NRA hasn’t changed its blustering self
I had to smile, and not happily, when I read this from Politico:
“The National Rifle Association stunned Washington observers Friday when the group’s CEO announced a plan to install armed guards at every school in the country — its response to the Connecticut shooting last week that left 20 children dead…
… Close observers had expected the NRA to strike a more cooperative tone at the unusual press conference, as pressure is mounting in Washington for reform.”
I don’t know who these “close observers” might be, but most people who have paid attention to the NRA over the years are not stunned or surprised in the least. “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” NRA executive Wayne LaPierre told the press conference, in statements that could have been scripted five years ago.
LaPierre did make valid points in his statement about the need to improve school security and, oddly, about the dangerous Cult of Guns. But he made not the slightest nod toward even addressing the role played by the easy availability of high-powered weaponry. He and other NRA officials also refused to take questions afterward.
Personally, I take that as a good sign. It looked to me as though LaPierre and his friends are a bit worried this time and afraid to engage in the debate, fearful that at moments such as this, their bumper-sticker rhetoric won’t play well in front of a general audience.
Anything to change the subject, right Wayne?
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
562 comments Add your comment
Adam
December 21st, 2012
5:29 pm
Doggone: I am arguing against the absolute that it IS a deterrent.
Adam
December 21st, 2012
5:30 pm
td: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/columbine-armed-guards_n_2347096.html
bman.
December 21st, 2012
5:31 pm
Adam .. .. maybe it is complete nonsense. So what? Why does the idea of this eat away at you?
Adam
December 21st, 2012
5:32 pm
Chris Christie even disagrees with you: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/new_jersey/20121221_ap_njgovarmedguardswontmakeschoolssafer.html
Adam
December 21st, 2012
5:33 pm
bman: maybe it is complete nonsense. So what? Why does the idea of this eat away at you?
Why does it NOT eat at you?
td
December 21st, 2012
5:35 pm
Adam
December 21st, 2012
5:27 pm
Hell, I feel badass when I buy a laptop that looks sleek and industrialized and is sold to me as a man’s gaming machine. Marketing has an effect. Did marketing MAKE me buy the laptop? no. Do video games MAKE me perform violent acts? no. If I were so inclined to get the laptop what would I need? Money. If I were so inclined to commit violent acts, what is the best way to do it? With the highest power weapon I can find with as little effort as possible
Only weak minded people fall for the marketing or violent video games cause you to kill people. But we are we not really talking about weak minded people doing these mass killings? These people are just like the Muslims that strap bombs to themselves and kill themselves as they take out as many others as possible.
bman.
December 21st, 2012
5:36 pm
“Why does it NOT eat at you?”
having a security guard present at the school should be tearing me up inside???
Like many before me, I’m just not following you.
Towncrier
December 21st, 2012
5:42 pm
“One thing they do NOT do is deter crazy gunmen from attacking. It is nonsense to think so. People who have guns and are intent on killing are not scared of other people possibly having guns, nor are people in general scared of “security guards” when they arm themselves with high powered weapons. The entire point of doing this is to “scare” them away, if you believe most people who suggest this. It doesn’t work.”
I am not sure who is arguing that the reason for training and arming SCHOOL PERSONNEL (not part-time guards with probably little vested interest in the students) is deterrence. Because I think you are right – some one bent on killing people is just that: bent on killing people.
“Secondly, the other fallback is that perhaps the shooter would not kill as many people if confronted with a security guard with a gun. Perhaps, but I would like to suggest that we should look at stopping the shooter from even becoming a shooter (which will take a lot of different proposals all rolled together) or that in fact another possibility is that the shooter will add one more body to the count: the security guard.”
The reason you want armed personnel on school is not to deter a killer but to incapacitate or kill him or her before that person kills a lot of kids. Period. As for stopping killers (I have no idea why you call them “shooters” when they are murderers) from becoming killers, I am all for that. But, judging from your later comments, you and I do not agree as to how to do that. You are perfectly willing to dismiss or greatly restrict people’s CLEAR constitutional right to bear arms but think it sacrosanct and Orwellian to restrict free speech (though it was certainly done in these United States in the past). I think you are being unfair in this. We have a culture of violence in America that did not exist, as a kind of propaganda, before WWII. And I think that is a big part of the problem.
“In addition, it should be noted that if you’re going to say we need security guards at schools because some crazy person might shoot up the school, and then use an analogy of someone in your lawn… why would you not suggest everyone who has a lawn have a security guard patrol their lawn?”
The “analogy” does not seem very apt in my opinion, but even granting it, the difference is that the home owner himself can act as an armed security guard (as you acknowledge).
But you do need a gun to kill a lot of people more effectively and efficiently than any other weapon you can carry with you easily.
“Our culture and parenting. Yes but you cannot address that without attacking first amendment rights, which is the amendment they wrote before the second amendment. It also is damn near impossible to have any sort of thought police, which is where that line of thinking is headed. We lose our democracy if we even try stuff like that.”
