Michael Bloomberg and America’s guns
Email 
Print
— Bernd Debusmann is a Reuters columnist. The opinions are his own —
New York’s billionaire mayor, Michael Bloomberg, is stepping in where President Barack Obama fears to tread — confronting America’s powerful gun lobby. In the country that holds a commanding global lead in civilian gun ownership, it promises to be a hard fight.
No matter how it goes, America’s position at the top of the list of gun-owning nations looks secure. Up to 280 million guns are estimated to be in private hands and the arsenal is growing year by year. On a guns-per-capita basis, the United States (90 guns per 100 residents) is way ahead of second-ranked Yemen (61 per 100), according to the authoritative Small Arms Survey issued by the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva.
Obama has been a sore disappointment for advocates of tighter gun controls, and a boon to gun manufacturers and dealers. Predictions that his administration would swiftly work towards greater restrictions helped spark a huge run on firearms after his election. The National Rifle Association (NRA), the country’s biggest gun lobby, said its members reported widespread shortages of ammunition.
Supply and demand are back in balance and those who rushed to stock up need not have feared an Obama assault on gun ownership. The president has shown no eagerness for stepping into the political minefield of gun legislation. On the contrary. Obama rowed back in haste after his attorney general, Eric Holder, prompted alarm among gun lovers by saying he wanted to reinstate a ban on assault weapons that was allowed to lapse under the Bush administration.
There are no signs either that Obama intends to fulfil campaign pledges on other hot-button gun legislation issues such as closing the so-called gun show loophole that allows private citizen-to-citizen sales without background checks, or the Tiahrt amendment, which limits disclosing information on the sale of guns used in crimes.
Josh Sugarmann, head of the Washington-based Violence Policy Center, a group advocating tighter controls, describes Obama’s attitude so far as “deeply disheartening” and says the president broke campaign promises on gun legislation.
Why? History provides an explanation: the last time the United States had a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, the party aggressively pushed gun control legislation and suffered crushing defeats at the polls, in part thanks to opposition stirred by the NRA. The Republicans took control of Congress in 1994 and held it until 2006.
Enter mayor Michael Bloomberg in New York, a city where he is popular and guns are not. In 2006, Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino formed Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), a group that wants to make it more difficult for criminals to get their hands on guns. MAIG’s growth has been explosive: from 15 in 2006 to 250 in 2007 to 451 now.
BATTLE OF GIANTS
That makes, as a headline in the Washington Post put it, for “a battle of goliaths” pitting Bloomberg and his group against the NRA, whose four million members tend to see restrictions such as unregulated sales from private citizens (through the gun show loophole) as an assault on the U.S. constitution’s second amendment.
It says: “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.” Exactly what that means (arms for militia members? for individuals?) was one of the most passionately disputed legal questions in the United States for decades until the Supreme Court last year ruled that it gave individual Americans the right to bear arms. The court also allowed for some restrictions on gun ownership.
In July, the U.S. Senate defeated a measure, introduced by a Republican Senator, John Thune, that would have allowed licensed gun owners to carry hidden, loaded weapons from states with weak gun laws to states with tough ones. The proposal failed largely because of energetic lobbying by Bloomberg’s mayors. It was a rare setback for the NRA and Bloomberg made clear he would remain on the offensive.
“If you want to beat the NRA,” he said on a television show this week, “you have to go out and get your message out. And it costs money to do that … You know, the NRA doesn’t spend that much money. If you look at what the real numbers are, I think that we can pull together here and raise enough money.”
Bloomberg has spent almost $3 million of his own money (Forbes estimates his personal fortune at $16 billion) on the mayor’s group. The NRA’s annual budget is around $200 million.
For Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s Executive Vice President and CEO, talk about money is beside the point. “Bloomberg is clearly out of step with the majority of Americans,” he said in an interview. “Our membership has been increasing by 40,000 to 50,000 a month since the middle of last year. We hope to reach five million before too long.”
LaPierre is confident that the NRA will prevail in future legislative wrangling, not least because “there has been a sea change in the center of the Democratic Party.” Ironically, the vote that defeated the Thune amendment gives backing to that view. The bill required 60 votes to pass. It fell short by two. Of the 58 votes in favor, 20 were from Democrats. (Editing by Kieran Murray)
Comments RSSPost Your Comment
-
Author Profile
-
Maybe have a look north of the border, if you even know where Canada is… Very very low gun violence. Where the violence does occur are guns illegally smuggle from the U.S.
The fact is Americans don’t need the Thune agreement. All States signed the U.S. Constitution. Conceal carry permits, licenses, are all infringements- which are illegal according to the highest law of the land. And secondarily, the Federal government handing out licenses for all 50 states subverts states privileges. It’s a bad idea all around. It just happens to make the socialists think they’ve won something.
So while Bloomberg repeatedly breaks actual Federal law investigating gun shops in other states, the rest of us get to wonder where the hell these people come from.
The purpose, and most of you posting have missed it, of gun ownership in America is to overthrow tyrannical government. You know, just like how America was founded in the first place. Guns are a tool to keep governments in line with the law. And part and parcel of that is the self-defense of your life. Even bacteria defends itself. But somehow socialists think it’s sane to give society control over their very existence. No. Not this American. Not ever.
And that’s all it is kids. Guns are to keep the government from doing harm and reaching outside of that fireplace called the U.S. Constitution. End.
