I wish you would be specific about who these “thugs and tyrants” are. Is it Barney Frank who will come at us with a knife or a bazooka, to collect taxes,so we will need a gun to defend ourselves? Do you see “them” as misguided, brainwashed marines armed to teeth and turned against “us” — and thus, as you say, it will be about “more than just handguns”. Just who is coming, and what do you think they want? Be brave and tell us who exactly you feel threatened by. I think they deserve to know so at least they can make an informed decision; and unless “they” know how can the weapons you have possibly be the deterrent you claim they are?

“Permission to quote from within this text? ”

Sure- fine by me.

Hi Mario,

I appreciate (and share) your viewpoint about the process of escalation.

“The guns will in no way whatsoever n the future, ever help you as a private citizen gathered up together to rebel against your oppressor. If you try, your oppressor will annihilate you with much bigger weapons.”

That is 100% true, but I am prepared to die so long as it was on MY terms, and not theirs.

A person has the right to kill others. That is a very ugly truth, but it is truth nonetheless. We as a society can only document and enforce the consequence of such action. Prevention is universally 100% impossible, so we expose our own shear stupidity in even trying.

Just as we all have a right to defend ourselves, we also all have the right to attempt to oppress others against their wishes, but to exercise those rights with no consideration of the consequences is highly irresponsible (and dangerous to society I might add)

I share the overwhelming philosophy of a large percentage of gun owners (including our founding fathers):

“I own guns in anticipation that the moment will never come that I must be forced to choose whether or not to use them”

Your argument that if the world were unarmed we would all have peace, would equally be true if everyone were equally armed… yes?

If everyone had a gun, and no one used it, how bad would things be…?

@ Robert

“we also all have the right to attempt to oppress others against their wishes….”

Well, no. We do not have the right to attempt to oppress others against their wishes, although I am glad to see your recognition that that would be bad for society as a whole. There is nothing in either the Constitution nor any religion of which I’m aware that gives anyone that right. Yes, there is a shadow self that would prefer to have all others do one’s bidding and it is that shadow self inclination, inherited in our DNA from natural selection – possibly with the exception of bonobos – that good parenting starts us on the road of to recognizing the rights of others. You know the shtick – my rights end at the tip of your nose and vice versa. To broadly paraphrase Twain, there’s an enormous difference between “right” and “inclination”.

As for gun control, I find myself in the middle. There is no justification for possession of semi-automatic and automatic guns. None. Mr. Loughner had 30 rounds in his clip, he emptied it (pretty good shot, too, it would seem) and was going for another. I sincerely doubt that the 9-year-old girl had committed herself to any particular party. Who knows, she might have been saved had Mr. Loughner – who clearly exhibited mental instability to too many people in his various spheres – been denied any gun, much less a Glock. On the other hand, I live in the Adirondacks, a seasonal tourist area which means that those not fortunate to be owners are paid too little for too few months to be able to make it through the winter without recourse to hunting. I am not a hunter. I can shoot a .22 and a pistol – pretty good shot, but I’m one of those hypocrites who loves her meat but eschews the dirty work. I’m not proud of it but there it is – I take responsibility for it. Would that the likes of Ms. Palin were willing – just for once – to take responsibility for her own failings, her own hypocrisy, her own self-deceptions. Just once.

With regard to the former police officer above who cited the fact that about 33% of police were drawn to the profession by a desire to control and abuse others, I agree even though I couldn’t have placed an estimate on the percentage. One need only look at the abuse cases when an officer reaches for a taser circumstances which indicate that more reasonable means of persuasion are available. Or that a taser is not the first step.

As for Ms. Palin, Rush Limbaugh, the loon Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, et. al., I cannot wait for their 15 minutes to be over. I wish them no harm, I just wish they’d go away. I find if fascinating that none possess any historical knowledge to speak of, and are universally indisposed to take any responsibility for what they say. Whether Mr. Loughner was motivated by any particular speaker we may never know. Maybe crazy is just its own particular party. But there is no mistaking the fact that since Obama’s inauguration, the political temperature has gone up geometrically – far more than I thought possible after the unmitigated disaster that George W. Bush committed this country to for the foreseeable future. And as a full-blooded, in the DNA liberal, I’ve about had it with the baseline established by Rush Limbaugh that “we shouldn’t kill all the liberals. We should keep two of them on every campus as living fossils to remind us of what they stood for.”

