‘You’d think if a Congresswoman got shot in the head,’ that would change Congress’ views on guns

The British Govt. also keeps guns out of the hands of the citizens...are you comparing them to Nazi's as well?

Naa... But it should be noted that the British government had allot of influence over Orwell's writings...

Just one thing. Firearm ownership is a right. Driving is a privilege. The two are different. Voted you up.

Well said.

Americans really need to hear this message!
There's a bloody riot brewing here.
Thanks for helping defuse this situation.

Some years ago a student at John's Hopkins in Baltimore engaged a home invader with a katana. The bad guy lost an arm and expired due to most of his blood leaving his body. I'm a fan of a wakizashi myself.

Has it not worked in London?

No, it really hasn't. Violent crime went up, and now it's just with knives.

I'll take knives over guns any day. If we weren't such sissies we'd use our fists to settle fights.

Welcome to current. Though we fight on. We've gained a few people over time, so I feel it's a bit worth it.

Thanks.

Yes, Giffords supports gun right as do most Americans. But we are talking weapons capable of punching a baseball-sized hole in 2.5 inches of bulletproof glass in the hands of citizens without background checks! I'm sure Giffords, as well as most sane Americans, are against that.

What gun can do that? Is there even a specific weapon? Baseball sized hole? We're talking a cannon here. Seems highly sensationalized and without reference to the specific firearm AND tests I feel like Bloomberg, and many others here, are swinging the bat at something that doesn't exist.

I'm just quoting the article.
Regardless, the issue here is big guns in the hands of small people without background checks.
No hunter requires an Uzi.
Automatic weapons only belong in the hands of the military and the police in a civil society. Unless we are expecting a violent coup there is absolutely no reason machine guns should be in the hands of dumb fucks.

The article is full of bull with no source... But beside that:

We should be allowed equal access to all firearms... And indeed we are, with the right paper work and amount of money. Using them responsibly is up to the owner/user and we have laws to combat fraudulent use... But that's how our society works... It's not preventative...

Automatic weapons are available... And very very fun. Though as we've seen, when everyone is disarmed, semi-automatic does plenty of damage. Rate of fire is a non-issue imho, and in all honesty, it's easy enough to modify cheap weapons, or just bump fire if you're that desperate.

Though I agree with you, hunting does not require an uzi... But the hunter may have other pass-times.

The main issue is creating a society that feels safe, and to prevent a society that drives people to the edge. This is not victim blaming, this is just being able to realize the roots of hatred in our country and abroad, and addressing those social issues first. There will be blood whether we have guns or no guns, and guns cannot and will not disappear overnight... of any caliber or fire rate...

Hey, if automatic weapons are very very fun then that's what a gun club is for, like in England.
Equal access to all firearms??? Tell that to Charles Manson.
I have absolutely no problem with a pistol for self defense or a rifle for hunting. But there is no justification for Joe Sixpack to sport a semiautomatic in public without a special license.

But we're talking weapons capable of punching a baseball-sized hole in 2.5 inches of bulletproof glass in the hands of citizens without background checks. These types of weapons should clearly not be in the hands of Joe Blow.

I had guns as a kid. I shot little animals and birds dead! Why? Because everyone else did it. If I still lived on a farm I could get a special permit so I could shoot introduced feral pests or I could join a gun club and get a permit.

I evaluated why I shot things dead when I was young and decided that the environment and the animals that lived in it would be much better off without me blowing holes in their heads. Hunting for food because you need to is one thing, controlling invasive species that destroy crops and native flora and fauna habitat has merit, but glory hunting so you can get a buzz or mount some creatures head on the wall has no practical value these days.

Guns can be a useful tool, but far too often they are used by useless tools. The less access these useless tools have to guns, the better off we all are. Guns shouldn't be tarnished by wannabe gangsters shooting each other dead, but kids shouldn't be out shooting everything that moves either, it's the wrong attitude.

I honestly think they "shouldn't" be in the hands of anyone, but since Pandora's box is already opened....

I agree with you, in fact I have a teenager that I find myself responsible for allot of the time.... I try to instil in him that even his bb-gun he can't live without, isn't a toy. "If you shot it you're eating it, don't make me make you pluck a sparrow..." Me shooting a gun has been almost exclusively for food or (non-living) target practice.

I don't think every dumb "gangster" should have a gun, but if you're living in an area full of dumb "gangsters"....

There already out there, the criminals will have them regardless, and certain steps should be taken to prevent further proliferation of idiots with guns, I agree... But most of the laws don't effect the criminal, they aren't obeying the laws to begin with.

I agree. The collapse of the Soviet Union was practically bloodless. So was the end of apartheid.
People are sick of endless violence and brutality. I have faith in the 99%.

Right you are.

I was thinking about your comment and it occurred to me that a large percentage of the 99% own guns.

False characterization, and only serves to keep stereotypical divide in people who aren't all that different.....

Apparently no one has values or principles... I doubt they'd be lining up to sign rights over just because one of them got targeted.... Oh and they are targeted, scrutinized, and under the watchful eye of big-brother at the very least, more than just about any other segment of the population...

Lots of people get shot, but conservatives and anyone that values the 2nd amendment will not change their opinion, regardless of who gets shot. You obviously have no reasoning to back up your claim or any idea of what the problem is. It's not the guns... Its the goddamn people. Criminals will always have access to guns because they DO NOT OBEY the law. Stricter gun control will do nothing to stop the black market. Banning shit doesn't work, look at the drug war.

Not one thing false about it. And yes people have values and principles. Their called Liberals.

I have nothing but reasoning to back it up. In 2004 there were 5 gun deaths in New Zealand, 37 in Sweden, 56 in Australia, 73 in England, 184 in Canada and 11,344 in the United States. The Virginia Tech killer was from south Korea. They don't get as many gun killings in a year, as he committed in one day with your gun laws. You get 32 gun killings a day in the United States. England, a country with gun control laws, does not get that many in a 6 months. If you would like to figure it out per capita, just multiply Canada's killings by 10 and you still only get 1,840. Now, either your gun laws are killing people, or Americans are astoundingly murderous monsters. You just hold on to that second amendment right to fill each other full of holes.

Gun laws don't kill people... Nor do guns. Americans ARE monstrous murderers... Have you seen our foreign policy?

Your statistics are all over the place, where are you getting these, and what laws are you talking about? Hand gun laws, rifle laws, regulatory laws, bans? Disarming good citizens will only increase violent crime and leave many feeling helpless.

You present a false choice in the end. It's not as simple as either/or and the fact that you think it's that simple gives us insight into why you're so wrong here.

How many good citizens used a gun in self defense? Between 1987 and 1989 a study by David McDowall showed that out of every 1,000 gun incidences in the United States, 2 were in self defense. What do you mean my statistics are all over the place. Do you think deaths are not one of the most reliable, accurately recorded and easy to find statistics in existence. Do a little research on your own. In 2009, 300 million firearms were in the hands of Americans. 100 million of those were handguns. That data comes directly from firearms manufacturers. In 2008, 16,272 murders were committed with firearms. It looks like gun violence in the U.S. is on the rise. One out of every ten violent crimes in 2008 was committed by someone carrying a gun. A 1997 survey of prisoners showed that 30 - 35% of state and federal offenders were carrying a firearm when they committed their crimes. Do you think the correlation between gun control laws and the low crime rate in countries that have them are to be ignored? Do you think the correlation between the high crime rate and the lack if gun control laws in the United States is to be ignored? Or is it just a case of the second amendment being misinterpreted. "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". What they were obviously talking about was the need for a militia because the United States did not have a sufficient standing army. The third word in the text calls for regulation. So regulate.

You're just plain wrong is all, and you're making the statistical claim, not me... So at least provide a link.

I'll just do what you do, seeing as that's warranted now, but I'll actually provide a link if you're not satisfied...

Gun control is at its highest level in major cities, and has no affect on crime rate... So I don't know what you're talking about. I wouldn't say violence is on the rise so much as desperation, lack of jobs, and population... Of course there will be more deaths in a larger society.

There is no sweeping correlation that you speak of... And again, your statistics are unsubstantiated... and ultimately meaningless. Gun control laws /= lower crime rate... less gun control /= high crime rate. This is a false correlation and there are many many other factors involved, specifically the economy/unemployment/law enforcement. There's also many studies proving you wrong.

The third word does not call for regulation on guns, it means the people must organize to maintain a free state by keeping and bearing arms without infringement. So organize, but do not limit. Background checks fine... Banning, or extreme legislation like micro-labels and shit that drive the cost of ammo through the roof... are bullllllshit. Every citizen should have access to firearms until PROVEN unfit.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms
Here are the most recent statistics. And what about the fact that the second amendment was addressing the need for a militia, and the right to bear arms was a consequence of that need?

Well said!

http://www.justfacts.com/index.asp?page=home
When you get to this site click on gun control facts. It actually states that 1 out of every 240 Americans will be murdered.

The whole point of the second amendment was addressing the need for a militia. The right to bear arms was nothing more than a consequence of that need. The U.S. at the time did not have a standing army. In order to defend the country a militia was needed. You no longer need a militia so the entire amendment is outdated. In today's vernacular it would say "we need a militia so our people need guns".

But this is so un-macho.
It's just not fun.
Sorry for the sarcasm.

It's actually giving me a headache. I'm just glad I do not have to report in until 12:30 tomorrow.

Didn't work when Reagan got shot.

No the language is plain in the amendment. People can argue over a comma, but the founders were incredibly clear on their intent behind the 2nd Amendment. George Mason was concerned about including it because he feared it would lead to the govt interfering with what he thought was an inherent right.

If someone feels differently about it, they should get an amendment passed.

It sure is plain. We need a militia, so our people need to be armed. The drafters of the Constitution knew full well how important wording was. Why would the founding fathers even mention a militia if that was not their intent? And why do gun rights advocates conveniently leave out "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state" whenever they talk about the second amendment?

That's a credible argument. I can rethink my contention that the right would call for gun control if one of their own was a victim. But I stand by my views an the meaning of the second amendment.

They were afraid of govt power and often referred to that fear in citing the people's right to bear arms.

From George Washington:

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

From George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788:

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

From Patrick Henry:

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

From Thomas Jefferson:

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

From Alexander Hamilton:

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

And every single one of these quotes was in deference to protecting the nation as a whole because there was no standing army at the time. Even your quote by George Mason states "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the people as a whole" George Washington "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American peoples liberty teeth and the keystone under independence". The keystone under independence because the founding fathers feared reprisal from the British for asserting American independence. They were quite certain the British were going to attack them again, and with no standing army, an armed citizenry was their only option. Here is what Mason wrote under Article 13 of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the precursor to the second amendment. "That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, and safe defense of a free state, that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty, and that the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power". It is obvious that Mason was creating the right to bear arms under a well trained and regulated militia in order to avoid the need for a standing army. The United States now has a standing army. The need for a well trained and regulated militia no longer exists. The second amendment no longer serves it's original purpose.

No, they were talking about a government that they created growing in power and attempting to deprive them of their liberty. Having armed persons was the best way to prevent that.

You can pick out the part of the quote that suits your argument, but if you take the quote in its entirety (any one of them will suffice for this) you will see what the intent of my founders were.

I am familiar with what Mason wrote. He was against a govt formed army (we have gone way past that haven't we) and instead thought the US could be defended from enemies, both foreign and domestic, by calling out the militia---all of whom owned and maintained at their own expense their own firearms.

