Just when I was thinking of selling my T-34

[Ashock]

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columni...ns_guns-0/


Americans never give up your guns


28.12.2012





By Stanislav Mishin



These days, there are few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bear arms and use deadly force to defend one's self and possessions.

This will probably come as a total shock to most of my Western readers, but at one point, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth. This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar. Weapons, from swords and spears to pistols, rifles and shotguns were everywhere, common items. People carried them concealed, they carried them holstered. Fighting knives were a prominent part of many traditional attires and those little tubes criss crossing on the costumes of Cossacks and various Caucasian peoples? Well those are bullet holders for rifles.

Various armies, such as the Poles, during the Смута (Times of Troubles), or Napoleon, or the Germans even as the Tsarist state collapsed under the weight of WW1 and Wall Street monies, found that holding Russian lands was much much harder than taking them and taking was no easy walk in the park but a blood bath all its own. In holding, one faced an extremely well armed and aggressive population Hell bent on exterminating or driving out the aggressor.

This well armed population was what allowed the various White factions to rise up, no matter how disorganized politically and militarily they were in 1918 and wage a savage civil war against the Reds. It should be noted that many of these armies were armed peasants, villagers, farmers and merchants, protecting their own. If it had not been for Washington's clandestine support of and for the Reds, history would have gone quite differently.

Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lying guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot.

Of course being savages, murderers and liars does not mean being stupid and the Reds learned from their Civil War experience. One of the first things they did was to disarm the population. From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers that were. The worst they had to fear was a pitchfork in the guts or a knife in the back or the occasional hunting rifle. Not much for soldiers.

To this day, with the Soviet Union now dead 21 years, with a whole generation born and raised to adulthood without the SU, we are still denied our basic and traditional rights to self defense. Why? We are told that everyone would just start shooting each other and crime would be everywhere....but criminals are still armed and still murdering and too often, especially in the far regions, those criminals wear the uniforms of the police. The fact that everyone would start shooting is also laughable when statistics are examined.

While President Putin pushes through reforms, the local authorities, especially in our vast hinterland, do not feel they need to act like they work for the people. They do as they please, a tyrannical class who knows they have absolutely nothing to fear from a relatively unarmed population. This in turn breeds not respect but absolute contempt and often enough, criminal abuse.

For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room. Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but are in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position. In all cases where guns are banned, gun crime continues and often increases. As for maniacs, be it nuts with cars (NYC, Chapel Hill NC), swords (Japan), knives (China) or home made bombs (everywhere), insane people strike. They throw acid (Pakistan, UK), they throw fire bombs (France), they attack. What is worse, is, that the best way to stop a maniac is not psychology or jail or "talking to them", it is a bullet in the head, that is why they are a maniac, because they are incapable of living in reality or stopping themselves.

The excuse that people will start shooting each other is also plain and silly. So it is our politicians saying that our society is full of incapable adolescents who can never be trusted? Then, please explain how we can trust them or the police, who themselves grew up and came from the same culture?

No it is about power and a total power over the people. There is a lot of desire to bad mouth the Tsar, particularly by the Communists, who claim he was a tyrant, and yet under him we were armed and under the progressives disarmed. Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear.

So, do not fall for the false promises and do not extinguish the light that is left to allow humanity a measure of self respect.

Stanislav Mishin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ps: Long live the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics.
pps: Oh, wai....

[FireIceTalon]

Nice troll thread. Since when were gun rights the defining and essential element of what constitutes being "free"? Oh wait, they aren't.

This article lost credibility the moment it called the US "socialist", but that is the least of its problems. It's shoddy publications like this as to why so many people are ignorant and misinformed about their history and politics, whether here or in any other nation - but I shouldn't be surprised, stuff like this is all part of the Western bourgeois propaganda machine and their ideological state apparatus to misconstrue and distort facts, and rewrite history to create their own mythical world extrinsic from the one we actually live in. The author even said America supported the Bolsheviks during the Russian Civil War - really? I've seen some pretty outrageous historical inaccuracies stated before from pro-capitalists, but this statement ranks up there as one of the most blatantly false.

A little history lesson for you: Women weren't even allowed to attend university in Russia during any of the Tzarist regimes, and Jews had virtually no rights in the workplace (no workers did, but Jews were hit the hardest) or in public life for that matter - and this was uninterrupted for 500+ years (it took an ARMED revolution to overthrow the Tsar, how ironic). If you call that free, then your definition of "free" sucks ass. This is why words like "freedom" or "tyranny", once again, are meaningless buzz words that have no place in any objective political discussion.

Freedom under the Russian Tsars = the freedom to subjugate women, workers, and Jews. Just as in America or any other capitalist society today, its a code word for virtually the same thing (except we discriminate and scapegoat blacks, muslims, and latinos instead of Jews). Whenever a conservative utters the word "freedom", he means freedom for himself, AND FOR NO ONE ELSE. The irony of this article is uncanny in countless places.

I'm sure the UNARMED protestors of the 1905 Bloody Sunday massacre were just living in one awesome, unified freedonia, right? Yea, the Tsarist bloodline was the ultimate symbol of freedom, huh? In short, this article is garbage - its all capitalist, fear mongering propaganda, and moreover, it has countless and blatant historical falsehoods. And the stuff that isn't false, is purely subjective and ideological or just irrelevant altogether. The people who write articles like this think up is down, down is up and that black is white and white is black. This piece is bad even by YOUR standards, Ashock. And that's pretty bad.

[Bolty]

Ah, the Lurker Lounge.

[kandrathe]

... Whenever a conservative utters the word "freedom", he means freedom for himself, AND FOR NO ONE ELSE. ...

No. Actually, beyond your clarion call to the contrary, words have meaning.

free /frē/ Adjective
Not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes.

From your sentence above, "he means freedom for himself" couldn't possibly describe someone like Condi Rice, a woman whose friends died in the 1963 Birmingham, Alabama church bombing during civil rights struggle in the US.

Yes, people act in their own self interest. Even those who philosophically claim, such as socialists or communists, to be acting for the good of all, end up day to day acting selfishly. This results in the types of tyranny and corruption expressed in the Soviet Union, or Cuba -- all done in the name of social selflessness.

I think the word use of yours which you might find more confusing than "freedom", would be "conservative".

con·serv·a·tive /kənˈsərvətiv/
A person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in politics.

A conservative is interested in not changing the status quo, and so if they are in a state of tyranny would be seeking to maintain it. A conservative ideology isn't one seeking greater freedom -- it is one seeking stability and maintaining the status quo. I think we try to label people or ideas as "conservative" or "progressive" because they are seemingly juxtaposing ideas. And, why if given the choice between "stay the same" versus "make progress" -- the progressive ideology on the face of it seems more vibrant and active.

However, it also explains why neither side represent "freedom" when both Conservatives and Progressives, Republicans and Democrats are willing to misuse the power of government (for their own selfish interests done in the name of social selflessness).

[Lissa]

Personally, I'd rather be expensive than free... :p

[shoju]

No. Actually, beyond your clarion call to the contrary, words have meaning. ........ (rest of the post truncated)

While they do have meaning, sometimes, these words take on a more "social" meaning, and sometimes they are used socially as synonyms for other things. Conservative/Republican Party for example.

I hate to say it, but I do agree with FiT (I feel a little dirty). I feel the same way when I hear a "Conservative" (in the politician sense) utter the word freedom. There are too many strings attached. It doesn't mean freedom for women. It doesn't mean freedom for Gays. It doesn't mean freedom for a lot of people. More often than not, He really means, "Freedom for those who believe like me".

The problem isn't necessarily Republicans, it's the gripping "moral authority" that has a stranglehold on the party.

They (the moral authority) don't believe in abortion. They believe it violates their religious beliefs (we'll leave the scientific debate out of this for now. They don't represent the group I'm speaking about, and bringing them up is just serving to dilute the point). Therefore, NO ONE should have abortions.

They (the moral authority) don't believe in Homosexuality. They believe it violates their religious beliefs. Therefore, NO HOMOSEXUALS should have the same rights as they do.

I could go on, but those are really the two big points, and by far the easiest to make, without having to dig too hard. There are people on the "other side" who are Pro Life, and Hetero-preferential in their beliefs. The difference, is that they understand that the United States is the Land of the Free, and that those freedoms extend to every person, regardless of who they love, what god(s) they do or do not believe in, etc...

It's come to a point, where I don't even know why we still refer to them as the Democrats and the Republicans. The current Republicans, led by John Boehner, and Eric Cantor, do not represent the ideologies that the Republican Party was founded on, and claim to hold dear. They aren't "small government". They are Small Government selectively. They want the government off Wall St, out of the Gun Safe, Out of their Church. But! There's a catch. they want it firmly placed in the gentials of women, In their doctor's offices, in the bedrooms and hospitals of homosexual couples, and a few other places. Their "Small Government" ideology pushes more towards

"Stay out of my business. But that neighbor up the street? I want you all up in his shit."

As per the topic at hand, Gun Control is going to happen. Things will get moving, and soon. They aren't going to outright ban handguns. That's a drastic step that makes it unenforceable legislation. They will probably ban Tactical Weapons Packages on firearms, because they are scary and evil. They will probably go back to restricting the size of Magazines that you can legally own for weapons. They will probably start looking into a system to begin registering firearms.

And for the record, as a Gun Owner, and minor enthusiast, I'm all in favor of it. I don't like tactical packages in civilian hands for several reasons. I am 100% in favor of limiting Magazine Capacity. If I find myself in a situation where the 10 rounds my 9mm hold aren't enough to save me, Well.... I was probably going to be dead if it was a double stack 20 round mag anyway. They should register weapons.

Hell, I think they should make Gun Owners be licensed. I think you should have to take a test. I think it should be just like a driver's license. We make people train, and study, and learn how to drive a car, but any joe schmoe of legal age can walk in the Gun Shop and buy a gun. There is something wrong with this picture. I also think that all weapons should be registered. Here in Ohio, I don't have to have a permit to own a gun, I don't have to register my firearms. Unless I want a CCW, the background check is the only thing I need. That seems a little weird to me. I'd be ok with it changing. Especially if the Licensing taught gun safety.

I think we should go back to limiting the types of ammunition that we sell. You don't need Armor Piercing Rounds. You don't need Tracer Rounds. I'm ambivalent about Hollow Point Ammunition, I could be swayed either way really.

Gun Control Laws will only work if they are sensible, and enforceable. Start there. Then, lets start working on a culture obsessed with Violence. I'm not talking about banning music, art, and video games that are violent, but we need to have a discussion on how to curb the violence we consume. It's everywhere. Then, we need to get to work tackling the failings of our Mental Health Care in this country.

If we really want to be serious about making sure kids, moviegoers, shoppers, students, people on the street, aren't being gunned down, we have to start somewhere. And that step needs to be small. A series of enforceable, reasonable, small steps will do much more than gorilla stomping our way through idiocy.

[kandrathe]

Personally, I'd rather be expensive than free... :p

It is a value proposition. You are valuable, regardless of the cost.

[kandrathe]

If we really want to be serious about making sure kids, moviegoers, shoppers, students, people on the street, aren't being gunned down, we have to start somewhere. And that step needs to be small. A series of enforceable, reasonable, small steps will do much more than gorilla stomping our way through idiocy.

First, I would reject the notion that it is the existence of guns that creates the culture of violence, or that when owned by responsible persons would jeopardize the lives of anyone. Guns happen to be the handiest most convenient instrument designed for killing. All guns when pointed at people are assault weapons.

I would agree that the cosmetics and political cover of banning certain cosmetic designs (military styled) or limiting the size of the magazine would do anything to prevent sociopaths from killing people. Will it be more difficult to carry two 30 round extended clips, or ten 6 round clips? In most cases with semi-automatic pistols, it takes less than 30 seconds to drop out the clip, pop in the next one, and chamber the round.

Our issue as a society is that we seem to be creating more sociopaths and not intervening effectively before they become homicidal.

Then also, Sandyhook or Aurora are incidents that become political lightning rods. I am personally shocked by the tragedy of this event, as my youngest boy attends an elementary school that could be a twin. When I heard about it on the radio, I wept. And, when I told my wife about it later in the day, we wept together.

However, n the context of senseless death, how many people die from drunk driving accidents? About 10,000 per year - or about 30% of all accidental car fatalities. What are we doing about it? Do we license alcohol drinkers? Do you need to show your "not a menace" card to the bartender or liquor store clerk? Do we all need to have mandated Breathalyzer sensors on our ignitions? In fact, statistically, before a person kills with their car -- they are likely to have a prior history of DUI and other visible indicators they are having trouble with alcohol.

If we want to ensure that drunkards, mentally disturbed people, or criminals aren't killing people we need to focus on interventions with the drunkards, mentally disturbed people, and criminals.

But, as for making legally owned guns by the common citizen safer, yes, sure. We don't need to introduce a new government monopoly of control over gun ownership by the hundred million responsible owners. Maybe we just need to get people to be more responsible owners. If a killer breaks into your house, and steals any other weapon (say, a butcher knife) and goes on a massacre, people don't suddenly get up in your grill for leaving your knives right there on the counter in the knife holder.

It is the tyrannical, TSA type, of branding every person a potential homicidal killer to which I object. It results in a police state (if we aren't there already).

[FireIceTalon]

@shoju

This is what I've been saying all along....words like freedom and tyranny are completely subjective and thus completely contextual. For example, during slavery, southerners had the freedom to own slaves - and it resulted in a civil war over the retaining of that "freedom" (there were other, perhaps even more important factors, but you know what I mean). One mans freedom is another mans tyranny, simple as that, and that is why I generally avoid using such emotive, and loaded terms. African slaves didn't even have basic HUMAN RIGHTS, let alone many of the civil rights we enjoy today (even if the rights today are kind of a hoax since we live in a class antagonist society).

It isn't just conservatives though that shouldn't be using such terms in any objective discussion, it also applies to any and all leftists as well. I'm a Marxist, but if I hear another Marxist say "capitalism is anti-freedom", I would slap him silly. Capitalism isn't anti "freedom", nor is it pro "freedom". Because the ruling class does have "freedom" under capitalism, much more so than the working class - but class relationships are an objective and sociological condition that result naturally under it. It is perfectly possible to be a Marxist, and still be pro-capitalist. It isn't a logical result, but it's certainly possible. Those who own private property and the means to production have an interest they want to protect, therefore it is in their objective class interest to maintain the status quo, even if they agree with Marx 100%. When a socialist uses the word freedom, I know it has a very different meaning from what a conservative means, but it is still a word that should avoid being used in any objective discourse, regardless of your political views or class position.

We are humans, and I understand that all political debate is bound to spark some sort of emotion. But it is important to be as objective as possible, and using loaded terms like "freedom", "tyranny", "liberty" defeats the purpose.

[kandrathe]

We are humans, and I understand that all political debate is bound to spark some sort of emotion. But it is important to be as objective as possible, and using loaded terms like "freedom", "tyranny", "liberty" defeats the purpose.

They are misusing them in that context, as do you when you define freedom as "For example, during slavery, southerners had the freedom to own slaves". Having the law and society on your side doesn't make it a "freedom" issue -- freedom is the absence of coercion and control. Who has the means of coercion and control? Who can implement systems of inequality using this coercion and control? In the spectrum of anarchy to dictatorship, we need to draw a line.

We do need a little governance to guarantee our human rights are applied equally. But, in the end, the existence of ANY law curtails some freedom. However, without a society of law, and governance, we have only the law of the jungle.

We can bandy about the meaning of "freedom", but I know what the lack of it looks like.

[shoju]

First, I would reject the notion that it is the existence of guns that creates the culture of violence, or that when owned by responsible persons would jeopardize the lives of anyone. Guns happen to be the handiest most convenient instrument designed for killing. All guns when pointed at people are assault weapons.

I'm not saying that it is the existence of guns. I'm saying that it's their place in our society that has aided. A gun is a gun is a gun. It will kill you dead just as easily if it is a .38 Chief's Special, a .22 Ruger Hunting Pistol, or even my lowly single shot Bolt Action .410 Shotgun. They are all capable of killing.

But if we want to get to the heart of the problem, we also need to address the guns place in our violence glorified society.

I would agree that the cosmetics and political cover of banning certain cosmetic designs (military styled) or limiting the size of the magazine would do anything to prevent sociopaths from killing people. Will it be more difficult to carry two 30 round extended clips, or ten 6 round clips? In most cases with semi-automatic pistols, it takes less than 30 seconds to drop out the clip, pop in the next one, and chamber the round.

For me, it comes down to the "need" of an item. Private citizens don't "need" a tactical rail system. They don't need Bump Firing Speed enhancements for their guns (the cheap ones are rail mounted systems) that allow their semiauto to fire at the same rate as a full auto. They don't need military capacity magazines. They don't need a 30 round clip for their .22 rifle. It's overkill. And it makes things easier.

Remove them from the equation. Will it have an effect? Probably nothing that you can measure significantly on the tactical side. On the magazine capacity? Maybe minimal, but it's a move in the right direction, and it doesn't impact the "majority" of Gun carrying, law abiding citizens.

Our issue as a society is that we seem to be creating more sociopaths and not intervening effectively before they become homicidal.

I wont argue with that at all. So let's talk Mental Health. The following picture has an obvious liberal slant to it. I will readily admit that. But it speaks to the heart of the issue. The same people who are "Don't take mah guns" are primarily the same people involved in defunding the very programs that would help with sociopaths.


And before we start saying that Republican's aren't the majority of Gun Owners in the US, Yes. They are. Nate Silver a very talented Statistician in both politics and sports, has put together the numbers. Republicans are the largest section of Gun Owners in the US, and it's by an almost 2x margin over Dems.

However, n the context of senseless death, how many people die from drunk driving accidents? About 10,000 per year - or about 30% of all accidental car fatalities. What are we doing about it? Do we license alcohol drinkers? Do you need to show your "not a menace" card to the bartender or liquor store clerk? Do we all need to have mandated Breathalyzer sensors on our ignitions? In fact, statistically, before a person kills with their car -- they are likely to have a prior history of DUI and other visible indicators they are having trouble with alcohol.

No. We don't license alcohol drinkers. We license Car Operators, and when you drink, and drive, you lose the license that gives you the access to the implement of the crime. Your blurb here is helping my point.

In fact, statistically, before a person kills with their car -- they are likely to have a prior history of DUI and other visible indicators they are having trouble with alcohol.

So, let's get real about it. Using this analogy, if they lost the license to the implement of the crime (in your case, a driver's license. in my case, a gun license) permanently, we'd probably see a reduction in crime on both death statistics.

If we want to ensure that drunkards, mentally disturbed people, or criminals aren't killing people we need to focus on interventions with the drunkards, mentally disturbed people, and criminals.

And the easiest way to make sure that happens is through stiff penalties and revocation of licenses when you do something that proves you are unfit.

But, as for making legally owned guns by the common citizen safer, yes, sure. We don't need to introduce a new government monopoly of control over gun ownership by the hundred million responsible owners. Maybe we just need to get people to be more responsible owners. If a killer breaks into your house, and steals any other weapon (say, a butcher knife) and goes on a massacre, people don't suddenly get up in your grill for leaving your knives right there on the counter in the knife holder.

It is the tyrannical, TSA type, of branding every person a potential homicidal killer to which I object. It results in a police state (if we aren't there already).

So, you're saying that a licensing program that also served as a teaching point about gun safety wouldn't make people more responsible gun owners?
And you're right, we don't get all uppity about knives. Because, as you oh so eloquently already said

Guns happen to be the handiest most convenient instrument designed for killing. All guns when pointed at people are assault weapons.

So yeah. When things happen, and people are stupid, and it results in their weapons being used to murder someone? They should lose their right to own a firearm just as much as the man convicted of a felony.

Now, I said Stupid. So don't come at me with the BS rhetoric of "Well, is it stupid if someone breaks in and steals the gun safe?" No. That's not dumb. That's crime. It happens. But if you say.... Left the Glock under your pillow, and some dumbass comes in and steals it from under your pillow, yes. You're dumb.

[kandrathe]

But if we want to get to the heart of the problem, we also need to address the guns place in our violence glorified society.

I would say the heart of the problem is social psychology, and not the specific inanimate objects humans use and abuse.

For me, it comes down to the "need" of an item.

Who defines what you "need"? Maybe they don't think you "need" very much at all.

I wont argue with that at all. So let's talk Mental Health. The following picture has an obvious liberal slant to it.

Yeah, so? If we looked at which political party is supported by a constituency, we'd see it was the party that advocates for them best. So, let's not focus on partisan quibbles. I am Adam Lanza's psychiatrist -- he's not really, but he is a psychiatrist who deals with the potential Adam Lanza's. Here are the suggestions;

• The US Congress: Please create better laws to ensure the ticking time bomb is caught before it is too late. Make it much easier for a family to get a potentially dangerous person into mandated treatment. This means less paperwork, too. We need to support parents and mental health professionals.
  
• The US Justice Department: It’s time we enacted a Health Law Court. Have doctors serve as judges and streamline legal proceedings for tough medical and psychiatric cases. Go to commongood.org for ideas on how this can be done.
  
• Health Insurance Companies: Man up. My main complaint is with you. You make it so hard to keep people in the hospital when they need to be there, and it’s even harder to keep them in intensive outpatient services. Please create protocols for difficult cases and loosen the purse strings for extremely troubled individuals –- before it’s too late.
  
• Network TV: Please create some exciting television that is actually educational about mental illness. Or least give us a “Gossip Girl” who takes her medication and sees her psychiatrist regularly. Less stigma, better health.
  
• Drug Companies: You are always trying to ply me with coffee and doughnuts. I have trust issues with you. Don’t want anything, thanks.
  
• The Hollywood PR Machine: Please find the mental health community a really attractive celebrity to get the US mental health system some money. I am glad that George Clooney and Angelina Jolie are doing so much for Africa, but can we borrow one of them please?
  
• High School Students: Tell the popular kids to stop being such dicks to the odd kids or the ones they don’t understand.
  
• Community Psychiatry Health Researchers: You have kick-ass and innovative ideas for how to reform the system. Could one of you put on a sequin dress and walk a red carpet please? We need to get you more money.

No. We don't license alcohol drinkers. We license Car Operators, and when you drink, and drive, you lose the license that gives you the access to the implement of the crime. Your blurb here is helping my point.

If you are right, you are right. I'm having a discussion, not a debate. No. We only act against those who've committed a crime. Should we ban Lexus, if they were the make of vehicle most used in DWI deaths? Should we ban alcohol? We tried that once.

DWI Recidivism: Risk Implications for Community Supervision

So, let's get real about it. Using this analogy, if they lost the license to the implement of the crime (in your case, a driver's license. in my case, a gun license) permanently, we'd probably see a reduction in crime on both death statistics.

So, in that analogy, yes, after someone goes on a mass shooting spree -- they'd lose their access to firearms. Which is already the law, since convicted felons cannot own or possess guns. Do convicted felons use guns now?

And the easiest way to make sure that happens is through stiff penalties and revocation of licenses when you do something that proves you are unfit.

After the fact again. What is being called for is a preemptive action to prevent the 1st time unbalanced person from going on a mass shooting. Really, the choices are you lock up people before they've broken any laws, or you outlaw and lock up the stuff they tend to use. This of course denies "the stuff" from people who use it responsibly.

So, you're saying that a licensing program that also served as a teaching point about gun safety wouldn't make people more responsible gun owners?

I was taught by the NRA. Personally, before my kids touch a gun they will go through a firearms safety course. The question is what should the government do to ensure people are responsible? The legal and financial repercussions of the failure to abide by the laws of our government are usually onerous. The issuance of the "license" gives the government the right to permit, or deny you your 2nd amendment rights at their discretion. This is a vast and costly proposed remedy for prevention of mass murders, which are a very small percent of murder cases. And, in that, guns are used in only 8% of violent crime -- but hand guns are used in about 60% of murders. Long guns (shotguns and rifles) were used less often than knives or fists, yet we are again looking at the restriction on the objects not frequently used in crimes. What we are facing is an emotional reaction to a horrible incident resulting in "feel good" legislation and pandering by both sides to their political constituents. But, we do not focus on the *real* issues, meaning we will revisit this type of horrible tragedy in the future, but there will be some other circumstances we did not, or were not able to prevent.

So yeah. When things happen, and people are stupid, and it results in their weapons being used to murder someone? They should lose their right to own a firearm just as much as the man convicted of a felony.

It should be rare that we deny a person their constitutional rights.

[Alram]

They (the moral authority) don't believe in abortion. They believe it violates their religious beliefs (we'll leave the scientific debate out of this for now. They don't represent the group I'm speaking about, and bringing them up is just serving to dilute the point). Therefore, NO ONE should have abortions.

Of course the liberals, democrats, an progressives who are the ones that really care about the people and the children are all to ready to endorse or condone abortion as a form of birth control. They totally overlook the rights and welfare of the children who are killed by abortions.