I’m not a great fan of Obama. I wish he had another 20 years on him so he’d take less crap. Or, he’s just another fine talker – I’m leaning towards this alternative. I voted for him with my eyes wide open, knowing that while he said he was against the Patriot Act and allowing the telecoms off scot-free in monitoring the entire U.S. citizenry, Obama voted for both anyway. The only person I can readily think of who has my respect is Russ Feingold and we see what Wisconsin thought of him this time.

As for Obamacare, don’t overlook that its DNA is completely Republican from the Heritage Foundation, Richard Nixon and Mitt Romney. No, I don’t favor it. I join with the thousands of physicians who want Medicare for all. If you want to call that “socialism”, fine. But before you do, Google the 110th Congress’s H.R. 676, which is basically Medicare for all and do that math. Reworking the entire ragged patchwork that we call health care in America, it would cost employers about 40% less than what they paid before Romneycare, it would cost employees about 50% less than what they paid before Romneycare, money was included for policing Medicare fraud (hello Florida Governor Rick Scott), and it would put Medicare on a stronger, more sustainable footing. Personally, I don’t call paying out $15K per year for private health insurance, then hasseling with the private health insurance bureaucracy to see if everything is covered, no more risk of banruptcy (which follows you for 10 years) because of medical problems, no town fund drives that fall woefully short so your kid can have that operation he/she so badly needs…nah, that ain’t socialism. It’s good, solid, pay-attention-to-the-bottom-line conservative – reworking everyone’s budget and leaving that much more money for other things…like allowing employers more room to hire some other warm body.

Steve:

I apologize for not remembering whether I’ve defended you before or not. My entries here are infrequent depending upon time requirements and whether I’m motivated by the subject.

As a lawyer, I must first tell you that the Oregon constitution is “inferior” to the U.S. Constitution and I don’t mean that in a pejorative sense, just as federal law that is intended to pre-empt the field of law is superior to state law. The founders intended a strong federal government while preserving state and individual rights as much as possible. As such, the Oregon constitution applies only to Oregon’s citizens.

I live in NY state. Were you here and in trouble, I would do my best to aid in your defense but be advised that NY state law does not allow the use of deadly force. Nor am I personally disposed to use deadly force. I would not use a gun or a knife. I would, however, yell, kick, punch, bite or ride the bugger’s back – and in my youth I was crazy enough to do that. But under the laws of most jurisdictions, including NY’s, I am not REQUIRED to come to your aid. And if I do, I am required to not make the situation worse. So that’s the legal aspect here.

I also have religious reasons for being unwilling to use a gun or deadly force. I know I need not remind you that the two freedom of religion clauses under the US Constitution’s First Amendment bar the state from acting against my religious freedom, with some exceptions that do not apply here. Taxation for not picking up a gun to defend your life would not be countenanced under the U.S. Constitution.

I thought my middle ground was rather generous. I am absolutely opposed to civilians possessing automatic and semi-automatic weapons. The only reason those weapons exist is to kill people. That I will not do. Frankly, had I my druthers, I’m with Mario in my heart of hearts. There were no metal detectors or police officers in my elementary or high schools. Nor were they in airports, courts or government offices. Guns were not everywhere. We have become an extremely fearful society over the last 50 years or so and it only gets worse. That fact is only exacerbated by all the talking heads. There’s only so much news each day and the 24 hour “news” channels have to fill the time with something, don’t they? While I would disagree with Mario about the authoritarian nature of the Chinese government, I recognize the creeping authoritarianism in our own and it stems from both parties.

Hunting here is no blood sport as you assert. For too many people in seasonal tourist towns, it is a necessity. And with 10% or more unemployment, I suspect that it is an abject necessity for more than you or I could contemplate.

I would also posit that we have not only become a very fearful society, we’ve become a festishistic one, including matters of taxation and guns. I view taxation as membership dues and if taxes help to keep people sufficiently fed, clothed and sheltered, I’ll pay my share. How anyone can swallow the shibboleth that we must find cuts in some programs to fund $4 billion for the 9/11 first responders but don’t cock an eyebrow at the $140 billion to extend the Bush tax breaks for the top 2% is utterly beyond me. And to think that the next target for the top 2% is the working poor’s and middle class’s paid-in social security…unfortunately, I have no faith that Obama will stiffen his spine against that. He’s already given up 2% of next year’s funding – plays right into the hands of Wall Street which is just drooling over all the fees they can skim off all that moolah for…oh, be still my beating heart, sooooo many years…..

Larry

Responding to your first sentence, I will not apologize for being a lawyer or for explaining the current law of NY state or the fact that the founders adjudged the Articles of Confederation to be insufficient for properly knitting together a nation or for explaining that while the Oregon constitution and statutes govern the citizens of Oregon subject to the “superior” federal laws that preempt the field or the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. As I would not apologize to a patient upon writing a script to address what ails a patient, or a mechanic diagnoses and addresses a car’s failures. Steve wrote his honest objections to my earlier arguments based on his understanding, I think, of the law that governs him and I explained how his understanding is incorrect as to another state’s laws which govern me. And I did assert a willingness, as well as some experience, in coming to the aid of another person.

Interestingly, you do not mention my moral and religious objections to civilian possession of assault weapons. Perhaps you don’t recognize that, as you have your opinions, your moral and religious code, so do I. Are our rights to hold such opinions unequal? I might add that recently in Massachusetts, a young boy attending a gun show run by a law enforcement officer shot himself in the head with an Uzi (sp?) and killed himself. Also recently, a promising young boy near where I live was playing with a neighbor boy whose father owned some guns. The gun went off and the first youngster was killed. So, my question is, where – if anywhere – do we draw the line? It’s okay to own (and load at a gun show) an Uzi? An AK47? Other assault weapons? Automatic and semi-automatic handguns? Is it okay with you that Mr. Loughner had over 30 rounds in his gun and shot and killed a 9 year old girl? What if his gun hadn’t been an automatic or semi-automatic? Would his first target have been that 9 year old? I’m not suggesting that she – or anyone – should have been his first target – and that’s where I object to Rep. Peter King’s proposed bill to somehow protect government officials more than anyone else. In the case of the local boy, is it enough that gun locks should be mandated or does that go too far for you? Clearly, as your side would seem to suggest, there is some inconvenience in having to load a gun if an intruder breaks in, but then again, NY denies the use of deadly force even for self defense. And do you see no difference between a shotgun that can hold no more than three shots and the 30-odd round Glock that Mr. Loughner used? Really? Or do you not see the difference between civilian and military use? Is there no distinction that you won’t blur to further your argument?

As it happens, I learned to shoot both a .22 and a pistol as a young child at my uncle’s home. I honed my riflery skills at summer camp. Somewhere along the line, I concluded that the consequence of injuring another, even innocently or accidentally or in my mind justificably, would eat me alive. Or do I not have that right? And do you or anyone have the right to injure me innocently, accidentally or, in your mind, justifiably? I often hear the argument that we need to arm everyone. Well, welcome to the gunfight at the OK Corral. Shoot first and let God sort the bodies out? Bullets ricocheting – doesn’t that occur to you and the possible consequences of that? I’ve heard that we should arm teachers. What about senior prank day when some kid, crazy or not, breaks into the teacher’s desk and gets that gun and who knows what happens? And going back to Tucson, are you really okay with the fact that had Mr. Loughner hadn’t had a gun that could spray out 30 plus rounds that 16 people wouldn’t have been injured and 6 dead? You may cite history all you care to but your arguments hold no water.

You argue that fear has overtaken the country, given rise, I suppose, in reaction to the 1960s’ upheaval. I submit that fear is part of human nature, reasons for fear have always existed, the upheavals of the 1960s are now no less than 41 years ago. I would further submit that fear is actively, hourly being stoked in this country. I submit that those who protested the Bush administration’s policies were peaceful, there were no guns in sight that I know of, and the protesters were routinely cordoned off blocks away from Bush’s appearances. In contrast, since Obama’s inauguration, right wing radio and Fox have repeatedly beaten the drum that Obama, or the liberals, were going to take everyone’s guns away. And still this goes on. The talkers on right wing radio and Fox are regularly targeting any person, any organization, democrats without distinction among moderates, blue dogs and liberals and using the language of incitement. This language started slowly. One of those who began it was Sen. Phil Gramm who said “we’ll hunt the Democrats like dogs”. Yes, there are three hours of MSNBC that schedule liberal talkers (Ed Shultz, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow) but I don’t hear the language of violence from any of them when I listen. Disagreement? Indeed. Ridicule? Often. Violence? I don’t regularly listen to Ed Shultz but I don’t hear the language of violence from the other two and I certainly don’t hear the level of hatred and incitement from them. And while I have heard the phony justification from some who call themselves conservative that the left wing radicals had the violence of the ’60s so the right wing radicals, because that’s what they are, are entitled to equal time. Oddly enough, the right won’t countenance equal time on the airwaves. They cite the disappearance of left wing radio and TV as the result of “market forces”. Corporate monopoly is not market forces at work. Some commenter above said that the first thing an occupying force takes away from the occupied is its guns. Nonsense. The first thing an occupying force takes away from the civilian population is command and control, i.e. mass communications. And claiming some right to equal time for violence or the language of violence or the in-you-face brandishing of guns at political events as “equal time” and therefore justified is nonsense, as well.

Regarding the case of Switzerland, not too many years ago some Swiss reservist took out his gun and shot and killed his family, if memory serves. What do the Swiss have to fear? He’s a reservist, therefore in that middle ground between civilian and military. As Switzerland is a sovereign nation (unlike Iraq? Or Pakistan? Or Yemen?), they have the right to enact and enforce their own laws as they see fit. Again, you confuse military and civilian.

Finally, the text of the Second Amendment reads as follows: “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.” This activist Supreme Court has excised the first two clauses of the amendment because of its results orientation. I’m not at all surprised. In Bush v. Gore it overturned well settled law against intervening in political questions in it overturned nearly a century in campaign finance law in Citizens United v. FEC because in its passion to achieve its partisan objectives it pursued a result-oriented opinion rather than one based on the plain language of the Constitution and decades or more of precedent – and those, Larry, ARE legal concepts. Or do you propose to do away with legality?

(DG: And this from Wilkipedia, in case you want to make the old familiar argument about ‘but guns prevent other violent crimes. Or I guess you could argue that wilkipedia is jsut another left wing controlled ‘blog’ of sorts, in which case, I surrender, you win) Robberies committed with guns are three times as likely to result in fatalities compared with robberies where other weapons were used,[47][48][49] with similar patterns in cases of family violence.[50] Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesizes that if guns were less available, criminals may likely commit the crime anyway but with less-lethal weapons.[51] He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not overall robbery rates.[52][53] A significant number of homicides result as a by-product of another violent crime which escalates, with the offender going into the crime without a clear or sustained intent to kill or be killed.[49][54] Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are also comparable to other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, notwithstanding the much lower levels of
gun ownership in those countries.[51][54]

Dennis, ignorance is bliss. When one takes a firearm one intends to use it.

Great points Dan.

Bravo DonnieMac!

“Notice how that little tidbit never gets much play?”

Yes. And that’s because the connection is more cherry-picking than anything else. What of Kaczynski, McVeigh, Koresh and the ATF, that guy who flew his plane into an IRS building, the DC Sniper, Stalin and Mao, the many serial killers in the nation’s history, not to mention the bloodiest sub-human in history, Genghis Khan?

@Mario,

Of my sizable extended family of some thirty people, only two ever took any kind of anti-depressant and ever needed to. An uncle was hit hard after the loss of my grandmother, many years before there were drug commercials. He lost too much sleep and nutritition to just recover naturally, and so he needed them to get back on track. Things can and do snowball. As for myself, I’ve been taking a small does of 20 mg paraxotene daily for nearly a year, to block seretonin re-uptake, to compensate for what my brain doesn’t produce enough of, due to chronic pain and heavy sleep disruption. That, too, was a snowball. For three irreplaceable years I didn’t, nor would I hear of taking any such medication. Just as with my uncle and nearly everyone else who first refuses them, people mostly tough it out until they can’t anymore.

As for commercials, that’s a more complex discussion than this topic allows. Suffice to say, they have their reasons for being, both good and bad, depending on what we’re talking about, and some ridiculousness cannot be used to paint a picture of the “typical American lifestyle”. As for the monsters which innocent drugs plant into peoples’ mind, gimme a break guys. Everyone has a breaking point. Including you. That you probably won’t ever find it changes nothing of your neuro-biological nature.

Hi Benjamin,

Indeed those medicines can be very helpful to the people whose cases properly identify and fit as intended. Over my 30 years I and I others I know have had my share of how life’s impacts can snowball as you say and in this regard, we can be grateful for good western medicine and western doctors.

Cheers, Mario

“Don’t be shy to call this domestic terrorism, because that’s what it is.”

And yet, they keep on repeating that he had no comprehensive motives. He was too crazy to have any, they keep saying.

I don’t doubt that he broke down into a babbling mental state. It’s just that it can’t be called terrorism because of a lack of a clear goal, allegiances, etc. Even the suicide bomber/jihadits of the world have that much. Even the IRA had that much. Even the KKK, back in the day when they were political terrorists, had that much.

An act of terrorism just doesn’t quite cut it. People blow gaskets, but even that doesn’t quite cut it, as he clearly had something against our chosen way of governance…

“If words have no meaning, then what is government?”

Come now, FranSix. How many of us here take the words of politicians and media as truth? He blew a gasket, but for what reasons. It’s not a question because it’s as obvious as a live piranha in your stomach.

Also, do not be surprised if we find out that he was in the CIA mind control program or on pharmaceuticals…it would not be the first time.

The ban on guns in the UK has caused an INCREASE in crime, not a reduction. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

The same thing happened in Chicago when guns were banned there.

The reason a weapons ban works in China is because of the justice system is swift and harsh and without due process.

There is a saying that says, “when guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns.”

If you could wave a “magic wand” making ALL guns disappear from the planet then I would be happy to relinquish my Second Ammendment Rights. But until the drug dealers, car jackers, home invaders, etc are rendered harmless, I’ll continue to protect my family. Besides, history (yeah that pesky little side note that most no longer study) teaches that the end of freedom within any civilization begins with the disarmament of her citizens. I know…I’m short-sighted and narrow-minded and a relic from the 1780’s.

Although from a personally pragmatic perspective, another “assault rifle ban” such as the one under Pres. Clinton would stand to appreciate the value of my collection faster than that of my gold bullion. There…I have now moved back into the twenty-first century. Wooo, that was close.

Amen, brother.

Cheers Mario. I see that you’re again supporting “authority”, trusting in it implicitly and have little concern how more emboldened the “bad guys” will be if they know that its open season on the sheeple.

How safe are you when your home is under assault and you’re dealing with a 911 operator? How quick is the response? Answer: Never quick enough.

It’s utterly amazing. Let’s eliminate mass produced guns. Does that eliminate firearms? Of course not, and that’s not to mention the illegal ones that will be smuggle in just like illegal drugs are now. Does it eliminate homemade bombs? If crazy folks or “sleepers”, that are used by TPTB to distract attention from the real crimes in the USSA, no longer have access to store bought firearms they’ll go black market, homemade or alternative (bombs). They’ll adapt if they’re intent on killing innocent people just like the middle easterners have done. If they can do it then crazy Americans can do it. You can research this or take it from me, where laws have been passed requiring gun ownership, home break-ins have dramatically decreased. The Swiss are typically cited as they should be. Why aren’t there more “insane” crimes occurring there? Or more murders? Is it possible that their culture isn’t as far down the sewer as the culture here in the USSA? That would be my guess. I also find it interesting that you have stated that you foresee societal unrest, potential violence, famine etc. and yet you’d strip innocent people of one of the few means that they have to protect their families, their homes, their possessions, and their means to provide sustenance should some sort of cataclysm require them to do so. I simply do not share your faith in the central planners, the elites and in the completely artificial reality that they are dialing up for us to continue uninterrupted in perpetuity.

Mario, thanks for responding. As many others have referenced, look at it statistically if you wish. Governments murdering their own citizens total in the hundreds of millions. “Authority” or “TPTB” instigating war has caused hundreds of millions of deaths. Truly tragic loss as the result of lawful yet sane firearm owners: NO COMPARISON. You want to add in crazies, sleepers and criminals, still no comparison. But we all know that they shouldn’t be counted because eliminating guns won’t eliminate crazies or sleepers and will only boost the numbers of criminals. Wishful thinking and feeling better won’t change the numbers either.

I would just want to skip over the politics of left vs right here – I am not an American, My mothers side came from there in 1902 however, I feel I can at least make comment. America has a problem, it is guns and a lot of people with very low tolerance for people getting in the way of their views – A crazy man, a gun, and an absence of community are at the root of this. All else is some one else’s agenda – Left or right – they are both in the pockets of people who vote with money ~ the angry disenfranchised will start voting with guns.

RA: the ‘left wing” politicians I assume you are referring to are silly clowns who like the ‘right wing” politicians are spineless pimps who have been bought by and sell for Wall Street. We can waste time arguing about whether or not they have been ‘called on the carpet’ for equal time in equal numbers. They try and stay in their jobs jumping out in front of, or at least keeping pace with, the 24 hour news cyle. It is all they have; the only strategy they know or care to adopt. (a few exceptions, as always). Fiddling while Rome burns, a theme you have admirably and in many cases convincingly articulated.

&&&&&&

Granted, Wall Street’s pimps are to be found on both sides of the political aisle, Dennis. But as long as the right-wingers are zealously committed to overturning Obamacare, and to blocking nominees like Sotomayor and Kagan, they deserve our support. RA