A Week Of Shootings
By Jamie Sunday Dec 09, 2007 2:01pmThis week has been filled with news of shootings. We had nine people killed in the Nebraska shopping mall, seven people killed in two separate shootings at Colorado religious establishments, and even a fight breaking out that turned into a shooting match at a Columbus mall. Not very festive news for the most festive time of the year.
All this has had me thinking about the FISA debate when proponents of the warrantless wiretapping were quick to argue it was necessary to give up freedoms for security. Would these same people apply that argument to the second amendment instead of the fourth? I think we all know the answer on that. Perhaps the next time a Republican Senator says that we should give up freedoms for security when it comes to listening in on phone calls, then he should be asked about giving up the right to bear arms as a way to protect us in church or at the local mall. Let's see how quickly the subject changes then.
Login or Register to post comments.
AMEN!!
That's what I was going to say, Amen! You summed up the bullshit with a bowknot. Happy Hollandaise indeed!
Something that I think these shootings are reflective of are the overall psyche of the American populace. Here we are at the time of year when all the pressures of life seem amplified.
Brutality and economy are brothers.
Yeah you can abrogate free speech and privacy, take habeas corpus and due process away, and smash voting rights for people who may vote for Democrats, but don't touch my gun. I may decide to go shopping-or go to 'church.'
great argument. let's spread it.
No, no, no... remember how the gun-nut crowd told us that the Va. Tech shootings would have been prevented if all the students had been armed? The problem isn't that there are too many guns; it's that there are too few. Guns for everybody! Then the shooting will stop.
I'm not surprised about the shootout at Eastland Mall in Columbus, OH. I used to live near there ten years ago, and let's just say it ain't the greatest neighborhood in that city.
I second that Amen. Of course, we'll get the stale old argument "...but if those people had guns THEMSELVES, they could have shot the perpetrators. See - we should have MORE guns available to MORE people."
There's no way to logically get through to these gun nuts. The only thing they understand is more violence.
Some on the right will, as they always do, argue that if we all packed heat, things like this wouldn't happen. Okay, imagine you are in a crowded mall and someone starts shooting people. If everyone in the mall starts trying to shot the shooter, how many innocent pistol packing people are going to be killed or injured in the melee? Same goes for a school or even a church. One lunatic shooting people is awful but many frightened people trying to shoot the shooter would be a disaster.
I just heard that the guy who did the shooting at the church had 500 rounds of ammo strapped on him. Seems he had at one time been a member of their youth group.
it's the war on christmas.
just ask billy o'reilly. only now it's a shooting war.
The M$M is continually exacerbating this problem... every time some whacko does shit like this the M$M pumps it up and surprise! it happens again a week later because someone saw it on the TV, was thinking of doing it already and said to themselves "look this guy got his mug plastered all over tv for shooting ppl"
It happened last year w/ the guys breaking into schools and taking kids hostage. It happened once then again a week later because of all the coverage.
Here's a question for you all:
When a person runs on the field during a football game no one puts him on camera because they don't want to encourage/publicize the act.
Then why in hell do mass murderers get TONS of face time after killing sprees? Hell even Cho's staged photos of him in violent poses got air time!
IMO the M$M is partially responsible for this 2nd mall shooting because of their negligence in handling the situation.
What I love is how the main stream media always fails to mention the "rifle" used in the mall shooting was actually an AK-47 type of assault rifle.
Even easier.
Ask Republicans if they have no problem with President Hillary's IRS tapping their phone calls.
And if they object that no one has said that would happen, follow up with, "What, you think Homeland Security or the FBI is going to be so concerned about your little schmuck privacy concerns that they will object to sharing information with the IRS? Ha!!"
I've pretty much stopped posting comments here. I want to reply to this post to say that you have nailed it. You do a very good job of concisely pointing out yet another bullshit hypocrisy/contradiction of the right wing. As I watched these very publicized shootings stack up, I knew there was a good point to be made ... you articulated it nicely. I'd like to see this concept discussed on Keith O's show. I say his show because it's pretty much all I watch anymore.
A valid point Jaime. But what about the flipside? For those wanting to defend Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights in the face of security threats, shouldn't Second Amendment Rights be protected as well?
The prospect of George Bush and Blackwater having all the guns scares the sh!t out of me.
Republicans. Pffff...
Not trying to bash them, but their party has been hijacked by a bunch of religious nutjobs. It's really, very, very sad.
DKarma @ 11:
so running across a football field during a game and shooting mall full of christmas shoppers are pretty much the same thing? are you sure you want to make that argument?
pissed off patricia @ 9:
Rusty Shackleford @ 6:
The fact that an armed security guard at the Springs church fired on, and killed the shooter will make the wingnuts giddy with delight.
I'm a democrat who will vote for anyone to whom the second amendment is sacred. Unfortunatly I find myself voting for weak Dem canidates who never win or since Clinton's gun ban, out and out republicans. I believe we Dems should should look at ourshelves...we(you) want to preserve warrants but gut 2nd amendment. Republicans want to gut warrants and keep 2nd amendment whole. Why can't we just abide by the constitution as written? Let's take the country back from the corporations. Hey, we might need our guns to do it.
pissed off patricia @ 9:
Exactly. That's why the NRA crowd sounded so foolish after Va.Tech. Can you imagine a college campus where all the students are armed? Nobody would survive fraternity/sorority rush, let alone finals.
Geno in Ptown @ 16:
are you referring to "huck" huckabee?
This morning on the local news they told of a grandmother who was kicked out of Disney World because during their routine security check, she was found to be carrying a loaded gun in her purse. She said she forgot it was in there.
How the hell can you forget you have a loaded gun in your purse? I mean she probably did forget it was in her purse but if she is that forgetful, she shouldn't be carrying a weapon.
Even though on 9-11 the planes were hijacked by mostly Saudi's using boxcutters, the Democratic Congress wanted to check records on who's been buying guns, in case there were further terrorist attacks down the pike that would use such weapons.
The GOP claimed their perverse reading of the 2nd amendment was sacrosanct and would not allow such record searches. In response to the Congressional Democrats, John Ashcroft even made the holding requirements for such records for even less.
fiver @ 15:
This is a point well-taken too. But it doesn't retract from the glaringly obvious hypocrisy of the right. Nor do I think it was meant to. No matter how you feel about guns, the right wing is inconsistent. As you point out, both points stand on their principles.
pissed off patricia @ 22:
Let's hope she never mistakes it for her lipstick or hairspray.
I kind of want my neighbors to have guns if the police state/martial law these Bush fanatics have pushed comes into reality. I also find it ironic that Bush was in Omaha and Homeland Security Officials visited that particular mall in Omaha before the shooting took place. What is going on in this country. ABC News confirms this information.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ujqdtcg6sUg
Blue Buddha @ 7:
There are thousands of places like that in the U.S., which is a sad commentary, but then compare that to the more upscale Omaha mall where people were killed. There is no place in the U.S. where you are safe from a maniac with a gun. There is also no assurance that carrying a gun will protect you from that person.
Learning that there was an armed security guard in God's house -- excuse me, God's megahouse, was a true WTF moment for me. As for average citizens carrying guns, boy howdy, nothing like an untrained, frightened shitless person with shaking hands trying to shoot someone who's on a rampage.
I wondered about that "rifle" comment. My first thought was, "I bet it's an AK 47."
Rusty Shackleford @ 20:
Yeah, I think we need to leave law enforcement to the trained professionals and not have everyone trying to be a hero.
I cannot imagine a situation that would make me want to purchase a gun or have one in my house. We have a friend who occasionally passes through town and when he does he visits us and stays overnight. He has a gun but he respects my feelings and never brings it into my house. No guns in my house.
Sure, Jimmy, I'd agree to the Constitution, you know, the one with the 2nd amendment that says, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security...etc." Nowhere does it guarantee a citizen who ISN'T part of a well-regulated militia the right to keep a firearm.
And don't feed me that (totally incorrect) garbage about how it was brave citizens who just happened to have guns who defeated the British. George Washington himself actually said he had little use for local armed citizens, owing to their tendency to run away when the going got tough. It wasn't until we got Baron von Steuben to train an army, and the assistance of the French (yes, the French) that we actually began to make headway against the British.
The idea that armed citizens are what created this country is total hogwash.
pissed off patricia @ 22:
Years before, I hope she didn't misconstrue what her teenage kids may have asked her about "carrying protection."
Fight back with your words. If you can read this, you're smarter than the average NRA member.
They - "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
We - "Isn't it illegal to rob banks? When robbery is outlawed, only outlaws will rob banks."
They - "I love my guns. Everyone should have to own one." (I was actually told this.)
We - "Why would I need a gun? The men in my family have penises."
And some people in my family and among my friends wonder why I don't attend church anymore and only do my christmas shopping online.
I mean, seriously, Bin Laden doesn't even need to plan further attacks on America. Oh no, we're killing ourselves just fine and in numbers he never would have dreamed of.
fiver @ 15:
Are you for real? He wasn't actually advocating a second amendment position either way, and certainly not a ban. I have no idea how he feels on gun control and it's irrelevant to his piece. He was pointing out the hypocrisy of defending the 2nd amendment to the death, but rolling over on the 1st and 4th cause it fits the Republican Agenda. I think you need to learn how to comprehend.
His point was simply to take all the wind out of the sails of these spying apologists, and he fucking nailed it out of the park.
The security guard was a member of the church. They say she would attend the first service and then be a security guard for the second service. She didn't wear a uniform when she worked as security for the church.
I'm glad that the time I did go to church was before they had guns there. It just wouldn't have been the same atmosphere.
The death toll numbers are wrong in the linked article. In Colorado Springs there are only two dead, two teenage sisters. Their father was also shot but will likely survive. Two others were shot, treated and released by the local emergency room.
A violent culture breeds a violent citizenry.
We kill for oil in the Mid-East and claim liberation, we tazer folks in airports, we electrocute retarded criminals, our children use their X-boxes to simulate killing and our entertainment industry is based on violence.
That these shootings are inevitable is a no-brainer.
DKarma @ 11:
Do you have something resembling proof of this statement?
Matt in Texas @ 29:
Careful. That arguement could get you in trouble. You don't want to upset the military-industrial complex. G.E. and all of the companies that control our media have done a very good job not reporting on the fact that the 2nd ammendment was pretty much only put in there because the founding fathers saw the evils of a standing army. They saw a nation that defended itself with well regulated local militias, not one that was owned by a conquering war machine.
There were two seperate shooting yesterday in Colorado.
ysbaddaden @ 23:
Your point?
Straight Shooter @ 27:
That's the big problem with guns in the US: it's not the number of guns, it's the idiots wielding them. Almost every male citizen in Switzerland owns an assault rifle, yet there are almost no shooting deaths. The reason why is that when men reach a certain age, they are trained in the proper use and safety of the weapon, then issued it by the government.
Given the track record of education programs from those who espouse the "give everyone a gun and crime will go away" crowd in the US, I highly doubt that they'd even consider a gun safety program to go with it.
Well taking away everyone's gun is stupid. It would never work, just because a few wackos who think they're proving a point and want to go out famous get plastered all over the news and some people go nuts over gun control like they're aren't a hundred million people out there who own guns and don't go on shooting rampages. Now I'm not saying everyone should be going it like its still the Wild West, but a gun or two in the home is good for everyone, as long as its kept out of site, and in locked cases.
Making an issue out of this just makes liberals look bad.
I always love this blog, but being a liberal "gun nut," I cannot agree with this at all. Furthermore, the fact of the matter is that the shooters were not law-abiding citizens with registered guns. Gun laws cannot stop criminals, they can only stop law-abiding Americans. That's a fact, whether you like it or not.
"There is no place in the U.S. where you are safe from a maniac with a gun. There is also no assurance that carrying a gun will protect you from that person."
While this is a true statement, your odds WILL increase dramatically.
Matt in Texas @ 29:
Thank you! I've been saying this for years to my gun nut brother in law.
Don't blame the guns...blame the serotonin reuptake inhibitors all these nut jobs were given by the profit driven Medical Industrial Complex
Remember: If Guns Are Outlawed...Only Blackwater Will Have Guns.
Jake @ 42:
sez you. Are people against guns supposed to slink away because you say that expressing their feelings about the matter makes them 'look bad?'
You wanna know what really makes you 'look bad?' A gut shot. One behind the ear. A tight grouping. Powder burns. Jailhouse jumpsuits.
I'm sick of liberals denying me my God-given Second Amendment right to drive an Abrams tank. I have a right to defend my family.
Sir Michael L. Foley @ 43:
Absolutely spot on.
I read the post here a few times, and it really is genius. Our masters want to listen and read all of our correspondence and see what library books we read for our own good. I suppose they will protect us from the evil furriners who engaged in a criminal act that killed thousands of innocent people. Maybe they'd also protect us from the crackers who blow up clinics, Olympics parties, and federal buildings, but I doubt it. If we'd only do away with that pesky 4th ammendment.
Personally, I'd rather lose number 2. If you stack up all of the bodies of those we've lost to turrists, they wouldn't be half as high as the pile of people who die from gunshots in one year.
Excellent post.
The kid who shot up the mall had a felony drug offense... That means he could never go back to school, never get a decent job, and never get himself out of poverty without turning to crime once again. So he chose to go on a shooting rampage and get famous. You want to reduce crime, make sure everyone gets an even shot at making something of themselves, and make sure everyone gets second, third, even four chances at it, because without that, they either stay in jail or spend their entire lives in and out of.
Rusty Shackleford @ 48:
Damned straight, Rusty. I was just thinking the same thing the other day. Imagine what my neighbors would think of me. I betcha they wouldn't give me any trouble either.
Rusty Shackleford @ 48:
And all I want for Christmas is a Lars rocket! Whatever the hell that is. ; )
I'm in the minority here but isn't the other important connection in these cases
psychiatric meds? Haven't almost all these murderous nutjob's been jacked on Big Pharma Juice.
BTW sorry but I don't want the Gov to have a monopoly on deadly force.
JC @ 33:
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I agree with the post; the hypocrisy is blatant. How can the far right advocate such protection of Second Amendment rights while allowing other provisions of The Bill of Rights fall by the wayside? As a Constitutional matter, it's logically inconsistent. I merely pointed out that the logic is true both ways. If it is important that the remainder of The Bill of Rights be protected in the face of security threats, why not the Second Amendment?
Sir Michael L. Foley @ 43:
Respectfully, it's not a fact, and I don't like it.
There are plenty of laws that could be enacted to stem the tide of gun violence, but they're always defeated by money (and tiny weiners). Off the top of my head: no more manufacture of assault rifles and easily concealed handguns, palm print readers, mandatory locking mechanisms in manufacture.
Can we buy tasers yet?
Even better laser tasers.
Blue Buddha @ 41:
Wait. An education program to teach people gun safety? Why do that when it is so much simpler to just take all of the guns away?
Well the issue isn't that guns kill people, people with guns kill people. If someone breaks into my house, I want to have protection. If some nation invades my country, I want to defend against that. If some organization stages a cew and takes over the country, I want to defend against that. The whole argument over getting rid of guns is just unrealistic, it won't happen. You could never round up all the guns.
ysbaddaden @ 58:
Get a cattle prod. They are legal.
It makes me cringe to think of the general citizenry being armed as the rule rather than the exception. In a situation such as the mall attacks, you'd have a circular firing squad.
"The fact that an armed security guard at the Springs church fired on, and killed, the shooter will make the wingnuts giddy with delight."
However, as a security guard, that person was *supposed* to have a gun. Doubt it was an assault fifle, though.
The comments by Dkhama@11 are important. I understand that the last line of the Nebraska shooter's suicide note was "Now I'll be famous."
Eric Almighty @ 57:
OK. This is the second post to conflate manhood with lack of gun ownership. Isn't this the same tactic that the republican pary has been using for the last 7 years if someone doesn't support torture and killing? Oh, and it IS a fact that these people are not law abiding citizens.
Sir Michael L. Foley @ 43:
I know! I'm a law-abiding American and I can't buy an Abrams tank because of the goddamned gun laws! There's shit I need to blow up, too.
I agree with Franklin regarding the trading of liberty for security. The actions of our present government are abhorrent, and they regularly trade on the fears of the populace. But in the same way that BushCo manipulates the worst tendencies of religious fundamentalists while feeling nothing but contempt for them, the fears of gun fundamentalists are preyed upon to the detriment of all of our freedoms.
I believe that there is a reason that only two nations (Switzerland & the U.S.) have maintained nominally free & representative governments for more than a century. That reason is the broad distribution of personally owned firearms by its citizens.
This is hardly an unmitigated blessing.
Far too many innocent persons are killed by firearm violence. But compared to the numbers of people killed in automobile accidents, as well as the ecological destruction and political impact of our addiction to the automobile (including our support of murderous dictatorships and invasions of oil rich countries with the hundreds of thousands of innocents killed by our actions, often killed by disease & starvation due to our economic warfare; not to mention the vast contribution of the automobile to pollution & global warming); domestic firearm violence is a drop in the bucket.
With the current highly polarized debate over firearms; after all there are only two possible categories allowed, "right-wing gun nut or left-wing gun confiscator"; it is little wonder that no progress is made in actually dealing with the problems of guns in our society.
I am a gun owner. I have also carried firearms in an official capacity. Although I have enjoyed shooting since age 12 (training in the Boy Scouts), I didn't own a gun until I moved from the city to the countryside, where wild/feral animals were a potential danger to my children & pets. I have never used a gun on anything other than a target and certainly hope I never have to. I do not hunt, but as I don't eat mammals that is not surprising for me. I have much more respect for a hunter who kills an animal for meat than I do for someone whose only contact with meat comes at the grocery store. It is the plastic wrapped, color injected, antibiotic filled slabs of flesh that I find obscene, not a wild animal killed by a hunter. (This doesn't mean I am unaware or supportive of "bad" hunters who are destructive/incompetent/obsessed.)
It is not apparent, especially with the war of rhetoric provided by pro & anti gun political interests, that there are possible areas of agreement.
I would welcome both skills & safety testing for potential gun owners. I would welcome the licensing of gun owners, in the same way we license automobile or truck drivers or pilots. I would welcome firearms safety training in public schools. And all for exactly the same reason: these activities produce risk for others. While it is impossible to eliminate the risks, it is possible to lower the potential for injury to others.
But nothing will happen until people of good will with differing ideas actually communicate with each other. With all the screaming by the "righteous" on both sides of the issue this appears to be unlikely. And, of course, that only benefits the extremists from both sides: nothing actually changes except for some "window dressing", and both sides' political & financial interests continue to be rewarded by their respective audience of "true believers".
Why are some setting up a false dichotomy of this amendment goes or that amendment goes? Why would we not want ALL of our amendments to be respected?
I happen to be a gun owner but you cannot ignore the fact that there have been over 100,000 murders in the US since 911.
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/opinion/14herbert.html?_r=1&hp&oref...
MATT FROM TX. Don't preach to me Man! I live in Boston. The home of the "Sons of Liberty," Minutemen," "Patriots," Paul Revere, Bunker hill, Concord and Lexington, Boston Tea party, Siege of Boston from Dorchester Hights, John Adams, Sam Adams, Thomas Paine, The Old North Church. Matt there isn't a Frenchmen in the lot! We started the revolution, the rest of ya just joined in. The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infrindged!
Rusty Shackleford @ 64:
What does your wildly offbase analogy have to do with gun ownership?
"proponents of the warrantless wiretapping were quick to argue it was necessary to give up freedoms for security. Would these same people apply that argument to the second amendment instead of the fourth?"
In all likelyhood, very probably. These people are of the "I trust authority no matter what" mindset.
"Perhaps the next time a Republican Senator says that we should give up freedoms for security when it comes to listening in on phone calls, then he should be asked about giving up the right to bear arms as a way to protect us in church or at the local mall. Let’s see how quickly the subject changes then."
As far as it goes, that's OK by me. How about we take it all the way? If *any* politician, of any stripe, suggests or advocates *any* violation of our Constitutional Rights, why aren't we suggesting that he or she, when they violate the Constitution, can and should be driven from office, using arms if necessary?
When are we going to wake up and realize that both the "Patriot Act" and "The War on Drugs" have both been a Government sanctioned assault on our Constitutionally enumerated Rights?
When do you folks who post here regularly gonna wake up and realize that we have Rights, and the government merely has powers that we have granted them, and that we can take them back whenever we wish?
Surveying the comments I see yet more of the anti-gun nonsense that so many of you like to spew. The jackass in Colorado was stopped by a private citizen, just like you. Unlike you, she understands that freedom isn't free, and sometimes you have to do something you'd rather not in order to stay that way.
If you don't like guns, that's fine, really it is. Hide behind something, as that is what you'd do anyway, and stay out of the way of those of us who can get beyond our fear and return fire. Just because you don't think your life is worth standing up for doesn't mean that everyone thinks that way.
Oh, yeah: Keep marginalizing folks like me. Keep driving me into the arms of the Republicans, even though I despise them. The Bushies got away with the Patriot Act because they had all the gunnies on their side. After you guys spent 30 years demonizing us, where else was there to go?
Anyone who would seriously consider giving up the right of citizens to own guns in this incipient-fascist environment, had better be willing to give up all their rights when the red (or black or brown) shirts come marching up to your door.
Peoples Front of Judea @ 69:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Peoples Front of Judea @ 69:
It's comedy for Christ's sake. Remember comedy? Like in John Stewart? Geeze.
miss_kitty @ 47:
Know what looks worse than jailhouse jumpsuits? Jailhouse Dr. Denton's because they come with a drop seat.
Jaycubed @ 65:
Excellent post. As I said before, it's not guns that kill people, it's idiots with guns who kill people. If we ban guns, we're still going to have shit heads going on a murderous rampage with various knives and swords... the only difference is they can't do it at range. And believe me, if you're sliced up several times by a sharp blade, you've got about two minutes before you bleed to death, if that.
Another point worth noting is that NONE of these people were connected to Al Qaeda or "Islamofascists". In fact, while we have been so busy making sure they stay over there so we don't have to fight them over here, we have become victim to American terrorists and allowing them access to their own kind of WMDs. We have met the enemy, and it is US.
Peoples Front of Judea @ 69:
Gun-control arguments are about the limited power of the U.S. government to restrict the rights of its citizens.
The Second Amendment clearly ensures our right to carry 18th-century long guns as members of a well-regulated Militia. No doubt about that.
What if I'm not a member of a militia. Can I carry a hunting rifle? Why or why not?
A handgun? Why or why not?
A machine gun? A hand grenade? A bazooka?
A tank?
Why or why not?
ysbaddaden @ 75:
Long John's!! We wear them up here in Maine. Handy when going to the outhouse!
Jo @ 74:
I like comedy and I like Jon Stewart. This is not like Jon Stewart.
