I taught at Virginia Tech back in the mid-eightees. It was my first teaching job.

I wonder if reporting good news on the economy, on jobs, on the market, on the surge working, would alleviate the suffering caused by this latest tragedy in Virginia.

I reiterate my fundamental point. The anger, sorrow, and nausea we feel over this news is appropriate. We just need to remember this feeling when we hear the daily drumbeat of horror from Iraq. There are mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters over there who endure every day what we are experiencing here.

Did the White House mouth, piece in her attempt to convery the sympathy and horror Bush says he feels, also mention IN THE SAME BREATH that Bush continues to support the right to bear arms?

Yep, she did.

Our boys and girls are Iraq killing the natives to defend our freedom -- our freedom to bear arms in America so we can kill our own natives.

Logical, no?

I'm surprised that anyone is surprised at the VT shootings. Any minute now the NRA will come out and tell us again that guns don't kill people, people kill people. I'll bet those dead and wounded would have much rather the killer had a knife or two instead of the NRA's favorite little orgasm inducer.

We live in a culture of violence and degradation. We worship at the altars of violent TV and gutter hip-hop. Our Christian pastors tell of the horrible sins of this, that and the other, and the punishments their little god will dish out. Our government is blatantly and unapologetically corrupt and a promulgator of violence throughout the world. Violence is the solution to problems. That's what American culture tells us, from the old West gunfighter to the pathetically inadequate neocons to the disgusting little men in the White House.

We're numb to the deaths in Iraq, to the coming slaughter in Iran, to the corruption in the central legal apparatus of government, to the poverty and hunger among us. What's a few dozen college students? We've seen it before. We'll see it again. We won't learn from it. It's a news blip that leads because it bleeds, an excuse-op for a pathetic President to try to look Presidential while blood drips from his hands, a sigh of relief for our Attorney General and his managers because fewer people will be paying attention to his lies in Congress this week, a prize for the prettygirl and prettyboy TV news blitherers because they can talk for a couple of weeks and not have to do any thinking, researching, or anything intelligent, just shoot their mouths off, mouth platitudes, express shock, and numb us some more with their ceaseless, stupid noise.

We are all caught in a crossfire of our own making. To be surprised when some poor bastard who can't handle his life anymore decides to live out our pathetic myths about ourselves is to be blind, ignorant, and fooled once again by our belief that we are a rational, reasonable, reasoning society.

Five of our troops were killed in Iraq today. (Monday)

Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people!

the US constitution has the quartering act in it, so what's anti-american about worrying about the intrusion of the US military into our homes?

the Bush Administration has, as you know, been fingered in abusing it's use of "security letters," the US attorney (gonzales) is currently refusing to cooperatate in allegations of voter fraud, 9/11 questions remain unanswered, etc...

I would certainly hope that, as americans, we don't ask our government to implement a zero tolerance of firearms because they'd probably misuse the authority and our military.

the military itself isn't anti-american but we've seen abu grave, we've seen guitanimo bay, we've seen the illegal occupation of iraq, the higher cancer rates of Iraq children, etc... and our miltary gets stuck in the middle of all this because of agreements they sign.

we don't need another false reason for the militarization of america...

We already have gun control laws, tons of them. They don't work. Any more than drug control laws prevent addiction or drinking ages keep frat boys from boozing it up.

The other antigun commenters seem to think the solution proposed by pro gun folk like me is "arm everyone."

Hardly.

It's "don't disarm ME". Big difference.

Sure, insane, violent, criminal, abusive, etc. folks shouldn't get to carry guns.

But competent law abiding folks should have the choice.

Saying what we want is everyone to have a gun is like saying pro-choice people want all women to have abortions. It's nonsense.

Funny how few people seem to realize that the arms the founding fathers wanted to bear were a long shot (no pun intended) from today's semi-automatic or automatic killing machines.

With 18th century arms, a tragedy like this could not happen (with one shot and a minute to load the next one...). Refusing to admit that a 200+ y.o. document might be outdated is - stupid?

Living in an occupied country with an externally imposed government is a truly novel definition of 'holding back'.

Back in the 18th century, the government did not have tanks, helicopters, submarines, or artillery rockets. A citizen's militia stood a fighting chance. But unless you want the citizens to be able to *really* arm themselves with heavy weapons, the citizens vs. oppressive government argument is bogus.

people would just make their own but Chris Rock certainly makes people think about what we value...

That's not true at all. Small arms and improvised weapons can stymie even the most powerful military in the world.

Ever heard of Iraq? Vietnam?

Never mind that if push came to shove, our military wouldn't be fighting Iraqis or VietCong...they'd be fighting their own people and they'd have much less resolve to do so.

I don't disagree. A government should be afraid of its citizens, not the other way around. But that's clearly not how it works...

Remember 9/11? OK City?

Even in the absence of guns, people find ways to kill people (often in much worse fashion than what happened today).

I've never seen a gun get up, load itself, aim itself, and fire.

When people are killed by guns, there's usually a human attached to the gun. Funny how the antigunners like to ignore that fact.

You can't live without a gun... but otherwise you're okay?

if guns are banned, people would work around them with more homemade bombs and rocket launchers.

This specious argument really is so ignorant. Private gun ownership (other than hunting rifles) is banned in many countries, including England, France Switzerland to name a few. There is only one reason to have a hand-gun: to shoot a person. There are only two reasons to have automatic weapons: to terrorize people or to hunt unfairly.

When was the last time you heard about a disgruntled Englishman building a rocket launcher to get around the law? French? Swiss? German?

We have exported our violence and shared it with our friends and enemies in the Middle East, yet we see the numbers as only numbers until we think of people who look like our own children. That is natural, and normal. But it is time to also step into the shoes of those who are the victims of our misguided adventure in Iraq and have a true sense of empathy.

Please don't repeat the old canard that if we outlaw guns only the honest people will give them up. I can't even stand to hear that bullshit!

Jan Knaus

Sebastian, you can have all the guns you want, or need, but guns and smoking are not allowed in our house. :-)

Jan, your ignorance of the issue is pretty obvious--the Swiss are actually amongst the most well armed private citizens in the world. Big oops on your part.

As for your last comment...nice try, but do you see a lot of armed criminals turning their guns in because they're illegal to possess? Didn't think so.

I heard an interview once by a guy who had once been an NRA member. He was a hunter, and felt a lot of admiration for the gun safety classes and safe hunting classes, etc.

He told about a philosophy of the NRA that made him rethink and eventually to drop his membership. The ideal, as espoused by the leadership was distilled in this scenario:

In a bank there is a line of people, and a guy comes in with a gun and threatens the teller and demands money. He tells everyone in line to lie down. Instead, two people reach into their purses and blow the guy's head off.

That is the NRA's dream. The wild west everywhere. This was from a former member.

Jan Knaus

Welcome to democracy and freedom--where you can't lock people up for crimes they MIGHT commit.

I MIGHT get my load on and drive drunk tonight and mow over 20 pedestrians. I probably won't. By your logic...we should take my car away.

Re: With 18th century arms, a tragedy like this could not happen

I don't know. The ancient world, and the Middle Ages, didn't need firearms to carry out some truly ghastly massacres. The Mongols killed four millions with edge weapons and bludgeons alone.

Jan,
For someone who's credibility is so poor on this issue, you certainly try to speak with authority about what the NRA wants based on ONE person's recollection.

The reality is that even the most conservative estimates show that hundreds of thousands of Americans defend themselves with firearms every year.

I'm one of them who's done so.

The NRA's "dream" is that we don't vainly try to disarm criminals by disarming everyone.

The 2A protects weapons we'd use against tyrants. We'd also use cell phones and cars and guard dogs...so what?

and for all we know, that's part of the psych-ops that the special forces implement so they can create and use "Iraqi violence" as propaganda to support US occupation.

