ThinkFast: April 19, 2007
ThinkFast: April 19, 2007
78: Percentage of Americans who believe immigrants now in the U.S. illegally should be given a chance at citizenship, according to a USA Today/Gallup poll, showing “the American public appears to have reached a consensus on the question.”
Senate conservatives “blocked legislation yesterday that would have allowed the federal government to negotiate Medicare drug prices.” Eighty-five percent of Americans support such negotiations.
“For six years, the Bush administration, aided by Justice Department political appointees, has pursued an aggressive legal effort to restrict voter turnout in key battleground states in ways that favor Republican political candidates. … On virtually every significant decision affecting election balloting since 2001, the division’s Voting Rights Section has come down on the side of Republicans.”
Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) said “no, nope, no way, hell no” Tuesday to helping create the first national identifcation cards, signing into law a bill that blocks the state from complying with the REAL ID Act.
“Congressional Democratic leaders are moving to make their proposed timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq ‘advisory’ as they seek to reconcile two versions of war spending legislation into a single bill that they plan to pass next week, according to several House members.”
Terrorism strikes the poor in Iraq: “While Baghdad remains in shock over the massive bombings that targeted…the poorer areas of the city, and caused hundreds of casualties in crowded marketplaces and neighborhoods, Iraqi politicians who inhabit the safe, guarded quarters of the capital are busy in their attempts to fortify their positions in the political system.”
A senator has placed an “anonymous hold” on “legislation moving through the Senate that would require lawmakers’ campaign finance reports to be electronically filed, meaning quickly made public.”
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee today in a “make-or-break appearance” about the Bush administration’s prosecutor purge. Four legal experts, including ousted U.S. attorney David Iglesias, pose questions they would ask Gonzales.
“Children in Sudan are press-ganged, coerced to join armed groups, raped and used as forced labor or sex slaves, according to a new report by humanitarian groups.”
And finally: Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) can’t get any of female congresswomen to join her morning walks on the National Mall. “They’re all guys,” she said of her companions. She likes to walk because, “I eat chocolate and I eat chocolate and I eat more chocolate. And I love it,” but quickly added, “Diet is part of it, too.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
09/24/2005 US Statistics:
Major Cardiovascular Disease DEATHS: 936,923
Motor Vehicle DEATHS: 43,354
Unspecified Non-transport Accident DEATHS: 17,437
Firearm DEATHS (all including by police): 28,663
Most people die from HEART problems. I’m sure pollution & smoking attribute to a good portion of those deaths.
In the same period of time there were 28,663 firearm related deaths. This number is the total for all ages, races, sex and includes deaths from POLICE shootings, suicide, accidental (like playing, cleaning, falling).
43,354 deaths in 2005 were driving related (nearly 50% of that number was DUI related). 17,437 were related to cars and the automotive industry (like pedestrians that were run down). So in 2005 there were 60,791 TOTAL DEATHS that had something to do with CARS/TRUCKS….
As far as I know the US Constitution does not even mention CARS being protected.
I hope you don’t have a heart attack but; FOR THE GREATER GOOD CARS NEED TO BE BANNED SINCE DIRVING LAWS DO NOT WORK!!!
April 19th, 2007 at 9:03 amSenate conservatives “blocked legislation yesterday that would have allowed the federal government to negotiate Medicare drug prices.†Eighty-five percent of Americans support such negotiations.
Why do Republicans hate the “Have-Less”?
April 19th, 2007 at 9:04 amBioweapon Infects Researcher at Texas A&M, Goes Unreported while Def. Sec. Gates was President there. Such Incidents are Common
04/18/2007 – A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT

A student researcher was infected with the bioweapons agent brucella more than a year ago during a Texas A&M experiment, but the university illegally failed to report the incident.
The researcher was cleaning a chamber that had just been used to expose mice to the bioagent when the bacteria entered her body, probably through her eyes.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:05 am
E-mails obtained by Sunshine Project reveal that Texas A&M officials knew they were required by state law to report the exposure, but they failed to do so. At the time, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was president of the university.

…Texas A&M is on the short list of bidders for a $451 Homeland Security Contract to build and operate the proposed National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility, which is expected to bring in up to $6 billion over 20 years.

The government is not only allowing places like Texas A&M to play with dangerous bioweapons without any regulation or accountability, it is encouraging them to do so. “It is common knowledge in the biodefense business that lab accidents with bioweapons agents are routinely buried in order to avoid negative publicity and endangering funding,” said Sunshine Project Director Edward Hammond.
For six years, the Bush administration, aided by Justice Department political appointees, has pursued an aggressive legal effort to restrict voter turnout in key battleground states in ways that favor Republican political candidates.
This is the true scope of the problem. Chimpy may vacate the office at the end of his term, but the neocon machine has been busy insuring that there will never again be a real election in this nation.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:06 amOh, good, another consensus.
So what these 78% are saying, essentially, is “yeah, go ahead and break our laws, we’ll let you stay and become citizens”.
Wrong. Get out of the country, apply for *legal* residency, I’ll welcome you with open arms. Immigration is one of the factors that helped make this country great. *LEGAL* immigration, that is.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:11 amMontana Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) said “no, nope, no way, hell no†Tuesday to helping create the first national identifcation cards, signing into law a bill that blocks the state from complying with the REAL ID Act.
Kudos, Brian. Glad someone’s decided to put their foot down on this issue.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:14 amI’d go walking with Rep Sanchez.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:15 amGoodbye Gonzo! Take your lies, your weird desire to promote torture, and your rape of the U.S. Constitution and go back to practicing real estate law at the law firm that brought us Enron.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:16 amDale sez:
Wrong. What these 78% are saying, essentially, is “yeah, we should change our laws to help you stay and become citizens”.
Implying that the 78% advocate lawless behavior is dishonest, Dale.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:17 amI hope you don’t have a heart attack but; FOR THE GREATER GOOD CARS NEED TO BE BANNED SINCE DIRVING LAWS DO NOT WORK!!!
Thanks for the red herring. Now, do you actually have something to contribute?
April 19th, 2007 at 9:17 amLETS GET READY TO RUUUUMBLLLLLLLEEE! ALI G TAKES ON CONGRESS IN5 MINUTES!this should be good. I don’t have to work today until 2pm!!!
April 19th, 2007 at 9:18 amFor all of the folks who are against any form of gun control (because they only memorized the 2nd half of the 2nd Amendment and ignored the 1st half), I am wondering how they would go about keeping guns out of the hands of paranoid sociopaths.
Yeah, I know, guns don’t kill people, criminals kill people. Fine – what about the mentally ill? How will we go about keeping guns out of their hands to avoid repeats of Virginia Tech? (which obviously could have happened anywhere – a mall, a church, a WalMart, a baseball game, etc.)
Of course you know that when this Iraq fiasco is over, we will have many thousands of additional psychological time bombs walking among us – probably worse than after Vietnam. And they will be very skilled in the use of firearms and explosives.
Thanks, GWB.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:19 amhey Dale,
your opinion is meaningless no one cares who you will or will not welcome. the “legal” immigration you refer to was also unrestricted. take a trip to NYC and read what the stature of Liberty says. And if you’re going to start deporting people, make sure the first one sent back is that illegal alien spawn alberto gonzales.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:20 amTrekkie sez:
Thanks for the pointless jab. Now, do you actually have something to contribute?
April 19th, 2007 at 9:21 amBut any aliens in this country illegally are already, by definition, breaking the law. If they are not punished somehow, then they’ll be ‘getting a pass’ for the law-breaking. And if XX% of the people say “sure, help them stay here”, then those XX% are giving the illegal aliens a pass on their law-breaking.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:22 am#13, uh, Alberto Gonzales was born in the U.S; making him a citizen.
And as far as “your opinion is meaningless”… I thought *every* U.S. citizen’s opinion was meaningful? You mean mine isn’t? Because I don’t agree with you?
April 19th, 2007 at 9:25 amSenate conservatives “blocked legislation yesterday that would have allowed the federal government to negotiate Medicare drug prices.†Eighty-five percent of Americans support such negotiations.
Thanks, Repukes. It heartens all Americans to see you’re still siding with big pharma’s financial rape of us consumers. 85% means many of your own party favor negotiating lower prices, but that doesn’t matter when you’re a Bushlicker.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:26 amI don’t know how you guys sleep at night. Maybe large quantities of alcohol & sleeping pills?
Do you really think this is the ‘right thing’ to do? Really?
You’re already bankrupting our country with your trade policies, Iraq, and a myriad of other bad policies & decisions.
Is the real plan to crush the middle class? Well, congratulations, ‘Mission Accomplished’!
Uh, #12, I think you’re being rather unfair, comparing “paranoid sociopaths” to the mentally ill. Mental illness covers a wide range of maladies, yet you’ve just lumped them all together with paranoid sociopaths.
Nice.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:27 am#1 — Idiot alert.
Who are these people who equate dying at say 75 years of age from a heart attack vs. an 11 year old girl being shot to death by stray gunfire while doing homework at the dining room table? And what’s with the stupid comparison to automobiles? The latter are essential to modern life in a modern economy. Guns aren’t. The rest of the developed world has shown that.
Handgun deaths in countries like Japan and the UK are measured in 2 and 3 digit numbers, not 5 digit numbers. What do you have to say about that?
April 19th, 2007 at 9:27 amCar drivers are licensed, and cars can be tracked. Drivers must take at least some form of test before being allowed to drive (I, for one, would be in favor of making standards for driving cars a bit stricter).
Why do we have higher standards for driving a car than we do for who can own a firearm?
April 19th, 2007 at 9:28 amDale sez:
Excellent point, except that they’re already ‘getting a pass’. They’ve been ‘getting a pass’ for some time now. Helping them come into compliance with the law by altering the law does not place the onus for ‘giving them a pass’ upon those who wish to help them come into compliance.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:28 amBut any aliens in this country illegally are already, by definition, breaking the law.
Dale, technically you are correct, they are breaking U.S. law when they enter the country illegally. But we could define anything to be illegal, then use it to call people criminals. Have you ever exceeded the speed limit, for example? It doesn’t mean they have a criminal mentality. To the contrary, once they are here most of them are very careful to follow the laws for fear of deportation.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:32 amDale, you’re proposing the same thing. Per your own comment, it’s fine to break the law and then become a citizen, just so long as you leave the country first. Your comment in no way implies one must first pay for the crime committed. No, that person gets a veritable pardon by leaving the country he broke the law in and then applying for citizenship.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:33 amFine Dale, since you’re a mental illness expert – maybe you can enlighten me as to which specific manifestations of mental illness are safe when mixed with firearms and which are not. Then tell me how we keep firearms away from only the folks who should not be allowed to have them.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:33 am“Congressional Democratic leaders are moving to make their proposed timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq ‘advisory’ as they seek to reconcile two versions of war spending legislation into a single bill that they plan to pass next week, according to several House members.â€
Spineless, gutless, corporate owned, charlatans!!!! Let’s go ahead a leave everything the same except ensure that blackwater and halliburton ca continue to swim in Americas hard eared money! ARRGGG! This so pisses me off. It is no wonder people vote Rep, the Dems are weak little cowards who can’t seem to DO anything! Except maybe Kucinich…. keep walking the talk my good democratic man!
April 19th, 2007 at 9:34 am#20 Excellent point. If handguns were regulated as tightly as cars, the NRA crowd would flip out.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:34 amComment by lw — April 19, 2007 @ 9:19 am
Here is the first half, it applies to a milita (a citizen or volunteer force)
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
Here is the second half. It applies to the people of the United States.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
What was your point?
April 19th, 2007 at 9:35 am#16………. Dale
the phrase was illegal alien SPAWN, as in, the progeny of illegal aliens… hate to nit pick………..
April 19th, 2007 at 9:35 amI think if we look at immigration like a foreign policy issue we’d have better dialog. For example, what is our combined foreign aid to countries that are our allies? If we give 30 Billion to just Israel and Egypt alone what’s the big deal with treating Mexico and Latin America like special allies and allow a more open immigration policy with them. Instead of giving them cash we give our states money to assimilate the immigrants and make them taxpaying citizens. No one would argue there is a benefit from immigrants but at some point the cost to the states has to be considered. I gladly await to share the wonders of our tax code with our new citizens. Raise your right hand and pledge to the flag and pay your taxes, how’s that.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:36 amSome humour to start your morning
Was sent via email, so hope ya’ll haven’t seen it.
If so, my apologies in advance
NEW BUMPER STICKERS FOR 07
1. Bush: End of an Error
2. That’s OK; I Wasn’t Using My Civil Liberties Anyway
3. Let’s Fix Democracy in this Country First
4. If You Want a Nation Ruled By Religion, Move to Iran
5. Bush. Like a Rock. Only Dumber.
6. If You Can Read This, You’re Not Our President.
7. Hey, Bush Supporters: Embarrassed Yet?
8. George Bush: Creating the Terrorists Our Kids Will Have to Fight
9. Impeachment: It’s Not Just for Blow jobs Anymore
10. America: One Nation, Under Surveillance
11. They Call Him “W” So He Can Spell It
12. Jail to the Chief
13. No, Seriously, Why Did We Invade Iraq?
14. Bad President! No Banana.
15. We Need a President Who’s Fluent In At Least One Language
16. We’re Making Enemies Faster Than We Can Kill Them
17. Is It Vietnam Yet?
18. Bush Doesn’t Care About White People, Either
19. Where Are We Going? And Why Are We In This Hand basket?
20. You Elected Him. You Deserve Him.
21. When Bush Took Office, Gas Was $1.46
22. Pray For Impeachment
23. The Republican Party: Our Bridge to the 11th Century
24. What Part of “Bush Lied” Don’t You Understand?
25. One Nation Under Clod
26. Bush Never Exhaled
27. At Least Nixon Resigned
April 19th, 2007 at 9:38 amThat’s simple. Just give Bush everything he wants:
Under the “compromise” Bush can continue to send kids into a war zone without training, equipment, weapons or ammunition. He’s been given a green light to attack Iran. And Congress says to Bush “It would be terribly decent of you if you would please bring our kids home sometime before the next election. But if not, well, at least we asked.”
Surely the voters will understand. The Democrats asked…they really asked…the President to bring our kids home. It’s not their fault if the President continues the War.
Democrats and Republicans are showing themselves to be two sides of the same coin.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:38 am
timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq ‘advisory’
As in “nonbinding”…
April 19th, 2007 at 9:38 amYou know, everyone keeps saying that the Repubs keep digging themselves holes that they are not going to get out of and will ensure a Democratic victory in the next election. I am not so sure because the more and more that the Dems don’t do is sure pissing me off. You can bet it is other people, too. And that is going to push those undecied/independant right back over to the dark side.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:39 amThanks DRxJ
April 19th, 2007 at 9:40 amBob,
April 19th, 2007 at 9:42 amI made my point quite clear. Sorry you managed to miss it. How would you keep guns away from folks who should not have them because they are too psychologically unstable to be trusted with them?
