It’s easy to find anything the establishment “bans.” 
The government knows they can’t make anything
disappear with prohibition, a “ban” is more like
adding an extra secret tax while simultaneously
forcing people to become outlaws and thus eventually
slaves by forcing them to use underground methods to
get what they want.  This almost always leads to the
“criminal” being registered into the convict slave
class through arrest. The government spends more and
makes more in any prohibition, thus increasing its
power. It also leads to fuller prisons and thus
higher corporate profits for the prison related
industries. Millions of people who would otherwise
have full rights are becoming permanent members of
this underclass where the government has more power
to control your life. 

Consider the war on drugs, the government not only
profits off seizures and black market deals with 3rd
world countries (iran-contra affair anyone?) but puts
itself in a position where it can define millions as
“felons” simply for drug use and restrict their
access to weapons, voting, and foreign travel. In a
way, the government does the same thing with weapons. 
It restricts the people’s access to weapons, defining
anybody who seeks competitive, modern weapons for
self or community defense or insurance against
tyranny as a criminal and thus placing them in the
convict slave class.  Simultaneously, the government
oppresses and profits with these same weapons! The
last weapons we have access to are simple rifles and
shotguns, even pistols are partially prohibited to
adults as you have to be 21 to legally purchase one. 

This issue in some ways resembles the economic
situation.  The wider the gulf between the haves and
have-nots with money, the bolder the establishment
becomes in its thievery, justifying “bail outs” for
the upper classes while the poor have less than ever. 
It can accomplish this only through fear, the people
are so afraid that the system they have become
dependent on is dying that they willingly give up
their own money to the government gangsters. 

Similarly the government, with its widening,
unmatched superiority in deadly weapons is now
becoming so bold it is attempting to justify stealing
or regulating the arms of common men for our security
against uncommon criminals.  This has nothing to do
with crime, but everything to do with power.  The
government wants the last of our real power destroyed
so it can pave the way for pure imperialistic
oligarchy. The wider the gulf between the “haves” and
“have-nots” with weapons, the less freedoms the
common man will be able to preserve.  The government
can only accomplish this prohibition, like any other,
through fear, in this case of crime.  Well I say to
you, crime is not to be feared if your community
knows how to defend itself.  I fear a government
monopoly on weapons, which can only lead to tyranny
and persecution.

drewzifer

If I may; your post is truth in all its contentions, but it’s a little strident, or, dare I say, hysterical, and all encompassing in its accusations.

I’ll suggest that many posters here recognize the truths you relate, and have recognized these truths for some time. In short, these truths are old news, not that these truths can be posted often enough in order to reach the uninformed or naïve, but try and tone it down a little, you’ll be less abrasive, and more persuasive.

To imagine that gun manufacturers and dealers, and the NRA, don’t know who they are marketing to is to believe in the tooth fairy.
There must be a way to hold responsible people responsible.

Rachel Maddow was correct last night: It is not possible to have any rational discourse regarding “gun control” in this country.

That said, I may as well be as irrational as the rest.

Your GUN isn’t going to make you any safer or any more secure. Your GUN isn’t going to have any effect on that bald spot on the back of your head. Your GUN isn’t going to make your penis any larger.

The guy right before me is the only one who’s said anything that makes sense: This country needs THERAPY.
We’ve all gone crazy.

Problem is, the most crazy among us seem to be pulling the strings.

NRA: May your children be born horribly deformed. May your parents die slow agonizing deaths. A pox on your house!

****************

Look at the msm about this. You’re saying ‘What?’. Think a bit
about all those cool action movies where people are shooting at
each other with semi-auto handguns. Emptying clip after clip,
slamming another clip home and keep firing. And gosh amighty,
it seems it takes 4 or 5 clips to bring down the preferred target.
It’s like there isn’t enough powerful bullets so the more shots
the better. Along with the hate, fear, terror mongering and the
incitements of both the right wingers and the left wingers, I
wouldn’t be surprised if ‘action movies’ played a part in
loughner’s rampage.

But I guess in the long run, going to those movies are fine as
there are no real bullets zipping around inside the theater. So
we think there might be a correlation there.

