Yet Another Massacre of Innocents

[Guest fountainhall]

As I said in an earlier post, I admire you for sticking to your guns! The fact is, I just do not agree with them. I don't accept at all your analogy between guns and cars. This is typical NRA-speak. I don't agree with your analogy with countries which have banned guns. I don't agree about Switzerland - and have provided facts in an earlier post. I don't agree there is a relationship between drugs and owning or not owning guns (are you seriously suggesting that no drugs be banned - for that is what your anti-banning argument suggests?). I don't agree that Prohibition of alcohol gives any indicator about the banning of guns. And I don't agree with your cataclysmic ideas of what would happen if the USA banned individuals from owning guns.

 

Although I no longer live in the UK, I feel far more comfortable in my annual visits in a country which has banned private gun ownership than I do in the USA (which I have also visited on about 3 dozen trips). But then these are merely my views. And I know that I will not in any way persuade you to move from your views. Perhaps that is the real problem in the USA. Opinion is polarized and no-one will take the lead one way or the other.

 

Of course, education has to be part of the solution. But then there is a huge existing problem which has to be addressed - the illiteracy rate in the USA is a staggering 32 million (U.S. Education Department statistics, January 2009). These people cannot even read the instructions on a bottle of pills! On a per capita basis, Vietnam is far ahead of the USA!

 

Another is better access to mental health services and the sharing of health records. But this is presently banned on the grounds of doctor/patient privilege. Easy to offer both as partial solutions, though, especially at a time when the US has suffered major cut backs in both, when a large proportion of the most vulnerable Americans still do not have access to affordable healthcare, and when the Republican party is seeking to overturn Obamacare and deprive millions more! No gun control and big reductions in affordable medical care is just a recipe for more massacres and more gun deaths, and from your last post, I think you probably agree with that statement - at least in part.

[KhorTose]

As I said in an earlier post, I admire you for sticking to your guns! The fact is, I just do not agree with them. I don't accept at all your analogy between guns and cars. This is typical NRA-speak.

 

That is the simple way to dismiss an argument. Who needs facts when you can just make aspersions.

 

I don't agree with your analogy with countries which have banned guns. I don't agree about Switzerland - and have provided facts in an earlier post.

 

They did not sound like they determined the question at all.

 

I don't agree there is a relationship between drugs and owning or not owning guns (are you seriously suggesting that no drugs be banned - for that is what your anti-banning argument suggests?). I don't agree that Prohibition of alcohol gives any indicator about the banning of guns. And I don't agree with your cataclysmic ideas of what would happen if the USA banned individuals from owning guns.

 

Once again I see an inability to see the connections in spite of 50 years watching a prohibition against drugs fail, along with a prohibition against alcohol. They are not on;ly both dismal failures, but they have contributed to make the problems worse, not better. Yes, I do believe we need to take a hard look at decriminalization of drugs. It is called harm reduction and it is presently practiced in such places like Holland.

 

. Opinion is polarized and no-one will take the lead one way or the other.

 

Yes, between those who have adopted gun control as a faith and those who have looked at the facts and determined the real problem is not the guns.

 

Of course, education has to be part of the solution. But then there is a huge existing problem which has to be addressed - the illiteracy rate in the USA is a staggering 32 million (U.S. Education Department statistics, January 2009). These people cannot even read the instructions on a bottle of pills! On a per capita basis, Vietnam is far ahead of the USA!

 

Another is better access to mental health services and the sharing of health records. but this is presently banned on the grounds of doctor/patient privilege. Easy to offer both as partial solutions, though, especially at a time when the US has suffered major cut backs in both, when a large proportion of the most vulnerable Americans still do not have access to affordable healthcare, and when the Republican party is seeking to overturn Obamacare and deprive millions more! No gun control and big reductions in affordable medical care is just a recipe for more massacres and more gun deaths, and from your last post, I think you probably agree with that statement - at least in part.

