Prev Next
Featured Quizzes
Politix Daily Headlines
Featured Debates
Issues

See all 17 issues

People
White House

See all people

GUNS

Post-Aurora Gun Debate: Predictably Bipolar & Ideologically Rigid

Is there hope for a "dispassionate analysis of the facts" at times like these?

Next>

by Dain Fitzgerald

Staff Writer t

Image: HBO

Often you'll find that when someone calls for an issue debate following a high profile incident somehow implicating it, the result of that debate on the part of the caller is a foregone conclusion. Case in point: NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg (a member of an anti-gun mayors group), yesterday.

Rod Dreher at the BBC details the way the gun issue in America tends to play out in predictable ways following a tragedy of the kind witnessed in Aurora. "Fire-breathing" opponents of stricter gun laws liken them to something Hitler (who else) would embrace. Conversely, "dogmatic" proponents of gun regulation (like that found in, where else, Europe) believe mass murder could be prevented if only we'd the will to impose more laws.

Like this article? B Vote Up
?

Is there hope in crossing the ideological divide when it comes to the gun debate?

Comments (view in Forum)

  • o
    Stratton
    !
    Immediately after an unusual tragedy is not the time to have a serious discussion about any policy change. Most of the bad laws passed in this country have come as a knee-jerk response to such events.

    Any thoughtful discussion of guns in America must begin with the 2nd Amendment and the intent of the Founders in framing it. This need not involve mystery as the Founders wrote extensively about the reasons behind everything they did. They made it clear that they felt citizens had to be able to own guns in order to protect themselves both against a potentially tyrannical government, and against their fellow citizens. It is then reasonable to discuss what measures can and should be taken within that context to increase public safety.
  • u
    pezcore64
    !
    Yes, Im sure 'militia' meant to fight a robber or a neighbor you were having a problem with... not to protect you from a foreign army. I mean, its not like the british were still going to be on our northern border even if we won the war or anything...oh wait, they were. and we were still surrounded by other foreign entities as well you say ? surely you jest.

    I think anybody who pretends to know what the 'founding fathers' would think about our current government and the world in which it resides.. is well.. a nut job. Truthfully, they didnt look this far ahead. Most governments at the time didnt last too entirely long after all.
  • nm730d
    !
    @pezcore64 militia reffers to the states right to have a militia. 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. people and state are are both dealt with in the 2nd Amendment its not hard to understand. the founding fathers wrote alot about that right and the thinking behind it.
  • o
    Stratton
    !
    pezcore - It wasn't just about the British. It was also about Indians, and about the other colonists as they didn't have anything like a modern police force. If your neighbor came to your house and tried to rape your wife or steal your cattle, there wasn't going to be anything the authorities could do to stop him until it was too late. And that's still true today.

    I can see you've absorbed some of the standard left-wing misinformation about "militia". The militia in colonial times was not the equivalent of today's National Guard but more like the "survivalist" types. It was a bunch of ill-trained farmers and tradesmen armed with the same rifles they used to shoot animals with. And it certainly wasn't under the control of the Governor or any other political authority.
  • Post Removed by Moderators
  •
    ir0nw0lfe
    !
    This issue is taboo in an election cycle. However, a president not seeking re-election might feel free to enforce his ideology on the populace through a series of executive orders that wouldn't really affect his political future.
  • o
    srennelkztirF
    !
    I could see that happening if BHO won a second term, Wolf. What's REALLY scary is how much free time he'll have on his hands once he no longer has to campaign...which is pretty much what he's been doing for the last 3 years. He'll probably get so bored that we'll hear about him standing outside the local Build-A-Bear Workshop telling little kids, "Hey! You didn't build that, you know..."

  • View all 6 replies >

  • mars2112
    !
    People like James Holmes are intent on hurting as many people as possible. Legally purchasing four guns and 6000 rounds of ammo was not a problem for him. However, if gun bans were in place in the US, Holmes simply would have found a different way to hurt as many people as possible.
  • Neo_NtheMatrix
    !
    As long as there are liberals there is a need for guns in this society. Liberals don't believe in law and order. Notice how most criminals vote for Democrats? Liberals don't believe in law and order. Guns are needed to enforce law and order. God gave us rules and he expects us to follow them. Liberals hate rules and believe by gun or by vote that what is yours should be theirs.
  • o
    Stratton
    !
    Wilberhum - If you're going to insult someone, at least understand the insult you're using and use it correctly. A "tin FOIL hat" implies that someone is crazy. A "tin hat" merely implies that someone is a woodcutter who fell victim to a witch's evil spell in a children's story.
  • Thunderchicken
    !
    Most anti-gun people I've talked to have gotten their knowledge and formed their opinion by information obtained through the media.(I'm remembering a discussion group I was involved in a few years ago. The anti-gun nuts were kinda shocked that I had heard gunfire at my house. Even though I live in a semi-rural area where a few hunters own a lot of land, just the thought of gunfire took them aback.) What surprised me was the ignorance, misinformation and prejudice I encountered. I'm all for reasonable gun laws but these were not the people to have an reasoned discussion with.
  • autiger
    !
    Too bad we don't scrutinize "Fast & Furious" .. Our own govt. supplied the guns that killed one of our own boarder guards.. That BEGAN in 2009 .. Executive Privilege ..so we will never know what actually happened
  • Bobolinsky
    !
    I don't think he's in the clear yet. The best thing for Holder may be an Obama loss. We might be so relieved an focused on bigger things that Holder could just fade into the background and be forgotten. If President Obama wins, F&F will be top-of-the-list for Republicans. Barring some serious election fraud or some "unforeseen", republicans are going to maintain control of the House and gain seats in the Senate. They'll be able to keep it front and center.

    If they could keep a Blue Dress in the headlines, F&F shouldn't be a problem.
  • o
    blacklist88
    !
    No, because alot people don't even know why we have the right to bear arms.alot of people want the government in every single aspect of their life.heres what I have to say to the bourgeoisie "liberals"and"r epublicans, fuck you! You are what holds back the working poor.you let this government get to this point.alot of us(working poor) want the goverment and the rest of the thieves who try and run our lives to stay away.we don't need a handout.
  • Thunderchicken
    !
    22 min
    Wilberhum
    ! "alot people don't even know why we have the right to bear arms"? You have to be kidding, Right?

    Open carry is legal in many places but very few exercise that right.
  • CanisCanemEdit
    !
    Aaaaannd the Commie Liberals pull out the old "We need Gun Control" canard. I'm just effing certain that once Obama and the Libs disarm us, all the crime will stop. After all, criminals legally purchase their weapons.........right?
  • Keyjo
    !
    Thirteen years ago and 17 miles away in Littleton, CO 15 Columbine High students died. After that tragedy and with every tragedy in between, this same discussion comes up with no definite conclusion or problem solving. Evil people will do what evil people do. It's better we are able to somewhat defend ourselves than to be helpless. You can remove every gun in the world form every good person, and the bad people will still kill. If not with guns, then with sling shots, knives, fire and gasoline: you name it.
    I don't think Cain shot Able, did he?
  • Fishbone345
    !
    I think you said it all with "no definite conclusion or problem solving". The only discussions held after these horrorific tragedies is "More Gun Laws Comrade!" and "Yer not takin mah guns!" Any other rational discussion gets lost because of all the noise those two are making.
    Marilyn Manson said it best in an interview several years after Columbine. When asked what he might say to Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold he replied, "Nothing. I'd listen"
    There are going to be more of these things, not because we allow guns or outlaw them, but because most of us don't give a f#%@ about each other.
  • Keyjo
    !
    "Nothing, I'd listen!"
    I like that quote, thanks for that.
    American society has become so competitive to keep up. Ten, twelve hour days have become the norm and people don't have the time or energy to listen to others.
    I am glad I don't have children, I don't have relationships anymore, I won't even have pets. Things that deserve attention and I don't have the time. My employer wants me to work 12 hours per day, I tell him to be happy with 10! I need some "me time!" Management has suggested that I find a good meth dealer so I don't have to sleep! Typical capitalist attitude.
    A son says to his father, "Dad, I need to talk to you about something!"
    The dad replies, "Not now son, I'm too tired!"
    A month later the phone rings: "Your son has been arrested!"
    Father: "What did I do wrong!?"
    What did you do right!?
  • JarlRandwulf
    !
    Guns are not the killers. Those who pull the triggers are the killers. Do we ban planes because of 9/11; do we ban fertilizer because of the Oklahoma bombing; and so on. Anything can be used as a weapon, it is the conscious of the user that determines the good or the evil propagated by the use of the item.
  • Fishbone345
    !
    No, we don't ban planes. We do things like the TSA and the Patriot Act. That last one is a real peach, so much for disliking big Government.
  • lewganja
    !
    the problem is not guns but judges who are to cowardly to enforce the law and the death penalty, they are so busy kissing butt so they can get the next promotion rather than enforcing the laws we have
  • Wilberhum
    !
    Could you identify any Judge who has acted cowardly?
    Or maybe you forgot to mention juries?
    I bet you forgot to mention lawyers to.
    How about the whole legal system?
    Looks like everyone is a coward but you.
  • Fishbone345
    !
    Texas has used the death penalty more than most states in recent years and they still have problems with murder and violence. Especially in Houston.
  • lewganja
    !
    no people like me are not allowed on jurys because we are pro death penaltys our jails are to small people are released because no room in jail,they are slapped o then let go to commit more crimes cops bring them in we let them go, fools and sheep are letting this happened that's us the criminal knows how to work the system the rest gets done over the law protects them but not use
  • Wilberhum
    !
    Sounds like you should recreate our legal system to suite your ideology. Obviously you have brilliant mind and surely you are put to the task. Some how you have figured out that killing people stops people from killing people. :(
  • 2starider
    !
    I'm pro 2nd Amendment, pro gun, have a C/C permit, carry all the time. Had my permit less than a year, have a collection similar to but greater than the Aurora killer (notice "Killer" not shooter, I'm a shooter, not a killer) yet there is no chance I'll be taking aim at a room full of innocent people, eventhough I have aquired the majority of this collection in the past 7 mos. My point is buying weapons does NOT make you a potential mass killer. Think back to the Gabby Giffords incident, the killer was known to L/E and to his family as unstable. Reportedly the Aurora killers mother was not surprised to hear what he had done. In both cases nothing was done to insure the unstable were prevented from buying weapons. Seems to me a sworn affidavit before a judge could have flagged the NICS process to stop purchases. Nut Job control is a reasonable responce, not gun control. In addition I have spent many hundreds of dollars in training material, ammo, and range time to prepare myself mentally, emotionally and physically in the event I need to defend myself or others. Also familiarized myself with the proper after action behavior. This is crutial particularly after what's happened to Zimmerman. Anyone reading this that does not have an extensive history or training and is carrying, please stop! Leave it at home or in the car.
  • Diagnosis
    !
    I don't mean to be cold. I'm just ridiculing those who think that every man, woman, child, and house pet in America ought to carry fire arms as a measure to stopping gun violence.
  • Post Removed by Moderators
  • Post Removed by Moderators
  • Post Removed by Moderators