Chapman writes: "I often wonder what it will take for Americans to absolutely reject the groups like the NRA, all their ideas, and anyone who supports their morbid, necrophiliac love of an element of the constitution that is anachronistic, poorly written, unclear, and insanely stupid given modern weaponry."
Tom Sullivan, center, searches for his son who attended the movie. (photo: AP)
What Will it Take for Americans to Reject the NRA?
20 July 12
s someone who grew up in a place where guns designed to kill people are more or less banned and where no one feels that some essential freedom has been lost (on the contrary, freedom from fear is cherished), I often wonder what it will take for Americans to absolutely reject the groups like the NRA, all their ideas, and anyone who supports their morbid, necrophiliac love of an element of the constitution that is anachronistic, poorly written, unclear, and insanely stupid given modern weaponry. After which, we could actually start to do something to save the approximately 30,000 lives lost to gunshot wounds every year, many of them children.
When I adapted John Grisham's book Runaway Jury, changing it from a lawsuit about tobacco to one about guns, I met gun manufacturers who, supported by the NRA, proudly refused to add even the most basic safety features to guns and resisted any kind of legislation aimed at preventing negligent marketing of guns to individuals who were clearly selling them on to criminals. It was the most cynical thing I ever witnessed, this faux reverence for the constitution. My belief is that sooner or later a gunman or gunmen with legally acquired weapons will kill not 12 or 20 people but several hundred children (who no one advocates arming for self-defense) trapped in some unique location. And then, maybe, Americans will say, "Wow, I wonder if we should do something about this arcane piece of constitutional junk and start bringing America into the modern world."
I dislike reverence in almost all forms, it's usually a kind of constriction on the intellect, but reverence for old documents is doubly stupid when, as in this case, and rather unusually, the writers of the document had the good sense to write in a provision for changing the thing when needed and indeed encouraged the idea of doing so! I'm sure, as with so many things, this would have happened decades ago if America wasn't so arrogantly averse to looking at other countries where various things function better than in "the greatest country in the world." And demonstrably so. Just look at the figures for murder by gun in any other country in the world outside of war zones. Or look at what has happened in the other city I sometimes live in, Rio de Janeiro.
People say they want to keep their guns in case criminals with guns come for them, and others say it's an impossible situation to solve, guns being so entrenched in North American culture. Well, all of that applies ten times over in the favelas of Rio which are, or were, much more infested with guns than any slum in America. Up in some favelas the gangs had guns that could bring down helicopters.
Here is a photo of me and the man who is solving the gun problem in these favelas, and in the culture of the favelas, Rio State Public Security Secretary Jose Mariano Beltrame.
Beltrame came up with the following strategy. He warned the favelas they were going to be invaded on a certain day and anyone caught with guns would be imprisoned. He then told the favela dwellers of an ongoing anonymous-reporting phone line so they could warn the police of large and small caches of arms.
And he assured them that once their favela had been taken over, community policing would take over. And - and here's the key thing that's left out of all gun arguments in America - SOCIAL SERVICES would be provided to help people get off drugs, train for jobs, find jobs, improve their homes, improve their schools, etc. Given a choice between a functioning gun-free society or one ruled by fear and greed, the community turned against those who owned guns, turned them over to the police, and - perhaps most inspiringly of all - accepted the social services but as a community went way beyond the government offered gift, taking control and care of their own neighborhood.
Anyone who doubts the possibility of radical and beautiful social change should see a crop of new Brazilian films that have come out of the favelas, or visit Rio which has become a different and so much more pleasant city - and not just in the favelas. Just as with drugs, mere punitive action is demonstrably useless and often counterproductive. Look at the prison population in America while gun and drug problems continues unabated. Charity doesn't help much either.
There's a thing called government - we vote for it, it's us if it's not corrupted by money - and it can do anything if we don't constantly pour scorn on it as if it was something detached from us rather than our best and most just expression of ourselves.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 24 May 2013
|
 23 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 23 May 2013
|
 23 May 2013
|
 24 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 25 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
NO DOUBT. This is just another "Mass Murder for Profit' organization that is protected and encouraged by corrupt politicians. The N.R.A. and all its 'leaders' should be intensely investigated as to their investments and activities, and their fear mongering and lies to scare people.
And they should be prosecuted for the lives they have taken, just like the Bush Mafia's WARS-FOR-PROFIT , Health Insurance companies 'mass-murders-f or-profit' by denying health care to the ill, Monsanto's Killing-Better- With-Chemicals- mass-murders, Mining Companies' mass-murders-fo r-profit, OIL companies' mass-murders-fo r-profit, Prisons-for-Pro fit, and those companies in the Military Industrial Complex who spend a lot to buy politicians who will start their WARS-FOR-PROFIT . They ALL profit from the DESTRUCTION OF HUMAN LIFE.
CALL IT WHAT IT IS: MASS MURDER FOR PROFIT. Nothing less.
And now, since the Supreme Court has declared that "corporations are people,' these CEO's should be sent to PRISON FOR LIFE.
I would suggest what it will take is a strong dose of stupidity!
