By Tom Cushing
Comments
Can any person (civilians) reasonable defend having a large clip rifle (semi-automatic for those slow about these things), a fully auto 'spray and pray' rifle or a true assault (SAW) rifle? 2nd amendment did not have these in mind as they did not exist. There is also the bid detail of the word 'militias' in the wording. A pesky word the NRA ignores.
I think very reasonable if you think you need a large clip, semi or full automatic rifle you need a 'special' license that requires training. No different than when you want to 'drive' a car.
and really, for home protection, a rifle in close quarters? Right, perhaps for dotards.
There is no need for gun control for those of us that do not own guns.
Around my home, if there is ever a need for a gun, I will call the police, they have my back.
Is this well-regulated militia: Web Link
The Southern Poverty Law Center has a listing of tons of American Hate Groups.
Are hate groups consider well-regulated militia?
Even Nancy Reagan admitted to carrying a tiny gun for protection.
I'm not completely against gun ownership. Unfortunately, even some police seem to enjoy killing others...and, they're let off the hook?
Hate Groups: Web Link
Police Departments often have the back of many people of color in their sights.
Is that what is mean by "I will call the police, they have my back"?
The world is not always safe for all Americans...ask Trump about it?
Ah! Something I can sink my Glock, I mean my teeth into.
First, Oh, the Scotty Hale. Listen up, my man. First, there is no such thing as a "large clip," at least not in the way that you are attempting to define it. If you are talking about the thingy that holds rounds (ammo) below an AK-47 or AR-15, it's called a "magazine." A "clip" is quite different, and is generally used to reload a "wheel gun," like what you would see in a cowboy movie. Geeze, and you talk about other people being, in your words, "...slow about these things."
Second, very few people in the United States can actually own a "fully automatic weapon." Fully auotmatic weapons are heavely regulated and very expensive to own -which makes me think that you are talking about semi-auto rifles like the AR-15 platform? If that's the case, a deer rifle like a .306 is much more powerful and can shoot at a much greater distance that an AR-15. And some .306 rifles have a "magazine" that hold additional ammunition - just like an AR-15. I will agree with you that "fully automatic weapons" have no place in civilian society. I believe that "fully automatic weapons" should be for military use only. The strange thing is that I never hear anyone talk abou the shotgun.
The shotgun - my favorite of all time! The shotgun, in my humble opnion, is the scariest weapon out there. Just the sound of racking a round into the chamber of a shotgun is enough to make anyone drop to their knees. Aside from that, a shotgun can shoot a variety of ammunition. For example, if someone wanted to take out a large group of people with one shot, the shotgun can do it. The spread from buck shot can widen several feet about every 10 yards. Basically, the shotgun is simply a point and shoot weapon. On the other hand, using slug shot - which is simply a big lead cap - will put a hole in the target three to four inches in diameter.
So here's the thing: When I hear people call the AR-15 an "assault weapon" I simply shake my head. Why not call a .306 and the shotgun an assault weapon? After all, the AR-15 is a semi-automatic weapon - one trigger pull per round just like the others (unless of course you are allowed to have a fully automatic AR-15 in your state). Definatley not in California.
What you say about a shotgun is enuf to scare the tar out most Americans.
I believe that the military needs to know how to use various weapons in combat. Hopefully, Trump will not lead our country into a war with anybody...ever. A shotgun is no match for nuclear weapons.
Young Americans are speaking truth to power and someday, they will vote, change gun laws, and hopefully make our daily lives safer. Or, specific politicians will be voted out of power.
The NRA will hopefully tone down and support a message of peace and safety. Who knows, the Second Amendment will perhaps one day be redefined...sooner than later!
I do appreciate the information provided about various guns, but no more please. Gracias.
So you don't believe in the 2nd Amendment? My right to bear arms?
This guy, Cholo, said the following:
"Unfortunately, even some police seem to enjoy killing others..."
Hey Tom, are you going to allow this kind of crap on your blog?
Oh Hex: I was talking to the lowest and slowest denominator. Media always refers to them as 'clips' not magazines.
Boy, slow are we? How many web sites have kits where you can convert a semi to full automatic? And I'M not talking 'bump stocks'. Sheesh, catch up.
I see you avoided most what was brought up to begin with. Nobody can defend having a semi or converted full automatic 'long gun' in their homes for 'protection'. Most would know you a rifle makes for horrible close quarters action. What ya going to do; snipe a 'bad actor' from across the street? Right. You must not know the law very well.....
I'm all for the 2nd amendment. I'm also for 'control' as I mentioned (and you missed) no different from driving a car. You need to pass a few tests, have insurance etc etc. AND you need to renew once a year. Reasonable.
and before you come completely unglued; yes I own a long gun. No ammo tho...and no magazine or clip needed...scratch your head on that.
<Young Americans are speaking truth to power and someday, they will vote, change gun laws, and hopefully make our daily lives safer. Or, specific politicians will be voted out of power.>
Actually, they are not.
The entire Parkland incident was caused by a mentally unstable person who should been intercepted by law enforcement after they were warned about him numerous times. And would have been stopped by the current firearms background check system if he'd been criminally charged and/or been involuntarily committed.
All we are hearing from these kids is that guns and the NRA were "responsible" for it and anyone owning an "assault weapon" is collectively guilty of violence. Nothing new here. Just a textbook response from so called progressives.
More legal regulations on guns won't make the criminals comply with them either. How about voting out the politicians who won't hold people accountable for their actions/treat the criminals like victims instead?
<I'm all for the 2nd amendment. I'm also for 'control' as I mentioned (and you missed) no different from driving a car. You need to pass a few tests, have insurance etc etc. AND you need to renew once a year. Reasonable.>
Not reasonable. The average person who owns a gun has nothing to do with what happens on the streets of our cities and it's no longer a "right" if the government controls the process from start to finish. At best, you have a right to ask permission and hope it will be granted.
The same people advocating for what you propose are the same ones arguing that there are "too many guns" in our nation, that people don't "need" to own them, and that other nations are more "civilized" because they prohibit ownership. And you want these kind of people deciding what is required to own/use them? No thanks. It's easy to see how that's going to turn out. Very few, if anyone, will be allowed to do so.See what is involved with legally owning a gun in New York City.
Randy: Web Link
The above may be helpful.
This Scotty Hale... What a prize.
He attempts to draw linkage (1970's SALT weapons term) to the conversion of a legal weapon into an illegal weapon. Which he is using as an argument to ban all legal weapons in the first place.
Hey Scott, instead of hiding behind your hidden agenda, Why don't you just come out and say that you don't believe I have a right to defend myself. Scotty also admits to owning a rifle, and admits he has no ammo for it. What???? LOL!!!! Wow, why bring this topic up?
Unfortunately, old Scotty doesn't see the big picture. If the government takes away the "long rifle," what's next? And why shouldn't I have the right to own a semi-auto rifle? I enjoy shooting. I'm a responsible gun owner.
So, what have I learned today: Scotty owns a rifle, has no ammo for it, says he believes in the 2nd amendment, but believes no one has the right to own a rifle.
A strange universe indeed.
<perhaps even the handiness of keeping those assault rifles around the house.>
The 2nd Amendment is not about "need" or "handiness".
What's the rationale for banning (or confiscating) these types of guns from law abiding people other than people thinking they are scary looking? They use the same firearms technology (gas operated, magazine fed) that has been around for 100 years. The FBI reports that more people are killed by knives than long guns of any type.
