FLAIT

This is a letter I sent to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg earlier this week about guns. I've added a few links. Additional thoughts about guns, the NRA and the power they have can be found at the beginning, middle and end of this post and half way down this one.

Note: This post and Email to Local Columnist About Guns are similar. However, I went into a couple of aspects in more detail in that one, and this one has additional comments at the bottom.

Dear Mayor Bloomberg:

Over the last few years, I’ve written to you twice, Mayor Fenty of Washington, D.C., Mayor Healy of Jersey City, NJ (after five policemen were shot) and Mayor Booker of Newark about guns. I sent a copy of your second letter to Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowtiz because he had just honored a local teenager for standing up to the NRA.

I was going to write to you a third time after the shooting at the movie theater in Aurora, CO in July. But since both of my first two letters went ignored, as well as all the others, I didn’t bother. But after yet another mass shooting, this time at an elementary school in Newtown, CT, and the shooting a few day before at a shopping mall in Clackamas, OR, I made sure I got it done this time.

These mass shooting are taking place so often that we’ve perfected the drill: shock, candlelight vigils, prayer services, memorial. Then forgotten. Rinse. Repeat.

Remember the shooting at a San Ysidro, CA McDonalds that killed 21 in 1984? “Something had to be done” after that shooting too, but it wasn’t because it was forgotten.

If planes were crashing at this rate, they would have been grounded long before they become common and redesigned. If it was an illness, we’d find a cure. And if we couldn’t find one there would be a telethon. But when it comes to guns, we don’t do anything. Ever. Why is that?

I know that you’ve been one of the few political leaders in the country to take on guns. But it’s not nearly enough. And that’s why I’m writing…again.

To be honest, the issue makes me furious. Not only at the NRA and their members – all of whom have blood on their hands – but at the pro-gun control side as well because I feel I’m the only one on it.

The Democrats, the supposed “pro-gun control party” who want to “take everyone’s guns away,” are so scared of the issue (at least the few who aren’t on the NRA’s side) that they’ve ignored it for 20 years. And the few times they’re forced to talk about it – at a debate for instance – they immediately placate the NRA and gun owners and put themselves on the defensive by saying they “support the Second Amendment” and “support hunters and sportsmen.” I wonder; when was the last time a “pro-life” Republican had to walk on egg shells like that? Do Republicans avoid abortion and have to practically apologize for being “pro-life”?

In recent years, this is what “pro-gun control” Democrats have done:

• Sen. Schumer got Gov. Paterson to name Kirsten Gillibrand, a pro-gun congresswoman, to Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat.
• Sen. Schumer was behind the 1990s assault weapons ban that expired during the Bush administration. But Democrats have been too freighted to even mention it, let alone reauthorize it.
• In the banking legislation that went through the Democratic-controlled Congress in 2009, a provision was added allowing guns to be brought into federal parks and on Amtrak trains. It passed and President Obama signed the bill, never once threatening a veto.
• Throughout the Sonia Sotomayor hearings, Democrats were placating Republicans and the NRA on her stance on guns. And they did the same with Elena Kagan (should one of the five conservative Supreme Court Justices retire while Obama is in office, mark my words: there will be blood in the streets, regardless of who he appoints. And if you don’t realize that, then you don’t understand what we’re up against. Remember, right-wing mobs vandalized store fronts and threatened politicians when health care passed. Imagine what they’ll do if Justice Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts or Kennedy retire while a Democrat is president.).
• To break a Senate filibuster in August, 2009, legislation that would allow those with “right to carry” permits to bring their guns into any state got 58 votes. Fifty-eight votes!

Also, Virginia has repealed their one-gun-a-month law and Arizona now allows guns to be brought into bars (what could possibly go wrong?).

If that’s not enough, more then 13 years after Columbine, Congress has yet to close the gun show loophole.

This is insane. Does anyone stand up to the NRA? Ever? No, because there’s never anyone around to stand up to the NRA!

I always hear that the NRA is one of the strongest lobbies in the country and gun control “is a loser,” politically. Imagine that. How the heck did that happen? First, by allowing the NRA to intimidate gun-control advocates into silence. Notice that ultra liberal Sen. Ted Kennedy, who had plenty of reasons to support strong national gun laws, never mentioned it. And second, by hijacking and redefining the Second Amendment (see the last pages).

Actually, I think the main reason behind the county’s (sick) fascination and obsession with guns is because its become so political. This crowd is extremely spiteful and vindictive and they’re just looking to poke the “gun grabbers” in the eye. And there’s no better way to do that then by buying more and more and more guns (it would be like a women getting pregnant on purpose just to have an abortion so she can tick off pro-lifers). So I think a solid portion of this sick fascination and obsession is built on nothing but spite to tick off the “gun grabbers.”

But they have to have this sick fascination and obsession with guns, or else they’d be admitting that they’ve been wrong all this time. And they’ll never admit that. So they have to stick to their guns (so to speak), no matter what.

Therefore, since they can’t defend their “arguments” with facts, their only defense is an overwhelming “Second Amendment” offense that begins and ends with a hand gun in one hand and an assault rifle in the other (I refer you to the propaganda spewed by NRA executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre: a-gun-in-almost-every-pocket and it’s-never-the-gun's-fault). This is the mentality and level of intellect that we’re dealing with here.

Maybe if these gun nuts were as “sick” and obsessive about education, books, music, the arts, libraries, museums – and something as worthwhile and practical as universal health care – as they are with their stinkin’ guns, the county would be a hell of a lot better off.

But maybe if someone stood up to this cult a long time ago – and it is a cult – instead of curling up into the fetal position and letting them dominate the issue, it wouldn’t have gotten this far.

I’ll get back to that later. But after what happened in Newtown, it looks like Washington will finally act. But I’m skeptical. Sure, they might reauthorize the assault weapon ban, but it will undoubtedly be weakened and watered down by the time it gets to President Obama’s desk. And then what happens when the NRA and gun manufactures find loopholes? By then, Newtown will be forgotten and we’ll be right back where we are.

And what about the shootings and gun crimes that we don’t hear about on the news?

Bottom line, little to nothing will be done to curtail gun sales. Guns and bullets will still be sold by the truck-load, legally and illegally, on-line and off; actually more so now because of the (manufactured) fear the NRA puts out in times like this: Obama’s going to ban guns!

Maybe I’m wrong, and Newtown will actually force strong national gun control legislation beyond just re-instituting a weakened and watered down version of the assault weapons ban. But I have my doubts because prior to Newtown, President Obama, Attorney General Holder and Congressional Democrats were always terrified of the NRA and their members (they were so spooked by the gun nuts that the Secret Service didn’t arrest, or simply remove, those who brought firearms to protests outside places where President Obama was speaking during the 2009 health care “debate.” The Secret Service!). In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Obama administration had quietly told you to “let it go” over the last four years. So that’s the “help” you were getting from the White House and the Democrats on guns.

And once the mourning is over and Newtown is forgotten, and the NRA knows no one is paying attention, they’ll go back to calling the shots (so to speak). That’s why the gun show loophole was never closed; that’s why the assault weapons ban was allowed to expire; that’s why the ATF has had acting Directors since 2004 and why the current acting director is only there on a part-time basis (he’s also a U.S. Attorney in Minnesota); that’s how a provision was put into Obamacare that prohibits mental health professionals from asking patients, just asking patients, if they have access to guns (but by all means, let’s force doctors to read a mandatory script to women seeking an abortion); and that’s how the Second Amendment has been hijacked and redefined.

See how things work? The inmates are running the asylum. And they got the keys to the gun lockers. And that’s what has to change.

So what do you want to do? If you just want to act tough on guns and say things your constituents want to hear – and accomplish nothing (as usual) – then don’t even bother. And if you’re going to be an apologist and allow the NRA to intimidate you and put you on the defensive, then don’t bother.

But if you really want to accomplish something that actually prevents gun violence, long term, then do something about it. My God, children are being shot, every day! Put a darn chip on your shoulder and show some anger and rage. And I mean real anger and real rage. Stand up to the NRA and their members and tell them to go to hell. It’s about time someone did. You can’t give them an inch because a passive approach won’t work, and it hasn’t.

Despite appeasing the NRA and their members, they still believe that Obama is going to take their guns away to the point that there was run on gun sales after he was first elected. And re-elected. And after Newtown.

So you have to be more vocal on this issue then you have been, and you can’t allow the NRA to bully you. And you can start by leading the charge to get states, at least New York, to pass the following legislation:

1. Even though abortion is legal, some states have placed so many restrictions on the procedure that there’s only one clinic in the entire state that performs them (can you imagine the outrage if there was only one gun store in all of Montana or Idaho? Talk about blood in the streets!). Therefore, if individuals have right to buy and own guns, then there’s no reason why states can’t increase the restrictions – even more then what’s currently on the books now – to such a degree that it would limit gun sales; like abortions.

For instance, require that any store that sells hand guns, specifically, to have a special license to do so (assuming they don’t at the moment). Of course the cost of this license would be substantial. And force the store owners to keep all their guns and bullets in big, strong (and presumably expensive) safes or cabinets while also requiring them to install an extensive security system that includes cameras.

If states can place so many restrictions on abortions that clinics that provide them are few and far between – very far between – there’s no reason why New York can’t do the same with gun stores.

Granted, few if any of the guns used in crimes in New York City are actually purchased locally. But at least it’s a start. We would finally be taking a stand against the NRA.

2. There’s added taxes and fees to just about everything these days: gas, cable TV, landline and cell phones, airline tickets, hotel rooms, beer, alcohol, cigarettes, etc. Why don’t we ever hear of extra taxes and fees on guns and bullets to help plug budget deficits? I’ll tell you why: because everyone’s terrified of the NRA and their members!

Since higher beer, alcohol and cigarette taxes are justified because of their costs to society, there’s no reason why increasing – heck, just instituting – higher sin taxes on guns and ammunition couldn’t also be justified (the taxes should obviously be higher for hand guns and hand gun bullets then say hunting rifles/bullets). All these taxes and higher store costs would increase the price of hand guns and bullets, which is the idea (or force some stores into not selling hand guns).

3. All gun purchases must be made at a licensed dealer or store (no internet and no snail mail sales). The buyer must show photo ID and a gun license that allows him to own a gun. And he’d receive a registration for the gun, with his name on it, from that licensed dealer or store (the cost of which is picked up by the store and would be factored in to the price of each gun). Even private gun sales – from one individual to another – must be done this way. The seller’s registration would be turned in (and destroyed) at this licensed dealer/store and a new one printed with the buyer’s name (shocking as it sounds, I’m not for a seven-day waiting period if you already have a gun license. With an annual renewal/background check, you’d already be “in the system.” So perhaps an instant computerized verification/background check could be created, with the costs picked up by gun stores and gun buyers.).

This also must apply to gun shows.

4. This one’s the key: when purchasing bullets, other then a gun license and photo ID, customers should also be required to show the registration for the gun the they’re buying bullets for (this is why every single gun that’s purchased must have its own registration, just like cars.).

If a customer can’t prove that he or she is allowed to own a gun, and can’t prove that they own say a hand gun, then they shouldn’t be allowed to buy bullets for that gun. Period. So the criminal who just bought a (hand) gun on the street wouldn’t be able to buy bullets for it.

What do hunters and sportsmen need with hand gun bullets? They don’t. So they shouldn’t be allowed to buy them. Gun owners should only be allowed to buy bullets for the gun or hunting rifle they’re legally allowed to own. It’s that simple.

We “proof” young adults to see if they’re old enough to buy a beer. So when purchasing bullets “law abiding citizens” should be required to show proof that allows them to own a gun and proof they own the type of gun they’re buying bullets for (as Ronald Reagan, an NRA member who supported the Brady Bill said when it came to nuclear arms agreements, “trust but verify”). No ID, no license and/or no registration, then no bullets.

Sure, if there’s thousands of illegal guns on the streets, then I’m sure bullets would soon follow. But if this prevents one shooting or one crime a month, it’ll be worth it.

Naturally, the NRA would fiercely oppose these taxes and laws because the costs would be “prohibitive” and requiring all this documentation would be an “inconvenience.” But what about the inconvenience to the tens of thousands of people that are shot every year? What about the inconvenience of planning and attending the funerals of mothers, fathers and six-year olds (what about the inconvenience of having to drive 500 miles to the only clinic in the state that provides abortions?)? So don’t talk to me about inconvenience or costs.

Hey, if this is what it takes to keep Americans safer, so be it. Who can disagree with that? Well, that’s the problem.

Since the country’s gun laws are only as strong as those in the weakest state, we’ll still be at the mercy of the selfish southern states. But we need to take stand somewhere and begin to take the issue back. So now is the time to use the shootings in Newtown, Clackamas, Aurora, Oak Creek, Tucson, Virginia Tech, Columbine, Jonesboro, West Paducah, San Ysidro and on and on and on – as well as the recent politically-driven Supreme Court rulings – to declare war against guns and the NRA. It’s about time someone did.

The NRA would accuse you of “exploiting” the Newtown tragedy (and in a couple of months it’ll be another city’s tragedy). Of course they will because that would mean you’re trying to make sure it doesn’t happen again. Um, isn’t that the idea?

But even if the stronger gun laws that I outlined here were enacted nationally, I have to admit that they wouldn’t prevent mass shootings because psychopaths will always be able to get hold of guns. If they can’t get an automatic weapon, then they’ll just find a way to get a half dozen hand guns.

That’s why I always cringe when I hear about regulating the size of clips. That just means psychopaths will bring more guns with them. So regulating the size of the clips, like the assault weapons ban, is just a start. So this can not be a “one and done” thing. But it’s also not only about gun control.

This also has to be about the sick fascination, obsession and glorification the country has for guns (as well as hunting and shooting). They’re worshiped as if they’re they cure to cancer. Actually, guns are the cancer. And since millions of Americans (insanely) grow up with guns, they get accustomed to them as if they’re just another household item. So it’s no wonder they reach for firearms and assault rifles when they snap (while no one was paying attention, the NRA has turned guns into an everyday household necessity, like a can opener). Guns would never be an option to the most insane person in the world if he lived almost anywhere else because they’d be as foreign to him as a surf board is to an Eskimo.

And this is what bothers me most about pro-gun control politicians (all three of you): you never so much as question this sick fascination, obsession and glorification. On the contrary; you’re always going out of your way to say how much you “support the Second Amendment,” and all we need are “sensible” gun laws, but also need to “protect the rights of hunters and sportsmen.” Give me a break. What about the rights of the thousands of people that are shot every year? What about the rights of those 20 children and six adults at the Sandy Creek Elementary School?

How come we never hear “pro-life” Republicans talking about “sensible” restrictions on abortions? See what I mean?

You know, maybe if we cared more about the rights of the people (I refer you to the last pages about the hijacked and redefined Second Amendment), as we do the rights of gun buyers, this country would be a hell of a lot safer. But for some reason, practically anyone can buy any type of gun they want, as many as they want, with whatever armor piercing ammunition they want – all of it legally – because we’re terrified of infringing on their rights. This is upside down. Backwards. And insane.

Anyway, where has your defensiveness, passiveness and appeasement gotten you? There’s more guns out there then there ever was, and our streets, malls, movie theaters, college campuses and elementary schools are more bloody then ever.

