Lax gun laws prove deadly in the U.S.

[defendandprotect]

Lax gun laws prove deadly in the U.S.

By Olivia Ward
Foreign Affairs Reporter


America has recoiled in horror over the shooting rampage in Arizona but throughout the country some 30,000 people die each year of gunshot wounds — about one-third of the 98,000 who are shot.

The most recent violence has turned the spotlight once again on a system that fuels gun crime and, say some, is giving in to an “extremist” minority of gun advocates at the expense of national safety.

“We need more sensible laws, and we need a change in social norms,” says David Hemenway, a Harvard professor of health policy and expert in gun violence. “But the sad thing is that too many people are cowed by the gun lobby. And on a typical day in the U.S. there are 80 deaths from firearms.”

Arizona’s laws allow lethal weapons to be concealed as well as easily purchased. And, says the Washington-based Violence Policy Center, there is a strong link between lax laws and shooting deaths.


http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/920205--lax-gun-laws-prove-deadly-in-the-u-s

[DrDan]

1. time for some changes

[-..__...]

9. I agree...

but the Brady Campaign/VPC/MMM, and other anti-gun legislators/individuals, will shriek and howl like a troop of capuchins caught in a snare net every time the NRA attempts to restore and defend our 2nd amendment rights.

The sooner they shut the fuck up and sit down... the sooner we can put this "gun control" nonsense behind us.

[damntexdem]

2. Time and again. But American pols will not deal with it.

The gun lobby is killing this country.

[Francis Marion]

89. The Rights of the People do not need to be 'dealt with.'

And if 80 million people were, in fact, 'killing this country', believe me- you'd know about it.

[pipoman]

97. How do you explain the lowest violent crime rates in 30 years

considering there have never been more guns in private hands?

[Kingofalldems]

3. Here comes the gungeon to give the NRA position

[CountAllVotes]

4. they should melt down all of the guns

Only law enforcement should have access to them. Period.

[PavePusher]

11. Ah, a police state.

How very Progressive of you... or something.

[CountAllVotes]

12. we'll be there sooner than later

the way things are going and it can only be blamed on one group of people, those that have guns legal or illegal.

[PavePusher]

17. So, the legal gun owners are at fault somehow?

All 80+ million of them? Really? Do expound, please?

[CountAllVotes]

19. if abused yes it is a fault

These weapons should be turned in and melted down. They can make more weapons out of them for their non-stop wars.

No one will be able to get them soon anyway if this crap keeps happening.

You done it to yourselves. Game is up.

[PavePusher]

22. melt down weapons to make weapons?

Your logic, good sirrah, is an unassailable fortress.

And what, pray tell, did we "done... to ourselves"? Inquireing minds, etc.

[YllwFvr]

35. actually your "side"

if you want to call it that, is losing. With Heller, McDonald, the Chicago gun ban being lifted, the DC gun ban being lifted, california open carry being affirmed, wisconsin open carry being affirmed.... need I go on? This country has been rapidly going pro gun for a long time. More than likely, with rights being affirmed, it will continue to do so.

If this crap keeps up... yes we will still be able to get them as I have the right to do so. Brady Campaign is a ghost and a joke more than anything, and were staring bankruptcy dead in the face, though this little tragedy may fan the flames of the few supporters they have left.

[cleanhippie]

65. Wow, the bizarre logic and delusional ravings are entertaining...

but seem dangerous somehow.

[Kennah]

21. So only corporations will have guns?

[jeepnstein]

41. That's where they're taking us.

How's that for a bite in the shorts? Democrats clamoring to arm the rich and leave the rest of us defenseless. That's mighty nice of them. With friends like that I don't know how we win any elections ever. Remember Blair Mountain.

I can understand the Brady Campaign having that agenda because they are a Republican organization. I'm not sure I have an excuse for some of my Democratic brothers and sisters.

[Kennah]

95. Ironically ...

... the GOP's embrace of foreign governments and corporations that will leave only the wealthy armed. Our Chinese overlords aren't going to give a rat's butt about rights, and the Tea Baggers will be in for a big shock, if they ever figure that one out.

[cleanhippie]

64. Wait...WHAT? You want to give only police guns, yet blame the march to a police state on gun owners

WTF?

Do you realize how blatantly contradictory and fascist that is?

[defendandprotect]

13. Remember there was a time when British police were unarmed... and our own officers RARELY

fired a weapon -- the police baton was sufficient.

Guns are the opposite of "progressive" --

[beevul]

20. Right you are.

"Remember there was a time when British police were unarmed"

Yeah, that was when the british were allowed to own handguns...


Handguns are now banned, and the police there heavily armed to a large extent.

Fancy that.

[defendandprotect]

27. Yeah, I remember the British being obsessed about guns and carrying them everywhere!!

:sarcasm: just in case!

[beevul]

31. Do you deny that they had a semi strong gun lobby

Do you deny that they had a semi strong gun lobby and owned handguuns up untill the legislation that outlawed one and neutered the other?

Do you deny that the british police carry far more firepower now, than they ever did before that legislation?

[defendandprotect]

50. I don't deny that right wing forces like the GOPs/NRA have risen in nations other than our own...

and that's the power behind the destruction of the middle class and our

safety nets -- and substituting wars and weapons manufacturer profits for

what was once more peaceful societieties.

Do you deny that the rise of the right in America has taken away the right

of the people to universal health care? To medicine at fair prices?

To access to unions and fair wages? Indeed, now, to jobs?

And given the opportunity, they will knock out what's left of our safety

nets -- unemployment insurance, Social Security and Medicare.

Denying any of that?

[beevul]

82. "Denying any of that?"

No more or less than you deny aiding the right by attacking gun ownership and supporting legislation that enables the right, by giving gun owners no other way to defend thier rights where guns are concerned, than voting against Democrats.

[jeepnstein]

45. "the police baton was sufficient."

I think the days of using the baton fell out of favor a few years back. It's a great tool but it tended to get misused a wee bit.

[defendandprotect]

51. Do you think "tasers" are any better?

[jeepnstein]

55. Yes, definitely.

It's easier to track the use of a Tazer. You don't break bones with them. The accountability thing is a big plus. As long as they are used according the the training guidelines laid down by the manufacturer they are quite useful. Of course some folks will find someone who's misusing the thing and then use that as a blanket condemnation of it as a defensive tool.

My point is that the "good old days" when the baton was sufficient was also a time when police were generally allowed to pass out a few lumps to people they thought needed it. They called it "street justice" among things. Ever seen what a black jack can do to someone's head? Lead lined gloves were another really popular tool with some old-school cops. Gone are the days when you could just put a beating on a ne'er do well and dump him at the county line.

We don't live in Mayberry anymore. I'll go so far as to say Mayberry never did exist outside the tube. Our society has become far more coarse and violent in many ways.

[defendandprotect]

61. Evidently you haven't read the reports of taser injuries ... including deaths....

PLUS, of course, the baton is still being used to crack heads --

Seemingly, you don't get the connection between GOP/NRA and rise of the right and

the attacks on the New Deal which protected you?

The GOPs/NRA targeting of liberal/moderate Democrats and Republicans and the reality

this same right wing also knocked out regulation of capitalism which has created

this economic crime wave by corporations?


We don't live in Mayberry anymore. I'll go so far as to say Mayberry never did exist outside the tube. Our society has become far more coarse and violent in many ways.

Our society has changed because of the rise of the right -- the "coarse and violent" among us.

That's why we don't have MEDICARE FOR ALL or fair drug prices --

Why even unemployment insurance is under attack by the right wing --

Social Security and Medicare --

But you did get your guns!

and a couple of wars, including high priced mercenaries -- and a doubling of the MIC budget!

:eyes:

[jeepnstein]

67. Yes, I read them.

And we discuss them during training. It's important to remember what a Tazer can and cannot do. I haven't used a baton in years although I still keep one around.

Batons are useful in riot duty because you don't have to reload. It's been a while since I pulled riot duty, at a Ku Klux Klan rally of all places. That was a freak show.

Coarse and violent people find themselves in both parties. I know people who generally identify themselves as "left of center" who have some of the vilest and inflammatory vocabularies out there. Many of them would readily take direct action "monkey wrenching", if you will, against their perceived enemies if they thought they could. Some of the posters here on DU are just downright embarrassing. I will say that it's easier for the right to recruit people because they can just go with an appeal for ignorance.

You're right about greed and shamelessness ruling the day. Money can really bring out the worst in some people. And make no mistake it is unabashed greed that is funding the extreme right these days. It'll be fun when all those true believers suddenly aren't so useful the the GOP.

I cling to the 2nd Amendment because I do value the working man. Remember Blair Mountain.

[defendandprotect]

70. Keep in mind GOP/NRA has created two right wing parties ...

with the help of the GOP/Christian Coalition and GOP/"pro-lifers" and now the

GOP/T-BAGGERS ....

After GOP/NRA attacks on liberals and moderates in both parties --

and CIA attacks on liberals and moderates in both parties, there are more right

wingers to be found in government -- so agree you can find more "coarse and violent"

people in government today, but they are still right wingers.

We now have one right wing party and one radical right wing party.

If you're in the "center" now, you're on the right.

You're right about greed and shamelessness ruling the day. Money can really bring out the worst in some people. And make no mistake it is unabashed greed that is funding the extreme right these days. It'll be fun when all those true believers suddenly aren't so useful to the GOP.

Agree - but unfortunately, by then, it will be too late --

Nature will be playing the final cards --


I cling to the 2nd Amendment because I do value the working man. Remember Blair Mountain.

The Battle of Blair Mountain was the largest open class war in United States history and was the second largest overall armed insurrection next to the American Civil War. For five days in late August and early September 1921, in Logan County, West Virginia, between 10,000 and 15,000 coal miners confronted an army of police and strikebreakers backed by coal operators in an effort to unionize the southwestern West Virginia coalfields. Their struggle ended only after approximately one million rounds were fired,<1> and the United States Army intervened by presidential order.

You now have a corrupted government with drones and nuclear missiles -- controlled by elites and

you expect to either overcome that with "guns"?

Better examples are current examples --

"Katrina" with African Americans with guns being shot --

and the people having their guns confiscated!

[jeepnstein]

71. I see opportunities there.

Politics is about playing to your strengths while kicking your opponents legs out from under him. Most "conservative" candidates rely on the Three G's to appeal to their base. I'm seeing movement away from that base with regard to single issue voters who identify strongly on 2nd Amendment or Religious issues. There's enough daylight there to really do some damage. That's the way it's playing out here in flyover country. You just have to be mindful that all politics are local and go from there. Since GLBT is off the table for any Democrat who expects to survive a primary we have to work with guns and religion.

We have Democrats getting endorsed by the NRA locally all the time. It's not the divisive issue that some other localities may encounter. Personally, I don't think it's worth that many votes but getting the endorsement tends to put single interest voters in a bind and that's a good thing.

We still took a pounding over the economy. It wasn't as bad as I was expecting but pretty brutal.

What this has to do with gun control I have no idea but I'm having fun with this thread.

Blair Mountain was ended only after some of the most advanced weapons of the day got rolled out against the miners. Billy Mitchell used aerial bombardment on the camps. It finally came down the fact that nobody was going to sit still for a wholesale slaughter of the miners, even though the mine owners were willing to try. The more things change the more they stay the same.

[defendandprotect]

81. "Politics is the shadow cast over government by corporations" ....

Politics is about playing to your strengths while kicking your opponents legs out from under him.

Corporations are simply former Royalty/elites now morphed into corporations --

and they've been at this since time began --

And this --

Most "conservative" candidates rely on the Three G's to appeal to their base. I'm seeing movement away from that base with regard to single issue voters who identify strongly on 2nd Amendment or Religious issues. There's enough daylight there to really do some damage. That's the way it's playing out here in flyover country. You just have to be mindful that all politics are local and go from there. Since GLBT is off the table for any Democrat who expects to survive a primary we have to work with guns and religion.

seems mass confusion.

If all politics are "local" what's the long list of political organizations financed by the

right wing? From the T-BAGGERS back to the Christian Coalition?

If it's "local" you better check with your town and state government 'cause corporations

have already been there buying your representatives.

GLBT is off the table? Why, do Republicans not have homosexual children? How long can they

be convinced by organized patriarchal religions to shun and detest their own children?

GLBT is not "off the table" -- Democrats are "off the table" as you can see on every issue!

We have Democrats getting endorsed by the NRA locally all the time. It's not the divisive issue that some other localities may encounter. Personally, I don't think it's worth that many votes but getting the endorsement tends to put single interest voters in a bind and that's a good thing

You missed the entire story there ... you have RIGHT WING DEMOCRATS who replaced liberal and

moderate Democrats being endorsed by the GOPs/NRA.

What that means is ... You win guns -- we lose Social Security and Medicare.

But, hey, having a gun probably makes your health care insurance cost less, right?


The economy is a basic lie -- we've suffered a depression --

Obama hasn't overturned the trade agreements -- he's forming new ones!

Obama isn't creating jobs, either -- and his stimulus was only 25% of what was needed --

and I think he even settled for less than that!



Blair Mountain was ended only after some of the most advanced weapons of the day got rolled out against the miners. Billy Mitchell used aerial bombardment on the camps. It finally came down the fact that nobody was going to sit still for a wholesale slaughter of the miners, even though the mine owners were willing to try. The more things change the more they stay the same.


That was a different time and elites didn't yet have almost total control over our government

or our press.

Guns and the economy are connected -- those legislators the GOP/NRA put in place in BOTH parties

are creating an economy that profits the rich and destroys the middle class.

But -- hey, guns are everything -- !! Why worry, be happy!

[beevul]

84. Maybe if people...

Maybe if certain anti-gun people didn't expect people at large to choose between guns and those other things, none of what you mentioned would be the case, or at the very least, much less would be the case.

But hey, Gun control is everything -- !! Why worry, be happy!

[defendandprotect]

87. As you quite well understand, rw Democrats are now also giving you guns ....

You know that -- you've made that clear --

Again -- we are left with two right wing parties now because of NRA and CIA targeting

of liberals and progressive in Congress. The right wing has won.

All I'm pointing out to you is what you've lost --

but, maybe you don't see no health care as a loss?

Maybe you don't see attacks on safety nets as a loss?

It's simply a FULL right wing agenda -- unfortunately, GOP/NRA and guns for everyone is

a right wing agenda -- not a liberal agenda. You know that from the right wing Supreme

Court which gave you the decision.

Guns - right wing

Gun control -- liberal wing

[beevul]

90. Uh no, not quite.

"As you quite well understand, rw Democrats are now also giving you guns"

My right to own a gun does not come from the right wing, or left wing, or from the government itself.

It is inherent, and a restriction on government, one that that forbids them interfering with my right to own a gun, protects it...you might have seen it, it ends with the words "shall not be infringed".

"All I'm pointing out to you is what you've lost -- but, maybe you don't see no health care as a loss?"

"Maybe you don't see attacks on safety nets as a loss?"

Yes indeed, and I'm pointing out to you, that people that expected gun owners at large to choose guns versus health care/ (insert something other than health care here) for example, are very much part of the reason that I've lost that.

It was stupid, short sighted, arrogant and ignorant, to make the choice guns vs <whatever>, and, YOU GUN HATERS/BANNERS are 100% to blame for anyone being put in the position of having to make that choice. And now, that its cost you and me and everyone else, you blame gun owners or the right wing or elvis or men from mars, anyone but the people that were instrumental in making the choice one of guns vs <insert it here>.

Look in the mirror. How does that reality make you feel?

"It's simply a FULL right wing agenda -- unfortunately, GOP/NRA and guns for everyone is a right wing agenda -- not a liberal agenda. You know that from the right wing Supreme Court which gave you the decision."

Saying it doesn't make it true.it might be perceived by YOU as a right wing agenda, and you may wish it were that way, which only validates what I said above. Gun haters/banner are the ones that wanted to abandon gun owners. Abandoning gun owners = forcing them to vote republican to protect their rights.

Any way you slice it, theres simply no escaping the fact that the gun haters/banners bear at a minimum, some degree of responsibility for those things you listed, being lost.

As someone that supports them, look in the mirror and tell me how that makes you feel.


"You know that from the right wing Supreme Court which gave you the decision."

The decision was ruled correctly and in line with the context the preamble to the bill of rights gives the first ten amendments.

To argue with it as you do, is to argue with the CLEAR intent and purpose of the bill of rights itself.

[defendandprotect]

92. Yes ... a right wing Supreme Court gave you the latest gun decision...

NOT a decision that you would have gotten without this right wing GOP/NRA SC.


Meanwhile, we only have a right wing party now and a radical right wing party --

that's thanks to targeting by the GOP/NRA which certainly worked its destructive

methods very successfully.



Yes indeed, and I'm pointing out to you, that people that expected gun owners at large to choose guns versus health care/ (insert something other than health care here) for example, are very much part of the reason that I've lost that.

As long as there are people fearful enough to chose guns over health care, that will be the

result. Not only re health care and drug costs, but on all of our safety nets -- and on

every other liberal issue -- from any true justice to the Drug War. Because those who push

guns are certainly those who push the Drug War.


It was stupid, short sighted, arrogant and ignorant, to make the choice guns vs <whatever>, and, YOU GUN HATERS/BANNERS are 100% to blame for anyone being put in the position of having to make that choice. And now, that its cost you and me and everyone else, you blame gun owners or the right wing or elvis or men from mars, anyone but the people that were instrumental in making the choice one of guns vs <insert it here>.

Presumably we also "chose" to stack the Supreme Court with right wing radicals who gave you

the W Bush and the gun free for all? No -- it is the right wing/elite which bought the

Supremes and our Congress -- both parties -- which has corrupted both parties.


Look in the mirror. How does that reality make you feel?

What you are mirroring to me is your own extremism. And "up" is "down" philosophy.

Is that the way you explain this to your family and friends who may not have health care.

"They made us do it?" That's the alibi?


Saying it doesn't make it true.it might be perceived by YOU as a right wing agenda, and you may wish it were that way, which only validates what I said above. Gun haters/banner are the ones that wanted to abandon gun owners. Abandoning gun owners = forcing them to vote republican to protect their rights.

Saying it isn't true doesn't make it not true. NAME the members of the Supreme Court 5 who gave

you the gun decision.

And it's the same kind of ability to "ignore" reality as we see in play with the NRA which makes

the opening clause of the 2nd amendment disappear -- from some eyes.

The clause is there because it LIMITS the 2nd amendment -- it is the rationale for the

2nd amendment.

[beevul]

94. When the decision is the correct one, its authors matter not.

"NOT a decision that you would have gotten without this right wing GOP/NRA SC."

Looks to these eyes that your saying a left leaning court would have gotten it wrong.

"As long as there are people fearful enough to chose guns over health care, that will be the result. Not only re health care and drug costs, but on all of our safety nets -- and on every other liberal issue -- from any true justice to the Drug War. Because those who push guns are certainly those who push the Drug War."

No. As long as there are people who DEMAND the choice be one of guns vs healthcare, that will be the result.

"Presumably we also "chose" to stack the Supreme Court with right wing radicals who gave you the W Bush and the gun free for all? No -- it is the right wing/elite which bought the Supremes and our Congress -- both parties -- which has corrupted both parties."

Nobody gave anybody the gun free for all. Government, courts, politicians, and even the constitution, are NOT the source of my rights. honorable mention however is given, to the bill of rights which restricts government from trampling it, as you'd have them do.

"What you are mirroring to me is your own extremism. And "up" is "down" philosophy.Is that the way you explain this to your family and friends who may not have health care."They made us do it?" That's the alibi?"

At best, people with views on guns such as yours are no less responsible than those that react to them in ways that anyone with half a brain could predict. The reality of having the bill of rights on OUR side, however, eliminates that "at best" characterization of the situation, and leaves people with views like yours on guns in prime possession of responsibility.

Just own it.

"Saying it isn't true doesn't make it not true. NAME the members of the Supreme Court 5 who gave you the gun decision. And it's the same kind of ability to "ignore" reality as we see in play with the NRA which makes the opening clause of the 2nd amendment disappear -- from some eyes. The clause is there because it LIMITS the 2nd amendment -- it is the rationale for the 2nd amendment."

Why do the USSC members names matter, when the decision is the correct one?

The amendment is a restriction on governmental power. Plain and simple. The preamble to the bill of rights clearly plainly and explicitly states it. Thats not opinion. Thats fact:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org

Thats right from the document in question, itself.

Into a restriction on governmental power, which is the second in a list of ten restrictions on governmental poer, you read some sort of restriction on people. While doing so might seem nifty, slick, and trendy, it is incorrect, and no amount of repetition will change that.

I have cited documented proof.

You have cited nothing except your own bias.


Gee, I wonder which of us is correct. :eyes:

In closing, I'll remind you again, that arguing that the second amendment is something other than a restriction on governmental power, is to argue against the clearl plain and explicit context, stated purpose, and function, of the bill of rights itself.

[defendandprotect]

100. The correct decision on guns stood since 1939 ... until you got a right wing court to overturn it..

And, we've also had former Justices speak out on the fakery of the NRA 2nd amendment.

No. As long as there are people who DEMAND the choice be one of guns vs healthcare, that will be the result.

We made you do it? Again?

So you had the choice of going with the GOP/NRA and right wing --

or going with those fighting Big Pharma and private health care and insurance companies --

fighting the Drug War -- etal -- and you went with the guns?

You do not have a Bill of Rights/2nd amendment on your side -- what you have on your side

is the GOPs/NRA and a twisted right wing Supreme Gang of 5 -- same set up that gave us W.

And, they did it because they're liberals who believe in freedom. :eyes:

You can recall the Preamble to the Bill of Rigths but not the opening clause of the 2nd

Amendment?

The opening clause of the 2nd amendment is a DEMAND for gun control --

"A well-regulated militia...."

Gee, I wonder which of us is correct.

Gee -- that's a tough one. GOP/NRA on one side. Right wing Supremes on one side.

And the opening clause and the prior decisions on the other side.

Wouldn't have been NRA money by any chance that bought that decision?

[krispos42]

91. "rarely fired a weapon"

That's a lethal baton the cops carry, then.

[defendandprotect]

93. 1976 is post the Drug War -- the fake Drug War ...

It is also post 11/22/63 -- when the right wing political violence came out

of the closet to take not only our president but our "people's" government.

And after that, everything began to change -- including the right wing dedication

to creating a violent society. And, the Drug War was one of the main tools to do

that.

[krispos42]

96. Ah, the other 'good old days'.

That sliver of time between the end of Prohibition and the Kennedy assassination.

[YllwFvr]

32. law enforcement will disagree with you

ask me how I know ;)

[RSillsbee]

39. If gun control laws worked and only the police had guns

Why would they need them?

[defendandprotect]

52. The police didn't need guns the majority of the time ... that's the point --

You got the GOP's/NRA and the move toward creating violent societies --

by targeting liberals and moderates in both the Democratic and Republican parties.

But you also got new elite/imperialist wars inspired by the right wing, mercenaries

profiting highly in our warmaking, doubling of the MIC budget --

and a wide spread and very expensive Drug War --

You've also lost control of government to the wealthy/corporates who are attacking

the middle class, denying Americans the right to universal health care, fair drug

prices -- and destroying our safety nets.

What's the right wing idea of unemployment insurance -- ? One week.

What's the right wing view of jobs? Scarcity and high unemployment --

What's the right wing view of fair wages? Unions?

Rather, they are harvesting slave labor all over the world and destroying unions here,

jobs -- and attacking Social Security and Medicare.

But -- you did get your guns!!


:eyes:

[jeepnstein]

56. We don't need them every day now.

Most officers could easily pull a shift without their weapon. I'd be willing to venture they could go weeks or months without needing it. I knew a Deputy once who kept his locked in the trunk of his cruiser because "Those things are dangerous". Problem is when you need it you need it right now.

[defendandprotect]

60. And that's why they carried them ... for RARE occasions....

However, with the rise of the right -- their fake Drug War -- their

economic war on citizens -- and the general wave of violence they have

swept over our nation, people fear not these corrupted right wing influences

but the guy who may have a gun -- and if he does, he does because he was armed

by the GOP/NRA to create a more violent society.

I'd also point out that it's not that difficult to figure out who's behind this

if you look at Katrina and the T-BAGGERS at Town Hall Meetings!

And who will actually be allowed to have guns in this nation!

[jeepnstein]

62. It's still relatively rare.

Most elements of society are still quite peaceful and law-abiding. I will go so far as to say the sky is not falling. I firmly believe that people are generally predisposed to be nice to one another. It takes quite a bit of effort to turn one into a killer. That's why I'm a Democrat.

I have no argument with you about the War on Drugs. Prohibition has created a marketplace outside the controls of normal business law. Dealers are by definition criminals and they have to rely on their own peculiar set of skills to enforce business contracts. Just like the days of alcohol prohibition and Murder Incorporated we have drug gangs who are making everyone suffer. Budweiser and Miller snipe at each other in ads these days but they don't resort to having a shootout over cooler space.

Talk radio? Freedom of Speech. I despise what comes out of their mouths but I'll defend their right to say it to the end. Repress that speech and it'll gain legitimacy in they eyes of the faithful. Free speech prevents more political violence than it causes.

The teabaggers are a bunch of amateurs who will eventually grow disenfranchised with the GOP. They'll be the death of the Republican Party before it's all said and done.

[defendandprotect]

66. Agree with you ... including reality that includes kids ....

despite age-old efforts by the right wing to paint them as "delinquents" --

and now, imo, perhaps even gimmick some of the events we've seen. Kids are

much more a peaceful society than adults -- especially adult males.

Otoh, the sky is falling if you count Global Warming -- and right wing violence.

But, completely agree with you otherwise -- as we recall from the PNAC notes on what they

would have to do to be able to invade Iraq, the peaceful nature of citizens was a bar to

the rw -- as they noted they would need "a new Pearl Harbor" to get what they wanted!

Everyone is the same all over the world -- everyone wants peace and simply to live their lives

in peace. Since time began we've been trying to figure out what to do about the few violent

among us -- and now they have control of our government and MIC.

The Drug War is another deal which has provided the opportunity for elites to commit crimes

behind it -- it's being used to interfere (to put it politely) in the affairs of other nations --

and as an excuse for increasing MIC connections to the Drug War and actions.

Not to mention our shiny new prison industry.

Talk radio? Freedom of Speech. I despise what comes out of their mouths but I'll defend their right to say it to the end. Repress that speech and it'll gain legitimacy in they eyes of the faithful. Free speech prevents more political violence than it causes.

Somewhat disagree here -- the "Fairness in Broadcasting Act" which Reagan overturned simply

provided for more than one side being heard. Nixon began the fight against it -- right wing

hates it -- and I think it works to keep us honest and we should restore it. It doesn't

CENSOR anyone -- it simply provides for at least two sides being heard on every issue.

We also have the long history of right wing propaganda and its preaching of hatred and incitement

to violence in the Hitler years. In the Nixon administration, they were studying that Nazi

propaganda and old Nazi films. No accident those methods arose again with the GOP.



The teabaggers are a bunch of amateurs who will eventually grow disenfranchised with the GOP. They'll be the death of the Republican Party before it's all said and done.

Not sure about that ... the T-BAGGERS are financed -- bought and paid for -- by the Koch Bros./

oil industry. And the Kock Bros. family began the John Birch Society which began in the JFK

years to create havoc. T-BAGGERS are also run out of a PR firm which guarantees them publicity.


Oil industry has been fighting reality of Global Warming with 50+ years and billions in propaganda,

disinformation, lies and misinformation -- on and on. Right wing never tires, never gives up.

They have billions/trillions at stake.


IMO, T-BAGGERS are the GOP -- just as the NRA is GOP, the "pro-life" murderers are GOP --

and as the Christian Coalition is GOP -- in fact, the GOP gave start up funding for the

Christian Coaliation in the '80. Also, Richard Scaife financed Dobson's organization --

and other wealthy right wingers financed Bauer's organization. There is nothing real about

the GOP -- it is either gained by political violence, stolen elections or lies --

Everything is bought and paid for.

My fears re the T-BAGGERS are that they are actually being used to RAISE the level of hateful

and violent political rhetoric in America -- and, indeed, to make the carrying of guns and

political violence more common in America. They're off to a great start in doing that, imo!!


:)

[one-eyed fat man]

99. Before 1954 I lived in the country you want.

The government took care of the people. Everything was provided. It offered generous pensions, guaranteed employment, equality of the sexes and substantial wage equality, free healthcare and education, and a growing array of other free and virtually free goods and services.

True, there was a secret police that had an informant for every seven people, but if you toed the Party line all was ok. Troublemakers kept their opinions to themselves. If they didn't one morning they would just be gone.

But even with all that many people didn't want to live there. Everyone got according to his needs. Ordinary factory workers stuffed into a dreary cold water flat. High Party officials in their villas.

It was only a few years after we managed to escape they put up a wall to keep the West Germans out so they would not come over and take advantage of the wonderful social system in the East.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6Y-NXZmDcxU/TQmyFcPDl7I/AAAAAAAANeU/O3MK5G69rKs/s400/Berlin+Wall.jpg

[rl6214]

86. And why is that

Because they are the only ones that can handle them?

[Statistical]

5. Homicides are at a 46 year low. Last year with lower homicide rate was 1964. n/t

[russ1943]

10. delete

self delete

[defendandprotect]

14. Due to better police training, more supervision --

[friendly_iconoclast]

24. And at the same time millions more guns were sold in the US. What was the problem with guns, again?

Do tell...

[defendandprotect]

25. They kill people, but some how you don't seem to notice that ... !!!

:eyes:

[Tejas]

29. With the increased ownership of firearms, why hasn't

the murder rate kept up?

Guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens is at an all-time high (and still going up), so why hasn't the murder rate skyrocketed to the stratosphere?

[defendandprotect]

30. Why would you expect it to?

and often the gun owners end up with the gun used for suicide or having

killed someone in their own family -- or a neighbor.

PLUS we have more than 38,000 gun woundings every year -- which we all pick

up the tab for -- and that's a very old figure.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x358172



PS: Btw, the Bill Maher video on the HOME page is very apt about NRA and gun obsessions.

[beevul]

33. We wouldn't.

But it would appear that YOU do. Just a few posts down, someone named defendandprotect has a post entitled "guns are the problem.

If theyre a problem like YOU say they are, why hasn't the murder rate raised in parallel with gun ownership.

"PLUS we have more than 38,000 gun woundings every year"

Of which 15,000 are homicieds - give or take. in a nation with over 300 million guns and 80+ million gun owners.

BTW, I support the right of people to end thier own lives as they see fit, so I perhaps don't view including suicides in your stats as very honest.

[friendly_iconoclast]

34. That's not very sporting of you, pointing out contradictions like that

Remember, this is supposed to be as emotion-filled as possible. Inconvenient truths just harsh the mellow, dontcha know?

[beevul]

36. I know, I know...

I need to work on being a kind and gentle capitulator...

[defendandprotect]

44. Maybe you want to actually respond to 98,000 gun shootings every year?

30,000 people die each year of gunshot wounds — about one-third of the 98,000 who are shot.

Article here ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x358172


As you can see, 38,000 woundings each year was a very OLD number --

guess more people are getting shot every year just to unfairly raise the "emotion" levels!



:eyes:

[friendly_iconoclast]

72. Despite your claims, those are declining- while the number of guns is increasing.

[defendandprotect]

43. Guns are the problem .... if you noticed what happened at the Giffords rally.....

They carry the potential for violence -- and for innocent bystanders, as well.

How could you possibly deny the role a gun played in that event?

You're trying to make a relationship that doesn't exist -- unless you are

suggesting that everyone who buys a gun intends to use it for killing someone?

And is planning violence or murder at the time of the purchase?

Is that what you want us to believe?


some 30,000 people die each year of gunshot wounds — about one-third of the 98,000 who are shot.

As you can see, we are well above the figure I posted which was from a long time ago.

It's about time the gun manufacturing industry began to be held reponsible for this violence.



and perhaps you want to explain what you think this means re my very low calculation of

38,000 gun woundings every year --

Of which 15,000 are homicieds - give or take. in a nation with over 300 million guns and 80+ million gun owners.

???





PS: And, btw, I also fully support anyone's right to take their own life -- but they should be

entitled to being able to act on that right with something other than a gun, knife, or rope.

[Tejas]

79. LEO's kill their spouses

on occasion, is that okay?


They also shoot fleeing suspects, do the suspects deserve it?

[beevul]

85. Jesus. What an extremist viewpoint.

"It's about time the gun manufacturing industry began to be held responsible for this violence."

Just as soon as every single other thing is held to the same standard.

Beer makers and car makers held responsible for DUI deaths.

Louisville slugger, worth, and all the other bat makers held responsible for baseball bat beating deaths.

Faber-ware held responsible for kitchen knife stabbings.



This particular viewpoint, is extreme to the point of being absurd, and absurd in the extreme.

[defendandprotect]

57. But let's ignore 30,000 deaths from 98,000 shootings -- !!!???

You could look at it this way ... we don't have universal health care for all and

fair prices on drugs because we have the GOPs/NRA victories over Democrats and

Republicans who would have voted for these programs.

That also goes for jobs and unemployment insurance -- and attacks on the middle class --

union, safety nets.

[Statistical]

69. The white whale of gun control crusade cost the Democrats control of Congress for a decade.

It accomplished nothing. Even when the gun control bills were repealed or expired crime continued to decline.

It accomplished nothing but costs sooo much.

[moondust]

6. A million gun victims since the assassinations of the 60s.

Noted by Congressman Jim Moran on Hardball yesterday. Probably more than a million if you figure 30,000 each year (including suicides and accidents).

You'd think people would eventually wake up to the slaughter but I'm not holding my breath anymore.

Guns are not a necessity in life. BILLIONS of people live their entire lives without them.

[defendandprotect]

15. .. ah, but that those "billions" don't provide profits for the gun manufacturers!!

PLUS 38,000 or more gun woundings every year which we pay for!!

[kctim]

7. Instead of the standard fear based calls

to take away a Constitutional right, why not just get rid of the right the Constitutional way?
Just get the 2/3 needed and you don't have to live in fear anymore.

[GreenStormCloud]

16. WRONG. It takes 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendment.

Therefore, any 13 states can block a repeal of 2A.

[YllwFvr]

37. and what are the chances of that happening?

im sure you know the answer

[defendandprotect]

58. Unless we want the Drug War to turn us into Mexico .... it has to be overturned ....

And, again, the only people who profit from this violence are elites --

it's what keeps the right wing rising.

And average citizens broke --

[YllwFvr]

63. ending the drug war

might be a big step to taking the moneys that fund those drug lords away. The second has little chance of going anywhere

[defendandprotect]

68. There are elites behind this Drug War profiting from it -- otherwise...

the Drug War would have been over in the first 24 hours!

Just like any other persistent crime, elites are involved in sharing profits

and benefit from the disruptions to society -- and the violence.

The Drug War corrupts government and elected officials -- and every one of our

government agencies!

[YllwFvr]

74. cant deny that one

"There are elites behind this Drug War profiting from it"

[kctim]

42. Thank you for that correction

[defendandprotect]

54. The 2nd amendment states clearly it is based on a "militia" .... it is the rationale behind it ...

And, in fact, "a well-regulated militia" in the mode of those times -- not a

White Supremacist movement!

And who gave you these GOP/NRA right wing victories?

Are you denying it is the same right wing SC that gave us W Bush?

Maybe you think Scalia, Thomas, Roberts are liberals?

We have an amendment which states clearly what it is about --

Why don't you try to get rid of the opening clause?

[beevul]

83. Heres your opportunity...

Heres your opportunity to show everyone if you can read and understand context or not.

Heres the truth of the matter where the second amendment is concerned. And keep in mind, this is not simply my opinion, this is fact, and I'll verify that for you here and now:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org

Do you understand what that says?

It says in simple terms, that to prevent the federal government from abusing or misconstruing its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.

With me so far?

The second amendment is a restrictive clause telling the federal government what it SHALL NOT do. "A well regulated militia" is WHY it shall not do what the amendment says it shall not do.

If it said "fried green banannas" instead of "well regulated militia", it would still tell the government what it shall not do.

If you doubt that the original bill of rights was a "the government shall not" document, I'll simply refer you to the first amendment that says "congress shall make no law".


The meaning of the second amendment is crystal clear, should the person reading it bounce it off the preamble as the framers intended.


Argue against it to your hearts content, but the document says what it says, and you are wrong.

"And, in fact, "a well-regulated militia" in the mode of those times -- not a White Supremacist movement!"

Reading comprehension fail.

"And who gave you these GOP/NRA right wing victories?"

They are in line with the preamble, so it really doesnt matter who gave who victories. The decision was the correct one, and in line with what the preamble of the bill of rights says the amendments are. Theres simply no denying it or running away from it or spinning it. The document says what it says. Period.

"Are you denying it is the same right wing SC that gave us W Bush?"

The correct decision was held, so the decision makes are not relevant.

"Maybe you think Scalia, Thomas, Roberts are liberals?"

The correct decision was held, so the decision makes are not relevant.


"We have an amendment which states clearly what it is about -- Why don't you try to get rid of the opening clause?"

Yes we do, however you do not understand what it says, nor are you willing to read it in the proper context - and note, the proper context is not MY context, or "gun worshipers context, its context set by the document itself.

In a nutshell, your side lost in the courts, and correctly so.

To argue against the decision, is to argue against the purpose of the bill of rights itself.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. Anything that quotes the VPC is by definition questionable

[lawodevolution]

18. this is why

this is why in Juarez where guns are banned there is a murder rate of 120/ 100,000. Mexico has a 15 per 100 people gun possession rate.
and in El Paso which is the same city and same population (highly mixing populations between the two sides) under a different government and almost no gun restrictions had a murder rate of less than 1 / 100,000 in 2010. El Paso has more guns than people.

So if you are a brady campaign member, you take the above information and your conclusion is we should copy Jarez's gun policy in El Paso. it's for the children.

[Kennah]

23. Gun laws not the problem

We really don't yet know the problem.

Loughner might be legally insane, and it's likely the argument the defense will make. However, at the moment, based on all available evidence, I ain't buying it.

Loughner might well have been a victim of mental illness while not qualifying under insanity. If so, that speaks to the reduction in mental health services, which has been occurring since Raygun, as the culprit.

Drugs, abuse, despair, or lack of opportunity. Again it would seem that a lack of social services could be the culprit. Poverty, lack of jobs, lack of training, lack of education, and lack of opportunity are perhaps the biggest contributors to crime overall.

Political motivations, if they played even a small part, speak to a decline nationwide in civility within the realm of discussion.

With violent crime rates continuing to fall, with more people in more states carrying guns, it is all but impossible to blame lax gun laws because of one highly publicized tragedy.

[defendandprotect]

26. Guns are the problem --

and will continue to be a problem until we get sane and sensible gun control

in America!

[YllwFvr]

38. so insane people arent the problem?

an inanimate object is?

That makes sense. Thats why we blame doughnuts (excuse me, power rings or cop steak) for making officers fat. It was the cop who stuffed the delicious pastry into there mouth, it was the doughnuts fault!

[defendandprotect]

46. First of all, the mentally ill aren't any more violent than any other people ....about 5% ....

and they are most often victims of violence.

They are also being untreated because we are so busy using taxpayer money to

fund wars of violence, weapons makers for more violence, and MIC for violence.

A gun is simply an "inanimate object" ??? It's the very symbol of violence --

You couldn't come closer to a universal symbol of violence than a gun --

other than perhaps the atomic bomb or landmines.

In a very real sense that is really what guns are ... landmines being planted in

our societies with the increasing potential for violence.

And who wants and pushes violence other than the right wing?

The GOPs/NRA and weapon manufacturer who profit from this violence -- not only

in the monetary sense, but in helping the right rise to power because that's the

only way the right can rise -- through violence.


Well ... violence, stolen elections and lies -- and wealth to buy our elected officials.

In other words, capitalism, itself, is a natural for undermining our democracy.


And, btw, I've never heard anyone claim that Hitler was mentally ill -- nor Stalin --

nor W. Bush or Rumsfeld or Cheney -- nor the alleged Lee Harvey Oswald.


We might note, however, that the White House threw a lot of insults at liberals who want

peace and an end to the MIC machine and wars by calling them "retarded."



And, you can also look at our sad state here in US this way ...

We don't have universal health care for all and fair prices on drugs because we have

the GOPs/NRA victories over Democrats and Republicans who would have voted for these programs.

[friendly_iconoclast]

73. I suppose the next thing you'll tell us is that ropes don't cause lynchings.

You heartless beast!

[YllwFvr]

75. wait they dont?

[Tejas]

28. As long as the courts coddle the CRIMINALS with a slap on the hand,

nothing will change.

[defendandprotect]

47. What criminals do you have in mind? Pot smokers or people like Bush/Cheney and capitalists?

[Euromutt]

40. Both mass shootings and assassinations of politicians have occurred in other countries

It's simply unrealistic to suggest that, if only the United States had stricter gun laws, this sort of incident wouldn't occur, because in countries that do have stricter gun laws, they also occur. Canada and Germany have both had spree shootings, the Netherlands has had a politician and a controversial filmmaker shot dead in public with illegal handguns. True, that kind of incident doesn't happen with the frequency seen in the United States, but the fact that they do happen demonstrates that "lax gun laws" are at most part of the problem, and are neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for this kind of incident.

And let's face it, Loughner had no compunction about shooting a nine year-old girl; what gives anyone the idea that not being able to legally acquire a handgun, or even just the extended magazine, would have stopped him?

[defendandprotect]

48. And the same right wing forces are behind those assassinations, as well .... PLUS

stack up the right wing political violence in America -- out in the open --

over the last 50 years knocking out liberal and progressive leadership in

America and show me where that has happened in Canada or Germany or GB --

or any other nation that isn't a victim of our foreign policy -- i.e., CIA

rule.

[Euromutt]

78. What ARE you talking about?

I was talking about the assassinations of Pim Fortuyn in 2002 and Theo van Gogh in 2004. Neither was committed by "right wing forces."

For assassinations and the like in Germany and the UK, you have to go back a bit to when the Red Army Faction and the Provisional IRA were still active, but they happened all the same, gun laws notwithstanding (though admittedly, both the Provisional IRA and the "Real" IRA have had a penchant for using bombs rather than guns when operating in England).

[X_Digger]

80. Don't expect sense..

Your interlocutor doesn't believe we landed on the moon, thinks 9/11 was an inside job, and that humankind was vegetarian until the rise of the 'patriarchal religions'.

[one-eyed fat man]

98. Don't upset the Leftists are all non-violent meme with Baader-Meinhof

Don't tell anyone that the Rote Armee Fraktion or the Brigate Rosse were Leftists. While the RAF shied away from overt collaboration with communist states they did receive intermittent support and sanctuary over the border in East Germany. Baader, Ensslin, Mahler, and Meinhof went to Jordan for guerrilla warfare training with the PFLP and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

The Red Brigades relied heavily on logistic support and training by the Czechoslovak StB both in Prague and at remote PLO training camps in North Africa and Syria. They were responsible number of political assassinations including the kidnapping and murder of former Christian Democrat Prime Minister Aldo Moro.

Soviet and Czechoslovakia small arms and explosives came from the Middle East via heroin traffickers along well established smuggling routes. The Red Brigades had one member who used to sail between Lebanon and Italy during summers, ferrying Soviet weapons for a fee from the PLO to Sardinia where the weapons were distributed to "other organizations in Europe."

[defendandprotect]

49. On the subject of "illegal guns" you have to look to our lack of gun control which permits ....

weapons being obtained in "legal" states and carried into "illegal states."

We need universal gun control across the states --

[27nitro]

53. It does not permit it. There are laws against it. nt

[defendandprotect]

59. If you want to base a gun debate on semantics game playing.... why not

start with the right wing's ignoring of the opening clause in the 2nd amendment?

You know, that clause you all like to ignore?

[spin]

76. I tend to rely on the two recent Supreme Court decisions myself ...

they effectively interpreted what the founding fathers meant.

You may disagree with their decision but your opinion is in reality irrelevant.

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia<1><2> and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Additionally, the Court enumerated several longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession that it found were consistent with the Second Amendment.<3> In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governmental authority to the same extent that it limits federal authority.<4>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[Euromutt]

77. I just pointed out that that wouldn't stop spree/mass shootings

Does the name Erfurt, Germany (2002) ring a bell? Dawson College, Montreal (2006)? Winnenden, Germany (2009)? Last year's shootings in Cumbria, UK? Last year's shootings in Bratislava, Slovakia? All countries with tighter gun laws than the United States, the guns were registered and their owners licensed, and yet, those killings still happened.

<...> our lack of gun control which permits weapons being obtained in "legal" states and carried into "illegal states."

It's illegal to transfer firearms between residents of different states without through federal firearms licensees. Admittedly, there's very little to physically prevent you from doing so, but then, there's very little to physically prevent you from trafficking guns from Croatia or Bulgaria to north-western Europe, even though that's illegal as well.

[Jenoch]

88. It's interesting

how the term 'gun control' is not uttered by liberals who are in favor of more gun laws. We will only hear of 'gun safety'. Gun safety means pointing the muzzle of a gun in safe direction.