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?
"The Obama Administration has demanded that a federal judge throw out a lawsuit relating to the assassination of three US citizens in Obama-ordered drone strikes, saying that questions about overseas kill lists are beyond the purview of the court system and that it is inappropriate to question the president in this regard." A Kill List? YES! The State has an official KILL LIST. "The demand comes with a threat to declare the entire issue of the killings a “state secret” if the judge doesn’t dismiss the lawsuit out of hand, which would make the case as a practical matter virtually impossible." A SECRET KILL LIST - "The Justice Department’s motion went on to say that the court system had no say over the question of whether assassinating American citizens overseas was proportionate or justified, and that questions of “due process” in the summary executions were not something courts could constitutionally consider. The motion also insisted that there was no standing to question the assassination of Anwar Awlaki or his son, Abdulrahman Awlaki, because the later was the heir of the former and was killed before he was able to file a lawsuit as executor of the estate." Continued...
http://news.antiwar.com/2012/12/16/us-demands-judge-dismiss-lawsuits-against-assassination-of-citizens/ The younger Awlaki was never even suspected of a crime, but was assassinated shortly after his father." Killing for Sport - It's an American Activity?
11:45 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012 Young Conservative...You can wave your AR 15's, all 4 of them, at the planes as your friendly government carpet bombs you back to the stone age. I think you better get back to your Sgt. Rock comics and G. I. Joe dolls. P.S. I too thank Patch for providing a forum.
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/
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.....
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?