Myra Bronstein

...

2) JFK and the Unspeakable by James Douglass

...

The whole first chapter's online!

http://www.maryknollsocietymall.org/chapters/978-1-57075-755-6.pdf

Sorry if someone already pointed this out.

I just found it and I'm pretty excited.

We need to get all JFK books online so we can do text searches on them.

by James DiEugenio

http://www.ctka.net/reviews/jfk_unspeakable.html

"This book is the first volume of a projected trilogy. Orbis Books has commissioned James W. Douglass to write three books on the assassinations of the 1960's. The second will be on the murders of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, while the third will be on the assassination of Bobby Kennedy.

...

Douglass said in the panel discussion episode 4 that his entry into the subject of assassinations came through his deep caring about Dr. Martin Luther King and that assassination. He was not initially interested in President Kennedy's assassination, but his interest grew to encompass all of the 60's assassinations.

I wish I could ask him why he then opted to write the JFK book before the MLK book.

Inspired by our recent debate with David Von Pein and the pipe dreams of Francois Carlier:

Finally the world will see the three-ring circus that was the case

against Lee Harvey Oswald.

SPECIAL THANKS TO TOM ROSSLEY FOR HIS HELP GETTING IT ON LINE.

Now under construction

http://giljesus.com

Good going Gil.

I linked to it: http://pottersville.info/links.html

National Geographic Television is doing a documentary on the JFK Assassination. I have been approached by them for help with this production. I am not interested in doing this. However, I am willing to pass on the emails of anyone else who is.

Do you think Gary Mack is on board yet?

Dale Myers can do the animation.

BK

I almost posted asking why you assume it's propaganda.

(I mean aside from the fact that almost every JFK-related product is propaganda?)

Then I searched for the owner of the National Geographic channel.

According to 'my internet':

Fox owns National Geographic.

And Fox is owned by News Corporation. And News Corp is owned by... Rupert Murdoch.

OH.

Well I guess every generation of demonic moguls has to do their part to assure the populace that a coup did not occur in 1963.

Repeat: A coup did NOT occur.

Nothing to see here.

It sure looks like Eleanor Dulles was in the thick of things and likely cut from the same dark cloth as her brothers.

She was an economist.

"During her first three years at the State Department, Eleanor was involved in post-war economic planning. She helped determine the U.S. position on international financial cooperation, and participated in the Bretton Woods Conference of 1944 at which the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development were established. After the end of World War II, Eleanor went to Europe where she became involved in the reconstruction of the Austrian economy. Later, she was hailed as "the Mother of Berlin" for helping to revitalize the City of Berlin's economy and culture during the 1950s."

The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development is the World Bank I think.

Anyway, Gibson makes clear in "Battling Wall Street" that Kennedy was opposed to private banks like the IMF/World Bank lending money to nations and felt that should be the domain of government. So I find it very very extremely interesting that Eleanor Dulles was there at the (Rosemary's Baby-like) birth of the hideous predatory IMF/World Bank.

Has anyone here read "Dulles" by Leonard Mosley?

I've seen it quoted and referenced a few times in this forum but not actually discussed.

I'm wondering if this book portrays John Foster realistically (as a villain) or if it's more of a whitewash.

It was mentioned here: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9805E2DE1538F937A35752C1A960958260 in an obit of Eleanor Dulles.

"She left the State Department in 1962, after her brother Allen had been dismissed from the C.I.A. in the wake of the Bay of Pigs catastrophe. Leonard Mosley wrote in his 1978 book ''Dulles'' that early in 1962, during the Kennedy Administration, Secretary of State Dean Rusk summoned her and said, ''The White House has asked me to get rid of you."

One thing I find interesting about Eleanor is that while her brothers John Foster and Allen were, how can I say this nicely?, Nazis, she married an Orthodox Jew.

Again from the obit:

"When she was 30 she met David Simon Blondheim, a philologist who, as an Orthodox Jew, was not regarded by her family as marriage material, she indicated in her memoir. She married him anyway, in 1932. In 1934, not long before the birth of their son, Dr. Blondheim committed suicide."

Given that her Nazi brothers could not have condoned this marriage ("was not regarded by her family as marriage material") and he "committed suicide" within a couple of years, I'm curios about the "suicide." It's very hard to find info on David Simon Blondheim, online at least.

...

Virtual JFK by James Blight

...

Jim, I'm trying to find this and I want to make sure you're talking about the book: http://www.amazon.com/Vietnam-If-Kennedy-Had-Lived/dp/0742556999/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1298711432&sr=8-2

Not the DVD: http://www.amazon.com/Virtual-JFK-Vietnam-Kennedy-Lived/dp/B002AS45TM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1298711432&sr=8-1

Thank you.

I am actually rereading Battling Wall Street right now.

Its even better than I remembered it.

A very incisive and nuanced look at Kennedy's economic policies both on the national and international level.

If I recall, GIbson wrote an essay in his second book that continued in this vein called Kennedy vs. the Early Globalists. This was also about JFK vs. David Rockefeller and his gang.

What was Rockefeller's famous quote? Something like: if the charge is that I attempted to break down national borders in order to globalize the world economy, I stand guilty. And I am proud of that.

Kennedy, to say thee last, did not agree. He even wanted to eliminate tax breaks on American companies that were headquartered off shore.

There is an article here on President Kennedy's battle with the business Titans: http://www.sott.net/articles/show/124999-John-F-Kennedy-and-the-Titans

I think it's a great article.

I am actually rereading Battling Wall Street right now.

Its even better than I remembered it.

A very incisive and nuanced look at Kennedy's economic policies both on the national and international level.

If I recall, GIbson wrote an essay in his second book that continued in this vein called Kennedy vs. the Early Globalists. This was also about JFK vs. David Rockefeller and his gang.

What was Rockefeller's famous quote? Something like: if the charge is that I attempted to break down national borders in order to globalize the world economy, I stand guilty. And I am proud of that.

Kennedy, to say thee last, did not agree. He even wanted to eliminate tax breaks on American companies that were headquartered off shore.

Yes!

President Kennedy opposed outsourcing.

Decades before it was a hot topic with the general population he realized the downside and spoke out against it.

He was progressive long before that word was in use.

In fact I think of him as a revolutionary.

He opposed so many of the immoral things that big business was intent on doing, and is now doing unopposed.

Please see my EF thread here: My link.

I quoted from an article in USA Today (of all places):

"If you had two companies in Pittsburgh that both were going to expand capacity and create 100 jobs, our tax code puts the company who chooses to put the plant in Pittsburgh at a competitive disadvantage over the company that chooses to move to a tax haven," says former White House economist Gene Sperling, a Clinton adviser.

...

The deferral clause has been in the tax code for more than half a century and has outlasted numerous reform efforts. In April 1961, even as U.S.-backed rebels were dying at Cuba's Bay of Pigs, President Kennedy asked Congress to rewrite tax provisions that "consistently favor United States private investment abroad compared with investment in our own economy....""

My link

No only did he oppose off shore tax breaks and outsourcing, and defend the steel workers union against US Steel, and give public workers the right to unionize, he opposed the World Bank and IMF (I believe called GATT at the time) because he thought government, not the private sector, should make loans to other countries. This is another piece of very significant info I got from "Battling Wall Street."

Gibson reveals many of the reasons the industrialists backed, and in some cases funded, the assassination.

He goes into great detail about an open argument that David Rockefeller had with President Kennedy in Life magazine, so I found an old copy of the magazine. (Actually someone at EF was kind enough to send it to me). It shows how personally concerned, and openly defiant, Rockefeller was with Kennedy's supposed anti-business (pro-people) stances. I attached a quick photo of the article.

And the chilling quote you're referring to, attributed to D. Rockefeller, is this:

"'We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination [read as 'democracy'] practiced in past centuries.""

My link

I don't know if the quote is genuine, but if he didn't say it he sure was thinking it.

Battling Wall Street is a very important book.

There should be a separate category for books that do not actually deal with the assassination but inform us of why the Powers that Be decided Kennedy had to go,

...

Yes!

There are a few logical categories:

1 - The mechanics of the assassination: Shooters from multiple directions, witnesses running up the grassy knoll en masse, bullets flying everywhere, Dealey Plaza looks like swiss cheese as does the limo, fake SS men, real SS men even worse than the fake ones, "tramps" and suspicious types rounded up and released without explanation, etc.

The point: These books prove massive conspiracy.

2 - The cover up: Warren Commission, scores of dead witnesses, HSCA, more dead witnesses, dead patsy, dead patsy killer, media complicity, etc.

The point: A cover-up of this depth and endurance means the perps go all the way up the food chain.

3 - The motives:

- JFK's firm plan to withdraw from Vietnam by the end of 1965.

- JFK's peace overtures to Cuba and Russia—both Communist countries.

- JFK's stated plan to tax the oil industry and further tax the undertaxed wealthy.

- JFK's refusal to put the wishes of big business above the needs of the people.

- JFK's support of labor unions.

- Etc.

The point: Why was he murdered? Most people will move from category 1 to 3 without looking back 'cause category 3 is the one that matters, and the one that explains our present in addition to or past. Anyone paying attention will notice that we're still staging wars to make corporations richer, sill enslaved by oil, still not taxing the wealthy, and the Ruling Class is still determined to destroy labor unions.

4 - The perps.

Time to get specific with the organizations and people behind it all. We should be able to do that by now.

The point: Today's Ruling Class is yesterday's perps. The US hasn't had a legit gov't or democracy since Kennedy was taken from us.

5 - Of course propaganda can be another category.

Myra, that is a very good post. 1) Mechanics of assassination 2) cover up 3) motives 4) perps

Don't forget PERSONAL REASONS for the JFK assassination: 1) the Kennedys were on the verge of politically executing Lyndon Johnson, planning to hang him on the noose of the Bobby Baker scandal. This could even have sent LBJ to jail; certainly in state of downfallen disgrace which to LBJ was the equivalent of a death threat 2) white hot CIA hatred towards Kennedy over the deaths of CIA men/anti-Castro Cubans at Bay of Pigs, along with non-invasion of Cuba during 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Not to mention the sub rosa war JFK was having with both LBJ and the CIA during his presidency.

Agreed Robert, all the reasons you just listed are significant. No shortage of motives for this murder.

...

The Gibson book is the best I know on JFK's economics policy, and his opposition to Rockefeller and Luce on it.

...

Battling Wall Street also illuminates something few, if any, other books even bother to mention--President Kennedy's support of organized labor.

It focuses on his support of the United Steelworkers vs US Steel in that epic showdown.

He dared to side with the unions. No wonder he was branded a Commie.

A few months prior to that President Kennedy passed Executive Order 10988 that gave most federal employees the right to unionize and bargain collectively.

It established a broad government-wide labor relations policy for the first time.

I NEVER see this mentioned in books. I don't even recall Gibson mentioning it.

And it's huge. Kennedy's support of unions was a huge factor in his assassination by the MIC.

Battling Wall Street is a very important book.

There should be a separate category for books that do not actually deal with the assassination but inform us of why the Powers that Be decided Kennedy had to go,

...

Yes!

There are a few logical categories:

1 - The mechanics of the assassination: Shooters from multiple directions, witnesses running up the grassy knoll en masse, bullets flying everywhere, Dealey Plaza looks like swiss cheese as does the limo, fake SS men, real SS men even worse than the fake ones, "tramps" and suspicious types rounded up and released without explanation, etc.

The point: These books prove massive conspiracy.

2 - The cover up: Warren Commission, scores of dead witnesses, HSCA, more dead witnesses, dead patsy, dead patsy killer, media complicity, etc.

The point: A cover-up of this depth and endurance means the perps go all the way up the food chain.

3 - The motives:

- JFK's firm plan to withdraw from Vietnam by the end of 1965.

- JFK's peace overtures to Cuba and Russia—both Communist countries.

- JFK's stated plan to tax the oil industry and further tax the undertaxed wealthy.

- JFK's refusal to put the wishes of big business above the needs of the people.

- JFK's support of labor unions.

- Etc.

The point: Why was he murdered? Most people will move from category 1 to 3 without looking back 'cause category 3 is the one that matters, and the one that explains our present in addition to or past. Anyone paying attention will notice that we're still staging wars to make corporations richer, sill enslaved by oil, still not taxing the wealthy, and the Ruling Class is still determined to destroy labor unions.

4 - The perps.

Time to get specific with the organizations and people behind it all. We should be able to do that by now.

The point: Today's Ruling Class is yesterday's perps. The US hasn't had a legit gov't or democracy since Kennedy was taken from us.

5 - Of course propaganda can be another category.

Speaking of Donald Gibson, has anyone here read "The Kennedy Assassination Cover-Up"?

If so do you recommend it.

And have you read "The Kennedy Assassination Cover-up Revisited"?

I'm trying to determine if the Revisited version is worth the extra money. It's incredibly expensive.

Andy at the Last Hurrah told me that there is not much difference between the first book and the "revisited" one. A couple small things that are not worth the expensive price. The main difference was the company that published it usually does only science books and did not produce very many JFK copies so that is why the price is so high. I ordered the original "The Kennedy Assassination Cover-Up" off Amazon but I have not received it yet. Yes, Battling Wall Street is definitely a great book; I agree it is very underrated.

Zach

Thank you Zach! The revised edition costs more than my entire book budget. It's crazy. I'll spring for the older one then.

Speaking of Donald Gibson, has anyone here read "The Kennedy Assassination Cover-Up"?

If so do you recommend it.

And have you read "The Kennedy Assassination Cover-up Revisited"?

I'm trying to determine if the Revisited version is worth the extra money. It's incredibly expensive.

If you want to get quickly “up to speed” on the JFK assassination, here is what to read. 1) LBJ: Mastermind of JFK’s Assassination by Phillip Nelson 2) JFK and the Unspeakable:Why He Died and Why it Matters by James Douglass 3) Brothers: the Hidden History of the Kennedy Years by David Talbot 4) The Dark Side of Camelot by Seymour Hersh 5) Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty by Russ Baker. Google my essay “LBJ-CIA Assassination of JFK.” Google “National Security State by Andrew Gavin Marshall.” Google “Chip Tatum Pegasus.” Google “Vincent Salandria False Mystery Speech.”

Go to YouTube and watch the videos The Men Who Killed Kennedy, episodes 7, 8, and 9 which focus on the role of Lyndon Johnson. On YouTube watch Jesse Ventura’s show on the JFK assassination. Watch the movie JFK director’s cut by Oliver Stone.

Thanks Robert. I've read a fair amount. I've seen all of TMWKK and most of them are excellent. I did watch Jesse Ventura's show on JFK and was impressed with the scope of his coverage in the limited time and the people he chose to interview.

I was thinking of starting a thread asking people what they think about Ventura's show so I'm glad you brought it up. I thought his Wall Street episode was also very good. Even though he can be melodramatic I think that's just marketing and style. Also, Alex Jones is one of his advisors so his style may influence the tone of the show.

I've seen JFK tho' not the director's cut and I get the impression the director's cut is a must see. I consider JFK the best intro to the subject for the general public. Stone just lays it all out; it's all muscle no fat. He chose his consultants (Marrs, Garrison) well.

JFK and the Unspeakable of course it the definitive work on the subject. Brothers is very good and I appreciate Talbot's theme that the same people went after both men (i.e., conspiracy). I think his portrayal of LBJ was ludicrous however. He also seemed to take Timothy Leary at face value and wish he'd looked deeper into that character.

Won't read Seymour Hersh's hit piece. Gads Robert.

I'm very eager to read Family of Secrets. And eager to read your essay, thank you for that. Also the other recommendations: National Security State, “Chip Tatum Pegasus” (?!) and False Mystery Speech.”

Now to LBJ...

I'll definitely read LBJ: Mastermind of JFK’s Assassination.

Have you read the Robert Caro trilogy?

I've only read excerpts, just have two of the three, but they seem very good.

I'm sort of middle of the road here. I don't think LBJ was THE one and only mastermind of the murder (possibly of the cover-up). It was a military coup with lots of oil money for funding and CIA/mob/Cubans for wet work and certainly the blessing, at least, of the Rockefeller clan. After the deed was done Johnson had to do what he was told, on Vietnam for example, so clearly he wasn't large and in charge.

But they couldn't have done it without his cooperation, esp the cover-up. He was instrumental in luring Kennedy to Dallas. And there would have been little point in removing one President if the replacement had the same policies. The MIC knew their boy Lyndon would give them what they wanted.

I also think LBJ had murder in mind from the start. I don't think there is any innocent explanation for his willingness to give up the powerful Senate Majority Leader post to be JFK's running mate. LBJ was far too ambitious to be a docile contented VP. He accepted the offer (or blackmailed his way into the post) because he knew that a Southerner wouldn't be elected President back then so he'd insure his own promotion. Certainly murder didn't bother him. I mean he had his own hit man and had his own sister killed so he was utterly unscrupulous. And given the timing he was likely desperate because the Senate was hearing testimony about his kickbacks on the very day of the assassination. Bobby Baker's mug was on the cover of a magazine. Scandal was enveloping LBJ. So it was either become president or go to jail. I would think his predicament was a factor in the timing of the assassination. Went to Dallas and all his troubles evaporated.

Speaking of Donald Gibson, has anyone here read "The Kennedy Assassination Cover-Up"?

If so do you recommend it.

And have you read "The Kennedy Assassination Cover-up Revisited"?

I'm trying to determine if the Revisited version is worth the extra money. It's incredibly expensive.

I'll add "Battling Wall Street" by Donald Gibson. I think it's a hugely underrated overlooked book. I rank it second behind "JFK and the Unspeakable."

Bulleyes, Hit Lists, Responsibility and Consequences

“I think it's important for all leaders... community leaders... to say we can't stand for this...

People really need to realize that the rhetoric and firing people up--for example we're on Sarah Palin's 'Targeted List' but...

the way she has it depicted is that she has the cross hairs of a gun sight over our district.

When people do that they've got to realize there are consequences to that action.”

--US Representative Gabrielle Giffords on MSNBC March 25, 2010

...

Finally, Arizona/Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik had this to say, and it's my point as well:

"All the vitriol we hear... That may be free speech, but it's not without consequences."

Bulleyes and harassment lists and hit lists may be free speech, but it's not without consequences."

Vicki Saporta posted a good essay (http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/149632/on_roe_v._wade's_anniversary:_let's_reflect_on_the_consequences_of_violent_rhetoric,_which_abortion_providers_know_all_too_well/)

"On Roe v. Wade's Anniversary: Let's Reflect on the Consequences of Violent Rhetoric, Which Abortion Providers Know All Too Well"

It's the example of the violent antics of some abortion opponents that most alarms me when I see those with an agenda publicizing home addresses and phone numbers of their enemies.

Some excerpts below. Emphasis mine:

"I was saddened and disturbed on January 8th when I heard the news about the shooting in Tucson that left six people dead and 14 others injured, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. As the coverage began to focus on possible political motivations for the attack and the influence of violent rhetoric, I couldn’t help but think about the parallels between this tragic event in Arizona and the senseless murders of eight abortion providers and clinic staff, including my friend Dr. George Tiller.

...

Abortion opponents have a long history of using violent rhetoric to attempt to justify their crimes and incite others to violence. They regularly refer to abortion providers as “murderers” in interviews and articles and utilize imagery associated with murder such as “wanted” posters and “hit lists” in their campaigns to end legal abortion. Unfortunately, instead of marginalizing these extremists, other opponents of abortion have picked up on this dangerous rhetoric to advance their political agenda.

...

The devastation this rhetoric can cause has been keenly experienced by the abortion provider community. In late 1992, Michael Griffin, who had no history in the anti-abortion movement, became involved with a local anti-abortion leader who took him under his wing and mentored him by showing him graphic anti-abortion videos and involving him in efforts to target a local clinic where Dr. David Gunn worked. Earlier that year abortion opponents had distributed western-style "wanted" posters featuring a picture of Dr. Gunn, his home phone number, and other identifying information. In 1993, Dr. Gunn became the first abortion provider to be murdered; shot to death by Griffin in Pensacola, Florida."

I've thought long an hard about this and concluded it's true.

Gun's DON'T kill people.

Ammo kills people.

"According to news reports, the carnage at Giffords' event only ended when the shooter stopped to reload. But because he was using an extended capacity magazine, that only occurred after he had gotten off over 30 rounds. There had been a halt in the manufacture and sales of high capacity magazines under the Clinton-era Assault Weapons Ban. But, as Media Matters' Ari Rabin-Havt noted, “The NRA put its muscle behind making sure the assault weapons ban expired, even though its renewal was supported by President Bush.”

While the assault weapons ban restricted the capacity of magazines to 10 rounds, Loughner was able to fire 31 rounds from his Glock 19, killing six people and injuring 13 others. The NRA owns nine bullets that struck innocent people (and 21 bullets altogether) that would have been outlawed if the ban was still in place."

http://www.alternet.org/news/149502/arizona_has_turned_into_a_gun_lover's_paradise_--_and_that's_why_it_ranks_among_the_highest_in_gun_deaths/?page=2

Well I wasn't making it a Dem vs Rep issue so it seems like your quibble is with the media and maybe you should invite 'the media' onto the forum for a discussion.

As for your first link, it is an interesting one thanks for sharing it. I do think that a bulleseye, which was used on the maps in your link, could be from a game of darts and is far different from a map, like Palin's, with gun sight cross hairs. Especially when she accompanies it with rhetoric like "Don't Retreat…Reload."

Darts eh? Thats a funny one. Of course the symbol used by Palin is also used in the graphic arts business as a registration mark, as it is in other mechanincal drawing applications.

See we can all play this silly game.

Linking Palin to this event is simply more political "hate speach" to use the very term being tossed about today. The irony is that is it being used by those who claim to hate hate speach....

Oh, so asking people to take personal responsibility for their rhetoric is "hate speech"?

LOL. Perhaps any speech you disagree with is "hate speech" in your mind.

How about a mini van driven through the crowd? Would you then want more restrictions on mini vans? It's not the object, its the person.

How about a Pipe bomb?

Or how about a few sticks of explosives strapped to his body? Both can be obtained. Where do your "restrictions" on objects that by themself cause no harm stop?

I agree totally,

And Craig, thanks for pointing out that the glock semi-auto pistol is used for sport in target shooting.

I live within a mile of Range Road at Fort Dix and hear them target shooting all the time. The top ranger's son, Matt Emmons,

won an olympic gold and silver medals and married the women's gold medal shooter at Bejing.

I used to shoot a pretty good target myself.

It isn't the target shooters anybody is worring about though, it's the politician shooters.

And it is most certainly illogical to target the weapons when it is the assassins who should be controlled.

After Dealey Plaza, instead of identifying the true killers, and figuring out how the covert action was conducted, identifying those who

were really responsible and bringing them to justice, and making sure that such crime never happens again, they introduced

gun control legislation instead.

BK

The car automobile analogy doesn’t hold for a few reasons:

1) Guns are designed to be lethal (and normally as lethal as possible with in size, price and legal constraints); with the very limited exception of people who buy them for sport shooting at inanimate targets they purchased for their lethal capacity.

Safety is a principle design feature of cars and I know of no cases of someone buying specifically to kill (or be able to kill) themselves or others and obviously no cars are designed to be lethal.

2) In the US and most other countries one needs a license to own or (legally) drive a car and cars themselves are registered. One has to pass numerous tests to get a driver’s license.

In most states, with the possible exception of handguns and semi-automatic/automatics, guns are not registered and gun ownership is unregulated. The only common type of license is for carrying concealed weapons. Even were regulation exists it is not very restrictive. In Illinois for example you need to be registered to carry a loaded weapon but this does not apply to residents of other states and unregistered residents can carry an unloaded gun and ammo in the same case.

Perhaps Craig or Bill can point to a state where one needs a license to own most types of guns AND where the licensing processes is as controlled as for drivers.

http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/firearmsfaq.cfm

3) Due to their size, the use of automobiles can reasonably be controlled, cars (and their drivers/owners) are frequently stopped and/or fined due to erratic driving, speeding, broken lights etc. It is not uncommon for bad drivers to lose their licenses.

Guns are much smaller and thus can easily be concealed; unless police have “reasonable cause” they can not even check to see if someone is carrying a gun. AFAIK the only way to lose a gun owner’s permit is to be convicted of a felony or have an order of protection issued against them. Thus the only reasonable way to control them is at (or before) the point of purchase.

4) Though about four times more people die due to cars than guns the overwhelming majority of these cases are due accidents and this is due to the degree to which cars are integrated into American life. Though the numbers of guns and cars are comparable the amount of time people use the latter is far greater than the former. About two-thirds of those killed in crashes are drivers thus they die due their own (normally) reckless behavior. The amount of people murdered with guns a year (about 10,000) and non-drivers killed a year (about 16,000) are comparable and are much higher if we count the amount of time people use the former compared to the latter.

Get back to us when cars are used for murder with anywhere near the frequency of guns. The FBI does not even include automobiles in the 12 types of weapons in its statistics, they would fit into “Other weapons or weapons not stated” about 7% of the total, firearms account for about 2/3 of the total.

http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/fatal-accident-statistics.html

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html

5) In most cases people talking about banning private gun ownership but reasonable restrictions such as prohibiting clips with more than 10 bullets, automatics or semi-automatics and hollow-point or Teflon coated bullets.

As for explosives AFAIK normally you need a license to purchase them which is why terrorists use things like fertilizer and drag racing fuel (which are now restricted as well) and 2005 - 9 only 17 or approximately 73,000 murder victims killed with explosives. (see FBI stats above).

Good points Len. Neither the car nor the explosives examples hold, what with explosives being illegal and therefore harder to get than a legal gun.

NRA boosters have to keep trotting out the old discredited adage that 'guns don't kill people people kill people'--even as crowds are mowed down by the supposedly benign guns in seconds.

We have examples of where restricting gun availability has little negative impact, and a measurable benefit to society.

Interesting little article on the effects of restricted access to handguns and gun related homicides...

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-ever-predictable-march-of-the-gun-grabbers/

Interesting little article here as well:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-10/arizona-shootings-tell-the-victims-that/

Interesting little quotes from it:

"By evading a sensible debate on controlling gun violence, by smearing everyone who dares to raise the issue as a liberal bent on subverting the Second Amendment, by gymnastic feats of illogic to explain away certain facts:

• That all the comparable Western countries with reasonable gun-control laws have long had far fewer gun homicides. The murder rate per 100,000 for the U.S. is 5.28. For Canada, it is 0.47, for Australia it is 0.07, the U.K. 0.06, and Japan 0.05

• That the murder rate in the U.S. correlates very closely with the sale of firearms. More guns mean more deaths, and gun ownership has outpaced increases in population

• That the states with the most porous gun laws and highest gun ownership—Louisiana, Alaska, Alabama, Nevada—have the nation’s highest per capita gun death rates,

according to the 2007 data from federal studies released by the Violence Policy Center. Conversely, states with lower rates of gun ownership and stronger laws had far fewer gun deaths. Best states for staying alive: Hawaii, followed by Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York. If you live in Nevada, you are three times more likely to die from firearms than if you live in New York."

...

You do realize that the Dems also posted their own "hit list" complete with bullseyes and the Daily Kos did the same and included Giffords?

Can you please point me to these other hit lists? Especially the Dem one you say has bulleseyes.

Not that I'm a Dem. And not that this is a strictly Dem vs Rep issue. Its a broader issue than that. Even people outside of the one major US DemRep party should be aware of possible consequences from such lists.

Ah but the meme from the media and the left is that this IS a REP issue alone. I heard exact quotes for 1800's political ads today on the radio. Makes today's stuff seem kinda tame. The retoric has alwyes be shrill and partisan.

Anyways some interesting links:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/01/028104.php

I really like this one...

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/

And so it goes. Of course there is more on both sides.

Well I wasn't making it a Dem vs Rep issue so it seems like your quibble is with the media and maybe you should invite 'the media' onto the forum for a discussion.

As for your first link, it is an interesting one thanks for sharing it. I do think that a bulleseye, which was used on the maps in your link, could be from a game of darts and is far different from a map, like Palin's, with gun sight cross hairs. Especially when she accompanies it with rhetoric like "Don't Retreat…Reload."

The state of New York has done a remarkable job reducing gun violence through strick gun control laws and no executions since 1963. Texas has done the exact opposite.

Thought violence levels here far out strip those os the US, Brazil also saw a decline in its murder rate associated with stricter gun control laws, it seems like such an obvious step to it is hard to understand why the right opposes it. No one needs to own an assualt rifle or automatic pistol or to be able to buy guns and ammo more easily than beer.

Whats an "assualt rifle"? And we can't purchase "automatic" pistols. Its not the GUNS that cause the problems, its PEOPLE.

Yet people with guns kill other people much much much faster. Assassin boy was able to kill 5 or 6 people, and injure 12, in a matter of seconds. Explain how he could have done that with another weapon like a knife or a sling shot.

How about a mini van driven through the crowd? Would you then want more restrictions on mini vans? It's not the object, its the person.

How about a Pipe bomb?

Or how about a few sticks of explosives strapped to his body? Both can be obtained. Where do your "restrictions" on objects that by themself cause no harm stop?

You're saying a few sticks of explosives can be obtained legally and easily by any member of the general public the way guns and ammo are obtained easily and legally by any member of the public in Arizona?

Do you think that a person with a history of mental issues - who was kicked out of college because of the mental issues, who was rejected by the military likely 'cause of his mental issues - should have free access to guns and a few sticks of explosives?

If the pattern you see is that Lee is a common middle name among "Lone Nuts", have you considered the fact that Lee is a common middle name among everyone?

Absolutely a valid point. I think Lee is an especially common middle name in the American South.

Whereas the combination "Raymond Lee Harvey" seems less likely to be a coincidence.

Already, the press is focusing on various hot button labels when describing this very predictable "lone nut."

...

How come none of Oprah's obsessed fans, or maybe one of Madonna's ex-aides, driven to madness by her bitchiness, ever goes crazy with a gun?

No obsessed fans driven to violence? Tell that to the loved ones of John Lennon, Selena, Rebecca Schaffer and Dimebag Darrell. No ex-aides driven to kill bitchy bosses? Google Lin.da Stein

...

Actually John Lennon was a blatant political assassination. Even his son Sean Lennon acknowledges that, and Yoko Ono has said as much. I doubt the patsy in that case fired a single bullet. I'm thinkin' the Cuban "door man" or another professional was the shooter.

Selena and Rebecca Schaffer were probably killed by obsessed deranged fans. They, unlike Lennon, weren't jeopardizing the profits of the war industry by aggresively promoting peace.