RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Chapman writes: "I often wonder what it will take for Americans to absolutely reject the groups like the NRA, all their ideas, and anyone who supports their morbid, necrophiliac love of an element of the constitution that is anachronistic, poorly written, unclear, and insanely stupid given modern weaponry."

Tom Sullivan, center, searches for his son who attended the movie. (photo: AP)
Tom Sullivan, center, searches for his son who attended the movie. (photo: AP)

What Will it Take for Americans to Reject the NRA?

By Matthew Chapman, Reader Supported News

20 July 12


s someone who grew up in a place where guns designed to kill people are more or less banned and where no one feels that some essential freedom has been lost (on the contrary, freedom from fear is cherished), I often wonder what it will take for Americans to absolutely reject the groups like the NRA, all their ideas, and anyone who supports their morbid, necrophiliac love of an element of the constitution that is anachronistic, poorly written, unclear, and insanely stupid given modern weaponry. After which, we could actually start to do something to save the approximately 30,000 lives lost to gunshot wounds every year, many of them children.

When I adapted John Grisham's book Runaway Jury, changing it from a lawsuit about tobacco to one about guns, I met gun manufacturers who, supported by the NRA, proudly refused to add even the most basic safety features to guns and resisted any kind of legislation aimed at preventing negligent marketing of guns to individuals who were clearly selling them on to criminals. It was the most cynical thing I ever witnessed, this faux reverence for the constitution. My belief is that sooner or later a gunman or gunmen with legally acquired weapons will kill not 12 or 20 people but several hundred children (who no one advocates arming for self-defense) trapped in some unique location. And then, maybe, Americans will say, "Wow, I wonder if we should do something about this arcane piece of constitutional junk and start bringing America into the modern world."

I dislike reverence in almost all forms, it's usually a kind of constriction on the intellect, but reverence for old documents is doubly stupid when, as in this case, and rather unusually, the writers of the document had the good sense to write in a provision for changing the thing when needed and indeed encouraged the idea of doing so! I'm sure, as with so many things, this would have happened decades ago if America wasn't so arrogantly averse to looking at other countries where various things function better than in "the greatest country in the world." And demonstrably so. Just look at the figures for murder by gun in any other country in the world outside of war zones. Or look at what has happened in the other city I sometimes live in, Rio de Janeiro.

People say they want to keep their guns in case criminals with guns come for them, and others say it's an impossible situation to solve, guns being so entrenched in North American culture. Well, all of that applies ten times over in the favelas of Rio which are, or were, much more infested with guns than any slum in America. Up in some favelas the gangs had guns that could bring down helicopters.

Here is a photo of me and the man who is solving the gun problem in these favelas, and in the culture of the favelas, Rio State Public Security Secretary Jose Mariano Beltrame.

Beltrame came up with the following strategy. He warned the favelas they were going to be invaded on a certain day and anyone caught with guns would be imprisoned. He then told the favela dwellers of an ongoing anonymous-reporting phone line so they could warn the police of large and small caches of arms.

And he assured them that once their favela had been taken over, community policing would take over. And - and here's the key thing that's left out of all gun arguments in America - SOCIAL SERVICES would be provided to help people get off drugs, train for jobs, find jobs, improve their homes, improve their schools, etc. Given a choice between a functioning gun-free society or one ruled by fear and greed, the community turned against those who owned guns, turned them over to the police, and - perhaps most inspiringly of all - accepted the social services but as a community went way beyond the government offered gift, taking control and care of their own neighborhood.

Anyone who doubts the possibility of radical and beautiful social change should see a crop of new Brazilian films that have come out of the favelas, or visit Rio which has become a different and so much more pleasant city - and not just in the favelas. Just as with drugs, mere punitive action is demonstrably useless and often counterproductive. Look at the prison population in America while gun and drug problems continues unabated. Charity doesn't help much either.

There's a thing called government - we vote for it, it's us if it's not corrupted by money - and it can do anything if we don't constantly pour scorn on it as if it was something detached from us rather than our best and most just expression of ourselves.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+127 # AlwaysAskWHY 2012-07-20 14:14
Always, Always Ask WHY: WHY has there been an escalation of GUN RUNNING OVER THE MEXICAN BORDER to criminals? BECAUSE THOSE IN THE N.R.A. PROFIT FROM IT. And the "Hitlerian' fear-mongering and lies' are intended to disinform and scare the hell out of people, so they BUY MORE GUNS.

NO DOUBT. This is just another "Mass Murder for Profit' organization that is protected and encouraged by corrupt politicians. The N.R.A. and all its 'leaders' should be intensely investigated as to their investments and activities, and their fear mongering and lies to scare people.

And they should be prosecuted for the lives they have taken, just like the Bush Mafia's WARS-FOR-PROFIT , Health Insurance companies 'mass-murders-f or-profit' by denying health care to the ill, Monsanto's Killing-Better- With-Chemicals- mass-murders, Mining Companies' mass-murders-fo r-profit, OIL companies' mass-murders-fo r-profit, Prisons-for-Pro fit, and those companies in the Military Industrial Complex who spend a lot to buy politicians who will start their WARS-FOR-PROFIT . They ALL profit from the DESTRUCTION OF HUMAN LIFE.


And now, since the Supreme Court has declared that "corporations are people,' these CEO's should be sent to PRISON FOR LIFE.
-138 # John Locke 2012-07-21 00:01
"What Will it Take for Americans to Reject the NRA?"

I would suggest what it will take is a strong dose of stupidity!

If someone in the theater in Colorado would have had a weapon the mass shooting would have ended without 71 people being shot! and who knows how many more will die? Remember the 71 year old man who shot the two robbers and prevented something more serious?

Take away our guns and you will see much more of this insanity... only nuts want the weapons out of law abiding citizens hands! Every country that has taken the guns from the citizens has witnessed an increase in crime...Look it up! It is a fact!!!!...

Don't be stupid and fall for this propaganda!

Guns don't kill people kill!

Cars also kill does that mean we should confiscate all cars?

Think...dnn't react!
+94 # RaW 2012-07-21 08:37
"If someone in the theater in Colorado would have had a weapon..." They likely would have hit a random innocent person, or become the first non-random target of the shooter. The shooter had on kevlar body armor head to toe and was shooting at random. He didn't have to aim, everything was a target. Your "hero" would have to aim accurately in the dark with teargas and penetrate kevlar while missing people who were darting about. Unlikely.
"Take away our guns and you will see much more of this insanity." Like Canada? England? Yeah, their murder rates are through the roof.
"Cars also kill does that mean we should confiscate all cars?" Cars aren't designed for the sole purpose of killing people. They aren't concealable. They don't come with armor-piercing bumpers. And drivers are licensed. And you can't license a tank or a top-fuel dragster for the road. But guns? Anything goes.
"Think" ... Good advice. Take it.
-68 # John Locke 2012-07-21 12:03
RaW: I disagree but agree people should also be licensed and tested before they buy a gun... and they are licensed for a concraled weapons permit!

"Take away our guns and you will see much more of this insanity." Like Canada? England? Yeah, their murder rates are through the roof." actually yes as is all crime, I suggest you look it up! Rather then to take a position that has been Democrat propaganda and false!

The Democrats philosophy of Gun control turns off most thinking people; me included…. That gives the Republicans a tremendous edge! You appear as morons when you take that position! Reality is that Guns are a defensive weapon, If you don’t want to own a gun that is your right…My right is to own one if I Choose to, and I do!!!
+42 # Billsy 2012-07-21 12:25
Once again, check your facts. Note the post below. NO ONE should be allowed to buy an assault weapon. Imagine the mayhem in that theater if the audience were armed. The killer was wrapped in Kevlar, it was dark. Many of them were kids anyway and unable to carry concealed weapons. check your emotions at the door and let some reason sink in. This kind of mass murder is preventable. Sad how so many Americans are merely self-centered caring nothing about the greater good, but it's all about YOUR RIGHTS. Hell with everyone else.
-57 # John Locke 2012-07-21 12:38
Billsy You make no sense at all and are strictly dealing on emotion...Yes it is about my rights and yours...No one will force you to own a gun, and No onme will force me to give mine up!
+18 # ABen 2012-07-22 13:10
Locke; I don't know where you got your statistics, but the statistics you sight appear wildly inaccurate. I have been watching gun-related death statistics for years and here are some figures compiled from a number of credible sources.
**per 100K population 1998-2010**
Mexico ...... 12.5-14.6
U.S. ........ 12-14.8
Canada ...... 4.5-5.0
Costa Rica .. 3.5 (steady 1990-2010)
Azerbaijan .. 2.4-3.2
England ..... .46
I in no way want to deny anyone's 2nd Amendment rights, I own and carry a handgun when wilderness hiking. But accurate facts and statistical trends are integral to making thoughtful and wise decisions. Facts from several different reliable sources show that the US loses around 10,000 citizens a year to gun-related violence, while England loses around 14-16. Actually, the overwhelming majority of thinking people I know, including hunter and other gun owners, think the proliferation of guns in the US is beyond absurd, and I would suggest that you be careful about who you refer to as a "moron."
-23 # speedracer 2012-07-22 14:31
John Locke, The difference between licensing drivers and licensing gunowners is that driving (an automobile) was designated as a privilege when the automobile came on the scene. And, owning a gun is a Constitutional Right that 'shall not be infringed'. That is why the Democrats are trying to make the 'end-run' against gun rights by having the UN pass a Treaty on Small Arms and then having Obama's puppet Senate ratify it. Try to remember this; Obama said he would fundamentaly change America and that he would reduce Americas armaments to a level that made the other countries more comfortable. What level of comfort is that? Well, the Japanese Admiral who led the attack against Pearl Harbor said shortly afterwards that he would never consider and invasion of America since 'there would be a gun behind every blade of grass'. Presumably, if there had only been a gun behind every OTHER blade of grass we might be speaking Japanese west of the Mississippi and German east of it. Personally, I LIKE the idea of having the goiim shaking in their boots at the thought that their 'fearless' leaders might have them try to storm the beaches. To them I say, You want my America? Come and get it!
+4 # carpepax 2012-07-23 11:56
A gun is not a defensive weapon. A gun is not something you hold up to defend yourself against in incoming attack. You don't shoot your attacker's bullet with your bullet. You're betraying that you twist logic and language to serve your argument. Nothing defensive about a gun. Preemptive? Yes. Deterrent. Maybe. Defensive? Don't be an idiot. A gun is something you point at the person pointing their gun at you in hopes they do the math and back down. Otherwise, nothing defensive about it.
+53 # ericlipps 2012-07-21 08:42
Quoting John Locke:
"What Will it Take for Americans to Reject the NRA?"

I would suggest what it will take is a strong dose of stupidity!

If someone in the theater in Colorado would have had a weapon the mass shooting would have ended without 71 people being shot! and who knows how many more will die? Remember the 71 year old man who shot the two robbers and prevented something more serious?

Take away our guns and you will see much more of this insanity... only nuts want the weapons out of law abiding citizens hands! Every country that has taken the guns from the citizens has witnessed an increase in crime...Look it up! It is a fact!!!!...

Don't be stupid and fall for this propaganda!

Guns don't kill people kill!

Cars also kill does that mean we should confiscate all cars?

Think...dnn't react!

No. {People with guns kill.

If someone in the theater had had a gun, he might--might--h ave been able to take down the shooter, but might also have accidentally shot someone innocent and MISSED the shooter--and then been shot down himself.

The NRA tries to scare people with imaaginary scenarios in whichj an evil governemnt comes to take away every last pistol and shotgun. This is BS and the NRA knows it, but its leaders count on its followers being too soft in the head to see it.
+32 # V Appalachia 2012-07-21 09:55
With you, Ericlipps and RaW. The NRA also plays to gun-lovers' fantasies about taking down a shooter and being the hero in a situation like the Colorado massacre. But what are the odds that some armed person in the theatre could react quickly enough, with good enough aim, in the dark, and take down the heavily-armored shooter before being shot down themselves?

