Comfortable With a Flag

Liberal means something very different in Europe and South America, for example, than it does in the US. Abroad, it follows more closely along the classic 18th century lines of individual liberty and is more like libertarianism - to an extent - than in America. One can argue that the evolution of liberalism in North America as an interventionist, statist, and progressive ideology or perspective has to do with conservatism in America in past ages. And that brings one to the institution of slavery and the shootings in Charleston and even the reasons that Dylann Roof apparently gave for the killings before he opened fire.

Already the debate over the Civil War and the Confederate Flag has been re-ignited by the tragedy in South Carolina. The fact that the flag has flown in recent years on the masthead provides an inevitable target as metaphor and as history. That the Civil War was about more than slavery is clear. That secession had to do with state rights is clear. That a key state right was to preserve slavery and was proudly announced in some of the declarations is also clear. One cannot bury the support for slavery under the ashes, deep and settled under generations of growth and prosperity, of the Civil War. To suggest that slavery would have withered away with the years is to posit an unlikely and unprovable theoretical. Perhaps the Supreme Court, slowly and agonizingly for those in chains, would have ended the institution. But that is impossible to tell and best left to those who wish to argue that point.

Whether Dylann Roof is found insane or not, he acted out of racist hatred. That cannot be denied. And neither can conservatives who are uncomfortable with symbols like the Confederate Flag be denied as not being true conservatives. Ben Carson's pointing out that intolerance and divisiveness - the result of the culture wars which in part began as conservative, in the broadest sense, reaction to radical liberation theories diffusing out into popular culture from the 60's onwards - are fueling hatred or anger at every level on every issue. That comes from someone of faith who laments the lack of social values that unify rather than divide. Or as Bobby Jindal said, let's fill the churches and pray together. The law enforcement agencies did rapid and admirable work apprehending a dangerous and deranged young man. The courts will do the slow and deliberate work of ensuring justice is done and is seen to be done. The churches should provide a place of prayer and healing. And someone horrified by the violence and the hatred that motivated it, and who believes in law and order and the constitution, has every right to be so without prostrating herself or himself before Washington DC bureaucrats and their regulations. Or without having to be in the least bit comfortable with the Confederate Battle Flag.

Posted by Keeley at June 19, 2015 2:25 PM
Comments
Comment #395987

Agree.

Confederate Battle Flags need to be retired to museums, not flown in a prominent position on state grounds.

Posted by: Rich at June 19, 2015 5:03 PM
Comment #395988

Nine innocent people were murdered. Not because of some flag, TV station, voice on the radio, inanimate object, or political party.
Those who use this terrible event to push an agenda, are crapping all over the memory of those poor people.

Posted by: kctim at June 19, 2015 5:36 PM
Comment #395989

Well said Tim. It makes me angry when I witness Americans disrespecting our national flag, but I don’t do violence to them. Every state is entitled to honor their history in any manner they choose.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 19, 2015 5:46 PM
Comment #395990

kctim,

You would have to be deaf, dumb or blind not to notice the agenda of this killer and his prominently displayed symbols, one of which was the Confederate battle flag.

Royal,

We should remember that the flag of this country is the stars and stripes, not the battle flag of insurrectionists. The proper place to honor history is in museums.

Posted by: Rich at June 19, 2015 6:54 PM
Comment #395991

Let’s be a little more specific about what the civil war was about and what the Confederate battle flag represented. It was slavery. Period.

“Other seceding states echoed South Carolina. “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world,” proclaimed Mississippi in its own secession declaration, passed Jan. 9, 1861. “Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of the commerce of the earth. . . . A blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths-about-why-the-south-seceded/2011/01/03/ABHr6jD_story.html

Posted by: Rich at June 19, 2015 7:08 PM
Comment #395993

“The proper place to honor history is in museums.”

Rich, that is your opinion to which you are certainly entitled. The citizens of every state are entitled to honor their state history in any manner they wish.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 19, 2015 7:36 PM
Comment #395994

Rich, why do you presume to lecture us on the causes and outcome of the Civil War?

Cite as many links as you please and it still remains for each state to determine how it wishes to honor its history.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 19, 2015 7:43 PM
Comment #395996

Rich, I live in TX. Can you believe that some busybodies in Wisconsin are attempting to force some of our cities from opening their council meetings with a prayer?

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 19, 2015 7:52 PM
Comment #395997

Royal,

The United States of America fought one of its bloodiest wars over this issue. If you think that it is a good idea for some states to continue to fly the flag of the defeated enemy, with all that it represents, so be it.

Posted by: Rich at June 19, 2015 8:08 PM
Comment #395998
Nine innocent people were murdered. Not because of some flag, TV station, voice on the radio, inanimate object, or political party.

Oh Bulls**t kctim. I suppose we should turn a blind eye to the hate crime because it was a right wing extremist, just like conservatives in Congress forced us to do after the 2009 DHS report.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/09/18/author-of-dhs-extremism-report-maligned-by-righ/189952

Royal your framing of the issue is wrong IMHO you would have us believe “The citizens of every state are entitled to honor their state history in any manner they wish” for two reasons.
First of all the flag in question is an old flag from the confederacy a defeated nonentity as it stands, Its like flying the British flag at the White House. The state flag of SC is not the confederate flag, Rich is right. Now as an individual at his house sure but a legislative body at the state capital no.

Secondly the confederate flag is about racism, end of story you can make up all the BS you want but the resurrection of the confederate flag was, from the 60’s on, about racism.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 19, 2015 9:14 PM
Comment #395999

j2t2.

This … subhuman … took the lives of other people. It is important to know why he did it, but it isn’t the real issue. You are never, ever, going to eradicate people who just don’t see life the same way others do. So we have to deal with that fact, unless you want to implement thought police? There are people who hate others because they are black, or gay, or yellow, or Mexican, or .

The REASON for that hate is either complete lack of empathy (narcicissim/sociopath) or a self-loathing that can only be (partially) quenched by finding something in others to hate and make themselves feel superior of.

So, what is your solution? We could arrest and put in jail anyone who has a racist thought. Doesn’t sound very feasible or even nice. We could arrest and put in jail all white people who haven’t ‘recanted’ all hatred, as if only white people suffer from this affliction (they don’t). We can continue to limit political speech of anyone we disagree with, not really what I think the notion of freedom means…

I think it is more important to find a way to get these people the help they need… whether it is to figure out how to raise their self-esteem through mentoring programs or psychriatic help fro those who have no capability to feel empathy…

Because, hating people who hate seems a bit strange to me.

the resurrection of the confederate flag was, from the 60’s on, about racism.

Not 100%, you can’t get by with that. You can think it, but then you reject the reality that some people look to that symbol for reasons other than race. The civil war wasn’t even about race, for heaven’s sake… You want to be able to make that assumption so you can lump everyone into one big pot and attack them all on one issue, but that is rarely ever the case. And it’s just as bad as saying that all think the same way…

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 19, 2015 11:04 PM
Comment #396001

Rhinehold,

“The civil war wasn’t even about race, for heaven’s sake’”

Well, it was certainly about slavery and blacks were the vast majority of slaves. The racial justification for using blacks as slaves was well articulated by leadership of the seccessionist movement:

“Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth…” “Corner Stone” Speech, Alexander H. Stephens, Savannah, Georgia March 21, 1861

Slavery was morally justified on the concept that the “negro” was inferior to the white man and subordinate to him in the natural order. This is the continuing basis of race hatred in America.

Posted by: Rich at June 19, 2015 11:34 PM
Comment #396002

Rhinehold, Thank you for broaching the subject. I was hoping for Royal to make a similar statement as it ties into what was said in another thread.

But first lets talk about other reasons for the hate. I would offer a constant barrage of myth misinformation half truths and outright lies from the conservative movement as reason for concern. I see many memes on Facebook and such that although devoid of truth are taken as fact by many people, race is one that seems to happen often. Many white people seem to believe that blacks are some how gaining such ground that they have advantages not available to whites, the same could be said for immigrants, Muslims and well any other minority. It is a serious problem yet many conservatives spread the BS as if it were fact. When asked to support the BS with anything close to a fact they fade away but the damage is done in the minds of many easily led youngsters.

My solution ties into the previous thread, It is basic common decency, or morality as Royal would say. If those that demand their freedom cannot control themselves when they have said freedom, are they really worthy of the freedom they seem to insist upon. When we cannot self govern the government steps in. Then we blame the government.

The shooter was egged on by state legislators who thought their defiance of Obama would be demonstrated by a racist flag at the statehouse, by conservatives who think prejudice and hatred is some sort of moral authority. The unbalanced are easily led and do not question the outrages they come across on the internet they instead seem to feel they need to solve the problem. When they have easy access to the weaponry to kill en mass, as according to the NRA the mentally ill should have, when they are bombarded with propaganda designed to incite hatred from the TV radio and internet, when they are defended by the conservatives in power then those accountable should be held responsible. But of course we can’t hold them responsible as they are protected by the Constitution which is what the founding fathers intended, right?

Without decency and responsibility the answer is a police state Rhinehold. We, as a people, have demonstrated since Reagan that we are willing to accept a police state as long as we aren’t the target, don’t you agree?

Not 100%, you can’t get by with that. You can think it, but then you reject the reality that some people look to that symbol for reasons other than race. The civil war wasn’t even about race, for heaven’s sake…

Oh Jesus Rhinehold, so it’s 99% so what. Lets not dignify the racist just because a handful of people are into civil war reenactments for crying out loud. DO you rally believe the confederate flag is flown at the SC capitol for anything other than racism? If so then why wasn’t it flown at half mast as the American and real state flag was flown due to the mass killing at the church?

BTW the civil war was all about race, it may have been disguised as free labor and such but make no mistake it was about keeping supposedly inferior races as slaves.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 20, 2015 12:12 AM
Comment #396003
Well, it was certainly about slavery and blacks were the vast majority of slaves.

It was about slavery, not race. In fact, most of the people wanting to end slavery at the time still thought that black people were ‘inferior’ to whites. The issue was about whether the federal government could tell the states how to run their economies and if they could tell a state that one person could ‘own’ another.

The emancipation proclamation didn’t even free all slaves, only those in the south, as a means to get black people to fight for the union…

Remember Lincoln, the abolitionist, who said the following?

There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas …
I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.

It wasn’t about racism, it was slavery and the rights of states who wanted to continue the practice to do so. Today, we don’t see how anyone with a rational mind could separate those two things, but most at the time did.

“The slavery issue was primarily about whether the system of slavery was an anachronistic evil that was incompatible with Republicanism in the United States, or a state-based property system compatible with and protected by the Constitution, as had been the case in the Roman Republic. The strategy of the anti-slavery forces was containment — to stop the expansion and thus put slavery on a path to gradual extinction. To slave holding interests in the South, this strategy was perceived as infringing upon their Constitutional rights. Slavery was being phased out of existence in the North, where black men had in some cases been granted the franchise or even served as representatives; it was fading in the border states and urban areas, but was expanding in highly profitable cotton districts of the south.”

BTW, most people forget this but not all slaves were ‘black’. Voluntary slavery was a thing as well… (indentured servitude)

It was about being able to treat people as property, not that black people were or weren’t inferior to white people or that they should be treated equally…

This is the continuing basis of race hatred in America.

No, just as I stated above. It is about self-loathing and finding something to ‘hate’ about others who are different than you to lift yourself up. Racists almost always also hate jews, gays, Mexicans, etc… Not understanding this is just prolonging the issue.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 20, 2015 12:15 AM
Comment #396004
The shooter was egged on by state legislators who thought their defiance of Obama would be demonstrated by a racist flag at the statehouse, by conservatives who think prejudice and hatred is some sort of moral authority.

I would like to see the proof of this since you state it as factual…

When they have easy access to the weaponry to kill en mass, as according to the NRA the mentally ill should have, when they are bombarded with propaganda designed to incite hatred from the TV radio and internet, when they are defended by the conservatives in power then those accountable should be held responsible.

And they have access to OTHER methods to kill en mass that aren’t guns.

The solution from the left is because a small percentage of people can’t handle having a gun, no one should be able to have a gun… It’s a common failure in logic that I see in many areas, by both left and right politicians. Some people can’t handle gambling so make it illegal. Some people won’t help others so let’s make them. Some people can’t handle their weight, so legislate limits on soda, etc etc ad naseum.

The problem isn’t the GUNS, it’s not the easy access to GUNS, it’s that some people are just mentally disturbed. It’s a reality of life that we aren’t addressing because some people want to focus on the means of their aggression, not their aggression. This person could have just as easily put together a fertilizer bomb like Timothy McVeigh did and done even more damage… Making guns illegal wouldn’t have prevented this outrage…

I mean, the how does that mentality work? “I want to kill some people even though it is illegal, but I would have to have a gun, which is also illegal and I don’t want to break the law, so I am thwarted”?

That’s ignoring that he didn’t buy the gun, it was given to him. Steven King was on twitter saying that we should ban 30 clip magazines, when this shooter didn’t have one. In fact he reloaded several times!

We, as a people, have demonstrated since Reagan that we are willing to accept a police state as long as we aren’t the target, don’t you agree?

Yes, both progressives and conservatives have been hell bent on turning this country into one. Only us libertarians are trying to stem this tide unfortunately.

BTW the civil war was all about race, it may have been disguised as free labor and such but make no mistake it was about keeping supposedly inferior races as slaves

1) Most abolitionists still felt that white’s were superior (they were racists) including Lincoln.

