.

Why? Why Aurora, Ft. Hood, Gabby Giffords, VA Tech...

Will it ever stop? Not at the rate we’re going. Will it stop with absolutist arguments from either side on the gun debate? Not with the ‘You’ll-only-pry-this-weapon-out-of-my-cold-dead-hands’ mentality nor with the ‘Make-all-guns-illegal' argument either.

Why?

Why does Aurora happen?

What does it say about us as a culture, that this kind of thing happens here? That it happens here more than it happens any other place in the world?

We’re not at war at home. We’re not in a place where suicide bombings happen, and we’re not currently engaged in a religious or territorial war within our own borders.

Why does it happen here?

What does it say about us as a culture that it does happen here? What does it say about us as a culture that we glorify guns, even eroticize guns, and market them in the way the billboard image I’ve used with this column does?

What does it say about us as a culture that some people seek out fame, infamy or a perceived glory by going down guns a’blazing, in a hail of bullets and a stream of gunfire?

What does it say about us as a culture that there are people who turn to that? And what does it say about us as a culture that they can easily get the means to do that? That every move made by the Aurora shooting suspect James Holmes, up until the moment that he tossed his first smoke bomb in the movie theater, was legal?

He obtained the guns legally, including an assault rifle that had been banned for sale to civilians until that ban expired in 2004. He obtained the ammunition—6,000 rounds of ammo—legally.

In our culture, we do have an ongoing verbal and political battle over the freedom and right to bear arms, and perhaps it needs to be reframed as a question between the right to bear arms and the freedom and right to go to a movie theater without getting shot. Just as important as the right to bear arms is the freedom and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I’m not saying that the right to bear arms is not something that deserves to be protected. I am not against the Second Amendment. Let me state that again, loud and clear, especially for those of you who in the past have thought I was, (including those who put me on a pro-gun, anti-gun-control ‘Bang List’): 

I am not against the Second Amendment.

However, what is it about our culture that allows bad people to easily have access to such destructive weaponry? Why didn’t somebody purchasing 6,000 rounds of ammunition set off some kind of alarm somewhere? Why don’t we have that built into the structure of how someone can legally and safely obtain that amount of terror?

Didn’t anyone wonder why someone might need to have that much automatic weaponry? Is that rational, even for someone who just wants to hunt legally, or shoot target practice legally.

One Denver columnist posed the question asking if James Holmes had instead been named Ibrahim or Mohammed, would someone have stopped to ask ‘why?'

In the days after Holmes walked into that midnight screening of The Dark Knight Rises, there were critics who said, “Oh sure, this tragedy is just gonna get politicized.” And I know someone will accuse me of politicizing it because I’ve written this column. But discourse, debate and discussion is exactly what should happen after this kind of awful, horrible event—rational dialogue about how our country and our culture handles this idea of what having the right to bear arms really means.

In fact, to me, shutting down that conversation would be politicizing it more so than any kind of examination of how much arms are too much.

Undoubtedly, someone will make the argument that our nation’s forefathers and founders wanted to protect the right to bear arms in the U.S. Constitution. I’m sure they did. However, the rational thinker in me has to counter-argue that I can’t imagine they could have dreamed up the kinds of weaponry and arms we now find available.

We, as a nation, have to have this conversation. On behalf of the 12 victims who were killed by James Holmes’ bullets, and on behalf of the 59 other victims who were injured by James Holmes’ bullets, and on behalf of the hundreds of those 71 victims’ family members, and on behalf of the millions of other people who all weekend asked, “Why?”—we need to have this conversation.

We need to have this conversation because of people like Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert from TX, who questioned why people in the movie theater didn’t have a gun to defend themselves. Or because of former Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce, who posted on Facebook about those moviegoers in the Aurora theater that they should have been more brave and prepared—in other words, armed.

Those statements—which amount to blame-the-victims—is just what we need, right? We need the return to the Wild West inside that darkened movie theater, with more bullets from all sides flying across the theater in the pitch black dark.

Has that ever worked? Has anyone in the middle of a mass shooting massacre ever been stopped by a gun-wielding hero who wasn’t a police officer called to the scene?

Obviously, I’m impassioned and emotional about this, as we should be when 12 people are killed in senseless gunfire. We should be saddened, we should be horrified, and we should be moved to have rational discussion about how to make this less likely to happen again.

