FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Ash writes: "The NRA broke its silence after the murders in Newtown by saying, 'The National Rifle Association of America is made up of four million moms and dads, sons and daughters ...' True, but they are the pawns."

(original art: John Cory/RSN)
(original art: John Cory/RSN)


Nancy Lanza Was an NRA Pawn

By Marc Ash, Reader Supported News

21 December 12


Reader Supported News | Perspective

 

he NRA broke its silence after the murders in Newtown by saying, "The National Rifle Association of America is made up of four million moms and dads, sons and daughters ..." True, but they are the pawns.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is not spending millions of dollars per year to protect gun rights as much as it is protecting gun sales. Arms dealing, that's where the money is. And that's what justifies the length the NRA lobbyists go to, both at the federal and state level. The NRA has helped protect the questionable right of Americans to own firearms, but they have also helped to transform the United States into the most lucrative personal arms market in the world.

Arms dealing in America only differs from drug dealing in three significant ways: it's more profitable, it's more lethal and it's legal. Guns, like crack cocaine, enter communities and have the same if not more destructive effect. Everyone has heard about the murders of 20 kindergarten children and 6 school administrators in Newtown, Connecticut. Who has heard about the year of death and pain in Chicago, or Oakland, California? Liz Goodwin reports for Yahoo, "Death by firearms are on track to surpass automobile related deaths by 2015 ... Every day, 85 Americans are shot dead ... 774 people were killed between 2006 and 2010 by a mass killer."

There was no good reason that Nancy Lanza needed military-grade firearms in her home. She was taken in by NRA hype. "Guns are your right, buy guns." "They are making laws that are too restrictive in terms of what kind of guns, clips and ammunition you can buy, be free, buy what they don't want you to buy." "They are coming to take your guns away, buy more." She - bought - into it, lock, stock and barrel. All of this, all of it, plays to the NRA's bottom line. Now, as in the aftermath of every mass killing, gun sales are soaring, profits spiking.

To the arms dealers the people who get hurt are an acceptable if unfortunate consequence. They react no differently than the tobacco industry, they regret but they don't stop. These are international arms dealers; it's a rough crowd. It's no different than Afghanistan or the Congo or Colombia to the flow of cash, money don't care. Move the weapons.

A visceral reaction to the horrific events in Newtown is driving this dialog, but it isn't just Newtown, it's Everytown across America. If Americans were limited to hunting rifles and revolvers they would survive ... literally. Profits would be down, but who cares about that?


Marc Ash was formerly the founder and Executive Director of Truthout, and is now founder and Editor of Reader Supported News.

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.

 

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

 
+147 # WFBrenner 2012-12-21 16:28
For the NRA and arms dealers: it's always ... and only ... about the MONEY!
 
 
-270 # Martintfre 2012-12-21 18:12
Unlike a tax funded organization like planned parenthood where mass genocide is forcibly funded from the tax payers, the NRA receives its funding from people who want to support their own rights.
 
 
+155 # Timaloha 2012-12-21 19:09
Any and all abortion services provided by Planned Parenthood are funded (by law) with donated funds not taxpayer money. PP, through counseling, sex education programs - including abstinence - and contraception services, prevents an estimated 300,000 unwanted pregnancies a year. How many of those pregnancies would result in abortions? Half? two thirds? Either way PP PREVENTS far more abortions than it provides. If you're anti-abortion and you don't support PP, then you are supporting more abortions not fewer.
 
 
+53 # robniel 2012-12-22 13:54
In 2010 I moved ALL my charitable giving to Planned Parenthood to counter nuts like Martinfre.
 
 
-14 # Mannstein 2012-12-23 17:45
I've done exactly the opposite by giving to pro life organizations.
 
 
+3 # Cassandra2012 2013-01-01 15:02
Quoting Mannstein:
I've done exactly the opposite by giving to pro life organizations.

"pro-life" only when it is fetal, but not after it is born.
"Pro-life" for potential life, but not for the mother's life.
"Pro-life" apparently not against killing criminals (even when DNA later proves the incarceration was fraudulent.)
ETC.
 
 
+8 # Mannstein 2012-12-23 17:51
Execuse me Nancy Lanza wasn't an NRA Pawn but a Useful Idiot.
 
 
+36 # Texas Aggie 2012-12-22 17:10
The right wing knows that, but reality never figures in their world view so pointing out that PP actually prevents abortions makes no difference to them. They really don't care about whether abortions occur, but just want some reason to inflict their dominance on some defenseless person. Once women understand the basic premise of the right wing, the tea party will never win another election.
 
 
+3 # Michael Lee Bugg 2012-12-26 10:28
Timaloha, this is the best point I've ever seen about Planned Parenthood regarding the prevention of abortion. I cannot believe that it has not bee made before, or that I did not think of it myself! I like to make the point that every egg produced by every female (and every sperm for that matter) could become an "innocent baby", hence the desire by the radical religionists to ban birth control of any kind; therefore whenever an anti-abortion fanatic, and normal people, passes an unfertilized egg or unused sperm the result is essentially an abortion!!! When the lunatics succeed in ending abortion they will go all out against birth control next. They want to destroy, abort, the entire human population by causing so many "innocent babies" that the ecosystem collapses!
 
 
+69 # CAMUS1111 2012-12-21 19:31
Unspeakable, outrageous stupidity and ignorance. How do you like the 12th century?
 
 
+119 # coach777b 2012-12-21 20:28
Quoting Martintfre:
Unlike a tax funded organization like planned parenthood where mass genocide is forcibly funded from the tax payers, the NRA receives its funding from people who want to support their own rights.

Typical right wing response. Always change the subject. Like little kids they whine that 'Billy did it too, how come you don't punish him?'. The subject here is the Newtown killings. Twenty little children and you want to drag in Planned Parenthood. Sorry Martin. That movie is playing on another screen. Come back when you learn how to stay on topic.
 
 
+48 # pushingforpeace 2012-12-22 10:17
To make a parallel between Planned Parenthood and the NRA is idiotic and truly offensive. Abortions as mass genocide? But kill live people? Twisted!
 
 
+45 # engelbach 2012-12-22 12:51
You are not in possession of the facts or are simply lying.

Tax money, by law, cannot be used to fund abortions, thanks to the efforts of politicians just as misogynist as you are.

Unlike the lumps of tissue in a woman's body that drive you into hysterical shrieks of genocide, the 20 kids and 6 adults in Newtown were living, breathing human beings -- whose lives you apparently find less important than the "rights" of gunnutz.
 
 
+37 # robniel 2012-12-22 13:52
Quoting Martintfre:
the NRA receives its funding from people who want to support their own rights.


I quit the NRA when it changed from a sporting organization to a political tool. NRA members are being duped out of their "dues" money -- that lowers the cost to the gun manufacturers' for their lobbying efforts to keep dangerous products on the market.
 
