UK Tourist Shot Dead in Texas Bar

[villager]

Source: BBC

UK tourist shot dead in Texas bar

(Mr Reeve, pictured with his baby daughter, died in hospital)

A British tourist has been shot dead in a bar in the United States.

Thomas Reeve was killed when a man entered the bar in Amarillo, Texas, and opened fire, says a local report.

A 48-year-old man was shot in the hand and a woman sexually assaulted, says the report. A 25-year-old man has been arrested by police, it adds. Mr Reeve's parents said: "He was just in the wrong place, at the wrong time." The 28-year-old, of Maidenhead, Berkshire, had a young daughter.

A family statement said: "Tom was a much loved son, brother and father who will be missed by the whole family and very many friends."

He had only visited the city where he died "because he liked the song" (Is This The Way To) Amarillo by Tony Christie, relatives said. The family is being provided with assistance by the Foreign Office consulate.

Mr Reeve had been driving through America with two friends.

<snip>

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8348249.stm

[AndyA]

1. Yet another senseless death due to out of control gun laws.

Thank goodness everyone was able to protect themselves with their guns and prevent this from happening. :eyes:

[slackmaster]

5. Guns aren't allowed in bars in Texas

Do get your story straight.

[AndyA]

7. Where did I say guns were allowed in bars in Texas?

Do get your response straight and stop putting thoughts in to make your point.

I was referring to gun laws in general in this country, which are a joke. Want proof? Check the headlines from the last few days. How many more innocent people will die because too many people have guns that shouldn't have them? :eyes:

[Pavulon]

22. What do you propose? EXACTLY

what should be done?

[AndyA]

32. I believe people should be checked more thoroughly before allowed to have guns.

No one needs a high powered weapon that can fire multiple shots through armor.

I think the laws on bearing arms need to be looked at again.

If you wouldn't trust a complete stranger to put your 8 year old daughter in a car and drive off to a point unknown, you also can't trust that same stranger to be near your 8 year old with a gun.

[defendandprotect]

44. I'd say only law officials should have guns . . . and our police should be de-militarized . . .

And, btw, just look at this military guy -- Hasan? -- not sure of the name --

obviously in high emotional distress . . . undetected by our own military?

And the gun shop dealer is going to recognize that?

The GOP has pushed this violence thru the NRA -- and any thinking person has to

see that this the NRA isn't about protection, it's about creating violence to protect

yourself from!!!

:)

[bertman]

85. WOW!! I can hardly wait until ONLY the Police and Military have guns. Then our democracy

will be totally secure and we'll all be free from assault by the criminal element.

[Diclotican]

104. bertman

bertman

Many country outside US have strict gun laws, who in practice give just Police and the military the right to have possession of gun in public spaces.. And where even hunting is somewhat regulated.. You have to be member of a gun club, and have a license to hunt. And go true a rather strict protocol to be allowed to have a weapon at all.. And where your gun is to be kept in a regulated gun locker at all time when you doesn't use it for hunting..

In some country, like my own, the police are not set up with gun at all.. Well they Do have gun, but it is strictly regulated, and they have to get permission for every time they have to use it as part of the uniform.. And have to go true a lot of paper work, if they ever have to use it....

And compared to many country's of this world, we do have a LOT of weapon in private ownership, but we doesn't have the same numbers as US have, when it come to death by gun.... 11.000 it was last year, in US..

Diclotican

[caseymoz]

113. I think all of Europe should be under fascist control by now, then.

And be suffering the worst crime spree. Actually, that hasn't happened.

The NRA keeps saying that 500,000 crimes a year are thwarted by guns: I haven't yet found the source for their statistics. Granted it happens, but I would place it at 100,000 tops, and remember those who win the "dispute" with the gun usually report the crime.

[bertman]

116. Actually, it wasn't long ago that ALL of Europe WAS under fascist control. And guess

who came to their rescue? Now that the tide is turning, will they rescue us?

[caseymoz]

209. The Soviet Union?

Just joking, because your question is so beside the the point.

So, the tide is turning against us? So, Europe despite its universal health care and strict gun control laws isn't really fascist because we must have rescued it 70 years ago, so they might now save us from universal health care and gun control laws, and rule by a guy who only has a Certificate of Birth and not a birth certificate, and who doesn't have a racial profile a real president would have, which is what I'm supposing you mean by fascism.

I must now either laugh at you or consider your question highly rhetorical.

[bertman]

222. Since you are apparently oblivious to who really controls our nation--hint: it isn't the people

or our "democratically-elected" representatives--I'll remind you that there is NO NEED to save us from universal health care because we don't have it and never will; we already have gun control laws that are poorly enforced; and we are not "ruled" by our President. I'm sure all of that comes as a complete surprise to you, caseymoz, so I'll forgive you that you don't understand that a nation that is ruled by corporations is a fascist nation.

Now, back to my original question. Since the tide has turned and it is now we who are being ruled by the corporations, who will save US?

[caseymoz]

277. Not surprising in any part.

Neither that it would be true, nor that you think it would be true.

We do have a few things that could save us: one is that corporations fuck up, the second is that they have factions and power struggles, too. And, look, the all powerful GM actually went into liquidation and the largest financial firms nearly bankrupted themselves and had to ask the Federal government for a bail out. The fact that they had to ask and that the government could have said no shows that corporations do not own the government, even if they've infiltrated it, even if they have corrupted it. Something in there still works like a government.

Universal health care, we'll get it. I'm not saying stop working for it, but if we work toward it persistently, we will get it. Why? Because given the high costs of insurance, ultimately, other corporations will either have to pay higher and higher premiums, or they will have to face higher premiums and a work force that is less and less reliable and less and less productive. True, they could move jobs overseas, which is going to cut premium revenue for the insurance companies, who won't be able to lower them. Other corporations are going to get tired of paying all this money to health insurance companies, so, those companies will get thrown under a bus.

So, ultimately, the outlook for medical insurance companies is poor.

Meanwhile, as long as there aren't any more wars or terrorists attacks, ultimately it's going to get hard to motivate the right wing teabag crowd. If you wonder why they are so irrational and rigid in their thinking, they are acting like people at war, who mistrust everything as some sort of enemy plan. They see liberalism as duplicitous, as a means toward power.

Fascism itself does not appear to be a stable form of government. I mean, Pinochet's Chile and Peron's Argentina ultimately gave way. Franco's Spain was long lived, but only as long as Franco. And right now, I don't think you could have Fascism without one man rule. (And Bush, for all the damage he did, was not that man.) What we have right now is not good, but it can't be called Fascism.

So, whereas I could understand that you see the US government as being subverted by corporate interests, and yes, it is, I think also that the picture is not as dark as you imagine. Who will save us? I really don't know. Despite the way it looks, I am looking to see what Obama continues to do. If Europe does, it won't be through invasion or occupation.

[Go2Peace]

234. Are you a birther or did you forget the sarcasm tage?

Joking about the soviet union or your entire post?

[caseymoz]

271. I forgot the sarcasm tage. nt

[LeftishBrit]

326. It was never the case that ALL of Europe was under fascist control.

About 70 years ago, quite a lot of it was. This had little or nothing to do with gun control. One myth about fascism is that it was totally imposed by governments because the people could not or would not resist. This may be true with regard to the countries that were invaded and occupied; but in Germany, the Nazis were *elected* because what would now be called 'teabaggers' made up too large a proportion of a desperate population, lured into thinking that ultra-nationalism would solve their problems. The same was true to some degree of some other countries that had fascist governments. The important factor is a population ripe for the whipping up of xenophobic ultra-nationalist mob spirit.

'Now that the tide is turning, will they rescue us?'

Whom do you need 'rescuing' from? I would hardly call Obama a fascist; nor are you threatened by any other country that I can see.

[pipoman]

320. Posterior production of statistics

Granted it happens, but I would place it at 100,000 tops, and remember those who win the "dispute" with the gun usually report the crime.

you would, would you..100,000..based on what pray tell? What does that last part mean anyway?

Here's a hint:

* Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year. This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times. (16b)

-snip-

16b) The study states: “Eleven of the surveys permitted the computation of a reasonable adjusted estimate of frequency. Two surveys for which estimates could not be produced were the Cambridge Reports and the Time/ CNN. Neither asked the question of all ; thus, it would be sheer speculation what the responses would have been among those not asked the question. All of the eleven surveys yielded results that implied over 700,000 uses per year.” Table 1 lists these studies and various facts about their methodologies. Eight of the 11 studies mentioned above were nationwide surveys. Among these, the range of defensive gun uses per year is 764,000 - 3,609,000. The 9th nationwide survey is the one this study is based upon. It was conducted with the most precise criteria off all such studies, and estimates that Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals between 1,900,000 and 2,500,000 times per year.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

[defendandprotect]

145. Any chance you might recognize the need to end the MIC . . . including Blackwater and

other privatizations of our military?

Who's in love with the national security state?

Wasn't it just recently used to make Americans so frightened of "terrarists" that

the Bush/Cheney creeps were able to bankrupt our Treasury with two wars????

Let's pull the plug on the whole BS -- !!

[bertman]

281. If you were addressing this reply to me, defendandprotect, the answer is Yes--a resounding Yes.

But the reality is that the people who have put together the MICC (I refer to it as the Military-Industial-Corporate Complex because it is no longer just the industrial sector, but all major corporate sectors who are involved) and who benefit most from having private armies like Xe, have been working on their "project" for decades and have become far more adept at increasing their power and control. So adept that the whole apparatus of government has been bending to their will since the early years after WWII. President Eisenhower's warning about the MIC was the direct result of what he was seeing and experiencing during his Presidency. JFK tried to put the brakes on it and was murdered for his efforts.

I'm open to suggestions as to how we "pull the plug on the whole BS" but I do not see how curbing private gun ownership relates to that. Please enlighten me.

[defendandprotect]

297. Actually stressing the corporate end of MIC does make things clearer . . .

Also, Ike had made the reference in his speech to "Military Industrial Intelligence Complex"
and Fletcher Prouty says that it was edited out and Ike put it back in and it was taken out
again --

So ... yes "CORPORATE" and we also have to be aware of the "intelligence" end of this creating
secret government --

And I agree wholeheartedly with this . . . and their desire for perpetual wars --
now two or three at a time!

the reality is that the people who have put together the MICC (I refer to it as the Military-Industial-Corporate Complex because it is no longer just the industrial sector, but all major corporate sectors who are involved) and who benefit most from having private armies like Xe, have been working on their "project" for decades and have become far more adept at increasing their power and control. So adept that the whole apparatus of government has been bending to their will since the early years after WWII. President Eisenhower's warning about the MIC was the direct result of what he was seeing and experiencing during his Presidency. JFK tried to put the brakes on it and was murdered for his efforts.

but it's up to us to change reality and I think that's why both of us are here?

I'm open to suggestions as to how we "pull the plug on the whole BS" but I do not see how curbing private gun ownership relates to that. Please enlighten me.

I didn't relate that directly . . . someone was asking what lengths I'd go to and that was my
response.

But -- IMO, torturing and killing animals also cheapens human life.

The only way the right wing can rise is thru violence -- political violence -- propaganda of lies
and teaching of hatred and exploitation of other humans --

Corporatism is fascism and we have a Supreme Court in place which seems hell bent on keeping corporatism going --

Keep in mind the Republicans tried to impeach 3 Supreme Court Justices . . .
Douglas, Warren - and Abe Fortas who they intimidated sufficiently with threats of investigations
to get him to resign.

We're way being on the SC thing and it cost us 2000, at the least!

[bertman]

313. Yes, it is up to us (and millions of others working in concert) to change reality, but

I fear that we have allowed a propaganda machine and a corrupt system to get too deeply rooted to drive out.

The people who feared and hated JFK are the richest of the rich. They can afford to buy media, to buy Congress, and to buy even a President. They buy their way into the bureaucracy by corrupting officials at every level, so that even when reforms are enacted they are gutted in the implementation or they are never implemented.

Your comments about the Supreme Court affirm my comments. Yes, the Court did usurp powers not given it by stopping a state election. But, our Democratic Presidential candidate did not even raise an objection. That's what I mean about corruption. (Of course, with Joe Liebermann as a running mate, what would one expect?)

Aside: I thought that Eisenhower wanted to use the term "military-industrial-CONGRESSIONAL complex", but the Congressional part was removed.

[defendandprotect]

315. Well, patriarchal violence has only been going on for 50,000+ years or more . . .

Bible was written to cement patriarchy --

Who's winning?

It's not the first time the propaganda machine has been working -- the Bible was still being
used to keep Segregation in place in the South in the late 1960's!!

Mainly the public has to be educated to looking more skeptically at what's going down.
This nation wasn't even acknowledging right wing propaganda until Michael Parenti began talking
about it in one of his books. You would look in books and never see "propaganda" in the
contents!!

They succeed thru political violence, lies and propaganda --
and I'd add "false flag" operations where magic acts come down while the
audience is enthralled - unquestioning.
"Shock and Awe" --

9/11 MIHOP -- Fake moon landing -- lots of other stuff.* Control of our "free press" --

Most of the thinking public understands that there was a right wing coup on JFK -- actually
a right wing coup on "people's" government -- and pretty much all the details of the whole
thing are out of the bag -- but no one really has the power to bring the truth forward.

And, yes . . .

The people who feared and hated JFK are the richest of the rich. They can afford to buy media, to buy Congress, and to buy even a President. They buy their way into the bureaucracy by corrupting officials at every level, so that even when reforms are enacted they are gutted in the implementation or they are never implemented.

Royalty morphed into capitalists/corporations . . .
but is the public really awakened to that as yet -- or the poison of the DLC-corporate wing of the
Democratic Party?

I'm just as scared as you are -- but I think we have to keep trying. What do you have if you give up?

Sadly, I don't see Al Gore on a pedestal as many here do -- and I think Lieberman/Trojan horse
was a great clue to who Gore really is. Would it have been better than this 8 years with Bush --
of course. But . . . it might have been an entirely bloodless coup? I don't really know.
Maybe the Bush years actually woke up a lot of people -- the hard way?


Don't know about this . . .
Aside: I thought that Eisenhower wanted to use the term "military-industrial-CONGRESSIONAL complex", but the Congressional part was removed.

Obviously, "intelligence" is part of the problem in creating secret government in America.
And that's how Fletcher Prouty told the story -- "intelligence" --


:)

*
EDITED TO ADD that my opinion is that obviously fear is being used to frighten the public into
giving up their freedom. But, I want to point out how long ago this began in recent history . . .
that when they failed with the civil rights movement -- the best they could do was kill the
leadership - and in the case of women, threaten them with murder and move the movement into hands that would kill it.

TV has been used since the 1970's -- as well as periodicals -- to create visions of a violent
America. Drug war was used to add to that -- creating fear of one's neighbor.
Fear of those who were against the war in Vietnam -- "druggies," etal.
And they've kept escalating it -- TV ever more violent, movies ever more violent.
Getting guns into the population -- GOP using the NRA.
Pretty much using TV recently to create an acceptance and "necessity" for TORTURE!!

But, I also think we've had a lot of faked incidents -- perhaps like this latest one with
Hasan -- I would include Columbine -- and others like it. Oklahoma.

Impoverishing citizens, of course, does also create crime.
But the true criminals - corporations -- aren't held responsible nor accountable.

[bertman]

318. Here's an interesting tidbit of a quote from former House Majority Leader Hale Boggs:

"Over the postwar years, we have granted to the elite and secret police within our system vast new powers over the lives and liberties of the people. At the request of the trusted and respected heads of those forces, and their appeal to the necessities of national security, we have exempted those grants of power from due accounting and strict surveillance."

It's important to remember that this was the Congressman who was on the Warren Commission who stated that he regretted signing off on the Commission Report and felt that the CIA and FBI had failed to provide evidence that they possessed and that they had covered up other evidence in the assassination.

On April 1, 1971, House Majority Leader Boggs delivered a blistering attack on J. Edgar Hoover, charging that under his directorship the FBI had adopted 'the tactics of the Soviet Union and Hitler's Gestapo.'

BOGGS, who undoubtedly would have become Speaker of the House and a powerful ally in any reopening of the JFK assassination investigation, VANISHED on October 16, 1972, while on a military junket flight in Alaska. Despite a massive search, no trace of the airplane or of Boggs has ever been found.

Prominent "journalist" Cokie Roberts is Hale Boggs' daughter. Whenever the topic of her father being unhappy with the findings of the Warren Report she says she can't imagine where people come up with stuff like that. Well, you got to say that she figured it out pretty quick.

Edited to add: Newly-elected Senator from Alaska, Mark Begich, is the son of another Congressman who disappeared on the flight with Rep. Hale Boggs.

[defendandprotect]

328. Interesting . . .

Yes I'm familiar with Hale Boggs . . . and share the disappointment with Cokie Roberts.

I hadn't heard about Mark Begich's connection --

Thank you --

Whistleblowers have a way of disappearing in America!!

:)

[Art_from_Ark]

331. Our Democratic President candidate raised many objections

starting with rescinding his concession to bu$h after learning about the shenanigans in Florida, to winning his case in the Florida State Supreme Court. But once the US Supreme Court decided the case (which was done hurriedly a few days after the Florida SSC decision), what was there left to do? No one in the Senate was brave enough to stand up for him.

[defendandprotect]

146. And the other inane idea ... that people with guns will win against our military???!!!!!

What prompts that curious delusion?

[smirkymonkey]

327. Yeah - I always wondered why some people think that could

happen. Even if you have 50 guns, you only have 2 hands and it's not like it's going to make a bit of difference when you're going up against one of the world's most powerful militarys.

[X_Digger]

330. Sounds like you're assuming conventional tactics..

Remember the DC Snipers? Imagine that x 1000 pairs of spotters / shooters.

Or, grind up an aluminum pan with a benchtop grinder, add finely ground iron, and a flash from a disposable camera wrapped around some acetone soaked steel wool. Place in a 2oz bottle and set it on the railroad tracks that service your local power plant, bringing coal to burn. Wait for a train to come, and set off your homemade thermite 60 seconds before you expect the train to pass that point.

Can't take the time to make thermite? Grab a chain come-a-long from your garage, or a 12 ton hydraulic bottle jack. Push the tracks out of line enough, same result.

Have some high tension power lines running nearby? Spend $3-$4 worth of bullets sighting in your rifle's scope on the glass insulators that keep all that lovely electricity from being grounded. Does the neighborhood next to you use aboveground electrical transmission wires? Those transformers make wonderful targets that tie up resources for an hour at least to replace.

Does your county store all of it's municipal vehicles in one place? How about the snowplows and maintenance vehicles? A bucket of sugar will go a long way.

Can you make a pipe bomb? No? I bet you can make something that looks like one. Go visit the port authority at rush hour, or speaking of ports, hit the ports of LA, miami, new orleans.

Go download plans for an ESN cloner from the internet and pick up a buttload of prepaid cell phones. Start driving around town, dialing 911 and chucking them out the window.

Got a UHF / VHF radio? Go pick up a crystal for a scanner from radio shack in the frequency of your local EMS services. Build a 5-10w booster. Bust open the controls for a streetlight and put the radio inside, with the antenna wired to the street light. Key the mic and walk away.

Heard of cell phone jammers yet? Some movie theaters are using them, and plans are available over the net. Same concept.


Anyone who imagines standing toe to toe with a government police or military force is being either dreadfully romantic, or ignorant. 'Armed Resistance' would be helped by small arms, but it's by no means the _only_ method of harrying / frustrating / compromising a tyrannical government. Especially so when those 'resisting' look just like everyone else, and fade back into the same neighborhoods.

[cosmicone]

228. +1000

[dysfunctional press]

319. that's a country i'll never have to worry about living in.

americans aren't going to give up their guns.
especially when there's no need for them to.

[JonQ]

50. Only police and military should have guns

they never misuse them.

[Lost-in-FL]

83. You forgot the :sarcasm: thingy. nt

[JonQ]

93. I thought it was blatant enough

especially in light of this weeks events.

But here goes:

:sarcasm:

[defendandprotect]

149. I'm ready to end the MIC . . . how about you?

[JonQ]

175. The motorcycle industry council?

I have no opinions on them either way and see no reason to end that organization.

[defendandprotect]

185. Yep ... that's what everyone thinks of when they see MIC . .. !!!

:evilgrin:

[JonQ]

194. I honestly don't know what you're talking about

what does MIC stand for.

[Jackpine Radical]

225. Military-Industrial Complex (in case you weren't kidding about not knowing)

[JonQ]

231. Ah, thanks, I wasn't kidding

I was thinking it had something to do with gun control.

[JonQ]

233. You think if we were to completely dismantle our military

(now that I know what you're talking about) we'd be safer? Because to enact what you're talking about we'd have to disarm every soldier.

How do you really see that going?

[defendandprotect]

248. Well, let's see . . . Did you feel safe pre-9/11 . . . like you were sure if the Russians ...

or the Chinese were coming that you'd be safe?

How did you feel when you realized NORAD went AWOL?

Did you feel safe in airports either pre-9/11 or after?

Afterwards, everyone pretty much acted as though they understand who

had really pulled off 9/11 and weren't very concerned.

Yeah . . . there's the show they have to put on - taking shoes - etal

but everyone knows the really story at airports.

Like guns -- the other weapons we invent to do harm to others actually end

up doing harm to us.

Do you enjoy the National Security State -- paying for it? Living in it?

That's how I see it going . . . downhill cause violence breeds violence.

[JonQ]

287. That's your proof that we need to dismantle our entire military

and unilaterally disarm? One failure?

I suppose then the cops should have been disbanded years ago, and congress, and the post office, and every institution ever created.

[defendandprotect]

293. 9/11 based Imperialism and wars of aggression = one failure?

Maybe you noticed also --

not only NORAD was AWOL --
but Pentagon had no protection . . . ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Cheney was being alerted to "incoming" but obviously let stand down instructions hold-???????????????

Defense of Capitol/Pentagon/White House air space just folded, as well????????????????????????????

Various airports just couldn't prevent four simultaneous hijackings??????????????????????????????????

General Myers didn't have the telephone number of Andrews A/F Base so he called a base much further
away?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

No one could catch a plane headed for the Pentagon though it had been in the air for an hour???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Read some 9/11 testimony and puke --

[JonQ]

325. So you really think disarming every soldier in the US

will make us safe? Cops too, because they snap and shoot people as well.

Wow.

I mean I knew there were people this naive, on an intellectual level. But I had never met one before.

[defendandprotect]

294. Let's withdraw our troops from the territories of other nations . . . a good beginning ... !!

[gorfle]

74. Well, let's see now.

I believe people should be checked more thoroughly before allowed to have guns.

The NICS system, which all people who buy firearms through dealers must pass, already checks to see if they are felons or insane.

No one needs a high powered weapon that can fire multiple shots through armor.

The second amendment is about keeping military-grade small arms in the hands of the civilian population so as to resist oppression by military forces.

Setting aside "need", such "high powered weapons that can fire multiple shots through armor" are well over 100 years old.

think the laws on bearing arms need to be looked at again.

What would you change?

If you wouldn't trust a complete stranger to put your 8 year old daughter in a car and drive off to a point unknown, you also can't trust that same stranger to be near your 8 year old with a gun.

If you can't trust a complete stranger not to run your 8 year old daughter over in the grocery store parking lot, you can't trust that same stranger to be near your 8 year old with a car.

[GreenStormCloud]

119. Are you aware that you suggestion would ban almost all hunting rifles?

Almost all center-fire cartridges will penetrate vests, except for the most highly rated vests.

In most states, if a stranger is in public with a concealed weapon, that stranger has been screened by the FBI and is extremely reliable and trustworthy. If I had to trust a child to a stranger (I will instantly grant that I would not want to.) then a screened CHL holder would be very high on my list of trusted strangers.

If the Democratic Party were to attempt to ban hunting rifles, we would lose congress and the presidency for two generations.

[Scruffy1]

148. Gun ownership

Being a past member of the NRA and a hunter and trapper I can tell you that the NRA exists solely for the benefit of the gun manufacturers not gun owners. Handguns and assault rifles are useless to sportsman and are simply dangerous to have around. The dumbest argument of all is that somehow you can defend yourself from an overreaching government with a weapon. Try it against an M1 tank or an F-16. Having watched gun violence destroy whole neighborhoods here in the inner city I think it is time for a hard look at our view on guns. The NRA uses racism to sell its viewpoint and its solution to gun violence is more guns. We also must realize that a large component of gun violence is cultural. You can't watch TV without being exposed to continual gun violence and I don't think we will ever deal with gun violence until we change our culture. This change will be a long time in coming, but I think as we become a more urban nation and the cowboy mythology dies off our culture will evolve and that banning guns will not effect the change that a cultural change will.

[defendandprotect]

150. Terrific post -- !!!

:) :)

Your post should be permanently posted here!!!

And we can begin by ending the GOP/NRA reign . . .

[slackmaster]

155. Welcome to DU

Handguns and assault rifles are useless to sportsman and are simply dangerous to have around.

There are plenty of legitimate sporting uses for handguns, including hunting. Self-defense is also a legitimate use for handguns.

Assault rifles are strictly regulated and have been for over 75 years.

[GreenStormCloud]

159. Only about 20% of gun owners are hunters.

I have my guns for self protection from violent crime. A handgun is very good for that. I have a CHL and routinely go armed when I am out of the house.

My wife wants me to get her a shotgun that she can have for home defense. I plan to get her a Saiga in .410 bore. Since you may not be familiar with that brand, it is an AK-47 pattern, semi-auto, chambered to shotgun cartridges. In the .410 bore one can buy 15 round magazines for it.

[C_Lawyer09]

208. Are you an active hunter?

There are plenty of hunters whom hunt with large pistols depending on the laws of the state. For WA it is over '4 barrel and .25 calibre. A hard look at whose view of guns. I think I have a healthy view. That is just it, way to subjective an argument.

