Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Shop the Truthdig Gift Guide 2014
December 18, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


Weather Extremes Rise as Planet Gets Hotter and Colder






Truthdig Bazaar
Time of Useful Consciousness

Time of Useful Consciousness

By Lawrence Ferlinghetti
$22.95

more items

 
Report

It’s the Guns, Stupid

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Apr 20, 2007

By E.J. Dionne, Jr.

WASHINGTON—Why do we have the same futile argument every time there is a mass killing?

    Advocates of gun control try to open a discussion about whether more reasonable weapons statutes might reduce the number of violent deaths.

    Opponents of gun control shout, “No!” Guns don’t kill people, people kill people, they say, and anyway, if everybody were carrying weapons, someone would have taken out the mass murderer and all would have been fine.

    And we do nothing.

    This is a stupid argument, driven by the stupid politics of gun control in the United States.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
    In almost all other spheres, we act reasonably when faced with new problems. When Richard Reid showed that nasty things could be done with shoes on airplanes, airport security started examining shoes. When liquids were seen as potentially dangerous, we regulated the quantity of liquids we could take on flights. Long ago, we barred people from carrying weapons onto airliners.

    If we can act pragmatically in the skies, why can’t we be equally practical here on earth?

    In its zeal to defend our inviolable right to bear arms, is the National Rifle Association going to argue for carrying concealed weapons on airplanes? If not, won’t the organization be violating its core principle that all of us should be armed at all times?

    No one pretends that smarter gun laws would prevent all violence. But it’s a disgrace that we can’t try to learn from tragedies such as this week’s Virginia Tech massacre and figure out whether better laws might at least modestly reduce the likelihood of such horrific events happening again.

    Our country is a laughingstock on the rest of the planet because of our devotion to unlimited gun rights. On Thursday, an Australian newspaper carried the headline: “America, the gun club.”

    John Howard, the solidly right-wing Australian prime minister closely allied with President Bush, bragged earlier this week that when a mass killing took place in Australia in 1996, “we took action to limit the availability of guns and we showed a national resolve that the gun culture that is such a negative in the United States would never become a negative in our country.” No doubt the NRA will mount a boycott of Foster’s beer.

    Any reasonable measures are blocked because most Republicans are opportunists on the gun issue and Democrats have become wimps. Republicans have exploited support from the NRA for years and Democrats, eyeing rural congressional seats, are petrified of doing anything that will offend the gun lobby.

    The newspaper Politico, using figures from the Center for Responsive Politics, reported that in the 2006 elections, pro-gun groups gave $962,525 in contributions, and groups considered “anti-gun” gave $49,090. Republicans received 166 times more money from pro-gun groups as from anti-gun groups. Democrats received three times more from pro- than anti-gun groups. Who owns Congress?

    But it’s not just money. It’s also how the gun issue has been “distorted and how it has been turned into a hot button cultural issue,” said Rep. David Price, D-N.C., in an interview Wednesday.

    “You’re either for or against the issue and that’s kind of code for being ‘one of us’ or not, of being in tune culturally,” he added. “And that’s the end of the issue,” meaning that it’s difficult to deal with gun regulation “in a rational, measured way.”

    Price said that when he confronts voters in his district who criticize him for being “for gun control,” he asks whether they favor background checks for gun buyers, a ban on assault weapons and more efforts to trace guns used in crimes “to check out gun dealers who supply guns.” In large numbers, he says, such voters agree with him and reject the positions taken by the gun lobby.

    The key, Price argues, is to propose “specific and well-targeted” measures aimed at keeping guns out of the wrong hands.

    OK, let’s be specific. What would the NRA’s objection be to a law requiring gun dealers to establish whether a potential buyer is a student and, if so, to inform (or even receive permission from) the student’s high school or college before any weapons could be sold? What about raising the age for purchasing a gun to 25 or 30? Why not renew the ban on the sale of assault weapons?

    Why not create a national bipartisan commission that would propose ways—including, but not limited to, sane gun laws—to push back our culture of violence?

    One more question: Why are our politicians still cowering before the gun lobby after Virginia Tech?   

    E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is postchat(at symbol)aol.com.   

    © 2007, Washington Post Writers Group


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By JNagarya, June 16, 2011 at 11:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Tom Doff, April 20, 2007
. . . .

We need the freedom of bearing arms to protect ourselves, from all threats, including deranged presidents.
_____

1.  Are you qulified to determine whether a person—president or otherwise—is “deranged”?  No, you are not.  But that doesn’t stop you spewing your thoughtless irrationality on the point.

2.  The gov’t doesn’t care about and isn’t afraid of your pop-gun, therefore is not a threat to your having it.  Why?  Becasue the gov’t has bazookas and tanks, planes and bombs, and can take you out without ever being in range of your pop-gun.  Your egocentric inflated sense of power blinds you to those really quite obvious facts.

3.  US Con., Art. I., S. 8, C. 15.  The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to . . . SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS.

Thus the law- and history-illiterate fake-patriot claim that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the non-existent “right” to “defend against” the gov’t is a flat out ANTI-Constitutional LIE.  Moreover, such actions were branded by those who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights as CRIMINAL.

Our gov’t is a system of laws; to “defend against” our gov’t is to “defend against”—reject—the rule of law.  And that is precisely the action of criminals.

When will you drop the fake-patriotic rhetoric and admit that you believe one has a “right” to be a criminal.

Report this

By TheGunrunner,LLC, June 15, 2011 at 8:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Has it occurred to any of you anti gunners that by definition the word “CRIMINAL” means:
One who does not obey laws. A lawless person in a lawful land. A breaker of laws. One who’s persuits are of an illegal manner and substance.
Ergo:
Passing more antigun laws only affects the law abiding, not the criminal population of our country. Is there anyone out there who honestly believes that a criminal, intent on robbing a bank, taking a life, committing a home invasion etc. is going to be disuaded from his/her chosen agenda because of a new law which might say,” It is now illegal for you to have a gun.”?  Hell IT IS ALREADY ILLEGAL for a criminal to possess a firearm in the USA. It is illegal for a convicted felon to own, use, or possess any sort of gun at any time… P-E-R-I-O-D. THE END OF THE STORY… NO NEW LAWS ARE REQUIRED FOR THIS TO NBE THE TRUTH!!!
  All the lawmakers have to do is to use the laws already on the books to put away criminals and keep them in jail where they belong instead of giving them the PC benifits of the ideaistic conception that the poor criminal is really not at fault… After all, he is a victim of his surroundings… His Mother did not hug him enough… His father did not teach him rescpect for others… He is genetically predisposed to violence, and therefore not responsible for his actions anyway… He was raised around violence and therefore knows no better; so it is our fault that the criminal is the way he is… This is what they would like yo uto belkieve… And so now we must reform the poor dear… Rehabilitate him and let him blend in with productive society.
  HOGWASH ! 75% of all felons will reenter the judicial system within five years of release. Criminals make a conscious effort to be criminals; each and every tiome they break a law… They make a conscious decision to break laws even though there may be consequences. Why should they not be responsible for their own actions? And why should we the people(the law abiding citizens of the USA) be required to dismantle our right to keep and bear arms as prescribed by our founding fathers? Why should we not be allowed to arm ourselves as well as they are armed? To defend ourselves against TYRANTS, BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC…
  Hmmm…Those words sound vaguely familiar don’t they?
  New laws do not keep criminals from breaking the law any more than the old ones already on the books have done so in the past. So why waste time, energy, taxpayer’s money,and the time and and effort of legislators by passing ineffectual laws ? The only reason I know of is to falsely earn more votes in the next election. Did you ever notice that the year before an election the leftist candidates will attempt to enact new legislation to ban guns and ammo as a ploy to make people think they have made a change? What change? Where has a positive impact been made in this country by antigun laws? Nowhere that’s where !
  Do antigun laws help the police keep the peace in L.A.? No. Is D.C (where it has been illegal to carry a gun for so long I can not remember a time when it was legal) a safe place to be after dark? No. Is Chicago a safer place to be than Virginia Beach because it’s got stiffer gun laws? Hell no—its the murder capitol oif the USA! Would you be happier if the criminals were allowed to run rampant with only the police departments—who are already understaffed—to protect the citizens from them? I doubt it—but the criminals would like that very much; they always have preferred unarmed victims.
  What it boils down to is that the powers that be on the antigun side would like to mislead you into thinking they are doing you a favor; when in reality, they are doing a great disservice to this country with their ineffectual efforts.
  Be not lemmings unto the sea people. Be not sheeple following to the slaughter. Remove your heads from the holes in the sand and take a look around.
  At least progunners are polite & law abiding.

Report this

By Fastercat Quote, December 14, 2010 at 5:03 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Fastercat wrote:
Guns cause mass killings in the same way
-Golden arches cause heart disease
-cigar cutters cause gum disease
-sex causes abortions
-90210 causes conspiracy theories
-spoons cause obesity < 1 exception = Rosie>
-cameras cause pornography
-matches cause arson
-cars cause drunk driving
-White House interns cause infidelity
-...

Report this

By JNagarya, May 13, 2009 at 11:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“By allamericandude, May 13 at 9:49 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

“Fadel Abdallah, its people like you who need to go back to thier own country.”

I think it’s people like _you_, immigrant, who need to go back to the country you came from.  IF it will have you.

“Our soldiers fight for our freedoms and should be respected.”

Within the past week, a non-criminal sergeant in the army, in Iraq, killed five US soldiers.

Should we respect that soldier?  Learn to THINK and distinguish.

“Just like your kind, there is radicals who kill and mane the innocent.”

“Just like _your_ kind”: RACIST.

“Then there is law abidding who blend into society just like us. Your comment is way to broad.”

Your comment is not only racist, it is ‘way too broad.  And, under the First Amendment, everyone has a right NOT to be “just like” YOU.

Report this

By allamericandude, May 13, 2009 at 6:49 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Fadel Abdallah, its people like you who need to go back to thier own country. Our soldiers fight for our freedoms and should be respected. Just like your kind, there is radicals who kill and mane the innocent. Then there is law abidding who blend into society just like us. Your comment is way to broad.

Report this

By JNagarya, June 16, 2008 at 12:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“By Conservative Yankee, June 16 at 4:08 am #

“The person with whom you are attempting a rational discussion is not a rational being.”

As I noted before, this is an easily verified set of facts:

“1.  The Bill of Rights was debated and framed by the first Congress—populated by Founders and Framers—under the newly-ratified Constitution.

“2.  Completion of ratification of the Bill of Rights occurred on December 15, 1791.

“3.  Subsequently, on May 8, 1792, Congress—populated by Founders and Framers—enacted ‘The Militia Act,’ thereby implementing the Constitutional stipulation that the militia shall be regulated by Congress.

“Thus, OBVIOUSLY, the militia, which is expressly within the scope of the Second Amendment, is NOT ‘protected’ FROM regulation by means of law. 

“OBVIOUSLY, therefore, IF the Second ‘protected’ an ‘individual right’—which it OBVIOUSLY does NOT do—then it would NOT ‘protect’ such right FROM the rule of law.”

There is also this directly-relevant tie-in from a famous founder concerning the enactment by Congress of “The Militia Act” of 1792:
_____

“SPEECHES of His Excellency the Governor, and Messages Transmitted by His Excellency to the
General Court During the Legislative Year

“[May Session, 1792.]
                                 
“Wednesday, June 6.

. . . .

  “GENTLEMEN,
“I have directed the Secretary to lay before you such Acts & proceedings of the Congress of the United States, as have been forwarded to me: Among them, is an Act for regulating the Militia of the States.  That Act appears to me to be quite consonant to the Constitution of the General Government, & I shall, as commander in Chief of the Militia of this State take every measure within my power to render the Militia respectable under it. . . .
                                 
“JOHN HANCOCK.

“Council Chamber, June 6th, 1792.
_____

That included, of course, conforming the state’s current Militia Act to the Federal, in keeping with the supremacy clause.  The legitimate militia, as also stipulated in US Constitution and Second Amendment, has never been an unregulated armed gang “defending against” the gov’t/rule of law.

“[King George III] has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.”—Declaration of Independence

“The military power is always in exact subordination to the Civil Power.”—Governor Sam Adams.

Report this

By JNagarya, June 16, 2008 at 11:57 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“By Conservative Yankee, June 16 at 4:08 am #

“The person with whom you are attempting a rational discussion is not a rational being.”

In other words, your ad hominem is intended as a “rational” substitute for such things as facts, evidence, and proofs—correct?

“Long ago I have assessed my efforts with him as “Useless””.

You learned that the only facts, evidence, and proofs which exist concerning the NRA’s Second Amendment lie is that they are OPPOSITE that lie.

“He continually refuses to address that the other amendments concerning the “Bill of rights” are all addressing “rights” of the people.”

I have addressed it: the first three words of the Constitution are “We the people,” not “We the individual,” or “I the people”.  Even the barely-literate recognize that the word “people” is plural; your refusal to accept that OBVIOUS fact is result of knowing intellectual dishonesty.

“Not one word about the “rights” of government.”

In the Bill of Rights are several Amendments, one being the Second, which include the word “State”.  “State” is GOV’T.  The Second Amendment is a state right.

“He additionally refuses to accept or believe that in 1789 the act of taking away the family rifle was the equivelent to a death sentence as many citizens of this new Nation lived far from the local supermarket.”

In reality guns have been regulated—the word “regulated” is not spelled “confiscated”—since their advent, routinely, along with such dangerous substances and objects as alcohol and tobacco, none of that controversial until the gun industry-front NRA made up its lie against the Second Amendment.  But such laws were enacted by the Founders/Framers leading into and during the “revolution”.  In MA-Bay, as example, they enacted what was termed a “Test”—a “loyalty oath”—which begins as follows:

[31] “C H A P.  VII.

“. . . .  Whereas on the fourteenth of March One Thousand feven Hundred and Seventy-fix, a certain Refolve was made and paffed by the American Congrefs, [32] of the following Tenor, viz. : 
  “Refolved, That it be recommended to the feveral Affemblies, Conventions and Councils, or Committees of Safety of the United Colonies, immediately to caufe all Perfons to be difarmed within their refpective Colonies, who are notoriously difaffected to the Caufe of America, or who have not affociated and refufe to affociate to defend by Arms thefe United Colonies, againft the hoftile Attempts of the Britifh Fleets and Armies ; and to apply the Arms taken from fuch Prfons in each refpective Colony, in the firft Place, to the arming of the Continental Troops raifed in faid Colony ; in the next, to the arming fuch Troops as are raifed by the Colony for it’s own Defense, and the Refidue to be applied to the arming the Affociators ; that their Arms when taken, be appraised by indifferent Perfons, and fuch as are applied to the arming Continental Troops, be paid for by Congrefs ; and the Refidue by the refpective Affemblies, Conventions or Councils, or Committees of Safety ;
  “Be it therefore enacted by the Council, and Houfe of Reprefentatives in General Court affembled, . . . That every Male Perfon above fixteen Years of Age, refident in any Town or Place in this Colony, who fhall neglect or refufe to fubfcribe a printed or written Declaration of the Form and Tenor herein after prefcribed, upon being required thereto by the Committee of Correfpondence, Infpection and Safety for the Town or Place in which he dwells, or any one of them, fhall be difarmed, and have taken from him in Manner herafter directed, all fuch Arms, Ammunition and Warlike Implements, as by the ftricteft Search can be found in his Possession or belonging to him ; which Declaration fhall be in the Form and Words following, viz. . . .”

As obvious, that action was promulgated by the Continental Congress; and each of the “United Colonies” implemented such as LAW.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, June 16, 2008 at 5:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The person with whom you are attempting a rational discussion is not a rational being.

Long ago I have assessed my efforts with him as “Useless”

He continually refuses to address that the other amendments concerning the “Bill of rights” are all addressing “rights” of the people. Not one word about the “rights” of government. He additionally refuses to accept or believe that in 1789 the act of taking away the family rifle was the equivelent to a death sentence as many citizens of this new Nation lived far from the local supermarket.

Report this

By Jnagarya, June 15, 2008 at 11:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“By Cobra Doc, June 15 at 2:11 am #

“You use Virginia Tech, which had the strictest gun control possible in place, a total ban, as proof that MORE gun control will work.”

Idjit: I simply detailed the fact that the Second Amendment is IRRELEVANT to the issue of gun control.  I didn’t say anything about my views on gun control.

Instead I point to OBJECTIVE REALITY:

1.  There has been gun control as long as there have been guns.

2.  The Founders/Framers engaged in the ROUTINE social practice of gun control—and they disarmed, and prohibited the possession of guns by, those who were “disaffected with the revolution,” and the Tories, which is why there was no counter-“revolution”.

OBVIOUSLY, therefore, the Founders/Framers did not consider gun control contrary to freedom.  Rather, they were wisely concerned with preserving stability of laws and gov’t, and public safety.

3.  No sane, non-suicidal society leaves dangerous substances and objects lying around unregulated.  The issue is PUBLIC SAFETY.

Your position, by contrast, is INsane.

“If you were to complain about your milk being spoiled at a restaurant, would you say, “This milk is spoiled, give me more” when you complained?”

Idjits can always be counted on to come up with inapt “analogies”.  In place of that nonsense, try these FACTS—which EVEN YOU can verify:

1.  The first Congress under the newly-ratified Constitution—populated by Founders and Framers—debated and framed the Bill of Rights.  The first draft of that which became the Second Amendment, collated by James Madison, read, in full, as follows—and note the final clause, in bold:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms, shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service [IN THE MILITIA] in person.”

The last clause is the ONLY posited “individual right” debated as concerns that which became the Second Amendment—and it was VOTED DOWN.  Therefore, the Second Amendment has nothing whatever to do with “individual” ANYTHING.

Note that I’ve so far said NOTHING about “gun control” except to point out that I’ve said NOTHING about “gun control”.  Now here’s another set of easily verified facts:

1.  The Bill of Rights was debated and framed by the first Congress—populated by Founders and Framers—under the newly-ratified Constitution.

