NRA finally comes out with this. Sadly I'm not suprised.

[sevenofnine]

I agree with Miss Bijou's comment. Most of this is allready done.

I mean I read in the paper in Ontario they were going to lock the doors on the school.
I mean really.

It was a long time since my kids were in elementary school but the doors were locked some twenty years ago. The only door that was open was the main one and you had to sign in if you didn't some one chased you down.
So lock that one but the guy just shot through it,

There talking about police in school. Don't they allready. My kids when they hit highschool. They had a cop assigned to the school. He or she was there most of the day.

Most of this is just talk, in reality nothing much can be done. At least not in the short term. The guns are allready out there.

 

[Miss*Bijou]

Honestly I think people like to focus on the easy reasons that also conveniently usually lays most of the blame on others and the solution usually has little or no effect on themselves personally - like this gun thing.


Obviously there is some truth to the claim that guns don't go on killing sprees but people do. And owning a gun doesn't mean you're going to get up in the morning, kill your mother, head over to an elementary school and kill several people. So it's not 'guns' or owning them, in itself, that can be blamed for what *some* people do with them.


That said, of course certain types of firearms should be restricted or tightly regulated and I'm not claiming it's a great idea for anyone to be allowed to own guns. My point is that too many people seem to think that access to gun is the main or only culprit and that gun control laws or regulations would solve the problem and prevent many or even all tragedies such as this one - which I think is absurd. I think that focusing on the gun thing allows people to avoid asking the real questions and looking deeper into the reasons. It also allows people to point to others and demand a solution (laws, regulations) that doesn't affect them, which is an easy and convenient way to feel like they've addressed and solved the problem. But guns are not 'the problem', so nothing is solved.


Guns are just a means. And the problem is still there without guns. The problem will simply manifest itself by finding other means. A kid (or any person obviously) who can't access guns can very easily figure out some other sinister way to achieve what he wants. I think someone who can walk into an elementary school and kill people after he's also killed his mother is probably determined enough to find a way to kill if he doesn't have a gun. It's absurd to claim otherwise and expect gun laws to remove the problem.


All week I've felt really sad for those people who have lost kids or wives, mothers etc in this tragedy but I have been increasingly annoyed and angry about the total disconnect that people seem to have in regards to violence like this in the US and violence by the US around the world. I especially was very angry and responded when someone on facebook made some comments and was gushing over the President's speech at the vigil because I couldn't take it anymore.


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/o4oUBlPMh0M?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



The extreme and offensive hypocrisy of that speech being made by that man, given the fact that he's responsible for the deaths of hundreds of children and innocent men and women just by his drones program and 'kill list' - it was just too much for me and I couldn't keep silent anymore. Most people just don't get it though and many even get offended for suggesting the connections. Things don't happen in a vacuum or neatly operate completely separately from each other and there most definitely a connection:
http://www.scoop.it/t/obama-s-drone-terror


The last couple of days I read a few things online that echoed what I'd been thinking but it is not something most people are talking about or willing to look at but I think that tragedies like this will not only continue to happen, they will continue to increase - even if all guns were outlawed tomorrow morning! I think this is about a hell of a lot more than guns and I kept referring to it as 'violence culture' but I think I prefer this guy's term - he calls it 'terror culture':
http://translationexercises.wordpre...-the-failure-of-the-national-security-agenda/


Anyway, I'm not going to get into why I think that right now but if you are curious interested, these are a few pieces I was reading that resonated with me and were similar to how I feel about the topic
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/17/us-killings-tragedies-pakistan-bug-splats
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/19/newtown-drones-children-deaths
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/12/21/from-connecticut-to-pakistan/
http://notesbynoon.blogspot.com.br/2012/12/our-children-matter-too-mr-president.html?m=1

 

[HankQuinlan]

The hypocricy of the NRA is truly beyond belief. Violence on TV and video games is to blame...but going to a target range and blasting rounds at human-shaped targets is a totally harmless pastime? Geesh.

The society is engulfed in violent imagery, but far more of it is in the news -- state-sponsored as well as crime-related -- and in every history book -- than in fiction.

