Pro-Gun Comments On Huffington Post Show Wide Gulf

Here's an actual exchange from the "comments" section of a recent HuffPost entry about guns (monikers mine):

Gun Obsessive: You do understand, I hope, that shotguns have a very limited range?

Not Gun Obsessive: I understand that if shotgun pellets are continuously being found in your backyard that those guns were being fired too darned close to the backyard.

Gun Obsessive: Just because they might be found in your backyard does not mean they are able to cause injury.

This back-and-forth shows a sharp distinction. First, there's the modern gun obsessive, a decided minority who believe their rights trump damn near all else. Then there's the rest of us who know better, whether or not we own a firearm.

I say "modern" gun obsessive because this wasn't the view a generation or two ago. My parents grew up on a small-town farm. One could literally hunt quail out the back door. The absolute rule of thumb, laid down by adults, was that if shotgun pellets rained down anywhere near the house, someone was sure to meet the business end of a hickory switch.

Today, the gun obsessive seeks to justify an expansion of their reach: "Just because they might be found in your backyard does not mean they are able to cause injury."

This is a change, culturally, from the past. It illustrates a lessening of safety, values and respect for others.

Another HuffPost exchange concerned a controversial bill pending in the Texas legislature. As things now stand, if law enforcement pulls you over (at say, 2:00 AM after a night of drinking), and you have a permit to carry a concealed weapon and are packing heat at that moment, you're required to show the officer the permit. This way, he/she can at least know the potential of the situation on their hands.

The new legislation, strongly supported by the Texas State Rifle Association (a wing of the NRA), will remove the requirement. This means the citizen can keep this information a secret from the officer. Many in the "protect and serve" community consider this change misguided, or worse.

One commenter agrees that a permit holder should remain obligated to inform the officer, for safety's sake:

Not Gun Obsessive: You're not opposed to that, are you?

Gun Obsessive: I'm not opposed to it or in favor of it. It's just something that's completely pointless and runs the risk of creating a false sense of security where officers can get hurt.

Get that? The logic is that knowledge somehow places an officer in greater danger. The poor cop, according to this reasoning, is better off not knowing if a loaded gun is in the car, even legally. In fact, all laws are written with an acknowledgement that even the law-abiding can -- and do -- go off the rails.

The so-called gun enthusiast adds that "the truly dangerous people aren't exactly going to be forthcoming with a permit or even have a permit."

In other words, because a criminal with an illegal firearm will certainly keep the police in the dark, a permit holder should therefore be allowed to do likewise?

This makes no sense, and reflects muddled thinking. Fortunately, there's some consolation.

It comes from Antonin Scalia, the conservative Supreme Court justice who wrote the 5-4 majority decision last June declaring the Second Amendment an individual right. He pointedly added this in his opinion:

"It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.....The court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Thank goodness for that morsel of sanity. It shows a recognition that guns kill anywhere and in anyone's hand (and from Scalia, no less, who probably needed it to get Justice Kennedy's fifth vote).

Due to easy access, the United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations, according to our own Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This study has been widely known for 10 years.

No American should be proud of such a statistic. From shotgun pellets landing in the backyard while the children play, to the latest tragedy in Binghamton, New York, things ain't that pretty at all, as they say.

Comments

[SDonaldson]

65 Democrats recently signed a letter advising the administration not to make the assault weapons ban a legislative priority. There are an estimated 300 million firearms in circulation in this country, and according to FBI check statistics, there have been 10 million added to that number in the last four months. Everywhere you look, from Wal-mart to smaller local stores, in almost every area of the country, ammunition is unavailable on the shelves. Most manufacturers are projecting a 4-5 month wait on most guns, because the list of orders is that long. Every time I go to the range lately, there are 60+ people shooting. These people are of all races, and on one Sunday the majority of shooters around me were women. The American people are arming themselves in a way never before witnessed in our history, with perhaps the Revolution excepted. Of 300 million weapons in circulation, less than 1% are ever used for an evil purpose. The American people are fed up with new laws. The laws on the books have not worked, and countries with stricter laws are not immune from these shootings. Most gun owners are productive and happy Americans. In fact, almost ALL of them are. They are spread out among the political parties. I personally have shot with a doctor, two professors, one engineer, a reporter, various teachers, an economist, and people from dozens of other walks of life. We like our guns, and there is nothing wrong with that.

