By on December 20, 2012

It must have seemed like a good idea at the time: in the wake of a national event that has a lot of people looking for a legislative solution, start a Facebook page which ostensibly calls for the banning of another controversial piece of machinery. As Generalfeldmarschall von Moltke once wrote, however, no plan survives the first contact with the enemy.

The Facebook page is question is called Ban The Ford Mustang and it contains a combination of deliberately provocative graphics like the one above and pictures of accident scenes where a Mustang was involved. The implication is that Mustangs are responsible for none of the fatalities; rather, it’s the drivers’ own incompetence or recklessness that caused the deaths. Since nobody is calling for Mustangs to be banned due to their high-speed capacity, presumably firearms in private hands should be extended the same courtesy.

There are a couple of problems with this analogy. The first one is that there are certainly a reasonable number of people who would be alive today had they chosen to purchase a Toyota Yaris instead of a Mustang. Fast cars get to dangerous speeds faster and many people are more prone to speeding and reckless behavior if they are behind the wheel of a fast car.

The second problem is that there are people calling for fast cars to be banned, whether for purposes of public safety or to prevent excessive resource consumption. It’s not a common viewpoint in the United States; anti-sports-car people here tend to use the soft attack of ridicule. But in the EU, it’s already been suggested once, and a quick trawl through the English-language Singapore and Hong Kong blogs shows it’s not exactly a forbidden concept over there.

Of course, the merits of the analogy have been lost on a significant percentage of the site’s commenters, who appear to take the call for the Mustang’s removal from public roads entirely seriously.

Yes, that man’s wearing a “5.0″ sweatshirt. At least he spelled “pussy” correctly, placing him easily in the top quartile of intellectual capacity among the people responding to the page. A common complaint among these people is that the page is a plot by a disaffected Camaro owner hoping to ensure marketplace supremacy for the porky Chevrolet by actually having the Mustang removed from showrooms. Others want a similar page made for the Challenger, just in the interest of fairness, and also because the HEMI sucks balls.

In the end, “Ban The Ford Mustang” could be said to make precisely the point it had hoped to counter: people not only can’t be trusted to own guns, or Mustangs, they can’t be trusted to own anything, a computer least of all. This modern-day Jonathan Swift has found out that some people would eat children.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

212 Comments on “American Irony: This Facebook Page Will Destroy Your Faith In Humanity...”


  • avatar
    Chicago Dude

    Oh Jack, it’s nothing more than a modest proposal. Don’t get too bent out of shape.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Perhaps, but this is a symptom of the nanny state mentality that is so prevalent as of late… it will be our undoing.

      • 0 avatar
        Ron B.

        Australia has been infested with the nanny state mentality of mass public mind control for 50 years.
        Communism under another name.
        We are not allowed to see cars drifting on adverts,we are not allowed to know that Holdens Monaro could reach 175 MPH as stated on the same cars adverts in the UK, we are not allowed to know the HP of Fords Falcon turbo six . An advert featuring two small children taking a SUV for a drive to the beach was banned because it was feared that toddlers could steal cars and pedo’s were watching the advert…
        America you have been warned!.

      • 0 avatar
        KrisT

        “Australia is suffering from Communism under a different name”

        Don’t you think that a bit of an exaggeration. Following that logic ASIO is now just like the KGB or the Stasi. Does ASIO tap your phone or haul you away without trial. Force you to inform on your friends. Of course not. Nobody bans you from owning and driving your Holden or Ford which i’m pretty sure were not available to the general public in the Soviet Union.

        If you think regulation is a slippery slope to Communism as apparently many people do then its worthwhile to note that Communist governments tend to rise to power through violent revolution. Not slow incremental changes.

        As for the Mustang, banning it is a silly notion. No activity is completely risk free

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        You are correct in reference to traditional Communist strategy, whats happening in the world now is something new. Not true Communism, and not true Fascism, something in between where you are stripped of our freedoms by technocrats and/or tyrants.

  • avatar
    DeeDub

    A third problem with this analogy is that Mustangs aren’t specifically designed for the sole purpose of causing fatal accidents.

    • 0 avatar
      Thinkin...

      Touché.

      • 0 avatar
        jfbramfeld

        That would be a touche if it made any sense. The death rate from cars is higher than the death rate from guns, even including what the government calls assault rifles. The utility of cars is extremely high, so high death rates are tolerated. People who don’t like guns and gun owners would never admit the utility of guns, much less the constitutional right to bear them.

        Perhaps the point could better have been made by comparing the Mustang to one of the many sedans that equal or exceed its performance. The classification of a gun as “assault” has roughly the same indication of safety or danger as a car’s classification as sedan. In other words, none.

        The fact is, the nut case in Connecticut could have left the “assault rifle” in the trunk and used the two pistols he had there to inflict the same casaulties. It takes about one second to change a magazine in a pistol, during which time you lose one shot. The fact of the matter is, like cars, guns per capita have an ever improving safety record. If you only count legal weapons, the rate is even better.

        And they will get around to your cars eventually. Maybe its time to think a little bigger, maybe like supporting other peoples battles with government regulation and getting some corresponding support for yours.

      • 0 avatar
        gpolak

        “The death rate from cars is higher than the death rate from guns…”

        Not so in 10 states, and the trend is reversing nationwide.

        http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/12/18/gun_deaths_in_america_gun_deaths_outpace_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_at_least.html

      • 0 avatar
        stryker1

        jfbramfeld: for your consideration,

        http://www.theonion.com/articles/right-to-own-handheld-device-that-shoots-deadly-me,30742/

    • 0 avatar
      redav

      But they *are* designed for the purpose of doing what is fundamentally illegal on any road.

      • 0 avatar
        geeber

        So is every car. Our 2003 Accord can cruise all day at 90 mph, which is higher than the speed limit of any state. So perhaps the problem is that the law hasn’t kept up with advances in automotive technology.

    • 0 avatar
      TW4

      If the sole purpose of a gun is to have a fatal accident, Americans are doing it wrong. We have about as many firearms as cars, yet firearms cause about three or four times fewer deaths. Apparently, guns do not exist for causing human fatalities b/c owners are not using them in that capacity.

      Guns can kill people. Cars can kill people. Guns are scary. Cars are not scary.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    Personally I prefer Count Alfred von Schlieffen “To win, we must endeavour to be the stronger of the two at the point of impact. Our only hope of this lies in making our own choice of operations, not in waiting passively for whatever the enemy chooses for us.”—Schlieffen

    Although my first reaction was this: http://www.superbwallpapers.com/meme/i-dont-want-to-live-on-this-planet-anymore-11372/

    • 0 avatar
      schmitt trigger

      I bet that there must be something written in Sun Tsu’s “The Art of War” that could apply, but don’t have the book handy.

      • 0 avatar
        gmichaelj

        No, no, no. You want a quote from the ‘Guns of August’ to keep the whole opening days of WWI theme going. Sadly, my copy is not nearby right now. Many great quotes in there. If you haven’t read it, or don’t know much about WWI, it is a good introduction to the war and is very well written. I’d have to say it is my favorite history book.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Not as apt but while we are on the subject of military wisdom:

      “Sweat saves blood, blood saves lives, but brains saves both.”
      Generalfeldmarchall Erwin Rommel, Infantry Attacks

  • avatar
    Nicholas Weaver

    A fourth problem is, if you look at the # of fatalities, both on per-unit and total, the “assault weapons” are the yarises of the gun world. Deer kill roughly 200 people a year in the states. Spree killers with ARs are far less lethal than Bambi.

    (The problem guns are pistols, not rifles. No gang-banger uses an “Assault Rifle”. But nobody is talking about a ban on pistols).

    • 0 avatar
      MarkP

      No one is seriously talking about a total ban on guns, whether pistols or long guns. However, there is no reason not to solve a particular problem, like mass killings by people using high-capacity magazines on semi-automatic rifles, just because you’re not solving some other problem, like individual murders by people using pistols. This one is easy: ban high-capacity magazines for use on semi-automatic rifles. Make a limit on the magazine capacity that is consistent with any conceivable legal use, like self defense or hunting. That limit could easily be three.

      • 0 avatar
        jfbramfeld

        “Make a limit on the magazine capacity that is consistent with any conceivable legal use, like self defense or hunting. That limit could easily be three.”

        Let’s rewrite that. “Make a limit on the speed of a vehicle that is consistent with any conceivable legal use, like commuting or traveling. That limit could easily be 80 miles per hour.”

        Also, there is no good reason for a car to accelerate to 60 any faster than 7.5 seconds. Especially since the planet’s future is at stake.

        This the the crap we are going to be looking at pretty soon. And your gun control friends are going to be on the other side from you then.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        D’oh wrong post.

      • 0 avatar
        Scott_314

        Jfbramfield, nicely put. But I support making it a pain in the ass to own an assault rflie (courses, references, etc). Same for high power sports cars.

    • 0 avatar
      statikboy

      I’ll happily talk about a ban on pistols, Nicholas. They are, by design, a weapon specifically INTENDED to be used to kill humans, which is an illegal activity. They have no other practical use, therefore they should be illegal.

      Worm, anyone?

      • 0 avatar
        Freddy M

        I won’t dispute your logic. As a matter of fact I kind of agree with the black and whiteness of it.

        But the other thing to consider is that regardless of the perception that a handgun’s only purpose is to kill a person, the other side of the equation that we hear very often from the American gun community is the freedom (and right) to own the gun. They may own the gun. Using it is an exclusively different argument altogether.

        And besides, the handgun in question could be used for recreational purposes such as target practice on a closed range, or drunken beer bottle practice out in the stix.

        My personal opinion? Hard to say. Being from Toronto I’d love to say ban guns altogether, but even I know that that won’t really do any good to curb gun violence at all.

      • 0 avatar
        don1967

        “They have no other practical use, therefore they should be illegal.”

        The same could be said of karate lessons, beer, cigarettes, sports cars, and just about anything else Big Brother decides he doesn’t like. Would you like them outlawed, too?

        Maybe you have no interest in recreational target shooting, gun collecting, or protecting your family against home intruders. But if you take away the rights of other people to pursue these interests, just because the urge struck you after watching the evening news, then be prepared to have a few of your own interests taken away too.

      • 0 avatar
        mnm4ever

        Well if people start walking around using karate lessons to slaughter groups of innocent people, then yea, we should definitely start discussing banning them or at least putting better controls on who has access to them. Same thing with sports cars, though I haven’t heard about too many people driving a sports car through a crowd of 6yo kids hoping to kill them all. Beer and cigarettes?? They both kill a lot of people, so yea, I have no problem at all banning them both, especially smoking. But our country is so hung up on drinking, smoking, and owning guns none of this stands a chance of happening.

      • 0 avatar
        Kendahl

        Self defense is legal provided it is defense against an unprovoked attack that could reasonably be expected to cause serious injury or death. Aside from that, there are many legitimate, peaceful uses for firearms. They include hunting, target shooting and collecting.

      • 0 avatar

        Killing humans is generally legal in self defense. The law distinguishes between different kinds of homicide, from murder to justifiable. Also, in defensive situations, guns can deter an attack without being fired.

        FWIW, the commandment is not “Thou shalt not kill”, it’s “Thou shalt not commit murder”.

      • 0 avatar
        mnm4ever

        Those are legitimate uses, however they are irrelevant. If it is decided that assault weapons or handguns are too dangerous to allow the general public to have, then you don’t need to collect them or target practice with them. You can collect hunting rifles, target practice with them, hunt with them, etc. Just because you want to collect land mines, should you be allowed? No. Collect die cast cars. Or bullets if you need something to make you feel tough.

        And just because something is legal doesn’t mean its right. Many laws, especially gun laws, were written with a great deal of lobbyist influence. And the wording of “self defense” even as you described it is very ambiguous. I am more familiar with the “stand your ground” laws in Florida since they have been in the news so much lately, and its clear they are complete BS. Basically all someone has to do is just say they were scared for their life, that makes it “legal” to shoot and kill someone. So what if its legal, its wrong, and the law needs to be changed.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        True Ronnie, but in some situations you may be exonerated from criminal charges but then the s***bag’s relatives drag you into civil court looking for a payday. Laws vary from state to state from what I understand.

      • 0 avatar
        slance66

        You might want to consider then, that the Police, having no greater legal right to discharge a firearm in defense than a civilian, should likewise be disarmed. We don’t take that approach because we know they go into harm’s way. But all of us go into harm’s way every day. The recent shootings (including at a mall) should make that abundantly clear. How you assess and respond to that threat is up to you. But we are allowed to defend ourselves. Period. I would no sooner rely on the government to defend my family than to rely on it to wipe my ass. It won’t get done in either case.

        Driving is the same. It is fraught with constant danger and must be approached as such. Do you expect the police to intercept every drunk driver? To remove every unsafe driver from the roads before they might hit you? Good luck to you if you do. It’s on you to be prepared.

      • 0 avatar
        Kendahl

        mnm4ever:

        It’s wrong morally and legally to expect the victim of an attack to place the welfare of his assailant above, or even on the same level as, his own.

        To claim self defense, you must first confess to assault or homicide. Then, you try to show that your actions were justified under the circumstances. That is, you didn’t provoke the attack and your only viable alternative was to suffer serious injury or death. Just saying you were scared isn’t sufficient. If you can’t persuade the court that your actions were justified, you will be convicted becase it already has your confession.

        In most jurisdictions, you don’t have to retreat from your home even if doing so is a viable alternative to self defense. “Stand your ground” simply expands this to any place you have a legal right to be, such as a public street. But you still have to prove self defense. If you can’t, “stand your ground” is irrelevant.

        You are not allowed to benefit from a criminal act. The traditional example is a life insurance policy for which you are the benficiary. If you murder the insured party, you cannot collect. A number of jurisdictions have extended similar protection to crime victims who defend themselves. Criminals are prohibited from suing for injuries or death that resulted from their crimes.

      • 0 avatar
        redav

        “[Pistols] are, by design, a weapon specifically INTENDED to be used to kill humans … They have no other practical use”

        Those out hunting in boar country would disagree with that.

        It is a weapon designed for short-range situations where other guns are too large & clumsy.

      • 0 avatar
        mnm4ever

        In a perfect world you would be right. All of these cases would be clear, open and shut cases…. big scary guy points a gun at me, I drew my weapon, announced my intent to fire, he gave me no choice so I shot him and killed him, and he was a scumbag career criminal who had probably killed others already so he deserved to die.

        But in reality it doesn’t go down that way. There are many cases just locally here in Florida where a guy shot a guy over road rage, another guy shot a guy over an argument in a pizza place, another guy killed a teenager for playing music too loud, of course the Zimmerman case in Orlando, etc. It is always the same story… I thought he had a gun, I thought I saw a gun, I was fearful he would beat me to death with his fists, etc etc. And when the “perp” is dead, its hard to argue against the shooter. And sure, that guy might be found guilty and go to jail for a “bad shoot”. That doesn’t bring the kid back to life, or the husband or father.

        The fact is, the chance of you being a victim of a real violent crime where you are going to be raped or murdered AND having a gun on you is the ONLY way to change that fact is practically non-existent. And the chance of you shooting someone who doesn’t deserve to die is significantly more likely. Telling me you NEED a gun and NEED to kill someone because it is legal and your right is total BS.

      • 0 avatar
        el scotto

        People can and do hunt with handguns. While you’re at it, demean competition target shooters.

      • 0 avatar
        mnm4ever

        People do not NEED to hunt with handguns, just like they do not need to competition target shoot with handguns or assault rifles. Just because they do is not justification to having those particular weapons. If a close contact weapon is needed for boar hunting, fine, a single shot handgun can be created for that purpose.

      • 0 avatar
        geeber

        There are plenty of legitimate uses of firearms for self-defense every day. Just because someone chooses to remain poorly informed, and believe the anti-firearms hysteria, doesn’t meant that they don’t happen.

        And please note that the evidence released since the Trayvon Martin shooting has supported George Zimmerman’s version of the events (that Martin jumped him and was pounding his head on the sidewalk when he shot him).

      • 0 avatar
        mnm4ever

        All the evidence shows is that there was a fight, maybe… and not what led up to the fight. We only have Zimmermans side of the story since Martin is dead. And if Zimmerman had not approached the kid, and just simply called the police and watched where he went, nothing would have happened. But he had a gun, so he didn’t need the cops.

      • 0 avatar
        mnm4ever

        And I am not talking about anti-gun hysteria. I am talking about personal experience. 40+ years, I have never known any situation I needed a gun, no one in my family, none of my friends, no one has ever been in a situation they needed a firearm out in public or even at home. Could you use one if someone approaches you? Sure. But you could also use pepper spray or a taser. Or simply leave. If the gun zealots were not so afraid of everything we wouldn’t be having these discussions.

      • 0 avatar
        geeber

        Your original post referred to “what you read about,” but now you are talking about personal experiences.

        Going by your first measurment – “what you read about” – over the past year, our local paper has reported on a beer distributorship owner who shot and killed a burglar who was coming at him with a hammer, and a food delivery person who shot a kid trying to rob him. Somehow, I doubt that they feel bad about carrying a firearm, or believe that it was unnecessary.

        George Zimmerman was part of a neighborhood watch group. It is therefore his JOB to track suspicious people within that condo/townhouse complex. That is not against the law, nor is it an act of aggression. Nor is it a crime to not listen to the police dispatcher who told him to back off on the chase, although there is plenty of evidence to show that he did just that.

        And I’d love to know how you are supposed to “simply leave” when someone approaches you with knife, or you are surrounded by a gang of young men ready to rob you. That has happened regularly here in Harrisburg over the past 6-8 months, to the point where a judge openly hoped that an intended victim would shoot one of the perpetrators.

        If you don’t like firearms, then don’t own one. That is your right. But leave the rest of us who are better informed, and live in the real world (where one simply cannot walk away from 3-4 men intent on robbing you) to make our own decisions.

    • 0 avatar
      NMGOM

      I am.

      ———-

      • 0 avatar
        01 ZX3

        People also don’t need to drive cars that cost over $15,000. A base Versa will get you from place to place efficiently and reliably. Why should we let people buy anything else? I mean it’s just wasteful and the extra pollution from bigger, more powerful cars will kill us too right?

        Do you like watching football mnm4ever? If so, the players take an average of 20 years off their lives by playing and even with all research and studies involving concussions, we still allow children as young as 6 out on the nations fields to go give each other concussions. Football’s only purpose must be to give its players concussions, football should be banned.

        Do you happen to like tobacco mnm4ever? 443,000 people died prematurely from tobacco use last year, 49,000 of which were caused by secondhand smoke. Tobacco should be banned too.

        Have you ever used a knife? If so you have used an instrument that was used to kill 1,694 people last year. Lets ban knives.

        Of course, banning these things will just make people want to partake in that banned entity more so what’s the point. Banning firearms or even certain types of firearms will do nothing to reduce crime rates. In fact, statistics have shown over and over again that crime rates only go up when firearms are banned.

      • 0 avatar
        mnm4ever

        Ah yes, the same old stupid arguements about other things that kill. Lets keep it short this time:

        People are not using their cars, under $15k or over, to kill other people on purpose, nor to slaughter groups of people. Stop trying to relate cars, or any other item that people “choose” to use, to guns.

        Football?? No one is going around using football players to kill other people, or slaughter groups of people. Its a personal decision, if you get hurt or die from it, thats on you or your parents. You can choose to not die playing football, you can’t choose not to die if someone shoots you because they thought you looked scary. This would be akin to if the only people dying from guns were killing themselves. And if that was the case then no problem, let em own any gun they want since that is a self-solving problem.

        Tobacco?? Hell yes, it should be outlawed completely. I am so tired of smelling people’s stinky cigarettes everywhere I go, and tired of paying for their healthcare because they are too stupid to quit trying to kill themselves.

        Knives have a distinct purpose besides being used to kill people. They do make a convenient weapon of course, but I would much rather have a guy try to stab me than shoot me. And once again, its pretty hard to slaughter large groups of people with a knife. I would gladly trade all the high powered rifles and handguns for knives and let everyone fight it out.

        And once again, I am not talking about a simply pointless ban on them. I am talking about a long term systematic removal of these weapons from our country. I am talking about making it a felony to possess or be caught with one. I am talking about making it damn near impossible for anyone to acquire one, trade for one, or even find one. That will put up some roadblocks for these idiot kids to get them. Will it take a long time?? Yes, decades. Will it be easy? No. Will it stop all gun crime? Of course not, but it is a start and it will minimize these massive tragedies. Will it ever happen? Not in a million years, but one can hope.

  • avatar
    philadlj

    “Speed has never killed anyone. Suddenly becoming stationary, that’s what gets you.”

    ― Jeremy Clarkson

  • avatar
    jjster6

    I believe the argument that the courts use to determine if a product is dangerous is if the danger exceeds the utility. An ambulance can kill someone, but if used properly can save someone. Hence not a dangerous product. A cigarette can be enjoyed (by some) but the enjoyment doesn’t exceed the death and destruction caused by the cancer. Hence it’s a dangerous product.

    A Mustang? I think the utility exceeds the danger. A gun? Depends on whether your fighting Hitler with it or carrying it to the mall.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    In the US, there are over 30,000 vehicle fatalities per year.

    Given the variety of vehicles on the road, it is statistically impossible that thousands of deaths each year are attributable to any one particular make and model.

    Moral of the story: Some folks ought to take a statistics class prior to posting things on the internet, particularly when they’re trying to paint clever analogies in support of their intellectually deficient, paleolithic political causes.

    • 0 avatar
      jfbramfeld

      You seem to be making the opposite point you intend. The kinds of guns that are used in crime and murder are statistically tracked. Look it up and see how many murders were committed last year with rifles, not even limited to assault rifles and then compare that to deaths at the hands of people using pistols.

      Statistically, there is no case at all for any kind of rifle ban.

      I haven’t looked recently, but my recollection is that 2010 rifle deaths, the last year FBI statistics were available for my Illinois, one rifle murder was noted. That might not even have been an “assault” rifle.

      There is the addditional statistical problem for gun banners that there is no correlation between gun control and gun violence. States with conceal carry and no regulation of assault style rifles are no more dangerous, and often safer than states with bans on assault rifles-like Connecticut.

      Illinois is the only state with no provision for conceal carry and it has a very sorry gun murder rate. Here’s a link to start. You will be surprised.

      http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        “You seem to be making the opposite point you intend.”

        You seem to have no idea what point it is that I’m making.

        Just in case it wasn’t obvious, your side does an excellent of making completely bogus arguments and exhibiting a complete inability to understand statistical data.

        And sure enough, this pithy Mustang statistic is completely made up. Totally false. Not at all true. Which is par for the course, really.

      • 0 avatar
        jjster6

        50% of all statistics are made up.

      • 0 avatar

        Gun violence plummeted in Australia after strict gun laws were enacted following a massacre in 1996

        http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html

      • 0 avatar
        geeber

        And gun violence increased in Chicago and Washington, D.C., after handgun bans were enacted.

        There is simply no proof that total bans on gun ownership by law-abiding citizens reduces the murder rate or crime in general. (The Clinton Administration studied this issue in the early 1990s, and found that such laws ultimately had no effect on crime.)

        Those who propose such restrictions bear the burden of proving that they will be effective. There has been plenty of experience with gun bans in muncipalities and the expansion of concealed carry laws over the past 30 years. And yet, we have…no solid proof in this country.

      • 0 avatar
        LuciferV8

        @David Holzman: That reduction seems to have primarily come from reducing gun-related suicides:

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/

        “A study from Jeanine Baker of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia and Samara McPhedran, then of the University of Sydney, concluded (pdf) that suicide rates declined more rapidly after the law’s enactment, but found no significant result for homicides; Leigh and Neill argue (pdf) that this paper’s methodology is deeply flawed, as it includes the possibility that fewer than one death a year could occur. David Hemenway at the Harvard School of Public Health noted (pdf) that the Baker and McPhedran method would find that the law didn’t have a significant effect if there had been zero gun deaths in the year 2004, or if there weren’t negative deaths later on. The authors, he concluded, “should know better.”

        Another paper (pdf) by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi, looks at the firearm death rates in Australia over time and found no ”structural breaks” associated with the law. But Leigh and Neill note that, because of the large number of factors affecting gun violences, real changes due to the law could potentially not show up as “breaks.”

    • 0 avatar

      It’s just too bad you can’t just be in charge the way the universe intended for things to be, isn’t it? Oh the horror of having to concede things like voting and free speech to those you consider to be intellectually deficient. You don’t fear a boot on your neck because you anticipate that the footwear will be made to your personal last.

  • avatar
    Pan

    You want a fail-safe society?
    Problem : Living causes dying.
    Solution: Ban living.
    Problem solved.

    • 0 avatar
      econobiker

      Or follow the money.

      Funny thing about universal seat belt laws is that even once all the US states had primary seat belt laws, car insurance rates never went down industry wide yet that was industry benefited the most from mandatory seat belt laws. I guess if the insurance industry convinced enough people that these laws “saved the children” it was a good law – savings to the consumer be damned.

      Another example was back in the 1980s when airbags were just getting wide acceptance and were still an vehicle option, the same make/ model car without airbags cost less to insure than one with the air bag option. The industry may have revised the rates since then because of universally equipped vehicles, however.

  • avatar
    mdensch

    OK, so I own a 2011 Mustang and have a 2013 on order and coming soon. Guess I should think about buying a gun to go with it. Santa: Are you listening?

  • avatar
    grzydj

    As a Mass Murdering Boomerang Basement Bolide, who drives a V6 Mustang (the greatest car in the world, aside from the Miata) I’m actually liking this page quite a bit. Fits my gold jacket wearing lifestyle.

  • avatar
    sideshowtom98

    Driving is a privalege. It is reasonable and legal to expect it to be tightly controlled.

    Gun ownership is a RIGHT, if put into perspective by the rest of the Constitution is inalienable, and comes from God, not man. It was so important to the framers of our liberties that it was placed second out of ten. The free and unrestricted ownership of guns protects our rights to free speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. Most importantly, it protects us from unreasonable searches, and seizure of our homes by an unrestricted Federal government.

    “People who would exchange freedom for security deserve neither.”

    • 0 avatar
      mnm4ever

      I wasnt going to get into this, but with your post I cannot help it. This is exactly the sort of BS the gun freaks throw around. First off, the constitution was written during a time when the people of the US were being persecuted by the government of England, we were coming off a war and they wanted to make a point. The founding fathers intended us to use our right to own guns (which in those days were not high powered large magazine assault rifles) to protect our country against an invasion or takeover. We had no national defense to speak of, the citizens were largely responsible for their own protection, and were expected to form a militia to defend their communities. That is an outdated viewpoint, and the idea serves no purpose whatsoever in today’s society. It had nothing to do with protecting themselves against violent crimes or being used to argue with other citizens. In this case the constitution is simply outdated and wrong and should be changed.

      Second off, you owning a gun doesn’t protect your rights to sh!t. You can say what you want, write what you want, and worship whoever or whatever you want without owning a gun. And furthermore, if someone wanted to stop you from doing any of those things, they can regardless of whether or not you own a gun. Same thing with unreasonable search or seizure, you aren’t going to stop anything from happening in this day and age, legal or not. If you shoot a law enforcement officer for searching your home or confiscating anything of yours, you will go to jail for murder, you will be the one arrested, and you will further prove that this country is out of control when it comes to guns and gun violence. There is not going to be a revolution against the federal government. Even if there was, they would win. Your pathetic stash of assault rifles wouldn’t stand a chance against a tank, or even a dirty cop for that matter, as the rest of the govt and society would be on their side before they are on yours.

      If a ban on any weapons, if any sort of gun control beyond what we have now would stop even one 6yo child from being murdered 2 weeks before Christmas, then we should have it. The rest of the arguments are just total bullsh_t. Comparing it to cars or alcohol or accidents or smoking or anything else that kills people is stupid. Cars are used for transportation, there is a need for them. Guns are used to kill people, practice being able to kill people, to make the owners feel big and bad, and to threaten and intimidate people. Oh, and to hunt, which is the only reason I can see for owning one. And you do not need an assault rifle OR a handgun to kill a deer.

      • 0 avatar
        VA Terrapin

        You fail to consider the role of a gun as a tool for self defense. There are plenty of examples of people legitimately using guns to defend themselves against threats; these defensive gun uses don’t have the shock value of a mass murder, so they don’t get covered nearly as much in the mainstream media.

      • 0 avatar
        jfbramfeld

        Well, when we wanted to ban and then unban alcohol, we amended the Constitution. When we wanted an income tax, we amended the Constitution. If you think the right to bear arms is outmoded, amend the Constitution. The Constitution has been amended dozens of times. If it’s so clear there is no reason for private parties to own guns, or guns you don’t approve of, it should be a piece of cake to convince people to vote for the amendment.

        Virtually every person ever elected has stood before the people and pledged to support the Constitution. They didn’t pledge to not try to change it, but they did pledge to not ignore it.

      • 0 avatar
        mnm4ever

        A gun is not a tool for self defense, a taser is a tool for self defense, a gun is a tool to kill. Besides, there are not “plenty of cases”, there are a few, sure, but there are more times the self defense gun is used against the owner, used unnecessarily, or escalates the situation even worse. There are just way too many idiots out there with carry permits, walking around armed, itching for the chance to shoot someone, shooting people over road rage, arguments in Little Ceasars, or using a bogus “stand your ground” excuse for shooting unarmed people because they got scared or excited.

        You can keep a hunting rifle in your home for defense. You don’t need to carry it around in a holster. You don’t need to whip it out during an arguement to prove your a badass. You can lock it in a case and drive to the range or to go hunting… no problem. You don’t need to carry a handgun if you are not LE or military. You don’t ever need an assault rifle or even a semi-automatic anything.

      • 0 avatar
        mnm4ever

        It will not be a piece of cake thanks to the NRA and gun proponents such as yourself. It will be a very polarizing topic, much as politics have become lately, because each side is so far apart, one side touting any sort of gun control as a sign of total loss of freedom and the end of our country as we know it, the other side being rational. :)

        But we should amend the constitution, if only to remove this stupid “right to bear arms” argument from the discussion. As @pch pointed out, the intent of the 2nd amendment has been twisted and should be clarified. Then we can all discuss an intelligent path towards solving an obvious problem that has simply been ignored for years.

      • 0 avatar
        VA Terrapin

        If a big, strong person or psychopath decides not to commit an act of violence against a weak person because that weak person might have a gun, I would say that a gun is a tool for self defense. If a criminal stops committing a violent crime because the victim uses a gun, that gun is a tool for self defense.

        Sometimes, self defense includes killing a violent criminal. Some criminals don’t give victims much of a choice; either the victim dies or the criminal dies. What would you do if you were a victim in this situation and you had a gun?

      • 0 avatar
        mnm4ever

        That is simply the dumbest argument ever for carrying a gun. First off, the chance of being in that situation is already incredibly slim. Walking around carrying a loaded handgun at the ready just in case some psycho targets you just proves you already do not have a very firm grasp on reality, and puts you square in the group of gun nuts that are just itching for a chance to shoot someone. Or like I said, someone who needs to feel big and bad because they have a gun. Second, if you are truly weak and scared, then carry a taser. Or pepper spray. Stay away from situations where you might get attacked. Call the police if you see someone suspicious walking around. Don’t be a dick and start fights in public if your only source of strength is a gun.

        Sure, there are a few times some good gun-toting citizen has actually stopped a real crime from happening in a situation where the police wouldn’t have been able to in time. A few. But there are many more situations where someone was killed who didn’t have to die. And for some reason, the type of person who is attracted to the idea of carrying a weapon around with them in public tends to be the type of person who cannot handle the responsibility of doing so. It isn’t just about rights, there is responsibility and intelligence associated with that right and a large percentage of our population in the US simply doesn’t have the common sense.

      • 0 avatar

        The founding fathers intended us to use our right to free speech (which in those days were not expressed using high powered computers and related high technology) to inform the public with broadsheets printed on manually operated printing presses. We had no national media to speak of, the citizens were largely responsible for gathering their own information. That is an outdated viewpoint, and the idea serves no purpose whatsoever in today’s society. We need a government run media and controls on computers to make sure that these powerful new technologies do not disrupt our society. Just as the founding fathers never anticipated semi-automatic weapons, so too they never anticipated that every common person could be a publisher. In this case the constitution is simply outdated and wrong and should be changed.

      • 0 avatar
        LuciferV8

        I understand that you are angry, and I get that anger. I don’t like what happened any more than you do. However, taking away the right of self defense from law abiding citizens is not going to fix the problem. It will only make things far worse.

        Concerning your first and second points – the idea of putting military power in the hands of citizens is never outdated. The fact of the matter is that the power to self defense is the very root of political power. One armed person is obviously never going to be a threat to power, but millions who are armed will be. This state of power held by the majority of the population (also known to some as “the 99%”) is the thing that keeps our country from degenerating into a state of tyranny.

        Concerning you third argument, you are missing the forest for the trees.
        1. For every one child lost to some firearm, many more die to a whole plethora of other causes.
        http://www.childdeathreview.org/nationalchildmortalitydata.htm

        2. Those who wish to do harm will find other ways of doing it, without guns. Ways that can be just as effective:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/china-school-attack-video_n_2329511.html

        3. All those children you wish to save are going to be toast if
        their parents cannot defend themselves:
        http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-04-09/world/35262019_1_drug-violence-mexican-drug-cartels-ciudad-juarez

        4. Chicago’s strict gun control

        http://twitchy.com/2012/12/16/inconvenient-reminders-about-chicagos-bloody-gun-control-failure/

        is not helping one bit either.

        http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57499523/mexican-drug-cartels-fight-turf-battles-in-chicago/

        To conclude, watch this:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dhXOuuHcjbs

        I’m sure you hatehatehate red-state types with all of the cultural trappings they carry. I can understand that sense of anger and dislike and the want to stick it to every, bigoted, bible thumping, walmart-shopping, country-music listening, camo-wearing, huge pickup driving redneck out there.

        These folks get on your nerves – I get that. However, this is not the way to get back at them, because the unintended consequences of gun control are simply far too costly.

      • 0 avatar
        tresmonos

        Ronnie,
        Your best bet is to move to China where your personal liberties are absent but the government is much more efficient. That way you don’t muck up my liberties as a human being and we can work on cutting the excess gov here at home when you’re gone.

      • 0 avatar
        Ron B.

        why stop at assault rifles? why not any automatic pistol or Mac-10 ,Uzi or any weapon capable of firing off x amount of shots per minute? Then all the rhetoric from Washington would make sense. To want to use or own a weapon which requires more than one shot per 30 seconds doesn’t make sense. Ask any farmer,( or those who use guns for work purposes) if they need to fire off multiple shots per second … but what this has to do with Fords Mustang God only knows.

      • 0 avatar
        mnm4ever

        @lucifer — I am not angry at red state rednecks driving pickup trucks, I happen to like them very much. Although I am not a hunter, I appreciate the skill involved and can understand why so many people enjoy the sport. I do not want to ban guns or remove your right to own a gun. The only people who get on my nerves are crazy people who shoot other people. I can also clearly understand that there are many other ways to cause death and destruction, many other ways for a crazy person to kill children, many other ways children and adults are killed that are completely accidental in this world we live in. But I will be damned if I am going to sit by silently while people spew a bunch of useless stupid arguments why they interpret the “right to bear arms” to mean the right to own as many of any types of weapons as they can dream up.

        The constitution was written over 200 yrs ago, by men that in no way could even dream of the technology and firepower that we have at our disposal. The words they wrote are essentially meaningless in today’s society. Pointing to that document as the reason we need to own semiautomatic handguns and assault rifles with 100-round clips is ridiculous. Your argument that millions of Americans owning guns is somehow keeping our federal government in check from turning us all into peasant slaves is equally ridiculous. Most of us already are slaves to wall street and corporate America. And those in power already know that by allowing you to hold onto your weapons makes you feel like you are in charge, and they are laughing all the way to the bank. You aren’t keeping anything in check, and I guarantee that the first bunch of people who try to start the first militia against the government will be squashed down so swiftly and so silently that no one will ever hear about it.

        You don’t need to own assault rifles, they should be removed from this country, as long as it takes. You don’t need to walk around with a handgun in your holster or car. If you are that scared of crime, move or leave the country. You can hunt, you can target shoot, you can protect your home… with a nice long hard-to-hide rifle that doesn’t shoot more than 3 bullets at a time. We need to get more aggressive at removing guns from circulation and importation, more strict on background checks, and more emphasis on mental health so that the crazies get found sooner and stop letting them have access to guns or anything else.

        I am also intelligent enough to know that nothing is going to change here. Nothing, this is all just a waste of time because there is too much money, too many people involved that will fight it to the death, literally. But stop trying to tell me that a bunch of old men 200+ yrs ago gave you the “right” to own assault rifles and carry 9mm handguns around to protect yourself, to shoot anyone you think was scary to you, and that by owning guns you are somehow keeping our federal government from controlling us and turning this country into a dictatorship. Call it as it is, you want to hold the power to kill someone in your hands and you dont like the govt to tell you what to do, regardless if its good for you or not.

      • 0 avatar
        VA Terrapin

        mnm4ever wrote:
        “That is simply the dumbest argument ever for carrying a gun. First off, the chance of being in that situation is already incredibly slim. Walking around carrying a loaded handgun at the ready just in case some psycho targets you just proves you already do not have a very firm grasp on reality, and puts you square in the group of gun nuts that are just itching for a chance to shoot someone.”

        If that’s the case, why is gun ownership a big deal to you?

        mnm4ever wrote:
        “Or like I said, someone who needs to feel big and bad because they have a gun. Second, if you are truly weak and scared, then carry a taser. Or pepper spray. Stay away from situations where you might get attacked. Call the police if you see someone suspicious walking around. Don’t be a dick and start fights in public if your only source of strength is a gun.”

        You realize criminals can use tasers and pepper spray as well as guns?

        Calling the police is fine if a criminal victimizes you, but the police might not be able to come to your defense until it’s too late.

        mnm4ever wrote:
        “Sure, there are a few times some good gun-toting citizen has actually stopped a real crime from happening in a situation where the police wouldn’t have been able to in time. A few.”

        Defensive gun use (DGU) is more common than you might think: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/wuvc01.pdf. The National Crime Victimization Survey covering 1993-2001 indicates that 0.7 percent of crime victims responded to a violent crime by brandishing a firearm (p. 11). The math works out to more than 60,000 DGU incidents per year during the survey period. Even with falling crime rates, assuming that the 0.7 percent DGU figure still holds, far more people use guns in self defense than to actually murder someone.

      • 0 avatar
        mnm4ever

        Gun ownership isn’t a big deal to me. Carrying them around in public so you can pull it out if you feel threatened or scared is a big deal to me. Also, shooting someone you get in an argument with, shooting someone because you think you might have seen a gun on them, shooting someone who looks suspicious, shooting someone because you can get away with it thanks to our loosely defined laws… those all are a big deal to me.

        Criminals can use tasers and pepper spray too of course, and I wish they all would. Be a nice place if the most violent crime we can have would be being tasered. But that isn’t going to happen. And in the slim chance that you are a victim of a violent crime where your life is truly in danger, you can defend yourself without actually having to kill someone. And in the significantly more likely scenario that you make a mistake in evaluating the threat, you won’t have killed someone.

        And finally, those statistics are interesting, but typical of statistics, prove nothing. How many of those 1% who brandished a gun actually NEEDED to brandish a gun? How many of them did that and stopped a violent crime from occurring, or are alive purely because they pulled out a gun? How many of them escalated the crime by trying to prove they were bigger and badder than the criminal? How about the fact that over 99% of all crime victims don’t need to use a gun?

        This fantasy that crime will go down if everyone was carrying a gun is stupid because it will only ever be a small percentage of the population that have the mindset to walk around with a holster on.

      • 0 avatar
        redav

        The 2nd Amendment states that a well armed militia is necessary for the security of a free state. IMO, that applies to fighting an outside invader as well as fighting a domestic, evil, and dangerous govt. It also states that the people have right to keep and bear arms.

        A few points:
        *well armed* = what exactly? If the purpose was for “security” (against an invader or oppressive govt), then it must be sufficient to actually work against such. It is reasonable to say “well armed” = adequate to accomplish the task.

        What arms did the govt or an invader have? Muskets, cannons, bayonets, etc. It was reasonable to fight against such with muskets and cannons. (I know people who own cannons today, I’m sure there were wealthy land-owners and merchants that did then, too.) If the govt had machine guns then, would they have permitted individuals to own them, too? It’s a hypothetical, but I think they would.

        If we assume the intent and rights of the 2nd Amendment are durable, meaning they still exist and are valid, then let’s ask what does “well armed” mean today? If the intent is durable, then it must be sufficient to defend against an invading force or dangerous govt. Do bolt action rifles and shotguns meet that criterion? No, of course not. If that’s what the 2nd Amendment gets reduced to, its intention & meaning have clearly been eroded. While I don’t like that, I also don’t think individuals have a need to own tanks & bombs. But while I don’t particularly want them owning such arms, I don’t have a philosophical problem with them legally owning them, either.

        “Arms” have so changed in the last 200 yrs, as has the role of the military, that the intent of the 2nd Amendment probably should be revisited, BUT (and I believe this is an important ‘but’), if individuals’ rights are diminished, then additional restrictions and responsibilities should be placed on the govt so that there is no doubt that those rights are not needed. For example, there is a law that prevents the military from conducting police work within the US. However, there have been incidents that have shown that law can be bent. That’s a problem the 2nd Amendment is supposed to balance. I don’t have a problem diminishing the 2nd Amendment on the condition that something else is added that original intent is still satisfied.

      • 0 avatar
        jetcal1

        mnm4ever,
        Let’s ban hammers,knives and cleavers. Try knife attack china for a search, have fun!

      • 0 avatar
        gslippy

        @mnm4ever:

        “Same thing with unreasonable search or seizure, you aren’t going to stop anything from happening in this day and age, legal or not. If you shoot a law enforcement officer for searching your home or confiscating anything of yours, you will go to jail for murder, you will be the one arrested, and you will further prove that this country is out of control when it comes to guns and gun violence.”

        I’m not so sure this is true. The government should fear its citizens, not the other way around. The chance that a homeowner could be armed prevents many government corruptions.

        Take away the 2nd Amendment, and you’ll see unmitigated government abuse of its citizens in their homes. On the other hand, the 2nd Amendment protects itself; any attempt to remove it will see the citizens, well, up in arms.

      • 0 avatar
        LuciferV8

        @mnm4ever:
        “The only people who get on my nerves are crazy people who shoot other people.”

        My nerves too, but I recognize that it’s the people, not the implements, at fault.

        “ I can also clearly understand that there are many other ways to cause death and destruction, many other ways for a crazy person to kill children, many other ways children and adults are killed that are completely accidental in this world we live in.””

        Why not try to ban those as well? If the “just one child” argument is viable, then we have a case for omitting most of the modern world. Even that case though, could be debunked by a thorough examination of the externalities, which would also apply to the removal of assault rifles from law-abiding (not criminal) hands. In other words, re-read the article on Mexican cartel violence for that point.

        “But I will be damned if I am going to sit by silently while people spew a bunch of useless stupid arguments why they interpret the “right to bear arms” to mean the right to own as many of any types of weapons as they can dream up.”

        1. You can call the arguments names “useless, stupid” but it would do a lot better job of convincing people if you could actually debunk them.

        2. “any types of weapons as they can dream up”. Really? I don’t see a lobby for the right to use tanks and rocket launchers.

        “The constitution was written over 200 yrs ago, by men that in no way could even dream of the technology and firepower that we have at our disposal. The words they wrote are essentially meaningless in today’s society. “

        Those same founding fathers could not have dreamed of the great majority of communication technology and religious developments either, yet that is hardly a reason for throwing out the first amendment, isn’t it?

        “Pointing to that document as the reason we need to own semiautomatic handguns and assault rifles with 100-round clips is ridiculous.”

        I have not invoked the second amendment in my arguments thus far. I know some others have, but I am fairly confident I can show you the way simply by showing you the negative consequences of gun control, via current real-world examples, which I have given links to.

        “Your argument that millions of Americans owning guns is somehow keeping our federal government in check from turning us all into peasant slaves is equally ridiculous.”

        Really, why?

        “ Most of us already are slaves to wall street and corporate America. And those in power already know that by allowing you to hold onto your weapons makes you feel like you are in charge, and they are laughing all the way to the bank. “

        1. For a bunch of “Corporate slaves”, you do understand that we enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world, right? There’s a reason so many clamor to get into this place.
        2. Those who are in power, particularly billionaires like George Soros, and most if not all of the owners of the media, would like to see America disarmed.

        “You aren’t keeping anything in check, and I guarantee that the first bunch of people who try to start the first militia against the government will be squashed down so swiftly and so silently that no one will ever hear about it.”

        It’s actually happened many, many times before, weapons or not, from the crushing of the Bonus Army to the Kent State Massacre. What keeps this from boiling over is mostly the high standard of living. However, what keeps the powers that be from pushing any further is the very real threat of reprisal.
        If the social contract is ever truly voided, a well armed population serves as a check on the power of government. Would the first militia be crushed? You betcha. But if things were bad enough, and the rest of the country took their side, the couple of militias after that might have a better chance.

        “You don’t need to own assault rifles, they should be removed from this country, as long as it takes. You don’t need to walk around with a handgun in your holster or car. “

        Speak for yourself. I am an adult, and there are plenty of things in this world that I have that I don’t technically need, but choose to have, and I am not going to let someone take them from me.

        “If you are that scared of crime, move or leave the country.”

        Have you considered moving yourself? There are plenty of places free of those pesky armed law-abiding citizens – like Mexico, the UK, Australia. Seriously, if you hate armed citizens that much, go be amongst your own kind and see how that works out for you. At the very least, move to Chicago. I hear they’re doing great over there.

        “ You can hunt, you can target shoot, you can protect your home… with a nice long hard-to-hide rifle that doesn’t shoot more than 3 bullets at a time. We need to get more aggressive at removing guns from circulation and importation, more strict on background checks, and more emphasis on mental health so that the crazies get found sooner and stop letting them have access to guns or anything else.”

        I suppose one could also commit a massacre with that equipment as well. By that stage, folks like you will be lobbying to remove firearms altogether, as has been successfully accomplished in England. I see through the divide-and-conquer ploy here. That step-by-step approach worked well for your kind in the UK, but we’re not dumb enough to fall for it in the US. By the way, with the advent of cheaper home production technologies, home-made firearms are going to proliferate. You will not be able to put this cat back in the bag, no matter how many guns you think you can remove from circulation.
        http://www.captainsjournal.com/2012/07/23/do-gun-bans-reduce-violent-crime-ask-the-aussies-and-brits/

        “I am also intelligent enough to know that nothing is going to change here. Nothing, this is all just a waste of time because there is too much money, too many people involved that will fight it to the death, literally.”

        There are too many of us who see the road to hell being paved by good intentions.

        “But stop trying to tell me that a bunch of old men 200+ yrs ago gave you the “right” to own assault rifles and carry 9mm handguns around to protect yourself, to shoot anyone you think was scary to you,… “

        Go ahead and show me where I was saying that.

        “and that by owning guns you are somehow keeping our federal government from controlling us and turning this country into a dictatorship. “

        There are plenty of good arguments for why an armed citizenry is a free citizenry.

        “Call it as it is, you want to hold the power to kill someone in your hands “

        To “hold the power to kill someone in your hands” is to pick up a hammer or a lead pipe or a good, heavy rock. I already have that. I want the power to defend myself.

        “and you dont like the govt to tell you what to do, regardless if its good for you or not.”

        And now the nanny state mask slips right off. I respect your experience and concern, but you have a lot to learn about the concept of civil liberties.

      • 0 avatar
        mnm4ever

        This is getting almost too long to keep up with but I will try, since apparently you doing more replying that reading. And by the way, not every one of my comments is a reply to you, I am getting it from all angles, and you are all saying the same basic things, the usual pro-gun arguements. Most others on here are using the 2nd amendment to justify owning assault rifles and carrying concealed weapons. I understand you are using anti-gun control information instead. Different reasons, same logic.

        I am not calling for a blanket banning of all things dangerous. Just because there are other dangerous things in this world, other causes of death, all it takes is a little common sense to see that of course we cannot ban everything. Banning knives for example, is completely stupid. Banning cars, banning sports, video games, grenades, etc. Grenades are a pretty good example actually. They can be bought, easy to hide, easy to store, and they certainly can cause mass destruction and death. Yet they are illegal, and you don’t hear about too many grenade attacks. Why? Because crazy people don’t like them as much as guns. And I am not calling for a ban on all guns, like I have said repeatedly, you can hunt, you can own guns. My point is that we need a significantly more strict policy on who can own which weapons and who can carry them. I am certain you are a very responsible upstanding citizen who would only use your concealed weapon when needed, and responsibly owns assault rifles. But we cannot ensure than everyone who gets these permits is like you. And there are far too many nutjobs walking around pulling out guns for stupid reasons and killing people for stupid reasons. Far more than the ones that legitimately use these weapons. Someone posted a great list of crimes that were prevented by citizens carrying weapons. Thats great, even though like half of them were off duty cops who should be doing that anyway. But I can offset his entire list with one months worth of cases just here in Florida where innocent people got shot by morons with guns. By your way of thinking, thats just the price of living in freedom, we have to let the crazies kill people rather than give up anything to the big bag government. Bullsh!t.

        As for our armed civilians keeping the government in check being ridiculous, I cited several reasons already, so stop asking why. The reason is that government is more powerful than you. The public in general is too stupid to “rise up together”. As you pointed out already, militias have already been stomped out, and all of them, legal or not, are seen as a bunch of gun crazies that needed to be stopped before they hurt someone. All of them. Were they?? Who knows, we will never know because the media will show us what they want, and the government will hide what they dont want us to know. The ideas set forth by the founding fathers that we can defend ourselves against the government is fantasy these days. Sure, we enjoy a wonderful standard of living in this country, I know that. We have a very successful population, even our poor people are pretty damn well off compared to many other countries. Who cares??? What does that have to do with being able to own high powered assault rifles and carry around guns?? You really think that’s the reason we have a good life here?? The social contract you refer to is fantasy. I think at the root of the pro-gun argument, you guys all really believe that someday there will be an uprising and you will need your arsenal to defeat the government. That is never going to happen. Never. The general population is way to concerned with who wins American Idol and who marries the Bachelor to try to join a revolution. These are people that are generally too lazy to make their own pizza, do you really think homemade guns are going to be a problem?

        Now does that mean that the entire constitution should be voided because its old and outdated? No, of course not, use some common sense. We used to allow people to own slaves and women were not allowed to vote either. As times change, we change, laws change, and the constitution can change too. The parts that get muddled or outdated should be reviewed and amended. Blindly holding onto the past because it supports your agenda is just as dumb as blindly calling for bans on everything dangerous. That’s why we need an INTELLIGENT discussion on how to fix the problem.

        As for moving, sure I have considered moving. I like the weather here though. :) But seriously, thats the thing… I dont have to move. I live in a nice place, we have very very little crime. 20 miles south they have a ton of crime, but it doesn’t happen up here. Do you think that is because all my neighbors have guns and down there no one does?? Quite the opposite actually, but the police up here keep it in check. More cops = less crime, not more guns. Cops cost money though, and not every community has enough. I dont lock my doors, I walk around the streets at night, my kids go places alone, my wife isn’t scared to go jogging, etc. You dont have to leave the country to avoid potential problems. Do we have crime? Sure, it happens, just not enough that I need to carry a gun to defend myself like you think you do. Your statistics for crime and gun use are great, but they dont differentiate between Chicago and Newtown. There is a reason I don’t live in Chicago, they have way bigger problems than Newtown does. The entire population of the US doesn’t have to be armed to defend themselves, and they never will be. You are using statistics from some of the worst cities for crime and using that to push your agenda.

        “Speak for yourself. I am an adult, and there are plenty of things in this world that I have that I don’t technically need, but choose to have, and I am not going to let someone take them from me.”

        “By that stage, folks like you will be lobbying to remove firearms altogether, as has been successfully accomplished in England. I see through the divide-and-conquer ploy here. That step-by-step approach worked well for your kind in the UK, but we’re not dumb enough to fall for it in the US.”

        “And now the nanny state mask slips right off. I respect your experience and concern, but you have a lot to learn about the concept of civil liberties.”

        And there it is… what it always comes down to for the gun nuts. You do not want to be told what to do. You have this false sense of freedom, as if you control things in your life and having a gun makes you feel more in control. I get that argument actually, I hate the idea of giving up freedoms too. But the problem is, there are too many people in this country and in this world who are NOT responsible, do NOT have all the mental capacity to handle that responsibility, and who are causing way too much death and destruction with guns. All I want is for the NRA and the government and the gun proponents to do something to TRY to limit this. I know we wont get rid of gun crime, I know we cant stop every crazy person from massacring groups of kids, I am not stupid nor blind. I also know that anything we do will take years to show any effects, possibly decades, so whatever studies have been done are mostly irrelevant. Banning guns in Chicago is pointless since they can drive to St Louis and buy a gun, and the cops are already so overwhelmed with crime that they cant do anything to actually get the guns off the streets. We can look at other countries, who have much lower deaths from gun crime, and we should want to emulate that instead of making excuses why American is better than they are. Having civil liberties is extremely important, but we are a society, and we have a responsibility to protect everyone in that society. Civil liberties and freedom is not an “all or nothing” subject, as a society we should be able to come up with a way to curb the excessive gun crime and protect each other. I hate arguing about “gun control” because it seems so absolute, and really this is way more about mental health, training, and managing who has access and where these guns are going. Yeah, I know its a HUGE task and like I have said before, it isn’t going to happen. But I don’t think we as a society should just give up because its a big problem, or just let things continue because we are afraid of becoming a “nanny state”. It is like you are OK with these mass shootings, or these innocent victims being killed, just to avoid having to give up anything of your own. Thats a very selfish viewpoint, and at the root of things, thats exactly whats wrong with our country today. I am hoping this most recent tragedy will help people start to see that being selfish isn’t working.

        And FYI – I am done responding to this thread, it was fun and interesting, especially @PCH’s knowledge of the constitution. But I get it; you need to carry a gun to defend yourself against all the criminals you encounter every day, owning assault rifles and high capacity magazines is your God given right as an adult in the US, and you need them to keep the government from turning us all into serfs, and that’s why we have such a great standard of living, oh yeah and the ever important people die every day from all kinds of things and since we can’t ban everything why bother trying to ban anything. Sums it up nicely I think.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      “It was so important to the framers of our liberties that it was placed second out of ten.”

      It’s odd that those who like to talk a lot about the Constitution on the internet know so little about it.

      Until 2008, the interpretation of the Second Amendment was that it was limited to the right to serve in a militia, which is a civilian military arm with the president as its commander in chief. That was pretty much in line with what the founders wanted.

      The Supreme Court decided in a (rather poorly argued, 5-4) 2008 ruling that this also included a right to defend yourself with a handgun, rifle or shotgun in your home.

      It is not a right to own any kind of weapon that you want. It is not a right to bring that weapon whereever you want. It is not a right for anybody who can’t pass a background check to enjoy. It is a pretty limited right.

      The Second Amendment was effectively a right to be drafted into militia service. There were anti-federalists who wanted it to include rights to self-defense and to hunting, but their language was rejected. The founders obviously thought about these things, but they deliberately didn’t go there. It’s only thanks to the judicial activism of the Scalia majority that self-defense has magically appeared in the amendment during the last four years of the country’s two centuries of existence.

      The Third Amendment, like the Second Amendment, also has to do with the armed forces’ relationship to the civilian population. The Second Amendment gave you a “right” to serve (which basically meant that you were drafted), while the Third protected your property from the troops using it as a free hotel.

      In any case, I don’t know why this is on a car forum. This site does poorly with political topics (and, more recently, with business ones as well), and it’s probably best to stick to what you know, instead of the many things that you don’t.

      • 0 avatar
        jfbramfeld

        I may only be a lawyer, but even I know there is no such thing as “a right to drafted into the militia.” That my friend is a govenment right, unless you like to think of yourself as having a right to pay taxes and stop at red lights.

        The second amendment is plain on its face. It is specifically stated that it is a right given to the “people.” Not to the government. These same “people” are the recipients of the rights in the first amendment also.

        Again, you don’t like it, repeal it.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        “The second amendment is plain on its face.”

        That’s right. And the Miller decision outlined what it was — the right to serve in a militia. (Maybe you skipped that one in law school, I can’t speak to the quality of your education or of your practice.)

        There’s no need to repeal the Second Amendment. I’m pleased to have the right to serve in a militia. The founders were concerned about the potential mercenary abuse of large standing armies and the difficulty of putting down rebellions, and the Second Amendment was written to deal with matters like those that were pressing in late 18th century America.

        What I’m not pleased about is a very recent court decision that interpreted the Second Amendment based upon premises made up out of whole cloth, one that overturned precedent with the flimsiest of reasoning and a legal argument that was based upon a rewrite of constitutional history.

        Since you guys didn’t get what you wanted from the founders, you see fit to make it up out of thin air. A bit like this bogus Mustang statistic that any thinking person should know is patently false on the surface.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        I think it depends on who founds the militia and where does its loyalties lie. In my view such a declaration was put in place to protect states and local communities from the 18th century threats you named, the key here would be local, as in made up of members in the community and loyal to said community or perhaps state. Today we don’t have much in the way of militias to serve in, the closest group being a state national guard, but the right for a “well regulated militia” to organize and train is still valid, it just apparently isn’t done in a our society.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        “but the right for a ‘well regulated militia’ to organize and train is still valid, it just apparently isn’t done in a our society.”

        It is valid, and its modern day successor today is the National Guard.

        The militia system as originally conceived proved to be ineffective during the War of 1812, so it was largely scrapped in favor of using a professional army to go fight the wars. The founders were concerned about professional armies acting as mercenaries who were more loyal to a tyrant than to the people, and wanted the use the militia to counterbalance that. That aspect of militia service is largely passe, but the use of the Guard to help with domestic problems remains relevant today and will remain relevant for the foreseeable future.

        Incidentally, one thing that shows what the founders were thinking about with the “right to bear arms” was that conscientious objectors were going to be provided with an exemption to that right. Of course, they considered that possibility because not everyone wants to have a “right to bear arms” when that “right” refer to something that is an obligation, and not just a choice. They weren’t using the word “right” in the same way that we would use that word today.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Interesting points. So if the mentality of “right to keep arms to defend myself” so prevalent today doesn’t really extend from revolutionary times where did it come from? Civil war times, the expansion West perhaps?

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        “Bearing arms” referred to going into combat. A “call to arms” meant that you were supposed to show up when called, ready to fight. Hunting, target shooting for fun, and having fun with your beer drinking buddies aren’t examples of “bearing arms”.

        The founders considered self-defense as a stated right, and took a pass. They thought about it, and apparently didn’t think that they needed to address it.

        That doesn’t necessarily mean that you aren’t allowed to defend yourself. Rather, it just means that the matter is left to the states or to federal statute.

        The Constitution was written to outline basic operating principals. It was not written to micromanage every aspect of the relationship between the federal government, state and local government, and the people.

        By keeping it simple, they kept it flexible, which is what has allowed it to work with few changes for over 200 years. But it starts not to work when one chamber acts in bad faith to find things in it that were never there.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        So the founders viewed self defense as more of a “states rights” issue, their intention was to build a loose framework to define militias and things became misinterpreted?

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        I wouldn’t go that far. Self defense was just one of very many things that they weren’t trying to address. Apparently, it wasn’t important enough to be explicitly protected in the Bill of Rights.

        There are many things that are never mentioned in the Constitution. For example, there’s nothing in the Bill of Rights that outlines what sort of criminal activity is illegal. It makes no mention of murder or rape or robbery being crimes. That doesn’t mean that you can kill and abuse women and steal, it just means that there are other mechanisms for dealing with those offenses.

