With the empowerment of the National Rifle Association, gun violence will escalate.
The NRA has bloodstained hands.
My heart is broken for the victims of the massacre in Las Vegas.
How did that shooter get military machine guns?
Did he pass a background check?
Why are military weapons available to non military persons?
I understand that hunters love their rifles but I assume they don’t shoot deer with machine guns or assault rifles. Yet these weapons are freely available at gun shows and on the internet. Why?
If I lived in another country, I would not visit the U.S.
It is too dangerous.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
The credit for this massacre goes to the NRA lobby, not to ISIS, even though ISIS was quick to claim credit for it. I too mourn for those were brutally killed by a weapon of war easily obtained by the killer.
LikeLike
Rob Bishop, US House of Representatives, continues to push gun legislation that promotes access to military-type weapons, armor-piercing bullets, and relaxed sales and ownership regulations. Time to replace him with someone like me. https://www.crowdpac.com/campaigns/348732/catherine-callow-heusser
LikeLike
Hey! I will vote for you. Rob Bishop is a slimeball.
LikeLike
By all accounts he would have looked like the “good guy with a gun” First amendment rights are under attack but certainly not Second Amendment rights. That is sacrosanct.
LikeLike
Amen
LikeLike
The man had money. Money can get people contraband items.
LikeLike
You have a couple of points wrong. Military “machine” guns, that are fully automatic, are illegal. It is extremely difficult for a private citizen to obtain a fully-automatic weapon, legally. see
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/rpt/2009-R-0020.htm
Fines for illegally owning a weapon of this type, can run as high as $250,000
The alleged perpetrator, had no criminal record (as yet disclosed). He could easily have passed a background check, for legally purchasing rifles/handguns, etc.
There are many types of weapons, used by the US military, which are legally available for purchase by private citizens. Semi-automatic pistols, .38 caliber revolvers, etc. are in common use by both the US military, and private citizens.
Again. owning a “machine” gun (Fully automatic) is highly restricted. Hunters do not use these types of weapons for hunting. Military-style assault weapons, (semi-automatic), can be purchased legally.
Fully automatic weapons are not (generally) made available for purchase at gun shows. Individuals can purchase semi-automatic weapons, and then obtain “conversion kits”, which enable the semi-automatic weapon to be converted to a fully-automatic weapon.
LikeLike
No civilian needs to own an assault weapon.
The NRA usually says that the best defense is when everyone is armed.
Yeah? What about a sniper on the 32nd floor?
LikeLike
In Nevada, machine guns are legal.
LikeLike
Diane I’ve heard that sentiment (about the gun lobby and not living here) voiced by many who live and work outside of the US. Laying the blame at the door of the gun lobby, however, was the first thing I thought of. But if Sandy Hook didn’t make the grade, this probably won’t either. It’s government by the dumb, blind, and vacuous self-serving.
LikeLike
CBK,
I wish I could understand why the NRA wants assault rifles and machine guns for all.
No one should have weapons but officers of the law. Hunters should have single shot rifles.
That’s my view.
The Founders thought everyone should have a musket.
How is this madness defensible?
LikeLike
Diane “How is this madness defensible?” It IS madness, and no madness is “defensible.” However, it is open to explanation: capital investments, coupled with the identity of many with destructive pointed objects.
LikeLike
(I am NOT a member of the National Rifle Association, and I do NOT speak for them).
The NRA is not on record in wanting assault weapons/automatic weapons for all. see
https://www.nraila.org/issues/assault-weapons-large-magazines/
If you think that only officers of the law, should have weapons, you must not be aware of the second amendment. The people have the right to keep and bear arms. See Heller v. District of Columbia 2008
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290
Hunters use rifles with multiple-round magazines. Some hunters use shotguns.
Are there any other parts of the constitution, that you wish to remove or alter?
Are you really in favor of disarming the population of the USA, and leaving weapons only the hands of police/military?
LikeLike
The Second Amemdment confers the right to bear muskets, n
LikeLike
Q The Second Amemdment confers the right to bear muskets, n (sic) ENDQ
Here is the 2d amendment:
” 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. ”
You are wrong on several points. The right to keep and bear arms, is a pre-existing right (like the right to post bail), that pre-dates the constitution. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, was already in place prior to the Constitution.
No amendment in the constitution, confers any rights. The constitution only guarantees and protects, pre-existing rights. The constitution does (among other things) place a “leash” on the government.
There is nothing about “muskets” in the 2d amendment. The word “arms” is non-specific.
Read Heller v. District of Columbia (2008), the decision confirmed the right of an off-duty security guard, to keep a loaded PISTOL, in his home. No one in 1787, could have imagined a pistol/revolver.
LikeLike
Not sure, but I seriously doubt that the Founding Fathers wanted a nation in which each person had an AR-15 or other semi-automatics
LikeLike
Q Not sure, but I seriously doubt that the Founding Fathers wanted a nation in which each person had an AR-15 or other semi-automatics END Q
It is interesting, but pointless, to argue hypotheticals. The framers had no concept of semi-automatic weapons. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume, that the framers wanted individuals and militias, to have “state of the art” weapons.
You must remember, that the framers had just concluded a revolution. The Americans, had weapons, which were generally on a par with the British. Without personal and collective ownership of (then) modern weapons, the revolution would not have been successful.
The framers knew that Americans, especially out on the frontier, needed weapons for hunting, for defense against hostile Indians, against the expansionist Spanish in Florida, and other legitimate defense needs.
Today, with a largely urban population, and productive agriculture, we do not need personal weapons to hunt for food. But the rationale for widespread personal weapons ownership, persists notwithstanding.
If the government ever gets oppressive, the people must rise up, and overthrow the government. Without weapons, this is impossible.
People have a legitimate right to self-defense. The right to own lethal weapons, is derived from this (and other sources).
LikeLike
Chas,
That is sheer nonsense
Hamilton and Jefferson wanted everyone armed with bazookas? Machine guns?
You are crazy. They were not.
LikeLike
Again, don’t present hypotheticals. Hamilton/Jefferson could not imagine anti-tank weapons, or bazookas. Get real.
It is reasonable to assume, that the framers intended for the people/militias to keep and bear weapons that were state of the art. The right to keep and bear arms, is meaningless, if the weapons are obsolete. This is only logical.
There is a nation, where the people/militias keep and bear automatic weapons, including bazookas and assault-type weapons in their homes. That nation is Switzerland.
see
Not even Hitler, would mess with the Swiss.
LikeLike
I am something of an anomaly. I am an intellectual (I hope), poetry loving, liberal, Jewish teacher in a solid blue big, coastal city of a solid blue state, yet I enjoy watching NASCAR and hunting and fishing programs on TV during weekends. Maybe I can provide some insights, since I sit on the fence and see into both yards. People like guns because they’re cool. Okay? They’re cool. Same with violent sports, gas guzzling monster trucks and muscle cars. They are cool. They go bang and pop and whiz and vroom. Cool. Founding Fathers ain’t got nothin’ to do with it. It doesn’t really matter what Samuel Adams thought, does it. Cool. Guns are part of a culture, a culture that feels it’s under attack by liberals like us. We tell them what statues are appropriate, what flags must be treated in what ways, what cars to drive, what to smoke and what not to smoke, what curricula to teach their children, and all the while we insult their intelligence, insinuating at every turn they are backwards rednecks and hillbillies. We condescend.
