The Goat Pen

" I love the AR-15, but there is no need for a civilian to have one."

if one can be used *against* civilians, then yes, I believe there is a need for civilians to have one.

and you're not talking about making it more difficult for criminals to have a gun, you're talking about making it more difficult for law abiding citizens to own a gun - and no person has to fear a law abiding citizen that owns a gun.

The American psyche when it comes to guns, right or wrong , is about self protection and for many that extends beyond the ski masked wearing boogeyman that breaks into your home. It extends to an oppressive government, local police force, or co-opted military.

interesting to me last night on the Daily Show, John Stewart went after the people that were saying now isn't the time to talk about gun control but even he didn't go so far as to imply that gun control is the answer. I was surprised at his restraint.

I think he stretches to make a couple of points, starting with Daddy Bush's Foreign policy being an obstacle to his re-election, but I'm generally all -in with Mr. Buchanan here.................................

"Triumphant in the first Gulf war, George H.W. Bush, in October 1991, went before the UN to declare that the US’s goal was now to build a “New World Order”.

Rejecting this as Wilsonian utopianism, my 1992 presidential campaign called for an end to US military intervention where no vital interest was imperilled, for federal action to secure our southern border and for a halt to the outsourcing of US manufacturing jobs.

We advocated a Hamiltonian policy to support industry and a Jeffersonian foreign policy of peaceful commerce with all nations but entangling alliances with none. And we were denounced as isolationists and protectionists.

We lost. But Mr Bush lost too, when Ross Perot, running on the same theme – putting America first – stripped away a third of the coalition Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan put together, leaving Mr Bush with an incumbent’s smallest share of the vote since William Howard Taft.

Mr Bush’s foreign policy record could not save him. The US was looking inward in 1992, as it does today. As Mitt Romney burnishes his foreign policy credentials this week, he should keep this lesson in mind.

Having learnt from his father’s defeat, George W. Bush offered a “more humble” policy. But after September 11, he had a Damascene conversion, went nation-building in Afghanistan and Iraq, and declared the US’s goal was “to end tyranny in our world”. Americans responded by relieving the Republican party of both houses of Congress in 2006 and the presidency in 2008.

We cannot afford any more neo-imperial nonsense. With trillion-dollar deficits, a soaring national debt, and 10,000 baby boomers reaching eligibility for Social Security and Medicare every day, the US is beginning to break under the strain of its commitments.

What doth it profit a man if he gain the whole world but suffer the loss of his soul? A biblical hubris took hold of our republic. By pushing Nato into Russia’s front yard, planting bases in central Asia, dispatching democracy crusaders to subvert regimes in Ukraine, Belarus and Georgia, we undid the good work of Reagan and drove Moscow back into alliance with Beijing.

US influence in the Middle East is at a nadir. Our alliances with Turkey and Saudi Arabia are frayed. Pakistan bristles. Israel impatiently dismisses our pathetic pleas for it to stop building settlements. And as the Muslim Brotherhood rose when Hosni Mubarak fell in Cairo, so it looks likely to rise again when Bashar al-Assad falls in Damascus.

America needs a new foreign policy rooted in today’s reality, not in yesterday’s cold war or in tomorrow’s dream of global democracy. For as Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan reminds us, in his region democracy is a bus you get off when it reaches your stop.

We must roll up the empire and put America first again. We should swiftly complete Barack Obama’s work, end the war in Afghanistan and close US bases in central Asia. We should tell Ukraine and Georgia that Nato membership is closed. No US interest there justifies risking a clash with Russia. Let us tell Vladimir Putin that if he stays out of our yard, we will stay out of his.

Half a century ago, Dwight Eisenhower told John F. Kennedy to start pulling troops out of Europe, or else the continent would end up permanently dependent on the US. Was Ike not right? Europeans should take full responsibility for their own defence. The near debacle in Libya, where Britain and France might have been fought to exhaustion by Muammer Gaddafi had not the US intervened, exposed the atrophied state of Nato’s European members.

South Korea has a population twice that of North Korea and an economy 40 times as large. What are US soldiers still doing in the demilitarised zone? The frontier that will determine the fate of the US is not the 38th parallel, but the 2,000-mile border with Mexico.

Elsewhere in Asia, it is Russia’s land that China covets but India’s that China holds. Vietnam and the Philippines are defying Beijing’s claims to the Spratly Islands. Japan is showing a resolve to hold the Senkaku Islands. Let the neighbours do the containment."

In the Islamic world, Victor Hugo’s dictum applies: stronger than all the armies of earth is the power of an idea whose time has come. Islamic fundamentalism and ethno-nationalism, the two forces tearing countries apart from central Africa to south Asia, are not problems that can be solved by Seal Team Six.

Let us cease our interventions and call a halt to our endless hectoring. How other nations rule themselves is not really the US’s business. If there is nation-building to be done, let it begin here. The watchword of the Romney campaign and presidency should be enlightened nationalism. Time, again, to put America first.

[youtube]N3wYU3jprTI[/youtube]

eCat wrote:and you're not talking about making it more difficult for criminals to have a gun, you're talking about making it more difficult for law abiding citizens to own a gun - and no person has to fear a law abiding citizen that owns a gun.

Heh, when does the law abiding citizen, who has the access to that rifle, become the criminal? When did the Aurora shooter cross that line from law abiding citizen to criminal?

I'm saying that there is no need for any citizen, criminal or otherwise to have an AR-15. I just don't get it and I'm a proponent of gun ownership. I grew up around guns, held guns, fired guns and feel that it is a protected right to own them. I just think there is a limit on the types we should be able to own. No matter how armed we, the US citizenry, are with desert eagles, uzis and ARs, we would not be more equipped to defeat a modern army without complicit assistance from a faction of that army (or some outside force). So, using the argument that owning assault weapons protect us from tyranny is specious.

interesting to me last night on the Daily Show, John Stewart went after the people that were saying now isn't the time to talk about gun control but even he didn't go so far as to imply that gun control is the answer. I was surprised at his restraint.

Gun Control, by itself, is not the answer. Anyone who thinks that is engaging in lazy solutioning. However, some version of Gun Control beyond what we have now is a component of the solution. We can't even say that nowadays, though, in politics because people will run with it to mean you're saying that someone can't have their Walters or Barrettas.

Sarah Silverman is not my type of comedienne...but I would so destroy her.

What is it, Bklyn, about a semi-auto AR-15? Is it the clip/magazine capacity? If so, there are high capacity after-market magazines available for many guns (including pistols).

This guy is clearly off his rocker.

Crazy always seems to find a way to carry out a plan. Whether it's Dahmer eating people or Ted Kczynski (sp?) mailing packages or some guy putting poison in Tylenol capsules, they just find a way, and I don't think if this latest crazy had been unable to get his hands on an AR-15 that it would've made any difference.

Bklyn wrote:

I'm saying that there is no need for any citizen, criminal or otherwise to have an AR-15. I just don't get it and I'm a proponent of gun ownership. I grew up around guns, held guns, fired guns and feel that it is a protected right to own them. I just think there is a limit on the types we should be able to own. No matter how armed we, the US citizenry, are with desert eagles, uzis and ARs, we would not be more equipped to defeat a modern army without complicit assistance from a faction of that army (or some outside force). So, using the argument that owning assault weapons protect us from tyranny is specious.

Its not about defeating an army. This is about Ruby Ridge, Branch Davidians, Kent State, and a host of other engagements against the citizenry by men in power given the ability to use lethal force coupled with the lack of compassion for humanity to carry out their agenda. Whether a citizen has a need for an AR-15 is irrelevant - the AR-15 exists and therefore is in use. Since it use can't be exclusively limited to soldiers against other soldiers and I personally believe that I can't rely on the common sense of someone with a position of authority not to abuse that power against the citizenry, then the threat of the citizenry protecting itself from an oppressive government - whether that be a corrupt deputy, an overzealous BATF or our military has to be an option in order to keep powers in check. Citizens have to be able to stand up to power abuse, and our nation was founded on the idea that people carrying sticks and throwing rocks are no match for muskets.