        They must have figured that the states would handle the details in most cases, and the federal government would have its own laws to deal with it to the extent that it was a federal matter. The feds just made sure that you had the right to a jury trial, to answer your accusers, to avoid self-incrimination and to not receive cruel and unusual punishment.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Interesting discussion as always Pch.

      • 0 avatar
        tresmonos

        Bravo, PCH101.

        It’s rare when I agree to you, but you are spot on.

        All the naysayers should come live with me in Mexico and see how being a subject of their government rewards them. Anarchy, fear, death and pure hell. The people who have guns, have the power.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        “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.”

        It’s pretty ridiculous when people claim that there is some other meaning than that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall no be infringed. It doesn’t say the right of militia members to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn’t say the purpose is to secure a state from outside interference. Anyone focused on the purpose of said militia should notice that it does specify the purpose is to preserve the security of a free state, not a police one, not a redistributionist one, and not one dictated by executive privilege. Private gun ownership is required to preserve a free state, something our founding fathers had personal experience with.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        “It’s pretty ridiculous when people claim that there is some other meaning than that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall no be infringed”

        It’s pretty ridiculous that you’re so busy ranting on the internet that you can’t be bothered to know the history of your own country.

        I think that the founders would be offended that you spend a lot of time claiming support of original intent, when you just chuck it out of the window whenever it doesn’t suit you.

        The founders did what they did. If you don’t like it, then build yourself a time machine, fly back to the late 1700s, and convince them to do it differently.

        (And try not to pout when you do. I don’t think that they would appreciate all of the whining.)

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        With the benefit of hindsight they could have made things harder for revisionists and progressives, but I think they did a remarkable job overall and have no beef with them. I was a star of my constitutional law class twenty years ago, but history has changed since then thanks to aspiring statists like you.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        “I was a star of my constitutional law class twenty years ago”

        Apparently not the US constitution.

      • 0 avatar
        porschespeed

        While well written, there is so much that is just wrong with almost every one of your Original Intent claims it’s almost impossible to find a place to start. Here’s just a few quotes from Jefferson alone, with regards to not only all citizens being armed as to help avoid the inherent evils of large standing armies (which we have been dealing with since Eisenhower), but VERY specifically as to personal self defense. Also as the final check and balance on their own government.

        I can quote The Founders extensively on this subject. While there are those who ignore all context in their quest to disarm the citizens, The FF knew damn good and well that disarmed people inevitably become subjects and victims. That’s why it’s number 2, right behind that also inconvenient and sometimes messy freedom of speech thingy.

        So, if you’d like to have an intellectual discussion about his topic, agreed this is likely the wrong site. But the suggestion that somehow your views on OI are widely accepted as settled law, is very much open to other historically (and legally) supported viewpoints.

        “One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.”
        –Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341

        “A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the Body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind . . . Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.”
        –Thomas Jefferson, Letter to his nephew Peter Carr, August 19, 1785.

        “No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements).”
        –Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution with (his note added), 1776. Papers, 1:353

        “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
        –Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

        “It is more a subject of joy [than of regret] that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there can be no pauper hirelings.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813.

        “[The] governor [is] constitutionally the commander of the militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms.” –Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811.

        There’s hundreds more from the writings of the FFs. Most have been made public in some archive or other.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        Quoting a bunch of people who didn’t write the Second Amendment doesn’t make for a particularly persuasive argument.

        It was written by Madison. His original proposed language:
        _________

        The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
        _________

        Funny how he specifically sought to exclude religious pacifists from the “right” to bear arms. Doesn’t exactly make the “right to bear arms” sound like much of a choice, now does it?

      • 0 avatar
        porschespeed

        Are you now offering that Jefferson and Madison didn’t confer on the crafting of the 2nd? Or are you suggesting that Madison held some different views on natural rights, keeping one’s government in check, and guns in general? The suggestion that there was some debate about guns, or their private ownership is simply not historically supported.

        “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” – James Madison

        “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”
        ― James Madison, The Federalist Papers

        “Disarm the people- that is the best and most effective
        way to enslave them.”
        ― James Madison

        How about Washington on guns?

        “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
        George Washington
        First President of the United States

        “The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.”
        - Thomas Paine

        “Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.”
        - Thomas Jefferson

        “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
        - Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

      • 0 avatar
        mnm4ever

        Who cares what they said or what they intended?!? It was over 200 years ago, the relevance of their world to what we have today is meaningless. The people are different, the government is different, the oppressors are different and the weapons are different. If you all want to have muskets and cannons, by all means do it. You can have any weapon that existed when the constitution was drafted… that better??

      • 0 avatar
        porschespeed

        BTW, I didn’t quote a “bunch of guys” in my initial reply, I quoted Jefferson.

        Since I’ve already quoted Jefferson, Madison, Washington, and Paine perhaps we should wrap with some Adams…

        “Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense.” John Adams (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

        “The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” Sam Adams (Convention of the Commonwealth of Mass., 86-87)

        “The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed” Alexander Hamilton (The Federalist Papers at 184-8)

        Honestly, I could do a thousand pro-individual gun rights quotes from writings of the Framers, Founders, and Signers. ‘Militia’ never meant what you want it to mean.

        You can endeavor to recast Original Intent about the 2A, but there’s an overwhelming preponderance of the evidence that states clearly that whether you like it or not, the OI of 2A guarantees the natural right of citizens to own guns for deterrence and ultimately self defense against bad guys. Be that a robber, or our own government.

      • 0 avatar
        porschespeed

        mnm4ever,

        They wrote the Constitution with that viewpoint in mind – it’s the one that always leads to failed governments.

        Sadly, you’re one of those kids that will need a painful life lesson, to learn that you’ll get stabbed or shot rather readily in the UK – where most scary guns are very illegal. If that’s too far to go, I can arrange a visit to the Southside of Chicago or East St Louis IL. The only state with no CCW provisions. You can call the cops. They’ll save you….

        Perhaps you are ready to give up the rest of those out of date notions in The Constitution as well? If so, there’s a world full of countries that will provide the environment you think you want. Enjoy!

      • 0 avatar
        mike978

        A very good discussion. Originally I had a similar opinion to PCH but hearing that all the key founders had written extensively about “gun rights” makes me rethink. At least this has been done fairly civilly.

        As for the knife thing in the UK, I haven’t heard of 26 people being killed in one knifing attack in a public place.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        Perhaps some people don’t know that Second Amendment was part of a Bill of Rights that was introduced by Madison when he was a member of the House. During the House debates of August 1789, Jefferson would have been on a boat returning from France, where he had been the ambassador.

        The passage of what would become the Second Amendment was debated in the House and Senate. The minutes of the House debate, and a summary of the Senate debate, are public documents.

        The main concern that the House had with Madison’s draft was with the opt out language for the religious. Some members feared that this language would be an excuse for some to evade their militia duties when called up.

        Those who debated this in Congress obviously thought that it was a military issue, motivated by a resistance to having a standing army. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts:
        ______

        This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the government; if we could suppose that in all cases the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms. What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now it must be evident, that under this provision, together with their other powers, congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as make a standing army necessary. Whenever government mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.
        ______

        Egbert Benson of New York:
        ______

        Moved to have the words “But no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms” struck out. He would always leave it to the benevolence of the legislature — for, modify it, said he, as you please, it will be impossible to express it in such a manner as to clear it from ambiguity. No man can claim this indulgence of right. It may be a religious persuasion, but it is no natural right, and therefore ought to be left to the discretion of the government. If this stands part of the constitution, it will be a question before the judiciary, on every regulation you make with respect to the organization of the militia, whether it comports with this declaration or not? It is extremely injudicious to intermix matters of doubt with fundamentals. I have no reason to believe but the legislature will always possess humanity enough to indulge this class of citizens in a matter they are so desirous of, but they ought to be left to their discretion.
        ______

        The people who voted on it were very clear in their minds that the militia was an organized civilian military unit that was to be as a counterbalance and substitute for a professional army.

        New Hampshire wanted to have language added that would be equivalent to anti-gun control legislation. But that never made it into the Second Amendment.

        New York and Virginia both wanted language that would bar the quartering of troops. The Third Amendment deals with these matters separately.

        The problem arises when 21st century partisans are eager to impose their dogma onto 18th century people. Gun control, whether pro or con, was not on the minds of most of these people, and those who did raise the idea of outlawing gun control had their ideas rejected. They were far more concerned about the militia not showing up when called. They did not want the refusal to fight due to religious grounds to turn into a legal or constitutional crisis.

      • 0 avatar

        “Who cares what they said or what they intended?!? It was over 200 years ago, the relevance of their world to what we have today is meaningless. The people are different, the government is different, the oppressors are different and the weapons are different. If you all want to have muskets and cannons, by all means do it. You can have any weapon that existed when the constitution was drafted… that better??”

        Who needs consistent standards, right? Rights are whatever the people in power (you think it’s going to be you) say they are. No wonder republics are so rare and despots so common.

        Let’s apply your own standard to the First Amendment. In 1789 there were no computers, no internet, no blogs, no tweets. You can have any means of communication and expression that existed when the constitution was drafted, but no others. By your own standards, the federal government has as much power to control your speech on a computer as it does to regulate post-musket firearms. Care to explain the difference?

        Not that the left really cares about free speech.

      • 0 avatar
        geeber

        There has always been a healthy debate regarding the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment. One side has never held all of the cards.

        Even if the Supreme Court did hold that the Second Amendment referred to service in the militia, and changed course with the Heller decision, it wasn’t the first time that the court switched positions or interpreted the same provisions differently.

        See the holding in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and compare it to the holding in Brown v. The Board of Education of Topeka (1954). For that matter, compare the court’s rulings on various New Deal initiatives before and after President Franklin Roosevelt’s failed “court packing” scheme in 1937. As they said at the time, “A switch in time saved nine.”

        At any rate, total handgun bans have failed in this country. This, however, is a completely different issue than banning assault rifles or high-capacity magazines. Of course, the 1990s ban on assault rifles was a bust, too, as even most of its proponents admit.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        “hearing that all the key founders had written extensively about ‘gun rights’ makes me rethink”

        Unfortunately, you’re being duped by the use of a decoy argument.

        The issue isn’t what the founders thought of guns generally. The issue is what was the intent of the Second Amendment specifically.

        The Second Amendment was written to deal with issues of defense, including internal insurrections. Some of the founders clearly liked their guns…but that had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the goals of the Second Amendment.

        Again, look at the congressional debates at the time. They weren’t talking about gun regulations at all, they were talking about having regular guys show up when called up for service. As noted, the proposed language of the Second Amendment was changed so that religion couldn’t automatically be used as a cop out to justify not reporting for duty, while the suggestion by one state to outlaw gun prohibitions never made the cut.

      • 0 avatar
        porschespeed

        Ahh, we’ve gotten to Jefferson being out of town. As I see no rebuttals for any of the historical quotes, I’m not sure how this is going to further your cause. But since you’ve loosed this squirrel about religion (which is entirely irrelevant to the topic at had), let’s address it.

        The Constitution was credited to as being “written” by Madison – which it was. Sorta.

        The Constitution was designed from top to bottom by a group historically referred to as The Framers. Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and 10 or so others, depending on how you like to count them. This entire document was a group effort.

        As to Madison’s input on the 2nd, the language was changed several times. Nothing unusual about that. The 2nd was also not anything resembling a novel idea.

        Madison did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment–the right was pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions. -Thomas B. McAffee & Michael J. Quinlan, “Bringing Forward The Right To Keep And Bear Arms: Do Text, History, Or Precedent Stand In The Way?”, North Carolina Law Review (March 1997), p. 781.

        Bottom line, if one were to spend a few hours with some quality history books one will learn that Jefferson being on a boat was no limitation on his participation indirectly. It was a group effort, that he had already contributed to. Regardless, Madison shared and espoused the same views.

        Were Amending The Constitution and banning all guns the way to prevent violence and still guarantee a free state, I’d be right there. This isn’t the forum to go through all the numbers, but if one wants a good intro, the book ‘More Guns, Less Crime’ is a nice start. Done by a Yalie named Lott, he set out to prove scientifically that gun control lowered crime and violent crime. He found the science showed just the opposite.

      • 0 avatar
        mnm4ever

        I’m not a kid, I am over 40, ex-military and as I have said, not against gun ownership. I do not need to learn any lessons the hard way. I am well aware that I could get shot in Chicago and stabbed in London. That’s why I don’t go there. But it is a lot more difficult for someone to kill 26 people in a mass slaughter with a knife, or a cleaver or whatever other stupid instrument you are trying to relate to guns. Even with the hunting rifles, the DC sniper proved you can cause mass hysteria and chaos without an assault rifle. The point is, we are not going to eliminate the threats, but why shouldn’t we minimize it?

        There is no good reason for people to own assault rifles, large magazine semi-autos, or carry concealed handguns. Simply spouting the “its my constitutional right” isn’t a good enough reason to turn a blind eye to all the innocent victims, in exchange for the very small chance you will prevent a violent crime on yourself.

        And @ronnie, obviously there is a difference between the other amendments. For example, no one is going around talking groups of people to death with hate speeches, or a strongly written letter. There is still a real need for freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc. There is not a real need to form militias and arm ourselves against a tyrannical government. The weapons of today couldn’t even be imagined 200 yrs ago. The idiocy of the people couldn’t either.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        The continued use of the decoy style of argument is cute, but not useful.

        Again, the Second Amendment was debated in Congress and considered by the states. The congressional debate of the Second Amendment focused on military matters and the exemption to service, while the effort by New Hampshire to protect gun rights was not added to the language. (There was also a representative who wanted to make hunting a right under the Second Amendment, but that, too, never made the final cut.)

        Those are simply historical facts. Any effort to ignore the substance of the political debate of this particular item during that period is just an obfuscation tactic. You are trying to impose your 21st century political hangups onto people who had other things to worry about.

      • 0 avatar
        porschespeed

        “Unfortunately, you’re being duped by the use of a decoy argument.

        The issue isn’t what the founders thought of guns generally. The issue is what was the intent of the Second Amendment specifically.”

        Actually, this is the third attempt to misdirect without a factual rebuttal. I’m still waiting for any contradictory evidence.

        You’re right, the issue IS the 2A. As such, most the quotations I provided not only reference gun rights as “natural rights”, but they also specifically reference what a ‘militia’ is, who it is comprised of, and what it’s purposes are. All of which is rather highly germane to the 2A. As I’m rather confident in your reading comprehension, perhaps you should revisit those quotes.

        All of those quotes provide historical state-of-mind intent proofs, as well as illustrate the thinking of the Framers that went into that Amendment.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        This is getting painful.

        I’ve provided you with a history of the debate and passage of the Second Amendment. Your quotes have no bearing on what I am discussing, which is the path that this amendment took to passage.

        I’m giving you details of what happened in the summer of 1789 during the First Congress. You respond by providing a bunch of quotes that have no bearing on what happened in the summer of 1789 during the First Congress.

        Your replies are completely off point, and suggest that your “knowledge” of constitutional history came from cutting and pasting quotes from a gun website, and taking those quotes out of context, instead of reading the original source documents and understanding their relevance. I’ve seen this tactic before, and it’s hackneyed and intellectually dishonest.

        If you have some meat to bring to the discussion, then bring it, but this gristle ain’t gonna cut it. But that requires discussing the Second Amendment specifically, rather than what you’re doing.

      • 0 avatar
        porschespeed

        Decoy arguments are the ones that continually cross over to new tangents every post, don’t refute any factual data, and have little if anything to do with the topic at hand. Tossing out that I’m the one presenting them is Rovian at it’s finest…

        To kill your latest squirrel,

        Yes, there were disagreements. And so? The ratified document and the thoughts of those who were in the majority are the only intent that is relevant.

        50 of us got together and ordered pizza. After much debate, the majority voted for pepperoni. That some originally wished for sausage in no way changes the original intent of the majority to sign up for pepperoni.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        Fine, I’ll provide you an example of your attempts to fool the readers.

        Above, you cite an unnamed section of the Federalist Papers as if it has something to do with the Second Amendment.

        Well, here are the details: What you quoted is from Federalist No. 51. That paper has nothing whatsoever to do with guns. The subject of that paper is the separation of powers within the government (i.e. the checks and balances among the legislative, executive and judicial branches.)

        Here is a lengthier quote, which should make this obvious:
        _________

        In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. Were this principle rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people, through channels having no communication whatever with one another. Perhaps such a plan of constructing the several departments would be less difficult in practice than it may in contemplation appear. Some difficulties, however, and some additional expense would attend the execution of it. Some deviations, therefore, from the principle must be admitted. In the constitution of the judiciary department in particular, it might be inexpedient to insist rigorously on the principle: first, because peculiar qualifications being essential in the members, the primary consideration ought to be to select that mode of choice which best secures these qualifications; secondly, because the permanent tenure by which the appointments are held in that department, must soon destroy all sense of dependence on the authority conferring them.

        It is equally evident, that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others, for the emoluments annexed to their offices. Were the executive magistrate, or the judges, not independent of the legislature in this particular, their independence in every other would be merely nominal.

        But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

        http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm
        _________

        That obviously has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. Nada. Zilch. Zero.

        Now, you can share with me which of these best explains your decision to cite this out-of-context quote:

        1. You found this quote on a gun website, and it sounded good, but you didn’t bother to learn that it was taken out of context. (You were duped.)

        2. You were hoping that none of us had ever read the Federalist, and would just nod our heads and go along with it. (You knew what it meant, but you wanted to dupe us.)

        3. You glanced at the original a bit too quickly, and were so excited to find anything that you could to support your position that you simply blew it. (You duped yourself.)

        This isn’t a rhetorical question. I’d like to know whether this mistake was a byproduct of your gullibility, your cynicism toward the intelligence of TTAC’s readers, or your excitability. Whatever the answer is, I can tell you that factual accuracy sure ain’t it.

      • 0 avatar
        WheelMcCoy

        Thanks Pch101. I learned quite a bit from your well presented arguments. Perhaps you should be renamed Pch301. :P

      • 0 avatar
        nrd515

        Until 2008? WTF are you talking about? I’m 56 and have heard what you claim is “new” for my entire life. Maybe in legal circles what you say was true, but definitely not in the real world. BTW, I’m one of those supposedly few in number people that saved themselves from death or at least a severe injury simply by pointing the gun I was openly carrying at the two idiots who were about to smash my skull in for the terrible crime of honking at them when they zoned out at a light after it turned green. After they saw my gun and took off, the idiots called the cops and claimed I pointed my revolver at them “for no reason”. Funny how I know they had two aluminum bats in the car and also knew what colors they were. Off to jail they went for filing a false police report. The cops and I laughed about it.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        “Until 2008? WTF are you talking about?”

        If you want to be a good American, then it would behoove you to learn something about your country and its laws. And until 2008, the Second Amendment had nothing whatsoever to do with self-defense.

        Prior to 2010, gun regulations were largely a state and local matter. Since you guys are supposed to like “states rights”, you really ought to be disappointed that the feds have decided that they can now tell the states what to do about personal handgun ownership.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        “Who cares what they said or what they intended?!? It was over 200 years ago, the relevance of their world to what we have today is meaningless”

        No, you’re definitely wrong there. The basis of American law is the Constitution, and will continue to be unless and until we get rid of it.

        If we don’t like what the Constitution has to say, then the recourse is to amend it. Unfortunately, Justice Scalia and his cronies have decided that blatant, baseless misinterpretation of the Second Amendment that overturns precedent based upon hot air is an acceptable alternative to amending the Constitution properly.

        I may be proven wrong, but I suspect that this may be an odd instance when a decision that overturned a prior decision may end up being overturned yet again so that the old view is restored. The Heller decision is so badly put together that I wouldn’t surprised if the sound reasoning of the dissenting opinion (which had upheld the previous Miller case) is eventually used to overturn Heller.

      • 0 avatar
        porschespeed

        “That obviously has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. Nada. Zilch. Zero.”

        If you cannot read the entirety of *your* post and comprehend that it *exactly* references the propensity for governments to go out of control, I pray for whoever taught you to read. But frankly, I know you’re counting on the ‘look over there’ trick which is the only pony you’ve had this entire run.

        “Now, you can share with me which of these best explains your decision to cite this out-of-context quote:”

        Hilarious to suggest that it isn’t 100% germane.

        “1. You found this quote on a gun website, and it sounded good, but you didn’t bother to learn that it was taken out of context. (You were duped.)”

        Hate to break it to you, but I’ve been into this stuff 35+ years. While I clipped the quotes from a variety of sources, I am familiar with them all. The real stretch here is that the quote I used is somehow out of context. It isn’t in the slightest.

        “2. You were hoping that none of us had ever read the Federalist, and would just nod our heads and go along with it. (You knew what it meant, but you wanted to dupe us.)”

        I am hoping that more *have*, and won’t fall for your attempt to miscast history. Regardless, for those who haven’t read them. Please do. Maybe even take a Constitutional Law class. Audit it, hang out with the brightest students, whatever. Crack a history book or two.

        “3. You glanced at the original a bit too quickly, and were so excited to find anything that you could to support your position that you simply blew it. (You duped yourself.)”

        Once again, I’ve been reading this stuff and kicking it around with attys and judges I know for 35+ years. Every time you have hoisted a straw man, you have abandoned him after he was rebutted.

        “This isn’t a rhetorical question. I’d like to know whether this mistake was a byproduct of your gullibility, your cynicism toward the intelligence of TTAC’s readers, or your excitability. Whatever the answer is, I can tell you that factual accuracy sure ain’t it.”

        Ahh, the emotional plea to the judge/jury. The final desperate act of the man who hasn’t carried the facts and has had his allegations discredited. Recast the opponent as the villain who is out to insult the jurists. Sorry, I’ve spent way too many decades hanging with lawyers to get even the least bit rattled by this painfully transparent device, or to not know exactly where it comes from. Not to mention the whole use of “us” so as to indirectly imply that it’s “me” against “you and the jurists”.

        There’s plenty of well-credentialed scholarship that holds the same interpretations I’ve enumerated. Regardless of suggestions to the contrary, the points I’ve supported are very mainstream in many serious legal communities.

        For those who haven’t read any of this material lately (or it wasn’t taught in your school) please (re)read it. Read The Constitution, Federalist papers, some Jefferson, Adams, Washington. Please, read some analysis from those who spend their lives doing it. It’s almost all available through the magic of Google.

        Make up your own mind what they stood for, how they viewed government, how they viewed “natural rights”.

        If one is against the 2nd Amendment, fine, then one is free to petition to Amend the Constitution. That’s our process, that’s how it works. But this gobbledy-gook end-run of deliberate 2A misinterpretation that has been gaining some traction lately is not what the Framers or Founders intended for redressing *any* Constitutional grievance.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        In other words, the answer to my question was a combination of #1 and #3 — you copied and pasted that quote from a gun website, but when confronted with the truth, you then chose to dupe yourself.

        You blew it. You cited a section of the Federalist that had nothing to do with guns or the militia. That quote did absolutely nothing to support your point, and your choice to use a quote that was taken so badly out of context betrayed your ignorance of the subject matter.

        The history is clear — the First Congress was debating the Second Amendment within the context of its ability to raise and deploy an official militia that had federal oversight. The modest efforts made by a few to introduce hunting and gun ownership rights into the language of the amendment failed.

        But your agendas run so deep that you are incapable of just reading the history and accepting it for what it is. You’ll have to excuse me for not taking you seriously, as you have made it abundantly clear that you have no idea what you’re talking about with respect to this topic. Stick to cars, you may do better.

      • 0 avatar
        mnm4ever

        @nrd – Are you seriously going to tell us that the ONLY way for you to avoid death in that situation was to pull out a gun? They had bats, you were in a car at a traffic light. How about you roll your windows up and drive away? Run them down if they block you. Spray them with pepper spray. Then call the police. You have no idea if they intended to “bash your skull in.”

        Most likely you prevented them from denting your car or breaking a window, and you risked killing someone by bringing a gun into the situation. Were they punks who think they are tough? Sure, probably total assholes. But you didn’t NEED a gun. You just like being a billy bad ass.

      • 0 avatar
        karlbonde

        Pch101: your knowledge of this stuff is fascinating. Thanks for sharing, it was fun to read, and very convincing IMHO.

      • 0 avatar
        porschespeed

        I *do* have faith in the best and the brightest to actually read all this and see through your attempt to baffle them with bull.

        While I certainly understand your use of the “keep repeating a lie and it becomes truth” strategy, it doesn’t mean you made a factually valid point, nor (more importantly) have you discredited any of mine. Other than by using the famous “oh no it’s not” technique familiar to most 3rd graders…

        As noted, I don’t have to boilerplate my rebuttals from a “gun site”. In fact, though I’ve written articles for “gun sites” years ago, I seldom visit them anymore. Sorry, you’re attempt at an implied ad hominem fails again.

        The one who has blown it is you. You have left every one of my rebuttals to your fallacious allegations standing without any factual contrary evidence.

        Being honest, I’ve had far more serious opponents back in 10th grade in the Harvard Invitationals. The NFL had given me a couple of rubies by then, and it wasn’t for allowing the logical fallacies of cheap traffic lawyer 101 tricks to stand unchallenged.

        This has been an exercise in playing chess with a pigeon – it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and then struts around as if it has won.

        Stick to finance. You do seem to have a handle on that. This is miles beyond your depth of knowledge.

    • 0 avatar
      karlbonde

      mnm4ever: many of your multiple posts on this topic were longer in duration and more thoughtfully composed than many of the actual automobile articles posted by the editors on this website.

      IMHO, I find your reasoning balanced, and it seems to me that you have tried to carefully weigh each side of the argument at hand.

      Furthermore, I applaud your dissertation-length posts. You obviously had to spend a lot of time to write such succinct contributions. Your are one smart cookie – thank you for reluctantly sharing your intelligence and well-formed opinion.

      Cheers!

      • 0 avatar
        mnm4ever

        Well thanks I appreciate that. I don’t feel very smart… :)

        I did spend way too much time on this, my wife always tells me I talk too much. And to give others here credit, many people posted very long posts that were also very well written and well informed. I think everyone was pretty intelligent with their arguments on both sides and they made many reasonable points too.

  • avatar
    DrunkenDonuts

    That Facebook page is nothing more than trolling. And it looks like it’s succeeding quite well.

  • avatar
    ponchoman49

    Another reason I don’t bother with facebook much.

    • 0 avatar
      JMII

      Same here, plus I thought my 350Z was the real killer:

      http://www.thecarconnection.com/news/1061361_at-your-own-risk-these-vehicles-have-the-highest-death-rates

      Granted this list is old but the Mustang doesn’t even make the top 10.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    We are so screwed. This is what it’s come to. Illogical internet memes and a hyper-focus on only one part of the issue.

    I won’t even wade into the rest of it but the events from Friday, and our nation’s reaction since these events has left me feeling very sad. It only highlights how incredibly divided we are, and how selfish individuals are across the spectrum.

    Lets also add a fourth point on why this argument is ridiculous, our right to drive is not guaranteed by Constitutional amendment – our right to have arms, is.

    • 0 avatar
      porschespeed

      Actually there are Constitutional scholars who can argue rather well that driving is, in fact, a guaranteed right. Especially in context of some of the other decisions of the last 100 years.

      But yeah, the general public really doesn’t understand how thin the veneer of ‘civilization’ is – despite the fact that save for Europe, much of the planet lives under horrible conditions compared to ours. They really don’t get how quickly it can all be unraveled.

      • 0 avatar
        stryker1

        Are you selling MREs or something?

      • 0 avatar
        porschespeed

        Hardly. Merely pointing out that historically speaking, bad things have never stopped happening in the world, and that pretending they can stop, is naive at best. Just because it hasn’t happened here recently doesn’t mean we won’t have another Civil War. Or that 20+MM won’t die from the flu. Or that some whack-job won’t get into power and start rounding folks up.

        Flying is one of the safest modes of travel per mile ever built. But, even with great maint, redundant systems, pilot training, and a host of other things, they still sometimes crash and kill everyone.

      • 0 avatar
        stryker1

        Are you sure you’re not selling MREs? Because you’re making a great case for the purchase, and hoarding of MREs.

      • 0 avatar
        porschespeed

        stryker1,

        I sell neither MREs, gold, silver, safe rooms, or firearms. But earthquakes, blackouts, tornadoes, hurricanes, and flooding will still happen no matter how much we wish they don’t. Sorta like flat tires.

        I live in earthquake country. Hasn’t been a big one in over a hundred years and we’re overdue. How would one rationalize NOT having a few hundred bucks worth of basic supplies? If that’s a motivator to be just basically prepared, I’d see that as a good thing. I hate seeing people suffer needlessly.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    I also find massive irony that the Camry was selected as the poster child for “safe” transportation with the poor rating it got in crash tests this morning.

    • 0 avatar
      VA Terrapin

      I know your anti-Japanese bias prevents you from bashing American and European cars, so you should note that the Audi A4 and Mercedes C class rate similarly poor in the small overlap crash test ratings conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). You should also note that the Camry has the highest rating possible in every other type of crash test also conducted by the IIHS. If you look at death rates, Chevy rates amongst the worst by brand, at least up to 2009.

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        Given I bashed the Malibu in the plant shutdown story a couple of days ago, it appears you are the one with cognitive bias and can’t spot satire when it is beating you over the head.

        The picture above doesn’t show an Audi or Mercedes or the marginal rated Malibu in the same crash tests. It shows a Camry. Blame the creator, not the observer of life.

      • 0 avatar
        VA Terrapin

        I’ve read enough of your posts to know that you are one of the most notorious Japanese car bashers on this site. Your post about the Camry’s small overlap crash test rating is a great example of this. What does a Camry have to do with anything in this article? The pic above shows a Honda Accord, not a Camry. You’re bashing a Japanese car for the sake of bashing a Japanese car.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      I actually was just going to point out its an Accord, not a Camry. However really, does it matter? They are almost the same thing, and they certainly represent the same thing: boring, bland, numb, Disney-themed, family-friendly transportation.

      • 0 avatar
        VA Terrapin

        One of the big elephants in the room many car enthusiasts don’t want to acknowledge is just how much xenophobia and even racial beliefs affect their views on cars and car companies. Why does APaGttH mention the Camry in an article that has nothing to do with the Camry or even Toyota? Why do some keep on mentioning the Camry and Accord as bland, boring appliances while hardly saying the same about bland, boring apliances like the Passat (I know this from personal experience), Fusion and Malibu?

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        Accord. Camry, Malibu, ubiquitous four-door soulless appliance…

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        I see where you are going and while I do not completely disagree in the case of model confusion in this case vs euro models such as Passat/5series/S60 is because how ubiquitous these Japanese models are on the road.

    • 0 avatar
      Marko

      That is an Accord, and it got a “Good” rating in the small overlap test.

  • avatar
    raph

    Damn, I’m batting three for three here!

    I own a Mustang, some guns, and I like to play Mass Effect.

    Who’s the next anti-christ? This guy!

  • avatar
    Jeff Waingrow

    Jack, every advanced country has a sizeable number of vehicles, and surely a substantial number of fatalities from vehicular accidents. Some countries are better than others in this regard, but all have such deaths. But not one of these countries has even remotely the number of gun fatalities as ours does. None even close. (The statistics are readily available.) And the reason? They have far fewer guns. Perhaps I’m simplifying, but the correlation seems pretty compelling as does the solution. I guess I’d better brace now for the various intemperate reactions.

    • 0 avatar
      ranwhenparked

      You are oversimplifying a bit, considering that Switzerland and Finland have far fewer gun deaths (in percentage terms), despite having essentially mandatory gun ownership. Also, the situation in Germany is pretty similar- similar proportion of gun owners as in the US, but far fewer deaths proprtionally. I don’t know what explains it, but there has to be some underlying societal issue in the US that either makes crazies more violent, or makes it easier for crazies to get guns, one of the two or both.

      • 0 avatar
        Astigmatism

        Not for nothing, but Switzerland has about half the number of guns per capita as the U.S., and Germany and Switzerland have roughly a third.

      • 0 avatar
        porschespeed

        Astigmatism – guns per capita compared to percentage of people/households that own guns means nothing.

        Hypothetical gun collector owns 100 guns. In a group of 100 people he is the only person who owns any guns – so only 1 percent actually own guns.

        But, per capita in this 100 person sample, there is one gun for every person.

      • 0 avatar
        JuniperBug

        Just about every household in Switzerland has a gun (and ammo). That’s some pretty widespread gun ownership, if you ask me.

        It’s the culture of “my rights” in the US vs. Switzerland’s “my rights and responsibilities” that’s the big difference, not the number of guns.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        @JuniperBug

        Agreed.

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        @juniperbug

        …It’s the culture of “my rights” in the US vs. Switzerland’s “my rights and responsibilities” that’s the big difference, not the number of guns…

        You nail it one sentence. Bravo sir (or ma’am). BRAVO!

    • 0 avatar
      geeber

      Other countries also have lower murder rates in general, so you should be campaigning for a carving knife ban, as well.

  • avatar
    Beerboy12

    No one is going to ban guns and no one is going to ban Mustangs. Face book should delete this page with the contempt it deserves and we should all move on. I truly despise this sort of agenda driven drivel.
    It’s not worth even discussing.

  • avatar
    sideshowtom98

    No other country has anywhere close to the freedoms we have, or used to have, in this country either. If you want total safety from guns, head to China, or Singapore. Don’t suppose for a moment however, that you can express your opinions, as you just have on this forum, or worship God in your chosen way there.

    If its anti gun laws that you enjoy, head to Mexico, which has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world. Unfortunately, they also have some of the most extreme gun violence in the world too.

    You could also take refuge in Chicago, or Washington DC, the two cities with the most restrictive gun laws in the US. Oops, sorry, they have the highest gun violence rates of any other American cities. Funny how criminals don’t obey gun laws either.

    There are thousands of gun laws already on the books. The killer in CT. supposedly broke over 30 laws, including 27 making murder a felony. Now our worthless politicians are talking about bringing back a Federal “assault weapons” ban which was in effect for 10 years, and allowed to expire because it did not affect, nor prevent, ONE SINGLE CRIME.

    Trying to ban large capacity clips, and weapons based on appearance, is the providence of either ignorance, or wishfull thinking. Unfortunately it is the ONLY kind of thinking prevalent in our media. You will never get the true, or whole story from them. If you don’t own a gun, or do not understand the various terms being thrown about, go to a local gun range, rent some guns, and shoot them. In other words, due your own due diligence. An informed public is a gun rights supporters best deterrent to those who want to restrict our freedoms.

    Study your history, and you will find that Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and every other despot disarmed their population. Mao said, “Political power comes from the barrel of a gun.” As long as the populace is armed, they will have the political power, not apparatchiks in the Federal government.

    • 0 avatar
      JuniperBug

      “No other country has anywhere close to the freedoms we have, or used to have, in this country either.”

      I’d like you to back up this statement, because I’ve been to a dozen countries or so, and by no means believe that the US has the trademark on “freedom.” In fact, the freedom from having to live with the consequences of people’s thoughtless and selfish actions is one that I think is lacking in the US and Canada. Take a drive through German traffic and then through LA or Montreal and tell me that our “freedom” to drive like undisciplined, unskilled assholes makes our life any better.

    • 0 avatar
      mike978

      “No other country has anywhere close to the freedoms we have”. Really? Tell that to the citizens of Canada, Australia, the UK and Germany to name a few.

      • 0 avatar
        Numbers_Matching

        I think he meant we have more ‘freedom’ to be stupid.

        There’s another problem with this argument: lack of a common knowledge base.

        We’ve had 20-plus years of a pro-stupid direction of US society.

        Remember when it was admirable to be well educated, well read, articulate and considerate?

        Just watch any of the so-called ‘reality’ shows during prime time. Many glorify guns along with a dim-witted machismo that goes along with whatever the ‘reality’ brings. If society, even 35 years ago, had a preview of this crap, they would have been horified.

      • 0 avatar
        porschespeed

        mike978, Depends on how you define “freedom”.

        The UK and OZ are inching ever closer to full press oversight, it’s only a matter of time. Which is hardly their only failing. There’s a laundry list of not-so-goodness in the Federal Republic and Canukistan too.

        We have a whole host of nonsense from Patriot through the last couple of NDAAs.

        Big picture, is that all governments are currently tightening their grip on their subjects as best they can.

      • 0 avatar
        mike978

        Porschespeed – I agree about the press regulation thing, it will be interesting to see what happens in the UK on that as it is still being debated and the largest party is against statutory control so it isn`t true that all parties want maximum control.
        I have lived in the US and the UK and I felt equally free in both – freedom to work, associate, speak etc.

      • 0 avatar
        porschespeed

        mike978,

        It will be interesting to see indeed. Government encroachment is always a gradual process, camel’s nose and all that.

        I don’t disagree that we still have most of our ‘basics’ but even keys like ‘freedom of peaceable assembly’ are being aggressively watered-down to the point of being almost useless.

        History reminded the Founders and Framers what governments always do, and despite their best designs, ours is doing it. C’est la vie…

      • 0 avatar
        NMGOM

        mike978..

        “Really? Tell that to the citizens of Canada, Australia, the UK and Germany to name a few.”

        …and theirs sometimes surpass ours. With reference to Germany, do I have the freedom to go 100 mph on any US interstate? (Hey, this is a car website, so that’s important to me…)

        ————

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      These statements are correct in my view, don’t fall for the hype I suspect its all been contrived.

  • avatar
    mfgreen40

    Guns-cars-cancer, all small time bit players in the killing game. 1.3 million last year in the USA., all approved by the Gov.

  • avatar
    stryker1

    Here we go.
    This is going to get ugly.
    Ask me how I know.

  • avatar
    stryker1

    Also, When Mustangs are outlawed. only outlaws will have Mustangs…
    Man… Who wants to go buy a mustang? Field Trip!

    • 0 avatar
      George B

      Instead of just banning the Mustang, all cars with 3 of the following “go fast” features must be banned!

      1) Alloy wheels in a “sporty” 5 spoke pattern > 16 inch diameter.
      2) Low profile tires with < 0.6 aspect ratio.
      3) Rocker panel extensions and aerodynamic extensions to the front and rear fascia.
      4) Rear spoiler
      5) Racing stripes

      See how these "go fast" features transform the most popular family sedan in America into a street racing killing machine!
      http://www.autoblog.com/2012/04/18/2012-toyota-camry-se-v6-review/

      Similar to how an adjustable plastic stock, a pistol grip, and other "bad ass" cosmetic features transform the AR-15 from an ordinary small rifle into a killing machine.

  • avatar
    Ryoku75

    I’m indifferent on the gun issue, I do not own a gun nor do I need one.

    But for the record I consider careless texting to be far more of a threat than a man who carries a rifle to keep people off of his property.

    I always said that “Its not what you drive, but how”, and I still hold onto that belief. The best safety gadgets in the world cannot stop stupidity.

    I will say that Fox Mustangs do frequent the ditches when it snows, and I’ve seen an accident happen that a Mustang caused, it was a 3 MPH tap on someones rear bumper.

    Maybe if we could just be a bit more responsible we would be a bit more happy as a society.

    • 0 avatar
      Ryoku75

      I should mention that I find it amusing how on facebook the subject was quickly switched to just Mustangs (because people can’t read), while on here everyones going on about guns.

  • avatar
    Gregg

    So, isn’t this great? A hot topic (like abortion) where most people are already firmly on one side or another. A very few mention the importance of listening to one another and looking for commonalities. Many of the rest make poor or bogus analogies, to be followed by smarter types who spot the flawed thinking, or go on about scary things like losing rights. It’s like those lengthy controversial status fights on Facebook.

    If people weren’t so scared of their own shadows, one way or another, maybe some actual dialog might happen. We do know there are countries that are about as privately well-armed as the USA. Some have a higher rate of violence and homicides than we do, and some–conceal carry and all (like Switzerland, Israel and Finland)–have far fewer homicides per capita than we do. So what accounts for these differences? It is not the presence of guns, per se.

    Will we ever have that conversation? Or will gun lovers continue to scream, “they’re trying to take our guns away!”, while gun control advocates will continue to advocate for outlawing certain types of guns?

    We all have some level of agreement already. For example, there appears to be no constitutional protection for keeping and using rocket launchers, or keeping armed tanks in private yards. It’s give and take, like it or not.

    A scare tactic like insisting it is guns that make us the “free-est” country is not helpful, as there are several countries where the citizenry have more free choice than we do and about as many guns (not to denigrate what we have here). On the other hand, semi-automatics cause relatively few gun homicides.

    Your moral compass may be accurate, but it doesn’t tell you anything about some of the quagmires you’ll encounter between here and true north. Civil discourse is what is needed, not fear-mongering. But I suppose if we can’t have that, at least the exchanges will continue to be entertaining, if not very rational.

    • 0 avatar
      LuciferV8

      There are a lot of interesting candidates out there, when it comes to the issue of rampage and gang violence, but they are subjects that the mainstream left and right often refuse to touch, let alone try to pick apart:

      Drug Prohibition?
      http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/crime

      Fecundity?
      http://www.freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/

      Women’s lib?
      http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1510614/posts
      http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/12/27/feminism-responsible-for-the-fall-of-rome/
      http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/older-moms-and-divorced-moms-raising-generation-of-psychopaths/

      Section 8 housing?
      http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/american-murder-mystery/306872/

      • 0 avatar
        LuciferV8

        I suspect that there are far deeper causes for the horrible and unspeakable acts of violence we see, but the question is: When will society be truly ready to ask those questions and dig for those deeper causes?

      • 0 avatar
        porschespeed

        Were it only the case that we would seek out and address the causality rather than the symptomology.

        If only it weren’t so profitable to treat symptoms…

      • 0 avatar
        LuciferV8

        @porschespeed: Indeed. I’m glad though, that there are at least still some other people, like yourself, who are willing to ask tough questions and stand up for our civil liberties.

  • avatar
    arun

    Am I the only one who sees all this nonsense happening in American society today and concludes that it is caused by a breakdown on the value system?

    I certainly hope not, else this country is doomed…over the past few decades in American society, there has been less emphasis on being educated, articulate and intelligent as well as less emphasis on the family and more emphasis on getting rich quick and other materialistic endeavors..and you wonder why gun toting murderers abound in our society…

    • 0 avatar
      mnm4ever

      No you are not the only one, you are exactly right. And this country is doomed…

    • 0 avatar
      geeber

      Except that the murder rate has been declining since the early 1990s, and this country has always been filled with people who wanted to get rich quick and make lots of money. (Check out what life was like in the late 19th century. For that matter, the American Revolution was sparked by British attempts to limit American commerce., i.e., the ability to make money).

      Life in modern-day America is actually quite safe, compared to what it was like throughout most of our history.

      • 0 avatar
        arun

        1) I don’t have hard statistics with me but if you are saying murder rate as a percentage of population has decreased, you might be right but I doubt that the total number of murders has decreased since the 90s

        2) There is a difference between ‘getting rick quick’ and ‘getting rich quick no matter what the cost’. The former is probably the driving success behind capitalism – the economic concept that made USA what it is today but when you follow that ideology without anything to act as a ‘tether’ – which I believe should be your value system (ethics, morals etc etc) – then we have a problem

        Of course this is all subjective but think about this – there are far less developed countries with far more dangerous elements in society in the world – Rwanda, Pakistan are two that readily come to mind. But you never hear stories of adults in those countries just walking around in classrooms, or the grocery stores or the market place just gunning down anyone and everyone in sight – why is that ?! (unless he is a militant or driven by some psycho ass ideology, which is the not the case here in the US)

      • 0 avatar
        geeber

        The murder rate in the United States has fallen to its 1964 level (we use the murder rate because it takes into account the fact that there are a lot more people in this country today than there were in 1964).

        The raw number of murders has fallen to early 1990s levels, which is all the more remarkable, as there are more people living in the United States today than there were in the early 1990s.

        There have been mass shootings in Finland and Norway, which are hardly countries associated with gun violence. At any rate, mass shootings account for a very small percentage of total murders in this country.

        The murder rate in Russia is 2.5 times higher than it is in the United States, and some Central and South American countries have a rate that is anywhere from 9 to 15 times higher.

        The capitalists of the 19th century were interested in getting rich as quickly as possible, and their excesses sparked the early labor movement, the trust-busting efforts of Theodore Roosevelt and various reform movements. Andrew Carnegie, J.P Morgan, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Henry Clay Frick and John D. Rockefeller make today’s industrialists and business leaders look like Doogie Howser or even, dare I say it, Michael Moore.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        The murder rate in the US today has fallen to its levels in the mid-1950s. The murder rate has declined by about half over the last two decades.

        Yet the number of people treated for gunshot wounds increased by about half between 2001 and 2011.

        You can thank improved medical care for the reduced homicide rate. There are victims of gun and knife attacks who survive today but who would have died in the past.

        The homicide rate is a measure of those who don’t survive an attack, not a measure of all individuals who are attacked. For every one individual who is shot and killed by a gun, there are several more who survive the experience. That doesn’t mean that getting shot is now a great thing.

        http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324712504578131360684277812.html

      • 0 avatar
        geeber

        Looking at the numbers quoted in the article, and the number of deliberate and accidental gun injuries that required treatment in 2000 (well over 75,000), it appears there hasn’t been a dramatic increase in gun violence so much as a shifting of people from column (homicide victim who died before hospital could even begin treatment) to another (seriously injured patient who survives gunshot wound, thanks to improved treatments).

        The article refers to people injured seriously enough to require a hospital stay. Even 10 years ago, without improved medical treatment, plenty of those people wouldn’t have been admitted for treatment because they died at the scene, or on the way to the hospital, and thus would have been placed among the homicide tally. (We’ve also dramatically improved first-responder capabilities over the years.)

        Anyone who suffers a gunshot wound and survives is still counted as a victim of a violent crime (just not a homicide), and all violent crimes have declined dramatically since the early 1990s.

        We’ve successfully driven down crime rates thanks to a variety of measures. Some of those measures could be classified as “gun control” (i.e., background checks on buyers; enforcing restrictions on people whose criminal record bars them from firearms ownership).

        We’ve also instituted more proactive policing in communities, and the public’s attitude on regarding “petty” crime has changed (there is support for communities aggressively tackling vandalism, graffiti and other signs of disorder). The revival of urban downtowns and associated neighborhoods has fueled the push for these changes. We’re also targeting repeat offenders, particularly of violent crimes, for jail time.

        What we haven’t done is ban handgun ownership. Several states have liberalized their concealed-carry laws.

        The crime picture in this country MUCH better than it was when I was growing up in the 1970s, or went to college in Philadelphia in the 1980s.

  • avatar
    billfrombuckhead

    Actually gun deaths are on pace to pass deaths from cars.
    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gun-deaths-set-outstrip-car-fatalities-first-time-152632492.html

    This is a remarkable triumph for the regulation side since so many more people use cars everyday than guns. Cars and drivers used to much more unsafe and regulations requiring better safety features and restrictions on young drivers and DUI also helped. Maybe if military style gun owners had to pay Corvettelike insurance rates on their guns that would help.

    • 0 avatar
      geeber

      Maybe that is because fatalities caused by automobile accidents have declined at a rapid rate over the past few years, reaching raw numbers not seen since 1950.

      Even with over 30 states liberalizing their concealed carry laws since the early 1990s, and the U.S. Supreme Court striking down strict gun control ordinances in Chicago and Washington, D.C., the murder rate has been declining, and is at half its 1991 rate. And that includes murders caused by firearms.

      The article also includes suicides, people being shot by the police or by another person in self-defense. In fact, almost 50 percent of the figure that the article cites are suicides committed with a firearm (and note that, even with very strict gun control regulations, Japan has a higher suicide rate than the United States). So your post ultimately proves nothing.

    • 0 avatar
      mkirk

      I have been toting not a “military style weapon” but the real deal complete with select fire (3 round burst) for the past 9 months, 24/7 with 11,000 of my closest friends (some with FULLY AUTOMATIC MACHINE GUNS AND GRENADE LAUNCHERS!!!) and no one has gotten shot (well, a couple suicides).

      I don’t own an AR style rifle. I would like to but they are a little costly. I’d like one because I am trained on it and pretty effective with it. Should the need come to defend my family I like the fact that I am familiar enough with it to field strip it blindfolded. Surely you have no issue with me defending my family with this rifle since you have no issue with me using it to defend you (assuming you are American) in some of the world’s most exciting crap holes.

      And doesnt this debate belong on Robert Farago’s current site…not his old one?

      • 0 avatar
        mkirk

        And by the way…Every IED blast that hit me in Iraq came from illegally assembled devices from illegal fertilizer deployed illegally.

      • 0 avatar
        mnm4ever

        You are military, with training and experience on such a weapon. In my opinion that earns you the right to own and carry such a weapon.

        The problem is, we cannot ensure that everyone who can get these weapons and everyone who can get a CC permit can handle such a responsibility. And the ones that can’t screw it up for everyone else.

  • avatar
    Sinistermisterman

    As the self proclaimed ‘King of the Trolls’ Jack, I’m surprised you can’t tell a Troll when you see one.

  • avatar
    Detroit-Iron

    I am reasonable and anyone who disagrees with me is both insane and stupid.

  • avatar
    el scotto

    The anti-guns folks forget one very important fact each time an anti-gun person comments on gun control. Wayne LaPierre logs on and checks the bank balance. It’s bigger; it’s always bigger after an anti-gun person speaks.

  • avatar
    CJinSD

    In the wake of a monstrous crime like a madman’s mass murder of defenseless women and children at the Newtown, Conn., elementary school, the nation’s attention is riveted on what could have been done to prevent such a massacre.

    Luckily, some years ago, two famed economists, William Landes at the University of Chicago and John Lott at Yale, conducted a massive study of multiple victim public shootings in the United States between 1977 and 1995 to see how various legal changes affected their frequency and death toll.

    Landes and Lott examined many of the very policies being proposed right now in response to the Connecticut massacre: waiting periods and background checks for guns, the death penalty and increased penalties for committing a crime with a gun.

    None of these policies had any effect on the frequency of, or carnage from, multiple-victim shootings. (I note that they did not look at reforming our lax mental health laws, presumably because the ACLU is working to keep dangerous nuts on the street in all 50 states.)

    Only one public policy has ever been shown to reduce the death rate from such crimes: concealed-carry laws.

    The effect of concealed-carry laws in deterring mass public shootings was even greater than the impact of such laws on the murder rate generally.

    Someone planning to commit a single murder in a concealed-carry state only has to weigh the odds of one person being armed. But a criminal planning to commit murder in a public place has to worry that anyone in the entire area might have a gun.

    You will notice that most multiple-victim shootings occur in “gun-free zones” — even within states that have concealed-carry laws: public schools, churches, Sikh temples, post offices, the movie theater where James Holmes committed mass murder, and the Portland, Ore., mall where a nut starting gunning down shoppers a few weeks ago.

    Guns were banned in all these places. Mass killers may be crazy, but they’re not stupid.

    If the deterrent effect of concealed-carry laws seems surprising to you, that’s because the media hide stories of armed citizens stopping mass shooters. At the Portland shooting, for example, no explanation was given for the amazing fact that the assailant managed to kill only two people in the mall during the busy Christmas season.

    It turns out, concealed-carry-holder Nick Meli hadn’t noticed that the mall was a gun-free zone. He pointed his (otherwise legal) gun at the shooter as he paused to reload, and the next shot was the attempted mass murderer killing himself. (Meli aimed, but didn’t shoot, because there were bystanders behind the shooter.)

    In a nonsense “study” going around the Internet right now, Mother Jones magazine claims to have produced its own study of all public shootings in the last 30 years and concludes: “In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun.”

    This will come as a shock to people who know something about the subject.

    The magazine reaches its conclusion by simply excluding all cases where an armed civilian stopped the shooter: They looked only at public shootings where four or more people were killed, i.e., the ones where the shooter wasn’t stopped.

    If we care about reducing the number of people killed in mass shootings, shouldn’t we pay particular attention to the cases where the aspiring mass murderer was prevented from getting off more than a couple rounds?

    It would be like testing the effectiveness of weed killers, but refusing to consider any cases where the weeds died.

    In addition to the Portland mall case, here are a few more examples excluded by the Mother Jones methodology:

    – Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.

    – Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I’m excluding the shooters’ deaths in these examples.)

    – Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.

    – Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates — as well as the “trained campus supervisor”; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.

    – Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman’s head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.

    – Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.

    By contrast, the shootings in gun-free zones invariably result in far higher casualty figures — Sikh temple, Oak Creek, Wis. (six dead); Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va. (32 dead); Columbine High School, Columbine, Colo. (12 dead); Amish school, Lancaster County, Pa. (five little girls killed); public school, Craighead County, Ark. (five killed, including four little girls).

    All these took place in gun-free zones, resulting in lots of people getting killed — and thereby warranting inclusion in the Mother Jones study.

    If what we care about is saving the lives of innocent human beings by reducing the number of mass public shootings and the deaths they cause, only one policy has ever been shown to work: concealed-carry laws. On the other hand, if what we care about is self-indulgent grandstanding, and to hell with dozens of innocent children being murdered in cold blood, try the other policies.

    By: Ann Coulter
    12/19/2012

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      The truth hurts, but while most reasonable people can see that, certain factions cannot let facts get in the way of their political ambitions.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        Fortunately for certain factions, the media sees eye to eye with them and most people don’t think at all. “Most reasonable people” don’t constitute a big enough demographic to effect an election. That leaves us hoping that a judiciary that sees itself as a foil to the will of the majority first and foremost will put the constitution above their own sense of omnipotence. Might as well count lottery winnings in your retirement plans.

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      Hmmm… concealed weapons might give pause to your average criminal but I think somebody as out of their gourd and looking to either commit suicide or be killed as the young man who shot up the school doesn’t really give a whit about who and who isn’t carrying a concealed weapon so concealed weapons are probably a moot point.

      Interestingly in the past two years I’ve seen hand guns brandished three times and in all three instances it was normal citizens getting into arguments with other citizens and of those three instances, one involved a person who had lapsed in taking medication for their mental disorder.

      And this was at an upscale retail operation with average incomes in the 100k+ range.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        How are concealed weapons a moot point when the article lists a number of spree killers who were thwarted by people carrying concealed weapons? This article basically repudiates your points. People looking to kill many either pick places where guns are banned or they are shot before they can kill lots of people.

    • 0 avatar
      nrcote

      @CJinSD

      The next time you use a long quote from Ann Coulter, could you say so right at the beginning?

      Thank you.

  • avatar

    The crazy B who massacred 20 innocent children drove to the school in his mom’s Honda Civic, a family sedan after shooting her in the head. If she had owned a Mustang with a stick, her son, who only recently learned to drive wouldn’t have made the trip to the school. Not knowing how to drive a stick, he would have just offed himself at the house. My wife and I visited Newton on Sunday to pay our respects and leave flowers. We also donated the $350 we received for junking my Pontiac a few months ago.

    Guns don’t kill people. Only stupid/crazy people with guns kill people. The problem is 25% of the population is stupid(The same 25% who would like a president Palin) and the other 75% are very likely to go batshit insane once in a while.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    Not too many places on earth allow so much easy and legal access to guns, V8 Mustangs, full-size pick-ups and cannabis. I say enjoy them while you can. I know, I am.

  • avatar
    DougD

    As a Canadian with American relatives there remains much I don’t understand about the issues with firearms. I don’t get it, and I don’t get it so much that you can’t get how much I don’t get it.

    But, regardless of the discourse here, hasn’t the horse been out of the barn for 40 years or more? Even if that gate gets clamped down so tightly on new sales aren’t there enough out there to ensure that someone who REALLY wants one can always get one, even for the next hundred years?

    • 0 avatar
      OldWingGuy

      As a fellow Canadian, I agree with you. I don’t get it either. And I live within spitting distance of the US border. In the redneck west.

      But I think the solution to the problem actually is in this thread.
      Guns kill people. Cars kill people. Backyard swimming pools kill people. I think the solution is in requiring insurance for guns. Think about it – every car (or driver) is required to have insurance to fix the mayhem caused by the vehicle. Could not guns also have the same requirement.
      Both political parties would be happy. The Republicans because the free-market could reign supreme (and the insurance companies would be happy with the extra business). The Democrats because the lawyers would have substantially more cases to litigate.
      The insurance companies would make having semi-automatic assault weapons prohibitively expensive, so only determined, experienced people would have them. Much like in theory a 16-year old could insure a new Hayabusa (an incredibly fast crotch-rocket motorcycle), but the practical reality is he could never afford it.
      Now, having said all this, as a Canadian non-gun owner, perhaps people are already required to carry insurance and I’m off base.

      • 0 avatar
        WheelMcCoy

        Re: insurance. Great idea! But it won’t fly because it comes dangerously close to registration and tracking, things the NRA do not want. The NRA is so extreme, they fight to allow those on the terrorist watch list legal access to guns.

  • avatar
    shaker

    After reading this entire thread (and penning an entire screed of my own, which was lost in posting – probably for the best), I’ve come to the conclusion that a “concealed carry” law would be the only way to solve this problem.

    and may God have mercy on our souls.

  • avatar
    geeber

    The Heller and McDonald decisions, if I recall correctly, dealt with local statutes that barred a law-abiding person from keeping a gun inside his or her own home. It was a total ban on ownership. That may have influenced the final decision.

    The decisions did NOT give people the right to carry weapons in public, or overturn the laws that prevent a person from doing so.

  • avatar
    AJ

    I like it!

  • avatar
    Pch101

    “I’ve written articles for “gun sites” years ago”

    Well, that would certainly help to explain all of the highly inaccurate content and bogus quotations that can be found on gun websites.

    I’m sorry, but your responses have been a standard cut-and-paste job riddled with inaccuracies. Since I’m not going to devote my entire Christmas holiday to dealing with your nonsense, I’ll dissect just a couple of more for the sake who is ever left reading this stuff.

    You attributed this alleged quote to James Madison: “Disarm the people- that is the best and most effective to enslave them.”

    That sounds terrible, indeed. But your buddies on the internet usually attribute that one to George Mason. So you’ve blown it on the attribution.

    But wait, there’s more. If you read the full quote from the debates of 1788, it’s pretty obvious that (1) Mason was himself quoting somebody else and (2) that he was offering this quote in the context of his support for maintaining a “disciplined” militia as a precaution against the ills of a standing army:
    ___________

    No man has a greater regard for the military gentlemen than I have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valor. But when once a standing army is established in any country, the people lose their liberty. When, against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defence,–yeomanry, unskilful and unarmed,–what chance is there for preserving freedom? Give me leave to recur to the page of history, to warn you of your present danger. Recollect the history of most nations of the world. What havoc, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies! An instance within the memory of some of this house will show us how our militia may be destroyed. Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia. [Here Mr. Mason quoted sundry passages to this effect.] This was a most iniquitous project. Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed? The general government ought, at the same time, to have some such power. But we need not give them power to abolish our militia. If they neglect to arm them, and prescribe proper discipline, they will be of no use. I am not acquainted with the military profession. I beg to be excused for any errors I may commit with respect to it. But I stand on the general principles of freedom, whereon I dare to meet any one. I wish that, in case the general government should neglect to arm and discipline the militia, there should be an express declaration that the state governments might arm and discipline them. With this single exception, I would agree to this part, as I am conscious the government ought to have the power.

    3 Elliot’s Debates, 380, June 14, 1788

    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28ed00315%29%29
    ___________

    So you’ve blown it yet again. You got the quote wrong, plus you’ve taken it out of context.

    There’s no reason to take those of your persuasion seriously. Not only is your research sloppy and lazy, but you can’t even quote people properly.

    Your technique is to post a barrage of “quotes” (including false ones) in the hopes that throwing enough crap against a wall will cause some of it to stick. That’s just a variation of Goebbel’s big lie technique, and not one that citizens of a democracy should indulge.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    Here’s another gem. The post above attributed this one to George Washington:

    “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence…”

    Even the pro-gun Second Amendment Foundation acknowledges that this alleged quote is bogus: http://saf.org/pub/rkba/general/BogusFounderQuotes.htm


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India