 

[PlayfulAlex]

The extreme and offensive hypocrisy of that speech being made by that man, given the fact that he's responsible for the deaths of hundreds of children and innocent men and women just by his drones program and 'kill list' - it was just too much for me and I couldn't keep silent anymore. Most people just don't get it though and many even get offended for suggesting the connections. Things don't happen in a vacuum or neatly operate completely separately from each other and there most definitely a connection:
http://www.scoop.it/t/obama-s-drone-terror


The last couple of days I read a few things online that echoed what I'd been thinking but it is not something most people are talking about or willing to look at but I think that tragedies like this will not only continue to happen, they will continue to increase - even if all guns were outlawed tomorrow morning! I think this is about a hell of a lot more than guns and I kept referring to it as 'violence culture' but I think I prefer this guy's term - he calls it 'terror culture':
http://translationexercises.wordpre...-the-failure-of-the-national-security-agenda/


Anyway, I'm not going to get into why I think that right now but if you are curious interested, these are a few pieces I was reading that resonated with me and were similar to how I feel about the topic
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/17/us-killings-tragedies-pakistan-bug-splats
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/19/newtown-drones-children-deaths
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/12/21/from-connecticut-to-pakistan/
http://notesbynoon.blogspot.com.br/2012/12/our-children-matter-too-mr-president.html?m=1

Thanks for these useful links, Miss B...

 

[Horse99]

I don't know why everyone is surprised the NRA isn't going to show any leadership about gun control. That's the President's job....but he's busy surfing and smoking up in Hawaii, so it will have to wait until the New Year. And unfortunately, it won't be a priority on his agenda. He spent too much political capital pushing obamacare thru, and his remaining political capital will be used to prevent an American bankruptcy.

 

[uncleg]

hmmmm

One Principal, bad student session coming up.........................:nod:

 

[whoisjohngalt]

You people don't get it. Whether you like it or not, the second amendment to the US constitution guarantees the right of the people to bear arms. You can quibble over whether an "assault" weapon falls within the definition of "arms" and the like, but the fundamental issue remains. There is a process to amend the constitution but good luck with that.

To continue to play the devil's advocate, I think it is apropos to consider why the framers felt it was important to guarantee the right of the People to bear arms. They recognized that the greatest threat to liberty was not necessarily from outside invaders, but rather from the government itself. By having a well armed civilian population, they realized it would be much more difficult for a government to try to seize power and establish tyrannical rule.

There is no doubt that one of the consequences of greater availability of guns is that there will be more cases of accidental deaths and these are of course tragic, but also quite rare. One may argue that this is one of the many costs of liberty.

Furthermore, the argument that mass killings such as Newtown, Columbine etc etc would not occur if gun control was in place are bogus. Narcissistic whack-jobs who are intent on killing will find a way. Guns are frequently obtained illegally. Other weapons can also be used.

Bottom line - you can't ignore the legal and historical background of gun rights and dogmatically insist that gun control is the answer.

I now prepare for the usual onslaught.

 

[HankQuinlan]

Somebody tweeted that what they need is a "Teacher in every gun store."

 

[kso_wiz]

Thanks for these useful links, Miss B...

Couldn't agree more. Thanks Miss B.

 

[uncleg]

To continue to play the devil's advocate, I think it is apropos to consider why the framers felt it was important to guarantee the right of the People to bear arms. They recognized that the greatest threat to liberty was not necessarily from outside invaders, but rather from the government itself. By having a well armed civilian population, they realized it would be much more difficult for a government to try to seize power and establish tyrannical rule.

There is no doubt that one of the consequences of greater availability of guns is that there will be more cases of accidental deaths and these are of course tragic, but also quite rare. One may argue that this is one of the many costs of liberty.

Furthermore, the argument that mass killings such as Newtown, Columbine etc etc would not occur if gun control was in place are bogus. Narcissistic whack-jobs who are intent on killing will find a way. Guns are frequently obtained illegally. Other weapons can also be used.

An onslaught based just on this portion of your post. So, your position is that the framers felt it necessary to allow the People to be armed to protect themselves from the government they had elected, or may elect at some future time ? I was always under the impression that the right to bear arms revolved around having a well regulated militia that could be called on in times of need to protect the People. You know, Indian uprisings, Civil War, 1812, things like that.

As to over 23,000 accidental shootings ( Non-fatal) and over 53,000 fatal shootings, deliberate and accidental, I'd suggest there was nothing rare about it. Yes, you can argue it's the price of liberty, but it's a pretty high price. Canada is just as free as the U.S. but you don't see a whole lot of people getting shot everyday for the sake of that freedom. As to the mass killings in the U.S., sure you can always find another way, look at good old dearly departed Timothy, that took a lot of work. I doubt the the kids at Columbine or buddy at Newtown would have put in the effort, it would have been to much work for them. Other weapons could be used, like the guy in China that stabbed 26 kids with a knife. They all survived, the kids in Newtown didn't. Again, guns are often obtained illegally, I agree. But if the guns aren't available in the first place, then it's going to be a lot more difficult.

