“The powerful gun lobby’s iron grip on Washington showed signs of loosening Monday in the wake of the massacre of 20 children in Connecticut…” — New York Daily News, Dec. 17.
Personification is a familiar figurative literary technique whereby an object or idea is given human characteristics or qualities. Political personification, which it resembles, is a technique favored across the ideological spectrum. It answers a human need to put a face on the political issue and political enemies at hand.
The National Rifle Association and/or its CEO, Wayne LaPierre, have been summoned forth to fill this need following the Newtown Kindermord. In fact, I believe it’s fair to say that the NRA has attracted more odium, more incandescent fury, than the lunatic perpetrator. After all, Adam Lanza is dead and the NRA still lives.
Stephen Hunter, a Pulitzer Prize-winning former film critic of the Washington Post has harsh words for “the orgy of recrimination, faux solemnity and glycerine tears of the past few days on the issue of ‘What can we do?’” This strikes me as a bit too cynical. The horror and revulsion is genuine (how could it be otherwise) and unadulterated among politically inattentive people, but politicians, pundits, and guilty bystanders who are perpetually attentive to political combat can’t escape the reflex to make political calculations. It’s lodged deep in our brains and can’t be eradicated.
So the NRA now holds center stage as the “gun lobby” ultimately responsible for the slaughter. Ex-senator Ethan Strimling has seized the moment to call for a referendum to force the Maine legislature’s hand, arguing that “The NRA and the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine will pour tons of resources into defeating even the most reasonable public safety law” proposed in Augusta.
Michael Moore twitters that “The NRA hates freedom. They don’t want you to have the freedom to send your children to school & expect them to come home alive.” The prolific author Joyce Carol Oates twitters: “If sizable numbers of NRA members become gun-victims themselves, maybe hope for legislation of firearms? “ Avaaz, “a global campaign network of 17 million people” targets two large hotel chains which give discounts to members of the NRA. CREDO, a “progressive grassroots group” wrote on its Facebook summons to a protest rally “To stop the senseless killing we must first stop the NRA.”
University of Rhode Island history professor Erik Loomis grew eloquent in the Twittersphere: “Looks like the National Rifle Association has murdered some more children….Now I want Wayne LaPierre’s head on a stick…“F**k the NRA. Wayne LaPierre should be in prison…Can we define NRA membership dues as contributing to a terrorist organization? John Cobarruvias, who holds a seat on the Texas State Democratic Party’s Executive Committee, labels the NRA a “domestic terrorist organization” asking “Can we now shoot the #NRA and everyone who defends them?” MSNBĆs Lawrence ÓDonnell calls the National Rifle Association chief Wayne LaPierre “the lobbyist for mass murderers.
Prof. Robert Klose of UMA has a column in the Dec. 19 Bangor Daily News calling for repeal of the 2nd Amendment, arguing that “Once it is gone, meaningful firearms legislation will finally be possible — converting gun possession from a right to a privilege, like a drivers license — and the NRA will be relegated to background noise, a hysterical mob with no constitutional basis for its oblique philosophy that the more firearms the better.”
It may be worth mentioning that the Senate Office of Public Records. Data for the most recent year shows total lobbying expenditures by the NRA and its dependent organizations of $2,205,000. According to OpenSecrets.org the NRA spent $18,896,442 on candidates in 2012: $2,185,075 for Democrats, $10,527,891 against Democrats, $5,638,032 for Republicans, $500,076 against Republicans. This makes the NRA seventeenth out of the 275 top contributors.
For this year’s election Rep. Mike Michaud received $3,000 from the NRA Political Victory Fund. He raised a total of $1,208,466. Sen. Collins received nearly $20,000 from the NRA’s political action committee from 1996 to 2002, nothing since. For her 2008 race she raised $8,039.750. It looks as if both of them could easily have done without NRA money.
CREDO’s Josh Nelson tells us that “The NRA takes tens of millions in corporate donations from gun makers and uses that money to lobby Congress and defeat anyone who opposes any gun-related law whatsoever.” I have no idea where that “tens of millions” figure comes from, but the claim that gun manufacturers fund the NRA can be found in political science textbooks. In one I remember, the author explained that these merchants of death fund the NRA through advertisements in the two magazines it circulates as a benefit to members.
I assume he believes manufacturers of firearms, ammunition, reloading equipment, ATVs, camping equipment etc. would be advertising in The New Yorker, Gourmet, and The Village Voice except for covert ulterior motives.
Does it fall to me alone to point out that the NRA claims 4.3 million members, that their annual dues are $35 with a life-time membership available for $1,000? This seems to account for around $150,500,000 out of their reported annual income of $205,000,000. No telling what part of the balance comes from gun manufacturers but they report that 46 percent of their expenditures are for “fund-raising.”
Let’s get serious. The NRA’s power comes from Prof. Kose’s “hysterical mob”— its 4.3 million members. This may make it the largest “grass-roots” organization in the United States. It might even be called the largest consumer-advocacy organization since its members are all consumers of firearms, ammunition, etc. Compare this with CREDO’s parent organization, Working Assets, which claims 300,000 customers who receive revenue from long-distance telephone services, wireless telephone services, and credit cards. Working Assets donates a percentage of its revenues to “a host of leftwing groups and causes.” When I attended an NRA banquet in Bangor in 2008 I found myself in a room with hundreds of guests. When CREDO mounted its protest outside the NRA lobbying headquarters in Washington, D.C. the press reported a crowd of 50 to 75.
So CREDO is a “grassroots group” and the NRA a “gun lobby?”
Those expressing hatred for guns, for the “gun-culture,” for gun-owners, and for gun-toting Republicans are being honest. They understand that the real enemy of their hopes is the millions of gun owners who believe that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to own firearms “which shall not be infringed” by Congress.
Those fuming about the “NRA Gun Lobby” are indulging in intentional or inadvertent misdirection. Annihilate the NRA. Free our weak and wimpy legislators from its iron grip and gun control advocates are still left with millions of gun-owners who mill have to be controlled, regulated, and restrained.
Do all liberal talking heads hold degrees in hyperbole, or just the ones who talk?
3 thoughts:
1. The NRA is trying to provide a solution that works. The 1994 “assault weapons” ban did not prevent Columbine, so why would the NRA support a proven failure as a solution?
2. Shootings occur in gun free zones. Semiautomatic rifles and 20-round magazines are red herrings. The perp could have used 2 Civil War revolvers, killing 11 others and himself, and no one could stop him because good guys obey the gun laws.
3. A man in China just got into his car and ran down 13 kids because he was so distraught over the death of his daughter. This follows a previous incident in China where 22 kids in a school were slashed with a knife by an attacker.
When are we going to stop pretending that guns are the problem, and focus on the real issues like deranged lunatics and how to stop them?
Shame on you, John Frary. How dare you dump your sarcastic drone on the flames of outrage that has so appropriately combusted amidst the ashes of those tender young children (& Adam Lanza & his poor mother)!!
My membership with the NRA lapsed years ago. As well as my firearm activities.
However all this misdirected hysteria,,,(blaming a “thing (gun)” for what is really a human being problem),,reminds me of why I need to rejoin the NRA.
The “Why” is to prevent misdirected hysterical people from doing something foolish,,while accomplishing nothing.
I have been reminded how gullible and murkyheaded people are.
Just like us to react ineffectively by blaming the wrong “thing”.
Thus,,
No positive change.
Well said, John.
Good to see that the spokesman for the discredited right is still at it!
Guns themselves do not kill people, however, they certainly make it easier for people to kill people.
1.the NRA suggests placing more guns in schools. Really? That sounds like a prison rather than a stimulating learning environment .
2. Yes shootings can happen anywhere. No ban on semi automatic guns and clip size will make a difference short term. It would take some time to remove all of the banned guns from the street.
2A. As Will mentioned the ‘good guys’ will follow the law the ‘bad guys’ will try to hide and use their banned weapons regardless of any law.
3. None of the 22 children attacked in China died from the knife attack. The guns used in CT certainly increased the morbidity rate with 26 killed.
4. Calling people with opposing views talking heads or murkyheaded gets us nowhere. It is no wonder why there is no partisan work in congress. We only care about our views instead of how we can work to solve these issues together.
The problem is with society and until we can accept the fault is within ourselves no progress will be made.
Yes, but what does Charlie Webster say?.
It was Harvard’s Lawrence Tribe whose 1978 and 1988 articles were widely accepted as “discrediting” the belief that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed the individual right to keep and bear arms. But he reversed that position by 2000. I quote: “My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, and an unwelcome surprise. I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control.”
Sanford Levinson at the University of Texas, another liberal constitutional scholar explains his own change of mind: “The earlier consensus reflected received wisdom and political preferences rather than a serious consideration of the amendment’s text, history and place in the structure of the Constitution. The standard liberal position is that the Second Amendment is basically just read out of the Constitution’.”
We have a lot of laws – laws that crack down on people for drunk driving, laws that dictate how fast we can drive in school districts, laws that prevent adults from having sex with children, on and on. The fact that some people break these laws doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have them. That argument doesn’t make sense.
