Let’s put that statement into context: The year is 1783. “Arms” are single shot, muzzle loaded pistols and muskets. Militias — citizen soldiers armed with these weapons — played a crucial role in the fight for liberty.
After the Revolution, the Founders were highly suspicious of a standing army. They knew first-hand England’s was used to keep King George’s subjects in line as much as to fight wars, so they disbanded most of the Continental Army.
The Founders believed, incorrectly, future conflicts could be fought by militias. So these units might be mobilized quickly, citizen soldiers required their own muskets and pistols.
This context is everything when the gun lobby or people like state Rep.-elect Charles Gregory (R-Kennesaw) start bellowing about “freedom” and their Second Amendment rights.
The Founders could not imagine the kind of firepower sold in gun stores today. And they could never envision how a lone maniac would use such weapons, this time around to slaughter 20 little children and six heroic women.
The gun lobby and the political allies it funds have twisted the Amendment’s original context to justify the sale of such weapons. To them, profits always supersede public safety.
Out here in Big Sky Country, I have many friends who enjoy hunting deer, elk and antelope, but they never use assault weapons with high capacity magazines to bag a buck. They hunt with bolt action rifles and even bow and arrow. They might pack a side arm for protection against bear or mountain lion attacks.
Responsible sportsmen respect their quarry and want the game to have a fighting chance, so they wouldn’t think of blasting 20 rounds into a deer with a Bushmaster. And isn’t target shooting all about marksmanship, not how many rounds you can fire in three seconds?
Gun lovers who think having an armory at home will protect them from government oppression live in a Ted Nugent-inspired fever swamp.
If the sort of apocalypse they imagine ever happens, it will most likely be led by renegade right-wing military officers, not Greenpeace.
Assault weapons have only one purpose; to kill human beings. To that lethal end, the $32 billion gun industry has been extremely efficient, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. From 2007 to 2009, the U.S. averaged 10,987 homicides per year by firearm, compared with an average of 182 in Germany, 75 in Spain and 47 in the United Kingdom.
Wayne LaPierre, the National Rifle Association’s obfuscating mouthpiece, predictably blames the news media and “elites,” but not easy access to automatic weapons and ammo.
LaPierre claims movies and games led to the slaughter in Newtown, but people see violent entertainment in Germany, Spain and the U.K., where, coincidently, there are also strict gun safety laws and free mental health care.
LaPierre’s solution is armed cops in our 98,000 public schools. Very well, let the gun manufacturers pay for all that security to protect children from their deadly products. They can also cover the cost of armed police in theaters, malls, restaurants, universities and every other place where mass gun murder has or can happen.
The little coffins in Connecticut demand we pass sensible gun safety legislation.
Ban assault rifles, close the gun show loophole and limit magazine capacity, but also repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that shields gun manufacturers from liability when their products are used to massacre people.
Kevin Foley is a public relations executive, author and writer who lives in Kennesaw.
Follow us on Twitter!
"US Senator Charles Schumer, author of the 1994 Crime Bill, today announced that several New York school districts will receive $125,000 federal grants under the bill’s Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program. The money will be used to hire one community police officer to be placed within the city’s school system."
"Schumer said community police officers within schools provide a variety of function other than acting as a security presence and link to local law enforcement."
This was a Department of Justice program initiated by Clinton in 1998.
My progressive friends, help me reconcile this with the recent brow beating received by NRA Executive Wayne LaPierre when he proposed placing police officers in schools across the country.
Do the math: 98,000 public schools X $50,000/year per cop. And, oh yeah, we also need armed cops in every mall, church, theater, post office, etc. Let the gun manufacturers pay for all that.
It costs me nothing extra to give the police we already pay sensible gun safety laws to enforce.
More Friday.
Ask Bill Clinton; this was his program..
You pay for school protection and I'll pay for Sandra Fluke's, uh, "protection."
Every time you open your mouth or put pen to paper it shows how incredibly ignorant, uninformed and brainwashed you actually are.
However your babblings do serve a purpose.
They act as a barometer of how the liberals in this country think and hoe they view the real world through a prism of distortion, idealism and obfuscation.
Here is the text of the act that created them.
"That two battalions of Marines be raised consisting of one Colonel, two lieutenant-colonels, two majors and other officers, as usual in other regiments; that they consist of an equal number of privates as with other battalions, that particular care be taken that no persons be appointed to offices, or enlisted into said battalions, but such as are good seamen, or so acquainted with maritime affairs as to be able to serve for and during the present war with Great Britain and the Colonies; unless dismissed by Congress; that they be distinguished by the names of the First and Second Battalions of Marines."
What does the size and funtion have to do with what I said anyway?
I'm glad Eisenhower didn't ask that question the night before D-day.
"The highest number to which a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth part of the souls, or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This portion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Besides the advantage of being armed, it forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors."- (Source I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789).
With the Marines, Congress was perfectly safe in disbanding part of the army, which was, by the way, an economic move as well.
Another lame and fact-less response from Mr. Foley. Yo...Kevin: Mashburn was talking about state militia, NOT the Continental Army.
History, Kevin. History. Real History. Read. Understand. Then write.
Like I said, I've got at least a hundred more examples if you persist like "No Man Shall Pass" in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
You, sir, are beaten on this point and fairly so.
When cars are involved in deaths, it's seldom homicide. We have more than 10,000 firearm homicides in America every year. You want math? That's 27 per day. And that doesn't include accidents.
The idea here, my friend, is to reduce the body count.
Please re-read my original post which explained how existing and proposed gun control regulation would not have prevented the carnage in CT. If you have valid counter arguments, cite them. If not, please return to your standard ploy of name calling. We find this predictable behavior entertaining.
NEWS FLASH: They're all just as dead!
Intent isn't nearly as relevant as results!
If you do not already know that, it is about time you found it out.
IT IS NOT ABOUT GUNS. IT IS ABOUT CONTROL.
It's a long read, but well worth it.
I would suggest that the MDJ drop him as a contributor, but I suspect they keep him on to make even the lamest of their conservative opinion pieces seem absolutely brilliant by comparison.
It would take a response four or five times the size of his column to point out all of his errors, so I’ll just note the one: “…I have many friends…”.
In the meantime, kindly tell us where the lies are in the piece.
The assault rifle found hadn't even been used in the attack. The pistols did use high capacity clips, but such clips actually save very little time. Changing out clips takes about 3 seconds.
Your background info was good, but misleading. The military was used by the king against his own people. Our current military and police could be used in much the same way against our current population. Therefore, the ability of the people to form a militia in their own defense is not to be infringed upon.
Your use of stats is disingenuous at best, too. If stats from the UN are to be believed, the classification of homicide vs gun deaths are not distinguished. But if we accept the number anyway, you're talking about 0.0036% of the 300 million guns owned in the US.
Why aren't you focusing on the much bigger problem in the cause of deaths in the US? More than 33,000 deaths a year are caused by assault cars and assault trucks. That number is so "low" because they're registered, so only responsible people will use them. Hmmmm... Doesn't really work that way, does it?!
Again, Kevin, to you, logic and actuality is irrelevant. This tragic event in CT is just another opportunity to try to advance your liberal agenda. The reality is that madmen will do whatever they can to inflict harm. The tool used may vary, but the attempted harm will be sought, regardless!
You really think a madman with a baseball bat could kill 26 people in less than 5 minutes?
Reactionaries like you are making excuses for the maniacs armed to the teeth with assault rifles and high capacity clips.
BTW, you do not identify yourself when you post as "Lib in Cobb".
1. Gun control - ineffective. However, in the interest of reaching across the aisle, many conservatives are open to discussing reasonable gun control regulations.
2. Mental health - civil commitment laws, specifically, involuntary commitment laws need to be addressed. However, we're now bumping into 5th amendment rights of due process. I see no discussion whatsoever of this factor from the progessives.
3. Violent movies and video games - some believe this is a factor, I don't necessarily subscribe to it, but some do argue that it is a contributor to the violent culture we live in. It is worthy of discussion, but we're bumping into 1st amendment rights of free speech. If conservatives are willing to sit down at the table to discuss gun control, then Hollywood and video game designers should be willing to do likewise.
4. The Media - I'd like to see the media report these tragedies without mentioning the names and displaying the pictures of the losers who commit the acts. Deprive the monsters of their 15 minutes of fame. Deprive them of their ability to say, "I'll show them", so to speak. However, I'm not delusional; the media will never support this idea. It's all about the ratings, right?
5. Armed citizens - yes, one can conjure up any number of scenarios whereby innocent bystanders become casualties from the armed citizen's weapon. However, these scenarios generally assume that a firefight ensues, and completely ignores the effect of deterrence.
Again, good article that's sure to stir up many responses. I hope we can keep it civil and broaden the scope to factors other than gun control.
More later.
Without getting too gruesome, yes, a crazed adult with a baseball bat could kill children at the rate of 1 every 11 seconds. It's not rocket science, Kevin.
It's funny/sad that you fail to address the issue and instead focus on name calling. It is people like you who reacted to the slaughter of these poor children with cries for gun control... advancing your own agenda in the wake of their suffering. THAT's a pitiful level of low character, in my opinion. YOU are the "reactionary" one.
If you'll re-read my post, you'll see I made NO defense of the actions of the mad man. Again, you apparently can't think straight (or read accurately).
You made your weak assertions. Their reasoning has been soundly refuted. Now you can only begin the name calling and mockery.
The indiscriminate use of either is criminal.