Getting “illegal guns off the streets” is all well and good. But most if not all of those guns were originally purchased legally. So the underlying problem is that there’s way too many guns out there to begin with. And besides terribly weak state and national gun laws, it’s fueled by this sick fascination, obsession and glorification and the political spite and vindictiveness that goes with it. And it’s about time a prominent political figure got angry about that – and I mean really angry – and turned that into an issue. Let’s put them on the defensive for a change.

As I said, if only they glorified and worshiped education, books, music, the arts, libraries and museums – and something as worthwhile and practical as universal health care – as they do their stinkin’ guns, the country would be a lot better off. But that goes to show just how sick these gun nuts are and how twisted their priorities are (but that’s what cults get you to do). But no one on the gun-control side even mentions it. Probably because you’ve been intimated by the NRA and too busy sticking up for gun rights.

If you take anything away from this letter it’s that you can’t hold a press conference about guns and we don’t hear about it again until the next time a cop gets shot or there’s another mass shooting. No. If you really want to do something that will make a difference, you have to stand up to the NRA and their members on a regular basis. Show anger – and I mean real anger – and respond to their propaganda by telling them exactly where they can stick their guns. And then maybe we can start to take the issue back.

The NRA and entire gun culture is a sick, nasty, insane, selfish, spiteful cult that’s biding their time, waiting for Newtown to be forgotten so they can regain their control and dominance over everything gun. And they will. But this is why you have to put a chip on your shoulder and take the gloves off and put brass knuckles on. Don’t placate, don’t appease, don’t “support gun rights” and for God’s sake, don’t walk on egg shells.

And don’t “let it go.”

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.

If the NRA and gun nuts think the Second Amendment means what they say it does, why are words “well regulated militia,” “free state,” “people” and “arms” in there? “State” meant and still means “country.” “Arms” at the time also meant cannons, so it speaks volumes that the Founders didn’t specify guns. Heck, why isn’t the word “gun” in there?

Since guns are “constitutionally protected,” does this mean I can trot down to the Army surplus store and buy a howitzer, tank or surface-to-air missile? If not, why not? I mean, if I have a right to buy a gun when the word isn’t in the Amendment, then I should be able to protect and defend myself with whatever “arms” I want. How about if I went down to Los Alamos and ordered up a bottle of plutonium?

Definitely and obviously not. Those “arms” are illegal, for good reason, and not “constitutionally protected.” Hmmm....

Alright then, if “arms” do only mean “firearms,” and therefore, “guns,” why would the Founders restrict a “well regulated militia” to guns alone, and not allow them to “arm” themselves with cannon and other kinds of weaponry? Or, if the Founders did want to limit “the people” to just guns, why be vague? Why use “arms” (which generally means different kinds of weapons)? Why not be clear with this limitation and use the word “guns,” “firearms,” “rifles” or “muskets”?

The NRA can't have it both ways. Either “arms” has to mean any and all kinds of weapons, or only guns. Which one is it? Doesn't matter, because I just proved neither “interpretation” makes sense.

If the Founding Father’s really wanted all citizens who were not members of a “well regulated militia” to have the right to own guns for self-defense and defense of property, then they would have written the Second Amendment like this:

The security of oneself and property being necessary for a free neighborhood (or liberty), the right of the person (or individual) to keep and bear guns (or firearms or rifles or muskets) shall not be infringed.

But they didn't write it that way, did they? Gee, I wonder why.

I put the words “oneself” and “person” (or “individual”) in there because “people” is used in the Second Amendment. And in the Constitution, “people” meant everyone, collectively, not individually. For example, "We the people..."

See also the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

A single person or individual can not legislate or enact law. So they obviously meant the people, collectively, at the state level, had the “power reserved” (this is why states have so much power and why a vast majority of guns used in crimes in the northeast originate from the southern states where gun laws are insanely weak).

Another example: The House of Representatives was nicknamed “The People’s House” (the Senate, “The State’s House”).

So “people” did not mean individual when the Constitution was written (and still doesn't).

Now let’s take a look at the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

See that? First it’s a collective right, “people.” But unlike the Second Amendment, the Founders went out of their way to specify the individual from illegal search and seizures by putting in the word “persons.” And they put it in there twice. Therefore, if they intended for the Second Amendment to apply to individuals, then the word “persons” (and/or “oneself” and/or “individual”) would have been in there. And they’re not, no matter what the NRA or any Supreme Court justice says.

Now let’s take a look at the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb…;

See that? “Person.” That’s in there twice as well.

So the Founders did differentiate between collective rights and individual rights.

Put all this together and its obvious that the Founder’s intention of the Second Amendment was never meat to be an individual right to buy, own or carry a gun. It was meant for the states to have the right to form armed militias (today we call them the National Guard) as a defense against the federal government or foreign enemy. With the word “arms” in there – and not “guns,” “firearms,” “rifles” or “muskets” – it’s an amendment to allow for an organized defense (“a well regulated militia”) of a “free state” (today we call it “national security”). It had nothing do with personal protection, hunting or sport. And those words aren’t in the Second Amendment either (and they did a lot of hunting back then).

So the Second Amendment had nothing to do with protection against an intruder or homicidal maniac. But it has everything to do with state militias protecting against an invading army or the Federal government; both of which the Founders had legitimate concerns about at the time. So their intent, and reason, behind the Second Amendment makes perfect sense.

Also, if the Founders also wanted citizens to have the “right to carry” guns, then the Amendment would have been written like this:

The security of oneself and property being necessary for a free neighborhood (or liberty), the right of the person (or individual) to keep and bear guns (or firearms or rifles or muskets) on their person and their property (such as their horse or pouch) shall not be infringed.

One more point. If the Founders wanted to make gun ownership such a clear and obvious right, why not simply put it somewhere in the First Amendment with the others? I mean, since the NRA and gun nuts are so sure what the Founders meant, then you'd think they would have put just two more words – “a gun” (or “a firearm,” “a rifle” or “a musket”) – in there along with freedom of the press, religion, speech, assembly and petition the government. It would fit perfectly. But they didn't put it in there. Why not?

No, the Founders' intention instead was to ensure that the states had the right to form well regulated armed militias. And that's exactly what they did. Why am I so sure? Because that's what they wrote!

So as you can see, the Second Amendment has been hijacked and redefined. Gee, I wonder why. And everyone, including afraid of their own shadow Democrats, blindly along with it. How did that happen? Intimidation by the NRA cult and their members.

Of course the NRA and gun nuts would say that if my interpretation of the Second Amendment is correct, then it would have been written like this:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, their right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

That's fair. But remember, militias were made up of “the people” of each state - which tie in together, as I explained above - and weren't conscripted.

And then the Founders went out of their way to ensure that these (probably) non-regulated militias did in fact become “well regulated.” And who regulates? Only the state and federal government can.

But alright, fine. I'll give the NRA and the gun nuts a couple of points for that one. But I still win by 12 touchdowns.

Note: The word “abortion” isn’t in the Bill of Rights or Constitution either. But abortion was ruled constitutional in 1973 because of the inferred right to privacy which goes back to Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965. It’s technical, but the point is that it’s an interpretation.

The “right” to own a gun is not an interpretation. The NRA and gun nuts have always used the Second Amendment, and only the Second Amendment, as “proof” that gun ownership is a right. It’s all right there in black and white, unambiguous and unequivocal. No interpretation needed.

So there’s the difference. But they are right in one respect. The Second Amendment couldn’t be more clear.

Additional comments:

Let's put an end to the lie that "Hitler took the guns away" once and for all - here and here.

Actually, if it was true, then then that would make George W. Bush a Nazi since he, like Hitler, invaded a country based on lies.

Come to think of it, the Nazis used propaganda, fear and intimidation to con mindless and gullible people, who were more than willing to believe every word of it, to build their power. That's exactly what the NRA does! So if anyone's "like the Nazis," it's the NRA!

In the letter I said that gun buyers should be required to show an ID and gun license when buying a gun and also the registration when buying bullets, something the NRA (and Republicans) would never go for because of the "inconvenience." So let me see if I have this straight: let's force voters to show specific kinds of ID at the polls (gun licenses count, naturally) which is an inconvenience for millions of Americans because they don't have them. But when it comes to guns and bullets, requiring buyers to show an ID, license and registration would be "unconstitutional" and/or "an undue burden."

The GOP's reasoning behind voter ID is because of the massive voter fraud that's going on. But in reality, it's extremely rare and not a problem at all. They made it up to suppress Democratic turnout.

Hmm...if a Democrat "infringed" on someone's "right" to buy a gun, there would blood in the streets. But when Republicans deliberately take away an American's right to vote - the most sacred and fundamental right Americans have, by far - it's allowed.

Anyway, let me see if I have this one straight: Republicans want voter ID so they can crack down on all this voter fraud that's not happening. But they won't crack down on the shootings and killings taking place every single day all over the country by requiring the same documentation of gun and bullet buyers. Yup, makes sense to me!

In regards to bans of specific types of guns, such as assault weapons and/or hand guns, and/or restrictions on the size of clips and magazines, if gun owners, hunters and sportsmen wouldn't be able to buy what they want, then too bad. They'll live (unlike shooting victims).

Guns isn't stamp collecting. If you're going to engage in a very dangerous hobby, then you're going to have to deal with restrictions. In fact, all gun owners should take the "whatever it takes to keep my fellow Americans safer" approach. But they don't. Quite the contrary, in fact. They not only oppose strong state and national gun control legislation, but want gun laws repealed. So they're basically giving the finger to the rest of their fellow Americans. That's how much they care about us, the selfish bastards (and I don't want to hear that "gun owners do support some gun control measures." Because, where the hell have they been? How come we never hear from them? And why do they keep renewing their NRA memberships?).

As far as the sick fascination, obsession and glorification the country has for guns, I think a prominent politician, or first lady, should take a page out of Nancy Reagan's children's anti-drug playbook and start one for guns: "Just say no."

Yeah, right. Good luck with that one. The NRA would go ballistic. So Michelle Obama wouldn't go near it.

So let me see if I got this one straight: we can tell kids to stay away from drugs and fatty foods. But guns? Nope, can't do that. Speaks volumes, doesn't it?

Just because you have a right to burn the American flag, doesn't mean you should. Just because you have a right to burn the Koran, doesn't mean you should. Just because you have a right to make a fool out of yourself, doesn't mean you should (but many do. See Republicans; see Wayne LaPierre.). And just because you have a (hijacked and redefined Second Amendment) "right" to buy a gun, doesn't mean you should.

It's a disgrace. Americans should be embarrassed that we've allowed all this senseless gun violence to continue for decades. Hand guns should have been banned forty years ago. And who's the genius that allowed assault weapons to be sold to the general public? Ask a silly question...

Regardless of what happens, post Newtown - whether lasting and meaningful national gun control legislation is passed or not - valuable time will be spent on guns in Congress and in state legislatures. But we shouldn't have to be spending any time on it at all because in most legitimate countries, guns aren't a problem (gee, I wonder why).

So guns will be added to the Congressional agenda, along with the self-inflicted "fiscal cliff" crises which was created by Republicans in 2011 when they held the debt ceiling increase hostage. They strung it out for months when it could have been raised in a matter of minutes (like it always is).

This is what lawmakers spend squander their time on.

Imagine if we had smart, honest lawmakers (insert laughter here) that actually spent their time on important things such as climate change, rising college tuition, the country's crumbling infrastructure, green technology (where the rest of the world is way ahead), upgrading our electric grids, and modernizing our airports, train and bus stations, and our cities' mass transit systems.

With interest rates so low and millions out of work, now is the perfect time to, yes, tax, borrow and spend and rebuild the country.

But instead, we're on the verge of a deliberate Republican-induced self-inflicted economic catastrophe. And when that can is kicked down the road, it'll be immediately followed by another deliberate Republican-induced self-inflicted crisis when the GOP holds the debt ceiling hostage again (all to ensure that there's no economic recovery that Obama and the Democrats can take credit for). And guns, and Newtown, will be pushed off the agenda with everything else and forgotten...until the next mass shooting. Rinse. Repeat.

And we wonder why nothing gets done in Washington.

May 2, 2013 insert:

It's obscene that it took a tragedy like Sandy Hook for Democrats to even mention guns. Where the hell have they been for the last twenty years?

It was that void capitulation and weakness cowering in fear over the years decades that allowed Republicans, the NRA and the gun nuts to not only take over the issue, hijack and rewrite the Second Amendment and stifle any and all talk of stricter gun laws, but weaken them, and repeal them. And post-Sandy Hook, they will not allow strong, weak watered-down full of loopholes any new national gun laws to pass; see the GOP's business-as-usual display of exponential insanity and ignorance in the Senate two weeks ago.

Only in a banana republic like the United States can a majority vote in the Senate on gun control legislation that vast majorities of the public support - 91% on background checks - go down in defeat.

But this is what happens when you whimper in the corner and allow bullies to steal your lunch money every day.

Republicans also voted down a U.N. arms treaty in the Senate that would have prevented terrorists, drug cartels and third world militias from getting guns. Only Iran, North Korea and Syria voted against it in the U.N.

Why do Republicans and the NRA hate America and support the terrorists, drug cartels, third world militias, Iran, North Korea and Syria?

This came three months after the GOP voted down a U.N. treaty for the disabled that was modeled after the Americans With Disabilities Act (why do Republicans hate the disabled?).

I swear, if you combined a pile of insanity and a pile of ignorance, and loaded it with steroids, a spoonful would have more sanity and more intelligence than the entire Republican Party. I'm serious.

Note: This insert was originally written for this post. It's slightly edited.

January, 2018 insert:

I wanted to add something to my point about the word “arms,” as written in the Second Amendment, that it means all weaponry and not just guns.

If we'd hear that “an armed man ran into a building,” we'd assume he has a gun. But that's only because guns are so prevalent and just about every armed man uses a gun, or guns. So of course we're going to assume the man who entered the building has “armed” himself with a gun. But that doesn't mean that “armed” means “gun.”

What if a man ran into a building with a machete in one hand and a hand grenade in the other? Would he not be “armed?” And keep in mind, the 9/11 hijackers were “armed” with box cutters.

So any weapon, or any object that could be used as a weapon, is an “arm.” And the Founders wrote the Second Amendment in such a way as to not restrict “well regulated militias” to just “firearms” (or “guns” or “rifles” or “muskets”).

Therefore, if the right to “bear arms” can be infringed for howitzers, tanks, surface-to-air missiles and bottles of plutonium for individuals not in the National Guard or armed forces, then there is no individual right to buy, sell, own or carry a gun.

So again, contrary to what the NRA and Supreme Court say, “arms” in the Second Amendment does not mean “gun.”

So, correction: I win by 14 touchdowns.

October, 2021 insert: 

The NRA base their entire (cough, cough) "argument" on one word, "bear," as in "bear arms." Their, um, "reasoning" is that "bear" means "carry," which is one of its meanings. And since you can carry a gun and can't physically carry a cannon or howitzer, well, then, of course "bear arms" means there is a constitutional right to have guns, of any kind, because they can be "carried." 

Gee, since hand grenades can be carried, why aren't they constitutionally protected? And just because they're explosives is irrelevant. The NRA is saying that guns are constitutionally protected because "bear" means you're able to "carry" them. Well, you can carry hand grenades. And they are "arms." And what about shoulder-fired missiles, which are also "carried"? And they could be defined as a "gun."   

True, by having the word "keep" in the amendment, either "bear" does mean "carry" or it's redundant. Or both. But, um, bear me out. 

If someone had a gun, or even a stockpile of guns, or a cannon or howitzer, in their basement, garage or shed, they are "keeping" them, but not "bearing arms"? Of course they are. And you can't literally "carry" a cannon or howitzer but sure can "keep" them. What would you call one or two guns in the basement? Certainly not "stockpiling" guns. But you couldn't say that's "bearing" arms? Of course you could. So "bear" is redundant with the word "keep" and doesn't have anything to do with being able to "carry" arms because you can "keep" and "bear" cannons or howitzers but can't "carry" them (and they did have cannons in the 1770s). And they're not constitutionally protected.

If a terrorist or an American fascist who hated America and the Constitution on the way to the Capitol on January 6, 2021, was walking down the street unarmed, but had his bloodthirsty mob right behind him that was armed, couldn't that entire group, including the one unarmed, be describe as "bearing arms"? Of course it could. What if one person in the mob had all their guns (and crutches, flag poles and bear spray) in a car right behind them? Are they not "bearing arms"? Of course they are.                       

But how else would you describe a militia that has "arms"/weapons? No, you wouldn't say "stockpiling," unless they were in the process of "stockpiling." You could say they're "equipped" or "have (a lot of) weapons," or simply "armed." But "bearing arms" says it all, even if none of the members of the militia were actually holding their gun at the time.

The point is, you don't need to be able to hold or "carry" arms to be described as "bearing." Arms can be "beared" if you aren't actually "carrying" them or can't "carry" them.

If someone is holding a candle or a stack of books are they "bearing a candle" or "bearing books"? Not really. Who'd say that? You could say, "He came bearing gifts." But that's less about "carrying" them then bringing them because if you wanted to illustrated he was carrying them, you'd say "He arrived carrying gifts" or "He was carrying gifts" or "He brought gifts."

"Bear" has many meanings (how convenient) and can be used in many different contexts (how convenient). And the NRA has whittled it down to one meaning (how convenient) and one very narrow context (how convenient). It's a stretch to say the least. And we're going to take the their word for it that the amendment strictly means "guns" in the Second Amendment because they can be "carried"? They're a cult out to con the mindless and gullible!

Another definition of "bear" is to "possess."

So if the NRA says "bear arms" means guns are constitutionally protected, then it can also be interpreted to mean "posses any kind of weapons" since I've already proven that "arms" means any kind of weapon including objects not designed as weapons (I go lot further on defining and interpreting "bear arms" then the NRA does because they're stuck with the "carrying" definition. But don't forget about "A well regulated militia."). And possess means "have and hold as property: own." But we possess and own lots of things that we can't "carry."

Maybe they chose "bear" over "possess" and "have" because "bear" is formal and better suited for the Bill of Rights.

If the authors of the Second Amendment did only mean to "keep" and "bear" guns because it comes down to what you can "carry," why not say that? If they meant guns, why not say "carry guns," "bear guns" or just "guns" instead of "bear arms"? Well, that's because they meant guns and cannon and "arms" of all types (again, the only reason why we equate "arms" with guns is because just about every crime and incident these days is with a gun. But as I've shown, any weapon could be an "arm;" such as "armed with a knife" or even "armed with a crutch."). If the Founders wanted to limit "arms" to what you can "carry" - this, um, bears repeating - if the Founders wanted to limit "arms" to what you can "carry," why not specify? How can you limit something without being specific? But why limit a militia outfit only to guns or weapons they could carry? And why be contradictory when they had cannons, on wheels, which weren't "carried"? Why have "bear arms" in there and assume everyone will know over 200 years later that they only meant guns you can "carry"? That's because everyone would know what "bear arms" would mean for a well regulated militia two centuries later. Unless, of course, you're trying to hijack and redefine the Second Amendment.

It's also important to remember that back in the 18th century there were no heavy arms and obviously no means to transport them if they did. So other then cannon, which, I assume, were "pulled," only guns were physically "carried" because that's all they had and could carry. And they had to know, from history, that heavier arms and more powerful weapons would eventually be developed. But according to the NRA, the Founders wanted militias to be at a great disadvantage as the decades and centuries went by. Oh wait, they erased that part of the amendment, never mind

So the NRA chopped up the Second Amendment, removed most of it, put a single word under a microscope, dissected it, and stretched it out as much as they could so they can rewrite it to say: "Since they can be carried, the individual right to guns shall not be infringed." Really? That's what the Second Amendment says? That would be like chopping up the Fourth Amendment and stretching out a single word for it to "say," "The government shall not search a person's pockets."

So the NRA's, um, "interpretation" of the Second Amendment boils down to two things: 1) ignoring half the amendment, and 2) focusing on a single word, splitting hairs extra fine and molding its meaning to what they think want need it to mean.

"Bear arms" means what it meant when it was written because "bear arms" couldn't be more clear. What other words could they possibly have used to ensure that local well regulated militias were constitutionally allowed to arm themselves for the necessity "of a free State?" "Possess arms"? "Have weapons"? "Equip themselves"? Same thing. And they could have left out "A well regulated militia being necessary for a free State." But they didn't.

And there are contradictions with the second half of the amendment.

Instead of simply putting "a gun" or "arms" in the First Amendment which is for all individual Americans, the Founders carved out a separate amendment for "A well regulated militia" since the country's defense was already spoken for in the Preamble to the Constitution ("provide for the common defense"). But in the Second Amendment, they proceeded to write, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." It should be "their" (the militia's) or its right to keep and bear arms" without "people" since it doesn't mean the individual (as I've shown, they didn't use "persons" as they did in other amendments). Maybe "the" is a bit more formal. But I'll give them that.

And as I said, the amendment is also redundant because of the word "keep" (and bear arms). What's the point of "keeping" arms if you can't "bear" them? If you can "bear," "have" or "carry," then "keep" goes without saying and isn't needed. And if "bear" basically means "store," "have," and "keep," which is what I've shown, or even "carry," then there's no need for "keep." And "bare" would be enough.

On the other hand, they could have done away with both "keep" and "bare" altogether and said, "..the (or their) right to arm themselves shall not be infringed." That would have been enough because if you can "arm" "well regulated militias," then "keeping," "storing," "bearing," and "carrying" also goes without saying. You're going to allow militias to be "armed," but not allowed to "keep," "bear," "carry" or use them "to secure a free State"?

But I will admit the first and second parts of the amendment seem to contradict one another (if you interpret "people" as individuals). And that leads to questions, on both sides. However, the first half of the amendment and the reason for the amendment - "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free State" - is quite clear and can't be ignored. But if you wanted to hijack and redefine the Second Amendment's meaning, you would have to ignore the first half and take exaggerated liberties with the second. And then create a massive cult, and turn it into sick, rabid political issue wrapped up in so much vitriol, that the members of the cult will be kept in a perpetual state of rage at the "gun grabbers." Mission accomplished.

And when you have an "opposition" that abandoned the issue decades ago, and intimidated into silence, and actually appeases gun owners, it allowed the maniacs to hijack and redefine the amendment. And here we are.

If the NRA was on solid ground with the Second Amendment, they wouldn't have to use propaganda and dogma to prove it. Meanwhile, I've used facts, logic, reality and history to prove my point without ignoring any part of the amendment; nor have I stretched words passed the breaking point or split a single hair (other then to mock how they're interpreting the word, "bear").

But I'm not done yet.

If the Second Amendment allows for individuals to have guns, then what allows states to have their own National Guards? Oh right, the Second Amendment. It's either one or the other because it's not two separate amendments or separate sentences within the amendment. It can't be both. Even the NRA isn't saying that because according to them, the first four words of the amendment - actually, the first 13 words - aren't even there.

And...

We get so caught up in the wording in the amendment. Put the dictionary down and move context and the split hairs aside. Do you really believe that the Founder's intent, and desire, behind the Second Amendment was to have so many daily shootings and bloodshed? Is this what they wanted? An epidemic of gun violence? Do you really think they wanted someone to be able to walk into a school and shoot seven and eight year olds and their teachers? And then throw up your hands and say, "Well, there's nothing we can do because that's exactly what the Founders intended when they wrote the Second Amendment"? Who in their right mind would believe that?

Everyone says the Founders were "smart" and "brilliant." So if they were so smart and so brilliant, why would they knowingly, willingly and deliberately create a society where shootings were happening just about every minute of every day and kill 40,000 every year? Do you really think this was the Founder's plan? Their intent? The same men who wanted to "insure domestic Tranquility" and "promote the general welfare"?

And I don't want to hear that they wanted guns to be a right for individuals outside "A well regulated militia," but had absolutely no idea, and certainly no intention of it resulting in so many shootings and deaths. If that's the case, then where's the NRA demanding strong national gun control so we can adhere to what the Founders intended? Where's the universal background checks? Where's the ban on hand guns, assault rifles and bump stocks? Where's the "one gun a month" laws? Where's the reasonability? My God, where the hell is the sanity!

I also don't want to hear that back then you had to jam gun powder down a barrel of a rifle each time you wanted to fire it and the Founders had no idea that one day you'd be able to shoot more bullets in a second then you could back then in half an hour. Again, they knew, from history, that guns, weapons, arms and even war ships advanced over the centuries ever since a rock was thrown and a raft made from tree logs was placed in the water. Every military in the world tries to stay one step ahead with a better gun, a better bomb, a better fighter jet and better "arms." You don't think the "smart" and "brilliant" Founders thought the same way in the 18th century?

So it's obvious the Founder's intent behind the Second Amendment were for "arms" be "kept" and "beared" only by legitimate and responsible militias for local "security" because the amendment begins A well regulated militia being necessary for a free State. Who knows? Maybe they meant it so states or the federal government can have what we call today a police force.

So, no. No one in their right mind would think this sick mass proliferation of guns and assault rifles by individuals, and making them easier to obtain and stockpile then it is to vote, was the Founder's intent behind the Second Amendment. Not at all. And not even close. But only a cult, a sick demented cult, would con you into thinking it was.

Make that 20 touchdowns.