the moment. Does the intention to defend against the possible future tyranny of the United States against its own citizens continue to be a justification for the Second Amendment (if so, we need the rights to a full military arsenal), or should we seek justification for the amendment elsewhere?


The shooter in Colorado purposely chose that theater, for instance, because it was the only gun free theater close byAnd you believe as a matter of faith that less mayhem would have ensued had the dark theater been filled with armed Batman fans?

and obviously at Sandy Hook, most of the victims were children... in a "gun free" zone. And you believe as a matter of faith that if teachers kept loaded weapons in their desk drawers, children would be safer?

These are not opinions about the constitutionality of the Second Amendment, but rather claims of faith concerning the how best to secure public safety.

[sweetts18]

Do you call the police when you have a problem? ...could it have ANYTHING to do with them being armed and trained?

[trish]

I don't called them because they're armed, but because they're trained. My next door neighbor is armed. I'm not going to call him.

[sweetts18]

Ever live in a rural area? ...cops around here take about thirty minutes. ...and yes, as a matter of faith, I DO believe that an armed good citizen that's right here, right now is better than the cops that showed up when it was over to draw chalk outlines around the bodies of innocent children.

[sweetts18]

Hey, since it doesn't even matter if the COPS are armed... lets take their guns and give them judo training and teddy bears! Surely, it's just the blue lights are what scares off armed individuals with malicious intent.

[nysprod]

They didn't! ...because they had just started a new nation. ...but they recognized that people with power tend to abuse it... if you read the Washington quote, its obvious that he meant for firearms to be a safeguard against ANY threat to freedom and liberty.

In order for that to be true, you'd have to interpret the constitution as saying, "OK people, please feel free as your constitutional right to take up arms against the U.S. government anytime you believe it's gotten too big."

"And thanks for your concern!"

[trish]

I DO live in a rural area and I also grew up in one. When I was growing up one of the kids three blocks down from where I lived found a gun in his dad's dresser and shot himself. They called the cops. The cops called the coroner. Time wasn't an issue. Shit like that happens every day in the U.S. Do you think if every teacher kept a loaded gun in their desk drawer children would be safer?

[sweetts18]

In order for that to be true, you'd have to interpret the constitution as saying, "OK people, please feel free as your constitutional right to take up arms against the U.S. government anytime you believe it's gotten too big."

"And thanks for your concern!"

No. what it means is "please feel free to take up arms against the government when it no longer stands for the rights written here, and you (as in the majority) feel that you've become subjects without free will, rather than citizens with a say in government."

[sweetts18]

I DO live in a rural area and I also grew up in one. When I was growing up one of the kids three blocks down from where I lived found a gun in his dad's dresser and shot himself. They called the cops. The cops called the coroner. Time wasn't an issue. Shit like that happens every day in the U.S. Do you think if every teacher kept a loaded gun in their desk drawer children would be safer?

And I am GENUINELY sorry to hear that. And I won't argue that gun accidents aren't horrible things, but growing up I saw guns in every corner of the house. I knew what they were, I knew what they were capable of if misused, and I NEVER messed with them. Not always, but usually, the guns involved in childhood accidents are found by the children, and they view it in curiosity, because all they know about it is what they see on television.

[trish]

No. what it means is "please feel free to take up arms against the government when it no longer stands for the rights written here, and you (as in the majority) feel that you've become subjects without free will, rather than citizens with a say in government."

Before I'm going to give the okay to private citizens arming to teeth so that they're sufficiently prepared to defeat the combined armed services of the United States military, I want to know a bit more about what constitutes feeling "that you've become subjects without free will, rather than citizens with a say in government." How about another president allegedly from Kenya? Would that suffice? How about the passage of a single payer health care bill? Would that do it? Where's the line? Just what are we afraid of here?

[trish]

...and I NEVER messed with them.Lucky for you. I'm not for banning all guns. But I would like to see real regulations. Loopholes closed. Magazine capacity limited and liability for owners and manufacturers for accidents and crimes committed with their guns for starters. Making guns less readily available, especially to children, idiots and losers; and making owners take partial financial responsibility for deaths and injuries caused by their weapons imo would diminish the risk of harm to others.

Gotta go. See ya later.

[sweetts18]

That isn't for me or for you to decide. pay attention. ...When the MAJORITY of people are convinced that they need to take up arms... the MAJORITY will do just that. What I'm talking about, and what this amendment is about is what the majority has the means to do when its agreed that there is an issue... and its intent is to be the LAST resort... its there for the chance that all due process fails.

[fivekatz]

Guns settle nothing, they only end it.

The NRA has become reduced to an argument that a safe society can only be a society where everyone is packing.

Let's take the amendment literally and every citizen is entitled to a musket. That is one form of "gun safety" since the gun loads slowly and isn't super accurate.

Or let's go the other extreme and say I have the right to keep a Stealth Fighter Jet in my garage armed with nuclear warheads and anthrax because if the government denies me the rights that a bunch of 18th Century rich white guys stoned out of their minds on madera and rum thought I should have, I can project my freedom.

Freedom is a terribly miss used word IMHO in the post industrial Western World. It means you as a corporation are free to do whatever it takes to enrich your shareholders. It means that freedom from disease is a marketplace product and any interference with that marketplace that might create democratic access to health care is actually an assault on "freedom". Freedom is the right to engage in business that you know will destroy the environment and kill your fellow man, while tyranny is when the government attempts to regulate the rate at which you destroy the environment and kill your felloe man.

More guns mean more death. There is not a reliable study not done by the industry that suggests packing deters anything but long life.

This argument is always turned into a zero tolerance argument because the elimination of firearms from America is impossible. But reason can be applied and it can result in reduction in needless death. And for all they rather not use their imaginations, the gun industry could still prosper. But just like auto makers fight any regulation whether it makes long term business sense or not, because capital wants to play without restraint and human cost is never perceived until it is personal.

[sweetts18]

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#general ...more guns don't always mean more deaths.

[sweetts18]

Per capita... the highest rates of firearms homicides happen in places with the STRICTEST gun laws... hmm...

[fivekatz]

Per capita... the highest rates of firearms homicides happen in places with the STRICTEST gun laws... hmm...A rather manipulated number derived at by using city laws and their death rates in states with lax gun laws. PA and IL are great examples where the flow into Philly and Chicago is unfettered by lax state safety requirements.

If having more guns made people more safe how come the US is the murder capital of the Western World?

[buttslinger]

Jesus, none of the proposed laws want to take away guns from law abiding citizens, they WOULD have taken guns away from those that would hurt people guns are dangerous!! How many times do some people need to hear it? Common sense gun laws make sense for republicans and democrats, if you don't know that you're a sucker.

[fivekatz]

Jesus, none of the proposed laws want to take away guns from law abiding citizens, they WOULD have taken guns away from those that would hurt people guns are dangerous!! How many times do some people need to hear it? Common sense gun laws make sense for republicans and democrats, if you don't know that you're a sucker.Well in all honesty you have to be a bit of sucker to fall for the whole a $1M tax break for Mitt and a $100 tax break for you is a good deal. Or that health care for all is a BAD thing. So it is little wonder in the buffet of bullshit that the right is selling to people to vote against their own economic interests that folks would believe that any gun safety regulation means that the Arab/African President will personally man the dump trucks as they take all guns from lawful gun owners and give them to junkies, scary dark men and fast talking jews.

[sweetts18]

A rather manipulated number derived at by using city laws and their death rates in states with lax gun laws. PA and IL are great examples where the flow into Philly and Chicago is unfettered by lax state safety requirements.

If having more guns made people more safe how come the US is the murder capital of the Western World?

But wait... if the guns are illegal in the places where the crimes happen... then what does it matter where the guns came from to start with??? Didn't the "no guns allowed" signs stop them?

[sweetts18]

Jesus, none of the proposed laws want to take away guns from law abiding citizens, they WOULD have taken guns away from those that would hurt people guns are dangerous!! How many times do some people need to hear it? Common sense gun laws make sense for republicans and democrats, if you don't know that you're a sucker.

A gun is an inanimate object... its people you need to worry about.

[sweetts18]

Well in all honesty you have to be a bit of sucker to fall for the whole a $1M tax break for Mitt and a $100 tax break for you is a good deal. Or that health care for all is a BAD thing. So it is little wonder in the buffet of bullshit that the right is selling to people to vote against their own economic interests that folks would believe that any gun safety regulation means that the Arab/African President will personally man the dump trucks as they take all guns from lawful gun owners and give them to junkies, scary dark men and fast talking jews.

What if I told you that I am FOR the healthcare reform?

[notdrunk]

1) look up "all things being equal". Moreover that study is about homicides involving firearms, not deaths caused by firearms.
2) the federalist papers do not speak for all signers of the Constitution, they were in fact written to address those who opposed the Federalists.

1.) The whole current gun control debate is being pushed by crime (e.g., Sandy Hook). Suicides shouldn't be included. Why? Lets look at Japan and South Korea: Both countries have very restrictive firearm laws. Both countries have very high suicide rates. I can point out more countries with higher suicide rates than the United States. And, those other countries have restrictive firearm laws. My point is that suicidal people will find ways to kill themselves. Accidents can be fixed with proper education and training.

2.) James Madison wrote and proposed the Second Amendment to the Constitution. His insight on the Second Amendment is important. The Bill of Rights was to win over the Anti-Federalists. The original Constitution didn't contain a Bill of Rights.

[buttslinger]

A gun is an inanimate object... its people you need to worry about.

Just for the record, do you admit that guns are dangerous objects, ? just gimme that, come on. Careful, this may be a trick.

[sweetts18]

No. a gun is NOT dangerous, not anymore than a blender, microwave oven, automobile, or chainsaw. Each of these has the power to maim, kill, or destroy if misused or used maliciously, but alone, without human influence, they will sit for a hundred years and never harm a soul.

[Gillian]

No. a gun is NOT dangerous, not anymore than a blender, microwave oven, automobile, or chainsaw.
-
Hmmm. A fully automatic assault rifle is no more dangerous than a microwave oven?. Explain that to me again.

Thank fuck I don't live in the States ... :D

[buttslinger]

No. a gun.... a blender, microwave oven, automobile, or chainsaw....

Promise me you won't let any kids play at your house!

[trish]

It's tragic how many accidental blender deaths just go unreported in the U.S. everyday. Not only ignored by the media, but even Congress has ignored the problem; they didn't even bother to instruct the CDC not to conduct studies on blender deaths and injuries.

[sweetts18]

Ok... I want you guys to tell me of one incident where a firearm (of any description, but I love how we've somehow gone back to this supposed "fully automatic assault rifle" that we Americans must surely all have... so let's make it one of those!) got up, walked out of the gun cabinet, loaded itself, and then drove somewhere looking for a target without somebody holding it.

[Prospero]

Sweets18... you really are a dunderhead. A gun is designed to kill. That is it's purpose - be in a hunting rifle, a hand gun or a fully automated assault rifle. I wonder why the man who killed all those children in Sandy chose a gun over a microwave. How many people have died deliberately or accidentally as a result of using a microwave in the US in the past 12 months. What a stupid arguing point.

The gun fetish that obsesses so many people in America is a sign of a collective insanity which is perplexing in the light of America's otherwise astonishing record across the board of human achievement.

[Stavros]

Oh, and: "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington

Sweetts18 -you claim the mantle of history on your 2nd amendment, but you ignore the same history on gun ownership, then and since. The right to bear arms at the time was limited to free men who, in order to bear those arms had to swear an oath of allegiance to the Revoution and enter their name and personal details into a national register before being issued with a Musket or whatever the weapon was in those days. By definition a slave was not entitled to bear arms, as slaves were not considered human beings but 'human property' (of the slave-owners).

The right to bear arms became part of the fall-out of the Civil War when freedmen -most of whom had fought on the Union side- were allowed to retain their weapons leading to a backlash in the Southern States where local laws took those guns away.

At its inception in the 19th century, the NRA's primary concern was to improve the marksmanship of its members, and it supported Roosevelt's Gun Control legislation in the 1930s which was initiated to respond to violent crime in the cities.

Interestingly, again, not only did the NRA support gun control in the 1960s, in California the gun control laws that had allowed citizens to walk around with weapons on their hips or in their hands, were tightened when the Black Panther Party used their right to carry weapons to 'monitor' what they claimed was police harassment of the Black community -it was when they walked into the Capitol building fully armed -as they were legally entitled to do- that severe gun laws were passed -and yes, Ronald Reagan was Governor at the time. Gun control laws were tightened in the 1960s because of the Panthers, because of the urban riots -the 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with it.

You can follow the history to the present day, how the NRA has only become extreme on gun control since the 1970s/80s and may be part of the broader attack on Civil Rights that has characterised much conservative politics in the USA, trace how many gun control laws were passed out of fear of Black people having the same rights as 'the rest' to bear arms, and all of it is a world away from the precise wording of the 2nd Amendment.

In other words, the gun debate in the USA is a debate about relations among Americans, not about the organisation of Americans against an external enemy. For that, you have an army, a navy, an air force, the National Security Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, the CIA, the National Guard(s) and local policing....

This is one of the most entertaining and interesting articles on the subject:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/

[trish]

Ok... I want you guys to tell me of one incident where a firearm (of any description, but I love how we've somehow gone back to this supposed "fully automatic assault rifle" that we Americans must surely all have... so let's make it one of those!) got up, walked out of the gun cabinet, loaded itself, and then drove somewhere looking for a target without somebody holding it.

Heroin almost never jumps off the counter into a hypodermic needle and into a person’s vein. Cars almost never start themselves up and drive down the street looking for a crowd of pedestrians to mow down.

People do accidentally overdose on drugs. People falling asleep or otherwise distracted do mow down crowds of pedestrians while driving. Rifles racked in the back window of a pickup rarely discharge and fire into a nearby house or passing vehicle, but accidents do happen daily. (http://accidentalgunshots.tumblr.com/). Women rarely keep their ammunition in the oven (http://fox59.com/2013/02/21/oven-shoots-florida-woman-cooking-waffles/#axzz2T53rcrRA). Men rarely accidentally kill their sons with firearms (http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/no-charges-to-be-filed-in-accidental-wentzville-church-shooting/article_221ab4f3-660b-5593-b63e-5501ead38ce7.html), but it happens almost every week; whereas accidental deaths by blender are practically non-existent.

Yet we regulate the use of drugs, cars and guns (...and even blenders have to be UL certified :) ). Why?

Because “person+gun” and “person+heroin” and “person+car” are an inherently dangerous combos and the electric motor in a blender can interfere with your neighbor’s radio reception and wifi.

Sweetts seems to complain that inanimate objects don’t commit crimes or cause accidents so it’s unfair to make laws against them. There are two flaws to this complaint. One: Gun regulations are restrictions placed upon people who would use, buy and sell guns. They are not laws against the guns themselves. Two: Guns are inanimate objects...it’s impossible to treat them fairly or unfairly :) .

[Prospero]

Give blenders the vote.

[hippifried]

A gun is an inanimate object... its people you need to worry about.
Is there a point to this? All tools are controlled by people. Regulations on sale &/or use are to protect others from misuse by those that have the tool. Gun regulations are to help keep potentially lethal tools out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. It's a real simple concept that isn't prohibited by the Constitution or any SCOTUS rulings.


What if I told you that I am FOR the healthcare reform?
????????? What does that have to do with this?


That isn't for me or for you to decide. pay attention. ...When the MAJORITY of people are convinced that they need to take up arms... the MAJORITY will do just that. What I'm talking about, and what this amendment is about is what the majority has the means to do when its agreed that there is an issue... and its intent is to be the LAST resort... its there for the chance that all due process fails.
Oh... So "the MAJORITY" is going to take up arms against the democracy they live in... ??? Huh? Why? "the MAJORITY" doesn't know what it wants? You really should rethink this extremely lame argument. The Second Amendment is about keeping the "well regulated militia" armed. It's as much a restriction on States as the Federal Government. We're really not supposed to have a standing army. That's why it has to be refunded every 2 years. That would be in Article I section 8, just in case you missed it Mr Constitutionalist.

[fivekatz]

sssh Hippifred about the standing army!

They buy more guns at a higher mark-up and would put the NRA in a heck of a pickle deciding whether to defend individual gun rights via the militia clause or defending the military industrial defense complex.