Why do we need more legislation. Citizens don’t need more laws to restrict their freedoms. PUT CRIMINALS IN JAIL!!! Oh wait, Attornies can’t afford such things!
There is no such thing as a “gunshow loophole”. It’s a contrived, made-up political term to infer a breaking of some “law”. Gun sales between private individuals are legal, whether done at a private home or on the grounds of a gunshow. Please try to educate yourselves before posting as “experts”. Thanks!
As an Englishman, I am often amazed and saddened by the world view of the US which the opinions of its citizens promote.
First, to set my stall out, I love the US. Has been my chosen holiday destination for over 20 years, and, along with Tokyo, New York is my favourite city of any I have visited.
However, the US is an amazingly insular society. Perhaps because of its size and sociological diversity, and there is often so little understanding of what the world is like outside of those borders. Comments such as those on this thread, when looked at by the rest of the world, paint a picture of hillbillies and NIMBY’s, where prejudice is always preferred to logic, and change is unpatriotic. In fact, as anyone who spends any time with you and your countrymen will know, America is one of the most welcoming and accommodating societies in the world.
There is however a real division between the individual view of acceptance and tolerance which I have encountered in my travels over the years and a need to be seen to be bigoted and narrow minded, as is the theme of most of the entries in this thread. The closest I can equate it to is the darkest days of the soviet era, when conversations in private discussed openly the Governments failures, whilst at the same time those same people would in public pursue the party line with almost maniacal zeal.
The facts of the ratio of gun ownership to violent death in countries around the world are there to be seen. If American citizens believe that, despite the fact that they are more likely to be shot an any other citizen of a first world country, they are safer because of the weapons they stockpile, then that is fine, but I do wish that the moderate American, the sensible and thoughtful intellectual, could also have a voice in these discussions, without being shouted down as “Un-American” or “Unpatriotic”.
To jack, who believes that no democracy has ever been overthrown when citizens own guns. I have news for you cupcake, this ain’t a democracy, it’s become an oligarchy–our nation is led by the nose by corporate interests. While they inflame you to worry about guns and robbers and demonize without listennig those who suggest (rightly or wrongly) to limit certain guns in crime violent cities, corporations buy government to make laws in their favor and mop up (do you know how much private contractors made in Iraq? Or, how about the bank bailouts that WE paid for?) That’s called Realpolitik…divide and conquer. Maybe turn of the pundits on radio who poison honest intellectual debate and actually pick up a book and educate yourself.
“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.” What rubbish is this amendment talking about?
There is hardly some kind of foreign invasion taking place of the US that the people of that country need to bear arms. They complain about so-called rogue states such as Afghanistan, Pakistan etc… as bad examples, but just look at themselves. Ultra Pathetic
I *love* the argument that gun ownership is to guard against the possibility of government tyrrany — the lunatic frontier fantasy of defending one’s log-cabin homestead against APC’s with a few rifles.
Few things speak more powerfully of what is most naive, most willfully childish in the American psyche.
Too many movies, children. Grow up.
As if.
Oh, and, yes, the Constitution is not merely a well-conceived document composed by men, it’s sacred writ, timeless, direct from the mind and hand of the Maker.
Do you really imagine a document, however well conceived, to provide governance for a nation of thirteen colonies and eight million is scaleable to a different time and to the governance of 50 states stripped of their rights by the war between the states and a populace of over 300 million?
Duh. Look around you. How well is the government functioning? You are in desperate need of deep structural reform, yet you cling to delusions of past glory.
That, folks, is the very definition of failure.
Keep it up.
Few things are more sacred in the American psyche than the myth of exceptionalism. Very nearly all bow to it. To question it is the minds of most Americans proof of a traitorous mind or revelatory that one is — gasp — a foreigner. One feels the fear lurking behind these claims at this point in time, however, as Americans demonstrate they are ‘exceptional’ largely in the negative sense.
Ah well, at least they’ll be able to hold off the ‘redskins’ and the ‘evil guvment’ with their guns and the ghost of John Wayne.
Pitiful, isn’t it?
Richard ~
You are horrifically misinterpreting Luke 22:36. I suggest you learn English or, better still, how to interpret a simple passage in context.
Not to worry, though, I’m sure you find the steel-solidity of your weapon in your hand all the reassurance you need.
why do people need guns? don’t you have police to protect you? when everybody has guns,nobody is safe !
that is why gun-related crime is so serious in US.
if guns are easily obtainable,the first people to buy them would be criminals and that makes everone insecure.
if you live by the sword,you die by the sword.
the second amendment which allows ‘a well regulated militia’ ( not ordinary people ) the right to bear arms was formulated 200+ years ago in a newly independant and lawless socitey with a rudimentary or non-existant law enforcement and formal army.
‘militia’ back then meant irregulars who were fighting against british for independance.they were later replaced or absorbed into the formal army.
so there is no need for ordinary citizens to bear arms ,now that a formal well equipped army is in place and law enforcement ( police,judiciary ) is in place.
those who harp on second amendment are pure hypocrites,hiding behind a 200 year old and now obsolete law.
If we take literally the way the 2nd ammendment of the Constitution is written, paramiliary groups such as the ones in Colombia and Central America, would be legal in the U.S.?.
“the main reason for having a gun is to protect Democracy in America..No country with Armed Citizens have ever had their Democracy over thrown”
this government you keep “in check” with your guns, just stole trillions from you.
what have you done about it, tough guy? you or the other fat, dumb, and happy hunters? nothing.
keep dreaming, idiots, the rest of the world is having a ball watching you.
Like the name says, I’m a Democrat here in Texas with no guns. You may ask me why and the answer is simple- Safety.
Even the quickest perusal of the facts shows that guns aren’t safe- and owning them puts you at risk. This is from the CDC, a “guvment” group and all, but for 20 of the last 25 years over half of all gun deaths were suicides. Suicides made easier by the presence of guns.
I’m not saying I might suddenly get the urge to off myself- but I do have children, and they have friends who generally know what famalies are gun-toting and which aren’t.
I’m going back to the CDC info for 2005- 31,000 Gun Deaths in the US. 55% Suicides, 40% Homocides, 3% Accidents and 2%- a total of 620 Deaths combined caused by Cops doing their jobs and Legal Gun Owners defending themselves.
The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming! The Bandits are coming, the Bandits are coming! Egad, and forsooth, what other excuses do we need to arm ourselves to the teeth? We are in more danger from ourselves than anything else.
To all you “living constitution” apologists I have only this to say:
DC vs. Heller. Read it and weep.
To answer Richard: I would could consider an assault weapon – I haven’t looked the definition in any code or gun owners handbook – weapons like machine guns, guns that store large amounts of ammunition at once for firing more than what a typical revolver or semi automatic revolver would shoot. The kinds of weapons that can saw one in half. A bit much for guarding hearth and home don’t you think?
I once even owned a small pistol and did a little target shooting. It was an expensive and minor thrill.
I would consider it a lot more reliable to have a home security system that ties into the local police department. What do you think you’re paying them for in those real estate property tax bills you probably get? If you are even in a situation where you are at violent odds with the local or state police you would already be defeated.
If people are really worried about the state attacking them – they can forget any protection from owning private guns. The military can work by remote control haven’t you noticed? And if you’re that worried about protection from a threatening state – see a psychiatrist.
Pete: “The facts of the ratio of gun ownership to violent death in countries around the world are there to be seen”
No my friend, it it nowhere to be seen. In case you hadn’t noticed, the crime rate in Great Britain, where all handguns were banned a decade ago, is now significantly higher than that in the US.
There is no correlation whatsoever between gun bans and violent crime, in either direction. The Swiss, the most heavily-armed populace in the developed world, also enjoy a negligible crime rate.
The right to bear arms is an absurdity inherited from the founding fathers of the U.S and the constitution. American has evolved, and is now longer a place where guns should be accepted as it is in the western movies. those that fight to keep these arms are retards/rednecks/moronic individuals who have no big picture of their country. They just like the idea of keeping a gun…
It appears in the State of Texas.That most Democrats
are not only against the 2nd Ammendment but against the
First and it appears they should read the constitution
if they did they won’t be Democrats.In general they are weak kneeded at best.They follow the President like a little puppy Dog.
GUN CONTROL WORKS JUST ASK HITLER AND MAO
Guns… Owning them is our right; but thinking we can use them against the government/military and win is ludicrous. Our military, used without limitations, would kick our butts all over the place. A rifle, machine gun, etc is nothing but a pea shooter against armored vehicles, unmanned weapons systems, and jets. So the argument that we need guns to stave off the government makes no sense. I think people should be allowed to own guns in this country but there should be limitations.
I don’t believe private citizens should be allowed to own assault rifles unless they have a federal gun permit to own one. Why would one person need to own one. They are designed to kill people not for hunting
I saw another poster say “my assault rifle protects my home.” Lets be honest if someone is creeping around in your house, and you don’t hear them when they first break it, by the time you wake and get your assault rifle out and arm yourself that person will probably be breathing on you.
We as a people are paranoid and afraid of one another. We don’t need to own guns to be safe. The idea that guns will keep us safe from crime is nonsensical. What we need to do is figure out what causes crime, poverty, etc and find a way to fix the issues. Then we will not need guns to protect us from the boogey men. In order to do this we need to take a step back and look at the ills plaguing our country. We need to shore up our education system, (frankly as a former tearcher it sucks), we need to make our parents better, we need to fix our broken prison system, we need to clean up our dependence on foreign oil, fix healthcare, proper drug prevention/care, last but not least we need to figure out a way to stop recreational drug use in the country because it is causing strife in other countries which in turn hurts us.
First off if we educate our people properly they will have the skills to find and create jobs which will help struggling commmunities and lower crime. If more parents took a more active role in their childrens lives and education our society would be better off. If we need to put in less hours at the office to do this so be it. Our children are our future and we shouldn’t leave them a crappy country to inheret. We need to stop the revolving door in our prisons and jails. In order to do this we should teach prisoners job skills, rehab them, and educate them so when they do get out they will have skills that can find them a job. (might have to get rid of the prison guard lobby to do this, they will lose jobs). Fixing healthcare and our dependence on oil will free up monies we can put towards education and other social programs to better our lives. Healthcare is what will destroy this country, as it did with many major corporations (GM anyone), costs have become too high. The government needs to regulate prices and put the insurance companies in their place. They are robbing us blind. Last but not least we need to take care of the drug problem. The war on drugs failed a long time ago. We need to figure out a better way of combating drugs. Legalizing and taxing marijuana will sap most of the profits of the drug cartels and at the same time it should be monitored like we do with alcohol. (We do need to watch out for people with the munchies it could in the long run cost us money with obese peeps healthcare costs) People in this country need to understand the reprecussions of their use of drugs. It is what funds the Taliban (which are killing our citizens and our allies citizens in foreign countries), the Mexican cartels (which will destablize trade with Mexico and cause violence across their borders into ours), and other violent syndicates across the world. If we can solve the drug problem we can free up billions of dollars which can help with the deficit or go to education.
The idea that guns keep us safe is shortsided. If we shore up our country and fix the problems we have created we won’t need to own guns to feel protected. As said before we need to look at ourselves without biases and stop blaming others and making excuses for our shortcomings.
The NRA isn’t the adversary of the gun control folks, it’s gun owners (most of whom are not NRA members) and even those without guns who believe the right is an important one. (I was one of the latter for many years, until I became one of the former.)
The right to bear arms has been understood since near when guns were invented, including in England, as an individual right. Hence, for example, Michigan’s Constitution of 1835: “Every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.”
Bernd, let’s put you in a wild west of other chaotic situation where you’re surrounded by bad guys with firearms, but you can have no more than a 3″, non-locking pocketknife. Best of luck to ya, pardner.
Ban criminals. Let law-abiding citizens do as they wish, so long as they don’t commit crimes. And to those who’re satisfied with home security systems protecting their families, I gently remind you of Katrina. Homes under water often don’t have working security systems. When infrastructure fails, preservation of ones family comes first. Many law enforcement officers and emergency workers left their jobs and went home to protect their loved ones.
Jim – I asked a simple question that you haven’t answered. What do you need assault weapons for?
I don’t want your guns. You do what you like with your sons.
You also haven’t suggested how gun ownership protects your freedom? Isn’t that the mantra of the ARA?
I also don’t understand the connection between gun ownership and recreation sports equipment?
And since when have people who don’t own guns, or weapons of any kind been accused of savage behavior? I guess you have to watch those Buddhists, they can be real maniacs? I almost forgot, They invented the martial arts, didn’t they. But they are anything but savage.
PAUL:
I own an AR-15 rifle, among many others. Some are for hunting, some are for collecting and some are for competition shooting. I shoot my “assault rifle” regularly as part of an organized shooting club that holds service rifle competitions. These competitions consist of firing at targets up to 800 meters. A great deal of practice is necessary to achieve the accuracy required to place well in competitions. You asked why I need one of these assault weapons and there is my answer. It is my sport. Some people play golf, some people play softball, I go to a rifle range. If you don’t think Shooting is a legitimate sport I would like to point out that it is in fact an olympic sport; rifles, shotguns and pistols, all of with require an incredible level of skill to be competitive.
My sport also helps me hone my skills, which I have on occasion used when I have had to retrieve my “assault rifle” from the rack in the front seat of my patrol car. So actually, my “sport” helps me keep people like you safe.
Your argument that if we didn’t have guns in society we would automatically be safer is foolhardy. Go ask a rapist if he would like his victim unarmed. Go ask a residential burglar if he has ever worried about getting shot while braking into someone’s house.
And the notion that if we banned a certain class of guns the police would go around and pick them up is foolish as well.
If 1% of the legal gun owners in this country resisted the confiscation of firearms with lethal force they would bleed the US millitary and every police department in the country white. And we know this, which is why we would never carry out a confiscation..
Which is sort of the reason the founding fathers made the right to keep and bear arms the second freedom we have; second only to the freedom of speech and right of assembly. As long as we have people armed who know how to use their guns it is highly unlikely anyone is going to trample our rights. And that includes your rights too, even though you choose not to exercise specific ones.
armed citizenry = dis-armed criminals
In the 1770′s our country revolted with less taxes and a smaller less powerful government than we have now.
I wish everyone had assault rifles in their house, look at Japan last I checked their murder rate is a lot higher and they have much worse gun restrictions that we do.
Guns don’t equal crime, criminals equal crime.
The same old story outlaw guns and only the outlaws will have guns. With Obama and his rapid changes to socialism, I am glad my fellow Americans are armed we will need them.
A few observations, from a 30-year Paramedic who has treated approximately 400 gunshot incidences:
To my mind, the Founding Fathers were brilliant, but not perfect. There is no way they could have ever foreseen thousands of mental midgets running around cities in “iron horses” shooting children who dared to wear the wrong color T-shirt. Let’s get real.
The phrase, “A well-regulated militia . . .” refers to non-government, civilian armies, to keep the government military honest. That – folks – was the context of the conversation THEN. At no place in the Constitution does it say “any individual” has a right to own any weapon whatsoever. The word “people” is plural, an aggregate, not singular. They were clearly making the distinction the citizenry, and those who rule.
The NRA has spoken much wisdom over the years, and I am thankful for their point in the debate. But perhaps if they simply followed the logic of their own name, logic might prevail. “Rifles” not handguns, would be a damn good start.
Or shall we just continue this idiocy infinatum.
P
My comment is for the very large majority of us who know that gun ownership is unnecessary and dangerous in this country. Why don’t we speak up enough to drown out the NRA and the irrational minority who despite the “tyranny” of our government and the hordes of murderers and rapists whom all the gun owners have gunned down over the years persist in living here. Lets invite them collectively to move somewhere without a strong government presence in terms police, military, education and yes health care. The rest of us who care about each other enough will continue to work to find ways to keep ourselves and our neighbors safe and healthy without guns.
For those of you who still don’t feel safe despite the overwhelming evidence that actual people are safer without guns around, (despite the mythical hordes)buy a bow and several metal-tipped arrows or even a crossbow and defend yourselves. You’ll be armed and the rest of us will be much, much safer.
Dr. Williams:
How about YOU move away instead of the gun owners. Say to someplace like Britain. First rate health care and no guns, sounds like it’s right up your alley!
Why is it that when somebody doesn’t like the culture of a country they feel that the “other” side should be invited to move away?
Hey America was founded on freedom, which includes the freedom to own guns. If that frightens you then move to Canada or England.
As for guns and crime how about focusing on the criminals. I mean if they were running around using knives instead of guns would we be talking about removing knives from our homes?
Dr. Williams,
I too am a physician and although not a gun owner I have no concerns with my neighbors owning guns. I have treated gunshot wounds as an E.R. doctor and often times they were the result of both criminal activity and carelessness. But guess what? I have also treated wounds from knives, hammers, hatchets, automobiles and even nail guns. All were inflicted either during the course of a criminal act or out of carelessness.
People do stupid things and sometimes they commit crimes AND sometimes they use tools such as hammers, hatchets, knives, and yes guns. Hold the person accountable for their actions, not the tool.
You should stop trying to tell people what is best for them and let them make up their own minds how they want to live their lives. If they choose to keep their home gun free, that’s fine, but if they choose to own a gun, please sir, butt out of their business..
The United States is the ‘gold standard’ for freedom and its all-encompassing. Worldwide. For some smug Brit to get on this post with his opinions about the States…(please!) The States are the reason you have an opinion you moron.
Take away the guns. Take away your freedom. Ask that Brit about all the cameras in his country…
Opinions from a Canadian
From Jim – “Your argument that if we didn’t have guns in society we would automatically be safer is foolhardy. Go ask a rapist if he would like his victim unarmed. Go ask a residential burglar if he has ever worried about getting shot while braking into someone’s house.”
My reply,
I didn’t make that argument. Your are taking it to ridiculous conclusions. I asked a simple question. And I think your argument that gun ownership makes you able to resist civil authorities is shear baloney. Before you ever had the opportunity to “bleed the police departments” – as you call it – there would be civil war and very likely a killing frenzy like that which occurred in Iraq. One of the first victims would be illegal immigrants or any ethnic group that is considered a threat. I get so many xenophobic emails from friends and relatives I am sure that the period of bleeding you threaten should anyone go for your guns would very rapidly spread out of control.
The wide use of privately held firearms – the assault rifles type and heavier duty types I suppose – doesn’t seem to have ever worked for the Iraqi’s or the Afghans.
And the first things the US and coalition forces did when they entered Afghanistan was try to disarm those tribal gun owners. They didn’t want to give them up either.
You are just admitting that this country does to other countries what so many of it’s own citizens fear it will or could do to them.
I’m quite sure those cameras that now infest any public place and many private places in the US are not meant exclusively for “terrorists”. The managers of our not so sane society are very worried about guys like you.
I really can’t answer for what rapists or burglars might prefer. But evidently the civil authorities don’t want passengers on planes, trains or buses carrying anything that might even cut someone. But they consider that the safe option. That definition of “safety’ so quickly invoked for the public sector could just as easily be extended to the neighborhood level.
Britain? First rate health care? Ever see their teeth?
New York should wake up to the statistics which show Vermont, which has no law requiring even registration of a weapon, ranks 47th in states’ murder rates, and 49th in violent crime. Why? Criminals are fearful creatures by nature, spurred into such fear by a conscience not yet totally erased. Their guilt allows them freedom when fear is reduced by the belief they will not be harmed in committing crimes, and their activities are clearly, statistically and dramatically reduced when they are scared, and rightfully so, by their guilt in committing a crime.
A child who is left alone will enter into willful, petulant disobedience. My own son, whom I have never beaten, was arguing with his mother and I asked him why I never heard him say such things to me. “Because you would beat the sh*t out of me,” was the answer.
Human nature and human reasoning is always the same regarding punishment. If it is present and imminent, one need not fear misbehavior. If it is absent and there are no consequences, crime and vices of all sorts are rampant. Visit any ghetto and see what I mean. Then go to Vermont. Stats don’t lie.
What is it with guns…? Really, I mean, what is it about guns that stirs up so much bleeding ruckus in the vicinity of the American virtual water-cooler just when there ought to be so very many other extremely pressing issues to talk about, calmly, now more than ever?
Guess it must be… The Freedom, Stupid!
You can own a gun – many guns, in fact – even if you’re diagnosed as being nuttier than a rabid fruit bat, even to the point of having your driver’s license revoked. Does that make you free, sane, or the neighborhood safe, even?
You can be frisked and cuffed by the police in front of tourists on Hollywood Boulevard, and stay that way for as long as the cops deem fit, for “looking like a gangsta” – more likely though, for wearing baggy pants – whether or not you ever in your life owned a gun. Does that make you and the gawking tourists free?
You can see guns all day long on American broadcast TV, watch them being fired again and again as human bodies fall, tons of guns on more channels than you can shake a stick at . . . but nary a naked breast, a vagina or a penis. Not ever. Nor shall you hear even a single word of explicit language. Does that make you, the viewer, free? Oh, yeah, plus you get to pay for it, too. Double trouble.
You might find yourself wondering why only ever two, and two very similar, political parties dominate the entire mainstream political landscape in this country, whether that’s really representative of a free society, etc. Is this as free as politics can be in the Free [sic] World? Well, as long as neither of those parties has squat to say when it comes to owning the Freedom© implements commonly known as guns… Let Freedom© reign, yo.
At street level, pity help you if you ever need to urinate in public. Doesn’t matter how many guns you own. You’re going down.
You can’t buy a drop of alcohol unless you’re 21 or older, almost never after 2am, anywhere, for some bluestocking reason – and you can’t smoke in bars or restaurants, whether or not you own a gun. Does that make you free?
No nudity, no bonfires, no dogs or smoking or alcohol on State beaches; guns… maybe. Sex? No way. How free is that?
You can’t talk on a mobile handset while driving, gun or no gun. You have to wear a helmet to ride a frickin’ pedal bicycle to school – gun neither here nor there. Free?
More people own guns now than have health insurance, or can afford urgent medical care even if they happen to have both. Free? Hell yeah, say some. Loudly, and faster than a speeding bullet, quicker than it takes to think, no less.
Speaking of which, how free are you to drive over the posted speed limit, or after a couple of drinks – say, even on a totally empty street? With guns, or without…
Then again:
No guns or even enthusiastic talking about guns in schools, courts of law, banks, post offices and airports. No guns to be carried openly in private passenger, public transport or commercial vehicles. No nail scissors on airplanes, no shampoo or toothpaste in any significant quantity either. Free, and if so, by which – the gun, the toothpaste or the shampoo? How free are you if you can’t even talk, much less joke, about guns? At that point, it doesn’t matter whether you’ve got one in a box at home, really.
Since the PATRIOT Act, you don’t exactly have habeus corpus any more in America, which really isn’t as free as it used to be. And don’t even think about boarding a plane carrying a copy of the Koran – but screw that, it’s all about the habeus gun’us, even if all you can do is keep it at home, lovingly oiling it, innit?
Obama vacillates about gun ownership (as he does with The War, the weapons makers and the war criminals behind it) and unleashes a bull market in the private domestic gun market, which then booms. Free? No, rather expensive. Synthetic scarcity and ensuing profit margins duly created.
Gun shops should and indeed may be handsomely tipping the Commander In Chief for all the windfall business he’s thrown their way. Was it widespread Freedom, or expediency-induced widespread Fear? Obama has definitely played a leading role in bringing more guns to market than there ever were before. Some peace leader, he…
Never mind all that other stuff, sources say, America’s practically oozing Freedom as long as you can have a gun or three or more and plenty of ammo. Too often, then, it’s all Let’s Roll with the Enduring Freedom, yea! A big roll to Nowhere, more like it.
Go figure how free you really are thanks to guns in America and get back to me, please, do.
However, I don’t want to hear any more Love It Or Leave It Jerry-Springer-grade rhetoric. I want to know where the freedom went, guns or no guns. I’m not against guns, but they haven’t done one damn bit of good so far in recent history, least of all when it comes to keeping America’s national leadership honest, accountable even; stopping actual avoidable tragedies from breaking out or any of those other tricky “little” incursions mentioned above from sliding into Liberty home base.
In fact, the gun issue is dialed up so disgustingly loud in all its hot-button glory, it drowns out much of what thinking Americans have to say about anything else most of the time.
Here’s a clue for any Freedom© lovers out there, on either (hah!) side of the ever-raging Big Gun Debate: this never-ending static is exactly why things are the way they are.
Your real freedom, meanwhile, quietly went thataway while you weren’t looking. Oops. And now it’s pretty much out of range. Mission Accomplished!
“That makes, as a headline in the Washington Post put it, for “a battle of goliaths” pitting Bloomberg and his group against the NRA, whose four million members tend to see restrictions such as unregulated sales from private citizens (through the gun show loophole) as an assault on the U.S. constitution’s second amendment.”
A “gun show loophole” does not exist.
U.S. citizens have the right to sell privately owned property to whom ever they wish, when ever, and where ever, they so desire. This fact is essential to the concept of U.S. citizens, through the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, controlling, in all matters, our own destiny.
The first battle of the Revolution (which the U.S. citizenry decisively won) was a battle fought over the issue of the sanctity of private property, and the issue of the illegality of government sponsored “Gun Control”.
There are, if the government wishes to repeat the battles of Lexington and Concord, millions of us willing to, once again, stand, fight, and very bloodily defeat the forces of governmental oppression. Our God Granted Rights remain ours, and any government entity that chooses to attempt to curtail or rescind these God Granted Rights should be alert to the fact that such an attempt will result in the same sort of bloody defeat suffered by the British soldiers at Lexington and Concord.
As a man once said, “si vis pacem, para bellum”.
We are prepared to defend our Rights against the forces of collective, operating under the color of law, gun grabbing tyranny.
Just try us.