An "assault weapon" is whatever politicians want it to be. California has already redefined it several times after the initial 1989 legislation - and has threatened legal action for previous owners if they didn't register/alter them. Dianne Feinstein predicted there would be an explosion of violence after the federal assault weapons ban expired in 2004. It never happened.
My sister's husband is a physician and he owns an AR15. So exactly what is going to happen or go wrong if we don't make him turn it in? Abuse of firearms is a personal responsibility issue - and the left wing is again showing us they don't want to hold people accountable. Violence is somehow the "fault" of the gun, gun manufacturer,gun show, gun shop, etc. This kind of reasoning process will inevitably lead to shutting down the legal process to own guns. Which is exactly what happened in Washington DC before the Supreme Court got involved.
@ MichaelB: Say it!
The thing that gets me is when people say an AR-15 is a scary weapon. As I stated before regarding the AR vs .306, the .306 is a much more powerful weapon. But the .306 does not look as "scary" as your AR. It comes down to a "cosmetic" thing to the uneducated, I guess.
Also, this Scotty Hale person never mentioned the .22 rifle. A .22 round won't go through a person or a wall, but it's still a rifle. I guess the .22 should be confiscated too?
But, but, what about handguns? My Smith and Wesson M&P 9mm is more powerful than the .22 rifle. So, should I have to give up my handgun?
Great topic.
"But, but, what about handguns? My Smith and Wesson M&P 9mm is more powerful than the .22 rifle. So, should I have to give up my handgun?"
That was the demand from the gun control movement after the Reagan assassination attempt in 1981. We needed a ban on handguns because they "were only used for killing people".
What needs to be given up? Anything the gun control movement wants, whenever it wants it.
I have never owned a gun, never expect to own a gun, and do not belong to the NRA. However, this issue of "gun control", or blaming guns for horrible things bad, unstable people do with guns, is very important to me. It is very important to many people who are just like me, non-gun owners, who know and understand history, not the p.c. history taught by far left in CA, but rather actual history taught by historians, who were apolitical.
Truth be told, our country was founded by people who had a common denominator of being self reliant, not turning to the government to do things for us, and not wanting the government to harass and regulate our every day lives. This was particularly true of those settling in the West, who had to work hard, be self reliant, and take care of themselves and their families in harsh, dangerous, and uncertain lands. Owning a gun was a symbol of being an American, important enough to our founding fathers to be codified in the Second Amendment. That is our history, that is what our founding fathers were all about. Gun ownership allowed our territories to be developed, to grow, to prosper. Guns allowed us to defend ourselves, to hunt, and to protect our families. We did rely on the government to protect us from every evil, we were self reliant people. That is our history.
Our country over time has betrayed the ideals and reasons we left England to come to a dangerous land. People stopped studying history, and instead pc ideologist took over education, and turned on those symbols that created our nation of independence. We no longer are independent, we no longer are self reliant, we cry to the government for every imaginable perceived threat and wrong, and expect the government to control everything. The nation our forefathers imagined, and created, no longer exist.
We now blame guns for the evils in the world, rather than the evil people who misuse guns. Despite our Constitution, and the Second Amendment, the current pc world is slowly trying to remove your right to own a gun. Guns are like automobiles(although automobiles are not protected by our Constitution), where immature, unstable, and unlicensed people use them to commit bad acts. Unlike guns, nobody is calling to abolish the automobile. When an unlicensed drunk driver kills a family, nobody blames the automobile. Why, then, when an unlicensed drunk kills someone with a gun, do we call for the abolishment of guns?
I, and many others, see the gun as a final frontier on what our country is all about. Are we self-reliant, do we work hard and take care of our families, or are we reliant on the government to provide for us? Initially our government provided schools, roads, and state militia. Now, thru pc ideologist, many expect the government to provide meals for their kids at school, meals for their families, healthcare, a place to live, the internet, and everything else they desire. Is that what our country was founded on? Every time the government provides you with something, they also exercise control over you. That is the truth, and a real threat to liberty and freedom.
I am not a "gun nut", and as mentioned, do not own a gun, nor expect to own a gun. I have no problem with reasonable regulations, waiting periods, background checks, and perhaps making 21 the age to buy a gun. But what troubles me is the labeling of the gun as evil, the cause of all our problems, and those looking to the government to take away our rights to gun ownership. Gun ownership is the last connection we have to what our founders had in mind when they founded our nation. When the right to gun ownership is essentially destroyed, our country will officially stop being a nation of self reliant, independent, freedom loving people, and will become a nation where the government regulates and controls everything about us. That is not what our nation was founded on.
If you are going to debate "gun control", realize there are many people like me, who are non-gun owners, but realize the importance of gun ownership to the principles of self reliance and freedom our nation was actually founded on.
My two cents...
You KnowWho I Am,
Very well put, and it's noticed that Scott has run for the hills.
(I chuckled at your screen name because I think I know who you are.)
@You Know Who I Am:
There were no guns in America until the 1600's. Arriving white people brought the guns to this soil along with white people disease.
As the white people progressed across this land stealing the lands from the Indian people, killing, raping, and mutilating the Indian people to near extinction simultaneously destroying the Indian peoples food chain.
So Michael Austin, what are you saying? That we should not be allowed to own a gun in this country because there were no guns before the white man arrived?
Where do you stand on the issue of gun ownership?
"There were no guns in America..."
I believe that millions of indigenous people killed one another in the Americas and the Caribe prior to the coming of "white people" and guns.
Hopefully, there will eventually be a serious change in our constitution so we are all safer.
I'm more interested in protecting American children and vulnerable adults who are murdered and/or sexually abused by clergy of all faiths, especially Roman Catholic priests and nuns.
Clergy may not kill various populations, but it has been proven that they delight in destroying the lives of tens of thousands of innocent Americans. And, Catholic leaders lie about it daily and hide statistics.
All one has to do is review the website of BishopAccountability to understand the magnitude of the damage done to our country and its citizens.
If it was acceptable in the US to take out clergy who rape/murder children, then I might be more accepting of the NRA.
Personally, I believe that a 'symbol' that has been used to kill 600,000 Americans in 20 years and maim millions more does not connote self-reliance (and never did). It represents carnage, suffering and tragedy - especially when compared to the experience of the whole rest of the developed world.
Mr. YKWIA, whoever that is, gives us a fanciful "symbolic" history that also ignores the actual, limited purpose of the Second Amendment, contained in the Militias clause. Per former Justice JP Stevens, today:
"Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “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." Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century."
A relic indeed, when we spend more for our militaries than the next ten nations, combined. Stevens calls for repeal, with which I agree - not to confiscate guns, but to put them on a legal par with every other dangerous instrumentality, in terms of safety requirements for their possession and use, for the rest of us, and for the 600,000. Stevens continues:
"For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.""
Only very recently has the 2A become almost a religious article-of-faith (as Malcolm asks: "you don't believe in the Second Amendment? - like it was some 11th Commandment. It's not.) Stevens:
"During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “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.""
Yes, fraud.
(The 2008 5-4 Heller decision) "has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power. Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.'s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option."
I agree it's time. Some readers will assume I want the big bad government (which is 'us') to take away their sacred weaponry. That is not true - I just want to take guns off their current high altar as some sacrosanct icon of Americana. It's time - past time for the 600,000. .
Stevens op-ed: Web Link
"Stevens calls for repeal, with which I agree - not to confiscate guns, but to put them on a legal par with every other dangerous instrumentality, in terms of safety requirements for their possession and use, for the rest of us, and for the 600,000."
