.

To Hell with the 2nd Amendment

Speaking out against the defense of killing machines in light of a horrible tragedy that stole 26 lives, many of them children.

Eighteen children slaughtered. Two 9mm handguns ... guns designed for one purpose only ... to kill people and to kill them expeditiously. Legally purchased weapons. Twenty seven people killed in all. 

The gun culture in this country, the paradigm that proposes violence is a solution to anything, the proliferation and sophistication of weapons and the general widespread lack of empathy are all to blame. Reactionaries who believe that this is the same country it was in 1791, that any law or ammendment crafted hundreds of years ago necessarily is efficacious today and must be defended, even against the slaughter of children ... I am tired of these lame, and abstract arguments. The dead in Conneticut cry out for sanity in the way adults — adults — regulate the sale of machines made to kill humans. The children who bled to death in a spree of shooting from weapons designed by Glock, etc., their voices demand to know why these weapons were made, why they were distributed with such complete abandon, why regulations do not protect children from the things adults seem to believe are necessary. 

I don't care about those who hold that we need to be able to defend ourselves from a potentially repressive government. You will not be able to defend yourself from the most powerful military on the face of the earth with a bunch of disorganized private gun owners, most of them seriously untrained in modern combat should the government ever go repressive. 

I don't care about the people who think they should be able to conceal and carry without any serious training in what are essentially combat situations ... they don't know what they would do, they fantasize about being heroes ... firefights are not scripted Hollywood movies. 

I am sick of people who want to defend thier rights to buy weapons designed to kill people so that they can entertain themselves on firing ranges ... when school children in this country now, most certainly, have to wonder if they may be next ... may be the targets of sophisticated weapons that destroyed these children.

The Ammendment and/or the gun laws in this country must be changed. Glock should be ashamed ... ashamed that their weapons were used to kill these children as should the other gun manufacturers. The reactionaries will sing the mantra ...

Guns don't kill people ... people kill people. 

I say guns don't create peace or security. People do. 

My question is: what do you want to do? What will you do? 