2) Not all slaves were black. Most slaves not by choice were, but it was about all slavery, not just white/black slavery.

3) People use all kinds of things as the ‘reason’ for their hate, you can just look at the bible, a book that was supposed to inspire people, as a symbol for hatred by those who choose to make it that way. The same for the Koran, etc.

4) Making assumptions about ‘all people’ who have a particular political belief based on the actions of ‘some people’ is little difference than racism, IMO.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 20, 2015 12:37 AM
Comment #396007

Rhinehold, here is an interesting read on several of the issues you raise.

http://www.thetattooedprof.com/archives/407

I am short on time so I will address the guns issue a bit later.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 20, 2015 10:49 AM
Comment #396008

Rhinehold wrote; “It’s a reality of life that we aren’t addressing because some people want to focus on the means of their aggression, not their aggression.”

Brilliantly and succinctly written. Thanks!

j2, thanks for the link which I read and found interesting and compelling. I do not disagree with the author.

My point, and only point, is that each state may honor its history in any manner approved by its citizens. It is not proper or desirable to examine the physiological reasons the citizens of a state prefer something others do not. To accuse the citizenry of a state of racism because of a prerogative is neither factual or desirable. Do we find evidence of state sponsored racism in SC not found in our other states? Are we taking an isolated practice and conflating it into a firestorm?

We must remember that the very founding of our nation required accommodation of the Southern states views on race.

I can not find any prohibition in our Constitution or federal laws that prevent a state from flying any flag they wish.

The voters of SC are entitled, as citizens of both this nation and their state, to self-determine their public acts.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 20, 2015 1:36 PM
Comment #396009

Royal was the confederate flag ever the state flag of South Carolina? For that matter was it ever the flag of the confederacy? Seems it was a battle flag for Virginia and Tennessee. According to historians what we call the confederate flag today was forgotten until the KKK started using it. So how does one logically arrive at anything but racism when it comes to this particular flag, after all the twisted logic to justify it flying at the state capitol, it is the flag of the KKK not a historical flag of South Carolina.

The second point I would like to make is the tyranny of the majority when it comes to the confederate flag flying at the state capitol. Why should we same it is the desire of all the people of the state not just a few KKK members with power in the state legislature.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 20, 2015 4:36 PM
Comment #396010

Why should we same it is the desire of all the people of the state not just a few KKK members with power in the state legislature.
Posted by: j2t2 at June 20, 2015 4:36 PM

j2, I can point to many, many popular opinions of the American people that are resisted and/or rejected by politicians, courts and those on the left and right.

When the citizens of SC elect folks who wish to change their flag policy it will happen. It really isn’t your business unless you live there.

In our Democratic Republic we don’t live by majority rule or popular opinion. Thank God and our founders.

The propensity for violence against another begins in the mind of the perpetrator. It does not begin with the procurement of a weapon.

A FREE people may not always be SAFE, and a SAFE people may not always be FREE. I prefer to always be FREE.

Our Founders, based upon their first-hand knowledge of tyranny, believed it was paramount that our citizens have the ability to fight back against those who would threaten their lives or their freedom, whether by an individual or a government. They enshrined that idea in our Founding Documents.

It is obvious that law enforcement can not protect us from random acts of violence. The solution is not to disarm the law-abiding. Such an act would only make the law-abiding more vulnerable to acts of violence.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 20, 2015 5:33 PM
Comment #396011
When the citizens of SC elect folks who wish to change their flag policy it will happen. It really isn’t your business unless you live there.

My initial position was the flag is on government property and therefore not someones individual right. I can’t find where this position has been court tested so I don’t know the validity of it.

I do agree it is up to the people of South Carolina but I disagree that it isn’t none of my business. I think we should remember South Carolina is in the union and is part of the United States.

As for the dishonest ruses used by supporters of the confederate flag it is BS. I think they should have the honesty to say yes it is racist but so what we like it and explain why they like it flying at their state capitol. At least it isn’t a burning cross and a white sheet like other KKK symbols, well…. yet anyway.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 21, 2015 1:03 PM
Comment #396012
So, what is your solution?

Rhinehold, we are in an arms race with ourselves. The problem is we just aren’t responsible enough as a people any longer.

The solution from the left is because a small percentage of people can’t handle having a gun, no one should be able to have a gun… It’s a common failure in logic that I see in many areas, by both left and right politicians.

The alternative is as equally illogical Rhinehold. We all have weapons all the time just increases the level of violence. I would also question the “small percentage” as it seems to not include the accidental shootings or something. We have a higher murder rate than most other 1st world countries. Most of them have very restrictive limits on who owns guns. It seems to work, while it isn’t the only solution it appears to be the one that is easiest to implement.

There are many examples of abuses by police , trained users and other “responsible ” gun owners Rhinehold that suggest we as a whole just aren’t capable of gun ownership. Now places like Switzerland than has a military rifle in most houses don’t seem to have the problems we do, perhaps the answer is a military requirement for those that keep firearms in the house.

But all of this misses the the mark doesn’t it. I mean the gun does just sit there and without someone operating it….

SO what is the answer? Should we as a people should have our 2nd amendment right revoked. Because we just don’t deserve it any more. We have abused it. We have to many individuals who are not responsible, do not have the mental capabilities to be in command of a deadly weapon. Laws don’t work. Hell even a moderate amount of police seem unable to use a firearm responsibly. We have slid down hill over the years as a country. We have become hate filled uneducated mean spirited people intent on serving only ourselves.

Technology has advanced beyond us. We have the capability to fire multiple rounds so quickly anymore. When the Constitution was written each round had to be packed and such giving us the extra few seconds to think about our actions.

Royal will tell you it is due to liberal philosophy although I cannot find anything in liberal philosophy that would lead one to that conclusion. Maybe he can speak to it more.

I would say it is because we have spread many myths about all different people and causes to the point most of us are angry to much of the time. The credit goes to the top of the food chain as they have divided us and it seems conquered as we shoot each other over the least little thing.

I credit conservative ideology for many of us becoming so anti intellectual. We have watched as our education system has been picked apart to save us from unions. We have watched as the Limbaugh’s have degraded the intelligent among us and so on. Educated minds don’t hate, uneducated minds do.

We have not handled globalization well it seems and so far it has whipped us.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 21, 2015 1:52 PM
Comment #396015


I heard Gene Robinson, a fellow South Carolinian, incorrectly say that the battle flag was flown over the State House in as a big middle finger to the federal government. The battle flag was put up in 1961 by then Gov. Fritz Hollings as part of the Centennial Civil War remembrance that was taking place nationwide. The Federal government had established the Civil War Centennial Commission in 1957 and opening ceremonies were held at Fort Sumter. Governor Hollings put the flag up based on history and probably nothing else, and it was only intended to be up there for a short while (nobody really thought about it staying up). It was put up in cooperation with a Federal imitative and not as a middle finger to it.

