Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: How Fake 2nd Amendment History Kills

Posted 1 year ago on Sept. 20, 2013, 12:31 p.m. EST by shoozTroll (17632)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

False history can kill, as the American people have seen again in the slaughter of 12 people working at the Navy Yard in Washington D.C. on Monday, when an emotionally disturbed gunman gained access to the military facility and opened fire, adding the site to a long list of mass-murder scenes across the United States.

http://consortiumnews.com/2013/09/19/how-fake-2nd-amendment-history-kills/

110 Comments

110 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by WSmith (1956) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Public opinion gets trumped in gun control defeat [ by NRA paranoia propaganda and political influence ]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/17/public-opinion-gets-trumped-in-gun-control-defeat/

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

the right to bare arms in a state militia is about distrust of a federal government and the states right to maintain its own defense

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

That's what the NRA says too.

Unfortunately tyranny came to the States, some time ago.

Not a peep from the anyone in the "gun enthusiast" crowd.

They rather like it that way.

Strange, that.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1956) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Deadliest U.S. shootings
Updated Sept. 23, 2013

At least 13 people including a gunman are confirmed dead in the Sept. 16 shooting at the Navy Yard, more than the amount of people killed in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater in 2012. Follow our liveblog.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/deadliest-us-shootings/

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

The point, is that the "gun enthusiast", is completely misguided as to the purpose of the second amendment.

The shame, is that the SCOTUS, shares in that misinterpretation.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (1956) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

see reply on this topic to Narley below

[-] 0 points by WSmith (1956) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

The Great GOP Mental-Health Hypocrisy

by Michael Tomasky Sep 20, 2013 5:45 AM EDT

Since the D.C. shooting, Republicans care about mental health! Yet they opposed—and want to defund—the law that does more to advance the cause than any in history. [Remember, GOP Zombie God, Ronnie Raygun, closed the mental hospitals!]

So now we’re being treated to the charming spectacle of Republicans, or a few of them anyway, purporting to care about mental-health treatment in the wake of the Washington Navy Yard shooting. How touching. This doesn’t mean, of course, that they care about mental health. They’re just coming up with something to say in the wake of the tragedy that sounds to the willfully credulous like action and that won’t offend the National Rifle Association. Meanwhile, they have devastated mental-health funding since you-know-who became president. And more important than that, they voted against, and are now preparing to vote en bloc to defund or delay, the law that will do more to address mental health and give society at least a chance that future Aaron Alexises will get treatment that could prevent them going on shooting sprees since ... well, pretty much since ever. [Filthy Despicable RepubliCon Bastards]

CONTINUED: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/20/the-great-gop-mental-health-hypocrisy.html

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I've been trying to point that out all along. It's one of those things I get called a partisan over. You can bet there's a (R)epelican't governor in almost every State that hurried that along.

It was actually one of ALEC's early incursions into our system.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (1956) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Along with the Shoot First laws!

Keep the money flowing while they keep us shooting each other. 1% Class War!

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Shule (2030) 1 year ago

Then issue is more complex than what the article describes. One needs to go back in history to the English Bill of Rights of 1689, and then even further back into antiquity to fully understand by what is meant by the 2d amendment in the U.S. Constitution. But history aside, I believe the key words often overlooked are "well regulated." Whether people own the guns, or a State owns the guns, "well regulated" clearly means one cannot go out and do whatever with a gun; i.e. there are rules and limits. There are only certain things a person is allowed to do with a gun. That guns are dangerous and need to be managed is recognized by the Constitution. With gun ownership also comes responsibility; something which the gun Rambos don't seem to understand.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

"clearly means one cannot go out and do whatever with a gun"

Good luck with that. That's exactly what the NRA wants it to mean.

That it flies in the face of all reason and now even research, is meaningless to them. They get paid well to say the things they say.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2030) 1 year ago

Now you got me confused. I read "well regulated = gun control." My understanding is that the NRA does not want the gun market well regulated. I don't understand how you come to "clearly means one cannot go out and do whatever with a gun" as something the NRA wants?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Shule (2030) 1 year ago

I think what is being overlooked with your interpretation is the comma at the end of the phrase, i.e. the phrase "A well regulated Militia,... State," is a lead in to the remainder of the sentence saying the rights of people to bear arms shall not be infringed. As I understand it and as you say, the Militia and civilian population come together. In essence the civilians become the Militia, and that all be done in a regulated and disciplined way. So to me that also means that the guns and weapons of the citizens, although their rights to them are not to be infringed, that they are to be regulated to serve a certain purpose. Hence, the rational for controls over guns; that they do not be used for dubious things like murders, hold ups, and things like that.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Shule (2030) 1 year ago

Ok, I may be stretching it a bit. Here is an interesting read: http://www.saf.org/journal/16/colonialfirearmregulation.pdf

It says the 2d amendment was put in place mainly to allow states the ability to assure men show up at muster with a weapon. And as to sensible gun control laws in 1776, that being different than gun ownership restrictions, they had plenty of them back then; basically saying don't be stupid with a gun.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Shule (2030) 1 year ago

like legislation on violent video games?

Now I wonder,academically, if the Constitution allows legislation to be passed that allows only U.S. Citizens to carry guns in the United States?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Exactly.

Forgive me, as I was tired when I wrote it, but the NRA doesn't want ANY effective restrictions, was the point I was trying to make.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I didn't pay any attention to the MSM on the subject, don't really care what they said, but this article is 100% correct.

Gun nuttery has twisted the 2nd beyond comprehension.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

It was the (R)epelican't party that fucked up the mental health system.

Along with all the other health systems.

They continue to fuck up the needed background checks and practically everything else that would limit these kinds of events.

Now that's gun nuttery.

[+] -4 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

That’s just one anti-gun writers opinion. The fact is the SCOTUS has ruled twice the 2nd Amendment allows private citizens to own firearms. They also said restrictions on gun ownership is allowed (Felon can’t own a gun, can’t own a full auto weapon without it being registered, carrying a gun on your person must be concealed, etc…). So there is no fake 2nd amendment. Even the Illinois law was struck down because it infringed on 2nd amendment rights. But the gun restrictions in Illinois are still the toughest in the US.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (1956) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

The Roberts Royal 1% Five also gave us Citizens United in an Olympic leap of judicial Un-American Activism!

It's the worst SCOTUS and Congress in modern history, only to be outdone by the worst POTUSy, Bush-Cheney! And all 1% Cult-Worshiping RepubliCons!

The only two reasons we have such insane gun laws are GREED (big $) & DIVISION (armed insurgency against each other). All the rest is sugar to make it easier for you regardless gun-nut morons to swallow the Bull Shit!

[-] 0 points by WSmith (1956) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

President Obama Speaks at a Memorial for Victims of the Navy Yard Shooting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFcg-Kbz8BQ&feature=youtu.be

NRA's Wayne LaPierre: 'There Weren't Enough Good Guys With Guns' At Navy Yard Shooting [Filthy God Damn Scum] http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/nbc-host-confronts-lapierres-call-more-good-

American gun use is out of control. Shouldn't the world intervene?

The death toll from firearms in the US suggests that the country is gripped by civil war Henry Porter, The Observer, Saturday 21 September 2013 17.12 EDT

A man on a rifle range: 'More Americans lost their lives from firearms in the past 45 years than in all wars involving the US.' Photograph: Scott Olson/Getty Images

Last week, Starbucks asked its American customers to please not bring their guns into the coffee shop. This is part of the company's concern about customer safety and follows a ban in the summer on smoking within 25 feet of a coffee shop entrance and an earlier ruling about scalding hot coffee. After the celebrated Liebeck v McDonald's case in 1994, involving a woman who suffered third-degree burns to her thighs, Starbucks complies with the Specialty Coffee Association of America's recommendation that drinks should be served at a maximum temperature of 82C.

Although it was brave of Howard Schultz, the company's chief executive, to go even this far in a country where people are better armed and only slightly less nervy than rebel fighters in Syria, we should note that dealing with the risks of scalding and secondary smoke came well before addressing the problem of people who go armed to buy a latte. There can be no weirder order of priorities on this planet.

That's America, we say, as news of the latest massacre breaks – last week it was the slaughter of 12 people by Aaron Alexis at Washington DC's navy yard – and move on. But what if we no longer thought of this as just a problem for America and, instead, viewed it as an international humanitarian crisis – a quasi civil war, if you like, that calls for outside intervention? As citizens of the world, perhaps we should demand an end to the unimaginable suffering of victims and their families – the maiming and killing of children – just as America does in every new civil conflict around the globe.

The annual toll from firearms in the US is running at 32,000 deaths and climbing, even though the general crime rate is on a downward path (it is 40% lower than in 1980). If this perennial slaughter doesn't qualify for intercession by the UN and all relevant NGOs, it is hard to know what does.

To absorb the scale of the mayhem, it's worth trying to guess the death toll of all the wars in American history since the War of Independence began in 1775, and follow that by estimating the number killed by firearms in the US since the day that Robert F. Kennedy was shot in 1968 by a .22 Iver-Johnson handgun, wielded by Sirhan Sirhan. The figures from Congressional Research Service, plus recent statistics from icasualties.org, tell us that from the first casualties in the battle of Lexington to recent operations in Afghanistan, the toll is 1,171,177. By contrast, the number killed by firearms, including suicides, since 1968, according to the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention and the FBI, is 1,384,171.

That 212,994 more Americans lost their lives from firearms in the last 45 years than in all wars involving the US is a staggering fact, particularly when you place it in the context of the safety-conscious, "secondary smoke" obsessions that characterise so much of American life.

Everywhere you look in America, people are trying to make life safer. On roads, for example, there has been a huge effort in the past 50 years to enforce speed limits, crack down on drink/drug driving and build safety features into highways, as well as vehicles. The result is a steadily improving record; by 2015, forecasters predict that for first time road deaths will be fewer than those caused by firearms (32,036 to 32,929).

Plainly, there's no equivalent effort in the area of privately owned firearms. Indeed, most politicians do everything they can to make the country less safe. Recently, a Democrat senator from Arkansas named Mark Pryor ran a TV ad against the gun-control campaign funded by NY mayor Michael Bloomberg – one of the few politicians to stand up to the NRA lobby – explaining why he was against enhanced background checks on gun owners yet was committed to "finding real solutions to violence".

About their own safety, Americans often have an unusual ability to hold two utterly opposed ideas in their heads simultaneously. That can only explain the past decade in which the fear of terror has cost the country hundreds of billions of dollars in wars, surveillance and intelligence programmes and homeland security. Ten years after 9/11, homeland security spending doubled to $69bn . The total bill since the attacks is more than $649bn.

One more figure. There have been fewer than 20 terror-related deaths on American soil since 9/11 and about 364,000 deaths caused by privately owned firearms. If any European nation had such a record and persisted in addressing only the first figure, while ignoring the second, you can bet your last pound that the State Department would be warning against travel to that country and no American would set foot in it without body armour.

But no nation sees itself as outsiders do. Half the country is sane and rational while the other half [more like 10%] simply doesn't grasp the inconsistencies and historic lunacy of its position, which springs from the second amendment right to keep and bear arms, and is derived from English common law and our 1689 Bill of Rights. We dispensed with these rights long ago, but American gun owners cleave to them with the tenacity that previous generations fought to continue slavery. Astonishingly, when owning a gun is not about ludicrous macho fantasy, it is mostly seen as a matter of personal safety, like the airbag in the new Ford pick-up or avoiding secondary smoke, despite conclusive evidence that people become less safe as gun ownership rises.

Last week, I happened to be in New York for the 9/11 anniversary: it occurs to me now that the city that suffered most dreadfully in the attacks and has the greatest reason for jumpiness is also among the places where you find most sense on the gun issue in America. New Yorkers understand that fear breeds peril and, regardless of tragedies such as Sandy Hook and the DC naval yard, the NRA, the gun manufacturers, conservative-inclined politicians and parts of the media will continue to advocate a right, which, at base, is as archaic as a witch trial.

Talking to American friends, I always sense a kind of despair that the gun lobby is too powerful to challenge and that nothing will ever change. The same resignation was evident in President Obama's rather lifeless reaction to the Washington shooting last week. There is absolutely nothing he can do, which underscores the fact that America is in a jam and that international pressure may be one way of reducing the slaughter over the next generation. This has reached the point where it has ceased to be a domestic issue. The world cannot stand idly by.

[-] -1 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

That’s the biggest bunch of bullshit I’ve read in a while. I couldn’t read it all. You post a few links and opinions saying some people don’t like guns and think people believe that crap.

So let me tell you the reality. There are an estimated 300+ million privately owned guns in the US, there are an estimated 80+ million gun owners in the US. The SCOTUS has ruled twice that private ownership of guns is allowed under the 2nd amendment. Gun laws are trending more toward more lax gun laws, not more restrictive. Two democratic anti-gun legislatures in Colorado were recently re-called because of their anti-gun votes. They were replaced by two pro-gun republicans. There is virtually no chance of congress passing ANY anti-gun legislation in the foreseeable future.

So, it really doesn’t matter whether you like it or not. Gun in America are here to stay. That’s reality.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (1956) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Truth seems like bullshit to you. Interesting. Then the real RW, NRA bullshit you swallow must taste like... what? Bud? Chick fil a?

What amazes me is that you selfish assholes don't give a flying fuck about the thousands of innocent deaths that your fucking hobby enables! You miserable cretins don't deserve to breathe our air!

"Gun in America are here to stay." Brilliant! Just the kind of forgotten claptrap you philistines brayed about slavery, no public schools, no minimum wage, no interstate highways, segregation, no anything....

We can call the coming gun reform act Gun Sanity! LONG OVER DUE!!

[-] 1 points by IrishRevolt (5) 1 year ago

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/30/drug-overdose-deaths_n_3843690.html

Twice as many drug deaths as gun deaths, and yet almost all drugs are 100% illegal.

When the governing body is actively selling it to create destruction, its not going to stay off the streets.

Just like the drug laws do is make innocent people into criminals and hence lose their rights- rights as human beings- this would probably turn out no different.

A government that is the global arms dealer of choice is that because they like the destruction.

If drugs werent illegal would that number be up? Hard to say.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2030) 1 year ago

Cigarettes are the No. killer in the U.S.A. Tops all other killers, including guns and drugs, combined.

Perfectly legal.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

Your hate is consuming you. Hating 80 million gun owners is a lot of people to hate. More restrictive gun laws isn't in the foreseeable future. Sorry you don't like it, but that's the way it is.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1956) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

My hatred for archaic laws that kill and maim thousands of Americans is surpassed by the contrived and self-centered indifference of gun-nuts and the coldhearted greed of the 1% who support this murderous insanity. The rest of the civilized world laughs when they are not appalled and horrified.

[-] -2 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

Sigh, We're beating a dead horse here. We're not going to agree, so what's the point. All I'm saying is it doesn't matter if you don't like guns. The laws aren't going to change anytime soon, probably never. This is as plain as I know how to say it. The sooner you accept that reality the better for your mental health.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1956) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

What is wrong with you freaks that you don't care about the victims of your outdated, contrived and murderous obsession?

Have you really been so brainwashed to the point of blindness?

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

At this point in time, I'd say the fear and loathing message has gotten through loud and clear, and the market for guns and ammo reflects that.

Remember, of course, that the MIC will sell guns to both sides of any conflict, so domestic sales are just par for the course.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (1956) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

If we were talking about benign objects of obsession like beanie babies and their easy availability, who'd care? But we're talking about deadly objects of obsession that regularly kill thousands of bystanders and innocents because of their easy availability ~ and millions of people who mistakenly believe it is their patriotic duty to partake in this obsession and inflict it on the rest of society!

They (gun-nuts) don't get it (our archaic gun problem), they're delusional.

The same 1% who are waging the Class War on the 99% also own the MIC (the business of war is extremely lucrative), and keeping the 99% busy fearing and shooting each other instead of uniting & engaging their real enemy is extremely beneficial to the Class War.

And none of this is understood clearly or sufficiently by the majority of the public, loud or clear!

The article "American gun use is out of control. Shouldn't the world intervene?" posted above details the hypocrisy and intolerable circumstances of this issue.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Actually, diet kills way more Americans that guns ever will.

But, by all means, focus upon inanimate objects that can be very dangerous in the hands of the few.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Junk food is far more dangerous to human health than guns

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in 2000, poor diet including obesity and physical inactivity caused 400,000 deaths in the United States alone. Yet, in 2000, according the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control – there were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States. And, get this, the majority of gun-related deaths in the United States were suicides!

My point is – we know that the consumption of fast food causes all sorts of health problems such as, obesity, diabetes, cancer and heart disease. Millions of people are dying – directly related to the horrible ingredients in fast food such as, synthetic hormones, excess sugar, trans fats, artificial sweeteners, chemicals and preservatives. Why doesn’t the NFL and state-sponsored “health” agencies demand a ban on all junk food?

http://www.naturalhealth365.com/food_news/banning-guns.html

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Builder, I'd like to buy you lunch. There is a lovely soul vegetarian place in Englewood. Meet you there at noon.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

I think I'd be on the "no-fly" list, GF.

But thanks for the invite.

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

What a pity. We could put that whole food v gun theory to the test.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (1956) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

I'm all for junk food legislation. Greed-addled business bastards should not be getting filthy rich selling food that kills people. Junk food tax, and/or forcing the owners, shareholders, executives, CEOs and all their children to live on the inanimate product they sell might be nice. It would sure change the health aspects of the junk food, pronto.

But inanimate cigarettes kill even more people annually than junk food. Yet cigs are legal and pot, which kills no one, is still mostly illegal. Pot/cannabis replaces fuel oil and wood pulp, and provides a convenient excuse to imprison dissidents and undesirables. Follow the money.

The unique problem with our archaic gun problem is EASE, EFFICIENCY & EXPEDITIOUSNESS. One deranged soul can take out a school room of kids in a matter of unconditionally irreversible seconds. While it could take untold decades for cigs and junk food to get the job done, and it's completely reversible for most of that time.

By all means, you see the huge, inanimate and dangerous difference.

[-] -2 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

:"you freaks"? We are your neighbors, co-workers, friends and family. We freaks love our families, do our jobs, vote, pay our bill just like everyone else. For instance I'm a kindly old Grandpa, not a threat to anyone. No reason to hate me.

You demonize tens of millions of people because you don't like their opinions. You seem to want to paint gun owners as camo dressed nazi's just sitting around fondling their guns and waiting for the Klan meeting to start. That's not who gun owners are. We are the regular person on the street you see every day. You really do need to think about anger management. Way too much hate.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

OK I'll admit, I don't know anyone in my immediate circle that owns a gun

[-] -1 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

Are you sure? Most places require people to conceal their weapons on their person.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1956) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

"Times have changed": Delusional people twisted by paranoia propaganda!!

[-] -1 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

You can yell, stamp your feet, call people names and generally throw a temper tantrum. But the fact remains that gun ownership is growing and gun laws are trending toward more lax gun laws, not more restrictive.

The attempts to implement any new gun restrictions at the federal level have failed miserably. The anti-gun folks know they can't get anything done at the federal level and have stopped trying.