 
+2 # bmolloy124 2012-12-24 02:39
I don't know what to say.... I believe what this commenter has written,I trust s/he knows what s/he's saying: "Unlike a tax funded organization like planned parenthood where mass genocide is forcibly funded from the tax payers, the NRA receives its funding from people who want to support their own rights." P.P is a "tax funded" organization? I'm looking it up right now--- what's its federal rrc#? Is this writer/commente r saying Planned Parenthood is a Fdrly Funded Agency? Which portion of my tax dollars goes to Planned Parenthood? I want to know asap! I aint for or against them, mind you. Never had to use P.P. thnk gdnss. But, I've been "funding'em" w/my "tax dollars" w/out knowing they were a govmnt. agency?! How could this be? "Martintfre" must have the answers. Please, Mr. Martintfre, tell me which fed. agncy P.P. falls under & exactly how much federal $ from citizens' tax they're receiving yrly. This is important/imper ative. You must give us the information you are privy to! It's a fed. disgrace that P.P. has been abusing our tax dollars-- to say the least. And you are-- apparently (thank u) the lone citizen to have the wherewithal to dig up the "dirt" on this BIG fed. scandal. You should call yrslf: "Information P.P. Now.com" and keep telling aveage cit's of this outrage. You have a civil and moral duty to share your info. w/ Americans---NOW !!!! You are a true hero, in any case.
 
 
+33 # Rick Levy 2012-12-22 00:31
And the power to run the country by terrrorizing politicians into falling in line with their demands or face defeat in the next elections
 
 
+103 # Skyelav 2012-12-21 16:29
Time to ignore the NRA and decide what's fair based on several factors, not including sales and purchase and GDP. THe NRA has just, in my eyes, made itself irrelevant. Their firey right wing rhetoric stoked the coals of that part of the Republican base and they are slowly paying for it, just as they did with the Gunsight facebook page Sarah Palin came up with. She's gone (for now). The NRA should be too. Long long ago I told their chairman of the NRA that if they were really working for gun rights i.e. our ability to protect ourselves, they must stop the inflammatory rhetoric. He invited me to speak to the board but, unfortunately, I declined. SO let's move on and allow laws to be written for other than political purposes. Let's save some lives instead of tilt at windmills and acting like children. All of us.
 
 
+29 # dyannne 2012-12-21 16:48
Why did you decline to speak?
 
 
+136 # Barbara K 2012-12-21 16:30
They are all pawns. No one needs to belong to the NRA to have a firearm. The NRA gets rich by scaring people into thinking they need the NRA to protect their "rights". The NRA is nothing but a bloodsucker racket.
 
 
+2 # kelly 2012-12-23 12:57
You're right, Barbara, up to a point. I asked my uncle that question and he said that there are a number of gun ranges, particularly in the more remote areas where NRA membership is required before you can use them. Why is this significant? Because in the states where you do have to have the licensing and registration, you have to be able to practice somewhere and if the NRA owns the only gun range for miles, Where will you go?
 
 
+53 # RICHARDKANEpa 2012-12-21 16:43
For $349. per gun Nancy Lanza could have had a fingerprint lock safe for each gun. Actually the gun that killed her was so large that she might have to spend another couple of thou to cut the partition out of the gun box,
http://www.gunvault.com/handgun-safes/biometric-gun-safes.html
From the stories of other people in her predicament all knives and scissors needed to be locked up in such a safe as well. Adam clearly had no attention of being locked up like he knew his mother was trying to arrange,
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/nancy-lanza-feared-son-adam-worse-article-1.1221505

Don’t get me wrong if I was God Almighty I would evaporate all guns and all sports equipment and sports shows as well. I would love all crack cocaine to disappear from earth but trying to do that empowers organized crime,

I was overjoyed that 12 libertarian oriented Republicans and 12 left oriented Democrats demanded military cuts. One local tragedy and perhaps the last hope to avoid bankruptcy is now much further away. Lets get a quick compromise on local guns and get back to stopping the cancer of the self controlled arms industry. All cancers are self-controlled instead of controlled by the body they are expanding in.
 
 
+7 # DoctorDemocracy 2012-12-21 23:23
RichardKane, I'm not familiar with fingerprint lock-safing for guns. Since you know about it, I thought I'd ask you a couple of questions before I dig deeper. I would very much appreciate your willingness to lead this blind-man a bit.

(1) Sounds like you are describing an after-market refitting of an electronic device that keeps the weapon disabled until one and only fingerprint is identified by the device, as which point the weapon's mechanics can be operated. Do I understand this correctly?

(2) If it costs $349 to retrofit these things, are there any weapons manufactured with such devices in the first place? Typically, back fitting electronic security is much more expensive than building it in in the first place. What are your thoughts/observ ations about this?

Thank you very much,
DrDemocracy
 
 
-64 # Robert B 2012-12-21 16:45
"...money don't care."

Speak English, please.
 
 
+39 # David Heizer 2012-12-21 18:20
Learn to appreciate idiom, please.
 
 
-30 # Robert B 2012-12-21 18:47
Learn to appreciate English, please. Eight years of George W. Bush's "idiom" wasn't enough for you?
 
 
+34 # reiverpacific 2012-12-21 20:36
Quoting Robert B:
Learn to appreciate English, please. Eight years of George W. Bush's "idiom" wasn't enough for you?

Here's something from somebody who knew a little about English.
"Use every man after his desert, and who should ’scape whipping?"
Get off yer high horse and make a point mate.
"Money don't care" is an Americanism like "b'aint nobody perfect". It's about the level of rhetoric you'll hear at gun shows, where guns may be purchased without background checks, as are purchases at garage and yard sales.
D'you like y'r English thus: "Firearms may be constitutionall y purchased freely in the face of all practical evidence to the destructiveness thereof. Prithee forgive my intrusion into your world of violent and ineffective defense against the extant heavily-armed regime and a latent desire to have armed guards at the gate of every school, office, hospital and shithouse"?!
Americanised English has it's expressive place in the spectrum too.
But this is about a helluva lot more than elegant language. Some American derivations express grassroots emotions rather well. My favorite American word -"BARFF".
Least favorite; the expression; "-ehh -ah, guns don' kill, people do" as put about to the verbally challenged by the NRA.
"By this still hearth, among these barren crags,
Matched with an aged wife, I mete and dole
Unequal laws unto a savage race,
That hoard, and sleep, and feed, and know not me."
Tennyson, "Ulysses".
 
 
-4 # Regina 2012-12-22 00:58
Since you are so expert, how about distinguishing "it's" from "its" and using each correctly?
 
 
+10 # reiverpacific 2012-12-22 11:18
Quoting Regina:
Since you are so expert, how about distinguishing "it's" from "its" and using each correctly?

"It's" is an abbreviation for "It is" hence the apostrophe; "its" is used in the possessive so you are right in the second case of usage, which I attribute to my constantly-apol ogized-for crappy, dysfunctional typin' (on top of which I have essential tremor in my right hand, which is a bloody nuisance when typing and as a Flamenco Guitarist, a great and lifelong practice and passion of mine).
One outa two ain't bad under the circumstances, what?
I always appreciate a correction tho'; -like I said, b'aint nobody perfect and ah'll try to do bettah next time ma'am; d'you want me to write it out 100-and-a-half times befo' next class?
I was really making a point about sticking to the subject, with few English quotations off'n the top of my head (kinda harmless merriment) to make the point which I managed to bring the whole thing around to, albeit a little circuitously.
There is a wonderful music to language and I love to play around with both, especially in the humorous sense.
Try it sometime.
Now lets get back on point, tragic tho' it is.
 
