|
The Guns of Spring
No propaganda here - the latest balanced opinion piece on the 2nd Amendment from Pravda on the Hudson. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin The Guns of Spring Timothy Egan, NYT, 9 Apr 2009 Bam, bam, bam. Three dead in Pittsburgh, cops, all of them, murdered by a man with an AK-47 who thought President Obama was going to take away his guns. Bam, bam, bam, bam. Four dead in Oakland, also police officers, their lives ended by a convict with an assault rifle. Bam, bam, bam, bam, bam. Five dead in Washington State, kids mowed down in a trailer park by their own dad, a wife-abusing coward with a gun. Bam, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam. Thirteen dead in Binghamton, N.Y., immigrants and their teachers slaughtered by a shut-in with a Glock and Beretta. He sent a delusional note, in fractured English but for the sendoff: “And you have a nice day.” American life in the spring of 2009 is full of hope, peril, and then this: the cancer at the core of our democracy. In a month of violence gruesome even by our own standards, 57 people have lost their lives in eight mass shootings. The killing grounds include a nursing home, a center for new immigrants, a child’s bedroom. Before that it was a church, a college, a daycare center. We hear about these sketches of carnage between market updates and basketball scores — and shrug. We’re the frogs slow-boiling in the pot, taking it all in incrementally until we can’t feel a thing. We shrug because that’s the deal, right? That’s the pact we made, the price of Amendment number two to the Constitution, right after freedom of speech. As a Westerner, I’m sensitive to the argument that when politicians reflexively move to ban guns every after a high-profile slaughter, they often target law-abiding gun owners. Guns in the West are heritage, “a sacred part of being a Montanan and something that we will always fight to protect,” as Senators Jon Tester and Max Baucus, both Democrats from the Big Sky state, wrote in a recent letter to the Justice Department. But as someone who lost a nephew to gun violence, [!!!] I can only take these arguments so far. They are not abstractions, one side versus the other. I can’t help seeing faces, parents who no longer have a child to hold, hearts broken, lives destroyed when I hear bam, bam, bam. A mother and her little girl, gunned down along with eight others in Samson, Ala., last month, were buried in each other’s arms — the still life of that second amendment. In the aftermath of one of these atrocities, nothing is more chilling than a gun advocate racing before a camera to embrace a lunatic’s right to carry and kill. If it was peanut butter or pistachio nuts taking down people by the dozens every week, we’d be all over it. Witness the recent recalls. But Glocks and AKs — can’t touch ‘em. So we’re awash in guns: 280 million. Live with it, gun owners say, and if our murder rate is three times that of the United Kingdom and Canada, five times that of Germany, that’s the deal. The price. For consolation, I guess, there is the fact that the homicide rate has been flat for some time, down from the highs of the 1980s. Still, nearly 17,000 Americans are murdered each year — about 70 percent by guns — and 594,276 lost their lives betweens 1976 and 2005. The recent twists involve Mexican drug cartels, who get their firepower from American retailers, [Guess he doesn't listen to NPR.] and the mass killings this spring by shooters who appear to have acquired their weapons legally. Assault rifles figured prominently in the murders of seven police officers. The Pittsburgh shooter picked up his AK-47 through an online company that passed the sale through to a licensed firearms dealer, as required. He was apparently legal for these guns despite the fact that he’d been booted from the Marines for assaulting his drill sergeant and had a restraining order from his ex-girlfriend. All a citizen can do is ask for some common sense around the Second Amendment. The assault weapons ban, outlawing 19 military style guns that no hunter with sense of fair play would ever use, ( :rolleyes: ) should be reinstated. President Bush and Congress let it expire in 2004, even though it was a godsend for police officers and supported by a majority of gun owners. To the senators who back assault rifles while speaking of the “sacred part of being a Montanan,” you don’t want this kind of heritage. It demeans you as Westerners to allow easy access to weapons that kill innocents, and it does a disservice to history. Heritage? Old West towns like Dodge City had strict gun control, making people check their weapons at the city doorstep. And the gun dealers, they should be hammered for selling to drug cartels or through loopholes to convicts. Throw federal racketeering laws at them. Make it as hard for a wife-beater or a felon to get an AK as it is to get a driver’s license. The rest of us can only mourn and shrug, marking grim anniversaries: Virginia Tech, Columbine, and on, and on, and on. http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/0...uns-of-spring/ |
The war on private ownership is escalating.
|
What an asshat...
|
Let us rally to ban pencils so idiots can no longer write shit like this. :p
|
Quote:
I saw a bumper sticker yesterday I liked: I'll keep my guns, Freedom and money, you can keep the "Change". Again, bring it......;) TS |
Excellant bumper sticker, will look for that one...
Maybe if more citizens had their Conceal Carry Permits, the things mention above may have been stopped before the casulties escalated. The media will never print all the of the crimes that lawbiding citizens have stopped by owning a weapon. |
I see that he neglects to say that if the current laws on the books were enforced, none of those incidents would have taken place.
Should have had him fixed instead of my dog. |
The Guns of Spring
Timothy Egan, NYT, 9 Apr 2009 ________________________________________________ What a nit-wit...if you outlaw idiots in the media, only idiots will be in the media. Wait, they already are!! It is always interesting they always bring up countries with gun bans, however a great deal of those populations...given the chance...would move to this country in a hurry. Maybe it is time to ban the automobile and enforce public transportation. Afterall, look at the carnage on the highways. And what about those pesky drug dealers using automobiles to transport drugs & guns etc. Eliminate private transportation and the drug problem is solved! |
Quote:
|
A few things not reported:
Quote:
This dick and his mom got into an argument about a dog taking a leak on the carpet. The mom wanted to go back to sleep but the nutcase wouldnt let it go. The mother finally called 911 and asked that her son be removed from the residence. 911 operator asked if there were firearms involved (this is on tape) the mom said yes, but theyre all legal. 911 passed info on to Police Dispatch, but failed to mention the fact that the suspect was heavily armed, and the incident was treated as a domestic disturbance. The suspect armed himself and donned his tactical vest and waited for police to arrive. He killed these brave officers not because of Obama's stand on gun control but, purely for the sake of killing. And, as Kyobanim says: New gun legislation is not the answer. We have more than enough gun laws on the books. |
Quote:
Please show the URL you used to find this site..................;) GB TFS :munchin |
|
I say that's no lady.
Quote:
I am beginning to think that the nytimes.com charges such high fees for getting articles out of its digital archives so readers will be discouraged from realizing how far the quality of the paper has fallen. |
Quote:
Richard's $.02 :munchin |
Hurricane Ann!
Quote:
Pat |
I just ordered the two remaining parts for my AR last night and the place shipped them today. (Buttstock kit and rear sight). I really did not want to spend any more money right now, but given recent events, wanted to get the project completed.
My wife and I (both civilians) are new gun owners within the last two years. We each have our carry licenses and have taken classes past the basic CCW class. A number of people at my place of employ (large software company) have made multiple purchases also. My neighbors across the street each just applied for their licences too and bought two handguns. My point is that though we do not pretend to be of the caliber of those quiet professionals here as it relates to firearm training but the more law abiding citizens that aqcuire firearms, the more citizens there are willing to fight for 2A. The second ammendment is not about the right to hunt and I am sick of seeing that argument. |
Here's a bill I can get behind:
Self-Defense Act of 2009 - Declares that a person not prohibited under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act from receiving a firearm shall have the right to obtain firearms for security and to use firearms in defense of: (1) self or family against a reasonably perceived threat of imminent and unlawful infliction of serious bodily injury; (2) self or family in the course of the commission by another person of a violent felony against the person or a member of the person's family; and (3) the person's home in the course of the commission of a felony by another person. Authorizes persons whose rights under this Act have been violated to bring an action in U.S. district court against the United States, any state, or any person for damages, injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court deems appropriate. 1/6/2009--Introduced. Sponsor - Rep. Roscoe Bartlett [R, MD-6] :lifter http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h17/show |
I've addressed this many times... You cannot legislate human behavior, and you also cannot keep mentally unstable people from killing people. Whether it's a gun, knife, car, or club, humans kill humans. Fact of life. We passed laws against it, but darn it... People STILL keep killing other people. So...
What logic do these people use to even propose that more strict laws, or bans, or confiscation will stop the mentally unstable from killing people? Rape laws, have never prevented one single rape. There are laws against theft, but people continue to steal. There are laws against murder, but alas... People are still killing each other. I can only assume that the people coming up with these proposed bans, and anti-gun laws sit around thinking "How can I punish society for these crimes? I have to do something, but I am too stupid to just realize the simple fact that, people kill people, and there's not a damn thing I can do about it." As horrible as these mass killings are, the writer totally misses the point of what he is writing about, and assumes that, if guns were removed from the equation, no more killings would occur, and these mental defectives would just sit at home, harmless... This is a very stupid assumption on his part. One has to look no further than human history, at other mass killings before the firearm was even invented, or at other mass murderers that did not use firearms. Jack the ripper for one. Jeffery Dahmer, Ray and Faye Copeland, Dean Corll, Angelo Buono, Jr, Jerry Brudos, Debbie Brown, William Bonin, Jim Jones, Ted Bundy, the 911 terrorists... Here's a link to photos and stories: http://crime.about.com/od/serial/ig/serialkillerphotos/ Note, most all of these killers did NOT use firearms, but media and the writer fails to recognize that fact, and only sees the problem as the gun. Agreed, he is a dumbass. Mental defective murderers will use any means at their disposal in order to kill people. It is their desire to kill people, and that is what this guy fails to understand. To believe that guns are the problem in today's society is the problem. Failure to recognize mental propensity for violence, by whatever means available. Guns are easy, but not the preferred method by most serial killers... Why? Because these people get their jollies from killing up close and personal, and a firearm does not allow them to do that. It takes the "fun" out of their pleasure. Do they sometimes use firearms? Yes, they do. But they have also used their bare hands, cars, jet planes, poisoned kool aid, knives, clubs, and any other weapon they can come up with. Legislating guns will do nothing but prepare a disarmed populace for whatever the Government has in mind, and leave them at the mercy of criminals. I also firmly believe that Governments, unchecked by an armed populace, have killed more people in human history than all criminals and mental defectives put together. So... Which is more dangerous? The most dangerous thing to freedom and liberty is an unarmed populace. The asshat that wrote that article proves that the pen is more dangerous than the gun. Sheep will read, and believe his writings. That, is dangerous. |
All a citizen can do is ask for some common sense around the Second Amendment. The assault weapons ban, outlawing 19 military style guns that no hunter with sense of fair play would ever use, ( :rolleyes: ) should be reinstated. President Bush and Congress let it expire in 2004, even though it was a godsend for police officers and supported by a majority of gun owners.
"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." Didn't the Second Amendment have more to do with hunting the British at the time? Since when did fair play become an issue here?:confused: Sorry if I'm out of line posting here. Back to lurking... |
Quote:
TR |
Quote:
|
Quote:
You better reread the proposed legislation. There ain't any "good guy" exception. It would apply to all of us. TR |
Quote:
|
If that's the case....
Quote:
So if no "weapons on school grounds" is such a great law why have there been so many school shootings? Remember when they were pushing the weapons exclusion zones for around schools? I don't remember the exact distance but it was something like 1/4 mile. Sit down at a county map, set a compass to that distance and draw a circle around every public and private school. That would have impacted a bunch of people. |
Just the usual Crap.
All of these attempts are "infringements" of the 2nd amendment.
Onward your arguement is typical of fodder used by the anti-s. the second amendment is not for hunting and you right to bear arms is for a militia parity with the central governments military. Written when there was not much disparity between the military and the civilian populace weaponry. the 2nd amemdment really does not regulate the types of weaponry a citizen can own only the governments worries over the citizen's ability to join into a militia and over throw a tyrannical government. There is all ways a crew who believe they know more than the founders and try to relegate the 2nd amendment to hunting privileges. Blitzzz |
I believe we have an example of gun control legislation that reveals something of the actual goals - and those goals include (at least) restricting acquisition of firearms.
