Is there a campaign promise that Obama hasn’t broken yet?
[youtube]http://youtu.be/XcyLeOm6yGc[/youtube]
Joe Biden circa 2008:
“I guarantee you Barack Obama ain’t taking my shotguns, so don’t buy that malarkey. Don’t buy that malarkey. They’re going to start peddling that to you. I got two, if he tries to fool with my Beretta, he’s got a problem. I like that little over and under, you know? I’m not bad with it. So give me a break. Give me a break.”
Yup, why would we worry about something like that?
President Obama on Wednesday tapped Vice President Biden to lead an administration-wide effort looking at gun control and other measures in the wake of the Connecticut school shooting last week.
…The move marks the first concrete step by the White House toward crafting new firearms restrictions. The president did not announce any major policy decisions on Wednesday, but said the task force of Cabinet officials and outside organizations led by Biden would submit legislative proposals to him no later than January.
…The president said Wednesday that he chose Biden to lead the task force in part because of his role in crafting the 1994 assault-weapons ban. Obama spoke favorably of the ban, as well as proposals to strengthen background checks and ban high-capacity magazines.
And rest assured, the gun control loons are out to get your guns:
Gun-control advocates, seeking new laws in the aftermath of the Connecticut school shooting, are drawing support from an unlikely source: the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2008 decision backing the right to bear arms.
That ruling marked the court’s first declaration that the Constitution’s Second Amendment protects the gun rights of individuals. At the same time, Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion said the government could impose restrictions, such as bans on gun possession by convicted felons and the mentally ill.
…“The Second Amendment doesn’t impose any significant barriers to any of the major reforms being talked about,” said Adam Winkler, a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law and the author of a book on gun rights. “The Supreme Court made clear in the Heller case that there’s plenty of room for gun control under the Second Amendment.”
Ban all you want. The criminals that do these crimes are not getting these guns legally. So banning won’t do a damn thing. Keeping people who are capable of these kind of massacres locked up will. Allowing law abiding citizens to carry weapons to protect themselves and others will.
That’s how you prevent a Sandy Hook from happening.
Taking guns from the citizens of the United States won’t.
See author page
Please stop. 20 children and 6 adults are dead. This is what you post? Twice, Curt?! Your site, I guess.
The purpose of The right to Bear Arms is to maintain a well REGULATED militia. Nobody is talking about banning guns… we’re talking about semi automatics and making damn well sure they don’t get into the hands of criminals and the mentally ill (I’m not sure what mentally ill criminals YOU’D want in your militia…) Twist it all you want, you’re going to lose this one for sure.
This place is a far cry from what you started, yet my curiosity sometimes gets the best of me. It might be better for us all if I were to come here and simply see Johnny Cash giving me the finger.
@Cary:
It seems as if you are letting your emotions speak for you, rather than your head, Cary.
Yes, 20 children and 6 adults are dead in Newtown, Connecticut. Do you realize that about 15 people have been murdered in Chicago, many of them teenagers and younger, since the news broke on the Connecticut shootings? Do you realize that Chicago will experience hundreds of murders of schoolage children this year? Do you realize that Chicago and Connecticut have some of the toughest gun laws in the country, and yet, murders are still being committed using firearms? Do you hear the media saying anything about the murders in Chicago? Have you seen Obama shed one tear for those murdered in Chicago this year?
And your purpose for the Second Amendment is exactly wrong, Cary. I explained as much to Greg, here;
http://floppingaces.net/most_wanted/tragedy-and-exploitation-the-progressive-way/#comment-398023
The arguments themselves can be found here;
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html
Simply put, the idea that the Second Amendment is only for the use of a “well-regulated militia”, and not the individual citizen, is not true.
Also, regarding “semi-automatic” weapons, I am assuming that you mean “assault” type firearms. Do you realize that the numbers of murders committed per year, using an “assault” type firearm, as a portion of all murders committed using a firearm, is roughly 2%? Do you realize that 2% is also roughly the same percent that “assault” type firearms make up, in all of the privately owned firearms in this country?
Can you explain to me exactly how they are more dangerous than any other type of firearm?
I do agree about trying to limit weapons getting into the hands of the criminals and mentally ill, however, I disagree that limiting the Second Amendment rights of the law-abiding citizen is the way to go about it.
Why? Because we aren’t letting our emotions do the thinking for us, Cary? The courts, the writings of our founders, the statistics, and the results of removing barriers to gun ownership and carry rights, are on the our side.
Cary,
Some will never see the light…
Thanks for sharing your feelings and emotions, Cary. Feelings and emotions made into legislation gave us gun-free zones such as Sandy Hook Elementary School. Facts and logic tell us that this made things no better, and arguably made things worse. Previous bans on “assault weapons” have focused on restricting things that look dangerous and have no significant effect on function, such as flash hiders, pistol grips, and telescoping stocks. Feelings.
