Ultimately, is he wrong? If there is something that Americans do far more frequently than other nations, in 30 of our 50 states since 1982,, how is it unfair to say this is part of our culture? Or do you merely object to the suggestion that we semi-frequently shoot groups of children, when in reality we merely shoot people semi-frequently, and just sometimes they're innocent children?
The following is a video featuring a representative of "Gun Owners of America" stating that we have the right to own guns "in order to control the government." He continues to dig himself into a hole that basically amounts to "If I don't agree with what the democratically elected politicians do, we should have the right to rise up with our guns and remove them from office." But no. No crazies here. None at all. Everyone just owns guns for hunting, and without ulterior motives of taking out the government or any government/authority figure at the first chance they get. As for the whole "D26 doesn't know about guns! Argument invalid!" bullshit being thrown around, again, this isn't about the guns, it is about the culture. America loves guns, explosions (how else do you explain Michael Bay's career), and violence. We glorify it. We honestly shouldn't be shocked anymore when someone takes a gun and starts shooting down people because he expects to become famous, because HE BECOMES FUCKING FAMOUS! I'm done arguing with the gun nuts. It is clear most of them are of the "from my cold dead hands" line of thinking, and it doesn't matter how many small children get gunned down. You're never, ever allowed to discuss taking away their right to carry bazookas and hand grenades to "defend themselves."
So here is a question for you: do you feel this way about the American Revolution, and if not, why not? Is it merely because one was in 1776, and one was in 2012? Because that one involved shooting non-American policemen/soldiers? Because one is a settled fact of history, and one is a future possibility? Because funny hats? Where does the fundamental difference lie? You know who loves explosions (and, for that matter, violence)? Everyone. Basically every culture, ever. That is not a differentiating quality between us and anyone else. A quick Wikipedia search informs me that Transformers made more money internationally than it did in US, and is the most popular film in the history of Malaysia (and most popular foreign film in a slew of others). And they barely even speak English, so they must REALLY like watching explosions. I'm pretty sure the only bazooka Lanza might have had was bubble gum.
You're never going to get anywhere with ridiculous statements like this. If you really cared about removing guns from people who would do harm to others, even if that means removing all guns from everyone, you would at least be smart enough to understand the issue. You refuse to try to understand, so any argument you make becomes completely asinine. When you use terms like "bazookas and hand grenades", which are both illegal for private citizens to possess, you sound like an idiot. Why would anyone consider your views?
Whenever these attrocities happen, the pro-gun side, including you guys on this board, quickly use the argument of Gun Culture. As in, guns are a HUGE part of your culture and history (true enough), and therefore you either can't change things or don't want to (why the fuck?!). You've (guys on this board) made it ABUNDANTLY clear that not only do you want a gun for home protection (which I don't disagree with in the slightest, by the way), you want the right/access to EVERY single gun that human beings can conceivably make, despite the fact that many of them were designed ONLY for killing many people, very quickly, which outside of U.S. classrooms, is otherwise known as war. Again, fair enough, but don't pretend like you don't know that demanding the right to carry these ever-more-efficient killing machines means that it's only a matter of time before those who aren't as stable as you get a hold of one, resulting in the pesky downside of killing innocent people on a regular basis. Need it put more simply? Your Gun Boners are shooting indiscriminately and taking out school children. So yes, IWantSomeJuice, if you want guns to continue being such a huge part of your culture, then people getting shot by those guns is part of your culture too. It's simple math. All I'm saying is have the honesty to admit it. (I will reiterate that I think gun control is exactly half the problem, the other being mental health care, but the fact you guys only recognize the latter, and argue religiously against the former, is one of the reasons you'll have this problem forever).
I'm sorry, but this is akin to using the Westboro Baptist Church as a way of showing that Christians can sometimes be a little out there. Do we have people in this country who are arming themselves for a Mayan Apocalypse-Government Takeover-Zombie extravanganza? Yeah, absolutely. Should we use the people stricken with that level of fear and paranoia as a benchmark for the entire gun-owning population of America. No, we shouldn't. I know plenty of people who own guns. I'm one of them. Not one of them would say that the reason they own guns is to rise up against the government. Just like I know a bunch of good Christian people who don't believe that God hates fags and that's why 20 first graders are dead. Using extreme examples to make your point only weakens your argument.
So tell us, which guns do you think are okay for home protection and which ones that are currently legal should not be legal anymore? Seriously, give some examples.
Here's a question to ponder: These spree killings started to manifest themselves with more frequency in the 1980's and have accelerated. Guns have always been legal. Why has the phenomenon become so prevalent only in recent times? On a separate note; we have a Government up in arms with the recent shootings and looking for a way to curb the violence. Yet, we have guys sitting in simulated cockpits in New Mexico and other locations across the U.S. staring a fuzzy green images coming back from drones and blowing shit up to include innocent civilians and children 8,000 miles away. People, who in many cases, are guilty of nothing more than being in the same village as someone suspected of having a bushy beard and a turban on. These people die and we have terms for it: "Acceptable Losses", "Collateral Damage", "Vegatation (new to me. Apparently you have to mow the grass every so often or it will grow back)". Why? Take that in conjunction with the fact that our own government has been floating weapons across the southern border to narco-terrorists, which have been shown to have been used in the murder of border agents does nothing to help my inherent suspicion and distrust of my Government. Yet somehow, I should believe they have the answers and will do what is best for us?
Mowing the lawn is a phrase that comes from the Israeli Defense Forces in describing going after Palestinians on a not infrequent basis. I found it ironic that Pakistani children in the tribal areas made monuments to the Newtown victims. Would love to see something like that happen here.
Not that I'd ever support armed rebellion, as it is strictly prohibited in the constitution, but it is sad to think in todays world where today, right now, governments are still slaughtering their citizens openly (Syria, Eygpt, Libya are just the most current), people don't think the citizens should have any check on a government's military power. Immediately labeling anyone who makes this point a delusional Randy Weaver light (look it up) is counter productive to the discussion. The 2nd Amendment has historic roots in English common law with regards to self defense and checking a tyrant government. I only bolded that one statement for the fact that I hear this argument all the time. Now not to disparage our people in uniform, but we are basically leaving a ten year war in Afghanistan as a draw. With all our military might and modern weapons included we couldn't win an occupation against a wholly under equipped foe. You really think our armed populace couldn't handle it? I know this is a really out there theoretical discussion but please try and respond without wild assumptions and emotional labelings. Now I'm going to lay down some hard truths which in the light of the recent massacre will seem crass. These events, as horrendous as they are, are extreme fucking outliers. The likely hood of anyone, innocent children, old ass men, coffee shop baristas, falling victim to a random mass shooting like this is less than being hit by lightning. Now what I am leading to is that most of the laws proposed in the wake of these tragedies are usually thought through with any sort of clarity as that of swinging blindly as a piñata. I know the opposing side hates the car analogy so lets just take drunk driving deaths which roughly equal gun homicides each year according to the CDC figures Ive seen. In the face of the same amount of preventable deaths you do not hear hash and strict restrictions, zero tolerance, determining what and how many products of alcohol you can buy, breathalyzers in every drinkers car, etc? Are we just an alcohol culture? Is this the price we have to pay for the freedom to drink? The point I am really trying to get at with this analogy is that it is ridiculous to put bans or heavy restrictions on items that are, one part of our rights as US citizens. Two, over reaching and unproductive to stop this extremely rare events. (IE restricting assault rifles for everyone because a handful of bad apples). I don't think the bans Diane Feinstein wants to implement would reduce the occurrence in any way. They just aren't sensible for the problem at hand. I am all for trying to figure out how to keep guns out of deranged peoples hands but the suggestions and inane emotional arguments seen so far (other than VanillaGorilla) haven't come close to anything rational. See my post about D26's comments on this emotional claptrap.
Let's brush aside what you don't know about guns for a minute and get to the core of this- What is your interpretation of the second amendment? The text is below and there are no alterations (Spoiler alert!- it mentions militias) I guess for anyone involved in this discussion, how do you interpret this?
I agree 100% with what you say. The only thing I would differentiate is that many of those in uniform that I know have stated unequivocally that they would not take up arms against their own countrymen.
I assume I probably interpret it largely the same way you do, as I think the militia argument holds little to no water besides ideological convenience: within certain restrictions, similar to those placed upon other seemingly-absolute constitutional rights (Sure, I have the right to peaceably assemble, but not in your living room or while naked), one may own guns. However, until you nail down what the reasonable restrictions would be, this is merely shifting the goalposts. This is a peculiarity of America politics: why is it universally assumed that in forming my views on gun rights, I should give two rats' asses about what the second amendment said? Sure, it's law of the land and has been for some time, but so have a lot of things. Some good, and some bad. Why does merely being in the Constitution give something special moral status to so many Americans? In my general experience, we seem to be the only nation that acts this way about our founding/legally-most-binding documents. I swear, the American populace would have sex with the Constitution itself were it not for the likelihood of paper cuts.
Starts with the reasoning, but the important text is the end bit where it says "right of the people." Not right of the militia, right of the people. "The people" has a pretty obvious definition and context in the Constitution. Of course, my opinion doesn't really matter compared to the people who do this for a living: <a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_o ... _v._Heller</a> <a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago</a>
Well I'm no gun expert like all y'all, but...hmm, how long did it take that faggot in Newtown to kill 26 people and put multiple shots in each? Something like 10 minutes to fire 150 shots (that's only counting the bullets that hit victims, by the way, not the bullets that missed, or the ones used to break down the door...). So uh, maybe -- just maybe -- guns with that capacity shouldn't be legal outside of war? I know that's akin to blasphemy to you guys, but I wonder if you'd have the audacity to tell a victim's parent that you have no problem at all with guns like that being legal for anyone (sane or not). And if you honestly think you'll someday need something like that for home protection, I'm pretty sure you have bigger problems. This is getting more sad than boring, but you were reasonable enough, so I'll play along: You basically made my point for me. Obviously we all think people living under tyrannical governments should have the right to rise up (though it's been shown that violence is not always needed), but please refresh me: exactly how many tyrannical U.S. goverments have been overthrown in your history? You go off about how rare these mass shootings are (which sort of implies that a low number is acceptable), but how rare are they compared to U.S. Dictatorships? Which one of these things do you think is more likely to happen again? *cough*cough* Ugh, the fucking car analogy. So what are you saying, exactly? That guns have roughly the same kill rate as drunk drivers, and since not a lot is being done to stop drunk drivers, you shouldn't do something to stop gun deaths? That's seriously one of your stronger arguments?