On top of that going after an AR-15 or any other assault weapon isn't going to do much with gun related homicide. By and large, handguns and hunting rifles make up the majority of gun related deaths in this country but because its "quantity over quality" so to speak ( I realize how callous that sounds) an assault rifle attack gets all the press. Criminals prefer handguns.

Gabrielle Gifford was shot and 5 people died at the scene by a gunman with a glock pistol. Colin Ferguson killed 6 people on a train with a handgun

I'm not talking about fighting guns with rocks. Not my argument.

However, I am well aware that banning assault weapons (and I smirk at the thought that our military or police force are held at bay from tyranny by the thought of an armed citizenry) will not stop the crazies. That's why I said what I said regarding that John Stewart post above. The thing is, I think there is space to curtail the procurement of assault weapons so instead of 70 people getting shot, maybe only 15 do. I know it still leads to a fucked up situation, but it's better. The thing is, it is basically impossible to argue an alternate reality. So, I don't know how many people Colin Ferguson could've taken out on the LIRR with an assault rifle with a 100 shot clip. I don't know how many more people Tucson Shooter could've taken out with a different weapon. I do think that removing those options makes a difference. I'm not talking about eliminating the threat, I'm talking about reducing it.

Also, didn't the Branch Davidians shoot at the ATF while they were trying to enter? I thought I remembered seeing footage of bullets flying through the wall and one agent rolling out the way (maybe hit). I don't know what weapons David Koresh's people had to protect them from that tyranny, but it doesn't look like it helped too much.

I don't remember if any weaponry was used by the militants at Ruby Ridge.

Bklyn wrote:I'm not talking about fighting guns with rocks. Not my argument.

However, I am well aware that banning assault weapons (and I smirk at the thought that our military or police force are held at bay from tyranny by the thought of an armed citizenry) will not stop the crazies. That's why I said what I said regarding that John Stewart post above. The thing is, I think there is space to curtail the procurement of assault weapons so instead of 70 people getting shot, maybe only 15 do. I know it still leads to a fucked up situation, but it's better. The thing is, it is basically impossible to argue an alternate reality. So, I don't know how many people Colin Ferguson could've taken out on the LIRR with an assault rifle with a 100 shot clip. I don't know how many more people Tucson Shooter could've taken out with a different weapon. I do think that removing those options makes a difference. I'm not talking about eliminating the threat, I'm talking about reducing it.

probably not as many as you think because someone picked up a folding chair and smacked him across the head while he was firing.

I'm not going to beat the second amendment drum, but its pretty clear that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that individuals had the right to keep and bear firearms suitable to militia use, for our nation was founded upon the belief that a citizen militia was "necessary to the security of a free state.

A key concern is that if you study statistics then when you promote a ban or a limitation on the access to these weapons you are revealing an ugly truth: Americans no longer believe or presume that their neighbors who make up their communities act out of a desire to defend themselves; worse they do not see their fellow Americans to be acting on the common good. There is an inherit distrust of your fellow citizens and an over abundance of trust in your public servants.

Take an AR-15, when handled by the police its for the protection of the public - a weapon for defense, but when the gun changes hands to the public, it is now an assault weapon. Why is no one up in arms that every police force of notable size in this nation has a room full of these ready to use? I know if I was a store owner in L.A. during the riots or a homeowner in New Orleans after Katrina I think I could make a very good case for me needing a gun capable of equalizing one against many. Would the Gretna police been so adamant in stopping American citizens from crossing the bridge to safety had the citizens been armed with AR-15s?

The fact that people believe that law enforcement may use these weapons more or less justifies that the weapons have a legitimate use for defense of home. But a citizen demanding or wanting this gun is to be feared and not trusted in ownership. I don't understand the argument for restricting them.

The VaTech shooter used pistols. A couple of 9mm pistols, with a capacity of 17, and a backpack full of clips can cause major issues when a sufficiently motivated crazy hits the tipping point.

Crazy always finds a way. Always.

Bklyn wrote:Also, didn't the Branch Davidians shoot at the ATF while they were trying to enter? I thought I remembered seeing footage of bullets flying through the wall and one agent rolling out the way (maybe hit). I don't know what weapons David Koresh's people had to protect them from that tyranny, but it doesn't look like it helped too much.

I don't remember if any weaponry was used by the militants at Ruby Ridge.