But, and I haven’t read much at all about this lately, what about
the 10yr old who killed his mother for something or the other?
Maybe that kid had seen enough to figure out how to ‘take care
of the situation’, whatever that situation might have been.

How many bullets do you need? I don’t know about anyone else, but currently I don’t need any bullets, but if people start disappearing, or if lunatics from either end of the political spectrum resort to armed violence, bullets may become a necessity. Under either of these hopefully rediculous scenarios, a lot of bullets before reloading might be somewhat conducive to preserving ones health and welfare.

Let’s get serious, the difference between 3 ten round magazines and a thirty round magazine is only a few seconds. If someone should become a victim of a gun crime, I’m quite sure that whether the bullet came from a first, second, or third, ten round magazine, or a thirty round magazine would not be all that important.

Creating legislation to restrict magazine sizes might have some symbolic usefulness, but doing so might also increase the vitriolic rhetoric, feed the paranoia, and increase the division. It may well be that focusing on this impotent legislation will do more harm than good. A more difficult, but more useful, solution would require that there be a concerted effort to reduce the historical, demented, romanticized fascination this country has had, and continues to have with guns and militarism. Wyatt Earp, like many of our Peace officers, was/is/are guilty of thuggery and brutality. Pretty boy Floyd, Bonnie and Clyde, John Dillinger, gangsters of all stripes and varieties are/were violence prone thugs. Personally, I would be in favor of prohibiting all guns, including sporting guns, but the record of prohibitions has not been good, and if possible, I’d like to avoid the unpleasantness of prying guns from the cold dead hands of the rigormortis corpses of Charlton Heston fans.  Also, I’m not sure if I would prefer: Being shot, hacked, bludgeoned, garroted, have my throat slit, be disemboweled, or be cleaved asunder etc.

I repeat, I don’t believe this proposed legislation will be anything more than a diversion away from the core problems that we face, and I believe the proposed legislation has the very real potential for increasing the animosities, divisiveness, and rationales for violence and incidences of deranged insurrection. The lunatics have already become violent regarding Health Care Reform; what will they do if we attempt to restrict their fire power? Although this issue is concerned with life and death, the proposed legislation if enacted, I believe, will be negligible, and a contentious waste of valuable Congressional and Judicial, time and social resources, and very likely will have negative political consequences.

Like all violence prone mental patients, this nation needs some serious therapy. A straight jacket will contribute nothing to the mental health of the patient, and besides, I can only imagine that getting a straight jacket on the patient would be a real pain in the butt, and I’ll propose that that restraint would only make the patient more prone to violence. Maybe forced sedation would be beneficial, but that strikes me as being too tyrannical. Would, that we could, protect this patient from self injury.

Limiting clip sizes is a complete waste of resources and time.  Manufacturers
simply change gun design to accommodate more bullets and people just carry
more than one weapon.  This is a feel-good measure that adds more regulation
and accomplishes nothing while ignoring real solutions.  It’s not deserving of an
article on TD.

Everybody keeps forgetting or overlooking the fact that 3 unarmed senior citizens
apprehended and stopped the armed man. The concealed weapon carrying young
man who assisting them (with restraint of the killer), did not draw his gun, for fear
of being seen as a 2nd shooter. He also admitted in an interview that he mistook
one of the good samaritans for the assailant, & he could have easily shot one of
the heroes. From all the fearful, knee jerk reactions to the mere mention of deadly
weapon regulation, it’s unlikely a gun in a gunclingers’ hands would result in a
positive outcome if unexpectedly in a chaotic, deadly situation. I would prefer to
have level headed, peace seeking, cooperative people around me.

Guns don’t kill people, drugs don’t kill people, cars don’t kill people, people kill people. To state that removing a material object from human control will eliminate this fact is based on emotion and not logic. All gun control/elimination would do is cause a rise in black market sales of guns just like illegal drugs, and we all know what the unintended consequences of that are. Then law abiding citizens would be at even more risk since criminals would still have guns and law abiding citizens would not. Why is this issue aways raised in high profile cases, like the lives of all those people who are murdered on a regular basis are not important? Oh, those cases don’t sell papers or increase ratings. I respect the articles of this magazine for the most part, but writers, you need to think things through to avoid losing the respect of anyone with intelligence. People should be more worried about getting killed in an auto accident than anything else, since over 30,000 people a year die that way, and yet i never hear about a discussion on that topic. We should make cars illegal, at least people can’t hide one in their back pocket (I’m being sarcastic). Both my father and my uncle were killed by drunk humans driving cars. Human behavior is a bitch (also sarcastic).