[C_Lawyer09]

211. Definition of assault rifle

Is it any semi-auto, or what calibre. Is my mini 14 I use for varmint hunting an assault rifle?

[Egnever]

246. Really? the taliban seems to be doing pretty well.

[bertman]

279. Scruffy1, the destruction of whole neighborhoods in the inner cities is NOT due to gun

violence. It's due to the conditions that generate such despair and hopelessness that individuals are forced to band together in armed bands to have any sense of belonging to a family, hope for the future, and material success. The fact that guns are readily available means that they are the weapons of choice. Without them there would be other weapons. It's a survival-of-the-strongest mentality. Nowadays, the strongest are those with the greatest firepower.

I do agree with you that TeeVee contributes to gun violence; however, most hunters and gun owners are responsible citizens who never use a weapon against another human being. It's the criminal element and the unbalanced who pose the greatest threat to society.

[slackmaster]

137. When you say "high powered weapon that can fire multiple shots through armor",

You have just described a hunting rifle.

[C_Lawyer09]

205. Please

What a load of crap, as I'm sure you've heard before a gun is an inanimate object. Try selling your opinion to an elderly couple whom stopped a violent robbery. You can't legislate total safety of everybody, that is just reality.

[Prophet 451]

87. Check your gun at the door

They knew that back in the days of Wyatt Earp. Any bar in a state which allows open carry should have a lockbox so you can check your gun on entering and pick it up on leaving. If you're blind drunk or frothing mad, the barkeep gets to hold onto it until morning.

[izquierdista]

125. De-nut the dumbfucks in Texas.

The line would stretch all the way to Georgia.

[imdjh]

24. I'm making juvenile noises and mocking you.

[AndyA]

35. Well then you've got all the requirements to own a gun.

Happy shooting. :eyes:

[defendandprotect]

47. Fantastic . . .

:evilgrin:

[imdjh]

121. O yeah?

[defendandprotect]

153. Is that you?

[slackmaster]

25. Your reference to "out of control gun laws" seems to suggest the problem is a deficiency in the law

The fact is, the shooter in this case was a criminal in the process of committing other crimes.

I was referring to gun laws in general in this country, which are a joke. Want proof? Check the headlines from the last few days. How many more innocent people will die because too many people have guns that shouldn't have them?

Most violent crimes are committed by people who already have criminal records that prohibit them from having guns. The problem is not a lack of laws. The problem is criminality.

[AndyA]

29. So, let's just not worry about it then, right?

As long as people have a right to guns, it doesn't really matter that creates an environment where access is so much greater.

The price of a human life isn't much, right? :eyes:

[digidigido]

36. Guns don't kill people, Sick fucks with guns kill people

[AndyA]

43. So we just do nothing?

Allow access to guns to remain plentiful, and allow the sick fucks to just keep killing innocent people?

The right for the sick fuck to have a gun takes precedence over the right of someone else to live their life? :eyes:

[gorfle]

78. Yes. That is precisely what we do.

Our founders were well aware that people do bad things with weapons. This has been the way of mankind since he mastered fire. But they were wise enough to know that you can't take away liberty in the hope of gaining safety:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

The simple fact is that over 98% of the 80 million firearm owners in this country don't commit crimes with their firearms. Yes, there will be people who use their firearms to commit crimes. But we can't infringe on everyone's right to keep and bear arms because of this small minority of people.

[AndyA]

88. Bullshit.

What militia are you a member of?

The kinds of weapons we have today didn't exist back when the founders made their feelings known. If people only had muskets today, that would be a different story.

As someone who lost a loved one at the hands of an idiot with a gun, I very much RESENT your attitude and hope you never have to see a loved one die because we treat guns in this country with such laxity.

The right to live comes above all else. Including the right to have a gun.

The Republicans appreciate your "as long as it doesn't happen to me attitude." :eyes: :puke:

[GreenStormCloud]

120. You have already lost that argument. SCOTUS has ruled. Live with it.

If the change in technology restricts the 2nd to guns of that era, then the 1st could be restricted to the technology of that era too.

And SCOTUS has ruled on that question too.

Your side lost.

[defendandprotect]

143. Remember when we won an end to capital punishment ... that's been reversed ...

As long as you keep your right wing Repugs in power in the Supreme Court, you will

have your win and your way.

But, should there ever again be another period of Enlightenment and liberalization of

the courts, you you'd lose this inane argument.

The second amendment has an opening clause . . . which has to be ignored for the

GOPs/NRA to conquer sanity --

Guns breed death -- always have, always will.

[GreenStormCloud]

152. The SCOTUS never did away with capital punishment.

The put new requirements on it so that it would not be so arbitrary. Executions already scheduled under the old system were commuted, but new executions were allowed. They have never reversed the earlier decision. In fact it is very rare for a SCOTUS to reverse any earlier ruling.

[defendandprotect]

158. It was SUSPENDED ...

In 1972 the Supreme Court suspended the death penalty nationwide after opponents showed—using facts and figures, as he had done in Brown—that its application was permeated with racism. Instead of outlawing it permanently, however, the Court decided four years later to let states reinstate capital punishment as long as they applied it evenhandedly. Marshall and Brennan dissented furiously and voted against capital punishment in every later case, usually to no avail.

Racism reigned once more -- as we can see of the history after that decision.

[gorfle]

192. You may be interested to note:

You may be interested to note that ALL of the justices, liberal and conservative, dissenting and affirming were unanimous in their opinion that the second amendment conveys an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Read the decision for yourself.

[AndyA]

156. That's what many would like to do: LIVE.

But idiots running around with guns shooting them at people they don't know, or they're mad at, or for whatever reason prevent many from living their lives.

The SCOTUS has been wrong before, you know, like in Bush v. Gore, and I suspect this issue will be revisited again, especially with all the kooks on the right side running around now making threats. Your support of the NRA and gun lobby is an alliance that results in 84% of their donations going to REPUBLICANS. How conflicted you must be, here on a Democratic board, donating to the GOP.

The side that loses are the loved ones left behind after a senseless killing.

Your sympathy is underwhelming. Human, much? Don't bother to answer, I already know. :eyes:

[GreenStormCloud]

164. My being armed does not threaten your life, unless you attack me.

I don't want to be a victim stastic of violent crime, so I arm myself. IOW - I want to live, and am prepared to defend my life. You want to take the ability to defend myself away from me. I, and others who want to defend ourselves will continue to outvote you.

[AndyA]

196. See, that's where the problem really begins.

You state your being armed does not threaten me, and perhaps that's so. The problem is, YOU DON'T KNOW ME. You don't know that my being armed isn't a threat to you, or your family. You have to trust that everyone else out there on the street with a gun will do the right thing and have respect for it and others.

In the time it would take you to react to an unexpected threat, chances are it will be too late for you anyway.

If you don't trust a stranger with your family, you shouldn't trust that same stranger with a gun.

And then, there are the people who kill loved ones by mistake because they think they're in danger.

A study in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine found 39 percent of kids knew where their parent's guns were stored, and 22 percent said they had handled the weapons despite adult's warnings to stay away. What's more, age was not a factor in whether children had played with the guns--5-year-olds were just as likely to report doing so as 14-year-olds.

So, you endanger your family by having a gun as well. 500 kids are killed each year due to guns. The five states with the highest per capita gun death rates were Louisiana, Alaska, Montana, Tennessee and Alabama. Each of these states had a per capita gun death rate far exceeding the national per capita gun death rate of 10.32 per 100,000.

I suppose you pro gun folks will continue to support the Republicans and have your way until something so horrendous happens the public outcry to address the gun situation will demand change.

Until then, you just keep on believing that having a gun makes you safer. All too often, that's not true.

[GreenStormCloud]

202. You showed a lot of ignorance in that post.

If you are legally carrying concealed, in most states that means you have been screened by the FBI. That is a fact that your side loves to ignore. Why does your side ignore it every time?

If you are illegally carrying concealed, then it is possible that you may be a threat to me. For that reason, I practice situational awareness. Violent crime rarely happens without warning. The human predator has to do the same things that wild animal predators do. They have to select the victim, stalk to withing striking range, then rush and attack. By being alert to my surrounding while I am out and about, I can detect and take counter measures to the goblin. Usually, a street criminal will see the countermeasures and will veer off. And I can prepare. If a situation looks tense, I can put my hand in my pocket on the gun and be ready for the worst. If I have to shoot, I can draw and fire in less than 1/2 second. If need be, I can fire from inside the pocket.

I grew up with guns. I knew exactly where Dad's gun was. It was on the nails in the wall that served for a rack. When I was 11, he gave me a shotgun of my own, and it joined his, but on a new couple of nails. He taught me how to use his, so his was never a secret object of mysterious attraction. It was just another tool.

[AndyA]

219. You're a fine one to talk about ignorance.

You wrote: "...in most states that means you have been screened by the FBI. That is a fact that your side loves to ignore. Why does your side ignore it every time?"

Perhaps because it's BULLSHIT.

In most states today, convicted felons, domestic violence abusers, and people who are dangerously mentally ill can walk into any gun show, flea market, or even log on to the internet and buy weapons from unlicensed sellers, no questions asked.

So much for FBI screening.

Situational awareness is not possible in every situation. Perhaps if you live in Hooterville where everyone knows your name it works, but in major metropolitan areas there are too many people and too much congestion at any given time to always be prepared. And, since I assume you're human, you could always make a mistake and fire through your pocket and kill some little girl's daddy. And he was just reaching in his pocket to get his cell phone, an angry look on his face because he forgot to do something. Once dead, he's gone. It can all happen in less than 1/2 second. You delay, you're dead. You don't delay, you kill someone's daddy and husband.

And what about those psychos that bought guns at the gun shows? They may not scope out a target, they may just be angry, on drugs, or you might remind them of someone from the past they didn't like. They won't be giving you any warning.

You want to talk about being ignorant...it's ignorant to think that having a gun makes you safe. It doesn't.

At any rate, this is getting tedious as these things usually do. Enjoy your guns and keep them away from your kids if you have them.

[Pavulon]

224. Thats a stretch, this is big drama. here is a hint

you will die of cancer or heart disease. if your are really lucky you will die in a car accident. You will not be shot to death. Unless you happen to be a poor minority in a shitty community, then the odds change.

He is talking about a ccw which involved a federal check.

You dont know shit on this subject, if you buy from someone on the "internet" you are a criminal, like people who down load child porn. Criminal act. Questions are asked.

[GreenStormCloud]

241. You twisted what I said. Typical dishonesty of a gun-grabber.

When I spoke of the FBI screening I was specifically talking about those of us who have permits. I was NOT talking about private sales, and you can read my posts. Further, in most states, to carry a gun without a permit is ILLEGAL already. How about trying to reply to what I actually say, instead of changing things around?

I am often in Dallas on a daily basis, or one of the busy suburbs. I know something about being in a big city, having lived in one or another for most of my adult life. Furthermore, I have been to every major city in the 48 continous states - except for DC.

You don't know much about self-defense. I am a retired private investigator, so I know a thing or too about observing my surroundings. I can reccommend some good books on the topic of armed self-defense if you would like. I simply don't have the space to write everything about it.

Your example of shooting some stray father is absurd. What mugger is going to walk around with a three year old in tow? Nor is a pissed-off look and reaching into his pocket sufficient reason to shoot. There are steps that one takes before hand that helps greatly in screening potential threats. A very simple step is to change my course so that the other person has to change theirs to intercept me. That is sufficient to establish that they are interested in me, instead of just walking by. Then, if the situation warrants, I can issue a verbal challange. "Sir, please stay away. You are making me nervous." Again, that depends on the situation. In a crowded mall, such an action would be absurd. But in a darkened parking lot, it can be reasonable. I ALWAYS park my car well away from other cars, so I will know if someone is approaching me, or just has a car close to mine. There are other things too that I can do, to separate the threats from the innocent. I don't have the time or the inclination to write them all.

The odds of being the target of a random spree killer sniper are so remote that I don't worry about it. Chances of getting struck by lightning in my own home are greater. The psychos that have to approach me will give a warning, if I am alert to it. They can't just pop in like on a sci-fi movie.

My comment about my draw time, while true, was to counter your statement that if trouble happened I would be surprised and not able to respond.

A gun is NOT a magic talisman. It does not make me safe. But it does give me options that I would not otherwise have. More options is better than no options. My practiced skill with its use greatly increases my odds.

You seem to have a belief that being helpless would somehow make me safe. I throughly reject that.

If it is getting tedious to you, it is because your arguments keep getting knocked down.

[gorfle]

189. These arguments are tired.

What militia are you a member of?

I guess I have to keep repeating this stuff for the new guys.

First of all, the militias our founders intended to exist - decentralized military forces under the control of the states - ceased to exist with the passage of the Dick Act in 1903. This act federalized the state militias and created the Organized Militia - the National Guard - and also created the Unorganized Militia - all able-boded men aged 17-45 not otherwise in the Organized Militia.

So, to answer your question, I am in the Unorganized Militia as defined by the Dick Act of 1903.

However, the recent Heller Supreme Court decision held that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right regardless of membership in any organization such as a militia.

The kinds of weapons we have today didn't exist back when the founders made their feelings known. If people only had muskets today, that would be a different story.

The founders very specifically indicated "arms", rather than specific weapon types, because they knew that technology would progress. Clearly the first amendment still protects freedom of expression beyond mere printing presses. Electronic communications are also protected under the first amendment. The right to unreasonable searches still exists even in your automobile even though automobiles did not exist when the Constitution was written.

In any case, the founders' intent was very clear - the citizenry was to be armed with small arms appropriate for military service, for two reasons: First, so that they could function as an effective military force and second, so that they could effectively counter contemporary military forces, including those of the central government.

As someone who lost a loved one at the hands of an idiot with a gun, I very much RESENT your attitude and hope you never have to see a loved one die because we treat guns in this country with such laxity.

I'm sorry for your loss, but it doesn't change the fact that so long as we have free access to arms as our founders intended people will abuse that freedom.

The right to live comes above all else. Including the right to have a gun.

The law comes before all else. And that law preserves my right to have a gun.

The Republicans appreciate your "as long as it doesn't happen to me attitude.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean, but I have voted Democrat since 2006.

[C_Lawyer09]

216. Is laxity a word

We'd be much worse off with muskets or unrifled barrels, many more accidental discharges and unintended accidents. So because you suffered a personal tragedy (for which I'm sorry) nobody else can possess firearms? Absolutely illogical. Again, I ask how about the elderly man whose home was being burgalarized or the woman whom the rapist came after... Every argument has two sides, right?

[C_Lawyer09]

214. Absolutely naive

You do understand that it isn't possible or realistic to legislate guns out of criminal hands right?

[defendandprotect]

51. "Sick fucks WITH GUNS kill people" . . . hmmm....

wonder what's wrong with that picture???

[slackmaster]

62. What's wrong is a criminal justice system that coddles offenders and lets them out of jail

That's the problem.

[jgraz]

73. Yeah, more people in prison! That'll solve the problem

If only the Ft. Hood or Orlando shooters had been kept in prison after they committed all those prior offenses.

What? They had no prior offenses? Nevermind.

[slackmaster]

80. I never said it would prevent all violent crime - There is no way to do that

Nothing can prevent all murders from happening. Someone who is determined to kill can do so without firearms.

[jgraz]

99. Would it have prevented this one? Probably not.

Then what's the point of bringing it up in this context?

[slackmaster]

136. I'm going to make a bold prediction here

The perpetrator of this shooting will turn out to be a person who has a felony record and is legally ineligible to buy or possess a firearm.

[jgraz]

264. And that makes a difference... how?

Why is the fact that felons can easily buy guns an argument in favor of easy access to firearms?

[GreenStormCloud]

140. You are making a Strawman argument.

None of us have claimed it would solve all problems of violent crime. But it will solve a LOT of them. Most violent crimes are done by repeat offenders.

[jgraz]

307. And we adopt another tenet of right-wing Republicanism so you can keep your guns

:eyes:

[defendandprotect]

142. That's crap . . . 14 million in jail for smoking pot is "coddling people" . . .

what does that do to their lives afterward -- even if they beat very long sentences?

What about 3 strikes and you're out -- the GOP agenda to keep petty criminals in prison for

the rest of their lives while corporate offenders who take us all to the cleaners get bailed out!!

:eyes:

Poverty breeds crime as we all know --

Guns breed death --

[GreenStormCloud]

147. Many of us gunnies here at DU would prefer that drugs be legalized.

Jail should be for violent offenders. And stop the war on drugs as it fuels much of the crime. While we are at it, legalize and moderately regulate and moderately tax other vices too.

[defendandprotect]

161. Also agree with legalizing drugs . . . but reality says there's been

"no coddling" of criminals --

In fact, we have more people locked up than pretty near any other nation --

except maybe for Hitler's record, including concentration camps!

We've also brought back very harsh prison treatment -- many claim they are being tortured.

Certainly raped!

[slackmaster]

151. I said "coddling criminals" - People who smoke pot aren't criminals

People who do malum in se crimes are criminals.

The problem isn't too few people in prison. The problem is the wrong people are in prison.

[defendandprotect]

163. The laws make clear that the corporate criminals are to go free and the petty

criminal is to be imprisoned.

That's the GOP agenda ...

Poverty which breeds crime --

Guns breed death --

[Flaneur]

290. Oh, give me a break with your right-wing talking points!

The US is the world's leading jailer. One out of every four prisoners on the planet is in the US. We sentence people to horrendously long prison terms. I don't think it's a soft criminal justice system that's the problem.

The problem is a psychopathic society brimming over with guns.

[cadaverdog]

160. No, actually fucking guns kill people

A child that finds his father's gun and kills himself is not a "sick fuck."
Another child that finds a gun and kills his playmate is not a "sick fuck."
A man who kills a supposed intruder only to find out it's his wife is not "sick fuck."
A man who gets in an argument with his friend and shoots him to death is not a "sick fuck."
A police officer who kills an unarmed homeless person person who really is sick, is not a "sick fuck."

Feel free to add to this list


WINTER SPRINGS, Fla. - A man who thought there was an intruder in his house shot and killed his fiancee the day before they were to be married, police said Friday.

[Pavulon]

210. And those actions were proceeded by a crime.

storing a weapon where a child can access it is illegal in most states. The others are sick fucks or just stupid. Dont want a gun, dont by one. Want to elect republicans push some stupid shit gun law. Guaranteed republican vote getter.

Half of your list is murder, that is illegal.

[slackmaster]

49. If you have a suggestion for improving the laws, please present it for discussion

As long as people have a right to guns, it doesn't really matter that creates an environment where access is so much greater.

"Access" is binary, either you have it or you don't. If you believe there is some middle ground that would prevent bad people from getting guns yet still allowing good people to get them, let's see it. The best solution IMO is to keep known bad people in jail.

TIA

[defendandprotect]

48. The problem is crimes committed WITH guns . . . and too lax gun laws ...

which are bought and paid for by the NRA . .. . in order to sell guns!!

[GreenStormCloud]

144. The NRA is primarily funded by its membership of about 4 million.

And they are highly motivated voters who want to keep their guns.

[defendandprotect]

165. And that $$$ is funding the NRA targeting of Democrats . . .

[GreenStormCloud]

173. Really? In this past election the NRA endorsed several Democrats.

The NRA is single issue, guns only. The don't care about party affiliation, only about the candidates voting record on guns. Howard Dean was endorsed by the NRA, until he changed his stance on guns.

The winner of the recent NY-23 district election had an NRA "A" rating. He is a Democrat.

You really should learn what you are talking about.

[defendandprotect]

183. Unfortunately, over decades they have also targeted Dems who support gun regulation . . .

with NRA membership money - $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[GreenStormCloud]

203. And they have targeted Republican who suport gun regulation.

And they have shown themselves to be extremely effective in getting out their vote.

The only thing they care about is the candidate's gun rights record.

[defendandprotect]

249. Right . . . NRA targets moderates/liberals who are anti-gun and anti-violence . . .

and for gun controls --

the kind of people we'd like to see stay in Congress --

And they use NRA membership $$$$$$$$$$$$ to do it --

[GreenStormCloud]

253. Well, Duh. Of course they target any politician who is anti-gun. And water is wet.

Do you think that the membership wants them to support anti-gun politicians?

Yes, I do want people in office who respect my 2nd amendment rights and my right to self-defense.

[defendandprotect]

292. Again . . . NRA TARGETS DEMOCRATS...with membership $$$$$$$$$$$$ --

As for 2nd amendment, when did we toss out the opening clause?

[GreenStormCloud]

298. The NRA targets any anti-gun politician, Democrat or Republican.

To get an NRA endorsement all a Democrat has to do have a pro-gun voting record.

You are beating a dead horse on the 2nd. Your side has aleady lost.

[defendandprotect]

299. And you approve of NRA using your $$$ to target Democrats??????????????????

Right -- there's no opening clause to the 2nd amendment --

Bye --

[GreenStormCloud]

302. The result of that has been that the Democratic Party, overall, has become more gun friendly.

Only a few high-profile Democrats are anti-gun anymore. The rest got the message. Pro-gun Democrats don't get targeted. That is a good thing.

[X_Digger]

316. One more time, just for you..

"well regulated" at the time, and in this context meant 'well functioning'-

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/WellRegulatedinold%20literature.pdf

In Item 1, Anne Newport Royall commented in 1822 that Huntsville, Alabama was becoming quite civilized and prosperous, with a “fine fire engine” and a “well regulated company”. I suppose one could make the case that the firefighters were especially subject to rules and laws, but the passage is more coherent if read, “They have a very fine fire engine, and a properly operating company.”

William Thackary’s 1848 novel (item 4) uses the term “well-regulated person”. The story is that of Major Dobbin, who had been remiss in visiting his family. Thackary’s comment is to the effect that any well-regulated person would blame the major for this. Clearly, in this context, well-regulated has nothing to do with government rules and laws. It can only be interpreted as “properly operating” or “ideal state”.

In 1861, author George Curtis (item 5), has one of his characters, apparently a moneyhungry person, praising his son for being sensible, and carefully considering money in making his marriage plans. He states that “every well-regulated person considers the matter from a pecuniary point of view.” Again, this cannot logically be interpreted as a person especially subject to government control. It can only be read as “properly operating”.

Edmund Yates certainly has to be accepted as an articulate and educated writer, quite capable of properly expressing his meaning. In 1884 (item 6), he references a person who was apparently not “strictly well-regulated”. The context makes any reading other that “properly operating” or “in his ideal state” impossible.

Secondly, let's look at the preamble to the Bill of Rights-

The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The Bill of Rights was intended as a 'the government shall not' document- "to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers"- not a 'the people can' document. Rights aren't limited by the bill of rights; rather the scope of protections of certain rights are set. If the Bill of Rights were a listing of all a person's rights, there would be no need for the ninth and tenth amendments ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." respectively.)

And finally, let's look at the second amendment itself-

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.

Grammatically this can be broken down into two clauses- a prefatory clause and an operative clause. Similar wording can be found in other writing of the time, though it's fallen out of favor these days. For comparison, see Rhode Island's constitution, Article I, Section 20- "The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject..". That construction- '{reason}, {statement}' exists today, but we usually swap the clauses- "I'm going to the supermarket, I'm completely out of soda." or we add in a 'because' or 'since'- "Since I'm completely out of soda, I'm going to the supermarket." or "I'm going to the supermarket because I'm completely out of soda."

So with the point from the first section, the second section in mind, and rearranging the clauses per the third would yield a modern restatement of the second amendment as-

"Because a well functioning militia is necessary to state security, the government shall not interfere with the right of the people to be armed."

or

"The government shall not interfere with the right of the people to be armed because a well functioning militia is necessary to state security."

Nothing in either of those statements says that arms are only for militia service, rather the ability to raise an effective militia is why protecting the right to be armed is protected. (Just like saying "Because I'm out of soda, I'm going to the store." doesn't mean you're only going to purchase soda, or that the store only sells soda.) Since we know from the preamble (and the 9th/10th amendment) that the bill of rights is not an exhaustive list of rights, we have to look outside the bill of rights itself to see if the founding fathers expected this right to extend beyond militia service.

State analogues of the second amendment that were adopted in the same timeframe give a clue-

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/WhatStateConstitutionsTeach.htm (sections rearranged by me)

The present-day Pennsylvania Constitution, using language adopted in 1790, declares: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Vermont: Adopted in 1777, the Vermont Constitution closely tracks the Pennsylvania Constitution.<15> It states "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.."

Kentucky: The 1792 Kentucky constitution was nearly contemporaneous with the Second Amendment, which was ratified in 1791.<32> Kentucky declared: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."

Delaware: "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use."

Ohio: 1802 - "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State;"

Indiana: 1816 "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State.."

Alabama: The Alabama Constitution, adopted in 1819, guarantees "that every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state"

Arizona and Washington: These states were among the last to be admitted to the Union.<55>* Their right to arms language is identical: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."<56>

Illinois: "Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."<89>**

So from analagous documents created by many of the same founding fathers or their peers, the individual right unconnected to militia service is fairly well laid out.

* Admittedly, not analogous in time to the others, but still demonstrates the point.
** same

[C_Lawyer09]

223. Realism

What makes you confident of governmental ability to legislate guns out of criminal hands?

[Bette Noir]

52. But a criminal who can't get a gun is going to find it much harder to kill random strangers than

a criminal with a gun.

[slackmaster]

60. That's why criminals should be kept in jail

They can't get guns there.

[joshcryer]

322. Indefinately?

[defendandprotect]

40. So true . . . and why do the gun nuts want guns? To protect themselves from other gun nuts -- !!!

[slackmaster]

57. Most gun owners use them only for recreational purposes

Hunting, target shooting, collecting, etc.

I'll be going target shooting tomorrow morning. It's time to get rid of all the leftover pumpkins from Halloween.

[defendandprotect]

168. Presumably they could be kept on the premises . . . that's not what we're talking about ...

[GreenStormCloud]

And to protect ourselves from violent felons who use...

knives, tire irons, clubs, brick, fists, feet, etc. I am a senior citizen, and criminals often prefer to target seniors because they believe that we will be easier targets. My gun levels tilts the field in my favor. Even if the goblin has a gun, they are usually grossly incompetent with it.

