Cicero418,

Since you asked me to define the functional difference between an "assault rifle" and a semi-automatic hunting rifle, I'll hazard this opinion. The functional difference, since some of them do shoot similarly, is in the psychological reasons one can conjur up for wanting to own one or the other. My wife has some vocational experience with gang member inmates. She tells me that many of these guys wax philosophical when talking about the "AK" they used to have and why they want another one someday. It's a power-over-other-people thing to get one. Hunting rifles for father-and-son hunters and sport shooters, well, not so much.

I have a .22 that will shoot 17 (I believe) shorts as fast as you can pull the trigger. My brother and I bought it together about 40 years ago. Haven't shot it for about a decade now, but I like owning it and wouldn't want to part with the memories. I don't however, want or need an AK and I'm a little worried about those who aspire to that kind of weapon to get peer "respect."

Our forefathers didn't forsee children mass murdering their classmates. Nor was it forseen 50 years ago.

" All we can do now is start the process of disarmament, for the benefit of future generations of Americans. Who's game?"

certainly not me.

"Yes, there will be a period in which "only criminals will have guns" (or more accurately, only criminals and the police will have guns). But that will pass eventually. Do we have the courage to endure that episode?"

yuck. i don't want to live in such a society. "endure" is right. how about the Left go to DC where it's already outlawed there so they can live out their unrealistic fantasy.

The figure of Uncle Sam will soon be replaced by Anton Chighur, the gonzo homicidal sociopath of "No Country for Old Men". Every time one of these massacres takes place, Americans add another foot to the grave they are digging for themselves. Soon, only Anton Chighur will remain standing, holding one gun with one bullet left. With no one left to kill, he'll then blow his own brains out.

I just want to chime in here. I think there was a very good reason the architects of the Bill of Rights put the Right to bare arms in the #2 spot. Right after freedom of speech is freedom to protect your-self. not only from despot governments but from desperate people. The reason this kid killed so many, is because the people around him are inept and forbidden to carry and using their own personel protecting, a gun. This is a result of a fluad understaning and respect for personel responsibility witch in turn creats the very laws claiming to protect us, gun laws. Lag time for the gun owners(cops) to arrive will decrease with a new found respect for personel responsibility.

I read most of the posts and was surprised that no one mentioned that when first hearing the news, they feared the shooter might be a PSTD afflicted Iraq War vet. That was MY first thought. I feel a chill everytime I think about the emotional trauma of this war on returning troops--the mind and emotion numbing state that must seem inevitable just to get by while in theatre. Isn't it much like a ticking time bomb there or once they try to return to civilian life?

As for arguments as to why this could happen, I see this in a micro-macro sense. We are a nation obsessed with violence-gratuitous OR to achieve "our national interests." Why should anyone have to look beyond that over-arching paradigm to make sense of this? Sure guns have proliferated within our population, but pointing to that as cause is overly simplistic. Violence begets violence.

We tell young people Blackwater guards and our military are some sort of heroic figures. We commit them to wars of choice, over oil and empire. And then we wring our hands when some young man back here picks up a gun and tries to "make a name for himself" by going on a shooting spree. This is tragedy, but it is a very personal face of our national identity, our own national profile.

jjohnjj, you're arguement is that the founding fathers did not forsee technological advances in firearms? Even though the arms they had at the time(btw, the guns of the era could be loaded and accurately aimed and fired five times in a minute) were technologically advacements from earlier rifles? By your logic, the First Amendment doesn't apply to the Internet, Television or the radio.

'I believe only prozac is now allowed to be prescribed to depressed teens. It shouldn't be too surprising that anti-depressants are correlated with these acts since these people are depressed. I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's all too easy to make errors of false cause-effect.'

