It is the guns. End of story

[Botany]

When are we going to break the stranglehold of the NRA, the gun manufacturers
and the gun nuts who allow a proliferation of guns which in turn causes a proliferation
of gun deaths? And please save me that second amendment crap because the
ENTIRE amendment reads:

"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."

These gun nuts and gun culture people are not part of any sort of well regulated militia
by any means so spare me "their constitutional rights" will be infringed by sensible gun
laws such as if you are crazy you can not buy a gun or owning a semi auto AR-15 assault
is your right and you are less of a man if you can't have one.

I own two 20 gauge pump shotguns, a .22 rifle, and I hunt too but when is enough enough?



hell the gun culture is glorified on basic cable 24/7

My sympathies to all those hurting because of what happened in Colorado last night.

[madokie]

1. Couple guns and nuts and what do you get

sometimes carnage. Personally I don't own guns and haven't since I came home from VN. I seen first hand what a gun in the hands of people can do.

I live peacefully and encourage everyone to do the same.

[N.I.O.F.]

2. Good find on 2nd amendment.

It says the right of the people shall not be infringed because they and their guns are necessary for a militia. I think you should read your own quotes more closely.

[ProfessorGAC]

3. Way To Ignore The Well Regulated Phrase

Perhaps it is you who should examine your words more closely.

[N.I.O.F.]

6. Not ignoring.

It says the right of people to bear arms is important in order to have a well regulated militia. Says nothing about regulating guns or limiting the right to bear arms in any way.

[auburngrad82]

21. With the largest, most powerful military in the world, what's the point of a militia?

It's not like they protect us or fight our wars.

[Pholus]

29. Seriously, this might be a way of getting a decent national service requirement established.

Want a gun? Join a Militia. Do training, do public service -- have it on the record.

Lots of CCW people like to brag about how well trained they are. Better than the cops, some claim.

Might be time for them to put their service where their mouths are.

[kurtzapril4]

73. + 1 brazillion! n/t

[Angleae]

167. All men ages 17-45 and all members of the national guard are in the militia.

Militia Act of 1903

[Pholus]

169. The UNORGANIZED militia you mean. I'm saying it's time to make them all Well-Regulated.

Or at least the ones who want their guns. I can see a lot of value to making everyone realize what being in a militia is ACTUALLY all about. And there is any amount of infrastructure that would benefit from having a national force which could be used like the CCC again.

It's not like this is even radical, it works for any number of other countries. Why not ours?

A small positive would result, starting to balance the huge negative that gun culture has become.

[slackmaster]

84. Militias are bodies of people who can be conscripted by their states in emergencies

State militias generally consist of three components: National Guard, Naval Militia, and the unorganized militia (which is basically every able-bodied person.)

Here is my state's definition of the militias:

MILITARY AND VETERANS CODE
SECTION 120-130


120. The militia of the State shall consist of the National Guard,
State Military Reserve and the Naval Militia--which constitute the
active militia--and the unorganized militia.

121. The unorganized militia consists of all persons liable to
service in the militia, but not members of the National Guard, the
State Military Reserve, or the Naval Militia.

122. The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male
citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their
intention to become citizens of the United States, who are between
the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and who are residents of the
State, and of such other persons as may upon their own application be
enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to the provisions of this
division, subject, however, to such exemptions as now exist or may be
hereafter created by the laws of the United States or of this State.

123. Whenever the Governor deems it necessary, he or she may order
an enrollment to be made by officers designated by the Governor, of
all persons liable to service in the militia. The enrollment shall
include any information that the Governor may require. Three copies
thereof shall be made: one copy shall be filed in the office of the
clerk of the county in which the enrollment is made, and two copies
in the office of the Adjutant General.

124. Enrollment shall be made upon such notice and in such manner
as the Governor may direct. Every person required by such notice to
enroll who fails or refuses so to do is guilty of a misdemeanor.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=mvc&group=00001-01000&file=120-130

[Yukari Yakumo]

90. Because the greatest enemy of the state could very well become *the state*. {nt}

[Marblehead]

136. funny how we gloss over this...

[leftyohiolib]

79. militias are gone and with them went the right to bear arms

[ProfessorGAC]

98. Conenient Semantic Gymnastics There (eom)

[xchrom]

4. and you should be well regulated. nt

[Lizzie Poppet]

54. Absolutely amazing (and disgusting) that the post above was hidden.

Looks like four people can't tolerate dissent from their views, even when it's stated in an entirely polite, non-inflammatory way.

