RATATATATATATA. KA-BOOM! You're (truly) dead.

[PeterD]

Hi,

As American military forces are trying to disarm Iraqi citizens, the chimp administration, along with the US congress, has decided it's high time to arm American citizens.

As of midnight tonight, September 13, 2004, the 10-year moratorium on assualt weapons -- which the chimp (aka Dumya) promised to extend during the 2000 presidential election campaign -- will lapse.

Shucks, these republicans sure love those high-powered, cop-killing machines. And I thought it was AIPAC that had the US congress by the balls. Three cheers for the NRA -- Hip Hip Hooray (x3)!

~PeterD

P.S. I dedicate this post to Kopio

[benissimus]

Thanks for that informative smattering of opinion

[PeterD]

Thanks for that informative smattering of opinion

Keep your head low, Benissimus

[Episcopus]

You Americans are crazy. Imagine jeff with a gat.

[whiteoctave]

panem et circenses et arma.

~D

[PeterD]

panem et circenses et arma.

~D

Translation help

[Episcopus]

E pluribus unum GAT

[Emma_85]

Translation help

bread and games and weapons

You know, as in what do the Roman people need... bread and games... and the Americans need bread, games and weapons.

[PeterD]

Translation help

bread and games and weapons

You know, as in what do the Roman people need... bread and games... and the Americans need bread, games and weapons.

Thank you, Emma.

Yes, bread and games...

I like olive oil sprinkled with oregano on my bread for breakfast; enjoy very much football (soccer); guns?

~PeterD

[Emma_85]

Eh... Peter?

You seem to be very well up on the anti-Bush campaign, so I was wondering whether you could help me on this:

The other day my dad was zapping through the TV channels cause he was bored and there was nothing on (i.e. CNN was interviewing a country singer, Sky News was busy reporting on a hurricane and Euro News was reporting on the off-road truck championships in the Czech Republic). Then he found Aljazeera which was showing a programme on George W. Bush and we watched that instead. Some bits were in Arabic, but the rest was in English (Americans speaking about George W. Bush and his family) with Arabic subtitles. Most of the stuff they said there wasn't new to me, but what was was that apparently the Bushs had been bankrolling the Nazis/Hitler (they just showed some old photos and some American guy made the allegation). Just wondering what you know about this.

[PeterD]

Hi Emma,

Eh... Peter?

You seem to be very well up on the anti-Bush campaign, so I was wondering whether you could help me on this:

... the Bushs had been bankrolling the Nazis/Hitler... Just wondering what you know about this.

Does anyone ever wonder what the 'W' stands for in George W. Bush's name?

Wanker?

Not really.

Wimp?

Sound's right; it rhymes with chimp. But no, it's not that, either.

It stands for 'Walker.'

George Herbert Walker -- the chimp's maternal great-grandfather -- was the notorious Wall Street financier who staunchly supported Hitler.

In the 1930s, "Mr." Walker arranged for his new son-in-law -- Prescott Bush, the chimp's grandfather -- to become a senior official in an investment company that eventually was to launder money for the Nazi killing machine. The ever industrious Prescott also joined the Board of Directors of Union Banking Corp. which, under the auspices of "Mr." Walker and Prescott, helped finance the fledgling Nazi party. Both of these 'outstanding' American citizens profited handsomely from those dealings.

In 1942 the US government, under the Trading with the Enemy Act, seized the Nazi party's US assets, and took control of Union Banking Corp. Unfortunately, money and friends in high places talks. Both "Mr." Walker and Prescott got a simple slap on the wrist.

There you have the gist of it Emma. It's old news to the rest of the world, but unfortunately news travels very slowly in the US (or Americans don't care?). The Bush clan is basically buzzed. Here's a lovely quote from the chimp's mother -- the battleaxe Barbara Bush -- from an interview earlier this year on ABC's Good Morning America program when she was asked about the escalating death toll of American boys in Iraq (pronounced 'eyerak' by the chimp):

"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths and how many? It's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"

Way to go bitch! Easy to say when they are not your kids being shot at and killed everyday!

Need I say more about the Bush clan from Kennebunkport, MAINE?

~PeterD

[Episcopus]

He said a naughty word! Shoot ihn!

Calm down Peter it's not worth it. Just be glad that you live in Canada. Seriously though, what can you do?

[classicalclarinet]

Just be glad that you live in Canada

True, true....

pronounced 'eyerak' by the chimp

In fact, MANY people pronounce it that way, including news anchors. Each to their own, I say.

I myself am not happy that the ban is expiring either..

It's very cool that you can get Al-Jazeera, Emma.. I wish I could have more news sources when Larry King's interviewing a country singer. I want to see what the hype is about.

[Episcopus]

I saw a programme called 'Conspiracy Theory' on Sky one, about Bush planning September 11th. It all indeed adds up, and the evidence in that programme was overwhelming. I can say whether poisonous TV or not, it's clearly true! This does beg the question how does there manage not to be an uproar there.

Pete & Pete if you are angry try and do as many press ups as you can. Take a breather for 5 mins. Then do as many press ups as you can. Take a breather for 5 mins. Do as many press ups as you can.

You are now too wrecked to be angry. It does work.

[incipio]

i was wondering if Mr D. remembers the snipers that kept the d.c. area under cover not too long back. their weapon of choice was the bushmaster (some model or another i am not up on my assault rifles) which is visualy almost indistinguisable from the AR-15 an ausult rifle on the banned list. both are very powerful, they shoot out the same caliber round as an M-16 the weapon american troops use, they are both semi-automatic which means they can shoot as fast as a chimp could pul the trigger. the assualt weapons ban was ceremonial and did not keep those who wanted to kill with impunity. i dont think it is fair to spread vitriolic empty rhetoric. it is a tactic that those form both ends of the political spectrum use and it is deceiving and misleading. i do not own an assualt weapon and i dont think anyone else needs to either, but to make the implication that this ban was any more than a semblance of protection is mendacious. i am writing this off the top of my head without searching for many differant facts and figures. feel free to look for all the facts and figures that prove the asertation that violence is falling becaus of this panoply of a ban. then i wil search for my facts and figures and together we can prove that one could find facts and figures to prove just about anything.

[classicalclarinet]

i dont think it is fair to spread vitriolic empty rhetoric.

I know, but it's very funny sometimes.
I mean, I get a kick out of reading Maureen Dowd, even though she's many more times a liberal tham I am. .. the more fiery, the funnier.
By the same token, there is a reason that Rush Limbaugh is so popular among conservatives.

but to make the implication that this ban was any more than a semblance of protection is mendacious

Precisely why the ban ought to be fortified..

But then of course, there's the pesky 2nd amendment.

[PeterD]

i was wondering if Mr D. remembers the snipers that kept the d.c. area under cover not too long back. their weapon of choice was the bushmaster (some model or another i am not up on my assault rifles) which is visualy almost indistinguisable from the AR-15 an ausult rifle on the banned list. both are very powerful, they shoot out the same caliber round as an M-16 the weapon american troops use, they are both semi-automatic which means they can shoot as fast as a chimp could pul the trigger.

I and the rest of the world.

Indeed, that weapon in question was illegal and must have been bought (stolen?) before the moratorium on assault weapons came in effect.

the assualt weapons ban was ceremonial and did not keep those who wanted to kill with impunity.

The ban left a lot to be desired, but it was start. Why do you want to make it easier for nutcases to purchase guns?

i dont think it is fair to spread vitriolic empty rhetoric. it is a tactic that those form both ends of the political spectrum use and it is deceiving and misleading. i do not own an assualt weapon and i dont think anyone else needs to either, but to make the implication that this ban was any more than a semblance of protection is mendacious.

Like I said above, the moratorium was a start; it was surely better than NO law. There are at least twice as many guns (of all kinds) in the US than there are people; something had to be done.

i am writing this off the top of my head without searching for many differant facts and figures. feel free to look for all the facts and figures that prove the asertation that violence is falling becaus of this panoply of a ban. then i wil search for my facts and figures and together we can prove that one could find facts and figures to prove just about anything.

The figures? Take Canada. In Canada it is extremely difficult to legally purchase any sort of gun, even slingshots are hard to find. The Canadian mortality rates due to gun violence are infinitesimally minute compared to those of the US, even accounting for the disparity in populations. So, please, save that argument.

There are tens of thousands of Americans who die from gun shot wounds each and every year. If you check the stats you will be shocked. The ban on assualt weapons was not, of course, THE solution to gun violence; no one said it was. It was inacted -- watered down as it was -- to make it a little bit more difficult for killers and would-be killers to get their hands on them. Now, you got nothing.

Good luck, and don't forget to duck!

~PeterD

p.s. The more guns a man has the smaller his manhood -- Canadian proverb

[Rhuiden]

I was not going to reply on this topic but I could not resist.

The right to keep and bare arms is one of the conerstones that the United States was founded on. As most of you know, that right was granted in the 2nd Amendment.

With that said, let me get to my point. Banning guns, of any type, is one of the stupidest (is that a word, should I say most stupid) ideas I have ever heard. Were people not killed by bad people before guns were invented? Was the world a more civil and safe place before the "evil" guns were invented? The answer is obvious. When bad people want to do bad things, they will use whatever tools are available. How many remember what the Islamic terorists used to hijack the airplanes on 9/11. They used box cutters. Guns are simply a tool in the hands of the person using it. A gun cannot kill a person unless someone intentionally or accidentally points it at someone and pulls the trigger. This is so basic that I can't understand how so many people do not get this point.

In the US, we have more than enough gun laws on the books. The problem is that they are not properly enforced. This is wrong but you cannot fix the problem by putting more regulations or restrictions of law abiding citizens. The criminals are not going to follow the laws no matter how many there are. It is my position that it should be mandatory for every citizen over 18 to own a gun and that we should be able to carry them anywhere anytime. How much crime do you think there would be if the criminals knew that everyone or anyone may be armed? I am not advocating a return to the "old west" and I believe there should be very strong laws governing the use of guns in the defense of ones family, home, and possesions.

For the record, I own several guns, and by some of the definitions I have heard suggested (over the years), every one could be considered an "assault weapon". Only one could be considered an assault weapon in my opinion. I believe in resposible gun ownership and proper training of the use of guns. My guns are never loaded in my home and the first thing I do every time I pick one up is to make sure that it is not loaded. I have a wife and two small children. I have taught my wife how to use her gun (I bought her a Smith & Wesson 9mm many years ago) in case she ever needs to and I have a strict no touching policy with my kids. When they (both are girls) get old enough, I will teach them proper respect for guns as well as the proper way to use them.

Hope I was not unclear.

Rhuiden

[PeterD]

I was not going to reply on this topic but I could not resist.

Hi Rhuiden,

Resistance is futile. Glad you joined in.

Hope I was not unclear.

Though you and I are politically on different galaxies, you speak your mind freely and clearly. I like that.

~PeterD

p.s. I was kidding on that manhood proverb (or was I? )

[Rhuiden]

The figures? Take Canada. In Canada it is extremely difficult to legally purchase any sort of gun, even slingshots are hard to find. The Canadian mortality rates due to gun violence are infinitesimally minute compared to those of the US, even accounting for the disparity in populations. So, please, save that argument.

There are tens of thousands of Americans who die from gun shot wounds each and every year. If you check the stats you will be shocked. The ban on assualt weapons was not, of course, THE solution to gun violence; no one said it was. It was inacted -- watered down as it was -- to make it a little bit more difficult for killers and would-be killers to get their hands on them. Now, you got nothing.

PeterD: You must have been posting at the same time I was or I would have responded to your last post in my previous post.

It is true that many, many Americans die from gunshot wounds each year but most (a vast majority I would think) are in urban areas and are gang related or drug related. If you factor those out, the number drops dramatically (I did not look up any stats to quote because it is late and I have to work tomorrow). I am not saying to discount those people but you can't include them with the general population when making your argument.

Also, when the ban was passed, it had nothing to do with stopping crime. Its purpose was to pacify the liberals and get them off Bill Clinton's back. I will be very disappointed with Bush if this comes up again and he was to support it.

Rhuiden

[Jefferson Cicero]

I was going to respond to PeterD and others but now I dont have to. Rhuiden did it for me. Thanx!

As for the figures: in America more children die every year from drowning in bathtubs than from accidental gunshots. More die from auto accidents. More die from falling down stairs. More die from choking on hard candy. That's what the U.S. government's own statistics say. Should we outlaw stairs, cars, hard candy and bathtubs?

As for crime statistics, when you factor out racial minorities, both the crime rate and the gunshot death rate for white Americans are roughly on the same low level as those for Canada and Europe. Keep in mind that whites probably own most of the guns, and likely own more per capita than any other racial group. Is it 'racist' to say this when the FBI's own statistics show it to be true? The problem is neither guns nor race, it's the ghetto culture that encourages criminal behaviour.

As for laws, the figures show that in America, crime drops when gun control laws are relaxed, and rises when they are made more strict. When you disarm law abiding citizens, you leave then vulnerable and defenseless against criminals, who will get their guns no matter how strict the gun control laws are. No matter jow strict the laws or how draconian their enforcemnent, there will always be an underground market in guns of all types and criminals will get them.

The snipers in Washington were radical Muslims and that's why they went on their sniping spree. Go ahead, accuse me or 'racism' or 'xenophobia', or 'bigotry' for speaking the truth about this. Should we ban Islam? How dare I say it! Then why leave me defensless against criminals or the tyrants in the US government? The founding fathers knew that it might one day be necessary for the people of America to rebel and overthrow the government, and that's why they gave us the right to keep and bear arms.

Who can now say that the US government is not tyrannical at home and aggressive abroad? The so-called 'PATRIOT' acts and the agression against Iraq prove that it is. Now you know why we have a second amendment.

[Lupus minimus]

pheeew, what a fight.

Even in (supposedly rabidly anti-American) France and Europe you do not get "vitriolic" comments like these.

Regarding the second amendment, why don't you just get rid of it (as you did the one on prohibition)? Why is the U.S. the only contry (I assume) out of the world's 192 to consider "bearing arms" so important that the right is ranked right up there with freedom of speach or conscience?

Furthermore, from the (very) little I know of U.S. law/legal history, I understand that one of the most influential authors (as measured by amount of time discussing him during the convention) of the framers of the bill of rights was Charles de Secondat (aka baron de Montesquieu), who posited the idea that the only way a people "un peuple" could be free was if it was willing to defend its freedom, hence militias (or rather compulsory military service - one of the cornerstones of modern republicanism, which has absolutely nothing to do with the republican party). It would therefore seem that the "point" of the amendment has absolutely nothing to do with what it is being used for now.

Finally, please see Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 16 Us Cst.:

The Congress shall have Power:

Clause 16: To provide for organizing , arming , and disciplining , the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

According to this section of the Cst, should it not be that:

-Weapons are owned by the state, "bourn" (is this how you say this ungodly verb) by citizens?
-Congress has the Constitionally granted Power to limit certain types of arms?

Anyway, these are just some (thoroughly unresearched) thoughts. Back to work.

jc

[klewlis]

It is true that many, many Americans die from gunshot wounds each year but most (a vast majority I would think) are in urban areas and are gang related or drug related. If you factor those out, the number drops dramatically (I did not look up any stats to quote because it is late and I have to work tomorrow). I am not saying to discount those people but you can't include them with the general population when making your argument.

Why not? Is murder ok as long as the perp and victim are both criminals?

[Lupus minimus]

The founding fathers knew that it might one day be necessary for the people of America to rebel and overthrow the government, and that's why they gave us the right to keep and bear arms.

I don't know what to think of a constitution which believes the government it is instituting might become so corrupt as to warrant a rebellion. Is the point of a constitution not rather to provide guidelines on how to solve any salient issue without having recourse to force?

"Critique l'Etat, c'est ton droit, mais n'oublie pas, l'Etat, c'est toi" as Napoleon said.

jc

[Rhuiden]

PeterD wrote:

Why not? Is murder ok as long as the perp and victim are both criminals?

Here goes my Bill Clinton imitation. What is your definition of murder? My definition is that murder is the taking of innocent life. In your example, which one is innocent? In my not so humble opinion, murder is always wrong but killing is not. There are many instances in which killing is perfectly justified. If someone breaks into my house and threatens my family that person is not walking out of my house unless my aim is off. I hope to never have to face that situation. In war, killing is justified. Can you see the difference? Would I be a murderer? Is a soldier a murderer? I think not.

Lupus minimus wrote:

I don't know what to think of a constitution which believes the government it is instituting might become so corrupt as to warrant a rebellion. Is the point of a constitution not rather to provide guidelines on how to solve any salient issue without having recourse to force?

It is not the government or the document that the founding fathers did not trust, it was the men who would become the leaders or our government. Their intention was not to plan for a rebellion but to ensure that the people had a way to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. Our form of government can only succeed if there are moral, honorable men in charge. The moment we put immorale men in charge, the system fails.

Rhuiden

[Jefferson Cicero]

Clause 16 of the US constitution pertains only to proper regulation and arming of state militias, so that they would be effectively trained and armed. Even here, control of the militias is left to the states, not the federal government, except in cases where a state voluntarily turns it's militia over to federal control for temproary purposes, as in wartime, for the duration of the war. None of this has anything to do with the right of INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS to own and bear firearms for personal defence, which is covered in the second amendment.

As for the second amendment's mentioning of militias, this was in reference to private militias made up of citizens of local communities, organised without control of either the state or the federal government. These 'unorganised militias', so-called becaused they were not trained or armed by the state or federal government, necessarily had to train themselves and provide their own PRIVATELY OWNED firearms at their own expence. George Washington was elected commander of such an unorganised, private militia at one time.

The second amendment insists on the right to keep and bear arms both to safeguard these private militias and to preserve the right of personal self defence against criminals.

[Emma_85]

It's very cool that you can get Al-Jazeera, Emma.. I wish I could have more news sources when Larry King's interviewing a country singer. I want to see what the hype is about.

Basically Aljazeera is the Arab version of Fox news.

On guns: I agree with Jefferson Cicero on some points. The worst part of the problem is not how many guns are available. I think that too is a problem, because that too will lead to deaths, but the much bigger problem that leads to far more deaths than just the number of guns around is the poverty. Something has to be done about the poverty in the American ghettos to stop the gun crime, thougher laws won't help if the main source of the problem is not.

On the other hand I find it hard to believe that allowing people to own semi-automatic or even automatic guns is a step in the right direction. What if suddenly every criminal in those ghettos can get their hands on one? Single shot guns are one thing, semi-automatics another I my opinion. They are far too dangerous, the less of them around, the better, even if those few are in the hands of criminals - it's still better to have less of them around. Ideally all guns should be banned of course, but I see that's not an option in the US. The main problem is the poverty and not the amount of guns though. These people living in the ghettos would love to live nice safe lives, it's a shame they can't.

[Democritus]

Most of the stuff they said there wasn't new to me, but what was was that apparently the Bushs had been bankrolling the Nazis/Hitler (they just showed some old photos and some American guy made the allegation). Just wondering what you know about this.

Reference for you:

http://www.news-miner.com/Stories/0,141 ... 58,00.html

[Emma_85]

Ah! Thanks for the article, it was very informative. I find it annoying though that I had to hear about such things through Aljazeera, dunno why it annoys me, but it does .

[Rhuiden]

These people living in the ghettos would love to live nice safe lives, it's a shame they can't.

What is stopping them? Everyone in the US has the ability to live anywhere and in any way they want (short of breaking the law). If someone is in a tough situation or somewhere they do not want to be, they can move. Anyone can change their circumstances if they are willing to work hard. I know from personal experience that it can be done because I have done it myself. Let me clarify, people are born into situations that they have no control over. How we deal with those situations are up to us, we can make choices and accept our circumstances and be "victims" or we can choose to work hard and change them. I have no sympathy for people who put restrictions on themselves and then cry about it. I hope that does not make me sound too harsh but it is truly how I feel.

I agree that poverty is a big problem in many parts of our country but again, it is a choice that each person makes as to whether to stay in that situation or not - but that is another discussion altogether.

Rhuiden

[Democritus]

Regarding the second amendment, why don't you just get rid of it (as you did the one on prohibition)?

I don't want any of the bill of rights to be altered in any way. Sure, you might not like the second amendment, but there are a lot of people inside the U.S. who would be very happy to eliminate the first and fifth amendments, too. I don't support that. I don't want any part of the bill of rights to be changed, period. I don't even want this kind of question on the agenda. I prefer that this possibility not even be discussed. Those freedoms are not to be tinkered with.

-Weapons are owned by the state, "bourn" (is this how you say this ungodly verb) by citizens?
-Congress has the Constitionally granted Power to limit certain types of arms?

The framers chose the words of the constitution with great care. It's hard for me to believe that the framers would include the words "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" if they intended for the weapons to be, as you suggest, owned by the state.

Amendment 2 - Right to bear arms

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There isn't very much wiggle room there. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms -- those are strong words.

Why is the U.S. the only contry (I assume) out of the world's 192 to consider "bearing arms" so important that the right is ranked right up there with freedom of speach or conscience?

If someone believes that it's unwise to establish such a right, then I respect your opinion, and I can see that there is some evidence for thinking this way. But I do not want us to be in the business of weaseling our way out of rights explicitly defined in the constitution.

[classicalclarinet]

Those freedoms are not to be tinkered with

But what we have to know is that the Framers were not invincible god-philosophers. Sure, the Constitution is a pivotal document, but times change, and the people should not be afraid of change it if there is a general concensus. (Not to say there is of course in this case)

[klewlis]

PeterD wrote:

Why not? Is murder ok as long as the perp and victim are both criminals?

Here goes my Bill Clinton imitation. What is your definition of murder? My definition is that murder is the taking of innocent life. In your example, which one is innocent? In my not so humble opinion, murder is always wrong but killing is not. There are many instances in which killing is perfectly justified. If someone breaks into my house and threatens my family that person is not walking out of my house unless my aim is off. I hope to never have to face that situation. In war, killing is justified. Can you see the difference? Would I be a murderer? Is a soldier a murderer? I think not.

But we were speaking of criminal killing, not self defence or war. And you said that the criminals should not be included in the stats. Why? Are you saying that you don't consider it murder if one drug dealer shoots another? Or if one gang member shoots another? If I, an otherwise upstanding, law-abiding citizen, decide to become a vigilante and go around shooting pimps and drug dealers, is that not murder?

It seems to me that these people are EXTREMELY relevant to the conversation of which guns should be allowed and how difficult it is to access them.

[klewlis]

On guns: I agree with Jefferson Cicero on some points. The worst part of the problem is not how many guns are available. I think that too is a problem, because that too will lead to deaths, but the much bigger problem that leads to far more deaths than just the number of guns around is the poverty. Something has to be done about the poverty in the American ghettos to stop the gun crime, thougher laws won't help if the main source of the problem is not.

I think that poverty is too often the scapegoat. I know for a fact that eliminating poverty will not eliminate crime. Of the street kids that I work with regularly, you would be amazed at how many of them come from wealthy, prominent, local families. Yes, some of them are born into poverty--but many of them are born with everything they could need or want. In a great many cases it's not about money or need. It's the poverty of our hearts and minds that is the real culprit, not material goods--and those problems run across the board.

[Rhuiden]

But we were speaking of criminal killing, not self defence or war. And you said that the criminals should not be included in the stats. Why? Are you saying that you don't consider it murder if one drug dealer shoots another? Or if one gang member shoots another? If I, an otherwise upstanding, law-abiding citizen, decide to become a vigilante and go around shooting pimps and drug dealers, is that not murder?

It seems to me that these people are EXTREMELY relevant to the conversation of which guns should be allowed and how difficult it is to access them.

First, let me apologize. I noticed that on a previous post that I mistakenly put PeterD's name to a statement you (klewlis) made. Forgive me.

Next, at the point that you were to become a vigilante you would no longer be a law-abiding citizen. My point was that when you are comparing two things, the comparison must be equitable. You must compare apples to apples not apples to oranges. The acts of violence in a small number of urban areas skew the national statistics and must be accounted for.

Also, if guns were made illegal, the only people who would follow the law woujld be the law-abiding citizens. The criminals would still be able to get their guns and the result would be that only the criminals would have them. The would simply be a black-market for the guns. You can't solve a problem by punishing those who are already following the law.

Rhuiden

[Democritus]

But what we have to know is that the Framers were not invincible god-philosophers. Sure, the Constitution is a pivotal document, but times change, and the people should not be afraid of change it if there is a general concensus. (Not to say there is of course in this case)

Oh yes, that's a good point, and I agree with you.

But think of it this way: Look at the Presidents we've been electing lately. Do you really want us to get into the business of updating constitutions, in our current frame of mind?

[PeterD]

As for the figures: in America more children die every year from drowning in bathtubs than from accidental gunshots Americans die each year from drownings. More die from auto accidents. More die from falling down stairs. More die from choking on hard candy. That's what the U.S. government's own statistics say. Should we outlaw stairs, cars, hard candy and bathtubs?

Better have another look at the stats.

A Harvard study published in the Journal of Trauma two years ago begs to differ with your conclusion. The study states that children are far more likely to be killed by guns -- murder, suicide, or accidental death -- in regions with higher levels of household gun ownership. Ergo, more guns more deaths!

By the way, according to the US Red Cross, around 4,500 Americans die each year from drownings; children account for around 30% of such deaths. Last year, around 5,000 children died in gun related violence!

As for crime statistics, when you factor out racial minorities, both the crime rate and the gunshot death rate for white Americans are roughly on the same low level as those for Canada and Europe. Keep in mind that whites probably own most of the guns, and likely own more per capita than any other racial group. Is it 'racist' to say this when the FBI's own statistics show it to be true?

Yeah, it does sound racist. Shame! Next time, ponder your thoughts well before you post.

As for laws, the figures show that in America, crime drops when gun control laws are relaxed, and rises when they are made more strict.

After reading such a statement, it makes one wonder whether there is an overwhelming prevalence of stupidity (and probably insanity) in the United States. It would help to account for the DOPE (aka chimp) you have in the White House.

The founding fathers knew that it might one day be necessary for the people of America to rebel and overthrow the government, and that's why they gave us the right to keep and bear arms.

Hmmm...I do not think history -- US history -- is your forte.


~PeterD

[klewlis]

Next, at the point that you were to become a vigilante you would no longer be a law-abiding citizen. My point was that when you are comparing two things, the comparison must be equitable. You must compare apples to apples not apples to oranges. The acts of violence in a small number of urban areas skew the national statistics and must be accounted for.

They aren't "skewing" the national statistics. They are a valid component to the national statistics. In a question of whether or not gun laws should be stricter, you can't simply choose to disinclude those people who are using the guns for wrong purposes--they are the reason for the law in the first place!

Also, if guns were made illegal, the only people who would follow the law woujld be the law-abiding citizens. The criminals would still be able to get their guns and the result would be that only the criminals would have them. The would simply be a black-market for the guns. You can't solve a problem by punishing those who are already following the law.

They always say that and I always laugh because in Canada the opposite has proven true. They toughened up our laws and made it really hard to register a gun... so all the law-abiding citizens who use their guns for hunting and other legitimate purposes have simply refused to register. Now we have thousands of people with "illegal" weapons and the government is powerless to do anything about it without a great deal of trouble.

Anyway, I never said they should be illegal. I am too much of a western girl for that. But I certainly don't have a problem with outlawing certain *types* of guns which are obviously not going to be used for any innocent purpose. The right to bear arms does not mean the right to any kind of arms you like.

[Rhuiden]

A Harvard study published in the Journal of Trauma two years ago begs to differ with your conclusion. The study states that children are far more likely to be killed by guns -- murder, suicide, or accidental death -- in regions with higher levels of household gun ownership. Ergo, more guns more deaths!

By the way, according to the US Red Cross, around 4,500 Americans die each year from drownings; children account for around 30% of such deaths. Last year, aroound 5,000 children died in gun related violence!

Who commissioned and paid for the Harvard study. Was the study on urban areas only or did it include the entire US? Of the 5000 children who died, how many were due gang or drug related activities? If I were a betting man (and I am not, don't believe in gambling, it is poor stewardship), I would bet that the vast majority of the 5,000 deaths were in urban areas and were gang or drug related. That does not make it less tragic but many of these would have occured anyway with the use of another weapon, i.e. a baseball bat, a knife, etc. I would also bet that a great deal more than 5,000 children died in car accidents last year. Do you think we should ban cars next?

I would also have to concur with Jefferson Cicero on the intent of the founding fathers. They intended that the population should be able to defend itself against a tyrannical government even if it was our own. Without the right to own firearms, the population would not be able to do that. Do you remember what one of the first things Hitler did when he came to power in Germany...he disarmed the citizens! Why would he do this? Would the holocost have occurred if the Jews had been able to defend themselves?

The point is simple, gun violence will never cease until we adequately punish those who use guns in the commission of crimes. Criminals do not fear the criminal justice system any longer because of the "bleeding hearts" in our society who refuse to hold someone accountable for their actions but seek to find excuses and others to blame. It was soceity's fault that this criminal raped and killed all those people. He is not to blame. He was born into a poor family. His father disappeared so he had no male rolemodel. He was not able to get an education or a job because of the color of his skin or his nationality and besides somebody owes him something because of something that happened 140 years ago. I am not just singling out minorities, there are many with these same perspectives in every group, race, religion or any other group division you can come up with. It makes me sick. The United States is the greatest country on earth. There is more hope and freedom here than anywhere else. Why do you think that the world imigrants want to come here? Other than Alec Baldwin (who never left like he promised), people do want to go somewhere else. This is a free country and people can seek to bring it down if they want to but they better be careful because they might just get what they want. Then they will discover how misguided they were. It scares me to death to think that my children may have to grow up in a world like that.

Rhuiden

[Rhuiden]

....those people who are using the guns for wrong purposes--they are the reason for the law in the first place!

This is exactly my point. No law will affect these people. They will still get their guns no matter how tough it is and they will still use them for bad purposes. So why should we take something away from everyone because a few are using it to do evil.

They always say that and I always laugh because in Canada the opposite has proven true. They toughened up our laws and made it really hard to register a gun... so all the law-abiding citizens who use their guns for hunting and other legitimate purposes have simply refused to register. Now we have thousands of people with "illegal" weapons and the government is powerless to do anything about it without a great deal of trouble.

Why is this situation better? All the law has done is to make criminals out of good people.

Anyway, I never said they should be illegal. I am too much of a western girl for that. But I certainly don't have a problem with outlawing certain *types* of guns which are obviously not going to be used for any innocent purpose. The right to bear arms does not mean the right to any kind of arms you like.

Who is to say what an innocent purpose is? Why would it be wrong if I enjoyed going to the gun range and firing my AR-15 (I don't have one but would like to) or any gun of my choice? I do not think it is the governments job, or anyone elses, to tell me what kind of weapons I can or cannot have.

Rhuiden