Disarming nation of ability to kill 20 to 30 at a time is necessary. Otherwise
the second Amendment must be repealed. Gun fanatics will soon be in the same
corner as the tea part supporters
I don't know if the typographical error is the editor's or mine, but
it should read "political correctness discourages discussion."
Re: "Disarming nation of ability to kill 20 to 30 at a time is
necessary."It's not only not necessary, it's simply
NOT possible.No liberal decree will EVER have the slightest
influence over the bad guys, only the good guys.Leaving good guys
more vulnerable, and bad guys more empowered.One hopes feckless
liberal anti-gun fanatics don't actually intend to create more havoc,
chaos, death, and mayhem by their shrill, sophomoric demands, but sad experience
has proven that would be the inevitable result.
The best comment on here so far is that military high capacity weapons are not
sporting rifles unless you intend on killing a "herd of Buffalos". Most
countries do not allow unlimited weapons. Everyone can own guns and rifles in
house and designed for hunting. Driving around like Rambo with a military cache
is unreasonable. Good guys become bad guys by pulling the trigger in anger.
No one who demands the "right" to keep weapons of mass destruction has
ever answered the question of WHY they "need" weapons like these.The only "reasons" that have been offered by some of them have
been rambling nonsense about the "need" to "protect" themselves
from some sort of diabolical government.Can ANYONE provide a
rational, sane, and cogent reason for WHY it should be the right of any
non-military citizen to hold such firepower in their possession?I
@ one old man. Because criminals will always get any kind of weapon they want!
No law will stop them, no law will protect you from them! The police can not
protect you either any more than the police protected those poor children in Ct.
The only security you and I have is to protect ourselves! That's why!
Mountanman,"The only security you and I have is to protect
ourselves!" Not applicable in the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy,
unless you want loaded guns in the classroom. How many accidental shootings will
we hear about then? What if an armed citizen opened fire in the
Aurora theater shooting, hitting innocents in the crossfire? For
every fantasy you can come up with that involves a hero citizen taking down a
public shooter with his concealed carry handgun, I can come up with a hundred
accidental shootings, victims of crossfire, moments of rage, curious children,
suicides, etc. that are caused or made worse by ready access to legally owned
firearms. Guns make some of us safer in some circumstances. They make others
much less safe in other circumstances. This isn't a black and white issue.
So will the gentleman from Idaho be packing an AK-47 or similar weapon to the
mall?I'm not talking about reasonable weapons. Nor about CCPs.
(Although requirements for CCPs must be stiffened.)There is a very
big difference between a defensive weapon and an offensive weapon. What is
wrong with closing the gun show loophole?So again, I ask, WHY do you
need a weapon of mass destruction in your possession?Why does it
seem impossible for so many people to go beyond endless repetition of the same
tired rants and actually offer a well considered set of thoughts?
Re: "Can ANYONE provide a rational, sane, and cogent reason for WHY it
should be the right of any non-military citizen to hold such firepower in their
possession?"Sure. We've done so time and again. Because bad
guys have them.Don't bring a knife to a gunfight. And
don't bring a bolt-action .22 to a home invasion.If other
nations don't permit their citizens to possess military weapons, I would
point out that they don't have the Second Amendment. Maybe that's why
they are so often conquered and overrun.The Second Amendment clearly
applies to military weapons -- "A well regulated MILITIA, being necessary to
the security of a free State [my emphasis]. Suggesting the founders
didn't envision semi-auto AR-15s is simply disingenuous. They intended that
the militia -- that's us -- be armed with state-of-the-art weaponry. That
happened to be flintlock muskets at the time.They didn't limit
militia arms to longbows or swords. Nor may a modern Congress or President
constitutionally limit our choice of weapons, ammo, or magazine size.
And yet again, the gentleman from Tooele skirts the question and fails to
explain the need for possession of attack weapons rather than defensive
weapons.The only reasons for high capacity clips are: A) a Rambo
fantasy, B) very poor marksmanship C) overwhelming paranoia, D) low
testosterone, or E) all of the above.
And may I point out that while the militia is supposed to us, the founders also
said it also supposed to be "well regulated?"Why do some
people insist on ignoring that small, but very important, phrase?
To borrow a line from my GOP buddies, "Crazy people aren't
virtuous!"If they can find ways to get guns them I'm sure
they'll find ways to be non-virtuous!So what's the repub
solution?Kick the can down the road? We need solutions.
Virtue! Yes! That's what went wrong: we didn't have enough virtue!
Actually, there was lots of virtue on display in Newtown. Is it possible
to demonstrate more virtuous behavior than Victoria Soto did? Or Dawn
Hochsprung? No, we live in a society in which a seriously crazy guy was
nonetheless able to get his hands on enough firepower to win the battle of
Bunker Hill all by himself. That's the reality.
A virtuous people possessing firearms are a threat to no one but aggressors. A
vicious people are a threat to everyone regardless of what they possess.The national conversation seems to be focused on armed versus unarmed
when it should be focused on virtue versus vice. Some of the loudest critics of
firearms are cacophonous in their criticism of any effort to limit depictions of
sex and violence in our media and entertainment. They are reluctant to
recognize any correlation between depictions and deeds.How often has
the question "You talkin' to me?" from Taxi Driver been repeated
because repeating it would make one as cool and dangerous as De Niro's
character? How many of our society's youth at some time have wanted to be
"bad" like the bad guy/antihero du jour, who defies authority, moral
codes,social norms and rules, and answers only to him/herself?One
need not be particularly prescient to predict what such a person will do when
given the means and opportunity to be violent. The discussion must include more
than reducing access to firearms. It must address why our society produces
people who misuse them.
MountanmanHayden, ID@ one old man. The police can not protect you
either any more than the police protected those poor children in Ct. The only
security you and I have is to protect ourselves! That's why!9:01 a.m. Dec. 21, 2012=============You sound like a
scared, paranoid little man you needs a false sense of security to get through
life.Look, I'm a Military Veteran -- if I wanted to
commit a heinous crime or massacre, I could do so with or without you and your
rifles.You 2nd ammendment yahoos forget and trample the Consitution
daily by ignoring that "well regulated militia" phrase in it.Have your guns, have your rifles -- but you don't come anywhere NEAR the
definition of "well regulated militia" and should not be given a free
pass for assault type WEAPONS.FYI - the original Minute Men you
constantly glorify, they used their farming and hunting muzzle-loaders. Not top
of the line, current state of the art highest tech, high capacity, assault
government issue weapons available.They used their family HUNTING
rifles.If you want to be like them, the BE like them.And stop
Just a thought: How many deaths have occurred simply because a gun was
available? How many times have any of you been so angry you would have used a
gun if you had one, or if you had one handy? I can think of day when I had
those very thoughts. And I am so glad that I have chosen not to own a gun, at
least not for now. How many "crimes of passion" have occurred simply
because someone had access to a gun, or a cache of guns?
"@ one old man. Because criminals will always get any kind of weapon they
want! No law will stop them, no law will protect you from them! The police can
not protect you either any more than the police protected those poor children in
Ct. The only security you and I have is to protect ourselves! That's
why!"--------When I was growing up and had the 2nd
amendment explained to me, I was always told that there were limitations to that
right. We did NOT have the right to own a tank, machine gun, or bazooka. These
were all banned from ownership - and you know what? The bad guys still do NOT
have these weapons! The ban has worked.Why can't we ban
semi-automatic guns? Is it too late?
procuradorfiscalTooele, UTThe Second Amendment clearly applies
to military weapons -- "A well regulated MILITIA, being necessary to the
security of a free State [my emphasis]. ============== Were you ever in the National Guard procuradorfiscal?Because, that
IS the MILITIA the Constitution is referring to.Monthly drill
pratice,2 week TDY and deployments every year, Training,
Certifications, drill, drill, drill, While living at home, working a
regular 9-5 job, ready to fight at MINUTE'S notice.BTW - Our
weapons were ALWAYS in a gun safe, under lock&key 24/7/365.You
self appointed citizen soldier wann-bes waving a flag and shooting your WalMart
guns are nothing more than little boys, pretending to be something you are
not.You are not protected under the 2nd Amendment to that same
extent.Sorry to busrt your world of make-believe bubble.FYI -
I don't hunt or fish - but I've sworn the oath.I keep my weapons
on the ready - to defend my Country from unregulated lone-wolf vigilanty
patriotic wanna-bes who seek to take matters into their own hands. Enemies -
Foreign and domestic.[my emphasis].
To "LDS Liberal" when the Minute Men were fighting the Brittish, they
were using the most advanced guns that were available at the time. They were
not using the guns that were little more than glorified cannons that their
grandparents were using. There was no difference between hunting rifles and
military rifles.You trample the constitution because you want to
ignore the second half of the 2nd ammendment. It clearly states "the right
of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Why do you
want to infringe on the constitution and limit people's rights to bear
arms?Read the Supreme Court decision on District of Columbia v.
Heller. There they found that guns are for personal use, and can be kept loaded
‘Letter: Ben Franklin warned us, solution to school shootings is not
disarm nation’===========Oh brother -- Who
came up with this title?It's not what the letter writer
wrote.But it does sound like something a Glenn Beck listeners would
say.I love listening to Glenn Beck muse out loud about what the
Founding Father were "THINKING".This title is a perfect
example of a Glenn Beckism and his imaginiary friends, ...I can see
Benjamin Franklin peering 200 years into the future, and can't help
but wonder of the shock of tyranny the American government would try to assail
in its citizens rights of self-defense by regulating weapons capable of shooting
5 times faster, and 100 times further -- and automatically realoding a thousand
times over and over again in frations of seconds as mad-men storm public
schools.It's better to live with such violence and morning
those mowed down, than self deny and be betwitxed the shackles of
oppression!Turn off your radio.Benjamin Franklin would
have sided on the safety of those children!
It would be wonderful if the author's premiss was possible. But like the
"poor" the criminals and mentally ill will always be with us. And,
sadly so will accidents and negligence. The question is, what to do about it in
order to protect our children and everyone else. No bumper sticker answer will
do it. Are we to be saved by the better nature of our angels?
Forgive me for being a skeptic.
I think most logical people understand that something needs to be done to
prevent criminals from getting guns. The gun show loophole is one of them. I
don't see why law abiding citizens would be against a law stating that gun
show sellers have to be able to do a background check before selling a weapon.
That is common sense. The real problem comes when private sellers sell to
private buyers. I don't have a solution, but I can admit something has to
be done. And I can also see the point that people have that nobody except
military needs assault rifles. They are designed for offensive attack. I saw
some comments stating that because bad guys have them we need them too. How
often do people carry their ak-47's around with them everywhere?? The only
scenario they would be of defensive benefit is if your house was invaded and you
happened to have an assault rifle. And that doesn't happen very often. This
is coming from me, and I have an ak and an ar-15. But I do see both sides of the
arguement either way. Gun fanatics need to soften their stance and understand.
AIRNAUT - I am confused. In one breath you say Glenn Beck muses over what the
founding fathers were "thinking", yet in your last sentence you claim to
know what side Benjamin Franklin would have sided on? Isn't that doing the
exact same thing you make fun of Beck for doing?
Mr. Samualson, you said, "Virtue! Yes! That's what went wrong: we
didn't have enough virtue! Actually, there was lots of virtue on display in
Newtown. Is it possible to demonstrate more virtuous behavior than Victoria Soto
did? Or Dawn Hochsprung? No, we live in a society in which a seriously
crazy guy was nonetheless able to get his hands on enough firepower to win the
battle of Bunker Hill all by himself. That's the reality."Your comment is equivocal and hyperbolic. Offering one's life to save
another's is, without question, virtuous. That Ms. Soto and Ms. Hochsprung
acted virtuously does not make our society virtuous. You equivocate.The shooter in this case obtained firearms. The firearms he possessed would
not have won the battle at Bunker Hill. Saying so is hyperbole, not reality.It appears the reality is a mother made a legal purchase of firearms and
allowed her mentally disturbed son access to them. She paid with her life.
Sadly, so did others.I know of nothing 100% guaranteed to prevent
mentally ill or evil persons from acquiring firearms. What is needed is a
reasoned Constitutional approach limiting access, insofar as possible, to
Franklin had no idea that gun culture would get so out of hand. None of his
contemporaries could have seen what was coming. Had they been able to, I'd
bet the second amendment would look a lot different.
The question "why they need assault weapons?" is best answered by
psychology. Homicide and crime rates have been going down yet these
gun nuts are buying guns for the end of the world scheme, or really the rebirth
of cave man time. No more women rule the roost etc. This is what appeals to them
about the "end of days".3 times as many men are killed in
homicides than women. Women are not generally the gun nuts packing heat so
it's definitely not that guns are securing their safety.The
real reason that men are buying so many guns is because 1st they are gullible
and 2nd they are feeling less and less "powerful" at work and in the
home. Men are generally more aggressive than women. Wherever there
is a shift to a matriarchal society there tends to be a decrease in total
violence which we are already seeing. Now we just have to deal with the fringe
that will do anything to feel powerful including killing children. How many men
in just the last few years have killed their entire family and then themselves?
It's psychological but not as uncommon as we believe.
Re: "Were you ever in the National Guard procuradorfiscal?"Actually, yes. 5 of my 34+ years of military service were, indeed, spent in
the National Guard.But the militia of a state is NOT limited to its
Guardsmen. That's only the organized militia. The militia referred to in
the Second Amendment consists, by law, of ALL "the eligible pool of citizens
callable into military service."But even that broader definition
is not dispositive of the issue of who is protected by the Second Amendment. It
says absolutely NOTHING that can honestly be interpreted to limit its reach to
the militia. It refers to a "right of the PEOPLE" [my emphasis].Bottom line -- the founders were aware of the fact that an armed nation
is an unconquerable nation. That's been proved time and time again, over
millennia. It's because an armed citizenry can be quickly called into
service in an emergency, required to bring their own arms and ammunition. It has
happened many times in our history.And may well happen again.That's what scares liberals.
@one vote:"Driving around like Rambo with a military cache is
unreasonable."You need to perhaps reread the 2nd Amendment. It
doesn't place a limit on number or kind. It says people can 'keep and
bear arms.' "Good guys become bad guys by pulling the
trigger in anger."The world is full of bad guys. I would
venture that every young male that ever lived or ever will live at some time or
another will get angry and becomes a bad guy when angry... Angry at parents,
friends, leaders, teachers... you name it. Thankfully, very few get angry
enough to do what this guy in Connecticut did. And the vast majority calm down
and get over it. Some don't and act on that anger.Parents need
to be aware of the temperament of their male children. And they should manage
their collection of arms so that they don't fall into the hands of the
angry. For sure if kids show unusual or psychotic behavior in the home parents
need to pay particular attention and be aware of the eventuality of putting an
angry person in close proximity with dangerous arms.
An armed nation is unconconquerable? Iraq was armed. Well, until we confiscated
the citizen's guns. Anyone with an assault rifle was considered a
terrorist.The people of Japan were armed, Germany, France and Poland
all had armed citizens. So, it's just not true.If you are
afraid of the government's guns then you should be for a drawdown in
I remember reading an article a day or two ago that pointed out that most mass
murders of this type were committed in a "no carry zone", or in other
words in an area designated as one where carrying a concealed weapon is banned
by the local law.And apparently those who committed the mass
murders, either by accident, or by choice, selected these "no carry
zones" in which to commit their crimes.This latest mass murder,
in Newtown, was also in a "no carry zone, surrounded by zones that permit
citizens to carry a concealed weapon.It appears that the murderer
(murderers) were smart enough to find a zone where their victims were least
likely to have any means to fight back. These killers seem to avoid zones that
permit citizens to carry a concealed weapon. Does this not suggest
that our schools are safer if they are in zones that permit concealed weapons?
And if this is true, is it not a good idea to allow teachers, who are qualified
and willing, to carry a concealed weapon? Can someone find the article I am
Re: "Iraq was armed. Well, until we confiscated the citizen's guns . .
. . The people of Japan were armed, Germany, France and Poland all had armed
citizens.Anyone who considers Iraq to have been conquered, or its
citizenry to have been disarmed, simply has not been there. We left with our
tail between our legs, not because the job was done, but because liberals lacked
the guts to finish it.And, the people of Japan, Germany, France, and
Poland, at least in WWII times, were NOT armed in any significant numbers.You're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.
Back in Ben's day a single shot firearm and handgun were state of the art.
Today a firearm and even 50 sophisticated firearms are absolutely no match for a
remote drone capable of spotting and unleashing high tech fury in milliseconds
from several miles away. The militia concept is outdated unless the militia
have spy satellites. What good will weapons be against the next generation of
robot stealth machines of destruction. The gun show/milita government hating
groups have no concept of the power of their hoped for imaginary opponent. The
odds are best to accidentally shot themselves as opposed to stopping any
government or warlord with access to the real weapons.