Thank you for posting this, Amy. Very moving.

I am not in favor of more gun control. Still, I would say other nations with stricter gun control laws are also free societies (Japan, and Western Europe).

Do we really need handguns that can hold 30 rounds?

Okay, where is the line? Suppose a laser gun is perfected. Should I have an RPG? The right to bear arms...such as anthrax? The Constitution does not mention what type of arms, so read literally, it means any kind of arms I can buy.

If you are an "orginalist" then it means single-shot long rifles.

Oddly enough, in the 1930s, the federal government outlawed "machine guns" or "tommy guns" to combat the Mob. I don't think that made us a less free country.

BOTU, did outlawing Tommy Guns stop the mob from using them though?

This situation is a terrible tragedy. But what about the children slain by police in botched drug raids looking for a few ounces of pot? Are those cops any less guilty of murder?

It's not the guns, it's the nut behind them. Steering wheels don't cause fatal auto crashes. Penises don't cause rape.

The failure of our country in the mental health arena is the problem here. I have great difficulty coming to the defense of anything on this issue, as I have a 9yr old daughter myself. Emotions well up in me that cause rational thought to be difficult.

Magazine capacity can easily be circumvented by any semi-skilled machinist. So magazine limit aren't the answer either. Last time they did that, you could still get the high capacity magazines by paying high prices for magazines manufactured before the ban.

This is a simple failure of the medical system if it's a failure of anything. This young man had a clear history of mental difficulties. If anything is done here, a deep investigation into his past, and where intervention should have happened needs to be done.

Blaming it on the guns will only ensure it happens again. To stop this, we have to get a handle on the crazy people.

In the absence of guns, he would have used a car bomb... contemplate that.

Tank-

Agreed with many of your points, but you do dodge the question: Okay, are there any limits of weapons and civilians? Are all acquisitions of weapons, any weapons, protected by the Constitution?

Can I buy an RPG (which can take out our best tank, btw)?

An anthrax bomb?

If perfected, a laser gun?

A plastic gun, undetectable to metal detectors?

The Constitution, read literally, gives me the right to "bear arms" and does not set limits on the firepower.

An originalist (someone who says the Constitution says exactly what Founding Fathers meant on the day they signed it) would say that "arms" meant knives, tomahawks and single-shot long rifles--but not necessarily repeating guns, then not invented, nor handguns.

Take a manly stand, Tank.

Either you believe in some regs, or none.

Otherwise, we are just arguing over what are the right regs. I say the right regs are that some nut can't buy a handgun with 30 rounds. I am comfortable with regs that outlaw machine guns.

You say no regs, then I want to buy an RPG. Why not? What should not I buy an RPG?

PS The father of Christina Green is probably in shock, denial, who knows what. He should not be on TV. This is pathetic.

I agree with Tank.

I think it would be more to the point to provide free, adequate mental health treatment. It won't reach everyone or dissuade everyone it reaches, but it is much needed and could make a difference.

I can't believe what I'm reading here. Cancel the Second Amendment! More entitlements for everyone! Yeah, that'll fix it. Michelle, do you really think the guy would have been enthusiastic about "free, adequate mental health treatment"? Seriously? Here's a hint: go look up the word "paranoid". The only that guy would have gotten any mental health treatment would have been against his will.

And yeah, BOTU, I'd expect you to say that anyone who recommends that we not screw with our freedoms is someone you don't think should be allowed on television. Obama's people are saying the same, according to Politico.

I have no problem with gun control. Penises were not designed for rape, and steering wheels were not designed to cause car accidents. Gun are designed to do one thing, and I see no issues with putting limits on who can get one and how powerful it can be.

And no, gun control won't stop gun crime, or even someone who is determined to get one. But it doesn't make us any less free to have rational limits on this stuff.

I don't often say this, but BOTU has a good point: Where do we draw the line at the right to bear arms? Are we cool with having a nuclear-arms counter at Wal-Mart?

Actually Monica, penises WERE designed for rape. Civilization was designed to control them.

BOTU does NOT have a good point. There are no reasons for my government to have weaponry that I cannot.

And for the first time ever, Tank has made a sensible point - we don't need gun control or speech control, we need lunatic control.

Schizophrenia is a serious fucking disease, and the people who suffer from it aren't going to get treatment voluntarily, and certainly aren't going to stay on any treatment they get. They need to be taken out of society and put somewhere they cannot hurt anyone until science catches up with what the hell schizophrenia is and figures out a permanent cure that doesn't involve death.

"Michelle, do you really think the guy would have been enthusiastic about "free, adequate mental health treatment"
~Cousin Dave

No, not this young man - but his mother might have been, for herself and her young boy, before he grew into a paranoid young man. For almost eighteen years, she was authorized to get him treatment against his will; I won't know the particulars of whether she had access to what could have been effective treatment. I presume her paranoid husband was beyond her influence. She also may have been too ill and unmotivated to seek treatment for herself, her son, or her husband.

From the news headlines I've read, it appears to me that over the past two years, many of the shootings in Pittsburgh involved suspects with a history of mental illness. As I recall, all of them were men; to my knowledge, only one of them undoubtedly had access to premium mental health care services.

I understand that there are limits, yet I think that it would be better to have comprehensive mental health care available/ affordable than not.
~~~~~

As for the Second Amendment:

"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."

...what does it mean to "regulate" the Militia?

~~~~~~~
I suspect that the outcome in AZ would have been no less tragic had the guy used two revolvers. Anything less cumbersome than having to reload a musket might have resulted in a tragedy of equal magnitude.

If you actually enforce laws that you have... then perhaps you don't have situations like this. The kid was well known to the local sheriff, who even mentioned that it was mental health services that were in control of his situation. Except, it appears that his office had never charged him, or sent him for evaluations. So, he never ended up on the lists that say you can't buy a gun if you are mentally unstable. Just like the kid in the VTech shooting.

Also, boyo lives with his parents. What were they doing with him? He had a skull alter in his back yard and they never thought maybe he needed evaluation?

The signs were all there, and yet nobody did anything. ESPECIALLY the Sheriff, who you wouyd think would take such things seriously. If he had taken this seriously, the kid wouldn't have had such an easy time picking up a gun. Though maybe he would have just driven his car into the crowd.

How can you keep a free society when you punish everyone in it for what ONE person does?

BOTU, the G in RPG is for grenade, and that is a militarily controlled device. The right to bear arms has been understood for hundreds of years, since yes it's actually an ENGLISH law since the 1600's. It is understood to be a law of self defence against other individuals. And RPG is not a weapon against individuals, rather their armor. Hence it's designation as a military piece of hardware.

Now, when you have a citizenry aremed with their own individual weapons, and you put 'em all together, then you get a 'militia', and you have them defend their own homes... and only a fool would attack your country. Ask the Swiss. Their military reserves are something like 7million strong, and every one is armed.

Magazine capacity has nothing to do with anything, the ability of the individual to defend themselves is what this is about. The strictures that we put on that ability, like not allowing mental patients to have guns are what keep everyone safe... unless people are allowed to fall between the cracks due to the disinterest of the very govt. meant to protect them.

You had better finish me in that first shot with the RPG, you know. you won't get a second.

"As for the Second Amendment:

"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."

...what does it mean to "regulate" the Militia?

Dunno. But I note that the right is given to the PEOPLE, not the militia. Seems to me that the people get the right, and can sort that out militia part for themselves. >:|

At the very least, it appears to be a state-level matter, not a federal one.

penises WERE designed for rape

I'm going to bookmark this one for the next time the militant-feminist "all men are potential rapists" thread comes up.

Channeling Maureen Dowd, are we Monica? Try not shortening the quote to invert its meaning.

Yeah, I'm a little sensitive to how words are twisted to change their meaning for the purpose of demonization. And I'm more than sick of it.

Try it in public in front of me, and expect a correction. I'm not going to hold my tongue any more when people are chit chatting about how awful that Palin lady is for inciting violence. If you're wearing the "9/11 was an inside job", I'm not going to simply turn away in disgust, I'm going to get in your insane face.

"The problem with our liberal friends isn't that they don't believe anything, it's that they believe so much that just isn't so."

"As for the Second Amendment:

"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."

...what does it mean to "regulate" the Militia?"

I hope this is a rhetorical question based on some outdated feel good liberal argument against the Second Amendment. Because the Supreme Court has issued two rulings in the last two years that specifically address the meaning of the Second Amendment. If you care to know more go read "Heller" and also "McDonald v. Chicago"

In answer to BOTU, the US already has a whole raft of gun regulations on the books. No one is arguing that we should go back to the wild west, however the question is, if any more regulations will make any sort of additional dent in gun crime, and whether some of the restrictions, some states and municipalities have now, go too far. Disarming everyone is not going to be constitutional, and there have been few crimes and mass shootings whose outcomes would have differed significantly by magazine restrictions or "scary looking gun laws" which were another great triumph of rhetoric over reality. If you were to apply the logic behind the gun control act passed by the Clinton administration to the automotive industry, the government would have made it illegal to paint cars red because they "look" faster and more scary than other colored cars. :-)

And as far as what this man is going through, nobody should have to go through it, ever. And they certainly shouldn't have to go through it while their dead daughter is used as a political prop for hacks and liars to try and destroy their enemies once and for all.

Everyone who was blaming Palin for this while the bodies were still on the ground needs to shut up. Forever.

Ah, the BOTU contingent. Exactly what we should base public policy on.

Not.

Take this quiz.

When you come back, explain how a first offender can be prevented from her first crime.

Then, explain how Pietro Beretta & Sons has been in business since AD 1591. No, that's not a typo.

Christina Green's dad "gets it": bad things happen to good people. This is not a sign that the good people are doing anything wrong.

And punishing and regulating good people because of what bad people do is insane.

What's coming out now is that the sheriff's department was well aware of Loughner because he'd been making explicit threats to people locally for a long while. They'd even contacted his targets to assure them that he was being managed. But they didn't actually intervene or attempt to determine whether he had the means to execute his threats. It also turns out that Loughner has a relative in city government, and there are questions as to whether this relationship played a role in his kid glove treatment.

In any case, there were sufficient grounds to take his weapon(s) away from him. They didn't. He was allowed to continue w/ his threatening behavior, until it resulted in this incident.

Re "No one is arguing that we should go back to the wild west,..."
And where did you get the idea that such a thing existed? TV?

Do you think CSI or Criminal Minds is really how cops work?

Though some cities had criminal elements, the frontier at large was one where people recognized that killing each other was not smart.

We lose more inner-city youth to gangs today in a year than to shootings in the entire expansion westward.

Keep in mind that settlers knew the powers and limitations of guns, did not have a propaganda engine driving fear of guns, and had real, backbreaking work to do in a wilderness fully capable of killing an unarmed man without human help.

I could carry a 12-gauge to my high school band practice in Florida in 1973. It was my own business, not yours, what I was doing with it there or afterwards. Sorry if you get all bothered about that now.

I see the gun topic brought out tough guys (well, tough on the Internet, the world's safest place for some braggodoccio).

Not one of you answered the q: The Constiution gives to me the right to bear arms, with no limitation on the arms. So, can I buy an RPG? Why not? Or an anthrax missile? A plastic gun? 150-caliber howitzer?

If, like Justice Scalia, you claim to be an originalist, then the Constitution gives to me the right to bear a single-shot rifle and pistols(knives and tomahawks too), as that is what the Fouding Fathers meant. There were no revolvers or machine guns then.

A literal reading of the Constitution means I can buy any weapons I can afford.

I have the right to form a well-regulated militia, armed with RPGs, and whatever else we can buy?

No, obviously, we cannot allow increasingly ferocious weapons falling into the hands of loonies.

A 30-shot automatic pistol? And any nutcase can buy one? Even terrorists can buy these. So, four or five terrorists buy these pistols and show up at a Lakers game, at the exits.

They say you have to show more cred to get a job at McDonalds than to buy a 30-shot automatic pistol. I doubt this Giffords killer-punk could have held down a job at Wal Mart, or even been hired there.

But he can buy a 30-shot automatic pistol. He needs that to defend his freedom.

I won't boldface any of my commentary, or brag about my manliness and abilities with firearms. Still, I have a good point of view.

And punishing and regulating good people because of what bad people do is insane.

Ah, but that's what Big Sis' Department of Homeland Security is best at!

BOTU... "Arms" are already controlled. you can't have an automatic weapon, without a special permit, you can't have explosives, you can't have anthrax, so what are you even talking about?

the WORD arms CAN be defined, and NO I don't claim to be an originalist. The kid wasn't using an automatic weapon with a 30 round clip, it was a glock 19. But it could have been a revolver...

or his mom's car.

It is you who is not listening.

"Re "No one is arguing that we should go back to the wild west,..."
And where did you get the idea that such a thing existed? TV?"

Radwaste, I think you should have read the rest of my post. The wild west did exist although it was not anywhere close to the images that you see on TV. TV generally gets the guns, wrong, the clothes wrong and the saddles wrong, among other things. :-) My comment was rhetorical, and as a matter of fact, I live in the "wild west", am descended from pioneers who settled here in the 1870's, fought in the Johnson County war, and were quite familiar with firearms, and their uses and misuses. I grew up with rifles stacked against the wall in every corner of my house, as it was my father's main business. I also have a degree in History, but the wild west comment was directed at the fact that there were few laws on the books in the 1800's, and really until the 1930's. The places that did implement firearms restrictions in the later half of the 19th century such as New York City, soon found their crime rate out of control. I might add, that this is exactly the same trend that cities with heavy restrictions on firearms today have....DC. Chicago, News York, LA, all out of control with sky high crime rates. While Cheyenne WY, with open carry, and "shall issue" is incredibly safe with an extremely low crime rate. My main point was that in spite of all the laws on the books,it is hard to point to any additional ones that would have either prevented or mitigated any specific crime.

Jeez! Some fruitcake commits a dastardly crime and the proposed solution is to crack down on the millions of people who didn't do it. Used to be only gods were expected to do stuff that stupid.

It is a sad fact of modern life that whenever there is fresh blood the Brady Bunch reaches for their dancing shoes.

I'd be more comfortable letting you own an RPG than outlawing guns, butthole. Guns don't kill people, the people holding them do, and as has been pointed out, they'll use whatever means necessary. Nor do they care about laws.

The Constitution was written when the weapons you name, butthole, were the state of the art. I doubt you can claim even a literal originalist thought they meant to stop weapon owning to what was around in the 1700's. The weren't dumb. They knew what antiques were, and that arms were developing like everything else. Yet, they still said arms. Which I would argue means they never meant to limit the ability of citizens to defend themselves against the tyranny of government.

"No, obviously, we cannot allow increasingly ferocious weapons falling into the hands of loonies."

The obvious answer here would be restrict the loonies, not the rest of us, but I'd expect that to go right over your head, in your own post.

butthole, some of us can do more damage with a 6 shot revolver than most can do with 30 shots, or hell a machine gun. I can put all 6 i your head at 20 yards. And machine guns tend to pull up, and it takes someone very good with them to keep them from doing so, and hit their intended target or any target at all. Nor do I think you could hit squat with an RPG.

"If, like Justice Scalia, you claim to be an originalist, then the Constitution gives to me the right to bear a single-shot rifle and pistols(knives and tomahawks too), as that is what the Founding Fathers meant. There were no revolvers or machine guns then."

No, but there was (were) cannon, Greek fire, and trebuchets. But going back to English common law, these were understood to be military weapons and not for private ownership. The idea that in 1776 no weapons existed that were more deadly than the musket is false. (BTW, rifles didn't exist then.) The word "militia" does not mean what it is commonly made out to mean today. Back when the Constitution was written, all able-bodied adults (men anyway) were considered to be militia members. That doesn't mean they were reservists; they were essentially on active duty, all the time. Their duties included: aiding the police (and substituting for the police sometimes), crowd control, controlling dangerous animals, occasionally putting down insurrections, and community defense including low-level defense against invaders. (They were expected to be able to hold a community until the military could arrive; in those days, that might take weeks.) Self defense and defense of family and property also went with that. (And yes, they were subject to call-up for military duty at any time, although that was understood to be a separate thing.) Thus, the reference to "militia" in the Second Amendment refers to the right and duty of all adults to self-defense and defense of community, not just the National Guard. Even though the law no longer charges all able-bodied adults with militia duties, it is recognized that citizens may have to assume these duties at times. That's why you can't sue the police department for failing to prevent crimes.

"A literal reading of the Constitution means I can buy any weapons I can afford. "

No, but... evidently your belief is that if it were true, that would justify your simply ignoring that part of the Constitution. Which other parts would you like to ignore? That's what's going to be interesting about this year in politics. The anti-constitutionalist Ezra Kleins of the world are finally unmasking themselves.

Would regulating guns have limited this?

No.

He had no criminal record.
He had no mental health illness record.

Up to the moment he pulled the trigger he was a law abiding citizen in the eyes of the law. If he was known to the shop owner, perhaps that shop owner would have refused the sale and notified authorities.

But no one has suggested that he was.

But lets say there are no gun shops. That the gunman is crazy no one is disputing, but he was not so delusional that he couldn't have figured out how to acquire a gun on the street.

And if there were no guns on the street, well his hangup was language usage, not that the letters were coming to life and biting his nuts. He could have found out how to build a carbomb on the internet, hell after Oklahoma City a news report described how he made the f'ing bomb.

C'mon people, you can't keep a weapon out of the hands of a derranged mind except by one method, locking the dangerously derranged away out of reach of the things the rest of the sane world can use without problems.

Debating gun control is useless at best, the simple fact of the matter is that it would delegitimize the federal government. Just as removing the first ammendment would.

They call those first ten "The Bill of Rights" for a reason folks. Read your constitution, what does it say about the rights of the people? Read very carefully and I think you'll find what I'm hinting at.

Actually Monica, penises WERE designed for rape. Civilization was designed to control them.

OK, here's the whole graf. Still bookmarking it. I want to remember the day you suggested that without civilization, men would go all Antoine Dodson on our collective ass.

Try it in public in front of me, and expect a correction. I'm not going to hold my tongue any more when people are chit chatting about how awful that Palin lady is for inciting violence. If you're wearing the "9/11 was an inside job", I'm not going to simply turn away in disgust, I'm going to get in your insane face.

You're clearly very passionate about whatever just clicked over in your head, so carry on with the getting in people's insane faces and all. Clearly, you're the kind of guy who has been quiet until now, and you just aren't going to take it anymore.

I'll just go back to what I was talking about: gun control. With guns being designed to kill living creatures and needing a fair amount of training to use properly, I'm glad they're a bit of a pain in the ass to get. That's not a crazy idea.

Also, it's silly to think that we can have increased lunatic control without the government getting even more up in our insane faces. Sounds like more monitoring of "violent" drawings in schools and other such crap to me.

BOTU, ever heard of Tench Coxe?

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tench_Coxe

" (May 22, 1755 – July 17, 1824) was an American political economist and a delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress in 1788-1789, and a key anti-Federalist, writing under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian".
[edit] Sourced

* The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people.
o The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

* Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
o Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

* Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
o "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789."

And I comment I wrote to an opinion piece in the Santa Monica Mirror recently . . .

http://www.smmirror.com/?ajax#mode=single&view=31533

Dec 23, 2010 4:17 pm
Jay J. Hector said...
The Constitution does not grant any rights to anyone. The Constitution (or any constitution) is a restriction on government, not the people. The People retain all their pre-existing natural birthrights. The Bill of Rights lists particularly odious government actions against certain rights and attempts to restrict goverment action against those pre-existing rights of the people. Your attempt to define "well regulated" as governmental codes, instead of proficient at the use of arms, illustrates your lack of understanding of muliple subjects. Well regulated could just as well mean that the body of the militia is efficient at disposing of waste given your logic. The lack of the California Constitution having a "right to keep and bear arms" provision does not mean that the people don't have the right to do so, and the right is a birthright and pre-exists the California Constitution. The people of California retain this right along with all others regardless of the numerous laws and "regulations" that are imposed on us by the government of this state. As others have said, read both the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers, which are written in plain English, and you'll start to have an inkling of what those who wrote, supported and opposed our Federal Constitution at its creation really meant. One does not need lawyers or judges to explain what the founders meant.

Cousin Davbe--

I am surprised at basic historical facts in error in your presntation.

You never heard of the Pennsylvania Long Rifle? British troops feared the single-shot weapon.

From Wikipedia:

The Pennsylvania rifle, Kentucky rifle, and Tennessee or hog rifle were all variants of the long rifle.

Contents [hide]
1 Origins
2 Characteristics
3 Decline and rebirth
4 In popular culture
5 See also
6 References

[edit] OriginsThe long rifle developed on the American frontier in the period beginning in the 1740s, and continued its development technically and artistically until it passed out of fashion in the mid-to-late 19th century.[citation needed] It is interesting to note, however, that strong pockets of long rifle use and manufacture continued in the Appalachian Mountains of Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, and North Carolina, well into the 20th century, as a practical and efficient firearm for these still quite rural segments of the nation. Long rifles could be made entirely by hand and hand-operated tooling, in a frontier setting.'

It is true that the Founding Fathers wanted American men, in militias, to have the right to be armed armed with single-shot rifles, muskets and pistols. That is all we can assert as fact. It is true that the Constitution, read literally, gives me the right to buy anty weapons, including RPGs, and anthrax missiles.

In reality, the Founding Fathers detested standing armies; many sought militias as a way to reduce or even permanently ban standing armies. Read up on George Mason, who has the famous right-wing university named after him. Mason refused to sign the Constitution as it did not have an outright ban on a permanent military.

The Masonites did win a bar on funding militaries for more than two years, without reauthorization, thus giving the right to Congress to sunset the military at anytime.

In the end, what is true is that we regulate arms using personal biases. No sane person wants their loonie neighbor fooling around with anthrax, or RPGs, no matter what it says in the Constitution. And you cannot always tell who is loonie before hand.