Im saying youre wrong. Depressed people usually dont go on the rampage, 'going out in style' Youre error is to deny what even the manufacturers are forced to admit (go read the labels on zoloft). Also, not all people on these drugs are depressed:

'Michelle Moore spoke of her husband who was
"murdered." He committed suicide 1 day after
being switched to Paxil from 30 days of Prozac.
He was not depressed and had given no clue.'
http://list.web.net/archives/greenspirationto-l/2006-December/001073.html

=======================================
The drug companies are a public menace...

'Federal Judge Rejects Pfizer's Efforts to Dismiss Zoloft-Suicide Lawsuit

Minneapolis, Minnesota - - On July 20, 2005 United States Chief District Court Judge, James M. Rosenbaum rejected Pfizer's effort to dismiss Kimberly Witczak's Zoloft-suicide lawsuit. Mrs. Witczak asserts that Zoloft induced her husband, Timothy ("Woody") Witczak, to commit suicide after suffering severe adverse reactions to the drug. Mrs. Witczak claims that Pfizer fraudulently marketed Zoloft as safe and effective and failed to provide warnings about Zoloft's propensity to induce suicidality, despite Pfizer's knowledge of the risk, as evidenced by internal memoranda and studies obtained through discovery.

In an effort to prevent this evidence from reaching a jury, Pfizer sought to dismiss the case, arguing that Mrs. Witczak's state law claims are "preempted" by federal law. Pfizer argued that, since the FDA approved Zoloft and did not, until recently, require a warning about suicide risk, any lawsuit blaming Pfizer for failing to warn about the risk is legally impermissible. Judge Rosenbaum, however, refused to accept Pfizer's argument, stating that "FDA regulations allow drug manufacturers to strengthen warning labels 'in the interest of drug safety' at any time without FDA pre-approval precisely so that the warnings can be 'placed into effect at the earliest possible time' and 'to enable prompt adoption of such changes.'" Judge Rosenbaum stated that the "crucial flaw" in Pfizer's argument is that "Congress certainly did not intend to bar drug companies from protecting the public when enacting the [Food Drug and Cosmetics Act]; its goal was to protect the public ... Any contrary interpretation of Congress's intent is perverse."

To support its position, Pfizer touted a legal brief ("amicus" or "friend of the court" brief) filed by former FDA Chief Counsel, Daniel Troy. The amicus brief argued that, even though Pfizer never sought to strengthen Zoloft's warning label, any warning, no matter how worded, that suggested a link between Zoloft and suicidality would have been false and misleading, would have "misbranded" the drug, and the FDA would have rejected any effort by Pfizer to use such a warning. Judge Rosenbaum soundly rejected this argument, stating:

Defendant [Pfizer] proffers the FDA's amicus brief in Motus v. Pfizer in support of its position. ... There, the FDA -- which has since modified its own position -- avers that it would have deemed any warning of a causal link between Zoloft and suicidality to be false and misleading. ... These assertions do not preempt state law. (Order, p. 7.)

The Court ... declines to treat statements from a single FDA legal brief as declarations afforded the preemptive force of law. (Order, p. 8.)

[T]he Court has 'reason to suspect that the [Motus brief's] interpretation does not reflect the agency's fair and considered judgment on the matter in question.' (Order, p. 8.)

FDA has no authority to declare, ipse dixit, that a label is false and misleading. (Order, p. 8.)

Judge Rosenbaum called one of Pfizer's arguments a "public policy argument gone awry" (that "any warning of a possible link between Zoloft and suicidality would have frustrated Congress's goal of ensuring the scientific validity of drug label information"). '
etc
http://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/media/zoloft/Woody/WitczakPreemptionWin.htm

In defending these deadly drugs, you are not far behind Pfizer.

SSRIs - Nightmares by the Dozen News
February 6, 2006. By Evelyn Pringle

Gail and Rhonda Schmidkunz describes their 20-year-old son Zach as an "All American Boy," with no criminal record and no history of angry outbursts or losing his temper. However, this non-violent, law-abiding "All American Boy" is now serving a 35-year prison sentence for killing a friend after he abruptly stopped taking the SSRI, Zoloft.

In an all too familiar story by now, a family doctor sent Zach home with samples packs of Zoloft because he was depressed, without advising Zach about any of the adverse events he might experience. He took the pills for 21 days and then stopped because he felt the drug was not helping.

"Zach stopped taking the Zoloft on a Friday," Gail notes. "By Saturday, there were symptoms of discontinuation syndrome," he recalls. "They continued to intensify through Monday when the murder happened," he said.

Without knowing about the problems with the drug, Gail explains, Zach missed the signs that might have warned him that he was having a withdrawal reaction from Zoloft.

During a chat session on the internet with a friend, Zach said that he was depressed and saw no reason to live and was considering suicide. The friend was a girl and offered to come over and talk. During the visit, she said that depressed people usually kill themselves which apparently set Zach off.

He drove off in a rage, and three hours later when his head began to clear, he thought he remembered shooting someone.

Zach went and turned himself in to police, Gail said, but he did not know that he had murdered the girl until he was charged.

The rage that he felt was like nothing he ever felt before, Zach told his father and mother. "The intensity was indescribable," he told Gail.

Like so many other people who have committed violent acts while on SSRIs, Zach said, "it was like watching himself in a movie going to get the shotgun."

"He had this over-powering urge to shoot something and tried to stop himself but was powerless to do so," he told his parents.

At the criminal trial, Dr Maureen Hackett, a forensic psychiatrist from Minneapolis, who had evaluated Zach, testified that abruptly stopping the drug had lead to "a discontinuation syndrome rage and insanity that caused the homicide."

However, with the help of a Zoloft manual provided by Pfizer, Gail says, the "prosecutor convinced the jury my son was a monster and that Dr. Hackett was a hired gun bought for a price and would tell the court whatever we wanted her to say."

"What is important in this case," he points out, "is that we had an expert that proved that discontinuation syndrome is real and established in the medical community."

Gail urges everyone who has had an adverse reaction to an SSRI to contact their lawmakers and tell their story.

"Somehow," he says, "we need to pressure the FDA and the drug companies to come clean about the dangers of these drugs and make them responsible for the lives their drugs have destroyed."

Joyce Storey's son, Brian, was also called an "All American Boy" in the media, and according to Joyce, he was.

This mother's "All American Boy" is now serving life in prison without the possibility of parole for a murder he committed while on Zoloft

Brian was 17-years-old when the family doctor diagnosed him with depression and put him on Zoloft. Once again, the family was not warned about any side effects of the drug and in fact, the doctor told Joyce, "even if a person is drinking or doing drugs, that Zoloft works well with them."

Brian killed a woman five days after he began taking the drug. Authorities found no illegal drugs in his system, only Zoloft.
etc
http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/ssri_nightmare

The more conservatives force our servitude, the less people want to fall into line, get with the program, do as they say. Once in while, they are successful and produce sick, dissatisfied and violent people, often young. Authoritarians breed reactionaries.

Glad to see some of the rhetoric calmed down, sorry that I went off on a bit of a rant. I stand by what I said, wish I had said it more softly. Then agian, when some argue that weapons are needed to defend yourself against the gov't, they're playing with some very dangerous fire. Did the weapons used in the 1791 Whiskey Rebellion gain any support for those who shot the tax collectors? Shooting the sherrif will cause the state police to come calling, shoot them too and the fed's will send in the army.

Someone once said that it's the pen which is mightier than the sword. I think they're right. I'm also going to have to agree that violence in societies tends to rise when there is a rise in hopelessness. As for antidepressants causing people to go off and whack others, well... When I was young I was prescribed Ritilen, I've not killed anyone.

That being said, antidep's are prescribed too often these days. Kinda like using painkillers forever, they're used as if they're the solution, not something to tide you over until the underlying problem can be solved.

In heavily armed America we lose more lives to firearms in two months than were lost on 9/11. We have far and away the highest murder rate among developed countries. We're willing, because of fearmongering by right-wing Democrats and Republicans, to give up many of our cherished, clear constitutional rights for the illusion of greater security, despite overwhelming evidence that violating the rights of millions and alienating friends and foes alike has done absolutely nothing to make us safer. But we are still unwilling to encroach upon a convoluted, bogus interpretation of the Second Amendment in any way. Why is it so much more important than all the others? And how are more than 200,000,000 firearms, including assault rifles, in private hands a "well regulated militia" anyway? This is utterly illogical.

I'm not as concerned about the spectacular - and infrequent -mass murders as the daily carnage.

Yes, people die in traffic accidents too, and no one calls for the abolition of personal automobiles. We all recognize a "cost-benefit" ratio to the use of these "tools". But autos are heavily regulated by goverment, and the safety record gets better every year.

A simliar cost-benefit ratio can be assigned to personal possession of firearms. In my opinion, the cost of accidental and criminal deaths caused with guns is way out of proportion to the benefit of citizens stopping or detering crime with the aid of a gun.

It's as though we were seeing 4 million traffic deaths per year instead of 40 thousand. If that were the case, there would be calls for mandatory annual safety inspections (like in Japan), raising the minimum driving age, Ignitions that interlock with a breathalyzer... and (horrors!) mandatory seat belt laws.

But if the Second Amendment guaranteed every citizen the right to own a horse, you can be sure there would be car owners loudly insisting that each regulation is an infrigement of their constitutional rights.

It's nearly impossible to have a balanced discussion about costs, benefits, and degrees of regulation, because the hard-core gun rights advocates assume that the "gun-grabbers" are out to disarm them completely.

It just ain't so.

There is no reason that kid couldn't have been suffering from PTSD, Post traumatic stress disorder. It is a common symptom of radiation poisoning, from inhaling DU nano particles. That stuff is all over the country now and also causes autism, diabetes, etc.

He was quite obviously disturbed in the mind. As COMARK so well put it, something has dramaticllly changed in America during the past forty years. When I was a teenager no one inour neighborhood or school used drugs, sniffed paint or other chemicals. Crack and angel dust were unknown. Yeah, we heard about marijuana and heroin use in the big cities. But we never heard of incidents like in the frequency we do now.

Let's pretend for just a few moments, that no one in entire The United States is allowed to own a gun of any type. No one, except the military and police, and the police only have guns in the office lockers, not carrying them, as was the case in England when I was there in the 50s. __ The Bobbies carried Billies.

Okay, that's the rule for this brief game, no guns anyplace for civilians. Now, we have a disturbed individual, such as this latest kid. No gun. Would that prevent him from killing a lot of people, be famous, go out with a bang?
It wasn't a sudden act of mayhem, he planned it. Well, as long as we have kids, people of any age, who become what we may term as insane, they will kill with something. Remember Timothey McVey? He had a handgun, but he didn't use it. He made a big bomb and killed over 160 innocent people, including many children,___ little babies, which he later mockingly termed, "collateral damage".

COMark hit the nail, he is correct all the way, it wasn't the weapon, it was the flawed mind. The weapon for certain made it easier, but without a gun, it would have happened, maybe less deaths, but maybe worse, maybe another Timothy McVeay. Now the game is over. Remember, we had no guns, but we had a disturbed person who had an urge to kill ohters. __ And he did it.

Doctors CAN give bad advice:

'Whitby, ON: Due to a bad car accident in 1998 that led to depression and anxiety, Lisa Goring was prescribed Paxil. She became pregnant in 2001 and her doctor said it was safe to stay on this SSRI. Most doctors today know otherwise.

"It wasn't until I went for an ultrasound, when I was five months pregnant, that I knew everything had gone wrong," says Goring. "After the ultrasound, I first thought I was just going to have a sick baby but he would be fine. All I was told was that his brain had developed but he had lots of blood flow to the brain. I was also told to come back the next day with my husband.'
etc
http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/00675/paxil-death.html

This doctor said PAXIL was safe....such doctors are a public menace...What antidepressant was Hawkins taking,and will the authorities tell the public?

Depression is already being blamed for the massacre, and not the drugs he was taking. The dumb americans will never be rid of this sort of atrocity until SSRIS are OUTLAWED!

I find it worrisome that some decry the government's crackdown on all the other rights, FEMA prisons, etc. with one breath, then they advocate for the take down of the second amendment. It's a tag-team attack on the Bill of Rights. The "left" will dismantle #2, the "right" will dismantle everything else.

Is there nobody left who supports the entire Bill of Rights?

I'm all in favor of demilitarization. But unless you're advocating tyranny, you must start at the top, and work our way down.

"It's a tag-team attack on the Bill of Rights. The "left" will dismantle #2, the "right" will dismantle everything else."

Paul, funny i was going to say the same thing. The Right attacks the first amendment, the Left the second. Well it seems neither are for the personal freedoms the constitution grants us.

"Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights declares a well-regulated militia as "being necessary to the security of a free State" and prohibits infringement of "the right of THE PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS." then we get posts that start out like this:

"It will take more than one generation to get rid of 300 million firearms. All we can do now is start the process of disarmament, for the benefit of future generations of Americans. Who's game?"

so when do we get to start dismantling the first amendment? You can't pick what sections of the constitution you like and discard the others and call yourselves defenders of the document!

"By your logic, the First Amendment doesn't apply to the Internet, Television or the radio."

perhaps after confiscation of our firearms, then the first amendment can also be confiscated as well.

"The landlord of Robert Hawkins, the kid who shot whomever was near him in the mall in Omaha yesterday, says that he told Debora Kovac that he felt he was "unwanted". "He was unemployed, hopeless, he said he didn't want to be 'a burden anymore to anyone'. He said 'he felt like a piece of sh*t all of his life and now he will be famous'."

Robert Hawkins will be famous, at least with me, for immortalzing what the last stages of extreme loneliness, despair, hopelessness, depression and isolation can look like, when human beings stop caring for each other.

Too much to be contained within the conciousness of a boy.

So the crux of the argument in favour of the Second Amedment is based on
a) Tradition (i.e. the "Founding Fathers" put it in so it must be worth protecting;
b)Fear (i.e. bad guys will get guns illegally if they have to, so I need one to protect myself, my family and my property);
c) Nostalgia (i.e. I hunt myself. I have hunted for most of my life, with family members. We had fun. It can't be bad to have a gun if it leads to fun);
d) Paranoia (i.e. 'we' are moving toward a Orwellian facist state and I need a gun).

Maybe it's just me, but if the intended purpose of the gun is protection, then it's intended purpose is to be used on human beings. There's no real way around that one. If you intend to use the weapon for protection (thus on people), then it makes sense to use the weapons that ensure your protection by firing as many bullets at the person the 'gun is protecting you from.'

As many have noted here, if the purpose is for hunting, then a single-shot rifle is all that's required.

Can anyone give me a rational justification for the Second Amendment? For instance, Americans are not rural people anymore (you don't need a gun to secure your food or to use animal hides for your clothing). If you 'need' a gun for protection, then that implies state failure. Why? Because the primary task of the liberal state is to secure property; your labour is potential property and thus must be secured as well. As the state has a monopoly on violence to secure property, then if it can not do so then it is failing or has already failed. In other words, if you really do live in such a Hobbesian world where you can't count on the police to come to your aid before it's too late, then the state has failed in it's primary function.

But Maybe that's the point. Because if you think you need the gun for your protection (i.e. you'll use it on people), and you live in a Hobbesian world where you need protection but the State is unable/unwilling to provide it, then having a gun for protection (i.e. to use on people) becomes self-fulfilling. You implicitly stop trusting the state for your protection and thus recapture the rights you reliquish in order to be members of the society (esp. the right to take a life).

Again, if a rational justification is still out there, please do...I've been struggling with this one.

Paulitics, may I humbly accept your challenge. The 2nd amendment was not included because people needed guns to hunt and acquire food, or else they would have included an amendment for the right to own horses, plows etc. for other aspects livelihood.
One practical reason for the 2nd amendment is to empower the people, as is the case with the 1st. Empower the people v. the state. ie this is a power the people have, as with assembly, that the state may not take away.

The problem is the intent of classist aggression that causes the capitalist to promote/exploit the identity levers such as guns to enslave people to the American identity, the enabling facade for the capitalist machine. Suppress the classist intent, and the capitalist machine and other classist mechanisms are thereby weakened, and almost all human-induced problems in this world are thereby diminished.

PAULITICS. Very good points. Of course we may agree, there is a flip side to every coin or issue.

Here is an 'example' of the flip side. A man owns a service station and there have been robberies in the area lately and another merchant was shot and killed by a hoodlum during a robbery at his store last month. They have a very good police force, which have a helicopter for assist also. However, it is unreasonable and cost prohibitive, to have a policeman at every corner of the city 24/7.

The service station owner is lockng up for the night and suddenly out of the dark and stormy night, three men run towards him as he locks the front door of his station. One of the men is pointing a gun at him, he runs and the robber fires two shots. The owner falls to the ground, turns and fires back and kills the robber. That type of situation is not that unusual in America anymore, we seldom only hear of it, when it occurs in our city or local areas.

Now, one could easily say, the man should not have run, and instead allowed the gang to rob him and hope they didn't kill him. Then he would not have needed a gun to defend himself. Good argument? ___ Perhaps. What if he knew the men? Would they allow him to identify them? __Not likely. Did he have time to even think of that possibility? __ When under extreme duress and stress, self preservation is the natural human or animal instinct, and will overcome all other thoughts. We are actually animals, whether we wish to acknowledge that fact or not.

There have been several robberies that I can recall offhand, where stores or restaurants, etc, were robbed and the robbers murdered every one of the employees,___ execution style. Fear of harm of ourselves, or our family members is often the motive for one to be armed. Not relying that our police could arrive on time in an emergency situation is another reason and justifibly so, especially for people who may live in the county or out on a farm.

So, we live in a violent world now, drugs, a lack of having both parents at home during childrens growing up years. Presidents who set poor examples, teachers having sex with their students, hollywood stars and musicians promoting drug use. Triple xxx stores in abundance, selling things that were outlawed 55 years ago in America. Church leaders having sex scandels and priests being jailed for sexually abusing children.

What are our kids supposed to believe about morality? If mom and dad, our movie heros, our presidents do it, it must be Okay. So the kids grow up, and those in very poor living conditions, with inadequate schooling, where many drop out of school and believe they have no chance in life to do much, but hope to be the first drug dealer who never gets caught. Of course there is much more to be said on the issue, but I usually say too much anyway, so will stop here.

Does that all answer the gun issue? ___Nope, but it's a big part of the problem and answers.

As others have described, rationalizing gun ownership for protection against a rogue domestic government is now an absurd idea. In 1783 the idea that groups could form militia that could take on national armies was quite credible. After all, the colonies had just defeated the most powerful nation in the world with just such a method. But today nobody could possibly believe that a militia could take on the US military and survive more than a couple hours. The only thing you would succeed in doing is drawing attention to yourself and getting you and yours killed.
NOW, having said that, the idea that guns are there to protect you against criminals is not so easy to dismiss. And that's why I'm still on the fence on this one. Odd, very odd, that the REASON for the 2nd amendment is now obsolete, yet it is still cited as a rationale.

It might be rational. If gunowners did not argue the second ammendment, obsolete or not, they would not have a strong legal argument, if the government should ever enforce laws, that made gun ownership illegal. Once they begin to eat away at that right, the eating never stops.

When we have our depression next year, I'd bet almost everyone who isn't, will wish they were well armed. Of course that won't help much with lack of food.

Gun nuts. Free one way tickets to Baghdad to spend time in Gun Nut Paradise! Fire the latest version of RPG's. Simulated or real combat experience available.

