"We stop being something to be proud of when we love our guns more than we love our children"

[kpete]

Powerful words spoken at Newtown, Conn. hearing

............

Susan Aaron's daughter is one of the children who survived the shooting.

..............

Those who argue against tougher gun laws cite the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Susan Aaron disagrees.

"We stop being the world's greatest country when we allow our most vulnerable citizens to be slaughtered because we might offend people by taking away their guns. We stop being something to be proud of when we love our guns more than we love our children," she said.

the rest:
http://www.necn.com/01/30/13/Powerful-words-spoken-at-Newtown-Conn-he/landing.html?blockID=828227&feedID=11106

[logosoco]

1. This is surely one of the main things leading to our downfall.

Our inability to embrace alternative energy being the other big one.

[cali]

3. ignorant is your borderline illiterate and dimwitted post

To actually claim that concealed carry people are the most peaceful segment of our population is beyond absurd. Nor do armed teachers guarantee a successful outcome to any potential shooting situation. Or armed guards, for that matter. Where does this armed teacher keep a gun? On his/her person? In a desk drawer? What's to stop a student from grabbing the gun and using it? Btw, genius, there were armed deputies on the grounds of Columbine. The element of surprise gives any shooter a huge advantage.

[Zoeisright]

4. How incredibly ignorant.

Don't read much, do you? NOT ONE SINGLE massacre has EVER been stopped by a civilian with a gun. NOT ONE.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings

The problem is the proliferation of guns and the lack of control on who has one.

And here's something you might want to think about: with no guns, we wouldn't have to call the police in the first place. CCW are NOT the most peaceful segment of our population. What a stupid statement. With nothing to back it up, I notice.

Christ on a crutch I am SICK of the complete ignorance in this country, personified in your asinine post.

And by the way, it's "our" money and "our" children, not "or" and "are". God.

[guardian]

13. NOT ONE SINGLE massacre has EVER been stopped by a civilian with a gun. NOT ONE.

Maybe you should broaden your reading beyond Mother Jones? Feel free to hide your post after reading.

New Life Church shooting
Location Colorado Springs, Colorado, United States
Date Sunday, December 9, 2007
Attack type Shooting spree
Weapon(s) 1 Bushmaster XM15 .223-caliber rifle, 1 Beretta .40-caliber handgun, 1 Springfield Armory 9mm pistol, and over 1,000 rounds of ammunition
Deaths 3 (including the perpetrator)
Injured 3

On Sunday, December 9, 2007, at about 1 p.m. Murray, armed with a semi-automatic rifle and two pistols, entered the foyer of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs and fatally shot two and wounded three others before himself being shot and wounded by Jeanne Assam, a former sworn Minneapolis police officer and a church member acting as security.

At about 30 minutes after the 11 a.m. service had ended at New Life Church, Murray opened fire in the church parking lot shooting the Works family and Judy Purcell, 40. Murray then entered the building's main foyer where he shot Larry Bourbonnais, 59, hitting him in the forearm. At this point, Assam opened fire on Murray with her personally owned concealed weapon. Police say that after suffering multiple hits from Assam's gun, Murray fatally shot himself.

The pastor of the church stated that Assam shot Murray before he entered 50 feet (15 m) inside the building, after she encountered him in the hallway, and that Assam probably saved "over 100 lives."

[Recursion]

15. The Mother Jones criteria are a catch 22, unfortunately

In this case, it wasn't a "mass shooting", because fewer than 4 people died, because Bourbonnais stopped him.

In the cases like Pearl, MS, where the armed civilian stops the shooter after four deaths, because it was "already a mass shooting", the civilian didn't "stop" him.

So, Mother Jones can't be wrong about this, because they've defined things to make the situation of "an armed civilian stopping a mass shooter" be a logical impossibility.

[Fresh_Start]

28. a police officer even a former police officer is not a civilian

in this context. They are someone with the training and experience to handle gun violence.

[guardian]

71. so what is the minimum "training and experience"

someone needs to be able to "handle gun violence?"

Would any of the following count?

* active duty military?
* retired military?
* former military but did not retire?
* current or former private detective?
* private armed security guard?
* private individual holding a certification from the International Defensive Pistol Association?
* private individual having graduated from specialized training such as Massad Ayoob's MAG40 or MAG80?
* private individual who regularly shoots 200+ rounds per month in practice?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

110. What about former military?

They are much better trained than the average cop.

[RC]

122. Really?

The only military gun training I had was in Navy boot camp. Plus, on the ship, less than an hour total after that. Got some practice field striping an Army .45 and shooting at white caps.
That was 50 years ago, during the Viet Nam war.

Blanket statement covers up so much.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

123. Good thought...I was Army. What about Army vets or those with a CIB?

There are variants for all services as I recall.

[Skittles]

6. coming out of the woodwork

skeered

[Recursion]

7. We're pulling double shifts in MIRT

Sorry, meant to hit that one earlier.

[Skittles]

9. looks like their dittomasters put the word out

and my oh MY how obedient they are

[Paladin]

10. MIRT's Efforts Are Greatly Appreciated. (nt)

[Skittles]

11. indeed they are!

[Recursion]

12. Note the new "Delete posts on PPR" feature

I think that's a great idea.

[zappaman]

76. That IS a great idea!

Glad they added that!
And nice job MIRT!

[WinkyDink]

8. Bwahahaha! america has NEVER "loved our children"! Corrupted, sexualized, yes;

loved, get real.

[Mojorabbit]

105. and used as cheap labor in the day. nt

[Initech]

14. Nixon's strategy of god, guns, and gays is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

[DainBramaged]

16. Now part of my sig line

powerful words.

[thefool_wa]

17. Its not an offense, its our RIGHT

The 2nd amendment is just as important to the protection of this country against tyranny as the first. You want to repeal the second, or limit it, why not do the same to speech, or religion, or the press. The government has already pissed on Habeus Corpus, the right to a speedy trial, right to privacy, search and siezure, ALL OF IT, and you STILL want them to continue to take our rights away.

I am sickened and saddened by what happened in Sandy Hook, but fear is NO REASON to take away our rights. It is that thinking since 9/11 that has allowed our government every day to trod further and further towards tyranny.

You don't like the 2nd amendment? Too bad, its a FUNDAMENTAL right of the people designed to protect us against tyranny which means YES we need assault weapons and YES we need high capacity magazines. If you don't like that RIGHT then honestly you don't really belong here, because that is as essential a part of America as every other right we have.

If that makes you feel unsafe for yourself or your children, then go somewhere where owning and possessing firearms isn't a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT of the people.

Anyone who opposes the 2nd amendment or thinks it should be limited deserves the tyranny that will come. If you think that is an exaggeration, look at the last 13 years again, I'll wait.

[IveWornAHundredPants]

19. Why do you need assault weapons and high capacity magazines again?

I'll wait.

[thefool_wa]

20. Defense against tyranny...read it again, its in there.

[IveWornAHundredPants]

21. A tank would be a better defense against tyranny, don't you think?

A missile would be better still. You don't seem to be complaining that you can't get those.

[thefool_wa]

23. but you CAN, if you have the money.

A private citizen, with 10K, can buy a VUCLAN MINIGUN from the manufacturer. WHy is this important, because the GD FBI has them.

Explain to me why a law enforcement agency needs a wepon whose sole purpose is to level gigantic crowds or vaporize a single target from an aircraft, its as ludicrous as you would seem to think a private citizen owning a wepaon that only puts out a .223 round and can't do it any faster than you can pull the trigger.