That’s how it got there but then it got entangled in the political issues of day much like it is being entangled in this tragedy. And the political issue of the day in South Carolina was segregation. The Centennial celebration in Charleston got off to a rocky start because there were black representatives from other States attending the celebration. When they were denied entrance to the segregated Francis Marion Hotel in Charleston, the place where many of the events were being held, President Kennedy has to step in and broker a compromise. Members of the Legislatures then started passing resolutions and a resolution was passed that had the battle flag staying on top of the State House indefinitely. The people who often complain that the meaning of the flag has been changed are in fact the ones that probably changed it the most. The flag did become a middle finger to President Kennedy and a symbol for segregation only because people used it as such.

Fast forward to the 90s and the political pressure that was being placed on South Carolina to remove the flag. Segregation was no longer a political movement although there were still plenty of racists in politics. But there were also historians and people with “Southern Pride.” Many felt that if the flag came down it would lead to the removal of other remembrances of the Confederacy. The final compromise, removing it and placing it on a separate poll behind the State House, is interesting because the back of the State House is actually on the side of the Columbia business district as the State House technically faces south. Essentially they put it right on Main Street in exchange for a monument honoring African Americans on the same grounds. To rest the fears of the slippery slope they required a 2/3 majority to do anything else with the flag, and that’s why Gov. Haley couldn’t take it down for even a day in honor of the victims in Charleston.

And the slippery slope worries were justified. As soon as the compromise was enacted in 2000 the NAACP removed their support for the deal. South Carolina has been boycotted by them ever since. After the tragedy of the other day there were renewed calls for re-naming streets named after Generals of the confederacy like Hampton in addition to taking the flag down. At some point I believe that South Carolina will have another debate on the issue but any pressure to force the issue from the outside will be met with resistance. Around here it always does. The good news is the people who really care about history are the ones mostly likely to re-open the debate since if you know the history you know the flag shouldn’t have been on the State House in the first place. At least for more than a week.

Posted by: George in SC at June 22, 2015 10:15 AM
Comment #396016

j2t2 on the gun issue I’m looking forward to your ideas. Of the “common sense” reforms that have been tried before the only one that would have been in effect in this case was the 10 round magazine. From what is sounds he had plenty of time to reload and he on his own let some people live so I doubt that would have had an impact in this case.

You could propose the banning of the importation, manufacture, possession of all firearms and ammo. Of course I’m reminded of all the Cuban cigars I’ve smoked in the past 20 years.

In the end evil has a way.

Posted by: George in SC at June 22, 2015 11:18 AM
Comment #396017

Rumor out of Columbia is a deal has been struck and the flag will come down.

Posted by: George in SC at June 22, 2015 3:33 PM
Comment #396018

George I have no solution to the problems I mentioned in my earlier post on this thread. I would suggest, because of the present situation we find the country in, all of us should revert to the golden days of yesteryear, the wild west, when(at least on TV) everybody was packing. We seem unable to keep the deranged, those with an evil intent, those with anger issues, those with grudges, road rage, jealousies, intent on revenge, and those as young as 3 years old from being able to acquire and then use a weapon that can kill large numbers of people.

We have a growing number of right wing extremist who have killed more people in this country than jihadist over the past decade or so. But I’m sure the jihadist are trying their best to catch up.

Many Far right wingers are heavily armed and angry George, seeings as they have infiltrated the police in many states the police seem unable to deal with these white guys like they do with the mentally ill and black guys. We have open carry advocates carrying rifles and such to the grocery store so the crime must just be at such a high level they fear for their lives in most places.

Conservatives have many who advocate for getting rid of liberals and they have the ability to reach many an uneducated mind with their myths these days. We know of the rights intolerance of Muslims in this country, they have declared war on the poor, the middle class and well just about everything George.

So my solution is to pass a law requiring arming, and I mean heavily arming, everyone pass the age of 12. Every one unless they are serving a jail sentence or confined to a mental facility that is. All citizens must carry at least one of the two 2nd amendments rights (as I like to call them)with them at all times except when swimming showering etc, when it should be within easy reach. 2nd amendment number 1 is an assault rifle or shotgun, 2nd amendment number 2 is a handgun.

It a person cannot afford an assault weapon/shotgun,handgun, ammo, 30 round magazines, holsters, body armor, urban camo gear, helmets and of course safety ray bans for the cool military look then one will be provided for them along with a pack to keep it all in.

I would look to the military to provide basic training beginning at age 11 1/2 and grandfather everyone else in. I would also remove all other laws, except the full auto law, the restricts gun ownership. Saw em off as short as you want etc..

BTW I don’t include flamethrowers, anti tank weapons , surface to air missiles, grenades, etc. in the law unless the local police have such weapons. Then you can arm to the same limit as the department to defend yourself.

Of course this also includes illegal immigrants but they are only entitled to the same benefits as citizens no special benefits. And yes felons are not excluded they must carry, but only a handgun, while on parole. After parole they are free to have both of their 2nd amendments in their possession just like the rest of us.

I see no other solution. This solution will test the theory of whether or not we will become a more polite society or not as well as the notion that guns don’t kill people people kill people. We have tried to a certain degree the opposite approach without success and we ended up with a militarized police department killings people daily it seems, unable to protect church going folks, kids in school, movie goers, black kids walking down the street or anyone without substantial financial resources so it looks as if we have lost the battle.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 22, 2015 8:34 PM
Comment #396019

Hmmm…. no one wants to touch that? It’s not a set up guys it is my new opinion on the matter.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 23, 2015 2:57 PM
Comment #396020

j2t2,

You are following in the footsteps of our founders:
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 23, 2015 4:24 PM
Comment #396021

j2t2, thanks for sharing your opinion with us. Although I would not agree with your solution. Your opinion would seem to want to take drastic steps to solve the problem. My opinion might be as drastic. I would confiscate all guns that do not have a certificate of gun insurance by the owner except of course for military and law enforcement personnel. That weapon would be held until such proof could be presented. The military and law enforcement would be required to be able to store the weapon in a secure manner and would need to also have gun ownership insurance certification by the organization that they are employed by.

I don’t really envision either solution coming to fruition. Perhaps incremental steps would help but we don’t seem to be able to get that done. So either of the drastic solutions might be necessary.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 24, 2015 11:45 AM
Comment #396022

I don’t think either j2t2’s provide a gun to everyone over 11 1/2 or Speak’s confiscation/registration would qualify as “common sense.” That term was created by some political operative so that candidates could offer up a solution without having to define it. In the political world reality is just a nuisance. I believe instead that their responses are really what is required: to think big and go big.

Common sense to me means you play the statistics. About 75% percent of violent criminals had prior felony offenses. That means they shouldn’t have a gun in the first place. So 10 years for “felon with a firearm” would be a good starting point. And make it a felony for selling or giving a gun to a felon and not just knowingly transferring. Even without a fine or jail time someone like me would never transfer a gun without a NICS check because I would lose the rights to all of my guns. You’ll put more folks in jail, but if you ease up on the war on drugs there should be room. It’s all about priorities.


Posted by: George in SC at June 24, 2015 1:38 PM
Comment #396023

GSC, well what we have now couldn’t really qualify as “common sense” either. I do appreciate your suggestion though, it is exactly what we need to start the discussion and perhaps even get some outcomes. I definitely agree with dialing back the “war on drugs”. Given the success rate it would seem to have never worked to even the smallest degree.

I still would advocate for gun ownership insurance even if your suggestion were to be implemented. Violent criminals aren’t interested in being legal but it might have an overall affect on the general populace and their ability to own guns and be accessible to others that can harm themselves or someone else. I don’t believe anything like gun ownership insurance is anywhere near being realized but to me it makes sense, even if it’s something that might be decades in the future. I understand and respect that you would not agree.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 24, 2015 3:01 PM
Comment #396024

Speak4all,

What do you mean by “gun ownership insurance?” Are you talking about liability insurance?


Posted by: Rich at June 24, 2015 5:28 PM
Comment #396025

Rich, yes. Something to try to make people who own guns accountable for their use, storage and accessibility. I don’t have all of the answers for how that could or would be structured. It would seem that a large organization like the NRA and others could help. If they encourage people to own guns they should encourage people to be responsible about that. They could possibly offer the insurance and help underwrite losses from their profits from gun sales and insurance premiums. It would be a free market solution that could help control gun negligence and promote good gun ownership. I would like to hear more of what people might think of something like that but I understand that it is something that is not really considered much.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 24, 2015 5:34 PM
Comment #396026

Rich, I understand that their already are insurance offerings like this. But are they mandatory or could they become mandatory?

Posted by: Speak4all at June 24, 2015 5:55 PM
Comment #396027

An insurance mandate would require repealing the 2nd Amendment, so it is a nonstarter in today’s political climate.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 24, 2015 6:40 PM
Comment #396028

Americans can use their pocketbook to boycott movies and TV and internet depiction of any kind of violence. The same tactic can be used when reporting news of violence. No in depth reporting, just the facts.

If we really abhor violence, why is the depiction and reporting of it so popular?

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 24, 2015 6:53 PM
Comment #396029

“If we really abhor violence, why is the depiction and reporting of it so popular?”

Well, Royal, maybe we don’t.

Posted by: Rich at June 24, 2015 7:17 PM
Comment #396030

Speaks, confiscation isn’t possible without an amendment to the Constitution that negates the 2nd amendment. We could look at extremely harsh penalties such as the gun owner being liable for any acts committed with their weapon to include say a murder charge but IMHO that too may need a Constitutional amendment as it seems to violate the cruel and unusual clause of the 8th amendment to the Constitution.

Even with these amendments I don’t think any of these solutions will solve the problem and I don’t see Congress trying to amend the Constitution and I hope they don’t. One of the problems with confiscation is the police will still have weapons. They cannot be trusted to use their weapons correctly any longer. While it is of course just a portion that abuse the rights they have it is a growing number. The solution seems to be being armed as they tend to speak a bit more polite to those open carry types than they do to black kids walking down the street.

George I choose 12 years old as that is IMHO the average age many of use were back in the day when we went hunting and such. That and the fact that many 12 year olds have guns. The training should start young and continue as they serve in the militia over the years. I would think we could save quite a bit on military expenses should we all become self reliant for our defense.

I think that anyone that has been released from prison after serving their sentence has paid for the crime they committed. Violent offenders aren’t released for many years anymore so by the time they get out the chances they have out grown the violence a bit. We need to remember they will be released into a society that is heavily armed, to walk around unarmed is a criminal act most of the time when guns are mandatory. I say give them a fighting chance once they are back on the streets.

Another thing to remember, byou really have it in for the felons don’t you, is most of the killings, accidental and intentional are by those without a criminal record. Go look at the list of mass killers and notice that most had their weapons legally. The gangbangers will kill each other no mater what law is passed so the only defense is to arm yourself against them in case they try to attack you. Those that live and go to prison will be in for many years and come out with an out of date skill set on the weapons used in the future and suffer the disadvantage of not having an assault rifle/shotgun at their disposal.

So if we are to go big we need to include everyone. Its either every one carries or everyone has their weapons confiscated. Another new law just complicates things.

Politically I would ask conservatives in Congress to pay a big price for my acquiescence on the gun control issue however.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 24, 2015 7:21 PM
Comment #396032

I tried to respond to WP, RF, Rich, and j2t2 but it is being held for review.

I will try to summarize and see if it gets through.

WP, the political climate is adversarial to what I propose but no more than abolition, women’s suffrage or Civil Rights were. They came about and so can other changes that do not have the political climate that might be apparent.

RF, we abhor confronting violence more than we abhor violence. Our food consumption process treats animals in captivity with less dignity then hunting them in the wild and no one really objects to that much.

Rich, not just maybe but definitely.

j2t2, I believe in the ability to change the constitution as we have done in the past and will do in the future. To not do that would desecrate the the memory of the wise men that gave us the document with the ability to change it when we need to. Good luck getting me to own a weapon much less even have one in near me. Not gonna happen.

Gun control will be accomplished through the laboratories of our country. The individual states.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 25, 2015 10:01 AM
Comment #396033

I will try my original comment without any links. That could be why it was held. This is more verbose than my summary in the previous comment but there were points I wanted to make.

WP, you are correct regarding the political climate but the political climate was even more adversarial for the abolitionist movement, and the women’s suffrage movement and another that I was able to personally witness, the Civil Rights Movement. I would hope you can understand that change has never been simple. None of these objectives held the political climate to be accomplished when they were proposed but they came into fruition through the will of the people and fortitude of character that was necessary. The same will occur with gun control mostly because most people understand that it is the right thing to do.

RF, we abhor confronting violence. We do not abhor violence in and of itself unless we must confront it. A good example might be very few people (I might guess 10% but have no examples to support that figure) are interested in hunting down and killing and cleaning their own animal flesh for consumption. Even though the treatment of animals in captivity for human consumption is much more violent than the act of hunting that in the wild.

Rich, it is not just maybe it is definitely true. We abhor confronting violence.

j2t2, we disagree on the constitutional change. I support that and believe that we were given a gift of the constitution by some very wise men. For us to live by only the tenets of the original document and not the spirit in which it was written, would be to desecrate the valiant effort it took to implement it. We were given the document with the specificity to be able to change it. We shall and will do that as we have done in the past.

Good luck getting me to carry a weapon or even have one in my abode. Not gonna happen. My grandson Jack would be all for it. Whenever he comes over if he didn’t bring a gun with him he will find a stick or anything else in my yard to use as a substitute. But of course he is only 8 and has much to learn in life and I hope to be there to guide him.

I would see gun ownership taking hold much like anything else in our country has, through the laboratory of individual states. But once enough of them see the benefits a federal obligation will be met, much like the movements that I mentioned in my response to WP came about.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 25, 2015 10:36 AM
Comment #396034

Abolition, Civil Rights, Universal Suffrage were all liberal movements. Even if what you are proposing makes a lot of sense, you must remember that it is an illiberal proposal. Loss aversion is a real psychological phenomenon and places insurmountable hurdles in today’s political climate. There are other arenas where we are much better off focusing our energies.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 25, 2015 11:00 AM
Comment #396035

WP, there will be and are arenas that we can better focus our energies on but not to the exclusion of gun control. It is inherent to our belief in doing the right thing and that will outweigh any aversions that may arise and are already there. A good example might be the SC decision today to uphold the PPACA subsidies. This was a 6-3 decision that was predicted to be way closer than that, with a distinct possibility of going the opposite way by many. We already have Justice Scalia saying we need to change the name to SCOTUScare. I do not see any swift movement to support more gun control legislation much like the aforementioned movements and the more recent and still evolving healthcare reform movement hasn’t been accomplished swiftly. This decision today is a giant victory for our President and the people that helped elect him and support his attempts to institute change. There will be more.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 25, 2015 11:32 AM
Comment #396036

It is much simpler to pry a gun from someone’s cold dead fingers than it is to attempt to force someone to grasp one. Loss aversion can work both ways. My aversion to holding a weapon completely outweighs my aversion to having one taken away. But that’s me, that’s not everyone. I still believe that our country is truly built on doing the right thing once we exhaust all other possibilities.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 25, 2015 11:38 AM
Comment #396037

Guns Don’t Kill People
Yesterday I placed my shotgun on the front porch, gave it six shells, and noticing it had not legs, placed it in a wheelchair to help it get around.

While I was gone, the mailman delivered my mail, the boy across the street picked up my yard, a girl walked her dog down the street, and quite a few cars stopped at the stop sign near my house.

After 10 hours, I checked on the shot gun. It had not rolled outside and it had not killed any one in spite of the opportunities that had been presented.

Can you imagine how surprised I was, with all the hype about how dangerous guns are and how they kill people? Either the killing is by people misusing guns or I’m in possession of the laziest gun in the world.

So now I am off to check on my spoons, because I hear they make people fat.

Posted by: tom humes at June 26, 2015 7:54 AM
Comment #396038

So Tom are you suggesting we wait until people kill someone whether it be intentionally or accidentally, and then lock them up? It doesn’t solve the problem because the person shot is still dead. We are looking at ideas to prevent the shooting in the first place. What are your ideas on that?

Posted by: j2t2 at June 26, 2015 8:33 AM
Comment #396039

TH, guns don’t kill people, people with guns kill people. Your attempts to make humorous a serious situation is typical of someone who is unable to comprehend the seriousness of the discussion and uses anything they can think of to deride the seriousness that they cannot comprehend. Plus your comedy routine needs a lot of work, don’t quit your day job.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 26, 2015 9:24 AM
Comment #396041

Tom is right, it’s the person behind the gun that kills. It takes someone to pull the trigger it don’t pull itself. Every time there is a violent act with a gun people come out the wood work and cry for gun control. How about PEOPLE CONTROL? So many times things are missed or blown off when a person acts strange, we don’t see the signs or just don’t pay attention. Instead of more gun control make it a federal offence for anyone who commits a crime with a gun with stricter sentences even if no one was harmed and double if the gun used was illegally obtained. Speaks your idea of insurance is a good idea for the legal gun owner in case of accidents. I don’t think a criminal is going to worry about insurance when he/she illegally obtains a gun.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 26, 2015 10:40 AM
Comment #396042

j2t2
Your question is rhetorical and ignorant, but my response is simple. Put the guns in wheelchairs

speaks
You speak from ignorance. You do know me so quit trying to use your analysis on who I am. If you want to try semantics don’t quit your job whether night or days.

Rich
We all know that is truth. Let me go one step further. Why don’t the anti-gun folks step forward and want to do more control on alcohol. It kills, destroys and cause much harm than all those guns you want to control or destroy. In fact in 2011 over 300 were killed by gun; nearly 500 by hammer; over 600 by knives; over 12,000 by drunk drivers. So if someone dies from any of these offences then they are dead. But why do you pick on guns. Ah, here is the answer. The Constitution. There is no other reason, period.

Posted by: tom humes at June 26, 2015 11:01 AM
Comment #396043

KAP, you are correct. Gun ownership insurance will not deter a criminal. It might help keep the gun out of the hands of a criminal if the gun owner had to be held responsible for how the gun is stored and how accessible it could be. It is not meant as a solution but perhaps another incremental step towards helping to make guns and gun access safer.

th, you speak from stupidity. I don’t know you but I do know your comments are not as humorous as you think, especially in a serious discussion. Gun ownership insurance, if implemented, might help control gun violence. Any gun owner I know that is a responsible gun owner should not have any objection to the idea but I have not polled the ones I know about that. Of course the moronic gun owner that leaves their gun on the porch loaded should have to pay a price for their stupidity.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 26, 2015 11:16 AM
Comment #396044

Oh Jesus Tom did you really fall for the more hammer deaths than gun deaths myth! Yet you call others ignorant, what an a** Tom. Look Tom, over 32,000 were killed by guns in 2011. A bit over 11,000 were homicides. Blunt objects may have claimed 300 not just hammers. My god did you really believe the crap you spewed, have you no critical reasoning abilities at all?

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

It hard to have a serious discussion on the subject when you bring the myths, misinformation, half truths and outright lies to the table Tom.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 26, 2015 11:47 AM
Comment #396045

KAP, in the link to the 3 year old above who gets the longer sentence the three year old or the guy the three year old shot?

What good does adding more time onto a prison sentence do for the person shot?

Posted by: j2t2 at June 26, 2015 11:55 AM
Comment #396047

Well, another comment held for review. I’ll try again with the naughty bits removed.

