Thanks A Latte Founding Fathers

From http://leftlean.com/

The gun nuts are out in force again.  The latest story comes to us courtesy of a man named Dale Welch, who decided to go into a Starbucks coffee shop in Virginia with a handgun strapped to his waist in order to exercise his right to bear arms.  There was a recent article in the New York Times about a grass roots effort among some gun rights advocates exercising their right to carry unconcealed weapons in states that have open-carry laws.  I am well aware of the second amendment.  Citizens of the United States of America have the right to keep and bear arms, that doesn’t mean that Americans should have the right to carry any type of weapon anywhere they want.  The Virginia Tech and Columbine shootings should serve as a reminder to everyone that limiting access to firearms is not always a bad thing.  The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech.  This doesn’t mean that we can’t enact laws prohibiting certain types of speech, the old screaming fire in a crowded movie theatre analogy.  The United States Bill of Rights guarantees the right to own a firearm.  This doesn’t mean that those of us non-crazy Americans can’t pressure Congress to protect our right to be safe from idiots carrying guns.

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.

The Second Amendment sucks.  I wonder if the founding fathers knew that they would cause so much controversy and violence with this text.  Just in the last 12 months, we have seen new laws enacted that allow guns to be carried on college campuses and in bars.  Does anyone else think that this is ridiculous?  In 2004, firearms were used to murder 11,344 people in the United States, compared with 184 in Canada and 73 in England. Why are murders from firearms so much lower in Canada and England?  I know, there are more people in the U.S. than in England and Canada, but the per capita gun related murders are significantly higher in America as well.  Could it be that restrictions on firearms are much stricter in these countries? There are somewhere between 193 million and 250 million guns in the United States. Since September 11th, 2001, nearly 120,000 Americans have been killed, most of these murders were committed with guns.  That is nearly 25 times the number of Americans killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.  From 1999 through 2005, an average of over 100 children and teenagers took their own lives with guns.  How many of these young people used firearms that were readily accessible in their home?  Eight kids are shot to death every day in the United States.  The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home. At what point do we say enough is enough?  How many Americans need to die before we consider restricting access to firearms?

< The Boys From Brazil or Ubermenschen Redux | This Video Makes Me Sick! >
 Display:
...but maybe it will be gentler coming from me instead of Bobo...

The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech.  This doesn’t mean that we can’t enact laws prohibiting certain types of speech, the old screaming fire in a crowded movie theatre analogy.  The United States Bill of Rights guarantees the right to own a firearm.  This doesn’t mean that those of us non-crazy Americans can’t pressure Congress to protect our right to be safe from idiots carrying guns.

See, the flaw in this argument comes with the "you can't yell fire" because the same argument can be applied to "you can't shoot people" which, as I'm sure you're aware, is illegal in most situations already.

The counter is, of course, that those concerns have already been met in a way society has agreed upon: Through the "Justice" system.

FTR, I am neutral in gun arguments. I wouldn't own one, but I can't see telling TWBA he can't have one.

I DO get nervous when I hear of Gun a Month clubs...

by MedfordTim on 03/18/2010 01:12:32 AM EST

FTR, I am neutral in gun arguments. I wouldn't own one, but I can't see telling TWBA he can't have one.

Really? You need to think bigger. In my America, Twba wouldn't even be allowed to use grown-up scissors.

by OneHitKill on 03/18/2010 09:59:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
In "your" America?

Now you're sounding like one of those right-wing tea party assholes.

by RedPossum on 03/18/2010 01:09:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I thought ever kid dreamed of being an iron-fisted dictator.

by OneHitKill on 03/18/2010 09:27:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
That's why i hate fawlty that support gun control

in the USA 39% of all households have firearms, in Canada 29%. That's a significant difference, but by far not significant enough to explain that in America are per 100,000 citizens 4,5 times as many homicides that involve guns.

Please, don't use statistics that can be so easily be debunked.

Source: http://www.photius.com/rank ings/

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 03/18/2010 07:42:31 AM EST

you think you're "debunking"

I never said in my posting that gun crime is higher in the U.S. than in Canada because of the number of guns.  All I did was point out the estimated number of guns total in the U.S.  So again, I'm not sure what you think you are "debunking."

And just for the record, while there are close to as many households in Canada with guns as in the U.S. Like I said in my post, there are much more restrictions on gun ownership in Canada.  It is virtually impossible to buy a semi-automatic weapon in Quebec and Ontario, and you must be licensed to own a gun as well.  It is also virtually impossible to get a concealed weapons permit, let alone be allowed to carry an unconcealed weapon, like these stupid rednecks in VA.

So what exactly do you think you "debunked"?

by justinp on 03/18/2010 11:09:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The argument that there are so many murders in the US, because there are so many guns looks not very convincing, if in the US 10% more households have guns, but the murder rate is 4 times as high. There must be some other reason than possession for that.

Maybe debunked was not exactly the right word (I'm always struggeling with the English language) but the argument seems very weak.

" In 2004, firearms were used to murder 11,344 people in the United States, compared with 184 in Canada and 73 in England. Why are murders from firearms so much lower in Canada and England?"

You weren't talking about semi-automatic weapons here.
So this sentence refers to concealed semi automatic weapons?
I can shoot you just as well will a colt that I carry openly.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 03/19/2010 01:22:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm not at all neutral on this issue. I'm staunchly and unequivocally in favor of the 2nd Amendment.

justinp, you obviously don't have a very good handle on what you're talking about when you say it's almost impossible to buy a semi-automatic weapon in Canada.

Do you even understand what semi-automatic means? Obviously not.

"I talk about guns, and I have no idea what I'm talking about, other than that they seem ridiculous to me."
--Michael Shure, TYT, 08/18/09

"I don't care what the Constitution said"
--Michael Shure, TYT, 08/18/09

by RedPossum on 03/18/2010 01:15:29 PM EST

It is you that has no idea what you are talking about. I'm not going to sit here and quote Canadian gun law for you. A simple Google search will show you that access to handguns, semi, and fully automatic weapons in Canada is extremely limited unless you are some sort of security personnel. Do some research before you start telling people that they are wrong. And stop getting your information from Wikipedia while you're at it, you know what I'm talking about.

by justinp on 03/18/2010 02:10:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The Right to Bear Arms is a misunderstood amendment.  It doesn't say you have a right to guns, it says you have the right to bear arms (weapons) in the interest of forming a militia. 

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.

Funny thing is, this amendment really says nothing about one's right to carry guns about wherever they please or discharge them as they like, as so many seem to like to interpret it.

And it was Congress' job, as outlined by Constitution, to organize, equip and train these militias.  So really it has nothing to do with individuals, and everything to do with state militias capable to fending off potential foreign attackers.  Remember, back in the days of the Founders you didn't have quick communication, and often the first form of defense were the settlements and their inhabitants.

by Mike McTighe on 03/18/2010 11:59:36 PM EST

 Display: