BS: Shooting tragedies and guns

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 02:32 PM

This asshole enjoys shooting semi automatic weapons. Even more fun was shooting an M 60 machine gun.
Who made you the big decider for everybody?
=(:-( I)

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 02:10 PM

The government needs to come down hard on gun sales owners and weapons manufacturers. They don't have the right to supply arms to anyone without the test of those having mental ability to handle one.

What asshole needs a privately owned semi-automatic weapon in the U.S.?

In fact most people don't need hand guns and are so ignorant because they think they know how to use one in a crisis where they are being threatened by hardened criminals who much more adept at the use of them.

Suicide rates are commensurate with the availability of guns. Taking them away would decrease the suicide rate by making that option less easy.

All this macho gun talk about "rights" is bullshit. As they are made available by a bloodthirsty Congress, there will be more mass killings.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: pdq
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 02:05 PM

MtheGM...

If I substitute 'abused' or 'disregarded' or 'restrained' for 'enfringed' in the sentence, I see no change in meaning.

The right to own a gun was never questioned.

The first Dutch, English, French and Spanish who came to the New World walked off the boats carrying guns.

The Bill of Rights simply enshrined the right. Restricting it would be an enfringement. That's my take.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: olddude
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 02:04 PM

I also think teaching your kids to love others, respect others and to work hard would go a long way also

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,999
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 01:47 PM

Having read this entire thread, I would make a suggestion. As far as the reference to hunting rifles go, most people do well with bolt action guns. I cannot see a situation in which any hunter would require more than a few rounds, and certainly a five-round clip would suffice for anything in North America. However, restricting hunters to a single gun isn't realistic. What are loosely called varmints can be killed with small caliber bullets like .22s. Fox and coyote require a .222 or .223. Big animals like bear need something on the order of a .308 while thick bush is easier to work in with a shorter rifle like a 30-30 (also good for most deer) which while not good for large bear can certainly scare them away. Canada has many people who hunt. Some do for pleasure, something I have never understood because taking any life shouldn't be fun. I also have never understood why civilians require semi-automatics or automatics. If you're too lazy to keep your five-round clip topped up you're probably too lazy to go get your own meat. In the times I have killed animals for food, either for my own family or the families of others, I have never felt 'good' about doing so. It was a necessity at the time. These days I have no rifles. I don't hunt anymore, although if I needed to I'd still be adept using snare wire or traps. Meat is meat.

I have no love of guns or rifles. Rifles are simply tools to me. That's it, that's all. As for the argument that big brother is going to confiscate your weapons, maybe yes, maybe no, but most people would be too chickenshit to fight, anyway. I fail to see what good an automatic would be against drones, body armour or armoured vehicles. So that is, imo, a bullshit argument.

I wish the USA good luck ridding the country of assault rifles and as Dan has said, getting control over who can have handguns.

Again, I'd suggest law wherein the use of a gun in the commission of a crime is a mandatory 20 year jail term, no parole, and death resulting to innocent people in the commission of a crime be a mandatory life sentence, no parole.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: bobad
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 01:45 PM

Sandy Hook Shooting Prompts 'Unprecedented' Run on Guns, Assault Rifles Across the Country
Neetzan Zimmerman        

Gun store owners across the country are reporting record sales in the aftermath of last week's massacre at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

One local proprietor told Huffington Post customers were particularly interested in combat-style assault rifles like the one used by shooter Adam Lanza to commit mass murder.

Though it's not unusual to see a spike in the sale of weapons after such incidents, at least one shop owner said the volume of prospective customers this time around was "unprecedented."

"We already have tons of customers because of Christmas, hunting season is peaking right now, and not to mention, the election," said Larry Hyatt, owner of the largest independently owned gun store in America. "But this tragedy is pushing sales through the roof. It's like putting gasoline on a fire."

Hyatt Gun Shop is notable for being would-be Obama assassin Jerry Blanchard's gun shop of choice.

Meanwhile, at least one gun store owner is extending a special discount to teachers who are interested in applying for a conceal-carry permit in Texas.

"As we do with veterans, I would offer them a discount," said Crocket Keller, owner of Keller's Riverside Gun Store near Austin. "Our normal rate is $110.00, so I would give them a rate of $90.00. If they are teachers, we would be more than happy to do that."

