Beck and NRA's LaPierre warn of insidious Obama plot to grab our guns
By David Neiwert Thursday Mar 19, 2009 1:00pm
Watch Glenn Beck much and you're going to get whiplash.
Like his show yesterday on Fox News: Shortly after appealing to the public not to get all hysterical and overwrought about the AIG Bonus Scandal, Glenn Beck got all hysterical and overwrought with Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association about Obama's evil plot to take away our guns.
Of course, this back-and-forth tone shift comes on the heels of Beck's overtly populist appeals to torches and pitchforks that have largely characterized his first couple of months working the audiences at Fox -- alongside the apocalyptic shrieking, weeping, and teeth-gnashing.
But the gun-grabbing segment yesterday was also a big about-face for Beck: Beck and LaPierre worked themselves into a fine frenzy over President Obama's eeeeevil plans for taking away Americans' guns -- no doubt just the first steps that will eventually lead to eradicating the Second Amendment, rounding up gun owners and placing them in FEMA camps, and installing a blue-helmeted United Nations dictatorship in America.
What's inspiring the recent gun moves? Drug-gang violence on the Mexican border. Yet for much of the past month, Glenn Beck has been bugging his eyes out and flecking his camera lenses with spittle, warning Americans about the doom about to descend on them because of the violence on that border. So when the government pays attention to the problem and tries to find practical solutions, Beck attacks that.
A Fox News piece outlines the issue, as the wingnuts see it:
"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to re-institute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder said. "I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum."
Holder said reinstating the ban would decrease the flow of guns from the U.S. into Mexico. He declined to offer a timeframe for any re-implementation; Justice Department spokesman Matt Miller also declined comment on Tuesday.
But Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, told FOXNews.com that Holder's "argument in general is bizarre."
"It's a delusion to say that diminishing the Second Amendment in America is somehow going to stop these ruthless drug cartels in Mexico."
LaPierre called on Holder and Justice Department officials to uphold existing laws and focus on increasing enforcement along the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border, rather than consider additional legislation.
"The answer is to enforce the law on both sides of the border," LaPierre said. "I reject the notion that the reenactment of that ban would have any impact on the Mexican drug cartels."
Yet, in fact, what has the NRA up in arms is that the government in fact is trying to enforce the existing law -- which means cracking down on American gun dealers and gun shows:
U.S. gun stores and gun shows are the source of more than 90 percent of the weapons being used by Mexico's ruthless drug cartels, according to U.S. and Mexican law enforcement officials.
"It's a war going on in Mexico, and these types of firearms are the weapons of war for them," said Bill Newell, the special agent in charge of the Phoenix field division of the ATF, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which has primary law enforcement jurisdiction for investigating gun trafficking to Mexico.
"It's virtually impossible to buy a firearm in Mexico as a private citizen, so this country is where they come," said Newell.
LaPierre was adamant on Beck's show that the talk about Americans providing guns for the drug cartels was "a lie". But he offered no evidence at all to support this claim. Meanwhile, the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming:
Guns recovered in some of the largest recent weapons seizures in Mexico are being traced deep into the United States — miles from the volatile border — revealing an expanding trafficking network that feeds Mexico's violent drug cartels, according to government documents and U.S. investigators.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives records show 90% of the weapons recovered and traced originate from a growing number of sources spanning from the Northwest to New England. The trafficking routes have created what Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., described earlier this week as an "iron river of guns" flowing to the warring cartels, contributing to about 7,000 deaths in the past 14 months.
Some of the strongest recent evidence of the cartels' expanding gun pipeline:
• Four months after the largest weapons seizure in Mexican history, U.S. investigators have traced 383 of the more than 400 weapons seized from a stash house in Reynosa, Mexico, to 11 states including Ohio, South Carolina, Virginia, Florida, Michigan and Connecticut, according to ATF records.
• Nearly a year after a gunbattle left 13 dead in Tijuana, the seizure of 60 guns has prompted probes in Seattle, San Francisco, Philadelphia and Denver.
• The guns, many of them high-powered assault rifles, are streaming across the border at such a pace that some are being recovered in Mexico within days after their purchase in the U.S, according to ATF records.
A student paper in Buffalo manages to ask the pertinent question here:
It's all well and good to talk about the sanctity of constitutional rights, but when our constitutional right to possess AK-47s ends up arming a bloodthirsty criminal organization in a neighboring country thanks to the strength of the American business ethic, doesn't that make us the bad guys?
But don't ask Glenn Beck that. He's likely to spin around and hysterically call for the torch-bearing mob to come get you.
Beck..Beck...Beck
The Feds taking our guns...
FEMA concentration camps...
No wonder Beck is a "meteor" at Faux News.
..like, "Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam."
Beck and eggs. Beck's sausage and eggs... Okay, I'll stop there. I went too far.
Another day, another gun-nut nitwit pops his cork and the US continues to be held hostage by gun show trash claiming the Second Amendment entitles them unfettered access to weapons grade plutonium and the right to walk down the street with a flamethrower for self defense.
Gee, what are the odds.
.
going to take their guns away? And what happened to all those Black helicopters? How many wingnuts were rounded up and put in secret re-education camps by Clinton?
The point is to rile up the base (irrational lunatics that they are) and thereby begin to undermine Obama's support. These a$$holes don't give a flying fu*k, whether it's true. All that matters is that they retain their power and the ability to bend enough of the public opinion to their side to keep those contributions/paychecks coming.
They're of a piece with the evangelical preachers. Hucksters one and all.
Can we rab their pisstols too?
Beck just needs to go and Beck himself.
Maybe he's afraid for those poor AIG guys.You never know if a crazy is going to want to shoot those poor defenseless guys and that would be so sad.
whens the media going to start focusing on positive change?
Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick, this is a story about a couple of wingnuts shooting the shit. What the f*ck where you expecting?
Keeping it KKKlassy...
Beck is a German name....
with all due respect to Germans...
Yeah, Contra leftovers, plus from other US Central American wars!
Fuck You!
Beck seems to be borrowing Alex Jones' schtick. No doubt his ratings will go up. The race to the bottom!
.
IMAGINE...
... The big black librul, commie, socialist, president taking your guns away.
REALIZE...
... George W. Bush instituted a program to warrantlessly spy on ALL Americans.
.
National Recovery Act?
I'd know I'd heal a lot faster if I ain't shot in the first place.
I see you found that jewl I left for you in the Schvartze thread.
These crack addled jerks need to be put out of their paranoid misery. Jesus Christ, It's like being at a circus freak show.
LOL, a couple of months into a Dem presidency and they are ready to take to the streets with their guns. Demonizing us liberals who put up with 8 years of Bush.
This reminds me of a Chris Rock sketch in which he ripped on the whiteys telling black people to get over more than 2 centuries of discrimination, the same whiteys who bitch and moan for having to "suffer" through a coupled of decades of affirmative action.
F*ck the NRA by the way...
Oh, give it UP already Beck. Please. You're just embarrassing yourself at this point, you know. ...
Look out your window! The aliens are landing!
.
Q U E S T I O N:
Is this where we chide, "CONSPIRACY THEORISTS!!!"?
.
civil war instead of revolution..
This message is from one who likes being here.
Who likes the messages posted here and feels a lot of the anger expressed here.
Who has not voted for a major-party prez candidate for many years.
The message: For the Left to attack the NRA is a losing proposition.
Not because the NRA is well-funded and powerful.
But because NRA membership includes both lots of Repubs and lots of Dems.
The NRA isn't your enemy. In truth, it's probably a friend, given that the crime rate among NRA membership is about zero.
Further, the NRA advocates strongly for enforcement of existing gun laws, to keep guns out of the hands of convicted criminals.
Pick your enemies well and after study.
The NRA is an easy enemy. It's in fact not the enemy of any non-felon here.
you are funny...
F*ck the NRA.
fresh from a shelter, where he spent 6 months in a cage, took some chunks out of my hand today as I tried to get him into a cat carrier to take him to the vet.
I understand my cat. He doesn't understand I was trying to act in his self-interest and well-being.
I understand your view as well.
F*ck the NRA.
8 years of Bush wiping his ass with the constitution, and when do they speak up? 2 months into Obama's admin.
I don't need a bunch of asshole white guys with penile issues going around proclaiming themselves the defenders of "my rights."
Usual condescending crap... LOL
I'm not into the NRA in particular, but I do like having guns, and they (NRA)vocalize some of my basic rights for me. I'm not reselling them, or holding up banks with them. I'm involved in a "Garden-War", primarily with voracious rodents, so I don't currently need an assault rifle. Fences don't work, and I'm defending my secondary food source. Poison kills coyotes and dogs, etc.
Those Wingnuts frighten me, period.
Gun safety & education are the key to reducing gun crimes. The main reason Mexico is getting our guns is b/c our borders are a joke. The same reason we get so much of their cocaine... which btw, is what this war in Mex is all about.
A pissed off person can take more lives with a match and some gasoline than they can with an assault rifle. Should we ban chainsaws too? Mexican gangsters love using those Poulans. I won't even start mine up unless I have a cordless phone in my pocket, or someone nearby in case I have an accident.
Villanizing gun advocates is as valid as telling gays their marriage vows are invalid because you aren't gay. Dumb.
That being said, Beck is an ass-clown, a dangerous curiosity at best.
n/t
A chainshaw's main use is not to kill a person, but to cut trees.
A gun's main use is to kill people. Period.
Regulating gun ownership is not the same as banning guns. Period.
I have no problem with law abiding, sane, and trained people owning guns.
I really get tired of listening to the same intellectually dishonest arguments over and over and over and over again...
You can use them to kill other things, or practice to kill people and other things. Oh, and you can shoot targets.
Let me put it this way: A gun's main purpose is to kill, period.
is to make you feel really manly...
--might explain my interest in guns, it falls short in explaining the Pink Pistols, a women's gun club. I suppose you might conclude, given your insulting broad sweeping generalization, that they are lesbian.
NRA people hate when you point out that their pee-pee extenders are actually pee-pee extenders. The fact that you jump to the conclusion that I must think that women gun freaks are lesbians is truly the sign of a NRA-atrophied mind.
Just look at the name of the "women's" gun-hugger organization you mentioned: Just as the National Rifle association is initialized as N.R.A., the Pink Pistols would be....(drumroll)...the P.P.!
NRA jokes write themselves. It's Friday, time to change your rubber sheets.
Actually I would bet that most of the women involved in pink pistols is in fact lesbian or bi. Pink pistols is not a womans gun group, they are a homosexual gun owners club.
www.pinkpistols.org
Their motto is "armed gays don't get bashed"
TD, it's not "you guys" or an intellectually dishonest argument. Guns are just tools. Very potentially dangerous tools. Much like a chainsaw. Having used and had injuries from both(though luckily minor) I can say i think I'd rather be shot than have a chain come loose and whip up onto me. What I really get tired of... is when ppl who don't know alot about guns go off on ppl who do and tell them what guns are really for. It just doesn't make any sense, it also makes it hard for gun owners to take those ppl seriously. I don't tell my plumber what fitting to use, because I'm not a plumber. For most ppl a gun is like a fire extinguisher, you don't really think about it until you need to use it, but when you think it might be under scrutiny or over-regulation, you get concerned. Not freaked out, just concerned.
As sport, shooting requires alot of skill. As a tool for hunting or defense(ppl or animals), it requires a strong stomach, and extreme competence and knowledge. Most ppl (not nec. you) who don't like hunting or guns forget that this is a basic survival skill. Preparing meat for food is an exacting process. It doesn't run around in the woods in cellophaned frozen packages. Animals are far from defenseless.
As for Assault weapons, I don't need one, but who am I to say that someone else doesn't? If I was hunting for food, I would want the most efficient, accurate tools available. Many so called assault rifles are simply technically superior tools.
-Here's my challenge, to those of you who don't like or know much about assault rifles, go to a gun shop and ask a dealer to explain the differences and guidelines. I think you'll find that the differences are trivial and have alot to do with "options", all of which can be recombined on multiple purchases to make one "proper" assault weapon. So what does an assault rifle ban do? It makes the ppl who really want one buy 2 or 3 very similar rifles which they then combine into one weapon. We just tripled a gun sale! I'm so done with this thread. Did I mention Beck is a freak?
starting with his post here.
It seems you've joined the club of gun owners who think anti-gun people are ignorant of guns and what they are capable of.
Crime rate among the NRA being zero? Put down the crack pipe. The NRA doesn't want current laws enforced, they just say they do. What they really want is political power, and they will spread lies, paranoia and smears to get their way. Pick your enemies? Watch who you pick for your friends.
it's time to stop this fucking paranoia
beck, limpballs, billo and many other
reichwingnuttia gop bastards like Wayne LaPierre
are working to incite riots, racism and terrorists
attacks from withing the USA. what they are
doing is tantamount to yelling "FIRE" in a
theatre. if you tied all these bastard's
balls together, you would come up one ball
each short.
Just back from the front and watching some of Beck's show tonight. He spends the first few minutes explaining what transpired as a result of the treasury printing like a trillion dollars, and he does it in all sorts of voices and silly stories. Then he shows what a trillion dollars would look like in a funky sort of way. Then he says, I'm not going to talk to you like you were three years old, I'm going to talk to you like adults. This is followed by his explaining the economy by drawing a line going down a page and then he draws the line going back up if the economy turns around. But keep in mind, he isn't going to talk to you like you are children.
Actually some of what he said made a bit of sense, I'm sure that was an accident.
As for last night's show, I couldn't watch much of Wayne's segment because I just detest the man so damned much. He and Glenn were simply overload.
Actually some of what he said made a bit of sense, I'm sure that was an accident.
I don't believe it to be a coincidence at all.
Does that mean that Beck has bored into my brain. Yikes!
I think that his entire spiel is coming from a guy who is losing it because he is either
A. Seeing the truth of things and it makes his cognitive dissonance tear itself a new one while his soul howls in protest.
or
B. He is taking some of the Alex Jones theories away from the free thinkers who came to follow Alex Jones in the first place and turning it around on them on purpose.
or
C. He is a corporate plant who is here to confuse us.
Yes, I know this may not make sense but it's very hard to make any sense out of Glenn Beck.
I can't watch a second of this video because it has Wayne in there. At the risk of sounding like a right wing nut I wish he would become a victim of what he supports. This is one of the most vile fountains of misinformation that ever existed. I did not learn who this man was until after Columbine. He was VP at the time of the NRA. All the community was asking was not to hold the convention in Denver at this time. It did not matter to them that 12 children were murdered by the guns that were so easy to get. This man is as low as they come yet he has no remorse in what he does.
with how Marilyn Manson reacted to the tragedy. He had a concert scheduled in Denver within days of the shooting, which he cancelled. He of course, was the one people spoke of as the devil incarnate and wanted to string up.
Fuck the NRA!
For some strange reason, I think the weapons may just becoming from the USA. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB113/
Where were the weapons made? hmmmmm.
It's the DRUG WAR, not our constitutional rights. They wouldn't have the guns if they didn't have an illegal highly sought after product.
I was thinking of driving down to Florida myself to buy an Ar15, just thinking about it. I say it is a waste of money but I am American and if I want I should be able to own one.
Bill Newell of the ATF:
"It's virtually impossible to buy a firearm in Mexico as a private citizen, so this country is where they come," said Newell.
So does gun control really work?
Also, it is not illegal to sell these weapons at gun shows. So it has nothing to do with "enforcing existing laws" in this regard.
Guns do not kill, they are an inate object. People kill. Please place your anger and indignation at the problem, not the conduit.
This argument is used constantly and is total bullshit...
"Guns do not kill, they are an inate object. People kill. Please place your anger and indignation at the problem, not the conduit."
This is easily debunked by the following.
We'll do a couple experiments to make this a little easier for you.
Let's set this up first. You are the criminal with a weapon and I'm a horned up 22 year old looking to see some tits.
Experiment #1:
the scenario - I'm at an ATM withdrawing $200.00 to take to the tittie bar. You come up to me with a rock in your hand and demand all my money.
The result - I run from you and you toss that rock. Because of your girlie throw you miss and I get away unharmed.
Experiment #2:
the scenario - I'm at an ATM withdrawing $200.00 to take to the tittie bar. You come up to me with a GUN in your hand and demand all my money.
The result: I either hand over that money or run from you and you shoot me in the back like the coward you are either paralyzing me or killing me and walking away with my tittie bar money.
Your "guns don't kill people" just doesn't stand up. Because you were able to obtain that gun my chance for survival and/or retain my tittie bar money just went down 100%. Care to try again?
I am often reminded of something true I read many years ago in Mad Magazine in a parody of the NRA 9the most useless organization in America);
Guns dont kill people, people with guns kill people.
Another thing that gets me is the idea that walking around with a gun on you means you are now protected from crime, assuming the criminals are not bright enough to realize that they can simply come up behind you and/or hit you in the back of the head, or put their gun to the back of your head before they rob you.
Watchdog
Very well said.
Thanks. Not only insightful, but funny.
When trying to use big words or little misspelled words use them in the right context. "inate" is not a word, "innate" is and it still has no meaning with your little thought out comment. I think you were trying to say "inanimate". You did use "conduit" correctly though, good job.
Sorry for the anger by I hate when people defend guns in the wrong way. If you brought up the right to own a shotgun to kill deer in November to show how tough a guy you were, I would have stood up for you.
"The NRA says 'guns don't kill people, people do.' But I think that the gun helps. You know? I think it helps. I think that if you just walked around going 'Bang!' you wouldn't kill too many people would you? You'd have to be really dodgy on the heart for that to work. I think that people should just try that. Walk around going 'BANG, BANG, BOOM, RATTA TAT, BOOM, RATTA TAT, BOOM!' I think that they should just try it."
I think I am going to have keep cutting and pasting this quote for every person who continues to repeat that bit of idiocy from the NRA!
Every report I have heard or read said the weapons used in the drug wars in Mexico are absolutely coming from the US.
I think it may be a good time for the NRA and the lovers of guns to get behind stopping the drug war. Either that or lose your guns. Becktard is kind of right on this subject along with some other things. To bad he mutates his message into nut job crazy christo-fascist corporate crap 9 times out of 10.
I've heard the 95% stat thrown up quite a bit. But that is 95% of traceable guns. Which is under 50% of the guns turned over to the US for checking. Which is about half of the guns seized in mexico. After the math is done it works out to about 16% of the guns can be proven to come from the US. But out of those 16 how many were full auto weapons? Any idea? If the drug cartels are using them I'd guess a large majority of them. Any idea how many guns the US sold the mexican military and policy? And any idea how many Mexican army soldiers deserted to work for the cartels? Last I heard was about 100,000 deserters. You think if they were going to desert and work for scum they would have a problem stealing their weapon and perhaps a few others. Plus what about all those grenades and rocket launchers they keep finding down there. When was the last time you saw one of those at your local gun shop or show?
Can we stop already? I mean we get it, this guy is nuts and people do for some reason listen to this spew, however focusing so much on him is becoming easy pickings.
I must note though your rebuttal to the NRA and other gun-hawks is what we need to push. It's more propaganda from the NRA and prying from their dead lifeless hands crap, we should all make some noise about that.
I am Frank Chow and I approved this message.
http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/847/story/433...
Yeah, true, guns don't kill. Bullets do, guns just make them go faster.
I hear a lot of people down here saying that they wouldn't hesitate blowing someone's head off if they did whatever to them. My simple retort: Have you ever killed anyone and do you know what it feels like?
I assume from your handle you spent time in Viet Nam in 1967.
In which case, you probably crossed paths with lots of soldiers (American, possibly ROK, maybe Australian or N.Z.) who carried weapons.
Of various types.
I'm guessing you saw it wasn't the weapon that wasted a bunch of { Deleted, racial slur. SiteMonitor}
It was the guy behind the trigger.
Apologies to those who are offended by my language.
They all suck
What an extremely bizarre and specious argument. There are over 200 million guns and firearms in this country and you are actually attempting to claim, apparently in all seriousness, that the availability of guns is of no significance whatsoever to people killing each other in this country. Perhaps you can explain to us why there are more drive-by shootings in this country than there are drive-by knifings. Or that there is a far greater likelihood of someone blowing his or her brains out with a gun than there is of someone using another means of taking one's own life. Or the likelihood that a family member will wreak destruction on one's family with a gun than with another instrument of killing. Or that a crime of passion is almost always carried out with a gun than it is with, say, a switchblade. Or that a student who decides to go on a rampage at school almost always does so with a gun or assault rifle that he just happens to find at home.
But the American public is not supposed to think that the plethora of guns in this country is supposed to be anything but a good thing. I do not think so.
The point was: "It was the guy behind the trigger."
Tell me... if someone left an AK47 on your front doorstep are you going to go down to the post office and waste a bunch of people?
Not likely.
If you somehow think that banning guns is going to stop gun violence you are delusional. Drugs are illegal are they not? Drunk driving is illegal is it not? Shall I enumerate all the things that are illegal and that still happen?
As with the previous poster, you also seem to believe that there is absolutely no correlation between the availability of guns in weapons-happy America to the number of murders which take place on a yearly basis in the good old USA. It would seem that if any one dares to criticize that antiquated Second Amendment [which its defenders always conveniently neglect to mention the first words, i.e. a well regulated militia] then the knee jerk response is to claim that the critic must be delusional.
Curious how you were unable to refute what I had written, such as the fact that almost all crimes of passion are committed with a firearm. Allowing the Iraqis to have practically unfettered access to weapons was not exactly a giant step toward peace, now was it? It is always curious how paranoid Americans will rush to the defense of the Second Amendment, which ensures that more violence will occur, while the United States is the only advanced country in the world without universal health care. Apparently the thinking in this country is that it is better to slaughter many Americans through guns than it is to save people's lives through a single-payer health care system.
Talking about having one's priorities backwards. But again, to state this is to run the risk of being labeled "delusional." The Second Amendment- a sacrosanct right which is right up there with the Pledge of Allegiance, apple pie, and making war upon third world countries.
Dude, you nailed it! Every time I chow down on some apple pie and recite the pledge I get that strange "Computer-science-major killing-spee" feeling. Especially if it has the cris-cross crust. I'm pretty sure we've been exporting fruit-pies to Mexico too, it all adds up.
-I can't help but thinking that if we all had healthcare, more of us would survive gunshots.
-I really wish there were mandatory gun ownership cert classes so ppl would know to keep guns hidden and locked up.
Anyway, we all know that criminals don't follow laws, so making them illegal only affects lawful users. We'd just import them from another country.... LIKE MEXICO DOES!
-Beck reminds me of one of those old south faith healer people. Cartoonish and creepy. The crying thing was so disturbing too. Croc tears for the camera.
As I stated before, if someone put an AK47 on your doorstep, do you then go on a killing spree? No, of course not. Therefore it isn't the presence of guns that makes people violent.
People that want to be violent will be violent regardless of what they have on hand. If you ban guns, violent people will use knives, acid, chains, bats, gasoline, etc. Are you going to ban all that too?
And by banning guns you are only going to be removing guns from the law abiding citizens. The criminals will still have them... brilliant! Let's make ourselves even more vulnerable to violent people.
Another bizarre and specious argument, this time by noitaluspacne, who still denies the correlation between the plethora of guns that are available in this country and the mindless violence that occurs in the U.S. The majority of homicides and over half the suicides that occur in this country are caused by guns. In the United States in the year 2000 there were 52,447 deliberate non-fatal gunshot injuries and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries that occurred. It is extremely doubtful if there would be anywhere near the number of homicides, suicides, and non-fatal injuries that might occur if these events had happened with guns,knives/chains/ or bats.
As I wrote earlier, every major crime of passion and slaughter that has happened in a school came about not through the use of a knife but through a gun or an assault rifle. Every major assassination that has occurred in this country, from Lincoln and McKinley and Garfield and JFK happened, not because these leaders were stabbed to death but because they were shot. Likewise, Robert Kennedy and MLK were not bludgeoned to death but, to no one's surprise, were again killed by the use of a gun or rifle. But to point out these obvious truths is to be labeled un-American or delusional.
All this is reminiscent of a scene from the famous British cult classic Inspector Morse. A procession is taking place at a square at Oxford University. Suddenly a shot rings out from a nearby tower killing one of the academics. Inspector Morse [played by the late great John Thaw], after surveying the carnage, cries out: "My God, this isn't America, this is England." Morse knew that one of the things that the U.S. was best known for was its propensity to engage in violence through the use of guns and that his hope and fear was that England would not become more like gun happy America.
Guns don't kill people, people do.
Now, before you respond to this. I'd like to say that that quote is BS.
People with Guns kill people.
I believe people should be able to possess weapons.
But they should have to meet a strict criteria.
Sanity would be one.
A completely clean record.(police)
No violent offenses.period.
I was at work one day, and gun rights came up as a discussion.
I pretty much held the same position as you.
Then the guy said, " What about collectors"?
That made me think.
No one can say no guns anywhere, anytime.
We need a very strict clearance procedure.
And a healthy license fee. per weapon.
The obvious truth is that even if we do have a gun ban, people will still use guns. Criminals don't limit themselves to doing what is legal. Do you really think Kennedy, MLK, etc would not have been killed with a gun if guns had been illegal? LOL!
If someone wants to kill themselves they will find a way... do you really think if someone wants to kill themselves and guns are illegal the person will say aww... crap... now I guess I can't do it.
Likewise, if someone really wants to kill someone else, do you think they are going to just give up because guns are illegal?
Do you know why people go to schools to kill? Because all the children/students are defenseless. Schools are gun free zones. That works out pretty well for the kids doesn't it? I'm not advocating giving little johnny a glock, but isn't it interesting that violent people usually prey on the defenseless.
A gun ban will turn the whole country into gun free zone. The criminals call that a target rich environment.
The problem is having a gun doesn’t guarantee your safety either; indeed what you are advocating is a gunslinger culture. Your particular argument can also be used to point out that murder laws have not stopped murders, nor have laws against stealing stopped thievery, that doesn’t mean the law does not work.
Personally I think the last thing we need is more guns on the street and people getting into gunfights with innocents caught in the cross fire, moving targets are hard to hit and this is not some action movie. Besides, who exactly are you referring to by banning guns? I have only heard about renewing the assault weapons ban, not banning all fire-arms. This is the main lie the NRA (the most useless group in the country) likes to tell, making the claim that any regulation naturally leads to banning all guns. They continue to say it even though there is no proof of anyone looking to do this, all we have are various states and counties with widely varied laws of every description and numerous loop-holes that people exploit.
--to support your claim that "the majority of homicides" are caused by guns.
You mentioned the numbers of non-fatal injuries. Do you know the stats for gun induced fatalities. And do you know that less than 30% of all violent crime committed in the US is with a gun? And can you mention more than one major crime of slaughter in the past 30 years that did not happen in a "Gun free" zone. All those school shooting that happened, you guessed it gun free zone, the cafeteria in Luby TX, bingo yep another gun free zone.
I'll refute what you stated about them. Most crimes of passion involve fists, followed by what ever is closest at hand.
--that is the root of the problem; it is the statistically small classification of criminals who shout most loudly in the horrific scenarios you site who are a) mentally disturbed and in need of medication, or as presented in a current study by Dr. Peter Breggin ("Medication Madness: A Psychiatrist Exposes the Dangers of Mood-Altering Medications") which investigates the loss of empathy that occurs in some SSRI users, including Columbine shooter Eric Harris and NIU shooter Steven Kazmierczak, and b)those who are products of dysfunctional families. For a perfect storm of carnage to occur, the availabilty of firearms must be combined with a disturbed individual, as was seen recently in Germany. Of the ninety-five million handguns in the U.S., the overwhelming majority are owned by people who are trained and conscientious and respectful of the responsibility firearm ownership demands.
Mr. LaPierre does not speak for all firearm owners, including members of: The Liberal Gun Club; Armed Liberal; Gun Toting Liberal; and Pink Pistols (womens gun organization).
Your statements such as "almost all crimes of passion are committed with a firearm" are presented with no evidence, no citation, no support. I could just as easily challenge your statement with my own similarly unsupported statement that "almost all crimes of passion are committed with a man's fist."
rra...
The FBI believes that the term crimes of passion is a misnomer as they think that most crimes, passionate or otherwise, are committed by previously convicted criminals. The statistics by the FBI regarding these crimes [as shown by this link] show that in 2001 firearms were used in 63 per cent of homicides and that 78 per cent of firearm homicides were committed with a handgun.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html
I also find your claim that the main factor as to why crimes occur is because people who do commit these crimes are mentally disturbed to again ignore the fact that these people are able to get their hands on these guns in the first place. I simply find the claim by so many gun fanatics that the plethora of guns in this country to be of no consequence whatsoever to be utterly fantastic and without logic. The gun fanatics rarely bother to explain why they feel the necessity to possess so many guns. Who are all these people that are out to get them? Paranoia would seem to be a requirement for those people who feel the need to possess a gun or many guns. Or is it an insecurity with their manhood that makes them pack a gun? By doing this they may actually be making their households less safe as it offers the temptation for family members, and especially children, to experiment with these guns and by doing so the result ends up being a tragic situation.
As I tried to point out in an earlier comment, by daring to make these comments I undoubtedly will be labeled a less than patriotic American for daring to criticize the antiquated Second Amendment on, of all things, a liberal site.
"Who are all these people that are out to get them? Paranoia would seem to be a requirement for those people who feel the need to possess a gun or many guns."
Why do I feel a need to possess a gun. I enjoy target shooting and hunting. And I like to be able to protect myself and family, and others around. And as for owning more than one. Does a carpenter have only one saw or one screwdriver. If I just want to plink away at pieces of paper a .22 works quite well. A animal I'm hunting larger than a squirrel or rabbit not so well. And against a 2 legged animal intent on harming myself or family?
"Or is it an insecurity with their manhood that makes them pack a gun?"
No insecurity, I'm very secure in my manhood. But I also realize that against odds of 2 or 1 or greater. Or even 1 on 1 with them armed with a weapon of some sort including a hammer, knife, bat etc my odds of protecting myself or others drops dramatically.
"By doing this they may actually be making their households less safe as it offers the temptation for family members, and especially children, to experiment with these guns and by doing so the result ends up being a tragic situation."
If you do so in a unsafe manner perhaps. Same as having poisons, drain cleaners, knifes etc. But my children know proper gun safety. And anytime they feel the need to "experiment" all they have to do is ask.
Since this sociopath (Beck) has been outed every day this week, he's now attempting a game of diversion - to guns. What a sack of human feces this man has become.
The people aren't buying it, Beck. Everyone is convinced that he is certifiably sociopathic.
Will someone please help this pathetic moron soon before he loses it completely?
He needs either a few sessions of ECT (electroshock therapy) or a frontal lobe - and soon!
This moron should not be on the air. Who the hell is worried about guns when the entire economy is going to hell in a hand basket. These are the lowest form of bottom feeding troglodyte on earth.
look, everyone knows beck sucks already. like, we get it. you don't have to cover him every time he does something stupid, because then you get to a point where half of all c&l posts are about glenn beck doing something stupid... which is pretty much were we are right now.
these gun issues are interesting and i appreciate the coverage of what people on the right think about them, but really, the fact that beck talks about them doesn't mean that you have to bring him into the conversation.
I never even heard of this freak until C&L told us about him.
But I guess the argument is that because this is Crooks and Liars, it needs to be exposed.
I will admit that I watch some of beck's shows strickly for entertainment. I guess you could call me a rubber-necker regarding his show. It's the traffic accident thing. I know if I look I am most likely to see something horrific, but I just can't help myself. I know Beck is going to sound deranged but I always wonder how much more deranged he can get.
And yes, often times I find him so bizarre that he's funny. At this time of day, I'm more than ready to laugh
I used to listen to Limbaugh and Wiener and watch O'Reilly just for the laughs but I don't find these people funny anymore. There are just to many people who use this crap to justify their 180 degree wrong world view.
By the way if you look in Funk & Wagnalls dictionary under the word "Straw man argument" you will find a picture of Wayne LaPierre.
So... Americans cannot have guns because of gang violence in Mexico? WTF?
If gang violence in Mexico is happening with the use of American Guns how about we put tighter controls on our border? If people can smuggle guns out of the country you can imagine what they can smuggle in... And if it is legal for guns to be shipped into Mexico from the USA then why don't we put a temporary embargo on such shipments. Restricting our rights because of problems in another country is just plain stupid.
But I'm sure this has already been pointed out.
II just visited Beck's 9-12 website, and between that and the weeping you tube video, this guy is hanging on by a thread. I'm not sure that the ratings are not just people tuning in to see if this is the night the padded wagon comes for him.
The 9 priciples list reads like it was written by a 2nd grader and how in the world do you legislate values.
I would stay away from this guy's Kool-Aid. Too close to the jim Jones variety.
Beck makes me long for the return of those days when men weren't allowed to show emotion in public, or cry at all.
If he and Boehner got together they could have a real sob fest.
There was a report on tv just recently about a man who smashed a bullet with a hammer and was injured when the bullet went off. I'll just leave it at that.
the only person who heard this Lapierre fool claim the NRA is a law enforcement agency? Now that's delusional. And scary.
.
Everytime these ignorant morons on Fixed News go on another wingnut tangent they reaffirm to everyone that they are habitual liars.
It's not that Obama wants to take away everyone's guns it's that he wants to well.....watch this;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/07/get-...
That was so funny!
I have ALWAYS been anti-NRA. I have never owned a gun or shot one.
BUT. I must admit that this kind of thing makes me want to go out and buy one and learn how to use it because these people are fomenting violence against "liberals".
They are making shit up as they go along and it is scaring the hell out of me because a lot of my neighbors are buying into this kind of madness and I don't want them to shoot me.
Another point to make it that things are getting pretty damn crazy in this country and I never thought I would say this but I am now starting to see the point of the 2nd amendment.
that you have to belong to a well regulated militia?
What happens when you abuse a 'right'? You lose that right.
What happens when you get caught drunk-driving? You lose your license. What happens when a society fails to fully protect its citizens from random gun violence? Nothing. You don't lose your guns or bullets and people crawl out from everywhere, who must be members of a well regulated militia, saying we can't afford to lose the assault weapons we use to hunt Thumper and Bambi.
I have nothing against guns and recognize their various uses, practical and/or illegal, but the levels of violence in this country demand some other form of protection then mere background checks and forms.
Driving is not a right :-)
Borderline I could make a case for it being so. But you do have a right to travel.
Having had cartel people as neighbors, and seeing the United States absolutely unable to handle either its addiction problem, or its gun-running situation (the ballyhood Iknadosian trail ended today with dismissal of all charges), maybe we should just let the gangsters head north of the border. All Mexicans do is transport the stuff or grow the raw materials (poppies and marijuana), and create a few finished goods that seem to be in demand in the United States. Since the United States -- via its agricultural subsidies and corporate tax code -- have destroyed Mexican agriculture, I can't blame my neighbors for growing a crop you'll buy, or creating industries that employ the small town and rural workers. It's your problem. You're unwilling to deal with it, but expect us to have our civil rights violated, live with the possibility of violence and curtail our daily activities.
Only when when policemen in the U.S. start getting their heads chopped off, and a few grenades get tossed at U.S. television stations, are you likely to do anything.
So Beck (a cult member) and LaPierre (surely a foreigner)will fight to defend America! God Save America!
...but I sure enjoy the posts that follow.
I read the posts on this blog and few other liberal blogs. I also read the posts on several right wing blog sites, and I have to say, the liberal blogs have the sense of humor, education and composure for the most part.
The red necks are angry and frightened. I'd hate to have that inside my head 24/7. Keep on watching your propaganda network, and you'll blow a cork sooner or later.
I can't watch Glen Beck without either feeling angry about his dry drunk pro-fascist rants, feeling like throwing up, or both. Seeing the picture taken from his Faux News show, I have to ask where was Beck during the past eight years? Now that we have a progressive president in the White House, now he is worried about the Constitution being under attack. Where was he when George Bush called the Constitution "A God Damned piece of paper"? What about when the Bush administration said that they could detain anyone, even Americans, indefinitely without due process? Why didn't he stand up for the Constitution when we the American people found out that the Bush administration was spying on us in violation of the Constitution, and FISA? Why didn't Beck speak up about the Bush administration torturing people?
clamoring to get across the border into Mexico when the dollar crashes and the peso is worth its weight in gold.
Then it will become painfully obvious why so many guns in the U.S. is an incredibly bad idea.
Boy, good thing the Constitution wasn't under attack from 2000-2008, I bet Beck would have totally freaked out!
Oh wait...
Switzerland and the gun
Guess it's time for me to cower in the closet with my old single-shot 12 gauge huntin gun.
As a gun owner, is it compulsary to pee my pants at this news?
Or can I just whimper softly?
If I can't shoot defenseless critters, how am I going to feel like a man?
I think that this might be the heart of the matter for some of the people hyperventilating over the rumor that Obama will take their guns!
Are you a domestic terrorist?
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kY8jm0GcbGk
I'm going to hide my bible and my gun from those libruls just in case I need to shoot me a { Deleted, SiteMonitor} one day and then damn him to hell!
You're going to use your gun to delete the site monitor?
no, a deleted, site moniter, a much trickier shot involving the use of Ctrl-Z.
If the democrats would give up on gun control, by that I mean make it a party platform that citizens have the right to own guns. The repugnacans would lose half the people they have left. Gun control is the a weight on tyhe democrats like abortion is for the repugs.
how the people who complain about having their guns taken away are usually the people who shouldn't own them anyways? Irrational, fear stricken, shoot anything that moves types that hide behind guns as a source of masculinity. There's a reason responsible parents teach their kids not to play with dangerous things. Same rule applies here, except most of these people aren't just young, they're ignorant adults with an adolescent mind set.
I agree with your observation totally! The ones who scream the loudest about gun control are often the ones who are among the scariest candidates for gun ownership.
and when they ask me why, I say, "Because I don't wet the bed!"
By the way, I am a gun owner, and I love to shoot. I just hate dealing with paranoid weenies.
I live in an "up and coming" part of Los Angeles. Last year there were 6 car chases that ended in foot pursuits in a two block radius from my home. I will never, ever give up my ability to have a say in matters of life in death in and around my home.
I also am in favor of the employee free choice act and single payer health care. I have a college degree. I don't eat road kill. I have never had sex with a blood relative. I am not a member of the NRA.
It was not an easy decision to purchase a firearm. It probably helped that I had very responsible gun owning role models growing up.
Owning a gun means that my actions are held to higher scrutiny than the general public, especially if said weapon is outside of a lock box. Anything that I say or do and any opportunity that I don't take to defuse a situation or walk away can absolutely be held against me. A gun is a horrible responsibility and an option of last resort. But it is important to retain that option.
I'm giving the Prez the benefit of a doubt that he is putting off the gun issue for now. If his administration does take it up in earnest I hope that it gets the same studied treatment that the other issues seem to get. Right now I am not hearing anything that leads me to believe that his non-position is a researched one. If it was, I wouldn't hear the AK-47 example so much (real full auto AK's have been illegal in the US since before their own creation in '47). People that are around guns don't like to hear non-technical umbrella statements like "assault weapons" because the definition tends to be cosmetic (pistol grips, flash suppressors etc.) and completely detached from function, capacity and caliber. The gun owner feels that they will have to jump through another hoop while the criminals will continue to ignore all laws anyway. And in this case I have to side with the gun owners.
A lot of times these laws backfire. In California we have a 10 round magazine limit in handguns unless you are in law enforecement. Personally I don't have a big issue with it. But when it came time to purchase, did I buy the full size model pistol or the compact. I bought the compact. It is still very accurate and more concealable if I have need (God forbid) to carry. I would have bought the full size if I could have had all 16 rounds. The mag limit has resulted in a lot of new compact and subcompact handgun models. Perfect for low rent, undisciplined, uneducated street criminals with notoriously bad aim and an uncanny ability to kill innocents.
LaPierre is a tool and does not speak for me. Beck is awful and also does not speak for me. I'm not paranoid that anybody is going to take away my semi-auto firearms and I won't let it be a wedge issue. But... a lot of gun owners will...
I would ask that people who are strongly anti gun because they have no exposure, please take a basic shooting safety class. You might be reassured by some of the people you meet and you might learn a thing or two about the folks on the other side and elevate the quality of the debate on this very divisive issue.
If you are strongly anti gun because of personal tragedy you have my sympathy, prayers and understanding. You are part of a small group who understands how truly awful the consequences of pulling the trigger can be.
guns is to accuse them of ignorance on the subject.
Nothing could be further from the truth. People who abhor guns know plenty about them.
Some years ago, some jerk senator from the south accused Dianne Feinstein of being ignorant about guns and their meaning to southern men because she was a "lady". She got up and talked about how George Moscone died of a gunshot wound while she held Mayor Moscone's head in her lap and heard his dying words. Ignorant, indeed.
I hate guns passionately not out of some unawareness of guns. To the contrary!
I rarely talk about this, but when I was a pint-sized liberal of 12 years old, I was at home when my neighbor and his uncle had a little shootout between themselves. I will never forget the pool of blood, the crime scene tape, etc, the threats between the families that followed afterward, and so on.
Nor will forget the night around that same time that the neighbor across the street was shot four times while trying to stagger home from a bar. I'll never forget hearing those four shots, and I'll never forget waking up the next morning and seeing the yellow tarp covering his body, the coroner vans, the crowd that had gathered around that vacant lot, or the flowers that still appear at that spot from time to time, 15 years after the fact.
I'll never forget the terror I felt when my domestically violent father bought a gun two years prior to the two incidents already mentioned.
I'll never forget having to tell my ex that his friend had been shot and left to die in front of an ER door.
I'll never forget my mother having to go to a funeral to support an acquaintance of hers, whose son had been shot, and left to die in front of that same ER.
I'll never forget the shrine that is to the side of my friend's neighbors house, filled with photos, balloons and flowers, and is the place where a sixteen year old boy was shot by police.
I'll never forget sitting in a bus at 11 years old and listening to a 6 year old neighbor telling other children that his father was a cop, when in actuality, his father was dead. Dead because he shot a couple of cops, and they shot him dead.
I'll never forget those things.
To the contrary, I don't hate guns due to being unfamiliar with them. I hate them because I am TOO familiar with them.
The only ones who are unfamiliar with anything are the NRA, they are unfamiliar with compassion!
That was an extraordinarily moving post. It just moved me to tears. Thank you for taking the time to write it.
I am so sorry you and the people you have known have had these experiences.
And yes, FUCK the NRA.
I'm fighting back tears right now, myself.
All the bloodshed that I have seen has been against friends who were technically innocent but possibly guilty of escalating the situation by running off at the mouth against people they didn't know. Crimes against real innocents, especially children, must be a lot harder to stomach.
All the same, I think that more lives will be saved by better schools, real health care coverage and better wages/wage protection than you will ever save by legislating away "flash suppressors" while allowing "muzzle brakes".
As emotional as this may be for all of you, the people who allow their own gun ownership to be a wedge issue and a part of their identity are just as emotional and much more prone to hysteria. They are just looking for a reason to prove that they haven't been horrible enablers for the past 8 years. They need to be right about something. Don't give them the satisfaction.
New federal gun laws would still probably not be as strict as what I already live with in California and the votes that they would cost are just not worth it.
but I shall have to admit that I am unimpressed and unmoved by any arguements of the "horrible responsiblity" of gun ownership, or the burdens of gun restrictions.
We should already be improving education, health care, and better wages. If the NRA devoted a drop of their energy to that issue, we just might get somewhere.
I live in California too. The place where I live has been further detoriating into poverty and violence, which has always been with us, however it is worsening.
I am sure that every gun advocate posting in this thread will offer the uninspired solution of arming every man, woman, and child in this town to the teeth, and resisting any restrictions on who may get themselves a piece.
I reject it, and I am not alone in that.
Some of us are trying to pursue a novel solution that gun advocates evidently rarely consider: peace, and trying to alleviate the misery that is leading to all these deaths.
We do this by feeding the hungry when we can, we do this speaking out about the "horrible responsibility" of having to bury someone we've cared about because of guns, of having to tell someone we love that someone they cared about is gone because of guns. We do this by looking after children who have been neglected: by their families, by the community, by society. We tend to their needs when other people can't. We do this by praying and fasting, and for many of us, by learning from the examples set by Cesar Chavez and the UFW, who did their work for peace right here in this town. We do this everyday.
None of it I assume, makes it through the gun advocates' radar, they, especially the NRA, are too busy grasping for "rights," and accusing others of naviety or emotionality, when in reality, I assure you, we are operating from a place of deep knowledge, and rational steely determination, regardless of the heartbreak and tragedy that has preceeded the knowledge and determination.
our police presence recently had an effort for townspeople to trade in their guns for money.
Why was it a smashing success? Hint: groceries, groceries, groceries.
One woman who's never owned a gun even used the opportunity to turn in a gun she found in her backyard.
I never really messed with guns (unless your count water pistols, cap guns and bb guns.)
But the Air Force trained me in M-16 use.
If these bozos were conjoined - they'd still be brainless.
The gun aspect only depends from the problem of drug prohibition making it necessary for the drug dealers to be armed. Re-legalize them (they weren't always illegal, do some research) and you eliminate a huge chunk of the problem. So, how about some real change? End the stupid DrugWar that makes problems like this!
As they taught us in the Air Force:
This is your weapon
This is your gun
One is for killin'
The other's for fun.
Republicans have been buying extra guns because of this Obama-is-going-to-take-our-guns hysteria ever since he was elected. I think Obama should assure the gun-owners that he doesn't plan to take away anyone's right to own a gun (with proper permit/checks etc.) to take this issue out of play. It is not something we need to get into right now.
I always wonder what scenarios gun advocates are imagining where guns are going to save the day. This is not the Wild West anymore - there are lots of other ways an oppressive government or foreign power can subdue the populace without ever coming in range of our guns. What are they imagining - China comes to take us over (on foot) but they are deterred because their intelligence tells them that the average citizen is heavily armed and itching to fight? I am really curious - is that really a deterrent?
That funny. Really it is. Considering I seen a couple of gun store owners being interviewed that mentioned just how many of their customers were wearing Obama shirts and buttons.
And as for a foreign invasion, Hitler's generals were unable to talk him out of fighting a war on two fronts, invading Russia in the middle of winter. But were able to talk him out of invading Switzerland. And the Japanese Emperor after WW2 when questioned about why he didn't invade the US. His answer was this. "Because their would be a sniper behind every blade of grass"
With a link? Or are you just blowing smoke out of yer ass?
Which part of the post did you want cites for?
The Bush Administration spends the last 8 years shredding more Amendments than anyone can count, and NOW the Constitution's under attack???
The Republicans literally used that foundational document as TOILET PAPER, and Herr Beck was quiet as a church mouse about it, or worse, CELEBRATED the evisceration of our rights.
But now Beck's worried.
Do they give out Johnny-Come-Lately awards?
What strikes me as almost disgustingly ironic is all the people on here exercising their right to free speech while denigrating Glen Becks attempt to do the same. What I do find disgustingly ironic is all the people here exercising their right enumerated by the first amendment that was bought and paid for by the blood of people exercising their 2nd amendment right while attacking that same right. For all of you that question where was Beck while Bush was in office, well he was on radio and he frequently took offense at some of Bush's policies.
To yell FIRE in a theater, do they?
Same thing. If you can't see that. Your loss.
Well yes they do. There is actually no law against it that I know of. But the government also has the power to charge and if found guilty imprison them for inciting a riot, endangering the public, and even homicide if people get trampled. Just like they have the power to have me charged for discharging a firearm with in city limits(endangering the public), walking into a grocery store and pointing a weapon at everyone(inciting a riot), and even homicide if I shot someone.
You actually made a point for me.
Now, Is Beck and his ilk responsible if their rhetoric results in the injuries and or deaths of others?
How did I make a point for you? By comparing irresponsible gun ownership to irresponsible free speech? Actually Thank You for bringing that up. Since you can hurt, maim and kill people with free speech we should regulate it. Perhaps have to have a background check before you can talk in public, and get licensed oh and can't forget limit which words you are allowed to use. Sound like a good idea to you?
Now, are you and your ilk responsible for all the rapes, murders, muggings, assaults etc that are the result of disarming the populace. Are the colleges responsible for the murders of their students for not allowing them to be armed while on campus?
Apples and onions.
But thanks for trying.
You seem to be fixated on unreasonable points.
The point you made for me is this.
If someone is calling for an armed position, to defend their position. Then they are in fact responsible for what ever occurs.
I cite Michell Bachmann for calling her constituents to be armed to defend her perceived idea of her(our) country. This is nothing more than inciting violence to defend a political position. And that is wrong. They don't call it politics for nothing ya know? Now, Beck has gone on tv cryin and blubberin about his love of this country and how afraid he is for our future. He is also inciting a division and possibly a violent reaction in our country. If he is so in love with our country.
Why didn't he serve ? He could have enlisted. But no.
Now, I'm not saying everyone should enlist and serve. But if your(Beck in this case. Or Hanitty or O'Rielly) going on National tv and spew that crap, they could have at least served.
But thanks for your response.
How is it I'm fixated on unreasonable points? Which points might those be? And for inciting violence to defend a political position being wrong. Have you read a history book that included the American revolution? How about WW1 or WW2 all of those incited violence for a political position.
And you seem to be stating a person should have had to served in the military to be able to exercise their unalienable rights. Is this correct? If so did you serve to be able to spew your crap on this World Wide accessible website? If not why didn't you?
And I say you are full of shit!
And I also say that those asshats I cited are treasonous fucktards.
No one is saying you can't have your weapons.
What I'm saying is such speech can incite violence. And if that does occur, those who spewed it are responsible/
Get It?
Now, you can paint this anyway you want. But when the shit hits the fan,remember this. What they are saying, is inciting trouble. As far the revolutionary war. We're not fighting a war of independence. What we are trying to do is to quell the violence coming at us. From rightwing lunatics who have bought into the bullshit that someone wants to take their weapons away.
And next time you call someone out about serving. You better make sure you know what the response will be.
I'm not going to ask you if you have served, because I really don't care if you did or didn't. That's your choice. ooppss. I said choice.
But the government also has the power to charge and if found guilty imprison them for inciting a riot, endangering the public, and even homicide if people get trampled.
But I put in a long day. And I'd rather get some sleep.
I'll tell you what. If you would explain your comment about WW1 and WW2
That would really help. Because i have to be honest with you. I can't see how that relates to this conversation at all. But then again, I guess I shouldn't expect much.
My comment about them was simply that they were political in nature. One nations politics against another. Yes there were other reasons we were involved. But their have been atrocities as bad or worse where we didn't. Mainly because we weren't allies with the effected countries. Or because our politics and/or way of life might or might not have been effected. WW2 we got involved in directly because we got bombed by Japan which was politically motivated. They thought we wouldn't stay out of it because of politics.
And you are well within your rights to think and say I am full of shit. And as you so eloquently put it, at the time Thomas Paine, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson et al. were all considered by the powers in charge to be "treasonous fucktards" and their speech did incite violence, are you against what they did? Get it?
And actually we are in a sense fighting a war of independence, same as our founding fathers did, independence against tyranny.And what violence is coming at you? I have never heard any of the personalities on the TV saying to get a gun and start shooting everyone against them. Perhaps to get armed in case it becomes necessary. But isn't that common sense? Do you go out and buy a fire extinguisher after the fire has started or do you buy one "just in case" And most haven't even suggested that. The very large majority has been to use peaceful protests, and letter campaigns. Can you cite any particular instance of Beck inciting violence? His 9/12 viewing party never asked for or even implied violence. It was a peaceful protest. Hell even the "Tea party" that is being organized is so peaceful our founding fathers wouldn't recognize the comparison except for the name.
This thread talks about him stating Obama wants to take our guns. If you check out the whitehouse.org website his policy is to bring back the assault weapon ban among other things, his Attn general has stated that on tv in the past month or so. And if you look at his voting record it's kinda obvious he doesn't like guns and wants as many restrictions on them as possible. And since you were in the military I'm going to ask what is a "assault weapon" because according to the AWB its pretty much any semi-auto firearm with a few cosmetic modifications. With a few exceptions.
And to just state since you didn't ask. No I haven't served in the military. I did try and was turned down for medical reasons. Seems being legally blind without correction in one eye and a plate and screws in the leg are something they frown upon. But if called upon for the defense of state or country I would have no problem with going. I actually consider myself and am considered part of the US and the State Militia as per the law.
And I'm curious might I ask what branch of service you served in and what was your mos? And wasn't part of the oath you swore was "to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America" and also to protect the US from "all enemies foreign or domestic" which unfortunately from the sound of it I'm thinking our views of domestic enemies might be slightly different.
You watch too much Beck.
You keep trying to equate Washington,Paine,Jefferson
To make your point. You're completely missing the point by trying to equate the two.
Like I said, no one is trying to take your weapons away. If you're so interested in old Presidents. Look into Madison and Adams. And while your at it,Check out Eisenhower's last speech.
The right to bear arms was written during an era when the population was so small and muskets were the weapon of choice.Do you think people should be able to purchase laws rockets? Or an M60?
Why would anyone need an automatic weapon in a civilized society?
I can see people owning them if they are collectors. But 1st, they should have to prove that they are in fact collectors. Pass a thorough training and safety program. Which should take over 3-5 weeks. During this process each person should be screened to see if they are mentally fit to own a weapon. And this goes for anyone wanting to purchase any type of weapon(firearm) .
This argument about the War of Independence and the Right to Bear Arms is so outdated and so old it's got moss growing on it.
Hey, I believe people should be able to own weapons. But this argument about the founding fathers and my guns my blah,blah,blah. Is stale.
There should be a strict criteria for people to own weapons. No, not everyone should be able to own them.
That was then. This is Now!
You cannot equate the two different time periods.
If that's what you want to do. Then yeah,buy a musket.
"Pass a thorough training and safety program. Which should take over 3-5 weeks. During this process each person should be screened to see if they are mentally fit to own a weapon. And this goes for anyone wanting to purchase any type of weapon(firearm)."
Who is going to pay for this 3-5 week training course. I'm going to guess you think the person wanting to own firearms? Correct? When a 1 day course where I live is anywhere between $90-150 how is anyone with a lower income supposed to be able to afford it. And who is going to be doing the mental screening? Considering how many anti-gun people think anyone that even thinks about owning a gun is crazy.
"There should be a strict criteria for people to own weapons. No, not everyone should be able to own them."
And you can state that for any of our unalienable rights. Who gets to make the choice who gets to and who doesn't?
"You cannot equate the two different time periods.
If that's what you want to do. Then yeah,buy a musket."
By that reasoning they shouldn't need a search warrant to check your car, or tap your phone lines. Neither of those existed at the time the constitution was written. And no free speech over the phone either, or tv or radio. And none in newspapers that aren't hand cranked.And definitely none on the internet. Luckily SCOTUS does not agree with you. In fact they have decided against people using similar arguments to yours regarding phone taps and free speech over the airwaves. And referenced them in the Heller decision.
And why shouldn't people be able to own full-auto weapons. They all ready can. They have never not been able to own them. To purchase one requires a background check and purchase of a $200 tax stamp. When is the last time you have heard of a legally owned full auto weapon being used in a crime in the US? Hell when was the last time you heard of a illegally owned full auto weapon being used in a violent crime?
1st: that's your problem. Dig up the money.
or borrow it. Maybe they'll finance you.
#2: Anyone with a history of violent behavior or convicted felons.
#3: There you go again,equating the two . It can't be done. The country has evolved.
But don't worry, the Boosh admin already took those rights away.
#4: It is illegal to own fully automatic weapons in this country. Been illegal for over 20 years. But all you have to do is modify the firing pin on a semi auto to make it fully auto.
#5: This one I find ludicrous. I guess you don't keep up with reports of armed bank robberies. Like the one in LA. There are others as well.
Look, you keep reaching for a point that doesn't exist. And you keep changing the topic to distort the issue.
Go ahead, if it makes you feel better.I'm done. buh bye.