Like the same "safety" requirements in Washington DC where private gun ownership was basically banned? Why is that most of the Democrats in Congress defended draconian regulations like these when they claim to only want "reasonable" ones on gun ownership? And that all of the so called progressives on the Supreme Court wanted to keep these same regulations "as is"? Why are almost all applicants for concealed weapons permits in the Bay Area are rejected regardless of their ability to complete training requirements/pass background checks?
What happens on the streets of our cities has nothing to do with a lack of "safety" requirements for the average person who legally owns/want to own guns. It's already against the law to abuse firearms - and guns don't commit acts of violence, they are not "germs" that cause disease that requires the CDC to study,etc..
So where's the outrage toward those who actually abuse them? Or are their actions the "fault" of the NRA, gun manufacturers, local gun shop, etc.? Some of us are tired of hearing/people defending the irritating "everybody is a victim/blame society" argument...again.
"Some readers will assume I want the big bad government (which is 'us') to take away their sacred weaponry. That is not true - I just want to take guns off their current high altar as some sacrosanct icon of Americana. It's time - past time for the 600,000. ."
And some people would like us to ignore that individuals representing a major political party in this nation like Hillary Clinton, Andrew Cuomo, and Barack Obama have suggested/promoted just that - Australian style gun control. You know, where the government instituted a mandatory "buyback" program (gun confiscation scheme)for law abiding people who had nothing to do with mass shootings?
It past time to expose what the gun control movement stands for - and what will happen if they get their way on this issue."Safety" has nothing to do with it.
Unlinked, over-broad claims do not merit reply, except to say that 'paranoia strikes deep.' Much of what everybody knows to be true, just ain't.
"Unlinked, over-broad claims do not merit reply, except to say that 'paranoia strikes deep.' Much of what everybody knows to be true, just ain't."
Just about "safety", right? Much what someone says, just ain't.
Web Link
Web Link
Web Link
So, Tom, it would appear that your demand to repeal the Second Amendment of our Constitution, a Constitution that is the most important document under our rule of law in the United States, is due to deaths related to the use of guns. Correct?
When you go to your rally in Walnut Creek to protest the Second Amendment, how do you get there? By automobile, correct? Are you ready to call for the abolishment of automobile? According to the NHTSA, there were over 37,000 automobile fatalities in 2016 in the U.S. This number is actually increasing over the years, as in 2010 there were 30,000 automobile fatalities in the U.S. The NHTSA estimates there have been over 600,000 automobile fatalities in the U.S. in the last 20 years. In the U.S., we average approximately 102 automobile fatalities a day. Yes, a day.
I assume you are against abolishing automobiles(although unlike guns they are not constitutionally protected), as you blame the drivers of the automobiles, not the automobiles themselves, for the deaths. There are unlicensed,immature, reckless, irresponsible, unstable, mentally ill, under the influence people, misusing automobiles.
Just like there are unlicensed, immature, reckless, irresponsible, unstable, mentally ill, under the influence people misusing guns.
The Constitution is bigger than you, bigger than me, and not subject to changes based on the flavor of the day, or the current political climate. We are a nation based on the rule of law, not based on what the current officeholders in a state house or white house currently feel about an issue.
If you call for reasonable regulations, longer waiting periods to do more in depth background searches, and maybe having a federal law setting the age for 21 to buy a gun, I think I am on board with you.
How would you feel about legislation increasing the criminal penalty for any crime in which a gun is used? If safety is really your actual goal, I see no reason that you would object to that.
But once you start calling for repealing the Second Amendment of our Constitution, any credibility you may have is gone.
The can't hear enough of the voices of youth who are speaking up worldwide and saying no more guns, stop the killing of young people and their families.
From the voices of tens of thousands of youth are pearls of wisdom. Clearly, many adults are fearful of their message. The Hex, Mb, who i am, a few others mostly want to trash Tom and I have the impression that they are also fearful of losing control of their lives and others, not just guns.
I'm still amazed how the voices of youth continue to resonate, teaching how to live our lives more peacefully. VIVA STUDENTS! THANK YOU! LONG LIFE! GORA!
Correction: I can't hear enough of the voices of youth who are saying put down the guns!!! Those words are a BLESSING.
Mb: not "just" safety, but hooray for linkage. I will read with interest and get back to you.
Ahhh that pesky Constitution, eh blogger.
Ever notice when libs hate speech they tear up University's and businesses and call for changes in the 1st amendment so they don't have to hear conservatives speech?
Now it's guns and the 2nd amendment.
If you want to change the Constitution, then try and change it and stop all the belly aching.
Question: how many mass shooting were perpetrated by a member of the NRA?
Answer: none. :Web Link
There are a few other facts regarding mass shooting in the link as well.
Chew on that libs when you demonize an organization like the NRA.
Next up, the number of lives saved by members of the NRA.
We can use stats all day boys.
Cushing quoted another human being who once happened to be a former supreme court justice that characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “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."
I don't give a damn what former Chief Justice Burger had to say about the NRA. Burger was just another old man with an opinion. So what? Burger was a lifelong Republican, and many of the landmark decisions issued during his tenure represented clear liberal victories. It's no wonder why Cushing used this clown to back his argument.
No matter how you slice and dice it, the Second Amendment states that the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
And finally, Cushing said that he does not believe the government should take away our "Sacred weaponry." Yeah, sure. But then he comes back with this: "I just want to take guns off their current high altar as some sacrosanct icon of Americana." I say... WHAT??? Is that code for: Turn in your guns? LOL!!!!! C'mon man, stop back peddling.
El DÃa de la Madre se celebra cada año para honrar a las madres y respetar su maternidad. Se celebra el
segundo domingo del mes de mayo anualmente. Las madres están especialmente invitadas a venir a la
escuela de sus hijos para celebrar.
"From the voices of tens of thousands of youth are pearls of wisdom. Clearly, many adults are fearful of their message. The Hex, Mb, who i am, a few others mostly want to trash Tom and I have the impression that they are also fearful of losing control of their lives and others, not just guns."
Pearls of what? Just the predictable, worn out response after every mass shooting - blame guns, the NRA, the Republicans, accuse others of "not caring" if they don't support more gun laws, and then issue a list of items that need to be banned (for those having nothing to do with mass shootings).
Nothing about the failure of law enforcement and the school district to intercept and stop Cruz after repeated warnings about his behaviors and intentions.
Clearly we don't need children dictating public policy on this issue. Nor Tom. Him calling for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment speaks for itself. Law abiding citizens legally owning guns need to be disarmed/punished while violent behaviors are excused and rationalized.
Cruz (the psycho that killed 17 kids) was reported to the FBI and local police OVER 39 times and was not arrested even once because of a policy by the OBAMA administration encouraging local school governments and police departments turning the other cheek and not incarcerating juvenile offenders.
In what SANE world does a civilization allow criminals of any age to commit crimes and not prosecute?
The responsibility of this mass killing falls directly on libs and Democrats who implement these stupid frickin' policies in the first place!
Go ahead, prove me wrong.
There is ALWAYS a root cause analysis in everything and WEAPONS are not the root cause.
Tom, your attempt to paraphrase the Second Amendment, to try to make it say what you want it to say, is less than honest.
Any Constitutional(or legislative for that matter) analysis to determine the legislative intent behind the Amendment must always begin with a literal, not paraphrasing, reading of the Amendment itself. The usage of comma's as actually used in the Amendment must be literally read to show the intent. In the literal exact reading of the Amendment, including any comma's used, the intent of the framers is spoken.