 
+48 # David Heizer 2012-12-21 21:46
"Money don't care" is a Blues idiom used here deliberately and knowingly, with ironic intent. W was an idiot who wouldn't know an idiom if somebody threw it at him.

Here's some English for you: Marc's use of a colorful twist is called "writing." Your joyless nit-picking is called "pedantry."
 
 
+9 # reiverpacific 2012-12-22 11:31
Quoting David Heizer:
"Money don't care" is a Blues idiom used here deliberately and knowingly, with ironic intent. W was an idiot who wouldn't know an idiom if somebody threw it at him.

Here's some English for you: Marc's use of a colorful twist is called "writing." Your joyless nit-picking is called "pedantry."

Thanks for the confirmation that "Money don't care" is a blues colloquialism -I suspected some such thing; there are some beauts in that vocabulary which I love a bunch, especially the traditional rural genre as exemplified by Big Bill Broonzy and Sleepy John Estes.
My own (what passes for ) English is actually becoming quite a colorful mix of "proper" English as taught across the pond, a gutteral (glottle-stop) Scottish accent w/it's own humor and colloquialisms, and American -especially rural Appalachian and Black. It's makes for a bit of good-natured teasin' where I live on the North Oregon coast.
I do a pretty fair Kentucky accent too for an ancient Scot -altho' there are many linguistic similarities that I found in the utterances of the good folks in deepest Appalachia, with my southern Scottish (Border) accent as still spoken at home, like the tendency to add an "h" to the beginning of some words (like "h'it's -or h'its, as the case may be).
Anyhoo, just a few notes in response. Sorry to be a bit long-winded as is my wont betimes. Good yakkin' at ya and did'n mean to be a'wearyin' of ye.
 
 
+6 # BeaDeeBunker 2012-12-22 23:47
Your use of your language is perfect as far as I am concerned. Our ability to speak is a gift given to us as humans. The creatives use language to communicate effectively. Keep up the good work, gov, and ta ta.
 
 
+3 # kelly 2012-12-23 13:04
By George, I think you've got it!
 
 
+10 # Vegan_Girl 2012-12-22 05:20
With W it was a combination of what he said and how he said it.
 
 
+4 # Anarchist 23 2012-12-24 00:07
'Money doesn't talk, it swears'
Bob Dylan
 
 
+52 # Merschrod 2012-12-21 16:52
Reading the NRA declaration (both Lapierre and Asa) is a good way to understand their mentality - they try to become the solution - which would generate good will and prestige for the NRA) take a swing or two at celebrities and the media, and finally at President Obama. This lashing out is an act of desperation, but it shows how clueless they are to rational thought. When I think of my elementary school, and the elementary schools of grand children, I wonder could they find a guard for every door? Is it rational to think that an armed guard would be alert enough all the time that a swift nut-case would not be able to make it through?

Enough is enough, we have a cultural problem in the USofA (yes those violent games and movies are part of tghe problem), we have an accessibility problem (definitely there should be background checks; hunting yes, military capacity no), and there needs to be a nationwide educational program on the role that guns should and should not play in society, the national firearms reporting data base must be opened to the public for research.
 
 
+65 # moreover 2012-12-21 17:10
Charitywatch.or g reports that Mr NRA - Wayne LaPierre - has an annual salary of almost one million dollars, making him the sixth highest paid CEO of a national non-profit organization. That is before any speaking fees.
 
 
-49 # Martintfre 2012-12-21 18:15
//Charitywatch. org reports that Mr NRA//

That makes no sense.
Why would a charity watch org be monitoring a non charity organization like the NRA?
 
 
+12 # tishado 2012-12-21 23:25
Actually, the legal status of the non-profit NRA falls into the charitable category, at least in part. The organizations, known as "superpacs," for example, are legally charities.
 
 
+9 # sol4u2 2012-12-22 00:54
The NRA is an American non-profit 501(c)(3) organization[1] that advocates for the protection of the Second Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights, and the promotion of firearm ownership rights as well as marksmanship, firearm safety, training and the protection of hunting and self-defense in the United States.
 
 
+13 # pushingforpeace 2012-12-22 10:24
Quoting sol4u2:
The NRA is an American non-profit 501(c)(3) organization[1] that advocates for the protection of the Second Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights, and the promotion of firearm ownership rights as well as marksmanship, firearm safety, training and the protection of hunting and self-defense in the United States.
Sounds so reasonable, doesn't it? The NRA exploits fear and paranoia in individuals. How could anyone armed person defend him or herself against armed governmental agencies in the first place?! What a ridiculous argument.
 
 
+17 # engelbach 2012-12-22 12:57
Whereas in actuality the NRA is an unofficial lobby for the arms industry. Their 501(c)(3) is a joke.
 
 
+17 # bingers 2012-12-22 09:17
Quoting Martintfre:
//Charitywatch.org reports that Mr NRA//

That makes no sense.
Why would a charity watch org be monitoring a non charity organization like the NRA?


Because they get the tax break for charitible organizations based on their gun safety courses which once was the core of their operations and now is nothing but an afterthought. They need to lose that tax break, retroactively to LaPierre's regime beginning.
 
 
+26 # thomachuck 2012-12-21 17:47
The issue is complicated and the country as a whole does not have the political will to reach a sustainable middle ground. All kinds of proposals are being spouted, like having armed guards at schools, issuing firearms to teachers, etc. etc. Somewhere, sometime, we need to arrive at a consensus view that dealing with mentally ill people is a first priority. States are supposed to run background checks and submit that information to the FBI. When law enforcement wants to know if someone was mentally unqualified to own and carry a firearm, they consult FBI records. Often no data was ever given to the FBI on a given person. Lax enforcement of present laws is largely to blame. We need to bring back the large magazine and assault weapon ban that existed from 1994 to 2004 and force dealers to complete and wait for the background checks that are prescribed now before completing a sale. Nothing is working because people wink at it and keep the cash register working. Maybe enforcement needs to be more draconian. The gun lobby should encourage and assist this or their next step will be more public outrage and a cry for their extinction.
 
 
-43 # Martintfre 2012-12-21 17:49
What kind of stupid paws support a fast and furious gun runner who purpously dumps thousands of unregistered undocumented assault weapons into the hands of murderous killers?

well - the same kind who support a mass murder who drones hundreds of innocent children to death
 
 
+19 # Lennie 2012-12-21 18:02
As Don Corlione said, "Nothing personal, just BUSINESS."
 
 
-12 # Shirley in Berkeley 2012-12-21 18:10
Use of the word "pawn" in this context is wrong. A pawn is someone who must do the bidding of a higher power and the people you refer to were not acting for the NRA. The NRA uses any situation they can to support their intransigent positions on gun ownership, and to identify these people as being in any way controlled by the NRA assigns more more power to the NRA than they have.
 
