The President just spoke live on gun violence saying, ”While reducing gun violence is a complicated challenge, protecting our children from harm shouldn’t be a divisive one.”
After recommendations from a task force led by Vice President Joe Biden, he has set forth 23 proposals aimed at curbing the nation’s gun violence, including:
- Universal background checks for anyone trying to buy a gun.
- Restore a ban on military assault weapons and 10-round magazine limit.
- Tougher consequences on people who break gun laws and/or purchase guns for express purpose of selling to criminals.
How do you feel about these proposed executive orders?
Better late than never. Someone on the “no fly” list should not be allowed to stock up on military style weapons at a gun show. Which is the case now. There are too many guns out there to prevent most murders with guns, but at least we can make it almost impossible for the average person to commit a mass shooting.
Remember when the Tobacco lobby claimed that any restrictions on “smoker’s rights” would kill jobs and infringe on people’s rights? Given all the cigarette butts that litter the streets it would appear that “responsible smokers” still have their rights. If it can work for tobacco, why not fire arms.
I think #1 and #3 are good, while I doubt #2 will really have much of an effect.
I see no good arguments against regulating guns like cars. A user license is required, with a full written and hands on test. A gun must be registered and insured, and when a gun is sold the change in ownership must be documented. And all the data is of public record.
I’m fine with all three. And the use of executive orders.
Doesn’t matter what I think (most of you who know me know my stance on the Second Amendment and gun control). I AM anxious to see if these proposals will bring about the desired result: less gun violence against innocent people.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t see a problem in #2, but so many more people are killed with hand guns than assault weapons with big magazines. It may go toward preventing another Newtown, but it’s impact is questionable.
Tobacco is not a Constitutional Right written to prevent the tyranny that our Founding Fathers rebelled against– remember that as you read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, those first 9 Amendments. They are, as a whole a reaction to protect personal freedoms against the Government. Bearing Arms was not about hunting, or sport– it was about the people’s right to defend themselves not from a criminal, but from that very same Government. And while too many folks today ask: What Tyranny? I point to illegal wiretaps, drone attacks target American citizens (Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan) both Presidential actions that are beyond the scope of judicial review- it was so with Bush, and it remains with Obama.
Am I scared of tyranny today? No. But I recognize that history is full of Nations where folks initially saw no danger when it was very close. And America is only 50 years away from hell on the streets of Birmingham. And let’s not forget Newark, closer to Baristaville.
Also, NPR’s On the Media did a show about the history of Gun Control, which seems to stem from keeping guns out of the hands of Black folks (http://www.onthemedia.org/2012/dec/21/)
That said, I look forward to the drop in crime from these orders. Because one thing is for sure, folks hell bent on committing heinous acts usually follow the law.
Well said, Prof. The only place where I differ is where you say you are not afraid of tyranny today. As a free people, we should always be afraid of tyranny.
Nice of the NRA to drag the President’s family into the fight…way to stay classy.
Then there’s this :
http://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-nra-kills-gun-violence-research-2013-1
Question : Are the majority of rank and file NRA members really as crazy/paranoid as their leadership ??
“And America is only 50 years away from hell on the streets of Birmingham. And let’s not forget Newark, closer to Baristaville.”
—so, prof, you are saying that 50 years ago, civil rights protestors should have armed themselves to make their points? or are you saying that the residents of Birmingham and Newark should have taken to the streets to “protect” themselves?
no? that’s not what you are saying? then what on earth are you saying?
The King has spoken.
Prof, with all due respect, I really have no problem with keeping guns out of the hands of nutso groups with perceived grievances, be they Black Panthers (recall how many of their “brothers” these thugs murdered, often at the behest of would-be drug lords Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale), Klansmen or the white Christian Identity crowd. None, nor those in sympathy with such groups, should be allowed easy access to assault rifles and large-capacity clips.
I also doubt very much that “Gun Control” began as a plot to disarm blacks and to keep them disarmed so us ofays could bring our bootheels down on them a bit harder. Really, that nonsense is much beneath you. It may fit the febrile mindset of Tom Hayden at his craziest (have you ever read his “Rebellion In Newark?”) but otherwise it’s just utter rot. And that the authorities in Birmingham,AL allowed a certain bigoted portionof its citizenry to beat up on others does not at all establish that peace qnd tranquility would have prevailed had Dr. King’s marchers been armed and thus able to respond in more powerful “kind.”
Could we all drop the talk of “tyranny,” too? This is not France in 1789 or Czarist (or Stalinist) Russia or even modern Saudi Arabia, and the last thing anyone sane ever really wants to do is shut down hunting amd trapshooting.
Well said, Cathar.
Whoa there johnq. I’m all for the needed changes, but Pres. Obama just used live children as political props while he signed what amounts to 23 toothless executive orders. So be fair and don’t just attack the NRA for its (admitted) tastelessness.
Sorry, cathar. We’ll have to disagree– the point re: gun “control” and is its modern day origin. Not sure if you heard the piece, and I haven’t done any independent research, but it makes a simple point.
As for Tyranny– as I wrote, I imagine some Black folks in various times in the past half century would disagree with you. So while it’s not France in 1789, to have Government sanctioned (and committed) freedoms taken or prevented is the same whether in Paris or Philadelphia, Mississippi.
Certainly you don’t need to be reminded of these, if not tyrannical acts, what? Atrocities? Wrongs? Whatever. they were directed at race of US Citizens; committed, or at least known to those holding Government positions.
And while I won’t question King’s choice to commit to non-violence, to say that is the only way a minority is to repel a majority (even though I generally believe it is) runs counter to our Founding Fathers choice to include as the SECOND Right of the People, that which allows them to bear arms.
Again, sitting here quite comfortably in my Palatial Estate in UPPER Montclair, makes it easy to dismiss tyranny, I only point out why and under what circumstance the 2nd Amendment came to life, and my reading of recent America history.
That said, like abortion, I support reasonable restrictions to gun ownership. #1 is an obvious good idea. #2 and #3 won’t do anything. And even #1 would not have prevented Newtown– as the kid stole his Mom’s legal guns.
Love the new add.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/01/15/nra-obama-ad/
Laws that have restricted the use of certain kinds of weapons have worked in other countries. Enact stringent new laws and the number of mass shootings or deaths by firearms goes down dramatically. We have statics to prove this works. Common sense and cooler heads need to lead this discussion.
Prof, again with some modicum of respect, today your brain is just full of used dishwater. And thus that you heard it on NPR does not at all guarantee its truth. Or even half-relation to historical record. (We of a conservative bent might even add that hearing something on NPR near-automatically ensures it’s lie, but hey, no biggie today…) Still, you usually don’t ever seem to have done any, to use your term, “independent research.” Someday, at the least, pick up a history of the evolution of firearms and/or of shooting sports. Even the assorted slave rebellions in both the American South and British Caribbean, these were never seen as good excuses by which to take guns from black people, freedor otherwise; it was almost always assumed that citizens of all colors would vary their diets via their shooting prowess.
And, gently, no, no, no, what went down in Philadelphia MS, or even in Oakland, CA in 1966, hardly constitutes “tyranny” even by a most generous definition. While I’m in the middle of the strict constructionist-”living document” debate about the Constitution, dragging out our Founding Fathers at every turn to defend the 2nd Amendment is unfair to them (so many of whom, as it turns out, never personally even saw military service during the Revolution they brought forth).
Your earlier evocation of Birmingham as grounds for violent “self-defense” is also a dangerous, quite fooish red herring. A racist white police force attacked peaceful, legally enabled black and white civil rights marchers. They did not, however, fire upon these marchers with live ammunition. Curiously, however, what you seem to be wishfully conjuring up is a vision of a major shootout. Neither circumstances nor racialist “morality” of the time justifies this vision, which would simply have led to senseless loss of lives and limbs. Wipe the blood from your eye, good prof, put down “The Fire Next Time” if you’re reading it now. What distinguished Dr. King and his adherents in Birmingham was that the whole world saw for themselves what was actually going on there, and that Bull Connor and his Myrmidons were but racist thugs whose time was, finally, gone. God bless television, you know?
montclairdad : Given the Ct. shootings, I see no problem with kids being a part of the message.
If you want to discuss “political props” then how about this all time greatest hit ??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Mission_Accomplished_speech
Wow reading the professors posts it makes me wonder if he ever actually read the 2nd amendment. Gun control was written into it from the beginning it is only the current Justice Scalia who decided that the individual was more important then the well regulated part.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
I’m all for the well regulated militia – which would include all gun owners to be on call with the government if say China shows up on our beaches. Not stock piling them in their survivalist bunkers. Notice the wording says nothing about personal protection or protecting ones own family but the State, meaning protecting the very same big brother the pro gun lobby is convinced is after them.
Let’s also remember this was drafted before we had an organized military and every man who could fight was considered our military.
@johnq – OK, I’m not sure what Dubya and his stupidity have to do with the NRA vs. Bam, but yes, great example.
the argument that the “right” to own assault weapons is for protection against a tyrannical government is bogus. good luck using your bushmaster protecting yourself against tanks, stealth bombers, chemical and biological weapons, and the full force of the US military – all at our government’s disposal.
These weapons are not for hunting, they are for killing, and they have no place in our society.
The second amendment calls for a well REGULATED militia to have the rights to arms. therefore, sensible regulations are necessary.
So I’m watching CNN last nite listening to the gun debate , when this lovely commercial comes on :
http://bullettothehead.warnerbros.com/index.html
We are a sick society.
Well yeah, Johnqp: Our society is a split personality. On the one hand, people talk of banning assault weapons but on the other, we have a billion-dollar industry producing this crap that glorifies violence. (I defend others’ right to watch it but it’s still crap). It’s an enigma.
Agree with you 100%, Double M – One can’t complain about the kettle while pretending that the pot does not exist
Since the word “militia” has come into the conversation, how many posters above have ever actually served in the armed forces, and thus segued into reserve status (aka a “militia”) from active duty? What marks a Montclair-type conversation about guns, I always fear, is that so many have no actual experience of any sort with firearms. I could be wrong, admittedly…
There was a poster some years ago who had, I think, two lawful handguns and occasionally wrote about them. He’s long gone, unfortunately.
cathar it seems by your rules, we can also dispense with say, the Right to Free Speech- I mean in the age of the internet is anyone really fearful that they cannot speak? The Right to Assembly? C’mon, the Gov isn’t going to prohibit any group from having a meeting.
And so on.
That you fail to see beyond the specific incidents of the racial past of the Civil Right Movement, to that which it was: government sanctioned acts to force its will upon its citizens, is odd. Certainly you can at the very least agree that there were time when it was the Government- either a sole individual or a few, but still, the Government- that forcibly acted against US citizens.
Also, my Birmingham evocation was certainly NOT a call for self-defense, but rather showing that it is not too hard to find in American history an act of a “Tyrannical” Government. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
So then, taking this to an admitted extreme, it is not too hard to imagine a Government that must be repelled by its people. (As I said: I also have a hard time imagining this, but I am not so blind as to believe it couldn’t happen.)
And that is what the 2nd Amendment sought to protect (the well regulated militia is NOT the US Military)– an individual right, which is how some of us always saw it, but it wasn’t clarified till the Heller decision.
@ bannerchemical, by your comment I guess no one could “defeat” (I would use repel) the US Government, huh? If Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam has showed anything, it’s that all the nukes in the world do not guarantee a as swift a victory as you suggest.
@ hrhppg, that you seem to have such a clear understanding of the 2nd Amendment when it has been argued for decades shows me that you have no real understanding of any part of it.
Regardless, I know one thing: there will be another horrendous incident involving a crazy person (I view anyone who kills a bunch of folks going about their business, crazy), a gun, and some unsuspecting citizen. Nothing presented by Obama or Biden will stop that.
Oh, and what of the 240 folks killed in Chicago last year?
I know, let’s blame video games.
“Also, my Birmingham evocation was certainly NOT a call for self-defense, but rather showing that it is not too hard to find in American history an act of a “Tyrannical” Government. Sorry if that wasn’t clear..”
It still isn’t.
Hey Prof – Just a quick question : Were guns engaged by the populace of Egypt when they overthrew Mubarak ? Or in Poland during Solidarity ? Or in the former Czechoslovakia during the Velvet Revolution ??
No ?? Hmmmm …pop goes that arguement.
President Obama really has a lot of people worked up, what with winning re-election and then signing these executive orders. His most extreme foes are so twisted up like pretzels that they can’t decide if they want to impeach or secede. I prefer their secession idea, personally.
I agree with the good prof that another tragedy will occur because tragedies like the one in Newtown are indicative of the state of our society, not a byproduct of gun ownership or lack of gun control. What’s not available legally will be sold illegally. That being said, I hope I’m wrong because how many more of these horrific shootings–and other killings– can we stand?
Sad, too, that the laws are being enacted reactively rather than proactively?
It’s really more smoke and mirrors by Obama to respond to a national tragedy. The laws do nothing to remove guns from the streets. There are arsenals upon arsenals of assault weapons and ammo caches across the country just waiting to shoot up a mall, school, theater, church, train, etc. It will happen again, people will sound off for a month or two and go back to their lives.
Lock your doors and set the alarm.
Gun control does not equal crime control…unless you get guns out of the hands of gangs, but there is nothing on the slate dealing with that. Gang gun violence is a HUGE percentage of the number of murders.
I bet you a stick of gum that nothing statistically changes…except that law abiding citizens who just want to be left alone are further put upon by the nanny-state due to the anomalous massacre. Norway has some of the most stringent gun control laws on the planet, but yet 79 were murdered with handguns. No one even had a chance to defend themselves. They were easy marks. Apparently, that’s the way we like it. Dictators love it.
@eventhorizon:
“the anomalous massacre.”
—i think all of us wish this was anomalous, eventh—but it’s not.
“Norway has some of the most stringent gun control laws on the planet, but yet 79 were murdered with handguns.”
—so your logical gambit is to cite the statistics of a country with a gun related death rate 1/10 of ours as evidence that stringent gun laws don’t work? congrats! this unique combination of hubris and disdain for fact qualifies you for a seat in the House Republican Caucus!
5 people were killed in the state of NY with rifles in 2011, 5.
So true:
http://www.infowars.com/other-tyrants-who-have-used-children-as-props/
jerseygurl: I’d be more than happy to have actual terrorists blocked from gun ownership. No-fly lists, terror watch lists, these seem comforting in their protective-sounding names. But think hard about this. Someone is placed on these lists because they are perceived by the government as dangerous to the public. Wouldn’t it follow that such people have engaged in dangerous criminal activity, or while under investigation acted in dangerous conspiratorial behavior? Would not such people need to be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted of crimes? Why would people who fit a dangerous profile be allowed to remain free and at large?
Apart from that, there is zero openness as to the criteria for inclusion on these lists, and no procedure to have one’s name removed. Whatever you or anyone may think about any specific civil right, such as the right to arms, I think we can all agree that due process and fair application of the law must be adhered to. These secret process lists have no place in a free country, and are dangerous to whomever any current government might want to target secretly. I do not say this is happening here, today, now. But there needs to be clear legal means to clear a name off these lists, and no one, NO ONE, should be stripped of any civil right without due process.
The late Ted Kennedy was on the no-fly list.
I’m sure we will all feel much safer when only our militarized police (2nd responders, never 1st) and the military have weapons that can fire any sort of projectile. That’s the Valhalla for gun control advocates and criminals. Unless of course there is a “shoot on sight” order for anyone possessing a weapon outside of the Laws for Thee and Not for Me crowd. That’ll be a fun world to live in.
You got it, herb–, if your guy is in charge, and he makes his move, he’s a “strong leader”, and if the one you didn’t vote for makes his move, he’s a “Tyrant”…..I hear “King” and “Emperor” are also popular now…. I expect to see all those pictures of Obama on the web wearing a Kaffiyeh being replaced with one of him wearing the Crown of England and circa 1776 British royal gowns. You betcha!
props to herb for bringing us the infowars.com link!
i believe their brave reporting is the ONLY thing that has prevented the UN from invading Texas!
nothing funnier than a bushel of spoiled whiteboys screaming about “tyranny”…
@silverleaf:
“Unless of course there is a “shoot on sight” order for anyone possessing a weapon outside of the Laws for Thee and Not for Me crowd. That’ll be a fun world to live in.”
—I just heard that They just finished The Meeting, and it’s bad news—They are coming for you.
I suggest you double the tinfoil wrapped around your head and hide in the closet until further notice…
And you should put it where the sun don’t shine!
In the immortal words of Click and Clack, the Tappet Brothers, “Save the Skeet!”
I, too, was upset with the use of children as props for a photo op. I was also upset that right after the Newtown murders, almost all of the major networks were interviewing children on camera. Made me cringe.
jcunningham – At 9:27 AM, you’ve unfortunately attributed eventhorizen’s “Unless of course there is a “shoot on sight” order for anyone possessing a weapon outside of the Laws for Thee and Not for Me crowd. That’ll be a fun world to live in” quote to me. Seems you are so desperate to pull the trigger, pardon the pun, on making your point, that you can’t keep the players straight.
Now, this I would not object to so much except for the fact that I personally maintain a strong position on gun control and regulation. That in addition to your inane tinfoil remark!
You’ve done this before; a certain liability here in the blogosphere.
I’m joining the NRA.
Sign up, deadeye. With a screen name like that, you almost have to.
And then you can be a part of an organization that has done…. well, what exactly? Come back and tell us, please.
I’ve lived in this country for a very long time, become a citizen, raised a few children here and I love the USA. But I never feel so “other” than when I’m in one of these gun conversations. I just cannot understand why Americans are willing to accept this on-going slaughter in the name of an amendment which, to my mind, was never designed to permit or facilitate same. The rest of the world, at least that part of the world with laws and such, shakes its head at this. And that is not to say that Americans should give a damn, by the way. They can, should, and clearly do say so what? This is our culture, our history, our story, so butt out. People in other countries are not more just, moral, or righteous than Americans, and if they claim to be they are lying or delusional.
But, they are NOT willing to countenance such slaughter — self slaughter — in the name of some ill-defined “principle”. I travel often to states like Louisiana and Texas where the gun culture is very much in the ascendancy, and I respectfully disagree when talk takes this turn because I’m not going to change their minds, and they won’t change mine. But why this country feels as though its OK to turn on the news every 2 months or so to hear of another gun horror is baffling to me.
But hey, I’m still struggling to understand the infield fly rule, so what do I know?
Odd though, that the WH introduction of kids into the debate was opportunistic, but the NRA referencing the president’s children was not. Rien de nouveau.
Thank you cro, very well said. I am sure that your sentiments are welcomed by clear thinking readers here.
(Simply put, The Infield Fly Rule is invoked, with runners in scoring position, to prevent infielders from intentionally “dropping” a pop-up in order to turn a double play. In this case, the batter is automatically out and the runners can advance at their own risk.)
I don’t blame you for considering the cash outlay, deadeye. The NRA, at this point, is on it’s way to becoming as unpopular as the Tea Party House of Representatives. As a seasoned real estate man, you probably have solid experience in bottom fishing for distressed assets.
The spirit of the second amendment is to allow citizens to arm themselves with the same weapons that a foot soldier in our military has. It is to serve as a defense or a deterrent to a potentially tyrannical government. It is to make a ground war or a guerialla war between the government and the citizens fair. Now I don’t think it would be appropriate for citizens to own anti aircraft shoulder fired stinger missiles, but Im ok with an AR-15.
When framing this debate, appropriate attention should be paid to several extremely important issues; for example, enforcement of existing laws and our wretched policy of dealing with the mentally ill. The existing policy of mainstreaming individuals with psychotic tendencies, and denying those individuals proper psychiatric intervention plays a large role in senseless deaths and acts of violence, both gun related and not. How many people have been pushed in front of subways in past few weeks alone? The core issue is mental illness and our society’s schizophrenic way of dealing with it in such a way that both protects the interests of the mentally ill, and society at large. At present, society is suffering mightily from this unquestionably failed policy.
Stayhyphy is absolutely correct. I can’t help but conclude that several posters on this site would have benefitted from having taken some history classes in college…taught by professors that value critical thinking over dogma alone. They used to be out there.
The radical fringe of the NRA should be institutionalized.
Sidwell Friends School employes ELEVEN ARMED GUARDS on a full time basis, and unrelated to the private armed security detail appropriately provided to the president’s children. Granted, the children of many diplomats attend this exclusive private school, but the realization that these children may need to be protected by such measures while ordinary schools take a diametrically opposite view is why certain news outlets brought this up. It’s a double standard, plain and simple. Every child of every politician has armed security at taxpayer expense, and children of corporate executives, and others, that may be targets of kidnappers are routinely protected by security details. This has ZERO to do with our gun laws in their current form. It’s a reflection that the world is a dangerous place.
PAZ, The same is true for just about any “radical fringe.”
When I was 13 years old (1970), I attended a summer camp in PA that offered, alongside softball, swimming and arts & crafts, lessons in target shooting. And yes, I signed up for it and still have my Pro-Marksman certificate. I can’t imagine a camp today (at least in our area) offering such an activity without people getting into a tizzy. It was no big deal, you learned how to shoot at a paper target, you learned hand-eye coordination, you learned patience (it took a few lessons to learn how to shoot a perfect bull’s eye), and gained some self-confidence from learning a new skill. My family was proud of me, just as proud of me for winning awards in swimming or other sports. Upon returning home from camp, I didn’t harbor any desire to get a rifle and harm anyone or anything. And neither did my bunk mates.
I don’t know how we got from “there to here.” I have some theories, as do many people. In the U.S., we’ve always had guns and access to guns but we never had the number of spree/mass shootings as we have today. There is an “x” factor that needs to be explored as to what’s different today than from years past.
That being said, I am bothered by the knee-jerk reaction to ban guns as a solution. This was a hasty decision fueled by emotion. Some of you don’t like the Second Amendment. The Constitution, however, is not like a bruised banana, where you can merely cut away the parts you don’t like. This is a complicated issue that deserves some intelligent thought discourse, from both sides of the issue.
deadeye – State run psychiatric institutions do not work. Willowbrook proved that. Pilgrim State proved that. Overbrook, right here in out own back yard, proved that. The institutionalization of the mentally ill was a panacea. Tens if not hundreds of thousands died of abuse and neglect “warehoused” in those horrible places. The more humane and practical way of dealing with this is through more accurate diagnosis and evaluation, out patient treatment, prudent distribution of medication, and a more behavioral based approach.
For some, the idea of “out of sight, out of mind” works. I for one, am not one of them. But the again the story here is gun control, not mental health care, which you it seems turned it into.
The president’s children, along with the President and his wife, need exceptional protection, deadeye, and for a myriad of reasons. The “double standard” of which you speak is entirely appropriate here, and I support it 100%. I never felt for one moment that my kids needed the twisted NRA fantasy of an armed camp around their schools or playgrounds when they were growing up and attending Montclair schools. As soon as Obama was elected President, membership in domestic American hate groups went off the charts, as did gun sales. I was not alone in fearing for our President’s life or the life of anyone in his family.
MM,
“In the U.S., we’ve always had guns and access to guns but we never had the number of spree/mass shootings as we have today”
I’m not so sure about that.
An interesting one in 1950.
April 9, 1952: New York City, New York A 15-year-old boarding school student shot a dean rather than relinquish pin-up pictures of girls in bathing suits
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States
You can’t “cut away” the parts you don’t like?
Who says so?
There is a process whereby that most certainly can happen. And we have put amendments in and taken them out over the course of our history. It was not designed to be easy, and it should not be. But it most certainly can be done and often should be done. If there were no 13th amendment, slavery would still be OK. The Volstead Act comes to mind as well. It is absurd to suggest that the amendment cannot be repealed, altered, or even expanded upon if the people so desire.
Herb: I didn’t say we didn’t have them, just not as many. Today, on a weekly basis, we’re hearing about these types of shootings in schools, the workplace, and public places.
Read it again Spiro. I said “protection to which they are entitled.” The point is that the school has 11 armed guards on permanent staff. The parents like it that way. These children of “important people” are no more important than any child in any school in my opinion. That’s my point.
Silverleaf, By no stretch of the imagination did I hijack the thread by introducing the subject of mental health. Arguably the impulse to commit mass murder has about a 1 to 1 positive correlation to mental health issues. Ergo, the relevance. Furthermore there is a broad spectrum between “warehousing” the mentally unstable and proactively treating them. Currently we seem to let many arguably unstable individuals with treatable illnesses make their own decisions about whether and when to take their anti-psychotic medications, and that’s not good. Is it? My thoughts here immediately jump to how totalitarian regimes routinely warehoused political dissidents in mental institutions to conveniently deter any inconvenient thoughts or behaviors. For the record in a believer in debate and the expression of iconoclastic thought. Thats why I often express it here. It’s called debate.
The spirit of the second amendment is to allow citizens to arm themselves with the same weapons that a foot soldier in our military has.
While a deterrant in the 18th century, the idea of opposing a modern army is laughable. Unless you are issuing yourself anti-drone weapons, it will be over very quickly.
And let’s certainly make sure there are trained, armed guards in our schools. Oh, and also in our movie theaters. And in our fast food restaurants, our places of businesses, etc.
The NRA wants the wild west because their constituency (that is, the gun manufacturers) make out like bandits.
Deadeye has it exactly right!! The issue is mental health. During a discussion of gun control on NPR I heard that there are more deaths by beatings than guns in the US. Does anyone care about that? The horror of mass murder by guns claims the headlines while the cause of this madness is barely discussed.
It’s all so simple for you, Mike. These are the good guys, these are the bad guys. Government will always take care of us and knows what’s best. La, la, la… Talk to someone that had to haul ass out of Europe or Russia a few decades ago, or just about anyone in this country that has escaped a repressive regime. Things can go bad in a hurry, even here.
No, the issue is not mental health. It is access to guns.
Do you really believe that only America has mentally ill people? I don’t believe that they are here in any greater proportion to the general population than is the case anywhere else.
The difference is that here, they can get guns.
Things can go bad in a hurry, even here.
They sure can. However, two things: what are the chances? Does the liklihood of a repressive regime outweigh the current predictament? No.
Secondly, its just an undeniable truth that a repressive regime would win. I’m sorry its not the 18th century anymore, but them’s the breaks.
There’s also a tinge of death-wish fantasy I see in all these guys swearing that the government will take their guns from their cold dead hands. More than a little disgusting, actually.
I beg to disagree cro. Or perhaps I’ll say the issue SHOULD be mental health. I sincerely believe that laws will not prevent evil. Education and better mental health care may! My marksmanship days are over, but like Mrs. M I started target shooting in my youth and enjoyed a few years on a team. It was fun. I learned to respect the rifle and although I never had an interest in ownership I understand the activity.
Yes, deadeye, I read your post again. In any society, including our own, some need protection more than others, especially public officials targeted by hateful people. This is not only because of mentally unbalanced people, but also because of political enemies bent on murder or assassination. The president and his family never seem to run short of people who despise them to the point of considering the use of a gun, including people who have no mental health issues at all.
“While a deterrant in the 18th century, the idea of opposing a modern army is laughable. Unless you are issuing yourself anti-drone weapons, it will be over very quickly”
You are ignorant, naive or both. Why couldn’t we win in Vietnam? Why will we never win in Afghanistan? When forced to fight a guerilla war or urban war the field is pretty level if foot soldiers on both sides have the same weapons. The government can bomb the country to hell but that won’t win a ground war.
“They sure can. However, two things: what are the chances? Does the liklihood of a repressive regime outweigh the current predictament? No.”
The US nor any country in peaceful domestic times can predict when and how revolution will occur, whether govt will become tyrannical, etc. The writers of the constitution knew this. Your dismissal of this possibility is so incredibly short sighted.
The US nor any country in peaceful domestic times can predict when and how revolution will occur, whether govt will become tyrannical, etc.
But what are the chances? Do they outweigh the certainty that these weapons will be used to kill innocent people?
. Your dismissal of this possibility is so incredibly short sighted.
And the proponents of this justification for these weapons borders on paranoia.
“But what are the chances? Do they outweigh the certainty that these weapons will be used to kill innocent people? ”
Right now the chances are low, that is not the point. The chances will be low right up until the point that it actually happens. This is reason alone to not ban semi automatic assault weapons.
We’ve tried it before right? Did it stop Dylan Klebold from lighting up Columbine with a TEC-9?? Was there less mass shootings over that 10 year period?
There is more we can do for sure and we should take every measure possible while at the same time protecting the 2nd amendment and the purpose its drafters intended.
The issue is not mental health. The issue is the ability for someone with a mental health issue to have access to weapons that can rapidly kill a large number of people in a short period of time. There is a commonality to the pathology in many of these mass shootings. An alienated and angry young man who literally wants to make his mark by going out in a blaze of glory. There is no amount of legislation or access to proper care that will eliminate or prevent mental illness.
But legislation preventing the purchase of the type of weapon that glorifies this kind of behavior by issuing a “man card” with each Bushmaster purchase will at least prevent mass killings. The overwhelming majority of these boys would never dream of going into a classroom or theatre or public space with a knife or a pistol in hand. So why do we continue do give them the means to do this over and over again? If Walmart sold suicide bomber jackets would that be okay too?
“Your dismissal of this possibility is so incredibly short sighted.”
—perhaps. alternately, your embrace of this possibility is incredibly paranoid and demented. perhaps.
Dictators can’t stand an armed populous.
“Dictators can’t stand an armed populous.” (SIC).
Yet they love an illiterate one!
“The chances will be low right up until it actually happens”????
What are you talking about? Can you provide an example of a country with a rich democratic tradition, enshrined rights, and guaranteed redress of grievances that has been suddenly, unexpectedly wrenched into dictatorship?
Vietnam? Afghanistan? So you’re suggesting that America’s inability to “win” a ground war in countries thousands of miles away is proof that an armed citizenry would be able to hold off that American military here at home because they’d have the “same weapons”. This is laughable.
Let’s make certain that private citizens can purchase drones, Black Hawk helicopters, guided missile frigates and F15 fighters so that the field can really be leveled and the people will have a chance.
This is really some of the most staggeringly stupid stuff I’ve seen in quite some time.
The jewish/non-aryan population of NAZI Germany were pretty convinced things were under control too, until they weren’t…
The middle class citizens of Venezuela in the 80′s were pretty sure that their livelihoods and property were safe also, given the relative political stability.
Government can become tyrannical. It happens where people’s guard has been lowered. To think that it can’t happen here is beyond naive.
As the famous philospher Woody Allen once said: “Not all paranoid people are crazy, some are just perceptive.”
deadeye, the Nazi Germany example is completely bogus.
Gun control laws in Germany were actually relaxed by the Nazis. They had been quite strict prior to the Nazis taking power, having been put into place by the Allies in 1919 in an effort to prevent the Germans from becoming a threat to their neighbors once again. And of course, Germany as a unified nation was 70 years old when the Nazis came to power, and during that time had no tradition of democracy or guaranteed citizens rights.
Venezuela? Really? “relative political stability” indeed, perhaps compared to Bolivia or Brazil. But again, no democratic tradition.
These are 2 awful examples. Try to do better.