Free speech is ALREADY restricted and has been all along. Most of the restrictions were removed by the SCOTUS last century. What you fail to see is it’s the same argument for you and me: restrictions on amendments. Gun ownership per se is not ever likely to be severely restricted – so you are going to always have a huge potential for harm by murderous individuals. Free speech, likewise, is not at this point ever likely to be severely restricted – so you are going to always have a huge potential for harm by people “preaching” or glamorizing or advocating evil or immoral behavior and producing misfits in the process. I just don’t see why you are so against my proposed restrictions when I would not necessarily be opposed to much greater restrictions on gun ownership.
“Of course, one other option is to provide mental health care to everyone, whether they need it or not.”
Sorry, I am not a big believer in big government. It is a cultural and familial problem that is NOT, in my opinion, going to be fixed by government.
“Again, thought police. We cannot control what people think or how they react to stimuli, and we certainly cannot ensure that all forms of stimuli we dislike are unavailable and can never be even accidentally seen. We should instead allow the stimuli but teach how to respond to it without violence. People need to know what violence is, just as they need to know what sex is, in order to act in a prudent fashion with regard to the subject. Reaction to stimuli can be taught, simply eliminating stimuli cannot be done. If you teach coping mechanisms to people through mandatory educational classes, then you also would not have to rely on parents knowing how to teach that, or trusting that they will. It should be just like sex ed.”
I disagree. I believe if you can control the availability and ownership of guns, you can also control PUBLIC (as opposed to private) exposure to “stimuli”. It’s odd to see people argue in one breath that if the number of guns in America were dramatically reduced it would greatly reduce violent crimes while in the other breath say reducing the public exposure to clearly bad “stimuli” is unworkable or unthinkable.
“But there is one thing you cannot deny: Without the weapons Adam Lanza had, or the weapons the Portland mall shooter had, or the weapons the Aurora movie theater shooter had, or the or the or the, these people would not have been able to kill as many people.”
Sure I can. A homemade bomb, for instance, could (remember McVeigh)?
Towncrier
December 21st, 2012
5:49 pm
“Towncrier, his Glock was not a revolver. So I have my facts correct; you do not.”
Huh? A Glock is a semi-automatic weapon. A friend of mine owns one. I have fired it a number of times at a shooting range. You can unload a 10 shot clip in a Glock in a few seconds. Here is a discussion of this question on a blog for your edification:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=80950
Adam
December 21st, 2012
5:50 pm
td: But we are we not really talking about weak minded people doing these mass killings? These people are just like the Muslims that strap bombs to themselves and kill themselves as they take out as many others as possible.
When you make the argument that video games and the media are the problem, you are saying these shooters are weak minded, yes.
td
December 21st, 2012
5:51 pm
Adam
December 21st, 2012
5:30 pm
Thank you for the article. From reading the article, it sounds like the deputy was under armed. Now can you tell me how many more lives were saved because of the guard was firing at them and they could not plant all the bombs they had?
Like has been said by many on this blog. The secret service has only one duty and are the most well trained and well armed force in the country and they can not guarantee that a President can not be killed. You can not totally stop crazy but you can sure as heck make them work harder to achieve their objective.
We are not going to repeal the second amendment, we are not going to take guns away from citizens and most criminals that have and use guns now have either acquired them illegally or stole them. So why are we not wanting to give our children at least a fighting chance of survival of the most as possible?
Adam
December 21st, 2012
5:51 pm
bman: Having an armed security guard doesn’t actually help. Any argument that it does relies on proving a negative, and I have already shown a case where it does not work as intended in any respect.
Adam
December 21st, 2012
5:52 pm
td: From reading the article, it sounds like the deputy was under armed.
Oh Jesus, really?
Lets just give them all SWAT gear then. TIAS I guess.
You guys are hopeless.
Jackie
December 21st, 2012
5:53 pm
President Obama is still in talks with Speaker Boehner (R-OH) and Sen. Reid (D-NV) about a plan to avert the fiscal cliff.
He has proposed legislation that would save the middle class from tax increases, protect unemployment insurance and other small social programs for now and discuss other changes that may be required.
The so-called conservatives continue to speak about there must be spending cuts along with NO tax increases on the top 2% of taxpayers.
Can anyone begin to decipher this foolishness?????
Adam
December 21st, 2012
5:54 pm
td: You can not totally stop crazy but you can sure as heck make them work harder to achieve their objective.
Which is exactly why we need gun control
You can’t tell me it wouldn’t have an effect on reducing these incidences. You made the logical argument for why yourself!
Towncrier
December 21st, 2012
5:56 pm
“That is the inevitable conclusion we must draw from those who will simply say we need to accept that crazy people out there might decide to go on a mass shooting spree at any time with weapons that kill effectively, quickly, and make it possible to kill multiple people effectively and quickly. ”
I disagree. If mass shootings were a regular, rather than statistically very rare, occurrence then I might agree. Otherwise you might as well argue – out of fear – that no one should drive in cars or fly in planes.
bman.
