Arizona Blue Dog Dem shot at public event

[stephen55]

Rephrase the Second Amendment and it no longer fits in 2011

Then why were you the one to bring up the militia clause?

Like you said, you can't have it both ways.

Your position is that the availability of things is what causes gun violence.

Mine is that crazy people cause gun violence and taking the guns and accessories away from them only directs their craziness to another method which may or may not be less lethal or may be -- as the columbine shooters intended with the propane bombs they never got a chance to set off -- much worse than a mass shooting.

I do not think that taking things away from people who have done nothing will be either the right approach or an effective approach. Identifying the crazy people who are the real danger is definitely more difficult than showing the press piles of inanimate objects and claiming victory, but those objects are NOT the problem.

Those objects are not the sole problem, but they are a major and contributing part of the problem.

You like to separate the person from the thing. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

When it comes to gun violence, let's be honest. It's people with guns that kill people.

The criminals, the narcos and the deranged don't generally arm themselves with grandpa's old Winchester Model 70. When was the last time someone held up a bank armed with a single shot Cooey .22?

Like I said before, crazy people will do crazy things, but why make it so damned easy? If the crazies and the narcos are going to shoot up the place, why let them have thirty shot clips? It's insane.


Why did I bring up the Second Amendment? Because of what it says.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It says that the right to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed because that right is necessary for the security of the State, through the establishment of a well regulated Militia.

So what happens when the security of the state no longer rests with local militias? What happens when local militias are not well regulated? (Think; the vast number of paranoid, anti-everything "militias".)

I think it's a very good idea to keep firearms out of the hands of the crazy people. Their craziness may be directed into other avenues. At least it will be a great deal harder, and less likely that they will succeed in mass murders.

The fact that it is difficult to identify all they crazies out there makes it more important to deny them military grade, high capacity weapons. Who but the military and the police need these things?

Is giving up the right to own military grade, high capacity weapons such an imposition? Is reducing, or eliminating the Virginia Techs and the Tucson Arizonas worth such an imposition? I think it is.

 

[Huckleman2000]

The government has successfully banned machine guns from civilians. It has banned "plastic" guns. Armor-piercing bullets.

You're the absolutist in this argument, WH, not those you call "prohibitionists". Your emotional investment in guns is apparent from your writing, even as you drone on about arcane Constitutional interpretations and "guns don't kill" pablum.

 

[SeaCat]

The government has successfully banned machine guns from civilians. It has banned "plastic" guns. Armor-piercing bullets.

You're the absolutist in this argument, WH, not those you call "prohibitionists". Your emotional investment in guns is apparent from your writing, even as you drone on about arcane Constitutional interpretations and "guns don't kill" pablum.

Ahhhhh but he is correct in his "Guns don't kill pablum".

In my years as a firefighter, in my years doing rescue and in my years in the hospital I have yet to see a victim of a gunshot where the firearm just up and shot the person. (if you have ever seen a documented case of this please post a link to it.)

In every shooting I have ever seen or read about there happened to be a human wielding the firearm. (the same with every knifing and beating.)

Again I make my comment. Enforce the laws we have. Prosecute those who break the law, prosecute them to the full extent of the law.

Guilty by reason of insanity? Notice the first word? Prosecute.

Owning illegaly? (ie a felon in possesion.) Prosecute and punish. (That's a big one folks.)

No more plea deals. It is only in this manner that we will start getting a handle on the problem, not by banning or outlawing firearms.

Cat

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The Supreme Court settled the debate a year or so ago.

 

[DeeZire]

Ahhhhh but he is correct in his "Guns don't kill pablum".

In my years as a firefighter, in my years doing rescue and in my years in the hospital I have yet to see a victim of a gunshot where the firearm just up and shot the person. (if you have ever seen a documented case of this please post a link to it.)

In every shooting I have ever seen or read about there happened to be a human wielding the firearm. (the same with every knifing and beating.)

Every now and then, someone drops a firearm and it goes off when it hits the ground, so technically, in that case, the firearm could kill without a human pulling the trigger.

No more plea deals. It is only in this manner that we will start getting a handle on the problem, not by banning or outlawing firearms.

Cat

So you're cool with the gun show loophole?

Here's something you might get a kick out of. This Tucson billboard was taken down today. Apparently, Clear Channel didn't want to deal with the fallout.

http://i.imgur.com/PsyN3.jpg

 

[Stella_Omega]

Every now and then, someone drops a firearm and it goes off when it hits the ground, so technically, in that case, the firearm could kill without a human pulling the trigger.



So you're cool with the gun show loophole?

Here's something you might get a kick out of. This Tucson billboard was taken down today. Apparently, Clear Channel didn't want to deal with the fallout.

http://i.imgur.com/PsyN3.jpg

The image didn't show up for me, so I've edited to make it a direct link to the file.

 

[sr71plt]

Of course guns kill people--and in many cases these are guns given over easily into the hands of nuts. There are very few people who get stared to death or die from lashings by wet noodles. What does the killing is the conveniently available killing weapon. The more easily they are accessible, the more senseless killings there are. Duh. Americans seem to be about the only people who can't get this.

 

[SeaCat]

Every now and then, someone drops a firearm and it goes off when it hits the ground, so technically, in that case, the firearm could kill without a human pulling the trigger.



So you're cool with the gun show loophole?

Here's something you might get a kick out of. This Tucson billboard was taken down today. Apparently, Clear Channel didn't want to deal with the fallout.

http://i.imgur.com/PsyN3.jpg

Sorry, All I'm getting is the dreaded red X.

As for the Gun Show loopHole, no I'm not cool with it. Notice the rest of my post. Enforce the laws we have. ie. felons not being allowed to own FireArms, Ten day waiting period, (at least here in Florida.) etc.

As for the firearm being dropped and going off. Yes it can happen although it is rare. On the other hand, and more to my point I don't see my Beretta wandering down the street on it's own and shooting at people it doesn't like. The only time I have seen firearms doing that they were in the hands of someone, a human being. (The same as the knives, axes, machetes, baseball bats, lamp cords, rocks, etc. that I have seen used to main kill or threaten people.)

Yes I own and yes I carry. I do so responsibly. Again I say, if you eant to cut down the crime crack down on those who break the law. Enforce the laws.

Cat

 

[SeaCat]

Of course guns kill people--and in many cases these are guns given over easily into the hands of nuts. There are very few people who get stared to death or die from lashings by wet noodles. What does the killing is the conveniently available killing weapon. The more easily they are accessible, the more senseless killings there are. Duh. Americans seem to be about the only people who can't get this.

Again I say it. Show me a link where the firearm went down the street and shot someone on it's own.

And yet again I say it. Prosecute those who own or carry illegaly. Enforce the laws that are on the books and you will cut down on the killings.

Cat

 

[Stella_Omega]

Again I say it. Show me a link where the firearm went down the street and shot someone on it's own.

And yet again I say it. Prosecute those who own or carry illegaly. Enforce the laws that are on the books and you will cut down on the killings.

Cat

Show me a guy who went down the street without a gun and shot someone.

You are right about prosecution.

 

[sr71plt]

Again I say it. Show me a link where the firearm went down the street and shot someone on it's own.

You're just being stupid on this. That's a national past time on this topic.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Show me a guy who went down the street without a gun and shot someone.

You are right about prosecution.

Quite a few people have probably done that. After all, you can shoot somebody fatally with a longbow or a crossbow or a blowgun or a slingshot.

And I also agree with you others about prosecuting and, above all, carrying out the penalty if the shooter is convicted

 

[SeaCat]

Show me a guy who went down the street without a gun and shot someone.

You are right about prosecution.

Welllllll, I have been accused of shooting someone without a firearm, but that was an entirely diferent situation.

As for the prosecution, if we were to enforce the laws we have in effect now then the amount of crime would drop. Then again most people would scream and complaine.

Cat

 

[Weird Harold]

Show me a guy who went down the street without a gun and shot someone.

You are right about prosecution.

So, you'd be OK with the "regrettible mayhem" as long as the nutcase didn't use a gun?

The point the prohibitionist don't seem to get is that banning guns doesn't solve the problem, because it only addresses part of the problem.

If we can successfully address the motive -- i.e. craziness -- then addressing one of the means of committing mass murder becomes irrelevant.

Sure it easier to ban objects -- objects are easy to define and stigmatize. But you wind up having to keep banning one Means after another if you fail to address Motive.

 

[SeaCat]

You're just being stupid on this. That's a national past time on this topic.

How am I being stupid on this?

Look at my posts on ownership of firearms and tell me how I'm being stupid.

I advocate the training of those who own and or carry. I advocate the prosecution of those who break the laws. I advocate the enforcement of the laws that are on the books. How is this stupid?

Or is my stupidity in my argument against the statement that guns kill people? Yes I admit that firearms make it easier to kill people. And yet people will kill. I have seen it too often. Yet never have I seen a firearm kill someone without a person wielding said firearm.

Cat

 

[Stella_Omega]

So, you'd be OK with the "regrettible mayhem" as long as the nutcase didn't use a gun?

