Is there anything we can do to stop the cascade of corpses appearing nightly on our screens, large and small?
Yes, there is. We can repeal the Second Amendment. That's a good place to start. That's theonly place to start, because every effort we make at sensible gun regulation runs up against that brick wall and falls down as dead as the latest victims of random, massively predictable gun violence.
The Second Amendment assures we can do nothing to reduce the gun carnage that kills about 30,000 Americans per year. True, 20,000 of them are suicides, but the Second Amendment makes suicide far too easy. Over half of all successful suicides are by self-inflicted gunshot and at that range you rarely miss.
I wonder how many of those gunshot suicides would change their minds if they had a second chance? The Second Amendment could be called the "No Second Chance" Amendment, for suicides and rash, un-premeditated murders alike. A gun just makes killing too easy.
Every time a kindergarten full of kids is shot up and an outraged nation mourns, somebody will call for a new law, something simple and obvious, like limiting a magazine to say, a hundred rounds, and for a day or two it seems like a good idea. Then comes the "You can't do that, it's against the Second Amendment!" and the NRA cackles into its Dracula cloak.
The NRA is entirely correct. We can't do squat about the epidemic of gun violence plaguing the nation because the Second Amendment won't let us.
The Second Amendment is the only thing that is immune to gunshots in America. The Second Amendment is lead-proof.
But it's not vote-proof. We can repeal it and we should. I'm not saying it will be easy, many people are fanatic about their guns. They say having weaponry is a right worth dying for. They've got that right.
The original justification for the Second Amendment was, as far as anyone can tell, to protect the people from tyranny. Well, actually they said something about a well-regulated militia but I don't think even they knew what that meant.
But whatever it meant, it is clearly obsolete now. How is a handheld weapon supposed to protect one from a government that can shoot a predator drone through your bedroom window before you can take the safety off your AK?
All good points, its just we can't get the proposed amendment to end corporate "person hood" out of that damn Congress. Repealing the Second Amendment has lass than a snowball's chance...
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, people are going to have to continue to die because paranoid delusions and the unstated need by some for penis extensions.
Its only been recently that the Supreme Court ruled there is a right to carry. It would be easier to overturn the Supreme Court than to get rid of the 2nd amendment. When liberals get majority on the Court, I see many of the recent rulings getting overturned.
ReplyDeleteYou're a bit mixed up. The Supremes did not say there's a right to carry.
DeleteThey did rule that it is an individual right to keep and bear arms. The 11th circuit appeals court said California cannot ban both open carry and then selectively use "May Issue" clauses to deny CCW for citizens. It will take a few year to work through the courts but those rulings will allow for some type of carry in all states. It is a Civil Right after all.
DeleteI repeat, the Supreme Court did not say there's a right to carry.
DeleteYou are correct Mike, SCOTUS didn't say that, however two federal circuits have used Heller to justify the right to carry.
Delete"We can repeal the Second Amendment."
ReplyDeleteYou certainly can. The instructions are right there in the document.
"How is a handheld weapon supposed to protect one from a government that can shoot a predator drone through your bedroom window before you can take the safety off your AK?"
You guys sure seem to love those Predators. And the MLRS. We actually have some real world examples of how well insurgencies have successfully resisted modern armies. Iraq is looking pretty exciting these days.
Then there is Afghanistan, which is looking like it will be successfully outlasting the occupation of two nuclear powers. Though it would obviously be better if the secular government currently in place continues, I wont be surprised if it goes the way that Iraq is currently heading.
Im glad you posted this Mike it finally shows some honesty in what the progressive /communist agenda truly is. It has always been known what the truth was despite what the Stalinist propaganda machine spews out. "we dont want your guns" "We just want reasonable regulations". Lies all of it and this is proof. Zero guns is the agenda period. sure you still have to convince some of your comrades to put on the Stalin is my hero tee shirts and dance in the new Red Square formerly Time Square but with the help of the current criminal administration/politburo your well on your way to the complete destruction of the Republic with complete disarmament of the mass's being step 2. Step 1 being the indoctrination of the children of school age through repetitive exposure to progressive/communist enemy of the republic teachers and the hatred for our nation they regurgitate like good little comrades. Good luck with that and happy Independence day
ReplyDeleteMBIAC
You've certainly got all the sound bites down, all the buzz words. But you don't seem to have the ability to think things through very well. Repealing the 2A is not the same as outlawing all gun possession. You seem to be conflating the two ideas.