2.  Completion of ratification of the Bill of Rights occurred on December 15, 1791.

3.  Subsequently, on May 8, 1792, Congress—populated by Founders and Framers—enacted “The Militia Act,” thereby implementing the Constitutional stipulation that the militia shall be regulated by Congress.

Thus, OBVIOUSLY, the militia, which is expressly within the scope of the Second Amendment, is NOT “protected” FROM regulation by means of law. 

OBVIOUSLY, therefore, IF the Second “protected” an “individual right”—which it OBVIOUSLY does NOT do—then it would NOT “protect” such right FROM the rule of law.

That means, ONBVIOUSLY, not only that the Second Amendment is wholly irrelevant to private, individual gun ownership; but also that if the Second DID “protect” an “individual right,” it would NOT “protect” it FROM regulation.

Report this

By Cobra Doc, June 15, 2008 at 3:11 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You use Virginia Tech, which had the strictest gun control possible in place, a total ban, as proof that MORE gun control will work.

If you were to complain about your milk being spoiled at a restaurant, would you say, “This milk is spoiled, give me more” when you complained?

Report this

By JNagarya, January 2, 2008 at 1:35 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“By Norman Taylor, January 1 at 3:40 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

“The law breakers would keep
The law breakers would keep theirs. That’s why they are criminals, stoopid! So now you have your solution in full effect. All law abiding citizens are unarmed and now only the criminals have guns.”

When will gun-nuts learn to reason, instead of unquestioningly swallowing, and repeating, hypocritical nonsense fed them by the gun industry-front politics-of-paranoia NRA?

When will they learn to read what is said, instead of projecting their irrational fantasies onto what is said in effort to ignore reality?


First, stoopid, the facts are as I’ve detailed: the Second Amendment, having nothing whatever to do with “individual” anything, is IRRELEVANT to the issue of gun control/regulation, etc.  That’s all there is to it.

Second, at present we have—and we’ve had it since guns were invented—gun control of various degrees, and yet it is a blatantly false claim that “only criminals have guns”—unless we consider the irrational nonsense fed you by the anti-Constitutional NRA: that opposing the Constitution and laws with the threat of violence is the very thing criminals do; and that is exactly what the NRA is saying “non-criminal” gun-nuts have the “right” to do: ignore and oppose the law, exactly as do criminals, based upon the nonsense that “only criminals”—other than the gun-nut criminals—“will have guns”.

Third, stoopid: that the Second Amendment is irrelevant to the issue of gun control does nothing whatever to “disarm” anyone; it simply removes a false justification for the gun-nut criminal rationale: the the law is “in the way” of the law-abiding—a claim which is obvious BS on its face.  In short, gun-nut or not, you don’t have the right UNDER LAW to act as jury, judge, and executioner; that is a non-existent “right” claimed by CRIMINALS.

“OK, you say, lets register the guns so that we know who has which weapon. That would be a great list to have if you were a career burgler, now wouldn’t it.”

And from whence would the “career burglar”—the penalty IN LAW for which is NOT the death penalty—get that imaginary list?  From another CRIMINAL?

“So let’s say that you do manage to remove all weapons from non military citizens ... we’ll skip the prospect of rogue military elements and go directly to where the burgler enters your house with a running chain saw. Now whatcha gonna do bucky? Got a gun? Oh yeah, you don’t got a chainsaw?? Gee maybe we should outlaw them”.

There should be a test of the mental health of gun-nuts so it can be determined whether they are competent to own dangerous weapos—including motor vehicles, which, though not intended to kill, must be REGISTERED.  The blatant sorts of nonsense you fools imagine into being in defense of your “right” to kill—for that is wshat you are defending here—are clearly the rationalizations of the common mentally defective CRIMINAL.

Last but not least, STOOPID: I said nothing about “disarming” anyone; I simply pointed to the fact that the Second Amendment has nothing whatever to do with INDIVDIAUL anything—which is as the law has all along said.  And yet, despite those facts, the allegedly law-abiding gun-nuts have NOT been disarmed.

The biggest word in the language is I-F: IF.  And that is all the gun-nut nonsense rests on: What IF—FANTASY which denies reason, fact, knowledge, and history, in order to get its way, against the rule of law; and that is exactly as CRIMINALS “think”.

Report this

By Norman Taylor, January 1, 2008 at 4:40 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The law breakers would keep theirs. That’s why they are criminals, stoopid! So now you have your solution in full effect. All law abiding citizens are unarmed and now only the criminals have guns.

OK, you say, lets register the guns so that we know who has which weapon. That would be a great list to have if you were a career burgler, now wouldn’t it.

So let’s say that you do manage to remove all weapons from non military citizens ... we’ll skip the prospect of rogue military elements and go directly to where the burgler enters your house with a running chain saw. Now whatcha gonna do bucky? Got a gun? Oh yeah, you don’t got a chainsaw?? Gee maybe we should outlaw them

Report this

By JNagarya, November 18, 2007 at 4:25 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

And now we see the fake “conservative”‘s hypocrisy increasingly exposed:

“#114274 by Conservative Yankee on 11/18 at 5:21 am
(Unregistered commenter)

“As usual when the person attempting to make a point finds his “jumping off point” crumbling beneath his feet, the personal attacks and name calling begin. 

“Dear Mr. N I seriously hope you are under care of a doctor who can help you with that anger issue.”

And there we have it: the fake “conservative” “Yankee”—actually an extremist reactionary who substitutes borrowed slogans for thought—his “‘jumping off point’ crumbling beneath his feet,” engages in personal attack.  Even though there is no question that he is not qualified to “diagnose” even his own irrationality, let alone those who expose him to himself as that which he is.

“AND you win part of the argument. I have come to believe gun laws should exclude you from owning a weapon or for that matter any sharp or heavy objects, or rope.”

In fact, I don’t “win” the “argument”; the rule of law does.  It is you who necessarily and irrationally manufactures the personalist excuses by means of which to irresponsibly avoid the issue and facts.  Guns have been regulated since the advent of guns—as a matter of public safety, and stability of law/gov’t.  If you had the least compunction to know what you are dealing with and talking about, you’d research the law for yourself.  And you’d follow it back to at least the founding era, at which point you’d begin to learn that the Founders/Framers themselves engaged not only in gun control—as does any sane non-suicidal society—but also in prohibition and “gun-grabbing”/confiscation. 

For one, they prohibited those “disaffected with the ‘revolution’” from possessing guns.  That’s why there wasn’t a counter-“revolution”.  For another, they required the swearing and signing of an oath of loyalty to the “cause”—or the guns, etc., of those who refused to do so were confiscated.  First dibs on those guns went to the Continental Army.

“I attempted a rational discussion with an irrational being, my bad, I’m done here.”

You did no such thing, as your position, from the outset, has been uninformed, contrary to the actual legal history and law, and proudly and boastfully irrational.  Let’s be absolutely clear as to the nature of that position:

You reject the rule of law—exactly as does the outlaw—based upon resort to a false “instinct” claim, and “defend” that stupidity by choosing an irrationalist anti-Constitutional slogan as substitute for thought.  And your irresponsibility-authored excuse for doing so is that a paranoid’s imaginary “outlaw” might break into your house.

Further, you reject the fact that you aren’t the only one with rights.  As a proudly irrational anti-intellectual, you reject the fact that those you would “defend against” also have rights—which latter reality the law recognizes, but which reality you reject out of hand. 

And, irrationally, you ignore presumption of innocence (what if the person breaking into your house were seeking protection from someone intent on killing them?), and equal rights in law, in favor of the lunatic extreme of already-rendered judgment upon a paranoid’s fantasy which has yet to even materialize.

More pointedly: You irrationally base your “real-world” position on a politics-of-fear/paranoid fantasy—wholly overlooking the fact—this being typical of fake “conservatives”—that you are doing exactly that which you claim to object and to oppose.  You are rejecting the rule of law because—here’s your excuse for doing so—your imaginary “outlaw” rejects the rule of law.  And by that means you become exactly that you claim to be against being.

And the word for that?  Hypocrisy.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, November 18, 2007 at 6:21 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As usual when the person attempting to make a point finds his “jumping off point” crumbling beneath his feet, the personal attacks and name calling begin. 

Dear Mr. N I seriously hope you are under care of a doctor who can help you with that anger issue.

AND you win part of the argument. I have come to believe gun laws should exclude you from owning a weapon or for that matter any sharp or heavy objects, or rope.

I attempted a rational discussion with an irrational being, my bad, I’m done here.

Report this

By JNagarya, November 17, 2007 at 10:11 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“#114128 by Conservative Yankee on 11/17 at 5:19 am
(Unregistered commenter)

“114039 by JNagarya on 11/16 at 3:17 pm

“There has never been, and is not now, an unregulated/unlimited ‘right of self-defense’.”

“Keep saying that say it over and over

““American people you have no right to defend yourself”

“NOTHING better illustrates my point.”

READ what I SAID, ass—not the extremist oversimplification you PROJECT.  I DID NOT say there is NO right of self-defense, ass.  I said there has never been, and is not now, an UNREGULATED/UNLIMITED right of self-defense.  Everyone you would “defend against” ALSO HAS RIGHTS, ass, including the very same “right to life” as you.

You needn’t take my word for it, jerk: research the LAW—one function of which is to R-E-G-U-L-A-T-E—on the topics I suggested: “spring-guns” and “self-defense”.

Nor is there is anything new in the fact that others also have the same “right to life” as you; that means, ass, you don’t “defend” yourself against others based upon the illusion that they have NO rights.  What is the penalty, IN LAW, for burglary, or breaking-and-entering?  It ISN’T the death penalty.  RESEARCH case law on “spring-guns” and what happens to those who set them.

“Oh BTW my RIGHT to defend myself comes NOT from the US government, but from the nature of the human beast. It is called the “survival instinct” AND if you for a moment believe that little pink hairless creatures who are not the strongest nor the fastest evolved and prospered on a hostile planet without building tools for defense, you my poor ignorant fellow human are some ole deluded.”

In contrast to that sociopathic view is the rule of law.  Being a chest-pounding ass doesn’t alter that fact a whit.  Everyone else also has rights THAT ARE NOT TO BE INFRINGED _BY YOU_.  That “law of the jungle” religionutist self-justification is NOT the view of the Founders/Framers.  If it were, there wouldn’t be Constitution and rule of law.

If you had the least clue of what our system of laws is, you’d know that “the government” is WE THE PEOPLE; it isn’t a separate, alien entity—Ronnie Reagan’s bullshit on the point notwithstanding.

Meanwhile, ass: the topic of this thread is the VT shooting—not yet another forum for gun-nuts to spew their anti-Constitutional sociopathy.

“You will pry it from my cold dead hand!”

I’ll bet you believe the hogwash that the purpose of the militia is to “oppose” or “defend against” the gov’t.  Tip: look up the clause/s in your state’s constitution that govern the militia.  Note the public official who is commander in chief of the militia: your state’s governor.  In view of those facts, only an ineducable fool—a nut—would insist that the militia’s purpose is to “defend against” the gov’t.

READ Art. I, Sec. 8 of the US Constitution.  In that you’ll find the purposes of the militia expressly stipulated: one of those purposes is to SUPPRESS INSURRECTION.

As for any other notion that a “right to bear arms” has some cockamamy anti-gov’t intent by the Founders/Framers must sooner or later confront the law, which is contrary to that OUTLAW view, and the reality that the gov’t ain’t afeared of your pop-gun, as the gov’t has bombers and tanks and bazookas—enough arsenal to take care of your law-illiterate chest-thumping “Libertarian” hogwash.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, November 17, 2007 at 6:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

114039 by JNagarya on 11/16 at 3:17 pm

“There has never been, and is not now, an unregulated/unlimited ‘right of self-defense’.”

Keep saying that say it over and over

“American people you have no right to defend yourself”

NOTHING better illustrates my point.

Oh BTW my RIGHT to defend myself comes NOT from the US government, but from the nature of the human beast. It is called the “survival instinct” AND if you for a moment believe that little pink hairless creatures who are not the strongest nor the fastest evolved and prospered on a hostile planet without building tools for defense, you my poor ignorant fellow human are some ole deluded.

You will pry it from my cold dead hand!

Report this

By JNagarya, November 16, 2007 at 4:17 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

More mindless reactionary irrationalities—

“#113932 by Conservative Yankee on 11/16 at 6:02 am
(Unregistered commenter)

113879 by JNagarya on 11/15 at 9:13 pm

“The police power is given by the Constitution—as a monopoly—to the gov’t.  The gov’t establishes the means by which the law will be enforced.  By and large that is done by police—who are armed.  Are they ‘outlaws,’”

“I ass-u-me that your lack of a question mark makes this a rhetorical question, but yes, “law enforcement officers ARE occasionally “outlaws!””

You complaint is that gov’t and rule of law—being made by imperfect humans—are imperfect; and that the solution to that is to be: an outlaw.

“Let me tell you the story of the Wisconsin Sheriff’s deputy who shot and killed six unarmed civilians.  Had only one of those people been armed, the death toll might have been far lower…. maybe only one!”

As “conservative” reactionary “Libertarians” preach when someone else’s ox is gored: “Shit happens.”  Ignorance of the law is common, but not an excuse: there is no unregulated/unlimited “right of self-defense”: people commit murder, then lie about it.  Everyone else also has rights—a fact only outlaws ignore. 

“Had any of the “good guys” at VT been armed, maybe that death toll would have been lower. Had one teacher at Columbine been armed…. well, you get my point.”

Because gun-nuts swallow the nonsense that “they” are “out to get” your guns, we must go to the opposite—lunatic—extreme: FORCE EVERYONE to have guns.  AGAIN: in the VT case the person who bought the guns was not an “outlaw,” and got the guns LEGALLY—because the law was DEFICIENT.  And it was DEFICIENT precisely because the gun-nut lobby MADE it deficient.  (The NRA has since conceded that point.)

“I have NO PROBLEM with shooting people breaking in to my house, and in a county just chocked full of drug addicts, that scenario is far more likely than you may imagine.”

I won’t join your paranoid fantasy of BIG BLACK GORILLAS breaking into your house.  There has never been, and is not now, an unregulated/unlimited “right of self-defense”.

“I have (however) been advised by local police to “post a warning” which I have done.  Funny, I haven’t seen any solicitors around here lately…”

You’d be wiser—responsible—to learn the actual law/s on self-defense in your jurisdiction.  Research “spring-guns” to get some “larnin’” in reality.

The bottom line, AGAIN: the person in VT was not an “outlaw,” and got his guns LEGALLY because the law was DEFICIENT. 

How did the non-outlaw Columbine killers get their guns?  “Gun show loophole”—again, because that’s exactly as the NRA/gun-nuts want/ed it.  The result: yet another predictable excuse for claiming everyone should have guns—for “self-defense”.

Gung-ho gun-nuts have so much to blather about the issue—all of it paranoid, law-illiterate hypothetical nonsense CONTRARY to reality and law—

No sane non-suicidal society leaves dangerous substances and objects lying around unregulated.  _Ergo_, there has NEVER been a time when guns were not regulated in the interests of public safety, and stability of gov’t/system of laws.  Like it or not, everyone else ALSO has rights.  Research the laws about which you are wholly ignorant—so as to avoid finding yourself an outlaw as result of being drunk on someone else’s cork.  Research “spring-guns”; your state’s laws on “self-defense”.  If you’re going to jabber about “self-defense,” then KNOW in advance what you’re talking about so as to eliminate the paranoid, irrational—sociopathic—NRA/gun-nut nonsense.  So as to eliminate the preachments borrowed wholesale from: outlaws.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, November 16, 2007 at 7:02 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

113879 by JNagarya on 11/15 at 9:13 pm

“The police power is given by the Constitution—as a monopoly—to the gov’t.  The gov’t establishes the means by which the law will be enforced.  By and large that is done by police—who are armed.  Are they ‘outlaws,’”

I ass-u-me that your lack of a question mark makes this a rhetorical question, but yes, “law enforcement officers ARE occasionally “outlaws!”

Let me tell you the story of the Wisconsin Sheriff’s deputy who shot and killed six unarmed civilians.  Had only one of those people been armed, the death toll might have been far lower…. maybe only one!  Had any of the “good guys” at VT been armed, maybe that death toll would have been lower. Had one teacher at Columbine been armed…. well, you get my point.

I have NO PROBLEM with shooting people breaking in to my house, and in a county just chocked full of drug addicts, that scenario is far more likely than you may imagine.

I have (however) been advised by local police to “post a warning” which I have done.  Funny, I haven’t seen any solicitors around here lately…

Sort of a positive by-product!

Report this

By JNagarya, November 15, 2007 at 10:13 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Let’s compare and contrast your comment, Gracie, with reason—and with the comments—and facts—I posted:

“#113744 by gracie935 on 11/15 at 8:30 am
(Unregistered commenter)

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”

A self-serving fantasy which doesn’t square with reality or the rule of law—you are for the rule of law, correct—being agianst “outlaws,” correct?

The police power is given by the Constitution—as a monopoly—to the gov’t.  The gov’t establishes the means by which the law will be enforced.  By and large that is done by police—who are armed.  Are they “outlaws,” Gracie?  I thought not.

Do you have an argument against the Constitution, and the rule of law?

“Doesn’t seem too bright a concept.”

That “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” doesn’t seem “too bright a concept”?  You’re correct—a point I made above.  Aside from that point, it is a mindless slogan for those who pride themselves in not thinking, based upon the erronious assumption that thought = education.  For those who pride themselves in being anti-intellectual, thus pride themselves in having others do the “thinking” up of clever, mindless slogans which can be adopted as substitute for thought.

“If someone is breaking into my house I am going to assume that they are armed and will try to do me harm, and I will defend myself and my family by means of a firearm.”

“I-F”—the biggest word inn the language, often confused for “I-S”.  The chances of someone breaking into your house are mighty, mighty slim.  And you’re going to assume—when you “assume” you make an ASS of “U” and “ME”—that you are above the law; that ther is a “right of self-defense” wholly unregulated by the rule of law—oops, I got to that issue of rule of law v. “outlaw” again.  No such pseudo-macho wishful thinking, child: the “right of self-defense” is regulated in law, based upon a balancing of interests: you aren’t the only person on the planet with rights; the person you propose to shoot also has rights.

“If an individual gets it in his or her head that they want to kill they will do it regardless if they have access to guns or not.”

For on, I’ve said nothing whatsoever about “outlaw"ing guns—which you’d know if you could read what is in front of your face instead of projecting your self-intimidating fanasties onto reality.  I simply point to the fact that the Second Amendment has nothing whatever to do with “individual” anything—therefore is irrelevant to the issue of gun control.  For another: if there were no gun control, nothing would prevent “outlaw"s from getting guns; and they couldn’t be arrested or prosecuted for having them.

But then you point to an alternative:

“If an individual gets it in his or her head that they want to kill they will do it regardless if they have access to guns or not.”

Then they wouldn’t need a gun?  Correct.  Your “solution” is also otherwise way off the mark as concerns thought and reason: in view of the fact we have, say, 10 ways to kill people, let’s make it 11?  Yeah, that’s the ticket: We haven’t enough ways to kill people; let’s increase the number.

Or simply stick to the issue: in the instance case, the person who committed the murders was not an “outlaw” until he began shooting people; until then, he was a law-abiding citizen who got his guns LEGALLY because the laws were insufficient to prevent it.  Again, in the instant case: the problem was not the non-outlaw; and the problem was not the dead for not being paranoid gun-totin’ assholes; the problem was the inadequacies in the law; a lack, if you will, of rule of law.

In short: you “argument,” aside from the fact that it is mindless gun-industry propaganda based upon politics of fear and anti-Constitutional lie, is entirely irrelevant to the facts of the instant case.

Report this

By gracie935, November 15, 2007 at 9:30 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Doesn’t seem too bright a concept. If someone is breaking into my house I am going to assume that they are armed and will try to do me harm, and I will defend myself and my family by means of a firearm. If an individual gets it in his or her head that they want to kill they will do it regardless if they have access to guns or not.

Report this

By boggs, August 25, 2007 at 4:22 am Link to this comment

Using the same mentality of some of the posters who are pro-gun ownership without any distinction as to the types or classes of the weapons, (or the mentality of the carrier) I suppose they will also soon lobby for their right to carry suitcase nukes.
That would really cut down on crime, huh?

Report this

By boggsdaddy, August 24, 2007 at 3:55 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I knew your momma and I should have drown your idiot ass.

Report this

By J in WA, May 30, 2007 at 2:05 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I hate the broken-record, vague argument of supporters of guns, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”

Even if there is even 1% of logic in this argument, the conclusion of the matter would be this: Well, we have to get rid of one of the culprits, and we certainly can’t stop people, so the only thing left is the guns…”

“Atom bombs don’t launch themselves, people launch ‘em…” <- Just as pathetic an argument.

Report this

By JNagarya, April 28, 2007 at 1:41 pm Link to this comment

#66815 by Skruff on 4/27 at 7:29 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

#66753 by Dirk Voetberg on 4/27 at 9:38 am States:

“he probably actually would not have been able to kill even close to 32 people with a car or a knife or whatever else.”

“Actually, there were laws on the books to keep Cho from obtaining guns, it was just no one enforced them…”

That’s all there is to it?  The investigation has been completed, and that’s the conclusion?  The laws are fine, it’s just that they weren’t enforced?

According to you, Cho got one of his guns over the Internet.  Sight unseen.  How was it determined whether the he was old enough to own a gun?  How was it determined that the ID he used—if such was even required—was genuine, or his?

And you consider that responsible?

Oh, right: you don’t want to discuss the law itself; you want to avoid it by unevidencedly asserting that the law “wan’t enforced”—human error, not insufficiency of law.  Should guns be sold over the Internet?  Absolutely not: there is no way whatsoever to be certain one isn’t selling to a “madman” or criminal.  But that’s as gun-nuts want it: so long as “madmen” and criminals can get guns, and use them, gun-nuts will have an excuse for stockpiling weapons.  All the while claiming they are actually opposed to “madmen” and criminals getting guns—and actively opposing every effort to prevent that.

“So now a call for just what the U.S of A needs ... more laws.”

No one here has said “more laws”.  Cho got the guns _LEGALLY_.  Let’s find out why thie specific war didn’t prevent that.  You said the law was’t enforced.  Let’s find out why.  You said he got one of his guns from a pawn shop via the Internet.  That is lunacy: it should be prohibited.

You are consistently intellectually dishonest: the issue isn’t the generalization away from the speicifc, “laws”; it is the specific law by means of which Cho got his guns _LEGALLY_.  Are you opposed to such individuals getting guns _LEGALLY_.  Obviously not.

“How about a call for someone’s head for not submitting the required paperwork to the national data base?”

How about we look at the law which allowed Cho to get his guns _LEGALLY_—rather than insisting it was “only” “human error,” when that is not a fact in evidence.  Afraid that might result in at minimum a reduction in the ability of criminal and the mentally troubled from getting guns?

“Cars kill more than three times the number of folks killed by gun assaults, and TV kills even more folks by making them couch potato, pretzel-munching heart attack victims Where’s the call to outlaw Whoopie-pies?”

In the instance case, the 32 classmates Cho murdered were not murdered by use of a motor vehicle.  They were murdered by means of guns he bought _LEGALLY_.

Stick to the facts, or continue to be intellectually dishonest, and therefore the exact opposite of the intended meaning of “responsible gun owner”: a _gun-nut_.

Report this

By JNagarya, April 28, 2007 at 1:28 pm Link to this comment

#66934 by Skruff on 4/28 at 12:58 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

#66839 by Dirk Voetberg on 4/27 at 3:49 pm

“Dispite the loud din from folks who “know what is best for everyone else” assault deaths and accidental deaths from guns are in the catagory of statistically insignifficant. in a society of 300,000,000 fewer than 13,ooo assault and accidental deaths do not make 1/10 of one precent. cars 44,000, and bathroom 25,000 and Hospital infections, the fourth leading cause of death in the United States, behind heart disease, cancer and strokes, all rate attention first.”

Ass: get an education in logic—and the meaning of intellectual HONESTY.  The issue is guns., and the fact that Cho got them _LEGALLY_.  It is not about cars—which happen to be deadly, and the operation of which requires tests and licensing, even though not intended as weapons, with no objection from those who twistedly argue that deadly weapons intended for killing should not be subject to objective, enforceable standards of responsibility.

Instead of dealing with the facts—Cho got his guns _LEGALLY_—and that there is no Federal bar to regulation of the private, individual ownership of guns—you constantly spew the irrelevant, either such as the foregoing, or exclusively political “defenses” for opposing any and all gun control.

Such intellectual dishonest is the means by which one retains one’s irresponsibility.

“BUT I’ll tell you how you could convince this ancient gun-owner to happilly relinquish his rifle…

“two things;

“1 everyone else gives up all their weapons.  No more guns, bombs, WMD’s hunting knives, stun-guns, etc.  this includes government personnel based in the US, or on leave here and “law enforcement” personnel.  They stand down, so do I.

“2. my local supermarket gives me, for the price of one bullet and a hunting license, 200 pounds of fresh raw meat equivelent to my fall take.

Deal?”

No one—except the NRA by smerings of others—has said their isn’t a private, individual right to own guns.  What has been said, and repeatedly substantiated, is that Cho got his guns _LEGALLY_, and that there is no Federal bar to the regulation of that private, individual right.  The Founders themselves demonstrated the distinction between the body of laws which regulate the public institution that is the Militia, and concerning which is the Second Amendment, and the regulation of that private right, in the VT constitution—as I also substantiated.  And in their securing of the individual right in the VT constitution they also circumscribed—limited—that right, and made clear that additional limits are permissible. 

That individual right is that of “hunting and fowling”—which no one is trying to prevent.  Conspicuoulsy, however, it does not include “self-defense,” as that is not a private right outside statutory authorization: because they Founders and Framers were opposed to vigilanteeism, whehter by armed gangs or armed individuals.

What do you do in the face of such substantiation?  You irresponsibly blow it off—you have no argument, no defense—which nullifies your claim to be a “responsible gun owner”.

Report this

By JNagarya, April 28, 2007 at 1:17 pm Link to this comment

#66698 by Skruff on 4/27 at 5:21 am
(Unregistered commenter)

“The self proclaimed right about all things JNagarya proclaims:”

“You’re a Bush*t voter.”

“Aside from voting for Ronald Reagan in 1980, and Bob Dole on 1996, I have NEVER voted for another Republican at the national level, including our two Maine (alledgedly liberal) Repub Senators. I guess this puts an end to any belief I may have harbored that the poster might know what he is talking about. If the Libertarians had a viable party, I would join them.  Although I am registered Republican (so I can vote in the State primary) I only vote R at the local level where the opposition are attempting to make us a socialist state.  Being an Athiest,I do not share the “God” adgenda of the R party, nor am I enthralled by their massive spending programs.  Yankee Republicans are a bit different.”

Let’s be clear, neophyte: you anti-Constitutional stance on guns is straight out of the extremist Reich Wing.  You do Bushit’s work for him by spewing your co-anti-Constitutionalism. 

“I have disliked the scum emminating from the Bush family since learning that Prescott Bush (former Senator from Connecticut) did business with the Nazis (Out of his Union Bank Company) during WW II. GHW Bush was behind the Salvatore Allende murders, the East Timor genocide, and was a personal friend of Manual Noriegia before politics of this friendship began impeding his ambition.”

And your anti-Constitutional stance on guns is straight out of the extremist Reich Wing.

“I own a gun, I belong to NRA. Do not mistake that for a political idology. It is part of my life, not the focus of it.”

Except that the extremist Reich Wing NRA lie-based ideological movement against the Constitution and rule of law is political.  You fund that with your NRA dues, and you endeavor to advance it by perpetuating the lie.

At bottom you’re a hypocrite: you’re against violations of law by others—except when they are the same laws you oppose.  In this instance, you oppose the Constitution itself.  And your specious, incoherent, law-illiterate non-law rationalizations are also straight out of the extremist Reich Wing.

Report this

By Skruff, April 28, 2007 at 7:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

#66839 by Dirk Voetberg on 4/27 at 3:49 pm

Dispite the loud din from folks who “know what is best for everyone else” assault deaths and accidental deaths from guns are in the catagory of statistically insignifficant. in a society of 300,000,000 fewer than 13,ooo assault and accidental deaths do not make 1/10 of one precent. cars 44,000, and bathroom 25,000 and Hospital infections, the fourth leading cause of death in the United States, behind heart disease, cancer and strokes, all rate attention first.

BUT I’ll tell you how you could convince this ancient gun-owner to happilly relinquish his rifle…

two things;

1 everyone else gives up all their weapons.  No more guns, bombs, WMD’s hunting knives, stun-guns, etc.  this includes government personnel based in the US, or on leave here and “law enforcement” personnel.  They stand down, so do I.

2. my local supermarket gives me, for the price of one bullet and a hunting license, 200 pounds of fresh raw meat equivelent to my fall take.

Deal?

Report this

By Dirk Voetberg, April 27, 2007 at 4:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Simply put, these 32 people would not have died at this point in their lives if Cho couldn’t get these guns, whether he’s a maniac or not. And arguments like “Well, someone could smash an airplane into a building,” or “Well, die in a car accident,” etc. as evidence that we shouldn’t bother trying to prevent an event like this just lend themselves to the idea that we shouldn’t try to prevent anything. Gun violence could be easily prevented. It works. Japan and England, for example, do not have gun control violence like this. They outlaw guns and enforce that. So why not work harder to get guns controlled? Yes, I admit, it would take decades to eventually ween guns out of this culture, but the time is worth it. And, by the way, gun control advocates aren’t just about adding laws to the books; they are also about improving enforcement.

Report this

By Skruff, April 27, 2007 at 1:59 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

#66753 by Dirk Voetberg on 4/27 at 9:38 am States:

“he probably actually would not have been able to kill even close to 32 people with a car or a knife or whatever else.”

Or box-cutters and four airplanes(2,897 dead)or cow manure and a Ryder Truck (169 dead)

Actually, there were laws on the books to keep Cho from obtaining guns, it was just no one enforced them… So now a call for just what the U.S of A needs ... more laws. How about a call for someone’s head for not submitting the required paperwork to the national data base?

Cars kill more than three times the number of folks killed by gun assaults, and TV kills even more folks by making them couch potato, pretzel-munching heart attack victims Where’s the call to outlaw Whoopie-pies?

Report this

By Dirk Voetberg, April 27, 2007 at 10:38 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

And the thing is, Robert Scheer, who I usually agree with, said on the weekly NPR/KCRW show “Left, Right, and Center” that the Virginia Tech incident was being exploited by both sides of the gun control issue, who were using the incident to cynically push their political agenda. And he said something about how this killer was just the rare maniac who, if he didn’t have guns, would have killed with a car or something else. Therefore, we need to just mark this incident as a tragedy and not use it in our arguments for or against gun control.

I really do not understand this stance. The point of standing for gun control is so that maniacs, as rare as they may be, can’t get guns. If Cho was unable to buy his guns, no, he probably actually would not have been able to kill even close to 32 people with a car or a knife or whatever else. If we are to hold our political beliefs as more than hobbies to be put aside when something “real” happens, there is no reason we cannot use valid data points to support those beliefs.

This temptation to leave this incident out of the gun control argument is possibly a case-in-point of why liberals often find themselves losing elections: how can you prove you’re right if you’re not willing to support your beliefs with evidence?

Report this

By Skruff, April 27, 2007 at 6:21 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The self proclaimed right about all things JNagarya proclaims:

“You’re a Bush*t voter.”

Aside from voting for Ronald Reagan in 1980, and Bob Dole on 1996, I have NEVER voted for another Republican at the national level, including our two Maine (alledgedly liberal) Repub Senators. I guess this puts an end to any belief I may have harbored that the poster might know what he is talking about. If the Libertarians had a viable party, I would join them.  Although I am registered Republican (so I can vote in the State primary) I only vote R at the local level where the opposition are attempting to make us a socialist state.  Being an Athiest,I do not share the “God” adgenda of the R party, nor am I enthralled by their massive spending programs.  Yankee Republicans are a bit different.

I have disliked the scum emminating from the Bush family since learning that Prescott Bush (former Senator from Connecticut) did business with the Nazis (Out of his Union Bank Company) during WW II. GHW Bush was behind the Salvatore Allende murders, the East Timor genocide, and was a personal friend of Manual Noriegia before politics of this friendship began impeding his ambition.

I own a gun, I belong to NRA. Do not mistake that for a political idology. It is part of my life, not the focus of it.

Report this

By JNagarya, April 26, 2007 at 4:47 pm Link to this comment

#66476 by Skruff on 4/26 at 11:25 am
(Unregistered commenter)

“When the Nazis came to power in Germany, when the Roundheads took power in England, when the Bolsheviks ate Russia, they did so by loudly shouting everyone (the majority” down and reiterating their “beliefs” over and over till they wore the sane folks down.

Gun-nuts oppose all gun control, deluded that they will never be the target of some comparable fool claiming to be acting in “self defense” against you.  Gun-nuts are self-defined by their “divine right” sociopathy as being an extreme, and extremely small minority.  The vast majority—roughly 73 per cent—want sane gun laws.  Gun-nuts invariably blame the victim of their irresponsibility, their sociopathy.  Face it: you preach destruction, self-destruction, death.

“That’s not gonna happen here!”

You’re a Bush*t voter.  You’d vote for him again, despite his resemblance to a few of those you named, on one issue and one issue alone: he’s in on the lie against the Second Amendment—and the rule of civil law over the criminal view that the individual is “above society”—society being a system of laws.

Bush’s anti-Americanism—that you voted for, and for which would vote again—is coming to an end.  With the end of that terrorism, gun-nuts will no longer have a loudly yelled lunatic fringe amid which to hide.  You won’t even be able to hide behind the terrorist, bullying politics of fear, and anti-Constitutional balderdash.

Cho got his guns _legally_—and the least responsible were those murdered by him with those guns.  Those who spew the paranoid bully’s terrorist venom that the way to reduce violence is by increasing it are morally and sociopathically in league with Cho.  He obviously adopted the NRA lie and gun-nut view.  He loved it as much as you.  He acted on it.

If gun violence continues to increase, your lunatic minority may get your way—which means you will learn the hard way that you are not immune to someone else’s “self defense” against you.  Are you faster on the draw, fake cowboy, than all those other self-destructive hotshots?

“To get my gun, “...you will have to pry it from my cold dead hand.””

Slogans are a substitute for thought.  In thought is freedom.  You fear freedom.  Clue: “freedom,” “liberty,” are not “absence of all constraint.” 

Except for the NRA, no one had or has ever suggested there isn’t a private, individual right to own guns.  And the NRA has you running from your own shadow.  All I’ve done is show you that the Second Amendment has nothing whatever to do with “individual” anything.  That Amendment is irrelevant to the issue.

Show yourself that your “courage” isn’t only a boast: read _Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress_ (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1991), Edited by Veit, et al.

Or continue to knowingly live a lie because not yet mature enough to surrender refuted illusions. 

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

The US has never been such as WW II Germany.  The US gov’t isn’t afraid of and couldn’t worry less about your popgun: that being the fact, your ideological ground of “patriotism” is shown not to exist.  So what’s left?  The constant paranoid fear that someone is gonna come and “get” you.  Or is that yet another self-justification?  Get a life.

What you seek and promote is “divine right” anarchy and civil war.  Why not enlist and demand to serve in Iraq?  Why wait!?—everything you tearn for is there _now_!

Accept reality: the law is against your infantilaticism.

Report this

By Skruff, April 26, 2007 at 5:55 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

When the Nazis came to power in Germany, when the Roundheads took power in England, when the Bolsheviks ate Russia, they did so by loudly shouting everyone (the majority” down and reiterating their “beliefs” over and over till they wore the sane folks down.

That’s not gonna happen here!

To get my gun, “...you will have to pry it from my cold dead hand.”

Report this

By JNagarya, April 25, 2007 at 10:04 pm Link to this comment

#66405 by Dave Korgan on 4/26 at 12:36 am
(Unregistered commenter)

“It is a shame that so many UNARMED people were killed at V.Tech.”

The greater shame is that Cho got the guns by means of which he committed those 32 murders _LEGALLY_.  And that shame falls not on Cho—he got them _LEGALLY_—but on those who (1) enabled him to do so, and (2) after the fact blame those murdered for their having been murdered.

Typical of “Libertarians”: constant talk about “individual responsibility”—but given a real-world scenario, instead of abstract hypothesizing, and they place all the “individual responsibility” on anyone and everyone but themselves.

It’s everyone else’s fault.

Cho asserted the same irresponsible view.

Report this

By JNagarya, April 25, 2007 at 9:57 pm Link to this comment

#66417 by Fred on 4/26 at 1:33 am
(Unregistered commenter)

“Unlike all of you in Australia, firearm ownership in the U.S. is guaranteed by law.”

Within limits.

“The Second Amendment of our Constitution guarantees that individuals can own any kind of firearm they choose.”

Actually, it does nothing of the kind—the NRA’s non-law lie to the contrary notwithstanding.  This is the first draft of that which became the Second Amendment, as written by James “Father of the Constitution” Madison:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be complelled to render military service in person.”

That last clause—the “conscientious objection ” exemption—is the only “individual right” debated as concerned that which became the Second Amendment.  A later formulation of that which became the Second Amendment read:

{6} “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.”

In that, obviously is the distinction between plural—“people”—and individual—“person”.  Only the intellectually dihonest would assert that “people” is only one person.

And note the involuntary _COMPELLED_: clearly and obviously, the Amendment had/has only to do with militia DUTY, which was essentially INVOLUNTARY, and the posited individual right of exemption therefrom for reasons of conscience.

But, as that posited individual right was voted down, that which became the Second Amendment has nothing whatever to do with “individual” anything—again, the NRA’s non-law lie notwithstanding.

But don’t take my word for it: read the debates of those who WROTE the Amendment, as NO ONE could know better than they what they intended by it: _Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress_ (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, paper, 1991), Edited by Helen E. Veit, Kenneth R. Bowling, and Charlene Bangs Bickford.

“. . . .  Felons have no trouble obtaining firearms in every country in the world.”

In short: humans being imperfect, laws cannot be perfect, therfore there should be no rule of law until laws can be made perfect.  We should revert to the pre-law savagery of “might makes right”.

“The police cannot be everywhere, so it is up to you to protect yourself and your family.”

Any right of alleged self-defense is limited by laws, which differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  Do you know the actual law of your jurisdiction as to whetehr that right exists, and if so in what ways it is limited?

No, you don’t: oversimplification of reality is your “method”.

“Also, why is the District of Columbia known as the “murder capitol of the U.S.”? Could it be its 30+ years of banning gun ownership by private citizens, thus allowing felons to gun down their victims without fear of reprisal?”

In fact, it is because there is no Federal law prohibiting sales of guns across state lines—especially from states with insanely lax gun laws into states and areas where sane gun laws are the fact.  Laws don’t kill people, guns do.

“Had one of the students or faculty at Virginia Tech been armed, the outcome may well have been very different. I’m sure of it.”

That’s what we want: immature teenagers, overwhelmed by hormones and insecurity, away from home for the first time, engaged in learning about relationships, including the sexual, and the jealousies which arise related thereto, and indulging in chemical substances such as alcohol, armed to the teeth, in paranoidly hostile “self-defense” against each other and the larger world.

Were the NRA about firefighting, there would be a constant shortage of gasoline.

Report this

By JNagarya, April 25, 2007 at 9:35 pm Link to this comment

#66236 by DR. THOMAS PRINTZ on 4/25 at 1:22 am
(Unregistered commenter)

MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WHO LEGALLY OWN GUNS NEVER COMMIT AN ILLEGAL CRIME.

And yet, “Dr.,” Cho got his guns _LEGALLY, and murdered 32 of his classmates therewith.

Not-so-by-the-way: If you were that you pretend, you’d know that ALL CAPITALS is considered YELLING, therefore is considered BAD FORM.  In a word, STUPID.

STATISTICS SHOW THAT IN COMMUNITIES WITH NO GUN LAWS LIKE KENSAW GEORGIA AND MONTANA, THOSE HOUSEHOLDS WHO ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE GUNS (KENESAW) , THE CRIME RATE IS DECREASED SIGNIFICANTLY AND IN MONTANA (NO GUN REGISTRATION LAWS), THERE ARE LARGE PERCENTAGE OF COMMUNITIES WHERE VIOLENT CRIME IS NON-EXISTENT AND /OR DECRESED BY 40%.

Get it straight, “Dr.,” you do not represent the Founders and Framers, or their views, or therefore their reaoning and law on the matter.  They were not armed to the teeth, and they were not FOR everyone being armed to the teeth.  They not only believed in gun control, they enacted it—even to the disarming of those they viewed as dangers to the community, and dangers to stable, democratic, law-based and -informed gov’t.

We will not allow ourselves to be subject to armed BULLIES who have no regard for civility, intellectual honesty, rule of law, or even SANITY.

WHEN WILL EVERYONE REALIZE THAT THERE IS, THERE IS A CONSTANT STREAM OF A CRIMINAL ELEMENT IN SOCIETY THAT MOVES IN WHENEVER THEY KNOW THAT THE POPULATION IN GENERAL, IS DISARMED?

Criminals are criminals for a range of reasons—and the first is not whether the society in which they operate is armed or not.  If that’s a consideration, it is not especially high on the list, because criminals ten to consider themselves to be “clever”—not unlike guin-nuts—therefore able to rationalize their way around any impediment, be it law or otherwise.

Now let’s get back to the topic: the VA Tech murders were committed by means of legally obtained guns by a person who _WAS NOT_ a criminal.

That he was not a criminal did not deter him from becoming one, subsequent to buy his guns, and by means of using those same guns.

Last but not least: I reject both your use of “appeal to authority” fallacy, and your claim to be a “Dr.”.  Lying is irresponsible; lying in defense of murder is well beyond irresponsible.  Do you “responsible gun owners”/gun-nuts ever stop lying?

Ever stop avoiding the facts and law?

Ever stop avoiding responsibility?

Ever stop avoiding reality?

Report this

By Fred, April 25, 2007 at 8:03 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Unlike all of you in Australia, firearm ownership in the U.S. is guaranteed by law. The Second Amendment of our Constitution guarantees that individuals can own any kind of firearm they choose. Unwisely, you Aussies gave up that right, and let the criminal element in your society turn all of you into “victims”. Felons have no trouble obtaining firearms in every country in the world. The police cannot be everywhere, so it is up to you to protect yourself and your family. When faced by a gun carrying felon, what are you going to do? Tell them “wait a minute while I call the police”? That’s when you become the “victim”. Communities in the U.S. that have concealed carry permits, and allow citizens to own firearms in their homes have substantially lower gun crimes than communities that ban gun ownership. Government statistics prove that this is true. If you do not believe me, use the internet, and look up the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives statistics on legal ownership of firearms and gun crime. Its an eye opener for sure, especially for you.
  Also, why is the District of Columbia known as the “murder capitol of the U.S.”? Could it be its 30+ years of banning gun ownership by private citizens, thus allowing felons to gun down their victims without fear of reprisal? I sincerely hope that you never face an armed felon who has rape or murder on his/her mind, because you ARE defenseless, and you will be that “victim”. The police aren’t there to protect you, unless you are extremely lucky.
  I have had a concealed carry permit since I was 19 years old (my job required it), and I’ve only had to use it once to deter a knife wielding mugger. I held him until the police arrived and took over. Had I not been armed, I may not have been here to post this comment. I protected my family from him. That is still a man’s responsibility - would you take that away? I won’t stand still for any government action that would do that. Had one of the students or faculty at Virginia Tech been armed, the outcome may well have been very different. I’m sure of it.

Report this

By Dave Korgan, April 25, 2007 at 7:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It is a shame that so many UNARMED people were killed at V.Tech.

Report this

By cann4ing, April 25, 2007 at 6:37 pm Link to this comment

re comment #66236 by Dr. Thomas Printz.  I am surprised to find a doctor advancing such an unscientific theory; one that leaves out so many important variables, such as population density.  Before attributing a causal relationship between high gun ownership and low crime rate, one has to take into account other community factors that may provide an alternative explanation.  An academic cross-border study of relative crime rates between Detroit, MI where guns are plentiful and Windsor, Canada, where they are not, might be a more useful indicator than, say, a comparison between New York City and a rural town or state.  I, for one, do not know what a comparative study between Detroit and Windsor would produce, but I suspect that it would not support Dr. Printz’s theory.

Report this

By DR. THOMAS PRINTZ, April 25, 2007 at 2:22 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WHO LEGALLY OWN GUNS NEVER COMMIT AN ILLEGAL CRIME. STATISTICS SHOW THAT IN COMMUNITIES WITH NO GUN LAWS LIKE KENSAW GEORGIA AND MONTANA, THOSE HOUSEHOLDS WHO ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE GUNS (KENESAW) , THE CRIME RATE IS DECREASED SIGNIFICANTLY AND IN MONTANA (NO GUN REGISTRATION LAWS), THERE ARE LARGE PERCENTAGE OF COMMUNITIES WHERE VIOLENT CRIME IS NON-EXISTENT AND /OR DECRESED BY 40%. WHEN WILL EVERYONE REALIZE THAT THERE IS, THERE IS A CONSTANT STREAM OF A CRIMINAL ELEMENT IN SOCIETY THAT MOVES IN WHENEVER THEY KNOW THAT THE POPULATION IN GENERAL, IS DISARMED?

Report this

By JNagarya, April 24, 2007 at 7:10 pm Link to this comment

#66048 by Bill Blackolive on 4/24 at 2:41 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

“It is not the guns, it is the lies.”

A lie without a gun cannot shoot to kill.

Cho got his guns _legally_.

Report this

By JNagarya, April 24, 2007 at 7:08 pm Link to this comment

#66055 by Skruff on 4/24 at 9:00 am
(Unregistered commenter)

66043 by JNagarya on 4/24 at 7:50 am

“We have a basic difference of opinion about gun laws and gun ownership.”

You have opinion, with which you individually identify, therefore personalize.  I post legal authority, legal history, law.

“I have attempted to be civil (sane?) in expressing my view.  I have not used sarcasim, personal insults, or inflamitory language.”

Regardless whether I do or don’t, am I not free, if I choose, to use sarcasm, personal insults, and or inflammatory language?  Do you not defend, and repeat and perpetuate, the NRA’s lie against Constitution and rule of law?  Do you not defend the use of personal attack by gun-nuts against moderates who are for reason, and therefore reasonable gun control?

“You have belittled me, called me names, and skoffed at my opinion.”

A distinction based upon reason: If a person is not a fool or liar, yet one calls that person fool or liar, one is engaging in name-calling, personal attack.  But if a person is a fool or a liar, and one calls that person fool or liar, one is stating a fact.

The NRA is perpatrating a fraud, easily shown to be that by going to the legal authority—the debates of those who actually WROTE the Second Amendment.

We don’t prefer lie over law unless we are dishonest.  See above distinction based upon reason.

“Since I have identified myself as a gun owner, and you seem to feel (through your posts) that all gun owners are nuts, I suggest this isn’t very intelligent behavior.”

Prove you aren’t a gun nut by ceasing the repetition and perpetuation of the NRA’s Second Amendment lie.  Cease basing your “good faith” “opinion” upon that false foundation.

“The death rate by guns, discounting suicide, is statistically insignificant,(around 13,000/300,000,000) but as when an airliner crashes, no one wants to hear that flying is safer than driving.”

It isn’t statistically insignificant for the individual victims.  It is to those who not only don’t give a damn about anyone else—their clinging to a self-serving lie being paramount— and who irrationally and irresponsiblely avoid the issue: Cho got his guns _legally_.  That is not the fault of gun control advocates.  It is not defensible or excusable by means of the NRA lie.

“You are wrong about Virginia’s gun law, wrong about the “legal purchase, and wrong about your stated belief that all gun owners are nuts, BUT I’m tired of being insulted by you, so I’m going to take the course most responsible gun owners take when confronted by prejudice…. I shall avoid you in the future.”

You haven’t shown me wrong about the VA law.  You’ve only asserted particular statements you say are the law.  I respect others by providing honest scholarship: I quote the law _verbatim_, or at minimum cite to the source so they can find it and read it for themselves.  When will you be reading those debates for yourself—instead of knowingly relying, against the legal authority, on the false “opinion”—lie—of a private, not-for-profit non-gov’t gun-industry front special interest organization who makes obtains funding in exchange for telling their lie?

And I call a lie a lie, and those who cling to them, liars, because tehy makes themselves such, and are responsible for that making.  Liars are presumptively irresponsible.  Stop lying and being irresponsible and I’ll cease showing you as being those.

Report this

By Skruff, April 24, 2007 at 10:00 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

66043 by JNagarya on 4/24 at 7:50 am

We have a basic difference of opinion about gun laws and gun ownership.  I have attempted to be civil (sane?) in expressing my view.  I have not used sarcasim, personal insults, or inflamitory language. 

You have belittled me, called me names, and skoffed at my opinion.  Since I have identified myself as a gun owner, and you seem to feel (through your posts) that all gun owners are nuts, I suggest this isn’t very intelligent behavior.

The death rate by guns, discounting suicide, is statistically insignificant,(around 13,000/300,000,000)  but as when an airliner crashes, no one wants to hear that flying is safer than driving.

You are wrong about Virginia’s gun law, wrong about the “legal purchase, and wrong about your stated belief that all gun owners are nuts, BUT I’m tired of being insulted by you, so I’m going to take the course most responsible gun owners take when confronted by prejudice…. I shall avoid you in the future.

Report this

By Bill Blackolive, April 24, 2007 at 9:11 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It is not the guns, it is the lies.

Report this

By JNagarya, April 24, 2007 at 8:50 am Link to this comment

#66014 by Skruff on 4/24 at 12:03 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

#65985 by JNagarya on 4/23 at 9:29 pm

#65917 by Skruff on 4/23 at 10:39 pm

Chou lied, therefore not a legal sale.”

“I don’t know anything about the Chou case in VT.  I’ve been talking about the Cho case in VA.”

“VT = Virginia Tech The shooter’s name has been spelled several different ways by the media.”

I’ve only seen it spelled “Cho”.  Then again, the media is never correct.

“How do you know either was asked those questions?”

“Virginia requires licenses to carry a concealed handgun,those require filling out a form, which asks about criminal past and mental health restrictions, paying 40 dollars, and waiting 7 days to two weeks for the state to check one’s criminal background.”

According to the media, no permit is required, and no waiting period.  But the media is never correct. 

“Chou, or cho had planned this assault in advance, and the State had erred in not recording his mental health confinment and ruling to the national data base.”

Whether he planned it in advance is irrelevant as concerns the fact that he got the guns _legally_.

“Did he not buy one of his guns at a pawn shop, second-hand, for cash, no questions asked?”

“Cho’s history of mental illness two years ago should have prevented him from obtaining the two handguns he used.”

A poiint I’ve repeatedly made, but he isn’t responsible for other’s actions.  He is not responsible for the fact that the guns were sold to him _legally_.

“Actually he purchased one of his handguns over the internet, but from a Virginia pawn shop. Pawn shops in Virginia (unlike here in Maine) are required to hold a firearms sales license, so they would have tendered the form also.”

The “Responsible Gun Owner [tm]” gun shop “tendered the form” over the Internet?  Does the VA law allow for that—selling guns to individuals sight-unseen over the Internet?  What was Cho’s “handle”?  “Skruff”?

Does the VA law prohibit “Responsible Gun Owner [tm]” gun shop selling guns over the Internet into such as Massachsetts, where the handgun laws are properly, and definitely, much more strict than those in VA?  Or does it allow “Responsible Gun Owner [tm]” gun shop to simply dump its deadly   detritus wherever it feels like?

It’s a good think the NRA isn’t in the firefighting business: there’d be a constant shortage of gasoline.

If one isn’t about shooting at the rule of law, then one has no objection to gun regulations being as strict as necessary for the safety of everyone.  By contrast, anyone who preaches, based upon a lie, against public safety, is an irresponsible, and clear and present danger to public safety.

Report this

By JNagarya, April 24, 2007 at 8:29 am Link to this comment

#66035 by Outraged on 4/24 at 6:52 am
(8 comments total)

“According to the local news I caught last night (I don’t recall which network) Cho was deemed “NOT MENTALLY ILL”.  Big Surprise!!!”

And he wasn’t required by the court to get his head checked out?  Courts and mental illness are an ugly marriage.  Law has yet to figure out how to “prefectly” deal with it.  But the court’s expertise is law, not mental illness.

But, according to your local news . . .  Which you bash as lying when it reports something which conflicts with your ideology.

So it must be truth when it coincidentally affirms your ideology.

To JNgarya:

“It is a small person who feels the need to belittle others in order to “feel” big.”

It isn’t a “felt” “urge”.  It is a choice made in keeping with the fact that I have free will.  I don’t avoid responsiblity by invoking “God”—“‘God’ made me do it!”  “G’Giod’ gave me the right!”—as skapegoat.

James Madison wrote:

“The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

That individual right was the only individual right debated concerning the Second Amendment.  That only individual right was voted down.  _ERGO_, the Second has nothing whatever to do with “individual” anything—your TeeVee “news” notwithstanding.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 24, 2007 at 7:52 am Link to this comment

According to the local news I caught last night (I don’t recall which network) Cho was deemed “NOT MENTALLY ILL”.  Big Surprise!!!

To JNgarya:

It is a small person who feels the need to belittle others in order to “feel” big.

Report this

By JNagarya, April 24, 2007 at 7:20 am Link to this comment

#65993 by MarkL on 4/23 at 11:52 pm
(1 comments total)

“The most basic of all the issues impacted by guns (no pun intended) is disregarded by those who would increase the already draconian gun bans already in effect here in America.”

Cite one, in “America”.  Or deal directly with the insanely lax VA gun laws, which are directly relevant to the instant case.  The title of the article is, “It’s the Guns, Stupid”.

“That issue is the individual’s inalienable right to self-defense.”

“Inalienable” according to whom?  During the Founding era, the common law standard of “self-defense” was “retreat to the wall”.  “Standing one’s ground” was more than discouraged—especially when the issue was so foolish as saving “honor” against “insult”.  There were also concerns with use of force out of proportion to the perceived threat.

“Self-defense” is limited by statute; and differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  Nor is it inalienable, else we prohibit suicide, or voluntarily taking the bullet for someone else, as did the brave Amish girl who died for her younger sister.

Stop rejecting the rule of law simply because it isn’t perfect.  It will never be perfect.  Neither will you—or your judgment: you fail to distinguish, and confuse and confound, law from politics, philosophy, slogans.  Our laws are made by elected representative bodies; not by individuals, in or out of such a body.  Not by private ciitzens, armed gangs, non-gov’t organizations such as the NRA.

“The fact that a deranged person went off the rails and murdered several people, or more, does not in any way implicate me, or therefore diminish my right to arm myself, and to use weapons in my own defense. “

What does implicate you is your being a citizen of this society.  What does limit you is the rule of law from and for our society.  Though James Madison said it more elegantly: Gov’t—the term we give “system of laws, and not of men” (John Adams)—is the mechanism by means of which a community regulates itself.  Under our system, gov’t is not a “foreign object”—it is _US__, We the people. 

“. . . .  I was once nearly carjacked when I was working as a taxi driver. . . .  But the most important, and only really relevant, point is that my own life was spared.”

Only your life matters.  Right.  The legal principle of proportional force is irrelevant to you: You be white.  By contrast, the person you would consider shooting “in self-defense” also has rights.  If you wrest a weapon from an assailant, and thus disarm the assailant, you do not have the right to turn that weapon on the assailant and use if against her/him.  It should be obvious why: We don’t use deadly weapons against the unarmed.

“So-called liberals who seek to disarm peaceful, law-abiding citizens (like me) are fundamentally dihonest.”

I’ve not advocated disarming anyone—though I several times substantiated that the Founders and Framers themselves in fact disarmed people by means of law. 

I advocate the cessation of repeating and perpetuating the NRA’s lie against the Constitution.  I demand that those who claim a right to own deadly weapons be held to a standard of responsiblity that isn’t limited to subjective opinion of the those who assert the claim.  The responsible don’t lie.  The irresponsible do.  The irresponsible should not be allowed to possess deadly weapons because they will also lie about their “reason” for using it against other human beings.

“. . . .  We must be coherent thinkers about the issues of the day, instead.”

Philosophy, politics, slogans—not law.  The coherent don’t confound and confuse them. 

“. . . .  must also stay the hell out of our choices of what drugs . . . to take . . . or not; . . . .” 

Yeah, that’s what we want: Methadrine abusers and addicts suffering toxic paranoid psychosis having legal, unregulated access to deadly weapons.

Report this

By Skruff, April 24, 2007 at 6:33 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

#65985 by JNagarya on 4/23 at 9:29 pm

#65917 by Skruff on 4/23 at 10:39 pm

Chou lied, therefore not a legal sale.”

“I don’t know anything about the Chou case in VT.  I’ve been talking about the Cho case in VA.”

VT = Virginia Tech The shooter’s name has been spelled several different ways by the media.  I appoligize if I picked the wrong spelling.  Although we are both “gun nuts” I don’t know him personally.

How do you know either was asked those questions?

Virginia requires licenses to carry a concealed handgun,those require filling out a form, which asks about criminal past and mental health restrictions, paying 40 dollars, and waiting 7 days to two weeks for the state to check one’s criminal background. Chou, or cho had planned this assault in advance, and the State had erred in not recording his mental health confinment and ruling to the national data base.

Did he not buy one of his guns at a pawn shop, second-hand, for cash, no questions asked?

Cho’s history of mental illness two years ago should have prevented him from obtaining the two handguns he used. Actually he purchased one of his handguns over the internet, but from a Virginia pawn shop. Pawn shops in Virginia (unlike here in Maine) are required to hold a firearms sales license, so they would have tendered the form also.

Report this

By shimanorocks, April 24, 2007 at 1:06 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

After reading so many ill informed posts repeated over and over by JNagarya I had to post some facts to refute these lies.

1.  All gun purchasers in the United States purchasing a modern firearm (not black powder musket) must go through a background check.  Some states allow those with Law enforcement credentials or carry permits to skip the check, because a more in depth check has already been performed on that person and must be maintained current.  If Cho bought a gun at the dealer, he had to answer every question on the federal form 4478, and then present photo ID for the owner to call the FBI and do a background check.  YES, they do a background check called the NICS National Instant Check System on every purchase and that database is updated with information about anyone and everyone that is a criminal, and sometimes (if the state has properly complied with their own law) the mental health information is also there.  The fact that there was no waiting period has no bearing on the existance of a background check, it was done or the gun was not transferred.  There is an approval number on that form in that gun shop that says the owner got a clear background from the authorities and it was ok to proceed with the transaction.
2. A Pawn Shop is not a second hand shop.  Purchasing a gun from a pawn shop requires THE EXACT SAME CHECKS AND FORMS as a gun shop, because the pawn shop also must hold a FFL or Federal Firearms License if they generate income from the sale of firearms.  In the Pawn Shop Cho also must have filled out the same 4478, presented ID, had the background check run, and gotten approval from the FBI to complete the transaction. 
Continuing to preach about topics you clearly know nothing about, or are intentionally lying about, does nothing for your credibility.  It certainly will not pursuade anyone knowledgeable, or anyone that has researched the issue to be moved to your position.
The only sales that are not directly governed by Federal law (of CFR Code of Federal Regulations) are person to person transactions, and even those have regulations, just not the background checks and forms.  You still cannot as an individual sell to a known criminal, or handguns to someone under 21.  Just because you don’t know the law doesn’t mean it’s not there, or that those that were supposed to enforce it in VA knew what they were doing.

Report this

By MarkL, April 24, 2007 at 12:52 am Link to this comment

The most basic of all the issues impacted by guns (no pun intended) is disregarded by those who would increase the already draconian gun bans already in effect here in America.  That issue is the individual’s inalienable right to self-defense.  The fact that a deranged person went off the rails and murdered several people, or more, does not in any way implicate me, or therefore diminish my right to arm myself, and to use weapons in my own defense.

This issue is very personal to me.  I was once nearly carjacked when I was working as a taxi driver.  To make a long story short, my merely showing my would-be assailant the .22 caliber semi-auto pistol I had with me at the time was enough to make the bastard get out of my cab and leave me alone.  No one was killed - or even hurt - in this incident, including the thug, himself.  But the most important, and only really relevant, point is that my own life was spared.

So-called liberals who seek to disarm peaceful, law-abiding citizens (like me) are fundamentally dihonest.  Though anti-gun rhetoric is your proverbial “feel-good” rhetoric, its legal and political application nevertheless entails actually sending armed police officers after peaceful citizens.  So, to hell with our good feelings!  We must be coherent thinkers about the issues of the day, instead.  The word “liberal” correctly means - possibly among other things - to be pro-individual freedom, which necessarily includes being in favor of the individual’s right to self-defense.

Contrary as well to what most “conservatives” want to believe, this same right of self-defense also means that the Church, the State, “private” corporations, “authorities”, “The Media”, and other meddling “do-gooders” must not be allowed to regulate our speech, and must also stay the hell out of our bedrooms, doctors’ offices, our individual choices of what drugs, or vitamins, to take, to smoke, or not; and that a woman’s (or man’s) right to control her/his own body and reproductive system must be restored legislatively, or judicially, and remain absolute and unimpaired.

I offer to all of you who may as yet be unfamiliar with the notion: leftist-libertarianism, libertarian-socialism, anarchy, anarchism, temporary autonomous zone, restoring/protecting the Commonwealth, or the Public Commons… 

See also:  Jello Biafra, Emma Goldman, Bill Moyers, Noam Chomsky.  Also I challenge you to read both Karl Marx and Ayn Rand with an open mind and a clear view of concrete reality.. if you can.

Report this

By JNagarya, April 23, 2007 at 10:29 pm Link to this comment

#65917 by Skruff on 4/23 at 10:39 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

“Incidently folks here continually tell me that the VT shooter purchased his weapons legally.  This is not so. He was asked a series of questions, including “have you ever been committed to a mental health facility” by the gun shop owner/salesman. Chou lied, therefore not a legal sale.”

I don’t know anything about the Chou case in VT.  I’ve been talking about the Cho case in VA.

How do you know either was asked those questions?

Did he not buy one of his guns at a pawn shop, second-hand, for cash, no questions asked?

Report this

By JNagarya, April 23, 2007 at 10:14 pm Link to this comment

#65960 by Fadel Abdallah on 4/23 at 8:05 pm
(16 comments total)

To: #65941 by JNagarya on 4/23 at 6:36 pm
(70 comments total)

“JNagarya… Get off your high horse kido! You’re becoming so arrogant and overbearing, and we need to have a break from your so many rants and boring repetitions!”

Prove there’s a “God”. 

“I was mistaken about you when you first responded to one of my comments. However, your subsequent comments to mine and others indicate that it really has gotten to your head that you’re some kind of intellectual and arbiter of everything being said on this thread.”

I wasn’t born circa noon yesterday.  I’ve been reading for many decades, and across the board.  Otherwise, I’m not an intellectual; I’m a sensualist.

“You’re just a fanatic atheist who is overrating himself by thinking that he and his few types are right and the billions who are followers of the major religions are wrong.”

Nope.  Both believers and atheists are arrogant, because, though finite and imperfect, they believe they POSSESS the truth about whether there’s an infinity, and an infinite and perfect “God” or not.  Are both correct?  Are both incorrect?  If only one is correct—which one?

I’m too humble to pretend I know that which is beyond knowing either way.  In short, I’m agnostic.

And, my legendary humility should not go unremarked.

“This was the essence of one of your responses to one of my posts. Your worn out repeated statements about demanding prove or so-called scientific evidence for everything anyone says is a clear indication that you have irrational fanaticism deep down at the core of your personality.”

I don’t ask for science from the gun-nuts.  I do ask for science from those who claim to be scientists.  I provide proof for my statements, and ask that you do the same.  You can’t?  I knew that in advance.

“As someone else has pointed out, you’re making contradictory statements.”

Quote one example of that which you perceive as being a “contradiction”.

“Since you belittle those who believe in “creationism,””

I belittle liars, frauds, scammers, religiosmut peddlars—even when they lie that they are instead “creationists” and or “creation scientists”.

“religion or prophethood, I am going to say that you you’re the result of an accident. The laws of accidents you believe in can tell me that you were supposed to have been created as a pig, but an accident happen and you’re now JNagaria! Based on your twisted logic, prove to me that my theory about you is wrong.”

You don’t believe in proof: I asked for proof, and you “responded” with the above hysterical rant.

None of that of which you accuse me is remotely what I am or am doing.

Report this

By Fadel Abdallah, April 23, 2007 at 9:05 pm Link to this comment

To: #65941 by JNagarya on 4/23 at 6:36 pm
(70 comments total)

JNagarya… Get off your high horse kido! You’re becoming so arrogant and overbearing, and we need to have a break from your so many rants and boring repetitions! 

I was mistaken about you when you first responded to one of my comments. However, your subsequent comments to mine and others indicate that it really has gotten to your head that you’re some kind of intellectual and arbiter of everything being said on this thread.

You’re just a fanatic atheist who is overrating himself by thinking that he and his few types are right and the billions who are followers of the major religions are wrong. This was the essence of one of your responses to one of my posts. Your worn out repeated statements about demanding prove or so-called scientific evidence for everything anyone says is a clear indication that you have irrational fanaticism deep down at the core of your personality.

As someone else has pointed out, you’re making contradictory statements.  Since you belittle those who believe in “creationism,” religion or prophethood, I am going to say that you you’re the result of an accident. The laws of accidents you believe in can tell me that you were supposed to have been created as a pig, but an accident happen and you’re now JNagaria! Based on your twisted logic, prove to me that my theory about you is wrong.

Report this

By JNagarya, April 23, 2007 at 8:52 pm Link to this comment

#65811 by Skruff on 4/23 at 12:31 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

#65797 by JNagarya on 4/23 at 12:42 am

Another law- and history-illiterate gun-nut weighs in:

“#65645 by Skruff on 4/22 at 12:22 pm

“Your long rants and your total rack of respect for the opinion of others tells me who “the nuts” are.”

A lie is not an opinion, as an opinion is plausibly true.  A lie is false, therefor cannot be true.  I do not and shall not respect lies.  And, as I believe in free will, I also do ot respect the liar.

“I do not support Tim Mc Veigh”

Tim McVeigh was protesting the Assault Weapons Ban as “unconstitutional” based upon being an NRA dupe.

You believe the NRA, and—most irresponsible—regurgitate the NRA’s swill against not only the Constitution, but also the Founders and Framers.  Your ignorance of your country’s history, especially during that era, and of the Founders’ and Framers’ views and intents is an insult to both.

“I do support Randy Weaver.”

Randy Weaver is a white supremacist and a criminal who was busted selling an illegal weapon to an undercover agent.

“check out the difference.”

I know the difference, son: I followed every detail on Weaver, Wako, and OK City while they were happening.  And I was nowhere near new to and at politics.  Nor am I now.  As for Kult King Koresh: the warrant was not for arrest of Koresh; it was for search of the compound, based upon credible reports that he was a serial statutory rapist.  He knew he was on his way to prison, but wasn’t man enough to do the time.  So he murdered several Federal agents who were serving a legal warrant.

The upstanding, law-abiding way to challenge the warrant was in court.  But KKK claimed “divine right”—the he was exempt from the rule of law.  And insisted he was outside the law.  Those outside the law are by definition outlaws.

“Oh, incidently at this point in history the “law” is on the side of legal, responsible gun owners, and even the left wing Howard Dean, and the left-leaning governor of New York are not ready to oppose the people’s right to bare arms.”

I’m not opposed to baring arms.  Or even against bearing arms.  I am opposed to lying against the Constitution, against my country, in order to make money out of providing the means to kill people.

And I’m opposed to the NRA dupes who parrot the NRA’s false, non-law propaganda as their means to assault standards—facts, truth, law—in effort to establish “divine right” lunacy as the “norm”.

Cho bought his guns legally.  You are opposed to all gun regulation.  _Ergo_, you are for criminals, and the mentally troubled, to be able to buy guns _LEGALLY_, and with maximum ease.

You really should _think_ about what you are defending, instead of mindlessly attacking all those who refute your sociopathic gun-nut fantasies.

Report this

By JNagarya, April 23, 2007 at 8:02 pm Link to this comment

#65841 by Outraged on 4/23 at 3:40 pm
(7 comments total)

“First JNagarya you said this:

“#65629 by JNagarya on 4/22 at 2:05 am
Where’s your data?  Not even a single-digit statistic?

“Then you said this:

“#65798 by JNagarya on 4/23 at 1:02 am
One doesn’t need “statistics” as concerns the instant case: Cho, an individual with documented mental difficulties, _legally_ bought his guns in keeping with specific laws.  It is you, in your intellectually dishonest effort to generalize away from the instant case and specific facts thereof, who need “statistics” in effort to “prove” your intellectually dishonest—and irrelevant—premise.

“So which is it?”

In the latter I am attempting to give you a break.  You claim you wrote a “research paper”.  A “research paper” by definition requires one do research before (and during, if attentive) writing said “research paper”.  One also, of course, includes supportive examples—data—from one’s research.

So I asked for data—statistics, even—from your “research paper” which you would claim supports your assertion.  We the readers have soething of a right to see the same data, so we can judge for ourselves whether it is actually supportive.

Your protesteth, though, was just too much.  So I realized you don’t have any data to back up your assertion.  So I pointed out the fact that your data—or “statistics”—would be a generalization away from the instant case.

Which you would like to do, I know, to distract from the instant case.

The title of the article is “It’s the Guns, Stupid”—not, “It’s the Myth of Mental Illness and Violence, Stupid”.  Thus the topic of the thread is—well, “. . . the Guns, Stupid”.

“Do you comment on this site to talk “smack” and disagree with people irregardless of the issue?”

It’s “regardless”.  Should we be surprised that you believe the term “people” is singular, as in “individual”?  Like in, “We the person”?  “We, the indivdiual”?

When in fact it is _pluaral_—more than oe “person”.  “Person” being singular, individual.

“It’s painfully obvious that when you don’t have anything to back up your “position” you resort to name-calling.”

Did you miss this?  The first draft of that which became the Second Amendment as written by James “FAther of the Constitution” Madison:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall not be compelled to render military service in person”.

Read it for yourself: _Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress_ (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, paper, 1991), Edited by Helen E. Veit, et al.

To all other commentors:

Creating laws which do not solve the problem simply will not work.

I agree no law is perfect.  Problem is, you are opposed to gun control laws even existing.

“Again, the NRA does not speak for all gun owners and to use their rhetoric as every gun owners position is unfounded.”

I didn’t say the NRA speacks for you.  I say you dupedly parrot their lie against the Constitution, and spew the same terrorist politics of fear.

In addition: NRA has no authority to make law, nor render binding declarations of the law’s meaning.

“Using one instance of an emotionally charged issue to start endorsing restrictive laws is foolish.”

Why do you want criminals and the mentally troubled to get guns _LEGALLY_—as Cho did?

