Unfortunately many of them are in Congress. Check this out.
Would the Arizona congresswoman be less wounded if the nutcase shooting her had had fewer bullets? Would there be fewer dead and wounded?
Let's hear it, my liberal friends. How does one stop a maniac from murdering?
25 comments:
I lived in England for three years where there are virtually NO guns owned by the populace.
Yet I remember noting with interest and horror that the radio news was filled hour after hour with stories of stabbings, slashings, stranglings and other killings. As if I needed any further evidence, that realization taught me very clearly that the problem is not the gun but the dark heart that uses it to harm innocent people. A dark heart will find a way to kill when it wants to, and nothing will stand in its way.
Nice shot, Sanborn.
Characterizing this as a liberal verses conservative issue puts gun right solely in the hands of the republicans. If we're to keep our 2nd amendment as is, we need both sides together against the real minority.
The worst thing the NRA ever did was align itself with a political party instead of a nonpartisan bigger majority. Seems kinda dumb to automatically alienate half the voting public.
I agree repete that the NRA shot itself in the foot when it tried to align gun rights with the ultra-right wing fo the Republican party.
My shout out to "my liberal friends," is little more than that. I really do want to know what sort of thing they think our babysitter government might be able to do to stop a crackpot bent on killing.
And, the fact is virtually all the anti-gun legislation in the past 30 years has come from the left.
I know some gun-totin' liberals. But not very many.
ip is a gun-totin' Liberal, Mike and this recent Tucson occurrence is another failed red state phenomenon. Ellis is here because he's the first line of fascist defense. When he and ip are finished, Fleming and Cory can come in and sweep up.
Anybody feel the tremor Saturday morning? It was the gun grabbers dancing in glee over the Tucson shooting.
Bob and Larry,
You made me laugh. Pretty hard to do these days. Thanks
We have a right to bear arms, but Jodie Foster is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. Why aren't we trying to clamp down on the former? Too husky?
I'm more alarmed at all the calls to "tone down the rhetoric." The First Amendment seems more at peril here than the Second... and the First Amendment is much mre vital to the survival of the Republic (Bob's fantasies notwithstanding).
Both words and guns require responsible, educated use. Each will inevitably be misused by evil men.
I believe the only significant (US wide)legislation banning guns was conservative/republican Bush's ban on assault rifles. Or not??
In historic retrospect, banning large clips would seem more like a George Bush tactic.
"...other such killings"? Let's check some numbers. Bob, I know the UN is just Damien trying to impose worldwide Marxist hell, but UN crime stats show the U.S. murder rate in 2008 higher than all European countries except for Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, and Estonia. U.S. is at 5.2 per 100K, England 1.2, N. Ireland 1.4, and Scotland 2.2. Assaults are much higher in England than in the U.S. Finland, Sweden, and Germany also have remarkably high assault rates. But in Italy, Coratia, Norway, and Denmark, the assault rates are lower. Any correlation to gun laws there?
Without the Second Amendment, there is no First Amendment.
The murder statistics in the United States owe a great deal to the government policy of subsidizing the drug trade.
Ellis' appearance always makes me suspicious. It led me to this and this.
Smokescreenery your game, Ellis?
The first Amendment is neither contingent on the second, nor is the latter as sacrosanct. Any argument to the contrary is pure foolishness.
The pen is mightier than the sword.
The sword protects the pen as surely as the sword slices the pen. Any argument to the contrary is pure foolishness.
exactly. The sword is either at the service of (ie subordinate to) the pen, or the enemy of it.
Like I said; without the Second Amendment, there is no First Amendment. Any argument to the contrary is....
You have it exactly backwards, Bob. Gandhi liberated India with no guns at all. Purely using free speech. Same with MLK and the end of Jim Crow.
We must make a commitment to nonviolence as opposed to swearing our allegiance to the power of weaponry.
That's my position anyway. I suppose, bottom line, it all depends on what kind of world you want to create.
In my opinion, Bob's position here, taken to its logical conclusion, results in a military dictatorship, with free speech being subject to the whim of those who possess the best weapons.
I don't want to live in a country like that. I don't really believe he does either.
We already live in that country.
I'm as nonviolent as the next guy. I'd kill those who attempt to slice my pen.
No, we don't live in that country, Bob. But we do live in the most heavily armed country in the world. So if having an armed citizenry is your argument for the protection of free speech, it's not a very good argument, statistically speaking.
Which of these countries do you consider the "most free?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership
Chad
Hanging Chad, Dimpled Chad, or just plain old polygamist, wife beating, mutilated female genitalia Chad?
From Wikipedia:
"The country's television audience is limited to N'Djamena. The only television station is the state-owned TeleTchad. Radio has a far greater reach, with 13 private radio stations. Newspapers are limited in quantity and distribution, and circulation figures are small due to transportation costs, low literacy rates, and poverty.[68][70] While the constitution defends liberty of expression, the government has regularly restricted this right, and at the end of 2006 began to enact a system of prior censorship on the media.[71]"
Are you sure you don't mean Swiss Chard, Bob?
Sorry. Didn't mean Chad. Meant Chazz (Palminteri).
Ecclesiastes 10:15
"The labour of the foolish wearieth every one of them, because he knoweth not how to go to the city."
Oh. Okay then. Never mind. :^)
Post a Comment