.

There was much fallout from their actions. Whether you believe the BATF was justified or not - several things have happened as a result - most notably - Tim McVeigh showed America you don't need an assault rifle and his actions were based on his outrage from Ruby Ridge and I think Waco. I'm not sure of the timelines but the Oklahoma City bombing was on the anniversary of one. The Militia movement accelerated as a result of those incidents and the BATF, while for the most part was cleared of any wrong doing, has been leashed and we now have enforced and updated rules of engagement for these types of situations that are based on an assault being a last resort.

I don't think this argument is going to go anywhere, but I wanted to stake out my territory of argument and get an understanding of some of yours. With that said, this is my summary of my position on this (trying to clarify some things I've posted and answer a few questions that were implicitly or explicitly posed):

1. I know that crazy people will find a way to fly a plane (TSA adjustments enacted), blow up a building (tracking of large scale materials purchases), anthrax a newsman (increased safety protocols on the handling of toxins on the institutional level) or shoot a bunch of innocents in a public place (hey, nothing we can do about that). I'm just wondering, actually expecting, that we can do some things to mitigate the chances of it happening. Those things would encompass some gun controls, some safety measures, some mental health solutions, some enhanced policing. I don't know all the answers. That's not the area of my expertise. I'm just saying that something could be done so our rate of assaults related to guns fall somewhere in line with the rest of the developed world. However, we continue to provide "it is what it is" responses to this type of incident, but have tried to tighten shit up via all the parantheticals I provided in the earlier examples.

2. If you owned a store during the April 29th riots in LA or the break-ins in Katrina, maybe just let them steal your flat screens and Cup O Noodles? Maybe you shouldn't be expected to be able to defend your store with a hail of bullets against people trying to bust in along with people just walking by. Police have countless hours of training on firearms and make horrible mistakes when it comes to precisely and accurately discharging weapons. I'm not so certain I trust Meyong the convenience store owner to be better at sizing up the threat and successfully neutralizing that threat without collateral damage to innocents.

3. I'm not saying the ATF acted responsibly in the Waco and Ruby Ridge fuckeries. It makes sense that they adjusted their rules of engagement. I'm saying that Branch Davidians and Ruby Ridge Militiamen engaged what they perceived as government tyranny but those weapons that they had on those compounds did not stop the government that day and the government has more power now over our lives than it did in '92 or '93 when that shit went down. The possession of munitions did not help them with that "tyranny." The small changes came from the backlash against the actions of the government those days. We're focusing on the wrong things if we look to guns as the necessary tool to ensure our freedom from tyranny and fall into a trap when we do so. We will vote people out of office if it even seems the 2nd Amendment (whatever our interpretation of it) is threatened. But, we will snuggle up or turn a blind eye to the Patriot Acts and SOPAs out there. To me, that's where the real tyranny makes its presence felt in the modern day.

Also, maybe this all came at the wrong time for me. My admin just lost her son to a bullet in his back as he stood outside a party Friday night. So, between that, my experience with gun violence throughout my life and this Aurora incident, I think we give up too easily on discussing what can be done to curb these things...with the understanding that they will never fully go away.

We have several hundred gun control laws on the books now. I'm just at a loss to think of another one to add to the list that woulda stopped the Aurora massacre.

Again, for the record, I haven't mentioned anything about a law to stop any massacre.

I'm not saying you have. I'm just thinking out loud about effective gun controls to help avoid or limit some of these events.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/07/ ... of-health/

Ok, is it too soon to find a little comedy in this story?

It's funny (not ha ha, but shake my head and roll eyes funny) because since dude had a grant, then many commenters at the end of that link jumped to the conclusion that he used the grant money to buy the weapons that killed the people...so it is the government who is responsible for this.

I blame neuroscience...

even if he bought in bulk, 6,000 bullets in .243 is going to cost him about $2400.

An AR-15 Bushmaster is roughly $800. I don't know what handguns he has but since he is under 30 and highly impressionable I would guess they are Glock's at $600 a pop, and the pump shotgun which I think is a Remington is about $360.

Now add about $400 for the body armor and you round it out to about $5K total for his trip to the movies.