US politicians seem UNWILLING to prevent gun violence

[NeverSure]

Interesting read/stats from this months American Medical Journal.

http://www.amjmed.com/article/PIIS0002934313004440/fulltext

But they don't get the American psych. They are living in today only. That is the downfall of many people, ie those who are up to their necks in consumer debt.

Pro gun Americans don't live for today. They are willing to die today for their children and grandchildrens' futures. This is a known risk they take.

Americans know that 100 million people with 300 million guns and plenty of ammunition can never fall to a tyrannical government. No guerrilla militia of that size has ever before existed on the planet.

Americans know that a country with 100 million people with 300 million guns and plenty of ammunition can never successfully be invaded.

This preservation of freedom is for the future. It is for the unknown.

If the AMJ can tell me what this world will be like 100, 200, 300 years from now, then their opinion that "guns don't make people safer" might carry some weight. As it is, they miss the point entirely.

[rammis35]

They are not unwilling to prevent gun violence. They are unwilling to violate the 2nd amendment and confiscate all the millions of guns that are already on the street. Nothing else would prevent gun violence and it is not going to happen in USA.

If they are unwilling to do what it takes to prevent gun violence then they are unwilling...period. The fact that they are still unwilling, even after the massacre at an elementary school is mind boggling. Quoting some old piece of paper doesn't quite explain why they are willing to sacrifice even their children.

That Piece of shit paper as you call it, is the constitution of the USA which is the foundation of the laws of the United States, so that is what gives citizens the right to own a gun. Same as the constitution provides the Freedom of speech and religion. Even if all guns were confiscated it would not stop shootings. Drugs are illegal and people still get them. If someone really wants a gun they will get it. The UK has cracked down on guns but now who has guns, the police and the criminals. How many bombings have you had in the UK? I believe bombs are illegal. What is the answer, I dont know, I dont think anyone knows. The guy in China killed 4 and injured 11 just a few months ago. Somebody wants to kill people they will do it, does not matter if it's with a gun, a bomb or a knife.

Firstly and fore mostly nobody should be denigrating the American constitution but equally if there is a modification required there is a process.

If the American people cannot reconcile themselves to a long process of removing the majority of guns from their society to minimise these tragedies, then be it upon their heads. Australia has set an example of what can be achieved and how it can be done.

Is there a cost? Yes, a large cost as in money to buy back the guns and put in place the systems for checking licensing and securing guns.

There is a cost to the citizens in the loss of family heirlooms and the destruction of historical and sentimental objects, the financial burden of certified secure storage if you do own a gun and all the burden of complying with the regulations that monitor who has guns and why they own guns.

Our sporting shooters have difficulty because of the layers of bureaucracy and regulation of gun clubs and the clubs have the burden of providing secure storage at their facilities. There is also a small loss of freedom associated with these policies which came about by a deranged gunman killing many of my fellow Australians. The fact that this has not happened AGAIN make me grateful and proud of the politicians who had the balls to carry out this process despite the hysterical screaming a small segment of our population.

Is it worth it? What value do you put on human life?? Even if it has only saved one life, I believe it is worth it.

The longer America leaves it, the longer it will take. I do believe that for that country to even attempt it, is a bridge too far, the horse has well and truly bolted.

Do you know there are more people killed in drunk driving accidents then murdered with firearms. In 2010, which is the last year I was able to find statistics on both firearm and drunk driving deaths in the US, 8,775 were murdered with firearms and 10,228 were killed by drunk drivers. So shouldn't the logic be that all alcohol and automobiles be banned before guns. And I'm sure that since you have banned firearms in Australia already then the drunk driving deaths should be much higher than firearm deaths there. So tomorrow you should get out there and start your campaign to ban all alcohol products and vehicles because the longer Australia leaves it, the longer it will take to ban those two deadly products from your country. Because the sooner you get started the sooner you will save that one live you believe is worth everyone loosing there rights for. Or doesn't that one life count when you need to give up something that you like and use.

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics-2010.html

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

[Baloo22]

They are not unwilling to prevent gun violence. They are unwilling to violate the 2nd amendment and confiscate all the millions of guns that are already on the street. Nothing else would prevent gun violence and it is not going to happen in USA.

Is that a euphemism for "They are owned by the NRA"?

What is the NRA? It is an organization of willing dues-paying citizen VOTERS who know there is strength in numbers. Of course the NRA is powerful, but only because it speaks for a collective group of people who can vote a politician out of office.

Each one of those members is simply exercising his rights to speak, to protest, and to vote.

The NRA is ordinary people.

Yeah right. It's a political organisation that uses its funding and political power to influence elections and votes, and its muscle far outweighs the proportion of voters it represents. I admire how it's managed to wangle its way into every facet of federal and state government, but please - you can put lipstick on a pig.

The political strength of the NRA comes from the collective will and voice of FIVE MILLION plus members. That's right; over five million dues-paying voluntary members. Contrast that with the money-throwing antics of Nanny Bloomberg and other elitists like him, but please - you can put lipstick on a Bloomberg.

[Scott]

Off-topic post has been deleted. Please stay on the topic. The topic is not about drunk driving.

[Chicog]

The most important thing to a politician is to get reelected.

And the NRA can - and do - divert resources specifically to ensure that that happens.

Like I said, they own the politicians. That's your American "democracy" in action.

[Jingthing]

They don't seem unwilling.

They are unwilling.

Oh well.

Another one of the annoying irrational aspects of American political life.

[Chicog]

The political strength of the NRA comes from the collective will and voice of FIVE MILLION plus members. That's right; over five million dues-paying voluntary members. Contrast that with the money-throwing antics of Nanny Bloomberg and other elitists like him, but please - you can put lipstick on a Bloomberg.

According to my rudimentary arithmetic, that is a shade over 1.5% of the population.

Which makes it all the more amazing that they are allowed to manipulate the political system with impunity (oh, I forgot, they aren't "breaking any laws").

[Baloo22]

The political strength of the NRA comes from the collective will and voice of FIVE MILLION plus members. That's right; over five million dues-paying voluntary members. Contrast that with the money-throwing antics of Nanny Bloomberg and other elitists like him, but please - you can put lipstick on a Bloomberg.

According to my rudimentary arithmetic, that is a shade over 1.5% of the population.

Which makes it all the more amazing that they are allowed to manipulate the political system with impunity (oh, I forgot, they aren't "breaking any laws").

You say "allowed to manipulate the political system with impunity". By "manipulate" you mean that we use our freedom of speech and freedom of assembly as citizens of the United States. There's that pesky Bill of Rights again!

[lee b]

Its shocking to think how many brainless people are in possesion of these guns.....

[caughtintheact]

Its shocking to think how many brainless people are in possesion of these guns.....

Over 316 million of those people you are referring to do not go around shooting people indiscriminately. Yet, in spite of this you want to rob the people of the right to self protection from criminals, lunatics, and an overbearing government. But did you ever think that the American left loves mass shootings so they can run around screaming for gun control (not to mention that it can raise a lot of money for their "cause")?

[Publicus]

Most of the ass holes who vote against gun control use the Constitution to cover up their

pay offs by PAC's and under the counter bribes. If it wasn't for money, and crooked

members of congress, we would have "better gun control laws". It's just common sense.

That is totally inaccurate. It's not money that stopped the US Congress from passing stricter gun laws recently. It was the people. A majority of people were against that law, and congressmen knew that if they voted for it, they wouldn't be reelected.

It's non-partisan. Neither the Republican controlled House nor the Democrat controlled Senate would pass that gun control law. Obama came out strong in favor of it but neither chamber would pass it. They wanted to be reelected.

Look at what just happened in Colorado. Two popular politicians were recalled over just one issue - gun control. Colorado is a liberal state but what some people forget is that even a lot of liberals own guns. It's a non-partisan, American cultural matter and 100 million people own about 300 million guns.

That's a lot of voters.

My god.

I could link six or seven dozen scientific public opinion polls over many years that make clear the huge majority of Americans support strengthening of gun access and gun ownership laws.

The one link I do provide reports how, despite getting 54 votes in the Senate, which is three above a majority, the gun legislation failed because the vote on such an issue requires 60 of the 100 US Senators to vote in favor. It's these kind of voting rules and procedures that continue to obstruct and thwart tighter gun access and ownership laws in the United States.

The "failed" measure reported in the link "failed" in defiance of a steadfast and resolute public opinion, which wanted the bill passed, 65% to 29%. This kind of percentage divide concerning guns is consistent among the general public, yet national legislators continue to fail to provide the supported legislation. This is due to single-issue organizations such as the well funded and fanatical National Rifle Association, which gleefully declared victory when the Senate bill linked below "failed."

The majority of Americans do support gun ownership, but they do not support any absolute, unqualified access to gun ownership or possession. The majority of Americans support gun ownership and the strengthening of gun access and ownership laws. A tiny minority, a subculture, oppose almost every, any and all laws that strengthen gun access and gun ownership laws.

This tiny and fanatical absolutist gun subculture of the United States continues to wield disproportionate control over national legislators because the subculture votes in large numbers as a fanatical single-issue special interest group that also throws large amounts of cash into election campaigns that place an electoral bull's eye on legislators who vote to tighten gun laws.

That's exactly what happened to the two Colorado legislators (and Colorado is not a "liberal" state, except perhaps from the pov of a subculture).

In fact, 83% of Americans supported the specific legislative proposal that got a majority vote in the Senate last April, yet the proposal still failed because it couldn't get the supermajority 60 US Senators voting in favor.

The fact is that the vast majority of Americans have for a long time wanted tighter laws concerning gun access and ownership but can't get any such laws because of the fanatical absolutist minority gun subculture of the country that believes absurdly that the answer to the existence of many guns is to have more guns.

To the gun subculture of the US, there are the good guys and there are the bad guys. The bad guys have guns. Therefore, the good guys need to have more guns which are also more powerful guns than the bad guys have. In that way, the bad guys lose, the good guys win. It's just that simple.

Poll: Majority Supports Failed Senate Gun Control Bill

Lawmakers voted against a background check proposal most Americans support

Supporters of the failed expanded background check gun legislation continue to hold the edge with voters, according to a new poll.

In a Gallup survey taken in the week after the Senate voted against the measure, 65 percent said the Senate should have passed it versus 29 percent who said it shouldn't have passed.

The poll also showed a decline in overall support for expanding gun background checks, from 91 percent in a January survey to 83 percent now, though that could be due in part to a slight wording change in the question, Gallup said

http://www.usnews.co...un-control-bill

[caughtintheact]

The 2nd amendment is absolute and unconditional - "...shall not be infringed.". If the majority of Americans really want gun controls, then all they have to do is amend the constitution.. Poll results for highly controversial issues should never be presented without the methodology and question wording clearly stated. There are many ways to bias and skew the results. The bottom as matters stand now, is that the constitution must be amended if the right to keep and bear arms is to be made conditional.

[Credo]

Do the gun manufacturers give money to the NRA?

[HAL9000]

That's a loaded headline, as if gun control is going to prevent shootings. Studies overwhelmingly prove that where the citizens are armed, criminals fear to use violence.

[farang000999]

Kinda funny how people get so worked up over "gun deaths" as compared to obesity deaths or road deaths or any of the other ways people die.

It is like the Joker line from Batman.

Society does not care when soldiers die in Iraq because it is what is supposed to happen.

Totally arbitrary.

[Credo]

That's a loaded headline, as if gun control is going to prevent shootings. Studies overwhelmingly prove that where the citizens are armed, criminals fear to use violence.

I know we don't like to let facts get in the way, but here it is again:

Conclusion

The number of guns per capita per country was a strong and independent predictor of firearm-related death in a given country, whereas the predictive power of the mental illness burden was of borderline significance in a multivariable model. Regardless of exact cause and effect, however, the current study debunks the widely quoted hypothesis that guns make a nation safer.

http://www.amjmed.com/article/PIIS0002934313004440/fulltext

Now let's see some valid studies to support this big fear that criminals have for violence.

[F430murci]

The 2nd amendment is absolute and unconditional - "...shall not be infringed.". If the majority of Americans really want gun controls, then all they have to do is amend the constitution.. Poll results for highly controversial issues should never be presented without the methodology and question wording clearly stated. There are many ways to bias and skew the results. The bottom as matters stand now, is that the constitution must be amended if the right to keep and bear arms is to be made conditional.

Not true. Heller acknowledges that limitations exist and Scalia has confirmed the same during interviews after he wrote the majority in Heller. Haha, where in the world do you guys get this whackadoodle stuff. Stop reading Freemen Are Us and white supremacists cites and pick up something written by someone with more than a 9th grade education.

[Baloo22]

Do the gun manufacturers give money to the NRA?

Perhaps they do. Nothing wrong with that at all. I give money to the NRA.

[caughtintheact]

The 2nd amendment is absolute and unconditional - "...shall not be infringed.". If the majority of Americans really want gun controls, then all they have to do is amend the constitution.. Poll results for highly controversial issues should never be presented without the methodology and question wording clearly stated. There are many ways to bias and skew the results. The bottom as matters stand now, is that the constitution must be amended if the right to keep and bear arms is to be made conditional.

Not true. Heller acknowledges that limitations exist and Scalia has confirmed the same during interviews after he wrote the majority in Heller. Haha, where in the world do you guys get this whackadoodle stuff. Stop reading Freemen Are Us and white supremacists cites and pick up something written by someone with more than a 9th grade education.

Regardless of what judges have said, that does not change the words "shall not be infringed", and when judges interpret and add conditions that are not in the Constitution that in itself is unconstitutional. Judges should not interpret the constitution, they are supposed to uphold it. As for those who do not fear overbearing governments, try asking those who were murdered by governments in many countries. Oh, that's right, you can't ask them because they were murdered by their governments.

And as for producing a study that shows that criminals are afraid of people who are armed,that is a fallacious argument, because you cannot prove what never happened and what is not reported, such as law abiding, armed citizens fending off attacks in their homes by criminals. But if you look at ther FBI data at http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8, you will find that the homicide rate is down in the United States since 2007.

[Baloo22]

Most of the ass holes who vote against gun control use the Constitution to cover up their

pay offs by PAC's and under the counter bribes. If it wasn't for money, and crooked

members of congress, we would have "better gun control laws". It's just common sense.

That is totally inaccurate. It's not money that stopped the US Congress from passing stricter gun laws recently. It was the people. A majority of people were against that law, and congressmen knew that if they voted for it, they wouldn't be reelected.

It's non-partisan. Neither the Republican controlled House nor the Democrat controlled Senate would pass that gun control law. Obama came out strong in favor of it but neither chamber would pass it. They wanted to be reelected.

Look at what just happened in Colorado. Two popular politicians were recalled over just one issue - gun control. Colorado is a liberal state but what some people forget is that even a lot of liberals own guns. It's a non-partisan, American cultural matter and 100 million people own about 300 million guns.

That's a lot of voters.

My god.

I could link six or seven dozen scientific public opinion polls over many years that make clear the huge majority of Americans support strengthening of gun access and gun ownership laws.

The one link I do provide reports how, despite getting 54 votes in the Senate, which is three above a majority, the gun legislation failed because the vote on such an issue requires 60 of the 100 US Senators to vote in favor. It's these kind of voting rules and procedures that continue to obstruct and thwart tighter gun access and ownership laws in the United States.

The "failed" measure reported in the link "failed" in defiance of a steadfast and resolute public opinion, which wanted the bill passed, 65% to 29%. This kind of percentage divide concerning guns is consistent among the general public, yet national legislators continue to fail to provide the supported legislation. This is due to single-issue organizations such as the well funded and fanatical National Rifle Association, which gleefully declared victory when the Senate bill linked below "failed."

The majority of Americans do support gun ownership, but they do not support any absolute, unqualified access to gun ownership or possession. The majority of Americans support gun ownership and the strengthening of gun access and ownership laws. A tiny minority, a subculture, oppose almost every, any and all laws that strengthen gun access and gun ownership laws.

This tiny and fanatical absolutist gun subculture of the United States continues to wield disproportionate control over national legislators because the subculture votes in large numbers as a fanatical single-issue special interest group that also throws large amounts of cash into election campaigns that place an electoral bull's eye on legislators who vote to tighten gun laws.

That's exactly what happened to the two Colorado legislators (and Colorado is not a "liberal" state, except perhaps from the pov of a subculture).

In fact, 83% of Americans supported the specific legislative proposal that got a majority vote in the Senate last April, yet the proposal still failed because it couldn't get the supermajority 60 US Senators voting in favor.

The fact is that the vast majority of Americans have for a long time wanted tighter laws concerning gun access and ownership but can't get any such laws because of the fanatical absolutist minority gun subculture of the country that believes absurdly that the answer to the existence of many guns is to have more guns.

To the gun subculture of the US, there are the good guys and there are the bad guys. The bad guys have guns. Therefore, the good guys need to have more guns which are also more powerful guns than the bad guys have. In that way, the bad guys lose, the good guys win. It's just that simple.

Poll: Majority Supports Failed Senate Gun Control Bill

Lawmakers voted against a background check proposal most Americans support

Supporters of the failed expanded background check gun legislation continue to hold the edge with voters, according to a new poll.

In a Gallup survey taken in the week after the Senate voted against the measure, 65 percent said the Senate should have passed it versus 29 percent who said it shouldn't have passed.

The poll also showed a decline in overall support for expanding gun background checks, from 91 percent in a January survey to 83 percent now, though that could be due in part to a slight wording change in the question, Gallup said

http://www.usnews.co...un-control-bill

As far as your poll goes, it is well known that with selective wording and selective survey processes, an organization can get pretty much whatever results that they want. The poll that counts is the elections when the Senators that you speak of are chosen by the people of their respective State to represent them. That's the key. They represent their state. Not some poll results. It's that simple.

You rant about the "well funded" NRA while ignoring that it is a truly citizen organization with over five million members. Those five million plus members join the NRA voluntarily and pay their dues voluntarily. It is truly an fine example of citizens use of their free speech rights and their right of assembly.

If you want to have an example of those that "throw large amounts of cash" around, you have a better example in Michael Bloomberg and his elitist allies. The recent recall elections in Colorado provide an excellent example of out-of-state big money dumps from the gun-grabbing elitists. Far more money was dumped in to support the recalled state senators that was contributed by the NRA to support the recall.

"Outside money shows national interest in Colorado recall elections", The Denver Post

"Proponents of the recall have raised about $540,000, while opponents have collected nearly $3 million. Much of the cash has come from out of state — a sign of the national significance these recalls have."

[Publicus]

The 2nd amendment is absolute and unconditional - "...shall not be infringed.". If the majority of Americans really want gun controls, then all they have to do is amend the constitution.. Poll results for highly controversial issues should never be presented without the methodology and question wording clearly stated. There are many ways to bias and skew the results. The bottom as matters stand now, is that the constitution must be amended if the right to keep and bear arms is to be made conditional.

The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means. This has been true since Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the fact in McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819.

The First Amendment for instance gives an absolute freedom of speech, yet the Supreme Court has limited freedom of speech many times and in many ways, such as the Clear and Present Danger doctrine and the simple matter of prohibiting shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. So the First Amendment is not absolute and unconditional, and the same is true of the Second Amendment.

Consequently, there is no need to amend the Constitution to enact tighter laws concerning gun ownership or possession. There are existing laws, and more laws are needed that are carefully calibrated, such as better background checks. The Supreme Court has said ownership of a handgun in my home is Constitutional, but has never said your ownership of an AK-47 is Constitutional.

There are dozens of scientific survey polls over decades, conducted by many reputable polling organizations, that say Americans favor gun ownership and favor laws that have tight requirements concerning gun ownership or possession. This is a constant and It's consistent.

[NeverSure]

The most important thing to a politician is to get reelected.

And the NRA can - and do - divert resources specifically to ensure that that happens.

Like I said, they own the politicians. That's your American "democracy" in action.

They don't seem unwilling.

They are unwilling. alt=coffee1.gif width=32 height=24>

Oh well.

Another one of the annoying irrational aspects of American political life.

You guys are looking in the wrong direction. The reason the gun restrictions can't pass is that they are unpopular with American voters and politicians want to get reelected.

The 5 million dues paying members of the NRA vote. They are active and they don't stay home on election day. But for every gun owner who belongs to the NRA, there are many more who don't belong but who will still vote for gun rights.

Only 5% of American gun owners take the trouble, and pay the dues, to belong to the NRA. So the NRA actual has millions and millions of supporters who aren't members but who will vote as the members do.

It must be fun to bash the NRA, but I and several of my friends belong, and the NRA is just "us." WE give the NRA its voice.

[NeverSure]

The 2nd amendment is absolute and unconditional - "...shall not be infringed.". If the majority of Americans really want gun controls, then all they have to do is amend the constitution.. Poll results for highly controversial issues should never be presented without the methodology and question wording clearly stated. There are many ways to bias and skew the results. The bottom as matters stand now, is that the constitution must be amended if the right to keep and bear arms is to be made conditional.

Not true. Heller acknowledges that limitations exist and Scalia has confirmed the same during interviews after he wrote the majority in Heller. Haha, where in the world do you guys get this whackadoodle stuff. Stop reading Freemen Are Us and white supremacists cites and pick up something written by someone with more than a 9th grade education.

Regardless of what judges have said, that does not change the words "shall not be infringed", and when judges interpret and add conditions that are not in the Constitution that in itself is unconstitutional. Judges should not interpret the constitution, they are supposed to uphold it. As for those who do not fear overbearing governments, try asking those who were murdered by governments in many countries. Oh, that's right, you can't ask them because they were murdered by their governments.

And as for producing a study that shows that criminals are afraid of people who are armed,that is a fallacious argument, because you cannot prove what never happened and what is not reported, such as law abiding, armed citizens fending off attacks in their homes by criminals. But if you look at ther FBI data at http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8, you will find that the homicide rate is down in the United States since 2007.

Good post.

But yes you can get some idea of how many Americans used a gun to protect themselves in a given year. It is important to know that in most of these cases no shots were fired. The mere presence of the gun was the deterrent. I have seen studies showing that about 10% of these were women protecting themselves from rape.

I don't have more current numbers, but this is still a valid sample. LINK

"The National Self-Defense Survey indicated that there were 2.5 million incidents of defensive gun use per year in the U.S. during the 1988-1993 period. This is probably a conservative estimate, for two reasons. First, cases of respondents intentionally withholding reports of genuine defensive-gun uses were probably more common than cases of respondents reporting incidents that did not occur or that were not genuinely defensive. Second, the survey covered only adults age 18 and older, thereby excluding all defensive gun uses involving adolescents, the age group most likely to suffer a violent victimization.

The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.

A national survey conducted in 1994 by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the estimates from the National Self-Defense Survey. This survey's person-based estimate was that 1.44% of the adult population had used a gun for protection against a person in the previous year, implying 2.73 million defensive gun users. These results were well within sampling error of the corresponding 1.33% and 2.55 million estimates produced by the National Self-Defense Survey."

Even the very anti-gun Bloomberg press puts the number at 100,000 but they pull that number out of their xxx. LINK

"What’s the upshot?

1. We don’t know exactly how frequently defensive gun use occurs.

2. A conservative estimate of the order of magnitude is tens of thousands of times a year; 100,000 is not a wild gun-nut fantasy.

3. Many gun owners (I am not one, but I know plenty) focus not on statistical probabilities, but on a worst-case scenario: They’re in trouble, and they want a fighting chance.

4. DGU does not answer any questions in this debate, but it’s a factor that deserves attention."

[Publicus]

The 2nd amendment is absolute and unconditional - "...shall not be infringed.". If the majority of Americans really want gun controls, then all they have to do is amend the constitution.. Poll results for highly controversial issues should never be presented without the methodology and question wording clearly stated. There are many ways to bias and skew the results. The bottom as matters stand now, is that the constitution must be amended if the right to keep and bear arms is to be made conditional.

Not true. Heller acknowledges that limitations exist and Scalia has confirmed the same during interviews after he wrote the majority in Heller. Haha, where in the world do you guys get this whackadoodle stuff. Stop reading Freemen Are Us and white supremacists cites and pick up something written by someone with more than a 9th grade education.

Regardless of what judges have said, that does not change the words "shall not be infringed", and when judges interpret and add conditions that are not in the Constitution that in itself is unconstitutional. Judges should not interpret the constitution, they are supposed to uphold it. As for those who do not fear overbearing governments, try asking those who were murdered by governments in many countries. Oh, that's right, you can't ask them because they were murdered by their governments.

And as for producing a study that shows that criminals are afraid of people who are armed,that is a fallacious argument, because you cannot prove what never happened and what is not reported, such as law abiding, armed citizens fending off attacks in their homes by criminals. But if you look at ther FBI data at http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8, you will find that the homicide rate is down in the United States since 2007.

Supreme Court justices and the federal judges below them do all of the above.

They uphold the Constitution, they interpret it, and they add conditions to its meaning that did not exist when the Founders wrote the Constitution by both sunlight and candle light in 1787.

I again refer you to McCulloch v Maryland, which in the US is Grade 7 Civics class, by which the Supreme Court in 1819 established its authority to interpret the Constitution, to say what the Constitution means in a given time and circumstance.

Your view of what judges and justices do is an uneducated one. Either that or you are in a state of complete denial. Neither is a good place to be.

The Second Amendment is neither absolute nor is it unconditional. The Supreme Court already had made this clear long before your posts to this thread.

Nor is there necessarily any correlation between guns, the Second Amendment, judges or justices, armed citizens "fending off attacks in their homes by criminals" and the homicide rate being reduced in the United States since 2007.

Where do you get this stuff?!

Never mind.

[NeverSure]

Supreme Court justices and the federal judges below them do all of the above.

They uphold the Constitution, they interpret it, and they add conditions to its meaning that did not exist when the Founders wrote the Constitution by both sunlight and candle light in 1787.

I again refer you to McCulloch v Maryland, which in the US is Grade 7 Civics class, by which the Supreme Court in 1819 established its authority to interpret the Constitution, to say what the Constitution means in a given time and circumstance.

Your view of what judges and justices do is an uneducated one. Either that or you are in a state of complete denial. Neither is a good place to be.

The Second Amendment is neither absolute nor is it unconditional. The Supreme Court already had made this clear long before your posts to this thread.

Nor is there necessarily any correlation between guns, the Second Amendment, judges or justices, armed citizens "fending off attacks in their homes by criminals" and the homicide rate being reduced in the United States since 2007.

Where do you get this stuff?!

Never mind.

Wow, are you tilting at windmills.

"Supreme Court affirms fundamental right to bear arms" The Washington Post

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

"The Second Amendment provides Americans a fundamental right to bear arms that cannot be violated by state and local governments, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a long-sought victory for gun rights advocates."

"...But Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who wrote the opinion for the court's dominant conservatives, said: "It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."

"The decision extended the court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home." That decision applied only to federal laws and federal enclaves such as Washington; it was the first time the court had said there was an individual right to gun ownership rather than one related to military service." - Emphasis mine.

[unanimosity]

They are not unwilling to prevent gun violence. They are unwilling to violate the 2nd amendment and confiscate all the millions of guns that are already on the street. Nothing else would prevent gun violence and it is not going to happen in USA.

If they are unwilling to do what it takes to prevent gun violence then they are unwilling...period. The fact that they are still unwilling, even after the massacre at an elementary school is mind boggling. Quoting some old piece of paper doesn't quite explain why they are willing to sacrifice even their children.

Such naivete and fairy tale mentality to think--with your emotions instead of your mind--that telling honest citizens to give up their guns is going to have the impact you irrationally dream about. The impact would be to worsen crime and tragedies when perpetrators know that all the law abiding folk are unarmed, as is happening in Chicago where gun laws are among the toughest. There is zero evidence to support your well-intentioned and compassionate conjecture.

According to your naive notion, drunk driving fatalities would be curbed by taking cars away from sober drivers.

[NeverSure]

Supreme Court justices and the federal judges below them do all of the above.

They uphold the Constitution, they interpret it, and they add conditions to its meaning that did not exist when the Founders wrote the Constitution by both sunlight and candle light in 1787.

I again refer you to McCulloch v Maryland, which in the US is Grade 7 Civics class, by which the Supreme Court in 1819 established its authority to interpret the Constitution, to say what the Constitution means in a given time and circumstance.

Your view of what judges and justices do is an uneducated one. Either that or you are in a state of complete denial. Neither is a good place to be.

The Second Amendment is neither absolute nor is it unconditional. The Supreme Court already had made this clear long before your posts to this thread.

Nor is there necessarily any correlation between guns, the Second Amendment, judges or justices, armed citizens "fending off attacks in their homes by criminals" and the homicide rate being reduced in the United States since 2007.

Where do you get this stuff?!

Never mind.

Wow, are you tilting at windmills.

"Supreme Court affirms fundamental right to bear arms" The Washington Post

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

"The Second Amendment provides Americans a fundamental right to bear arms that cannot be violated by state and local governments, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a long-sought victory for gun rights advocates."

"...But Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who wrote the opinion for the court's dominant conservatives, said: "It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."

"The decision extended the court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home." That decision applied only to federal laws and federal enclaves such as Washington; it was the first time the court had said there was an individual right to gun ownership rather than one related to military service." - Emphasis mine.

Sorry, but I forgot to emphasize that the Supreme Court harkened back to "original intent" of the founders of America when they wrote the Constitution.

It was and has been the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, but NOT in order to change it. They search for the actual meaning of the original intent which formed the Constitution.

The Constitution cannot be changed except by amendment, which is a difficult process for a reason.

To quote Justice Alito from above, "It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty." - emphasis mine.

He cared a whole lot about that original document, and what its framers intended. Original intent. That was his goal, and his job and his duty.

[Publicus]

Supreme Court justices and the federal judges below them do all of the above.

They uphold the Constitution, they interpret it, and they add conditions to its meaning that did not exist when the Founders wrote the Constitution by both sunlight and candle light in 1787.

I again refer you to McCulloch v Maryland, which in the US is Grade 7 Civics class, by which the Supreme Court in 1819 established its authority to interpret the Constitution, to say what the Constitution means in a given time and circumstance.

Your view of what judges and justices do is an uneducated one. Either that or you are in a state of complete denial. Neither is a good place to be.

The Second Amendment is neither absolute nor is it unconditional. The Supreme Court already had made this clear long before your posts to this thread.

Nor is there necessarily any correlation between guns, the Second Amendment, judges or justices, armed citizens "fending off attacks in their homes by criminals" and the homicide rate being reduced in the United States since 2007.

Where do you get this stuff?!

Never mind.

Wow, are you tilting at windmills.

"Supreme Court affirms fundamental right to bear arms" The Washington Post

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

"The Second Amendment provides Americans a fundamental right to bear arms that cannot be violated by state and local governments, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a long-sought victory for gun rights advocates."

"...But Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who wrote the opinion for the court's dominant conservatives, said: "It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."

"The decision extended the court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home." That decision applied only to federal laws and federal enclaves such as Washington; it was the first time the court had said there was an individual right to gun ownership rather than one related to military service." - Emphasis mine.

Sorry, but I forgot to emphasize that the Supreme Court harkened back to "original intent" of the founders of America when they wrote the Constitution.

It was and has been the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, but NOT in order to change it. They search for the actual meaning of the original intent which formed the Constitution.

The Constitution cannot be changed except by amendment, which is a difficult process for a reason.

To quote Justice Alito from above, "It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty." - emphasis mine.

He cared a whole lot about that original document, and what its framers intended. Original intent. That was his goal, and his job and his duty.

Nothing in your posts contradicts any of my posts to this thread.

I have acknowledged the constitutional right to bear arms and that the majority of Americans support it.

I have said the Second Amendment is not absolute or unconditional - the Supreme Court's ruling you reference proves the Court's McCulloch v Maryland precedent, observed since 1819, that the Court says what the Constitution means and says, e.g., as you mention, Original Intent.

I never said the Supreme Court has the right to change the Constitution, e.g., throw out the Second Amendment, or any other provision of the Constitution. To contend the Supreme Court could do that or any such thing would be insane.

You are trying to create irrational contradictions or wild contrasts that don't exist.

My point is that while the majority of Americans do support gun ownership, they do not support any absolute, unqualified access to gun ownership or possession. That while the majority of Americans support gun ownership and the strengthening of gun access and ownership laws, a tiny minority, a subculture, oppose almost every, any and all laws that strengthen gun access and gun ownership laws.

To continue, my point is that this tiny and fanatical absolutist gun subculture of the United States continues to wield disproportionate control over national legislators because the subculture votes in large numbers as a fanatical single-issue special interest group that also throws large amounts of cash into election campaigns that place an electoral bull's eye on legislators who vote to tighten gun laws.

My posts say that the vast majority of Americans have for a long time wanted tighter laws concerning gun access and ownership, but that we can't get any such laws because of the fanatical absolutist minority gun subculture of the country that believes absurdly that the answer to the existence of many guns is to have more guns.

So whatever are you on about in your posts above?!

[Publicus]

Supreme Court justices and the federal judges below them do all of the above.

They uphold the Constitution, they interpret it, and they add conditions to its meaning that did not exist when the Founders wrote the Constitution by both sunlight and candle light in 1787.

I again refer you to McCulloch v Maryland, which in the US is Grade 7 Civics class, by which the Supreme Court in 1819 established its authority to interpret the Constitution, to say what the Constitution means in a given time and circumstance.

Your view of what judges and justices do is an uneducated one. Either that or you are in a state of complete denial. Neither is a good place to be.

The Second Amendment is neither absolute nor is it unconditional. The Supreme Court already had made this clear long before your posts to this thread.

Nor is there necessarily any correlation between guns, the Second Amendment, judges or justices, armed citizens "fending off attacks in their homes by criminals" and the homicide rate being reduced in the United States since 2007.

Where do you get this stuff?!

Never mind.

Wow, are you tilting at windmills.

"Supreme Court affirms fundamental right to bear arms" The Washington Post

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

"The Second Amendment provides Americans a fundamental right to bear arms that cannot be violated by state and local governments, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a long-sought victory for gun rights advocates."

"...But Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who wrote the opinion for the court's dominant conservatives, said: "It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."

"The decision extended the court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home." That decision applied only to federal laws and federal enclaves such as Washington; it was the first time the court had said there was an individual right to gun ownership rather than one related to military service." - Emphasis mine.

I've never said otherwise.

I've only pointed out the vast majority of Americans want tighter laws governing gun ownership, access, possession, but that we can't get such laws because of a fanatical single-issue minority subculture of gunslingers.

I'm afraid your posts do a Dick Cheney - with your own gun you shoot another hunter.

You need to be more attentive and careful. Lives depend on it.

[NeverSure]

Supreme Court justices and the federal judges below them do all of the above.

They uphold the Constitution, they interpret it, and they add conditions to its meaning that did not exist when the Founders wrote the Constitution by both sunlight and candle light in 1787.

I again refer you to McCulloch v Maryland, which in the US is Grade 7 Civics class, by which the Supreme Court in 1819 established its authority to interpret the Constitution, to say what the Constitution means in a given time and circumstance.

Your view of what judges and justices do is an uneducated one. Either that or you are in a state of complete denial. Neither is a good place to be.

The Second Amendment is neither absolute nor is it unconditional. The Supreme Court already had made this clear long before your posts to this thread.

Nor is there necessarily any correlation between guns, the Second Amendment, judges or justices, armed citizens "fending off attacks in their homes by criminals" and the homicide rate being reduced in the United States since 2007.

Where do you get this stuff?!

Never mind.

Wow, are you tilting at windmills.

"Supreme Court affirms fundamental right to bear arms" The Washington Post

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

"The Second Amendment provides Americans a fundamental right to bear arms that cannot be violated by state and local governments, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a long-sought victory for gun rights advocates."

"...But Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who wrote the opinion for the court's dominant conservatives, said: "It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."

"The decision extended the court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home." That decision applied only to federal laws and federal enclaves such as Washington; it was the first time the court had said there was an individual right to gun ownership rather than one related to military service." - Emphasis mine.

I've never said otherwise.

I've only pointed out the vast majority of Americans want tighter laws governing gun ownership, access, possession, but that we can't get such laws because of a fanatical single-issue minority subculture of gunslingers.

I'm afraid your posts do a Dick Cheney - with your own gun you shoot another hunter.

You need to be more attentive and careful. Lives depend on it.

In your post just above, you said "a tiny minority, a subculture...votes in large numbers..."

Who is confused? Who needs to be more attentive and careful?

Your side always loses because of something we call majority rule.

You don't like the outcome so you spin the facts until even they are dizzy.