 
+10 # tishado 2012-12-21 23:31
The NRA has been acting more and more to promote the interests of the gun industry by using a support base whipped into a frenzy to believe that their guns are on the verge of being seized by the government. The actual opinions of NRA members when surveyed are generally in stark contrast to the legislative agenda of the NRA. Therefore, their numbers and their money is mobilized and used to push positions they do not always agree with. They are told Obama is going to take their gun, so they vote for Republican state legislators who make it easier for guns to get in the hands of the mentally-ill, for example. Sounds like a pawn.
 
 
+6 # Shirley in Berkeley 2012-12-22 11:37
I do not mean to suggest that the NRA is not to blame for gun violence. By spending millions to insure that anyone can own any kind of gun they choose, they most certainly are, but Lanza was not their pawn. She and others like her participate in the fantasy that there is nothing wrong with owning and shooting assault weapons "for enjoyment." If they insist on playing with murderous "toys," let them do it on on one of those sick video games, but keep the real hardware out of their hands.
 
 
-70 # MidwestTom 2012-12-21 18:21
I read that one of the guns that killer the Mexican star earlier this week was a fast and furious weapon. The NRA exists because of the sentiments expressed this week by most contributors to this column. There are at least 50 million law abiding gun owners who have never killed anybody. Go after the mentally ill, not the innocent gun owners who enjoy shooting.
 
 
+51 # Timaloha 2012-12-21 20:22
Maybe we COULD do something about mental illness if the right would support access to such care. But instead they would rather defund such care in favor of preserving tax cuts for the uber-wealthy. PArt of Boehner's "plan B" includes such cuts to mental care. Conversely, Obamacare increases access to mental health care. So can I assume you support Obamacare now?
 
 
+11 # tishado 2012-12-21 23:37
The broad public (including gun owners) wants the mentally ill not to be able to have easy access to guns. Places where there are rational restrictions on guns, law-abiding gun owners get to shoot and hunt and keep guns for home protection and yet the state government is able to share information and is better able to keep guns out of the hands of those who would misuse them. The intransigence of the NRA in not allowing for reasonable restrictions (like taking away the right of people on the terrorist watch list to own guns) is what generates the hostility towards guns in general. Enacting the gun control agenda right now would largely amount to protecting the rights of innocent gun owners who enjoy shooting by separating them and their interests from those who would misuse their guns.
 
 
+16 # NOMINAE 2012-12-22 02:48
@ midwestTom

Part I

Yes, indeedy, Tom. I assert that, under the Second Amendment, all citizens are guaranteed the right to own and maintain Military Tanks ! A Tank is nothing but a gun on tracks, and it has nothing NEAR the fire-rate of a Bushmaster !

And, Tanks don't kill people, Tank gunners kill people.

Yezzir, and, if yer cruizin' up 'n' down Main St. on a Saturday night, you never know when you might need to do a little squirrel huntin' ! Just the thing - that vintage Panzer from your European collection !

An' there can be no question that a Tank has a LOT more to do with keeping "a well regulated militia" than does a basement full of assault weapons, that can only be used one to a man at any given time anyway.

I totally GET it. Go after the mentally ill, not the innocent Tank Owners who *enjoy* shooting. And let's not forget your neighbors who *enjoy* shooting Bazookas, RPGs, and the occasional Surface-to-Air Missile Battery after having a few beers. A must for those who live under the airport approach paths in the country. After all, if you "enjoy" it, it's GOTTA be your "right" to do it, forget every other human on the planet.

Cont'd
 
 
+17 # NOMINAE 2012-12-22 02:50
@ midwestTom

Part II

For the "sporting American", let's see a deer escape a modern Abrams at full speed with full range. If you still can't hit Bambi with the main turret gun, accessorizing with some "intimate" .20 MM Cannon should improve your sporting experience.

It's insane to think that a rifle, a shotgun and a revolver are more than plenty for *all* uses encountered by a citizen for *all* reasons, when everyone should have the right to enter into a full-on arms race with the U.S. Armed Forces ! Remember how well that strategy worked out for the Soviet Union after all of the bucks and blood spilled during the Cold War ?

In all this talk about rights, tho,I am having a hard time hearing *anyone* mention the "right" of *all* human beings to be FREE *FROM* GUNS, and from every idiot eighteen-year-o ld testosterone addled man-child on a college campus who may now be legally PACKING ONE !

And, that reminds me. Yet another advantage to yer basic Tank is that it's a real pain to attempt to carry concealed !
 
 
+8 # engelbach 2012-12-22 13:05
There's no correlation between school shootings in America and the Fast and Furious program, so I see no reason for bringing up except to deflect the argument.

It's impossible to track what you call "the mentally ill" in this way, and even were it possible it would not be the answer.

The owners of the guns used in these school shootings were not mentally ill, nor does "mental illness" -- a broad category that is far too encompassing -- equate with violence.

some people might "enjoy" driving a tank, but it's not legal to own one. The lives of our kids are more important than the enjoyment of gunnutz.
 
 
-31 # MidwestTom 2012-12-21 18:26
Maybe we should simply outlaw guns in heavily populated areas, as has been done in Chicago and Washington DC. Those must be two of the safest places visit.
 
 
+8 # tishado 2012-12-21 23:49
The majority of guns used in killings in major cities are purchased without going through the background checks usually mandated (ergo the desire to close the "gun-show loophole"). The guns on the streets in Chicago do not come from Chicago. However, you do raise a good point-different places require different local laws. Chicago and New York should be allowed to have very tight restrictions on guns while other places should be able to have their own system. Nationally, we should have some minimal standards-backg round checks that are saved, no guns for the mentally-ill, no guns for violent felons, no guns for terrorists, no military-style weapons without registration, mandatory safety features, mandatory safety training for firearms owners, and possibly others. Keeping guns only in the hands of those who would use them responsibly is the best way to prevent confiscation of all guns.
 
 
+9 # bingers 2012-12-22 09:24
tiahado, the problem with your analysis is that nobody has a record until they do wrong. That includes a large majority of the insane who use guns to kill.
 
 
+1 # tishado 2012-12-27 02:34
I seem to recall the Virginia Tech, Tucson, and Aurora massacres all involved shooters who had been identified as dangerous and violent and yet were still able to amass/expand arsenals after they were identified. Maybe if guns were registered and only licensed to those who were able to handle them, action from a university could automatically be checked with a gun database and people could be stopped from buying more and could have their guns impounded while they were judged to be a threat to society.
 
 
+7 # engelbach 2012-12-22 13:08
Adam Lanza's mother owned her guns legally. None of those measures would have prevented Adam Lanza's killing spree except the absence of hose guns.
 
 
+1 # tishado 2012-12-27 02:38
My point is that we do not need to wait for the maximum action that will be most resisted and which is the paranoid fantasy of the NRA, in order to take action. I think that a long list of actions could be taken immediately and would make the country a lot safer. In the meantime people could work on changing the gun culture and building consensus for something like an Australian solution.
 
