 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 16 Dec 12 - 07:13 AM ""There is one thing you can count on; no country will ever invade the USA as long as most of us are armed."" With respect, Kendall, there isn't the slightest chance of any country invading the USA, whether the US citizenry are armed or not, so that comment is a complete irrelevance (as, I suspect, you are well aware). Also, the 2md amendment said nothing at all about invasion, rather being aimed at a putative tyrannical US government. You've had a string of those in recent years, culminating in the well deserved defeat of the Tea Party lunatics, due my friend to ballots, not bullets. Guns in private hands do not solve problems, they create them. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 16 Dec 12 - 06:49 AM ""I have no use for handguns or assault rifles."" That was precisely the point of the question Bruce, since hand guns are what most US city dwellers have, and assault rifles are the weapon of choice for rural gun nuts, of which the USA has far too many. It is rarely the owner of hunting rifles or shotguns (the kind of weapon you would have used) who runs amuk and slaughters innocents. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Charmion Date: 16 Dec 12 - 06:49 AM If I remember correctly, the Second Amendment ties gun-ownership to the maintenance of a "well-regulated militia." So, just spit-balling here, what if the firearms acquisition certificate (or whatever) came with compulsory enrollment in the National Guard? Like the Sedentary Militia of colonial times in Canada, these folks would be required to show up at the armoury on quarter days and go to the range to prove that they are maintaining their weapons-handling skills and safety drills. No physical fitness test or other professional military stuff; just range practice and counting noses. Anybody too frail and infirm to do that much probably should not be handling weapons at all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Will Fly Date: 16 Dec 12 - 06:08 AM I think that some school personnel are discretely armed where crime is fairly likely. But probably not in Newtown - "one of the safest places in America". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Will Fly Date: 16 Dec 12 - 06:06 AM There is one thing you can count on; no country will ever invade the USA as long as most of us are armed. Well... think of 9/11. Modern "invasions" - in the widest sense of the term, the violation of another country's space - happens in more ways than one these days. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: mg Date: 16 Dec 12 - 05:55 AM A janitor. A nurse. A security person. Perhaps the principal, who died. Sometimes these things go quickly and sometimes there would be enough time if there was access, training etc. I remember doing research at a school that was in a gang infested part of town and finding out that the librarian had been a marine in Vietnam. I think that he would have been more than able and very quick to respond. I think that some school personnel are discretely armed where crime is fairly likely. They probably do not broadcast the fact. There emerge situations where one wishes that they might have been. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: kendall Date: 16 Dec 12 - 05:52 AM Apples and Oranges. There is one thing you can count on; no country will ever invade the USA as long as most of us are armed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Will Fly Date: 16 Dec 12 - 05:40 AM I tend to avoid adding to threads like this because, in general, they polarise pretty quickly, with the usual opposing people promoting the usual opposing arguments. However, two assertions in the argument strike me: 1. The Kennesaw, Georgia gun law ordinance - where every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition. Quote: "crime rate dropped by half after this law was passed". I simply wonder how having this ordinance in place in Newtown would have made any difference to what took place. A mentally disturbed person - probably intent on killing himself as well as others - wouldn't have given a damn. And who could possibly have stopped him in a classroom at the time? 2. I've heard it said, over and over again, that people must have the ability to own firearms because, if they don't, there will be no protection against all the criminals with their illegal guns. And you'll never get rid of all the illegal handguns. Interesting attitude, that last one. I was watching a documentary on the Space Shuttle last night, about it docking with a space station, the crew carrying out various tasks in space, and then it's re-entering Earth's air and landing safely and precisely. Amazing isn't it, that one of the most intelligent, technically excellent, clever, constructive and ingenious nations on earth can't even begin to make a start about thinking through the problem of getting rid of illegal guns. It just throws up its hands in horror and says, "Oh we can't possibly do that!" Think of all the logistics involved in creating and maintaining a huge army, navy and airforce, planning an invasion, countering terrorism, utilising complex intelligence networks, etc., etc. But you'll never get rid of illegal guns? Why not make a start? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: mg Date: 16 Dec 12 - 05:36 AM Half of us will never understand what it is to be young and male, socially inept or socially rejected, especially by girls...we do not know how to educate these young men, we do not know how to integrate them socially..we do not know how to or when to medicate them if absolutely necessary. We do not know how to monitor their drug use. We do not know why so many are ADD and autistic and just plain odd. We need to humbly admit this and look for answers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: kendall Date: 16 Dec 12 - 05:35 AM I have a friend who brags that he has an AK 47 that will fire 50 rounds in a matter of seconds. I ripped him a new one. He laughed. Connecticut has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the USA, yet, one paranoid woman and her fucked up son got by them. My question is: How do we keep guns out of the hands of criminals and whackos? I'm still waiting for that apology, Jack. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: mg Date: 16 Dec 12 - 05:29 AM they also use kilometers... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: kendall Date: 16 Dec 12 - 05:28 AM There are some very sharp minds here, all have an opinion of what's wrong with America, none with a realistic solution. All you foreigners are tyrying to walk a mile in our shoes...they don't fit! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Lizzie Cornish 1 Date: 16 Dec 12 - 05:13 AM Harry knew so very much about the Human Mind. Long before others did, Harry knew. He saw inside. He felt the pain. He understood entirely. "It is an early Monday morning. The sun is becoming bright on the land. No one is watching as he comes a-walking. Two bulky suitcases hang from his hands. He heads towards the tower that stands in the campus. He goes through the door, he starts up the stairs. The sound of his footsteps, the sound of his breathing, The sound of the silence when no one was there. I didn't really know him. He was kind of strange. Always sort of sat there. He never seemed to change. He reached the catwalk. He put down his burden. The four sided clock began to chime. Seven AM, the day is beginning. So much to do and so little time. He looks at the city where no one had known him. He looks at the sky where no one looks down. He looks at his life and what it has shown him. He looks for his shadow it cannot be found. He was such a moody child, very hard to touch. Even as a baby he never smiled too much. No, no. No, no. You bug me, she said. You're ugly, she said. Please hug me, I said. But she just sat there With the same flat stare That she saves for me alone When I'm home. When I'm home. Take me home. He laid out the rifles, he loaded the shotgun, He stacked up the cartridges along the wall. He knew he would need them for his conversation. If it went as he planned, then he might use them all. He said Listen you people I've got a question You won't pay attention but I'll ask anyhow. I found a way that will get me an answer. Been waiting to ask you 'til now. Right now! Am I? I am a lover who's never been kissed. Am I? I am a fighter who's not made a fist. Am I? If I'm alive then there's so much I've missed. How do I know I exist? Are you listening to me? Are you listening to me? Am I? The first words he spoke took the town by surprise. One got Mrs. Gibbons above her right eye. It blew her through the window wedged her against the door. Reality poured from her face, staining the floor. He was kind of creepy, Sort of a dunce. I met him at the corner bar. I only dated the poor boy once, That's all. Just once, that was all. Bill Whedon was questioned as he stepped from his car. Tom Scott ran across the street but he never got that far. The police were there in minutes, they set up barricades. He spoke right on over them in a half-mile circle. In a dumb struck city his pointed questions were sprayed. He knocked over Danny Tyson as he ran towards the noise. Just about then the answers started coming. Sweet, sweet joy. Thudding in the clock face, whining off the walls, Reaching up to where he sat, their answering calls. Thirty-seven people got his message so far. Yes, he was reaching them right were they are. They set up an assault team. They asked for volunteers. They had to go and get him, that much was clear. And the word spread about him on the radios and TV's. In appropriately sober tone they asked "Who can it be?" He was a very dull boy, very taciturn. Not much of a joiner, he did not want to learn. No, no. No, no. They're coming to get me, they don't want to let me Stay in the bright light too long. It's getting on noon now, it's going to be soon now. But oh, what a wonderful sound! Mama, won't you nurse me? Rain me down the sweet milk of your kindness. Mama, it's getting worse for me. Won't you please make me warm and mindless? Mama, yes you have cursed me. I never will forgive you for your blindness. I hate you! The wires are all humming for me. And I can hear them coming for me. Soon they'll be here, but there's nothing to fear. Not any more though they've blasted the door. As the copter dropped the gas he shouted "Who cares?". They could hear him laughing as they started up the stairs. As they stormed out on the catwalk, blinking at the sun, With their final fusillade his answer had come. Am I? There is no way that you can hide me. Am I? Though you have put your fire inside me. Am I? You've given me my answer can't you see? I was! I am! and now I will be, I will be, I will be, I will be, I will be, I WILL BE!" Harry Chapin - Sniper - Youtube |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Ebbie Date: 16 Dec 12 - 02:54 AM A pity that the Second Amendment didn't state in its entirety: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." It does seem to me that if that is what they meant that is what they would have said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: GUEST Date: 16 Dec 12 - 02:51 AM Glad I live in AUSTRALIA |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: GUEST,Backwoodsman sans Cookie Date: 16 Dec 12 - 02:24 AM I'd hate to live in fear the way our US friends seem to do. I've lived on this Earth for 65 years mg, but I've never needed 'someone with a gun......to take out someone else misusing them', and the reason is perfectly simple - hardly anyone has a gun here. In 65 years I've never seem a gun in private hands, except of course shotguns owned by farmers and wildfowling aficionados. So the possibility of any of us being faced with one of oldude's 'mad dog killers' waving his Glock in our faces is virtually zero, close enough to zero as to be not worth getting our panties bunched over. Kendall's oft-repeated mantra - that guns don't kill people, people kill people - is right, up to a point, that point being that people are considerably less likely to kill people if they can't do it from a distance with a gun. The type of killer who shoots a classroomful of kids isn't a hero, he's not brave, he's a coward who kills at distance so that his victims have no chance to fight back. Take his gun away and he's impotent. There's very little chance that Americans, brainwashed from birth with their 2nd Amendment, are likely to understand or accept the UK view that people are safer when guns are outlawed, so there's no point friends bashing friends over the head with opposing opinions on that score, but I know where I'd rather live, and it's far more comfortable without guns. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Sandy Mc Lean Date: 15 Dec 12 - 11:00 PM Jeri, No offense taken. I think McGrath and Bobert and Kendall caught my intended point. It is of course about context. As well as the militia point, the second ammendment describes flintlocks and even the ammunition that went with the guns. It is the folly of fools to think that it applies to todays assault weapons, anymore than to think that slavery was acceptable either then or now! It is indeed unfortunate that the fools that perpetuated the folly were members of the US Supreme Court! The solution can only be with a demand from the good citizens of the USA to make changes and to tell politicians, judges, founding fathers, and the NRA to "Fuck Off"! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: mg Date: 15 Dec 12 - 10:55 PM I have no enchantment with guns. I have no desire to own one. It does not make me feel like more of a man as that is the least of my worries. I wish I had been a nurse or secretary in that school, been properly trained, had access to locked guns, and had taken out the shooter, possibly losing my own life. Perhaps only women should own guns..seems most problems are caused by young men. And Old Guy I appreciate your offer to protect us and especially the young. It is too dangerous a world, even the seemingly luckiest, most prosperous parts of it, to give up our maybe not first..but one of our more immediate lines of defense. Create all sorts of obstacles to weed out the nuts..perhaps put an age limit..test, retest, give drug tests, etc...but the day will come..has come when we need someone with a gun, one of the good gals, to take out someone else misusing them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: GUEST,999 Date: 15 Dec 12 - 10:46 PM "Oh come on Bruce. How many deer, moose, or rabbit did you shoot with a Sig Sauer 9mm, or a Glock, or an AR 15?" None, Don, but neither is that what I said. I wrote that in response to another poster. The only rifles (never owned a pistol) I ever used were a 22, 303 (British), 308, 30-30 and 30.06. I have no use for handguns or assault rifles. (And I once used an FN that fired 7.62 ammunition, the then NATO weapon from Fabrique Nationale, but it belonged to the Canadian government. The sole purpose of that was killing people, which I never did.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Jeri Date: 15 Dec 12 - 10:37 PM Sorry, it really made no sense to me what the two things had in common. You pretty much had to have guns to keep slaves, though. Well, except American Indians had some slaves (more like indentured servants won in wars, I gather), but they kept them from running away somehow. Anyway... The constitution was written after the US War with Britain, which was won by a militia including a bunch of regular guys with guns. That's the frame of reference. So I'm sorry I jumped on you, Sandy. It just didn't seem logical. Lots of thing don't, these days. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: olddude Date: 15 Dec 12 - 10:35 PM I also have the greatest respect for my friends that disagree with my position. You are not wrong either, as both approaches have not seemed to work as this stuff just continues I can only hope it stops. Bill is a very good and very smart person, so is bobster and the others that disagree with me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: gnu Date: 15 Dec 12 - 10:28 PM Welll... I ain't goin anywhere except to bed, Bobert. And, I cannot come dow there an get yer job dunn, even if you had any decent tea (coffee? yeccchhh!). A HUNDRED times again... shit or get off the poSt the lot a yas. Ya wanna get guns off "the street", do it. If youse who wanna ween here spend yer time weenin here don't do it, ya should thank yer lucky stars that yer able ta have guns and yer fellow citizens do have guns on accounta I read in the newspaper every day lately about some government bombin it's own citizens. Ain't gonna happen in the good ol USA... IS IT? There's a tad a good old boy logic ya can't refute. Read a thousand years a yer history and tell me the rich don't subjugate the poor... with the barrel of a gun. Flower power sucks compared to gun powder. Good gun laws are good but bad gun laws are bad. Figure it out, grow a pair and FORCE your governments to do the right thing and enact good gun laws. Use that thing you type twaddle on for better use. The keyboard is mightier than the gun, to coin a phrase. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: pdq Date: 15 Dec 12 - 10:26 PM This is the last time I am going to point this out, but "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is an introduction to the statement that has meaning, that being "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That was true 230 years ago and was reaffirmed in 2008 by our Supreme Court. If that bothers people, they should look up ways to ammend the Constitution and get started. Good luck. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Bobert Date: 15 Dec 12 - 10:11 PM Yup, the 2nd amendment is obsolete... I mean, what if the Founding Fathers have put in an amendment endorsing slavery??? It'd be gone by now... Thomas Jefferson warned us that we'd have to mess with their starting point constitution... Guess the NRA didn't get the memo... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Joe Offer Date: 15 Dec 12 - 10:05 PM As pdq says, we don't need to amend the second amendment. Take another look at it:
Seems to me that's good reason for the courts to ignore the second amendment altogether. Thanks, pdq. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Bill D Date: 15 Dec 12 - 09:55 PM From: pdq - PM Date: 15 Dec 12 - 07:41 PM Yes, pdq... I know what the courts have decided. You evade my point that **courts** are made up of people, and often people with agendas or prejudices. "prefatory clause" be damned! It is STILL not a clear statement...except possibly when viewed in the 1790s context! So... several judges voted on a linguistic interpretation... that is binding. That doesn't make the reality any easier to reconcile. Some things just don't make sense when viewed objectively. (Imagine, with all the tests available, trying to get tobacco approved by the FDA today! MONEY and addicted people make it VERY slowly being removed. And many dead people from lung cancer & emphysema! Maybe enough dead kids will eat at the acceptance of those AR-15s...hmmm?) The last defense when logic fails is to quote statistics and laws....got any more, pdq? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: kendall Date: 15 Dec 12 - 09:52 PM You nailed it Bobert. I can't even picture an automatic flint lock. Judges live in fear that one of their rulings will be overturned and that would prevent them from climbing that success ladder to a higher court. To hell with justice; they are no better than any other politician. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Bobert Date: 15 Dec 12 - 09:41 PM Actually, there is relevance to what Sandy has posted and that is... ...historical context... Let's keep in mind that handguns, the weapon of choice by today's murderers, were used only for dueling... Rifles fired single shots and then had to be reloaded which was a time consuming process... This was the Founding Father's world... Not AK-47s in the hands of children... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Dec 12 - 09:40 PM Perfectly valid historical parallel, demonstrating another way in which the Constitution was a pretty flawed document, which badly needed a good few adjustments to be fit for purpose. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Jeri Date: 15 Dec 12 - 09:33 PM Illegal attempt at cross-topic trolling. Sandy is fined 5 posts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Sandy Mc Lean Date: 15 Dec 12 - 09:28 PM "Witness the fact that all the Founding Fathers, including the very people who wrote the Constitution, owned guns." Perhaps the fault lies with these founding fathers. Not to throw in a red herring but did not many of them own slaves as well? It is not hard to comprehend how guns could be used to control slaves! Of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 49% owned slaves. The slave owners were: Richard Bassett (DE) Jacob Broom (DE) John Dickinson (DE) George Read (DE) William Houstoun (GA) William Few (GA) William Samuel Johnson (CT) Daniel Carroll (MD) Luther Martin (MD) John Francis Mercer (MD) Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer (MD) William Livingston (NJ) William Blount (NC) William Richardson Davie (NC) Alexander Martin (NC) Richard Dobbs Spaight (NC) Pierce Butler (SC) Charles Cotesworth Pinckney (SC) Charles Pinckney (SC) John Rutledge (SC) John Blair (VA) James Madison (VA) George Mason (VA) Edmund Randolph (VA) George Washington (VA) George Wythe (VA) Robert Morris (PA) There are borderline cases among the above. Robert Morris did not personally own slaves but did own a slave ship and invested in plantations using slaves. I've listed him as a slave owner since he was a direct participant in slavery and the slave trade. Some slave owners emancipated their slaves (Richard Bassett and John Dickinson). Other slave owners opposed slavery and supported abolition (Jacob Broom and William Samuel Johnson). Other slave owners opposed the slave trade if not slavery itself. Of the 26 slaveowners, 19 owned multiple slaves and relied on slave labor for their livelihood. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Bobert Date: 15 Dec 12 - 09:17 PM Only unconstitutional in the eyes of coward justices who, like everyone else, have been bullied by the NRA and their redneck & rabid foot soldiers... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Dec 12 - 09:12 PM Bombs don't kill people either. Not on their own - they just lie their on their own doing no harm to anyone. The same goes for canisters of poison gas, or ampoules of anthrax. Totally harmless unless some human being comes into the picture... And 'arms', I would suggest includes all those things. Isn't it great that Americans have the right to stock up on stuff like that, and any laws to stop them doing so would be unconstitutional. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Bobert Date: 15 Dec 12 - 08:49 PM Come on down here and do it, gn-ze... I'll go to work for ya'... I'll carry your briefcase... Fetch yer coffee... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: gnu Date: 15 Dec 12 - 08:45 PM Kendall... again with the logic? To hell with that. I wanna see anyone step up to the plate and propose a new org... the NRRA? National Rifle Regulations Association? The NFA... National Firearms Association? Come on ALL you anti/gun nuts! DO something. Don't ween... git er dunn! You can start it, here, tonight. Right NOW. Who's willing to step up to the plate and take a swing at the ball? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Bobert Date: 15 Dec 12 - 08:35 PM For the thousandth time: We don't need to change the constitution... We just need judges with the courage to interpret the 2nd amendment in it's entirety and not just half of it... Plus, with this polarized country there will be no more amendments to the constitution... As a democracy, you can put a fork in US... We're done... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: pdq Date: 15 Dec 12 - 08:32 PM ...perhaps it needs to be displayed more clearly: The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: kendall Date: 15 Dec 12 - 08:31 PM The 2nd amendment is obsolete. We have enough gun laws now to paper the Washington monument. They are not working! Bad guys can't read. So, everyone here has an opinion, and you know what they say about opinions. We need answers. Realistic answers. Stiffer penalties? strict controls? The prisons are full now, and every time the subject of building a new jail or prison comes up there is a hoo rah about N.I.M.B.I. and too much money, it will raise taxes.etc. Now, if the "Know it alls" will address this? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: olddude Date: 15 Dec 12 - 08:30 PM When a person carries a firearm they are acting in a manner of a police officer. The same rules and training need to be applied across all the states. That would make sense instead of a bunch of loopholes that only arm criminals. Police officers weapons are secure at home. Their kids don't get them and do this stuff because they are trained. Likewise most folks that have carry permits in the states where they are hard to get. Sadly it varies so much and with all the loopholes it is far to easy. Get a federal law. The ATF regulates auto weapons they can on handgun carry also. Close the gun shows ... we would all be safer |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: olddude Date: 15 Dec 12 - 08:24 PM like I said we can agree to disagree. I am all for arming good and rational people against the mad dog killers out there today to protect others in shopping malls or on the street just minding their own business. However, only if the proper training and background checks are done. Until the 2nd Amendment is changed, I support it as I do all of the Constitution. Keeping a firearm away from a complete law abiding person who has been trained and knows safety and has no BG issues doesn't do anything but help the mad dog killers. Me I am sick of burying our kids by these people. My heart breaks for those families and their loss |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Ebbie Date: 15 Dec 12 - 08:18 PM Jeri said: "People here go hunting, and they have guns to shoot vermin--in most cases that's some sort of animal they consider dangerous or obnoxious that strays too close to their homes." I don't see a big problem with that. With regulations, hunting rifles and shotguns could be checked out before and during season; surely they are not needed in the home itself. Vermin are most often disposed of with small caliber weapons- like a .22. And a 22 also works as a defensive weapon in the home. Contrary to the movies an injured person doesn't shrug it off when he or she is hit even with a small caliber like that. It just plain doesn't feel good. A 22 can even kill- it's just less likely to be lethal. I don't even see a problem with a gun collector collecting his heart out. As long as he keeps them in the equivalent of a bank safe deposit box. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Joe Offer Date: 15 Dec 12 - 08:17 PM A gun CAN kill a person, despite the logical error the NRA has been peddling for generations. It is one of several causal elements in every gunshot death. If any one of those elements is missing, the death will not occur. It's impossible to sort out which people are likely to kill and which or not - but it is possible to eliminate or at least strictly control guns. Since it's impossible to control the people, maybe we need to control the guns. And yes, pdq, it is true that the 1781 Constitution allows Americans to keep and bear arms. Within the context, it appears that this is for the purpose of maintaining a militia - but this is debatable. Nonetheless, in 21st century urban America, does it make sense for members of a closely-packed population to be armed? Seems like too many people consider the U.S. Constitution to be infallible nowadays, even though they aren't afraid to question the Bible anymore. As for me, I think questioning both of them, is healthy. And even if a 2/3 majority can't be found to change it, I still believe that slavish adherence to the Constitution can be wrong, wrong, wrong. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: kendall Date: 15 Dec 12 - 08:07 PM It will still take 2/3rds of congress to amend the constitution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: pdq Date: 15 Dec 12 - 08:06 PM The 2nd Amendment has always meant that. Witness the fact that all the Founding Fathers, including the very people who wrote the Constitution, owned guns. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Joe Offer Date: 15 Dec 12 - 08:04 PM Although I don't own a firearm, I guess I would say that rifles or shotguns could be considered necessary tools in many rural locations in America - for varmit control or hunting, not for use against human intruders. Still, there were one or two times that I wished I had a rifle in hand when I approached strangers on my property. Having a big, friendly, black dog at my side worked pretty well, though. My next-door neighbors killed a couple of bears on their property last year, and I keep wondering whether that was necessary. The bears really haven't been much of a problem. They raided our garden a couple of times, but I've only seen a bear once in the ten years I've been here - and that was a thrill. And yes, you hear about mountain lions, but I've never seen one. There are also reports of rabid raccoons in the area - that does scare me a bit, and might be the one thing that might make me want a rifle. There are rattlesnakes around, but they haven't been a problem - and I have only seen one snake that might have been a rattler. I think I'd call the rattlesnake removal service if one took up residence around the house. And even though I see some justification in owning firearms in a rural area, I have to say it makes me really nervous. More than once I've encountered people shooting into the area where I'm legally hiking. Now, THAT is disconcerting. But in urban locations, I just can't really see the need for a firearm. There is a certain amount of risk of violent crime anywhere in America, but I really don't think it's all that bad. I worked for thirty years as an unarmed federal investigator, and I took pride in the fact that I never avoided work in any location because I thought it too dangerous. I used my head and stayed away from certain areas at certain times of the day, but I always did my job and knocked on the doors and did my honest best to find the people I needed to get my work done. Other investigators would write off certain areas, but I never did. I met only one situation where people pointed guns at me, and I admit that was a little disconcerting. They were in a remote location, an area where I admit it might be justifiable to have a gun. I have an appointment, but then these people had second thoughts and were afraid I might be the person who had threatened to kill them. So, I had to talk them down. I think if I had shown a firearm, they would have shot me. It's a difficult issue. Gun owners are absolutely correct when they say that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible, and would be responsible in a dangerous situation. The trouble is, there is a good percentage of people who have attitudes that would make them irresponsible and dangerous as gun owners. Many of them wanted to be cops, and it was my job to investigate them and weed out the ones who would be irresponsible. One year, I had two Border Patrol Agent applicants who had shot themselves in the buttocks, trying to tuck their guns under their belts. I don't believe those applicants got the job. I had coworkers who carried firearms despite the fact that they were not supposed to - these were people who thought their badges didn't give them enough authority. I had one coworker and a number of applicants who used their firearms to put power behind their road rage. Admittedly, it's a small number of gun owners that are troublesome - but the troublesome ones can be very dangerous if they have a sidearm. I'm sorry that the troublesome ones make it difficult for all gunowners; but it seems to me that the danger presented by the small minority of irresponsible