BS: Anyone defend US gun law?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 01:40 PM

So did Australia.
But apparently, the world's greatest nation, the former 'Can-Do' country, can't-do any more.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 02:37 PM

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/28/1325414/-After-9-year-old-shoots-instructor-NRA-pipes-up-with-worst-possible-response?detail=email

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 03:14 PM

This is not just about police brutality to blacks. This is about a bullying police attitude - the feel they can demand anything, whether within their legal rights or not, and use unbounded force if met with reasoned and legally correct response. To protect and serve - my arse. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/28/1325341/-Living-While-Black-Police-attack-men-for-sitting-not-resisting-not-walking-pockets?detail=email

What do you think about American civilisation? I think it would be a good idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 03:31 PM

"...bullying police attitude - the feel they can demand anything, whether within their legal rights or not, ..."

SOME do... we need to get rid of those-- just as we need to educate some UK lawyers that not every issue is simple not this or that-- guilty or not guilty--- black or white--- right or wrong. And not every member of every class or group is stamped out like cookies/biscuits.

Hiring and training police is not easy. We need them to be intelligent and competent enough and brave enough to do the job, yet sane and calm enough to not overreact when someone doesn't do things to their liking. Same with soldiers we send into battle.. or even with school teachers in some cases.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 04:01 PM

Not "can't": "won't."

Do you see the difference?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 06:16 PM

Lighter: referring to Backwoodsman'post?

If so, I am disappointed .. you are usually a beacon of sense on these topics, but I simply cannot fathom this idea that seems to be so easy to toss around that 'won't' can apply to ANY country as a whole.... especially in light of my brilliant, insightful *cough* explication of the situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 06:58 PM

We can see your problem, but consider that as electors it is your responsibility, each and every man jack of you as individuals, to call time on the tendency of The System to silence you. We have held our tongues too long after past massacres, snd now feel that matters have to change: we asked you a while back who would apologise to the parents of the next generation of dead schoolkids, explaining why thye did nothing, and now we can show you tht no explanation is rational: you have no choice now, you must ban those weapons or be equally guilty as the murderer the next time something happens.
Change.org is working in this direction both here in the UK and in the US. The problem with a two-party system is that it makes targetting your representatives an easy technique, if you have the funds: the petition system in the UK is adding a vox populi dynamic, with both parties trying to recruit them, unsuccessfully.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 07:29 PM

"But the consensus amongst your countryfolk is that guns are good and the odd massacre and accidental death is a price worth paying for your 'freedom'."

" -snip- And all those awkward legal situations are set in Constitutional law which can only be changed by a tedious process involving voting---by whom? -snip- "    Bill D.

I apologise for taking your comment out of context Bill, but this particular sentence is germane to the validity of the first comment here.

That Constitutional Law is based upon an undeniable misinterpretation of the Constitution (which refers to the right to bear arms in a well regulated militia, against a tyrannical government), and it is therefore unconstitutional to apply it to the shooting of other citizens by individuals, as a right. Somewhere along the line, the understanding of the Constitution has been corrupted by applying an interpretation not endorsed by those who formulated it.

That, I fear, wasn't as a result of a popular vote, or indeed any kind of vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 07:44 PM

Well, Bill, "won't" is a natural induction from everything you and I and others have already said.

I hope I'm wrong.

Perhaps we can learn from the Australian example, but one thing we know already is that Australians now register their firearms by serial number with the government. I cannot imagine such a measure passing both houses of Congress in the world as we know it.

Because the other thing we know about Australia is that it has no Second Amendment "guarantee." Americans do not want the government restricting any Constitutional guarantees. In Australia, this seems not to have been an issue, because (I assume) relatively few Australians assume that "liberals" and "socialists" and "radical liberals" in government are always to subvert the Constitution. Americans who hate and fear Washington are a fringe minority, but if you try to take their away guns away they will shoot you.

When I was in public elementary school in the 1950s, we were taught that because of the Second Amendment, armed citizens could some day protect us from a berserk government; or, better yet, make the government think twice before going berserk. Many gun owners are convinced that is true, and they will surrender their firearms to the state only over their dead bodies. (I don't know how often Adolf Hitler was seriously invoked in Ozzie as the world's most typical gun-control advocate, but it's still happening here.)

Some day, perhaps, the gun-show loophole will be closed.

But how many lives that would save is not at all clear. Remember that virtually all of the most notorious mass shooters used weapons that they or their family owned legally.