I agree Marcus and others who preach on the evils of firearms or just specific things like over-capacity magazines absolutely should get into guns.. get trained, take the classes, get certified. It will open their eyes. And doing so should take away any perception they are ignorant of personal firearms. Plus if Ruth or others do have that nagging in-the-gut fear or hatred of all things ‘gun’ (as I suspect is true of many anti-gun advocates) getting involved could cure that.

Most importantly Ruth needs to see and understand how the gun industry and personal-carry, personal-defense advocacy groups work. Carrying a gun isn’t just about defense and entirely not simply about personal choice.. These classes and training sessions are not just about going armed.. it’s about being CHOSEN.

The participant is constantly reminded of their duty and responsibility as a new warden of safety and society. Those who carry guns are special.. they are in a heightened state of awareness.. their senses honed to those of a superman, always ready to recognize real danger and instantly respond.. saving innocence and justice..

This is not a joke! these groups use a three-colored chart showing states of personal awareness or readiness.. Those like our friend Ruth are at the bottom or white level, much like cattle prior to slaughter and regarded as such by true gun aficionados. Trained and prepared gun owners are always at the yellow level, likened to a sleek predator ready to slay in an instant but only when needed, of course. The top level, red.. means action is needed and really causes only confusion and inaction among those not properly gifted, trained and equipped.

Gun people, and I’m not meaning just anyone who owns a firearm, people who really believe the ‘from my dead hand’ stuff and fantasize of having to use their arms on another person, or persons.. they are in a religion.. not a gun-rights organization.. And their preachers and bishops in the industry and more are savvy and high tech.. their own vocabulary, literature, web-content and even humor! You can make laws and effect public perceptions of things like real threats to personal safety.. replacing people’s idols or fooling with their self-image is another thing.

Where exactly do I stand on these issues? I most certainly would not want to give up my own firearms!

Adios!

Wikileaks for Nobel,

They are legal.  You need a class 3 license and background investigation to own one.  You allow ATF access to them 24/7 if you obtain the license.

Given that the U.S. military uses 250,000 rounds to kill each ‘terrorist’ and now needs to imprt ammo from Israel implies to me the need for marksmanship training.

Why not legalize machine guns?  Not having those is a limitation.  Never know when a law-abiding citizen might need one—or more.

Ruth, it’s a problem of self-control, not gun control, I think.  People who want to own guns, people who treasure guns, people who kill animals for fun, people who feel that a gun gives them control over their own lives and makes them feel safe—all of them are living fear-laden lives.  Fear tends to increase over time until it becomes unmanageable—unless the victim of fear gets some kind of (generally unavailable or expensive) help.  Gun-crazy means crazy about guns or crazy for a gun.  And since guns kill people, people with guns kill people in some mad moment of despair or martyrdom or rage or fear or ... whatever. 
  America is, among other things, a gun-crazy, violence-prone nation.  We need a kinder, gentler social system than knock-down-drag-out free-floating paranoia. We need the courage to love each other—all of us, rich, poor, middle, sick, healthy, wise, stupid—it’s not that hard, once you get the feel of it. Everything works better without violence. As a nation, we should shift gears and try it.

What about having 3 pistols, each with a 10 rd. clips?
Or driving into a crowd with a big truck?
Gasoline and matches?
A bomb?
Who are these people writing these articles? Where is the one article by someone
who will talk about the concept of liberty? That even though this shooting was just
awful, we should not in a kneejerk fashion, take away the rights of others? I
disagree with abortion, however I would never even think to take that right away
from a woman.
Ruth Marcus tries to sound logical but fails. Why? Because she doesnt know about
guns, and training with them or shooting them. She is guessing.