Will it ever stop? For sure, not at the rate we’re going. Will it stop with blind, absolute arguments from either side on the gun control debate?  Not with the ‘You’ll-only-pry-this-weapon-out-of-my-cold-dead-hands’ mentality nor with the ‘Make-all-guns-illegal’ approach either.

How about we start by taking both of those options off the table.

But let’s find some middle, rational ground. 

Let’s listen to sane voices like Jim and Sarah Brady, who said in a statement after the Aurora shootings:  “Congress has done nothing since the mid-1990s to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. We pledge to keep fighting the NRA and entire gun lobby in an effort to strengthen our background checks to include all firearm purchases, ban assault clips with large magazines that enable mass killers, and to make it more difficult to obtain concealed carry permits.”

Or even conservative columnist Bill Kristol, who said “People have a right to handguns and hunting rifles,” he said. “I don’t think they have a right to semi-automatic, quasi-machine guns that can shoot hundred bullets at a time. And I actually think the Democrats are being foolish as they are being cowardly. I think there is more support for some moderate forms of gun control.”

Or even New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who called on each of the Presidential candidates “to stand up and tell us what they’re going to do about it.”

So that we may someday have fewer and fewer of these conversations. So that we may have fewer times we have to ask, ‘Why?’  Why Aurora? Why Ft. Hood? Why Gabby Giffords? Why Virginia Tech?

We need to ask, ‘Why?’ a lot less, and we need to say ‘No more. Let’s make this stop.’