I'm under the assumption that people injury themselves, more often than not, while trying to protect themselves.

i.e. the statistics show that, in trying to protect yourself, self injury becomes a possibility.

Tim McVeigh killed five times as many people with hundreds of years old technology (chemical explosive).

That's an incorrect assumption that's a product of a manufactured statistic the Brady Campaign and others toss around.

It's a total fabrication.

Gun accidents are extremely rare, actually. A pool in your home is 100 times more likely to harm you.

The FBI did a study that shows that a handgun is your best bet at repelling an unexpected attack.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans defend themselves with guns every year without injury to themselves.

You have to be really careless to do harm to yourself when using the gun to defend yourself--most defensive gun use involves no shots fired at all!

Please explain this:

For someone who's credibility is so poor on this issue...

My "credibility" on this issue has never been tested. Do you have a point here?

However, your uncited and ridiculous statement that:

...hundreds of thousands of Americans defend themselves with firearms every year.

really makes your credibility (or lack thereof) abundantly obvious.

Jan Knaus

Well, first of all, your getting drunk and mowing down 20 people presumably would be unintentional. Cars (while they kill many people) aren't designed specifically to kill people, like handguns and semi-auto weapons are.

Angry, jaded, jilted people shouldn't have such an easy way to take out their aggressions.

My Dad did the same thing--a lifelong hunter and firearms owner, he quit the NRA several years ago, due to their absolutist positions and fear-mongering.

So, fertilizer and fuel oil bombs are hundreds of years old, huh?
It appears that you like the adjective 'hundreds'--we're still waiting for you to cite the 'hundreds of thousands' that protect themselves yearly with guns.

But, then again, according to NRA logic, shouldn't it be 'guns don't protect people, people protect people?'

Mr. Johnson is hardly a twit.

He's TRYING to give a bit of perspective to the horror unfolding daily in Iraq, and apparently, it is desperately needed, if your flippant response is any indication.

Are American College students lives cut short somehow more tragic than Iraqi students lives cut short? Or worse yet, than AMERICAN soldiers lives being cut short. They tend to be the same age, frequently.

Not as an isloated incident, but EVERY FUCKING DAY?!!

There may be twit on this board, but Mr. Johnson isn't one of them.

The truly scary thing about Virginia Tech, as well as Columbine, is what in the HELL are we doing to OUR children, let alone what we are obviously doing to the Iraqi's?

Gee, why DO they hate us? Now do you GET IT?

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

error

Look at this one and tell me that George Bush should not be tried for war crimes.

Jan Knaus

Only when you say something sensible and non-inflamatory, and not insulting, which is rare, but I give credit when it happens. Too bad you are not capable of the same.

Jan Knaus

I think I understand what you are trying to say here. It isn't the guns, per se, that are the problem, IMHO. The problem is a culture that pushes fear and violence in every conceivable space they can.

Violence sells, dontcha know? There's no proper respect for life, or for the weapons that can either preserve OR waste it.

In short. Look at television on any given night and see how we've reaped what we've sown. I can say, as a person that hasn't watched TV for several years, that it has become indecently violent in the last several years. Any ideas on why that should be?

The gun rights people will be made to acknowledge this some day. Soon. They have a lot to do with it.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

Jan is one of the more level-headed posters here.

mcs, you might want to remove the knee from your forehead and realize what you are actually arguing. here.

Sometimes a gun is just not appropriate, NO MATTER what the situation is. Until you can acknowledge that basic truth, you are a zealot, and your opinion is at best, unreliable.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

Black powder is not a chemical explosive? The reference was not to high explosives, which go back 150 years or so.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the NRA has not claimed an unlimited right to bear explosives, have they? I'm not clear what the NRA has to do with the specific point of the post, as opposed to the shooting incident.
--
Howard

Any ideas on why that should be?

because if our kids have visions of violence in their memorys, then having them be violent (go to war) is possible. without those constant images, having someone go to war, in a country like the US-- without war, would be nearly impossible.

I think that violence on TV is apologetic and apologizes for violence by repeating the myth that good and evil exists and that good people overcoming bad people through violence.

See above, cite offered. I can provide more if you like. Better yet, I'd love to see you provide a stat that shows otherwise (Hint: even the anti gunner organizations don't dispute that DGUs number in the six digits per year, so good luck.)

People do protect people--and they do it more effectively when hoplophobes like you don't deny them the tools to do so.

It's Sebastian.

You can't even spell names that are on the very screen you're responding to, you really screwed the pooch on the Switzerland thing, and you're behaving like a child. Why should we put any stake in anything you have to say?

Sebastian, let me refer you to the archives of www.ehowa.com, specifically the entry for 3/29/07. I don't have a specific link, but it can be found about 5% from the top of the page at http://www.ehowa.com/march2007.shtml
This is a story about a near injurious accident with a firearm, by a gun enthusiast who believed he was taking all prudent precautions. (Warning: there is text and graphics on this site that are not appropriate for work or children, not to mention sexist, racist and otherwise politically incorrect.)

I don't have a problem with the second amendment, even assuming that it applies to individuals and not to militia.

I do think, however, that the NRA has a definitional problem when it cites very low rates of accidental injury and death from firearms, since so many "accidents" get redefined as crimes.

The other problems I have with the NRA include their knee jerk support for the right wing, and their over-the-top insistence that any regulation of guns is the beginning of a slippery slope leading to total bans on firearms. Their opposition, for instance, to trigger lock legislation. Why can't we try novel ideas to make guns safer?

I don't like the fact that many states require firearm safety courses that are taught by the NRA, using NRA curricula, and that essentially the NRA has a monopoly on these courses, so that in order to get a hunting license, you are forced to help fund their political agenda.

And I don't like the idea, fomented by the NRA, that we are essentially unsafe in our homes. Says who?

Oh, I suspect I'm a bit familiar with guerilla war, the role of sporting weapons and the use of IEDs. The Iraqi situation makes much use of surplus military explosives. While I grant there is no tradition of marksmanship, as there is in Afghanistan, weapons commonly in Iraqi civilian and irregular hands are usually selective-fire and some full automatic, a bit more useful in a firefight than a semiauto.

Even more useful in winning engagements, as opposed to individual firefights, are communications. Hand out M2HBs, and you still aren't going to defeat a tyrannical US dictatorship. Other means are appropriate -- starting with enforcing all of the Constitution.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

We seem to be teaching them that the only self-defense is physical, regardless of the offense. Someone bad mouths you. Blow them away. Someone takes your significant other? Blow them away. Someone steals from you? Blow them Away. Someone cut's you off in traffic? Blow them away. Someone defies you and bruises your ego? Blow them away.

This needs to stop, and the NRA needs to step up and help, as well as all gun advocates. It's gone too far.

IMHO.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

No, you just gotta admit. Guns have no purpose except to kill things.

Jan, the presence of guns is simply one indication of the many ways that humans fight. I know that your heart is in the right place, but why do you go around giving low ratings to Sebastian when he is, very politely, only giving his point of view?

They don't transport people to their jobs.

Your reason here is weak because cars and trucks are used to transport guns and other weapons (read bullet casings) to Iraq so let's ban cars and trucks so we can't fight wars!

some people simply want the ability to protect themselves-- and, based on what I've read, people actually hurt themselves trying!

granted, I think that's irrational, but all violence is irrational.

the only thing to hope and pray for is that peace prevails no matter what kind of weapons we have-- including hate.

why not show an olive branch and some diplomacy and be fair about your ratings?

Hey, if it bugs you that the NRA--the organization that by definition knows more about the subject than just about any other--has a corner on safety and training courses...form another one. The problem is there's not really any other organization that can do the job.

As far as the idea they're saying we're unsafe...I must respectfully disagree. They're not saying that at all--they're saying that IF the fit hits the shan, we should be allowed to have the tools to defend ourselves.

The odds are I won't need my seatbelt, but I still wear it. We are essentially safe...but lightning can strike anywhere.

I feel safe right now...but I have used my gun in defense of myself.

Jan can't be that level headed, given the factual errors and spiteful post rating behavior.

Sure, sometimes guns aren't appropriate.

They're not approprate when you're surfing. They're not appropriate when you're drinking. They're not appropriate when you're "doin it" (for the most part).

When you're being attacked by a homicidal madman...they're damned appropriate for defending your life.

Dude, you stated that the Swiss don't have private gun ownership. That's simply wrong. In fact, it's hilariously wrong. They're amongst the most well armed folks on the planet. Anyone with a basic understanding of this issue knows this. It's quite revealing and a clear demonstration that you're engaging in proctological verbalization.

Besides your weak understanding of the facts, you're going around giving poor ratings to posts you don't agree with no matter how well worded they might be, acting like a child.

As for cites on defensive gun use, gimme a break--it doesn't take much time on Google to find the evidence to support my case.

http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html

Even the most conservative estimates of defensive gun use show from anti gunners show that it far outstrips criminal homicide.

In any event, even if it didn't, so what? My right to defend myself is based on the fact that I'm a living, sentient being, not on stats.

Yossarian will never die.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

The difference, as you suggest, is that in the United States this is an exceptional case. This is a daily occurrence in Iraq, yet it is the single deadliest shooting in U.S. history. History!

That in and of itself shows how uncommon this type of behavior is here in the United States.

What you fail to mention is that Iraqi's themselves willingly opt to murder each other every day. Here at home, it is the social outcasts who periodically go over the proverbial edge.

But they almost always do it for personal reasons.

In Iraq the reasons are very rarely personal. Rather, it is political.

The gunman in Blacksburg was not trying to take down, or otherwise challenge the integrity of the United States Government. Or its Constitution. Or its Bill of Rights.

In Iraq, suicide bombers and guerrilla fighters ARE attempting to undermine authority. It is deliberate and carefully calculated.

I get your point, but comparing Iraq to Virginia Tech is comparing apples to oranges, and is, in fact, a great use of the same spin you accuse the mainstream media of perpetrating.

You're projecting your own personal stereotypes on me--I'm a lifelong hunter and gun owner, so i'm hardly scared of guns. However, despite living in a large West Coast city with its share of crime and gunplay, I choose to protect myself and my family in other ways than carrying a gun around. To me, a gun engenders a dangerous overreliance, and a neglect of other avenues of protection.

I am not 100% anti gun, but I am in favor of sensible restrictions--or would you consider a 50 cal sniper rifle or 'cop killer' bullets to be 'necessary tools'?

Fine.  Let's just make those $100 bullets, and you can shoot your targets all you want.  But "sports shooting" (of animals) is just another form of killing.

Alas, "blow them away" is an attitude that merely changes technique.

In 1206, during the Albigensian Crusade, papal legate Arnold Amalricus said to his knights at Béziers, "Kill them all. God will know his own".

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I'm responding here after reading the entire thread because I totally agree with this point. It's the very first thing I thought about after hearing the news of the massacre - that this is happening every GOOD day in Iraq. But mostly it's much much much worse.

I couldn't care less about the gun control argument.

while I think she sounds like a brat, the NRA claim seems outlandish since there are millions of guns in Iraq and the war keeps on going, and going and going... like the energizer bunny.

MLK noted that "violence begets violence" and I believe him.

so your statement seems a little bold to me...

Not sure what dangerous overreliance means, but that's your choice, and I respect your right to exercise it.

You should respect my choice, even though it's different than yours.

As for other avenues of protection, I'm all for them, but not the exclusion of firearms, which remain the most effective tools.

There's nothing in the 2A which requires arms to be "necessary tools." .50cal rifles aren't used by criminals and are incredibly expensive, and are all but exclusively used for sport. The USAF quit using Quad50 (four .50cal machine guns in unison) because they weren't effective for shooting down airplanes from the ground...so it's not likely that the .50cal is the threat the antis make it out to be. The .50cal isn't what you need be worried about. All rifles together are less than 1% of the guns used by criminals.

There is no such thing as a cop killer bullet. Urban legend. Do about ten seconds of research on google.

Eleanor Roosevelt packed heat. Was she insane?

How about the Pink Pistols?

My brother the cop?

The private citizen who saved a cop's life last year with his CCW permitted gun? Was he insane?

You like your killing machines.  That's great.  But, we don't like for you to have it.  The Constitution does NOT give you the right to have it.  It is too bad.  Do without.

Says who?

My hobby isn't dangerous if you're not foolish. Gun accidents are less likely to kill you than your backyard swimming pool, being burned to death, or falling from a ladder.

Freedom is me pursuing happiness in a manner of my own chosing, even if it's a choice you wouldn't make for yourself.

My enjoyment of the firearms hobby doesn't negatively impact you at all. My right to throw a punch stops at your chin.

Well, my "fist" hasn't come anywhere near your "chin".

deleted.

Getty,

I think you need to check the daily body count here in the US. It is not reported only local body counts are reported. The national body count would shame even the Iraqi body counts since we are not using car bombs.

As for spin, I see that you seem to be doing a lot of spin on this for yourself. Then maybeI am just miss reading your comment. I am more than a little upset with the police who as of yet have not learn to run to the sound of bullets. You know like miltiary people do. Where the sounds of shot are heard is where the battle is.

Our first responsers have not learn that if there are terrorist, this was a domestic terrorist (murderer), that waiting to negotiate with them is not an option. How many people in the US citizens have to die or will die due to the police sitting behind their cars waiting to talk when they should be inside kill the shooter or terrorists?

This is unacceptable. One shooter over fifty shots and the damn police was undercover.

Fire them and their bosses.

Demand the Truth for America

ER was a lot of things, but insane wasn't one of them. Your insistence to the contrary doesn't say much for you.

Pink Pistols.. never heard of 'em, but if they carry guns, evidence is not favorable.

What precisely is insane about carrying, anyway? Not carrying is insane if you ask me...but I'd love to hear your rationale for this sweeping, broad generalization about a huge chunk of people.

Your brother... genetics does not seem to be in his favor.

As for obsession, like your fanatical rantings about the evils and insanity of possessing inanimate objects is any better.

How am I abetting murder? Why absolve individuals for their responsibility? THAT is what's insane--the idea that I make anyone pull the damn trigger.

You need help.

Go ahead and rate me a two, boyo. You might not like my attitude, but you can't argue with statistics any more'n you can bite through a rock.

I'm right and you're wrong, and there ain't three ways to go about it.

you know me, I use the word "guns" as in "guns and butter." I'm not sure if the "right to bear arms" includes the right to cope with "modern warfare."

I certainlly don't want any in my home but, after having watched the bush presidency, I don't necessarily take the highroad of trusting the government or even profess that the government is moral.

The NRA's dream is simply a lie to enrich gun manufacturers as they seek to cash in on the war profiteering that they are so jealous of.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Something responsible for 1/3 of the combat deaths isn't to be ignored.

replacing/caring for 4000+ injured and 1000+ dead isn't a small feat and then you also have to include the contractors who were picked off or maimed in some way.

replacing that many soldiers isn't a small political feat...

at the last anti-war rally I went to, there were lots of people mourning losses on stage... and the activists were neither the center of emotion nor attention.

On the other hand, the NRA is out there trumpeting the use of cop killer bullets, fighting an assault weapon ban, and supporting the use of military standard weapons for domestic hunting purposes.

I dunno. I think we come to a difference of opinion here. You see the NRA as a moderate organization dedicated to principles of safety.

I see them as a bunch of single issue ideological wack jobs.

