Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
“I knew that day that the ideologies of my past career were no longer relevant to the future that I want, that I demand for my children. Friday changed everything. It must change everything. We all must begin anew and demand that Washington’s old way of doing business is no longer acceptable. Entertainment moguls don’t have an absolute right to glorify murder while spreading mayhem in young minds across America. And our Bill of Rights does not guarantee gun manufacturers the absolute right to sell military-style, high-caliber, semi-automatic combat assault rifles with high-capacity magazines to whoever the hell they want.
Scarborough shared what so many of us have been struggling to express. I am not anti gun, but to throw my hands up and say all we can do is arm more people, well that just isn’t an acceptable solution to me. We must deal with this crisis in a comprehensive manner, from all angles. There is no perfect solution, but we must, as a nation, at least try.
Thank you Joe Scarborough.
Very…. eloquent.
I reject his argument, of course, as an emotional response to a horrible situation, with a complex solution.
I know that most of the commenters and the blog owners reject the Constitutional argument for the 2nd Amendment. But their disagreement does not invalidate it.
http://www.examiner.com/article/after-newtown-shooting-it-s-time-to-have-that-national-conversation-on-guns
The right to
barebear arms doesn’t say what arms. It sure doesn’t say multiple round weapons.box cutters aren’t killing classrooms on kids.
You cant stop everycrazed lunatic but you can sure make it more difficult for them.
December 17, 2012, 11:34 AM
Manchin Gives Boost to Gun-Restrictions Push
By Neil King Jr.
The call for some form of new gun limits got a boost Monday when Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, a strong defenders of gun rights in Congress, said it was “time to move beyond rhetoric” and suggested he would be open to restrictions on assault rifles.
The comments by the Democratic senator and former governor, made on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” suggest even strong proponents of gun rights in Congress may begin to shift in their views after the deadly shooting rampage last week in Newtown, Conn.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/12/17/manchin-gives-boost-to-gun-restrictions-push/
He goes on to say that he knows of no hunter who needs a 30 round mag to shoot something (our friend Cargo here would need at least 30 rounds to bring down a deer, but I digress). These types of weapons and accessories are for warfare, and have no place in our communities.
I saw him today. He was absolute in his conviction. Sometimes you just wake up and you’re different.
@Moon-howler
Arms does have a specific meaning. Arms is defined as those carried by a person..usually an infantryman. So, yes.. arms today means weapons that can have more than one round available.
@Starryflights
Actually, I wouldn’t…because I would ask an actual hunter to take down said deer. Hunting is way to much work in the cold dark.
But then, the 2nd Amendment doesn’t mention hunting, if you insist on bringing straw arguments. So, again, you are wrong.
Joe is welcome to his conviction. Congratulations to him. Everyone should have an opinion.
@Cargosquid
Would rocket or grenade launchers be considered arms?
I agree with Joe about the entertainment industry needing to accept responsibility for promoting a culture of guns and violence. But gun manufacturers themselves promote violence. For example, what possible reason does the Bushmaster rifle need a flash suppressor? The only reason is so that their rifle will look like the military weapon, which will make the bearer look cool.
@Cargosquid
By your definition of “arms”, any weapon should be constitutionally available to anybody, including Howitzers artillery, M1 tanks, Apache helicopters, predator drones and nukes! Is that where we are headed? Why not, they are all “arms”?
Starry, there seems to be a lot of ego tied up with some people with guns. Looking cool is far too important.
I agree that video games, films and music need to clean up big time. but they aren’t the top level.
When the constitution was written there was no formal army per se. We were a country fighting for freedome with militias. Anyone who believe that citizens have the right to bear arms to battle the federal government is deranged in my opinion. There will never be an even fight if we had to right up against tyranny. Owning assault weapons and having that ability to fire 30 rounds at once is no match against a tank etc.
Our kids deserve a chance to live and enough is enough. We also need to have comprehensive mental health care reform. Does anyone know if how the Affordable Care Act address mental health?
The police chief in St Louis county states that gun control will never work, so school personnel ought to be armed:
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2012/12/17/county-police-chief-recommends-arming-school-personnel/
He is simply wrong. If school personnel is armed, then the jurisdiction will have to pay for professional law enforcement. I don;t know who the police chief is but he sure doesn’t know much about school populations.
Or policing.
Some would call it “overcompensation” of other shortcomings
@Starryflights
Arms are those weapons suitable for an infantryman or militia, not crew served.
@Censored bybvbl
They might be considered arms. One CAN buy grenades and launchers. Very expensive and paperwork intensive. Usually though, the definition as said in the 2nd is “small arms” which are considered to be rifles, etc.
@Elena
When the Constitution was written, there WAS a formal army.
The citizenry, not only has a right to fight a tyrannical government, but a duty.
We are supremely fortunate in having a military faithful to the Constitution and apolitical
Would the citizenry win….not a revolution. But if a government acted tyrannical (not necessarily the feds), then it would be hard to “occupy” territory and enforce its will. My expectation is that the military would side with the populace, if only in refusing orders.
The problem is that American society has moved away from being organized at the local level in defense of rights. ONE rifleman cannot do much. Entire armed communities can change that.
If assembled as an army, American hunters make the largest infantry force in the western world.
This conversation is going to the aburd though. Why would the hunters want go create an army? There is some nut burger on TV right now that might agree with all this. I think his name is Pratt.
Having a formal army…I am stuck on that. Who did they really fight for? There was no United States. There is something that is tickling my argue button….but I can’t do it. Quasi wants to be said.
Btw….a lot of what I think…I posted as an answer to Censored at
https://www.moonhowlings.net/index.php/2012/12/14/the-newtown-connecticut-tragedy-sandy-hook-elementary/
It is long since I discussed the Bill of Rights and the idea of unlimited vs limited rights.
@Moon-howler
That’s not the point…I was pointing out the total number of hunters…alone. That doesn’t include the non-hunting shooters like myself. Not that they want to form an army.
The US Army was officially created in 1775 as the Continental Army. That is the date they pick as their origin. The current model of the army was created in 1784. But there was an army back then….the militia was used as internal security and as a supplement to the small army.
Are you talking about the Quasi-War with France i 1794? That was a naval thing..no land warfare. The new Republican French gov’t was annoyed that we repudiated our debts to the French gov’t because the new gov’t had been rude enough to kill the previous holders of our debt. Go figure.