That’s why my liberalism is confined to issues of economics. I care about providing aid to the working and wish-they-were-working class. Period. On social issues like marriage, bathrooms, guns, gasoline, tobacco, etc., I have no opinion. Live and let die. Seriously! It’s not insensitivity, though; it’s smart, think I. If we liberals would give up our social issue fights and focus instead on economic issues, we would find allies in the country, the South and the Rust Belt. We could win elections again. Wall Street should be our only enemy. Regarding guns, we all live in a police state, and everyone knows it. Take away the guns? Take them from the police state. Power to the people. Power to the hunter and the wannabe like me. Power to the dude at the monster truck rally. Power to the militant black man and woman, to the ancient, gun wielding Panther. Power to the people like me, living in the big city where the rent has skyrocketed as has homelessness, cowering in closets and cubicles, waiting for the next inevitable struggle to come because the middle class life my parents enjoyed is scattered to the winds.
Let this be a period of mourning instead of politics.
LikeLike
I’m gonna call it the Bloomberg Rule, the Soda Nazi Rule, if you find yourself telling people how to live for their own good, stop.
LikeLike
Dear LCT: “if you find yourself telling people how to live for their own good, stop.”
I don’t understand what you are saying. Do you mean that having gun control is asking too much? Is it too much to demand research on gun violence so the country can have statistics on what ways easy availability of guns is affecting this country? What is the best solution for solving a bad recurring problem if no research is allowed?
LikeLike
No. I am saying we have bigger fish to fry.
LikeLike
LeftCoastTeacher
I am with left Coast if the ignorant crowd wants to blow their brains out I am all for it . I empathize with the poor CBS exec who said and got fired for it:
“I’m actually not even sympathetic [because] country music fans often are Republican gun toters,”
So whats’ a few less Republican gun toters. The DC shooter should have had better aim. Live by the sword you die by the sword .
But here is the thing ,I’m betting at least a few of the 59 killed and 500 wounded were not Republicans nor gun toters . And even if they were, this snowflake hasn’t arrived at the point yet where he thinks being Republican should be a capital crime . Although the left wing populist in me is getting close to that point. Yes” it is the economy stupid. ”
But we are not talking about the social mores of the cretins. We are talking about the right of Americans to live their lives without being mowed down by a deranged nut with a gun.
This has nothing to do with with their sh@t kicking good times . It is a public saftey issue. Most gun murders are not mass shootings. As Australia demonstrates real gun control cuts the homicide and suicide rate. . As for not offending them , I seriously doubt that many are changing their views on inequality or racial inequality because you lay off of their phallic symbols.
And as one left wing populist to another . Take the term Redneck out of the conversation . They were gun toting left wing populists, who paid a heavy price. Crushed by the oligarchy in the 1920s. The machine guns and planes were on the other side, Which goes to that mistaken talking point about repressive Government.
LikeLike
Okay Joel, Diane, and Carol (not Charles), you convinced me. I concede the point. I am rather surprised I decided to wade in so deep on an issue like the 2nd Amendment yesterday, not usually my issue of great concern. …I do like those hunting shows on TV, though. They’re so primal… I guess I am more afraid of plane crashes than of being shot, but then, I live by an airport and don’t actually go out armed. I suppose when outside I could have more fear of the various forms of terrorism, but I just don’t have the fear in me. Anyway, I surrender my point about the politics of firearms. You are right. I was wrong. Thank you for debating with me.
LikeLike
This is from The Guardian: QUOTE – Paddock could have used a Hellfire or a bump-fire device, which attach to normal semi-automatic rifles and allow them to fire more rapidly, Ayoob said. These devices are legal, but rarely used by serious shooters, he said.
“It’s hard to shoot accurately with them, and serious shooters want accuracy,” he said. He called them “not terribly popular” and “something a gun geek would want”.
For the Las Vegas shooter, though, the accuracy of these devices would not have mattered, since he was “hosing a two-acre area with 30,000 targets,” nearly every shot he fired would have hit someone. End quote
The shooter was very wealthy and so had the means to buy a machine gun but he would have had to go through an FBI background check.
When is enough enough, how many more slaughters must we endure before we get strong anti-gun legislation. That’s right, I said ANTI-GUN!!!!! As far as I’m concerned I’d like to see the 2nd amendment repealed. All that being said, nothing was done after the Newtown massacre and nothing will happen after this incredible slaughter, the worst in modern times. There were worse slaughters against the native peoples.
LikeLike
CNN is reporting that all his weapons were purchased legally. They believe the weapons were altered to function automatically.
LikeLike
Semi-automatic weapons are not for hunting. They are for killing people.
LikeLike
True, including the guns used by police and military personnel.
LikeLike
You are mistaken, hunters use semi-automatic weapons. see
http://www.post-gazette.com/news/state/2017/04/02/semiautomatic-rifles-for-hunting/stories/201704020173
LikeLike
Hunters should not use semiautomatic weapons. I have deer alll over my property. I don’t want some jackass in a red hat firing a semiautomatic in my backyard. If they can’t hunt with a rifle or bow and arrow, they aren’t real men.
LikeLike
Charles, I sincerely hope no one catches you off guard and shoots you or your loved ones, causing loss of limb or life.
LikeLike
Norwegian Filmmaker Charles has a gift for making false equivalences.
LikeLike
Not just a gift.
I’d say an obsession. A fixation.
A lock on his brain.
LikeLike
dianeravitch Interesting relationship between Charles’ use of false equivalence and his “hasty generalizations.” Example: He generalizes ONE or a few events (in Australia or Europe) to be equivalent with huge numbers and trends of events (in the USA). Charles apparently knows no nuance between one and hundreds and can as easily (hastily) generalize from ONE as he can generalize from HUNDREDS.
Charles: go back to school and take a logic course–you’ll be better for it. Unless, of course, your use of faulty logic is intentional, like many of the right-wing drones and parrots who people these sites.
LikeLike
CBK,
Faulty logic enables Charles to make invalid points.
LikeLike
dianeravitch Yes about Charles–all over the place. The question is whether his obtuseness is deliberate.
LikeLike
dianeravitch Post-script to my note about bad logic and Charles’ intentions: sometimes, Charles makes valid points–but only on the same principle that a broken clock is right twice a day.
LikeLike
This is entirely possible. Semi-automatic weapons can be modified, illegally, to function as automatic.
LikeLike
interested in where you get the information that is was “a military machine gun…? According to the NYT, “Audio recordings of the shooting suggest that the gunman used at least one automatic weapon. Such weapons are more difficult to obtain than semiautomatic weapons. The long bursts of gunfire capture on video also suggested that the gunman may not have had military or other formal weapons training, which emphasizes brief, controlled bursts of fire…”
Again, you jump to accusations and conclusions. Could you please wait till the official police report starts being put together??
IF the guns were purchased legally but he made changes, you can’t blame “the government.” With past school shootings in the past, the majority of the guns were sold AND purchased legally.
For me, I don’t understand why anyone would need more than a single firearm.
LikeLike
Did anybody say he shot with machine guns and WTF is an assault rifle. There are very few fully automatic rifles in the public and they have licences and expensive permits from the federal government. And I might be mistaken. but there has never been any cases where a card carrying NRA member has been involved in shootings like this. There have been cases where they shot in self defense. This guy in Nev was beyond Fk ed up in the head.
LikeLike
The only thing certain is that he was not firing a single round at a time gun.
LikeLike
We are supposed to draw comfort from the fact that card carrying NRA members may not be involved in these crazy mass shootings?
LikeLike
Spedukator,
Aren’t you comforted by knowing that members of the NRA do not carry out these terrible acts of carnage but fight for the rights of psychopaths and sociopaths to do do?
LikeLike
I wish the fourth amendment was as valued as much as the second. This is a very sick country indeed.
LikeLike
There is worse news from the terrorist NRA. In addition to wanting to legalize the sale of armor piercing bullets, they are also pushing to legalize silencers. There is no credible civilian need to own a silencer, and the excuses to the contrary made up by the NRA are pure garbage. The people who really need to weigh in on this are the law enforcement community, since it’s they who will have to deal with the consequences of these insane ideas going forward.
LikeLike
I am not in agreement, with the position on silencers. A legal firearms owner, should not even want a silencer. He should want his weapon to be LOUD, and cause as much noise as possible.
LikeLike
Hi,
Gun violence has become a public health crisis in America. In 1996, after lobbying by the NRA, Congress passed a ban on gun violence research. In 2015 a bill was introduced in the US House of Representatives to reverse this ban but the bill was never voted on. The US Senate has never attempted to address the ban on gun violence research.
Scientists use research to make cars and other products safer as well as identify cancer risks associated with products on the market. Research on gun violence in America must be allowed in order to identify ways to promote gun safety.
That’s why I signed a petition to Sen. Mitch McConnell (KY-1) and The United States Senate, which says:
“The US Senate should introduce a measure to repeal the ban on funding gun violence research.”
Will you sign the petition too? Click here to add your name:
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/mitch-mcconnell-repeal?source=s.fwd&r_by=1432174
LikeLike
Here is an article with a ton of pro silencer comments below it. They ironically call it the “hearing protection act” becuase just buying and using the far cheaper ear muff style hearing protectors is more than the gun lobby can ask of its most lunatic members. Other lame excuses can be found there as well, like making outdoor shooting ranges quieter. So they are going to mandate silencer purchases, because it was just so perfectly fine for the government to make you buy health insurance. These people are idiots and miscreants. And I doubt that they represent the majority of gun owners. Trump has his storm troopers and so do the terrorists at the NRA. Like Betsy and the other reformers, the NRA uses money as a weapon against Democracy itself. http://controversialtimes.com/news/breaking-new-bill-to-legalize-silencers-introduced-in-congress-heres-what-you-need-to-know/
LikeLike
The earmuff type hearing protection works very nicely, especially if you pair it with earplugs (if you are that concerned with hearing damage from any source) don’t let anyone pretend or tell you otherwise. You see them in use at shooting ranges everywhere.
LikeLike
One more ‘tears’ for those who were killed. Nothing about reigning in guns that are meant to kill. Nothing about pressuring Congress to pass a law allowing violent gun research. I’m tired of the false tears when nothing gets done. My overseas friends don’t understand why we allow this to continue. i also don’t understand. The NRA is working to protect gun manufacturers. They create never-ending fear in the populace so that more and more guns will be purchased ‘for our protection’ [Notice Trump is mentioning what scripture teaches us.]
This was just sent out from the WH:
…….
My fellow Americans, we are joined together today in sadness, shock, and grief. Last night, a gunman opened fire on a large crowd at a country music concert in Las Vegas, Nevada. He brutally murdered more than 50 people, and wounded hundreds more. It was an act of pure evil.
The FBI and the Department of Homeland Security are working closely with local authorities to assist with the investigation, and they will provide updates as to the investigation and how it develops.
I want to thank the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and all of the first responders for their courageous efforts, and for helping to save the lives of so many. The speed with which they acted is miraculous, and prevented further loss of life. To have found the shooter so quickly after the first shots were fired is something for which we will always be thankful and grateful. It shows what true professionalism is all about.
Hundreds of our fellow citizens are now mourning the sudden loss of a loved one — a parent, a child, a brother or sister. We cannot fathom their pain. We cannot imagine their loss. To the families of the victims: We are praying for you and we are here for you, and we ask God to help see you through this very dark period.
Scripture teaches us, “The Lord is close to the brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit.” We seek comfort in those words, for we know that God lives in the hearts of those who grieve. To the wounded who are now recovering in hospitals, we are praying for your full and speedy recovery, and pledge to you our support from this day forward.
In memory of the fallen, I have directed that our great flag be flown at half-staff.
I will be visiting Las Vegas on Wednesday to meet with law enforcement, first responders, and the families of the victims.
In moments of tragedy and horror, America comes together as one — and it always has. We call upon the bonds that unite us — our faith, our family, and our shared values. We call upon the bonds of citizenship, the ties of community, and the comfort of our common humanity.
Our unity cannot be shattered by evil. Our bonds cannot be broken by violence. And though we feel such great anger at the senseless murder of our fellow citizens, it is our love that defines us today — and always will, forever.
In times such as these, I know we are searching for some kind of meaning in the chaos, some kind of light in the darkness. The answers do not come easy. But we can take solace knowing that even the darkest space can be brightened by a single light, and even the most terrible despair can be illuminated by a single ray of hope.
Melania and I are praying for every American who has been hurt, wounded, or lost the ones they love so dearly in this terrible, terrible attack. We pray for the entire nation to find unity and peace. And we pray for the day when evil is banished, and the innocent are safe from hatred and from fear.
May God bless the souls of the lives that are lost. May God give us the grace of healing. And may God provide the grieving families with strength to carry on.
Thank you. God bless America. Thank you.
LikeLike
And the buzzards who do the killing end up dead. Nobody who kills this many people can be labeled sane.
………………………….
Breaking News Alert
October 02, 2017
NYTimes.com »
BREAKING NEWS
The Las Vegas gunman had 19 rifles in his hotel room, two on tripods at the windows, and hundreds of rounds of ammunition, an official said
Monday, October 2, 2017 4:12 PM EDT
The police found the gunman, whom they identified as Stephen Paddock, 64, dead in his room at the hotel. Investigators were still combing through Mr. Paddock’s background and searching his home on Monday.
Among the weapons authorities discovered in his hotel room were two rifles with scopes on tripods positioned in front of the two windows that had been broken out, a law enforcement official said.
LikeLike
Someone on Facebook asked, “What will it take?”
Nothing will change until a sufficient number of the damn-giving public wakes up to the fact that our government at all levels is now thoroughly corrupted by any amalgamation of Big Money with Money Big enough to buy a dozen or a score or a gross of politicians. The NRA and the Gun Industry are just one of many such amalgamations on the scene today.
LikeLike
I’d like to know when innocents will have the freedom to not be killed. That freedom is always overlooked by the gun lobby, the NRA and Congress.
LikeLike
“I’d like to know when innocents will have the freedom to not be killed. That freedom is always overlooked by the gun lobby, the NRA and Congress.”
WOW. I’m sorry, but you do not see the hypocrisy in THAT statement? Innocents have not had the freedom not to be killed since 1973. Since that time, over FIFTY MILLION innocents have been ripped apart, limb by limb, burnt up by chemicals, vacuumed from the mothers womb.
And no, I am not a member of the NRA, nor a gun owner, nor even a defender of guns. But that statement just blew me away. I am not saying the 58 people who got killed DESERVED to die. But in a nation that has decided not to protect the most vulnerable among us, has sort of lost the “innocent” argument…
LikeLike
My usage of innocents means innocent bystanders who get killed. it has happened too many times…movie theaters, schools, concerts, and church. None of those people deserved the destruction to their lives. They are innocent.
LikeLike
L. Kinyon,
You compare abortion to mass murder. Go to another blog. I don’t want you here anymore.
LikeLike
Oh FFS, do not bring abortion into this. No legal person is killed in an abortion. Fetuses have no conscious awareness or ability to feel pain. Completely different than born human beings who do.
LikeLike
You’re changing the subject. The topic is misuse of guns in our society. Abortions can come on another page.
LikeLike
L. Kinyon
You are a textbook example of Bakamerican troll.
LikeLike
And that is why there is no courtesy in the country. The moments someone disagrees with your prejudiced then you start calling names. And you want to take leadership in education. Frightening thought.
LikeLike
I am not a US citizen. I am not living in the US anymore(I used to until just recently). But I can tell exactly what you have just done here. And your last attempt to frame false equivalency to anyone standing against you. That’s exactly what I have seen so many times in social media. North America, Europe, East Asia, etc. Much more freightening.
LikeLike
So, how many people being killed each year is acceptable? Apparently you find that passing laws to protect citizens is something that goes too far. I have also lived overseas and my friends were shocked to read about the mass murders that occur regularly. They didn’t have that in their country and saw no reason for so many guns to be so easily obtained. The absence of gun laws makes us the laughing stock of the world. Why not come to the land of the free and get shot?
I remember reading about a doctor who had to pretend he was a peasant in Cambodia during the reign of the Khmer Rouge. He sat by and saw his wife suffer in childbirth because he couldn’t let the ruling elite know he understood anything medical. The both would have been killed.
He came to the US and was shot and killed on the streets in California.
LikeLike
Two Dark American Truths From Las Vegas
On the certainty of more shootings
We know these things already.
The first is that America will not stop these shootings. They will go on. We all know that, which makes the immediate wave of grief even worse.
Five years ago, after what was the horrific mass shooting of that moment, I wrote an item called “The Certainty of More Shootings.” It was about the massacre in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and after acknowledging the victims it said:
The additional sad, horrifying, and appalling point is the shared American knowledge that, beyond any doubt, this will happen again, and that it will happen in America many, many times before it occurs anywhere else.
That remains true now. I expect it to be true five years from now. I am an optimist about most aspects of America’s resilience and adaptability, but not about reversing America’s implicit decision to let these killings go on.
Decision? Yes. Other advanced societies have outbreaks of mass-shooting gun violence. Scotland, in 1996. Australia, in 1996 as well. Norway in 2011. But only in the United States do they come again and again and again.
The story of Australia’s response to its Port Arthur massacre is the most famous. A conservative government pushed through significant gun-law reforms, and the country has had no remotely comparable episode since then. ..
Read More:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/two-dark-american-truths-from-las-vegas/541692/?utm_source=eb
LikeLike
There is no reason for any civilians to have military assault weapons.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Lloyd.
LikeLike
The military shouldn’t have them either.
LikeLike
The only reason the military shouldn’t have them is if every country disarmed and that will never happen. I seldom say never but this is one case where never means never.
Study history. Lots of wars. Lots of crazy leaders like Trump or even worse if that is even possible. The world is more dangerous today than it has ever been.
Every person is not sensible. There are too many psychopaths and sociopaths out there and the #1 profession for this group of dangerous idiots is positions of leadership. It’s estimated that one percent of the population belongs to this group. Trump and most of his cabinet belong to this segment of the population.
What is one-percent of 8 billion?
LikeLike
Have you ever served in the military? I have. I also spent 10 (ten) years in Iraq/Afghanistan, working on military camps and bases. The soldiers/marines who are facing down terrorism every day, need proper weapons, to knock down the terrorists!
What do you propose as a substitute?
LikeLike
Charles,
Only officers of the law should have military weapons.
Not civilians.
LikeLike
Not all US citizens serve in the military. All weapons coming from the military were accessible to servicemen and government authority only until they became available on the market. People get hurt so easily. Indeed some gun owners got killed or severely injured in a non-shooting situation due to safety neglect or mishandling. You do need to have certain level of knowledge and skills to handle them.
LikeLike
Q Only officers of the law should have military weapons. END Q
I’ll bite. What, pray tell, is a “military weapon”. I was in the military. I was never issued a weapon. I did get training on an M16, and on a .38 revolver.
You can call a .38 a “military weapon”, I guess, because the military uses them.
Police also use .38s.
Don’t you think that citizens, should be able to keep and bear arms, that the military uses, including .38s and 9mm pistols?
LikeLike
Citizens should have single shot revolvers and rifles, whether for self defense or hunting. The guy on the 32 nd floor in Las Vegas did not have a single shot weapon.
Stop making excuses for slaughter of innocent people, Charles.
You are unusually repellent tonight.
LikeLike
Here, let me fix the sentence for you.
Speaking of a person expounding utopian idea for supremacy of arms in the wake of the worst mass shooting. That is totally beyond me.
LikeLike
I have lost close family members to hand-gun violence.
DISARM the populace.
LikeLike
Today’s event prompted me to look through some old notes I made after reading Henry Adams’ “History of the United States During the Madison Administration” a few years ago:
Adam’s account is dominated by a history of the War of 1812 and provides a lesson of why the 2nd amendment was included in the Constitution.
It was an era of American sectional division, which Adams summed up poetically: “At the beginning of the year 1814, the attitude of New England pleased no one, and perhaps annoyed most the New England people themselves, who were conscious of showing neither dignity, power, courage, nor intelligence.” But a long-forgotten legacy of the war was that it was the first of many eras in which the Constitution was tested and “violated more frequently by its friends than by its enemies.” We find ourselves in just such quandary today when it comes to the willful misinterpretations of the 2nd amendment: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of the State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Today’s 2nd amendment fetishists prefer a selective reading, valuing willful fiction over actual history. If they care about the difference, they should give Adams a try. In its early history, the United States was a fragile country teetering on the precipice of failure as a nation. It had a weak standing army, no navy to speak of, and mostly relied on the formation of citizen militias in the event of war against foreign nation or Native Americans. For this to work citizens had to have the right to keep weapons; the government had no stockpiles on which to rely. The 2nd amendment was also never intended to provide citizen with the means to overthrow some mythical tyrannical American government; it was designed to give citizens the tools needed that were “necessary to the security of the State.” It was designed to protect government, not undermine it.
The War of 1812 was the first—and only—time the idea of “A well-regulated Militia” was ever put to the test. And it was mostly a failure. As Adams chronicles, Americans won the war largely in spite of themselves. Thanks to some strategic victories, British support lines that were unsustainably long and skillful diplomacy by John Quincy Adams, the United States was able to prevail. But it also led to the formation of a stronger standing Army, which saw its first major action a few decades later in the Mexican War. The idea of “well-regulated Militia[s]” became obsolete, as did, with time, a rational reading and understanding of the 2nd amendment.
As I watch the perversion of the 2nd amendment used as a basis to justify daily destruction and carnage in the United States, I often think of this account of the War of 1812. Henry Adams reminds us of why history is important to contemporary life. Agendas built on historical ignorance can be deadly.
LikeLike
Another reason for the 2nd Amendment was this:
In 1800, 94-percent of the people lived in rural areas and there were two reasons for owning a firearm. Rural in 1800 was not the rural of today. There were no roads and it could take an entire day to travel 15 – 20 miles on horseback or on foot. There were no phones so you could call 911. The closest neighbors were often miles away.
The two reasons back in 1800:
to hunt for wild game to put meat on the table and to protect you and your family from wild animals that would eat you.
to defend your family against the Indians defending the land they had lived on for 15,000 years against the citizens of the United STates invading that land. Also to defend you and your family from violent bullies like Trump and most of his cabinet who thought they could take anything they want even your wife and daughters.
Out in those rural areas where most of the people lived, there was no law or police or military most of the time. If you couldn’t defend yourself, you were soon to be dust.
That situation does not exist today where more than 75 percent of the people live in crowded urban areas without the fear of wild animals or Indians wanting to kill you.
Powerful firearms in a crowded urban area are dangerous because a bullet that you fire to defend yourself can pass through the bad guy if you hit them and go through several walls and kill more than one person even children in cribs.
The only firearm necessary for home defense is a shotgun and someone that hunts for sport can hunt with a bolt action rifle or a bow and arrow if they are really into sport hunting.
The population in 1800 was 6.3 million. Lots of room to shoot bullets and not hit anyone.
The population today is more than 320 million. Lots of people to easily hit with one bullet or even more with more bullets.
What goes up comes down. With all those people when someone fires off a round to celebrate the 4th of July or the New Year, that bullet that was shot into the sky could come down and kill an innocent person that lives nearby.
In 1800 when your closest neighbor usually lives miles away, you could walk outside and shoot as much as you want and the odds of hitting another person were almost non-existent.
LikeLike
The second amendment was also a nod in the direction of slaveholders, for whom overwhelming force was necessary to maintain the control of a society where slave rebellion was a constant worry.
LikeLike
It is beyond me how people can continue to look at the second amendment as a license to buy as many guns of whatever type and/or purpose that they want even if they did manage to read and understand the whole amendment and its context. When do the rights of other people not to get shot by some gun toting lunatic kick in?
LikeLike
Senator Chris Murphy, who represents the families of Sandy Hook in Congress and has, since Newtown, emerged as one of gun control’s loudest advocates, rejected those calls in a strong statement:
“My heart goes out to the victims, their families, the first responders, and the entire Las Vegas community. Nowhere but America do horrific large-scale mass shootings happen with this degree of regularity. Last night’s massacre may go down as the deadliest in our nation’s history, but already this year there have been more mass shootings than days in the year.
“This must stop. It is positively infuriating that my colleagues in Congress are so afraid of the gun industry that they pretend there aren’t public policy responses to this epidemic. There are, and the thoughts and prayers of politicians are cruelly hollow if they are paired with continued legislative indifference. It’s time for Congress to get off its ass and do something.”
LikeLike
Oh yeah? There was a mass shooting in Norway, in 2011. 80 dead. Norway has some of the toughest weapons laws in Europe. see
Politicians are not afraid of the gun industry. They are rightly afraid of the 180+million Law-abiding Americans, who own weapons for self-defense and sport. Politicians are also bound to support the constitution, including the 2d amendment.
LikeLike
Norway had one horrific mass murder.
We have them with frightening frequency.
We know that’s what the Founders wanted, Charles. Not!
They hoped for an educated, reasonable citizenry, not a bunch of goons and psychopaths armed to the teeth with semiautomatic weapons.
LikeLike
Charles, you can find shootings of this kind sooner or later in most countries. It did shamefully happen in Norway, but incidences like that are tiny outliers compared to the endemic and epidemic rate of incidences here in America.
Nice try, Charles, but you just polemically shot youself in the face by ridiculously comparing my country to yours.
LikeLike
And that damn gun lobbyist!? We haven’t heard anything from Wayne LaPierre yet. What can they do for us!? Fake eulogy. Propaganda advertising. And silence as lamb. Enough of bull crap from Nonstop Reckless A$$hat.
LikeLike
Oh my goodness! Are you saying that ‘Guns kill people”? The NRA has said that they don’t. One has to be properly indoctrinated to believe such nonsense.
Why hasn’t Congress passed a law allowing research into the violence caused by guns? I’m sure the result would be something along the line of, “It has been proven that guns kill. The more guns, the more likelihood of someone getting killed.” We certainly can’t have anything that proves that guns kill.
Imagine a world in which citizens can walk down streets, attend concerts or movies, attend church and not be killed? Some countries have that freedom. Our crazy love of guns prevents the US from being that safe.
It gets tiring to once again read about the latest mass killing. How long before the next one?
LikeLike
No I’m not. The lobbyist is doing more damage to the citizens(pro-guns and anti-gun rights) than serving. Too bad LaPirrerre is out of touch. Gun owners don’t have to have a membership to own a gun.
The organization is also making another move for spreading propaganda.
LikeLike
Logically, firearms can’t kill by themselves — not yet anyway (I’ll explain what I mean by this at the end of my comment). Firearms need a human to load the weapon, point and aim it and then unlock the safety and fire.
The more powerful the firearm, the more people a human can kill. A minigun that fires 6,000 rounds a minute can kill a lot more people than a musket. At the time the U.S. Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment, a Brown Bess Musket could be loaded and shot three times in 46 seconds.
How many shots does an AR-15 fire in a second? The answer is in the next video.
With the military focused on developing weapons robots that might have AI abilities, soon firearms like miniguns firing 6,000 rounds a minute will be programmed to kill by themselves without a human pulling the trigger. In fact, with AI abilities, no humans will be needed at all even from a control room thousands of miles away.
There is no logical reason to not pass laws that limit the rate of fire of a firearm people are allowed to own to what the Brown Bess Musket fired every 46 seconds. After all, that was the most common firearm in use when the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment. I think we have an argument that the 2nd Amendment didn’t cover any other weapon but a musket.
LikeLike
The founders write about what they knew at the time. When they spoke of the freedom of speech, they never imagined that burning the flag would ever be seen as a protected act.
But the Constitution is “adapted.” So why let the First ‘evolve,’ but leave the Second behind, denying its right to evolve?
LikeLike
Then I want my own Abrams tank.
LikeLike
There’s a guy in Houston that has an WWII tank in his front yard. So what stops you??
LikeLike
I’ve changed my mind. I don’t want a tank. I want a Predator stealth drone loaded with Hell Fire missiles — in fact, I want a few hundred Hell Fire missiles stored in an underground bunker for rearming the drone so it can be used repeatedly. Hmmm, maybe four or five drones would be a better idea.
If the NRA gets that through GOP legislation, then I’ll raise money through one of those internet fundraiser sites. I’ll have to raise enough money to move to a much larger piece of property so I can have my own airstrip. The land will look empty because all the buildings will be hardened, underground bunkers.
Oh, and I’ll need an air-defense system to defend my postage-stamp empire from the fraudulent Trumpist fascists.
LikeLike
“The founders write about what they knew at the time. When they spoke of the freedom of speech, they never imagined that burning the flag would ever be seen as a protected act. But the Constitution is “adapted.” So why let the First ‘evolve,’ but leave the Second behind, denying its right to evolve?”
Yes, the U.S. Constitution was designed to adapt and that’s why the 2nd Amendment should be allowed to limit what firearms a private citizen is allowed to own legally.
The country has changed a lot since 1800 when 94-percent of the 5.5 million population lived in rural areas and citizens had to protect themselves from native indians (since it was their land for 15,000 years they were fighting to keep) and criminals like Trump, in addition to hunting for wild game to put meat on the table.
There were no roads, no phones, no radios, no TVs, and most of the time no law or military around to protect those citizens.
Today the U.S. has more than 320 million people and about 80-percent live in cities where we just witnessed what happens when a citizen with a trove of automatic weapons opens fire on a crowd – crowds that did not exist in the United States in 1800.
So yes, the U.S. Constitution was designed to adapt and that calls for limitations to match those changes on what kind of firearms a citizen is allowed to legally own.
Today, few Americans need a firearm to hunt and put wild meat on the table. In fact, most American’s get their meat from a market and that meat is wrapped in see-through plastic, and the laws in most states don’t allow citizens to run around with loaded weapons outside of their homes.
Home defense doesn’t require an AR-15, or a tank or a drone because those weapons will also kill your neighbors when you use them in crowded urban areas just like that shooter in Las Vegas.
A shotgun is a safer home defense weapon, and if you fear an invasion, a revolution or a civil war, the U.S. still has its police, its national guard troops in each state and its federal military in the U.S. Army, Marines, Air Force, Navy and Coast Guard.