As for Woody, he had Owen Wilson say “only a demented lunatic could become a Republican” in MIDNIGHT IN PARIS.
deadeye, please flesh out your theory a bit further. If you think we are heading to a day where a clear parallel between the Future America and Nazi Germany is now possible, what are your thoughts on the following?
___
1. After President Obama gets sworn in, with his hand on the late Martin Luther King’s personal Bible, and proceeds to “take our guns away” what will he do next?
2. Who will he decree to be the new Master Race?
3. Which neighboring country will he invade? Then which one?
4. Which American store windows and houses of worship will his associates smash and burn on the next Kristallnacht?
5. And, finally, who will he exterminate?
___
I trust you gave your theory some thought before you depreciated the tragic history of the families who lost loved ones to the Third Reich.
He is “exterminating” us financially.
@mrsmartta:
“He is “exterminating” us financially.”
—oh stop it.
does it make you feel better to presume the nation’s ills are the result of one man? does it make you feel smart and empowered to have discovered the single source for all our ills?
how embarrassing for you.
LOL…no, not one man. He has his supporters and enablers. And no, I don’t feel special or smarter knowing this, just filled with despair.
Clayton Cramer wrote a book titled, Firing Back. In it he said “if the population of Eastern Europe were as well armed as the average American, the Nazis would have lost much of their military capacity attempting to implement the Holocaust.” The White Russians and Chinese were all (mostly) disarmed before they were hunted down and arrested as well.
@ sheepy
But that could never happen here! We live Montclair. We have yoga studios, a Whole Foods, restaurants, diversity…..though when the power went out for a week and the gas lines grew I have to admit it was the first time in my life I felt a gun may not be a bad idea. Imagine if the food supply was disrupted. Only took a week for the ever so evolved people of Montclair to get on edge.
Clayton Cramer?!! Oh well then, never mind!
Eastern Europe, of course, had a long tradition of democracy, redress of grievances, and codified citizens rights. As did China and Russia.
Oh wait, you mean that they didn’t? Well then.
This pathetic attempt to suggest that reasonable restrictions on gun ownership in the United States will lead to an unarmed populace being enslaved by a tyrannical government is utter nonsense, and indicative of minds that are quite frankly unhinged.
I agree with Cro. I’m actually much more worried about the insanity of some of these comments – are these gun owners?- than I am about the possibility of either a military coup or an attempt on the part of our government to – what – take over the country that is already theirs? It’s crazy talk. My family is from Eastern Europe, I was actually in Prague when the tanks rolled in there because the government became a little too liberal for the Communists.
King Obama is not a man of his word, he is changing the Constitution by executive order. If every one of his 23 new proposals were reasonable they would not have to be shoved down our throats by executive order. To think that “an unarmed populace being enslaved by a tyrannical government is utter nonsense, and indicative of minds that are quite frankly unhinged.” is to have your head up your A. We’ve had revolution, slavery, prohibition, civil war, womens rights, minority rights, etc. but you think that a tyrannical take over of our government is impossible. Take a break from B-net for just a day and crack a history book.
Oy….Sheepy, you got your head up your rectum so far….when you yawn you see….daylight.
This is getting to be a very silly debate, and it’s also full of posts by folks who seemingly know nothing about history. One example is the claim that “the White Russians were disarmed.” By whom? In fact, the White Russians raised several armies which fought a long, bloody civil war for some years before finally surrendering. (Most of it was fought far to the west of Moscow, even partly in Siberia. The US even sent its own troops to intervene, after a fashion.)
And who, also, were the Chinese disarmed by? Chiang Kai-Shek? Actually, the Japanese faced significant armed opposition to their, uh, “intervention” in China, resistance which lasted something like 15 years, until the actual formal end of WWII in the Pacific theater. It may not have been militarily effective opposition from either the warlords or the Communists (who were much more interested in eliminating their domestic enemies than in ousting the Japanese Imperial Army and Navy), but it existed.
Also, while I like just about every poster above admittedly know very little about domestic policy in Germany from 1933-45, I do know (apparently unlike most posters) that most Germans were very much enamored of hunting. The evidence for this is very clear, and I’ll cite Richard Grunberger’s “The 12-Year Reich” as one such detailed source. Whereas German Jews, largely residing in urban areas, very rarely had any such interest. Or even access to hunting preserves.
The attempt to make gun ownership sound as it’s some sort of bulwark against the rise of ‘tyranny” in these United States is very stupid indeed. (Wherever one stands on gun control.) Merely inflammatory rhetoric, and it is far more febrile a reaction to relatively modest proposals for firearms regulation than I’d expect even from Ron Paul on a particularly intemperate day. Really, people who make such assertions (without even the benefit of having read Sinclair Lewis’s “It Can’t Happen Here”) sound wild-eyed. And will only, ESPECIALLY on a haplessly and predictably liberal-leaning site like this one, further besmirch the conservative cause and arguments for it.
Grow up, guys. Or, maybe better, join the reserves of one or another service branch.
Good God almighty, a well-written and on-target post from cathar! Well, you know what they say about a broken clock.
Sheepy, on the other hand, sounds like he/she is ready for the rubber room. “King” Obama is changing the Constitution? How? Executive orders are unconstitutional? Since when? Were they not issued in earlier administrations? I seem to remember dozens over the years. Were those unconstitutional as well?
And actually I’d have to hedge my bet a bit as to whether a tyrannical takeover of the government is possible, for I am certain that if the likes of sheepy ever come to power it is in fact a certainty.
Sheepy, executive orders were extremely popular with the “small government pro business” 1920′s Republican trio of Harding, Coolidge and Hoover. Even the Blessed St. Ronnie of Reagan signed them. What a nasty bunch of anti-Constitutionalists! Are you mad at them too? And, yes, I agree with croi—-cathar is spot on in this debate, even if he couldn’t help himself when the urge arose to swipe at Baristanet’s left-leaning bias overtook his heart. Considering that Baristanet is slowly becoming a right-wing echo chamber for locals who don’t quite fit into the overriding political climate in this cluster of towns ( hello cathar, MM, Nellie, deadeye, prof, sheepy, algb, DagT, etc – and herb!) Baristanet is an odd target to for our local expert on the Crusades, Muftis and Malta, especially since he has been posting here for years, uncensored. Divine love to you anyway, cathar. You and I may not always agree, but you are intelligent and articulate, despite the occasional darkness in your soul.
@sheepy:
the proof of your now-dangerous paranoia is the fact that President Obama is not proposing to take away your rifles and handguns.
you are essentially arguing that you CANNOT POSSIBLY battle tyranny (read: the black president) without assault weapons and a 30 round clip.
you are essentially arguing that the current rate of mass murder in this country is an acceptable price to pay for your bulwark against tyranny (read: the black president).
our somehow endangered (read: the black president) republic survived the first assault weapons ban—I’m confident we’ll be just fine this time around—see, that’s reading history…
If you wish to damn with faint enough praise, Spiro, start with your own daily pitiful attempts at jocularity. They really are lame in the extreme for the most part.
Also, sod you re your remark that this site is becoming “a right-wing echo chamber.” What an appallingly stupid, resentful thing to post. Who decreed that this site is to solely represent local liberalism at its most turbid? That there may be an “overriding political climate” on this site (I doubt it holds so in area towns) does not perforce make this climate attractive to anyone of good sense and intellectual openness.
“Resentful” my ass!
It is YOU who constantly whinges about the liberal bias of the site, the liberal ethos in Montclair, BlueWave NJ, etc. etc. Who decreed that YOU should decide which point of view gets play?
As Spiro said, for all of your crying, there are easily as many posters who identify as conservatives as there are who identify as liberals.
So stop the wallow in self-pity and the imaginary persecution. It is ridiculous.
Spiro, I will respond point by point in time. Meanwhile, don’t be an a-hole, specifically regarding your comment about “deprecating the memories of those who lost loved one’s to the third reich.” Both sides of my family were in Europe during the war, and I lost family members to both the Germans and the Russians. So F you.