We have about 10% of the population of the U.S. We have gun control laws in place. We have nowhere near 10% of the killings of the U.S. I'd say there is something to be said for gun control. Mind you, if you figure the lives of 20 children at the gun filled hands of Adam Lanza, is a price of liberty, I guess one can argue that's what freedom is all about.

 

[Tugela]

I don't know why everyone is surprised the NRA isn't going to show any leadership about gun control. That's the President's job....but he's busy surfing and smoking up in Hawaii, so it will have to wait until the New Year. And unfortunately, it won't be a priority on his agenda. He spent too much political capital pushing obamacare thru, and his remaining political capital will be used to prevent an American bankruptcy.

In my opinion the NRA is dominated by people showing significant levels of paranoia, sociopathy and irresponsibility. Looking to them for leadership is like trying to get henhouse security from the foxes.

If "mental issues" is the criteria for prohibiting people from gun ownership, which is what this fruitcake seems to be pushing, the most effective long term thing that could be done IMO is to turn over the NRA membership roster to the federal government and ban those people (and their families) from owning or possessing weapons.

One more thing....about this armed guard in every school.....apparently Columbine did have one, and you see how effective that was.

 

[Tugela]

An onslaught based just on this portion of your post. So, your position is that the framers felt it necessary to allow the People to be armed to protect themselves from the government they had elected, or may elect at some future time ? I was always under the impression that the right to bear arms revolved around having a well regulated militia that could be called on in times of need to protect the People. You know, Indian uprisings, Civil War, 1812, things like that.

The militia was part of it, but it was also general use as well. At the time the US was a frontier environment, while in the UK possession of firearms outside of the military was very unusual except for the elite. So there was a fundamental dispute about who exactly should have weapons, and that is probably the main reason for the ammendment. There were militias in the colonies, and that was the accepted method of defence (the regular army was only called out during full scale wars), as was the case in most European states at the time. The militia weapons were usually regulated in armories however.

Nowdays of course the US is no longer a frontier state and those consitutional provisions are archaic and no longer relevant to modern society.

 

[Tugela]

I doubt the the kids at Columbine or buddy at Newtown would have put in the effort, it would have been to much work for them. Other weapons could be used, like the guy in China that stabbed 26 kids with a knife. They all survived, the kids in Newtown didn't. Again, guns are often obtained illegally, I agree. But if the guns aren't available in the first place, then it's going to be a lot more difficult.

We have about 10% of the population of the U.S. We have gun control laws in place. We have nowhere near 10% of the killings of the U.S. I'd say there is something to be said for gun control. Mind you, if you figure the lives of 20 children at the gun filled hands of Adam Lanza, is a price of liberty, I guess one can argue that's what freedom is all about.

I can tell you with absolute certainty (I have Aspergers as well, so I have a reasonable idea how he would have been percieving the world at that age, if that was in fact his condition) that if weapons were not freely available he would not have done what he did. The ready availability of weapons, in particular the assault rifle he used, was directly responsible for what happened. Were it not for that he would probably have grown out of that "phase" as his social skills improved with age and all those kids would still be alive now.

 

[wilde]

You people don't get it. Whether you like it or not, the second amendment to the US constitution guarantees the right of the people to bear arms. You can quibble over whether an "assault" weapon falls within the definition of "arms" and the like, but the fundamental issue remains. There is a process to amend the constitution but good luck with that.

The second amendment was written over 220 years ago, written at a time much different than today. In life, you either move with the times or get left behind. Nobody (realistically) is expecting the US to ban firearms overnight but one hopes the tide is beginning to turn.

 

[Miss*Bijou]

You people don't get it. Whether you like it or not, the second amendment to the US constitution guarantees the right of the people to bear arms. You can quibble over whether an "assault" weapon falls within the definition of "arms" and the like, but the fundamental issue remains. There is a process to amend the constitution but good luck with that.

Bottom line - you can't ignore the legal and historical background of gun rights and dogmatically insist that gun control is the answer.

No, but if that's what a majority of people (not lobbyists!) want.... Is is? (I have no idea)

Amendments have been made in the past to reflect changes in society. If some things written in the constitution was never re-visited and updated to reflect these changes, slavery would still be ok under the constitution, women, black, Asian or any non-white men would be allowed to vote and alcohol would still be illegal. Hello? Welcome to 2012.

To continue to play the devil's advocate, I think it is apropos to consider why the framers felt it was important to guarantee the right of the People to bear arms. They recognized that the greatest threat to liberty was not necessarily from outside invaders, but rather from the government itself. By having a well armed civilian population, they realized it would be much more difficult for a government to try to seize power and establish tyrannical rule.

#1 Americans have been gradually but willingly and passively handing the government all kinds of rights the constitution guarantees. It's especially telling that gun ownership should be the one some people value most and the only one they're making any fuss about. Very telling.

#2 What is an armed militia supposed to do against the strongest military in the world, with a budget of trillions? Seriously, its absurd to think an armed militia would even stand a chance against drones and smart bombs. Lol

The only thing these arms can be used for is to shoot fellow citizens: wether it's in a criminal context like robbery, a mad man, or a self defense context (Troy Davis anyone), no matter what, the victim is going to be a person, not government and the shooter isn't going to be part of a militia.

The idea that an armed militia would last more than ten minutes if it went after the government is so completely ridiculous in 2012 in a country like the US. Not gonna happen, they'd be blown up in 30 seconds. Just ask the people in Afghanistan, North of Pakistan, Yemen etc... Or have a look at the Collateral Murder video that was part of the files allegedly leaked by Bradley Manning to Wikileaks. (Of course, the men in the video weren't actually militants but a mix of journalists and civilians but the military's reason for firing is that they seemed to be militants in possession of guns.)

Once detected, they don't stand a chance. The same would apply to a 'well armed militia' on US soil.

----------


It's really absurd that people seem to think of the Constitution as if it were the direct word of God, sacred and sin to suggest its value is dependent on making sure it is relevant to the times.

No one is suggesting banning all arms but for gods sake, why in the world would an ordinary citizen need some of these guns anyway (other than the absurd militia thing)? Do you think a militia, should one need to be formed would have any freaking chance over the army, its killer drones, smart bombs and all of that technology? Wars aren't even fought that way anymore, as deadly and powerful as these guns are, the are not going to help much. The only thing they can be used against is fellow civilians. The government can nuke the crap out of them four times before they could manage a shot. It's ridiculous to think these super guns, or any gun, could be of any use in the context their justification are based on.

There are no traditional battlefields in modern warfare, there are no battles between two armies facing each other - technological innovation has changed the rules and made those who can afford that technology so powerful

Why do you think we just hear about 'terrorism', 'insurgency/counter insurgency', suicide bombings, IEDs, - because that is the only way one can 'fight' against a vastly superior military power. Unless you have the access to the loads of funds and can a source that is willing to sell to you (another powerful army/country) there's just no way you can even begin to have a chance against an army like the US. Your guns aren't going to scare an armoured tank about to fire at you and it isn't going to matter to the operator whose drone you can't even see that is hovering over you about to drop a bomb on you that will leave a crater the size of an entire block and render you BBQ'd militia. Its completely ridiculous to talk about guns as if they're even useful to a militia wanting to go up against a government and army like the American one. I mean, seriously.

You just have to look at the wars of the past 10-15 years against civilian militias (which you know as 'terrorists', 'Taliban', 'mujahadeens', AL Qaeda, Hamas, militants, insurgents, etc etc) fought by powerful and wildly stronger armies like the US or Israel's, Britains or even Canada's - they don't stand a chance in hell in a traditional battle and their only option is to rely on surprise, improvised explosive devices and often strike civilians, whether specifically targeted or incidental.

Sorry but the right to own guns based on the right to (or importance of) form militias against the government is just nonsense.

 

[vancity_cowboy]

Amendments have been made in the past to reflect changes in society. If some things written in the constitution was never re-visited and updated to reflect these changes, slavery would still be ok under the constitution...

not to put too fine a point on it, but the topic of slavery was revisited all right - at the point of a GUN!!

Lincoln was faced with seccessionist states in the south with too strong an economy to be able to bully around, so he broke their economic power by outlawing slavery, which was their main economic advantage. They rebelled, formed the Confederacy and were beaten down in what was one of the fiercest armed confrontations in the history of warfare, the US Civil War

 

[Tugela]

not to put too fine a point on it, but the topic of slavery was revisited all right - at the point of a GUN!!

Lincoln was faced with seccessionist states in the south with too strong an economy to be able to bully around, so he broke their economic power by outlawing slavery, which was their main economic advantage. They rebelled, formed the Confederacy and were beaten down in what was one of the fiercest armed confrontations in the history of warfare, the US Civil War

Slavery was abolished AFTER the war started.

 

[vancity_cowboy]

Slavery was abolished AFTER the war started.

yes, political manoevering takes time...