This is contrary to the wording of the Amendment and to contemporary writings by the Framers. The “well-regulated” wording is background information and the “shall not be infringed” clause is the actual directive, a constraint on government power.
From Jeff Goldstein, who is calling for a debate:
Back to you:
The Sandy Hook mass murderer had no legal right to the weapon he used. He attempted to buy one and was denied. He then stole the weapon that he used. The criminals committing a dozen murders a week in Chicago have no right to their weapons either, both under Chicago law and as (largely) convicted felons. Strict gun laws in Connecticut and Chicago were put in place to make people feel better. They prevented nothing. Feelings.
Contemptible statement. But as long as it made you feel better…
If you want the thing that you actually seek but won’t admit, a complete ban on all private ownership of firearms, then agitate to repeal the Second Amendment. Then our law will be like Mexican law, where legal private ownership is almost impossible. In the meantime, perhaps you would feel safer in Mexico.
I have a child the same age as the ones killed in Connecticut. I want her to be safe, now and in the future. Turning the debate over to emotion instead of logic will detract from that goal, not serve it. Legislation based only on feelings serves the interest of statists who are calculating how to leverage what has happened — speaking of cold. You feel that the Democrat-controlled Federal government wants what’s best for us? Please review “Operation Fast and Furious,” recent events in Benghazi, etc. We’re like insects to these people.
@Cary:
And just how would you propose accomplishing that feat, Cary? If someone wants to buy a deer rifle, because they actually hunt to feed their families (I know many who do), should they be required to have a mental health examination and have some shrink say their are mentally stable, and will remain so, in order for them to be able to purchase that rifle? What about the woman who was accosted and fears of being raped? Same for her? Surely her being accosted would have some mental impact. Is she then not eligible for a hand gun permit because after her being accosted she sought out the help of a mental health professional? And the couple who have been robbed, perhaps while they were sleeping, think that doesn’t affect their mental health? Fear creates a lot of emotions that we generally don’t experience.
As to the semi-automatics; most murders are committed with hand guns. But the big push is against “assault” weapons that most of the idiots in D.C. don’t even know what they are, what caliber or how they are designed. They just assume ANY gun that resembles a true assault weapon IS one. Kinda like Mark Werner and his stupid comment about “rapid-fire clips.”
Make up your mind that there are, out of population of well over 300 million, bad people who will do evil things. You cannot make rules and laws that will cover every possibility of you being harmed by one of those people. If you did, you would have absolutely NO freedom to come and go as you please. Ironically enough, one of the most dangerous things you can do is drive some light weight rice burner, or one of the new “green” cars, that give you absolutely no protection in a traffic accident against a large tractor-trailer rig or even the common pickup. Yet, I don’t read not one of you on the left demanding that cars be built sturdier for safety’s sake. Instead, vehicles get light and lighter, weighing less and less, to promote the greenweenie’s agenda.
Modern day Chicago, Los Angeles, St. Louis, Washington, D.C. and New York are ten times more dangerous than was the “wild” west when everyone packed.
Biden is not going to take away anyone’s guns. I’ll be amazed if anything at all passes, beyond perhaps enhanced background checks. Nothing has ever been floated as a trial balloon that is any more onerous than the California gun laws, with which tens of millions of California gun owners somehow manage to get along. 1. Ban on assault type weapons — basically semi-automatics with pistol grips, which were the guns of choice in CT and Aurora CO. 2. Limits on capacity of magazines. 3. Better background checks on individual weapons and would be purchasers. Couple years back, I purchased a Sig Sauer P226 with several 10 round magazines. I had to take a multiple choice test, which I didn’t study for — just used common sense — and scored 100% on about 30 questions. Then it took a total of 5 weeks to check out both me and gun (purchased used from Grants Guns in Costa Mesa). I didn’t find either the process of purchasing, multiple choice test, or 5 week wait to be in any way onerous. And I can buy as many very lethal weapons like this as I please, along with more rounds of ammunition than those which were fired by both sides at the Alamo. But even these relatively meek and modest laws probably won’t pass through Congress.
– LW/HB
P.S. That old complaint that gun control laws won’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals is a straw man, in this case. All these massacres of innocent kids in schools and movie theaters aren’t carried out by professional criminals — they are carried out by disturbed, otherwise law abiding young people. California style limits won’t prevent all the carnage, but things like magazine limits and pistol-grip rifle bans would limit the casualties, at least at the margins.