So, all the moral pettifogging and pompous posturing in the world is old hot air. We can ban automatic weapons if we want to. Probably we should.

"BOTU, did outlawing Tommy Guns stop the mob from using them though?"

No, but it did stop truck drivers from using them against hijackers. At the time, criminal gangs derived a lot of income from selling hijacked goods. The NFA was a great help to organized crime.

Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." Rep. of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress at 750 (August 17, 1789).

OK, here's the whole graf. Still bookmarking it. I want to remember the day you suggested that without civilization, men would go all Antoine Dodson on our collective ass.

Yep. Pretty much. Without a government that has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force (excepting self-defense) then the whole of the law becomes "who can, may". And I doubt there are many women out there who could stop a man from doing whatever he wanted sans armaments.

Civilization is the thin veneer on which we walk that keeps us from descending back to the law of the jungle.

Oh, and gun control wouldn't stop an undiagnosed looney from getting a gun unless it stopped everyone from getting one.

The thing is, this kid WAS KNOWN TO BE FUCKING NUTS. But stings were obviously pulled to keep that off the official record.

@BOTU -

The ability of the United States (or indeed any other nation-state) to defend itself without a standing professional army ended at World War I.

The advent of long-distance weaponry and flight made it impossible to keep a purely on-demand militia properly trained.

Or would you have citizen-soldiers parking their F-16s in the driveway?

There seems some confusion on how many shots the killer-punk-gun-nut had in his automatic pistol.

][11] The weapon used was reported to be a 9mm Glock model 19 pistol with a 33-round magazine.[5]

Imagine a few terrorists armed with these at the next Baltimore Ravens game. Since millions of people migrate illegally into the US every year by the expedient of walking across the border, one wonders why this has never happened.

I suspect it is because there are hardly any terrorists to speak of.

Brian-

I wouldn't mind having an F-16, though a better plane for practical ground-fighting is the A-10.

Would volunteer militias work anymore?

We have not built up a culture to support such a thing. Indeed, we have gone the other way, with a "professional" or mercenary force, supported by onerous taxes, permanently mobilized.

However, given the coprolitic and parasitic beast that has become our Department of Defense, it might be worthy to sunset the military (as suggested by the Constitution) and start fresh.

I would like to see a goal of defending our shores for 1 percent of GDP. Easily done, I'd say.

So how do you suggest dealing with this:

China's New Fighter Jet Could Pose 'Terrifying' Challenge to U.S. Fleet

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/01/07/chinas-new-fighter-jet-pose-terrifying-challenge-fleet/#ixzz1Ag6mmokY

Oh, I am so surprised--there is a dire threat somewhere in the world that requires expanded military outlays? I never heard of that before.

You mean, in addition to the guys armed with cell phones and home-made bombs in Afghanie, now we have to fight this?

Truth is, China already has hunter-killer subs that can easily sink our aircraft carriers, which are very vulnerable to torpedo and missile strikes.

So China has some fighter jets. Can they invade the USA? Not as long as we have a few ballistic submarines.

A good private-sector outfit could probably devise a sound defense for the USA at one percent of GDP. We just have to sunset our dinosaur Department of Defense first.

A professional military has no incentive for wars to end. The professional soldiers need wars to get their ticket punched. The USA had a very small professional army prior to WWII. I might hate the draft, but the draft filled the armed services with people who had one goal -- get the war (any war) over and get the hell home and back to normal life. The Iraq and Afghan wars would long be over if the armed forces were full of draftees.

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?"

Written by Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient

Major General Smedley D. Butler

USMC, Retired

Why Mr. Hector--I agree with you.

Some guy named Dwight Eisenhower warned about this too...but what would he know? Just a general or something in WWII. Then a US President.

That was some of the reasoning of our founding fathers in opposing standing militaries, and why some wanted a militia instead.

The closest we could get to a militia today would be a fair draft, I would say.

And Mr Hector, you are right: If Johnie at Northwestern University was drafted and sent to Afghanie, and came back minus his balls and legs, this war would be over, long over.

The Bush twins never showed up on the front, or even as nurses in the rear. They never showed up period. Like their daddy.

That's some kind of military we have.

BOTU: "I have the right to form a well-regulated militia, armed with RPGs, and whatever else we can buy?"

Interesting. Where do states figure into your jurisprudence and the second amendment?

Specifically, do you think that states may have powers to regulate gun ownership that the federal government does not?

Does the federal government have powers the states do not?

Just wondering.

"And Mr Hector, you are right: If Johnie at Northwestern University was drafted and sent to Afghanie, and came back minus his balls and legs, this war would be over, long over."

You are familiar with how Americans have sent their sons to the slaughter in shockingly high numbers about every twenty years, right? Civil War. WWI. WWII. The numbers there are staggering. We had a draft in those wars, I note.

hey butthead, I had no idea you were such an expert on defense issues. Fact is you are an anti gun troll who takes over any thread to spew you anti gun anti military bullshit. Oh, we already ban all automatic weapons. The gun used is called a SEMI automatic you moron. Defense at one percent of GDP, what a joke. You realize the only reason we won the seconf world war is that our isolation gave us time to train and fire up production, and the soviets kept the germans busy. We will have neither luxury in the next war, as it will be lightening quick if you haven;t followed recent large scale wars. Yup in a free market society business that supply arms make money in war, so what the fuck does that matter. Stick with stroking yourself, I think it is the only expertise you have

and the senseless name calling begins...

amusing, yet predictable.

A militia is a group of people who are to be called upon to defend the country. If they do not have contemporary arms, they are a useless force.

No one needs an RPG to defend themselves. As a FYI, Rocked Propelled Grenades bounce of tanks with the effectiveness of overripe fruit.... you're speaking of a Antitank Weapon. And I do not think anyone can afford antitank rockets in the private sector anymore... let alone get a permit to buy one. However, I bet you can get ahold of one on the black market... :) Ain't prohibition grand.

Anyone who sees this as a gun issue, and not a mental health issue, has a problem with guns in general and is using this tradgedy to further their agenda, and that's sad.

It's sad that people died. It's sad that a young mind will waste away in prison that may have been saved had anyone given a shit...

but where's the profit in giving a shit about psychos... all that does is keep people from getting shot after it's too late, and lord knows how helpful it is to have tragedies like this to further people's political agendas.

Spartee--Um, WWII was 60 years ago. We had a draft in those wars, we won quickly, and when the wars ended, we demobilized, pronto.

I see almost no Americans surging forth to be part of our never-ending occupation of Iraqistan.

Ronc--

I support the right to bear arms. I am raising the q, at what point do we regulate? A 33-shot handgun? Easily modified to go automatic?

Defense at one percxent of GDP is possible, and imagine the benefits of freeing up 4 percent of GDP back into the jobs- and wealth-creating productive private sector, not the parasitic fedetal government share.

Question for Butthole:

How quickly do you think we could mobilize, arm, and train a modern force like our present Army, Navy, or Air Force? How quickly could we respond to Pearl Harbor?

at 1% of GDP, you'd barely be able to afford a coherent missile defense, never mind having some kind of response force.

Unless you're willing to take my advice and go with the Doctrine of Excessive Force, which states that for any attack against the United States or our interests, our response will be the nuclear annihilation of the nation or nations that financed, initiated, armed, or carried out said attack.

No targeted strikes, no nation building, no limited engagement. You fuck with us, we erase you from existence.

Actually BOTU, you'd prefer that the Arizona shooter had a fully automatic handgun, as controlling a full auto weapon requires special skill. Also, any firearm that could be easily modified to full auto is not sold in the USA, and the BATFE makes sure of that. Did you know that full auto firearms are legal in most states? They are not cheap, and neither is the ammo fired on full auto.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

Crime with Legally Owned Machine Guns

In 1995 there were over 240,000 machine guns registered with the ATF. (Zawitz, Marianne,Bureau of Justice Statistics, Guns Used in Crime [PDF].) About half are owned by civilians and the other half by police departments and other governmental agencies (Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.)

Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies.
---
Thanks to the staff of the Columbus, Ohio Public Library for the details of the Waller case.

Source: talk.politics.guns FAQ, part 2.

The other homicide, possibly involving a legally owned machine gun, occurred on September 14, 1992, also in Ohio (source).

In Targeting Guns, Kleck cites the director of ATF testifying before Congress that he knew of less than ten crimes that were committed with legally owned machine guns (no time period was specified). Kleck says these crimes could have been nothing more than violations of gun regulations such as failure to notify ATF after moving a registered gun between states.

Tank-

You need updating.

The RPG-29 uses a tandem-charge high explosive anti-tank warhead to penetrate explosive reactive armor (ERA) capable of destroying some modern MBTs such as the Merkava[3] or T-90.[4]

In August 2006, an RPG-29 round penetrated the frontal ERA of a Challenger 2 tank during an engagement in al-Amarah, Iraq and wounded several crew members.[5]

In May 2008, The New York Times disclosed that an American M1 tank had also been damaged by an RPG-29 in Iraq.[6]

RPGs are getting more powerful all the time. Even the best tabnk armor can't take two hits. The first hit activates the reactive armor, the second hit is a kill.

RPGs are very cheap too.

Here we go again, BOTU's on another anti-military rant.

In reality, the Founding Fathers detested standing armies....

Most of our founding fathers dropped their objection to a standing military when they realized a militia couldn't stand and fight against a trained army.

Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, in fact all the founding fathers who became president sent US troops off on military adventures. So much for their objections to a standing military.

The ability of the United States (or indeed any other nation-state) to defend itself without a standing professional army ended at World War I.

Actually, it ended at the Cowpens and Guilford Courthouse. The British disdain for the minimal fighting qualities of militia was so profound that Daniel Morgan (and later Nathaniel Greene) were able to exploit it by using their militia as bait, decisively ending a British attempt to control the southern colonies.

It ended outside Washington, DC in 1814 when the militia broke and ran in the face of trained British soldiers. President James Madison, heretofore a vocal opponent of standing armies and advocate of militias, took command of the defense of Washington, confident behind his milita lines. When he finished running for his life, he changed his mind about a the value of a standing, trained, and well-equipped army.

OK, BOTU, I'll grant you the long rifle was in use at the time of the American Revolution. However, as a military weapon, it was pretty much a specialist item; it was heavy, hard to transport, required a lot of maintenance, and took forever to load. It was much more a game weapon. For self-defense it was nearly useless.

I suspect what's really gotten under your skin is that your side was soooooo close to convincing the federal courts to read the Second Amendment out of existence... and then it all fell apart. Darn shucks. Hate it for you. As for continuing to harp on and on about a professional military, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly in previous threads, Thomas Jefferson changed his mind about that after the White House burned in the War of 1812, a war we very nearly lost because we didn't have a trained military.

BOTU, training a combat soldier today takes almost 2 years. By then, a standard draft term is up. Training specialists takes even longer.

Um, WWII was 60 years ago. We had a draft in those wars, we won quickly....

"Those wars?" World War II was one war.

And we didn't win quickly. 1942-1943 saw a steady stream of defeats and struggles. US troops were overwhelmed at Guam, Wake, the Philipines, and Kasserine Pass. Even victories at Guadalcanal (won by the Marines after a long struggle) and El Guatar (a meaningless battle against Rommel's reserves) couldn't cover up the fact that the US military was ill-prepared to fight a modern war.

You see, even back then, draftees took time to train for and acclimate to combat.

...and when the wars ended, we demobilized, pronto.

And, as a result, barely had enough planes and pilots to aid Berlin in 1948.

And got our asses kicked by the North Koreans in 1950.

"They say you have to show more cred to get a job at McDonalds than to buy a 30-shot automatic pistol."

And this is why BOTU is best disregarded - because, for legal purchases (the only kind any law can regulate) it simply isn't correct.

-----

There is a lot of noise here. I suppose those of you being noisy haven't bothered to take the quiz, linked above. I'll bring two points to the fore, because they are being skipped:

1) Personal arms, aside from being the definitive indication of who is in charge in any group, trump any advanced weapon system there is for the simple reason that the pilot or driver must get out sometime.

2) If you encounter an argument about the National Guard, do recall that they are a Federal force. Don't believe me - go read the fence at the armory. It says, "US Government Property".

Well, three points...

3) You might not know about Warren v. DC, the USSC case that established that police are definitely never required to protect your person - at any time. From anyone. There is a corollary to this: you must do that. Most of the time, someone does stand between you and harm. You need to pay attention and determine when that is not the case.

Isabel, point taken: well said!

WWII in Europe was a different type of war from WWII in the Pacific. The Pacific was a war of extermination as the Japanese did not surrender and in most battles were almost literally killed to the last man, exactly what it takes to defeat terrorism.

It doesn't take two years to teach a soldier to shoot, and shoot to kill. It takes two years to teach them to be everything except killers, and then they won't allow them to kill the enemy. Everytime I see combat footage from Iraq/Afghanistan I watch our troops exhibt the worst shooting skills. Using an M16 magazine as a grip is a perfect way to get a jam, and the short-barreled M4 Carbines have no range, accuracy or ability to penetrate buildings. It's no wonder the US had to buy back M14s to get some accuracy, range and power out of their rifles.

We need troops that kill the enemy, not to be the peacekeepers/humanitarians with training that gets our troops killed. To quote R. Lee Ermey, "It's a hard heart that kills."

Magazine capacity can easily be circumvented by any semi-skilled machinist

It can also be circumvented by a monkey taught the task by rote commands. I dont think most folks realize how many people you can kill with $100 dollars and a shoping trip to the home depot.

And no, gun control won't stop gun crime, or even someone who is determined to get one. But it doesn't make us any less free to have rational limits on this stuff.

And when was the last time the governemnt was ever rational when denying people their freedoms after a tradgedy? As I figure it the 'Adam Walsh' Act is responsible for causeing more children to be raped and beaten then rapists and child abuseres ever did.

A 30-shot automatic pistol? And any nutcase can buy one? Even terrorists can buy these. So, four or five terrorists buy these pistols and show up at a Lakers game, at the exits.
BOTU

You know, BOTU the reason everyone ignores everything you say is because you are a fucking douchebag moron who never pays attention to the topic being discussed.

Here's a thought, drop the bullshit asshole comments you constantly deposit like gold plated turds. Argue, if not rationally, at least earnestly, and pay attention to what people say in response to your posts.

"Actually Monica, penises WERE designed for rape. Civilization was designed to control them. [...] And I doubt there are many women out there who could stop a man from doing whatever he wanted sans armaments." ~Brian

To quote a line from the show 'Bones': "Hmm, I don't know. Putting testicles on the outside didn't seem like such a good idea."

"The 2006 National Institute of Mental Health Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness study, which surveyed patients over a six-month period, found that psychotic individuals committed acts of "serious violence" (e.g., assault or threat with a lethal weapon, assault with injury, or a sexual assault) at three to nine times the rate of patients whose florid psychotic symptoms were under control. The latter subgroup, data from other studies suggest, are no more likely than the general population to commit serious violence. Thus, actively psychotic people are at least three to nine times as likely to be dangerous as the rest of us. Thankfully, despite this elevated risk, only a small minority of people within that subgroup, a little more than 5 percent, actually perpetrated serious violence.

Outpatient commitment can help enormously. In 2005, the New York State Office of Mental Health released an assessment of the first five years of Kendra's Law. Patients participating in the program for at least six months had a marked improvement in a wide range of measurements, including frequency of arrests, hospitalizations, assaults, threats of violence, incarceration, and homelessness. More than twice as many patients took their medication when under court order as before. A raft of studies from states such as North Carolina, Arizona, Iowa, and Ohio, and the District of Columbia have demonstrated similar benefits."

from: http://www.sallysatelmd.com/html/a-ws8.html

@Michelle -

That's as may be. But biology pretty much guarantees that an average man will put an average woman down and have her sufficiently restrained that she's never going to have a chance to hit him.

Then we invented "retributive justice" and started to hang men by their necks when they violated the women. And rape became a lot less appealing.

God made men. Sam Colt made them equal.

Jesus Jumping on Pogo Stick!
People! A man has just lost his child, ffs! And even he can see the truth. If there had been a sane armed citizen with a gun, this asswipe would not have gotten off half as many shots as he did, and maybe not caused half as much pain, loss and heartache.
http://www.nraila.org/issues/articles/read.aspx?id=125

It seems the two men who grabbed the shooter did so after some unknown person bashed the shooter with a chair. This blogger takes the N.Y. Times to task . . .

http://iwantanewleft.typepad.com/i-want-a-new-left/

"To begin with, at some point after Loughner began shooting, some unknown person bashed him with a folding chair. This comes from Bill D. Badger, 74, a retired Army colonel who right after this was able to grab Loughner’s left hand, while someone else, Roger Salzgeber, grabbed his right hand. The two of them brought Loughner to the ground. While the two of them were struggling with Loughner, Loughner was trying to reload. At that point, enter Patricia Maisch, 61, a woman who had thrown herself to the ground in the hope that Loughner would think she was already dead. She heard him shoot the woman next to her and was basically waiting to be shot, when she found herself face to face with him because of the actions of Badger and Salzgeber. Onlookers shouted at her to take his gun, so she grabbed the magazine he was going to put into the gun. At some point – it’s not clear when – a Joseph Zamudio came along and helped the other two men keep Loughner pinned to the ground."

I also heard on the radio tonight (from a reputable source) that either Badger or Salzgeber was a permitted concealed carry holder who was armed. Apparently he (which one I can't say) was in another store, heard the shots, ran to the shooter as he was attempting to reload and decided to tackle him instead of shooting him. The confidence of being armed helped him decide to get involved in stopping the shooter, and also gave him the option of not using deadly force while the shooter was attempting to reload.

"...what does it mean to "regulate" the Militia?"

To make it "well-ordered", practiced, aka organized for defense of the town/neighborhood etc..

Or rather, To make it regular, you know like you take some pills/fiber to regulate your bowel movements.

Word meanings change over time. Today you only hear "I took this product to feel regular again" in a tv ad for a laxative/pepto/fiber or regulations meaning government laws/rules.

BOTU, 30 round mags might just save your loved ones from a crazy dude shooting people. 30 > 8. More time on target, less time changing mags.

Not that its real hard to swap out mags in 2-3 seconds. Well, unless as mentioned above you're getting tackled by a couple of guys.

Want to see Orwell's Newspeak in use? Look above for this gem:

"But it doesn't make us any less free to have rational limits on this stuff."

Tibet did not have a standing army in 1950 when Chairman Mao's People's Liberation Army marched in unopposed. You think the Cultural Revolution was a small price to pay comparatively?

The reason our Founding Fathers detested a standing military was expressed amply by departing President Eisenhower--the military almosr inevitably becomes an expensive, eternal parasite on the productive private sector.

That is where it stands now in the USA.

Yes, but even Ike did not want to eliminate the military:

http://www.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2008/05/16/eisenhower-speaks-his-mind.html?PageNr=4

What we need is good, tough, military training—and I am just as much concerned for the benefit of the youths as a whole as for the military service.

Kat wrote: "If there had been a sane armed citizen with a gun, this asswipe would not have gotten off half as many shots as he did..."

Maybe so, but this was a gathering of left-leaning supporters of a Democrat. The chances of any of them being armed, given the belief systems reflected in their political choices, was about zero. One of the nearby citizens who responded, Joseph Zamudio, was lawfully armed, but the shooting was over by the time he arrived at the scene to help restrain Loughner.

There are already cries for more gun control, as is the usual after a mass shooting, of course. But I am unconvinced that stricter gun control will help much in preventing mass murder by nutcases. A guy in Puerto Rico, armed with some legally-purchased kerosene and a match, lit his family on fire in his dining room on New Year's Day. He killed five people and injured several more. (No word yet on if he is a Tea Party supporter.)

"1942-1943 saw a steady stream of defeats and struggles. US troops were overwhelmed at Guam, Wake, the Philipines, and Kasserine Pass. Even victories at Guadalcanal (won by the Marines after a long struggle) and El Guatar (a meaningless battle against Rommel's reserves) couldn't cover up the fact that the US military was ill-prepared to fight a modern war."

Don't forget that preparations for war in the U.S. actually started in 1939. There were some smart people who knew that we would be in the war eventually, and they did a lot of advance work getting things cranked up. Even so, we damn near lost the Pacific war in the first year -- we were extraordinarily lucky in that Japanese politics pressed their task force to proceed at Pearl even though our carrier fleet was not in port. And then their was Midway, where a bunch of guys in woefully inadequate aircraft, and nearly out of fuel, caught the Japanese carriers just as they were reloading and had ordnance laying around all over their flight deck. Five minutes one way or the other and we lose that battle, the Japanese have Midway and are all set to take Oahu and threaten the West Coast.

Interesting hypothetical Cousin Dave, but I disagree with your assessment that the Japanese were prepared to threaten the west coast.

While they might have been able to follow up with a successful, if temporary, occupation in some (perhaps even all) of Hawaii, the west coast would have been far to difficult logistically, and was far to massive to threaten any one portion for an extended period of time.

Moreover, the Japanese were looking for a way out of the war with the U.S. from the get go, a long term struggle with the United States was never their goal. If they had been successful in occupying Hawaii and completely wrecking the fleet, it is more likely they would have stopped there and forced a war of costly attrition that would buy them the time to complete and consolidate victories in Asia and the near Pacific, and erode the long term American will to fight a Pacific war.

the west coast would have been far to difficult logistically, and was far to massive to threaten any one portion for an extended period of time.

You ould also make the argument that the west cost being so large would have been impossible to defend against some stratageys not calling fo an invasion and occupation of the mainland

"If they had been successful in occupying Hawaii and completely wrecking the fleet, it is more likely they would have stopped there..."

Japanese designs on American territory did not end with Hawaii. They invaded & occupied Attu & Kiska islands in the Aleutians as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleutian_Islands_Campaign

Note that the US wasn't prepared to defend these islands, and it took a long time to drive the Japs out.