Excerpt: "They are half right when they say 'Guns don't kill people.' I would just alter that slogan slightly to speak the real truth: 'Guns don't kill people, Americans kill people.' Because we're the only ones in the first world who do this en masse. And you'll hear all stripes of Americans come up with a host of reasons so that they don't have to deal with what's really behind all this murder and mayhem."
Portrait, Michael Moore, 04/03/09. (photo: Ann-Christine Poujoulat/Getty)
It's the Guns - But Not Really the Guns
25 July 12
ince Cain went nuts and whacked Abel, there have always been those humans who, for one reason or another, go temporarily or permanently insane and commit unspeakable acts of violence. There was the Roman Emperor Tiberius, who during the first century A.D. enjoyed throwing victims off a cliff on the Mediterranean island of Capri. Gilles de Rais, a French knight and ally of Joan of Arc during the middle ages, went cuckoo-for-Cocoa Puffs one day and ended up murdering hundreds of children. Just a few decades later Vlad the Impaler, the inspiration for Dracula, was killing people in Transylvania in numberless horrifying ways.
In modern times, nearly every nation has had a psychopath or two commit a mass murder, regardless of how strict their gun laws are - the crazed white supremacist in Norway one year ago Sunday, the schoolyard butcher in Dunblane, Scotland, the École Polytechnique killer in Montreal, the mass murderer in Erfurt, Germany … the list seems endless.
And now the Aurora shooter last Friday. There have always been insane people, and there always will be.
But here's the difference between the rest of the world and us: We have TWO Auroras that take place every single day of every single year! At least 24 Americans every day (8-9,000 a year) are killed by people with guns - and that doesn't count the ones accidentally killed by guns or who commit suicide with a gun. Count them and you can triple that number to over 25,000.
That means the United States is responsible for over 80% of all the gun deaths in the 23 richest countries combined. Considering that the people of those countries, as human beings, are no better or worse than any of us, well, then, why us?
Both conservatives and liberals in America operate with firmly held beliefs as to "the why" of this problem. And the reason neither can find their way out of the box toward a real solution is because, in fact, they're both half right.
The right believes that the Founding Fathers, through some sort of divine decree, have guaranteed them the absolute right to own as many guns as they desire. And they will ceaselessly remind you that a gun cannot fire itself - that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."
Of course, they know they're being intellectually dishonest (if I can use that word) when they say that about the Second Amendment because they know the men who wrote the constitution just wanted to make sure a militia could be quickly called up from amongst the farmers and merchants should the Brits decide to return and wreak some havoc.
But they are half right when they say "Guns don't kill people." I would just alter that slogan slightly to speak the real truth: "Guns don't kill people, Americans kill people."
Because we're the only ones in the first world who do this en masse. And you'll hear all stripes of Americans come up with a host of reasons so that they don't have to deal with what's really behind all this murder and mayhem.
They'll say it's the violent movies and video games that are responsible. Last time I checked, the movies and video games in Japan are more violent than ours - and yet usually fewer than 20 people a year are killed there with guns - and in 2006 the number was two!
Others will say it's the number of broken homes that lead to all this killing. I hate to break this to you, but there are almost as many single-parent homes in the U.K. as there are here - and yet, in Great Britain, there are usually fewer than 40 gun murders a year.
People like me will say this is all the result of the U.S. having a history and a culture of men with guns, "cowboys and Indians," "shoot first and ask questions later." And while it is true that the mass genocide of the Native Americans set a pretty ugly model to found a country on, I think it's safe to say we're not the only ones with a violent past or a penchant for genocide. Hello, Germany! That's right I'm talking about you and your history, from the Huns to the Nazis, just loving a good slaughter (as did the Japanese, and the British who ruled the world for hundreds of years - and they didn't achieve that through planting daisies). And yet in Germany, a nation of 80 million people, there are only around 200 gun murders a year.
So those countries (and many others) are just like us - except for the fact that more people here believe in God and go to church than any other Western nation.
My liberal compatriots will tell you if we just had less guns, there would be less gun deaths. And, mathematically, that would be true. If you have less arsenic in the water supply, it will kill less people. Less of anything bad - calories, smoking, reality TV - will kill far fewer people. And if we had strong gun laws that prohibited automatic and semi-automatic weapons and banned the sale of large magazines that can hold a gazillion bullets, well, then shooters like the man in Aurora would not be able to shoot so many people in just a few minutes.
But this, too, has a problem. There are plenty of guns in Canada (mostly hunting rifles) - and yet the annual gun murder count in Canada is around 200 deaths. In fact, because of its proximity, Canada's culture is very similar to ours - the kids play the same violent video games, watch the same movies and TV shows, and yet they don't grow up wanting to kill each other. Switzerland has the third-highest number of guns per capita on earth, but still a low murder rate.
So - why us?
I posed this question a decade ago in my film 'Bowling for Columbine,' and this week, I have had little to say because I feel I said what I had to say ten years ago - and it doesn't seem to have done a whole lot of good other than to now look like it was actually a crystal ball posing as a movie.
This is what I said then, and it is what I will say again today:
1. We Americans are incredibly good killers. We believe in killing as a way of accomplishing our goals. Three-quarters of our states execute criminals, even though the states with the lower murder rates are generally the states with no death penalty.
Our killing is not just historical (the slaughter of Indians and slaves and each other in a "civil" war). It is our current way of resolving whatever it is we're afraid of. It's invasion as foreign policy. Sure there's Iraq and Afghanistan - but we've been invaders since we "conquered the wild west" and now we're hooked so bad we don't even know where to invade (bin Laden wasn't hiding in Afghanistan, he was in Pakistan) or what to invade for (Saddam had zero weapons of mass destruction and nothing to do with 9/11). We send our lower classes off to do the killing, and the rest of us who don't have a loved one over there don't spend a single minute of any given day thinking about the carnage. And now we send in remote pilotless planes to kill, planes that are being controlled by faceless men in a lush, air conditioned studio in suburban Las Vegas. It is madness.
2. We are an easily frightened people and it is easy to manipulate us with fear. What are we so afraid of that we need to have 300 million guns in our homes? Who do we think is going to hurt us? Why are most of these guns in white suburban and rural homes? Maybe we should fix our race problem and our poverty problem (again, #1 in the industrialized world) and then maybe there would be fewer frustrated, frightened, angry people reaching for the gun in the drawer. Maybe we would take better care of each other (here's a good example of what I mean).
Those are my thoughts about Aurora and the violent country I am a citizen of. Like I said, I spelled it all out here if you'd like to watch it or share it for free with others. All we're lacking here, my friends, is the courage and the resolve. I'm in if you are.
|
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. |













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
On the other hand, is the more problematic factor. That is, the rampant random violence leads people to see *themselves* as worthless and potential victims of the next senseless act. That is, we see "ourselves as worthless".
Combine these two devaluations of human life, add easy access to all kinds of high-powered automatic weapons, and you've got a recipe for disaster.
Who pays for gun violence?
I would add another point.
One you made in "Bowling".
We were founded as a racist society and still are one. We still to a large extent are ready to demonize some people based on looks (the other).
Makes killing easier. Even for those who are demonize to think of their fellow humans as one of the "others.
And yes, racism (as evil and ugly as it is) still runs rampant, holding hands with 'it's all about me and mine' - self esteem, self centered m.o. (a.k.a. 1%'s enslave 'em all m.o.).
If we were truly a "..one nation under God..." we would accept the reality that illness, inluding but certainly not limited to mental illness, is always with us, that we are our 'brother's keeper' - and 'keeping' 'em we are failing at miserably, with endless war (so profitable for the 1%) vs. HEALTHCARE FOR ALL.
And, the combo of non-diagnosis, non-treatment and/or supervision of those with mental illness and EBD (emotional, behavioral disorders), coupled with the aforementioned' s tendencies toward self medication via alcohol, etc. and ease of acquiring firearms and ammo and caring only about 'me, me, me' is tragedy upon tragedy upon tragedy happening constantly and coming bigger than ever now and in the future, i.e. Aurora.
Sad and then some, how little courage and determination on the part of the vast majority of national pols., to 'just say no' to the N.R.A. and their 'no gun control whatsoever'. Can't lose votes/lobbyist support ($$$), now can they?
Ray of hope - the national mayor's group who have, for some time, been trying to address this huge nightmare.
Um... the SUPREME COURT said it just a couple of years ago.
Quote: "... because they know the men who wrote the constitution just wanted to make sure a militia could be quickly called up from amongst the farmers and merchants should the Brits decide to return and wreak some havoc."
