When 24-year-old James Holmes walked into the Century Aurora 16 movie theater last week, he was prepared for war. For starters, he was armored. He wore a ballistic helmet, a gas mask, body armor, metal shin guards, ballistic leggings and armored boots. He was also armed to the teeth. He had two semiautomatic Glock .40-caliber handguns, a Remington 870 Express Tactical pump action 12-gauge shotgun and a semiautomatic Smith & Wesson M&P 15 rifle. The M&P is an AR-15 style rifle, the civilian version of the military’s M-16. The only functional difference is the civilian version does not fire on full automatic, but instead fires as fast as you can repeatedly pull the trigger. Holmes’ M&P 15 had a high-capacity drum magazine that held 100 rounds. He had prepared for the shooting by buying 6,000 rounds of ammunition online.
This entire arsenal was obtained legally. The two instant computer background checks that Holmes underwent to obtain the guns probably took a matter of minutes. The magazines and ammunition took no background check at all. Neither did his body armor.
With this firepower, Holmes shot 71 people in just two minutes, killing 12. Two minutes. Among those killed were Navy Cryptologic Technician 3rd Class John Larimer, 27, and Air Force Staff Sgt. Jesse Childress, 29. Another airman and sailor were also injured in the attack. Members of our armed services are used to being in harm’s way — overseas. But it’s unfathomable to think that we’ve reached a point where this type of attack can occur — and so seemingly routinely — on our own soil.
The National Rifle Association sends messages out of both sides of its mouth regarding the military-style firepower that its lobbying has made widely available on the civilian market. When NRA spokespeople talk to mainstream America, they tell us that assault rifles are actually “modern sporting rifles” — as if an AR-15 with a 100-round magazine has any legitimate “sporting” purpose. When they talk to their base in the pro-gun movement, however, the message is far different. Then, their anti-government rhetoric is unleashed, and they preach that the Second Amendment provides individuals with the right to shoot and kill government officials when they sense “tyranny.” They preach that such “Second Amendment remedies” are the only thing safeguarding the rest of our freedoms. And those that embrace this extreme rhetoric will tell you that you don’t bring a knife to a gunfight. Their preparation for war with our government involves the stockpiling of the same types of high-powered firearms utilized by James Holmes.
Holmes, of course, had a different goal in mind: mass murder. Whereas Jared Loughner attempted a political assassination last year in Tucson, Holmes simply wanted to kill civilians, indiscriminately. And he was more than happy to utilize the battlefield weapons that were available to him through popular chains like Bass Pro Shop and Gander Mountain.
Whether it’s a deranged killer or someone who thinks “the guys with the guns make the rules” in our democracy, the bottom line is they have the firepower at hand to strip the rest of us — in a matter of minutes — of our inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This arms race is being fueled by an organization that encourages citizens to build political power not through the nonviolent forms of civil resistance that have prevailed against tyrannies all over the world, but by the barrel of a gun.
There is much we still don’t know about the Aurora gunman. It is doubtful that James Holmes suddenly woke up on Friday morning and decided to commit mass murder, however. Whatever the case may be, we will need to have a serious discussion about the obvious flaws in our background check system for gun buyers — which should have been addressed, but weren’t, after Jared Lougner purchased guns legally prior to the massacre in Tucson. But what needs to be of immediate concern to all is the increasing militarization of the American gun market and the rhetoric that supports it. This presents a pressing danger to anyone attempting to build a more peaceful, less violent society.
The article posting guidelines at the bottom warn against making unsubstantiated claims, yet there are such claims in the article. For instance, when have peaceful protests ever prevailed against tyrannies? There is always violence involved. Also, do you really think if this guy had the ability to assemble complicated explosive devices and acquire tear gas and other illegal materials that he wouldn’t have been able to figure out how to obtain firearms and ammunition on the black market? Absolute /facepalm at that notion. Criminals will be criminals no matter what you say they can or cannot do. That’s why they are criminals. And if you believe the notion of protecting one’s self against a tyrannical government is silly or unfounded, all I ask is that you pick up a history book every now and then. And be honest with yourselves. Nobody is actually “preparing for war” with the government other than fringe extremists which probably number in the tens of thousands at the very most.
There is protecting yourself against a tyrannical government, and there is shooting people. Granted, when we read the news every day we see that these two things may not be mutually exclusive, but they don’t always have to go together, either.
Maybe Holmes could have got the weapons on the black market. Maybe he couldn’t have. But there is no legitimate reason for civilians to be able to tote around almost military-grade weaponry.
If our government was so concerned with the death of innocent people it would strike at alcohol and tobacco, not at weapons that can be used to defend ourselves from criminals and lunatics like Holmes… it would not allow its AG to promote a fast and furious sale of US weapons to criminals… let’s get serious people.. Non violence movement! Do you also believe in the fairy and Santa Claus?
I take it you aren’t a frequent reader of this site. There are many many stories of unarmed civilians removing horrible, tyrannical and violent regimes. A short list would include: Egypt, Tunisia, Serbia, Philippines, Chile, South Africa, and Poland.
By the way, if the thought of tens of thousands of armed extremists preparing for war with the U.S. government was meant to soothe any fears about gun violence, I’m afraid it’s not working.
Bryan,
Are you kidding me? Egypt? How many unarmed civilians were killed by armed gov’t troops? What about China (under Mao), Libya (citizens armed with the help of US gov’t to overthrow) to name a few. Don’t just read the constitution, spend time learning about why those articles were adopted and stop using emotion as a basis for an argument. Bottom line, you have about as much of a chance of getting killed in a mass shooter attack than you do by getting struck by lightning. There were more murders caused my hammers and baseball bat attacks (FBI stats) in 2010 than by assault rifles. If we would like an intelligent debate on “violence control” let’s start with our weak court system which continues to let habitual criminals out of jail, gang bangers who never spend any time in jail, and a society that thinks pills are the answer to all emotional issues. That’s how you stop violence, not by stripping law abiding citizens of their rights. Don’t alter the second amendment , it was written by men who were smarter than all of us!
It’s a heck of a lot more than tens of thousands. The modern pro-gun movement is predicated on the radical notion that INDIVIDUALS have a Second Amendment right to shoot and kill our elected officials when they personally sense “tyranny.” Google “Obama tyranny” some time to see what a great idea that is. Patriotic Americans see “Second Amendment remedies” for what they are – treason. The advocacy of political violence by individuals that believe they are somehow above our democratic process.
As for this NRA bumper sticker that goes, “Criminals don’t obey laws, so why should we have laws?” it’s a bald-faced argument for anarchy. And Americans don’t want to live in anarchy. We prefer the rule of law. Which is why our Founders drafted the Constitution in the first place.
This “radical notion” is clearly spelled out in historical documents surrounding the founding of our country, AND the Supreme Court recently re-affirmed, in clear and concise English, that the right to bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL citizen’s right, not something that belongs to the government or military.
Read your history, man, and read the news. It is ridiculously easy to show that you are wrong here.
Ladd Everitt,
I read of you on an AP report on towns such as Harrold, TX which allow teachers to carry concealed weapons on their campuses. I have never heard such inane, sophomoric, simple minded drivel in my entire life. It is not difficult to control a weapon. For 99% of people, it is difficult to watch an out-of-control human being off children at will. The idea that an adult womam, who is a teacher and a licensed shooter, should not be able to put an end to a nutjob on a rampage is unbelievable. You sir, are a moron, and people like you are the true threat to children in today’s world.
Why shouldn’t law abiding citizen’s be able to buy what they want in this free country. These are machines/tools, pieces of metal and plastic that we are talking about. I should be able to protect myself and my family in any way I see fit in this ever changing world. If the criminals have weapons, I need them too, that’s only common sense. Why do you trust military and police with weapons, if you can’t trust your fellow citizen? It’s what you do with weapons that should be illegal. Not the act of owning them. Crazy people can kill a lot more innocent people with poisons and explosives, than they can with firearms, and remain anonymous while doing so.
I’m not sure we should trust the military and police with weapons, given stories like the Haditha killings and theOsar Grant shooting. So trusting civilians is an even scarier thought, especially in light of George Zimmerman. I totally agree that it’s people pulling the triggers, not the guns themselves. So that’s why people probably shouldn’t be trusted with them.
That’s a really sad and paranoid way to live your life Bryan.
Especially when you note the number of guns going into private hands and the number of first-time gun owners joining the ranks, and pair that with the declining violent crime rate in America.
Further, a broader scope, if people were so wanton and heartless why would you ever drive on a road or walk on the sidewalk when you are mere feet from speeding vehicles that can cause certain death?
The bottom line is that people are overall good, or simply indifferent, and have interest in causing harm to others.
Allowing good people to go armed allows for better odds when the rare bad apples act….or worse in the case of police and military action, the masses are commanded to do evil by the authorities.
Bryan and others, I would encourage you to take the comments of Andrew Johnston (AKA Weer’d Beard) with a grain of salt. He is a pro-gun activist with a history of being abusive to those who are victims of gun violence:
http://csgv4.blogspot.com/2012/01/pro-gun-activists-find-humor-in.html
This is called an “ad hominem” argument. Look it up. Wikipedia has a pretty good explanation.
If it was more efficient for mass murderers to kill with explosives, they would. They don’t. In 2009, 11,493 out of 16,799 murders in the United States were committed with firearms. So 68% of murders are committed with firearms. The number of Americans who were murdered by acts of terrorism (including bombs) on our soil that year? Zero. The number of Americans who were murdered by poisoning? 87 [All data from the CDC, queried through their online WISQARS tool.]
There is far more regulation of explosives in this country than of guns. You can’t buy or sell explosives without a license. Any theft or loss has to be reported within 24 hours of discovery. The records required when you transfer explosives are extensive and detailed.
Guns? Heck, in more than 40 states people can sell guns without even conducting background checks or maintaining any records of sale. And even when you undergo a background check through a federally licensed dealer, screening is so minimal that even homicidal maniacs are regularly approved:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-horwitz/auroras-hard-truth-mental_b_1727695.html
It’s an absolute joke. It couldn’t be easier. And that’s why killers overwhelmingly prefer firearms.
And yet, it is far EASIER to build an effective explosive device than it is to build a gun… and it’s even far cheaper than buying one.
Wishful thinking, dude. Your imaginations contradict reality.
You also compare incompatible statistics. Okay, 11,493 murders were committed with firearms. Regardless of what happened in THIS recent incident, which was obviously the work of someone who is deranged: how many of those were committed with LEGALLY OWNED guns? The answer: damned few.
This is very relevant because what you are discussing is laws to restrict firearms ownership. If the vast majority of murders committed with guns involve guns THAT ARE ALREADY ILLEGAL, how are further restrictions going to help?
More statistical nonsense: you neglect to mention that the vast majority of those murders were drug- or gang-related (which are often the same thing). It is criminals killing rival criminals, not criminals killing law-abiding citizens. (“Collateral damage” does happen, but pretty rarely.) And again: committed with illegally-obtained guns.
YOU imply that taking guns from otherwise law-abiding citizens would significantly reduce gun crime. But the real statistics (when reported accurately and you are not trying to compare apples with oranges) simply do not support that position.
Quote: “And even when you undergo a background check through a federally licensed dealer, screening is so minimal that even homicidal maniacs are regularly approved:”
So? If this guy came to YOU asking for approval under the law, how would you decide? He is calm, normal-looking, relaxed, and answers all the questions correctly. Are you claiming that YOU could have picked him out as a psychopath? When nobody else did?
When denying someone a CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED, INDIVIDUAL RIGHT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller)… you had better have damned good evidence. It is the government’s burden to show very good reason not to… not the individual’s burden to justify.
They prefer firearms to explosives because that’s what gets them notoriety and publicity, even as they take their own life in the end!
Anyone who can’t be trusted with a firearm cannot be trusted to go freely about society without a custodian. We will never be able to weed out all the potential murders or mass murders without violating the rights of the people.
Basically this boils down to rights. Regardless of what is done by individuals the rights of the populace should not be encroached upon as an answer. The populace has the right to bear arms and that means military grade personal weapons. The sporting purpose of a firearm should have no bearing on its legality. Not everyone will agree with me but that’s where I stand based on my readings and understanding of the history and legal background of the right to keep and bear arms. Anything else is violating the peoples rights.
The second amendment does not grant a right, it merely recognized that one already exists.
What happened was a tragedy and a horrible act of senseless violence. But to try and use this to call for the curtailment of the rights of the populace is a disgrace.
I agree with your last three paragraphs completely.
I believe you may agree with my first statement also. At least partially. If you are going to strip away someones rights (in this case the right to go armed if they so choose)then in reality you are holding them to the same standard of punishment as if they were guilty of something warranting imprisonment, which is stripping away their right to go about freely as well as many other basic rights.
You may disagree with me on what actions should warrant imprisonment or if imprisonment should ever be warranted.
Put simply I view the act of stripping away even one of a individuals rights as the same level of punishment as imprisoning that individual as it is all a denial of rights. If you cannot justify imprisoning someone by rights you shouldn’t be able to justify stripping away their rights.
On this point, Second Amendment author James Madison and our Founders were quite clear. The only people who have a “right” to keep and bear military-grade firearms are those serving their states in a “well regulated Militia.”
Seung Hui-Cho, Jared Loughner, James Holmes, etc., etc. were not members of any such militia, nor did they provide any service to our country whatsoever. They had no right to arm themselves to the teeth without proper and thorough screening.
Implying–in the wake of Aurora–that wanting homicidal maniacs to be properly screened when they buy guns is “a disgrace”? That’s an extreme position that is ridiculous on its face. Furthermore, it would be offensive to anyone who has lost a loved one at the hands of such an individual as James Holmes.
You are simply mistaken, as the Supreme Court ruled not long ago in “District of Columbia v. Heller”.
Look it up, man. You’re just wrong. It is an INDIVIDUAL right, not a “militia” right. Historical documents say so, the Supreme Court said so… in fact just about everybody contradicts you on this point, except for individuals who ASSUME, and don’t bother to check their facts or read history.
Militia in the context of the second amendment meant the body of the people fit for war.(it gets more specific but I doubt you want to get into of age and the fact that only men were considered fit at that point) The second amendment was not about individual rights to have arms for self defense or hunting or just because, these were considered natural rights of humans. The second amendment was specifically recognizing the rights of the people (as individuals and groups) to keep arms and train with them for their defense in a military fashion. The militia was the people’s ability to form itself into a combat ready force.
The exact meaning of well regulated, at the time meant that the militias had officers and a chain of command and was not a mob of armed individuals rallying to meet a threat. Hence calling the militia could be used as effective response to invasion, insurrection and other emergencies. It had nothing to do with the individual ownership of the arms only the force organization of the militias.
Now I would not be opposed to certain modern regulations of arms. (though this would be a long and detailed discussion of who should and shouldn’t be allowed to have arms) Assuming that we could undo the banning of destructive devices, machine guns and the way in which states can abrogate the right to bear arms (carry in public) at the peoples whim.
“Whether it’s a deranged killer or someone who thinks “the guys with the guns make the rules” in our democracy, the bottom line is they have the firepower at hand to strip the rest of us — in a matter of minutes — of our inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Who specifically is “they”? I think you are referring to the private citizens who own guns. If so I would argue that your unsubstantiated claim is false.
Of course it is true that people can succeed in violating the rights of some other people. They can do this even with only their bare hands. With weapons they can manage to violate more peoples’ rights, but I think your claim that these people with guns “can strip the rest of us — in a matter of minutes” of “our” rights (I put “our” in quotations because I don’t include myself in said group even though I don’t own a gun) is pure hyperbole.
The reality is that the vast majority of the rights-violations currently occurring are perpetrated by the criminal organizations known as governments. Governments currently strip nearly all of us of our rights. Some of us become victims of crimes of private individuals, but I think your fear that private individuals with guns are more of a danger to you and I than government people who currently have most of the gun power is unfounded.
“This arms race is being fueled by an organization that encourages citizens to build political power not through the nonviolent forms of civil resistance that have prevailed against tyrannies all over the world, but by the barrel of a gun.”
I absolutely agree with you that we should achieve a peaceful and just world through nonviolent forms of civil resistance rather than by the barrel of a gun. However, I do believe that people have the right to own guns. I am not familiar with the NRA’s lobbying that you are attacking so I will leave at at this rather than argue in support or opposition of any of the organization’s policies.
There were 31,347 gun deaths in the United States in 2009. Add to that an additional 66,769 injuries by gunfire. [CDC data queried through their WISQARS online tool.]
If you don’t think guns in the hands of private citizens are degrading “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” on a daily basis in America, then we live on a different planet.
Furthermore, if you consider support for the weak gun laws that allow such carnage to be part of your plank of “nonviolence,” then I think you need further study on the principles and moral grounding of that philosophy.
You definitely live on a different planet. You cherry-pick your “statistics” out of context, and try to use them to support your point.
Dude, you really should have joined the debate team in school. You might have learned something.
Also, I forgot to say that Ladd Everitt’s statement is very ironic:
“Whether it’s a deranged killer or someone who thinks “the guys with the guns make the rules” in our democracy, the bottom line is they have the firepower at hand to strip the rest of us — in a matter of minutes — of our inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
If they have the *firepower* to strip us of our inalienable rights in a matter of minutes then doesn’t that mean that the guys with the guns really do make the rules? Yet earlier in the same sentence you dismissed the notion as insane.
My point was that the leaders of the National Rifle Association and the modern pro-gun movement who tell us that “the guy with the guns make the rules” are perverting the views of Second Amendment author James Madison and the rest of our Founders. I’m also saying that patriots and people of conscience should advocate for a different, more peaceful vision of America with every ounce of energy and determination they have.
I’m really not trying to pick on you, but you simply don’t know your history as well as you pretend. Or else you do, and you’re cherry-picking from it, just like you have done with your statistics.
Ladd Everitt: Regarding a “more peaceful vision for America” have you ever heard the saying “An armed society is a polite society?” The idea is that if the majority of the people WITH guns are criminals, they are able to get away with whatever they wish and there is no one to stop them, and nothing to hinder them. NOW, look at if the majority of non-criminals, aka. every-day citizens, had guns and carried as well. Would you as a criminal be more or less likely to walk into a store and rob it? Without knowledge of who might be putting a bead on the back of your head, I think you would be much LESS likely to use a gun for mischief.
ALSO, your statistics on gun fatalities and gun injuries kind of dismisses the issue that the anti-gun sentiments that have been developing in this country are actually the CAUSE of these deaths and injuries. The BEST form of gun control is EDUCATION. TEACH a child what a gun is, how it works, how to fire it, and the damage it can do if improperly used, and they are MUCH less likely to play with it. Teach a child a little personal responsibility, and it is amazing what they can accomplish.
A great example would be myself. My father taught me how to shoot around age 6. We didn’t have a gun safe. I knew exactly where my dad kept each and every one of his guns, I knew where the ammunition was stored, and if I had wanted to play with them, there were plenty of times that my dad wasn’t around I could have. The difference between me, and those kids who end up injuring or killing their friends? My dad had actually taken the time to familiarize me with the guns, to show me how they work, to educate me. Our problem isn’t needing MORE gun regulation, and MORE restriction. Our problem is that we always try putting the blame where it doesn’t belong. It isn’t the gun’s fault for injuring or killing someone accidentally. It is the person pulling the trigger and by proxy, the person who never took the time to teach that person what that gun is capable of.
I intend to teach my daughter to shoot as soom as she can hold a gun and I intend to get her one of her own. BUT, I also intend to teach her about gun safety, about always treating the gun like it is loaded, that the gun is not a toy, but a tool and it can be very dangerous if mishandled. I intend to teach her to be responsible for her own actions. THAT is how I intend to keep MY child safe from firearms. Maybe, just maybe, if more people would take THAT approach, we would start to see those statistics used start to decline.
In closing, those who want to disarm through regulation, you have never really seen the world at large. You have never experienced the truth that as much as you WANT to disarm everyone, sit down in your little circle holding hands and singing songs, there is ALWAYS going to be evil men out there wanting to do you harm, and the ONLY way you can protect yourself from those people is by strenght of arms. To quote Teddy Roosevelt, “Talk quietly and carry a big stick.” I HOPE you understand that he was not talking a literal stick, but what he was implying was “carry a gun, protect yourself, don’t be boastful or loud about it, but always be able to back up what you are going to say.”
Perhaps Mr. Everitt & Co. should not outsource their image production. The outsourced graphic depiction of the armor used by Holmes is actually a doctored image of what was originally a 2010 depiction of a “Future Force Warrior” exoskeleton suit, as seen here: http://science.howstuffworks.com/ffw4.htm and here: http://jasonlouv.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/i-am-a-mechanical-man-robocops-and-robowars/
Notice the five-barreled nonexistent-in-reality handgun in the non-doctored image that needed to be erased for it to make more sense as the authentic get-up of a present-day psychopath. That suit is as real as the five-barreled laser gun that was carefully omitted. If you want to be manipulative with your imagery, try to have it grounded in reality.
Connor, I don’t think anyone who saw that photo from the Denver Post believed it was an actual photo of James Holmes. Did you?
Regardless of the brand/model of the equipment that Holmes wore, the fact remains that he entered the theater that night wearing a gas mask, ballistic helmet, tactical vest, and ballistic leggings.
So what’s your real point here? Do you think such equipment should be openly available on the civilian market without any type of screening at all?
There is so much misinformation being passed, in both the article and comments, I could not resist the urge to CLARIFY some matters:
(1) The guy was not wearing “armor”. His vest was made of NYLON. His “ballistic helmet” and “bullet-resistant” leggings were not actually armor, either. They are designed to resist penetration but they don’t give even the amount of protection a “bullet-proof” vest would… had he actually been wearing one. It was a military-style equipment vest, that is all. A short-barreled .22 caliber revolver would have penetrated it. Anything else is scare propaganda.
(2) As has already been pointed out, the graphic is dishonest. Forget it. It does not depict anything even close to what he was actually wearing.
(3) This “only militia has the right to have guns” needs to be addressed. This is the most persistent pile of bull, in the face of contrary facts, I have ever encountered. Historical documents actually, and quite clearly, show the real meaning of the Second Amendment. It goes like this:
“A well regulated Militia…” [A standing Army… this is clear.]
“… being necessary to the security of a free State, …” [This is also quite clear: a government must have an army to defend the country.]
“… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
And THERE is where the disconnect occurs.
The founders were terrified about the necessity of having a standing army. They had just fought a 2-year war against THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT’S (at the time) standing army. They believed (rightly so… how many military coups have occurred in your lifetime?) that a standing army was the single biggest threat to a free country. And so: “the right of THE PEOPLE” [emphasis mine] to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed… because THE PEOPLE need to be able to defend themselves AGAINST the “well-regulated militia”.
As further evidence, the phrase “the people” occurs many times in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and it is accepted to have a specific meaning. In order to try to say that the right to keep and bear arms belongs only to a “well regulated militia” requires you to assign a different meaning to “the people” than occurs anywhere else. Sorry… it won’t wash.
This is not wordplay or nitpicking. Writings about the debates surrounding ratification clearly show this to be the true meaning… as the Supreme Court just affirmed in its ruling a couple of years ago, against the District of Columbia. SCOTUS stated, in so many words: the right to keep and bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right, not a “collective” right belonging to government or a militia.
(4) The Department of Justice’s own statistics clearly show that per-capita crime has been going DOWN over the last few decades, while at the same time, per-capita gun ownership has been steadily going UP! Firearms restrictions has been tried in this country, from Federal to State to local laws, in various degrees, for 80+ years now. The government itself has been keeping statistics for over 50 of those years. And the statistics are very clear: “gun control”, at least in the United States, DOESN’T WORK.
Simply by generalizing the category as people with almost military grade weapons you have shown your true intentions which is no better than the ideology of a racist …. You r generalization is that by allowing people the right to have something is dangerous because of a lack of trust in them…. Oh wait that was just the reasoning behind not letting slaves vote, or forcing Japanese into internment camps due to fear of danger… Aka all i understand from your post is that you are scared of the real word…
Dont blame guns and bulk ammo on the reason for people who decide to kill one or many.MAke the gun man be responsible for own actions.
He will be held responsible. He’ll either be executed or spend the rest of his life in prison.
And what will that do to stop the next homicidal maniac from legally buying body armor and an arsenal of firearms and killing our loved ones?
Absolutely nothing.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-horwitz/auroras-hard-truth-mental_b_1727695.html
It’s time for people of conscience to kick the NRA out of our legislatures and build a more peaceful America where “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is truly respected and cherished.
HE WASN’T WEARING REAL BODY ARMOR!!!
Get it straight. You’re not going to get real info about this from HuffPo.
Kick the NRA out of our legislatures? Why? Because you dont agree with the NRA? How about kicking out “Big Pharma”? The makers of dangerous drugs? Its time for you to get a real job, as James Carville said the gun issue is a “loser”. Not because of the NRA but because you have no right to tell me how to protect my family or myself.
We should all learn from the message of non-violence and I agree that it is the best method of gaining a critical mass of support in the face of an oppressive and tyranical government. However, I ask this of everyone who wants to use government force to disarm sovereign individuals… Is it a morally superior position to allow oneself to be a victim of violence, or to defend the lives of your family?
Is the US correct in placing “non violent” sanctions against Iran to prevent them from doing further nuclear research? These sanctions will lead to the starvation of countless Iranian children.
“have no fear for atomic energy cause none of us can stop the time” – Bob Marley
Yeah, right, because the NRA is launching wars abroad as well. Stick a fish down your threat Ladd. You’ve got a name only a dyke could wish for.
There is so much misinformation being passed, in both the article and comments, I could not resist the urge to CLARIFY some matters:
(1) The guy was not wearing “armor”. His vest was made of NYLON. His “ballistic helmet” and “bullet-resistant” leggings were not actually armor, either. They are designed to resist penetration but they don’t give even the amount of protection a “bullet-proof” vest would… had he actually been wearing one. It was a military-style equipment vest, that is all. A short-barreled .22 caliber revolver would have penetrated it. Anything else is scare propaganda.
(2) As has already been pointed out, the graphic is dishonest. Forget it. It does not depict anything even close to what he was actually wearing.
(3) This “only militia has the right to have guns” needs to be addressed. This is the most persistent pile of bull, in the face of contrary facts, I have ever encountered. Historical documents actually, and quite clearly, show the real meaning of the Second Amendment. It goes like this:
“A well regulated Militia…” [A standing Army… this is clear.]
“… being necessary to the security of a free State, …” [This is also quite clear: a government must have an army to defend the country.]
“… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
And THERE is where the disconnect occurs.
The founders were terrified about the necessity of having a standing army. They had just fought a 2-year war against THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT’S (at the time) standing army. They believed (rightly so… how many military coups have occurred in your lifetime?) that a standing army was the single biggest threat to a free country. And so: “the right of THE PEOPLE” [emphasis mine] to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed… because THE PEOPLE need to be able to defend themselves AGAINST the “well-regulated militia”.
As further evidence, the phrase “the people” occurs many times in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and it is accepted to have a specific meaning. In order to try to say that the right to keep and bear arms belongs only to a “well regulated militia” requires you to assign a different meaning to “the people” than occurs anywhere else. Sorry… it won’t wash.
This is not wordplay or nitpicking. Writings about the debates surrounding ratification clearly show this to be the true meaning… as the Supreme Court just affirmed in its ruling a couple of years ago, against the District of Columbia. SCOTUS stated, in so many words: the right to keep and bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right, not a “collective” right belonging to government or a militia.
(4) The Department of Justice’s own statistics clearly show that per-capita crime has been going DOWN over the last few decades, while at the same time, per-capita gun ownership has been steadily going UP! Firearms restrictions has been tried in this country, from Federal to State to local laws, in various degrees, for 80+ years now. The government itself has been keeping statistics for over 50 of those years. And the statistics are very clear: “gun control”, at least in the United States, DOESN’T WORK.
All wishful thinking aside: it doesn’t work. The government’s own statistics say so.
I am a nonviolent person. But I don’t delude myself with wishful thinking.
Somehow my comment got duplicated. That was not intentional.
“If you are in a position to prevent further violence, strike first, strike hard.” — Dalai Lama
It’s not true that Dalai Lama ever said that!
You saw it in a movie and you think it’s true?
The nonviolent approach is the best approach for all parties involved if the situation allows it. Sadly the nonviolent approach only works when all parties involved are nonviolent in their means and intentions.
We should be moved as individuals and as a people (the world, the USA and those in this discussion) to resolve conflicts through peaceful and rational means. It is the right of every individual to choose to do no violence regardless of the situation. To choose to run or hide or even receive the violence without any resistance of any kind. Perhaps this is the moral high ground we should all strive to achieve.
Sadly there are those who will resort to violence. And it is also the right of every individual to meet this violence with violence if they choose this most drastic and life altering of paths.
Is a life worth saving if a life must be taken to preserve it? That is between the individual and whatever power, morals or other beliefs they have.
I didn’t read all of the comments, but I do have one question that I don’t remember seeing anyone ask or answer. During the beginning of the Revolutionary War, the army and state militias were made up of citizens using their own weapons. And guess what? They were close to the same weapons that the British used against them. Hence: military-grade weapons.
So… citizens shouldn’t be allowed to have military-grade weapons? If that was the case, we probably wouldn’t be here having this conversation, because the United States most likely would not exist.
Any cursory reading of history should tell you that the whole point of citizens carrying weapons is to protect against threats, foreign and domestic. You can’t protect yourself from a tyrannical government with a handgun, if that government has a trained army that carries fully-automatic machine guns.
While the chances of this happening are VERY rare, that is the point of the second amendment. As has been stated by others, criminals will be able to get a hold of weapons no matter what. They’re criminals. They’re not so concerned with the law. Making it harder for law-abiding citizens to get weapons doesn’t make it harder for criminals.
Will I buy a machine gun just in case I need to protect myself from my own government? Probably not. But should someone be allowed? Yes.
Using this argument means that we should limit free speech because someone out there might say something that incites a riot or convinces someone to commit a hate crime.
Criminals will commit crimes no matter what laws stand in their way.
In fact, more to the point, some of the colonials had BETTER weapons than the British Army. A lot of the Brits were using Muskets still, while a lot of the Colonials had rifled barrels. These were SUPERIOR firearms to the standing army’s muskets, because as we know, the rifling causes the bullet to spin, and makes it more accurate over greater distances. So, technically, not only did the founding fathers have “military grade weapons” but in MANY instances, they had superior weapons.
This being the case, why should there be any restriction on what type of firearms we as private citizens can own and buy? I personally have no desire to own an automatic weapon because it is a waste of bullets. It shoots a lot with poor accuracy. That being said, I shouldn’t be restricted from buying one. My wife always likes to bring up the current “definition” of an assault weapon. It is NOT specifically a military-style weapon, or anything of that. It is a “Scary” weapon. Well, accoding to that, my Smith & Wesson M&P 15-22 is an assault weapon, yet my concealed carry pistol, that is a .45 cal, will do a LOT more damage. . . How intelligent is that definition?
Anyway, I digress. The long and short of it is, when the 2nd Amendment was penned, private citizens could own pretty much any level of firearm they wished. Automatic weapons bans, requiring concealed carry permits, open-carry laws, all of these things are blatantly unconstitutional.
If a time comes when police are not so militarized, then the citizens shouldn’t be either. Until that day I think it’s fair for citizens to have access to any type of defensive weapon or outfit. I will still argue that there can never be a complete ban on guns because I sleep much better at night knowing my 12-gauge is ready and willing to protect my family if need be. Criminals do not obey laws, so the average citizen can and should be armed to protect themselves. This doesn’t sound like anarchy to me. This sounds like logic and commonsense.
Wow, many highly good tips! I value you crafting this editorial and the rest of your site is terrific!