Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWhy Have We Stopped Talking about Guns?
You know by now that in Washington, DC, on Wednesday, an elderly white supremacist and anti-Semite named James W. von Brunn allegedly walked into the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum with a .22-caliber rifle and killed security guard Stephen T. Johns before being brought down himself. He's 88 years old, with a long record of hatred and paranoid fantasies about the Illuminati and a Global Zionist state. How bitter the bile that has curdled for so many decades.
You will know, too, of the recent killing, while ushering at his local church, of Dr. George Tiller, one of the few doctors in the country still performing late term abortions. Sadly, this case was proof that fatal violence works. His family has announced that his Wichita, Kansas, clinic will not be reopened.
You may be less familiar with the June 1st shootings in an army recruiting office in Little Rock that killed one soldier and wounded another. The suspect in question is an African-American Muslim convert who says he acted in retaliation for US military activity in the Middle East.
Soon, however, these terrible deeds will be forgotten, as are already the three policemen killed by an assault weapon in Pittsburgh; the four policemen killed in Oakland, California; the 13 people gunned down in Binghamton, New York; the 10 in an Alabama shooting spree; five in Santa Clara, California; the eight dead in a North Carolina, nursing home. All during this year alone.
There is much talk about hate talk; hate crimes against blacks, whites, immigrants, Muslims, Jews; about violence committed in the name of bigotry or religion. But why don't we talk about guns?
We're arming ourselves to death. Even as gunshots ricocheted around the country, an amendment allowing concealed weapons in national parks snuck into the popular credit card reform bill. Another victory for the gun lobby, to sounds of silence from the White House.
Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, wrote -- just days before the Holocaust Museum incident -- that "rather than propose concrete action that makes it harder for dangerous people to get firearms -- while still respecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners -- all Washington can seem to muster after high-profile shootings are 'thoughts and prayers' for the victims and their families.
"For his part, the President has also included sincere expressions of 'deep sadness' at these tragic losses -- though without any call to change any of our policies to prevent those losses.'
Yet, as a presidential candidate, Obama pledged "our determination to do whatever it takes to eradicate this violence from our streets, from our schools, from our neighborhoods and our cities. That is our duty as Americans."
The fact is, neither party will stand up to the National Rifle Association, the best known front group for the arms merchants. In Virginia, just across the Potomac River from the Holocaust Museum, this week's Democratic primary for governor was won by state legislator R. Creigh Deeds, a man who supports allowing concealed weapons in restaurants that serve alcohol and opposes limiting handgun purchases to one a month.
After Wednesday's shooting, a conservative organization immediately offered those of us in the media a chance to interview the founder of "Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership," whose expertise, it was said, is in helping people understand why gun control doesn't belong in a civilized society.
The e-mail went on to say, "Your audience will appreciate [his] non nonsense common sense talk that will make them wonder why anyone wants to ban guns in the first place."
Thanks, but no thanks. And no thanks to his counterparts among Christians and Muslims who use every violent shedding of blood to try to promote the worship of guns. Guns don't kill people, they say. People kill people. True. People kill people -- with guns.
So let the faithful of every persuasion keep their guns for hunting and skeet, for trap and target practice, for collecting. They can even have a permit for a gun to protect their business or home, even though it's 22 times more likely to shoot a member of the family (including suicides) than an intruder.
But please, there are already some 200 million, privately owned firearms in America. Every year there are 30,000 gun deaths and in some years more than 400,000 non-fatal, gun-related assaults. The next time someone wades through a pool of blood to sidle up and champion the preservation of firearms, can't we just say, no thanks?
Enough's enough.
245 Comments so far
Show AllLooks like a sniper rifle is not the only weapon required to take a shot....
I think that the gentleman is one of the people that Wanderer June might have in mind. If as you say, he is an example of half the people walking around; a person who is willing and able to invest probably $15k in a "target rifle"or $20 a pop ammunition, your country is indeed in dire straights. I guess he might have got it because he couldn't afford an Abrams tank for civilian use.
I meant his looks regardless of what he's holding. Don't twist what I said.
Okay - tell me where gun owners on trigger-happy power trips are mowing down people! Tell me you paranoid, kmow-nothing-about-guns, gunphobes! Keep your stupid paranoias and unfounded acussations to yourselves. This is 'McCarthyism' against gun-owners. I am tired of having my intelligence being insulted by them.
Our country is in dire straits? It is - but not for the reason you say. I know about Canadian gun laws and other laws - you people are docile, obedient, sheep-like serfs. You're the ones in dire straits - and our country is being pushed down your pathetic road.
Look over there - somebody has a gun! Run!
Whiners.
Sorry try this:
http://i348.photobucket.com/albums/q358/bellavite1/SANY0507.jpg
The actual purpose of this military rifle is to knock out unarmored vehicles, buildings and personnel. The forum thread the picture comes from discusses turning the ammunition over to the "government one piece at a time". Does this guy look like he is a believer? Are you?
My, what a beauty!
He looks like half the people walking around nowadays.
Yes, it's a military rifle and civilains have always found their own uses for military firearms like 1,000-yard matches.
Without assuming what the guy believes or if I agree or not, just that snippet of a quote is simple to understand. It's simple logic that eludes antis. Is he right now "turning the ammunition over to the "government one piece at a time"? No. So what of it?
The left can always threaten and indeed carry out all kinds of rioting, hooliganism, and mayhem in public when they don't get their way (like they tried to at the DNC convention) and that's righteous and a good thing! That seems to be their exclusive privelege. But if gun owners merely SAY they will resist government gun confiscation IF that happens, then the left says: they're dangerous and that's all the more reason to confiscate them! Brilliant thinking, that. Can you say, "collision course'?
Who's rights did GQ cover-boy violate that has you concerned? If he is not harming anyone or planning to - forget him!
What do you mean, am I a believer - in what?
I love the lively argument by the NRA zealots here. I present to you, the poster boy for Barret rifles, the manufacturer of a .50 caliber sniper rifle for "sporting" occasions. Go here
http://i348.photobucket.com/albums/q358/bellavite1/SANY0507.jpg,
kafirTom and post the link on your blog. This pic came from a user group complaining that the .50 caliber rifle may be banned by New York State. How do they expect people to provide for their families if the hunting files are taken away?
I tried the link and nothing is there.
What are you implying with that sarcastic question?
.50 BMG rifles are used for 1,000-yard competition shooting - obviously a serious threat to society that needs to be stamped out by the heroic, do-gooder legislators and activists.
The gun-phobic anti-gun nuts have been trying to whip up fear over these rifles for a long time - what a potentially great hobgoblin!
.50 cal. shooters threaten nobody. Is it asking too much of the demagogic antigun nuts to stop smearing them and leave them alone? Obviously, yes it is.
But what do I know? I'm just a 'zealot.'
Well all, thanks for the good blogging material! kafirtom.blogspot.com/2009/06/anti-gunners-still-misfiring.html
'Til next time :)
I didn't know this discussion was going on. However, I searched for "hazardous" and didn't find it in the thread, so the important point I would make hasn't been addressed: firearms are hazardous and need to be controlled as such, just as other hazardous things (prescription drugs, motor vehicles and the use thereof, professions like medicine and law, etc.) are controlled and regulated, not prohibited. The Second Amendment doesn't forbid control and regulation; even the NRA admits that some people shouldn't have guns, despite the Amendment.
I'm for more control by means of stricter law punishing people for not safeguarding their weapons from children, the mentally ill, persons who've been convicted of serious crime, etc. License to carry should be shored up to the point that private citizens have the same type of controls and regulations on them as police and licensed security forces. Possession of weapons while under the influence of drugs or alcohol should be punished as is DUI. Guns should be constructed so that they can be detected by law enforcement and traced if possessed by persons not entitled to possess them.
Such things won't make a big difference. Probably about as much as the difference made by seat belts in cars. But it's a start.
People who don't know what they are talking about and think they do are hazardous. Let those who do know about them and the related hazards decide what should and should not be done. They are qualified to. Gun owners know how to keep their guns safe from kids without do-gooders and politicians who never picked up a firearm telling them how to do it. Over and over anti-gunners see problems where there aren't any BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT - AND THERE'S NO TELLING THEM THAT. And other hazardous things you mention are regulated and there are still accidents and mishaps with them, aren't there?
Hey kafirTom , why is it you assume in this argument that you are the only person with the "right" answer. What credentials do you possess to determine "that people don't know what they are talking about"(basically calling them ignorant), and beyond a shadow of doubt that you do??
KafirTom (6/15/09, 2:53 pm): For sure. I just think that if prescription drugs, motorized vehicles, etc., weren't regulated -- for example, if you could buy hydrocodone over the counter and didn't need a license to drive a car -- we'd all be less safe.
Here's my point: Government's job is not to protect me from myself. If I cause harm to others I am rightly held liable. That's enough. We don't need more job security for wothless, unproductive bureaucrats; we don't need to give irresponsible politicians more power over us. I'm all for safety. As fars as firearms, the "safety concerns" of antigunners are a step toward gun bans. It's bogus.
BS - if you return all the money the government spent on you, THEN you won't be harming others. Otherwise, you've sucked up resources for nothing.
I have no problem with people having guns, as long as they're not creepy, violent people... like the way you've been posting.
Unfortunately, I don't know how to keep guns out of the hands of creepy, violent people without severe restrictions or banning. Especially when the creepy, violent people have as much power on this issue as they do.
KafirTom (6/15/09, 4:28 pm): Thanks for the comment. I do think government has a role in protecting people from themselves. That seems to be the main thrust of prohibitions of marijuana, cocaine, etc., as well as legions of laws limiting what you can do with motorized vehicles, planes, and boats, and on and on. I don't think guns in private hands will be banned, no matter what we "antigunners" do. Traffic is heavy despite speed limits, highways with lanes on them, traffic signals, laws against DUI, etc. In fact, even I might be persuaded to have a gun in my house for protection if better ways existed of keeping it out of the hands of visiting children, angry or intoxicated persons, and burglars.