As a U.S. Marine, I wore one of those uniforms and fought in Vietnam. I carried automatic weapons and wouldn’t want to use them anywhere near where I live. I carried into combat a .45-caliber submachine gun with a 50-round clip (with another clip tapped to it so all I had to do was take the empty clip out and flip it around and insert the loaded clip) and it was capable of mowing down small trees and cutting people in half. There was no trigger. Just a notch in the bolt that I pulled back and released. The weapon didn’t stop until the clip was empty. I also carried a .45 automatic pistol, grenades, and a K-Bar.
In my home, I have a weapons safe bolted to the floor and walls. Inside, locked up, are where I keep my ammo and heavier weapons but no machine guns or grenade launchers or silencers because for home defense there is no need for weapons like that. I don’t want to accidentally kill any of my neighbors while defending my home if someone invades it when I’m there. When I’m not home, all my firearms are locked up in that safe.
I repeat, there is no need for any private citizens to own high-powered automatic weapons.
LikeLike
Lloyd Lofthouse Unfortunately, the generality and adaptability of the Constitution is seen as a qualified weakness to those who would destroy it–like “reasoning” that any changes in the second amendment are okay because changes are acceptable in other amendments. The porch light might be on in these folks, but there’s actually no one home.
LikeLike
“These folks” are Stepford drones programmed by the Alt-Right conspiracy theory media machine to not think for themselves.
LikeLike
Lloyd Lofthouse Yes–there is a kind of “purity” in not having think for oneself–like with those who join ISIS.
LikeLike
Fundamentalists are not exclusive to Islam. We have our own home grown Christian fundamentalists who have turned over their ability to think to an individual standing behind a church pulpit. Many of these people blindly voted for Trump and ignored his long history of trampling everything the Bible warns us to watch for in false prophets.
LikeLike
Lloyd Lofhouse Yes. Exactly my point. It’s a human thing and manifests in its general form in completely diverse cultural situations across the ages. How one interprets texts (and how groups interpret texts) depends on the differentiation and development of the minds who read them. The tendency is for groups of “like-minds” to come together under one set of concepts and symbols.
LikeLike
And the internet has made it easier for these scattered like-minded clones to find each other for support and to organize.
The internet has pluses and minuses and this is one of the minuses — that the nut cases find it easier to discover others that think like them. In the physical world, they find it almost impossible to find others close by that think like them. In the virtual world, they easily find many scattered across the country and around the world.
That’s why Trump stays in touch through Tweets with his mindless, deplorable, illogical base.
LikeLike
Lloyd Lofthouse I think you are right in this, though there’s probably much more to it (as you probably know). The present communications venues do allow a kind of grouping-of-mind to occur that, of itself is not a bad thing. We enjoy, and should enjoy, celebrations around our various group identities.
What is bad is the isolation and closure (a purity defined as “don’t think, follow and copy”) that tends to occur with it–as it the case with any group order–it’s a tendency, but not a necessity. Even old tribes are governed by a very positive principle, like families. What makes them and tribal thinking shift to being dangerous is that closure, and an unwillingness to be open to the other. Most of the time, and in the end-run, it manifests, again, as totalitarian ambitions. Though quite different, Putin and Trump come to mind, and in the past our common references are to those involved with WW-II, e.g., Stalin and Hitler. The exceptions to these, however, are our authentic focus, and what gives hope?
LikeLike
When the government comes to attack the citizens, having a mere gun won’t be enough protection. We’ll all need to park tanks in our backyards and fill them with canned goods and water. Might even help to have your own personal nuke. Why not think outside the box?
LikeLike
LKinyon,
Here are some good reasons not to let the Second Amendment evolve into a license for mass murder:
Las Vegas
Orlando
The Aurora Theater in Denver
Sandy Hook Elementary School
Virginia Tech
There are many more.
LikeLike
Than be consistent, and argue against flag burning. And while you are at it, you’ll have to scratch the “constitutional” right to abortions and same sex marriage. You cannot pick and choose based on YOUR personal preferences.
I know, I’ll probably get slapped down again.
LikeLike
You will get slapped down again.
Do you equate same sex marriage with mass murder?
LikeLike
dianeravitch Hmmmm. . . . It seems that the migration of meaning of the Second Amendment is not quite the same as changes accorded to the First Amendment.
LikeLike
L Kinyon
Here’s a kicker for you. Some detractor loves to exploit a fallacious logic by twisting the terms in his/her own way. S/he ends up pulling off a stereotype/bigotry card.
<Blogger’s response to the comment above>
“”— Except that the logic also brings in Shibuya-ku Ward government’s liberal attitudes towards same-sex partnerships in a legal sense. As if allowing LGBT more rights as married couples means they’ll feel empowered enough to start copulating in public places like his sauna. That’s unrelated. And bigoted.”
http://www.debito.org/?p=14734#comments
LikeLike
?????
LikeLike
There was fear about the Black Panthers so gun control laws were passed in 1967 in California and signed by Governor Reagan. Fear of blacks prompted gun control. Reagan said, that he saw “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons” and that guns were a “ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.” “The Mulford Act would work no hardship on the honest citizen.”
Funny, how this was passed because of fear of blacks with guns. Both Democrats and Republicans supported this law.
…………………………………………….
Mulford Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill that repealed a law allowing public carrying of loaded firearms. Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, the bill was crafted in response to members of the Black Panther Party who were conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods while they were conducting what would later be termed copwatching.
They garnered national attention after the Black Panthers marched bearing arms upon the California State Capitol to protest the bill.
AB-1591 was authored by Don Mulford (R) from Oakland, John T. Knox (D) from Richmond, Walter J. Karabian (D) from Monterey Park, Alan Sieroty (D) from Los Angeles, and William M. Ketchum (R) from Bakersfield, it passed both Assembly (controlled by Democrats 42:38) and Senate (split 20:20) and was signed by the governor on July 28.
Both Republicans and Democrats in California supported increased gun control. Governor Ronald Reagan was present when the protesters arrived and later commented that he saw “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons” and that guns were a “ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.” In a later press conference, Reagan added that the Mulford Act “would work no hardship on the honest citizen.”
LikeLike
Go Bernie!!! There is a reason he is so popular. He isn’t afraid to speak the truth!!!
……………….
Sanders: Trump attacking San Juan mayor is ‘unspeakable’ – WFMZ
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday rebuked President Donald Trump’s decision to attack the mayor of San Juan on Twitter as Puerto Rico continues to struggle after being hit by back-to-back hurricanes.
“It is unspeakable,” Sanders told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union.”
Sanders drew a contrast between Trump and San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz, saying Trump was “speaking from his fancy golf club, playing golf with his billionaire friends, attacking the mayor of San Juan, who is struggling to bring electricity to the island, food to the island, water to the island, gas to the island.”
Sanders also said it would be fair for people to wonder if race was a factor in Trump’s response to the devastation in Puerto Rico.
“Given the President’s history on race, given the fact that he, a few months ago told us that there were good people on both sides when neo-Nazis were marching in Charlottesville, yeah, I think we have a right to be suspect that he is treating the people of Puerto Rico in a different way than he has treated the people of Texas or Florida,” Sanders said…
http://www.wfmz.com/news/politics/sanders-trump-attacking-san-juan-mayor-is-unspeakable/629083942
LikeLike
This is a terrible day to play devil’s advocate, but I will note that if one is really interested in making a big dent in gun violence through firearm bans, the first target should be the ubiquitous handgun.
LikeLike
FLERP,
I would vote to ban anything that fires more than a single shot at a time. If it were up to me, no one would have guns except for officers of the law. Hunters can have their rifles, but only single shot. I’m not in charge. That is what I wish were true. But bear in mind that I hate killing. I don’t even fish.
LikeLike
What I was trying to say is that single-shot weapons (specifically handguns) are by far the deadliest.
LikeLike
And of course the assault rifles that have killed so many in mass shootings have mainly been single-shot. But again, my point was that you could ban assault rifles, and whatever was used by the shooter in Las Vegas, and you wouldn’t make a dent in the number of shooting deaths in the US. Because the weapon that’s killing nearly every gun violence victim is the handgun.
LikeLike
FLERP,
I would ban them too.
LikeLike
I stand with you, Diane. The US is becoming more and more unsafe due to the easy availability of weapons that are meant only to kill. It is a sad state of affairs when this continues and continues and continues and continues and nothing is ever done.
LikeLike
Did you take note the name of one of the gunshots the news focused on: Guns and Guitars……like, what do guns have to do with guitars?
LikeLike
I am not a soothsayer, nor can I predict the future. But I will state with virtual certainty, that for the next several weeks, that weapons/ammunition sales will go up.
Always, after one of these shootings, the politicians will start “thumping the tub”, about restricting our 2d amendment rights, and “gun control”, whatever that means.
People, are understandably frightened, not of the crazies with weapons, but they are even more afraid of gun-grabbing politicians.
Once, things settle down, and the politicians have their say, we will go back to normal.
LikeLike
Back to normal: mass murders.
LikeLike
It really is baked into what’s normal now. Based on my observations over the last 30 years or so, I’m firmly convinced that there is no amount of carnage that will spur meaningful gun control legislation. It’s akin to Trump’s belief that he could gun someone down on 5th Avenue without alienating his voter base. If someone managed to slaughter 25,000 people in Madison Square Garden, zero meaningful gun control laws would get passed.
LikeLike
FLERP,
Poor choice of venue. Many Americans might shrug about a massacre in Madison Square Garden. How about the Mall of America?
LikeLike
Unfortunately, same result, I think.
LikeLike
Perhaps if the massacre was committed by black men. Conceivably that might turn some heads.
LikeLike
FLERP, Yes.
LikeLike
I live and work in Manhattan, and I have complete conviction that one day, maybe soon, there is going to be a mass shooting in one of the places that my family lives in or regularly passes through. The only question in my mind is whether one of us will be there when it happens. Perhaps thankfully, I have enough other things on my mind that I rarely think about it, except on days like this.
LikeLike
The Black Panthers having guns is what caused gun control to be passed in California, and was signed by Gov. Reagan.
This Las Vegas shooting was caused by an old white person and the victims got sympathy from Trump. Imagine the vicious Twitters if this shooting had been caused by a Muslim, immigrant or black person. The main word out would not be prayers for the victims but instant, violent revenge on a whole group of people.
LikeLike
dianeravitch Stepping back, there’s a direct relationship between (A) the oligarchic and corporate power grabs that are going on here as we speak; and (B) the unfettered expression of a violent mind and spirit as occurred in Las Vegas, and in so many other my-way-or-the-highway thinkers in this, what could be the last vestiges of a “maturing” democratic state and, more broadly: a culture.
Both A-and-B are failed products of the tension that exists in freedom-based democratic states where power shifts back-and-forth between those who govern, our institutions, and “the people.” Capitalism follows suit–just as the Vegas man was free to bring all those guns into a hotel unfettered by law or over controlling oversight, capitalists are free to run their zero-sum-game out to the end, and to control government itself, where (as now) there are a fewer and fewer people who own and control everything in sight.
In both cases, the question is: What kind of development have they encountered over their lifetimes, and what will they do with their freedom and the power that the freedom of democracy has left in their hands? Of course, education is not a necessary cure-all, but in both cases, one wonders about what might have gone wrong there there. Never has education and its influence on culture, in the broader sense of both terms, rightly deserved both scrutiny and REAL reform, especially if anyone cares about keeping the vibrancy of democracy alive.
LikeLike
Q Based on my observations over the last 30 years or so, I’m firmly convinced that there is no amount of carnage that will spur meaningful gun control legislation. END Q
The Congress is bound by their oaths, to preserve and protect the Constitution, including the parts that they do not like. (Democrat gun-grabbers, do not like the 2d amendment).
Trump is also bound by his oath of office, and he is on record as being supportive of the 2d amendment.
I also believe that shooting incidents of this nature, will not “spur” the Congress, to take away our rights.
LikeLike
Charles, no one is going to take away our rights to own firearms, but there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that defines what type of firearms we are allowed to buy. Congress may regulate the type of firearms as long as what is legal is available to all sane citizens.
The 2nd Amendment says,
“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.”
The first four words clearly spell out that the right to bear arms may be regulated.
Regulated could even limit the sale of firearms so criminals and insane people like Trump can’t legally own one.
Congress could legally list a half dozen firearms that citizens could buy and own and even the caliber of the bullet.
LikeLike
Unfortunately, I was unable to copy/paste the graphs included in this article. It was a sight to view the gun ownership in various countries and compare that to the overwhelming number of guns already in the US. The NRA exists to put fear into people so that gun manufacturers never run out of people who purchase more and more guns. In my view we are a sick society. Love of guns gets higher ratings than love of mankind. Why not continue to kill? The US is the main manufacturer of guns exported internationally. We have exported [$$$$] our love of guns to allow other countries to maim and kill. How wonderful?!! By the way now, because of Trump’s foresight, the mentally ill are once again legally able to purchase guns. Obama was obviously not thinking clearly. Everyone deserves to have their turn to kill.
……………………………
In Today’s World View in WaPo Ishaan Tharoor has this to say:
America is exceptional for its unique, deadly gun culture
…the local sheriff in Las Vegas mused that he didn’t “know how this could have been prevented.”
But to those elsewhere in the world who look on aghast each time a shooting rampage rocks the United States, the answer is blindingly obvious: guns.
Police say Paddock had a cache of 18 to 20 guns with him, including some rifles that were fully automatic and therefore heavily restricted by federal laws. American gun laws are complicated and vary by state, but in no developed nation is it as easy or as accepted for citizens to acquire weaponry and ammunition capable of exacting mass violence. The state of Nevada, home to Las Vegas, is particularly lax.
Not surprisingly, the firearm homicide rate in the United States far outstrips those of its peers — 16 times the rate in Germany and six times that of Canada, north of the border. The Guardian compiled a staggering data visualization of 1,516 mass shootings in the United States over the past 1,735 days. Elsewhere, sweeping measures taken to ban or restrict access to guns, such as in Australia, have led to a marked decline in homicides and the end of mass shootings, but are seen as nonstarters in the United States. Why is this the case?
The United States is simply awash in guns. There are almost as many privately owned firearms in this country as there are people living inside it — a figure that may also account for about half of the known number of civilian-owned firearms in the entire world. The sheer volume of such weaponry is testament to a long history of American gun ownership, but also the successful marketing of arms companies.
“One answer to the nebulous but compelling question of why Americans love guns is simply that the gun industry invited us to,” wrote Pamela Haag in her recent book, “The Gunning of America: Business and the Making of American Gun Culture.” “As an unexceptional, agnostic imperative of doing business . . . its marketing and advertisement burnished the gun as an object of emotional value and affinity.”
But that commercial imperative is tied up profoundly with the myths of the American republic. Gun rights advocates invoke the Founding Fathers and the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which declares “a well-regulated Militia” a necessity for a free state and therefore guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.”
“The gun is not a mere tool, a bit of technology, a political issue, a point of debate. It is an object of reverence,” wrote the venerable American historian and journalist Garry Wills in the aftermath a series of mass shootings in 2012. “Devotion to it precludes interruption with the sacrifices it entails. Like most gods, it does what it will, and cannot be questioned. Its acolytes think it is capable only of good things. It guarantees life and safety and freedom. It even guarantees law. Law grows from it. Then how can law question it?”
As if on cue, the Republican governor in Kentucky issued a tweet on Monday in which he unintentionally seemed to suggest it would be easier to question the foundations of law than contemplate gun control.
Of course, it’s unlikely the framers of the Constitution would have conceived of the sort of destructive machinery available at gun shows across the United States a couple of centuries later. More importantly, the United States is far from the fragile confederation of ex-colonies that needed to defend itself in the face of meddling European empires. Indeed, it’s now the world’s unquestioned hegemon, deploying its overwhelming military might around the globe and occupying countries with no pretense of extending Second Amendment protections to locals.
At home, gun politics remain highly racialized, with whites far more keen to champion the Second Amendment than minorities. It’s also the subject of a sharp partisan divide, with Republicans and Democrats radically diverging on what should be done.
The leading pro-gun lobby group, the National Rifle Association, is an influential player in American politics and helps bankroll a slate of pro-gun candidates in elections. It waged a culture war during the Obama administration, casting the liberal president as a tyrannical figure intent on destroying gun rights. But even with Trump in the White House and Republicans in the majority in Congress, the NRA has only accelerated its messaging, issuing chilling videos warning that its enemies in the media seek to “assassinate real news” and undermine the president — and then deploying veiled threats against them.
Trump, whose campaign received $30 million from the NRA, knows where his bread is buttered. In his first weeks in power, he moved to reverse Obama-era regulations that attempted to make it harder for people with records of mental illness to acquire guns. In April, he became the first sitting president to address the NRA itself, engaging in his periodic bashing of the media and Hollywood liberals and promising they now have “a true friend and champion” in the Oval Office.
“Only one candidate in the general election came to speak to you, and that candidate is now the president of the United States, standing before you,” Trump said. “You came through for me, and I am going to come through for you.” The people affected by the latest atrocity, meanwhile, might wonder how he and Congress plan to come through for them.
LikeLike
I am fully aware of the NRA’s philosophy. “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. I disagree with that because guns do kill.
I want to expand upon the NRA’s way of thinking.
I went to the American War Museum in S. Korea. The outdoor museum was filled with tanks and military hardware that was used by America in the Korean war. None of those killing machines have killed since they were put in a museum.
Land mines don’t kill unless some unfortunate adult (or child) steps on it.
The MOAB, which made Trump more presidential, doesn’t kill unless some human puts it into a plane and drops it.
Drones don’t kill unless someone in a remote tower, a human, decides the drone is in perfect position to be dropped.
AK-47’s don’t kill because if they lay in a pile in someone’s bedroom. They never have killed anyone.
Grenades don’t kill unless some human pulls the plug and throws them.
If fact, nothing that the military has ever invented to kill actually kills. The millions of people now dead are only in that position because some military person was ordered to kill.
I’m sure this reasoning will resound around the world and all those who have relatives or friends who have been shot down prematurely do to some type of conflict will be comforted. Military equipment doesn’t kill. Guns don’t kill.
LikeLike
GUNS IN AMERICA
Las Vegas Shooting: What Can We Learn From the Sound of Gunfire?
By THOMAS GIBBONS-NEFF and DAVID BOTTI | Oct. 3, 2017 | 2:05
A New York Times reporter — and Marine veteran — analyzes the barrage that left at least 59 dead.
LikeLike
You can’t learn squat from the New York Times.
LikeLike
Charles,
You “learn” only from far-right publications.
LikeLike
Some people are learning. In this case very quickly.
From WaPo:
…….
There will be at least some new converts for gun control. After spending the night fearing for his life, the lead guitarist for the Josh Abbot Band – a Texas-based country group – announced that he has changed his position. “I’ve been a proponent of the 2nd amendment my entire life. Until the events of last night. I cannot express how wrong I was. We actually have members of our crew with [Concealed Handgun Licenses], and legal firearms on the bus,” Caleb Keeter wrote in a statement. “They were useless. … We need gun control RIGHT. NOW.”
LikeLike
Jimmy Kimmel’s home town is Las Vegas. Tonight’s monologue addressed the issues of mass shootings, media bias when it comes to shootings perpetrated by old white men as opposed to young brown men.
Jimmy Kimmel on Mass Shooting in Las Vegas
Jimmy Kimmel Live
Published on Oct 2, 2017
After the tragedy in Jimmy’s hometown of Las Vegas, he sends love to everyone affected, talks about the major gun violence problem we have in this country, calls out the senators who are in the pocket of the NRA, and asks for common sense and action from our elected officials to ensure that something like this doesn’t happen again.
LikeLike
The slaughter in Las Vegas is all too familiar, yet Americans refuse to stop it – Los Angeles Times
..But the question that really needs addressing is why we allow such weapons in the hands of civilians in the first place. The simple answer is that we lack the political will to stop it. Our nation is awash in firearms — by some estimates, the U.S. has more guns than people, and Wall Street investors on Monday drove up the stock prices of gunmakers. According to the Gun Violence Archive, there have been 273 mass shootings — defined as four or more people shot in one incident, not including the shooter — in the last 275 days. According to a BBC report last year, the number of gun murders per capita in the U.S. in 2012 — the most recent year for comparable statistics — was nearly 30 times that in the U.K., at 2.9 per 100,000 compared with just 0.1.
We may not be able to control the violent impulses of our fellow Americans, but we must limit the weapons available to them and we must better enforce the controls that we have. Failing to do so is political cowardice, moral abdication. That we have continued to accept such weapons among us for so long means that this is who we, as a nation, have chosen to be: armed and dangerous.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-las-vegas-shooting-20171002-story.html#share=email~story
LikeLike
Gun violence occurs with such regularity in the United States that it’s easy to normalize it, and forget that other countries once had the same problem, and have taken effective steps to eradicate it. The U.S. has the highest gun ownership rate in the world, with 88 guns per 100 people (the second highest country, Yemen, has just 54.8 guns per 100 people). The research shows that states with more guns have more gun deaths. Since Sandy Hook, there has been 1,518 mass shootings.
80% of Americans support stricter gun laws.
LikeLike
https://www.vox.com/a/mass-shootings-sandy-hook
For facts
LikeLike
How sweet. Instead of a worthless proclamation by a good speech writer how about promoting gun regulations and laws allowing research into gun violence?
Somehow, compassion from Trump rings empty and lifeless. The NRA gave $30 million to his campaign fund. That is where his allegiance stands.
Where are the Tweets against the old white man perpetrator of this atrocity?
……………………………
Honoring the Victims of the Tragedy in Las Vegas, Nevada
HONORING THE VICTIMS OF THE TRAGEDY IN LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION
Our Nation is heartbroken. We mourn with all whose loved ones were murdered and injured in last night’s horrible tragedy in Las Vegas, Nevada. As we grieve, we pray that God may provide comfort and relief to all those suffering.
As a mark of respect for the victims of the senseless act of violence perpetrated on October 1, 2017, by the authority vested in me as President of the United States by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby order that the flag of the United States shall be flown at half-staff at the White House and upon all public buildings and grounds, at all military posts and naval stations, and on all naval vessels of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia and throughout the United States and its Territories and possessions until sunset, October 6, 2017. I also direct that the flag shall be flown at half-staff for the same length of time at all United States embassies, legations, consular offices, and other facilities abroad, including all military facilities and naval vessels and stations.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this second day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand seventeen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-second.
DONALD J. TRUMP
LikeLike
carolmalaysia writes: “Instead of a worthless proclamation by a good speech writer how about promoting gun regulations and laws allowing research into gun violence?”
Good idea, but . . . ooooppps! . . . it’s not about researching what is true; it’s rather about ideological and investment control. Rats.
LikeLike