 

In part I do agree, and that is why I and many others are trying to get people to stop wasting time and money on useless campaigns to ban this and that and look at the real problem which is how are children are raised. Education is only a small part of the problem, as America has too many children who have come from dysfunctional homes and backgrounds. Here is where we need to spend money and not waste billions and billions are stupid, useless prohibitions that make the problems worse, not better. Do you know that crime and punishment (jails/law enforcement) are the number two expense of our government right after the defense department. It is time to end dependence on policy choices based upon some old religious thinking that things and people are either good or evil and look hard at the reality on the ground. Faith is what drives all prohibitions, and while faith can be a good thing, when it determines what is best for others not based on reality (facts) then it too is evil. Everything we do should be based on what works and is scientifically sound and not some notion that says because some people misuse drugs, guns, cars, knives, or language then we should ban the use for everyone. So much for civil liberty, and so much for any real attempt to deal with the problem as it exists. Take a course in psychology sometime and then tell me the gun made him do it.

[Rogie]

Take a course in psychology sometime and then tell me the gun made him do it.

 

This is how I would view firearms in a country where the law allows their possession.

 

1. A responsible person (i.e one with a brain) who knows how to use a gun in self-defence is unlikely to harm anyone unless he, or his family, is under threat. This kind of person should be allowed to possess a gun/rifle IMO.

 

2. A person with a history of drunken-ness, running his car of the road, drug abuse (including trafficking in drugs) or violence should be vetted and not allowed to carry firearms. If he already has them he should be made to give them up. Similarly anyone sentenced to a gaol term will not be allowed to possess a gun on his release.

 

3. A person with a history of mental disturbance, somebody who had made threats against an other person or somebody proven to have disseminated poisonous propanganda against anyone or any group, eg. Muslims, Sikhs, etc will not be allowed to carry a gun.

 

So, how to determine if somebody is responsible? Very difficult, so as KT and FH would agree good education and opportunities to grow up in civilised surroundings and the chance to advance your life so you and your family enjoy a decent standard of living and are rewarded for your efforts. Surely that isn't too much to ask for and would have been my opinion of what America stands for, or once did. Decent, hard-working people for whom the necessity of carrying a firearm probably never entered their heads. Was it chicken or egg? At some stage in American history the tipping point was reached when enough of its citizens became gun-owners thus making those who up to that point were not to think maybe they too should acquire one 'just in case'. That scenario may be wrong but that's what I suspect happened.

 

It would be interesting if we could turn the clock back and re-run American history, so if either:

 

1. where the gun laws were changed, let's say after WW2, so that would give us 60+ years to evaluate its effectiveness.

 

2. or, gun laws were not changed but America successfully coped with the increases in its population since WW2 and became a country where every child received a decent education, drug use was rare, and folks could enjoy a good quality of life. The streets were safe to walk around at night and all its citizens slept soundly in their beds at night (without feelng they had to have a gun hidden under the pillow 'just in case'.

 

_________________________________________________________

 

 

I haven't studied psychology and never shall, I just use common sense (most of the time I hope!).

 

Here is a link to a some sort of psycological explanation:

 

Exploring the Minds of Young Killers: Psychology, Gun Control, and the Colorado Theater Shooting

 

Langman (2009) found that “kid killers” display an array of traits that may be helpful in defining their behavior and intentions. By studying their behaviors, attitudes, emotions, history, relationships, and preoccupations both in and out of school, we may form an idea of what goes on in their minds. It is important to remember, however, that we (as theorists) can only speculate and draw broad conclusions, many of which will be inapplicable to specific cases.

 

Because most teen-gun incidents take place in schools, Langman (2009) makes suggestions about how to limit the destruction of life and property by children now that the American gun owners club has muzzled the rest of us. He suggests that we should pay attention to third party complaints, limit kids’ privacy, and keep an eye on their lives in and out of school. If there is evidence of mental illness, parents will benefit from accepting it and seeking medical attention for their children. Parents and teachers are urged to keep guns away from children, even if it is a violation of the American constitution, and advised not to assume that threats are just threats. While it is still not clear what, if anything could have been done differently to avoid the recent Colorado theater shooting, community awareness and the maintenance of healthy social relationships may be our best hope to preventing further tragedies of this kind.

 

I find that dreadfully woolley. Most of these 'experts' are indeed wise after the event, just like politicians, but don't help much in the real world.

 

http://www.monitor.upeace.org/innerpg.cfm?id_article=925

[KhorTose]

Very interesting thinking Rogie. I can't agree with you about psychology as common sense said gays were sick aberrations and only science (psychology--is a science with strict rules for conclusions) said gays were normal and gays were not mentally ill. I can give you other examples but that one should hit home.