P.S. Assault-style rifles are more lethal than other types of semi-automatic weapons. With the pistol grip, they can be used for accurate, individual targeting (in rifle mode) and rapid fire spraying (in pistol mode). The round velocity and accuracy is greater in these weapons than in handguns. The recoil is less than in handguns with rounds of equivalent lethality. Thus, they are more lethal than are other types of semi-automatic rifles and handguns. There are good reasons for banning them.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
And just how many magazines, even ten shell magazines, do you think one deranged kid could shove in his pockets? And how long does it take to pop one magazine, reach in your pocket and retrieve another and pop it in? Five seconds, tops.
Oh, and please, don’t tell me how metal detectors in schools work, since the latest shooter managed to get through them.
Obviously, California’s strict gun laws hasn’t stopped it from having the highest rate of school shootings in the nation.
And why don’t you explain the federal regulations for being able to buy an automatic weapon that is capable of “rapid” fire?
1) You apply a modern definition to a word written 200+ years ago. Well regulated back then meant well trained, supplied, etc. (proper working order).
2) The right to bear arms is an individual right. The founding fathers were quite clear when they meant the state and the people. To change the interpretation of the “the people” in the Constitution would radically alter ALL the rights. Sorry cary, you don’t get to change the definition for just one right you don’t like.
3) There is no law that could have prevented what happened.
4) Jim Crow laws also had rules and laws meant to keep designated, law abiding people from excercising their rights.
5) “Twist it all you want, you’re going to lose this one for sure.”
I take that to mean there is no amount of facts or logic we can present that will cause you to change your mind or think rationally.
The question answers itself. Five seconds is long enough to get off the floor and go out the door. It’s long enough to disable the shooter. And I’ll bet it would be longer than 5 seconds. These kids aren’t Jason Bourne. It’s a very high stress situation and they’ve got to keep their eyes on the whole room, as they change magazines. As I said, it wouldn’t stop this stuff, but it would limit casualties, at the margins. It’s better than nothing.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
And if the shooters, like the Columbine shooters, block the door, then what, Mr. Brilliant? Where do kids go then since most school windows are permanently shut now to prevent the little kiddies from crawling out of them?
But hey, you have no problem giving up your Fourth Amendment rights, I doubt you would object to giving up your Second Amendment rights.
This isn’t a serious point, unless you are a firm believer in making the perfect into the enemy of the good. If I had to be in a locked room, I’d still prefer the shooter to be forced to change magazines every ten shots, as would, I’m sure, most people. The doors weren’t locked in Aurora nor in Newtown.
– Larry
P.S. Regarding California gun laws and school shootings, here are the stats:
Fullerton 7 deaths in 1976
San Diego 2 deaths in 1979
Stockton 6 deaths in 1989
Olivehurst 4 deaths in 1992
Reseda 1 death in 1993
San Diego 3 deaths in 1996
Santee 2 deaths in 2001
El Cajon no deaths in 2001
Oxnard 1 death in 2008
San Bruno no deaths in 2009
Antioch no deaths in 2009
Current gun control laws date to 1989, 1999, 2004. We’ve been thankfully spared the mass carnage seen elsewhere. It’s probably only a matter of time, but the laws we do have will limit the carnage, if/when the next bad thing does go down in the schools.
Here’s a description of the Olivehurst shooting (Wikipedia):
Now, what might have happened, had the shooter had a Bushmaster, as opposed to the 12 gauge and 22 caliber?
I personally think that these gun control laws have saved lives in our state.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@johngalt:
John, any law regulating guns that is unconstitutional will certainly be struck down by this Supreme Court. Even Scalia has acknowledged that there are limits on the right to bear arms. The Constitutionality of the right to bear arms doesn’t change the reality that the number and type of weapons in America have proven by any statistical measure to be a public safety disaster. The Right seems to want to have it both ways: 1) we needs guns, because they are dangerous, and thus enshrined in our Constitution as a means of forestalling tyranny; 2) guns are not inherently dangerous, and thus require no regulation. These are mutually exclusive arguments. If guns have the efficacy ascribed by Second Amendment proponents, then any reasonable person would want to regulate who can receive a gun the same way we regulate who can drive a car, or prescribe a drug. Why upstanding citizens, who will never have a problem procuring a gun legally, want to support a system that floods the market with guns, 40% of which are purchased without a background check, is beyond me. Look at who funds the NRA. The gun industry. Do you think the NRA and the gun industry are mainly concerned with this abstract defense against tyranny, or are they mainly concerned with sales? How do lobbying efforts to ensure that the Consumer Product Safety Commission has no oversight over firearms, or pushing legislation that immunizes gun manufactures from liability for injury, tie into Second Amendment concerns? Let’s be honest, of any consumer product that can even remotely be considered “dangerous”, guns are by far the least regulated and their manufactures have the most special treatment. I admire your staunch dedication to protecting the Second Amendment as you read it, but 75% of what is being discussed, and 90% of what is sadly possible (considering how many members of Congress have a vested interest in the status quo) have no bearing upon the Second Amendment. This is about dialing up sensible regulation on a dangerous product to where it should have been all along.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Larry, as I have pointed out, numerous times over the past couple of days, “assault” type firearms are being demonized by the gun-control crowd with no proof that they are any more dangerous to the average citizen.
