 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Beginning of serious conversation
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Donuel Date: 21 Dec 12 - 12:41 PM In the exact words of the NRA MC, "this is the beginning of a serious Conversation; therefore we will not respond to you now or answer any questions." ----- That, my friends is not a conversation, that is a dictate. Last Friday I wrote concisely and emotionally about the atrocious horror, partly for my own healing and partly to prepare and defend my psyche from the coming events by predicting every single event that has so far come to pass in the debate and debacle. Perhaps a thread with a decidedly different tone could allow the kidnd hearts in us all to prevail. Poems, prose, songs and essays later I am prepared to hold hands with the heart broken, close my eyes to the inane and walk away from the horror into a world of sanity and sanctity of life. Since MLK was shot the USA has had over one million domestic shooting deaths. MORE American children die of their gunshot wounds than from Cancer! These events were not enough to act rationally about private arsenals. Today the latest school shooting is said to be enough to finally take gun control seriously. I want to know where you are as a person of conscience now, not 1988 or 1776, but today. If there are others who are open minded enough to have this conversation without the immature pitfalls of dogma, hate or brain washing, I would like to hear about common sense answers compromises or outside the box exploration of life over death, hope over fear, change over the new normal. Loaded words, Broad brushes, Static historical comparisons are all distractions and are best to be avoided. Facts will be weighed as to their relevancy. My desire is to hear from the entire human being that wishes to speak to the problem and not just the talking pointed sound bite repeater. There are ways to overcome the psychological programming designed for profit over morality but we must first be aware that perhaps just perhaps we were unwilling participants. I want to feel your message and not massage the worn out arguments of the past. please overlook my poor spelling, and try to see through to the essence of what is possible between people of different backgrounds and experience when both heart and mind are free. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Amos Date: 21 Dec 12 - 01:01 PM IF wee are to have a serious conversation, perhaps it could start with the question "Who should be permitted to murder small childrten?". A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: GUEST,Stim Date: 21 Dec 12 - 01:42 PM Well, there you go, Donuel, the first poster to your thread broke the rule about "loaded words". Worst thing is that Amos is one of the most reasonable and rational of the crew here. Maybe the NRA is right, in the sense that we're all too hurt and upset to talk to each other seriously about this now. Unfortunately, by the time everyone has calmed down, we will have all gone back to life as usual. So it goes... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 21 Dec 12 - 01:54 PM ...and more people die in car accidents domestically, than domestic shootings...let's outlaw cars, too! ...besides, 95% of all forest fires are caused by trees, too! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Richard Bridge Date: 21 Dec 12 - 02:04 PM Look out, here come the troglodytes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Ebbie Date: 21 Dec 12 - 02:29 PM My question was going to be: Just when did the Second Amendment become contentious? Then I went looking and found that it was controversial from the beginning, even before it was adopted, as shown here: Argument FOR Individual Gun Rights This is a pro gun rights site but he does a good job, imo, in presenting his argument. I am far less sure now that the 'militia' requirement was what they had in mind. The part of the amendment that we can legitimately argue is the irrefutable fact that we have far more options in weaponry than the constitutional framers had or could even have envisioned. Note that they did NOT say that Americans have the right to own and bear guns in perpetuity no matter what refinements were to be made in the guns. It seems clear that refinements and improvements of weaponry didn't occur to them; they were merely agreeing that guns would serve as a deterrent against governmental tyranny. They were especially concerned with the concept of 'standing armies', that an army could subjugate the populace at will if the people were disarmed. In the 230+ years since the amendment was adopted, there have not been many incidences of a standing army attempting to subjugate the people, although I suppose the subjects of Waco, Ruby Ridge, Wounded Knee and a few others could be argued. My belief is that our acceptance of the literal wording has served us poorly. It seems strange beyond passing that the issue was not revisited early on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Greg F. Date: 21 Dec 12 - 02:29 PM Ignore the Fugitive From Reality - some old senseless bullshit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: GUEST,Stim Date: 21 Dec 12 - 02:55 PM Well, actually, I was wrong about the NRA wanting to be silent till we can talk about this sensibly. Check Wayne LaPierre Speaks Out!, and abandon hope. Basically, he wants to arm volunteers to protect our schools and create a data base of the "mentally ill". He blames video games, movies, music videos for the violence. Curiously, he doesn't say anything about lifting the ban on assault weapons. The quotable quote being, ""The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Which one is Wayne LaPierre? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 21 Dec 12 - 03:04 PM This 'quotable quote' presumably implies that all headteachers, teachers, school cleaners and even the pupils themselves should all carry guns, ensuring their corporate safety. This whole thing is assuming the atmosphere of Alice Through The Looking Glass. Sick and surreal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Donuel Date: 21 Dec 12 - 03:07 PM To be explicitly clear what I meant by a serious conversation is one in which both sides of a gun issue coulld seek some higher common ground and avoid the sniping with over used analogies or talking point phrases, to speak from the heart and miond in each post. I would hope that empathy and compromise are not loaded words although even those words have been assailed by some extremists. In 1988 the NRA made a right turn dedicated to maximizing profits with less and less consideration given to safety and registration. They have gone the way of Wall St. values and does not reflect the opinions of the investors who are consumers to be manipulated. Seeking some compromise could be our focus here. How much is too much death . How much is too much profit. What is a small price to pay for guns today? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: GUEST,sciencegeek Date: 21 Dec 12 - 03:13 PM the early United States did not have a national army... it relied on the state/local militias to provide troops for combat. Plus the fact that crack militias drew from settlers who used firearms to put food on the table, as well as protection in areas that had no other defense. That was the context in which the second amendment was framed... Eisenhower left office warning about the military industrial complex.. well, gun makers are a big part of that & Mr. LaPierre & his million dollar salary are in the service of gunmakers not the rank & file NRA members. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: GUEST,Stim Date: 21 Dec 12 - 03:33 PM As per who the NRA serves, I spent some time talking with one of the NRA's PR people at a party in Adams-Morgan, some years ago. According to this person, the NRA is very much driven by the views, prejudices, and predilictions of its rank and file. Gun manufacturers and Military-Industrialists know better than to make extreme, inflammatory, a wrong-headed statements in times of national mourning. The rank and file, however, eat it up.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 21 Dec 12 - 03:39 PM What Mr. LaPierre and others of the pro-armed-civilian crowd don't seem to understand is that for an armed person to be an effective security asset, that person must be mentally prepared to take appropriate action at all times. He must be not only trained in the mechanics of how to use his weapon, but trained in the observational techniques required to make competent split-second decisions in high stress situations. And then he has to be periodically drilled to maintain the skills imparted by that training. We're talking about requiring teachers to spend several hours each month on shooting ranges and in mock gun battles to keep their skills sharp enough to insure that, if they ever do have to pull their guns in class, they'll have a better chance of shooting the bad guy than one of their own students. Providing armed security on an effective level is a full-time job in and of itself. It's not just an extra chore like bus duty that one asks a teacher to take on in addition to grading papers. If more security in schools is part of the answer, raise the money to hire professionals. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Richard Bridge Date: 21 Dec 12 - 03:39 PM The best defence against a bad guy with a gun is to make it really hard for him to get a gun. This combines reducing the availability of pistols and rifles, removing assault weapons entirely, licensing all firearms and making possession of an unlicensed firearm a REALLY serious offence (along with using it for a purpose other than the licensed purpose ie (and I mean IE not EG) target practice at a licensed and regularly inspected target shooting club, pest control, or hunting for food within an area licensed for that purpose and under licence conditions (on the one hand) with a strict licensing regime - any offence other than a mild motoring offence - no licence: any history of mental illness - no licence: any history of drug abuse (I approve of drug abuse, but not in this context) or history or prescription psychoactive medicine - no licence (on the other hand. Or just adopt the English law wholesale. You cannot formulate the law on sexual offences in debate with rapists. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 21 Dec 12 - 03:47 PM I would add to Richard's list above: anyone declared psychologically unfit for military service. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Jeri Date: 21 Dec 12 - 04:26 PM This isn't going to be nice. (Even less so than usual for me.) It isn't going to be personal, either, but I'm sick of the demonizing and polarity. People only seem to come here to fight these days, and even those with whom I might mostly agree behave like festering assholes when confronted with... anything. This is not a problem lacking common ground, but the idiots here first look for reasons to hate, reasons to disagree, and ways to belittle those with whom they disagree, mostly because they're people with whom they've previously disagreed. Idiots. Why the fuck can't we agree that little children shouldn't be murdered by ANYONE? Stop looking for reasons to be pissed off. I don't believe anyone here thinks somebody should be allowed to murder little children. End of controversy. You stupid people can keep arguing. There was a guy who killed his mother and stole her guns, went to a school, entered it and proceeded to kill a lot of people, including little children. We need to talk about how to minimize the chances of that happening again. We're not going to be able to restrain all the homicidal people. We're not going to be able to make all the guns disappear. I don't think there IS just one solution, and I don't think there's a way to completely prevent this, but one reason nothing ever, EVER is tried is because fuckwits like us prefer fighting with each other to trying to find ways to keep people from killing children. No one wants to give an inch. No one wants to listen. No one's priority is the victims. For the record, I'm very torn by this. I'm not at all sure about what the right thing is. The ONLY thing I'm 100% sure of is that people who just yell at each other won't ever help. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Bobert Date: 21 Dec 12 - 04:36 PM The 2nd amendment became contentiou$ when the NRA figured out that if they $cared enough people that people would buy gun$$$ from gun $hop$ and the owner$ of tho$e gun $hop$ would $upport the NRA and make it very wealthy... Thi$ entire thing i$ about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$... And it$ worked ju$t like the marketing people $aid it would... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: pdq Date: 21 Dec 12 - 05:43 PM It would be nice to see the statement Jeri made followed by ten or twenty statements of support, but that ain't gonna happen on Mudcat. Still, it is nice to hear the voice of reason occasionally. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: selby Date: 21 Dec 12 - 05:44 PM How can anyone have a sensible discussion with the leader of the NRA after todays statement. Until the second amendment is rewritten with the 21st century in mind, America and guns is going no where. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Jeri Date: 21 Dec 12 - 06:02 PM Thanks, PDQ. Selby, you are "anyone". Are you saying you can't be sensible because of what someone else said? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: akenaton Date: 21 Dec 12 - 06:07 PM I agree with Jeri 100%, tho I am going to take no further part in this thread. It is an issue that you good folks must solve for yourselves. There are very few simplistic and effective answers to the problems which confront us in today's society |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Ed T Date: 21 Dec 12 - 06:28 PM I am not a USA citizen, so "excuse my lack of knowledge. Your constitution says you have the right to bear arms. Does that include any and all arms and armaments? Another question. One normally does not use fully automatic rifles to hunt, to give the animal a "sporting chance' to survival. Why could this "sporting chance for survival" not be extend to humans, including small children? Just wondering? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Bobert Date: 21 Dec 12 - 06:31 PM Jeri is 100% correct... On the other thread I laid out the complexities of our problems... Our dysfunctionality is the heart of it... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Donuel Date: 21 Dec 12 - 07:33 PM I find historic facts important and heart felt declarations like "No one wants to give an inch. No one wants to listen. No one's priority is the victims" but history is easily skewed and the heart felt statement is not true. Even the members of the NRA are 76% for registration and background checks. What is true is that gun manufacturers have been shown political ways to sell more guns via passing stand your ground laws or by insisting the arming of everybody to protect their child or a 6 billion dollar private armed police force to guard schools. Getting fabulously rich is the gun profiteers motive and might listen to other viewpoints and victims but ignore them over phenomenal wealth. Perhaps there are gun factory owners and gun customers who are rational concerning profit vs death. I would like to here their side. A gun is an appliance often the same cost as a dishwasher or refridgerator. If there were hidden costs in owning a fridge similar to guns, no one would buy the fridge that accidently killed someone good or bad. Being as resaonable as possible is the motivation for a new thread on these issues. I think we need to unite the gun profiteers, the rural gun motives and urban gun concerns so we can come to terms with each other in any meaningful way. Its a damn sight better thing than vowing to kill each other which is talked about , has been done and is likely to continue until another path is taken that would open lines of communication. I know how and why the NRA uses pay offs, brain washing and false flag enemies to support their growing profit margins. If someone wants to know what I know, ask me. I am asking things I would like to know about the trade offs some fervent gun owners here make and what they believe in. They could be right or wrong. I could be right or wrong but lets find the commonalities. I don't want to insult either side. I want to know if we can reach a deal. I don't expect any gun based billionaires to participate in such a discussion but it sure would be nice. Could they be willing to leave money on the table for 6 year old sakes? Maybe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Donuel Date: 21 Dec 12 - 07:42 PM I believe the contributors here are accomplishing the goals of learning about the factual and emotional sides of the great gun debate. Gun lovers and haters alike do have the common ground of speaking for the victims who are now dead and can not speak for themselves. My friend Roger McCall is one such victim and lives on in google as a proven peace lover. He was an authority of rock and roll and could do a trick with time that closed minds could not accept. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Ron Davies Date: 21 Dec 12 - 07:51 PM "Your constitution". It's not the Constitution, it's an amendment. Can be repealed. Also, the most recent decision by the Court was 5-4. Kennedy could easily change his mind if confronted with a similar case. And as I've noted on another thread, the 2nd Amendment was added because of 3 main factors: fear of a British attempt to take back the US--probably from Canada, fear of Indian attacks (and in the South, fear of slave uprisings) ,and above all, fear of a standing army. A "well-regulated" militia was to substitute. The idea of national defense by militia was a disaster from the start--which Washington, among others, knew and warned against. But Jefferson and others of his view won the day. In fact, Jefferson, when he took over, thought he could defend the country on the cheap this way (and also cut the Navy) --Madison was not much better-- and the country was woefully unprepared for the War of 1812 when it came. In addition to having absurdly simplistic views of the problem ( Jefferson said taking Canada would be "a mere matter of marching"). I don't think we've been that concerned about a British or Indian invasion or slave revolt for a while. The NRA and other gun owners should tell us just why they are afraid of our own army, navy or air force. And the regular drills of gun-owners should start forthwith--as the writers of the 2nd Amendment envisoned. After all, the NRA wants strict constructionism--we should give it to them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: GUEST,Stim Date: 21 Dec 12 - 08:37 PM I am with Jeri on this. I think that people(not just people on this forum) tend to look for things that they disagree with, and then, as we like to say, "Go Ballistic". Where does that get us? Well, that's been asked and answered already. First thing is, we have to all figure out what we agree on, because, like it or not, we can only act together on the things we agree on. Look at what Wayne LaPierre has to to say. Is there anything at all we agree on? Well, turns out,there is. We agree 100% on the basic issue, and that is that these shootings, are wrong, awful, horrifying, intolerable, and that we have to do something to stop them. We can't let that common purpose disappear because we get caught up in name-calling, finger-pointing, or such things , because if we do, it's all over. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Bobert Date: 21 Dec 12 - 08:44 PM I also agree with him about the violence promoted in our movies and video games... I find it interesting that Hollywood has delayed the openings of several movies... That is a good start... But I still think that LaPierre's idea of puttin' armed guards in schools will bring about more violence, not less... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Songwronger Date: 21 Dec 12 - 08:51 PM Why are you anti-gun people so down? The NRA's boss man just came out in favor of putting an armed guard in every school in America. Think of that--tens of thousands of armed guards (guess they'll have to turn to Blackwater to meet the need), so that will REALLY ensure the safety of America's school kids, won't it? All the prominent right-wingers are pushing this, too. Tens of thousands of new weapons in America's school houses, because some lone nut might show up with a weapon. You wanted safety, I guess you got it, huh? Those trustworthy Abu Grahib graduates will be guarding your grandkids. Isn't that reassuring? And then on the left side, the "progressives" want to disarm the populace. Get the guns out of people's hands because someone might shoot someone. Make it a "mental health" thing and get a two-fer--deny gun ownership and fry a mind with some new designer drug experiment. These should be happy times for you anti-gun people. Quit squawkin. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Bobert Date: 21 Dec 12 - 08:54 PM More right winged blog BS, most of it made up... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Songwronger Date: 21 Dec 12 - 09:12 PM Like I say, quit squawkin. The totalitarian state is now closing its left and right wings, to embrace us in it reassuring comfort. Armed guards everywhere, mental health testing for everything, no gun ownership. A liberal nirvana. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Amos Date: 21 Dec 12 - 09:14 PM First of all, Wrong-songer, there has been little intention voiced to ban guns. It should be obvious even to you that even the present rights as practiced would not prevent the trillion-dollar DoD from rounding up the American population if treachery of that magnitude ever became possible. Even our assault rifles would be a puny defense. But more important the countries you mention did not have a two-hundred year-old constitutional republic. So what do you think would have to happen for an American government to get into power that would then want to tyrannize the people of fifty States? And to what end? Why would they even want to? The probabilities arte so thin that this combination of events could occur that the event has to be classified as a paranoid delusion, the kind of thing that nutballs sweat in their perfervid dreams about. Assault weapons should be banned from non-professional law and miitary uses and ownership. Licensing and background checks should be in place for automatic weapons of any caliber. Let our stalwart defense against government intrusion be a furious defense of civil rights, freedom of speech and protection of personal privacy. A restoration of Constitutional freedoms in these areas will do far, far more to defend you against the Government than any explosive weapon, after all. The government coerces people, when it does so, by threats and fear. If we have a justice system and a system of free speech and other civil rights, we have grounds to make them fear rather than the other way around. And if a government has usurped THOSE powers, guns will not be a protection anyway. All this said, I support the private ownership of handguns, not for defense against the Government, but for occasional defense against lunatics, such as recites the kind of reasoning you offer above. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Bobert Date: 21 Dec 12 - 09:21 PM What Amos said except I would require that folks who own handguns prove they can not only shoot them but shoot them with some level of proficiency... Me??? I can hold a 5 inch pattern with the .22 in my open sights .410/.22 over/under @ 100 ft. but haven't had much luck with handguns... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Songwronger Date: 21 Dec 12 - 09:48 PM Do you know why the Second Amendment was drafted, Amos? It was intended to support the First Amendment (freedom of speech, freedom to assemble and so on). You can't practice the First without the Second. The right to bear arms is a necessary component of a free society. The founding fathers covered all of this when they debated what should go into our constitution. Without guns to protect your free speech, it will be taken away. And we no longer have a traditional government in the U.S. We now have a corporate-run post-constitutional republic. We go through the motions of electing representatives, but our president says he can kill anyone he wants. He declares wars without the approval of congress or the people. He... Well, he does all the things that King George did leading up to the American Revolution, and more. Witness Obamacare, with it's ruinous taxation of the poor. And he does this with the rubber stamping of our fraudulently elected reps and the demonstrably corrupt court system. So we don't have the old civics class government anymore. We have a cabal of people who ARE tyrannizing the people of the U.S., to the end of destroying the country. The need to own guns, and lots of them, is more pressing than ever. And we already have too many limitations on gun ownership. Our weapons should be equal to those of any power that would try to take them away. But we've been denied automatic weapons since 1968. To even OWN a kit that will convert a semi-auto to a full automatic means mandatory prison time. We don't need any more gun laws, and we need to roll back the ones that are in place. We don't need to put an asterisk by the Second Amendment denoting that you have to piss in a cup to own a gun, either. Or so I believe. I read that they aired V FOR VENDETTA in China a few days ago (someone at the state-run TV system lost their head for this one, I'm sure), and the Chinese internet is now buzzing with the line from the movie that says, "The people should not fear their government, the government should fear its people." Americans seem to have forgotten this lesson. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Bobert Date: 21 Dec 12 - 10:03 PM Wrongman shows his ignorance of history here... The 2nd amendment was written to provide a means of defending a new country against outside invasions, especially from England... Get an education, wrongman... You missed a lot of days in school... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Jeri Date: 21 Dec 12 - 10:58 PM And so goes any chance at "serious conversation"... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Donuel Date: 21 Dec 12 - 11:02 PM Ron Davies is absolutely accurate in his history. Stim I have read AMos for 14 years and got a fairly good handle after 5 years. I even wrote a 4000 word spoof on AMos the most powerful man in the world spoof, ( most people did not get it.) Bobert's heart is always in the right direction which is left. Others I know not by avatar names also have profound comment. Songwronger: Hey wont you play, somebody got somebody's song wrong ergain. Fair enough wronger, you said what you think of progressives and their gun attitudes but rather superfiscially without heart. Silly history references though. Guatamala even if armed to the teeth was not going to defeat the National Fruit Corporation and the CIA armed forces. etc. Never mind tiny nations defeated by empires, for every home owned bullet used in self defense or an intruder being shot, 4 more bullets enter a loved one or family member in the home by accident or domestic quarrel. But good for songwronger for telling me what he thinks of liberal gum control advocates. Perhpas he is not a shill for guns but a devils fake advocate but it matters not. I am probably an FDR Democrat which means I am a Liberal in songwrong's eyes. To know each other better I will tell you as honestly as I can what I think of vehement gun advocate. This is what I internally think about 'you' as a pro gun adovocate: stay with me on this When I get behind the wheel I am very aware of the power of the car, the new horizons ahead, the speed beyond human power and the time saved compared to walking. When a gun lover holds a gun I envision the power he or she feels having the power of life or death, the fun embellished by movie characters and legends of war, how cool it is to be holding a real combat weapon like the AR 15 Bushmaster, the skill one may or may not express hitting targets of people (some of which outline the skeletal structure). The fun, the leathality and the power are the things I believe are in the hearts of most shooters, expert or novice. I also believe that whatever fear or insecurity a person can feel is dispelled when wielding an assault semi automatic. I believe they experience a feeling of superiority over an imagined lesser or unarmed opponent. I believe people who used such weapons in actual combat must wean themselves of having a weapon of any kind just to have peace of mind that they are not unarmed or helpless. This is a stress non combatents will not have. I believe that the feeling of the power of a powerful weapon is seductive and actually has a fetish component of somting akin to affection for the gun that delivers a certain confidence that may carry on even when not carrying. I believe that gun lovers easily compensate for these deep feelings by accepting without question the NRA propoganda to equate gun ownership and shooting with patriotism, individualism or strength in numbers, honor, god, country, freedom, liberty, armed forces training and mental conditioning, and yes even religious affliation. But mostly it just feels cool. The stories of fondly hunting with dad sound overblown to me. I believe some shameless gun advocates buy into a right wing political agenda for their psyche and fun but will say aloud it is becuase of the Constitution and liberty and (all the other NRA claims to magnify gun addictions. Yes I said addictions but you are in good company, not as wealthy as those addicted to money or sore as those addicted to sex or not as laid back as those addicted to drugs, but an addiction all the same. So things like addiction, fetish, security/insecurity, self deception of higher loftier asperations when it is mostly just fun entertainment and a power trip are some aspects I see in outspoken gun advocates, however the desire of great profits is the central desire of the NRA and its associated manufacturers. Sadly I see a disconnect between their fun and cost of real lives which has equaled and now exceeds traffic death. (air bags do help) thats what I think about some outspoken gun owners, how wronger am I? Who else knows that more US children die of their gun shot wounds than from Cancer? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Bobert Date: 21 Dec 12 - 11:13 PM I mean, what??? If telling the truth is like some sin then call me a sinner... I have a degree in history... I have taught American History... I consider myself a historian... I probably have more history books within 20 feet of where I write this than the entire Mudcat community combined... Why should I be accused of trying to avoid any conversation about history because other folks haven't done the heavy lifting and just make shit up??? I mean, why go thru the bother of learning anything if ignorant people get equal respect for mythology??? The reason why the 2nd amendment was written had nothin' to do with the 1st amendment... It had everything to do with defense... Thems are the facts!!! Study history rather than make it up or give legs to those who make it up... Don't like facts??? Not my problem... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: EBarnacle Date: 21 Dec 12 - 11:24 PM Richard Bridge put up some good points. The problem is inappropriate people having access to firearms. I believe that a firearms license should be renewable every two years. If anyone in the household has symptoms of moderate to severe mental illness, including disabilities which would lead to problems of judgement or impulsivity, there should be no weapons in the home until the condition can be corrected. While this will not solve all problems, it will surely stop some incidents from occurring. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Beer Date: 21 Dec 12 - 11:59 PM Question. Is the United States the only Country that has a clause that states "The right to bare arms?" Just wondering. Maybe it would be a chore to find this out and maybe it really doesn't matter. ad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Donuel Date: 22 Dec 12 - 01:42 AM BOBERT So it is a great command of history that has propelled you to navigate the foibles of our current and future tyrants and fakers. History is said to repeat itself, but our technology keeps going farther than our rational reach. We owe a great debt to people who pulled us back from the edge of nuclear holocaust with their deliberate reason and insistence to wait for factual certainty. These obscure saviors of civilization probaly had a great knowledge of history. I thought it was your innate great conscience that steered you truer than most. 22222 'Inappropriate use of firearms' is really downplaying mass murder. Like Fukashima had an 'incident'. Licensing is a great idea but will it really be more stringent than driving laws like requiring 60 hours of practice and classwork to earn a driving license? Driving certification does not include having a psych eval. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: catspaw49 Date: 22 Dec 12 - 01:55 AM When we learn to give less credence to an organization with only 4 million members and take the live press conference away from them we might begin. AARP has over 40 million members and they never get a live a press conference. The power exists within the people but the old ways die hard and we pay only lip service to many changes while remaining uncomfortable. Ask anyone if they are racist and you'll find a hard time getting anyone to say yes. Possibly they believe that to be true but down deep where only our deepest feelings lie, racism still lives on. Some part of the current mood of so many rests with having Obama in the White House. Most of us know otherwise seemingly reasonable people who hold strong feelings that Obama is the cause of it all. Every president has some of that but every president hasn't had to produce a birth certificate. While it may not be the only problem, it still remains one. Perhaps too the pride in being an American has been an oft repeated mantra for a very long time. Many years ago it helped a young nation with new ideas band together but now it seems to be repeated with a fervor like never before and I ask why? What is to have pride about? We were born here. The modern world has demanded that many hard won freedoms be evaluated and modified so I think many are fearful that giving a little often means possibly giving up all. We show a distrust for the very documents that help to keep the slippery slope at bay. Once again and more and more I am drawn back to the poem written about 75 years or so back by the great Langston Hughes.......... Let America be America again. Let it be the dream it used to be. Let it be the pioneer on the plain Seeking a home where he himself is free. (America never was America to me.) Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed-- Let it be that great strong land of love Where never kings connive nor tyrants scheme That any man be crushed by one above. (It never was America to me.) O, let my land be a land where Liberty Is crowned with no false patriotic wreath, But opportunity is real, and life is free, Equality is in the air we breathe. (There's never been equality for me, Nor freedom in this "homeland of the free.") Say, who are you that mumbles in the dark? And who are you that draws your veil across the stars? I am the poor white, fooled and pushed apart, I am the Negro bearing slavery's scars. I am the red man driven from the land, I am the immigrant clutching the hope I seek-- And finding only the same old stupid plan Of dog eat dog, of mighty crush the weak. I am the young man, full of strength and hope, Tangled in that ancient endless chain Of profit, power, gain, of grab the land! Of grab the gold! Of grab the ways of satisfying need! Of work the men! Of take the pay! Of owning everything for one's own greed! I am the farmer, bondsman to the soil. I am the worker sold to the machine. I am the Negro, servant to you all. I am the people, humble, hungry, mean-- Hungry yet today despite the dream. Beaten yet today--O, Pioneers! I am the man who never got ahead, The poorest worker bartered through the years. Yet I'm the one who dreamt our basic dream In the Old World while still a serf of kings, Who dreamt a dream so strong, so brave, so true, That even yet its mighty daring sings In every brick and stone, in every furrow turned That's made America the land it has become. O, I'm the man who sailed those early seas In search of what I meant to be my home-- For I'm the one who left dark Ireland's shore, And Poland's plain, and England's grassy lea, And torn from Black Africa's strand I came To build a "homeland of the free." The free? Who said the free? Not me? Surely not me? The millions on relief today? The millions shot down when we strike? The millions who have nothing for our pay? For all the dreams we've dreamed And all the songs we've sung And all the hopes we've held And all the flags we've hung, The millions who have nothing for our pay-- Except the dream that's almost dead today. O, let America be America again-- The land that never has been yet-- And yet must be--the land where every man is free. The land that's mine--the poor man's, Indian's, Negro's, ME-- Who made America, Whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain, Whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain, Must bring back our mighty dream again. Sure, call me any ugly name you choose-- The steel of freedom does not stain. From those who live like leeches on the people's lives, We must take back our land again, America! O, yes, I say it plain, America never was America to me, And yet I swear this oath-- America will be! Out of the rack and ruin of our gangster death, The rape and rot of graft, and stealth, and lies, We, the people, must redeem The land, the mines, the plants, the rivers. The mountains and the endless plain-- All, all the stretch of these great green states-- And make America again! We can change but we must throw off the bonds of ancient rhetoric and slogans and take America to the land that it has promised to be. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Richard Bridge Date: 22 Dec 12 - 06:03 AM The NRA has drawn its line in the sand - no fewer guns, but more guns. No more checks, but fewer checks. There is no dialogue to be had. Guns exist to kill. Until they are gone from private hands there will be killing using them. God help America (if he exists). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: sciencegeek Date: 22 Dec 12 - 06:58 AM Just for the record here... my dad, a lifetime member of the American Legion & NRA, served in WWII and was permitted to keep his carbine rifle upon discharge... as a kid it was my job to dust his gun collection that hung in a rack in the living room - all the ammo was securely locked in his safe. I own a 20 gauge single barrel shotgun, a single shot 22 - for varmint control as well as a WWI LaBelle with the bayonet that was outlawed by the Geneva Convention because it was designed to wound rather than kill... caring for wounded soldiers is more taxing on your enemy than burying their dead. I also own 40 acres of woods that I actively promote others to hunt and work for a state conservation agency where many of my co-workers hunt and are avid gun collectors. Based on this info, one might assume that I am a prime candidate for NRA membership. Wrong... I will not give any money to that organization because I see the same type of arguments and tactics that were used by industry to prevent environmental reforms starting back in the 1960's. I was seven years old the first time I saw a concealed handgun - our neighbor worked for a NYC cab company and he kept it because he carried cash. I remember when my policeman uncle visited and he put his gun up in the top of the closet to keep it out of reach from us kids. My youngest uncle was murdered with a handgun because he was dumb enough to hit on a wise guy's girlfriend in a bar. Ask a cop what it feels like to outgunned by criminals. So yes, I think I have every right to object to the NRA's BS on the subject of gun control. It is NOT an either or situation... but there is definitely the need for reasonable action to be taken... and for that there needs to be honest discourse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Bobert Date: 22 Dec 12 - 08:22 AM Here in North Carolina folks were lined up at gun shops yesterday to buy assault rifles... Gun shops to the NRA??? THANK YOU, keep up the good work... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Bobert Date: 22 Dec 12 - 08:29 AM Yo, Donuel... The last time the country was in the pickle it finds itself today was 1860 with the Northern Republicans, Southern Democrats and the in-between Constitutional Union Party being caught very much in the middle... Today's Tea Party is what the Southern Democrats of 1860 were... Today's moderate Republicans represent the 1860 Constitutional Union Party and... ...today's Democrats the Republican Party of 1860... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Will Fly Date: 22 Dec 12 - 08:52 AM We're not going to be able to make all the guns disappear. I queried this kind of attitude on another thread - and, to me - it's close to the heart of the problem. The mindset says, "We're never, ever going to get rid of illegal guns, so we must retain the right to arms to combat those illegal guns". What grates is the assumption that, in a country which is and has been capable of amazing things, no-one can even take the first step in containing illegal firearms. Just one step - no? Oh well, let's all wring our hands and moan, "Oh, we can't possibly do anything..." Of course you can't make all the guns disappear - no country can - but at least you can take positive steps along the road to doing so. If the will is there. This is the United States, isn't it - one of the greatest countries in the world - capable of sending people to the moon, of invading any country it chooses, of doing wonderful things? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: GUEST,999 Date: 22 Dec 12 - 09:19 AM Beer, in answer to your question from the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the USA. "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." However, a single-shot .22 using short rifle would handle that nicely, imo. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Bobert Date: 22 Dec 12 - 09:21 AM The longest journey begins with a single step... This "defeatism" is just more NRA propaganda... It's part of their new & improved marketing plan to sell even more guns, especially the "big ticket" AR15s which with a few accessories can run over $1000... Might of fact, the NRA loves "Sandy Hooks"... The more the merrier... They'd be happy to have dozens of them every year... That's why they are pushing guns into schools... It adds an entire new "extra points" layer to the "event" for which to later be judges by WhackoWorld... Let's get real here... If you want a "serious conversation" then why not talk with some psychologists who profile these whackos and get their take on putting guns in every school across the country... I'm sure that would be more enlightening than buying into the NRA's market BS... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Ed T Date: 22 Dec 12 - 09:31 AM Kris said it in a song -though music, the nessage is below the line: Don't let - |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: akenaton Date: 22 Dec 12 - 11:01 AM Catspaw....you and i have our differences, but that is a mighty poem. To my ears, a song against what this system has turned us into....all the games and diversions it uses to deflect us from the path to real freedom.....thanks for printing it...I have saved it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Stu Date: 22 Dec 12 - 11:19 AM if the Second Amendment is an amendment, that means it amended the original and surely can be amended again. Amend the amendment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Ed T Date: 22 Dec 12 - 11:29 AM Has anyone ever notice how people try and deflect an issue by making an illogical association or by using some unrelated and questionable statistic to promote their perspective? Lack of logic example: ""More people are killed in the USA by car accidents than by bombs (including nukes, terrorist attacks) than guns, terrorist attacks and jet crashes. So, this proves that there should be more concern for the potential impact of the cars than any of the latter."" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 22 Dec 12 - 01:19 PM ""The right to bear arms is a necessary component of a free society."" The United Kingdom has been a Constitutional Monarchy since the end of Cromwell's Commonwealth (Constitutional Monarchy being effectively a Democracy with a Royal Figurehead) We are a free country which has proved that the right to bear is not a prerequisite. We chose to be a gun free society and in terms of gun deaths, you currently outnumber us 10,000 to 8. While agreeing entirely with Jeri's comments. I would nonetheless point out that you can't debate issues with men like La Pierre. It is a waste of breath to talk sensibly to a 40 watt brain driving a 50 gigawatt gob. Those people have to be brushed aside en route to the ones who control them. I hate to see the country that put men on the moon choosing to back off and say "We Can't". You can, and you should!......SOON. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: GUEST,999 Date: 22 Dec 12 - 02:17 PM ". . . can't debate issues with men like La Pierre." Too right. The lunatics ain't far from running the asylum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: GUEST,Backwoodsman Date: 22 Dec 12 - 02:33 PM Amen to what Don T said, how true and how eloquently put. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Amos Date: 22 Dec 12 - 08:05 PM The "automobiles kill people" argument is actually a good tip. 1. Mandatory minimum age to operate on public roads. 2. Extensive theory knowledge required before a practical test is allowed. 3. Very critical road-test required before a provisional license (some States). 4. Violation of provisional standing suspends license and may cause impoundment of vehicle. 5. Rapid harsh consequences for operating under influence, including possible jail time. 6. Under some circumstances may be charged with vehicular homicide. Given that firearms are more lethal than automobiles, and are intentionally designed for harm, unlike automobiles, why should these parameters not constitute the MINIMUM prerequisite to gun ownership? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: GUEST,999 Date: 23 Dec 12 - 12:50 AM The Canadian view is I think well described in the following article from a prairie newspaper. Makes for interesting reading and clear about where most Canadians stand in relation to guns, their use and their implications. From the Star Phoenix--Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Ebbie Date: 23 Dec 12 - 02:32 AM A friend on Facebook posted the fact that a town in Georgia - Kennesaw- a couple of years ago passed a law requiring every household to have a gun in residence- and their crime rate dropped. So I went looking online and then posted this: "Among those exempt (from being required to have a weapon) are residents "who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine." Others exempt include the physically and mentally disabled, paupers and those convicted of a felony." So you see that they DO have gun regulations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: kendall Date: 23 Dec 12 - 06:01 AM A few years ago the town of Bowerbank Maine passed an ordinance that requires every man to own a gun. Since that time, not one person has been shot. It seems that all 3 residents like each other. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Ron Davies Date: 23 Dec 12 - 09:33 AM "Amend the amendment". Actually that would be repealing the amendment. Possible but unlikely. Has happened before, on the subject of alcohol, but you need a groundswell of clamoring for it--not just blue states. More likely, as I mentioned earlier, is that the Court will get another gun-related case which deals with the Amendment, and Kennedy will have read some history--and know what he's talking about this time. So the 5-4 would be the other way. And the NRA and other gun owners would have to tell us why the 2nd Amendment doesn't require them to show up for regular drills--which it clearly intended to do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Bobert Date: 23 Dec 12 - 09:41 AM Ron is correct... You don't amend amendments... You repeal them as was done in the 21st amendment which repealed the 18th (prohibition) if my memory serves me... But there is another avenue here... The Supreme Court, from time to time, re-interprets amendments and the 2nd amendment is ripe for a major re-interpretation... The current court isn't up to the task but there is a real possibility that within the next four years that one of the conservative judges will be replaced with a forward thinking justice and that could open the door wide open to not only gun-control but a host of other issues, "Citizens United" among them... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Ron Davies Date: 23 Dec 12 - 09:47 AM Bobert-- As I noted, Kennedy was the swing vote in Heller and he may eventually read some history--or want to do something about the NRA's current reign of terror over legislators. Or maybe he'd also-like me--just like to see gun owners turn out for regular militia drill. I'd sell tickets to that. Or it could be a smash reality TV show. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: GUEST,Backwoodsman Date: 24 Dec 12 - 03:42 AM Not much chance of a serious conversation about anything, if this is anything to go by:- Petition to deport Piers Morgan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: selby Date: 24 Dec 12 - 11:50 AM Not much chance of a serious conversation about anything,now they are killing firemen. This is the country that sees itself as the worlds policeman. But cant even sort out the abandonment of the 2nd Amendment to the constitution that has no relevance today, because companies making guns, dictate to the government. Truly a country to be proud of. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Ebbie Date: 24 Dec 12 - 03:36 PM selby, I doubt that you are making light of this newest tragedy but please handle the situation separately. Firing on - and killing - firefighters is a new development with far-reaching ramifications. As I said on another thread, it is as if the nuts are vying for 'most shocking and senseless'; it is impossible to know how this will affect first responders and other service providers. Do you suppose the NRA will urge that they all be armed? Or that a detachment of military attend every housefire? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Ron Davies Date: 24 Dec 12 - 03:56 PM It is a deadly serious proposal that the NRA and all other gun-owners should show up for militia training. That is the obvious intent of the 2nd Amendment. And the NRA et al. are "strict constructionists" so they have no leg to stand on in opposing this. Anybody who doesn't like it is cordially invited to start reading some history of the period of the Bill of Rights. Having this grounding is the only way to start talking sense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: sciencegeek Date: 25 Dec 12 - 07:27 AM This latest assault on first responders - there have been too many others before, just not in suburbia - is in my neck of the woods. I know the area, though not the people involved - it's in the county next to mine. And though I live in a rural farm area, I regularly drive past three separate homes where the owners were murdered with guns, including a mother shot by her disturbed teenage son. I guess we should be thankful that he didn't drive the 4 miles down the hill to the local school. I don't pretend to have the answers, but I do know that we need an open discussion and rational regulations... including the removal of federal protection of gun manufacturers from legal action. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 25 Dec 12 - 07:36 AM ""Not much chance of a serious conversation about anything, if this is anything to go by:- Petition to deport Piers Morgan"" I'd love to see them take him to court and try to have him deported, so I could see the expressions on their faces when he invokes the First Amendment and their case is tossed out. He could also counter sue for false arrest and imprisonment and claim his costs back. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: GUEST,Backwoodsman Date: 25 Dec 12 - 08:39 AM I'm completely with you on that, Don. But it's a perfect example of the warped minds and bent thought-processes of the small-dick gun-lovers. Solid lead from ear to ear. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Bobert Date: 25 Dec 12 - 10:20 AM I think we need a counter-petition to deport Wayne LaPierre... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 25 Dec 12 - 10:56 AM Not to the UK Bobz. We have our own problems! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: GUEST,999 Date: 25 Dec 12 - 10:59 AM Don't even think about thinkin' about it, Bobert. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Raedwulf Date: 25 Dec 12 - 04:23 PM "The right to bear arms is a necessary component of a free society. " Bollocks. You've heard of the UK, right? We've got no right to bear arms & no lack of free speech either. What drivel some folk spout... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Ebbie Date: 25 Dec 12 - 06:39 PM That was the question I asked elsewhere, Raedwulf: Do people in the UK and other countries that have restrictive gun laws feel UNfree? I see no difference in each others' perceptions but from the US blogging industry one gets the notion that if you aren't allowed all the guns you can afford and not allowed to take them anywhere you please, that somehow you are not free. I can think of a dozen things that might restrict my freedoms but gun laws are not among them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Bobert Date: 25 Dec 12 - 06:54 PM BTW, "serious conversation" implies "facts"... The problem in having serious conversation with people who are 99% belief and 1% facts is that you aren't having a serious conversation at all... Case in point: Restricting the "kinds" of guns you can own = restricting your right to own any guns??? That's right... That is a not a serious conversation because there is no truth in anyone advocating restricting the ownership of any guns... No truth = no serious conversation... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Raedwulf Date: 25 Dec 12 - 07:25 PM With all due respect to Donuel, I think he was on a loser from the start. Even though it's the 'cat and we've probably got a remarkably high proportion of reasonably sane & reasonably reasonable posters, he was never going to get a thread that didn't resemble sewage. It doesn't take much shite to pollute the flow, let's face it. Still, at least I know what Wrongsonger is... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Jack the Sailor Date: 26 Dec 12 - 03:47 PM "The right to bear arms is a necessary component of a free society." That is the stupidest piece of drivel on this forum. From whom would these arm's protect our speech and freedom? The government? The ones with the black helicopters? and tanks, and Harrier Hawks and the drones? We are not allowed arms sufficient to that task. We are only allowed arms up to the point of mowing down children and firemen. No freedom is protected by semi-automatic people killing weapons. No speech is protected. No "rights" are protected. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: GUEST,CS Date: 27 Dec 12 - 05:27 AM If one accepts that governments and their minions the police and the army can become evil and need to be stopped, I still don't see what a gun owning public could do against the threat of drone attacks and chemical weapons? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Ron Davies Date: 27 Dec 12 - 05:32 AM As usual, the pro-gun folks choose to read only half of the 2nd Amendment. The Heller decision did the same. But perhaps Justice Kennedy will read some history--then the next 5-4 will be the other way. And then gun owners will have to tell us why they don't have to show up for regular drill. But I'm sure the gun-rights folks will also read some history---the day after Hell freezes over. Staying ignorant is their best defense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: ollaimh Date: 27 Dec 12 - 11:36 AM i find it disturbing to be agreeing with dicky bridge again, oh well, we must all bear some burden. but you cannot formulate a rape law in consultation with rapists , says it all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: End of a serious conversation From: Donuel Date: 29 Jan 13 - 10:52 AM Fascinating There is little compromise among many. *This is my bottom line; More US children die of their bullet wounds than from Cancer. More Americans died from a gun this year than from car accidents. We have cured many cancers. Lives and money were saved and made. We have made cars safer. More cars sell with with safer features. But we are so far unwilling to hold certain lives more precious than gun fun and profits. *But you could try. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie Date: 29 Jan 13 - 11:15 AM Shit. Bridge says it all. I assume the tablets must be working. .. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Donuel Date: 29 Jan 13 - 11:31 AM But we can try. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Mrrzy Date: 29 Jan 13 - 12:51 PM The 2d amendment was more to protect against our own government trying to be regal (and overbearing) in their powers than against invading outsiders. It's the "well-regulated militia" part people forget, so they can have the "shall not be abridged" part. The NRA seems to have forgotten that school guards were armed at Columbine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Donuel Date: 29 Jan 13 - 01:33 PM the protect against ourselves/government idea you repeat is untrue propoganda. It would have been helpful if Jefferson included the words foreign or domestic but he/they did not. One of the good lessons on mudcat forum is learning not to repeat unhelpful and untrue propoganda. The last time this nation mindlessly repeated untrue right wing propoganda we got Bush the leader and decider in chief. I just broke the rules of a serious conversation, I may as well go for broke. Is it too cynical to assume that macho gun worship by the basicly insecure male and the gun manufactures profit motive and think tanks, are too powerful as psychological and greedy motivators to merely curb the shooting of each others children? The Am radio gun advocates are currently saying that perhaps several kids would not be shot with stricter gun control but the price of freedom is watered with blahblahblah sacred 2nd ammendmentblahblah self defense millionsblahblahstandyour groundblah. If Dumbeldor were alive he might be devising a spell right now that would compel all unapologetic gun nuts when speaking to replace the word gun/guns/gunned, with the word ignorance/ignorant. Replace the word armed/arms with shit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Greg F. Date: 29 Jan 13 - 02:39 PM The NRA seems to have forgotten that school guards were armed at Columbine. Forgotten? Not a bit of it. They just don't give two shits about the truth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: YorkshireYankee Date: 29 Jan 13 - 08:15 PM Have appreciated many posts on here; too many to list them all, but Jeri's & Spaw's were outstanding, IMHO. For those of you willing to spend some time (38 min) listening to someone who really, really knows what he's talking about, I HIGHLY recommend Fresh Air/Terry Gross's Dec 20, 2012 interview with Tom Diaz, a policy analyst for the Violence Policy Center. It's absolutely packed with all kinds of fascinating (and often appalling) info: facts, figures, history of gun control legislation, history of the NRA, etc, including some facts I believe almost no-one is aware of (I certainly wasn't), and might make a big difference if more people were (see the bits in red, below). So, I apologise in advance for the vast length of this post, but it's got info in it (I've transcribed chunks of the interview myself, because I think their content is so important) that I don't think is out there much, but really should be. From the webpage: "Diaz... and his colleagues have conducted extensive research on gun violence in the United States and have written reports on assault weapons, as well as on the National Rifle Association and the corporations that fund it. What gun manufacturers have done to rejuvenate their markets, Diaz tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross, is to emphasize military-derived semi-automatic guns and, in marketing, "appeal to the inner soldier, the insurrectionist feelings and high-tech desires to market these military-style guns." He is "...also the author of the forthcoming book The Last Gun, about changes in the gun industry and gun violence." "The only difference, Diaz says, between the semi-automatic rifles sold on the civilian market and those issued to soldiers 'is that the purely military rifle is capable of firing what's called 'fully automatic fire,' meaning the gun will continue to fire until it expends all of the ammunition in its magazine." He went on to say that the semi-automatic rifles sold on the civilian market are (unexpectedly) actually more accurate than the fully automatic rifles issued to soldiers. (~9 min into the interview) A few more quotes from the link/interview (BF added by me in certain spots I think are useful to emphasize): "When it comes to potential bills that could be introduced in Congress in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Diaz says it's crucial to focus on this question of magazine capacity. Lawmakers must ask, Diaz says, 'What actually are the design features? What are the real functions of assault weapons? ... Can you put a high-capacity magazine into this gun that will hold 20, 40, 60, 100, 110 rounds of ammunition? And, if that's true, then it's an assault rifle and we will not allow their manufacture or import.'" On how the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban defined a semi-automatic weapon "It defined a semi-automatic assault weapon in terms of a gun that had at least two of certain features. One of them was the actual crucial feature, which is the ability to take a high capacity magazine. ... The others were ... almost decorative features that were on these guns, such as a bayonet mount, which means you could put a bayonet on the gun; a thing called a ... flash hider, which means that the flash from the barrel of the gun is less observable; a stock in the rear that could be extended or shortened. ... The requirement that you have at least two of those meant that gun manufactures could say, 'Aha, we can keep the ability to take the high capacity magazine and just knock off the rest of these bells and whistles [and] we still have essentially the same gun, ... but it's now federally legal.' And that's what Bushmaster figured out. They actually rose to prominence after the 1994 semi-automatic assault weapons ban because they took off all the truly irrelevant bells and whistles and just produced a basic gun." On Beretta's marketing strategy for a semi-automatic pistol that entered civilian market "Beretta executives... in interviews on public record which we've documented ... said, 'Look, our strategy was this: ... What we want to do is get the cachet of military sales so that we can then turn to the much bigger, much more profitable American civilian market and make a lot more money doing that.' And that's precisely what they did. Beretta's advertising [strategy] to this day ... is, 'This is a gun that we sell to the military. It's made for them but you can use it.' " The information I personally found most surprising/shocking was about how information that used to be routinely published by government agencies has been silenced by regulations proposed/lobbied for by the NRA... funded by the gun manufacturers. These statistics make clear the link(s) between gun ownership and deaths, which were so blatant that gun manufacturers decided they could not afford to have this info in the public domain. While they could not force the govt agencies to not collect the info, they could make it illegal for these agencies to use govt/taxpayer money to publish their findings... and effectively silenced them. Shortly after 2 minutes into the interview, Diaz says: "Since September 11, 2001, we've spent several trillion dollars on so-called "Homeland Security". We have made changes in our constitutional protections, particularly in the 4th amendment and the 5th amendment, against search and seizure, and self-incrimination, that would have shocked people, shocked Constitutional scholars, before 911. And yet, we spend a tiny amount of money on public health concerning guns; we forbid the Center for Disease Control and Injury, in Atlanta, part of the Public Health Service, from actually researching gun safety... so we have seen "terror" as a great evil, and we've started a "War on Terror". We have no war on guns, and yet, comparing the actual impact on Americans, it's staggering that we have this "War on Terror", and spend so much money, and apparently don't care about gun death and injury... and I say only apparently, because Americans really are not aware of the extent of the problem." And (~ 14 min 30 sec into interview): (this one isn't word-for-word, but it's VERY close; sorry, but it's taking SO long to transcribe stuff...) "Let's assume there is a large number of people who use guns for benign purposes (hunting, target shooting)... the policy choice/cultural choice that we face: is that enough; does that balance the bad consequences that we know flow from the easy availability of these firearms? Does that balance the slaughter of children, the increasing killing of law enforcement officers, that we see? ... Because the gun industry and the National Rifle Association have been so very successful in shutting down federal sources of data, for example from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and basically shutting down cogent research from the Center for Disease Control and Injury, we don't really know the extent of the use of these guns in crime because we cannot get even the generic, aggregate data. It's been shut down."... "You cannot get that information from government sources because, something called the Tiahrt Amendment(*see below), which has basically shut down ATF from releasing data." Terry Gross: "So this amendment prevents the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms from releasing information about what guns have been used in crimes?" Diaz: "You have that exactly right. ... "...in the early 90s, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms used to routinely release aggregate data, we're not talking about specific investigative files here, we're talking about useful data about what types of gun are used in what types of crime. The gun industry realized that it really loses every argument where you can have facts, so they got Congressman Todd Tiahrt, from Kansas, to sponsor what are called "riders"; you put them on appropriations bills, and it basically says 'ATF, you cannot spend any money to release any of this data.'" "So immediately, we're shut down. ATF collects by make, model, caliber, data about the guns and the type of crimes they're used in, so we could, for example, were ATF able to release this data, we could say, 'We want to look at Bushmaster. How many of these Bushmasters have been used in how many crimes, and where, in the United States over the... last 10 years?' That data is available in the files of ATF, but it cannot release it. It is forbidden by law from releasing it." Terry Gross asks what the funding restrictions are on the Center for Disease Control's ability to do gun-related research. Diaz: "Again, it's another one of these funding restrictions. There was a period of time when the CDC was sponsoring what's called "peer-reviewed research" about gun death and injury, what were the causes, and it was getting uncomfortably close to the question of proliferation of firearms and particular kinds of guns, so the NRA's supporters on the hill actually wanted to abolish this particular unit of the CDC and were calmed down and persuaded to simply make a funding restriction which essentially says, 'The CDC cannot do any research related to gun control.' That has meant that a number of promising research initiatives in universities and in teaching hospitals and what-have-you were shut down, and although the CDC does some very useful compilation of data, they're very careful about the research they do. "That's another thing I think Congress and the president should look at. We should open up the CDC. We do it for, if a brand of tires has a problem, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration gets to know that within weeks. If there's an epidemic of some kind of disease, CDC's gonna know that within weeks or months. We have an epidemic of gun violence, and we've shut down everybody from looking at it. At about 30 mins in: ...the NRA at one time... truly represented sportsmen and the benign uses of firearms... and there was a tremendous revolution within the NRA... and it was finally taken over by a much harder-line group of people... and they allied themselves more with the industry, so that there's almost a seamless web of interconnections between the industry and the NRA. I like to say that the NRA... it becomes a kind of laundering machine for the gun industry, and I'll explain what I mean. The gun industry would really appear to be too crass, perhaps, and shocking to say, '...You need to buy our Bushmaster so that you can resist the government, and kill bad people if you have to', so they don't say that. The NRA, on the other hand, has no problem... euphemizing this very same message and saying, 'We need our guns, we need to protect ourselves from tyrannical governments' , the way they phrase it, and their material is really quite provocative and quite shocking. So they've taken one of the messages of the industry, and transformed it into a more-or-less socially-acceptable way of saying it." About 33-34 mins in: After saying that any new law would need to address the problem of "Grandfathering" (BIG problem!)... "One thing the president could do immediately, without legislation, that he has the executive power to do, is direct the Justice Department to look at imports, into the United States, of specific kinds of guns. The reason he can do that is, the federal law that already exists, regulating the import of firearms, says that any firearm brought into the United States must have been primarily designed for sporting purposes. And in fact, the first President Bush... and President William Clinton, used this power, and they directed the ATF to take a look at these guns, and the ATF obediently said, 'Well, wait a minute, these kinds of guns are not really primarily sporting', and so they did ban the import of certain classes of assault rifles. President Obama could do the same thing. He could say to the Justice Department, which now is home to ATF, 'Take a look at these imports; take a look at the standard for sporting purposes, and let's weed out the guns that don't meet that.' That would have significant impact on assault rifles, including these assault pistols. It would also have an impact on Guns like the FF47, which was used at Fort Hood, which by no definition, by the industry's own admission, was designed for counter-terrorism use. This is something the President can do with a stroke of the pen." Perhaps I should start a petition, on one of those sites... The other "small" step this interview suggests (to me, at least) that we need to make people more aware of the all-too-effective Tiahrt Amendment* (see below), which has gagged our own government's public health/public welfare agencies from providing vital information -- and might ask/campaign for/demand its repeal/non-renewal. This amendment (as far as I can see) basically contravenes the First Amendment (freedom of speech) and should be considered unconstitutional. If push comes to shove, maybe it could even be taken to court by a civil liberties group? So... this is by far THE lengthiest post I have ever made on Mudcat, and it's taken me WAY longer (i.e., hours!, and I've accomplished nothing else today [sigh!]) than any other post I've ever made, but I'm hoping it will be worth it to have spread some of this (I believe) little-known information to others, and make it more available/accessible to anyone googling for such information. (And I've proofed this at least a dozen times, so if there are still typos, it's 'cos I've read this so many times I prolly just can't see 'em anymore...) ======================================== *Passed in 2003, since then "amended, and continuously included in appropriations bills" The Tiahrt Amendment (from Wikipedia) ...prohibits the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from releasing information from its firearms trace database to anyone other than a law enforcement agency or prosecutor in connection with a criminal investigation. Additionally, any data so released is inadmissible in a civil lawsuit.[5] Some groups, including the Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition, believe that having further access to the ATF database would help municipal police departments track down sellers of illegal guns and curb crime. These groups are trying to undo the Tiahrt Amendment.[6] Numerous police organizations oppose the Tiahrt Amendment, such as the Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA) and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP).[7] Conversely, the Tiahrt Amendment is supported by the National Rifle Association [8], and the Fraternal Order of Police (although it allows municipal police departments only limited access to ATF trace data in any criminal investigation)." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Bill D Date: 29 Jan 13 - 09:10 PM Well, *I* appreciate the effort to reproduce this important information.. and I shall watch the video WHILE reading it.... it always helps me process the spoken word. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: YorkshireYankee Date: 29 Jan 13 - 11:01 PM Thanks, Bill. I should prolly mention, though, it's not a video; the interview was on the radio (NPR, surprise, surprise!). Hope that doesn't put anyone off! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: YorkshireYankee Date: 01 Feb 13 - 11:43 AM Gee, guys... didn't mean to kill off the conversation! I guess the post was too long for people to cope with? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Beginning of serious conversation From: Donuel Date: 01 Feb 13 - 04:38 PM Yorkshire I haven't read it yet but it looks like a damn serious contribution. |