Anti Government Libertarians : Free one way tickets to Mogadishu. Experience life in a country without a federal government. No Taxes! No regulations! Unlimited freedom.

Dear Paulitics, You wrote above, "Americans are not a rural people anymore... your don't need a gun to secure food..." Not true, sir, for instance, my brother-in-law and his family put about five deer in the freezer annually; it is an important part of their family's economy. Many of us ARE rural, or have ready access to hunting grounds. It IS a part of our culture, of individual pride, and, importantly a working-class activity that remains open and affordable in an age that is crushing the working man. Gun owners are well aware of conditions in most of Europe where hunting weapons are severely restricted and the hunting grounds are the priveledge of the rich. I am not discussing self-protection at all. Classifying such people as "gun nuts" and threatening to register such tools (having to ask permission to hold them) is rightly seen as one more tightening of the noose and drives them into the arms of the right wing. As with recent federal action to neuter Habeus Corpus, Posse Comitatus and many other traditional "rights", the Constitution is all that there is to resist a government that has no more regard for its citizens than it needs to. The contempt that many red state working-class people have for liberals can be partly explained by the total lack of understaning of their life. May I recommend reading, "Deer Hunting with Jesus", Joe Bageant (Crown, 2007)

lpenek: Iraqi militias have been fighting the mightest of them all to a complete standstill for over half a decade.

Although Iraqis probably have more 'motivation' than the average US citizen to get up off their behinds to 'revolt' and change things.

I tend to search for the distal causes of societal problems. I guess that makes me the classic liberal. So be it. What does it say about our society that millions of teenagers feel their lives are hopeless? Maybe there's something about the brain chemistry of certain individuals that would make them go on a shooting spree under the pressure of his personal circumstances, but the societal context makes it harder and harder for young people to value life, their own or that of others. Abraham Maslow spoke of the desacralization of sex and other aspects of life as being a critical factor in the disintegration of civil society. I think that he was right.

JohnR, It's conservativism.

So who could possibly be happy about the government coming to round up all the guns?

Because they want to protect us? Just like homeland security is to protect us right?…..wrong!

So, suddenly the media is not to blame….please.

What's political about random mall shooter? Conspicuously nothing.

1messengerofmany>
great point, well put.
i think that is the true story here.

For a very informative article on the possible role of SSRI (antidepressant) drugs in psychotic mass killings, please go to today's Progressive Review (www.prorev.com), "Mass Killings and Drug Denial".

"Classifying such people as "gun nuts" and threatening to register such tools (having to ask permission to hold them) is rightly seen as one more tightening of the noose and drives them into the arms of the right wing"

and that's where i find myself heading at times. progressives and liberals whine about "right wing wackos", "how hard it is for a true progressive" to get elected, etc, etc, but then go ahead and label people who don't entirely agree with them as "nuts". like i said before, what is the real difference between the LEft and the Right, attitude-wise? If progressives can't see this then perhaps they don't deserve having progressive candidates. They are ensuring that gun owners will go vote conservative which is also really repugnant

"Gun nuts. Free one way tickets to Baghdad to spend time in Gun Nut Paradise! Fire the latest version of RPG's. Simulated or real combat experience available.

Anti Government Libertarians : Free one way tickets to Mogadishu. Experience life in a country without a federal government. No Taxes! No regulations! Unlimited freedom."

Keep on ensuring that many of us won't vote for your candidates, or bother with your ideals, spouting insults like this. I can think of some very strong insults for this post, but i won't because others on here don't deserve it.

"Can anyone give me a rational justification for the Second Amendment? For instance, Americans are not rural people anymore (you don't need a gun to secure your food or to use animal hides for your clothing). If you 'need' a gun for protection, then that implies state failure. Why? Because the primary task of the liberal state is to secure property; your labour is potential property and thus must be secured as well. As the state has a monopoly on violence to secure property, then if it can not do so then it is failing or has already failed. In other words, if you really do live in such a Hobbesian world where you can't count on the police to come to your aid before it's too late, then the state has failed in it's primary function."

