?

Log in

Gun Control Now [entries|friends|calendar]
LiveJournal's Gun Control Community

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ calendar | livejournal calendar ]

Crickets [19 Dec 2012|08:01am]

timtad
Really?
4 comments|post comment

[20 Jan 2011|09:23pm]

timtad
I'm surprised that there is no traffic in this community.
13 comments|post comment

ignorance of history = doomed to repeat [05 Jul 2010|04:43pm]

timtad
[ mood | hot ]

Reading this article in DailyKos because several gun sites have linked to it, and its interesting to watch the debate and surprising that it has not turned in to a flame war....

anyway, I came across this comment.....


Very thought provoking
I'm one of the people who emotionally would be happier if there were no guns around.  And I can't think of a single instance in the last hundred plus years when individuals armed with private weapons have successfully defended their liberty from government tyranny in the US.  Lots of cases where a whacko has killed a cop or two and gotten himself killed, but no cases of successfully defending one's rights.


I wanted to point this guy to the Battle of Athens, but I am not a member of DK, could someone who is registered, please reply to the comment I mentioned. This is a clear case of modern America (post WW2) where people defended their rights using arms. I'm appalled that readers over at DK are un-aware of this.


Crossposted to guns
2 comments|post comment

Supreme Court [05 Jun 2010|09:43pm]

timtad
We can expect the US Supreme Court to rule on McDonald v. Chicago any day now. I'm really hoping for (but not expecting) incorporation of the 2nd Amendment under the Privileges and Immunities clause of the Constitution as enumerated by the 14th amendment.  This was the reconstruction era attempt to ensure the states could not infringe on the rights of citizens of the United States (of the federal government). The 14th Amendment* was an explicit guarantee that states could not deprive newly freed blacks of their civil rights including their right to bear arms, because the southern states were continuing to repress the rights of freemen.  The 14th Amendment's direct imposition of the constitution and it's Privileges and Immunities was inexplicably rejected in the Slaughterhouse cases in 1873. For some reason the Supreme Court stated that rights (protections for citizens from government) would have to be individually identified and incorporated under the Privileges and Immunities clause or the Due Process clause of the constitution/14th amendment, meaning that at that time (just after the slaughterhouse decision), none of the bill of rights applied against the states until a court case ruled that it did (kind of scary really).   So you should be glad that your first amendment right to religion and free speech has be incorporated against the states under the due process clause of the 14th amendment. (See Incorporation).  As I said, I'm hoping but not expecting.  I am expecting incorporation under due process, but it is sad to think that we are not protected from excessive state government power by the constitution the way we learned in school, but instead have to wait for the US Supreme Court to decide that a local politician can't deny your right to vote, defend yourself, marry who you want or have a jury trial for certain crimes.

Without some form of incorporation, a mean spirited local government can control some aspect of you life more tightly than the US Constitution protects your rights: like deciding you have to know how to read and write to vote. And under Slaughterhouse it currently works that if that particular right has not already be decided by the Supreme Court, it has to be individually decided instead of simply applying the US constitution directly.  McDonald v. Chicago is about to decide if the right to bear arms to protect yourself and your family in your own home from criminals or mean spirited government applies at the state (or Chicago city) level, or only in Washington DC.

* extract, emphasis added... " No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws...."
3 comments|post comment

Has the Brady Campaign become irrelevant? [27 Mar 2010|08:30pm]

sunnydays4me


They lost Heller, they'll soom lose DcDonnell in Chicargo. 27 states are now activley loosening carry laws. The ban on so called "Assauly Weapons" windon has come and gone. Americans by large majorities disagree with their vision. They've given their own champion, Barak Obama, and "F".

Starbucks is the best they can muster and Starbucks has all but told them to leave them the hell alone. They've had to partner with the likes of Creedo Action, and guns on trains and National Forests are lost battles.

Their endorsements have become political posion. 3 states are suing for 2nd Amendment autonomy for guns they make to stay there.

What else can they lose besides their dignity?. ALL their PAC supported candidates wen't down in flames with a R in Ted Kennedys 46 year seat, and the Democrats are almost certain to lose the House and Senate. This is from mere guily by assn. on a variety of issues including gun control.

Oh, and now this tidbit discrediting all their claims of US guns in Mexico...

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/15/world/fg-mexico-arms-race15
Drug cartels' new weaponry means war
MEXICO UNDER SIEGE Narcotics traffickers are acquiring firepower more appropriate to an army -- including grenade launchers and anti-tank rockets -- and the police are feeling outgunned.
March 15, 2009|Ken Ellingwood and Tracy Wilkinson
ZIHUATANEJO, MEXICO, AND MEXICO CITY — It was a brazen assault, not just because it targeted the city's police station, but for the choice of weapon: grenades.

The Feb. 21 attack on police headquarters in coastal Zihuatanejo, which injured four people, fit a disturbing trend of Mexico's drug wars. Traffickers have escalated their arms race, acquiring military-grade weapons, including hand grenades, grenade launchers, armor-piercing munitions and antitank rockets with firepower far beyond the assault rifles and pistols that have dominated their arsenals.

Most of these weapons are being smuggled from Central American countries or by sea, eluding U.S. and Mexican monitors who are focused on the smuggling of semiauto- matic and conventional weapons purchased from dealers in the U.S. border states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California.


The proliferation of heavier armaments points to a menacing new stage in the Mexican government's 2-year-old war against drug organizations, which are evolving into a more militarized force prepared to take on Mexican army troops, deployed by the thousands, as well as to attack each other.

These groups appear to be taking advantage of a robust global black market and porous borders, especially between Mexico and Guatemala. Some of the weapons are left over from the wars that the United States helped fight in Central America, U.S. officials said.

"There is an arms race between the cartels," said Alberto Islas, a security consultant who advises the Mexican government.

"One group gets rocket-propelled grenades, the other has to have them."

There are even more ominous developments: Authorities reported three thefts of several hundred pounds of blasting material from industrial explosives plants in Durango during a four-day period last month. Authorities believe the material may have been destined for car bombs or remotely detonated roadside devices, which have been used with devastating effect in Iraq, killing more than 1,822 members of U.S.-led forces since the war there began nearly six years ago.

The Mexican army has recovered most of the material, and there has been no reported use of such devices.

Grenades or military-grade weapons have been reported in at least 10 Mexican states during the last six months, used against police headquarters, city halls, a U.S. consulate, TV stations and senior Mexican officials. In a three-week period ended March 6, five grenade attacks were launched on police patrols and stations and the home of a commander in the south-central state of Michoacan. Other such attacks occurred in five other states during the same period.


How will it go down? Will The Bradys just scream themselves hoarse till they keel over? x-post
post comment

Freedom is not free.... [13 Mar 2010|07:26pm]

sunnydays4me
Freedom comes with a cost. As long as we are free, there will be people that abuse that freedom. Firearms ownership is not about hunting or target shooting. The 2nd Amendment is about the basic human right of defending ourselves and families, and about our ability as citizens to be responsible for our goverment and reign it back in, preferably by vote but if necassary by force.

Remember, it is the freedoms that goverment most fears that we should most protect and even covent. A goverment feared by it's citizens is inherintly disfunctional. A goverment that fears it citizenry IS a healthy relationship. It is incubent upon elected and appointed officials to remember they are nothing more than a mouthpiece in a suit, for their job is NEVER to lead, but ALWAYS to only reflect the will of The People, as guided by our Constitution.

Efforts otherwise (like Obama's health care) that do not reflect a majority of The People, will fail should goverment be functioning properly.

James Madison in Federalist 46:
Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger . . . a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands.


8 comments|post comment

Obama gets an F.. [18 Jan 2010|06:36pm]

squidb0i
...from the Brady Campaign!

http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/reports/fedleg/obama-1styear-report.pdf

"In just one year, Barack Obama has signed into law more repeals of federal gun
policies than in President George W. Bush’s eight years in office. From the repeal of
Reagan Era rules keeping loaded guns out of national parks to the repeal of post-9/11
policies to safeguard Amtrak from armed terrorist attacks, President Obama’s stance
on guns has endangered our communities and threatened our national security. "

Any time the Bradytards are pissed, I'm a happy squid.
Enjoy.
4 comments|post comment

A Tale Of Two Cities [22 Jul 2009|01:25pm]

throwingstardna
Last year Washington DC's handgun ban was overturned as unconstitutional. Supporters of the ban warned, as they always do, that there would be blood running in the streets and all the other usual terrifying scenarios that would occur if DC residents were allowed to keep a handgun in their home. Mayor Adrian Fenty warned that:

"More guns, anywhere in the District of Columbia, is going to lead to more crime."


This is the usual refrain from those who believe that gun availability—rather than social, economic and cultural factors—is what drives crime rates up and down. So what has happened in DC?

Violent crime has plummeted in the Washington area ... In the District and Prince George's County, homicides are down about 17 percent this year.


I'm not claiming that the drop is due to handguns being suddenly legal for law-abiding people to own. But it's pretty clear that allowing them to do so has not caused the surge in violent crime and gun crime that the anti-gun rights people all claimed would occur. It never does.

Since the ban was overturned, 515 handguns have been legally registered with the DC Police Department. Although 2,000 illegal weapons have been seized in the last year, none of the legally owned and registered handguns has been stolen. None have been used in the commission of a crime.





Last week, not too far from where I live in Jersey City, five police officers were shot by a felon in a shootout. One of the officers has since died from his wounds. Jersey City Police Chief Thomas Comey called the weapon used by the suspects:

"... a combat weapon. It's got a stock that's retractable. It had a strap on it where he had numerous shells on it. He was ready to battle ... I don't know how many times a big city chief has to stand here and say we need help to stop these weapons from hitting the streets. This weapon is manufactured for no other reason than to hunt man. So we should stop being afraid of the NRA and start being afraid of our own rights."


First of all, the weapon used by the now-dead felon was not made to "hunt man," nor was it an assault weapon. It was not even semi-automatic. It was a pump-action shotgun.

Secondly, New Jersey already has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation—even a .22 rifle that Sears used to sell is considered a banned "assault weapon." Even to purchase a "normal" rifle or a shotgun in this state you need to first acquire a Firearms Purchaser Identification Card. Needless to say, the cop-killer did not purchase or possess his shotgun legally—he had already served four years in prison for illegal possession of a firearm—a direct violation of both State and Federal Law.

So I'm wondering just what gun laws Police Chief Comey thinks NJ doesn't already have that would have prevented a career criminal from illegally acquiring a pump-action shotgun.
7 comments|post comment

[06 May 2009|02:34pm]

elmo_iscariot
If this attempted armed rape and mass murder of college students had been sucessful, you'd be hearing it trumpeted on the news as the reason we need even more restrictive gun laws.

Because the crime was prevented by a student with his own gun, there's a good chance you won't hear about it on the news at all.

All the pontificating about how so many trillion orphans are murdered by guns every minute falls flat not because gun owners don't care about people's suffering, but because there's no strong evidence to show that removing the guns actually saves any lives, and any benefits that may exist have to be balanced against the harm of disarming innocent people. A gun allows one innocent person to stand up to two armed criminals, and that's a hell of a thing to throw away in the unproven hope of preventing some hypothetical, unmeasurable number of deaths.
6 comments|post comment

[14 Apr 2009|08:05pm]

doctorogenki
There has been a lot of whining about so-called 'assault weapons' in the media over the last few months, in large part because of some highly publicized shootings. Why these were so much more newsworthy than a host of other events and issues is a topic for another time.

I know that the media never lets facts get in the way of a good emotional story, but we can hope law makers are more intellectually honest. To that end, I present to you the official numbers from the most recently available Uniform Crime Report, courtesy of the .gov and the FBI, and some conclusions based on the numbers.

Murder by type of weapon, 2007 (per FBI):

Total - 14,831
Firearms - 10,086
Handguns - 7,361
Rifles - 450
Shotguns - 455
Unknown - 1,820
Knives - 1,796
Other weapons - 2,095
Hands, fists, feet, etc. - 854

So we can gather:

1) You are twice as likely to be stabbed to death than killed with a shotgun or rifle of ANY type, regardless of design or magazine capacity.

2) You are more than twice as likely to be killed with lead pipes, golf clubs and baseball bats than killed with a shotgun or rifle of ANY type, regardless of design or magazine capacity.

3) You are as likely to be beaten to death with bare hands and feet as killed with a shotgun or rifle of ANY type, regardless of design or magazine capacity.

Also of note, the CDC numbers detailing who died at what age from what. The numbers toutedby the brady bunch change quite a bit when you only include REAL children age 0-14.Collapse )
post comment

The "goodguy wins" event [13 Apr 2009|06:44pm]

timtad
[ mood | lazy ]

The "goodguy wins" events don't get the same press as "criminal shoots kids and puppies" event, because hey; if it Bleeds, it leads

http://www.thestate.com/local/story/747998.html

A robber who walked into the Columbia downtown Alcoholics Anonymous center, pulled out a gun and demanded money was killed in a burst of gunfire from an AA visitor’s gun, police said.

“Gimme what you got,” witnesses quoted the robber as saying when he entered the AA building at 2015 College St. in Five Points about 10:48 p.m. Saturday. They said he brandished a .25-caliber handgun.

At that point, as one AA visitor dropped something on the floor — possibly his wallet — another AA visitor pulled out his own pistol and shot the robber “multiple times,” police said.


Columbia police reported that an 18-year-old man who attempted an armed robbery of an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting late Saturday night at the ACOA Club at 2015 College St. in Five Points was shot and killed by someone in the meeting who police say carried a legally concealed handgun.

2 comments|post comment

[08 Apr 2009|01:55pm]

doctorogenki
Hi there, gun control advocates and hoplophobes, let me help you put a face to YOUR victims.

Girl gets raped on NYC subway platform after screaming to subway worker who is inside a protective glass shield. Subway worker pushes help/call police button and then does nothing as rapist manhandles her back down the stairs to the platform.

Looks like MSNBC's embed code is bad, so here's the link to the video.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/30105077#30105077


Photobucket

And remember kids:

When seconds count (or you're surrounded by cowards), the police are only minutes away.

post comment

Why legal citizens with concealed firearms are a good thing [05 Apr 2009|12:59pm]

tattooedkingpin
County DA: No shooting victims could've been saved
By MICHAEL RUBINKAM, Associated Press Writer Michael Rubinkam, Associated Press Writer 10 mins ago

BINGHAMTON, N.Y. – A faster response by emergency officials to the attack at an immigrant services center in Binghamton would have saved no lives, a county prosecutor said Sunday.

Authorities investigating Friday's massacre at the American Civic Association have faced questions about the speed and manner of the response to the attack, in which a gunman killed 13 people and then himself.

Survivors reported huddling for hours in a basement, not knowing whether they were still in danger.

"We can definitely say no one was shot after the police arrival," said Broome County District Attorney Gerald F. Mollen.

"Nobody could have been saved if the police walked in the door that first minute," he said.

Police Chief Joseph Zikuski said police received several 911 calls in broken English even before a wounded receptionist called police to report a gunman was in the building.

He said a review of calls shows police officers were at the scene five minutes before the receptionist's call. Police had earlier reported that it was that call which brought police to the immigration center.

A SWAT team entered the building at 11:13 a.m. Friday, 43 minutes after the first call to police.

Zikuski said that the gunman, 41-year-old Jiverly Wong, had recently visited a firing range weekly but that authorities still don't know his motive.

Authorities don't know whether he had a particular target, and Zikuski said the choice of targets may have even been random.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090405/ap_on_re_us/binghamton_shootings

(emphasis mine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This article is a fantastic example of why concealed carry by law-abiding citizens is a good thing. Even the authorities in this case admit that they were essentially no help to the people trapped inside and murdered by this lunatic.

Of course, I'm not going to go so far as to say that an individual with a CCW would have been able to stop the shooter before he killed as many as he did, because there's no way to tell for sure.

I will say that an individual having the tools with which to mount a meaningful attempt at defending their own lives and the lives of others against a cold-blooded murderer is a very good thing, regardless of whether or not they're able to actually succeed in that attempt.

Let's face it - the responsibility to carry the most effective tools for self-defense is a big one. For some, it's much easier to pass that responsibility on to the police, but sometimes (many times), they're just not able to arrive in time.

Properly trained, private citizens can be, and often are. If the numbers of those individuals increase, that's a good thing. It will not stop these insane individuals from committing their crimes, but it's a good bet that those crimes will cost less innocent lives.
2 comments|post comment

Erm... eh? [19 Mar 2009|11:08pm]

calysto
I'm still pretty uninformed, on the whole, regarding guns and gun rights, but this seems bizarre...

A court blocked a new rule which would allow licensed firearm owners with concealed carry permits to carry licensed concealed weapons in national parks: [article]
3 comments|post comment

"I Wish I'd Had A Gun, Not A Camera" [30 Nov 2008|01:54pm]

tattooedkingpin
Interesting article from The Belfast Telegraph, in which a reporter talks to an employee of a Mumbai-based newspaper who was present in the train station during one of the terrorist attacks.

The entire article is fascinating, but the parts I've bolded, I think are specifically of interest to this group.


Mumbai photographer: I wish I'd had a gun, not a camera. Armed police would not fire back

Jerome Taylor talks to the photographer whose picture went around the world
Saturday, 29 November 2008

It is the photograph that has dominated the world's front pages, casting an astonishing light on the fresh-faced killers who brought terror to the heart of India's most vibrant city. Now it can be revealed how the astonishing picture came to be taken by a newspaper photographer who hid inside a train carriage as gunfire erupted all around him.

Sebastian D'Souza, a picture editor at the Mumbai Mirror, whose offices are just opposite the city's Chhatrapati Shivaji station, heard the gunfire erupt and ran towards the terminus. "I ran into the first carriage of one of the trains on the platform to try and get a shot but couldn't get a good angle, so I moved to the second carriage and waited for the gunmen to walk by," he said. "They were shooting from waist height and fired at anything that moved. I briefly had time to take a couple of frames using a telephoto lens. I think they saw me taking photographs but theydidn't seem to care."

The gunmen were terrifyingly professional, making sure at least one of them was able to fire their rifle while the other reloaded. By the time he managed to capture the killer on camera, Mr D'Souza had already seen two gunmen calmly stroll across the station concourse shooting both civilians and policemen, many of whom, he said, were armed but did not fire back. "I first saw the gunmen outside the station," Mr D'Souza said. "With their rucksacks and Western clothes they looked like backpackers, not terrorists, but they were very heavily armed and clearly knew how to use their rifles.

"Towards the station entrance, there are a number of bookshops and one of the bookstore owners was trying to close his shop," he recalled. "The gunmen opened fire and the shopkeeper fell down."

But what angered Mr D'Souza almost as much were the masses of armed police hiding in the area who simply refused to shoot back. "There were armed policemen hiding all around the station but none of them did anything," he said. "At one point, I ran up to them and told them to use their weapons. I said, 'Shoot them, they're sitting ducks!' but they just didn't shoot back."

As the gunmen fired at policemen taking cover across the street, Mr D'Souza realised a train was pulling into the station unaware of the horror within. "I couldn't believe it. We rushed to the platform and told everyone to head towards the back of the station. Those who were older and couldn't run, we told them to stay put."

The militants returned inside the station and headed towards a rear exit towards Chowpatty Beach. Mr D'Souza added: "I told some policemen the gunmen had moved towards the rear of the station but they refused to follow them. What is the point if having policemen with guns if they refuse to use them? I only wish I had a gun rather than a camera."