Now, before you go repeating your assessment of the destructive capabilities of such weapons, I will readily admit that I agree with that assessment. However, when you look at the facts, you see that “assault” type weapons are not the “evil” that people make them out to be.
“Assault” type firearms make up approximately 2% of the total privately owned firearms in the US. When looking at firearm related murders, they also make up around 2% of those. That should tell you that the weapon itself is not to blame, but the people who use them to commit the murders.
Along with that, there has been a marked decrease in the number of firearm related murders in the US, going back into the early 90’s, and including the period from 2004 to present, when the “assault” weapons ban expired. You are in no more danger now of being killed by a firearm than you were pre-2004. Less, actually, if you live in areas where concealed carry laws inhibit criminal activity, which is another easily verifiable fact.
Emotional, knee-jerk responses do not solve anything, Larry(and yes, I know your postings haven’t suggested an emotional response by you to the tragedy, unlike Cary’s).
No, Larry, it’s not a “straw man, in this case”. The shooter attempted a purchase of a weapon, and was denied. He then broke the law by acquiring the weapon(s) he used illegally. At that point, he became a criminal. No straw man there, as the gun laws in Connecticut did nothing to prevent him from getting the weapons, even when the gun laws in Connecticut are amongst the top five toughest in the country.
Looks like Biden was only really concerned about Obama taking away HIS guns, not ours.
Don’t worry, folks.
HIS guns will be safe.
I wonder if Obama ever enjoyed the pleasure of target practice?
I know he can shoot a hoop.
But, you know what I mean.
It isn’t like he minds being surrounded by heavily armed men all the time.
@Tom:
And I would agree, Tom. No reason for the common citizen to be allowed to acquire grenades. No tanks. No modern gatling guns. No heavy weapons.
Correlation is not causation, Tom. And I illustrated previously in another topic that when limited by the choice of weapons a murderer can choose from, they will still commit murders. The one difference here in the US is the availability of firearms to the common citizen.
I’d contend that the reason murder is more prevalent here in the US is due to factors other than the availability of firearms, Tom. This is bore out by the motives of those committing the murders. I have yet to hear someone claim that they committed a murder just because they had a gun they wanted to use.
That isn’t what the right believes, Tom. We believe strongly in the Second Amendment, and the reason for it’s existence. We also believe that guns in the wrong hands are dangerous, but that the gun itself is not. Because of that, we believe that it is wrong to limit the rights of the law-abiding, for the sake of making people feel safer, or because the laws already on the books are failing to protect some people.
No, Tom, it is not. For the gun-control crowd, it is purely about feeling safer. The statistics bear out that even with the huge uptick in gun sales, or the expiration of the “assault” weapons ban, that firearm violence is decreasing.
And a firearm is not like any other product, Tom. They have specific purposes for which they are sold, and used, and they are limited to adult aged people anyways.
If you replaced firearms with automobiles in your comments, would you then agree that cars should be more heavily regulated than they are, considering that more people, including children, die each year in auto-related accidents than gun murders?
I understand your perspective, Tom, as I deal with the similar perspective from my mother-in-law every time the gun-control issue comes up. But you are both wrong in what you suggest we do about it. Keep in mind that I haven’t professed a desire to flood the society with more and more guns, arm teachers to the hilt, or anything else like that. I only see that a right, expressed in the Constitution, written about and supported by the contemporaries of the time, and the real reason for it, far outweigh the emotional backlash from these isolated incidents, when discussing any sort of gun-control.
Hi John, Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I don’t really have anything more to say; it would just be more around and around. – Larry
@johngalt:
Actually, John, the line is not quite that obvious and dramatic, even in the eye’s of Scalia.
Columba v. Heller
I agree that there shouldn’t be a rush to throw weapons into categories, but this is why I also believe that gun experts and owners need to be part of the debate. You’re telling me that a room full of smart gun experts can’t come to a determination on weapons that meet Scalia’s criteria of “not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes” that we might want to consider restricting access to? Gun manufacturing is a science and a business with one aim being creating an efficient killing machine. Gun technology hasn’t remained static in time, and this idea that we shouldn’t evaluate and limit carefully what civilians have access to is nonsense.