[tellthetruthalways]

I am amazed how you guys can just pull fake statistics about recent gun sales from you behinds. You are just making the stuff up. And even if it were true, and gun nuts are rushing to buy weapons, what does that prove? There is a clear need to better track gun sales, including private transfers. There is a clear need to monitor sales to prevent straw purchases, the very kind of activity that is aiding drug cartel members in Mexico. Guns are dangerous weapons meant to maim and kill and their sale should be closely monitored and tracked. It is that simply.

[CaptainStormfield]

Jeez.. all you have to do is check the gun auctions and ammo sale sites.
The 6 month wait is common. Ammo is out of stock.

[JulieSA]

Go to any store that sells guns and ammo. I've never seen it like this. When I go to my favorite stores the ammo shelves look like a toy store the day after Christmas. And it's been this way since late last year. I'm not kidding. You're really out of it if you think people aren't stocking up. And as SDonaldson says, it's all kinds of people, including lots of women.

Did you know the Clinton "assault weapons" "ban" actually caused an increase in the ownership of that type of weapon? There are more out there than ever before.

[OdinsEye]

Actually those stats are pretty darn accurate.

[PatA]

Chris Rock has the solution. He suggests that bullets should cost $5,000.00 each. That works for me!

[kylennblack]

Winner!

[1will]

What a great idea, another version of the Poll Tax. Only the wealthy will be able to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.
This is what you want.....r­ight?

[tellthetruthalways]

With so few wealthy, certainly the number of deaths would drop significantly. And again, if you got shot by the wealthy, your family would actually stand a good chance of recouping money from a lawsuit. Sounds like a good plan to me.

[PatA]

A repuglican here is sponsoring a bill to allow students to carry guns on campus. The "rationale" is that it will prevent another Virginia Tech situation.
Guess where I live?
Texas

[OdinsEye]

It is being proposed in many states. And if someone has a CCW, I see no problem with it.

[1will]

Campus gun bans and 'Gun Free Zone" stickers don't seem to have worked at Va. Tech or NIU.

[tellthetruthalways]

So by that reasoning, the ban has worked in thousands of other schools. Let me see...uhmm­, ban fails in handful of schools and works in thousands so let's scrap it. Great mind at work there.

[livesimply]

I am a single woman in my 50's, have owned several homes, traveled alone in throughout the US and overseas, and have never felt the need to own a gun in my life. Their only purpose is to kill.

[OdinsEye]

I have traveled a lot too. I have shot firearms and enjoyed the companionship of of fellow shooters across Europe.

If a firearm's purpose is to kill, then 99% of them are being misused.

If you don't want to own a firearm, don't. But don't try to tell me that I cannot.

[tellthetruthalways]

I have no problem with you owning a gun, if you can guarantee it won't be stolen by a dangerous criminal, fired accidentally or used against me by you in a fit of insanity or rage. If you are prepared to make such a guarantee for yourself and others, and put your money where your mouth is, then you can have your gun.

[JulieSA]

By your age (I'm in my 50's too), you should have learned that everyone is different. Not everyone has the same interests, wants, and experiences. Some people have been attacked and want a gun for that reason. Others just enjoy the sh ooting sports. And those people overlap.

I don't tell any private individuals (except my minor son) what legal activity they shouldn't be engaging in on their own time. It's not my business unless it affects me directly.

My parents raised me to be tolerant and open-minded.

[AnnfromCA]

I was amazed by the number of comments last night that they were "liberal gun toters."

You're right.

[Dolmance]

All sober minded Democrats should remember the words of Edmund Brown to his son Jerry when he was running for Governor of California - "don't mess with people's guns." It was the best political advice he could have given his son and it's still the best political advice now.

