94.3 - We are fucking insane

[Ohio Joe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

94.3 guns per 100 residents... Damn near double the next country.

Insanity.

[Arkansas Granny]

1. Holy cow!!! It's like a national fetish.

[moondust]

2. The Second Amendment

pretty much guarantees widespread murder and mayhem, a culture of criminality. I'm surprised the framers of the Constitution didn't see that coming.

Or did they?

[Brewinblue]

5. The 2nd Amendment does no such thing.

"A well regulated militia" has nothing to do with the gun nuttery that now prevails. There is no constitutional right to unfettered gun ownership. But the NRA has so poisoned public dialogue on the issue, that the founders' intentions are all but forgotten.

[moondust]

7. It's too ambiguous.

Which leaves it open to interpretation.

[former9thward]

14. Your attempts to revise history will fail.

As they always have.

[Laelth]

3. That's really very interesting.

The statistics for the United States do not surprise me. The statistics for Serbia don't surprise me either.

But the number of guns owned by people in France and Germany does surprise me (those numbers are higher than I expected) whereas I found the number of guns owned by people in England & Wales to be very low (compared to their continental counterparts).

Interesting.

-Laelth

[CanonRay]

4. The framers could no more see this coming

than they could see the internet coming. Firearms were muzzle loading, black powder, and single shot. I think if they could have seen an AR-15, they might have done something different in the 2nd amendment, or not done it at all.

[newfie11]

6. As the owner of a muzzle loader I agree with you

There would never be a mass shooting. People would be gone while reloading was being done. Hell I've had this rifle for 10 years and still haven hit the target.

[Zoeisright]

40. Which is why gun nuts can have all the muskets they want.

Everything else, no. That's "original intent", after all.

[Spazito]

8. It still boggles my mind that the words "a well regulated militia" in the 2nd Amendment...

has been made, in effect, non-existent as to weight, due to the placement of a comma. A comma among three:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A comma placed by a scribe at the time it was written.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/opinion/16freedman.html?_r=0

[RoccoR5955]

9. You are not alone

It often boggles my mind too. It boggles my mind even more when I read the entire second amendment to some bonehead who swears that it's just about the right to bear arms.

Why are 50% of the people of less than average IQ?!?!

[Spazito]

10. On this issue, I think it is less of an intelligence question and more a....

'I don't give a shit what it really says, I have the right to bear arms, lots of them, where and when I want' state of mind. The courts, via the errant comma, agreed and hence there are 94.3 guns per 100 residents.

[former9thward]

15. You are making it up.

A comma has nothing to do with it. You don't know what the word 'regulated' means. The word regulation did not exist in the late 1700s. The word 'Regulated' meant "equipped and trained." According to James Madison, who wrote the 2nd amendment, the militia was "the whole people". You belong to a militia, whether you like it or not, simply by living in the U.S. That was the first federal law passed by Congress and is still in existence today. Also most states have the same provision in the state constitution.

[Spazito]

17. I gather you didn't read the article in the link I provided...

someone is making something up but it is not me nor is the writer of the article you clearly didn't care to read.

[former9thward]

19. I have read what James Madison had to say on the subject.

In the Federalist Papers. Since he is the one who wrote the 2nd I go by what he said not someone with an agenda trying to interpret him 220 years later.

[Ohio Joe]

21. Do you want slavery back as well?

Original meaning and all...

[former9thward]

27. Is strawmen all you do?

[Ohio Joe]

30. So... Guns laws we go 220 years ago but not slavery?

Why do you hate the constitution?

[former9thward]

33. "Why do you hate the constitution?"

You are incapable of making a post without a strawman.

[Ohio Joe]

35. I don't think that word means what you think it means...

And why are you incapable of answering the simplest of questions?

I'll put it straight forward and skip the sarcasm you seem to have trouble with... Why do you want one type of law to be adhered to from the point of view of 220 years ago but not a different law?

[former9thward]

38. If you are referring to slavery...

The Constitution with Article I, Section 9, part one effectively prohibited slavery after 1808. Unfortunately the southern states did not follow that section and eventually we fought a civil war over it. So I think both 'laws' should have been adhered to. More to the point I think owning people is bad and having the right to own guns is good. You don't think both those things. I get that.

[Ohio Joe]

39. Whooosh... No, I'll just not answer the question again...

Constitution from 220 years ago is great for guns but not for slavery... Because nothing changes in a few hundred years.

oh and... FYI...

"The Constitution with Article I, Section 9, part one effectively prohibited slavery after 1808"

Saying one can not import slaves does not 'effectively' or in any other way prohibit slavery. Slavery would not end for about another 60 years. Thanks for the revisionist history instead of an answer though.

[former9thward]

41. You don't know your Constitutional history but that never stops anyone on the internet.

The writers of the Constitution put that section in to end slavery. Both sides knew that. Slaves do not reproduce enough to fulfill needs of a slave economy without importing new ones. That is why there was such a battle over whether slavery was going to be allowed in the new states coming into country in the 1830s, 40s and 50s. No one thought it would end overnight in 1808. But after that the southern states started to violate that section by illegally importing slaves. The people who wrote the Constitution knew what they were doing. Your are the revisionist because you don't know simple facts about early U.S. history. I did answer your question. Maybe you missed it. I think both laws should be followed.

[Ohio Joe]

44. You claim slavery ended in 1808 and I am the revisionist...

You answered? Where? Where is the part the justifies holding one law to 220 years ago but not the other? You insist on citing the founding fathers and their intent but won't hold it to slavery?

But... But... But... Strawman!

Fuckin gun nuts crack me up

[former9thward]

47. Making shit up.

Not surprising. I never said slavery "ended" in 1808. I said the section effectively prohibited it. They knew it would die of attrition. The southern states violated the provision. Go ahead and keep embarrassing yourself with a lack of historical knowledge. You think a rofl substitutes for knowing some knowledge. Am I communicating with an adult? Try reading some history of the Constitution by some scholars. You might learn something.

[Ohio Joe]

48. Slavery did NOT die of 'attrition' and it did not end in 1808...

WTF?

Still avoiding the real topic and afraid to answer though huh? What a shock.

[former9thward]

51. It did not end because the south violated the law.

You are incapable of posting without using strawmen. You like putting words in someone's mouth and then knocking it down. No, it didn't end in 1808 or die of attrition as intended because the south continued to illegally import slaves. Had the law been followed slavery would have imploded economically as the founders wanted.

I have answered your question two times now. Maybe I should have put it in bold.

[badtoworse]

32. That is a great example!

We fixed slavery by amending the constitution. If you are unhappy with the 2nd Amendment, the same fix is in order - amend the constitution.

The SCOTUS has settled the question: The 2nd Amendment protects an individual right and the argument about commas is moot.

[Spazito]

22. LOL, that is exactly what the various courts did...

attempt to interpret him 200+ years later and their interpretation ended up resting on a comma, a simple comma.

[former9thward]

25. No they didn't.

Go to law school and learn how to read (and interpret) opinions.

[Spazito]

28. Try this on for size...

The Supreme Court is "distinctly American in concept and function," as Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes observed. Few other courts in the world have the same authority of constitutional interpretation and none have exercised it for as long or with as much influence.

In case you miss it while reading the quote above, "AUTHORITY OF CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION"

http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx

[former9thward]

29. Is someone questioning that the SC can interpret the Constitution?

[Spazito]

36. We have now gone full circle to the fact you did not read the article in my original post...

There was someone who by this statement indicated what you are now questioning as having been indicated:

"I have read what James Madison had to say on the subject. In the Federalist Papers. Since he is the one who wrote the 2nd I go by what he said not someone with an agenda trying to interpret him 220 years later."

From that statement, it seems clear only you and James Madison can accurately interpret 'what James Madison had to say" leaving out the USSC who try to interpret him 200+ years later.

I realize you don't want to read the article, one wonders why of course, as reading something can be of benefit in better understanding of an issue.

Oh well.

Edited to add clarity.

[Rex]

11. This is why I laugh at the Foxnews crowd swearing

Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood any day now will be by my house to collect my guns!

Not in a MILLION years will the govt come for your guns!

Bunch of scared lemmings.

[haele]

12. but, there's probably only 20 per 100 residents who actually possess a firearm.

And out of that, 15 of that 20 probably only possess one firearm.
Of course, one needs to ensure one isn't counting guns kept in authorized armories (Police/National Guard armories, shooting ranges, etc...), which is not always clear in Wiki numbers. You need to make sure that you're only counting residents.

Of course, that's strongly depending on the area you live in - in a rural setting, you're more likely to run 50 out of 100 residents, and in an urban area, you might run 2 or 3 per 100 residents.

It's the residents with the gun bunkers of 20 to 50 firearms in their possession that give me pause. Unless you're a multi-war military/wild-west re-enactor, antiques collector, or a competition shooter, how many working firearms per person do you really need in your house?

Haele

[belcffub]

50. I fall into that 20-50ish category

of all of them only 10 or so get regular use... mostly for hunting... I got all but a couple through inheritance from family members... most are antiques many well over 100 years old... they spend all there time in the safe and come out twice a year for cleaning...takes me about 8 hours to clean on oil them all... I think many owners that fall into that category are like me...

[haele]

53. I do understand collecting antiques and having a variety for hunting. No problem there.

As I indicated, rural people are more likely to have several firearms for personal protection due to living in a remote location, for invasive wildlife and possibly hunting to suppliment food. I'd probably have either a shotgun and a rifle if I lived out in the country myself for the above reasons. Though with family members who have problems with depression and/or are bipolar, I'd not want to have more and I'd keep that sucker under as much control as I could.

It's the people with bunkers hording for the end of civilization or who, in their paranoia of home invasions from imaginary "maurading government-sponsored liberal queer black or brown biker gangs who want to steal their guns and rape their wimminfolk", leave their multiple firearms fully loaded where anyone - especially children or burglars of opportunity (mostly local neighborhood teenagers and/or their friends) - could get to it at any time that I question.

Haele

[mstinamotorcity2]

13. Everytime they tell these insane

people that President Obama and the bleeding heart liberals are going to take away their guns, They buy more. If they buy more, it would make sense to keep repeating the same thing. Because Weapons Manufacturers get the same results. Sales. And as long as they keep selling, you will have a For Profit Prison System that will need a revolving door. you will also need plenty of body bags, coroners, and cemetery space, or good gas burners for cremations.
The Pry my Gun From My Cold Dead Hand Society, Use the Second Amendment as the stone tablet of gun ownership. I have read on different web sites where those nuts will buy a gun and go hungry. House in need of repair but they want a gun. The gun is a way of life for some people. What happened to if you Live by the Gun You Die by the Gun??????

[former9thward]

16. Speak for yourself

[Ohio Joe]

18. Yeah Baby! More guns, More guns!

We can't murder fast enough!

Are gun nuts just cowards that are afraid of everything or so murderous that they just HAVE to have more guns then they can use?

[former9thward]

20. Project much?

[Ohio Joe]

23. Answer much?

A gun nut declining to give the great justification why we need so many guns.... I'm shocked.

[former9thward]

24. I don't play with the strawman crowd.

[Ohio Joe]

26. Asking for your reason for wanting so many guns is putting up a strawman... heh

Gun nuts... They crack me up

[Rex]

31. A simple question does not a strawman make.

nt.

[otohara]

34. Hoarders of Guns & Bullets

some guy who was screaming at Randi Rhodes this AM - she said she hoped he didn't have a gun...in which he screamed "I have 10 guns"

[Earth_First]

37. There is absolutely no reason for this...

None.

[KittyWampus]

42. Misleading info. Only 34% of households own guns. A very small number of gun owners own many guns.

Just like if Bill Gates walks into room, entire average wealth goes up for everyone in room. Even if everyone else is broke.

[Ohio Joe]

45. I did not say or imply it was anything else

94.3 guns per hundred residents... I believe that is what I said... Yes, it is.

Is it mis-leading to say that is fucking insane? Almost double the next country... This is sane to you?

Edit - Been smoking and had to fix the word salad I put in the title

Edit 2 - Still had a word salad in the title... One more try

[KittyWampus]

46. I wasn't trying to get snippy. Just added some perspective. Yes, that a small number of Americans

own that many guns is insane.

Peace.

[spanone]

43. and that was 6 years ago...before Obama got elected

[Ohio Joe]

49. Yes, no doubt it is even higher now

Fear is shaking people to the core.

[Capt. Obvious]

52. I assumed this was about some radio station program