and dangerous gunowners, outweighs the safety brought about by the many responsible people who carry firearms. So for the general good of society, I think that handguns should be outlawed and rifles and shotguns should be strictly regulated. Semi-automatic and automatic firearms (anything with a magazine) should be outlawed altogether. Taking time to load forces a shooter to take time to think before shooting. I know gun owners think otherwise, but the rest of us consider them to be a serious danger to our personal safety. The fact that my neighbors have guns makes me feel nervous, not secure. What guarantees that their bullets are staying on their property. I'm saying this as one who has worked unarmed in law enforcement for a thirty-year career. And by the way, I qualified as an Expert Marksman in the U.S. Army. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: gnu Date: 15 Dec 12 - 08:02 PM Kendall... how dare you inject simple logic! Why, that only means another hundred posts to a ANOTHER gun thread that has seemed to become about people who want to vent and have no logic. Oh, they make conjectures and leaps of faith and inferences and state statistics, but when you bring simple logic into the discussion, you confuse them. You must confuse them because they keep trying to prove such logic false based on arguements and statistics which don't prove such logic wrong. LISTEN to Kendall and so many others, readers. A gun CANNOT kill a person. IT IS A FACT. YOU CANNOT DISPUTE THAT. So... ya wanna be a part of getting rid of gun crimes? Get your shit together and do something about it and stop telling legal and responsible gun owners you want to take their guns away (go ahead and say you don't... we don't believe you and WE got guns so fuck off with that shit). Wake up... stop whining... and DO something about it that makes SOME SENSE!... for a CHANGE! Join the legal and responsible gun owners and press for good gun laws. Until you all get a grip... gun nuts and anti-gun nuts, wee children will be shot. It's shameful that you all cut off yer noses to spite yer faces. Stop your bullshit bickering and DO SOMETHING about it. I've said it before. I'll say it once more. If any of you really care, you'll take responsibilty and DO SOMETHING about it. It ain't rocket science. It's just common sense... it's simple logic. You have the wherewithall but have you got a spare minute or the balls to try to do what is right? Put up or shut up, fer fuck sake! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Bobert Date: 15 Dec 12 - 07:56 PM The Supreme Court has cowered from the NRA... Not only does the NRA have lots of $$$ but they have other (wink, wink) ways of scaring people... One day the sun will come out and we'll all see that the emperor has no clothes and a future Supreme Court will get it correct, rather than "right"... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: pdq Date: 15 Dec 12 - 07:41 PM 2nd Amendment Annotations "Prior to the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller,1 the courts had yet to definitively state what right the Second Amendment protected. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, were (1) an 'individual rights' approach, whereby the Amendment protected individuals' rights to firearm ownership, possession, and transportation; and (2) a 'states' rights' approach, under which the Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms in connection with organized state militia units. Moreover, it was generally believed that the Amendment was only a bar to federal action, not to state or municipal restraints. However, the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well. In Heller, the Court held that (1) the District of Columbia's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of 'arms' that Americans overwhelmingly chose for the lawful purpose of self-defense, and thus violated the Second Amendment; and (2) the District's requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock also violated the Second Amendment, because the law made it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense. The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., '[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'" {Bill D wants to turn a prefatory clause into a Santa Clause} |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Bobert Date: 15 Dec 12 - 07:28 PM If you take a room full of people without guns there is a 0% chance of anyone shooting anyone... Can't say that if half of folks in there have guns... People with guns kill people... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: bobad Date: 15 Dec 12 - 07:23 PM CIRCULAR REASONING: This fallacy uses a claim as its own grounds. A popular bumper sticker reads: "Guns don't kill people; people kill people." This argument is circular—nobody ever claimed guns go around all by themselves shooting people. Of course people kill people. But this "begs the question" as to whether guns make it easier to do so. In fact, circular reasoning is often called "begging the question." Many times we fail to examine our most strongly held beliefs, so that when they are challenged, we resort to circular reasoning as a defense. As Eddie Izzard said: "They say that 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people.' Well I think the gun helps. If you just stood there and yelled BANG, I don't think you'd kill too many ..." |