The Second Amendment, contrary to your paraphrasing, does NOT say only the Militia has a right to keep and bear Arms. Rather, 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".
Those pesky little comma's actually used in the Second Amendment, that you fail to address, make a BIG difference in analyzing the intent behind the Amendment. Your paraphrasing ignores the fact there are comma's, showing that both the Militia and the people have a right to keep and bear Arms. Otherwise, there would be no reason to have those comma's in the sentence.
Moreover, if the intent was only for the Militia to have a right to keep and bear Arms, there would be no reason to add the comma's and the actual separate words "the right of the people" to the Amendment. Your paraphrasing completely ignores that literal phrase in the Second Amendment, "the right of the people". It does NOT say "the right of the Militia", it says the "right of the people" to keep and bear Arms.
If the intent was only for the Militia to have a right to keep and bear Arms, it would say that. A literal reading shows the actual phrase, "right of the people" to keep and bear Arms was used.
The fact that your buddy Bruce Maxwell pulled a gun on a female food delivery driver and is now facing serious criminal charges does not mean we throw our sacred Constitution out the door because "guns are evil". It means Bruce Maxwell is evil and needs to go to jail. He misused a gun, he was the problem. No different than if a fellow Oakland A was drunk and misused an automobile, the problem is not the automobile, it is the driver. We do not abolish cars because people misuse them. We do not abolish guns because people misuse them.
Here's a succinct video primer on the wording of the amendment:
Web Link
(watch the whole thing, less than 2 minutes long)
you're welcome
One quick comment about comments - merits later, when I get some time.
One of the unfortunate things about the rise of anonymous internet commentary, and Trumpism, is that it has convinced some folks that all opinions are created equal, whether they are informed or not. This phenomenon encourages tin-pot tyrants to try puffing themselves up with aggressive language (like derisive “LOLs!"), diminutive nicknames for other commenters (like “Scotty"), and denigration of others' credentials (like maybe Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court) that render their opinions actually worth considering. It also suggests to some that they can post any old crap as fact, without linking it to some credible source - as if: because they said it, it must be true. It's not.
The thing is, when you do that bully-boy stuff, you don't look bigger, or more persuasive, or authoritative - you just look tiny and ridiculous.
Try to keep that in mind, okay?
What threats are fake and which ones must be taken seriously?
Web Link
HOLA Resident...Do you suppose that some of the folks making school threats might possibly be Caucasoids?
just asking...BULLY GIRL!
MOTHER AND DAUGHTER SHOT TO DEATH IN PLEASANTON: Web Link
@Hex
You keep talking about a ".306" rifle. I've fired all kinds of rifles, and have never heard of that. Maybe you mean .308, or .30-06? Those are fairly common.
And by the way, I don't support the second amendment. I think it is out of date and would like to see it repealed.
MORE AMERICANS KILLED BY GUNS THAN BY ALL US WARS - COMBINED:
Web Link
7 thousand children murdered by guns since Sandy Hook:
Web Link
The posts by students from Hart Middle School are very thoughtful and greatly appreciated by this one! GRACIAS!
I post my response here because I'm not allowed to post on that site.
VIVA STUDENTS! It's comforting that we can expresses opinions, openly disagree, and not split off as a bad person.
VIVA HART MIDDLE SCHOOL! GORA!
At BobB - my bad baby, should have stated 30-06 instead of ".306;" which of course doesn't exist. I should have included the .308 though too.
Anyway, why do you not support the 2nd amendment? How is it out of date?
At Anon - You mean,7 thousand children were murdered by people.
Now, on to the big cheese... Good ol' Tom Cushing. Yes indeed! So, Tom said a "Symbol" has been responsible for killing over 600,000 thousand people! Wow! Symbols kill folks? Just curious: How many of them folk that killed people were NRA members?
You, Mr. Cushing, want to take the right to bear arms away from responsible gun owners. Hey, but why stop there, why not ban alcohol too, eh? After all, the number of alcohol related traffic fatalities in this country is staggering.
A knee-kerk reaction to solving a problem breeds more problems. For instance: how would you get guns away from criminals? Or would you start with law abiding folks first?
And finally... Your "credentialed" comment about a former chief justice actually proved my point. Law has become politicized, if a judge allows politics to alter his/her opinions, than what good are they?
Malcolm Hex wrote “And finally... Your "credentialed" comment about a former chief justice actually proved my point. Law has become politicized, if a judge allows politics to alter his/her opinions, than what good are they?"
As you pointed out yourself he is no longer a judge.
YUP...folks do die behine guns...Web Link
What's it like to experience so much anger everyday? ...wow, somebody must have really hurt you...was it Tom? Most like it's mommy and daddy stuff you're re-traumatizing...perhaps?
Signed,
Anony = Cholo
ps chill out hexagram tee hee hee
Web Link
dedicated my buddy hexagram...tee hee
signed,
Rev. Sharpton
Correction: Most likely, the hex is re-experiencing mommy/daddy trauma/rage but for some strange reason hex, your solution(s)keep you STUCK...so you're driven to jump on anything that breathes, that upsets you, that triggers your ole time distortions about what may have happened to you...it's sooooo waaaay cute!!!
It's so funny, I just may slip out of my house without my dogs and buy myself a double bacon cheese...yum yum plenty!
hahahahahaha...all the way home...
Truth appears to anger people Anon. So bet it.
HEXAGRAM...
du jour:
Web Link
I don't you sneaky way of asking me to marry you is TOTALLY NUTS!
BUSTED! now chill...dance it up...over 'n out
A big part of the problem with attempting any reasoned discussion with gun advocates, is that they, like Malcolm above, open-up in such a cat-scratch, Tednugentized lather that you think - geez, maybe that's the guy who Shouldn't have access to guns.
Another problem is the leap to the conclusion that if you think the 2A is a relic of a bygone era when the colonies clung to the east coast, the frontier was east of Pittsburgh and guns were muskets (which it is), that you somehow wanna take away their guns. That's nonsense.
I don't.
But starting from ground zero, neither do I see any logical reason why guns should get special treatment under the law. They are, in their essence, like lots of other hazardous things that some folks like to have or do. And so, to my mind, they should be regulated similarly, to try to minimize the risk of damage that they do to others in the community. We don't let you fly a plane - or even drive a vastly more useful car - without training, demonstrated proficiency, insurance, registration, payment of a fee and use of mandated safety equipment. Other examples abound. The 2A gets in the way of that, and serves no contemporary purpose. It should go.
And please, if you find your 'NRA members' argument persuasive - at all, your loved ones have my sympathy. What the NRA does that only affects its members is not anyone else's concern (dues, for instance), but Most of what it does affects us all, and facilitates tragedy after tragedy. They have very bloody hands.
Good 'ol Pot-shots compairing me now to Ted Nugent. LOL!!! Seriously, I am laughing really hard. Thank you.
You mentioned "reasonable discussion" regarding gun control. Okay, what's your take? And please, leave out the pompasity that you are known for.
You want a reasonable discussion, then fire away, Shots.
1 - stupid trumpy nickname trick - check.
2 - failure to read all the way to paragraph 3 - check.
3 - use of the term "pompasity" - no idea, unless it's a variation of "Pompatus." I've been called that, but I prefer "gangster of love." Cue Steve Miller Web Link .
1. Hey, you started it be comparing me to Ted Nugent.
2. You said, "...neither do I see any logical reason why guns should get special treatment under the law." What are you talking about? What special treatment?