Report this

By cann4ing, April 23, 2007 at 7:48 pm Link to this comment

Re comment #65846 by BEAR ARMS.  Your statement that the Supreme Court says that all of the first ten amendments pertain to “individual rights” is flat-out wrong.  The Second Amendment reads, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

In 1935, the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Miller upheld a conviction for possession of firearms.  The court ruled that the Second Amendment does not guarantee a right to bear arms unless the need to bear arms has “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.”  Since that time, most of the intermediate appellate courts that have taken up the issue have ruled that the Second Amendment embraces a collective right to bear arms as part of a well-regulated militia—not an individual right.

As early as 1885, the Supreme Court ruled in Presser vs. Illinois that the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government.  It does not prevent any state from either prohibiting or permitting individuals to bear arms.

In 1990, Chief Justice Warren Burger (a Nixon appointee) observed:  “The Gun Lobby’s interpretation of the Second amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American people by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

Report this

By JNagarya, April 23, 2007 at 7:45 pm Link to this comment

#65870 by ijustcrappedsalad on 4/23 at 5:39 pm
(2 comments total)

“If guns were the reason that people were killed, then my great aunt jerald would have used a salad fork to chop of her own hand instead of a spoon.”

I would agree that it does appear the _reason_ the person was killed was “guns”. 

And I bet we agree that gun were the _MEANS_ by which those people were killed. 

Let’s look at the cause-and-effect, the linkages—

Cho - hand - gun - shoots bullets, 32 classmates die of gun-shot bullets.

Yep: they were murdered by means of legal handguns.  But the “responsible gun owners” want to blame the 32 who were murdered for—your candidate Bush’s words—“being in the wrong place, at the wrong time”. 

They were students who chose against anti-intellectualism and intellectual dishonesty, enrolled in university, and attending their
classes as they chose to do.  They were in the right place—and probably in class on time.

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall not be compelled to render military service in person.”—First draft—James Madison’s—of that which became the Second Amendment.

Report this

By JNagarya, April 23, 2007 at 7:36 pm Link to this comment

#65846 by BEAR ARMS on 4/23 at 9:20 am
(Unregistered commenter)

“The Supreme COurt says that the Ten Ammendments are all based on “individual rights” so taking the Second Ammendment and implying that it does not imply individual rights would be irresponsable.”

Substantiate.  (I demand you do so because I know you can’t.  I won’t ask if you actually know whether such a case holding exists.) 

I’ve repeatedly substantiated the fact that the Second Amendment has nothing whatever to do with “individual” anything.  I even cited the source so you can read it for yourself.  (Warning: it doesn’t contain any pictures.)  In that you’ll find, as example, the first draft of that which became the Second Amendment, as written by James “Father of the Constitution” Madison—

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall not be compelled to render military service in person.”

The last clause—the “conscientious objection” exemption from involuntary militia duty—is the “individual right” to _N-O-T_ bear arms.

And, that was the _only_ proposed “individual right” debated as concerns that which became the Second Amendment.

That proposed “individual right” was voted down.  As result, that which became the Second Amendment has nothing whatever to do with “individua” anything.

That means there is no Federal bar to regulation of private, individually owned guns.

Substantiate.  (I demand you substantiate because I know you can’t.  I won’t ask you to actually know whether such alleged case holding actually exists.)

“If you don’t like it take it to court, The Supreme Court!”

The spelling of the word is “Amendment”.  See what happens when you try to show off your mastery of big words?—you add excess letters.

Report this

By Skruff, April 23, 2007 at 5:09 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Fact Gun related deaths for 1998

Year
Assault   12,228
Suicide   17,605
Accidents   875
Total   30,708

Autorelated deaths for the same period:

44,475

12,228 assault deaths DO concern me, but the death rate from firearms has decreased by half from 1930, and the 17,605 suicide deaths concern me not at all.  In a free country we should have the right to decide when our own life ende… I would guess that these suicides would take place without guns.
 
Incidently folks here continually tell me that the VT shooter purchased his weapons legally.  This is not so. He was asked a series of questions, including “have you ever been committed to a mental health facility” by the gun shop owner/salesman. Chou lied, therefore not a legal sale.

Report this

By ijustcrappedsalad, April 23, 2007 at 12:09 pm Link to this comment

If guns were the reason that people were killed, then my great aunt jerald would have used a salad fork to chop of her own hand instead of a spoon. I know what you all must be thinking, random…and your 100% yes. This is a serious issue saying whether guns kill people or people kill people, and I know the answer. The answer is simply, chuck norris. Chuck norris was the one behind the scenes creating pitchforks and selling them to yakuza ice cream vendors which were then put onto the black market so that the outback steakhouse could have something to use to eat. It all comes together so well that Benn Affleck joined in on this mascarade and began selling christina Aquilara albums to salad fundamentalists. This made them so eager to help them with the building of the greatest tree house ever made, that it happened in under a star trek series. I know, scary.

Though I do pay respect to all those that were killed at Virginia Tech, though the people argueing here and the writer of this article of bagle bites.

Report this

By BEAR ARMS, April 23, 2007 at 10:20 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The Supreme COurt says that the Ten Ammendments are all based on “individual rights” so taking the Second Ammendment and implying that it does not imply individual rights would be irresponsable. If you don’t like it take it to court, The Supreme Court!

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 23, 2007 at 10:10 am Link to this comment

First JNagarya you said this:

#65629 by JNagarya on 4/22 at 2:05 am
Where’s your data?  Not even a single-digit statistic?

Then you said this:

#65798 by JNagarya on 4/23 at 1:02 am
One doesn’t need “statistics” as concerns the instant case: Cho, an individual with documented mental difficulties, _legally_ bought his guns in keeping with specific laws.  It is you, in your intellectually dishonest effort to generalize away from the instant case and specific facts thereof, who need “statistics” in effort to “prove” your intellectually dishonest—and irrelevant—premise.

So which is it?

Do you comment on this site to talk “smack” and disagree with people irregardless of the issue?  It’s painfully obvious that when you don’t have anything to back up your “position” you resort to name-calling.

To all other commentors:

Creating laws which do not solve the problem simply will not work.  Again, the NRA does not speak for all gun owners and to use their rhetoric as every gun owners position is unfounded.  Using one instance of an emotionally charged issue to start endorsing restrictive laws is foolish.  If we do not address this sanely we will have another “Patriot Act”.  This restrictive and unwarranted legislation has led to untold corruption, thousands of deaths and dismemberments and the weakening of our country.

Report this

By Skruff, April 23, 2007 at 7:01 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

#65797 by JNagarya on 4/23 at 12:42 am

Another law- and history-illiterate gun-nut weighs in:

“#65645 by Skruff on 4/22 at 12:22 pm

Your long rants and your total rack of respect for the opinion of others tells me who “the nuts” are. 

I do not support Tim Mc Veigh
I do support Randy Weaver

check out the difference.

‘scuse me now, I have other things to do now like sending in my NRA dues.

Oh, incidently at this point in history the “law” is on the side of legal, responsible gun owners, and even the left wing Howard Dean, and the left-leaning governor of New York are not ready to oppose the people’s right to bare arms.

Report this

By THOMAS BILLIS, April 23, 2007 at 3:21 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You know I wrote a comment earlier and then read many of the comments and the hard thing for me to beleive is that no matter what the numbers show 30000 dead in the US a year and the combine dead by gun violence of the next 8 civilized countries do not come close.John Howard the right wing Prime Minister of Australia fucking Australia with all the bush country and macho rough and tumble guys is calling us sick because we do not curb guns.It must feel good to spout the rhetoric of NRA and the gun manufacture lobbies empty parables taken probably off some Gunsmoke episode but reality is 30000 people a year die in gun violence.The logic of you have to have an arsenal to defend you against the government is false because they have much better ways of controlling you and getting you to do what they want.We are in Iraq aren’t we?

Report this

By JNagarya, April 23, 2007 at 2:47 am Link to this comment

“{#65507 by Bill Corley on 4/21 at 5:28 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

“When something like the resent tragedy(s) happens, some shout for “gun control.” What does that look like? If the laws on the books were enforced, it would be a help.”

Cho bought his guns _LEGALLY_.  The law was “enforced”.  It didn’t require he have a permit, or a waiting period, therefore no background check.  A background check would have discovered he had mental divvidulties, thus would have prevented him getting guns _legally_, thus would have prevented him becoming a crimianl by murdering 32 classmates with those guns and bullets.

Or he could have got the guns _LEGALLY_ by paying cash, for second-hand, no questions asked.

“If someone drives their car over a person or into a crowd, is there an outcry for “car control?””

There is already “car control”.  And though not perfect—humans, being imperfect, are incapable of creating the perfect—they work pretty well in reducing, minimizing the carnage which would occur if we were to go by your “logic” of throwing up our hands and throwing out the rule of law because it’s imperfect.

“These calls divert the attention away from the real problem in that people don’t have the proper tools to deal with the mental anguish in their lives from small annoyances to desperation. The tools do exist and they begin with forgiving, letting loose, untying the realities and confusions of ones own mind instead of blaming our feelings of hopelessness and helplessness on some other person, place, thing or event. This goes for the gunman as well as those who cry for gun control.”

Can those things be legislated?  I thought not.  So why are you trying to divert attention from the fact that Cho got his guns _LEGALLY_, by irresponsibly insisting that the rule of law should be thrown out because not perfect?

“I’m a farmer who uses his guns as a tools of the trade.”

No one—except the NRA as straw man/red herring—has ever said there isn’t a private, individual right to own guns.  What is being asserted is _REALITY_:

No right is absolute, except to the sociopathic, nihilist, and criminally lawless “divine right” narcissists—masquerading behind the lie “responsible gun owner”.

No sane society leaves dangerous substances and objects lying around unregulated.

Report this

By JNagarya, April 23, 2007 at 2:31 am Link to this comment

“#65599 by Jim Morehouse on 4/22 at 1:40 am
(Unregistered commenter)

“here’s a little bit of history.  During the 20’s the Weimar Republic registered all firearms.  During the 30’s under the Nazis, the government confiscated all firearms, arrested firearm owners, and then, and only then, did they begin Kristallnacht.”

Tim McVeigh believed as you do.  He committed mass murder.  He was wrong on both counts.

The US is not the Weimer Republic.  Nor has it the same Constitution.  In addition, this is exerpt from a statute enacted by the Massachusetts-Bay “revolutionary” legislature “for executing in the Colony . . . one Resolve of the American Congress, dated March 14, 1776”—

  “. . . That every Male Person above fixteen Years of Age, resident in any Town or Place in this Colony, who shall negleft or refuse to subscribe a printed or written Declaration of the Form and Tenor herein after prescribed [i.e., “loyalty oath”], upon being required thereto by the Committee of Correspondence, Inspection and Safety for the Town or Place in which he dwells, or any one of them, shall be disarmed, and have taken from him in Manner hearafter directed, all such Arms, Ammunition and Warlike Implements, as by the strictest Search can be found in his Possession or beonging to him; . . . .”

“And from there, folks, the rest is history.”

Yes: those same Founders and Framers established a Constitution “for posterity,” including therein the stipulation that the militia is to “suppress Insurrections”.

“I believe in all 10 amendmets that are called the Bill of Rights.”

The Second of those Amendments, in its first draft, as written by James Madison, reads in full:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

The latter “conscientious objection” exemption from INVOLUNTARILY COMPELLED militia duty—the right to N-O-T bear arms—was the only posited individual right debated as concerned the Second Amendment, the sole concern being an alternative to standing armies.  That having been voted down, the Second Amendment has nothing whatever to do with “individual” anything.

Your intellectually dishonest, terrorist politics of fear notwithstanding. 

Your effort to defend the non-existent “constitutional” right of criminals and the mentally troubled to _LEGALLY_ buy guns, and use them to mass murder other citizens with the _superior_ right to “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness,” is not the behavior of a “responsible gun owner”.  It is the view of an irresponsible, and dangerously deluded, sociopathic _gun-nut_.

Report this

By JNagarya, April 23, 2007 at 2:02 am Link to this comment

“Within the comments I read over and over again about how Cho had a “mental problem” which of course he may, but to associate “mental illness” with violence is WRONG!”

It’s wrong to associate mental difficulty and violence in Cho’s case?  Only if one is blind, or lying: he (1) had documented mental difficulties, and (2) committed an exceedingly violent act of mass murder.

“The vast majority of gun owners are not violent or dangerous people and either are the “mentally ill”.”

Entirely irrelevant, as the _responsibile_ readily recognize.  Cho, despite being mentally troubled, bought his guns _LEGALLY_.

The laws that allowed him to do so were enacted by a _majority_ who irresponsibily—insanely—saw no problem with allowing criminals and the mentally troubled buying guns _legally_—as that is exactly what they established in the law. 

“Associating the two issues is ignorant.”

Okay, let’s pretend Cho was meantally healthy—the law assumed that, therefore didn’t bother with the possiblity that he wasn’t.  So he, mentally healthy, got his guns legally, then _legally_ killed 32 classmates.

It was illegal?  On what grounds?  Didn’t he have the same “right” as any other paranoid to “self-defense” against the objects of his paranoid delusions?

“. . . .  one said “where’s my proof, my statistics”, I say WHERE’S YOURS..?!”

One doesn’t need “statistics” as concerns the instant case: Cho, an individual with documented mental difficulties, _legally_ bought his guns in keeping with specific laws.  It is you, in your intellectually dishonest effort to generalize away from the instant case and specific facts thereof, who need “statistics” in effort to “prove” your intellectually dishonest—and irrelevant—premise.

So again: Where are your “statistics” for either:

Why the lives and deaths of Cho’s 32 classmates matter so little that repeating “arguments” and lies you know are false is acceptable? 

Tell us how backhandedly defending the murder of 32 innocent people, all in effort to avoid the facts of the specific, instant case, is the action of a “responsible gun owner,” but not of a _gun-nut_.

You voted for Bush.  And you insist that criminals and the mentally troubled have a “constitutional” “right” to _LEGALLY_ buy guns; and no one, especially those killed as result of that “divine right” lunacy, has a “right to life, and the pursuit of happiness,” let alone a say, in the matter.

Report this

By JNagarya, April 23, 2007 at 1:42 am Link to this comment

Another law- and history-illiterate gun-nut weighs in:

“#65645 by Skruff on 4/22 at 12:22 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

“#65624 by Fingal on 4/21 at 10:53 pm says

““...why has there been all the resistance to a ban on ASSAULT WEAPONS then?  Do the majority of gun owners get some kind of vicarious thrill thinking about the use of ASSAULT WEAPONS?”

“No, but we know that once the no gun folks have their foot in the door, they won’t stop till there are no guns anywhere except at police stations and in soldier’s hands.”

Your “religion” is a false claim of “divine right/exemption from the rules of law and reason, and your church is the NRA sewer.

“. . . there is not one single phrase or even word in the constitution which suggests that the government AT ANY LEVEL has the right to grant “privledge” a word our founders would have abhored.”

In fact, the Founders and Framers used both “right”  and “privilege” interchangeably; as terms of art they are essentially synonyms. 

What is tangentially relevant to that pseudo-law gibberish is the contrary underlying fact that there is no such thing—outside totalitarian claims of “divine right”—as an absolute right.  If you were arrested for a minor offense, and had a gun in your possession at the time, you wouuld not be allowed to keep your gun in the jail cell into which you were put.

To be absolutely clear: it only requires one exception from a purported “absolute” to demolish that absoluteness.

” The “King” granted “privledge” to his associates who were the self-same individuals the colonists were fighting for liberty. If my take on this is correct, than the State has no business issuing the “privledge” to drive.”

It isn’t correct.  See above.

“Ben Franklin said: “He who would sacrifice his freedom for a little security deserves neither Freedom nor security.”

And when did he say that?  During the period when the “revolutionaries” were working to stir up broader support for their “revolution”?

Or was it later, after the “revolution” was over, and Franklin and the other Founders were about establishing stable gov’t, at one point of which process Franklin was asked the sort of gov’t they founded, and he ansered: “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

Their gov’t was expressly “for posterity”.  And they established the means to ensure that “The military is always in exact subordination to the Civil Power” (Sam Adams, et al.): the militia under the supreme law of the land, the Congress, and the state gov’t, its purpose the defense of those gov’t/s against armed outlaws, both domestic and foreign.  See both Shays’s and Whiskey Rebellions for _active_ precdent against your anti-Constitutional nonsense.

“and for those who relish the phrase “Gun nut” keep it up, out here in the sticks that just makes us stronger.”

Nuts take pride in being nuts.  We learned that when you all embraced mass murderer Tim McVeigh as a member of your fake “militia”—remember, everyone, without exception, between 18 and 45?  Then when challenged for your deranged anti-Americanism, tried to claim he wasn’t.  At the time, McVeigh was 30.

Report this

By JNagarya, April 23, 2007 at 1:17 am Link to this comment

#65608 by rick nesti on 4/22 at 3:14 am
(Unregistered commenter)

“Legislation cannot prevent these horrible acts.”

But let’s look directly at the central facts—which refute that dreamworld falsehood or deliberate lie:

1.  In VA, one can buy a handgun without a permit and without a waiting period.  No background check.  That’s the law.  Thus Cho bought his guns _legally_.

2.  After Cho became a criminal by shooting multiple bullets from those guns into more than 32 classmates, 32 of whom were murdered by those bullets, we learned he had and existing record of mental difficulty.  A background check would have found that record and prevented him getting those guns.

You obviously don’t want laws that would in fact and reality have prevented him getting those guns, therefore prevented him killing anyone with those guns.

1.  In the alternative, in VA, with cash, one can buy second-hand, no questions asked. 

2.  1., immediately above, _perfectly guarantees_ that criminals and the mentally troubled can get guns _LEGALLY_. 

3.  There is no legal foundation which makes it necessary, requires, mandates, that criminals and the mentally troubled _must_ be allowed to _LEGALLY_ buy guns.  And no legal, moral, or sane foundation which justifies the exploitation of their gun-crimes as excuse to oppose all laws which would prevent criminals and the mentally troubled from getting guns.

“I am more concerned about the systemic abuse of psychotropic drugs in a society over stimulated with violent media.”

We wouldn’t have wanted Cho medicated, based upon the theory—you provide no evidence for it—that it would impliedly have been illegitimate.

“Removing the guns and leaving these issues in the closet will solve nothing. I fear the 2nd amendment may be the last constitutional right have left.”

The first draft of that which became the Second Amendmnet, as written by James Madison, read in full:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Through debate that evolved through several versions.  This is one subsequent:

“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infirnged, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms”.

That last clause, that of “conscientious objection” exemption INVOLUNTARILY COMPELLED militia duty, being the obvious individual right to N-O-T bear arms, was the ONLY posited “individual right” debated concerning the Second Amendment.  That it was voted down means the Second Amendment has nothing whatever to do with “individual” anything. 

Thus the Second Amendment is wholly irrelevant to the issue of gun control: there is no bar, including that of the Second Amendment, to regulation in that area.

No pro-rule-of-law, law-abiding “responsible gun owner” would lie against those facts.  But a _gun-nut_ would, and does.

Report this

By JNagarya, April 23, 2007 at 12:48 am Link to this comment

“My point was that when thousands of those mentally disturbed veterans hit the streets of American towns and cities feeling betrayed and used, there is the likelihood that there will be increased incidents of mass violence. This is an informed prediction that does not necessarily mean it will happen for sure. Economists predict, politicians predict, weather people predict, and I, as a social scientist, have the right to predict based on facts and trends. This was the essence of my comment with which you took exception.”

_Scientists_ don’t couch their “science” in “religious” terms, appeals to unevidenced, unsubstantiated “authority,” “divine right” pullings-of-rank _vis-a-vis_ other “religious” zealots doing exactly the same.

“Religious” Fundamentalists—“Creationism” anyone?—do base their “science” upon “religious” hypotheticals, none evidenced, most of which originating with self-proclaimed “Prophets”.

Report this

By JNagarya, April 23, 2007 at 12:39 am Link to this comment

#65684 by Fadel Abdallah on 4/22 at 4:28 pm
(13 comments total)

#65615 by JNagarya on 4/21 at 9:30 pm
(47 comments total)

“Your “Political Poem” response to one of my comments indicates that you disagree with what I posted.”

That’s discerning of you.  In the US we have Constitutional separation of church and state.  We don’t substitute “religion” for rule of law.  Try to make that the foundation of your assertions.

“However, I have a clarification to make in response to your “Political Poem.” You equated my prediction with “determinism” and “prophesy” at the same time. Though I believe in a certain level of “determinism,” I am no “Prophet” nor I claimed to be one.”

One cannot predict a future unless there is determinism sufficient to sustain it.  That presumes an assumption that one can read the mind of the hypothetical termed “God”.  And that, son, is, in “religious” terms, the sin of pride.  The ultimate hubris.

“As a Muslim, the concept of “Prophethood” is a serious matter and only God can determine who could be a Prophet.”

“Prophethood” is also a “serious matter” for Christian fundamentalists.  Yet there is no proof that such “prophets” are prophets: that such imperfect humans appoint themselves such is evidence not that they are that, but that they reject reason, the necessity for legitimate evidence beyond their unevidenced self-elevation, and the ethics which prohibit conflicts of interest.

Can you substantiate that there is a “God,” beyond rank-pulling appeal to inevidence authority into which anyone can read anything whatsoever?  Keirkegaard demomnstrates how that sort of “reasoning” could justify even murder—the Commandment (not “Request”) against that notwithstanding.

“In fact “Prophethood” in the religious sense was sealed with the Prophethood of Muhammad, for he was the last Prophet in a long chain of Prophethood throughout human history.”

According to Mohammad, Mohammad was a “prophet”.  Beyond that unevidenced claim, there is no evidence to support that unevidenced claim. Faith: believing unevidenced claims despite total lack of evidence for same—except that which is self-serving, and arrived at by ignoring the inherent conflict of interest in declaring oneself imbued with “divine right”.  That’s exactly the same process followed by Bush and his personality cult, and which has produced only serial constitutional crises and death.

Report this

By JNagarya, April 23, 2007 at 12:24 am Link to this comment

The problem is soceity, not weapons.  We need to be able to indentify & help & control those who woukd do harm to others or themselves. Elininating one type of weapn may help some but another kind og weapon will be found, either or purpose or by plan.

The problem is a violent society which defends legal access to deadly weapons—guns—by the criminal and mentally troubled, based upon an irresponsible,  transparent “divine right” lie against the rule of law itself. 

Cho got his guns _LEGALLY_ because of that lie, and the insanely lax laws by means of which he bought them _LEGALLY_ based upon that lie, and because of the gun-nuts and other dupes who defend that reality by perpetuating that anti-Constitutional lie.

And the untethered, intellectually dishonest perseveration which decouples one fact from another in effort to pretend each is actually a separate and independent fact, contrary to the obvious observable fact: Cho murdered 32 classmates with a gun which shot bullets.  He was able to shoot those 32 classmates because he had a gun.  He got that gun _legally_.  He got those clips of bullets because the Assault Weapons Ban was allowed to expire.

By contrast: A sane society does not leave dangerous substances and objects lying around unregulated.  The Founders and Framers were sane.  As shown, they feared standing armies; but in view of the need for a common defense, chose militia as the alternative thereto.  Thus the Second Amendment, which did not alter the Militia Clauses, the first of which stipulates the purposes of the militia—including that of suppressing insurrections: there is no “(divine) right of revolution”. 

There is no “right” to “defend against” the gov’t.  The head of the state’s militia is the governor of the state, whose oath is to uphold the Constitution and laws of the US, and the constitution and laws of the state.  And when Federalized, the head of the militia is the president, who swore equivalent oath.

There is no “exemption” from the rule of law for those who, by conflict of interest, appoint themselves “patriots” with the _carte blanche_ “right” to violate the law.

None of that is complicated.  And none of that is overcome by the Second Amendment lie spawned and spewed by the private, non-gov’t sewer NRA.  Congress, not the NRA, makes and declares the laws.

Report this

By John, April 22, 2007 at 8:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I read somewhere today that the Democrats apply partial blame for Al Gore’s loss in the 2000 election to his position on gun control.  For the 2006 mid-terms they were “moving toward the center” looking for candidates that were “pro-gun”.

More restrictive gun laws?

Sorry, end of discussion.

Report this

By JT Lancer, April 22, 2007 at 8:41 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It is estimated that governments around the world KILLED approximately 170 million of THEIR OWN CITIZENS in the 20th Century alone!  That does not even include war casualties.  Guns in the hands of governments have killed FAR more people than guns in the hands of private citizens EVER will.

Report this

By JNagarya, April 22, 2007 at 8:28 pm Link to this comment

“It is sad that the notion that the “mentally ill” aspect of this issue has been overplayed.”

It is only overplayed as means to change the subject away from the fact that Cho bought the guns _legally_ because the insanely lax VA law _makes it legal for criminals and the mentally troubled to buy guns with maxium ease_.

“I have written a research paper on the very issue of how “dangerous the mentally ill” are.  I’ll give you that it was maybe 10 years ago but logic says things haven’t changed that much.  I stand by what I said. 

“The facts are: As a percentage of their group (the “mentally ill”) commit less crimes than “well” people do as a percentage of their group.”

Cho got the guns legally because the law did not concern itself with whether he was criminal or mentally troubled.

Research these questions:

1.  Why do gun-nuts both attack all gun laws as unconstituional, yet defend the insanely lax gun laws that clearly allow criminals and the mentally troubled to get guns _LEGALLY_—then go to any lengths to subvert reason, avoid the issue, and spew illiterate’s pseudo-law.

2.  Why do gun nuts insist that the only solution to all human problems is: buy guns, then kill or be killed?  Is that not the same as those who insist that the only solution to all human problems internationally is armed bullying?

3.  Why do gun-nuts, defined by the fact that they will go to any intellectually dishonest lengths, including out and out lying, will endeavor to suppress the primary legal authority illustrating the obvious intent of the Second Amendment, and the facts of whatever the current gun crime, insist they must not only be respected, but also must be called “responsible gun owners”?

“Most “mentally ill” people have a physical condition not a true “mental problem”.  In this regard “mental illness” is a misnomer.  Such is the case with schizophrenia, which is a PHYSICAL CONDITION by which the electro-chemical transmission of brain function from one synapse to the other is “not connecting”.”

You allegedly wrote an unidentified “research” paper some 10 years ago which offers a simpleton’s irresponsible theory of how “mental illness” is a “chemical imbalance”. 

Question: Is the mental illness caused by the alleged chemical imbalance?  Or is the alleged chemical imbalance caused by the mental illness?

Cho got his guns _legally_: the laws being neutered, insanely lax, closed-eyed, in the eye of the law he was in perfect mental health. 

Were there a waiting period, during which background check would have found he was mentally troubled, he would have been denied the guns—without which he could not have shot 32 innocent classmates with bullets.

Unless, of course, he chose to explore another insanity in VA’s lax gun laws: paying cash for second-hand, no questions asked.

Cho bought the guns legally because gun-nuts, hiding behind the lie “responsible gun owners,” both defend that law as sufficient; and protest that it is “unconstitutional” because inconsistent with the NRA’s Second Amendment lie.

Cho is dead, buried, beyond the law; irrelevant.  But the gun-nuts, despite their elaborate psychotic gibberish, and their lie that they are “responsible gun owners,” are not wholly beyond the law yet.  No sane society leaves dangerous substances and objects lying around unregulated.  The vast majority demands sane gun regulation.  And they are stymied by their tolerance of a violent minority that claims absolute right to establish armed criminality as a paranoid psychotic’s/white supremacist’s ultimate anti-American private standing army/KKK paradise. 

Is Iraq today your idea of civil sanity?  It is the outcome of the “vision” of those same “responsible gun owners”: they voted for Bush and Republicans against the Assault Weapons Ban, and would vote for Bush again if they could.

Only criminals lie against the law.

Report this

By Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, April 22, 2007 at 5:52 pm Link to this comment

If it ever gets to the point in this country where all of us armed private citizens have to stand up against our military, I’m gonna throw my 32 special in the bushes and take the first 737 outta here.  Do you people realize how outrageously idiotic this whole argument is?  If you want an effin gun, go get one, sleep with, stroke it, and kiss it and when the army comes to get you, shoot the effers.

Report this

By THOMAS BILLIS, April 22, 2007 at 2:55 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

More guns more guns.Give children derringers.Make it mandatory that every eighteen year old can reload a glock in 4 seconds.Make sure all cars are built with a mandatory gun rack.Only accept citizenship applications from people who already have holsters.Sell bullets at liquor stores.These are just a couple of future NRA suggestions for population control.A secondary advantage is medical schools will have all the cadavers they need.By the way there should be no shortage of organ donations.God Bless tha NRA always thinking ahead.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 22, 2007 at 12:11 pm Link to this comment

It is sad that the notion that the “mentally ill” aspect of this issue has been overplayed.  I have written a research paper on the very issue of how “dangerous the mentally ill” are.  I’ll give you that it was maybe 10 years ago but logic says things haven’t changed that much.  I stand by what I said. 

The facts are: As a percentage of their group (the “mentally ill”) commit less crimes than “well” people do as a percentage of their group.

Most “mentally ill” people have a physical condition not a true “mental problem”.  In this regard “mental illness” is a misnomer.  Such is the case with schizophrenia, which is a PHYSICAL CONDITION by which the electro-chemical transmission of brain function from one synapse to the other is “not connecting”. 

Portraying “mentally ill” people as dangerous is ignorant.  I have worked (part-time) in a mental institution and in a CBRF (Community Based Residential Facility) for the “mentally ill”.  I also have two brothers who have schizophrenia, mainly the reason I have researched and worked in these areas.  Along with other family members we took positions to ensure that our brothers were taken care of.  I can first hand attest to the degrading way too much of society views members with these afflictions.  You wouldn’t treat people with diabetes that way, or people with heart problems but suddenly as regards mental illness it becomes OK to automatically dehumanize them and worse.

The latest research is starting to uncover all kinds of intricate connections between our behavior and the physical functioning of our brains.  Some of it regarding EXTREME behaviors such as fundamentalism, violence and obesity.

Does this mean “supposed mentally ill” people are not dangerous?  No!  Some ARE!  But the facts are, MOST are not.  In every segment of society we have dangerous people.  WHAT DOES A DANGEROUS PERSON LOOK LIKE?  WHAT DOES A RAPIST LOOK LIKE?  WHAT DOES A THIEF LOOK LIKE?

Within the comments I read over and over again about how Cho had a “mental problem” which of course he may, but to associate “mental illness” with violence is WRONG!

The vast majority of gun owners are not violent or dangerous people and either are the “mentally ill”.

Associating the two issues is ignorant.  One has nothing to do with the other in broad terms even if it MAY have in this particular case.  Someone said “where’s my proof, my statistics”,  I say WHERE’S YOURS..?!

Report this

By Fadel Abdallah, April 22, 2007 at 11:09 am Link to this comment

#65670 by Ernest Canning on 4/22 at 8:24 am
(47 comments total)

To all members of the gun lobby who object to the label “gun nut:” Consider the logical extension of your twisted reasoning:

Nuclear bombs don’t kill people.  People kill people.  Let’s really enforce the NRA’s conception of the Second Amendment.  Nukes for everyone!
=============================================
Excellent post Earnest Canning! Short, precise and to the point.

Thank you!

Report this

By Fadel Abdallah, April 22, 2007 at 10:58 am Link to this comment

#65615 by JNagarya on 4/21 at 9:30 pm
(47 comments total)

Your “Political Poem” response to one of my comments indicates that you disagree with what I posted. In another response of yours to another of my comments, you elaborated, in agreement, on what I said. I do appreciate both of your responses and the time you invested in writing them. I learned from both and I respect your point of view in both cases.

However, I have a clarification to make in response to your “Political Poem.” You equated my prediction with “determinism” and “prophesy” at the same time. Though I believe in a certain level of “determinism,” I am no “Prophet” nor I claimed to be one. As a Muslim, the concept of “Prophethood” is a serious matter and only God can determine who could be a Prophet. In fact “Prophethood” in the religious sense was sealed with the Prophethood of Muhammad, for he was the last Prophet in a long chain of Prophethood throughout human history.

Prophets are upright human beings who were great reformers, concerned with the spiritual as well the material welfare of the societies in which they were raised. They don’t speak of their own whims, but are directly inspired by God to warn and to give good tidings.

My prediction was not based on any notion of “Prophesy” in the religious sense. It was based on cause and effect on the one hand, and on facts and signs of what the Iraq and Afghanistan soldiers and veterans have already done and are doing. The sadistic stories of what they have done at Abu Greib, Guantanamo and the many other secret prisons in many parts of the world indicate a mentality of violence based on their training. There are already many sad stories about mentally disturbed veterans who have been acting out violently against their own spouses and families. The government does what it can to suppress the large number of such incidents, but stories do leak and they are numerous. May I suggest that you read “NEMESIS” by Chalmers Johnson, to get a clear picture of the causes and effects that lead him to predict that these are “the last days of the American Republic.”

My point was that when thousands of those mentally disturbed veterans hit the streets of American towns and cities feeling betrayed and used, there is the likelihood that there will be increased incidents of mass violence. This is an informed prediction that does not necessarily mean it will happen for sure. Economists predict, politicians predict, weather people predict, and I, as a social scientist, have the right to predict based on facts and trends. This was the essence of my comment with which you took exception.

All the best!

Report this

By cann4ing, April 22, 2007 at 9:24 am Link to this comment

To all members of the gun lobby who object to the label “gun nut:” Consider the logical extension of your twisted reasoning:

Nuclear bombs don’t kill people.  People kill people.  Let’s really enforce the NRA’s conception of the Second Amendment.  Nukes for everyone!

Report this

By long, April 22, 2007 at 8:20 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

do not forget innocent iraqis   brutally killed by american bombs ordered by the brutal killer G. Bush

Report this

By MadburyDon, April 22, 2007 at 7:00 am Link to this comment

Yes, people with guns do kill people.  Also, people with fertilizer blow up buildings. People with knives kill people.  In other words, people kill people. 

Our record of controlling deaths caused by bad drivers is pathetic, for examnple.  We take away a person;s license, they drive anyway. 

The problem is soceity, not weapons.  We need to be able to indentify & help & control those who woukd do harm to others or themselves. Elininating one type of weapn may help some but another kind og weapon will be found, either or purpose or by plan.

Report this

By Skruff, April 22, 2007 at 6:52 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

#65624 by Fingal on 4/21 at 10:53 pm says

“...why has there been all the resistance to a ban on ASSAULT WEAPONS then?  Do the majority of gun owners get some kind of vicarious thrill thinking about the use of ASSAULT WEAPONS?

No, but we know that once the no gun folks have their foot in the door, they won’t stop till there are no guns anywhere except at police stations and in soldier’s hands. 

2. By most standard definitions of mental illness, there are so many fewer “mentally ill” people than “well” people that *of course* they commit fewer crimes.  Blind people crash fewer cars, too.  Does that mean we should issue them driver’s licenses?

Actually, this is a “per capita” figure.  By precentage mentally ill folks commit fewer violent crimes than their percentage would indicate.

AND, although the folks who know what’s best for the rest of us will be horrified, there is not one single phrase or even word in the constitution which suggests that the government AT ANY LEVEL has the right to grant “privledge” a word our founders would have abhored. The “King” granted “privledge” to his associates who were the self-same individuals the colonists were fighting for liberty. If my take on this is correct, than the State has no business issuing the “privledge” to drive.

Ben Franklin said: “He who would sacrifice his freedom for a little security deserves neither Freedom nor security.

and for those who relish the phrase “Gun nut” keep it up, out here in the sticks that just makes us stronger.

Report this

By Mad As Hell, April 22, 2007 at 6:17 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You need a license to drive and pilot two tons of steel at 75 mph.  No one questions that licensing and regulation of drivers FOR PUBLIC SAFETY is necessary.

You need a license to hunt.  You need special licences to hunt particular game, or to bow hunt.  You are obligated to follow regulations to do so (like not hunting at night, and not hunting within certain distances of residences).  No one questions that licensing and regulation of hunters for PUBLIC SAFETY is necessary.

You need a license just to catch a g**d*** fish in a stream or a pond.  I’ve never heard of a fisherman killing someone with a trout fly.  Yet no one qustions that licensing and regulation of fishermen FOR PUBLIC SAFETY is necessary.

So you need a license to drive, hunt or catch a fish. Why don’t you need a licence to purchase a handgun?  I have NEVER understood the resistance to a waiting period while a background check is run, nor the resistance to regulating private gun sales.  Private AUTOMOBILE sales are regulated, why not guns?

Cho would never have been able to get a gun legally if he simply had to meet the same standards of appropriate background checking as needed to get a driver’s license.

Sure, criminals still get guns.  They do in Britain and in Canada and in other nations. But the percentage of hand-gun crime is far, FAR lower there than here as a result.

I’m not against gun ownership.  I’m against weak, phony “pretend” regulation of gun ownership.

Having only once been on the wrong end of a gun, held by a paranoid moron with an itchy trigger finger who should have not been allowed to carry anything more dangerous than a water pistol, I’ve seen first hand that if people carry handguns like the wild west, they tend to point them at other people for reasons that have nothing to do with WHY they pretend they are carrying them.

I have no idea why this moron needed to walk around on a job site carrying a .38 with HOLLOW NOSE bullets!

Report this

By JNagarya, April 22, 2007 at 3:05 am Link to this comment

#65621 by Outraged on 4/22 at 5:05 am
(5 comments total)

“. . . .  After reading everyone’s opinions I’m seriously taken aback at the outrage over gun ownership.

“First of all, gun owners are not “gun nuts” lurking around back alleys as some posters are portraying them to be.  The majority (by a large margin) don’t own ASSAULT WEAPONS as some of you imply.”

Be honest for a change.  I think you could handle a minute or two of it if . . . just follow my lead and example.

The article/tread is about VA Tech and applicable laws.  That’s the topic.  Here, I’ll help you find and focus on it: these are the basics.

1.  In VA, one can buy a handgun without a permit, and without a waiting period.  No waiting period means no background check.  It’s the law.  That is how Cho bought his guns: _legally_.  At that point Cho was not a criminal; and there was no background check, so there was no way to screen for mentally troubled.

The stiffest obstacle, though, would be the questions on the purchase form which ask the buyer if he is a criminal, or mentally troubled.  But we all know criminals wouldn’t lie, and the mentally troubled may not know, so they would answer honestly, even though that would immediately invoke their legal inability to own guns.

2.  Or, in VA, for cash, one can buy second-hand no questions asked.  That’s the law.  And it’s the perfect guarantee that criminals and mentally troubled persons can _legally_ get guns no questions asked. 

3.  In addition to that stiff obstacle, there was also a glaring non-obstacle which would have existed had it not been opposed by the—ahem—“responsible gun owners”.  After Cho crosses the line into being a criminal by murdering thirty-two   people, we learn that he had been involuntarily committed for observation by a magistrate—judge. 

That’s the state, not VA Tech, so privacy laws peculiar to VA Tech and students would not be a factor.  There would by law be a record of that fact.

But “responsible gun owners” successfully opposed an obstacle—a waiting period, because that implicated another “unconstitutional” obstacle: background check of gun buyer BEFORE he buys, not after he crosses the line by committing 32 murders.

The “responsible gun owners” who change the subject aaway from those facts, and protest the “unconstitutionality” of that insanely lax law, and also defend it as being “sufficient”—so long as someone else is dying for their “freedom” share responsibility with Cho for his crimes because you all _emabled_ him to get guns _legally_, no questions ask.

Go ahead: blame the victims yet again for an insanely lax gun law in which they had no hand—but the “responsible gun owners” did.  All that matters to “responsible gun owners” is that criminals and the mentally troubled can get guns _legally_.  And lying to obscure and protect that insane laxity, which renders the “responsible gun owners” irresponsible to a degree which challenges whether they are sufficiently sane, let alone responsible, to be allowed to own guns.

When someone claims to be a “responsible gun owner,” run away from that person.  He will sacrifice others’ lives, insisting that others’ deaths—in which they had no say—are worth the cost to preserve the “freedom” of the “responsible gun owner”.  They share the responsibility and consequences with Cho which resulted from those insanely lax laws. 

“Secondly, the last time I checked “mentally ill” people commit less crimes than “well” people. “

You looked in the mirror?  I mean, seriously: how did you “check”?  Where’s your data?  Not even a single-digit statistic?

No sane society leaves dangerous substances and objects lying around unregulated.

Report this

By Fingal, April 21, 2007 at 11:53 pm Link to this comment

Re: #65621 by Outraged
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
First of all, gun owners are not “gun nuts” lurking around back alleys as some posters are portraying them to be.  The majority (by a large margin) don’t own ASSAULT WEAPONS as some of you imply.

Secondly, the last time I checked “mentally ill”
people commit less crimes than “well” people.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

1. Well, why has there been all the resistance to a ban on ASSAULT WEAPONS then?  Do the majority of gun owners get some kind of vicarious thrill thinking about the use of ASSAULT WEAPONS?

2. By most standard definitions of mental illness, there are so many fewer “mentally ill” people than “well” people that *of course* they commit fewer crimes.  Blind people crash fewer cars, too.  Does that mean we should issue them driver’s licenses?

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 21, 2007 at 11:35 pm Link to this comment

Just a few added comments to my original comment.

After reading everyone’s opinions I’m seriously taken aback at the outrage over gun ownership.

First of all, gun owners are not “gun nuts” lurking around back alleys as some posters are portraying them to be.  The majority (by a large margin) don’t own ASSAULT WEAPONS as some of you imply.

Secondly, the last time I checked “mentally ill” people commit less crimes than “well” people.

So often, we are driven by rhetoric more than by facts, not unlike the PETA protestors who march in leather NIKES.

We do not live in a bubble.  TV shows are not real.  And it is my estimation that June Cleaver had sex at least twice, while Smokey the Bear put out forest fires.

Report this

By JNagarya, April 21, 2007 at 10:30 pm Link to this comment

#65605 by Fadel Abdallah on 4/21 at 8:10 pm
(11 comments total)

For those who were disturbed at what happened at Virginia Tech and the several other mass massacres before that, just wait and see for a year or so when the dust of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan settles, and thousands of these two wars veterans hit the streets of American towns and cities!

There will be at least between 30 thousand and 50 thousands of psychologically disturbed, crippled for life veterans, who when the reality of their ordeal sinks in and they realize that all was based on lies and deception, they will act out.

When many of them further realize that all the false promises of financial, health or educational support cannot be maintained because the U.S. treasury will be broke, many of them will take out their frustrations in acts of violence, which they were trained to do to the enemy. However, the enemy now will become the society that scarified them. They will seek revenge and account settling and there will be many massacres.

Political Poem

I don’t buy Determinism.  It has never reliably put food on the table.

“Prophecy” doesn’t predict the future; it invents it in its own image.  Negative escape from permanently changing moment.

“Future”—everything outside Moment—is fantasy.

“Prophets” invent fantasy.

Fantasy illustrates that which doesn’t exist.

I’m unwilling to be forced to suffer
other’s self-fulfilling prophecies.

“Prophets” should learn to mind
their own business,
and stop imposing
their nightmares on the world.

Report this

By wallen, April 21, 2007 at 10:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Since you usually have to come up with references in order to get a job, what if, in order to obtain a gun, you had to come up with a minimum of ten people to sign sworn affidavits testifying as to your trustworthiness to own a gun?

And, how many people would actually sign such a statement, especially if they took into consideration that statistics show that some day down the line, they could likely be the one shot and killed by the friend or relative they trusted?

Report this

By Gun 'totin' red neck, April 21, 2007 at 10:03 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What the fuck is with you people???? Think for a god damn minute….......Ok, why are criminals criminals????? Because they do not OBEY laws. Why the fuck do you ignorant, pig fucking liber’holes’ think that if you just make enough stupid fucking laws, that one day the criminals will wake up and start obiding by them??? Stupid argument??? you liberal fucks are about as god damn dumb as dumb gets. One fucking gun toting red neck with a gun could have prevented thirty deaths at V tech you dumb fucks. Why the hell do you refuse to get this?

Report this

By Gary, April 21, 2007 at 9:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Why is it the pro-gun side always sounds so hostile?  I own guns, and have come to believe that we will lose the right to own handguns, as well as semi-automatic and automatic weapons here in America.  And the very problem is that there is no way of telling whose cheese is about to fall off their cracker.  That coupled with the continued volume of deaths.

Sure, you can kill with any weapon, but the fact is that this Korean fellow couldn’t have killed the volume of people he did if he was armed with a baseball bat or a knife.  Semi-automatics with 14 shot clips can do enormous damage in a short period of time, limited only to the time it takes to put in another clip.  I think that it is only a matter of time before the majority in the US makes the call to disarm.

Report this

By rick nesti, April 21, 2007 at 9:44 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Legislation cannot prevent these horrible acts. I am more concerned about the systemic abuse of psychotropic drugs in a society over stimulated with violent media.
Removing the guns and leaving these issues in the closet will solve nothing. I fear the 2nd amendment may be the last constitutional right have left. I would I do not own a gun however I would prefer to see all erosion of civil liberties stop. ALL, including the 2nd amendment.

Report this

By Fadel Abdallah, April 21, 2007 at 9:10 pm Link to this comment

For those who were disturbed at what happened at Virginia Tech and the several other mass massacres before that, just wait and see for a year or so when the dust of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan settles, and thousands of these two wars veterans hit the streets of American towns and cities!

There will be at least between 30 thousand and 50 thousands of psychologically disturbed, crippled for life veterans, who when the reality of their ordeal sinks in and they realize that all was based on lies and deception, they will act out.

When many of them further realize that all the false promises of financial, health or educational support cannot be maintained because the U.S. treasury will be broke, many of them will take out their frustrations in acts of violence, which they were trained to do to the enemy. However, the enemy now will become the society that scarified them. They will seek revenge and account settling and there will be many massacres.

Report this

By Jim Morehouse, April 21, 2007 at 8:10 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

here’s a little bit of history.  During the 20’s the Weimar Republic registered all firearms.  During the 30’s under the Nazis, the government confiscated all firearms, arrested firearm owners, and then, and only then, did they begin Kristallnacht.  And from there, folks, the rest is history.  I believe in all 10 amendmets that are called the Bill of Rights.  you should, too.  There’s a good reason they exist.

Report this

By Ivy, April 21, 2007 at 4:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

E.J. Dionne, your entire argument smacks of liberal conformity so let’s take a step back and look at these things logically.

You draw a shaky analogy between regulations on airlines and the public sphere.  You’ve obviously forgotten that airlines are private property.  The owners have every legal right to restrict certain things on their flights.  High heeled shoes and certain liquids were restricted for multiple reasons.  First was concern for the well being of customers.  Second, the desire to limit safety risks to corporate property.  Third, the desire to maintain safety.  All these factors come together to create the restrictions of these items aboard commercial airlines.  The same concerns extend to firearms.  The walls of an airplane can be easily breached by a gun.  This creates a safety risk, something CEOs and investors would be concerned about.  Because these airlines are private property, the owners have every right to curb these risks.  For example, you or I have every right to not allow guns on our private property.  We can make these wishes known in advance to our guests and we can inspect our guests when they come onto our property.  If they have a gun on their person, or don’t want to consent to a search, then they can leave.  This is no different from airlines.  Airlines have numerous checkpoints, x-ray machines, and metal detectors which we must pass through before we can board the plane.  This is their right.

Now let’s extend these “property rights” to the public sphere.  First, the government does not have property rights!  The government has no rights at all.  What the government does have are powers, to be exercised with the purpose of PROTECTING OUR UNAILIABLE RIGHTS!  These include the rights to bear arms and the right to privacy.  Obviously, while writing your polemic, you did not stop and think about the subject matter and the REAL reason for the controversy.  Instead you follow some tangent about lobbying, which is only possible in intrusive governments.  Contrary to the statements in your post, we do not live in a democracy.  We live in a constitutionally mandated Republic.  Within this system, no majority has the right to undermine the individual rights of anyone else within society.  Perhaps it is this knowledge which makes the Democrats you despise “wimps.”

You might think the actions of Australian Prime Minister John Howard are applaudable, that our stalwart conviction in unailiable rights makes us a “laughingstock”, but when did the U.S. become an insecure adolescent who is so concerned about what everyone else thinks?  There a reason so many have fled to this country over the centuries.  A simple, guaranteed promise: freedom.  Why should we “shoot ourselves in the foot” by destroying the very thing that makes the United States so appealing, that gives us our strength?  There are things in this world far scarier than guns, Dionne, such as slavery or State servitude.  All anti-gun enthusiasts need to seriously sit down and reconsider their positions.  Security does not come from government regulation.  It doesn’t come from government at all.  Government is a phantom conjured by our imaginations and maintained by our collective cooperation.  It’s only source of power comes from the encroachment upon the innate freedom of the individual.  While anarchy is folly, the antithesis is far worse.  Don’t take it from me, ask our fore fathers.  They fled a tyrant whose absolute authority we cannot imagine.  The principles of our nation rose out of opposition to the very encroachments you advocate.  Think!

Report this

By malc shee, April 21, 2007 at 3:56 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Can we continue this strange debate with these figures in front of us.  USA 30000 gun deaths in one year.  UK 47 - forty seven!  Their gun laws tend to be a trifle stricter than ours of course with a complete ban on hand guns!

Report this

By Skruff, April 21, 2007 at 3:32 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

#65513 by Fadel Abdallah on 4/21 at 11:20 am says”


“People who cannot understand that people with deadly guns are more likely to use them for killing must be intellectually and morally challenged. The more we have people carrying deadly guns, the more likely we might have deadly massacres, like the one at Virginia Tech and Columbine and Iraq and Israel and ... “

Please explain the Very low murder rate in my state (MAINE) and the liberal gun law we have here.

I am attempting to bring this discussion to a level where folks stop the personal attacks, and discuss the right to bare arms in a respectful tone.

When the constitution was written, denying a citizen the use of fire arms was the equivilent of denying him the use of money today.  Most rural folks got their main course by shooting it.  Some of us here in Maine still hunt for food. My Ruger Mark II Ultra Light is a bolt-action piece with a synthitic stock.  It would take me some time to kill 32 perple, as I would have to reload after each shot.  That process entails pulling the bolt back, ejecting the spent cartrage, placing a new shell, and securing the bolt.  When deer hunting, I have been able to accomplish this in about 40 seconds, but that is due to my familiarity with bolt action rifles.  My father gave me my first when I was 14.

There is a hunting culture in America like it or not, and in this politically correct era when everyone’s culture is sacrosanct, it is strange that this is one place where it is acceptable to stomp on someone’s way of life.

Oh, BTW I have never killed anyone during peacetime.

Report this

By JNagarya, April 21, 2007 at 2:06 pm Link to this comment

#65530 by Nitro on 4/21 at 6:44 pm
(2 comments total)

“Good Lord ! It’s once again obvious to see who is the Stupid One. E.J. Dionne, I took your comment as an insult, but it’s obvious who lacks the intelligence to get to the base line problem of this poor soul who took innocent lives, because all his crackers fell out of his cracker box. And the killer… he was found to have serious problems in the upstairs cavity, yet sounds like to me was ignored. . . .”

“So when are the “Intelligent Ones” going to figure it all out, Guns don’t kill people, . . . .”

Tell that to the survivors and families of the 32 who were killed with guns.

“. . . .  TILL SOMEONE LOADS THE GUN AND PULLS THE TRIGGER !”

Thus guns kill people.  Or do you know of any incidents in which persons were killed with a gun by a person who didn’t have a un?

“. . . .  Those that think we should ban all firearms, should be faced, as we soon may be, by those who wish to kill us, or take over our country, at all costs.”

Expecting fools such as you to obey the law cannot be equated with the nonsense about “ban[ning] all firearms”.  No one ever said there isn’t a private, individual right to own guns.  It is the the lying NRA in successful effort to stir up paranoids such as you who asserts the strawman/red herring lie that ther is a move to “ban all fireamrs”. .

“This is what I think our founding fathers were trying to achieve when they gave us the 2nd Amendment Right to keep and bear arms.”

Yet another NRA dupe.  This is the first draft of the Second Amendment, as written by James Madison:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

That latter clause is obviously about the right to N-O-T bear arms—as in “conscientious objection”.  It is the _ONLY_ “individual right” debated as concerns the Second Amendment.  That “right” being voted down, the Second Amendment has nothing whatever to do with “individual” anything.

Who would know better than those who DEBATED AND WROTE the Second Amendment what they intended by it?  NO ONE.  Those debates, as legislative history, are legal authority—which the NRA is not.  And those debates are readily available from such as Amazon: _Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress_ (Johns Hopkins, 1991), Ed. by Helen E. Veit, et al.

Educate yourself to the legal authority.  Or continue to be an intellectually dishinest, irresponsible dupe of the anti-Constitutional NRA.

“The one thing I am more concerned with at this time, that we should make sure there are some that retain their responsible gun ownership, is the latter part of the 2nd Amendment. “To protect our country from a tyranical government.”

It is _irresponsible_ to lie, fool—especially against the rule of law.  The Second Amendment as ratified reads in full:

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

The intellectually honest, responsible citizen knows that the term “people” is PLURAL.

“We already have more than enough “gun laws”,”

But not enough yet to prevent Cho from LEGALLY getting his guns.

In view of the fact that you are both illiterate in law, and a liar, how wouold you know anything as fact beyond the NRA lies you regurgitate?

“So, E.J. Dionne, who is the real “Stupid Ones?””

Obviously, as you abundantly show, _YOU_.  On top of which you’re a most-obvious LIAR.

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Zuade Kaufman, Publisher   Robert Scheer, Editor-in-Chief
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook