if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803
You Know, For Safety
by Lee
A sample of the European press, as you can well imagine, decries American “gun culture” and states that the reason the Virginia Tech massacre took place is because of America’s lack of stringent gun control laws. A sample:
“The passionate feelings of the gun lobby may be traced to the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, enshrining ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms’. Although the provision stems from the times when ‘well regulated militias’ were deemed necessary to protect against a British attempt to regain the lost colonies, it is the default position of any argument against greater gun control here.”
“As such, it has trumped every other consideration, not least the fact that on any given day about 80 people are killed by firearms, the vast majority by murder or suicide. Gun violence may cost $2.3 billion each year in medical expenses, but it is a price, gun supporters believe, that is worth paying to protect a fundamental freedom ...”
“There is no sign of attitudes hardening. Despite the opposition of every police force in the land, Congress in 2004 allowed to lapse a 10-year federal ban on semi-automatic assault weapons, a particular favorite of violent criminals. The reaction was not exactly deafening. Even amid yesterday’s shock, the initial calls were for stricter security measures on campuses—not serious moves to reduce gun ownership.”
I think it’s worth noting that the above editorial comes from the UK paper the Independent. The UK is a police state, with CCTV cameras monitoring damn near every inch of the country. I would much rather live in a country where I was free and have to deal with the occasional shooting than I would an Orwellian police state, where nanny monitors my every move.
You know, for safety.
To their credit, however, one German paper had the balls to admit that, maybe, the problem isn’t gun control after all.
“Now we will probably begin discussing the overly lax gun laws in the United States. There, buying a machine gun is often easier than getting a driver’s license. And a new ban on violent games and killer videos will also be put back on the agenda. But in the end, nothing is likely to happen. And the next killer already lives somewhere among us. But we have little reason to point an accusing finger at the Americans. Despite strict gun legislation, we (in Germany) have experienced the school shootings in Erfurt and Emsdetten. We have to consider the problems in our society. And we have to take care of our fellow humans.”
This is the crux of the point: GUN CONTROL DOES NOT PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE. The only thing it does is guarantee that only the bad guys have guns and the good guys are unarmed. As we all know now, an effort to let the good guys arm themselves was defeated back in January.
A bill that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus died with nary a shot being fired in the General Assembly....
Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. “I’m sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.”
It’s a good thing this bill was defeated. By making sure that students weren’t permitted to obtain CCW permits and carry licensed firearms it guaranteed that there would be no school shootings. Except for the massacre yesterday, of course. But hey, banning guns is a good thing.
You know, for safety.
The problem yesterday wasn’t guns. The problem was that the law made it so that there would be no guns in the hands of the type of responsible, law-abiding young man or woman who might have been able to prevent this massacre well before its conclusion.
But we all feel safe, right kids?
Comments
I guess the gun control lobby would have us believe that someone can be crazy enough to shoot 33 people, but they would still be discouraged by a 5-day waiting period.
That said, I’ve never been impressed by hunters. And maybe it should be kinda difficult to get assault rifles.
I’d like to see them back up the claim about easy access to a machine gun. To start with, just try and find one for sale - I’ve never picked up an ad for the local gun store and seen “machine gun” listed. I knew a guy who had several, but he had a federal firearms license, which is expensive and reportedly a bugger to get.
Driver’s licenses can be had by anyone, including illegals.
‘well regulated militias’
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this statement in conjunction with the right for every citizen to bear arms?
By not including the whole second amendment, any argument for or against US gun ownership is bogus.
Congress in 2004 allowed to lapse a 10-year federal ban on semi-automatic assault weapons, a particular favorite of violent criminals.
Again, a statement without any merit. Criminals have almost zero interest in “assault weapons”. Nor is a semi-automatic an “assault weapon” at all. Europeans get far too many of their “facts” direct from the action movies and television shows.
In reality, criminals prefer pistols.
John, do you even know what an “assault rifle” is?
It’s a fully automatic machine gun, typically with selective fire for single round, 3-round burst, and continuous fire. It may or may not have a bayonet lug, bipod mounts, or grenade launcher.
Civilian versions of such outdated weapons as M16 and AK-47 are semi-auto, making them no more or less lethal than any other semi-auto gun, despite it’s appearance. While you can convert them back to full-auto, you can also do the same for nearly any other gun on the market.