Disgusted...

[DisgustipatedinCA]

57. So many people shot, and this is what disgusts you?

Get the fuck out.

[bahrbearian]

113. What disqusts me , is your post.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

117. Well, good for you. Thanks for helping me understand your priorities

I'd wager more people are disgusted today by senseless murder than by NRA types fantasizing about their rights being taken away.

[bahrbearian]

123. The OP is a rant about the NRA and Gun nuts,

But when someone enters the discussion, you tell them to get the fuck out? Just because you can't have two thoughts going at once, don't assume others can't also. Some of us can have sorrow, and hold a discussion.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

126. Again, thanks for helping me understand what you're about. Good day.

[bahrbearian]

127. You have a nice day , ya delicate flower.

[eShirl]

5. Not just any old, half-assed militia though.

A well-regulated militia. As in, regulations.

[N.I.O.F.]

8. So

Still says nothing about limiting guns. It says a well regulated militia requires a populace with access to guns.

[xchrom]

12. that's what you say it says.

and the crazy ass supremes -- the well regulated is definitive.

[N.I.O.F.]

17. I agree they are crazy.

[eShirl]

16. So why did you leave the phrase "well regulated" out?

[N.I.O.F.]

18. Because

We are talking about regulating guns and the well regulated part of the amendment says nothing about regulating guns but rather is justifying the right to bear arms.

[hack89]

25. That is not what "regulated" means in that context

the original meaning of "regulated" was "well trained" or "efficiently operating" . The 2A is calling for a "well trained and equipped" militia.

Language changes.

It has nothing to do with laws and regulations

[Plucketeer]

44. Language may change

But dead is still dead. And tools of death are just that - they weren't invented as a response to a swarm of paper targets.

[mbperrin]

96. No, the etymology of regulate is

1630s, from L.L. regulatus, pp. of regulare "to control by rule, direct" (5c.), from L. regula "rule" (see regular). Related: Regulated; regulating.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=Regulated

Didn't take those three years of Latin in high school, did ya?

[hack89]

99. This is the definintion I was using

The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment

From: Brian T. Halonen <[email protected]>

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

[mbperrin]

101. Nope. "To control by rule" is not what you are saying.

It is the opposite.

[hack89]

104. The Oxford English Dictionary is the gold standard for the English language,

its evolution and its usage. If you insist that yours is the only definition then you are denying historical reality.

[mbperrin]

137. Yes, the OED is NOT what you quoted. The site I quoted is one of theirs.

Now find an OED etymology that your cherry picking "expert" didn't. Please.

[hack89]

140. Read my post again for comprehension

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

[mbperrin]

153. If you cannot understand that a secondary paraphrase is not as good as an actual citation,

I can do no more.

Have a good day.

[bongbong]

133. NRA Talking Point

Your point is just another lie from the NRA. Well-regulated had a definite meaning to the Founding Fathers, and it has nothing to do with what the NRA lies are.

[hack89]

135. So show me exactly what the founding fathers said on the matter.

you can, can't you?

[bongbong]

148. Educate

Try to educate yourself about your Precious.

Read Federalist Paper #29. Learn something about what "well-regulated" means.

[Botany]

9. can you read?

n/t

[N.I.O.F.]

14. Can you?

Reconstruct the sentence so it isn't backwards and maybe you would understand it better. It says that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed because the right is required in order to have a well regulated militia.

[Botany]

23. I'll take my Constitutional amendments the way Thomas Jefferson wrote them thank you very much

you can play w/ the wording all you want but it is very clear what was written
and what it means. It says a well regulated militia is needed for national
security and those militia members will need unfettered access to firearms in
order to do their duties as members of such a militia it does not say every
tom, dick, and harry can own an AR-15.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

156. Wasn't Thomas Jefferson in France at the time as an ambassador, although he wrote a letter to

Madison urging for an adoption of a Bill of Rights?

Wasn't it James Madison and George Mason who wrote the Constitutional amendments which we know as the Bill of Rights?

[morningfog]

20. Are you part of a militia?

[Angleae]

168. Could be. There are about 75 million people in the militia.

[bahrbearian]

27. This post was also alerted on but had a more reasonable Jury

I used to think that this board was a place to discuss issues, not so much now.



At Fri Jul 20, 2012, 12:41 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Good find on 2nd amendment.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=979963

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

alert for MIRT

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Jul 20, 2012, 12:50 PM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Although the poster is a troll, nothing really ad-hominem per se.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No rule break. Sorry.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

[AllyCat]

77. It does not say that. It says the people have a right to bear arms as part of a

well-regulated militia. CCW is NOT well-regulated. These people feel like they can walk anywhere and shoot anyone

[Johnny Rico]

10. No meaningful restrictions on gun rights are going to come out of this. End of story.

The trend is for more rights, not less.

[Loudly]

85. The inevitable trend is for more unjust death and permanent injury.

Give it time, patriot.

[Johnny Rico]

129. Actually, the trend over the last 20 years has been for less unjust death.

This, while the amount of guns is this country went nowhere but up.

How about that...

[soccer1]

139. Do you know that an increase in gun ownership is responsible for the decrease in violent crimes?

Or could there be other factors that have influenced the decrease in violent crimes?

[Johnny Rico]

144. Not for a fact. I do know that those who wish to ban guns (such as the Brady Campaign and VPC)

have predicted for decades that an increase in guns would lead to higher levels of murder. Those predictions have been proven wrong, have they not?

Or could there be other factors that have influenced the decrease in violent crimes?

There certainly could be other factors as well. It's sometimes hard to proves causation.

[soccer1]

151. Maybe the decrease in violent crimes is due to better...

policing and detective work that keeps more of those assault weapons and other guns from being used to commit crimes. Maybe it's due to an increase in policing to keep up with the criminals who own these guns. If they were banned , maybe, over time, we could decrease the number of law enforcement agents that are needed to deal with the increase of assault weapons and other weapons that wind up in the hands of criminals. Just some thoughts.

[ananda]

11. Agree.

It is the guns and that tea party paramilitary attitude.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

46. tea party paramilitary attitude <--- yes, very important point

That phrase of yours REALLY jumped out at me.

THAT, and the free ride they get from media (American Right Wing Pravda, I should say), which makes it look as if the teabaggers have some kind of legitimacy ( ), make a dangerous mix for ignorant, angry and scared U.S. citizens.

[Confusious]

13. Maybe we should bring back militias

and everyone who wants to own a gun should be required to put in a certain amount of time, like the national guard.

You could also screen people for mental stability at the same time.

If you're found owning a gun, and not a member of a militia, or if you don't show up, you get no guns, and maybe even jail time.

[N.I.O.F.]

15. Then criminals could not get guns right?

[Sedona]

22. Bu bye

[Confusious]

24. I think

You would be one of the first denied a secondary penis, since you obviously don't want to do a little extra work.

[Botany]

19. fine w/ me

you want to own a gun? then you have to show 4 times a year to drill, pass inspection,
have your mental acuity tested, show skill in handling the weapon, and under go
a criminal back ground check.

[Pholus]

26. All on board with this one! After all, guns don't kill people: the militiaman does.

So well regulate him/her to hell and back so that we KNOW they can handle their weapon and have the wisdom to do so appropriately!

[Iggy]

31. Nope. wrong

how many guns in our nation in private hands? 270 million according to google I just did- I
was going to guess 300 million.

good luck getting your idea thru congress; they can't even pass a crucial transportation bill w/o fighting
and moaning about it for ten months first

there IS a very doable answer-- but people have to be willing to go down that path

[hack89]

28. Every American male up to age 45 is in the unorganized militia. It is the law of the land.

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

[Confusious]

34. I did not know that

Maybe we should make it more obvious by making people take some time.

[Hoyt]

106. Are you over 45? If so, turn in your guns.

[hack89]

111. Come and get them if you dare. nt

[Hoyt]

120. Ah, another intimidating gun owner and gun promoter.

[hack89]

122. It seems to work against passive aggressive gun grabbers

who favor a police state to do their dirty work.

[Hoyt]

154. Police state? Better than a police wannabe state with a bunch of yahoos strutting around with guns.

[Pholus]

170. The usual response of the insecure. nt

[hack89]

171. The one thing I have no doubt about is that gun control is dead in America

Last edited Sat Jul 21, 2012, 02:51 PM - Edit history (1)

No reason to be insecure - I am on the winning side.

Hoyt favors a police state where the police do all the dirty work - he has made that very clear hence my jab at him. I know he would never actually take any action.

[Pholus]

172. Frankly, I am surprised to hear such an undemocratic attitude expressed so openly!

Obviously, I butted in on a more personal exchange. Sorry.

Of course, your explanation about Hoyt actually implies a few scary things about how you truly feel about "the rule of law" but the nice thing about people who reach for the gun first is that they tend to live in self cleaning ovens.

Enjoy!

[Iggy]

30. NOPE, I strongly disagree

We've seen this movie before, have we not?? no point wasting even more bandwidth and
time.

There IS an alternative answer: I propose a 'War on Nuts' in our nation, particularly the ones that arm
themselves.

the notion we "are powerless to stop these people" is outrageous, stupid and wrong

[KurtNYC]

32. this event would have been the same, maybe worse, if he used a flame thrower,

end of story

[Pholus]

36. But if everyone carried flamethrowers this wouldn't have been as.... err wait....

Sorry, couldn't resist that one! You hinted at the absurdist end position of a common argument about why everyone should be armed...

[Johnny Rico]

43. Actually, owning a flame thrower requires less paperwork than a rifle.

It's not restricted in any way by Federal law, although some states such as California do have laws against them.

[Hoyt]

107. Appears you've checked into it.

[Johnny Rico]

131. Looking it up on Wikipedia was quite the effort.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_thrower#Private_ownership

[RegieRocker]

33. This is bullshit

Tunnel vision extraordinaire.

It's not the guns it's the people.

Two walls.

One on the far left and one on the far right.

the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Unbelievable

[Botany]

39. No cherry picking you have to read the whole thing

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.

It addresses a military, national security, and then the right to bear arms.

[RegieRocker]

41. Correct

people have a right to bear arms

[Lizzie Poppet]

59. However, what the language does NOT do...

...is place the set containing people who keep and bear arms within the set containing the well-regulated milita. What the language does is provide a rationale (not the rationale...) for maintaining this right. The construction of the sentence is clumsy, but the linguistic analysis is actually pretty straightforward.

[krispos42]

88. 10USC311

-CITE-
10 USC CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA 01/03/2012 (112-90)

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-HEAD-
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-MISC1-
Sec.
311. Militia: composition and classes.
312. Militia duty: exemptions.

-End-



-CITE-
10 USC Sec. 311 01/03/2012 (112-90)

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-HEAD-
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

-SOURCE-
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85-861, Sec. 1(7),
Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103-160, div. A, title V,
Sec. 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)


I'm a 36-year-old male. I'm in the militia.

So only men should have the right to own guns? the middle-aged, the elderly, and the women should have a privilege extended by the government?

[Go Vols]

138. .

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia

[tritsofme]

166. You must not be familiar with Heller. The issue is settled.

There is an individual right to bear arms in the 2nd Amendment.

[Not Me]

35. I own a motor vehicle

I am required to register it.
I am required to prove that I know how to safely operate it (Driver's License).
In most states, I am required to have it safety inspected to ensure it operates properly, and
I am required to hold liability insurance to provide for those who may be harmed by said vehicle.

I would have no issues with the same requirements being imposed on guns.

[edit: typo]

[slackmaster]

37. The requirements for registration, licensing, inspection, and insurance on your car apply only...

...if you want to carry it with you in public. In most places you can keep an unregistered, uninsured car in your garage.

[Fla Dem]

74. Yes and when I am in said registered, insured vehicle...

I must carry a license to operate which I receive after demonstrating I could safely operate the vehicle and understood all the laws pertaining to the privilege of operating a motor vehicle.
I cannot operate while under the influence of drugs or alcohol or I can be fined or arrested.
I must obey the rules of the road, or I will be fined or arrested.
I must renew my license periodically and once I am older, in some states must demonstrate I still am mentally alert enough to safely operate the vehicle, and my eyesight is such that I can still safely operate the vehicle.
If you are in violation of the laws and regulations repeatedly, or severely, you may lose your right to operate a motor vehicle.

These are commonsense laws, rules and regulations They are implemented and enforced not to make it more difficult for individuals to have the privileged of operating a motor vehicle, but to ensure a reasonable level of safety on our roads and highways.

I would have no issues with similar requirements being imposed on gun owners.

Finally, NOONE should be able to purchase a gun without a background check. Period.

Sellers of guns at gun shows...........
"Under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, individuals "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale (although even private sellers are forbidden under federal law from selling firearms to persons they have reason to believe are felons or otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms)."

[barbtries]

38. thank you for posting this.

i agree.

[valerief]

40. Metal phalluses, that's all they are. nt

[secondvariety]

61. I'm beginning to think you're right.

I'm not talking about the average person who owns a couple of rifles and pistols-I'm talking about the compulsion of stockpiling guns. What is lacking in their make up? This isn't like obsessing over Beanie Babies or Jim Beam decanters. The gun obsession is substitution for something that they feel is missing and unable to find any other way.

[valerief]

64. They're like people who never feel like they have enough money.

Only these people can never have enough guns.

Mental illness.

Anyone who wants/"needs" a semi-automatic is mentally ill.

[Marinedem]

115. My my my...

What a disgusting load of horseshit.

[FaceDancer]

128. Mental illness?

So let me get this straight, because I'm a Glock owner, I am by default, "mentally ill"?

Lol, you need to look in the mirror

[laundry_queen]

141. If the shoe fits....nt

[cleanhippie]

91. Sounds as if you are jealous.

[Marinedem]

114. well...

What you use yours for is up to you I guess.

[randome]

134. LOL!

[gblady]

42. I believe our violent entertainment culture

is more to blame....we glorify violence in TV, movies and video games.

[harun]

45. I think it is more the violence used to resolve problems by the MIC (Gov't)

Canadians watch all the same entertainment we do, yet have a very different culture.

[RufusTFirefly]

72. Bingo. Many cultures can read and watch violent entertainment without blowing each other away

The fish rots from the head down.
The message our leaders send is this: Got a problem? Solve it with violence.

[FaceDancer]

130. Beck said the same thing, but is ridiculed.

As "human beings", we learn by example. As the nuclear family is replaced by peer groups and their electronic surrogates, a steady diet of media poison will eventually undue the healthiest psyche, especially if no sources of positive, or otherwise uplifting input are available.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

47. god, this picture is just so sick. Really does exemplify what's wrong.

a repulsive attitude allowed to prevail.......

[Chorophyll]

49. No arguments here.

I'm sick of this shit.

[randome]

50. You ask 'when'? Never.

I would like to see a gun-free society but I also insist on recognizing Reality. It does not matter how much one WISHES things were different, in our country guns will never go away.

So it seems pointless to me to focus on something that will NEVER change.

We need to focus on why this individual did this, instead, and work to un-create the conditions that led to the massacre.

[dionysus]

51. i watched that show and i never felt the urge to shoot at anybody...

[Patiod]

52. Why are we the only 1st world people with 100% uncontrolled guns and crappy health insurance?

What does it say about us that we have such liberal gun laws (and getting more liberal) and such crappy health insurance?

I absolutely believe that both of these stem from the same mindset.

Are we that pathologically individualistic that when we see mass shootings and people lined up overnight for free clinics we just shrug and say "well, there's nothing you can do" when everyone else in the civilized world thinks these sorts of things are just insane?

How did it happen that everywhere else in the "First World" there is enough of a sense of community that people believe health care is important and guns should be under some sort of control?

[Lizzie Poppet]

62. Don't plant that axiom too deep, Farmer Patiod!

We don't have "100% uncontrolled guns." Obviously.

I do lament our utterly fubar'd healthcare system, though...but there are billions and billions of dollars to be made by various giant corporations under the status quo. Don't expect their bought-and-paid-for politicians to permit meaningful change any time soon.

[chervilant]

70. Excellent post; well stated!

We might also consider:

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over (and OVER), expecting different results.

[RufusTFirefly]

75. You clearly fail to appreciate the beauty of the free market, Patiod

Our system is fundamentally selfish and predatory. Violence is a logical extension of this mind set.

[marions ghost]

132. +++++GOOD QUESTIONS

Americans really need to understand that we DON'T need to live like this.

Guns in the hands of the unstable are keeping us fearful and cowed as a society.

MORE Gun Control. End of Story.

Botany is Right.

[4th law of robotics]

142. We don't have 100% uncontrolled guns

[Johnny Rico]

145. Shhh...don't confuse them with facts.

[4th law of robotics]

149. My bad, I meant

anyone can get a gun at the 7/11 without so much as showing an ID, ammo is available in vending machines on every street corner and as long as you shout "I'm scared!" you can shoot anyone you please and the cops will be required to not only let you go but also put on a parade in your honor.

All because of the NRA!

[Johnny Rico]

152. "Anyone can get a gun at the 7/11 without so much as showing an ID, ammo is available in vending

machines"

Pffft. I wish...

[Bosso 63]

53. Its also a mental health problem.

This guy was crazy. The NRA is crazy. The health care system in the US is crazy, [mental health included].
This horrific incident is the result of a lot of madness. This guy should never have been allowed to have access to firearms,
but anyone who thinks there will be any substantial change in the law restricting access to guns in the foreseeable future is
delusional.

We've all seen this show before the "gun freaks" vs. the "gun grabbers", and it will be fodder for the cable news cycle, but then nothing will change, and thats the craziest part of it all.


I echo your sympathies to all those hurting because of what happened last night also.

[chervilant]

71. Furthermore,

look for the NRA to stage a conference in support of gun ownership somewhere proximal to Aurora, just as they did after Columbine and several other tragedies involving guns.

[MadHound]

55. No, it's not the guns,

Canadians have more guns per capita, yet they don't have this kind of violence. Then again, they have a kinder, more compassionate, less fearful society.

You could take every single gun in this country, and yet if you didn't change the underlying problems with our country, you would simply have people bombing theaters, probably resulting in more casualties, instead of shooting them.

Guns are the symptom of the root problem, our sick society. Better to treat the root problem than the symptom.

[chervilant]

82. What?!

This is the second time I've seen this assertion from you, and--again--I ask you: where did you get this statistic?

Per a UN survey:


Country Year Population % Homes w/ guns
----------------- ------- ------------ ----------------
United States 1993 257,783,004 39 %
Canada 1992 28,120,065 29.1

From a Reuters report in 2007:

US has 90 guns per 100 persons, Canada has 30 guns per 100 persons.

In an online quiz, 2011 statistics are:

88.8 guns per 100 persons in the US, 30.8 guns per 100 persons in Canada.

Of note, the US averages 9,369 murders by firearms annually; Canada averages 144 murders by firearms annually.

I could not find any research to substantiate your assertion, and I hope you will stop making this baseless claim.

[laundry_queen]

143. Thank you.

I hear that stat all the time too. No, we don't have the same amount of guns (And ALL handguns are severely restricted or prohibited). And we have less gun violence partly because we have less GUNS. We watch the same tv shows, the same movies, etc. Our culture is incredibly similar to the US culture. Yet we have less gun violence.

[Avalux]

56. It's not the guns. It's this country's f*cked up worship of them.

I know plenty of people who own guns who are respectful of what the guns are capable of doing; people who hunt, people who have them for protection....they would never flaunt, threaten or kill others.

There are always going to be people who see guns as a means to gain power and control. When there are 'public figures' who spout hate speech and in subtle ways give the message it's ok to take your gun and blow people away, there are those who will do it.

It's not the guns.

[ileus]

58. People just refuse to accept that guns kill people.

[allan01]

60. re:It is the guns. End of story

just read the book "true patriot". in it the author mentioned about just this . also talks about tv( sons of a gun on discovery for example) shows that extol violence to our kids and to extol violence to sell more guns. just heard about this. absolutely stunned . how many more of these do we have to go through. when i was younger ( semi viet nam era) there was a campaign to end tv violence . i notice that the tube is more violent than ever . hugs to the families and individuals affected, and condolences to those who lost love ones

[The Straight Story]

63. So if it is the guns, does every gun owner shoot people?

If not, then it is not the guns.

[cbdo2007]

65. But what about all the legal gun owners who stopped this lunatic.....oh wait...

nevermind.

[snooper2]

67. you couldn't restrain yourself for even 24 hours could you

sad...just sad...

[Botany]

78. No I couldn't restrain myself

How many more times will things like this happen and they will
and how many more times will people rush in to defend the right
for people to have unlimited access to the very tools that cause
such pain and suffering.

[Atman]

68. Unrec. It is NOT the "end of story."

It should be the beginning, though.

.

[sendero]

69. It is the air....

...you will have as much luck getting rid of air as you will guns.