This has nothing to do with flags, guns or anything discussed on the post but the SC handed down another landmark decision today(5-4). Any marriage performed in any state is now legal in all of the United States. This is yet another great victory for President Obama and our country. Equality is a good thing, especially when it is part of the fiber of our country and cannot be denied.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 26, 2015 12:10 PM
Comment #396048

J2, In answer to your dumb question, the dead guy. Now, do we hold the 3 year old accountable or the gun owner? What good is more gun control to the criminal? Will more gun control laws prevent the criminal from getting a gun? If not what good are they then?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 26, 2015 1:00 PM
Comment #396049

KAP, gun control laws would be good if they can help keep the gun out of the possession of the criminal. More gun control is not good for the criminal and that is good. Keeping guns out of the possession of the criminal would be good too. But it hasn’t seemed to have worked so far. The proliferation of guns has increased the capability for the criminal to obtain illegal weapons, among other factors. Perhaps gun ownership insurance would help, I don’t know but I think it would be worth trying if only in incremental steps.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 26, 2015 2:22 PM
Comment #396052

Speaks, Some of the cities where they have the strictest gun laws on the books are the worst concerning gun related crime. If a person is hell bent on killing he/she will find a way to accomplish it. For example Tim McVay, 9/11, Boston, just to name a few. We can try Insurance for the legal gun owner. IMO harsher penalties for gun crimes would be a good place to start. A long prison sentence without parole in a Federal prison may deter some but not all

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 26, 2015 5:11 PM
Comment #396053
J2, In answer to your dumb question, the dead guy. Now, do we hold the 3 year old accountable or the gun owner?

KAP the dead guy is the gun owner. Why put him in jail he’s already dead and no solution was provided that would deter future accidental deaths from guns.


What good is more gun control to the criminal? Will more gun control laws prevent the criminal from getting a gun? If not what good are they then?

Well speaking of dumb questions, the criminal doesn’t want any laws they are of no good to the criminal. Depends on the law, confiscation would make it much more difficult to get guns but short of that I don’t know of any additional laws that would keep guns out the hands of criminals.

That is the problem and one of the reasons I think everyone, with few exceptions, should be mandated to carry firearms as I have stated above. We have seen that the police cannot and by law are not required to protect citizens. We have criminals that can get guns and use them, we try to screen for the mentally ill but that doesn’t seem to work well.

What we know is that without the gun the person in Charleston would have had a much tougher time trying to kill those people in the church. He had guns, legally I believe, and yet he committed a heinous crime. So up until that time he wasn’t a criminal but a person of good standing in the gun community. So what do you think KAP? What laws could have prevented him from getting the 45 that he used to kill with? He couldn’t afford the AR15 he wanted to use!

Posted by: j2t2 at June 26, 2015 5:19 PM
Comment #396056

Utilizing data from the CDC, FBI and BATF, 24/7 Wall St., a financial and opinion company, recently issued a special report on the “States With the Most Gun Violence.” 24/7 Wall St. is not a liberal publication but a financial news and opinion operation that produces content for financial news outlets, e.g.,MarketWatch, DailyFinance, Yahoo! Finance, and TheStreet.com.

The data shows a correlation between state gun control law and gun violence and is summarized by the authors as follows: “The overwhelming trend is that strong gun law states have seen dramatic declines in violence. Weak gun law states have not seen the same decline…..In fact, a majority of the states with the most deaths from guns are politically conservative. They are also states with residents that tend to be comfortable with carrying and owning guns.”

http://247wallst.com/special-report/2014/06/26/231958/

Granted that correlation does not necessarily equate to causation. There may be other factors that explain the correlation between state gun control law and gun violence. The above cited study discusses a number of these, i.e., economic and educational correlations. But, it lends support to the argument that gun regulation may be an effective factor in reducing gun violence.

Read the list of the ten highest gun violence states. You may be surprised.


Posted by: Rich at June 26, 2015 6:50 PM
Comment #396057

Rich,interesting link but I think Wyoming and New Mexico just don’t have the population to be rated so highly on this list. I went to the Gun policy site which linked to theUS peace site which for the most part gives credence to the 24/7 piece. The nice thing about this site is the ability to scroll through the years and see the difference in each state.

Noted differences include Arizona, Texas, Florida and Missouri being in the top ten, albeit 2010 not 2011.

You know I can understand why many people want more stringent gun laws but even in the states with the tightest gun laws …. oh crap… anyway I am still sticking to my new opinion that everyone should be armed and put the “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” and “when we all carry guns we are a more polite society” notions that we hear as reasoning for open carry laws and less restrictive gun law in general.

We simply cannot amend the constitution to take away guns at this juncture in our history. I’m not sure we would want to as we continue to build an oligarchy. Perhaps arming almost everyone will change that over time, even the 24/7 author acknowledges it is an all or nothing issue as people from the more restrictive states go to the less restrictive states to find weapons to kill other with.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 26, 2015 10:46 PM
Comment #396058

If the dead guy is the owner j2, he deserves to be shot by the 3 year old for plain stupidity for leaving the gun where the 3 year old could get ahold of it. Speaking of dumb answers j2 the criminal doesn’t care what kind of gun control you have, he wants a gun he will get one. You said depends on the law, criminals don’t care about the law so you can make all the laws in the world it wouldn’t make a difference. So you advocate to go back to old west times, if the police cannot and will not protect the citizens maybe that is a good idea, maybe even have people count 10 paces and shoot right on the W.H. lawn. The person in Charleston would NOT have a tougher time killing if he wanted to without the gun. A homemade bomb would do, worked in Boston, worked in Oklahoma City.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 26, 2015 10:46 PM
Comment #396063
Rhinehold, we are in an arms race with ourselves. The problem is we just aren’t responsible enough as a people any longer.

I simply don’t agree that we are in an ‘arms race with ourselves’. Nor that we are not responsible as a people. I just don’t buy it, I don’t see the evidence to suggest it.

Crime rates are dropping, have been for some time now. Violent crime rates as well.

Now, the news media, on the other hand, is trying to keep their ratings up…

We have a higher murder rate than most other 1st world countries.

But the question is why. Simply suggesting it is because of guns as I said is preventing us from looking further at the real cause…

Why is there so much crime? Let’s look at why people are being put in jail… we have a huge jail population, much greater than any other 1st world country. And their offense? Using drugs.

It’s drug prohibition that is responsible for the environment that spawns violent interactions, people fighting over territory, people stealing to maintain their habit, high prices for drugs due to these dangers, etc…

It’s very similar to the environment that existed during the prohibition of the early 1900s… Once prohibition was over, crime dropped dramatically… drive by shootings, tommy guns, valentine’s day massacre, et al.

We also see crime dropping now, during that same time what else has been going on? Some states have been legalizing some drugs… See any possible correlation there?

By focusing on the MEANS of the violent crime and not on the CAUSE of the violent crimes, we continue to actually solve the problem at the core and dance around the means as if it will solve anything.

Most of them have very restrictive limits on who owns guns.

Most, but not all. Which means that it can’t be the answer right?

It seems to work, while it isn’t the only solution it appears to be the one that is easiest to implement.

Not really very easy really. Just making an activity illegal to prevent another activity that is already illegal from occuring is illogical.

There are many examples of abuses by police , trained users and other “responsible ” gun owners Rhinehold that suggest we as a whole just aren’t capable of gun ownership. Now places like Switzerland than has a military rifle in most houses don’t seem to have the problems we do, perhaps the answer is a military requirement for those that keep firearms in the house.

No, we hear examples, but they are actually small in number when compared per-capita… Switzerland is not the size of the United States, so while it may SEEM like a lot of this is going on, it’s just that the media focuses us on those cases when it does where 20 years ago they were more focused on local instances… We are just becoming more aware of things not in our backyard, which skews the perceptions.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 27, 2015 5:04 AM
Comment #396068
Speaking of dumb answers j2 the criminal doesn’t care what kind of gun control you have, he wants a gun he will get one. You said depends on the law, criminals don’t care about the law so you can make all the laws in the world it wouldn’t make a difference.

It depends on the law KAP. If Speak had his way we would get rid of guns except for police and military and maybe some few exceptions. This of course would make getting a gun for the huge majority of people much harder. With the laws on the books now it is very easy to get guns. I once favored a limit on the size of a magazine but as we seen in the Charleston killing the shooter had time to reload, several times they claim, so the laws that limit magazines didn’t work in this case.


The person in Charleston would NOT have a tougher time killing if he wanted to without the gun. A homemade bomb would do, worked in Boston, worked in Oklahoma City.

KAP, He couldn’t afford an AR15 that he wanted, the handgun was bought with gift money. I doubt a rental truck loaded with fertilizer and such was within his means. A homemade bomb requires some effort and I’m not sure this guy was up for it. If he had went to knives, base ball bats or hammers I think the outcome would have been different.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 27, 2015 1:39 PM
Comment #396070

J2, Tougher laws only mean law abiding citizens have a harder time to get a gun. Criminals will get their guns no matter what laws are written. Homemade bombs are quite easy to make with household things.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 27, 2015 2:17 PM
Comment #396087

KAP,

A hardcore criminal might go through whatever means it takes to acquire an illegal weapons, but others can and are deterred by the costs and risks involved. The truth is that easy access to legal firearms lowers the threshold before a disturbed individual decides to cross the line and commit a crime.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 28, 2015 11:37 AM
Comment #396088

Warren, like I said if a person wants to kill he will use any means possible. Laws DO NOT deter a person hell bent on killing.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 28, 2015 12:12 PM
Comment #396089

But those laws will deter a person who is a bit hesitant.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 28, 2015 1:40 PM
Comment #396098

Warren, Maybe, Maybe not. I wouldn’t want to be around one of those hesitant people though!!!

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 28, 2015 6:22 PM
Comment #396108

j2t2, you said “If Speak had his way we would get rid of guns except for police and military and maybe some few exceptions.”

That is not true. I commented this ” I would confiscate all guns that do not have a certificate of gun insurance by the owner except of course for military and law enforcement personnel.”

Those two comments are completely different. Good gun ownership and responsible gun ownership are some things I believe that gun ownership insurance could encourage. I do not, I repeat I do not want to confiscate the gun of someone who is a responsible and legal gun owner.

KAP, that tired argument does not hold water. We have laws against speeding and that hasn’t stopped some people from speeding, we have laws against theft but that hasn’t stopped some people from stealing. I could go on and on about that but I am sure that would not convince you. Suffice it to say that I would support enactment of laws that would help try to encourage good gun ownership and remove guns from people who are unable to display that capability.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 29, 2015 9:39 AM
Comment #396110

What are you talking about Speaks? What tired argument? I agree with what you said but a criminal doesn’t follow the law so our legislators can write all the laws they want and IMO they won’t make any difference.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 29, 2015 11:35 AM
Comment #396111

KAP, forgive me if I misunderstood. I took your last comments to mean that we shouldn’t create any more legislation that tries to uphold sensible and responsible gun ownership.

It is too bad that you don’t think legislators can write laws that will make a difference. I cannot subscribe to the cynicism of that statement but you are free to think and expound on what you believe here.

The tired argument I was referring to is the one that contends that we should not attempt to enact legislation that might try to encourage good gun ownership since we already have laws that don’t seem to be effective in that regard. While I might agree with some of that contention it would then need to be applied to other laws that do not actually prevent someone from accomplishing an illegal activity, the examples being speeding and theft.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 29, 2015 11:45 AM
Comment #396113

Speaks, Good legislation I’m all in favor of. If it deters the criminal fine if not??????????????????????

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 29, 2015 12:15 PM
Comment #396114

KAP, one question mark would have been sufficient. “If not?”, then try and try again.

“Scratch any cynic and you will find a disappointed idealist.” George Carlin

Are you sure you are not just expressing your frustration with laws and their inability to attain your ideals?

Posted by: Speak4all at June 29, 2015 12:30 PM
Comment #396115

No speaks, If the law is good, fine, if not I will express my feelings about it.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 29, 2015 12:36 PM
Comment #396117

KAP, no one is attempting to stop you from doing that.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 29, 2015 12:51 PM
Comment #396120

I never said anyone did or will Speaks.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 29, 2015 2:28 PM
Comment #396127
I do not, I repeat I do not want to confiscate the gun of someone who is a responsible and legal gun owner.

My bad Speaks, I was to broad in my generalization of your comments.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 29, 2015 4:17 PM
Comment #396129

j2t2, that’s OK. Just wanted to make sure there was no confusion.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 29, 2015 4:29 PM
Comment #396145

Rich and J2

I apologize for not replying sooner, but I was dealing with a death in the family last week.

“You would have to be deaf, dumb or blind not to notice the agenda of this killer and his prominently displayed symbols, one of which was the Confederate battle flag.”

The key word is this killer, Rich. There is no organized effort to murder innocent people in the name of this symbol, nor is there any organized effort to murder innocent people in the name of any political party, TV or radio station. This nut is the only one responsible for his actions.

“I suppose we should turn a blind eye to the hate crime because it was a right wing extremist, just like conservatives in Congress forced us to do after the 2009 DHS report”

No J2, we should condemn and punish this individual for his actions, which is what those on the right are doing. We should not be trying to score political points in hopes of furthering a political agenda, which is what the left is doing.

Posted by: kctim at June 30, 2015 12:00 PM
Comment #396200

“James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” said, “(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”


“The late Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey said, “Certainly, one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. … The right of the citizen to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible.”


http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/walter-e-williams/constitutional-ignorance-and-dereliction

Posted by: dbs at June 30, 2015 8:19 PM
Comment #396201

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.” That was Adolf Hitler.

Posted by: dbs at June 30, 2015 8:21 PM
Post a comment