DeleteZero guns for honest ordinary citizens. Criminals and the liberal elite can have as many weapons as they want, after all, the liberals are "special".
DeleteYour right Mike repeal of the 2nd amend does not immediately mean outlaw of all firearms. But the agenda is to make sure it is shortly behind. Would you admit this to be the truth or do you lack the courage to stand for your convictions. Or do you really still believe its a secret what the real agenda is
DeleteMBIAC
You're a mind reader now? You know what's on the agenda?
DeleteMy idea has always been that about half of all lawful gun owners need to be disarmed for various reasons. The 2A stands in the way of doing that. What are you sweating about? Are you afraid you're in the wrong half?
"My idea has always been that about half of all lawful gun owners need to be disarmed for various reasons. The 2A stands in the way of doing that."
DeleteI have to disagree with your assertion Mike. The strict gun laws that you advocate have so far been found to be constitutional in states such as California, New Jersey, Maryland, and even in DC. Even in NYC, simple possession of h firearm is both a lengthy and expensive proposition.
Heller and McDonald overturned laws mandating a total ban of classes of firearms in their jurisdictions as being contrary to the protections afforded by the second amendment. Want to bet that if the laws in NYC weren't so onerous, that the number of firearms owned there wouldn't more than double?
However, these decisions are also being successfully used to allow citizens to bear arms and not just to keep them, so in that area I can understand your concern.
I don't think any state has the entirety of my ideas about proper gun control. And remember, my one-strike-you're-out is part of it.
Delete30,000 gun deaths and he admits 20,000 are suicides(it makes it easier)Lot's of things make it easy, better get rid of those to you know like cars(carbon monoxide and garages) razor blades all medicines you could o.d. on.
ReplyDeleteHow many kindergartens have been shot up? And I'm not so sure about that one.
Another so called expert that don't know squat other than what he heard via the VPC or Handgun Control. Will maybe Mommy Shannon also.
The great majority of all murders and all suicides is done with firearms. How could gun control NOT be the answer?
DeleteSo, why do you liberals want to limit "assault weapons" when they are used to kill less than baseball bats and kitchen knives?
DeleteSo, can you show even one gun control law that actually reduces criminal violence? (hint: there are none)
Every gun control law has lessened violence and saved lives, but as you know, you cannot prove a negative. So you pretend that you've got a real gotcha there. That's weak.
DeleteMike, we did have an assault weapon ban in effect for ten years. Fortunately, it had a sunset provision in it which was used to allow it to expire when there wasn't any data that could show that the law resulted in any affect on crime.
Delete"The Task Force on Community Preventive Services, an independent, non-federal task force, examined an assortment of firearms laws, including the AWB, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence."[25] A 2004 critical review of firearms research by a National Research Council committee said that an academic study of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence outcomes." The committee noted that the study's authors said the guns were used criminally with relative rarity before the ban and that its maximum potential effect on gun violence outcomes would be very small.
In 2004, a research report submitted to the United States Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice found that should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Efforts_to_renew_the_ban
But, isn't that a perfect example of the inability of proving a negative?
DeleteThis is a fallacy. 2A did not create the right, and the people will not allow it to be taken away. Better to become familiar with the benefits and virtues of private gun ownership than to chase pipe dreams. One-sidedness is a prescription for disappointment.
ReplyDeletehttp://peopleofarms.org/
The benefits and virtues pale in comparison to the misuse. I've shown that many many times.
DeleteSince, we know 2,.5 million violent crimes are stopped by a person with a gun are stopped every year,. So, how does 2.5 million compare with your cited values??????
DeleteYou have shown that many times ? Well, not everyone agrees with you. Also if you don't have any weapons how can you access the "benefits" of owning and using firearms. Just liberal BS and nanny-state draconian laws.
DeleteDemocrat = Gun Control = Registration = Confiscation . That is the only goal of these minority of progressive liberal democrats.
The 2.5 million nonsense has been debunked by all but the most fanatical.
DeleteThe "minority of progressive liberal democrats" are not the only ones who favor gun control. Most NRA members as well as most gun owners do too. But you don't like to hear that, do you?
Love it. Except let me introduce some 'Common Sense' here. Oh, before I get started, I love how you managed to illustrate tyranny (drones firing rockets at heretofore innocent-until-proven-guilty Americans) in the same paragraph that you say our need to protect ourselves from a government that would/could (probably won't, according to Obama) is 'obsolete'. Do you screen your paragraphs for cohesion? Just a thought.
ReplyDeleteSo, do you even know how hard it is to amend the Constitution? That's on purpose, by the way. But do you? Our nation has been around for 238 years now, and only 33 amendments have ever made it very far along on anything. 6 of them weren't even ratified. Basically, it requires action by a 67% supermajority in congress, plus 75% of the states/states' assemblies. There is a reason even the most leftist politician in national office has never uttered the words 'repeal', because there's not a snowflake's chance in Vulcan's Forge that they could whip even 67% of their own party into line to get it, let alone count on 75% of the states following along. Finally, that's the Bill of Rights we're talking about here, doesn't that mean anything to you? Your freedom to write in this blog and express your opinions on the internet is just above 2A. Touching the Bill of Rights is a very slippery slope indeed. "Oh, they'll never repeal 1A!" Right, because freedom of the press isn't ever going to become 'obsolete' to stop runaway governments and inform the people...Just like they'll never fire rockets through American citizen's windows either.
What means something to me is that gun accessibility, aided by the obsolete and meaningless Second Amendment, is the number one factor in the death of 30,000 people each year and an uncountable number of wounded and traumatized. You're probably right about why politicians never talk about repeal, but that doesn't change the fact that the 2A is in the way of our progressing as a society. It should go.
DeleteLook at Mexico, guns are controlled so that the average person can not own a gun. Now, do you think Mexico is more safe that the US?
DeleteLook at Chicago, do you think Chicago is more safe than Kennesaw, Georgia?
In 1982, Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to just 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole.
Today, the violent crime rate in Kennesaw is still 85% lower than Georgia's or the national average.
(http://americangunfacts.com/)
Did you see Jadegold's response to your ridiculous repeating of the NRA talking points?
Deletehttp://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2014/07/texas-topcat-repeats-few-old-myths.html
Have fun trying to take em douche.
ReplyDeleteIs that your personal example of "an armed society is a polite society?"
DeleteGo to a large gun show, maybe 20000 people in one big room. Notice that there are no strong words being exchanged or any inconsiderate actions. You will never be in a place where more "please" and "thank you" are uttered.
DeleteWe'd have fun taking them...
Deletehttp://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/19/florida-doomsday-prepper-plans-bloody-last-stand-until-cops-lure-him-in-with-burgers/
"The two-day manhunt for a Florida man ended Wednesday morning at the FBI office in Tampa, when 55-year-old “doomsday prepper” Martin Winters surrendered to authorities. According to the Tampa Bay Times, a wet, footsore and weary Winters gave up his freedom for the promise of some dry shoes, Gatorade, a couple of cheeseburgers and some French fries."
"We'd have fun taking them..." whats this we shit jade you don't have the courage to be involved in attempting to confiscate anyone's firearms you would expect others to do the dirty work for you while you sit at home and pretend to be involved and petting your bust of Stalin saying its happening master its happening .
DeleteMBIAC
Actually, I'd happily confiscate them AND make them pet my bust of Stalin and force them to call him Master.
DeleteIt's my happy place.
" You will never be in a place where more "please" and "thank you" are uttered."
DeleteYou mean like the one in PA last week?
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2014/07/pa-gun-show-shooting-negligent-gun.html
So you say accidentally is the same as doing it on purpose? Okay got it and the 20k others that where there walked away unharmed? So scary!