Cars already are heavily regulated, John, much more so than guns. And while people keep bringing up this comparison, I believe it works heavily against you. First of all, it’s not fair to compare traffic accident fatalities to gun homicides as if they’re analogous. They’re certainly not, and if ten thousand people were killed intentionally each year by cars, I think we’d look at them much differently. Second, going back to the regulation part, cars are pulled off the road when they’re deemed excessively dangerous (remember the Pinto?) and car manufactures are liable for damages, two things that cannot be said about guns and gun manufactures. Third, can you imagine a scenario where 40% of all cars were sold by dealerships where one didn’t have to show a valid license or proof of insurance before driving off? How would you feel about driving on the roads if you suspected up to 40% of the drivers could be dangerously unqualified, either by training, physically or mentally, and uninsured to boot? Yet the pro-gun lobby is all for this arrangement, whereby guns can literally be sold to anyone who walks into a gun show, no background check required, never mind anything analogous to proof of having passed a competency test.
Sounds like holiday fireworks could be on the horizon for you!
The spam filter ate my reply.
Larry, quit regurgitationg VPC gibberish and think for yourself.
A pistol grip DOES NOT: Make a rifle more accurate, reduce recoil, or make it easier to “spray bullets”. Posting things like just shows your ignorance and emotion based thought.
Comparing a rifle to a handgun is quite disingenuous. Apples to oranges. Recoil IS NOT less than that in handguns. In fact, semi-auto arms have about as much recoil as that in bolt action rifles.
Lastly, semi-auto rifles are no more powerful than bolt action a rifles. In truth, they tend to be less powerful for various reasons.
If you are going to advocate for Jim Crow laws on law abiding firearms owners at least have your facts straight.
You are such a f*cking moron tom, and a liar.
1) Licensed gun dealers MUST run a backround check when they sell a gun. This applies at gun shows. The NRA and others support this.
2) Private sales, wherever they occur, DO NOT require a backround check. That means if I wish to sell my neighbor a shotgun or pistol, a backround check is not required. I am fine with that and that is how it should stay.
3) I can just see the “competency” test someone like you would devise to keep people in general from buying firearms. It would be just like in New York where about the only ones that can get a license and gun are wealthy and politically connected democrats.
4) The type of tests or criteria you speak of is Jim Crow like. Citzens with no criminal record should be allowed to buy a firearm without all the BS.
5) The laws worked in New Town. He tried to buy a gun and failed. He then murdered his mother and stole her gun. No law could prevent what happened and you know it.
6) You are a wannabe fascist who thinks you have a right to deny rights to those you are bigoted against. Just when I didn’t think you could be a bigger hypocrite and P.O.S., you prove me wrong. It’s the only way you can.
@Cary: Stop being such an emotional twit. If you don’t like the site STOP coming here. Show some self control and don’t visit. I left LGF years ago when Johnson went batshit crazy and you know what…haven’t clicked on his site once since then. But because you can’t control yourself you want me to ban you?
What the flying hell are you talking about? I was posting the same stuff years ago…here’s a few and more can be found using the search button:
@Hard Right:
Well at least it tried.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: You said:
Keep their eyes on the whole room for what? You just gave the best argument for allowing every sane, law abiding citizen the right to have conceal carry. Now if this were so, then the shooter might have to worry about ‘keeping an eye on the whole room.’ But as it stands, the law abiding citizens are, as usual and as per the left likes it, unarmed and unable to protect themselves while away from home.
Too bad for you tom I re-posted. You simply aren’t much of a challenge.
One more thing for you Constitution haters– gun sales are thru the roof. I talked to a guy who was trying to buy a gun, and the line for the instant backround check was so busy it told them to call back and hung up! The dealer said he’s been in business 12 years and NEVER had that happen.
Reading through this thread really does make me think that people are missing the point. The only thing being considered is what can reasonably be done to keep crazy young people from killing kids in schools and movies. It’s not about disarming Americans or even about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, primarily. It’s just about trying to come up with something that most people can agree upon which might save some lives.
As Curt noted in the introduction to this piece, Scalia, no less, spoke for SCOTUS in affirming the right of Congress to regulate firearms, just as government can regulate abortion, while banning neither. So one does not need to be a “Constitution hater” to be in favor of regulating firearms. Most everyone accepts that private citizens shouldn’t have the right to own automatic weapons, even though criminals can and do obtain these weapons illegally. So we do have a consensus that we can accept certain restrictions on gun ownership. What it comes down to, therefore, are details.
I really don’t understand why we can’t just discuss this stuff without triggering all sorts of accusations of being seditious and un-American, practically.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Cary Sane Conservatives like Mata and Aye have left the building,I believe THEY rather not deal with what’s coming from the rabid right on here.Word checked in with a very cogent one liner today
Larry and Tom continue to deal with it pretty well. If you’re like me you’ll take it all with a grain and or a stiff drink.
The answer to those who seek a saner society is — arm everyone. Make sense?
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Actually larry, fully automatic weapons (aka real machine guns) are quite legal to have and just about anyone can own them.
I would also mention that you seemed to have misread Scalias comment.
Larry, I believe you are sincere, but I really think you need to educate yourself and not buy into the propaganda.
I do not believe that tom, greg, rich, or lib1 are the least bit sincere. In fact, I think many others feel the same. That is why you see a difference in response.
@Hard Right:
I refer you to my comment 19 in which I quote Scalia (source link provided): “We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.”
And this is, arguably, the most conservative member of the Supreme Court. The interpretation of the Second Amendment is hardly settled law, and has acutally swung hard to the Right in modern times:
Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html#ixzz2FYHiJcEB
Guess what tom, people legally own “sawed off” shotguns. You can legally make them after passing thru the correct paperwork/hoops.
As for semi-automatic rifles, many law abiding people DO own them and they are used in hunting, target shooting, and self defense. They pass any reasonable test of lawful purposes.
Lastly, more scholars than ever agree with the individual right to bear arms.
@Tom:
Very thoughtful responses, Tom, particularly about the automobile/firearms comparisons.
That isn’t what the gun-control crowd wants, though. They want the gun rights advocates, the gun experts, and the gun owners, to sit down and shut up about their rights, because 20 kids and 6 adults were just murdered. I believe that overall, we’ve had an honest and open discussion here at FA, and yet, I don’t believe that anyone’s mind has been changed on the issue. And I certainly won’t do as the gun-control crowd wants me to do, and just hand over my rights when they are operating on emotion, as displayed by Cary, and I have plenty of information to back me up in my arguments.
Agree with the sentiment, however, you must keep the following points in mind;
-One, the reason for the Second Amendment.
-Two, that even with the proliferation of “assault” type firearms in the past couple of decades, they are not used, to commit murders, in any greater percentage than their makeup of all privately owned firearms, which suggests that to the overall, general public, they are no more dangerous than shotguns, semi-auto handguns, or any other type of firearm.
Yeah, we’re celebrating Christmas on Sunday at my house since I have to work over Christmas. I’ve cleaned out my garage so that I can escape if I need to, lol.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
I would agree, Larry, but the gun-control crowd has delusions about disarming America completely. Have you been on a leftist site advocating for less gun-control than those people wish to see?
And when the gun-control crowd is advocating for stricter laws based on emotional responses to shootings and murders, instead of really considering all of the facts, there isn’t going to be any agreement between people, Larry.
And that is what we are arguing with you about, Larry. The details. Like the statistics showing that “assault” type firearms are no more prevalent amongst murder weapons than they are amongst the privately owned firearms in this country. Like the statistics showing that violent crimes committed with firearms have been declining for quite some time, even with the lapse of the “assault weapons ban” in 2004. Yes, Larry, the details. They are likely to paint quite a different picture than the one Cary sees in his mind.
@Richard Wheeler:
Nice of you to corral every conservative here in the same grouping, Rich. And here I thought you hated stereotyping.
If you’d have followed the discussion Tom and I have had over several topics, you’d see that I don’t believe in that as an answer. I’m hard pressed, actually, to remember anyone ever having said that. But you will believe what you wish to, and to hell with the facts, right?
Hi John, The above is what I mean by a straw man, in this context. None of the current talk is motivated by murder weapon statistics or violent crimes in general. It’s about one particular category of crime: young people without a criminal past entering schools and movie theaters and trying to kill as many people as possible before they give up their own lives. I don’t know how you can argue that limits on magazine size wouldn’t have saved some lives in Newton, Aurora, Tucson, etc. The assault type weapons were the weapons of choice in both Aurora and Newtown. They play into the Rambo fantasies of the lunatics who enter the schools and help fuel those fantasies.
It is at least worthy of serious consideration and a serious discussion. It’s depressing to see that thoughtful people like you are interested only in offering up the same old same old sky is falling they are trying to take our guns away responses, as opposed to trying to find some common ground on saving at least a few of these lives.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@Richard Wheeler:
Yeah, what happened there? Or is this a taboo topic? (if so, just nod slowly and say nothing.)
Ha!
@johngalt:
John, it’s been a stimulating and educational debate. I still believe there is room between the status quo and bumping up against the Second Amendment to make things better. A lot of room, actually, although you might find it quite snug. Anyway, good luck on Sunday.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Larry, I haven’t presented any “straw man” arguments here.
And I addressed this on another topic, Larry. The shooter in Connecticut was well-acquainted with the weapon, according to some of the interviews, being trained by his mother on it’s use.