December 21st, 2012
5:58 pm
Adam .. .. I’m not arguing that having a security guard is the answer to all of the problems. There is absolutely noway that you can prove that it doesn’t help. How does it hurt?? How is it not providing extra security for children in schools?
Towncrier
December 21st, 2012
6:04 pm
“Adam .. .. I’m not arguing that having a security guard is the answer to all of the problems.”
I think you need something better than a plain old security guard – you need at least two people with the training of a SWAT team. Mature, highly trained and skilled individuals. It will cost money but are we already spending tons of money in, say, airport security for essentially the same reason?
Adam
December 21st, 2012
6:14 pm
Towncrier: You are perfectly willing to dismiss or greatly restrict people’s CLEAR constitutional right to bear arms but think it sacrosanct and Orwellian to restrict free speech (though it was certainly done in these United States in the past).
The right to free speech actually protects a lot of people, not just yourself, from government overreach and totalitarianism. Guns do not perform that function any longer, and in fact make it more likely you’ll be killed by the government.
In addition, I am not saying that free speech cannot be restricted at all. What I am saying is that it doesn’t solve the problem or even come close to truly addressing it.
I disagree. I believe if you can control the availability and ownership of guns, you can also control PUBLIC (as opposed to private) exposure to “stimuli”. It’s odd to see people argue in one breath that if the number of guns in America were dramatically reduced it would greatly reduce violent crimes while in the other breath say reducing the public exposure to clearly bad “stimuli” is unworkable or unthinkable.
It IS unworkable to try to control what people choose to see. Ever tried preventing a child from getting at pornography? It’s not like it isn’t already restricted. The difference of course is that there’s no actual harm in ideas. There is harm in action. Guns facilitate action in the form of killing or wounding. Violent stimuli/ideas do not facilitate the same. While you may have some limited success at reducing crime by reducing violent stimuli, your success would be far more limited than if you simply did some form of gun control to the point where people can’t just decide to go kill a lot of people easily.
Sure I can. A homemade bomb, for instance, could (remember McVeigh)?
A clever response I admit. However you’re missing the point I was making. Guns of the type these people had were easily available. Since McVeigh, we have restrictions on the materials he used to make bombs. Since 9/11, we have tightened security on objects that could be used to bomb planes. Since meth has been made easily from sudafed, we have restricted sudafed. All federal. The reason it’s different for guns is because people such as yourself truly believe that second amendment gives every citizen the right to a gun period full stop. I do not believe that to be the case. The Founding fathers knew the difference between a responsible person having a gun, and an irresponsible one.
Basically, it’s HARD to kill people in any other way than with high powered guns, because the guns are free and clear to anyone without some prior record that would show up on NICS, OR to anyone who has a family member who does not have a record and has purchased the weapons (apparently).
How many bombings have happened recently? Mass stabbings? Mass box cutter killings? How about mass shootings? The difference is clear.
It should also be noted that McVeigh ALSO had guns he intended to use after the initial blast to kill others with.
Brosephus™
December 21st, 2012
6:14 pm
bookman parrot @ 1:29
schools already have resource officers in them. so i’m not seeing this increased liability you speak of .
That’s because you are a brainless twit. School Resource Officers are GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES. The liability falls to the government in case they’re involved in any incident. What the NRA is suggesting is for a voluntary protective detail. If they are volunteers, they are not government/school employees. So, if there is a campus shooting and they hit an innocent bystander or two, then who’s responsible for those deaths?
That’s what I meant by liability. Do you, as a taxpayer, want to cover the possible liability costs of such an incident if someone sues the school and wins millions of dollars? That’s taxpayer money going to pay for someone who’s not on the taxpayer’s payroll.
But, yeah, I’m the one who’s pointless. Damn, why is it so hard for people to think?
bman.
December 21st, 2012
6:15 pm
Towncrier .. .. I don’t know if all of that is needed. I mean…they would need to be trained. I’m not sure how old they should be either. But, I do agree. Having someone on-site to monitor the people entering the schools is a good idea.
To have no security, but then call for it after something happens is not exactly proactive
Adam
December 21st, 2012
6:17 pm
Otherwise you might as well argue – out of fear – that no one should drive in cars or fly in planes.
No because cars and planes are modes of transportation and guns are designed to kill
Adam
December 21st, 2012
6:18 pm
bman: How is it not providing extra security for children in schools?
That’s the point I’m making. It isn’t extra security. It’s an illusion. Especially if you rely on it being volunteers who are retired, as the NRA jerk suggested.
bman.
December 21st, 2012
6:29 pm
“That’s the point I’m making. It isn’t extra security. It’s an illusion.”
An armed security guard may not be 100%, but it is not an illusion. It’s real. You may as well make an argument that we should have no laws, or any police force.
Adam
December 21st, 2012
6:29 pm
Blog posting script ate my last comment. And I have some stuff to do. Cheers everyone.
Adam
December 21st, 2012
6:32 pm
bman: You may as well make an argument that we should have no laws, or any police force.
