Dark Knight in Aurora Colorado

[Lanval]

Attempts at gun control are meaningless in the face of technological advance.

http://boingboing.net/2012/07/28/report ... ted-g.html

Lanval

[Amskeptic]

Attempts at gun control are meaningless in the face of technological advance.

http://boingboing.net/2012/07/28/report ... ted-g.html

Lanval

Again . . . our laws are a statement of our group values. If we actually DID limit the easy access to assault weapons it WOULD reduce the number of lazy-ass nutcases who do not have the energy to make 3-D weapons.

Yes, if you are so damn motivated, you could run another red light. Does that mean we should just give up on stoplight laws?
Colin

[Lanval]

Again . . . our laws are a statement of our group values. n

Which is why we have the 2nd amendment. We as a people have operated from the beginning with the belief that in order to maintain our freedom as a people, we had to have the ability to come together as citizens, armed, in confrontation with a government that chose to act without input from 'we the people'.

Nothing about the 2nd amendment absolves any individual from responsibility; indeed, the amendment's very nature assumes it. If "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance" (Thomas Jefferson) then we must accept responsibility as part of the price. If you give up that liberty to bear arms in order to buy a limited/local form of peace, then you, as Benjamin Franklin noted, deserve neither.

If you don't believe that the 2nd amendment provides you with a very real protection, I suggest you take a good long look at Syria; the rights we take for granted in terms of government, and in terms of our ability to stand up to the government are being bought in blood right there, right now.

If you disagree with Jefferson and Franklin, then I have nothing more to say to you; but I will point out that in their wisdom, they and the other Founding Fathers gave you a method to take issue with the form of government they chose. The Constitution can be amended, and should a majority of the people, in the form of their legally chosen representatives, decide to amend/repeal the 2nd amendment, I will give up my guns according to the rules of our society.

However; I advise you to be cautious about what you ask for ~ when the government no longer fears 'we the people', how long do you think they will respect our rights?

ML

[Hippie]

[...]If you disagree with Jefferson and Franklin, then I have nothing more to say to you[...]

+1.
I love you guys, but I will always vehemently disagree on this particular issue. I've got nothing more to say here.

[Bleyseng]

Again . . . our laws are a statement of our group values. n

Which is why we have the 2nd amendment. We as a people have operated from the beginning with the belief that in order to maintain our freedom as a people, we had to have the ability to come together as citizens, armed, in confrontation with a government that chose to act without input from 'we the people'.

Nothing about the 2nd amendment absolves any individual from responsibility; indeed, the amendment's very nature assumes it. If "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance" (Thomas Jefferson) then we must accept responsibility as part of the price. If you give up that liberty to bear arms in order to buy a limited/local form of peace, then you, as Benjamin Franklin noted, deserve neither.

If you don't believe that the 2nd amendment provides you with a very real protection, I suggest you take a good long look at Syria; the rights we take for granted in terms of government, and in terms of our ability to stand up to the government are being bought in blood right there, right now.

If you disagree with Jefferson and Franklin, then I have nothing more to say to you; but I will point out that in their wisdom, they and the other Founding Fathers gave you a method to take issue with the form of government they chose. The Constitution can be amended, and should a majority of the people, in the form of their legally chosen representatives, decide to amend/repeal the 2nd amendment, I will give up my guns according to the rules of our society.

However; I advise you to be cautious about what you ask for ~ when the government no longer fears 'we the people', how long do you think they will respect our rights?

ML

ok, but we are talking about limiting one type of weapon that has before been limited-assault rifles. They aren't good for hunting, personal protection etc they are really a weapon for the Army to kill people. (They were invented by the Germans in WW2). We aren't talking about taking away a person's right to bear arms so don''t give me that NRA crap about gun rights. You can own as many guns that you want too except certain types that are for the army just like you can't own bombs, rocket launchers, mines etc.
I don't think the government ever fears the people not with a army, airforce etc like the USA has so that's weak argument. Congress/Senate fear not getting re-elected and panders to the folk that dish out the money so they can.

[Lanval]

I don't think the government ever fears the people not with a army, airforce etc like the USA has so that's weak argument. Congress/Senate fear not getting re-elected and panders to the folk that dish out the money so they can.

Ask Qaddafi, Mubarak or Assad if they fear people with guns, army or not...

Most recent warfare has underscored the impossibility of managing a large, dispersed population that has the ability to fight at a local level. You can pretend all you want that the issues we're talking about are about never-never land issues, but they're not. People are fighting and dying around the globe to wrest from tyrants the rights we take for granted.

As for banning assault weapons, that's a straw-man argument, for several reasons.

1. Any reasonably-trained marksman can do considerable damage with a wide range of weapons; I've seen old-timers using a bolt-action 30-06 at speeds I would've deemed impossible. A top-loading M1 Garand with 5 round clips is an exceedingly dangerous weapon in the hands of even a minimally trained shooter. Don't believe me? Ask the Germans about their experience with it between 1942-1945.

2. Assault weapons are only 1 of many deadly ways to kill; IEDs, improvised weaponry, chemical attacks, etc. Remember the Sarin gas attacks in Tokyo? Do you know about the other mass poisonings that have happened there over the years? No? Guess what... take away the guns, and people find other, equally effective ways to kill. I remember my mother telling me that she and Dad went to a new church in Ukiah, CA back in the early 70s; she said the guy was weird, and they didn't feel right about it. That was the Rev. Jim Jones ~ remember him? 909 dead, including 303 children, using a powdered drink mix and cyanide. Remember, until 9/11 the single greatest terrorist act in America was perpetrated by an American with a rental truck, fertilizer and diesel. People kill, and no weapon makes it easier or harder; just different.

A final point:

President Washington and the framers of the Constitution faced an armed rebellion (The Whiskey Rebellion; info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion) in 1794, five years after the ratification of the Constitution. Even if the face of this obvious threat to the legitimate (i.e. elected, representative-based government), the Founding Fathers did not choose to remove or amend the 2nd amendment. Given the much more material threat to our national government, you would think they would have; we can only surmise from their decisions where their values lay. It seems to have been on the need for vigilance and the ability to defend against an oppressive government, even at the risk of occasional armed rebellion.

As for the issue of whether we need such weapons or not, I cannot believe that we should arrogate the right to ourselves to proclaim "that could never happen now!" That's how the Glass-Steagall Act of 1932 ended up being repealed, and that only took a measly 10 years to blow up in our faces. I truly believe that our government is more responsible, and responsive, than they were in Libya and Egypt, or is in Syria. Nonetheless, I feel strongly that it remains so at least in part because the ability and willingness to fight and die for our freedom is an ingrained aspect of our national psyche, born out of our national history, and part of our national mythology. Only when I can be assured that those in power will not, CANNOT, force from me the rights laid out in the Constitution, will I be willing to set aside my right to keep weapons. Unfortunately, in my opinion, so long as the government is run by people, certain safety is not possible. In this too, our National Fathers were men of deep wisdom; the best way to ensure the freedom of all, is to make freedom EVERYONE'S business.

Best,

ML

[Amskeptic]

If you disagree with Jefferson and Franklin, then I have nothing more to say to you; but I will point out that in their wisdom, they and the other Founding Fathers gave you a method to take issue with the form of government they chose.

This is very fluffy and dramatic. Jefferson and Franklin were not speaking of getting blown away in a movie theater by a hail of automatic weapons fire, they were not speaking of belts of ammunition readily available to a disgruntled citizen who is not defending his political freedom but is rather taking away scores of others' freedoms in the name of mayhem. If Holmes was spraying the Capitol and screaming about corporate hegemony, I might at least understand his political speech.

I do not disagree with Jefferson and Franklin, and their perspectives are hardly the litmus test for gun control in this particular case. I personally think they were talking about state militias versus federal. I do not think they were talking about the right for your neighbor to collect howitzers and assault rifles so they can shoot fellow citizens more effectively.
Colin
(if you want to take arms up against this government, you will undoubtedly shed blood no less than the Syrians. If you think the absence of gun control will spare bloodshed . . . oh my)

[vdubyah73]

maybe they were talking about getting blown away in a tavern. i don't think crazy people with weapons is a new occurence. i think crazy people with weapons have been around since ogg got that semi automatic club.

[Bleyseng]

I don't think the government ever fears the people not with a army, airforce etc like the USA has so that's weak argument. Congress/Senate fear not getting re-elected and panders to the folk that dish out the money so they can.

Ask Qaddafi, Mubarak or Assad if they fear people with guns, army or not...

Most recent warfare has underscored the impossibility of managing a large, dispersed population that has the ability to fight at a local level. You can pretend all you want that the issues we're talking about are about never-never land issues, but they're not. People are fighting and dying around the globe to wrest from tyrants the rights we take for granted.

As for banning assault weapons, that's a straw-man argument, for several reasons.

1. Any reasonably-trained marksman can do considerable damage with a wide range of weapons; I've seen old-timers using a bolt-action 30-06 at speeds I would've deemed impossible. A top-loading M1 Garand with 5 round clips is an exceedingly dangerous weapon in the hands of even a minimally trained shooter. Don't believe me? Ask the Germans about their experience with it between 1942-1945.

2. Assault weapons are only 1 of many deadly ways to kill; IEDs, improvised weaponry, chemical attacks, etc. Remember the Sarin gas attacks in Tokyo? Do you know about the other mass poisonings that have happened there over the years? No? Guess what... take away the guns, and people find other, equally effective ways to kill. I remember my mother telling me that she and Dad went to a new church in Ukiah, CA back in the early 70s; she said the guy was weird, and they didn't feel right about it. That was the Rev. Jim Jones ~ remember him? 909 dead, including 303 children, using a powdered drink mix and cyanide. Remember, until 9/11 the single greatest terrorist act in America was perpetrated by an American with a rental truck, fertilizer and diesel. People kill, and no weapon makes it easier or harder; just different.

A final point:

President Washington and the framers of the Constitution faced an armed rebellion (The Whiskey Rebellion; info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion) in 1794, five years after the ratification of the Constitution. Even if the face of this obvious threat to the legitimate (i.e. elected, representative-based government), the Founding Fathers did not choose to remove or amend the 2nd amendment. Given the much more material threat to our national government, you would think they would have; we can only surmise from their decisions where their values lay. It seems to have been on the need for vigilance and the ability to defend against an oppressive government, even at the risk of occasional armed rebellion.

As for the issue of whether we need such weapons or not, I cannot believe that we should arrogate the right to ourselves to proclaim "that could never happen now!" That's how the Glass-Steagall Act of 1932 ended up being repealed, and that only took a measly 10 years to blow up in our faces. I truly believe that our government is more responsible, and responsive, than they were in Libya and Egypt, or is in Syria. Nonetheless, I feel strongly that it remains so at least in part because the ability and willingness to fight and die for our freedom is an ingrained aspect of our national psyche, born out of our national history, and part of our national mythology. Only when I can be assured that those in power will not, CANNOT, force from me the rights laid out in the Constitution, will I be willing to set aside my right to keep weapons. Unfortunately, in my opinion, so long as the government is run by people, certain safety is not possible. In this too, our National Fathers were men of deep wisdom; the best way to ensure the freedom of all, is to make freedom EVERYONE'S business.

Best,

ML

But we are not talking about a tyrannical government in the USA we are talking about controlling some types of guns ie "assault rifles". Yes, I have shot a M1 rifle and know that it worked wonders in WW2.
We are not talking about talking away your right to own a gun! Only that you can't shouldn't don't need to own a assault/machine gun. Yes, a skilled or semi-skilled person with a M1 can kill a lot of people. Its the idiots like the "Joker" who shouldn't own any guy much less than a assault rifle as the only type of hunting you can do with it is to kill people. No citizen of the USA should have the ability to own such weapons nor should they have IED, bazookas, ie as those are for the Military to use in warfare.
I don't buy it all that the fact that we can own and use assault weapons guarantees our freedom. Tell that to the 12 dead and 35 odd injured people who lost their freedom. How does your freedom to own guns trump the loss of these people freedoms? There has to be a balance and some limits to your right to own a gun otherwise it will continue with more chaos and loss of life.
and I own a gun.

[vdubyah73]

lets get something clear.

IT WAS NOT A MACHINE GUN. IT WAS A SEMI AUTOMATIC ASSAULT RIFLE.

a machine gun license can be obtained, but you gotta jump through hoops to get one, and it's expensive. when anybody refers to gun control, the movie theater shootings and machine guns, my eyes glaze and i stop reading the opinion because it is based on ignorance. sorry i really don't want to offend. come on guys and girls, wtf?

[vdubyah73]

oh yeah, i've shot a few rounds with an m60 while in the mideast back in '78. that is a machine gun. training to avacuate americans from the beaches of iran with my ships small boats. i was captains gig engineer.

[Lanval]

But we are not talking about a tyrannical government in the USA we are talking about controlling some types of guns ie "assault rifles". Yes, I have shot a M1 rifle and know that it worked wonders in WW2.
We are not talking about talking away your right to own a gun! Only that you can't shouldn't don't need to own a assault/machine gun. Yes, a skilled or semi-skilled person with a M1 can kill a lot of people. Its the idiots like the "Joker" who shouldn't own any guy much less than a assault rifle as the only type of hunting you can do with it is to kill people. No citizen of the USA should have the ability to own such weapons nor should they have IED, bazookas, ie as those are for the Military to use in warfare.
I don't buy it all that the fact that we can own and use assault weapons guarantees our freedom. Tell that to the 12 dead and 35 odd injured people who lost their freedom. How does your freedom to own guns trump the loss of these people freedoms? There has to be a balance and some limits to your right to own a gun otherwise it will continue with more chaos and loss of life.
and I own a gun.

Then why aren't you against getting rid of fertilizer, or cyanide? What are we to say to the survivors of those tragedies? Or any tragedy that hinges on the misuse of something in society?

Further, your argument is a tautology ~ you use the end result of gun ownership (high level of individual freedom) as the proof we don't need guns. Allow me to quote the 2nd amendment:
"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"
According to this, the principle of gun ownership is a necessary component to freedom; how, then, do you claim that the lack of tyranny (i.e. freedom) is proof that we don't need guns? The status you claim (non-tyrannical gov't) justifies gun control is the very status that allowing the citizens to have guns is supposed to ensure...

As for one type of rifle vs. another, I will add (for Colin the ahistorical) that Jefferson, Franklin and the others felt that allowing the citizens to be armed in a way that enabled them to meet the soldiers of the biggest, most well trained and armed military in the world was a good thing.

And finally, I will remind you of the two central points that Washington made at his farewell address: avoid political parties and foreign entanglements. Pretty prescient given that those are two of the most significant issues facing us today. Ignore the advice of our Founding Fathers at your peril. Personally, watching the growth of the TSA, the advent of illegal, warrentless wiretapping, indefinite detentions at Guantanamo Bay as well as other issues, I feel we ought to be more vigilant now than ever.

For anyone who says, "Oh, the Founding Fathers never meant to allow assault weapons!" I ask this: "Did the Founding Fathers mean for us to have extraordinary rendition? Or warrentless wiretapping? Did they mean for the government to be able to strip search anyone for the crime of wanting to fly on a plane?" The list of things that would leave them aghast is fairly lengthy; but as I said, they were smart enough to know they didn't know everything. If you are really against these kinds of weapons, why not work to amend the Constitution? It's not like there isn't a method for doing what you want. I suspect it's because you'll discover that far more people are in favor of NOT limiting these sorts of weapons, EVEN given the cost ~ probably for the same reason you can still buy cyanide. It's the killers who kill, not the tools. And frankly, assault weapons aren't even the most dangerous or easy to get/use, as I've already pointed out in my post above.

ML

Addendum: Here's an example of our "non tyrannical" government in action; check out that picture... you really think they'll respond to reasoned arguments in times of trouble? And this response is just because people are protesting the cops killing a couple of people.

http://www.ocweekly.com/slideshow/anahe ... -37417884/

Worriedly,

ML

[Bleyseng]

lets get something clear.

IT WAS NOT A MACHINE GUN. IT WAS A SEMI AUTOMATIC ASSAULT RIFLE.

a machine gun license can be obtained, but you gotta jump through hoops to get one, and it's expensive. when anybody refers to gun control, the movie theater shootings and machine guns, my eyes glaze and i stop reading the opinion because it is based on ignorance. sorry i really don't want to offend. come on guys and girls, wtf?

With a 100 round clip, WTF. Yes, it is still semi auto and no one stood a chance against it in that movie theater. The only reason he didn't wipe out the whole crowd is because it jammed.

[RussellK]

Holy Cow have we all gone insane? Over on a backpacking forum there is a discussion of what you should carry on a trek. Not even as protection from beasts but from other hikers. Great, now I have to worry about someone with a gun shooting at scary shadows and forest noise. What ever happened to living by your smile and intelligence?

[Elwood]

Gun laws will not stop poorly or unmedicated sick people.

I truly hope this case brings to light our need for mental health understanding. This young man was well educated in the field and maybe can shed some information about how much is needed.

Im pleased that some of the poor family members have said that they do not want the death penalty---thats a start to being cival.