I pointed out that a guy without a gun can't shoot bullets at people. If, somehow that makes you think I'm okay with killing people in other ways, I have to worry about your thought processes. Or else point and laugh at your debate strategy.

 

[SeaCat]

Okay, I'm going to bed and snuggling up with the wife. I'll check back on this thread tomorrow.

I know I'll be called all sorts of names between then and now but that's fine. I learned long ago that arguing things like this is about as useless as arguing about welfare reform.

Cat

 

[sr71plt]

How am I being stupid on this?

Look at my posts on ownership of firearms and tell me how I'm being stupid.

You are thickheaded about not recognizing that guns do kill people. That any conveniently present violent weapon is going to result in more people dead than if the violent weapon wasn't conveniently available.

It was the presence of the gun that resulted in the deaths of those people in Tucson. If the nut had been there without the gun, 20 people would not have been shot. One might have been taken out by physical force, possibly, but the crowd wouldn't have let the nut go further than that. The people were killed by the presence of a gun. Bullets from a gun killed them.

And you are thickheaded about it because you want to be a MAN and own a gun, so you are choosing to be self-possessed and thickheaded about it.

 

[DeeZire]

....I know I'll be called all sorts of names between then and now but that's fine. I learned long ago that arguing things like this is about as useless as arguing about welfare reform.

Cat

No names for you here, SeaCat. I'm just wondering why the gun show loophole remains. It seems like every time someone wants to address that issue, they get shouted down by the NRA. The NRA would get a lot less grief from the public if they did support closing the gun show loophole - and if they supported restricting high capacity magazines to law enforcement personnel only.

Here's another link to the Limbaugh billboard.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/13/rush-limbaughs-tucson-billboard_n_808563.html

 

[Weird Harold]

The government has successfully banned machine guns from civilians. It has banned "plastic" guns. Armor-piercing bullets.

We have successfully banned machine guns? When did that happen?

There are nearly 200,000 machine guns in civilian hands -- legally and an unknown number of illegally imported or modified AK, Uzi, SKS, etc (all fully automatic weapons) in the hands of drug gangs and other criminals.

You're the absolutist in this argument, WH, not those you call "prohibitionists". Your emotional investment in guns is apparent from your writing, ...

If I'm an absolutist, then I'm an absolutist about the stupidity of Prohibition -- whether you're trying to ban guns or toilet paper without recycled content. I'm an absolutist about the stupidity of trying to pad the world in bubble wrap so that the crazies can wander loose without hurting anybody.

I'm tired of people trying to ban Things instead of facing the human problems that brought those things to their attention.

I'm tired of the assertion that when people disregard and disobey existing laws, the immediate solution is to pass more laws -- generally laws that don't do anything to cure the real problem.

Like Cat says: Enforce the laws we already have! Before passing more laws for criminals and prosecutors alike to ignore.

If the second amendment truly is outmoded and outdated, then it should be fairly easy to get it repealed. Ignoring it so that legislators can be seen to be "Doing Something!" just encourages legistlators to ignore other parts of the constitution as outmoded and outdated without bothering to repeal them.

If you want to pass gun control laws, pass effective gun control laws and enforce them.

I have no inherent problem with regulating magazine capacities -- I have a problem with regulating magazine capacities based on unrealistic urban ideas of what a "reasonable capacity" might be. I doubt that 30 rounds capacity for a pistol is necessary in any circumstance civilians are likely to encounter -- or that soldiers are likely to encounter.

My problem with banning extended magazines isn't with the high capacity magazines, it is with the stupid, arbitrarily low limits replacing them. A reasonable limit on magazine capacity is "whatever will fit within the frame of the firearm." -- basically "how many rounds can you cover with one hand" since most handgun magazines fit within the handgrip.

You want to ban extended magazines -- fine; do so. But please do so intelligently instead of just shouting "OMG he used an extended magazine! they are evil and must be banned."

Want to ban assault rifles -- a creature that doesn't exist -- try banning more than cosmetic details that can be changed before the ink is dry on the useless feel good piece of shit law.

 

[JackLuis]

To address the subject more precisely I offer a article that will make you all shout.

Tucson tea party founder says Giffords to blame for getting shot

One tea party leader says that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) has herself to blame for getting shot in the head Saturday.

The Arizona congresswoman shouldn't have attended an event "in full view of the public" if she had security concerns, according to Tucson Tea Party co-founder Trent Humphries.

I'll let someone else call this like it is.

And

Loughner's YouTube Video Called College 'Illegal'

But even when an officer from the community college delivered notice of his suspension to Loughner's home on Sept. 29, there was additional cause for worry. Loughner "held a constant trance of staring" as the officer narrated the past events of what had transpired.

"Even though we spent approximately one hours relaying the information and narration of Jared's actions that brought him to his current predicament, Jared left his silence and spoke out saying 'I realize now this is all a scam'," he said.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/assets_c/2011/01/loughner-inset-house-cropped-proto-custom_2.jpg

 

[Weird Harold]

We no longer have a militia within the concept of expecting private citizens to put down their plows and muster at the city square to meet a present danger (which, historically, they never did really do to any great extent anyway. When Jefferson as Virginia governor tried to call out the citizen rifles to meet the British, he got the horselaugh and had to beat it out of Richmond and into hiding).

That's rather the point. You're using past obsolence that never did mean much just because having a gun makes you feel like a big man.

You are correct that we don't have a citizen militia. We never really did have one. According to Congress and the Supreme court, the second amendment has never really been about bing in or forming a militia.

So, why do Prohibitionists keep bringing it up as the reason individuals should not have weapons consistent with their presumed interpretation that the second amendmentis all about "the militia."

IF the miitia clause has any relevance at all, it means that individuals should have military grade weapons. Since it doesn't and congress added a "sporting purposes test" any presumed "militia test" is total bullshit.

All of that is true and I agree completely that any reference to militia is irrelevant to today's issues with gun ownership.

so why do prohibtionists keep bringing up the militia clause?

I didn't bring the second amendment into this thread, stephen55 did.

 

[Weird Harold]

I pointed out that a guy without a gun can't shoot bullets at people. If, somehow that makes you think I'm okay with killing people in other ways, I have to worry about your thought processes. Or else point and laugh at your debate strategy.

You're still focussed on the means used -- which existing law, if enforced, should have prevented. That gives the impression that you consider the method more important than the result.

If a gun hadn't been used, we'd be discussing ways to ban explosive vests and keep them out of the hands of nutcases. Instead, the predictable cry of, "I always said guns caused people to go crazy" has arisen and we're discussing whether MORE laws would have pervented the tragedy.




No, more laws against guns won't solve the problem, they'll just change the means crazy people use to cause tragedies. Perhaps public gathering will be safer if we can effectivley ban unrestricted purchases of explosives, too, but I doubt it.

(Oh wait, explosives are already controlled substances and you need a licence to buy them or detonators for them. Good thing that, somebody might blow up a federal building or something if we hadn't required a license to possess and use explosives.)

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Of course we have a militia. Where do you think draftees come from?

 

[Weird Harold]

I'm just wondering why the gun show loophole remains. It seems like every time someone wants to address that issue, they get shouted down by the NRA.

The NRA is just as knee-jerk about gun control as the Prohibitionists. However, I'm not all that sure they're opposed to closing the "gunshow loophole" as they are to ineffective proposals for ways to close it -- if it actualy exists, that is.

The supposed gun-show loophole isn't about stopping the sale of guns, it is about tracking the sale of guns and establishing a chain of custody so that people who violate the laws against selling, giving or providing a gun to "prohibited persons" can be identified -- in effect proposals to "close" the loophole are saying, we'll pass this new law and people who were breaking the existing one will line up to give us their names, addresses, and details of their illegal transactions."

Yeah, right.

If you can come up with an effective way to close the semi-mythical "gunshow loophole" that doesn't involve either massive invasions of privacy, or massive administrative infrastructure (usually unfunded massive infrastructures) then I'm sure even the NRA will support your idea.

The solution, in law at least, is simple: "Any firearms transfer must be mediated and recorded by a FFL holder." Any legal gunshow could then hire a FFL holder or six to handled that paperwork and legal transactions will be in the database along with all of the other legal transactions.

The illegal transactions outside in the parking lot will go on unimpeded, of course, but they were out in the parking lot and illegal anyway, so no big deal.

The gunshow organizers spend a little extra money to hire FFFL holders, but they'll pass that cost on in raised ehibitor fees.

A few FFL holders get some extra income -- or a new career as a traveling notary pubic -- that may or may not be reported on their income tax forms.

IMNSBHO, the "Gunshow Loophole" that the Prohibitionists object to is that there are actually huge, well-attended, profitable, conventions where guns and accessories are exhibited, advertised, bought and sold. I'm pretty sure THAT is the "loophole" the NRA wants left open.

PS: want to track gun sales, ban cash transactions for firearms that aren't done through a FFL holder. Force people to use a debit or credit card and all gun sales are automatically tracked and available to investigators without being in a separate, expensive, gun-specific, database.