Again, people who don't like what the amendment says can pass a different one.

I am not picking out any part of Mason's quote from his Virginia Declaration of Rights. I quoted him in it's entirety. And it's meaning seems quite clear to me. I think we must agree to disagree. And after all, it is your constitution. I would of course defer to your interpretation of it.

Labels...... that's half the problem...

So you're a "liberal" what coloured rag does that come with?

As Mason has been singled out to the exclusion of the other quotes, perhaps we should consider a Mason quote that my ancestor was there to witness and vote on to define the true intent of the co-author:

"To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
June 14, 1788, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.

Again, I think they meant the people as a whole. Do you think they would have done anything differently if they could foresee the result of their wording of the second amendment, considering the gun crime rate in America? As I said, it's your constitution, interpret it as you see fit. Some Americans interpret it differently than others. I have no real say, just an opinion from a country with gun control laws, no one to terribly upset about it, and far less gun crime.

I am aware that some do not like the fact that the American people have the right to defend themselves with weapons and that that right is written into our governing documents. That makes us unique in the world. The founding fathers did not trust govt, they trusted themselves. When writing about firearms they did not mean the people as a whole as evidenced by the following:

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms--Thomas Jefferson

As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks.
-- Thomas Jefferson, writing to his teenaged nephew.

Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788

"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788

"The great object is, that every man be armed. [...] Every one who is able may have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry

There is a bit of a difference between an accident and an intentional act to cause physical harm to another person using a deadly weapon.

Thank you for pointing out that HUGE difference.
Yeash!!!

Accident is a bit of a misnomer... Reckless driving, DUI, OUI, etc = HOMICIDES. Look up the stats and bricks will be shat.

But the end result is the same = people are injured badly, maimed or killed.

And who says that a person who is unstable enough won't jump in a car and intentionally kill someone. That does happen quite often you know, in fact I just searched "man runs over" and "woman runs over" and I got dozens of different instances.

It shows how little true faith in God gun-toten Americans have, requiring an Uzi for protection.

dem der uzi's not fer de-fins, it's fer huntin possim!

You speak real good redneck Earl!

Know thy enemy.

I'm a Hatfield and a Booth on my mother's side..... ;)

Once more, false stereotypical shit....

Let's see the right to defend oneself with equal and proportionate force, with a fire arm is unacceptable...

Mentioning that technically when a baby has a heart, heart-beat, and pulse... It is in fact a human being with INALIENABLE rights..... totally unacceptable...

But I'll be goddamned before you same "liberals" will allow a person to consume, cultivate, or distribute cannabis......

WTF.... Kill all the babies, you want, allow only the criminals (who don't give a fuck about any law) to gain assault rifles.... But don't change your insane drug laws....

Bunch of hypocritical shit, and if you'd come from behind that monitor and meet the real-world, you'd find that your assessment of "religious" people that happen to appreciate gun rights, is no more accurate than me calling abortion advocates "baby-killers".....

So... A peaceful movement, well armed... is going to cause what exactly? More laws that can't change a damn thing? If they're already armed, no law is going to un-arm them overnight... You'll have to kill them all.

Maybe if they had the ability to be armed already, they wouldn't be out there wasting their breath...

My post simply states the obvious. I certainly didn't intend any subtext or subtlety. Unarmed people tend to do what people pointing guns at them tell them to do. When the people you are pointing guns at, point the guns right back at you, you tend to prefer to work things out, so as to preserve your own ass. One example comes to mind. During the Carter Administration there was a coal strike. The parties couldn't negotiate a settlement and winter was approaching. Carter announced he would send in the National Guard to take over the mines. A widely publicized nightly news comment from a striking coal miner was something to the effect that ---Go ahead send in the Guard--We got guns too--the next day the strike was settled peacefully.

No they wouldn't. There were various weapons like cannons that could fire huge rounds. They put no asterisk at the end of the clause.