Comment by Larry from C
What happened to the researcher?
April 19th, 2007 at 9:43 amAt Least Nixon Resigned
Comment by DRxJ
That’s because Nixon was apparently a man of integrity. **choke**
Wow. Never thought I’d miss that old crook.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:44 amlw sez:
How do you keep these same people from getting behind the wheel?
April 19th, 2007 at 9:45 amComment by Bluedahlia — April 19, 2007 @ 9:39 am
Which is why we should be creating a Progressive Party right now. It may take 10 years to have a significant impact, as it took the Christian Coalition, but, assuming we’re still here in 10 years, it would be worth the effort.
I think it is somewhat ironic that those who profess to follow The Light and The Way have plunged this country into darkness.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:46 amZooey sez:
Indeed. You know things are bad when you pine for the good old days of Nixon…
April 19th, 2007 at 9:47 amA senator has placed an “anonymous hold†on “legislation moving through the Senate that would require lawmakers’ campaign finance reports to be electronically filed, meaning quickly made public.â€
What the hell? When we find out who that Senator is, his or her campaign finances should immediately be investigated. Just sayin’
April 19th, 2007 at 9:47 amComment by lw — April 19, 2007 @ 9:42 am
No, what was your point about the second amendment?
As for keeping guns out of the hands of those that are too psychologically unstable to be trusted with them (where’s patrick?) that would require violating someones right to privacy.
First, manditory 7-10 waiting period. Do away with the insta-chack system. I like guns, but I can wait a week to get one.
Next, everyone diagnosed with a psychological disorder could be entered into a national database (much like NCIC). When the check was ran, they would be flagged.
OOOPS, we just violated medical privacy rights. Can’t do that one.
See one of the issues.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:48 am“How do you keep these same people from getting behind the wheel?”
I already said right up front that I would be in favor of tougher driving standards.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:48 amhow they would go about keeping guns out of the hands of paranoid sociopaths
Comment by lw
Well if they have on record things like arrests for violence or being in a mental hospital then it should be harder to get a gun…. but this is the REAL WORLD … not a fantasy world and in a real world shit happens and bad people get weapons and hurt people… its been going on since there were humans get used to it… and stop trying to blame inanimate objects… Just like with all other controlled products (drugs, explosives, air craft, etc…) if the laws filter out known bad actors then everyone else can have their guns… the criminals will have them also regardless… and everyonce in a while someone that is not a known bad actor but is one anyway will get a gun and go kill people. Thats life.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:49 amAs to the illegal immigrants, well, they wouldn’t be coming into this country if someone wasn’t willing to give them jobs.
We keep getting upset over the illegal immigrants breaking the law by coming here, but turn a blind eye to the employers who break the law by hiring them, giving them a reason to come here in the first place.
If we started to enforce the law against the employers and throw them into prison, illegal immigration would dry up overnight.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:49 amSo is no one commenting on the Democrats’ sell out on the the Iraq spending bill because it’s what everyone expected to happen?
April 19th, 2007 at 9:49 amTMM:
With less weapons around, it’s far easier for the police to control the potential danger, gun stealings and dealers who sell weapons without background checks.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:49 amComment by Briseadh na Faire — April 19, 2007 @ 9:46 am
I know I am ready to follow someone who will do something besides pose for photo ops and wear designer closthes while doing NOTHING!
April 19th, 2007 at 9:50 ambob, mentally unstable people can be added to some sort of list to prevent them from getting a weapon so long as it doesn’t state why
April 19th, 2007 at 9:52 am#30 DrxJ: Thanks for that! They’re funny cuz they’re true.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:52 amWhat was your point?
Comment by hacker bob — April 19, 2007 @ 9:35 am
Two questions:
Why does the NRA have only the second half of the amendment engraved above the portal to their headquarters?
Why doesn’t the NRA ever pursue a Constitutional challenge to gun regulations based on their interpretation of the amendment?
April 19th, 2007 at 9:52 amHow would you keep guns away from folks who should not have them because they are too psychologically unstable to be trusted with them?
1) Expand the mandatory background check to include mental health records. This can be done without compromising existing medical privacy laws. Anyone who has been classified as a danger to themselves or others in a mental health adjudication would be red-flagged.
2) End the practice of no background checks at gun shows.
3) Re-authorize the assault weapons ban that made high-ammunition clips (such as the ones used at Va. Tech) and high-powered military-style weapons illegal.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:53 amI already said right up front that I would be in favor of tougher driving standards.
Comment by lw
Then you are in favor of government sticking its nose into everyones private lives and being a big daddy to us all which will drive a large majority right back into the hands of the republicans/libertarians/etc…
April 19th, 2007 at 9:53 amMontana Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) said “no, nope, no way, hell no†Tuesday to helping create the first national identifcation cards, signing into law a bill that blocks the state from complying with the REAL ID Act.
I like Schweitzer. It’s good to know where someone stands. :D
April 19th, 2007 at 9:53 am#36…The researcher was infected with brucella after partially climbing into the chamber, which had been used to expose mice to the bioagent, according to Texas A&M documents supplied by the Sunshine Project. She was in the process of cleaning and disinfecting the chamber when she was infected, Hammond said, noting that A&M officials later determined the bacteria likely entered her body through her eyes.
The woman was home sick for several weeks before formally being diagnosed by her doctor in April 2006.
from TheEagle dot com April 18 07
April 19th, 2007 at 9:54 amSo is no one commenting on the Democrats’ sell out on the the Iraq spending bill because it’s what everyone expected to happen?
So what are BnF and I, chopped liver? ;-)
April 19th, 2007 at 9:54 amlw sez:
So you did…sorry…I missed that post. Let me address it now:
As are gun owners.
As can guns.
As do prospective gun owners.
Offhand, I’d say that’s because driving a motor vehicle is a privilege, while bearing arms is a constitutionally granted right.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:56 amI’ll welcome you with open arms. Immigration is one of the factors that helped make this country great. *LEGAL* immigration, that is.
Comment by Dale
Oh, the law argument is just beautiful. I love this pathetic people that says: Hey, the law, blah, blah, blah. But defends that US has invaded dozens of country illegally.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:57 amComment by Evil Spaniard
And who is going to protect us from the cops when an out of control government declares martial law?
April 19th, 2007 at 9:57 amSo what are BnF and I, chopped liver? ;-)
Comment by Bluedahlia
Yeah! She really doesn’t look like chopped liver, so don’t be treating her that way! :-)
April 19th, 2007 at 9:58 am“Congressional Democratic leaders are moving to make their proposed timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq ‘advisory’”
Chicken-shit cork soakers!
knuckling under to the fascists, way to go.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:58 amEvil Spaniard sez:
With less weapons around, it’s easier for a corrupt and criminal government to oppress its citizens.
Sorry, but until my faith in our government has been fully restored, I’ll just hold onto my weapons.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:59 amThe Dems are already beginning to walk backward from the line in the sand regarding the Iraq war – Cheney predicted it would happen.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:59 amDems would diss their constituents in the hopes of gaining a few repugs – that won’t work any more.
We all know that repugs do not, will not, compromise on anything. They wield their power with impunity blessed by Bush&Co. Should the Dems give ground on this, they will lose some of their base and any favor they may gain from a few repugs will be short-lived — until the next challenge, when the repugs will force the same game to be played again.
My point about the second amendment was that the last half is quoted publicly much more often than the first half in fighting any form of restrictions on guns – even assault weapons. But the first half of the Second Amendment creates the context for the second half. Without ANY restrictions at all, people would have a right to own their very own tanks and nuclear weapons. So we all know that we have to have some restrictions on “the right to bear arms”. The question then is how strict do those restrictions need to be to reach a reasonable balance between allowing us to individually protect ourselves vs protecting society from folks who cannot be trusted with firearms – like the guy at VT?
Personally, I believe in the right to arm bears.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:00 amThe problem with the immigration question is that it is, in fact, amnesty and will only encourage more illegal immigration. It is taking the easy way out of a long and complicated problem.
The thing is, no politician is going to agree to this even if it was the best idea. They either rely on illegal immigrants to provide their rich buddies with slave labour or they think the problem can be solved through police enforcement without actually hiring more guards.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:00 amThe researcher was infected with brucella after partially climbing into the chamber, which had been used to expose mice to the bioagent, according to Texas A&M documents supplied by the Sunshine Project. She was in the process of cleaning and disinfecting the chamber when she was infected, Hammond said, noting that A&M officials later determined the bacteria likely entered her body through her eyes.
The woman was home sick for several weeks before formally being diagnosed by her doctor in April 2006.
And most in this counrty do not recognize that to other countries, stuff like this makes us worse than Iraq or Iran. We HAVE the bioterror agents. We invade and occupy other countries. If I lived in a country that wasn’t an ally to the US, you can be damn sure I would be worried about us.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:00 amhacker bob:
OK, let’s not violate medical privacy (no matter that PRIVATE insurance have access to your medical records to DENY you the insurance, thus having your data without having an effective bussiness deal with you, you never become insured with them).
OK, use the leval tools we already have (approved by the sanctimonious Rep GOP). Inscribe all the persons that have guns or access to guns in a PERMANENT Homeland Security Data Base, starting by the proud NRA members, all the military and ex military personnel, security workers, and private owners and ex owners of weapons. Don’t let gun shows slip out. Wiretap them. Do secret searches in their homes. Put them in no-fly lists. Check the books he asks in the Public Library. After all, they are a potential risk to Homeland security, as are random foreing nationals with suspicious names (Cat Stevens anyone?).
Every time a firearm is shot, weapon caliber has to be determined, and everybody related with such caliber weapons is candidate to being investigated.
Perfectly legal in your country, and very feasible in the actual legal scenario.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:02 amDid anyone read of Sen. Rockefeller’s outrage and indignation at the double cross by the repugs in the Senate – who, after negotiating a compromise with the dems – at the last minute reneged on their gentlemen’s agreement and went with Bush who sent word to the repugs that they better toe the lie or else.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:02 amSo much for the gentlemen of the repugnican party. So much for compromise from repugs. So much for negotiating in good faith.
Values! Morals! Ethics! Foreign words to repugs – they neither know them, nor abide them.
This isn’t how American government is suppose to work. It’s time to bring all of the actions by anyone at the Federal level out into the open, including the WH. If this was attempted at any other level of government, the voters would running the elected officials out of town. “Secret holds?” No way is this what open government is about.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:03 amMorning Zooey!
April 19th, 2007 at 10:04 amHow goes school? Only one of my professors mentioned the VT incident at school this week. At first I thought it odd, then I thought it was odd the rest didn’t. heh
My Commentary/Editorial For This Morning:
These attacks on the victims (alive and dead) being cowards has me quite upset. Why would anyone pull an armchair quarterback and blame the students?
April 19th, 2007 at 10:04 amThen it dawned on me while debating (pfft!), um educating Patrick1.
Most college campuses are considered liberal, whether warranted or not (education and free thinking scares the bejebus out of the extreme right)
So, what better way to smear the left, the majority, by generalizing and attacking the victims as a group of anti-gun, anti-war, wussy liberals.
It’s almost a Rovian tactic, and it’s disgusting, as the far right media, and our trolls, have imbraced it as fact.
But be forewarned (Patrick1, firehead, Roger_Roger, nully..etc), everytime you attack the VT victims, you attack all victims of crime, including the hijacked passengers of 9/11 whose planes did reach their intended targets
How dare you blame the victim of rape (Jake), how dare you blame the cashier who was robbed at gunpoint, how dare you blame the family whose house was broken into, and how dare you blame our deceased soldiers!
Following lock and step from a right wing propaganda, without basing your own opinion, is quite scary, actually, as it approaches the citizen mentality of Germany during the rise of Hitler!
I, for one, pray for the victims, as well as there families, and hope the survivors can heal (physcially and mentally). There is only one person to blame at this point, and that is Cho.
“while bearing arms is a constitutionally granted right.”
It’s a constitutionally granted right WITHIN THE CONTEXT of a maintaining a “WELL REGULATED MILITIA”. That’s the point I made earlier, and that distinction has been made by the Supreme Court over and over in our history.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:06 amComment by Wilco — April 19, 2007 @ 9:52 am
Thanks Wilco. But how long until there would be a legal challenge.
Comment by VerbalKint — April 19, 2007 @ 9:52 am
I don’t know, I’m not a member of the NRA.
And who is going to protect us from the cops when an out of control government declares martial law?
Comment by ggibson — April 19, 2007 @ 9:57 am
Now someone has stated the reason for the second half of the second amendment. Not only to protect us from foreign governments, but also to protect us from our own government.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:06 amindividually protect ourselves
Comment by lw
The right to bear arms isnt about individually protecting ourselves nor about hunting… it is about collectively protecting ourselves from invaders and our own government.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:08 amThe Second Amendment does guarantee the INDIVIDUAL the right to bear arms. The Supreme Court has said as much on several occasions. That means, today, there is no constitutional right to bear arms. Unless the Supreme Court rules otherwise it will remain the law. Don’t cite a Texas District Court case in trying to argue otherwise because it’s not precedential.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:08 amZooey sez:
Wow. Never thought I’d miss that old crook.
Indeed. You know things are bad when you pine for the good old days of Nixon…
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — April 19, 2007 @ 9:47
Nixon’s mis-deeds seem so tame now don’t they? The Bush admin has set the bar so low I don’t think that even Hermes (Futurama) could limbo under it!
April 19th, 2007 at 10:10 amGonzo thread above.
The games begin….
April 19th, 2007 at 10:10 amThis “advisory” position on a timetable of troop redeployment is a last democratic cave. A gift to the DLC and the republicans alike? At this point in time, such a decision has got to be some form of payback.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:11 amHaven’t We The People some little say?
The whole system of democratic representation seems in jeapordy.
To the ones that defend the right to bear arms, just in case the GOP goes martial law:
You’re almost in a martial law now, but USA people continues giving opportunities to Bush and the “due process of law”. The USA people has become one of the more conformist politically that I know, yet you keep defending your right to bear arms based in an mostly uthopic revolution.
Modern french (and many other countries) students and sons of immigrants are far more revolutionary than you, and don’t need weapons to fight the armed police.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:11 amFollowing lock and step from a right wing propaganda, without basing your own opinion, is quite scary, actually, as it approaches the citizen mentality of Germany during the rise of Hitler!
Comment by DRxJ — April 19, 2007 @ 10:04 am
Well said sir. I urge people to read Seduced by Hitler: The Choices of a Nation and the Ethics of Survival by Adam LeBor and Rem>oger Boyes.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:14 amI think you will find chilling parallels between the attitudes and culture of Germany during Hitlers reign and that of the US now.
If you do not study history, you are doomed to repeat it.