YES! it's in the document known as the "constitution". can you give me a rational justification for the first amendment?

We should remember that one of the several reasons for Al Gore's loss in 2000 was talking (unnecesarily) too much about gun control. He "motivated" some people to vote against him. Since Al was not there in the presidency as a result , we got Roberts & Alito appointed to the Supreme Court. They and the seven others are now scheduled to rule the first major second amendment case in 68 years--on the D.C. handgun ban. We may soon have something more to discuss on this.

Al Gore did not lose the 2000 election; it was blatently and unconstitutionally stolen from him by the Supreme Court and he was content to play the straight man for that coup. Never trust this man, or any other whose family fortune is in oil.

I never knew and still don't know how Gore could have possibly legally fought the ruling of the Supreme Court justified or not. Who could he appeal that ruling to?

Kem, Gore as President of the Senate could have signed the resolution the Congressional Black Caucus presented to investigate the 90,000 illegally purged Florida voters, or at the very least, not blocked other Senators from signing.

And TonyVodvarka is right. Below is a link to some inconvenient truths about Al Gore:

http://www.gnn.tv/articles/2301/Some_Inconvenient_Truths_About_Al_Gore

That post would not edit.

How about every adult citizen, has to own a handgun. They have to be proven to be literate and sane, have to attend a 20 hour gun safety and use class, just like for a drivers lisence. They have to carry it exposed in a button down holster when in public, and it must be loaded. Those deemed to be a risk, would have to have a fake gun that looked like the real thing. Anyone who was against using a gun, wouldn't have to use it, they just have to have one.

No semiautomatics allowed. Single action 38 calibre six shooters only. That would insure safety and eleminate crime in America and as a bonus, on school campuses, shopping malls, on commercial fights, buses, churches, subways and trains___ etc, everywhere we would be safe from crime at last.

Unarmed foreigners? That would not be a problem, they wouldn't come here. Those that had to, would have to wear an orange, dayglow vest. Think about it, it worked in the wild west. Of course everyone would have to check their guns at any place that serves alcoholic beverages. They can have them back when they leave. ___ It's better, fairer and safer, than the locker idea.

"How about a 'National Gun Locker' program? You sign your weapon in. You leave it in a vault. "

LOL, that will do a lot of good if you need it when someone breaks in, in the middle of the night. how about we just lock the other articles of the bill of rights in a vault?

how about this for all the gun haters? we don't make you buy a gun and you don't take ours away?

Thank you. Beeferkids.

How ya doin? Sure glad you are back.

[if no-one is watching this thread any longer, I might repost when the inevitable 'next' massacre story appears :(]

How about a 'National Gun Locker' program? You sign your weapon in. You leave it in a vault. When you need it, you sign a disclaimer before receipt. The disclaimer makes clear that if the firearm is discharged and injury occurs, YOU are completely liable. If your weapon is stolen, YOU are completely liable if further it is used in a crime. If your weapon is used for treasonous means, YOU are completely liable (and YOU must win... or else and we're all doomed). You use(?) weapon. You sign it back into the secure locker.

I think this crazy idea might *just* encourage responsible ownership at the same time allow any obsessives their funny little fetish.

godlessrant: Explain to us what exactly is 'well regulated' under the current interpretation of the 2nd Ammendment?

Kem: Under the same rules you outlined, why no just issue tasers to all?

I find your statement "Single action 38 calibre six shooters only. That would insure safety..." a little hard to swallow.

Why must the discussion of firearms center upon self-protection? Millions of people who keep firearms would be horrified by the prospect of having to shoot at another person. Of course that day might come, with the probablility of being struck by lightning if one doesn't own a 24 hour convenience store, and I suppose in fear, anything might be used, gun or baseball bat.

To me this kid and the ones in Colorado over the weekend represent a failure in military recruiting.