Disingenuous, Mike. Read that Supreme Court decision. That was not the reason, AT ALL. It is an INDIVIDUAL right, not a "militia" right, and it exists for purposes that are quite different than what you state here... which was also clearly spelled out in that decision.
It has always been an individual right, by design. Denying that is to deny your own history. Even recent history. Since this is a subject you like to expound upon, I pretty much have to assume you actually read that decision, which means you are being -- and I am being very generous here -- disingenuous. You know what you are saying is untrue.
The alternative is that you did NOT read the decision, in which case you are guilty of willful ignorance, about one of your own favorite subjects.
Mike, you do some wonderful documentaries. But on this particular subject, you have lost tossed aside any credibility you may have had.
Ya don't remember history, then what happens?
I know MANY, MANY left of center folks who have and use rifles, shotguns and even hand guns.
Typical skirts high liberal doing a broad brush over emotional knee-jerk.
"Most important to note about James Holmes (Colorado shooter), however, this report says, is that his father, Robert Holmes, was said to have been scheduled to testify within the next few weeks before a US Senate panel on the largest bank fraud scandal in world history that is currently unfolding and threatens to destabilize and destroy the Western banking system. Robert Holmes, whose “blueblood” family links go back to the Mayflower, is known throughout the global banking community as being the creator of one of the most sophisticated computer algorithms ever developed and is credited with developing predictive models for financial services; credit and fraud risk models, first and third party application fraud models and internet/online banking fraud models."
I think we have to outlaw mind control development first.
Constitutional scholars have been arguing over those commas in the Second Amendment for a very long time. MM is trying to move beyond that to the deeper question of why murder is so much more common in the US than in any other comparable country. He's asking us to take a look in the mirror, something we as a people aren't good at doing.
Given the predelictions of the conservative majority, in my opinion and that of countless others the constitutionali ty of this decision is still up n the air.
It is obvious that the Second Amendment was written to apply to circumstances that existed in 1789, which have since changed in the extreme.
The poor wording of the militia clause has been seized upon by gun advocates as a justification for assuming prescient powers by the writers of the Bill of Rights.
That's plainly ridiculous. There is no "well-regulated " militia today; and no unorganized force of individual gun owners is capable of resisting the might of a modern miltary establishment in case of invasion or the assumption by the government of tyrannical powers.
Michael Moore is not only correct, but he spells things out in a clearer and more convincing way than most people who favor stricter gun laws.
They KNEW by first hand and historical experience that groups of people were ALWAYS being manipulated by the will of the overlords.
They KNEW that force by the overlords eventually came into play.
WETHEPEOPLE are now in that position...
Just keep knee-jerkin' your way into deeper and darker hells of slavery and domination there red thumbers...
The Second Amendment said "the right of the people..." Had James Madison, who headed the panel that proposed the Bill of Rights, and the First Congress, that adopted the proposal for ratification, wanted an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT they would have written "no person's right..." That would be an individual right.
The "original intent" of the Second was to keep the population armed so that the militia could be raised. In 1792 Congress required all able-bodied men to own a firearm. The law excluded blacks, women, children and others unsuitable for militia service, which proves it is not an individual right or those would have that right also. And individual right would be one which everyone has. Even the recent SCOTUS decision said their "individual" right is not ironclad, there could be exceptions made; which means the five righties were arguing against themselves.
The real "original intent" of a militia is in Article I, Section 8, that says the militia's duty when in service to the nation is to "execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions." So ask yourself why those judges who claim to know and follow "original intent" can't actually follow it.
It's clear the Five can't think properly either.
You're correct in asserting that a recent Supreme Court decision declared gun ownership an individual right, but I disagree with your assertion that "It has always been an individual right, by design." An unbiased reading of the Second Amendment doesn't lead the reader to that conclusion. The Second Amendment reads, in its entirety:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
If your read just "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", you're not reading the entire text.
I wonder where the right wing's indignation is on this SC decision. Isn't it the right wing that always complains about Activist Judges who Legislate From The Bench? There was no law specifically allowing private gun ownership in the US, but the SC has now established that right by their decision.
Oh well, at least it wasn't a Constitutional Amendment. The SC can always review and reverse bad decisions, which it has actually done from time to time.
=========================================
That would be the same corrupt Supreme Court, would it, that installed George W. Bush in 2001, and citizens united in 2010?
The second amendment was adopted in response to demands from “people” who needed the guns to suppress slave revolts. Now, the latest figures show their spirit lingers on: 8775 gun homicides p.a. in USA, 58 in UK. Victims of gun homicide in the USA are still predominantly black, just as the slave owners intended in 1792.
The mental gyrations – in the face of such overwhelming evidence (think 8775:58) − of those who need the right to own guns to feel adequate are something to see – even to the extent of implying that US Supreme Court judgements are based on law or on morality.
That militia has been replaced over time by police forces, National Guard and the military. So the individual owning firearms is not a right, written in stone, but a privilege, granted by the State. As for the accumulation of assault weapons and cases of ammunition there are steps that can and should be used to curtail that. For example, if the 60,000 rounds of ammunition had to be picked up by the buyer at his local police station and signed for, the buyer might have had second thoughts. As a VietNam veteran, I understand the power of these weapons and that there should be no place for them in civilian hands.
Because of our ridiculous drug prohibition laws.
The vast majority of gun deaths in the US are attributable (directly or indirectly) to drug-related crime. And NOTHING you can do in regard to trying to regulate guns will help that, because guns are not the cause, they are a symptom.
Also thanks forgiving ex seminarians a model.
Resolve the poverty problem and a big chunk of the strife goes away.
I am surprised there is no mention of psychotropics. I am surprised there is no mention of political advantage to those who perpetuate poverty and general fear...of everything.
I believe that America in general has an adolescent mentality born of not having the deep social meanings of life and the commons inherent in thousand plus year old cultures.
We are an arrogant and naive people immersed in hueueueuege, sophisticated and varied forms of psychological manipulation by the cadres in charge of the money, media and military.
Our youthful dynamism for invention, the wonders of science and technology and the 'free markets' to exploit all things therein is no less than giving loaded weapons to inexperienced kids...Animal Farm at its best.
Get a grip America, hubris is no answer.
I believe that America in general has an adolescent mentality born of not having the deep social meanings of life and the commons inherent in thousand plus year old cultures.
If deep social meanings of life and the commons are inherent in thousand year old cultures then please explain to me why the middle east with it's thousand plus year old cultures behaves so barbarically towards its women?
I cannot defend your chosen criticism. I can only say that with experience comes some degree of wisdom and that wisdom is gleaned by the pain side of life rather than the side that breathes free enough to grab some time at the beach.
The US, WETHEPEOPLE are presently at a very dynamic point of decision. An internal force we have allowed to lull our better judgement and higher nature into somnambulance must be exposed for what it is.
Defend that laxity and sloth in our culture at your own peril and at the peril of our future as a nation is how I see it.
Eh???? What thge Hell language is that?
it's patient or bitter-ex-patie nt language.
first of all, guys, learn to spell.
is aDDerall- get it? two Ds cuz it's for ADD?... clever, eh? and ambieEn, get it? french for am good... am bien, accent agu on the e... and yea, lots of us take those.
and thank you for the person who says that women in the middle east are NOT seocond class citizens.
'cause we're not. thank you.
Hmmm. And should America be any different from the rest of the world? Perusing Wikipedia, we find that much of the rest of the world does even better than us at intentionally killing people presumably using knives, clubs, ropes, poison, hot grease , et cetera. [wikipedia.org/ wiki/ List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate]
Something that no one seems to mention is that the people who seem most prone to using guns to intentionally kill people are the police. I think we have seen enough unjustified 'justified' police murders to suggest that disarming them might reduce significantly the number of gun deaths in the U.S.
Also the Anaheim incident is being twisted in favor of the cops rather than giving a history of past killings (8 this year) by local police and the fact that citizens are organizing to put an end to it. The rioting of late could have been avoided if the cops had not over-reacted to folks in the neighborhood being in the street to see what had happened and to criticize still another killing of an unarmed man. Dogs were even brought in, that attacked a fellow holding a baby. This was all covered on Democracy Now yesterday.
Those details are always left out or manipulated in favor of the police. No excuse to shoot a man in the back and again in the head when he is down.
As Mr. Moore points out, the world is full of psychopaths (1:100 according to Dr. Robert Hare). But, if Mr. Holmes had gone spla with a samurai type sword, he might have killed and wounded at least as many people. ¿Quién sabe?
I will take issue with your assertion that eliminating Southern states would decrease the tally. Take a look at U.S. cities with highest gun killing rates. Aurora, by the way is in Colorado. Check out Chicago and Washington D.C. No territory is exempt from killings.
According to some witnesses, the gas was also set off down front on the left side...the shooter was on the right.
According to the young man sitting right near the right entry, a guy infront of him got a cell call, got up while talking on the phone, opened the emergency door a bit, and signaled to someone who momentarily entered in full battle gear.
False Flag assault to fan the fires of gun confiscation?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7FjbnyHn7Y&feature=player_embedded
catch the testimony before it is deleted...I viewed it about an hour ago.
Already the killer is nationally famous, has columnists writing about him, and people developing theories about what REALLY transpired. And he will turn out to be part of US history, maybe a footnote, but remember - before he "kicked open that door" he was nobody.
Consider also that this may be the message here. Don't contribute to a downward spiral by making more out of a pitiable act by a sad, lonely individual than it ever could or should be. Fame, however achieved, at whatever cost, is a very American goal. And a very, very destructive one.
This sad little man who killed innocents is best left ignored. Find the social ills that might have led him to do this. But for God's sake, leave the details of the crime to the forensic specialists.
Add to this the nation's gun free-for-all. Got a pulse--you can buy a gun. And cases of high-volume clips. And cases of ammo.
Now add the death games. Night and day, alone or in groups, millions of kids are addicted to them. Deadening them to death and mayhem, eliminating any empathy they may have had, and sharpening those hand-eye skills for an eventual seat at the drone consoles. Yeehaw!
Yes, America is beyond dangerous now. So let's add a gallon of high-octane caffeine drinks a day to the mix, and see what happens next...
The 'high octane caffeine' is the orchestrated via the media emphases on all of the above and then some.
And again, to those who feel the need to have an arsenal in their homes to "protect their families" from the government, furrun' invaders, drug gangs, or whatever rationale they pull out of the NRA's tired old fear-and-loathi ng-based phrase library (My favorite is "I'll give up my gun when they take it from my cold, dead hand!"), I give you from recent history, the hugely-armed Branch Davidians and families, the FBI firebombing thereof and Janet Reno's ordering of that explosive and fiery debacle in Waco, Tejas.
Not that I expect much to change, so ingrained is the self-armed mentality in the semi-consciousn ess of the US unquestioning populace.
Who is it that volunteers to join LAW ENFORCEMENT, but the very people who desire to dominate via force?
Personally, the way that 3 querries and your under arrest has taken over police actions MUST be brought to light and pressed back into SERVICE TO THE PEOPLE rather than PROTECT THE PEOPLE.
The viscious cycle has to begin to be brought back into rational reason by WETHEPEOPLE...h ow ever that is done.
We first have to dump the fear burden that is drummed into our populace by the 'if it bleeds itleads' media.
I calls 'em like I sees 'em.
"Dovish"? -Guilty as charged in the universal sense and proud of it, in spite of bein' an ol' bare-fist bar-scrapper and ex-rugby playin', amiable curmudgeon who can take a few knocks, can't abide guns, have some beautiful ceremonial Krises, a Ghurka throwin' knife and a few other bladed ceremonial artifacts, all presented to me on my travels by truly brave warriors who likewise hate "Coward's weapons" but will fight to the death for what they hold dear or sacred.
And there is nothing "implied" about my example of the Waco debacle, as it surely was. In fact, I concur with what I can make out of y'r judgement on that and still think the example is appropriate as stated.
Your reading and interpretation skills must be as bad as y'r spelling and grammar.
I'll give you no quarter on my reading and interpretation skills...my spelling and grammar are often for colloquial emphasis, if you, in your stellar linguistic perfections, did not note that.
Oh well, I like to muck about wi' the ol' lingo a bit too. Must ha' missed the last one or it was wayyyy over my head (whooshshsh!).
Anyhoo, 'nuff said and we seem to concur on the essentials as ya noted.
The Founding Fathers also didn't want a standing drafted or especially a professional army that could be a threat to the country. A standing militia, that would be disolved once any conflict ended, was their answer to the safety of the Republic. These guns were meant to protect us potential tyranny and we got that anyway. Perhaps. the bullets are being fired in the wrong direction. I should think that the Washington DC supporters of the NRA and the gun lobby would rethink the process if they were in the crosshairs of a limitless supply of guns.
Personally, if I knew someone were planning to kill a lot of innocents I would do my best to steer him instead to an elevator in a Wall Street building...or 'K' Street, or a big bank board meeting...a tobacco company board,
or? you get the idea. Be a great leader and savior of Americans, don't waste a good mad on innocents.
And maybe you ought to read old TJ some yourself and not rely on memory of talking points from your TP meets...I went to a few to folk with the jokes, and I know what you're up to better, maybe, than you do...remember! TYRANTS, not patriots! we want patriots alive.
No, what is intellectually dishonest is to base an argument for gun rights on the 2nd Amendment. Its short and simple. Permit me to quote:
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The ONLY stated condition for gun rights is with a "well regulated Militia". No militia, no gun rights under the 2nd Amendment. And this is so because of the historical understanding that the framers believed a well regulated militia was preferable to a standing army. Well, we now have a standing army. The 2nd Amendment is MOOT. Get over it.
They knew that individuals would eventually have to stand up to tyranny for tyranny had always taken place by the governors or controllers in their lifetimes and in their recognition of history...
as demonstrated by these words from the Declaration of Intependance... "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long establishedshou ld not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpationsk, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security..."
'it is their right, it is their duty to THROW OFF such government',
can only be interpreted as a potential need for force, BY WETHEPEOPLE.
I contend that your interpretation there DoodooDumper is just what you are dumping.
and America is:
No guns,
No death penalty,
No money in politics,
and universal health care.
Wow! what a difference that makes.
Comparatively of course !
You don´t need 500 million dollars
to become president/prime minister in
France or England!
There is money in politics everywhere but it's limited by statute in most European countries -although Mr. Rip-off Murdoch wiggled around it many times through back doors in the UK and Berlisconi in Italy was openly throwing it around not to mention owning the bulk of the media. Both have been outed finally.
Also, the election seasons are short and to the point with more engaged voters and equal media access to all competitive parties who keep their deposits (by show of sufficient support in registration).
Would that it were so here, so let's make it 4 out of 4 to "seeuingoa". I could actually add a few more factoids but that's enough to be toddlin' along with.
"No money in politics" ?
Did you know that the UK, Italy and Spain, (just to mention a few lurid recent examples) are all in Europe ?
A dictatorship doesn't require money for elections those that allow them just make sure the outcome is as they plan. Their money comes from US!
Come on John, my friend in battle!
Comparatively please !!
We don´t talk about huntingrifles or
a nutcase in Norway, nor do we talk about
death penalty in specific war situations.
Come on my friend, let´s battle together
against the crazyness of this world.
The Death Penalty Worldwide — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html/#ixzz21vxlOhIo
more then 138 countries have abandoned this eye for an eye punishment
Why are the ones who advocate gun rights against a ban of assault weapons and large magazines? Other than collectors I don't know why any non-military individual would legitimately need such arms.
If we could decrease the amount of people killed and injured by the unbalanced isn't that a worthy goal? True, they can still strap on a bomb and walk into a crowd but since Americans tend to use guns instead of bombs we could decrease the damage.
No?
Ask the innocent women and Children of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, (& other places, For Sure) all about it......
Done in 'Our name', on our dollar, by our children
WAKE UP!
Amendment...I can't read the dead Founders' minds any better than a SCOTUS I disagree with a lot, nor YOU, but I do notice that our Constitution, BEFORE it mentions the Amendments VERY clearly defines the word"militia".. .have you looked? Which which comes first in the 2nd amendment, the word "militia" or "right to bear arms"? wake up. Don't be a rabid sheeple dog.
And lest you think I don't like guns, I began shooting when I was four, and wasn't until after a stint in the Green Berets that I knew I wouldn't hunt again...here's the DEAL, wake up and pay attention: I personally don't like power in the hands of people who can't handle it. I don't like it in politicians, in drivers, and I used to refuse to teach real fighting to people who couldn't make sense about it in testing preliminary conversations. I regret it if you feel differently.I'm an American and you have the right to your opinions, and I only wish they were yours and not the advertising mantras of the NRA and the industry.
As for Michael...I bet you don't approve of the path my weapons education took, but I assure you will always be safe if I'm close enough.
People kill, guns are just one of many efficient tools we use. Moore, you are wrong as usual.
Afghanistan = tens of thousands so far.
Viet Nam = millions at our hand.
Africa = thousands at our SECRET hand.
What new dimension have you discovered to live in there RightForAReason ?
Oh, wait a minute, didn't they do that in Mexico, over 30 years ago ? Yep,they did.
How is that workin' out ?
Not so good I guess. Between 40-50 thousand body count in the last year.
Next worthwhile idea please.
How would the US enforce a Total Ban in a better way?
Murder has been a horrible crime for recorded history, everywhere! We have not eradicated that crime very well.
By definition, Criminals don't obey the laws, no mater how well intentioned. And not just in Mexico.
The murder rates are the highest in DC,NYC, and Chicago. Which incidently have outright prohibitions on ALL firearms. Again for decades each (NYC since the 30s ).
One would think those are failed experiments.Or can someone explain something I'm missing ?
Again, how about we WE seek another solution. A toltal bans, with decades of trial just don't work.
Can any of the minds here come up with a new approach, or just keep going in circles ?
Just Sayin'
=========================================
Here's an OLD approach: How about asking the British (you know, outside in that big wide world) for advice on how to get America's 8775 gun homicides p.a. down somewhere closer to their 58?
Good idea; however, that would require American to actually admit it does not know everything.
Okay, so what's your new approach, just asking.
Although I do not belive gun control is a panacea Mr Moore did bring up some cultual and economic issues that american society more than just sweeps under the rug but bull dozes under the carpet .AS long as Americans are selfish self centered self rightous short sided and look the other way the real problems are never going to be adressed other than return to sender !!!
WHAT IS SHORT SIDED?
Where does MM say he wants guns to be illegal; seems to me he is pointing out some problems that exist with regard to gun ownership, esp assault weapons, and the ease of obtaining them and unlimited amounts of ammo. He is asking questions and prompting us as Americans to start coming up with solutions. Isn't that supposed to be the American way? After all, dissent is American, correct?
C'mon Michael... You've traveled, you know this isn't true! Culturally, Americans are vastly inferior, from the point of view of their priorities (and you yourself have proved it about healthcare, among other things).
It's FEAR. American's are filled with fear, of the strange, the new, the idea that challenges their beliefs ....
If it was a case of a gunnut protecting his 2nd amendment rights to have a fetish for shooting guns, flaunting or showing them off in public, then the phrasing of the amendment would not be as it is above. There are two parts to the sentence. The first part logically flows into the second, i.e., the right to bear arms is for a well-regulated militia. If a gunnut's right to bear arms is based on some fetish, then the first part of the amendment would be separate from the second. I thus find it difficult to take the likes, e.g., of the NRA seriously. Perhaps gun violence has been in vogue in the U.S. not only because of fear, but just as much of a feeling of superiority based on old illusions of granduer, i.e, an "American exceptualism." And the infantile view that there's only "good guys" and "bad guys" and thus an exceptual show of "outrage" to kill all the "bad guys," whether foreign or domestic.
However, you'll have a far easier time getting America to convert to the metric system than to rethink the entire position on guns, unfortunately.
Think of that the next time you go where there is a crowd. Are you willing to give up your right to freedom so someone else can have their gun of choice?
As for why you pay for a military, I have no idea. It hasn't prevented your country being invaded EVER! Militias have.
Blast away at those pesky deer, grizzlies, poisonous ducks and deadly pheasants all you want. (Hunting is just plain stupid).
In school, at lunch, a child does not finish his fruit cup. another child asks for it. The first child would rather throw it in the trash than to let another child benefit from it, and does just that - throws it away. You'd hope that child would grow out of that but he learned that behaviour from somewhere. If you don't care about your neighbour, you won't care about your neighbour.
I think that you are misinterpreting what Mr. Moore is saying. He has been a member of the NRA. He is simply bringing up the problems that attend the preponderance of guns and ammo in the USA. It is not a black and white issue, pardon the pun. It's complicated, and we as Americans need to discuss the ramilifications of 300 million weapons, many which are unregistered.
So those countries (and many others) are just like us - except for the fact that more people here believe in God and go to church than any other Western nation.
Yes, and that religious fervor also leads this country to over-react and not analyze problems when they occur. Decisions tend to be fear based, not rational.
It's really not any more complicated than that.
That paints the true picture.
Now ask how many stories he's heard of how a gun saved the day, he'll ramble on if you let him.
But the numbers won't add up. The hysteria does not match up to the data.
Cheerio, my big man!
http://www.youngphillypolitics.com/finally_common_ground_gun_control_libertarian_vp
RSS feed for comments to this post