You folks mean well but I believe that AUTOS are far more dangerous to people than guns at this time. Since your intent is to prevent DEATH the best place to start would be to reduce heart disease by being a ‘more’ fit nation. Since we cannot tell people how to eat or what to drink we can do more good by BANNING ALL CARS.
Car ownership is not protected under the US Constitution and the operation is considered a PRIVLAGE not a RIGHT. I did not present all the statistics year by year but the range is between 30 and 50 thousand a year DEAD directly related to driving.
Pedestrians are quite often run down at intersections and still more are injured from cars that have fuel system faults leading to fire. I don’t even mention the property damage or maimings in this. AUTOS cause more damage to the USA than GUNS!!
AGAIN WE MUST FOR THE GREATER GOOD BAN ALL CARS SINCE IT IS AN EASY WAY TO PREVENT ABOUT 70,000 DEATHS A YEAR & REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING
April 19th, 2007 at 10:14 am“The right to bear arms isnt about individually protecting ourselves nor about hunting… it is about collectively protecting ourselves from invaders and our own government.”
Gotcha. In that statement I was not so much thinking of Constitutional rights, but of the reason many people in our society want to keep guns in their homes, which I personally think is fairly valid – though debatable as to how effective it really is vs how dangerous it is.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:15 amA senator has placed an “anonymous hold†on “legislation moving through the Senate that would require lawmakers’ campaign finance reports to be electronically filed, meaning quickly made public.â€
What the hell? When we find out who that Senator is, his or her campaign finances should immediately be investigated. Just sayin’
Comment by Zooey — April 19, 2007 @ 9:47 am
i’d bet (if i did) that it’s LIEberman for his BFF mcCAVE…
just a hunch…
this is so underhanded, dirty… doesn’t seem like it ought to be permissable… how can it be?
April 19th, 2007 at 10:15 am…
Comment by Evil Spaniard
The American founding fathers waited decade after decade trying to use diplomacy to solve their problems… revolution shouldnt be a knee jerk reaction… it is the last resort.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:16 am#81. How about we end the Iraq War? That’s directly caused a few hundred thousand deaths in the past four years.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:16 amlw sez:
First of all, how are you defining “a well regulated militia”?
Second, nowhere in the Second Amendment does it require that gun owners must be members of this “well regulated militia”. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a militia that meets your requirements for being “well regulated”, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:17 amCouple of questions: Why was the massacre not called an act of terrorism? He was basically a suicide bomber wasn’t he? Next, is the government not responsible for allowing drivers with suspended licenses or driving with faulty equipment when deaths are caused because of those circumstances? Bad things happen to good and innocent people all the time , especially on our Federal Highways, specifically deaths, why do we have a zero tolerance policy with regard to violent crimes while using a weapon but not on our highways? What are the odds of being killed by a psychopath with a weapon relative to dying innocently in a vehicle?
April 19th, 2007 at 10:18 am#9 – I disagree entirely with your post.
Coming here illegally is a crime; there is a citizenship path. Yes, we could change the law; but we already have the most liberal citizenship pathway of any country in the world. In that light, and for other reasons, I believe that changing the law – indeed essentially voiding the law for the benefit of those who for some reason can’t seem to follow it – would be irresponsible. Citizenship in the United States is a privilege and it comes with certain benefits. Giving citizenship to ‘anyone who can essentially get here’ completely obliterates the privileges and benefits of citizenship. It dilutes the meaning of citizenship; a meaning that should be protected by this country.
I agree that a mass deportation would be unmanageable – but at a bare minimum, I believe that those here illegally should get nothing more than a grace period during which they can get off their ass and file the citizenship papers and follow the proper steps to acquire that citizenship. I, like many of us out there, manage to file my taxes each year via a defined process; immigrants need to learn that following the rules and laws is a responsibility that comes with earning and receiving citizenship. If they can’t learn that, then in my opinion they are here illegally – and as illegals they are criminals and have no rights in this country – bottom line.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:18 amit is about collectively protecting ourselves from invaders and our own government.
Comment by ggibson — April 19, 2007 @ 10:08 am
Which you have done…say… never?
April 19th, 2007 at 10:18 amComment by Evil Spaniard — April 19, 2007 @ 10:02 am
ES, I think maybe you misunderstand my implied sarcasm.
Personally, I agree with Wilco. There SHOULD be a “flag” in the background check if someone is mentally unstable. But I know there would be groups that would challenge that saying that it violated medical privacy laws.
I would love to see a more comprehensive background check system. I am all for 7-10 day waiting periods. I would require that gun shows use the same background check system as regular gun dealers (again 7-10 days). I think it would be great if ALL gun owners had to go through a training course and requalify annually, just like I must in the military.
But this is all “perfect world” hope. What do you do about the guy (or girl) that has no history of crime or mental illness? Someone that has owned and followed the all the gun laws for years and then suddenly is handed a life tragedy and “snaps”. How do you prevent that person from doing something like what happened at VT?
You can’t.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:19 amBnF, and others – yea… go for it…
go start your “progressive party”…
the republicRATS will thank you for it…
just sayin’…
April 19th, 2007 at 10:20 amBloody Day in Iraq: 313 Killed, 302 Hurt
All because you are still occupying Iraq – get out
April 19th, 2007 at 10:20 amThe terrorist state protects a terrorist!
On April 6, 2007, a terrible injustice occurred in the United States of America. A federal judge in El Paso, Texas granted freedom on bail to one of the world’s most notorious terrorists — a man by the name of Luis Posada Carriles.
By shielding Posada and his crimes from judicial scrutiny through a crafty legal maneuver, the U.S. has told the world once again that it protects terrorism as long as the terrorist is on their side. For the people of the world, the Posada episode is confirmation of what they have known all along — that the U.S. has no qualms about resorting to the most brutal forms of terrorism if it serves its interests. This is why a lot of people now realize that the U.S. ‘War on Terror’ only serves its own nefarious agenda of global hegemony.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:21 amThere is not an unlimited constitutional right to own and bear arms. If there were, you can bet the NRA would have brought many lawsuits against common regulations such as background checks and concealed weapons bans. But the NRA never pursues this kind of constitutional challenge. Why? Because NRA lawyers know darn well that a government can legally impose a wide range of restrictions on ownership and use of guns. Hacker Bob is flat wrong when he arbitrarily separates the two clauses in the amendment.
As for this notion that gun owners are going to protect us from an abusive government, this is fantasy. Quite the opposite will happen. If there is ever a breakdown of order in this society, it most likely will involve a fascist leader like Bush trumping up a case for martial law, supported at the street level by your basic NRA vigilante types.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:23 amModern french (and many other countries) students and sons of immigrants are far more revolutionary than you, and don’t need weapons to fight the armed police.
Comment by Evil Spaniard — April 19, 2007 @ 10:11 am
Right on!! The working class conscience in Europe exceeds in million years the pregressive thinking of the US working class although the latter is more powerful. 3 million people went out to the streets each day in France to prevent a law that would allow companies to fire without justifications workers under 26 years. Not a single gun, and the law didnt pass. The argument of defense against whatever is STUPID.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:24 amIf we started to enforce the law against the employers and throw them into prison, illegal immigration would dry up overnight.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — April 19, 2007 @ 9:49 am
exactly… what i heard thom hartmann say:
we don’t have an illegal immigration problem as much as
April 19th, 2007 at 10:24 amWE HAVE AN ILLEGAL EMPLOYER PROBLEM
.
#86 – idiot alert!
this was not called an act of terrorism because this country does not need to go down GW Bush’s route of fear mongering by characterizing every single incident as terrorism. terrorism should be narrowly defined; it should not include a mentally ill student going crazy on a college campus. a similar incident happened a year ago at UNC-Chapel Hill when a student drove a car through a heavily populated area of campus (pedestrians). It was NOT labeled terrorism either – b/c it does not fall within a narrow interpretation of terrorism.
I argue for a narrow interpretation and usage of the phrase ‘terrorism’ because we’ve all seen what happens when it is allowed to be used broadly and thus justify an unfocused, never-ending ‘war on terror’.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:24 amComment by Tobey Tall — April 19, 2007 @ 10:20 am
So is GB.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:25 amWhich you have done…say… never?
Comment by Juan C
Well this country was born in its first revolution.
Hopefully there will never be another, but I dont live by faith nor hope.
As I said above the founding fathers waited decades trying to resolve their differences peacefully. Only primitive people turn to the gun everytime they have a grievance… which kinda explains why the neocons acted the way they did after Afghanistan.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:25 am“78: Percentage of Americans who believe immigrants now in the U.S. illegally should be given a chance at citizenship”
100: percentage of legal immigrants who currently receive a chance at citizenship
Why does TP want to reward criminals who take jobs away from poor Americans?
Is it too much to ask that all immigrants follow the legal process we have established?
April 19th, 2007 at 10:25 am#
it is about collectively protecting ourselves from invaders and our own government.
Comment by ggibson — April 19, 2007 @ 10:08 am
Which you have done…say… never?
Comment by Juan C — April 19, 2007 @ 10:18 am
The mere fact that it hasn’t yet occurred does not obviate the possibility that it could, and it does not change the law.
The Founding Fathers apparently thought that allowing the citizenry to retain their weapons was a good idea…probably because they had seen what happens to societies that deny their citizenry this fundamental right.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:26 am#21, I hear what you’re saying, am I’m not opposed to immigration; in fact I’m very much for it. But the thought of someone coming here illegally, then being allowed to stay (and under some proposals, being exempt from taxes, etc, for a number of years) just turns my stomach. On top of that, illegals, in most cases, are *not* paying taxes, which means they’re sucking up resources from others who need them (like the poor)
The biggest problem, IMHO, is large businesses who employ illegals. Yeah, yeah, I know, I’m an RNC operative so I’m automatically for big business.
But it’s my opinion that *any* company caught employing illegals should pay VERY hefty fines.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:26 amBnF, and others – yea… go for it…
go start your “progressive partyâ€â€¦
the republicRATS will thank you for it…
just sayin’…
Comment by katy — April 19, 2007 @ 10:20 am
I think I have figured it out. You are only about 17, aren’t you?
If the only thing you do is knock progressive posters on a progressive site, maybe you should be renamed a troll.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:28 amAs for this notion that gun owners are going to protect us from an abusive government, this is fantasy.
Comment by VerbalKint
It wasnt fantasy 200 years ago.
And you cant see the future so your comment is basically useless.
Also restrictions can become defacto violations of the Constitution by over restricting… where is the line one restrictions for Freedom of Speech for you? How about for a NeoCon? The same question can be made of guns… it is better to have exactly the number of restrictions as reasonably makes since and no more than that.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:29 amYes, I saw that, but because Mr. Gonzalez was born in Texas, he’s a U.S. citizen; yet the poster wanted to deport him because of his parents… isn’t that contrary to progressive values?
April 19th, 2007 at 10:32 amIf personal ownership of guns is a right, not a privilege, then why are there thousands of laws on the books at every level of government regulating their ownership and use? How can most states ban people from carrying them around except unloaded in a locked case in a car trunk? How did Congress manage to ban certain types of weapons, even though the ban selection criteria were arbitrary and silly? Why doesn’t the NRA just take it to the Supreme Court and get all these laws overturned?
April 19th, 2007 at 10:32 am#46 wilco
So is no one commenting on the Democrats’ sell out on the the Iraq spending bill because it’s what everyone expected to happen?
Which Democrats? It’s not Reid or Pelosi. They’re keeping the bill intact and letting Bush veto it. It’s not Murtha. Obviously, it’s a group of spineless, clueless Democrats. But, who is it, specifically? Reid already said that Carl Levin is out of step and his idea for a sellout isn’t going to fly. Is it the Ellen Tauscher, DLC, “Blue Dog Democrats”? It probably is. And those idiots need to be run out along with their GOP pals in ‘08.
Find out who it is and swamp them with phone calls and e-mails. But, don’t start bad-mouthing people like Pelosi and Reid. They’re standing their ground on this.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:32 amWell this country was born in its first revolution.
Comment by ggibson
Just like hundreds of others. In fact, it was the aid of France that allow you to become independent and the fact that George III didnt care too much about the 13 colonies as he did care about Haiti (much more commercial significance in that country). It was in the battle of Yorktown that the Brit general gave his sword to the French General, not to Franklin (as I recall, I can be wrong).
The fact is that, this self-preservation argument produces two things: Columbine, VTechs, etc and big money to gun companies.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:35 amHacker Bob is flat wrong when he arbitrarily separates the two clauses in the amendment.
Umm… So is the DC appeals court then.
Gun Law in District Overturned by Appeals Court
March 9, 2007 – 8:22pm
WASHINGTON – The District gun ban has been overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:35 amOn Friday, the court stated that prohibiting a person from keeping a firearm is unconstitutional. Judges cited the Second Amendment, which states, “…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.”
#103 Gun ownership back then was culturally very different than today. I generally find that people who talk most about guns for self-protection are far more likely to hold vigilante attitudes than the average American, and often hold Rambo-like fantasies that I find to be absurd.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:36 amIf personal ownership of guns is a right, not a privilege, then why are there thousands of laws on the books at every level of government regulating their ownership and use? How can most states ban people from carrying them around except unloaded in a locked case in a car trunk? How did Congress manage to ban certain types of weapons, even though the ban selection criteria were arbitrary and silly? Why doesn’t the NRA just take it to the Supreme Court and get all these laws overturned?
Comment by VerbalKint
How?
The same way the brits put unreasonable taxes on tea and how they stationed red coats in American towns and even peoples homes.
A government creeps closer and closer to tyranny as time goes on and then needs to be put in check… just as Thomas Jefferson personally said.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:38 amprobably because they had seen what happens to societies that deny their citizenry this fundamental right.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — April 19, 2007 @ 10:26 am
WEre all seeing this.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:39 amThe fact is that, this self-preservation argument produces two things: Columbine, VTechs, etc and big money to gun companies.
Comment by Juan
One thing and one thing only produced Columbine, VTechs, etc .. and that is the human nature. It didnt start with the invention of the gun and it takes a short sited person to thing otherwise.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:40 amComment by VerbalKint
My guess has always been if the NRA people voted mostly democrats there would be no argument at all about the 2nd amendment… but since alot of people that are racist or overly religious or just southern dipshit tends to be what comes to mind when you think of the NRA and not all the other people in the NRA then you tend to project that onto the idea of gun ownership.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:42 ambluedahlia – you’re the chicky here… and a newbie at that…
get off your knee jerkin’ high horse… i am not your enemy
so quit picking on me…
put your energies to eliminating the ELECTORAL COLLEGE and
April 19th, 2007 at 10:43 amthen you can be assured of all the political parties you want…
that’s just the way it is… sorry…
.
Comment by VerbalKint — April 19, 2007 @ 10:23 am
Amendment II
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.
This amendment is powerful as it does 2 things fundamental to the survival of the Constitution. 1st it says that each state made of citizens is responsible to establish a militia. It goes on to say that THE PEOPLE (citizens) HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS AND TO CARRY THEM AND TO USE THEM IN DEFENSE OF THE NATION OR INDIVIDUAL. It ties that together is stating that both Militias and GUN OWNERSHIP SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON!!!!!!
April 19th, 2007 at 10:44 amHacker Bob, tell me when this case is validated by the Supreme Court. Besides, I don’t see any language to indicate that the appeals court treated the clauses separately in its decision. I don’t know the legal basis for this decision, but I will be surprised if it isn’t somehow limited in scope. Now answer my question in post #105. Isn’t it amazing to you that these thousands of laws regulating and limiting gun owndership are allowed to stand?
I am not advocating a ban on guns. I believe in reasonable regulation, preferably something with national uniformity. But let’s not frame the debate with false assertions about constitutional rights. And let’s also not frame the debate with false claims that widespread ownership of guns saves lives. It doesn’t, at least not in the aggregate. The epidemiological studies of excess deaths are compelling and the data is irrefutable.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:44 amWe need to negotiate Medicare drug prices. Why do the Right Wing Nuts Republicans think they know best when 85% of Americans want congress to Negotiate drug prices. I guess the drug companies need to get rich on the backs of Seniors. We have Senior Care in WI and our Governor Doyle wanted an extension of this program and Old Bush said a flat out NO. The Government would save money if they did this. The Congress and Old Bush work for the American People.
I can not believe that their 78% that think the illegals should become US citizens. Here is an idea if they want to become US Citizens they should have to enlist in the Military and go over to Iraq.
We need a timetable for withdrawer from Iraq. As far as I am concerned we should not be in an this Illegal war. Democrats need to stick to their guns on a troop timetable.
Gonzales need to be impeached and than prosecuted for lying as they had done to Clinton.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:46 amA government creeps closer and closer to tyranny as time goes on and then needs to be put in check… just as Thomas Jefferson personally said.
Comment by ggibson — April 19, 2007 @ 10:38 am
This is your personal philosophical belief of how governments should ideally behave. Fair enough. But constitutionality is not decided according to your personal ideals. It is decided by courts. And the courts in this country, which have grown very conservative, have not made broad rulings in favor of private gun ownership. The legal challenges are almost always based on other legal claims, such as jurisdiction to regulate.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:50 am#96
“terrorism should be narrowly defined; it should not include a mentally ill student going crazy on a college campus.”
Terrorists that walk into a cafe in Baghdad ARE mentally ill just like Cho was. Terrorism is defined many ways. Cho had a purpose in doing what he did. He didn’t just snap. He planned this VT attack for a long time.
http://www.globalterrorism101.com/UTDefinition.html
April 19th, 2007 at 10:53 amTHE SURGE OF DEATH IN BAGHDAD
Thursday 19th of April 2007
by Jay Randal
At least 198 Iraqis were slain in Baghdad, yesterday, as four large bombs exploded across the city, so surge of death is occurring under Pres. Bush’s phony plan.
Surge of death is occurring for American soldiers too, but some in the US Congress are still deaf, dumb, and blind about it, so members intend to fully fund fiasco.
The Bush Regime has willfully gone completely insane, but nobody understands why some members of House and Senate have gone nuts, so war of stupidity continues.
American public are beginning to notice that control of Iraq’s OIL reserves seems to be the sole reason for misadventure and some in Congress benefit from it.
Sen. Hillary Clinton has stated to the press that if she becomes president, then she intends to keep the troops in Iraq to benefit BIG OIL CEOs making more profits.
Someday the World Court, at the Hague, could indict Pres. Bush and VP Cheney for war crimes, but some Senators like John McCain and Joe Lieberman as well.
(Jay Randal, political activist and writer in Georgia, USA.)
PS: Contact Reps and Senators in DC to end Iraq Fiasco War now!
April 19th, 2007 at 10:55 amIt didnt start with the invention of the gun and it takes a short sited person to thing otherwise.
Comment by ggibson — April 19, 2007 @ 10:40 am
Except that yours is the country that has more homicides by gun fire in the world. So, I guess guns has a lot to do.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:55 amTerrorists that walk into a cafe in Baghdad ARE mentally ill just like Cho was. Terrorism is defined many ways. Cho had a purpose in doing what he did. He didn’t just snap. He planned this VT attack for a long time.
http://www.globalterrorism101.com/UTDefinition.html
Comment by Tracy
Thats right… terrorism isnt something you wage war against… it is a tactic used by those that usually do not have the power to take on their adversaries one on one.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:56 amMontana Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) said “no, nope, no way, hell no†Tuesday to helping create the first national identifcation cards, signing into law a bill that blocks the state from complying with the REAL ID Act.
I’ve been thinking about moving to Montana for awhile now. I live in red-state Florida, and it’s probably easier to get struck by lightening than it is to find a fellow liberal Democrat here. While I’m aware that Montana is “red” also, it’s interesting that their governor is a Dem…and especially one like Schweitzer. Gives me hope. Plus I like the wide-open spaces. My part of Florida is too crowded, too much traffic, too much development….and way TOO many Republicans.
A senator has placed an “anonymous hold†on “legislation moving through the Senate that would require lawmakers’ campaign finance reports to be electronically filed, meaning quickly made public.â€
I bet this is Sen. Stevens (Alaska), Mr. “the internet is a series of tubes” guy.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:57 amThis is your personal philosophical belief of how governments should ideally behave. Fair enough. But constitutionality is not decided according to your personal ideals. It is decided by courts. And the courts in this country, which have grown very conservative, have not made broad rulings in favor of private gun ownership. The legal challenges are almost always based on other legal claims, such as jurisdiction to regulate.
Comment by VerbalKint
Its not my personal anything.. it is a lesson of history… in fact it is THE lesson of American history… and it is the justification people like Thomas Jefferson used to wage war against their own government.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:58 am#109
I totally diagree. Those who talk about guns, i.e. NRA members and such, are the ones who are most likely to have the MOST respect for firearms and their lawful use. In many of these national tragedies like Columbine, the VT massacre, ect… the perps were not members of the NRA or some other right to bear arms advocacy group.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:58 amComment by VerbalKint — April 19, 2007 @ 10:44 am
Regulating ownership an allowing ownership are not the same thing.
I am not the most eloquent so I will put this in “dumb hacker bob” language.
The Constitution gives us the right to bare arms. The regulations do not infringe on those rights. They establish the legal parameters for ownership as well as protect the public safety.
If someone is convicted of a felony, they lose certain Constitutional rights as a result. They lose the right to bare arms, for instance, because they are now considered a threat to public safety.
Also there is a little history for the reason that the people were given the right to bare arms. To make it short, in order to have the “well regulated militia” you had to have armed men. The Government could not afford to arm the militia. In 1775, in order to be a Marine, you had to be a good seaman and own your own rifle. Without the citizenry being allowed to own weapons, they could not raise a militia. Now that may seem like an antiquated reason, but lets carry it forward a little on why it stayed on the books.
If the Government can take away ONE right, they can take all of them.
Wow, what a rambling statement.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:01 amExcept that yours is the country that has more homicides by gun fire in the world. So, I guess guns has a lot to do.
Comment by Juan C
We also move more traffic deaths than does the Congo and we have fewer malaria deaths than the congo… I would bet there are places in this world that has more stabbing deaths than does America… Its the reality of life and trying to solve the problem by blaming inanimate objects is stupid… it is like how alcohol was baned and even baned as an amendment to the U.S. Constitution instead of trying to help people not become alcholics… The problem is human nature not guns nor alcohol.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:02 amPersonally, and this is again, just personally. (God, am I really stepping into this?) In my home I tend to favor the statistics that it is more likely that my child will find a gun and harm either himself or another person more than my counry will be invaded by another or that my government will declare marshal law. Those are my husbands and my reasons for not owning a gun. My husband served both in the Army as an MP and in the air force as an officer. Him and I both know how to use a gun, but we don’t keep one for my reasons stated above.
I don’t think taking peoples guns away entirely is going to solve anything. There are alway nutjobs who will find a way to do what they want regardless of the laws (and no matter which laws). And there will always be people willing to go underground to get what they want if a ban is effected. ALWAYS. I think this creates the need for normal people to want to defend themselves. (Catch twenty two? oooh another gun analogy) BUT, laws do help when it comes to mostly normal people caught up in an angry moment/time in their lives.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:04 amI would be amazed if anyone here has not at some point or another acted in a completely irrational way when angered/hurt. And it is probably good that at that point, I would venture to guess, that they weren’t packing heat either.
Just my 2 cents
Comment by VerbalKint — April 19, 2007 @ 10:50 am
However:
…shall not be infringed. This tends to bring about a constitutional issue! Since the government already regulates ownership, taxes, use & transport.
Autos cause more deaths in the US than guns PERIOD
Since AUTOs are not constitutionally protected like guns are AUTOS SHOULD BE BANED.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:05 am#122
What Cho did, according to the definition of terrorism, was a terrorist act. BTW terrorism as a tatic is the most cowardly on of all. Just because you don’t have the power to take on your adversary one on one doesn’t make it justifiable to attack civilians.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:06 amThere is NO INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS GRANTED IN THE CONSTITUTION. This has been found several times by the U.S. Supreme Court and has never been overturned. It is the law until the Supreme Court overturns it. And a cite to a case in a Texas District Court certainly doesn’t change it.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:06 amand it is the justification people like Thomas Jefferson used to wage war against their own government.
Comment by ggibson — April 19, 2007 @ 10:58 am
Sorry, but thats really lame. Since those times, there hasnt be the urge to fight your own government, and I think there is not going to happen anymore. You live in the most propagandized country in the world, thats why there is has not been coups in the US. Your governments dont need to repress US population with the military. They already do that with American Idol and Fox News. Why dont you have slaves like Jefferson did in his times? It was a right, then, right? Really, really lame. So far, guns have been used to kill people and has nothing to do with making revolutions or going against the government. Thats simply stupid.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:07 amHow do you put the italics, BTW?
April 19th, 2007 at 11:08 amHow do you put the italics, BTW?
Comment by Juan C — April 19, 2007 @ 11:08 am
Juan,
April 19th, 2007 at 11:12 amUnless your format is different from ours, above the box where you post your comment should be some tabs that say bold, italic, link, blockquote, and close tags.
Clicking on the italic either by highlighting your intended message or before and after your intended message works.
But since it is right there, I am going to assume that your format is probalby different than our. :)
Comment by And You Thought REAGAN Was Stupid — April 19, 2007 @ 11:06 am
Amendment II
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.
This amendment is powerful as it does 2 things fundamental to the survival of the Constitution. 1st it says that each state made of citizens is responsible to establish a militia. It goes on to say that THE PEOPLE (citizens) HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS AND TO CARRY THEM AND TO USE THEM IN DEFENSE OF THE NATION OR INDIVIDUAL. It ties that together is stating that both Militias and GUN OWNERSHIP SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON!
April 19th, 2007 at 11:13 amCome on TP! Another post deleted pertaining to gun control with nothing offensive or antagonistic. WTF?
April 19th, 2007 at 11:14 amBluedalia…thanks. I have the box. But they dont seem to work. I was trying to remember what was the code: and then or something like that?
April 19th, 2007 at 11:16 amJesus, Do I have to save everything before I post because it might be deleted by the moderator? WTF! Why hasn’t my post been put up?
April 19th, 2007 at 11:17 am#86 – idiot alert!Comment by chris — April 19, 2007 @ 10:24 am
April 19th, 2007 at 11:18 amWhy am I an idiot? I just threw out an idea. i try to bring different ideas, not reinforce group think consistencies. I don’t call you names because your suppositions or thoughts seem contrary to me. Ever hear of the White Rose?
Comment by Juan C — April 19, 2007 @ 11:16 am
There seems to be an issue with IE7 and those buttons for BOLD, etc. Type them manually like this (take out spaces)
Text
April 19th, 2007 at 11:19 amNM, added after my later ones were. That always throws me.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:20 amThe woman was home sick for several weeks before formally being diagnosed by her doctor in April 2006.
And how many people would she have infected (if it was transmissable) in those weeks? Trips to the drugstore, contact with family members… imagine…
If it was a superbug with a high transmission rate, half the country could be dead before the lab would admit there had been a breach.
Like “The Stand”.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:21 am#136. The Supreme Court of the United States says otherwise, and that is the current law.
In 1991, former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger referred to the Second Amendment as “the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime…[the NRA] ha(s) misled the American people and they, I regret to say, they have had far too much influence on the Congress of the United States than as a citizen I would like to see – and I am a gun man.” Burger also wrote, “The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon…[S]urely the Second Amendment does not remotely guarantee every person the constitutional right to have a ‘Saturday Night Special’ or a machine gun without any regulation whatever. There is no support in the Constitution for the argument that federal and state governments are powerless to regulate the purchase of such firearms…”
April 19th, 2007 at 11:22 amWhat Cho did, according to the definition of terrorism, was a terrorist act. BTW terrorism as a tatic is the most cowardly on of all. Just because you don’t have the power to take on your adversary one on one doesn’t make it justifiable to attack civilians.
Comment by Tracy
Justifiable? Nope.
That doesnt give us the right to suspend our reasoning skills and start declaring wars against a tactic…
April 19th, 2007 at 11:22 amBluedalia…thanks. I have the box. But they dont seem to work. I was trying to remember what was the code: and then or something like that?
Comment by Juan C — April 19, 2007 @
They don’t show they are working until the post appears in the blog. You can also put the tag in manually – I will put a space between each charachter of the tag and seee if you can read it:
Try that…y feliz Dia de Muerto de Gonzo…
April 19th, 2007 at 11:24 amNope, you can’t read it, it disappeared. Sorry!
April 19th, 2007 at 11:25 amSince those times, there hasnt be the urge to fight your own government
Comment by Juan C
It never was an “urge” .. as history makes CLEAR the early Americans waited decades before they started hearing speeches likes this…
“Mr. President, it is natural for a man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove to be a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the instruments of war and subjugation — the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy in this quarter of the world to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British Ministry have been so long forging.
“And what have we to oppose them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to treaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the Ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation.
“There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free; if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending; if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon, until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained; we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight!! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!
“They tell us, sir…that we are weak, unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature has placed in our power. Three millions of people armed in the holy cause of liberty and in such a country as that which we possess are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us.
“Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged. Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable — and let it come!! I repeat it, sir, let it come!!!
“It is vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, peace, peace; but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?
“Forbid it, Almighty God — I know not what course others may take; but as for me — give me liberty or give me death!”
April 19th, 2007 at 11:25 amThere is NO INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS GRANTED IN THE CONSTITUTION. This has been found several times by the U.S. Supreme Court and has never been overturned. It is the law until the Supreme Court overturns it. And a cite to a case in a Texas District Court certainly doesn’t change it.
Comment by And You Thought REAGAN Was Stupid
That statement totally contradicts American history before and after the Revolution.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:27 am#148. Contradicts history? IT’S THE LAW OF THE UNITED STATES.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:28 amThere seems to be an issue with IE7 and those buttons for BOLD, etc. Type them manually like this (take out spaces)
Text
Comment by Saywho
It might have something to do with this site using XHTML… XHTML is not fully compatible with Javascript and under certain circumstance both IE and Firefox will not work correctly when XHTML and Javascript are used together on the same site.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:30 amRegarding gun control:
April 19th, 2007 at 11:31 amModeration in all things….
SKdeA, Saywho and Bluedahlia. Thank you. I think I got it.
Gerald: I think those were another times. Without trying to be offensive, when do you plan to recover your country from the government and which gun will you be using?
April 19th, 2007 at 11:32 amThat McClatchy article on voter suppresion surprised me a bit – ‘has pursued an aggressive legal effort to restrict voter turnout in key battleground states in ways that favor Republican political candidates.’
When did voter suppression become legal? I find it sad that the reporter found it necessary to put that word ‘legal’ in the article…it has no place in a sentence that describes what the GOP does to suppress Democratic voters from casting their ballot.
I think we all need to take some Civics 101 courses.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:32 am“I hope you don’t have a heart attack but; FOR THE GREATER GOOD CARS NEED TO BE BANNED SINCE DIRVING LAWS DO NOT WORK!!!”
Here’s a clue for you on this one: cars have a purpose beyond killing people; guns do not.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:34 amComment by And You Thought REAGAN Was Stupid — April 19, 2007 @ 11:22 am
The fact that The Supreme Court made any statements regarding the 2nd Amendment (Warren Burger) regarding something that
shall not be infringed.
Shows that the Government is attempting to INFRINGE and did in fact violate the BILL OF RIGHTS.
Banning a firearm that I own violates both my 2nd & 4th Amendments!
Just like prohibition, a total gun ban (or incremental gun ban) would be met harshly at this point by citizens who obey laws and exercise their 2nd and 4th Amendment Rights.
AUTOS do more damage than guns and possibly add to the leading cause of death that is HEART DISEASE. AUTOS SHOULD BE BANNED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS THEY ARE DANGEROUS EVEN WHEN OPERATED PROPERLY AND ARE NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED LIKE FIREARMS ARE!
April 19th, 2007 at 11:34 am#148. Contradicts history? IT’S THE LAW OF THE UNITED STATES.
Comment by And You Thought REAGAN Was Stupid
The U.S. Constitution is the law… and just because some people want to play words games doesnt change the facts that people in that time wrote on paper amongst themselves what these rights meant to THEM and they meant this one to mean that every man has a right to own weapons for himselves and collectively so that those men can be called up to help defend America from outside and from inside… really simple really when you put everything in context and read the thoughts of those people at that time.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:35 am“Here is the first half, it applies to a milita (a citizen or volunteer force)
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
Here is the second half. It applies to the people of the United States.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
2nd amendment obsessives always skip over that one critical word: REGULATED.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:36 amGerald: I think those were another times. Without trying to be offensive, when do you plan to recover your country from the government and which gun will you be using?
Comment by Juan C
When we have statesmen or other elders (maybe myself someday) making speeches like that I posted above…
And any weapons will do really…guns…bombs… spears… traps…whatever… when it gets to that point it is more about the killing than the how…
April 19th, 2007 at 11:38 amHere’s a clue for you on this one: cars have a purpose beyond killing people; guns do not.
Comment by ann
Guns deliver freedom for a people oppressed.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:39 am“AUTOS SHOULD BE BANNED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS THEY ARE DANGEROUS EVEN WHEN OPERATED PROPERLY AND ARE NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED LIKE FIREARMS ARE!”
I don’t have a car, so no worries. But if you would care to surrender your SUV to the authorities, please be the first in line. And bring your gun because walking home will probably be scary for you.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:40 amput your energies to eliminating the ELECTORAL COLLEGE and
then you can be assured of all the political parties you want…
that’s just the way it is… sorry…
.
Comment by katy — April 19, 2007 @ 10:43 am
That’s not necessary. The Christian Coalition did just fine working within the system. They were patient, and it took them about 10 years, but they control all three branches of government now.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:40 amWhy is everyone talking about the secend amendment as this is not one of the topics?
April 19th, 2007 at 11:41 amIf the Government can take away ONE right, they can take all of them.
Comment by hacker bob — April 19, 2007 @ 11:01 am
We’ve already lost the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments.
And now the Government is micromanaging medical decisions.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:43 amComment by ann — April 19, 2007 @ 11:34 am
Cars have no purpose or reason to exist. We in fact can WALK. Cars are dangerous and in fact emit dangerous poisons into the air. As a pedestrian, I have no protection from a car running me down.
Guns can be used to kill game to provide food, clothing and even shoes. Guns can and have been used to defend a family, individual, position and nation.
Guns can be used to stop the commission of felonies like robbery, drug traffic, etc.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:43 amWhy is everyone talking about the secend amendment as this is not one of the topics?
Comment by Mary Poplins
Because we feel like it?
April 19th, 2007 at 11:45 amCheck out this little dialog I had over at Crooks and Liars:
Hi y’all -
I have a question, since this is an open thread:
Why is it that this site is so darn troll-free, and Think Progress is so darn infested? It doesn’t seem to be the monitors, they just don’t go here in the first place.
Thanks!
BTW, same screen name on both sites for me, drop by and say hello (and check out our horrid troll problem).
SKdeA | 04.19.07 – 3:41 am | #
See below for responses – TP, the gauntlet has been thrown down!
Gravatar SKdeA–
I think it is because this is a video-intensive website.
Even transcripts provide a shred of plausible deniability.
But video?
Can’t avoid the camera eye.
comsympinko | 04.19.07 – 3:44 am | #
SkdeA, it IS the site team.
They do a fantastic job. I am privy to some of the behind the scenes communications between them and I know that many troll postings only stay up for a couple of seconds, so you’ll never see it.
They’ve learned it’s not so much fun here and they move along.
Nicole Belle | Homepage | 04.19.07 – 3:49 am | #
SKdeA,
It most definitely is the site monitors, and they are excellent not just in speed but in discriminating honest debate and differences of opinion with trolling.
As exhibit A, I offer myself, an old timey conservative, who finds himself welcome for the most part, and who finds the company here more congenial than on your typical lockstep freeper website ( a bit less frothing at the mouth, a lot more intelligence, excellent debates). It does help, I suppose, that I am absolutely against the Bush Administration and pretty much have been since day 1.
[the site monitors thank you all for your continued support. We're here all week, try the veal...]
Edited By Siteowner
April 19th, 2007 at 11:45 ammarcos | 04.19.07 – 4:40 am |
“Guns deliver freedom for a people oppressed.”
Tell that to the people in Iraq.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:47 amGuns deliver freedom for a people oppressed.
Comment by ggibson — April 19, 2007 @ 11:39 am
Wrong. Read the history of the working movement in Europe.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:50 am#166, that’s it; I’m going to Crooks and Liars… bye everybody! :-)
April 19th, 2007 at 11:51 amComment by Saywho — April 19, 2007 @ 11:43 am
why not go after acohol or cigarettes? no constutional right to those. there are probably responsible for more deaths that cars.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:51 am2nd amendment obsessives always skip over that one critical word: REGULATED.
Comment by ann — April 19, 2007 @ 11:36 am
Hey, I am all for a REGULATED Militia AND for individual gun ownership. (in other words, the entire 2nd Ammendment)
We’ve already lost the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — April 19, 2007 @ 11:43 am
Are you confusing Military and Civilian courts again?
April 19th, 2007 at 11:52 am“Guns can be used to kill game to provide food, clothing and even shoes. Guns can and have been used to defend a family, individual, position and nation.
Guns can be used to stop the commission of felonies like robbery, drug traffic, etc.”
Guns serve no purpose beyond killing. Your first sentence indicates this. How to you defend or stop crimes using a gun? By killing. That’s what they are for: killing.
Cars, on the other hand, make it possible for people to get from point A to point B. As I said, I don’t have a car because I live in a city and use transit, but I recognize that some people don’t live in cities and require cars to get to the hospital, the grocery store, school, etc. I am all for getting rid of most cars but am pragmatic enough to understand that there will always be some need for cars.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:52 am“Guns deliver freedom for a people oppressed.â€
Tell that to the people in Iraq.
Comment by ann
I dont have to they are exercising it daily… or did you miss the dead American count?
April 19th, 2007 at 11:53 amWhy is everyone talking about the secend amendment as this is not one of the topics?
Comment by Mary Poplins
TF is an open thread.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:55 amWrong. Read the history of the working movement in Europe.
Comment by Juan C
Read the story of the American Revolution.. or the Bolsheviks… or even the French Revolution… though the french were a bit more partial to the guillotine.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:55 amWell thank you Ann for allowing us at least some use of cars.
Yes, guns are used for killing; that’s their purpose. But the *outcome* of the killing, and the *need* for the killing are not the same in all situations. Sometimes the killing is for sport; sometimes it’s for food, or clothing. Sometimes, sadly, it’s done in anger.
Guns, however, are a tool… nothing less, nothing more. If a gun wasn’t used for killing people, then a knife would suffice, or a slingshot, or a rock. Or even bare hands.
“Yes, but someone with a knife wouldn’t be able to kill as many people as quickly”.
But someone with a knife can do it much quieter, which will give them more time.
It seems to me that cars were introduced in this discussion to show that a gun is just a tool; yet it also seems that you don’t really understand that fact… all of your conversation seems pointed to showing how dangerous a gun is/can be, and not how useful it is.
Take a walk sometime in a forest where there’s lots of bears or coyotes…
April 19th, 2007 at 11:59 amRead the story of the American Revolution.. or the Bolsheviks… or even the French Revolution… though the french were a bit more partial to the guillotine.
Comment by ggibson — April 19, 2007 @ 11:55 am
Ideas make revolutions. Guns OPPRESS people.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:59 amComment by Juan C
BTW, Juan, are you still in Mexico?
How is the gun problem down there?
It is not just a problem in the US.
April 19th, 2007 at 12:02 pmComment by ann — April 19, 2007 @ 11:40 am
Ann,
You appear to have a problem w/ guns. I mentioned CARS to make a point. Cars in fact cause more deaths than do guns in the US. Daily, pedestrians are crushed to death and maimed by cars but regardless of this fact cars are still in use. There is no legislation in the House or Senate to “BAN AUTOS.” There is a bill in the House to in fact BAN ASSULT WEAPONS. We had this already and it was repealed. Citizens that purchased arms since the repeal of the 1st Assault Weapon Ban would be expected to “TURN IN” arms and equipment (possibly again).
This would be a violation of both the 2nd & 4th Amendments. The US for better or worse was built on GUNS. The British were repelled as well as the Confederacy. All that fought were in fact “GUN OWNING CITIZENS”. It would be expected that all gun owners (that were willing) would resolve to repel attacks.
Consider women in the military…
April 19th, 2007 at 12:04 pmNearly 50% report that they have been RAPED. The rapists are male members of the same. These people @ 18 can and are expected to use DEADLY FORCE against any enemy. One gun used called the “SAW” has a 700 round per min rate of fire. Surely you realize that as a woman your best defense against rape & assault is a well placed bullet in the assailant’s brain?
Ideas make revolutions. Guns OPPRESS people.
Comment by Juan C — April 19, 2007 @ 11:59 am
Ideas make revolutions, but they do not win revolutions.
April 19th, 2007 at 12:05 pmTake a walk sometime in a forest where there’s lots of bears or coyotes…
Comment by Dale — April 19, 2007 @ 11:59 am
Oh, always fearing… when do we bomb woods, Dale?
It is not just a problem in the US.
Comment by hacker bob — April 19, 2007 @ 12:02 pm
Do you live here, Bob? Do you know how is daily life here? People are worried about not starving or not getting fired. There are people who have guns, but nobody use them. There are a lot of assaults, but nobody wants to have a gun. We all know what guns do.
April 19th, 2007 at 12:07 pm“Sometimes the killing is for sport; sometimes it’s for food, or clothing. ”
Killing is now a sport? No wonder kids thinks it’s fun.
As for food or clothing excuses, that’s absurd. No one needs to eat animals. You don’t need a gun to grow wheat or corn. There are plenty of options available. In this day and age of over-processed food, the number of people killing to survive is beyond miniscule.
April 19th, 2007 at 12:09 pmIdeas make revolutions, but they do not win revolutions.
Comment by hacker bob — April 19, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
I think you just wanted to say something. Thats laughable.
April 19th, 2007 at 12:09 pmComment by ann — April 19, 2007 @ 11:52 am
Ann,
Now you are putting words into my mouth. Killing game for food and clothing started long before guns ever existed and now you are infringing on my ability to hunt, fish, trap and use what I gather. Please get a grip!
April 19th, 2007 at 12:12 pmThere are people who have guns, but nobody use them. There are a lot of assaults, but nobody wants to have a gun. We all know what guns do.
Comment by Juan C — April 19, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
Explain that to the 7 “nobodys” that stormed the hospital in Tijuana.
And let’s not do the “do you live here” line. I can get my news about Mexico the same way you get your news about the US.
Why are people starving in Mexico? Have you taken a good look at the corrupt government of Mexico lately? There is one of many indicators.
You might think about putting down the rock, or get out of the glass house. Just a thought.
April 19th, 2007 at 12:13 pmI think you just wanted to say something. Thats laughable.
Comment by Juan C — April 19, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
How many revolutions succede without the use of force?
April 19th, 2007 at 12:14 pmComment by ann — April 19, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
Now you are attempting to infringe on this….
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I can and do eat meat. You want to impose your vegan ways on me and that is the same as the gun grab!
April 19th, 2007 at 12:15 pmI think the point about guns vs cars should be framed around the premise that it is the governments’ responsibility to regulate, mainly state regulation,both. If some how the regulation fails to protect innocent people
April 19th, 2007 at 12:15 pmwhat’s the difference between the method of casualty? Yes the second amendment applies to gun possession and actual existing rights, but if people are harmed recklessly by uninforced automobile regulations is not the government culpable?
I’m not infringing upon anyone’s anything. I am not imposing anything. I am not judging. Seems you are both a bit defensive, though.
I am merely making the point that no one needs to eat meat or kill animals for clothing. I happen to eat meat and wear leather, but I recognize that neither is necessary to my happiness or health. I also recognize that there are very, very, very few who are actually hunting for food and clothing.
Face it, guns are for killing. THAT is my point.
April 19th, 2007 at 12:32 pmYou might think about putting down the rock, or get out of the glass house. Just a thought.
Comment by hacker bob — April 19, 2007 @ 12:13 pm
I can speak of whatever the hell I want even if I was in Rwanda or Bahrein. That argument is xenophobic. I have to be in US to know that you people kill each other with guns more than any other developed country in the world or that your foreign policy is to defend the interests of your corporations? Hell no. Just the opposite, US people think they are entitled to have an opinion about Evo Morales expropiating Bolivia´s gas reservoirs or Chavez or Iraq or whatever country, cuz you rule the world, right? And I cant express myself about US stuff? Come on.
You talk about Mexico as if we had a problem. Indeed, we have far more problems than you do, so? That means US problems disappear? TP posts US news for the most part, not Mexican news which we can discuss whenever you want.
About revolutions, I guess you are right about the use of force. But this doesnt imply the use of guns. Millions of people marching in the streets have a lot of force and there are no guns involved. Now, on the other side, a “revolution” without ideas is just a stupid armed conflict.
April 19th, 2007 at 12:33 pmIdeas make revolutions. Guns OPPRESS people.
Comment by Juan C
People make ideas and guns… both are just tools…
Ideas in the hands of Hitler were bad …. so were guns…
Ideas nor guns are bad in and of themselves.
April 19th, 2007 at 12:33 pm“You appear to have a problem w/ guns. ”
So? You seem to have a problem with me not liking instruments of death. Somebody needs therapy and it isn’t me.
April 19th, 2007 at 12:34 pmFace it, guns are for killing. THAT is my point.
Comment by ann
Face it. Until humanity goes through alot more evolution killing is going to be neccessary from time to time.
April 19th, 2007 at 12:35 pmIdeas nor guns are bad in and of themselves.
Comment by ggibson
You cant get killed by an idea. YOu can get killed by a gun.
You can change the world with an idea. You cant change the world with a gun.
Nazis had an idea. They killed people with guns.
April 19th, 2007 at 12:40 pmAllies answered back with guns. 50 million people die. What if no guns or heavy weaponry were available?
Comment by ann — April 19, 2007 @ 12:34 pm
Ann,
I will assume that you live in the USA? I’m a lover of the Constitution. My view is that the Constitution is the Holy Grail of the USA. Guns have had a positive and negative roll in this nation and will continue to do so since the law states these words…
April 19th, 2007 at 12:48 pmshall not be infringed.
I can speak of whatever the hell I want even if I was in Rwanda or Bahrein. That argument is xenophobic. I have to be in US to know that you people kill each other with guns more than any other developed country in the world or that your foreign policy is to defend the interests of your corporations? Hell no. Just the opposite, US people think they are entitled to have an opinion about Evo Morales expropiating Bolivia´s gas reservoirs or Chavez or Iraq or whatever country, cuz you rule the world, right? And I cant express myself about US stuff? Come on.
How is my statement xenophobic? Did I display any fear or contempt for you as a foreigner? I asked you about the gun problems in Mexico and you fire back with “Do you live here?” as if I am the one that does not have a right to ask the question. No, I do not live in Mexico, but just like you I can read the news of events outside of my own nation.
I can ask about the gun problems in Mexico just as you are free to voice an opinion about the US. You response is the one that displayed xenophobia and a lack of desire to face the problems that are occuring in your own country.
This we agree on. But ideas without action, remain just that, ideas. And in MOST revolutions, the actions required people to take up arms for the revolution to be seccessful. At one time it was rock and sticks, then swords, then guns.
April 19th, 2007 at 12:48 pm“I’m a lover of the Constitution.”
Then I’m sure you appreciate this phrase as well: A well REGULATED militia.
April 19th, 2007 at 12:52 pmNazis had an idea. They killed people with guns.
Allies answered back with guns. 50 million people die. What if no guns or heavy weaponry were available?
Comment by Juan C — April 19, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
Not so! Private guns were confiscated as a result of the Reichstag Burning. Citizens were in the grasp of a Police State and had no way to revolt. Also we are talking about private ownership and not military or police use of weapons.
April 19th, 2007 at 12:56 pmThen I’m sure you appreciate this phrase as well: A well REGULATED militia.
Comment by ann — April 19, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
YES I DO… I happen to be one of the ones that will die if necessary to protect you and all the rest should the need arise.
Regardless, I posted 2 times about this above but here for you have a read…
Amendment II
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.
This amendment is powerful as it does 2 things fundamental to the survival of the Constitution. 1st it says that each state made of citizens is responsible to establish a militia. It goes on to say that THE PEOPLE (citizens) HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS AND TO CARRY THEM AND TO USE THEM IN DEFENSE OF THE NATION OR INDIVIDUAL. It ties that together is stating that both Militias and GUN OWNERSHIP SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON!
April 19th, 2007 at 1:03 pm“YES I DO… I happen to be one of the ones that will die if necessary to protect you and all the rest should the need arise. ”
But you’re here…commenting on blogs….why not in Iraq? You could play with guns all day long – just imagine it! Like a video game or shooting at the range, but real life WAR.
April 19th, 2007 at 1:11 pmYou cant get killed by an idea.
Comment by Juan C
The idea of a witch killed many women. And without any guns…
Humans are the problem not ideas and not guns.
April 19th, 2007 at 1:11 pm#144
“That doesnt give us the right to suspend our reasoning skills and start declaring wars against a tactic…”
I understand why calling it a “War on Terrorism” is not quite accurate; however, declaring wars on those who use the tatic or those who support people who use the tatic, is completely within our rights.
April 19th, 2007 at 1:12 pmComment by ann
Long LONG before there were guns humans were slaughtering each other in very horrid ways… This world is a much more brutal place and has been forever… utopian ideals dont serve people well when the rest of reality is waiting to pounce.
April 19th, 2007 at 1:14 pmSure killing is a sport… hunting, remember? How many people do you know who hunted as children? Of those you know (if any), are the majority of them “gun nuts”? Are they reckless with any weapons they own? Or do they know and respect the power that is in their hands, and treat that power with the respect it deserves?
Please, Ann, tell us how much experience *you* have with guns, and how many gun owners *you* know personally.
FWIW, I don’t hunt, and don’t own any guns. But I strongly believe in the 2nd ammendment’s right for people to bear arms, and cannot understand why the anti-gun lobby wants to do away with that right.
April 19th, 2007 at 1:14 pmhttp://freedomkeys.com/r2kbafaqs.htm
Number of physicians in the US = 700,000
Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year = 120,000
Accidental deaths per physician = 0.171
- (US Dept. of Health & Human Services)
Number of gun owners in the US = 80,000,000
Accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) = 1,500
Accidental deaths per gun owner = 0.0000188
- (U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms)
Therefore, doctors are about 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
Do we outlaw doctors?
From the same site
Gun Control:
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.
From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend
themselves, were cut off from their food supplies and starved to
death or rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control.
From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938.
From 1939 to 1945, 10 million Jews and others who were unable
to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935.
From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to
defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964.
From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970.
From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956.
From 1975 to 1977, one to two million ‘educated’ people,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1956 no one in Cambodia could imagine total confiscation and
citizen enslavement in the “foreseeable future”, …
but per capita, more citizens were eventually murdered
by their own government than in any other country in history.
TOTAL number of defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the
April 19th, 2007 at 1:15 pm20th Century because of gun control: 53 million. And this is a VERY low,
conservative estimate. Professor R.J. Rummel says it’s closer to
170 MILLION (see: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM )
I understand why calling it a “War on Terrorism†is not quite accurate; however, declaring wars on those who use the tatic or those who support people who use the tatic, is completely within our rights.
Comment by Tracy
Agreed… Though it is within our rights it is not always the correct coarse of action… take Iraq for example… it is not a military issue yet Bush acts shocked SHOCKED! When someone clues him in on this.
April 19th, 2007 at 1:16 pm#194
The one with the “idea” is the one doing the killing, NOT the gun.
April 19th, 2007 at 1:17 pm#194
“What if no guns or heavy weaponry were available?”
They would have use knives, swords, or sticks. Take your pick. Just because guns or heavy weaponry woundn’t have been avaliable wouldn’t have prevented the war itself. It’s the “idea” not the weapons used.
April 19th, 2007 at 1:20 pmAnd an interesting article that talks about the VT killings as they relate to gun ownership.
April 19th, 2007 at 1:21 pm#205. Nice. Very very nice HB.
April 19th, 2007 at 1:21 pm#204 – I do not consider hunting a sport. A skill, perhaps, but definitely not a sport. I don’t consider poker a sport, either, btw.
As for my personal experience with guns, I have fired a gun (I’m actually a good shot.) And brother is a gun nut. He also has two little boys in the home, 6 and 3. When my first nephew was 2, he loved to take all the items out of daddy’s nightstand and play with them – this included bullets, for some reason. I am hoping that my sister-in-law has finally convinced him to get the guns out of the house.
April 19th, 2007 at 1:23 pm“YES I DO… I happen to be one of the ones that will die if necessary to protect you and all the rest should the need arise. â€
But you’re here…commenting on blogs….why not in Iraq? You could play with guns all day long – just imagine it! Like a video game or shooting at the range, but real life WAR.
Comment by ann — April 19, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
I’m 99.9% sure that I have given you more respect here than you are giving to me.
The 2nd Amendment is necessary to support the 1st, 3rd, 4th Amendments. The 3rd Amendment: “No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” If this person insists then with no gun I cannot protect my home or repel those without consent.
You bring up Iraq and that is not related to the 2nd Amendment. Iraq is another nation. I happen to be talking about the fact that the Constitution of the USA has AMENDMENTS and those are known as “The Bill of Rights”. These rights allow me to bear arms to defend myself and you from invasion, attack, anarchy, rebellion, dictatorship, etc. I never said that there can be no regulations. However a gun ban would infringe upon my 2nd & 4th Amendment Rights.
April 19th, 2007 at 1:27 pmThe US is a violent country.
The gun debate has nothing to do with the violence. Other countries have less violence, and I’m sure the criminals could get guns there too.
Our culture is violent.
April 19th, 2007 at 1:27 pm“You bring up Iraq and that is not related to the 2nd Amendment.”
No, it doesn’t, but you said you would die to defend my freedom. We’ve been told we are in Iraq to defend our freedoms, therefore, it makes sense that you would be willing to go to Iraq.
And, btw, where have I called for a gun ban? Nowhere. I believe guns need to be better regulated.
April 19th, 2007 at 1:34 pm*
If a gun wasn’t used for killing people, then a knife would suffice, or a slingshot, or a rock. Or even bare hands.
if only the wars and massacres of the world were fought without guns…
i’m sure the dead, at least, would like a do-over… change the rules!…
jeez… that was some lame reasoning… not even logical…
and so is the argument that anyone would stop the hunting and sport shooting and take away the guns used for those purposes…
i’m really sick of the bullshit arguments…
there is too much sadness and heartache… it can’t be ignored any longer… face up to the fact that some guns need to be regulated…
for the good of the people, the whole, the commons…
and, to what juan said:
when do you plan to recover your country from the government and which gun will you be using?
i would add:
against the tanks and blackhawks?…
’cause that argument doesn’t fly either…
April 19th, 2007 at 1:36 pm.
timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq ‘advisory’
If the democrats do this we will know they are in on this fiasco. If they wont have a back bone when they have TRUTH on their side… then they dont deserve power.
April 19th, 2007 at 1:37 pmThe more people talk of war and killing the more we will have the war’s and killing…How about demanding Peace.?.As summer approaches, and I believe it will be a hot one, the more peace marches, civil unrest and mass demonstration’s…Like fishing, good weather pramote’s the out of door’s sport’s…Nice choice of word’s don’t ya think.?
Today I was reminded of the over and over again new’s of a demanted sick person that killed college student’s….By his own writing’s he was fed by picture’s of the Colombine massacre when he was 13..Now one would think that would deter mass public viewing of his tapes for day’s on end….Nope, again the new’s media is at fault and feeding any demented young people out there for future attack’s…Why are they not addressing the issue and stoping the fear and hate..More children that are not supervised will see this uglieness and in the future follow suit, just like the war bush started and continues to cause more sympathisers to hate us…Yep! Folk’s we are the bad guy’s or atleast our administration and present new’s media are, along with any one who allow’s this to continue…..Turn off your TV’s…Hold your children close and prepare to march for Peace this summer…..Blessings, Impeach and most of all Peace
April 19th, 2007 at 1:38 pmThe US is a violent country.
The gun debate has nothing to do with the violence. Other countries have less violence, and I’m sure the criminals could get guns there too.
Our culture is violent.
Comment by ForTruth — April 19, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
I watched a pride of lions take down an elephant and then eat it on the Discovery Channel… One of the photographers stated something like, “Wow, it turned my guts and I didn’t expect to see that but that is nature!”
April 19th, 2007 at 1:38 pmComment by hacker bob — April 19, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
perhaps it’s more relevant to compare doctors that deliberately kill people plus accidentally kill people to guns that are used to deliberately kill people plus accidentally kill people.
i’t my guess that the trend would go the other way.
April 19th, 2007 at 1:47 pmsharon – right on again…
last night was the first time i was really disappointed with olbermann…
one of his guests, a crime specialist, spoke about these videos and pictures and how he wished they were not shown so much (or at all) because of copycats who will get a charge out of them and more violence will follow…
and while saying goodbye to that guest and as a cue to the next segment and/or commercial, you can guess what images where on the teevee…
i think nbc made a huge mistake putting this out, too much, too soon…
you are correct, for truth… our culture is a violent one… promoted by the corporate media…
April 19th, 2007 at 1:48 pmand the sheeple just eat it up…
…
“What if no guns or heavy weaponry were available?â€
They would have use knives, swords, or sticks. Take your pick.
Comment by Tracy — April 19, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
Stepping away from the Nazis, et al., for a moment…
Cho would have had a hard time killing 32 people with a sharp stick.
April 19th, 2007 at 1:50 pmNo, it doesn’t, but you said you would die to defend my freedom. We’ve been told we are in Iraq to defend our freedoms, therefore, it makes sense that you would be willing to go to Iraq.
And, btw, where have I called for a gun ban? Nowhere. I believe guns need to be better regulated.
Comment by ann — April 19, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
I didn’t mention Iraq, you did and you suggested that I should go there. I’m not Bush nor do I support him. The constitution suggests that the militia is for DEFENSE. I have stated here on TP plenty of times that IRAQ is strictly PLUNDER for RESOURCES on our part (the US). I have also stated that there is no chance that our forces will be withdrawn since our nation relies on more than 60% energy imports.
You clearly made a stand against guns and though the word “BAN” is not something you said it is implied since guns are VERY REGULATED. Since the right (to bear arms) shall not be infringed and those same arms are already conditional the next step is a “GUN BAN”
April 19th, 2007 at 1:52 pm“What if no guns or heavy weaponry were available?â€
They would have use knives, swords, or sticks. Take your pick.
Comment by Tracy — April 19, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
Stepping away from the Nazis, et al., for a moment…
Cho would have had a hard time killing 32 people with a sharp stick.
Comment by pete — April 19, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
Hitler was elected by a narrow margin. He gained full control after the Burning of the Reichstag Building. At that point a full ban on all privately owned firearms occurred. Group think was imposed and the country was “Militarized”…
Defending liberty starts with you and me and if necessary it must be defended by force. If professors and officials were able to carry the VT attack might have been ended more directly.
April 19th, 2007 at 2:00 pm“Wow, it turned my guts and I didn’t expect to see that but that is nature!â€
Comment by Saywho — April 19, 2007 @ 1:38 pm
To justify violence as human nature is beyond stupid. When was the last time you and your friends eat a fat guy in the streets? Humans are not violent by nature, they are violent for ignorance and for fear. You dont go fighting and killing people as you stroll the streets, just because it is your nature. You have more friends than enemies, you get a long with people, so how does that fit in your violent nature?
April 19th, 2007 at 2:01 pmOur culture is violent.
Comment by ForTruth — April 19, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
You hit the nail.
April 19th, 2007 at 2:05 pmi would add:
against the tanks and blackhawks?…
’cause that argument doesn’t fly either…
.
Comment by katy
The American revolutionaries did NOT march headlong into the red coats… they used gorilla warfare tactics….
April 19th, 2007 at 2:05 pmperhaps it’s more relevant to compare doctors that deliberately kill people plus accidentally kill people to guns that are used to deliberately kill people plus accidentally kill people.
i’t my guess that the trend would go the other way.
Comment by pete — April 19, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
OK, 29,569 gun deaths (CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2007.) (suicide, homocide, accidental)+65,000 gun injuries (Harvard University Gazette)
We can go with 95,000 divided by 80,000,000 gun owners = .0011821125 deaths or injuries/gunowner.
Compared to
Accidental deaths per physician = 0.171
Which way is the trend going?
April 19th, 2007 at 2:09 pmComment by Saywho — April 19, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
Hitler never won an election until AFTER the Reichstag fire. (My last post on Hitler.)
My post addressed the concept that a mass murderer is enabled by readily available firearms.
April 19th, 2007 at 2:10 pmThe American revolutionaries did NOT march headlong into the red coats… they used gorilla warfare tactics….
Comment by ggibson — April 19, 2007 @ 2:05 pm
They thumped their chests and british fled?
Sorry, sarcasm off. Can’t resist.
No matter that the REGULAR french army helped you a lot…
April 19th, 2007 at 2:10 pmComment by SKdeA — April 19, 2007 @ 11:45 am
good on you for doing that… and posting the results here…
hint, hint, faiz??? … site monitors… good idea!
it was ironic that marco’s post was edited also, but not totally deleted…
April 19th, 2007 at 2:12 pm…
To justify violence as human nature is beyond stupid. When was the last time you and your friends eat a fat guy in the streets? Humans are not violent by nature, they are violent for ignorance and for fear. You dont go fighting and killing people as you stroll the streets, just because it is your nature. You have more friends than enemies, you get a long with people, so how does that fit in your violent nature?
Comment by Juan C — April 19, 2007 @ 2:01 pm
Sorry Juan but you are silly and a fool. Humans are the most violent of all the animals. I pointed out that big cats brought down an elephant and ate it. We are the big cats and have destroyed the biosphere we are part of. Look at how we fish with rollers crushing the ocean floor while netting what is above in mass. We kill everything and we kill each other. We don’t even mean to but we run each other down with cars and pollute. 600,000 dead in Iraq??
Any way I am going to continue to be one of the armed ones and you can preach your Gandhi sounding FUD but humans are the most violent of all and our success as a species depends on our ability to KILL. Defending yourself with a gun happens to be better than getting killed by giving up.
April 19th, 2007 at 2:13 pmHitler never won an election until AFTER the Reichstag fire. (My last post on Hitler.)
My post addressed the concept that a mass murderer is enabled by readily available firearms.
Comment by pete — April 19, 2007 @ 2:10 pm
Burning of the German parliament building in Berlin 27 February 1933, less than a month after the Nazi leader Hitler became chancellor. The fire was used as a justification for the suspension of many constitutional guarantees and also as an excuse to attack the communists. There is still debate over whether the Nazis were involved in this crime, of which they were the main beneficiaries
April 19th, 2007 at 2:20 pmNo matter that the REGULAR french army helped you a lot…
Comment by Evil Spaniard
Yes they did… the french have helped us and we have helped them… that is why it is stupid how the right talks about the french.
April 19th, 2007 at 2:22 pmSorry Juan but you are silly and a fool. Humans are the most violent of all the animals.
Comment by Saywho — April 19, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
Not so. What makes the humans more dangerous than all the other animals is our advanced creative capacity and use of tools designed for specific jobs.
Thus, what makes more dangerous a human in front of a lion it’s his gun, not his superior body armors.
Thus, removing the weapon, you have a frail animal with no big teeths nor talons nor poisonous sting or at most, a machete.
BTW, the correct comparision is gun killing sprees against non-firearms killing sprees.
April 19th, 2007 at 2:22 pmHitler never won an election until AFTER the Reichstag fire. (My last post on Hitler.)
My post addressed the concept that a mass murderer is enabled by readily available firearms.
Comment by pete — April 19, 2007 @ 2:10 pm
You lack information and you lack “accurate information”….
A dictator emerges when liberties are removed from the population. A dictator gets all the guns in that process. The dictator typically says, “It will be safer if you comply!”
Thanks for your posts now please shut up and go away Pete!
April 19th, 2007 at 2:26 pm#219
One person with a knife or sword is a little different than thousands of soldiers with one each. Not a good comparison.
April 19th, 2007 at 2:29 pmBTW, the correct comparision is gun killing sprees against non-firearms killing sprees.
Comment by Evil Spaniard — April 19, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
Ok, if Cho did not have a gun or access to a gun, could he still have killed 32 people? Yes
Pipe bomb(s)
Fire
Car (in the quad)
Homemade explosive devices.
There are still a number of ways he could have done it. Cho was the problem, not guns.
April 19th, 2007 at 2:29 pmOh, and about the argument of increasing the mental health checks as the only way of curbing the shootings, yes it’s a PARTIAL solution. This is a problem of multiple variables, and most gun defenders (hello hacker bob) fail to recognize or admit other factors: excesive availabily of deadly weapons (.22 weapons look really deadly today, isn’t?), a stressful culture (yes, it is, with all the full capitalism, strong darwinist approach of the life there) too prone to arm their citizens, with the excuse of one half of the 2nd ammendment (how old it is?), and a anormous army that produces a warmongering culture (or viceversa), whose byproduct is a lot of people with PTSD after each big war, that happens at least a time per generation…
Yes, the solution isn’t only banning deadly weapons, but banning deadly weapons is one of the first steps.
April 19th, 2007 at 2:31 pmBTW, the correct comparision is gun killing sprees against non-firearms killing sprees.
Comment by Evil Spaniard — April 19, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
No… Executioner (lion) killing unarmed victims (prey). Humans are the most violent species of all. We kill sometimes for no good reason (like food/survival) while predators kill to eat or protect against other predators.
April 19th, 2007 at 2:33 pmComment by Evil Spaniard — April 19, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
Do you not see that limiting guns can have a minimal effect at best? You say “ban deadly weapons”, but are you aware that ALMOST ANYTHING can be a deadly weapon?
The bottom line is, if someone wants to kill someone (or several people), they will find a way.
April 19th, 2007 at 2:36 pm#221
The 2nd amendment right to bear arms today is not intended so that citizens have the ability to protect themselves from outside invaders from another country but rather to defend themselves from their own government. The Constitution mandates for the common defense of the country to be carried out by the federal governement.
April 19th, 2007 at 2:37 pmComment by Evil Spaniard — April 19, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
This is why bearing arms shall not be infringed since it prevents fools like you from giving power to the government rather than the citizens.
April 19th, 2007 at 2:39 pm#231
The French have very much changed since the Revolutionary War. They use to have spines.
April 19th, 2007 at 2:40 pmOk, if Cho did not have a gun or access to a gun, could he still have killed 32 people? Yes
Pipe bomb(s)
Fire
Car (in the quad)
Homemade explosive devices.
There are still a number of ways he could have done it. Cho was the problem, not guns.
Comment by hacker bob — April 19, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
OK, rebuttal, per item:
- Pipe bomb(s): Not your strong argument here, they are illegal. Are you defending illegalization of guns?
- Fire: Thats why fire alarms, evacuation plans exist and firefighters exist. And, prevent fire to be ignited is really hard, because it can be created with many different sources. Anyhow, nowadays isn’t forbidded to travel by air with lighters and matches? Another argument in favor of gun banning.
- Car (in the quad) Cars primary use: transportation. That’s why they’re not banned. But curiously, acquisition of warplanes is banned to the public. Why, if everyone has the right of self defense against a rogue government?
- Homemade explosive devices. Read above, the same as for the pipe bombs.
And, the prohibition by itself does nothing. But enforced… wow, it’s wonderful what can do.
April 19th, 2007 at 2:44 pmOkay, how about a kitchen knife? Or his bare hands? It’s possible a martial-arts expert would be able to kill 32 people with *no* weapons.
April 19th, 2007 at 2:54 pmBTW, the correct comparision is gun killing sprees against non-firearms killing sprees.
Comment by Evil Spaniard — April 19, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
No… Executioner (lion) killing unarmed victims (prey). Humans are the most violent species of all. We kill sometimes for no good reason (like food/survival) while predators kill to eat or protect against other predators.
Comment by Saywho — April 19, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
Then why put firearms in the hands of most of them, even with a mental health check passed? Everyone can got mad in any given moment, and use the weapon, and not for the “noble” motives that you think are the only valid to carry a weapon.
Simply imagine a faithful husband returning home with his glock from a bussiness travel, only to find his wife with his best friend in a not so noble attitude.
Many of the macho posters would react without a pinch of nobility. What then? Label him as mentally disturbed AFTER the event? One that fled the safety net? Pal, this position is far more repressive than controlling the guns.
April 19th, 2007 at 2:55 pm- Pipe bomb(s): Not your strong argument here, they are illegal. Are you defending illegalization of guns?
Guns on the VT campus were illegal as well. Just because something is illegal does not mean that someone can get it.
- Fire: Thats why fire alarms, evacuation plans exist and firefighters exist. And, prevent fire to be ignited is really hard, because it can be created with many different sources. Anyhow, nowadays isn’t forbidded to travel by air with lighters and matches? Another argument in favor of gun banning.
Was Cho in the air? I thought he was on a campus.
Even with firefighters, alarms and detectors 23,700 people are killed or injured each year in the US by fire (from:US Fire Administration).
- Car (in the quad) Cars primary use: transportation. That’s why they’re not banned. But curiously, acquisition of warplanes is banned to the public. Why, if everyone has the right of self defense against a rogue government?
I see you skipped out on this one. But guns primary use: hunting and defense. But as with cars, they can also be used for bad things.
- Homemade explosive devices. Read above, the same as for the pipe bombs.
Read above rebuttal to pipe bombs.
And, the prohibition by itself does nothing. But enforced… wow, it’s wonderful what can do.
Comment by Evil Spaniard — April 19, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
What good does enforcement do AFTER the fact? After all, no one knew beforehand that Cho had guns on campus. How do you enforce a law that you do not know to be broken?
April 19th, 2007 at 2:58 pmThe 2nd amendment right to bear arms today is not intended so that citizens have the ability to protect themselves from outside invaders from another country but rather to defend themselves from their own government. The Constitution mandates for the common defense of the country to be carried out by the federal governement.
Comment by Tracy — April 19, 2007 @ 2:37 pm
Let’s see:
Amendment II
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.
1) It seems to say that people can form a militia an in fact was deemed necessary.
2) It goes on after that 2nd comma to say that our right to bear arms shall not be infringed. This is not a mush statement nor is it a question. This right shall not be infringed.
So, no government, individual or group can change this fact that this right listed in the Bill of Rights shall not be infringed. It also implies that if a government, individual or group attempts to usurp that right odds are that he, she or they will be shot!
Since I already have several weapons if they or some of them are banned then I would be expected to turn them in. This process would violate my 3rd & 4th amendments. At the moment I can talk about it so my 1st Amendment is still semi-intact.
Your point about the government protecting me is NULL since it is up to me to protect myself in the event of an attack. You will note that 19 terrorists attacked the US and they were not stopped or repelled (completely). If a sneak attack occurred by armed people I would not be able to pursue life, liberty or happiness if I am killed or taken prisoner.
April 19th, 2007 at 2:58 pmIt’s possible a martial-arts expert would be able to kill 32 people with *no* weapons.
Comment by Dale — April 19, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
but not probable!
(and why the hell can’t I get my italic button to work!)
April 19th, 2007 at 3:01 pmSimply imagine a faithful husband returning home with his glock from a bussiness travel, only to find his wife with his best friend in a not so noble attitude.
Many of the macho posters would react without a pinch of nobility. What then? Label him as mentally disturbed AFTER the event? One that fled the safety net? Pal, this position is far more repressive than controlling the guns.
Comment by Evil Spaniard — April 19, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
Bad example. That is why we have laws for 1st, 2nd degree murder. One is premeditated and the other is not. A husband with no Glock could do them both in with a baseball bat or a kitchen knife.
April 19th, 2007 at 3:01 pmComment by Evil Spaniard — April 19, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
Okay, how about a kitchen knife? Or his bare hands? It’s possible a martial-arts expert would be able to kill 32 people with *no* weapons.
Comment by Dale — April 19, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
Wow, from Rambo movies to Bruce Lee movies. OK, in fact, martial art experts (including boxers)skills, are categorized as mortal weapons in most tribunals. It’s not the same for a judge if a inexpert kills accidentally another person in a brawl or if the one killing the other is a pro boxer or black belt karate kid.
And, being a martial arts expert capable of killing 32 persons in a row isn’t so easy as going to your local Killers’r'us and buy with an instacheck (or even having to wait the ‘awesome’ period of 10 days!!!???) two handguns with big magazines and a box of 100 bullets. And, don’t compare the speed killing with guns with the speed killing with your ninja ™ knife.
April 19th, 2007 at 3:01 pm#246, and what many people overlook or don’t realize about the 2nd ammendment is that the first part, A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, was included for one reason; to protect ursurping of states’ rights by the federal government. The founders feared a strong federal government much more than anything else.
Yet people will twist this ammendments’ two statements into one; trying to claim that the people are only allowed weapons as part of a militia.
April 19th, 2007 at 3:03 pm(and why the hell can’t I get my italic button to work!)
Comment by DRxJ — April 19, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
They don’t work for any of us. Ya’ gotta’ hard code ‘em today!
