E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSAuthorities have identified the alleged gunman in the deadly shooting at a Wisconsin Sikh temple as Wade Michael Page, an Army veteran who may have ties to white supremacist groups. NBCNews.com's Pete Williams reports.
Updated at 4:05 p.m. ET: The alleged gunman in Sunday’s deadly shooting at a Sikh temple in southern Wisconsin is Wade Michael Page, an Army veteran who may have ties to white supremacist groups, authorities announced on Monday.
Page, who served in the Army from April 1992 through October 1998, allegedly killed six people at the temple and wounded four, including a police officer, before he was shot and killed by police. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Page is the former leader of a neo-Nazi music group called End Apathy.
At a press conference, law-enforcement officials said Page was the only shooter.
"All of us are heartbroken" by the shootings, President Barack Obama said Monday. He also ordered flags in public buildings be flown at half-staff until sunset on Friday. If it turns out, Obama said, that the gunman was motivated by the ethnicity of those at the temple, the American people would recoil against that type of attitude.
Police say Page, 40, legally purchased the 9mm semi-automatic handgun used in the shooting within the past 10 days near his home. The gun was recovered at the scene at the attack.
A police officer called to the scene shot Page dead before he could fire on more worshippers as they prepared for Sunday services at the temple in the suburb of Oak Creek, south of Milwaukee.
Five men and one woman were killed. They were identified Monday as Sita Singh, 41; Ranjit Singh, 49; Satwant Singh Kaleka, 65; Prakash Singh, 39, Paramjit Kaur (female), 41; and Suveg Singh, 84.
In addition to the wounded officer, three other people, whose names have not been released, were injured. Edwards said two of them were in critical condition at a hospital, and one was treated and released for a minor wound.
At a news conference Monday, authorities said they have not determined a motive for the killings.
"We are investigating it as a possible act of domestic terrorism," FBI Special Agent in Charge Teresa Carlson said. She defined domestic terrorism as "use of force or violence for social or political gain."
Carlson said there is no reason to believe anyone else was involved in the shooting. She said, however, they were pursuing one "person of interest," an unidentified white man wearing a dark T-shirt and sunglasses whose photo she held up during the press conference. The FBI later said that the man in the picture had been located, interviewed and ruled out in connection the shooting.
Edwards said police received the initial call about the attack at 10:25 a.m. Sunday, and officers arrived on scene within minutes.
Among the first to arrive was Lt. Brian Murphy, who was ambushed when he stopped to help a victim. Murphy was shot eight to nine times with a handgun at close range, Edwards said at Monday's press conference. He was wearing a bullet-proof vest, but was hit in his extremities and suffered a serious wound in his neck.
Sikhs reel after 'senseless' attack: We're not 'Taliban'
When other officers arrived to the scene, they saw the suspect walking and commanded him to drop his weapons, Edwards said. At that point, the suspect fired at police, hitting two vehicles. An officer returned fire with a squad rifle and took him down, according to Edwards.
As officers went to check on Murphy, 51, who has been with the Oak Creek Police Department for 21 years, he waved them off, signaling they should go into the temple and help other victims. Following protocol, officers secured the exterior and helped Murphy, who was rushed to the hospital, before they went into the temple. Murphy remains in critical condition.
NBC's John Yang reports from Oak Creek, Wisc., where a white, male Army veteran is the suspected gunman in a deadly shooting at a Sikh temple.
More on the suspect
U.S. Army officials say Page was first stationed at Fort Still, then Fort Bliss and then Fort Bragg. At Fort Bragg, he was assigned to psychological operations associated with a special operations unit, though was not a special ops trained soldier, officials told NBC News.
Page rose to the rank of sergeant while in the Army, but was given a dishonorable discharge in 1998 and reduced in rank to a specialist for acts of misconduct. U.S. officials told NBC News the misconduct was connected to a drinking problem.
Officials say Page had no criminal record in the military and no record of combat deployments.
In an interview with The New York Times, Page’s stepmother, Laura Page, 67, of Denver said she had known him since he was a boy of 10. His mother, a dog groomer, died when Wade Page was 12 or 13, she said. He then went to live with an aunt and grandmother.
His stepmother was shocked by the news of the shootings.
“I can’t imagine, I can’t imagine what made him do this,” she told The Times.
MySpace, End Apathy
Authorities believe Wade Michael Page is the gunman who killed six people at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin.
He was not being watched by the FBI or any other law enforcement organizations, officials said Monday.
"Nobody knew this guy was a threat," Carlson said.
Carlson said they were examining ties to white supremacist groups and were continuing to locate family and associates.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups, called Page a "frustrated neo-Nazi." He was identified by the group as a member of two racist skinhead bands, End Apathy and Definite Hate.
Members of the local Sikh community said the president of the congregation and a priest were among the victims.
Jagjit Singh Kaleka, the brother of the president of the temple, who was among the six Sikhs killed, said he had no idea what the motive was for the attack.
Gunman opens fire at Sikh temple in Wisconsin; 7 dead
Sunday night and early Monday, police searched an apartment at a duplex in the Cudahy neighborhood near Milwaukee where Page apparently lived. Authorities would not say what evidence they found.
The attack came just over two weeks after a gunman killed 12 people at a theater in Aurora, Colorado, where they were watching a screening of new Batman movie "The Dark Knight Rises."
Amardeep Kaleka tells TODAY's Matt Lauer that his community is at a "breaking point" after a gunman opened fire and killed his father and five other faithful inside a Sikh temple in Wisconsin.
American Sikhs said they have often been singled out for harassment, and occasionally violent attack, since the September 11, 2001 attacks because of their colorful turbans and beards.
The 2001 attacks were carried out by Muslims linked to the al-Qaida militant group led by Osama bin Laden. Sikhs are not Muslim but many Americans do not know the difference, members of the Sikh community said.
Some witnesses to the Wisconsin shooting said the suspect had a tattoo marking the September 11, 2001 attacks. Authorities confirmed he had tattoos but said they were not sure exactly what the tattoos illustrated.
There are 500,000 or more Sikhs in the United States but the community in Wisconsin is small, about 2,500 to 3,000 families, said local Sikhs.
The Sikh faith is the fifth-largest in the world, with more than 30 million followers. It includes belief in one God and that the goal of life is to lead an exemplary existence.
The temple in Oak Creek was founded in October 1997 and has a congregation of 350 to 400 people.
"These people were going to church. Two weeks ago, it was people going to a movie. When is it going to end?" said Ray Zirkle, who came from Racine, Wisconsin with his wife to light votive candles near the site of the shooting.
On Sunday evening, hundreds gathered in downtown Milwaukee to hold a vigil of for the victims of the shootings, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported.
Participants stood in a circle, prayed and lit candles at the event held at Cathedral Square, and one-by-one people made unscripted statements to the group, according to the newspaper.
One man recited "The Lord's Prayer."
"This isn't about the city of Oak Creek, we are all responsible," another said, while a third declared: "I'm an atheist and I stand behind every peace loving religion," the newspaper reported.
Members of the Sikh community attended the vigil, the Journal reported.
"It was same as 9/11," Manpreet Kaur, who attended the vigil with her husband and two daughters, told the newspaper. "My mother-in-law and father-in-law thought that it's not safe for you to go in your turban today."
NBC's Pete Williams, Jim Miklaszewski and Andrew Mach and Reuters contributed to this report.
More content from NBCNews.com:
- Alleged gunman in Sikh temple shooting ID'd as Army vet
- Sikhs reel after 'senseless' attack: We're not Taliban
- Wounded cop in Sikh termple shooting lauded as hero
- Month after arson attack, Mo. mosque burns again
- Video: Dog-paddling pooch swims with dolphins
Follow US News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
May the victims rest in peace. But why did the writer feel the need to include "Wisconsin has some of the most permissive gun laws in the country and had passed a law in 2011 allowing citizens to carry a concealed weapon." If people are dead set on committing a crime they will find a way, lawful gun owners need not be penalized for the act of criminals.
No, they won't 'find a way'. These things are happening weekly. We had 10,000 dead from guns last year. This puking on the part of the pro-terrorist crowd, AKA the "NRA" is just an excuse to turn us all into victims. We need to repeal the 2nd amendment and get rid of guns. And 'lawful gun owners' are lawful until they're not. The Aurora shooter had NO criminal record at all. Your right to own a gun stops at my right to have a life.
So you don't think someone that wants to do harm will not just drive a car into a building, set off a pipe bomb or use a knife? A gun is nothing but a tool, a tool with a specific purpose that like any other if used in an improper manner may cause injury or death, but it is the user that makes that happen.
Bob
Your comments make no sense at all, people die from car accidents every year, so lets ban cars...that same comparison could go on and on and on.
If guns are the cause of killing people, then are pencils the cause of mis-spelled words?
People don't drive cars into buildings. They use guns. They did so 10,000 times last year. No other modern country allows this level of insanity. What type of evidence would gun folks accept that guns are deadly? 10,000 dead isn't enough? The highest homicide rate in the western world isn't enough? You people are immune to evidence and normal people are paying the price
Roger drags out the cliche much beloved of the gun crowd. The fact is cars have a use. Our society would collapse without them. But MANY societies have STRICT gun control and only 3 countries have guns in their constitutions. We'd get along very well without guns, and the 10,000 dead would be ALIVE today.
bob-1008224
How can you be so naive?
First, how do you propose to take 300 million plus firearms from 80 million plus American Citizens?
Second, how do you propose to repeal the 2nd Amendment? I'm sure you're fully cognizant of exactly what that entails and the legalities involved.
Also, how do you propose to disarm the CRIMINALS? You know the ones, those people who habitually break the law with virtual impunity.
One last question. How many firearms did Timothy McVeigh use to slaughter 168 people?
Gun ownership is the only deterent to the citizens of the US being taken over by facism or other countries.
The tragedy here is that the Sikh's are peacable people and to have this happen is terrible. My prayers go out to the families of those who were killed. This world is a hard place and getting worse.
I fully accept that a firearm in the wrong hands may be a tool that can be used to cause harm, but it by itself cannot do that, someone has to pull the trigger. And as for the car this is a story I read this morning that lead to that comment. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/11/man-who-drove-suv-building-held-without-bond/
Really? What does a 9mm handgun have in common with a so-called assault weapon? Nothing. Repealing the 2nd Amendment will do nothing but make us all victims of crime. Criminals don't care about laws. They will still get them. Guns will not just magically disappear.
We really need to pass a law to fix this problem just like passing a law to make heroin and cocaine illegal fixed that problem. Passing laws fixes everything that is wrong with people.
Incredible. The shooter used a 9mm semi auto handgun and their talking about assault weapons. What I find most revealing about the story is that an armed policeman was able to take the shooter down. Too bad none of the templegoers had applied for a Concealed Carry permit and been carrying. He/She may have prevented a few deaths. I see no moral issue with carrying a concealed weapon to a place of worship.
As for Bobo and his 10,000 deaths caused by guns. I'm curious as to how many of those 10,000 were by lawful gun owners not including those used in self-defense? Looking at the Chicago murder statistics I would say a vast majority were caused by criminals.
I am not aware of incidents where people with guns stopped a mad gunman. But I have seen enough events where mad gunmen have killed a lot of people with a lot of ease using automatic weapons.
XD says we can't be perfect so let's do NOTHING. OTHER countries don't have this slaughter but we CAN'T do what they do because we're not perfect. Why not allow bank robberies with that logic? And getting rid of guns is not as hard as you think. Shut down gunsmiths, eliminate ammo, destroy the gun culture and within a generation or so guns would be gone. And McVeigh? Please, spare me the histrionics. He didn't kill 10,000 people with fertilizer!
Steve2's lack of logic cracks me up. He says a bunch of beer swilling pot bellied NRA heroes are gonna save the US! Guess he forgot about our 600 BILLION defense budget, our 5,000 nuclear weapons, our 11 aircraft carriers, our 54 nuclear attack subs, etc etc.
That's gotta be the DUMBEST argument the NRA drags out of its comic book view of guns.
@XD
Don't try and use logic on the anti gun crowd (like Bob), you will only confuse them and make their eyes roll back in their heads. And Bob, please answer his questions. Stop trying to deflect and look like a tool.
KH keeps telling us about how the criminals won't disarm. One wonders what asylum gun owners live in
The US is the MOST HEAVILY ARMED nation on earth. If guns STOPPED crime then why do we have the highest murder rate in the western world? DUH!! You guys just live on the swill pouring out of the "American Rifleman" and refuse to look at EVIDENCE
Most heavily armed nation...highest murder rate in any modern country. NRA conclusion? No connection!
Hank pretends guns are drugs. Guns are manufactured items. Drugs aren't. Drugs are habit forming. Guns aren't. Guns need a technical support infrastructure. Drugs don't....yadda yadda. Nothing the gun crowd says stands up to evidence.
Sven thinks we need MORE guns in spite of the fact we're the MOST HEAVILY ARMED NATION on the planet! The gun crowd is absolutely immune to evidence. And he pretends we're the ONLY country with criminals! OTHER countries have criminals too!! Yep, they do!!!!!! They really DO!!! But only the US allows this SLAUGHTER. Thanks, gun folks. it's really working out.
Chuck doesn't ask a question, but merely throws his hands up in NRA surrender fashion before the evidence. Nice going!
the 2nd amendment was written with out the knowledge that their would be weapons that fired multiple projectiles with out reloading. and yes this amendment needs to be revisited. so if i have the right to bear arms isn't a small nuclear bomb a weapon?
bob-1008224 - do a little research....from the Telegraph a U.K. news outlet, and of course you know how stregent the U.K.'s gun laws are....
From the Dailymail
bob-1008224, gordeto
I realize neither of you have apparently ever actually taken the time to read the US Constitution or any of the first ten Amendments which constitute what is referred to as The Bill of Rights, but here's what one of the writers of those documents had to say about "arms" and Americans abilities to own them.
bob-1008224.... by the way, PLEASE indicate WHERE I mentioned "perfect". Perfection is an unobtainable. People can accomplish excellence, but never perfection.
I'm a military veteran and proud gun-owner, however, I feel there needs to be some restrictions of some sort on the selling of guns in this country. Now, I'm not under some kinda of delusion of grandeur and I know it's not going to solve all of the gun violence problems in the country, but I think it could solve some of them. When it gets to the point where law abiding citizens have to start carrying concealed weapons into movie theaters and into temples or churches, there's a serious problem that can't be ignored anymore!
Treuett never really learned to read, except for the "American Rifleman". YES, America's crime rate is on par with other modern countries. NO our MURDER rate is NOT
Truett, see that word? MURDER. MURDER. Read it. Try reading for content, OK? If guns stopped MURDERS like the gun crowd says they do, why is our MURDER MURDER MURDER rate so high?
You do realize when that was written, the firearm of choice was a single shot musket right? Also - that was written after the US was being ruled by a foreign entity so the references to a tyrannical government was in reference to the british.
If you dont think so - Google the whiskey rebellion - and let us know how George Washington handled people trying to rise up against the government.
Hey guys are you missing the racist statement,"tall blonde white man"? When men of color, commit murders, rapes, drive bys, drug dealing ect. The bias media fails to mention that fact. WHY???
Gorderto thinks he's gonna stop an M1A2 Abrams main battle tank with his precious .38.
Well, I guess we all know who's gonna win THAT battle. Jefferson was referring to technology of 250 years ago. Thinks have changed a bit since then. If Saddam's army couldn't stop the US military, a bunch of rednecks aren't either. The 2nd is USELESS.
Ah, the Second Amendment argument... Can ANY of you tell me where that says you can have a gun in order to protect yourself? Doesn't say that. It says:
Yeah, the second part of that sentence was, unfortunately, worded poorly, but if you are unable to see the intent, it is likely because you don't want to. Our forefathers, for the most part, did not want a standing army...to that end, they felt it was best to be able to put an army in place only when needed. Therefore, it was a necessity for the people that would be in that militia to have weapons; see, that is the reason for the FIRST PART OF THE SENTENCE. Read it. Back in that day, a rifle was a substantial weapon, and cannons and such were really the only things that were more deadly - who out there thinks that is the case today? Bueller? Bueller?
For those of you deluded enough to feel this was created to protect you from your government, why do you think a government would foment violence against itself? And do you seriously think your little arsenals would do one bit of good against an Abrams tank? How about against an A-10?
And I really like the post that specifically mentioned fascism. Seriously? Fascism? Do you even know what fascism is?
Do you seriously think that fewer people would have been shot if everybody in that temple (Weapons? In a house of worship? HALLELUJAH!) were armed. That would likely have resulted in MORE people being shot. Same with the theatre in Aurora. I would compare it to a wild west shootout, except those were pretty rare...see, just about every town had a law against carrying a weapon around. Surprise! Why is that? Because they thought it was a bad idea, since people that might otherwise not be a problem suddenly turn into Superman when they have a weapon at their instant disposal.
And the tired old argument about why have laws against guns when that would not stop the shootings so why bother... Hey, I have a great idea, let's take all the laws against killing each other off the books. Why, they haven't stopped people from killing each other, so why should we bother? The same could be said for virtually every law in the book. That argument is beyond lame.
I have no problem with hunting, etc., but I don't recall every going out to bag a deer with a 9mm, nor can I recall the use of an AR15. Who of you is hunting with these weapons?
Having every "law abiding" citizen walking around with a weapon is a bad idea. Some of those folks are going to be like this clown or the one in Aurora. Yeah, both of these idiots was a "law abiding" citizen. Until they weren't.
@Pirana:
Guns are a tool, alright-- a tool made for specifically for killing, unlike cars, hammers, or even most knives. No one reaches for a gun to hammer a nail; nobody reaches for a knife to write a letter; but people do reach for a gun to kill others because that is what guns are made to do-- to kill-- and they do their job very, very efficiently.
Homemade bombs are difficult to make, and prone to failure. Knife attacks in nations that have banned guns do not end with a body count anywhere near what guns produce in America. And in any case, the murder rate-- not just by firearms, but overall-- is much, much lower in nations with strict gun control laws than it is in the United States. So no, it is not as simple as reaching for a hammer or hopping behind the wheel of a car instead of picking up a gun to kill a lot of people.
Guns kill people. That's why killers love them.
Bob, Norway has extremely strict gun laws.
I know how to solve your problems with guns Bob... LEAVE!!!
The guns are not going... but maybe it's time you do.
Bob, there's a better change you'll snap and start killing with a gun before most legal gun owners. "My source" your posts... you can't handle it... just get out now.
Truett...you do understand that the US isn't a part of the EU? Your argument is incredibly flawed. Comparing the UK to other EU countries, all of whom have strict gun laws, says NOTHING about the US. Our gun related violent crimes are off the charts in comparison to ALL EU countries.
Bob -- you can't use reason to argue with these NRA brainwashed zealots. I just wish someday someone would commit these crimes at a gun show or at NRA headquarters instead of against innocent citizens.
And why isn't this guy's face plastered everywhere and vilified like Holmes? Because like the mass murdering sergeant on Afghanistan, his victims aren't nearly so sympathetic as a bunch of theatre go'ers. And the perp gets a military right or wrong support our troops excusal.... shame on this country.
Truett, half-truths won't wash.
How does the homicide rate in the UK compare with the USA's rate of homicides? There is literally no comparison, is there?
The hell of it is that every mass murder only makes the gun clutchers more desperate to hang on to their "iron". Once the paranoia has you in its grip ["I need protection!"] there's no room for logic. No gun owner thinks his weapon will be used criminally, either by himself or by another. But in our stress-ridden society people go insane, have suicidal impulses or powerful delusions, or they become uncontrollably angry at their spouse, neighbors, society in general.
And if that weren't danger enough, some stupid or senile people leave their gun where their child or grandchild can get at it. Often enough that adult is the first person killed, but he isn't the last...
I agree with Momus. When people have to feel safer in this country by carrying a gun with them always, there is a serious infection in the society. I don't know exactly HOW we got so sick, but the fact is we ARE sick.
Well, I guess Army told ME didn't he! They've had 1 slaughter in 30 years, we've had 2 in 30 days. Wow. What a devastating riposte! We have the slaughter of the week and he thinks that means we don't need gun control laws because another country had
1.
Yep, that's the logic of the gun control crowd.
This arguing over legal guns vs. 'take em all away' is ridiculous in this context. What happened was not about concealed carry or the NRA, it was prompted by hatred in the mind of a simple and closed minded person who doesn't know the difference between Islam and Sikh. Wade Michael Page (the shooter) is rumored to have possible connections to White Supremacy group from out of state. All we really know about him is that he was a 40 year old veteran, who moved from place to place and has only been in the Milwaukee area for a very short while. The concealed carry law has absolutely nothing to do with this tragedy! As a Nearby Milwaukee resident, I can tell you that I have seen NOT ONE change since the concealed carry laws were enacted. Milwaukee and the surrounding counties have not turned into a modern Wild West with gunslingers. Please, make your comments about a hate crime committed against a peace loving religion and how these victims will face the hard road ahead.
Biggreen thumps his chest and proclaims his rugged individualism to tell me to leave! Yep, he's a true 'Merican 'cuz he loves guns. The fact that American families are being slaughtered? Well, that's a detail...He's not upset that children die...whole families get killed. No big deal. But tell him guns are a problem and he thunders his outrage.
Pathetic.
I'm not gunna argue with any on you........ you can have all of my guns....... come and get them.
Let me ask the pro-gun crowd this.
If it's people doing the killing, and not the guns, why don't we allow people to buy and own any type of gun they want. For instance, fully automatic rifles with 100 round capacity clips? How about belt fed machine guns like the military M-60? Why not let us have them legally?
You know why? Because of the amount of sheer carnage a PERSON can cause if he walks into a downtown mall on a Saturday with a fully auto AKM and a couple of drum mags. You're looking at hundreds of people dead then. So using the old tired argument that if a person can't get a gun, he'll find some other way to do the deed is true in a sense, BUT he's not going to do anywhere near same amount of damage using a knife, or a hammer, or a pipe bomb.
So please, drop the retarded examples some of you keep tossing out about banning cars and pencils. You look like a simple minded idiot when you do.
Crying for more gun control or take away assault rifles is redundant. Go look up how many ARs have been bought in the past 4 years. You really think millions of americans will give those up freely????
If so, better join up then because half the military will quit before turning their guns on those freedom fighters. They'll need your liberal body to take bullets for them.
End of story, Obama is not going to do anything with guns this year, if the right wins Congress, nothing for the next 4 years for sure.
I laugh at all this whinning...........
What the saying, Guns don't kill, PEOPLE do. If someone is set on killing innocent people for whatever reason they will do so regardless of whether guns are banned. The funny thing is, everyday I get behind a wheel of a vehicle, a lethal weapon. As I drive my mountain road each day to work, at least once a day someone crosses that yellow line in front of me or on the other side of the road heading my direction. And you can look and that person who just crossed the yellow line is on their cell phones talking or texting. More people are killed daily on our roads & highways, so should we ban vehicles also? I am sure many of you that want a gun band, slide into that car and talk/text on that phone. Again, vehicles kill, and more are injured, maimed or killed then they are from a gun.
So before you start going after guns, how about you think responsibly before you get behind that wheel and talk/text on a cell phone while speeding down the road. Because frankly as far as I am concerned that should be as much as a pre-meditated murder case as this guy walking in and killing these innocent people.
@ Deemo-2034081 Amen
@ Bob: You are a troll and have succeeded in dragging others into your uneducated abyss and foot stomps. Do some research: how many murders/killings were accomplished by lawfull gun owners? How many gang-related shootings were there by lawful gun owners? How many? You dont know? Does not surprise me...why? Because you refuse to look at anything other than the propaganda that people write on the internet that goes with your opinion...thats right...opinion not facts. You have drank too much of the "juice".
By the way, drugs are manufactured, markets, distributed and there are laws against them yet they exist more and more in every state in the US. Where are your stats on the comparison? Curious to know that one.
Look this up and do the math:
-How many gun owners in the US
-How many Concealed carry permits in the US
-How many gun owners/conceal carry permit holders have committed firearm-related crimes
-How many deaths/killings/shootings were stopped because of someone else with a legal firearm?
I bet you will not try to do the investigation here because you should see you will be wrong in your rantings. So many jump on the anti-gun train because they want to fight for something but refuse to find something that THEY actually believe in. It is much easier to jump on something with someone else and believe everything that they say. Very sad and this society will continue to pay for that dead-end thought process and eventually we will not be able to legally own a gun and the criminals will own us all. By the way, read up on mexico and where they are at with their communities and the drug cartels because eventually that is where we are heading because we will be unarmed because of people like you. Then where will you go to to cry for help? You wont.
Wake up
Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser
This tragedy has nothing to do with guns, but everything to do with hate and prejudice! If he did not have guns he would have used gasoline or home made explosives. It is very naive to think that lack of guns would stop such an individual.
Another nut with a gun. You can say what you want, but that is the case. When will we learn that nuts with guns are a recipe for disaster.
Nothing in ANY document says we need to allow INSANE PEOPLE to have guns. Nothing. It says "WELL REGULATED". Regulation MUST include psychiatric exams. THAT YOU WANT A GUN is a good indication that we should check to see if you are NUTS. Just like a psychiatric exam is used to be sure that POWER JUNKIES that just want to INTIMIDATE PEOPLE are not allowed to be POLICE OFFICERS, we should be sure that real NUT CASES do not get FIREARMS.
Bob, if we should ban guns to stop shootings, let's ban cars to stop car accidents and alcohol to stop drunk driving and alcoholics and tobacco to stop lung cancer(one of the top killers in the US) and let's ban pools and lakes and rivers to avoid accidental drownings...and to keep people from getting raped, should all men be forced to undergo surgery...without that there can't be any more rapes...
@ Left Wing Nut Job: Just had to put this in.........look at Afghanistan and Iraq. Its called guerrilla warfare.
Bob, I try not to post on the newsvine anymore, because of all the idiots. Just look at all the idiots claiming this shooting was left wing conspiracy, to drum up support for anti-gun laws, you just can't argue with that kind of stupid.
But Bob, you are as bad as any those on the right!
The Homicide Rate in America has actually gone done since 2004 when the assault rifle ban expired. The homicide rate is much lower then the 80's and 90's and is usually more tied to economic conditions then number of guns available. 2004 rate = 5.6 / 2010 rate = 4.8.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
I believe in the 2nd Amendment, that we do have the right to defend ourselves......that said, do we need to defend ourselves with something that can shoot hundreds of bullets in a few seconds? Or can we just have regular stuff?
in 2001 23 people died in the UK as a result of gun violence. In 2001 29,573 people died in the US from gun violence. Arizona has the 5th highest death rate in the nation from gun violence and they have some of the most laxed gun laws. During the Giffords shooting no legal gun carrying men stepped up to stop the shooting, the nearest armed man ducked into a convienence store when the shooting started, it took an unarmed woman to tackle the shooter while he was reloading, if he wouldn't have had an exteneded magazine she could have stopped him sooner before more people were killed.
Guns don't kill people, they just make it a whole lot easier.
I think it's cute that so many people on here think they are going to do something about the crime rate by complaining about gun owners. The fact is there are by far more law abiding gun owners than not. You may not like the fact that your neighbor has weapons in his house, but it's his/her house. As long as they were purchased, stored and used legally...there is NOTHING you can do about it.
Let me guess, next were gonna tackle the 'legalize pot' issue....you have a better chance of winning that one. There is no way this country will take away the guns of law abiding owners. If you want to make the requirements to purchase one, then so be it....there are certain arguments that can be made there that makes sense.
Finally, not to stereotype people into one group, but most people who are for eliminating guns fall on the left side of the aisle. I wonder what their precious ACLU would have to say about that.
At this point, it's safe to make a few conclusions. This was an uneducated hate crime. This guy was clueless about the differences in the average American. He killed Americans of the Sikh faith, most likely thinking they were Wahhabi extremists. I support education!
Secondly, without the handgun, do you believe this "genius" could have killed so many? Would he have failed or been discovered, if he didn't have a handgun?
Condolences to the families and friends. My heart is with you - Colorado.
@ BodyDouble link your facts. I want to know how many of those gun related deaths were suicides.....
Wait, here you go
OHH!!!! WAIT SOMETHING ELSE!! This is stated right before it.
Let me know if they have been increasing or decreasing. Don't ignore the facts.........
celiaclady, I reiterate - the Second Amendment does not mention the right to defend oneself.
@LookingForward, yeah, I'm sure that guerilla warfare thing will work out well here. The founding fathers were probably thinking just that when they wrote the 2nd. It sure worked well in the Whiskey Rebellion, didn't it?
Sorry Bob... I'm from Norway. Now get off your soap box and leave. Tick tock tick tock... waiting fool.
Hey, why don't you go to my country... I know an island where you can't have any guns.
The truth.
http://www.neontommy.com/news/2012/07/doing-math-guns
Charts, graphs, and real numbers to blow all the "it's a gun problem" out of the water.
Bob, can you handle the truth?
@ Left Wing Nut Job weak comparison.......I gave you two countries........you give me a spat of 500 men......weak.
And the answer is yes, to "being necessary to the security of a free State", not a free Federal Government, a free State. If the Federal Government went Nazi, Communist, crazy, dictorship, etc. Who protects the state??? DUH!!!!!!!!!
Here is the major problem. Originally the 2nd Amendment was created to allow US Citizens a sense of security so the average citizen would not need to fear attack from a foreign force. Now we have a standing military that has three times better than all the other countries combined. So the 2nd Amendment plays no role in that anymore. However, where it has gone wrong is that the average citizen no longer in fear of foreign forces, we are fear other citizens with guns. Our right to Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness was the foundation of this country and our Amendments were specifically designed to enforce that one founding principle. The moment one of the Amendments impacts that founding principal it needs to be ratified. Our Founding Fathers were not idiots. They knew that the intent or language of the Amendments as they wrote them would not always apply or even be necessary which is why they wrote to Constitution so that it could be Ratified and Amended from time to time as deemed necessary by the people and THEIR elected leaders and not the profit hunting Corporations (including gun manufacturers) and THEIR elected leaders.
Your comment makes no sense at all. Cars have a purpose other than to kill. Do guns?
You scare me. You are are out of touch with reality. Someone on newsvine needs to find out who you are and take action because you'll be the next one shooting a bunch of innocents for YOUR RIGHTS.
Since you can murder with a baseball bat, let's outlaw all baseball bats! Since Timothy McVeigh murdered 168 people with a vehicle, let's outlaw all vehicles, BOTH trucks and cars! How many are killed by cars each year, either accidentally or intentional? Yes, let's outlaw all cars AND trucks!
Grab a dictionary, LookingForward, state does not mean Wisconsin - it means the nation and its civil government.
I'm also sorry that you dislike my comparison of 500 people in a small country 200 years ago to a couple of current countries. Your dismissal is silly, but I understand.
@mj-1451595 LOL!
Given the fact that our economy is about to self implode --- you can take your gun laws and stuff them.
You're going to wish you had one. I've lived through 2 natural disasters and I promise you, based on the government's performance in those, it is not going to keep a lid on this and protect you.
Righteous, Indy--
What's an occasional mass murder between friends? Let's just forget it, right? I mean, it's not as if it happened to you or a member of your family, your church, your circle.
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the individual to keep and bear firearms.
The right to arm oneself is viewed as a personal liberty to deter undemocratic or oppressive governing bodies from forming and to repel impending invasions. Furthermore, the right to bear arms was instituted within the Bill of Rights to suppress insurrection, participate and uphold the law, enable the citizens of the United States to organize a militia, and to facilitate the natural right to self-defense.
n the majority opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court first conducted a textual analysis of the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons. The Court examined historical evidence that it found consistent with its textual analysis. The Court then considered the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and determined that while this clause announces a purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the operative clause. The Court found that analogous contemporaneous provisions in state constitutions, the Second Amendment’s drafting history, and post-ratification interpretations were consistent with its interpretation of the amendment. The Court asserted that its prior precedent was not inconsistent with its interpretation.
The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.
I find it funny that people still quote the Consitution and Bible as facts to live by. Both these documents have become outdated, and really don't apply to todays society. We need to evolve or we will perish. The uneducated, gun toting, bible thumpers are the reason our country is starting to fall behind other countries.
Your comment makes no sense at all. Cars have a purpose other than to kill. Do guns?
Cars also take people with guns to places like movie theaters.
I have used my guns incorrectly over 10,000 times it sounds like. 8 times correctly however (to supply my family with food for the year).
I think that citizens of the United States should be banned from possessing any assault weapons because they are dangerous. I agree that people kill, not guns, but if someone has had too much to drink or are on drugs, it can effect their judgment. Plus there would be accidents with children getting hold of them and injuring or killing themselves or someone else.United States should be banned from possessing assault weapons, inclusive all kinds of Conseal hand guns .So there will be NO more assault weapons and semi automatic and Conseal guns at Public places.
ONLY basic Rifles be permitted as to 2nd amendment, to protect owner on his home,as no CRIMINAL wanted to be seen carrying RIFLES in Crowd,this can alarms the public to response of any danger.
All weapons must be Banned in Public places, Only Police Officers
@ Left Wing Nut Job Yes you are right. A State is the country, but again, its not the government.
Didn't dislike your post, but you dismiss my point, which I understand since you don't have anything to come back with.
Yes, let's talk about your car, a lethal weapon. When I wanted to drive a car:
1. I had to take a course in car safety.
2. I had to pass a test demonstrating that I had paid attention to the course.
3. I had to show good enough physical health, eyesight, etc. in order to get my driver's license.
4. I have to pay a registration fee to the government for my driver's license.
5. I have to pay a registration fee to the government for my car.
6. My car has a tag ; if it is used in the commission of a crime, it can be traced back to me.
7. I have to buy insurance to pay for damages in the case of mis-use of my car or an accident.
These are widely considered to be reasonable regulations on my use of my car, a lethal weapon.
So I take it you think that gun, which are also lethal weapons, should require a course in gun safety, a license both for the gun and the gun owner, insurance in case the gun is misused and a tag identifying every bullet coming out of the gun?
Because you have just told us that you think it is a good idea to compare cars and guns.
The 2nd Amendment is not a suicide pact. It says "A well regulated militia being necessary..." Instead, too many people today think it says "A
well regulatedmilitia being necessary..."Comment moved after I discovered this thread was collapsed.
Feel free anytime to come and TRY and take my guns...
Come on now...come and TRY...
I have no other comments on this topic except this..... just come and try and quit running your mouths and back up what your preach about gun control and come and take my guns.
The man who did this is nothing more then a sick puppy. May the people who have suffered for this MANS horrible crimes recover from this, as best as possible, in this dire situation.
Leftwingnut: I'll accept you apologies now as you so adamantly blamed this crime on "Christians". And don't bother trying to bore with the lies stating that Hitler or the Nazis were Christians because they were not and neither is the party a Christians society, but I do know you are thinking it.
I assume you mean the licensing will be to the same approximate standards as driver's licenses. Also, when you get a driver's license, you can drive your car in public in every state in the union, every city, and do not get harassed for no reason by the police.
I am personally all for licensing if it means I can carry my gun in public in every state.
Your right we should just do away with those silly old things. Without that outdated Constitution us on the right could do away with liberal speech, the right to protest, put down those biased media hacks who think they have freedom of press, and we could confiscate the property of those who disagree with us because we are no longer held back by outdated documents. Let's evolve shall we.
Bob - 1.16 - Yes, I love how we're right up there with Yemen and Somalia. Awesome. Both shining beacons of - well, something.
And I love it even more when people drag out Switzerland as a positive example. Different culture, different history, different mentality, restrictive gun control, etc., etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/switzerland
http://www.guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html
LookingForward...wrong. This is from Merriam-Webster, but feel free to try another dictionary:
Note that it IS the government, for good or ill.
And you accuse me of dismissing your "point", which I did not dismiss - I rebutted it. That WAS the point of what I posted. You, on the other hand DID dismiss both my original point with one that was comparing apples and oranges, as well as my rebuttal. "...you don't have anything to come back with." is both dismissive and argumentative. And incorrect.
@ Byron Raum: I agree, I don't want a blind man having a concealed license or a psycho path having a gun period. I do think every gun owner should have to take a gun course before buying. You have to before getting driver licenses right?
I remember my CHL class, there was this one dude next to me at the range, he loaded 9s into his 45 pistol...... He was hitting my paper...... needless to say, he didn't pass........
I have a trade off for the two groups. Sounds like the sentiment of the anti gun crowd is to hold people responsible. So why not get rid of guns and all social programs as well. It's time for all Americans to act responsible in all aspects of our lives.
This is my opinion on the subject.
The problem today is not with guns, it's not with the regulation of firearms or arming MORE people.
The problem today is the mass hysteria and predjudice fueled by the media and politicians for their own gain.
We have been turned against one another. Systematically we have been spoon fed images to breed hate and distrust for one another for the last 60 years. It began with the Cold War when politicians learned that my careful manipulation of the media propeganda could be used to get Americans to fall in line behind a perceived enemy. It was expanded upon over the years and embellished upon by the 24 hour cable news cycle. The wealthy elite who govern the world quickly learned that they didn'thave to do anything to solve a problem, so long as they pontificated about it as a "War" on Poverty, Drugs, Crime, Terror etc. When engaged in war, one must have an enemy. That's what's been happening. We've come to regard anyone who is different as "the enemy". Other groups have taken a page out of that book too. Now we hear things like "there's a war against Christian values" or "the battle for the American way of life" or "the war on women's bodies" etc. Sikhs are "different" they dress oddly to the average American, they stay within their own communities. They are not one of "us" therefore they must be one of "them" is how the ill informed paranoid psyche perceives it.
We are going to be torn apart from within unless we take steps now to break down these artificial barriers and find the commonality between us. We need to stop exclusionary thinking. Stop labeling yourself "White, Christian, Democrat, Northeastern, Yankee fans with tatoos." Can't we all just go back to being Americans? With a common purpose to build up and have pride in America? I'm tired of turning on the TV and seeing ads telling me I should hate this or that group. I hate watching the news and hearing pundits explaining how all our woes are because so and so did such and such and all the people who support them are secretly out to get me.
The root cause of all our problems goes back to this divisiveness. The rich think the poor are out to empoverish them. The poor beleive the rich to be embroiled in some mass consipiracy to hold them back from success. The whites think the blacks use racism to take what they haven't earned. The blacks think chites will never given them a fair shake. They both are afraid that Mexicans are taking over the neighborhood.
You cannot bring th epublic to fever pitch paranoia and not expect that eventually it will boil over in some very unpleasant ways. There are weak minds among us. They will break first. They are breaking now. Eventually though, if the chaos is allowed to continue we will reach a point of societal breakdown where good men and women will find themselves doing things that would shame them in peaceful times. It's not too late to turn it all back. It starts with us. Demand better from the political discourse. Demand better from our newsmen. Stop using militaristic metaphors for societal ills. Embrace those who differ from you, embrace diversity and the fact that we live in a nation that allows us to have a difference of opinion.
@ Left Wing Nut Job It is not limited to the government, its a free nation, a free country, a free people. You deny that we aren't free as a people based on the Constitution or the freedom is based on what the government decides? If the government was a dictorship/nazi/communist/theocracy then its not free government. Hence the 2nd amendment, to protect the freedom. Not for "good or ill".
I didn't dismiss your first point. You said "little arsenals going against tanks and planes". I came back with whats going on overseas. Our own military hasn't cleared them out. So my point is, yes, a small arsenal can be used against a superior power when used right, and still win.
i have a concealed carry permit and i never leave the house without my pistol. im not in the nra or any other gun club. i carry my pistol for protection. and for bob, if im at home with my family and a criminal kicks my door in and he has a gun and i dont , in that split second how do i protect my wife and kids without my gun? im all for tougher gun laws for criminals who obtain, carry, or use weapons ILLEGALY but to try and take them away from people who just want to protect themselves from criminals who will surely find a way to carry guns no matter what laws you pass is just ignorant. and in the one minute it took me to type this paragraph the criminal that kicked my door in has now shot and killed my entire family. if only i had a gun to shoot the bastard ....OH WAIT I DO HAVE A GUN!! and i hope i never have to use it but if the scenario i just gave you comes true i will defend myself and my family. and argue all you want to bobby boy YOU WILL NEVER TAKE GUNS AWAY FROM LAW ABIDING CITIZENS WHO JUST WANT TO GOTO BED AT NIGHT WITHOUT FEAR OF SOME CRIMINAL SHOOTING ME , RAPING THEN KILLING MY WIFE AND DAUGHTER ALL BECAUSE DOUCHE BAGS LIKE YOU WANT TO EMPOWER THE CRIMINALS AND TAKE AWAY THE ONE THING THAT I HAVE TO USE AGAINST THEM!! NEVER GONNA HAPPEN BOBBY BOY!!!
Wisconsin has some of the most permissive gun laws in the country and had passed a law in 2011 allowing citizens to carry a concealed weapon.
This is pure Bull $hit!!! When Wisconsin passed its concealed carry law last year, it brought Wisconsin in alignment with 48 other states. Our gun laws are no more permissive or restrictive than the vast majority of the rest of the country. Illinois is the only state that does not allow CC. As we all know, there is no gun crime issues in Illinois at all. Shame on MSNBC, I am sick of your crappy, biased reporting, not even worthy of some high school rag. The only question is how much egg will MSNBC and the other leftist competitors have to wipe off their faces this time, since every time these terrible events happen, their 1st impulse is to tie it to the TEA Party of any number of conservative organization.
Bob,
Actually I support extremely strict gun laws. A complete ban on assault rifles (not used here), much more regulated ownership, no concealed carry, strict regulation on allowed ammo, and support of the police who do shoot when theirs or others lives are threatened.
I could go into more detail, I was just pointing out the flaw in your argument that no guns ensure to gun related killings.
guns don't kill people, Crazy white dudes with three names do. Just stop selling guns to crazy people.
Truant, time to bore you with some facts (not lies, sorry)...
First, I do not recall being adamant about Christians being involved in this shooting, although the jury is still out on just who (or what) this guy was. Perhaps you have inside information relating to the beliefs of this guy, or you knew him personally. I doubt either is the case.
Now, time to bore you. Wishing away bad people as not being Christians simply because it does not fit your agenda is childish. Perhaps you are confusing Nazi Germany with some other state that was godless (say, Soviet Russia, which actually wasn't entirely godless, either), but Germany itself was far and away a Christian nation. Try this on:
94%. Gee. I know facts can sometimes be inconvenient, but you saying it ain't so doesn't change a thing. Hitler himself stopped practicing Catholicism, yet continued to call himself a Christian. Some modern historians feel he may have been a deist (like Madison, Hamilton, or, likely, Jefferson), but there is no conclusive proof, just Hitler's own words.
Now, what proof do you have that Hitler, the Nazis, or Germany in general, was not Christian? Because they did bad things? You might want to pick up a history book.
A dishonorable discharge, prevents a person from LEGALLY, purchasing a firearm; we have Nazi gangs, Black ghetto gangs, Hispanic gangs, criminal gangs of all race; that is why it is important for Americans to possess firearms Legally acquired, protection of yourself, family and community.
I guess George paul john is on that list then.
For those not quite up on the gun culture of Wisconsin, a few observations. Born and Raised in Wisconsin now from Massachusetts. Big deer hunting state, on a trip from Milwaukee Billy Michell field to Oshkosh during hunting season, I counted well over 100 deer tied to the hoods of car traveling in the opposite direction on Highway 41, a trip of less than two hours. As a boy scout our big fund raiser was a live turkey shoot which was very popular and drew a large crowd of hunters and gun enthusiasts all armed to the teeth for an afternoon of skeet, dear rifle, archery, sharp shooting, competitive fishing, beer drinking and traditional Indian dancing. I'm uncertain if it still takes place but I think the ASPCA took offense at the "live" part of the turkey shoot. I am unaware of anything bad happening at this event outside the time my second cousin caught a 22-short thru his thumb when he tried to convince a stubborn turkey to stick his head up above a bunker by hand. No lawsuits, no knee jerk reactions, no Neo-Nazi skin heads, it was a different time and place.
"When people have to feel safer in this country by carrying a gun with them always, there is a serious infection in the society. I don't know exactly HOW we got so sick, but the fact is we ARE sick."
Read that then read it again. Chew on it for a minute.....That about says it all. All these so called gun nuts are just shills most of whom are paid trolls because they all say the same thing. Rest are just like most FAUX bots that cant think for themselves. No one I know wants to ban guns. What they want is for us not to let people who buy guns get them without a background check and if they show phsyc in their past they should not be permitted to own one. No one ever stood up and said it was a bad thing when they passed a law that all felons cannot own a gun. What is the difference then between a person whokites bad check not being permitted to own one since he has been convicted of a felony or a drunk driver who has been convicted of drunk driveing which is a felony and he cannot own one and a person who is out of his head? Look at the pictures of the movie theatre nut and the guy who shot Gabby. The guy who sold both of these people a firearm should be sitting on each of them's laps when they throw the switch. Let the nra do their fear thing and sell more and more guns they do not care what happens as long as they rake in the dough. They sell arms to both sides in a conflict after all and anybidy who would do that is as slimy as a snail in heat
That's nice, but he apparently did NOT get a dishonorable discharge. It was less than honorable, but not quite dishonorable, so you can get rid of the capital letters and righteous indignation.
Paranoia is not a good reason for purchasing weapons, by the way. Suppose somebody thinks YOU are a threat - would it then be OK for you to be shot? What if it were your kid? Would you be OK with that? Should we just get rid of courts and give everybody a gun?
I love how the Left thinks they are smarter than the founders. Never before and never since has a group of intellectual giants assembled together in one place. They created the most revolutionary document ever conceived and in the process freed millions if not billions. The Left would call them primitives today since they wouldn't know what a cell phone is. The Left would say that's not what they intended or meant. You want the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to be a living document because you don't like the limits it puts on you. How it limits your tyranny. You pieces of human excrement couldn't carry least of the Founder's jock strap.
You're not getting my guns.
End of story.
This guy who did this horrible crime is a POS NAZI
You know the same bastards who killed millions during WWII
Guns are here to stay and if you don't like that to bad Please Leave no one is going to stop you.
So sick and tired of hearing these whining anti American anti 2nd Amendment who think they know better then our Founding Fathers you make me all sick.
You are traitors to our Constitution and our great Nation.
From my Cold Dead Hands
Actually, they can be purchased. A bit more extensive paperwork & a $200 transfer tax is needed. They are great fun to shoot.
It amazes me...it truly does...everytime I read one of these articles where some guy (and yes it's always a guy) goes somewhere and shoots up a bunch of people with gun(s) there is ALWAYS at least one or 2 morons who said...."too bad there weren't people there armed they could have shot him!" I mean seriously people...do you READ what you type before you hit send??? The way some people think (or don't think just gut react) truly boggles my mind. Yes, more guns at the scene of a slaughter is definitely the answer. NOT
I know I spent 13 years in the Navy, I was an M-60 gunner for for the Ship's Self Defense Force. I loved my M-60.
If some nut breals into your home and is going to kill you and your loved ones YOU can bet you're going to wish YOU had a GUN to protect them! And I'm a Democrat that lives in the real world. Stop watching Walt Disney movies because that's not real live, real life is what you see on the 6 O'clock NEWS.
another perfectly legal gun nut. cant wait to get the "facts."
how much you wanna bet mr racist gun lover thought he was killing musim ter'rists!
lovely
To those of you who seem to think you can do away with the 2nd Amendment and who think that we don't have a right to have firearms:
Feel free to try and come take them anytime. Oh, that's right. You won't try...because you're all nothing but a bunch of whining, gutless windbags. So easy to play the little tyrants and say "you shouldn't have this"...and yet so much more difficult to actually put your little tyrannical plans into action.
The ignorance of people like you is appalling to the point of absurdity. What do guns do besides kill? Seriously? Hmmmm let's see, they put food on the table, provide jobs to thousands of people (after all, somebody needs to make those guns and ammo), provide a form of entertainment/recreation (ever hear of target shooting??).
I feel truly sorry for some of you. The lack of intelligence you display is saddening and the hateful ignorance you have for guns and gun owners is beneath contempt. Some poster posted this:
THAT YOU WANT A GUN is a good indication that we should check to see if you are NUTS
Ok seriously? What kind of mentally defective clown comes up with such ridiculous ideas? The fact that I like guns is NO indicator that I'm "nuts". The fact that some of you seem to think this is true only proves that YOU'RE nuts.
I took an oath to defend this country from enemies, both foreign and domestic...and I'll gladly defend it from a bunch of spineless tyrants who think their fear gives them the right to penalize me just because they are afraid. That's right children, you want guns taken away from law-abiding citizens because YOU ARE AFRAID.
Bottom line is this. You will NEVER have a right to deprive law abiding citizens from owning firearms that they have legally purchased. Anytime you think you feel froggy enough to try, by all means come and try.
Just make sure your wills are filled out first.
EK did you even READ what you typed. It wasn't McVeigh's truck that killed everyone...it was the bombs and explosives he had IN the truck. I mean seriously, if you're going to try and make an argument, have it make some semblance of sense and be based on reality. And it's LogicReQuired not reGuired. It's awfully difficult to read someone's post and think there's going to be any logic in it... if he can't even spell required.
Personally, I realize that Americans are not going to lose their right to own guns. I wouldn't want to be the one to tell them, myself. But as long as things like what happened in Wisconsin or Colorado are happening, people are going to continue to complain about it.
Tho the gun owners I would say, it is not the liberals who are your enemy here, it is the people using guns to commit violence. They are really what the problem is. If you can find a way to effectively cut down on gun violence in this country, you will hush the folks complaining about the guns. Simple. I guarantee it.
It may not be an easy thing to solve but if you are interested in ending the perceived assault on your 2nd amendment rights, that is the only solution.
Oh and one last thing. If you set your mind to it, you can come up with a solution.
tz-318...., I'm truly at a loss for words after reading your rant. It begs the question," do you READ what YOU type before hitting send"? Are you saying the police should then respond to these situations will billy clubs? Are police the only ones capable of, God Forbid, shooting a syco in the process of murdering innocents? You imply that the average citizen who has taken the time and expense to carry a firearm is incapable of taking out the bad guy (and its always a guy you know) without injuring a bystander. You sound enamored with your own perceived intelligence, believe me, you shouldn't be. Your preconceived prejudices about gun owners is alarming and stunning for such an intellectual as yourself. If I'm ever unfortunate enough to be in one of these situations, I prays as much firepower as possible will be directed toward the offender, I don't don't care who it is firing back, I know my chances of survival are now better.
I know I am coming late to this party, but isn't a major metropolitan city like Chicago a 'gun-free' zone?
If so, can someone explain to me the statistics and effectiveness of this 'gun-free' zone based in this article?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/16/chicago-homicide-rate-wor_n_1602692.html
Classic example of what the U.S. will look like if only the criminals are 'allowed' to have weapons...
You think you have a lot of victims now? You haven't seen nothing yet. THIS is why I have a CCP...
Those that have a right to possess a weapon and opt not to- just state this one word aloud:
"Baaa..."
I'd rather have a weapon and not need it than need a weapon and not have it.
Prayers for the families and friends. Praise for the officers who defended innocents against a lunatic. Guns are not the problem here. Did any of you stop to consider that all the illegals flowing into this country unchallenged by our goverment MIGHT be fugitives from other countries? If some of them are, I wonder what they did that was so bad they had to leave their native country? Not saying this guy is from another country, just saying the problem in this country with CRIMINALS and guns WILL escalate in the months to come. We need alot of changes in this country and in my opinion, people coming into this country ILLEGALLY is TOP PRIORITY.
Seriously? Any opposing army, or even our own in the unlikely event of "fascism taking over", will have much bigger guns than any citizen has. They'd also have tanks and planes dropping bombs. Your little cap gun, by comparison, would do absolutely nothing.
The simple fact is that the second amendment is 200 years out of date. Back then there was no military, only militias. Today, we do have a well organized militia, 5 of them, in fact. The US Army, the US Air Force, the US Marines, the US Navy and the US Coast Guard.
It seems that so many like to forget the context given to the second amendment, that is within the confines of a well organized militia.
Hey Big Al,
"So sick and tired of hearing these whining anti American anti 2nd Amendment who think they know better then our Founding Fathers you make me all sick."
There is not doubt people here know much more about today than our Founding Fathers could have ever predicted. Let me ask you why it is anti American to want some regulation of guns? I can assure you the the Founding Fathers never predicted that 250 years later we would have an average of 10,000 American lives lost a year due to guns. If they had foreseen that they would have written the 2nd Amendment a little more carefully. The Founding Fathers were not clairvoyant, there is no way they knew better back then about what the present is today.
Chris
They do allow it and yes you can.
You are so right, the thought that banning any inanimate object will solve anything is simple minded.
LookingForwardtotheFuture
actually 2001 was an odd year due to the September 11th "terrorist" attack, I chose 2001 because those were the only stats I could find for the UK but the numbers in the US have increased since then to closer to around 40,000 per year. I got my statistics from the same place you got yours, the only place that keeps records of deaths due to various causes, the national center for health statistics and the center for disease control and The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, of course since you are lying you never went there, you just made yours up. But yes you are right, 58 percent are suicides, and 40 percent are homicide leaving 2 percent to accidents and police shootings. But 60% of all homicides are committed by people using guns, and 80% of those are done by people who never committed a crime before, (aka law abiding citizens). I have had a gun pulled on my 3 times in my life, each time it was by a supposed "responsible gun owner" who let his temper over power his small brain when he caught me dancing and/or sleeping with "his" woman who forgot to mention she was spoken for (or didn't realize she was spoken for), is that what you scared little boys need guns for? to threaten a bigger man when your girlfriend cheats on you? I really feel sorry for you, it must be horrible to go through life afraid of your own shadow.
The man who is constantly looking over his shoulder in fear of someone stabbing him in the back does so because he has spent his life stabbing others in the back. We fear someone forcing their beliefs down our throats at the point of a gun because we have a history of forcing OUR beliefs down everyone elses throat at the point of a gun. We worry about others taking what we have because everything we have we have taken from someone else.
first i apologize for the book it was not my intentions when i began to type, however please do not write me off as a leftylib/gunnut, and not read my opinion, after you read my book and truly digest it, then feel free to label and denounce as you see fit. thank you
at first i wasn't going to say anything, i was just reading through the comments cause i find it amuseing and very interesting to watch the bigots of the left and right spew their usual opinions concerning the 2nd amendment. but as always the stupidity of some pushes me to want to spew my own stupidities.
compared to the levels of education and technology we now have today yes you can say we are "smarter" than the founding fathers and people of those times, however we are surely lacking when compared to the wisdom of some of the people of those day. (not really needed but thought i would throw it in the mix since others were attacking and accusing others of thinking they are smarter than the founding fathers)
i don't really know where to begin with all this nonsense, i believe our 2nd amendment Rights have become greatly twisted and perverse (mainly by the propaganda of the NRA). However i own a shotgun for hunting and protection of my family, i also own a varmint gun (break-action single shot .22 long over 410 shotgun) since i live on a ranch and there are plenty of critters out to harm the livestock. i believe it is the right of Americans to arm themselves for protection and hunting (though there are some animals we are allowed to kill that we shouldn't be). however i don't believe this needs to be done with assault rifles whether they are semi or fully auto (there is little difference in the speed at which i can wiggle my finger and the speed of an auto that doesn't require me to wiggle said finger). none of the weapons i own can be shot more than 4 times before a reload is needed and they fulfill every claimed need of gun owners other than target shooting.
The concealed carry laws are a mistake IMO, they should all be changed to open carry of a sidearm. what better deterrent (since it is claimed that the simple fact of an armed populace is a deterrent to crime and invasion), than seeing that firearm on the hip of those who wish to carry to protect? At the same time it gives those who are timid or rightly cautist of gun users the ability to quickly identify and distance themselves from the gun carriers. If you want to hide your gun on you person then it can be reasoned that you intend to do something unlawful with your firearm.
just like some states used to have 0 tolerance laws when it came to drinking and driving or drug possession, so should there be a federal 0 tolerance law concerning firearms involved in ANY crime/illegal activity, punishable by banishment, life imprisonment, or death (to be carried out within a months time of the offense). for occurrences that are clearly accidents like a child or family member being killed by the irresponsible storage or use of a firearm the owner will be banished from the USA or sentenced to life in prison, add to that the use of a firearm (whether for hunting, target shooting, or protection) while under any mind altering substance(alcohol or legal and illegal drugs). For the breaking of any law from speeding to robbery where the offender is armed it should be mandatory life imprisonment. For the use of a firearm in a crime that harms another living being from rape to murder it should be death. Also everyone should have to pass mental evaluations before they can legally purchase a weapon. Strong and sometimes excesive punsihments are the only way to deter would be criminals, then after the drop in crime that we will have the police forces can then focus better on the insane members of our country who would commit mass killings regardless of the known punishments and access to weaponry.
One last note, those on these forums who are compensating for their mental or 3rd leg short comings by thinly veiled threats of "I dare you to come take my guns away!" are the first that need to be evaluated for mental stability. You mental midgets are a prime example of why some people don't feel you should have guns, you are part of the problem, please evaluate your bigotry and try to be a part of the solution to Americas gun problems while insuring that the mentally able and responsible citizens still have the right to arm themselves.
Again Thank you for your time.
As with everything, the market decides what sells and what doesn't, availability drives cost, etc. I would love to get my hands on a Barret M82 Long Range Sniper rifle ($8900) or even an M60 semi ($10500) but it is cost-prohibitive for me.
Because it is within economic reach of many in mainstream America, you can purchase an AR-15 from a number of vendors with costs ranging from $1200 to $3000+. Depending on what bells and whistles you hang from it and what manufacture will determine what you will pay.
This turns into a habit forming hobby for a lot of us that want to save up our pennies to buy a scope that is almost as expensive as the weapon itself, a laser designator, perhaps a forward grip and a 6-position buttstock that is comfortable on our cheeks. By the time we spend all that money, we don't want to do anything dumb, different, or dangerous that would strip away our right to have it in the first place, so we tend to be extremely law-abiding.
Additionally, it is the ammunition that drives a lot of us law-abiding citizens to purchase the AR-15 vice any other rifle because you can use the 5.56mm ammo but that too is pricey compared to .223 ammo instead. We buy both in bulk but more of the .223 for target practice and save 5.56mm for when the government says you cannot have your weapons anymore...Bulk allows us to get more ammo for our dollar...
Any law-abiding citizen has the right to defend themselves; why not with a weapon? It expedites the assailant's journey to the next plain of existence.
You have a compact weapon for conceal carry personal protection...
You have a full-size weapon for open carry personal protection...
You have a shotgun for home defense...
You have an AR-15 for when the government says you can no longer have any weapons...MOLON LABE!
Keep your powder dry, folks.
he should have used a drone...like our government does...then he could have said it was a glitch in the remote control...like our government does...
@think about it
We already have over 20 Thousand Gun Laws in this Country that should do it don't you think or should we add just 1 more.
This guy is a sick Nazi POS & there are lot's of these types of Nazi's all across our Country 8(
To all the conservatives here, you can talk 'til you are blue in the face, you can present irrefutable evidence to the contrary, you can give compelling testimony, but you will never convince them, that no matter what laws are passed, they will be safer. You are arguing a religion with these people and you are not even speaking the same language. (Case in point: {Gay: : happily excited : merry b : keenly alive and exuberant } I am quite unsure how looking at another man's hairy posterior could make another man happily excited, to paraphrase Kinison)
Until they realize they are responsible (key word, responsible) for their own safety, they will continue to follow this line of thought. You liberals should read "Warren v. DC; The police have no duty to protect"
But I thought I should at least answer a few questions posed, and comment on a few points of misinformation or misunderstanding.
@ Momus2009 #1.23
1) We do have all sorts of restrictions on firearms purchases. One can not purchase a firearm for a number of reasons (google NICS forms atf-f-4473-1.pdf) and one must pass a background check.
2) You are exactly correct, but these are social issues, not 2nd Amendment issues. Is it just me or has anyone else noticed the correlation between the rise of "Social Justice" and violent crime? Maybe this is just media bias (those things that get reported and those things that don't) and I am being misinformed, and actual crime is down relative to the past (circa 1880, 1920 and 1960).
@ Left Wing Nut Job #1.28
1) Kansas State Constitution Article 4 Of the The Bill of Rights(below). Maybe you should read your own state constitution. You do realize they are still in fact valid documents, even in this age of liberal hysteria, idiotically one world government, and Pro-Socialsit/Communist movements.
And I saw earlier someone had posted SCOTUS DC v.Keller.
2) Pursuant to your argument then (if I may extrapolate, the founding fathers meant only muskets, or single shot black powder type arms as voiced by others, and thus the 2nd amendment does not apply to modern arms), all modern media, Movies, TV, and the Internet, etc, are not covered under the 1st amendment and it only applies the the printed press or live speech. Same goes for Abortion.
3) And this is where you fall down. The Bill of Rights, wasn't "created". The Bill of Rights is an enumeration of the limits of the Government. And if you truly understood the founding fathers, you would know that they included ARMS, not muskets, or Firearms, in the 2nd Amendment, so that the people would have the military equivalents if the need arose.
4) Wikipedia actually has a pretty good definition. Maybe you should read it. Sounds an awful lot like what the Left is doing in this country right now.
5) And I am not going to speculate on the outcome of either this situation or others, but neither should you.
6) Let's try not to be asinine.
7) I have several AR15 and AR10 based hunting rifles, and I have a few Military based bolt action rifles. Until you fully understand the difference between the types of guns and their actual use and function, I would recommend you refrain from suggesting what one does or does not need. Do I tell you how many shoes you need? or purses?
8) I am not sure where this quote comes from, circa 1900, "when one does not know who is armed, it behooves oneself to be on one's best behavior"
I know a couple comments have been made about and compared Gun Ownership to having and driving a car. Fine, let's put ignition interlocks on all vehicles. And that will forever stop any more DUIs and the fatalities they cause. Of course so many of you dope smokin hippy liberals don't even own a car, much less depend on one for survival (not that I am saying I depend on a vehicle or a gun for survival, I am not will to deny someone who does) so this won't effect you, but you should consider those that do.
Remember, any limit you wish to put on something, can be turned around and use against you.
Pretty poor rebuttal, with lots of nonsense in it. And I do NOT live in Kansas. The "asinine" thing with (6)? Why, that would be the argument from the right - I was merely point out the inanity of it. Thank you. Do not lecture me on weaponry, friend - you have no idea what my knowledge is of weapons, although it is pretty clear you THINK you know a lot...and guns are not equivalent to shoes or purses - who'e being asinine now?
It would appear you spent a lot of time coming up with this nonsense...guess you have more time to waste than I. Feel free to post as much as you'd like...I'm tired of arguing with people that seem to think the best way to stop violence is to shoot everybody.
@DumbFarmBoy....WOW! That's about all I can say to what you posted, besides your screen-name fits you well.
Hey I'm not saying take every ones gun away, all I am saying is take those guns away from people who aren't sane enough to own one. In other words give people psychological exams prior to allowing them to have a gun. Go to any redneck bar and ask a group of wingnuts what they would do if they came home and caught their wife screwing another man, 99.9% will say "I'd shoot him", those kind of morons don't need guns. Go to any Tea Party meeting and ask a group of wingnuts what they would do if President Obama walked in the room, 99% of them would say "I'd shoot him", those kind of morons don't need a gun. Go to any mega church and ask a group of wingnuts what they would do if Muslims tried to build a Mosque next door, 99% will say "I'd shoot them", those kind of morons dont need guns. I guess what I am saying is liberals are the only ones smart enough and sane enough to be trusted with guns.
@ Left Wing Nut Job #1.119
Well if it is such a poor rebuttal, tell me where I am wrong. I gladly accept critical arguments, if I am wrong, I will admit it and apologize.
"Lots of nonsense", show me where.
If you understood, that many of the states constitutions are based on the US Constitution, you know that by reading them you get a better understanding of the US Constitution and I was using it to answer your first question
(6) Yes I understood that, and I do know what inanity (from the root word inane) means with out looking it up and I guess I should have put a ;-) behind my comment as I was being sarcastic, sorry about that.
Well, you asked "Who of you is hunting with these weapons?" Given the nature of the question, I would presume you had no idea what an AR15 actually is. Perhaps I am wrong, but maybe you can tell me if my AR15 uses gas impingement or gas piston for cycling?
Guns are exactly like shoes and purses, each one is used for a certain purpose, just as you need heels for formal wear and a matching purse, I need a .243 for small game or varmints and a 30.06 for larger game.
And nowhere in my post did I claim "the best way to stop violence is to shoot everybody"
And yes I did spend a lot of time on this, because I felt it was worthy of my time to respond to your questions and statements. I am sorry you feel you are so much better than me that you have to belittle my efforts.
@ Momus2009 #1.120
I forgot to mention this in my earlier post in response to yours, but, Thank You, for your service.
But I am getting the feeling you were offended by my comment about "the rise if Social Justice and the correlation to a rise in these incidents" (I took a closer look at your Avatar) and I apologize if that is the case.
Perhaps I chose my words poorly. My point is, since the 60's and the Progressive march toward hedonism in this country, with the rise of the welfare state, and easy divorce, discipline in this country is gone. No longer are men being raised by fathers. And how do you become a real man, if you don't have one to show you the way? Granted it isn't always successful, but it is more successful than the alternative.
That's why I say these are social issues. I know nothing about this guy or his family or lack of, or the guy in Colorado, but I'd be willing to bet there was no strong male role model in either of their lives.
Of course I could be wrong and you're just like the other liberals and can't argue the points and have to resort to name calling
My sincere condolences to the killed, injured and their families.
I am not aware of incidents where people with guns stopped a mad gunman. But I have seen enough events where mad gunmen have killed a lot of people with a lot of ease using automatic weapons.
PJ-1795048
"Automatic weapons"? Please post the reference for where an automatic weapon was used.
Or is that your own ignorance and hatred of firearms taking control of your mind?
An automatic weapon was not used in this instance. It's very very very very difficult for a civillian to legally own an automatic weapon and insanely expensive as well.
Gary kleck,PH.D
Funny how this stuff never seems to get as much play in the big news outlets.
http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bios/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx
At this point, it's safe to make a few conclusions. This was an uneducated hate crime. This guy was clueless about the differences in the average American. He killed Americans of the Sikh faith, most likely thinking they were Wahhabi extremists. I support education!
Secondly, without the handgun, do you believe this "genius" could have killed so many? Would he have failed or been discovered, if he didn't have a handgun?
Condolences to the families and friends. My heart is with you - Colorado.
The man LEGALLY bought the weapon ten days prior to the massacre. Yeah, clearly the laws are working.
Lets keep this murderers picture out of it. He deserves to rot in the ground and be forgoten
Well it's probably becaue leftist media hacks don't run to cover the stories and write about why we should have more guns.
Just to name a few.
Mad men go into movie theaters and churchs where people do not usually carry because the mad man is a pussy.....
Now if the mad man was not a pussy he would go into a "indoor shooting range" and go MAD huh?
if you want my guns come get them...
Cato is releasing a new study, Tough Targets: When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens, by Clayton Cramer and David Burnett. The paper makes use of a news report-gathering project to explore in more detail how Americans use guns in self-defense.
The paper makes many excellent points, but I’ll mention just three here. First, the average person tends to imagine that these self-defense situations involve criminals getting shot. Such cases do occur, but the overwhelming number of self-defense cases involve situations where the gun is never fired.
The second point relates to the first. The average person usually does not hear about defensive gun cases because news media organizations do not consider the incidents worthy of coverage. If a burglar runs away from a break-in when he discovers that someone is at the home and is armed, it may only garner a terse mention in the paper, if it makes the newspaper at all. With no shot fired, no injuries, and no suspect in custody, newspeople typically decline coverage. The point here is not to criticize the news media’s handling of such incidents–rather it is just to remind readers that we tend to hear about criminals using guns to perpetrate crimes, but we do not hear about many self-defense cases. In this milieu, it is understandable why many people would develop negative opinions about guns.
Third, when a gun owner does shoot a rapist or is able to hold a burglar at gunpoint until the police arrive on the scene, it is very likely that more than one crime has been prevented. That’s because had the culprit not been stopped, he very likely would have targeted other people as well.
Good point, Jeff. Clearly more gun regulation is the solution. Lets make crazy people illegal too, while we're at it. It will accomplish just about as much.
Happens all the time - but the press does not cover it. An off duy policeman shot a gunman at a mall, with one person with minor injuries... was on the news for all of two minutes.
Makes you think about all the stories that end up on the cutting room floor.
A Reichwing, racist, domestic terrorist?
Imagine that.
All of the racism of the Party of No and Ron Paul is homicidally feeding the Party of No "base."
Do you know of a single Neo-Nazi that votes Democrat?
First, the bad guys, such as this man was, will always find a way to get guns. What is repeatedly reported across the US is that people that legitimately want to get a hand gun for protection cannot do so. I live here in WI. Most of my neighbors are hunters and they do have an assortment of guns. BTW, these are very liberal individuals and in fact we rent out land to very liberal individuals. What has happened for the past couple years between all these people is gun incidents whereby the police had to be called in to manage the situation that easily could have gone badly.
This soldier most likely did see action while serving and so he would know the damage a gun can do to a person. I content that many that buy guns have no idea what a gunshot wound looks like or what somebody peppered with gunshot would look like. Our tv programs with daily violence leaves our the reality. I once had a good friend that was a police officer. He shared crime scene photos with me which I can still see in my head. Awful. Really awful.
I support the right to bear arms. I support a process that weeds out the legitimate requests from those that should not legally own a gun. That will not prohibit that person from finding another route. However, I am opposed to automatic weapons in the hands of the every day person. I am sure somebody can make a case for their need, but I haven't heard it yet.
The story said the weapon used was a 9mm semi auto pistol, purchased legally within the last ten days. It also said that the man's "run ins with the law" was limited to traffic violations. So far nothing there to indicate that the laws in place were not working. The fact this man decided to melt down and kill people at this temple is probably related to some experience he had with the members. As his background is dissected they will find a reason for this hate crime. No need to fear a repeat of this because the man is now dead and his hatred with him. This is about the man not the gun or the gun laws in the State of Wisconsin. Illinois, not 20 minutes south of where this occurred has some of the most stringent gun laws in the country. Chicago, less than an hour ride south has a complete gun ban in place, yet it is experiencing a spike in shooting deaths these past few months, the worst that has been seen in years. We seldom see violent crimes in the national news anymore, except when they pad someone's political agenda or especially in an election year. The common denominator in all violent crimes is not the type of weapon, nor is it the use of a weapon at all. The common denominator is people, and until we figure out a way to sort out a person's intentions, crimes like this will not be preventable. My prayers go out to the victims and their families and I hope the officer that was injured is honored for his bravery. In the end it will always be people not the tools that are responsible for the actions.
Another example of the Military mind set resulting in sick soldiers out of Ft. Hook slaughter civilians. Our military has nothing to be proud of! Stop all these guns being put in the public hands to kill their neighbors, family and the innocent.
Never Stop Asking Questions:
No I dont know ANY Neo-Nazi people but OBVIOUSLY you do since you can make a blanket comment of not knowing any of them that dont vote Republican.
Ron Paul does NOT promote HATE, He actually is the ONLY politican who gets what the REAL America is going through. But unfortunately we keep going to the guys who ALREADY have the power and money and we dumbass voters keep electing the same one over and over again and wonder why things dont get any better.
"Never Stop Asking Questions"- ask your self this, sir or ma'am:
Your party is for mandatory gun confiscation. You justify this by saying that it will eliminate gun violence.
So you will send men armed with machine guns, body armor, gas and night vision to the homes of the over 85 million law abiding Americans who own firearms.
Should they resist, they will be shot. Any survivors will be imprisoned for life. Anyone who even questions your authority will be imprisoned and financially ruined as they try to regain their freedom.
All because they refuse to follow YOUR political agenda.
So ask yourself this... "Who is the fascist?"
Sorry, this is not the mind of the average military man, or the average gun owner, or the average right winger, despite what everyone on this board apparently likes to think.
This man was a fringe Neo-Nazi inbred moron who thought that Sikhs are the same as Muslims because he was a genuine wanker. Even if this had been a mosque this a-hole does not represent any major group (except white power neo-nazis... which, you know, f@#$ them).
We should focus on condolences to the victims, swift oblivion (letting his name die and his family shamed) for this idiot.
We should take away that the gun laws in this country need to be revised and enforced strongly. Someone who's known as a leader of a Neo-Nazi party should raise some major flags when going through the background check.
Also, side note, MJ, where in the f@#$ did you pull that golden nugget of crazy out of. I'm pretty sure no one has ever suggested gun control utilizing that method, nor ever will. Take your medication, your doctor isn't out to get you.
And yes it is. If people want to legally buy a weapon, they should have to provide a licence showing they understand firearm safety (which should also include a test showing mental stability).
There was also recent legislation that would require gun manufacturers to add unique groove markings to gun barrels so that each gun had a unique fingerprint. This way, we can track who bought a gun, and if the gun was used in a crime, who did the perpetrator acquire the gun from. this way, you can trace guns back to those illegally selling them. I don't know about you, but fingerprinting weapons seems like a reasonable way to stop illegal gun trafficking domestically, and it could be used to see if our gun get sent overseas.
Yes, regulation is the answer, but more passive regulation versus active regulation.
Neverstop,
What if this man turns out to be a card carrying ultra left liberal that lost a union job to one of the temple members? I did not see anything about political or idealistic affiliations in the article. There was mention that he had some strange views and prejudices, but then again everyone does, including you.
Any serious gun control will never happen other than maybe limiting clip size as guns are too much a part of our culture. However, arguments that strict gun controls wouldn't reduce murder rates is nonsense as our murder rate is 30 to 100+ higher than countries with strict controls. Best to just be honest and say the potential increase in crime and murder associated with free access to guns is a price we're willing to pay. Unless you're in an inner city area the risk of being murdered is still remote.
Just another example where a sick soldier with the military brainwashing has become a killer with a gun. Sad how we have seen two slaughters from Ft. Hood soldiers. Take the guns away from all the public that should never have them in the first place.
Archangel,
Article states: "Page is the former leader of a neo-Nazi music group called End Apathy". As an FYI, Neo-Nazi is a political group one associates themselves with... it doesn't lean liberal either, and it's much farther right than any other party in the nation.
Also saying that he had "some strange views and prejudices, but then again everyone does, including you." is pretty damn insulting to all of "us" out there. Our views and prejudices don't motivate us to attack peace-loving people out of idiocy. So... ya. Bullsh@# on your statement.
Doesn't some of the blame go to ur out of control military and their brainwashing of soldiers s to kill. this guy became a neo-Nazi or was it the republican party of today?
Its a sad day for veterans like myself as well clwd. Most of us remember how brothers of different beliefs stood beside us, watched over us, and were counted upon as part that "each other" which was all we had. I claim that few civilians have experienced that depth of bonding which occurs between men of different races who have served side by side.
Our hearts go out to the victims, the first responders, and all those who feel at loss by these events.
A few years back in Rochester, NY, there were several incidents within approximately one month where intruders were shot dead by homeowners. For almost a year after that, the burglary rate in Rochester was zero. Now there's a deterrent to crime.
WHY ARE AMERICAN SO AFRAID OF THE REST OF THE WORLD?
We always hear that "We don't want European socialism!" It's frightening to have Presidential candidates "who spent so much time overseas!" All Muslims want to "kill Americans!"
This lack of a world view, this ignorance of the rest of the world, makes stupid, crazy people shoot Sikhs.
Of course, the killer thought they were related to 9/11 attacks. What an idiot. Sadly, so many Americans think the same way.
People wonder why America is failing--it's our fear of the rest of the world.
Oh boy, does this stupid argument about guns ever end? For those who are pushing for banning guns, maybe you should watch a few episodes of "Lockup".
Bloods and Crips kill more then Neo Nazi's and which political party do most of them belong to? Chicago has a horrible gang problem, and in the worst neighborhoods you will find almost an 80% democrat voter registration.
Speak for yourself, Bart Conner -- ALL Americans aren't afraid of the rest of the world.
Just the willfully ignorant that think there is only one way to think, do or be.
We're not all like that.
Yeah, I guess the price society is "willing to pay" for the unfettered right of immature wannabe Rambos to own large, utterly pointless arsenals of deadly toys is that every couple of weeks or so a psychopath is going to slaughter a church full, a theater full, or a school full of innocent people. Right, Larry?
The time is coming soon when things are going to change to reflect the hard reality that people should not own or carry deadly weapons without a stiff regimen of training, testing, and licencing to educate the gun owning public and to help weed out the psychos and the mentally unfit from ever owning deadly weapons. Assault rifles and huge ammo magazines will be strictly regulated or completely banned, as they should be. People like Larry need to understand society is no longer willing to see its children, families, and neighbors butchered on the alter of the Second Amendment simply to satisfy their desire to own a large semi-automatic pistol or an assault rifle with a 100-round drum magazine. It's time to stop the slaughter of the innocents.
I am becoming more frightened of the redneck, racist, bigots in THIS country than in others. Seems like more terrorism in our own backyard than those who live here, even those who weren't born here. What a sad, tragic waste. My condolences to the families and friends.
I don't own a gun because I fear the rest of the world, I own a gun because I fear many Americans who want to push their agenda onto me and my family and would do so using force if they could. Just read some of the posts and you see how many of these people would eliminate the Constitution, limit free speech, control the media, make illegal groups like NRA, limit religious freedoms, and take away any guns and chance I would have to defend myself.
Tell me, how many guns were the Jews allowed to have in Nazi Germany?
How many guns were owned by Russians under Stalin?
How many guns were owned by the Tutsi people in Rwanda?
The list goes on and on. How many MILLIONS have died under your "no guns law" safety net?
http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm
This is an Evil act. That is the thing in common between this attack and the others it is compared to.
Many ways to kill biological life forms.
It isn't just education we need it is Ethical Education.
I think it wasn't Hitler's specific Hate it was Hate. Remember he killed his own as well.
"Attitudes are Contagious"
If your going to pray, pray for all who lost their lives, all of them.
I am not sure you have noticed this, but guns do not stop bullets.
The best you can hope for is that you can predict the future and figure out where a bullet is going to come from, and shoot first. If you are a good shot and the bad guy has no friends, you might be able to get him first.
That is, of course, assuming that everyone else surrounding you who is armed is just as intelligent as you are, so they can read your mind and realize that you shot the bad guy, that you didn't start it.
Basically the "I need a gun so I can defend myself" asks that America become a war zone, where you have to look at every neighbor, every punk kid, every housewife, every old man, everyone who has a different skin color from you, and wonder whether they will be the one who kills you today.
Private gun ownership is what allowed our forefathers to declare independence and remove the British. We said leave, they didn't, we shot them. Our forefathers wanted to be certain that should the gov't they were creating grow too big and powerful to the point that it had become just what the British had been, they wanted the people to be able to stand up to the government. A government should fear it's people, not the opposite. Look at New Orleans with the illegal gun confiscation...the police robbed people of their firerms and then the gangs came and they were defenseless.
The state derives its moral authority from the consent of the governed. If they are citizens they have already consented to obey the law.
Can you please list all the violent crimes coming from thse groups that have you so afraid? One event every 10 years is hardly a crime wave.
boob-1008224
If you think the present administration doesnt think about the power of gun ownership as a deterrent to complete military state control, why are pushing so hard for our right to own guns to be taken away.
Keep thinking the way you do and we will wake up in the United States Socialist Republic some morning and have to go to our local gov. office to see if they are going to give us food for the day.
http://www.neontommy.com/news/2012/07/doing-math-guns
How much gun violence is there in Switzerland? And they have one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world.
If I have correctly read all of the facts and they've been reported accurately, the criminal who perpetrated this mass murder did not, in fact, legally purchase the 9mm pistol he used.
It is reported that he received a dishonorable discharge from the US Army. That is similar to being a convicted felon and people who have received dishonorable discharges from the US armed forces are ineligible to purchase any modern firearm, defined by law as anything that fires a fixed cartridge and manufactured after 1899. This would include all 9mm pistols. Other things people may do to make themselves ineligible to lawfully possess firearms besides being convicted as felons would be to become addicted to illicit drugs or to be adjudicated as insane by a court of law, which usually would be followed by commitment to an institution.
Even if he had somehow legally purchased the handgun, I've got a feeling that he was not legally entitled to carry it with him in public. I understand that Wisconsin recently enacted a law that provides for lawful carry of concealed weapons with a permit, but my gut feeling is that this guy probably didn't have one, for whatever the reason.
2 events in the last few weeks...DUH!
Another tragic event and, of course, we have all the loonies claiming that we MUST ban guns. These types will never "get it" that guns are harmless unless in the hands of criminals. So, by their logic we MUST take guns from honest citizens and leave them in the hands of criminals. Smart, real smart..........
Why are SOME americans afraid? Because so-called leaders like Michele Bachmann tell the ignorant masses that Islam IS the enemy and they believe her! Got to protect the Christian majority!
I'm from Wyoming and own rifles, shotguns and a few pistols and I have hunted and killed many big game animals over the years. I've given up the sport in favor of golf because there is absolutely no sport involved in lobbing 300 Winchester Magnum bullets at deer and elk from almost 200 yards away. They can't see or hear you and have no idea where to run, sometimes they panic and actually run TOWARD you. Real fair fight, me with a rifle accurate to almost 500 yards vs an animal just trying to survive winter. Give me my 3 iron from 225 yards and the pin is safe. How hard is it to hit anything with a rifle and scope. The gun argument has changed so much in the last 25 years. I knew 3 or 4 people in 1987 that had "assault" weapons. All had machine guns that were "De-Commissioned" to "Semi-automatic" and were more for show than anything. Today I know of over 40 friends that buy and own some scary guns, one guy just bought ten clips for his pistol that holds almost 20 bullets because he heard Obama wants to take em away. He's a strange guy to begin with and he has three teen-aged boys who all have friends over to the house and you can see just how easy it is for one of those clips to go missing. We must be realistic about this and stop digging in so hard on both sides.
Also for of you listerning too much to NRA propaganda, please tell me one piece of legislation the current administration has proposed to limit your gun ownership? NONE! So stop the crap about voting him out for that reason. He recently came out in support of the right to bear arms!
LogicReguired,
This isn't the Wild West anymore. We can just pass some fricken gun laws like the rest of the developed world and then we won't have people shooting each other! Goddam, this whole argument is so f u c k i n g stupid!
Yeah!! Another victory for the NRA, another ignorant s#%thead with an auto-loader. America is a very violent place and the NRA wants to make sure that all the idiots have unlimited access to whatever weapons they desire. Very shortly these ignorant morons will have to start shooting each other because the rest of the people will be to afraid to go out anymore without full body armor. Actually ignorant rabid NRA gun owners shooting each other is probably a good thing.
What do these incidents have to do with this? Nothing! Friggin yellow journalism!
The fact that this man and most other Americans don't know the difference between Shiks and Muslims is just a testament to our ignorance. We need to become more educated.
Oh, and those crying for gun control and how our nation is the worst in gun violence and blah blah blah, I have one word for you: Mexico.
Logic required, but not evident,
Your logic is illogical. If our country is so great what do we have to fear? Could it be that the opposite is true? The extreme right with all their gun ownership and the NRA will take over this country? Do you think people with guns could stop the army? Could they have stopped Hitler? I think the answer is obvious, "NO!."I fear my neighbor with his semi automatic more than any robber as I keep my door open often. That is until I think of the nut living next door.
PJ - He used a semi-AUTOMATIC hangun purchased shortly before his rampage.
Perfect example of how gun laws are NOT working.
There should be a ban on semi-automatic as well as automatic weapons, and we should have a mandatory waiting period and strict background checks.
Is it not that the Right and Left have become extreme to the extent that Veterans and American Values have become perceived radical? Veterans the people who volunteered to possibly give their life so you can carry on in peace. Thus better chance of improving yourselves and ability to exercise freedom so ultimately we all win. These people?
Why do they say this guy is a veteran? And a Sergeant? He was given a dishonorable discharge and reduced in rank to specialist; he wasn't a veteran, he was kicked out. Also, a dishonorable discharge used to mean you couldn't own a gun; when did that change?
Probably because your right to gun ownership means that manufacturers have a right to sell weapons to whoever can pay for them, which means that mass murderers can easily pick up weapons like yours at the local Walmart and go on a rampage.
Probably because your right to gun ownership means that 30 Americans lose their lives every day to gun violence.
It's interesting you would bring this up. Because the revolution in Egypt was started because the government raised the price of food. The Egyptians started a revolution (admittedly later perhaps corrupted by Islamic fundamentalists - that still remains to be seen.) But they did start a revolution. And they won it. None of them were armed. They did not have weapons. And THAT is why they won. Because they had the moral authority of the unarmed. It works against governments. It's worked before, you might have heard of Gandhi, who took on a world empire and won.
Guns cannot protect you from a corrupt government. They can, however, kill you when they are easily obtained by mass murderers.
Yeah another comment about how the NRA supports Nazi's and that 80 million Americans are rabid gun owners I'm just spouting off cause I hate guns and our bill of rights yadda yadda yadda
This killer was a Nazi Barlow someone who hates 8( he doesn't represent the NRA or America
He is the worst kind of human being a NAZI.
I thought it was illegal for people dishonorably discharged to buy guns. What's the deal?
And in the hands of cops. By your logic, we don't need a police force, since all we need is a gun to protect ourselves.
Never mind that this is going to turn America into a war zone, with everyone wondering whether that punk kid, that housewife or that guy with a turban or a a skin color different from our own is going to be the one pulling out a weapon.
But no, we MUST protect the rights of gun manufacturers to make a profit. The 2nd Amendment demands it.
Travis,
A neo-nazi music group is far from extremist political involvement. Regardless, when this all shakes out this will be one man motivated by hate for reasons that probably will be taken to his grave. The difference between my statements and those like yours and others on this web is that I am trying to focus the blame on where it belongs not on an object that cannot think or act of its own accord. I do not disagree with your statement that maybe more passive regulations on gun ownership might be effective, but we must consider them carefully and objectively. Blanket statements about political groups are always inaccurate because not all those associated feel the same about any given topic. I'm a member of the NRA for over 30 years and I can tell you that more than half of the expressed opinions about that organization are grossly exaggerated or down right misinformed lies. An example would be the current waiting period on the purchase of a handgun. This measure was actually supported by the NRA when it went into effect. I am for responsible gun ownership by law abiding individuals, I believe in the second amendment and what it was written to do, but I also recognize the need for public safety and more importantly personal responsibility when it comes to all things let alone guns or crimes. To lump someone into a group on a perceived notion, especially from an article written with such bias as the ones on this board is wrong, and so is attacking any particular group for the actions of one individual.
If the Navy Veteran who gave his life in honor by taking on the Colorado Shooter barehanded, Had he had a Gun we would be enjoying the parades.
@clwyd
Your logic is illogical. Boring If our country is so great what do we have to fear? Where did I say this country was perfect? This country was once great but that doesn't mean we couldn't fall. (Rome)
Could it be that the opposite is true? So you don't think this country is great? Why do you live here? Do you think this country is greater then most countries?
The extreme right with all their gun ownership and the NRA will take over this country? You aren't so ignorant as to think Democrats don't own guns or are not members of the NRA?
Do you think people with guns could stop the army? I don't believe our Army would follow any orders to attack or disarm the American people, but I think it is a much taller order for politicians to ban guns if you have to arrest and kill many law abiding citizens. Banning guns is one thing, coming to get them is another.
Could they have stopped Hitler? Well who knows, HITLER HAD GUN LAWS!
I think the answer is obvious, "NO!." If Hitler came to take your family to the trains wouldn't you rather be armed? The outcome might be the same but I would rather go out fighting then following orders into a gas chamber. Die Standing up, and free.
I fear my neighbor with his semi automatic more than any robber as I keep my door open often. That is until I think of the nut living next door. Your neighbor has this weapon, yet has never killed anyone with it has he? You fear him because he owns a gun, or because as you say, he is a "nut"? Maybe none nuts should be able to own a gun.
@Mike Davis
Well mike this argument is stupid, and if you would of looked at any of my links you would see our how stupid your gun law argument is. I'll post again for you simple minded folks. There are even charts and pictures to help you see America and Switzerland have high gun ownership but that does not equal high crime rates. Poverty and piss poor governments equal high crime rates including murder.
Also: The rest of the world does not have the second amendment, WE DO, get over it and F&*%$ng move to one of your Utopian countries if you don't like it!
http://www.neontommy.com/news/2012/07/doing-math-guns
One final point, neither of you answered any of my questions in previous post. Nothing about Switzerland'sgun ownership, nothing about how many guns were owned by Jews, Tutsi's, and all the other great Genocide victims of our time. You willfully ignore facts and data that don't support your simple minded solutions that have been shown to be not effective. Go away and come back when you have passed what Thomas Sowell calls "Stage One Thinking".
I think most people would be surprised at HOW MANY NEO NAZI/WHITE SUPREMACISTS there are in this country. It is scary and they are scary. Hitler mindset, with weapons, here in good old America. They are your neighbors, co-workers, family members, etc. There are a lot of them and I find them more frightening than any group of people I have ever educated myself about. They are scary and they hate...really hate, anyone that they feel isn't white, through and through. Sad stuff.
Byron Raum,
Are you living with your head in the sand or are you just choosing to be ignorant of the facts in Egypt? The protests started peacefully enough but when the government pushed back, out came the guns and the revolution continued, as it did in Libya, and now in Syria. Also look back into our own history, it wasn't through peaceful unarmed protest that we won our independence from England, it was through armed insurrection.
Keep spouting your special kind of hatred and twisted logic. There are 80 million plus legal registered gun owners in this country, the vast majority of which follow the law. The second amendment has nothing to do with protecting the rights of gun manufacturers to make a profit, but it does protect the rights of citizens to hold the balance of power against a government unchecked. You slammed me for a comment before about how everyone has peculiar prejudices, the one your showing is about an object that cannot act on its own. Wake up and realize that it is the person not the tool that is to blame and you will impress everyone with your new found wisdom.
Diverdown1 I dont know any. But there is Nazi circa Socialist and Nazi circa Eugenicist that exists in this country.
Olivia Forever,
You his girlfriend, honey?
guns are outlawed in Mexico how is that working out ?
LogicReguired,
I saw your instances in which someone used their weapon to foil a shooter. Yes, there may be some, especially with all the cowboy fantasies you people have. What I want to know is something that there aren't any statistics on: how many conceal-and-carry "heroes" run and hide in the face of a shooter? There are instances of this happening too, and I'm betting those instances are much less likely to be discovered. Also, your article is horribly done. It mentions Switzerland twice, once in the picture caption. It also accidentally points out it's main statistical error: we should be controlling for HDI and only compare developed countries. It compares the US to Djibouti and other who-knows-where-the-hell-it-is low-income type-places. If you included HDI in a regression of gun violence and gun ownership, you may get a statistical relationship, although it may be small because there's only going to be a few developed countries stupid enough to have gun ownership levels as high as we do. Find a study on the states. I'm betting there is a clear and evident correlation between gun ownership and gun violence within the 50 states. And there it makes much more sense to compare Colorado to Wisconsin than it does the US to Zimbabwe.
Here. This is done by somebody who is actually being objective about this. It compares states and cites a study by an economist who shows states with stricter gun laws have fewer gun-related deaths. Wow. What genius figured that one out?!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/23/six-facts-about-guns-violence-and-gun-control/
It's time we start thinking about this without a political or ideological lens. I can google "child shoots self" to gather just as many instances of a child accidentally shooting themselves or a friend as you can find instances of some cowboy having a gun when trouble arises. Not figuring this out is costing way too many innocent lives.
Why was this azzwipe targeting Sikhs? They never did anything wrong to America... what a f-ked up world we live in...
Mike Davis,
Firsat of all your article is hardly from someone who is "being objective" like you said. The article was from Ezra Klein. Let's see what other "objective things Ezra has written shall we?
"And the policy gap, put simply, is this: Obama has proposed policies. Mitt Romney hasn’t."
"I can describe Mitt Romney’s tax policy promises in two words: mathematically impossible"
"He’s appeared on The Rachel Maddow Show, Charlie Rose, Real Time with Bill Maher, The McLaughlin Report, the Colbert Report, and many more."
Come on Mike you can do better then this guys Blog story.(not an actual story)
Here is some thing I found...
I do not pretend this is some "objective" news source but that numbers are real and everyone knows Chicago and D.C. have the tightest gun laws and some of the worst murder rates in the country.
I will say this again, taking out suicides as these people could hang themselves or Overdose if no access to a gun you will find gun violence highest in poor communities like inner cities and the south. High gun ownership in Nebraska however has not equalled higher gun violence.
D200911 is correct, the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits ownership of firearms by the dishonorably discharged. It appears that this guy's recent gun purchase violated Federal Law. Another one, like James Holmes, slips through the gaps in background check process. We may or may not need more gun control, but we certainly need to fix these problems with background checks.
As to the journalist calling him a veteran, well, I doubt any of us with Honorable Discharges would own him as such.
To be clear I don't think more guns and less gun laws would equal the best situation, just as I don't think more gun laws and less gun ownership by law abiding citizens would be the best situation. I do believe like everything their is a balance that gives the best option. I personally like the Midwest state laws that allow you to carry a fire arm if you have a concealed carry permit, but only if you have such a permit. I also favor felons, and mental health patents not be allowed to own fire arms, just to name a few. Balance is key, not knee-jerk reactions that take away law abiding peoples guns because of criminals actions.
LogicReguired,
I'm pretty sure that's economic research being cited
Our military and Ft Hood have nothing to be proud of with the mass murderers they have created. End the right to bare arms.
This is pretty long but I would put money on the fact that MOST of you dont know this. The next time you are told that the consevatives are all about HATE, give some of this.
History Of The Democrats And The KKK.....(Why the Democrats started the KKK)
Live Leak ^
Posted on Thursday, August 06, 2009 12:59:36 PM by IrishMike
The original targets of the Ku Klux Klan were Republicans, both black a...
nd white, according to a new television program and book, which describe how the Democrats started the KKK and for decades harassed the GOP with lynchings and threats.
An estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites died at the end of KKK ropes from 1882 to 1964.
The documentation has been assembled by David Barton of Wallbu More..ilders and published in his book "Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White," which reveals that not only did the Democrats work hand-in-glove with the Ku Klux Klan for generations, they started the KKK and endorsed its mayhem.
"Of all forms of violent intimidation, lynchings were by far the most effective," Barton said in his book. "Republicans often led the efforts to pass federal anti-lynching laws and their platforms consistently called for a ban on lynching. Democrats successfully blocked those bills and their platforms never did condemn lynchings."
Further, the first grand wizard of the KKK was honored at the 1868 Democratic National Convention, no Democrats voted for the 14th Amendment to grant citizenship to former slaves and, to this day, the party website ignores those decades of racism, he said.
"Although it is relatively unreported today, historical documents are unequivocal that the Klan was established by Democrats and that the Klan played a prominent role in the Democratic Party," Barton writes in his book. "In fact, a 13-volume set of congressional investigations from 1872 conclusively and irrefutably documents that fact.
"The Klan terrorized black Americans through murders and public floggings; relief was granted only if individuals promised not to vote for Republican tickets, and violation of this oath was punishable by death," he said. "Since the Klan targeted Republicans in general, it did not limit its violence simply to black Republicans; white Republicans were also included."
Barton also has covered the subject in one episode of his American Heritage Series of television programs, which is being broadcast now on Trinity Broadcasting Network and Cornerstone Television.
Barton told WND his comments are not a condemnation or endorsement of any party or candidate, but rather a warning that voters even today should be aware of what their parties and candidates stand for.
His book outlines the aggressive pro-slavery agenda held by the Democratic Party for generations leading up to the Civil War, and how that did not die with the Union victory in that war of rebellion.
Even as the South was being rebuilt, the votes in Congress consistently revealed a continuing pro-slavery philosophy on the part of the Democrats, the book reveals.
Three years after Appomattox, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, granting blacks citizenship in the United States, came before Congress: 94 percent of Republicans endorsed it.
"The records of Congress reveal that not one Democrat � either in the House or the Senate � voted for the 14th Amendment," Barton wrote. "Three years after the Civil War, and the Democrats from the North as well as the South were still refusing to recognize any rights of citizenship for black Americans."
He also noted that South Carolina Gov. Wade Hampton at the 1868 Democratic National Convention inserted a clause in the party platform declaring the Congress' civil rights laws were "unconstitutional, revolutionary, and void."
It was the same convention when Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, the first grand wizard of the KKK, was honored for his leadership.
Barton's book notes that in 1868, Congress heard testimony from election worker Robert Flournoy, who confessed while he was canvassing the state of Mississippi in support of the 13th and 14th Amendments, he could find only one black, in a population of 444,000 in the state, who admitted being a Democrat.
Nor is Barton the only person to raise such questions. In 2005, National Review published an article raising similar points. The publication said in 1957 President Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, deployed the 82nd Airborne Division to desegregate the Little Rock, Ark., schools over the resistance of Democrat Gov. Orval Faubus.
Further, three years later, Eisenhower signed the GOP's 1960 Civil Rights Act after it survived a five-day, five-hour filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats, and in 1964, Democrat President Lyndon Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act after former Klansman Robert Byrd's 14-hour filibuster, and the votes of 22 other Senate Democrats, including Tennessee's Al Gore Sr., failed to scuttle the plan.
Dems' website showing jump in history
The current version of the "History" page on the party website lists a number of accomplishments � from 1792, 1798, 1800, 1808, 1812, 1816, 1824 and 1828, including its 1832 nomination of Andrew Jackson for president. It follows up with a name change, and the establishment of the Democratic National Committee, but then leaps over the Civil War and all of its issues to talk about the end of the 19th Century, William Jennings Bryan and women's suffrage.
A spokesman with the Democrats refused to comment for WND on any of the issues. "You're not going to get a comment," said the spokesman who identified himself as Luis.
"Why would Democrats skip over their own history from 1848 to 1900?" Barton asked. "Perhaps because it's not the kind of civil rights history they want to talk about � perhaps because it is not the kind of civil rights history they want to have on their website."
The National Review article by Deroy Murdock cited the 1866 comment from Indiana Republican Gov. Oliver Morton condemning Democrats for their racism.
"Every one who shoots down Negroes in the streets, burns Negro schoolhouses and meeting-houses, and murders women and children by the light of their own flaming dwellings, calls himself a Democrat," Morton said.
It also cited the 1856 criticism by U.S. Sen. Charles Sumner, R-Mass., of pro-slavery Democrats. "Congressman Preston Brooks (D-S.C.) responded by grabbing a stick and beating Sumner unconscious in the Senate chamber. Disabled, Sumner could not resume his duties for three years."
By the admission of the Democrats themselves, on their website, it wasn't until Harry Truman was elected that "Democrats began the fight to bring down the final barriers of race and gender."
"That is an accurate description," wrote Barton. "Starting with Harry Truman, Democrats began � that is, they made their first serious efforts � to fight against the barriers of race; yet � Truman's efforts were largely unsuccessful because of his own Democratic Party."
Even then, the opposition to rights for blacks was far from over. As recently as 1960, Mississippi Democratic Gov. Hugh White had requested Christian evangelist Billy Graham segregate his crusades, something Graham refused to do. "And when South Carolina Democratic Gov. George Timmerman learned Billy Graham had invited African Americans to a Reformation Rally at the state Capitol, he promptly denied use of the facilities to the evangelist," Barton wrote.
The National Review noted that the Democrats' "Klan-coddling" today is embodied in Byrd, who once wrote that, "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia."
The article suggested a contrast with the GOP, which, when former Klansman David Duke ran for Louisiana governor in 1991 as a Republican, was "scorned" by national GOP officials.
Until 1935, every black federal legislator was Republican, and it was Republicans who appointed the first black Air Force and Army four-star generals, established Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday as a national holiday, and named the first black national-security adviser, secretary of state, the research reveals.
Current Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has said: "The first Republican I knew was my father, and he is still the Republican I most admire. He joined our party because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did. My father has never forgotten that day, and neither have I."
Barton's documentation said the first opponents of slavery "and the chief advocates for racial equal rights were the churches (the Quakers, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc.). Furthermore, religious leaders such as Quaker Anthony Benezet were the leading spokesmen against slavery, and evangelical leaders such as Presbyterian signer of the Declaration Benjamin Rush were the founders of the nation's first abolition societies."
During the years surrounding the Civil War, "the most obvious difference between the Republican and Democrat parties was their stands on slavery," Barton said. Republicans called for its abolition, while Democrats declared: "All efforts of the abolitionists, or others, made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient [to initiate] steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences, and all such efforts have the inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people."
Wallbuilders also cited John Alden's 1885 book, "A Brief History of the Republican Party" in noting that the KKK's early attacks were on Republicans as much as blacks, in that blacks were adopting the Republican identity en masse.
"In some places the Ku Klux Klan assaulted Republican officials in their houses or offices or upon the public roads; in others they attacked the meetings of negroes and displaced them," Alden wrote. "Its ostensible purpose at first was to keep the blacks in order and prevent them from committing small depredations upon the property of whites, but its real motives were essentially political � The negroes were invariable required to promise not to vote the Republican ticket, and threatened with death if they broke their promises."
Barton told WND the most cohesive group of political supporters in American now is African-Americans. He said most consider their affiliation with the Democratic party longterm.
But he said he interviewed a black pastor in Mississippi, who recalled his grandmother never "would let a Democrat in the house, and he never knew what she was talking about." After a review of history, he knew, Barton said.
Citing President George Washington's farewell address, Barton told WND, "Washington had a great section on the love of party, if you love party more than anything else, what it will do to a great nation."
"We shouldn't love a party [over] a candidate's principles or values," he told WND.
Washington's farewell address noted the "danger" from parties is serious.
"Let me now � warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally. � The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism," Washington said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See More
And which way do we see the republican't party going today? Right into a National Socialist move to American Nazism! As a former YR I saw this coming as long ago as bush! Of course, you on the right never want to give him any blame for anything. Even the 750,000 jobs bush was losing when he left office got no complaints, but the fact Obama created only 168,000 jobs last month gets severely attacked by this party of Evil.
Im not sure why people are here crying about gun rights, nobody that makes laws has said or done anything to take away anyones gun rights. The one piece of gun legislation the president has signed has expanded gun rights. But when something like this happens you all come out of the woodwork crying someone is going to take your gun rights away. Why dont you just wait until someone tries before you start accusing them of doing it. This is what is wrong with this country, too many people assuming stuff and that is making asses out of you all.
This is not about gun control but about terrorism from people in our country doing it to other people in our country and that is what the debate should be about. How do we stop these crazy people from killing innocent people minding their own business. Religion like politics can get heated, but people need to realize in this country we have the right to practice or not practice the religion of our choice. Just as we have the right to be democrats or republicans without the worry of being persecuted for it.
Until enough people understand this we will continue to have so much hate it divides us. Im a democrat because I believe in what they stand for. That doesnt make me a commie or a bad person. I also respect republicans for their beliefs and that doesnt make them nazi's. Cant we just learn that not everyone is going to believe everything we do and still repect them?
Mike: Are you serious? You supply an article written by Ezra Klein as your support? This is the SAME Ezra Klein that is on Rachel Maddow, Ed Shultz, and the former Keith Olbermann so often he must have a parking pass!!
For every Ezra Klein article I can find you five others from reputable sources.
Statistics are clear. Gun ownership is growing significantly and, if your argument were true, violent crimes would be increasing at a similar rate. They are not. So your whole argument has been disproved.
But my bigger worry is how many think its appropriate to take away an Amendment from the Bill of Rights under the auspices that it will "protect us more". That is like saying "we have too many people who appear to be planning these types of shooting, or making meth, or running prostitution rings, or planning to rob banks so let's remove the 4th Amendment that says 'the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures'. That will most certainly reduce injury, violent crimes, and illegal trades".
Yes, that would indeed lower all those items if we allowed government and police to arbitrarily walk into your house and "check" but at what cost? Are you willing to give up the right to not have police enter your home at any time to check for illegal activity? Are you willing to give up the right to free speech? Are you willing to give up the right to assemble and pray to whatever your religion might be without the fear of 'religious police' punishing you? Don't you realize our founding fathers understood that although government could create a "safer" country it would be at a cost of reduced or eliminated liberty of the people?
To protect all the people it would require that the people have no rights or control what the government does and THAT is extremely dangerous. So for all your "gun control nuts" who believe removing the 2nd amendment is something to consider then realize that if you remove the 2nd amendment then it is then easy to remove the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th-10th amendments.
In fact Thomas Jefferson once said "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty".
Thomas Jefferson also said "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government".
The KKK was started in 1865 by six veterans of the Confederate army. The six veterans were educated people. They advocated white supremacy and anti-immigration. They referred to the USA as an Anglo Saxon country. There is some similarities between the KKK, the TEA party. and the NeoCons. Mitt would be trying to satisfy the KKK if that will lead him to the White House. Mitt wants to be president and for that he would do or say anything.
Does your doctor know you're off of medication? What in the hell are you talking about. I'm a Democrat, a retired Army SFC and I own guns. No one's party is for gun confiscation and not is taking my gun.
What are you, about 10 years old? Is this some kind of bizarre fantasy or have you been listening to Glen Beck? Just exactly who is coming for our guns...the men in the black helicopter?
Weird, you've got this all worked out don't you? Is this really your life?
Anyone who supports a blending of Corporations with the government. You on the other hand seem to be completely batsh!t.
Adam, Apparently you CANT read! You can NOT spin the truth. You may not like it but truth IS truth!
Typical lib though! The democRAT party started the KKK. PERIOD!
Why is it in the wake of a tradgedy such as this does the discussion always devolve into "we should get rid of all guns" vs. "You'll never take my gin from me" wingnuts yelling at each other as if they honestly believe this will be the one time in history that someone changed their mind about how they felt about gun control based on their well written, informed and fact based argument on a message board?
The fact is that the problem isn't in the gun.
The problem that should be discussed is why it seems that so many people are losing their minds to paranoid delusions. Why are so many people mistaking their neighbors as the enemy? Why are they engaging in war at home against innocent people?
There will always be crime and criminals will always have guns. The majority of gun violence in America is gang/drug related. We all know that limiting legal access to firearms will not affect those who are already in possesion of illegal firearms.
The only crimes that would be prevented are the ones perpetrated by those who "snap" and end up using their legal weapon (or procurring one legally) to commit their first crime. These people do not care that they will be caught. They know that they will be. If they were concerned about it they would take the time to obtain a weapon that cannot be traced to them. It's not really hard, you just break into someone's home and steal a gun. People do it all the time. My uncle had 3 guns stolen from him, 2 rifles and one handgun.
Now what makes a person snap like that... Well, sensationalism aside... I'd say that 85-90% are likely crimes of passion, heat of the moment type things. An argument goes too far, a man catches is wife in flagrante delicto, stress of everyday living... You can't plan who or when that's going to happen. It certainly isn't going to be screened out in a psych evaluation.
The other 10-15% are the big cases. The crazy nuts that no one caught and did anything about until they committed the BIG CRIME> Jared Laughner, the Aurora shooter, now this guy.... They are really crazy and looking to make a splash. They are a very small percentage of gun violence overall, but their crimes are BIG and flashy and get a lot of coverage. It's easy to imagine that if we had routine sych evaluations that these crimes would be prevented. But they won't be unless we also routinely get those who are denied permits psychiatric help once they've been identified. Remember you're talking about psychos that are highly motivated and often plagued by paranoid delusions. They already think that the government is out to get them, they believe that they are fighting the machine. If you deny them a permit they will beleive that the government is conspiring to disarm them to make it easier to be controlled. They then find other weapons to carry out their plans.
So unless we're willing to all submit to routine psych evaluations and have the results of such sent to the government who can then commit us for treatment against our wills... that's really not going to change anything.
Of course- we could focus on the majority of gun crimes that are based on predictable rises in crime in general. We can focus on bringing back good paying manufacutring jobs for uneducated people. Face it, not everyone is smart enough to go back to school and become an engineer. There needs to be jobs for stupid people too. Otherwise they start robbing, selling drugs, etc to make ends meet. We need harsher penalties for those who commit crimes using a weapon. We need feet on the street to intervene with the youth at risk for being caught up in gangs and we need to fix the schools in those high risk areas so they are no longer recruitment centers for thugs. We need fathers to man up and keep their families intact and parent their children, especially their sons.
Maybe if we were willing to do what was really needed we would actually see gun violence decrease. But that is a whole lot more work than neo hippie flower children simply crying "ban the guns" or concealed carry permit holders believing that beneath their pot bellied exterior beats the heart of Rambo.
Let throw reason out the window and stick with ideology by all means.
It's not really spin Tex. To begin with, the KKK wasn't started by a political party. The majority appear to have been "Southern Democrats, or Dixie Crats" but when the Civil Rights Act became law all of that changed. When Nixon instituted the "Southern Strategy" the DixieCrats converted to Republicans. Try to find a member of the KKK today who is a democrat. It's nearly as difficult as finding a neo-nazi who is a democrat. You don't have to like it, it's just the way it is. By the way, the demoRat thing is cute. It's almost as clever as republiCANT.
The dem party just had a kkk or ex kkk die off. He is in the artical. sen. byrd of w. virginia.
The thing with the republiCANT is you have to add a letter. "T"
just sayin. :) The dem. party says one thing and does another. They just LOVED Martin L. King but fail to mention he was a repub. and dont live up to what HE preached. They are a bait and switch party. That and lies and distortion is the only way they can get elected. I'm not always very happy with the repub. party either but wouldnt vote dem. if my life depended on it!
Eugene, I am not wise enough to comment what gun lawys would make sense.
But my uneducated guess is as follows:
Except for Strom Thurmond every single Dixiecrat and Dixiecrat supporter in office stayed with the Democrat party including old Kleagle Robert Byrd. Stop the slander!
I was right, the shooter was a deranged neo-nazi right-wing extremist nutjob that was too stupid to know the difference between a sikh and a muslim. (and all neo-nazi right-wing extremists are too stupid to know the difference between their arse and a hole in the ground)
What I find amazing about all of this is that when the government started mass surveillance on Americans, changed the law to allow warrantless searches of private property, and asserted its right to hold Americans indefinitely without bringing charges - all under the republican president GWB - you couldn't find a conservative anywhere who warned of the dangers of government tyranny.
But now, with a democrat in the white house, even though he has proposed no gun control legislation, and even though the only gun-related law he signed was to expand gun rights, the conservatives are out in force, peddling dark fantasies about midnight raids by fascist democrats to kill them and take their guns.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but our white supremist shooter in this case was also taken by such ideological ignorance and paranoia. I'm sure he, too, worried about the takeover of our country by immigrants, and the need to protect ourselves from Sharia Law.
As a liberal, there are many things I'd like to argue with conservatives about. We have very different ideas about what makes America great, and what we should do to protect our legacy into the future. But we can't get such a debate off the ground, when so many of you have planted your flags in the ground, preparing to fight an enemy which doesn't exist. It is time to grow up, put your militant talk in the closet with your guns, and for once in your lives actually try to understand what your political opponents are trying to say to you.
If you can't talk, then the only other option is to fight, and your preparation for civil war will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I can't believe we have come to this.
If by "your party" you mean the democratic party, that is utterly false. There may be a few on the fringe, but to say the democrats are for gun confiscation is simply a lie.
the simple truth is that gun control laws or absence thereof have little effect on the violent crime rate one way or the other. an example is when DC was forced to allow guns, the violent crime rate dropped, but by no more than what the entire national average dropped by in the same year and the following year.
the problem is cultural, not regulatory
Alright everyone, get those sleeves rolled down!!!
Not 100% sure what this is supposed to mean, but I'd gather that it refers to a situation that used to exist in parts of Central and South America as well as some of Europe, where firearms and ammunition utilizing cartridges that are used by the domestic or else a nearby foreign military establishment are prohibited in private hands. This was mostly a security and logistics issue in those nations, so civilians couldn't horde ammunition that the military might need in time of war (such as 9x19mm) or so that spies and operatives caught with guns and ammunition they brought with them could be prosecuted and subsequently executed easier. I understand that those laws have generally been repealed or replaced during the last 20 years, but resulted in odd one-off cartridges that featured a case length a millimeter or two shorter or longer than the standard issue in guns that were otherwise largely identical, so instead of a 9x19mm, there would be a 9x17 or a 9x21mm cartridge.
In some places this is done, but the main difference between cars and guns in this case is that in virtually all cases, the car will be operated on a public road. The main exception will be a antique vehicle purchased to be restored. Often, there IS no longer any title and IF it is ever completed and made roadworthy again (doesn't always happen by any means!), there is a process in most states to create a title so it can be registered and driven. With guns, the vast majority are not carried or used on public property, but rather on the purchaser's own land or on the land of a private owner who has given a gun owner permission to bring his or her gun along to use. Examples would be for hunting or at a range. The laws almost everywhere make very clear that while the gun is being transported (on public property, the road!) it must be unloaded, cased, out of reach of passengers of the vehicle, sometimes partly disassembled, etc. Many states that allow people to be granted permits to carry a concealed handgun require you to state for the record exactly what gun it is you've got and it goes on record as being the gun you have permission to carry. That is, effectively, a form of registration when you can't just carry any gun you happen to have, but only a specific one. It's usually also the one you have to perform a range qualification with periodically. But again, most guns are bought and then reside in a cabinet of some sort for the next who-knows-how-many years, so recording those transactions wouldn't make a lot of sense from a cost and burden perspective. Pemits to acquire a gun and background checks work very well, though, at keeping people who shouldn't buy one from acquiring one quite so easily. Anyone who sells a gun absolutely should request to see the buyer's ID, a permit to acquire if mandatory in the state (as it is in mine), fill out a bill of sale, and have the buyer fill out and sign an affidavit that they are under no legal disability that would prohibit them from purchasing a gun. If someone doesn't want to do that, they probably shouldn't buy a gun from you, and you never know what may be going on when someone approaches you with an offer to buy. It could just be a sting operation of some sort! They DO happen!
Not a bad idea, just one that doesn't seem to work. They've been trying to do it for years, but durability and reliability just aren't there. The circuitry needs to be essentially weightless and take up no space whatsoever, but then also be immune to oil, grease, and strong solvents, severe mechanical shock, temperature extremes, and then be able to do all that for the next 50 or 100 years...
Trust me, it is, and it is! Commit a felony, use illegal drugs, get kicked out of the Armed Forces, renounce your citizenship, commit an act of domestic violence, etc.
A non-issue, really. Guns are not difficult to make, but there is a lot to them and it takes some specialized knowledge, skills, and equipment that most people just aren't going to have. It's not companies doing it, it's scattered individuals, and as long as most guns are available at halfway reasonable prices of several hundred to several thousand dollars, people making guns (not a crime, by the way, if it's for your own use and not one taxed under the NFA of 1934, such as a machine gun, sawed off shotgun, sound signature suppressor, etc.) are going to be very few and far between! This is only a problem in nations where guns are extremely restricted for whatever the reason and the REAL problem is unlicensed copies of Kalashnikov assault rifles ('AK-47' clones) in third world countries. There are probably more of those than there are genuine Kalashnikov rifles out there, and a great many of these copies are, in fact, in the hands of governments and not citizens. They just set up a factory to make their own Kalashnikov type rifles for their armed forces instead of paying a royalty to the Russians and Mr. Kalashnikov to use their design.
LogicReguired,
Well, I'm glad you're not pretending your "sources" are objective because they're not. On-the-other-hand, my source, Klein, is in turn citing the work of an economist. It's an empirical study using valid statistics and widely accepted statistical techniques. Meanwhile, you don't even have a clue as to what a basic regression is and you're citing anecdotal evidence from gun-nut websites. Don't lecture me about objectivity unless your goal is to avoid a rational debate, which clearly it is.
Here's the good, and informed factual discussion on gun laws and gun violence:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/23/six-facts-about-guns-violence-and-gun-control/
Not restoring many comments, this is not a discussion of gun legislation. Please stay on the topic.
Then please at least delete those pro and anti at the same rate.
You say that without knowing anything. Maybe he's an OWS backer.
first i apologize for the book it was not my intentions when i began to type, however please do not write me off as a leftylib/gunnut, and not read my opinion, after you read my book and truly digest it, then feel free to label and denounce as you see fit. thank you
at first i wasn't going to say anything, i was just reading through the comments cause i find it amuseing and very interesting to watch the bigots of the left and right spew their usual opinions concerning the 2nd amendment. but as always the stupidity of some pushes me to want to spew my own stupidities.
compared to the levels of education and technology we now have today yes you can say we are "smarter" than the founding fathers and people of those times, however we are surely lacking when compared to the wisdom of some of the people of those day. (not really needed but thought i would throw it in the mix since others were attacking and accusing others of thinking they are smarter than the founding fathers)
i don't really know where to begin with all this nonsense, i believe our 2nd amendment Rights have become greatly twisted and perverse (mainly by the propaganda of the NRA). However i own a shotgun for hunting and protection of my family, i also own a varmint gun (break-action single shot .22 long over 410 shotgun) since i live on a ranch and there are plenty of critters out to harm the livestock. i believe it is the right of Americans to arm themselves for protection and hunting (though there are some animals we are allowed to kill that we shouldn't be). however i don't believe this needs to be done with assault rifles whether they are semi or fully auto (there is little difference in the speed at which i can wiggle my finger and the speed of an auto that doesn't require me to wiggle said finger). none of the weapons i own can be shot more than 4 times before a reload is needed and they fulfill every claimed need of gun owners other than target shooting.
The concealed carry laws are a mistake IMO, they should all be changed to open carry of a sidearm. what better deterrent (since it is claimed that the simple fact of an armed populace is a deterrent to crime and invasion), than seeing that firearm on the hip of those who wish to carry to protect? At the same time it gives those who are timid or rightly cautist of gun users the ability to quickly identify and distance themselves from the gun carriers. If you want to hide your gun on you person then it can be reasoned that you intend to do something unlawful with your firearm.
just like some states used to have 0 tolerance laws when it came to drinking and driving or drug possession, so should there be a federal 0 tolerance law concerning firearms involved in ANY crime/illegal activity, punishable by banishment, life imprisonment, or death (to be carried out within a months time of the offense). for occurrences that are clearly accidents like a child or family member being killed by the irresponsible storage or use of a firearm the owner will be banished from the USA or sentenced to life in prison, add to that the use of a firearm (whether for hunting, target shooting, or protection) while under any mind altering substance(alcohol or legal and illegal drugs). For the breaking of any law from speeding to robbery where the offender is armed it should be mandatory life imprisonment. For the use of a firearm in a crime that harms another living being from rape to murder it should be death. Also everyone should have to pass mental evaluations before they can legally purchase a weapon. Strong and sometimes excesive punsihments are the only way to deter would be criminals, then after the drop in crime that we will have the police forces can then focus better on the insane members of our country who would commit mass killings regardless of the known punishments and access to weaponry.
One last note, those on these forums who are compensating for their mental or 3rd leg short comings by thinly veiled threats of "I dare you to come take my guns away!" are the first that need to be evaluated for mental stability. You mental midgets are a prime example of why some people don't feel you should have guns, you are part of the problem, please evaluate your bigotry and try to be a part of the solution to Americas gun problems while insuring that the mentally able and responsible citizens still have the right to arm themselves.
Again Thank you for your time.
Mike: Give it up. Statistics are clear - gun ownership is up and violent crime is down. So your "theory" is false right there. How do you state gun control decreases crime when we have a statistic that say gun ownership is UP but violent crimes STILL going down?!?!
BTW, when your source of "facts" is Ezra Klein who is a clear liberal with an agenda but can't find anybody who is at least TRYING to be unbiased to agree with Ezra's consensus then you have lost all credibility. In fact go to Wikipedia and right next to his name (and birthdate) the NEXT words say "is a liberal American Blogger and columnist for The Washington Post, a columnist for Bloomberg, and a contributor to MSNBC. He was formerly an associate editor of The American Prospect political magazine and a political blogger at the same publication". Does that sound like an "unbiased factual voice" to you?
Then later in Wikipedia says "In December 2009, Klein wrote an article in the Washington Post, stating that Senator Joe Lieberman was 'willing to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in order to settle an old electoral score', because Lieberman 'was motivated to oppose health care legislation in part out of resentment at liberals for being defeated in the 2006 Connecticut Democratic Primary'".
Yea, THAT sounds like a person who is rational and unbiased..............NOT..............
ProBusiness,
Jesus Christ. Klien is citing the economic research that we're interested in. Get over your hate of the man and read the research by an economist who is not Ezra Klein. Here is the article again for the folks at home. The facts are based on actual research and just plain intelligence.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/23/six-facts-about-guns-violence-and-gun-control/
Plus, you correctly note that gun ownership is up. Does this have anything to do with Obama and the right-wing's use of him to generate fear? Most definitely. The right-wing is going f ucking nuts over him being president. Now, crime has also dropped during Obama's presidency. If I were as dumb and ideologically blinded as you are, I'd say that Obama must have dropped the crime rate, but when I use this thing called a "brain" it tells me that there is probably more to the story.
truetexan,
Why get hung up on the names "Republican" and "Democrat"? Those parties' definitions change over time. Talk about what's actually meaningful instead: being liberal or conservative. In no possible sense could the KKK be construed as social liberals, regardless of what their associated political party called itself at the time.
ProBusiness,
Most unbiased and rational people do turn out to be socially liberal. Sorry.
Gun Ownership UP UP UP
Crime Down Down Down
well except Chicago 8p
Put that in your pipe and smoke it 8)
It's kind of interesting, reading these posts. I'm seeing trash posted by liberals, conservatives, republicans, democrats, flower children, hippies, etc., and a few by some sensible people.
One thing I know for sure, after travelling around this world several times, living in several different countries, people are primarily interested in one thing: survival of themselves and their families. But, that is too bland and mild for the media, so they will exploit whatever they can to create discontent and disharmony, where the stories are.
Case in point is this one. A fouled up mental midget commits an atrocity on people in a midwestern city, in their church. All of a sudden, he's a VETERAN that snapped. (At least, that's my first impression, from the headline.) Personally, as a retired veteran of two wars, I don't consider this person that (supposedly,) never left the shores of his home country, a veteran of anything other than some kind of brainwashing by people he hung around with and associated with.
His military training was nothing out of the ordinary. But, from personal experience with many people, that means nothing, as any one of us is capable of reaching a breaking point at some point in our lives. Even the most calm and gentle point has some "button" that has a sign attached to it saying "this far, and no farther." Once that point has been reached, all bets are off.
As every expert in the study of human minds will tell us, there is such a thing as "fight or flight." Our own experiences in life will determine just what that means to us individually.
What happened is atrocious, by our country's morals and laws, as well as those of most of the "civilized" world. It is done. let's look at REALISTIC ways to deal with it, WITHOUT the acrimony, political role playing, and "one-upmanship" our political representatives are always playing at.
Mike: Amazing how you just make it up as you go? Just because you repeat it enough doesn't make it true. Ezra is NOT interested in facts but an agenda and I clearly explained that to you. So if you want to speak about facts I am certainly interested. The whole article is complete falsehoods. The scary part is he didn't even try to "twist" the facts. He just made it up. Like gun ownership down? Check these out (type three w's in front of each):
gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx
usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-08-06/gun-safety-classes-attendance/56832968/1
seattlepi.com/local/article/Gun-ownership-grows-following-national-trend-1303350.php
mvtimes.com/2012/05/02/marthas-vineyard-women-join-national-trend-gun-ownership-10409/
post-gazette.com/stories/sports/hunting-fishing/rise-in-firearms-use-by-women-a-national-trend-293829/
dailycaller.com/2011/10/27/gallup-self-reported-gun-ownership-rises-especially-among-women-dems/
lewrockwell.com/rep/gun-ownership-up-crime-down.html
So if your article states gun ownership is DOWN when all indicators and data shows otherwise is unintentionally wrong or intentionally misleading. And if Ezra will flat out lie regarding ONE STAT why wouldn't he flat out lie to push his agenda on ALL stat? Well he does. Gun ownership is up and violent crime is down. And that my friend is undisputed.
Twist and turn your information any way you want to but I know liberals believe if they repeat something untrue enough they can convince others. But most people are smart enough to do their own research. Cities and municipalities where gun ownership is "easier" have LESS crime and those with strict gun ownership have MORE crime. Only a liberal would be surprised with that information.
ash plissken...
"Most unbiased and rational people do turn out to be socially liberal. Sorry."
Sorry you are wrong. OWSers, green peace, peta, environmental screwballs, etc... All liberals all biased, all irrational.
as far as the KKK comment, the parties have changed some what over the years but the hate still comes from the left. You never saw ANY rapes, murders, violence, or drug use at a tea party protest, they even cleaned up afterwards. Take a look at how the left vilifies the women on the right. IF the right did or said the things about the libs in that way there would be hell to pay. Hate still comes from the left even after all these years. I dont think you read the whole article.
right, a nazi skinhead as an OWS backer.
what planet do you come from? if you are trying to prove your ignorance, you are doing a great job.
So sad.
(This is a reply to Pirana but the thread that Pirana started has now been collapsed (While I was working on this reply) so I deleated my post in that thread and moved it here)
Things were great in the formerly good state of Wisconsin until Gov Scott Walker took over the state. ( I get the feeling that take over was due to massive Voter Fraud.)
Okay. Now we have had yet another mass shooting. The NRA gives a unsatisfactory response.
It is now time to repeal the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, Replace it with an amendment that gives States the right to have a National Guard/Reserve etc. And another Amendment that clearly states Gun Ownership is a privilege (Hope this is the right spelling the spell checker said it was but it does not look that way to me) that can be regulated by local town, city, county state and Federal Regulations and if a State wants NO gun laws or Regulations (Except federal) then that's fine and if a state wants to totally ban guns that's fine too.
The CNN commentators were all beside themselves trying to defend the NRA and gun owners. First of all why do Gun Owners need defending in this matter they did not shoot up the Temple, it was some Nut that did. Secondly to give a commentary like CNN did is inexcusable in my opinion. CNN just took sides in the Gun Debates.
In Norway, there has not been another mass shooting since the lone gun nut went crazy on that resort island.
So its come to this eh? The Mass Shooting of the Week. When will people wake up and finally realize we need massively strict gun laws and a change to the Constitution of the United States of America.
This is my opinion only.
If there is any amendment that should be repealed it should be the 14th.
I like Magnum Serpentine's reply about changing the Constitution to fit his beliefs. I would like to join in.
Let's repeal the the entire "Bill of Rights" and make it a "Bill of Privleges that may be Revoked". Letr;s immediately follow that by revoking Magnum's right to post. We can then send in our own State Militia (per his suggestion), led by Gov George Wallace (as CiC of the State Guard).
Since you are now unarmed and faced by an armed, racist, organized military force, you will have no choice but to go to prison or die resisting.
Good plan, eh, "Magnum"?
No?
Perhaos you should remember. sir, that ANTHING you encourage be done to others will ALWAYS be done to you.
MJ
Magnum Serpentine,
I have the feeling that the only thing that changed for the worst in Wisconsin since Governor Walker took over is your feelings! You talk of mass voter fraud, yet you have not even the slightest shred of evidence to support it! In fact, it was the recall petitions that used loop holes to remain valid in order to waste millions in tax payer funds on a recall election because the unions got their toes stepped on.
What happened in Oak Creek was tragic, but let's lay the blame where it belongs, on the man that did the killing. it wasn't the Republicans, it wasn't the NRA, and it wasn't the gun. The gun was legally purchased and was not an automatic weapon. The laws were followed, at least that it is how it appears at this point. Until we can see into a person's mind and know what they are contemplating, there will be tragic incidents like this one. Even when we get a glimpse, such as in the Aurora, Colorado incident, circumstance may still facilitate the crime.
Great response, Travis. I just "imagined" that once firearms are illegal that we would all come together and talk about obeying the law. Anyone who disagrees will just be left alone.
It is not a symptom of needing medication to see the next step after making firearms illegal is confiscation. It is also not an illusion to remember how both the US and all other historical governments have responded to armed refusal.
So perhaps we should begin to think in terms of the consequences of our pronouncements?
The consequences of your "prounouncements"?? Turning to communism it sounds like and the next thing will be to ban free speech and freedom of religion. I'll pass and stay here with my firearms, take the Europe express to Norway if it sounds good to you, very encouraged for you.
Put down your pipes and get out of the theoritcal John Lennon La La Land.........
Magnum Serpentine
You must be British. No wonder you hate the constitution so much.
Let's get rid of the 16th Amendment too...
Let's see... The United States has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world and it has one of the highest rates of gun violence in the world, certainly THE highest rate in the industalized world. Coincidence. Yeah, right. You gun freaks are the cause of thi things like this happening. You are so obsessed with your compensating for your own inadequacies by having these ridiculously high powered weapons that, if you had your way, anyone could buy from a vending machine down at the local Walmart that you are willing to sacrifice as many innocent people as necessary. You keep repeating your meaningless mantra of "guns don't kill people, people kill people," well, geniuses it's the bullets that do all of the damage. This person could not have kill this many people at once without a gun. There is no legitimate reason whatsoever for a private citizen to own any firearm other than a hunting rifle and even those need to be highly regulated and controlled. Automatic, semi-automatice, and assault rifles should only be available to members of the military and certain members of the police force for specific reasons. Handguns need to be restricted to military, police, and security providers. You people who own guns are sick, disgusting people who are compensating for some shortcoming of your own by convincing yourselves that guns somehow make you okay. Well, you will never be okay. You'll always be pathetic, littlle people who have to have a fun to make you seem complete. I guess you feel a gun is the only way you'll ever have any type of respect or will be taken seriously. Well, even that is myth. You'll always be sorry excuses for human beings. Having guns just makes you even sorrier excuses for human being that you already are!
Vince.............better head for Norway. The USA is just too free for you!!
And the weapon of choice used by most of these Shooters?? The Glock, made in Austria, (not Australia for you uneducated trailer trash), the pride of Europe where most of you Liberal crybaby treehuggers want to go.
Please go and enjoy. I think Delta airlines is runing a summer special........
So Vince, you think guns should be restricted to military and police? My response to you is this: Nadal Hassan and Drew Peterson. Nuff said.
usa1967:
How "free" are we in America if we can't go to church, school, or the movies without being murdered?
Magnum..."And another Amendment that clearly states Gun Ownership is a privilege..."
First you need to understand the 2nd Amendment. It is a prohibition on government. It forbids the government from denying citizens the inalienable right to self defense. So removing the amendment would clearly open the government up to taking away our right to self defense. It would not however outlaw arms.
The right to self defense is an inalienable right, a human right. Like previously suggested, if the government starts taking away our human rights, one of which is free speech, where will that leave you Magnum?
"Once you buy the argument that some segment of the citizenry should lose their rights, just because they are envied or resented, you are putting your own rights in jeopardy-- quite aside from undermining any moral basis for respecting anybody's rights. You are opening the floodgates to arbitrary power. And once you open the floodgates, you can't tell the water where to go." - Thomas Sowell
So I am sick, pathetic, little and stupid for owning a gun or for supporting those who want to own a gun? Geez, generalize much, Vince? With all the name calling, you have totally invalidated any points you may have had to add to the conversation. Just sayin'.
No. That is not what is says or means. The second amendment was intended to keep the central government from restricting the state's militias. Period. GD-it. Read the Federalist Papers. Or even just RAD THE CONSTITUTION. I have NO IDEA how they came to allow ANY NUTCASE to own a gun when it clearly says WELL REGULATED MILITIA. Is the Supreme Court SO STUPID that they don't know this? Great. They know their law books but they have NO CLUE about the history books.
It is sad and barbaric. In my mind it is a sickness. This is not what America is supposed to be about, but yet everyday another victim is in the news.
As far as the 2nd Amendment issue. It is a joke. Do gun activists truly believe that they could defend their freedom from the government with "guns" if they needed to? Are you jokers serious? You talk as if the Pentagon doesn't have WMD? I think people better wake up and smell the coffee already! Believe me if they wanted to unleash their ammunition on us, we would stand a chance in hell. By hey, let build some more bombs and missles, morons!
SRS
The 27 or so words that make up the second amendment also contains punctuation marks that make all the difference in the interpretation of the intent. That nasty little comma between the statement on a well regulated militia and the right for people to keep and bear arms makes all the difference in the meaning. It is the right for people to keep and bear arms that makes it possible to form a militia. The term militia does not refer to a government organized entity such as the national guard or any other uniformed branch of service. Militia refers to a strictly civilian organization that is outside federal control.
So the REAL terrorists I see are frustrated Americans? Sad, very sad, indeed...
Rubytuesday57,
In a war it is not how many get killed, but who gets killed. Haven't you read enough history to understand this fact? The second amendment, by its very existence helps keep government in check, take it away and the rest of our freedoms will disappear like dust in the wind.
Instead of whining about the second amendment and gun ownership, how about fixing the root cause of violence throughout the world. The root cause is the loss of morality and personal responsibility. When we stopped teaching right and wrong by letting a lot of areas become grey is when things started heading to where we are now. Guns have always been available since their invention, before that were bows, swords, and clubs. When you see a civilization in decline, it is not from the proliferation of weapons, but the loss of morality and responsibility.
@SRS
Glad that over 70% of the US Population and the Supreme Court agree that it's an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT 8)
@rubytuesday
I have a brother and a cousin currently serving and friends who have retired from the military and they all agree that the day the Federal Government or President try and force them to forcibly take weapons from the Citizens is the day that hell freezes over. WMD's on American Citizens lol heh ok 8)
You can not overthrow an armed public you can only fight it till you have nothing left. Removing the second amendment would be starting a civil war it would be military vs military cop vs cop etc it would not be the government vs the citizens because the citizens are the government...
SRS...just to put the militia garbage to rest:
American Usage and Style: The Consensus. Here's what he has to say:
[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.
"In reply to your numbered questions:
[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"
[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."
[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"
[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."
[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"
[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."
[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"
[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."
[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"
[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."
[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."
[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'
[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'
"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,
"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and
"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"
[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.
"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."
Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."
Read more here: http://constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm
Ruby...Military personnel take an oath to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. If the Federal government tried to illegally take our arms, the military would be obligated by their oath to stand with the people.
Attention any racists or xenophobes readers: Hope your happy! This is what your kind is capable of. Search your heart and remove your deep seated hate.
I guess you are missing my point hs321, the government has no reason to fear the 2nd Amendment which is why nothing will ever be done about it. You don't know how the military will act since this country is so very divided against each other.
Mr. Page took took an oath but we all know how that worked out.
"Governor wants ban on assault rifles" it was a 9 mm semi auto... clearly writing something in the story that does not apply to this incident.
"Wisconsin has some of the most permissive gun laws in the country and had passed a law in 2011 allowing citizens to carry a concealed weapon"
Biased reporting here.
If guns kill people...then do pencils miss-spell words"
If someone had a gun there they could have protected themselves.
Someone did have a gun. The shooter. And the first cop on the scene had a gun. He got shot. This fantasy life you gun folks lead is precious and deadly.
Bob...maybe less coffee tomorrow morning, k? Look at switzerland. Their rate of gun ownership is nearly 100%. Violent crime rate? Zip...not even close to ours. Look at Vermont. There is no requirement for any sort of permit for a concealed carry permit. Crime rate? 3rd lowest in the country (the other two are maine and new hampshire, also gun friendly states).
What other states have permissive gun laws? Lots of states in the south and they have some of the highest crime rates. So WTF....more guns = less crime but sometimes more guns = more crime. Hmmm...what a conundrum.
It's the PEOPLE that make the difference. Ever met someone from Vermont? Non-violent people up there. This isn't about gun rights, this is about actually seeing the problem for what it is. We have a huge problem with violence in this country, no doubt. But it's a problem with our culture, not the availability of metal objects.
Bob, If your that upset about the legal ownership of guns here in wisconsin, move to Illinois, they're so much safer down there....Don't trample my rights, just because you don't like guns....
I don't know what you mean by, "gun folks". That just sounds like another ignorant stereotype and name calling that does not contribute anything to the discussion. I do know that the shooter is dead, because someone who was armed WITH A GUN killed him. In doing so, they stopped him from ever killing another person. If more of the people at the worship service that morning had taken advantage of Wisconsin's permissable concealed carry laws, maybe the shooter would have been killed, BY A GUN, before he had a chance to shoot person number two.
Expect to see a lot more of this agenda-driven reporting by the media too after every mass tragedy like this and Aurora. They will word things not factual and irrelevant if it furthers the agenda they are trying to promote (in this case, anti-gun ownership rights and assault weapons when this was a handgun used). And then you have the bloggers like Bob. They are upset that the Aurora shootings didn't do much overall to sway public opinion on gun ownership rights. You certainly won't see them reporting the record gun murders in supposedly gun-free Chicago. Also, note how this is a case of "domestic terrorism" and it should be labeled as such. The murders on Ft. Hood, TX where the perpetrator was shouting "Allahu Akbar!" before going on a shooting rampage killing 13 soldiers and wounding 30 others on the other hand was "workplace violence." It's as if the media is giddy that a white male does something sinister, but if any other ethnicity or religious persuasion does something evil, it's shoved to the side and downplayed if not ignored altogether. Yet another example of agenda-driven reporting.
Tim1496116,
What are you doing posting comments on the internet? Don't you know you're not supposed to think? You're supposed to just name call, stereotype, jump to conclusions, and blame everything on whatever political party, geographical region, religion, lifestyle, sexual orientation, or hairdo, that you don't like. Quit making sense!
Better yet Bob, leave the country entirely. Move to England where handgun ownership is illegal....oh, wait....how's that working out for them. Please Bob, I know it's hard, but think your argument through completely before you comment and look like a fool.
Condolences to the innocent victims.
FYI - A 9mm pistol is not an assault rifle.
I guess these immigrants don't pick fruit. I'm not sure what political motivation allowed 500,000 Sikhs to immigrate to the U.S, but as they enjoy the freedoms of their new home, I wonder how many serve in our military?
Tim pretends a country where every gun owner gets military training, where it's a small, homogenous country, is just like TX. Evidence? Well, none! And if you look at EVIDENCE, why not look at where the gun homicide rates are highest? Most heavily armed modern countries? US, Finland, Switzerland. Countries with the highest gun homicide rates? US, Finland, Switzerland...the gun crowd continues to build its own gallows.
Coyotehunter pretends HIS right to own a gun trumps every American family's right to have a life. The fanaticism of gun folks is astounding. Every is a target in America, thanks to the gun crowd. YOU have no rights; THEY have ALL rights.
Lance I'll type this slowly so you can understand
Rank of US in gun ownership: 1
Rank of US in gun homicide in modern countries: 1
Any NORMAL person would look at that and say guns do NOT stop homicides. If they DID we wouldn't be number one, would we?
But if you're a gun owner you get a special dispensation from logic.
It's not gun control that's the issue it's our culture that's the problem. It's okay to show someone's head being blown off on prime time tv but don't show someone naked or saying a curse word then we're all going to hell.
Or there may have been more casulaties. Not everyone who owns a gun is a marksman. The last thing I want when the crap is hitting the fan is some gun nut job pulling out his piece and letting lead fly.
Sikhs have served in the military, apparently fewer after US removed exemption that allowed them to serve wearing turbans.
#Military_service
Also, why do you refer to Sikhs as "immigrants?' There are many who are native-born, including the Governor of S. Carolina.
Bob-10083224, thanks for typing slowly, because you know I must be stupid. You don't like what I say, you disagree with me, therefore, I must be stupid. Grow up.
Gun laws don't make a difference in crime as the whole "don't murder" people law was completely ignored in this tragedy...so what makes you think gun laws will suddenly deter things? I'm seeing a lot of churches using off duty police or those with CC licenses for security teams due to this rise in church shootings and attacks. It's a shame people need to take this step in a house of worship but with people the way they are today...
100 years ago there were virtually no gun laws and stuff like this almost never happened...the guns have not changed but people have. People are not being raised with a moral and ethical foundation. The "if it feels good do it" mentality combined with the broken homes and single parent families without support make it hard for a kid to grow up with the foundations our parents and grandparents enjoyed. There are those that pull it off despite their circumstances but a person that can go murder people they have never met is clearly not all there...maybe at some point you'd find abuse in their past or an absent father or a lack of church attendance.
Nice, jw101 - gonna blame the victims? Excellent idea! Perhaps the same kind of thinking used by the shooter - don't like that comparison? Don't spout garbage.
Dietrich kinda ignores the fact that if it's illegal to own guns then the very act of trying to get them is a crime. Before you can use a gun you have to get it. And ammo. 100 years ago we didn't have an urbanized, industrialized, high population density country. The 2nd MAY have had a use 200 years ago when the Conestoga wagon was a mode of transportation. Is the NRA suggesting we bring back the Conestoga wagon? Why not? If you can make the argument about gun technology, why not Conestoga wagons?
So Bob, guns aren't the problem...cities are. We need population density control apparently...
Bob continues to pull head out of backside and thumps his keyboard demanding more gun control. Just buy a gun already... or better yet just leave... Norway wants you... But England would chew you up. Good luck... fool.
I agree with Bob. Plus the Monster Scott Walker has made things far far far worse in Wisconsin with the gun carry law. The Citizens had a chance to remove this monster from office and they behaved like sheep and blindly voted for him (Or it was Voter Fraud guess they were testing the system for November eh?).
So in a way, this is the citizens fault also. If a New Governor had replaced the incompetent Scott Walker then at least he could had signed an Executive order blocking the gun carry law.
And this is my opinion only.
Tim - It's obvious you have never been to Switzerland. I'm from Germany, perhaps you've been there, and Switzerland is cleaner and more orderly than Germany. And if you have been to Germany that should tell you that the US and Switzerland cannot be compared the way you are trying to do.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/switzerland
http://www.guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html
This is an interesting fantasy. Out here, in the real world, 6 people died before this person was stopped by a cop with a gun.
Let me give you an example of what happens when you have a heavily armed population. In Iraq and Afghanistan, we have soldiers who suffer from serious PTSD because they are surrounded by civilians, any one of whom can be the bad guy. They cannot tell the difference because the bad guys just shoot and then merge back into the general population.
And these are some of our best and they have the best psychological support in the world. Now, let's imagine if we lived in the sort of world you advocate. Every housewife, every 21-year old, every 60-year old grandmother would be carrying a weapon. Do you want me to look around at every single person I meet, wondering if they are the bad guy, that they are the one who is going to pull out the weapon I know they are carrying?
Do you want any cop who arrives at the scene to have to figure out who the shooter is when everyone has a drawn weapon?
Basically, this is a pretty good idea of hell. This is your vision for America.
Just remember, guns don't kill people. These people were not killed by a 9mm semi-automatic handgun. The bullets from the gun did not kill them. They did not rip through their bodies, ending their lives. This handgun did not forever change the lives of their spouses, their parents, their sons, their daughters, their nieces, their nephew, their friends, their co-workers.
Guns don't kill people.
Bob -
Perhaps we need to pass law against murder. That will stop the killing.
Because we all know criminals follow the law.
Also, the second a gun store denies selling a gun to someone with the proper ID, license, etc.........they will be getting sued the next day for some type of discrimination.
From an article in an Arizona newspaper.
So now we have another Arizona shooting by an angry, crazy man on the radical right, J.T. Ready, who shot and killed 4 family members and then killed himself. In the aftermath of the Gabby Giffords shooting, the radical right worked hard to paint the guy who shot Congresswoman Giffords as a “nut” who may or may not have seen Palin’s rifle cross-hairs on her infamous map prior to the shooting.
This time, they can’t deny the shooter was one of their own. J.T. Ready was a former Republican Party official, a white supremacist neo-Nazi and anti-Semite, an anti-immigrant vigilante, and a person very close to former GOP state Senator Russell Pearce. In fact, Ready converted to Mormonism and was apparently ordained by Pearce. Now, I’m not saying that being a Mormon has any significance in the context of a mass murder, but I would bet the Romney camp cringed when they heard this mass murderer was a former GOP official and also happened to be a Mormon.
Tim, while I agree with your statement, please dont encourage idtiots like Bob to move to my state
"Is the NRA suggesting we bring back the Conestoga wagon? "
You lose every time you reach for cheap irrational arguments - and you got a pile of em Bob.
PhilintheBlank: Hahaha, my bad. I'm hoping to move there so I don't want bob their either.
NFIL: I've been to Switzerland but not Germany. Anyway, now that we've got our internet insults out of the way ;) I didn't read the articles you cited but I'm aware that my comparison is not apples to apple. I mean if we compare anything there's always a difference. I know that the gun laws are different (I think Switzerland controls ammunition much more strictly, right?), comparing anything between the US and Europe is basically impossible because of the vast cultural differences. My point being the legal availability of firearms is not a direct indicator of violence.
Now there is a statement up above that says US is #1 in gun ownership and #1 in gun murder and then says the same about switzerland/norway/etc. To that I say: No sh*t sherlock. Guess what? Roads have the most fatal automobile accidents. That's a useless statistic to anyone who knows how to interpret numbers.
Anyway I'm not interested in debating opinions. Factual data states that in our country the legal availability of firearms is not a reliable indicator of gun violence or violent crime as a whole. Again, I offer Vermont vs Chicago as an example. In Vermont you don't need a permit to tuck a loaded gun in your waistband. In Chicago, they're illegal. Now I'll allow for the argument that a city is more violent than the country. No problem, I get that but look at how VASTLY different the rates are. There's something going on. It's our society and culture that are the problem. The government can not legislate morality; that's up to us as citizens to raise our children properly.
Do I think we should sit idly by and say "there's nothing wrong here"? Hell no. But I do not believe that making something illegal makes it go away. Alcohol, drugs, immigration...etc etc. They're all still alive and well.
Making something illegal won't make it go away. Stopping the manufacture of deadly weapons will reduce the ease with which mass murderers can live out their fantasies.
I am just amazed that you can make jokes at a time like this, about a subject like this. 30 people die of gun violence EVERY day, and you guys think it is funny that someone like Bob is upset about it.
Byron, relax. Vermonters generally don't want anyone moving to their state because it's nice the way it is. It was a play on that.
But of course there were lots of mass murders; just look at any history of the South and mass lynchings. They used a tree and a noose, but it was still mass murder, any way you look at it. The rate of death by homicide for black people in Memphis, TN (1911-1915) was 99.9 per 100,000 people -- that's almost double the amount in the top city for homicides as of 2010, New Orleans. We notice mass murders now because they aren't just happening to poor black people down south, they are happening to all of us. We all go to theaters and malls and schools.
Violent mass shootings like this temple shooting are a newer phenomenon, perhaps made more possible by the easy availability of semi-automatic weapons; one hundred years ago, very few people had anything but revolvers. The UT tower sniper in 1966 was the first one of these incidents of mass shooting that I'm aware of; the shooter went to the store right before the killings and bought an M1 carbine and a semi-automatic shotgun.
At this point we've had almost 50 years of insane individuals deciding to shoot bunches of people. You'd think we could have come up with some response to it by now. All I know is that facilitating these nuts' work with legal 100-round magazines and no background checks at gun shows is not helping. Neither is the 24/7 news cycle that plays these stories endlessly. The NRA solution of having everyone be armed is going to lead to a major gunshooting massacre someday, when some loony with a gun starts shooting up a place, and then 5 other scared people draw on him and try to shoot him -- and some miss and hit others, some will be shot by the cops as being shooters rather than good guys, in all the confusion, and lots and lots of people will die Bullets go through walls, too --one of the wounded in the Aurora shooting was actually in the adjacent theater. There was an man, Joe Zamudio, carrying at the Giffords shooting -- he didn't draw in time to get Loughner, but Zamudio did almost shoot an unarmed person who was trying to help Giffords before he realized that the unarmed helper was not the assailant. He had split seconds to make that call. How many will be that level-headed -- and that lucky?
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82ab1ef3/article/colorado-state-recruit-wounded-in-theater-shooting
http://azstarnet.com/article_cffa49d7-0ec2-5ca7-a3fd-242bf2b20379.html
DRK:
While I am a gun owner and veteran/hunter/concealed carry permit holder I agree that arming everyone without proper training would be a horrible solution. Utter chaos if they all tried to shoot back. Now that doesn't account for the idea of deterrence. If a criminal knows people are going to be armed and he will be killed he'll be less likely to commit the act (unless of course he's looking for suicide by proxy). But nonetheless one hundred citizens shooting would be a disaster.
I do actually think concealed carry permits should come with at least the same level of training that an automobile license requires. You should be able to demonstrate that you're not a danger to society by carrying your weapon and that you're proficient enough with it so that you don't have negligent discharges walking down the street which is the same as proving to the DMV that you're not a danger by driving.
As for background checks and those private sales. If someone sells a weapon to a felon (or whatever disqualifying criteria is needed) in a private sale, they're criminally (and obviously civilly) liable for anything that happens as a result of that sale. In addition, the sale of that gun to that person is a crime. Personally I think it's immoral to sell a gun to someone you don't know without checking them out. But, morality and legality aren't the same, right?
Good post, Dirk -- thanks for pointing out how well "concelaed carry" worked at the Tucson massacre.
was this a kirpa free zone? I'm shocked the guy wasn't cut in half.
And hey moron.. Look up murder rates in Russia, you know that country with more simular emographics to the US than just about any you can think of. Yeah, guns are banned there and yeah they have higer number and rates of murders. Nothing like lying out of your a$$ to further yoru political agenda.
bob-1008224
BOB I'll type this slowly so you can understand
Rank of US in gun ownership: 1
Rank of US in gun homicide: 35
Rank of RUSSIA WHERE NEARLY ALL GUNS ARE BANNED: 25..
Grow up and stop making up lies to further your BS political agenda with no real factual basis.
good job by the police
nothing better
dropped him like hes hot
Prayers going up for the Sikh community.
Keith - my thoughts to. Aside from the gun debate going on in this thread at least the police killed this nutjob and in the process saved the taxpayer major $$ and more importantly ensured he will never do this again. Metal illness or not.
Yes prayers to the Sikh community. Sounds like there is a good chance this guy didn't even really know who these people were. Perhaps he had another issue with them but my guess is he probably just assumed they were muslim and went after them. Probably thought he would be a hero or something. Sad deal.
It is time
As predictable, MSN is bringing out the gun demon, first thing. For every person who is killed by a gun in the US, 20 people die due to medical malpractice/mistakes. But do they scream for controls over doctors? Restrict access to medicines (oops, Bloomburg is wanting to control access to baby milk).
You go ahead and do without medicine. Many modern countries do without guns. You gun folks think guns STOP homicides. Evidence? well.....NONE.
Rank of US in gun ownership: 1
Rank of US gun homicide rate in modern countries: 1
DUH!!
isn't it kind of strange how all these shootings happen right before they pass a gun treaty with the UN. Crazy how that works. Watch your freedoms get flushed down the toilet. The USA is not what it used to be. SAD!!
plsthink, like most gun nuts, is a sheep. These 'treaties' have been bandied about for 40 years. They're used to scare young children and gun nuts who stampede if any paranoid conspiracist drools 'gun control' into his lobster bib.
Bob-- you really need to do your homework. There is one being worked on in the UN called the small arms treaty. GET INFORMED you look stupid on here.
Bob you're quite mistaken in a lot of your statements. Firearms are used several times a week for self defense. Check out Armed Citizen. It has all kinds of stories. I'd say 90% of all shootings, rapings, murders, muggings, and such could be resolved had a good person had a gun and knew how to use it. It's nonsense to disagree.
plsthink doesn't know this treaty has been debated, ad nauseum, for decades. But he's getting his stampede shoes on so he can join the gun crowd in their hysteria.
Dietrich ignores these facts
Rank of US in gun ownership: 1
Rank of US among modern countries in homicide: 1
If guns REDUCED crime then the US should have the LOWEST rate in the world. Instead we have the slaughter of the week.
But he gets his view of the world straight from the "American Rifleman", as fine a publication as Pravda or the "Pyongyang Times".
Actually I get the American Hunter magazine, not the Rifleman. Explain to me how I can own so many guns and they not have killed anyone yesterday? (Bought two more Saturday so chew on that.) :-D
Whychdoctor George,
If you think there are no controls for doctors, you are sadly mistaken. I can only wish that controls over who owns guns came close to the kind of rigors that exist for obtaining a medical degree, continuing medical education, and the ongoing practice of medicine.
BOB1008224: When the federal government quits making, selling, and giving away military ordinance to foreign nationals. Who really do not like America and can travel freely back and forth across the border whenever they want. I will think about not arming myself and become another sheep in the flock. Peace, Love, and Happiness brother. The guy who did it was a coward, and not to bright. Also he is a disgrace to his country by attacking unarmed civilians.
I am a retired police officer who lives alone in a very rural area. Police protection is nonexistent here. I am responsible for my own security here. I have no problem with that because the 2nd Amendment ensures that I will have the ability to protect myself. I know from experience that I cannot depend on the police. Unfortunately, what most people do not realize is that no matter where you live you are responsible for your own self protection. Even in a large city there is very little chance that you are going to get a police officer there right when you need one. You may not even have the opportunity to call for one until the incident is over. Think about it.
Unfortunately there are evil people out there. Giving up your ability to defend yourself is not going to change that. Criminals disobey laws, that's just the nature of the beast. The people that new laws would take guns from are not the people that are causing the problems. There is no simple answer. In a free society there are going to be sick people who will cause problems. We cannot legislate away every problem. Sometimes we just have to take whatever measures we can to protect ourselves and our loved ones and hope for the best. There are no guarantees in life but you must remember that, ultimately, you are always responsible for your own self defense. You're taking a big chance if you are turning that responsibility over to someone else because you have no way of knowing where they will be when you need them.
No, it's not strange. About 30 people die due to guns every day in the US and have been for many, many years now.
How about my freedom to go to a movie or a church without having to worry about a mass murderer carrying a gun?
No kidding.
This sounds all very nice, but guns don't stop bullets.
Under the right conditions, if you can read the future and know where a bullet is going to be coming from, you might be able to kill the shooter before he or she shoots you. But then, what if one of you reads the future wrong? What if the other guy wasn't really going to shoot you?
Do you really think the rest of us, the other 300 million Americans, all of us want to be gunfighters, having to watch every step we take, wondering where the next shot is coming from? Do you think we want to be viewing our neighbors with suspicion, wondering if they are going to be shooting at us?
Do you really think this is the kind of life we want?
Hey Bob, you might want to get your facts straight, Honduras is the number one country for homicide. The United States is number 35 on the list. But hey don't let facts get in the way of your delusions.
No legal guns? That wouldn't workout so well for all those hundreds of thousand shop owners working behind the counter alone, it takes just two or three thugs to go on walk in, walk out crime spree. Lets create easier targets for the criminals. Why are women targeted more than men in robberies, think about it.
WyattEarp I did some soul searching when i first considered the defensive use of a firearm with some Police friends and they repeated exactly what you stated. It was an eyeopener. There are quite a few Police officers who interact with the Law abiding firearm owners , it is refreshing for like minded people to amass and flourish on those grounds. It is an attractive area of firearm ownership. I have met some really great and respectable people. Much higher percentage of non hypocritical caring people who like people,family,country,justice for the weak just plain common sense. It really is irreplaceable.
Bob,
For every story like this, there are 10 where a firearm saved someones life. Unfortunately, those stories don't sell newspapers or generate clicks to the links to read the articles.
I read somewhere about a study done by some professor saying how many crimes are prevented by a victim being armed, usually without a shot being fired. These incidents get no publicity at all. In most cases they may not even be reported. Guns do have a legitimate legal purpose. Just like most things, they can be, and are, abused.
My point is that most people just read about these mass shootings and think that guns are bad and eliminating them would stop all crime. I'm afraid that if guns were outlawed the result would be worse than it is now. We will have created a society of unarmed victims. You know, like you would expect to find in a house of worship or a gun-free theatre.
Unfortunatley BOB1008224 is one of those anti-gun zealots that thinks punishing responsible gun owners is the only way to stop irresponsible nut jobs. Really? People are killed by stabbing every day. We should probably ban knives too, after all, you never can tell who's going to go on a rampage with one of those things.
Please, think about things logically instead of spreading your idiotic textual-vomit. If you must cite references, look no further than when you talk about how horrible we are. Look as Wisconsin's homicide rate drop over the years. Compare that to Chicago with the strictest gun laws in the country. Over 200 people have already been killed this Year in Chicago. But how could that be if the laws are supposed to help? Brits aren't allowed to own guns and somehow 1,000 people are still murdered there every year.
So please, put down the kool-aid (obviously there's alcohol in yours).
And yet, in Japan - which doesn't allow handgun ownership: only around 1.1 in 100,000 people gets murdered compared with 8.7 per 100,000 in the U.S. and only around 1.3 per 100,000 gets robbed compared with 233.1 per 100,000 in the U.S.
why do we have 8x the murder rate and 233x the robbery rate of Japan? (it's about 8x and 4x respectively when compared with Great Britain - who also restricts handgun ownership).
I mean - why are people afraid of gun laws? It's not like people can arm themselves to protect themselves against the Government.
I mean, there's really no reason anybody should own anything other than hunting rifles, and maybe a handgun for self-protection in the home. Everything else is being proven to just be asking for trouble.
Really? Having a country where Bob feels safe in going to a movie theater is punishing YOU?
How many people die of knife violence every year? If I were to go on a knife rampage in a public place, how many people do you think I could kill before I got stopped?
Kates Mauser Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? Worth a read.
I don't think there are any freedoms being striped of going to the movies Byron.
Actually, it has to do with the morale values in the Japanese. They raise there kids better. See, they don't have to worry about DCFS pressing charges or taking there kids away if they smack there kids for mouthing off, misbehaving, etc.
Bob Likes to lie a lot
bob-1008224
BOB I'll type this slowly so you can understand
Rank of US in gun ownership: 1
Rank of US in gun homicide: 35
Rank of RUSSIA WHERE NEARLY ALL GUNS ARE BANNED: 25..
Findland is 43rd 8 spots ahead <-- strong gun restrictions
the Uk is 49th. 14 spots ahead <-- Gun ban in place
Grow up and stop making up lies to further your BS political agenda with no real factual basis.
You have no such freedom, It never existed, nor could it ever exist. Making a firearm is simple and easily done in your basement.
@ebeneezer
Japan is a Police State
Here in the good ole USofA we have something called a Free Society.
My thoughts and prayers to the community and all affected by this tragedy.
CNN was the only news channel on Sunday evening to cover this tragedy. FOX, MSNBC, and the major networks showed their regular scheduled programs. When the Colorado shootings occurred, the networks and cable news channels were all over the story. My compliments and gratitude to CNN for being fair and balamced in its coverage, not looking at one's religion or skin color when it comes to a tragic news event.
CNN's ratings are in the toilet, therefore the coverage.
Fair? Balanced? The Gun Commentary CNN gave was no where near fair and very inexcusable. CNN just took the Pro-Gun side in the Gun Debates. Shameful! (however CNN did do a fair job in covering this Religious organization, making sure people understood that they were not Islamic)
CNN the Conservative News Network.
Shameful
Hey wait, this is MSNBC how did CNN get in here?
And this is all my Opinion.
You know what's sad is how people are so sympathetic because they weren't Muslims and it was mistaken religion. People wake up and stop being so stupid. This men knew exactly who the hell he was targeting he problem had this planned months maybe years. For some of you to be so ignorant to think it's okay to kill people if their a certain religion karma is a bitch. Neo Nazi's are cowards and hide behind hatred because they were born with a defect.
Actually, I saw this story Sunday evening on NBC. So I think you should have flipped through some channels before you made this comment.
The USA has a population of around 300 million people. If only one person per 10 million was a psychopathic potential killer, there would still be 30 of them. The Sikh killings like the Aurora killings or the Virgina Tech shootings or going back to Charles Manson or Charles Whitman are not a matter of party affilialtion, gun laws, racism, education level, miltary service or any other convenient excuse. They are examples of mentally unstable people who are not picked up by the system along the way who snap for some reason and then feel justified in commiting these kinds of crimes. This is about mental illness ntohing else.
pgulrich
Good point. Tens of millions of men and women have also served in the Armed Forces. For every person like this, there are tens of thousands of veterans who are solid citizens. In general, employers like veterans because they are perceived as being more mature and more reliable. Secondly, this guy was booted in 1998 for patterns of misconduct so I'm assuming that e
Some gun owners lack the logic in viewing the subject because they are all steamed up about the second amendment. However, should they realize that the bad people doing the mass killings don't care about the second amendment one single bit. It's those people we, the logical gun owners, want to keep the guns away from. Anyone who doesn't think that keeping any type of weapon away from a mentally impaired person isn't the right thing to do should think twice themselves. Anyone who doesn't think that keeping any type of weapon away from criminals isn't the right thing to do is just stupid.
And your point is?
The NRA has defended people on the terrorist watch list. There is no law against being crazy and owning a gun. Until these people actually slaughter, the NRA will defend their 'right' to make targets of every American family
bob-1008224
Please post sources to support your insanity.
Are you really Freedom4Everyone? Spewing "facts" with no supporting sources? Just "facts" pulled out of dark openings in your anatomy?
Bob, have you read the Constitution? Do you understand the terrorist watch list??? Do you know what it takes to get on it? First, most of these people are felons and the NICS check would fail them from legally buying a gun and, most importantly, the Constitution says a person shall not be deprived their rights without DUE PROCESS OF LAW. Being a SUSPECT doesn't mean you should lose Constitutional rights...that's not how our justice system works. I have a Gadsden flag bumper sticker on my car...let's say some left wing cop thinks I *might* be a terrorist and therefore I get on the list...without being convicted by a jury or tried or having my day in court. No one knows how people get on or off the list as it's probably classified...obviously you don't want guns in terrorist's hands but you can't just start striking rights from citizens. I know people who are stopped and questioned at the airport as they share a name with someone on the list. It's not them but they have the same name by chance. This is a free country with rights that, so long as you don't abuse them, you keep them. To start taking it away just because takes away everything this country means. If you don't like it, move to Canada.
Dietrich made my point. Thanks. He's admitted that, because of the 2nd amendment, which should be renamed the 007 amendment, the NRA will defend nut cases and terrorists in their acquisition of unlimited numbers of guns and ammos, to make targets of everyone. The WI shooter was not a felon. The Aurora shooter was not a felon. The VA tech shooter was not a felon...well, you get the picture. The NRA has done a great job of ensuring that, until the body count is tallied, every nut case has his 2nd amendment rights.
H.L. Mencken once said 'never interfere with a man when he's in the process of destroying his own argument.'
Thanks Dietrich.
"First, most of these people are felons and the NICS check would fail them from legally buying a gun and, most importantly, the Constitution says a person shall not be deprived their rights without DUE PROCESS OF LAW."
Lawyer here. I have read the Constitution a few times. First, there is a "gun show loophole" that allows anyone, including convicted felons, to purchase guns and ammo over the internet or at gun shows without having to register or fill out any applications. Second, the Constitution doesn't say anything about depriving people of rights without due process.
The fifth amendment says, among other things, that a person shall not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. You don't have an automatic due process right before losing any rights.
XD9 is too lazy to use google. No surprise. He doesn't LIKE the evidence about the US and guns so hides from it.
Clotho, if you buy a gun at a gun show without doing the NICS check, you're in violation of the Gun Control act of 1968...do people sell them without it, probably...but it's illegal and is a felony. You have to fill out for 4473 to buy a gun.
At a gun show if the 2 parties are of the same state they can complete the transaction with a bill of sale. Everyone else has to do background checks. It has to do with State Rights.
Here's a list of what constitutes terrorism indicators, according to Homeland Security. It's a bit easier than it used to be--I know a couple of Odinists (Norse mysticism practitioners) and they are personally baffled as to why they are considered a threat--their Viking War re-enactments are RE-ENACTMENTS and they are too busy playing Dungeons & Dragons to bother trying to put together a bomb!
Alternative media
Anarchist extremism
Animal rights extremism
Anti-abortion extremism
Anti-immigration extremism
Anti-technology extremism
Aryan prison gangs
Black bloc
Black nationalism
Black power
Black separatism
Christian Identity movement
Cuban independence extremism
Decentralized terror movement
Denial-of-service attacks
Direct action (including lawful acts of civil disobedience)
Environmental extremism
Ethnic extremism
Extremist groups
Green anarchism
Hacktivism (technology-enabled social/political activism)
Hate groups
Jewish extremism
Leaderless resistance
Left-wing extremism
Lone terrorists
Mexican separatists
Militia Movements (including conspiracy theorists)
Neo-Nazis
Patriot Movement
Phineas Priesthood
Primary targeting(directly supporting/funding terrorists)
Puerto Rican independence extremists
Radical Norse mysticism practitioners (Odinists)
Racialists
Right-wing extremists
Single-issue/multiple issue extremist groups
Skinheads whose ‘dress may include shaved head/short hair, jeans, thin suspenders, combat boots or Doc Martens and a bomber jacket’
Sovereign citizen movement
Tax resistance movement
Violent anti-war extremism
Violent religious sects (includes those who stockpile food and weapons)
White Nationalists
White Power advocates
White Supremacists
The supposed "gun show loophole" is that private citizens are allowed to sell their own property to other private citizens without a government check. There is no loophole. It is the same "loophole" that allows a citizen to sell his car, his boat, hold a garage sale, whatever to whom he wants for the price he wants. Clotho, if you're lawyer, please cite precedent for the government having the right to block private sales of any non-weapons related product? Even harder, please make a case as to WHY that would make sense?
@bob - I'm not too lazy to Google, nor do I stand on one side of this argument or another. I would, however, love to see your sources. You've repeatedly quoted that the US is the number of blah blah blah, but laugh at people when they're interested in where you're getting your info.
So, in between the snarky comments and thinly veiled propaganda, could you please take some time and throw a couple of links up here so we can see your sources?
I'll reiterate... I'm neither for or against, I just have a low tolerance for people spewing ignorance and misinformation.
Used to. Not anymore. With the passing of the NDAA for FY 202 on December 31, 2012, if you are suspected of terrorism, if you are not a US Citizen, you are subject to mandatory detention by the US military indefinitely without charge or trial until 'cessation of current hostilities' (i.e. the War On terror is over.)
If you are a USC the mandatory military detention is commuted to discretionary detention (no word on who would be making that 'discretionary decision') without charge or trial until current hostilities end.
there is such a thing as a constitutional amendment because the framers knew that the future would bring changes and they allowed for that change. at the time the right to bear arms referenced a civilian militia because the colonies did not have a standing army. the constitution also stated ''all men are created equal''. it took another 75 years and the loss of 600k lives to make that a reality. no private citizen needs a military style weapon to defend his property. washington is loaded with lobbyists protecting the weapons industry from legislation regarding gun control. as long as lobbyists have paid for influence with washington politicians gun control laws will remain a low priority.
I think if you are mentally impaired in a way which allows you to rationalize unprovoked violence there are signs you rationalize things in a mentally impaired way.
Clotho,
There is no such thing as the "gun show loop hole". Dealers must operate under the same laws state and federal laws at gun shows as they do at their store front. The media invented "loop hole" is private party sales, in which there is typically no background check required, and often there is a requirement to make reasonable assurances that the buyer is not a felon or mentally deficient. This is moot, because these types of sales are not common at gun shows. Most gun show organizations do not allow the sale of firearms on the premises by non-licensed persons.
As for internet sales, this is yet another myth. I can't legally buy a firearm from Ohio and have it shipped to my house in Florida. It has to be transferred through a licensed dealer in the buyers state.
It's interesting that you would use this analogy.
When I sell my car, I have to notify the state. That is because my car is a lethal weapon and can cause serious damage. In fact, these are the restrictions placed on my use of a car. If I want to drive a car:
1. I had to take a course in car safety.
2. I had to pass a test demonstrating that I had paid attention to the course.
3. I had to show good enough physical health, eyesight, etc. in order to get my driver's license.
4. I have to pay a registration fee to the government for my driver's license.
5. I have to pay a registration fee to the government for my car.
6. My car has a tag ; if it is used in the commission of a crime, it can be traced back to me.
7. I have to buy insurance to pay for damages in the case of mis-use of my car or an accident.
These are widely considered to be reasonable restrictions on my use of a car, which is a lethal weapon. No one wants to place any such restrictions on your sale of lampshades and art paintings at a garage sale.
Well, I can kill a lot more people with a gun than I can with a car.
The 2nd Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.."
No matter which side of the gun debate you are on, I think we can all agree that the current regulations on guns have failed to provide us with security, given that about 30 Americans die due to guns every day.
Your car isn't protected by the Constitution and isn't a right. I can agree that having training available wouldn't hurt and would cut back on firearm accidents. Hunter safety courses have GREATLY reduced the number of hunting accidents.
Actually, yes, my car IS protected by the Constitution and IS a right. I can do anything that is not illegal and expressly forbidden by law.
But never mind that. The 2nd Amendment specifically calls for regulation in order to maintain security for Americans. I think we can all agree here that the current regulations we have aren't working to maintain our security. About 30 Americans die of gun violence every day.
Kates Mauser Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? Worth a read.
When you discern Legal Firearm owners from Criminals."30 Americans die from gun violence everyday". The argument loses gravity and will not persuade anyone but the misinformed.
Really? And how exactly are we going to "discern legal firearm owners from criminals?" Do you really want to live in a country where the government has your psychological profile in sufficient detail that it can predict whether you are going to become a criminal?
A well regulated militia, in 18th century terms, refers to trained and knowledgeable i.e. people who know how to handle firearms and use them effectively. How can you think the Constitution, a document written to protect freedoms would cry out for regulations? Why make the second amendment, in a day in age when everyone had a gun, if you just want to say 'you have the right, but the government can put restrictions on it'. Look up the details around the use of that word. It'd be foolish to even have the 2nd Amendment if they're going to use "regulated" and "shall not be infringed" together...kind of contradictoray, enh?
As far as determining criminals from non-criminals, if someone commits a crime, they are a criminal. If they don't, they're not. If they seek a concealed carry permit and submit to the background check for it, they're probably not a criminal... Did I explain that too quickly?
Bob.. you're the one making up false facts.. You're so wrong and it is very easy to prove. Look up Russia's homicide rates, just google it, then STFU please.
South africa is a deveolped country and 10th Mexico is a developed country and 19th the Bahamas are deveolped and 8th Estonia is a devolped country and 28th. Russia (who has a far closer demographic mix to us with a population size simular) is 24. All of those coutnries make it imposible or very difficult to buy firearms Russia since WWII. Why the need to lie so much bob? Oh I know because logic doesn't work so you might as well lie to promote your politcal zeolotry.
Grow up and do some research before you post again. Lying doesn't help you at all. We now have google and people actually use it..
For those morons that keep yelling "MILITIA"
Thanks for showing your ignorance and helping cement our rights to carry and own firearms.
I'll stop the follow up whinning about "well regulated" Congress well regulates us. They tell me how much water I can use to flush my crap down the toilet, that is well regulated. And there is a distinct difference between regulated and unorganized. You do not have to be organized to be part of the militia, only a male 17 to 45.
What a tragedy in Wisconsin? Really? Where is the all day coverage that the media blasted my television with during the shooting in Colorado? I'm not seeing tweets across the bottom of my TV from Obama, Romney and the rest of our political leaders, I haven't heard the flags will be flown at half staff either. Is this truly a tragedy for the country or just a tragedy when our victims have LILY WHITE FACES???????
I dont know what your watching or listening to but this coverage is constantly on the radio and television here. Can I assume you are a non-caucasian looking to point out even MORE racism as if we need you to do that.
This is America, NO-ONESLISTENING12. "Non-caucasians" don't have to look to find MORE racism; there's plenty enough to point out on a daily basis without needing to search for it. Need we remind folks that Muslims aren't shooting up movie theatres and white churches en masse like white men have been doing since 9-11. And if you count historical acts of terrorism like smallpox-infected blanket give-aways to Native Americans, lynchings, mass racial massacres like Rosewood, and the whole notion of "Manifest Destiny" and white men are, most handily, the all-time terrorism champions of the world. Afterall, who else has distributing random acts of violence on innocents down to a military science like the United States does today... just point, click, and decimate from afar.
So very true. Although, i couldn't careless what color your skin is, this is horrible. Those people were peaceful as can be. For those posting about others skin color, you should be ashamed. That's not what's important here.
These comments are so clean. No racism/bigotry of any-sort. (If the guy was black it would be a lynch mob, then the statistics creeps would pop there little heads in.) Funny stuff - Some of you newsviners make me sick.
hypocrites the lot of you.
No Trial for this DUMBAZZ.!!! "PTSD" (It's Coming)
??????????????????
I would submit that they don't put corpses on trial.
Reading comprehension is not a strong suit of yours, is it?
I told you he was an Ex-Biscuithead!
This is crazy, Sikhs are some of the nicest people on the planet. My gf spent some time with them while she was in India.
On a separate note, why was the assault rifle ban mentioned? That's like reporting a wreck caused by a speeding Ford Pinto and then stating that the Ferrari ban was withdrawn.
And why was Wisconsin's concealed carry law mentioned? I highly doubt a deranged man that killed innocent people held a license anyway.
I know it's hard for you NBC, but atleast TRY to report relevant information with your stories, not unrelated tangents.
I think most people would find the state laws regarding weapons relevant, following a mass murder with guns. As adults, we should be able to have a conversation about gun laws.
If new gun laws are supposed to be so effective, why are the cities with the most restrictive gun laws (Washington, New York) Chicago) perennially have the highest incidences of gun-related crime? How does one encourage a criminal, who by definition ignores or breaks laws, to obey such new laws? And if the number of guns is such a problem, why is that as the number of guns in private ownership has escalated over the last twenty years, gun-related crimes have dropped steeply (according to the FBI!)? It would seem the proliferation of these evil things would have the opposite effect, no+ Or do we want to focus on the "lethality" of modern firearms (which would indicate someone has no grasp of the difference between the lethal effects of a 9mm vs. a .357), or for that matter that semi-automatic firearms have been around and in common use for over a century. I submit that the problem is not the tools used to commit the crime (I believe the biggest single mass killing in US history was committed using a gallon of gas and a match at a crowded nighclub - something like 40 dead, but I don't remember the exact facts) but the criminal "justice" system that enable the bad guys to repeatedly victimize society, the mass violence-desensitizing movie/video climate of our time, and a host of people-related factots which have little if anything to do with gun laws.
Because neighboring areas have much looser gun laws and it's not very difficult to drive a gun across a state line or a city limit.
You cut off their supply of guns at the source, encouraging them to never become a gun criminal in the first place.
You need to define "steeply" better. If you want a better example of "steeply", you can contrast gun deaths in the UK with gun deaths in the US, about a 100:1 ratio.
A general discharge? and not even a combat vet? Listen people there is a world of difference between combat vet and just a vet.....he was a loser before he went into the service.
I attended a wedding there and knew some of the victims from that experience. What happened here is a terrible tragedy. We will either find out that this guy was a muslim or just a retarded redneck that didn't know the difference between them. Sikh's are actually anti-muslim for the most part.
Is being, "anti-muslim for the most part" supposed to be a good thing?
I am talking about his "probable" motivations for doing this. It is ironic that someone who was probably targeting muslims took out a group of people that are anti-muslim nothing more than that. I have nothing against nothing against non-extremist muslims. If you want the God's honest truth I would prefer the extremist versions however be wiped off the face of the earth.
I highly doubt you know many Sikh's, because you wouldn't be saying they are "anti-muslim" for the most part if you did. That's like saying, white people are "anti-black" in this country....for the most part.
Actially I only know two on a personal level but have you ever heard of the tensions between India and Pakistan what do you think that is about?
?
?
The war between Pakistan and India has nothing to do with whether they are Muslim or Sikh. They were fighting over land particularly Kashmir.
Sikhs aren't particularly in love with their own Indian government either. You might have heard of Sikh massacres in India, perhaps?
The relationship between India and Pakistan is a love-hate relationship that spans centuries, even before the two countries were officially divided. It's not anything that can be characterized as a simple "like" or "dislike."
Really check into the origins of that dispute my friend.
Dave, just for the record, Fox had the report on in the morning, during the Wallace time slot....besides the more events like this are sensationalized, the chance is there will be more crazies copycatting...its just more hype for the media since they don't spend the same effort to report on the good things that happen in this crazy world.
I am disgusted every time I read an article on this website, Being from Milwaukee I wanted a little information on what happened in our town and the only news I see on line is a slant to relate concealed carry to this tragedy. What’s worse is they bring in assault weapons into the slant this person did not use one. Please ignore all the Dembrains wanting to do away with the constitution.
I'm sure the 10,000 dead from gunfire last year are glad they have a right to keep and bear arms
If they were alive.
Check out jsonline - more info there
Bob Freebird Yes over 25% of legal firearm owners are Democrat. over 40% are Republican. Over 20% are Independant.The rest are other. Common sense is not party affiliated nor should it be. Those responsible for themselves, do responsible things for themselves.
There you go, Fox News. Enjoy your work.
bob, I've owned firearms for 50 years. You still have your life. Now back off, please. Enjoy your life and I'll continue to enjoy mine................. with my firearms. Thanx.
Shil, I have my life until I don't. Your right to own a gun stops at my right to have a life. You don't like it? Tough.
Bob, until someone infringes on your right to have a life, their right to have a gun is Constitutionally protected.
What about the lives of the 10,000 Americans who die of gun violence every year? We shouldn't care about them because only Bob, being alive, can post?
Today, it's not safe to be in a church, in a movie theater. Our country is becoming a war zone because of the proliferation of guns.
I am just amazed at the number of people who think this is OK.
Byron Raum Discern legal firearm owners from criminals and "10000 Americans who die from firearms a year" This argument will not have the gravity to persuade anyone but the misinformed.
And how do you propose we do that? Basically, the solution that is now being proposed is that we should look into everyone's heart and figure out whether they are inclined to be mass murderers or not.
Do we really want to live under a situation where the government has psychological profiles on all of us?
Byron Raum If the media in all its forms stopped glorifying violence all our dreams would come true.
So it's the media's fault. Let's place blame EVERYWHERE except on the fact that the ease of buying weapons is what makes it really easy for the average mass murderer to fulfill his fantasies.
I blame the bending of justified reality. Which media contributes to by disproportionately glorifying violence as a viable means of resolution. Preventative as opposed to cutting a limb off. It would go a long way to promoting reasonable culture.
Our schools are suppose to expose those which exhibit Mental or Antisocial traits. Our schools have lowered the bar below law abiding.
bob-1008224, proof please? One of my best mates is a former Birmingham (UK) policeman and the violent crime rate in the UK since the handgun ban passed in 1998 has skyrocketed. Even before September 11th the Home Office was quietly arming British police because of that very problem. The NRA isn't making victems of anyone, they may be dogmaticly inflexible, but the 'ban all guns' crowd is equally inflexible and hasn't got a shred of evidence to supports its claims that reducing legal gun ownership will reduce violent crime.
According to the US Department of Justice there are between 300 million and 400 million firearms in this country, and that's a guess because really, they just don't know. No one does. Lets say, for the sake of argument, that the Second Amendment is somehow legally vacated and the right to own a firearm is removed. Unless you're planning on eviscerating everyone's rights to due process under the 5th Amendment and give the government blanket authority to search every business, vehicle, home and structure of any sort in the nation - thereby vacating the 4th Amendment protection from unreasonable search - the only people who will comply with the law aren't the ones committing crimes in the first place, so what have you actually accomplished? Of course you'd further have to gut the unreasonable seizure clause of the 4th Amendment or you'd actually have to PAY the owners of said firearms fair market value for their seized property. Now let's do some simple math here using the low estimate, if there are 300,000,000 guns and you have to pay $100 each for them, that's $30 BILLION. Where's that going to come from? You going to pony it up? No? Didn't think so.
Erik you go do your own homework. Gun owners are generally lazy. Yes, I have evidence that gun ownership does NOT stop slaughter. Read today's papers? DUH! Rank of US in gun ownership:1
Rank of US in gun homicides among modern countries: 1
Erik, it's obvious NO amount of evidence will convince you. None. You have your religion and it's impermeable to evidence. All we have to do is repeal the 2nd amendment and join the rest of civilization. But gun owners aren't civilized. They like to think of America as divided into guns and targets.
And $30 BILLION? Chump change. How much do you think 10,000 funerals cost? How much health insurance costs from uninsured victims? If gun owners weren't SOCIALISTS and FREELOADERS and relied on ME to cover THEIR costs, they couldn't afford guns!
gun owners are lazy?? Your comments make no sense. Get a grip or even move. Most gun owners I know are self employed and have many employees. They must not be to lazy. You have no facts, just stupid rhetoric.
It's really very simple. Quit producing guns or the parts for them. Eventually the guns will all get old a decrepit and we won't have any anymore. There is no reason for anyone to have a gun except for killing people or the hope of killing people. You are very sick if you have to have a gun to "have a good life". It just means that you are hoping for the opportunity to use it on someone, but you are too chicken to do it illegally. So you are just waiting for someone to break in or something to use it. You very well could snap one day and go on a rampage like this.
I have a bunch of firearms and guess what...yesterday they didn't kill anyone. So how does owning firearms make me a threat? It only makes my home the last one someone wants to break into.
Dietrich tells us he'd NEVER kill anyone. Cross his heart! And I'm sure the guy in Aurora said the same thing and the guy at VA tech said the same thing.]
Isn't it nice we can trust all these guys with guns that they'd never slaughter anyone...except when they do!
bob, the US is the home of the brave. You appear to be homeless.
Seriously, man, how do you propose this gunless society of yours be created?
Why won't you answer? Because you can't. You're a fool playing a fool's game.
The only person I'd ever consider killing is one who was a threat to me and my family. Aside from that, unless you're a deer or turkey, you're safe.
Bob, what it comes down to is I own several firearms...and there is nothing you can do about it. I have a nice collection and I enjoy recreational shooting. I also concealed carry. You may not like it, but you have two choices: One, live with it and not choose to own guns yourself or two, move to another country that doesn't allow gun ownership...I hear it's impossible to get guns in Mexico almost...unless you're in the drug cartels that the Obama Admin is supporting. And I hear mexican food is cheap(and good) there too.
Bob, could you please type a little slower? I'm too stupid to understand that part about, "gun owners are generally lazy." Thanks.
Bob 1008224
Reading your posts are redundant and it is too bad the comments remarks of No Value, Inflammatory et Alia does not include Moron - because you fit the description quite aptly. Just because you find some "articles" (and I use that term very loosely) on the Internet "research" as you call it, will allow anyone to find an article that will support their viewpoint - no matter how bizarre and fictitious. Thus said, try finding Empirical Evidence to support your claim - if you are unsure of the term Empirical try using a dictionary!
Either do it correctly or please keep your inane and Inflammatory remarks to your thoughts only, not your rants.
There is another option:
Three, work to change our country for the better so that we don't have to live in fear of watching movies or attending church/mosque/temple.
Bob just googles "anti gun propaganda" and copy and pastes. Why does anyone even respond to him?
Its appearant bob doesn't actually search for facts.
Russia has a higher homocide rate than the USA
Mass murder in russia 12 dead
South Russia Mass Murder Case Sent to Court
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
RIA Novosti-Jul 23, 2012
Investigators have concluded a criminal case on the horrifying mass murder of 12 people in Russia's southern Krasnodar region in 2010, and ...
The dangers of an uneducated and ignorant society. May peace be with the Sikhs.
Tall, bald white man, with tattoos. Can you say "skinhead"?
I'm a tall white man with a shaved head and tattoos and I'm not a skinhead. It's stereotypes like these that get people wearing turbans killed.
As I've said, uneducated and ignorance runs rampant in our society. Expect more of this.
skinhead. because he's a dead soldier now, he can be 1 of barry's fallen heros who will b in future audience's.a true corpseman. oh and uh sikh temple? wisconsin?
@Be Kind, Rewind. I did not say that all bald white males with tattoos are skinheads. However, virtually all skinheads are bald with tattoos. I know several bald white men with tattoos, and none of them are skinheads, but what this moron did is typical of the racist, skinhead mentality.
@Mymomdidnotraiseafool. Skinheads buzz their heads, they're not "bald". Baldness is genetic or caused by your body producing to much testosterone. I can see it now, "Look it's a skinhead get em!!" As more morons attack a white, "bald", baby.
Bald, by definition, is - having little or no hair on the scalp. Whether it is absent because of natural reasons or being shaved off, it looks the same to me. So stop playing semantic word games, please. It amazes me what people read into what was never written. Skinhead tattoos are easily recognizable as such, and generally don't include hearts with "mom" or their girlfriend's or wife's name. I don't think too many people would have trouble doing so.
What a tragedy in Wisconsin? Really? Where is the nonstop TV coverage that blasted my the airwaves like during the shootings in Colorado? I haven't seen any tweets from Obama, Romney nor any of our political leaders. Is the flag being flown at half staff? It seems to me that this country truly only have tradegies when the victims faces are LILY WHITE!!!!!!
Your name doesn't match you Comments.
FYI, some non-white people were injured and killed in Colorado. However, the President did comment on this most recent tragedy:
President Barack Obama said Sunday that he and first lady Michelle Obama are "deeply saddened" by the killing of at least six people Sunday at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, and promised his administration will provide "whatever support is necessary" to those investigating the shooting
"At this difficult time, the people of Oak Creek must know that the American people have them in our thoughts and prayers, and our hearts go out to the families and friends of those who were killed and wounded," Obama said in a statement issued by the White House.
"As we mourn this loss which took place at a house of worship, we are reminded how much our country has been enriched by Sikhs, who are a part of our broader American family," the president said.
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-deeply-saddened-shooting-sikh-temple-205920832.html
Obama made a comment about this. Not sure if Romney did, I doubt it.
Condolences to the victims and the Sikh community. Unbelievble tragedy. We can't be sure yet, but it's beginning to look like another one of the redneck survivalist types complete with the inability to cope in society, an unstable mentality, a focus on an enemy and the ability to get a gun . IF guys would take the energy and money they put into guns and shooting and direct it toward a skill and some education they may find the hopelessness of being unable to do anything useful goes away. I hear the first cop onthe scene has died from his wounds. God bless his family too. That whole community has suffered too much.
While we are granteed a well regulated militia, those regulations do not appear to do much to eliminate the criminals and lunatics from firing away or ordering thousands of rounds of ammo (see the Colorado incident) for home delivery. It will be interesting to see what excuse this shooter had to visit a temple and start firing...we do such a good job educating our population to marginalize and vilify those who hold different cultural, political, or religious views from us that I'm just sure he had a plethora of bizarre motivations. Sad.
Another false-flag attack carried out by our government to get us to give up more rights... Read the earlier reports from the scene about 4 gunmen dressed in black.... not one major news network has interviewed ANY eye-witnesses.
I BEG you to do your own research and not rely on what you read in the mainstream media. These manufactured lies are created to illicit an emotional response of "Ban all guns"... once we can't defend ourselves from the government, the police-state will be unstoppable.
Oh brother, the "Hate America First" crowd comes out of the woodwork. Why not blame it on Martians! THIS is the gun nut crowd at work and people tell us we need the 2nd amendment!!
bob, you would be from that crowd? I'm from the love America and the constitution crowd... and unlike you, I'm aware of what's happening in the world. do you ever examine news from elsewhere? or only from the corporate-owned big-networks? Seriously, I BEG YOU TO PLEASE DO THE RESEARCH... don't accept the story at face-value... look at our history, pearl harbor, gulf of tonkin, iraq's WMDs, Waco, Ruby ridge, Anaheim... come on, man! WAKE UP!
You said it. What better way to take away another one of our freedoms than to make people feel unsafe. My family owns guns and I would feel more unsafe if I was not allowed to protect myself and my family.
Anonymous...your lobster bib needs changing and your tin foil hat has slipped. By the way, how many guns do you own?
Gun toten mom pretends having guns makes you safe.
The evidence shows otherwise, but never let it be said a gun owner was swayed in his or her fantasies by logic.
You can't argue with conspiracy theorists. They are just wired differently and will ignore the facts they disagree with. They have an inability to empathize, combined with an oversized ego that makes them think they are smarter and cleverer than everyone else. They use words like "sheep" to describe everyone who doesn't believe what they believe. They also never feel the need to prove anything they allege. Instead, they force you to "prove it's NOT true", which is usually an impossibility.
They refuse to accept that sometimes bad, chaotic things just happen. They think that if they can find an actual enemy to blame, instead of just a random crazy white supremacist, they can prevent bad things from happening in the future. In the end though, these conspiracy theories find a way to make it all about them and their enormous egos. I remember some nuts claiming the guy in Colorado was part of a government conspiracy too. You can't argue with crazy.
My brother is a conspiracy theorist, so I've been learning everything I can about them. They can be otherwise normal people, their minds are just wired differently.
Bob, why do you care how many guns we all have?
Only Cowards carrying Guns
Jack, It doesn't make one a coward. It makes one taking their responsibility as a citizen seriously. As the husband of my wife, it's my obligation and responsibility to protect and defend my family. To not carry a gun makes you nothing but a sheep.
You can't defend yourself from the government now. The weapons the government has can kill you before you can get within a thousand miles. 80 million guns are useless when an entire city can be destroyed with the press of a button.
you like most of the far right make your own facts- your not interested in the truth your interested in conspiracy theories and big brother is going to invade your bedroom- get real man lifes to short to be running around paranoid all the time
Good point Byron. I believe many of the gun laws on the table restricting arms(not explosives, but arms) from legal lawabiding citizens are unconstitutional because of that very reason... Nothing you can do about the military have bombs and nuclear weapons...it's not like a law biding gun owner can go to the range to test out their nuke...
Gandhi never carried a gun. You might have heard of him. He took on a world empire. And won.
Better to have one and not need it than need it and not have it. Ask Kim Cates of Mont Vernon, NH.
If you think about it, the 2nd Amendment is pretty much obsolete as far as protecting the public from a corrupt government and for two different reasons:
1. There is no way the public, either individually, or in aggregate, can take on the mightiest military force the planet has ever seen.
2. It has been often proven that arms don't make things better. If the Egyptians had been toting guns in Tahrir square, they would have been rolled over by army tanks. If Gandhi had had weapons, the British would have mowed him down. It was NOT having guns that gave the revolutionaries the moral authority that allowed them to eventually win.
Beyond that, the 2nd Amendment calls for regulation on the militia in order to provide for the security of the public. Whatever your stance might be on guns, I think we can all agree that the current regulations, as required by the 2nd Amendment are not keeping Americans secure.
Byron Raum: Blah, Blah, Blah, give up owning guns because that will make America and the world safe. Will everyone stop being human with all the bad attributes some have like envy, hate, intolerence, and just damn mean? I think not. I'll agree with the man who played Moses very well in the movie.
I think the solution for guns is for everyone to have one...so when someone goes to shoot up a place, as soon as the good folks realize it, they all light into the bad guy with their guns. I know of churches with armed security guards staffed by off duty police and those with CC permits. The "well regulated" in the 2A refers to well trained. Otherwise the founding fathers were hypocrites in then saying "shall not be infringed". They wanted a militia, i.e. every able bodied man, to have a gun, know how to handle it safely, and use it well so that when something happened, they'd get everyone together to take care of it. The current laws do not work. You're asked when buying a gun if you intend to shoot anyone...even the criminally insane say No when asked. It's the lack of morals in our society that are leading to our problems. I, a law biding citizen, should be able to go and buy whatever type of gun I want without a problem...but if I do something and become a felon, I surrender that right.
Bob is so helplessly out of touch with reality there is really nothing you could do to bring him back.
Thank god he doesn't own one because I wouldn't trust anyone to be safe. He'd go out on a killing spree taking out all those hatefull racists....
Excuse my ignorance, but could someone from the Sikh community please explain to me where the Kirpans were?
Do Sikh men no longer carry them? Can they not be used for self defense?
lance bruce
As you apparently know the name for the article, you should also know it is a religious symbol, similar to a Christian wearing a cross or a Jew wearing a Star of David. It is a symbolic emblem and NOT a weapon.
Besides, the advisability of bringing a knife or sword to a gun fight is dubious at best.
Lance,
I'm not sure having their Kirpan would have helped if they had been used for their defense.
A knife is rarely good protection from a 9mm.
That is not to say it's not possible. But I don't think many of the lost lives would have been spared.
My condolences go to the families touched by this senseless tragedy.
May God bring them peace and ease their pain.
.
XDm9mm and aSailor'sMom, that's what I was curious about. Is the Kirpan merely symbolic, or does it indeed carry an edge. I don't even know if Sikh men still carry them, because I have not seen a Sikh with one in decades. I do recall when I lived in New York, a Sikh gentleman who had just arrived from India, was arrested for carrying one. I would not want to bring a dagger to a gun fight, but by the same token I would not want to go up against a crowd of angry dagger carrying people, armed with just a 9mm.
lance....
Now you've piqued my interest. I'll check with some Sikh I know at work, unfortunately, I won't be back in that office until late September.
Have a great day.
Harsher gun laws probably wouldn't have stopped the Aurora tragedy, the shooter knew how to create explosives, put a lot of planning into the shooting, and was probably intelligent enough to get his hands on illegal weapons anyway. But this idiot didn't even do enough research to know that he was shooting up Sikh's not Muslims so I highly doubt if a gun hadn't been so readily available this would have occurred. Banning guns wont save everyone but it does make it a hell of a lot harder to kill.
All the men would have been dressed in their Sunday finest which would have included a kirpan. Some people keep theirs sharp, but others are about as sharp as a butter knife.
Yes some kirpans can kill but most sikhs do not carry kirpans . The priests or "granthis" who follow all the 5 K's of sikhism / khalsa mostly do carry small kirpans.
They may not however come in very handy in a gunfight for obvious reasons including the suddenness of the attack. Swords which are also kept in Sikh gurdwaras / temples can however be fairly long and be used to ward off an attacker . Again in a gunfight it may not be of much use .