Screw the Europeans and thier ‘press’!!
To hear them talk, every evil in the world is our fault. We either caused it or didn’t do enough to prevent it.
After reading all the BS pumped out by the European press, I find it somehow amusing that they all have about the same level of comprehension of the Constitution as the typical leftist American press - nearly none at all.
Seriously, some of the statements made about the 2nd amendment and it’s “interpretation” are just out of this world. It’s tempting to write them off as ignorant, but then you realize they get their information from the US press, which is just as ignorant, only on a willfull basis.
Well, we have at the very least realized that terror doesn’t ALWAYS come from Muzzies anymore.
Terror? As in terrorism? Have we unconvered the shooter’s political or idealogical agenda?
Let’s be careful about diluting the meaning of “terrorism”.
It’s a fully automatic machine gun, typically with selective fire for single round, 3-round burst, and continuous fire. It may or may not have a bayonet lug, bipod mounts, or grenade launcher.
Civilian versions of such outdated weapons as M16 and AK-47 are semi-auto, making them no more or less lethal than any other semi-auto gun, despite it’s appearance. While you can convert them back to full-auto, you can also do the same for nearly any other gun on the market.
Here’s the definition of assault weapon as understood by liberals. “Any big, scary-looking gun.”
Civilian versions of such outdated weapons as M16 and AK-47
Outdated? What machines guns do soldiers typically use now?
Isn’t it still illegal for civilians to possess a fully automatic weapon? ...as well as to alter any semi-automatic into a fully automatic?
The m16 was developed for use 40+ years ago - it is outdated.
Possession of a full-auto weapon requires a federal firearms license.
There was a Centers for Disease Control study in 2003 on the effectiveness of gun control laws. The CDC couldn’t find evidence that gun control laws had any positive effect on violence (and they defined violence broadly, even including suicide).
For those who want to read the study, I link to it at my blog, but I warn you that my blog is a lot of ranting, venting and stream of consciousness type of writing.
I don’t think suicides should be included in gun violence statistics. Do we have bridge or rope violence statistics? It’s all an effort to fan the flames of hysteria.
Of course I know what an assault rifle is. What’s your point? I don’t have a problem with people being able to arm themselves, I just don’t know if I think everyone should arm themselves with machine guns. Does this suddenly make me into a screaming liberal?
And the only kind of hunting that would impress me is bow hunting.
Of course I know what an assault rifle is. What’s your point? I don’t have a problem with people being able to arm themselves, I just don’t know if I think everyone should arm themselves with machine guns. Does this suddenly make me into a screaming liberal?
And the only kind of hunting that would impress me is bow hunting.
Just how many machine guns do you think people have? Despite your perceptions on the issue, they are damned rare.
Do you actually hunt? If not, I think your perceptions of hunting with a rifle are a bit off base. I’ve hunted for years, and believe me, just having a rifle and being a good shot doesn’t automatically mean meat in the freezer.
I’m not comfortable with literally everyone being armed. The problem is you’re more likely to end up in one of those “Reservior Dogs” draw downs where everyone gets wasted. Even if you’re lucky enough to be Mr. Pink, you still have the cops to deal with and no one will ever know if you got away or not.
The problem is you’re more likely to end up in one of those “Reservior Dogs” draw downs where everyone gets wasted
What do you base this on? Watching movies?
I’ve been in places where EVERYONE was armed. Quite peacefull.
Yeah, but how many people lost an ear?
Geez, SO. It was a joke.
Pretty hard to tell there - and I get into a fever pitch on gun issues.
I deal with “too afraid of guns to think rationally” crowd all the time in this silly leftist town I live in. Some of them actually think that guns actually just “go off” or make people violent simply by existing in proximity to humans.
Ok but being fever pitched pro-gun may not be the best approach either. I don’t want to scrap the 2nd but I also don’t want some rube pulling his piece on me because I accidentally cut him off. Can’t there be some kind of middle ground on this?
Any oner hear that the Mayor of Hiroshima got shot in the back, yesterday?
so much for strict gun control laws.
Any oner hear that the Mayor of Hiroshima got shot in the back, yesterday?
so much for strict gun control laws.