Even if Valdron's ludicrous implication that small arms fire isn't important to guerrilla warfare (or that we're "gun nuts" and using "psuedo logic") made any sense, I'm sure it's of little consolation to the families of fallen soldiers shot by AK47s that a couple percentage points more soldiers have died thanks to IEDs (if that's even the case).

I don't claim to be an expert on American constitutional law or American history.

But I'm pretty clear that the American Constitution did not endorse the notion of armed insurrection. In fact, I seem to recall a couple of early insurrections, such as Shay's Rebellion, where that idea was pretty violently negatived.

It strikes me that the framers of the Constitution probably took the view that if things reached a stage where the states or state militias were required to use violence against the Federal government, then things had pretty much utterly broken down.

The whole notion of constitutional separation of powers, ie, between the judiciary/president/congress, and between the federal/state spheres, was based, in part on avoiding such situations.

If you have the least little bit of evidence to support the notion that the 2nd Amendment was intended to provide a venue to resist or oppose a federal or state government through armed insurrection, please, let it roll forth.

And don't throw the civil war into the mix, because the constitutional theory was of the right of states to withdraw from the union, not to make war upon the federal government. The war did not begin until the Confederacy constituted itself as a rival entity and repudiated the American compact.

The issue is not gun control, and using the bloody bodies of our children on either side of the issuse is reprehensible. In my youth events like the recent epidemic of school shootings just did not happen and guns were everywhere. We were disciplined in school and at home to the effect if we hurt other people we would be hurt in return; that instilled fear turned into respect for our neighbor’s right to exist as we matured. Now it's not politically correct to tan some youngster's butt when he hits a school or play mate. We have tossed the baby out with the bath water and haven’t the wisdom or maturity to admit it.

"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Thomas Jefferson

That's BS of the most succulent variety, as we've already explained.

When I target shoot, the gun is performing it's intended purpose. Of the 80mil+ gun owners in the US, only a small fraction ever shoot at anyone, let alone kill anyone.

When I used a gun to defend my home, it performed its task without killing anyone.

Clearly they have more than one purpose in the sense you're describing. In terms of functionality, they merely project force. That force can be used for a variety of purposes--and not all of them involve killing anything.

Even if we accept your standard, your own argument fails rather quickly. Functionality and intent? I can come up with tons of uses that aren't killing. 80% of gun owners do NOT hunt. Most of us never use them for anything other than target shooting.

Well, I'd like to charge you for the increased health costs I face for you owning a pool and a ladder, which are way more likely to hurt you.

How about $1000 for the ladder and $199990 for the pool?

Seems fair.

The idea that the govt's job is to build you a risk free existence is such nonsense...and that's coming from a hardcore New Deal loving liberal.

Gun violence is 'an exceptional case' in the United States. Exceptional in that it is the highest in the developed world.

America and Gun Violence

American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States. (Centers for Disease Control)

* Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence. (Coalition to Stop Gun Violence)

* The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

* American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control)

You mistake me. I'm not anti-gun. I'm pro-gun.

I'm just anti-bullshit, and you're ferrying a wheelbarrow of the stuff around.

I don't think that its any favour to the pro-firearms argument to endorse dishonesty, evasive arguments, bad logic or any of that nonsense.

There is a legitimate case for the ownership of firearms for use in hunting, or as a recreational activity such as skeet or target shooting. There's a case to be made for the ownership of firearms for personal security in certain circumstances.

Illegitimate arguments detract from the merits of honest firearms advocates.

Oddly, BVZ, you may not be the only one among us who has either been a child or raised a child.  Yes, there has been some breakage in social order.  But, actual incidence of violent crime have declined for 2 decades. 

It seems the geezers among us are more immoral than the newbies.  So, I wouldn't be too quick to hark back to the good old days when we were the best and the brightest.

The problem is not with aggregate crime, it is with sensational incidents, here, isn't it.  But wait a second, John Wayne Gacy murdered 33 boys between 1972 and 1978.  It seems we have had sensational murders before.  The current instance is sensational for its instantaneousness.  It was a massacre, the way we used to handle Native Americans (we only hat 38 wars with the Indians between 1848 and 1917, and only a handful are officially labeled massacres).

Ah, American bloodlust.  If we only had a legitimate target... 

There are 23 nations on the planet more violent than the US, including plenty of industrialized nations.

Death is death, no matter the cause.

And citing anti gun advocacy groups here is kinda like asking the tobacco industry if smoking cigarrettes every day is a bad idea.

Umm, there's a *civil war* in Iraq, and you obviously are forgetting your nom de plume when you talk about deadliest days in US history.

And what is this 'authority' that is being undermined in Iraq? Wouldn't you do this same if the US were invaded, or do you have a built-in reverence for authority that would cause you to roll over and obey the occupying 'authorities?'

Even if Valdron's ludicrous implication that small arms fire isn't important to guerrilla warfare

Oh, but I never said any such thing, and we both know it.

Let's fire up the Delorean and hit the 'wayback machine' and see what you said, that I was responding to:

the only reason why Iraqis can hold the line against the foreign forces is because they have enough guns to fight back.

Hmmmm "the only reason"? "The ONLY REASON"? "The only reason why Iraqi's can hold the line is because they have enough guns to fight back.

Did you write that?

Was that yours?

Did I accidentally quote someone else? Did I quote someone's really stupid statement that wasn't yours?

Because if you didn't say that, well, let me be the first to apologize and shake your hand.

On the other hand, if you did say that, then I'd have to say that was simply untrue.

It was not the only reason that Iraqi's are able to hold the line (whatever the hell that means) because they had enough guns.

In fact, far from being the only reason, guns are accounting for less than a third of fatalities, and for a much smaller proportion of injuries.

The Iraqi resistance is voting with their feets, as they say. And those feets are beating the path to IED's and other forms of attacks.

Indeed, we can assume that if firearms were not present, then the Iraqi resistance would still be there, and still blowing shit up. It appears that the use of explosives seems to be as or more important to most insurgency campaigns than firearms, though things vary on a case by case basis. In this case, its pretty clear that firearms are, by a wide margin, a secondary.

Roughly, the kill ratio of IED's over firearms is 20%. The killed and injured ratio of IED's over firearms is dramatically higher.

This does not imply that firearms have no role in the insurgency. Merely that their role is currently secondary.

Which means that your statement:

the only reason why Iraqis can hold the line against the foreign forces is because they have enough guns to fight back.

is utter horseshit. Worse, its obvious horsehit. Its a big steaming lump.

Why would you say such a dubious thing.

Two possibilities. Either you didn't know any better, which is frankly questionable, given the prominence of car bombs and IED's in discussions of the insurgency. You should have at least had clear notice that your statement might be insupportable.

Or you were arguing from an ideological rather than a logical basis. You had your gun nut argument to make, and you couldn't be bothered that it didn't accord with reality.

Hence, your obvious embarrassment when I up and whupped you with statistics.

Of course, you didn't enjoy being publicly spanked, but you didn't really have a defense, so you cooked up this:

Even if Valdron's ludicrous implication that small arms fire isn't important to guerrilla warfare

And chose to attack something I didn't actually say. Because... well, that's much easier to confront.

Unfortunately, I pay attention to these things, and this has earned you another spanking.

As I've said elsewhere, dishonesty isn't really a good set of grounds for legitimate pro-gun arguments.

And neither is shabbily misrepresenting facts to fit ideological preconceptions.

Now, go forth and sin no more.

First of all, nobody's whining but the hoplophobes. I'm simply pointing out that you're being disengenous with the 52% number because it includes a wide medley of weaponry. I could lump small arms in with other methods of attack and play the same game you are.

Secondly, your contention that 32% means small arms aren't essential is completely arbitrary. What percentage would constitute essential then? What if we killed a third fewer Germans and Japanese in WW2?

Because you have to defend against small arms fire, you're able to spend that much less effort working on defusing other methods of attack. If small arms aren't useful tools, why do the insurgents bother using them?

