Domestic Right Wing Terrorists!

[Gaspar]

Simply use the Google and you find this happening all over the world, we are not some bizarre island of violence.  There are nut-jobs with guns everywhere.  We, however, are one of the few countries where there are also non-nut-jobs with guns.  When a 72 year old man pops a gang-banger with an assault rifle holding up a Homeland store you don't hear too much about it.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/nigeria-mosque-attack-church-shootings-16955200#.UCLT5KmRi5R
Guns are illegal in Nigeria.

http://english.cri.cn/6909/2012/03/30/1461s690385.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/9446242/Chinese-teenager-stabs-8-people-to-death.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13091128
Guns also illegal in China.

In fact, for a country much larger than Europe, we're about the same for rampage killings.  China currently holds the title though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers
Great tool, you can sort by weapon and several other categories.

[AquaMan]

They decided it was a states rights thing - they said when the Federal elections would be, then let the states set who/how/what etc.  Or who couldn't vote.  It was a very exclusive group in most states.  And remained so up until the 19th Amendment and then the Voting Rights Act.

So, they valued gun rights more than voters rights. In fact, they didn't really care if your state even allowed you to vote, but they insisted all people could own guns to form a militia. That implies that even non citizens of the country have rights to gun ownership since a state could grant voting privileges to non citizens if they so desired.

I'm having less and less good feelings about these guys.

[Ed W]

Really?  That would be the re-interpretation brought about by "public school graduates".  Everyone should realize from their elementary school English, that the first part (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state) is by definition a subordinate clause.  Which means - also by definition - that is unable to stand alone as a sentence, which means it's only purpose is to serve as a component of the sentence to provide further clarification or explanation in support of the main part of the sentence.

Absent a grammar lesson, the sentence contains two ideas.  What I'm getting at is that we presently see the second idea - private ownership of firearms - as the dominant one while the idea of a militia is more on the order of a mere historical curiosity.  I doubt that the courts parse the language for grammatical content, and instead, try to discern the meaning contained in those words.  It would be within the Supreme Court's power to say that the first (subordinate) phrase defines the state's interest in security as superior to an individual's right to own firearms.  In fact, they've already done so.

Another way to view it is that while an individual may own firearms, the state has the right to limit his use of them or limit the kinds he may have.  These restrictions on firearms have been well-established since the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. Our rights under the Second Amendment are not absolute.  The state and federal governments can limit them...if there's pressure to do so and our legislators have the political will. Both the 1934 and 1968 acts came about as a reaction to violence, spawned by the gang wars during Prohibition and the assassinations in the 1960s.   

[patric]

At some point, the folks in the cities/states with a far above US average gun violence rate will get fed up and do something rash. That will not serve your ends or mine.

We can already see evidence of that, and that rash "solutions" trample more than just the second amendment:

Mayor Lee's Stop-and-Frisk Idea Was Not Just Controversial, but Uncreative

On May 16, federal judge Shira A. Scheindlin granted class-action status to a lawsuit opposing New York City's stop-and-frisk policy. As the New York Times reported, "she was disturbed by the city's 'deeply troubling apathy towards New Yorkers' most fundamental constitutional rights.'"

In her ruling, Scheindlin cited several of Columbia University law and public health professor Jeffrey Fagan's "factual determinations":

    Between 2004 and 2009, NYPD officers conducted at least 170,000 unlawful frisks -- where there was no reasonable suspicion to stop the person.

    In 4,000 of those stops, "police gave no reason other than 'high crime area' to justify the stop."

    "The percentage of documented stops for which police officers failed to list an interpretable 'suspected crime' has grown dramatically from 1.1 percent in 2004 to 35.9 percent in 2009."

    "Guns were seized in .15 percent of all stops. This despite the fact that 'suspicious bulge' was cited as a reason for 10.4 percent of all stops."

    "Police officers are more likely to list no suspected crime category (or an incoherent one) when stopping Blacks and Latinos than when stopping Whites."

Six weeks after and 3,000 miles away from Scheindlin's order, Mayor Ed Lee announced that he was considering implementing stop-and-frisk in San Francisco. Apparently, a meeting with NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg had turned him onto the strategy. For more than a month, Lee stood firm through a wave of outrage. But this week, he is backing away from the idea, without ever having explained why it would work better here than it has in other cities.

"He doesn't want to implement a policy that has the potential to include racial profiling," said his spokeswoman, Christine Falvey, according to the Chronicle. "Looking at best practices, he came up with other options that have a lot more community support."

From the start, the mayor suggested that his city's version of stop-and-frisk would be different from the ones in New York City and Philadelphia, which are both facing lawsuits because of the policy. The problem was that he never explained how -- only dropping vague lines about how it would not involve racial profiling and noting that he would rename the strategy in order to avoid the negative connotations.

"I will evolve as we go through this, evolve names of programs," Lee told the Chron. "If it means rephrasing that, I'll be clearly open to that, but I've got to get the guns."

Which means, the plan wasn't just constitutionally controversial, but uncreative as well. Even Lee's boy Bloomberg recently acknowledged that stop-and-frisk has its flaws, that "the practice needs to be 'mended, not ended,'" as NYC's mayor said in June.

When Bloomberg implemented stop-and-frisk in 2002, it was innovative and promising, its potential problems still theoretical. Since then, problems have emerged that Bloomberg is now looking to "mend." Lee, despite the advantage of hindsight, announced his support for stop-and-frisk without offering any tangible improvements to the policy. He pitched an idea liberals have opposed for years without explaining why liberals should support it this time around.

Stop-and-frisk's effect on crime remains questionable. Civil liberty and personal safety are on opposite ends of the seesaw, and most debates over police enforcement strategies are debates about finding the proper balance.
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2012/08/mayor_ed_lee_stop_and_frisk.php

[heironymouspasparagus]

So, they valued gun rights more than voters rights. In fact, they didn't really care if your state even allowed you to vote, but they insisted all people could own guns to form a militia. That implies that even non citizens of the country have rights to gun ownership since a state could grant voting privileges to non citizens if they so desired.

I'm having less and less good feelings about these guys.

Apparently so.  It was pretty much a case of "if you were a white male who owned property (including other people), then you could be a voter."

Federal law allows non-citizens to own firearms here, as long as they are legally here, and fulfill all the other requirements.  And yes, I guess non-citizens could be allowed the vote as long as they are legal residents - depends on the state.  Can't see Oklahoma doing that....

Your comment about "the guys" goes to a thought similar to what I have said from time to time.  The noise we hear is all about how it was all "self-sacrifice" to free the people from the tyranny of King George.  They certainly did take a risk, and not all of them thrived.  But, that sure did leave a whole LOT of people under the tyranny of just a different set of 'bosses'.  (Remember The Who - We Won't Get Fooled Again....?  Meet the new boss; same as the old boss.) 

Personally, I like the life I have here - but I have friends who have felt so unwelcome that they left - and yes, it is a big loss!  Would it have been better or worse if continued under King George??  That is one of those rhetorical questions that really has no correct answer.  Canada hasn't done all that bad with the kind of relationship they have maintained.  (Also, Australia and New Zealand).  Other than the fact that they don't have the freedom to own a firearm, the differences are subtle overall.

[nathanm]

Other than the fact that they don't have the freedom to own a firearm, the differences are subtle overall.

Despite what the NRA may have told you, that's not actually true. Handguns are (generally) not allowed in Canada. Long guns are not. You can take a long gun into Canada, even, if you dot your Is and cross your Ts and have a legitimate purpose for taking it.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Huh, the opposite? Really? Sounds like you've got some religion going on there. You may want to check out crime statistics in the other developed English-speaking countries. There's a lot less murder and a lot fewer shootings. You'll note that they pretty much all have fairly strict gun control. I don't advocate that level of gun control, but if you think that they don't have less gun crime specifically and less violent crime generally, you've got your eyes closed, your fingers stuck in your ears, and are shouting "LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU" at the top of your lungs.

There's no sense in acting like the Swift Boaters. I happen to think that other factors have a stronger influence on the murder and violent crime rates than the availability of guns and would rather attack those social issues instead of private gun ownership, but what you wrote just isn't true. You must remember that nothing the NRA says can be trusted. They are lying liars more interested in creating division in the electorate to help their political party than they are at protecting gun ownership by reaching a reasonable consensus on what should and should not be allowed.

At some point, the folks in the cities/states with a far above US average gun violence rate will get fed up and do something rash. That will not serve your ends or mine.

Not me - the religious part of it is that the Brady Group types advance the idea that somehow gun ownership by law abiding citizens leads to more crime than if guns are not owned by same.  That is the dogma, and that is the falsehood.  There is no indication that taking guns away lead to less crime.  And Australia, New Zealand, etc are the examples - no decrease in crime after gun "buybacks" (confiscation).  

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

We do have evidence here that crime rates in states allowing concealed carry has decreased - and at a greater rate than the states that did not allow concealed carry. 

The problem in comparing does not address the fact that those two countries already had draconian anti-gun laws.  The confiscation of the remaining guns was affecting a fairly small group in overall terms within those countries.


Was listening to CSPAN last night where the US Conference of Mayors was talking about gun violence in cities (I think from January).  They said that of the approximate 13,000 gun deaths, over 1/2 were 'gang' related, the vast majority involving black males from 16 to 24.  If one looks at the issue ONLY from the 1,000 mile view, guns might be seen as the problem.  When we know for a fact that it is educational, economic, and family issues that are the core problem - gangs come about as a surrogate "family" and a means to make money.  Combine that with the fact that there are huge profits to be made by illicit trade in drugs.  Guns - invariably stolen or otherwise illegally acquired - are then used as a tool to enable the trade.

So this somehow translates into the notion that law abiding owners - no matter the type of firearm they have - can be disarmed and reduce all this murder.  What can that notion be other than an article of faith in a cult religion of ignorance and stupidstition??

When the reality is the same reality we finally acknowledged at the end of alcohol prohibition - the war on drugs is an abject failure.  It has been for 100 years.  It directly leads to dramatic increases in illegal activity at all levels of society.  It is insanity.

Take away the profits, and the problem is at least reduced if not eliminated.  Yeah, I know, we still have moonshiners - just at a miniscule rate compared to the prohibition era.

[Teatownclown]

This weeks addition: http://www.businessinsider.com/shooter-near-texas-am-university-has-been-taken-in-by-police-2012-8

[patric]

This weeks addition: http://www.businessinsider.com/shooter-near-texas-am-university-has-been-taken-in-by-police-2012-8

No comparison.
The former were premeditated rampages.   The later was someone being evicted from their home.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Despite what the NRA may have told you, that's not actually true. Handguns are (generally) not allowed in Canada. Long guns are not. You can take a long gun into Canada, even, if you dot your Is and cross your Ts and have a legitimate purpose for taking it.

There is even some small glimmer of hope on the horizon for Canada - they are moving around a bill that would de-register long guns, and require destruction of the government records for long guns.  Well, except Quebec, of course...  good move for the country!  There may be hope for them after all.

[guido911]

Today's edition:  http://www.lifenews.com/2012/08/15/security-guard-shot-at-pro-life-groups-dc-headquarters/

[Gaspar]

Today's edition:  http://www.lifenews.com/2012/08/15/security-guard-shot-at-pro-life-groups-dc-headquarters/

Thank God they caught the guy!

[guido911]

Thank God they caught the guy!

Man, it sure got quiet in a hurry in this thread after the shoot out at FRC. And yes, I am glad they caught the guy, regardless of his motives...

[Teatownclown]

Man, it sure got quiet in a hurry in this thread after the shoot out at FRC. And yes, I am glad they caught the guy, regardless of his motives...

You're so predictable....and boring.

[Hoss]

http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/165990196.html