April 19th, 2007 at 3:04 pm#249, thanks for pointing out the obvious. The point people are trying to make is that a gun is only a *tool*, and that other tools can also be used to kill.
The fault lies entirely with Cho, not with the guns.
April 19th, 2007 at 3:06 pm#238 Comment by Evil Spaniard — April 19, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
Do you not see that limiting guns can have a minimal effect at best? You say “ban deadly weaponsâ€, but are you aware that ALMOST ANYTHING can be a deadly weapon?
The bottom line is, if someone wants to kill someone (or several people), they will find a way.
Comment by hacker bob — April 19, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
Almost everything can be a deadly weapon… but only guns are designed specifically for easy and quick killing, isn’t?
And if someone wants to kill another he can find a way… yes, but I prefer him having a hard time figuring how, than simply going to the corner’s shop to have a weapon that can make 20 holes in my body in 10 seconds.
And please, don’t invent now the scenario of the psycho with a drill.
April 19th, 2007 at 3:09 pm#252 #249, thanks for pointing out the obvious. The point people are trying to make is that a gun is only a *tool*, and that other tools can also be used to kill.
The fault lies entirely with Cho, not with the guns.
Comment by Dale — April 19, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
It’s not so obvious to explain how a person can kill 32 people in 10 minutes with a real tool, let’s say a hammer.
April 19th, 2007 at 3:12 pmThe fault lies entirely with Cho, not with the guns.
Comment by Dale — April 19, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
Here’s where Dale and I will agree, to a point.
April 19th, 2007 at 3:12 pmCho’s intentions were to do great bodily harm, with as much of a body count as could be possible for him.
The question remains, tho.
If he would have had a bayonet instead of guns, would the death toll have been so high?
IMO, I don’t think so.
He could not have slaughtered so many so quickly, and more would have escaped
And please, don’t invent now the scenario of the psycho with a drill.
Comment by Evil Spaniard — April 19, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
Nope, I just took thing out of daily life. I am not going to go all hypothetical on you.
And no ninja stories either.
April 19th, 2007 at 3:13 pmYa’ gotta’ hard code ‘em today!
Comment by hacker bob — April 19, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
call me computer illiterate, but I have no clue how that works.
April 19th, 2007 at 3:14 pm#248 Simply imagine a faithful husband returning home with his glock from a bussiness travel, only to find his wife with his best friend in a not so noble attitude.
Many of the macho posters would react without a pinch of nobility. What then? Label him as mentally disturbed AFTER the event? One that fled the safety net? Pal, this position is far more repressive than controlling the guns.
Comment by Evil Spaniard — April 19, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
Bad example. That is why we have laws for 1st, 2nd degree murder. One is premeditated and the other is not. A husband with no Glock could do them both in with a baseball bat or a kitchen knife.
Comment by hacker bob — April 19, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
Perfect example. If you can fight back a guy with two .22 caliber guns, you can fight back a guy with a baseball bat, specially if you’re 2 to 1, isn’t? Or why have guns if you can have baseball bats?
April 19th, 2007 at 3:14 pm#255, sure he wouldn’t have been able to kill so many so quickly… the the news of his killings may not have spread so fast either; giving him more time to kill. He could’ve gone into the first room, kill the two people, and they may not have been discovered for hours. This would then give him more time.
Thankfully we’ll never be sure.
April 19th, 2007 at 3:16 pmAnd, the prohibition by itself does nothing. But enforced… wow, it’s wonderful what can do.
Comment by Evil Spaniard — April 19, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
What good does enforcement do AFTER the fact? After all, no one knew beforehand that Cho had guns on campus. How do you enforce a law that you do not know to be broken?
Comment by hacker bob — April 19, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
Are you kidding? A strict prohibition of handgund enforced before the shooting would have stopped the guy.
April 19th, 2007 at 3:17 pmThen why put firearms in the hands of most of them, even with a mental health check passed? Everyone can got mad in any given moment, and use the weapon, and not for the “noble†motives that you think are the only valid to carry a weapon.
Simply imagine a faithful husband returning home with his glock from a bussiness travel, only to find his wife with his best friend in a not so noble attitude.
Many of the macho posters would react without a pinch of nobility. What then? Label him as mentally disturbed AFTER the event? One that fled the safety net? Pal, this position is far more repressive than controlling the guns.
Comment by Evil Spaniard — April 19, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
I’m not your PAL or BUDDY or FRIEND so you go on and make assumptions. Men have been killing women for one reason or another since we came out of the trees. Most men finding their wife’s having sex with another man get a divorce. Hitting them, beating them, stabbing them, killing them, burning them, shooting them are all criminal and if someone survives this then there is court.
I guess you didn’t watch the “Minority Report” ? but in the future people could be arrested by the police for future crimes. You want to one up that and remove any weapon and potential weapon! If I walked in on my wife and her lover I would possibly join in since my wife likes DP but that is just me.
April 19th, 2007 at 3:17 pm#257, try this: less-than-sign, em, greater-than-sign to start italics. less-than-sign, forward-slash, em, greater-than-sign to end italics.
Like so:
(em)This is italicized(/em)
Just replace the parens with the less-than/greater-than signs (if I had written them out, they wouldn’t have shown… and I didn’t know if this comment box would cover escaping the signs).
April 19th, 2007 at 3:18 pmcall me computer illiterate, but I have no clue how that works.
For Italic put before the statement and (minus the spaces between letters) after the statement.
April 19th, 2007 at 3:19 pmAssumption without proof. Cho apparently enjoyed collecting guns… he may very well have owned guns even if they were illegal.
Not to mention that they WERE illegal on the VT campus, yet he had them anyway.
April 19th, 2007 at 3:20 pmAW, MAN… TMI
April 19th, 2007 at 3:20 pmOkay, hypothetical situation (and I think our class discussed this in 6th grade).
Terrorists take hostage of a class room. Terrorists are armed with handguns. The only escape is to overtake them. Easy enough scenerio, but whose going to be the first ones to take action?
Now, imagine the same example, but instead of guns, the terrorists are carrying knives and bats.
April 19th, 2007 at 3:21 pmIMO, the chances of overtaking the them has been simplified
#259 #255, sure he wouldn’t have been able to kill so many so quickly… the the news of his killings may not have spread so fast either; giving him more time to kill. He could’ve gone into the first room, kill the two people, and they may not have been discovered for hours. This would then give him more time.
Thankfully we’ll never be sure.
Comment by Dale — April 19, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
Wow. Just wow. So a slow assassin has the same chances that a quick assassin? Nobody would have missed the dead people? Nobody would have searched the assassin, meanwhile 32 PEOPLE were missing in the campus, dead in their locked rooms?
Please, Dale.
April 19th, 2007 at 3:23 pmAre you kidding? A strict prohibition of handgund enforced before the shooting would have stopped the guy.
Comment by Evil Spaniard — April 19, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
OK, so you prohibit hand guns. What about pipes and all the ingredients for a pipe bomb? Do you ban those as well? Or flammable substances? Or cars? Or baseball bats? Or……………
April 19th, 2007 at 3:24 pmIf I walked in on my wife and her lover I would possibly join in since my wife likes DP but that is just me.
Comment by Saywho — April 19, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
Oh no, you didn’t!
April 19th, 2007 at 3:25 pmI’m hoping you’re being sarcastic (and it gives me the opportunity to try out my hard core italics…no pun intended, of course)
For Italic put before the statement and (minus the spaces between letters) after the statement.
Comment by hacker bob — April 19, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
that was the letters “em” inside to start and “/em” inside to finish.
April 19th, 2007 at 3:25 pmComment by DRxJ — April 19, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
19 Hijackers armed w/ box cutters killed more than 3000 people in moments!
April 19th, 2007 at 3:26 pmNot a gun in the bunch! No passengers were armed so they are “DISARMED VICTEMS”
You are Captain LOGIC today!
IMO, the chances of overtaking the them has been simplified
Comment by DRxJ — April 19, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
Simplified yes. But the threat has been minimized, not eliminated.
They may get one, but not all. If 10 peopel rush a gunman, he may get one or two, but not all. Numbers alone increase your odds of survival.
April 19th, 2007 at 3:28 pm#246
Just to let you know I was not against anything you said in your post #221. I agreed with everything you said. I was just pointing out that it’s the primary role of the federal government to provide for the defense of the country, not to imply that U.S. citizens people shouldn’t defend themselves from foreign invaders. In fact people having guns in their personal possession is what would keep this country from being invaded by another country with an equal military…if there was such a thing.
April 19th, 2007 at 3:29 pmYou are Captain LOGIC today!
Comment by Saywho — April 19, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
Now there’s one name I’ve never been called
April 19th, 2007 at 3:34 pmI’m not your PAL or BUDDY or FRIEND so you go on and make assumptions.
Ermm, I don’t like you either, sorry if I have given you that impression. Nor want to be friendly with a person that thinks that arming pubescent brats is a good idea.
Men have been killing women for one reason or another since we came out of the trees.
A motive for not giving extra “tools” to potential killers.
Most men finding their wife’s having sex with another man get a divorce. Hitting them, beating them, stabbing them, killing them, burning them, shooting them are all criminal and if someone survives this then there is court.
I was thinking that pro gun people is for PREVENTING these things.
I guess you didn’t watch the “Minority Report†? but in the future people could be arrested by the police for future crimes. You want to one up that and remove any weapon and potential weapon!
Oh, I see a law banning guns is sci-fi for you, as if every human was born with a S&W glued to his hand. I see that you live in a Brave New World.
If I walked in on my wife and her lover I would possibly join in since my wife likes DP but that is just me.
Comment by Saywho — April 19, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
Beware, because in your country is far easier make illegal sex than weapons. You would end in jail and/or castrated.
BTW, sodomy is a illegal in a couple states (who love guns also).
April 19th, 2007 at 3:34 pmhacker bob,
My point being, had the USA had a more strict gun control to which Cho would not have been able to attain the handguns, I believe the carnage would have been less.
That said, the blame falls squarely on Cho, not for or against gun control.
April 19th, 2007 at 3:38 pmWell, was fun to debate (?) with the pro-gun thickskulled crowd, but I’m leaving for some socialicing (that prevent shootouts).
Bye for now.
April 19th, 2007 at 3:38 pmComment by Saywho — April 19, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
I’m gonna break my rule, just this one time, because I like you and I want you to be better informed about Hitler.
This explanation is extremely simplified, in the interest of time and space. In the Weimar Republic, Chancellor was a position similar to the Prime Minister in Britain. The leader of the majority party of the Reichstag was the Chancellor. Because no party could win a majority of the seats in the Reichstag, the President of Germany, von Hindenberg, needed a Chancellor that could form a coalition cabinet. Hindenberg selected several other leading German politicians, but the Nazis in the Reichstag made it impossible for any of his other choices to maintain the necessary coalition. Hitler became Chancellor because Hindenberg had no other choice. A few giant steps later, other political parties were outlawed, the Reichstag granted autocratic powers to Hitler and dissolved itself.
He was not elected, no one was elected to the position of German Chancellor. Unlike Britain’s PM (who must be an elected member of Parliament to become Prime Minister), Germany’s Chancellor was not required to hold a seat in the Reichstag. There were later elections in which Germans were asked to affirm Hitler’s position – not surprisingly, he tended to draw 99% “Ja!” votes.
This is really my last post about Hitler.
April 19th, 2007 at 3:42 pmSayWho,
Your wife is a real screamer, she said you couldn’t get her to that point the way I did.
April 19th, 2007 at 3:42 pmComment by DRxJ — April 19, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
I have a great sex life and so does my wife. When we are able and the time is right we diversify our activities. And yes we have done things in bed that many would not. None of this has anything to do with guns except that my wife and I both own and shoot guns. Guns have been part of my life from birth. My kids all learned gun safety and all shoot with us (3 kids) and none seem to dislike or reject it.
On this thread my point is that people get killed each and every day in all sorts of ways. Back in the day men used rocks then clubs and sticks…
Look at the picture atop this thread. Waving flags on sticks but that stick is a symbol of a weapon called a SPEAR. The flag itself is symbolic of the trials and tribulations of a nation.
April 19th, 2007 at 3:46 pmComment by ForTruth — April 19, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
You nasty man :)
April 19th, 2007 at 3:46 pmComment by pete — April 19, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
He was ELECTED… Achtung: you copied from Wikipedia! Wikipedia is many time WRONG
April 19th, 2007 at 3:51 pmSaywho
Here, not from Wiki
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitlerdemo.htm
Myth: Democracy elected Hitler to power.
Fact: Hitler used backroom deals, not votes, to come to power.
Summary
Hitler never had more than 37 percent of the popular vote in the honest elections that occurred before he became Chancellor. And the opposition among the 63 percent against him was generally quite strong. Hitler therefore would have never seen the light of day had the German Republic been truly democratic. Unfortunately, its otherwise sound constitution contained a few fatal flaws. The German leaders also had a weak devotion to democracy, and some were actively plotting to overthrow it. Hitler furthermore enjoyed an almost unbroken string of luck in coming to power. He benefited greatly from the Great Depression, the half-senility of the president, the incompetence of his opposition, and the appearance of an unnecessary backroom deal just as the Nazis were starting to lose popular appeal and votes.
Also not Wiki
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Nazi_Germany_dictatorship.htm
When Hitler was appointed chancellor on January 30th 1933, it was at the head of a coalition government. It was very clear in his mind that it would not remain this way for long. By the end of March 1933, he had acquired much greater powers than the former leading politicians of the Weimar Republic could ever have foreseen when they supported his appointment as chancellor. The death of President Hindenburg in August 1934, allowed him to combine both chancellor’s and president’s positions into one when Hitler became the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor.
appointed=/=elected
April 19th, 2007 at 4:01 pmAny way I’m going to switch over to the AG thread since no matter what we think about guns the USAs issue seems to be most pressing!
April 19th, 2007 at 4:03 pmappointed=/=elected
Comment by hacker bob — April 19, 2007 @ 4:01 pm
OK I concede on the appointed vs. elected topic…
Regardless, Private gun ownership was BANNED after the Reichstag Fire… The whole point was that someone stated that, “My post addressed the concept that a mass murderer is enabled by readily available firearms.” Hitler took away liberty (like the Patriot Act) and took away private guns (a good chunk of them) rendering the citizens as powerless sheep. Then he started his killing spree.
If you want to be top dog: “GET ALL THE GUNS” then you are top dog till a bigger dog comes along!
April 19th, 2007 at 4:15 pmraspberry
April 19th, 2007 at 4:43 pmIf I walked in on my wife and her lover I would possibly join in since my wife likes DP but that is just me.
Comment by Saywho — April 19, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
AW, MAN… TMI
Comment by Dale
Dale, on that we can agree. Ugh.
April 20th, 2007 at 12:20 am