BOOM!

Time For An Adult Conversation...

I saw this on FB on Upworthy's page and felt it was a great graphic to illustrate my point about the gun industry vs other consumer products out there:



Jason Alexander's Gun Rant

Jason Alexender posted rant on Twitter and I wanted to share it here:

From Salon.com:

"I’d like to preface this long tweet by saying that my passion comes from my deepest sympathy and shared sorrow with yesterday’s victims and with the utmost respect for the people and the police/fire/medical/political forces of Aurora and all who seek to comfort and aid these victims.

This morning, I made a comment about how I do not understand people who support public ownership of assault style weapons like the AR-15 used in the Colorado massacre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

That comment, has of course, inspired a lot of feedback. There have been many tweets of agreement and sympathy but many, many more that have been challenging at the least, hostile and vitriolic at the worst.

Clearly, the angry, threatened and threatening, hostile comments are coming from gun owners and gun advocates. Despite these massacres recurring and despite the 100,000 Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence – these people see no value to even considering some kind of control as to what kinds of weapons are put in civilian hands.

Many of them cite patriotism as their reason – true patriots support the Constitution adamantly and wholly. Constitution says citizens have the right to bear arms in order to maintain organized militias. I’m no constitutional scholar so here it is from the document itself:

As passed by the Congress:
“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.”
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
“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.”

So the patriots are correct, gun ownership is in the constitution – if you’re in a well-regulated militia. Let’s see what no less a statesman than Alexander Hamilton had to say about a militia:

“A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.”
Or from Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Definition of MILITIA
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

The advocates of guns who claim patriotism and the rights of the 2nd Amendment – are they in well-regulated militias? For the vast majority – the answer is no.

Then I get messages from seemingly decent and intelligent people who offer things like: @BrooklynAvi: Guns should only be banned if violent crimes committed with tomatoes means we should ban tomatoes. OR @nysportsguys1: Drunk drivers kill, should we ban fast cars?

I’m hoping that right after they hit send, they take a deep breath and realize that those arguments are completely specious. I believe tomatoes and cars have purposes other than killing. What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve? Let’s see – does it fire more rounds without reload? Yes. Does it fire farther and more accurately? Yes. Does it accommodate a more lethal payload? Yes. So basically, the purpose of an assault style weapon is to kill more stuff, more fully, faster and from further away. To achieve maximum lethality. Hardly the primary purpose of tomatoes and sports cars.

Then there are the tweets from the extreme right – these are the folk who believe our government has been corrupted and stolen and that the forces of evil are at play, planning to take over this nation and these folk are going to fight back and take a stand. And any moron like me who doesn’t see it should…
a. be labeled a moron
b. shut the fuck up
c. be removed

And amazingly, I have some minor agreement with these folks. I believe there are evil forces at play in our government. But I call them corporatists. I call them absolutists. I call them the kind of ideologues from both sides, but mostly from the far right who swear allegiance to unelected officials that regardless of national need or global conditions, are never to levy a tax. That they are never to compromise or seek solutions with the other side. That are to obstruct every possible act of governance, even the ones they support or initiate. Whose political and social goal is to marginalize the other side, vilify and isolate them with the hope that they will surrender, go away or die out.

These people believe that the US government is eventually going to go street by street and enslave our citizens. Now as long as that is only happening to liberals, homosexuals and democrats – no problem. But if they try it with anyone else – it’s going to be arms-ageddon and these committed, God-fearing, brave souls will then use their military-esque arsenal to show the forces of our corrupt government whats-what. These people think they meet the definition of a “militia”. They don’t. At least not the constitutional one. And, if it should actually come to such an unthinkable reality, these people believe they would win. That’s why they have to “take our country back”. From who? From anyone who doesn’t think like them or see the world like them. They hold the only truth, everyone else is dangerous. Ever meet a terrorist that doesn’t believe that? Just asking.

Then there are the folks who write that if everyone in Colorado had a weapon, this maniac would have been stopped. Perhaps. But I do believe that the element of surprise, tear gas and head to toe kevlar protection might have given him a distinct edge. Not only that, but a crowd of people firing away in a chaotic arena without training or planning – I tend to think that scenario could produce even more victims.

Lastly, there are these well-intended realists that say that people like this evil animal would get these weapons even if we regulated them. And they may be right. But he wouldn’t have strolled down the road to Kmart and picked them up. Regulated, he would have had to go to illegal sources – sources that could possibly be traced, watched, overseen. Or he would have to go deeper online and those transactions could be monitored. “Hm, some guy in Aurora is buying guns, tons of ammo and kevlar – plus bomb-making ingredients and tear gas. Maybe we should check that out.”

But that won’t happen as long as all that activity is legal and unrestricted.

I have been reading on and off as advocates for these weapons make their excuses all day long. Guns don’t kill – people do. Well if that’s correct, I go with @BrooklynAvi, let them kill with tomatoes. Let them bring baseball bats, knives, even machetes — a mob can deal with that.

There is no excuse for the propagation of these weapons. They are not guaranteed or protected by our constitution. If they were, then we could all run out and purchase a tank, a grenade launcher, a bazooka, a SCUD missile and a nuclear warhead. We could stockpile napalm and chemical weapons and bomb-making materials in our cellars under our guise of being a militia.

These weapons are military weapons. They belong in accountable hands, controlled hands and trained hands. They should not be in the hands of private citizens to be used against police, neighborhood intruders or people who don’t agree with you. These are the weapons that maniacs acquire to wreak murder and mayhem on innocents. They are not the same as handguns to help homeowners protect themselves from intruders. They are not the same as hunting rifles or sporting rifles. These weapons are designed for harm and death on big scales.

SO WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THEM? WHY DO YOU NOT, AT LEAST, AGREE TO SIT WITH REASONABLE PEOPLE FROM BOTH SIDES AND ASK HARD QUESTIONS AND LOOK AT HARD STATISTICS AND POSSIBLY MAKE SOME COMPROMISES FOR THE GREATER GOOD? SO THAT MOTHERS AND FATHERS AND CHILDREN ARE NOT SLAUGHTERED QUITE SO EASILY BY THESE MONSTERS? HOW CAN IT HURT TO STOP DEFENDING THESE THINGS AND AT LEAST CONSIDER HOW WE CAN ALL WORK TO TRY TO PREVENT ANOTHER DAY LIKE YESTERDAY?
We will not prevent every tragedy. We cannot stop every maniac. But we certainly have done ourselves no good by allowing these particular weapons to be acquired freely by just about anyone.

I’ll say it plainly – if someone wants these weapons, they intend to use them. And if they are willing to force others to “pry it from my cold, dead hand”, then they are probably planning on using them on people.

So, sorry those of you who tell me I’m an actor, or a has-been or an idiot or a commie or a liberal and that I should shut up. You can not watch my stuff, you can unfollow and you can call me all the names you like. I may even share some of them with my global audience so everyone can get a little taste of who you are.

But this is not the time for reasonable people, on both sides of this issue, to be silent. We owe it to the people whose lives were ended and ruined yesterday to insist on a real discussion and hopefully on some real action.

In conclusion, whoever you are and wherever you stand on this issue, I hope you have the joy of family with you today. Hold onto them and love them as best you can. Tell them what they mean to you. Yesterday, a whole bunch of them went to the movies and tonight their families are without them. Every day is precious. Every life is precious. Take care. Be well. Be safe. God bless."

Jason Alexander

The Second Amendment Conundrum?

Have you everr noticed the words, "well REGULATED"  in the Second Amendment? Neither had I until I finally looked it up. The placement of the commas are interesting as well. Punctuation is really important, isn't it?

Clearly, the intent of the framers was to provide for a militia especially given we were up against the most powerful military in the world at the time, the British and we didn't have a military of our own. We also didn't have a police force at the time either.

And most importantly, we didn't have the advancements in weaponary and ammo that we have today. Nor could the average citizen get on the internets and just buy whatever they want to stock their own personal arsenal.

My how times have changed....

Not trying to argue we should repeal the 2nd amendment nor do I believe we should ban all guns. The 2nd amendment is well defended by the Gun Lobby but just like the rest of the amendments (free speech, unreasonable searches, etc...) are all subject to REASONABLE REGULATION.

The gun lobby has been extremely effective in using the 2nd Amendment as a rallying cry that socialists liberals are trying take our guns away and ignore the constitution. What a farce!

There's all kinds of information out there about what the founders did and did not intend so feel free to read up at your leisure. I've posted some intereting reads below from both sides. 

What is plainly clear is that the framers had no idea we would become the world power we are today and have the biggest, bestest military in the world. They had no idea our weaponary would have advanced to where it is today. They had no idea crazy, mass murderers would use this advanced weaponary to terrorize the people of the world.

Most importantly...the Founding Fathers had no idea the 4th and most powerful branch of government would emerge and inject their own personal agendas into our society and public policy: Lobbyist. 

If we truly want to protect our freedoms and our government, we HAVE to stand up to the Gun Lobby and demand for reform.

Off my Soap Box now...I'm no constitutional scholar but I do have common sense that tells me there is always a solution. It's not just about smart gun laws. Comprehensive reform is needed that includes smart regulations, education and support / resources for the mentally ill and unstable for starters...

Here is an interesting read from the DailyKos:

"The recent act of self-defense by a teen widow in shooting an home intruder has been somewhat of a rallying cry among the right which has made them reaffirm what can only be called the "second amendment myth."

Now I'm not for banning all guns and restricting it to the military but I am against holding myths and misinformation. Unfortunately the second amendment myth, like the myth that "corporations are people" and "money is speech" has gained legitimacy in recent years with supreme court cases reaffirming the myth both to liberals and conservatives and makes it tricky to discuss.

However, the idea that there is a constitutional right to own a material object that happens to be a gun, is a myth.

The Founders and the Second Amendment
Lets begin with the second amendment says in Full:

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.

Despite the popular sentiment that the founders advocated unabridged gun freedom very little evidence shows this.

Save for a few vague quotes about taking arms (some of which fake quotes floating around the internet) the closest the founders discussed about the second amendment were militias with explicit descriptions in the Federalist papers of what a militia is and how large it should be among other things. In Federalist Paper #29 it said the Union has the power

"to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS."

(All caps original)

Other interpretations by Founders showed that they believed that state organized militias should be created in the event of a tyrannical federal government.

The Early Supreme Court Cases

In the earliest second amendment cases, the issues often dealt with militias and to what extent people were authorized be in a militia.

Then in 1939 the landmark decision came in United States v. Miller which drew the first distinction in the issue.

As a case that dealt with challenges to a law prohibiting certain firearms it came with two big conclusions:

• The Second Amendment only protects use of weapons in an organized militia.
• The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.
• it thus determined:

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

Or put simply, if it's not about militias it's not about the Second Amendment.

This also had a huge precedent, for roughly 60 years afterwards lower courts rejected almost all claims of abuse of second amendment rights from gun owners since it did not relate to militias. As Uviller and Merkel subtitle it in their book, "The Second Amendment Fell Silent."  

Gun Activism In The Courts
Then after about 200 years of legal precedent came the Roberts Court. It suddenly overturned almost all of US history in favor of gun rights advocates with District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 and subsequent cases.

Edit: Someone brought up that Scalia writing the majority decision, went so far as to say that the amendment had prefatory and operative clauses, the prefatory being "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." That means half of the amendment is completely useless "window dressing" added for rhetoric. Imagine if someone argued the First Amendment's "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" was just a meaningless prefatory phrase.  

It was so blatant that in a scathing criticism, conservative judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III compared it to Roe v. Wade and said it "represents a triumph for conservative lawyers" as "Heller encourages
Americans to do what conservative jurists warned for years they should not do: by-pass the ballot and seek to press their political agenda in the courts."

With Heller, like other Roberts Decisions, came the evaporation of centuries of cases and decades of Supreme court precedent that roughly reflected an originalist observation in the Constitution.
Put simply, the Founding Founders nor most people thought the Constitution guarantees a right to a material object, let alone a gun."

Here is a more deliberate interpretation that up until 2008 was shared by the Supreme Court:

"Myth: The Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to own a gun.

Fact: The Supreme Court has always interpreted this as a state's militia's right, not an individual's.



Summary Over the centuries, the Supreme Court has always ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects the states' militia's rights to bear arms, and that this protection does not extend to individuals. In fact, legal scholars consider the issue "settled law." For this reason, the gun lobby does not fight for its perceived constitutional right to keep and bear arms before the Supreme Court, but in Congress. Interestingly, even interpreting an individual right in the 2nd Amendment presents the gun lobby with some thorny problems, like the right to keep and bear nuclear weapons.



Argument The Second Amendment states:

"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."

Pro-gun advocates claim that this amendment guarantees their individual right to own a gun, and that gun control laws are therefore a violation of their constitutional rights. In fact, the term "violation of our Second Amendment rights" has become a battle cry in gun lobbyist literature, repeated everywhere in their editorials and essays.

However, this raises a fascinating observation. If gun control laws are so obviously a violation of the Second Amendment, then why doesn't the National Rifle Association challenge them on constitutional grounds before the Supreme Court? The answer is that they know they face certain defeat, for reasons we shall explore below. Consequently, the NRA has abandoned all hope in the courts.

Instead, the NRA has chosen to lobby Congress to prevent gun control legislation, and has become in fact one of the most powerful lobbies on Capital Hill. This is a supreme and exquisite irony, given the conservative and libertarian's love of constitutions and hatred of democracy. But, at any rate, the NRA is fighting for its perceived constitutional rights on Capital Hill, by bribing our legislators with millions of dollars in campaign contributions.

The reason is because the Supreme Court -- this nation's final arbiter on the interpretation of the Constitution -- has always ruled that the Second Amendment does not extend the right to keep and bear arms to individuals, but to the well-regulated militias mentioned in the first part of the amendment. Specifically, these are militias that are regulated by the federal and state governments. Article I, Section 8 authorizes Congress:

"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

The Founders were passionately opposed to standing peacetime armies -- in fact, Thomas Jefferson listed it as one of their grievances against the British Crown in the Declaration of Independence. Intent on eliminating this evil, they created a system whereby citizens kept their arms at home and could be called by their state militias at a moment's notice. These militias eventually became the states' National Guard, and the courts have always interpreted them that way.

In 1886, the Supreme Court ruled in Presser vs. Illinois that the Second Amendment only prevents the federal government from interfering with a state's ability to maintain a militia, and does nothing to limit the states' ability to regulate firearms. Which means that states can regulate, control and even ban firearms if they so desire!

Even so, this left a question about how much the federal government can limit a citizen's right to own a gun. In 1939, the Supreme Court addressed this issue in United States vs. Miller. Here, the Court refused to strike down a law prohibiting the interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun on the basis of the Second Amendment. Rejecting the argument that the shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia," the Court held that the Second Amendment "must be interpreted and applied" only in the context of safeguarding the continuation and effectiveness of the state militias.

In other words, the federal government is free to regulate and even ban guns so long as it does not interfere with the state's ability to run a militia. Since then, both the Supreme and lesser courts have consistently interpreted the right to bear arms as a state's right, not an individual's right. At times they have even expressed exasperation with some gun advocates' misinterpretation of the Second Amendment.

In United States v. Warin, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1976 upheld the conviction of an illegal gun-owner who argued that his Second Amendment rights had been violated. In pointed language, the court wrote: "It would unduly extend this opinion to attempt to deal with every argument made by defendant...all of which are based on the erroneous supposition that the Second Amendment is concerned with the rights of individuals rather than those of the states."

In 1972 Justice William O. Douglas wrote: "A powerful lobby dins into the ears of our citizenry that these gun purchases are constitutional rights protected by the Second Amendment....There is no reason why all pistols should not be barred to everyone except the police."

Gun advocates have bitterly decried the "activist courts" that have supposedly changed the plain meaning of the constitution. But over 100 years of courts have interpreted a states'-rights meaning, and so has a broad body of constitutional scholars. Gun advocates simply have a different "plain meaning" of the constitution than everyone else, one that coincidentally legalizes their desired goal of owning weapons.

The only apparent recourse for gun advocates now is to reject the system of judicial review that has led to a perfect record of court defeats. But the alternative is even worse: trusting Congress to pass laws that respect our constitutional rights. On all other issues but gun ownership, the idea is anathema to conservatives and libertarians.

But even accepting the gun lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment does not spare the gun owner from gun control. The amendment simply states that the people have a right "to keep and bear" arms. It says absolutely nothing about regulating them for safety, design or caliber. The gun lobby argues that the lack of of such language means that individuals are free to own any arms they please, and government cannot use constitutional silence to infer permission to regulate them. But this isn't true; look at the First Amendment. It simply says that "congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" -- yet the government regulates countless forms of speech -- slander, malicious falsehoods, fraud, insider trading, etc. -- and these regulations are upheld by the Supreme Court. The same principle applies to the regulation of guns.

This point becomes especially important when considering the regulation of arms by category. For example: do the people have a right to own nuclear weapons? (Pro-gun advocates contemptuously call this the "nuclear straw-man argument," yet they have not even come close to providing a satisfactory answer to it.) How about chemical and biological weapons? Tanks? Battleships? Bombers? In a society where people get drunk, angry, jealous, self-destructive and mentally ill, you certainly wouldn't want the unregulated sale of nuclear weapons on the market. Prohibition of such arms seems like the best thing to do, but, strictly speaking, that too would be a violation of the Second Amendment.

Some pro-gun advocates admit that a literalist interpretation allows the right to keep and bear all arms, including nuclear weapons, and that this is surely archaic. Certainly the Founders could not have foreseen or intended this situation. However, pro-gun advocates claim the correct reaction of modern America should be to amend the constitution to exclude ownership of nuclear weapons; creatively interpreting the constitution is the wrong way.

This is a curious argument, for a couple of reasons. First, the entire rationale of an individual right to keep and bear arms is to defend against a tyrannical government. But to surrender an advantage as overwhelming as nuclear weapons and smart weaponry to the government is irrational. Given the fanaticism of the gun lobby to protect themselves from government tyranny, this meek acquiescence towards weapons of terrible destruction is more than little strange, and begs explanation. It suggests that, down deep, the gun lobby is not really serious about its claim that government threatens them. (How could they be, in a democracy with high-speed, mass communication?) What is more likely is that they feel the need to empower themselves, and firearms are sufficient to fulfill that need.

The argument is also strange because it concedes a point to gun control; namely, that there are some weapons so deadly that they should not be allowed in society. That is exactly what gun-control advocates have been arguing, and you don't need nuclear weapons to achieve the feared results; the U.S. already has the high murder statistics to prove it with handguns alone.

The argument is also strange because the gun lobby fervently hopes to avoid public mobilization on a constitutional amendment limiting the right to keep and bear arms. A huge majority of Americans favor stricter gun control laws; and as long as they're excluding nuclear weapons they might as well throw in assault weapons and Saturday Night Specials.

But ultimately, calling for a constitutional amendment banning the ownership of nuclear weapons is moot. Individuals do not even have a guaranteed right to keep and bear firearms, much less modern military weapons. To overcome the Supreme Court on this issue, the gun lobby would have to promote fundamental changes in our political structure that would surely be disimprovements."

Lastly, Here is the viewpoint put out there by the Gun Lobby:

"The Myth of the Second Amendment

It’s time to clear up a few popular misconceptions about the second amendment held by pro and anti gunners alike. These misconceptions cloud the true intent of the most important of all the amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights. Without the second amendment protections to keep and bear arms, the People would be unable to defend any of their other rights. We then place ourselves in a position of having our rights granted to us under some form of benevolence.

These misconceptions will also ultimately lead to severe restrictions of this sacred right by allowing anti-rights groups to set the terms around which the debate is centered.

First, the second amendment was not designed to protect the rights of hunters.

Second, the second amendment was not designed to protect the rights of sportsmen.

And third, even though it is very important that everyone has the right to defend themselves and their loved ones, the second amendment was not designed to protect the individual.

Let’s examine the second amendment a little closer. For the record:

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.

… BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, …

There is nothing that is ambiguous about that statement.

Our rights as gun owners are predicated on the fact that at some point in time it may become necessary to defend our freedom. Not with words and arguments. Not with protests and civil disobedience. Not through any legal recourse.

Our freedom will be defended with blood. With force. With the strength of our desire to be free. With our lives. With the lives of those we love. And with guns. There will be no other way.

I am not advocating revolution and the overthrow of our government - not yet anyway.

However …

Our freedom was bought and paid for with the blood of those who refused to live under tyranny. Our freedom has been defended by the blood of their sons. And their sons. And theirs. And one day it will be our duty to defend our freedom with our own blood. And the blood of our sons.

Where in the hell did we pick up the idea that there is no price to pay for freedom? That no sacrifice is necessary.

The framers of the Constitution, particularly the authors of the Bill of Rights recognized that we must be ever vigilant in the protection of our freedom. That at some point in time we may have to turn our own government back from a path that denies our freedom and destroys the very foundation that this country was built upon.

They recognized the inherent tyranny in all governments. That all governments

become oppressive.

As Aristotle stated, ‘Republics decline into democracies, and democracies degenerate into despotisms.’

And if there is any one lesson to be learned from history, that lesson is that history repeats itself, time after time after time.

An armed populace is the only insurance that we the People have in the maintenance of our freedom. It is only with our arms that the government will respect the will of the People to be free. It is only our arms that can inspire a healthy dose of fear in the government toward the People. And it is only our resolve to fight and defend our freedom that will keep our government from stripping away our rights and our freedom.

So do not perpetuate the myths surrounding the second amendment. The second

amendment was designed to allow the People to defend their freedom from any incursion. Particularly from their own government. For those that cherish their freedom, there can be no argument on this point.

Long live the republic."



Wow...Just wow...

This is how the shooter was dressed in Aurora, CO theater massacre. I thought the police chief said his vest was a ballistic tactical vest and he was in full body armour but this image is just showing a tactical vest. Not sure how an armed person or persons in the theater could have effectively taken him down by shooting him in a dark, loud, smokey, chaotic theater and not injured or killed innocent people in the process. They would have been better offer rushing him and tackling him to the ground.

Now...here is the gear Anders Behring Breivik was wearing when he massacred 69 People in Norway.

 Also another sick, sick individual but someone please tell me why we haven't looked at all these incidents (Auorora, Columbine, Fort Hood, Virginia Tech Norway, Gabby Giffords, etc...) and studied them to learn how we can better identify people who have started to lose their minds? Why has nothing changed to make the public safer with the advancement of gun/ammo technology and with the widespread availability of military style equipment for civilians??

I'll tell you why in 5 words:

Power of the Gun Lobby

President Obama: The Greatest Gun Salesman in America

I already wrote about this below...but I feel this is the heart of the issue and worth reposting. There is no real threat or fear of taking our guns away or repealing the 2nd Amendment. The only real fear is a loss of sales of guns and ammo...that is what is inhibiting smart gun laws:

From ammo.net:

"American firearm sales and concealed handgun permit applications are at all-time highs since the 2008 election of President Barack Obama. President Obama's perceived hostility towards gun owners has been one of the key factors behind the multi-year financial boom the firearms industry continues to enjoy. In fact, the National Rifle Association (NRA) is actively preparing to work to defeat President Obama's 2012 re-election campaign, according to Wayne LaPierre, the CEO of the NRA, who recently said the following at the 2012 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, D.C.:

"Lip service to gun owners is just part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment during his second term. We see the president's strategy crystal clear: Get re-elected and, with no more elections to worry about, get busy dismantling and destroying our firearms' freedom, erase the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights and excise it from the U.S. Constitution...When the sun goes down on election day Barack Obama will have America’s gun owners to thank for his defeat.” -
Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the NRA, February 10th, 2012

Ironically, the perceived hostility towards gun owners by President Obama has actually helped the firearms industry tremendously. Since the 2008 election, more Americans than ever before are purchasing firearms & ammunition. This has meant massive increases in sales by firearm & ammunition makers, billions more in federal and state tax collections related to guns & ammo, increased membership in the NRA, and hundreds of thousands of new Americans carrying concealed handguns.  Therefore, should the firearms industry support President Obama for a second term or not?"

Click here for the full view of the info graphic