The National Firearms Act of 1934 began the regulation of, among other things, machine guns under title II. Under the law, it was possible for an individual to go to a dealer licensed to sell the particular class of firearms, pay for the weapon, but not take delivery. The dealer prepared papers, which the buyer then took for completion. The process required the prospective buyer to obtain fingerprint cards and passport photos. The purchaser then went to a specified official - in the local case here, it was the county sheriff. The Sheriff's office then ran a quick check for criminal offenses and warrants and approved (if appropriate) the papers. The next step required the purchaser (or the dealer on the purchaser's behalf) to send a $200 fee to the BATF. They, in turn, arranged for a background check. The waiting period was at least months, and could extend to as much as a year. At the end of that time, papers with a tax stamp affixed were issued and the purchaser could lawfully take delivery of the firearm. Notice that we have 2 independent background checks, registration, and a multi-month waiting period. It is my understanding that for the entire duration of the law, no lawful owner of a registered machine gun ever committed a crime with the registered firearm. However, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 included a last-minute addition that banned the registration of new machine guns to civilians. It is worth noting that the ban has not been repealed, nor has there been any serious discussion of repealing it. It is worth noting that Vice President Cheney has a substantial collection of such weapons. So....if registration, background checks, and waiting periods suffice, why was the purchase of newly manufactured machine guns banned? Why has the ban not been repealed? Why have a ban if the purchasers who obeyed the law as it was have not committed crimes with the weapons? Now, as to firearms on school campuses... At UTSA in San Antonio, the campus is fairly dispersed. It has nearly 30,000 registered students, with the great majority commuting between home and class, and only a few students in residence. After the West Virginia shootings, a rather bored-looking officer parked his patrol car where everyone entering the campus could see him. To get to class, the students drove past him, parked, then took their books and other supplies to class. The supplies were in back packs, rolling luggage, and other such items. There was, and is, no mechanism to discern what is in such packs and luggage. So....if I were attending a class...or, for that matter, teaching one...and a bad guy shows up with a firearm and starts doing bad things... 1) Will a person intent on mass murder really be deterred by a law that prohibits bringing a weapon on campus? 2) What should I do if faced with such a situation? Use sarcasm? Glare at the perp? Make a last gesture of defiance? Throw chalk? I pose the second question partly in jest. But the issue is serious. Are the law-abiding people in the University to be sacrificed for someone else's ideal? |
Quote:
We cannot disagree about the facts. Read the proposed legislation. It is what it is. It does not discriminate. All citizens who own firearms will register. Those who can be denied the right to keep and bear arms will be denied. Eventually, it will be those with PTSD, then those who have been suspected of being disturbed, eventually, it will encompass everyone. See the results of the Lautenberg Amendment. All guns will be registered and taxed. With the new "Assault Weapon Ban", all semi-autos will be restricted, registered, and eventually banned. Then they will outlaw all other types of firearms. First, large, powerful firearms, then small concealable firearms, weapons with scopes, weapons with no scopes, weapons that hold more than ten rounds, weapons that hold more than six rounds, weapons that hold more than two rounds, weapons over .45 caliber. Weapons over .30 caliber. Weapons over .22 caliber. High cap magazines will no longer be allowed. All ammunition sales will be restricted and taxed out of existence. You will probably live to see the total evisceration of the Second Amendment. A total ban on private firearms ownership in the United States is the eventual goal. They understand that they cannot get it all at once, but they eventually will, due to a thousand new firearms laws, complacence and the oblivious. The situation in Great Britain is the template, and while not yet complete, is the eventual goal. Those who choose to ignore the facts and who believe that just a few more laws are needed to keep the bad guys from getting guns, are the sheep. I believe that criminals are responsible for their actions, not the objects they choose to employ. Those who wrongfully harm others should be punished to the maximum extent of the law. I further believe that there are a lot of people walking the streets who should be locked up, if not executed. Thoroughly read what is being proposed, and get back to us. TR |
Quote:
A few weeks ago I watched a documentary on the History Channel about Hitlers SS...they spoke to several Germans who recalled what life was like after their right to own weapons was taken away. One old man said that they couldn't fight the Nazis ..."with what? All we had at that point was our fists, what could we fight them with?" If the constant levying of restrictions and taxes upon our 2nd Amendment continue...we too will be asking similar questions. |
Just my outlandish opinion here, but a reason we have the 2nd Amendment is to curtail the efforts of self absorbed, agenda driven individuals with 'evil' intent like Diane Feinstein.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3zOU...layer_embedded Ms. Fienstein and her fellow ilk will have no issue shoving their wishes down our throats with the barrel of a gun. The only thing preventing them from doing so at present is the 2nd Amendment. |
Miscommunication...