If someone in the theater in Colorado would have had a weapon the mass shooting would have ended without 71 people being shot! and who knows how many more will die? Remember the 71 year old man who shot the two robbers and prevented something more serious?
Take away our guns and you will see much more of this insanity... only nuts want the weapons out of law abiding citizens hands! Every country that has taken the guns from the citizens has witnessed an increase in crime...Look it up! It is a fact!!!!...
Don't be stupid and fall for this propaganda!
Guns don't kill people kill!
Cars also kill does that mean we should confiscate all cars?
Think...dnn't react!
"Take away our guns and you will see much more of this insanity." Like Canada? England? Yeah, their murder rates are through the roof.
"Cars also kill does that mean we should confiscate all cars?" Cars aren't designed for the sole purpose of killing people. They aren't concealable. They don't come with armor-piercing bumpers. And drivers are licensed. And you can't license a tank or a top-fuel dragster for the road. But guns? Anything goes.
"Think" ... Good advice. Take it.
"Take away our guns and you will see much more of this insanity." Like Canada? England? Yeah, their murder rates are through the roof." actually yes as is all crime, I suggest you look it up! Rather then to take a position that has been Democrat propaganda and false!
The Democrats philosophy of Gun control turns off most thinking people; me included…. That gives the Republicans a tremendous edge! You appear as morons when you take that position! Reality is that Guns are a defensive weapon, If you don’t want to own a gun that is your right…My right is to own one if I Choose to, and I do!!!
**per 100K population 1998-2010**
Mexico ...... 12.5-14.6
U.S. ........ 12-14.8
Canada ...... 4.5-5.0
Costa Rica .. 3.5 (steady 1990-2010)
Azerbaijan .. 2.4-3.2
England ..... .46
I in no way want to deny anyone's 2nd Amendment rights, I own and carry a handgun when wilderness hiking. But accurate facts and statistical trends are integral to making thoughtful and wise decisions. Facts from several different reliable sources show that the US loses around 10,000 citizens a year to gun-related violence, while England loses around 14-16. Actually, the overwhelming majority of thinking people I know, including hunter and other gun owners, think the proliferation of guns in the US is beyond absurd, and I would suggest that you be careful about who you refer to as a "moron."
No. {People with guns kill.
If someone in the theater had had a gun, he might--might--h ave been able to take down the shooter, but might also have accidentally shot someone innocent and MISSED the shooter--and then been shot down himself.
The NRA tries to scare people with imaaginary scenarios in whichj an evil governemnt comes to take away every last pistol and shotgun. This is BS and the NRA knows it, but its leaders count on its followers being too soft in the head to see it.
Next, NRA fear-mongers will blame this tragedy on this deficiency: that theatre patrons were not armed with armor-piercing bullets in their weapons.
How far do you want to go, perhaps we take all knives off the street, and bows and arrows, and poison, rope, axes, automobiles and everything that can be used to kill, even household detergents from which a bomb could be made or a clothes hanger or even rope? If we take away the means of transportation the killer would not have the means of killing so outlawing a car is equally as important
I don’t expect that you will understand how foolish your position is! And I expect thumbs down because this is a democrat sticking point and one that shows a lack of true intellect...
1) Home defense against intruders.
2) An armed target population will shoot the shooter before the shooter shoots people.
Response- 1) Study after study show that a hand gun in the house increases the likelihood at least 10 times of a member of the household being killed by homicide or suicide by gun.
2) A population armed with lethal weapons with the principle of shooting someone before or after they shoot will increase firearm use, injuries and fatalities. The people carrying firearms as a means of defense will be seen as potential shooters and increase the likelihood of them being shot at to prevent a shooting, and the cycle goes on.
Firearms are lethal weapons. We have a society that is entertained by violence and destructive "human cock fighting" reality and talk shows". The two together results in this all too frequent mass shootings.
And how does an intruder know whether a household is armed or not? What statistics could possibly support your comment? Gun lobby talking points are not to be confused with facts.
Look at the number of times a gun is fired annually in self defense,,, between 1.5 and 2,5 million times
A number of states permit concealed carry. Perhaps you can provide a list of the OK Corral shootouts that have resulted from that. Actually I think you will find that the incidence of crime decreases as the number of privately owned guns increases.
Criminals are not suicidal. If there are two potential victims & one is armed guess which one becomes the victim?
I will defer to you on human cock fighting reality & talk shows. I've never seen one. Curious. Do the combatants have to dress like cocks?
Guns, like motor vehicles, can be, and often are lethal in the hands of untrained and unqualified people. To legally operate a motor vehicle, one must be tested and authorized by state DMVs.
Who in their right mind objects to these measures? Not even car manufacturers and oil companies find these "restrictions and controls" onerous, even though they prevent many people from driving.
The NRA stands in the path of any and all legislation, federal or local, that would in any way impede the proliferation of gun ownership. They also stoop to blatant fear mongering and phony patriotism to defend their interpretation of the Constitution.
John Loche's false equivalency "Cars also kill" (with which he unwittingly admits that guns kill) argument is absurd and typical of simplistic NRA, right wing propaganda designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator of intelligence.