No, because I am not arguing that we should not have law enforcement or laws, what I am saying is that we shouldn’t have law enforcement or laws that serve no purpose except to provide an illusion. Of course if I say that too loud people will think I mean that law enforcement can’t do anything ecause they have transit time, which is not what I am saying at all.
Law enforcement and laws only deter reasonable people. We shouldn’t add more laws just because there are some unreasonable people just as we shouldn’t remove them just because some people break them.
Adam
December 21st, 2012
6:32 pm
OK out now.
td
December 21st, 2012
7:38 pm
At least our State Superintendent has some common sense and wants to protect our children as best as we can.
Towncrier
December 21st, 2012
7:54 pm
“It IS unworkable to try to control what people choose to see. Ever tried preventing a child from getting at pornography?”
Yes. Though I have said it a number of times on this blog, let me reiterate my position in case you don’t recollect it: pornography in its pictorial form is NOT literally speech and therefore should NOT be protected. Let’s get rid of it. Re-instate some revised and well-thought out obscenity laws. Restricting the “publication” of depictions of violence is a much thornier issue, since violence (as opposed to sexual acts and nudity in general) has been public throughout history in the very acts of mankind. But there is such a thing as gratuitous violence not found in real life but found everywhere in movies (such as so-called “slasher” films), video games, some television shows and elsewhere. Its seems we should be able to restrict that kind of thing as it has no redeeming value (as opposed to watching Searching for Private Ryan or a similar film).
“The difference of course is that there’s no actual harm in ideas. There is harm in action.”
Really? And who told you that? Please remember that THOUGHT precedes action. In the south years ago, a lot of white children were raised being taught that black people were inferior human beings – no more than children in adult bodies and were fit only to be slaves or menial workers. Those were ideas that were first accepted and believed and THEN put into harmful action.
“Guns facilitate action in the form of killing or wounding. Violent stimuli/ideas do not facilitate the same. While you may have some limited success at reducing crime by reducing violent stimuli, your success would be far more limited than if you simply did some form of gun control to the point where people can’t just decide to go kill a lot of people easily.”
I agree to some extent. It has been pointed out that this recent killer’s mother didn’t have her guns secured in a way that would have prevented their use. And this isn’t the first time a killer has used his parents weapons. This guy apparently tried to legally purchase guns and was unable to immediately. So he got his mothers. What if he couldn’t have done that? Would he have been able to get them by theft or from the black market? I guess so if he were sufficiently motivated.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you spoke earlier of being able to keep killers from becoming killers. And that really starts with the parents, which is the biggest problem of all. From what I understand, Dahmer’s parents were not especially bad. But they raised a monster and didn’t know it. Should they have? I think so. Parents often just are unwilling to believe their kids are capable of evil behavior. So they frequently are not vigilant and “dismiss” suspicions they have that something is wrong. How do we pervent parents from acting this way? Good question.
“A clever response I admit. However you’re missing the point I was making. Guns of the type these people had were easily available. Since McVeigh, we have restrictions on the materials he used to make bombs.”
It wasn’t meant to be clever. The point was simply this: where there is a will, there is a way. Someone bent on killing will kill. Period. THAT is the main problem. Suicidal murderers. There is nothing to deter them once they have become monsters in their hearts, once Satan “enters” them (as he did Judas). This is where the main focus should be, in my opinion.
“Basically, it’s HARD to kill people in any other way than with high powered guns…How many bombings have happened recently? Mass stabbings? Mass box cutter killings? How about mass shootings? The difference is clear..”
At one time, yes. Serial killers of course kill many people over a period of time. Would our mass shooting killers become serial killers if they didn’t have guns? Dunno. Possibly. I am not opposed to reasonable forms of gun control. But to completely outlaw guns is wrong-headed and will never happen anyway.
Towncrier
December 21st, 2012
7:55 pm
BBL
Adam
December 21st, 2012
9:00 pm
Towncrier: Though I have said it a number of times on this blog, let me reiterate my position in case you don’t recollect it: pornography in its pictorial form is NOT literally speech and therefore should NOT be protected. Let’s get rid of it. Re-instate some revised and well-thought out obscenity laws.
You missed my point. People are going to see that stuff eventually. Better that they know it exists and lean to react in a considered way. Violence doesn’t come from media and neither does sex. Guns, however, are objects we created to facilitate killing easier and faster. Media was not created for that purpose. Pornography was not created for that purpose. Cars and planes were not created for that purpose.
Please remember that THOUGHT precedes action. In the south years ago, a lot of white children were raised being taught that black people were inferior human beings – no more than children in adult bodies and were fit only to be slaves or menial workers. Those were ideas that were first accepted and believed and THEN put into harmful action.
Thought also can reverse those feelings. Are you really trying to say people have no ability to control how they act as a result of their thoughts, that they are just helpless to commit violence if they see enough of it on TV, or in movies, or video games? Really?
Killing and action against other humans that result from hate, anger, and fear are wrong. People inherently know this.
Putting this all on the parents doesn’t work either. It’s like saying everyone truly has equal opportunity. That’s patently false, as is the idea that all we have to do is insist loudly that parents do more. They won’t know how, most likely, and they could do more damage if they try.
The point was simply this: where there is a will, there is a way. Someone bent on killing will kill. Period.
Not true. Someone bent on killing will not kill as many, or be as successful, as they are with high powered guns. That’s just common sense and rather obvious. It’s like the other things people refuse to believe because they have some vested interest in not believing it, like climate change, evolution, or heck that the earth revolves around the sun.
Not everyone who kills with these weapon is a bent killer either. They may have temporarily snapped, and remain angry for a short time. In that time they can easily kill lots of people with a high powered gun, whereas knives, box cutters, bombs, etc do not have the same kind of effect. Bombs require some serious consideration and planning, and sharp edge objects do not produce nearly the same results. Guns you can just shoot easily if you have even minor experience using them. THAT is the point.
The bottom line is the idea that people will kill is an excuse. It implies nothing can be done.
Would our mass shooting killers become serial killers if they didn’t have guns? Dunno. Possibly.
And this doesn’t increase the chances of law enforcement saving lives, as opposed to fast actions that are done before even people who are ON SITE can respond properly?
Reasonable gun control is what I am asking. Although I am sure your definition of what is reasonable an mine differ.
Towncrier
December 21st, 2012
9:46 pm
“Reasonable gun control is what I am asking. Although I am sure your definition of what is reasonable an mine differ.”
Well it would appear Adam that “reasonable gun control” is the only thing you are willing to consider (since you dismiss out of hand most of my points, gleaned incidentally, from decades of living, much thought and learning and traditional mores). In other words, you seem to want to keep everything as it is except for gun control and some kind of government run and possibly mandatory mental health care. And I am telling you that ain’t going to get it. You want a band-aid or splint. I want surgery.
I am betting you don’t have any kids and if so you really have no idea what parenting is all about. Trust me on that one. Poor parenting the absence of clear moral values is the biggest reason for our societal ills. Why in the world do you think the murder rate is so high in the President’s home town anyway? Look into the matter and you will see a huge part of it has to do with broken families and extremely poor or bad parenting. Gangs become their families.
In any event, thanks for the exchange. I think you made a few good points and I thank you for that.
Towncrier
December 21st, 2012
9:54 pm
Oh…and BTW…I’d be happy to debate the evolutionary hypothesis you believe in any time.
td
December 21st, 2012
10:26 pm
Towncrier
December 21st, 2012
9:46 pm
“Poor parenting the absence of clear moral values is the biggest reason for our societal ills. Why in the world do you think the murder rate is so high in the President’s home town anyway? Look into the matter and you will see a huge part of it has to do with broken families and extremely poor or bad parenting. Gangs become their families.”
Amen. Too bad most of the people that need this lesson are unwilling to listen.
Mad as hell
December 21st, 2012
10:28 pm
Guns in hospitals, guns in every car. guns in schools, guns in church, guns in college classes, guns in malls, guns on Marta; guns in every store, guns in every restaurant, guns in courts, guns in parks- WOW I feel so safe now! Thanks Wayne. I did not realize the solution would be so easy.
Cloudodust
December 21st, 2012
11:00 pm
I lived in a liberal state (MN) for 5 years and witnessed first hand a judicial system that is afraid (yes, afraid or misled) to put the fear of God and retribution into their unstable youth. That in itself is criminal for the rest of society must suffer their actions. CT is a very liberal state in it’s self. See a pattern here..?
Towncrier
December 21st, 2012
11:16 pm
“I lived in a liberal state (MN) for 5 years and witnessed first hand a judicial system that is afraid (yes, afraid or misled) to put the fear of God and retribution into their unstable youth. That in itself is criminal for the rest of society must suffer their actions.”
Unfortunately, because of poor parenting which does NOT put the fear of consequences into children when that is really possible (before they become teenagers), government becomes the last line of defense against anarchy. Young adults are learning lessons about consequences in some states that they should have learned from their parents years ago. I suspect this is why so many teachers and police officers become jaded – they are being saddled with a responsibility that they shouldn’t have to the extent they do. Unconditional, sincere love and firm rules and discipline are the keys to good parenting. How many parents fail at these things? So parents need to repent (which means to change their mind, their thinking) and first get their house in order before they next help get their kids’ houses in order.
USC-69
December 22nd, 2012
6:01 am
The second ammendment (finally ratified in 1791) is now obsolete. We have a well regulated militia and have settled the west. The unregulated citizens of various talents and personality disorders should have their guns removed because they are no longer necessary. Let’s catch up to the civilized societies that have little gun violence because they have few guns.
stands for decibels
December 22nd, 2012
7:58 am
“Guns, knives, homemade explosives you can find on the internet, it doesn’t matter,”
Well yes, it does, and the manner in which we regulate access to such things matters, as well. It is not a sole determinate. But it matters.
keith
December 22nd, 2012
11:25 am
Thanks to bookman and the other gun banning cowards. My AR15s that I paid 600 dollars for are now selling out across the country for over 2000 dollars. you will make me some serious money.
keith
December 22nd, 2012
11:27 am
funny how all these mass shootings are in gun free zones. now stupid people want to make the entire nation a gun free zone.
