comment #1

Aguirre says ...

given the rash of recent shootings and today's unfortunate example in illinois, i'm waiting for one of these candidates to finally either take a stand for increased gun control or simply push for the repeal of the absurd and immeasurably harmful 2nd amendment, which has only been kept in play by certain powers and originalist tendencies. until that happens... go OBAMA!

comment #2

Todd says ...

If everyone had a gun then the shooter would have been stopped. Enough said. Arm everybody.

comment #3

Todd says ...

BTW Obama has been called a weenie by the one who was called a Faggot by the blonde bitch. I don't see the majority of Americans voting for a weenie for president. Check out the Huff post unless they removed it already since they are so pro Obama I doubt they keep that link up.

comment #4

BurmaShave says ...

Renewing the Assault Weapon's ban would be a good push that most reasonable people could get behind, but a movement to repeal the Second Amendment would be inane, wrong, and the death of the Democratic chances to take back the White House.

comment #5

Edward says ...

Could always take back the White House with an armed revolt!

comment #6

Edward says ...

Here's what every household needs:

http://www.the-backup.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsV50T5uEyw

comment #7

BurmaShave says ...

Obama came to Texas earlier today, the crowds seem as positive as always. Very moving:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcZ9ku_wInw

comment #8

christian says ...

Like I posted before, America is a sick sick society that keeps writing off mall and university mass shootings as an anamoly. Ghetto shootings are fine since it's out of sight.

NO FUCKING BODY needs assault rifles here.
Gang bangers don't need Glocks. Cheney can't even handle his own gun.

And funny how the right has no problem with wiretapping Americans but screams at the thought of potential terrorists NOT getting easy access to all sorts of legal firepower.

Sick sick sick.

comment #9

Aguirre says ...

obviously a push to literally repeal the 2nd amendment is both implausible and impractical, as guns have so proliferated throughout this country that damage has been done that can never be undone. on the other hand, a tax-incentive or firearm buy-back program is the very least that could be done, and would be particularly effective at lowering the number of gun-related incidents among the poor whose lives - as christian mentioned - or regarded so apathetically by those in D.C. todd - your comment was so laughably ignorant i don't even know where to begin. to bring movies back into the equation, check out CITY OF GOD and let me know how a society functions where literally everyone has a gun.

comment #10

BurmaShave says ...

You're overlooking the fact that most guns used in crimes, both here and in Rio, are purchased illegally. How about promoting responsible and reasonable gun ownership, making it part of education especially for kids in rural areas where it is cultural. Something akin to driving a car.

As for Northern Illinois today and Virginia Tech last Spring, let's stop letting the dispondent and mentally ill fall through the cracks and keep them from hurting others and themselves.

Aguirre I advise you to look up crime statistics in the city just across the river from me, Washington D.C., where all guns have been banned for almost 30 years. In anger and sadness, your solutions seem like the way out, but it's much more complicated.

comment #11

MAGGA says ...

"If everyone had a gun then the shooter would have been stopped. Enough said. Arm everybody."

Dumbest. Comment. Ever. I know I was accused by Un Chien of saying the silliest thing in the history of this board when I called Diablo Cody an awful writer, but surely... Well, the fact that the countries where guns are allowed are the countries with the most shootings is just a statistcal anomaly and not at all common sense, right? How about taking it a step further: All countries should have nukes to defend themselves from everybody. That should solve that pickle.

comment #12

Aguirre says ...

burmashave - obviously the situation is a wee bit more complicated than my facile little post suggests - i'm simply stressing the necessity of a call to arms (pun intended). your comment about a "gun-free" d.c. speaks to what i said about how the damage has been done. the 2nd amendment had allowed for such proliferation by 1978 that a ban on guns obviously only worked to drive the market underground. which isn't to say that had the 2nd amendment never been written that we wouldn't be facing a similar problem today, but to set the appropriate precedent and tone at the birth of the nation could only have positively affected the national psyche in its formative years.

otherwise, i'm a writer and not a law man so my suggestions as to how to fix our present-day predicament would likely lean towards the implausible - all i want is for this issue to be as much a part of the national discourse as is immigration and health care. if that were to happen, maybe people like todd would be a bit less reticent to indulge in such ignorance.

comment #13

Aguirre says ...

eh, i meant *more* reticent... let's just say "more reluctant" and call it a day.

comment #14

D.Z. says ...

Todd: "If everyone had a gun then the shooter would have been stopped."

If everyone had a gun, then the shooter would probably take someone hostage before they could pull it out.

comment #15

LFF says ...

Guns are a third rail. Obama has been doing well with independents but if he starts making overtures about new gun bans that support goes right back to McCain. Its a loser issue. Don't do it.

comment #16

christian says ...

Yeah, Obama should be a wimp to appease the holy NRA. Screw those kids in ghettos getting blasted, Screw familis getting blown apart while shopping and screw college kis getting shot in the hea in class.

What America needs is HOPE CHANGE INSPIRATION.

Just please don't actually mean it.

comment #17

LFF says ...

...and screw the second amendment. Screw Washington DC with the most restrictive gun laws in the nation that have prevented nothing. arguing about "kids getting blasted" is the exact same type of rhetoric that anti-abortion people use. I would assume from that little rant that you are anti-abortion also? Red state democrats instinctually get this a way that the urban blues don't. We are the ones who can win this for you if you don't do something stupid by forcing this issue.

anti-gun laws _lose elections_. And calling him a wimp for not taking it on doesn't help your cause. This is an area he can deviate from the platform and demonstrate his stated "common purpose" that will win the moderate vote.

comment #18

D.Z. says ...

LFF: "Screw Washington DC with the most restrictive gun laws in the nation that have prevented nothing."

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.

"...Since 1993, crime rates in Washington dropped consistently for over ten years...In the past ten years, the number of homicides has been halved—from 399 in 1994 to 195 in 2005..."

So it looks like it's the other states that are fucking it up for the D.C. residents.

"arguing about "kids getting blasted" is the exact same type of rhetoric that anti-abortion people use."

Not really, since kids are human beings, and we don't condone blowing up a gun owner's house to save the children...

"I would assume from that little rant that you are anti-abortion also?"

No, but I'm anti-stupid people with guns.

"Red state democrats instinctually get this a way that the urban blues don't."

Red state democrats get it alright. It's just that they get it in the form of shrapnel.

"anti-gun laws _lose elections_."

Better elections than lives...

comment #19

LFF says ...

"...Since 1993, crime rates in Washington dropped consistently for over ten years...In the past ten years, the number of homicides has been halved�from 399 in 1994 to 195 in 2005..."
So it looks like it's the other states that are fucking it up for the D.C. residents.

Crime rates declined overall everywhere during that period.
From [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States[/url] I'm not seeing a causal link. Ain't wikipedia fun?

"arguing about "kids getting blasted" is the exact same type of rhetoric that anti-abortion people use."
Not really, since kids are human beings, and we don't condone blowing up a gun owner's house to save the children...

From Pro-life.org dated Jan 11: "Statistically, the womb has become the most dangerous place in America"

Its the exact same reactionary rhetoric, even if you try to re-frame the metaphor.

"I would assume from that little rant that you are anti-abortion also?"
No, but I'm anti-stupid people with guns.

What a coincidence! I am also anti-stupid people with guns. See, we are bridging gaps.

"Red state democrats instinctually get this a way that the urban blues don't."
Red state democrats get it alright. It's just that they get it in the form of shrapnel.

Odd how I feel so much safer in Des Moines than I do in Los Angeles. As long we are making pointless statements ...

"anti-gun laws _lose elections_."
Better elections than lives...

Non sequitor. we are talking about elections. but to follow that logic you are saying its better lose an election by making a anti-gun gun stand, and allow a republican president to start more wars. sensible!

i'm out of this discussion, as I have better things to do on friday.

comment #20

D.Z. says ...

LFF: "I'm not seeing a causal link. Ain't wikipedia fun?"

The Brady and Crime Bills from Clinton, the latter of which Bush allowed to expire, should fill in the gaps.

"Its the exact same reactionary rhetoric, even if you try to re-frame the metaphor"

Not really, since being for gun regulation is about common sense.

"Odd how I feel so much safer in Des Moines than I do in Los Angeles."

Only if you're white would you feel safer in Des Moines.

"Non sequitor. we are talking about elections. but to follow that logic you are saying its better lose an election by making a anti-gun gun stand, and allow a republican president to start more wars."

If it takes that long for voters to make the connection between proliferation of weapons and proliferation of wars, then so be it. Better than to see innocent Americans die on your watch, and not do anything, because you want to appease the NRA.

comment #21

LFF says ...

"The Brady and Crime Bills from Clinton, the latter of which Bush allowed to expire, should fill in the gaps."

Along with demographic shifts, targeted policing, decline of crack, prison expansion, economic shifts, etc, etc. you have proven nothing.

"Not really, since being for gun regulation is about common sense."

From the national review: "In a country that feels the need to take what should just be common sense — parental-notification laws and partial-birth-abortion bans — to the Supreme Court...we could use a few more task forces on abortion" ....sound familiar?

"Only if you're white would you feel safer in Des Moines."

Nothing quite so satisfying as injecting race into the conversation is there?

"If it takes that long for voters to make the connection between proliferation of weapons and proliferation of wars, then so be it. Better than to see innocent Americans die on your watch, and not do anything, because you want to appease the NRA."

Or I simply respect the constitutional right of good people to own firearms. And its worth noting Clinton _enormously_ increased exports of US manufactured arms during his term.

Look brother. We want the same thing: Obama elected. I just don't get what is honorable about forcing a wedge issue that will cause him to lose what could be a sweeping shift towards the blue in the electorate. "Change" is going to mean compromise. This is an area that yields such an enormous political benefit to compromise on that it could create movement on everything else progressive that you want. But, if this issue gets forced on the left, you undo all the work Obama has done to reach out to independents who are already attracted to McCain anyway. If you're so determined to enact new gun bans, do us all a favor and wait until February of next year to bring it up.

comment #22

D.Z. says ...

LFF: "Along with demographic shifts, targeted policing, decline of crack, prison expansion, economic shifts, etc, etc. you have proven nothing."

None of that could have happened, though, if there weren't laws meant to curtail the distribution of weapons which could kill cops, aid and abet crack sales, and make people who were better off want to live there.

"From the national review: "In a country that feels the need to take what should just be common sense — parental-notification laws and partial-birth-abortion bans — to the Supreme Court...we could use a few more task forces on abortion" ....sound familiar?"

Not really, since I'm only interested in protecting innocent people out of the womb. You can't play that libertarian bullshit with me, bud.
A gun is not part of your fucking body; nor do you smoke it.

"Nothing quite so satisfying as injecting race into the conversation is there?"

I thought that's what you were doing...

"Or I simply respect the constitutional right of good people to own firearms."

I prefer sane people myself.

"And its worth noting Clinton _enormously_ increased exports of US manufactured arms during his term."

That's the NRA/Republican influence, not him.

""Change" is going to mean compromise."

We've already compromised enough dead students.