I don't mean to be negative, only realistic. Which at least 50% of the time means "pessimistic."

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Janie
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 07:51 PM

There is no consensus regarding gun rights/control. Our political system has become so dysfunctional that there is also little will to compromise on the part of the strong and well-financed lobby that opposes any efforts to regulate gun ownership.

Keep in mind that consensus and compromise are not synonyms. I don't hope for consensus. I do think compromise is remotely possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 08:17 PM

I sincerely hope you are right Janie, because if you aren't, the USA is going to descend into the Hollywood idea of the Wild West sooner rather than later.

Looked at from outside, it is more than halfway there.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 09:52 PM

I suppose my Wyatt Earp song is a sort of defence of US gun law....

http://youtu.be/3QvH4EAjSts

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 09:59 PM

Troubadour
"That Constitutional Law is based upon an undeniable misinterpretation of the Constitution ...etc"

Undeniable? Why there are many denying it every day! (He said with tongue in cheek)

As a matter of fact, I basically agree and have said so in lengthy posts here on several occasions. It is even more than undeniable, it is outdated even if it WERE true, because the weapons referred to were single shot guns belonging to the individual...etc.

".. the understanding of the Constitution has been corrupted..."
It was NOT done by a vote.. but it must undone by a vote, and in a very complex way, it is very difficult to get anything resembling a vote on the issue thru even the 1st step.


Lighter

"won't" is a natural induction from everything you and I and others have already said.

Umm... not exactly... because 'induction' is not itself exact. (I studied deduction & induction in several classes.) Induction is valued for determining probability and possible reasonable choices.

"Don't" might be closer, but that doesn't have the force that "won't" conveys.

"Remember that virtually all of the most notorious mass shooters used weapons that they or their family owned legally."

Quite true... even more to the point, most of those people, even the ones some 'worried about', were legally competent and not convicted felons, and thus would not show up in a database of those not allowed to own guns.
In these days, there is no shortage of the mentally ill and of those who are taught to hate and fear. As population rises, so will the total numbers of dangerous people and the odds of reading about a horrendous crime by one of them... or of being NEAR a crime.
Even if the percentage of crazy vs. sane does not change, one crazy can still affect many people and many crazies can cause consternation out of proportion to their numbers.

Closing the gun show loopholes and serious penalties for illegal gun trade and use are at least a step in the right direction, and might 'possibly' (by induction) serve to change a few minds.


I live in a major metropolitan area and gun crime is never far away, though I have never in 35 years seen any or even heard a local gunshot...but I can read.. and I know it's there.
I also know a 'few' who own guns, but far more who would not allow one in the house. Guns are an **addiction**. Holding one changes a person, and owning one changes one even more.
(Yes, I have seen this in person. In order to justify owning one at all, practice & training is required, and the very process of shooting in practice changes the mindset about the value of guns.)

So... I know the problems, and I know about pragmatism and induction and demographics and political will when influenced by money... and the more I know, the more I argue for care in describing the problem and the causal factors and the possible solutions.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 10:47 PM

Bill if you live there do you want to use one of my handguns. I got lots

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 10:56 PM

Don't fear guns.. Fear JELLO now that's the scariest shit I ever faced. Not even bring blown up once is as bad

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 11:11 PM

Fear JELLO it will eat ya up ever see the movie blob well that's what it is. Outer space shit invading our homes and dinner plates
Ya can't even shoot it. It still moves after impact

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 11:22 PM

Remember one thing a gun is a tool no different than many other things made for a purpose most consider it a tool for hunting or sport shooting. Hell the Olympics has it. It can be used to save lives or take lives. Having laws that make real sense is the issue. Janie said it best

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 11:34 PM

I got a campaign going on to search and destroy all jello via laws. None of the political guys have the balls to sponsor the bill. We are all going to get the big swirley if it continues to be given to kids and hospital patients and thanksgiving dinners

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 01:12 AM

And ye shall know the truth and the truth will set you free

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 02:53 AM

Bill, if you have a political system that, if not 'set in stone', has been constructed in a way that prevents modernisation and carefully-debated adjustment to that system, then it is seriously flawed.

We understand that there are a great many Americans, you included, who want no part of the madness that is your firearms industry. I read recently that there are approximately the same number of guns in the US as there are people, but that those guns are in the hands of just 25% of the population. Yet the sane 75% allow the minority-gun-nutters to control the situation!