If you lost family to the Nazis, deadeye, shame on you for even bringing up parallels between gun control in the USA and the German crematoria.
Just stop it. I never mentioned “crematoria.” Jews weren’t the only ones killed in WWII. My family hails from where some of the worst fighting of the war took place. Your statement is just plain idiotic. I’m done with this thread.
deadeye, you of course know that it was you who brought gratuitous Nazi/Aryan parallels into a thread about American gun regulations. If you wish resort to name calling, and then have a tantrum and storm away, at least admit to yourself that this is a mess of your own creation.
It’s appalling that so many people believe its fine to use Nazi Germany as an example of what could happen here. The same people used images of dead bodies to thwart the efforts of the president when he was attempting to get health insurance reform legislation passed. And Republican senators stood in front of those images, along with signs of Obama with a Hitler mustache and spoke to audiences as though this is a perfectly acceptable way to portray our leaders and a democratic legislative process. It’s really disturbing and quite disgusting that we have a party beholden to a group that panders to white supremacists and survivalists rather than having an honest dialogue to confront something that is literally killing us.
It could happen here is actually happening here-we live in fear of going into public spaces not because the government is going to come rolling into towns on tanks but because we have given the power to a small portion of the population to control the dialogue on gun violence.
Appalling, disgusting, bah, blah, blah, bah. Read some history, then you can take off your dunce cap.
deadeye….The problem with reading history is the way humans rework it for their own satisfaction. We are doomed to repeat & repeat & repeat. Close those God forsaken books and deal with peaceful solutions.
But that can’t happen….Homo Sapien is the latest violent state of evolution with nothing more promising to come.
When you are forced to dig your own grave by other humans, nothing more can be said. God should bless my ancestors for getting me this far but now I live a perplexed life. We have been forced into believing that might makes right. I for one, spit on that worded dreck and will go on putting my flower into the gun barrel of life.
PAZout
@jcunningham, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbNIU2KEz4g. The only reason to bring up King Obama’s race is if it matters to you, making you a rascist.
Gee, one only has to get 53 seconds into this dog’s breakfast of a spiel to hear this clown talk about Hitlet being elected in Austria-Hungary!
I don’t know what’s more disturbing — the dopes who spout this tripe or the dolts who listen.
Gee, it took less than 6 mins to respond to a post of a video that took 6 mins to watch!
Obsess much?
Hitler was elected by 98% of Austria Hungary? Oh boy. Someone needs to read up on the SS and the SA and how Hitler along with an armed para-military manipulated a shaky political situation. Here’s a group that should never have been armed. There’s some more crazy talk going on here!
Private Jewish citizens should have been armed. Like me.
Sorry, sheep, unless the Jews had massive quantities of antitank and antiaircraft weapons in the Warsaw Ghetto or elsewhere, their attempt at resistance may have prolonged their battle for a day or so, but their efforts still would have been completely futile against the might of the German army.
Same is true here. In any case, the parallel is a false one, since no one in our government has yet to suggest they plan on the mass ghettoization and extermination of detested minorities in our population on account of their alleged business practices or their alleged inferior genetics ( the primary reasons that the Jews were targeted in Europe). To the contrary, this kind of paranoid talk is, instead, found in the same tiny collection of hateful and deranged American fringe groups who love their guns and despise the Jews, and also despise our President.
Hey Spiro, could you please tell me more about how ineffectual the the Jewish fighters in the ghettos were? After all they only had a few small arms and IED’s.
With over 12,000 Jews killed as against less than 20 German soldiers, I’d say it was pretty ineffectual, sheep.
Inspiring, yes. Effectual in terms of halting the “cleansing” of the ghetto? No.
And of course sheep one needn’t watch the rest of your hysterical video, when within the first minute the “teacher” misidentifies the country and botches the facts.
I’m sure YOU have time for such nonsense, but the rest of us do not.
Yes sheepy, it is well documented that they fought valiantly, but, unfortunately, all these innocent families were crushed by the Nazis, killed on the spot, or taken off to die. This would have happened even if they were more heavily armed. They didn’t have planes, and they didn’t have tanks. It took very powerful, heavily equipped allied armies to destroy Germany, and it took years. And, you would have to agree, If not for the American army liberating the death camps, it is likely that pretty much every Jew in Europe would have been systematically destroyed in the name of the hate-filled Aryan vision of cultural and genetic superiority.
Warsaw Ghetto: By 1943, the ghetto residents had organized an army of about 1,000 fighters, mostly unarmed and without equipment. They were joined by thousands of others, mostly the young and able-bodied, still needed for forced labor. By that time, the half-million original inhabitants had been depleted to about 60,000 as a result of starvation, disease, cold, and deportation.
In January 1943, the S.S. entered the ghetto to round up more Jews for shipment to the death camps. They were met by a volley of bombs, Molotov cocktails, and the bullets from a few firearms which had been smuggled into the ghettos. Twenty S.S. soldiers were killed. The action encouraged a few members of the Polish resistance to support the uprising, and a few machine guns, some hand grenades, and about a hundred rifles and revolvers were smuggled in.
Facing them were almost 3,000 crack German troops with 7,000 reinforcements available. Tanks and heavy artillery surrounded the ghetto. General Heinrich Himmler promised Adolf Hitler that the uprising would be quelled in three days, and the ghetto would be destroyed. It took four weeks. The ghetto was reduced to rubble following bomber attacks, gas attacks, and burning of every structure by the Nazis. Fifteen thousand Jews died in the battle, and most of the survivors were shipped to the death camps. Scores of German soldiers were killed. Some historical accounts report that 300 Germans were killed and 1,000 wounded, although the actual figure is unknown.
From the jewishvirtuallibrary.org.
Between 1941 and 1943, underground resistance movements developed in approximately 100 ghettos in Nazi-occupied eastern Europe (about one-fourth of all ghettos), especially in Poland, Lithuania, Belorussia, and the Ukraine. Their main goals were to organize uprisings, break out of the ghettos, and join partisan units in the fight against the Germans.
Croi, you do realize that there was more than ONE ghetto that resisted don’t you?
All the other nonsense aside, should someone tell Sheepy that Austria Hungary collapsed in 1918? And that Germany was not part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire?
Sheepy, you are tragically uninformed.
Even if the figure of 300 dead Germans is accurate (it is not), that means 300 Germans dead and 15,000 Jews. Not good odds.
“Underground resistance movements” existed from 1939 onwards. As the war began to go badly for Germany, the numbers of resistors grew. Odd that you think that these resistors, with their shotguns and single-action rifles, could crush a German army that had rolled over the heavily-armed and trained army of France, decimated the Polish military, and pushed the Russians all the way to the gates of Moscow.
Ah but Stash and his comrade Zvi would get the job done, right?
You’d do better to lay off the history, since you clearly don’t know any, and try to find an argument that has some relevance to today’s issue of gun control.
“Odd that you think that these resistors, with their shotguns and single-action rifles, could crush a German army that had rolled over the heavily-armed and trained army of France, decimated the Polish military, and pushed the Russians all the way to the gates of Moscow”
Who the hell said that? Croi, now you’re just putting words in my mouth, I never said or implied any of that. Be honest.
The gun control of today is just one of the baby steps towards an America that’s not democratic in the near furure.
You most certainly did say that, sheepy, when you cited the moronic quote from Clayton Cramer vis a vis the holocaust. If you’ve forgotten, its only up the queue a tad.
And gun control today is absolutely not a step towards a less democratic America. Insistence on maintaining a system that puts many people at risk all in the name of a rather pathetic need to flash guns about is, though.
Take cathar’s advice and join the military. They’ll give you a gun AND let you shoot it.
Clayton Cramer wrote a book titled, Firing Back. In it he said “if the population of Eastern Europe were as well armed as the average American, the Nazis would have lost much of their military capacity attempting to implement the Holocaust.”
There is the quote. Again.
“Odd that you think that these resistors, with their shotguns and single-action rifles, could crush a German army that had rolled over the heavily-armed and trained army of France, decimated the Polish military, and pushed the Russians all the way to the gates of Moscow”
This is what you think it means. Really?
BTW, the 2nd Amendment is not a “pathetic need to flash guns”.
Sheepy, there were many (and I do mean many) assassination attempts against the Fuehrer both before his accession to power and during the 12 years his Reich held sway. (The 20 July plotters were simply the best known such effort.) All, however, were obviously unsuccessful. Alas. Any good basic bio of Hitler (Joachim Fest’s, for example) will list them and the reasons each failed.
But it nonetheless might help you to realize how many Germans, for a variety of reasons both personal and political, tried. And to put things in context. Most serious historians, by the way, put no real stock in the effects of ANY Resistance efforts during WWII as anything other than a mere nuisance. (Some mild exception is made for Russian partisan bands, and for the very different formations Tito mustered.) And when the French Resistance was finally able to bring large, well armed forces to bear against German forces already hard-pressed by Allied armies in southern France, they were nonetheless whipped brutally and effectively.
Re my remarks above, sheepy: Clayton Cramer is a seriously mistaken man. And no sort of historian.
It is a good thing sheepy, I suppose, that my revered old da has passed on, for if he still walked the earth he’d doubtless chastise me (as he often did) for engaging in an argument with a fool.
If I saw you jabbering in the mirror Croi, I would chastise you too.
Hey cathar, what kind of Gollum / Smeagol thing do you and Croi have going on?
(Yawn)……
BTW, the 2nd Amendment is not a “pathetic need to flash guns”.
No sheepy it’s a way to legally kill people and animals
Sheepy, here’s another book you might wish to dip into, along with any other fools out there who actually believe that a rifle or two in every split-level, Colonial or condo will somehow protect us from “tyranny”: “The very well-known “The Social History Of The Machine Gun,” which makes abundantly clear the great differences between military forces and home gun owners, and how and why the latter never stand even the slightest chance against the former.
The Gollum/Smeagol thing was quite beneath you.
Bill Bratton offered his thoughts on firearms violence in the Wall Street Journal. He has headed police agencies in Los Angeles and Boston as well as NYC.
– Limiting weapons going forward won’t do much about the 350 million weapons in circulation, including the tens of thousands flying off the shelves now.
– Low capacity or no clips are better. The takedown is faster when a shooter needs to reload, replace the clip, or switch weapons.
– Few areas have serious penalties for non-fatal gun incidents. Bratton believes any incident involving a gun requires substantial jail time. Enough that the certainty of punishment impacts the perception by malefactors. In places like Chicago, it’s tough to get jail time for “minor” weapons crimes, he says.
– Police need to be able to get guns off the streets, and out of vehicles. Stop and frisk in high crime areas is one way to take weapons and people with outstanding warrants off the street. Go where the weapons are out in the open.
—————
– One commentator on NPR mentioned last night that weapons and clips should be treated like vehicles. There should be a bill of sale which goes with the weapon’s or clip’s #. You and the seller go to a gun dealer and fill out the paperwork to transfer the title, and do the background check. There should be regular qualification on the weapon. Just like police or pilots have required time on the range or yoke.
@ pat gilleran, great point!
That cathar/croi, Spiro T. Quayle, jcunningham, SPAZ and jerseygirl are all on the same page as you, says it all.
Thank you for making it all so clear.
I know that posters value their privacy, and that it is bad form to “out” others here.
Nevertheless, I am going to out our intrepid 2nd amendment defender sheepy. I don’t feel so bad doing it, since the national media has already done so.
Well, here he is: http://www.theonion.com/articles/62yearold-with-gun-only-one-standing-between-natio,30984/
Ah, Sheepdip, that’s Mr. SPAZ to you.
It’s only fair cathcroi.
We’ve a hard time telling the difference between a bog trodding knacker with an unhealthy obsession and a character from a children’s story.
I would expect ethic insults from one as intellectually limited as you appear to be, sheepy old son, but DO try to be accurate in your choices.
Its “bogtrotter”, not “bog trodder”.
I thought this was Sheepy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xviQfzJ7S3I
Good one MM.
cathcroi, I wrote “bog trodding”. It must be the mote in your eye.
Ah well you see, its the use of the “d” rather than the “t” that is the issue, you see. You really are a bit of a thick one, aren’t you?
But no matter! I’ll look forward to your next round of ethnic slurs. A finely honed bigotry coupled with a love of guns is truly a comforting prospect for all.
@cathcroi. Ah well you see, we’re just anonymous posters, you see. So you see, there is really no need to take such offense, you see. You really are a bit of a thin-skinned one, aren’t you?
BTW, you should let the cathar half out more, he is a MUCH better poster than the croi whinger.
I thought it was Wade Boggs.
I think Wade Boggs and Danny Bonaduce were separated at birth.
I’m not offended in the least, sheepy! In fact, I’ve been very much amused watching your hilarious video about Austria-Hungary and reading your uproarious posts about Clayton Cramer! Usually, one has to drive around and dial in Sean Hannity to hear such wonderful bunk, but its cold outside and gas is expensive so far better to get my regular dose of claptrap right here — for free! So, thanks!
As for cathar, I’ll see if he’s still in here with us, Father Karras.
croi revealed, see. http://attaboy.tommydoc.net/?p=1602 It’s not right, see.
Perhaps I just missed it, sheepy, but are you in fact a firearms owner? And if so, what kind?
If so too, are you an NRA member? I’m none of those things but I was in the Army and qualified on every “gun” I could lay my hands on and gladly requalified yearly. They’re fun to shoot off, no debate there. (A friend worked for the importer of the UZI and the Galil, we used to go to the corporate facility and literally fire off hundreds and hundreds of rounds per afternoon, albeit never very accurately with the UZI in all its configurations.) But I also support gun control and I lose no sleep over the advance of “tyranny” in these United States even though I’m still a registered Republican. I also believe there are way too many unlicensed firearms out there, due in large part to the gutting of ATF during the 70′s (and, later on, total screw-ups like Obama’s guy Eric Holder), and it’s far too easy for obvious loons to get hold of legal ones without at least some semblance of background checks.
It’s as simple as that.
Oh, and I don’t mourn the demise of the Austro-Hungarian “empire” (even if I do happen to think that the defeat of Islam at the Siege of Vienna in 1683 happened to save Western civilization.)
I joined the NRA just now before posting here. It took less than 3 mins and they accept paypal. Of course I have guns, all types, my fav is the Mossberg semi auto shotgun. It’s a hoot to shoot skeet with(I keep it plugged for only 2 rounds though, it’s the law). I currently don’t store the guns in my home but that is about to change.
There are background checks needed to buy guns in NJ. It’s a States Rights issue and should remain so. Try to legally buy a gun in this state and you’ll get educated.
While I don’t miss the Austro-Hungarian empire, it was no more anti Semetic than most of Europe in it’s time.
@cathcroi, your UZI takes all of the guess work out of duck hunting.
“I currently don’t store the guns in my home but that is about to change.”
Wherever you store them, I hope they are locked up and secured away from children and teenagers.
… and the mentally ill.
They’ll be on a high shelf away from curious crois’ little hands. Both problems solved.
One word : Paranoia
One word : Paranoia
Also, not smart. Keeping a gun in your home increases your chances of dying from both homicide and from suicide. Chances of dying from a tyrannical government however were not studied, but remain at zero.
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full
Paranoia is a pathology and thus can be considered a form of mental illness so…
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you’re always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away
I completely agree that our government becoming tyrannical as it stands today is a super unlikely event. 4 sigma? 8 sigma? Similar unlikely events have happened throughout history. They are not predictable. It is not paranoia to simply acknowledge the fact that however super super small the odds are, it can in fact happen.
Why would you not consider it paranoia for one to be worried about the possibility of gun death? Approx 13k people last year died from gun deaths out of our 300MM+ population. After controlling for how many were random crimes committed using assault weapons I think you would find that any random person’s odds of being killed by an assault weapon in any year are also so small ( < .001%) suggesting that worrying about it constitures paranoia.
Finally in the 10 years where we had the assault weapons ban, were the stats different?
“I think you would find that any random person’s odds of being killed by an assault weapon in any year are also so small ( < .001%) suggesting that worrying about it constitures paranoia…"
Just ask the poor surviving families of VA Tech, Columbine, Aurora, and Sandy Hook…all savaged by assault weapons.
Now,while the overall odds of being killed by such a weapon is, as you say, "small", the fact remains that assault weapons were used in all instances. It's time to do something.
johnqp Im simply pointing out that both events (tyrannical govt vs random gun death) are 3 sigma+, however one side is called “paranoid” when contemplating tyrannical government while the other side is “rightfully concerned” ….
Actually, the word “crazy” might a better descriptive (vs.paranoid) for some of the louder and angrier “2nd Amendment ” voices.
Actually, the word “frightening” might a better descriptive (vs.paranoid) for some of the louder and angrier “2nd Amendment ” voices.
Ahh …why sugarcoat it – some are are both frightening and crazy.
Well, since there were “only” 35,000 or so deaths from auto accidents in the US out of a population of 300+ millions, I suppose it is paranoid to insist on speed limits and passenger restraints and the like.
I mean after all, you’re probably going to be OK.
Cro – That’s very “3 sigma-ish” of you ….
Wow Cro, I think you are coming around. Of course its not “paranoid” the same way it is not paranoid to be afraid of gun deaths and the same way it is not paranoid to understand that while the chances are incredibly small it is not impossible for a government to become tyrannical.
Again, this is all tail risk. Gun control is a balancing game, I think we found the right spot with respect to the actual guns one can currently legally own. We now need to get smarter about other ways of regulating guns and protecting ourselves.
stay, I’m afraid that as usual, you’re clueless.
While I’m sure everyone is as awed by your sigma 3 nonsense, just as they were by your earlier explanation of the financial system, the fact is that trying to make any type of comparison between fear of a government takeover in America and gun violence in the country is absurd.
But I am sure that you have some sort of Formula 409, secret herbs and spices rationale. And I’m equally sure that, like or not, we’ll hear it. Rave on, by all means.
Sigma 3….or how to survive on a dead planet.
Does this have anything to do with Sikma #43 ? Jack Sikma that is.
No herb, it does not. It IS, however, related to the Sweetheart Of Sigma Chi.
It seems that there were no assault weapons used at Sandy Hook. I expect media silence about that little fact because it would interfere with the anti 2nd amendment fanatics agenda.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/debunking_the_sandy_hook_debunkers.
html
Can’t let a good story go to waste.
Keep tryin’, sheeps;
http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=517284&A=4226
@ cathcroi. Did you read the last sentence?
“Content Last Modified on 1/23/2013 8:18:21 AM”
Chances are the “facts” will change again.
Right, sheepalgb, its all a conspiracy by the “MSM” and the evil government and 2nd amendment haters.
You have to love a country that lets kooks like you run free!
” It is not paranoia to simply acknowledge the fact that however super super small the odds are, it can in fact happen.”
So zombie apocalypse, aliens, bigfoot attacks, some insane guy with frog and dino DNA making modern dinosaurs, terminators from the future fighting for skynet and me actually being royalty – all the smallest fraction of a chance of possible – are very, very real possibilities for stayhyphy. Reinforcing my belief that background checks for guns should superseded any HIPAA laws and provide mental health information.
@cathcroi. Let Cathar out for a bit of air, go back to sleep.
Remember, in Dreamyland you’re a handsome young powerful Prince, loved, heeded and respected by us all. I’ll never understand how or why you force your way out.
http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=517284&A=4226
As Sgt Friday once said, “Just the facts, ma’m …”
Game,Set,Match.
How the Swiss remain free and peaceful.
http://www.americanthinker.com/video/2013/01/why_no_one_invades_switzerland.html
Just watch the first 3 mins.
How the Swiss remain free and peaceful.
Switzerland does not have a standing army. So they rely on the “militia” (you know, kinda like what the second amendment was talking about) to provide national defense. Whoop de do. The ammunition is not stored at the home.
And “American Thinker”? I’m not sure there’s another magazine named so oppposite of what it really contains. Why don’t you post some links from WorldNetDaily next? If you’re reading the American Thinker regularly, that explains a lot.
This American “Thinker” author Jack Cashill – does he beleve hat Obama ws born in the US?
spelling …feh.
The Swiss remain free and peaceful because they are neutral, as Mike mentioned, they don’t have a standing army. And “no one” invades most Western countries in this current political climate since most are allies. You might want to read some history and perhaps even seek out some factual evidence at least once in a while. You do know that not everything you read on the internet is true?
Obama was NOT born in the US. He was sent here by Satan to destroy the US.
Sez who – the Church Lady?
We the people are the militia the 2nd amendment protects. Why would our Government want to disarm us?
The Swiss were not invaded because they were neutral. They were left alone because Switzerland is full of heavily armed and trained mountain goats. Their knives are pretty daunting too.
Sheep – Didn’t the Swiss also invent the use of boiling chocolate cauldrons ?
That, plus I also indirectly blame them for the Heidi Game 40 years ago.
Sheepy, we may never know how you landed in Baristaville, but, hey, this has surely been entertaining. I’m beginning to think you’ve been putting us on from the get-go, posing as some sort of NRA remix of Baristanet’s famed environmentalist goddess “Matilda”.
keep dreaming Spiro.
“Massive Manhunt On for Ex-Cop Accused of Killing 3″ – NYTimes
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2013/02/07/us/ap-us-la-police-shootings-edited.html?hp&_r=0
http://www.soopermexican.com/2013/02/07/news-media-scrub-cop-murderers-manifesto-of-pro-obama-pro-hillary-loved-msnbc-pro-gay-and-anti-gun-comments/
I’ve just noticed several misstatements about the situation in Switzerland.
(That these seem to come from mike91 and jerseygurl is no real surprise, however.) History, guys, history!
T’was a time when Swiss mercenaries were feared throughout western Europe. The country (actually, I think it terms itself a “confederation,” of cantons, rather than a country or nation) saw more than enough internecine strife during the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. Perhaps that’s why the Swiss have backed off somewhat since around 1700. The country, geographically, also just seems unoccupyable. Which is probably why Napoleon didn’t grab it when he was in the area.
The survival of Switzerland’s successful martial past (its pikemen and arquebusiers made up a key element of both the Protestant and Catholic armies during the 30 Years War) may be glimpsed in the Swiss Guards who provide security at the Vatican. (Though John Surratt, a Lincoln assassination conspirator who fled apparently also was a “Swiss” Guard for a time.)
As a “militia,” however, I’m quite sure the Swiss, with their hunting rifles and shotguns, are no threat whatsoever. Indeed, internally said militia is not even a threat to Switzerland’s several Hells Angels chapters, which operate in this somnolent nation with impunity.
And no examination of the confederation’s financial dealings and compromises during WWII with the Axis powers can lead anyone to seriously declare that Switzerland was, in any real sense, “neutral” during WWII. They played an especially close game of footsie back then, to the frustration of the Allies.
As a “militia,” however, I’m quite sure the Swiss, with their hunting rifles and shotguns,
And their SIG 550 military style rifles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
History cathar, history! That is, what you are rapidly passing into.
Yup, PAZ, I woke up ( thanks) , and it turns out sheepy is really serious about his/her point of view! Nonetheless, sheep’s nifty jet black rifle with a supersized magazine and crystal clear viewfinder is likely to be a paltry contestant in the ring against a gubmint-sponsored cyberattack. Sorry, sheep, the 2nd amendment didn’t anticipate the internet. PS,cathar, despite our differences, I enjoyed your expose on Switzerland.