Larry Farrell
Gun owners of NJ
908-277-1111
The Liberals in this Country attempted a Gun Registry. We as Canadians feared the worst…the next step would be confiscating all our long arms. Fortunately, there was a scandal. (Liberals. Scandal? No, say it isn’t so?). And we voted them out. We already have a strict hand gun ban in this Country… doesn’t stop all the shootings on the Toronto news every night. Beware of any Gun Registry…
Opinions from a Canadian
The Bell ~
Very, very well put.
In my not so humble opinion, we’re witnessing the decline of a deeply dysfunctional society incapable of reform or addressing substantive issues.
Not news, I know, but still . . .
The right to bear arms was originally about the security of the State from domination by it’s enemies.
Now it has been twisted by people, to mean the security of the individual from any domination by it’s State.
The problem is a self centered minority who believe they should have complete liberty for themselve, rather then share the burden of restrictions which ensure all people have equal liberty.
Such minority believe that they are true patriots. That they can somehow resist tyranny with their ownership of private firearms.
But rest assured. If anarchy was ever to fall over the United States, their constitutional firearms will likely become the very tools which tear the nation to pieces.
Again to my Commonwealth compatriot, Pete.
The Gun Control debate is not about you. Its about money. There is no money or benefit to the government in harsher sentences (that costs money). The money for the liberals is in the gun control: Revenue. Another government agency. More government jobs. More taxes. More Pork.
See…It ain’t about you…but there is always some moron out there who thinks the government is their friend and all. (sniff.)
We now that were the criminals do not now who the sheep are and who the wolves are violent crime drops significantly. Canada is not safer because it bans hand guns. The criminals still smuggle them into the country and make a steep profit doing it. Crime is not dependent on hand guns. Crime is a function of poverty and availability of black markets. Criminals are not stupid either. If law enforcement focuses on solving GSW crime, the smart criminal will make sure to kill in other ways to avoid the law’s attention.
If you want a safer society deal with poverty and eliminate black markets. All eliminating guns will do is create a society of defenseless sheep waiting for the slaughter Because guns will always be available to those that will pay the price for them.
“God created man; Samuel Colt made them equal.”
That axiom stated over 100 years ago is still true today. It was in reference to the Colt peacemaker revolver. Why do people in NYC have the reputation of standing by while others are robbed and killed. Without a gun what are they going to do? I can’t even imagine what that feels like. To be so helpless that all you can do is stand there and watch because some LAW made out of ignorance and greed stripped you of your ability to be an equal within your society.
Tools do not kill. Tools do not have a will. Tools are designed to be used by a person. How that person uses that tool, for good or for evil, is not dependent on the tool but on the will of the person using the tool. Violent crime is not dependent on the tools used to commit the violence but on the level of poverty (motivation) and availability of black markets (opportunity).
To Michael Williams, “MD”
From where did you get a medical degree that had such low standards for academic ability…or even IQ? First off…
- “My comment is for the very large majority of us who know that gun ownership is unnecessary and dangerous in this country.”
That would be the large majority of voices in your head, because contemporary polls show the majority of Americans do NOT favor tighter gun control.
- “Why don’t we speak up enough to drown out the NRA and the irrational minority who despite the “tyranny” of our government and the hordes of murderers and rapists whom all the gun owners have gunned down over the years persist in living here. Lets invite them collectively to move somewhere without a strong government presence in terms police, military, education and yes health care. The rest of us who care about each other enough will continue to work to find ways to keep ourselves and our neighbors safe and healthy without guns.”
Maybe you should move to London, where your far more likely to be the victim of violent crime than in any firearm-friendly U.S. location.
- “For those of you who still don’t feel safe despite the overwhelming evidence that actual people are safer without guns around, (despite the mythical hordes)buy a bow and several metal-tipped arrows or even a crossbow and defend yourselves. You’ll be armed and the rest of us will be much, much safer.”
Your inept display of basic language skills as well as your complete lack of adult reasoning ability forces me to conclude that your claim to an “MD” is about as genuine as the one claimed by the young Obama supporter who stood up at a recent town hall meeting and lied about being a doctor because she thought it give her more credibility. Unfortunately her uneducated demeanor gave her away and she was immediately uncovered.
- “It’s almost believable that a handgun can serve as protection against assault or home invasion.”
Almost believable? It happens multiple times every day. I’m glad that proven reality is “almost believable” for you. Perhaps the medication is working.
- “But what are assault weapons good for?”
I don’t know, because the term “assault weapon” is a meaningless, made-up one. If I pick up a rock and assault you with it, it has become a weapon. So that rock is now an “assault weapon”. Shall we ban rocks?
I’m simply amazed that Michael Bloomberg and the rest of the anti-gun community truly believe that I need them to tell me what I can and cannot own.
I’m appalled at the thought of them using our police personnel to forcibly dictate to me what decisions I am allowed to make, namely, whether or not to purchase and own a firearm for my own defense.
I’m disgusted that there are people who would willingly participate in stripping their fellow Americans of their rights in the name of “the common good.” This smacks of the same kind of high-spirited Naziism that precipitated the Holocaust.
It’s easy (and convenient) to de-humanize each other with clever catch phrases and jingoistic buzzwords, but it’s hard to reach any kind of mutual understanding.
I own guns, yet once I admit to owning them, I’m immediately painted as some sort of writhing, foaming lunatic by the puling, whining, chattering class who can think of nothing better to do in this debate than level insult and invective(in the name of “tolerance,” no less!).
What purpose does that serve? What purpose does gun control serve, other than to generate massive amounts of money for it’s priests and prophets?
Logically, I can see no benefit in surrendering my guns; I have been in a couple of situations that would have ended badly (for me) had I not been armed. I do not see the utility of surrendering the most effective tools in my inventory, just to please some effeminate New York sophisticate.
It should be noted that criminals favor gun control legislation almost to a man. They find it endlessly hilarious that the politicians and “well-meaning activists” intend to disarm the very citizens they plan to rob, brutalize or kill. It’s exactly what they want, and the anti-gun crowd is going to try and hand it to them on a sliver platter.
I wonder how the our self-appointed guardians of gun control will fare once guns really are outlawed, and the “misunderstood” criminals they empower thereby run amok in THEIR neighborhoods?
- “The right to bear arms was originally about the security of the State from domination by it’s enemies.
Now it has been twisted by people, to mean the security of the individual from any domination by it’s State.”
Your ignorance of U.S. history is profound. The right to bear arms is a natural right that pre-existed the U.S. Constitution, and was recognized as such by the founders (see the Federalist Papers and various state constitutions of the time that also recognized the right). The 2nd Amendment, whatever you think it’s intent was, serves to enumerate and *protect* that right, not create it.
Perhaps you should spend more time learning about these concepts before spouting ill-informed commentary.
I have to wonder why Pete’s comment is tacked as “the best”? On the one hand, he pompously calls for a more intellectual examination of the issue, while simultaneously trumpeting the most superficial examination of it as some sort of self-evident conclusory evidence (the “ratio of gun ownership to violent death in countries around the world”). Surely someone who believes himself to be well-educated would be aware of the basic maxim that correlation does not equal causality, as well as the numerous peer-reviewed studies that indicate that governmental gun control does not result in lower rates of crime? The cited correlation is not even a consistent…or particularly good one. Ask yourself, Pete: “Which countries currently have higher murder rates than the U.S.? And what are the gun-control laws like in those countries?”
The U.S. currently ranks 52nd on the list, and the vast majority of the countries with higher murder-rates employ strict gun-control. Not particularly supportive of your simplistic conclusion, is it?
One must simply looks at Bloombergs fortune to see his motivation and true nature, WOW 16 billion! Now how would a man of that wealth begin to even for one second comprehend the working mans struggles? Or better yet how did he amass such a fortune? You can bet that in some form or fashion each and everyone of those dollarbills came directly from a working mans pocket.
As to guns, You can have mine when you pry it out of my cold dead hand.
Our country needs to implement much harsher criminal penalties if we truly want to see the crime rate drop. I for one want prisoners, at least those not executed for the murders they committed, to work for their meals. Convicted criminals should be treated as prisoners and forced to work for their room and board, they refuse then a hole for them will suffice. A prisoner has no rights. Such acitivties as road construction, trash pick up, ditch diggin, rock moving etc should be performed by prisoners, this would save our states massive amounts of current tax spent monies. I also think prisons themselves should not have TVs, or other means of activities. With the current lifestyle of a prisoner whats to deter them from committing crimes in the first place?
Crime has nothing to do with guns.
Dan Parker, There’s no need be concerned with my medicine cabinet. But you have an obsession with violent injuries.
If you are anything like a man I met years ago, who I didn’t even know was a gun owner and I mistakenly mentioned the issue I had just been reading about, he threw his bear bottle at me. And I was dressed to go to work. That man was insane. He was also so paranoid from heavy duty drug use he almost never left his house and didn’t work. He was the reclusive partner of the women who was chairing a committee I happened to be working for.
I say it is almost believable because I have never in my personal experience ever heard of anyone who has successfully foiled a home break-in. But I have heard of many instances – in the immediate vicinity of the town I live in, of a man who kidnapped and murdered his children and himself, another who attacked a town hall and kill two people, and then himself in the barn he rigged to explode when the police attempted to apprehend him at his farm, another man in the next town who lured the police lure the police on a threat of suicide and than blew his brain’s out with a shotgun to his mouth when they broke into the house, another kid in a bad drug deal apparently who blew his brains out in an open field and who’s body wasn’t discovered until months later, in the snow and without a head. I know of another man from my father’s neighborhood who had a violent argument with his son and shot him.
But I can honestly say that I have never met anyone who claims to have foiled a home invasion. I can’t name one instance in over 30 years. Or do you think this is all propaganda too?
Why do the comments that are so fond of mine keep accusing me of wanting to take their guns. And you fool, of course a rock can be a weapon – as a child I was beaned by a cousin who threw one at me but it didn’t kill me. However, the large caliber and magazine type weapons you fringe maniacs want to own are capable of blowing rather large holes in the target, can tear apart internal organs, can paralyze and maim for life.
The NRA with it’s four million (something) members with a conviction that somehow their private armaments are going to be a guard to their civil liberties or their freedom is beyond the reach of reason. You don’t need medications, you need therapy. Any organization that has a membership of merely 1/10 of 1 percent of the population cannot possible claim it is the mainstream. The comments that have targeted my questions only prove to me that the NRA membership must be stuffed with maniacs clinging to the illusion that much more than a handgun is necessary for their personal protection. And I can still only say from your comments and the others on these pages, that the protection even a handgun may offer is still only barely believable.
And I still don’t want you GD guns.