3. LOL!!! Spell check is a mean beast. But hey, thank you for pointing out the error.
Ted Nugent: Web Link
I had no idea that you look just like the nugent!
@Hex,
Regarding the second amendment, Tom's reasoning or that of the retired supreme court justice seems fine to me.
Well BobB, good for you. You agree with Tom, okay, so what? I don't agree with you or Tom. Looks like we have a draw - Kings X. LOL!!!!!!
"And please, if you find your 'NRA members' argument persuasive - at all, your loved ones have my sympathy. What the NRA does that only affects its members is not anyone else's concern (dues, for instance), but Most of what it does affects us all, and facilitates tragedy after tragedy. They have very bloody hands."
It has always been against the law to abuse guns and they have been legal to own in our nation for years. We've had less violence and fewer school shootings in the past - when there were less regulations on guns. Predictions of "wild west shootouts" from gun control advocates never materialized when more states issues permits to carry guns.
Crime and violence is a complicated problem. And please, it's laziness to now blame an organization that supports the right of the law abiding to bear arms for things going wrong.
Few, if anyone, wants to go near what HAS actually changed over the years. And for the worse. The collective guilt and everyone is a victim mentality promoted by so called progressives. We'll be told we just need more of what they want going forward - additional bans/restrictions for the law abiding to supposedly "prevent" criminals from doing what they do. Not persuasive at all - and certainly affecting us all by not isolating/holding people accountable that pose a threat.
Blaming the NRA?
Perhaps the blogger will kindly tell us how many school shootings, or heck, any mass shootings were carried out by the NRA or one of its members?
And I find it quaint that the blogger wants to equate self defense to driving a car.
Imagine having to register to defend yourself.
Mind blowing.
"And so, to my mind, they should be regulated similarly, to try to minimize the risk of damage that they do to others in the community. We don't let you fly a plane - or even drive a vastly more useful car - without training, demonstrated proficiency, insurance, registration, payment of a fee and use of mandated safety equipment. Other examples abound."
Think this will stop what happens on the streets of Baltimore or St. Louis? None of this will be complied with by criminals. What about the damage they do with guns? Or are their actions also the "fault" of the NRA, gun manufacturers, or the local gun shops?
Exactly how is the average law abiding adult legally owning a gun a public safety threat? Because he/she doesn't have insurance, pay a yearly registration fee, take a safety class, etc.? Making them do this just makes gun control supporters feel good while accomplishing nothing. They are not the problem. And examples abound of jurisdictions and localities (New York City, Washington DC, Chicago, etc.) that have used reasoning/procedures just like this to all but prohibit the average law abiding person from legally owning a gun.
Expect the same results elsewhere if it's implemented nationwide. Well publicized acts of violence will bring predictable complaints of law abiding gun owners just "not doing enough" to prevent it. The gun control movement has spoken on this issue - it's the "fewer the guns, the better". It doesn't matter what people do - or don't do with them.
Tom,
We breathlessly await your condemnation of PETA since a confirmed member of said organization used a handgun to shoot Youtube employees.
Killers from PETA - 1
Killers from NRA - 0
You can't make this up.
Kinda ruins the narrative, eh Tom?
So, Tom, you note you "don't see any logical reason why guns should get special treatment under the law".
Remember when you were sworn in as an Attorney, and you took an oath to support and follow the Constitution?
What sets our nation apart from others is the fact we are a nation founded on the rule of law, and the highest rule of law is the Constitution. If we are just going to start throwing out parts of the Constitution because certain groups "don't see any logical reason" for them, than we no longer are a nation based on the rule of law. The Constitution is bigger than you, bigger than me, and not subject to abolishment simply because certain groups no longer identify with them.
If the real reason you allegedly want to abolish the Second Amendment is because of gun violence, why not put your money where your mouth is, and advocate for stiffer, automatic, not subject to Judicial discretion, enhancement criminal penalties for those using a gun during a crime? Shouldn't those mishandling guns be punished, rather than those legally using guns?
If your buddy Bruce Maxwell wants to pull a gun on a female food delivery driver, why not advocate for harsher enhancement penalties for those who illegally use guns, starting with him. I am glad that the D.A. in Arizona refused to offer him a plea at the Settlement Conference in February, and now the case is set for an August trial. If your actual goal is to stop gun violence, than you should support harsher penalties for those illegally using guns.
Why is your focus not on the individual who misuses the gun, and rather on the N.R.A. ?(which I am not a member, nor have I ever owned a gun) I think this simply shows a difference between Republicans and Democrats: Republicans hold the individual responsible for his actions in life, while Democrats love to blame "society",(big fill in the blank.... oil, cigarettes, gun lobby, etc) for bad things individuals do.
If your true agenda and goal is to stop gun violence, you need to start holding the individual responsible for the violence he commits with the gun, rather than blaming others.
So, the frothing continues. Couple quick points:
‘You mean I need a license to defend myself?' You mean, I need a license to go to the store for a loaf of bread? Yes to both, if defending yourself involves a firearm, and you drive to the store.
Generally, you are asking me to solve gun violence. First, I didn't take-on that task, and never said that repealing the 2A will accomplish it. I do know that the 2A has contributed to an obscene proliferation of guns in this country, relative to everywhere else, and to sanity. I don't think that's healthy, and there is certainly a correlation between the availability of guns and their deadly use on-purpose, or by accident. The 2A is not like other Amendments â€" it's obsolete and ought to go.
I also know that the NRA's actions have contributed to that proliferation. They are not a positive force in the culture, in my view. Their defense of the far fringes of gun ownership has been effective, fatally for too many innocents who deserve better. Their answer of ‘more guns' is absurd.
To conflate PETA membership with animal welfare is equally absurd, and betrays deep ignorance. I have no interest in supporting PETA's "animal rights crazies", which gives the rest of us a bad name. Kind of like the NRA extremists give responsible gun owners a bad name. I wouldn't join PETA; responsible gun owners might similarly rethink their support of those "gun rights crazies."
I haven't read the new guy's post - too long - maybe later. But if he questions my credibility, yet again, I'd have to ask what he would think of the credibility of a guy who makes empty threats and runs away from a blog for the last time, four times. Would such a person be a good judge of someone else's credibility?
“So the frothing continues"
Ah yes, the belittling of opinion really makes for a strong, vigorous and honest debate. So predictable.
“Generally, you are asking me to solve gun violence."
Actually, no.
Nobody has asked you to solve anything because your opinions and belittling comments are 1.) emotional, 2.) not based based on any factual statistics (with links, btw) and, 3.) see number 1.
“To conflate PETA membership with animal welfare is equally absurd"
Nobody conflated any such thing. Read again.
“Kind of like NRA extremists give responsible gun owners a bad name"
Whom are these NRA extremists you are talking about? Where is the link?
If you think belittling and snide comments are going to somehow change any minds to your side, then you have a lot heartache (more likely frustration) coming to you.
We all understand that this is politics. You and your Ilk are feeling impotent because MAGA is moving forward at a breakneck speed. You know that Mueller doesn't have a case; the border wall is being built using Pentagon allocations in the last budget bill; that the cancelling of Net Neutrality has not meant the demise of the internet and caused prices to go up; war in the Middle East is all but complete; peace with NK is, for the 1st time in 50 years, closer than ever; China is being brought to heel after years of one-sided trade agreements; NAFTA being renogotiated; real I'm estigations of Uranium One, Clinton Foudation, Clinton email are going on under the radar of most everyone; corruption in the Obama DoJ and FBI is being investigated and firings at the highest levels taken place; and tens of hundreds of other policies enacted to the betterment of the US.
And to top it off, Trump has higher Rasmussen polling than Obama at this point in his term. :)
Sucks to be out of power huh blogger?
Her used to it.
Darned spellcheck
Tom...you must be chaking in you boots...la resident is get very spooky...I am chaking in mis boots!
dios mio...tee hee hee
There is sum tough talk up in here!!!
Web Link
States With Most Gun Laws See Fewest Gun Related Deaths:
Web Link
@ MichaelIB
Ah, now we are having a "reasonable" discussion. Okay Michael, so your solution to the 'crazies who use a gun problem' is to take guns from everyone, including responsible gun owners? If, this is what you believe, how would you implement going about the task?
Would you take handguns from folks too? After all, as I stated in an earlier post, semi-auto pistols carry more rounds in the magazine, plus one in the chamber compared to a 30-06 rifle, which is generally single shot only, but far more accurate and powerful. Very complicated if you ask me. But what about our very liberal neighbors to the north? How do they stack on the gun issue?
From Ottawa Citizen - a local rag.
According to the RCMP (Canada), there are 1.9 million gun license owners in Canada as of December 2013. There are three types of guns in Canada: Non-restricted, which are ordinary rifles and shotguns, restricted and prohibited. Most military assault weapons are prohibited in Canada.
Looks like Canada allows it's citizens to bear arms. What about Germany? I got this information from The Local de, a European rag:
Germany has one of the highest rates of gun ownership worldwide, yet also one of the lowest rates of gun-related deaths.
Whoa!!! So, what's the problem in this country? MENTAL HEALTH! My question is: My guns should be taken away because someone has a mental health issue and has access to guns? It ain't a gun problem folks, it's a MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEM.
Canada, Switzerland, Germany, ect. all allow their citizens to bear arms. As I've stated before, the problem ain't the guns, it's the kind of people that use 'em.
Tom,you have posted numerous times on this topic of yours, but not once have you answered the question asked of you:
If the reason you support the abolishment of the Second Amendment is gun violence, do you support the creation of stiffer automatic enhancement criminal penalties for those using guns during the commission of a crime?
I am honestly interested in your opinion on this.
I have discussed this issue with several of my more liberal friends, and they actually tend to agree with me on this issue.
If we are going to actually do something to try to stop gun violence, it will only work if it is bipartisan, with support and compromises from both sides, not political grandstanding. Calls to abolish the Second Amendment, or objections to increasing waiting periods to do more in depth background checks, reflect the extremes of both sides.
I think a bipartisan compromise would include something for both sides. A federal law requiring you to be 21 to buy any gun would appeal to Democrats and most Republicans should not oppose this, and enhanced automatic penalties for using a gun during a crime not subject to Judicial discretion would appeal to Republicans and most Democrats should not oppose this.
Thoughts?
Prodigal Poster: I've not thought deeply about crim law since I studied it whilst dodging dinosaurs, but I thought use of a firearm was already an enhancement to other charges. Is it not? Is your change that it be "automatic" in some sense? If it's already at least discretionary, then there must be data on how it's worked.
Not sure how separately meaningful it is when most (95% of?) crim cases plead out to lesser charges.
And how does that work if the shooting IS the crime?
Finally among my random thoughts - that doesn't directly address gun violence in the sense of reducing the fatalities and other carnage unless someone is actually shot during the crime - does it have much of an indirect effect, or are we really just talking about seeking to imprison and pay for more people, longer?
I have no idea, but I do have a sneaking suspicion that this was asked in bad faith, to feed your abscession with a certain ballplayer.
@Hex,
Look at Australia.
@ BobB: Read on, brother.
Web Link
And another... Brother.
Australia's buyback resulted in almost 1 million guns being handed in and destroyed, but after that private gun ownership once again steadily increased and now exceeds what it was before the buyback.
In fact, since 1997 gun ownership in Australia grew over three times faster than the population (from 2.5 million to 5.8 million guns).
Gun control advocates should have predicted a sudden drop in firearm homicides and suicides after the buyback, and then an increase as the gun ownership rate increased again. But that clearly didn't happen.
For other crimes, such as armed robbery, what happened is the exact opposite of what was predicted. The armed robbery rate soared right after the gun buyback, then gradually declined.
Gun control advocates like to note that there has been no mass public shooting in Australia since the buyback. But they are simply picking out a country that happens to “prove" what they want it to prove.
European countries such as Belgium, France and the Netherlands have even stricter gun control laws than Australia does, but their mass public shooting rates are at least as high as those in the United States.
And another from News.com.au
Web Link
"I do know that the 2A has contributed to an obscene proliferation of guns in this country, relative to everywhere else, and to sanity. I don't think that's healthy, and there is certainly a correlation between the availability of guns and their deadly use on-purpose, or by accident. The 2A is not like other Amendments ?" it's obsolete and ought to go. I also know that the NRA's actions have contributed to that proliferation. They are not a positive force in the culture, in my view. Their defense of the far fringes of gun ownership has been effective, fatally for too many innocents who deserve better. Their answer of ‘more guns' is absurd"
Right on cue - violence is the "fault" of guns and the NRA. How long have guns been around in this nation and legal to own? And has the amount of violence/school shootings always remained the same? I guess that doesn't matter when the left wing position needs to be defended at all costs.
Really objective there with the "obscene proliferation" part too. Another reason why your so called regulation plan will just be used to whittle down legal/responsible ownership of guns to an acceptably "low" number. To end the "proliferation" thing.
Next you'll be telling us that Nikolas Cruz was just a "victim" of an evil gun culture in our nation? And that it made no difference whatsoever that he would have been stopped by the current firearms purchase background check system had law enforcement arrested/charged him or the school district had him involuntarily committed? It's not healthy to ignore the circumstances regarding this incident while blaming an object/organization for it instead.
@MichaelB,
"And has the amount of violence/school shootings always remained the same?"
The amount of violent crime has gone down substantially over the last two decades.
The US has 326M population. How many guns do you think there are in the US? 50M 100M 150M 200M? Your guess? I'll wait.
Okay, that was a trick question - it's 300 Million. Nearly one for each person in the USA. That's three times as many guns as in 1968, and twice as many per capita, despite a significant decline in hunting. I think I'll stand by my modifier. Web Link
Per the FBI, in a homicide, are you more likely to be killed by gun in the US than in other countries? Yes: US 64%, England 4.5%, Canda 31%, Australia 13%. Web Link
Per the UN stats, those homicide (murder, this time) rates: USA 4.88/100K, UK 0.92, Australia 0.98, Canada 1.68. So, fully five times the murder rate of UK and Australia, and 3X that of Canada, and almost 2/3 by using a gun. Web Link
Too many guns? Yup. Obscenely so? Yup. Make any difference? Yup. And Michael, you might consider sticking to telling us what You think, not what you think that I think. Leave that last part to me, okay?
Something else to chew over. Per Harvard Injury Control Research Center: Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use (#s are to article links)
1-3. Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense
4. Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments, and are both socially undesirable and illegal
5. Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense
6. Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime
7. Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense
8. Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime
9-10. Few criminals are shot by decent law-abiding citizens
11. Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions
Web Link
@ MichaelIB
You said:
The 2A is not like other Amendments ?" it's obsolete and ought to go. I also know that the NRA's actions have contributed to that proliferation.
Sir, did you ever have a problem with the NRA before this last school shooting went down? All of a sudden, it's the NRA's fault. The left is also calling the NRA a terrorist organization. Really? A terrorist organization?