TR and Blitzzz,
My apologies if my post came across the wrong way. I was trying to quote Richard's original post without inserting the entire thing, but apparently I went about it the wrong way. I am a firm believer in the second amendment. Though deployed right now (I have the privilege of carrying a long gun everywhere I go), I carry concealed on a daily basis at home, and I own multiple evil black guns:lifter. The point I was trying to make was exactly what you said, Blitzzz, that the second amendment is based on having a militia, and not on the individual's right to hunt. My comment about hunting the British was meant to highlight this point, and the "fair play" comment was meant to relate to the unconstitutionality of regulating the types of guns that citizens can own. I promise you, I am not in any way aligned with the anti-2nd amendment movement. I should have expounded on this, or not posted at all. My post was poorly thought out, and again, I apologize if I rubbed you gentlemen the wrong way. Back to lurking in the Weapons Discussion Area... |
Quote:
On the topic, I believe any legislation infringes on the right to keep and bear arms. I also believe it's been a long time since we have really enjoyed freedom and liberty here in the US. ( As a matter of fact, I believe the last time we really enjoyed freedom was when one could pick up the Sears catalog and order a Thompson for 200 bucks... now THAT is freedom.) |
Quote:
|
60 Minutes
I highly recommend tonight's 60 Minutes report titled "Gun Rush."
The last few seconds are actually quite encouraging. Feinstein states she will not be looking to press the ban anytime soon, and recommends that Obama puts it off as well. Additionally, Gallup polls are at their lowest ever (49%) when asking Americans if they are in favor of stricter gun control. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n4931769.shtml |
Quote:
Feinstein's key words 'anytime soon' which imo equates to they are waiting for just the right moment to press it forward. As in her own words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3zOU...layer_embedded |
Yes, she is definitely only saying that it is not a priority at the moment. Surely, she will make it one in the future. I think the more encouraging thing is the Gallup number there at the end. It could show that even when she does find the "time of [her] choosing," maybe the rest of the country won't be so prone to agree with the idea.
Just my take. YMMV. |
Quote:
|
60 Minutes did their quarterly Anti Gun piece last night. Finstien said "now is not the place and time for a new AWB. But I there will be a place and time for one in the future"
|
Maybe, JUST maybe, if they screw up the next 18 months badly enough, they may not have the votes to pursue their agenda after the 2010 election.
TR |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Pete , you asked, "if no "weapons on school grounds" is such a great law why have there been so many school shootings?" Because the ones who do the school shootings aren't like you. They aren't law-abidding folks that take the trouble to comply with the law like you. They are, however, also the ones that the full time weapon carrying LEO is waiting for. As for the exculsion zone? Cooler, smarter heads prevailed and the 1/4 mi radius (or whatever it was) was scrapped. Because it was stupid. But, having the exclusion zone start at the School Yard Gate? That makes sense. Pete, you are very experienced with employing weapons correctly (most here are). I'm sure when your kids are around weapons (regardless of style) the only thing safer then the weapon is your kid. Here is my question: Why are we willing to abandon everyone's safety to protect every individual's access? And no cussin' at other QP's allowed:D |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:39. |
Copyright 2004-2022 by Professional Soldiers ®