Also, tyranny comes in many forms. We will never have to oppose our military, I know a fair number of soldiers and veterans (all of whom support the ability to purchase assault rifles) and none of them would ever take up arms against citizens of this country. I honestly don't feel that will ever change.

HOWEVER, corporations with security forces will still be able to purchase the weapons they are trying to forbid private citizens from owning. The same corporations that are buying our elections and buying laws that fill prisons. THIS is a tyranny as well that we need to have a check against.

I'll say it again, and this is true of ALL of our rights, including this one: you don't like it? leave, because if you stand on the side of taking away our ability to change things violently when necessary then you stand on the side of tyranny.

[Thinkingabout]

93. Speech is limited, you can not go into a theatre and yell fire, you can not slander someone.

There are many things which are regulated. It is not taking guns away a need to regulate weapons of war has arisen. Go yell at the gun owners who allow their weapons to be used in mass murders. If a gun owners are so poor at shooting to need high capacity weapons then they need training.

[thefool_wa]

95. ALLOW, REALLY!

You call a kid KILLING HIS OWN MOTHER and taking her guns ALLOWING those guns to be used in mass murder. WOW. Anyone who knowingly allows that kind of thing to happen should be prosecuted as an accessory. IN fact, I think that is currently the actual law in most states if I am not mistaken.

Also, I think I have said this throughout the thread, but I don't feel that their should be NO regulation, the 2nd does provide for "well regulated" I just feel that AR-15s, P-90s, M-14s and the like have a place and a purpose. There are ways to regulate them without an outright ban.

[Thinkingabout]

102. It seems these weapons are already in the hands of some who clearly does not need them.

I do not think the regular civilian does not need weapons of war and this is clearly where they are required. The gun industry is not capable of regulating the industry and is indeed a big part of the problem. The gun owners does not provide safe storage of the weapons allowing them to fall into hands of criminals and perhaps even family members not disciplined enough to control their emotions to have the weapons. Guns are being sold to people who clearly does not have discipline to be in control of the weapons. In recent weeks some who claim to be trainers in firearms sure has not displayed sensible discipline to ever handle weapons. And thus the need to regulate weapons of war.
The industry has displayed actions which will probably result in regulation. A father pointing his new weapon at two family members because of bad grades surely was not protecting his family. Why has gun owners been incapable of handling the weapons sensibly I do not know but when innocent American citizens are attacked action needs to happen.

[thefool_wa]

108. To an extent, I agree but...

You don't really get to draw that line without proof, not when it comes to fundamental rights.

I support BG checks, I support an armory system for the storage of things classified as assault weapons, but you cannot take law abiding citizens handguns away, and the right to posses what I would call "militia weapons" is a fundamental check against tyranny, something that is as relevant today as it was 250 years ago.

People have a right, and now more than ever a NEED to defend themselves. Idiots, assholes, and the psychotic are EVERYWHERE, but decent people who want nothing more than to defend themselves and their families from a violent and apparently savage world DESERVE that right.

[Kennah]

111. With a military that is larger than the next 10 militaries of the world ...

... how exactly will gunowners prevent tyranny? The argument might hold more weight if there were equal calls to reduce the size of the military from gun owners, but with a heavy rightward tilt among gun owners, it just ain't so.

I don't see how handguns or concealed carry will go away. During the 1994 AW ban, concealed carry did very well across the nation.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

113. Need is not a legitimate factor. Yes there are those with guns who should not have them

Criminals being the obvious largest group.

[HughBeaumont]

22. WHAT "TYRANNY"???

Who's this imaginary "tyrant"?? Wouldn't they have purged you by now??

[thefool_wa]

26. IMaginary? Really?

Do the people here really have such short memories? 8 YEARS of GW pushing his fascist regime and policies, policies that didn't change and even GOT WORSE under the guy we all voted for, and you don't think its relevant?

ALL of the litany of rights I listed above that EVEN THE GUY WE ALL VOTED FOR is STILL pissing on, and you don't think its relevant?

What about all the corporations and special interests that subvert our democratic system? Still irrelevant? Oh, and the for profit prison industrial complex? Still irrelevant?

Wake up, the world is a scary place, and an AW or magazine ban is NOT going to have ANY significant impact on that. All it affects is our fundamental right to secure our freedom, violently when necessary, and that is what everyone listed above here wants.

I don't understand the hypocrisy of this place, not at all

[Tommy_Carcetti]

30. We made our voices known against GWB, and he ended up as one of history's worst presidents.

He did irreperable damage to his own legacy and arguably his own party. Which is just fine with me.

We didn't need an armed uprising to do that. Just smart participatory democracy.

[thefool_wa]

35. I doesnt matter how people remember him

His policies are still in effect.

[jmg257]

32. Ok, you have a list of grievances & usurpations; when is your AR going to start helping? nt

[BlancheSplanchnik]

127. this. n/t

[patrice]

34. WHO gave you the privilege of defining "tyrant" for EVERYONE else? You didn't ask me. If you had,

I would tell you that YOU fit my definition of tyrant by placing the desire to do violence above all else and not asking anyone else whether that is what they want or not.

OUR government is corrupted by corporations, but at least by virtue of the at least theoretical FACT that it is OUR government, WE - ALL OF US - have much more say in what happens with it than we do with a bunch of ignorant, crazed, dishonest vigilantes, who have abdicated all responsibility for what happens in government, beyond CORPORATE LOBBYING BY THE NRA, for decades and decades and now want to threaten the rest of us for the shit that their own childish spoiled brat ideologies and refusal to do the work of authentic citizenry has produced.

[thefool_wa]

42. ????

I haven't said anything about a desire, we are talking NECESSITY soon. And honestly, I don't even own a gun out of respect for my wife's wishes on the matter.

There will come a time in this country when things will be so bad that SOMEONE will rise up to stop it. It's starting to look inevitable, but that person won't be me. Who they are and what they are doing will determine what side I am on, but I don't plan on ever taking up arms.

That doesn't mean I can't support the idea, it also doesn't mean I need to give up my RIGHTS for the illusion of security. THis is an argument that has been made by the vast majority of people ON THIS BOARD for over a decade regarding ALL of our other rights...why is it different now? I hate to say this, but children die at the hands of psychos, with and without guns, every day and an AW ban or mag capacity limits aren't EVER going to change that.

Lastly, supporting OUR RIGHTS is not tyranny. You have convinced yourself of that because you want the illusion of security. NOTHING we do will take the weapons that are already out there off the street. Don't forget that COLUMBINE happened DURING the last assault weapons ban. NOTHING we do in the name of "gun control" will change that the world is a horrible, violent place and we must all be on constant guard against those who do us harm.

[patrice]

46. When that "necessity" comes WHO will identify it? WHO defines "tyrant"? Do I get a vote in your

"revolution"? No? Well then, meet the "new" boss, SAME as the old boss, just wearing a different label, another LIE about liberty and freedom, worn by FASCISM at the point of guns over which I have NO regulatory control whatsoever.

[thefool_wa]

47. You are viewing this from a very narrow angle

The revolution that will come to this country will not be to change the system of our govenrment, it will be to purge it of its corruptive influences, the influences you cannot control by voting. Did you get a vote in who takes money for what, did you get a vote in the idea that corporations are people?

Everyone seems to think that "tyanny" can only be defineid in terms of Stalin, and Hitler, and governments, but what about all the other forms of tyranny in this country that deprive you of your voice. You get 1 vote a year, but those who have billions of dollars vote in our representatives ears EVERY DAY. However, you aren't mad about them taking away your voice, you are mad at me for suggesting that people may rise up one day to give you that voice BACK.

[patrice]

58. I am viewing this from the angle of people who say they are going to start shooting "corruptive

influences" or whatever and they are going to do that BECAUSE of guns.

I didn't delegate that authority to you; I don't care how high-minded you try to make it sound. YOU are the one taking something I didn't give to you, that makes you Stalin and Hitler. I did NOT tell you that you are my/our militia.

You get more than 1 vote a year. There are millions of opportunities to affect what is happening that you reject and refuse to do that work and the reason you reject those responsibilities is because you have a gun, so you'll just wait until YOU decide that it is "necessary" to fix everything that is wrong whenever you and yours decide, no matter what that costs, and what the rest of us think of any of that be damned.

You also make the mistake of thinking everyone is like you and your simple minded "solutions", abdicating all responsible involvement and just getting mad at you "for suggesting that people may rise up one day to give (me) that voice BACK." How utterly condescending and paternalistic of you. You're just like the worst things you claim about government that you hate. If I wanted that kind of "help", I'd own a gun and you assume that I'm too stupid to make that "smart" decision, so you're going to do me a favor and make it for me.

Wrong.

By your dependence upon and assumptions about guns and ultimate violence, you PROMOTE conditions of alienation and disengagement from the authentic struggle for freedom, then you bitch about the conditions that alienation and disengagement produce, and then you try to SELL me the very pesudo-remedy that isn't a remedy at all, but is rather a CAUSE of the problem in the first place: violence.

You sir are the problem, made triply dangerous by the fact that you don't recognize or admit that you are the problem & claim a PRIVILEGE to the ultimate violence there is without consulting anyone but the other fascists who agree with you.

[thefool_wa]

60. Enjoy the real tyranny when it arrives

And don't cry about it, because its apparently what you want.

People like you make me cry for this country because you call our rights "privledges" and that is what allows others to take them away.

I am not imposing anything on you, I am warning you that something is coming whether you like it or not, its not necessarily what I want, but in the end, when the march of tyranny can't be stopped by other means, violence becomes necessary. It is the cycle that has perpetuated the world for centuries if not millenia. Again, you can not like or accept it all you want, but it is there and always will be.

If people shouldn't rise up to protect that which is to be their rights, then why do we even have them? No one "votes" for a revolution, and no one ever 100% agrees with one side or another. Hell, ultimately this is a red herring anyways as they will NEVER pass an outright gun ban in this country ever.

I think you overstimate both the affect that the proposals that are out there now will have on the overall security of everyone, and I think you want someone like me to blame for the violence of others. Both perfectly understandable, but don't accuse me of oppressing you because I choose to defend our rights. That makes YOU the tyrant.

[patrice]

62. 100% Self-fulfilling prophecy & Now that I'm the "tyrant", though unarmed, I guess I should fear

for my life, while you save the rest of America from me and those like me.

You. are. the. problem.

[thefool_wa]

63. Back at ya

[patrice]

64. This is all you're idea not mine. My name is probably going in your "corrupting influence" book.

[thefool_wa]

73. WOW

you sound just as nutty as the NRA does when they blame video games. I have no such list, and as long as you aren't buying votes, rigging elections, suppressing voters, or lobbying laws that will fill your own pockets, you are not even remotely who I am talking about. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, you are just wrong. I know you will refute this, but it falls on deaf ears.

All I am doing is defending our rights based on their founding principles. Nothing more.

I get the feeling you think we should ban guns entirely to PREVENT these things I am talking about, to which I say again, should that happen, I hope your descendents enjoy the coming tyranny as you asked for it for them.

Ultimately, in this country we should never have to flex the muscle that the 2nd amendment affords as the mere threat is what should keep our government in line, and to an extent that works today. However, if you take away the guns or limit them so much as to offer no threat at all, there will BE no restraint.

I get it, you don't like it, but that doesn't change the fact that the right to bear arms exists, is not going anywhere, and it exists for a purpose that is still VERY relevant today.

[jmg257]

70. "Per NBC news 203 people shot today as of 6pm"...not for nothing, that better be one fucking

massive case of tyranny your guns will be curing for us...cause, in the meantime, down here in reality - this just sucks.

[thefool_wa]

74. Those were most likely criminals

Who will ALWAYS HAVE GUNS! You will never stop criminals from illegally obtaining weapons, PERIOD, and those people will always kill others, PERIOD.

PLUS, many of those, most likely the majority, were perpetrated by hand guns which aren't even being considered for regulation at this point. If you think anything they are proposing now is going to in any way stem that number, you are delusional. It never has before.

I get the feeling no one has taken the time to note that I have an idea for something that MIGHT help, its posted below. Its consistent with the idea of a regulated militia (which you will note is PRIVATE MILITARY, so ya, 2nd amendment guarantees military hardware that can be bore by a single person) and removes high capacity militia weapons from private homes. Its closer to a solution than anything being proposed currently.

We will never live in this magical "gun free" society all of you think we should move towards, it will NEVER happen. You will never remove the guns from the hands of criminals intent to do harm, NEVER. All we can do is gird ourselves against it.

My reality is the same as yours, you are just ignoring most of the facts in order to bolster your point, where I accept your facts as an inevitability. You are wishing for a perfect world that is never going to exist, so who lives in reality?

[jmg257]

75. 1st off, Constitutionally a regulated Militia isn't 'private military', it is a state entity. Period

Since you insist on invoking the 2nd, you should get that right atleast.

Where is this solution?

Who says no one is considering restricting handguns, or limiting their capability?

'Never...never...never...so just accept it as so. But in the mean time we WILL win against tyranny!'
Don't get it.

Anyway I'd rather do what it takes to enforce effective laws then just accept 'they will never work'.

[jmg257]

77. Never mind - found it... nt

[thefool_wa]

83. There is nothing that says that

it says NOTHING about it being the states responsibility. it 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" THE PEOPLE, not the states. And the constitution is pretty specific when it wants to talk about peoples or states rights and responsibilities, so I am going to take that to mean exactly what it says.

On hand guns, I do not see our govenrment doing anything more imposing than BG checks and mag capacity limits for hand guns. Thats pretty much all you can do, people need them, haven't you seen the news, 200 people were shot in this country before 6pm, and one can bet that number would be the same with more victims and less people defending themselves if handguns are in any way "infringed".

Honeslty, the idea of a gun free society where these things don't happen is as ludicrously hyperbolic as my dystopian future of revolution, but I stand firmly on the side of "No right shall be taken away out of fear", I've always been that way, its not going to change now.

One should also consider the fact that, any kind of round up (the only solution that will have any real effect) will lead to MORE bloodshed, LOTS more. People don't give up their rights without a fight, and the last thing any of us want is MORE blood spilling over this issue.

[Thinkingabout]

104. Since you are quoting some of the Second amendment you never quoted anything which said they cannot

Be regulated. Even Justice Scalia has already addresses this so if it went to the SC I don't think the regulations would be thrown out.

[thefool_wa]

106. I have not said zero regulation

IN fact, later in this thread, I present MY idea of an effective gun control measures. The amendment clearly says "well regulated" but it also says "militia", which in my eyes means military, and I don't think that is an unreasonable assessment.

[jmg257]

78. Actually, thoughtful notion

the armory idea isn't too bad. Of course the security would have to be incredible.

And it still leaves pyscho gun owners in possession of their arms. Does limit unwarranted access to others though.

Points:
Who enforces the return?
Why wouldn't a would-be tyrant just shutdown access to the armories if so inclined?

Seems a lot of effort for a little payoff - not that I don't appreciate the whole original defence against tyranny notion - but why not just go back to independent state controlled militias, that could be used to thwart tryanny at a federal level?

[thefool_wa]

81. I feel the same way about an assault weapons ban

Its not going to do anything to prevent gun violence, and the gangs and criminals will still get them illegally, so it seems like a ton of effort for ZERO payoff.

And honestly, you don't get to make the assumption of "psycho gun owners" without some kind of proof of deficiency or felony criminal activity. If someone has never done something to prevent them from having that right, they can (and honestly should) be able to get a gun. Its scary, but freedom IS scary at times.

As far as the armories, I've considered that, and ultimately that is why they should be privately owned and operated, preferably locally (not by corporations or conglomerates that are easily influenced by the government). You could even call them "co-ops of the private militia" and have them built, paid for, and operated by people who register as local militia members and register what "assault weapons" they own. I don't oppose that idea at all, however, a person who is legally allowed to own a gun should be able to own an AR-15, a P-90, a 50cal Barret (which I think technically would still be legal under the proposals being considered as it is bolt action and less than 10 rounds, regardless of their ludicrous power), etc. BECAUSE of the imminent threat it imposes.

So I guess to sum up, I fully support getting assault weapons out of homes, but NOT out of the hands of legally able gun owners. The rub is though, you can't get the pistols out, and they are an equal threat, but the net effect is MORE positive than an outright ban because they won't be able to round up the guns, they will just stop further sales.

Oh, and fuck gun shows, sell at licensed dealers to background checked owners PERIOD. You have one you want to sell? It goes consignment. Your gun is found in the possession of someone committing a crime and it was never reported stolen (within reason), YOU committed the crime. (see, I'm not a nut, just a believer)

[jmg257]

89. I agree with alot of that, but not the private militias. I am sorry,

but the true Militias just about always existed with state oversight and governmental authority. Especially constitutionally.

You did mention they would register, so I imagine you mean they would be part of a governmental entity? If not, then no way would I trust the...ideals of those who are most likely to form "private militias' as being in step with the good of the nation. There is nothing to keep them now, as they have in the past, from becoming unlawful combinations in support of only their own selfish notions. And no way should the people be allowed to arm themselves with whatever firearms they want without governmental regulations, simply under the guise of 'a militia'. That is not freedom, it is a mob in arms.

Background checks, registration are all fine. Capacity limits on handguns or something should also be considered. Plus all the usual criminal deterents - penalities, more LE etc.

[logosoco]

116. When you say "violence becomes necessary"

it makes me think of the rights that have been fought for in recent history. Women fought for and won the right to vote, without violence. The right to obtain birth control and safe and legal abortions was not fought with guns.We got kids out of horrible working conditions, as far as I know the story, there were some deaths there, but society was fighting corporations there, not the government (although corporations were corrupting the process as they are now). The civil rights movement was carried out and onward without guns, they were very non-violent. Many of those fighters, standing up without guns, were killed with guns, but that was from a segment of society, not directly from the government.

So I do think that people can stand down tyranny without weapons. It seems like most of what it takes is for society to want them and allow them, maybe even more so than anything the government actually does. Ultimately, the government is us. When it is corrupt and tyrannical, it is because those members of society are using their influence in a stronger way. Money has a bad influence today, but, eventually and hopefully, it will be the shear numbers of people who don't have money that will change things. Will our ability to have arms help us win that fight?

We have all been tyrants to some extent.
This gun issue will turn into people fighting for their right to life soon because of so much violence. Most of which is from other members of society and not the government. (Although there is a lot of minorities being shot by police, that is something the majority needs to take care of).

Just my $.02

Peace

[jmg257]

54. When they are YOUR kids getting massacred, despite ALL your gun-huggin 'constant guard',

maybe you'll feel a bit different, otherwise your just spouting typical RW nutjob bullshit...'illusiions of security'...ok Ben, or was that James or Thomas?

How about worrying the slightest bit about innocent kids giving up THEIR LIVES.

"...it also doesn't mean I need to give up my RIGHTS for the illusion of security. "
...
"NOTHING we do will take the weapons that are already out there off the street. Don't forget that COLUMBINE happened DURING the last assault weapons ban. NOTHING we do in the name of "gun control" will change that the world is a horrible, violent place and we must all be on constant guard against those who do us harm."


Sounds like typical NRA dupe talking points BS, all stuffed into a few paragraphs.

[thefool_wa]

57. Don't Kid yourself

Security is an illusion, and yes, god forbid, I accept today as I did 2 months ago that at any given moment some psycho with a gun, bomb, knife, perversion, or what have you could walk into my life and destroy it.

This is called life, and I refuse to sacrifice our rights out of fear.

"typical RW BS' - I am definitely not a right winger, but thanks for attempting to demean me in order to invalidate my arguments, that is exactly what I expect out of people here. It is possible to have an opinion that is the opposite of yours that isn't just mimicking people I honestly think are over the top.

I posted my idea of a solution below, take a look, I think it does tons more to preserve the purpose of the 2nd Amendment while providing an ACTUAL increased level of security than banning specific guns (but not all, because it will never be all) or limiting the number of bullets one magazine can hold. And I guarantee you it won't be supported by the NRA, but I could care less, those guys are nuts.

[jmg257]

67. Plenty of negative posturing about how ineffective the people and govt will be in

enacting and executing a proper ban, yet so sure about how important guns are going to be for the people in this eventual struggle against 'tyranny'?

Why would you have such an inflated notion of gun owners, now or in the future? Have they shown themselves to be 'made of sterner stuff' or something? Have they stood up against usurpations in the recent past? Other then posturing and threatening against the current administration I mean.

'NOTHING we do will take the weapons that are already out there off the street...
COLUMBINE happened DURING the last assault weapons ban...
NOTHING we do in the name of "gun control" will change that the world is a horrible, violent place...'


Sorry - I am just not buying it. I refuse to just accept that some psycho should have the access to arms he needs to destroy my life, or my kids. We could do plenty to prevent that AND preserve our rights.


edit: what post has your solution - i would like to read it!

[thefool_wa]

79. I never said PSYCHOS should have access

I support background checks (that is in the spirit of well regulated militia), and I support an idea that will get the high powered guns out of the homes, but not out of the hands of the people who have a RIGHT to bear them.

My idea is in this thread, subject is "Here is what I support". I don't think just anyone who wants one should get a gun, but to me "militia" means military weaponry (though I will concede that should only involve firearms that can be carried by a single person). So to be clear, all I oppose is the assault weapon and clip bans, not doing something that will ACTUALLY curb the violence without impeding the purpose of the second amendment.

My high-minded opinion of gun owners is based on the gun owners I know, not the hyperbolic jackasses that the news puts on TV to sell their ideological stance or get people to watch. The idiots on TV do NOT represent the majority of gun owners, and in fact, the majority of the ones I know ARE VETERANS. It seems deplorable to think that we would tell someone who has defended our country, and that very right, that they don't get it anymore because there are bad people out there. There always has been and always will be bad people.