Otherwise, I agree with you.
Well, then we can civilly agree to disagree - a rarity here - but I'll just elaborate my point as I should have by saying that when the government tries to protect me from myself it violates my rights. Its job is to protect them.
I'll state what has been made clear to me in these comments.
Most of you anti-gunners do not have a clue about firearms and the people who use them, nor what the laws regarding them are and should be.
The paranoid, dangerous, nuts are not me or people like me.
Many of you - not quite all - have made clear that you are self-righteous, delusional, ignoramuses. YOU are paranoid, politically dangerous, anti-gun NUTS. You project your own deranged minds and thinking on gun owners. Your beliefs and thinking have nothing to do with reality - and there seems to be no telling you that. You offer little argument but do offer plenty of utter nonsense, ungrounded fears, and complete lack of ability to deal in facts. You have willfully ignorant, fearful, mentalities that are essentially very similar to the medieval, superstitious Christians who (correctly) felt their fantasy view of reality was threatened by the first scientific discoveries.
Don't simply take the above as mere ad hominem; I say that descriptively. I think it is true - unfortunately.
I'm out of here. Have a nice day.
What a bullshit response.
You've been owned, and you don't have a thing left to say.
It's scary that creepy guys like you own guns.
Not just scary - a national problem.
Explain how I've been owned. What have I said has been demonstrably refuted? When was I shown to be wrong? Get specific because I'm obviously too stupid being a redneck gunnut to see for myself. Lay it out for me, Mr. Logician.
You know diddly about me, but you just somehow know that I'm creepy and someone to be worried about. Nah, you're not prejudiced. You're open-minded, level-headed, and tolerant because your leftist dogmas tell you that you are.
Again, the real paranoid nuts are to be found among anti-gunners - like you (Worrying) Wanderer.
It doesn't take much to scare you. Like I said, keep your phobias to yourself and don't make them other people's problems. And you're not the only one here that that applies to.
Pwned. Your ghost keeps posting even after you left. Strange. You gunnuts have powers.
It is time to repeal the 2nd ammendment. This ammendment has nothing to do with citizens having guns and was misinterpreted by the Supreme Court. It merely confuses all the gun nuts. I say do away with it and abolish all guns before we all kill ourselves.
Go ahead and repeal it. I still have the right to defend myself and will, pal. That cannot be repealed. It's about freedom from tyranny and mob rule. But those apparently concern you less than my ability to defend myself.
Very creepy.
The reason they ARE not talking about guns,is they have a better plan then take our guns, DEAD AND SICK people can't shoot guns. YOU SEE THIS NEW MAN MADE SWINE FLU, THAT IS AT PHASE 6, IS NOT A KILLER VERSION, They are waiting till flu season starts to release the killer virus, witch will be in the form of a poison vaccine, So why talk about guns its easier to kill TWO birds with one stone, JUST KILL THE PEOPLE WITH THE GUNS, THE USELESS FOOD EATERS AS THEY CALL THEM. AN WHLA PROBLEM SOLVED. ANY QUESTIONS.
Jeevee
Is shooting and/or killing an unarmed human or another animal thought to be COURAGEOUS?
We interrupt this obnoxious exchange of gobble-dee-gook for the following important message:
Reading these posts makes me feel nauseous. It's extraordinarily disappointing to see the same depressing, vitriolic level of non-discourse here on the Left as is heard from Rush Limbaugh and his ilk. After reading a few of the posts...filled with moronic name-calling, veiled and not-so-veiled insults aimmed at whomever, belittling jibes, and blathering nonsense...I feel like I need a shower.
Why in the hell can't we (meaning the collective "we," encompassing those on the Right, the Left and everywhere in between) have a civil discussion of important issues any more?
There, I've said it. You may now return to your spittle-spraying shreik-fest.
[Why in the hell can't we (meaning the collective "we," encompassing those on the Right, the Left and everywhere in between) have a civil discussion of important issues any more?]
I really think it depends on the issue, when talking about health care or economic policy people are usually a bit more polite. (at least at first, but some are more easily provoked than others, and well...) That is if they avoid talking to people who don't argue fairly. But when the issue of guns comes up, well, it's been my experience that the discourse is going to go to the dogs quickly anyhow.
The usa isn't about to change the way it deals with guns, it's not going to happen. Most people would like there to be less gun violencs, and by adopting some ideas from other countries that would be possible. But you and I know that the usa doesn't listen to ideas that come from other countries. There are still too many yanks who think that their guns protect their freedoms, that they can use guns to protect themselves from the police or 'da gubmint', they're utterly delusional.
"There are still too many yanks who think that their guns protect their freedoms, that they can use guns to protect themselves from the police or 'da gubmint', they're utterly delusional."
I rest my case.
Good grief. My comment from yesterday was removed. So much for "dialogue".
Moyers/Winship write:
" an amendment allowing concealed weapons in national parks snuck into the popular credit card reform bill. Another victory for the gun lobby, to sounds of silence from the White House."
All I SAID was -- aside from pointing out Obaama's mob backing in Chicago, and His campaign boast about being "the guy who brings a gun to the knife fight" -- that putting a concealed-weapons rider in a credit-card bill makes at LEAST as much sense as putting a bazillion dollars for European BANKS in the war funding Supplemental.
And I believe I might have pointed out that the grinning executive won't shut up about "violence" in OTHER countries.
Censorship you can believe in, Obaama -- and His minions --you . . . can't.
[Dem-dat-dare June 13th, 2009 8:23 pm
Moyers/Winship write:
"... an amendment allowing concealed weapons in national parks snuck into the popular credit card reform bill. Another victory for the gun lobby, to sounds of silence from the White House."
Well, Oblabla -- who's so won't-shut-up on any number of OTHER subjects, including "violence" in OTHER countries -- IS the guy who claims to be "the guy who brings a gun to the knife fight".
And a Saturday Night Special in the credit card bill makes at LEAST as much sense -- and costs a lot less, even if a few massacred campers ensue -- as His billions of US public dollars for European BANKS snuck into the war-funding bill. It's the Chicago way.
Maybe electing a corporate mobster in a birthday suit WASN'T such a hot idea . . .]
Doesn't look like it was removed... Just ignored.
I read your other comment about an hour ago...
Sorry you couldn't find it...
Perhaps because no one replied to it...
Sorry you assume that CD has deleted your comment...
Your comment wasn't as provacative as you think it is...
Unless you advocate racist or other bigoted stereotypes...
Or advocate violence directed at specific individuals or groups...
Your comment will remain here for everyone to ignore except yourself...
So shoot me :^)
Without numbers, pagination CAN play heck with finding one's place in following comments, since a user-setting for reading works (at least from here) only when one is logged in, such that if one is NOT logged in, and has set a preference for "newest first", one can wind up going backwards. If you see what I mean. :^|
Yeah...
I had a bit of difficulty navigating these boards when I first started posting as well...
I think I even had the same reaction when I couldn't find a post I made once as well...
I complained about it... Then I realized that I had posted it on a different thread...!
I hope I didnt come down too harshly on you...
Cheers
RE: So shoot me :^)
Well if you're asking to be shot, start by checking with Wanderer the Worrier as to who he thinks is most qualified for that task. When he sends you to me - you'll find out that he's wrong. But that's a good thing! :)
Addendum: the disappearing comment (June 13th, 2009 8:23 pm) DIDN'T actually disappear, but was merely . . . paginated.
How about apologizing to the nice people running this site for falsely calling them 'censors'?
I always hear that the gun grabbers want me to be able to keep my guns for hunting, skeet shooting, and home protection for my family. However these reasons are not the purpose of the Second Amendment. 2A was included so that the individual may possess the arms needed to resist and overthrow the government should it ever become tyrannical and oppressive. That is the reason that citizens should be able to possess assault rifles and regular capacity magazines (that does not mean 10rnds). If ever there arise leaders in our government that mean to truly oppress us (not this mumbo jumbo from idiots like Limbaugh who call Obama a commie and Glenn Beck with is War Room "Obama is going to oppress us garbage) I hope that Americans have the means to resist. That is what 2A is about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyozDbg48rQ
"2A was included so that the individual may possess the arms needed to resist and overthrow the government should it ever become tyrannical and oppressive."
"Should it"?
where have you been the last 8 years?
As I, and many others, have pointed out before. You will not be able to overthrow the us gov't using firearms. If you pick up your rifle and start shooting cops, federal agents, and soldiers, you will be targeted by those cops, agents and soldiers. You might be able to kill 5 of them, they will obliterate you and anyone who's unlucky enough to be near you. If you get a group of people together to rise in rebellion, that group of people will make a nice target for the gunships, bombers or tanks.
You don't have the ordinance available to fight the us army. You would not be able to gather an arsenal large enough to fight the government. Even if you get all the 30-50 round magazines and assault rifles available, you would be fighting people who are trained to work together. People who have 120mm howetzers, gunships that fire thousands of rounds a second, bombers that drop 2 thousand pound bombs, morters and all the ammo that the usa has stockpiled for any such eventuality at their command. They'd not find enough of you to bury.
This isn't the 18th century anymore, the army has much more destructive weapons at its command. Heck, even in that century the rebellions against the us gov't didn't turn out so well for the rebels (eg. the Whiskey Rebellion).
The only way an armed rebellion would work in the usa is if the army was conducting it.
So, you've just given up to the thugs who beat Amy Goodman and crew then? Ready to be a member of the Joy Division, and all.
You use as an example a lone gunman vs. the state. Remember, there are about a million total servicewo/men - there are three hundred million citizens. Technology included, with the Second Amendment a corrupt government doesn't stand a chance. You should look to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Viet Nam, Nicaragua, or the Chinese Boxer Rebellion. What happened to a Native American nation that surrendered to the Cavalry? They were disarmed first and foremost. Then they were $#at onto the worst plots of land that could be found, to become poor, depressed, and living in shanty towns (until the new war through gambling). The armed civilian sheep dogs in this nation will become the indigenous forces fighting for their people. Like extinct nations some of us would rather die, than live oppressed for the remainder of our lives. Yes, there is a slow squeeze, a frog in hot water phenomenon currently going on. We are not frogs, however, and there are voices like Naomi Wolf spelling things out for people (see: "The End of America"). That is why the First and Second Amendments exist.