Next, NRA fear-mongers will blame this tragedy on this deficiency: that theatre patrons were not armed with armor-piercing bullets in their weapons.
-44 # John Locke 2012-07-21 12:20
ericlipps: People with Knives kill, people with bows and arrows kill! People can kill with a car, and have driven on the sidewalk running over pedestrians deliberately... or use poison... People Kill with what ever means they have... Rope an ax a fireplace People kill and it is not guns that kill but guns become a tool as do knives etc...

How far do you want to go, perhaps we take all knives off the street, and bows and arrows, and poison, rope, axes, automobiles and everything that can be used to kill, even household detergents from which a bomb could be made or a clothes hanger or even rope? If we take away the means of transportation the killer would not have the means of killing so outlawing a car is equally as important

I don’t expect that you will understand how foolish your position is! And I expect thumbs down because this is a democrat sticking point and one that shows a lack of true intellect...
+4 # Feral Dogz 2012-07-24 11:41
The simple truth is that firearms give the shooter a sense of power; to kill at a distance, quickly and repeatedly. A maniac in body armor would not be deterred or easily stopped by gun toting citizens like George Zimmerman or you.
+3 # independentmind 2012-07-24 13:32
yes people can kill with things other than guns, but an assault weapon can kill a lot of people in a very short time, a knife maybe one or two.. there is a difference.
+38 # humactdoc 2012-07-21 09:15
NRA Talking Points 101
1) Home defense against intruders.
2) An armed target population will shoot the shooter before the shooter shoots people.

Response- 1) Study after study show that a hand gun in the house increases the likelihood at least 10 times of a member of the household being killed by homicide or suicide by gun.
2) A population armed with lethal weapons with the principle of shooting someone before or after they shoot will increase firearm use, injuries and fatalities. The people carrying firearms as a means of defense will be seen as potential shooters and increase the likelihood of them being shot at to prevent a shooting, and the cycle goes on.

Firearms are lethal weapons. We have a society that is entertained by violence and destructive "human cock fighting" reality and talk shows". The two together results in this all too frequent mass shootings.
-32 # John Locke 2012-07-21 12:22
humactdoc: as usual you are not quoting any real statistics...bu t anti gun propaganda in fact households that are armed are less likely to be robbed or assulted...this is a fact!
+4 # Feral Dogz 2012-07-23 11:01
Quoting John Locke:
humactdoc: as usual you are not quoting any real statistics...but anti gun propaganda in fact households that are armed are less likely to be robbed or assulted...this is a fact!

And how does an intruder know whether a household is armed or not? What statistics could possibly support your comment? Gun lobby talking points are not to be confused with facts.
-2 # John Locke 2012-07-28 10:14
Feral Dogz: The point is the intruder does not know and that is what keeps crime as low as it is, yet it is still high!

Look at the number of times a gun is fired annually in self defense,,, between 1.5 and 2,5 million times
-26 # JackB 2012-07-21 19:11
This is ridiculous. Where did you get these numbers - where the darts landed?

A number of states permit concealed carry. Perhaps you can provide a list of the OK Corral shootouts that have resulted from that. Actually I think you will find that the incidence of crime decreases as the number of privately owned guns increases.

Criminals are not suicidal. If there are two potential victims & one is armed guess which one becomes the victim?

I will defer to you on human cock fighting reality & talk shows. I've never seen one. Curious. Do the combatants have to dress like cocks?
+23 # Feral Dogz 2012-07-21 11:37
Wake up America. The NRA is in the business of allowing firearms manufacturers free reign to make and sell as many guns and bullets as possible. Its about money, not personal freedom and self defense.

Guns, like motor vehicles, can be, and often are lethal in the hands of untrained and unqualified people. To legally operate a motor vehicle, one must be tested and authorized by state DMVs.

Who in their right mind objects to these measures? Not even car manufacturers and oil companies find these "restrictions and controls" onerous, even though they prevent many people from driving.

The NRA stands in the path of any and all legislation, federal or local, that would in any way impede the proliferation of gun ownership. They also stoop to blatant fear mongering and phony patriotism to defend their interpretation of the Constitution.

John Loche's false equivalency "Cars also kill" (with which he unwittingly admits that guns kill) argument is absurd and typical of simplistic NRA, right wing propaganda designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator of intelligence.

Is there a new definition of stupidity I am unaware of?
+20 # Regina 2012-07-21 12:32
The insanity is yours, "John Locke" -- had there been someone else with a gun shooting it off in darkness, the toll would have been more than doubled. As for the old canard about cars, cars don't kill, bad drivers do, and they are taken off the road even before judicial action.
+12 # carpepax 2012-07-21 19:54
Yes people can use cars to kill other people but how many hit and runs can a car survive? You can use a gun to kill over and over and over again...and all you have to do is clean it regularly and have ammo.

Your analogy is flawed and that slippery slope argument doesn't hold much water. Yes people kill people but guns make it super easy. If Zimmerman didn't have his gun that night, nobody would have died.

Don't get me wrong, though. I'm for responsible gun ownership and use. I have no problem with sane people having them. I do think, however, we need more stringent methods for keeping guns out of hands operated by unstable minds.
+7 # Interested Observer 2012-07-22 17:34
Guns originated with the idea of killing people, game shooting came afterward, but killing is the primary purpose. Cars are designed for transportation, accidents are an unfortunate trade off not the primary purpose of the device. People kill people. People with assault rifles with 100 round clips kill a lot of people very quickly and from a safe distance. This idea that an audience full of concealed carries in a dark room, with smoke or gas and panicked moviegoers running about would have whipped out their pieces and instantly nailed the perp through the gaps in his body armor is just a gun fetishist wet dream. Sell it to Hollywood (be ready to get in line), I'm not buying.
0 # independentmind 2012-07-24 13:25
Do you really think that if someone (or more) in that theater had had a guns (s) and started shooting it would have led to fewer deaths? No one would have known who is the bad guy(s) or good guy(s) - it would have been total bedlam!
+39 # Barbara K 2012-07-21 07:19
AlwaysAskWhy: I agree wholeheartedly with your comment. The only purpose for guns is for killing. One thing that people don't realize is that the NRA is a Political organization, supporting the Republicans, always was and still is. When my father was 85 years old and needing to go to a nursing home, I had to go thru his things and take over for him. I was flabbergasted that he had a bill from the NRA for Membership of $800. I talked to him about it and he thought it was for hunters. He didn't realize that it was a Political Organization. I cancelled the membership of several years immediately. I'll bet the membership is much more now. They rake in money all over the place and it's no wonder they have so much to spend on R/Tbagger campaigns. I'll bet many members don't know what their membership is supporting.
-67 # jimattrell 2012-07-21 08:05
Your grandfather was a smart man supporting the only organization that stands between the Liberal Elite and the people. However, he evidently missed out training his grand kids apparently. One at a time, I'm going to personally train my grand kids, starting next visit, on gun use and take them to the practice range. You've just woken me up to the awareness that they spend all day in schools that are taught by folks that likely detest guns for what they can and always will do in the wrong hands. They don't, because of that hatred, teach arming and learning and protecting yourself. It's time we all did the same. Armed, trained and licensed gun permit holders (60 million in the US) aren't the problem.....
+43 # Barbara K 2012-07-21 09:16
jimattrell: It was my father, not grandfather. My father was a crack shot, did shows where a half-dollar thrown into the air and he would shoot a hole in the center of it, etc. He taught me to shoot and I am a crack shot too. I have weapons, but I don't need the NRA to have weapons and I only target shoot, don't kill anything and have never aimed at a person. I miss target shooting with him, as he died in 1990. So you see your comment is off the mark.
+13 # V Appalachia 2012-07-21 09:58
Thanks jimattrell. I pray that all of those you train are mentally stable, and that they are not bullied at school or otherwise motivated to use their weapons on innocent souls.
+11 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-21 10:46
Given their example, I fear that is a prayer in vain.
-34 # John Locke 2012-07-21 12:26
jimattrell: Thank you I fully agree with you! The liberals are very foolish in even considering giving up their weapons!
+12 # CAMUS1111 2012-07-21 12:47
rather be in the liberal elite than the nazi hell right wingers should be condemned to.
+1 # John Locke 2012-07-28 10:16
CAMUS1111 Glad to see you have no predjudice
+11 # HowardMH 2012-07-21 09:34
Obama the Wimp would not renew the Assault Weapons law. Who – Who – Who needs a magazine that holds 20, 30, 50 or 100 shells? It is the Idiots, Terrorists, Stupid People, Republicans, and the NRA who is making Millions from the stupid people. The NRA has bought all the Republicans and most of the Cowardly Democrats. It is not about having guns, and the 2nd amendment, it is all about the large magazines.
The NRA has done a fantastic job of scaring the Stupid People that their 2nd Amendment Rights are being taken away just because they can’t have magazines with 20, 30, 50 or 100 shells.
+9 # kelly 2012-07-21 13:13
The assault weapons law lapsed under GW in 04 or 05 I believe. The last president to stand up to the NRA was Clinton.
+6 # CAMUS1111 2012-07-21 13:15
"john locke" needs one
-23 # John Locke 2012-07-21 14:12
CAMUS1111: THank you, I have several! and so do all my neighbors! Utah is a well armed community and we have almost No crime...we have an occasional bank robbery when someone comes down from Las Vegas, But they are usually caught right away! No homocides and a very low rape statistic, Maybe just maybe its because we are all armed, yah think?
+5 # independentmind 2012-07-24 13:39
maybe it's because you have a strong religious community - not because you have guns...
-8 # RLF 2012-07-23 06:48
The occasional shooting incident is unfortunate but soon we may need to protect ourselves from the police in a police state because there is no way out of the corrupt system we have. Modern weapons systems are good but I think it has been made clear since Vietnam, that guerilla warfare cannot be defeated by weapons systems. I may be paranoid, but I prefer to keep the option and not be a sheep (or an Ostrich!).
-102 # ENetArch 2012-07-20 14:19
Matthew, when I went to high school and we studied civil government and history around the world, one thing became very clear about the founders intentions concerning the right to bear arms. A government receives it power from the people. Should the government abuse that power, the people have the right to take it back. By force if necessary.

Just because there are supposedly more civilized methods of dealing with disgruntlement, doesn't mean that in times when the government chooses to use coercion and lying to cause outright panic so that it can strip people of their rights, that it's appropriate to use those methods to retrieve them. Sometimes silent protest while bombing a building can be a very powerful symbol.

Remember, fairness, justice and freedom are more than mere perspectives.
+67 # Capn Canard 2012-07-20 14:51
The 2nd Amendment is so poorly written! But at that time, the idea of a militia was a real balance to the power of the state but now, not so much. So WTF? If the state really wants to come after you will be crushed, so in today's world the 2nd is virtually meaningless.
-8 # brux 2012-07-20 23:32
> but now, not so much

OK … but how do you really know that. How would you ever even measure that to know. Our founders were pretty smart, are you sure they are so outdated, and what happens if you are wrong? It would be too late to hold you or the people who believe as you do accountable, you's probably all be in prison or dead.

I also think that given recent history about what has happened the elite class that fixes the country and the economy to work for them are not about to give up a damn thing and in fact are still taking more and demanding even more.

I don't know enough to say if violence is the answer, or to rule it out, but people able to defend themselves may seem quaint, but mostly that is because we just do not know what is possible anymore with our country.

States can crush only the ones they can hide. Look at what happened in Yugoslavia, the genocidal elite hid their atrocities - same with Chile and other takeovers by the military.

The way political power is concentrated and economic power is a weapon myself, I can't say whether everyone being unarmed or some point on the end of that spectrum would be what anyone thinks it would be.
-47 # John Locke 2012-07-21 00:05
Capn Canard: I strongly disagree the second Amendment is not meaningless The courts have sided with the people... we have a right to own weapons! and even if it were not spelled out in the Bill of Rights we would still have that right!
-29 # WestWinds 2012-07-21 03:16
And have you bright lights considered George W. Bush's statement, "It takes time to restore chaos"? When the police have been told to treat the citizenry like the enemy (and the retards do it), when the citizenry have been told, "You're on your own," when the only ones getting police protection are the wealthy and we are left to defend out homes on our own from vandalism and home burglary, what are we going to do that with, a carrot stick?
-15 # John Locke 2012-07-21 12:32
WestWinds: any fool that wants to give up his weapon should have that right!

This is one of the reasons I have been thinking of leaving this party of loosers! They take positions against their own best interest out of fear!

They fear everything, even change!
-63 # indian weaver 2012-07-20 16:06
That's right. We took this place by force from the English, remember. Now it is time to take it from the War Criminals, one way or another. Otherwise, the country will continue to collapse into a terrorist fascist regime that is now well underway. Good luck. And, the last time you go out to fill up on gas, remember to fill up on ammo at the same time. Because that time is coming, sorry to say...
+73 # davidr 2012-07-20 16:12
Not true, ENetArch. Nowhere in the Constitution, nor in notes of the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention, nor in The Federalist Papers, nor in any other contemporary expression of the Founders' intent is there anything that even remotely provides for or condones armed violence against the constitutional government. Nowhere.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact, and it doesn't self-authorize its own violent overthrow, which the document itself calls rebellion and against which it provides dire sanctions.

Truth to be told, the 2nd Amendment was designed to address southerners' concerns that slave rebellions would have to be put down locally. The Continental Army had not inspired confidence during the war, and in any event, the South did not want protection of its peculiar institution to be solely in the hands of the federal government.
-31 # John Locke 2012-07-21 00:11
davidr: apparently you haven't read the writings of Jefferson, or the declaration of Independence which are important documents... Try reading both, you will learn something!

From the Declaration of Independence!...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--Tha t to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

We have come full circle to where we were in 1776!!!
+13 # davidr 2012-07-21 11:49
The Declaration of Independence adopts a theory of natural rights. It lays certain violations of British law at the feet of King George, but it never claims that violent redress is actually lawful. By such claim Jefferson would have made himself appear an idiot. Instead, he explains why his compatriots must break the law in this case.

If you want PRECEDENT for violence against our government, the Declaration is your best bet (along with the Ordinance of Secession, 1860). But if you want AUTHORITY for violence against our government, that you cannot find. Jefferson didn't find it in 1776 and wasn't foolish enough to look.

And take note, unlike the Constitution which is self-operative (it takes effect when ratified according to its terms), both the Decl of Indep and the Ordinance of Secession depended upon the successful outcome of a war (win some, lose some). They are by nature oppositional, and the opponent is, guess who, the government. That's why it's absurd to imagine that a constitution of government would ever authorize violence against itself.

Final note: If Party A has the right to violence against the government, then surely he must have that right against Party B and all of society. Who will stop him? Not the government, surely, because it's just one more party against whom Party A claims a right to violence. What we really have here is an anarchist manifesto.
+10 # Regina 2012-07-21 12:45
It doesn't say that we're free to slaughter other human beings.
-23 # paulrevere 2012-07-21 01:37
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpatiohns, pursuing invariably the same objectevinces 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."

"Throw off" does have it's nuances, but seems pretty firm in its meaning...
-35 # WestWinds 2012-07-21 03:25
We shouldn't have to rely on the Constitution or anything else. We have as much right to bear arms and defend ourselves as we do to breathe air or drink rain water. I get furious every time some pie hole floats this bunk. The criminals will ALWAYS BE ABLE TO GET GUNS and why is it that law-abiding people should not be allowed to have weapons to protect themselves from home invasion? This is just another attempt by government to totally strip us of our sense of safety and security and make us more dependent upon it and so they can more easily abuse us. Do you think if one million Jews had been armed that the Nazi's would have had control over the Warsaw ghetto, the work or death camps, or that things would have gone as they did? I'm SICK TO DEATH OF THIS ARGUMENT. If the government is so well armed and they are behaving themselves, they have nothing to fear from us. But if the bastards are going to abuse us, then we have something for them to think about.
+9 # SOF 2012-07-21 18:41
Here in AZ the criminals can get guns at yard sales! A concealed weapon is allowed in bars!!! I don't know if the government fears your firepower -I doubt it. If your support of AK47s is your fear of the gov, you need to reign in people who might use them in a theatre. Absolutely no reason for assault weapons. I know lots of hunters and ranchers who are armed with less than AK47s -for big bears and lions!... The backstory of the gun running to Mex -under Obama AND Bush is full of law enforcement frustration at the difficulty of following guns because of NRA backed laws. Who makes these guns? The same folks who cheer for the next profitable war. I have no problem with your right to own a gun or two, but your shortsighted, bullheaded defense of Anything Goes has put too many innocents at risk and will never save you from fascist takeover which has been underway for a long time.... and figuring you will defend it.
+99 # tabonsell 2012-07-20 16:54
Apparently you were taught wrong.

The Second Amendment was to insure the population was armed (not necessarily a person) so that the states could maintain the militias of the day. The first half of the Second makes it clear the militias were needed for national defense. The statement "A well regulated militia ..." refers us back to the main body of the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, which says that Congress has power to arm the militias (gun control, if you wish).

Article I, Section 8, also says the duties of the militias when in service to the nation is to enforce federal law, repel invasions and suppress insurrections. There is nothing that says, hints, suggests, implies or give anyone reason to infer that the Second is needed for self-proection, blasting Bambi or for the people to rise up in insurrection against the government, as the subversive NRA claims.

The Militia Act of 1903 changed the name of the Militia Office to the National Guard Bureau, so the present Guard is what the Founders knew as the Militia.

The Founders' intention are very clear: they wanted an armed population in order to maintain a militia for the three reasons I just listed above and not for the reasons the NRA tries to get you to believe.
-34 # John Locke 2012-07-21 00:15
tabonsell: Good try, but incorrect, The part about the militia has been determined to be descriptive, the citizens have a right to own weapons for self defense! As well as the defense of the state and the nation!
-25 # LonnyEachus 2012-07-21 00:38
Quoting tabonsell:
Apparently you were taught wrong.

The Second Amendment was to insure the population was armed (not necessarily a person) so that the states could maintain the militias of the day.

Apparently YOU aren't up to date. The Supreme Court, just a couple of years ago, tossed this interpretation completely out the window (as anybody who has read their history would as well), and re-affirmed that the right to bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT (that was stated in so many words in their decision), not some kind of theoretical "collective" or "state" right.

So, no, dude. You are just simply wrong. The Supreme Court itself said so, very recently, in striking down the firearms licensing restrictions of the District of Columbia.
+33 # Interested Observer 2012-07-21 01:39
It is fairly certain that the founders did not have in mind organized groups of racist gun fetishists calling themselves a militia.
-17 # John Locke 2012-07-21 12:42
Interested Observer but isn't that what they were considered by the British?
+5 # Interested Observer 2012-07-22 17:53
In fact, No. The present day conservatives should be reminded that there were conservatives back then too, they were called Tories.
-29 # WestWinds 2012-07-21 03:29
I can't imagine us breaking with England only to have the founding fathers turn around and then say, "Okay, boys, you are no longer legal to carry arms." Does this EVEN make any sense? The Constitution was set up to balance power so that the people would not be abused by any group claiming authority to take away civil liberties, but that's just what this government has done from Ronald Reagan forward. None of these people in office have had our best interests at heart during these times, and some dumb cluck wants to sell us some sob story as to why we should de-arm ourselves???
-18 # rockieball 2012-07-21 07:29
Well said
+1 # rockieball 2012-07-24 07:34
I meant well said to Tabonsell's statement about the Constitution and the 2nd amendment. Not to westwinds post. I use to be a member of the NRA way back when I was a kid and got a few trophy's and medals for shooting. Then one day they put a target of a man for us to shoot at it was 1966. It dose not take ling to realize that the real purpose most people have guns is to shoot other people. Even if you say it's for protection it is still to shoot other people. I put down the rifle I had I left the boys club I was in and I have not picked up a gun since.
-23 # JackB 2012-07-21 09:29
The Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation. Maybe you could drop them a line & straighten them out.

Liberals don't want to be understood. They want to be obeyed. They don't like guns so no one can have one. In almost 100% of the crimes involving guns the guns are illegally possessed. Do the liberal attacks on gun ownership address those illegal guns? Nah. Heck, the Attorney General (& probably the President)went into the gun-running business.

Let the criminals keep their guns. It's those degenerates who hunt whose guns should be taken away. Let them get their meat from slaughterhouses the way a good liberal does.

The idea of guns for personal protection is an affront to civilized society. If someone gets raped, assaulted or killed by an armed criminal it is a small price to pay for maintaining liberal hypocrisy & facade of righteousness.
+12 # tabonsell 2012-07-21 11:58
Quit this fear mongering about "taking away" your guns.

If you could read you might see that the Fifth Amendment prohibits taking away a legally owned gun. It says you can't be deprived of property without "due process" of law. A gun is property.

Reading would let you know that "due process" involves indictment, trial, conviction, then punishment. So your guns can't be taken away without a conviction of a crime, usually a crime involving guns.

The NRA keeps promoting this anti-Constituti on argument in order for its parrots to keep sending in huge mounts of money to battle against a threat that doesn't exist but allows NRA leaders to live lives of luxury on exorbitant salaries.
+6 # tabonsell 2012-07-21 17:53
The Supreme Court does not disagree with my knowledge.

It ruled in the latest case that a city law is unconstitutiona l when it tries to regulate gun ownership, and that is my exact position. Article I, Section 8, says Congress has authority to arm the militia. The Court never said otherwise. It said a city may not rule on gun ownership.

The Court also said that the right to own a gun is not iron-clad; exceptions to ownership are valid, but only Congress may make those determinations, again my exact position.

If you could read properly you would see that the Second Amendment forbids outlawing of guns for everyone but does not forbid outlawing ownership of guns for some.

Gun control means preventing gun ownership by the insane, the emotionally disturbed. It means keeping guns out of the hands of street gangs and terrorists. It means trying to keep guns out of the hands of felons, career criminals. Some want to keep guns away from wife beaters.

Which are you that you want these type of people to run around with guns?

And no liberal every said they don't want anyone to have a gun, they say they don't want the types of people I just listed to have guns. And no one says all guns can be taken away. Learn to read the Fifth Amendment that prohibits that exact thing.
+1 # rockieball 2012-07-24 07:42
Once again I agree with you tabonsell. Also like you say read for yourself. Don't let the NRA interpret the Constitution for you.
+1 # rockieball 2012-07-24 07:40
You are right when it comes to crimes, but you are forgetting that most of these guns were stolen from homes where the owners bought the gun for protection, and that most home burglaries happen when the victim is not home. also you are talking about most hand guns as being illegally used not assault weapons. When it comes to non assault weapons most use of guns happens when a member of a family used it on another member.
As for the last two paragraphs they do not make sense.
+17 # Ralph Averill 2012-07-21 01:39
Funny, when one hears all the arcane justifications for legal gun ownership, one never hears about overthrowing the US government as one of the reasons to own a gun.
+8 # tabonsell 2012-07-21 18:10
Sorry Ralph, but I often hear right-wing "gundamentalist s" claim the Second Amendment was written so pissed-off "patriots" can take down a "tyrannical" federal government with insurrection. See the rant by WestWinds above.

Never mind that no such statement is ever found in the Constitution to justify that argument, but the Constitution does make it perfectly clear in Article I, Section 8, that one of the three functions of the militias is to "suppress Insurrections."