But if you want to dream of pie in the sky "solutions", be my guest.

[MrDiaz]

80. I BET THIS

gun was not acquirred legally... therefore any law that would make firearms harder to acquire legally would be useless simply because CRIMINALS DO NOT LAWFULLY BUY FIREARMS!!! Why is it that you anti gun people can't understand that. You act as if this guy went to academy and bought a gun!

[lpbk2713]

81. "You ... people" ??

Ann, is that you?

[Ruby the Liberal]

83. And if it was legal?

[MrDiaz]

86. your right

I am jumping to conclusions...my reasoning is that all these tragedies involving guns are involving guns acquired illegally.

But if it is legal I will eat my words, but do you agree with my previous statement if the gun was acquired illegally?

[Ruby the Liberal]

158. Can I get you some salt?

UPDATE: Holmes’ guns, including his AR-15, were all legally purchased since May from two national chains, Bass Pro Shops and Gander Mountain Guns.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/07/20/557811/expired-assault-weapons-ban-would-have-covered-rifle-used-in-colorado-shooting/

[soccer1]

94. A question....

what can be done to counter the illegal purchasing of guns?

[MrDiaz]

105. thats a good one

for which i have no answer to, but the answer is not to punish those who legally buy them.

[soccer1]

110. What if banning all guns, other than rifles used for hunting

helped to solve the problem of mentally unstable people purchasing illegal weapons? That approach might not immediately solve the problem but given many years I wonder if we would see a huge decrease in illegally purchased guns being used for mass murders?

Common sense answers "yes", but we won't know unless that should happen.

[MrDiaz]

119. that is the equivalent

to saying we should ban all welfare because of the few that abuse the system.
.

When was the last time a chl license holder committed a violent crime with his or her weapon?

[soccer1]

147. What's a "chl" license holder?

Concealed carry? But to answer your question....I don't know, do you have stats on that?

[abelenkpe]

87. Guns have only one purpose

And that is to kill whatever they are aimed at. They aren't like a car that is designed as a mode of transportation but can also be lethal when misused. They aren't like a pool that is only lethal when people are negligent. They aren't like anything else. Guns are designed to kill.

[Marinedem]

116. Well fuck.

Mine must be broken.

Right now I'm sitting within 10 feet of over 15,000 rounds of ammunition and 5 firearms that could be deemed "Assault weapons".

Been shooting them at paper targets for years.

Must be a matter of time before they turn on me...

[AllyCat]

89. Wonder if the theater in my home town will put a "No Weapons Sign" in their window NOW?

When WI started the CCW, we went to many businesses and asked them to put signs in their windows that said weapons were not allowed. The little theater in our town wouldn't do it. Maybe now? If they lose business, maybe they will now? After all, I wonder if they love $ more than guns.

[L0oniX]

92. Whatever ....pffft.

This belongs in the gungeon.



Nice of you to use this tragedy to vent your anti gun agenda ...and ...A nut case is just that ...there are Dem and repuke nuts.

[Yukari Yakumo]

93. Penn and Teller said it best

Gun control would never work. No silly pipe dream will ever change that.

[ErikJ]

95. American Exceptionalism

[4lbs]

97. I wonder if the founding fathers would have put the 2nd Amendment in such that way if they

had known about how powerful current "arms" would have become.

"Arms" that can fire 30 rounds in 3 seconds, and can be reloaded in 2 or 3 seconds.

Back when the Constitution was developed, "arms" were often single-shot long rifles that required 20 to 30 seconds to reload each shot.

I have no issue with someone wanting to own a handgun, shotgun or a standard rifle. Those serve well for self-defense and the rifle for hunting.

However, come on, an AR-15 or AK-47? Do you really need that for civilians?

[Marinedem]

118. Well...

Seeing as how civilians possessed privately owned Warships, artillery (Cannons) , rifles ( far deadlier than military issue muskets of the day) and all manner of other weaponry at the time the 2nd amendment was written...

I'll go with yes.

[bhikkhu]

100. Its the constitution. End of story.

the supreme court has already ruled against any of the challenges to gun rights that might have been made, so there's not much to be done. The NRA has little to do with it now - its "settled law". Accept that we live in a society where guns are legal, and go from there.

[Loudly]

102. So get used to dying, Americans. It's the price of "freedom."

[bhikkhu]

160. There are a whole set of responsibilities that go with owning guns

...which should be the focus. Fixating upon the guns themselves and arguing over the whether anyone should have them is pointless, as the law of the land here is that we can have guns.

[HomerRamone]

108. and corporations are people and money is speech nt

[villager]

103. Absolutely. But the fetishizing of guns, the sense of self-definition people have been taught to

...derive from them, is ingrained so deeply, that nothing will be done to stem the flow of weapons.

And the predictably craven NRA apologetics will be mewlingly spread across this thread, as well.

[progressivebydesign]

109. Absolutely IS the guns. One man with a knife could not do that damage.

Guns are weapons of fast destruction.

I hate that they're fashionable now. I hate that every ad on tv for a show or movie shows hip and stylized gun violence. I hate that designers are using them for women's t-shirt designs. I hate that it's considered no big thing for people on comment boards to discuss casually that they answer the door with a loaded weapon (regardless of the crime rate where they live.)

The gun sales in the past 4 years have been through the roof, because of the hate merchants in the media.... I hate it.

[Marinedem]

121. So...

when will you lobby for harsher restrictions on rags, glass bottles, and gasoline?

[electricray]

112. So is the implication that gun control would have prevented this?

If the guy walked in with knives a couple people would be dead but the tragedy should be considered equal. Guns can make violence worse but they are not the problem. Violence is a product of anger which stems from fear. Taking power away from the scared and angry only furthers the problem. This guy was going to commit violence because his illness led him to believe it was his only choice. Ted Bundy didn't use guns, neither did Jeffery Dahmer, Tim McVeigh, Charles Manson, nor did many other mass-murderers. Their violence wasn't as acute, so I recognize the difference, but mass, random, violence is a symptom of a sickness worsened by powerlessness regardless of the manifestation.

[soccer1]

124. I did not know that the assault weapon ban expired in 2004!

Wow.....

[Johnny Rico]

146. And since 2004, the murder rate has gone down.

How 'bout that!

[soccer1]

150. Must be a cause-effect relationship between being able to obtain assault weapons and the decrease

in violent crimes. Probably not. Do you own an assault weapon and if you do, why?

[Johnny Rico]

163. As defined by the late, unlamented AWB I do indeed have a couple "assault weapons".

An AR-15 and an FN-FAL.

Do you own an assault weapon and if you do, why?

A number of reasons. Primarily as investments, but also as collectables, but most importantly:

Because I wanted them and had the money to pay for them.

[soccer1]

164. Okay.

"Because I wanted them and had the money to pay for them." And because it's legal. Fair enough!

[bhikkhu]

161. Good point - there is no good correlation there

...and crime rates continue to move down, and society continues to become more peaceful, regardless of gun ownership. As always, Switzerland is the prime example - with a higher gun ownership rate than the US and almost no gun crime.

As gun rights were written into the constitution and all the likely challenges have settled on the side of the "right to bear arms", arguing about how guns are the problem is pointless and goes nowhere. One would do better to look at good examples of how to live better in a society with guns.

[Capt. Obvious]

125. Has anyone said yet that more guns are the answer?

That always pops up after these tragedies - "If the movie goers were all armed this never would have happened"

[RedEarth]

155. Agreed

[apocalypsehow]

157. Yep, it is. That and a twisted interpretation of the 2nd amendment, which in modern

contexts only applies to National Guard members on active duty.

[Zalatix]

159. How do you explain the bombs he had in his apartment?

[Tikki]

162. It is GUNS...an All-American way to handle frustration....

and believe it; many or most of these mass shooters have frustration building up
inside for a time.

You and I might run it off or whatever. But it is perfectly A-OK to twirl a gun around and around
in your hands while you think of how life has cheated you out of whatever...


Tikki

[Bake]

165. You can call it 2nd Amendment "crap" but the Supreme Court disagrees.

In the case of the Washington, DC handgun ban ordinance, the Supremes struck down the ordinance and found the 2nd Amendment does confer an INDIVIDUAL, not just a collective right to own guns.

Now, if you want to sound like Rand Paul, you can say "just becuase the Supreme Court siad it's constitutional doesn't make it constitutional." But that would just be silly, and you would be subject to ridicule like Sen. Paul got. So like it or not, it's not "2nd Amendment crap."

The Supremes get to "say what the law is." Marbury v. Madison.

Bake