In the wake of the Newtown massacre, media are talking about the Second Amendment. But are they getting it right? Also: The New York Times magazine covers fracking– but mostly the upside–and David Ignatius thinks Syria as mobile weapons labs.
Tune in–and spread the word.
Elmer Stenger
Almost everyting in the news has people with dfferent views . these are mine, for better or worse. I just watched an hour of the Newtown shooting on PBS, the best coverage I have seen yet, gives views from many different view points. One of a young man who killed his Mother and Father and others is very emotional.
Fracking also has many divergent opinions. The gas produced will have great changes on our economy. Elimination of foreign oil @ a billion a day may lead to clearing up our national debt. No small item.
It must be done in a way that protects our water and all other aspects of our environment. The chemicals used in the process, should be made public, regardless of the patent laws, dumping the high volume of it in any waterway, could lead to another catastrophe. Caution and profit are often found to lead in very different directions. CAUTION should always rule. Human life depends on safe drinking water and clean air is also important to our health. MONEY is only one part of the solution.!
HappyPhil
Just like the fabricated WMD’s, the fossil fuel industry has their own dubious campaign for fracking our way to energy independence. Even if we extract all our supposed shale oil reserves, that’s less than we will use in a year, or two, (provided it’s not sold on the global market first).
Edwina
No one can help but grieve for the families who lost children. We certainly need to do some soul-searching about why we are the pre-eminent nation in gun deaths, and some honest discussion about what to do about it. Has the increase in gun ownership made us more secure? Has the violence of conducting several wars contributed to an increase in gun violence? Has the “war on drugs”? Have video games? There are an estimated 3 million guns in the U.S., more than 1 per person over 12 years of age. Will more guns make us safer?
Night-Gaunt
The Newton shooting is too new. We have very little information. I’m waiting for the toxicology report on the shooter. He was acting in way contrary to how he had been in the past. I wonder if Big Pharma had a hand in that?
Roger Bloyce
Most American citizens acquire the food they eat from commercial sources and do not own guns. One would think those who so vigorously defend their right to hunt would be willing to forgo that disgusting pastime for the common good. But no. In the light of increasingly horrific American massacres, they care only for themselves and their perverse delight in watching birds and animals die.
monitor servis
one thing is sure the guns should be kept safe and away form young persons , it should be made clear for all that have any gunpower in their possesion .
Bozidar Kornic
Fracking results in waste, a lot of waste, detrimental to the environment, and it uses a lot of energy. How do we correct/clean up the environment after the corporation ruins the environment, and WHO will pay for the cost of the cleaning? We have ample evidence how the corporations cleaned the messes they left behind. Our government had to allocate $billions to clean hundreds of highly polluted sites, at OUR expenses, not the corporate profits. When was a single person sent to prison for creating a catastrophic mess, even when a number of people died as a result of their ‘mistakes’? Do we recall the oil-spills in Alaska, or the Gulf of Mexico, or India, or any other place? The main purpose of any corporation is to produce maximum profits, at a minimum cost. Corporate greed is well known, they buy our politicians, EPA executives who after ruling for the corporate interests are given plum, sinecure jobs as a reward. The list of the destructive results of the corporate greed is too long to mention here. Let it just suffice to say, that WE THE PEOPLE, can not trust any corporation, nor the sell-out politicians when it comes to voting what is good for the environment, or our health.
Bozidar Kornic
As for the Second Amendment; the real meaning was totally obfuscated by the NRA, and the weapons manufacturers. Where does one draw the line, let us suppose that since I like physics, and nuclear physics, I develop a strong likeness for a nuclear gun, a small size, say one kiloton, it is ‘only’ a thousand tons of TNT. Why should I not have the right to make one, or use one as a hobby? Could I buy a retired army tank, and use it for bear/deer hunting? I do not like to walk in the snow and mud in the forest to track the animal that I wounded. I could use the machine gun from the tank also, what is the difference?
We must charge the cost of every human life lost to gun violence to the profits of the gun manufacturers, and pass the tough laws restricting the use of even hunting weapons. NO SEMIAUTOMATIC and especially AUTOMATIC weapons. Why don’t we copy the laws of UK, or some other country? I believe in France, one has to pass a psychiatric exam before he/she can own, and keep the hand gun at home. The scenario goes like this; before one buys a gun, he has to talk to the assigned psychiatrist. The psychiatrist asks the person why does he need a gun, is he afraid of somebody trying to kill him? If the person says ‘yes,’ the next question is, ‘did he tell it to the police,’ if he says that he just wishes to target practice, the reply is that the gun will be stored and kept locked at the shooting range for him. If he did not tell the police that he believes somebody is trying to kill him, he is defined as a paranoid, since he does not know who is trying to kill him. License for the ownership of the gun is then denied. I do not know what the exact law in France is now, but it sure makes sense to me to have something like this method of evaluating the potential buyer of any weapons.
michael e
Bozidar
Your argument, or should I call it the “Bozidar bill for a safer America”will never be given even a moments thought or deliberation by our courts.It is miles beyond anything I have heard before,and trashes the reason for the 2nd Amendment.The reason for the 2nd is not hunting.It is not even for personal protection against societal crime.It is for protection against tyranny in government.
