And it begins: Obama Renews Push to Reduce Gun Violence

[Sammich]

Just in time for the signing of the U.N. Small Arms Treaty (ATT) this friday. Obama Renews Push to Reduce Gun Violence The president made clear his support for Second Amendment rights, saying "hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage." "I also believe a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals. That they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities," he said. It is amazing that Obama was a Constitutional Law professor, yet is completely (likely wilfully) ignorant of the original intent of the 2nd amendment. It is not about duck hunting. It is not about target shooting. It is about the right of the citizens to have access to arms to keep the government in check and from turning tyrannical. The irony of Obama's statement is that it was the federal government that brought the weapons used on the "battlefield of war" to the streets of our cities through the militarization of law enforcement. I don't give a crap if people in other countries say otherwise. We are citizens with inalienable rights, NOT subjects with government granted priviledges. "Americans have the right and advantages of being armed unlike the citizens of the countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison, The Federalist Papers

[SymphonicX]

I'm with you on this entirely. The issue isn't about whether America should be allowed to own guns. This is proven by other countries who have similar gun laws but 8 times less deaths per anum due to gun incidents. It's not the actual guns that are the problem. You can find whatever value you like in owning guns - it's your right and freedom etc - personally I can't entirely see things in the same light as you - but ultimately, as I've said...why are people even talking about guns? I still think the "guns dont' kill people, people kill people" argument is VERY weak - but not because it's untrue. It's actually quite true in it's nature. I just detest the idea that this statement ends the argument...it doesn't, it just begins it...it's the opening of a wider debate on how the hell we get to the point where a 15 year old can shoot up a school in Germany, or how a mad fundie can go apeshit on an island and kill 70 people...it's the point of being about to root out these things, before they ocurr - and I think that argument distracts people from thinking about that. It has taken me a while to understand it this way though...

[shootemindehead]

It is about the right of the citizens to have access to arms to keep the government in check and from turning tyrannical. It's got nothing to do with that. It was put into effect so GOVERNMENT could raise a militia quickly. "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." Nowhere does it say "...just in case we in the government turn out to be a load of dicks" It was written with the GOVERNMENT's benefit in mind, not the peoples. -- -------- Post added at 04:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:13 PM ---------- I'm with you on this entirely. The issue isn't about whether America should be allowed to own guns. This is proven by other countries who have similar gun laws but 8 times less deaths per anum due to gun incidents. It's not the actual guns that are the problem. You can find whatever value you like in owning guns - it's your right and freedom etc - personally I can't entirely see things in the same light as you - but ultimately, as I've said...why are people even talking about guns? Because at the moment, it's part of the problem. Another part of the issue is that America needs to look into why middle class white kids feel the need to enact these armed massacres in the first place. The ease with which anyone can buy a semi-automatic assault rifle etc in the States gives these nutters the tools to do their job I still think the "guns dont' kill people, people kill people" argument is VERY weak - but not because it's untrue. It's actually quite true in it's nature. I just detest the idea that this statement ends the argument...it doesn't, it just begins it...it's the opening of a wider debate on how the hell we get to the point where a 15 year old can shoot up a school in Germany, or how a mad fundie can go apeshit on an island and kill 70 people...it's the point of being about to root out these things, before they ocurr - and I think that argument distracts people from thinking about that. It has taken me a while to understand it this way though... It's not only weak, it's rather stupid too. It's like "People that can, do and people that can't, teach" They sound like nice soundbites, but they only muttered by people who don't want any kind of real debate. Of course guns kill people. They're designed to kill. That's their primary function for fuck sake.

