The Assault Weapons Ban is a joke anyway.  Anybody who thinks that this law has done anything (other than raise the price and cachet of so-called "pre ban weapons") is whistling Dixie.

Six people in Florida were just murdered with Aluminum baseball bats.  Four others in LA.  We gonna ban them too?  Five hundred thousand Rwandans were murdered with machetes.  Time for a machete ban.

Guns are like water.  If a criminal wants to get one he/she will.  And if a homeowner is going to shoot his wife, a good old revolver will do if he can't get an Uzi.  In my home county, murder rates (most often done with guns) have steadily increased over the past 10 years in spite of the ban.

The typical gun crime is performed with a simple revolver-style pistol or semiauto pistol.  Revlvers are not affected at all by the ban, and semiauto pistols are rarely affected (you can still have a 10-shot magazine, plenty for general mayhem).

There were gun laws that made the Columbine Massacre illegal too.  But that did not stop the determined two kiddies from getting their hands on the weapons ILLEGALLY.


By the way, GWBush... are Street Sweeper shotguns part of the Assault Weapons Ban, or was that some other law?  ???

By the way, GWBush... are Street Sweeper shotguns part of the Assault Weapons Ban, or was that some other law?  ???


Now I am not 100% sure, but I THINK those were banned in 1933 because they quote: ''did not provide for the common defense.''  Also banned in that 1933 law was selling guns to anyone under 18, anyone who was/is a convicted felon, and anyone who is classified as mentally insane/retarded.  But again i'm not entirely sure.

The Assault Weapons Ban is a joke anyway.  Anybody who thinks that this law has done anything (other than raise the price and cachet of so-called "pre ban weapons") is whistling Dixie.

Six people in Florida were just murdered with Aluminum baseball bats.  Four others in LA.  We gonna ban them too?  Five hundred thousand Rwandans were murdered with machetes.  Time for a machete ban.



Bathtubs were responsible for 300 deaths in America last year, we oughta ban them, too!

Bathtubs were responsible for 300 deaths in America last year, we oughta ban them, too!


You missed the point, so many things are used in murder, you can't ban every blunt object or sharp stabbing item.  Also 6% of all murders in the U.S. are done with personal weapons (fists, hands, etc.) you cannot possibly stop those murders!

You missed the point, so many things are used in murder, you can't ban every blunt object or sharp stabbing item.  Also 6% of all murders in the U.S. are done with personal weapons (fists, hands, etc.) you cannot possibly stop those murders!

Because we can't stop some murders, that means we shouldn't take steps to stop the murders we can?  I'm not talking 2nd Amendment here, I'm talking logic.

Bathtubs were responsible for 300 deaths in America last year, we oughta ban them, too!

Unnecessary bull-bars on the front of SUVs cause dozens of deaths a year... come to think of it, even *driving* the things causes hundreds (or even thousands - depends how you want to interpret the stats) of deaths a year...

The one thing I find vaguely ironic (again from looking at the overall statistics) is that by owning a gun you are making yourself and those around you much more vulnerable - honestly, you are far and away safer without the weapon, whatever gut instinct tells you.  And what kind of microcephalic throwback really wants to own his (or her... but I guess there ain't that many of them) own an assault rifle anyway?

Because we can't stop some murders, that means we shouldn't take steps to stop the murders we can?  I'm not talking 2nd Amendment here, I'm talking logic.


But it WONT stop the murders.  Lets assume (quite naively) that the Assault Weapons Ban stops somebody who wants an AW from getting one to shoot his boss.

No problem.  He'll just buy a pistol and do it that way.

The "AWB" is a red herring to get one step closer to banning guns altogether.  So a "boogie man" such as the "Assault Weapon" is created so that we can ban some guns.  The latest "boogie man" is that politicians are trying to ban the .50 Caliber Rifle (the so-called "Sniper Weapon"), even though there have been almost zero crimes commited with them (I think it is two shootings involving .50's).

Then the .50 Caliber pistols are out there.  Some politicians call them "Man Killers".  Hey, a .22 can be a "Man Killer" too.  it is all about hype and feeding public hysteria.

Remember back in the 70's everyone complained about the "Saturday Night Special"?

President Kennedy was shot with an ordinary rifle.  President Ford was (unsuccessfully) assaulted twice, with ordinary pistols.  President Reagan was shot with a revolver.  Press Secretary Brady, whose wife is big on the AWB, was shot with that same revolver.

President Kennedy was shot with an ordinary rifle.

er... was he? ;)

I just want to know why anyone would want to own an assault rifle anyway. 

I just want to know why anyone would want to own an assault rifle anyway. 


Depends what you want to call an "Assault Rifle".

For the purposes of the Assault Weapons Ban, an AK-47 is an assault rifle and is banned.  However, a Colt AR-15, which is basically a semiauto civilian version of an M-16 is okey dokey.  And you can still buy "pre ban" huge clips for the AR-15.

M-1 garand rifles were the mainstay of WW2 ground assaults.  Are they assault rifles?

But back to your question as to "why anyone would want to own an assault rifle anyway".  I don't know.  Why would anyone want to own a Pontiac Aztec?  Why would anyone want to own an "OJ Simpson Knife"?

Assult weapons are made for one purpose and one purpose only-FOR KILLING PEOPLE! A rifle is used to hunting, skeet shooting etc. There is only one thing you can use an assult weapon for. If you shot a deer with an assult weapon, there would be no meat left to eat. I don't see the logic in having these weapons around.



Cat

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.  I'm a liberal who's never fired a gun in his life, and I still believe that.  If we want to prevent murderous impulses in the population, we need a massive social overhaul in this country.  Right now the highest value in this country is greed with a little Jesus thrown in there.  The greed's gotta go.  You simply cannot have a free and peaceful country when you have tens of millions of desperate citizens in both urban and rural areas.

Now, not every murder committed with a handgun would be committed with another instrument if the handgun wasn't available.  Guns are a means for quick and impulsive slaying.  Guns are also the means of thousands of accidental deaths every year.

FEWER GUNS AND MORE HOPE = LESS MURDER

Perhaps Americans don't really hold the reduction of gun deaths as a high priority. 

If the 2nd Amendment allows you to have an assault rifle, why stop there?  Isn't it an infringement on the right to bear arms for the government to ban machine guns.  What about artillery?

I say "people kill people" because I don't believe banning guns will solve our homicide problem or address the social pathologies that cause it.  If gun control will bring a reduction in the sheer number of deaths, then it's worthwhile.  If gun control is aganst the 2nd Amendment, then we may need to update the Constitution.  If the people and their government do not support a 2nd Amendment revision or repeal, nor the necessary social reforms, then we are stuck with a very high homicide rate.

I really do want to mount an anti-tank cannon on the top of my car.  Then let somebody cut me off, or flip me the bird, or give me a dirty look!!!

Maybe its me, but a AK-47 style semi-automatic rifle seems a far cry from an anti-tank rocket launcher.  Anyone else remember that bank robbery in California a few years back where two crooks had FULLY-automatic AK-47's or something close to it fully loaded with 30 round clips and armor-cutter bullets (the liberals will nickname this a cop killer bullet to fool people ignorant of guns) and robbed a bank and shot at police with them?  That was during this ban, it shows that if a perp wants these kind of guns badly enough they will get them.  As MaxwellSmart himself said crooks don't want to buy guns legally, it leaves a paper-trail.

--Who came up with ASSULT rifle anyway, a liberal yet again trying to trick people ignorant of guns into being scared of them?

I really do want to mount an anti-tank cannon on the top of my car. Then let somebody cut me off, or flip me the bird, or give me a dirty look!!!


That could be fun...especially those people doing 10 miles under the speed limit in the left lane. ;)

Maybe its me, but a AK-47 style semi-automatic rifle seems a far cry from an anti-tank rocket launcher.  Anyone else remember that bank robbery in California a few years back where two crooks had FULLY-automatic AK-47's or something close to it fully loaded with 30 round clips and armor-cutter bullets (the liberals will nickname this a cop killer bullet to fool people ignorant of guns) and robbed a bank and shot at police with them?  That was during this ban, it shows that if a perp wants these kind of guns badly enough they will get them.  As MaxwellSmart himself said crooks don't want to buy guns legally, it leaves a paper-trail.