In any event, it's a stupid thing to squabble about, as the point stands--a ragtag group of militamen in a guerrilla context can stymie a mighty military power, especially in a foreign occupation context, regardless of the means of resistance. Where is it written that if resisting tyranny here in the US that we'd ONLY use small arms? The 2A hardly requires that small arms be the only or even the main means of resistance.

You completely ignore the use of small arms in Vietnam and other occupation conflicts.

Game over, indeed. The plain reality is that the insurgents use IEDs for their pyschological effect and availability.

Can you cite a military expert or historian who agrees with the view that small arms aren't essential tools of guerrilla warfare? No. Do you think for example...the Kurdish militias would agree that their rifles aren't essential? Good luck.

Bringing a stick to a tank battle, buddy.

You said you're not anti gun? Doesn't sound like it. For a guy who fancies himself pretty sharp with stats, you sure are having trouble with basic facts (and spend plenty of time with the common antigun sophisms).

1) Cop killer bullets are nonexistent. An urban myth. Anyone even remotely informed on this issue knows this. Google is your friend. Blathering about non existent evil ammo really makes you sound like a dolt to someone who, oh, I dunno...runs a gun rights website and is pretty informed on the issue.

2) Assault weapons bans violate the 2A, do nothing to reduce crime, and ban a class of weapons criminals don't bother using. All rifles, not just so called assault rifles, but all rifles combined make up about 1% of crime guns. If you're really worried about crime guns...ban handguns. See: Shooting, the Virginia Tech 2007.

3) The most commonly used target shooting and sport shooting firearm in the US (far and away) is the AR15. It was originally the AR10, a rifle designed for the civilian market in the 1950s...that the military decided it liked and adopted.

The NRA is dedicated to one thing: keeping the right to own firearms around. Single issue? Yes, thank goodness.

The only whack jobs are people who think prohibition makes sense.

It's not about the quantity of guns per se, the "more guns" argument isn't a valid assessment of the situation.

It's who has the guns. People that get the proper training and background can make a difference. You don't hear about it because the media doesn't care to report it, but people use guns for lawful self defense all the time.

You can't uninvent guns. But you can be prepared for when others misuse them.

~

The next time you hear Dick Cheney or George Bush blame the public attitude regarding Iraq on the media's failure to report "good news", examine carefully our reaction to the shooting at Virginia Tech. Look at our collective shock. Our horrified reaction. The public sorrow. Yet, in truth, this is an exceptional, unusual day in America. It is not our common experience. But we cannot say the same about Iraq.

The people of Iraq are living in a Marquis de Sade version of Groundhog Day. It is like the Bill Murray movie--the same horrible day repeated with some new, bizarre twists--only not funny. Multiple body counts and explosions and shootings are the daily experience of the people of Iraq. They have been living this hell for four years. Just keep that fact in mind as you mourn the deaths of American students slain in Blacksburg, Virginia.

Lets go for $1 million a pool.  Fine with me.   Although, last I checked, pools were not principally designed to drown people.

Oh, for the love of all that's holy in Jessica Alba's underpants:

A) You misquoted me, attributing something someone else said to me.

B) Your sleight of hand didn't whup anybody, and was pretty weak actually as I pointed out (I could lump a bunch of other attack methods together to fudge numbers too re: casualties in Iraq...but I don't need to bother as I'm sure the third of American families who've lost sons in Iraq to small arms fire don't find your argument too convincing). As I mentioned above, can you find a militia leader in a war zone anywhere who doesn't regard small arms as essential? No. Can you find a military historian who finds that small arms aren't crucial to guerrilla war? No. I haven't even bothered to point out that I found another source (a liberal one at that) with stats that differ from the ones you're playing around with. There's not really any need--the point the anti-2A forces like to make is that we can't resist the might of the US military...and clearly that's just not the case. I'm not aware of any military expert or milita leader who'd even think of disputing the contention that small arms are useful to guerrilla combat.

I think that about sums it up.

If you're concerned about the legitimate case for protecting firearms ownership, quit floggging the pointless and unsupportable argument that military powers don't have to respect the armed citizen.

I'm simply pointing out that you're being disengenous with the 52% number because it includes a wide medley of weaponry. I could lump small arms in with other methods of attack and play the same game you are.

But then again, if you read your own originating post (and I certainly encourage you to do so) you were the one who focused on small arms.

When you did that, you were the one who lumped everything else in to the other category.

You can't run around and whine about it now. I was perfectly entitled to compare 'firearms' with the aggregate of 'all other' fatalities.

Indeed, I was more than fair to you, because I specifically quoted not just the 52% aggregate figure, but also the 37% that was specific to IED's which was part of that number but which I specifically identified for you, and also listed non-combat fatalities, separately from the aggregate figure so as not to mislead.

Now take it like a man.

You completely ignore the use of small arms in Vietnam and other occupation conflicts.

Would that, possibly, hypothetically, perhaps, maybe be because we're talking about Iraq.

I understand that your argument has fallen apart completely with Iraq and you'd like to change the subject. But geez... show a little dignity.

Game over, indeed. The plain reality is that the insurgents use IEDs for their pyschological effect and availability.

That and killing the largest proportion of American troops and inflicting the most injuries.

I'd say its working pretty goddammed well, don't you think?

Can you cite a military expert or historian who agrees with the view that small arms aren't essential tools of guerrilla warfare? No.

Don't have to. We're not talking military history here. We're talking the very limited circumstance of Iraq.

And in particular, we're talking about a goofy statement made by someone or other who claimed "The only reason that the Iraqi's have been able to hold the line..."

I'm pretty sure that if I brought in a military historian or military expert, or for that matter, if I brought in a Kurdish Peshmerga, and showed them that statement... well... they'd just up and laugh.

My point is that you can make all the second amendment arguments you want, and you can argue till you're blue in the face about the role of firearms in domestic insurgencies, and I'll probably agree with a lot, or at least some of it.

But that doesn't give you a right to say stupid and dishonest things. And adding stupid and dishonest things to your argument doesn't add to your credibility. It detracts from your credibility and from your arguments.

Look, I don't have anything against you. Sure, I use casual and salty language, but that's just my way. It's not personal. You're probably a decent person.

But there's ways to make an argument and ways not to make an argument.

Making stupid and dishonest arguments doesn't make a case. It just reflects badly upon you.

Now, its okay that you're being defensive, because I'm being fairly hard on you.

But its for your own good. You seem to have some idea that you can just serve up bowls of shit, and people should eat it up like its ice cream.

I'm here to tell you that this is not the way that the world works.

Now, you go off and have a good cry, and then think about these things.

And at some point, in the long run, this painful experience will lead you to construct better, more carefully thought out, arguments with more attention to facts and details.

You'll be a better person for it. Your arguments will be more legitimate, and people will take you more seriously.

So you see, although this is probably really painful for you, in a sort of prison rape kind of way, I'm doing it for your own good.

Now go forth and sin no more with outrageous butt-foolery.

But that's the fly in the ointment, Sebastian.  How can a regulating agency make any determination between insane, violent, criminal, abusive folks and competent law abiding folks?  I'll bet you money, marble or chalk that when the profile of the Virginia Tech shooter comes out he will found to have been a competent law abider who popped his cork.  I'm sticking my neck out here a bit (with a bet like that) but I'm basing my assumption on other shooters in the past.  

And then, how would you prove that you were competent and law abiding anyway?   

Neoboho

So, the NRA put the murder weapon in this killer's hand and now it wants to put more murder weapons in more killers' hands on the off chance that an occasional victim might shoot back.  That is braindead.

What I don't understand noblesseoblige , is why you didn't read the accounts before sending off a reply.

To illustrate: Would you walk into the jungle, without a gun or something to defend yourself? If a person was smart instead of foolish he should. Especially if a warning had been issued that a wild predatory animal was stalking humans.

People like this shooter at the school are no different, than an animal, same traits. All moral sense that distinguishes humans from the beast, don't exist in this man's minds, he's going to kill you and everyone he sees. You'd be a fool, to go without a way to defend yourself. Pleading for your life, may not sway his intent to kill you. In fact he'd probably laugh at your tears, then shoot you.

Do you know the statistics of Violent crime in America?
You stated that 70 people a day murdered by gunfire. Were these perpetrated against unarmed citizens?

Arming the population doesn't seem to help.  We are the most armed country in the world that is not a recognized battlefield.  We also have the highest per capita murder rate.

"But then again, if you read your own originating post (and I certainly encourage you to do so) you were the one who focused on small arms."

Not to the exclusion of other weapons, and merely as an illustration of their relevance re: guerrilla conflicts. You're clearly suggesting that small arms aren't significant in the conflict at hand because of the prevalence of other types of weapons.

Completely, utterly arbitrary--if for no other reason than the necessity of defending against their use necessitates the tactics that make IEDs effective in turn. Your failure to address this point speaks volumes.

Your failure to A) mention a military expert who thinks small arms aren't integral to guerrilla combat or B) identify a militia leader who doesn't find them essential speaks even louder. Moving on.

"Would that, possibly, hypothetically, perhaps, maybe be because we're talking about Iraq.

I understand that your argument has fallen apart completely with Iraq and you'd like to change the subject. But geez... show a little dignity."

If you're going to be a condescending prick, at least be internally consistent about it. If you go back to my original post, you'll see I was talking about Vietnam from the get go. Duh! I'm not introducing it after the fact.

As such, your ignoring it is material. Nice try, though.

Seeing as my argument hasn't fallen apart, I suppose pointing that out is just icing on the cake.

"Don't have to. We're not talking military history here. We're talking the very limited circumstance of Iraq."

Sure we are, we're talking about the history of Iraq, Vietnam, and just about every other guerrilla war.

The discussion at hand is whether small arms are significant in such conflicts. Can you cite any expert in firearms or military tactics who agrees with you? Apparently not.

"Now, its okay that you're being defensive, because I'm being fairly hard on you."

I don't mind being held to a standard. I do mind that you A) attributed someone elses statement to me in rather condescending fashion, B) keep ignoring pointed questions that undermine your case because heck those inconvenient truths, C) employ the more tired arguments the antis trot out, and D) you're wasting a lot of time on a stupid premise. Nobody who knows anything about firearms or military tactics finds small arms to not be an integral part of modern combat. That's why militas, insurgents, guerrillas, terrorists, and yes the military still use them. You've offered up a lot of insulting blather but not the slightest shred of evidence to counter that larger point, but you're strutting around like you know something we don't.

You can't even quote people accurately, but you seem to think pretty highly of yourself. For a guy worried about non-existent cop killer bullets, you're gonna have to do better to be Mr. Authority Figure around here.

In short...bugger off.

Pretty clearly I'm NOT arguing that small arms are the ONLY reason guerrillas can fight.

I'm merely rebutting or confronting head on your unsubstantiated assertion that they're not relevant in a modern occupation/insurgency context.

It's kinda like when the antis argue handguns aren't useful for self defense...but can't seem to find any uniformed cops who'll walk a beat without them.

Last time I checked, the "guns were only to kill people" argument was pretty well debunked.

Case in point--mine have never killed anyone. And yet...I find them useful. Go figure.

Valdron, Sebastian and mcs:

You all have some good points but I don't understand why all 3 of you are using this much space to chase rabbits down holes. Why not get back to the topic rather than debating the relative value of small arms fire in insurgencies?

(deleted)

"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Thomas Jefferson

I often feel like pro-gun and anti-gun activists run in circles around each other, both misunderstanding the arguments of the other (deliberately or not) and both constantly repeating the same set of arguments over and over....

It's true that only guns in the hands of people can kill other people. That's true of just about everything barring natural causes of death (ie. diseases, drowning, mudslides, hurricanes, a tree falling on top of your head). But a gun does make it much easier for one person to critically or fatally injure another person compared to any other hand-held weapon (I'm excluding bombs, which has as good a chance of injuring the user rather than the target when improperly used). The argument that guns shouldn't be controlled because it's the people's fault that guns are being used to kill others is completely baseless. If that was the case, we should allow private ownership of grenades, tanks, and fully armed bombers.

The only real question should be this: what degree of freedom of possession of firearms provides more of a benefit than it does harm?
After all, when properly used it serves as a powerful deterrent to violent crime (in addition to a last-resort measure of providing forceful means to stop or prevent a violent crime), but it can just as easily facilitate that same crime when improperly used. For every story about a gun preventing a crime and saving lives, there is a story about how a gun destroyed a life, whether it's a bunch of gangsters conducting a drive-by shooting or a group of kids playing around with a loaded pistol.

Beyond that, there's also the lifestyle argument (hunting) and the Second Amendment issue. The latter isn't much of an issue, if you really think about it. Why should something stay on the books just because there's a Constitutional Amendment for it? Prohibition was repealed, after all, so it's not like there isn't even any precedent for it.

I don't own a gun, I don't plan to ever own one, and I'm of the personal opinion that there needs to be more gun control in the US. Do people really need to own an assault rifle? Do they need to own 10 guns in a single household, much less buying 10 at one time? Should people with convictions for stuff like violent crimes, robbery (armed or not), drugs, or drunk driving be allowed to own guns? (For the drunk driving part, would you really trust someone with multiple convictions for it to own a gun? They obviously don't have enough self-conscience, control, or awareness to stop themselves from DUI after all, and a car can be just as deadly as a gun).

I'm willing to admit that some gun control measures don't make a whole lot of sense. Key trigger locks, for instance, seem like they would make a gun completely useless except as a bludgeon in many situations where they would be otherwise useful (finger-print locks, on the other hand, sound much more practical). I'd be for any and all measures of tracking firearms (eg. embedding a chip inside all firearms), and quite honestly, I wouldn't mind if all privately owned firearms in the country simply disappeared one day, even though I think there are far too many illegally-owned guns out there right now for that to be practical, much less possible. But I do hope that Mayors Against Illegal Guns manages to make some progress on that gun-related problem.

Oh great. First we've got Bertrand Russell, and now we're channelling Clarence Darrow.

'Dicta' is 'Obiter Dicta', not part of the 'Ratio Decidendi.'

Obiter Dicta is the non-binding part of a judgement. It does not constitute precedent, but amounts to a commentary which is not part of the chain of reasoning which is the binding part of the decision.

Dicta may be relied upon in formulating a judgement, but is not itself a statement of the settled law. It is not determinative, and may be disregarded.

The common law is full of junk dicta, rattling around, forgotten and justly overlooked.

Is the 2A dicta part of that judicial junkpile. Maybe, maybe not. The Supreme Court has been quite effective at avoiding ruling over the actual meaning of the clause.

The best we can say is that its largely unsettled.

But I don't think that the sincere blathering of pimpled teenagers sheds much light on the issue.

OK, mcs makes some good points here and is trying to extend the arguments fairly. I don't really believe what I am about to write, but I'm surprised no one has ever raised this point:

Gun advocates maintain that they have guns for self defense. They also maintain that guns don't matter since other means can be found to kill. Both of these points are made by mcs in his post. So, if self defense is necessary, but guns are not necessary (to kill), why do all of the folks concerned with self defense operationalize that defense by owning guns? Is it because guns are a better and more efficient weapon for killing than baseball bats, knives and F-350's?

So, you're arguing that the second amendment amounts to a constitutional right to insurrection?

Well, that's certainly an interesting point of view.

Tell you what, you go and try that out. The rest of us will stand wayyyyyy back and watch.

Chuckie,

I checked the CIA world fact book (obviously a liberal biased source). My assertions are somewhat incorrect. We are only the most deadly DEVELOPED country. Countries like Kyrgyzstan and Paraguay are more deadly. We are actually #9 with handguns and #11 with rifles. I don't know why keeping company with Panama disturbs me.

Our northern neighbor, the one with one of the most restrictive gun laws in the world and otherwise with very similar culture, seems to manage to keep gun deaths to 1/11th of ours per capita. I cannot figure it out.

I am not interested in your taunting private messages. Stop.  It is abusive.

Your entry, Mr. Johnson, is wrong headed. Americans do not need tragedy such as this in their own towns to understand what is happening in Iraq, and it is a more than a little morbid to use this situation to score points against the Iraq War. I'm sure everyone else on this thread has said the same thing. If you understand it at all, you should rewrite this post.

mcs said:

"[...]roadside explosives (IED's?) and bomb belts are two different things.

but that's how gorilla wars are fought."

Gorilla wars??? Is that some sort of a Freudian slip, or do you think that Iraqis are a different species than we are? Are the Iraqi "gorillas" in any way related to the Indian "macacas"?

Even if we accept your standard, your own argument fails rather quickly. Functionality and intent? I can come up with tons of uses that aren't killing.

You mean like opening your beer bottle?

Yep, you got me, Bertrand Russell. Obviously, its not possible to say anything about anything.

And clearly the firearm was developed over time as a kind of ongoing inquiry into galilean physics. Why, all those people who developed or contributed to the development of firearms would have been shocked and horrified by the notion that a person might be standing in front of a firearm. Why... A person could be killed!

All I want to know is, were you giving Bill Clinton his legal advice when he wondered about the definition of 'is'?

LOL

Oh, just curious. You said "when I target shoot."

So.... When you target shoot...

Human silhouette targets?

Hmmm?

"But semiautomatics aren't a necessity; if you want to hunt, learn how to stalk your prey and how to shoot straight"

Since when does something have to be a necessity for you to have a right to it?

"don't spray 50 bullets where one, well aimed, should be enough."

Do you know anyone who actually does this? I don't. I've never even heard of such a thing actually happens.

The hunter spraying 50 bullets is the equivalent of the apocryphal voter fraud that the GOP is always tracking down.

In both cases...they don't exist.

"As for handguns, they were never meant for anything other than killing *people*. "

No, they were meant to provide portable firepower that lots of people can handle. Not everyone who wants a firearm likes or finds shotguns and rifles useful.

Self defense is perfectly logical reason to own one. That's why cops carry them.

You wrote:

"Your contention is that firearms are essential? Sorry. "

You were clearly arguing that small arms aren't an integral and essential element of guerrilla combat.

You were wrong.

Because a key antigunner strategy is to suggest firearms aren't relevant in the context of the 2A's original intent anymore.

Pretty clearly that's not the case, as every military unit, militia, insurgency group, and paramilitary group in the friggen world still uses them.

Wow! It took about 12 hours for some predictable dolt to break out the stupid and hackneyed "your gun as your penis" pscyhobabble.

Not bad. Usually the hoplophobic idiots wait a mere 20 minutes to bust out that nonsense.

FWIW, Freud actually pointed out that irrational fear of weapons was a sign of sexual insecurity.

Is it? Do we really?

I often feel that Bush only sees the war in Iraq in terms of our interests (and by "our", I really mean his interests). You can see it in his speeches: it's all about "protecting America", "protecting democracy", "bringing democracy to the people of Iraq" (regardless of whether they want it or not, whether it would improve their lives or not). The words he has for the Iraqis seem to me as nothing more than lip service.

What's your point? That guns include in their uses shooting people? Being used in war?

Of course they do.

Never said they didn't! (And Russell would be horrified to see you using his name in this context...he was just a wee bit more rational than you're being).

I merely object to the idea that killing people is their "only" use.

If nothing else, goddamn it...some people need killin. If it's my life or a homicidal maniac's life...you're goddamned right I want my gun to be capable of deadly force.

And I target shoot IPSC silhouettes...but I also shoot concentric circle targets that bear no resemblance to anything human.

Shooting trap is a legit use that isn't killing.

Your argument thusly fails.

If you read a little of the Russell you keep hinting at...you'd realize that absolute statements like "guns are only for killling" are risky propositions that don't survive much scrutiny.

Noble instrument? No.

They're inanimate objects, pure and simply. It's just a hunk of metal.

If you saved your own life with one, you might have a different attitude.

I notice you leave target shooting (one of the most common uses for firearms...only about 20% of gun owners hunt) off the list.

You are right though, guns are designed to move lead at high speed.

What the lead goes through is up to the shooter.

As though your rating practices aren't.

Stop whining.

Very good points G4A. The prohibition against the federal government maintaining a standing army may not be convenient to some, but it has NOT been repealed. Understanding that prohibition is the only way to make sense out of Hamilton's arguments in the Federalist Papers about the position of Commander-In-Chief. He refers to the Commander-In-Chief as nothing more than the top general that State militia generals would have to answer to, if Congress gave him an army composed of the State's militias. He goes to some length assuring that the President, as this Commander-In-Chief, would be less powerful than a State Governor, who could raise and command forces while the Commander-In-Chief would be merely the top general answering to the Congress. This is the assurance made to the States during the ratifications. The States ratified the Constitution with the clear understanding that the Governors were not conceding their military power to the Presidency, but that they were conceding their armies to Congress only upon a declaration of war. Since Senators were then appointed by the State legislatures to represent the interest of their State, the States agreed to this arrangement as the only safe way to accept a Presidency.  By then even the King of England could not raise his own army, that prerogative had been usurped by Parliament. And the States were not eagar to grant an American Commander-In-Chief more power than an English King!

I'm not aware of a definition of "small arm" that doesn't include main battle rifles. Small arms by definition weapons soldiers can carry.

AKs are fully auto, not semi auto. Assault rifles are by definition select fire. Anti gun organizations admit they make a lot of hay confusing people on the difference between full and semi auto.

AK47's didn't see service as a main battle rifle in WW2. They were adopted a couple years after the war ended.

Save the hyperbole for after you learn about the weapons we're discussing. Wikipedia is your friend.

Right.  Always in these discussions the states take a back seat.  So foolish.  The Second Amendment CLEARLY has no hold on the states.  NONE.  This is why the states can COMPLETELY PROHIBIT any possession of weapons whatsoever.  That would be the wise decision.

What reason and facts has your pants wetting blather presented? What facts have you confronted me with that rebut anything I have to say?

Name calling. Predictable and boring. Time for bed...

Aside from the fact that plenty of federal courts, state constitutions, and interpretations of cases like Miller disagree with you...

Can you think of any other element of the BOR we think the states can limit? Why shouldn't the 14A apply to the 2A?

Would you use such reasoning to justify the states abridging 1A rights?

Sebastian said:

"Welcome to democracy and freedom--where you can't lock people up for crimes they MIGHT commit."

The Denver Three -- who were ejected, pre-emptively, from a public hall and from an event for which they held tickets because they *might* have been disruptive (the sticker on their car said "no blood for oil") -- are probably too much of a case of "small potatoes". And, of course,they weren't locked up...

But.. How about invading and destroying a country, pre-emptively? Because it MIGHT have WMDs and MIGHT want to use them on us?

Don't you find something a wee-bit screwy in that argument? On the one hand, you seem to think (vide the quote above) that it's democracy and freedom that keeps us from acting pre-emptively (like: taking your car away on the chance that you might get drunk and mow 20 edestrians with it), and that it's a good thing. OTOH, we attacked -- pre-emptively -- *in order to* teach the Iraqi all about democracy and freedom. Which our presidunce tells us is a good thing too.

Which kind of "democracy and freedom" did you have in mind?

