Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, June 18, 2014

During a town hall on CNN Tuesday, Hillary Clinton was asked by an audience member if she thought a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines would help curb gun violence in the U.S. Clinton responded, "Yes, I do. We cannot let a minority of people -- and that's what it is, it is a minority -- of people hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people."

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

Asked about changing her position on gay marriage, Clinton said, "I fully support marriage equality. Like most Americans I know, my views have changed over time. I think 'evolved' is the word that a lot of people have used. It fits me as well as it fits others in large measure based on the experiences that I had with so many people who I knew and cared about ... So yes, I evolved over time and I'm very, very proud to state that I'm a full supporter of marriage equality right now."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

A small vocal group of vocal extremist fanatics always messes things up for the majority.

That is why the fanatics have basically ruined individualism.

#1 | Posted by kudzu at 2014-06-18 08:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

She must be speaking of the police and federal law enforcement.

#2 | Posted by visitor_ at 2014-06-18 08:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Asked about changing her position on gay marriage, Clinton said, "I fully support marriage equality. Like most Americans I know, my views have changed over time. I think 'evolved' is the word that a lot of people have used. "

in other words, to read between the lines, she was terrorized by a minority into supporting it...

#3 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2014-06-18 08:51 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 5

The open carry bullies are playing right into her hands.

#4 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2014-06-18 09:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

Can the open carry lunatics carry their guns into the State Legislature? If not, why not? How about into state court? If not, why not? How about into the Governor's office? If not, why not?

#6 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-18 09:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

"What a stupid choice of words. Completely laughable post. Idiotic. Pathetic."

you must've been one of the minority doing the terrorizing.

poor hillary. having to give up her youthful ideals to the terrorist super-libs.

#7 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2014-06-18 09:32 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Can the open carry activists carry their guns into the State Legislature?

#6 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2014-06-18 09:10 AM | FLAG:

If it's a long gun, yes. Not sure on the rest, but probably.

#8 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-06-18 09:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

from the summary:
"...of people hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people."

Politicians do love to work that word in, don't they? They must think it automatically turns the audience over to their point of view.

#9 | Posted by hawk at 2014-06-18 09:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Like most Americans I know, my views have changed over time."

Especially after public opinion polls showed her behind the curve.

#10 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-06-18 09:45 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

The DNC platform for 2016:

1. Gun control
2. Gay marriage
3. Elect woman president

#11 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-06-18 09:49 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#11 Disarming the populace, and social changes that have nothing to do with power.

Further parsing: Disarming the populace against state power, and a whole lot of bs.

#12 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-06-18 09:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

"If it's a long gun, yes. Not sure on the rest, but probably."

I'll believe that when I see it. Those cowards voting for open carry or deciding gun control laws are unconstitutional would never expose themselves to the whims of the gun toting lunatics.

#13 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-18 09:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

The problem with open carry is you can't tell the difference between a red neck with self-esteem issues and a mass killer until it's too late. The only way to be safe is to incapacitate him before he can get a shot off. Are you supposed to wait until he kills a kid before you take him down?

#14 | Posted by Species8472 at 2014-06-18 10:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

You anti constitutional rights folks are weird. You think things like jabbing a nail into a newly born child is in the constitution when it's not. You think you have a right to health insurance when that isn't in the constitution. Yet we have a stated right written intentionally 2nd matter of fact and you guys would do away with it in a second.

#15 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-18 10:08 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I'll believe that when I see it. Those cowards voting for open carry or deciding gun control laws are unconstitutional would never expose themselves to the whims of the gun toting lunatics.

#13 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2014-06-18 09:56 AM | FLAG:

Wait, state capitol or the federal capitol building? In DC, arguably a "gun free zone", You can open carry long arms on protest marches, but if you load it you will go to jail. Reference the Adam Kokesh arrest months after a protest for education on that.

Texas state house, yeah you can open carry long arms. The number of concealed carry people dwarf that though. Even the Democrats have pistols hidden under their suit jackets. We actually have an express lane for concealed carry permit holders, it's much, much faster than the normal line. Open carry of pistols is what's regulated. You may not open carry pistols unless it's an antique (pre-1889).

The open carry guys protest at the state capitol all the time. Only 2 have ever been arrested, and charges later dropped. You only hear about it when they break for lunch.. not sure if that's funny, sad, or both.

#16 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-06-18 10:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

and there's no "voting for open carry". Texas open carry has been the same for 100 years or so. What it needs is reform, to be rolled into concealed carry permits. The one Republican that keeps bringing it up gets shot down by all parties, but that might change.

#17 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-06-18 10:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

See Suzanna Hupp on youtube regarding the Killeen Luby's massacre for the reason lawmakers in Texas will always shy away from gun regulation.

