The World According to Keitho

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Will we ever learn?

Posted by keithosaunders on January 11, 2011

Every so often we are reminded of what a violent society we live in and how little hope there is of it changing.  The six fatalities and the near-fatal shooting of Arizona Representative, Gabrielle Giffords by a lone gunmen is an all too familiar tragedy in a country that refuses to implement effective gun control. 

Yesterday I heard an interview with one of Gifford’s fellow Arizona Congressman.  When asked what could be done to avoid such an incident he feebly replied that “Americans have to find a way to be more civil with each other.” 

Really?  Is that the best you’ve got? 

The interviewer pressed on asking the Congressman to elucidate, but he did little more than rephrase his original answer.  Gun control was obviously not even close to entering the equation. 

Thanks to an antiquated amendment which had more to do with protecting American Revolutionary’s from British soldiers than an inalienable right to buy an automatic weapon, we have a populace that has easy access to guns that can fire thirty-three bullets at a clip. 

I’m all for allowing people to own rifles and to hunt animals for sport.  I can’t understand the need to have a weapon that’s purpose is to kill people.  Why must we repeat this same tragedy time and again? 

Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey  said he would introduce a measure to re-establish a prohibition that lapsed in 2004 on clips that feed more than 10 rounds at a time.  He said, “The only reason to have 33 bullets loaded in a handgun is to kill a lot of people very quickly. These high-capacity clips simply should not be on the market.”

Gun control advocates are going to tell me that people who really want guns will get them.  Fine.  You can’t tell me, however, that effective gun control would not save any lives.  Even if it were only to save one or two lives a year it’s worth it.  Who cares if the gun companies make less money?  That’s what this boils down to, doesn’t it.

Advertisements

21 Responses to “Will we ever learn?”

  1. mcoville said

    If you ban all “guns” the lunatics would just stab people with knives. Would you then be in favor of banning all sharp objects?

    Don’t take one tragedy and turn it into another. The right to bear arms is no more antiquated today as the right to not incriminate yourself during questioning.

    • I’m not against banning all guns — just automatic weapons so that massacres such as the one that took place in Tucson would be less likely to occur.

      • mcoville said

        But an automatic weapon was not used in the Tucson murders. Banning automatic weapons would have no effect on this type of crime.

      • Apparently he was using a glock, which is the same weapon used by many police forces including the NYPD. He had two extended magazines that held 31 rounds each. Lautenberg wants to make it more difficult to get these high-capacity magazines.

      • mcoville said

        I may be for limiting the purchase of extended capacity magazines, but I would like the legislation to be written after careful thought and not days after a tragedy like we just had.

  2. […] This Dude must have skipped Civics Class with great regularity. In any case, he is way behind the learning curve on this subject. […]

    • Of course there are responsible gun owners — Giffords herself carries a weapon, but it was of no use to her in that situation. Why should people like Loughner have such an easy time obtaining such a deadly weapon? The pending legislation doesn’t ban guns — it just makes it more difficult to get clips that can fire 33 shots before reloading. If stricter laws can save a few lives a year what’s the problem? So what if the gun companies make a little less money. They will be fine; law abiding citizens can still purchase guns!

      • mcoville said

        “Who cares if the gun companies make less money? That’s what this boils down to, doesn’t it.” What I would like you to consider is that what it comes down to is personal protection. When we give the government the ability to regulate who has arms, we give them the ability to take those arms away.

        I agree with the need to license and register fire arms. We should remove the right to bear arms from those that choose to commit violent crimes. But no law abiding citizen should be barred from owning a firm arm. That is the right given to us under the constitution of the United States.

      • We agree on licensing and registering firearms. I think that given the history of violence in this country — over 100,000 fatally shot since 2,000 — gun ownership should be a privilege, not a right. In a situation like Tucson having a gun was meaningless unless you happened to be the killer. (It strikes me that the number of situations where having a gun would actually protect you are very small, but that’s besides the point.)

      • mcoville said

        “gun ownership should be a privilege, not a right.” Good thing we live in America, propose an amendment and see if you get a majority of Americans to side with you. I have a feeling that the majority of Americans would vote to keep their right to bear arms.

        Every day Americans have the right to bear arms we are protected.

  3. jbiii said

    Keith–

    2.5 million legal weapons were used by citizens last year (not against the British Army, by the way) to stop criminals from all sorts of violent crime. That’s more than just a few, so rather than push that bald tire of an argument about gun control, you should check the facts.

    You obviously did not read the site I mentioned. The very inconvenient, and contrary facts to your argument are there. And as the truth is getting out now (finally), Sheriff Dupnik has long known about Loughner, as have other officials and educators, and they did not do their jobs. The Sheriff especially—had he done his job, Loughner would never have been able to legally purchase a firearm. Go read Arizona law. Don’t try to minimize my rights or anyone else’s because of a madman and and inept sheriff who himself ignores the law.

    Privilege? Where do you get that idea? It’s a right–inherent before the Constitution–inherent afterward, and to think that collective bunch of little Napoleons in DC we call gummint can change that just exposes everything you try to say for what it is.

  4. verdun2 said

    I sat down last night and read the 2nd Amendment. As an ex-GI (Viet Nam Era) I know the military makes a great distinction between “arms” and “ammunition.” The 2nd Amendment specifically protects “arms”, but says nothing about “ammunition.” I sometimes wonder if we should go at this gun nut stuff by looking to ban “ammunition”, not “arms.” Just a thought.
    v

  5. jb said

    And . . .

    The First Amendment protects speech and the press. But it says nothing about “words.”

    Your (il)logic.

    You won’t prevent whackos in the world by restricting everyone else’s freedoms. That is a dysfunctional utopian dream, or a mark of totalitarian regimes, if you have glanced at history. Had the Sheriff done his job out there, as is coming out now (a good reason for you to temper your response until the facts are laid out), Loughner would never have had the chance to do what he did.

    By the way, V, I, too, am a Viet Era vet (72-76), and very well-acquainted with military distinctions, appropriations, weapon system procurement, and the like. The distinction the military makes betweeen arms and ammunition has a far wider application than mere bullets, and you should know that.

    You are being ingenuous, at best. But those who don’t know better will go Hey, that’s a great idea!

    No, it is not. It is just ignorance, or, worse yet, an agenda.

  6. Sherm said

    The extended magazine he used had been illegal under the Brady Bill, but the republicans refused to renew the bill in 2004 when it lapsed.

    I love the hypocrisy. Strict constructionists such as Scalia opine that women and gays lack equal protection under the law on the ground that the drafters of the 14th amendment did not imagine that it would apply to them, yet these same strict constructionists will uphold the alleged right of individuals to own assault weapons of the like which are well beyond the imagination of the drafters of the second amendment.

    • My contempt for these people knows no bounds. They are immorality personified. They beny people the right to marry based on homophobia and superstition (religion) while allowing — encouraging — people to purchase weapons of destruction.

  7. jb said

    What’s most hypocritical is that Scalia (and the other justices for that matter) and the two of you obviously understand nothing of “rights.” The Bill of Rights were insurance that the gummint be held in check and not abrogate rights—which belong to us before any constitution. To reinforce that fact, and to guard against gummint and those like yourselves or even the gang of nine on SCOTUS, the 9th and 10th were added–which serve as an exclamation as to the pre-existence of rights.

    My rights pre-date the constitution, the courts, and y’all’s shallow understanding of rights.

    If the two of you fancy yourselves the arbiters of rights, at least get the most fundamental part of the matter right!

    • What right is that, the right to fire 31 shots into a crowd of innocent civilians? Maybe we were once worthy of the right to bear arms, but judging by our insanely high death rate by said firearms (already 400 people shot and murdered since last Saturday) it is a right we no longer deserve.

  8. jb said

    That you wrote that first sentence makes it clear you have no clue as to what constitutes a right. Only an complete idiot would even intimate what you just did, or try to connect the act of a certifiable madman ignored by the sheriff out there lecturing us to legitimate gun owners. You sound like the loony left this last week.

    And were they all murder? Were any in self defense? More importantly, how many of those murders were committed with a registered and licensed firearm? You see, Keith, your logic on this subject is more of a scatter shot into the crowd than Loughner’s shooting.

    You need to go here (and especially follow the links contained within), and get the real, unbiased facts and figures, rather than the shrill blatherings of those with an agenda.

    You could also follow that up with an additional dose of logic over at Venlet’s site.

    Our high death rate due to firearms can be laid for the greatest part at the feet of the left trying to ban weapons from the citizenry, giving the bad guys an incredible edge. You can never stop a madman, you ought to know that fact and not use it as an argument, but it is most interesting, as the figures at the sites above show, those states with either open or concealed carry have the lowest incidence of violent crimes, especially murder.

    And you don’t even want to delve into the demographics of the gun deaths in America, do you? Because registered, licensed firearms play virtually no part whatsoever.

    So like I said, before you start calling anyone else immoral or hypocritical, y’all might do a little personal housecleaning of your own.

    • Sherm said

      But you can stop most madmen from obtaining guns by making handguns and assault weapons illegal. And do you truly believe that those who drafted the bill of rights contemplated modern day weoponry?

      In any event, I’m not even sure how to respond as I can’t tell if your statements are serious or satirical. And wasn’t your bad guys have an incredible edge due to gun control measures undermined by the recent shootings since Arizona has some of the most permissible gun laws in the Nation?

  9. jbiii said

    Dude–

    The college officials knew about this guy, and the sheriff depart and that blowhard on TV knew about Loughner for several years. They could have prevented this.

    Go read the statistics on those sites I listed. Despite the tragedy, Arizona and the other “carry” states have a far lower crime rate–especially murder. And that madman would have used a car or knife or whatever if he was determined.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: