I am horrified to the core of my being, as I suspect most Americans are, by the events that took place in Tucson, Az. last weekend. The loss of life and destruction caused by one clearly disturbed human being armed with an automatic weapon, has besotted our nation. It has once again left the world puzzled, looking at us and wondering why our so-called democratic principles do not protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness any better than say, the government of Sudan protects its citizens' basic rights.
The Tucson massacre now becomes another in a seemingly unending series of massacres in which mentally ill persons legally or illegally procure high-powered weapons and kill innocent citizens for no other reason that they simply can. Remember Columbine in 1999, and Fort Worth later that year, the Washington Sniper in fall of 2002? Remember the Nickel Mines, Pa., slaughter of 5 Amish girls and wounding of 6 others, the April 2007 slaughter at Virginia Tech, the Fort Hood, Texas mass shooting of 2009 in which 13 were killed and 42 wounded? And now Tucson. The Telegraph.UK.co reports there were a total of 21 mass shootings in the United States between Columbine and this weekend, in which at least 5 and up to 32 people were killed. And meanwhile Gallup polls show support for gun control legislation on the decline.
Do we need a bit of a reality check here?
The National Rifle Association can argue, as its proponents and representatives have in the past, that guns don't kill people, people kill people. It can argue that there are plenty of laws on the books to control gun use and all police must do is enforce them to keep us all safe. But it can no longer argue with any bit of credibility that we are able in the United States to protect our citizens from wanton attacks by mentally ill persons who easily procure automatic or semi-automatic weapons and commit mass murder. The fact is, gun ownership is so prolific, that if U.S. authorities tried to confiscate every legal and illegal weapon in the U.S., it would take decades if not centuries to complete the job.
Meanwhile, law-abiding citizens quake in the terror that they will be next. If any good comes of the Tucson incident, it may be that Congress will pass some gun control laws, feckless as they may be.
Rep. Peter King, (R-NY) who chairs the House Committee on Homeland Security, is introducing legislation that would make it illegal to "knowingly carry a gun within 1,000 feet of the President, Vice President, Members of Congress or judges of the Federal Judiciary," according to a statement released by his office. That's a massive shield for all of us, now isn't it? Of course not.
Others in Congress are offering up bans on high capacity magazines, such as the one allegedly used by suspect Jared Lee Loughner in Tucson. Again, it's better than nothing, but it's sure not enough.
What is irresponsible in the extreme, however, are comments by lawmakers of both parties promising to pack heat from now on when at public events. According to the international Business Times website, U.S. Rep. Heath Shuler, D-NC, said he will start carrying a handgun for personal protection when he attends public events away from Washington. Jason Chaffetz, R-UT, said he plans to carry a gun while in his home district.
Arizona has among the most lax gun control laws in the nation and if anyone in a shopping mall parking lot were going to be carrying weapons for self-protection, it would have been in Tucson. Did anyone produce a weapon that protected Rep. Gabrielle Giffords or Judge John Rolle? Has anyone ever been able to react quickly enough to prevent any of the above-listed massacres? The answer, my friend, is no.
Bonnie Erbe is a TV host and writes for Scripps Howard News Service.
RedHot posted at 9:36 pm on Wed, Jan 12, 2011.
Ms. Erbe lost all credibility in her first paragraph when she compared the effectiveness of the American government in protecting basic human rights to that of the Sudanese government. A quick check of statistics shows that there have been 21 mass shootings in the from 1999 to the present in which 194 people have been killed. In contrast, over the last seven years 300,000 people have been killed and 2.7 million have been displaced in the Darfur region of Sudan. In the last week alone, as Sudanese voters decide on whether to divide their country in two, 46 people have been killed in violence related to the election. To suggest that gun violence in America approaches anything close to what goes on in Sudan is ludicrous. Ms. Erbe undermined the rest of her argument - which has several holes anyway - by starting with such an obviously ridiculous thesis.
Rich posted at 12:26 am on Thu, Jan 13, 2011.
"Has anyone ever been able to react quickly enough to prevent any of the above-listed massacres? The answer, my friend, is no."
And that is because nobody has trained with a gun since the Vietnam War, and then only if they served. Your statement is the result of your viewpoint over fifty years. In short, your propaganda, your advocating not standing up in your own defense has created crowds that are susceptible. Keep it up and we'll never be safe.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 7:58 am on Thu, Jan 13, 2011.
Here we go again. Yet another Washington D.C., "inside the beltway" commentator "LECTURING" Arizonians about their lifestyle as if we don't have enough of them on CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC and PBS. Just to give you an idea of where this PBS TV show commentator is coming from ideologically is a sentence from her biography. "Her journalistic interests include issues affecting women, families and communities of color, environment, religion and animal compassion". No, I did not make any of that up. "Verbatum" as my old High School Latin teacher would say.
So per this Washington, D.C., based columnist Arizona's ..."law-abiding citizens quake in terror that they will be next". Well, the gun-carry law has been on the books for a pretty long time and as far as I know there hasn't been any other incidents. So maybe it isn't the law that's the problem but a mentally ill person. The Army doctor that killed so many of his brother soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas, wasn't motivated to commit his crime because of the availability of weapons in the Military. The 9/11 terrorists didn't just decide to commit their horrific act just because they had a pilot's license. Timothy McVeigh used a common, nationally distributed agricultural fertilizer when he committed his act of domestic terrorism.
The Tucson shooter had no political agenda per his friends and acquaintances from childhood on. He had used weapons for years and never shot other people. We will probably never know what caused him to do what he did on that sad day. For an out-of-town, East Coast journalist that has never lived, never went to school and possibly only visited Arizona a few times in her life..to push her own "anti-gun" agenda at this time is journalistically and morally inexcusible. Would the East-coast and West-coast television "gurus" and Politicians please give Arizonians time to grieve. This is what a "compassionate" person would do.
Dale Whiting posted at 8:37 am on Thu, Jan 13, 2011.
When gun enthusiasts hear the phrase "gun control" they think Second Amendment and a total ban. I have heard plenty of words this past week, even speaking more than a few of my own. Not once have I heard anyone suggest a significant ban on Second Amendment fire arms bearing rights. I have observed that where we no longer depenpend upon a well armed militia to defend us from all enemies foreign and domestic, rethinking gun owner rights is worthwhile.
What proposals I have heard, some from Second Amendment Rights enthusiants and some from other sources, have fallen way short of what is feared by the owners. And fear is a powerful and motivating emotion.
We could re-enact bans on excessively large ammunition clips for pistols, rethink our permitting ownership of assault weapons [those used by our present day militia are all locked up in Armory Arms Rooms], and strengthening bans on ownership to those who appear to be mentally unstable, none of which would put any real burden on Second Amendment Rights, and all of which would help lessen if not prevent the sort of halocost against a Jewish Legislator we witnessed Saturday last.
So let's take a hint from the President's Wednesday Night address, tone this rhetoric way down, discuss and debate our differences and stop all of the insane name calling.
What say you guys? Are you up to the challenge?
Rich posted at 9:12 am on Thu, Jan 13, 2011.
The challenge Dale, as always in this type of situation, is not to let the aberrant behavior affect you. We forgot that on 9/11 and allowed radical Islam to drastically change our lives. They won. Admittedly the over-reaction of government, to the point where you have to be irradiated or felt up to fly had a great deal to do with that.
Now, in response to an assassin, there are calls to 'tone down the rhetoric' a blatant partisan response as it is aimed at a single side, gun control. Once again an aberrant person, or small group of people altering our society. It's half time and Jared holds a substantial lead.
Add to that the complete breakdown of courtesy, civility and manners exhibited by both sides at a memorial service/political rally. Only a truly crass, opportunistic person would address such a crowd at a memorial service. And both sides did it. Rah, rah sis boom ba, dead.
I'm tired of being on the losing side. Tired of the sheeple who allow a few nut cases to alter their lives out of a fear that is so remote it almost ceases to exist. Allow themselves to be irradiated to fly when the radiation will eventually kill more people than all the terrorists since the pharaoh decided all Egyptians should tone down the rhetoric.
What do you say? Are we strong enough to overcome the irrational fears the politicos want to sell us and get back to normalcy?
Slabside posted at 11:04 am on Thu, Jan 13, 2011.
What the sheeple posting here forget about gun control is that not limited to just high capacity magazines. Legislation that is proposed is all encompassing to include hunting firearms like rifles and shotguns. DemocRATS use the Rahm Emanual Chicago thug tactic of not letting a good crisis go unused.
In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control.
- From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million
dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control.
- From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to
defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938.
- From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies,
homosexuals, the mentally ill, 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 million "educated" people,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
EmperorSmith posted at 11:37 am on Thu, Jan 13, 2011.
On carrying I support the law but I think any person that would carry should take training so they will be able to defend themselves and others. Going out and buying a gun and sticking it your pants with not knowing how to use is just plain stupid. The CCW class restriction I thought was a good balance, but my opinion.
Our leaders speech i thought was disgraceful it was suppose to be a memorial and not political speech.
Dale Whiting posted at 11:45 am on Thu, Jan 13, 2011.
Rich,
You go over board in your vision of Gun Control. Who has called for anything more than limits on ammunition magazines and closer looks as nuts to avoid arming them with 31 round Glocks?
But then you state: "Only a truly crass, opportunistic person would address such a crowd at a memorial service." Rich President Obama was applauded by that crowd and even given credit on Fox News for the appropriateness of his statements. The families of the victims all smiled and shook his hand. You are off the deep end on this one, way off.
Slabside,
I haven't heard anything contemporaneously that approaches anything like what you describe as gun control. This is no slippery slope problem. Notwithstanding my questioning of the founder's intent in passing the Second Amendment, no one today believes that any substantial changes in gun control laws are at all likely to occur.
Both you and Rich are fearful of things that are not at all likely. And that sort of fear defines reason. Get a grip on yourselfs. Or are you on a path similar to Jared's? I surely hope not. You are far too well informed to follow his lead.
Slabside posted at 1:17 pm on Thu, Jan 13, 2011.
Dale, you poor gullible fool... did you not even read the history lesson posted above? Legislation never stops at just high capacity magazines. Your head is made of granite.
EmperorSmith posted at 1:45 pm on Thu, Jan 13, 2011.
It won't happen, Slab. Knee jerk reaction by those who probably never have shot a gun (I do not mean you Dale).
EmperorSmith posted at 1:58 pm on Thu, Jan 13, 2011.
I can spout the NRA rhetoric. The fact is guns and large capacity mags are here to stay, I have 10 30 rnds for a ak. It would just drive the price up I might be able to sell mine then for a profit since I am a American
Rich posted at 3:53 pm on Thu, Jan 13, 2011.
Dale,
It's all a slippery slope. Rudolph Steiner said Hitler was the most dangerous man in Germany in 1923, and he was dismissed as over-reacting. We have a government that is exponentially larger than the original and well beyond the limits of the system created for it. Elected officials have exponentially more power than the system sustains.In this situation an elected official has been shot. Gun control should be off the table for the current batch of elected officials, they cannot objectively consider it and remain human, they are now, in their minds, targets. Rushing to emotional, simple, neat solutions never leads to anyplace good.
Slabside posted at 5:00 pm on Thu, Jan 13, 2011.
Well said Rich.
Poorman posted at 6:39 pm on Thu, Jan 13, 2011.
After being in law enforcement for 20yrs.+and retiring,i hope we Never get gun control. If we do, the bad guys will be in control and we won't be able to do much about it. Cops can't be everywhere or protect everyone. There have been a lot of cases where if the citizen would'nt have had a gun,they and or their familys would have been killed. Shootings like we had here won't be stopped by gun control.
Dale Whiting posted at 6:58 pm on Thu, Jan 13, 2011.
Rich,
"It's all a slippery slope?" So now we do have a legitimate difference of opinion, both of us being reasonably informed of the facts.
And Slabside,
Rich and I know much more about the Turkish Armenian problem that you will ever know.
Here is the crux of the argument [from my perspective of course!]. We have a unique history in the US. We are practically the only [if not the only - Rich, you probably would know] nation on earth and certainly of those listed by Slabside to have had anything nearly like our Second Amendment. Additionally we have had one of the largest if not the largest set of domestic fire armes manufacturing facilities in the world. [Now I grant you that Jared's Glock was made in Israel where gun controls do exist!]. These two unique factors would mean than any attempt to fully limit fire arms ownership and possession would fail, at least in our life times! Read that last Supreme Court decision, why don't you.
So there is no slippery slope here. Where the demand for Glocks and where the supply of Glocks does not include standard issued 31 round ammo clips, prohibiting them will not lead to anything else. I bet the Supremes would agree! So why don't we see! Believe me guys, such a test is the truly Conservative way.
Dale Whiting posted at 7:03 pm on Thu, Jan 13, 2011.
Remember guys, this all goes back to one issue, the maintenance of a well organized and armed militia. Prohibiting 31 round Glocks does not threaten that cause. And the founding fathers envisioned that this well organized militia would be under the control of our President, not dozens of crazy militia leaders and their untrained men patrolling our southern borders.
Rich posted at 8:58 pm on Thu, Jan 13, 2011.
Okay Dale, before we get here what are the precedents for the second amendment? For example, who could carry a sword inside the Pomarium? Could one of the Equites? Or did your have to be Patrician? Who could wear a sword or carry a firearm into the Star Chamber? Every society from the ancient river valley civilizations had laws and rules about weapons, and not all were restrictive, some quite the opposite. In certain Welsh, Pict, Gallic, Germanic and Scandinavian communities it was illegal for a man to appear in public without his weapons. It rather discouraged raiders. Perhaps, if we insisted on training our militia, and had a similar rule, terrorism wouldn't bother us as much and we'd be a couple buildings ahead of the game. Most societies that spawned the original colonies had a class distinction for weapons. Only the upper class, or aristocracy was allowed them.
Now our founders, having defeated that sort of a society, with what was essentially armed non-aristocrats could hardly limit weapons, they'd be lined up against a wall and shot. Hamilton, who was the most elite of the founding fathers, and who in an argument where Franklin said, 'the people' answered that 'the people' were 'a great beast' argued that weapons needed control. This was the evolution of the militia. In general, the founders envisioned a different system than we have today of police power. They saw it invested in 'the militia.' In fact, in many states when we were younger, if you will remember, the state police were referred to as 'the militia.'
Now the depression changed the relationship between the government and the citizen, that is where the slippery slope begins. The government became an increasingly larger segment of the economy and increasingly restrictive. Police powers were enlarged and restricted to 'authority.' This was a trade off essentially. For example when the James-Younger gang attempted to rob the bank in Northfield. Minnesota in 1876, the public stopped them, killing or capturing most of them. By the era of John Dillinger, people just ducked.
There you have the essential conflict. Since we invested law enforcement with authority, the militia has essentially been disarmed. We can re-arm ala Switzerland. Make sure everybody has one and is trained to use it. In many high schools and land grant colleges the training was mandatory to graduate when we were in school. Or we can trust a government that has grown exponentially with no checks on it for over seventy-five years with no end in sight. The specter of the militia is about all there is left to check it. The government, growing naturally into a power void, still fears it. Witness the latest case in Tucson where the shooting of an official is elevated to an absurd degree over shooting anyone else. "Each man's death diminishes me. Therefore do not ask to know for whom the Bell tolls. It tolls for thee."
What we can learn from history is that if we do not check this exponential growth of government, we can look forward to our grandchildren raising their children under a dictator, and those children under an Emperor. That is how Rome deteriorated and we are following the same arc. The Second Amendment is one of the last sticking points, along with the First, which is also under attack right now, all curb your rhetoric means is shut up I don't agree with you. Which are rather obviously the points of attack if you are going to keep government growing. Can it be stopped? Will our grandchildren elect 'Senators' who are subservient to an Emperor who is 'necessary' to prevent us from falling into chaos?
Our founders thought so. They thought the people who defeated what was at the time the greatest power on Earth, were up to it. Are we? I really don't know. Maybe we aren't ready to shoulder the responsibility. Maybe it's just easier for you and I to retire, we are old men and did fight 'our war,' abandon our children to it, and let it be. However, I think it unwise, if not a bit irresponsible to take away the last tools they have to prevent that, even if we start with the clip to a Glock pistol.
Dale Whiting posted at 9:39 am on Fri, Jan 14, 2011.
Slabside and Rich,
Wasn't it chilling to hear that other pistol toting citizen describe his actions last Saturday in that Safeway's parking lot!
From his position inside the Walgrens where he was shopping, he heard shots fired outside, took the safety off his side arm, and raced into the parking lot, pistol drawn. Then spying a man standing up with a gun in hand [and rather than doing what "poorman" and his fellow trained officers would have done] took the fire arm forcibly from this man. Police would have drawn their side arm, and identifying themselves as authorities, issued lawful orders to put the gun down. Instead, this idiot forsibly engaged this guy. The man was not pointing the pistol at anyone! Not until others told him that Jared was the assissin did this guy stand down.
Now this idiot did admit that he was about to pull the trigger and that luckily he did not! If this is an example of our well regulated citizen militia, untrained and naive, at its best, Heaven help us! Only good fortune and a man who did not take this militiaman as an accomplice of Jared saved us from an even greater tragedy.
Sidearms in public? No thank you Slabside. Anyone allowed to carry, openly or concealed, ought to have received carefully screening, including psycological screening, and intensive training. Otherwise some poor pistol toting fool is liable to get himself jailed, mame or kill an innocent bystander who was trying to use less deadly force to solve the problem, or worse, get himself killed.
I got my side arms training from a brother on the Navy Pistol team, from a high school teacher moonlighting as a hunter safety instructor giving lessons then mandatory in Utah in the 60's, and while on active duty in the Amry. Apparently this young man got his training from a Wheeties Box!
The Second Amendment does not countenance a young man's right to use fire arms carelessly or recklessly, even though he may think he knows what do to. Most likely he does not!
Arizona needs reasonable gun control laws, not yesterday, not tomorrow, but right NOW!
Rich posted at 10:07 am on Fri, Jan 14, 2011.
Dale,
When you asked for a rational discussion, I gave you one. Then you take off like one of the nutballs here. Anecdotal evidence doesn't even have a place. If you want a rational discussion, it sort of requires you to be rational.
Slabside posted at 11:39 am on Fri, Jan 14, 2011.
From "http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=goldwaters_glitter" about Goldwater; "He remained opposed to gun control and to women working instead of raising children." Dale, looks like you break ranks with Goldwater on this one. Like Rich noted above, you are very irrational. Time for those meds Dale.
EmperorSmith posted at 4:42 pm on Fri, Jan 14, 2011.
Rich, I found that inspiring in way to make me rethink events.
EmperorSmith posted at 4:47 pm on Fri, Jan 14, 2011.
I know of most of the events but never really tried to connect them, but what I studied was not history. I just find it interesting and try to take advice from it.
Dale Whiting posted at 3:35 pm on Sat, Jan 15, 2011.
Yes, guys
But "change" is one of the true conservative principles of thought. You all quote positions when the true conservative adheres not so much to fixed positions on issues as to the process for adopting change in a conservative way, one which maintains values yet allows us to meet new demands.
Rich, I asked you whether or not you had read Russell Kirk. Apparently you have not.
And guys, Goldwater was sympathetic [mostly in private] to Gay and Lesbian rights. Put that in your Neo-Con pipe and smoke it!
Slabside posted at 9:36 pm on Sat, Jan 15, 2011.
Put that in your Neo-Con pipe and smoke it! Spoken like a true Liberal.