Naugatuck Resident July 25, 2012 at 01:22 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/23/world/europe/23oslo.html?pagewanted=all
Naugatuck Resident July 25, 2012 at 01:24 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Norway "There is a total ban on automatic weapons for civilians, unless they fall in the collector category." Gun Control didn't prevent the Oslo tragedy!
Naugatuck Resident July 25, 2012 at 01:28 AM
Here's another European country, one where Hitler chose NOT to invade during WWII. Everyone there HAS a true definition, true military weapon with machine gun capability. It's Switzerland..... Gun Control advocates hate to mention Switzerland when comparing European crime and gun ownership to that of here in the USA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
Naugatuck Resident July 25, 2012 at 01:39 AM
We have problems. Guns and access to guns is NOT the problem. The Supreme Court held in Heller that not only does the Second Amendment apply to individual firearms, but also that any instrument that can be held in one's hands having a recognizeable value for self defense is protected by the Second Amendment, regardless of whether that instrument employs past, present or future technology AND provides for the states and the federal government to regulate that right to a reasonable extent. Having said that, the BATFE already has regulations around what "types" of firearms constitute being allowed or prohibited for civilian use in general circumstances. It also provides for guidelines on certain (mostly handgun) ammunition performance and penetration characteristics. For example, we cannot own: hand grenades, rocket launchers, missiles and the like. Rifled bore firearms above .50 caliber (half inch) are generally prohibited with some execptions (these would include some enormous safari grade rifles such as .600 Nitro Express and the more recently developed .950 JDJ - an enormous single shot, bolt action rifle firing a ridiculously large cartridge. Normally such an arm would be classified as a prohibited "destructive device" The .950 JDJ is nothing more than a curio for "ha-has" and doesn't pose an actual "threat" any more than a more common rifle does. Enforce the laws we have - don't make new ones!
Naugatuck Resident July 25, 2012 at 01:52 AM
"Has that ever worked? Has anyone in the middle of a mass shooting massacre ever been stopped by a gun-wielding hero who wasn’t a police officer called to the scene?" Yes - many times. The NRA American Rifleman posts clippings from around the country every month about would be armed criminals attacking citizens who then shoot or very often, stop the commission of the crime merely by pulling their gun out. Here's something that happened in Florida, a few days BEFORE the Aurora, CO shooting: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/07/17/video-excellent-concealed-carrier-stops-an-armed-robbery/ Could it have averted a similar tragedy? It very well could have! If the gas station owner in Meriden had a gun - he might have had a chance.
Heather Borden Herve July 25, 2012 at 02:10 AM
According to the Small Arms Survey of 2007, (the last time data were compiled; the 2011 SASurvey also refers to '07 figures http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/H-Research_Notes/SAS-Research-Note-9.pdf), the U.S. has the highest rate of civilian gun ownership: 90 guns for every 100 people. We're number 1 in that statistic. Where does Norway fall? It just misses the top 10, and the U.S. can boast almost 3x the amount of guns over Norway--31 guns/every 100 people. There are no concealed carry licenses available in Norway--nor is there public outcry it (learned that from your wikipedia link). Can you name one other mass shooting massacre in Norway? Probably not. 30,000 people die each year in the US from gun violence, with another 400,000 victims of gun violence who are merely injured. Gun violence costs an estimated $100 billion a year. http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Law/CriminologyandCriminalJustice/?view=usa&ci=9780195153842 Comparing car accident deaths? Guess what--we DO have restrictions and laws about driving, a whole bunch of 'em. Who can drive, when you can't drive, insurance laws, etc. Those who argue both sides will tout data over how many more deaths are caused by cars or by guns, starting with the study released by the Violence Policy Center in May. Both sides will rip each others facts apart. All I'm saying is that it might be valid to find some sort place to start a dialogue for some sort of compromise.
Naugatuck Resident July 25, 2012 at 03:05 AM
"The Supreme Court held in Heller that not only does the Second Amendment apply to individual firearms," (meant to say: individual ownership of firearms)
Naugatuck Resident July 25, 2012 at 03:11 AM
Also Heather, since you want to cite statistics, the SAFEST states in the USA are the ones with the HIGHEST ratios of (legal) gun ownership per capita. FBI UCR stats have shown that for decades, and it really hasn't changed. The Brady Campaign and VPC stats you cite are known to be skewed and those organizations are known to exist for the purpose of civilian disarmament in the USA. Many of their "crime" stats are really gang on gang crime, people who are already criminals shooting other criminals, etc. Their so called "children" statistics include adults up to age 25, etc. They've been called out on that over and over again for years.
Naugatuck Resident July 25, 2012 at 03:23 AM
Again, proving my point that no matter what - bad guys will have guns. Leave the good guys alone! NO NEW LAWS. Compromise? We've already compromised. We've been passing laws restricting the types of firearms and ammunition at the federal level since 1934. Examples include: NFA '34 (gangster weapons act); regulating and defining "sawed off shotguns", machine guns, rifle barrel length, etc. GCA '68 (patterned after parts of Nazi Germany's laws from Hitler's 1930s regulations before WWII and the Holocaust) setting "sporting criteria" for importation, external size dimensions for handguns (banned guns like the Walther PPK from being imported into the USA); FOPA '86 - signed by REAGAN which froze the number of legally transferrable machine guns to civilians under the NFA '34 provisions; other 1980s legislation banned the material construction components of certain handgun bullets capable of penetrating arbitrary layers of some kevlar bullet resistant vests (the so-called "teflon" coated, hard metal rounds from KTW - which were NEVER sold to the public and no police officer has ever been shot with), the sunsetted 1994 Clinton Assault Weapons ban - of which its cosmetic provisions still apply in Connecticut.. Has ANY of these EVER made a difference when a criminal or derranged person wants to commit a crime? No - they never have and NEVER will.
Naugatuck Resident July 25, 2012 at 03:29 AM
@ Heather - it's all relative "compared to what"? England it can be argued, still has a "lower" crime rate than the USA, BUT their gun crimes have drastically risen - something like 300% compared to where they were BEFORE they banned handguns. Same thing for Australia. The VPC is a sham. Just a front to advance banning firearms ownership by labelling "boogie man" criteria on firearms. We already HAVE 20,000 gun laws on the books federal, state and local ordinances. We also have 2,000 outstanding arrest warrants in CT alone. 500 of which are for felonies. Norway doesn't have that either, Heather. The point is bad people will always have guns, always have - drugs, always have whatever else the want to acquire - illegally. Once you start talking about "limiting the number of bullets" a gun can hold - it doesn't matter if the people being shot at are UNARMED! If you pass the ten round limit - bad people will still have the larger capacity magazines -or have extra guns and magazines! It's like saying ok - let's retrofit all our cars to NOT go faster than 65 mph! After all, that's the speed limit, right? Well, even if we did that, people would be driving 65 mph in a 30 mph zone anyway (and do now!) - you get into , ok let's limit people to TWO drinks at any bar visit! Do we ban cars and alcohol after tragic drunk driving accidents? Do we SUE Ford and Anheuser Busch like the gun makers were sued in the 1990s? Address the BEHAVIOR not the OBJECT. That's my point.
Jonathan July 25, 2012 at 04:26 AM
Stop looking at the gun as "the evil gun" and look at crime as a whole. Everyone the firearms were removed, crime went up. Hell, look at England, it's the violent crime capitol of Europe with London right in the middle. Germany, same thing. Yes, the vast majority of people didn't die at the hand of the gun - looks great to anti gun zealots..... but, look deeper, more actually have died. I don't think the victim cared whether it was at the end of a bullet..... or a club, knife, etc....... dead is dead.......
Steve July 25, 2012 at 07:47 AM
Whew, a lot of things to cover here. I'll start from the author's reply & work backwards. Yes, the US has a has a lot of firearms in civilian hands. For argument's sake, if the US suffers one mass shooting per year, Norway would only have one every 62 years if they had them at the same rate since their population is only 5M compared to 310M in the US. Not really fair to do a direct comparison. Next, the oft repeated 30,000 'victims' of gun violence includes suicides which make up about 55-60% of that number. Japan manages to have 2x the suicide rate with a virtual ban on firearms ownership. Looking at statistics from Australia & Canada, you can see that restrictions on guns led to changes in the methods of suicides, not in the actual suicide rate. Of the ~11,500 firearms homicides (2009) very few are from a high profile mass shooting such as this. Efforts to prevent these types of incidents which are typically carried out by intelligent loners with plenty of time to plan are a waste of resources, to be cold about it. Most firearms homicides are drug/gang related & perpetrated by people who had prior criminal records. This is where prevention efforts need to be focused, again not so much on the guns but on preventing people from becoming criminals. Whoops, running out of space. Links below. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html http://www.gunfacts.info/
Steve July 25, 2012 at 08:10 AM
Ok, now let's get some terminology correct. An 'assault rifle' is a type of rifle that fires an intermediate cartridge (less powerful than most hunting cartridges) & has the ability to switch between semi-automatic & full automatic fire. You can't just walk into a gun store & buy one. Sales of new ones have been completely banned since 1986 & heavily regulated since 1934. An 'assault weapon' is a broad term defined in law by anti-gun legislators to confuse the public as to what they are actually banning. They are semi-automatic only rifles (sometimes some shotguns & pistols are included in state laws) that are styled after their military counterparts. What the author (& most of the gun ignorant) don't understand about the federal 'assault weapon' ban that expired is that it only banned firearms with certain features. Manufacturers removed these features & sold functionally identical firearms. Also not well known by gun banners: These laws have made those firearms more popular than ever. It is widely believed that the AR-15 platform is the best selling rifle in the US for several years now. Good luck trying to ban them now, it would be like trying to ban the Big Mac. A name change & a few cosmetics would change & it would be back. Character limit... http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html http://www.fieldandstream.com/photos/gallery/hunting/2009/05/fs-picks-25-best-ar-style-rifles http://www.gunfacts.info/
Steve July 25, 2012 at 08:45 AM
Finally, there's a lot of heavy breathing that the evil maniac purchased 6,000 rounds of ammunition. So what? Nobody can carry that much without a wheelbarrow. Most soldiers carry 200-300 max. Professional competitive shooters can shoot up to 100,000 rounds per year, while many amateurs can easily shoot 5-6000/year just to stay in practice. Purchasing ammunition in bulk is the most cost effective way, just like going to Costco for your 128 roll package of toilet paper. If gun laws worked, cities like Washington DC & Chicago would be crime free havens rather than the murder capitals of the country. Studies can't find any correlation between laws & reduced crime. In fact, John Lott's infamous book 'More Guns, Less Crime' uses statistical models to show the opposite may be true. Its a difficult read for those not well versed in statistics though (like me). His follow on book 'The Bias Against Guns' is a much easier read & recommended. Jumping to conclusions & calling for laws to be passed before all the facts are even known is a recipe for bad policy. Too many people have knee jerk reactions that 'something must be done' & politicians are often willing accomplices if it will get them donations or reelected, consequences be damned. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
Chris July 25, 2012 at 09:50 AM
Priscilla Ford killed 6 people and injured 23 more with an automobile. Li Xianliang killed 17 people with a piece of construction equipment. Julio González killed 87 people with a can of gasoline and a lighter. Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people and injured almost 700 more with fertilizer. A handful of radicals killed 3000 people on Sept. 11, 2001 using boxcutters.
Chris July 25, 2012 at 09:52 AM
The point is you could not only ban, but somehow magically remove all guns and people would just use a different tool. The UK banned guns. Gun crime went down slightly, but knife crimes skyrocketed. Their OVERALL violent crime rate went up. Now they heavily regulate knives to the point you need to show id to buy a steak knife, and can be arrested for carrying a plastic butter knife in your lunchbox. Hasn't helped. Maybe they can ban sticks and rocks next? Many other countries that virtually ban civilian firearm ownership have violent crime rates far higher then the US. Banning guns hasn't changed that. You have a perfect example right here Locally. MA, NJ and NY have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. NYC is even stricter, yet those states are near the top in violent crime rates. VT has the least restrictive gun laws in the entire country, and NH is not far behind, yet they have some of the lowest violent crime rates in the USA. James Holmes is a smart man. He was able to build sophisticated bombs that took the best experts in the country several days to disarm. If they had gone off they may have killed hundreds of people. If guns didn't even exist, he still would have been able to murder at least as many people as he shot with a gun. Guns are not the problem. Human nature is the problem.
Naugatuck Resident July 25, 2012 at 11:16 AM
Jim Jones killed 900+ people in 1978 with poisoned Kool-Aid. (He had armed thugs shooting people who were running away from his mass "suicide". What if those people who wanted to escape had guns themselves to shoot back with? Adolf Hitler killed 6 million Jews during WWII. Gun control laws disarmed the Jewish population first. What if those people had guns to shoot back with? Actually Hitler killed 13 million civilians when you factor in dissident Catholics, gypsies, union leaders, mentally ill people and homosexuals. Turkey had "gun control" in 1911. They massacred 1.5 million unarmed Armenians. USSR had gun control in 1929. They killed 20 million of their own people between 1929 and 1953 (when Stalin died); China had "gun control" in 1935. Mao Tse Tung, not to be outdone by Stalin, his northern border Communist brethren, Mao also killed 20 million citizens between 1949 and 1952 (Mao was so much more "efficient"*sickening*) Cambodia had gun contol in 1956. Pol Pot killed over 1 million "educated" people who couldn't defend themselves between 1975-1977. Guatemala, Uganda, Cuba - the examples go on and on. "Gun Control" has killed 56 million people world wide in the 20th century alone.
Naugatuck Resident July 25, 2012 at 11:39 AM
It's ironic that right now there is a UN ATT Arms trade treaty(gun confiscation under the guise of "illicit trafficking") to be voted on. Ironic because who is promoting it? CHINA, RUSSIA and who is the MC oversseing the progress and completion of the treaty? Smile for the camera, it's none other than everyone's "favorite" Iranian madman, Mahmoud "wipe Israel and the USA from the face of the earth" Ahmadinejad! http://cnsnews.com/news/article/rogue-regimes-un-leadership-posts-why-should-us-continue-no-strings-attached-funding Really???
Robert Chambers July 25, 2012 at 11:53 AM
You know what makes me laugh. When an anti-gun type puts " I'm not against the second amendment" in their prose. Whenever I see that, it's a red flag that you absolutely ARE against it and if you're against the 2nd you're probably for limiting the first, fourth, and fifth too. Funny you should mention Ft Hood. You can thank Bill BJ Clinton for that massacre, it was under his watch that the military was prohibited from carrying their sidearms on base. Imagine if that wasn't the case and all those highly trained soldiers had their own sidearms. That psychologist jihadist would have been cut down before he got the second syllable of Akbar out. Since the base was basically a gun-free zone, many soliders got shot and killed. Yeah gun control works great.. for the criminals.
Craig C. Fishbein July 25, 2012 at 01:06 PM
Gun control laws only prevent LAW-ABIDING people from protecting themselves. You see someone looking for MORE gun control? I can guarantee you that they have never been the victim of a violent crime. Never been mugged, never been home invaded, never been threatened with deadly physical force. Never ad that feeling of complete helplessness. Asking for more gun control is just asking to become a victim. The real question is, "Do you trust YOURSELF to be able to protect YOUR OWN family using a gun?" If the answer is yes, then I ask that you respect my ability AND RIGHT to do the same. If the answer is no... then, I suggest that you consult with a mental health therapist... quickly!