No medical procedure is 100% successful and abortion is no exception. There are some children who survive abortions and are born. When Obama was a legislator in Illinois, he voted against a bill that would guarantee medical treatment for these children --the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. Where was his compassion for children then?

I do not own a gun nor do I care to, but it seems to me that Obama is using the shootings in Conn. to push his own political agenda.

[FireIceTalon]

[quote='Alram' pid='204998' dateline='1358035398']
[quote]They (the moral authority) don't believe in abortion. They believe it violates their religious beliefs (we'll leave the scientific debate out of this for now. They don't represent the group I'm speaking about, and bringing them up is just serving to dilute the point). Therefore, NO ONE should have abortions. [/quote]

[quote]Of course the liberals, democrats, an progressives who are the ones that really care about the people and the children are all to ready to endorse or condone abortion as a form of birth control. They totally overlook the rights and welfare of the children who are killed by abortions.[/quote]

You cannot ignore that which does not exist to begin with. You have no rights or welfare til' you've popped out of the womb.

[quote]No medical procedure is 100% successful and abortion is no exception.[/quote]

False, many medical procedures are completely successful.

[quote]There are some children who survive abortions and are born.[/quote]

Exception (and a very rare one at that) - not rule.

[quote]When Obama was a legislator in Illinois, he voted against a bill that would guarantee medical treatment for these children --the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. Where was his compassion for children then? [/quote]

Where was the compassion for ANY person sent off to die in one of our numerous capitalistic wars, as well as the compassion for those we went to war against and the innocents in between both sides who get killed? Where is the compassion for the 30,000 people who starve to death on a daily basis?

[quote]I do not own a gun nor do I care to, but it seems to me that Obama is using the shootings in Conn. to push his own political agenda.[/quote]

And so do special interest groups like the NRA. Welcome to bourgeois ideological politics.

[Alram]

[quote='Alram' pid='204998' dateline='1358035398']

They (the moral authority) don't believe in abortion. They believe it violates their religious beliefs (we'll leave the scientific debate out of this for now. They don't represent the group I'm speaking about, and bringing them up is just serving to dilute the point). Therefore, NO ONE should have abortions.

Of course the liberals, democrats, an progressives who are the ones that really care about the people and the children are all to ready to endorse or condone abortion as a form of birth control. They totally overlook the rights and welfare of the children who are killed by abortions.

You cannot ignore that which does not exist to begin with. You have no rights or welfare til' you've popped out of the womb.

Ignorance on your part. You have bought the bourgeois ideological political line of the proabortion lobby's dehumanization of the fetus/child in the womb.

[quote='Alram' pid='204998' dateline='1358035398']

No medical procedure is 100% successful and abortion is no exception.

False, many medical procedures are completely successful.

[/quote]
Really? Name one.

[quote='Alram' pid='204998' dateline='1358035398']

There are some children who survive abortions and are born.

Exception (and a very rare one at that) - not rule.

[/quote]
It depends how you define rare. They most definitely do occur.

[quote='Alram' pid='204998' dateline='1358035398']

When Obama was a legislator in Illinois, he voted against a bill that would guarantee medical treatment for these children --the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. Where was his compassion for children then?

Where was the compassion for ANY person sent off to die in one of our numerous capitalistic wars, as well as the compassion for those we went to war against and the innocents in between both sides who get killed? Where is the compassion for the 30,000 people who starve to death on a daily basis?

I do not own a gun nor do I care to, but it seems to me that Obama is using the shootings in Conn. to push his own political agenda.

And so do special interest groups like the NRA. Welcome to bourgeois ideological politics.

Thia is a great way to dismiss my point. I could say the same about most of your posts.

[FireIceTalon]

Ignorance on your part. You have bought the bourgeois ideological political line of the proabortion lobby's dehumanization of the fetus/child in the womb.

Yea, ok Todd Akin. There is nothing ideological about women's rights to control their own bodies - it is religious nut jobs towing the ideological line here, that somehow their morals and way of life are superior and everyone else needs to follow them. I don't give one rats ass about their subjective morality. What you find moral, I find repulsive. You are the prototype right-winger accusing others of acting on ideology, when it is your type who most blatantly acts based on such a premise.

Control of your own body isn't ideology - religion, morals and such other mythical crap are always grounded in ideology or some sort of personal agenda. And you have the audacity to call me ignorant? Think you derped big time on that comment bro. And again, don't talk to me about dehumanization of a fetus when people who are already born are dehumanized on a daily basis.

Really? Name one.

Ever sprained an ankle? Broken a wrist? If they were treated and healed properly, they were completely successful. Fuck naming one, there are THOUSANDS of completely successful medical procedures done per DAY. On a anecdotal level, my mom is a melanoma cancer surviver.

It depends how you define rare. They most definitely do occur.

No one said they didn't occur - but there are far more abortions that are successful than ones that arent (assuming we are talking about clinical abortions and not ones done with a coat hanger). Once again, this is a flimsy argument to support your ideological agenda/subjective moral values.

Thia is a great way to dismiss my point. I could say the same about most of your posts.

Hard for me to dismiss a point when you didn't have one to begin with. And I bet the majority of my posts are over your head anyways, so feel free.

[Alram]

I am glad to learn that your mother is doing well.

My phrasing was not quite correct regarding medical procedures. What I meant to say was that no medical procedure is 100% successful 100% of the time.

[FireIceTalon]

I am glad to learn that your mother is doing well.

My phrasing was not quite correct regarding medical procedures. What I meant to say was that no medical procedure is 100% successful 100% of the time.

Yea, that makes more sense.

Anyways, sorry if my posts come across as being harsh. I was reading that last post I made and it came out a little more abrasive in some places than I intended. And thank you for your concern about my moms well-being. She is doing ok for now, could be better, but she is cancer free for now and I'm hoping it stays that way. Melanoma is one of the 3 types of skin cancer that is curable, but it is the worst of the 3 types because it can spread if not detected in time.

[shoju]

I would say the heart of the problem is social psychology, and not the specific inanimate objects humans use and abuse.

Yeah, you're right, the psychology is important, but the inanimate object is important to. You said so yourself. Guns are the easiest way to do it.

Yeah, so? If we looked at which political party is supported by a constituency, we'd see it was the party that advocates for them best. So, let's not focus on partisan quibbles. I am Adam Lanza's psychiatrist -- he's not really, but he is a psychiatrist who deals with the potential Adam Lanza's.

I'm familiar with it, since it falls into line with the blogs that I posted earlier. I am Adam Lanza's mother, and You are not Adam Lanza's mother.

His lists are fairly good, but if all we do is talk about the psychology aspect of it, we aren't addressing the whole thing.

If you are right, you are right. I'm having a discussion, not a debate. No. We only act against those who've committed a crime. Should we ban Lexus, if they were the make of vehicle most used in DWI deaths? Should we ban alcohol? We tried that once.

No, we don't ban Lexus. We ban cars outright. Cars don't pass safety protocols, or other things, they aren't allowed. You know, sort of like not being allowed to drive an F1 or NASCAR down the street.

We most certainly do make sure that the vehicles we drive meet a certain amount of criteria before we allow the general public to drive in the real world.

So, in that analogy, yes, after someone goes on a mass shooting spree -- they'd lose their access to firearms. Which is already the law, since convicted felons cannot own or possess guns. Do convicted felons use guns now?

No. In my analogy, just like a DUI person who didn't kill someone lost acess to their license to drive a car, a person who commits an offense would lose the right to own a firearm.

After the fact again. What is being called for is a preemptive action to prevent the 1st time unbalanced person from going on a mass shooting. Really, the choices are you lock up people before they've broken any laws, or you outlaw and lock up the stuff they tend to use. This of course denies "the stuff" from people who use it responsibly.

The choices also are, we set up a list of things that would cost you to lose your firearms. Like losing your license for driving drunk before you kill someone. But you're missing the point there. You seem to think in my analogy the only way that they'd lose their license would be murder, and that's clearly not at all what I was talking about.

I was taught by the NRA. Personally, before my kids touch a gun they will go through a firearms safety course. The question is what should the government do to ensure people are responsible?

Well, if they were being responsible, they would deport the NRA. LaPierre, and a large portion of the NRA have come out looking like a pack of frothing dogs in this whole mess willing to blame it on everything, and not accepting anything.

The legal and financial repercussions of the failure to abide by the laws of our government are usually onerous. The issuance of the "license" gives the government the right to permit, or deny you your 2nd amendment rights at their discretion.

That's the point. The penalties are supposed to be enough that they are keeping people from doing it. Will it stop all of it? No.

They already have the ability to deny your 2nd ammendment rights. And they should.

This is a vast and costly proposed remedy for prevention of mass murders, which are a very small percent of murder cases.

This is not a solution to stop only mass murders. This is the first steps of a solution to reduce gun violence and murders in the US.

And, in that, guns are used in only 8% of violent crime -- but hand guns are used in about 60% of murders. Long guns (shotguns and rifles) were used less often than knives or fists, yet we are again looking at the restriction on the objects not frequently used in crimes.

Yes. Because clearly, what I've outlined will have absolutely no effect on the rest of gun crime.

What we are facing is an emotional reaction to a horrible incident resulting in "feel good" legislation and pandering by both sides to their political constituents.

No, you are seeing the steps in getting guns controlled in this country. You have to start somewhere. You can't just come out and say "BAN ALL HANDGUNS!" because that wont work. It's unenforcable. You start small.

But, we do not focus on the *real* issues, meaning we will revisit this type of horrible tragedy in the future, but there will be some other circumstances we did not, or were not able to prevent.

The real issues. Yes. Guns aren't part of the issue at all. Seroiusly? That's the rebuttal? Right. Not at all. We'll just keep going on and on and on about how it's just one thing, and how the guns, the access to them, and the societal outlook on them has absolutely nothing to do with it. That's just about the most ridiculous thing.

It should be rare that we deny a person their constitutional rights.

Unless they are dumb. Dumb people who do dumb things should lose their rights. If you do something dumb that gives someone access to your weapons, you are an idiot. You shouldn't be allowed to have them anymore. You don't know how to behave with them. If you want to be treated like a child, I think that we as a society should go ahead and treat you like a child. You should have more rules. It's pretty simple.

Can't handle the responsibility of having the right? Fine. YOu no longer have that right.

Of course the liberals, democrats, an progressives who are the ones that really care about the people and the children are all to ready to endorse or condone abortion as a form of birth control. They totally overlook the rights and welfare of the children who are killed by abortions.

And the Republicans, the Conservatives, the ones who I was speaking about don't look at the rights and welfare of the mother. And then, once the kids born, they sure as shit don't care about it. They want to cut welfare, and social help. DON'T HAVE AN ABORTION! But we're not going to do a goddamn thing to help you with that baby that we forced you to have.

No medical procedure is 100% successful and abortion is no exception. There are some children who survive abortions and are born. When Obama was a legislator in Illinois, he voted against a bill that would guarantee medical treatment for these children --the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. Where was his compassion for children then?

The same place as Akin's and Mourdock's and all the other member's of Team Rape.

I do not own a gun nor do I care to, but it seems to me that Obama is using the shootings in Conn. to push his own political agenda.

Yes. Because that's clearly a Democrat only problem.

[kandrathe]

Yeah, you're right, the psychology is important, but the inanimate object is important to. You said so yourself. Guns are the easiest way to do it.

If you remove one easy method, another will take its place. Or, they will get the guns illegally. It's prohibition all over again. I'm sure the southern border is secure enough to prevent any smuggling.

His lists are fairly good, but if all we do is talk about the psychology aspect of it, we aren't addressing the whole thing.

People have murdered people (even mass murder) for eons. You cannot ban enough stuff to make a dent in it. Consider Julio González and the Happyland fire. Arson mass murders are far more common than gun mass murders. What is the background check, or waiting period for 5 gallons of gas? Can't get a gun, check out what Karst Roeland Tates did in The Netherlands.

The crux of my argument is here; http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs...online.pdf Guns in the possession of lawful, safe citizens don't make people less safe, it is the dangerous people's use of dangerous things that threaten us all. As Jester pointed out earlier, the hard part is determining on whom to intervene, and then keeping that "intervention mechanism" from being corrupted by those that would use it to persecute their opponents.

No, we don't ban Lexus. We ban cars outright. Cars don't pass safety protocols, or other things, they aren't allowed.

You missed it. I'm saying we should ban Lexus 4 door sedans since they are most often used in DUI vehicular homicide.

No. In my analogy, just like a DUI person who didn't kill someone lost access to their license to drive a car, a person who commits an offense would lose the right to own a firearm.

I repeat. After the (felony) crime. Which is already the law, since convicted felons cannot own or possess guns.

The choices also are, we set up a list of things that would cost you to lose your firearms. Like losing your license for driving drunk before you kill someone. But you're missing the point there. You seem to think in my analogy the only way that they'd lose their license would be murder, and that's clearly not at all what I was talking about.

What did the Newtown, or the Aurora shooters do prior to mass murder that would have disarmed them?

Well, if they were being responsible, they would deport the NRA. LaPierre, and a large portion of the NRA have come out looking like a pack of frothing dogs in this whole mess willing to blame it on everything, and not accepting anything.

Be that as it may, you'd deport 4.3 million Americans because you don't like the rhetoric of their spokesperson? How very totalitarian of you.

That's the point. The penalties are supposed to be enough that they are keeping people from doing it. Will it stop all of it? No.

They already have the ability to deny your 2nd amendment rights. And they should.

Wow. How about the 1st? How about the 3rd? "Dumb" people by someones definition are denied their rights. Again, how very totalitarian of you.

This is not a solution to stop only mass murders. This is the first steps of a solution to reduce gun violence and murders in the US.

The murder rate per capita in the US is not that much different than the murder rate in places that have outlawed guns. They just don't use guns as much. Compare the murder rate per capita of Luxembourg to Switzerland. If you want strict gun control, look to the UK, then Google the 1996 Dunblane massacre. The public outcry resulted in the "feel good" Firearms Amendment of 1997 which completely banned handguns for private ownership. Since that time, homicide with hand guns in the UK have increased 40% -- with no shortage of mass murder events either -- Google Derrick Bird.

Yes. Because clearly, what I've outlined will have absolutely no effect on the rest of gun crime.

No it wouldn't have done anything to stop these high profile first time offenders who go postal and kill off a bunch of people.

No, you are seeing the steps in getting guns controlled in this country. You have to start somewhere. You can't just come out and say "BAN ALL HANDGUNS!" because that wont work. It's unenforceable. You start small.

Meaning you are just getting started with the intent to make guns impossible for people to own.

The real issues. Yes. Guns aren't part of the issue at all. Seriously? That's the rebuttal? Right. Not at all. We'll just keep going on and on and on about how it's just one thing, and how the guns, the access to them, and the societal outlook on them has absolutely nothing to do with it. That's just about the most ridiculous thing.

Seriously. If you think banning "assault" weapons will do anything to prevent kids killing kids on the streets of Chicago, you are wrong. If you think making law abiding people go through training and licensing will stop domestic violence, or gangland shootings, again, you are wrong. We live in a world filled with dangerous things if they get into the hands of people with murderous intent. You cannot make the world safe by removing all the dangerous stuff from the lawful.