However, Saturnalia, perhaps you happen to like the events of the RNC in St. Paul, and that's why you promote a weak populace.
[You should look to Afghanistan,]
The terrain helps gunmen in that area, so too do groups outside that country that funnel in arms, ammo and people to help fight the foreigners. Not to mention that the usa/nato doesn't have half the numbers of troops there than the USSR did. In the case of an actual insurection in the states you'd be pretty much in the open, and the gov't could and would bring far more soldiers to bear on you. The usa doesn't really want the fighting in Afghanistan to stop, it's useful for the corporate interests at this time.
[Pakistan,]
Fighting in the Swat valley was a victory for the anti-gov't forces was it?
[Viet Nam,]
From what I've read the us army kicked arse there, you killed between 2-5 million Vietnamese before you couldn't pay for the war to continue another futile decade. Again that was a foreign war, you didn't have to win that one.
[Nicaragua,]
A group of rebels might succeed if they have the support of another powerful country, sorta like how G Washington had the support of the French monarchy during your own war of independence. If not for the French, Britain might have been able to hang your founding fathers.
[or the Chinese Boxer Rebellion.]
The Boxer's were slaughtered. That was a period when the western powers used Opium to colonise China.
[The armed civilian sheep dogs in this nation will become the indigenous forces fighting for their people. Like extinct nations some of us would rather die, than live oppressed for the remainder of our lives.]
You've already been oppresed, your country is bankrupt, you're losing your homes, your government wants to keep you as slaves to the employer rather than provide affordable health care for all. You have one law for the rich and powerful, and jail for the rest of the people. That frog is cooked! The parrot is DEAD. Your guns haven't defended you at all. And your last president claimed your constitution is just so much toilet paper.
Since you missed the post above when I mentioned I'm Canadian, I'll point it out again. I live in a country that still respects the rule of law. We don't have nutballs shooting each other every bloody day. Except for Alberta, your vote counts when you cast a ballot in this country. We've never had a court hand an election to the freaking loser. As dumb and idiotic as some of our PM's have been/are, they're still far brighter than any Republican leader you've had in the last 50 years.
The Viet Namese outlasted Chinese, Japanese, French, and US occupation. They never gave up.
The Boxers lost many, because they were swords and fist against firearms, and they held out until other imperialists could send aid.
Afghanistan held out against a little Soviet Bloc called the USSR.
Pakistan has kept its identity and eventually its independence despite about ten different cultures over the past several hundred years.
Add to these Brazil, and the phenomena of capoeira, again the spirit of a people successfully rose up against superior technology, with slaves driving out the Portuguese.
You really trust a power elite? I don't, and in my nation we have the right to be armed, in case of an oppresive regime. You yourself say it's already flourishing, yet you want to disarm us. Imagine the acceleration of oppression if that were to happen. Both with the weakening of the people, and the precedent of obliterating our Bill of Rights. Free speech, right to protest, right to fair trial and representation, privacy, freedom from unreasonable search and siezure are all already teetering, yet we are said to have them. Yes, the water is near boiling it seems. I hope that communication and revelation can help to cool the pot, but history says that is rare. You want to disarm us? You want to strengthen the forces who ignore the wills of the people, commit treason against our Constitution, crimes against humanity, illegal wars, voter fraud?
I can not agree with you. We're in a dire situation, and from another nation you promote further disolving of our Bill of Rights. You're not helping.
Bwa ha ha!
Yours is the nation that has trashed its own constitution. I'm just pointing out that your possession of firearms hasn't prevented your loss of civil liberties. It's not prevented your government from locking up over a million of your own citizens for non violent crimes. Your freedom of speach is worthless when you can't be heard, or are safely ignored. You have the right to protest in 'freespeach zones' setup during the bush years. You don't have the right to freedom from unreasonable search and siezure (thanks to the war-on-some-drugs) The right to a fair trial is not there if you can't afford a lawyer, and the prosecutor threatens you with a century in jail if you dare go to trial.
I don't think I've actually said that I want you to disarm. But I have said that you would do well to consider that arms won't help to overthrow those who've used your constitution as toilet paper. Why fight a second civil war, when non-violent resistance to the corporate state would work. Fill the jails, pack the courts by demanding trial by jury for every offence the cops charge people with, work to rule at your jobsite. Go on strike to protest the mortgages fiasco and the lack of health care.
A second civil war is not going to happen in the states, you'll never get a large enough group together who are willing to fight it. But you could get enough people out in the streets who aren't going to put up with the establishment of a fascist state (one that got going under bush, and continues to grow despite the election of the 'opposition' party.)
As for your military history...