That is what we find so hard to understand - why do the huge majority allow their lives to be threatened by a comparatively small minority? I can only guess it's because of apathy on the part of non-gun-owners, and an acceptance that guns are somehow 'normal' in your society.

So I have to ask, why aren't the 75% getting themselves organised to fight for the reduction of firearms in US society? If your government announced they were going to quadruple gasoline prices (which would bring them up to UK levels, and many of us believe that would be a good thing for the planet!) there would be uproar, citizens would be out in their hundreds of thousands, protesting, marching on the Capitol etc., etc. Yet 12,000 of your countrymen, women and children are slaughtered by firearms every year, and the 75% do virtually nothing. A few moans, a few crocodile tears, but no real action.

Why are they not organising themselves? Why are the vast majority who want nothing to do with guns not getting together to take on the crackpots who think owning a gun is their 'right'? That's what we (certainly I) don't understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 02:57 AM

Or is it a case of they are, but it's not reported so we don't see it over here?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 08:20 AM

> I studied deduction & induction in several classes.

Heh. I *taught* induction and deduction for many years. (I *love* moments like this.) And I stand by my use of "induction." The premisses reasonably suggest a conclusion but do not prove it.

> Guns are an **addiction**.

Well, they certainly can be, though hardly in every case. Many (perhaps most?) people who have purchased handguns for defense are too lazy to practice with them. They figger you jest point 'n' shoot, like on TV.

But collecting *anything* can be an addiction, and even when it is, it's not necessarily harmful - so long as it's only collecting and you can afford to buy what you want.

Tougher gun laws, by all means! But gun crime won't disappear, although incidence per capita may well decline (a worthy goal). The occasional maddened spouse will still shoot, and, with tens of millions of gun owners and millions of illegal guns still on the street, every year or so some undiagnosed loon will go off his rocker and shoot a bunch of innocent victims.

Such tragedies are the chief impetus for these discussions. But do you see a cure for multivictim hate crimes and "suicide by cop"?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 09:06 AM

I suppose the main problem to sensible gun reform would be that US sceriptwriters would have to write a proper plot for their cop dramas.
they do get away with a lot of boring shit - people ahooting at each other for unfeasibly long periods of time.

Generally speaking in a police situation - the situation does seem to resolve itself rather quickly when the guns come out.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 09:12 AM

> US sceriptwriters would have to write a proper plot for their cop dramas.

So true. As as often been pointed out, American policemen almost *never* fire at anyone. Ever. That's why it's big news when they do.

And when they do, there is an administrative review and every shot must be explained and accounted for.

Nor do I see any real-life reason to believe that US police are any more "heavy-handed" than their UK counterparts. Crime is crime, police in a democracy are police.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 09:17 AM

This is the biggest gun headline news story in the UK at the moment:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-28986319

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 09:47 AM

But lighter... In The UK, it is only criminals and a very few specialist police who carry guns on the street.

Hence a far safer, saner place.

Those who need them for target sport in licensed premises or hunting in controlled areas / agricultural pest control don't carry them in the street.

I don't know why Hollywood is obsessed with wild west as something different to now, I don't feel safe when in the Dumbfuckistan states or even the safer parts of USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 10:06 AM

When my fairly close relative commited suicide by legally owned shotgun.
It may well have been the only gun death in the entire county in that entire year ???

Another close relative attempted several unsuccessful suicides by Paracetamol.
A far more prevalent statistical trend,
perhaps due to the widespread unavailability of privately owned guns.

Even so, Paracetamol is now becoming more tightly controlled at point of sales
in high street shops.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 10:41 AM

Bill, if you have a political system that, if not 'set in stone', has been constructed in a way that prevents modernisation and carefully-debated adjustment to that system, then it is seriously flawed.

There are those who are under the misapprehansion that the U.S. of A. is a functioning Democracy.

And since Corporations beame "people", Buckley v. Valeo decided that money is speech and the Citizens United court decision it is even less of one.

Democracy in the U.S. is being deconstructed as I type.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 11:44 AM

Probably very true Greg, but those of us lucky enough not to live there don't necessarily hear of, or 'get', all of the nuances and influences at play in the US governmental system.

But there are 400 million of you, enough to kick serious ass - bloody hell, your gun-crackpots claim to be a 'well organised militia', armed to the teeth in order to prevent being fucked-over by the establishment and its supporters. So why aren't they doing it?

