Many Tennesseans were stunned to hear the news that yesterday morning at 10:18am a lone gunman walked into a welcoming congregation in Knoxville and opened fire on the congregants who were gathered in anticipation of watching their children perform a scene from the musical "Annie" as part of the morning services, killing two people and shooting several more in the head before being tackled to the ground. That church, the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church, is a beacon of joy and hope in East Tennessee. Its congregation is made up of some of the most loving, kind and gentle people in the fine city of Knoxville, and the horrific tragedy which was visited upon that church is a wakeup call to good people throughout Tennessee to re-examine our approach to gun control in Tennessee and throughout this nation.
Sadly this is not the first nor the last example of guns in churches, schools and public spaces being used to kill innocent men, women and children. In the past decade alone, dozens of people have been killed in our nations schools, churches and public gathering places by people who had obtained guns legally and illegally with the sole intention of killing unarmed civilians. The public school shooting rampage phenomenon started here in the South only a decade ago when two students in Jonesboro, Arkansas opened fire on their fellow middle school students killing five and wounding eleven. Since that time our nation has witnessed school shootings in over a dozen states with victims numbering in the hundreds. There have also been shootings at shopping malls and church shootings in the past year in Texas, Colorado and now Tennessee.
Unfortunately, in many of these cases, the guns that were used in the commission of felony first degree homicides were obtained legally. Either the guns were in possession of parents who were not able to keep the guns from the access of their children, or in some cases rifles were used. In many states there are no laws regarding the use of these weapons by minors. In other cases guns were obtained illegally. No matter how the gun was obtained, it was used in the commission of a crime against men, women and children who lost their parents, children or grandchildren as was the case today in Knoxville.
I cannot imagine the horror of the children yesterday watching as their parents were shot in front of them, but this incident further illustrates to me the need for effective gun control regulations at the federal level. The fact is that guns kill people and in the United States they kill a lot of people. The United States has the highest per capita murder rate in the developed world, with 14 people per 100,000 dying of gun violence each year. This adds up to nearly 10,000 people a year who die at the hands of a gun, not including the additional 16,000 suicides that happen each year with the use of a gun. This is nearly thirty three times the number of Americans who have been killed in Iraq since the beginning of the war.
The recent Supreme Court ruling on the second amendment by the Bush and Reagan stacked court insures that our nation's cities can continue to live in perpetual fear of similar incidents happening around the nation as what happened in Knoxville on Sunday. Cities are already scrambling to deal with the chilling new reality handed down by the Supreme Court this summer, which seems to mean that it is open season for every crazy person who can get their hands on a gun in our nation’s urban centers.
There is a solution though, and it is up to Congress to exercise the political will to make a decision to pass laws which place strict limits on gun ownership and to hold gun sellers strictly accountable for who they sell their products to. We have a responsibility to protect our children and our nation’s citizens have a right to live free of the fear of being visited with violence as they go about their daily lives of working, shopping and worshiping as they choose. As a candidate for federal office I believe that federal government has the responsibility to place strict limits on gun ownership in this country. Gun rights advocates argue that guns make us safe, but I believe that a heavily armed nation is a dangerous place to live. It is time to make our country safe for our children. Now is the time for comprehensive gun control for a safer America.
My name is Chris Lugo and I am a candidate for the US Senate seat in Tennessee. I am running as a progressive because I believe that the time has come to end the war in Iraq, ensure that all Americans have access to affordable, quality health care and to restore common sense and decency to our national dialogue. For far too long we have neglected the needs of the poor in America, allowing hundreds of thousands in Tennessee to go without healthcare and millions nationally. For far too long we have let our education system be a secondary priority to the military industrial complex.
As a result of these misguided funding priorities we have a graduation rate in Tennessee of only about 60% statewide for high school students and only about one quarter of all Tennesseans graduate from college. We must take solid steps to ensure that all Americans have safe and affordable housing, that we live in a clear and healthy environment, and that we take steps to address the deep divisions of inequity that still persist in our society.
I believe in the American dream and I believe that all Americans deserve the opportunity to have a rich and meaningful life, but the only way to ensure that these priorities are addressed is to make certain that our government makes this a priority, that our elected representatives make peace and social justice a priority on a national scale.
We are at a crossroads in history, and Tennessee faces a choice which we all face. Do we choose to continue down the path of abandonment, of hopelessness and fear or do we choose to embrace the compassionate, hopeful elements of our national identity? I for one, choose to hope. I believe that the government is here to serve the people and our elected leaders are here to serve you.
What about the 2nd amendment? You would have the citizens of this country give up another one of their rights. Will you also confiscate their sticks and knives so that we won't be killing each other with those items as well? Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Thomas Jefferson would not have agreed with you and neither do I.
by
Walter Johnson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments)
on Monday, July 28, 2008 at 2:39:08 PM
The 2nd Amendment is extremely vaguely worded. People have been arguing over it for two centuries. I should point out that while the 2nd Amendment does mention a "well regulated militia" it doesn't mention the word "guns."
The reason I mention this is that, if we're to accept the position that the 2nd Amendment gives everyone the unlimited right to "bear arms," then is it OK if I own a suitcase nuke? And if not, why not?
The only way we can defeat these gun-loving extremists is to use their own "logic" against them. Thousands of innocent bystanders have been slaughtered by guns over the years in America. As far as I'm concerned, the gun-loving extremists and the NRA have this blood on their hands.
by
Marc McDonald (51 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments)
on Monday, July 28, 2008 at 4:14:56 PM
In addition, before the codification of the 2nd Amendment there are ample documents that give examples of the original meaning. In some these examples the right of the people to keep and bear arms is separate and distinct from maintaining a militia.
"I should point out that while the 2nd Amendment does mention a "well regulated militia" it doesn't mention the word "guns."
The reason I mention this is that, if we're to accept the position that the 2nd Amendment gives everyone the unlimited right to "bear arms," then is it OK if I own a suitcase nuke? And if not, why not?"
The 2nd Amendment does not give everyone the unlimited right to “bear arms”. My position is not that it does. There are copious laws on the books that restrict certain individuals from owning or possessing firearms but they have done little to diminish the number of murders by firearms. The recent DC Ban had no measurable effects on the murder rate, in fact, the city’s homicide rate rose 200% between the years 1976 and 1991.
Regarding “suitcase nukes”. There are already laws in effect that pertain to possession and transportation of fissile material. Mr. Lugo’s article had no mention of it so I fail to see the connection that you’re trying to make.
"The only way we can defeat these gun-loving extremists is to use their own "logic" against them. Thousands of innocent bystanders have been slaughtered by guns over the years in America. As far as I'm concerned, the gun-loving extremists and the NRA have this blood on their hands."
The “logic” that I am using is backed by the Constitution sir. Thousands of innocent people have been killed by knives and blunt objects as well, and if criminals can’t get guns they’ll use those weapons to facilitate their crimes. I am not a gun-loving extremist as you have so eloquently attempted to label me. I don’t even own a gun. I do however still see the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the land, and have no respect for people who wish to usurp it’s authority based on their political aspirations. The blood is on the hands of the man that did the crime and no other.
by
Walter Johnson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments)
on Monday, July 28, 2008 at 7:20:00 PM
I heartily agree that reasonable gun control laws are of benefit to society. Guns should be regulated as to type of firearm and in all cases, a firearm owner should be required to attend and pass a course in gun safety, proficiency, security and the state laws regulating the gun's use.
The man who committed this atrocity in Tennessee must be charged and tried for each count of murder, each count of attempted murder and be cited for the self confessed hate component of these crimes, which makes them more egregious. Moreover, the right wing propagandists who incited this atrocity must also be charged and tried as accessories before the fact. I am, of course speaking of the Rush Limbaughs, Sean Hannitys and Michael Savages and their employers, who pollute the airways which are owned by we the People with the toxic falsehoods that they spew for money every day.
Should there be a fairness doctrine in broadcasting. Who cares? There should definitely be statutes providing that for the propagation of false information or propaganda commercial penalties such as the loss of a broadcasting license and heavy fines to be imposed. Broadcasting which incites criminal activity must carry severe criminal penalties with it.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 1301 comments)
on Monday, July 28, 2008 at 5:56:35 PM
Before talking about comprehensive gun control, which I thought already existed, we should wait until George W. Bush is safely out of office without false flag event and Martial Law being declared. We should also wait to insure that McCain will not take his place by some weird electoral manipulation, and that the economic crash is over.
Before all these are out of the way, anything could happen, and the population might very well wish to have a gun then. I can think of many scenarios. For example, we might prove the country has become a dictatorship, and there could be a civil war.
On that topic, please read my article: Bush/Cheney "Dictator's and Psychopath's Checklists" Complete: Time for Impeachment
The way I understand the second amendment, it was so the population could always defend itself against a dictatorial government.
In the United Kingdom, they have recently moved very fast to render illegal the hunting of small animals in the countryside, and it was the most unpopular decision of the government since the poll tax. The real reason, I suspect, was not because it was cruel to animals, we are all still eating so much meat. The reason was to insure that no one would now have a reason to have a gun. Most Canadians don't have guns, we would be such an easy target for any untrustworthy leader. And Bush is certainly an untrustworthy leader, and McCain does not inspire much either.
I was very much against guns myself, for a very long time, I certainly would not buy one even if it was legal. I still am against them, in a way. I have changed my mind though, and those killings here and there, we will just have to accept them and live with them. It is a price to pay in order to insure that if the government turns against us, we will be able to defend ourselves. So let's wait just a little bit longer, just in case.
And for those parents leaving guns around for any child to pick up, well, here are your real culprits. If you have guns, you better have a safe and lock them away!
I would not even trust my parrot with a gun around here, he is very clever, I would never underestimate him. With guns comes maturity and responsibility.
Let the Goverment Army FedCops local Cops have a MONOPOLY
that is what would happen if your emotive feel-good disarming of Americans will happen.
And the obviously historically-illiterate "candidate" Mr Lugo is so densely unaware of what has ALREADY HAPPENED THROUGHOUT HISTORY when his siren song of disarmament was actually employed...socialist Kerensky banning firearms leading to...socialist Weimar Republic in Germany banning firearms...leading to....socialist Batista in Cuba banning guns....leading to....socialist ChiangKaiSchek banning guns in China leading to...now YOU and the Elite of BOTH PARTIES want to do the same thing..with your "reasonable" laws.....BATFE lists for????... and propaganda and guilttrips.......leading up to???????
The LEGAL monopoly of force in the hands of the State..that is called TYRANNY... and that is what you and your pals in Brady Cult and the Obama Cult(and the dumb Republican wannabees who wannabee "popular") are calling for...under the sugar coated "reasonable" and "needed" and "popular" facades.
Why do you think(or in your case how do you "feel") the Founders of our Republic like Sam Adams and Patrick Henry and others vociverously argued and warned about the danger of a standing army? and corresponding INDIVIDUAL RIGHT and NEED nay DUTY of the people to enjoy the God-ordained NOT GOVERNMENT GRANTED right to defend ones self/family/property/community AND STATE...remember that "thing" called the Bill of Rights and its 10th Amendment????
If God forbid you are elected you will have to take an oath to honor and OBEY THE RULES GIVEN TO YOU BY IT - the Constitution...that "thing" you, George W and his ilk and the rest of the wouldbe tyrants want to finally alter and diminish and rewrite to your hearts content..based on your "feelings".
You might want to ponder these thoughts......before the crash.
by
Chris Bieber (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 34 comments)
on Monday, July 28, 2008 at 7:49:48 PM
>> 20th Century Gun Control History >> >> >> 1911 >> Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million >> Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated >> . >> >> 1929 >> The Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about >> 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and >> exterminated . >> >> 1935 >> China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million >> political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and >> exterminated . >> >> 1938 >> Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 >> million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded >> up and exterminated . >> >> 1956 >> Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977, one million >> educated people , unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and >> exterminated. >> >> 1964 >> Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan >> Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated . >> >> 1970 >> Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 >> Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated >> . >> >> In the 20th Century, because of gun control, 56 million Defenseless >> People were rounded up and exterminated. >> >> >> >> >> Now a more current history page. >> 12 months after gun owners in Australia were forced >> by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms for destruction by >> their government. This program cost Australia taxpayers more than $500 >> million dollars. >> The first year's results: >> >> a.. Australia-wide, homicides with firearms up 3.2 percent. >> >> a.. Australia-wide, assaults with firearms up 8.6 percent. >> >> a.. Australia-wide, armed robberies up 44 percent (yes, 44 >> percent)! >> >> a.. In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms >> up 300 percent. >> Note: while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the >> criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns! >> >> a.. While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady >> decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically >> upward in the past 12 months after, since criminals now are guaranteed that >> their prey is unarmed. >> >> a.. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and >> assaults of the ELDERLY. >> After a monumental effort and cost was expended in ridding the >> Australian Society of personal fire arms, Australian politicians are at a >> loss to explain why public safety has decreased. The Australian >> experience and the other historical facts above prove it. >>
>> >> >> You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear our >> president, governors or other politicians disseminating this information. >> Guns the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, >> gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens. >> >> Take note my fellow Americans.....before it's too late! >> >> The next time someone talks in support of gun control, please >> remind them of this history lesson. >> >> With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are just subjects. >> >> If you value your freedom. >> Please spread this Gun Control Information message to all of your >> friends.
by
Brad Evans (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 203 comments)
on Monday, July 28, 2008 at 8:04:45 PM
Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry were not America's Founding Fathers. They did not attend the Constitutional Convention and were not involved in writing the US Constitution. The US Constitution was written by the Federalists. The Federalists were those who supported the US Constitution. Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry were anti-Federalists. The anti-Federalists were those who were against the US Constitution and against establishing a national government.
by
Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments)
on Monday, July 28, 2008 at 8:10:13 PM
Our INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms is protected by the 9th amendment not the 2nd amendment no matter what the idiots on the Supreme Court say. There is no reason why law-abiding adults should be prohibited from owning any gun of their choice. All these people committing these mass shootings are criminals and mentally disturbed people who don't abide by the law, therefore gun control laws would have no effect on criminals.
If you want to ban something, ban the sale of anti-depressant drugs that make people violent and homicidal.
Disarm government bureaucracies, paramilitaries, and mercenaries not law-abiding people.
by
Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments)
on Monday, July 28, 2008 at 8:45:27 PM
Unfortunately, when I became a liberal I had to give up some of my ideals. One of those is the right to keep and bear arms. On that issue, I know I am on the wrong side of the fence. Our forefathers did not take that matter lightly when they put it into our constitution. You are treading on thin ice when you try to take that right away. I feel much safer knowing that our people are armed. I do not trust our government as far as I can kick it, but I trust the hearts of the people as a whole.
Guns do NOT kill people. People do. Stop perpetrating that myth.
Guns did not kill those liberals in that church. Neither did the NRA. In my opinion, and it is only my opinion, right-wing hate radio did it. I knew it the moment I heard about it, and now I hear everyone else echoing my opinions. Do something about that. Hold them accountable for their lies, hate-mongering, and slander. But hands off our constitutional rights.
by
Ron R. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 132 comments)
on Monday, July 28, 2008 at 11:10:39 PM
... is to keep doing the same thing & expect a different result.
The UK & Australia tried banning guns & their crime rates went up. It won't be any different here.
The anti gun crowd likes to point to sensational murders as reasons for gun control. They studiously avoid mentioning the millions, yes millions, of times each year that people use guns in self defense.
The only objective conclusion one can reach is that we need more guns in good people's hands to keep us safe.
by
Darren Wolfe (7 articles, 201 quicklinks, 106 diaries, 780 comments)
on Tuesday, July 29, 2008 at 7:08:40 AM
what percentage of deaths/wounds by legally owned guns occur intentionally versus the millions of guns in the hands of citizens? 2%? 1%? Less than 1%? I probably have a greater chance of being killed in a motor vehicle accident traveling a mile to the grocery by some yahoo driving a Humvee.
I, too, was a liberal on this issue in the distant past. Thank God I grew up and stopped listening to the control freaks.
Yeh, right.... let's outlaw the guns. Then the sheep can be herded into the camps like.... well, ... sheep. Oh yes, little sheeplets, be afraid... be very afraid.
Many Americans are simply too stupid for words.
by
richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 905 comments)
on Tuesday, July 29, 2008 at 11:57:34 AM
Once again: if the Second Amendment indeed allows no restrictions on "arms," then why can't I have a suitcase nuke?
re: >>>There are already laws in effect that pertain to possession and >>>transportation of fissile material
Those laws are unconstitutional, right?
And if they don't violate the Second Amendment (as you interpret it) then please explain why.
re: >>>"Thousands of innocent people have been killed by knives and blunt objects as well"
Twisting my words around again. I said "innocent BYSTANDERS."
Are innocent bystanders killed by knives or blunt objects? Maybe so....but it's trivial compared to the THOUSANDS who are slaughtered by stray bullets.
Here, in my own neighborhood last year, a 3-year-old child was hit in the head and killed by a bullet from a gun fired in the house next door by a gun owner whose pistol accidentally discharged. As a former police beat reporter, I can tell you that this sort of thing is not all that rare in today's America.
Stop twisting my words around and address my points.
Oh, and to the other gun-loving extremist who commented that gun control automatically leads to dictatorship: then how do you explain today's America: a nation where any nutcase can buy a gun as easily as a loaf of bread and yet we STILL live in the Bush dictatorship, one of the most frightening, repressive, evil regimes in many years.
by
Marc McDonald (51 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments)
on Tuesday, July 29, 2008 at 10:54:30 PM
Anybody who would seek to acquire a suitcase nuke is obviously insane. You simply can't use one without killing innocent people. I'm sure our government can attest to that. Last I checked there were already laws against selling weapons to insane people.
And as to your second question, the people obviously have the patience of saints. The government is boiling us like frogs. Slowly and over time. But the people do have a breaking point. All people do. Whether something happens this year or in 200 years, we have to preserve the people's right to protect their freedoms, or we will turn into the society that George Orwell warned us about. "You want to see a vision of the future, just imagine a boot stomping on a human face -- forever." In case you haven't noticed pal, America is the largest world superpower. Nobody is going to come and liberate us.
by
Ron R. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 132 comments)
on Thursday, July 31, 2008 at 5:12:57 PM
In a way, I agree.Provide some federal legislation that is "reasonable", which means does not infringe on our right to keep and bear arms.Let the Constitution be the "law of the land" as intended and do away with the inconsistent 20,000 laws among the several states.
The SCOTUS ruled for the first time in DC v. Heller on the question of individual versus collective rights.This should never have been subject to question.Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution defines regulation and authorization of the Militia; and Article 2, Section 2 puts civilian leadership of Militias in the hands of the President.To say the Second Amendment is in the Bill of Rights to ensure a Militia’s right to arms is ludicrous.The Founding Fathers understood civilians had the innate right to arms for hunting, self-defense, and ultimately to protect themselves from government tyranny.
While you are legislating, provide sufficient monies to adequately staff our police departments to deal with criminals.Criminals are the problem, not guns.Come down hard on gang bangers, murderers, psychopaths, sociopaths and organized crime.Control those who use guns wrongly.Do not penalize law-abiding citizens who use guns for hunting, sport, recreation and self-defense.
by
Mike Kimball (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 65 comments)
on Saturday, August 9, 2008 at 10:54:08 AM
18 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (