| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Short Attention Span Theater- |
| Stop the insanity: Ban guns |
| 2014-11-25 |
| Fiskable material from a terminal fascist writer. The shootings Thursday at the Florida State University library. The shootings Saturday in a northwest Tallahassee neighborhood. The shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. The shooting of Arizona U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. The shootings at Virginia Tech. The 10,000 senseless shooting deaths that happen every year in this country. Like all the ones in Chicago done by the gang-bangers and drug dealers who don't follow the current gun laws (and drug laws, and peaceful assembly laws, and assault law, and murder law)? Take away guns and they don't happen. Death --and life -- goes on. Stealing personal property doesn't change the calculus. How is it that the supposed greatest nation on earth refuses to stop the unholy availability of guns? Read the history of the United States. Our nation was founded by men who used guns and violence to achieve their ends. Back during WWI, the US was dubbed the Arsenal of Democracy. I see no need to do anything other than to enhance, or at least maintain that. I'm not talking about gun control. I'm not talking about waiting periods and background checks. I'm talking about flat-out banning the possession of handguns and assault rifles by individual citizens. I'm talking about repealing or amending the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Sure Sparky, go ahead and try it... The Second Amendment has been misinterpreted. It says guns are permitted to a "well-regulated militia." That means trained citizen soldiers called into action for emergencies — because in colonial times every able-bodied man was required to be a member of the militia. It does not mean everyone with $50 and a driver's license is entitled to own a gun. Haven't seen gun prices recently, have you Gerald? Don't own a gun, do you? Sparky of course misses the definition of 'militia' in the U.S. Code. Of course he's also missing the more recent decisions of the Supreme Court (not Burger, quoted below) that says that the 2nd amendment does contain individual gun ownership. But okay. Do away with the 2nd amendment's container for individual rights. What do you think we citizens will do next -- hmm, Sparky? That's what former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger said in 1990, when he called claims of Second Amendment protection of individual gun ownership, "a fraud on the American public." Earlier this year, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens called the Second Amendment one of the six great flaws with the U.S. Constitution. He called for it to be amended to say gun possession was only for state militias, not individuals. Oh yes. Every time I wonder about my individual rights; speech, gun ownership; I listen to the lawyers and judges who seek to limit that right And as it is, even should the court approve of gun bans, there's the little problem of the "Second Vote", where gun owners get to decide who survives gun confiscation. Every legal opinion for 200 years denied individual gun ownership was a right — until the steady lobbying of the National Rifle Association created a climate that allowed a conservative U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 to strike down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia, and fuel the sense of entitlement of gun owners. As I said before, lawyers are the last profession I want defining what my rights actually are. And owning a gun cements my right to it. I am constantly reading about how gun owners should wait for what a court says about some case with reference to guns, but, to my mind, you are pledging tribute to the neofasists who want to confiscate guns. Politicians aren't the only ones whose ear are to the ground. If gun owners and Second Amendment advocates constantly tell others they will wait until they hear what a black berobed Mandarin has to say, they may as well turn in their guns right now. Actually, every legal opinion for 200 years didn't even raise the issue because it was just assumed it was there. And most of the state constitutions have even more stringent versions of an individual right to gun ownership. Argue away that... Gun supporters say, "It's not guns that cause gun violence, it's mentally ill people with guns; fix the mentally ill." Even if those same people did not oppose government spending on the mentally ill — which they have for decades — there is no predicting when mental illness will express itself in violence. There were mentally ill before all the draconian gun laws we have now. Why are they an issue now? Because some of the dumber of our brethren think that misdirecting fascists into attacking another smaller group -- an amorphous group that cannot, and will not defend their rights -- will allow them to keep their guns a little longer. It's a nonsense. It playing to the fascists. If it's gun ownership that's the problem, why is it that the one place, the one place, you never hear of a mass shooting is at the annual meeting of the National Rifle Association? All of those who knew FSU library shooter Myron May called him the "last person" from whom they would have expected violence. They all knew he was mentally troubled. But they said he didn't even like guns. You can't prevent mental illness. You can prevent humans from having easy access to tools they can use to harm other people. And willfully violate individual rights in the process accelerating a breakdown in the social fabric of the nation. You'd best start thinking about the second order effects of your drive to take guns. The cops and government agents at the bottom called to seize guns may just be the first to experience what a societal breakdown is like. And when they quit because of resistance, there's only you remaining. And no guns. Talk about mental illness: The United States is insane about guns. We lead the world in gun ownership, with almost one per capita. That's twice the percentage of the next closest country. Proud to be an American. Arsenal of Democracy. The United States doesn't lead the world in gun violence. Just the civilized world. According to a United Nations survey, the United States annually averages 3 firearm homicides per 100,000 population. Fourteen countries topped that figure — but they were almost exclusively Third World countries. Among the 24 most affluent nations of the world, the U.S. is the far and away leader in gun homicides. None of the other 23 affluent nations has a rate above 1 firearm death per 100,000 population. Gun freaks insist we need to arm more people. They glibly say shooting sprees happen in "gun free zones," like schools and universities, where gunmen could be stopped if everyone had a gun. That theory is absurd. "Gun freaks" who insist the basis for gearing up is defense against crime miss the point, such as what this article does. Guns are about resistance to tyranny. Our armed forces can deal with the big fascists, but only an individual with a gun can deal with a little fascist, whom, I would argue, are far more dangerous than an individual who owns and can use a gun safely. He doesn't explain why the theory is 'absurd', he just asserts it. Turns out that in gun-not-free zones, those who carry are law-abiding, serious, sober and trained. That's why it's a good thing. Police and military train for years to use a gun competently in stressful situations – and even they don't always respond correctly. Think Ferguson, Mo. Think Charlotte, N.C. Think New York City in 2012 where two cops shot nine bystanders as they wildly tried to shoot a man who had gunned down a co-worker. And the cops fail consistently,. Worst shots on the planet. All that training, and all that money down the drain. The average gun-owning, law-abiding citizen who spends time at the range is at least as good as the average cop in marksmanship. The idea of 500 students in a college library or a dozen teachers in an elementary school pulling out guns to shoot a gunman is ludicrous. They would wind up shooting each other. If they were untrained, I agree. Gun freaks say if you take away their guns only outlaws will have guns. That's a chance worth taking. Because if we ban guns, eventually the tide will turn. It might take 10 years or 20 years. Hell, it might take 50 years. But if we make it illegal to own a handgun, eventually there will be no handguns. Only if you go door-to-door, search every building and outhouse, and seize everything you find. But if you're willing to do away with the 2nd amendment I don't suppose the 4th and 5th will stop you... Outlaws already have guns, and that was the point of that statement. The same gun freaks believe in banning drugs. They believe in banning abortions. They recognize society bans certain things for the good of society. We should ban guns for the good of society. All those contradictions, all in one convenient paragraph. Sometimes my own point doesn't even need to be made by me. People have romanticized guns. The Founding Fathers. The Old West. Self-defense — and never mind the average American has only a one in 250 chance of being the victim of a violent crime. It's all a delusion. Guns kill. They kill people from a distance. They kill strangers and children who have no relationship with the gunman. With gun confiscation, that 1 in 250 chance exponentially rises to about 1 in 10. If you and politicians want to increase crime, keep talking about gun confiscation. And it won't be just gun owners dying. Let the hunters keep their rifles and shotguns; those weapons are ineffective tools in a mass shooting. But we need to ban handguns and assault rifles for all but police and military. I am sure hunters will thank you that you have left them alone for now. This is an uphill battle. Despite daily front-page stories of shooting sprees and killings, Americans don't want to give up their guns. Over the past 10 years, the percentage of Americans who support stricter guns laws has dropped from 60 percent to 47 percent. In a recent survey, 73 percent of Americans oppose banning handguns. Perhaps those citizens are on to something that you've missed. Perhaps they see the connection between gun ownership by responsible people and the maintenance of society, a society that is already frayed and already does a poor job of securing law, order and freedom. Perhaps they understand that there is no such thing as freedom unless people are willing to stand up for it and counter those who would take it from us, be the latter a punk on the street or an over-reaching government that would search each and every house... But those of us who think widespread handgun ownership is insane need to keep speaking up. We need to teach our children handguns are wrong. We need to support any measure that limits their availability -- and work to repeal the Second Amendment. We need to keep marching forward until someday this nation becomes civilized enough to ban guns. I can think of 5.56 reasons why guns are not wrong. And your "long march" will be over a cliff into fascist oblivion One of the frequent refrains of gun freaks about President Obama is "He's coming for our guns." Obama never said such a thing. But I will: Obama doesn't have to say it. He just has to express his own views as president, and his sycophants come up with their own statements. We're coming for your guns. And someday, we'll take them. Hope you can learn how to dodge bullets. Molon labe. |
| Posted by:badanov |
| #23 Murder rate before and after gun bans in Ireland and Jamaica. |
| Posted by: Ebbomosh Hupemp2664 2014-11-25 21:49 |
| #22 "The same gun freaks believe in banning drugs. They believe in banning abortions." Strange isn't it? People who claim their right to self defense cherish life? Makes your head implode? |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2014-11-25 16:36 |
| #21 Perfect, EC! But then you have brains, and can read English - unlike our Lefties. |
| Posted by: Barbara 2014-11-25 16:21 |
| #20 English is not my first language but I find the Second Amendment very clear. It doesn't say that guns are permitted to a well regulated militia. It says this: "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 gives an explanation why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What does this mean? People have the right to keep and bear arms. This right is already established. Then the amendment gives a reason why THIS RIGHT shall not be infringed. Easy, isn't it? |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2014-11-25 16:18 |
| #19 the comments provided anal expansion for the "author" |
| Posted by: Frank G 2014-11-25 16:07 |
| #18 OK so maybe he'll hook up with a GAG (Gays Against Guns) |
| Posted by: Mercutio 2014-11-25 13:30 |
| #17 Doubtful. People like this are usually not man enough for a woman, and not woman enough for a man, and one minute its about guns, the next it is about the religious oppressions and dietary fallables of Eggs Benedict. They will let you pick up the tab as payment for talking over you all evening. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2014-11-25 13:26 |
| #16 Well at least it probably got him laid by one of the local BAGs (Bimbos Against Guns) |
| Posted by: Mercutio 2014-11-25 12:58 |
| #15 Agitop in your face bullshit. I have not seen this level since the hole who said drinking (domestic light beer brand) is fascism. This is that tack that wanting to defend yourself is a mental illness. Bonus points for the erosion of the concept of personal property. For the cheerleaders and traction makers, your cute little knight of clover here has made some mistakes junior high forensics would have corrected. First, little star is advocating that banning abortion and drugs is for the good of society - for former is banned and being repealed on account of inability to enforce and the latter I'd guess does not square with author's temperment. Next, **break** FTS. This is so terminaly flawed only a lunatic would write it. I'm off to make Gumbo. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2014-11-25 11:01 |
| #14 Funny, the spittle's not so bad on this side of the screen! |
| Posted by: AlmostAnonuymous5839 2014-11-25 10:23 |
| #13 I think you're on to something JFM. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2014-11-25 09:46 |
| #12 I am European and I find that anyone with 50$ an ID being able to own a gun is a What I see as wrong, bad and Go to your kelle, dog! |
| Posted by: JFM 2014-11-25 09:44 |
| #11 ...yes, but did you see MicroBorg's entry into the Dalek field? I have this feeling of a Butlerian Jihad coming. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2014-11-25 09:37 |
| #10 Actually Pro...Google will handle that for you. Soon it will be "allowable" to let the car drive itself...followed by "recommended"...followed by "mandatory"..won't need to ban cars...just us.. |
| Posted by: Warthog 2014-11-25 09:33 |
| #9 We're coming for your guns. Excellent bumper sticker material: "Clinton/Warren 2016: I'm Coming For Your Guns." |
| Posted by: Matt 2014-11-25 09:31 |
| #8 Stop the insanity:Ban Automobiles Well, if you check the annual body count. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2014-11-25 08:50 |
| #7 That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there. ~ George Orwell, sergeant in Home Guard |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2014-11-25 06:50 |
| #6 Guns are the one thing GE is absolutely bat guano nuts about. Otherwise a very reasonable sort. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2014-11-25 05:38 |
| #5 I've a better idea---lets ban violence. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2014-11-25 04:07 |
| #4 Maybe Congress should make a commitment to freedom and just ban bans. |
| Posted by: badanov 2014-11-25 01:01 |
| #3 Records indicate that there has been a total of 3,551,332 motor vehicle deaths in the United States from 1899 to 2012. On average in 2012, 92 people were killed on the roadways of the U.S. each day in 30,800 fatal crashes. Three times as many victims, in a good year. Maybe we should ban cars? |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2014-11-25 00:47 |
| #2 Well to be fair OS,they are the same standards as MSNBC. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2014-11-25 00:43 |
| #1 How many times on how many things can a guy be that damnably wrong and still manage to write for a newspaper? Low standards on that POS paper. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2014-11-25 00:22 |