 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bobert Date: 02 Jun 09 - 12:16 PM Exactly, Bill... Ya' start out with a very embigiously written ammendment, you ignore the entire first half of it, you highlight the second hald as if it the Holy Grail and then you build upon that misinterpretation with slogan after slogan until you have abasolutely destroyed the meaning of the ammendment... That is what the NRA had cleverly done... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 02 Jun 09 - 11:49 AM Right this minute, as I type, there is a program on NPR (The Diane Rhem Show) which features a conversation with an author, Matthew Crawford, who began as a philosopher, but turned to mechanical repair because of his frustration with working for people who wanted certain answers and conclusions, forcing him (the author) to reason backwards to find the premises to fit the desired answers. He didn't LIKE doing that... So...what the $%*&@#$% does that have to do with guns & shootings? Listen to this program, then listen to a representative of the NRA sometime. It is interesting, even if you don't get my view of the relevance. This radio program will be archived, it says, in about an hour. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bobert Date: 02 Jun 09 - 08:24 AM The problems I have with murderers are murderers, regardless of the tool, is the strikin' evidence that as the percentage of folks with guns increases so do the murder rates... Check out the murder rates in Europe, fir instance, compared to the United States... What, are American's strangely afflicted with some murder DNA that Europenas aren't??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 01 Jun 09 - 11:02 PM It feels very strange to read about Dr. George Tiller, because I spent most of my late childhood and early adulthood in Wichita, and have personally been to the Tiller family 'practice' when his father, Dr. Jack Tiller ran it. I did not know in those days that the older Dr. Tiller was, even then, a practicing abortion doctor....but I did later wonder how, in such a very conservative town like Wichita, the 'issue' which aimed guns at it was allowed to wait so long. No...I do NOT wonder any more. It was conservative media attention calling them 'murderers' and the same basic folks who argue against abortion that now also argue FOR almost unlimited freedom to own guns. I do suppose that this extremist 'could' have managed to kill Dr. Tiller with a kitchen knife or dynamite, but a handgun is SO much easier to carry into the foyer of a church.....one shot, and the perpetrator was gone, and able to almost get away. It is impossible to note, follow and comment on all the sad gun incidents that one can read about every day in this country...there are just too many - so many that only the most graphic and 'interesting' (*sigh*) get national attention. Those who are committed to the idea of some strict adherence to their interpretation of good 'ol amendment #2 will, of course, wish to claim that the 2 issues are unrelated and that Dr. Tiller's demise was simply because some demented extremist will always find a way. All I can say in answer is that *if* I am ever on a hit list, I rather my enemies had to face me fairly, without Smith and Wesson to help them.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: katlaughing Date: 01 Jun 09 - 10:30 PM LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — A new soldier helping to attract others to the military was shot and killed outside an Army recruiting office Monday and a second soldier was wounded. Police arrested a suspect and confiscated an assault rifle. A man inside a black vehicle pulled up outside the Army-Navy recruiting office in west Little Rock and opened fire about 10:30 a.m., police spokesman Lt. Terry Hastings said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Kent Davis Date: 01 Jun 09 - 09:38 PM Bobert, my fellow Mountaineer, at least we can agree on one thing. I too "doubt this [more gun regulation]would have prevented this true-believer-wacko from killing this doctor but it might have..." It might have prevented it, although a willingness to murder is often accompanied by a willingness to violate other laws. If the murderer had no access to guns, he could have killed in other ways. Tiller could have been, I suppose, attacked with a huge syringe of hypertonic saline, or ripped limb from limb with a powerful suction device, or perhaps stabbed in the back of the head and had his brain torn out. Murder is murder, whatever tool is used. The New Testament is crystal-clear that no one may take the law into his own hands. See, for example, Romans 13:1-7 and I Peter 2:13-16. Jesus didn't kill Pilate. Paul didn't stab the Emperor Nero. Peter didn't strangle Herod Agrippa. No follower of Christ would have killed Tiller. The one who killed him forfeits the name of Christian, whatever justification he may claim. Kent Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bobert Date: 01 Jun 09 - 07:31 PM Ve3ry "reason"able post, Bill... That is what is at issue here... reasonability... In the words of Dr. Phil, "How's it working for you???"... In the word of the late and great Waylon Jennings, "We need a change..." Given the ambiguity of the language in the 2nd Ammendment it is reasonable for reasonable people to have a discussion about gun ownership... This shouldn't be an issue that NRA can frame as off-the-table... It is very much on the table... And I am sure that Thomas Jefferson would agree... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 01 Jun 09 - 02:57 PM *poking my head back in after a weekend of festival* I, too, was interested in Rapaire's post of pretty clear quotes from members of the "founding fathers". Those DO show not only the attitude of the times, but also reflect the situation this small, fledgling country found itself in in the mid-to-late 1700s. Given those parameters, I am not a bit surprised to see the 2nd amendment reading as it does. They actually needed for most able-bodied men (and some of the women) to be able to help defend the community & state, as well as hunt and defend their own family & property. There were few organized police forces and no instant communication to alert what officials they did have. It made sense to have firearms, primitive as they were, to pursue freedom & protect a way of life. Yes...you know what I'm going to say...*smile*: The situation has changed in 250 years, not only in the status of the 'state', but in the types and power of firearms. Where once they were used primarily for hunting and protection, they are now ubiquitous as items to aid in crime...at many levels... as well as suicides and in accidents. In 1770, there were very few decent hand guns... now they are for sale on many street corners. Add a dozen paragraphs here about the results of all these changes, then extrapolate why I and others believe the 2nd amendment is well overdue for modification & clarification. (In 1903, there were few restrictions on operating a motor vehicle, either... and no ideas about seat belts and emissions...times and concerns DO change!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bobert Date: 01 Jun 09 - 10:43 AM BTW, the FBI knows not only about these fringe radical groups but the members of these groups... So as part of one's right to own a gun one should not be a memeber of any group that condones killing over political idealogies... Killing, except in self defense, is against the law and by allowing people unfettered access to weaponry when they are active participants in such groups is not in in best interest of the safety of all of us... Here's the kicker... Right now there isn't one state with guts to stand up to the NRA... The District of Columbia enacted hand gun legislation and the gun nuts took it off the books... I realize that reasonable people have an uphill battle here... That is reality... But every change begins with people having the courage to speak up to power... In this case the power of the NRA and it's many barinwashed followers... Now my break time is over and it's back to settin' fence posts... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bobert Date: 01 Jun 09 - 08:20 AM Like I've said... It isn't so much the right to own guns that is the problem but the unfettered access to guns... Some folks just don't need easy access to them... I doubt this would have prevented this true-believer-wacko from killing this doctor but it might have... But on another level, seems that many of the folks who believe it is perfectly "Christain" to kill abortion doctors also are in the group who belioeve in unfettered access to guns... And capital punishment... Me thinks the pro-live extremists are the kinds of folks who just don't need to own guns... They see themselves as judge, jury and executioners... Very rabid mentally unstable people... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: katlaughing Date: 01 Jun 09 - 12:45 AM Meanwhile...a doctor was murdered in his church by a man wielding a gun: Scott P. Roeder, 51, of Merriam, Kan., a Kansas City suburb, was arrested on Interstate 35 near Gardner in suburban Johnson County, Kan., about three hours after the shooting. (Dr.)Tiller was shot to death around 10 a.m. inside Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita. In the rear window of the 1993 blue Ford Taurus that he was driving was a red rose, a symbol often used by abortion opponents. On the rear of his car was a Christian fish symbol with the word "Jesus" inside. Those who know Roeder said he believed that killing abortion doctors was an act of justifiable homicide. Roeder also was a subscriber to Prayer and Action News, a magazine that advocated the justifiable homicide position, said publisher Dave Leach, an anti-abortion activist from Des Moines, Iowa. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bobert Date: 31 May 09 - 03:43 PM Sorry, Kent, but unless I am personally attacked here in Mudville I don't personalize my posts (except in jest) here in Mudville toward other members... My arguements are aimed at pro-gun folks everywhere... But, yes, you can search my 15,000 or so posts over the last 7 or 8 years and you will find that I will attack/criticize people who are not members, i.e. George Bush, Dick Cheney, et al... You will also find personalized posts to about the same dozen people who have attacked me first... I belive wholeheartedly in self defense but I don't throw the first punch... As fir being a redeneck, Kent??? Sorry but I live ion a very redneck community (mountain holler) and I know rednecks, Sir, and don't take this wrong, but you ain't no redneck... Just brainwashed... lol... B;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Kent Davis Date: 31 May 09 - 01:46 PM To Rapaire, Thank you for posting that research! The quotes were interesting, informative, and relevant. To Bobert, What a relief to learn that you weren't using ad hominem arguments! I thought you had written, on May 30, "What you read here on this thread from the pro-gun folks is the company fight song that has been pounded into them, lierally, sincemany of them we born or at least old enough to be suseptable to brainwashing..."? I also thought, since I was the only one writing in support of the status quo for 36 posts prior to that comment, that it was directed at me. How paranoid of me. I hope you'll excuse me. You know how we brainwashed "rednecks too stupid to think for [ourselves]"* are. *See post of April 29, 6:41 p.m.) Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bobert Date: 31 May 09 - 07:50 AM The term "ad hominem" isn't accurate, Kent... But I understand fully why it is used by those who support gun ownership at any cost... Yeah, seems that when all else fails the pro-gunners drag out "ad hominem" as if it is the silver bullet, pun intended, to try to get folks to look at more reasonable as meanies... That dog don't hunt... There ain't not ad hominem here... I am not speaking from emotion... Nor I am speaking from prejudice... Nor am am attacking anyone personally... What I am doing is trying to get a discussion going about not only the 2nd ammendment, it's history (as Rap has done with his quotes" and reasonable policy that will make our society safter... If there is any elememnt of ad hominem that remotely fits is that. yes, I do have in interest in keeping guns out of the hands of people who clearly do not make our society safer... That one part does serve my "self interest" as well as the self interest of our society... Now back to the quotes that Rap has made... I find most of them do frame the thinking of the Founding Fathers and I don't see any that support the genaral unfettered access to very powerful and deadly arms that are available in today's market... I stand by my assessment that the NRA has stiffled discussion in the interst of making it's member's more money... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Rapparee Date: 30 May 09 - 10:11 PM "And we do each of us, for ourselves respectively, promise and engage to keep a good firelock in proper order, & to furnish ourselves as soon as possible with, & always keep by us, one pound of gunpowder, four pounds of lead, one dozen gunflints, & a pair of bullet moulds, with a cartouch box, or powder horn, and bag for balls." --George Mason's plan for the Fairfax County, VA, Militia "They tell us that we are weak -- unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Three million people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us." --Patrick Henry, 1775 "Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can." -- Sam Adams "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." --John Adams "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." --Tom Jefferson "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." --Patrick Henry (again) "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks." --Tom Jeffereson, to his nephew "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." --Noah Webster, 1787 "Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." --Richard Henry Lee, 1788 "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens' firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour." --George Washington, to the 1st Congress |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Kent Davis Date: 30 May 09 - 09:47 PM Bobert, That's what I like about you, the way you never stoop to ad hominum attacks. Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bobert Date: 30 May 09 - 12:54 PM Well, Crow Sister, that is part of the issue... But it's larger than that... Here in the US "sooner or later it all comes down to money" (Bruce Springsteen)... The gun industry is a multi-billion dollar industry... The NRA is it's marketing agancy... The NRA spends millions of dollar$ every year on advertisement, lawyers and lobbiests... The NRA is so powerfull that our politicans have to cow-tie to them... The NRA can take just about any politican it wants out of the game with its money and its clout... What you read here on this thread from the pro-gun folks is the company fight song that has been pounded into them, lierally, sincemany of them we born or at least old enough to be suseptable to brainwashing... But I have to give the NRA credit in that I can't think of any other organization that has been as effective in brainwashing so mnay people on one issue... I mean, even here in Mudville, where most folks have at least a decent level of intellegnece, the brainwashing has pushed right thru that level of intellegence... We can't, for instance, get any of the brainwashed to consider the 2nd ammendment wahen taken in its whole... They are completely stuck with the second part of the ammendment because that is the way the NRA ad-men have crammed the issue into theor little brainwashed heads... Yeah, they is no logic on their side... No motivation to have any discussion... I mean, why should they??? They have ***The NRA*** squarely behind them so life is good for them... Ain't too good for the tens upon thousands of innocent folks that gunned down every year but, ahhhhh, "guns don't kill people, people kill people"... Bullsh*t... Guns in the wrong hands kill people... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 30 May 09 - 11:45 AM From my outsiders point of view, America's profound attatchment (I mean we have gun liscences in the UK for farmers and game etc. but most people wouldn't want one) to guns appears bizarre. It surely must source back to some collective primordial insecurity, when the only way the origonal white invaders of America could crush the indigenous peoples, was with firearms. ...just as well people can't shoot on the internet. Or I'd already be smoking in someones shed about ten seconds ago... ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bobert Date: 30 May 09 - 08:19 AM I don't disagree with the 2nd ammendment at all, Kent... I just interpret the entire ammendment as it was written and not just cherry-pick that part that happens to support my views... If it were two sentences rather than one then maybe the I'd have a different view that would require a constitutional ammendment but it was written as one sentence meaning that the right to form a militia is tied to a right to bear arms... The folks who support unlimited and unfettered access to guns seem to forget about the first half of the 2nd ammendment... As for the licensing, I have no problems with states having the rights to restrict gun ownership to law-abiding folks who not only are required to register them but also pass a gun safety course... But the NRA won't let that happen... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Kent Davis Date: 29 May 09 - 07:59 PM Bobert, Should you read my last post again I trust you will notice that it contains no argument at all, for or against anything. It just answers McGrath of Harlow's question. Here's the bottom line: 1. No federal license is required to operate either a car or a gun. You may think there should be. But there isn't. 2. State laws limit the use of both cars and guns. However, state laws do not require a license for the USE of either cars or guns. You may think they should. But they don't. 3. A "driver's license" is actually a license to drive on public property. A COMPARABLE gun license would therefore be a license to shoot on public property. As TIA said, we don't have such licenses. However, for certain purposes and in certain respects, hunting licenses and concealed weapons permits RESEMBLE such licenses. 4. Any federal regulation of guns or cars must comply with the 9th and 10th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Any federal regulation of guns must also comply with the 2nd amendment. You may disagree with those amendments. If you persuade enough people, they can be repealed. But they haven't been. Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Rapparee Date: 29 May 09 - 12:57 PM Don't people have enough respect for a religious service not to shoot up a Mass? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bobert Date: 29 May 09 - 07:17 AM Fine... Let anyone who wants to own an unregistered gun and has no skills to use it be required to own enough property so that if the gun is fired the bullet can't trespeass over anyone elses property... That's about what I gleaned from yer last post, Kent... Actually, this argument was sued several years ago in Loundoun County, Va. when the Ashburn developement was being built in a rural area... Well, the NRA came in with it;s lawyers and they huffed and puffed and wore everyone out with their huffing and puffing until it was decided that the bullet wasn't actaully trespassing until it hit something on someone elses property... Like yer dog, 'er little Suzie riding her tricycle... I don't buy that logic (or lack thereof) one bit... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Kent Davis Date: 29 May 09 - 01:19 AM McGrath of Harlow, Sorry for not responding to your question earlier. It is an excellent question, but the answer turns on some technical points that usually have little importance, but which have great importance if we are comparing and contrasting the licensing of guns and cars. I figured that, if I answered accurately, I would be mocked (not by you, of course) for "splitting hairs". If I understand you correctly, your question assumes that the U.S. government requires us to have a license in order to operate a car. It does not. For most purposes, it might as well, but technically it does not. Like many country kids, I was operating a car, legally, for years before I got a license. My children are doing the same thing now. How? I drove (and they drive) on our land. I also rode a dirt bike, legally, on a road, when I was 12. How? It was a private road, owned and maintained by those whose land adjoined it. West Virginia required me to get a license before I could operate a car on West Virginia's property, but not on private property. Each state gets to make the rules about state property. On my property, I make the rules. The basic idea is that the owner gets to make the rules. (Yes, I know there are exceptions. That's why I said it is the BASIC idea.) What does that have to do with the comparison between guns and cars? A lot. States get to decide what is allowed on state property. Since cars are almost always used on state property, it is effective to require a license to operate a car on state property. In contrast, since guns are commonly used on private property, it is much less effective to require a license to operate a gun on state property. On the other hand, requiring a license to operate a car (or a gun) on PRIVATE property would be a blow to liberty in general and to property rights in particular. That's not all. In order to regulate cars, states merely have to comply with their own constitutions and with the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In order to regulate guns, states must comply with their own constitutions, with the 14th amendment, and with the 2nd amendment. In order for the FEDERAL government to regulate guns, it must comply with the 2nd, 9th, and 10th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. This is not an argument against gun control. It is just an answer to your question. Hope this helps, Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: TIA Date: 28 May 09 - 11:55 PM McGrath, The answer is a resounding "NO". BTW, excellent question. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 28 May 09 - 08:28 PM I repeat my question, because I'm genuinely curious to know the answer. ...in order to be able to legally drive a car, people have to pass a driving test, intended to insure that they are competent and safe. Does the same apply for guns across the USA? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Kent Davis Date: 28 May 09 - 07:25 PM I'm going to have to start reading my NRA magazine more closely, Bobert. I missed all those new initiatives you report. Thanks for bringing them to our attention. It really elevates the tone of the debate. Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bobert Date: 27 May 09 - 10:26 PM Well, if I have it correct, there is no hunting allowed in national parks... So, other than 2 or 3 people killed in them over a 30 year period, why introduce them??? If you take the square miles of any other area in the country abnd compare the murder rates you'll find that the national parks are just about the safest places in the country... Why???... Danged if I know but I'd venture a guess that the fact that gubs are kept out has some bearing... So, the national park is kinda like a control group... No guns allowed and very low incidents of vilence... Hmmmmmmm??? What next??? The NRA is going to have its minions hold up the federal budget until kindergarteners are allowed to bring heat into the kindergarten... What then??? Court rooms??? Bars??? No, soccer games!!! Yeah, that would be a good goal for the NRA... Get the soccer fans all packing heat... Make the NRA's gun shop owners lotta money and probably make more folks watch soccer on TV (or attend the games) just hopin' to see a good ol' fashion John Wane western shoot out... (Sheet fire, Bobert!!! Why not have the NRA hold Obama's Supreme Court noinee hostage until FOX can get guns into mental hospital or prisons and have reality shoot-out reality shows... They would make a load of money...) Danged... Wish I had thought of that... That is genious!!! I mean, there really isn't and end to logic (or lack there of) when we strictly interpret the 2nd ammendment and don't bother to look at the 1st half of it... (But, Bobert, when you ignore the first half of the 2nd ammendment isn't that "loose construction"???) Well, ahhhhh, yeah... Kinda like the NRA's view of "balance"... Balence meaning that we loosly construct the first half of the 2nd ammendment and strictly construct the second half... That's NRA balance!!! Screw it... Let's just pass out loaded guns to all babies while they are in the crib and in a few years all these arguments will go away... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Kent Davis Date: 27 May 09 - 09:36 PM Bill D., Thanks. I really appreciate that. Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 27 May 09 - 04:28 PM Oh...my, Kent. Yes, I see what I did, and it shows how reading quickly can confuse the elderly mind. Sorry for not 'getting' the referential order of posts. (I also often load only the last set of posts, which meant I saw only about 5-6). I shouldn't enter these things when so much is going on RT. You & I have had some debates, but you have been reasonable & civil. Apologies for the misunderstanding. and TIA... all my complaints about reasoning on this matter are meant for you now. *grin* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,TIA Date: 27 May 09 - 02:38 PM Kent, You listed some similarities between guns and cars. I listed some important differences. Roll your eyes all you want. They are important differences. Not sure what "arguments" of mine you where trying to help me with, but I thank you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Kent Davis Date: 26 May 09 - 07:52 PM Bill D., I thought I had been pretty clear about why I included the anecdotes, but I guess not. As I mentioned, I was NOT arguing about gun control, since I have already made my position clear. I was pointing out a problem that occurs when those who support gun control use the kind of arguments that TIA used. The problem is that such arguments sound, to many ordinary Americans, err, let's just say they sound neither wise nor humble. Imply to a life-long hunter, for example, that there is no benign use of a gun and you get little light and much heat. In contrast, your own approach, with your analogy comparing guns and cars, is reasonable, fruitful, and likely to provke discussion rather than rage. I'm not sure what you are referring to when you mention hypotheticals in my post. If any are there, I confess I can't see them. I am not the one who again brought up the issue of the relative safety of cars and knives vs. guns, nor did I bring up the issue of concealability. That was TIA. I responded out of frustration that these issues were AGAIN brought up by a gun control advocate who apparently thought they were very telling arguments, when in fact it merely provokes eye-rolling by those who support the status quo. I am disappointed you thought I was trying to find a set of "buttons to push". I trust that when you re-read the first and last sentences of my post you will see that this is the very opposite of my intention. I was offering advice on how to make arguments FOR gun control, a position which I oppose, more palatable to libertarians. I thought that was rather civil of me. Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 26 May 09 - 05:53 PM Fits right in with the 2nd amendment, huh? "The right to arm bears". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 26 May 09 - 05:45 PM Kat...LOLOL. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: katlaughing Date: 26 May 09 - 01:02 PM BillD, you might enjoy Number 20 in this LineUp at the boston globe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 26 May 09 - 12:11 PM Kent... if unwilling to argue by anecdote, it is also well to avoid irrelevant anecdotes and hypotheticals as examples... Explaining once again that cars and knives, etc. have caused deaths, and that other concealable small things are not banned really clouds the issue and focuses on minutiae which are not germane. (example... most folks who face home intrusion - like your great-aunt - do not GET the time to go get the gun while the intruder beats on the door.) I am musing that it may be best to resort to the philosophical principle that we should strive for " the greatest good for the greatest number" rather than just seeing if we can find a set of emotional/legal buttons to push which gets **me** what *I* want. The argument needs to center on whether easy access (BOTH legal & illegal) to many firearms and powerful ammunition cause more harm than good, and what to do about it if we decide the answer is 'yes'. Guns remain the choice of criminals and of the mentally ill because it is so easy to compel folks or hurt them while remaining relatively safe themselves. I'd MUCH rather try to dodge a knife or club or hit back than face a .38 from 10 feet away.....and so forth. It goes on........... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Kent Davis Date: 26 May 09 - 12:07 AM TIA, I don't suppose you are purposely trying to find the arguments LEAST likely to be convincing to 2nd Amendment advocates. Nevertheless, you have found three of them. Unconvincing Arguement #1: You write, "Cars have many utterly benign purposes. Guns are always used to shoot things." Do you really mean to imply that shooting things is never benign? When my daughter asked her grandparents to teach her target shooting as a hobby, is that not benign? When my widowed great-aunt (who lived a twenty minute drive from the nearest police station) had an intruder literally breaking down her front door, and she shot through the bottom panel into his legs, driving him away, was that not benign? When my parents buy licenses for buck season, doe season, black powder season, and bow season, and then bring in enough meat to supply themselves and several elderly members of their church with healthy food, while also reducing the over-population of deer, is that not benign? Unconvincing Arguement #2: You write, "Cars are also darn hard to conceal." Your point is apparently that, since guns are easy to conceal, they should be tightly regulated or banned. Knives, matches, lighters, books, and condoms are all easy to conceal. Should they be tightly regulated or banned? Unconvincing Arguement #3: You write, "I've also never heard of toddlers hitting themselves in the head with their parent's car." Neither have I. Have you ever heard of toddlers being accidentally killed by a car? One of our friends lost her sister when the girl, a toddler, ran directly into the path of her grandparents' car. When I was 13, two young children who were visiting our nearest neighbor were killed when they climbed into their parents' car, somehow set it on fire (playing with matches, most likely), and then were unable to get the doors open. I saw the smoke, but didn't think much of it at first. By the time anyone realized that something was wrong, the children were dead. For all age groups combined, the National Safety Council reports 43,100 accidental motor vehicle deaths in 2007, compared to 830 for firearms: http://www.nsc.org/lrs/injuriesinamerica08.aspx I'm not trying to argue by anecdote. I've already stated the reasons for my position. At this point, I'm not really trying to change your mind about gun control. I just wanted to point out that even a person as wise and as humble as you sounds neither wise nor humble when making such arguments. Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: TIA Date: 25 May 09 - 08:48 PM Cars have many utterly benign purposes. Guns are always used to shoot things. Cars are also darn hard to conceal. I've also never heard of toddlers hitting themselves in the head with their parent's car. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 May 09 - 07:33 PM You missed out the requirement that in order to be able to legally drive a car, people have to pass a driving test, intended to insure that they are competent and safe. Does the same apply for guns across the USA? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Kent Davis Date: 25 May 09 - 04:52 PM I agree that there are parallels between guns and cars. Though we do disagree on several matters, perhaps we can agree on these seven points: 1. That guns and cars are tools, used for innocent purposes most of the time. 2. That criminals use cars and guns for criminal purposes. 3. That the problem therefore is not the tools, but the criminals. 4. That the government's basic presumption should be for liberty. 5. That we are nevertheless willing to accept some restrictions on the tools. 6. That these restrictions include the following: a. certain types of tools (Formula One race cars and fully automatic rifles, for example) are disallowed for general use. b. those who use cars or guns to commit crimes may lose the right to those tools. c. driving or shooting while drunk or high can be punished as reckless endangerment. d. some areas may be generally off-limits (wilderness areas to cars, courtrooms to guns, for example) and that accidental or incidental trespasses should be treated as misdemeanors, not felonies. 7. That, contra the esteemed Mr. Bobert, those who favor the status quo are not necessarily "rednecks too stupid to think for themselves" who use arguments that "anyone with an IQ above 75 can parrot", nor are those whose understanding of constitutional law matches that of the U.S. Supreme Court necessarily in the same league as the "Timothy McVeys of the world... Or the survivalist fring groups..."(sic). What do you think? Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 24 May 09 - 10:51 AM Yes...I remember the tragedy with the hikers....and the fact that this guy should not have been able to try it again. In trying to work out in my own head how it should have been handled, I sometimes compare it to autos & drunk/impaired driving. Some people should not be allowed to drive, even when NOT impaired....when they ARE drunk, it is much worse. But unless they are in prison, it is hard to keep them totally away from cars. Everyday we go onto the roads knowing that someone dangerous might be on the same roads. We take our chances....and most of us just drive normally and take reasonable care. We don't armor our cars like 'some' need to. We don't equip them with James Bond defensive devices....etc. We instead hope that the 'system' has kept a large % of dangerous folks OUT of our concerns: knowing that it is always possible we will be a sad statistic. It is not reasonable to ban vehicles...or even limit driving to some tiny % who 'need' cars.....but we can & do limit certain types of vehicles and restrict where they can be driven and are beginning to provide codes and other safeguards to make it harder for unauthorized persons to even start a vehicle. What I do not see is much in the way of similar attempts to control firearms, which are not needed be nearly as many folks as need cars. So, unless *I* am willing and able to take special training in firearms, I will continue to not add to the list of those who have guns and limited ability to use them, and just 'take my chances' that I will NOT encounter an idiot with a gun....as I have for over 50 years as an adult so far. I seriously FEAR a law like Texas is proposing, for all those who might carry a gun on campus will, no doubt, carry it off-campus also, and just increase the number of guns in the population and the odds that a few of them will misuse the privilege or 'carry while impaired'...etc. I still have not read why someone lobbied to be allowed to bring loaded guns into National Parks, and what they think it gains. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: katlaughing Date: 24 May 09 - 01:30 AM This seems a good place post a great new song I just found: Less Guns, More Butter by Hot Buttered Rum! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Kent Davis Date: 23 May 09 - 01:17 AM I'm all for calm behavior to avoid violence. Since I don't even own a handgun, I would also join you, and indeed have also joined you, in not bearing arms. I respect your choice, and not just because I happen to have made the same choice. If I had a handgun, and if I had practiced enough with it, I would make a different choice. Writing about the Appalachian Trail got me to thinking about the case of Randall Lee Smith. In May, 1981, he killed Susan Ramsey and Robert Mountford, Jr. Ms. Ramsey and Mr. Mountford had been hiking the Appalachian trail in Southwest Virginia. Smith was caught, pled guilty, and was imprisoned. Last May, he tried to kill Sean Farmer and Scott Johnston along the same section of the trail. They were badly hurt but, blessedly, both men survived. I was especially interested in the case since Scott Johnston is an acquaintance of my wife's family, and since my older daughter, my father-in-law, and I had hiked that same section of trail a few years back. Let's consider what could be done to prevent crimes such as Smith's. One could regulate guns. Would Smith, who refused to obey the law against murder, have been willing to obey gun regulations? Even if guns had been completely outlawed, and even if the prohibition were actually effective (unlike, say, the prohibition against marijuana), would that have stopped him from killing? That is doubtful. He stabbed Ms. Ramsey to death. Could anything have been done to prevent the second set of attacks? Since he was a convicted felon, he was not allowed to have a gun. He had one anyway. Could nothing have prevented the second set of attacks? This man had been convicted of two murders. How was able to be back on the Appalachian Trail? Had he escaped from prison? No, he was LET out of prison in '96. By the time of the second set of attacks, he wasn't even on probation. Do you see a problem there? I do, and it is not a lack of gun regulations. For more information, see http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/wb/161124 and http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/wb/161156 . Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 21 May 09 - 11:10 PM "..., I would prefer a pistol to a pocket knife. Wouldn't you?" Not necessarily.... as in any other situation, having a pistol as an item designed to offer me protection would depend on me being well-trained and practiced in its use, and having it available at a moment's notice. It has always seemed to me that a private citizen, engaged in regular daily activities, (even hiking or camping) is unlikely to be able to access a handgun easily if confronted by a problem. There are studies showing that having a loaded handgun readily accessible creates more problems than it solves. I 'suspect' that it is the IDEA of being safer and having a possible defense that leads most folks to acquire them. Unless one is really, really mentally prepared to use a gun and practices the relevant techniques, it is as likely that an assailant will get your money..etc..AND your gun (if they realize you have one.) Yes, I know these are partially speculations, but as I say, there are more stories of folks being injured trying to be a hero than there are of those who managed to BE a hero. (guess which one makes better news and gets reported on most?) When I was a part-time liquor store clerk many years ago, I was told: "If there is a holdup...give them the money! Don't try anything!" I think that is usually the best advice, unless you are regularly in situations where you might expect trouble and are on constant alert... such as moving money about and/or working in dangerous jobs. It's not easy to decide, but the decision, to me, is not between a pistol OR a pocket knife, but between resistance or semi-calm behavior designed to avoid violence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Kent Davis Date: 21 May 09 - 09:44 PM Good question, Bill D. I really don't have an opinion on the Texas proposal because I don't know enough about Texas law. I do know that, in many states, and PERHAPS in all, it is difficult to get a concealed weapon permit and that permit-holders are, as a group, exceptionally well-trained and law-abiding citizens. IF that is the case in Texas, then the Texas law should reduce crime on campus. I would guess that the Texas law applies only to state schools. I would oppose a law forcing private schools to toe that line, as that would be a violation of their property rights. I don't see a problem with allowing guns in the National Parks. Guns are allowed in National Forests, of course, and if that has been problematic, I've certainly never heard about it, although we live near Wayne National Forest and my parents live near Jefferson National Forest. If my daughters and I were hiking a remote section of the Apppalachian Trail down in the Smokies, I would like to have a weapon of some sort. I don't own a pistol nor do I know how to shoot one, but if I did, and if it were legal, I would prefer a pistol to a pocket knife. Wouldn't you? Kent Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 21 May 09 - 11:18 AM well, yes.... that does seem like silly over-reaction. Any opinion, Kent, on the attempt in Texas to allow loaded, concealed handguns to be carried on college campuses? Or the law just passed as rider to the Credit Card bill, which allows guns to be taken into National Parks? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Kent Davis Date: 21 May 09 - 12:36 AM There are consequences when the government moves from a focus on punishing actual crime to a focus on the regulating tools. On May 6, here in Washington County, Ohio, 18-year-old John Kuhn went to school. He had not killed or injured anyone, but he was arrested. He had made no threats, but sheriff's deputies took him from school and confined him in the county jail. He had damaged no property, but he was denied bail initially. He had not disturbed the peace, but he was charged with a felony. He had not outraged public morals nor interfered with the operation of justice but, with just a few days of school left, he was suspended for 10 days. He was cooperative with school authorities, but they are recommending his permanent expulsion from school. He did nothing immoral. He did nothing dangerous. He did not run through the halls brandishing a loaded gun. He did not sneak a weapon into a classroom. He placed no one at risk. He freely admitted what he had done: after practicing marksmanship, he left his unloaded gun in his car. His last days of school are ruined. He can look forward to a lifetime of explaining to prospective employers that he is a felon who never finished school. http://www.mariettatimes.com/page/content.detail/id/512642.html Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Kent Davis Date: 02 May 09 - 08:10 PM Mr. Bobert, Sir, This is now the fifth post in which I have AGREED WITH YOU that we no longer have a functioning militia and have also AGREED WITH YOU that, therefore, the militia is now NOT a good argument in favor of gun-ownership rights. (see my posts of April 26, 29, and two on the 30th). As I AGREED WITH YOU on this aspect of the issue, you have responded to the other points I have made by talking about "rednecks too stupid to think for themselves" who use arguments that "anyone with an IQ above 75 can parrot" (April 29). You have asked me (with a nasty implication) "what constitutes a militia??? Survivalist groups???" (April 30) and accused me of "perfectly" descibing the "Timothy McVeys of the world... Or the survivalist fring groups..." (May 1) in what you apparently thought was my definition of the word "militia". (It was Noah Webster's definition.) You suggested that I "go to [my] local gun shop and tell 'um [I] need to purchase a few AK-47s 'cause [I am] organizing a 'militia'... See just how long it take the ATF guys to surround [my] house..." (May 1). It is interesting, considering your responses to my attempts to discuss gun control with you, that you have repeatedly made the accusation that it is the NRA which "does not allow for any deviation toward discussion". Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST Date: 02 May 09 - 05:36 PM Change laws... Exactly what many of us are trying to do, SPB... Thanks for your supportive stats... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the bla From: SPB-Cooperator Date: 02 May 09 - 08:16 AM if people kill people, and not guns, please provide statistics for (1) Number of murder by bare-hands (2) Number of mass murders by bare-hand |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the bla From: SPB-Cooperator Date: 02 May 09 - 08:12 AM 2006/7 57 gun related homicides in UK. So in USA if this is pro rata, then their were 285 inthe same year, or more? How many more? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the bla From: SPB-Cooperator Date: 02 May 09 - 08:07 AM Re population argument UK population approx 60 million, USA has about 5 times this. In my living memory (say 40 year, I don't remember much news before I was 10) 2 mass shootings. therefore has USA had on average, one mass shooting every 4 years? is so the pro rata population holds up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the bla From: SPB-Cooperator Date: 02 May 09 - 07:50 AM While the gun lobby continue to insist on the constitutional right to have the means to commit murder, and while arms manufacturers continue to make profit from providing the means to do this then what do you expect to happen????? Either change your laws or stop complianing about loss of life. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,Bobert, 3rd day in purgatory Date: 02 May 09 - 07:41 AM We obviously are talking about different things here, LH... That is the problem... The NRA has framed it's arguments that does not allow for any deviation toward discussion... They have long held that the right to bear arms has nothing to do with the formation of a "militia" because it is not convenient... That's where those of us who believe that the because of the wording of the 2nd ammendement that our current society has some wiggle room for reinterpretation... The NRA doesn't want any re-interpretation... They are strict constructionist on the 2nd ammmendment... The funny thing is that most of those who I know who still are NRAers aren't strict constructionists when it comes to other issues, especially when it comes to 14th ammendment social issues??? But I'll be the first to admit that all groups tend to be both strick and loose constructionists depending on the issue at hand... But with that said, hey, where's the harm in a conversation??? BillD has put forth some pratical ideas that both respects the rights of resonsible gun owers and the rights of those who are now being gunned down by those gun owners who are not resonsible... Face it, we do have gun control... We don't put loaded guns in the baby's crib to play with... That ***is*** gun control... All we are talking about here is gun safety, not "taking away your guns", unless, of course, you are some sicko who is planning on shooting up the local high school or McDonalds... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Little Hawk Date: 01 May 09 - 10:19 PM Bobert, he has already agreed that, in his own words, "the militia is an obsolete concept". I think you're talking about different things here in regards to the 2nd Amendment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,Bobert Date: 01 May 09 - 09:33 PM Okay, Kent.... Then exactly what is your definition of a "militia"???? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Kent Davis Date: 01 May 09 - 08:56 PM Bobert, It wasn't my definition. As the post says, it was Noah Webster's, from his 1828 dictionary. I'm more than a little puzzled as to how Mr. Webster's definition relates to Timothy McVeigh. Care to explain? Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Little Hawk Date: 01 May 09 - 03:39 PM Never mind about guns, man...you want security? Get a dachshund! That's the part that the NRA has never grasped, bless their pointed little heads... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,Bobert, growing tired of city life... Date: 01 May 09 - 01:34 PM Yeah, what BillD has said.... And this from a gun owner and former NRA member... Seems that the NRA ad-men have crafted all of these circular arguments for consumption by people who really don't wnat to have the converstaions... Purdy normal for the NRA... No back to city life... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 01 May 09 - 09:29 AM (packing as I type) Kent... you barely address my post of 9:05PM, except to restate your understanding of the 'grammar' of it. I claim that its grammar AND relevance are both subject to doubt. Those who use your stance to keep anything from BEING changed, are, as I say engaging in some complex circular reasoning that stalls even serious discussion. If you have no other point to make beyond asserting that "the meaning is clear, and that if I want changes, I'd better get the amendment revised", there's little more I can say. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,Bobert still in the city... Date: 01 May 09 - 08:40 AM Well, Kent... The problem I have with yer definition of militia is that given the context of our current society you have perfectly descibed the Timothy McVeys of the world... Or the survivalist fring groups... I mean, we do have to keep things in some perspective as to the reality on the gorund... Tell ya' what, go to yer local gun shop and tell 'um you need to purchase a few AK-47s 'cause you are organizing a "militia"... See just how long it take the ATF guys to surround yer house... Thomas Jefferson's thoughts were that the Constitution would have to be flexible enough to deal with changes that would occur as our country grew... The problem is not one of the original Bill of Rights ammendments has ever been changed... The second problem is that (and here's where we disagree completely) is that the language in the 2nd ammendment is not modern enough for today's world... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Kent Davis Date: 30 Apr 09 - 11:02 PM The question I addressed was this: Does the fact that the militia is an obsolete concept negate the right to keep and bear arms defined in the 2nd Amendment. Grammatically speaking, it isn't a difficult question. If the sentence were about anything other than guns, no one would find it hard to understand. In any case, the 9th and 10th amendments still apply. Where is the federal authority for the changes you propose? If it is in the Constitution, please point it out, for I have missed it. Again let me say that I am discussing what the Bill of Rights says, not what it should have said. If you want to amend it, go for it. Propose an amendment and we can support it or oppose it as the case may be. Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,TIA Date: 30 Apr 09 - 09:22 PM I think the intent of the drafters of the 2nd amendment is far more important than the specific (and we all agree antiquated?) wording. If only the precise wording mattered, we would need only a Supreme Dictionary, and not a Supreme Court. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 30 Apr 09 - 09:05 PM (still here) Ok, Kent, I see your tightly defined little point. You are asserting that EVEN IF we have no body that functions like a militia anymore, the 'people's right', etc., still obtains. well...hmmm... I think I would claim that the 'right' is directly connected to 'militiahood', if I may coin a word, and that logically, 'no need for militia, no need for the 'right' for everyone to 'bear arms'. No doubt a good attorney for either side could argue either way in the Court. Constitutional experts disagree on the interpretation...your assertion here is not exactly "revealed truth". It is an opinion, as mine is....that is why it needs to be clarified instead of just 'clutched'. It is fascinating to watch that circular reasoning..."I BELIEVE the 2nd amendment still applies, but I don't want any discussion about whether my belief is relevant and supported by many others...so I will just assert that is IS, and and dare you to get it discussed beyond silly threads on Internet forums". In any case, whether YOU are for or against guns, it is still the case that many "I assert that *I* can be trusted with guns, and no matter what is happening, *I* want mine, 'just in case'." phooey |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Kent Davis Date: 30 Apr 09 - 08:14 PM Bill D., Bless your well-educated soul but, friend, I never asked you to AGREE with the 2nd Amendment. I pointed out that its meaning is clear. Your own example, "A well-groomed leader being necessary for the enchantment of the populace, the right of the people to own hair-dryers shall not be infringed" makes this clear. If well-groomed leaders became obsolete, what would happen to the right to own hair-dryers. Nothing, of course. The definition of "well-groomed leader" is irrelevant. You could define them as any way you please and the right to hair-dryers would still remain intact. Plug in any ridiculous definition you wish and it changes the force of the independent clause not a whit. In a sentence of this form, the validity of the independent clause ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed") does not depend on the validity of the dependent clause ("A well-regulated militia...") Again, one could argue that the amendment should be repealed, just as Prohibition was repealed. But it hasn't been. TIA, You make a good argument that the 2nd Amendment should have been worded differently. But it wasn't. Bobert, I think you'll find that there is no debate about what the word "militia" means in the context of the 2nd Amendment. It doesn't mean either "our armed forces" nor "survivalist groups". Here's the definition from Webster's dictionary (1828): MILI'TIA, n. [L. from miles, a soldier; Gr. war, to fight, combat, contention. The primary sense of fighting is to strive, struggle, drive, or to strike, to beat, Eng. moil, L. molior; Heb. to labor or toil.] The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades,with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations. As I pointed out, that concept is, like wagon-trains and scroll-copying monastaries, basically obsolete*. However, as I also pointed out, the right to keep and bear arms is retained. The amendment doesn't say, "If and only if there is a militia, the right to keep and bear arms shall be retained". Again, you could argue that it SHOULD have said that. But it doesn't. Kent * Theoretically, the militia could still be called up, just as theoretically we could start crossing the Plains in wagon trains but, in practical terms, the militia is a dead institution, replaced by the National Guard, the various police forces, and the Reserves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,Bobert, wishin' he was in the woods.... Date: 30 Apr 09 - 07:59 PM I'll try to keep an eye on this fir ya, Bill... I'm stuck in a hot-shot hotel in NoVa fir the next 4 days being a good little henpecked husband by attending the annual convention of the American Azalea Society... I know... Wuss... Yeah... But they have compuders... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 30 Apr 09 - 07:26 PM By the way, we are going 'off to the woods' for 2½ days of folk music tomorrow, so if I don't answer anyone, I'm not ignoring them. I'll check to see if anyone has anything (relevant)more to say when I get back, but I won't resurrect this thread if everyone is finished. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 30 Apr 09 - 06:42 PM No...and I can't stand on my head and stack greased BBs with a rubber teaspoon either... but I can identify BS from 500 ft. up, using only a dowsing rod and a copy of Copi. (my thumb is busy at my nose, making a comment...roughly in your direction) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Little Hawk Date: 30 Apr 09 - 04:37 PM BillD - "Kent... I have 130+ hours of college Philosophy, including logic." Sure, Bill, sure... Whoop-te-doo! But tell me this... Do you have a dachshund who can howl the entire theme music to "Rawhide" and "Hawaii Five-O" while I play them for him on the harmonica? Hmmmm??? You don't, do you? Ha! Didn't think so. So there! Now just crawl off into your little corner and suck your thumb, buster. (grin) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 30 Apr 09 - 03:43 PM ahh..Ok.. sometimes I lose track in all the quotes and replies. *wry smile* thanks... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,TIA Date: 30 Apr 09 - 01:46 PM Bill D - I agree. That line is from Kent's quotation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 30 Apr 09 - 11:34 AM TIA... regarding: "Stating one reason for a practice does not mean that the practice depends solely on that one reason." I have already agreed that there are various reasons to allow 'some' guns to 'some' people in 'some' circumstances, but that is not what the NRA and its defenders want. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,TIA Date: 30 Apr 09 - 11:13 AM Kent, I understand the point you are making with this analogy... "A well regulated wagon train, being necessary to the migration of settlers, the right of the people to keep and train oxen shall not be infringed. In this case, if there are no wagon trains, is the right to keep and train oxen retained? Yes. Stating one reason for a practice does not mean that the practice depends solely on that one reason." However, the initial clause in the wording of the second amendment is there as a justification for something that many would consider a bad idea. That is, according to my reading of the 2nd amendment, I could reword it to say... "Look, we know that having guns in the hands of the populace could lead to all sorts of mayhem, but we need a well-regulated militia to protect this new country against_____________" Now, take away the well-regulated milita, and all you have is a bad idea that could lead to all sorts of mayhem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 30 Apr 09 - 10:50 AM Kent... I have 130+ hours of college Philosophy, including logic. I see your point, but it is, once more, a metaphor that does not directly apply, and has flaws in the basic assumptions of its premises.. You have seemingly 'demonstrated' that the conclusion follows from the premises, but the ambiguity is in the very definitions OF the terms. One cannot simply plug in a different set of terms in a syllogism and get anything but 'internal' consistency. If I demanded you agree that "A well-groomed leader being necessary for the enchantment of the populace, the right of the people to own hair-dryers shall not be infringed", you would be asking me how I know this, and how I determine what means 'well-groomed' is decided - and what 'enchantment' consists of - and even who comprises the 'populace'. And NONE of this addresses hair-dryers with asbestos in them! This sort of debate pattern arises over & over with various supporters of 'gun owners rights'. I make a series of what I claim are practical ideas, and I get back some sort of circular argument of the form: "It makes no difference what you say, the 2nd amendment is still there, and it means what we say it means, and until it is changed, we have the 'same' rights we have always had...and by the way, we will fight tooth & nail to keep it FROM being changed or clarified." Did you ever read "Alice in Wonderland", where Humpty Dumpty eexplains it to Alice? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "`I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"' `But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected. `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.' `The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.' ----------------------------------------------------------------------- You see, there are two questions: 1)whether the 2nd amendment is or is not clear & unambiguous, and 2) whether it is still applicable in its current form to today's concerns. The problem is that too many people are letting |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bobert Date: 30 Apr 09 - 08:35 AM That's all and well but we're still back to the aspect of a militia... Isn't that our armed services??? If not, then what constitutes a militia??? Survivalist groups??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Kent Davis Date: 29 Apr 09 - 11:41 PM Here's a thought experiment to determine whether or not the 2nd Amendment is clear and unambiguous. Imagine a constitutional amendment of the following form: Only if there is X, the right of the people to Z shall not be infringed. X = a social institution Z = a tool necessary for the operation of the institution For example, Only if there are wagon trains, the right of the people to keep and train oxen shall not be infringed. If there are no wagon trains, is the right to keep and train oxen retained? No. Now imagine a constitutional amendment of the following form: A well regulated X, being necessary to Y, the right of the people to Z, shall not be infringed. X = a social institution Y = a desired result of that institution Z = a tool necessary for the operation of the institution For example: A well regulated wagon train, being necessary to the migration of settlers, the right of the people to keep and train oxen shall not be infringed. In this case, if there are no wagon trains, is the right to keep and train oxen retained? Yes. Stating one reason for a practice does not mean that the practice depends solely on that one reason. For another example: A well regulated monastary being necessary to the copying of scrolls, the right of the people to practice celibacy shall not be infringed. In this case, if there are no scroll-copying monastaries, is the right to practice celibacy retained? Yes. Stating one reason for a practice does not mean that the practice depends solely on that one reason. For a third example: 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. In this case, if there is no militia, is the right to keep and bear arms retained? Yes. Stating one reason for a practice does not mean that the practice depends solely on that one reason. Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 29 Apr 09 - 10:40 PM Kent... to try to address the basics of your points: 1. ..."There never has been, and likely never will be, a randomized trial of gun control." Indeed... it is hard to do a double-blind test of many issues like this. You cannot have everyone turn in their guns for 3 years and 'see' what happens to the violent crime rate....then give them back if we don't see progress. (I happen to think there WOULD be progress, but it is obviously an unworkable idea, as the criminals, the paranoid and the unstable would simply not cooperate.) All we can/could possibly do is to reduce future expansion of the number of illegal guns, WHILE expanding the categories of what is illegal.,,,(including types of ammunition). 2......."both according to a natural language reading the Bill of Rights, and according to the U.S. Supreme Court throughout history". Well, here I obviously disagree with the 1st part, as I still think that changes in society show that the language of the 2nd amendment has de facto become ambiguous as the concept of 'militia' had changed. The founders simply had no way of knowing what would be invented. But the 2nd part...sure..the courts have continued to 'interpret' the 2nd amendment as if there was no ambiguity, So? It seems to me this is about 87.4569% a political stance. Judges get appointed & confirmed based on their commitment to certain aspects of the status quo.. This bothers me on several issues, not just gun control.....but it is a fact, and I am trying to make my suggestions with that situation in mind. "What happens today to the Second Amendment can happen tomorrow to the First" I simply reject that as a way of deciding what is right to do! With a little bit of Gerrymandered thinking, that notion can be used to reject ANY law that seems to limit anyone's freedom to do ANYTHING. (As I said above, it is an example of the "slippery slope" fallacy of reasoning.) Each amendment must be treated on its own merits, and there is little about the 1st amendment that either represents a danger, or that any sizable portion of the public disagrees with. You 'might' someday, if the winds blow differently, get 2/3 of the states to ratify a change in the 2nd amendment, but hardly the 1st. (no, I won't hold my breath) 3.......... "If you want to reduce a crime, any crime, put more policeman on the streets, increase their training, improve the crime labs, and tighten sentencing, probation, and parole rules. More consistency in enforcing the laws ALREADY ON THE BOOKS for lesser offenses will also likely reduce the incidence of more serious crimes. For example, consistent enforcement of existing law against a wife-beater will likely reduce the chance that he will become a wife-killer." Sure...nice principles..... Ask the policemen already on the streets how many more they need. How many more do YOU think we need?...and where will you find decent, qualified police? Volume does little good if you can't trust them. And if you hypothesize that it is possible, how will you pay them? And IF you get that far, and they (and the courts) do a good job of enforcement, where will you put those convicted? I read about terrible overcrowding of prisons now! Gun violators will be competing for space with drug dealers, gang members and all those wife beaters..(yes, I know they are often the same, but it is STILL a serious increase in the need for jails & prisons, and the trend is away from the death penalty.) I'm sorry, but my claim is - that the existing laws are poorly designed, largely because the NRA spends millions to keep them watered down, and just a few individual states, (like Virginia, mentioned above), can make efforts in other states almost useless. That, coupled with all the existing weapons hidden away, both 'legally' and illegally, make the very idea of "enforcing the laws ALREADY ON THE BOOKS" a frustration to those overworked police, and a **JOKE** to both criminals and just macho fools who think they can 'settle their own scores'...thereby becoming criminals. What *I* assert is needed are changes that will 1) Stop the proliferation of NEW guns into an already saturated market. 2) Gradually reduce the totals of guns that the police...(both the overworked one we have, and the ones YOU are gonna hire & train).. agree are totally inappropriate for "Mr. Average Citizen" 3) Restrict the sale of 'heavy duty' ammunition...seriously! 4) Do ALL the education, social engineering, counseling that we as a society can manage to keep people from the IDEA of violence as a solution and 5)...oh, yeah...TRY to enforce the laws ON the books better while we are trying to GET the money for more police and write some laws they can use...(that are not being made irrelevant by the state just across the river.) I live in the Maryland suburbs of Wash. DC....I see all these conflicts and their outcomes on my newscasts every day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: TIA Date: 29 Apr 09 - 10:03 PM Kent, Your straightforward responses are refreshing and convincing. Thank you. Now (and I ask this with no gotcha in mind) is there any merit to making it more difficult to kill for those who are crazy enough to kill? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Apr 09 - 09:02 PM The problem is, Bobert, that money is driving everything. If people eventually wipe themselves out on this planet, the tombstone for the entire human race could read: "They died for the Money they made." And who gets to call the shots behind every major decision? Those with the most money...because money is power. That's how it works. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bobert Date: 29 Apr 09 - 06:41 PM Well, the problem, as I see it, is that we've tried deregulation and it has been a complete and utter failure... Some of the variables that LH has mentioned play into the mix but on the whole, it has failed... The problem is that money, not social interests, are driving this debate or, more accurately, this non-debate... The NRA gets billions a year from gun shop owners and rednecks too stupid to think for themselves and wioth those billions they have intact the most efficeient lobby in the country... The NRA lobby is the lobby of all lobbies... But let's get real, it comes down to a combination of money and ignorance... Wonderfull mix... "A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one..." The aerguments for the anti-gun-contolists have been carefully crafted by ad-man who have used control groups to hone the arguments where anyone with an IQ above 75 can parrot them... Dismissing the ***vague language*** in the 2nd ammendment is at the heart of their propaganda... They ignore the context... They just slam down the throats of anyone willing to listen that the 2nd ammendment is plain and clear... It isn't at all... If it were 2 sentences it might be but it isn't... The right to own guns is tied to a militia... That is the crux of the argument... Once we get folks de-porgrammed from the carefully crafted propaganda on this one issue then the real discussion can begin... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 29 Apr 09 - 12:00 PM Ok, Kent... now we are getting somewhere. You have stated a position, an explication of its premises and a set of suggestions. I see the logic of certain of them and disagree with 'part' of that logic. I see the value of others, but disagree with their completeness. (The necessary but not sufficient argument) I have tasks to do today, but I will try to fill in details during breaks. (I'm sorry that your 'lighter' approach went over my head, but as you say, you hadn't posted enough for me to 'feel' what your tone was. This medium can be pretty unforgiving about subtle references) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Apr 09 - 02:02 AM Here's another thing that is desperately needed in the USA: A national health care plan that provides equal and free medical care for every USA citizen so that ordinary people's lives are not constantly threatened by ridiculously high medical expenses that they cannot possibly afford. We have that in Canada. Can you imagine the amount of stress that is taken off people when they know that they have such coverage? We pay for it through our taxes, naturally, and that's fine with me (although I have personally barely cost the Medicare program anything over the years). I don't mind paying taxes for that, because it's there if I need it, and that's good to know. Every other western democracy has a publicly financed national health plan in place. Only the USA lacks one at this point...yet the USA spends far more per capita on health from the GDP than Canada does! About 10% of the Canadian annual budget goes to health expenses, while 17% of the USA annual budget goes to the same! ***** What I am suggesting, in a nutshell, is this: Find out what is causing maximum stress to many people in your society, and deal with it effectively and creatively, and reduce those stresses on your citizenry, stresses which are usually financial, situational, familial, and psychological. If you reduce the most common types of stress on your citizens through various forms of responsible and progressive social policy, you WILL see a commensurate drop in the frequency of violent crimes. I guarantee it. A society is only as mentally healthy as the average mental health of its government and citizenry, after all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Apr 09 - 01:43 AM Actually, if you want to reduce violent crime (and that IS the sane and sensible objective), there are a number of things needed to be done: - more efficient and better policing - less poverty! - a radically different approach to legalizing, regulating, and dealing with certain presently illegal drugs - fewer broken homes - improvement of inner city neighborhoods - better (and more!) at home parenting of children, rather than abandoning them to the TV and the videogame consoles. - a far better educational system - a far more responsible entertainment media that does not routinely glorify violence just to sell more tickets - a far higher set of social ideals to pass on to our children - a far better example set to children by adults and by society in general And probably some other stuff too that I didn't think of at the moment. The point is, it's a very complex situation (as usual) and it isn't just about guns, it's about our society in a larger sense. People don't want to address that because it's way too complicated, so it's easier for them to just bellyache about guns. I think that might be what is concerning Kent. If so, I understand where he's coming from. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Kent Davis Date: 29 Apr 09 - 12:30 AM Of course. Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: TIA Date: 29 Apr 09 - 12:20 AM "If you want to reduce a crime, any crime, put more policeman on the streets, increase their training, improve the crime labs..." I agree. Are you willing to pay higher taxes to accomplish this? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Kent Davis Date: 29 Apr 09 - 12:17 AM TIA, The point is to reduce violent crime. I don't care what kind of tool is used. If one of my children were stabbed, blown up, poisoned, choked, or beaten to death with a tire iron, I wouldn't say, "Oh well, at least she wasn't shot". The tool used to commit the crime is irrelevant. The problem is the crime itself. As for being explicit, how's this: "If you want to reduce a crime, any crime, put more policeman on the streets, increase their training, improve the crime labs, and tighten sentencing, probation, and parole rules. More consistency in enforcing the laws ALREADY ON THE BOOKS for lesser offenses will also likely reduce the incidence of more serious crimes. For example, consistent enforcement of existing law against a wife-beater will likely reduce the chance that he will become a wife-killer." Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: TIA Date: 28 Apr 09 - 11:39 PM Okay, so please be explicit..."if you want to reduce gun violence, you____________________" Thanks, TIA |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Kent Davis Date: 28 Apr 09 - 10:44 PM Bill D., No, I'm not playing Devil's Advocate nor trolling. I didn't start this thread, nor have I dominated it (10 posts out of 149). I've been a member of Mudcat since November, 2003, and, in that time, have made only 285 posts, about half of which have been "above the line" in the music section. That is not the behavior of a troll. I see no need to try quoting statistics to you about the effectiveness, or the lack thereof, of various gun control measures, nor to argue with you about how the murder rate in Wales compares to that in Texas or Afghanistan. The reasons are simple: 1. There never has been, and likely never will be, a randomized trial of gun control. Therefore, when we consider West Virginia (for example) which has a low crime rate and lots of guns, you may say that, if West Virginia had fewer guns, its crime rate would be even lower. And in that you may well be right. And you may well be wrong. And there is no way to know without a randomized trial. 2. Until the Second Amendment is repealed, any substantial shift from the status quo is unconstitutional, both according to a natural language reading the Bill of Rights, and according to the U.S. Supreme Court throughout history. Even if the 2nd Amendment were repealed, there would still be the 9th and 10th Amendments standing in the way of substantial changes to U.S. gun policy. I am of the opinion that trying to subvert ANY part of the Constitution (rather than amend it) is bad public policy. I think it sets a deadly precedent. Even if gun control were KNOWN to be completely effective, the only legitimate way to implement it is by constitutional amendment. What happens today to the Second Amendment can happen tomorrow to the First. 3. I think the basic premise behind gun control is wrong. I think the regulatory approach to problems is generally bad public policy, likely to be ineffective, dangerous to liberty, and to be avoided if at all possible. Some regulations are a necessary evil but they should be minimal. Since emotions run so high about guns, I tried a "lighter" approach with parody. I'll try again to make the point. If you want to reduce libel, you don't outlaw tabloids. If you want to reduce speeding, you don't outlaw Porsches. If you want to reduce car theft, you don't outlaw coathangers. If you want to reduce arson... well you know that one. If you want to reduce a crime, any crime, put more policeman on the streets, increase their training, improve the crime labs, and tighten sentencing, probation, and parole rules. More consistency in enforcing the laws ALREADY ON THE BOOKS for lesser offenses will also likely reduce the incidence of more serious crimes. For example, consistent enforcement of existing law against a wife-beater will likely reduce the chance that he will become a wife-killer. Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bobert Date: 28 Apr 09 - 10:05 PM Arsonists and murderers have very different needs, motivations and personality disorders... Yeah, when caught they both end up being housed together but that's about where the the commonalities end... How do you spell "red herring"??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 28 Apr 09 - 07:59 PM Yeah...well, Kat.. my reflex is to try to ponder the imponderable, make sense where little is to be found, peek behind the curtain in Oz and ask just what makes some of those cows sacred... *grin* (as you know, even YOU are not safe from my pokings..) This issue however, is tougher than most to get into the real driving forces behind those who bewilder me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: katlaughing Date: 28 Apr 09 - 06:46 PM Thanks, Bill. I am sure he understands the absurdity of his "argument." IT would be good if he actually came up with cogent suggestions concerning guns and reducing the deaths caused by their use. But, wait, what light by yonder window? Oh, someone is lighting a cigarette! Quick! Shoot them...they have deadly fire and mean to kill us all!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 28 Apr 09 - 05:04 PM B-bruce- do you really, really not see the the gross fallacy in that assertion? You have assumed an unstated premise..(or maybe more than one)..such as, that starting a fire has the same societal value as firing a gun, or that 'lighters have little intrinsic value beyond committing arson', or that training in the use of lighters would help prevent arson....etc...etc.. You have tried to draw a metaphor which simply does not work...you are comparing non-relevant cases. I could make similar comparisons for ball-peen hammers, ball-point pens, bows, motorcycles, phonographs, asprin and whiskey...and you'd see the obvious flaws in those. Guns ARE a special case...other than hunting, they are needed primarily to injure, kill or threaten other with death or injury....and a case case be made that they are not 'really' needed for hunting any longer. But I KNOW that there are valid reasons, given the circumstances of modern society, for 'some' humans to have 'some' guns, for 'some' purposes....and I will NOT be dissuaded from my claims that society would be better off if all those 'somes' were severely limited. You seldom address that point, preferring to parse obscure points and correct little facts about law or details of gun construction which have little bearing on my basic assertions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: beardedbruce Date: 28 Apr 09 - 03:01 PM kat, The point is that lighters ARE made for the express purpose of starting fires- so to prevent arson they should be banned. the fact that sometimes there is a need to start fires can be discarded along with the fact that there is sometimes a need for deadly force as provided by a gun. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: katlaughing Date: 28 Apr 09 - 02:53 PM Once again, I agree with BillD and would remind that lighters are not engineered and manufactured for the express purpose of killing which is what guns are made for...there's no other use for a gun but to kill. There are no mythical legends or religious stories about "god" giving guns to humankind as there are myths about fire being brought on by some divinity. Fire is not just for killing. It is disingenuous to compare lighters to guns, just as it is when someone tries that old saw about cars, also not manufactured or engineered to kill. A lighter would not have killed this young girl: BROCKTON, Mass. — A fire chief in Massachusetts is investigating why it took nearly 20 minutes for an ambulance to arrive at the scene of a fatal shooting at a baby shower over the weekend. The first call that 16-year-old Chantel Matiyosus had been shot as she left the shower in Brockton came in at 10:57 p.m. on Saturday. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 28 Apr 09 - 11:35 AM So, Kent... I'm trying to figure if you, like a couple of other 'libertarians' I have met, are just playing Devil's Advocate in order to test those who have real opinions. If so, that process is entirely too close to what is often called 'trolling'. I disagree with my friend beardedbruce (and my friend Big Mick, who is usually in one of these discussions, but is busy these days) but they do have specific claims & details to offer, and we can go at each other about some real issues. I find debating with you, however, kinda like 'tilting at windmills'. If you have more to say that resembles a personal opinion, fine...otherwise, I'll not bite further. (I've said most of it anyway.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Donuel Date: 27 Apr 09 - 11:38 PM Who needs rhetoric when you can have polemics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 27 Apr 09 - 10:55 PM "...if we want to decrease a crime, we should work DIRECTLY toward that goal." ???That sounds like a good **slogan**, Kent...but what does it mean in practical terms? I have made what I consider some practical, direct suggestions about how to reduce the possibility that guns (the very easiest way to kill) could be used, as well as other ideas not related to guns...including agreeing that we need some social engineering to get the IDEA of murder out of peoples heads, and to identify better those with anti-social ideas. So,,,what are your ideas? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Kent Davis Date: 27 Apr 09 - 10:07 PM For what it's worth, I'll just point out, that my little parody suggested lighter control for the prevention of ARSON, not murder. Believe it or not, even a stupid old libertarian like me has noticed that murder is rarely committed with a bic. Arson is, however, often committed with one. My point is that, if we want to decrease a crime, we should work DIRECTLY toward that goal. If I want to decrease arson, I shouldn't campaign for lighter control. Instead I should work DIRECTLY toward that goal. For example, I might advocate hiring more arson investigators or tightening sentencing guidelines for arsonists or reducing property taxes (to lessen the incentive to commit arson) or whatever. Trying to decrease arson by controlling lighters won't work, but would further decrease our liberties. The same is true for murder. Since we want to decrease it, let's work DIRECTLY toward that goal. Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bobert Date: 27 Apr 09 - 07:59 PM See, this is where the discussion usually goes... Someone puts out some ***reasonable*** ideas from where a discussion could lead and it's called "rhetoric"... Man, I loves ya', LH, but you need to revisit the history of the gun debate... There is a lot less rhetoric on the side of those who would like a discussion to begin than you are implying... The mere implication marginalizes those of us who have been waiting decades for the NRA to shut up long enough to get a word in edge-wise... The entire debate has been one sided... The NRA's... It has the Congress of the United States scared to death to say one thing about gun control... And they do it by getting folks. like you, to parrot the same old cliches that we've heard for the last 30 years... "Yeah, them folks wanta take yer guns away, Ralph"... Period... I think it is disengenuois to thinking people toparrot NRA propaganda... The only rhetoric that I see is coming outta the NRA and thus... ...no discussion... Just shut the F up!!! B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 27 Apr 09 - 02:17 PM *grin*... 'you hear what you expect to hear'...ok, I'll try to remember to clarify and use 'many' a lot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Little Hawk Date: 27 Apr 09 - 12:57 PM No, it just usually sounds like it, that's all....your rhetoric, I mean. I would never dream of implying that you actually mean to be that one-sided and stereotypical in your thinking. ;-D |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 27 Apr 09 - 12:50 PM "Never just assume that "they all think this way", Bill. I don't....Do I have to put that disclaimer in every post? I try to make clear that 'enough' think that way to make it a very serious problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: katlaughing Date: 27 Apr 09 - 12:08 PM And, two were shot in a college dorm this weekend after which the shooter turned the gun on himself. This time they all survived. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Apr 09 - 05:07 PM Never just assume that "they all think this way", Bill. Remember, that's the mistake that your political opponents usually make too, only they make it in regards to you. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 26 Apr 09 - 04:58 PM 110%....are those like that town in Florida a few years, who not only wanted to allow everyone to have a gun, but wanted to require then to? I don't think it stood up in court, but I have seen remarks from those who think 'most' people should be going about armed. Interesting argument....that "if everyone HAD a gun, them bad guys would think twice!" They probably would...they'd think once about whether to rob or attack you, and again about the best way, so you didn't have a chance to use that 'defensive weapon'. Who me? cynical? naaawwww... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bobert Date: 26 Apr 09 - 04:04 PM Well, LH, that is the point... There is not a black or white manner in which to interpret the 2nd ammendment... As a gun control advocate I can live with that as a starting point of the discussion... I think most pro gun control folks can, as well... But what we get from the other side is dogmatism... They wnat it 100% their way... Not 99% but 100%... This is where the problem is... The right wing is so used to getting everything they want that this is the only way to play the game... Hey, I'm not making a knee-jerk reaction but an observation... I resent being called a knee-jerker as do most folks who would like to see some sane restrictions on gun ownership... I just don't buy the both sides scenerio as if there is that much complete stubborness or dogma on our side... I believe that we are reasonable people for the most part... It's the NRA suppporters who are 100% knee jerk and unreasonable... No make that 110% fir good measure... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Apr 09 - 01:31 PM Kent, you said, "But, please, let's not act as if one side of the debate consists of those who take it "literally" and the other side consists of enlightened souls who do not. That is not the issue. What the amendment says is plain enough. The question is what to do about it." Good point! There are indeed some lazy minds and superficial thinking, as well as knee-jerk reactions aplenty on both sides of the debate (in society generally, I mean, not pointing the finger necessarily at individuals here). As you say, the question is what to do about the second amendment and about how it is interpreted. That's a complex question, not a matter of black and white. And that's why I have at times come down to some extent on both sides of this debate...as I so often do...because I see that it is not a simple matter of black and white. There is prejudice and misunderstanding on both sides of the divide, and that's nearly ALWAYS the case in such matters. There are also intelligent and reasonable people on both sides of the divide, which is also nearly always the case. It will be well if they would respectfully acknowledge each other's legitimate viewpoints rather than falling back on extreme rhetoric. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 26 Apr 09 - 01:10 PM It would not be the percentage of bad people no matter what. After a certain point, 2% is little different than 12%. When the population is large enough, and even ¼ of 1% use guns carelessly or criminally, we will get these sad headlines....well, 'part' of the sad headlines. Today, the major news channels carry only the most shocking, multi-shooting stories...or those with an 'interesting' twist. You barely hear of the kid in a small town in Iowa who commits suicide with daddy's supposedly hidden 'defensive' gun....or the nervous holdup guy in Alabama who shoots a 7-11 clerk. You can go look up the totals, though....and the number of deaths & serious injuries are pretty shocking, no matter how you spin the percentages! It's a lot to accept, just so a bunch can kid themselves that they & their families are 'safer' with guns in the house. Yes, there ARE, I say again, a certain % who can be trusted with guns, and whose life or job requires 'some' sort of extra help....but not millions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bobert Date: 26 Apr 09 - 12:41 PM That's the problems, Kat... The pro-guns-at-any-cost folks don't thinl there is a problem... They must think that the reason that the US has a monterously high murder rate compared to other developed nations is that we have a greater share of bad people than those countries??? I know... It is completely unfathomable to folks who see the number of guns as the variable here and not the percentage of bad people... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: katlaughing Date: 26 Apr 09 - 11:56 AM A professor would not have been able to murder his ex-wife and two of her colleagues this weekend if he'd only had a BIC. He is now on the run, "armed and dangerous" as they say, leaving behind two small children now motherless and witness to her murder. Two cops who answered a domestic disturbance would not be dead if the man who shot them, killed by cops himself after, had only a BIC. The list/killing is endless. I don't give a shit what was meant back when, what I care about is doing something about it NOW. Much of what BillD has suggested is specifics, workable, imo, and at least may offer some solutions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bobert Date: 26 Apr 09 - 11:06 AM And as fir the lighter??? Columbine could not have been carried out with a Bik... And Virginia Teck wouldn't have happened with a Zippo... And bank robbers would get too far with a note passed to the teller that reads, "Fill the bag with cash 'caause I've got a cigarette lighter in my pocket..." I measn, lets get real here... Also, while we are getting real, I agree with what BillD has said there... The language of the 2nd Ammmendment when taken in its entirety is not at all plain and/or straight forward... It is ambigious at best... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 26 Apr 09 - 10:50 AM "What the amendment says is plain enough." Nonsense! That is the point. It is NOT plain, or the debate about what to do about it would be clearer....maybe not easy to reach a consensus, but if there were 2 or 3 sentences instead of one, defining 'militia' and which 'people', we could amend the amendment easier. As to: "Stating a rationale for a thing does not imply that there are no other rationales." Right...like I said above. Certain people, trained and registered, living in certain places, owning a few carefully defined categories of guns and limited to defined types of ammo...etc. It's not difficult to explain....it's just that there are many, many who flatly don't WANT any controls that might interfere with their 'hobby' and obsession...no matter how much sense it makes to have more controls. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Kent Davis Date: 26 Apr 09 - 01:56 AM I agree that it is "wise to review documents like the Constitution... and see if conditions have changed" and amend them if they have changed. One problem with the gun control debate in the U.S. is that gun control advocates, in general, are not making a real effort to amend the Constitution. One of the really serious problems in human life, Little Hawk, is that people refuse to deal with what very old documents actually say. Often they treat plain statements as if they were not plain. The Second Amendment can be rejected. It can be ignored. It can be amended away. It may be outmoded. It may be absurd. It may be obsolete. Anyone who wishes may speak out against it. But, please, let's not act as if one side of the debate consists of those who take it "literally" and the other side consists of enlightened souls who do not. That is not the issue. What the amendment says is plain enough. The question is what to do about it. Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Apr 09 - 12:51 AM Perhaps. I think if Jefferson could see the place now where he spent his days, he'd be stunned and probably horrified by how crowded, polluted, busy, and just plain bizarre it has become. One of the really serious problems in human life, Kent, is that people tie themselves to very old documents (such as the Constitution or the Bible or the Koran or the Bagavad Gita or anything else that was written long ago) and they decide to give it total and unquestioned authority, and they try to apply it literally to a situation that is radically different from when it was written. Would you agree that that can lead to problems? The problem is in the literal approach, which is an approach taken by people who don't like to think. They'd rather just obey, so they get a book and some "leaders" think for them. In that fashion some very crazy things have been done by successive generations of people. Now...if you're enough of a thinker to look beyond literal interpretations of old documents to the core of what was meant philosophically, then you can find much of value there. The Constitution was trying to prevent a system like the British monarchy from running the 13 colonies in an autocratic way. It was well designed for that purpose, and with high ideals. What we need now is similarly high ideals...and a whole new set of literal forms with which to clothe those ideals. I think it would be wise to review documents like the Constitution about every 20 years and see if conditions have changed...and if they have, amend the darn thing so that it's up to date. Otherwise you're following a fossilized form of thinking. Rather like a dinosaur. That can lead to problems. Remember...it was a group of men who wrote the Constitution, and they did the best they could at the time, but men are not perfect. It was not the hand of God that reached down out of the sky and wrote it. It is not ULTIMATE authority...unless you say it is... and then it's only ultimate authority for you...as long as you believe it is. You have no more backup for that than someone from any other country (or religion) who believes in their old documents and rules. It's all stuff that people made up! All of it. They may have been inspired (in many cases) by God...or they may not have been...not for me to say, but I know this: no one can prove they were, therefore no one can prove that any of it has ultimate authority over anyone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Kent Davis Date: 26 Apr 09 - 12:25 AM For the sake of discussion, I will assume that the militia is hopelessly and permanently obsolete. Stating a rationale for a thing does not imply that there are no other rationales. Stating a rationale for a thing also does not imply that the continuation of the rationale is a necessary condition for the thing's existance. Suppose my wife married me for my youthful good looks. Suppose, in thirty years or so, I lose those good looks. The marriage wouldn't disappear just because the original reason for it disappeared. Stating a rationale for a constitutional right does not imply that there are no other rationales. Stating a rationale for a constitutional right also does not imply that the continuation of the rationale is a necessary condition for the right's existance. Suppose the 1791 constitution of Lower Slobbovia stated, "The circulation of broadsides being beneficial for the transmission of ballads, freedom of the press shall not be infringed." What would that mean for modern Lower Slobbovia? It would mean that freedom of the press shall not be infringed. The right wouldn't disappear just because, in Lower Slobbovia, ballads are now transmitted by 8-track tape. A constitutional right doesn't disappear because one of its rationales disappears. It disappears only if the constitution changes or, if Mr. Jefferson was right about that whole "unalienable rights" thing, it never disappears at all. Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Apr 09 - 11:46 PM Actually, Kent, I think the Constitution probably should be amended in that regard, because there is simply no way of recreating the militia of the 1770s in our present day society...unless you were to have a total social revolution here comparable to the Russian Revolution in 1917 or the French or American Revolutions in the 1700s....in other words, a complete overthrow of the existing order in the USA and its replacement with something radically different. We have a largely urban and suburban society now of sedentary people who are devoted to consumer goods and shopping and TV and fast food, most of them have never even handled a gun in any useful survival way, and those people are utterly incapable of forming the sort of civil defense militia alluded to in the Constitution, and they are utterly uninterested in doing so anyway. They want to buy CDs and go to movies, for god's sake, not go out and hunt for their supper or defend their local municipality! They expect the police to do that for them while they watch "American Idol". That's how unrealistic it is to expect those lines in the US Constitution from the 1770s to apply to our lives now. It's a pipedream. A fantasy. It's sheer nonsense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 25 Apr 09 - 11:38 PM I'm curious, Kent... do you see no ambiguity in the 2nd amendment? Many, many people, including many legal scholars, believe that the 'bearing of arms', was to be connected WITH the need for the citizenry to be part of a Militia in order to 'keep' the State free. In the 1770s, that meant taking your musket and joining a local group, and possibly a larger 'state' organized group. That concept has very little to do with the way a modern state, after the time of the Civil War, needs to go about defending itself. We don't send riders to call all able-bodied men to grab their muskets (hand made) and powder and hurry to fend of the British. We need trained soldiers, using **standardized weapons**, manufactured and issued BY the state. And we sure do NOT need those soldiers, after their service, to keep those weapons and try to maintain them and keep a supply of high power ammo at home. You see what I'm getting at? The Founding Fathers saw no need to explain what a militia was, or to worry about what happened to those muskets after the war. They had very little concern with street crime and had very little way to get 'police protection' to your house. It made sense...then... for home owners to have a rifle of sorts to defend againt attack...or bears... or to hunt for food. (Why am I typing all this?..it should be obvious) Anyway, during & after the Civil War, the very nature and needs of a 'Militia' changed, even as guns were rapidly changing and becoming more powerful and standardized by manufacturers. By WWI, with automatic weapons and real 'armies', there was little need for the old concept of 'militia'....and a LOT less need for every household, especially in cities, to maintain a personal arsenal. But....we still had that pesky 2nd amendment that 'seemed' to grant everyone some sort of 'right'...even though the basic reason for having that right had changed radically. But, oh my! Guys who just liked playing with guns sure didn't want to hear ANY ideas that suggested a more modern view of things! And guys who figgered out that a life of crime was lots easier with stuff like Tommy guns to put up against small town banks. Now, as we see, that almost 300 year old idea of what a "free state" needed for "security" is being interpreted by those who like big toys that go BOOM to mean....whatever they want it to mean. They HAVE a goal, and by god, everything will be interpreted to fit that goal....and you get slogans about ..."when they pry my gun out of my cold, dead hands." And it sure happens that way a lot these days...after they shoot up some innocent folks who never saw 'em coming. Gee Kent... you ask "... why not amend the Constitution?" And you KNOW why...because the gun lobby ties KEEPING their guns to getting anyone elected to get everything else done! And the piles of hidden, unregistered guns grows larger....probably larger than all the 'legal' guns. And folks start remembering old lines about "shutting the barn door after the horse is gone." And politicians, even the ones who understand everything I said above!, shrug and promise not to mess with guns, so they have half a chance of getting other things passed. Funny thing about guns....they don't even need to be actually pointed at us in order to hold us up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Kent Davis Date: 25 Apr 09 - 08:57 PM Yes sir, Mr. Bobert, And thank you for explaining so clearly and in such detail why it is reasonable to fight crime by regulating one tool (guns) but not by regulating other tools. You are right too that the real issue is "our society's ability to regulate who owns what guns". I submit the following for your consideration: "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." If you don't like that part of the Bill of Rights, why not amend the Constitution? Obediently yours, Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bobert Date: 25 Apr 09 - 07:33 PM This entire "lighter" line is nothing but a feeble attempt to divert attention from the real discussion... I mean, lets get real here... Ain't no comparison... So now back to the subject at hand which is our society's ability to regulate who owns what guns... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Apr 09 - 04:58 PM Now yer talkin'! ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 25 Apr 09 - 04:40 PM Ok... I give up... I'll toss out all my lighters...and even matches. (Not that I use them 3-4 times a year, anyway) I will go buy Smith & Wesson .38.... Then, when I want to start the BBQ grill, I'll go thru the neighborhood till I find someone who smokes, stick my gun under their nose, and force them to come light my charcoal. makes as much sense as some of the ideas I hear... Oh, and I think you need to specify that it is *Canadian* people that you are so much smarter than. Being smarter than Americans is no challenge....well, except for....ahem... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Apr 09 - 02:08 PM Lighters are DANGEROUS, Bill! Hell, I wouldn't handle them at all if I wasn't totally clear on the fact that I am far more capable and brilliant and mature than 92% of the people out there. Or is it 98%? ;-D There's only one disadvantage to being so great. It's sooooo lonely at the top! There's barely anyone left whom I can call a true peer except for William Shatner and, let's see....Marlon Brando? Woody Allen? And, um...hmmmm... Hang on for a bit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 25 Apr 09 - 01:59 PM mmm-hmmm... doesn't seem like that pesky constitutional amendment 'stands in the way' of much of anything right now. But mebbe I'll write Sen. Barbara Mikulski and see if she'll sponsor an amendment against ALL fire-starting materials... I suppose we'll hear from the BBQ crowd pretty fast. (Oh, I AM impressed with how you CLC guys can ignore categories, too.. ☺ .. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Apr 09 - 01:51 PM The statement "Can someone explain why a terrorist has a greater set of rights than a law-abiding citizen?" is a statement based on a popular myth of really outrageous proportions. But it sounds great if you want to upset people and drive up their paranoia! ;-) Try actually being an officially designated "terrorist" and find out what your set of rights are as you get zapped by a skyhawk missile, bombed by a smart bomb, held without charges or trial, invaded in force by the Israeli army, and waterboarded, attacked by German shepherds, and otherwise tortured by the CIA in hellholes like Guantanamo and some even worse (secret) places overseas. Yeah, sure terrorists have "a greater set of rights" (rolling eyes) Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. (Gotta disagree with you strenuously on this one, GfS.) ;-D The fact is, everyone's rights are suddenly and permanently abrogated when the $ySStem decides they're seriously in its way. Pray God that they never label YOU as a "terrorist". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Kent Davis Date: 25 Apr 09 - 01:12 PM Bill D., If Citizens for Gun Control can worry about guns and ignore ropes, axes, box-cutters, and cars, then Citizens for Lighter Control can worry about lighters and ignore matches, magnifying glasses, and rubbing sticks. Besides, WE don't have any pesky constitutional amendments standing in OUR way. Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Lighter control is the way to go! Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 25 Apr 09 - 12:06 PM posted by Bruce...'Can someone explain why a terrorist has a greater set of rights than a law-abiding citizen?' Or why Vets, Constitutionalists, certain Christian church groups, are on the 'potential terror' lists?? Sounds like Germany 1937! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 25 Apr 09 - 10:08 AM Categories, Kent...categories! *grin* Did you ever study Venn diagrams? A little realistic labeling will show that the class of "stuff that can be used to start fires" has multiple entries that include several types of 'matches', as well as flints, magnifying glasses, camera batteries (ever watch Les Stroud on "Survivor Man"?), and rubbing sticks together. You CLC members don't wish, I'll bet, to be doing luggage checks for tiny little bows & shredded tinder at airports. I thought not! Well, at least you provide a few of the 'lighter' moments in this excessively serious discussion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Kent Davis Date: 25 Apr 09 - 09:18 AM Little Hawk, Enough of the inflammatory (heh)language! You are nothing but a shill for the N.L.A. (or, even worse, the C.L.A., its brother to the north). We at Citizens for Lighter Control would never even dream of a blanket ban on lighters. We just want sensible lighter control and that's all we want. That and instant background checks for lighter purchases and that's all we want. That and lighter registration and making flints traceable by law enforcement and that's ALL we want! That and banning lighters that are too cheap and banning lighters that are too big and banning lighters that re-light too quickly and that's ALL WE want!! That and banning lighters in public buildings and limiting concealed carry permits for lighters and requiring that flints and lighters be stored separately and banning disposable lighters in D.C. and that's ALL WE WANT!!! No slippery slope there, you extremist lighter nut! Your friend, Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Apr 09 - 11:44 PM Hell, Kent, I solved that problem years ago...or so I thought! I don't smoke. Problem solved. No lighters. Then I discovered that a lighter was handy in building plastic models, because you can use it to burn hardened crazy glue off the applicator. The applicater is an ordinary sewing needle with part of the eye cut off. This provides a little thingie at the end that is open-ended and it holds a teeny drop of crazy glue and voila! Part is neatly glued with no excess glue. But then you use a lighter to burn off the congealed glue after the applicator gets plugged from repeated uses. And that's just the beginning of the slide down the slippery slope! I live in fear of what may happen now that I am using lighters. My God, the worries I suffer! Still, it has never occurred to me to call for a blanket ban on lighters...I would not want to put Bic out of business, after all. Do you follow me? If you do, I have a loyalty oath you can sign and a coded ring for you, and I will send you instructions on a weekly basis as to just what your duties are. ;-D |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Kent Davis Date: 24 Apr 09 - 11:36 PM Bill D., I am puzzled that you aren't joining me on the lighter control bandwagon. I tried to apply, as closely as possible, the principles of gun control to this hot (heh)issue. If there are errors in my application of these principles, please point them out. Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 24 Apr 09 - 05:16 PM LOLOL.. details........yeah, there are still illegal walkings being done against the signals, but at least at the corners, and not by the hundreds, and so far, I have not seen anyone climb the fence. It is progress. Making many types of ammo VERY hard to get would be a type of progress also. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: beardedbruce Date: 24 Apr 09 - 05:11 PM re fence- please not the walkers in the picture, and the green light- so they do not have a "walk" signal, nor are they in the cross-walk, and are not legal... So, tell me how well the law is working with the fence?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 24 Apr 09 - 05:08 PM (Now I suppose Bruce will point out that the fence is not really quite 7 ft. high... *grin*) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 24 Apr 09 - 05:06 PM Just so other readers don't just say... "huh?..What's he babbling about... here's the anti-jaywalking fence, and the anti-left turn barriers. It really does take some work to show that you MEAN the laws.... would that gun laws were that easy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 24 Apr 09 - 04:39 PM Oh...BTW.. "...why I keep pointing out when someone makes false statements regarding guns or gun laws." It's nice to keep the details straight, but let's not pretend that strict adherence to precise legal definitions are a defense against the argument that there are guns being sold that are WAY more than 'sportsmen'...etc. need, and that modifying 'legal' guns to illegal configurations is way to easy. Telling us for the 37th time that we 'have' laws against doing certain things is not nearly enough. You, Bruce, certainly know there are laws against jaywalking. And you certainly know the area on Viers Mill between Wheaton Plaza and the Metro station...right under the pedestrian bridge. The jaywalking laws were consistently ignored, with people crossing 6 lanes of high volume traffic...even in rush hour. The solution? That 7 ft. high steel fence that runs for a block. On Connecticut Ave. at Howard, just North of Knowles, right in front of the Safeway, it has been illegal for years to make a left turn or go straight across from either direction. Leaving the Safeway, there were 6 signs saying "RIGHT TURN ONLY"... they were ignored by folks who considered it just 'inconvenient'. They finally put up those plastic posts making ONLY left turns into Howard possible. Sometimes it takes extraordinary measures to get people to pay any attention at all to the 'law'. Now, when *I* am in charge, the gun 'laws' will not only be designed to be fair, but will have 7 ft. high barriers to supplement the "right turn only" sighs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,TIA Date: 24 Apr 09 - 04:35 PM Just what our founders intended certain "rights" to encompass is exactly the question. The world has changed in some respects, but not so much in others. Seems to me that the right to free assembly meant the same thing in the 18th century as it does today. Same with the right to face an accuser, and the right to know the charges. However, when the founders penned "the right to keep and bear arms", the 18th century firepower, firing rate, and concealability were quite different from today's. So, I see no hypocrisy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 24 Apr 09 - 04:15 PM You are confusing one "set of rights" with another. What has to right to a fair trial..etc...to do with the supposed 'right' to carry or buy weapons? "...already stated that the gun laws proposed do not reduce gun deaths..." We will probably never know, will we? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: beardedbruce Date: 24 Apr 09 - 02:45 PM "I wouldn't be upset to have a nice guy rethink his position...." Neither would I. Perhaps that is why I keep pointing out when someone makes false statements regarding guns or gun laws. I do not see why it is OK to remove rights to "save lives" ( debateable point: already stated that the gun laws proposed do not reduce gun deaths) from gun violence, but wrong to remove rights to "save lives" from terrorist attacks. Can someone explain why a terrorist has a greater set of rights than a law-abiding citizen? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 23 Apr 09 - 11:09 PM Indeed, Joe... many of us know beardedbruce as a good & thoughtful & generous fellow. I try to be clear that I debate a position, not a person. Still, I wouldn't be upset to have a nice guy rethink his position.... oh...and 100 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Joe Offer Date: 23 Apr 09 - 10:40 PM Well, I have to say that I personally know beardedbruce to be a man of respect and good will......he just gets carried away a bit when he's in online discussions. But about those concealed weapons permits....I think that very few people should need one. Yeah, I think police employment or experience might be a good requirement. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 23 Apr 09 - 10:35 PM ummm.. Kent... Would you like to clarify whether you are just doing a cute parody, or using some of beardedbruce's logic about how banning guns can lead to banning of kitchen knives or ropes or baseball bats...or whatever. (gee - I think I remember a story about a guy being attacked with a knackwurst...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Kent Davis Date: 23 Apr 09 - 10:07 PM Another lighter arson today! When will the madness end? We must stand up to the extremists of the N.L.A. with their divisive slogan "Lighters don't burn things. People burn things." They claim, "When lighters are outlawed, only outlaws will have lighters". That's a straw man set up to scare the poor rural white men who cling bitterly to their Bibles and their lighters. No one wants to ban all lighters. We just want sensible lighter control. We must license lighters, require an instant background check before lighter purchases, ban heavy-duty "fire-man killer" flints, and outlaw semi-automatic arson lighters and the cheap "Friday Night Lights" favored by arsonists. How many children must die before we require flic-locks on all bics?! Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bobert Date: 23 Apr 09 - 08:44 PM Bingo, LH... Actually I knew the answer to my rhetorical question... Goldwater can be gigven credit for planting the seed... Yeah it took a while to grow but grow it did and with the help of OPEC the times werr ripe for Reagan... I really don't count Nixon as part of the story... Nixon was, ahhhhh, Nixon... Not the kinda guy that would egt the Southern Stategist's all lathered up but seein' as the Dems had done the done the Southern whites folks wrong with the Civil Rights Act they voted for him anyway... But, yeah, the 60's was all ther NRA needed to see... That's when they shifted... Too bad that they are so right winged because they weren't they would be in prime position to be the leading organization for gun safety, which BTW, is the future... Not gun ownership at all costs... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Little Hawk Date: 23 Apr 09 - 08:06 PM Here's my guess as to when it happened, Bobert. I think it happened when the Republican Party decided that it could permanently secure a certain bloc of votes (disaffected and angry mostly rural working class Whites deeply afraid of social change) by using the politics of division and fear to manipulate them. And when did that happen? Very shortly after Barry Goldwater's huge defeat in the 1964 election. That was when the Republican Party got hijacked by a bunch of neocon idealogues who decided to appeal to the most reactionary and fear-driven elements in American society, paint the Democrats as an un-American, northern, intellectual elite of composed of pansies who are soft on Communism and probably are socialists (gasp!) to boot, and thereby gained themselves the presidency by playing on those themes in a completely unscrupulous and divisive manner. And it worked! (most of the time) The Democrats did not understand how the heck to deal with political opponents who played the role of "Super Patriot", because if you oppose that role, they call you "unpatriotic" and "elite", and that's the kiss of death in the USA. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bobert Date: 23 Apr 09 - 07:49 PM And let's also keep in mind that many of the semi-automatic weapons that can be purchesed at Virginia's gun shows from "private* (haha) sellers without backround checks can be made to fire automatically without a lot of complications... Which brings us back to this question: When was it that the NRA changed from an organization with a mission to gun safety to one that is only concerned about propagating right wing propaganda and about gun sales??? This is not the NRA that I once knew... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Little Hawk Date: 23 Apr 09 - 06:55 PM WHOOOSH!!!!!! (the sound of Chongo rushing out the door to attend the Chantilly, Virginia Gun Show) And they've got "knifes" too! Oh, boy! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 23 Apr 09 - 04:26 PM For an interesting read, see the website of the Chantilly, VA. gun show |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Donuel Date: 23 Apr 09 - 02:05 PM LH that does happen a lot. A phrase some use to excuse potentially rude off handed remarks is "I'm just sayin. " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp Date: 23 Apr 09 - 02:02 PM Lemme just say this. I like what I am hearin' here about Virginia! If I did not already have enough firepower at my disposal here ta re-encact the battle of Iwo Jima if the need should arose...I would be pullin' up stakes and movin' straight to Virginia right quick. Yes siree. - Chongo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Little Hawk Date: 23 Apr 09 - 01:52 PM Oh, and one other caution which all here might heed from time to time: If you always assume the worst of intentions behind whatever someone else is saying to you, you may quite likely misconstrue what they're saying. Your own negative expectations of them thus become a self-fulfilling prophecy, one which rapidly leads you to conclusions such as: He's a bigot! He's a racist! He's an idiot! Etc.... (and then you may tell him that he (or she) is one of those things... and I guarantee he or she will be very offended when you do, and will probably counterattack immediately) In any case, it does not lead to any kind of useful discussion, but it's great for starting a war or a personal vendetta, if that's what you want, and it seems to be exactly what some people want. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Little Hawk Date: 23 Apr 09 - 01:36 PM Let me put it this way, Bruce. In the complete absence of goodwill or respect toward those you are debating with, it is impossible to have a useful debate, because an absence of goodwill precludes the chance of any real communication occurring. It just becomes a case of people shaking their finger and yelling in somebody else's face and (to quote one of Amos's favorite expressions) "waving their arms around". ;-D I say this not to single you out particularly, BB, but merely as a cautionary remark regarding the entire discussion and whoever is presently engaging in it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 23 Apr 09 - 01:30 PM Bruce... you continuously nit-pic about minute details and slight errors of omission in others' posts and thereby ignore the basic point being made. Stating over & over that "fully automatic" guns are not allowed is disingenuous when the point Donuel and other have been making is that ...VERY POWERFUL guns, many capable of RAPID FIRE, even if only semi-auto, and many which are easily modified....are being sold openly with little control, and then transported to other states. It is not a defense to robotically repeat the minutae of those weak laws...as if showing that someone slightly exaggerated the actual types of guns allowed & sold somehow makes their point irrelevant! (It begins to sound like the Bush administration's defense of torture by 'defining' words to mean anything they wish, and then getting tame lawyers to issue opinion memos supporting the definitions.) You are playing games with language and circular reasoning... "We have laws on the books. It is illegal to sell guns which violate those laws. Therefore, there is no problem if the laws are enforced....and what's the use of new laws, when the old one is good enough if enforced?" You ignore the various reasons the law is hard to enforce, and the fact that it is an inadequate law, even IF enforced. The FACT is, Virgina is a hotbed of rampant sales of dangerous weapons, and it takes about an hour or two to get guns from the Dulles Expo Center to 'interesting' places in Montgomery County, where the 'rules' are so careful. YOU are not addressing the problem...you are trying to avoid doing anything about the real problems, or even admitting directly what the real problems are. Obfuscation through quoting 'facts' is a hallowed technique. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: beardedbruce Date: 23 Apr 09 - 12:49 PM It is propaganda, just as it would be one to state "The person was charged with murder, rape, and jay-walking: He was convicted after a jury trial." Of course, the conviction was ONLY for jay-walking, but the deliberate inclusion of the other charges is what makes this propaganda. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Little Hawk Date: 23 Apr 09 - 12:42 PM More likely, Bruce, it is not a lie, but an error. A lie is a deliberate effort to decieve. An error is simply an error, and we all make errors. What I am suggesting here is that if people on both sides of this interminable bla-bla would tone down their rhetoric a tad, and show a little more respect for people with a differing opinion, well...you might end up with a more useful and productive discussion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: beardedbruce Date: 23 Apr 09 - 12:12 PM "Gun trade shows and conventions in Virginia succesfully bypass the sale of assualt guns and semi automatics without any background checks or stinkin forms. " False statement. Assault guns, as defined in both law and common practice, have the capability of fully automatic fire, and are prohibited from private ownership without a Class three permit- So the above statement is a LIE. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: beardedbruce Date: 23 Apr 09 - 12:03 PM Joe Offer, No objection at all, AS LONG AS the approval process is NOT used to prevent people who have NO negative information from getting those guns. In Montgomery County, MD, the law is that anyone who meets certain criteria is allowed to apply for a permit to carry concealed. They take your application, have you pay the fee and get fingerprints. Then they do NOT issue the permit, since only police and former police are actually issued the permits ( The police are the ones who decide who gets the permits), regardless of your justification. As I said, the system has to be such that the default is to issue the permission to buy if there is no reason to prevent it, since otherwise it can be used to control who gets guns for political or racial reasons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Donuel Date: 23 Apr 09 - 11:53 AM Gun trade shows and conventions in Virginia succesfully bypass the sale of assualt guns and semi automatics without any background checks or stinkin forms. The only check is from your checkbook or credit check if you use VISA. But actually you will find that cash is the legal tender of choice. And that ain't no lie pardner. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 23 Apr 09 - 11:42 AM "So why keep demanding that someone on the other side of the argument come up with one? " Not 'perfect', LH....better. *I* can easily describe (and have)what would improve the situation, but certain parties don't like my ideas. They are being asked to do better. "Enforce the laws we already have." is like suggesting a band-aid for a ... a... a gunshot wound ...when the patient is refusing to even hold still and let you stick it on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bobert Date: 23 Apr 09 - 07:59 AM As for drivers??? We ***do*** license them, don't we??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Little Hawk Date: 23 Apr 09 - 12:46 AM Hey, folks...there IS no perfect solution that any of you can come up with regarding ending gun violence in society. There just isn't. There never will be. So why keep demanding that someone on the other side of the argument come up with one? You're just asking them to do the impossible when you make that demand, and you don't like it when someone asks you to do the impossible. Accept the fact that life is not totally controllable, people are not totally controllable, they never will be, and that compromises must be found between 2 sets of extreme opinions. Partial remedies can certainly be found to lessen gun violence. Many are already in place. More cam be found. A perfect solution cannot and will not be found...and that's life. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Joe Offer Date: 23 Apr 09 - 12:02 AM OK, Bruce - So, if you would prohibit "Criminals and those who are not mentally stable, and those with restraining orders" from owning firearms, then certainly you wouldn't object to a pre-purchase background check to ascertain that the buyer has no such problems. Now we're making progress. -Joe, former background checker(and one of those people who didn't need a gun to enforce the law) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,TIA Date: 22 Apr 09 - 10:41 PM So, if the laws are adequate, but not enforced, whose fault is that? Are the police lazy? Are judges out to lunch? This argument baffles me. Please give explicit answer, then we can have intelligent discussion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 22 Apr 09 - 10:10 PM ...well, as a matter of fact, I have some opinions about who should be allowed to drive, also. But that is not the issue. No matter how many bad drivers there are, society need transportation, and the inherent purpose of cars is not to kill or injure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 22 Apr 09 - 09:10 PM I have far more friends who die at the hands of drivers who should not have been allowed on the road. You have my condolances about your godson. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 22 Apr 09 - 09:05 PM So, lets lock everyone up unless they get government certification- they might make some poor judgement and hurt someone. Start with all the minorities, and the poor- Only bankers and lawyers can be trusted, you know. Oh, Politicians too, I guess. But the rest of us need to be controlled and put in our place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: frogprince Date: 22 Apr 09 - 09:00 PM "So, will you take away their right to vote? How about their driver's licence?" Why, of course I would. Who knows how many people's throats they might slice with a paper ballot? And how many people do you know who own cars, who don't use them to kill at least something deliberately now and then? Will you forgive me if that isn't a very civil reply? Our godson was always a decent young man, never in trouble with the law, never in any question as to "sanity". But there was always just an element of immaturity there. No one expected him to blow his wife's head off, then his own, with his late uncle's old 12 gauge. But no one who knew him close really said "no, no him, that's impossible". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Apr 09 - 08:51 PM The way you describe it Bobert, it baffles me that Chongo hasn't given up on living in Chicago and moved to Virginia...it sounds like a place that he would love. Does the NRA give memberships to chimps? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bobert Date: 22 Apr 09 - 08:47 PM Folks who have worked in the court system, the mental health system and social workers all know the folks who shouldn't have access to guns... I worked in social work for almost 15 years... I worker closely with mental health workers... We all knew the folks who didn't need to have guns... After a while in that kinda work, it's like second nature... The tutor who tutored the kid who did the Virginia Teck killings tried very hard to get the college to intervene in this young man's life and get him some help... He even told the tutor about wanting to see people hurt... But Virginia Teck did nothing... That is why they are in the midst of law suits... But even if they had intervened, the killer could have still done everything he did because Virginia, the home of the NRA, couldn't care less who has guns... Virginia might as well have not one single law on it's books about guns as long as it cowties to the NRA on letting anyone buy them without one question asked... This the the real deal, folks... Wanta a semi automatic with a big banana clip that will kill ahundred people in less than two minutes then Virginia is yer state to get it... Why??? Becausde the NRA's thugs camp out every year in Richmomnd in case some liberal commie leftest tries to stop those sales... It's all about sales... Not safety... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Apr 09 - 08:44 PM Naw...get really tough with them. Take away their right to post on Mudcat! The ultimate threat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 22 Apr 09 - 08:36 PM So, will you take away their right to vote? How about their driver's licence? IF they are declared sane and competant, they havce the right. Even felons can petition for the right topossess weapons ( thought few courts have granted it- they have the right to request it.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: frogprince Date: 22 Apr 09 - 08:30 PM "Criminals and those who are not mentally stable, and those with restraining orders are prohibited from possessing firearms. ANY other citizen over the age of 18 can get guns, as they wish." "UNTIL the person is recognized by a court or medical evalution as mentally impaired or deficient, they are presumed sane- right????" What about a person who has been treated for mental problems and then released? Isn't that person legally sane? Can you honestly say that you have never known a person who has never been clinically diagnosed as "unstable", but to whom you would be uncomfortable selling or loaning a gun because of what you know about them? Would the problem that you know about be obvious to a gun dealer who met him briefly? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 22 Apr 09 - 08:11 PM There are courts and such. Will you say that someone could not vote if they MIGHT vote in an irresponsible manner? UNTIL the person is recognized by a court or medical evalution as mentally impaired or deficient, they are presumed sane- right???? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: frogprince Date: 22 Apr 09 - 08:02 PM How would you even begin to define or enforce a classification of "mental instability", apart from individuals with a record of institutionalization, or someone who exhibits blatant symptoms at the actual time they attempt to purchase a gun? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 22 Apr 09 - 07:54 PM Convicted, and those under restraining orders. Making a rifle illegal because it has a bayonet stud does not make much sense- unless you want to inclde kitchen knives.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bobert Date: 22 Apr 09 - 07:53 PM The problem, bb, with yer proposal is that is simplistic and unrealistic... Enforcing the laws ain't all that easy when criminal and nuballs can purchase guns without any IDs, background checks or registartions...How exactly are you going to enforce laws without those tools??? When the sicko kills 30 of his classmates??? Back in Loudoun County, Virginia we had a sitution where a large housing project, which now has it's own post office, Ashburn was being built... Problem is that it was built where folks used to hunt... The hunters knew the houses were there but hunted anyway... There were several incidents where bullets came crashing thru walls of these houses... The Ashburn folks tried to get the County Board of Supervisors to inact laws that would make the hunters have to hunt a certain distance form the residential communtiy... The the NRA became involved and fough back against these proposals and what was finally decided, afetr the NRA thugs were done, is that a bullet is allowed to pass over other folks private property and wasn't trespassing until it hit something??? Like a house or a kid... In other words, the NRA thought it was perfectly okay for hunters to be shooting in a residential area ***until*** the hunter killed a person of shot up someones new kitchen??? See, this is the kind of backwards thinking that I've been talking about when it comes to the NRA... The NRA will defend crimnals, nutballs, careless hunters and just about anyone else in the universe who wnats a gun at the expense of common sense and the safety of the community... This is why we have a the gun show loophole in Virginia... This is why the Congress is afraid of the NRA... This si why we can't even have a logical discussion on the subject... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: katlaughing Date: 22 Apr 09 - 07:34 PM Is that convicted criminals or just anyone off the street whom you decide is "a criminal?" Also, do you mean there have been no new laws since 1968 regarding gun ownership? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 22 Apr 09 - 07:15 PM I would enforce the present laws. Criminals and those who are not mentally stable, and those with restraining orders are prohibited from possessing firearms. ANY other citizen over the age of 18 can get guns, as they wish. No-one but police and military can have fully automatic weapons. This was the state as of 1968. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Joe Offer Date: 22 Apr 09 - 06:58 PM So, Bruce, what would you and other gun owners propose in the way of gun control legislation? What do you think would be reasonable controls? -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bobert Date: 22 Apr 09 - 06:36 PM Yeah, Bill, I'm with you... bb seems to have his own check list of things that have to be accomplished before adding a laws that make sense... Maybe the reason that lots of the other laws are not being enforced is because they were poorly written because of the pressures that the NRA had had over our political system for tyhe last 30 years... Yeah, there are probably a bunch of very watered down laws... There sho nuff are in Virginia, which BTW, is the state in which the national NRA headquarters is located... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: katlaughing Date: 22 Apr 09 - 05:40 PM Bobert, you'd think any reasonable person would get behind that in a heartbeat and make it so....sounds good to me. BillD, keep at it...you are really making it clear...how about an op/ed in the NYTs or somewhere? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 22 Apr 09 - 05:28 PM C'mon, bruce... I asked rhetorically. I was trying to get YOU to specify exactly what you DO want or would do. I didn't seem to accomplish that, even when you make a clear statement. "I would consider the need for additional laws AFTER the present laws are enforced-" Do you have a clear notion of what level of 'enforcement' qualifies? The real flaw in your assertion is the implication that there can be only one law UNTIL we get compliance with a current one. This situation needs several laws on different levels and with different goals. EVEN IF laws are haphazardly enforced, we need to specifically define the rules our society needs to operate safely and sanely. Then, when 'X' does 'Y', we can, if we have the will (easier in some states then others), arrest him and state: "there's a law against that." Making laws is not like testing of colors for cars...we don't need a large vote to determine whether something is a good idea or not. What if 78% of the populace refused to 'like' anti-racist laws? People are getting robbed & KILLED because too many guns of the wrong types are available to almost anyone who takes a notion. I, and many, many others thing this is a bad situation, and that restrictions SHOULD supersede any supposed 'individual rights'. Which restrictions? That's the issue....the current ones are not working, and the laws, besides not being enforced seriously, are not WRITTEN strongly enough. Somehow, I doubt that you really wish to see stronger laws, whether or not current ones are well-enforced. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bobert Date: 22 Apr 09 - 05:03 PM Well, one law that would work right out of the box is closing the gun show loophole... That would cut the number of guns going directly to criminals and sickos... I mean, let's get real... If someone is law abiding with no violent criminal past they should be able to own a gun... I have no problem with that at all... But what we have is a loophole that ciminals and nutballs know all about... I mean, you go to a gun show in Richmond, Virginia and check out the license plates from other states... This is an insane policy... The NRA used to be all for gun safety when I was a member and in shoot clubs... Today's NRA couldn't care less about safety or they would get behing closing the Virginia loophole... And you can take it to the bank that this law will work Day 1... Very enforceable... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Apr 09 - 03:46 PM "Are you seriously asserting that we shouldn't TRY to enforce the law those guys are breaking? Or that there shouldn't be laws unless they are easy to enforce?" No, I did not assert anything of the kind, as you well know. You are presenting a Straw man argument- I said "Which happens to be against current law- SO WHY MAKE ANOTHER LAW THAT DOES NOT WORK???? " It is pointless to make a new law when the old law is NOT enforced. I would consider the need for additional laws AFTER the present laws are enforced- WHICH THEY ARE NOT. My assertion is NOT that we should not enforce the law that is being broken, NOR that only laws that are easy to enforce should be created- Where do you get that, if not from a desire to warp what I said into something you ca argue with???? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 22 Apr 09 - 03:37 PM "SO WHY MAKE ANOTHER LAW THAT DOES NOT WORK???? " Why, just to make you yell louder, of course. Are you seriously asserting that we shouldn't TRY to enforce the law those guys are breaking? Or that there shouldn't be laws unless they are easy to enforce? What I want is a few laws that DO work! And I want the NRA to stop interfering and help make laws that are reasonable and enforceable, so that reasonable people can have reasonable weapons for reasonable purposes, rather than demand that anyone not (yet) convicted of a crime or judged (yet) mentally ill can buy almost any weapon they wish! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Apr 09 - 12:40 PM I agree, Bill, that it's better to err on the side of caution than to be reckless. In Canada you have to take and pass a firearms safety course before you can purchase, own, or use a long gun (rifle). The course itself is quite extensive and requires careful study and application to pass it. It's well supervised too. You then get a license qualifying you to purchase long guns and ammunition if you pass the course. There are also some pretty strict requirements about how to store the guns at home or when traveling. Now, handguns....well that requires passing an even stricter course before you are qualified to purchase those, and the conditions of use are stricter, because they're clearly not "hunting weapons". So obviously, steps are being taken here. I don't know the details of what's being done in the USA, but I gather it varies quite a bit from state to state. There has been a national gun registry established and ongoing in Canada for some years, but it seems to have become a procedural nightmare and a bit of a joke for whatever reason. I suspect there are a great many guns out there in ordinary people's homes that have never been registered...those mostly being guns that people owned long before the registry came into effect, and they're not bothering to declare them. Nothing can really be done about that, short of the government sending a new breed of SS troopers into everyone's house in the entire country and searching it from top to bottom...and that ain't gonna happen, needless to say. ;-) I think that the gun violence in a society is directly tied to a great number of contributing factors, such as: poverty unemployment drug trade and drug use broken homes gangs and organized crime alienation entertainment media that glorify violence video games that glorify violence frustrated, alienated young people growing up in single parent homes or just without much supervision (because the TV is now the babysitter?) That's why it's a tremendously complex situation, as I said before, and why many different approaches must be taken in many different areas of life to deal with it. What we have witnessed since the Second World War ended is the increasing urbanization of our society, the tremendous effects of television on changing the way people live, and the steady erosion and breakdown of the traditional values that once held our society together reasonably well. When people don't really know any longer who they are or what the heck they are living for (other than instant material gratification)...things tend to go a bit haywire and a few people lose it and do something totally insane. That's what I think we're seeing. The mass shootings you see happening nowadays are one of many symptoms of a general societal breakdown that is occurring all around us. It wasn't caused by the presence of guns (which have always been around in North America since White people arrived here)...but one of its more noticeable symptoms emerges in the violent use of those guns. To merely jump on the pro-gun (NRA) or anti-gun bandwagon is to become narrowly obsessed with a single issue in lieu of attempting to understand a much larger overall problem in society. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Apr 09 - 12:00 PM "They STATED they were selling multiple guns to Mexicans who were buying with no ID." Which happens to be against current law- SO WHY MAKE ANOTHER LAW THAT DOES NOT WORK???? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 22 Apr 09 - 11:37 AM "The only thing you said that I truly disagree with...or you implied it...is that just because something is not needed it is therefore okay to legally deny it to people.." I didn't type long enough to do all the qualifications & disclaimers needed. It should, though, be obvious that a "reasonable" person like me would differentiate between 'things that are not necessarily needed, but are of general value & usefulness to almost everyone - (like kitchen knives and automobiles and ropes) - and things which, by their very design are 'special' items whose main use is to inflict injury or death from a distance with lessened danger to ones self. (You see how thinking like that allows bows or certain types of hunting rifles?) Yes, I am quite aware of how long human society has had firearms and how the history of this country is tied to weapons....but most of us no longer need to fight Injuns or defend ourselves in saloons against drunken gamblers ...or even go out and shoot a deer for supper. As Janie points out, even in situations where one 'feels' in danger, it is seldom easy to get to a weapon conveniently. You, Little Hawk, point out that many people simply LIKE guns...fascinated by the mystique and potential power, many of them. Yes, many folks go hunting and use sane weapons in a reasonable manner. Have I said anything that would suggest I want to deprive them of that ability? You make several suggestions about basic firearm safety and the 'betterment of society' in general. Fine...nothing to argue with there....those ideas should be practiced no matter what we do about guns, but it is pure wishful thinking to imagine that those practices will make any serious impact on gun violence very soon. So, what would *I* do? It ain't easy, but your suggestion that passing a gun safety course before being allowed to use one is at the top of my list. (Notice I said "use", not "own"..) What about "owning" being restricted to certain types of hunting/sport items, and very strict registration and vetting require to get a permit? How about restricting 'possession' of a hand gun or fast-firing (semi OR full auto) weapon to law enforcement or security personnel who undergo VERY careful scrutiny? What about not even allowing such weapons to be **owned** by private individuals, but treated like military weapons and issued to screened individuals for defined periods with records kept? How about extremely tight restrictions on ammunition... of types available and of amounts and of whom sold to? Now, those are just off-the-cuff ideas, and yes, I CAN already see the objections 'some' (you know who you are) would raise. And I realize that even if all my ideas were suddenly law, that incidents would still occur. Guns would be stolen...people would be careless...accidents would happen. But I'd bet there'd be far fewer! At this point 'some' are puffing about 'rights' and "free societies" and 'trusting the government' and 'slippery slope'. I just do-not-believe that it is impossible to reduce violence by saner laws without endangering the basics of a 'free society'. I DO believe that if nothing is done, there will be more & more 'incidents'...enough so that BB's question about "number of shootings per capita" will be a moot point. What is the use of such statistics if you are less safe every day? What about the day when bandits and drug dealer, both here & from Mexico, get strong enough with guns imported from the USA to decide to treat THIS country like Mexico or Columbia? If things continue as they are going, you will almost REQUIRE that everyone go armed to have any chance of defense. Those who say they 'need' guns for defense, and advocate that guns be freely available, are creating a self-fulfilling hypothesis. Who will suffer most?...Those who are not competent or willing to use firearms...the elderly, the timid, the weak...etc. (Yeah...I hear you saying, "Awww.. c'mon, Bill! Scare tactics!") Don't mean it to be...I just think that, in some issues, erring on the side of caution is a better idea. (and no...I still don't see much hope in the current climate and with the NRA spending millions, of getting many of my ideas accepted. But I am still allowed to have an opinion, huh?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: katlaughing Date: 22 Apr 09 - 11:14 AM But I saw the videos of a Virginia gun show and the statements of gun dealers that **almost anything goes**! They STATED they were selling multiple guns to Mexicans who were buying with no ID....and to others who were almost certainly going to re-sell them in another state....probably illegally. It was all about $$$$$.... Most of the sellers probably consider themselves to be righteous patriots, too. AND< if THAT is a stereotype, they have only themselves to blame. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Midchuck Date: 22 Apr 09 - 10:47 AM IMO: A rational society would look something like this. Peter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,TIA Date: 22 Apr 09 - 10:22 AM I agree that "not needed" is, in general, a poor criterion on which to base prohibition. However, even forgetting criminal behaviour, in all of this Americans need to consider the balance between enjoyment of the thing (gun onwership), and the danger of the thing. Surely nobody "needs" a backyard swimming pool with a built-in life-size blender mechanism, and maybe someone would actually enjoy having one. But we do need to consider the danger that this attractive nusiance might pose to the neighborhood kiddies. When life-size blenders are outlawed, only outlaws will have life-size blenders. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bobert Date: 22 Apr 09 - 08:20 AM Once again bruce thnks that if he SCREAMs loud enough that will make make his opinions more correct than others... Bruce's SCREAMING is indicative of the NRA's meathod of SHOUTING DOWN any meaningfull discussion... I underatnd it with the NRA because of the mega-bucks they collect from arms dealers and their members for the purpode og browbeating Congress with lobbiests but I don't undertand why someone here in Mudville continually gets a pass for trying to SCREAM down folks wgho do not agree with him... People with those kinds of anger management issues are exactly the kinds of people that reasonable people don't want having guns... I mean, if bb is this quick to SCREAM and threaten, I wonder how he woul.d do in a road rage situation with a loaded gun in the glove box... That's part of what we are talking about here... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: gnu Date: 22 Apr 09 - 05:08 AM Sorry for that rant. Uncalled for. Goodbye. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 22 Apr 09 - 04:12 AM Little Hawks's last paragraph is quite accurate to how I feel, and not only that, I live in an area that there is reasonable 'good will' between the people here, and law enforcement. There is also a "Make my Day' law, which has it, that you can use lethal force, if some one is your home, that is an intruder. Burglaries are not a problem here...and not everybody is armed...but, in the past, people have helped law enforcement hold someone, till they arrived, so on and so forth...all without much incident at all...because of that co-operation. As I said, in another post, about trusting, and the government, the people could and would be more co-operative, with someone they trust, than not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Apr 09 - 02:27 AM I might better add that I am not accusing you yourself, Bill, of being dogmatic, absolutist, or any other stuff like that. I know you are a reasonable and thoughtful person. I am simply talking about the gun debate in general because it so frequently veers toward absolutist rhetoric, and on both sides. The only thing you said that I truly disagree with...or you implied it...is that just because something is not needed it is therefore okay to legally deny it to people. Not in a free society it isn't! No sir. Hell, we don't need about 95% of the things we have in this affluent society, but that doesn't provide any justification for someone making them illegal, because life is not just about what a person needs. It's about many other things as well. It's also about what we like, love, have fun with, enjoy, and find interesting. My uncle liked, loved, had fun with, and enjoyed his guns. He found them interesting. He was not a criminal or a dangerous person in any way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Apr 09 - 02:13 AM There is no one simple solution to mass shootings, Bill, that is also a workable and feasible solution. That may be hard to accept, but I think it is so. There are (theoretical) unworkable and unfeasible solutions which can occur to a purely logical mind, a mind that is, however, totally devoid of common sense, such as: confiscating all the guns everywhere: both practically and culturally impossible to do. killing all the people who want guns or have them and starting over at square 1: ditto outlawing all guns: ditto There is, I repeat, no one single feasible solution that is going to stop mass killings with guns in America (or elsewhere). Mass killings arise when a single person loses it, and people can do that for a great variety of reasons. You would have to address ALL those reasons and ALL those unstable people prior to the violent act to stop mass killings with guns. Now, how would you do that? There are, however, any number of more subtle things that can be done to lessen the number of such incidents, and I think a more useful discussion might be to focus on what those things are that can be done, rather than adopting a zealous attitude which implies that "anyone who doesn't agree with my viewpoint of it is an idiot and out of touch with reality". I can think of any number of things which could be done to lessen the frequency of such violent incidents, but I don't want to get carpal tunnel typing them all out tonight. I bet you can think of some too. Instead of people here accusing each other and going into emotionally overwrought attacks on one another over points of inflexible personal doctrine, why not focus on something reasonable like that? Society is very complex, and a complex situation requires a number and variety of smaller responses (legal and otherwise) on many different levels, NOT a dogmatic assertion of some absolutist philosophy. You say that guns are not "needed" by most people. True. Neither are TVs, pizzas, jetskis, model airplanes, weedless lawns, bras, baseball caps, or any number of other things that people happen to like for one reason or another. We could do without ALL of those things...if we were being run by a fanatical, dictatorial order that decided we couldn't have them. But.....wouldn't that defeat the entire notion of having a "free" society and a free exchange of goods and services? It would. So why are you suggesting that just because most people don't "need" guns, they therefore should not be allowed to have them? Guns have come to us out of a very long tradition, and that's one of the reasons people like them. My uncle had guns. Several of them. He loved guns, and he used them to hunt and to target shoot. He didn't NEED to do that, but he enjoyed it for its own sake and he enjoyed guns for their own sake. He never shot at anyone (human) in his life, he lived a peaceful and productive existence, he was a kindly and excellent man, and did no harm to society. He didn't NEED guns, Bill, but he lived in a free society, and in a free society people can have not just what they NEED, but also many other things that they simply happen to like for some reason. That is what "pursuit of happiness" implies: you can have not just what you need, but also some other things that you simply want for their own sake even if you don't necessarily need them. Do you follow me on that? Guns have been a part of human history for a very long time. So have knives, swords, bows and arrows, ropes, and other such things which CAN very easily be used to kill people. That doesn't mean that all those things should be totally done away with, does it? Or does it? Well, you will never run out of things to ban in this world if you want to make people's lives totally safe. Never. You would have to finally ban life itself...it would be the only way to completely eliminate all the existing risks it entails, seems to me. Am I in favor of restricting the ownership of assault weapons? Yes. Am I in favor of people having to pass a firearms safety course before being allowed to purchase a gun? Yes. Am I in favor of improving some people's economic lot so they don't fall into despair and go out one day and kill a bunch of strangers? Yes. Am I in favor of providing some help to lonely and unstable people or people in failed marriages who may need psychiatric aid or counseling? Yes. As I say, Bill, there are a great many useful things that can be done to improve the situation and to lessen these violent incidents we've been seeing in the news. That's where we might better focus...on many partial solutions. There is no one "magic bullet" overwhelming solution or law that is going to solve the problem, and there is NO solution at all that can completely solve the problem. There are simply a great many things that can be done to partially correct the problem. So let's be reasonable and find reasonable things that can be done. It works far better than adherence to some dogmatic form of absolutism. As in Buddhism: find the middle path (between the extremes). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the bla From: Janie Date: 22 Apr 09 - 01:53 AM I'm not gonna wade in here too deep, and probably would have not posted at all except for the number of references to guns and "mentally ill." First let me say that I have yet to hear an argument or read a statistic that suggests there is any real justification for handguns and semi-automatic weapons to be generally legal for most of us in the genral population to own. (Not that I have read a bunch of statistics about this issue.) Severely restrict the legal market for these types of guns, and the illegal availability will also be more restricted. I also am not aware of any information that suggests owning these types of guns makes most legal carriers of these guns safer. I don't think there is any evidence to suggest one is less likely to be assaulted or to have one's home broken into in the middle of the night because the aggressor believes the victim may be armed with a handgun or semi-automatic pistol or rifle. I think it likely that an armed burglar or assailant is much more likely to shoot if s/he thinks there is some chance the potential victim might be armed with a handgun. So, I have waded in long - but not deep at all:>) I have no problem with hunting rifles and shotguns. And if protection is obviously needed, they are adequate deterents. If the protection is not obviously needed, then chances are a handgun is not going to be of much protective value anyway to someone suddenly accosted. There are a very few people who are both obviously and chronically mentally ill and who also have a higher than normal potential to be dangerous to themselves or others if they have a gun of any type. That fact is, however, that the vast majority of deaths and injuries caused by gunshots, were not from guns, regardless of the kind of gun, in the hand of a person whose reality testing is so poor that they should not be held criminally accountable for their actions. Severely restrict legal access to handguns and semi-automatic rifles for everyone, and the "exceptional" restriction for that nebulous term "mental illness" that ought also be applied to single action hunting rifles can be much more clearly determined and defined. Four antecdotes that shape my views follow: 1. In my early 20's I was living in the upstairs of a 2 unit apartment when I heard some one on the porch roof of the lower apartment, obviously intent on breaking into my abode. I did not have a gun. However, I yelled out that I had a rifle and if they did not jump off the roof and run immediately, I would shoot them. They lept for ground and ran as I was calling 911. 2. One year at the Coconut Grove Art Festival in Miami, we had problems with a drunk or high man who was harrassing a young woman we had hired to help in the booth who lived on a boat in the marina, and was acquainted with him. At one point he flashed a knife and threatened to return later with his friends when we were tearing down the booth. We notified security but they weren't much interested. When the show ended that night, I stood with a thirty-thirty hunting rifle cradled in my arms while my husband took down the booth and packed us up. The fellow and some friends did approach from a distance, I moved under the streetlight where the rifle could clearly be seen and stared at them. They left. They would not have seen a handgun until they themselves were close enough to have probably shot me if they were carrying pistols, but the hunting rifle was fully sufficient. No semi-automatic weapon was needed. 3. I was robbed at gunpoint in Durham, NC. If I had been carrying a pistol, or had made any move that would have given the robber reason to think I was reaching for a gun, I have no doubt I would have been shot. 4. In my very early 20's, I was on a camping trip with a fairly new boyfriend. He became extremely and irrationally angry, extremely verbally aggressive, and I greatly feared I was about to be assaulted. We were way up an isolated hollow, miles from human habitation. When he started running at me, I turned and ran for the truck, scrambling for the rifle he kept there. I was very frightened, but was headed for the gun thinking it would give me an element of control and power. I was not thinking my life was in danger. He was right behind me. He wrested the rifle from me, hit me, shoved me into the cab of the truck, and then drove around on dirt roads for hours, the gun pointed at my head, screaming at me. Don't get me wrong, I am in no way accountable for his behavior, but if I had not gone for the gun, the situation would not have esculated to the point it did. I was unprepared to handle or to use the gun, and made a very foolish decision in the midst of the drama. 5. Late one night, I was awakened when the light in my bedroom flashed on, and then off. From the night-light in the hall, I could see the outline of a male standing right beside my bed. He turned the light on again and I could see it was a teenager, and he looked somewhat shocked to see me. I yelled at him to get out and he turned and ran. I did not have a gun, but it would have done no good if I had. If he had come at me, there would have been no time to reach for it. He was literally inches from my head. 6. Ex-hubby always carried an unregistered handgun. It drove me nuts and was the cause of many arguments. He was adamant that he needed it as "insurance" if we were threatened. What it did, however, was cause a mad scramble anytime he got pulled over for a traffic violation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 21 Apr 09 - 10:59 PM and Bruce... what does ".. the number of shootings per capita, now and earlier..." have to do with total number of shootings? If you are reminding me that, no matter how many they shoot, statistics prove some will survive!, I am not impressed. Do you think all those families in Colorado or southern Virgina are comforted by the knowledge that we are breeding faster than crazy people can shoot? then: "Criminals and the mentally ill are prohibited by the 1968 gun law from owning or posessing firearms of any kind" Yeah...and fully auto AK-47s are illegal...wow.. laws! And Bobert just made the point about how fast SEMI-autos could fire. (and, gee...didn't I read about how easy it is for 'criminals' to modify them?) Think about it... they are CRIMINALS. And some of the recent horror stories are ABOUT folks who we discovered were mentally ill after they killed a bunch of people! Being 'mentally ill' doesn't mean they are not clever enough to hide their intent until they are headlines....... **Mentally ill** is often a very subjective thing, and it can even just amount to 'temporary insanity', where a guy with a gun gets emotionally distraught - just long enough to discover he shouldn't have had a gun! As to "...my right to defend myself and my home and my family..." ... against what? Are you gonna answer the door with a loaded gun? Most criminal gun offenses are not telegraphed... they are surprises. That's how being a criminal usually works. Owning a gun, safely locked up and unloaded, does little good against a home invasion, and carrying one in your coat while on the street does little good if the criminal surprises you. It is rare to read of Mr. Average Joe getting the best of a robber or mugger with his .38! It is more common to read of a shopkeeper being shot TRYING to stop a thief. Now, I make 'some' exception for rural dwellers who have special situations and little quick access to law enforcement. But even then, they have odds against them if someone really wants to rob or do harm. The real issue is: Guns are not 'needed' by most people. The argument is that "criminal have some, so we need some for defense" ...doesn't that sound a lot like "THEY have a big bomb, so WE need a big bomb"? Now we are worried that criminals or 'mentally I have SEEN all this play out for so many years. I KNOW people who carried guns, and I know of only a very few cases where owning anything other than a couple of hunting of sporting rifles was reasonable. I have said many times here that I do NOT expect or advocate banning firearms. It is, frankly, too late for that. But I saw the videos of a Virginia gun show and the statements of gun dealers that **almost anything goes**! They STATED they were selling multiple guns to Mexicans who were buying with no ID....and to others who were almost certainly going to re-sell them in another state....probably illegally. It was all about $$$$$.... So...chant "2nd amendment" all you like, and tell yourselves you need 'defense', and fly a flag that says "guns don't kill people"..... none of this shows me that you offer any solutions to the increasing spate of tragedies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 21 Apr 09 - 10:56 PM Jeez..I hate to be the one who sets this straight. Both the SKS and the AK-47, which are both available to the public, comes in SEMI-automatic versions...the military version of the AK-47, has a selector switch on it, and can be made to fire FULLY automatic. Those are not available, to the public, without a special permit...Don't argue..I'm right! P.S. Some SKS's can be made to fire fully auto, as well, but not not the ones that are legally available. P.P.S. Who NEEDS them anyway??....Still, I don't feel threatened if other people own them, and if I knew of someone who did, (which I don't), I doubt strongly that they would be irresponsible....but then, my friends and acquaintances aren't crazies. We should pick our friends, at least as careful as we pick our noses! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 21 Apr 09 - 10:26 PM Excuse me: If you keep saying that AK-47s can be bought ***legally*** ( WITHOUT a Class Three permit) I WILL HAVE TO CALL YOU A DAMN LIAR. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 21 Apr 09 - 10:24 PM One more time, and then it becomes Bobert Fact: AK-47s are fully automatic, and already prohibited (EXCEPT TO POLICE FORCES). The semi-automatic version (SKS) has a clip with limited capacity ( by previous law) and fires as fast as one can pull the trigger- just like many hunting rifles. If you keep saying that AK-47s can be bought ( WITHOUT a Class Three permit) I WILL HAVE TO CALL YOU A DAMN LIAR. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 21 Apr 09 - 10:18 PM last was mine No. So maybe the present laws should be enforced before making more- including the ones against pot. If the law is not wanted, get rid of the law, don't just ignore it. Present laws prohibit killing, with or without guns. Since the criminals are already breaking the law, any additional laws serve ONLY ( yes, I am yelling since that is what it takes to get you to bother reading) to disarm the citizens from defending themselves. Should eveyone have guns? Again, NO. But those who wish to have them ( legally) should be able to, unlike the present situation, where minorities can be disarmed and made victims of both the police and the criminals. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bobert Date: 21 Apr 09 - 10:11 PM Yeah, bruce, I want another law... It closes the gun show loophole at gun shows where criminals and sickos can buy guns... No, make that buy AK-47's... I don't want criminals and sickos owning these guns... Do you, bruce??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 21 Apr 09 - 09:40 PM Well, it might not get off the ground, because most people on here, seem to be in agreement, on the most part. I don't own a gun, but at the same time, I don't see why other people can't, unless its for good reason....that being said, let's have those reasons be reasonable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 21 Apr 09 - 09:37 PM "But I don't want criminals and severely mentally ill people having unfettered access to guns" Criminals and the mentally ill are prohibited by the 1968 gun law from owning or posessing firearms of any kind. If they have them, it is already against the law. What do you want to do, pass another law against it???? If one law does not work, how can another one do what you seem to want? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bobert Date: 21 Apr 09 - 09:11 PM Well, looks as if there is a 50/50 chance of this thread becoming a discusiion... Unless, of course, the NRA finds out about it and sends one of their shills in to kill it... Heck, it's a fight just to get folks off their appointed talking r points.... I'm all for gun onwership... But I don't want criminals and severely mentally ill people having unfettered access to guns... Why can't we just agree on that??? (Well, BObert, if we take the guns away from the nutballs and criminals then next they will come fir your guns???) They will??? Who says??? Where did this mythology begin??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 21 Apr 09 - 09:01 PM Well, thanks Joe & Bobert, for doing some of the needed replies. As usual, I barely know where to begin on the rest. Bruce said: "to ignore it invites the rest of those rights to be ignored in the same manner- " That is the 'slippery slope' argument, and just doesn't track. No one is advocating "ignoring" the issue... I advocate revisiting the issue in light of new data and different times. LOTS of ideas are re-thought in light of data...like tobacco... restricting that doesn't cause 'freedom' to be curtailed, unless the 'right to gasp & cough' is something basic. And I am so thoroughly tired of the "guns don't kill people, people do." argument! First, it isn't even true... many deaths are accidents, especially with kids. Second, the full sentence is "people kill MORE people if they have guns, than if they have to use knives or bats!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: frogprince Date: 21 Apr 09 - 07:56 PM Guns left around the house don't kill little kids; Little kids who find guns lying around kill little kids. Lock the gun up secure enough to prevent that sort of thing, and your chance of getting to the gun in time to use it for home defense will probably be greatly reduced. Interesting choice of priorities? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bobert Date: 21 Apr 09 - 07:34 PM Well, gnu-zer... I usually agree with what you say but Joe's post above is very much a discussion... He looks at both factors in gun deaths: the gun and the gunner... The NRA just looks at the gunner... The folks who want stricter controls look at the gun... The discussion need look at both or it's not a discussion... It's someone's position paper... Hey, I am a gun owner... I am a former NRA member... I am a former shoot club member... I like my guns... That's all and well but really has nothing to do with a "discussion"... The NRA doesn't want a discussion... They have made that painfully clear... Those of us who believe that some gun law cahnges are overdue want to have a discussion... The NRA has the money and the power to keep that discussion from happening in places where the NRA might have to compromise... Our side has done all the compromising because we don't own Congressmen... All we are asking is for a discussion and not to be told that whatever the NRA says is the gospel... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 21 Apr 09 - 07:26 PM Bobert, When the Constitution was written, obviously verified in Jefferson's writings, one huge reason to allow the populous to be armed, was to protect themselves from a central government from being to big, and/or, to not allow a tyrannical government from forming, from this newly formed government. I'm sure, after freeing themselves from England's perception of being tyrannical, that this was certainly on their minds....not to allow the one formed, to go back into the one they just left. For that reason, it reads like it does, and was not stupidly written. I think you have to get out of the box that has been sold us, to understand the intentions of the framers. Agreeing with that, one way or the other, is entirely up to the reader and 'interpreter' of the document. Regardless, it was/is the law...just like freedom of speech..etc. etc....as for me, don't you get at least a little suspicious of people who break the law, or even try to change it, for their own purposes. I think the controversy, is about trusting the government, and/or why they feel it a threat...to whom?..them??..WHY??? It is from that viewpoint, that the arguments get so heated on this issue...neither side willing to see the other's, without a fight. On the gun owner's side, finding out would make it then too late to fix it..on the other side, they feel threatened. Now, I think I explained that, as impartially as I could. I think it is with understanding, that a fair 'checks and balance' can be found. It would be a great benefit, if we could, as Americans, start seeing SOME administrations, that would be TRUSTWORTHY in the eyes of the electorate, TO EFFECT A LESS THAN FORCEFUL(therefore, bloody) change. ...something the political machine, running BOTH sides have failed to produce. Regards To All, GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: gnu Date: 21 Apr 09 - 07:04 PM Joe.... c'mon? not you too? Catchy slogan? Not logical????? A gun is a hunk of metal. It CANNOT kill. IT CANNOT KILL... that is not catchy slogan. It is a fact. Which NOBODY can dispute. That is my problem with the anti-gun lobby. If you cannot even get beyond this basic logic, how can anybody have a reasonable discourse? Why would I give up my right to defend myself and my home and my family to anybody who cannot at least accept this basic logic and look beyond where we have been lacking in solving the gun problem? The gun problem can be solved, but not if the nuts on both sides keep being nuts. Sorry, Joe.... no go. I don't like guns on the street any more than anybody else, but until the is a REASONABLE discourse and some true solutions, I am staying with the NRA. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: Bobert Date: 21 Apr 09 - 06:49 PM Well, geeze loiuse, who cares if the AK-47s and later built SKSs are automatic or semi automatic??? Either way they can spew out alot of fire power... Greater fire power, BTW, than most police departments have readilly on hand to combat... The AK-47 (SKS) will shoot as fast as one can pull the trigger... N delay at all If one can pull the trigger, say, twice a second then that's 120 bullets being fired in one minute... One pull per second is 60 bullets... Where's the sport in firing 120 bullets a minute??? There is none what so ever... These weapons, auto or semi, we designed for one purpose: killing people... They were not designed for sport shooting or hunting... Just killing people... The semi v. auto argument is a red herring and NRA propaganda... As for the 2nd ammendment??? It's the worst written ammendment in the Bill of Rights because it ties gun ownership to the right to have a militia... The NRA would rather just skip that little inconsistency... And their shill's gloss over that portion of the ammendment as if it doesn't even exist becuase it's inconvient to try to explain what gun ownership has to do with being in a militia... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: Joe Offer Date: 21 Apr 09 - 06:47 PM Well, the "guns do not kill" statement doesn't fit the laws of logic and experience. Guns are certainly one of the two major causes of gunshot deaths in the country. If you didn't have guns, you wouldn't have gunshot deaths - and if you didn't have anybody to pull the trigger, you'd also eliminate gunshot deaths.
It's not a question of one or the other - BOTH guns and gun operators are needed to cause the result. I would guess the NRA would get alarmed it we were to go around eliminating people who like guns, so maybe removing or strictly controlling the guns is the way to go. -Joe- P.S. I added "fill in the blanks" to the thread title so people don't get all worried... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Apr 09 - 06:45 PM Aha. So it's not "guns" themselves that are the problem at all. It's the mutual disrespect and gross intolerance of the extremists in the two camps for each other that is the problem!!! By golly, I might have known it! ;-) That, after all, is the essential problem in almost all intractable and lengthy disputes of this sort, and it is why no satisfactory solutions can seem to be found. A few bad apples at BOTH ends spoil the whole barrel. Sounds like a credo for our times, doesn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: gnu Date: 21 Apr 09 - 06:32 PM That's the problem, LH. Nobody can accept a middle ground because nobody trusts the nuts on the other side. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Apr 09 - 06:27 PM I think most of us would like to see a reality somewhere in the central ground between the lunatic extremes at either end, wouldn't we? If so, what are we arguing about? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Apr 09 - 06:25 PM "Everyone wants to just point to whatever they think will support THEIR view." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: gnu Date: 21 Apr 09 - 06:21 PM Ahhhh... dunno why I am typing this.... ain't gonna do no good... Guns do not kill. People kill. Regulate people. Regulate guns. But, do not take away a person's right to defend oneself with a gun without cause. That's just fuckin stupid. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Apr 09 - 06:15 PM I'm fairly much inclined to agree with your various points, Bill, particulary numbers 3 & 4. Yes, the situation today is radically different from the 1770s when there was an unsettled frontier all along the western borders and almost constant warfare between Indians and Whites along it, plus a need for most people to hunt for food and defend themselves against bears, cougars, Indian raiding parties, even each other (given the lack of adequate police presence in frontier areas) etc... The 2nd Amendment was written in a radically different society from our present one and was totally suitable to the conditions of the time which required a standing militia and a country folk who used guns as a normal part of their survival from day to day. It is no longer nearly as suitable to our present overcrowded urban and suburban realities, and that needs to be legally addressed in some intelligent fashion. Tell you what....argue this one with Bearded Bruce instead. ;-) You and he have much more to disagree about than you or I do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Apr 09 - 05:34 PM BillD, You state : 1)There are more & more mass shooting, and still many, many individual ones. If this is your claim, have you adjusted for the increase in population? What is the number of shootings per capita, now and earlier? 2)Guns are bigger, fire faster and more common than 20 years ago (I typed 'tears' I considered leaving it), or 50 years ago, or 200 years ago. FOr 20 and 50 years ago, I will argue you are incorrect. Guns have been getting smaller and since 1933 fully automatic weapons have been ( effectively) prohibited. For 200 years, please adjust for the population I believe that the number of guns per capita was greater.. 3)Claims are made that "laws are on the books...we just need to enforce them", but in a number of states, i.e., Virgina, one can go to a gun show and buy ANYTHING, with little or no I.D., and no waiting. Why would anyone want 5 AK-47s, if not to route them to illegal purposes? ANYTHING is certainly NOT allowed. AK-47s are fully automatic, and prohibited. 4) The supposed 'right'(interpretation is subjective) in the 2nd Amendment doesn't deal with the situation today. As are the supposed 'rights' in the rest of the Bill of Rights- if you want to change the Bill of Rights, that is ok- but to ignore it invites the rest of those rights to be ignored in the same manner- freedom of speech or press certainly never included any idea of the internet, where a false statement can go around the world before it is even known to be posted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: Bobert Date: 21 Apr 09 - 05:31 PM So I heard this guy on a call-in show on NPR say that if Virginia required background checks at gun shows then folks would just set up in the parking lot and sell them outta the back of cars... I was thinking to myself, "Gee, don't ya' think the legislators would think of that and band sales of guns in parking lots adjacent to gun shows??? I mean, the NRAers are working overtime with their arguments... That one was a mighty stretch... And Bill is correct... It's been over 200 years since the 2nd ammendment was written... The founders knew little of handguns other than dueling pistols... Their perspective was rifles... Not handguns... And, no, by singling handguns I am not advocation a ban on handguns... We just need to occasionally put things in some historical perspective... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: Bill D Date: 21 Apr 09 - 05:20 PM "What's the basic point you would like addressed, Bill? " As I said, I don't know if a can DO a brief synopsis.... 1)There are more & more mass shooting, and still many, many individual ones. 2)Guns are bigger, fire faster and more common than 20 years ago (I typed 'tears' I considered leaving it), or 50 years ago, or 200 years ago. 3)Claims are made that "laws are on the books...we just need to enforce them", but in a number of states, i.e., Virgina, one can go to a gun show and buy ANYTHING, with little or no I.D., and no waiting. Why would anyone want 5 AK-47s, if not to route them to illegal purposes? 4) The supposed 'right'(interpretation is subjective) in the 2nd Amendment doesn't deal with the situation today. The point is that this combination of factors is seldom addressed as a whole. Everyone wants to just point to whatever they think will support THEIR view. ...and that is still a short, simplistic version of the problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 21 Apr 09 - 04:38 PM Jeez..I thought 98% of accidents cause children' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: Donuel Date: 21 Apr 09 - 04:35 PM more dangerous than a loaded gun A loaded gnu |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: Donuel Date: 21 Apr 09 - 04:28 PM If EVERYONE over 16 years old carried a loaded gun there would be a lot fewer intentional shootings. BAM oops sorry, that was an accident. BAM oops I thought you meant it. BAM BAM Oops, is there a bad guy here or not? BAM BAM BAM I'm just shooting because everyone else is. BAM thats no excuse Hello, is anyone still alive in here? BAM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: Bobert Date: 21 Apr 09 - 07:36 AM Normal NRA knee jerk reaction from GfS: Discussion on guns = outlawing guns??? This is the typical trick that the NRA has historically used to prevent the iscussion from even taking place... The NRA would have folks assume that the ***only*** byproduct from talking about guns is a ban on them... This cognitive disconnect is like an old hunting dog... One day people will find that that dog won't hunt... Face it, GfS, we have gun control now, don't we??? I mean, that;s why we don't let the baby play with a loaded gun in it's crib... That's why we don't assign guns to prisoners... No one here has advocated banning guns... To make the arguement that that is the goal is to be shilling for the NRA... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Apr 09 - 11:11 PM Okay, Kent. ;-) What's the basic point you would like addressed, Bill? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: Kent Davis Date: 20 Apr 09 - 10:59 PM Little Hawk, You always make yourself clear. I'm guessing you thought I was disagreeing with your post. Check the times. Both are 9:30 p.m. We cross-posted. Also, even though I couldn't have read your post, mine is in agreement with it. My suggestion to outlaw murder was ironic, since murder is already outlawed. Outlawing guns to prevent murder won't work because murderers won't obey gun laws. We are in agreement on that. Kent P.S. Also, even if murders would obey gun laws, outlawing guns still wouldn't work. Lizzie Borden, Jack the Ripper, and the Boston Strangler managed quite well without guns. Timothy McVeigh didn't shoot those 168 people in Oklahoma City. The 9/11 hijackers didn't use guns. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 20 Apr 09 - 10:49 PM Writing, like shooting, takes practice. Speed, is a bi-product of accuracy! I guess you need to get higher thoughts....up to you! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: Bill D Date: 20 Apr 09 - 10:36 PM "...discipline yourselves, in everything, in ways that will bring life, and light into this world." Been at it for 50 years... Now I use my HTML based ball-point sword almost every day. There are more guns, used more irrationally every day, than there were 50 years ago. Perhaps *I* will be the last person on Earth to own a gun....so be it... *wry smile*. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 20 Apr 09 - 10:22 PM The thing is, if you don't like one to have, don't get one..if you do,you can(legally that is)...in any event, discipline yourselves, in everything, in ways that will bring life, and light into this world. This consciousness is not only contagious, it IS the very thing, that the crazies, whether political, emotional, religious, agenda driven, manipulators, can NOT control..and threatens their very existence! Why would you want only a gun??..Wouldn't you rather have a ball-point sword?!! Warmest To You, GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: Bill D Date: 20 Apr 09 - 10:16 PM Neither GfS or LH has really addressed the basic point. I won't spend the time typing a long rebuttal, because as usual, I doubt I'd get thru. I, too, saw the editorial...and considered posting a scan of it: along with the FRONT PAGE article about another mass shooting that could not have been anticipated when the editorial was written. Bobert asks rightly if a discussion should begin again...without loaded commentary from the NRA. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Apr 09 - 09:47 PM Nothing "works" completely whether or not it is made law. Some things work to a pretty good extent, however. We outlawed murder because that works to a pretty good extent. Outlawing marijuana, however, has failed totally. Outlawing alcoholic beverages has failed totally. Outlawing theft and rape has worked to a pretty good extent. Now let's take a look at that. The reason it works to outlaw murder or theft or rape is because it is 100% obvious to 99.999 % of us that they should be outlawed, because virtually everyone thinks they are totally wrong. The same is not true of using marijuana, drinking an alcoholic beverage, or owning a gun. Have I made myself clear to your satisfaction, Kent? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: Kent Davis Date: 20 Apr 09 - 09:30 PM How about if we outlawed murder? Surely that would work. I wonder why it's never been tried? Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Apr 09 - 09:30 PM While we're at it, let's make stupidity illegal too, and see if anything changes... One thing about life. It's unpredictable. Another. Bad things can and will happen in life. When they do, the press will make sure you know all about it. The worse it is, the more they will tell you about it. Their enthusiastic telling and re-telling of it will probably inspire some more such incidents after awhile, not surprisingly. Good things, however, also can and do happen every day. MILLIONS of good things happen! How much do you hear about those in the news? No set of Draconian laws will make everything perfect from now on or prevent some a few more bad things from happening. Matter of fact, the draconian laws are usually a pretty bad thing in themselves, seems to me. They increase the stress load on the general public. Under accumulated stress, certain people crack...and bad things happen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 20 Apr 09 - 09:02 PM Fair question. Imagine, if all guns were illegal. Nobody was allowed to have them. If you got caught, you'd be in trouble...possible jail time. Right??? You'd think everyone would see the benefits of it. Well, do you think that would work?? Can sum it all up in one word. People would give it up...just like they'd give up(by the way, I don't have one)..just like they'd give up, and comply with honoring the laws about.....(here comes your one word).......... V V V VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV V POT Enough said??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: Bobert Date: 20 Apr 09 - 08:54 PM Why not??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 20 Apr 09 - 08:36 PM No. |
|
Subject: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: Bobert Date: 20 Apr 09 - 07:31 PM A heavily armed gunman opened fire yesterday at a[n]________________ leaving more than _______ dead and ________ wounded before taking his own life. Authorities have yet to cite a motive. Armed with a _______________ the gunman, __________________, opened fire on the ___________________ in a rampage that lasted less than ________ minutes. Police report that the shooter fired more than ______ rounds of ammunition and that the gun was ____________ (legally/illegally) owned. The shooter was described by neigbors as a ______________ man who kept to himself. "__________________________________", one said. One onlooker standing next to an impromptu memorial told reporters, "I can't believe it happened here in ____________". _____________________________________________________________________ The above is part of an editorial that appeared in yesterday's Washington Post... It was written by Josh Sugarmann who is the director of the Violence Policy Center... Isn't it time to have a real discussion about guns without the NRA chasing everyone down who doesn't walk their line... This is a sad commentray on our society and on just how powerful the NRA has become in *dictating* policy... Bobert |