The fight has moved to the State level. California, New York and a couple of other States have passed some mild new restrictions. While Texas, Utah and a couple other states have passed less restrictive gun laws. Colorado passed a 10 round mag limit only to have the Senators who supported it be recalled ans replaced by republicans.

So I ask you, If you can't even get universal background checks done, and can't limit magazine capacity, can't get any type gun registration done, Then what makes you think you're going to take the guns away. Hell, No one even knows who owns gun or haw many guns there are because there is no registration. Face it, your pissing in the wind.

[-] 1 points by IrishRevolt (5) 1 year ago

Asking people to turn in their guns to the authority that is manufacturing them, selling them globally, and pretty much causing destruction at record levels throughout the entire planet is probably one of the most naive things we have done lately.

If guns are the problem, then why not start directing that anger at the MIC and the ones who are making them and selling them. Its akin to raging at a drug addict and then going and voting for the dealer at the end of the street.

Americans are not able to see the big picture anymore.

[-] 1 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

Good point. Thank you. Even if no new guns were manufactured or sold there are still an estimated 300+ million privately owned guns (some say it's now over 350 million). Guns don't age when cared for. We have enough guns to last infinity.

Guns are selling like hot cakes in the US. There's probably a hundred gun shows every week-end in the US, there are a couple dozen gun magazines on the shelf. My point is we are a gun owning society and it shows no sign of slowing down.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (1956) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Bill Maher New Rules - California is leading by example [ Let's follow! ]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7jGky6IyV4&feature=youtu.be

[-] 0 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

Do you really take Bill Maher serious on anything? I think he's a arrogant jerk who will say anything for a laugh.

Also California is a crime ridden, high tax wonderland for the 1%. If you make below 250K/year you can't afford to live is a safe neighborhood. I lived there for 10 years, I know what I'm talking about.

Not to mention that Californians are fleeing the State in droves. So many people are leaving it's a wonder anyone is left. Companies are leaving also leaving in record numbers.

No, Other States won't follow California. It's the perfect example of how not to run a State.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

yes

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1956) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Deaths, you moronic freak! NO ONE CARES about your opinions!

Spare us your NRA-RW predigested sanctimony, your murderous predilections cancels anything good about you.

Perhaps if we demonize you enough you'll awake from your fevered delusions. But being a lunatic fringe minority, a more feasible route is to wake more Americans up to our rapacious, archaic & immoral gun laws, which result in more Americans losing their lives from firearms in the past 45 years than in all wars involving the US.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

Actually people owning guns doesn't have anything to do with how good or bad people are. The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding, otherwise they couldn't legally own a gun. Example, I've never been arrested in my life. I don't cheat on my wife or my taxes and I enjoy playing with my grand-kids. Nothing evil about me.

Blaming 80 million gun owners for the street gangs illegally having guns is missing the target (no pun intended). But I digress.

You're pissing in the wind. You can stamp your feet, and wail all you want. Guns aren't going away in the US in the foreseeable future. By the way, I'm liberal gun owner.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1956) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

That more Americans are losing their lives from firearms in the past 45 years than in all wars involving the US. is why we will change our rapacious, archaic & immoral gun laws. Just like we did with slavery, child labor, segregation and public smoking.

[-] -2 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

Nope. Guns are imbedded in the fabric of America. People don't trust the government and think they may need guns at some point to protect themselves from the government.

For millions of people, the statement "from my cold dead hands" are words to live by. You clearly underestimate how strongly Americans feel about their guns.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1956) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

SO WERE LICE!!!

"Segregation, Now & Forever!" WERE "words to live by."

Too many deaths!!! TIME'S UP!!!

[-] -2 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

Guns to segregation isn't apples to apples. Good grief, do you really think people are going to give up there guns when the nation and world is out of control. People own guns because they feel they may need them.

Twenty-five years ago very few people were interested in guns. Maybe hunters had hunting rifles, and most handguns were stuck in a drawer and left there. There wasn't a feeling we needed guns all that much.

But times have changed. Guns are everywhere. Most gun owners own several guns, including AR-15's and AK-47's. People feel they may need all that fire power. They don't trust the government, they don't trust the gun grabber nuts and they think they may to protect themselves from criminals.

No, my friend, it's wishful thinking that guns are going away. Not going to happen

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I don't know about everybody, but you're definitely a freak of delusion about Texas.

Vote??? In Texas??

Maybe.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/09/26/2683971/dorothy-card-voter-id/

I would say it's you with the anger problem, or you wouldn't feel such a strong need to be armed and dangerous.

Perhaps you are deathly afraid of letting that little old lady vote?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

meh to pointless posturing

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

And so..........the gun deaths continue, fully endorsed by you.

Don't wonder why I refer to you as being pro gun death........You are.

[+] -5 points by geovind (-56) 1 year ago

That would make sense if the guns were doing the killing on their own. Why can't you face the fact our culture is SICK? Considering the number of guns in this country, as Stew said above, the gun murder rate is something like .004%.

Instead of railing against civil rights, why not rail against GANGS??? Chicago park shooting yesterday, dozen folks, Disciples vs Black P Stone Nation

[-] 0 points by WSmith (1956) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

'More Americans lost their lives from firearms in the past 45 years than in all wars involving the US.'

Lie: Having a gun in my house, in case of a home invasion/for protection makes my home safer.
Truth: As multiple studies have proven, having a gun in your home actually increases the risk of homicide, suicide, and accidental death. A gun in the home makes the likelihood of homicide three times higher, suicide three to five times higher, and accidental death four times higher. Further, according to a scientific study in the 'Annals of Emergency Medicine', an estimated 41 percent of gun-related homicides and 94 percent of gun-related suicides would not occur if no guns were present.

Lie: Mass shootings don't really happen that often. It just seems like it because of the media.
Truth: The number of mass shootings has actually risen significantly over the last 30 years.

Since 1982, there have been at least 72 mass murders carried out with firearms, across America, where 'mass murder' is defined as a single person killing four or more people in a single incident (other than the killer).

Read more: http://www.randirhodes.com/articles/headlines-393046/fact-check-more-stacks-of-gun-11661625/#ixzz2fmivpKUv

FACT CHECK: More Stacks Of Gun Facts

We've heard it too many times to count, from people all over America, that these kinds of things - mass shootings - won't ever happen in their hometown. As the team at Mother Jones has shown us previously, "these things" can happen almost anywhere - and they are happening more often, with 2013 ready to set another grim record for mass shootings.

We wish the facts didn't show that more than 50 mass shootings have occurred, just during the last four years. We've had so many mass shootings in the U.S., we've had to redefine the term. Reddit now keeps a running tab on just the mass shootings for each year.

Dr. Janis Orlowski of MedStar Washington Hospital, after the recent shootings in DC, may have said it best: http://www.randirhodes.com/articles/headlines-393046/fact-check-more-stacks-of-gun-11661625/

Read more: http://www.randirhodes.com/articles/headlines-393046/fact-check-more-stacks-of-gun-11661625/#ixzz2fmg8ykG1

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

What?

I've been trying to tell you that gun nutters are sick.

How did you miss that?

Gangs are created by those who feel victimized by inequality, real or imagined.

That's why I rail against inequality.

[+] -5 points by geovind (-56) 1 year ago

So, gang violence is a-ok because it's justified by inequality, real or imagined, Alrightee then. Over 80% of gun deaths every year are gang related, so I guess we don't have that much of a problem with irresponsible gun use in this country after all, by your reckoning

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Nope.

Those are just words you're attempting to put in my mouth.

I didn't so much as hint at that.

I said what I meant and meant what I said.

[+] -6 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

Ugh, Excuse me!, The gangs aren't the victims. It crazy that people see gang members as those poor, misunderstood, down trodden victims. They are cold blooded murderers and drug dealers, and need to be taken off the street. Remember, those poor unfortunate souls will kill you for a dollar.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1956) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Why Are There So Many Gang Members in Chicago?

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/The-312/January-2012/Why-Are-There-So-Many-Gang-Members-in-Chicago/

[unemployment and poverty]

[-] -3 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

So they're unemployed and poor gang bangers. So when they're shooting up school yards your saying "aw, poor guy just needs a job"? You can't be serious.

So they're poor. Who cares. Lots of people are poor and most don't go around shooting up neighborhoods. A criminal is a criminal. It's that simple.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1956) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

You believe that the facts about our insane gun problem is BS.

You don't give a shit that your selfish archaic hobby kills and maims thousands every year.

Why would you care about unemployment and poverty?

Enjoy hell sinner!

[-] -2 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

I'm not a gun hobbyist. My interest in guns is strictly for self defense. I'm not a member of the NRA and don't own a AR-15 or AK-47 (anymore). I'm probably the average gun owner out of the estimated 80 million gun owners. So what is wrong with wanting to protect yourself and family?

As for unemployment and poverty. I was raised in poverty. Probably worse than you've ever seen. I've been long term unemployed. But I never even considered committing a crime as a solution. That is the difference. If you use poverty and unemployment as an excuse to commit crime then you have lost the battle.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26673) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

My interest in guns is strictly for self defense.

Somebody is a bit messed up - I mean living in the state of plenty - where everyone has everything - and to have a gun for "self defense" ? Isn't Texass just totally peaceful and serene?

[-] -2 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

Texas has it's share of criminals, especially in inner city Houston and Dallas. But I don't think as bad as Chicago, Oakland, New Orleans, Detroit and so on. What's your problem with people defending themselves?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26673) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I have no problem with self defense. It just seems that you paint a picture of living in the land of plenty - OH - Except - that you don't because you have poor people in the state - poverty as one might say - so you are ready in your fort to defend your borders from those who have the effrontery of choosing to be poor.