Keller previously made headlines after refusing to allow non-Christian Arabs, Muslims, liberals, and anyone who voted for Obama into his conceal-carry class.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 01:40 PM

Yep. Improvised weapons.
Raise your children to be human beings.
Combat mental illness.
Timothy McVeigh didn't use a gun.
The 9-11 terrorists could have been stopped with a gun.
We need more responsible folks like olddude carrying guns.
=(:-( o)

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 01:39 PM

'For MtheGM and others who want to understand the odd phrasing in the 2nd Amendment:

                an introductory phrase was common at that time'
,..,.,
Thank you for this link, pdq. But, reading the document, I found that the words in general use, to define what the right under consideration must not be, would be 'abused' or 'disregarded' or 'restrained'. This 2nd amendment seems to be the only one to use 'infringed' in this way. Which leaves me still wondering about its precise semantic connotation here, where its employment appears to be unique.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 01:39 PM

No one here wants to ban all guns, bb... That is just ya'll's default position whenever anyone brings up one single idea to make gun ownership safer and more responsible...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 01:37 PM

In other countries more civilized than ours, gun ownership is not a right but a privilege or entitlement if you like that is met by the gun owner declaring a legitimate reason to own a gun. Only in the U.S. does the government declare that gun ownership is a right. This is a gross distortion of the Second Amendment and don't tell me that you gun owners who have access or own an automatic weapon are a "well-regulated militia", or that you need that gun for any reason at all.

You gun owners should have to prove that you deserve to own a gun, are mentally fit, have the ability to know how it works, be licensed, and not to be able to conceal it for any reason, otherwise you have no RIGHT to that gun or weapon. How does anyone know that you wouldn't go nuts and use it to kill children? Just your word for it?

And those who use the words "lock and load" should be investigated for their attitude.

It's time we kicked the NRA in the butt, put Wayne LaPierre on trial and stop defending Charlton Heston as if he were a benign old man.

What we do have a right to, in this country is a decent education, health care,
and welfare when it's needed.


Gun owners should not have rights to own them

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: bobad
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 01:37 PM

In 1996, in response to a massacre in Tasmania that killed 35 people, Australia banned automatic and semiautomatic guns including .22 rimfires, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns. They also instituted a buyback program for the newly illegal weapons which saw over 600,000 turned in. In the decade after the law was introduced the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 01:21 PM

". How many folks are going into a crowded school of movie theater with a single shot or even 9 mm with an 8 round clip thinking they are going to take out the entire joint???"


NONE- They will find someone who LEGALLY has guns and use the single shot zip gun on them, and take their weapon, even if it is a police officer.

THEN they will go to the theatre and shoot into the crowd- Police carry weapons that hold more than enough ammunition.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 01:17 PM

Bobert,

"What, just because the AR-15 is semi-automatic makes them some kinda single shot 22??? Plus, how many folks have bought that little $5 booklet at the gun shows that tell you exactly how to make your AR-15 fully automatic???"

No, I think that people who want to ban ALL guns should be honest and NOT say ASSAULT RIFLE when they mean "Anything that looks like it might be dangerous"

And the USE of that $5 book is a felony, and ALREADY OUTLAWED- HOW MUCH GOOD HAS THAT DONE??? (yelling because this is not the first time I have stated this.) IF IT IS ILLEGAL, why would passing MORE laws make it work any better? How about we enforce the laws we have now, which make felons ( including pot smokers) NOT OWN GUNS!

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 01:12 PM

For those who think that gun ownership can be eliminated:


"Improvised firearms are not solely the province of the criminal element, however; they are also used by insurgents. During the Japanese occupation of the Philippines during World War II, the paliuntod, a type of improvised shotgun, was commonly used by guerrillas and the joint American and Filipino soldiers who remained behind after Douglas MacArthur's withdrawal. Made of two pieces of pipe that fit snugly together, the paliuntod was a simple, single shot open bolt design. The shell was placed in the breech of the barrel, which was then fitted into the larger diameter receiver. The receiver was capped at the breach end, and had a fixed firing pin placed to strike the primer of the shell. When the barrel was pulled sharply to the rear, the firing pin would strike the primer and fire the gun.[5][6] These improvised firearms are still in use by both criminals and rebels in the Philippines.[18][19]"

The US manufactured this type of shotgun and dropped them in Europe during WW II. Two pipes, one nail, one piece of wood.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 01:10 PM

You are in la-la land, bb... What, just because the AR-15 is semi-automatic makes them some kinda single shot 22??? Plus, how many folks have bought that little $5 booklet at the gun shows that tell you exactly how to make your AR-15 fully automatic???

Yes, Captn... A weapon will be found... How many folks are going into a crowded school of movie theater with a single shot or even 9 mm with an 8 round clip thinking they are going to take out the entire joint???

And no, Sugarfoot Jack... If I want to I can back a U-Haul rental truck into the parking lot at the Richmond State Fair where they conduct these gun shows, fill it up with AR-15s and AK-47s, thousands of rounds of ammunition, a case of "How to make your A%-15 or AK-47 Fully Automatic" drive off with everything and guess what??? Nothing gets reported to anyone...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 01:08 PM

A gun was drawn on the murderer in the Clackamas shopping mall shooting recently. He did not fire for fear of shooting an innocent bystander. But when the gun was noticed, the murderer shot himself. I hzve read, perhaps here, that that is what happens..when they see the law enforcement, they shoot themselves. So perhaps even unloaded guns would have some effect.

Count on it...innocent people will be shot by people shooting the killer. It will happen. But it might save 10 lives and cost 1. And I don't think all those other scenarios are likely..50 people being shot because everyone is shooting everyone else. It usually would be clear who the murderer was.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: kendall
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 12:34 PM

Bobert, I'll let you know when that happens.As long as the intent is there, a weaPON WILL BE FOUND.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 11:52 AM

Bobert,

since "the general public to have more assault rifles in their hands " and they are PROHIBITED NOW, what would additional laws do?


An assault rifle is a select-fire (either fully automatic or burst capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. It is not to be confused with assault weapons.[1] Assault rifles are the standard service rifles in most modern armies. Assault rifles are categorized in between light machine guns, which are intended more for sustained automatic fire in a light support role, and submachine guns, which fire a pistol cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge.
Examples of assault rifles include the StG 44, AK-47,[2] M16 rifle, QBZ-95, INSAS, Heckler & Koch G36, and Enfield SA80.



Section 922 Section D Bowleg 1-9
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person - (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (2) is a fugitive from justice; (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; (5) who, being an alien - (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))); (6) who (!2) has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that - (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Stu
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 11:41 AM

"Now the full tracking of a firearm to the last owner is flawed because of private sales do not require paperwork"

Aren't the sellers required to phone the FBI and other agencies to ensure the buyer doesn't have a criminal record and is fit to buy the gun? This is how they know how many guns are sold (legally) in the US. This was reported in a UK broadsheet but I can't find the reference for love nor money; apparently there have been millions of guns sold in 2012 already.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 10:53 AM

Bottom line here is that it looks as if we are going to get some sane gun control policies, like it or not...

Bottom line, part 2... There is no reason for the general public to have more assault rifles in their hands today than are in the hands of our current military...

Bottom line, part 3... For all you who are sticking with yer "Gun's don't kill people, people kill people" mantra, what are you going to say after sane gun controls take effect and murders and go down???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: olddude
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 10:48 AM

Every weapon sold by every gun manufactured is test fired and the weapons case is stored in a database for law enforcement. That is already done. Now the full tracking of a firearm to the last owner is flawed because of private sales do not require paperwork

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: pdq
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 10:48 AM

"Shall we all agree that we should have laws prohibiting private ownership ( except in very controlled cases ) of AUTOMATIC weapons? "


Automatic weapons are banned and have been since 1934, not 1968.



For MtheGM and others who want to understand the odd phrasing in the 2nd Amendment:

                                                                                     an introductory phrase was common at that time

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: kendall
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 10:38 AM

John P, it was not you who called me a moron, it was some one called the leveller.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 10:38 AM

that was me

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 10:36 AM

What we need, Bearded Bruce, is the will and funding to actually enforce and update the federal gun laws with a non-political agency whose mission remains constant through administration changes.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: catspaw49
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 10:35 AM

Well that ad might well be the last for Bushmaster. Here are a few unexpected developments! Read on.


In an incredible response to American anger over the Sandy Hook massacre, the owner of the nation's largest gun and ammunition manufacturer — which includes notable brands like Remington and Bushmaster — is putting the company up for sale because of the Sandy Hook shooting that took the lives of 20 children and six adults. Bushmaster has quickly become known as the infamous brand of rifle used in the Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.

Cerberus Capital Management, which created Freedom Group, now the parent company of Bushmaster, Remington, and Marlin, says it's just not worth the attention and hassle after Sandy Hook.

"It is apparent that the Sandy Hook tragedy was a watershed event that has raised the national debate on gun control to an unprecedented level," Cerberus states via a press release:



The debate essentially focuses on the balance between public safety and the scope of the Constitutional rights under the Second Amendment. As a Firm, we are investors, not statesmen or policy makers. Our role is to make investments on behalf of our clients who are comprised of the pension plans of firemen, teachers, policemen and other municipal workers and unions, endowments, and other institutions and individuals. It is not our role to take positions, or attempt to shape or influence the gun control policy debate. That is the job of our federal and state legislators.

There are, however, actions that we as a firm can take. Accordingly, we have determined to immediately engage in a formal process to sell our investment in Freedom Group.


"According to Fortune's Dan Primack, Cerberus' sale of Freedom Group is 'not a financial decision,' as the holding company's value is 'artificially low,' and a buyer will be hard to find," Neetzan Zimmerman at Gawker notes:


However, it is worth noting that the California State Teachers' Retirement System, one of Cerberus' largest investors, said yesterday that it would review its indirect investment in Freedom Group in light of the Newtown tragedy.

Also yesterday, Walmart unexpectedly ceased online sales of the Bushmaster assault rifle used by shooter Adam Lanza, though its unclear how long the moratorium will last.

Dick's Sporting Goods, another major retailer of sporting rifles, said in a statement this morning that it would be suspending the sale of semiautomatic rifles in all stores nationwide for an indefinite period of time.



Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: kendall
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 10:30 AM

There is only one avenue to getting rid of guns. Congress. Those clowns can't even agree on what to fight about.

As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy, and he is us." We send them to Washington to do our bidding, and we keep sending thje same type of person, so, we are at fault. We get the kind of government we deserve.

John P, sorry, I'm wrong again.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Charmion
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 10:08 AM

Yowza, bobad. That thing you linked to: it's, um, amazing.

I imagine the thinking process that led to that advertisement -- both the copywriter's and the client's -- and my brain goes Tilt.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: bobad
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 09:57 AM

I would add some restriction on gun advertising to the list of suggestions. Perhaps a total ban or some form of limitation as we have in Canada on tobacco and alcohol. This kind of ad for the Bushmaster, the weapon used in the recent tragedy, is illustrative of the need for some type of controls.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 09:48 AM

U.S Constitution: Article. V. (Bold added)

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

So the Constitution does provide a "bottom up" means of amendment. It's just a matter of getting the legislatures of at least 34 states to say they want to meet somewhere and talk about it. This means of amending the Constitution has never been used.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 09:42 AM

I listed my 'personal' batch of suggestions as a starting point for discussion, knowing full well that enabling many of them thru acts of Congress or in any individual state would be difficult.
Of course there is no individual or office in the US that could wave a magic wand and demand compliance.

I am not sure exactly how much a president could do on his own, and I suspect Obama is now consulting with legal... and political... experts to work out just what he CAN do legally and with political help. I do know that presidents DO have certain powers to issue emergency orders in some circumstances, but I doubt this would help with any long-term solutions in gun controls.

Now... I am glad to see folks weighing in with positive, concrete suggestions... such as test firing all weapons prior to sale and adding their ballistics to a database.
I'd be willing to see a price increase on ammo...etc... also(it hasn't stopped tobacco sales, but it has made some TRY to reduce their habit)

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: John P
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 09:40 AM

Olddude, it's your turn. You have several times advocated having more armed people in every crowd. I think your idea is that if someone opens fire, they'd get taken down quicker. I have a very different expectation for that scenario. I'd like you to refute it if you can.

Crazy person with gun pulls it out and starts shooting in a crowded shopping mall. Armed Bystander #1 (AB1) sees it and pulls out his gun to take down the shooter. AB2 sees AB1 with a gun in his hand and tries to take him down. AB3 sees AB2 with a gun in his hand and tries to take him down. AB4 sees a whole bunch of people with guns and tries to take them all down. Pretty soon there's eight or ten people with guns blazing away at each other with hundreds of normal people in the cross fire. I could easily see the body count from "friendly" fire reaching 50 or more. Since they're not members of a militia, our armed "defenders" have no way of knowing which are the good guys and which are the bad. What's your proposal for ensuring that the Armed Bystanders are shooting in the right direction and that they don't hit anyone but the bad guy?

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 09:36 AM

Shall we all agree that we should have laws prohibiting private ownership ( except in very controlled cases ) of AUTOMATIC weapons? And the ASSAULT Rifles should be included? And that those under 21 years of age, with a felony conviction, or with a mental condition should be restricted from having guns?











Will that have stopped this massacre?


Since these HAVE BEEN THE LAWS SINCE 1968, I fail to see what anyone here wants BESIDES banning all guns.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: John P
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 09:28 AM

"John P, you called me a moron, that's why I brought up IQs."

Sorry, Kendall, I didn't. You must have me confused with someone else. I have accused you of making knee-jerk responses to a complicated issue. I'm glad to see that you want to get rid of automatic weapons and the influence of the NRA. I couldn't agree more. How do you feel about "shall issue" laws for concealed-carry permits?

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 09:05 AM

They would not. They would see it as a threat, another "Foot in the door" thing.


Precisely so, kendall. I'm not intending to tar all gun owner's with this brush, but there seems to be a substantial group whose argument can be summarised thus: It's not a gun issue ... so we won't do anything about that ... it's a mental health issue ... which we won't do anything about either.


Not a very encouraging stance.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 08:40 AM

Perhaps pass a law stating that gun ownership requires approval and training by the NRA. Let them charge each gun owner a substantial fee, about double the purchase price of the gun. Then allow individual or class-action lawsuits of negligence against the NRA for any crime using said approved gun in any illegal manner. Once a court of law determines that the gun was used illegally or a felon is convicted using said gun the burden of proof in defense falls on the NRA! This law would apply to the approved gun notwithstanding who uses it.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: kendall
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 08:32 AM

They would not. They would see it as a threat, another "Foot in the door" thing.

No president has the power to change the constitution, and he has so many enemies he would be lucky to survive such an attempt.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 08:01 AM

Bill asked for some new ideas. I only read the first 100 or so posts, so maybe this has been said before. Personally, I'd like to get rid of all the guns, but that's not going to happen any time soon. So, let's pay attention to something the gun supporters are saying, take on their 'people kill people' slogan and say maybe they are partially right, how you deal with the mental health issue is part of the problem. So I suggest you double the price of every bullet and gun and pass the additional revenue into a hypothecated budget for a national mental health fund. Oddly enough, I suspect the gun supporters are unlikely to think that's something they could support either.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Charmion
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 07:56 AM

Don, as a non-American who pays attention, I think I can help answer your question.

I'm not sure a national referendum, as such, is technically possible in the U.S. The United States is 50 sovereign states, a federal district and some territories, all flying in a formation that is not necessarily close, guided by the Executive Branch of the federal government and the Supreme Court in compliance with the Constitution. That's why they have an Electoral College; the national popular vote for the Presidency is tallied by state and it is the states' weight in the Electoral College that determines which candidate wins.

Canada is a federation of provinces under a Westminster-system parliament. We could do it -- in fact, we have done three national referenda, the most recent in 1992 over the proposed Charlottetown Accord -- because the federal government is the boss of us all. Australia and New Zealand -- ditto, with minor variations.

I believe the United Kingdom would actually have a hard time doing a binding national referendum. Technically, I think the vote would have to be conducted separately in England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 07:35 AM

Would either of the sensible posters like to answer my question re Obama issuing an executive order for a referendum, not on banning, but on genuinely effective tight control, which would be much more likely to elicit a positive reaction from a majority of voters.

Faced with a positive response, politicians would have to be very sure of themselves to ignore it, while Obama no longer needs to care about votes.

Does he have the authority to do any such thing?

Kendall, or Bill D, any thoughts on this?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 07:18 AM

""I would create a national database of owners, serial numbers of ALL guns and all those who use weapons in crimes... and perhaps more. This might be the easiest idea to pursue. Perhaps some of it already exists.""

Good idea Bill, and I would add to that compulsory test firing of every weapon sold, with cartridge and slug added to the database.