HealthyMom July 25, 2012 at 02:22 PM
The problem is PEOPLE, not guns. I believe 100% that this Holmes mental case would have committed the same amount of bloodshed in a different way had he not been able to obtain guns. Growing up in our house, we did (and do) excercise our right to bear arms; if someone would have so much of tried to invade our home, well that sound of the shot gun being loaded and ready would have sent them running. That's our right, and I hope we will continue to have that right. For our own protection.
lgbTara August 07, 2012 at 06:57 AM
the man is clearly mentally ill. You'd prefer to kill him than seek rehabilitation?
lgbTara August 07, 2012 at 07:00 AM
Cars aren't built for the express purpose of killing things. Guns are. The Oslo incident was a one-time tragedy; Aurora is one of countless events linked through our outrageously lenient gun laws. The US has over twice as many gun-related deaths as Norway, by the way... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Chris August 07, 2012 at 10:10 AM
Interesting link, Tara. First off, total gun deaths is somewhat meaningless, because it includes suicides as well as justified shooting deaths, like by police. Half of all firearm related deaths in the US are from suicides. It's a quick and usually effective way to kill yourself. But it's not the only way. Taking away the gun doesnt prevent the suicide, just look at Japan. Near the very bottom of your list of gun death rates. No, let's look at suicide rates. How about we use the same source you did? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_rate Japan has one of the highest suicide rates in the world, and the USA has one of the lowest suicide rates. Obviously easy access to a firearm doesnt make one more likely to commit suicide, and removing access to one doesnt prevent it. Now, go research the gun control laws of the countries higher then the USA on your list of gun deaths. I'll save you some trouble, every one, including the ones near the top that have a firearm homicide rate 10, 20, even 25 times the rate in the US, have far stricter gun control laws then the USA does on a whole. So explain to me how making something that is already highly illegal (committing murder) will be reduced by making something else that is already illegal ( committing a crime with a gun) more illegal?
SuperDave August 15, 2012 at 02:10 PM
So you feel like you are about to be invaded? Look, you are denying facts so you can hug your guns. The fact is countries, and even states within the US, who have some kind of gun control have lower instances of gun related deaths.
SuperDave August 15, 2012 at 02:12 PM
Guns are the problem. Geez......do you think the US has cornered the market on crazies? I think not. Its the easy access to an item that is designed to do nothing but kill.
SuperDave August 15, 2012 at 02:13 PM
If you are such a "good guy", why do you need a gun? What does that do? Does it stop crazy people from bursting in your house and shooting you? No. What would? GUN BAN.
SuperDave August 15, 2012 at 02:18 PM
Once again READ THE SECOND AMMENDMENT! Not half of it. It does not give you the right to have a gun. It gives you the right to have a gun "for a well regulated militia". Geez people. You can read something and agree with half and ignore the other half. It is outdated, and needs to be struck down. It was written way back when the US had no standing army, and the British and French were at our borders. We are doomed with this kind of radicalism.
Robert Chambers August 15, 2012 at 02:20 PM
Yes, lets talk about gun control SuperDave. Lets take states like California, Illinois, and New York. All three of these states have restrictive gun control laws. Illinois is so restrictive it's as if the right to keep and bear arms doesn't exist at all. California is not much better and New York state is relatively easy compared to Illinois. Now - compare the largest cities in these states Chicago, Los Angeles and New York City which have draconian gun laws, so restrictive in fact that Chicago's was struck down as unconstitutional. You'd think that places with such stringent laws would be safe from guns wouldn't you.. but they aren't, gun crime exists not because of "gun" but because of "crime" - If you could get rid of criminals everyone could walk around without worrying because good people don't hurt others. So why don't you work on whatever tactics you think you can employ to get rid of the criminal element, and once you have all the criminals either locked up or deported or otherwise unable to harm us then you can worry about gun crime... but you won't have to worry about it because without the criminals, there'd be NO gun crime.
Robert Chambers August 15, 2012 at 02:31 PM
Thank heaven we have SuperDave to winnow out which RIGHTS we need and which ones we can dispose of as outdated... What happens after you wipe out the 2nd amendment Dave? get rid of the first? can't have those scary ideas getting out, perhaps having a good state sponsored religion might be handy, get rid of all the other fringe stuff.. what would it be Dave? Christianity? which sect? get rid of the Jews and the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists ok Dave... Those pesky 4th and 5th amendments can go too, after all if you aren't doing anything wrong you won't need them either will you? The militia in the times of old was any able bodied man age 18-45 who could be called up to defend their town/state/nation if needs be. Well regulated didn't mean "strangled with regulation" like it does now it meant well equipped as in having arms and ammunition and being ready to roll. Don't accuse us of cherry-picking what RIGHTS we want to exercise. If YOU want to roll over and give up your rights well that's your deal and I feel sorry for you. Don't you DARE try and tell me (and other people who do cherish them) what rights you think we ought to have.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something