Now those right-wingers and the NRA whores in Congress want us to belief that the "Father of the Constitution" James Madison got that "suppress Insurrection" bit into the original Constitution, then turned around as the first order of business in the new government to include a provision to encourage and authorize insurrection when he headed the committee that proposed the Bill of Rights.
+5 # Interested Observer 2012-07-22 18:07
One doesn't? What then did Sharron Angle mean by "second amendment solutions" in the dim antiquity of 2010? Many others gush with enthusiasm for "watering the tree of liberty" with someone else's blood. It is just not one reason, it is for that vocal few the most urgent reason, to have armed revolt as a ready option. They seem to have the support of the "silent majority", none of whom have had the luxury of living with continual gunfire in the streets, where buildings have been worn down by bullets as if by a sandstorm. (e.g. Beirut). I wonder if they have the stomach for their rhetoric in action. I hope to never find out.
-20 # WestWinds 2012-07-21 03:12
I agree totally with ENetArch, and I was a life-long Democrat until the Democrats sold us out and I became a Green.

The notion of stripping the citizenry of it's right to bear arms is anathema to me in these times. This government is little more than a corporation in itself. It has stripped us of habeas corpus (the right to due process) and put posse comitatus (the government turning OUR military loose in OUR streets using weaponry paid for by OUR taxpayer dollars) in the so-called "Patriot Act" which has made the position of "president" a dictatorship (and one which this president has not rescinded) and you have the eggs to run this garbage?

-19 # John Locke 2012-07-21 12:49
WestWinds I am proud to see so many thinking people here, it makes me wonder why we are even wasting our time trying to make the others think!

Liberals are led by emotions not thought! and you can't reason with someone grounded in fear!
+32 # Todd Williams 2012-07-21 07:06
ENetArch, you just tell me what in the hell the "right to bear arms" has to do with a sick individual killing and wounding dozens of people in a Colorado movie theater? Or at a college campus? Or in a high school? The NRA is nothing but a tool for the gun and ammo manufactures. And all the dumb shits who worship the NRA are being led down a blood soaked path to anarchy.
-14 # ENetArch 2012-07-21 12:13
Determine who can carry a gun is tricky, due to the struggle between Privacy vs Societies well being is balance. Psychological evals are qualitative, making their use tenuous. What caused the owner to snap can't be prevented prior to the event, nor predicted.

Aggregate information from Columbine through present may shed light into the thought processes that occur in these individuals. My hypothesis is, that they'll be damned if another group is going continue living before they die.

ISBN 0874777461, pg 3 ... [She] grew up in a neighborhood filled with aunts, uncles, cousins, and grandparents. "If you got spanked at one house, you knew you could go somewhere else and immediately be accepted because they didn't know what had just happened" ... "If I didn't like what my mother was cooking, I could call an aunt or an uncle and ask 'What are you having?'...". ... Charita yearns for the closeness and easy camaraderie with neighbors, both kin and non-kin, that made her childhood so peasant and secure. "The nurturing was shared then," ... "As well as the pain."
-8 # rockieball 2012-07-21 07:26
But then please explain, if other countries have strict gun control how come almost everyone has had a revolution (or 2) since ours?
+29 # Brooklyn Girl 2012-07-21 07:26
It never ceases to amaze me how gun advocates conveniently ignore the first part of the 2nd amendment --- you know, the part about the "well-regulated militia." A militia is designed to PROTECT a country, not overthrow a government.

If the amendment meant what you said it means, then that's what the founders would have written.
-17 # John Locke 2012-07-21 12:53
Brooklyn Girl: Maybe try reading some of the former posts that addressed your point which is not valid, the term you refer to is descriptive and does not mean that we can only own a weapon if we are in a melitia!
+9 # tabonsell 2012-07-21 13:56
No, it means that the population is to be armed so the nation can create militias out of those who are gun owners.

Brooklyn Girl is correct, it is those with red ratings next to their post who are wrong and confused.
-10 # John Locke 2012-07-21 18:09
tabonsell: I see can you please cite me your authority! Perhaps a recent Supreme Court Case?
+9 # Pickwicky 2012-07-21 16:10
John Locke--you fail to understand that the 2nd Amendment is one sentence--yes, it is one sentence. Logically that means that its parts are connected by truth functionality. It's a pity that the Supreme Court members lacked training in Logic and failed to understand the logical principles governing the 2nd Amendment. Brooklyn Girl is correct. Tell us John, are you and your gun-slinging pals members of a well-regulated militia that is trained and supervised by your State?
+18 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-21 10:50
Do you really think that Civil Rights came about because those who were denied their right to vote went out and blew away the cops? Do you really think that you and your little assault rifle has a chance against a Predator? Do you really think that you have the knowledge to go against the Special Forces? Do you realize how silly your argument is?
-17 # John Locke 2012-07-21 12:55
Texas Aggie Do you realize how silly you sound!

Do you think every soldier after he leaves the service forgets everything he was trained to do?
+12 # Regina 2012-07-21 12:41
Your high school government teacher should have had you study the Constitution. The Second Amendment refers to STATE MILITIAS, not insurrection by the general public. Unfortunately, it is written in a sentence structure that is archaic, and your English teachers didn't prepare you to read it properly. We can't have "fairness, justice, and freedom" without language competence.
-9 # ENetArch 2012-07-21 12:58
Please read the reply and subsequent replies to "tabonsell"'s post. I think you will you find them enlightening.
-5 # graybeard.tom 2012-07-21 16:15
forget the high school government teacher.

let me humbly suggest that you obtain a copy of the Bill of Rights - first 10 amendments to the US Constitution.
now read them. and reflect on the following fact:
in #1 & #3 - #10 the term "the people" has ALWAYS been interpreted as establishing a personal/indivi dual right of each American.

the first 10 amendments were written at the same time - by the same folks - why would their use of the term "the people" in the #2 amendment have a completely different meaning?

i passed all of my government & history classes.
+10 # Pickwicky 2012-07-21 15:53
ENetArch-- Should the government abuse it's power, and you decide to take back that 'power' will you do so with a Glock? Or maybe you own an assault weapon. A bit of advice: I think you better use your tanks, your drones, your submarines, and your fighter planes--might even have to rely on your missile silos.
0 # ENetArch 2012-07-21 17:35
For me, the questions becomes, "Am I fighting for an Ideology or a Principle."

If and when the day comes that I feel the government has overstepped it's authority, I will do what many have done before me: Engage in a multifaceted campaign to win back freedoms by allying myself through poetry, speeches, marches, demonstrations, legal challenges, civil protests, and then .. determine whether staying and fighting for a cause with my brothers or leaving and building a new life with my sisters elsewhere.
+3 # Pickwicky 2012-07-22 14:04
ENetArch--that didn't answer my question.
+62 # ronnewmexico 2012-07-20 16:46
Easy....a amendment to the constitution removing the notion of corporations as citizen, coupled then with rational campaign contribution laws and publicly funded elections..

that would about remove the NRA from the equation.

Guns are another issue....approa ching this in a rational manner would be quite helpful.....ass ault rifles guns of certain large calibers....qui te clearly need to be restricted.

Guns to protect from a rabid bear for one living perhaps in a rural area......quite clearly need to be allowed for certain populations....

So it is a complex issue not receptive to solution by blanket policy.
Removing the NRA from the equation would about remove 99 percent of the irrationality from the right problem mostly solved.
Once the irrationality from the right is dissolved I expect the left sided irrationality on this issue, would dissolve without any action.

So we would be left with rational chosen choices in this thing.
Which is what is wanted.
-39 # John Locke 2012-07-21 00:18
ronnewmexico: Rational choices? Restrict gun ownership! that is irrational… Look at what just happened in Colorado then picture if someone in the theatre had been armed, a different outcome! !
+10 # Pickwicky 2012-07-21 16:14
John Locke--a much higher death rate could have resulted. And how do we know someone in the theater audience didn't have a weapon?
-12 # John Locke 2012-07-21 18:20
Pickwicky the same way we know that one did, and I disagree with your supposition
-16 # WestWinds 2012-07-21 03:40
For the most part, I agree with this person but the police have stood down from protecting the people and have gone to such garbage as, "Our job is to go home safe each night." NO IT ISN'T. Policing is a dangerous job where you lay your life on the line each and every day. But the police aren't doing their jobs these days. If you call them, they harass you and call you paranoid and bungle evidence, laugh outright in your face, construe blatant evidence as fairies dancing on pin heads. And this is on a national level, I know because I have lived in Boston, New York City and State, San Francisco, Honolulu and now in Central Floriduh and it's all the same. The police are doing nothing but "presence" while the criminals are running the towns and cities. One town I lived in that was considered "up-scale" the whole police department was arrested for running a stolen car theft ring. Only a complete idiot would give up their right to bear arms, especially based on an imperialistic government.
-18 # WestWinds 2012-07-21 03:42
And as for the question, what will it take for We the People to reject the NRA... how about a properly run country that doesn't consider its people a commodity like cattle in a stockyard? I think that anyone dumb enough to ask a question like this hasn't got the brains of an Easter jelly bean!
-11 # John Locke 2012-07-21 12:58
WestWinds: I disagree the person who asked the question does have the intelligence of an Easter Jelly Bean!
+18 # Brooklyn Girl 2012-07-21 07:28
How many people are confronted by rabid bears?

And, even if you were, a non-lethal sedative instead of a bullet would do the trick.
-10 # John Locke 2012-07-21 18:21
Brooklyn Girl: hummm I can just picture you running toward a rabid bear with a syrings filled with a sedative yelling stand still!
+5 # Brooklyn Girl 2012-07-21 07:28
Outlaw live ammunition. Period. It is arcane, outdated, and unnecessary.
-14 # John Locke 2012-07-21 13:13
Brooklyn Girl: I am so glad to see you are comfortable not having or owning a gun! And that is your right!

Because the statistics for women aren't looking very good!

Somewhere in America, a woman is raped every 2 minutes, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

the last two years more than 787,000 women were the victim of a rape or sexual assault, and that is with only 26% of all rapes or attempted rapes being reported to law enforcement officials. I'm glad this isn't a concern to you!
+9 # Pickwicky 2012-07-21 16:16
Neither are the gun deaths stats for young children--that' s really what all you buckaroos have succeeded at doing--killing off children.
-1 # John Locke 2012-07-28 10:23
Pickwicky: I have to disagree with you there, that is what Obama is doing, your glorious leader with his drone warefare and helicopter gun ship attacks on wedding parties
-5 # DaveM 2012-07-20 22:03
Jose Beltrame effectively employed the same "solution" that the East German government used to keep the populace in line. I doubt there were many shootings in East Germany, either....did that make everything about it all right?

The more paranoid element in this country speaks often of burying and otherwise hiding guns and ammunition. I have little doubt that a fair number have done so.

In Switzerland, every able-bodied adult between the ages of, I believe, 20 and 50, is expected to serve in the military. Which follows much the same pattern as America's original militia (America was not supposed to have a standing army, but rather citizen soldiers who would defend their country when called upon to do so): a certain amount of training each year, and all military equipment ready at home, awaiting a call to duty. In virtually every Swiss home, there is at least one machine gun, 100 rounds of ammunition, and other military gear. The violent crime rate in Switzerland is a small fraction of that in the United States.
+14 # Regina 2012-07-21 12:57
I have been in several Swiss private homes, in Zurich and in Geneva. I never heard about a personal arsenal in any of them. But yes, the Swiss are sane, lacking the frontier mentality that so infects Americans. Nothing quite like preserving an 18th century mindset with 21st century weapons!
-5 # John Locke 2012-07-21 13:14
DaveM: The crime rate is practically non existent!
+4 # brux 2012-07-20 22:09
I know I will get really slammed for this, and I am not an NRA member or even a gun owner, and I think the very idea I am mentioning is a kind of unconscious meme that is by its very nature impossible or very difficult to remove from the American people.

That is, the whole thing about there being enough people, a critical mass of people to defend against the government or the government in the hands of some elite taking action against the public - AND IN CERTAIN WAYS IT APPEARS LIKE THAT TODAY.

I feel in the back of mind that there are enough people with guns and enough stability in the US that I do not feel the need to get one, plus I am lucky enough live in a safe area as well, but we are entering some very weird times and I think it is not smart or conscientious to change anything right now.

Plus anything like a national discussion has really never been held in the US - don't mess with things, and that includes the alternate side introducing all these stand your ground things. If we enforce existing laws … a big if these days when we are shipping machine guns to Mexican drugs lords.

The American people have been traumaticed since 2000, and we still do not really get what has hit us … we need to all find that out and somewhat agree before we randomly mess with things.
+2 # MidwestTom 2012-07-20 22:14
Remember thw 71 year old in the Florida Internet Cafe earlier this week.
0 # Glen 2012-07-21 16:43
I do, Midwest. Of course, folks could have been caught in the random fire. Those who are expert shooters can handle it, but others, not so much.

It is a sensitive issue, and the argument will never end.
-4 # DaveM 2012-07-20 22:20
Anyone wishing to "kill several hundred children trapped in some unique location" would not need to use firearms. A couple of household cleaners mixed in an enclosed space would poison anyone within that space. Anyone with a basic knowledge of chemistry could produce the same result in a more open area.

A grim truth, but true nonetheless. Given America's propensity for mayhem on a horrendous scale, I am at times amazed that nothing of the sort has happened. Yet.

Many historians have traditionally believed that the balance in the Revolutionary War was tipped in favor of the Americans by the fact that a fair number of them were equipped with the "assault weapons" of the time, flintlock rifles which were accurate at up to five times the distance of the smoothbore muskets carried by British troops. Who were, mind, attempting to preserve the rule of a a legitimate governing authority.

At least one British officer is known to have written a letter in which he complained that "the Americans don't fight fair", mentioning snipers and the tendency of American troops to hide behind fences and trees, ambush superior numbers of British troops, and "refuse to come out and fight in the open".

Perhaps, in a sense, that is the defining characteristic of an American: we won't come out to be shot. There are, apparently "safe places" for those who feel otherwise to reside. If you find Brazil attractive, by all means, move there.
+9 # dyannne 2012-07-20 22:28
If there is never any restrictions on gun sales, ownership, etc., these problems will only grow. There is no other outcome. What do we want? A change or eventually and coming soon more and bigger Auroras? It's one or the other, folks.
-28 # Zarrakan 2012-07-20 22:32
James E. Holmes, the perpetrator of the tragic shooting in Aurora, Colorado, is a psychopath who killed people because he wanted to. HE is responsible for HIS own behavior, and HE and HE alone should bear the responsibility for HIS actions. If not guns, HE would have done it some other way like barricading the exits, and setting fire to the place, flooding the place with lethal chemical fog, or leaving a thermos full of explosives and nails under his seat. This is a tragedy, but the survivors are lucky that he chose the LEAST efficient means of killing tons of people by using guns.
Do not use this for anti-gun nonsense.
I made a video about why you should own a gun for self-defense. It’s at my YouTube channel Zarrakan, and here’s the link:
2012 4 1 ZOC Guns And Self-Defense
Watch it, share it, and join the fight against the evil anti-gun movement.
+13 # V Appalachia 2012-07-21 10:14
How do you know what a "psychopath" would have done? How do you know what he would do, if he did NOT have easy access to the most preferred, direct methods to do his killing?
-11 # John Locke 2012-07-21 13:20
V Appalachia: well he could have made a home made granade filled with nails...Nails are easy to come by and anyone can build a granade today!
-11 # John Locke 2012-07-21 13:22
Or a Molotov cocktail! he certainly would have found some way to kill a massive number of people and he could have done it without a weapon just a jar filled with gasoline and a wick
-22 # skylinefirepest 2012-07-20 22:35
Well, I'll probably be banned again for this but...what a bunch of uneducated hogwash has been stated so far. What you had was a gun free shooting gallery. What was needed was a citizen with some means of self defense in the immediate area of the shooter. I heard some breathless mass media reporter ask about being caught in a crossfire...rat her have an opportunity to escape a crossfire than be caught in a shooting gallery, huh, Bubba????? Don't the readers of this blog give a minutes thought to what happens in real life? I hate it for you...I'm a fireman and I carry to be able possibly to protect myself and my family. I work with know what their job is? It's to come in, clean up, and do the reports on what happened. Think about it..NO ONE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR SAFETY BESIDES YOURSELF!!!
-13 # John Locke 2012-07-21 13:24
skylinefirepest : Thank you!
-21 # eric_frodsham 2012-07-20 22:42
We need the right to bear arms. I don't trust our government (or any government for that matter) to do the right thing. I'm happy to be able to govern myself. This is how we stay safe. I'm fine with citizens being armed and being armed with assault rifles even. Most all American citizens are generally peaceful in my experience.
+10 # hillwright 2012-07-20 22:46
8,000 assault rifles were found hidden in the hold of a freighter docked in Italy and bound for the U.S.

The Italian Government notified U.S. officials who said that they were legal and had all the necessary permits.

They were delivered to a warehouse in South Florida.

So it goes.
-8 # John Locke 2012-07-21 13:25
hillwright: Then probably picked up by the CIA and forwarded to the Drug Cartels in Mexico!
-20 # Dumbledorf 2012-07-20 22:52
Don't even think about trying to convince me that Gun Control is going to solve all our problems! Get off it. This propaganda screed would have never been written had this horrible event not happened, which shows the malice behind this writing.
Anyone who would use this kind of a horrible situation to promote their own personal gun-control agenda surely has no compassion for the suffering these families are going through! Our prayers are to be with them!
The idea that a PH.D candidate just happened to go on a rampage, without cause and kill so many people raises serious questions: 1. Was this guy under some kind of mind control? 2. Was he involved in some way with the government? 3. Was he cia,as many assassins of the past were proven to be? Notes on the shooting---inte resting that 4 US troops were among the dead---
these troops were stationed at Buckley AFB Buckley AFB is the home of the 743rd Military Intelligence Battalion
This shooter-- fits the profile of a Manchurian Candidate--very intelligent--wo n an internship to Salk.
The government's involvement with this
-13 # John Locke 2012-07-21 13:37
Dumbledorf: The anti gun morons do this everytime there is a shooting... I think they watch for every opportunity to promote their BS propaganda...

Lets be real:

How many people are murdered by a knife each year?
Here are the numbers:

2003: 1,828
2004: 1,866
2005: 1,920
2006: 1,830
2008: 1,796

There were 8,775 killings in the US using a gun in 2010

Homocide by gun is only one form of weapon used if we are going to take away our guns then we Must also remove knives including from out dinner tables!

Then blunt Instruments next!
+9 # Regina 2012-07-21 15:25
You can't spray a movie audience or a plaza gathering with a knife. Guns are not in the same category as one-on-one weapons. Today's automatic assault weapons aren't in the same category as muskets. And today's dead and wounded are not in the same category as duelists -- the NRA and their enabler gun makers and sellers are generating a war against people, not a mere shot at a lone opponent.
+7 # jancc 2012-07-21 21:29
You really need to think about this less emotionally.
First, stop thinking people are going to outlaw guns, or take yours away. No one wants to do that. What we would like is to have a conversation about automatic weapons and live amunition. Can we talk about that without all the nra fear mongering?
0 # John Locke 2012-07-28 10:28
jancc: although hopefully most don't, I have read rants where they are calling for gun confiscation... They will never take away our guns... without a bloody civil war!!! so any moron who calls for gun confiscation is calling for a civil war!!!
-21 # skylinefirepest 2012-07-20 23:02
BTW...those who are debating the meaning of the 2nd Amendment are forgetting that there are reams of evidence supporting the individual right to keep and BEAR ( that means to carry, for those who can't understand English ) arms. And maybe y'all haven't heard yet but in the vernacular of the times "well regulated" meant WELL EQUIPPED!!!
0 # Pickwicky 2012-07-25 13:06
skylinefirepest --in no possible way can the unorganized, dispersed population of gun owners and carriers in the USA be considered "a well-regulated militia." "Well-regulated ' has nothing to do with equipment. The definition of 'well-regulated ' at the time the 2nd Amendment was written meant 'well-ordered' or 'well-drilled' --with the extended meaning and intention of "by the state." Now look up the definition of 'militia.'

Your so-called 'realms of evidence' are not evidence at all but false and wishful thinking. Remember the 2nd Amendment is ONE sentence. Think of it as a series of conjuncts--wher e all conjuncts must be true in order for the entire conjunction to be true. Give it some thought.
+11 # m... 2012-07-20 23:09
It will take the impossible.

The NRA is a problem.. But its not THEE PROBLEM.
The problem is Electronic Media in all its forms from TV, to Cable, to Video, to Video Games, to Internet, to Entertainment, 'News' and 'Newz-- all of it. It is driving humanity crazy.., literally.
The 'NEWS' is always bad.
I think when the Pre-TV Generation dies off it will represent the completion of new level in human evolution of sorts, and for the worse.
Electronic Media, as it grows and weaves its way into almost every moment of human life from cradle to grave is changing the mental perception and formatting of what constitutes human reality.
Maybe it a new form of insanity on a massive, global scale., but there is something to what I am saying. I am sure of it.
I think the cognitive relationship between real time and video time screws kids up. In a movie, a kid has a problem. Maybe needs to learn karate. He learns it in 15 minutes, defeats his tormentors, is held in high esteem and even sexy teachers fall in love with him. In the real world-- Well you do the time and reality math.
Multiply stuff like that by every minute of the day, time spent alone with electronic devices, not socializing, little self emergent imagination, bombarded with negative media about the world around you, commercials telling you what you are not, do not have, 'need' and what is 'cool'..etc.,
Who is an individual or even knows what that means when you are young now?
-12 # guidoS 2012-07-21 00:18
Every person has the right to defend themselves. The greatest abuse of weaponry is by governments. Look at the mayhem in the Middle East or wherever there are geopolitical goals. The recent massacre in Aurora, CO has all the hallmarks of a false flag designed to influence the voting on the UN treaty on small arms. Read about the absurdities surrounding this event at
-12 # Howard T. Lewis III 2012-07-21 00:19
I personally feel deep sadness for the loss of loved ones and friends from the actions of the creep at this recent shooting at the Colorado movie theater. The city is not published here, but no matter.The feelings would be the same.
our government under the past few administrations has become progressively more corrupt and bloodthirsty. The shooter was involved in a neural pathology project and program, and we do not know, but may suspect this to be another corrupt piece of psychological warfare by the Project Monarch crew, which I assure you exists, and destroys innocent people like you would eat a cheeseburger. They have been around for many years and are occasionally mentioned in congressional hearings. To find peace and reason, confront evil and criminals and government personnel sporting a modis operandi such as I mention here. Please, ask yourselves, who REALLY did 9/11, HAARP attacks, intentionally blew out the Deepwater Horizon oil well derrick(intenti onal by U.S. Senate finding after Obama pardoned all involved corporations and individuals), and is currently looting the stock markets? Know thine enemy. I am not he, nor were the millions killed by U.S. presidential led invasions over the past twelve years. Murder of innocents is NEVER justified. The recent cabal controlling America over the past twelve years is the most racist pack of killers ever to lead the U.S.. Cui bono?
-19 # LonnyEachus 2012-07-21 00:34
What will it take for Americans to reject the NRA?

It would take the simultaneous rejection of 80 years of FBI and Department of Justice statistics that do not correlate crime with gun ownership.

And I'm ALMOST sorry to say this to these people who seem to be so terrified of firearms, but if the statistics were not already solid enough (and they were), over the last 20-30 years, the crime rate (particularly violent crimes) in the United States has been going DOWN, steeply. And during that same period, per-capita gun ownership in the United States has been steadily INCREASING.

As have the number of areas that now approve concealed carry.

These are real numbers, people, from what YOU would probably call the most reliable source: your own government. Deny them at your own peril.

Whatever other countries might experience, we have MANY decades of solid statistics here in the United States. And what they say (about the United States) is: "An armed society is a polite society."

The particular loon who committed this crime did not have to use a firearm. In fact it was rather stupid of him to do so. He could have just built a bomb instead, out of readily available materials, and tossed that through the door, doing EVEN MORE damage.

Taking away guns does not stop crazy.
-12 # John Locke 2012-07-21 13:39
LonnyEachus: Absolutely correct, they don't give us thumbs down for accuracy they do it out of fear!
+5 # Pickwicky 2012-07-21 16:22
We fear gun toting, gun swaggering buckaroos like the fools who showed up at Starbucks with guns on their hips. Wow--were we impressed.
+19 # rosross 2012-07-21 00:43
Guns kill. They kill more than 1% of Americans every year. Around 40,000 Americans are killed by guns annually. This applies to no other developed nation but then no other developed nation allows gun ownership as the US does.
The US has the highest crime rates and the highest murder rates of the developed nations and the greatest levels of violence. Other developed nations live quite happily and more peacefully without access to guns so one can only ask why Americans are so paranoid, fearful and delusional that they think they not only need guns but that guns keep them safe. Madness. A civilized and developed nation does not use murder as a means of controlling State power - it uses intelligence and wisdom. Are these in such short supply in the US that it has to resort to the barbarism of past centuries and a 'cowboy' mentality to feel safe?
+11 # head out the window 2012-07-21 01:04
The problem isnt guns but certain types of guns. Handguns have one purpose, concealment and use against another purose and there is no reason to own one if you are not an officer of the law. No one needs a fully automatic weapon of any kind, yet we permit them. The gun show loophole needs to be closed as well. But the ownership of rifles and shotguns is not a threat to the general population and should be left alone. And not for ravaging bears, I like that one. You know what you do if you see a bear "ravaging" your garbage can? leave him alone, he'll leave when hes full.
-12 # SMoonz 2012-07-21 01:13
Quoting AlwaysAskWHY:
Always, Always Ask WHY: WHY has there been an escalation of GUN RUNNING OVER THE MEXICAN BORDER to criminals? BECAUSE THOSE IN THE N.R.A. PROFIT FROM IT.

The reason there was an escalation of gun running is because it was an operation planned and executed by the U.S. government, first under Bush and then under Obama. The NRA had nothing to do in this.

These operations wound up boosting the cartels as the military grade weapons were clearly earmarked for them and not for the common Mexican people.
+7 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 09:10
Sting operations are legal in the United States. That's a fact. It's also a fact that it was and is a sting operation. Are you having a tough time understanding this or are you just trying to further conservative talking points while pretending to be a liberal?
-9 # John Locke 2012-07-21 13:42
Billy Bob: Come on Billy you are smarter then that! The CIA was arming the Medillan Cartel during the 80's as well as the Bloods and crypts...with assult weapons!

These are facts not talking points!
0 # SMoonz 2012-07-22 22:21
I know sting operations are legal. However, why would anyone continue flawed operations that first of all are failing to track the weapons that were supposed to be tracked. Second, why continue an operation that has killed thousands of Mexicans?
+10 # humanmancalvin 2012-07-21 01:43
"the key thing that's left out of all gun arguments in America -- SOCIAL SERVICES would be provided to help people get off drugs, train for jobs, find jobs, improve their homes, improve their schools, etc."
Wonderful dream but a dream it is, never to be reached in America where money talks & bullshi# stalks the halls of the body politic. This country will be lucky to retain outstanding social services like Social Security & food stamps if/when a Republican is elected president with a red majority. Doubt like high heavens if a Democratic president/congr ess would ever come close to this solution. So in the reality of what could possibly happen are bans on assault rifles even though one could kill a room full of people with a small bore handgun or rifle. Writing that last sentence I realize that there is probably no solution to the gun problem in the US. Anybody have a realistic proposal that I am missing? All of you intelligent progressive posters who's names I find familiar now please feel free to pipe up. I am feeling defeated to arrive at any, again, REALISTIC, proposal to help keep American deaths by bullet down.
+10 # whatwehavehere. . 2012-07-21 01:56
Thinking of the Batman killer and the one who tried to kill Gabby, or the Military training base. These guys have legal weapons. Where is NRA's Mantra now that says, only the criminal will have guns if you have gun control. Not! There is never a reason to keep assault weapons in the home. The NRA exerts undue pressure on our political representatives to place guns in parks,the workplace and they vow to remove representatives who challenge them. In a rabid gun states like Tennessee, that is how much clout the NRA has. If you don't like it you can leave our barbaric state.
-5 # UGHOMER 2012-07-21 02:34
The crazed gunman purchased 6,000 rounds of ammunition weeks earlier, entered the theater through an unlocked exit near the screen with an assault rifle, shotgun and .40 caliber Glock wearing full body armor and a gas mask. Nobody seems to know whether he had a valid permit for concealed weapons in Colorado. Wow!

Only in America could this tragedy occur. If the PhD student pulled this off with only a pea shooter, dozens would have died after being trampled in the chaos in a jam-packed theater at midnight.

Why did none of the movie-goers shoot this demented bastard? Maybe the NRA has an explanation. "Buy one or die from one" should be their motto.

Perhaps the theater chain will learn from this debacle by assuring all exits are locked securely and refrain from selling a show ticket to anyone wearing full body armor, a gas mask and packing.
-14 # John Locke 2012-07-21 13:43
UGHOMER: I love your motto: "Buy one or die from one"
-19 # badbenski 2012-07-21 03:33
Americans would be foolish in the extreme to allow themselves to be disarmed, for any reason.

In McDonald v. Chicago,5 the Court struck down laws enacted by Chicago and the village of Oak Park effectively banning handgun possession by almost all private citizens, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense.

The Court reasoned that this right is fundamental to the nation's scheme of ordered liberty, given that self-defense was a basic right recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and Heller held that individual self-defense was "the central component" of the Second Amendment right. Moreover, a survey of the contemporaneous history also demonstrated clearly that the Fourteenth Amendment's Framers and ratifiers counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to the Nation's system of ordered liberty.
+15 # TomDegan 2012-07-21 04:52
The first serious debate with respect to gun control (in my memory, anyway) came in the late spring of 1968 following of the assassinations - within two months of each other - of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy. I can still vividly recall Time Magazine's Pop Art/Peter Maxx-style cover of a smoking gun aimed right at the face of the reader. Then, as now, the nation had been forced into a serious discussion about our insane appetite for firearms in the wake of an unspeakable tragedy. Then, as now, an outraged citizenry demanded legislative action. And, as nothing changed in 1968, nothing will change in 2012. Nothing.

Every once in a while, the debate is resurrected - as it was in 1980 after the murder of John Lennon - or in 1981 when an attempt was made on the life of President Reagan - or in 1999 following the Columbine tragedy. But after a week or two of mindless rhetoric, it was always back to business as usual. The sad and undeniable fact is that another massacre on the scale of what happened early this morning in Colorado will happen again - and again and again and again and again and again and again. Deal with it.

Tom Degan
-12 # John Locke 2012-07-21 13:47
TomDegan: If not by gun by some other weapon! But yes it will happen again!
0 # Howard T. Lewis III 2012-07-21 19:43
Look at the motives and individuals and who they were. Not random. Not polarized, isolated citizens in self-created delusion. Project Monarch. Read or flunk.
+12 # sapereaudeprime 2012-07-21 05:45
The issue here is not the Militia. The introduction to the Second Amendment is forgotten: it is "A Well-Regulated Militia." "Well-regulated " does not imply private arsenals, or individual jurisdiction beyond the home. However, the anti-gun lobby is as naive as the pro-gun lobby. If you think that a democracy can be preserved under human nature without an armed populace, you simply haven't read much history. This is especially true when distinguishable minorities acquire the financial ability to create private armies, as has happened every few hundred years since recorded time, while the general population becomes too self-indulgent, materialistic or busy to care bout its own freedom.
-14 # Wind in His Hair 2012-07-21 06:59
We need weapons because of rabid people.
+5 # Hart 2012-07-21 07:25
Love the majority of the comments so far. However, one theme keeps getting missed almost every time we have one of these tragedies - the role of the 24/7 media in aggrandizing the actions of the perpetrator(s). We need legislation to clamp down on the exploitative reporting of the events and the inevitable media attention these individuals receive.
-21 # jimattrell 2012-07-21 07:45
The Colorado shooting emphasizes the desperate need for more armed and trained gun permit holders in public places. Had I been present at the theatre (and carrying) I might have been in a position to save all 12 lives.....
+10 # V Appalachia 2012-07-21 10:27
Might have, would have, should have...

Or maybe you would have been the first target once the shooter, who "might have" been carrying his arms with all the legal permitting, spotted you and your weapon.
+8 # Barbara K 2012-07-21 11:23
Geez, just what they needed, 10 or 12 people with guns shooting around the other people there, would have been a bigger slaughter.
-10 # John Locke 2012-07-21 13:51
Barbara K: Think about what you just said...there were 71 victims all because there were no armed citizens in the theatre to help, even assuming you could by any stretch of the imagination be correct, there would have been much less victims even in a cross fire with innocent people shot...
+7 # Pickwicky 2012-07-21 16:25
How many members of the audience came clothed in Kevlar, John? Audience shooters would have been slaughtered first.
+3 # CAMUS1111 2012-07-21 12:55
would you have been wearing a cape? And tights? no doubt!
+6 # margiafelipe 2012-07-21 07:51
The United States has been taken hostage by powerful lobbies: The gun lobby, the oil lobby, the tobacco lobby just to mention three of the most deadly. They provide statistics with more deaths than wars. Dictatorships can easily make guns illegal because they are a danger to their regimes, so the solution is unattainable in a near future and the slaughtering will continue mercilessly.
-9 # John Locke 2012-07-21 13:53
margiafelipe: You're right, we need a dictatorship so they will take away our guns!! Then all we can use to kill each other will be knives
+2 # Feral Dogz 2012-07-24 11:27
No John, we'd still have baseball bats, homemade bombs, poisons and pointed sticks that any child can get a hold of and go on a rampage with. Its a wonder there are any living beings left on the planet.

The simple truth is that firearms give the shooter a sense of power; to kill at a distance, quickly and repeatedly. A maniac in body armor would not be deterred or easily stopped by gun toting citizens like George Zimmerman or you.
0 # John Locke 2012-07-28 10:34
Feral Dogz Unfortunately I don't carry! and the jury is still out regarding Zimmerman, unless you have already adjudged him guilty?
-13 # cordleycoit 2012-07-21 07:54
Oh here we go liberals are armed too. It is a right and some think that Madison and Jefferson were bad writers. I lived a good deal of my life in red lined neighborhoods where it's half an hour to get a cop who might well turn on the victims. Some times the cop was the source of the violence.Now I live in a rural setting and the police are forty five minutes away. You might not like fire arms, don't own one. But you have no right to take mine away. There are half a billion firearms in the US today. Get real it's a Right not a privilege.
-13 # Dumbledorf 2012-07-21 08:08
This screed isn't about the horrible loss of life and compassion needed for the families and survivors of this tragedy, it's about gun control. What BS propaganda!
Anyone who would use this kind of a horrible situation to promote a agenda surely has no compassion for the suffering these families are going through! Our prayers are to be with them!

A few notes on the shooting: 4 US troops were among the dead....these troops were stationed at Buckley AFB. Buckley AFB is the home of the 743rd Military Intelligence Battalion. Mind control programs are taught there.
Shooter fits the profile of a CIA/Manchurian- type Candidate. He appears to be very intelligent and had won an internship to Salk. He had a bright future. No reason to throw it all away.

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." ~ Richard Henry Lee
+13 # Byronator 2012-07-21 08:27
The Bills of Rights also gives the government the right to levy assessments -- so how about a massive TAX on the NRA and gun philiacs to pay for the hospital expenses and funerals of the citizenry who pay the real prize of gun dependence? Bring it on!
-9 # John Locke 2012-07-21 13:55
Byronator How about a tax on people who don't buy a weapon, like the Obamacare insurance plan!
-1 # John Locke 2012-07-28 10:36
I don't understand the thumbs are in favor of a tax for anyone who doesn't get the Obama insurance policy, so why are you against this proposed tax?

It's the same premise!!!
+15 # Trish42 2012-07-21 08:32
For Pete's sake here we go again. Although I was as distressed as anyone at what just happened in Colorado, my second thought was, here we go again. Now all the gun nuts will drag out their "those liberal elites are out to get us" arguments against guns.

Are there no gun-lovers left with a brain?? Can't we control guns without removing them from people's homes (and perhaps even their cars)? Of course we can! And don't give me that crap about control or licensing being a "slippery slope" to gun confiscation! We license people to drive cars; we don't let anybody with the money to purchase it go out and drive on public roads. We can do the same with guns.

A huge majority of the population want more gun control. It's only crazy and/or the monied NRA zealots who don't!
+14 # itchyvet 2012-07-21 08:42
WOW,comments here on this issue, really demonstrate how far Americans have totaly lost the plot. I haven't got issue with the NRA, nor have I issue with folks carrying arms, BUT FULL AUTOMATIC arms are totaly NOT neccessary.
Folks carrying on how they're gonna get back control of their Govt with such arms, are off this flamin planet and smokin some really good quality stuff, IMHO.
America lives by the gun, FACT, everyday the U.S. military or the Govt shoot and kill people indiscriminentl y, bu;lly other nations and generaly run amuck, so why is such a surprise when the folks back home do the exact same thing ? DUH !
+8 # ronnewmexico 2012-07-21 08:59
For the armchair quarterbacks... shooting a person shooting others in circumstances such as these, dim lite theater, smoke bomb, people running shouting, slipping in blood.....impos sible for your normal person, that perhaps has a concealed weapons permit and about 10 or so hours of training. A police officer who is highly trained and must certify in weaponry usage at least annually and in some places more often.....would be very hard pressed not to have collateral damage.....shoo ting others inadvertantly. Bullets travel through things.....many bullets passed through this walls of this one place into the nest theater....soun ds good....if anyone had a gun they could have stopped it....reality have to be kidding....ask any police officer....

But again this quickly gets irrational these discussions...

Truth is yes some rural peoples need guns, bears and mountain lions do live and do attack occasionally, and if you have cattle you must occasionally protect from predators on your land....and to the other side.......assa ult weaponry and 50C ammo weaponry really have no domestic usage nor purpose......if we can outlaw grenades and grenade launchers RPG's and such...we can outlaw them without impinging on the right to carry arms.

This can be discussed rationally or we can adopt absolute attitudes to it on both sides and where in our discussion.
+10 # seakat 2012-07-21 09:09
It's simple. Go back to only allowing guns to be manufactured with the technology that was available at the time the second amendment was written.
+4 # ENetArch 2012-07-21 12:27
Actually with today's technology anyone can fashion a gun or cannon for themselves using materials found at home depot.
+11 # Urbancurmudgeon 2012-07-21 09:11
The 71 year old guy John Locke is referring to, missed both robbers entirely despite firing several shots, any one of which could have hit an innocent bystander. The fact of the matter is, that if the guy in the theater didn't have a gun he would have killed no one. Guns do kill people when they are in he possession of people like John Locke.
Yes there are legitimate reasons for gun owning, like hunting for food and target shooting but there is n legitimate reason for anyone to own an automatic weapon and almost no reason to own a hand gun. I am a former FFL and speak with some experience.
-11 # John Locke 2012-07-21 13:59
Urbancurmudgeon you sound like a complete fool...but that is your right to be a fool and I would defend that right for you!
-12 # John Locke 2012-07-21 14:03
Urbancurmudgeon : I suspect you will not understand this as being beyond your capabilities but:

"Disarming the innocent does not protect the innocent".
-2 # Pickwicky 2012-07-27 10:48
Except when the innocent one is a child.
+9 # graybeard.tom 2012-07-21 09:15
a single fact to add to this discussion:
the NRA is a wholly owned subsidiary of the republican national committee.
it is governed by republicans and is used to farther republican goals.
its primary function is political in nature.

as for gun control: it is not really a liberal/conserv ative or a right/left issue. we can see evidence of that fact in the conflict displayed herein - by posts on both sides of the issue - in a forum that is liberal by its very nature.

gun control is a rural/urban issue. people separate on this issue on the basis of their life experiences. one group sees guns as tools, the other as exotic dangerous devices that have no useful purpose.
-5 # jimattrell 2012-07-21 09:50
I wouldn't use the word "fact" in your comments... It's like saying its a fact that all union members are owned by the Democratic Party. It just happens that Conservatives generally favor self-protection and Liberals generally favor Government Controlled protection. Nothing wrong with either concept and I'll be happy to protect you with my guns should your system fail you. That's America for you ....
-11 # John Locke 2012-07-21 14:04
jimattrell: Good point!
+3 # graybeard.tom 2012-07-21 16:03
jim & john:
it will not be necessary for you to protect me with your guns - i have over 30 of my own and an extensive array of reloading equipment.
i am also sensitive to the comment regarding democrats ownership of union members votes. i have been a union business agent and have carried a card over 35 years. union members are not nearly as monolithic voters as most folks assume. unions suggest candidates that will (theorically) best represent the interest of union members.
i repeat my disagreement with your liberal/conserv ative generalization. it is and always has been a conflict between urban & rural viewpoints. i am a rural texas liberal.

the NRA (and for the record - i have been a life member since 1976) simply fans the flames of the ignorant. they have found a perfect means of directing single-issue voters to support republicans
it was not always like it is today. now they are nothing more than republican cheerleaders. and while our society needs to try and reach some better means of handling violence, the nra simply uses these occasions as fund rising opportunities. needless to say i am no
longer a big fan of the nra.
-6 # John Locke 2012-07-21 18:36
graybeard.tom Fair enough Comment...
+9 # JSRaleigh 2012-07-21 10:13
Quoting graybeard.tom:
a single fact to add to this discussion:
the NRA is a wholly owned subsidiary of the republican national committee.

You have the ownership relation reversed. The RNC is the captive.
+7 # bluemoonwoman 2012-07-21 09:22
There is truth in what everyone says here. Truth on both sides of the " gun" argument. But, it misses the point, and the point is.... how is it that young men and older men "lose" it? Violence of the mind and soul is the greater issue here. We have a culture that is pathologically sick, and is intended to be that way, in order to bring America to it's knees. We are well on the way down folks. Misuse of guns is an effect, not a cause. There are those who govern us who care not one whit about your life, or mine, nor the lives that were lost in Colorado. That is the real issue, and much more terrifying to contemplate. Tragedies such as the one in Colorado, can be used to manipulate political agendas, shamefully. We need to wake up to what is really happening in this country on all levels. When you really begin to contemplate what we are dealing with--- it should leave your heart on the floor.
+15 # angelfish 2012-07-21 09:23
The NRA goes over to the Dark Side when they complain about being stripped of their Assault weapons. NO ONE needs an assault Weapon unless they are Military or Police! Let people keep their hunting rifles and home security hand guns, but NO ONE needs a Glock, a 357 Magnum or an AK-47! This Crazy young man was able to obtain his Arsenal LEGALLY! THAT is the Sin of the NRA and of this Country for Kow-Towing to their Lobbyists! How many MORE innocent people must be slaughtered before we have REALISTIC, SANE Gun Control?
+3 # ronnewmexico 2012-07-21 09:33
Yes the NRA is really absurd in their opinions on gun control...RPG's would be legal by the slightest extension of their thinking...

That aside yes....we must allow for variability in the US. We do have rural peoples who use guns as tools as well as particular urban environments in which they are just killing things....

but to disallow completely one or the other is a absolutists way on this is a extension of ideology which fits not the circumstance.
Not so many rural peoples...yes not so many comparatively.. real terms of amount...many.

Federal laws on gun control must accommodate both circumstances. Or in a reactionary fashion we go from one extreme position to another...forev er swinging, without resolution of the issue.

I cannot apply my rural circumstance to a urban environment as well as the inverse. And that you do not believe my circumstance rurally is what it is ....does not make it not as it is. Many many thousands have this circumstance of rural life and necessity.
+5 # guidoS 2012-07-21 09:39
Need to get some perspective on this. According to CDC stats and the National Vital Statistics Report for 2010, the rate (per 100,000) of homicide by firearms is 3.7, Car accidents, 11.4, Alcohol, 8.2, Falls, 8.4, poison, 10.3. Interesting! But the 3rd highest cause of death is . . . hospitals!!!! Hospital mistakes account for over 106,000 deaths per year and combined with prescription drug errors, 250,000! In point of fact, prescription drug errors/abuse come in at 7.9! Unfortunately, maternal deaths in the U.S. have tripled over the last 30 years to a whopping 15.1. The U.S. is ranked 40th in the world for maternal survival (see article in The Journal of Perinatal Educ education:
The point is: As awful as these mindless slaughters are, guns are not the problem. The problem is a corporatocracy that continues to undermine the health, both physical and mental, of the people. America is a nation of addicts. You are controlled by your addictions. There appears to be a common factor with many, if not most, of these mass killers. They were on anti-depressant s, a known cause of suicidal tendencies. I don't know if the current shooter fits the profile, but it should be investigated.
+4 # wwway 2012-07-21 09:49
It didn't take very long for Republican leaders to use the shooting to state their opinion that if everyone (anyone) in the theater had guns with them they would have taken the shooter out. Imagine!
What they are saying is that we don't need law enforcement when we can be our own. Imagine how that would work!
I was impressed at how Aurora PD was all over this like a grass hopper on a June bug and caught the guy.
+10 # JSRaleigh 2012-07-21 10:11
I believe in the 2nd Amendment. I DO NOT believe in the severability of the clauses.

The "militia" must be WELL REGULATED.

The NRA's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has no foundation in history. It is a complete fabrication.
+6 # ronnewmexico 2012-07-21 10:12
A large theater, colorado gun laws being what they are.... chances are..someone did have a gun. Probably more than one...

Will they come forward and say...I had a gun but did not use it as it was in a smoke filled room there was yelling shouting gun fire and so much going on.....I simply could not get a shot off.
Or perhaps they having a gun did not even think to use it but just hid behind a is very difficult to shoot at a person shooting back at you.....

Of course not...they would not admit such a thing.

WE presume none had guns....realist ically..probabl y some living in some areas perhaps do not know how many do have and carry guns......every one of my neighbors have guns and many carry.....not aurora but not so different is this place I live.
I always carry a gun in certain places...would I have used it in that theater....not at all..I'd probably shoot a innocent and then be guilty as well, of manslaughter if nothing else....probabl y arrested as accessory.

Sad but it is true....I would not. People are applying cowboy movie things from years ago into this is not so simple to shoot and kill a person in the best of circumstances.
This was the worst.....kill a innocent most likely you would.
Only those that know nothing of guns and their usage in the real world.... knowing only target range would propose such nonsense.
+11 # tswhiskers 2012-07-21 10:16
The Trayvon Martin case is so on point here. Common sense says if you have a gun you will surely use it, unless you are a police officer with constant and explicit training on when and when not to use a gun. Unfortunately the NRA probably doesn't see that sort of thing as necessary. Trayvon should never have been shot and his killer should stay behind bas for a long time. Similarly the shooter in the Aurora, CO theater will never see the light of day again. We have had dozens of mass killings since the l960's and if anything, our gun laws are more lax than ever. To guidoS: the fact that prescriptions are so problematic is only another reason to severely tighten gun regs. We have been so safety conscious re: car seatbelts, drunk driving, childproof lids on prescriptions, and yet we would far rather allow guns to get into the hands of terrorists, the mentally ill, those on mind altering drugs and even small children than limit their production or purchase in any way. The right-to-carry laws on the books in several states, notably Florida and Colorado at the moment are directly responsible for allowing (not causing) the deaths of countless people. American gun laws are irresponsible. Our laws against drunk driving and for the use of seatbelts prove that we can use sense to increase safety. Are guns some sort of phallic symbol that males need to prove their masculinity? Why else do we have such stupid gun laws?
+2 # ronnewmexico 2012-07-21 11:53
One teenager to my dim recollection years ago shot a bunch as she..didn't like Mondays...for which Tom Petty wrote a song..

so I would not put this thing at the feet of gender or any other distinction of that many women as men in rural areas own and carry guns to my experience...
It only serves to marginalize and if you are attempting to draw others to your side....half of humanity is not who you want to marginalize in this discussion.

Bush did not reauthorize the assault weapon ban legislation of the clinton years which is why so many were killed so quickly.....ext ended clips and this assault weapon were both banned to the general public in that legislation.
The hand guns and shotgun were still allowable..bur so many would not have been killed and injured....
+4 # donjay 2012-07-21 12:13
As far back as the Greeks it was known to be a bad idea to have lethal weapons readily at hand. Thanks why they hung their weapons on the walls at dinner. People would get boisterous and physical after drinking a lot of wine.
+1 # ronnewmexico 2012-07-21 12:30
Maybe back perhaps more than the greeks....buddh ist sutra found in Mahayanan prohibits the owning of such weaponry.....Ch ina is the location of the inception of that sutra it is thought....and law of the land at that time it likely was.
+6 # Skeptical1247 2012-07-21 14:15
It is an insult to thinking people everywhere, when someone indulges in mental masturbation to justify an unwarranted paranoia at any cost, and then calls it "thinking". Do ya really want to carry 100% of the time? Because, a thinking person realizes that that is the only intelligent option if you are that cowardly, and it STILL won't save your ass if someone catches you by surprise. Can you get to your weapon quick enough if you are taking a dump with your pants around your ankles? You got a holster in your shower? I absolutely know I will not affect your "thinking" with this, but it makes me smile to imagine those questions entering what passes for your mind next time you scrub'a'dub or devise an effective strategy for wiping with one hand while holding your 9mil in the other.... And all the while the nut case who will be coming for you can purchase or steal the weapon he will be using on you easier than buying a pack of gum. Hmmmm?
-5 # skylinefirepest 2012-07-21 16:19
Regina and Headoutthewindo w...hate to pick on y'all by name but where do you get this stuff?? An AR15 is a semi-auto firearm. There were no automatics except for leo's on the scene! Recent study found that there are approximately fifty lives SAVED with a firearm for every one taken...and that number includes lawful shootings!! If you don't like guns then don't buy one...but stay the devil away from mine!! Liberals start this garbage every time there is a shooting of any type ( read Trayvon Martin...which is looking more and more like a justified shooting ). Guns save lives. Guns in criminals hands take lives. Take your pick, people, it ain't a safe world out there. One silly woman actually told me that she could walk anywhere, anytime, unarmed because she "knew how to look" . Wow!
+1 # Pickwicky 2012-07-22 14:13
shylinefirepest --please offer proof of your claim that "fifty lives SAVED with a firearm for every one taken." Your claim runs contrary to statistics on child accidental gun deaths.
-3 # RICHARDKANEpa 2012-07-21 16:45
What will it take?

It would take thoughtful flexible gun owners being listened to instead of the most vehement rhetoric condemning the NRA,
+6 # mdhome 2012-07-21 18:58
Wow, too many posts. Anyway I will add another. google Poland, Gdansk, Solidarity, a bunch of dock workers stood up to the might and power of the soviet union and the commie leaders in Poland, and won their freedom without a single gun.
+1 # Texan 4 Peace 2012-07-21 19:23
I really think a better strategy than arguing would be for sane folks to join the NRA and push from within for SANE gun regulation. No, we don't want to make it impossible for anyone to own a gun; just crazy people, criminals and testosterone addicts who think any slight is worth blowing someone away over. No, we don't want to take away all your guns; just the ones designed to mow down civilians in public places.
+3 # charsjcca 2012-07-21 20:16
America's culture informs us of the right way to live. Having a gun is part of the culture. If there are roughly 300,000,000
guns in America, someone has mine for I do not have any. It is sad that I have lived to be 75 years old and never shot or shot at. I do not know that experience. According to some I should be dead because I do not pack a 9mm Glock. But I live...
0 # badbenski 2012-07-21 21:21
So long as human being retain the tendency to bully and oppress, the only way a free society can exist is if it's armed. If you can't tolerate the dangers that go along with so many weapons around then go someplace else where the populace is not armed. There are plenty of choices out there.

When I lived in the small City in the midst of Detroit (Highland Park) where I grew up, the economy caused the loss of our police and fire services, which reverted to The County, State and surrounding communities (for fire). We had a disturbance on my block, which I heard right away because I lived on the corner, and I was most gratified to see a half dozen neighbors come out onto their porches packing a rather impressive array of firepower. The young knuckleheads creating the problem beat a hasty retreat and likely took that location off their list of places to misbehave.

We have a lot of gun violence here but folks are secure in the knowledge that their fellow citizens are able to protect themselves. The Rust belt has taken unbelievable economic hits and the abilitiy to protect one's family is paramount. This is America, the society that has experienced the most freedom in human history and our ability to remain armed is responsible, to a large degree, for that fact. We can't beat predator drones (except with a .50 cal.) and modern military weapons but an armed populace is a problem to potential oppressors and I like that fact.
+2 # xflowers 2012-07-22 04:07
The question should be, how to undo all the twisted NRA propaganda that is repeated again and again in the arguments of its supporters. People believe these arguments, take them on faith. There are no new ones; just the same old, same old "fighting words," repeated again and again. All someone would have to do is reflect for about five minutes to recognize how empty they are. You don't even have to look to another country. Fifty years ago before the gun fad took hold, there weren't all of these guns floating around the cities and suburbs of the U.S. Yes, people living in the country and hunters had them for hunting animals, but the cities were not full of guns for hunting people. Americans were not less free. In fact, they were more free to go to the movies, school, shopping or simply walk home without fear of deadly gang violence or the acts of a madman or being shot by a neighborhood vigilante or a child who got hold of daddy's weapon. Most were more freer politically as well because their legislatures were not yet bought off by powerful lobbyists, who with the backing of the addicted and propagandized, force them to pass laws at odds with the well being of communities and the police whose job it is to try to serve them.
0 # Livemike 2012-08-02 23:30
Yeah right, because it's the NRA who do propaganda, not the anti-gun lobby. Ask yourself, during decades of increaing gun control did you ever hear the term "the powerful anti-gun lobby"? No, but I'll bet you heard the term "powerful gun lobby". Your lies about the lack of guns fifty years ago were debunked years ago. If you were actually interested in the truth you would have noticed guns per capita have been increasing for years, and violent crime has been decreasing. Oh and while "most" Americans might have been freer 50 years ago, others weren't. It's only thanks to guns and the civil rights marchers like Charlton Heston (google "deacons for defense") that others are not as unfree as they were then.
+3 # Kootenay Coyote 2012-07-22 08:14
"'s an impossible situation to solve, guns being so entrenched in North American culture."

Cut the imperial language. Guns are not entrenched in Canada, just in the smaller country to the south....
+1 # capricorn45 2012-07-22 08:57
Responsible gun ownership, not disarmament is in my opinion the answer. In my home country Switzerland, we have compulsory military service and every Swiss citizen keeps his assault weapon and 40 rounds of ammunition at home! And guess what? Switzerland has a very low crime and gun crime rate!

In the US, which is run by a crime syndicate, it would in my opinion be a tragic mistake to disarm the country's citizens as it would IMO act as an invitation for the criminals in government to terrorize its citizens even more than it already is.

Also, keep in mind that doctors kill more people than guns do.
-1 # ronnewmexico 2012-07-22 12:23
The extremes on both sides make for no solution to the problem and a continuance...

Assault weaponry and extended clips have no place in america for common citizens...they are never to hunt nor to kill other than human. Calibers 50 or so are also not used for about any purpose..;so they should be banned as are RPG' closed.

Using this to say...none should have any guns and all the rest...leads to no action.

You want no action, on this thing..keep proposing no guns at is really that simple. The choice is be ideologically pure in your stance or ...stop this madness of military weaponry in the arms of civilians.

You don't realize it but you the victim with your pride in being right and true to a higher moral standard conceived are as well the perpetrator in this thing....such allows the latter to be stated and held...any restriction means not is a untenable position that. Fought violently will be that contention.

At some times it is to our benefit to be extreme in view, as perhaps a earth first in the environmental movement provides a side that is needed to work to the middle...this is not one of those situations favored by that extreme view.
-1 # independentmind 2012-07-24 13:59
The easiest way to solve some of this is to ban the sale of ammunition for assault weapons - who needs those other than nuts- and make the rest of the ammunition so expensive that people can only buy a minimum, then use the money raised by this tax to compensate victims of gun violence.
+1 # Livemike 2012-08-02 23:24
Do you even know what an "assault weapon" is and how it differs from an regular semi-auto rifle? Of course not. But just to clarify the second amendment was supposed to guarantee the right to guns that the militia would use and that DEFINITELY includes assault rifles. Note "assault rifle" != "assault weapon". There is nothing "mad" about military weapons in the hands of private citizens. It was the rule in America for a long time. The massacres came when that rule was abandoned. When people are disarmed in America they tend to be slaughtered, yet you wish to be disarmed. Learn your own hsiotry.
-4 # ENetArch 2012-07-22 13:02
Has anyone thought about who would benefit from using the public's furor over the massacre to drive through new gun control legislation? In a campaign, using anger and fear is the first weapon of choice.
-1 # ronnewmexico 2012-07-22 17:20
This massive rush to gun control legislation is not happening not even in the slightest way.....nor will it..

My predictions on things are always right for the most part I remain with my ideology as it serves me well.... if it was always that I was predicting wrongly things...I would firmly and quickly look for the error in it then correct that error or abandon it.

Ideology must serve one.... one must not consider one serving ideology.....if so mistaken things happen and untoward result is never predicted.
+1 # Pickwicky 2012-07-27 10:55
How about a "massive rush' to enforce existing gun laws? Sounds good to me.

"My predictions on things are always right for the most part . . ." That's a mighty peculiar statement: "always" paired with "for the most part." Really?

Recommended: several semesters in writing and critical reasoning.
-4 # mcav 2012-07-23 13:15
Quote from a nut: "In the past ten years 450,000 have died by car violence. 174,000 by gun violence. When is the Left going March on Washington to ban the murderous Automobile. Where is the Outrage???"
-1 # Pickwicky 2012-07-27 11:09
Impossible to tell from your post whether you are the 'nut,' or you're quoting a 'nut.'

To the 'Nut:' When sorting out the reasonableness of such terms in an argument: such as "murderous Automobile" It is necessary to establish the primary function of the item being so labeled. The primary function of cars is not to kill. What is the primary function of a gun, mcav? And don't answer that question with secondary functions--such as 'self-defense.'
+2 # eix 2012-07-24 01:49
Remember the Million Mom March? Designed to strengthen gun control, it did little as the American NRA has all the Republican oil money it needs to lobby the pocket lining bureaucrats and congressional vote getters. We, the public are out of luck on that one. When will you get shot at? Good chance you will be at some time in your life. Watch out!
0 # haiki 2013-01-28 10:30
Sorry, I had 49 reason's why the NRA has it wrong. But in order to fully explain, my explanation is too long, unfortunately!
+1 # skylinefirepest 2013-01-28 15:03
I don't know why I bother...most of the rsn readers are so rabidly liberal that common sense is beyond them. Most of my figures come from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports for any given year. Guns in the proper hands save question. What we need is not "gun control" but CRIME CONTROL. The media has identified semi-auto rifles for so long as "assault rifles" that most of the firearms illiterate don't know the difference. The government that can ban semi-auto rifles can ban anything, people. Get your head out and read the writing on the wall!!

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.