The Viet Namese (we don't have time or enough words to argue this topic. Long story short it wasn't in the interest of the usa to keep fighting, a loss in vietnam wasn't something that would end up destroying the usa)
[The Boxers lost many, because they were swords and fist against firearms, and they held out until other imperialists could send aid.]
They lost. China only regained its independence from the west when the Japanese Empire rolled over it and killed a few million of its people. Again, were it not for the aid given to the Republican forces (from the west) and Mao (from the USSR) in order for them to fight during WWII the Chinese would be a vassal state to this day.
[Afghanistan held out against a little Soviet Bloc called the USSR.]
That nation had support from outside its borders against the occupiers. Tell me, what nation in its right mind would support an insurection inside the usa? North Korea perhaps... Even when you weren't the top power in the world, no nation provided real aid to the confederacy.
[Pakistan has kept its identity and eventually its independence despite about ten different cultures over the past several hundred years.]
And gained its independence not by arms, but by following Ghandi's nonviolent protest of British rule. (after partition is a different story...)
[Add to these Brazil, and the phenomena of capoeira, again the spirit of a people successfully rose up against superior technology, with slaves driving out the Portuguese.]
Without any help from the usa, right? Somehow I doubt that.
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." – Mahatma Gandhi
I found a page online that has quotes from the man, and thought if we're going to do battle by quoting others...
I cannot teach you violence, as I do not myself believe in it. I can only teach you not to bow your heads before any one even at the cost of your life.
I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.
It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.
Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will.
When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it--always.
I am prepared to die, but there is no cause for which I am prepared to kill.
Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary.
What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?
Mahatma Gandhi,
And yet, it was not with the gun that the Raj was forced to end its rule of India.
Ghandhi did not take up arms against the British. He still won.
What did Ghandi win? In the long run, I mean...the run not yet finished...the one featuring suicidal rice farmers...
We're talking about the modern US, though. The US tazes grandmothers, shoots tear gas into the eyes of baseball fans, and tramples veterans under horses' hooves. Ghandi wouldn't last.
I'm tired of your compartmentalized vitriol. Go back to the beginning and reread, if you're that lonely. If you read enough times, you might understand my main points, instead of focusing on intermittent sentences.
I've not been that vitriolic, I've been sarcastic.
The modern us, eh? The time that the us gov't trampled vets under the hooves of horses was the 1930s, when Ghandi was launching his nonviolent campaign against the brits.
I've addressed the points of how the gov't is trampling your freedoms, but reject the idea that taking up arms to fight cops who tazer or gas people would be successful. You're quite right to say that in the modern us Ghandi would have been assassinated in the same way that ML King was assassinated. You earlier argued that there are 300 million people in the states who would fight for their freedoms, you're quite wrong. Of the 300-350 million yanks a good third of them are too old or too young to fight, then there are the parents of the kids who aren't going to risk losing their children by taking up arms. Even during the Revolutionary war most people stayed on the sidelines and didn't fight for the usa or for england. And you completly ignore the fact that the gov't would have spies looking into any organisation that would propose such an insurection. It wouldn't get off the ground.
Ya know, I think we could agree on a number of things. First is that there is no way that guns are going to be taken away from the us population in general. The NRA would never allow for an effective gun control act to last long if it ever were passed.
And then there's ShotSpotter technology . . . makes you wonder how all those hardy upstarts in OTHER countries -- most of whom have not so much as an air force -- resist "our" armed forces -- and their drone-bombers, and spy satellites, and whatnot -- for so long, and at such appalling costs.
Note, however, that in revolutionary situations -- which, history tells us, always seem unthinkable, until they're actually happening -- "the army" usually becomes "the armies" . . .
Sioux Rose
SATURNALIA: Apt analysis.
woobie and huggy wuggy. max payne, you prove, once again, that the common dreams discussion boards are not idiot proof. and you are perhaps the sole argument that anti-gun nuts have in their attempt to take away a constitutional right. for a real horror, imagine a gun in the hands of a max payne.
for further ammo to this discussion, how about the anti-gun freaks doing a bit of research on the overall health of big game herds in the mountain regions, or any region for that matter, since hunting was introduced vs. prior to that era.
long gone, long gone, is the manner in which the average joe takes his gun into the field to hunt game. now, we have citizens, filled to the brim on steroids and anything else that big pharma can convince them they really need - like the four hour erection - taking their ak47s' out into the woods to "go hunting." i was taught, many decades ago, to never use your gun until your target was in a position for a clean and clear shot. most of the wild game i've shot comes in at less than a hundred yards. repeatedly i will pass up anything over 150 yards. but now, we've got the max payne jackoffs of the world out in the woods, toting their semi-automatic cannons blasting away at tree shadows. golly gee, i thought it had horns, i guess them wuz branches.
combining those freaks with comments like this from wanderer:
"We need to take your guns away, because you're one nut-job, and it's not clear to me you're mentally balanced enough to posses deadly force."
how about your cars? your kitchen knives? your government-issued and forced down your throat plastic box cutters? remote-controlled airplanes? bombs raining down from the sky? anthrax-laced letters? joy-sticked drones ruining wedding parties? where, wanderer, does your "deadly force" argument begin and end?
ubrew12, the moyers/winship article ends with this:
"But please, there are already some 200 million, privately owned firearms in America. Every year there are 30,000 gun deaths and in some years more than 400,000 non-fatal, gun-related assaults. The next time someone wades through a pool of blood to sidle up and champion the preservation of firearms, can't we just say, no thanks?