Look, stop blaming inanimate objects for the woes of society. These mass killings were a horrible thing, but blaming them on guns, instead of the people that use them, will not stop the violence. And as I've stated before, what is your solution? Say it, man!I
@ Cushing. You get your links from the left, and Wikipedia, hypocrite. You have the nerve to get in me about using Wiki, and then use Wiki as a resource. LOL! You are one interesting individual.
Okay, Pot-shots, what is your solution? Let it roll, baby.
That's right, Malc - the last defense is to disbelieve the facts.
My sources were the Congressional Research Service, the FBI, the UN, and Harvard School of Public Health. I'll take their input as credible, until you disprove them on the content. As indicated, the UN stats were contained in a wiki article - they were Not wiki content. Do you understand the difference? And anyway, my prior point was that you were happily trusting a much less reliable source than the NYTimes, all the while saying "trust no one." Do you understand that?
Gun violence IS complex - you don't need to know the Final Answer in order to recognize that there's a huge
problem. There's no merit in the conclusion that there must be no problem because a commenter doesn't know The Answer. I am convinced that 'too many guns' is part of the problem. And I think the 2A and the NRA's actions both contribute to that part of the problem.
Shots, you used Wiki as a resource, after you got on me for doing the very same thing. You sir, are a hypocrite.
Human failings aside, so now it's not only the NRA's fault, but the 2A too? LOL! Where does the finger pointing end? Hey, why stop there, why not call Congress a bunch of terrorist too?
“Too many guns? Yup."
Ugh, such sloppy thinking.
“Too many guns" yet the murder rate in the US keeps falling per FBI stats: Web Link
And all the links showing gun stats on the US doesn't even come close to telling the whole story. In all those links about States with the highest gun crime did you happen to notice that they only discuss the RATE of gun violence but not the actual numbers? That's because guys like Tom and BobB don't want you to know that the VAST numbers (not percentage) of murder happen in Democrat controlled cities through the US: Web Link
FBI stats contained within.
And guess what, the vast number of those murders are committed by gang violence. Furthermore, a little more for you to chew on, the vast numbers of THOSE murders are committed by someone illegally possessing a firearm.
The Dems response to this is crickets, because they know if they speak of this class of people in a negative light their chances for re-election go out the window. So their goto response is to say EVERYONE MUST give up their rights. Meanwhile, the crime in those cities never goes away because, of course, the bad guys still have their guns.
This is the game.
Stop talking about the need for repeal and just try and do it. Let's see how the elections come out of it.
My suspicion is after this “15 minute" tantrum, they'll quiet down just before the election.
Hey gun grabbers, wanna see truth?
Watch this:Web Link
Just 3 minutes of your time, then let's discuss, if you have the will.
Okay Malc, you've now demonstrated, twice and sufficiently, that you really DON'T understand the crucial difference between a source and a pass-through. My source was the UN, just like the Congressional Research stats were passed through a news report. Unless you can show that there was a mistake in transcription, your point is only to waste everybody's time.
And (I'm typing slowly), my point was never to reject wiki as a source, anyway, but to say that you chose to trust it, but you wouldn't trust the much more factually reliable NY Times, which is quite possibly because the facts contradict your pre-conceptions.
___
Res - both rates and raw numbers are significant, depending on how they're used. Comparing rates in different cultures is important, because population sizes differ. Similarly, Trinity County had only two murders in 2017 - so pretty safe, right, vs. someplace like SF? Except nobody lives there (13K and falling). Their murder rate in 2017 was 10.5/100K pop, among the highest in the state. SF was less than half the Trinity number, at 5.2/100K.
There are more murders in populated areas because that's where the people, and the guns, reside.
Tom,
“There are more murders in populated areas because that's where the people, and the guns, reside.“
Great, so you agree with me on that point.
If you use the number (not the rate) of murders in a given population center and socio-economic class known to commit the majority of those murders, then why are you demonizing the NRA and those who process firearms legally and responsibly, and commit FAR FEWER murders and not those others?
I get the whole emotional gun-grab argument. It won't ever come to fruition, but I get it. I just don't understand the disingenuous framing and pairing of those legal and responsible gun owners, to crazy mass shooters who are coddled by Democrats and affiliated organizations.
And it is disingenuous.
Nobody wants to "grab" (really?) responsible gun owners' guns (although there IS a pill for that, I'm told. ;-) Something about matching bath tubs). What portion of that 300 million guns does that cover? Half, or a quarter, or three quarters?
Do you really believe that gun violence would not fall if the remainder of guns did not exist?
We'd need to agree on what constitutes "responsible," and whether even one incident of irresponsibility takes a person out of that category - like the relatively common uses of a gun in an escalating argument, or to intimidate an intimate, as the Harvard articles note.
Again, as with other privileges of living here, I think gun ownership should be a privilege you could lose through irresponsible behavior. Does it make sense to you that your driver's license could be suspended for recklessness, but not your gun ownership? Get rid of 2A, and they'd be on more equal footing, which I think is good public policy.
“Do you believe that gun violence would not fall if the remainder of guns did not exist"
Two point on this:
1. Gun violence IS falling even as the amount of guns is increasing as evidenced by the FBI stats I linked and the stats you linked.
2. Any program which purports to a “gun grab" will, by and large, be effective only within those who lawfully and responsibly own any firearm.
Now if the law abiding citizen, who most likely lives in a safe community with fewer numbers of firearm murders gives up his gun, yes, as a PERCENTAGE you'll likely see a vast drop in murder.
But in a community where gang violence is prevalent (such as those Democrat cities the stats indicate) I'd argue that the illegal possessors of those firearms will continue on murdering as they do.
Why? Because they are CRIMINALS.
That this might somehow be shocking to anyone is a complete mystery to me.
Does the murder rate “fall" because of a “gun grab", yes, in certain communities. But in the larger picture...not so much, because criminals are going to break laws no matter what.
Yours and my stats prove it, you just refuse to look deeper and want to play politics.
“We'd need to agree on what constitutes "responsible,"
No we don't.
We need to follow the law and hold those responsible for breaking the law accountable for their actions, not some inanimate object or a class of law abiding citizens.
I can already see that what you are doing is holding legal gun owners RESPONSIBLE for the misdeed of real lawbreakers.
Not going to fly, Tom.
“Again, as with other privileges of living here, I think gun ownership should be a privilege you could lose through irresponsible behavior."
This is already the case through law. You commit a felony and that “RIGHT" (not privilege) is taken away.
The problem is that the vast majority of murders are committed by those with a RIGHT to arms but are possessing and using those same firearms ILLEGALLY.
You are refusing to acknowledge this fact.
Cushing said:
"And (I'm typing slowly), my point was never to reject wiki as a source, anyway, but to say that you chose to trust it, but you wouldn't trust the much more factually reliable NY Times, which is quite possibly because the facts contradict your pre-conceptions."
If your point was never to reject Wiki as a source, then why did you get all up in my giddy? I simply was pointing out something I found. Also, I wasn't comparing Wiki to the NY Times, you did.
Please, stop putting words in my mouth by stating that I trusted Wiki. I never said that, you did. All I did was point out something regarding the topic.
Whether you coose to believe what I write, is your right. And if I choose not to believe a newspaper that I feel distorts the truth is my right.
Everyone has a tale to tell, Mr. Cushing; however, trust can never be certain when YOU write from a particular point of view.
Malcom,
Tom doesn't believe in “rights", he believes in “privliges".
Defending oneself? Privilege.
The left wants to take away the 2A so that it can take away the 1A.
Make no mistake about it.
GUN STOLEN - DEATH TREATS
Web Link
THOUGH I APPRECIATE THE ABOVE DEBATE, I MUST ADMIT THAT I'M FEARFUL OF GUNS USED TO HARM/KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE.
Hi Res,
I find it interesting that Mr. Cushing states he does not want to take away our right to bear arms, yet argues so hard against the second amendment.
He reminds me of a poker player who complains about how bad his cards are, yet somehow keeps winning. Well, in Cushing's case, I wouldn't exactly call it winning.
Cushing's arguments against the 2A speak for themselves. He doesn't want gun control, he wants your guns.
You guys would be much better off staying in your own yards, with what you claim to know and may actually believe, than coming into mine with your strawman toms.
For instance, backed by that Harvard Public Health study above, what I actually believe is that the bogus 'self-defense' argument that Almost Never happens, was concocted to appeal to middle-aged guys with declining testosterone levels, who still want to feel like the flippin' Marlboro Man. Know anybody like that? It's nonsense otherwise, because it's nearly all hypothetical self-defense, or else aggression disguised as self-defense.
And I believe that All gun use, not just bogus self-defense, is best thought-of as a privilege, much like many other hazardous instrumentalities that society permits, but regulates in the public interest. When you peel away all the hormonal chest-thumping, it's not that hard - and that's what you're left with. Try it.
Well Tom, your anger at those who enjoy shooting is very interesting. So, let me ask you a question, okay?
Do you believe a retired law enforcement officer/agent should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon once he/she retires from service?
International gamers in SF for convention 'shell shocked' by 'dangerous city'
Web Link
Things getting worse folks.
LONDON Mayor Sadiq Khan has responded after facing a huge amount of criticism for not speaking out following the news that London's death rate had overtaken that of New York for knife and gun crime.
Web Link
"@ MichaelIB
You said:
The 2A is not like other Amendments ?" it's obsolete and ought to go. I also know that the NRA's actions have contributed to that proliferation."
@Hex
I'm not the one making this claim.
"Too many guns? Yup. Obscenely so? Yup. Make any difference? Yup. And Michael, you might consider sticking to telling us what You think, not what you think that I think. Leave that last part to me, okay?"
@Tom
Here's what I think. You don't get it on this issue. There is no such thing as "gun violence". Guns don't commit acts of violence. They are objects that function based on what the user does with them, not "germs" that cause disease that the CDC needs to study and develop a "vaccine" for. Still waiting for all of the "wild west shootouts" that gun control supporters guaranteed would take place when more people obtained concealed weapons permits. You can do so in over 40 states and there are millions of permit holders. Only a handful of "progressive" holdouts won't.
There was a time in this nation when people understood that abuse of firearms was wrong and should be punished. Schools had rifle teams and students brought guns to school to practice with them. And there were no mass shootings. Here's what changed- for the worse. Progressives have been dumbing down the public for years that there are no standards of conduct, society is to blame for things going wrong, and everyone is victim of something. The gun issue is no different. Abusing firearms is just another "alternative lifestyle" and now we have to waste time and have a debate whether a person was really responsible when they picked up a gun committed a crime with it. It's obvious he/she is (because guns just don't load and fire by themselves) vs. the mentally disturbed reasoning process from the left that a gun shop, gun manufacturer, or the NRA "forced" them to do so. Or that your neighbor's gun needs to be banned to "prevent" it.
Notice the lack of outrage from the left towards the perpetrators in our cities abusing firearms. It's against the law to do so - so why aren't more of these people being arrested/charged so they can't continue what they are doing? Hillary Clinton sounded silly when she wanted to "hold the gun industry accountable" for what happens on the streets of our cities and promoted Australian gun confiscation schemes for the law abiding to reduce violence. Does this make any sense? No. Are we going to have more violence as a result because people think they can get away things like this - and are still on the streets? Yup. Will forcing the average person to get a license, insurance, training to own a gun reduce violence? No. Does your hatred or irrational fear of guns make the law abiding person who owns them suddenly "collectively guilty" of something? No.
"The US has 326M population. How many guns do you think there are in the US? 50M 100M 150M 200M? Your guess? I'll wait.Okay, that was a trick question - it's 300 Million. Nearly one for each person in the USA. That's three times as many guns as in 1968, and twice as many per capita, despite a significant decline in hunting. I think I'll stand by my modifier"
@Tom
I'll stand by the fact that objects don't cause violence and it all depends what people do with guns as to whether we are going to have problems with them. I knew a Korean war veteran that owned about 30 guns - and had nothing to do with crime/violence.
Here's not a tricky answer. Complaints about "too many" or an "obscene" amount guns (whatever an "acceptable" amount is) just substantiates the claims that gun control advocates simply will not let the average person own one if he/she chooses to do so - regardless of their ability. With a 300M+ population and a majority of those supporting the 2nd Amendment you can do the math on this - there ARE going to be a large number of firearms in circulation. And you obviously don't like or want this. Thanks for NOT bothering to make a distinction for what is done with them.
“guys with declining testosterone levels, who still want to feel like the flippin' Marlboro Man..."
“When you peel away all the hormonal chest-thumping, it's not that hard..."
Ahhh, it took awhile but now I understand your real position: you are anti-masculinity.
The two quotes above show that clearly.
Classic leftist/feminist thought.
“And you obviously don't like or want this. "
Of course ‘they' (the left) don't like or want this. The left knows that after all their rhetoric, power only really comes from the tip of a gun.
If guns were out of the hands of citizens, then only THEY would have guns (in this instance THEY meaning the leftists in Gov). Then THEY can do what they want and not have to bother with those pesky things called elections and natural laws like the founders based our constitution on.
Tom thinks nobody understands this.
There are lots of ways that people can take another person OUT:
Web Link
Not showing off, though it will sound that way, but I get the feeling that I'm the only formally trained and credentialed shooter posting here. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. That said, I didn't get the feeling that Tom has a problem with everyone who enjoys shooting. I also think Tom is making a lot of sense regarding the second amendment and gun regulation.
What sometimes worries me is a lot of untrained or "self-trained" people owning guns, and not really knowing what they are doing.
Confiscating this guy's guns makes sense.
USA TODAY: Police want to take man's guns using new law
Web Link
At BobB. Stop. Credentialed shooter? Steel targets at 50 with
Glock 41 Gen 4. Yeah, anytime. Credentialed shooter. When I hear someone say something like that, especially someone that said he doesn't support the second amendment in the first place, your credibility goes right out the door.
Be humble.
@Hex,
I stand corrected. I knew it would sound bad.
Still, I don't support the second amendment.
But then I don't support all of the first amendment either; I would omit the part that says "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I think it creates a loophole in the amendment that was necessary at the time in order to pass it, but has caused nothing but trouble for the last 100 years or so.
Post a comment
Get the day's top headlines from DanvilleSanRamon.com sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.
Sharing That Just Works
By Sherry Listgarten | 5 comments | 1,568 views
Bad consequences can follow bad decisions in Pleasanton
By Tim Hunt | 1 comment | 1,381 views
The sticker shock from electricity bills
By Monith Ilavarasan | 15 comments | 1,362 views
Do I Really Have to Study a Foreign Language? Yes! And Here’s Why
By Elizabeth LaScala | 0 comments | 244 views
2023 guide to summer camps
Looking for something for the kids to do this summer, learn something new and have fun? The Summer Camp Guide features local camps for all ages and interests.