Towncrier
December 22nd, 2012
1:08 pm
“The second ammendment (finally ratified in 1791) is now obsolete. We have a well regulated militia and have settled the west. The unregulated citizens of various talents and personality disorders should have their guns removed because they are no longer necessary. Let’s catch up to the civilized societies that have little gun violence because they have few guns.”
Why not rather interpret the Constitution as what it is – a contract – rather than some kind of novel which can have to readers multiple yet equally valid interpretations? The meaning of a text resides primarily in the intent of its author(s) – not what our itching ears might want it to mean. The problem with interpreting the Constitution, as with many texts whose authors are no longer alive to consult, is its succinctness and the potential ambiguity that lies in many written (as opposed to verbal) statements bereft of the obvious context and immediate feedback provided in verbal, face-to-face communication. Happily, however, the Constitution is one of the best sourced documents in human history. We can know or reasonably conclude in most cases what its authors had in mind from the copious writings we have from the centuries (in England) preceding its conception right up to the time of its drafting and ratification.
Hence, to conclude, as do the more liberal justices of the SCOTUS, that the 2nd amendment applies only to a “well regulated militia” is to willfully ignore the aforementioned historical evidence and the likely intent of its authors and to rather substitute a meaning that is more agreeable to one’s personal tastes or views. This kind of behavior is not peculiar to Supreme Court justices; religious people and authorities do exactly the same thing (something called “twisting” the Scriptures). The result is a perversion of the original intent. We don’t do that with legal contracts but somehow it is alright in the minds of people like Stevens and Ginsberg to do that with the most important contract in American history.
Refer to this Wiki article for an indication of what sorts of historical evidence are available to inform an interpretation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The proper course of action is, naturally, to let the Constitution mean what its authors intended and then, if we don’t like it, modify it. Otherwise we allow the SCOTUS to rewrite it as they see fit and then they become the Constitution and not the document itself. This is already much the case, leaving us with a situation similar to what we find in the NBA: a rule book that clearly prohibits various things like carrying the ball and traveling but are routinely ignored by referees (go look at some old footage of Micheal Jordan and see how often he travels on dunks compared to, say, Julius Irving). And to that extent, the referees have made themselves the rulebook.
Keith
December 22nd, 2012
3:27 pm
so now the left is arguing the Constitution is obsolete. They are anti-American cowards.
USC-69
December 22nd, 2012
7:27 pm
The piecemeal approach to gun control is out of date just like the second ammendment. That Article II of the Bill of Rights (passed in 1791) to arm a well regulated militia is no longer necessary. We have a well regulated militia on full time salary. Now, we are allowing unregulated citizens, of all ilk, to buy lethal weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition. A much more aggressive disarmament is necessary to create a civilized, peaceful, country in which we can have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Secret carriers of handguns? Misplaced loaded guns in airport luggage? Sales of stolen handguns out of the trunks of cars at Lenox? Daily random shootings on freeways and city streets – think Moreland Ave., Zestos, City Park? Babies killed by teenagers shooting through doors? Now is the time. Barrack is in his second term, will not need to stand for re-election, Biden is Northeast Tough and smiles when the yahoos shout insults. Fired Up and Ready to Go. Let’s Do It.
keith
December 23rd, 2012
8:24 am
The Pearl River High School shooting was ended because the principal had a gun. So wheh misguided people like bookman make these rediculous claims about the NRA, history shows what they are supporting has worked.
Aquagirl
December 23rd, 2012
9:15 am
A Dumb@$$ NRA consultant is on a Sunday morning show right now, saying he “can’t speak for the NRA.” What a creative way to slither out of questions. You’re an organized group that hires lobbyists but when somebody’s sticking your feet to the fire suddenly your hired representative can’t represent you.
The other half of your brain.
December 23rd, 2012
1:27 pm
getalife
December 21st, 2012
12:35 pm
After the massacres happened in other countries, their people united to ban guns.
It is a test from God.
They passed, we will not.
Onto the next massacre until we pass the test from God.
” So your little pea brain is saying that GOD let these kids get slaughtered so we can talk about gun control? ”
It never ceases to amaze me how stupid some people can be.
The other half of your brain.
December 23rd, 2012
1:29 pm
Aquagirl
December 23rd, 2012
9:15 am
A Dumb@$$ NRA consultant is on a Sunday morning show right now, saying he “can’t speak for the NRA.” What a creative way to slither out of questions. You’re an organized group that hires lobbyists but when somebody’s sticking your feet to the fire suddenly your hired representative can’t represent you.
Why should they be represented? name one member of the NRA
The other half of your brain.
December 23rd, 2012
1:32 pm
Aqua, I hit the wrong key. I wanted to say can you name one member of the NRA that ever committed an atrocity like this?
I’m not a member and I don’t own a rifle, To blame them for whacko people is just plain nuts.
The other half of your brain.
December 23rd, 2012
1:36 pm
USC-69
I’m sure that all the criminals out there will agree with you. I also believe that Biden said that Obama will never take the shotgun out of his hands.
Let’s take all the fertilizer out of every store also and while were at it the knives also.
RF
December 23rd, 2012
1:43 pm
“so now the left is arguing the Constitution is obsolete. They are anti-American cowards.”
considering that the SCOTUS is regularly tasked with determining the merit of challenges to interpretation of the Constitution, it is hardly obsolete. In point of fact, the Constitution’s survival depends on the ability to apply it to an ever-changing world. Without that willingness to debate it, the Bill of Rights would never have been written and ratified. In fact, if we never debated its meaning and intent, then the Heller case would never have come before the court, which expanded rights under the 2nd amendment and limited the federal government’s power to limit those rights. To refuse the power to determine its meaning in modern context is to deny the one thing that keeps us from using the Constitution to limit rights and freedoms of our citizens.
“The proper course of action is, naturally, to let the Constitution mean what its authors intended and then, if we don’t like it, modify it. Otherwise we allow the SCOTUS to rewrite it as they see fit and then they become the Constitution and not the document itself”
Which is precisely why justices must be carefully chosen and appointed by the Senate, along with other federal judges. It is part of the balance of power in the Constitution. The Supreme Court’s power is limited by the power of the Executive branch to select and recommend judges and the Legislative branch to approve them. The power of the court will never be greater than the other two branches, thus negating the possibility of them suddenly becoming the Constitution, as you put it.
Keith
December 23rd, 2012
3:00 pm
Theres a reason wny most of these gun massacres are happening in gunfree zones. The perp knows he will not face an armed victim. Now some really stupid people want to make the entire nation a gunfree zone. Thank GOD the NRA will defeat those ignorant fools.
What???
December 23rd, 2012
5:55 pm
Keith
December 23rd, 2012
3:00 pm
“Theres a reason wny most of these gun massacres are happening in gunfree zones. The perp knows he will not face an armed victim. Now some really stupid people want to make the entire nation a gunfree zone. Thank GOD the NRA will defeat those ignorant fools”
If the whole country is a gun free zone how will we face armed perps?
Rabbit
December 24th, 2012
8:22 am
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence website states, in a single year guns killed (populations and fractions not on the website)
17 in Finland, pop. > 5.4 million (0.0003) three hundredths of 1%
35 in Australia, pop. > 22 million (0.0001) one hundredth of 1%
39 in Britain, pop. > 60 Million (0.00006) one thousandth of 1%
60 in Spain, pop. > 45 million (0.0001) one hundredth of 1%
194 in Germany, pop. > 80 million (0.0002) two hundredths of 1%
200 in Canada pop. > 35 Million (0.0006) six hundredths of 1%
9,484 in the USA pop. >311 million (0.0030) three tenths of 1%)
While I can’t vouch for the fractions, the difference at any number is striking.
independent thinker
December 24th, 2012
9:02 am
Hey when you got the Supreme Court ogf the United States and most members of Congress in your pocket, why would the NRA back down??? With Fast and Furious being pushed by the NRA/Repub. crowd despite being a George Bush program, the ATF is a toothless enforcement body.
Every time there is a mass shooting, gun sales go up. Merry Christmas NRA-business is good especially here in Georgia where mass gun sales without registration is a growth business!
Joe Hussein Mama
December 24th, 2012
9:12 am
josef — “JHM
This is what you said and what I quoted before quoting from the Declaration…
“Armed rebellion isn’t a *right,* nor is is spoken of as such at any time by any of the Founders.”
You asked for clarification, and I’ve given it to you as politely as I can.
You also know that I don’t care to speak with you, and I suspect, based on your behavior towards me in the past, that you don’t care to speak with me, either. So if you’re looking for something else, speak up and tell me what it is.
Otherwise, have a nice day.
Joe Hussein Mama
December 24th, 2012
9:18 am
josef — “JHM
Again, I was saying why PARENTS choose to home school…those of us who do curriculum development are motivated by altruism and love of learning or we wouldn’t be putting in the time.”
The individuals I was speaking of *are* parents and develop curriculum as well. But, as I said, I don’t think they’re doing so out of any altruistic motivavtion. I don’t *know* their motivations, but having spoken to them on numerous occasions (they’ve next-door neighbors to some properties my family owns in another state), I think the individuals of whom I spoke have a set of very hard-line religious reasons for doing what they do, and I think they have more than a smidgen of ‘eff the liberal state DoE’ in their mindset.
I have no doubt that there are altruistically-motivated homeschoolers and homeschool advocates out and about. It’s just that in my *personal* experience, there are folks involved with it who *don’t* seem to be quite so positively motivated. And, of course, YMMV.
Joe Hussein Mama
December 24th, 2012
9:27 am
towncrier — “We all have acted as “ankle-biters” here, JHM – you included.”
I’ve never argued otherwise. Leave it to you to argue a point that no one made.
“It is extremely difficult to not get emotionally hooked by what others post here. And it just struck me that one of the reasons I engaged in “ankle-biting” myself was to get some kind of response from someone. The other reason was just aggression or vindictiveness.”
I don’t doubt that at all.
“I am not sure you can speak for the other liberal posters here so why don’t you let them do that for themselves?”
And I’m not sure *you* can speak for them, either, but that doesn’t seem to prevent you from doing so on a regular basis.
“And, in truth, you do not so much debate as enter into p***ing contests with others”
(laughing)
I remind you again, son, I didn’t bring up Lembcke. YOU did.
If you wanted to discuss my point in our first go-round, then perhaps you should have argued *my point* instead of bringing up an author who I hadn’t mentioned — because I didn’t *agree* with him — and then demanding that I defend his arguments (which I hadn’t made). If anyone here is interested in pizzing contests, it’s not me. That said, I won’t shy away from one.
“and invariably always must have the last word (as if that wins an argument).”
Yawn. An incorrect presumption of Bruno’s, latched onto by Doom and yourself for some bizarre reason.
“Nonetheless, there have been a few times when we have had enjoyable and reasonable exchanges. And I am thankful for that and still respect you for it – even if you don’t respect me.”
I know I feel the same way about you. I enjoy speaking with you, even though you’re a condescending, presumptuous and disrespectful individual.
“I have clearly engaged people in debate”
No, you’ve clearly *replaced* their arguments with the arguments you *think* they’re making and then demand that they respond to you on your terms. You did it to me the first time we talked, and you’ve continued to do it ever since then, both to me and to others.
“and have provided reasoning and evidence for my arguments.”
Sometimes.
“I have not always been right, but nobody is. And there have been a few times that I have not bothered to follow up on challenges. Mea culpa.”
Indeed. There certainly have. You could stand to do what I did for *you* the first time we talked.
“I guess that could be said to everyone here, including you. I mean your “home-schooled” insult was just that – a personal insult.”
I didn’t represent it as anything other than that. And I don’t see how a reasonable, thinking person could come to the conclusion that poster did.
“And I have done plenty of demeaning here we I have been in the fever. I think Obama getting re-elected has helped me personally, to give up my excessive concern for a lot of political issues. I don;t have much of an axe to grind here anymore – it’s all (to quote Solomon) a chasing after the wind. I think we are on a path to demise and it is not simply because of Obama – he is merely a symptom of the underlying disease. God has given man his free will and is bent on letting him have it.”
Shrug.
Joe Hussein Mama
December 24th, 2012
9:43 am
Towncrier — “I think the same may be said of a generalized right of privacy or the “right” to “marry” someone of the same gender and so on. Are not liberals always arguing for the expansion of rights via the SCOTUS on the basis of unenumerated rights? It certainly would be odd for the founders to prohibit armed rebellion in a nation founded upon that very thing.”
I did make the point earlier that it’s not an enumerated right.
But frankly, from a legal POV, granting an enumerated right to armed insurrection in a governmental charter is really a specious and bizarre argument. The Founders clearly recognized that revolution is, at times, the only viable choice or course of action left to a society, but never offered it as a *prescriptive* solution to any listed set of ills or troubles. There’s not, for example, a codicil in the Constution saying that ‘if any or all of these intolerable burdens be enacted on the People of any or all of the several States, then the people shall have the unrestricted right and authority to declare armed rebellion and may make war upon the central government by any military, economic or moral means they find needful.’ There’s nothing like that. And there doesn’t need to be — we have the authority to make changes to our governmment, its structure and its very laws. I’m sure that at least some of the Founders might have envisioned a time when the people might even want to *scrap* our current form of government and start over with some new form of it. So given all that, I suspect that the Founders didn’t think that it would ever *come* to a point where Americans would assert such a right.
For those who still maintain that such a right is implied in the Constitution or in other writings of the Founders, it might be informative to consider how significant figures of the Confederacy were treated in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War (as opposed to those whom Frank Owsley wrote of in his Plain Folk of the Old South).
mad as hell
December 24th, 2012
10:28 am
Before the NRA clamped down on ATF meddling and invasive record keeping, 9,663 guns used in crimes were taced to Georgia salesin 2007 -Way to go Georgia! Abolish the ATF -Now.
keith
December 24th, 2012
10:50 am
If the entire country is a gunfree zone how will we face armed perps?
GOOD POINT. CRIMINALS HAVE A STELLAR TRACK RECORD FOR NOT VIOLATING THE LAW! Gunfree zones will prevent massacres just as it prevented the massacres in CT, COLUMBINE, Virginia Tech etc. Good LORD these gunbanners are STUPD AS HELL!!
hamiltonAZ
December 27th, 2012
7:27 pm
from Linda Greenhouse:
“The next time a senator announces opposition to a judicial nominee, demand something other than incoherent mumbo-jumbo. Tell the senator to fill in the blank: “I oppose this nominee because ____.” If there’s an answer of substance, fine. That’s advise-and-consent democracy. But if, upon inspection, the real answer is “because the N.R.A. told me to,” we have a problem. Based on these last few years, I think we do.”