 
+2 # jdirt 2012-12-22 16:53
RIGHT ON!!!!
 
 
+8 # bingers 2012-12-22 09:22
Quoting MidwestTom:
Maybe we should simply outlaw guns in heavily populated areas, as has been done in Chicago and Washington DC. Those must be two of the safest places visit.


What we should do is obey the constitution. The well regulated militia part, which was ruled in the 30s to be the National Guard, and ONLY the National Guard. And give life imprisonment for any imptoper use of guns, including having an unregistered one. Fools who think having one is protection for their family are apparently so badly informed that they don't understand that having a gun in the house makes you far more likely to be a victim.
 
 
-4 # jdirt 2012-12-22 17:03
A really good thought until you went off the deep end with fools with guns for home protection. WHERE are you from or do you expect your neighbors with guns to protect you if bad guys are at your home?
 
 
0 # tishado 2012-12-27 02:42
Quote:

Fools who think having one is protection for their family are apparently so badly informed that they don't understand that having a gun in the house makes you far more likely to be a victim.
Excellent point. The main statistical effect on your safety when you buy a gun is to make it FAR more likely that you or your loved ones will be injured or killed by a gun.
 
 
+2 # kelly 2012-12-23 13:17
Hullo, Midwest!
Scalia and his buddies, found the ban in D.C. illegal. That's is not a credible example. Why don't you look at Japan where gun deaths are almost nil, or Australia where gun deasths went down 57% in 10 years after their ban or look at England whose deaths are now at 73 per year as opposed to the U.S.'s dismal 10,000? Too hard to counter or are you just embarassed to admit it? Fewer gunsfewer deaths.
Our country has as many video games as Great Britain and Japan(which is what I would consider the home of video games). We also attatch less stigma to persons with mental illness. The main difference we have from these two places? A plethora of guns.
 
 
-1 # jdirt 2012-12-24 00:35
I think your a little off on your facts.
Try reading Thomas Sowell's column Invincible Ignorance of Dec. 18,2012.
It's a short read.
 
 
+1 # tishado 2012-12-27 02:48
Quoting jdirt:
I think your a little off on your facts.
Try reading Thomas Sowell's column Invincible Ignorance of Dec. 18,2012.
It's a short read.

I read it and it kind of picks and chooses the facts. You may be interested in Ezra Klein's piece in the post: Twelve facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States
It is balanced and gives information that can be argued for more guns and banning guns. You should at least work these facts into your argument.
 
 
+46 # giraffee2012 2012-12-21 18:54
CLEARLY the founding fathers did not intend to have weapons that set off 30+ bullets (whatever) at once when they wrote the 2nd amendment -- end of story.

NRA heads are a bunch of cowards who love the money more than the value of life. I HATE their cult
 
 
+39 # ganymede 2012-12-21 19:07
We are a very stupid people not to see that allowing assault weapons is the problem and the NRA is a fascist organization that hsa nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, but everything to do with enabling the gun manufacturers. No one is against the rights of hunters to hunt or people to have revolvers for security reasons. Someday, we're going to have to grow up or we will no longer be a viable society.
 
 
+35 # tbcrawford 2012-12-21 19:25
The NRA statement today was reflection of an insanity we that threatens everyone in our society. There is so much hate veiled in the words uttered...more guns and in schools!!! No thank you...As for that poor demented woman who was evidently delusional and felt guns would protect her, let this be an lesson for us all.
 
 
+35 # RMDC 2012-12-21 19:26
I totally agree that guns in america are an insane fetish, but they don't stand alone. American culture is a death cult. As a nation, the US believes that killing someone is the solution to nearly every problem. War and the mass murder of war are a form of therapy. Americans were hurt on 9-11 so they went around the world on a killing spree. There's no difference between what america does as a nation and what these pyschopaths to in a grade school -- except for the numbers. 20 dead in a grade school -- about 20 million dead world wide in the last two or three decades.
 
 
-48 # jdirt 2012-12-21 20:40
And how many have died to give you the freedom to post crap like this?
 
 
+19 # Sophie 2012-12-21 22:55
And, how many more children and adults do you think should have to die in the US when they go to school, or a place of worship, or a movie theater, etc.??
Yes, soldiers have died and continue to die in far too many endless wars--and what is it they are protecting, while they are forced to kill human beings who happen to reside in foreign countries?

They are protecting the freedom of Americans to carry assault rifles, and other military weapons, and blow their neighbors to smithereens--on American soil.
It won't matter how many more Newtown's or Aurora's, etc., there are--people like you will never wake up. Maybe when it happens to you.
 
 
-13 # jdirt 2012-12-22 00:13
Sophie you don't read enough history. Maybe when your my age and have seen and felt it you'll not be so cynical towards people who don't want to give up their guns for a VERY few nut cases. Also, you might want to read up on what an "assault" rifle really is. We already have laws banning military weapons.
In the Oregon mall shooting, a person WITH a gun confronted the "shooter" and he fled and then killed himself. How many of "you" did he save by carrying a pistol and not even firing a shot? Of course our unbiased media doesn't report this nationally. 99.9% of the people who own guns do Not commit these terrible crimes.
 
 
+3 # kelly 2012-12-23 13:30
How much do you read?
If that 30 round clip he had hadn't jammed, he would have killed a lot more before he shot himself.
 
 
+1 # tishado 2012-12-27 02:54
Quoting jdirt:
Sophie you don't read enough history.


Apparently you need to read up, too. The reason for the 2nd Amendment was to guarantee that the government would have access to militias to defend the borders and put down uprisings of self-armed citizens like Shay's Rebellion.
 
 
+12 # RMDC 2012-12-22 07:49
jdirt -- the answer in None. Read Smedley Butler on why the US fights all of its wars. They are wars of conquest and colonial suppression. How are the wars in Iraq, Afghanisatn, Pakistan,Libya, Syria, Somalia, and so on giving any american freedom. I know that is what the war mongers tell us, but they are lying. They lie because some people make a lot of money from war. They don't care how many people are killed. In fact they are sociopaths and gain some sadistic pleasure from killing, torture, and destruction.
 
 
0 # jdirt 2012-12-22 14:11
NONE is incorrect unless you wanted to speak German/Japanese but your probably young.
The wars you mentioned were Not for your reasons but agree with your thinking along the lines of "follow the money".
 
 
0 # Cassandra2012 2013-01-01 15:13
Quoting jdirt:
NONE is incorrect unless you wanted to speak German/Japanese but your probably young.
The wars you mentioned were Not for your reasons but agree with your thinking along the lines of "follow the money".



you're, dear
 
 
+18 # bingers 2012-12-22 09:26
Quoting jdirt:
And how many have died to give you the freedom to post crap like this?


If you mean the military, I doubt that any of them (including me in 'Nam) were fighting for your right to murder.
 
 
-1 # engelbach 2012-12-22 13:26
You tell us. Name one war since the Revolution that was fought for American "freedom." No foreign power has ever threatened the existence of the United States or its Constitution.

The only threat to the bill of rights has been from our own government -- and from idiots who spout misinformation about freedom of speech and then castigate people who actually use it.
 
 
-6 # jdirt 2012-12-22 17:12
OMG! What planet are you from!
 
 
0 # Cassandra2012 2013-01-01 15:14
fascists in WWII??
 
 
+1 # David Starr 2012-12-26 18:38
@jdirt: How many have died from U.S. imperial wars? Much more than those who give me "freedom."

Consistent invading/occupy ing/bombing other countries for imperial/montet ary conquest does not protect my freedom. It's even wierd to rationalize it that way.

While I support the degree of democratization in the U.S., with the idea that it evolve, no one is going to pull a guilt trip on me, as a U.S. citizen, to be blindly obligated to support U.S. imperialism. The latter DOES NOT protect my freedom.
 
 
-58 # jdirt 2012-12-21 20:23
Does anyone remember why Japan never really considered trying to invade the US during WWII???
It was because too many "citizens" had guns. Look this up if you think I'm making this up.
 
 
+48 # Timaloha 2012-12-21 22:05
You are reciting gun lobby/NRa/right wing propaganda. The Japanese War Dept knew from the war's inception that invading mainland USA was a logistical impossibility. They never had any intention of conquering the US. They only attacked at Pearl Harbor to cripple our fleet so they could buy time to invade neighboring countries that could supply them with raw materiels like rubber and oil which we had denied them through blockade and trade sanctions. Once they had accomplished that, they planned to sue for peace with America. Even at the height of their empire, the Japanese never had the resources to invade the USA. And they knew it. And don't bring up the Aleutians. That was a feint.
 
 
-21 # jdirt 2012-12-22 00:20
You are wrong and a lousy historian but it sure sounds good. Maybe try reading some of the mems. from the Japanese gens. and adms.
 
 
-16 # jdirt 2012-12-22 00:41
Also, I am Not in the NRA or a rightwinger.
You might try reading the post in the Knoxville Journal.com, The Worlds Largest Army.
 
 
+11 # tishado 2012-12-21 23:59
Quoting jdirt:
Does anyone remember why Japan never really considered trying to invade the US during WWII???
It was because too many "citizens" had guns. Look this up if you think I'm making this up.


Even were that true (the real reason was that the Japanese had no desire, interest, or resources to invade), who is the US threatened by now? Is that imaginary enemy worth ten 9/11s or one Korean War in casualties a year as the cost(30,000) of deterring this imaginary enemy salivating at overwhelming the US military (outspending the next ten top nations combined!) and then launching a ground invasion?

Maybe we could work out some compromises? Let people who are trained and qualified to use weapons safely and have a reason to have them be allowed to do so with reasonable regulations and restrictions, like we place on cars. Gun owners could then be free to exercise their rights responsibly without mandating that the rest of us have to endure the worry of being shot by mass killers, of being shot by husbands and boyfriends, of being killed in gang shootings.
 
 
-7 # jdirt 2012-12-22 14:28
We have laws now but they do not stop the "bad guys". Taking All guns from citizens has been proven over & over again to NOT work. There will ALWAYS be bad people among us and a better compromise needs to be found. How about Very strong laws for crimes using guns?
 
 
+1 # tishado 2012-12-27 03:02
Quoting jdirt:
We have laws now but they do not stop the "bad guys". Taking All guns from citizens has been proven over & over again to NOT work. There will ALWAYS be bad people among us and a better compromise needs to be found. How about Very strong laws for crimes using guns?


1. Not being able to stop crime is not a rational argument for abandoning law.
2. Who is arguing in favor of taking away all guns? The argument of the anti-gun organizations is in favor of balancing rights to hunt and target shoot with the need for public safety. Carolyn McCarthy is probably the most extreme anti-gun advocate in Congress and she regularly speaks of balancing the difference between legitimate uses for legitimate guns and public safety.
3. Strong laws for crimes using guns are already in effect in many places (usually the places that put the greatest rational restraints on guns). The lobbying efforts of the NRA have pushed in the opposite direction, like the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground, which give broad sanction for the use of guns that encourages a public atmosphere of permissiveness towards using guns to kill, ending in tragedies like the Trayvon Martin case.
 
 
+15 # NOMINAE 2012-12-22 02:57
Quoting jdirt:
Does anyone remember why Japan never really considered trying to invade the US during WWII???
It was because too many "citizens" had guns. Look this up if you think I'm making this up.


Do you expect to be taken seriously with this stuff ?

By that logic, they wouldn't have dared attack Pearl Harbor. The Japanese had many, and very serious reasons to avoid a mainland attack, not the least of which was the size of the Pacific Ocean.

People can't look up the swill you advance, because such inanities are not recorded in historic records.
 
 
+6 # RMDC 2012-12-22 07:49
No one remembers it because it is not true. Japan fought a defensive war.
 
 
+11 # HawaiianEyes 2012-12-22 17:55
I looked it up. The stuff was ginned up originally by Life Magazine and other American publications to scare the bejeezus out of the American public during the war. The Japanese High Command was crazy but they never thought they could mount an invasion of the US Mainland, especially not because of your implication. That's a joke. It was that they simply did not have the capabilities. You look it up, sir. It was a stretch for the Japanese Navy to attack Pearl Harbor, and that was only halfway to the West Coast, and could not be repeated again once the War started. With Midway, everything became a defensive strategy. Isoroku Yamamoto, the chief strategist for the Imperial Navy, told the High Command before Pearl Harbor that the chances of Japan beating the US was exactly zero. He could "run amock" for two years in the Pacific and then the only chance Japan had was to sue for peace, if they could destroy enough US Naval capabilities to make it possible. Maybe. Stalingrad, the collapse of the Eastern Front, the Allied advances in Europe and the Battle of Midway made it impossible for Japan to even consider an invasion. With what? The Nazis weren't going to help them. All the Japanese land army was stuck in Asia fighting in China, the Phillipines and Indonesia. Their Navy was being decimated in the Pacific. Sorry, maybe you're not making it up, but your sources are.
 
 
+1 # RICHARDKANEpa 2012-12-23 20:45
Quoting jdirt:
Does anyone remember why Japan never really considered trying to invade the US during WWII???
It was because too many "citizens" had guns. Look this up if you think I'm making this up.


Actually Japan made it clear unless the oil embargo was lifted it would go back to trying to, it claimed liberate Asia from the West. Attacking Hawaii first because the US air craft carriers were stationed there but since they weren't there they turned around instead of landing their invading party.


Anyway the choice isn't between propaganda and the truth but between various overlap propaganda
 
 
+30 # Charles3000 2012-12-21 20:24
A study showed some 30,000 + children under the age of 14 were killed by the US Military during the occupation of Iraq.
 
 
-22 # jdirt 2012-12-21 21:06
"WHO'S" study?? The internet.
 
 
0 # Cassandra2012 2013-01-01 15:16
'whose', dear
 
 
+15 # tishado 2012-12-22 00:05
Iraq Body Count, which only counts deaths reported in the news, says that from 2003 to 2011:
Children killed:
Of the 45,779 victims for whom IBC was able to obtain age data, 3,911 (8.54%) were children under age 18.
 
 
-8 # jdirt 2012-12-22 14:36
I'm sorry I questioned your source. The Iraqis (enemy) would be a great source for this study.
 
 
+3 # kelly 2012-12-23 13:47
Al quaeda and the Taliban were the enemies allegedly...not the Iraqui people. We were supposed to have gone in for weapons of mass destruction. As Condoleeza Rice kept saying,"we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Even though she knew(as she later admitted) there was no smoking gun.
 
 
+1 # tishado 2012-12-27 03:06
Quoting jdirt:
I'm sorry I questioned your source. The Iraqis (enemy) would be a great source for this study.


Actually Iraq Body Count is not Iraqi, but from the US and UK and counts press reports in the media. They are generally criticized for undercounting deaths, not being an enemy source that overcounts deaths.
 
 
+21 # Hirspray 2012-12-21 22:02
The reports I read were that Nancy Lanza was a member of the "preppers" an organization that believed the gov't was close to economic collapse and citizens needed to prepare for the societal breakdown. Assault weapons were to be stockpiled. She spent time at a local shooting range and bar very obsessed with her guns.
 
 
+15 # BeaDeeBunker 2012-12-21 23:27
This seems to be a very emotional issue, with trigger happy reactions, that all miss the point. The point is that the 2nd Amend. has been misinterpreted-period!
All those who think that the 2nd Amend. is a 'blank check' with no strings attached, should educate themselves by carefully reading the Militia Acts of 1792.
The 2nd Amend. states clearly, in my mind, that the purpose was to allow for a 'general militia' to be formed and called up, to defend against invasion by a foreign power, or those pesky Indians who were still upset about their land being stolen from them after thousands of years!

To quote partially:

"The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack."

To me, it follows logically that the right to a firearm is linked to the state's right to conscript the "free able-bodied white male citizen" for active duty, and btw, bring your own stuff!

You bought your AK-47 by 2nd Amend. right, well buddy, pack it up and bring warm socks...you're going to Afghanistan!
 
 
+16 # BeaDeeBunker 2012-12-22 00:13
The NRA is an embarrassment!
To quote:
“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
I've amended this quote by, while keeping with the spirit of LaPierre's words, added to the letter of his well thought out statement of reality, NRA style.

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a 45 Colt is a good guy with a 45 Colt."

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a 38 snub nose is a good guy with a 38 snub nose."

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a double barrel shotgun is a good guy with a double barrel shotgun."

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with an Elephant gun is a good guy with an Elephant gun."

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with an AK-47 is a good guy with an AK-47."

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a bazooka is a good guy with a bazooka."

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a Tredegar Coehorn Mortar is a good guy with a Tredegar Coehorn Mortar."

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a Tredegar Iron 12 Pounder Field Howitzer is a good guy with a Tredegar Iron 12 Pounder Field Howitzer."

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a SCUD missile is a good guy with a SCUD missile."

And finally!

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with an ICBM is a good guy with an ICBM."

NOW ISN'T THAT SPECIAL!
 
 
-2 # jdirt 2012-12-22 17:18
Pretty darn good!
 
 
+13 # poosta7 2012-12-22 06:59
It is ironic that Nancy Lanza was killed by her own son with her own assault rifle. A very expensive form of retroactive birth control.
 
 
+11 # Ralph Averill 2012-12-22 08:55
I agree with all of it except the part about the *pawns*. A pawn by definition is weak and helpless, manipulated by those with more power. People who amass a personal arsenal, through my working in the construction trades I have met and had discussions with several of them, are neither weak nor helplessly manipulated. They are certainly not victims, and are as responsible for their behavior as any of us. And that goes for Nancy Lanza in spades. She knew she had a son with serious mental/emotiona l problems, yet she allowed him access to her guns. She died as a result. Poetic justice. Not so just for the children and teachers who died soon thereafter.
You can shut down the NRA completely and you will not change the thinking of these people. There is a prideful stupidity and a willful ignorance that is a brick wall to adult dialog on the subject of guns.
 
 
+8 # Babbzy3 2012-12-22 15:36
Did everyone catch NRA Head Wayne LaPierre's press conference speech in response to the Sandy Hook massacre? It was sickening: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/nra-wayne-lapierre_n_2348277.html

Especially this part: "The truth is that our society is populated by an unknown number of genuine monsters — people so deranged, so evil, so possessed by voices and driven by demons that no sane person can possibly ever comprehend them. They walk among us every day. And does anybody really believe that the next Adam Lanza isn't planning his attack on a school he's already identified at this very moment?" I wanted to vomit. What a smarmy individual. Even my father, otherwise a fairly bright guy, is a card carrying NRA man, and he falls for this diatribe hook, line and sinker.
 
 
-8 # jdirt 2012-12-22 17:30
I AM a gun owner but do not always agree with the NRA. Maybe "monsters" is not the best word but I agree with his content. Insert sick people. Is that any better?
 
 
+9 # independentmind 2012-12-22 17:04
I read elsewhere that some of the pension funds are divesting from Arm Manufacturer's stock. Now that is the way to make a dent in this problem. Ask your pension funds and mutual funds to do the same, and maybe we can make a difference.
 
 
+5 # dane214 2012-12-22 23:37
Isn't it enlightening that lapier's solution is to provide every school with armed guards? This would require tens of thousands of weapons hich would help pay LaP's obcene pay.
 
 
+1 # dovelane1 2012-12-25 06:53
The NRA is proposing an mandate to be funded by the government. If they want this to be a mandate, perhaps they should consider funding it. Let them put their money where there mouth is.

But we know that will never happen. They always want others to do their dirty work for them, so their hands stay clean - on the surface.
 
 
+6 # Pickwicky 2012-12-22 18:30
The fundamental problem with our gun laws begins with SCOTUS and goes a long way back. Just recently D.C. v. Heller (2008) SCOTUS ruled: individuals unconnected to military service have the right to own firearms. SCOTUS must revisit this issue and put the matter straight. It was never the intention of the Founders to allow roving free-lance buckaroos. The 2nd amendment was always intended to provide a "well-regulated militia" (such as the National Guard)to prevent uprisings against and/or harmful challenges to OUR GOVERNMENT. Yes, to our government--tha t is, threats to our duly elected government. That "well-regulated militia" was never intended to overturn our government. Check your American History--militi as were used several times BY THE GOVERNMENT to control threats against the government of the USA.
 
 
+5 # BeaDeeBunker 2012-12-23 00:08
Exactly. The Whiskey Rebellion was one such event that was put down by the "well regulated militia." Don't ever get between a true American and their moonshine. They'll fight, but can't really shoot straight after sampling their own creations! The Militia Acts of 1792 allowed the president to put the rebellion down with musket power alone.
 
 
0 # jdirt 2012-12-24 01:01
Times were a little different with our Founding Fathers but I tend to agree with your assessment of their intent. But back then virtually everyone owned a gun for food and protection which is now "the right to own firearms".
 
 
+2 # DaveM 2012-12-22 23:33
There is no legal restriction against purchasing or owning a tank. Owning one with the on-board artillery would I presume, be virtually impossible, but any number of military surplus tanks are privately owned (or used as movie props) and at least one fellow in my home state offers various "tank experiences" on a closed course (they certainly aren't street-legal).

As to rockets and missiles....see YouTube for any number of examples of the efforts of model rocket clubs, some of which involve the launching of vehicles that are the size of SCUD missiles, though without the warhead. If someone was warped enough to try sticking a bomb on the nose of such a rocket....chanc es are they could. It hasn't happened.

One can purchase (without even having to show an ID) and legally own a cannon of any size in this country so long as it is muzzle-loading. Cannon shoots are popular activities in many parts of the country. I suppose it's possible that some lone nut with a cannon could lay siege to a highly populated area. But none has.

Finally, there is the fact that despite increases in airline security, there are no restrictions on the private purchase of aircraft. Anyone with enough money and a licensed pilot could purchase a retired airliner and repeat 9/11 tomorrow.

That no one has tells me that we have done too much in the name of "security". And that, when all is said and done, we can take pride in "the better angels of our nature".
 
 
0 # Citizen Mike 2012-12-23 11:29
LET'S ALL JOIN THE NRA NOW TO SUBVERT IT AND TURN IT FROM A SHILL FOR THE GUNMAKERS INTO A PUBLIC SAFETY ORGANIZATION. WE CAN ACT TOGETHER TO FORCE THE NRA TO ENDORSE A UNIFORM NATIONWIDE FEDERAL GUN PERMIT ACT WHICH REQUIRES AN INTERVIEW WITH A NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE PSYCHIATRIST.

DEMAND TO RETROACTIVELY BAN CIVILIANS TO OWN MILITARY GRADE WEAPONS SUCH AS ASSAULT RIFLES, HEAVY CAL SNIPER RIFLES, AND ALL CLIPS WITH A CAPACITY EXCEEDING TEN ROUNDS. NO CIVILIAN TO OWN MORE THAN TWO RIFLES AND TWO HANDGUNS.

FUND THE ATF TO EXPAND INTO ACTIVE ENFORCEMENT AND CONFISCATION, OFFERING BOOK-VALUE COMPENSATION TO ALL BANNED GUNS AND CLIPS TURNED IN AND A REWARD TO ANYONE WHO INFORMS THE FEDERAL AUTHORITIES OF ANY ILLEGAL WEAPON IN CIVILIAN HANDS, PLUS MASSIVE FINES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE BANS.

TWO RIFLES AND TWO PISTOLS PER PERSON, A NATIONWIDE UNIFORM STANDARD FOR GUN REGISTRATION REQUIRING A PSYCHIATRIC INTERVIEW AND A LIMIT OF TEN SHOTS PER CLIP WOULD NOT VIOLATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT, BUT WOULD PRESERVE IT WITHIN A REASONABLE STANDARD OF PUBLIC SAFETY. THE ABILITY TO HUNT OR TO DEFEND THE HOME WOULD BE PRESERVED.

SETTING LIMITING CONDITIONS ON GUN OWNERSHIP IS NOT GUN PROHIBITION BUT WOULD SERVE THE PURPOSE OF REDUCING PUBLIC GUNSHOT EPISODES TO A MINIMUM.
 
 
+2 # kelly 2012-12-23 14:21
Many of their members feel that way...don't get me wrong I'm not pro-NRA by any means. But it is so infused with money from Remington, Smith and Wesson, Colt, Berreta and other gun manufactures plus other groups like State Farm, AT&T, Legacy Quest and even the Wyndham Hotel groups it will be hard to change anything without money, money, money no mater how many caps you write in.
 
 
-1 # jdirt 2012-12-23 16:53
You could Really be on to something here!
Good compromise all around.
 
 
+1 # tishado 2012-12-27 03:09
Quoting Citizen Mike:
LET'S ALL JOIN THE NRA NOW TO SUBVERT IT AND TURN IT FROM A SHILL FOR THE GUNMAKERS INTO A PUBLIC SAFETY ORGANIZATION.


This is a reasonable idea, but the NRA is already unresponsive to the actual opinions of the membership.
 
 
0 # Cassandra2012 2013-01-01 15:20
Please don't shout,though the point is well taken.
 
 
+2 # Kathymoi 2012-12-23 15:48
I couldn't agree with you more.
Oh you want to know who cares about gun sales profits? The gun manufacturers, walmart, stock holders in gun companies and stockholders in walmart,interne t gun supply store owners, too. It's a small but rich group.
 
 
0 # Mburris 2012-12-24 12:01
Many of those who support the 2nd amendment wish to deny Piers Morgan his right to discuss military-style weapons to the point of deportation. Lend your voice to oppose those who selectively support our constitution.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/censure-those-who-would-seek-deportation-piers-morgan-simply-exercising-his-rights-free-speech/V2tv6cGB
 
 
0 # BeaDeeBunker 2012-12-24 16:11
I think all the commentators to this article support the 2nd Amendment, as well as all the Bill of Rights.
The problem is with those who refuse to accept the full intent & reason for the amendment. By leaving out the critical words that describe the reasoning of the writers ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...")and only concentrating on the part about ("... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.") we now find ourselves, scratching our heads as to why a civilian needs to own a weapon designed for the military; designed specifically to kill as many of the 'enemy' as possible in the shortest period of time.

But scratch my head as I might, I have not been able to find a rational reason, only irrational, unreasonable responses.

Maybe it was the way these recent British subjects used the English language. Let's try rewriting it in American:

"Look guys, & just you guys, we're a young, free country, with everyone in Europe watching us, and waiting for us to fall on our faces. To keep this thing going, we need to have some sort of a security force, like a Militia (can't afford a standing army). But it has to be well regulated, organized & properly lead. Also they'll have to bring their own weapons, because we're broke. So let's make sure the right of our people to have these arms & bring them when called up for duty, is not blocked."
 
 
0 # Mburris 2012-12-25 06:19
There is a petition on whitehouse.gov to counter those who should seek to embarrass Piers Morgan for exercising his rights to free speech. Please sign this petition as a show of support for those who think that the first amendment is equally worth supporting as the second amendment regardless on your viewpoint on guns and gun control. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitio...
 
 
0 # dovelane1 2012-12-25 06:58
Here's a petitions started by MoveOn I believe.

The petition is addressed to The United States House of Representatives , The United States Senate, and President Barack Obama, and reads:

The Second Amendment states:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Let everyone keep their guns. To do so, though, they must join a well regulated militia.

We call upon the Congress to pass a law requiring gun owners to join their state units of the National Guard, replete with background checks and psychological fitness evaluations, training on use and storage of a firearm.

Such legislation will not only make America safer from gun violence; It will also increase the readiness of our armed forces and our domestic ability to respond to crises major and minor.

Here's what Brian (the author) wrote about it:

The Second Amendment ties guns to national safety and defense. Own a gun? No problem! Join the National Guard, go through the training, background checks, psychological screenings and correct weapon handling procedures and help secure and defend your country domestically and abroad, if need be.
 

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.

RSNRSN