The Guns of August: Frank Rich and the rising tide of discontent

Yes,  it is out of hand;  I also am not opposed to citizen gun ownership.  The trouble with "the right to bear arms", as with so much of the US Constitution,  is that it was written in a time when we were not a vast, crowded,  high tech,  pluralist,  21st century liberal democracy,  but a nation of gentleman farmers.  :(

Yes,  I see your point.  Of course,  they will insist that the current state of affairs IS indeed a national emergency. :(

I suppose anything can be deemed an emergency:)

I grew up with guns. I was a competitive shooter, I joined the army and became a sniper. I read Soldier of Fortune mag and dozens of others. I can tell you anything you need to know about weapons and I can use them with lethal accuracy under all sorts of conditions. I was nearly killed by a round of bullets once and so know what it feels like to come close to death. And my view on people being able to own weapons in their homes or carry them legally on the street? I think it is insane: once you see what weapons do to human beings, you would never support this. And the idea that we are safer by carrying these weapons is so wrong on so many levels. 

Wow, that is excellent testimony,  to which I give a recommend!  Bravo!

This is an interesting topic.  On the one hand, there are those who say, "Guns don't kill people; people kill people."  While others say that the 2nd amendment was for good for 200 years ago, but isn't needed anymore.....  First, I'll mention that countries (other than America) with lots of homicide often don't use or need guns to commit murder.  It's common in Mexico or Jamaica to stab someone instead of shooting them.  If someone wants to kill someone, they WILL find a way.  Then there are places like Canada, where murders are rare, yet guns are available.  In England, where guns are illegal, many murders are done by stabbing.  This is a complex issue, but I believe it is a social problem, not a gun problem.  Taking the guns away will be like "gun prohibition" and not work to solve anything, and possibly even raise crime rates.  (criminals prefer places where gun-control is strict, so they feel less threatened by unarmed victims)

Yes,  you make some good points,  excellent points.  And the right here has pointed out the dangers of an unarmed citizenry.  But with the Virginia Tech shootings,  one man opening fire on a crowd,  and killing 37, and injuring more,  could ONLY be done with guns,  not a knife.  But it is a complex issue,  for certain;  thanks for your remarks!

There can be no better testimony than from someone like iffy whose comments are based on personal experiences.   

Yes,  that is very true!

Correct:  Never the answer!

I love it when people actually say out loud that the Constitution is flawed because they disagree with the outcome. It is a billboard in its own right that displays the fundamental ignorance being conveyed by those who make such statements.

The United States Constitution is a document that secures the rights of the citizens of this nation, and limits the power of the federal government... not explands it. The founding fathers knowing that times do change, left us with the ability to make the necessary adjustments to allow it (the Constitution) to change with the times, but they also made it quite difficult to do so to ensure that it would survive longer than the political whims of thin majorities throughout time.

The reason most folks don't understand the Constitution is because most folks see it as an obstacle of change rather than a instrument of law and order for the Constitutional Republic.

I own a personal firearm, have both a pistol and machine gun with my name on it in my unit arms room in the National Guard, and of course am a card carrying member of the NRA. You have no need to fear me unless your goal is to destroy this Constitutional Republic or are yourself putting either myself or my family into danger.

The problem we have in this country is not the good citizens exercising their rights. The problem are the folks who have moved us so far away from the Constitutional Republic that we were founded as, that some folks feel as though it may indeed be time to water the tree of liberty.

I think what you folks are either ignoring or can't see, is that this about Democrats and Republicans. This is about a perceived threat by people who say things like the Constitution is broken because their political messiah is frustrated by it (the Constitution) getting in his way.

Know what I mean Vern?

Do you know anyone who owns a machine gun?

Do you know anyone that owns a semi-automatic rifle?

Do you know anyone who owns a single shot, bolt action rifle?

I ask this because you need to see the target and to understand what gun haters (people who are hostile to the 2nd Amendment) are doing to words in an attempt to squirm around our Constitution.

If I have learned anything about liberals it is that they will never stop until they get their way, and when they get their way they move on bigger and better things. There are like a cancer eatng away at our Constitution and freedom.

Likewise we also have the right wing counterparts to liberals in the form of skin heads, neo-nazis and the like. We seem to be able to identify these folks, marginalize them and keep an eye on them to minimize their ability to do nasty things to us.

The answer is NEVER to listen to neo-nazis or neo-commies. Listen to your Constitution and work the problem, but never take shortcuts to react to things like when liberals call semi-automatic rifles, military assault weapons. Never allow them to control the label making making machine. Trust me on this one.

I am a Washington State National Guardsman and when I got my concealed weapons permit I had a background check done and would have had to take a firearms safety class, but that was waived because of my military training. I am currently TDY in Florida and they have different rules, but the point here is that each state needs to protect it's citizens. Local police need to be aware of folks who are mentally unstable, and state laws needs to reflect the desire of the people of that state to protect themselves by both having the right to keep and bear arms and have laws that deal with keeping firearms out f the hands of sociopaths.

Effective policy isn't always correct though. Consider this...

I know someone who went to a local animal shelter, got a stray dog, took his children out to the backyard and had them dig a hole, and then shot the dog and made them bury it. He was trying to teach them how deadly serious guns are, and I am certain his kids will never forget that and will always respect firearms. However what he did was wrong. The means matter.

We need to have discussions about rational approaches to a desired end, but certain things are just not an option. Circumventing the Constitution because they don't have the votes to change it the right way is in that category. For example the current push by anti-gun advocates to regulate bullets citing environemental issues is such a tactic, as is calling all fireamrs that are not single shot assault rifles.

The gun haters in America will never quit. They may find new and creative ways to achieve the desired end of personal gun ownership, but they will never quit. Knowing this I oppose them the moment I identify them and spend little to know time trying to reason with them. I have a couple of teenagers, I know how productive taking to immature and determined people can be.

Anyone who disagrees with Obama is called an extremist, Mentally ill, Gun toting, etc.  Extremist depends on your frame of reference.  The left Media like to portray gun ownership as out of control by focusing on militia type groups.  Gun owners are mostly law abiding citizens who have never fired or pulled a weapon.  Gun owners have their backgrounds checked and have a right to carry.  Anyone who has done a history read of what the founders intended find that gun ownership was a given and since individual ownership was a given they wanted to utilize expertise in a militia in the event of a take over. 

While the media focus on gun violence by criminals as evidence that gun ownership is out of hand.. one should look at the numbers of conciel carry law abiding citizens who own weapons.  The the numbers out weigh the television agenda of gun control.

Well,  I hope you do not think I wrote the piece because I am anti-gun ownership.  I am speaking about ideology,  and seeing the guns as a sign,  cipher,  symptom of a coming anarchy.  It is the psyche which is driving things, and not the guns.  

OK that was my point.  Thanks for this.

Karl,  yes, & thanks-  I knew that was your point as well.  Just trying to make it clear to politisite and lounsbury,  as I am Independent,  not always on the side of the left,  and have some sympathy with the right.  But danger is danger,  as you say,  and will lead to grave things when put into action.  

The argument that owning and carrying weapons ' ....'cause it's protected by the Constitution', as the reasoning for individuals showing up at public events with loaded weapons is a specious distraction.

The obvious motivation is for the purpose of provocation. This is all being done in an effort to provoke law enforcement and the Secret Service to approach them so those with the guns can proceed to a tirade about their rights being trampled upon, being waged for an audience of like minded individuals.

What should be pointed out is the danger these individuals represent in a crowd, with the possibility of the loss of control of firearms in the crowd increasing exponentially if the size and demeanor of the crowd were to change adversely toward violence, whether that be the owner of the weapon's intent or not.

The guy in Portsmouth, New Hampshire was standing holding a sign, with both hands, as his gun rested low on his right leg, his example being the most careless handling of a weapon in this instance.

Gun owners talk about these great moments where they are going to draw their weapon and defend themselves. But run some of these scenarios through your mind and then wonder if a weapon makes the situation better:1) In a crowded bar and somebody pulls a handgun on you: you decide to open fire to defend yourself and miss and hit a young female doctor, causing her to be paralysed for life. The hoodlum with the handgun fires and kills you point blank.2) Asleep with your lovely wife, you hear a noise downstairs. You grap your AK47 with two banana clips back-to-back. You get to the top of the stairs and see what you think is a dark shape with a shotgun in the living room. You let off a burst of 20 rounds. Switch on the lights and find your son blown to pieces with a skateboard in his hands.3) Some hommies are hastling your friend and you on a dark street somewhere. You pull out a small 38 you keep in the glove compartment and aim. The hommie quickly draws an Uzzi and pumps 50 rounds into you. Game over. How has a weapon made you safer or made any of these situations better?

Bravo,  Iffy:  Your scenarios illustrate the point aptly!  And how about this one:  You are at a Tea Party or Town Hall meeting,  and you and your group have decided that Obama is indeed veering toward socialism and then some.  You decide to stand up and be counted:  You and others begin to fire shots.  Obama calls out the National Guard,  who begin shooting into the crowd as at Kent State under Nixon.  Instead of the song,  "Four Dead in Ohio"  they now have "12 Dead at Tea Party"--what was accomplished?