You can blow me off as paranoid, but I am basing my opinion on this on the past 20 years of watching the democracy in this country slowly dissolve. I hope I am wrong, I hope things change and get better politically and socially in this country, but understand that I grossly fear an America where we are only allowed to own bolt action rifles and pistols. It will take years, decades even, but eventually the gov't will stop caring what's best for the people because "what are they going to do about it?". Hell, we are headed that way there already even WITH the guns, so why should I think it won't get anything but worse.

[jmg257]

80. I found your solution - thanks! addressed elsewhere. The 'problem' I see with the Militia

and the 2nd amendment is that the protection it provided is obsolete. I am not talking about the right Scalia found in it and so the SCOTUS says we have.

We the people decided a long time ago that we much prefer federally controlled Militias and a huge standing army. WE decided the well-regulated Militias are NOT the best security, iare actually not even necessary, as they stood in the Constitutiton. Does that make the need to be wary of tyranny all the more? Possible...but it is how we wanted it.

Now - we know what & why & how the protection against tyranny the Miltias and 2nd offered were supposed to work, and yet we went and made them obsolete anyway. So - the founders never gave a timeline for tyranny, though they warned us what to look for. Are our freedoms still secure? Or is system we put in place as the Militias were destroyed placing us right on schedule? Is allowing the people to keep arms even though they no longer serve the Militia purposes of the 2nd as wise as it once was? As needed?

You seem to feel are freedoms not so safe for long. I tend to think we aren't that bad off, or more and more that the right to arms is not worth the cost.


Anyway -you are right about much, so I will dial back the rhetoric, these discussions are much more interesting!

cheers.

[jmg257]

69. "that is exactly what I expect out of people here." Curious why you are a member then?

nevermind - will be more congenial.

[thefool_wa]

84. no - fair question

I have had alot of bad experiences posting here, especially today. I will retract that and apologize for being so adversarial.

[markpkessinger]

43. The notion that the Second Amendment was to enable people to take up arms against the gov't ...

... is absurd on its face. The Constitution itself defines taking up arms against the government as treason -- and NOTHING in the Second Amendment alters that!

[thefool_wa]

48. Again, read deeper

This isn't about rising up against the government, our system is good, its just corrupted. Tyranny means more things that a dictator or a government.

[joeybee12]

72. Nope, like the NRA, you're making sh*t up....

The second amendment has nothing to do with what you allege...nothing...not one bit.

[thefool_wa]

88. Read a history book. nt

[joeybee12]

120. Great comeback...I'm impressed...read the Militia Acts of 1792...asshat...nt

[SomethingFishy]

130. So when the Government comes marching down the street

To place you under their thumb, you are going to save us all with your automatic weapon? Look I believe in the right to bear arms. I also believe in reasonable legislation. So take it from someone basically on the same side as you. Give up the "stand against tyranny" argument. This is the 21st century. If someone tyrannical were to take over the US government he would have no qualms about using the full extent of the 21st century military to seal his reign.

Directed Energy Microwave weapons, Sonic weapons, Rail Guns, Drones, and you can bet there are energy weapons in development, probably Plasma, if they are not already in existence. The military of the 21st century makes a "well regulated militia" look like a bunch of cavemen with spears and stones.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

24. The "tyranny of the government" line is bull to the shit.

If you believe the 2nd Amendment exists so that citizens can protect themselves from the tyranny of their own government, then you basically have to argue that it protects the right of a private citizen to carry machine guns, hand grenades, RPGs, heat seeking missiles, bombs and other military grade weaponry that ordinary citizens cannot possess, and that weapons that people even as conservative as Justice Scalia himself admit are not subject to 2nd Amendment protection.

Because an AR-15 might work great against a classroom full of school children and their teachers. But against drones and F-16s? Not as much.

Here's the deal. In 1787, our military was nominally funded and equipped. To ensure a defense, the 2nd Amendment allowed for private citizens to keep and bear arms as a private militia. Over the years, the military became better funded and better organized, and the need for private militas as a military supplement waned. States even drew up their own National Guards. Now, over time people also argued that the 2nd Amendment covered the ability to keep and bear arms for things such as hunting and personal safety. And that was met with various degrees of acceptance.

But nowhere was it intended that the 2nd Amendment was meant to give private citizens the right to protect against a supposedly tyrannical government. That's just unchecked paranoia speaking, and would give any dumbass the right to claim he's stockpiling an arsenal for what he claims is government tyranny but is in fact normal government operation.

And let's say, hypothetically speaking, that somewhere down the road the United States falls victim to a governmental leader who actually is tyrannical and evil and worth rebelling against. I'm talking like Hitler or Stalin territory. Any rebellion that is made up of nothing more than ragtag groups of gun owners would be squashed like a bug. It might only be successful if there were massive military defections with access to military grade weaponry. Even that might not be enough--look at Libya. Ghadaffi didn't fall until we brought in our jet fighters. The initial wave without assistance resulted in massive casualties for rebel forces.

[thefool_wa]

33. I'm gald to see you have already surrendered.

MILLIONS of people own guns, there are militias all over this country. Rag-tag is HARDLY what I would call it. Plus, in your example, it would require the military being willing to oppress the people it defends, and I honestly don't think that will ever be an issue.

However, I will say again, tyranny comes in MANY forms. IT doesn't take a tyranical president, sometimes all it takes it the decision to not pay minimum wage, or buy an election.

THe ability to stave off tyranny is KEY to the second amendment, and is as relevant now as ever, perhaps even more.

I will refer you back to all the sscreams of tyranny that came from this very board for 8 years under bush, and the blindness many people have to the fact that NOTHING about those complaints changed under Obama. You don't want this right, then we might as well take all of them away. One could argue religion is EVEN MORE deadly than guns, and doesn't require them to do its damage.

You blow me off as paranoid because you don't want to face the FACT that we only have one or two rights left that haven't been completely trampled by our government, and when they remove this one as well, we won't have any way to defend the rest of them.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

36. People like you SCARE me.

Don't get me wrong. The government will from time to time do things that I don't like, or that upset me, or anger me.

But people like you? They scare me, much more than the government at this time could ever scare me. Seriously.

Martin Luther King, Jr. beat Jim Crow. And it didn't take a single bullet for him to do so.

[thefool_wa]

37. And people like you scare me

Because you will choose the illusion of security over our rights.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

39. Like I said:

This man accomplished a triumph over injustice in this country without having to pick up a single gun, or have any of his followers do likewise.

Ironically, and sadly, the only thing that could stop him was an armed citizen.

[thefool_wa]

44. I don't believe that will happen again

It may be pessimistic, but I feel the corrupting influences on everything around us are so entrenched that I fear there is no single man who can overcome them peaceably.

Civil Rights is a direct and identifiable cause of oppression, something you can give a face too because it affects a visibly different segment of the population.

There is no MLK of labor laws, there is no MLK of "corporate personhood", there is no MLK of Habeus Corpus, and all the exercising of the first amendment we have hasn't affected any of those things one bit.

Its awesome that MLK never lifted a gun to get change, but if Thomas Jefferson had done the same thing, who knows what this country would look like right now.

It should also be pointed out that it took a gun to put the final punctuation on the civil rights movement, just fired by the wrong guy at the wrong target. Just sayin.

[thucythucy]

97. "There is no MLK"--because Martin Luther King was shot by an idiot

with a gun, no doubt convinced, like you, that he was protecting us all from "tyranny."

And your statement that "it took a gun to put the final punctuation on the civil rights movement" is flat out disgusting. "Just fired by the wrong guy at the wrong target."

Just? Just?

[thefool_wa]

100. I stand by it

Civil rights may not have come together as quickly as it did if MLK hadn't been assassinated. IN fact, based on the way I see this world working around me, he would probably be fighting the fight still today. I am not saying he should have been killed, I think that is what you think I implied, all I am saying is that his assassination moved things forward.

Also, he wasn't killed by someone protecting us from tyranny, he was killed by a racist, so there's that.

The great thing about abject speculation, anyone can do it.

[thucythucy]

117. That's a ridiculous assertion, unsupported by any facts.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were both passed by Congress and signed into law before Rev. King was murdered, largely as a result of his nonviolent activism. Nothing, absolutely nothing, was moved forward by his murder, which prompted riots and more senseless killings in the short term, and led to the unravelling--without his leadership--of the non-violent direct action civil rights movement in the long term, since there was quite literally no one skillful enough, and with the necessary charisma, to take his place. The resulting violence also fueled the backlash against civil rights--a backlash from which we are only now emerging, largely thanks--aside from nonviolent activism--to demographic changes that are swamping the aging white male racist vote.

"He was killed by a racist, so that's that."

Sorry, but many of the most vocal defenders of gun rights in the name of fighting "tyranny" are also out and out racists. They see measures such as the Civil Rights Act as "tyranny"--defined by them. The Southern Poverty Law Center, among others, has done a tremendous job documenting the activity of these groups.

I notice you dodged all questions on who gets to define "tyranny." Teabaggers define "tyranny" as Obamacare, and voting rights for minorities, and marriage equality, among other things. Glenn Beck, also a 2nd amendment fundamentalist, defines tyranny as the election of President Obama.

The fact that you support these folks being armed to the teeth, all in the name of fighting "tyranny" is frightening at best, delusional at the very worst.

[patrice]

41. Right "tyranny comes in many forms" & If you can't recognize your OWN tyranny, you ARE the most

tyrannical of all, especially when your "blindness", INTENTIONAL or otherwise, is accompanied by the potential for the ultimate violence, which ultimate violence you claim as a right whether it oppresses others or not.

[thefool_wa]

49. If you don't like the rights gauranteed to americans

Find somewhere else to live. It really is that simple. This is not me excommunicating you from the group - this is me presenting your options, just like anyone would over speech, religion, the press, trial by jury ALL of it.

There is no oppression in the second amendment, it is the exact opposite, but again fear is making you believe that somehow my supporting our rights makes me the tyrant. I am not.

[laundry_queen]

103. Love it or leave it?

It's like the GWB years all over again.

Put it this way - people like me are FAR more likely to be in danger from people like you than we ever are from some imaginary tyranny. There is already tyranny in the US - the tyranny gun nuts and the NRA put ordinary citizens through every day. What if those tyrants you are worried about protecting yourself against are already here, and you're on their side? Do I get to protect myself against your 'tyranny'??

[thefool_wa]

107. THIS IS A RIGHT!

Why is it you can tell people that its OK to want to strip one right away but not another. These are the FUNDAMENTAL rights of our nation, they are what MAKES US Americans, so ya, if you don't like it, find someplace where the fundamental rights are different because i refuse to give this one up because you are scared.

This isn't Bush saying "love it or leave it" this is a fellow American saying YOU CAN'T TAKE MY RIGHTS!

I would say that about speech, religion, press, trial by jury, habeus corpus, ALL OF IT! If you don't like that we have these rights, then get out now, because this country is never going to be the gun free utopia you desire, it will never even be close. Its not that I don't want you here, it's that you oppose what IS America, so obviously you don't want to be here.

And how am *I* a danger to you, because I am expressing my first amendment right to defend the second amendment? I assert that we have more to fear from you, its people like you that let the Nazi's take over Germany because "its safer without those rights" and without those people.

Tyranny is not imaginary, you have just convinced yourself of that because you don't want to face the fact that the situation deteriorates in this country more and more every year and if we keep letting it go the way its going not only will we loose all of our rights, but we will be left with no way to get them back.

All of the things everyone on this board (including myself) complained about during the Bush admin, then mysteriously STOPPED complaining about when Obama was elected (despite the fact that NOTHING changed) are the hallmarks of impending tyranny. We even CALLED IT THAT during the Bush admin, but now, somehow, the same policies are acceptable. Someday, when all our rights are stripped and we are corporate slaves, you will ask yourself why we left ourselves with no way to restore freedom and liberty.

[laundry_queen]

109. My right to life

trumps your right to own a gun. There are some rights that trump others. You say your second amendment right to own a gun in case of some obscure tyranny in some far off imagined crazy future is more important than my right to live my life without being gunned down. I disagree. There have been hundreds of people who have had their 'rights' taken away since Newtown. Their rights were every bit as important as yours. It's too bad you can't see past the end of your nose.

And the Nazi thing - nice touch.

Look, there are a lot of things wrong with the US...some things might even be called fascist. However, if you are using the current situation to advocate for use of guns, then you have an issue. Guns will never solve a darn thing even if tyranny comes in the form of the federal government. You are dreaming if you think your arsenal will make things any better. It won't. Oh, and we already are corporate slaves. Yet you are here posting online instead of restoring freedom. Why is that?

When you call me scared, I can only see you are projecting. You are the one who is scared. Scared of government. Scared of society. Scared of the future. Scared your guns might be taken away. The only thing I'm currently scared of is - you.

[jmg257]

29. You do realize your 'protection against tyranny' was your right & duty to participate in a

well regulated Militia right? So - are you a member of the Guard?

Because otherwise you seem just like the other dumbasses trying to justify possession of assault weapons & hi-cap mags so they can commit treason or otherwise become part of an unlawful combination or insurrection.

[ReRe]

31. You say you're sickened...

...by what happened at Sandy Hook. But what do you think needs to be done to stop the madness that seems to occur on a daily basis in this country now? It looks to me like it would behoove you second amendment advocates do something to control your compadres. You all need to get hold of yourselves and realize that if you don't do something to stop this madness,
then the second amendment itself just might get amended.

[thefool_wa]

45. There is no stopping it

The world is a terrible and dangerous place. Restricting our rights hasn't changed that in the past, it wont change it in the future.

My solution is to accept the risk, which is what I did every day before sandy hook, and, regardless of any "gun control" measure that is passed, it is what I will have to do every day after and from now on. It's the way of the world.

We could ban and remove all guns from the world tomorrow and someone like "whats his name" (I refuse to learn psycho killers names) will just go to home depot, buy some granulated fertilizer and a gallon of diesel, and blow a big hole in a school. Its the risk we take every day of our lives, and subverting our rights will NEVER have a meaningful impact on that.

[ReRe]

56. Seriously...that is your reply?

You and I are talking past each other here. So, let me get this straight, as I really do want to converse with you... You think that raging maniacs with guns are inevitable? And there's nothing we can do about it? That there's absolutely nothing we can do about raging maniacs with guns, that we live in a war zone and need to just get used to it?

That sounds pretty fatalistic. So what IS the need for a constitution and a bill of rights? How can we call ourselves civilized if we choose a society based on fatalism?

[thefool_wa]

59. School shootings in america go back to 1764

So yes, this has ALWAYS been a part of our culture back to before the idea of the right to bear arms was ever penned.

Psychos have always been out there, they will always be out there, and when they want to go out in a spectacular way, making what they want to use illegal isn't going to stop them, they will just find something else. Its not like this is new, or recent, or preventable, it just is. You can not accept that all you want, it is still true.

I choose to accept it and do what I can to defend MYSELF and my family from it, and believe it or not that doesn't involve a gun. I don't think we are going to solve this problem by limiting our rights, we are going to solve it by 1) NOT having a culture that roots itself in dividing us over every issue, every day 2) not letting our country be thrown into the ditch of perpetual poverty, therby increasing the hopelessness and sometimes misguided necessity that I feel is the true root of all this violence.

I think I was a little too single-sided in my argument, I don't think we should do NOTHING, I just think that an assault weapons ban and magazine capacity limits don't do anything but subvert the purpose of the second amendment. I put forth an idea below I think will actually increase security, but its never going to be 100%, and even with my idea, I think the net effect is a fraction of a percent.

I do what I feel is necessary to protect myself from what I honestly feel is the inevitable violence of modern life, mostly that involves staying away from people as much as possible (I work from home, so that is pretty easy). However, every day my kids go out there, I have to send them out there, and there is no way I can do that without accepting that every day there is a risk that ANYTHING could keep them from coming home that day. As far as I am concerned, that is called life, so I deal with it.

on edit: mistype in the year in the subject

[ReRe]

68. Well, now you are sounding a little more coherent...

... But, just because something has happened since the dawn of mankind does not mean we should think we can't change. Thousands of years of wrongs don't make something right or inevitable. Believe it or not, that's the kind of BS I've heard in church before. "There's always been suffering. Suffering is good." or "There's always been poor people." "Or there's always been war". (BTW, the church lost me with those excuses. I finally walked out and never went back.) Or like the crap that was started by Reagan or Lee Attwater beck in the '80s "Poor people want to be poor." I don't buy that argument. Never did, never will.

Gun controls that are being discussed "subvert the purpose of the second amendment."???? You lost me there. So the 2nd amendment is only about taking on the "tyrannical government." Is that what you think the 2nd amendment is about, bottom line? Do you realize how irrational that sounds? Really? If you are honestly a sane individual, you can't believe that. Maybe back in the late 1780s-1790s. But today? You're going to take on the USG with assault weapons? Really. Listen to yourself, man.

I've got to go live life (cook dinner).

[thefool_wa]

91. Bottom Line

I feel, today, that the second amendment will provide us the tools to take our country and our system of government back from the power-money corruptive influences that undermine our democracy today and will continue to grow, unchecked, until we do something violent about it. I TRULY HOPE THIS IS NEVER NECESSARY, but without guns, if it does happen, we are left with NO way to stop it. This is the modern equivalent of the reason the 2nd amendment was originally given to us.

It just hasn't reached the boiling point yet, and I am not saying it will, but it has done nothing but get worse and worse and all our "non violent" protesting has gotten us is people camping in the rain getting pepper-sprayed while those same influences continue to destroy both our democracy, and our ability to live in a country ALL OF US love.

I have to say yet again, that I don't believe we should do nothing, but consider this. Even if they DO ban semi-auto rifles and high capacity magazines, corproations and private security forces all over the country will still be able to buy them. NOW how do you take your country back. When those same corporations loby our government to let them build cities they can move workers to and pay them in script and gruel, THEN how do we take back our country?

I do not think these are unreasonable fears, not when you consider the direction this country has been going for a very long time now. It will take maybe another 50 years or more, but if we do nothing, it will never change. And when we have tried everything else and they still thumb their noses at us, scoop all the money up and leave us starving, how then are we to get our country back?

I get you all think I am paranoid, but its not due to lack of cause. Things haven't gotten better under Obama, no matter how much you want to believe it, and they are only going to get worse. CAN we fix it without violence, I think so, and i hope so, but if not, without the tools to take it back, we are left having to watch it get worse and swallow all of us until we live in a 3rd world country filled with nothing but the uber rich and the uber poor.

[ReRe]

96. I couldn't disagree with you more...

... but thank you for the civil conversation.
But just remember, the USG won't be civil and you'll be toast.

[thefool_wa]

98. I don't understand how

you can have the sig line you have and doubt that I have a valid point.

The military will never be used against us, never. Soldiers won't kill American citizens, so that is moot. It's the corporations and monied elite that we need to be vigilant against and honestly, I prefer a fighting chance to abject capitulation

Giving up the tools that will keep this country free is rolling over and accepting things like corporations are people and money is speech. These concepts will destroy any semblance of democracy left in this country and my sincere hope is that they can be overcome peaceably, but what if they can't? Why should we surrender that kind of fight before it ever begins?

[Doctor_J]

121. Wrong again

The US is a terribly dangerous place. Rest of the developed world, not so much

[patrice]

38. Admit it, you would sacrifice ANYTHING & everything for your gun, even all of the potentials of your

child's future. You would allow every bit of everything for anyone and everyone to be WARPED by the violence of guns protecting guns for the sake of guns. There is NOTHING you would not give to that effort.

[thefool_wa]

53. No

I accept the risks inherent with life. I believe our rights are there for a reason, and I would gladly die defending them before rolling over to tyranny. Take away the guns, I don't even get the choice, rolling over BECOMES the right.

You demonize me because you are afraid, I choose to accept the risks that come with just living. ANYTHING on ANY given day can take that future away from my children. I refuse to give up our rights over fear. You believe that somehow these two measures are going to magically take the risks away, well I hate to break this to you, it does not, cannot, and never will.

I refer you back to columbine, which happened the last time we did meaningless things like banning weapons for the way they are shaped or how many bullets they hold.

Thanks for demeaning and demonizing me for my beliefs though, that definitely validates your arguments. All I have done is express my beliefs and my own acceptance of the risks, which are my rights to do. Your rights support your ability to mock me for those beliefs, and i respect that, but it has the exact same affect on the argument that the NRA's ludicrous statements about guns NOT being a problem. So please, take that into consideration next time.

I did post my idea of a solution below, please read that and take it into consideration before you accuse me of not caring if my children die again.

[patrice]

40. It's NOT your right if you oppress the rights of others by means of it; that makes it a PRIVILEGE.

[thefool_wa]

55. 2nd amendment, bill of RIGHTS

the sooner you accept this the sooner we can have an actual discussion. Removing a right out of fear is an ACTUAL form of tyranny, all I am suggesting is that people should have the ability to exercise their right to keep it at bay.

[JanMichael]

66. Yo! Over-reactionary dumbass....I don't know how old you are, but WHEN

you figure out that NOTHING is a "Right" in this lifetime, do come back and post.

You don't have a "right" to shit. You could be killed tonight by a lightning strike...did nature somehow fuck up your "right?"

STFU, and learn to be happy with handguns and rifles that are perfectly acceptable.

[thefool_wa]

86. Thanks for the reasonalbe reply

now **** off for not adding anything congenial to the conversation.

[Doctor_J]

119. Your post is preposterous, from the get-go

The 2nd amendment is just as important to the protection of this country against tyranny as the first.

We have bogus elections, vote suppression, "Free Speech Zones", crooked judicial system, rampant unpunished white collar crime, tiny minorities overriding wildly popular programs, and so on. Why haven't your assault weapons and high-load magazines prevented any of that? Your weapons are used to shoot school children and congresspersons that Limbeciles don't like. they haven't done a damn thing to prevent tyrants from taking over.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

18. Idea for an editorial cartoon, if it hasn't already been done:

The title would read, "Reactions to Sandy Hook Shootings", and there would be two panels.

