next »

[Moranis]

let me get this right..

The NRA believes that we need guns to protect us against a tyrannical government, but their response to gun violence is to allow the government more gun presence in our everyday lives. WOW, that makes no sense at all.

Wont giving the government more gun presence in our lives require us to carry more guns to prevent the government from tyranny?

Wait a minute, Ogaju.  Did the NRA say that, or are you attributing my statement to the NRA?  I am not a member of the NRA, don't even own a gun.  That was just my take it.

NRA said they wanted armed policemen (or guards, they used both terms) at all schools.

What about movie theaters?  Do we need armed police at all movie theaters?  You know because of Aurora, Co.

Should we also station them at malls?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/13/us-usa-shooting-oregon-idUSBRE8BB01720121213?feedType=RSS&virtualBrandChannel=11563

How about just random houses?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/two-firefighters-shot-killed-while-responding-webster-n-163105823.html


Unless we want to live a police state, the whole concept is totally ridiculous.  Armed attacks happen everywhere and can happen at any time. 

[hpantazo]

let me get this right..

The NRA believes that we need guns to protect us against a tyrannical government, but their response to gun violence is to allow the government more gun presence in our everyday lives. WOW, that makes no sense at all.

Wont giving the government more gun presence in our lives require us to carry more guns to prevent the government from tyranny?

Wait a minute, Ogaju.  Did the NRA say that, or are you attributing my statement to the NRA?  I am not a member of the NRA, don't even own a gun.  That was just my take it.

NRA said they wanted armed policemen (or guards, they used both terms) at all schools.

What about movie theaters?  Do we need armed police at all movie theaters?  You know because of Aurora, Co.

Should we also station them at malls?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/13/us-usa-shooting-oregon-idUSBRE8BB01720121213?feedType=RSS&virtualBrandChannel=11563

How about just random houses?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/two-firefighters-shot-killed-while-responding-webster-n-163105823.html


Unless we want to live a police state, the whole concept is totally ridiculous.  Armed attacks happen everywhere and can happen at any time.

Exactly.  The idea of solving gun violence by placing armed guards where the violence occurs is just ridiculous. It's offensive that the NRA even responded with that garbage.

[fairweatherfan]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/two-firefighters-shot-killed-while-responding-webster-n-163105823.html

I have some friends in Webster.  Horrible event, especially since it appears the fire may have been set deliberately to shoot the firefighters that arrived.

I think the most ludicrous thing about the NRA statement (and there are many) is that a lot of the same people who will earnestly argue that would-be killers who can't get a gun will just find another way to do it are now arguing that having a gun is essential to defending against them.  Apparently access to guns is irrelevant for committing mass murder but highly effective and vitally important to stopping it.

[hpantazo]

armed police officer and a bystander killed after a shootout following a car chase...

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/24/us/houston-police-killed/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Guess if the cop had a gun he could have prevented...oh wait, nevermind

[IndeedProceed]

http://www.lohud.com/interactive/article/20121223/NEWS01/121221011/Map-Where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood-?nclick_check=1

Bit weird, innn'it?

[Chris]

http://www.lohud.com/interactive/article/20121223/NEWS01/121221011/Map-Where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood-?nclick_check=1

Bit weird, innn'it?

What's weird about it?  (seriously, I am curious, it just looks like a bunch of dots on a map to me).

[IndeedProceed]

http://www.lohud.com/interactive/article/20121223/NEWS01/121221011/Map-Where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood-?nclick_check=1

Bit weird, innn'it?

What's weird about it?  (seriously, I am curious, it just looks like a bunch of dots on a map to me).

Just the idea that someone took all the registered guns and put them on a map, like the sexual offender map. I think its a logical use of public record, just not something I thought I'd ever see. It kind of infringes upon that whole 'big brother' paranoia thing that is so pervasive now.

[Chris]

http://www.lohud.com/interactive/article/20121223/NEWS01/121221011/Map-Where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood-?nclick_check=1

Bit weird, innn'it?

What's weird about it?  (seriously, I am curious, it just looks like a bunch of dots on a map to me).

Just the idea that someone took all the registered guns and put them on a map, like the sexual offender map. I think its a logical use of public record, just not something I thought I'd ever see. It kind of infringes upon that whole 'big brother' paranoia thing that is so pervasive now.

OOHHH, ok, that makes sense.  I thought you saw some sort of pattern or something.

[Brendan]

Thought this was a good explanation of the overall conservative position, without descending into hysterics. Nice mix of history, philosophy, practicality, and constitutionality. (Crank used to write on Sports Guy's old BSG site as a baseball sabermatician for those not in the know.)

http://baseballcrank.com/archives2/2012/12/politicslaw_gun_1.php

[IndeedProceed]

Appreciate the link Brendan, too late to read something extensive tonight but I'll give it a good looksee tomorrow.

[Bombastic Jones]

Thought this was a good explanation of the overall conservative position, without descending into hysterics. Nice mix of history, philosophy, practicality, and constitutionality. (Crank used to write on Sports Guy's old BSG site as a baseball sabermatician for those not in the know.)

http://baseballcrank.com/archives2/2012/12/politicslaw_gun_1.php

Is this the overall conservative position? 

By contrast, the Second Amendment specifically speaks of the militia being "well-regulated" and gives to Congress explicit powers relating to that regulation. That makes the right to bear arms less like the more absolute rights to free speech and free exercise of religion (about which "Congress shall make no law") and more like the right against searches and seizures, which the Fourth Amendment bans only when "unreasonable." Indeed, Congress used that authority in 1792 to require gun registration and ownership. The obvious conclusion is that, while neither Congress nor the states can properly bar the ownership or possession of any class of guns, one or both may impose reasonable regulations. Again, we can argue about the limits of what kind of regulation is wise or permitted - I personally tend to support background checks, limited waiting periods and even a gun registry - but there's no particular reason to believe that the Second Amendment is intended to present a meaningful obstacle to such regulations of the right.

[Moranis]

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-73885048/?related=true

[Roy H.]

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-73885048/?related=true

Except for the (relatively) few accidental gun deaths, I'm not sure what's to be achieved here from a health standpoint.

Doctors have a role in educating people about drugs, cigarettes, fatty foods, etc.  However, is it really necessary to spend millions of dollars warning about guns, or studying their effects?

Guns are made for killing.  That's pretty much their primary purpose, to tear through flesh and to end a life, whether it be an animal's or a person's.  People who own guns generally know that, and I'm not sure that any amount of education from somebody's physician is going to be of any use in preventing gun injuries or crimes.

Perhaps I'm cynical, but this seems to be more about political goals (or perhaps a method to extract more money from the government for "research") than it is a genuine health concern.

[Interceptor]

Except for the (relatively) few accidental gun deaths, I'm not sure what's to be achieved here from a health standpoint.

How about injuries?

I know that this has the sound of "scientists spend $20M doing research study, conclude that beer makes you drunk", but the same is true of smoking. Is there anyone in the country who doesn't know that cancer sticks will kill you? Or that cupcakes make you fat? The third brake light still pays for itself.

Maybe there's no value, but it's hard to know if we're not even permitted to do the research in the first place.

[Roy H.]

Maybe there's no value, but it's hard to know if we're not even permitted to do the research in the first place.

Study away, I guess.  Just don't do it on the government's / public's dime.