The 2nd Amendment is not a license for mass murder

42 posts / 0 new

The shooter in the Aurora theater massacre, James Holmes, purchased more than 6,000 rounds of ammunition in the weeks leading up to the shooting, spending roughly $3,000 on his arsenal. He also purchased a bullet-proof vest and other tactical gear to mimic a SWAT team member, and high-capacity magazines that would have been illegal under the Assault Weapons Ban or any number of pieces of gun control legislation that have stalled out in Congress. Holmes built up his unusually large collection of deadly weapons just before the shooting without once raising a red flag with authorities. Also, not once, was he required to submit a background check or register his name to the purchases.

Tragically, 12 people are dead now as a result of his rampage. And despite the obvious lessons here, which are the same lessons we learned from the last year’s Tucson massacre, that mentally unstable people can get a hold of extremely deadly weapons of war way too easy in this nation, don’t hold your breath for sensible gun control legislation. Already, President Obama abandoned a call for gun control, arguing that we need to prevent gun crimes by relying on “existing law.” And Democratic Governor of Colorado, John Hickenlooper, refused to endorse tougher gun control laws.

Even Conservative Commentator Bill Kristol argued that it was “foolish” for Democrats to not push for gun control. As Democratic Congresswoman, and strong supporter of gun control, Carolyn McCarthy bluntly said in an interview Sunday about her colleagues in Congress, “They don’t have the spine anymore. They pander to who’s giving them money.”

And that right there, folks, is what’s wrong with our nation. With money in control, common sense policies – like keeping assault weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill – are off the table. And instead, the crazies – those who think the massacre was a condemnation from God or staged by the Obama Administration to restrict gun rights – win the debate, simple because they also gladly accept money from the gun lobby that profits off more death and destruction in America. The Second Amendment is not a license to let mass murders continue without action.

Thom Hartmann Administrator's picture
Thom Hartmann A...
Joined:
Dec. 29, 2009 9:59 am

Comments

I cannot wait for the 'constitutional scholars' of the NRA to fill this thread with the ususal crap. "In order to form a well-regulated militia," is the "intent." The idea that anything about the Founders' debate or conclusions should prevent us from dealing with a clear and present danger is ridiculous. I can imagine the Founder time traveller being shocked and amazed that we had not modified the amendment to prevent war weaponry from being "unregulated" or poorly done. They would plead innocent of any intent to land us in this mess. They would be right.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

I gave it some thought and came up with proposals to address gun violence.

Here is the URL of my blog entry:

http://www.thomhartmann.com/users/fleuryb/blog/2012/07/proposals-federal...

fleuryb's picture
fleuryb
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I can't wait for the debate and all those NRA Constitutional Scholars. Good ideas, but the most important thing is to have a public revolt against the gun culture of macho insecurity and insistence that "well-regulated" was the Intent of the Founders. To break the NRA Mystique, we have to have a real vision of responsible gun ownership without the vigilante glosses.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

"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 prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764. That was 230 years ago. -Thomas Jefferson

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

The second amendment is in place to preserve our right to revolution and weapons like the ar15 are needed because if the gap between civillian and military firearms continues to increase how can we preserve the right to revolution?

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 8:48 am
Quote drc2:

I cannot wait for the 'constitutional scholars' of the NRA to fill this thread with the ususal crap. "In order to form a well-regulated militia," is the "intent." The idea that anything about the Founders' debate or conclusions should prevent us from dealing with a clear and present danger is ridiculous. I can imagine the Founder time traveller being shocked and amazed that we had not modified the amendment to prevent war weaponry from being "unregulated" or poorly done. They would plead innocent of any intent to land us in this mess. They would be right.

I don't support the pro- gun control NRA. I like GOA and JPFO.

America's largest gun control organization.by Vin Suprynowicz

Even if you repealed the 2nd Amendment, it wouldn't change the Constitution one iota. You would have to pass an amendment giving the federal gov't to power to restrict gun ownership.

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Commonsense461:

"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 prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764. That was 230 years ago. -Thomas Jefferson

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

The second amendment is in place to preserve our right to revolution and weapons like the ar15 are needed because if the gap between civillian and military firearms continues to increase how can we preserve the right to revolution?

Realistically you can't revolt against the largest military power on the planet earth. It makes for a good water cooler debate and that's about it. The crazies are running the asylum and that's a tipping point of extreme danger. The focus should still be on good law abiding citizens having the right to carry with every effort and precaution taken to keep guns out of the hands of the crazies. The idea of free citizens protecting themselves against tyranny is now a fairy tale. That's why it's so important to take advantage of the democratic process that we've been given as a safeguard against tyranny. The power of the vote is much more affective than the gun in today's world.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote Commonsense461:

"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 prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764. That was 230 years ago. -Thomas Jefferson

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

The second amendment is in place to preserve our right to revolution and weapons like the ar15 are needed because if the gap between civillian and military firearms continues to increase how can we preserve the right to revolution?

Realistically you can't revolt against the largest military power on the planet earth. It makes for a good water cooler debate and that's about it. The crazies are running the asylum and that's a tipping point of extreme danger. The focus should still be on good law abiding citizens having the right to carry with every effort and precaution taken to keep guns out of the hands of the crazies. The idea of free citizens protecting themselves against tyranny is now a fairy tale. That's why it's so important to take advantage of the democratic process that we've been given as a safeguard against tyranny. The power of the vote is much more affective than the gun in today's world.

I refuse to belive that. I still belive if push came to shove you would see states likeTexas, Montana,New Hampshire and the bible belt rise against the federal gooverment if the need came.

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 8:48 am

Why has the dicussion turned toward the disarming of the populace? Nobody has proposed that nor do I believe that it could be feasible even if the majority considered it desirable.

Some common sense restrictions are definitely in order and long overdue.

The 6.5 x 52 mm Italian Carcano M91/38 bolt-action rifle used by Lee Oswald in the 1963 assassination of JFK was purchased via mail-order. After the assissination, people discussed, but never really inplemented. I think it makes sense to require a face-to-face transaction for gun and ammunation purchases. That includes the Internet.

Restricting access to those convicted of using firearms to commit crimes makes sense. If you misuse guns like when people misuse automobiles and alcohol, it makes sense to restrict future access.

Millitary assault weapons have no place outside the field of battle. This is especially true of semi-automatic weapons that can be converted to fully automatic by their owners. Posession of fully automatic weapons continue to be illegal for the average citizen and that makes sense.

Personally I would restrict access to firearms for the average police officer. If certainty of prison time and longer sentences were uniformly guaranteed when firearms are used in commission of a crime, why would the average police officer need them. If the average police officer did not carry a lethal weapon, it would le less necessary for the average criminal to carry one.

In any case, a real debate needs to be conducted on the issue. Bringing up the issue of "taking away guns" in regard to gun control is about as helpful as bringing up child pornography when talking about adults' access to Playboy magazine.

fleuryb's picture
fleuryb
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote fleuryb:

Why has the dicussion turned toward the disarming of the populace? Nobody has proposed that nor do I believe that it could be feasible even if the majority considered it desirable.

Some common sense restrictions are definitely in order and long overdue.

The 6.5 x 52 mm Italian Carcano M91/38 bolt-action rifle used by Lee Oswald in the 1963 assassination of JFK was purchased via mail-order. After the assissination, people discussed, but never really inplemented. I think it makes sense to require a face-to-face transaction for gun and ammunation purchases. That includes the Internet.

Restricting access to those convicted of using firearms to commit crimes makes sense. If you misuse guns like when people misuse automobiles and alcohol, it makes sense to restrict future access.

Millitary assault weapons have no place outside the field of battle. This is especially true of semi-automatic weapons that can be converted to fully automatic by their owners. Posession of fully automatic weapons continue to be illegal for the average citizen and that makes sense.

Personally I would restrict access to firearms for the average police officer. If certainty of prison time and longer sentences were uniformly guaranteed when firearms are used in commission of a crime, why would the average police officer need them. If the average police officer did not carry a lethal weapon, it would le less necessary for the average criminal to carry one.

In any case, a real debate needs to be conducted on the issue. Bringing up the issue of "taking away guns" in regard to gun control is about as helpful as bringing up child pornography when talking about adults' access to Playboy magazine.

Taking away military fire arms goes against the intent of the second amendment.

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

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 8:48 am
Quote Commonsense461:
Quote fleuryb:

Why has the dicussion turned toward the disarming of the populace? Nobody has proposed that nor do I believe that it could be feasible even if the majority considered it desirable.

Some common sense restrictions are definitely in order and long overdue.

The 6.5 x 52 mm Italian Carcano M91/38 bolt-action rifle used by Lee Oswald in the 1963 assassination of JFK was purchased via mail-order. After the assissination, people discussed, but never really inplemented. I think it makes sense to require a face-to-face transaction for gun and ammunation purchases. That includes the Internet.

Restricting access to those convicted of using firearms to commit crimes makes sense. If you misuse guns like when people misuse automobiles and alcohol, it makes sense to restrict future access.

Millitary assault weapons have no place outside the field of battle. This is especially true of semi-automatic weapons that can be converted to fully automatic by their owners. Posession of fully automatic weapons continue to be illegal for the average citizen and that makes sense.

Personally I would restrict access to firearms for the average police officer. If certainty of prison time and longer sentences were uniformly guaranteed when firearms are used in commission of a crime, why would the average police officer need them. If the average police officer did not carry a lethal weapon, it would le less necessary for the average criminal to carry one.

In any case, a real debate needs to be conducted on the issue. Bringing up the issue of "taking away guns" in regard to gun control is about as helpful as bringing up child pornography when talking about adults' access to Playboy magazine.

Taking away military fire arms goes against the intent of the second amendment.

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

Only if one considers the primary intent of the second amendment to be allowing one to take up arms against one's government.

Attempting to confront today's professional US military with an assault weapon or any other kind of weapon would be foolish. In addition, with the current anti-terrorist laws in place, brandishing a weapon in that fashion would only get one arrested or killed.

The second amendment to the US Constitution:

"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."

says nothing about an individual's right to take up arms against the duly constitued government. I don't expect you can find a right to insurrection anywhere in the text of the constitution either.

Even the current Supreme Court does not believe that the right to keep and bear arms by private citizens is absolute. The do find however that an outright ban on gun sales to be unconstitutional.

Are you proposing that the National Firearms Act be repealed and hand grenades, fully automatic machine funs, and sawed-off shotguns be legal for average citizens to purchase and carry?

fleuryb's picture
fleuryb
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote fleuryb:
Quote Commonsense461:
Quote fleuryb:

Why has the dicussion turned toward the disarming of the populace? Nobody has proposed that nor do I believe that it could be feasible even if the majority considered it desirable.

Some common sense restrictions are definitely in order and long overdue.

The 6.5 x 52 mm Italian Carcano M91/38 bolt-action rifle used by Lee Oswald in the 1963 assassination of JFK was purchased via mail-order. After the assissination, people discussed, but never really inplemented. I think it makes sense to require a face-to-face transaction for gun and ammunation purchases. That includes the Internet.

Restricting access to those convicted of using firearms to commit crimes makes sense. If you misuse guns like when people misuse automobiles and alcohol, it makes sense to restrict future access.

Millitary assault weapons have no place outside the field of battle. This is especially true of semi-automatic weapons that can be converted to fully automatic by their owners. Posession of fully automatic weapons continue to be illegal for the average citizen and that makes sense.

Personally I would restrict access to firearms for the average police officer. If certainty of prison time and longer sentences were uniformly guaranteed when firearms are used in commission of a crime, why would the average police officer need them. If the average police officer did not carry a lethal weapon, it would le less necessary for the average criminal to carry one.

In any case, a real debate needs to be conducted on the issue. Bringing up the issue of "taking away guns" in regard to gun control is about as helpful as bringing up child pornography when talking about adults' access to Playboy magazine.

Taking away military fire arms goes against the intent of the second amendment.

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

Only if one considers the primary intent of the second amendment to be allowing one to take up arms against one's government.

Attempting to confront today's professional US military with an assault weapon or any other kind of weapon would be foolish. In addition, with the current anti-terrorist laws in place, brandishing a weapon in that fashion would only get one arrested or killed.

The second amendment to the US Constitution:

"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."

says nothing about an individual's right to take up arms against the duly constitued government. I don't expect you can find a right to insurrection anywhere in the text of the constitution either.

Even the current Supreme Court does not believe that the right to keep and bear arms by private citizens is absolute. The do find however that an outright ban on gun sales to be unconstitutional.

Are you proposing that the National Firearms Act be repealed and hand grenades, fully automatic machine funs, and sawed-off shotguns be legal for average citizens to purchase and carry?

Look at the inent and federalist papers.

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 8:48 am
Quote Commonsense461:
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote Commonsense461:

"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 prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764. That was 230 years ago. -Thomas Jefferson

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

The second amendment is in place to preserve our right to revolution and weapons like the ar15 are needed because if the gap between civillian and military firearms continues to increase how can we preserve the right to revolution?

Realistically you can't revolt against the largest military power on the planet earth. It makes for a good water cooler debate and that's about it. The crazies are running the asylum and that's a tipping point of extreme danger. The focus should still be on good law abiding citizens having the right to carry with every effort and precaution taken to keep guns out of the hands of the crazies. The idea of free citizens protecting themselves against tyranny is now a fairy tale. That's why it's so important to take advantage of the democratic process that we've been given as a safeguard against tyranny. The power of the vote is much more affective than the gun in today's world.

I refuse to belive that. I still belive if push came to shove you would see states likeTexas, Montana,New Hampshire and the bible belt rise against the federal gooverment if the need came.

And when the M1A1 Abrhams Tank came rolling through the corn fields, Jim Bob and Billy Ray with their hunting rifles (or let's even give them assault rifles) would be instantly blown to pieces. Better yet, send a drone over their house and drop a tactical warhead and be done.

The idea that an assault rifle in a citizen's hand could take on the US military is really cute.

In reality the only way you would revolt against the government in this country is through a military coup. And even then you would have to convince the vast portion of the armed services to become more loyal to a military officer or some other political figurehead than to the US. Not likely.

Anyway, the real source of tyranny is the corporate fascists, not the government.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 9:00 pm
Quote ah2:
Quote Commonsense461:
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote Commonsense461:

"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 prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764. That was 230 years ago. -Thomas Jefferson

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

The second amendment is in place to preserve our right to revolution and weapons like the ar15 are needed because if the gap between civillian and military firearms continues to increase how can we preserve the right to revolution?

Realistically you can't revolt against the largest military power on the planet earth. It makes for a good water cooler debate and that's about it. The crazies are running the asylum and that's a tipping point of extreme danger. The focus should still be on good law abiding citizens having the right to carry with every effort and precaution taken to keep guns out of the hands of the crazies. The idea of free citizens protecting themselves against tyranny is now a fairy tale. That's why it's so important to take advantage of the democratic process that we've been given as a safeguard against tyranny. The power of the vote is much more affective than the gun in today's world.

I refuse to belive that. I still belive if push came to shove you would see states likeTexas, Montana,New Hampshire and the bible belt rise against the federal gooverment if the need came.

And when the M1A1 Abrhams Tank came rolling through the corn fields, Jim Bob and Billy Ray with their hunting rifles (or let's even give them assault rifles) would be instantly blown to pieces. Better yet, send a drone over their house and drop a tactical warhead and be done.

The idea that an assault rifle in a citizen's hand could take on the US military is really cute.

In reality the only way you would revolt against the government in this country is through a military coup. And even then you would have to convince the vast portion of the armed services to become more loyal to a military officer or some other political figurehead than to the US. Not likely.

Anyway, the real source of tyranny is the corporate fascists, not the government.

If that situation Is true why did we get our asses handed to us in Vietnam?

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 8:48 am

Gun laws try to limit the amount of harm 1 person can do. The harm a person can do varies on whether they use a knife, single shot Derringer, assault rifle, rocket launcher or A-bomb. In a civilized society, there must be limits on the violent harm 1 person can do. If the CO nut had had access to an A-bomb-don't you think he would have used it?

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 9:24 am

A single vehicle accident in Texas yesterday killed 14 people and injured another 9. It was a Ford pickup. Should we prevent people from driving Ford Pickups?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2018750614_apusdeadlytruckcrashtexas.html

So far, all the evidence shows this guy had a problem. What it stemed from is not yet clear. If he was bent on mass destruction he could have just as well tossed a homemade firebomb. People are screaming about large capacity magazines. These magazines are very prone to jam, which may in fact help prevent further carnage. I am not defending what he used to commit his crime, but I think there is a lot more to the story that we need to see before quickly introducing more laws that will do nothing to prevent future tragedies..

fleuryb: You need to research what is required to purchase a firearm over the internet.

There are many sites on the internet selling firearms. Federal laws only allow firearms to be shipped ONLY to licensed dealers (FFL holders) and in some instances to licensed collectors. Firearms that are classified as Curios and Relics (C&R) can be shipped to C&R License holders. Buying a firearm on the internet requires that you have it shipped to a licensed dealer and requires that the receiving dealer have you fill out the appropriate paperwork (Form 4473) and wait the required waiting period for your jurisdiction. Individuals can ship firearms to licensed dealers ONLY. Under no circumstances can an individual legally ship a firearm directly to another individual.

The same applies to public gunshows in most states.

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 4:12 am
Quote DynoDon:

Gun laws try to limit the amount of harm 1 person can do. The harm a person can do varies on whether they use a knife, single shot Derringer, assault rifle, rocket launcher or A-bomb. In a civilized society, there must be limits on the violent harm 1 person can do. If the CO nut had had access to an A-bomb-don't you think he would have used it?

Deranged people will allways kill if not a gun he'd used a pipe bomb and u can't regulate all the ingredients.

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 8:48 am
Quote Commonsense461:
Quote ah2:
Quote Commonsense461:
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote Commonsense461:

"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 prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764. That was 230 years ago. -Thomas Jefferson

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

The second amendment is in place to preserve our right to revolution and weapons like the ar15 are needed because if the gap between civillian and military firearms continues to increase how can we preserve the right to revolution?

Realistically you can't revolt against the largest military power on the planet earth. It makes for a good water cooler debate and that's about it. The crazies are running the asylum and that's a tipping point of extreme danger. The focus should still be on good law abiding citizens having the right to carry with every effort and precaution taken to keep guns out of the hands of the crazies. The idea of free citizens protecting themselves against tyranny is now a fairy tale. That's why it's so important to take advantage of the democratic process that we've been given as a safeguard against tyranny. The power of the vote is much more affective than the gun in today's world.

I refuse to belive that. I still belive if push came to shove you would see states likeTexas, Montana,New Hampshire and the bible belt rise against the federal gooverment if the need came.

And when the M1A1 Abrhams Tank came rolling through the corn fields, Jim Bob and Billy Ray with their hunting rifles (or let's even give them assault rifles) would be instantly blown to pieces. Better yet, send a drone over their house and drop a tactical warhead and be done.

The idea that an assault rifle in a citizen's hand could take on the US military is really cute.

In reality the only way you would revolt against the government in this country is through a military coup. And even then you would have to convince the vast portion of the armed services to become more loyal to a military officer or some other political figurehead than to the US. Not likely.

Anyway, the real source of tyranny is the corporate fascists, not the government.

If that situation Is true why did we get our asses handed to us in Vietnam?

The reason for the defeat of the US in the Vietnam War was not the result of an armed population fighting off an invading foreign army through their wits and firearms. The South Vietnamese government and population was in sympathy with the cause of North Vietnam.

Any statement to the contrary was simply US propaganda aimed at the people of the United States in order to bring the war to a point where US forces could disengage without suffering what appeared as a loss. No one doubted that if the full military might of the United States had been brought against the NVA and Viet Cong that the US could have been victorious.

Unfortunately, the situation that existed meant possible war with Red China or the Soviet Union should total war be waged. Instead the political leadership of the United States was more than willing to flush the lives of thousands of young men down the toilet in pursuit of a holding action and proxy war. Many who lived theough that period, as I did, see this as one of the greatest tragedies in American history.

fleuryb's picture
fleuryb
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Redwing:

A single vehicle accident in Texas yesterday killed 14 people and injured another 9. It was a Ford pickup. Should we prevent people from driving Ford Pickups?

And that compares to someone going into a theater and opening fire with assault weapons?

Starting off with such a blatant logical fallacy pretty much negates the rest of your argument. Not to mention it identifies you as a probable propagandist and a troll

Propaganda~Logical Fallacies

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 6:50 am

That's what I'm saying gurellia war works. You don't think the forest,bayou and cities of this county are known better by the locals that out of town soldiers.

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 8:48 am

Sorry, I believe it is best to limit the options the deranged have to kill. BTW, I don't believe in a gun ban-just on the degree of firepower. And I do understand your fear of govt tyranny-I just believe you are foolish to believe you can defend yourself with the force needed to face the world's most powerful military.

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 9:24 am
Quote Commonsense461:
Quote fleuryb:
Quote Commonsense461:
Quote fleuryb:

Why has the dicussion turned toward the disarming of the populace? Nobody has proposed that nor do I believe that it could be feasible even if the majority considered it desirable.

Some common sense restrictions are definitely in order and long overdue.

The 6.5 x 52 mm Italian Carcano M91/38 bolt-action rifle used by Lee Oswald in the 1963 assassination of JFK was purchased via mail-order. After the assissination, people discussed, but never really inplemented. I think it makes sense to require a face-to-face transaction for gun and ammunation purchases. That includes the Internet.

Restricting access to those convicted of using firearms to commit crimes makes sense. If you misuse guns like when people misuse automobiles and alcohol, it makes sense to restrict future access.

Millitary assault weapons have no place outside the field of battle. This is especially true of semi-automatic weapons that can be converted to fully automatic by their owners. Posession of fully automatic weapons continue to be illegal for the average citizen and that makes sense.

Personally I would restrict access to firearms for the average police officer. If certainty of prison time and longer sentences were uniformly guaranteed when firearms are used in commission of a crime, why would the average police officer need them. If the average police officer did not carry a lethal weapon, it would le less necessary for the average criminal to carry one.

In any case, a real debate needs to be conducted on the issue. Bringing up the issue of "taking away guns" in regard to gun control is about as helpful as bringing up child pornography when talking about adults' access to Playboy magazine.

Taking away military fire arms goes against the intent of the second amendment.

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

Only if one considers the primary intent of the second amendment to be allowing one to take up arms against one's government.

Attempting to confront today's professional US military with an assault weapon or any other kind of weapon would be foolish. In addition, with the current anti-terrorist laws in place, brandishing a weapon in that fashion would only get one arrested or killed.

The second amendment to the US Constitution:

"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."

says nothing about an individual's right to take up arms against the duly constitued government. I don't expect you can find a right to insurrection anywhere in the text of the constitution either.

Even the current Supreme Court does not believe that the right to keep and bear arms by private citizens is absolute. The do find however that an outright ban on gun sales to be unconstitutional.

Are you proposing that the National Firearms Act be repealed and hand grenades, fully automatic machine funs, and sawed-off shotguns be legal for average citizens to purchase and carry?

Look at the inent and federalist papers.

I must confess that my knowlege of the Federalist Papers is thin. However, I did just do a bit of research.

The main gist I took away from my reading was the main concern was that both the federal and state government did not have the right to disarm the people. Again, I don't think anyone here believes that it is desirable or feasible (or constitutional) to take all guns from all Americans.

I suspect if one invited any of the founding fathers from George Washington on down to a modern-day gun show they would be appalled at the idea of average citizens wielding the awsome power inherent in modern military-style weapons. I believe it is not inconceivable that their main concerns would be to allow citizens the right to keep weapons for hunting or repelling invaders.

Nobody really needs to hunt game to live (and since one must pay for a hunting permit, the right to hunt is a myth) and it is not realistic to believe that the current gun owners in the US would find themselves using their firearms to repel foreign armies.

I think the founding fathers would have no problem with common sense regulations that fall short of taking all guns away from the citizenry at large.

Please help me by citing any relevent passages of the Federalist Papers that indicated the author's support and belief in a right for the people to engage in insurrection against the government they devised under the Constituion of the United States or even the Articles of Confederation.

fleuryb's picture
fleuryb
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote fleuryb:
Quote Commonsense461:
Quote fleuryb:
Quote Commonsense461:
Quote fleuryb:

Why has the dicussion turned toward the disarming of the populace? Nobody has proposed that nor do I believe that it could be feasible even if the majority considered it desirable.

Some common sense restrictions are definitely in order and long overdue.

The 6.5 x 52 mm Italian Carcano M91/38 bolt-action rifle used by Lee Oswald in the 1963 assassination of JFK was purchased via mail-order. After the assissination, people discussed, but never really inplemented. I think it makes sense to require a face-to-face transaction for gun and ammunation purchases. That includes the Internet.

Restricting access to those convicted of using firearms to commit crimes makes sense. If you misuse guns like when people misuse automobiles and alcohol, it makes sense to restrict future access.

Millitary assault weapons have no place outside the field of battle. This is especially true of semi-automatic weapons that can be converted to fully automatic by their owners. Posession of fully automatic weapons continue to be illegal for the average citizen and that makes sense.

Personally I would restrict access to firearms for the average police officer. If certainty of prison time and longer sentences were uniformly guaranteed when firearms are used in commission of a crime, why would the average police officer need them. If the average police officer did not carry a lethal weapon, it would le less necessary for the average criminal to carry one.

In any case, a real debate needs to be conducted on the issue. Bringing up the issue of "taking away guns" in regard to gun control is about as helpful as bringing up child pornography when talking about adults' access to Playboy magazine.

Taking away military fire arms goes against the intent of the second amendment.

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

Only if one considers the primary intent of the second amendment to be allowing one to take up arms against one's government.

Attempting to confront today's professional US military with an assault weapon or any other kind of weapon would be foolish. In addition, with the current anti-terrorist laws in place, brandishing a weapon in that fashion would only get one arrested or killed.

The second amendment to the US Constitution:

"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."

says nothing about an individual's right to take up arms against the duly constitued government. I don't expect you can find a right to insurrection anywhere in the text of the constitution either.

Even the current Supreme Court does not believe that the right to keep and bear arms by private citizens is absolute. The do find however that an outright ban on gun sales to be unconstitutional.

Are you proposing that the National Firearms Act be repealed and hand grenades, fully automatic machine funs, and sawed-off shotguns be legal for average citizens to purchase and carry?

Look at the inent and federalist papers.

I must confess that my knowlege of the Federalist Papers is thin. However, I did just do a bit of research.

The main gist I took away from my reading was the main concern was that both the federal and state government did not have the right to disarm the people. Again, I don't think anyone here believes that it is desirable or feasible (or constitutional) to take all guns from all Americans.

I suspect if one invited any of the founding fathers from George Washington on down to a modern-day gun show they would be appalled at the idea of average citizens wielding the awsome power inherent in modern military-style weapons. I believe it is not inconceivable that their main concerns would be to allow citizens the right to keep weapons for hunting or repelling invaders.

Nobody really needs to hunt game to live (and since one must pay for a hunting permit, the right to hunt is a myth) and it is not realistic to believe that the current gun owners in the US would find themselves using their firearms to repel foreign armies.

I think the founding fathers would have no problem with common sense regulations that fall short of taking all guns away from the citizenry at large.

Please help me by citing any relevent passages of the Federalist Papers that indicated the author's support and belief in a right for the people to engage in insurrection against the government they devised under the Constituion of the United States or even the Articles of Confederation.

But hunting was a given back then so why would they make a amendment just for hunting? Also recourse battle in the revolutionary war was concord caused by the British trying to take a cannon and acash of militarry grade weapons so why would they give up the rights they just fought and died for?

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 8:48 am

Hunting is generally frowned upon these days in urban and suburban areas.

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 9:24 am

The Minutemen who fought on Lexington Green did so because they were defending their cache of powder and guns from an armed force marching west to take away that weaponry. They were members of the Massachusetts state militia, organnized in a well-regulated militia. Why would they not want their proposed government to have the right and authority to repel any other armed force intent on similar insurrection? Are not all government employees and military members sworn under oath to protect the constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic? The protection of the constitution is, in essence, protection of the duly elected government organized under the rules spelled out in that same constitution.

I would ask you to quote me anything in the Constitution that gives the people the right to engage in insurrection against their constitutionally elected government.

fleuryb's picture
fleuryb
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote fleuryb:

The Minutemen who fought on Lexington Green did so because they were defending their cache of powder and guns from an armed force marching west to take away that weaponry. They were members of the Massachusetts state militia, organnized in a well-regulated militia. Why would they not want their proposed government to have the right and authority to repel any other armed force intent on similar insurrection? Are not all government employees and military members sworn under oath to protect the constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic? The protection of the constitution is, in essence, protection of the duly elected government organized under the rules spelled out in that same constitution.

I would ask you to quote me anything in the Constitution that gives the people the right to engage in insurrection against their constitutionally elected government.

For that you have to look at who influenced thefounders to people like John Locke and the right of revolution.

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 8:48 am
Quote Commonsense461:
Quote fleuryb:

The Minutemen who fought on Lexington Green did so because they were defending their cache of powder and guns from an armed force marching west to take away that weaponry. They were members of the Massachusetts state militia, organnized in a well-regulated militia. Why would they not want their proposed government to have the right and authority to repel any other armed force intent on similar insurrection? Are not all government employees and military members sworn under oath to protect the constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic? The protection of the constitution is, in essence, protection of the duly elected government organized under the rules spelled out in that same constitution.

I would ask you to quote me anything in the Constitution that gives the people the right to engage in insurrection against their constitutionally elected government.

For that you have to look at who influenced thefounders to people like John Locke and the right of revolution.

They were fighting for the Rights of Man against absolute monarchs. I don't think that is necessarily applicable, since the founding of the United States of America was, in a lot of ways, the embodiment of the theories of the Age of Enlightenment.

I will grant you that the American presidency is starting to look a lot like the British monarchy against whom the American Revolution was fought. However I think it's a far cry from the devine right of kings posited by the French monarch at the time of their revolution.

Now that was a despotic tyranny!

fleuryb's picture
fleuryb
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote DynoDon:

Hunting is generally frowned upon these days in urban and suburban areas.

Unless the 'stand your ground' laws apply in your state.

Taking an originalist constitutional reading of the second amendment, keeping in mind it was written before bullets were invented, had the shooter been armed per constitution, he would have shot one person, maybe not fatally.

Matchlock, wheel lock, flintlock, percussion cap(1825), bullet was the progression of ammo and ignition systems.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote douglaslee:
Quote DynoDon:

Hunting is generally frowned upon these days in urban and suburban areas.

Unless the 'stand your ground' laws apply in your state.

Taking an originalist constitutional reading of the second amendment, keeping in mind it was written before bullets were invented, had the shooter been armed per constitution, he would have shot one person, maybe not fatally.

I don't think the founding fathers could even imagine in their wildest dreams that an American would ever enter a theater and try to kill as many of his fellow citizens, women and children included, as possible.

fleuryb's picture
fleuryb
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote fleuryb:
Quote douglaslee:
Quote DynoDon:

Hunting is generally frowned upon these days in urban and suburban areas.

Unless the 'stand your ground' laws apply in your state.

Taking an originalist constitutional reading of the second amendment, keeping in mind it was written before bullets were invented, had the shooter been armed per constitution, he would have shot one person, maybe not fatally.

I don't think the founding fathers could even imagine in their wildest dreams that an American would ever enter a theater and try to kill as many of his fellow citizens, women and children included, as possible.

Yes but doesn't that speak to something wrong in the culture not with guns. Gun laws in this country are almost as strict as they have ever been but weave more violance than ever. In the 1930s you could order a Thompson to your door for 30 bucks and that was an automatic weapon with a 100 round drum, yet there where no theaters shootings why is that?

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 8:48 am
Quote Commonsense461:
Quote fleuryb:
Quote douglaslee:
Quote DynoDon:

Hunting is generally frowned upon these days in urban and suburban areas.

Unless the 'stand your ground' laws apply in your state.

Taking an originalist constitutional reading of the second amendment, keeping in mind it was written before bullets were invented, had the shooter been armed per constitution, he would have shot one person, maybe not fatally.

I don't think the founding fathers could even imagine in their wildest dreams that an American would ever enter a theater and try to kill as many of his fellow citizens, women and children included, as possible.

Yes but doesn't that speak to something wrong in the culture not with guns. Gun laws in this country are almost as strict as they have ever been but weave more violance than ever. In the 1930s you could order a Thompson to your door for 30 bucks and that was an automatic weapon with a 100 round drum, yet there where no theaters shootings why is that?

You couldn't buy a Thompson submachine gun after 1934 due to the National Firearms Act of 1934 except under license. The law was adopted as well because of the perception of the power of the tommy gun and its use by criminals. President Roosevelt referred to bill as the Anti-Machine Gun Act.

You're right about the culture, but at the same time one has to wonder if more trees are falling in the forest or if mass media amplifies every crash. I seriously doubt that gun control laws in the United States are more stringent than ever before. As a matter of fact, federal gun laws have been relaxed since Obama became president.

While there may not have been similar shooting rampages by average persons back in the early part of the 20th century, the worst school bombing in American history took place in 1927. That was the Bath School disaster:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Horrible and senseless things have happened throughout history. It is the duty of "we the people" to establish laws to at least make it more difficult for similar tragedies to occur in the future.

fleuryb's picture
fleuryb
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

CS, I agree that it is a problem of culture more than of tools or machines. It is the meaning of the gun and why it is a red-hot political button that makes guns in America particularly dangerous and nuts. It is also something that undercuts the legitimate enjoyment and use of guns and responsible civic standards for gun possession.

But, the Right and the NRA has a lot to answer for in the culture of guns having created it or put it on steroids. If you want to believe that the Founders thought that citizen gun ownership would put a checkmate on government violence, smoke something that erses reality. They would never have thought our weapons would be possible or tolerated. Even the Civil War shocked all expectations with its industrial mass murder.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

Mentally ill people have a statistically significant lower insidence of violence than with the general public, when a tragedy such as this one occurs that fact is never stated. This, along with a lot of other stuff, has lead to an extremely negative opinion of mentally ill people by the majority of the population resulting in this group being considered dangerous and valueless. Mental health programs are usually singled out as the first to have funding cut. Mentally ill people are often dealt with by the police rather than professionals often resulting in imprisonment rather than treatment, and sometimes leading to suicide by cop.

The tragedy in Colorado is exactly that, a tragedy. There is no excuse for the individual responsible, but please, keep in mind that the majority of mentally ill people are harmless.

markf's picture
markf
Joined:
Jul. 23, 2012 2:15 pm
Quote drc2:

CS, I agree that it is a problem of culture more than of tools or machines. It is the meaning of the gun and why it is a red-hot political button that makes guns in America particularly dangerous and nuts. It is also something that undercuts the legitimate enjoyment and use of guns and responsible civic standards for gun possession.

But, the Right and the NRA has a lot to answer for in the culture of guns having created it or put it on steroids. If you want to believe that the Founders thought that citizen gun ownership would put a checkmate on government violence, smoke something that erses reality. They would never have thought our weapons would be possible or tolerated. Even the Civil War shocked all expectations with its industrial mass murder.

Change in technology doesnt void the rights we have

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 8:48 am

Ezra Klein has some graphs and stats on gun violence.

In the US for a product that saves lives you need to use a licensed authorization, redeemed at a licensed dispensary, subject to a coordinated data base and record of purchases, and subject to a specific limit of products and purchases. That for a poduct that saves your life, and of no risk to anyone else.

For a product designed to kill people, one's self, family, friends, or random crowds, there is no such system, and the manufacturers of the killing machines pass laws to prevent the research and collection of relevant data showing the cross reference of all of the killing elements. CO passed a law preventing registration. AZ ATF agents sought to restrict, flag, and further hender in the gun walking started by W, but were told nothing coud be done, it was all legal.

Make it hard to get medicine and people die, make it easy to get guns and people die, at least the goals in the US are consistant, population control.

fleuryb, I read some of your proposals and agreed with a lot of them. I don't see any need for a clip of more than 10 rounds for any weapon. There is no downside to restricting magazine capacity or maybe taxing round capacity over 10 by say 10 dollar tax for round 11, 15 dollar tax for round 12, and so on. Mult- round high capacity clips kept at a gun club or shooting range for target practice could be duty free. Currently on the internet you can order a laser scoped rifle that claims in it's ad a capability of bringing down an airplane or jet from a mile and a half. That is not in the second amendment. Also the Bath massacre sounds like the guy was a teabagger. Property tax went up for a school levy. That pissed him off so, blow up the schools, kill the kids that needed the school that needed revenue. This rationale was before faux.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Except that it does nOthing to preventcrazies from geting these weapons. Case in point colubine happened during the assualr weapons ban.

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 8:48 am
Quote douglaslee:

There is no downside to restricting magazine capacity or maybe taxing round capacity over 10 by say 10 dollar tax for round 11, 15 dollar tax for round 12, and so on. Mult- round high capacity clips kept at a gun club or shooting range for target practice could be duty free. Currently on the internet you can order a laser scoped rifle that claims in it's ad a capability of bringing down an airplane or jet from a mile and a half. That is not in the second amendment. Also the Bath massacre sounds like the guy was a teabagger.

Do you realize that not one word in this quote makes any sense, or has any facts to back them up?

1. Large capacity magazines have been available everywhere for over 100 years. They are still manufactured and there is absolutely no way to control them. That was tried during the Clinton admistration and was a total failure due to worldwide availability. So far reports state the Colorado shooter started with a Remmington 870 shotgun which traditionally holds 5 rounds. In his AR 15 rifle he had a a large capacity magazine and it jammed in his gun causing him to cease firing which was by far the most dangerous weapon he carried rendering it useless because he did not know how to correctly clear the malfunction.

2. You cannot buy on the internet without having it shipped to a federally licensed dealer any modern firearm. That states laws would then apply as to how the sale then proceeds. Show us the internet ad for the laser scoped rifle we can buy that can take down a jet from a mile and a half.

3. Accusing or comparing Andrew Kehoe to anyone in the Tea Party is just flat out irresponsible or ignorant.

Show us the facts

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 4:12 am

Show us some sanity. At least the bans made having this crap illegal, which means you cannot just buy and stockpile if they are found. One would hope that responsible use advocates could also project that attitude with a "culture change" in what is acceptable to gun owners. You would get "outlaws," but you would have made it clear that "guns" are not the check on autocracy some fantacize, and you would project what real target shooting and hunting are. I think the novels of CJ Box present very good gun culture and address everything including militia thinking with respect and great narrative nuance.

We need to have a realistic conversation about what makes some of our outliers fantacize about a big gun event for their personal narratives. The NRA has glamorized the gun, and that is where it has a false appeal to many who are not clinically diagnosable as mentally ill.

I want to underline Markf's post about the mentally ill. Beyond harmless, many of them have a lot to teach us, but also need to find a way to reality. Often the "know not what they do" when others react to them or when boxed in, but that is not strange. Still, few have disordered narratives that make violence glorious, and one could posit that the prevelance of such stories in our media might be more conducive to these acts than their mental condition.

In any event, I do not want us to get lost in the "one lone nut" dismissal of our culture of gun violence. Blaming the "nuts" does not explain why we are insane about gun policies.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

Guns are not the problem it's our society these weapons have been readily

Available for almost a hundred years and we haven't had these events untill the last 20.

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 8:48 am

It is absurd to argue that technology has not changed the role and meaning of "the gun" from the Founders' time to ours. We may have had a violent history and be a bit less so now than in the past, but the "gunfight at the OK Corral" had magazines of about 6 and triggers that had to be pulled to fire. I do not understand fighting for the "right" to possess military hardware and firepower outside a well regulated militia. Hunters should not be allowed to use this crap, and if you want to relive your military days, shooting military arms for sport ought to be highly regulated. Real sports shooting is not about spraying the target with repeating firepower. It is about hitting targets.

Blaming the Founders for not anticipating future technology is not a great argument for principle here.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am
Quote drc2:

It is absurd to argue that technology has not changed the role and meaning of "the gun" from the Founders' time to ours. We may have had a violent history and be a bit less so now than in the past, but the "gunfight at the OK Corral" had magazines of about 6 and triggers that had to be pulled to fire. I do not understand fighting for the "right" to possess military hardware and firepower outside a well regulated militia. Hunters should not be allowed to use this crap, and if you want to relive your military days, shooting military arms for sport ought to be highly regulated. Real sports shooting is not about spraying the target with repeating firepower. It is about hitting targets.

Blaming the Founders for not anticipating future technology is not a great argument for principle here.

If you belive the second amendnent has anything to do with hunting your an idiot.

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

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 8:48 am
Quote drc2:

Show us some sanity. At least the bans made having this crap illegal, which means you cannot just buy and stockpile if they are found.

The assault weapon/large capacity magazine ban of a few years age just meant they could no longer be produced and sold in this country. It was NOT illegal to own a previously manufactured one. Considering most every country with a forge is replicating some sort of military weapon you are going nowhere with your plan to legislate against them.

One major reason the "Assault/black rifle" is now being used for hunting is the hunters under 50 that served in the military are familiar with their operation and the calibers have been changed to permit the taking of larger game. This is no different than the hunters in the early 1900-1930 when the U.S. model 1903 Springfield rifle was used in the same manner.

drc2 [quote]

We may have had a violent history and be a bit less so now than in the past, but the "gunfight at the OK Corral" had magazines of about 6 and triggers that had to be pulled to fire.

[quote]

At the gunfight at the OK Corral the gun of choice was a double barrel 12 ga. shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot with each of the 8 pellets per load equal to a 33 cal bullet. 8 pellets per shot x two barrels that could be reloaded in a couple of seconds created far more devistation that a six shot Colt .45, which is why the Colorado shooter allegedly started shooting witha shotgun.

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 4:12 am

Currently Chatting

Can Democrats Set Out a New Path?

Democrats must embrace a pro-government platform, not run away from it.

Those were the sentiments of Senator Chuck Schumer today, in a speech given at the National Press Club. Talking about the reasons for Democrats’ losses on Election Day, Schumer said that those losses were proof that the American people and middle-class want a government that will work more effectively for them.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system