[SymphonicX]

Exactly - I agree entirely. And I think you hit the nail on the head here: "America needs to look into why middle class white kids feel the need to enact these armed massacres in the first place." There's some really big pointers here. James Holmes was an educated, smart bloke. He had a lot of potential as a good human being. Something went awfully wrong. This may sound class-ist....but I do think that this stuff is usually reserved for the scum-class - for you, rednecks (?), for us, chavs...just today a guy was convicted here of randomly killing an Indian student out of the blue...he just walked up and shot him in the head. Then you have the Jamie Bulger killers, scum-class, under priviledged, abused, neglected...I can sort of understand why THOSE people go on rampages... But then you have James Holmes - and the like. Middle class, educated, comfortable...(to a degree)....so what went wrong? -- -------- Post added at 04:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:44 PM ---------- Also I have to ask you Americans about Colorado...I'm not sure if I'm imagining this - but isn't Colardo a hotspot for this sort of gun rampage?

[shootemindehead]

He was probably always a nutcase, who until then had exhibited his problems in a minor way. Healhcare in the States is financially prohibitive and mental health is no different. This type of situation precludes many people with mental health problems from accessing care. In fact, a lot of people with mental health issues end up homeless and on the streets of America. One article I read a number of years ago suggested that the majority of homeless people in the country are victims of mental health problems and I can well believe it. I was staggered by the amount of homeless people in San Francisco when I was there on a business trip a couple of years ago. EVERY street corner was littered with homeless people, it was truly incredible. I thought Dublin's homeless problem was bad until I witnessed Frisco and I did notice that a very large number of them were quite mad.

[SymphonicX]

Uh-oh....I think you opened a can of worms there. It's a very very important point...and I think it has real legs to it. Ready availability of healthcare sounds like a very obvious thing, now you mention it. Of course with societal support structures in place, these people can be highlighted and hopefully helped...but with no actual medical support structure to back it up, then people may suffer....this could be one of the causes - but you'd probably find a litany of information to say that Holmes was indeed covered by a medical plan, and we don't know either way...so again it flies back towards rooting this stuff out from the source, before medical intervention...I dunno...good point though....

[AcesandEights]

Also I have to ask you Americans about Colorado...I'm not sure if I'm imagining this - but isn't Colardo a hotspot for this sort of gun rampage? I'm not sure, however I read an article the other day that wanted to paint Colorado as such a hot bed, but also included--as if to prove their point--incidents of shootings in a plane flying over the state and an Indian massacre from the mid 19th century...I think they were kind of stretching to reach their intended goals in that article. Let's remember that Colorado, though smaller in population, is about the physical size of the UK and gun culture is fairly big out there, on the old frontier, so the I'm pretty sure the ratio of civilian owned firearms per capita is pretty high. I'm not even touching your comments about 'rednecks' etc. I think a lot of these problems are found in both low and middle class backgrounds, but for very different reasons. The rampage killings seems to quite often come from people in what could roughly be described as middle class to lower middle class backgrounds who have feelings of marginalization and recent trauma or trigger event, usually paired with one more axis II mental disorders. Just some thoughts. -- -------- Post added at 12:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:34 PM ---------- Also, on the topic of healthcare, I was thinking the same thing last night. This always comes up in down economies when human services are the 1st thing to be cut.

[Sammich]

It's got nothing to do with that. It was put into effect so GOVERNMENT could raise a militia quickly. "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." Nowhere does it say "...just in case we in the government turn out to be a load of dicks" It was written with the GOVERNMENT's benefit in mind, not the peoples.[COLOR="Silver"] Why would the Founders place a government power in a document enumerating inalienable rights of the INDIVIDUAL? Can you provide evidence that the Founders intended that "the people" also mentioned in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th amendments in Bill of Rights really meant "the government"? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" -- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 "...What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify is a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure...." - Thomas Jefferson: Letter to Colonel Smith, Nov. 13, 1787. "Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." -Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer, 1788 Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. - Patrick Henry "I ask sir, who is the militia? It is the whole people...To disarm the people, that is the best and most effective way to enslave them..." - George Mason "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword because the whole body of people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States..." - Noah Webster

[Mr. Clean]

There's some really big pointers here. James Holmes was an educated, smart bloke. He had a lot of potential as a good human being. Something went awfully wrong. But then you have James Holmes - and the like. Middle class, educated, comfortable...(to a degree)....so what went wrong? We may NEVER know what screw came loose in this monster's head or who made it come loose. There are too many factors to examine. Maybe he was molested by a family member when he was younger or born with a mental condition? I have no clue. The term redneck is used is alot of ways but I wouldn't use it in this case. The name comes from southern farmers in the early 1900s because they worked long hours out in the fields thus developing constant sun burns on the back of their neck. It wasn't derogatory back then and some don't take offence to it today but normally when used today it's in the sense your very dumb and screwed up in the head because your family motto is "Lets keep it in the family" if you know what I mean. This Holmes guy is just a sicko piece of shit. Plain and simple.

[shootemindehead]

The quote from Jefferson is his own take. Nowhere in the actual amendment does it suggest that a "tyrannical government" was the reason for an armed populace. It states, however, very clearly that in terms of a militia, the population's right to bear shall not be infringed. The reasons for which, was because of the military situation prevailing at the time. IE, there wasn't one. The US didn't have a regular standing army and was likely not to have one capable of fending off outside influence for some time. In addition the idea that an armed population could fend off America's trained military for even a short space of time is ridiculous. Any kind of resistance would be quashed in the blink of an eye.

[AcesandEights]

the idea that an armed population could fend off America's trained military for even a short space of time is ridiculous. Any kind of resistance would be quashed in the blink of an eye. This keeps coming up every time gun control and the counter arguments pop up, but I'll reiterate the key point on this as I've understood it in the past (people who pay more attention on this debate, please correct me if I am wrong): the U.S. is a big place and a lot less guns per capita in a lot smaller countries have caused issues for super powers in the past, if it ever came to matters of insurrection.

[Mr. Clean]

In addition the idea that an armed population could fend off America's trained military for even a short space of time is ridiculous. Any kind of resistance would be quashed in the blink of an eye. Viva la Resistance!

[shootemindehead]

There's only been three superpowers though, Aces. Britain, Russia and the US. In a lot cases where an armed insurrection has caused serious issues for the ruling powers, it's been because of outside influence wishing to change the balance of power to aid their own agenda(s). The current situation in Syria is a prime example. Assad's hands are tied, because the UN (the US) are wagging their fingers from the sidelines and tapping their own big sticks and instituting no-fly zones. Meanwhile, arms are flooding into the hands of the rebels from outside forces. Libya found itself in the same situation too and only collapsed because of outside help from nations that wished to remove Gaddafi for their own motives. But the US possesses the most sophisticated military machine currently available. The idea that the population could fend off F-16's, M1 Abrahams and a trained body of men just doesn't stand up to even the most limited scrutiny.

[Sammich]

The quote from Jefferson is his own take. Nowhere in the actual amendment does it suggest that a "tyrannical government" was the reason for an armed populace. It states, however, very clearly that in terms of a militia, the population's right to bear shall not be infringed. The reasons for which, was because of the military situation prevailing at the time. IE, there wasn't one. The US didn't have a regular standing army and was likely not to have one capable of fending off outside influence for some time. In addition the idea that an armed population could fend off America's trained military for even a short space of time is ridiculous. Any kind of resistance would be quashed in the blink of an eye. Are you even aware who Thomas Jefferson and James Madison are? Again, where is your evidence that the 2nd amendment is a collectivist right and where are any quotes of the Founders to support your assertion? Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which is NOT in the Bill of Rights, has the mention of calling for the militia: To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; As for your other claim, the British at that time were the most highly trained and technologically advanced military on earth, yet an armed population not only fended them off, but forced their surrender. The Afghans caused the Russian military to withdraw and now the U.S. military. The IRA was not "quashed" by the SAS. You also assume that all of the U.S. military would comply with the orders of a tyrannical government and fire upon their own countrymen. I can tell you that is not the case.

[shootemindehead]

Viva la Resistance!