The NRA’s “Look, But Don’t Touch” Approach Is a Real Killer
By Thom Hartmann A...
It’s time to save the children. Last week, a 3-year-old boy in Hopewell, Virginia accidentally shot his twin brother while playing on a playground, with a gun that had been left unattended in his home. The twin brother was taken to a local hospital for treatment, and is expected to survive, despite being listed in critical but stable condition. The 3-year-old shooter also sustained injuries to his hand, which police suspect are as result of the gun’s action catching the hand.
While the idea of one 3-year-old shooting another 3-year-old seems unbelievable, it’s part of a very disturbing trend in America today. The U.S. accounts for a staggering 75% of all children murdered in the developed world. And studies have shown that U.S. children between the ages of 5 and 14 are 17 times more likely to be murdered by guns than children in any other developed country in the world.
Similarly, U.S. children under the age of 15 are nine times more likely to die from a gun-related accident than those in the rest of the developed world. And in states where it’s easier to get a gun, the rates of accidental gun deaths among children are even higher. From the playground to the classroom, all across America, our children are dying from completely preventable gun violence. But don’t tell that to gun lobby groups like the NRA.
Despite tragedies like Newtown, and the hundreds of other shootings that involve children each year, the NRA continues to insist that children and guns go great together! For years, the NRA has been working with gun manufacturers to promote guns to children. Just recently, the NRA held a convention in Indianapolis, which included a so-called “Youth Day” to promote guns for children. And for years, the NRA has sponsored the “Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program,” a "gun safety" program marketing guns to children.
According to the NRA’s own website, “The Eddie Eagle GunSafe program is an easy to remember message. If you see a gun: Stop! Don't Touch. Leave the Area. Tell an Adult.”
First, everyone knows how hard it is to get a child to “look, but don’t touch.” But more importantly, it’s quite clear that that “easy to remember” message isn’t working. More and more children are ending up in hospitals – or morgues – each year because of gun violence.
Despite the mountains of evidence and piles of tragic stories that say otherwise, the NRA continues to market guns to children, and is even actively promoting legislation across the country that would make it illegal for pediatricians to talk to parents and children about guns and gun safety measures. The NRA says they hate big government, but they want government to be standing between your child and her doctor, forbidding the doctor from discussing guns with her.
The bottom-line here is that guns are dangerous weapons that can kill you, whether you’re 3 or 33. It's what they're built to do. So, it’s time we started treating them like the deadly objects they are.
First, we have to ban gun manufacturers and gun lobby groups like the NRA from marketing guns to children, the same way we banned cigarette companies from marketing to kids. If you’re not old enough to buy a gun, then there’s absolutely no reason why guns should be marketed towards you. That’s just plain common sense.
It’s also common sense that we - at the very least - start treating guns like we treat cars. Cars can be deadly weapons too. That’s why we require people to be licensed and insured before they can drive a car, and register the cars from manufacture to destruction so we can keep track of who’s behind the wheel. Guns should be treated the same way. Anyone who wants to own a gun needs to be licensed and insured, so if their gun is accidentally or otherwise used to kill or injure someone, the victim or the victim’s family will be compensated. And the gun, like a car, needs to have its serial number registered with the state so a chain of ownership and responsibility can always be established.
The debate in America right now over guns and gun violence has gone way past simple common sense. Let’s change that, and save the lives of America’s children in the process.
Comments
#2
Before we blame the NRA for children shooting children (they do deserve some blame), we should put the bulk of the blame on irresponsible parents and careless gun owners. I, for one, am sick and tired of my rights being trampled on because of parents who won't supervise their children; and any gun owner who leaves his WEAPON laying out where children can find it should never be allowed to own a gun again, not even a toy one.
My beliefs about gun control run to two extremes: The 1st extreme: a total ban on guns; no one outside the military would be allowed to own a gun, not the police, not government agents, NO ONE. Even the military would be restricted as to when and where they could have guns in their possession. The 2nd extreme: everyone would be required, from the age of 18, to own and carry a gun after being fully and properly trained in gun handling. Would you mug a 90 year old lady if you knew she has a 9mm Glock AND KNOWS HOW TO USE IT?
Unfortunately, guns are a reality and are here to stay; that genie is not going back in the bottle. But, passing of criminal background checks, proper training, licensing, and psychological exams should be required for all gun owners.
Ironically, until very recently I would never have considered purchasing a gun; but with the rising tides of fear, greed, and hatred, and the violence that goes with them, I've been giving a passing thought or two to becoming a gun owner.
Life is getting really suckey.
#3
That being said, there is a limit to how much we can control guns. That is called the Constitution. However, that limit hasn't even been approached yet. We have yet to enact common sense licensing and logical restrictions on gun purchases. There is nothing unconstitutional about background checks. We don't even ban the sales of untraced guns such as online and in gun shows. There is so much we can do; but, because we have done nothing for so long the problem of illegal guns is completely out of control. As long as the black market is overflowing with such merchandise ending gun violence is going to be impossible. The REAL culprits in this struggle are the gun manufactures who are hiding behind the NRA. Thanks to them this problem is far from over. Although it would be the responsible thing to do to license, insure, restrict, and tract gun sales it should be made very clear that this approach alone will not solve our problem. The roots of gun violence in this country run far deeper than that.
#4
You just can't fix stupid can you. What kind of parent would leave loaded guns laying around when there is children present. Never mind a license for a gun I think you should have one to have kids.
On a total different topic all of you who disapprove of the Keystone pipe line will be glad to know our Canadian Government just approved the Northern Gateway pipeline from Alberta to Kitimat BC There is a very mixed reaction here of course. On one hand selling a extra 800,000 barrels a day at $100 dollars a barrel is a additional $80,000,000.00 (US) a day into the Canadian Economy, create thousands and thousands of good high paying jobs. On the down side Canada's green house gas emissions will go from 1.7 % of the worlds to 1.8%
Turning down Keystone is going to end up being a huge mistake. All hell is breaking lose in the middle East and oil prices could go through the roof. It could cripple the whole US economy. Anyone remember the 70's. The good news is it will help motivate more investment in solar, wind and Natural gas. Come to think about it maybe that was the plan all along. Hummmmmmmmmm
I just hired two guys one on the west coast an one in Edmonton. It is a good thing looks like I am going to really need them now. Anyone need a job looks like we are going to get really really busy.
Remember a little while back I said you should buy real estate in Alberta, Canada. I hope you did your 401K is going to look much better soon.
#5
Marc, what on earth would compel you to defend the NRA?!! Those guys are evil. I've heard the argument about violence-glorifying movies, video games ad nauseam a thousand times already, and while that argument has a ring of truth to it, that doesn't negate the NRA's roie in our uniquely American epidemic of gun-related deaths. I'm getting awfully tired of my liberal friends defending the NRA. Sorry to rain on your parade Marc, but those guys are bad news. Don't you find it rather stunning that the NRA would encourage legislation making it illegal for pediatricians to talk to kids and their parents about guns?! I don't know about you, but I find this extremely troubling.
Thom's points on this topic are just simple common sense. Like I said in an earlier post, anything that can harm or kill people needs to be REGISTERED. There is nothing extreme in this notion. It's the same logic that applies to cars. I've yet to hear or read an argument to the contrary that is convincing enough to change my mind. These folks who squeal endlessly about the "guvmint" taking their guns away are just being hysterical. It won't solve the whole problem but it's a start. - Aliceinwonderland
#6
As far as being responsible with your guns, locking and hiding ammo, I am all for it if you have underage or irresponsible people in your home. I think it is the worst idea to let the Government take "More" control measures against us. Taking away guns will make us all open to terror and crime. I will always be active against more controls. The conspiracy that exhists now is the "Control" of the market availability of 22 caliber ammunition, give me a break. Most dealers of ammunition make the more dangerous "High Caliber" ammo available "Anywhere". If you don't like guns............. Don't own one and keep your opinions to yourself. I do not flaunt my ownership and I am also an avid Hunter and Sportsman.
#7
Aliceinwonderland ~ I'm not defending the NRA--I'm putting them in perspective. Gun manufacturers fund these guys. They are nothing more than front men for the real bad guys--the exact same way the Democrats and Republicans are front men for Corporations.
Please don't think I'm defending them or dissuading registration, licensing or insuring guns. I'm all for that. However, the truth is that if you disbanded the NRA tomorrow the gun manufacturing industry would just prop up another group. These peoples agenda is to sell as much guns as possible to maximize their profits. All they see are their profits and to hell with everything else. We need to focus some of our steam on the manufacturers--don't you think?
#8
DAM -- You need a decoder ring.
1% means 0.01%
NRA means gun manufacturers.
#9
The Nation MagazineQuote Article, "Does the NRA Represent Gun Manufacturers or Gun Owners?:Despite the grassroots façade, there is much evidence to suggest that corporations that profit from unregulated gun use are propping up the NRA’s activities, much like how the tobacco lobby secretly funded “Smokers Rights’” fronts and libertarian anti-tax groups, or how polluters currently finance much of the climate change skepticism movement.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/171776/does-nra-represent-gun-manufacturers-or-gun-owners#
#10
DAM -- You need to read the new book about Scalia.
Quote DAnneMarc:That being said, there is a limit to how much we can control guns. That is called the Constitution. However, that limit hasn't even been approached yet
The author was on one of the not-RW talk shows, pointing out Scalia not only was not able of understanding law, but he totally corrupted the English language in his interpretation of the Second Amendment. Also, I agree with Thom when he says militia means National Guard or Slave Patrol. I think it is intersting that Article 1, section 8, says that militias are to be used to put down insurgencies. That has to mean insurgencies like Clive Bundy and members of the Whiskey rebellion.
#11
The Business InsiderQuote Article: "This Is How The Gun Industry Funnels Tens of Millions of Dollars to the NRA":he NRA Foundation also collects hundreds of thousands of dollars from the industry, which it then gives to local-level organizations for training and equipment purchases.This shift is key to understanding why a coalition of hunters, collectors and firearm enthusiasts takes the heat for incidents of gun violence, like the shooting massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, rather than the companies that manufacture and market assault weapons.
The chief trade association for gun manufacturers is the National Shooting Sports Federation, which is, incidentally, located in Newtown, Conn. But the NRA takes front and center after each and every shooting.
"Today's NRA is a virtual subsidiary of the gun industry," said Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center. "While the NRA portrays itself as protecting the 'freedom' of individual gun owners, it's actually working to protect the freedom of the gun industry to manufacture and sell virtually any weapon or accessory."
There are two reasons for the industry support for the NRA. The first is that the organization develops and maintains a market for their products. The second, less direct function, is to absorb criticism in the event of PR crises for the gun industry.
It's possible that without the NRA, people would be protesting outside of Glock, SIG Sauer and Freedom Group — the makers of the guns used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre — and dragging the CEOs in front of cameras and Congress. That is certainly what happened to tobacco executives when their products continued killing people.
Notoriously, tobacco executives even attempted to form their own version of the NRA in 1993, seeing the inherent benefit to the industry that such an effort would have. Philip Morris bankrolled the National Smokers Alliance, a group that never quite had the groundswell of support the industry wanted.
Notably, the tide has shifted slightly in the wake of Sandy Hook, with Cerberus Capital Management's decision to sell Freedom Group, the company that makes the Bushmaster rifle.
But if history is any indication, the NRA will be front and center of the new gun control debate, while gun manufacturers remain safely out of the spotlight.
http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1
#12
JC -- Do you know what democracy is? As Winston Churchill said it is the worse form of government except for all the others.
Quote JOHNCHRISTIAN: I think it is the worst idea to let the Government (AKA we the people) take "More" control measures against us. Taking away guns will make us all open to terror and crime.
I bet Winston would say one of those forms of government worse than democracy would be the gun manufacturers telling us what the laws should be. 90% of the people want simple restrictions on gun owrnership, even more restrictions than the gun show loophole. The NRA told congress if they want to get re-elected they should not pass that law. Congress saluted and kept it from becoming law.
#13
ste -- Have you heard of the continent/country Australia?
Quote stecoop01: that genie is not going back in the bottle..
Australia put the genie back in the bottle.
#14
Quote Kend:Never mind a license for a gun I think you should have one to have kids.
Now there's a social improvement that must be implemented...there's too d@#n many unqualified and irresponsible parents on this planet.
#15
Quote chuckle8:Australia put the genie back in the bottle.
Really?!? There are no guns in Australia?!? I don't believe it.
#16
BAN THE BULLET!
The constitution doesn't prohibit outlawing bullets; we should make it illegal to manufacture, sell, buy, possess, or import bullets.
Without bullets, guns are just ugly paper weights!
BAN THE BULLET!!!
#17
chuckle8 ~ If you are suggesting that Scalia is an imbecile you will get no argument from me.
As far as the interpretation of the second amendment is concerned you also will get no argument. The wording of that amendment was not dubious. What it represented in essence was an expression of liberty and freedom as well as the means to protect that liberty and freedom. Whether that be against an oppressive government or someone trying to steal your slaves is irrelevant.
Two things you have to remember, first times back then were very different. Automatic weapons did not exist. Also the prevailing social mores and culture at the time was completely different. First and foremost the founding fathers wrote those laws to appeal to the prevalent masses.
Secondly, you have to remember that the founding fathers were very educated and insiteful. Their wording of the Constitution was meant to express the best essence of freedom and liberty that they could foresee. Nevertheless, as worded--in my humble opinion--it means the following:
Quote The Second Amendment: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.
Note: it clearly states that, "A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state"; {therefore}, "the rights of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Essentially, because the militia is necessary, people shall have the right to keep and bear arms. It does not say--or imply--that people only have the right to keep and bear arms as part of a militia. That is what Thom and many others simply don't get sometimes. Don't blame me, I didn't write it; but, I sure understand it. It is worded quite simply.
Another thing, it also clearly states "arms". It does not define or clarify what "arms" are. It does not say handguns, rifles, bazookas, rocket launchers, tanks, machine guns, or cannons. It is very generalized. Therefore everything from a handgun to a cruise missile is included. Again, I didn't write it. Obviously, this document is in need of some serious ratification to bring it into the 21st century. While we're at it, The Bible could use some editing too. That we can discuss; but, please don't try to "misinterpret" the English language for me. I am actually quite fluent in it.
#18
Common DreamsQuote Article: "NRA Gets Millions From Gun Industry "Corporate Partners" New Study Reveals:The report, "Blood Money: How the Gun Industry Bankrolls the NRA" (http://www.vpc.org/studies/bloodmoney.pdf), reveals that since 2005 contributions from gun industry "corporate partners" to the NRA total between $14.7 million and $38.9 million. Total donations to the NRA from all "corporate partners"--both gun industry and non-gun industry--for the same time period total between $19.8 million and $52.6 million. The vast majority of funds--74 percent--contributed to the NRA from “corporate partners” come from members of the firearms industry: companies involved in the manufacture or sale of firearms or shooting-related products.Despite the NRA's historical claims that it is not financially allied with the gun industry, including the current disclaimer on its website that it “is not affiliated with any firearm or ammunition manufacturers or with any businesses that deal in guns and ammunition,” NRA "corporate partners" include many of the world's best known gunmakers as well as such companies as Xe, the new name of the now infamous Blackwater Worldwide--known for its abuses in the Iraq war--which alone contributed between $500,000 and $999,999 to the NRA since 2005.
Quote Article: "NRA Gets Millions From Gun Industry "Corporate Partners" New Study Reveals:Among the NRA’s “corporate partners” who gave $25,000 or more to the organization are 22 that manufacture firearms, including such well-known gunmakers as: Arsenal, Inc.; Benelli; Beretta USA Corporation; Browning; DPMS Panther Arms; FNH USA; Glock, Inc.; H&R 1871, LLC; Marlin Firearms; Remington Arms Co., Inc.; SIGARMS, Inc.; Smith & Wesson Corporation; Springfield Armory; and, Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. Of the 22 gunmakers, 12 manufacture assault weapons. Also among the NRA’s “corporate partners” are numerous high-capacity ammunition magazine manufacturers or vendors.One manufacturer, Beretta, donated one million dollars to the NRA to work to overturn gun control laws in the wake of the 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision in "District of Columbia v. Heller" (which for the first time ever recognized an individual right to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense).
Quote Article: "NRA Gets Millions From Gun Industry "Corporate Partners" New Study Reveals:The NRA's top corporate benefactor is MidwayUSA, the "Official Sponsor of the NRA Annual Meeting and Exhibits...” being held in Pittsburgh, PA, later this month. MidwayUSA sells ammunition, high-capacity ammunition magazines, and other shooting accessories and has contributed between five and 10 million dollars to the NRA via its NRA Round-Up Program (which rounds up customer purchases to the nearest dollar with the difference going to the NRA) and other contributions. One Pittsburgh resident who apparently took part in the NRA’s Round-Up Program through MidwayUSA was concealed carry permit holder George Sodini, who in August 2009 opened fire at an LA Fitness Center in Collier, PA, killing three women and wounding nine others before turning the gun on himself and taking his own life. A copy of the e-mail receipt sent to Sodini from MidwayUSA for his purchase of 9mm and .45 ammunition includes a donation of 74 cents from the mass shooter to the NRA via the Round-Up Program.The study concludes, "The mutually dependent nature of the National Rifle Association and the gun industry explains the NRA’s unwillingness to compromise on even the most limited controls over firearms or related products (such as restrictions on high-capacity ammunition magazines)....The NRA claims that its positions are driven solely by a concern for the interests of gun owners, never mentioning its own financial stake in protecting the profits of its gun industry patrons. At the 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre told a cheering crowd that 'the guys with the guns make the rules.' The information contained in this report raises the question as to what degree it is the guys who make the guns who make the rules."
#19
Okay Marc. Sorry if I misinterpreted your message. I'll confess, I'd already posted my response to your first message before reading the second one; had I read the second one, I may have responded differently. My apologies for the oversight. - AIW
#20
JC, No one is trying to take away your goddam guns!!! How many times must we repeat this before it finally sinks in? Get a grip. - AIW
P.S. We do not engage on this forum to keep our opinions to ourselves.
#21
Aliceinwonderland ~ "Taking your guns away" is a popular rallying cry sponsored by the NRA. After all, allegedly that is why they exist in the first place. (As though the second amendment wasn't enough.) Unfortunately, in a society where anomie and alienation are the widespread norm, such paranoid delusions can also become the norm.
That is why I'd rather attack the gun manufacturing industry. They are the root of the problem The NRA is just a freedom advocacy group. When you attack them its easy for the paranoid to misconstrue that as an attack on their freedom.
In the end we just end up spinning our own wheels; and, that is exactly what the gun industry wants us to do. One fine place to start is by exposing the dark money trail of the gun industry and demand it is banned. Force the NRA to live up to its own claims--that it is solely supported by member contributions. Contributions from "Corporate Partners" needs to be outlawed, and the "Corporate Partners" need to be held fully accountable for the harm done by their product--just like the Tobacco industry. Maybe after they are hit in their pocket book they will seriously reconsider reasonable gun regulations as something that protects everyone--including themselves.
Of course, even after that huge victory we still have to clean up all the black market weapons floating around on the planet that is still available to anyone cheap who is willing to pay for it no questions asked. We will also have to deal with a culture that has been artificially raised in an environment that encourages and glorifies deadly violence. We have the issue of widespread poverty and the crime and social unrest that comes out of it. And then there is the issue of all the cases of untreated mental illness; which, without publicly funded mental institutions and with thousands of returning severely traumatized combat trained war veterans, is not a problem that is going to get any better anytime soon on its own. Gun violence in this country is not a simple issue and will not be solved overnight. That is why we need to make the most of our resources in tackling it. The way I see it, there is no simple solution; and, we have a lot of work to do.
#22
Marc- outside of signing petitions, I don't see many options for me, regarding how to attack the gun industry. I'm not doing well enough financially, nowadays, to contribute $$ to organizations I believe in. There is only so much time (and patience) I have for letter writing and phone calling. None of the above options seem very effective anyway. I'm just sick and tired of these knee-jerkin' paranoids over-reacting to every plea for rational registration-of-firearms policy, screeching hysterically that we are trying to take their guns away. It gets old. - AIW
#23
Aliceinwonderland ~ That's for sure!
I know several people who own guns and they are all very responsible with them. In California we have some of the most strict laws in the nation concerning buying guns. I too have ignorantly extrapolated that to include the rest of the nation. Only recently was it brought to my attention that in some states guns could be LEGALLY sold with no questions asked. Gun shows and online sales to anyone with cash had me shaking my head and doing a double take. WTF! I have to think that there are a lot of good responsible people out there who just don't have a clue as to how really bad and dangerous the situation is that is being perpetuated by the US gun lobby.
When people feel threatened, they will react instead of respond. Usually defensively instead of logically; and, fearfully instead of with common sense. I wouldn't get too wound up about it. We're just experiencing reactions that have been conditioned into people from powers far beyond their control that are playing their greatest fears. I'm fairly certain that they do not represent thoughtful responsible thoughts; and, are nothing a little calm education can't cure. For that, thank you for being such a wonderful teacher.
#24
"1% means 0.01%"
wat
#25
DAM -- Have you met Patrick Henry the largest slaveholder in Virginia?
Quote DAnneMarc:Secondly, you have to remember that the founding fathers were very educated and insiteful.
He forced the 2nd amendment into the constitution so he could control his slaves. He was part of the 1% of the day. He wanted the 2nd amendment to suppress "freedom and liberty".
Quote DAnneMarc:Whether that be against an oppressive government or someone trying to steal your slaves is irrelevant.
Article1, section 8 seems to say militias were never to be used against our government no matter how oppressive. Patrick Henry had no fear of anyone stealing his slaves. Pat was worried about his slaves trying to free themselves.
#26
goat-on-a-stick -- Are you from the Mediterranean? In any case, when I (and OWS) speak of the 1%, we are speaking of the people whose personal income and/or wealth is great enough to influence political opinion. In small communities, being in the top 1% could be sufficient. For national policies, one may have to be in the top 0.01%, or higher, to influence policies. The NRA (i.e. gun manufacturers) is an example where the 0.01% are influencing national policy.
#27
stecoop1 -- Australia did not eliminate guns. They just made ownership more involved. In so doing, they reduced the homicide rate by 75%.
#28
chuckle8 ~ An even better argument for the 2nd amendment is that back in 1776 the new Republic was surrounded by a nation of indigenous people who were profoundly better fighters and hopelessly outnumbered Europeans settlers/invaders; and, the only way colonists could steal their land successfully is by making sure each and every invading European had been armed with superior weapons.
There were several greedy and shortsighted reasons for the 2nd amendment. That doesn't change the wording or meaning of the law. It is what it is; and, that is what we have to deal with today.
#29
DAM -- You do know that the 2nd amendment says state, correct? That should not be used for the security of a free nation. The security of a free nation is to be provided by the army. The army is the one tasked with defending against those indigenous people. No one thought we needed to protect the bearing of arms by individuals to maintain a well regulated army.
Also, an amendment can be overturned by 67% or 75% of the representatives. If 90% of the people want something and it doesn't happen, I would blame that on the 1%.
#30
DAM -- With the strange use of commas in the second amendment, I think it could be interpreted in several ways. I think the way Thom is interpreting seems quite acceptable to me. The wording that would support it would be "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed in anyway that would inhibit a well regulated militia." I think that book about Scalia is about how to sort out the commas.
#31
Quote chuckle8:DAM -- With the strange use of commas in the second amendment, I think it could be interpreted in several ways. I think the way Thom is interpreting seems quite acceptable to me. The wording that would support it would be "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed in anyway that would inhibit a well regulated militia."
chuckle8 ~ You are reading a hell of a lot into that comma. I simply do not agree. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" stands on it's own. The phase about "maintaining a militia" is simply used as an excuse to support the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It certainly is not meant to limit that right. Otherwise it would have said quite plainly that, 'The right of the people in the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' Of course, that is not what it says.
#32
Quote chuckle8:DAM -- You do know that the 2nd amendment says state, correct? That should not be used for the security of a free nation. The security of a free nation is to be provided by the army.
chuckle8 ~ That is the excuse, the security of state. However, the amendment covers everyone in the nation because it clearly refers to the right of "the people" and not militia or army. Lets face facts, if it was meant only to apply to people in one state it wouldn't even have been mentioned in the Constitution of the 'United States' in the first place. It would have been left completely to state Constitutions.
#33
DAM -- You seem to keep forgetting that the 2nd amendment was written, so Patrick Henry could run his slave patrols without interference from the feds.
That book about Scalia proposes what the commas say. The author says Scalia was wrong, I was just proposing one way it could be interpreted. I have not read the book, and English at that level is not my strong suit.
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
Images of Thom
With His Holiness The Dalai Lama, at His home in Dharamsala, India (Synthesis Dialogues - made into a movie narrated by Harrison Ford)
From Screwed:
"Once again, Thom Hartmann hits the bull’s eye with a much needed exposé of the so-called ‘free market.’ Anyone concerned about the future of our nation needs to read Screwed now."
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom Hartmann is a creative thinker and committed small-d democrat. He has dealt with a wide range of topics throughout his life, and this book provides an excellent cross section. The Thom Hartmann Reader will make people both angry and motivated to act."
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom Hartmann is a literary descendent of Ben Franklin and Tom Paine. His unflinching observations and deep passion inspire us to explore contemporary culture, politics, and economics; challenge us to face the facts of the societies we are creating; and empower us to demand a better world for our children and grandchildren."
Come on Thom! The NRA promotes guns to children? Really? What about Hollywood and toy manufacturers. Almost every high budget movie that comes out of that hell hole glorifies guns and violence. How about video games? How about the latest blockbuster GTA (Grand Theft Auto)? A game that not only glorifies guns and violence; but, that depicts the violence caused by them in disturbing high definition resolution. Compared to those influences on our kids the NRA is singing background vocals in a choir.