Enough's enough."
and that is the whole point of the story.
ah, freedom. only in america would choking on a pretzel be considered a newsworthy event. and provide fodder for yet another argument on one's right to eat pretzels.
""rather than propose concrete action that makes it harder for dangerous people to get firearms -- while still respecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners"
Because it's impossible. Until you admit that the second amendment was a total brain fart and openly lobby for an amendment to repeal it, you'll remain mired in hypocrisy.
http://www.users.bigpond.com/pmurray
http://www.paulmurray.id.au/ageofworms
Please read the discussion on well-regulated militia above.
After that, you may brain-fart.
I know! I can tell: you want to be like maxpayne when you grow up! Keep trying, you'll get there!
guns don't kill people - bullets do.
Guns are for killing. I believe that anything which makes fewer guns in the country would save lives, but I doubt that prohibiting them is the answer. Impressionable (mostly) young men get the idea that guns are cool, rather like swords used to be. Perhaps a program similar to the anti-smoking campaign could eventually make the idea of owning such a device for killing repugnant.
Cigarette packs now carry pictures of diseased lungs.
perhaps ammo boxes could display splattered brains.
or a bit of your "collateral damage."
You can own a gun in germany. You just have to prove you know how to shoot it, clean it, store it safely, and basically protect the lives of those around you through your ownership. What we do in America to prevent guns from falling into the hands of certifiable NUTCASES is a JOKE by comparison, a CRUEL joke if you happen to be on the receiving end of one of these 'peacemakers'.
You can own a gun in Canada too, all you need to do is take a firearms safety course and not have a criminal record. I used to own them, shot gophers and targets, went hunting a couple of times but seemed not to be able to hit bambi at all. Sold them years ago and feel no more or less secure in my home with or without them.
Most Canadian gun owners realise that having a gun doesn't make you any safer than not having a gun. There are some who've been influenced by the us NRA, but most of our gun owners wouldn't tolerate that group of nuts.
Anyone can own a gun.
Moyers point is that it takes a...
88 year old Nazi with a proven record for crazy behavior, and a 51 year old anti-abortionist who has fallen off the bounds of normal behavior...
to fire one.
As long as that is true, good people are going to die, and bad people are going to kill them, for no other reason than we don't discriminate between the responsible gun owner and the certifiable nutcase in this country. We welcome them all to buy a gun and trust that they won't fire it in our direction. The rest of the world thinks we're crazy to be doing that, and I agree.
Go and try to buy a firearm, you can then prove your argument here as far-fetched and false.
If it was far fetched would either of these murders have occurred?
You didn't try and buy a gun did you? Try, then come back and talk.
So much for the 20,000 gun control laws on the books then! Why do anti-gunners act like they haven't ever successfully passed the laws they want?
Wait - do you even know where this lunatic got his weapon? I haven't looked into the details. It could be a .22 he had since he was a kid, if so the present laws are irrelevant.
Number of laws doesn't translate into effectivity. Whether he got it as a child or not, someone as demonstrably cuckoo as this character has been his entire adult life should not be allowed to own a gun, and in other countries his gun would long ago have been confiscated.
Only in America do we repeatedly condemn the normal guy to death, so the nutcase can have his 'rights'. If your daughter joins the military and is stationed in S Korea, you just reduced her chances of dying of a gunshot wound by a factor of 20.
Finally, the idea that you're going to defend yourself against a nuclear-tipped police state is a fantasy. You'll look real funny trying to shoot down their Predators as they take aim on you from 30,000 ft.
According to the CDC, there were 30,896 firearms related deaths in the US for 2006 (most recent year for data). Of those, more than half, 16,883, were suicides. We know from Canada's gun ban statistics that a successfully suicidal person will still kill themself without a gun, just more slowly and painfully. So, let's remove self-euthanasia....
The number of accidental firearm deaths is 642.
The number of firearm related homicide deaths is 12,791.
The number of auto related deaths is 45,509.
Firearms are safer than automobiles, or at least they sure kill less often.
The number of deaths by suffocation is 14,179.
You're more likely to suffocate, than be murdered with a firearm.
Poor use of statistics.
Says you. You may say that.
Its a poor use of Statistics.
Its not a "says you". In making any meaningful comparison you have to compare how many auto trips are made each day, how many miles are driven and so on.
On a given day 200,000 people can be crossong a single bridge in their vehicles. Are you claiming that 200,000 people are also on that bridge shooting guns into the air?
last week i made some 90 seperate trips with my automobile, my job being in the Service areana where such required.
I did not take a gun out 90 times. I did not take my gun out a SINGLE time.
There are about as many firearms in this nation as automobiles, and automobiles kill innocent people more than three times as often.
Cars in our society, as is, are more deadly than firearms in our society, as is.
The gross number of deaths with cars is greater. Why don't we have enforced magnetic stripe, computer controlled technology being fed down people's throats?
You don't like dead people, then go to the greater source. Obviously we aren't a society that deserves the freedom of the automobile.
As GW said tho, you'll use your car far more often than you or the most rabid gun nut would use his/her gun.
For most yanks you'll have to use your car to get to a place that you can safely use your gun. That is you get in the car with your bang stick in the trunk (or hooked on the gun rack of the pickup) and drive to the range (or area where you can hunt, camp, whatever), then blast away happily. After shooting you get back in the car/truck. You've used the car twice, the gun once. To pay for the bullets you will get in the car 10 times a day/5 days a week, unless you use the gun for your job you're still using your car far more often than you'll ever use your gun.
By the way, you do have to register your cars, don't you? Aren't you required to buy insurance for them, and be responsible when using them? If you're drunk and driving, don't you go to jail if caught? If you decided to use your car to mow down a bunch of kids in the school yard you really wouldn't get the kill rate that you would if you used your gun.
Car registration is just a means for each state to squezz more money out of it's citizens, nothing more. Registration does not prevent car theft like the goverment thought. I would not mind firearm registration if it was done state by state like car registration.
Some info for you because it seems like you missed it.
From the Center for Disease Control (US):
The number of auto related deaths is 45,509.
The number of deaths by suffocation is 14,179.
The number of firearm related homicide deaths is 12,791.
The number of accidental firearm deaths is 642.
(You love cars because they kill so many more US citizens?)
From the Congress On Racial Equality and Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nckgyfGbdnU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g7TbxkJuqA
From ABC News' 20/20:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ
Bonus! Crazy-drunk, white Republican gun nutter being irresponsible (WARNING, graphic images):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfJ_dSIjWK0
[You love cars because they kill so many more US citizens?]
Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? Especially as I've not said a) that I love cars b) that I'd like to see more dead yanks or c) that I'm not familiar with what mark Twain said about there being three types of lies; lies, damned lies and statistics.
Your argument implies that if someone uses a firearm in the event of a crime, that they are not charged and tried. This is so flawed as to be unanswerable.
In the City of Boston, which has relatively high gun control, if you walk through a park at night, "you're just askin' for trouble".
In the City of Albuquerque, which respects the Bill of Rights and has a high firearm per household ratio, neighborhoods and parks are safe at night enough that families will have quiet dinners in said parks. That is how firearms are used without being used, everyday.
[Your argument implies that if someone uses a firearm in the event of a crime, that they are not charged and tried. This is so flawed as to be unanswerable.]
Straw man, I never said any such thing. I expect people who use firearms to commit crimes to be charged, hell, I expect idiots who shoot firearms in an unsafe manner to be charged.
I'm still waiting for you to finish explaining how I'm part of the problem.
Ah them lousy gun toters who have nothing better to talk about. Just more NRA propaganda. Nice to see you butt naked with only your guns left. Let's see you pull yourself out of your economic distress and lack of civil liberties hell with guns alone. I wouldn't mind having a gun for mere defense more like a household item but comparing it to automobiles which I'm sure you drive too is just desperately ridiculous.
This "propaganda" is from the Center for Disease Control, not the NRA.
Then post the link for proof.
Like you proved all the claims the anti-gunners make. Right. I'd love to see that proof. I'm still waiting to see it.
I'm sure you can search engine your way there. You're clever.
Thanks for proving that you lied. Bye now.
Oh, poor boy.
I'll make it easy.
Use: "CDC", "National Center for Injury Prevention and Control", and "WISQARS Injury and Mortality Reports 1999 - 2006".
That should get you closer.
You can do it!
You tell 'im!
This is great! I didn't know that "spining off the rails" like Wanderer told I am could be so much fun :)
Where'd everybody go? I'm just getting warmed up! ;)
Thank goodness we made heroin, cocaine, pcp, and methamphetamines illegal. Now nobody can buy such.
Thank goodness we made murder illegal. Now nobody can commit it.
Thank goodness rape is illegal. Now it doesn't happen.
Now we need to prevent law abiding citizens, who undergo background checks, from defending themselves against the murderers, rapists, and drug dealers who obviously don't exist in our perfect society.
Firearms prevent more death than they cause. Gun control lobby funded studies still have only proven that gun control leads to higher crime, because criminals know it's safe to attack. If you want peace, you need to be mutually armed. If you disarm the good, evil strikes.
Where does gun control really come from and lead to? Let these men tell you:
"Gun control has been enacted, the public is now safe."
- Adolf Hitler (Weimar republic: 12 million innocents murdered)
"A soldier with a gun can control a hundred unarmed citizens."
- Lenin (USSR: 20 million innocents murdered)
Guns are just woobies for insecure adults who are afraid of not getting what they want. When I read these posts by gun nuts, I think of a little child writhing on the floor kicking and screaming because mommy won’t let them have dessert.