DeleteNo, what's scary is your insistence that in a group of, as you exaggeratedly put it, 20.000, every single person is polite and respectful.
Deletewhy don't you get out of this country if you don't like it.
ReplyDeleteThe thing is, with the way our legal system works: it wouldn't matter if it were repealed.
ReplyDeleteThe way our legal system treats rights is as preexisting inherent concepts that are recognized, not granted. In fact, the Constitution specifically states that whether a right is enumerated in the Constitution or not, it is considered no less of a right. Writings from the Founding Fathers which cannot be repealed and which have just as much legal weight in court state similar as the fundamental concept of how rights are to be treated in our legal system.
So all that would have to be shown in court is that at a point in our history, or better yet at the time of it's founding, a given thing was considered to be an inherent right. The very fact that the 2nd Amendment ever existed would make it have just as much weight in court, repealed or not.
The above is exactly right. You can try to gather all the votes you want for repeal but at the end of the day, there will still be 300 million+ guns out there with a voter behind each one.
DeleteI've never denied that. It's you gun fetishists who get all panicky at the very mention of repeal because you think that means total elimination of all civilian gun ownership. It doesn't. It simply means you guys would no longer be able to hide behind the obsolete and meaningless Amendment to justify gun ownership by the unfit and dangerous.
DeleteStatistics already tell us that a minority of Americans own guns, which means that 300 million figure shows gun loons own multiple guns each. There is only one vote per person.
Delete"There is only one vote per person. "
DeleteYou are correct Anon. And you can see how those politicians respect those individual votes by simply counting the politicians always starting out conversations about gun issues saying that they support second amendment rights. Though I think many have different definitions of those rights.
I wonder how many don't say that....
That is total BS.
DeleteTry and get judges to agree on a point of law where a law never existed, or has been rescinded.
Alcohol prohibition was part of the Constitution, then it was not.
Alcohol was not an inherent right before, or after the Constitutional right was written, or rescinded; and many were killed by government officials enforcing the Constitution when alcohol was illegal; and rightfully and legally so.
You still need education on what is a law and what is not. The part that says "those not enumerated........." simply meant that States could make law for, or against any issue, but the federal government chose not to. It does not say a State could not make law about an issue simply because the feds did not. And we know the feds could if they wanted to, because the Constitution gives the feds that right, legislative power.
That's true Anon, state and federal legislatures are allowed to enact laws according to the wishes of the voters as long as it doesn't violate the second amendment. And currently, many of the laws come about as close as you can get without violating this limit. Yet Mike seems to think that even with laws such as those found in DC and NYC, to say nothing of some states' laws the second amendment get in the way of restricting even further.
DeleteProhibition was a social experiment that tried to sanction personal behavior that up till then was lawful. After its being reversed, again through the amendment process, after thirteen years the end result was a very large expansion of organized crime.
My point in my previous comment is that the majority of politicians still pay at least lip service to respecting the second amendment. There is still a ways to go before the fantasy of repealing the second amendment can even be talked about. Something tells me that suggesting such a thing might be harmful to a political career.
"Prohibition was a social experiment that tried to sanction personal behavior that up till then was lawful. After its being reversed, again through the amendment process, after thirteen years the end result was a very large expansion of organized crime."
DeleteIt's amusing how wrong you can be in such a small amount of space.
First, Prohibition didn't sanction personal behavior. It wasn't illegal to drink during Prohibition. What was illegal was the mass manufacture of alcohol, selling and shipping it. In fact, one was perfectly free to make their own alcohol (within limits) and as long as you didn't sell it--you were free to imbibe.
And given the way Volstead was written, it was pretty easy to skirt the law. See "Blind Pigs"
Second, organized crime was always around. Pretending it blew up because of Prohibition is ahistorical.
Organized crime grew greatly under prohibition, so would the illegal traffic of guns and the criminal organizations trafficking in those illegal guns, if we tried to outlaw guns.
DeleteNot only are you not listening - we are not talking about outlawing guns, you seem to get your history from Hollywood movies about Al Capone.
DeleteYou said this,
Delete"My idea has always been that about half of all lawful gun owners need to be disarmed for various reasons. The 2A stands in the way of doing that."
And Heller and McDonald applied only to complete classes of firearms, those being complete bans of handguns in their respective jurisdictions. By the way, neither ban was effective in controlling gun violence, so in addition to being unconstitutional, they didn't work.
Again, if the very restrictive laws so far found to be constitutional aren't strict enough, your suggestion that the second amendment stands in the way suggests you mean something that might be challenged using Heller.
Check out what Mexico is suffering. Go to "Borderland Beat." Keep the 2nd and respect it.
ReplyDeleteIt appears having unfettered access to guns..mainly from the US isn't helping Mexico.
DeleteGetting rid of the 2nd amendment would only create another criminal underground business as alcohol prohibition did. Stiffer regulations is the only way to curd gun abuses, deaths, and injuries.
ReplyDeleteOH PLEASE oh please oh please try and push for this. The united states is a powder keg, everyone is pissed, illegals storming our borders, feds trying to steal cattle OMG you are nuts to even suggest this garbage at this time in our county.
ReplyDeleteI for one wont be handing in my guns any time soon LOL
I'm sure it will be a violent gun loon like you who will start the shooting.
DeleteYou asinine comment is so stupid I hesitate to respond. No one, least of all I, want women to be raped. But unlike you, a close-minded gun nut who thinks guns are the answer to everything, I realize that women arming themselves is not the solution to rape. The solution to rape, is not getting a gun, but being more careful what men women hang around with. The mad rapist jumping out of the bushes is rare, and a gun usually doesn't help in those cases anyway. By far, rape is committed by an acquaintance, boyfriend, partner or husband. Keeping better company is what women need to do, not carry guns.
ReplyDeleteMike's problem is that he will take a case and use it to justify his craziness. Some mentioned how polite people are at gun shows...he will then point to an article about one with a problem....so the 1000 shows a a year are overlooked for the one that has a problem. He points to the suicide numbers with guns but no mention of why 30000 people want to take their own lives....I suppose the 10000 that kill themselves in other ways are meaningless. So it doesn't matter why they want to die just how they do it. He fails to mention that most gun.crimes are committed are committed by people unlawfully owning the gun...ie gangbangers shooting themselves up. There are always exceptions to the rule...millions of.gun.owners do not commit crime but that means nothing...it is just about the few that do. Mike B is an idiot. He excercises the 1st amendmant to call for the removal of the second. We ban drunk driving, drugs, child porn, murder, rape, and a whole pile.of.other things and yet they still happen everyday. I say we repeal the author of this article.
ReplyDeleteIt's a bit more than one gun show out of thousands where we have problems. And some of the nearly 20,000 who use guns to off themselves would live if they'd had no access.
DeleteYour "most gun crimes" being committed by criminals may be true, but how many of the half-a-million gun crimes a year are not. I say too fucking many.
And let's not forget the other often overlooked abuse that you lawful gun owners are responsible for. Because so many of you fail to practice common sense safe storage at home, a half-a-million guns are stolen each year, every one of which goes directly into the criminal world.
"We ban drunk driving, drugs, child porn, murder, rape, and a whole pile.of.other things and yet they still happen everyday."
First of all, I'm not talking about banning guns. I'm talking about limiting gun availability to unfit and dangerous people, millions of whom are lawful gun owners under our current gun-friendly situation.
Oh yes you are. You're not talking about banning every gun at the moment, but there are many guns and magazines that you feel need banning. Why not "limit the availability to the unfit" for these things and let us good citizens keep them?
DeleteCould you be any more tedious? You want to go back to the meaning of "ban guns" now? When the hysterical Anonymous stated, "We ban drunk driving, drugs, child porn, murder, rape, and a whole pile.of.other things and yet they still happen everyday." he wasn't referring to a selective elimination of certain guns and accessories. He was talking about BANNING GUNS, you know, the favorite red herring of you fanatical gun nuts.
Delete