Just sayin

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26673) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Surprise surprise surprise - the insensitive idiot who sees nothing wrong with locking up the homeless - makes another poor call on the status of society - parts of society anyway - the parts of society that are being crushed under the hell um heel ( well both ways works ) of this fucked-up ( purposely fucked-up ) corp(se)oRAT economy.

Surprised anyone? Nope? Me neither.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26673) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Go join Narley in the corner with your dunce cap. Sorry didn't mean to imply that Narley was wearing a dunce cap - no his is ignorant and uncaring fool.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26673) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

So sorry stewed - but why jump into the middle of something you ( apparently ) no nothing about? You have a problem with the purposely ignorant being spanked? You have not (?) been around to experience the full extent of Narelys wrong headed distaste for the downtrodden.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (26673) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Wrong again oh stooge umm stewed . . . well whatever - you R not a newbie here - U have likely been booted a couple of times by now.

Huh. Funny thing - none of you ever go to the site for mediation - all you do is piss and moan - granted that that is all many of you came here to do in the 1st place. So no I don't find it surprising that you don't complain to the site - for your perceived slights - that is not on your agenda to try to have a better forum - nope for most of you are here to disrupt not promote.

Sad but true. Obviously true - to anyone who would take the time and consider.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[+] -5 points by geovind (-56) 1 year ago

What has changed? The elite 1% are getting impatient on disarming Amerika. They think that shock and awe of mass shootings will drive the sheep to beg for a police state. (when only the cops have guns, that's what it's called, ya know). I really don't understand how undermining the 2nd amendment civil rights of Amerikans has become a leftwing mission. The 1% have clever, well paid pr people, I guess.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (1956) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Alex Jones: Navy Yard Shooting May Be False Flag Attack [Crazy gone Sick Fuck!]

September 16, 2013 1:43 PM EDT ››› TYLER HANSEN

Alex JonesConspiracy theorist Alex Jones speculated that the attack on the Washington Navy Yard may have been a false flag operation committed by disguised government agents in pursuit of some obscure goal to restrict liberty. Despite Jones' far-fetched and often offensive statements, conservative outlets like Fox News and the Drudge Report have continued to promote his theories -- coverage that has even inspired legislative action in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

After a gunman attacked the Washington Navy Yard on September 16, Alex Jones immediately wondered if the attack was part of some conspiracy, tweeting, "Who will the Navy yard shooting be blamed on? Terrorist? Tea Partier? Leftist? Lone nut?" Later, on his radio show, Jones said, "when you have multiple shooters like this, it has patsy written all over it," and compared it to the bombing at the Boston Marathon, which Jones described as "undoubtedly a false flag." At the time of publication, Reuters reported, "Up to three gunmen, at least two dressed in military-style clothing, killed several people and wounded at least four others in a shooting spree at the U.S. Navy Yard on Monday."

CONTINUED VIDEO: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09/16/alex-jones-navy-yard-shooting-may-be-false-flag/195895

[-] -3 points by geovind (-56) 1 year ago

Perhaps Narley knows of what he speaks.

Patrick Kennedy Visits Mentally Ill Inmates Of Cook County Jail, Largest Illinois Mental Health Facility (same is true of the LA county Jail)

CHICAGO -- Before he was an inmate, a middle-aged man in a tan correctional uniform heard voices and believed he was God.

Former Rep. Patrick Kennedy, the Rhode Island Democrat who retired from Congress in 2011, and Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart listened intently as the inmate, who declined to be named, talked about living with schizophrenia in the lockup. The man attends group therapy sessions and receives other treatment inside what is now the largest mental health care provider in Illinois -- the Cook County Jail.

Kennedy, visiting Chicago for meetings related to next month's Kennedy Forum on mental illness, intellectual disabilities and addictions in Boston, toured the jail Thursday after learning the sheriff and his team devote much of the 10,000-inmate facility to mental health care. As a longtime mental health advocate, Kennedy worked with his father, the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, to write and pass the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act. read more http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/20/patrick-kennedy-cook-county-jail_n_3964699.html

[+] -5 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

Are you saying street gangs are the victims? The real victims are the people they kill, maim and rob. Being poor does not give you license to be a criminal.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26673) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yes street gangs kill innocent people as well as each other. But. This may be trickey for you but try to follow along anyway. It has been the decline of the USA that has swollen the ranks of the poor which caused the swelling growth of street gangs. Yeah I know that is a tough one for you to understand - but try anyhow. If you can add 1 and 1 you should be able to see what has been happening for more than the last 40 years to bring us to this point. But take it slow and easy - wouldn't want you to burn out thinking about all this difficult stuff about cause and effect.

[+] -4 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

I agree with you. That's why I own guns. I really don't care why people are criminals. The reason doesn't matter to me. If someone tries to shoot me I will shoot back. Just common sense.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26673) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

You don't care - how refreshingly honest of you - you don't care. And so the world goes to hell in a hand-basket - but - HELL - you don't care. So go down and fort-up in your basement but don't waste your time or our time by commenting on this forum. Because - YOU DON'T CARE !!!

[+] -6 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

Well I sure as hell don't care about those poor criminals like you seem to. Yea, as far as I'm concerned they can kill each other off. Just stay away from me, because II will defend myself. Remember, more guns means less crime.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26673) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

You go around in public freely sneering at the unfortunate? Do You get punched often? Or do you make sure no-one is around that you think you could not handle?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26673) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Oh how more deliberately dense can you be? Don't answer that as I can imagine your stupidity is without end.

[+] -5 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

I've lived a long and fruitful life, and don't have near the anger you display. Have a stiff drink and call it a night, you'll feel better in the morning.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

So, bring on the inequality for all!!!!!

And what if it's you locked into the lowest end of that inequality?

Please don't try and sell me the boot strap bullshit.

The lowest end, can't afford boots.

[-] -2 points by PrivateUnionyes (-6) 1 year ago

That's cuz they are buying that totally indispensable item, the cell phone.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/06/cell-phone-ownership-hits-91-of-adults/

That's why they cant buy boots.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Then again, it might have to do with that bag of Glocks, ya gotta have as a hedge against tyranny.

How's that working out were you live?

It's total failure in Michigan.

[-] -2 points by PrivateUnionyes (-6) 1 year ago

Its hard to protect people from their own bad decisions, although most politicians thin they can.

At our tax expense.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Teabagge(R)s raised my taxes!!!!!

Teabagge(R)s have made tyranny an institution.

Teabagge(R)s have made all those BAD decisions.

Where's that bag of glocks when they're needed?

Hiding in the woods, playing army.

[-] -2 points by PrivateUnionyes (-6) 1 year ago

I am sure you think you made a point, but who can tell?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

It was to demonstrate the total failure of today's interpretation of so called gun laws.

You somehow equated it cell phones, and thought that was a point.

It wasn't, so there ya go.

[-] -1 points by PrivateUnionyes (-6) 1 year ago

My comment was in regards to your comment that they couldn't buy boots with which to pull themselves up. Of course they cant buy boots, they spend all their money on cell phones.

People make stupid choices. Cell phones are not essential but 91% of our people have them and in the same breath claim poverty. A person with a cell phone isn't poor.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Yes of course you were, and I was stating that many more spend it on a bag of Glocks. A much more ....um....volatile expense.

Then you started babbling about taxes.............thus.

Teabagge(R)s raised my taxes.... which, unlike the other two, is actually a true statement. Making it more difficult for me to buy boots......with actual straps..........IE: Not the Chinese decorative ones.

Try and keep up.

[Removed]

[+] -6 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

Criminals are not equal, and shouldn't be. I'm not so far gone as to feel bad because a gang banger get taken off the street. If you want to say "aw, poor guys, just didn't have any other choice but to sell drugs and shoot people" then go ahead. I never consider a murderer, rapist or drug seller a victim.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I don't know what to say narley.

I don't know where to begin. You miss so much. You refuse so much information.

You completely skip over the inequality part.

Barely a blip on your radar.

You need to upgrade that.

That would be start.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26673) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Are you really that simple minded? I think not - you just enjoy being an ass. I can't believe that you are stupid enough not to see the results of cause and effect that has been building for decades now. HUH - but then again if you really do believe what you are saying - well - that is just a sad statement on your education to begin with and your subsequent lack of thought & awareness afterwards.

[-] -2 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

Save your tears for the victims of these murderers, rapists, gang bangers and drug dealers. The criminals lost any chance for sympathy when they did the crime.

Yea, I understand cause and effect. Doesn't matter. These people are predators who would probably kill you for a dollar, and you want to feel sorry for them?? Gimmee a break.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26673) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Gimmee a break.

Arm - Leg - Back - or neck?

So what do we do to turn the tide? Nothing? Or do we provide the means to end poverty?

[-] -2 points by theMonongahela (-7) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

The vast majority of people have guns for hunting, self defense, or sport competition, not to whack everyone who pisses them off. Before anyone says they are totally against guns, think of the people killed in robberies and home invasions where the perpetrator forfeited their right to safety by violating others'. If a trained person had a weapon they could save themselves. Think of seniors and the handicapped, who cannot physically ward off attack. Or single moms who are often targeted and coerced over their kids so they're afraid to tell if they survive. With proper screening lives can be saved and losses minimized. Right now a little old lady in NYC can't even get pepper spray to save her life. And too many guns are in the hands of the violent. This guy in DC, like most military or police, are allowed to keep guns indefinitely. They are not periodically checked after leaving service or once passed for duty, including in NYPD. No matter how abusive or crazy.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (1956) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

'More Americans lost their lives from firearms in the past 45 years than in all wars involving the US.'