Is there a new definition of stupidity I am unaware of?
Your analogy is flawed and that slippery slope argument doesn't hold much water. Yes people kill people but guns make it super easy. If Zimmerman didn't have his gun that night, nobody would have died.
Don't get me wrong, though. I'm for responsible gun ownership and use. I have no problem with sane people having them. I do think, however, we need more stringent methods for keeping guns out of hands operated by unstable minds.
The NRA has done a fantastic job of scaring the Stupid People that their 2nd Amendment Rights are being taken away just because they can’t have magazines with 20, 30, 50 or 100 shells.
Just because there are supposedly more civilized methods of dealing with disgruntlement, doesn't mean that in times when the government chooses to use coercion and lying to cause outright panic so that it can strip people of their rights, that it's appropriate to use those methods to retrieve them. Sometimes silent protest while bombing a building can be a very powerful symbol.
Remember, fairness, justice and freedom are more than mere perspectives.
OK … but how do you really know that. How would you ever even measure that to know. Our founders were pretty smart, are you sure they are so outdated, and what happens if you are wrong? It would be too late to hold you or the people who believe as you do accountable, you's probably all be in prison or dead.
I also think that given recent history about what has happened the elite class that fixes the country and the economy to work for them are not about to give up a damn thing and in fact are still taking more and demanding even more.
I don't know enough to say if violence is the answer, or to rule it out, but people able to defend themselves may seem quaint, but mostly that is because we just do not know what is possible anymore with our country.
States can crush only the ones they can hide. Look at what happened in Yugoslavia, the genocidal elite hid their atrocities - same with Chile and other takeovers by the military.
The way political power is concentrated and economic power is a weapon myself, I can't say whether everyone being unarmed or some point on the end of that spectrum would be what anyone thinks it would be.
This is one of the reasons I have been thinking of leaving this party of loosers! They take positions against their own best interest out of fear!
They fear everything, even change!
The Constitution is not a suicide pact, and it doesn't self-authorize its own violent overthrow, which the document itself calls rebellion and against which it provides dire sanctions.
Truth to be told, the 2nd Amendment was designed to address southerners' concerns that slave rebellions would have to be put down locally. The Continental Army had not inspired confidence during the war, and in any event, the South did not want protection of its peculiar institution to be solely in the hands of the federal government.
From the Declaration of Independence!...
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--Tha t to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
We have come full circle to where we were in 1776!!!
If you want PRECEDENT for violence against our government, the Declaration is your best bet (along with the Ordinance of Secession, 1860). But if you want AUTHORITY for violence against our government, that you cannot find. Jefferson didn't find it in 1776 and wasn't foolish enough to look.
And take note, unlike the Constitution which is self-operative (it takes effect when ratified according to its terms), both the Decl of Indep and the Ordinance of Secession depended upon the successful outcome of a war (win some, lose some). They are by nature oppositional, and the opponent is, guess who, the government. That's why it's absurd to imagine that a constitution of government would ever authorize violence against itself.
Final note: If Party A has the right to violence against the government, then surely he must have that right against Party B and all of society. Who will stop him? Not the government, surely, because it's just one more party against whom Party A claims a right to violence. What we really have here is an anarchist manifesto.
"Throw off" does have it's nuances, but seems pretty firm in its meaning...
The Second Amendment was to insure the population was armed (not necessarily a person) so that the states could maintain the militias of the day. The first half of the Second makes it clear the militias were needed for national defense. The statement "A well regulated militia ..." refers us back to the main body of the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, which says that Congress has power to arm the militias (gun control, if you wish).
Article I, Section 8, also says the duties of the militias when in service to the nation is to enforce federal law, repel invasions and suppress insurrections. There is nothing that says, hints, suggests, implies or give anyone reason to infer that the Second is needed for self-proection, blasting Bambi or for the people to rise up in insurrection against the government, as the subversive NRA claims.
The Militia Act of 1903 changed the name of the Militia Office to the National Guard Bureau, so the present Guard is what the Founders knew as the Militia.
The Founders' intention are very clear: they wanted an armed population in order to maintain a militia for the three reasons I just listed above and not for the reasons the NRA tries to get you to believe.
Apparently YOU aren't up to date. The Supreme Court, just a couple of years ago, tossed this interpretation completely out the window (as anybody who has read their history would as well), and re-affirmed that the right to bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT (that was stated in so many words in their decision), not some kind of theoretical "collective" or "state" right.
So, no, dude. You are just simply wrong. The Supreme Court itself said so, very recently, in striking down the firearms licensing restrictions of the District of Columbia.
Liberals don't want to be understood. They want to be obeyed. They don't like guns so no one can have one. In almost 100% of the crimes involving guns the guns are illegally possessed. Do the liberal attacks on gun ownership address those illegal guns? Nah. Heck, the Attorney General (& probably the President)went into the gun-running business.
Let the criminals keep their guns. It's those degenerates who hunt whose guns should be taken away. Let them get their meat from slaughterhouses the way a good liberal does.
The idea of guns for personal protection is an affront to civilized society. If someone gets raped, assaulted or killed by an armed criminal it is a small price to pay for maintaining liberal hypocrisy & facade of righteousness.
If you could read you might see that the Fifth Amendment prohibits taking away a legally owned gun. It says you can't be deprived of property without "due process" of law. A gun is property.
Reading would let you know that "due process" involves indictment, trial, conviction, then punishment. So your guns can't be taken away without a conviction of a crime, usually a crime involving guns.
The NRA keeps promoting this anti-Constituti on argument in order for its parrots to keep sending in huge mounts of money to battle against a threat that doesn't exist but allows NRA leaders to live lives of luxury on exorbitant salaries.
It ruled in the latest case that a city law is unconstitutiona l when it tries to regulate gun ownership, and that is my exact position. Article I, Section 8, says Congress has authority to arm the militia. The Court never said otherwise. It said a city may not rule on gun ownership.
The Court also said that the right to own a gun is not iron-clad; exceptions to ownership are valid, but only Congress may make those determinations, again my exact position.
If you could read properly you would see that the Second Amendment forbids outlawing of guns for everyone but does not forbid outlawing ownership of guns for some.
Gun control means preventing gun ownership by the insane, the emotionally disturbed. It means keeping guns out of the hands of street gangs and terrorists. It means trying to keep guns out of the hands of felons, career criminals. Some want to keep guns away from wife beaters.
Which are you that you want these type of people to run around with guns?
And no liberal every said they don't want anyone to have a gun, they say they don't want the types of people I just listed to have guns. And no one says all guns can be taken away. Learn to read the Fifth Amendment that prohibits that exact thing.
As for the last two paragraphs they do not make sense.
Never mind that no such statement is ever found in the Constitution to justify that argument, but the Constitution does make it perfectly clear in Article I, Section 8, that one of the three functions of the militias is to "suppress Insurrections."
Now those right-wingers and the NRA whores in Congress want us to belief that the "Father of the Constitution" James Madison got that "suppress Insurrection" bit into the original Constitution, then turned around as the first order of business in the new government to include a provision to encourage and authorize insurrection when he headed the committee that proposed the Bill of Rights.
The notion of stripping the citizenry of it's right to bear arms is anathema to me in these times. This government is little more than a corporation in itself. It has stripped us of habeas corpus (the right to due process) and put posse comitatus (the government turning OUR military loose in OUR streets using weaponry paid for by OUR taxpayer dollars) in the so-called "Patriot Act" which has made the position of "president" a dictatorship (and one which this president has not rescinded) and you have the eggs to run this garbage?
WE HAVE A RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS AND TO PROTECT OURSELVES FROM THE THUGS, LEFT AND RIGHT, IN THIS GOVERNMENT...
NOW GET OFF IT!!!
Liberals are led by emotions not thought! and you can't reason with someone grounded in fear!
Aggregate information from Columbine through present may shed light into the thought processes that occur in these individuals. My hypothesis is, that they'll be damned if another group is going continue living before they die.
ISBN 0874777461, pg 3 ... [She] grew up in a neighborhood filled with aunts, uncles, cousins, and grandparents. "If you got spanked at one house, you knew you could go somewhere else and immediately be accepted because they didn't know what had just happened" ... "If I didn't like what my mother was cooking, I could call an aunt or an uncle and ask 'What are you having?'...". ... Charita yearns for the closeness and easy camaraderie with neighbors, both kin and non-kin, that made her childhood so peasant and secure. "The nurturing was shared then," ... "As well as the pain."
If the amendment meant what you said it means, then that's what the founders would have written.
Brooklyn Girl is correct, it is those with red ratings next to their post who are wrong and confused.
Do you think every soldier after he leaves the service forgets everything he was trained to do?
let me humbly suggest that you obtain a copy of the Bill of Rights - first 10 amendments to the US Constitution.
now read them. and reflect on the following fact:
in #1 & #3 - #10 the term "the people" has ALWAYS been interpreted as establishing a personal/indivi dual right of each American.
the first 10 amendments were written at the same time - by the same folks - why would their use of the term "the people" in the #2 amendment have a completely different meaning?
i passed all of my government & history classes.
If and when the day comes that I feel the government has overstepped it's authority, I will do what many have done before me: Engage in a multifaceted campaign to win back freedoms by allying myself through poetry, speeches, marches, demonstrations, legal challenges, civil protests, and then .. determine whether staying and fighting for a cause with my brothers or leaving and building a new life with my sisters elsewhere.
that would about remove the NRA from the equation.
Guns are another issue....approa ching this in a rational manner would be quite helpful.....ass ault rifles guns of certain large calibers....qui te clearly need to be restricted.
Guns to protect from a rabid bear for one living perhaps in a rural area......quite clearly need to be allowed for certain populations....
So it is a complex issue not receptive to solution by blanket policy.
Removing the NRA from the equation would about remove 99 percent of the irrationality from the right however....so problem mostly solved.
Once the irrationality from the right is dissolved I expect the left sided irrationality on this issue, would dissolve without any action.
So we would be left with rational chosen choices in this thing.
Which is what is wanted.
And, even if you were, a non-lethal sedative instead of a bullet would do the trick.
Because the statistics for women aren't looking very good!
Somewhere in America, a woman is raped every 2 minutes, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.
the last two years more than 787,000 women were the victim of a rape or sexual assault, and that is with only 26% of all rapes or attempted rapes being reported to law enforcement officials. I'm glad this isn't a concern to you!
The more paranoid element in this country speaks often of burying and otherwise hiding guns and ammunition. I have little doubt that a fair number have done so.
In Switzerland, every able-bodied adult between the ages of, I believe, 20 and 50, is expected to serve in the military. Which follows much the same pattern as America's original militia (America was not supposed to have a standing army, but rather citizen soldiers who would defend their country when called upon to do so): a certain amount of training each year, and all military equipment ready at home, awaiting a call to duty. In virtually every Swiss home, there is at least one machine gun, 100 rounds of ammunition, and other military gear. The violent crime rate in Switzerland is a small fraction of that in the United States.
That is, the whole thing about there being enough people, a critical mass of people to defend against the government or the government in the hands of some elite taking action against the public - AND IN CERTAIN WAYS IT APPEARS LIKE THAT TODAY.
I feel in the back of mind that there are enough people with guns and enough stability in the US that I do not feel the need to get one, plus I am lucky enough live in a safe area as well, but we are entering some very weird times and I think it is not smart or conscientious to change anything right now.
Plus anything like a national discussion has really never been held in the US - don't mess with things, and that includes the alternate side introducing all these stand your ground things. If we enforce existing laws … a big if these days when we are shipping machine guns to Mexican drugs lords.
The American people have been traumaticed since 2000, and we still do not really get what has hit us … we need to all find that out and somewhat agree before we randomly mess with things.
It is a sensitive issue, and the argument will never end.
A grim truth, but true nonetheless. Given America's propensity for mayhem on a horrendous scale, I am at times amazed that nothing of the sort has happened. Yet.
Many historians have traditionally believed that the balance in the Revolutionary War was tipped in favor of the Americans by the fact that a fair number of them were equipped with the "assault weapons" of the time, flintlock rifles which were accurate at up to five times the distance of the smoothbore muskets carried by British troops. Who were, mind, attempting to preserve the rule of a a legitimate governing authority.
At least one British officer is known to have written a letter in which he complained that "the Americans don't fight fair", mentioning snipers and the tendency of American troops to hide behind fences and trees, ambush superior numbers of British troops, and "refuse to come out and fight in the open".
Perhaps, in a sense, that is the defining characteristic of an American: we won't come out to be shot. There are, apparently "safe places" for those who feel otherwise to reside. If you find Brazil attractive, by all means, move there.
Do not use this for anti-gun nonsense.
I made a video about why you should own a gun for self-defense. It’s at my YouTube channel Zarrakan, and here’s the link:
2012 4 1 ZOC Guns And Self-Defense
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ALDPE3Jlwo
Watch it, share it, and join the fight against the evil anti-gun movement.
The Italian Government notified U.S. officials who said that they were legal and had all the necessary permits.
They were delivered to a warehouse in South Florida.
So it goes.
Anyone who would use this kind of a horrible situation to promote their own personal gun-control agenda surely has no compassion for the suffering these families are going through! Our prayers are to be with them!
The idea that a PH.D candidate just happened to go on a rampage, without cause and kill so many people raises serious questions: 1. Was this guy under some kind of mind control? 2. Was he involved in some way with the government? 3. Was he cia,as many assassins of the past were proven to be? Notes on the shooting---inte resting that 4 US troops were among the dead---
these troops were stationed at Buckley AFB Buckley AFB is the home of the 743rd Military Intelligence Battalion
This shooter-- fits the profile of a Manchurian Candidate--very intelligent--wo n an internship to Salk.
The government's involvement with this
Lets be real:
How many people are murdered by a knife each year?
Here are the numbers:
2003: 1,828
2004: 1,866
2005: 1,920
2006: 1,830
2008: 1,796
There were 8,775 killings in the US using a gun in 2010
Homocide by gun is only one form of weapon used if we are going to take away our guns then we Must also remove knives including from out dinner tables!
Then blunt Instruments next!
First, stop thinking people are going to outlaw guns, or take yours away. No one wants to do that. What we would like is to have a conversation about automatic weapons and live amunition. Can we talk about that without all the nra fear mongering?
Your so-called 'realms of evidence' are not evidence at all but false and wishful thinking. Remember the 2nd Amendment is ONE sentence. Think of it as a series of conjuncts--wher e all conjuncts must be true in order for the entire conjunction to be true. Give it some thought.
The NRA is a problem.. But its not THEE PROBLEM.
The problem is Electronic Media in all its forms from TV, to Cable, to Video, to Video Games, to Internet, to Entertainment, 'News' and 'Newz-- all of it. It is driving humanity crazy.., literally.
The 'NEWS' is always bad.
I think when the Pre-TV Generation dies off it will represent the completion of new level in human evolution of sorts, and for the worse.
Electronic Media, as it grows and weaves its way into almost every moment of human life from cradle to grave is changing the mental perception and formatting of what constitutes human reality.
Maybe it a new form of insanity on a massive, global scale., but there is something to what I am saying. I am sure of it.
I think the cognitive relationship between real time and video time screws kids up. In a movie, a kid has a problem. Maybe needs to learn karate. He learns it in 15 minutes, defeats his tormentors, is held in high esteem and even sexy teachers fall in love with him. In the real world-- Well you do the time and reality math.
Multiply stuff like that by every minute of the day, time spent alone with electronic devices, not socializing, little self emergent imagination, bombarded with negative media about the world around you, commercials telling you what you are not, do not have, 'need' and what is 'cool'..etc.,
Who is an individual or even knows what that means when you are young now?
our government under the past few administrations has become progressively more corrupt and bloodthirsty. The shooter was involved in a neural pathology project and program, and we do not know, but may suspect this to be another corrupt piece of psychological warfare by the Project Monarch crew, which I assure you exists, and destroys innocent people like you would eat a cheeseburger. They have been around for many years and are occasionally mentioned in congressional hearings. To find peace and reason, confront evil and criminals and government personnel sporting a modis operandi such as I mention here. Please, ask yourselves, who REALLY did 9/11, HAARP attacks, intentionally blew out the Deepwater Horizon oil well derrick(intenti onal by U.S. Senate finding after Obama pardoned all involved corporations and individuals), and is currently looting the stock markets? Know thine enemy. I am not he, nor were the millions killed by U.S. presidential led invasions over the past twelve years. Murder of innocents is NEVER justified. The recent cabal controlling America over the past twelve years is the most racist pack of killers ever to lead the U.S.. Cui bono?
It would take the simultaneous rejection of 80 years of FBI and Department of Justice statistics that do not correlate crime with gun ownership.
And I'm ALMOST sorry to say this to these people who seem to be so terrified of firearms, but if the statistics were not already solid enough (and they were), over the last 20-30 years, the crime rate (particularly violent crimes) in the United States has been going DOWN, steeply. And during that same period, per-capita gun ownership in the United States has been steadily INCREASING.
As have the number of areas that now approve concealed carry.
These are real numbers, people, from what YOU would probably call the most reliable source: your own government. Deny them at your own peril.
Whatever other countries might experience, we have MANY decades of solid statistics here in the United States. And what they say (about the United States) is: "An armed society is a polite society."
The particular loon who committed this crime did not have to use a firearm. In fact it was rather stupid of him to do so. He could have just built a bomb instead, out of readily available materials, and tossed that through the door, doing EVEN MORE damage.
Taking away guns does not stop crazy.
The US has the highest crime rates and the highest murder rates of the developed nations and the greatest levels of violence. Other developed nations live quite happily and more peacefully without access to guns so one can only ask why Americans are so paranoid, fearful and delusional that they think they not only need guns but that guns keep them safe. Madness. A civilized and developed nation does not use murder as a means of controlling State power - it uses intelligence and wisdom. Are these in such short supply in the US that it has to resort to the barbarism of past centuries and a 'cowboy' mentality to feel safe?
The reason there was an escalation of gun running is because it was an operation planned and executed by the U.S. government, first under Bush and then under Obama. The NRA had nothing to do in this.
These operations wound up boosting the cartels as the military grade weapons were clearly earmarked for them and not for the common Mexican people.
These are facts not talking points!
Wonderful dream but a dream it is, never to be reached in America where money talks & bullshi# stalks the halls of the body politic. This country will be lucky to retain outstanding social services like Social Security & food stamps if/when a Republican is elected president with a red majority. Doubt like high heavens if a Democratic president/congr ess would ever come close to this solution. So in the reality of what could possibly happen are bans on assault rifles even though one could kill a room full of people with a small bore handgun or rifle. Writing that last sentence I realize that there is probably no solution to the gun problem in the US. Anybody have a realistic proposal that I am missing? All of you intelligent progressive posters who's names I find familiar now please feel free to pipe up. I am feeling defeated to arrive at any, again, REALISTIC, proposal to help keep American deaths by bullet down.
Only in America could this tragedy occur. If the PhD student pulled this off with only a pea shooter, dozens would have died after being trampled in the chaos in a jam-packed theater at midnight.
Why did none of the movie-goers shoot this demented bastard? Maybe the NRA has an explanation. "Buy one or die from one" should be their motto.
Perhaps the theater chain will learn from this debacle by assuring all exits are locked securely and refrain from selling a show ticket to anyone wearing full body armor, a gas mask and packing.
In McDonald v. Chicago,5 the Court struck down laws enacted by Chicago and the village of Oak Park effectively banning handgun possession by almost all private citizens, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense.
The Court reasoned that this right is fundamental to the nation's scheme of ordered liberty, given that self-defense was a basic right recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and Heller held that individual self-defense was "the central component" of the Second Amendment right. Moreover, a survey of the contemporaneous history also demonstrated clearly that the Fourteenth Amendment's Framers and ratifiers counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to the Nation's system of ordered liberty.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/
Every once in a while, the debate is resurrected - as it was in 1980 after the murder of John Lennon - or in 1981 when an attempt was made on the life of President Reagan - or in 1999 following the Columbine tragedy. But after a week or two of mindless rhetoric, it was always back to business as usual. The sad and undeniable fact is that another massacre on the scale of what happened early this morning in Colorado will happen again - and again and again and again and again and again and again. Deal with it.
http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com
Tom Degan
Or maybe you would have been the first target once the shooter, who "might have" been carrying his arms with all the legal permitting, spotted you and your weapon.
The simple truth is that firearms give the shooter a sense of power; to kill at a distance, quickly and repeatedly. A maniac in body armor would not be deterred or easily stopped by gun toting citizens like George Zimmerman or you.
Anyone who would use this kind of a horrible situation to promote a agenda surely has no compassion for the suffering these families are going through! Our prayers are to be with them!
A few notes on the shooting: 4 US troops were among the dead....these troops were stationed at Buckley AFB. Buckley AFB is the home of the 743rd Military Intelligence Battalion. Mind control programs are taught there.
Shooter fits the profile of a CIA/Manchurian- type Candidate. He appears to be very intelligent and had won an internship to Salk. He had a bright future. No reason to throw it all away.
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." ~ Richard Henry Lee
It's the same premise!!!
Are there no gun-lovers left with a brain?? Can't we control guns without removing them from people's homes (and perhaps even their cars)? Of course we can! And don't give me that crap about control or licensing being a "slippery slope" to gun confiscation! We license people to drive cars; we don't let anybody with the money to purchase it go out and drive on public roads. We can do the same with guns.
A huge majority of the population want more gun control. It's only crazy and/or the monied NRA zealots who don't!
Folks carrying on how they're gonna get back control of their Govt with such arms, are off this flamin planet and smokin some really good quality stuff, IMHO.
America lives by the gun, FACT, everyday the U.S. military or the Govt shoot and kill people indiscriminentl y, bu;lly other nations and generaly run amuck, so why is such a surprise when the folks back home do the exact same thing ? DUH !
But again this quickly gets irrational these discussions...
Truth is yes some rural peoples need guns, bears and mountain lions do live and do attack occasionally, and if you have cattle you must occasionally protect from predators on your land....and to the other side.......assa ult weaponry and 50C ammo weaponry really have no domestic usage nor purpose......if we can outlaw grenades and grenade launchers RPG's and such...we can outlaw them without impinging on the right to carry arms.
This can be discussed rationally or we can adopt absolute attitudes to it on both sides and get...no where in our discussion.
Yes there are legitimate reasons for gun owning, like hunting for food and target shooting but there is n legitimate reason for anyone to own an automatic weapon and almost no reason to own a hand gun. I am a former FFL and speak with some experience.
"Disarming the innocent does not protect the innocent".
the NRA is a wholly owned subsidiary of the republican national committee.
it is governed by republicans and is used to farther republican goals.
its primary function is political in nature.
as for gun control: it is not really a liberal/conserv ative or a right/left issue. we can see evidence of that fact in the conflict displayed herein - by posts on both sides of the issue - in a forum that is liberal by its very nature.
gun control is a rural/urban issue. people separate on this issue on the basis of their life experiences. one group sees guns as tools, the other as exotic dangerous devices that have no useful purpose.
it will not be necessary for you to protect me with your guns - i have over 30 of my own and an extensive array of reloading equipment.
i am also sensitive to the comment regarding democrats ownership of union members votes. i have been a union business agent and have carried a card over 35 years. union members are not nearly as monolithic voters as most folks assume. unions suggest candidates that will (theorically) best represent the interest of union members.
i repeat my disagreement with your liberal/conserv ative generalization. it is and always has been a conflict between urban & rural viewpoints. i am a rural texas liberal.
the NRA (and for the record - i have been a life member since 1976) simply fans the flames of the ignorant. they have found a perfect means of directing single-issue voters to support republicans
it was not always like it is today. now they are nothing more than republican cheerleaders. and while our society needs to try and reach some better means of handling violence, the nra simply uses these occasions as fund rising opportunities. needless to say i am no
longer a big fan of the nra.
You have the ownership relation reversed. The RNC is the captive.
That aside yes....we must allow for variability in the US. We do have rural peoples who use guns as tools as well as particular urban environments in which they are just killing things....
but to disallow completely one or the other is a absolutists way on this thing.....it is a extension of ideology which fits not the circumstance.
Not so many rural peoples...yes not so many comparatively.. ..in real terms of amount...many.
Federal laws on gun control must accommodate both circumstances. Or in a reactionary fashion we go from one extreme position to another...forev er swinging, without resolution of the issue.
I cannot apply my rural circumstance to a urban environment as well as the inverse. And that you do not believe my circumstance rurally is what it is ....does not make it not as it is. Many many thousands have this circumstance of rural life and necessity.
The point is: As awful as these mindless slaughters are, guns are not the problem. The problem is a corporatocracy that continues to undermine the health, both physical and mental, of the people. America is a nation of addicts. You are controlled by your addictions. There appears to be a common factor with many, if not most, of these mass killers. They were on anti-depressant s, a known cause of suicidal tendencies. I don't know if the current shooter fits the profile, but it should be investigated.
