patrick.net

Law enforcement, yes. They HAVE law enforcement because we staff their military.

SARCASM.

If it is found that the rifle or 100 round clip malfunctioned, the shooter should sue the manufacturer. He has the right to buy a product that operates properly. He should be pissed. He might have been able to wound & kill more women and children?
How many gun lovers had family members wounded or killed in Aurora?
Collateral damage happens. Do not tread on 2nd amendment rights.

If someone wants you dead you're dead, whether your armed or not.
What's the saying?: You will not hear the bullet.
How many are 10 feet tall & BULLET PROOF?

StillLooking says

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/06/23/guns_save_lives_106057.html

If you don't want to own or use a gun, so be it. Just don't tell me I also have to be defenseless. But that's the libs method of operation - if THEY don't like something, their feelings trump everything else, no matter how nonsensical it is.

Why can't you defend yourself with a baseball bat?

no no no, YOU can LIMIT how YOU defend YOURSELF. A bat, your hands, a fly swatter, bad breath, whatever. But, your only hope of survival is an armed gov agent if the bad guy(s) come after you or your family or your pet or your neighbor or your treasure. That's your CHOICE. I CHOOSE to not limit my ability to defend myself, my family, my pets, my neighbors, or my treasure. What ever happened to the ProChoice liberal voices?

deepcgi says

Law enforcement, yes. They HAVE law enforcement because we staff their military.

They also have generous welfare states because we pay to defend them. The Europeans are like the adult children that live at home rent-free and then bitch about how unenlightened we are.

wthrfrk80 says

They also have generous welfare states because we pay to defend them. The Europeans are like the adult children that live at home rent-free and then bitch about how unenlightened we are.

Touché!
(notice my using French?)

Now we're closing in on the truth! Ah the double-edged sword of America's military presence around the world. Imperialism on the one hand and free military security on the other. The impact of this US foreign policy on the entire world CANNOT be overstated. The US and Britain certainly earned the right to occupy these countries. Any other conquering nations in history would have had them taken over and all speaking the conqueror's native language in no time. However, the money the US spends on their behalf is astronomical. Every one of those nations is saving billions in defense - that would have come from some other internal source. Frankly, quite a number of them would no longer exist at all. If it turns out that the Keynesians (read Democrats AND Republicans) are wrong and fiat money cannot be sustained forever by quantitative easing, then the day is soon coming when the US will pull its troops from half of these bases by pure necessity. God help the citizens of those countries who have no defense.

wthrfrk80 says

deepcgi says

Law enforcement, yes. They HAVE law enforcement because we staff their military.

They also have generous welfare states because we pay to defend them. The Europeans are like the adult children that live at home rent-free and then bitch about how unenlightened we are.

OK, we get the idea. You don't like Europe and think they are a bunch of condescending ingrates. Answer me this: do you think they would have higher or lower rates of violent crime if their gun laws were more like ours? Just curious...you probably know what I think.

bdrasin says

Answer me this: do you think they would have higher or lower rates of violent crime if their gun laws were more like ours?

Heck if I know. They are a less violent culture overall.

I thought gun ownership is widespread in Switzerland. Yet they are highly civilized people with low rate of violent crime. Perhaps it is something to do with expensive watches.

Peter P says

I thought gun ownership is widespread in Switzerland. Yet they are highly civilized people with low rate of violent crime. Perhaps it is something to do with expensive watches.

Kinda sorta. Gun ownership is widespread in Switzerland (as part of militia duty) but heavily regulated. For example, there is no right to carry in public concealed or otherwise; generally you can't even transport a gun unless it is unloaded.

I've heard that "liberal" Vermont is pretty generous toward gun ownership, oddly enough.

wthrfrk80 says

Heck if I know. They are a less violent culture overall.

I agree with that. And to be honest I'm not sure the issues can be separated...one of the ASPECTS of our violent culture is our gun fetish. Anyone in most European countries who insisted it was their human right to carry a loaded gun in public would be looked at as a creepy weirdo.

You're not safer because a gun is around. I'd give it higher odds you are in more danger.

You are only safer if the person who is in control of the firearm is very competent and has good intent and judgment (whether that is you or otherwise).

How many people in the US who are gun owners do you think fall into that category? How many people who are gun owners exhibit bad judgement from time to time and are not very competent with their firearm? I'd say most. Why? Because most people aren't training with their firearms religiously, and most don't train in CQC scenarios where they are being shot at. They shoot at the range or they blow stuff up in the woods. These are not the people you want sitting in the theater next to you and armed.

Put three armed citizens in a crowded theater with that gunman and I'll show you some people who meant well but shot or killed people by mistake.

The high rate of gun ownership in the US combined with rock bottom standards to own a firearm come at a steep price : high rates of suicide, accidental shootings, and murder by firearm.