However, i do agree with you that America has gone wrong, As to where, that is a hard question and I am not sure it has any one answer. However, if I was to pick a time in American history to blame, I would probably the early 19th century and the things that took place in and around WWI to WWII.

[Rogie]

I didn't know about psychology and gays, thank you for explaining that KT.

 

Would I own a gun if I lived in America?

 

I don't know for sure and it would only be after carefully evaluating my situation, eg. where I was living, a good yardstick might be whether I could safely walk outside my house at night and go for a stroll (I know Americans are famous for going everywhere in the car but I am a Brit and I enjoy walking!).

 

It is more than just a possibility that if I felt I was living in a place where I felt uncomfortabe doing that I would go out and buy a gun.

 

If there was any doubt in my mind as to my safely there would be two alternatives open to me:

 

1. take the gun with me on my 'stroll'

2. stay at home

 

Quite clearly option 1 is ludicrous, the idea of going out for a walk with a gun in my pocket, but I would feel my personal liberty was infringed by not being able to go for a walk without 'worrying'. That would cause me a fair bit of frustration. As we all know frustration is a bad thing and can lead to unpredicatable outcomes.

 

Sleeping soundly in my bed at night is very important to me. I do worry and the slightest reason to do that is going to affect my sleep - maybe I could get used to that but I'm not sure. So I probably would have my gun somewhere in my bedroom 'just in case'.

 

I speak as somebody who has never fired a gun or rifle in my life, not even handled one, but some of my heros as a kid were people like Chuck Connors in the TV series The Rifleman. I think those kind of images stay with you, the good guy only using his weapon as a last resort against the baddie who shoots to kill for no good reason. I wonder how many American males feel a bit like that, and can identify with TV and movie heros as a justification for having a gun to protest their interests and their families.

[KhorTose]

 

I speak as somebody who has never fired a gun or rifle in my life, not even handled one, but some of my heros as a kid were people like Chuck Connors in the TV series The Rifleman. I think those kind of images stay with you, the good guy only using his weapon as a last resort against the baddie who shoots to kill for no good reason. I wonder how many American males feel a bit like that, and can identify with TV and movie heros as a justification for having a gun to protest their interests and their families.

 

That may apply to some Americans, but don't forget there are some of us that find target shooting fun. Just out of curiosity have you ever shot an arrow, played horseshoes, golfed, played pool or billards, tennis, pingpong, or hopscotch. Just asking because all the sports are tests of hand-eye coordination, which is exactly what target shooting is. You must also realize that many Americans love to hunt, a sport I do not join in as I hate killing animals. Nevertheless, I support American hunters as without them there would be little money for conservation in the USA, and some game would become a nuisance and die of starvation from over grazing the land available to them.

[Bob]

Not intending to continue the gang-up on neighbor KT, but I'm hoping that Khun KT will give an opinion as to how do we keep the guns (handguns or otherwise) out of the hands of people that shouldn't own or possess them. Khun KT, you spelled out the history of the wacko that did the shootings at the Sikh temple in Wisconsin this past weekend but didn't mention that he bought the handgun only days before the shootings.

 

So....how do we keep guns (especially handguns) out of the hands of wackos like this? Or, alternatively, do you advocate liberal gun laws (let almost anybody buy and own them) and consider the occasional massacres just collateral damage to the bulk of the people enjoying their constitutional rights?

[KhorTose]

 

 

So....how do we keep guns (especially handguns) out of the hands of wackos like this? Or, alternatively, do you advocate liberal gun laws (let almost anybody buy and own them) and consider the occasional massacres just collateral damage to the bulk of the people enjoying their constitutional rights?

Given proper parenting he may not have bought a gun or shot the Sikhs. You will spend billions on incarceration and law enforcement and no money on the real solution. day care and early intervention , solving nothing at all but putting us deeper in debt. As to how to stop nuts like this from purchasing guns, and shooting people there is no easy answer but rather long ones. In the short term I can just point out that nuts get into a car and run down crowds of people a least once a year in American and you are not requiring stricter rules for buying a car. I think if there was some guarantee that guns would never be confiscated from normal Americans then you would find the pressure from anti gun control groups to be less. I still say there is nothing in the Constitution to stop regulation of guns, and stricter gun laws, maybe to include banning ownership of those convicted of driving drunk when there has been an accident, as it shows the same wanton disregard of humanity as most bad shooters show. However, gun groups now oppose some rules as, without a guarantee--written in law--,they are rightly afraid that such rules will lead to confiscation as it has in England and Australia. Hell, talk about ridiculous, locking blade knives are not banned in the UK. A great tool I have carried for years to avoid cutting off my fingers. What is next: screwdrivers, ice picks and finally feather pillows so we can all be safe.

[Guest fountainhall]

In the short term I can just point out that nuts get into a car and run down crowds of people a least once a year in American and you are not requiring stricter rules for buying a car.

 

Khun KT keeps on bringing up a supposed analogy with cars. I'm sorry, but there is no such analogy. If someone rings my doorbell at night, I can open it secure in the knowledge that no Bangkok taxi will appear within a fraction of a second, knock me down and kill me. If I am watching a movie, I do so also in the knowledge that no Mercedes is going to shoot through the screen and take off my head.

 

On the other hand, if I cross a busy road, I am perfectly well aware that I am taking a risk. I know what that risk is and I take every care to ensure that risk is minimised. When I drive, I am aware that accidents happen for all sorts of reasons. I know that risk and I accept that risk. Yes, all over the world innocent people sometimes get killed though no fault whatever of their own. But a motor vehicle is primarily a product to enable people and goods to get from A to B. It is vital to the economies of most countries. Without them, the US economy would collapse. With the exception of those who use them for "sport" (and I have to say there are dozens of other activities that help improve eye-hand co-ordination - guns are not essential for that, with all respect!), guns are primarily for the purpose of shooting bullets to kill or maim. Without guns, there would be a negligible effect on the US economy.

 

Yes, better education and better access to medical and other records will certainly help. But ta great many gun deaths are in the home. Gun deaths are three times more likely to occur in homes with guns than in those without. We all know how arguments can get heated and then out of control with passions and emotions becoming inflamed in seconds. Reaching for a gun to end it is easy if a gun is there and this has become part of the gun culture of the country. As in the Hattori case, it's just too easy to say afterwards, "I messed up. I made a mistake . . . I wish I could have thought."

[KhorTose]

Khun KT keeps on bringing up a supposed analogy with cars. I'm sorry, but there is no such analogy.

 

There is never that analogy when you argue with emotions instead of facts. As I say this is an article of Faith with you and not any trully sound reasoning. I have some facts for you. You can look up the citations as I think the work in doing so may stimulate you reasoning powers. According the to National safety Council the following chances of dying are true:

1st = Auto Accidents 1 in 228

2nd= Reaction to Medication 1 in 541

3rd= Hanging/Suffocating Yourself 1 in 576

4th= Drowning 1 in 1081

5th= Choking on non food objects 1 in 1267

6th= House Fire 1 in 1471

7th= Falling From Furniture 1 in 4745

8th= ATV Accident 1 in 4800

9th= ACCIDENTAL GUNSHOT 1 in 4888

 

I sort of believe your fears about getting shot when you open you door compared to being in a moving vehicle are both unfounded and unreasonable, and once again emotionally based.

 

As top guns only being meant to kill that is a real joke. Conservatively, there are between 65-70 million guns owned in the US. In any one year there are 13.200 Handguns deaths or .02% (2/10th of 1%) of all guns, so 99+% of all guns are used safely and not used for killing but home protection, target shooting, and hunting just as advertised.

By the way these figures also included deaths of bad guys by cops and home owners. Guns will never be anywhere as dangerous as cars driven by the drunk, the tired, the drugged and the inattentive so if you want to regulate the lives of others start there. As to cars being essential, many environmentalist would strongly disagree and nearly 1/2 of dwellers in big cities do not own cars. Now trucks are another matter, but we carefully license these drivers and still they kill.

[Bob]

Guns do have other uses such as the sport of target shooting. But, come on, the main purpose of a gun from time immemorial has been to kill or wound other people and animals. If you can't accept that rather basic reality, this argument isn't going anywhere. Even in so-called "self-defense", the purpose of the gun is to thwart the attacker (either by scaring him off or blasting him to pieces).

 

Unlike some, I've been a gunowner (both handguns and long guns) since I was very young. And there are millions of Americans who currently possess guns who shouldn't be allowed to get anywhere near them (and, admittedly, millions of Americans who responsibly own and use guns). The problem, of course, is the the outright creeps (wackos and simply pure criminals) as well as the boneheads who have guns and to suggest we solve that problem by giving everybody else their own bazooka is a theme only Fred Flintsone and the NRA could conjure up. (Folks, neighbor KT is gonna kick my ass when I get back to CM for saying that one...hahaha).

 

Now, you'll have to excuse me. I'm either hungry for some meat or I'm a little unbalanced so I'm going to fuel up my Chevrolet Impala and go out and do a little huntin'......

[Guest fountainhall]

I sort of believe your fears about getting shot when you open you door compared to being in a moving vehicle are both unfounded and unreasonable, and once again emotionally based.

 

I'm sorry to keep responding to your points, khun Khortose, but you misunderstand. In the example I provided, I was not in a moving vehicle. The point was that when I open the door to my apartment, I could see a situation where a man with a gun might be ready to kill me. I could never see a Bangkok taxi (or any car or other vehicle) all ready to knock me down - in that particular situation. I provided other examples which I need not list again.

 

The point you are making is different: that cars kill more people than guns. I readily acknowledge that is almost certainly true. But it really has nothing whatever to do with the banning or otherwise of guns.

 

Conservatively, there are between 65-70 million guns owned in the US.

 

And the operative word is indeed "conservatively". The actual number of privately-owned guns is closer to 270 million. See this site - http://www.gunpolicy...n/united-states

 

As to cars being essential, many environmentalist would strongly disagree and nearly 1/2 of dwellers in big cities do not own cars. Now trucks are another matter, but we carefully license these drivers and still they kill.

 

But again I'm sorry - that does not refute my argument. As I stated - and I specifically used the term "motor vehicles" - without them, the US economy would collapse. Even though I do not own any vehicle, what I stated is fact. no matter what environmentalists may say. Without guns, the economy of the USA would not collapse.

 

I agree that 1/2 or even less of urban dwellers own cars - certainly in the USA. The car ownership statistics in 2009 showed the average urban household (as opposed to individuals) has just one vehicle. Yet suburban dwellers average two or more cars!

 

The average suburban U.S. household has two vehicles. Some more. The average urban U.S. household has one vehicle.

http://www.cleanflee...rship-declines/

 

Since you and I obviously have very entrenched and opposing views, having made my points, I'm happy to withdraw - at least for the time being. And since I had the first 'word', I'll leave you to have the 'last' if you wish.

[kokopelli]

I am another gun possessing American but would like to see stricter controls on who can buy them. In my state it was very difficult to get permission to buy a handgun although easy to guy a rifle.

I started my shooting career with the Boy Scouts and earned a sharpshooters cert from the NRA and honed my skills shooting varmints(woodchucks) on my cattle ranch. But as time went on I have sold my two rifles and a handgun and keep the other one safely locked away. As for the connection between cars and guns, just beware those guys with the rifles hanging in the rear window of their pickup trucks.

[Rogie]

As for the connection between cars and guns, just beware those guys with the rifles hanging in the rear window of their pickup trucks.

 

Is that supposed to act as a deterrant? Why would one want to be aware of a pickup truck with a rifle hanging in the rear window? Am I right in thinking there is a difference between that and other kinds of vehicle? eg. long-distance truck. Surely in that kind of situation (long-distance truck driver) it makes sense for a driver to be armed. Assuming he is driving for a company would they not insist on it?

[Bob]

Speaking of Texas (too many driving around in pickups with rifles hanging from the rear windows), they now have drive-through liquor joints and it's quite remarkable to see the pickups (with guns hanging in the window) lined up to buy their nightly dose of alcohol.

 

And, before he says it, you're right, Khun Khortose, these places don't generally get robbed. On the other hand, the whole notion of gun-toting cowboys buying alcohol from their car/truck windows somehow scares the bejeebees out of me.

[kokopelli]

Just a bit of gun humor. Guess you haven't driven in parts of the USA.

[Guest fountainhall]

Until I saw that photo, I was somewhat confused. Replying merely to these recent specific posts, I thought it was an oblique reference to the East Coast Beltway Sniper shootings in October 2002 when a man and a minor modified the back seat and trunk of their car, pierced a hole in the bodywork and then lay in wait to pick off random passers-by. The weapon used was a Bushmaster XM-15 Semiautomatic .223 calibre rifle which had been stolen from a supposedly secure store. According to the US Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, the store and its owners had a long history of firearms sales and records violations and a file 283 pages thick!!

 

Over a period of a few weeks, ten were murdered and three critically injured before the perpetrators were apprehended. During that time, I recall, fear and near panic gripped much of that part of the East Coast.

[KhorTose]

Until I saw that photo, I was somewhat confused. Replying merely to these recent specific posts, I thought it was an oblique reference to the East Coast Beltway Sniper shootings in October 2002 when a man and a minor modified the back seat and trunk of their car, pierced a hole in the bodywork and then lay in wait to pick off random passers-by. The weapon used was a Bushmaster XM-15 Semiautomatic .223 calibre rifle which had been stolen from a supposedly secure store. According to the US Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, the store and its owners had a long history of firearms sales and records violations and a file 283 pages thick!!

 

Yes the Tacoma, Washington gun shop owner of Bulleye shooters illegally sold a gun to a minor under the control of a mad man. The owner was sued for all he was worth and had to sell the shop. Recently, this year, another man legally bought a gun from the new owner and killed five people.

 

Rogie is you want a view of the gun toting pickup crowd see "Easy Rider". It is a great movie and Jack Nicholson's break out movie.

 

Now to get back to our original argument. You posted an article from the Washington Post that did describe how Americans seem worn down by the arguments and so do nothing. The reason that nothing does get done if the argument is between a group of people who want to direct the lives of others and people who believe strongly in Freedom. Regardless what you think about guns, the facts are on the side on the gun owners so the argument always comes down to one side espousing their fears and the other side showing by statistics and real, non NRA commissioned studies.that those fears are unfounded. If the argument was kept to facts and if the sides were not "no guns" and "all guns" then their would be some kind of compromise. I do not know about the rest of the world, nor care, but guns will never disappear in America until science can prove they are more dangerous to life and limb then not having guns. So far all the studies--even in England--seem to prove the opposite. No change or guns are actually beneficial. I am truly sorry you are scared of people with guns. Hell, I am scared to death of people with Bibles. as in the long run they probably kill more people then either cars or guns.

[Rogie]

Just a bit of gun humor. Guess you haven't driven in parts of the USA.

 

You're right, I haven't driven in the parts of the US where guys hang their rifles in their rear windows.

 

At least I don't recall seeing any, as I guess such people exist in all of the states, just maybe a bit more numerous in some than others.

 

I've driven in California (only the coast road, not inland), Florida, and New England.

 

Rogie is you want a view of the gun toting pickup crowd see "Easy Rider". It is a great movie and Jack Nicholson's break out movie.

 

Yes it is a good film I saw when it came out, definitely needs a repeat viewing so I'll look out for a video sometime.

 

I am truly sorry you are scared of people with guns.

 

Scared of guns? (I realise that's an open question directed at anyone reading this). It depends on what level. I don't think I would be scared of guns if I lived in a country where they were commonly seen in an everyday setting, but if I saw somebody in the UK with one walking down the high street or even a country road, sure I'd be mighty scared. As for being scared of guns or rifles in principal in a country like the US, no, I wouldn't feel strongly enough to back either camp. I'd be one of the mute millions, just hoping I'd never become an innocent victim. Maybe I'd have the odd bad dream, but no, I wouldn't be scared sufficiently to do any campaigning. On a local and personal level, I said earlier that using my yardstick of whether it is safe or not to go for a stroll in my mythical American neighbourhood would influence my decision as to whether to have a gun or not, so if I decided to get one I admit that'd mean I was worried and maybe even 'scared', but it would be the thought of violence that scared me rather than the actual gun. In Britain I could be walking down the road and attacked by a thug wielding a knife. So would I resort ot carrying a knife if I lived in a 'rough' neighbourhood in Britain? The answer's got to be no because it's illegal to carry a knife that could be used as a weapon. Maybe I would go and take karate lessons, I don't know. The worrying thing is lots of people in many British inner cities are scared to walk the streets at night.

 

Hell, I am scared to death of people with Bibles.

 

I own a bible KT, I sincerely hope you wouldn't be scared of me!

[Guest fountainhall]

Bibles . . . as in the long run they probably kill more people then either cars or guns.

 

I AGREE!!!!

[Bob]

Know your gun history! An interesting CNN piece today [Khun Khortose, please note the quote by former Chief Justice Warren Burger (a right-winger appointed by Nixon!) towards the end of the article].

 

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/08/know-your-gun-rights-history/?hpt=hp_t3

[KhorTose]

Send it to me on email Bob, it is gone from CNN.

[Bob]

The link worked when I posted it as I tried it. Unfortunately, not only doesn't it work now, the article is nowhere to be found on CNN's website (which I saw and read this morning). I've never seen that happen before and I wonder a bit as to why it's been deleted/hidden.

 

Anyway, it was an analysis of the history of the Supreme Court's historical treatment of the Second Amendment and it noted that, until the early 1960's, the Court consistently held that the language in no manner infringed the rights of the states to regulate guns and provided powers to the states versus powers or rights to individual citizens. 170 years of precedent, however, was changed due to the lobbying efforts of the NRA and the Court ultimately changed it's mind that the Second Amendment didn't convey personal rights to individual citizens. After he left the bench, Chief Justice Warren Berger (a right-winger appointed by Richard Nixon) said of this change: "This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud . . . on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

 

Just an interesting sidenote but doesn't change the fact that the Supreme Court in the last 40 years has somehow ruled that bearing arms is a personal right that even the states cannot regulate. Wrong-headed change in my view (but don't worry - they don't listen to me!).

[Rogie]

Let us know if you get the link back Bob. Sounds like a good meaty review with more than a whiff of scandal!

[Guest thaiworthy]

Is this it? Sometimes I get lucky. I pasted it just in case it disappears again. This is the link:

 

http://www.visajourn...rights-history/

 

The posts in the linked thread are funny, but lame. Enjoy.

 

 

The U.S. Department of Defense defines terrorism as “the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.” By that definition – by any definition really – the brutal killings at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin was an act of terrorism. Washington should react to it as it would to any other act of terrorism, by asking what we could do to prevent further acts like it.

 

It is certainly worth focusing on the killer, his motives, and his background. But there are thousands of people like him – white supremacists, neo-Nazis, fanatics of various types. We should keep track of people who espouse hatred and violence, but let’s be honest, this isn’t a strategy likely to succeed in a free society of 300 million people. Many people spew hateful speech. The vast majority of them don’t go out and kill innocent men, women, and children. We’re not going to be very good at guessing who will and who won’t.

 

Besides, as I’ve said before, do we really have more fanatics, hate-filled Neo-Nazis than other countries? Probably not. Those kinds of villains exist everywhere. But we do have much higher rates of gun violence than any other rich country and that’s because we have many more guns. The United States has twenty times the number of gun homicides per capita as Britain and Australia, ten times as many as India, four times as many as Switzerland. We are in a league of our own when it comes to gun violence. No other country even comes close.

 

Any effort to do something about the widespread availability of guns runs up against the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says, “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.” But that amendment wasn’t seen as a barrier to gun control for almost a century and a half.

 

Laws banning the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813, and other states soon followed: Indiana (1820), Tennessee and Virginia (1838), Alabama (1839), Ohio (1859). Similar laws were passed in Texas, Florida and Oklahoma. As the governor of Texas explained in 1893, the “mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law-abiding man.”

 

In 1934, a comprehensive law controlling guns was passed by Congress. It was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1939, in U.S. v. Miller, in which Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s solicitor general, Robert H. Jackson, argued that the Second Amendment is “restricted to the keeping and bearing of arms by the people collectively for their common defense and security,” meaning the army. Furthermore, Jackson said, the language of the amendment makes clear that the right “is not one which may be utilized for private purposes, but only one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state.” The Supreme Court agreed, unanimously.

 

All this changed in starting in the 1970s and '80s as part of an organized movement led by special interests like the National Rifle Association. Reflecting on it, former Chief Justice Warren Burger – a conservative appointed by Richard Nixon – said that the new interpretation of the Second Amendment was “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

 

So when someone tells you that the second amendment means people can carry weapons that can fire a hundred bullets a second, tell them they don’t know their American history.