What they are saying is that we don't need law enforcement when we can be our own. Imagine how that would work!
I was impressed at how Aurora PD was all over this like a grass hopper on a June bug and caught the guy.
The "militia" must be WELL REGULATED.
The NRA's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has no foundation in history. It is a complete fabrication.
Will they come forward and say...I had a gun but did not use it as it was in a smoke filled room there was yelling shouting gun fire and so much going on.....I simply could not get a shot off.
Or perhaps they having a gun did not even think to use it but just hid behind a seat.....it is very difficult to shoot at a person shooting back at you.....
Of course not...they would not admit such a thing.
WE presume none had guns....realist ically..probabl y some did....you living in some areas perhaps do not know how many do have and carry guns......every one of my neighbors have guns and many carry.....not aurora but not so different is this place I live.
I always carry a gun in certain places...would I have used it in that theater....not at all..I'd probably shoot a innocent and then be guilty as well, of manslaughter if nothing else....probabl y arrested as accessory.
Sad but it is true....I would not. People are applying cowboy movie things from years ago into this thing...it is not so simple to shoot and kill a person in the best of circumstances.
This was the worst.....kill a innocent most likely you would.
Only those that know nothing of guns and their usage in the real world.... knowing only target range would propose such nonsense.
so I would not put this thing at the feet of gender or any other distinction of that manner...as many women as men in rural areas own and carry guns to my experience...
It only serves to marginalize and if you are attempting to draw others to your side....half of humanity is not who you want to marginalize in this discussion.
Bush did not reauthorize the assault weapon ban legislation of the clinton years which is why so many were killed so quickly.....ext ended clips and this assault weapon were both banned to the general public in that legislation.
The hand guns and shotgun were still allowable..bur so many would not have been killed and injured....
It would take thoughtful flexible gun owners being listened to instead of the most vehement rhetoric condemning the NRA,
http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/437-2nd-amendment-rights/12532-because-i-felt-like-it-
guns in America, someone has mine for I do not have any. It is sad that I have lived to be 75 years old and never shot or shot at. I do not know that experience. According to some I should be dead because I do not pack a 9mm Glock. But I live...
When I lived in the small City in the midst of Detroit (Highland Park) where I grew up, the economy caused the loss of our police and fire services, which reverted to The County, State and surrounding communities (for fire). We had a disturbance on my block, which I heard right away because I lived on the corner, and I was most gratified to see a half dozen neighbors come out onto their porches packing a rather impressive array of firepower. The young knuckleheads creating the problem beat a hasty retreat and likely took that location off their list of places to misbehave.
We have a lot of gun violence here but folks are secure in the knowledge that their fellow citizens are able to protect themselves. The Rust belt has taken unbelievable economic hits and the abilitiy to protect one's family is paramount. This is America, the society that has experienced the most freedom in human history and our ability to remain armed is responsible, to a large degree, for that fact. We can't beat predator drones (except with a .50 cal.) and modern military weapons but an armed populace is a problem to potential oppressors and I like that fact.
Cut the imperial language. Guns are not entrenched in Canada, just in the smaller country to the south....
In the US, which is run by a crime syndicate, it would in my opinion be a tragic mistake to disarm the country's citizens as it would IMO act as an invitation for the criminals in government to terrorize its citizens even more than it already is.
Also, keep in mind that doctors kill more people than guns do.
Assault weaponry and extended clips have no place in america for common citizens...they are never to hunt nor to kill other than human. Calibers 50 or so are also not used for about any purpose..;so they should be banned as are RPG's.....case closed.
Using this to say...none should have any guns and all the rest...leads to nothing....to no action.
You want no action, on this thing..keep proposing no guns at all...it is really that simple. The choice is yours...to be ideologically pure in your stance or ...stop this madness of military weaponry in the arms of civilians.
You don't realize it but you the victim with your pride in being right and true to a higher moral standard conceived are as well the perpetrator in this thing....such allows the latter to be stated and held...any restriction means not guns...it is a untenable position that. Fought violently will be that contention.
At some times it is to our benefit to be extreme in view, as perhaps a earth first in the environmental movement provides a side that is needed to work to the middle...this is not one of those situations favored by that extreme view.
This massive rush to gun control legislation is not happening not even in the slightest way.....nor will it..
My predictions on things are always right for the most part I remain with my ideology as it serves me well.... if it was always that I was predicting wrongly things...I would firmly and quickly look for the error in it then correct that error or abandon it.
Ideology must serve one.... one must not consider one serving ideology.....if so mistaken things happen and untoward result is never predicted.
"My predictions on things are always right for the most part . . ." That's a mighty peculiar statement: "always" paired with "for the most part." Really?
Recommended: several semesters in writing and critical reasoning.
To the 'Nut:' When sorting out the reasonableness of such terms in an argument: such as "murderous Automobile" It is necessary to establish the primary function of the item being so labeled. The primary function of cars is not to kill. What is the primary function of a gun, mcav? And don't answer that question with secondary functions--such as 'self-defense.'
RSS feed for comments to this post