Your clumsy attempt to conflate gun ownership with tank ownership does nothing to further the discussion at hand.
A reply to all. Just to let you know. All of these shooting had a shooter that were on psychiatric medications. Ritalin is basically meth. Prozac is selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. It alters your brain chemistry. The guy in the mall shootings was in Psycho Ward for 4 years. But you want to blame guns.
Psychiatric medication side effects. Hallucinations, Confusion, Mania, schizophrenia, mood disorders, thoughts of sucide.
"Eli Lilly & Co. warned doctors and patients that children and adolescents taking the Strattera medication for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder may have a higher risk of suicidal thoughts."
Just a few. This stuff did not happen 40-50-60-70 years ago. With 20% of the nation on psychiatric medications and the drug companies wanting to move to 30% in the next few years, more and more of this will happen. Shooters and woman who kill their babies in bath tubes will increase. They are related to these dangerous meds.
Also. HOMELAND SECURITY VISTED the OMAHA mall a couples before the shooting to see HOW THEY WOULD RESPOND TO A terrorist insident.
This is a segment from ABC World News, where Charles Gibson reveals that President Bush “coincidentally had been in Omaha just hours before the shooting began.” We are also made aware that an agent with the Department of Homeland Security visited the exact same mall “shortly before” the massacre took place. He was reportedly there to speak with officials about the mall’s security.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ujqdtcg6sUg&eurl=http://www.truthnews.us/...
All of the bill of rights are important. 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, ect.... EVERYONE. Don't think that the founding fathers made a mistake with the 2nd. The first forms of control were aginst blacks by knight riders of the KKK.
Peoples Front of Judea @ 80:
Wait! Wait! I wanted a Lars rocket not an Abrams tank. Abrams are lousy on gas.
Rusty Shackleford @ 78:
If the second amendment (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed) only allows us to own 18th century hunting rifles, and the fourth amendment only allows us to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects." So the internet and phone spying is Okey Dokey?
Blue Buddha @ 76:
Professional firearms trainers will teach you that a knife is far more dangerous at close range, from zero to about 20 feet (depending on the physical fitness of the attacker & the training of the defender), than a handgun. Add another 5-10 feet to the danger range with a rifle or shotgun.
Sir Michael L. Foley @ 43:
People who say that are generally ignoring basic economics. If there were less gun owners, there would be less guns to steal, thus increasing the cost of the weapons on the black market, so only the most successful criminal (the ones least likely to use it willy-nilly) could afford them.
Additionally, the second amendment speaks of keeping and bearing, not necessarily owning, it doesn't specify guns, but only generalized arms, nor does it say we have the right to the most recent development in weaponry, and it certainly doesn't say you have the right to conceal them on your person.
And considering what our founding fathers thought of "mobocracy," the heavily armed citizenry would fail the founding father's intent test.
Jo @ 82:
I can only imagine.
LOL, I love the mental contortions and the faux self righteousness that the gun nuts come up with whenever this shit happens.
In the interests of the common good, I'll put it out there, gun nuts; when your wife says "it is OK it happens to plenty of guys" she is just showing pity, and all those rounds at the shooting range ain't going to make her forget about the disaster that was last night.
Jo @ 82:
Same here, but then that goes with middle-age.
If you want to get rid of the senseless murder of people by privately owned guns, the first step, that would go a long way toward eliminating the problem, would be to eliminate the religious.
At one fell swoop, you'd eliminate most of the shootees, and most of the shooters.
And for the non-religious shooters, you'd eliminate most of the motive.
As Lennon said 'Imagine............................and no religion, too'.
Not to mention doing away with most wars.
Rusty Shackleford @ 78:
You quoted the 2nd amendment Wrong. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO ABOUT HUNTING.
A well-regulated militia as "being necessary to the security of a free State" and prohibits infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
The RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE not the right of the militia.
Also dont get militia mixed up with the state army guard that came about in 1903 and Completely Federalized in 1916. Regulated had a different meaning then, it meant WELL KEPT, and in FUNCTIONING order. so a musket back then was equal to todays semiauto rifle if not automatic (which you need a class 3 license for.) Automatic weapons are not illegal the FEDS just have a monopoly on them.
ysbaddaden @ 85:
Not to mention an I.Q. test.
ysbaddaden @ 85:
Then they would just make the weapons themselves, which is what the Yakuza does in Japan before they gun down federal officials
Peoples Front of Judea @ 83:
No, it isn't. But I think you get my point, which is that we're all just arguing about where lines should be drawn. You wouldn't want me to have a tank, would you? Probably not. But what's your constitutional justification for that, in light of the Second Amendment?
Pretty much everybody respects ALL of the Bill of Rights. At the same time, pretty much everybody realizes (even if they haven't consciously thought about it) that those rights aren't absolute. Take the First Amendment. There are types of speech that are unprotected (e.g., yelling "fire" in a crowded theater) even though the First Amendment clearly says NO LAW.
Likewise, it does not violate the Constitution for Congress or the states to enact some limited, reasonable gun control legislation. Yet the pro-gun advocates act like the sky is falling every time the topic even comes up. The fact is, no politician has ever advocated "confiscating everybody's guns" or preventing law-abiding citizens from owning guns. Those are strawmen, and they are trotted out tirelessly.
More gun control ?
On the face it sounds like a great idea, and in some instances it makes good sense. For instance the State of Virginia has changed its laws & practices in the wake of the April 16 Va Tech massacre.
However .. methinks the core problem is the American addiction to violence as way of solving problems.
This nation was just beginning to have an excellent public conversation about bullying and how to prevent it .. when the Chimp took office.
And for the last 6 years Violence and Bullying have been the core and substance of American foreign policy.
"Onward Christian soldiers ..
Marching as to War !! ..
With the Cross of Jesus ..
Carried on before .."
God punishes sinners.
WE are God's CHOSEN PEOPLE.
WE help GOD PUNISH SINNERS.
right?
how is THAT gonna change?
And when THAT is engrained in the minds of our population AND acted out on the global stage by our (choke, cough) leaders ..
Don't expect it to change any time soon .. with or without more gun control.
[Deleted. Abusive-Sitemonitor]
Peoples Front of Judea @ 63:
You're right in writing that it is true that the people who killed other people were not obeying the law when they started slinging hot lead. I think you misunderstood what I wrote.
I will continue to make fun of people who try to compensate for a lack of virility or intelligence by arming themselves. It's kind of like women getting fake boobs. The obvious difference is that guns kill lots of people who had no say in whether or not the gun owner was allowed to make himself feel like a man.
Penis.
Peter @ 95:
Ha Ha!! Peter.
Rusty Shackleford @ 64:
Actually, I think your difficulty in purchasing a tank would probably be more financial that legal (I
don't think GMAC covers loans that large). Private parties (e.g. defense contractors) own and possess weapons as powerful or more.
Gun laws don't get rid of anything, they just decide who gets the guns and who doesn't. In the case of felons and those committed as dangerous to themselves or others, due process has been rendered and they can be Constitutionally relieved of their Second Amendment rights. In the case of the general public, the Second Amendment protects rights which cannot simply be denied by legislative fiat.
The Second Amendment may be a bad idea - if so, repeal it. I would resist such and effort (along with many others on the left), because I think an establishment monopoly on fire arms is a dangerous threat. I also recognize that the government has no legal duty to protect the public and, in many instances (e.g. Columbine, the Rodney King riots in L.A., September 11) the government does not even try to protect the public but focuses solely on protecting itself.
BTW, if you are a U.S. citizen of age, you are a member of the militia.
Also, the prospect of Bush and Blackwater holding all the guns scares the sh!t out of me.
Huckabee complains that the reason for the shootings is we didn't return to Christ. What about the shootings at the two churches. If the church had turned the guy away he wouldn't have went ballistic.
Rusty Shackleford @ 93:
reasonable gun control legislation? When the gun control people want another law it is not a compromise. THEY KEEP TAKING MORE AND MORE of the right away. The NRA is the biggest control advicate, THEY have CO-sponsor every control bill. They are trators to gun owers and they user the words reasonable. FACT.... The cities with more legal gun owners have the least amount of robberies and deaths. The cities with the most stringent legal guns bans, have the highest rapes, murders, robberies. FACT.
They are trying to ban just about every type of firearm excluding shotguns, revolvers, and 1900 centry flint locks.
In a society that bans legal possestion of arms there are two groups that have them. The criminals and the tyrannical governments that oppress them.
PurplePatriot @ 18:
You mean armed guards now have to be present a churchs? WHY? (oops, never mind.)
Don't you all remember? Guns don't kill people, people kill people!
Mr. Blade @ 100:
<blockquote
reasonable gun control legislation? When the gun control people want another law it is not a compromise. THEY KEEP TAKING MORE AND MORE of the right away. The NRA is the biggest control advicate, THEY have CO-sponsor every control bill. They are trators to gun owers and they user the words reasonable. FACT.... The cities with more legal gun owners have the least amount of robberies and deaths. The cities with the most stringent legal guns bans, have the highest rapes, murders, robberies. FACT.
They are trying to ban just about every type of firearm excluding shotguns, revolvers, and 1900 centry flint locks.
In a society that bans legal possestion of arms there are two groups that have them. The criminals and the tyrannical governments that oppress them.
We would appreciates links/references that can confirm the aforementioned FACTS.
Additionally the Constitution defines what a well-regulated militia means. It can be found in:
Article I, Section 8, cls 14-15.
Article II, Section 2, first ppg.
Additionally any guarantee in the federal constitution, like basic civil rights, did not seem to influence peoples daily lives until after the development of the doctrine of incorporationism, whereby under Amendment XIV, one is clearly defined as a member of the United States, and not just their own state. Most conservatives hate this doctrine as "watering" down the State power of the X amendment, who presumably controlled or not controlled arms during peace-time. Yet the conservatives today will denounce the inability of the states to regulate decency because of the incorporationist doctrine, but then turn around and try to use the doctrine to preserve their perceived right to bear arms, when states try to control, regulate, or even sue arms manufacturers.
Citizens not members.
fiver @ 98:
I'm pretty sure that, as a private citizen, I can't go out and buy a fully-armed Abrams tank no matter how much money I have. Which is probably a good thing.
Look, I support people's right to own guns. I'm just tired of seeing it painted in absolute terms by hysterics like the NRA.
Matt in Texas @ 29:
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.
You will note ( assuming you can read ) that it doesn't say anything about having to actually be IN a militia to bear arms. It says 'The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' It doesn't say "The right of a well regulated militia shall to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The reason it says that is because when Halliburton and Blackwater are suddenly patrolling YOUR street for 'insurgents' and decide to go rape your mother and burn down your house to conceal it you should have the ability to fight back against that form of attack. Our founding fathers knew that the essential nature of human beings wasn't going to change over time. We will always have the Halliburtons and we will have the victims of the Halliburtons. You're not going to be able to do that with harsh words, whining or crying about injustice, by calling the cops. Or by sniveling to the state department. Or by appealing to Congress. You can ask Iraqis how well all that shit works. You know what happens to people without guns when bad guys WITh guns come to play?
They fucking die.
Also, if you're going to quote the Constitution at least have the decency to quote it correctly or shut the hell up. There's more than enough nonsense on the right wing based on people with their own bullshit interpretations of what the Constitution 'means' without you adding to it. When the executive branch has already decided to scrap every other provision in the Constitution and the legislative and judicial branches have just gone along with it... the only thing that keeps you from having to plant your lips on GWB's ass IS the 2nd Amendment.
E in MD @ 107:
E in MD you are right one. I tip my hat in respect.
E in MD @ 107, neither you, nor Matt in Texas, nor I, nor anybody else can say with absolute certainty what the 2d Amendment means. It's incredibly poorly worded. That might be why there have been so few Supreme Court decisions on it, despite much litigation in the lower courts. That will change this term, as the Supreme Court will be hearing a major 2d Amdt. case for the first time since the mid-20th century.
Definition of "milita" per the U.S. Code:
E in MD @ 107:
Do tin foil helmets stop bullets?
Are some of us confusing Halliburton with Blackwater? Does anyone know if Halliburton has "security" contracts?
Pissed off patricia says
Yeah, I think we need to leave law enforcement to the trained professionals and not have everyone trying to be a hero.
I cannot imagine a situation that would make me want to purchase a gun or have one in my house. We have a friend who occasionally passes through town and when he does he visits us and stays overnight. He has a gun but he respects my feelings and never brings it into my house. No guns in my house.
trained professionals like blackwater? And seriously just what are these trained professionals going to do when your unprotected house gets broken into by a gun wielding rapist? Got news for you honey you will be dead long before "trained professionals" ever find your house. On the flip side if some crcked up gun toting rapist enters my house I'll shoot him in the face like Dick Cheney. My wife and I will wake up the next day and keep living. You on the other hand will soon be forgotten.
fiver @ 110:
Ah, but our delightful right-wing "strict constructionists" on the Supreme Court will be looking at the meaning of the term when the Constitution was adopted, not the meaning Congress gave it later.
The Dude @ 87:
Here is the third.
Rusty Shackleford @ 109:
It's not as poorly worded as one might think. For even though the clause order seems reversed, rights under the Constitutional are not unconditional. For example yelling fire in a crowded theatre.
Good luck claiming your gang banging, wife swapping club, is a church.
Chris Rock solution - bullets are $2000. each.
Eric Almighty @ 96:
You can rationalize it however you want to. The fact remains that you don't like someone elses position and so you attack his/her manhood.
Please explain how defending our constitution or protecting ones self is "like women getting fake boobs."
rights under the Constitutional are not unconditional. For example yelling fire in a crowded theatre.
Actually 1st amendment to the constitution clearly states that you can yell fire in a crowded theater.
It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
See "no law" means just that no law. So yes you can yell fire in a crowded theater according to the constitution.
Perhaps you should read it before espousing horseshit like that.
Rusty Shackleford @ 114:
Possibly, although I doubt it. Right wing justices such as Scalia are really only strict constructionists when convenient (e.g. Bush v. Gore). Also, at the time The Bill of Rights was enacted, the militia consisted of white, landholding males - in other words "citizens" (sorry, no link). Citizenship and its inherent rights have greatly expanded through the Thirteenth and Twenty-sixth Amendments.
fiver @ 15:
Me too. My running joke is that I'm not saving for any retirement, I'm planning on dying as a martyr in the civil war we have coming up.
fiver @ 121:
You're absolutely right about the so-called "strict constructionists."
My prediction for the outcome of the upcoming case (which concerns D.C.'s extremely restrictive law) is that they'll decide that the D.C. law goes too far, but that lesser restrictions are permissible. How they'll arrive at that conclusion is anybody's guess.
You have every right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. In fact, if you happen to be in a theater with me and see a fire, please say something.
Holmes' analogy is that you cannot knowingly and falsely yell fire in a crowded theater. In other words, such an act doesn't really qualify as speech and is not deserving of First Amendment protection.
Using the "fire in a crowded theater" analogy to justify abrogation of Constitutional Rights whenever "public safety" is at issue is an exception which would swallow the rule. It is the justification which Bush has used to eviscerate the Bill of Rights.
Peoples Front of Judea @ 119:
Because the constitution has been raped, gagged, and shredded for the better part of this decade. And somehow I failed to see those gun nut militias out en force defending it. So it is obvious that all that BS that the gun nut lobby used to defend their right to bear arms as "we are really defending your rights with our guns so you should lay off our guns, we really don't want to own guns but we care sooo much about your rights that we have no other alternative than to stockpile copious amounts of guns and ammo your insensitive clod" has been proved to be just that: BULL SHIT.
The fact that the gun nut lobby used a noble ideal such as the defense of the constitution to use as a shield makes the gun nut lobby not only a bunch of cowards, but a set of hypocrites to boot. The fact is that all along, groups like the NRA et al are just akin to the emperor with no clothes, and times like this show that sad fact.
The constitution, and the country in general will keep on circling the drain, and guess what the last ones who will come to its defense will be the gun nuts.
And just to look at the track record, let's remind ourselves than during the revolutionary war, it was the reg continental army who faced, fought and defeated the British. Most of the militias were too busy running for the hills in disarray or giving up.
So making fun of the manhood of most gun nuts is just a way of finding anything to laugh about an otherwise pathetic record...
Mr. Blade @ 81:
Ritalin is not basically meth. While ritalin is a stimulant, it has a different molecular structure and a different mode of action in the brain. It is a dopamine re-uptake inhibitor and methamphetamine triggers the release of different neurotransmitters, including dopamine and setatonin.
All the rest of what you say is correct...
fiver @ 124:
"Fire in a crowded theater" is just one example. Others would be perjury and defamation. The point was that limited exceptions to an amendment that is VERY clearly worded have been made, and found to be constitutional. That's why I think it is silly when people argue that the ambiguously worded 2d Amendment is absolute.
The Dude @ 125:
Is anyone who owns a gun NOT a "gun nut?"
Ysbaddaden
Your comments are intelligently stated. I find it amazing, if not bizarre, that so many conservatives and others believe that every amendment and article in the U.S. Constitution, which I hold quite dear, is totally applicable to the 21st century. When I commented about the 2nd amendment on The Huffington Post, an alleged liberal blog, about a week ago, so many of those commenters were up in arms [pun intended] when I dared point out how so many people hold sacrosanct an amendment that was written in the 18th century and that was applicable to that time period.
I remember watching an episode of the classic British program Inspector Morse. It showed a procession taking place at Oxford and all of a sudden shots ring out and one of the marchers was shot and killed by someone firing a rifle in a tower. Morse, played by the late great John Thaw, cries out in anguish "This is England, not America!". His point, of course, was to observe how ubiquitous violence is in America and whenever passions run high, usually the first thing Americans do is to reach for a firearm in order to satisfy their lust for killing.
Dr. Acula @ 102:
Ban people then.
But really, guns don't kill people, people whacked out on anti-depressents and stimulants kill people.
Rusty Shackleford @ 127:
Two other excellent examples. Yet the common thread in all three is that of a lie (or reckless disregard of the truth). Lies are not deemed "speech" and therefore not protected (nor are threats). That logic gets us nowhere, however, in a Second Amendment debate.
Also, re: our previous discussion on "strict constructionism": I would contend that a strict constructionist analysis (ie. if it's not in the constitution it's not a right) is itself unconstitutional when applied to individual rights.
Amendment IX:
Peoples Front of Judea @ 128:
Well, I have a rifle that is used strictly for putting meat on the table. Does that make me a nut?
Uh, I hate to have to add this but on of our Indianapolis Pacers was involved in a shootout right here in downtown Indy. Hoosier pride!
Blue Lensman @ 132:
I am afraid that to some people posting on this thread, you are a gun nut, Blue.
Improperly used cars kill a lot of people too but no one seems to want to ban cars. I reckon that if you get rid of guns, these wack jobs will kill people some other way like driving trucks into crowds of people or using homemade flamethowers on shopping mall crowds.
So what is it about guns that get folks in a tizzy?
It is the totalitarian state that always seeks to ban guns. Personally I would prefer to take my chances with the crooks and wack jobs. They can take my life but they can't take my freedom; a dictator can do both.
Wayne LaPierre of the NRA gets a 7 figure salary to make sure these mass shootings keep happening so his rapture bunny fanbase can play militia man on the weekends
I'm pretty sure my church doesn't have an armed security guard. Or need one.
[As a rare poster on this site, you may want to check out the commenting policy here, and don't tell other posters to 'go away.' This isn't your site-Sitemonitor]
It's sad and insane that there are so many senseless shootings in our country. How do these disturbed people have such easy access to these weapons? Have mental problems? Here! Have a firearm!
There are lots of people who own guns, and they aren't nuts. What irks me is how it's so easy to get one or more. Where are the background checks and the spying and the wiretapping? What happened to more security after 9/11? If the murderers had been middle eastern, there would be a huge uproar.
Don't penalize the gun owners. Penalize the criminals.
abarts @ 118:
I remember that joke. No more innocent bystanders.
Right On!
Big John @ 135:
This is utter bu!!shit.
Totalitarian states? Like Great Britan? Give me a break.
Look at the stats for any country with serious firearms control. End of discussion.
Blue Lensman @ 132:
No, it doesn't. I live in Vermont. Lots of people here have guns and go hunting. But our murder rate by gun is very low.
And this was one of the things that sold me on Howard Dean when I lived in Califronia. His position was that gun ownership restrictions was a STATES' issue. That was real genius. In California, where I'm from, they need real controls because fuck!ng lunatics blow each other's brains out on a regular basis. But Vermont is another story entirely.
Had Gore taken that position, he would likely have carried Tennesse and we'd all be a hell of a lot better off.
Powkat @ 137:
Maybe yours does and you just don't know about it because they don't stand around in their uniforms. This was a huge church, a congregation of over 10,000 people that had had death threats before. The lady who shot the gunman was a volunteer attending services that day.
Colorado church shootings highlight moves toward making congregations secure
anon @ 142:
Like Australia?
Wow, do you realize how paradoxical your own argument is? Arguing that the Republicans are willing to trade away one right but not the other, and in the same breath implying that we should do the same thing, only reversing those two rights?
The correct answer here is: THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NOR ANYONE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO TAKE AWAY ANY OF YOUR GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS.
anon @ 142:
Mike K. bizarrely believes that owning and apparently killing someone else with a firearm is a "God-Given Right". First, placing your comment in capital letters does not make your statement correct. Second, when did owning or possessing a gun ever become a right handed down by a god? As dubious as the 2nd amendment is, the last time that I had checked my three copies of the U.S. Constitution, all of the amendments and articles were written by quite fallible men back in the 18th century. As wise as many, if not most, of what the U.S. Constitution contains, that does not automatically mean that what was written in the 18th century is automatically relevant to the 21st century.
anon @ 142:
145 Peoples Front of Judea
When I use the term "totalitarian states"I am refering to a hypothetical circumstance like the Nazification of the USA as detailed in Naomi Wolf's latest book.
When George Bush and his Blackwater pals launch the coup and start putting Democrats in camps, I hope to hell the gun nuts will stand up for the Constitution because I sure as hell know the bought and paid for Democrats won't.
Please to not use foul language in responding to my posts, anon @ 142. It is rude, disrespectful and most unladylike.
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)." -Thomas Jefferson
"The principles of Jefferson are the axioms of a free society." -Abraham Lincoln
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence." -George Washington
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." -Patrick Henry
"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." -Samuel Adams
""Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize ... the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." -Tench Coxe
"Who are the militia? They consist of the whole people, except a few public officers." -George Mason
But you're right, the founding fathers meant that only government controlled militias shall have the right to bear arms. Read a fucking book every now and then. Stop watching TV and getting all your talking points from people whose primary jobs are to sell advertising.
Facts:Several Supreme Court decisions note that the term "the people" mentioned in the Second Amendment refers only to individual citizens; no Supreme Court decision to the contrary
Login or Register to post comments.