Well, don't answer that, I already know - because the 2nd Amendment means diddly-squat, and it's just a convenient excuse for dick-heads to claim they 'need' their prick-enhancer-firearms in order to protect their (apparently, according to your above post) non-existent 'freedoms'

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Stu
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 11:48 AM

" I can only guess it's because of apathy on the part of non-gun-owners, and an acceptance that guns are somehow 'normal' in your society."

I would say it's the other way around. The sort of libertarian that supports gun ownership in the civilian population is an idealist, not a rationalist. This is an issue science comes across often and it's no coincidence that libertarians also tend to be climate change deniers etc.

Like climate change deniers, the pro-gun lobby are happy to impose their views and their guns on the rest of the population; if your idea of freedom is living in a world where ordinary folk don't carry deadly weapons, then you're fucked, and those with the weapons don't care that they're fucking you; they are increasing the risk of you being shot simply by having a gun and being willing to engage in a gunfight. Collateral damage? Acceptable, it appears.

Evidence is ignored or dismissed; if the evidence is presented to them that they are over 5 times more likely to be shot by simply carrying a gun (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/) they will simply deny it, call it a hoax, suggest the study is flawed without presenting evidence why (in which case they can respond to the study formally - it's free) or start sneering about academics and real life.

What this means is that gun owners are imposing their ideology on others without their consent. The freedoms of these people is utterly irrelevant.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Janie
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 12:04 PM

"The times, they are a'changin'"   All over this very crowded globe.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 12:06 PM

Probably very true Greg...But there are 400 million of you, enough to kick serious ass.

So one would think, but when up against political lobbies like the National Rifle Asassination and their affiliated State "clubs" with unlimited funds to spend on purchasing legislators, carrying on disinformation campaigns and influencing legislation PLUS individual arseholes with an agenda and unlimited funds like the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson (Addle-son?) doing the same in contravention of the democratic process, it becomes a bit more problematical.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 12:09 PM

Oh, and don't forget the massive Republican-sponsored funding cuts to U.S. education across the board from pre-school thru university of the past 35 years now bearing toxic fruit.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 12:57 PM

How many roads does a man walk down... As many as he wants with the right firearm

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 02:12 PM

And then, there are plenty of assholes who actually believe preposterous shit like this:


CIA now admits that President Obama is a radical Islamic enemy of America
August 28, 2014

Today, a former CIA agent bluntly told the newspaper, World Net Daily, that America has switched sides in the war on terror under President Obama. Clare Lopez was willing to say what a few members of Congress have said in private, but declined to say on-the-record.

Clare M. Lopez is the Vice President for Research and Analysis at the Center for Security Policy and a Senior Fellow at The Clarion Project, the London Center for Policy Research, and the Canadian Meighen Institute. Since 2013, she has served as a member of the Citizens Commission on Benghazi. Also Vice President of the Intelligence Summit, she formerly was a career operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency, a professor at the Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies, Executive Director of the Iran Policy Committee from 2005-2006, and has served as a consultant, intelligence analyst, and researcher for a variety of defense firms. She was named a Lincoln Fellow at the Claremont Institute in 2011.

Lopez said the global war on terror had been an effort to "stay free of Shariah," or repressive Islamic law, until the Obama administration began siding with such jihadist groups as the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates. Lopez believes that the Muslim Brotherhood has thoroughly infiltrated the Obama administration and other branches of the federal government. One of the most outrageous of those appointments is Mohamed Elibiary, a senior member of the Department of Homeland Security Advisory Council. According to a report by the Center for Security Policy, Elibiary supports brokering a U.S. partnership with the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist group. Two months ago, a firestorm erupted online after Elibiary tweeted that a "Caliphate" is inevitable and compared it to the European Union.

Ms. Lopez also believes Obama had essentially the same goals in the Mideast as the late Osama bin Laden: "to remove American power and influence, including military forces, from Islamic lands." The former CIA operative's perspective affects her prescription for what the U.S. should do about the terror army ISIS, as she called for caution and restraint.

While there has been a sudden chorus of politicians and military experts calling for the immediate elimination of the terrorist army after it beheaded American journalist James Foley last week, Lopez believes the U.S. should have an overall strategy in place before fully re-engaging in the Mideast militarily.Any military action would be further complicated, she told WND, if it were not clear which side the U.S. is on, either in the short term or in the overall war on terror.

Lopez felt it was impossible to understand why the president and some of his top appointees, such as CIA Director John Brennan, who is believed to be a Muslim convert, "consistently seem to apologize for Islam, even in the face of such atrocities as the Foley beheading," adding, they "take pains to assure the world they don't think IS, (or the Islamic State, also called ISIS) or whichever perpetrator it was, has anything to do with Islam. How can they possibly believe that genuinely when everything these jihadis do tracks directly to the literal text of Quran, hadiths and Shariah?"

"In any case, and for whatever motivations, there is no doubt this administration switched sides in what used to be called the Global War on Terror," she said.

http://www.examiner.com/article/cia-now-admits-that-president-obama-is-a-radical-islamic-enemy-of-america

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 03:17 PM

So much to respond to....

"Bill if you live there do you want to use one of my handguns. I got lots"

Dan..no thanks *grin*... had one once, in Kansas. a .22 5 shot pistol. The rules fro ownership were pretty lax. (I was about 26) I fired it ONCE way out in the desert ..just to see if it worked. I loaned it to a lady who thought she had prowlers. Someone broke in and stole the gun. It was pawned. The pawn shop notified the police, who wrote me and said that if I wanted, I could redeem it by paying the pawn shop $35 that he had taken it in for. HA! I never ever came near having one again, and have never needed one.
------------------------------------------------------

Lighter.." And I stand by my use of "induction." The premises reasonably suggest a conclusion but do not prove it. (did you ever teach 'abduction'? I still can't quite cope with that one.)
well then my explanation was unnecessary, though your answer is part of my point,,,'won't' is one possible inductive conclusion, but in such cases, the one a person chooses may be highly subjective. I happen to think that "won't" implies much too strongly that a fairly common attitude can be extrapolated to apply to a class (the 'country' as a collective noun).
----------------------------------------

This "From: Backwoodsman - PM
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 02:53 AM"

is harder to reply to, though I have answered almost everything in it several times.

"if you have a political system that,....has been constructed in a way that prevents modernisation and carefully-debated adjustment to that system, then it is seriously flawed."

Yes.. what's to dispute about that? But it BECAME flawed because of the changing times & technology. No one in 1789 could have foreseen AK-47s. We had a frontier society with wilderness and danger as it expanded to the West. (No matter what one says about the crimes inflicted on the Native Americans). By the time mass-produced, standardized weapons were common, after the Civil War, the idea of owning a firearm was taken for granted, and much of the West was still 'wild' until about the end of that century. The really serious problem of easy access to guns was not big news until the 1920s and prohibition and Al Capone and such having sub-machine guns. By then the basic idea of there being guns everywhere was pretty much set. Not everyone had one, but every farmer & cowboy and trapper did.

"Yet the sane 75% allow the minority-gun-nutters to control the situation!"

There's another word... "allow". The LAW allows.... I have explained how difficult is is to change any law that many 'like' and most think IS okayed by the Constitution. No one NEEDED to misinterpret the 2nd amendment until recently...it just 'was'. By the time it became obvious to many that it was "seriously flawed" due to its references having morphed, "militia" and "keep & bear arms", too many guns and too many owners were entrenched! And some of them WOULD shoot you if you tried to disarm them!

"That is what we find so hard to understand - why do the huge majority allow their lives to be threatened by a comparatively small minority? I can only guess it's because of apathy on the part of non-gun-owners, and an acceptance that guns are somehow 'normal' in your society. "

"Apathy" fits a few... but 'awareness' is the word that seems to fit most... awareness of what the status is! If the law says folks can have guns, and "states rights" allows local jurisdictions, with all their prejudices, to control those laws, and the NRA's propaganda clouds the issue, any degree of frustrated inaction may look like apathy from the outside.
   There ARE groups working VERY hard to change things, and some of the recent sad tragedies have given the movement some traction. They have fairly wide support in polls, but revising the 2nd amendment require either a very tedious (almost impossible) political process...OR... a Supreme Court which will strike down and revise the interpretation of that awkward phrase. Right now there are just too many idiots..ummmm conservatives on the court, several of those are still young enough to be around awhile.
(Obviously, we need a series of Democratic presidents to outlast the idiots and appoint sane judges. We shall see... I have hopes.)

I keep trying to answer your "whys", but no answer, no matter how clear & accurate, can be satisfying. The word is full of frustrating 'whys' these days.... the Middle East, Ukraine, N. Korea..etc... a few years ago it was 'why' in Northern Ireland, and they mostly used bombs, I think. It appears the sides just got weary of the carnage... I don't remember them having to revise the laws to quit killing.

I hope that a multi-pronged attack on the situation will help... gun show laws being revised, more help for the mentally disturbed, more cameras in certain areas, better checks on gun purchases, more education, fewer TV shows & movies glorifying weapons...etc.

But 'why' is still only answerable by pointing... "there! See?"

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 03:31 PM

I revise my own conclusion: "Why" is answerable by looking at the capability of we 'civilized' human beings to rationalize and lie to themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 04:22 PM

> "won't" implies much too strongly that a fairly common attitude can be extrapolated to apply to a class (the 'country' as a collective noun).

I disagree, at least to the extent that I'm thinking not of "the country as a whole" but of the majority of our state and federal legislators, who would have to pass any new gun laws.

So far, those individuals, as a group, show not the least inclination even to close the gun-show loophole, an incomplete but simple remedy.

For the oft-repeated reasons, their attitude is "No New Gun Laws." Period. It may well be possible to close the loophole one day, but that day seems far off. One reason is that preventing a seemingly unknowable but (some will assert) small number of shootings is a less attractive option politically than to do nothing while saying, "I support the Constitutional rights of responsible citizens to own and bear arms!"

My pessimism comes also from a belief that, with millions of guns in existence, the rate of gun homicides cannot be significantly reduced by any new law that I've heard of that has even the faintest chance of being passed.

But maybe I'm wrong. Any reduction would save some lives at the price of inconveniencing gun dealers and buyers.

Are they ready for that inconvenience? The NRA and plenty of our leaders say no.

And getting back to comparisons with Australia and Canada, my impression is that despite their "frontier heritage," Australians and Canadians have never fixated on firearms (pistols especially) as an emotional symbol as we have. (Consider Oldie's recent post about "roads.") For many Americans, firearms bring pleasantly to mind history, individualism, nonconformity, personal skill and power,the romance of the West, the thrill of the hunt, freedom from tyranny, and the ability to defend oneself and one's family against otherwise unstoppable aggressors.

You don't even have to get Freudian to see what a heady mixture that is! Does it makes sense? It doesn't even have to!

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 04:38 PM

"How many roads does a man walk down... As many as he wants with the right firearm"

Not down my road here in Cambridgeshire, he doesn't, Dude. Shouldn't try it if I were you!

Best Regards

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 04:43 PM

Lol ok see your road is protected.. Grreat

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 04:48 PM

Seriously no cia operative or supervisor would say that statement.. But people can publish anything.

Any way forget guns a tactical nuke solves all problem . But sadly we can't own one even with the 2nd admendment

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 04:50 PM

" I'm thinking not of "the country as a whole" but of the majority of our state and federal legislators..."

Oh well, if you want to be that specific, you shoulda said so! I can't much argue with that- I can only describe the various reasons most of them act that way.... mostly fear of losing their jobs to someone further right - along with $$$$$ from contribution from the NRA and their related sycophants & alter-egos.

"Does it makes sense? It doesn't even have to!"

Nope.. it doesn't have to. Like the famous business explanation: "There's no particular reason for it; it's just our policy."

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 04:51 PM

But you can buy a Russian icbm launch key on ebay if you want one. I suppose the icbm is sold off ebay. But they do have them on there

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 05:01 PM

Seriously no cia operative or supervisor would say that statement.

But that don't stop millions of eejits from believing it, Dan. Just like the Jack-Booter Storm Troopers of th'Gummint gonna come and take away their guns.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 05:04 PM

So true Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 05:36 PM

I got a nasty shock a few minutes ago on Facebook. A little Amish girl- 16-17, I would guess - stands with a rifle slung over her shoulder. Her caption: Daddy bought me a gun today! so happy!:)

It is a 44mag, she said, her father got it at a swap meet and she is going to use it to hunt deer.

Now, mind you, the Amish are a frugal people, active, outdoorsy, independent. They grow and hunt much of their food. So I'm not objecting to that.

I just think that five years ago there is no way she would have stood in that boastful, strutting way and in a public place. It seems to me that today's climate of 'stand your ground', 'open carry', "I can take it anywhere' has infected even the Amish.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 05:46 PM

Ebbie my best Amish friends will absolutely notaallow their pictures to be taken.. Graven image etc. Hmmm wonder where she is from

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 05:52 PM

I gathered that she was in Florida, Dan, a place where the Amish let their hair down, so to speak. PLus, judging by her 'covering', she is not one of the more conservative Amish orders.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 06:07 PM

Maybe daddy encouraged her to post.

Good for the ol' self-esteem, wot? And will her friends ever be jealous!

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 06:40 PM

Very true Ebbie. Here they are very conservative.