I think that the solution (never perfect) to this and lots of other pressing problems is not one single thing. There are several things we can do, and we should look at all of them. We should treat people with mental illnesses more effectively and also look at gun laws. One doesn’t preclude the other.
The school that the president’s daughters attend has armed guards (Sidwell Friends School)… that’s the school’s SOP, it does not include the girls’ Secret Service detail. Apparently that learning environment is good enough for the first family.
Incidentally, it is the same school that David Gregory sends his kids to, as he argues with Wayne LaPierre on Meet the Press regarding having armed guards in schools.
To hell with what Charlie W. sez……. What does Hillary C. say… nothing… she disappeard and went into hiding when she was wanted for an explantation…
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up qnd exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, 1 million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defensless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th century because of gun control: 56 million.
No wisdom in pointing the finger at guns being the problem. That’s the easiest thing to do.
Schools are allowing gun men to enter. Schools are to educate the children as well as keep them safe. If there is a problem with school shootings, I think that each teachers should be certified in a small firearm, part of being a teacher. That will stop this problem dead. No body will challange them, it would be suicide. Can’t shoot a gun, can’t be a teacher. Next issue with no wisdom, liberals want to take away guns to stop violance? Liberals have no idea the violance will be created by taking guns away. Maybe that’s the whole idea, create a cival war. Something I’m really not into, nor do I like all the here say. School shootings don’t happen all that often. By the way, I understand Adam Lanza did not use his assault rifle in the shooting because it was in his trunk the whole time. I feel the media knows this.
Free our weak and wimpy legislators??? Your kidding right??? What about the American people? Shouldn’t what we want have any bearing on this situation? From what I can see, the millions of us who respect and don’t abuse our rights are slowly being starved to death .
How many bullets were fired by the 9/11 savages? By Timmy McVeigh? Determined evil doesn’t need guns.
Regarding the discredited right … Is that all it takes to become discredited, to lose an election? Well, in Maine the entire left was discredited in 2010. Now, without changing position on anything, are they miraculously credited? Jimmy Carter was discredited. As was Walter Mondale, Mike Dukakis, Al Gore and John Kerry. Most recently Mitt Romney was discredited, not because of his policies, but because those who work for a living are now outnumbered by those who vote for a living.
Please get serious on this one Mr Frary:
People driving cars kill people…drunk drivers kill people, less drunk drivers kill less people.
People flying planes kill people, people flying bigger, faster planes kill more people
People using guns kill people. People using bigger, faster shooting guns kill people faster…
Laws have been proposed, and passed in these and many other cases to reduce the likliehood of death, and the the law evolves and they do work.
Drunk driving laws have reduced deaths on the road.
Having people qualified to fly private and commercial planes, reduces fatalities…..
Having people qualified and tested before they can purchase, own and operate a weapon with the capacity to kill dozens of people in minutes, and be ready to kill more, requires no training, no testing, no peer review, no certification,,,,,,,,just a few hundred bucks…..
Is the pen mightier than the sword? If so why the need for all of these semiautomatic weapons? and all the rhetoric?
Use Your pen, Mr Frary to help bring sanity to the new arms race the NRA proposes….a gun in every school…how big a gun? How fast a rate of fire? What level of armour piercing capabilities? With or without explosive rounds, and or optional grenade launcher?
What a CROCK!
Get real…the NRA and their desires for an overly armed society IS PART OF THE PROBLEM OF SCHOOL SHOOTINGS. Why can’t their leadership be part of a rational solution? Why?
Please use your mighty pen and generate some support for the public good. After all what is your legacy going to be?
Glen,
Hillary Clinton is Secretary of State. What do you think she has to do with the NRA?
I own and use firearms and have for since I was a young boy of 12.That was the age my Dad taught me about Gun safety and I also attended several trainings that were given readily throughout the state. The training instilled respect and the safe use of firearms and a love for the shooting sports .Guns are here to stay and I think states and towns should promote the training as in years past.Even if you don’t own or want to own a weapon a little knowledge goes a long way. Problem with anti gun people the are ignorant about firearms and that makes for a one sided problem. They probably couldn’t and wouldn’t defend themselves . I am not a NRA member and there are probably hundreds of thousands of gun owners that are not members perhaps we all should sign up. We need to focus on strict penalties for law breakers . like life in prison for an illegal gun in your possession. Believe it or not people do respond to punishment and just seeing others being punished is a great deterrent. A real criminal cant be rehabilitated anyway it has been proven over and over again. Its not if they will reoffend but when. I can say that after 30 years in the business the habitual offenders need to be put away for good . As for control of mental ill ness we need a better gauge on who we let hit the streets again,deinstitutionalizatin caused its own problems. Grab your gun and have Fun! its a great sport.
I believe that instead of focusing on the type of weapon (guns) used in this horrible attack, we should focus on the cause of the attack, Adam Lanza. I do not believe he had no symptoms of mental disease before he committed this atrocious act. We should fund agencies that can help people like Adam, rather than restrict American’s rights.
The idea behind so many laws is that it’s somehow possible to legislate responsibility. Laws allow for prosecution after the fact, but they do almost nothing preemptively. A person who sets out to act irresponsibly does not care what law is being violated, … uh, until the court case.
I know the solution to end all of the killings. It is simple really ban murder. Oh wait murder has been against the law for a long time. Which would mean that only people that break the law will commit murder and the law only effects people that obey the law. Using an explosive without the proper licenses is against the law but we still have bombings.
How any rational person can truly believe that banning a certain type of firearm will solve anything is beyond me.
The NRA suggestion would have more effect on protecting our children then any ban on firearms. However, I think the NRA suggestion would be to costly to be effective.
What is That? is right here,,
People using guns kill people. People using bigger, faster shooting guns kill people faster…
So if we armed a school guard with bigger and faster shooting guns,,,,,,,,
More killers would be killed (or detered before they acted)..
“THAT’S” Reality.
500th homicide in Chicago this year
Nathaniel T. Jackson, 40 … was standing outside a store in the Austin neighborhood around 9 p.m. Thursday when someone walked up and shot him in the head, police said. His death was the 500th homicide in Chicago this year …
Chicago has some of the strictest firearm (all types) control laws in the country. Passing more and stricter laws won’t make anyone safer, they’ll just hike the passers’ self-esteem.
WHAT WAS THAT? You should address your demand for seriousness to Professors Levinson and Tribe. They argue for the individual right to own firearms. Levinson points out that the liberal law professors have always take a very expansive view of First Amendment rights, so it is glaringly inconsistent not to extend the same broad interpretation for the Second.
I should point out that there is a large number of court cases delineating the extent—and limits—of First Amendment rights but no equivalent record for the Second. It is not serous for you to argue that since there are already gun controls, there can be a problem with more gun controls.
In any case, the point of my article remains—it is a misdirection to “personify” the issues. There can be no serous debate while that practice persists. You are not requesting my participation in a national conversation on gun control. You are demanding participation in a national lecture on gun control. I decline.
Gun control says that the exercise of my rights are not dependent upon my good conduct, but rather the misconduct of others.
“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it.”
-Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif, discussing the 1994 “crime bill”
Liberals want a disarming in America if they say otherwise they are lying to you.
What I don’t understand is why the Sandy Hook victim’s families are not outraged at this gun control non-sense as they are being used as pawns by the liberal left to advance this agenda. I would consider it to be as horrific if only one child had been slain by any weapon. The liberal left democrats have been waiting in the shadows forcan incident like this to pounce on our 2nd amendment rights. Our Forefathers knew what could happen if the governing body became drunk with power. They had just finished over throwing a tyrannical government and I might add with the same type of weapons carried by the military at that time…I will step out on a limb and suggest that they would have had no problem with an automatic style weapon if that is what was available and what was being carried by the other guy. The suggestion by many that the musket was the only weapon that the 2nd amendment provided for is not credible as that was the modern weapon of the day…it was the assault weapon of it’s time and it kept government in check.
Of government Jefferson wrote: “…it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”
Another commenter wrote: “They who fought the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the wars against Germany did not wait for change at the ballot box; they placed their lives, fortunes and futures in jeopardy to end oppression. They did not permit the media to convince them that resistance was the realm of the insane, of the “preppers” and of the lone propagandist.”
Will M. and Dave, thank you for sharing your research.
I see a deeper issue with this debate…a battle between booksmarts and common sense. You see, common sense is the internal knowledge that allows people to be self-sufficient…it was the basic necessity for survival for thousands of years and is major threat to those thriving on those of us who have become dependents (of government, grocery stores, pharmaceuticals, etc). Why else would the government attain TRILLIONS of dollars in debt to provide food stamps, welfare checks, and more than 27 weeks of unemployment…oh yes, and don’t forget loans for an unusable college education.
If the Farm Bill of 1949 was due to expire, why wait until the 11th hour to address it. Because it will take several months to rewrite, and if given enough time to take harsh action on gun control, the price of meat tripling will be a fact we have to swallow as we will have no means to provide our own meat.
There are 2 points that I can find within John Frary’s article: 1) John loves his thesaurus, and 2) the people he quoted sound like very violent people.
Professor Frary, and some others, seem to suggest that because the right to bear arms is a constitutional right, that it therefore is somehow an absolute right. This has never been the case.
Just as the right to free speech, and the free exercise of religion are properly limited by congress — so is the right to bear arms.
The Professor cannot legally have three wives, even if the practice of his religion requires him to do so.
Despite his First Amendment rights, he cannot cry “fire” to terrify patrons in a crowded theater, or use public words so course or offensive they are likely to provoke an imminent violent response from another person.
If the 2nd Amendment Right was absolute — individuals would necessarily be allowed to possess fully automatic machine guns or sawed-off shotguns — or why not rocket-propelled grenades?
Nobody can seriously argue that the founding fathers intended the second amendment to guarantee the right of the farmers of Concord and Lexington to own cannon and chain shot.
Let’s focus on what the appropriate limits on gun rights should be — not on the hollow argument as to whether limits are allowed under the constitution.
What exactly is amanda trying to say?
Did she actually read the article?
“Let’s focus on what the appropriate limits on gun rights should be — not on the hollow argument as to whether limits are allowed under the constitution.” Jim Andrews
Fair enough. I suggest that we’ve reached the “appropriate” limits. How’s that? What gun owners are saying is … Enough is enough!
Since lawbreakers break the law, new ones won’t help a thing.
Mr. Andrews, I would respectively disagree. No where has our founding fathers put restrictions on what arms are included in the 2nd amendment. If a cannon and chain shot is what is needed to stop a government from slipping into an oppressive tyranny then so be it. The only thing right now that is keeping our government in check is the knowledge that the American people have the ability to meet equal force with an equal threat. Feinstein, our president, and others in power know this, therefore their constant push for gun control…they do not want resistance. Do you want to face up to a tyrannical government with a revolver or a musket when they are carrying automatics? They would like you to be. Don’t say it will never happen here…it could. I hope not, but it could and the current political atmosphere is ripe for it. Lastly, I should say that I am somewhat disturbed by your post, Mr. Andrews, knowing that they are words from our District Attorney.
I’m pleased to see that no one is challenging the point of the column—that the venomous political personification of the NRA is a misdirection. I take this to be agreement.
Mr. Andrews responds with a push-button opinion, i.e., any reference to Second Amendment rights must be an assertion of absolute right. It’s true I have resolved that if they come for my RPG they will have to pry it from my cold dead fingers (and that goes double for the flame-thrower in my other hand) Also true that I once heard a zealous young l libertarian argue for the constitutional right of every American to drive around with a neutron bomb in his pick-up truck. BUT I intend no suggestion of an absolute right in principle.
What I have said, in an addendum, is that while the limits on the First Amendment restrictions have been examined in numerous court decisions there are is no equivalent body of judge-made law about the limits on Second Amendment rights.
Mr. Andrews is right. If you cause mass panic by your words then you are breaking the law. If you marry more than 1 person at a time, you are breaking the law. In both of thrse examples a citizen has broken the law, not exercised a right. The libraries and computers in our country are full of violent retoric aimed at people whom the author does not like, yet are protected by the first amendment. Church groups show up at funerals of soldiers and children with the intent of causes pain yet are protected under the 1st amendment. The 2nd amendment is already way more controlled than any others. Imagine the government taking away your right to write your opinion to the Bulldog because someone may not like what you say. No gun advocate is saying hard core criminals should have weapons, but the average citizen should not be judged as a criminal simpily by having what someone else doesn’t like. The founding fathers intendedd for the citizens to be able to defend themselves not from just other people but also the government itself. The founders did not see assault weapons, planes, tanks ,lazers or any other modern weapons, but left wiggle room just like they did for the other amendments. This should be about criminals and the mentally ill and not about the average law abiding citizen. Current laws were broken in every mass shooting on record. More laws will not stop evil.
I’m saying if it looks like a duck and acts like a duck, I think it must be a duck. But if someone is yelling at me that it’s a duck, I start to wonder if it is a duck and why they want me to believe it’s a duck.
I’m saying I believe in smokescreens.
Amanda, Do you think you have just clarified your remarks? Perhaps a thesaurus would help.
Amanda, you apparently have things in your head that you are not sharing with the rest of us. I, for one, have no idea what your “duck” is and it’s unclear what your “smokescreen” is covering.
Lanza shot himself when police arrived. Perhaps if they had arrived sooner, he would have shot himself sooner, and less people would have died. Is it POSSIBLE that if there had been a capable person with access to a pistol or a carbine at the school that they could have (1) caused him to shoot himself even sooner, (2) wounded/disabled him, (3) killed him, thus saving more lives? Would saving one or more of those lives have been a good thing? Is it POSSIBLE that if Lanza had known capable armed people were at the school that he would not have done what he did? Do you need greater proof of the ineffectiveness of empty hands against a heavily-armed lunatic?
@ Think About It: How much longer would it have taken Lanza to do what he did if he had built a suicide vest, or been armed with machetes or a samurai sword? His victims were mainly 6-7 year-old children. How about YOU think about it, instead of blaming the tragedy on one of your phobias? Lefties want gun control! Ok, we get it! But that’s no reason to blame guns for what Lanza did. I presume McVeigh used a bomb because he felt it would be more effective than guns. Aren’t bombs already illegal? Isn’t it illegal for gangbangers with long criminal records in Chicago to have guns? I’m gonna guess they don’t go thru any background checks to get their guns. There were 500 gun murders there this year. Did alcohol or drug prohibition keep them off the street? Anybody with a brain knows that gun prohibition won’t, either. You’re just pushing the leftie agenda.
Here’s a thought: if Lanza had not had a weapon that could fire 30 rounds, perhaps more children could have been saved. Several children escaped while he reloaded after exhausting the 30 round clip. Does anyone really think that automatic/semiautomatic weapons make sense? Can’t we all agree on this? Are we so bound to our positions that we can’t agree on anything?
On a recent “Meet the Press” segment, President Obama said that he would put his full weight behind gun control. I will assume that most of us know the dictionaries definition of control.
The Second Amendment as it reads:
“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.”
Definition of infringe: Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.) ; Act so as to limit or undermine; To encroach on.
Noah Webster said in a pamplet urging ratification of the Constitution, “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe.”
Another source commented:
“George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch’s goal had been, ‘to disarm the people ; that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.’
A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment’s overriding goal as a check upon the national government’s standing army: As civil rulers not having their duty duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms. The Framers did not say ‘A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State’ – because a Militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve ‘the security of a free state.'”
Our president in that same segment said that he fully expects resistance…
Laura, here’s a thought for you. If Tony Lanza had been a responsible law-abiding young man ALL of the Children would have been safe! ‘ALL of them. If you showed as much interest in the young man’s behavior and obvious mental health problems as you do in condemning hardware that you don’t understand, you would have much more of an argument.
Semiautomatic guns make all the sense in the world. In fact they are so sensible that I hunt with one, and the US military uses them for the same reason that I do. They offer a quick followup option if you need it. Your fixation on the threat of 30 round magazines is called into question by the ease and speed with which 10 round magazines can be switched out. You simply don’t understand what you are condemning, and that’s why “we can’t agree on anything”.
The gun manufacturers, importers, and gun shops really appreciate the extra business the lefties have been creating for them, and hope they’ll keep their counter-productive yapping going for as long as possible!
The lefties’ paranoia about 30-shot clips and assault weapons has more to do with disarming America and making it safe for Socialism than it does anything else. Lee Harvey Oswald didn’t have either. Neither did Loughner, or McVeigh.
I’m not suggesting anything about a “duck”, I was simply using an age old saying to make my point. What if there is a bigger issue being concealed? What if this gun control argument is being instigated to distract citizens? What from? I don’t know. Perhaps the Farm Bill? I have no answers, only questions. But if my somewhat unorthodox approach has caused anyone else to begin to question the possibility that truths are being withheld or even covered up, then I guess it has survived its purpose.
As far as my commonsense comment, I think it’s time that decisions made on behalf of the American people should be made for the good of the American people, not for political gain or to benefit particular groups. I guess I’ve read too much George Orwell to believe something is good for me just because someone told me it was.
And John, I should apologize for my initial jab. It apparently struck a nerve as your attempt to return fire appears too hasty to be well-thought. As you know, a thesaurus is a book of words, their synonyms and antonyms. It would bring no clarification to my statements, it would only turn them into pretentious drivel.
Attempted a gentle rebuttal of St. Thomas’s “Discredited Right” remark, but apparently that is not tolerated here.
The very best teachers that I know have stated that they would leave the profession if asked to carry a gun (or, I’ll venture, if there is one allowed inside the school). What a shame & loss that would be!!
Please see:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html?google_editors_picks=true
The site tallies the gun deaths in America since Newton.
follow @GunDeaths
Please read the article, think about it, and maybe offer a non radical opinion, or solution, rather than a catch phrase.
Seriously, its about life we should be talking: Safety, training, supporting neighbors in need, rational process and not buzz words.
How do we as a culture, reduce the number of firearm deaths in America? without destroying rights?
Are we still at 321?
Attempted a gentle rebuttal of Wendy’s 7:52 remark, but apparently that is not tolerated here.
I hate to see good teachers leave.
But we have to create a safe environment for the schools.
If that means putting in place means of response,,,so be it.
I would replace teachers who choose to leave than wring my hands for years over the tragedies we are seeing by crazy people using many different means to carry out their deeds.
Safety needs to trump any teachers personal beliefs.
Harsh Reality is upon us.
Good luck in your new careers.
@HatetoSee: Exactly.
Here is something for people to be aware of regarding the meaning of the workd “militia.” There are two sorts of militia THE ORGANIZED MILITIA and the UNORGANIZED MILTIA. Here is the dfinition of the latter “the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service” (from the online Mirriam Webster online dictionary). National guard and researves do not fit in here as unorganized militia.
Strong Resident ~
I understand. I just don’t agree with you. It’s a mistake to confuse fact with opinion. You know the difference, right?
Who “well regulates” an unorganized militia?
Tom Knight, no one. Another definition is the unorganized militia is “every able bodied person.”
“A well regulated militia…”
A well-timed militia? A uniformed militia? Such are definitions of regulated, again according to Merriam Webster:
regulate
1 : to govern or direct according to rule
2 : to bring order, method, or uniformity to
3 : to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regulated?show=0&t=1357077464)
I’ve even seen it argued that the 18th century definition of regulated means outfitted. Regulate does not automatically mean control. Even if it did, if local citizens organized a militia, outfitting their members and conducting drills, they would be well regulated.
Will M, I suggest you look at the OED for 18th century definitions of “regulated.”
“If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.” – Samuel Adams
“The Constitition is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”
“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
– Patrick Henry
“Don’t interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.” – Abraham Lincoln
“The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure.”
– Albert Einstein
“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.” – James Madison, The Constitution of the United States of America
“I ask, Sir, what is the Militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” – George Mason – Co-Author of the Second Amendment during Virginia’s Convention to ratify the Constitution, 1788
Thanks Dave for these quotes from our founders.
Thay were penned by people who understood where we had come from ( a tyranical government).
They also experienced the deadly struggle it took for us to gain these frreedoms.
It is no different today when a tyranical government tries to put itself abve our freedoms.
I wonder if they comprehend the level of resistance current patriots will deliver?
The British did not.
Lets stop playing politics with gun control and work on the REAL Problems facing our nation.
THAT should be something we all can agree on…..
@The British Did Not….you are more than welcome. It has been my pleasure to find them and type them out.
It was also coupled with sadness as there are few of us who believe in the importance of the Constitution. Our president has vowed to use social media to turn Americans against their own Constitution and little do they know the America that awaits them. I drive by the homes that once had an Obama campaign sign out front and I shake my head in amazement at the bill of goods that was sold. Meanwhile, “We The People” have been asleep at the wheel and not keeping vigilant. ESPN has been more important than safeguarding our liberties and we are too late to do anything about it now. America will die a quiet death and Lady Liberty will hang her head in shame. Please answer me this question: What is the end game to this madness of destroying our Constitutional rights and policies unashamedly aimed at fiscally sinking the United States of America? I am already suspicious of the answer. It proves one thing though…our father’s world views do rub off on us don’t they.
Oh my goodness, have I been pulling a Rip Van Winkle…
What liberties have you lost? Specifically?
Have you been denied the right to vote? Did you exercises your right to vote in each of the last several elections and referendums?
Have you had your home confiscated without due process? Been jailed without being charged?
Should we get rid of the amendments to the constitution, since they were written to clarify and guarantee things other than the original constitution? or just those written after ratification?
Should we eliminate the right to vote for those that were recognized as having the right to vote after the Constitution was originally ratified? Doing so would not please my wife, two daughters, two sisters, etc…
There have been more than 409 deaths caused by gunfire in the United States in the last 21 days. Pretty much on average for our country. 409 men, women and children in 21 days, and this loss of life in our country is the norm for three weeks, not the exception.
None of these that I know of were the result of a well regulated militia protecting themselves, their family, or their country.
We do need to review what is wrong with our culture that we accept so many premature deaths as being OK, (unless it is someone we know.) We the People should investigate the causes of these shootings, and work to educate our society, and change our attitude of acceptance for these needless deaths.
If improved mental health care is part of the solution, great, if improved enforcement of existing laws is part of the solution, fantastic, let us do it.
If evaluating existing laws concerning the purchase, storage and use of firearms suggests legislative change can help, let us investigate, propose and pass laws that support the right to live in peace in this country.
Did not President Lincoln lead the drive to get the 13 th Amendment approved? Was that before or after the ratification of the Constitution?
Wisdom from the past can and should be used to help with the future….we can and should learn from the past, so let us do so, and let us also put the past in context with the single issue being studied….
@ What is That?
How many of the 409 gunfire deaths were using ILLEGAL GUNS…?
One More Time now the answer is,,,,Almost all of them..
More Laws wont change a thing other than make some folks “feel” like they have done something.
Hello.
Quotes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website:
“Every day, almost 30 people in the United States die in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver. This amounts to one death every 48 minutes. The annual cost of alcohol-related crashes totals more than $51 billion.”
“In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.”
“Of the 1,210 traffic deaths among children ages 0 to 14 years in 2010, 211 (17%) involved an alcohol-impaired driver.”
These numbers don’t include all of the other alcohol-related deaths–only motor vehicle accidents. In accidents alone nearly 11,000 people die because of drunk drivers every year. The statistics of gun related deaths pale in comparison, but no one is talking about banning alcohol or taking away the rights of the people to drink if they so choose. It makes you wonder, doesn’t it?
Gun Deaths in the United States from December 14 th to January 4th are at 489 and counting.
These four hundred and eighty nine gun related deaths in the United States in the last 21 or 22 days do not include all gun related deaths. They are only the ones reported and tallied so far.
We should consider this number of deaths to be unacceptable in our country.
Please take a look at the following WEB site….the site attempts to gather information on numbers of gun deaths, and allows the reader to find out where they occurred, and a little about the victim. Some of them include a link to the news story reporting the deaths. You can sort by age and by sex.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html
TO: One More Time..
If you read what I wrote, you may see more reference to our culture accepting these deaths is wrong, and we need to use our existing laws to reduce deaths caused by firearms.
Many contributors have argued we should not address gun control, since the Framers of the Constitution included the right to bear arms as a fundamental right.
My argument for review and using or adding to the existing base of laws is that we, as a nation, have added to the Constitution over time as we evaluate the situation and determine what is appropriate, or what is needed. We also write new laws frequently and compare them to the Constitution for interpretation.
A previous writer had offered a quote from Lincoln as a reason not to try to add to or change the Constitution, whereas Lincoln actually oversaw, and led the charge for adding the 13th amendment.
We need to take gun deaths personally rather than as an aside in the news.
Do we actually know how many deaths are due to “illegal” guns as compared to “Legal”?
How many of these gun deaths were caused by people protecting themselves, or their homes? Any of them caused in defense of itself by the ” well regulated militia’?
No we do not know, because the data is not available. We should demand that the data be available, then we would all know.
Do you know the Newtown murders were committed with legally obtained weapons, used illegally? How would those deaths be counted?
How do you account for “accidental deaths” caused by legally obtained weapons used inappropriately?
How about the domestic violence murders committed with legally obtained weapons? How about other deaths where the guns were originally obtained legally, and then sold, or stolen, or lost, and then used in committing a crime or a murder?
We should define the problem in detail before ruling out solutions. I believe the problem is that we have too many gun related deaths in the United States.
Is 489 gun deaths in our country too many in 21 days? I believe it is. I also believe we need to fully understand the scope of the problem and of all the types of legal/illegal gun deaths and the causes…who pulled the trigger and why?…before we jump to conclusions.
What do you think?
Here is a story we should all think about…
You’re sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One is wounded while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the telephone to call the police, you know you’re in trouble.
In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless.. Yours was never registered. Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter. “What kind of sentence will I get?” you ask. “Only ten-to-twelve years,” he replies, as if that’s nothing. “Behave yourself, and you’ll be out in seven.” The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you’re portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can’t find an unkind word to say about them… Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both “victims” have been arrested numerous times. But the next day’s headline says it all: “Lovable Rogue Son Didn’t Deserve To Die.” The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters.. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up,then the international media. Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he’ll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you’ve been critical of local police for their lack of efforts in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglers. A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven’t been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you.. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn’t take long for the jury to convict you of all charges. The judge sentences you to life in prison.
This case really happened.
On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term…
How did it become a crime to defend one’s own life in the once great British Empire? It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns..
Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the regristration of all shotguns.
Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerfordmass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead. The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of “gun control”, demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)
Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semi-autmatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.
For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. (Sound familiar)? Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.
During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.
Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesperson was quoted as saying, “We cannot have people take the law into their own hands.” All of Martin’s neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.
When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn’t were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they did not comply.
Police later bragged that they had taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.
How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?