The mags used were 30-round magazines, Larry, and around 120 shots total were fired, meaning 3 mag changeouts. An adequately trained person can change them out in around 5 seconds(faster for those expertly trained on the weapon, like our military). So, 15 seconds of time where he couldn’t fire. Limit those to 10 round mags and it’s 12 total, with 11 changeouts. 55 seconds. Or, only 40 seconds more to shoot the same number of rounds. And considering that the school taught it’s children to hide under the desks, the targets weren’t going anywhere. Magazine limitations would only have an effect if someone was there to stop the shooter, which there wasn’t.
Sure. They were. But that doesn’t really mean a damn thing, Larry. A person that is well-enough versed in the operation of a semi-auto handgun could have inflicted the same amount of carnage, whether you want to believe that or not.
Really, Larry? You don’t think that I care that 20 kids and 6 adults were just murdered? That the people in the theater in Colorado entered what became a shooting gallery, with them as the targets? Tell me, Larry, what else did those two incidents have in common? That’s right, they were identified as “gun free zones”.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I haven’t advocated for the arming of every teacher in a school, or going back to everyone carrying their “six-shooter” on their hip, contrary to Rich wishing to include me in that group of people. Just consider the targets that the shooters chose for a moment. Unarmed targets of opportunity, packed into a relatively small space, where it was proclaimed that no one there had any means of defending themselves, much less others. Don’t you think that that might have been an important aspect of the targets, when the murderers in Colorado and Connecticut decided on where to attack? Throw in VaTech, where a handgun was used, and the pattern really begins to emerge quite clearly.
So, sure, I’ll talk about limiting magazines, if you’ll talk about the stupidity of labeling a place as “gun-free” zones.
@Tom:
Thanks, Tom. I appreciate that.
J.G. Some fire breather on Piers Morgan suggested the more people who had guns the safer we’d all be, I’ve heard others suggest the same.
Haven’t put all Conservs. in the same box. I’ve Always spoken highly of AYE,MATA AND WORD.
Glad you and Tom can have a respectful debate.
Won’t it be just damn funny when the truth finally comes out about this shooting..that he didn’t use a Bushmaster/Assault rifle. He used the pistols. But, lets not let the truth get in the way. Hell I’ve watched CNN harp for days that this kid ‘bought’ the bushmaster.
Carry on.
Hi John, You brought up several issues in #37 which are entirely worthy of consideration:
This is what I mean about straw men. No one here is arguing about professional criminals in general, as opposed to disturbed lunatics shooting kids in particular. I never argued in favor of “gun free” zones. For all each of us knows, maybe even Obama will come down on the side of having armed guards in some schools or, more realistically, a few trained, armed teachers in other schools This seems eminently sensible to me. As far as having kids taught to just hide under their desks, perhaps some thought needs to be given to that. In addition to fire drills, perhaps schools should have shooter drills. Or perhaps not. But it’s worthy of discussion. When is the best thing to hide under a desk and stay there? When should you dive for the classroom door? When, with older kids and teachers, should you go after the shooter? All of this stuff should be on the table, at least for discussion.
I can’t understand the defense of the sacred assault weapon. If it’s really no more lethal, then why does anyone need one? I think that they are more lethal, for reasons stated before, but, if they are not, then why are they needed? I do think that a big part of their attraction is their Rambo image. That’s why normal people want them. That’s perhaps why would be Dark Knight slayers want them. So why on earth make them and sell them? We in California have proven that the world won’t come to an end if they are outlawed. I think that the state is safer because they are outlawed. We also proved to the world that it’s actually possible to prohibit smoking in bars, without provoking a critical shortage of watering holes. All of our ideas aren’t stupid.
But I like the sentiment you expressed in the above quote:
“I’ll do this, if you’ll do that.”
This type of sentiment has been missing in national discourse in the recent past, and the country is the worse off because of it.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
To that point, the currant ad campaign for the gun used in Newtown.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Actually, after much consideration of my own statements on the matter, my mind has changed with respect to my stance on Gun-Free-Zones in schools. In the past, my objections were largely based on the idea that any teacher who meets CCW qualifications ought to be freely carrying weapons into their classrooms. IMO, for any given “hero” situation that might crop up, there’d almost certainly be dozens of trageic moments involving negligence, losses of temper, and any of a myriad of other opportunities for CCW-qualified teachers to demonstrate that they are merely human.
That said, I would be in favor of a program which allowed teachers to volunteer to be “deputized” for school defense, 100% in conjunction with the local police department. I think such programs would be sensible so long as they were properly funded, voluntary, transparent, and tightly regulated (in both the old-school and modern sense). Deputized teachers would require extensive background checks, extensive training, and extensive oversight – and would need to be well-compensated for all time invested (insentivizing them to stick to all protocols, lest they forfeit their involvement). I’d ask that very strict protocols/limitations be established, such as:
1) Weapons would be checked in with principals or police officers each morning; and teachers would be allowed to carry no ammunition beyond, say, 6 bullets already in the weapon.
2) Frequent random-spot-checks from principal and/or police officers to ensure the weapon was properly secured at all times
3) Weapons would have “fingerprint readers” to ensure only the teacher could use it.
4) Principals would have no-questions-asked authority to cancel or suspend any teachers involvement (even based on something as light as rumors of trouble on the homefront or “gut feelings” that all is not right with teacher’s behavior). Similarly, police could suspend based on merely-suspected criminal activity outside of school.
But ultimately, the program should be police-run with standards defined by the professionals to ensure maximum value and maximum safety, and those standards should be transparent and open to public scrutiny/approval.
Hmmm… acknowledging that guns in schools might be sensible… do I still get to keep my “liberal badge”?
@Tom:
Curious about your “ad”, I followed your link. Not withstanding the fact that the original seemed to have been generated by Huffington Post, who we all know is not above falsifying facts, did you notice anything strange about the ad you presented? Perhaps like the fact that the writing about the gun seemed to be backwards? Did you also notice that some of the links provided in your article do not work, and nowhere is it stated that the ad appeared in any publication like Field and Stream, Guns and Ammo, et al? It does give a link to the company that [they claim] produced the ad, but nowhere on that company’s website is any mention of that ad, or anything gun related.
I also noticed that one of the leftie websites that carried the ad claims that the average deer weights 300 pounds. I would really like to know where they find those deer. Yeah, some mule deer can get up to 300 pounds, but if you are looking at the common white tail, you are going to sorely disappointed.
Your knee jerk reactions are so strong, Tom, I worry your going to break your chin one of these days.
And I notice that here we are, days later, and you have still refused to answer my questions. Makes one go “Ummmmmm!!!!”
@Kevin:
Yet, in normal circumstances, you would have no problem with these people that you claim would make mistakes that [could] cause harm to children having daily access to young kids? Is that how far down the responsibility chain we have gone that we would trust teachers, however unstable, with our children as long as they were not packing? Perhaps it is time to take a look at what it is we expect from the teachers of America. If you want to be giving teachers free access to young, defenseless children, perhaps it is time to make all teachers take annual mental health examinations, just as some police departments require of officers.
But don’t expect that to meet with approval from the Teacher’s Union.
The WaPo stumbles on this recent “trend (?)”…
The irony .. oh, the irony of it all.
@retire05:
Sounds like you uncovered a Left Wing conspiracy, Retire. Except, of course, for the inconvenient fact that there is a press release for the ad campaign on Bushmasters own website: http://www.bushmaster.com/press-release-050710.asp
Proof of Your Manhood – The Man Card … Do you have what it takes?
And yes, I realize the Bushmaster link to the ad no longer works. It’s called damage control.
I thought this was a discussion board, not a one-way interrogation. It’s not like you care what I think anyway, you just want to post your canned responses to your leading questions. Don’t wait for me. Feel free to post them anyway.
By the way, never heard back from you on your effusive gushing about Israeli’s gun policies. I wonder why?
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
I didn’t say that it isn’t any more lethal than other weapons, Larry. When it is used, it can have devastating effects. But since it isn’t used, to commit murder, in any higher percent than it’s makeup of all firearms, it really isn’t any more dangerous to the general public than any other type of firearm. I don’t understand why that is so hard to understand.
And as for you asking why people “need” them, I will remind you that it’s the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.
Which ought to tell you that the comments about the pop culture in our society have a point.
It has been missing, but that doesn’t mean that the sentiment is useful in particular discussions on issues, either.
@Tom:
The rifle was owned by a woman, genius.
One more point to ponder for all of you advocating for the banning of “assault” weapons:
In 2007, a senior English major at Virginia Tech used two semi-automatic pistols to kill 32 people and wound 17 others. To commit such carnage, the shooter had to enter two separate halls at the school, both with a much bigger footprint than the school in Newtown. The shooter carried with him, along with the two handguns, 19 magazines of 10 or 15 rounds each. And this happened at a school where the people targeted were inherently more mobile than in Newtown.
This proves my point about someone who is trained, either professionally, or self-taught, to adequately handle a weapon, as being just as dangerous to the general public with a handgun as someone who uses an “assault” weapon. It’s not the weapon, it’s the shooter involved. Their state of mind, their abilities with a weapon, and most importantly, their choice of targets.
In both cases, Newtown and VaTech, the target of choice was a “gun-free” zone. That is the common factor between these two separate incidents where vastly different weapons were used, the ages of the targeted were different, the size of the area where the shootings occurred were different, etc.