The Senate Judiciary Committee held an emotional, at times gut-wrenching, hearing on gun violence today, focusing largely on a proposed assault weapons ban backed by President Obama and Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).
But it was the remarks of the father of a Sandy Hook victim that were so heartbreaking, there were very few dry eyes in the committee room.
"Jesse was the love of my life," said Neil Heslin, who broke down and cried as he told lawmakers about his son, Jesse Lewis, who was 6 years old when he was killed at Sandy Hook along with 19 other children.
Standing on an easel were two photos of Jesse, one as a young boy and the other as a toddler, cradled in his dad's arms. His father struggled to read his testimony, his voice cracking and sometimes inaudible as he told the committee that Dec. 14, 2012, was the saddest day of his life.
This was not, incidentally, the only emotional moment in the hearing. There was a striking exchange between Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Milwaukee police chief Edward Flynn.
The substantive point here, of course, was limited prosecutions of background check violations, but there was something else Graham said towards the end of this clip that stood out for me.
According to the Republican senator, police departments' budgets are being cut (which is true thanks to Republican austerity measures). And why does that matter in a debate over consumer access to assault weapons? Because as Graham sees it, this means policymakers have a reason not to limit access to these firearms -- more people will be on their own, unable to get quick and reliable service from local law enforcement, so why would Congress ban the assault weapons regular folks might need against violent criminals?
This strikes me as a rather horrible argument -- but it's a terrific argument for additional funding for local police departments.
Leave a Comment:
I hope there's a special place in HELL reserved for Lindsay Graham and his ilk.
Perhaps living in such a "FEARiful" place that is his mind, he's already in Hell each and every day he wakes up. I prefer to think so.
And douchebag LaPierre will pipe up shortly telling us that if only Jessie or his teacher had a gun.......
Do you have a better way to save people who are attacked by guns that criminals will continue to get? Criminals don't follow the laws in case you haven't heard.
Oh I see you're a wanabe douchebag too.
Yes I have a better solution. Ban assault rifles , ban high capacity clips , restrict armor piercing bullets to Police .
And no it won't stop everyone but if it saves just one Jessie it's worth it.
Look here you idiot .
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html
Click on a few of the small figures , children killed by GUNS. Each one of those figures represents a family destroyed so that the gun manufacturing lobby can make more money than ever for the gun-makers.
2,321 since Sandyhook and counting
When attempting to assess the argument that citizens need guns to protect themselves from the bad guys, we need to look not only at the mind of the potential criminals, but also at the minds of those who feel so threatened that they feel the need to carry a gun. The case in South Africa -- the Olympic "blade runner"-- is a perfect example as is the case of Travon Martin and the man who shot the teenagers because their music was too loud. Many of these people who want a gun for protection are themselves paranoid and dangerous, even though they may not seem so.
We need better mental health, better policing, better laws and more respect and confidence in the rule of law. More guns will just mean more innocent victims killed or wounded by someone who feels threatened, and who shoots the wrong person or gets shot him/herself. And then we also have someone in jail facing life in prison for a crime that should not have happened.
And I might add that its not "criminals" that are shooting up our schools and killing our children. For that matter, find me a "criminal" responsible for any of these mass murders.
bflynch, you can add to your list Jovan Belcher and his girlfriend. The Newtown and Aurora and Virginia Tech massacres grab our attention, but it's the everyday tragedies that are the worse problem. We just don't hear about them unless they involve someone famous or have some other scurrilous feature that make them stand out from the rest.
And as I've said before, police officers go through months of training at an academy to help them understand when to use deadly force and when to use other methods and how to protect themselves and innocent bystanders. In addition, they must demonstrate a high degree of proficiency with their firearms before they're sent out on patrol. The average Joe with a gun has nowhere near the functional competence of our police. Can't you just imagine the chaos when a mugger approaches a victim and all the people in the vicinity who are carrying guns suddenly pull them out and start firing? It's just crazy to think that is going to increase safety.
JL: I am sure we could add many more to our list.
I can imagine the chaos when a mugger aproaches . . . And maybe he is not a mugger at all, but some paranoid gun carrying scared fool thinks he is.
Yes, indeed, there must be a special place in Hell for this hypocritical self-conceited bastard whose only concerns are his own advancement. He makes an interesting partner to that failed senator from Arizona, who ought to go back there and just SHUT UP. Come to think, so should Lindsay Graham. Just SHUT UP!
Hell's too good for the ignoramus, I would sentence him to a nursing home when he's too old to take care of himself.
Have any of these people - lawmakers, law enforcement, parents, anyone??? - stopped to think that EVERY GUN was legal at the beginning of its life. If laws limit the number and type of gun the law-abiding, responsible citizen owns, there will be fewer to fall into the hands of criminals.
Sorry but that's just not true. Criminals will always have guns. There will always be a gun black market. In the end only the law abiding will disarm and become fodder for the unlawful. I can understand your feelings but what you want won't work in practice. It may actually make things worse.
Bull! The US is awash in guns, guns, guns. Introducing more and more of them into American society can only result in more criminals having more guns. But you know that already, and don't care.
Nope. Demonstrably not true. Rocket launchers, hand grenades, and tanks are not legal to be owned, and criminals don't have them. In many countries if your gun is used in a crime, and can be traced back to you giving or selling it illegally to a criminal, you can be held liable. The idea that the government is not even allowed to track where weapons used in crimes come from is just disgusting. Yet it's the firmly-held position of Graham and the NRA.
The USA has more firearm homicides than any other nation simply because we have a lot of urban ghettos suffering from societal decay. I remember reading some statistic that said that 42% of all victims firearm homicides had criminal records themselves.
While the USA has far too many firearm homicides, we have considerably lower rape and assault rates than other gun-free nations. For instance, a woman is 3 times more likely to be raped in Australia than in the USA and 6 times more likely to be a victim of assault in Scotland than in the USA.
Homicide:
U.S. 4.8
UK (includes Northern Ireland) 1.2
Australia 1.0
Sweden 1.0
Rape:
U.S. 27.3
UK (England and Wales) 28.8
Australia 88.4
Sweden 63.5
Assault
U.S. 250.9
U.K. (England and Wales) 664.4
Australia 766
Sweden 936.6
Scotland 1449.7
Source: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)
1) Columbine, Aurora, Newtown, etc. aren't "urban ghettos."
2) Do we have no responsibility to protect the many decent citizens who live in "ghettos"?
3) Why don't you note that the assault rates for the US are higher than those in both Canada to our north and Mexico to our south? (The UNODC doesn't include sexual assault rates in the US in their data. Where did your numbers come from?)
How is it that high rates of gun violence are always to be blamed on something other than unrestricted access to guns? Everything except guns is responsible for gun violence? Limiting access to them wouldn't reduce the violence? History, and the example of other countries, tells us otherwise. All your railing can't trump reason.
Katie,
1) Most firearm homicides is the result of criminal behavior. Mass shootings are something else entirely and is caused by mentally disturbed individuals. I have noted that I would suspect that psychiatric medication could cause some people to go off the deep end, such as taking SSRI's.
2) I linked my source.
3) I'm not sure what Canada and Mexico have to do with anything. There are plenty of guns in both Canada and Mexico. I would note that Mexico has extremely strict gun laws, but guns are very common and Juarez, Mexico is the new murder capital of the world.
Alva Goldbook, nothing you have ever posted has been able to refute the simple fact that the less guns there are in a society, any society and any type of gun, the fewer deaths by guns there are. I could just ignore you, but I find it interesting, in a car-wreck sort of way, watching you try again and again to justify the unjustifiable.
I'm a 20-year retired military, live in a small Midwestern town and have absolutely no objections to increased background checks, the banning of large clips, and strictly designating what is, and isn't, an "assault" weapon. IOW, shotguns, 22's, 5-6 round handguns - fine; you want to shoot off anything larger? Join the US Army. Strangely enough, that's what the majority of members at my local Legion Post seem to think as well.
Just in case you're thinking of responding, save your pixels.
"Ghettos" indeed!
Doug...,
The "anarcho-syndicalist" displays his gun fetish in very crude fashion every time the subject of guns comes up.
"Because as Graham sees it, this means policymakers have a reason not to limit access to these firearms -- more people will be on their own, unable to get quick and reliable service from local law enforcement, so why would Congress ban the assault weapons regular folks might need against violent criminals?"
We have police that are trained to deal with violent criminals, so fund them you idiot.
Apparently you haven't heard that when seconds count, the police are minutes away. Chicago has declared some crimes not worthy of a call at all.
http://news.msn.com/us/chicago-police-no-longer-responding-to-all-911-calls
Furthermore, the police have no legal responsibility to protect anyone.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0
Seconds count, hey shooter? If seconds count that would not give a person enough time to ready his/hers firearm to protect themselves.
Alva, whereas you are correct they are required to deal with a potentially violent situation.
I stand by what I said fund the police you idiots!!!
Hey folks, the answer to all our problems has to be anarchy in the USA, right, boys & girls?! Sheesh.
Here is a little kink in Graham's idea---a sane person will hesitate before pulling the trigger , a crazy person wont!
Shoot, Republicans are crazy so I guess he did consider my point after all.
Crazy is as crazy does. Mainly they are aggressively malicious.
If we're serious about limiting gun violence, then why is the Senate having the victims of gun violence testify? Shouldn't they have criminologists, sociologists, and psychiatrists testifying?
Everyone knows full well that the victims of gun violence are mourning. But if we want to save lives, then shouldn't we focus on why someone would be willing to shoot another person and end their life?
People are getting gunned down constantly in Chicago and Camden. They aren't getting gunned down constantly in Beverly Hills. Shouldn't we ask why?
If people own guns to protect themselves, shouldn't we ask how often guns are used to protect people vs. how often they're used to harm innocent people?
Shouldn't we ask if commonly prescribed medications to treat mental illness like SSRI's are causing young people to go on shooting sprees?
We've enacted an assault weapons ban before. And then Columbine happened. Wouldn't it be more effective to focus our attention on the people who kill, and the reasons why they kill than focus on the tools they use to kill?
Right...it's not the guns...it's the meds....funny how it's never an overabundance of firearms..maybe the video game did it...or a movie...etc.
The assault weapons ban was in force in 1999 when Columbine happened. The assailants used semi-automatic handguns with multiple 10-round clips (legal) and sawed-off shotguns (not legal then or now). They did not use "assault weapons."
I'm all for spending our efforts on finding and treating mentally ill people, to prevent them from attempting these acts.
But it also makes sense to me to reduce the availability of weapons that can be used for mass killings. Nobody needs an AR-15 for any purpose, other than law enforcement and the military.
But Mike, the FIAs (Future Insurrectionists of America) need those weapons and a whole lot more so they can have their way with people they don't like. :-/
Mark, do guns make people crazy? How can the ownership of a hunk of metal and polymer cause biological changes in a person's brain chemistry so that they behave in a manner that is indistinguishable from psychopathy?
SSRI's have been found to cause:
(1) energizing the depressed and suicidal patient,
(2) paradoxically worsening the individual’s depression,
(3) causing akathisia,
(4) causing panic and anxiety,
(5) causing manic or mixed manic-depressive states,
(6) causing insomnia or disturbances in the sleep architecture,
(7) causing obsessive suicidal preoccupations,
(8) causing borderline states with hostility, and
(9) causing alterations in EEG activity.
Yes, I believe that SSRI's are to blame for Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, Columbine, and possibly Virginia Tech as well. After all, there are 79 million gun owners in this country, and only a handful go off the deep end and kill people. Those who do were mentally disturbed to begin with, and in all cases, were being treated for their mental illness to the best of my knowledge.
The most common mental illness is depression. The most commonly prescribed medication for depression are SSRI's.
http://psychrights.org/research/Digest/AntiDepressants/breggin31-49.pdf
Oh, no, the inundation of the US by guns, guns, guns couldn't possibly be a problem, now could it? Well, for the FIAs it obviously isn't a problem.
Oh, and for soi-disant "anarcho-syndicalists" with a gun fetish, it isn't a problem either.
Mike in Michigan is wrong! The Columbine shooters took an assault rifle into the school. It was a Springfield 9mm riffle. Look it up. It's on Feinstein's ban list.
Mike in Michigan: If you're going to write like you know what you're talking about, without researching the correctness of it first, you loose all credibility with anything else you say.
Says the troll with no credibility. Is "loosing" credibility anything like loosing the dogs of war?
@Alva
I agree with most of what you are saying but have to point out that the flip side of the SSRI coin is that these medications have been a life saver for many. As is true with any medication, one must be vigilant for side effects. The difficulty with psychotropics is that the side effects are not always confined to physical side effects. In addition, the person's pre-morbid condition will effect outcome. One of the challenges of treating individuals with significant mental health issues is hitting on the right combination of medications.
One cannot make a direct correlation between use of an SSRI with mass murder. Alot more information needs to be secured. As SSRIs are frequently the starting point in the treatment protocol, it points more to the person having not yet been placed on a medication (or combination) that was therapeutic. ..devastating non the less.
And one must follow ALVA AND THE NRA logic all the way thru , if you are going to take crazy peoples guns a way , then you need a list of people with guns , and a list of crazy people , which the NRA GOP are opposed to both of course , yet another NON SOLUTION , which is all they ever offer
Another thing , The Sandy Hook shooting was perpetrated by a gun , from A RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER , so that defense should fall flat every time the gun people try and shove it down our throats , that is exactly why new regulations are justified
Lisa, you're entirely correct that SSRI's have been a life saver for many people. And it's also true that it's difficult to prove a direct causal link between SSRI's and these mass shootings. That is why I think a thorough investigation needs to be done on this subject. My concern is that it has already been demonstrated that SSRI's can lead to suicidal and violent behavior in teens and young adults. If we want to save lives, we need to understand as best we can why these individuals went off the deep end. Once we understand that, we can work to prevent it.
But gawd forbid that we should do anything to fix the problem that the US is awash in guns, guns, guns. Gotta keep deflecting! The Gun Cult will do anything, and I do mean literally anything, to enable their habit.
an entire package that includes everything you mentioned' should be passed
Jesse's Dad brought instant tears to my eyes. It is heartbreaking. Ms. Lindsay on the other hand...I wanted to slap. He asked a question, the Chief began answering, Graham didn't like where he was heading and started filibustering HIM. I loved the fact that the Chief just kept talking. I guess this is what's called 'fact finding' in the Senate.
Response time is critical! Seconds count! Cops are expensive!
With the billions we have spent on Homeland Security, Senator Graham, would it not be cheaper and more effective to issue high capacity handguns to all citizens- and require them to carry it at all times? Including on airplanes, darkened movie theaters, and college keggers?
Or at work. Count the seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUff31LRPE4
then they can issue kevlar to everyone , wrap ourselves and the kids in it , and go to the park , it will be like NRA heaven man!!!!!!! will they issue spear guns for when we go swimming?
Pat, or maybe adults need to grow up and understand that it's their responsibility to protect themselves. Not the police. Not your neighbors. Not the gov't. You.
I would very much like to see someone invest in inventing a new technology. A non-lethal self-defense weapon. We have pepper spray, tasers, and stun guns, but all these weapons are problematic in that they can only be used in very close quarters, and in the case of pepper spray if the wind blows in a certain direction, it can be used against you.
I would gladly give up my guns if there was a weapon that could 1) be discharged from a distance 2) be able to fire multiple times and 3) would virtually guarantee that an attacker would be stopped and disabled without causing life threatening injuries.
Ever see Clockwork Orange? Graham, LaPierre and the rest of the gun lobby should have their eyelids tied open and forced to look at crime scene photos of that Sandy Hook classroom. Gun laws may not have prevented that massacre, but if they could prevent just one similar tragedy in the future they would be worth it. How strict I do'nt know, but real background checks would be better than nothing. I am a gun owner but I would'nt pee on LaPierre's face if he were dying of thirst.
They should also have to watch The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance and Shane.
Really. Clockwork orange isn't needed. One portfolio of the carnage at Sandyhook and they would all STFU. This is what assault rifles do to babies Wayne and Lindsay .
SAFT, Do you really think the likes of Graham and especially LaPierre would be bothered in the least? For something like that to bother you, you need to be able to empathize, something the right wing doesn't do. For them it's all about them and to blazes with everyone else.
What's mind-blowing is Graham's assumption (often repeated by Wayne LaPierre) that there's no alternative to the doomsday scenario of shoot-em-out violence he paints. If we allow the GOP a free hand in pursuing their agenda of slashing funding for public safety personnel and programs, he has a point. But we don't have to oblige them in the gutting of government. Oil subsidies, or police departments? Armed guards in elementary schools (paid by whom?), or background checks? This is truly a no-brainer. Can there be so many people who refuse to use theirs that we can't get this very modest proposition into law?
Sadly cops can't get to a crime scene fast enough on too many occasions. I prefer to be able to protect myself. A 15 or 20 minute response time is too long if someone is trying to kill you....If you have the time to get to a phone and call them. At that point you could already be dead. Take away your protection and the criminals know it. They will be emboldened if our guns are taken from us. Sadly we live in a very violent society where we all should have the means to protect ourselves if we so choose. If one teacher would have been armed at Sandy Hook, maybe several fewer people would have died. A gun was the only thing that could have stopped the gunman. Nobody had one, and they had to wait, like sitting ducks, for the men with the guns to come. It was too late.
When I lived in Philadelphia in the late 60s and early 70s, I lived in Center City within two blocks of one of the worst crime areas in the country. I was never assaulted or bothered in anyway, unless you count the cat calls from construction workers on the Chestnut Street Bridge. A friend of mine did have someone try to snatch her purse. She screamed and a cop was there almost immediately-- in time to stop the crime and arrest the would be thief.
Jes33
What is the matter with you people ? Read your own post.
You come off like a paranoid schizophrenic.
Who specifically is "coming to kill you " Do you see boogyman around every corner ?
You all talk like there are bands of gun toting assassins waiting for you when you go to the grocery store.
It must be a very sad way to live , hunkered down in your living room worrying that "they" are out to get you
Pathetic
Not too long ago two military trained killers in Houston carrying guns were killed at a shooting range by one person. If they can't protect themselves, how do you think that you can? Are you going to tell someone to just wait a minute while I go get my gun, or are you going to spend the rest of your life carrying your gun around with you?
There are treatments for severe paranoia, you know.
Sick,
I bought my first gun after someone broke into my neighbor's house more times than I could count and someone tried to break into my car while it was parked in my driveway.
So I bought a gun for completely rational reasons. For my own self-protection. I don't expect that I will ever need it. I hope I will never need it. But I'd rather have a means to protect myself and my family than sit there and wet myself in the case the worst happens.
It's the same reason why you and I wear seat belts. We don't expect to get in a car crash. But we wear seat belts just in case. It's called mitigating risk.
If you think a cop can get to you in time if someone tries to hurt or kill you, then watch this. Count the seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUff31LRPE4
Sick...,
They know damn good and well that nobody is coming to get them. Their malicious misinformation is just a lot of feeble excuses for arming themselves to the teeth so they can take control and get rid of people they don't like. Then, there are those who simply have a gun fetish. The FIAs (Future Insurrectionists of America) will squash the fetishists like bugs whenever it pleases them to do so.
You're all cowboys now aren't you?
So let me get this straight Alva . Did they break into the house when they were home ? I doubt it . You think that your crap in the driveway is worth someone else s life . No chance some kid is going to get that gun your house. No chance that you don't get the draw on the bad guy and he blows you away . Reduce the statistics of dying from a gun by removing it from your house .
Those pesky facts from a medical journal
Guns at Home Increase Dangers, Not Safety
http://www.news-medical.net/news/20100204/Guns-in-homes-can-increase-risk-of-death-and-firearm-related-violence.aspx
Sick,
The unfortunate thing is that you never ever know what might happen. From this link:
http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/Robber-Who-Shot-Woman-in-Face-Arrested-Miami-Police-188365501.html
You never know what a criminal might do. Even if you comply, you still run the risk of being harmed or killed. That is why it is a poor strategy to hedge your bets if you want to live. Someone trying to break into your house might just want to steal your TV, or they might be there to do something worse. You don't know.
No, I would never shoot someone for trying to break into my car if no one was going to get harmed. If I had witnessed this attempt, I would have just watched out the window and called the police. Self-defense training 101 teaches you to avoid direct confrontations whenever it is possible.
No, there is no chance of a kid taking my gun. Everyone's personal situation is different, and proper storage of a firearm must reflect the realities of an individual's living situation. They do sell bio-metric gun safes these days. They only open with a designated person's fingerprint or a combination code.
http://www.gunvault.com/gun-safes/biometric-gun-safes.html
Justice Dept data (from 1994, the most recent I could find) shows that for those who were victims of an attack, and had no weapon or a weapon other than gun, their risk of suffering serious injury or death was 1 in 2. For those who had a gun, those risked dropped to 1 in 5.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt
A major concern when it comes to self-defense training is that you are always at a disadvantage because you're having to react to someone else. But that is not an argument for disarming yourself and wetting your pants. This is something that can be addressed with the right training. You're always going to be at a disadvantage. But there are ways you can learn how to mitigate your risk.
Guns in people's homes are always a safety concern. If you're an unstable person or you're in an unstable relationship, then you should not own a gun. If you get into a lot of screaming matches and arguments you shouldn't own a gun. If your significant other is the sort of person who throws a temper tantrum and throws personal belongings out a window onto the street below while calling you every name in the book, then you shouldn't own a gun. If you use a lot of mind altering drugs you shouldn't own a gun. If you're an alcoholic, or if you're a violent drunk, you shouldn't own a gun. If you're someone who doesn't have the mental where-with-all to know that if you're not in a perfectly clear state of mind, then you don't even touch a gun. I will not touch my guns I haven't had enough sleep. If I have the flu and I'm taking NyQuil I will not touch my guns. If you wouldn't feel comfortable or safe getting behind the wheel of an automobile, then you shouldn't touch a gun.
Luckily, I rarely drink, I don't do drugs, I have a wonderful relationship and in our 13 years of being together the number of arguments we've had I can count on one hand. So, I'm pretty sure I can handle this adult responsibility.
Self-portrait of the gun fetishist as a "model citizen". Sheesh!
Okay, here's a hypothetical: Two thugs are hanging around on a street corner. They start arguing about a girl. Soon the argument escalates. Thug #1 says, I'm going to take you out, MF..er and starts to pull a pistol from under his coat. He shoots at Thug #2 wounding him in the left shoulder.
Almost at the same time Thug #2 pulls out a semi-automatic weapon. He wounds Thug #1 in the left shoulder and continues pulling the trigger blowing a hole through his heart, his lungs, his right shoulder and keeps firing until the guy is practically cut in half. Several stray bullets hit bystanders; three of them die including the girl over whom they were arguing.
Should Thug #2 be arrested? It's quite clear, he shot in self-defense. He may even have been licensed to carry his semi-automatic. (Disturbing the peace may be all he's guilty of)
Some questions arise:
- did either thug have a carry permit for their guns?
- were these guns illegally acquired?
- would anyone be dead if neither of these dopes had a gun?
- did the girl really love either of these guys?
And the three dead people? ...oh, just collateral damage!
That's not what typically happens in a shoot out. When someone is shot, or shot at, the flight or fight response kicks in and people will typically run away as fast as they can.
Watch how these two robbers react when they're shot at. Despite that they had guns in their hands, they seem to forget about that entirely and just run.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhbarunzTtc
By the way, almost every pistol made is semi-auto. A semi-auto pistol doesn't fire any faster than a revolver.
Some mad billionaire from Kansas is going to start advertising somebody is against "reasonable infant safety regulations" in some local Ny congressional election just wait. This is a very very slippery slope yes forcing rape victims to have their attackers babies is nuts , as is allowing people to own drones or m1 tanks but this is dangerous territory politically...
What you are describing here is a regular occurrence in Oakland CA, the law here says you can use lethal force up to the moment there is no longer a threat, in your case the overkill discharges of the weapon would result in murder charges.
This is what Chief Flynn is up against, Along with other Chief's nationwide. Why isn't this talked about, The Dealers, lack of punishment. http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/badger-guns-owners-brother-ready-to-reopen-store-a762f78-161849845.html
Here's the problem with the gun control debate. It's nothing you will actually learn from Maddow so please research it yourself. Background checks ask about mental illness. Involuntarily commitment to a mental facility and usually a question about a psychotic break with reality. Whatever one puts on those forms regarding mental illness can't be verified through the FBI. The can't be verified because of HIPPA, which was pushed by liberals, and prevents doctors reporting such episodes to the FBI who does the background checks. This is a classic example of government getting in the way of itself. See the Catch 22? And no one in the media or the government is addressing that.
Gosh all golly gee, them haynus libruls are everywhere!
when the nazi's came to power they made the jews turn in there weapons. Joe Goerbles even commented on the warsaw gehtto uprising "this is wat we can expect if the jews ever lay thier hands on weapons"
wake up you are being set up.
could you explain to us how people living in the ghetto , who could not afford food , but thay all had guns that were taken away?
How many people could afford to buy military style weapons in the 1930's ? even if they were available? it would be about 1% of the population , now back to 2013 and reality with you gun nuts
the warsaw ghetto uprising was a armed resistance to nazi rule. it was crushed. the Nazi's confiscated guns from jews before thet were sent to ghettos. somehow some were able to get arms so they could fight back.
this is not about the cost of weapons but acess to them. what is a military style weapon. In Heller the majority rejected the view that the term "to bear arms" implies only the military use of arms:
you need to pick up a real history book. un plug from the propaganda. it's a fact that an armed nation is what our founding fathers intended and history proves that unarmed people are oppressed by others.
tyrants take guns.
Insurrectionists use guns to overthrow a legitimate government for malicious purposes.
1) If you opened up supermax, handed out ak 47's and dropped them all off at the local elementary school would any of the residents do what happened in Newtown.
It was a highly unusual event(some nut in norway, collumbine ok ok still highly unusual)
2) Ct ALREADY has laws far more restrictive/similar if ALL of them passed maybe than those being consideed/tossed around in congress
3) Passing a law in NY of 7 round magazine is akin to regulating hallway widths of Women's clinics
4) If there are going to be Federal limits then there should be Federal minimums hence creating will issue permits(like most states) in Ct, NY, Il, DC, CA what have you
5)
Patrick Henry, 1775:
"They tell us that we are weak -- unable to cope with so formidable an
adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be when we are totally
disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Three
million people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, are invincible by any force
which our enemy can send against us."
Little did Patrick Henry know he would need to be protected from the harm a Big Gulp could cause hime
Big gulps are nothing, smokes, trans fats, salt and styrofoam!
I feel safer already
John Adams:
"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for
the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private
self-defense."
George Washington's address to the second session of the First U.S.
Congress:
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the
American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church,
the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens' firearms are indelibly related
Treads about guns always bring out the Gun Cult to run around shrieking about their supposed "rights".
Tsk..."Threads..."
supposed? "the right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" wow there is more basis for the "supposed" right to guns than, hmmmm gay marrage, or a womans "right to chose". here were does it say you have a right to health care, or money to sit at home?
wow have you been drinking kool-aid!
No right is absolute, but you knew that already, didn't you? Unless you are clinically psychotic, you know damn good and well that no right is absolute. Anyway, by all rights, the 2nd Amendment is a dead letter for more than one reason, although American fascists and fools will keep it lurching along, zombie-like.
you are a lunatic? you start the ad hominum atack with mental illness refference.
your answer to the bill of rights is "no rights are absolute" see many people can remember the fist sentence of the declaration but not the secound paragraph.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
the consent of the governed is why the 2nd amendment is absolute. it's hard to not consent when the government has gun and the people dont.
here are a few points from the declaration that i find interesting today.
He(king George) has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation
What a crock! Your rants are totally worthless. Another life member of MyFacts.com
i'm a crock because? my rants are worthless, why? my facts.com. ? not really, they hide these facts in things called books. don't worry i was like you once upon a time. but then i said to myself i could better defeat right wing nut jobs if i new how they thought. so i started reading books by conservatives and libertarians. guess what i found. Liberals are communist just rebranded. progressives want to use propaganda into convincing the less informed that they are out to help wjen they are not.
all pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others. now go pay your fair share.
There are books and there are books. The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is a book. Quit your Neo-Confederate whining.