BS: Beginning of serious conversation

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.

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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 11:31 AM

But we can 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 09:33 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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).