Now your argument about what kind of weapons should be considered is valid.Our founders used the term “to bear arms” to mean just that.No cannons for instance.And yes they could not envision a time where weapons would become so small, and so powerful.Russia developed a nuke in a suitcase for instance.Our courts have already limited this,and Im sure more is to come.But your ideas smack of unilaterally disarming law abiding gun carriers(who account for less than 1% of crime)while doing little to effect the real problem.Your ideas on mental health seems to stretch a long way.Almost sounds like you are saying that anyone who envisions danger out there is mental and therefore should be disarmed.This week one newspaper printed names, addresses,and types of guns people have in their area.Libs cheered causing discomfort to those folks(who promptly printed the same of the journalists- who freaked out)I call it a shopping list for anyone who wants to STEAL guns.How freaking stupid can you be?
This week David Gregory waved a loaded magazine in from of the NRAs chief lambasting him on MSNBC.Mr Peirre reported it to the FBI.Mr Gregory could do 15 years!We move into the absurd.
Bozidar Kornic
Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man.
Mahatma gandhi
FreeSpirit
I grew up as a young hunter and killed animals for pleasure. I was already better than my dad and his friends at 15. I can probably still be a sharp-shooter on a SWAT team! I came to the US at 18 and a police officer friend bought me a brand new 357 mag. from a gun show. I was not even a US resident let alone a citizen! I was young and crazy enough to have killed people with that gun.
Then I started dating someone who was an animal lover. She made me realize killing animals for pleasure was immoral and cowardly. I renounced violence, sold the gun back to my friend, became vegetarian and haven’t shot a single round since.
This demonstrates the power of persuasion. We must be brave enough to raise our voice against violence and shame those who glorify it any chance we get. That is what I do now…
I have heard that there are a couple of countries (I think including Canada) where they have more guns than we do but far fewer murders. So I am not convinced if removing guns will guarantee less violence. But I think it is a good start, especially if it is done voluntarily (as in my case).
But in light of the fact that there is so much mental disease mixed with alienation in the US, we must do our best to block access to guns by the mentally ill.
We should also work to exorcise this love affair with violence out of the culture. Another good tactic would be to shame the politicians when they shed crocodile tears after a massacre but turn around and use violence to solve so-called “problems” in little countries filled with little brown people!
Bozidar Kornic
Re; the Right to Bear Arms
Let us assume that it laterally means; any weapon that a person can carry on his/her back, or a shoulder, with the sole intention to defend the citizens from the tyrant, that being a representative of our tyrannical government. Let us then further this analogy that a perceived tyrant from the oppressive government is actually an IRS agent who came to repossess the home for the unpaid taxes. So, now we have all the elements required for a violent confrontation; a shouldered semiautomatic high power rifle with metal piercing bullets, a tyrant who came as an agent of a tyrannical government, and the resistance to the oppression. Does it sound like couple of those militants in Wyoming who had a shootout with the FBI, or was it also a National Guard helping, or was it like in Waco Texas? What was the result of this ‘engagement?’ Did I miss anything, please help me, I am not an expert in Law, my area of expertise is in other branches. We had an occasion when our government dropped a bomb on the group of people I believe in Philadelphia because they declared something like sovereignty? It may have happened in the 70’s.
So, if the Right to Bear arms is intended to resist the government like in these cases, I can see why in every one of these confrontations, the ‘rebels’ lost, and lost heavily.
Let me get back to the clause that defines the weapon as one that can be carried on the shoulder; one can have a rocket propelled grenade launcher that can knockout a tank, or shoot down a passenger plane with little effort, or a training. How about a laser guided missile, small size, as for example, 105 mm, it will be lights enough to carry on the shoulder, why not? I could stop a jet fighter with it, worth a $100,000,000 plane with a $10,000 missile? I am just guessing the prices, so mea culpa. Does it not fit the Second Amendment? I am not for that, I do not like oppression, nobody does, and it would take a lot more for me than an IRS agent who may be at fault or anything like that, before I would take on the U.S. government. There are peaceful ways to redress the grievances, to amend the Constitution; there are the Courts, and other venues. The Civil Right Bill was passed without anybody (marchers) firing any gun. Yes, I am for peaceful resolutions, not guns, definitely not confrontational approach. Sun-Tzu, a famous Chinese strategist says:” Do not start a battle that you can not win.” I agree with him.