To pretend arming everyone would make us safer is stupid. Have you seen the way we drive here in California? Remember, all those motorists are at-leaset licensed, have to renew that license, and demonstrate competency with operating an automobile. To get a firearm in California: fill out a multiple choice test and show me you can operate the slide/bolt while pointing the muzzle in a safe direction. Ridiculous.

You have the right to bear arms, sure, and at the time that was written the top of line armament was a flintlock/percussion long rifle. Yes, I believe everyone in American can own that firearm. I'm an "originalist".

Automatic grande launcher? No. Automatic rifle? No. You want bigger and badder toys that go boom and bang you need to take extensive firearm courses and be licensed.

I believe everyone has the right to defend themselves by any means. I also believe that if they are choosing a modern means of defense, that can do a serious amount of damage to other people, they should be well trained and versed in its use. In the US, there are zero, no, none, zip, regulations which ensure that today. That is asinine! I'm not saying you can't own it, I just want you to be an f'ing rock star with your AR15.

Simple truth : we are allowing very dangerous things to be in the hands of the incompetent.

Switzerland has low crime and every adult male has a military SIG rifle from his time in the service. The weapon is identical to those used worldwide by assorted countries, e.g. Mexico.
Here's a guy in Switzerland in an Apple store on his way back from training or some such.
The problem in the USA is more from violent video games, violent movies, violent rap, violent tattooed gangsters in media, in sports.
The other thing that bothers young white men is the incessant message from the media that they are no good, they are "the problem" and they are evil.
I'm reasonably sure an obese affirmative action wise latina never went postal.

Rewrew, the Constitution and framers intended for American citizens to be able to own the same weapons as the government did.
The purpose of the right to bear arms was not intended for simple self defense or hunting. The purpose intended by the framers of the Constitution was to be able to defend against a tyrannical government.
Therefore, since the government at the present time has fine rifles the citizens should have access to equal quality weapons.
I also don't get why he thinks shooting a gun is more complicated than driving a car? It's much simpler than driving. You have to learn your weapon and that's it. You learn one piece of machinery or how many of them you have.

clambo says

Switzerland has low crime and every adult male has a military SIG rifle from his time in the service.

Not really comparable to the US. Most people are not allowed to carry a loaded gun in public, for instance.

Still Looking - I don't want to bring a bat to a gun fight. In an unlit house at night, just the SOUND of a shotgun shell getting chambered is enough to make people flee. Know what I mean?

How is there a gun fight now that we quite sensibly outlawed guns?

When the Constitution was written, there were wild animals and native Americans that needed killing.

Well we see what guns have done for native Americans and wild animals.

raisin, the pic I posted is a guy in Switzerland with his rifle. I guess you mean to say "believe me, don't believe your eyes."
The fact that almost every household in Switzerland has a military rifle and Switzerland has low crime completely disproves the notion that gun ownership causes gun violence.
However, Switzerland has a different culture than the USA. Since I have been there I can report on it.
I guess I will add midnight movies on my list of places to avoid: 1. midnight movies 2. ghettos 3. housing projects 4. oakland, LA, Newark, Detroit, parts of NYC 5. bars at night in cities 6. SF Tenderloin at night 7. Cities in Mexico with two or three exceptions. 8. States in Mexico with one or two exceptions.

rewrew7 says

They shoot at the range or they blow stuff up in the woods. These are not the people you want sitting in the theater next to you and armed.

lol. +1.

rewrew7 says

I believe everyone has the right to defend themselves by any means. I also believe that if they are choosing a modern means of defense, that can do a serious amount of damage to other people, they should be well trained and versed in its use.

That's the most rational argument I've heard in a long time regarding the whole "gun" issue. Well put.

I think cheese has something to do with it.

Bap33 says

Guns are a tool.
A gun in the hands of a pad person is a bad thing.

What you've written suggests some, or all, tools are the same. You don't believe that, though, right? Some guns are better than others.

So I think the idea, for some, is that the level of tool that they want covered by law comes all the way from nuclear bombs, F16s(can a private citizen own a fighter jet?), down to hand guns, or guns designed to quickly kill dozens of people. What is the purpose of such a tool, if not mass murder?

Some people have an arms race going on in their heads that is not rational, but I support your idea of freedom. I'm just sad that it leads to so much death and murder.

raisin, the pic I posted is a guy in Switzerland with his rifle. I guess you mean to say "believe me, don't believe your eyes."
The fact that almost every household in Switzerland has a military rifle and Switzerland has low crime completely disproves the notion that gun ownership causes gun violence.

Wrong. Switzerland has much tougher gun laws than here in the States.

Israel also has widespread gun ownership. It also has low level of violent crime rate.

FunTime says

or guns designed to quickly kill dozens of people. What is the purpose of such a tool, if not mass murder?

"When you absolutley, positively, got to kill every mutherf*cker in the room...AK-47. Accept no substitutes!"
-- Ordell Robbie

The arms (short for armaments) in the days of the Revolutionary War were equal in killing power to those handheld weapons possessed by the Government. The founding fathers didn't bother to add the amendment to the Bill of Rights so that Ma and Pa could "go huntin' when e're they dad-gum felt like it". The constitution was amended to allow the citizens to possess armaments that could be aimed at bad guys in order to kill them. (hint: it was against the law to bear weapons against the red coats). Can you tell i'm not a fan of euphemisms?

It's ridiculous to assume we could let anyone carry any arm at any time to any location - concealed or otherwise.

"Have you seen Paul Revere's new ride? He's got a bloody Long Tom Cannon mounted right to his horse! When he fires it, it sends him and his horse backwards a quarter of a mile, but "damn" it packs a punch!"

The NRA is a huge proponent of training - ESPECIALLY training for self-defense using fire arms. It's a great idea to encourage it.

One thing is certain...Mr. Holmes is a drooling, socket puppet playing psychopath BECAUSE he had guns! That much we know. :-). \

If he HADN'T had guns, he'd have been a peaceful and passive citizen. Psychopaths only like killing people with bullets - not molotov cocktails or diesel fuel and fertilizer!

If psychos start preferring the use of THOSE items..we'll have to outlaw cow crap.

ppsst! hey...don't anyone tell the European nutcases that you can destroy entire skyscrapers with fertilizer and diesel fuel. Luckily they didn't have Mr. Wizard programs over there.

bdrasin says

clambo says

Switzerland has low crime and every adult male has a military SIG rifle from his time in the service.

Not really comparable to the US. Most people are not allowed to carry a loaded gun in public, for instance.

every friggin Swiss house is expected to have a full-auto military grade weapon at the ready at all times. Cheese and Rice you people piss me off sometimes.

rewrew7 says

How many people in the US who are gun owners do you think fall into that category?

300% higher number than the people Obama would hand a weapon to and tell them to, "go get that man's gun, he didn't earn it."

FunTime says

What is the purpose of such a tool, if not mass murder?

a tool's use is limited to the USER's intent. You can drive a fucking nails with pistols, and you can kill millions of people with hammers. Of those two, which one has happened?
Yes, a private citizen should be able to keep any weapon they want (not sure about nukes, due to the radiation issue). There are laws against murder, that is enough. How you murder should not matter. Who you murder should not matter. Policeman or unborn babies, any first degree murder should result in public hanging. Gay, green, purple, Jew, asain, it should not matter, no reason for any special "protected class" once all life is seen as valuable and then all murder will be met with the correct response.

Richard Allen Davis is still alive.

Israel also has widespread gun ownership. It also has low level of violent crime rate.

But plenty of violence. And I am not so sure that palestinians enjoy the same rights to guns as you claim.

Palestine is NOT Israel is it?

I think I'm going to put up a sign in my front yard that says: "I BELIEVE IN THE 2ND AMENDMENT" Or better yet: " NEITHER OF MY NEIGHBORS BELIEVE IN THE 2ND AMENDMENT".

Which home do you think the "bad guys" intent on a home invasion, would avoid?

Bap33 says

every friggin Swiss house is expected to have a full-auto military grade weapon at the ready at all times. Cheese and Rice you people piss me off sometimes.

Every friggen swiss male spends time in the active military and is in active duty reserve with training until age 30. Anyone found not suitable for weapons isn't allowed to have them. After active duty reserve they can retain their rifles but only after they are returned to the factory to be modified to single shot.

So are you suggesting a year of military service as a requirement for gun ownership in the US?

I do suggest service to the nation's defense should be mandatory for all citizens. Warrior positions should be only for those showing aptitude for that role, same as cooks, tractor operators, seamstress, and painters. We could get away from contractors and have the national pride increase greatly with mandatory service after H.S.

Sure, everyone would get basic weapons training, but not everyone is a warrior. Isreal has a great system.

I really think this would help improve our selection for public office a great deal.

clambo says

Rewrew, the Constitution and framers intended for American citizens to be able to own the same weapons as the government did.

The purpose of the right to bear arms was not intended for simple self defense or hunting. The purpose intended by the framers of the Constitution was to be able to defend against a tyrannical government.

Therefore, since the government at the present time has fine rifles the citizens should have access to equal quality weapons.

I also don't get why he thinks shooting a gun is more complicated than driving a car? It's much simpler than driving. You have to learn your weapon and that's it. You learn one piece of machinery or how many of them you have.

The comparison between driving and shooting wasn't to demonstrate one was easier than the other, it was to show that while each can equally be as destructive only one requires licensing and continued demonstration of competency in use throughout ownership/operation. Additionally, no one seems to get too upset and claim we are restricting freedom of travel by it. People have their feet, bicycles, etc.

The founders didn't ever imagine a time when people would not be familiar with a basic tool like the gun and assumed general competency and universal ownership. It's the era they lived in. They absolutely didn't frame the second amendment in terms of equal arms. It was far from their minds. They just wanted arms, any, to be available to the population. They used the term "arms" generic on purpose to basically mean anything remotely comparable or that could challenge a foreign power/invader.

By your logic of equal arms it would stand to reason citizens should be allowed to stockpile chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. They should also be able to own mechanized fighting vehicles, mines, mortars, jet fighters, destroyers, and explosives a plenty. Thankfully there are regulations in this country to prevent such things. These things absolutely should be controlled and restricted and were never intended for private possession by a single person.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1495

Read the above link. The British army was beat by a larger force with stronger unified will and purpose. They were not bested by equal arms on the field of battle by a regular armed force.

I believe guns should be available for private ownership, and reasonable provisions should be made for those who seek to own something outside of a recreational/sport firearm. If you want to own something like that, it seems to me you need to prove you have the level of competency most Americans had with firearms at the time the second amendment was written, and specifically, you need to prove that you have competency with that specific firearm. Currently we hand guns over the counter to people like lollipops and we pay for it in lives.

More guns isn't safer, it's more guns. A citizenship skilled with firearms is safer for the individual as well as a free state. That was the experience shown to be true by the Revolutionary war and what was put in the constitution.

Honest Abe says

I think I'm going to put up a sign in my front yard that says: "I BELIEVE IN THE 2ND AMENDMENT" Or better yet: " NEITHER OF MY NEIGHBORS BELIEVE IN THE 2ND AMENDMENT".

Which home do you think the "bad guys" intent on a home invasion, would avoid?

It's a false argument you make as most citizens "believe in it". Lots disagree with how it is liberally interpreted. (Note: the term "liberally" used here purposefully to remind you of Liberal, but meant in terms of broadness or openness. Just so we are clear.)

Please do post that sign on your lawn and open carry. I give you high odds of gun violence happening in your general direction. "Live by the sword, die by the sword."

It's too bad Americans can't be reasonable and meet in the middle:

- The left accepts the 2nd Amendment isn't going away and quits trying to outright ban guns.

- The right concedes there are limits to the 2nd Amendment, and sees the reason in registration (including a blacklist for crazy/dangerous people), closing the "gun show" loophole, and banning assault weapons.

I'm fairly conservative, and I find that quite reasonable.

rfsanders says

...and banning assault weapons

Yes. Yes. This one. What do you think is an "assault weapon"?
Hint: among media-misused labels this one is hard to beat. Nowadays, it seems that painting rifle black makes it an assault weapon.

rewrew7 says

The founders didn't ever imagine a time when people would not be familiar with a basic tool like the gun and assumed general competency and universal ownership. It's the era they lived in. They absolutely didn't frame the second amendment in terms of equal arms. It was far from their minds. They just wanted arms, any, to be available to the population. They used the term "arms" generic on purpose to basically mean anything remotely comparable or that could challenge a foreign power/invader.

They talked a lot about keeping power in check at home, and framing it even with the expectations that invariably future bloodshed would be required for free people to retain their liberty from those at home who would strive to put them in shackles.

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."

-- Thomas Jefferson

Having just thrown off the yoke of one master, they were in no hurry to assume another. Much debate on the form of government ensued, and it was some work to prevent some of the colonial alliance from creating an at home monarchy. Washington himself is said to have refused the title of King.

rewrew7 says

These things absolutely should be controlled and restricted and were never intended for private possession by a single person.

By whom? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

When a nation collectively loses its identification with true liberty, its people only have hope and prayers that they will be justly ruled.

I can understand community ordinances prohibiting dangers items that can go "boom" from being kept in the neighborhood. But I don't care much for the Federales making that a law that only those on Mt. Olympus get to have all the killing devices. Historically that's a mistake.

rfsanders says

banning assault weapons

I think this is a bad idea. There are a bazillion auto weapons out there, many bought black market by criminals (some directly frmo the Feds, but that's a different convo...). I'd hazard that 99% of deaths related are drug and gang violence (somewhat redundant, I know). The rest are kept safely by their owners and provide a very viable deterrent to tyranny.

lenar says

Yes. Yes. This one. What do you think is an "assault weapon"?

Isn't the term "assault weapon" kind of redundant? Sure, a weapon can be used in defense, but there's still blood.

lenar says

Nowadays, it seems that painting rifle black makes it an assault weapon.

Hey, they don't call them Evil Black Rifles (EBR's) for nothing. ;-)