Nothing, but nothing will infuriate rural voters more than abridging their Constitutionally mandated right to bear arms. It's not about "hunting," as Gore said, or a promise not to interfere with "sportsmen­." People bear arms for the purpose of shooting other people, should they find themselves under attack. And if the Democrats try to limit gun rights, it could very well begin a ground swell of support for the Republican Party, which if it were to bring the Republicans back - and could finish the work of George Bush & Co. and destroy the country once and for all.

Democrats are going to have to live with an armed society for the foreseeable future, or throw away our hard won gains for nothing. LEAVE THE PEOPLE'S GUNS ALONE!!! End of story.

[tellthetruthalways]

Why are Republicans, completely bereft of a single issue on which they are right, trying to resurrect a gun debate? Oh, I just answered my own question. The Republican Party has failed on foreign affairs. domestic affairs and social issues, now they are desperately trying to fuel a gun debate in the country. Trouble is, they are on the wrong side of this issue too. Sick people in America have little difficulty getting their hands on guns and the results are paraded on TV every night for all to see. Sensible gun control is the answer, so let's start with a discussion that addresses ways to lower gun violence.

[Social Construct]

I won't try to join the debate on the 2nd Amendment, but I would like to know if anyone could shed some light on why, in general, we are such a violent people in comparison to other nations in the developed world. Does being a shining beacon of democracy and freedom somehow go hand in hand with a remarkably higher rate of gun violence? On the other hand, perhaps the statistics are skewed somehow but I am inclined to think not.

[OdinsEye]

Our cultural norms have become such that much of our society has lost track of right vs wrong.

Additionally, our cultural glorifies violence and breaking the law.

[livesimply]

"Might is right." Just ask republican GW supporters.

[WilliamProc]

There are a great many things in life that I feel that I have a right to, but can't exercise because a majority of people in the nation think otherwise. Gun ownership has the same caveat.

More people want to own guns freely than there are people who want guns banned outright, so the gun owner win. I'm happy with how that works, it's democratic. The minority wants to have things their way as well; you and others think the availability of guns are the problem, you are the minority. I, being in the majority want to keep that right because I think that if MORE people were armed, violent crime would lessen.

All the anti-gun legislation passed has done nothing to stop the availability of gun to criminals In most cities the local police are far better armed than the criminals. I bet your city has a police dept. with a armored personnel carrier Are you safer because of that?. Has it escaped your attention that recent killings have been committed with legally purchased guns, not stolen or black market weapons. The present gun laws are circumvented by the criminals, who don't need assault rifles or high cyclic guns to kill with. .38's bought in a pawn shop do nicely.

You need a better solution to crime than the archaic gun laws.

[livesimply]

"....if MORE people were armed, violent crime would lessen." Statistically, that makes absolutely no sense, you know.

[1will]

There is a town in Georgia in which the law states that every household must have a gun. The crime rate is extraordinarily low. Look up Kennesaw, Georgia and tell me that their crime rate is worse than DC or Chicago.

[MissKaren]

There are at least 13 votes for gun control that I know of, all of whom died in Binghamton, New York. The fact that a man got hold of that much ammunition makes me wonder about whether we have a handle on the problem.

[OdinsEye]

"The fact that a man got hold of that much ammunition makes me wonder about whether we have a handle on the problem."

And how much ammo do you think he had and used?

How much ammo is OK in your book?

I typically have between 500 and 1500 cartridges of various calibers on had at any goven time.

[boogygran]

Then hopefully you feel quite safe.

[ArticleFriendly]

Your article is clear and concise and on point. Gun possession as defined by the constitution was added when people lived in the wilderness and depended on hunting for food and protection against wild animals and dangerous people. It was not included in the constitution to allowed armed revolt or protection against the American Government . I can understand someone living on hunting needing a rifle, but what is a shotgun for? Or why would anyone need an auto or semi-auto weapon? Gun ownership seems to have gone from a necessity of life to a tool of power that defines a person's feeling of self worth. Guns need to be strictly controlled or banned as long as people feel guns are the only way to vent their frustrations on others, and use them irresponsibly.

[holyhandgrenaid]

Shotguns serve a purpose in hunting. You can't hunt for birds (ducks, geese, etc) with a rifle.

[OdinsEye]

"Gun possession as defined by the constitution was added when people lived in the wilderness and depended on hunting for food and protection against wild animals and dangerous people. It was not included in the constitution to allowed armed revolt or protection against the American Government ."

Incorrect.

"I can understand someone living on hunting needing a rifle, but what is a shotgun for?"

Don't hunt much, do you?

"Or why would anyone need an auto or semi-auto weapon?"

Full-autos are very strictly controlled items. Semi-auto hunting rifles have been sold in the US for 105 years.

[CatladyLinda]

The right to bear arms was included in the constitution because of a fear at that time of an oppressive government. It was a direct reaction to the oppression our founders had experienced under the rule of the King of England. I know some people feel our current government is to be feared, and that is why they want to retain their right to bear arms, but I fear the mad individuals, who go on rampages and kill dozens of people for no reason, much more than I fear my own government.

[OdinsEye]

"but I fear the mad individuals, who go on rampages and kill dozens of people for no reason"

Then address the causes of their rampages, not the tools they use.

BTW, you stand a far greater chance of being killed on our nation's roads than to be shot.

[Truby]

Banning guns will not stop people from obtaining them, it will simply change one of our constitutional rights.

[FightingTheRight]

Then please enlighten us on were people will get them.

[OdinsEye]

Smuggling, black market, and illegal manufacture.

[1will]

The same people that smuggle cocain, heroin, meth, illegal aliens and even slaves into the US will bring in firearms.
I think you could have figured this out if you had put a little thought into the subject.

[hippie chucker]

Well, I suppose if you completely ignore the meaning of the Second Amendment, which gives free citizens the right to bear arms against a tyrannical government, and was thought important enough to be included in the Bill of Rights, you can print drivel like this, Mr. Williams.

Tell me, how would a civilian population here defend itself from a tyrannical government? I'm not saying that it is likely, but why would we give up this right, which is as important as the First Amendment?

In the orginal meaning of the Second Amendment, how would a free citizen defend himself from police action, if he is required to notify a police officer that he is carrying a concealed weapon?
Here is noted neocon Thomas Jefferson:
__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­__
"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."

"We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

" No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms".

[IndianaJoyce]

The text of the Second Amendment reads, "A well ordered Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.­"

Your quotes are not from the Bill of Rights, nor any other document that was ratified by the states.
You can argue all day about what the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights meant and how they might apply it today and never reach agreement. However, it is clear to me that they intended for the governments of the states and the country to be the regulators of the militia. Currently we have a standing federal military and National Guard units in every state. There is no need for irregular militia, and the text of the Bill of Rights says nothing about the right of individuals to protect themselves from police.

Join the 21st century, please.

[OdinsEye]

"However, it is clear to me that they intended for the governments of the states and the country to be the regulators of the militia."

Which sheds no light on the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment does not give the states the power to have and regulate a militia, and it especially does not do so for the federal government.

The Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to keep and bear arms. The USSC in Heller confirmed this. It protects that right. It does not place any limitations on the right. The first 13 words give one very important reason to protect that right. Again, it places no limitations on it.

Regarding militias, the N.G. is only a militia part of the time. Please read Perpich vs. DoD. Also please note that states are allowed (and several have) their own militias separate from the N.G. You may also want to read 10 USC 311.

[djkrlsn]

But there is certainly a right to defend yourself from criminals

[trimom]

Yesterday I was listening to a conservative radio host lament the fact that 61 people have been killed in Boston since the beginning of the year (could be higher, I haven't checked the news today). Many of the dead are children; victims of drive-by shootings.

The radio host was interviewing the Boston Chief of Police who said that the police would have to wear additional protection because a judge has ruled that they cannot search just anyone.

You would think that there would be a discussion of gun ownership laws, but no.

[PlaceboStudman]

Gun ownership laws have little correlation to illegally owned and operated firearms by criminals, which likely comprise the majority of the deaths in Boston that you refer to. The question to ask is how many of these crimes are drug related. Make drugs legal and readily available and it will curb some of the violence committed by desperate people who own a firearm, but who would likely commit a crime anyway for the drugs if they had access to a knife or a machete if they couldn't get access to illegal guns

[FightingTheRight]

Where do you think illegal guns come from?

Manufacturers don't set certain production runs, of guns aside to be sold illegally.

But smart criminals do wait until legal gun owners aren't home, to break in and steal legal guns and sell them on the street, to other criminals.

[HenryXIII]

During Katrina the police themaselves were the armed and dangerous criminals.

During the LA riots the police would not enter the area in which murder, rape, arson, and looting was going on simply becaues it was too dangerous for them.

The British have an answer to this dilema:

The British Subject has no right to defend his/her life and must make no attempt to do so even in the face of certain death. Defense of life in the UK is exclusively reserved for promient members of the regime and of the royal household.

In the UK, the death penalty is reserved for those who might attempt to rape or kill the sovereign. You could kill a million of her subjects and still maintain your own right to life.

Is this what Americans really want here?

[Rog49Thomas]

And what are the comparative crime statistics between the UK and the USA?

From your post, I'd imagine they must have a much higher incidence of murders and crime.

[hippie chucker]

Please, if you would, explain how DC's gun ban resulted in the nation's highest murder rates.
What you are advocating makes little sense.
Even if all guns were banned today, there are still millions of guns that criminals can use to murder people with. Banning guns has hardly worked in DC, or Chicago, right?

[TheBaffler]

You do realize one can get guns aplenty just down the road in Virginia, right?

[knerd]

Let's PLEASE change the slogan to: WHEN GUNS ARE EASILY AVAILABLE, OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS, TOO.

[HenryXIII]

In Rwanda the method of mass murder and mayhme were machettes. We have seen a couple of gallons of gasoine used to murder scores of people in a nightclub fire in New York.

By far the most prevalent use of firearms in carrying out mass murder has been universally accomplished by government agencies and by political leaders.

In this country the most recent use of firearms in carrying out mass murder was carried out against women and children by the FBI as directed by Bill Clinton's AG: Janet Reno. This was not a crime because the govnment did it, just as it was not a crime for Nazis to murder Jews by the millions. Had the Nazis held on to the reigns of power it would have been called perfectly justifyable.

[propitiousmoment]

Sorry, but genocide is not and would not have been considered justifiable, no matter who "wins". You're just proving the point about gun owners. The ones who most strongly advocate for gun ownership, should not be anywhere near a gun.

[FightingTheRight]

That's a very clear way to put it.

[HenryXIII]

Or how about this: "when sharp sticks are easily available, only outlaws will have sharp sticks too"

There are at least ten thousand variations of this theme but by far the most deadly and dangerous thing for subjects to possess is the means to select their own government.

[BlackYowe]

A gun is a tool like a shovel. You can use it right or you can use it wrong. People kill each other with knives in Scotland at an alarming rate. Machetes and clubs are popular in parts of Africa. The gun nuts are annoying and obsessive and so are the knee-jerks who want all guns melted down and buried. I live on a farm and I own guns. I enjoy having one but I don't think of it as a deciding issue at the polls very often. I am far more concerned about health care and education and things like the environment. The one issue gun nut voters are really unhinged folks in my book..

[Enlightened22]

Actually gun is not a shovel. It took centuries to make it perfect with only one intent, to kill. Contrary to a shovel, or even a knife, you do not need a strong and clear desire to kill in order to kill with a gun. One bullet out and that's it. Humans, in general, have an inhibition to murder. That's why armies have to go a great length to train their soldiers to go against it. Guns, by their own design, accomplish the same thing.

I will give you one thing.I do not think american problem with violence is solely explainable by the amount of guns. You do find the same amount of violence in order societies (i.e.) with the same stark inequalities among its members (latin America is a strong example). Add to it a history of racism and a paranoid culture afraid of its own institutions, and you start to have a picture of what's wrong in this country.

[HenryXIII]

Re: "It took centuries to make it perfect with only one intent, to kill"

Nonsense, It took centuries to perfect an effective means of self defense; just how many people have the guns that protect President Obama Killed?

These guns include automatic pistols that can spew 1000s of dealy rounds per minute. If guns were designed to kill, the ones that protect Obama should have killed millions by now.