[defendandprotect]

169. The "globlin" . . . ???? Mainly, these guns end up killing family members,

young kids, innocents in the vicinity --

Poverty breeds crime --

Corporations and corrupt politicians don't ever come at you with a gun --

but they are the real criminals.

Let's address the social issues and stop relying on guns to solve problems --

they don't. They create them.

[GreenStormCloud]

178. The Kellerman study has long since been debunked.

My wife would have been murdered a few years ago, but she had a gun to defend herself. The would be attacker was a stranger who had targeted her for a mugging. He was going to force her to open a door and then he would have had to silence her while he burglarized the place. But her .38 stopped him. He ran away, real fast.

I am in no danger from her, nor is she in any danger from me.

[defendandprotect]

180. And I hope everything remains safe ....

However, what we see over and again -- the record -- is clear.

[GreenStormCloud]

195. Yes, the record is clear.

CCW holders are safer with guns than the police are. CCW holders are the most law-abiding and peaceful section of the population. Yet you hate them. I think the truth is that you are against any type of forceful self-defense.

[JonQ]

193. Yeah if it weren't for our crazy gun culture

that major in the US army would never have had a gun. I mean, what other countries give their soldiers firearms? Exactly, no other country but the US.

[sendero]

304. If someone won't follow .

.... the laws against guns in bars, what other laws to you suppose they will follow? Moron.

[geckosfeet]

12. Someone fogot to tell the gun.

[slackmaster]

26. Or the criminal asshole who had it

:argh:

[defendandprotect]

55. Or the criminal GOP/NRA who push guns .... and criminal dealers who sell them . ..

[slackmaster]

65. Criminals belong in jail

That would reduce violent crime.

[Frisbee]

But don't forget...

first they have to commit a crime to be put in jail.

[slackmaster]

91. Usually they commit several crimes before committing a big one

:hi:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_Jaycee_Lee_Dugard

[defendandprotect]

177. The records suggest, not always . . .

How many innocents on death row?

And how easy now to plant DNA evidence?

How about "throw-downs" . . . guns and drugs?

[defendandprotect]

139. NRA belongs in jail -- that would reduce crime ...

[GreenStormCloud]

257. All 4,000,000+ members? For what crime? Using their first amendment rights?

So you want to jail that many people for the horrible crime of disagreeing with you. Is that a progressive stance? It sounds like you want to do away with the first amendment.

[Butch350]

33. Hey...the key word GUN! Memorize it!

[Paladin]

90. Why Don't You Send That Fact To The Dead Guy's Family?

Ought to perk them right up, dontcha think?

(Sarcasm alert, for those dim enough to require it.....)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

141. "Allowed" has nothing to do with it.

[BrightKnight]

276. gun possession + alcohol = 4 to 20 years for him + other gun charges

The normal penalty is 2 to 10 years but I believe they double it because he had a gun while committing a crime.

Brandishing is a crime.
Having a concealed weapon without a license to carry is a crime.
I am sure that he is facing lots of other gun charges.

He is probably facing capital murder charges. It sounds like there is DNA and witnesses. Dead man walking

[Hoopla Phil]

15. A gun law was broken in order to commit that murder. How many more

gun laws would it take to be broken to commit murder until you'd be satisfied?

[AndyA]

37. I guess if you have so little value for human life, it doesn't matter.

Just as long as you can have your gun.

Nice to know the right to bear arms in this country trumps all other rights, including the right of someone else to live their life without being shot in their fucking face in front of their children.

:eyes:

[slackmaster]

84. How about offering a practical solution instead of a personal attack?

Are you capable of doing that?

[David Zephyr]

157. The "practical solution" is for Texas to rid itself of permitting carrying guns in public.

Texas and Florida have opened this can of worms.

That's the practical solution.

Don't shoot the messenger here; I imagine that foreign tourist will shy away from Texas.

Can you really blame them?

[slackmaster]

162. This incident had NOTHING TO DO with Texans' ability to legally carrying guns in public

The guy who did the shooting was a criminal.

Even if he had a permit to carry the gun, which is extremely unlikely, he was breaking the law by carrying it in a bar.

The smart money is on him having a felony record and not even being eligible to own a gun.

BTW, very few states do NOT have objective rules and procedures for issuing concealed weapons permits.

[David Zephyr]

167. It has everything to do with the gun worshipping culture there. At least be honest.

You love guns. So does your state government.

That's the way you do business there.

That is not going to change. And so be it, even as archaic as it appears to the great majority of the world's population.

Most of us in the civilized world loathe guns and find toting guns around in public with the full blessings of the law idiotic.

If your state suffers in tourism from Europeans, Australians and Asians who find your laws repugnant, than you should be willing to accept it.

[slackmaster]

172. I live in California. I like guns. My state government hates them.

But thanks for trying. You are still missing the point, which is that the crime was committed by a criminal who doesn't care what laws exist.

The problem is the man.

[David Zephyr]

176. Nope. If he'd not had the gun, the victim would be alive. Period.

There's nothing more stupid than chanting "guns don't kill people, people do."

I've never seen a drive by roping.

I've never seen someone take out every customer in a McDonald's with a switch blade.

You should move to Texas if you love guns that much.

[slackmaster]

179. I'd like to see someone submit a practical, politically feasable way of preventing that kind of

person from having a gun without infringing on the right of decent people to have them.

You should move to Texas if you love guns that much.

RIF. I said I like them, not that I love them. You are running on prejudice, David.

[David Zephyr]

181. Like is better than love.

Legalizing folks to walk around with guns in Texas and Florida opened a can of violence that will haunt those states more and more in the future.

I'm glad you just like them. I stand corrected.

[slackmaster]

186. Florida and Texas are not the only states where someone without a criminal record can get a CCW

Several states had right-to-carry laws before Texas or Florida did.

[David Zephyr]

190. That's a great map for foreigners to see so they'll know where not to visit.

Thanks. I'll pass this around on other blogs. ;-)

[GreenStormCloud]

199. It is almost the entire U.S. That is useful for telling you how badly...

you are outvoted.

[slackmaster]

204. I take it you'll direct them to restrict their travels to Illinois and Wisconsin

Because according to your reasoning, the fact that people can't get concealed-weapons permits in those states ensures that there is no chance of getting shot by a criminal.

:crazy:

[GreenStormCloud]

191. Really? Are you still predicting the "blood flowing in the streets"?

There are 39 states now with "shall issue" permit systems. Your prediction hasn't happened yet.

One thing you gun-grabbers did do. You gave us the Bush governorship and presidency. He used Richard's veto of concealed carry to win the governorship. Gore's stance on guns cost him TN. If he had won TN, FL would not have mattered. If Richards had signed the CHL bill, the voters would not have been mad at her.

[David Zephyr]

197. Don't use quotation marks implying I said that. Very dishonest of you, GreenStormCloud.

Keep your own words to yourself and don't use quotation marks implying your words are mine.

[villager]

239. Take heart! Plenty of senseless deaths here in Cali, to let you know your beloved implements

are being used often, and frequently!

[Pavulon]

254. Wonder why the rate is so low in greenwich ct, telluride co, and places

where people live comfortably. Little or no violent crime.

[villager]

262. so let me get this straight: Because the rich aren't shooting each other yet, you assume all's ducky

with an NRA view on gun proliferation?

[Pavulon]

266. Yet? Some of those towns like greenwich and kennebunk

have been around for hundreds of years and for the last 50 or so have below average crime rates. To answer you question. YES, people who are happy, employed, and comfortable dont murder each other and are not involved in street crime. That is why canada has much lower murder rates even with similar access to firearms as in the US.

Get off the NRA thing, referring to all things guns as nra is an embarrassingly bad argument.

[villager]

269. You subscribe to the NRA's view on gun policies, yes?

so the comparison, viz. your views on this issue, is accurate.

But glad to hear you support Canadian-style gun licensing and registration! Hey - maybe you're not so NRA after all!

:hi:

[Pavulon]

270. One can support reasonable gun regulation, and not be a NRA supporter.

Canada has made recent changes but over a very long time the process to own weapons was very similar to the US. The swiss have access to machine guns. Yet they do not kill each other.

I do not see how a registration process would impact crime. It would just make more paperwork, and one more law for a person to break before they act violently.

I subscribe to MY views on gun policy.

Now lets talk about those cities and their MASSIVE per cap rates on violent crime in places like chicago where firearms are banned. Why is that?

[defendandprotect]

295. Thanks for the info . . . every gun is a license to kill -- every GOP/NRA vote a license to kill --

[GreenStormCloud]

184. The CHL population of TX and FL are extremely law-abiding and peaceful.

Both states publish crime statistic for convictions of their concealed carry population. The stats show that our CCWers are far more law-abiding than the general populace.

[Hoopla Phil]

126. That was not an answerer to the question. Perhaps you just misread it. So. . .

How many more gun laws would it take to be broken to commit murder until you'd be satisfied?

[Bette Noir]

56. Enough gun laws to make guns scarce and hard for criminals to get ahold of.

[Hoopla Phil]

131. So you do not believe that the current NICS check is acquit?

What would you suggest in addition to the NICS check? But whatever you suggest will have to pass a constitutional test also because a law that is found to be unconstitutional will be nullified.

[defendandprotect]

59. Every gun is a license to KILL someone . . . can police cover all of that?

Of course not -- what we need to do is BAN guns for everyone --

excluding those who need them for police enforcement . . . and that should

be toned down.

[slackmaster]

86. Thank you for your honesty

You admit that you believe only government should have guns.

[defendandprotect]

132. No -- I'd end the MIC complex . . . but I do think that there would be certain

law enforcement officials who might need guns . . . until things

got tamped down.

Also -- poverty breeds crime, as it isn't difficult to notice.

So when we begin as a society to not only recognize but actually do something

about poverty and ignorance and joblessness, then we might start raising ourselves

up into more enlightened territory again.

[Frisbee]

94. But let's be realistic here...

Guns will be readily available in this country for the rest of our lives as well as the lives of our children and grandchildren. I don't mind guns in general, but the assault rifles and high capacity clips just make it too easy to have mass killings.

[defendandprotect]

134. Not if we melt them down . . . !!!

[slackmaster]

166. It's not going to happen. You people have LOST this fight.

:nuke:

[hack89]

258. How?

Why do you think anyone will simply turn their guns over to be destroyed?

[defendandprotect]

296. People voluntarily turn in guns . . . when enlightenment strikes . . .

It is ignorance and fear which causes people to link weapons with safety!!

[GreenStormCloud]

301. A few months ago I went to a gun buy-back.

With only about 10 exceptions, all of the guns that were turned in were junk. Ravens, RGs, FIEs, and stuff like that. No Rugers, S&W, SIGs, GLOCKs, or high end guns. The guns that were turned in were not worth the buy-back amount.

And lots of single-shot shotguns.

[hack89]

303. Do you consider criminals enlightened?

what about neo-Nazis? Drug dealers? RW fundamentalists? Anti-choice terrorist?

You really think they will give up their weapons?

[defendandprotect]

314. I think criminals without guns can be enlightened . . .

just as police can be enlightened not to carry guns --

Just as an anti-atomic bomb movement can cause people to be enlightened --

Drug Dealers? Actually, as far as I know the Drug War goes on because high government

officials want it -- profit from it -- as well as high level police enforcement.

You don't think a large part of our being in Afghanistan is to keep the drug trade production going?

We also invented a lot of the RW fundis --

both in Afghanistan . . . "in order to bait the Russians in . . . in hopes of giving them a

Vietnam type experience" ---

and in America -- GOP gave start up funds to the Christian Coalition . . . to create blowback

to threats to patriarchy/authority which is what the 1960's revolution represented.

Women's movement, etal --

Patriarchy and its violence going down ---

This is the response!! They need war, weapons, violence --

the longer you embrace those things the longer they're in power.

[hack89]

323. OK nt

[GreenStormCloud]

213. Assault rifles are already extremely tightly restricted. They have been since 1934.

That is an old battle. You are beating a dead horse.

A magazine (That is the correct term. They are not "clips".)in a handgun can be changed in less than a second, with practice. So it doesn't matter how many it can hold. Personally, the most one of mine holds is 10 for the .22 pistol. The others hold 7, and two of my magazines hold 9. Those are for other guns.

[provis99]

250. so banning assault weapons has apparently worked.

As with banning machineguns. So why don't we ban other guns to, that will obviously work, too. Yet the gun loons won't even finish the logical outcomes of their own arguments.

[Pavulon]

256. They aren't banned. only wealthy folks buy them. When I can no longer buy drugs..

however the guys who shot it out with the LAPD were not legal NFA owners. When i can no longer buy banned drugs, I will surrender all my firearms. That day will never happen.

Find a new horse, this one is beat.

[GreenStormCloud]

260. The law was enacted when few were in circulation.

Also, the civilian demand for full auto weapons is tiny. They are just too expensive to shoot. Even the .22LR versions still burn lots of $$$$ ammo. It is easy to outlaw something that very few want.

Assault weapons are ill defined. What is and isn't an assault weapon seems to change frequently. The last definition that I saw would have outlawed tens of millions of firearms that are already owned by civilians. That is a very good way to get lots of voters real angry with Democrats and lose congress and the presidency for two generations.

We gunnies do provide the logical arguments in this forum. It is the gun-grabbers who resort to one-line insults and distortions.

[Hoopla Phil]

133. Why exclude police from that ban? If no one has guns then the police don't need them.

And how would you square that with the constitution?

[defendandprotect]

135. Our Constitution says that "police must have guns" . . . ????

I certainly wouldn't exclude police . . . we should de-militarize them --

and hopefully address our social problems/poverty/joblessness which breed crime --

and police wouldn't need to walk about looking like military/gestapo!

Ease the societal problems -- then we can have police with no guns.

[Pavulon]

206. Like the ban on coke. A blowjob used to be illegal. Man that ban worked great

god knows no one EVER broke that law. A ban will happen here right after Jesus opens up for the grateful dead at the garden. All talk is look good feel good and has nothing to do with real world violence, see chicago.

[provis99]

283. crime went down during Prohibition.

You missed that little point during your snark.

[GreenStormCloud]

207. I don't have any license to kill. No OOs in this house.

The state defines under what circumstances I may use lethal force in defense of my life, or my family's life. Our guns are simply tools that may be used in that extremity.

[caseymoz]

114. Maybe make it a crime before that one law was broken?

Just sayin.

[winyanstaz]

41. umm that happened in a gun-free zone...guns are not allowed in bars

in Texas.
Same as all the mass shootings of unarmed people. They take place where the killers KNOW that the other people are unarmed. Places like the Malls, the Schools and Churches etc.
Don't even try to stick the shooting at the base into this catagory as the ones that STOPPED that mass murder were the ones that were ARMED.
Stop trying to disarm American's because you cannot disarm the insane bastards that break the law.
All you people are doing is creating more defenseless victims.

[defendandprotect]

61. Right ... let's send our kids and Granny off to the mall with GUNS . . . Guns for everyone!!!

If you don't have one you're a wimp --

Now just whose agenda would that work for?

GOP/NRA interested at all in a violent America?

[winyanstaz]

77. No need to post crazy talk....

I am a gun packing Granny and it has come in handy a few times and got me out of a few tight spots.
Nor am I violent.
Nor do I advocate guns for kids.
I am not GOP nor am I a member of the NRA.
I am a proud liberal and I vote Democrat.
I grew up in Wyoming where everyone packs a gun and people are respectful for the most part because they know they will get their asses handed to them on a platter if they are not.
However I do advocate you get some help with that wild imagination you got going there. :)

[defendandprotect]

79. Every gun is a license to kill . . .

suggesting that everyone should be armed is insane -- as insane as the GOP's/NRA --

And this death is no one's "imagination" --


PS: Do you send your grandkids off to the Mall with GUNS?

[winyanstaz]

109. I did not say everyone should have guns...

I did not say kids should have guns...
I did not say "this death is someones "imagination"..I said YOU need help and this latest post of your proves it even more.
There will be no further replies to you as you lack the skill to reason and are obviously not good at reading and understanding a simple sentence.

[Divine Discontent]

112. I support your commentary.

[defendandprotect]

124. We're not talking about you, personally -- I was commenting on someone else's views . . .

Here we had an entire military base with everyone weaponized . . .

and yet before he could be stopped he'd killed or injured many.

I'd say that anyone who wants guns in their life needs a bit of imagination --

and/or needs to look at reality -- like this incident.

Violence only begets violence --

No one should have to worry about nuts with guns --

It's a GOP/NRA program to destroy America --

[GreenStormCloud]

215. Everyone weaponized?? Not even. Your imagination is running wild.

In reality, all the guns on a military base are locked up, and the ammo is locked up. Only a few MPs (Military Police) and some guards will have weapons and live ammo. The rest are unarmed. A U.S. military base is very close to being a gun-free zone with regards to actually being carried.

You would really help your cause if you knew what you were talking about.

[slackmaster]

221. What do you mean "an entire military base with everyone weaponized"?

Are you aware that non-duty use of firearms on military bases is strictly controlled?

If you aren't engaged in a duty that requires use of a firearm, i.e. a sentry or an MP, you are not permitted to have a weapon?

Personal weapons are allowed only under a few circumstances, such as taking your shotgun to the base range for skeet shooting. There is no concealed carry on military bases.

[Crabby Appleton]

317. ...everyone weaponized...

dumbest comment I've seen on DU.

[rd_kent]

45. WTF are you talking about?

How about just saying what you mean.

[defendandprotect]

63. Seems pretty clear to the rest of us . . . GOP = NRA = gun violence . . .

[rd_kent]

81. No, thats not clear at all, sorry.

I am an NRA member, but not a Republican. I am also a member of the ACLU. I support gun ownership, but not the criminal use of guns.

[defendandprotect]

138. So you're $$$ to the NRA has been helping them target Democrats . . .!!! Good work!!!

Obviously, in order to prevent the "criminal" use of anything we need to end

crime. That's a social issue which we haven't been address over the last decades.

14 million in prison for smoking pot?

Youths in prison because some Judge decided to help a prison/enslavement system out?

GOP making Americans poorer every day --

Jobs move out of America --

Let's address some of that --

Poverty breeds crime --

Guns breed death --

[rd_kent]

240. We are in agreement

except the part about "guns breed death". On that I do not agree.

And I see my $$$ to the NRA as targeting those that would take away my Second Amendment Rights, regardless of party affiliation. My love and respect for the Constitution trumps any party affiliation.

[kurtzapril4]

247. Guns

I could walk into Webster's Flea Market, in Tarrytown, FL, on any given Monday and purchase a gun. No background check, no nothing, just an exchange of cash. I've been there enough times to see it with my own eyes.

And the gun nuts seem to forget about the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd amendment.

[GreenStormCloud]

263. You can make a private purchase anywhere, not just the Flea Market.

Note that you are not buying from a dealer, but from some guy that is selling his private gun. You fail to note that difference.

And you are beating a dead horse. SCOTUS has ruled on the militia part, which you didn't understand correctly in the first place. Your side was wrong. Live with it.

[proud2BlibKansan]

64. Bingo

[iThought]

220. If gun control laws would solve our problems...

...wouldn't it make more sense just to make murder illegal?

Remember when drugs used to be legal? Good thing we solved that problem!

[TwilightGardener]

2. Pretty soon foreign state departments are going to issue travel warnings about us.

[krispos42]

6. I guess they'd better issue one for the UK as well.

Remember, the hysterical MSM does about as good a job reporting gun crime as it does corporate crime. Opposite (overloads on gun violence, ignores corporate robbery) but equal.

[Flaneur]

13. It looks like the US homicide rate is almost four time higher than the UK.

What was your point again?

[Ghost Dog]

31. Looks like there was a significant (US) rate decline during the Clinton administration

(although that may just be a coincidence, naturally).

[GreenStormCloud]

218. Violent crime did start going down around then.

Freakonomics explains why. It was about twenty years after abortion was legalized that violent street crime began to go down. Women who knew that they would not be able to properly raise a child were able to abort. The drop in crime proves that those women knew what they were doing.

[krispos42]

273. The UK rate has doubled since the mid-80s. Ours is down over 40%

And the ratio USED to be 11.

[muriel_volestrangler]

311. That's a very inaccurate statement

That chart shows the UK rate increase from the lowest figure of 0.7 in 1970 to 1.4 in 2003. The mid 80s figure was about 1.1. So it has not "doubled since the mid-80s". FWIW, the latest figures are 648 for Engalnd and Wales, 114 for Scotland and 24 for Northern Ireland; which is a rate of about 1.29 per 100,000 for a population of 61 million.

This would seem to show, anyway, that the US used to murder a hell of a lot of people; now it only murders a lot.

[krispos42]

321. True

I think I've been creeping it up the past year or so. :blush:

I think I started with "nearly doubled since the early 80's" and began abbreviating too much.

However I don't think the UK should say "Hey, we're still better than the Yanks" and shrug off a long-term trend.

[tabasco]

18. You think that chart supports your argument?

Maybe you better learn to read a chart.

[krispos42]

274. See #273 n/t

[grantcart]

286. Or alternatively, I am sure that someone will suggest, they will all be issued guns on arrival.

[Tempest]

19. Some already do

Because of draconian measures Bush put into place on travel to the U.S. and the rendition program.

It's one of the reasons Chicago lost the Olympics bid.

[JonQ]

53. I remember back in stats class, when they taught us about trends

and how one data point always proves a definite trend.

Also correlation = causation, model error is irrelevant, and averages tell the whole story of any situation.


Our prof was clinically insane.

[mwooldri]

242. The UK already does issue such advice.

http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/north-central-america/united-states

Particularly on the subjects of terrorism, health care and visiting the border states around Mexico.

[Liberal_in_LA]

3. tragedy

[FarCenter]

4. Amarillo -- that's where they assemble and maintain our nuclear weapons

http://www.amarillo.com/stories/011708/new_9362180.shtml

Pantex workers suspended
Nuclear warhead left unattended

[Pavulon]

21. Not really a tourist destination..

lots of guns there, probably not to many shootings.

[Ghost Dog]

38. Hmmm. That's a private corporation, is it?

Owned and controlled by whom, by what interests?

Under what Non-Proliferation Treaty International Atomic Energy Authority scrutiny?

[hack89]

265. Pantex is owned by the US government

The plant is managed and operated for the United States Department of Energy by BWXT Pantex and Sandia National Laboratories.

[defendandprotect]

67. Seems to be a strong connection between military/weapons and general insanity -- !!!

Through a few drugs in there and you're way over the speed limit on

human error averages!!!

[Hulk]

8. Welcome to America. Home of the brave, land of the free....

...and pasture to the gun wielding idiots who roam our land and have the capacity to cause harm to any and all that come in their way.

This is sad...again, just another sad chapter in America. Was it Florida where some nutball went on a shooting spree a day earlier? Ft. Hood where another senseless murder of 13 innocent persons were gunned down. This is a daily affair. The LAST place I would chose to visit would be this country. Sad...but we have a sick society. 24/7 hate radio, lobbies that promote putting guns and ammo and fear in the heart of every American.....this all adds up.

Visit Asia, Australia, Europe...but stay out of our insane asylum.

[Pavulon]

212. Many countries in europe have similar laws as ours, as does canada

but gun violence is not the problem there that it is here.

[villager]

9. ah, one of DU's gun lovers un-rec'd one of the recs!

How entirely predictable of them! Can't speak ill of Lord God Gun!

[Rozlee]

16. And His Only Begotten Son, NRA

Who, incidentally, needs to be crucified, drawn and quartered or otherwise dispersed from the planet. These gun nuts actually are a cult. We live in the Texas hill country in a heavily wooded area and we have guns, but that's just to fire in the air and scare off javalina and coyotes that might kill our cats. We don't keep them around waiting for the black helicopters or the coming race war. We don't masturbate with the damned things. Cop killer guns exist for one thing -- to kill cops! Now, I may not like ol' Steve, who's given my kids more tickets than Ticket Master, but I only want to kill him in my fantasies. These guns need to be either outlawed or purchased for a good documented reason.

[cognoscere]

117. It's always sad when a DUer behaves like a freeper.

It's also scary because it increases the probability that that shit is contagious.

Speaking of shit, while it's extremely tempting to say you are so full of it that you ought to buy a semi load of toilet paper, it is more likely that you are ignorant of the facts due to the media types who are too lazy, incompetent, or stupid to do their jobs properly. So, in what many will view as a futile attempt to enlighten you and others who apparently believe everything the media pukes out, let me ask you to expand upon cop killer guns. Specifically, what are the cop killer guns?

If you're going to say, "The FN five-seven used at Ft. Hood." - BZZZZZT, Thanks for playing and we have some lovely parting gifts for you. Here's a news flash: There is no gun that is designed or functions as a cop killer gun. Just because the media says something like that does not make it true - you know, like when huge numbers of people thought the Earth was flat or that Bush was a great president.

If you go to Wikipedia or armedfemalesofamerica.com, or just about any place else on the Net, you can find the basic information about that pistol which is this: The five-seven CAN shoot special ammunition that will penetrate Kevlar body armor. In a Limbaughesque manipulation of information, since cops often wear Kevlar armor then if someone had that gun and that ammo, they could kill a cop with it, so it must be a cop killer gun. EXCEPT that the armor piercing ammunition is strictly controlled by Customs and the ATF so that only police and the military can get it because they might need it in case they encounter terrorists, bank robbers, mass murderers, and others who
often wear armor when committing crimes. Hmmmm.... looks like the real name for that gun is "Bad Guy Killer Gun", but then that label wouldn't incite nearly as many people like you to jump up and down and shoot off ill-conceived blog messages.

To summarize, the special, only-available-to-police-and-military ammo is the only thing that gives it the capability to penetrate body armor. Does that validate your argument? Not really. The fact of the matter is that virtually any gun can do the same thing with the right ammo. Rifles, pistols, shotguns - hell, with a power drill and some hand tools, even a cap and ball revolver from the Civil War can be turned into a vest-penetrating weapon.

At any rate, the salient fact to remember here is that the armor piercing ammunition for the so-called cop killer guns is controlled by....THE COPS!

[Rozlee]

232. No guns are controlled by anyone when gunshows can sell just about anything

I thought I'd seen my last M4's when I left the Army, but when my son-in-law's Dad showed me what I initially thought was an AR-15, but turned out to be a prettied up M4, it floored me. Especially when he told me he'd bought it from a gun show that was more of a flea market. Guns and ammos of all kinds can be found in the U.S. because they are not controlled. There are laws against them that are not enforced. At gun shows, you can buy anything. I hear you can even buy CEREX and mallard ducks from the right people, for crying out loud! Gun laws are the loopholes. And as an Army nurse, I had a bird's eye view of the damage assault weapons caused on the human body. All this BS about if everyone was armed, America would be safer. Half the casaulties you'll see in war are friendly fire, because when everyone starts shooting, someone always gets caught in the crossfire. I'd hate to see what might happen at a Walmart if someone with a gun tried to hold it up and suddenly, everyone whipped out a weapon. The ones getting in the crossfire might be infants and children. Even at Ft. Hood, it's hard to tell if people might have been shot if they all had weapons and some weren't sure who the actual shooter was. You seem very militant about your gun rights, and that's OK. I can even live with the idea of a DUer who's a member of a progressive-hating group like the NRA. Hey, I loved Charleton Heston's movies (except for the "Omega Man"). But, I'm just as militant about the fact that some weapons have no right to be on the streets. It's bad enough that an HEI equipped .50 cal. could bring down a plane taking off. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree since neither one of us is budging.

[Pavulon]

235. An M4 sells for $20,000. If it was illegal

than the person is looking at a 10 year trip. People who own NFA weapons dont use them in crimes. I am unaware of any crime where a .50cal was used.

Lots of people like me support reasonable gun ownership without being nra members, i have been through several SSBI checks and could go through one now with no problem. With that I should be able to own and carry a weapon.

[Rozlee]

245. $20,000 !!! And my husband wants to buy one, too!?

Nope, not gonna happen. My wedding ring needs an upgrade. And you should own a weapon. As I said in a previous post, we have our own guns since we live in the country and have some wild critters that have harmed our pets in the past. And if owning an M4 is illegal, I'm hardly surprised my son-in-law's dad got one. I just hope his genes don't make it down to my two grandkids, but I may be too late. They love flea markets.

[Pavulon]

252. To clarify, the M4 issued is not the same as the replicas that are semi-auto

you can not legally buy or sell a machine gun without some big time paperwork. There is a limited supply of them so they are very expensive. The penalty for possession is stiff, I assume the penalty for sale is worse. The price for ar-15's and other semi auto stoner based rifles is through the roof now. Those are perfectly legal and sell for 900 - 1800 dollars. Far more than their actual value in my mind.

I am a fan of springfield armory m1a rifles. They are very accurate and very high quality rifles. Technically they could be labeled an "assault rifle" but they are not black and scary looking.

They fire a 308 round and are used in many match events around the US.

[GreenStormCloud]

251. What a load of hysterical crap.

The M-4 was almost certainly a civilian model that was semi-auto only, NOT with the burst fire switch of the miltary model. You can't buy a real M-4 at a gun show. I doubt that you have ever been to one. There are several cops at the door, and they check every gun - yes EVERY gun - that is brought in. I know this because I have go to gun shows about three or four times a year.

You hear that CEREX can be bought. So now rumor counts as fact? One hears many things, and much of it is bull.

Half of casualties are friendly fire? Bullcrap. Some are, but nowhere near half.

In the time since 39 states adopted shall-issue conceal carry permits, the gun-grabber claims of blood-in-the-streets hasn't happened. There have been no instances of mass confusion and everybody shooting at everybody. Hasn't happened. There have been several instances of a CCW citizen shooting a robber while the robbery was happening. But your hysterical scenario hasn't happened.

.50 taking down planes? HEI ammo. Such ammo is not available for civilians. Tracer is, but not HEI. In fact, I think that 20mm is the smallest that HEI is made for, but I could be wrong on that. Anyway, one round of .50 is not going to take down an airliner. In WWII it took lots of hits to bring down planes such as the B-17. And your terrorist is going to hit a moving plane at the perfect critical spot to brink it down with one shot? You watch too many action movies.

The NRA is not a progressive hating group. They are a single issue group, and take no stand whatsoever on other issues. No stand at all on drugs, abortion, health care, etc. The endorsed several Democrats in the recent election. They oppose some Republicans, such as Bloomberg. In fact, right now Bloomberg is one of the favorite whipping boys.

You would do your cause more good if you avoided the hysteria and learned what you are talking about.

[Ian David]

10. Texas' state motto should be "The Wrong Place at The Wrong Time." n/t

[mainer]

17. Hey, that's catchy!

But... poor British tourist.

[defendandprotect]

68. Really funny . . . !!!

Thank you!!

[Mari333]

11. We are internationally known as barbarians.

[Ghost Dog]

34. No, not at all. I'm sure most people realise the nutjobs are a (large) minority, only.

(And fundamentalist protestant Christian, probably - though this appears to be taken for granted...).

But, you do appear to have an (Roman, British...) Imperialism Complex. Check it out. (eg. cf. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x494366 )

We barbarians are the (real) good guys :) . And that goes for Caliphates and Sultanates and Papal Inquisitionates, etc. too...

:hi:

[JonQ]

58. Than the majority of foreigners are idiots

if that is the case, which I highly doubt.

[defendandprotect]

69. Tell that to the dead guy . . .

[JonQ]

82. I take it then that if any american is every killed in europe

it would be fair to label all of europe as a no-go land and all europeans as violent barbarians?

[defendandprotect]

130. If their GUN statistics/victims become as bad as ours, I'd say yes!

[JonQ]

170. So it only matters if guns are involved, violent crimes involving other weapons don't count?

So if you are far more likely to have your head caved in by a baseball (or cricket) bat in london, or stabbed then you are in any american city that doesn't matter because you won't be shot?

And since we're talking tourists I would say that the violent crime rates against tourists are all that matter.

[proteus_lives]

92. If we are barbarians why was he here in the first place?

Why do hundreds of thousands come to the US for school and work every year if we are barbarians?

Why haven't they moved the headquarters of the UN if we are barbarians?

Gee, for such a barbaric, horrid land people still seem intent on getting here. Why is that?

[Name removed]

14. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[elleng]

20. Maybe texas will kill the perp.

;(

[Ian David]

23. Guns don't kill people; Texas kills people. n/t

[David Zephyr]

187. Hmmm. Texans seem find a bathtub to drown kids in when there's no gun, so maybe you have a point

Texas: Redefining the meaning of being a Southern Baptist.

I kid, I kid. Actually, I love Southern Baptists. They just don't hold them down long enough.

[katandmoon]

27. Britain needs to put USA on terrorist watch list. This country is full of NRA terrorists.

[rd_kent]

54. NRA TERRORISTS? ALL NRA members are TERRORISTS? Fuck you! You do realize that you are calling

a whole bunch of liberals and Democrats TERRORISTS, don't you?



I had to come back and add to this post, I am THAT fucking angry at you! How DARE you fucking call someone a TERRORIST without cause like that. Bush and his boys did that for eight fucking years and the Repubs still do that. The word has lost all meaning due to its flippant use by morons like yourself who like to throw insults around for no purpose other than to see how far they can go. Well I call BULLSHIT. Fuck you and fuck your disrespectful comments toward AMERICANS that choose to follow the law and the Constitution, with all the RIGHTS it confirms, whether you like them or not.

[defendandprotect]

71. No -- it's GOP's/NRA "terrorists" . . . works the same way as their other farces . . .

you know -- fake "no health care" grassroots teabaggers!!

Evidently, many are rethinking where this violence is going and leaving the NRA --

[GreenStormCloud]

226. Don't you ever fact-check before posting? NRA membership is at an all-time high. N/T

[nashville_brook]

200. don't go postal, dude...it's just a message board.

[onehandle]

111. Well, at least three. Timothy McVeigh, Buford Furrow, Eric Rudolph...

Many of the rest are just self-righteous gun fetishists.

[mwooldri]

236. Not to mention drug addicts...

"Illicit drugs: world's largest consumer of cocaine (shipped from Colombia through Mexico and the Caribbean), Colombian heroin, and Mexican heroin and marijuana; major consumer of ecstasy and Mexican methamphetamine; minor consumer of high-quality Southeast Asian heroin; illicit producer of cannabis, marijuana, depressants, stimulants, hallucinogens, and methamphetamine;"

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

[crim son]

28. Another triumphant week for gun safety.

:sarcasm:

[Libertas1776]

30. Ya know, not everyone from Texas

is a heartless dog, geez. It appears that the locals were very sympathetic. From the BBC article:

Adam Cox, a reporter at KGNC Radio Amarillo, told the BBC there was "a lot of shock" in the town at what had happened.

"It's a pretty popular bar, right in the centre of Amarillo, the Spotted Pony Bar. Not many people expect this to happen where people will wander in and shoot up a bar like that," he said.

Mr Cox said: "It really is a heartbreaking story, you hate to hear that. When we saw it was a UK national who had just got into Amarillo that day it made our hearts sink."

[phasma ex machina]

46. "The whole family are in shock and will be issuing no further statements at this time."

It seems prudent to follow the example of the Reeve family.

[defendandprotect]

72. Good . . . are they taking back the guns? Wake us up when they do!!!

[defendandprotect]

39. GOP/NRA's Violent America . . . which serves the right wing . . .

At every level, the GOP has been doing all they can to create violence in America --

from the violent crap on TV - to the violence in our movies.

Generations of kids have now grown up believing this is violent America -- !!


PS: And a sexual assault . . . guns and rape . . .

[K8-EEE]

42. his problem was he didn"t have a gun ready to have a drink

Beacause of restrictive UK gun laws.

(NRA LINE)

[onehandle]

66. Guns are swell. nt

[DuaneBidoux]

70. Unless a foreigner MUST be in that part of the country I don't recommend it.

They have problems with people who sound funny when they talk, and that combined with guns can make a bad combo. Perhaps he was trying to see the Old West by seeing Amarillo, but I guess that comes with the Old West risks.

Gun folks always say that lots of guns make everyone safer. By that argument not one person should ever die on a military base as did two days ago in Ft. Hood.

I simply would advise people to stay away from all but San Antonio, Austin, Dallas, and Houston, when it comes to Texas. I live in Houston and have for 22 years. I think my opinion is reasonable.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[txwhitedove]

96. WTF? "Especially at this time of year.." in answer to not going to Texas?

Like it gets especially crazy in the fall and foreigners are prime targets? Yeah, must be all the fall festivals, football games, and Halloween candy!!!

That's as nutty as teabagger protests. x(

[defendandprotect]

127. Evidently, you have no memory of Dallas 11/22/63 . . .

or KKK police departments --

good ole Texas!!

Catch up !!


:eyes:

[Lone_Star_Dem]

103. It may help if you actually read the article before commenting. It was an armed robber

The suspect fired randomly hitting two people, one in the abdomen and the other in the hand. The shooter was a Latino, not the stereotypical "redneck" you seem to be implying would have a problem with someone sounding funny when they speak.

It's shocking to see the number of posters in this thread who have gone off on a bigoted tirade without a clue as to what they're speaking of.

[defendandprotect]

128. It was an armed robber -- "with a gun" . . . that's enough to start waking us all up --

[KG]

75. 'He was just in the wrong place, at the wrong time'

yes: america.

[femrap]

154. Maybe the devoted father

should have been home helping out w/ the nine-month old kid instead of traveling cross country in the US?

I've scanned the posts and not a mention of the woman who was sexually assaulted.

Was this a robbery? There seems to be much information missing. I'm surprised there wasn't someone else in the bar with a gun.

There's more to this story.

[Stella_Artois]

198. I agree !

People with young children should not travel !!!

If they get shot, well they should have been somewhere else !

Young fathers who get shot deserve less sympathy !

Its important that we say these things without knowing a thing about his background or circumstances ! Being ignorant on the internet is my RIGHT dammit !

[femrap]

312. I bet you'd speak differently if

the mother was the one traveling. That's one long trip he was on.

Yeah, just stick the kid with mom....that's all women are good for anyway, right? Breeding, breast-feeding, washing diapers, getting only 4 hours sleep/night.

Yeah, let daddy do whatever he wants....'Hey, I want to go the USA and travel cross country and stop wherever I feel like. You and that baby will be OK, right?'

As his parents said, 'Wrong place at the wrong time.' I'm just agreeing with them.

I love to drink your name.....you seem blindered.

[blogslut]

201. Yes. It was an armed robbery

The guy went in earlier to case the joint, left and came back later to rob the place.

[mwooldri]

244. That pretty much sums it up unfortunately.

Though rarer, tourists have been killed in Britain too, and there are crazy areas as well.

[spoony]

89. Jangling Jack...

Nick Cave:

Jangling Jack
Goes Yackety Yack
Visits the home of the brave
Hails a fat yellow cab
Jack wanna celebrate
Jack wanna big drink
Driver drops him at a bar
Called the Rinky Dink
Jack pushes through the door
And crosses the floor
Tips his hat to a man
Grinning in the corner
Going Do da do Do da do


Says, I'm Jangling Jack
I go Do da do
I wanna Rinky Dink Special
I wanna little umbrella too
Jack flops on his stool
Sees the grinning man laugh
So Jack laughs back
Jack raises his glass
Says, God bless this country
And everything in it
The losers and the winners
The good guys and the sinners
The grinning man says, Buddy
It's all Yackety Yack
Whips out a little black pistol
Shoots a bullet in Jack

[mitchtv]

95. without TX, FL and CA

what would we talk about?

[txwhitedove]

100. Ohio is big on serial killers this week, so add OH.

Crazy knows no boundaries or color lines.

[mwooldri]

238. SC, AL, LA, MS, GA, TN, ... nt

[enid602]

97. damned if you die, damned if you live

I wonder what kind of hospital tab Reeve would have received if he´d lived. Probably easily a million.

[proteus_lives]

98. Typical comments.

Blame guns, blame Texas, blame the NRA. Time to put on the sack-cloth and eat some anti-US ashes. :eyes:

God forbid we blame criminal or the person who pulled the trigger.


Let's take away everyone's rights, then we'll be safe! Because that is sooooo much more important then being free. :puke:

[jgraz]

102. Do you just keep pasting in the same comment on all of these threads?

If you're going to do that, at least take the time to make it marginally intelligent.

[proteus_lives]

108. It's not the same.

Read more carefully. It's different on each occasion. It's not my fault that you grabbers are so repetitive that a general theme works with you.

On a serious note, I don't think you should be favor of stripping your fellow citizens of their rights. It's not cool.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

101. Such a horrific tragedy.

My heart goes out to the family members of the victim.

[mwb970]

105. "Don't Come To Texas On Account Of No Song"

Another big hit for Willie Nelson.

[onestepforward]

106. Senseless acts of violence can happen any where.

My sincerest condolences to this man's family for their tragic loss.

[winston61]

107. Just like Brother Malcolm X said- Yeah, brother, give me a

gun...

[MineralMan]

110. Poor guy. He was out of his element, and nobody

helped him to understand which places are safe to go and which are not. He ended up in some shitkicker bar in Amarillo and died for his trouble.

He didn't have the experience to know where to go and where not to go, the way most of us do, so he went there. I tried to find a web site for the Spotted Pony Lounge, which is the name of the place where he got shot, but they don't have one. What a surprise.

Stay out of shitkicker bars. They have them everywhere. Texas has more than its share.

[Divine Discontent]

122. "He was just in the wrong place, at the wrong time." - Yeah, America. I can hear our cousins over

in the U.K. saying that now as some cancel their trips. I'm sure it's quite the story there.

This violent murder, added in with some sexual assault of a woman, to boot, will scare even more tourists from the US. Disney, and the rest of the US heavily rely on UK tourists (they're about 1 of every 4 that I've seen for months now), and if we have reckless gun laws and control, then it's going to get talked about a lot overseas when one of their own dies for nothing.


Ray Carlos Cisneros:

[proteus_lives]

291. Few people will listen to you despite your spot-on logic.

Most are cowards and prefer to blame inanimate tools.

Shitkicker bars, where you go for a fight instead of a drink, exist in all countries and cities. Hell, when I was in Scotland there were areas I was advised to stay out of.

But people will tools rather then people. I've always found that to be odd.

[caseymoz]

115. I foresee a recession in the Texas tourism industry.

It's time Texans pay up for their love of guns.

[GreenStormCloud]

118. The shooter was already illegal in bringing the gun into the bar.

How would making it doubleplus illegal make any difference?

How would taking my guns away from me stop a violent felon from committing his evil?

[David Zephyr]

174. Pullleaze. It was completely legal for him to walk to the bar with that loaded gun.

The fact that it became "illegal" only when his tippy toes entered that bar is a silly argument for you and the others here to make.

Carrying guns around in Texas and Florida is legal. And a stupid thing to allow.

[Pavulon]

227. Negative. No open carry in florida

dont know about texas. murder is illegal. maybe we can make it double dog illegal.

[GreenStormCloud]

229. No, carrying guns around in Texas is NOT legal, unless one has a CHL.

The shooter was a robber, so we know that he was carrying his gun illegally, from the start.

You fail. Try again.

[rd_kent]

243. Your ignorance is amazing.

[BrklynLiberal]

123. What a tragedy...

[smoogatz]

129. Awful.

This kind of random gun violence could happen almost anywhere in the U.S. Combine one brain-damaged meth-head with one cheap and easily obtainable handgun and away we go. My sympathies to all involved--and this is one case in which I hope Texas' infamous execution industry is put to good use.

[benld74]

171. Guns dont kill people, People who walk into Taxeas bars WITH a GUN Kill People

[JonQ]

182. You know, on all the threads about the fort hood killer

we were told not to jump to conclusions about motives, not to stereotype millions of people based on the actions of a single person, that we should learn to better understand and appreciate that culture, and so on.

On this thread its: all texans are like this, that state is full of murderous barbarians and NRA terrorists, you should avoid texas at all costs.

Seems a bit hypocritical. Those people blaming a state of 25 million people for the actions of 1 would never dream of blaming islam for the actions of dozens or hundreds of extremists.

Like I've said before: DU has a nasty streak of bigotry that needs to be dealt with.

[Odin2005]

188. Wow, the anti-gun nuts just HAD to use this tragedy to spew their crap.

The gun issue is DEAD. so STFU.

[villager]

237. ...said the pro-gun nut, using the shooting news to spew the usual venom...

n/t

[cleverusername]

217. WTF? No one goes to Amarillo as a tourist!?!?! nt

[BrightKnight]

278. Tourism is big industry in Amarillo. Palo Duro Canyon is very beautiful

and just out side of town. I go down to hike or ride in the canyon occasionally. Amarillo is not a place that I would ever expect to have a problem.

[T_i_B]

324. Is This the Way to Amarillo? I've been weeping like a willow!

Read this, and find the YouTube video and you will understand why British tourists might want to pay a visit, especially if they are fans of the comedian Peter Kay

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is_This_the_Way_to_Amarillo%3F

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4554083.stm

[CreekDog]

230. I guess this British tourist should have brought a gun into the bar

:sarcasm:

:banghead:

[TheMadMonk]

255. 217 posts and only one that touches on a huge, huge part of the problem.

A culture that glorifies violence and turns it into entertainment. The greater the overkill and the messier the results the more people lap it up.

A point to ponder for the "Well I'd whip out my Desert Eagle fifty cal. and put a cap in his criminal arse." crowd. The vast majority of ordinary people caught up in a violent situation freeze solid. To the point that they will do absolutely nothing while a crazed gunman calmly walks from one family member to the next, shooting them one by one until they get to the self proclaimed "great protector" lying there in his soiled underwear and end his existence too.

It takes special training (including being a repeated victim of violent crime), before most people are able to react in any way that has any significant liklihood of successfully defending against an attacker. AND even more special training for their response to be a measured one, with proper consideration given to chances of success and potential collateral damage of their reaction.

And yes, I'm fully aware that a DE .50 is not exactly a suitable weapon for concealed carry.


Gratuious cheap shot: The 9/11 hijackers were screened by the FBI.

[Pavulon]

259. Many people with NO experience

have used firearms to preserve their lives in armed confrontation. I disagree with the mantra that one requires combat training to be effective in defending yourself in most situations. I DO think a person who carries (or owns for defense) a weapon and does not fire 100 rounds a month through it is not doing their due diligence.

I agree there are many cultural, socioeconomic, and mental health driven factors that contribute to needless violence. Drug Law and lack of quality mental care top the list.

[TheMadMonk]

284. Depends very much on the circumstances.

If it comes at people cold, the natural instinct will be to freeze when cornered or blind flight given an opening. The outcome of any number of mass shootings demonstrate this. Counter-examples do exist, but they are the exception, not the rule.

Lacking at least a few moments of advanced warning, almost everyone without some sort of pre-conditioning is going to freeze.

Those who possess the "ability" to fight back, will for the most part do so, regardless of the "toys" they might have to hand. And will do so with a fair degree of success. Take the Port Arthur Masacre for example. As my brother noted at the time, Martin Bryant had to reload THREE times. Excluding children AND allowing him the first clip uncontested, nearly twenty people, who were otherwise dead anyway, were in a position to stop him dead, with near absolute safety, by the simple expedient of grasping the end of the barrel, no need for a firearm whatsoever.

For any number of other examples, look to register jockeys who seize the moment and disarm their attacker, or otherwise fight back. As a matter of fact, chances are good in such circumstances, that if the attacker does not discharge/use their weapon immediately, they will not do so at all. Absent that initial moment of panic, all his attention will be turned to escape, since one more failed armed robbery, just will not receive the same police attention as a murder or even attempted murder. However, it is that initial moment of uncertainty that prompts the strong recomendation to simply hand over the cash, and also what gives the store owner/insurer the oppening to "wash their hands of it" if an attempt at active defense goes wrong when there is an explicit epressed policy to comply with demands.

That aside, you will fight back, or not, regardless of how well armed you are. First corolary to the "guns don't kill people" argument is "There are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous people."


By the way, I do not oppose ownership of firearms, even to the degree of entertaining the notion of taking on one's own government given appropriate circumstances. But generically, as a means of immediately available, individual self protection, I'd bet (and vote) against the gun. Not because the odds of using it successfully are low, they might indeed be quite respectable, but because the odds of unintended outcomes are far too high, for society as a whole (including your family) to bear as the price of your own individual safety.

[GreenStormCloud]

267. Most people are sheep, and will react as you say. But...

some of us have made the decision not to be sheep and to be ready if the wolf comes calling. We train ourselves for that eventuallity, even as we hope it never comes.

At any given time you will find several threads in this forum about people who have used guns to defend themselves. I personally know seveal. No freeze-ups among those people.

Sorry, but it sounds to me like you are another person who doesn't want people to have any ability to defend themselves. You can be a sheep if you want to, but I won't.

[jgraz]

272. Yeah, like those sheep at Ft. Hood

If only they'd had access to weapons and training, those deaths could have been prevented. :eyes:

[GreenStormCloud]

300. Notice that the shooter was stopped by a person with a gun.

Yes, if there had been armed people in the audience, they could have taken him out.

BTW - This was an Army base. I strongly suspect that they had firearms training.

[jgraz]

306. Gundamentalism at its finest

No matter what happens, no matter what the circumstances are, it always means that we need more guns.

There's no problem caused by too many guns that even more guns won't solve, eh? :eyes:

[GreenStormCloud]

308. The problem wasn't cause by too many guns.

It was caused by Islamic Jihad.

[Paladin]

309. Prove It. (n/t)

[GreenStormCloud]

310. OK. Here you go.

He was a devout Muslim.
He was yelling "Allah Akbar" while he was shooting.
He was dressed in Arabic attire.
He passed out copies of the Q'ran the day before.
He was deep into radical Islamic ideology.

Sounds like standard issue Islamic Jihad terror to me.

NOTE: This does not blame all Muslims.

[Blandocyte]

261. Shudda Stayed Home In Your Gun Ban Heaven, Limey

:sarcasm:

[DemoTex]

268. FUCK GUNS AND GUN-LOVERS

There. It is an opinion. I don't have to explain a thing!

[proteus_lives]

289. Actually you should be saying, "FUCK CRIMINALS"

Because millions of gun-owners never commit a crime.

But continue with your rant if you like.

[Blandocyte]

275. Gun ban. Total. Gun. Ban. Let's get going.

Mr. and Ms. America, turn those effin things in.

[Pavulon]

280. You will see jesus return to preach at the garden right before that happens..

1990's thinking is done.

[proteus_lives]

288. Never gonna happen.

Thank goodness.

We have this little thing called the Second Amendment. Like freedom of speech and religion, we're attached to it.

[slackmaster]

329. No doubt Blandocyte would make exceptions for government use

So Blandocyte isn't really talking about a gun ban at all, but rather a police state.

[BrightKnight]

282. Capital Murder is about as illegal as it gets. dead man walking

capital murder
armed robbery
rape
assault with a deadly weapon
numerous felony gun charges

I am sure that the prosecutor has pages of charges.

I am not a huge fan of the concealed carry law but there is no way this guy had a permit. He is looking a 2 to 10 years * 2 for just having a gun in a bar with or without a permit. Not having a permit is a crime. brandishing is a crime. Having a gun while committing a crime is a crime.

This guys problems much deeper than gun culture or the NRA. Some people have been watching too many spaghetti westerns.

[TexasObserver]

285. And a song took him to Amarillo.

[robo50]

305. Yeah, talk about "destiny"!

I have a strange feeling in my spine when I hear stories like this.