Comments on: Fighting the gun world Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: vxx Tue, 14 May 2013 18:05:05 +0000 Yes, these writings get people riled. Both from the anxiety and fear. Obama’s song to the uninformed urban populace most of whom have been living under the dogma of Political Correctness. Who are urban and do not own guns have little knowledge of them.
Newtown more than anything else scared the helicopter middle class parent. This was not some Ghetto gang bangers who to tell the truth most would want terminated anyway. This was a “good” parent affluent and whose son was a bit off but had gone to Sandy Hook school. Notice that in the months following the media has been silent on motivation for the violent out burst, but clamoring for Obama’s gun control packages.
The assault rifle is very expensive running $1500 or much more only the affluent can afford such weapons. The poor in the ghetto are lucky to have a used revolver.
To the rural or far from center of the town citizen it is a different story. Police or sheriffs deputies won’t get there quickly. By the time police arrive in either case the crime has been done. But affluent city residents tend to discount that fact. Distances re far greater not only for the authorities to reach the victim but in the fact that criminals are not the only threat.
Wolves,bears,mountain lions,coyotes are seen as cuddly cute fuzzy critters no danger to humans by many people and the animal rights group. They think that it is just a bigger pet. Truth is they eat your livestock. They are easier prey than wild and wary creatures.
These are some of the reason why the disconnect between the two populaces. The republican form of government brings a way for the population poor rural people a way not to be railroaded By the urban majority.
Gun control is an important topic for differing reasons to differing populations.

By: OneOfTheSheep Tue, 14 May 2013 16:20:46 +0000 @JL4,

What I think and what you think doesn’t matter. What matters is what conclusion readers reach after reading all posts. It is what it is.

By: JL4 Tue, 14 May 2013 13:25:42 +0000 @OOTS, Only an old, misogynistic, white male long past his prime could be so demented as to go on paranoid rants, mistaking fantasies and irrational fears as fact.

By: OneOfTheSheep Tue, 14 May 2013 01:24:43 +0000 @JL4,

“Do you think our vast American Military would support Obama if he chose to toss out the Constitution and enforce confiscating guns and subjugating American Citizens?”

Yes, I do. He is the duly constituted “Commander in Chief” of America’s armed forces. The purpose and very nature of any military make it a tool to be used.

Those belonging are expected to do as they are told, and can be shot for mutiny of they don’t. They are fully presumed subject to the Code of Military Justice.

The Nuremberg Trials following WW II were the first serious attempts to try those “in the military” for individual war “crimes against humanity”. For the first time responsibility was imposed to refuse an “illegal order”.

Problem remains…few soldiers are lawyers and when an order is given one can’t say “point of order”. They either do what they are told or they don’t. Each choice has immediate consequences, none necessarily good.

How has that worked out? Well, pretty well for the “victors”, as usual. Were many Americans servicemen or officers who committed war crimes in Europe or the Orient ever identified and/or prosecuted? No. Did some Americans later commit war crimes in Vietnam and Iraq? Yep. Were they prosecuted? Not to my knowledge.

So the American military remains, for all practical purposes, an essentially monolithic “machine” utterly predictable in action and reaction. It is perhaps the quintessential bureaucracy.

If it is told to “put down an insurrection” like the “bonus army” of past, it does it. And it will again.
Sure, units from Alabama will be sent to Oregon, and those from Oregon will be sent to Alabama to minimize empathy with those they must attack, but attack they will.

Only a female could exist as an adult and be this intellectually naive.

By: OneOfTheSheep Mon, 13 May 2013 20:20:09 +0000 Americans have a “streak of independence” that some choose to describe as “exceptionalism”. More than anywhere else, we resist to a greater degree the idea and very mind set that “one size fits all”. We literally wrap ourselves in our individualism. Like most things, there is a “good news/bad news aspect to this.

Our less intelligent/less educated that grow up essentially without effective parental and social “good example” embrace “values” that necessitate killing another because they were “dissed” (disrespected…you define that term as you wish). You want to change THAT, have at it. We’ll watch and giggle.

It takes a lot of effort to become a good boxer, or better than average in any of the martial arts. Physical size and strength has a decided advantage. There is considerable risk in becoming a good knife fighter. People don’t “settle differences” with swords any more.

Yes, in America, guns are easily available, legal and illegal, that require little skill to “deal death” they get used. Basically, point it, pull the trigger, someone dies. Even those bigger and stronger than you. Very empowering. Anyone here can also walk into any store and buy matches.

Fire is also a powerful and destructive force when misused. It destroys huge swaths of our forests, many homes and many lives every year and much of this destruction is the “work” of arsonists, devilishly difficult to “catch in the act” or prosecute. But no one has ever proposed more government regulation of matches. We trust ourselves to be substantially “responsible” and accept the “collateral damage” when people aren’t. You do the best you can.

Why are guns any different? Some might say we “need” fire but we don’t “need” guns. What it really comes down to is Ammericans don’t easily accept the concept of “our” government deciding for us what we “need” and what we don’t. The German, if not European mind set is that is something is not specifically permitted by the law it is illegal (verboten). The American moond set is that if it is not specifically prohibited, it is llegal. Big difference just in our basic “frame of reference. One size does NOT fit all.

Every American that knows much about history is aware that back in the twenties during Prohibition there was rampant lawlessness across America because a majority of citizens refused to comply with abstinence from liquor imposed by making it’s sale illegal. So huge profits were possible from low quality alcohol served in “speakeasys”, rum running, “moonshining” (unsanitary rural distillation), etc. People lost traditional respect for the police and there were frequent public gunfights as the “cartels” of the day competed for control of “turf”…those areas where ONLY THEY supplied the booze and reaped the profits.

This “made the papers, of course, but in general people didn’t really care much because all the injury and death was among the criminal element. A “civilian death” was a rarity. So it was “just fine” if “those people” were eliminating themselves. A “benefit to society” one could say.

Well today we have the same thing going on from America’s “war on drugs”. We have whole communities of dead-end school dropouts and truants with little legal income, no job and no future shuffling the streets with nothing to do but steal from themselves and others or kill themselves in disputes over “respect” or drug profits.

They do this every day. It runs up the “gun violence” rate in America, as does the necessary police response to armed robbery. But once again, for the most part they are smart enough to stay under their rocks and in the shadows of society so they get “left alone” to kill themselves. The perpetrators in New Orleans “broke the unwritten rule” and someone will definitely “pay a price”.

We may never really know it it’s the “right person or people”, but so long as it appears that “something is done” and one or more scapegoats found and publicly dealt with the general public will be satisfied. That’s how “human nature” works in American, and it isn’t going to change. OK?

By: JL4 Sat, 11 May 2013 21:40:17 +0000 @2B.Free, you seem informed. You wrote:

“However, history has shown that is exactly what happens after a government forces the society to registers guns. You may want to read up on your history.”

Whose history, 2B? Would you mind naming two or three governments so you give us a place to start our research?

Do you think our vast American Military would support Obama if he chose to toss out the Constitution and enforce confiscating guns and subjugating American Citizens? Or do you think he’d walk door to door, confiscating guns all by himself?

Your argument is based on paranoid fear. You are a conspiracy theorist.

By: mandrog Fri, 10 May 2013 17:21:16 +0000 I presume that those who are pro-gun would argue that any type of regulation or control constitutes ‘infringement’. Is their position, therefore, that since any such laws are unconstitutional, and since laws do not deter criminals, we should have no regulation or control of any kind? I’ve been trying to get someone to stake out a position on this one for years, and there are no takers.

By: 2B.Free Fri, 10 May 2013 11:48:36 +0000 Because historically a people of a country were never subjugated after registering their car. They never had their cars taken after they registered them. However, history has shown that is exactly what happens after a government forces the society to registers guns. You may want to read up on your history. Now for other forms of regulation…I assume you read the posts above? 22 thousand gun laws in this country seem to be plenty of regulation to me. But law enforcement needs to enforce those laws for them to have any effect. There is no money in it for them so they continue to bust drug possession and write speeding tickets. And when the Justice department does try to catch the licensed dealers selling under the table to Mexican Cartels it blows up in their face. That is a big Thank You Republicans! And that is sarcasm!

By: explorer08 Fri, 10 May 2013 01:55:39 +0000 I don’t mind people owning guns – – I just think gun ownership should be highly regulated. My car ownership is highly regulated via licensing, titling, and required insurance. Why can’t gun ownership require the same level of regulation? Right wingers keep playing the so-called freedom card. Why don’t right wingers put the same passion behind unregulated car ownership?

By: VultureTX Thu, 09 May 2013 18:22:49 +0000 OP used the “well regulated Militia,” fallacious argument from DailyKos, dang why did you just not say that you are an idiot.

the term at the time meant properly functioning.

I also notice that the OP completely omits the 1968 Gun Control Act that did occur because of a Kenendy’s death. there are over 22 thousand gun control laws in the US. nothing actually proposed since Sandy hook would have prevented that massacre