He should consider himself lucky he wasn’t mayor 62 years ago.
Meanwhile, it’s Chuck’s fault.
Ok but being fever pitched pro-gun may not be the best approach either. I don’t want to scrap the 2nd but I also don’t want some rube pulling his piece on me because I accidentally cut him off. Can’t there be some kind of middle ground on this?
what? you think the kind of person that would shoot you for cutting them off is worried about a gun law?
Not every one should be armed, simply because there are people out there i would not trust with a butter knife…
but then again those kind of people are already in congress or active criminals.. or both.
don’t want some rube pulling his piece on me because I accidentally cut him off. Can’t there be some kind of middle ground on this?
I don’t want that either, but if someone does pull a gun on me for road rage (happened), I want an option other than “drive very fast” (which I did). What if I hadn’t been able to get away from that car full of gangbangers waving around pistols?
I do know one thing, the typical road rage nutjob isn’t a legal concealed carry.
The middle ground is this: you don’t have to carry a gun, but nor do you have the right to tell the average, sane, citizen that they can’t carry one if they so choose.
I was going to say… kinda redundant there, Harley.
Posted by GripeBoy on 04/17/07 at 02:05 PM from United States
I’m not comfortable with literally everyone being armed. The problem is you’re more likely to end up in one of those “Reservior Dogs” draw downs where everyone gets wasted. Even if you’re lucky enough to be Mr. Pink, you still have the cops to deal with and no one will ever know if you got away or not.
“Just think of it as evolution in action.” Larry Niven
Pretty hard to tell there - and I get into a fever pitch on gun issues.
So do i…
400 years ago it Was Bows and swords they tried to regulate… its the same old game the STATE trying to maintain power.
what? you think the kind of person that would shoot you for cutting them off is worried about a gun law?
Most likely not. It’s more about someone in the heat of the moment and there’s a gun. Admittedly, that’s nearly impossible to account for.
The middle ground is this: you don’t have to carry a gun, but nor do you have the right to tell the average, sane, citizen that they can’t carry one if they so choose.
And in no way am I arguing that sane citizens shouldn’t be allowed to carry. On the contrary, the more people that get approved for CC, the more people get screened. I’ve often thought of getting a permit myself, just to have it. I don’t even own any guns.
Of course, I don’t know at which point during the application for concealed carry the person is screened for psychological disorders.
My wife’s father had a CC while on prozac and a myriad of other drugs. He became increasingly paranoid about the government and eventually killed himself with one of his handguns.
Out of work, broke, estranged from family, depressed and on medication with a CC and a house full of guns.
Yes, sane citizens should be allowed to have guns.
How is it that the same libs that join Lee’s side when he’s dogging abstinence education are in favor of the gun version of the same?
How is it that the same libs that join Lee’s side when he’s dogging abstinence education are in favor of the gun version of the same?
That question could be turned on conservatives. How can you support sexual abstenence as a preventative measure but not support gun control as a preventative measure?
No one issue can define a conservative or liberal. It is entirely possible for a person to be for abortion on demand, and against any and all gun control. One can be for banning all abortions and still favor severe restrictions on the free market. One can be for the war on terror and still be in favor of gay marriage. None of these issues are related. However, in today’s political climate, if you step out of line on even one issue you’re a heretic, libtard, or rethuglican.
That question could be turned on conservatives. How can you support sexual abstenence as a preventative measure but not support gun control as a preventative measure?
That’s a pretty good question. On one side of the argument people say criminals will get guns anyway. On the other side people say kids will fuck anyway.
Maybe common sense could prevail with a compromise. Let teens be informed and responsible with their bodies, (because they’re gonna do it anyway) and let adults be informed and responsible with their weapons (because they’re gonna own them anyway).
How about a conditional cease-fire? The libtards refrain from classroom demonstrations on fisting and the rethuglikkkans refrain from carrying grenades on their person.
How can you support sexual abstenence as a preventative measure but not support gun control as a preventative measure?
Well, in one case, it’s the individual who’s regulating his/her behavior, while in the other, it’s the state that’s doing the regulating.
Just sayin’…
Next entry: A Question About Guns
Previous entry: Iraq Tech
Well, we have at the very least realized that terror doesn’t ALWAYS come from Muzzies anymore.