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/article14086308.ece
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The comments I bolded are not meant to downplay the importance of the police in such a terrible situation - it's meant to illustrate that everyone, officer or not, is subject to the same human emotions and reactions as the rest of us. All the training in the world won't do you any good if you can't wrap your mind around what's happening and convince your body to react.

That's why it's a good thing for citizens to be able to own and carry guns for their own self-defense. If the time comes when an individual is forced to use deadly force to defend themselve against an attack, having that option and not being able to use it is still preferable to needing it, but not having it available.
1 comment|post comment

[08 Nov 2008|10:59pm]

doctorogenki
All link to the same place, for now.

Quite simply, we've never had so many tools to be so organized. We as a group, have enormous potential. Lets not allow these next four years to result in anything but a furthering of the true meaning of the Second Amendment.

http://www.USGRC.INFO
http://www.USGRC.NET
http://www.USGRC.ORG
http://www.USGUNRIGHTSCOALITION.COM
http://www.USGUNRIGHTSCOALITION.INFO
http://www.USGUNRIGHTSCOALITION.NET
http://www.USGUNRIGHTSCOALITION.ORG


http://www.youtube.com/user/USGRC
post comment

Criminals for Gun Control [23 Oct 2008|10:18pm]

timtad
post comment

Thought on "Gun Culture" [25 Aug 2008|01:33am]

calysto
[ mood | thoughtful ]

I made a post in my personal journal [here] which I did not immediately think of as being related to guns or gun violence, but the more I thought about it after I made the post... it might be.

Take a look... I am not trying to drive traffic to my journal. Post your comments about it here in this community and in this post... (not necessarily in my original post, I meant this one here.) I'd cross-post it here but it wouldn't be entirely appropriate so I decided instead to point to it so we could just discuss the part of it which might relate to America's problem with gun violence.

9 comments|post comment

[07 Aug 2008|12:41pm]

calysto
Note: I have no agenda in asking this question. It's just an intellectual curiosity which occurred to me.

When the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution was written, flint-locks were state-of-the-art weaponry. The men who wrote the Bill of Rights, brilliant though they were, could never have envisioned weapon technology today.

This thought led me to wonder: If the United States were new today and the same men were writing the Bill of Rights today... would they phrase the second amendment differently? Would they include caveats or restrictions? Or would they write it the same way?

Again. No agenda. Just a thought for discussion.
21 comments|post comment

The Flight 93 Effect [28 Jul 2008|11:28pm]

calysto
On 9/11, after the first three planes crashed into buildings, it became clear to the passengers on Flight 93 what fate had in store for them. Once they realized what was happening, they rushed the cockpit, attacked the hijackers, and took their fate into their own hands.

Consequently I have often speculated that no hijacking will ever be successful over American soil again... simply because the passengers, knowing what might be in store, will react violently. There is little chance any more that a hijacking will result in just a few nervous hours followed by a negotiated surrender. No passengers flying on an American jet today would allow a hijacking to take place. Surely would-be hijackers must know this too. Hence why I imagine no hijackings will be attempted over American soil for some time.

But I have often thought that this "Flight 93 Effect" as I term it extends beyond airline security.

Sunday morning a crazed man entered a Tennessee church with a shotgun and 76 shotgun shells. Papers discovered later at his home prove that he intended to continue shooting everyone he could until the police showed up. He then intended to shoot the police until he was shot and killed himself.

Instead of going down as planned, the parishioners rushed and tackled him the moment he began his initial reload. They held him down until the police arrived to take him away. There was a time not long past when fear would have gripped the average victim for far longer before anyone got involved. Many more would have died.

I'm not saying for sure that the immediate assertive response from his intended victims was a result of the "Flight 93 Effect" (or an extension of that, the victims could have remembered what happened at Virginia Tech -- the same effect would have resulted from such a realization) but there seems to be a trend in the news the last few years. It seems to be an end to victimization and the beginning of ordinary people storming the ramparts rather than being cut down, regardless the method.

Anyone else notice this sort of thing happening?
11 comments|post comment

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]