--Who came up with ASSULT rifle anyway, a liberal yet again trying to trick people ignorant of guns into being scared of them?


30-round clips?

No way.  Those guys had the super cool  8) 175-round ammo drums.

The drums were perfectly legal, but the full-auto AK's probably werent.  Not that anyone who is setting out to commit an armed robbery, wearing full body armor, is going to let something like gun laws get in his way.

Note:  it is not illegal to own a fully-automatic weapon in the USA.  You just have to get a license for it after a background check and paying a $200 fee.

Assult weapons are made for one purpose and one purpose only-FOR KILLING PEOPLE! A rifle is used to hunting, skeet shooting etc. There is only one thing you can use an assult weapon for. If you shot a deer with an assult weapon, there would be no meat left to eat. I don't see the logic in having these weapons around.



Cat


It appears that you know very little about "assault" weapons.

A very popular "non-"assault" hunting rifle, the .30-06 is available in any number of hunting loads that are devastating in their power upon the target, in your example a deer.  There are any number of other non "assault" loads in very popular "big game" hunting calibers that carry devastating projectile energy. 

I would also much prefer taking a shot from an "assault" rifle than from a completely legal .10 gauge "goose gun" used for hunting geese.

On the other hand, "assault" weapons are semi-automatic or can be fired as single-shot weapons, and there are any number of mild (or wild) projectile loads that are used in them.

Here in Indiana, there is a shotgun deer season.  I can tell you that if I were a deer, I'd rather take an "assault rifle" load than a slug or a blast from a shotgun.  (Mind you, either way I'm dead, but the shotgun will leave me in quite a mess).  (Indiana does not have a rifle season because the land is too flat)

Speaking of shotguns...  I have a semiautomatic "Post ban" shotgun for shooting clay pigeons.  However, if I were to modify it by adding a pistol-gip stock to it, it would then be an illegal "assault weapon" under the AWB.  Does not make any difference to the deer I would hit whether I have a pistol grip or not.

It has already started...

Check out this link.  Somebody is already getting ready to market a 300-round ammo magazine for the Uzi Assault Pistol.


http://www.birdman.org/products/uzimag.htm

Somebody is already getting ready to market a 300-round ammo magazine for the Uzi Assault Pistol.

How much does a single round cost, then?  ISTM that you could burn money awful fast that way...

It appears that you know very little about "assault" weapons.

A very popular "non-"assault" hunting rifle, the .30-06 is available in any number of hunting loads that are devastating in their power upon the target, in your example a deer.  There are any number of other non "assault" loads in very popular "big game" hunting calibers that carry devastating projectile energy. 

I would also much prefer taking a shot from an "assault" rifle than from a completely legal .10 gauge "goose gun" used for hunting geese.

On the other hand, "assault" weapons are semi-automatic or can be fired as single-shot weapons, and there are any number of mild (or wild) projectile loads that are used in them.

Here in Indiana, there is a shotgun deer season.  I can tell you that if I were a deer, I'd rather take an "assault rifle" load than a slug or a blast from a shotgun.  (Mind you, either way I'm dead, but the shotgun will leave me in quite a mess).  (Indiana does not have a rifle season because the land is too flat)

Speaking of shotguns...  I have a semiautomatic "Post ban" shotgun for shooting clay pigeons.  However, if I were to modify it by adding a pistol-gip stock to it, it would then be an illegal "assault weapon" under the AWB.  Does not make any difference to the deer I would hit whether I have a pistol grip or not.



You are right that I don't know about assult weapons-or weapons at all. And I really don't want to know. I have shot an m-16 when I was in the military but that is about it. But, I understand that there some weapons used in hunting-which is very big in my state (and I do like venison). I just don't see the need for the weapons that have been banned for the last 10 years. My question is, are they really necessary? Do you really need an uzi?



Cat

30-round clips?

No way.  Those guys had the super cool  8) 175-round ammo drums.



I stand corrected.

30-round clips?

No way. Those guys had the super cool 8) 175-round ammo drums.





How much does a single round cost, then?  ISTM that you could burn money awful fast that way...


Thus the need to rob banks.  :P  ;D

... I just don't see the need for the weapons that have been banned for the last 10 years. My question is, are they really necessary? Do you really need an uzi?

Cat


But those weapons have not been "banned" per se.  The only weapons "banned" were those designated as "assault" weapons manufactured after a certain date in 1994 (maybe 1996?).

So if you read the classified ads or go to gunbroker.com, there are BOATLOADS of "pre ban" firearms for sale or resale.

I can go out right now and buy a pre-ban AK-47 with the 175-round drum (preferred by Hollywood Shootout perps Phillips and  Martasaurano ) and be perfectly legal.  All the AWB did was make it more expensive that's all.

M-1 garand rifles were the mainstay of WW2 ground assaults.  Are they assault rifles?


Actually, no...  it is NOT an assault rifle.

The problem with the "Assault Rifle Ban" is that it largely concentrates on cosmetic traits.  If a weapon LOOKS like an assault rifle, it is illegal.

Here is what makes a weapon an "Assault Rifle".  It must have 2 or more of these items to qualify:

(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) a bayonet mount;
(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
(v) a grenade launcher.

Now an M-1 has a bayonet lug.  But because it does not have a flash suppressor, pistol grip or a folding stock, it does NOT qualify.

Now I had a rifle that DID qualify.  I had a Ruger 10-22.  That is a .22 caliber rim-fire rifle.  It is very popular with target shooters, and a lot of options were available for it at one time.  It was semi-automatic, and fired from a 10 round rotary magazine.

I made some cosmetic changes when I owned it.  Since I was in the Marines, I used it to practice my marksmanship in my off-duty hours.  I added a flash-suppressor so when I fired in the prone position, less dirt was kicked up into my face.  I also replaced the standard wood stock with a plastic folding stock with a pistol grip.  This was so it was closer to the "feel" of an M-16, the weapon I used at work.  

These 2 changes were cosmetic only.  It did not fire any faster then it did when it was sold.  It did not fire any more accurately, nor was it any more deadly.  But because of this, it was classified as an "Assault Rifle".

THIS is why this law is a failure, and needs to be removed.  It is purely driven by the LOOK of a weapon.  And besides, if it in an "assault rifle", why worry about a bayonet mount?  Are we worried about people being shot or stabbed?  As far as I can remember, I have never heard of a case in the US of somebody being stabbed by a person wielding an assault rifle.  And the "Flash Supressor" is designed to keep dirt from being kicked up when fired prone, and to reduce the light from a fired shot.  It is *NOT* a "Silencer".

Instead, let's put teeth into laws for people that USE weapons illegally.  And this goes for any weapons, not just firearms.

So if you read the classified ads or go to gunbroker.com, there are BOATLOADS of "pre ban" firearms for sale or resale.

I can go out right now and buy a pre-ban AK-47 with the 175-round drum (preferred by Hollywood Shootout perps Phillips and  Martasaurano ) and be perfectly legal.  All the AWB did was make it more expensive that's all.


Well, you MAY be able to buy them, depending on where you live.

Some states (California, New York) have even more strict laws.

Add that, you have to follow the ATF rules to buy a weapon there.  Before you can buy a weaon there, you have to find a local Licensed Dealer who is willing to act as a middle-man for the purchase.  YOu also have to follow the waiting period and registration rules before you can get it.

But those weapons have not been "banned" per se.  The only weapons "banned" were those designated as "assault" weapons manufactured after a certain date in 1994 (maybe 1996?).

So if you read the classified ads or go to gunbroker.com, there are BOATLOADS of "pre ban" firearms for sale or resale.

I can go out right now and buy a pre-ban AK-47 with the 175-round drum (preferred by Hollywood Shootout perps Phillips and  Martasaurano ) and be perfectly legal.  All the AWB did was make it more expensive that's all.




But, you didn't answer my question. Why do you need one of these?