I imagine the cops would be overjoyed if they had an automatic means to find murderers by forensic checks on a slug.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 07:10 AM

Let us suppose for one moment that it may be possible to reduce and finally ban completely gun ownership by the public in the USA. Would it be enforcable, and if so, how would it be undertaken? Could there be, for example, a longish period of armistice, where folk hand in their weapons voluntarily; closure of all retail units which sell guns; then house searches, penalties and fines; ban on sales of bullets (or whatever one loads these things with); severe and swingeing sentences for shootings; Government campaigns on TV and the Press to win the hearts and minds of the people, and so on. But would the American people ever submit to this? Looking at this list, I can't see it being embraced by them much. In fact, it might provoke riots!

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: kendall
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 06:56 AM

As BillD said in his original post,What we need is a grass roots campaign to get rid of all automatic weapons, and every congressman and Senator who is in the pocket of the National rifle assassination.

Does anyone not understand what I'm saying? I'm tired of being misunderstood.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: kendall
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 06:14 AM

Bill D, you are right on with your ideas. Now, get them past congress. That is the REAL problem.

Jack, I quoted some old stats. Do you know the difference between lying and just being mistaken?
A liar is one who says something he knows to be false. I am not a liar! I admitted being mistaken.
By the way, I don't really expect an apology,pedants never apologize, they don't have to because they are never wrong.

John P, you called me a moron, that's why I brought up IQs.

Part of being a liberal is the willingness to allow others to have a different opinion. I believe I do that as a matter of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 05:47 AM

SEMANTICS:

Incidentally, the word 'infringed' appears to be used in the 2nd Amendment in an odd, perhaps obsolete, sense. What, precisely, do all you upholders of the amendment take it to mean? The intended implication would appear to be that the right should not be disregarded, or contradicted, or set at nought; but in what sense does 'infringe' reference any such actions?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 05:33 AM

Like clip, like brain, Hen.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 02:58 AM

I agree with everyone who disagrees with how the media presents guns.
I've been in the military. I had a collection I sold off.
A gun should either be locked away or on a person's person.
Not left in a car or in a closet.
Just like in the military.
I enjoyed my AK47 and Ruger Mini 17.
Fun to empty out a clip.
=(:-( ))

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,999
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 02:16 AM

"If you're not from the U.S., worry about things in your own backyard."

The US is my backyard, Henry. Go fuck yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,Big Al Whittle
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 12:15 AM

Trouble is Henry, You export your back yard to us.

Our kids pick up on your gangsta rap , wargame jargon, crime stories...

The USA is the dominant culture in the world, and as such it has responsibilities beyond its shores.

Lets be honest. Maybe you DO need to shrug and say, we love our freedoms and the price of it apparently is that now and then something terrible like this happens.

We ain't perfect. Sorry about that.

No more of this bursting into tears and hypocrisy. Its going to happen again in the new year and every year after that. It must be borne.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 12:02 AM

The ignorance of some Mudcatters, like most Americans, about their own history, about the 2nd Amendment, and even about grammar, is discouraging.

First let's have the exact wording of the 2nd Amendment:


"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It shows, among other things, ignorance of grammar, to allege that belonging to a militia was not intended by the 2nd Amendment to be a requirement for bearing arms.


The obvious meaing of the Amendment is that "Since a well-regulated militia is essential to defend the US, there is to be no restriction on bearing arms."   That is; we need freedom to bear arms in order to serve in the militia which is to defend the US.

Yet again, at the time of the Bill of Rights there was a strong fear of a standing army;   the militia was to substitute. If you have only a citizen army a general is unlikely to be able to make himself dictator.

But we do need an armed force, ran the reasoning, in order to defend against British attempts, probably from Canada, to reverse the Revolution, and to defend our homes against Indian attacks--and probably, in the South, against slave uprisings.


So every able-bodied (white) man is to be armed and to be ready to be part of a militia at any time.    In fact, there is to be training for these men ("well-regulated")---which turned out to be a pathetic joke, as I've already noted in the thread.


Relying on a militia for national defense quickly proved to be a disaster--people like Washington already knew this--but it took quite a while for a standing army to be accepted.

However, at this point, unless you are still afraid of British invasion, Indian attacks. slave uprisings or a standing army, therefore, the 2nd Amendment has lost all usefulness.    It is in fact at this point a curse---since gun rights groups can and do always wrap themselves in the Constitution--- a tactic which cannot be used anywhere outside the US to turn back gun control efforts.

But knowing about the history is the first step to dealing with the 2nd Amendment and its defenders.