Families continued to grieve over the weekend for the 12 lost and dozens injured after a gunman opened fire in an Aurora, Colo., theater early Friday morning.
After looking at the large arsenal James Holmes collected to carry out the crime, the conversation on TV talk shows was about gun control, crime prevention and the 2nd Amendment.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg criticized President Barack Obama for a first term without any real effort regarding gun control.
"The president has spent the last three years trying to avoid the issue, or if he's facing it, I don't know of anybody who has seen him face it," Bloomberg, a supporter of increased restrictions on weapons access, said Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation."
Bloomberg also noted presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney's shifting stance on gun laws as the New York mayor called for this to be a more prominent topic of discussion in the 2012 race.
"This really is an enormous problem for the country, and it's up to these two presidential candidates," Bloomberg said. "They want to lead this country, and they've said things before that they're in favor of banning things like assault weapons. Where are they now and why don't they stand up? And if they want our votes, they better."
According to The Huffington Post, the alleged Colorado shooter, James Holmes, acquired his arsenal of weapons, ammunition and body armor over a several month period from the internet and brick-and-mortar stores alike. His purchases did not raise any red flags.
Proponents of gun rights, however, argue that a vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding citizens and that criminals who commit these kinds of massacres aren't obeying laws already in place so wouldn't obey stricter ones either.
Dudley Brown, executive director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, commented on Holmes' 6,000 rounds of ammunition for an assault rifle.
"If I only had 6,000 rounds for my AR-15s, I'd literally feel naked," Brown said, according to The Huffington Post. Holmes' arsenal included "two handguns, a shotgun and a rifle. That's the average male in Colorado."
The Associated Press spoke with Colorado State Rep. Mike Waller, a Republican who says the state shouldn't limit the purchase of ammunition. But he saw a worthy debate over the protective gear worn by Holmes during the shootings.
"Is that what the right to bear arms means, that you can purchase tactical gear to stop law enforcement from preventing you from perpetrating a crime?" Waller said to the AP. "In the days and weeks to come, this is going to be a significant conversation."
So, how does this crime shift the debate on gun control? Take the poll and tell us more in the comments section below.
This will be my final contribution to the discussion. M.Legison, in his 4:12 pm writing said pretty much what I planned to say, but he said it more succinctly than I would have. Thanks, M.Legison, you saved me time. David, I inferred in my first contribution that's it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion on the issue of guns/gun control because people tend to use their emotions rather than their brains. Well, buddy, you're "case in point #1". Let me cite something you recently wrote: "You keep asking for proof here is a video of Paneda in front of congress saying they take orders from the UN not Congress. The other is a video of Eric Holder talking about brainwashing kids both of these jack asses were appointed by Obamnation the commander and scum of this country will do everything in his power to destroy it you can't argue facts and here they are so go back into your hole you loose." Irritational words like "both of these jack asses", "Obamnation", "the commander and scum of this country" pretty much ends it for me. Ciao
I grow frustrated with some people on the right who throw out allegations and then run when asked for a factual discussion. I grow even more frustrated when somebody on my side of the discussion is even worse.
I don't feel that I'm making any positive contributions to the Patch, and it's time for a break. Best to you all. I know you all mean well.
Take your meds!
It is from the AEI, American Enterprise Institute, a center right think tank which is the mirror of the center left Brookings Institute. Both are highly regarded and neither is extreme by any fair measure. The title of the article is "Why Capitalism Has An Image Problem." I believe it will explain in part why we've become so polarized, and what we on both the right and left need to do to restore a more equitable workplace. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did. http://www.aei.org/article/economics/why-capitalism-has-an-image-problem/
Now that the topic has gravitated to economics, I'm back in. The article is insightful, but I need more time to properly digest the content. Unlike getting information from TV or radio, reading provides people with the time and opportunity to ponder, introspect, and even debate content with oneself. Just a couple thoughts on "capitalism". I'm an unabashed liberal who believes in capitalism. No, these two are not incompatable! I am, however, very much against "unfettered capitalism". The United States and much of the world is still reeling from the effects of capitalism gone wild in our recent history. Americans tend to be mythical people on most issues, and capitalism is no exception. Hearken back to earlier days in our history. Those individual free spirits who "headed West young man" to gain land and wealth were aided by a government that carved out the Cumberland Gap for them. Early American business owners, unable to compete against cheaper products coming in from England, cried for and were assisted by import taxes levied by state and federal government.
The government helped with infrastructure such as your Cumberland Gap example and with today's roads not because they had a great idea, but because they developed more trade, growth, and wealth for both individuals and the government. Roads would not have been built had the automobile not been invented first. The Gap would not have been created without the vision of increased prosperity, employment, and trade from the settlers. The government should act to empower capitalism, not stifle it, all within the bounds of mutual stewardship. I think that should be our mutual goal.
I'm still digesting the article. I think, in theory, capitalism is the best economic system around. The problem is, capitalism like all economic systems and like all governmental systems are created by human beings. Human beings, although usually well-intended are fallible! Reminds me of a history professor who frequented a bar I tended back in the 70's. In a discussion on economics with other bar patrons, the good professor said, "Under capitalism, man exploits man. Communism is just vice versa!" When dealing with economics, I believe many people forget or simply don't know history. People make connections with the founding fathers and the Constitution, and those connections don't necessarily fit. Much of it is created to fit one's mindset. The fact is we live in a much more complex society than did the founding fathers, and that complexity must be taken into account when dealing with economic issues. In 1790, there were fewer than 5 million people in the United States. Now we have over 300 million. None of the following was an issue to consider back in 1790: industrialization (just beginning), pollution, working conditions (except for slaves), obesity, the automobile, international corporations, derivities, and on and on and on. There is nothing said in the Constitution about the rights of citizens in a CAPITALIST nation. You're making that inference. Where specifically does the Constitution refer to capitalism? More to come.
No deception on my part. From my understanding, the Constitution was rather "neutral" on economic issues. Freeing ourselves from the British was not for purely economic reasons, taxation without representation excepted. Take a look at the Preamble, the three Articles, and the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. Where specificially does it address economic issues? Let's focus on the Preamble: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Now, I can understand how some people might interpret "promote the general Welfare" as support for a free market system. I can also understand how some people might interpret the phrase as support for universal, single-payer (government) health care. We all must be careful when putting our own spin on what we believe the founding fathers intended.
I'm a bit confused here. I posted comments at 4:47 pm on Wednesday, August 1, 2012 in which I mentioned "promote the general Welfare" from the Preamble. My posting is shown on Patch after your last two postings, but was actually written prior to yours! Did you get my posting which began "No deception on my part."
http://temecula.patch.com/articles/citizen-reader-shares-mining-sounds A good friend sent this email and said the following, "Do you think this is what happens when a mining operator/Developer seems to be in control of your elected politicians and the appointed officials these same politicians put in positions of authority. Do you think government employees have to follow the instructions of these same politicians in order to keep their government jobs? Do you wonder if someone would be fired if they didn't do what the politicians wanted them to do?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m_HypxyudI&feature=relmfu Have you seen the MaryAnn Edwards video featuring the Aberhill Ranch Boys and Girls Club with Castle & Cookes aggregate mining operation in the background it's across the street. Paul Jacobs may be onto something? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhckrqXX-L4 Another video of the Alberhill Ranch Boys and Girls Club which puts things in prospective: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e12kTmWvn7U&feature=related