Cat

But, you didn't answer my question. Why do you need one of these?

Cat


Self defense.  Anybody who wants to break into my house is going down, 'cause the skies will be raining lead upon their perforated corpses.  :P

I mean, right now I have a semiauto pistol, a pistol-gripped pump .12 gauge, and a semiauto military .12 gauge.  But you never know when the day comes that you'll have to defend the country from within.  And for that, ya need more than my meager arsenal.

Also for target shooting, and shooting varmints and what-not.

Is anyone in here, by chance, employed by the U.S. Postal Service??? ;D ;D ;D

Self defense.  Anybody who wants to break into my house is going down, 'cause the skies will be raining lead upon their perforated corpses.   :P

I mean, right now I have a semiauto pistol, a pistol-gripped pump .12 gauge, and a semiauto military .12 gauge.  But you never know when the day comes that you'll have to defend the country from within.  And for that, ya need more than my meager arsenal.

Also for target shooting, and shooting varmints and what-not.


True, like in the Florida case more then one person can break into your house, it helps to have a gun that can fire more then once before the reloading process. 

Cat no one really needs a gun (it is a want), but then again, no one really needs a television either.

Cat no one really needs a gun (it is a want), but then again, no one really needs a television either.


Well, that is almost true.

Having been in the Military, I can affirm that having one if you are Military, Security, or Law Enforcement is a good idea.  Since all 3 almost never provide enough time to practice useing them, the more practice you get in your own time the better.  After all, it is hard to be truely effective with a tool that you only practice with once a year.

Also, for people who live in rural areas, hunting is often a means of putting food on the table.  It is also a way to control overpopulation of certain animals like deer.  In farming areas, "varmit hunting" is still done in order to control rabbit and ground squirrel populations.

Then in other areas, they are needed to protect people from wild animals.  Wolves, bears, mountain lions, coyotes, rattle snakes, and bobcats are all known to attack people.  I do not hunt myself, but when I go backpacking in remote wilderness areas, I bring along a gun.  I do this to protect myself against both 4 legged and 2 legged preditors.  More then once I had to leave an area when I noticed that humans were camping in the area.

And if you think that is paranoid of me, a lot of marijuanna is grown that way.  And the "growers" are very protective of their crops.  The last thing I want is to face 5 angry pot growers just because I accidentially stumbled across their fields.

And if you think that is paranoid of me, a lot of marijuanna is grown that way.  And the "growers" are very protective of their crops.  The last thing I want is to face 5 angry pot growers just because I accidentially stumbled across their fields.

Well, if they'd legalize pot, their precious crops would be worth less than timothy hay!  In the meantime, the pot growers have to be vigilante or punk kids will sneak in and steal from them.  Mind you, some of the biggest pot growers are just plain old farmers, the kind of guys that couldn't stand the hippies.  They grow pot because they don't stand a chance against corporate mega-farms for growing  wheat or rice.

Well, that is almost true.

Having been in the Military, I can affirm that having one if you are Military, Security, or Law Enforcement is a good idea.  Since all 3 almost never provide enough time to practice useing them, the more practice you get in your own time the better.  After all, it is hard to be truely effective with a tool that you only practice with once a year.


Not only that, Mushroom, but many of the important weapons developments that we see in the military were actually developed as part of the civilian firearms business.

The most recent example of this is the .50 caliber anti-materiel weapon.  The "light fifty" was refined in the 1980's by civilian sportsmen who liked to do long-range target competitions (by long range I mean 1000-yard contests).

As it turns out, long-range capability is kind of nice to have in desert warfare.  So when Operation Desert Storm was being planned, the Marine Corps quickly ordered a couple-hundred Barrett M82A1 rifles from Barrett Industries.  Canadian manufacturer MacMillan has also contributed to civilian development (and later military deployment) of the "light .50".  Two-man Fifty caliber weapons teams are now de rigeur for tactical ground operations.

All thanks to civilian sportsmen who thought it would be cool to shoot at targets 3000 feet away.

:)

Not only that, Mushroom, but many of the important weapons developments that we see in the military were actually developed as part of the civilian firearms business.

The most recent example of this is the .50 caliber anti-materiel weapon.  The "light fifty" was refined in the 1980's by civilian sportsmen who liked to do long-range target competitions (by long range I mean 1000-yard contests).

As it turns out, long-range capability is kind of nice to have in desert warfare.  So when Operation Desert Storm was being planned, the Marine Corps quickly ordered a couple-hundred Barrett M82A1 rifles from Barrett Industries.  Canadian manufacturer MacMillan has also contributed to civilian development (and later military deployment) of the "light .50".  Two-man Fifty caliber weapons teams are now de rigeur for tactical ground operations.

All thanks to civilian sportsmen who thought it would be cool to shoot at targets 3000 feet away.

:)

If only the DC snipers had such firearms!  Think of how much longer they could have gone undetected if the could kill from so far away witnesses couldn't even observe a suspicious car parked anywhere!

If only the DC snipers had such firearms!  Think of how much longer they could have gone undetected if the could kill from so far away witnesses couldn't even observe a suspicious car parked anywhere!


They did do that.

The DC snipers are a good case of how effective military training is.  The fact that they could hide so effictively and were able to conceal themselves as long as they did is actually a good show of how well the Army trained the leader.

If not for Tim McVey forgetting to put on his license plate after he left the scene, Oaklahoma City might not have been solved for years, if ever.

The DC Snipers could just have easily been useing firearms in use 200 years ago.  They were doing single-shot long range kills.  None of their targets involved the short range and rapid fire that most people associate with "assault rifles".

They did do that.

The DC snipers are a good case of how effective military training is.  The fact that they could hide so effictively and were able to conceal themselves as long as they did is actually a good show of how well the Army trained the leader.

If not for Tim McVey forgetting to put on his license plate after he left the scene, Oaklahoma City might not have been solved for years, if ever.

The DC Snipers could just have easily been useing firearms in use 200 years ago.  They were doing single-shot long range kills.  None of their targets involved the short range and rapid fire that most people associate with "assault rifles".
The only reason that the DC snipers got caught was because they got cocky. If they hadn't started sending letters to the police to taunt them, they might very well still be out there.

The only reason that the DC snipers got caught was because they got cocky. If they hadn't started sending letters to the police to taunt them, they might very well still be out there.


The DC Snipers are a great example of mass murderers who WANT to be caught.

Their biggest mistake was in hinting that they did a murder in Alabama.  This lead them to balistics evidence that showed that they were not native to DC, but from outside the area.  This let the FBI and other agencies widen their search, and find the connections on the other side of the country.  The finding of the tree stump they used as target practice was the final link.

Andrew Cunanan, Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, Andrei Chikatilo, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Jack The Ripper.  They all behaved in ways that would eventually ensure they would be caught.  Some had better luck then others, but all were doing mistakes that basically begged that they wanted to be caught.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A13667-2002Oct24&notFound=true

To "bear arms" was a military term in 1789, not one applied to individual gun ownership.  "Militia" has a military meaning too.

I'm not totally convinced either way, but some gun control advocates have compelling arguments as to why the 2nd Amendment provides a "collective" not an "individual" right to bear arms.

To "bear arms" was a military term in 1789, not one applied to individual gun ownership.  "Militia" has a military meaning too.

I'm not totally convinced either way, but some gun control advocates have compelling arguments as to why the 2nd Amendment provides a "collective" not an "individual" right to bear arms.


Of course, the "Citizen Soldier" is also a LARGE part of the wording of the 2nd Ammendment.

This is the "Minute Man" of the Revolutionary War.  The common citizens, who in time of need banded together into small fighting forces.

I strongly believe in the "Intent Of The Law" when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms REMAINING in the hands of the individual.  The following is just a small sample of the writings and speaches of the framers of the Constitution:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." James Madison

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." George Mason

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves... and include all men capable of bearing arms." Richard Henry Lee

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." Richard Henery Lee

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." Tench Cox

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside... Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived the use of them..." Thomas Paine

"A free people ought to be armed." George Washington

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." Patrick Henry

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyrany in government." Thomas Jefferson

From just this small sampling, it appears obvious that the INTENT of the "Founding Fathers" is that ALL people have the right to have private ownership of firearms.  When you read both the Federalist Papers, and the Anti-Federalist Papers, it is obvious that BOTH sides endorsed private ownership of firearms.  In fact, it was so obvious to some of them that they questioned that it should even be kept in the Constitution.

I remember reading one of the more crude private letters once.  I wish I remember who said it, but the complaint was in some of the basics included in the "Bill Of Rights".  The gist of it went something like "The right to do everything.  I think the next right should be 'The Right To Wipe Your Arse'."

One thing I always hate is when people will try to pick-apart the Constitution, and try to use it to justify their own views.  The First Ammendment deals with the establishment of a "National Religion", like the Anglican Church of England, and the Roman Catholic Church of Spain and Italy.  It was never the intent to make an "Athiestic" Government.

Since the Ammendments were largely placed in the order of importance that they were viewed at the time, that alone is a telling arguement.  The first deals with Free Speech, Religion, Free Press, and the addressing of grievances.

The Second deals with private ownership of firearms.  Something that the Founding Fathers thought was second of importance, next to Religion, Speech, and The Press.

The Third dealt with the quartering of troops.  Now this is no longer an issue, but in the 1770's, this was a major grievance.  The people of Boston were required to quarter Brittish Troops in their private houses, and to feed them at their own expense.  This was just one of the "Intolerable Acts".

The list goes down for 7 more, dealing with a great many more issues.  But the first 3 deal with topics which directly lead to the cause of the Revolution itself.  One of the touchstones of the Revolution itself and the First Continental Congress were the "Intolerable Acts".  The closure of the Port of Boston, the Quartering of troops in private houses, and the attempted seizure of private arms in the Lexington-Concord area were the final straws.

The more I read of history, the more sure I am that the INTENT was to keep firearms in the hands of individuals.

To "bear arms" was a military term in 1789, not one applied to individual gun ownership.  "Militia" has a military meaning too.

I'm not totally convinced either way, but some gun control advocates have compelling arguments as to why the 2nd Amendment provides a "collective" not an "individual" right to bear arms.


Do you really think that back in 1789, somebody thought that we needed a Constitutional Amendment to allow the GOVERNMENT to keep and bear arms?  The whole "this is a collective right" argument is ridiculous.

If only the DC snipers had such firearms!  Think of how much longer they could have gone undetected if the could kill from so far away witnesses couldn't even observe a suspicious car parked anywhere!


Have you ever seen or heard a .50 caliber rifle being fired?  Those things sound like a friggin' cannon.  In fact, they have a "muzzle brake" on the barrel, just like most tank artillery pieces do, to reduce the massive recoil.  Make an OBSCENE amount of sound when they go off.  And they throw off a flume of smoke like you would not believe.

In an urban sniper setting, operating out of a car, a .50 BMG would be thoroughly impractical.

Now, in an open war zone with lots of noise, smoke, etc, they're great and effective.  But in urban America, that gun is going to announce its presence loud and clear.

I was just saying...

The gun ownership advocates have yet to convince me 100%, and the gun control advocates have yet to convince me 100% either.  I lean more toward gun ownership as an individual right under the Second Amendment.  However, I do not deify our Founding Fathers nor our Constitution.  The Constitution is an imperfect document written by imperfect men.
What made sense in 1789 may not make sense in 2004.

You want to tell me the Constitution says pictures of naked ladies are bad and automatic weapons are good, I'm going to say this is 2004, and I'm not with you there.  You want to tell me it's Constitional for Bush to allocate federal funds to religious groups that practice discrimination, I'm going to tell you where to go.

If you want to be "strict constructionalist" about a document from 1789, fine with me.  You just go out there into the woods, grow your own food, spin your own clothing, and swear off electricity and plumbing.  That was the elegant agrarian society at the dawn of the U.S.A.  We've added a few more people and a few more complications to our country over the past 215 years.

I was just saying...

The gun ownership advocates have yet to convince me 100%, and the gun control advocates have yet to convince me 100% either.  I lean more toward gun ownership as an individual right under the Second Amendment.  However, I do not deify our Founding Fathers nor our Constitution.  The Constitution is an imperfect document written by imperfect men.
What made sense in 1789 may not make sense in 2004.

You want to tell me the Constitution says pictures of naked ladies are bad and automatic weapons are good, I'm going to say this is 2004, and I'm not with you there.  You want to tell me it's Constitional for Bush to allocate federal funds to religious groups that practice discrimination, I'm going to tell you where to go.

If you want to be "strict constructionalist" about a document from 1789, fine with me.  You just go out there into the woods, grow your own food, spin your own clothing, and swear off electricity and plumbing.  That was the elegant agrarian society at the dawn of the U.S.A.  We've added a few more people and a few more complications to our country over the past 215 years.


Nudie Pix

Hey, I have no problems with pictures of naked ladies (as long as they are not my mother).  :-Machine Guns

Machine guns?  How are they any different from the "ultimate hand weapon" from ANY era?  The flintlock was a DEVASTATING advance over the Match lock.  Muzzle-loaded weapons with percussion caps were a DEVASTATING advance over the Flint Lock.  Then the rear-loading complete cartridge.  Then the bottleneck cartridge.  Then the Revolver.  Then the Lever action rifle.  Then Semiauto.  And so on.

At the time of 1789, the "ultimate" weapon was probably the Pennsylvania Rifle, the weapon that won the Revolution.


Funds to Religious Groups

This is not a "Bush phenomenon".  For DECADES, any number of faith-based programs have gotten government funds to provide services that do not discriminate by religion.  The Catholic Charities, the Jewish Healtcare Foundation (I think), countless Catholic Hospitals, and Lutheran agencies come to mind that provide human services with government funding.  And they do not discriminate by faith, that's part of the deal.

You want to tell me the Constitution says pictures of naked ladies are bad and automatic weapons are good, I'm going to say this is 2004, and I'm not with you there.


Actually, I have no problems with pictures of naked ladies at all.  And I see nothing saying anything even remotely like that in the Constitution.

However, if a state or municipality decides it is illegal there, the Constitution does support that right.  And I am *AGAINST* the private ownership of automatic weapons.

Getting off-topic for a minute I thought I would show this weeks job approval ratings for president Bush.  Some look really good, while others look awful, you be the judge:

Approve: 51%  Gallup  08/11/04
Approve: 46%  Pew  08/10/04
Approve: 47%  Democracy Corps  08/05/04
Approve: 50%  Time  08/05/04
Approve: 43%  IBD - TIPP  08/05/04 
Approve: 51%  LA Times  08/11/04
Approve: 44%  Fox News  08/05/04

Actually, I have no problems with pictures of naked ladies at all.  And I see nothing saying anything even remotely like that in the Constitution.

However, if a state or municipality decides it is illegal there, the Constitution does support that right.  And I am *AGAINST* the private ownership of automatic weapons.

Whereas LyricBoy finds little difference between a machine gun and other automatic weapons, you are against the private ownership of automatic weapons.  Yet, you both "agree" on the Second Amendment.  Very few argue the Second Amendment is absolute.  I don't know of anyone who seriously believes private citizens ought to be allowed anti-tank weapons or nukes.  The question becomes where to draw the line.  Where would the Framers draw the line, if they could see today's weapns?  Where should we draw the line?

Getting off-topic for a minute I thought I would show this weeks job approval ratings for president Bush.  Some look really good, while others look awful, you be the judge:

Approve: 51%  Gallup  08/11/04
Approve: 46%  Pew  08/10/04
Approve: 47%  Democracy Corps  08/05/04
Approve: 50%  Time  08/05/04
Approve: 43%  IBD - TIPP  08/05/04 
Approve: 51%  LA Times  08/11/04
Approve: 44%  Fox News  08/05/04

Those numbers mean nothing to me.  Well, next to nothing.

Because we can't stop some murders, that means we shouldn't take steps to stop the murders we can?  I'm not talking 2nd Amendment here, I'm talking logic.
Okay....My son was murdered at a fast food chain restaraunt...IF they'd have had a security guard around maybe he would still be here today....as for the killer....he was a soldier at Fort Carson who was involved in drugs with two young punks. Had he not had a gun he still would've been able to aquire one anyway....the guns will NOT go away....so we need to protect ourselves better.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=134-07222004

funny... Bush originally supported the ban on assault weapons... wonder why he's blocking it now...

as the neocons put it... flippity-flop

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=134-07222004

funny... Bush originally supported the ban on assault weapons... wonder why he's blocking it now...

as the neocons put it... flippity-flop


Chucky,

I believe what Bush said back then was "If the Congress passes the extension/renewal, I will sign it into law."  Walked a very fine line with that statement, that's for sure.

As far as I know, he did not say that he would "spearhead" it through the Congress.  If anyone can find a link where he essentially says that he would "champion the cause", please post it.

LB

Okay....My son was murdered at a fast food chain restaraunt...IF they'd have had a security guard around maybe he would still be here today....as for the killer....he was a soldier at Fort Carson who was involved in drugs with two young punks. Had he not had a gun he still would've been able to aquire one anyway....the guns will NOT go away....so we need to protect ourselves better.

I guess the lesson from your personal tragedy is carry a gun yourself, and be the fastest draw.

look what i found.

yeah, thank god we got rid of that assault weapons ban, eh?

look what i found.

yeah, thank god we got rid of that assault weapons ban, eh?

It is better that 32 innocent people die than one American citizen be denied his right to bear arms. 
The rocks come with the farm, y'know!
::)

If anything is true, it is that human intellect knows no bounds when it comes to the ability to kill each other.  And it all started when Bokto picked up a rock or stick, and realized "Hey, I can kill Ogg with this faster then with my bare hands."

Yes, murder is a tragedy.  But look at some of the worst cases, and there were really not any guns used at all.  Poison (Jonestown), cars, knives, even fual oil and cow manure (Oaklahoma City) have been used to kill huge numbers of people at one time.  Not to mention other things like fire, and riots.

I do not like the idea of "Assault Rifles" myself.  But the problem with the ban is that it really is arbitrary.  Some group got together, and decided on what an Assault Rifle looks like.  This means that the AK-47 is illegal, while the M-1 (which matches it in every way but appearance) is fully legal.  And cosmetic changes to a Ruger 10-22 will make a common "Backyard Plinnker" gun into a dreaded "Assault Rifle".

And when it comes right down to it, most gun crimes are not done with these guns in the first place.  It is done with pistols.  Easy to conceal, and simple to use.

To me, the bigger issue is this:  Why was Mr. Cho allowed to buy guns in the first place?  He had several incidents with both police and school officials.  School administrators considered him to be "potentially dangerous".  Even a psychologist he saw considered him to be a threat.  So why was this never made public record?  Why was this not caught during his mandatory "background check"?

Simple, because Virginia Tech did not want it to be Public Record.  All of the incidents were handled by school disciplinary hearings.  These are not legal forums, so there are no public records of the incidents.  The same with his mental evaluations.  Since they were done "in house", the results were never reported to State or Local officials.  And because they were not a matter for public record, there was no reason to deny his request to buy firearms.

Nationwide, Colleges and universities tend to suppress reporting of on-campus incidents like the stalking of Mr. Cho.  This is because they want their campus to appear "safe".  Hopefully this incident will be a wake-up call, and will spur colleges and universities to stop "hiding" people like Mr. Cho, and report them to law enforcement and mental health agencies.  If this had been done 2 years ago, Mr. Cho would not have been able to walk into a gun shop and buy 2 pistols.  He would have failed his background check, and been denied.

Of course, that would not have stopped him from lighting a fire in the dorm.  Or putting on a Ninja Suit and stabbing students at night in the quad.  What it all really comes down to was a seriously disturbed young man, with a desire to kill others.  And unless people like that get the help they need, they will find some way to kill.

So you're saying it's the college's fault, not the legislature, not law enforcement, not the gun dealer?  I mean, it might well be if the school concealed records for law enforcement.

I was not aware that large campuses could be that insular.  For instance, the UMass police have the same power as the state cops.  If somebody calls the cops on campus for any reason, it's going to go on public record.  There have been many incidences over the past 15 years with gun crimes and guns on campus, including students caught with firearms in their dorm rooms (a big no-no).  These incidences get published in the Amherst Bulletin, the Hampshire Gazette, and, during the academic year, the Daily Collegian. 

However, if a student tells a campus counselor some anti-social thoughts, it is the counselor's discretion to decide whether the person really is a danger to him/herself or others.  If counselors start blabbing to the cops every time a client says something like, "Oh, I'd just love to shoot that guy!," then clients will believe they cannot speak candidly, thus defeating the purpose of psychological counseling.  Yes, if the client says, "I'm packing a semi-automatic and I'm going to shoot Professor Jenkins, then I'm opening fire on the quad!," that is probable cause to noticy law enforcement.  It is a crime to threaten to commit murder.  "I would like to" and "I am going to" makes a big difference. 

If Virginia Tech concealed from police prosecutable offenses Cho committed prior to his rampage, I suppose they're liable.

And as I stated in another thread, short of detonating a bomb, there is no surer way to take so many lives so fast than with automatic firearms.  It is unreasonable to propose Cho could have stacked up such a body count rampaging with a machete, a baseball bat, or a flamethrower.  I suppose Cho could poison the cafeteria spaghetti sauce, but he'd have to know quite a bit about the properties of poisons, gain access to such poisons, and gain access to the spaghetti sauce.  Now, from what I remember of the UMass spaghetti sauce, it would probably neutralize potassium cyanide within a few minutes!

And as Tia pointed out about explosives, if you don't know what you're doing when you're building a bomb, you might earn the nickname Ol' Stumpy as sooner than you could blow others asunder. 

As much as pro-gun rights folks hate to admit it, those guns were Cho's best weapon by far!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/03/comeandgetsome.gif

Assult weapons are made for one purpose and one purpose only-FOR KILLING PEOPLE! A rifle is used to hunting, skeet shooting etc. There is only one thing you can use an assult weapon for. If you shot a deer with an assult weapon, there would be no meat left to eat. I don't see the logic in having these weapons around.



Cat


Possession of firearms, other than for hunting, is of highly questionable necessity.  The nations of the world, (virtually all the other nations), that do not make weapons so readily available, have far lower rates of violent firearms assaults.  The problem with America, the REAL problem, is a state of mind that glorifies violence. 
peace..Lee

Possession of firearms, other than for hunting, is of highly questionable necessity.  The nations of the world, (virtually all the other nations), that do not make weapons so readily available, have far lower rates of violent firearms assaults.  The problem with America, the REAL problem, is a state of mind that glorifies violence. 
peace..Lee


We glorify the triumph of Good over Evil, and sometimes that means getting our hair mussed!  There's a reason why Arnold Schwarzeneggar is governer of California and Norman Lear isn't!  Hasta la vista, baby!

Oh, wait a minute, is Tony Soprano a good guy or a bad guy?
???

So you're saying it's the college's fault, not the legislature, not law enforcement, not the gun dealer?  I mean, it might well be if the school concealed records for law enforcement.


In short, yes.  All colleges and universities (as well as both the military and most corporations) have an "Internal Disciplinary System", that is often used in events like Cho had in the past.  The idea is to keep things "in house", and to not involve law enforcement agencies.  And quite often, law enforcement will choose to drop minor charges, because it is hoped that the internal system will "take care of matters", and prevent a minor incident from affecting somebody later in life.

Now I am not saying that these should be discontinued.  A student that constantly calls his ex-girlfriend may be on the fringe of stalking her, or he may simply be wanting to get back together again.  And if it is the latter, having him officially labeled a "stalker" could be devistating for later attempts to get work.  But there should be some sort of oversight, to ensire that school (and other) administrative boards do not write off somebody who is potentially dangerous (like Cho).

These kinds of things tend to work for the most part.  Harassment reported to supervisors frequently results in the person being transferred, reprimanded, demoted, or even fired.  But if the harassment goes farther (as in attempted rape or a "hate crime), then it should be reported to law enforcement, and not handled "in house".

Cho had several psychological reviews.  And in all of them, he was diagnosed as having "anti-social behavior" and even "dangerous to himself and others".  However, he was never committed to a mental health facility, and these results were never reported to law enforcement.  This is because he was diagnosed by school doctors, who under "Doctor-Patient Confidentiality" were not required to report their findings.

Myself, I would like to see the larger problem of "Confidentiality" resolved.  Now I fully support that idea, unless somebody is potentially a threat to themselves or others.  At that time, law enforcement should be brought in, even institutionalizing the individual.  As a minimum, these individuals should be reported to the BATF, to prevent them from buying firearms in the future.

And I have seen this kind of thing first-hand in the past.  I had a friend I worked with years ago who was diagnosed as having "Borderline Schizophrenia".  He took medication for the problem, and most of the time he was perfectly functional and calm.  However, he also owned several guns.  Because he was being treated by a private doctor (and was never instatutionalized), this condition was unknown to BATF and California Law Enforcement Agencies.  Thankfully, as far as I know he has never hurt anybody.

Now remember, I am a supporter of registration and background checks for firearms.  But this incident has shown a large chink in the system, and it needs to be fixed.  If Mr. Cho had not been simply "swept under the rug" during his earlier stalking incidents (and mental health evaluations), he would never have been able to buy the guns he used.  The system can't work if the privacy of potentially dangerous individuals are valued more then their potential victims.


Possession of firearms, other than for hunting, is of highly questionable necessity.  The nations of the world, (virtually all the other nations), that do not make weapons so readily available, have far lower rates of violent firearms assaults.  The problem with America, the REAL problem, is a state of mind that glorifies violence. 
peace..Lee


True, somewhat.  Firearms are illegal in Russia, but that does not stop criminals in Russia from having AK-47s and Makarov Pistols.  Guns are illegal in Washington DC, New York, and New Jersey.  But that does not keep them out of the hands of criminals.  And when you really think about it, those people are criminals in the first place, so what do they care about following the law?

And if all guns dissapeared tomorrow, it will not prevent people from killing each other.  Baseball bats, hockey sticks, knives, fire, arrows, home-made bombs, cars, poison, even bare hands are still used to kill people.  In 1995 168 people were killed by a bomb made from manure and diesel fuel.  In the 1927 Bath School Bombing, a derranged man killed himself and 44 others (39 were students) with a series of bombs.  And in 2001, 58 students in Kenya were killed in an arson fire.

In fact, school arsons are almost an epidemic.  There were a total of 1,402 arson related school fires in the UK in 2003.  That is an average of almost 4 per day!  School shootings may be more "glamerous", but arson probably kills more students then guns.  Just within the last few months there were several instances of arson deaths on college campuses.  And banning matches and lighters will do nothing to stop that from happening.

Heck, just a few weeks ago an arson fire killed 3 people in Texas.  The person who started it simply did not want her boss to find out that she had not completed an assignment!

http://www.wlos.com/template/inews_wire/wires.national/2011517f-www.wlos.com.shtml

Possession of firearms, other than for hunting, is of highly questionable necessity.  The nations of the world, (virtually all the other nations), that do not make weapons so readily available, have far lower rates of violent firearms assaults.  The problem with America, the REAL problem, is a state of mind that glorifies violence. 
peace..Lee



I couldn't agree with you more. If you look at the t.v. shows/movies in this country, they do glorify violence. Most of them, there is usually a gun fight. Personally, I rarely watch shows/movies that fall into that catogary-but that is me.

What really bothers me is the argument that some people have that criminals will get their hands on guns anyway so we must arm ourselves to the teeth to protect ourselves. I do not argue the fact that criminals will get their hands on guns or for someone to protect themselves or their family. But, where do most of the criminals get their guns? Some of them steal them from law-abiding citizans who want to protect themselves from these criminals. Yeah, it is a Catch-22 situation.

I have said this before and I will say it again, I am not for gun prohibition but I am for gun CONTROL! We could start by going after gun manufactorers. I think there should be a limit on how many guns are manufactored per year and if someone wants to own one, they have to jump through so many hoops before they purchase one. Not only having a background check and a waiting period, maybe they should be submitted to a psychological exam and appear before a judge stating why they want to purchase a gun before they are given the right to.

A few years ago, I went to a yard sale with a friend. They were selling guns. I'm sure they wouldn't have done a background check on someone who wanted to buy their guns. It was just plain scary.



Cat

Possession of firearms, other than for hunting, is of highly questionable necessity.  The nations of the world, (virtually all the other nations), that do not make weapons so readily available, have far lower rates of violent firearms assaults.  The problem with America, the REAL problem, is a state of mind that glorifies violence. 
peace..Lee


When sex is evil and murder is good.

When sex is evil and murder is good.

See, pro-wrestling is totally homoerotic.  It doesn't take a dirty mind to figure that out!  They get away with showing it to the youngins because it's done under the guise of violence to mask its sexuality.  You've got all these bubba redneck fathers happy to let Junior watch two greased-up musclemen in speed-o's groping eachother on a mat, but 0.5 seconds of Janet Jackson's left boob and it's, "What are you degenerates tryin' ta do, curr-upt m'boy?"
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/06/mad.gif
Then dad goes upstairs and googles "Ron Jeremy."
:D


Now I fully support that idea, unless somebody is potentially a threat to themselves or others.

Wehell...potentially is a mighty broad brush!  Jeffrey Dahmer, Aileen Wuornos, the machete-wielding Tutsi, the bomb-toting terrorist, and you and me are all made up of the same stuff.  All it takes is a glitch in the wiring or just the right amount of political pressure and you'd be surprised how fast the monster emerges from within!

Boy, I tell you what, I've had some pretty disturbing thoughts and I'm sure grateful the checkpoints called rationality and morality remain firmly intact!

There but for the grace of god Cho I!

And you keep talking about bombs and bats.  Cho used automic firearms to murder 32 people and there ain't no way to tiptoe around that fact!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/14/nono.gif

See, pro-wrestling is totally homoerotic.  It doesn't take a dirty mind to figure that out!  They get away with showing it to the youngins because it's done under the guise of violence to mask its sexuality.  You've got all these bubba redneck fathers happy to let Junior watch two greased-up musclemen in speed-o's groping eachother on a mat, but 0.5 seconds of Janet Jackson's left boob and it's, "What are you degenerates tryin' ta do, curr-upt m'boy?"
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/06/mad.gif
Then dad goes upstairs and googles "Ron Jeremy."
:D

Wehell...potentially is a mighty broad brush!  Jeffrey Dahmer, Aileen Wuornos, the machete-wielding Tutsi, the bomb-toting terrorist, and you and me are all made up of the same stuff.  All it takes is a glitch in the wiring or just the right amount of political pressure and you'd be surprised how fast the monster emerges from within!

Boy, I tell you what, I've had some pretty disturbing thoughts and I'm sure grateful the checkpoints called rationality and morality remain firmly intact!

There but for the grace of god Cho I!

And you keep talking about bombs and bats.  Cho used automic firearms to murder 32 people and there ain't no way to tiptoe around that fact!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/14/nono.gif


;D

What I've never understood is why suggestive sex is fine (Ever go to any sort of sporting event.. it's everywhere.) yet when some chicks tit pops out on TV all hell breaks loose. Oh well.

;D

What I've never understood is why suggestive sex is fine (Ever go to any sort of sporting event.. it's everywhere.) yet when some chicks tit pops out on TV all hell breaks loose. Oh well.

Not to mention advertising... "why" is easy: hypocrisy, pure and simple.

In fact, school arsons are almost an epidemic.  There were a total of 1,402 arson related school fires in the UK in 2003.  That is an average of almost 4 per day!  School shootings may be more "glamerous", but arson probably kills more students then guns.  Just within the last few months there were several instances of arson deaths on college campuses.  And banning matches and lighters will do nothing to stop that from happening.

Heck, just a few weeks ago an arson fire killed 3 people in Texas.  The person who started it simply did not want her boss to find out that she had not completed an assignment!

http://www.wlos.com/template/inews_wire/wires.national/2011517f-www.wlos.com.shtml


And how many people died in these fires?  Most, if not all, of these fires occur overnight or at weekends or holidays when the buildings are not occupied.  The intention is to damage the buildings not kill people.

In fact, school arsons are almost an epidemic.  There were a total of 1,402 arson related school fires in the UK in 2003.  That is an average of almost 4 per day!  School shootings may be more "glamerous", but arson probably kills more students then guns.  Just within the last few months there were several instances of arson deaths on college campuses.  And banning matches and lighters will do nothing to stop that from happening.
According to the official statistics (downloaded as a pdf from here), there were 896 fires deliberately started in schools in 2003, down from a peak of 1322 in 1995; the 2003 fires resulted in 23 casualties, none of them fatal - in the ten years these statistics cover, there have been no fatalities in schools in the UK from arson.

So you could say that over here, arson kills exactly the same number of students as guns do...

Whenever there is a horrific gun crime, you can be sure the usual red herring arguments from the NRA-types will follow.

A few years ago, I went to a yard sale with a friend. They were selling guns. I'm sure they wouldn't have done a background check on someone who wanted to buy their guns. It was just plain scary.


Unless the guns they were selling were muzzel-loading black powder guns, they were breaking the law.  It is actually a fellony for an individual to sell a firearm without the involvement of a licensed firearms dealer.

Muzzel loading black powder guns are the only exemption to this law, and they are totally unregulated.  But the next time I hear of a drive-by with a reproduction Kentucky Long Rifle will be the first.

And you keep talking about bombs and bats.  Cho used automic firearms to murder 32 people and there ain't no way to tiptoe around that fact!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/14/nono.gif


Actually, he used semi-automatic weapons.

And the Governor of Virginia signed an executive order today which closes the loop-hole which allowed Mr. Cho to buy his guns in the first place:

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/117801702585890.xml&coll=2

Kaine's order requires that a database of people banned from buying guns include the name of anyone who is found to be dangerous and ordered to get involuntary mental health treatment.

Seung-Hui Cho was told to get counseling in 2005 after a judge ruled that he was a danger to himself. But because Cho was treated as an outpatient and never committed to a mental health hospital, the court's decision was not entered into the database, which gun dealers must check before selling a weapon.

Now we can only hope that this becomes a Federal Law as well.

Actually, he used semi-automatic weapons.
Phew! What a relief!  I feel so much better now.

And the Governor of Virginia signed an executive order today which closes the loop-hole which allowed Mr. Cho to buy his guns in the first place:

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/117801702585890.xml&coll=2

Kaine's order requires that a database of people banned from buying guns include the name of anyone who is found to be dangerous and ordered to get involuntary mental health treatment.

Seung-Hui Cho was told to get counseling in 2005 after a judge ruled that he was a danger to himself. But because Cho was treated as an outpatient and never committed to a mental health hospital, the court's decision was not entered into the database, which gun dealers must check before selling a weapon.

Now we can only hope that this becomes a Federal Law as well.

The Second Amendment has no clause abridging the rights of homicidal maniacs to bear arms, though homicidal maniacs bearing arms would seem to run contrary to the stated purpose of Amendment #2!

I have said this before and I will say it again, I am not for gun prohibition but I am for gun CONTROL! We could start by going after gun manufacturers. I think there should be a limit on how many guns are manufactured per year and if someone wants to own one, they have to jump through so many hoops before they purchase one. Not only having a background check and a waiting period, maybe they should be submitted to a psychological exam and appear before a judge stating why they want to purchase a gun before they are given the right to.



Cat


It is essential that the number of weapons available for purchase by the general public be severely limited.
The need for handguns, outside of law enforcement agencies and related organizations should be prohibited.

What is so troubling to me is the constant depiction of guns, in movies, TV, etc., as something that is a part of normal everyday life. 

I remember when I was a kid that I had an arsenal at home.  I was in the hospital to have my tonsils out (seven years old)  and when my parents came up to visit..."Did you bring me a gun?"  and my dad hands me a beautiful pearl handled cowboy pistol and holster. 

The standard "games" for the the kids on my street included "Cowboys and Indians", "War" (I grew up in the 40's and I remember our enemy was always the "Japs."  It just occurred to me that we never were fighting the "Nazis." Maybe it was because the neighborhood was had a large German-American population.

Not to get sidetracked...sometime we just played "GUNS."  Almost every kid had some sort of cap pistol or toy rifle.

As I go through toy stores these days, it seems like the production of toy guns has continued unabated.  The one thing I do notice is that, (tell me if I'm mistaken,) all the toy guns are produced in colors other than the normal gun colors.

Anyway...how do we change the "gun consciousness" of American society.
   

This post has been going on awhile.  :)


2nd Amendment declares a well regulated militia as "being necessary to the security of a free State", and prohibits Congress from infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Does this mean that the 2nd Amendment says that the people can only keep and bear arms for militias?

I think that we have the right to bear arms, not from the 2nd Amendment, but cause our government has not come out and said we cannot have them.  However, prohibition is not the answer.  I think that lesson was learned in the 20's with alcohol.  I dont think that assault rifles are necessary, automatic or semi-automatic.  I dont think that everyone having conceiled weapon permits or having guns in a house for protection will save lives all the time.  It might create more problems than are really necessary.  However, I do like to go out and shoot guns and I a person has the right to protect their family or their belongings.  Gun control isn't a bad thing.  More emphasis should be placed on how better to use them correctly and safely.  Laws can change with the times.  There are considerably more people in America now than there was when the Constitution was ratified.  That was a time when owning a gun was sometimes necessary to daily life.  It is crazy that when I was in the Marines, there were very strict rules on carrying ammunition, carrying a weapon, and using the weapon.  Any Joe Blo can buy a gun it seems, and even a 22 can kill someone.  We can drive a car, but the majority of states require you to take a tests to get it.  This, in theory, shows that you at least have the capability to drive safely.  Can you not do the same with getting a gun?     

However, guns or other weapons are not the problem.  I think the American Dream or greed is a major cause of the problem.  With more and more people getting richer and more people getting poorer, then greed is indeed becomming a reason for majority of crimes.  A social reform is greatly needed in our country to help with these problems.  Its not T.V. or movie violence.  Its not video game violence.  The majority of us know how to separate fantasy from reality.  Playing with guns as a kid didn't make me a violent person today.  So, the ultimate source of the problems has to be found in order to help the situation.  The reason guns are a major factor in these crimes is because of how powerful they really are.  It is much easier to pull off a crime with a gun than it is a knife.  They are intimidating and scary if your not used to being around them.

It is essential that the number of weapons available for purchase by the general public be severely limited.
The need for handguns, outside of law enforcement agencies and related organizations should be prohibited.

What is so troubling to me is the constant depiction of guns, in movies, TV, etc., as something that is a part of normal everyday life. 

I remember when I was a kid that I had an arsenal at home.  I was in the hospital to have my tonsils out (seven years old)  and when my parents came up to visit..."Did you bring me a gun?"  and my dad hands me a beautiful pearl handled cowboy pistol and holster. 

The standard "games" for the the kids on my street included "Cowboys and Indians", "War" (I grew up in the 40's and I remember our enemy was always the "Japs."  It just occurred to me that we never were fighting the "Nazis." Maybe it was because the neighborhood was had a large German-American population.

Not to get sidetracked...sometime we just played "GUNS."  Almost every kid had some sort of cap pistol or toy rifle.

As I go through toy stores these days, it seems like the production of toy guns has continued unabated.  The one thing I do notice is that, (tell me if I'm mistaken,) all the toy guns are produced in colors other than the normal gun colors.

Anyway...how do we change the "gun consciousness" of American society.
   



I agree with you. I remember as a kid playing "Cowboys & Indians" and "War", etc. We also had a cap gun. But what we really used in our arsenal was a water pistol.  ;D ;D  But you are right, guns are so much a part of American society which is such a shame if you ask me.



Cat

I agree with you. I remember as a kid playing "Cowboys & Indians" and "War", etc. We also had a cap gun. But what we really used in our arsenal was a water pistol.  ;D ;D  But you are right, guns are so much a part of American society which is such a shame if you ask me.



Cat


If "war toys" made a person violent later in life, I'd be Timothy McVeigh!
::)

As I go through toy stores these days, it seems like the production of toy guns has continued unabated.  The one thing I do notice is that, (tell me if I'm mistaken,) all the toy guns are produced in colors other than the normal gun colors.

Anyway...how do we change the "gun consciousness" of American society.


Back in the early 1970's, Toys R Us actually stopped selling toy guns, toy knives, GI Joe, and anything else related to war or violence.

And it lasted for maybe an entire year.  Kids simply like to play games where they can make lots of noise, run around yelling and screaming, and acting out their violence in a relatively safe manner.  Everything in American fulture and folklore for the most part has guns in it.  Daniel Boone, Davey Crockett, Cowboys & Indians, The Lone Ranger, Wyatt Earp, even Miami Vice and Adam-12 had guns.  And for those that like to play anacronistic games, there is Robin Hood, Knights, and Space Aliens (with either sharp pointy things to kill, or ray guns that disintigrate).

And are we adults really much better?  We still flock to see movies and TV shows like Miami Vice, NYPD Blue, Dawn Of The Dead, and all kinds of shows with loads of voilence.  And I am sure it is largely the same all over the world, with some kind of cultural difference.  Cowboys & Indians is probably replaced with Samuri (with swords) in Japan, Cossacs in Russia, Crusaders in the Middle East, and Aztecs & Conquistadors in Mexico.

Personally, I do not get all bent outta shape when I see kids playing games like this.  I am sure that 95% of kids played similar games, and 99% never went on to comit any form of violence (other then schoolyard fights).  In fact, I remember that as a kid, we did not even connect it with violence at all, but simply as a form of loud rambunctious play.

If that's the real issue,there wouldn't be any woman guncrazy,well i did play with gun toys but i was a tomboy growing up lol Most women played with dolls,so yeah that's why we're so obsessed with beauty,right? :D

The fun thing about playing and toys,and the same about videogames is that they're not real,we like it cause it's a make believe world. Blaming toys,movies,tv shows for gun violence is a non issue,imo.

I'm way more concerned with the way the news media portraits the real thing,constant images of war scenario,bombings,shootings, natural tragedies,the world outhere is one vile place and yeah we can't close your eyes and hope it goes away,but there's no need to show EVERYTHING,we used to be shocked when we saw a disfigured corpse on the news,now it's just another day.
The media has a field trip when a tragedy happens and fool us into thinking that if we don't watch it,it means we're unconcerned and ignorant, we fall for it everytime,not even thinking about the fact that we're numbing ourselves and accepting violence as it's presented to us...just a common day to day thing!

I'm way more concerned with the way the news media portraits the real thing,constant images of war scenario,bombings,shootings, natural tragedies,the world outhere is one vile place and yeah we can't close your eyes and hope it goes away,but there's no need to show EVERYTHING,we used to be shocked when we saw a disfigured corpse on the news,now it's just another day.
The media has a field trip when a tragedy happens and fool us into thinking that if we don't watch it,it means we're unconcerned and ignorant, we fall for it everytime,not even thinking about the fact that we're numbing ourselves and accepting violence as it's presented to us...just a common day to day thing!


That is why I interpret the old phrase "No news is good news" in a different way.  Most take it to mean "It is good when you do not hear anything".  Myself, I take it to mean "Nothing reported on the news is good".  The news media thrives on death, injury, destruction, fear, and dispair.  If they are not talking about a bank robbery or child dissapearance, they are going on about the newest cancer scare or virulant disease in the Far East.  If they are not telling us about the danger of preditors on the internet, then it is about the rising number of home foreclosures.  And if they can't find anything, then they will make up some news.  Like how SUVs are more likely to tip over, or how some businesses rip-off customers.

Or to put it simply in the words of a great philosopher:

We got the bubble-headed-bleach-blonde who
Comes on at five
She can tell you bout the plane crash with a gleam
In her eye
Its interesting when people die-
Give us dirty laundry

Can we film the operation?
Is the head dead yet?
You know, the boys in the newsroom got a
Running bet
Get the widow on the set!
We need dirty laundry

If that's the real issue,there wouldn't be any woman guncrazy,well i did play with gun toys but i was a tomboy growing up lol Most women played with dolls,so yeah that's why we're so obsessed with beauty,right? :D

The fun thing about playing and toys,and the same about videogames is that they're not real,we like it cause it's a make believe world. Blaming toys,movies,tv shows for gun violence is a non issue,imo.

I'm way more concerned with the way the news media portraits the real thing,constant images of war scenario,bombings,shootings, natural tragedies,the world outhere is one vile place and yeah we can't close your eyes and hope it goes away,but there's no need to show EVERYTHING,we used to be shocked when we saw a disfigured corpse on the news,now it's just another day.
The media has a field trip when a tragedy happens and fool us into thinking that if we don't watch it,it means we're unconcerned and ignorant, we fall for it everytime,not even thinking about the fact that we're numbing ourselves and accepting violence as it's presented to us...just a common day to day thing!

Yeah, I agree mostly, although I think part of the problem isn’t so much that they show too much violence but they show too much of the wrong kind. One of the reasons why the American public finally turned against the Vietnam war is that every night on the news they would see the consequences, the news was real bloody and vivid and it really drove home what war was really about. In the Reagan years the government made a big thing about controlling the press because of their experience with Vietnam, so now they have press pools and embedded reporters -- which means the military and the government basically gets to control how wars get covered. Right now in the arab world the coverage of the iraq and Afghanistan wars is very different from how it is here -- there's lots of dead bodies, lots of blood, which helps to explain why in America so many people think the war is wonderful whereas in the middle east virtually no one does.

So I think it would be good if the war coverage here was, not sensationalist, but accurate. So if there’s a car bombing or if a missile from a US sortie obliterates a wedding party, we should see it on the evening news. But the next shooting spree they have like Virginia tech, the media shouldn’t even say the perpetrator’s name. Let the next crazy random shooter guy or serial killer wither away in shameful obscurity and I bet we never see another random shooting again. They obviously are doing it expressly to get on t.v., yanno?

Yeah, I agree mostly, although I think part of the problem isn’t so much that they show too much violence but they show too much of the wrong kind.


I am almost afraid to ask what the right kind of violence is.

Personally, I don't care much for violence in my "entertainment".  Most of what I watch thends to be History Channel.  And in reality, it is impossible to document history unless you also cover the violent nature of humans.

But if I have a choice, I would rather watch a movie like "When Harry Met Sally" then "Jason Does New York".  That does not mean I do not own movies like Terminator and Nightmare On Elm Street.  It just means that I watch them for the story, and not the violence.  And because I am a mature adult of (relatively) stable mind, I can seperate out the difference between reality and make-believe.

I am almost afraid to ask what the right kind of violence is.
i sorta thought i covered that in the post. on the one hand, we have lots of violence in the media done as play-acting, on the other, state-sponsored violence -- like the war in iraq -- is regularly cleaned up for domestic consumption. The "right" kind of violence would be the accurate portrayal of the consequences of US foreign policy decisions. Because it would result in a better-informed electorate.

The news media thrives on death, injury, destruction, fear, and dispair.

I agree with you entirely.  On April 16th, all I saw was hundreds of stories on Cho's killing spree with assault weapons.  Clear journalistic bias.  I saw not one story on the millions and millions of college students who didn't kill anybody and the millions and millions of assault weapons shut away in arsenals and not used to mow down innocent civilians!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/08/rudolf.gif

It's like Laura Bush was saying about Iraq.  You always hear about that one deadly bomb blast every day.  Why don't they do a frontpage story not about the car with a bomb in it, but the car with the guy in it who dropped his kids off at school and then went to work?
:-\\