#18 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-18 11:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

" We cannot let a minority of people -- and that's what it is, it is a minority -- of people hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people."

So if the majority wants to remove rights from a minority that is all cool with her. Screw reason and fact it's mob rule time. Whatever you can con the weak into believing becomes what we all live by(wait, nothing new that's the dem's MO). And this is the person some people are deluded enough to want to lead us?

#19 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 12:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

#19 Fallacy of the converse, salamander. FOX much?

#20 | Posted by midiman at 2014-06-18 02:32 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Legal gun owners don't 'terrorize' me and I don't even own a gun; but I support the second amendment 1,000% because of it's primary purpose.

#21 | Posted by Visitor2 at 2014-06-18 04:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

She's exactly right. But nuy jobs who think the 2nd amendment is unlimited in its scope are the exrtemist who deserve no consideration. We talk about background checks and they start screaming about total gun ban like some crazy clowns. Like dude said. By the time you realize its a mass killer and not a red neck with self esteem problems its too late.

#22 | Posted by ron81 at 2014-06-18 05:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

if she thought a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines would help curb gun violence in the U.S. Clinton responded, "Yes, I do.

Damn. I thought Hillary was actually intelligent.

#23 | Posted by jpw at 2014-06-18 06:04 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Gotta love how politicians that rant about guns not making you safe have an entourage of 5-7 heavily armed bodyguards, live in compounds or estates with armed security, and ride in bullet proof cars...

#24 | Posted by aescal at 2014-06-18 06:51 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Her claims that assault weapons are fully auto machine guns is nonsense.

The democrats have already lost on this false claim and she is trying to bring it back up.

That might have worked before the internet but now people can look up the truth and find out that no school shooting has ever been done with a fully auto machine gun.

The guns she wants to ban are just low power hunting riffles painted black.

#25 | Posted by tmaster at 2014-06-18 07:59 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

She's terrifying to anyone who appreciates the constitution.

#26 | Posted by xyzpdq at 2014-06-18 08:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

#25 Tmaster> The guns she wants to ban are just low power hunting riffles painted black.

Exactly. But she will continue to talk about 'assault rifles' like they are the baddest things on the planet. Notice how she never talks about the Constitution in her talking-points-laden-rant regarding minority vs. majority viewpoints. She is pretty good at rambling to keep from directly answering a question, but nowhere near as good as her husband was/is.

#27 | Posted by AKat at 2014-06-18 09:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

#23 JPW> I thought Hillary was actually intelligent.

Well, compared to the current president, she's practically a rocket scientist.

#28 | Posted by AKat at 2014-06-18 09:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

#24 AESCAL> Gotta love how politicians that rant about guns not making you safe have an entourage of 5-7 heavily armed bodyguards...

Somebody sent me a photo of a big anti-gun politician speaking in public. They had circled all the gun-toting bodyguards standing around. In another shot you could see two bodyguards totin' H&K MP5 submachineguns with high-capacity mags. Now that was the height of irony!

#29 | Posted by AKat at 2014-06-18 09:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

I just know this, if I am in a restaurant and open carry crazies decide to enter there, I am leaving immediately and probably will never be back. I think millions of other Americans share my view. If you think it is good business to welcome open carry crazies into your business, it is your business decision.

#30 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-18 10:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

All the more reason to keep this old crone out of the presidency.

rwd

#31 | Posted by rightwingdon at 2014-06-18 10:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

I am leaving immediately and probably will never be back.

OK, but I'll bet you'd go back.

I think millions of other Americans share my view.

So? The number of believers doesn't at all indicate the correctness of a position.

If you think it is good business to welcome open carry crazies into your business, it is your business decision.

And IIRC the recent examples in the news haven't. So why are you complaining?

FTR I think the open carry guys are loons. Why are you specifically bringing up an extreme minded group that are far less common than, say, CCW holders carrying in businesses?

#32 | Posted by jpw at 2014-06-18 11:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is coming from a woman who has secret service protection for life. Drop the gun nuts with the secret service and perhaps America might listen. The rest of us run the risk of being gunned down while filing our cars with gas without the benefit of a gang of secret service gun nuts who exist to protect our worthless behinds.

#33 | Posted by zanty at 2014-06-19 12:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

Oh, not to mention she has a small army of spies who scan each email and all internet traffic searching for anyone who might be conspiring to harm her. Does the NSA do the same for the rest of poor slobs?

#34 | Posted by zanty at 2014-06-19 12:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

.... "Hillary Clinton: We can't let Gun-Loving Minority ‘Terrorize' the rest of the Country!"

**** "NO...We Can't? But we can allow the Israeli Zionist Lobby (will Hilliary's help) to BUY OFF and OWN the US Congress and the US Senate and the White House while at the same time they Screw and Rob the American Taxpayers as they Shred and Destroy the US Constitution! Of course this will never or could even ever be brought up in any American Elections! That's what Freedom is now all about!"

#35 | Posted by AntiCadillac at 2014-06-19 02:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

FTR I think the open carry guys are loons.
#32 | Posted by jpw

FTR, what's your position on loons having guns?

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-19 03:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

.... "FTR I think the open carry guys are loons.

**** Anybody who Believes in and Abides by the US Constitution is also a LOON...right?

#37 | Posted by AntiCadillac at 2014-06-19 02:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

FTR, what's your position on loons having guns?

It depends on whether you're going to switch the definition around.

If it's just these loons, then unfortunately they have every right to have them.

If they're clinically diagnosed loons, then no, they shouldn't have that.

Given the amount of times I've talked about the mental health aspect of gun control issues, I'd expect you to know the answer to this question. In light of that, I suspect it's just a setup for word games.

#38 | Posted by jpw at 2014-06-19 05:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

maybe try a guns for drugs exhange program and you might take away a few of the 'bad' guns... but... uh... i think youre gonna have a hard time talking people into voting away their gun rights as the obamanauts ship fresh and veteran footsoldiers alike across the country. At least i know that if legal guns are no longer available i can head to my nearest central american clubhouse and pick one up on the d/l...

#39 | Posted by monkeylogic42 at 2014-06-19 06:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

.... The Big Criminals Vilify Ordinary Americans!

**** Oddly the Greatest & Vilest Criminals in America are NOW the Gun Owners...and NOT the US Govt "War Mongers" or their evil cronies the "Banksters"...who are together the same ones who have actively and persistently Raped & Pillaged the USA and many foreign countries under the Bush & Obama Administrations! How many innocent people around the world did the NRA or private American gun owners MURDER...or BANKRUPT...compared to the Bush and Obama Regimes?

p.s. What about "Liability Insurance" for the President and the US Govt and their cohorts the CorpoRats/ Banksters...requiring them all to take out INSURANCE to REIMBURSE the American Public for Sweetheart "Bailouts" or for the Money and Lives LOST in any "Illegal Wars" or any other "Traitorous,Unconstitutional & Illegal" activities! Of course considering the rabid,rampant and widespread Criminal Operational Sphere of both the US Politicians and their CorpoRat Cronies,they could not afford Insurance that would ever hope to cover such staggering and steadily growing liabilities! The truth is that these Poisonous-Toxic "Fascist Political" groups have proven themselves too Dangerous and Disastrous to the Physical and Financial HEALTH of America (and the rest of the World) to ever be trusted with any kind of authority!

#40 | Posted by AntiCadillac at 2014-06-19 08:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

If they're clinically diagnosed loons, then no, they shouldn't have that.

Any thoughts on how to implement that? Let's say someone already has guns, must they surrender them upon a certain diagnosis? How would that be enforced? Seems like a robust background system would be required, linking wanna-be purchases with their private third-party health records. Why would a private health insurance company bother to play ball, short of a law or court order?

You gun lovers seem to have a lot of ideas about who shouldn't have guns, but fall short when it comes to actually taking guns away from people who shouldn't have them. Mandatory gun safes, for example, might have kept Newtown safe. Would you support that? How about mandatory firearms training?

The reason I favor simply banning guns across the board is because the piecemeal measures we have in place don't work. There doesn't seem to be any other way. "This is why we can't have nice things."

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-19 08:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

The guns she wants to ban are just low power hunting riffles painted black.

#25 | Posted by tmaster

If they were pink would they be less dangerous?

This is America. Sorry. Nothing can be done.

We have a Constitution... you know... that document that was designed to protect Freedumbs.

We are stuck with it... so sorry kids. Many more of you will just have to suffer and die before we can even think of changing that sacred document.

The tree of Liberty needs to be refreshed with your blood first.

#42 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-06-19 08:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

The reason I favor simply banning guns across the board is because the piecemeal measures we have in place don't work.

Then you're barking up the wrong tree. The one you're looking for is over there, labeled constitutional amendment.

#43 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-19 08:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

What we need is a Constitutional Convention by the States.
The Congress won't do it.

But what amendment is the most important one to try?

Changing the 2nd isn't my first thought.

Repealing the 16th and expanding the 22nd to include the Congress are my first choices.

#44 | Posted by Petrous at 2014-06-19 09:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Any thoughts on how to implement that?

Look to CA for ideas. Didn't work with the recent loon but it's a start. While you're working on that figure out a way around the psychotherapist/patient privilege.

#45 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-19 10:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Look to CA for ideas. Didn't work with the recent loon but it's a start.

We've had enough "starts." We've been "starting" since Reagan got shot and undoubtedly before then in ways I'm only dimly aware of.

What we need is a finish. Heck, I would even vote for the more right-wing of the two right-wing candidates if they took a stand on gun control. Same for national health, which I think would help on the gun violence front too. There are always warning signs, but there's not always a way to act on them.

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-19 11:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

So, when you asked the question you didn't want a reasonable response you only wanted a segue for a rant. I'll take yours as a segue for mine.

You want a magic bullet to solve your perception of a wrong. There are none. No constitutionally permissible law will prevent these accidents or the people hell bent on harm themselves or others. None. There exist laws to cover all those possibilities but irresponsible misconduct with deadly weapons leads to accidental injury or death. Selfish misconduct with deadly weapons leads to self inflicted injury or death. Malevolent misconduct with deadly weapons leads to intentional injury or death of innocents.

What remains is working within permissible boundaries to effect incremental change. That's how I took your question but am now convinced you have no such desire. It's obvious you want someone to wave a magic wand so you can have your concept of utopia. As you said on another thread a "civilized society." It ain't happenin' because there ain't no magic wand, bullet or pill.

So, you have two choices. Get off your high horse and work within the system or vote with your feet. I'm staying. How about you?

#47 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-20 12:19 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

So, you have two choices. Get off your high horse and work within the system or vote with your feet. I'm staying. How about you?
#47 | Posted by et_al

This statement implies you think something is broken.
Do you think something is broken with guns in America?

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-20 01:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

As you said on another thread a "civilized society." It ain't happenin' because there ain't no magic wand, bullet or pill.

You don't know that at all. Should we manage to get our gun problem under control, I think that, looking back, sensible people will scratch their heads and ask "How come nobody thought of that sooner?"

I again refer you to Australia. Though I think you have a point about that not being a good example. Al Qaeda could send a suicide gunman to a mall every day for a year, and some of these people still wouldn't favor giving up their guns. And, Ironically, they would welcome the ever-growing police state their guns are supposed to protect them from. The entire thing has gone pear-shaped. And you're not helping, by the way.

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-20 01:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

Do you think something is broken with guns in America?

No. Some adjustments are worthy of consideration.

Should we...

Idealism.

"How come nobody thought of that sooner?"

You started when? It takes more than, "hey I got an idea you figure it out."

The last paragraph is a steaming pile of...

#50 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-20 03:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

You gun lovers seem to have a lot of ideas about who shouldn't have guns, but fall short when it comes to actually taking guns away from people who shouldn't have them.

You anti-gun nuts seem to have a lot of ideas about what we "gun nuts" think.

But when pressed you offer nothing but semantics, ignorance or flat out unfeasible semi-less than nuke options (unfeasible if one wants to maintain respect for our rule of law of governance).

Mandatory gun safes, for example, might have kept Newtown safe.

I'm sure a million things could have kept Newtown safe.

However, are we to start crafting laws for every single event that occurs with a similar risk to being struck by lightning?

Would you support that? How about mandatory firearms training?

I absolutely support gun safes. Where do you think mine reside? I also feel they'd prevent most "accidents", particularly the ones when children are involved.

However, how do you propose to enforce such measure(s)? Would such a law give law enforcement the authority to randomly enter a person's home to ensure compliance? What other Constitutional right has that level of legal intrusion?

As for training, I also support that. But a similar issue remains to be worked out as described above.

Also, IIRC, a large component of the Heller decision was that rendering firearms useless by locks, disassembley requirements ect amounted to a de facto ban and was therefore unconstitutional.

The reason I favor simply banning guns across the board is because the piecemeal measures we have in place don't work.

There's so much wrong with this statement it should get its own post, but that would also be overly dignifying it.

First, if memory serves this is the first time you've openly admitted being a control freak POS. You might want to work on that. Getting over yourself might help too. Going and [...]ing yourself would also help.

It has been documented on this very site multiple times the laws and infrastructure in existence that is poorly or completely not funded. Claiming they don't work is like claiming airbags don't work when your lemon of a car doesn't deploy one in a crash. Damn, you always came across as illogically biased in this but now you're just venturing into the realm of flat out stupidity.

And you want others to suffer for your stupidity to be placated.

There doesn't seem to be any other way. "This is why we can't have nice things."

BS. Think harder. Hold your breath while you do if you need to conserve processing power.

#51 | Posted by jpw at 2014-06-20 03:25 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

#42 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-06-19 08:33 PM | Reply | Flag: sandy vag

#52 | Posted by jpw at 2014-06-20 03:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

Sweet jesus balls... snoofy i hope youre in high school, i cant believe someone whose seen at least 2 decades on this earth can hold such a simplistic view... 'imagine' is a great song the first 100 times you listen to it, but once the lysergic wears off and reality sets in you have to realize it aint gonna work the way of sunshine and rainbows... as long as theres no way to guarantee safety, self defense is in your own hands and i hope you have the tools you need should the occasion arise.

#53 | Posted by monkeylogic42 at 2014-06-20 03:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

This statement implies you think something is broken.
Do you think something is broken with guns in America?

Did you intentionally show your extreme bias in this? Are you objective enough to see the problem?

Al Qaeda could send a suicide gunman to a mall every day for a year, and some of these people still wouldn't favor giving up their guns.

LOL this gets a nomination for Retarded Post of the Year award from me.

#56 | Posted by jpw at 2014-06-20 03:38 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

That's what plonking is for. Embrace it. There is literally no reason to read/discuss anything so patently ignorant. There is no intent on that side to be logical. He simply humors himself, like zed, afk, or Eddie.

#58 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2014-06-20 08:22 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Do you think something is broken with guns in America?

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-20 01:30 AM | Reply

No, something is broken with people in America. Guns are not the problem but people are----and you can start with the doofus in the WH. Why do you think gun sales have periodically skyrocketed over the last 6 years. People no longer trust our government particularly the current one since he seems intent on changing America in a direction that he fantasized about years ago when he wrote "Nightmares from my Father". The guy is an inherent genetic fascist so that's the number one reason for the large interest in guns by a large segment of society. So the first law to be passed should be to make it illegal to have a guy like this as POTUS. That should cut down on the number of guns sold right off the bat. After that start, you could begin to address the issue of mental illness, personality disorders, paranoia and guns.

#59 | Posted by matsop at 2014-06-20 08:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

Al Qaeda could send a suicide gunman to a mall every day for a year, and some of these people still wouldn't favor giving up their guns.

LOL this gets a nomination for Retarded Post of the Year award from me.
#56 | Posted by jpw

Even a retard can see the obvious truth. Sorry if that's a problem for you.

#60 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-20 01:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

Snoof is a willfully ignorant ------- if he thinks human nature can be changed through the enactment of laws.
#55 | Posted by jpw

My goal is not to change human nature. It's to render those certain humans whose nature is that of a psychopath less dangerous to the rest of us.

Surely you don't think there aren't psychopaths in other modern countries. Explain then what it is you think stops them from going on shooting sprees?

#61 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-20 01:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

". Explain then what it is you think stops them from going on shooting sprees?"

Uhh, who said anything stops them?

Rampage and mass shootings are not a US only thing. We are not even in the top five of first world countries. And every country that has more then us has far more restrictive gun control.

So any concept that that gun control stops that is unsupportable and patently wrong.

#62 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-20 01:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Surely you don't think there aren't psychopaths in other modern countries."

I think a case can be made that we are producing more of those in our country.

#63 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-20 01:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yet he wants to take those so called "ideas" and force others to live by them. And we're wrong for opposing that or reminding him that a system exists by which is ideas have to conform.

I think you're getting a little ahead of yourself. I suspect that legislation with sufficient teeth to seriously reduce gun violence in this country would require a Constitutional amendment. What I'm trying to figure out is why so many gun lovers are opposed to that. So far the reasons I've heard aren't very convincing. That school shootings or shooting sprees are no greater a mortality burden than lightning strikes doesn't sway me a whole lot since most shootings aren't of that nature. We also educate people to avoid lightning strikes. You can usually tell when you're at risk for a lightning strike because of weather conditions and take actions to protect yourself such as taking shelter indoors. Every kid is taught not to hide under a tree during a lightning storm. There's no such obvious measures of self-protection because in our society we have no way of knowing who the crazies are, and apparently we have no way of keeping the guns out of their hands.

Again, if there were a way to keep guns out of the hands of crazies, I'd be all for it. I don't think there's a way. My accounting is that the rewards of individual gun ownership in society aren't outweighed by the risks that guns pose to society. As for the ideological rhetoric, the time has long since passed that guns gave government pause; this was proved at Waco and Ruby Ridge and in the lockdown and manhunt in Boston. Likewise, the rationale put forth in the Second Amendment regarding a militia is no longer valid since we have standing armies in all but name. So we are left with a vestigial right that, at best, gives law-abiding people a chance at armed defense against those who, by the same right, can posses arms for nefarious purposes. But even getting people to accept that reality seems like an impossibility.

#64 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-20 01:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

"What I'm trying to figure out is why so many gun lovers are opposed to that."

Because nothing has been proposed that would accomplish that whatsoever. What is the point of passing useless laws that make no difference except to satiate the irrational fears of a few people?

#65 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-20 01:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Rampage and mass shootings are not a US only thing. We are not even in the top five of first world countries.

Link? That would be great news. Also, despite my comments in this thread, I do believe that things are generally heading the right way, as over the past decades gun violence across the board is down.

I just don't think we as a society should take the attitude that we tolerate this as acceptable background noise like suicide bombings in Iraq.

#66 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-20 01:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Link? That would be great news."

www.rampageshooting.com

Sorry you will have to do a little citation surfing for source data if the table is not sufficient for you.

#67 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-20 01:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

#65 "a Constitutional amendment" would be more than a feel-good measure, I think.

#68 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-20 01:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

#67 your link goes to rampage shootings, which are a tiny fraction of all shootings. The "lightning strikes" that we can't defend against, I'm told...

#69 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-20 01:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I just don't think we as a society should take the attitude that we tolerate this as acceptable background noise like suicide bombings in Iraq."

What as acceptable background noise?

Gun violence? No one says it is, there are about 10,000 deaths a year from people killing people with guns. No one says that is okay. But there are a lot that look for the cause not the symptom. First thing to look at would be gang violence which account for 80 percent of firearm homicide. That is something that if gone would actually make a difference. Our firearm homicide rate would then be very close to even countries that have incredibly strict gun control.

#70 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-20 01:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

"#67 your link goes to rampage shootings, which are a tiny fraction of all shootings."

You asked for a citation for my statement which was about rampage and mass shootings. Now that you see it you want one for what?

#71 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-20 01:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

Two of the four measures at the top of your link list the US as #1, Panny.

#72 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2014-06-20 01:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Oops, mean Sal.

#73 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2014-06-20 01:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Two of the four measures at the top of your link list the US as #1, Panny."

Look per capita.

#74 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-20 01:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

"First thing to look at would be gang violence which account for 80 percent of firearm homicide. That is something that if gone would actually make a difference. Our firearm homicide rate would then be very close to even countries that have incredibly strict gun control."

Well, you know figures don't lie, but liars can figure, don't you? For instance, those 17, 18 and 19-year-old teen gangbangers are included in the children killed by guns figures...LOL. Here are some more good figures....

"The United States ranks 3rd in Murders throughout the World.

But if you take out Chicago , Detroit , Washington DC and New Orleans, the United States is 4th from the Bottom for Murders.

These 4 Cities also have the toughest Gun Control Laws in the United States.


It would be absurd to draw any conclusions from this data ................... RIGHT....RIGHT?"

#75 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-06-20 02:04 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Can the open carry activists carry their guns into the State Legislature?

#6 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2014-06-18 09:10 AM | FLAG:

If it's a long gun, yes. Not sure on the rest, but probably.

#8 | Posted by sitzkrieg

I'd suggest you give that a try and let us know how it goes... Make sure it's loaded!

#76 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-06-20 02:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Even a retard can see the obvious truth. Sorry if that's a problem for you.

So you think giving up one's best means of self defense because an international terror organization is able to send a suicide shooter into a mall makes sense?!?!

Explosives are banned from use by the general public yet they don't seem to have any problem using suicide bombers.

#77 | Posted by jpw at 2014-06-20 03:24 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Again, if there were a way to keep guns out of the hands of crazies, I'd be all for it. I don't think there's a way.

You don't think giving rigorous enforcement of already existing laws and checks more than a college try is a good option?

My accounting is that the rewards of individual gun ownership in society aren't outweighed by the risks that guns pose to society.

Because you fail to recognize your bias.

#78 | Posted by jpw at 2014-06-20 03:31 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#75 | Posted by jestgettinalong

Do you have a link for that?

If someone has really crunched those numbers and they pan out, that would be very interesting to take a look at.

#79 | Posted by jpw at 2014-06-20 03:33 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

So you think giving up one's best means of self defense

I think disarming the nation is the best means of self defense. The statistics agree.
I understand that your ideology tells you otherwise. So let's see the facts that support it.

#80 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-20 05:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

You don't think giving rigorous enforcement of already existing laws and checks more than a college try is a good option?

Do you think that such laws aren't rigorously enforced?
Propose your more rigorous enforcement measures, then, along with a funding instrument.

#81 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-20 05:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

But if you take out Chicago , Detroit , Washington DC and New Orleans, the United States is 4th from the Bottom for Murders.

These 4 Cities also have the toughest Gun Control Laws in the United States.

It would be absurd to draw any conclusions from this data ................... RIGHT....RIGHT?"
#75 | Posted by jestgettinalong

The conclusion I would draw is that gun control doesn't work at the municipality level owing to the ease of travel across city borders.

Now, if we had checkpoints at the city borders frisking people and searching cars for weapons, those bans might work. But beyond being unwieldy, such searches would likely run into Constitutional problems. The one place they wouldn't run into much of a Constitutional problem is at the national border. Thus, a national approach to gun control is going to be the most effective and the hardest to skirt. Hope this helps.

#82 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-20 05:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I think disarming the nation is the best means of self defense. The statistics agree."

Patently false.

Stats show that at best it is a wash. Area's with the strictest gun laws are the most violent in the states.
Countries with the strictest gun laws have no lower violent crime then we do.

The FBI says that more guns equals less crime.

So let's just nip that in the bud before you dig too deep a hole.

#83 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-20 05:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Explosives are banned from use by the general public yet they don't seem to have any problem using suicide bombers.
#77 | Posted by jpw

I am not aware of any suicide bombings in the United States. I am aware of a lot of shootings though.

#84 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-20 05:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Thus, a national approach to gun control is going to be the most effective and the hardest to skirt. "

Yup, just like drugs?

Hey why don't we just put everyone in their own padded cells. That will keep them safe right?

#85 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-20 05:26 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"I am not aware of any suicide bombings in the United States."

Deadliest school massacre in the US was a suicide bombing.

#86 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-20 05:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I think disarming the nation is the best means of self defense. The statistics agree."

Patently false.
Stats show that at best it is a wash

Well, the methods of violence that don't involve guns tend to be less lethal. That matters. Also, you need a citation. Last I looked into this our definition of a violent crime is much less stringent that other modern nations, which makes us think we're safer than other countries due to reporting artifacts.

Area's with the strictest gun laws are the most violent in the states.

I'm pretty sure any strict gun laws are in response to violence. You seem to be suggesting strict gun laws cause violence.

#87 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-20 05:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yup, just like drugs?

Hey why don't we just put everyone in their own padded cells. That will keep them safe right?

#85 | Posted by salamandagator

It's a lot easier to smuggle drugs than guns. Also, drugs are physically addictive so the nature of demand is different. It's not a good comparison. A better comparison might be smuggling in weapons that would have been banned during the Assault Weapons Ban. Or smuggling in weapons that are currently illegal.

By sheer weight alone, there's much more money in smuggling drugs than guns. A pound of marijuana can fetch a few thousand dollars, a pound of cocaine ten thousand. Meanwhile a pound of gun might get you a few hundred bucks.

#88 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-20 05:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

The FBI says that more guns equals less crime.

Japan says that less guns equals less crime. Far less than even the most gun-heavy areas of the United States.

#89 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-20 05:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

My accounting is that the rewards of individual gun ownership in society aren't outweighed by the risks that guns pose to society.

Because you fail to recognize your bias.
#78 | Posted by jpw

Please tell me about my bias.

#90 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-20 05:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

Now, if we had checkpoints at the city borders frisking people and searching cars for weapons...

See how far down the rabbit hole your idealism takes you? And you have the gall to call gun folks loons.

#91 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-20 05:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You seem to be suggesting strict gun laws cause violence."

The areas with stricter gun laws have seen smaller decreases in crime then those with more lenient.

#92 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-20 05:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Japan says that less guns equals less crime. Far less than even the most gun-heavy areas of the United States."

Japan has a very low crime rate all around. Nothing to do with guns whatsoever.

#93 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-20 05:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

"By sheer weight alone, there's much more money in smuggling drugs than guns. A pound of marijuana can fetch a few thousand dollars, a pound of cocaine ten thousand. Meanwhile a pound of gun might get you a few hundred bucks."

You of course realize that the market changes when something is illegal right?
Plus it would be far easier to smuggle weapons then drugs by the mechanics of the thing. No drug sniffing dogs. no worry about sealing to keep them intact, just bringing across bits of metal.

#94 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-20 05:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Do you think that such laws aren't rigorously enforced?

#81 | Posted by snoofy

That's never going to happen without a bloodbath.

#95 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-06-20 05:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Well, the methods of violence that don't involve guns tend to be less lethal. That matters. Also, you need a citation. "

Kudos for admitting you do not have anything to back it up. Most here would just not address it. But that said if you will not back up any of your claims then why would you ask for a citation? If your argument is purely emotional, which it obviously is, than facts do not matter so why would you ask for them?

#96 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-20 05:52 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I think disarming the nation is the best means of self defense.

#80 | Posted by snoofy

I'm sorry. I meant to say.. that's never going to happen without a bloodbath.

#97 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-06-20 05:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Japan says that less guns equals less crime. Far less than even the most gun-heavy areas of the United States.
#89 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

The Japanese are an ancient people and have a very high regard for honor and respect of others. Very few Americans suffer from condition.

#98 | Posted by Daniel at 2014-06-20 05:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Arg...from this condition. I hate typing on a tablet.

#99 | Posted by Daniel at 2014-06-20 06:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Japan has a very low crime rate all around. Nothing to do with guns whatsoever."

Another indication that America's violence comes from its culture, established by Christian imperialists in 1492 with continuing violence proceeding west until the entire native population was wiped out.

#100 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-06-20 06:13 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#100: Can you tell us of any nation that wasn't founded in violence against its indigenous peoples?

#101 | Posted by Daniel at 2014-06-20 06:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Now, if we had checkpoints at the city borders frisking people and searching cars for weapons...

See how far down the rabbit hole your idealism takes you? And you have the gall to call gun folks loons.
#91 | Posted by et_al

No, I don't see that at all. Do you not see that I'm explaining why banning guns at the city level can't work? We have the right to travel freely, and generally to be free from search. Thus there's no way to enforce a gun ban at the city level. But we can control our national borders. Thus, a national gun ban would have teeth that a municipal gun ban simply can't have.

#102 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-20 06:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Well, the methods of violence that don't involve guns tend to be less lethal. That matters. Also, you need a citation. "

Kudos for admitting you do not have anything to back it up.
#96 | Posted by salamandagator

I have as much to back up my claim as you have to back up yours...

#103 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-20 06:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Can you tell us of any nation that wasn't founded in violence against its indigenous peoples?"

I thought Christians were supposed to be better than that.

#104 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-06-20 06:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

established by Christian imperialists in 1492 with continuing violence proceeding west until the entire native population was wiped out.
#100 | Posted by nullifidian

About 1% of Americans are native. As we moved into the vast open west, political solutions i.e. treaties became economically preferable to genocide. Alaska is about 15% native.

#105 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-20 06:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Do you not see that I'm explaining...

I see that you are trying to rationalize your perception of utopia.

But we can control our national borders.

When did that happen?

#106 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-20 07:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

I thought Christians were supposed to be better than that.

Indeed. Many examples of evil throughout history in the name of Christianity. I wish I could excuse it but I can not.

#107 | Posted by Daniel at 2014-06-20 07:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

But we can control our national borders.

When did that happen?
#106 | Posted by et_al

Take your sophistry elsewhere, punk.

#108 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-20 07:34 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

...punk.

Thar she blows!

Your utopian dream explodes and there only remains childish insult.

#109 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-20 08:18 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

103

Do you? Then why no citation? Why does no data back you up? You ask for citation and it is given but you only post your unsupported conjecture. So if you have some semblance of proof of what you say you should post it. After all if even the hard core anti gun buts have not been able to find and reasonable proof why would you not want to help their cause?
Point is that everyone can see that there is nothing to support your contention but emotions, so own it. Make a case from the only thing you have. But don't insult the conversation by pretending like you have evidence to back up what you say.

#110 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-20 10:10 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Here's some evidence you refuse to believe.
en.wikipedia.org List of countries by intentional homicide rate
US and Yemen, 4.8 murders per 100,000
United Kingdom, France, China 1.0
Germany, Spain, Denmark 0.8

www.politifact.com

As Bier put it, "The FBI's Uniform Crime Reports defines a ‘violent crime' as one of four specific offenses: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault." By contrast, "the British definition includes all ‘crimes against the person,' including simple assaults, all robberies, and all ‘sexual offenses,' as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and ‘forcible rapes.' "

Once you know this, Bier wrote, "it becomes clear how misleading it is to compare rates of violent crime in the U.S. and the U.K. You're simply comparing two different sets of crimes."

We thought Bier's points were reasonable, so we tried to replicate his approach. We looked at the raw violent crime numbers for each country, using statistics for England and Wales for 2012 and for the United States for 2011, in a way that sought to compare apples to apples. (We should note that the United Kingdom includes Scotland and Northern Ireland, but the numbers in the meme appear to be based only on crime in England and Wales, which are calculated separately.)

For England and Wales, we added together three crime categories: "violence against the person, with injury," "most serious sexual crime," and "robbery." This produced a rate of 775 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

For the United States, we used the FBI's four standard categories for violent crime that Bier cited. We came up with a rate of 383 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

This calculation suggests that there is a higher rate of crime in England and Wales, but the discrepancy is not anywhere near as wide as the one cited in the meme.

However, before we put too much credibility on these calculations, we should note that criminologists say there is actually no good way to compare violent crime rates in these two countries.

#111 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-21 12:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

See how far down the rabbit hole your idealism takes you?
#91 | Posted by et_al

Yeah, it took me all the way to New York City during the Rudy Giuliani years.

I see that you are trying to rationalize your perception of utopia.
#106 | Posted by et_al

If you think New York City under Giuliani is my perception of utopia, you're notably less perceptive than I had previously given you credit for being.

The reason a national gun ban works and a municipal gun ban doesn't is that searches at the national border are much less of an affront to the Fourth Amendment than searches at the city limits.

But of course you already knew that and for some reason you simply can't help but be a little pissant.

#112 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-21 12:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort