Blaming Charlton Heston
-
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,477686,00.html
Blaming Charlton Heston
With a view to Monday's deadly shooting rampage at Virginia Tech,
European newspapers are blaming the lack of gun control measures in
the United States and implying that Charlton Heston is indirectly
responsible for the scope of the killings.
AP
In America, "buying a machine gun is often easier than getting a
driver's license." Across the continent on Tuesday, European media
rubber-neck at Monday's massacre in the United States. Most seem to
agree about one thing: The shooting at Virginia Tech is the result of
America's woeful lack of serious gun control laws. In the strongest
editorialized image of the day, German cable news broadcaster NTV
flashed an image of the former head of the National Rifle Association,
the US gun lobby: In other words, blame rifle-wielding Charlton Heston
for the 33 dead.
Papers reserve their sharpest criticism for the 2004 expiration of a
10-year ban on semi-automatic weapons under the then
Republican-controlled Congress. Others comment on the pro-gun lobbying
activities of Heston's NRA. Some papers also draw analogies between
school shootings and Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers.
British daily The Independent writes:
"The passionate feelings of the gun lobby may be traced to the Second
Amendment of the US Constitution, enshrining 'the right of the people
to keep and bear arms'. Although the provision stems from the times
when 'well regulated militias' were deemed necessary to protect
against a British attempt to regain the lost colonies, it is the
default position of any argument against greater gun control here."
"As such, it has trumped every other consideration, not least the fact
that on any given day about 80 people are killed by firearms, the vast
majority by murder or suicide. Gun violence may cost $2.3 billion each
year in medical expenses, but it is a price, gun supporters believe,
that is worth paying to protect a fundamental freedom ..."
"There is no sign of attitudes hardening. Despite the opposition of
every police force in the land, Congress in 2004 allowed to lapse a
10-year federal ban on semi-automatic assault weapons, a particular
favorite of violent criminals. The reaction was not exactly deafening.
Even amid yesterday's shock, the initial calls were for stricter
security measures on campuses -- not serious moves to reduce gun
ownership."
The Times of London writes:
"The trauma of the death of the students at Virginia Tech that will
spread across the university and the whole country will be magnified
by the feelings of so many people who feel that they should have been
able to prevent it."
"Doubtless there will be a call to review the availability of
firearms. The National Rifle Association's (NRA) response is
predictable too. They will point out that events such as this are not
carried out by a rifle-wielding member of a weekend militia. There is
no doubt that access to rapid-action shotguns makes these events even
more destructive but as we have seen with suicide bombers, who are
closer to spree killers than is often realized, if a person really
wants to take their own life and kill others in doing so it is
exceptionally difficult to prevent it."
French daily Le Monde writes:
"The shooting at Virginia Tech ... is a dramatic episode of school
violence that fits into a long series of such episodes, a series
topped by the drama at Columbine, the school attacked by two
adolescents in 1999 ..."
"If Columbine left such a strong impression, that was because it was
one of the first dramas of school violence that received broad
coverage in the media. Americans were informed of what was happening
in real time, via TV and the radio. The students called their families
or CNN even as the killers were still roaming the corridors of the
schools. ..."
"This new tragedy presents a new opportunity for American public
opinion to interrogate itself about a society which, as one of the
students who survived Columbine said at the time, is very much
responsible for what has happened."
French conservative daily Le Figaro writes:
"It was all too easy easy for the elected representatives of the
United States, from the White House to the Congress, to express their
sadness yesterday; America's problem with fire-arms represents a
political issue for which they share responsibility. Here is a country
that represents the vanguard of development and democracy while it is
legal to carry a gun in 45 of 50 states, as long as the gun is not
loaded. ... At the end of 2004, the Republican-controlled Congress
allowed a law to expire that prohibited the sale of semi-automatic and
military weapons. Thereafter, legal changes were made to protect the
producers and vendors of fire-arms from being held responsible for the
actions of gun owners."
"Contrary to what one would imagine, this backward stance is not
something left over from the Wild West. It goes back to the creation
of the United States and the War of Independence against the English.
... While most states have issued laws designed to control the sale of
arms, the NRA ensures they remain inefficient or are not applied.
Strongly linked to the conservative fringe of the Republican Party,
the NRA spent $400,000 a day to prevent the election of the Democratic
candidate John Kerry during the 2004 presidential elections ..."
"Yesterday's massacre will surely revive the debate in the United
States, but within the federal system, the question is ultimately
settled by each individual state. Going back on the lapsing of the law
issued by Washington could provide an opportunity for the Supreme
Court to take a stance on the issue for the first time since 1939."
Italian daily Il Corriere della Sera writes:
"Shocked psychologists and sociologists ask themselves how gun
violence is to be explained. Some speak of the repressed violence of a
country that goes back to generations of pioneers habituated to
achieve justice on their own and which is forced to face the powerful
tensions within a multiracial society. Others criticize the spread of
violent video games (which are, however, a phenomenon that has only
emerged in recent years). In any case, gun violence is becoming a
common phenomenon in the United States, one that is no longer
surprising. In major cities such as New York, the extension of
surveillance measures, a tough approach to crime and measures to
rebuild the urban fabric have led to a drop in crime and especially in
the number of homicides. But in suburban areas and smaller cities,
episodes of 'ordinary violence' are on the rise. In the poorest
neighborhoods, people are getting used to the use of fire-arms -- a
phenomenon that is linked to the growing tendency among many young
people to resort to violence to settle even minor disputes and to the
ease with which weapons can be acquired."
Italian daily Il Messaggero writes:
"The bloodbath on the university campus is the work of a suicide
killer -- an American suicide killer who, differently from Muslim
killers, did not act out of religious motives but was driven instead
by the unrest affecting broad layers of US society. America is a
nation that has for some years been in danger of becoming more and
more unloved in the world, especially in the poorest countries. During
the period following World War II, America was seen as the guardian of
democracy and was equated with the defense of liberty; today, America
is a superpower that begins wars and lives with the constant necessity
of having to defend itself against the enemy -- whether this enemy be
called Islam or whether it bears the face of the neighbor who has done
you wrong."
Spanish daily El Pais writes:
"The president of Virginia Tech called it a tragedy of monumental
proportions. But similar comments could already be heard following
previous tragedies of this kind. The shooting spree at the Columbine
high school in Colorado, for instance, revived the debate on the
necessity of better controlling access to weapons. This led to some
laws being toughened and security at schools being improved. But the
measures are decided by the individual states and are constantly
side-stepped by means of an exaggerated interpretation of the US
constitution."
German daily Bild writes:
"Now we will probably begin discussing the overly lax gun laws in the
United States. There, buying a machine gun is often easier than
getting a driver's license. And a new ban on violent games and killer
videos will also be put back on the agenda. But in the end, nothing is
likely to happen. And the next killer already lives somewhere among
us. But we have little reason to point an accusing finger at the
Americans. Despite strict gun legislation, we (in Germany) have
experienced the school shootings in Erfurt and Emsdetten. We have to
consider the problems in our society. And we have to take care of our
fellow humans."
-- Max Henninger, 12:30 p.m. CET
: Blogs discussing this story
SPIEGEL ONLINE 2007
Werner
> http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,477686,00.html
>
> Blaming Charlton Heston
>
> flashed an image of the former head of the National Rifle Association,
> the US gun lobby: In other words, blame rifle-wielding Charlton Heston
> for the 33 dead.
Well, at least the broadcaster didn't blame the gun. That can be
considered some progress towards rational thought. Maybe there should
be a Charlton Heston control bill. Better yet, prosecute Charles
Heston for the murders. Lets not stop there - sentence those who had
anything to do with the 2nd Amendment to the gallows posthumasly.
But wait! Wasn't there a school shooting in Germany recently? Another
reason to jail Charlton Heston!
Server 13
"Werner" <whet...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1176824762.6...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
rofl You believe everything you read?
DefendUSA.blogspot.com
People are responsible for the effects of the policies that they
champion. It may seem like a strange idea to you Republicans, but
liberals call it "personal responsibility"
------------------------------------------------
http://www.cafepress.com/bush_doggers?pid=2794571
Werner
wrote:...
> People are responsible for the effects of the policies that they
> champion. It may seem like a strange idea to you Republicans, but
> liberals call it "personal responsibility"
>
Really? Gun control works no better than drug control. Who is
personally responsible for the following?
http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/Environment.shtml
http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/SocialSecurity.shtml
http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/HealthCare.shtml
http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/Drugs.shtm
http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/Education.shtml
http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/Poverty.shtml
and more
Dollars in the common treasury are like fish in the common sea -
anyone who can will harvest to extinction. That is why socialism is
fundamentally corrupting and can not work. ----
joe-in-...@hotmail.co.uk
station "Flashed" an image of him when refering to the NRA. Flashed, I
assume, means showed briefly. And yet you take this to mean Europe
blames the shootings on Charlton Heston. From this I will simply
assume you are paranoid rather than stupid. But then assumptions are
so often wrong, eh.
-
"DefendUSA.blogspot.com" <defen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> People are responsible for the effects of the policies that they
> champion. It may seem like a strange idea to you Republicans,
> but liberals call it "personal responsibility"
Might as well let off all criminals scot-free and put the
founding fathers in jail, for giving us the Second Amendment?
Image "flashing" is how the Satanic propaganda machine works.
Perhaps you need to go back and take a closer look at George Orwell.
Why was the NRA being mentioned ? You never questioned authority.
- regards
- jb
-------------------------------------------------------------
Petition: Give Varosha Back to the Greeks !
http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=389
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lamont Cranston
"-" <jazze...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4628e8e0....@news.isomedia.com...
>
> "DefendUSA.blogspot.com" <defen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> People are responsible for the effects of the policies that they
>> champion. It may seem like a strange idea to you Republicans,
>> but liberals call it "personal responsibility"
>
>
> Might as well let off all criminals scot-free and put the
> founding fathers in jail, for giving us the Second Amendment?
What do you have against serving in the militia?
-
>> "DefendUSA.blogspot.com" <defen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> People are responsible for the effects of the policies that they
>>> champion. It may seem like a strange idea to you Republicans,
>>> but liberals call it "personal responsibility"
> "-" <jazze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Might as well let off all criminals scot-free and put the
>> founding fathers in jail, for giving us the Second Amendment?
"Lamont Cranston" <lamont.cranston@EvilLurksInTheWhiteHouse> wrote:
> What do you have against serving in the militia?
Had I made a statement, or did I ask a question ?
- regards
- jb
---------------------------------------------------------------
Minutemen rose up for freedom
http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=394
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sid9
If you have a personal gun
and you are not a member
of your state's militia you
are not in compliance with
the second amendment.
-
"Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> If you have a personal gun and you are not a member of your state's
> militia you are not in compliance with the second amendment.
Difficult to imagine how a concept so simple for the founders
could prove to be so difficult for their legacy today. If you're not
a male ages 18-45 then you're not a bonafide militia member. If
you're less than age 18 you may own, carry, and utilize a weapon
when accompanied by an adult. If you're female you may own,
carry, and utilize a weapon even though females are not militia
members. If you're over 45 you may own, carry, and utilize a
weapon, again for purposes of "sport and defense", particularly
if you're that elderly lady who might be a target of punk assassins.
These rights of ownership, carrying, and utilization stem not from
the Second Amendment, which applies to the group militia right of
males aged 18-45, but from the fundmental individual right of self
defense. The Second Amendment exerts a derivative spin-off in
also securing the individual right of self defense. If you're not a
bonafide militia member (males ages 18-45) you can still be a
member of the "unorganized militia" (other males who have not
trained with the militia, other females, other ages). Well regulation
of all militias (whether organized or unorganized) is provided by
well regulation of standard militia comprised of all males ages 18-45.
- regards
- jb
----------------------------------------------------------
G.A. Henty: The Apostle of Heroism
http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=405
----------------------------------------------------------