Whatever. I'm simply pointing out the weaknesses in the anti gun arguments you guys have been making for years (and you guys wonder why you're not getting any traction, and pro gun forces are getting win after win).

You keep repeating the idea that the 2A only applies to the Feds like its settled law. You've offered no substantiation for that concept whatsoever.

Repeating something over and over doesn't make it so. The idea that the BOR didn't apply to the states was not universally accepted or established as caselaw by the SCOTUS. Many jurists have advocated a universal incorporation. In any event, SCOTUS caselaw predates due process considerations, and the idea that the 2A doesn't deserve 14A protection is generally considered to be undermined by the incorporation of so many other rights. The court has been pretty reluctant to not incorporate rights, as well it should.

In short, the 14A insists on a broad view of personal liberty that doesn't include the states getting to deny us rights the Feds protect.

That press release had beeen "vetted" first, through several right-wing blogs, which led with similiar theses (if the students had been armed, the shooter wouldn't have got so many).

I live in Virginia, about 90 minutes' drive from Blacsburg and many kids from my town go to VA Tech for their college education, so the shooting today was oof visceral interest to us (me and my husband). we have been watching/reading different news sources throughout the day and reporting to one another when something new/different surfaced and, when I reported that one to him, his reaction was "which jackass said that?"

I hasten to say that, although I myself am dubious about the necessity of gun (of any kind) possession by private citizens, most of the males in my family think otherwise, because most of them hunt or used to. But even they think that NRA has long ago crossed the line from being sensible and, generally, a "good thing", to being a paid toool of the gun industry.

Much like the Republican party, when you think about it...

The only governmental abuse of authority that an armed militia could possibly protect against is a systematic abuse of power by an armed institution (police, National Guard, Armed Forces) on a wide-scale (which would generally be regarded as on a national scale, or at the very least across many states). I don't see that as a possibility in this country at all. What's the use of the "Right to Bear Arms" when the "abuse of authority" is the government spying on us and violating our right to privacy?

So you think more guns is the answer. Last year when a man shot several little Amish girls, I assume your solution would be to arm the little girls?

Do you really think arming teenagers is a smart thing to do? Talk about a cure worse than the disease...

Those are good points but I'd add that the ability to harass regular forces of any occupying power, that is the deciding factor in the equation of cost/benefit for said occupying power. Not only recently, but always.

For example, wasn't it Ho Chi Mihn who said (paraphrased) that they only needed to kill 1 US soldier for n Vietnamese, as they were fighting for an existential battle for their homeland and self determination, while the US was a prosperous nation fighting abroad for abstract concepts.

Ironically, many gun advocates make the argument they would fight for liberty here in the event of an authoritarian takeover, tooth and nail, to the death, and thereby win by sheer determination; but are often the most authoritarian Americans and don't seem to understand that's what Iraqi's are presently doing. So, it's kind of hard to follow the thread of logic there.

Not trying to make any point on gun ownership and Red Dawn like scenarios about militias, just saying, the circumstances of the conflict have as much or more to do with outcomes than simple military superiority. A lesson we could take to heart...

Besides the numerous cases that mention the RKBA in dicta, you're ignoring not just Parker but also Emerson (the only Federal cases to take up the issue in a generation). The view you offer is actually the aberration.

The preamble does not reserve a power to the state--in fact, it doesn't reserve a power to ANYTHING, including a militia. It provides a justification, not a prerequisite of membership. If you read the federal definition of militia, it includes all of us.

Given that the courts have taken a broad view of incorporation under the 14A, the onus is on you to provide an argument for why it shouldn't be included. The idea that it reserves a power to the states ain't gonna cut it, as recent court decisions show--every other time the BOR mentions "the people", they mean individuals. No indication the 2A is any different.

The idea that the BOR doesn't apply to the states is a relic of the Plessy v. Ferguson Jim Crow "states rahts" era.

On April 16, 2007 - 7:59pm Sebastian said:

I have no quarrel with laws that make it illegal for felons and insane people to possess or buy guns.

How does a seller know whether or not a gun buyer is insane or not?

Okay, here's a teachable moment.

It does happen every freakin' day in Iraq. In fact, bloodshed of all kinds happens every freakin' day in the Arab and Islamic worlds.

Yet when it happes here it is truly freakish. That shows how rare it is in our society.

And often when it happens in our world, it's because of their ideology, even if we don't want to admit it and shove the connections to radical Islam down the memory hole (eg., the kid who drove a car into a crowd for Islam, the DC snipers).

So something awful and violent seems to be at the heart of things in the Arab and Islamic worlds (note careful phrasing to dscourage the inevitable, argument-avoiding cry of "Racist!") What do we do about it? How do we change it or at least mitigate its effects on us?

So..... you like to shoot human silhouette targets?

Isn't that interesting?

I'd say that's very interesting...

So when you target shoot, you're training yourself to shoot at human shapes.

Isn't that interesting.

And round dartboard shapes too. Except that you're making no distinction whatsoever between targetting human shapes and round dartboard shapes.

Something that is both interesting and disturbing.

And creepy.

I don't know what's creepier.

The fact that you enjoy shooting human shapes, or the fact that you're making no distinction between them and simple circles.

On some level, there's something missing here that most human beings instinctively have.

Either by training or defect of birth, there's something in you that makes no distinction between a donut and a human being.

How utterly repellent.

I don't think I'll continue this conversation.

"Yossarian"

Howard strikes again, good one Howard :-)

Reece;

Do modern day African Americans really know what it was like to live in the south during the heday of the Klan? Do they really know what its like to experience being dragged out of the house in the middle of the night to be whipped and hanged? Does being insulted by Imus help black people understand the Klan's actions?
Does a 30 year old black man understand the Klan the way a 90 year old southern black man does?

Do modern day Jews really know what those who suffered under the Nazis experienced?
Does a 30 year old Jew understand the Holocaust the same way a 90 year old Jew from Poland does?

Does reading history books or seeing film
of the night riders or the Holocaust compare
to those who actually experienced it?

Does reading the news or watching film of Iraq cause us to understand it?

One doesn't learn what war is like by watching John Wayne in Sands of Iwo Jima.

How far away is Iraq?

Actually, I don't really have much regard for philosophers like Bertrand Russell. They have their place, but I live in the real world. I find it interesting though, that on this single subject, you retreat into obscure philosophy. Someone else might find it dishonest evasion.

In the meantime, you write:

That guns include in their uses shooting people? Being used in war? Of course they do....Never said they didn't! If nothing else, goddamn it...some people need killin. ...I want my gun to be capable of deadly force. ...And I target shoot IPSC silhouettes...

There's really nothing much anyone can say about that little stream of dripping psychosis.

I grant you Saddam's 23 -- dunno where you got that figure but I'm not going to argue with you.

But Lincoln's war of aggression?! Dude, you need to come out of the 19th century.

And Sebastian is right, guns aren't dangerous for everyone--just for people who don't know how to use them, how to identify targets beyond doubt, how to think about where your round will go if you miss or go through the target, the dangers of unsecured weapons, etc. etc.

Clay, which of the above catetgories, since guns are dangerous for JUST the ones you mention, would you attribute to the Virginia Tech shooter?

Jan Knaus

"They're amongst the most well armed folks on the planet."
there are 120 000 active soldiers who have a gun at home out of a pop of 7 1/2 mio.

Well, every time Bush mentions a soldier, or 10 soldiers, or 100 soldiers dying in this needless war he always mentions the "noble cause" that they died for: Fighting over there so they won't be fighting here, etc.

Yep, it is just exactly like pissing into their coffins, except that we, the American people are prohibited by the Bush administration from even so much as SEEING the coffins of the war dead. I guess George doesn't want us to see the pee stains.

Jan Knaus

Good4,

Wyatt Earp made the cowboys check their guns outside town. Shootings in the town dropped drastically . :-)