The first panel would read "Parent", and would depict a parent hugging his or her children and exclaiming, "My babies!"

The second panel would read "Gun Enthusiast", and would depict a gun enthusiast hugging two AR-15s and exclaiming, "My babies!"


Someone had to have already thought of this. If not, they should.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

82. They have

Last edited Thu Jan 31, 2013, 09:51 PM - Edit history (1)

I remember it being posted.

[patrice]

25. I think it's possible to demonstrate that the guns have become an absolute end in and of themselves

There is nothing, no one, no value, no experience, no personality, no fact - N - O - T - H - I - N - G - that takes priority over guns in, of, about, and for guns themselves and nothing else and that includes the bullshit that they spout about "Liberty" and "Freedom".

These NRA people are slaves. The ring of their for REAL master is the front end of any gun's barrel. Their guns own them.

[villager]

27. And yet people who do are posting, as we speak, in the gungeon...

Alas.

[Uncle Joe]

50. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[patrice]

65. Watch out! You're going to get deemed "a corrupting influence". nt

[thefool_wa]

85. Wow again

get a grip.

[thefool_wa]

51. Here is what I support

Armories. Privately constructed and run, legally obligated, 24 hour accessible armories that people are forced to keep their "assault weapon" classified armaments in, stored in individual lockers, accessible to only the people who rent them. Yes its an additional expense, but it also opens up a new private market (something that is always good) and allows private citizens to own the weapons they choose to own while forcing the ones that are kept for "militia purposes" to be kept in a building that has legislated design that will keep the weapons from being stolen by those who would use them for harm.

Sporting and handguns can still be kept at home.

I don't think this is unreasonable (though I know the far right will, and regardless of what anyone I have interacted with here today may suspect, I am NOT a far right winger or a "gun nut", just someone who believes we shouldn't sacrifice any of our rights for the illusion of security). IN fact, I think it is closer to a solution that outright bans ever will be because it takes the weapons that are already out there out of the homes they can be stolen from.

It should be noted, however, that even this measure will do little to affect the actual safety of the world. The unfired weapons in that guys pocket that weren't assault weapons (the hand guns), even with only 10 round mags, would have done equal damage. However, if we are playing the "we have to do SOMETHING" game, THIS is what I support.

I hope this at least partially alleviates anyone's fears that I am some kind of psycho I am not, I just love my country, and my rights, and am tired of having them stripped away.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

87. What are you scared of?

Why do you need to have a firearm when you go out to the movies? Plays? Dinner?

It's irrational thinking. 200 people were shot today, most of these likely NOT to be criminals.

[thefool_wa]

90. Prove it, don't just assume because it backs your point.

Oh and, did you not see what happened in aurora? THAT is why you need a gun when you go to the movies.

Its our right, I refuse to have our rights taken away out of fear, period.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

92. It's not a right to have a gun

What happened in Aurora was easily accessible firearms with little or no background check. He was buying ammunition after ammunition and no one said a peep. Sudafed? Buy lots of it and people will think you're running a meth lab and you'll get investigated.

Do you really think you could have stopped the theatre shooter? Really?

[thefool_wa]

94. You don't know unless you try.

And I wasn't talking about how the shooter got the gun, I said that is why one should take a gun to the movies with them.

Maybe not me, I don't carry, as I have said repeatedly in this thread, I don't own a gun. However, my brother was a marine, is a crack shot, and fearless. IF him and i had been at the movies that day, that guy would not be on trial today, he would be dead, and rightfully so.

I get you don't like guns, but what if I don't like the freedom of speech, or feel that jury trials are costing the government too much money and in this age of deficit spending we should just do away with them for efficiency sake. They are all rights and all should be protected equally as all have equal (yes equal) potential for harm. Don't believe me? How many people have died over religious disputes in the world? What about people imprisoned or put to death for speaking their mind? rights are inherently dangerous, and this one is FUNDAMENTAL to the protection of our nation, so important that it is ratified BEFORE habeus corpus, jury trials, pretty much everything except religion, speech and press.

So ya, its more important than your illusion of safety. Even in Norway, where guns are way more regulated than they are here, someone still walked into a camp of children with a semi-auto rifle (an illegal one I believe) and started killing them. You will never be 100% safe, all you can do is protect yourself.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

99. The guns in norway

Were 100% legal, the bullets he used were illegal (cop killer ones). The people were at a camp that was held without incident for many years and people felt safe there.

I really don't like it when people say they are crack shots and could have taken down the theatre shooter. I very rarely shoot guns (the last time being a skeet shoot over 7 years ago) but I have very good hand-eye coordination due to my deafness and often have very good aim at my target despite no training in guns at all. Yet I choose not to own guns because, aside from the fact that they are incredibly hard to acquire in the uk, I just don't see the need for them.

The uk has very strict regulations and they have on average 40 gun deaths a year. It'd take them over 30 years to reach the number of gun deaths the US has since Newtown. Japan spends more money than the US on video games and their gun deaths? 11.

If you don't understand.... Well.. You're stupid.

[thefool_wa]

101. Your argument is invalid

because you decided to call me stupid, thanks for the civil discourse.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

114. You're not seeing the problem

With guns permeating the American culture, so I am will within my rights to call you stupid.

[duhneece]

52. Eloquent. Elegant. True.

I love it.

[flyover22]

61. Yes, and someone needs to contact the Commandant of the Marine Corps and put a stop to

This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

My rifle is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life.

My rifle, without me, is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will...

My rifle and myself know that what counts in this war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, nor the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count. We will hit...

My rifle is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strength, its parts, its accessories, its sights and its barrel. I will ever guard it against the ravages of weather and damage as I will ever guard my legs, my arms, my eyes and my heart against damage. I will keep my rifle clean and ready. We will become part of each other. We will...

Before God, I swear this creed. My rifle and myself are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. We
are the saviors of my life.

So be it, until victory is America's and there is no enemy, but peace!

[Electric Monk]

112. Epic context fail. I don't think anyone is talking about taking guns away from the Armed Forces.

Cutting the Pentagon budget? Sure, that's a topic of discussion. But that's way different than what you're trying and failing to address, too.

[CJCRANE]

115. I think the poster might be saying the opposite

of what you think he's saying.

In his post header he says "put a stop to" indicating that he is against the spiel.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

124. I took it as sarcastic/humorous as well

Its The Rifleman's Creed. Near and dear to every Marine.

[CJCRANE]

126. Yes, I took it as the poster being against the rifleman's creed. nt

[Tommy_Carcetti]

125. I'd refer you to my own post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022294736

And yes, I know, "It's a Marine thing."

But we're not all in the Marines, nor are we in combat.

[MH1]

128. Huh?? WHERE in that is that the rifleman must love his rifle more than his children?

And the OP has nothing to do with the military or military weapons.

So how does your comment have anything to do with the OP?

Epic Fail.

I usually can't stand that phrase, let alone use it, but the other words that come to mind would give me my first hidden post, and I'm not in the mood for that today.

[flyover22]

129. It's a shame you cannot comprehend simple English as stated in the 'creed'.

jebusfukkinchrist...

\

[Doctor_J]

118. there's almost nothing left in the US to be proud of

Gun nuts, disgraceful health care, income disparity, infrastructure decimation, perpetual war, galloping ignorance, fascist judicial system, bogus elections, etc., etc., etc.

We need to face the fact that we are a 3rd-world Banana Republic at the current moment. This will change if and only if we do something drastic about Hate Radio.