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Richard Head December 18, 2012 at 05:58 PM
The more one searches the internet - the more disturbing the trends are. Presidential Kill Lists. Murdering innocents. Defending the murder of innocents via State Secrets. Now, this: " NYU student Josh Begley is tweeting every reported U.S. drone strike since 2002, and the feed highlights a disturbing tactic employed by the U.S. that is widely considered a war crime. Known as the “double tap,” the tactic involves bombing a target multiple times in relatively quick succession, meaning that the second strike often hits first responders." http://libertycrier.com/politics/foreign-policy/the-nyu-student-tweeting-every-reported-us-drone-strike-has-revealed-a-disturbing-trend/
Richard Head December 18, 2012 at 06:01 PM
The mentally ill are in charge.
Terry December 18, 2012 at 11:53 PM
OK, the debate is getting a bit silly, and a little off track. I am not one of the gun supporters that believe that the "to hold off government repression" is an exactly relevant point. Unless and until things change drastically, its no more likely a scenario than repelling a alien invasion. That being said, the counter isn't necessarily accurate either. "The idea of un-concerted civilians holding off a Super Power, is silly". Maybe, or maybe not. Despite all our superior technology and trained fighters, we still have not completely put down the Taliban or crushed Al Queda. Considering that our country has no stomach for prolonged or bloody engagements, you may be a bit premature in writing off the effect that an armed uprising of civilians could have. I seem to remember an old quote once from a stand up routine. "The reason we don't need to fear being invaded, is that there is not an army alive that has a counter to four armed southern rednecks in a 73 Impala". Anyway, back to the bickering.
Brian Carlson December 19, 2012 at 12:09 AM
Terry... No doubt bubba and his bros could wreak some havoc for awhile but the Taliban and Al Queda are being pursued in a country foreign to our fighters, they speak a language few in our forces or intelligence did, their culture is different, we had no friends there and probably haven't won many, and the climate was something many weren't used to. Not so in the USA.... Many many differences. That being said... The scenario is possible but not probable soon I think.
Brian Carlson December 19, 2012 at 12:11 AM
I think the thread is about long enough here. Nice conversing...I appreciate the input.
The Anti-Alinsky December 19, 2012 at 03:04 AM
Banning guns would not solve the problem. Another example: SilkAir Flight 185 http://aviationknowledge.wikidot.com/asi:silkair-flight-185:pilot-suicide If someone is so miserable with their life that they have to kill themselves, as well as others, they will find a way!
Brian Carlson December 20, 2012 at 02:02 AM
AA...no one mentioned banning guns as a solution to the problem. The argument that we cant improve situations because we can never entirely prevent them is ridiculous. It is not a perfect world. Many of us are interested in making it a better world, non the less.
CowDung December 20, 2012 at 03:16 AM
Brian: Bren has mentioned the assault rifle ban, and the theme of Jason's article seems to involve banning semi-automatic weapons. Or are you splitting hairs here and suggesting that the bans aren't intended to be a solution to the problem?
Kevin G Cook December 20, 2012 at 03:39 AM
UP outstanding point, he just will never get it! Because this is how he feels, doesn't matter what other groups are against. As for the most powerful Military in the world, whats your frame of reference? why havn't we defeated our enemies in Afganistan? What happened in Viet Nam. I served my country I've seen combat, personally don't like guns, but it is a right and how do you suggest we go about collecting over 100 million weapons in this country? You would have many human right violation giving the government authority to round them up, silly you!!!!
Brian Carlson December 20, 2012 at 03:46 AM
When he says banning guns, it sounds like a total ban. That inflames the simple folk who are seriously afraid that that is exactly what the government is trying to do. We already ban fully automatic weapons...so we already have a ban...or a limitation on type of weapons available...isnt it true? WE had an assault weapon ban that was law for a time...yes? But when you say someone wants to ban guns...if not qualified...it sounds like a total ban. I had to keep clarifying this for every skimming reader that is freaking out about this proposal to revise the Amendment or tighten restrictions...etc.
Brian Carlson December 20, 2012 at 03:48 AM
On top of that...the really irrational stance that because someone can always get around a law, laws do nothing...and are therefore meaningless.... is worn out and weak. We have all sorts of laws, the balance of people do abide by them...some people break them...they become criminals. Without laws you have no civilization, its a free for all, and we have anarchy.
The Anti-Alinsky December 21, 2012 at 07:23 PM
Brian, don't pull that crap on me. Your ultimate goal is to ban private ownership of firearms! You know you have that pesky little 2nd amendment to deal with, so you will whittle away that right a little at a time, until you get what you want. The same way that B.O.Care is not the end of Liberal healthcare reform. We all know that the ultimate goal is a single payer system. But you will take it a little at a time, so you and your ilk will take crisis after crisis to advance your agenda one step at a time until you get what you want.
Brian Carlson December 21, 2012 at 07:46 PM
AA, My ultimate goal is to RULE THE EARTH.... but dont tell anyone...I am working 24/7 with my Ilk in a dimly lit underground cavern we have hollowed out of archetypes of fear. I feed my Ilk returned weapons from buy back programs in Australia and he turns them into inanimate lumps of metal. Seriously AA...I dont like violence at all...any kind really. I believe that self defense is sometimes necessary and also that there are many ways to defend oneself....I dont like wars, any of them... I dont like the amount and love for violence on TV, news or series, I dont like the propagation of numbness, nor the effort to feed our thirst for violence vicariously. I dont like to see people living in fear. If you want to crawl around playing sniper with the deer population... have fun. I dont think you need an ASSAULT weapon to do so. You sure dont need one to defend yourself from someone entering your home. I think the statements I made are logical extensions of several stock propositions posed by your ilk... They seem ridiculous because the arguments that engendered them are ridiculous or, at best, very weakly worded. Simple slogans...appeal to simple minds...its true...and I am not speaking to you saying so... The buzz phrases for political candidates or the buzz phrases for political movements, the slogans, attempts at maxims, etc... are memorable. I just questioned each proposition. And I dont see my assertions refuted nor the propositions defended.
Brian Dey December 21, 2012 at 10:14 PM
I have a problem with someone who knows nothing of firearms proclaiming they have the answers to gun violence. First off, you do know that the Bushmaster AR-15 is not an assault weapon or an assault gun, and there is a difference. The Rifle used in the Newton Massacre is a .223 Long Rifle. It is no dfferent than any other hunting rifle, of which most are semi-automatic. So yes, I have a problem with you wanting to ban semi-autos because you have no clue what you are talking about. The .223 round is the second smallest caliber of the rifle family. It is slightly bigger than a .22 and it's use in hunting is solely because .22's cannot legally be used for der huntig because a single shot does not have the power to take down a deer or larger mammal with a single round. It is not high-powered and is not intended for close quarters. It is mainly used because of its accuracy, inexpense, and ability to travel longer ranges than larger calibers. Most people go to target ranges to shoot better. The better we are a targeting, the less the animal in which we hunt is slaughtered. Although, in the name of peace, I guess it is much better to feed an animal and slaughter it. Think of that mister peacekeeper the next time you enjoy your steak or burger. I can only speak for myself, but I hunt for food. I eat everyting I shoot. You would just rather have someone else do the dirty work for you. cont...
Brian Dey December 21, 2012 at 10:16 PM
cont... If you read Part II of my blog, you will see why we don't like your slippery slope. I have offered up common sense solutions. Try reading them and then get back to me for a common sense discussion.
Dave Koven December 23, 2012 at 10:42 PM
The way we use language is a crime in the debates of our times. I love the term "double tap". "Tap, tap" sounds like a dance routine or a typewriter. It doesn't bring to mind any of the horrible damage done to a head or body by those two "taps" It sounds like a tap on the shoulder, but it describes a way to kill with a gun. It sounds so benign, like the word "casualty" in a battle. He's not dead, he was a "casualty", like someone relaxing on casual Friday at work. "Right to Work" laws...another misnomer. "Right to work...for less" would be more accurate. "Felons" are the new word for "crooks", who are never in jail, but "incarcerated". That sounds almost dignified. Criminals are often "master minds" involved in "daring" daylight raids. Crooks sound down-right heroic. It's no wonder kids want to emulate their behavior.
Brian Carlson December 23, 2012 at 11:37 PM
Brian D... When you start off replies by stating I know nothing about firearms or whatever you lose your audience immediately. It's just rude. Why should I read your blog then or even your reply? Am I obligated to? Because I don't know the difference in the specs does not mean I know nothing... I do know that a semi automatic weapon killed twenty six people in fairly short order. But I also believe that people do not need assault weapons to hunt, nor magazines with ten round or more capacity to stop intruders in their homes, let alone drum mags like the Colorado theater shooter. that is a belief.... An opinion. This is my blog and that is my opinion. There aren't TRUTHS to this. WE have to think through what makes for the best situation for society as a whole and try to set that into law and then hold people responsible to those laws. When they aren't working we need to determine if laws need revising as part of the fix. You think not. I think they do.....as PART of the fix...I say again and again. We have a specialized society and have for quite some time. I don't eat slot of meat but you are right... I don't hunt the chickens I eat... Few people kill the chickens they eat. I sometime fish, but I do rely on commercial fishermen who re much better at it than I seem to be. People with other specialties send their children to college and if they're in the major field I specialize in teaching, they let me do this dirty work for them.... I have no problem with that.
Brian Carlson December 23, 2012 at 11:52 PM
Completely agree Dave, We have "perps"instead of abusers, murderers or psychotic killers and, on an international level we have "preemptive strikes" instead of undeclared war, we create "collateral damage" instead of murdering innocent civilians and we shoot for "regime change" by trying to assassinate leaders of sovereign nations or by supporting coup d'états. Anyone we don't like is deemed a "terrorist" and we may thus extrajudicially hold him or her indefinitely without habeus corpus or kill him at will. Torture is called "enhanced interrogation technique" when we employ it but is called torture when others do the same... Even the same techniques. War itself is terror and is intended to be. Warfare is meant to be terrifying as well as physically destructive and yet we name our most recent war a War against Terror.... Even better, a Global War on Terror....a phrase which probably is the ultimate oxymoron ever concocted by humans.
Brian Dey December 24, 2012 at 12:27 AM
BC and Dave- We have also killed 50 million unborn babies in the name of women's rights since 1973. We hve a President with a "kill" list and has murdered 168 children with drone strikes. Please just don't place blame of our ills on gun owners, gun manufactures and political enemies. Be real and just say that as a society, we have placed a low value on human lives. If anything, these muders in Newton should be a reminder of that, or a wake up call.
Brian Dey December 24, 2012 at 12:36 AM
BC- Yes, knowing the specs is imperative if you are going to ban things. Don't feel bad, media in general has not done the research. Just because a gun looks like a military gun doesn't mean that it acts like one. That is important because your proposal to ban semi automatic guns (those which fire one shot per pull of the trigger) have had a long history in the world of hunting and are practical and humane tools for the task of killing ones food. It is important because when someone portrays something as fact, they better be able to back it up. Symbolic gestures such as selectve and token bans will do nothing to reach your cause. It has been proven over and over and just because you don't want to listen doesn't make it so. In every case; EVERY CASE; prohibition has not had the desired effect. Mexico bans all civilian weapons. Tell that to the thousands slaughtered by the drug cartels, some of which this administration armed. In hasn't worked in England, Russia, Australia and the last one in the U.S. didn't work either. I have postd those facts elsewhere with sources that are as unbiased as I could find. More of these mass shootings have taken place with shotguns and handguns then the weapons you choose to ban. Only tree in modern history have been carried out using "assault weapons". So in essence, you accomplish nothing. I don't cre wha you read, but I am here to on your blog to set the record straight.
Brian Dey December 24, 2012 at 12:46 AM
BC- As this is no ordinary legislation and the proposal that is coming from Fenstein and most likely Biden will attempt to alter the Constitution, the must follow the rules to amend. The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment: •Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used) •Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used) •Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once) •Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times) It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 US 378 [1798]): If you can do that, and 75% of the legislators agree and 2/3rds of the House an Senate, then try it. Our side will be prepared to immediately file lawsuits if this process is not carried out in full, and we will win.
Conspiracy T December 24, 2012 at 01:34 AM
The way I see it is guns don't kill anymore people than liberals and lefties do. They voted for Obama, he has been using drones to kill and assassinate people from afar for his entire presidency. He has kept Gitmo open and he has not taken us out of Afghanistan as he said he would. How many lives has he cost in total? Besides the Azana shooter was a Democrat, makes you wonder if there is a grand conspiracy. Like terrorists use the mentally ill, and mentally challenged for suicide bombers, is the left using them to be mass shooters to further their agenda? Just saying.....
Brian Carlson December 24, 2012 at 03:53 AM
Did you feel the same about W? I am opposed to Obamas undeclared wars employing drones to get around the need to declare war....no boots on ground. But I think W and his dads buddies started this war in Iraq awhile back. What was your conspiracy theory regarding the neo-cons, Wolfram, Cheney and the like?
Brian Carlson December 24, 2012 at 03:55 AM
Brian Dey....please show me where I place the blame of all our ills on gun owners. It's as if when you guys here a different opinion, you go right to black on it. See next blog about black and white thinking.
Brian Dey December 24, 2012 at 04:03 AM
I believe you wanted to ban all semi autos. Isn't that black or white? And why do you call me a neo-con? AGAIN black or white?
Brian Carlson June 22, 2013 at 12:31 PM
Americans have had guns for over 200 years. The school shooting and other similar shootings are something new. The guns are not the problem. There is a new world with people who have no sense of right and wrong.
Brian Carlson June 22, 2013 at 12:38 PM
Note: The above comment was by Brian Carlson from Ludington, not to be confused to be the Brian Carlson from Muskegon.
Keith Schmitz June 22, 2013 at 02:46 PM
"Americans have had guns for over 200 years. The school shooting and other similar shootings are something new. The guns are not the problem. There is a new world with people who have no sense of right and wrong." Your statement is indicative of someone who has a laughable lack of understanding of history. I can understand Brian of Muskegon why you wanted to distance yourself from this guy, though he is pretty indicative of the simple-mindedness of the gin lovers.
Luke June 22, 2013 at 05:59 PM
" I can understand Brian of Muskegon why you wanted to distance yourself from this guy, though he is pretty indicative of the simple-mindedness of the gin lovers." Keith, you are the gin lover. You apparently are already under its influence.
Steve ® June 23, 2013 at 03:57 AM
Gun free zones work. Just as the injins at potawatomi.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something