First amendment in danger

[stephen]

Axel, even the founders of the nation specified that the First and Second Amendments were interdependent, and each was worthless without the other. Have you ever researched the ratification convention of 1792 and found out why these were the 1ST AND 2ND amendments, not the 8th and 9th? Its not a matter of people going off like a rocket whenever they can't pack atom bombs in the back of their pickup truck. Its a legitimate concern over the consequences of the failure of either of these amendments. This is a valid discussion on the topic of free speech and the constitutional means of protecting it.

[stephen]

Devilsadvo, you seem to think that we who defend the Second Amendment are in favor of crime, when the exact opposite is true. Stop and think for a moment... we know have 40,000 state, local and federal gun laws on the books...

After the recent shooting at the Jewish Community Center of Los Angeles by Buford Furrow, the Clinton administration is again calling for gun control legislation including registration and licensing, firearms rationing, and permanent waiting periods to "curb the violence." Trouble is, gun licensing is already the law in LA. So is gun registration, firearms rationing and permanent waiting periods. But LA is where Furrow's crime took place. Oops. And LA has a violent crime rate that's 46% above the national average (FBI).

It was already illegal for Furrow to possess a firearm. You see, Furrow is a violent criminal who had been let out on parole by a lenient judicial system. Furrow should never have been anywhere near the Jewish Community Center; he should have been in a jail cell. So while the strictest gun control laws in the nation failed miserably to prevent the crime, enforcement of the law certainly would have.

Re: the shooting in Bloomington, IN, last month... BATF officials raided the apartment of the man who sold the murderer (Benjamin Smith) the handgun, confiscated his belongings and placed him under arrest. David Volk of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobbacco and Firearms (the same bunch that shot Vicky Weaver's face off, shot 14 year old Sammy Weaver in the back and burned 80 people alive in Waco, Texas) laments that they didn't make the raid sooner and prevent the tragedy. One minor problem here... Smith had attempted to purchase a handgun from a store in Peoria Heights, IL, and was turned down because of a restraining order against him. His application to purchase constituted a FELONY OFFENSE. His application was of course, turned down... where was the BATF then? Why didn't they arrest him at the moment he attempted the purchase? After all, the application gave authorites his NAME, ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER AND SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER... why on earth didn't they enforce the law and arrest the scumbag? Why aren't the anti-Second Amendment people ranting and raving about this? Why their awkward silence? Why did the BATF act surprised that he was able to obtain a handgun illegally? Anyone who believes that you can't obtain a dozen guns illegally anytime you want them is an idiotic fool. The responsibility for these killings rests squarely on the shoulders of the man who committed them and the government agencies who deliberately chose not to stop him even after his intentions were obvious and a crime had been committed.

You want another gun law? Sure, pass another one. That'll make 40,001, and maybe you'll feel really good inside. But when you decide you want to STOP VIOLENT CRIMINALS, you'd better think about enforcing the ones we have. If we'd concentrated on enforcement over criminals instead of confiscation and restrictions on law abiding gun owners, Ricky Birdsong, Won Joon Yoon, and the people at the Jewish Community Center of Los Angeles would still be alive this morning.

Another major problem: The ICS (national instant check system, supported by the misrepresented NRA) does NOT currently have access to the identities of individuals who have been deemed mentally unstable in court an therefore may not legally possess a weapon. This information needs to be made accessible to the ICS immediately. Another change for which the misrepresented NRA is actively lobbying... did you hear about that on the nightly news?

It is possible to make drastic reductions in violent crime and still protect Second Amendment rights, but more anemic, feel-good laws aren't the answer.

[Shooter]

*points at Stephen*

Yeah! What he said!

I again state that I do not have the answer, Stephen. Nor do I think "more laws" are the answer.It seems to me,however,that such "pigeonholing" statements as you have made are quite deliberately polarizing, and furthermore miss my point; which it seems I have to restate .. constantly.I'm cheered, however, that in your last posting there is near-acknowledgement of the existence of a problem. here it is again:
1) I support absolutely your right to firearms.
2) gun injuries are by leaps&bounds more morbid and/or fatal than other weapons.
3)semi- automatic weapons increase numbers of injuries by their very nature.And have no application to the average citizen's sporting/home defense/ safety whatsoever.
4) frequently the victims are not criminals( please spare me the circular argument that the gun user who uses the weapon unwisely was never supposed to use it in the first place,unwisely; therefore thats not the problem.)
5)most of you have never seen the human results of gun violence;I have, in spades( cause that used to be my part of my job.);see it up close + personal before commenting on acceptable injury and loss.
6) I vote yes for enforcing existing laws. Problem is, political wrangling and money issues get in the way( would you pay up lots extra in taxes to enforce these laws???...a whole other ugly argument in the offing!!)Meanwhile, death in the streets continues.
7) there are weapons that the US public just cant get...why??Arent they regulated also?If so, is there a line there or not?

I boil it down to this. Simple answer;please:
How much carnage is acceptable in this country?

If your answer is in fact "any amount"( for whatever reason you may have, Constitutional or otherwise), then I respect you for coming out and saying so.I think then we can agree to disagree, without siding in camps& calling names.


But none of you have said it, exactly.And I find that hypocritical.

Devil's Advocate, listen carefully. I have taken my Prozak this morning, so I want to let this thread in on some very bad news.
Fully automatic weapons are very common where I live. Indian Tribes are not American, as in USA.
Calm down; Im only mildly bigoted. The US government recognizes Indian Tribes as Soverign Nations, and they are not subject to Federal law, as we are. They decided hereabouts some years ago to obtain a number of full-auto AK-47 rifles. When the police dep't mopunted a raid to confiscate them, the FBI made them stay clear of the Reservation. Somewhat worried, all local police dep'ts have issued submachine guns to their officers. Swat teams were also organized. As of now, it is an armed standoff. But, it has been all quiet on the Western front for years.
While guns are long range dangers to health, they are not as dangerous as a pipe bomb. And, a knife is much more dangerous than a gun. I have a police training film that shows the graphic results of a knife attack that began with 25 feet separation. On the street, a knife is a shank or a blade.
If you can reason with the Soverign Nations to turn in their full auto weapons, we would probably eventually abandon ours.
That kook you mentioned who killed the postman with a pistol was using one I have fired. When the original owner, a police officer I trained, turned it in to the dep't. it was sold to a dealer and the State, years behind in registration lost the paper trail.
I did not infer leftist leanings, only that your logic is more like Marx than Socrates.
Our state has had a total ban on full auto weapons since 1932. Can't even own a part thereof.
Incidentally, the "well regulated militia" was disbanded during the Kennedy presidency, when he abolished Civil Defense. Only Tennessee (that I know of} still has a militia. As near as anybody can figure, from 18 to 65 YOU are the militia.
And finally, as well armed as the local police are, we haven't had anybody run amok with a full or semi auto weapon for a long time. They seem to prefer driving to LA.

Devil's Advocate,
While you may have been an ex-paramedic, police officer, or firefighter, or EMT, there are many things out and about which cause much worse carnage than a gun. How do I know? Well I happen to work with this stuff as my job specialty in the military. I am an Aviation Ordnanceman in the Navy. Have you ever seen what napalm, or FAE can do to a human body? How about a flechette round? How about some C-4 plastique? Do you know what the results of a Stinger hit on a civilian airliner can do? We all got to see on the news what the results were of the Sarin attack on the Tokyo subway were. While there wasn't any meaty chunks left laying around, it HAD effectively killed as many people as any gun can. These are the things that are out and about on the black market, and available to any two-bit terrorist with the right amount of cash. You too can get frag grenades, thermite grenades, for the right amount of cash, and I daresay they will cause more carnage that any dummy with a gun can. These are just some of the things that are out there for these psychotic boners to get their hands on. So your solution with the guns bit is like trying to stop a sucking chest wound with a band-aid.
VBR,
Jim

Mr.Lawson, I thank you for yor reply, appreciate your thinking,and apologise for my previous strident reply ,assuming what i read into it was not your real intent.
JimACE- there's the pity.A band-aid is all we have, yet to not use it as opposed to doing nothing is also lacking. Things have to begin somehow....yes theres amazing killing power in the military, or in the hands of terrorists,available to sickos with money; the idea I am trying to get across is this:does that type of killing power(less than Napalm, more than a Saturday Night special;lets say) need to be in the hands of the general public?( again, if yes for the sake of the Constitution, say so- but dont finesse the results that you get- acceptable carnage) Yes, crime happens and criminals find a way to do crime whichever way they can, but I submit that the number of affected bodies would be less with a shooter with a shotgun,even one souped up to quick fire("flicking a button" as someone said) than one with a tek9....killing power goes up with the sophistication of the weapon, as you might agree.A scenario from the real world, one that I assure you is all to common=

gangbanger#1 has a problem with gangbanger#2. Drives over to off gangbanger#2.gangbanger#2 is playing a pickup football game,public park. the shooting begins,GB#1 hoses the area quickly with a MG,and runs.GB#2 is injured.Bystander age 2 is dead, bystander age 4 is badly injured.
My long-winded point?If GB#1 can only get a shotgun,cant get a MG(due to stricter enforcement,say, for the sake of the scenario)in time to do the deed that day,the 2Y.O.is still alive,and the 4Y.O. maybe not as injured.
Killing power increases killing.
So, blame society and how we raise our kids(I do), blame lax enforcement of existing laws, but accept there would be more victims alive today if there were sensible
restriction/ really and truly applied.
The Government, realize, regulates LOTS that Mr.Citizen can and cannot have. Even here in the free US of A.

If I remember correctly, MGs ARE NOT legally available to the general public at present.

Regards,

MDD

Yet there they are,MDD, on the street. How about severely restricting import/production, enforcing it ,and jail time for the arms makers who fail to comply? for example.A new law?-bad!Too fascistic? Unfair business practice? unfairly restricting free trade?... or acceptable,given present reality, and leaves the 2nd amendment alone...I reiterate: the government restricts lots of things, acknowledged or no;these resrictions have always changed with changing society needs.MG's are against the law near everywhere, but theyre out there. A silly example(trying for humor!)= the government says I cant have a Bengal tiger in my living room,for home defense...I cant get one just anywhere; and the rate of ongoing tiger-bite injuries is still quite low, despite being able to smuggle a tiger if I was very determined...the existing regulations, in this case, seem to work pretty well.
Pick a solution, acceptable to society, gun owners or not inclusive; doing nothing isnt working.And what keeps it there is the polarization that this issue engenders.Come up with a bigger bandaid, rather than abstracting the victims to stats.

And I've said my piece. I thank you all for the bracing discussion- love a good argument every now and then!
To tidy it up, as to the original posting re. the 1st amendment, I agree with Mike B.!
Regards, D.A.